Speaker 1: From the UC Helth Triumphiics Center trusts the same team
Speaker 1: for your care that keeps the UC bear Cats on
Speaker 1: the field. Count on you see health Orthopedics, Handsports Medicine,
Speaker 1: no matter the injury, visit ucehealth dot com. Cruiser working
Speaker 1: by the new accident southbound seventy five at Tylersville that's
Speaker 1: baking traffic up above one twenty nine eastbound two seventy
Speaker 1: five continues to crawl across the top heavy from before
Speaker 1: Mostellar to the accident. It's seventy one where the right
Speaker 1: two lanes are blocked off close to a half hour delay.
Speaker 1: Then there's a rec northbound seventy one on the ramp
Speaker 1: to Ridge, coming up next to guest who is just
Speaker 1: too busy celebrating with all the different events going on today.
Speaker 1: You see, it's it's National Wildlife Day, It's Indigenous Literacy Day,
Speaker 1: and National Macadamian Nut Day.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm celebrating.
Speaker 1: The judge's next Chuck Ingram on fifty five KRC, the
Speaker 1: talk station.
Speaker 3: He th two five cares thetuch station, No Danny, No
Speaker 3: one was expecting that one. Neila was judge edited a
Speaker 3: Politano National Indigenous Language Day all right, whatever, well, he's
Speaker 3: eating his Macedamian nuts. I am pleased, as I am
Speaker 3: so pleased every Wednesday at this time to welcome back
Speaker 3: to the fifty five Carsey Morning Show. Hey, highlight of
Speaker 3: my week, if not the highlight Judge Nitapolitano, welcome back
Speaker 3: your roner.
Speaker 4: You're very kind, Brian, thank you for the warm invitation.
Speaker 4: But somehow I'm not surprised that of those wacky holidays,
Speaker 4: the one that Ingram is celebrating is the one involving nuts.
Speaker 2: It worked out great.
Speaker 3: Oh and by the way, your name came up if
Speaker 3: your ears were burning. On Sunday, we have this annual
Speaker 3: event here in the city of Cincinnati. They call it
Speaker 3: the Western Southern Wbon Fireworks Anyway, huge event. Half a
Speaker 3: million people show up in the river front the fireworks display.
Speaker 3: It's massive, and so iHeartMedia is the prime one of
Speaker 3: the substations in our cluster here is responsible for it,
Speaker 3: along with Western and Southern Anyway. The huge right there
Speaker 3: in front of where the fireworks blow up. And guess
Speaker 3: whose table I sat at, Chuck Ingram's, and he mentioned
Speaker 3: you a couple of times. He goes, does the judge
Speaker 3: really appreciate my comments. Does he just make fun of me?
Speaker 3: I said, Oh, no, it's great. I said, yeah, we
Speaker 3: make fun of you a lot.
Speaker 2: I love his comments.
Speaker 4: Look, as you know, in this business, every knock is
Speaker 4: a boost.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, and he does not intend any of its criticism.
Speaker 3: It's just levity. So we get the best we can
Speaker 3: get from Chuck. Anyhow, of course I get the column early.
Speaker 3: I'm a lucky man forgetting it early. Now the FEDS
Speaker 3: are spying on Congress. I love this question. It's almost
Speaker 3: like a college logic question or a college philosophy question.
Speaker 3: Can government behavior be both lawful and unconstitutional at the
Speaker 3: same time. It sounds like an impossibility, doesn't it. But
Speaker 3: that's not the conclusion you've reached here, sadly, No.
Speaker 4: No, So, when when Congress validly enacts a law that
Speaker 4: is unconstitutional on its face, that law is legal until
Speaker 4: a court declares it unconstitutional, and when the FEDS comply
Speaker 4: with that law, they are acting legally. But if it
Speaker 4: is unconstitutional on its face, by which I mean it
Speaker 4: directly defies a clause of the Constitution, it doesn't take
Speaker 4: much analysis to see that. Like you can suppress speech
Speaker 4: on the basis of content, or you can search and
Speaker 4: seize without a search war an issue by a judge,
Speaker 4: something directly defining the constitution. If it's unconstitutional on its face,
Speaker 4: then the government's behavior is both legal and unconstitutional, and
Speaker 4: it ought not engage in that behavior because the FEDS
Speaker 4: who do the spying took the same oath as the
Speaker 4: Congress that does the writing and the courts that do
Speaker 4: the interpreting.
Speaker 2: But they do it anyway. And this is a.
Speaker 4: Very sad Stuart I had not heard about until it
Speaker 4: broke just right before Labor Day weekend that during the
Speaker 4: Trump administration, the President was so aggravated, apparently at what
Speaker 4: the January sixth Committee was doing, that he ordered the
Speaker 4: DOJ to find a way to spy on two members
Speaker 4: of the January sixth Committee, Congressman Adam Schiff, now running
Speaker 4: for the Senate in California. Congressman Swallwell first name escaping me,
Speaker 4: also from California. Two liberal Democrats professed to adversaries of
Speaker 4: Donald Trump. Members of the committee. The Fed's got all
Speaker 4: of their emails and all their texts and all their
Speaker 4: phone calls. They did the same with a staff on
Speaker 4: the committee. Some of them are ex FBI agents. They
Speaker 4: even did this with the emails and texts of a
Speaker 4: minor child of one of these ex FBI agent staff members.
Speaker 4: Looking for something. They found nothing. They found nothing. But
Speaker 4: how how did they do this?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: What did they tell a federal judge in order to
Speaker 4: authorize this? Spine of the Justice Department, which claims that
Speaker 4: stopped this under Biden, won't reveal how its predecessors under
Speaker 4: Bill Barr did this?
Speaker 3: Okay, under what argument can they prevent this information from
Speaker 3: being disclosed? This is another illustration of the people to home.
Speaker 3: Our representatives are supposed to report, did the reports? Are
Speaker 3: our representative? Of course, we live in a representative government,
Speaker 3: regardless of Democrats to tell you all day long, we
Speaker 3: live in a republic. Anyway, those folks are supposed to
Speaker 3: be providing oversight. Those folks are the ones that provide
Speaker 3: funding for these organizations. Those folks might be able to
Speaker 3: be in a position to say, hey, you work for me,
Speaker 3: give me the damned documents. And yet time and time again,
Speaker 3: anyone of the letted organizations said, no, I don't care
Speaker 3: if the Foyer request, I don't the.
Speaker 4: Don't know under what pretexts they are not providing these documents,
Speaker 4: because the committee doesn't exist anymore. These legal but unconstitutional
Speaker 4: searches and seizures produced no evidence of criminality. Nobody was
Speaker 4: charged with anything. It's almost inconceivable to me what they
Speaker 4: could have told a federal judge. We don't like what
Speaker 4: Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell are saying. Therefore, we want
Speaker 4: to listen to their phone calls. They have to show
Speaker 4: probable cause of crime in the phone calls or in
Speaker 4: the emails. What could that probable cause have been?
Speaker 2: Whatever?
Speaker 4: It is Merrick Garland, the current Attorney General, who takes
Speaker 4: credit and I give him credit for shutting down this
Speaker 4: process which was still going on when Biden became president.
Speaker 4: Trump was no longer president, the committee no longer existed.
Speaker 2: Whatever.
Speaker 4: Nevertheless, Attorney General Garland refuses to release what they told
Speaker 4: a federal judge in order to get the search ont
Speaker 4: makes me believe there was no search warrant. Makes me
Speaker 4: believe that they did this by hacking, which is of
Speaker 4: course a FELONNY. The Feds don't prosecute their own Monday.
Speaker 4: This is Wednesday, Monday. Ten FBI agents and ten US
Speaker 4: marshals stole a plane in the Dominican Republic and flew
Speaker 4: to Miami. The plane belonged to the government of Venezuela.
Speaker 4: The pretext for stealing the plane was, this is the
Speaker 4: private this is the air force one for Nicholas Maduro,
Speaker 4: who's the president of Venezuela. And he has the temerity
Speaker 4: to violate American sanctions on Russia by allowing Venezuelan companies
Speaker 4: to trade with Russia. He doesn't come in the United States.
Speaker 4: It has an effect the United States. He was in Venezuela,
Speaker 4: the plane was in the Dominican Republic.
Speaker 2: The Feds stole it. So the Feds don't care.
Speaker 4: If they violate the very same laws that they prosecute
Speaker 4: the rest of us.
Speaker 3: For Viole lady, well, going back to let's just pick
Speaker 3: shift for example, who had his emails rifled through, in
Speaker 3: his phone calls and his text messages rifled through, probably
Speaker 3: without a warrant, as you indicate. Doesn't he then have
Speaker 3: standing if he knows it happened. We're always looking for standing.
Speaker 3: We're away looking for someone to say, haha, I can
Speaker 3: go into court and prove a civil rights violation. Can't
Speaker 3: he do that now? Or anybody else who had this
Speaker 3: happen to them that we now know about.
Speaker 4: The answer I think is yes, I say, I think
Speaker 4: he is not a suing one of the investigators, one
Speaker 4: of the x FBI agents is suing.
Speaker 2: And in that lawsuit.
Speaker 4: Came the names at Congressman Adam Schiff and Congressman Eric Swalwell.
Speaker 2: I had never heard of.
Speaker 4: Any of this until the lawsuit was filed, I believe
Speaker 4: last Friday, the friday before.
Speaker 2: The Labor Day weekend.
Speaker 4: I would think that Swalwell and Shift, who maybe don't
Speaker 4: want to make a big deal out of this, Chief
Speaker 4: is running for the Senate in California. Swalwell is running
Speaker 4: for reelection to his House seat. Until after election day,
Speaker 4: but yes, they would have standing because their harm was
Speaker 4: unique from all others. This is not a complaint about
Speaker 4: mass surveillance. This is a complaint about individually, unique, targeted surveillance. Well,
Speaker 4: you know, the FEDS have the courts have done everything
Speaker 4: they can to avoid ruling on whether this spying without
Speaker 4: search warrants is lawful or unlawful. They know it's unconstitutional.
Speaker 4: They're afraid of the intelligence community like anybody else.
Speaker 2: Justice Scalia, before he died.
Speaker 4: Said to me he was convinced the court was being
Speaker 4: surveilled by the NSA. The Court, the Supreme Court of
Speaker 4: the United States, under surveillance by the NSA, which is
Speaker 4: in the Defense Department, which is in the executive branch.
Speaker 4: You tell me that's not a violation of the separation
Speaker 4: of powers.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, as we're through this, and I think
Speaker 3: you make a really good argument, which was my thought,
Speaker 3: that you know, one of these folks actually has standing.
Speaker 3: This could actually end up in front of a court
Speaker 3: where they could actually rule that this is all unconstitutional
Speaker 3: and must be stopped. They don't perhaps want it to stop.
Speaker 3: They got some invested interest in allowing the NSA to
Speaker 3: scoop through all of our private records and effects because
Speaker 3: it benefits them from time to time that they're willing
Speaker 3: to well have a violation of their own civil rights
Speaker 3: and take a pass on it simply because they want
Speaker 3: this conduct to continue.
Speaker 4: That is not what we have a judiciary for. Know
Speaker 4: that the whole purpose of an independent judiciary is to
Speaker 4: be anti democratic, to preserve the life, liberty, and property
Speaker 4: of those of us being persecuted by the government. In
Speaker 4: this case, two members of Congress with whom I agree
Speaker 4: on very very little.
Speaker 2: The human beings. They have rights.
Speaker 4: They happen to be in the legislative branch of the government.
Speaker 4: The executive branch can't do this without a warrant.
Speaker 2: And we have the right to know what.
Speaker 4: They told A if there was a warrant, and B
Speaker 4: what they told the signer of the warrant, the federal judge,
Speaker 4: in order to induce her for him to sign it. Look,
Speaker 4: when they raided Trump's house, he was no longer the president.
Speaker 4: We still got the warrant, and we still got the
Speaker 4: affidavit affidavits that were submitted to the federal magistrate judge
Speaker 4: who signed the warrant. Why can't we get the warrant
Speaker 4: and get the affidavits that were submitted to this judge
Speaker 4: to invade the privacy of these two members of Congress
Speaker 4: that probably was no warrant.
Speaker 3: I think I'm with you on that one.
Speaker 4: That's Look, when they raided Scott ritters house, one of
Speaker 4: my regular guests, former marine, former head of the UN
Speaker 4: Weapons Inspection Team, the one who went to Iraq in
Speaker 4: Afghanistan and said there's no weapons of mass destruction. The
Speaker 4: government didn't like what he said, but he demonstrated it
Speaker 4: when they raided his house. They brought with them huge
Speaker 4: loose leaves. Well forty FBI agents, including a swat team
Speaker 4: and a bomb squad, were looking for his mobile devices
Speaker 4: and his desktops, and he told them where they were.
Speaker 4: Two FBI agents were chatting with him, and they showed
Speaker 4: him the printed copies of all of his emails and
Speaker 4: text messages from the past two years, enormous loose leaves.
Speaker 2: When he asked to see.
Speaker 4: The search warrant that generated it, they just smiled and
Speaker 4: changed the subject.
Speaker 2: They didn't have a search warrant.
Speaker 3: This is scary stuff. Scary and what more can one say?
Speaker 3: Our constitution apparently just does not mean anything any longer,
Speaker 3: at least in time.
Speaker 4: I mean, this means a lot to Thomas Massy, it
Speaker 4: means a lot to some of his colleagues on the left,
Speaker 4: But for the vast majority of Congress it means little.
Speaker 4: Maybe Congressman Swallwell and Schiff will look at the differently.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I won't hold my.
Speaker 3: Breath, no, but I welcome to them suing for violations
Speaker 3: civil rights. I don't care that I disagree with them
Speaker 3: on ninety nine percent of their issues. They have civil rights,
Speaker 3: and so do you. And I and somebody's got to
Speaker 3: defend them, So step up to the plate, because standing
Speaker 3: is a tough thing to accomplish. Judge Edna Politano, judging
Speaker 3: Freedom Find Them Online. Who are you going to me
Speaker 3: speaking with today, your honor?
Speaker 4: I have Colonel Douglas McGregor at eleven in the morning
Speaker 4: Eastern at twelve thirty in the afternoon, the aforementioned Scott
Speaker 4: Ritter at four o'clock, Aaron Maze. It's a very very
Speaker 4: exciting day for him. Oh yes, we didn't work Monday,
Speaker 4: so we're doing all of our guests in four days.
Speaker 3: Better late than never. Judging Freedom to Find Them Online.
Speaker 3: Judge of Paula Tan tell.
Speaker 4: Ingram I love him, and my regret is that I
Speaker 4: was not under that tent with you guys.
Speaker 3: Every year I know it will tell you it'll happen.
Speaker 3: I feel confident, take care of your honor and talk
Speaker 3: next week. Thanks to you A forty five you give
Speaker 3: up Hersey de Talk station.