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