• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: cloture vote

Always Be Grifting

11 Tuesday Nov 2025

Posted by Michael Bersin in Congress, Eric Schmitt, Josh Hawley, US Senate

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

cloture vote, Eric Schmitt, Grifters, grifting, Josh Hawley, missouri, right wingnuts, Trump shutdown, Trump sycophants, U.S. Senate, WTF?

‪Ben Penn‬ ‪@benjaminpenn.bsky.social‬

Buried inside the deal to reopen government is a provision that would give Senators private right of action to sue for millions in damages over their phone records being analyzed by Jack Smith’s team.
[….]
November 10, 2025 at 2:20 PM

Josh Hawley (r) [2024 file photo].

Eric Schmitt (r) [2025 file photo].

Yesterday:

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 5371, As Amended)
Vote Number: 618 Vote Date: November 10, 2025, 08:58 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2V ote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 5371 (A bill making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2026, and for other purposes.)
Measure Title: A bill making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2026, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 60
NAY s40

[….]

Hawley (R-MO), Yea

Schmitt (R-MO), Yea

[emphasis added]

What they voted for on Monday:

H.R.5371 – Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026

[….]

Requiring Senate Notification for Disclosure of Senate Data

[….]

(B) ALL OTHER INVESTIGATIONS.—For any investigation in which a Senator is not a target of a criminal investigation, the notice requirements under this subsection shall apply without delay.

(d) Private cause of action.—

(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

(A) INSTANCE.—The term ‘instance’, with respect to a violation of this section, means each discrete act constituting a violation of this section, including each individual—

(i) device, account, record, or communication channel subject to collection in a manner in violation of this section;

(ii) nondisclosure order or judicial sealing order sought, maintained, or obtained; or

(iii) search conducted.

(B) VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.—The term ‘violation of this section’ means—

(i) the seeking, maintaining, or obtaining of a nondisclosure order or judicial sealing order to prevent notification of a Senator, a Senate office, or the Office of the SAA as required under subsection (c); or

(ii) Senate data was acquired, subpoenaed, searched, accessed, or disclosed pursuant to a search, seizure, or demand for information without notice being provided as required under subsection (c).

(2) CAUSE OF ACTION.—Any Senator whose Senate data, or the Senate data of whose Senate office, has been acquired, subpoenaed, searched, accessed, or disclosed in violation of this section may bring a civil action against the United States if the violation was committed by an officer, employee, or agent of the United States or of any Federal department or agency.

(3) RELIEF.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—If a Senator prevails on a claim under this subsection, the court shall award—

(i) for each instance of a violation of this section, the greater of statutory damages of $500,000 or the amount of actual damages;

(ii) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation; and

(iii) such injunctive or declaratory relief as may be appropriate.

(B) PRELIMINARY RELIEF.—Upon motion by a Senator, a court may award such preliminary injunctive relief as the court determines appropriate with respect to a claim under this subsection.

(4) LIMITATIONS AND IMMUNITY.—

(A) PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS.—A civil action under this subsection may not be commenced later than 5 years after the applicable Senator first obtains actual notice of the violation of this section.

(B) NO IMMUNITY DEFENSE.—No officer, employee, or agent of the United States or of any Federal department or agency shall be entitled to assert any form of absolute or qualified immunity as a defense to liability under this subsection.

(5) WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.—The United States expressly waives sovereign immunity with respect to actions brought under this subsection.

(6) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR TARGET INVESTIGATIONS.—It shall be an affirmative defense to an action under this subsection if the United States establishes that each of the following requirements are met:

(A) At the time the Senate data was acquired, subpoenaed, searched, accessed, or disclosed, the Senator bringing the action was a target of a criminal investigation.

(B) A Federal judge issued an order authorizing a delay of notice to the Senator under subsection (c)(3)(A), based on written findings meeting the requirements of such subsection.

(C) The United States complied with the order described in subparagraph (B), including that the delay of notice did not exceed the period authorized by the court.

(D) Any related subpoena of, warrant relating to, or access to Senate data was carried out strictly within the temporal and subject-matter scope authorized by the order, if any, authorizing the subpoena, warrant, or access.

(7) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to—

(A) limit or impair the constitutional protections afforded to Members of Congress, including to protections under article I, section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States (commonly known as the ‘Speech or Debate Clause’); or

(B) restrict the authority of the Senate or any Senate office to intervene in or defend against any legal process seeking disclosure of Senate data.”.

(b) Limited retroactive applicability.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to any acquisition, subpoena, search, accessing, or disclosure of Senate data (as defined in section 10(a) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 (2 U.S.C. 6628(a)), as amended by this section), and to any failure to disclose such an acquisition, subpoena, search, accessing, or disclosure, occurring on or after January 1, 2022.

(2) PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS.—

(A) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the term “violation of section 10” has the meaning given the term “violation of this section” in subsection (d) of section 10 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 (2 U.S.C. 6628), as added by this section.

(B) PERIOD.—With respect to any violation of section 10 with respect to which the applicable Senator first obtained actual notice of the violation of section 10 before the date of enactment of this Act, a civil action under subsection (d) of section 10 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 (2 U.S.C. 6628), as added by this section, may not be commenced later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

This division may be cited as the “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2026”.

[….]

[emphasis added]

“…If a Senator prevails on a claim under this subsection, the court shall award— (i) for each instance of a violation of this section, the greater of statutory damages of $500,000 or the amount of actual damages…”

“Clean Continuing Resolution” my ass.

Recent Posts

  • Stormy Weather
  • Read the country, Mark (r)
  • Winning at losing…again
  • What were they thinking?
  • Reality bites Mark Alford (r)

Recent Comments

What good is the 25t… on We are the only people on the…
Michael Bersin on Wholly War
Michael Bersin on Wholly War
Campaign Finance: Ju… on Campaign Finance: Isn’t…
No Kings – War… on Warrensburg, Missouri – No Kin…

Archives

  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,039,234 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...