Your News Talk America with Jake Smith – 10/10/2024
There is no video today.
Your News Talk America with Jake Smith. Welcome to the digital and interactive program.
To participate live by asking and voting on questions, chatting with viewers, and watching the show, got to RealNewsTalk.com and click the "Watch Here" button. You can view questions by clicking on the "Recent", "Popular", or "On Deck" buttons at the top of the left column.
To ask a question fill out the field on the left. You may vote on questions by pressing on the up and down arrow to the left of each question. You can watch the show in the middle and see current questions below the show window. You are the "Producers", ask questions and your votes count. There will be way more questions than time which makes voting important.
You can chat with other Producers and comment in the chat which is in the right column. You can keep notes by clicking the link to the right of your name in the upper right corner. If you asked your question in Mukana, and there is an issue with ti or we run out of time we will send your question back to your notes. Show notes will be posted on https://www.RealNewsTalk.com and the shows will be posted the following week.
10:10 AM ET
Segment Topic:
The Government Compels Silence Again!
When Congress enacted the Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA), it claimed the statute would guarantee the privacy of digital data that service providers were retaining in storage. The act prohibited the providers from sharing the stored data, and it prohibited unauthorized access to the data, commonly called computer hacking -- except, of course, if the recipients or the hackers were working for the federal government.
Just as it did with the Patriot Act of 2001 -- which permits one federal agent to authorize another to conduct a search of stored data, without a judicially issued search warrant -- the SCA permits judges to issue “orders” for searches without meeting the probable cause standard required by the Fourth Amendment.
Just like the Patriot Act -- which in its original form prohibited the recipient of agent-issued search warrants, called National Security Letters (NSLs), from telling any persons of their existence -- the SCA requires judges who issue orders for a search, upon the request of the government, to bar the custodian of the data who has received the order from informing the person whose data is sought.
What if the person whose data is sought has a claim of privacy on the data? What if the owner and creator of the data relied on the Fourth Amendment to keep the government’s hands off of it? What if that person was the President of the United States at the time he created the data? What if he has a claim of executive privilege on it? What if all persons have a privacy claim on all stored data and have a right to resist the government’s efforts to seek it?
Here is the backstory.
Is a judicial order for data under the SCA a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment? It is, after all, a judicial order directing and authorizing an official of the executive branch to surveil and seize private property, and it does specifically describe the place to be searched or the thing to be seized. But, because it is not based on probable cause of crime as the Fourth Amendment requires, the short answer is: No.
In United States v. Carpenter (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that orders for data based on governmental need, rather than probable cause of crime, are constitutionally defective and the data cannot be used at trial.
But the government, which knows how to evade an uncomfortable constitutional provision or Supreme Court opinion, has continued to use the SCA as a means around them. This became apparent this week in a case before the Supreme Court involving former President Donald Trump, Jack Smith and Elon Musk.
Two years ago, Smith, the Special Counsel prosecuting Trump for alleged Jan. 6 crimes, obtained an order from a federal judge in Washington, D.C., directing X -- formerly known as Twitter -- to surrender copies of communications sent and received by Trump in January 2021, and prohibiting X from informing Trump. This was not a search warrant, as it was not based on probable cause of crime. It was an SCA order based on governmental need.
The SCA is unconstitutional on its face. This is so because it directly defies the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees privacy by requiring a showing under oath of probable cause of crime as the absolute precondition of all government searches and seizures. Nevertheless, X complied with the order, but filed a secret application with the judge who issued it seeking to vacate the order for silence.
Government orders for silence have a long and troubled history. The same First Amendment that prohibits Congress from infringing upon the freedom of speech also prohibits the government from compelling speech. If Congress cannot infringe upon or compel speech, how can it compel silence? It cannot constitutionally do so.
In 2005, in Bridgeport, Connecticut, two elderly librarians were at work one day when two young men walked into the library and identified themselves as FBI agents. They handed one of the librarians an NSL, which had been authorized by their boss. After the librarian who received the NSL handed it to her colleague, the agents threatened to arrest both of them for violating the Patriot Act’s command of silence.
The Patriot Act prohibited the recipient of an NSL from telling anyone -- even a lawyer -- of the receipt of it. The feds in Bridgeport were looking to discover who had read certain books. What? These were government-owned books in a government-owned library; how can reading them be a crime? Moreover, the right to read is a fundamental liberty protected by the First Amendment from government infringement without due process and by the Fourth Amendment from government surveillance without a search warrant.
When the librarians sued for the right to discuss the receipt of the NSL, the feds charged them with criminal violations of the Patriot Act by discussing the receipt of the NSL with their lawyers.
After a federal district court granted and a federal appellate court upheld the relief the librarians sought, and the criminal case against them was dismissed, Congress amended the Patriot Act to permit recipients of NSLs to discuss them with counsel. By then, five different federal judges had declared the silence provisions of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.
That should have been the end of commands for silence, but it wasn’t.
When lawyers for X argued that the SCA infringed upon Musk’s freedom of speech to tell Trump what the feds were up to, a federal district court rejected that argument and a federal appellate court upheld the rejection. X appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court -- without an opinion or a dissent -- declined to hear X’s appeal.
Here we go again. Doesn’t the Constitution mean what it says? Of what value are constitutional guarantees if those in whose hands we repose them for safekeeping secretly and repeatedly decline to do so? How does this end?
From NPR:
23andMe is on the brink. What happens to all its DNA data?
From the Guardian:
The US government may ask a judge to force the breakup of Google’s business as it attempts to challenge the tech corporation’s monopoly over the internet search market.
The Department of Justice has filed court papers that say it is considering enforcing “structural remedies” that would prevent Google from using some of its products such as Chrome, Android and Play, which the DoJ argues give the company an advantage over rivals.
Other actions being considered include blocking Google from paying to have its search engine pre-installed on smartphones and other devices.
Google, which is owned by Alphabet, said it would challenge any case by the DoJ and that the proposals marked an “overreach” by the government that would harm consumers.
Panelist:
Judge Andrew Napolitano (Jake and the Judge)
Sample Questions:
- Judge, why should Americans be concerned about the SCA?
- What will 23andMe is almost bankrupt. If it the DNA testing service folds, what will happen to the DNA data of 15 million customers? Could this DNA data be sold-off by order of a bankruptcy court?
- Judge, what is your response to the government’s attempt to break-up Google?
10:35 AM ET
Segment Topic:
It is 25 days until election day, what are Trump’s chances of retaking the White House and will his coattails bring Republican control to the Senate?
What damage did Kamala’s 60-Minutes interview do to her chances? Did drinking a beer with Stephen Colbert, with hurricane victims suffering a good idea?
Panelist:
Roger Stone
Sample Questions:
- Roger, are you optimistic about Trump’s chances 25-days from today?
- Are you concerned about election fraud this year?
- Can you speak to the disaster that is Kamala The Commie? Her campaign wants her to get media exposure, however every time she does, event with softball sit-down’s, she embarrasses herself every time.
- Will chugging a beer with Stephen Colbert earn her any support with independent voters?
11:10 AM ET
Segment Topic:
- NYC Mayor Eric Adams is under indictment. Members of his administration are bailing on him; but why?
- Will New York Governor, Kathy Hochul force Adams out of office?
- How much longer can he last?
- Wiseguys preview: Saturday night 10PM ET
Panelist:
John Tabacco, Newsmax Anchor, Host of Wise Guys
Sample Questions:
- Members of Adams administration are bailing on him; but why?
- Will New York Governor, Kathy Hochul force Adams out of office? How much longer can he last?
11:35 AM ET
Segment Topic:
Did Donald Trump commit treason by sending a COVID test kit to Vladimir Putin? Is Bob Woodward up to his old tricks again?
Panelist:
Tyler Nixon, political historian, strategist and attorney.
Sample Questions:
What is Bob Woodward up to Tyler?
If Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, why isn’t this BS – Woodward disinformation?
Community Guidelines
Thank you for being part of the DTDMedia Community. We value our producers and encourage an active participation by having everyone ask questions vote and chat. In order to keep the DTD Media Community and this platform engaging and respectful to all members we request all commenters adhere to our guidelines.
Respectful Debate: We encourage a variety of opinions and open debate but please refrain from using threatening language or making direct threats. Civil discourse is key.
Accuracy and Ownership: Ensure that your contributions are either factual or clearly presented as your own opinions. Posts containing illegal, discriminatory, offensive or misleading content will not be tolerated."
Use Real Names: For a better and more respectful experience we encourage participants to use their real names rather than nicknames. People tend to be more considerate when their identity is known.
Language: Please use English when posting comments or questions as this is the primary language of our event.
Stay On Topic: Keep discussions relevant to the event topic. If you have a different topic in mind please wait for an appropriate session or thread."
Question Submission: When asking questions please use the designated questions field and select the appropriate category from the dropdown menu. Do not add comments in the question field; they will be removed. All comments should be posted in the chat section.
Be Respectful: Engage in discussions with kindness and respect for others. Differences in opinion should be addressed with civility to maintain a constructive environment.
Avoid Negativity: If you encounter negativity or hostile behavior consider your response carefully. Engaging in a positive and constructive manner helps foster a better community."
Moderation: We reserve the right to moderate and remove comments that are abusive, spammy, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. Even partial violations may result in the removal of a post.
Reporting Issues: If you notice inappropriate content please report it to our moderation team at the following email address: Event.Moderator@WGMD.com. Include a direct link or reference to the specific session or chat where the issue occurred. While we may not respond to all reports individually please know that your concerns are reviewed and taken seriously.
By following these guidelines you contribute to a positive and enjoyable experience for everyone. Thank you for your cooperation and for making this event a success!