Time for the nine first morning weather forecast. Nice forecast if you like fall tame sonny in seventy four today, overnight going to be clear in forty nine, sonny in seventy Tomorrow overnight clear in forty six and on Friday, another sunny day going up to seventy six Friday forty eight. Right now, time for traffic update.
Chuck from the UCL Tramfake Center Mammogram Saved Lives call five one three, five eight four. Pink dischedule you'r annual mammogram with you seahouse expert team. That's five one, three five eight four. Pink. Cruisill working by the new accident he's found on the Reagan Highway near Dalbrick. Traffic heavy from Hamilton Avenue sath Pound seventy one is a slow go from Fields eardle Off and on down to Red
Paint westbound two seventy five. There's an accident at Wards Corner, banking traffic to the Milford Parkway in over a half hour delay. Coming up next. Don't even try to schedule a lunch with our next guests, because he's going to be celebrating Canadian Beard Day along with International beer and pizza day, so he's not available for lunch. The biggest decision he has is whether it's moose d or Moulson, which ironically were Brian's nicknames in college. I'm chuck Ingram
on fifty five KRC the talk station. The judge is next a twenty eight fifty five KRISEE the talk station. Actually not.
Well, he's having a go at me this morning, A little bit judged. Napolitano is my favorite time of the week here in the pety five Cassey Morning Show. Get some constitutional schooling and reminder the importance of the Constitution and of course how much our government loves to trod upon it in spite of having the sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. Welcome back here, honor. It's always a pleasure man, Thank.
You, Brian.
Does the government ever trod upon Ingram?
Might?
He might be below their radar still, I don't know. Maybe I'll have to ask him about that, Judge. It is certainly possible. And we're all potentially in the crosshairs of our government these days. All right, here's a fun subject matter that many of my listeners might not even be familiar with. The Stored Communications Act in nineteen eighty six. We've evolved a little bit in terms of technology and computer warehousing of documents since nineteen eighty six, haven't we year, honor.
Yeah, we sure have.
I mean the reason I raised this issue is because of a decision by the Supreme Court on Monday, just two days ago, which was a setback for the freedom of speech involving Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and Jack Smith. What an interesting combination. So the Fed's got an order from a judge requiring x formerly known as Twitter, to turn over the contents of the phone of the then
President of the United States. The Twitter ex lawyers said, we got to comply with that, except it was accompanied by an order requiring silence, prohibiting them from telling Trump or the public that the Feds had come had come calling. That's the serious issue here, when the government thinks it can silence people from making statements in the political arena, in the.
Marketplace of ideas.
I thought that they had stopped with this after the infamous case involving the librarians in Bridgeport, two elderly librarians that received a self authorized search warrant under the Patriot Act, one handed it to another, and the FBI said, we're going to prosecute you because you discussed the receipt of one of these things. The government is still in the business of silencing people, and the government cannot do that. Congress shall make no law infringing upon the freedom of speech.
Congress can't silence you. If you witness an automobile accident, you can talk about it. If you witness treason, you can talk about it. If you witness government corruption, you can talk about it. If the government comes knocking on your front door, your neighbor's front door, you can talk about it.
The government doesn't like that.
So the nature of the allegations of what was involved in front of the Supreme Court, what were they specifically deciding in this particular case.
Well, when the great question Brian. When ex Twitter received the order, they filed an application with the judge who signed the order asking that the silence part of it be rescinded.
She denied it. This is all in secret.
Now, they appealed in secret. The government required them to do this in secret. They appealed in secret to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the three judge panel upheld the trial judge.
They appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States on First Amendment rounds that the government cannot silence you, And on Monday, two days ago, the Supreme Court said We're not going to hear the case. So that's the procedural history of the case. In the meantime, the word had already gotten out because the Supreme Court did not require that the request for the Supreme Court to hear
the case be filed under seals. So when that was filed, it effectively was the revelation of what the Feds had done.
But this is now two years after the order was served and the contents of Trump's well Twitter account was revealed.
There are so many layers in this. I get served with one of these, say Stored Communications Act orders, but from it's a judge issue orders for searches without meaning probable cost standard. You point that out in your article requires judges who issue the orders for search worn upon the request of the government to bar the custodian of the data has received the order from informing the person whose data saw it. That's the point you were just talking about. But this idea that there's a gag order
in connection with one of these is perplextion. Not only because what you said, it's like someone comes over to your house. Why were those agents on your porch? You have the freedom to explain that, but also more personally.
Of course you do. But the government is still in the business of silencing people. You know, the original Patriot Act, the one passed on October fifteenth, two thousand and one, when the country was still in the trauma suffering from the trauma of nine to eleven.
Prohibited the recipient.
It authorized national security letters, a fancy phrase for an FBI supervisor, authorizes an FBI agent to serve to conduct a search.
Utter violation of the Fourth Amendment.
But it also prohibited the recipient of this national security letter from telling anybody anybody. You couldn't tell your spouse, how about a lawyer. You couldn't tell a priest, and you couldn't tell a federal judge in an open court that you received this, And you couldn't tell a lawyer. When the Bridgeport Librarian's case came up, two young FBI agents walk into a library in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
I know the.
Subsect of a joke, but it's not. They say, Hi, we're FBI agents. Here's a national security letter. The librarian is eighty six years old. She doesn't even understand what they're saying. She hands it to her colleague. The two of them are threatened with a rest because they communicated about the receipt of a national security letter. Turns out four librarians were involved. They sued for the right to discuss it. A federal trial judge granted them that right.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial judge when they filed the lawsuit. The Feds retaliated by prosecuting them for speaking about.
The Patriot Act.
All this resulted in Congress recasting the Patriot Act to remove the thou shalt not speak part with respect to a lawyer. Still can't tell the press or your spouse or your friends, but you can tell your lawyer. It's terrible that the government doesn't take the First Amendment seriously, that it is afraid to have people talking about what it is doing.
Well, that's the argument Elon Musk made.
It's even heightened because the target in the Musk case was the then sitting president of the United States. Whatever you think of Trump, politically, he has the same rights as everybody else. Whatever you think of Musk, he has the same free speech rights as anybody else. Whatever you think of Jack Smith, he went overboard, but the statute allowed him to do it. In fact, the statute says, on the request of the government, the judge shall now
shall not, nay, shall issue an order for silence. That's how overboard the Congress has gone.
Well since the recipient of this Security Communications Act subpoena obviously had to consult with lawyers because they went into court to try to get that part removed. So clearly they were talking about it within themselves or among themselves, maybe the legal department, within the X or FKA Twitter, but obviously discussed it with their lawyers to get it into court.
Right, Federal you have silencing people is utterly totalitarian. It is totally contrary not only to the letter, but to the spirit of the Constitution and.
To the history of the country. You can say whatever you want about the government.
Yeah, and you know the idea that speaking about it, you mentioned the revision to the Patriarch which removed this sort of gagger provision, at least in so far as consulting with a lawyer. It was the discussion about in the revelation that resulted in chatter, which resulted in a change of the law. That's what we're supposed to be
talking about. That's the reason we have free speech. It's sort of advance the communication and advance the discussion, and we'll find fatal flaws and unconstitutional realities because well we're talking about it.
You know, I don't know the legislative history of the Stored Communications Act. It's Reagan era, it's nineteen eighty six. But I do know the legislative history of the Patriot Act. No one in the House of Representatives read it. How do I know that they had fifteen minutes to read it. It's one hundred and fifteen pages long. But even if you're a speed reader, it doesn't read like a novel.
You have to have the entire United States Criminal Code in front of you because these one hundred and fifteen pages basically consists of amending statutes that already exist.
I've read it twice.
It takes about twenty hours to read, so I know that no one in the House of Representatives read it. Only two members of the Senate claimed on the Senate for that they read it and both of them voted against it.
Well, certainly the First Women is under attack. You illustrated quite often on the program we have, you know, Hillary Clinton lamenting the First Amendment the other day, talking about how it's an impediment to I don't know what their unified message or the unified message that they want you to absorb rather than something that we might disagree with it. And that the Supreme Court refused to take this up. Okay,
what have you drawn a specific conclusion about this? Are they afraid to take this head on?
You know, Brian, another great question.
The Supreme Court's decision was without an opinion and without a dissent. I don't know how that could be Gor Sich as a civil libertarian on the right, Soda mayor as a civil libertarian on the left. I don't know how there there was no opinion and no dissent on this. Because this government, this is this nonsense about government silencing
people is very, very dangerous. Donald Trump wants to amend the First Amendment to permit the Congress to criminalize for burning not burning somebody else's flag, not burning the government flag, but burning your own flag. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry both lamented that the First Amendment is an impediment to truth. Impediment to truth.
Yea.
It is the greatest route to truth we have had.
It allows people to challenge orthodoxy, to challenge the government, to compel government transparency. But these are dangerous times for a free speech as we can see as recently as two days ago.
Well, the point you just made about the First Amendment, that's why they have such a disdain for it and why they're willing to just basically ignore it. It's frightening. But we need to fight for our rights. We need to speak, and we need to speak often and loudly on the subject. And I recommend judging of Politano's column to everyone share it. The government compels silence. Again, it comes out of midnight tonight, as we do, we always
end on judging freedom. Who you're going to be speaking with today in your podcast, I.
Have at eleven this morning, Colonel Doug list McGregor, who may very well be the Secretary of Defense in a Trump administration. I have Inveassador Charles Freeman. I have Phil Giraldi, the famous FBI a or excuse me, excuse me, CIA agent who told George W.
Bush.
Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction of Bush threw him out of the office, and Phil resigned immediately thereafter. And I have the terrific and fearless Canadian investigative journalist Aaron Mate.
So it's a busy and fruitful day for me.
Clearly we'll have plenty to absorb after this podcasts come out. Judgentena Paula Twana God bless you, sir. I appreciate the time you spend with my listeners to me every week and already looking forward to next Wednesday.
Thank you, Brian, all the best, my pleasure, sir.
Eight forty fifty five KRCD Talk Stations Stick around, got a little bit more to talk about. It looks like we got a caller online as well, so be right back.
Are you ready to make your no vote?
Twenty twenty four.
We are an immense course for good if we want to be it's your voice.
Come on, America, step up and let's go. It's your vote.
Get out a vote.
From the voices on the trail pack to the way it has to the voices in town, we are going.
We're your election headquarters twenty twenty four, fifty five krs.
The talk station listen