you know a lot of uh... people say uh-oh
now this and which normally occurs man and say
heathen revealing the illegal president obama says it's legal in all of the
republican leaders agree with the mentor mcconnell say it's legal
is democrats the republicans say it's legal in must be legal
and a lot like you saw him at all the different branches of looked into this
so i say it's legal congress' says
the day in the power through the patriot act in a high got them to sign in on
this
so they're just as guilty as i am so they don't protect their own task
and we all agree it's perfectly legal and constitutional solar courts cuz i
got the plaza quarter prove it
well
uh... that's not necessarily accurate
in fact davis wrote a brings up an excellent point in a salon piece today
there have been several court cases where they said now it is near the legal
or constitutional
and i think i'm first warned us about it with senator jeff berkeley one of the
good guys he's a democrat of organ
me said
the route uh...
how their and says he's on the right committees he actually knows what the
program is
but it's class fighting can share with us
but he's been warning over and over again along with senator ron widen
these are bad programs a finger american people knew what we actually did
they would be shot
we need to make these public et-cetera and he said
it is quote
adam sink
with the plane language of the law
meaning a bit application
is not legal
it is out of saying with the plane reading of the law
with the law we passed is not what they are applying what they're doing is
illegal
and therefore cases the sort of points out these signaling a mugger self
jcl universes asst
now humming charity charity case
and clapper bridges and see international
plus the fourth one is a secret files a case of mother jones is the reporting on
isn't eighty six-page ruling on that
but the government's fighting of course to keep secret as always
those four cases they ruled
that what they say it was doing
was either illegal and or unconstitutional
now the first three cases
it was reversed on appeal is not on the substance not on the content
it was reversed
because
of the legal principle that somebody has to have standing
to bring the case bij either court asks you how are you affected by this rule
but the plaintiffs confirmed they were affected because they couldn't prove
they were spine upon
because of the edward stones leak
we now know that we were all spina
and the government is a knowledge that
so now we all have standing and ran pose joining a lawsuit and to bring up is for
the women issues 'cause he's among the americans were being spied on so he now
has standing
three courts have already ruled that
illegal or unconstitutional so when president obama sis pop and corporate
expect with the cards
well you check with the courts and they largely said no
you got off on a legal technicality which you don't have the protection of
anymore
and by the way
all he always says well identifies a quarter prove it that last case faces
page opinion
it supplies of court
and he says
not constitutional
and by the way
right afterall bombing gave his speech to the national defense university say
i'm looking forward to the debate on that's
ari i really an and half of course after the lead cannot be said the same day i'm
looking forward to another
on this
his government went to go washed out lawsuit began and make sure that our
remain secret
what kind of a debate are we having when you people that information cedric
including how those files accord you keep saying or on your side
have actually ruled against you you know that in those cases
no office of the director of national intelligence
immunity
that what they did that as he did was quote unreasonable
under the fourth amendment
i'm told it was saying at both of the director of national intelligence at it
about how they apply the law
what to do a case where they talk about how i don't know
although it is a secret
so there's no way of knowing
what stone revealed i thought was clearly unconstitutional
or something worse that they're doing
it's not like we live in a marks if course we can find out
this our government
won't tell us
now in court but it was that the applies a court that almost as a
automatic rubber stamp for the government almost all instances
police at all might not at this is illegal and unconstitutional
don't we have a right to know what you thought that
one more from the office of the director of national doesn't have a judge busy
the director of national intelligence admitting it he said
that in those cases they quarter circumvented the spirit of the law
yet another wave of putting that was acted illegally
now what were those cases
secret
so these are the stones stuff was bad and it is
and many courts have already ruled the wilderness is doing as i told your legal
or constitute
about this opportunity works
that's in that fourth case
and sort of sums up my c says
looked at from a constitutional perspective then
which in simply assumes loans disclosures are about a
controversial but legal and it's a program
as essay defenders of obama loyalist assert
and said it's quite possible
they may help definitively prove
picked the legality of the surveillance operations
all despite upon we all have standing
we should all join out lawsuit saying we demand to know what our government is
doing to us
and we meet demand to know
why all those courts believe it is illegal and unconstitutional
so don't believe the height when you see the mainstream media come out there
and also use all its legal if we don't want to govern told me it was legal the
democrats ever bought was told me it was legal
nonsense