Another Example of Why Libertarians and Purists Can't Govern: Their Reaction to Kavanaugh

[mikegriffith1]

While expressing his extreme "disappointment" with Trump's selection of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, revealed that he voted for Gary Johnson in the 2016 election (you must be kidding me--more on this in a minute). At a different spot on the right-of-center portion of the political spectrum, conservative purists have been attacking Kavanaugh as "part of the swamp" and "the Establishment's pick," claiming that he will be soft on religious freedom and that he defended Obamacare's individual mandate.

If you have any doubts about Kavanaugh's conservative record, these two articles should convince you that he will be a strongly conservative judge:

Brett Kavanaugh Said Obamacare Was Unprecedented And Unlawful
Trump Hits Another Home Run With Supreme Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh

Purists wanted Amy Barrett. So did I. But some of the purists' attacks on Kavanaugh make it sound like he'll be another Stephen Breyer or David Souter, which is ridiculous. The NRA is very happy with Kavanaugh's record on gun rights. The ardently conservative and pro-Christian American Center for Law and Justice says that Kavanaugh's record on religious freedom and the rule of law is strong. The National Federation of Independent Business notes that Kavanaugh has a solid pro-business, anti-over-regulation record.

NRA-ILA | NRA Applauds Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court
Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is “Superb Choice” Showing “Unwavering Commitment to the Rule of Law and the Constitution” | American Center for Law and Justice
NFIB Welcomes SCOTUS Nominee

One of Napolitano's biggest beefs with Kavanaugh is that Kavanaugh does not think it's unconstitutional for intelligence agencies to collect metadata on phone calls and e-mails. This is downright silly, and it shows how little libertarians know about intelligence collection. Collecting metadata on phone calls and e-mails is no different than simply noting the sender's and recipient's names and addresses on an envelope. If the sender's and/or the receiver's name and/or address raises suspicion or is mentioned in known terrorist traffic, then you have to get a judge to allow you to examine the contents of the phone call/e-mail. The argument that you should "just get a warrant" to do metadata collection is not only dangerous but absurd. Most of the time, metadata collection reveals connections that you would have never known about otherwise.

What disturbs me even more than Napolitano's distortion and nit-picking about Kavanaugh is the fact that, with so much at stake in the 2016 election, Napolitano voted for the flake-job Gary Johnson (and his even more bizarre running mate William Weld). Are you kidding me? If more voters had voted the way Napolitano did, Hillary would have won and we would would have a 5-4 liberal majority and all of the key cases that we won in the last few months would have gone the other way.

 

[Tehon]

While expressing his extreme "disappointment" with Trump's selection of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, revealed that he voted for Gary Johnson in the 2016 election (you must be kidding me--more on this in a minute). At a different spot on the right-of-center portion of the political spectrum, conservative purists have been attacking Kavanaugh as "part of the swamp" and "the Establishment's pick," claiming that he will be soft on religious freedom and that he defended Obamacare's individual mandate.

If you have any doubts about Kavanaugh's conservative record, these two articles should convince you that he will be a strongly conservative judge:

Brett Kavanaugh Said Obamacare Was Unprecedented And Unlawful
Trump Hits Another Home Run With Supreme Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh

Purists wanted Amy Barrett. So did I. But some of the purists' attacks on Kavanaugh make it sound like he'll be another Stephen Breyer or David Souter, which is ridiculous. The NRA is very happy with Kavanaugh's record on gun rights. The ardently conservative and pro-Christian American Center for Law and Justice says that Kavanaugh's record on religious freedom and the rule of law is strong. The National Federation of Independent Business notes that Kavanaugh has a solid pro-business, anti-over-regulation record.

NRA-ILA | NRA Applauds Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court
Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is “Superb Choice” Showing “Unwavering Commitment to the Rule of Law and the Constitution” | American Center for Law and Justice
NFIB Welcomes SCOTUS Nominee

One of Napolitano's biggest beefs with Kavanaugh is that Kavanaugh does not think it's unconstitutional for intelligence agencies to collect metadata on phone calls and e-mails. This is downright silly, and it shows how little libertarians know about intelligence collection. Collecting metadata on phone calls and e-mails is no different than simply noting the sender's and recipient's names and addresses on an envelope. If the sender's and/or the receiver's name and/or address raises suspicion or is mentioned in known terrorist traffic, then you have to get a judge to allow you to examine the contents of the phone call/e-mail. The argument that you should "just get a warrant" to do metadata collection is not only dangerous but absurd. Most of the time, metadata collection reveals connections that you would have never known about otherwise.

What disturbs me even more than Napolitano's distortion and nit-picking about Kavanaugh is the fact that, with so much at stake in the 2016 election, Napolitano voted for the flake-job Gary Johnson (and his even more bizarre running mate William Weld). Are you kidding me? If more voters had voted the way Napolitano did, Hillary would have won and we would would have a 5-4 liberal majority and all of the key cases that we won in the last few months would have gone the other way.

If there is any truth in this then Napolitano was vindicated for not trusting Trump with his vote.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: A conspiracy of silence assaults privacy
During the past three weeks, Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed into law vast new powers for the NSA and the FBI to spy on innocent Americans and selectively to pass on to law enforcement the fruits of that spying.

Those fruits can now lawfully include all fiber-optic data transmitted to or in the United States, such as digital recordings of all landline and mobile telephone calls and copies in real time of all text messages and emails and banking, medical and legal records electronically stored or transmitted.

All this bulk surveillance had come about because the National Security Agency convinced federal judges meeting in secret that they should authorize it. Now Congress and the president have made it the law of the land.

 

[toobfreak]

While expressing his extreme "disappointment" with Trump's selection of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, revealed that he voted for Gary Johnson in the 2016 election (you must be kidding me--more on this in a minute). At a different spot on the right-of-center portion of the political spectrum, conservative purists have been attacking Kavanaugh as "part of the swamp" and "the Establishment's pick," claiming that he will be soft on religious freedom and that he defended Obamacare's individual mandate.

If you have any doubts about Kavanaugh's conservative record, these two articles should convince you that he will be a strongly conservative judge:

Brett Kavanaugh Said Obamacare Was Unprecedented And Unlawful
Trump Hits Another Home Run With Supreme Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh

Purists wanted Amy Barrett. So did I. But some of the purists' attacks on Kavanaugh make it sound like he'll be another Stephen Breyer or David Souter, which is ridiculous. The NRA is very happy with Kavanaugh's record on gun rights. The ardently conservative and pro-Christian American Center for Law and Justice says that Kavanaugh's record on religious freedom and the rule of law is strong. The National Federation of Independent Business notes that Kavanaugh has a solid pro-business, anti-over-regulation record.

NRA-ILA | NRA Applauds Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court
Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is “Superb Choice” Showing “Unwavering Commitment to the Rule of Law and the Constitution” | American Center for Law and Justice
NFIB Welcomes SCOTUS Nominee

One of Napolitano's biggest beefs with Kavanaugh is that Kavanaugh does not think it's unconstitutional for intelligence agencies to collect metadata on phone calls and e-mails. This is downright silly, and it shows how little libertarians know about intelligence collection. Collecting metadata on phone calls and e-mails is no different than simply noting the sender's and recipient's names and addresses on an envelope. If the sender's and/or the receiver's name and/or address raises suspicion or is mentioned in known terrorist traffic, then you have to get a judge to allow you to examine the contents of the phone call/e-mail. The argument that you should "just get a warrant" to do metadata collection is not only dangerous but absurd. Most of the time, metadata collection reveals connections that you would have never known about otherwise.

What disturbs me even more than Napolitano's distortion and nit-picking about Kavanaugh is the fact that, with so much at stake in the 2016 election, Napolitano voted for the flake-job Gary Johnson (and his even more bizarre running mate William Weld). Are you kidding me? If more voters had voted the way Napolitano did, Hillary would have won and we would would have a 5-4 liberal majority and all of the key cases that we won in the last few months would have gone the other way.

First time I've even known myself to disagree with Napolitano's position on anything. Seems that pressure to Fox-politicize and be a Never-Trumper can get to anyone . . . .

. . . . especially when they are signing your paycheck.

 

[mikegriffith1]

While expressing his extreme "disappointment" with Trump's selection of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, revealed that he voted for Gary Johnson in the 2016 election (you must be kidding me--more on this in a minute). At a different spot on the right-of-center portion of the political spectrum, conservative purists have been attacking Kavanaugh as "part of the swamp" and "the Establishment's pick," claiming that he will be soft on religious freedom and that he defended Obamacare's individual mandate.

If you have any doubts about Kavanaugh's conservative record, these two articles should convince you that he will be a strongly conservative judge:

Brett Kavanaugh Said Obamacare Was Unprecedented And Unlawful
Trump Hits Another Home Run With Supreme Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh

Purists wanted Amy Barrett. So did I. But some of the purists' attacks on Kavanaugh make it sound like he'll be another Stephen Breyer or David Souter, which is ridiculous. The NRA is very happy with Kavanaugh's record on gun rights. The ardently conservative and pro-Christian American Center for Law and Justice says that Kavanaugh's record on religious freedom and the rule of law is strong. The National Federation of Independent Business notes that Kavanaugh has a solid pro-business, anti-over-regulation record.

NRA-ILA | NRA Applauds Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court
Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is “Superb Choice” Showing “Unwavering Commitment to the Rule of Law and the Constitution” | American Center for Law and Justice
NFIB Welcomes SCOTUS Nominee

One of Napolitano's biggest beefs with Kavanaugh is that Kavanaugh does not think it's unconstitutional for intelligence agencies to collect metadata on phone calls and e-mails. This is downright silly, and it shows how little libertarians know about intelligence collection. Collecting metadata on phone calls and e-mails is no different than simply noting the sender's and recipient's names and addresses on an envelope. If the sender's and/or the receiver's name and/or address raises suspicion or is mentioned in known terrorist traffic, then you have to get a judge to allow you to examine the contents of the phone call/e-mail. The argument that you should "just get a warrant" to do metadata collection is not only dangerous but absurd. Most of the time, metadata collection reveals connections that you would have never known about otherwise.

What disturbs me even more than Napolitano's distortion and nit-picking about Kavanaugh is the fact that, with so much at stake in the 2016 election, Napolitano voted for the flake-job Gary Johnson (and his even more bizarre running mate William Weld). Are you kidding me? If more voters had voted the way Napolitano did, Hillary would have won and we would would have a 5-4 liberal majority and all of the key cases that we won in the last few months would have gone the other way.

If there is any truth in this then Napolitano was vindicated for not trusting Trump with his vote.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: A conspiracy of silence assaults privacy
During the past three weeks, Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed into law vast new powers for the NSA and the FBI to spy on innocent Americans and selectively to pass on to law enforcement the fruits of that spying.

Those fruits can now lawfully include all fiber-optic data transmitted to or in the United States, such as digital recordings of all landline and mobile telephone calls and copies in real time of all text messages and emails and banking, medical and legal records electronically stored or transmitted.

All this bulk surveillance had come about because the National Security Agency convinced federal judges meeting in secret that they should authorize it. Now Congress and the president have made it the law of the land.

And they are absolutely correct. We need this surveillance to protect ourselves from terrorists and organized crime. Bulk surveillance violates no one's privacy. The postman can see your address and the receiver's address on your envelope. Has he invaded your "privacy"? Bulk collection is a key tool for national security. No one's calls or messages are examined unless a judge authorizes it.

So you guys would rather have President Hillary nominating judges, appointing agency heads (like at the EPA), submitting budgets, vetoing tax cuts, etc., etc.? Scary.

 

[Tehon]

While expressing his extreme "disappointment" with Trump's selection of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, revealed that he voted for Gary Johnson in the 2016 election (you must be kidding me--more on this in a minute). At a different spot on the right-of-center portion of the political spectrum, conservative purists have been attacking Kavanaugh as "part of the swamp" and "the Establishment's pick," claiming that he will be soft on religious freedom and that he defended Obamacare's individual mandate.

If you have any doubts about Kavanaugh's conservative record, these two articles should convince you that he will be a strongly conservative judge:

Brett Kavanaugh Said Obamacare Was Unprecedented And Unlawful
Trump Hits Another Home Run With Supreme Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh

Purists wanted Amy Barrett. So did I. But some of the purists' attacks on Kavanaugh make it sound like he'll be another Stephen Breyer or David Souter, which is ridiculous. The NRA is very happy with Kavanaugh's record on gun rights. The ardently conservative and pro-Christian American Center for Law and Justice says that Kavanaugh's record on religious freedom and the rule of law is strong. The National Federation of Independent Business notes that Kavanaugh has a solid pro-business, anti-over-regulation record.

NRA-ILA | NRA Applauds Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court
Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is “Superb Choice” Showing “Unwavering Commitment to the Rule of Law and the Constitution” | American Center for Law and Justice
NFIB Welcomes SCOTUS Nominee

One of Napolitano's biggest beefs with Kavanaugh is that Kavanaugh does not think it's unconstitutional for intelligence agencies to collect metadata on phone calls and e-mails. This is downright silly, and it shows how little libertarians know about intelligence collection. Collecting metadata on phone calls and e-mails is no different than simply noting the sender's and recipient's names and addresses on an envelope. If the sender's and/or the receiver's name and/or address raises suspicion or is mentioned in known terrorist traffic, then you have to get a judge to allow you to examine the contents of the phone call/e-mail. The argument that you should "just get a warrant" to do metadata collection is not only dangerous but absurd. Most of the time, metadata collection reveals connections that you would have never known about otherwise.

What disturbs me even more than Napolitano's distortion and nit-picking about Kavanaugh is the fact that, with so much at stake in the 2016 election, Napolitano voted for the flake-job Gary Johnson (and his even more bizarre running mate William Weld). Are you kidding me? If more voters had voted the way Napolitano did, Hillary would have won and we would would have a 5-4 liberal majority and all of the key cases that we won in the last few months would have gone the other way.

If there is any truth in this then Napolitano was vindicated for not trusting Trump with his vote.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: A conspiracy of silence assaults privacy
During the past three weeks, Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed into law vast new powers for the NSA and the FBI to spy on innocent Americans and selectively to pass on to law enforcement the fruits of that spying.

Those fruits can now lawfully include all fiber-optic data transmitted to or in the United States, such as digital recordings of all landline and mobile telephone calls and copies in real time of all text messages and emails and banking, medical and legal records electronically stored or transmitted.

All this bulk surveillance had come about because the National Security Agency convinced federal judges meeting in secret that they should authorize it. Now Congress and the president have made it the law of the land.

And they are absolutely correct. We need this surveillance to protect ourselves from terrorists and organized crime. Bulk surveillance violates no one's privacy. The postman can see your address and the receiver's address on your envelope. Has he invaded your "privacy"? Bulk collection is a key tool for national security. No one's calls or messages are examined unless a judge authorizes it.

So you guys would rather have President Hillary nominating judges, appointing agency heads (like at the EPA), submitting budgets, vetoing tax cuts, etc., etc.? Scary.

According to the article I posted, your analogy would have to give the postman the ability to open your mail and view its contents.

If my understanding is accurate, I don't know that it is, then that very much constitutes a violation of the constitution IMO.

Why bring up Hillary? I didn't vote for her. She has nothing to do with this. Unless that is how you are justifying to yourself Trump's trampling of the constitution.
Due to his convictions, Napolitano doesn't have to walk that tight rope.

 

[mikegriffith1]

According to the article I posted, your analogy would have to give the postman the ability to open your mail and view its contents.

NO. No. No. Only if a judge decided that the envelope could be opened would the contents be read. That's the law on bulk collection. If analysts find a message that they feel warrants further analysis, they must persuade a judge that the metadata justify such an action.

If my understanding is accurate, I don't know that it is, then that very much constitutes a violation of the constitution IMO.

Why bring up Hillary? I didn't vote for her. She has nothing to do with this. Unless that is how you are justifying to yourself Trump's trampling of the constitution.

Due to his convictions, Napolitano doesn't have to walk that tight rope.

That's a flimsy dodge. Libertarian "convictions" would have given us President Hillary if more voters had followed them. You can't live in a dream world and a vacuum and act like choosing to take away a vote from Trump did not help Hillary. Every voter who voted for Johnson increased Hillary's chances of winning. Thank God there were not enough of such misguided voters to hand her the White House.

 

[Tehon]

According to the article I posted, your analogy would have to give the postman the ability to open your mail and view its contents.

NO. No. No. Only if a judge decided that the envelope could be opened would the contents be read. That's the law on bulk collection. If analysts find a message that they feel warrants further analysis, they must persuade a judge that the metadata justify such an action.

If my understanding is accurate, I don't know that it is, then that very much constitutes a violation of the constitution IMO.

Why bring up Hillary? I didn't vote for her. She has nothing to do with this. Unless that is how you are justifying to yourself Trump's trampling of the constitution.

Due to his convictions, Napolitano doesn't have to walk that tight rope.

That's a flimsy dodge. Libertarian "convictions" would have given us President Hillary if more voters had followed them. You can't live in a dream world and a vacuum and act like choosing to take away a vote from Trump did not help Hillary. Every voter who voted for Johnson increased Hillary's chances of winning. Thank God there were not enough of such misguided voters to hand her the White House.

NO. No. No. Only if a judge decided that the envelope could be opened would the contents be read. That's the law on bulk collection. If analysts find a message that they feel warrants further analysis, they must persuade a judge that the metadata justify such an action.

FISA Section 702, the law that Napolitano is concerned with, allows for warrantless surveillance of US citizens. Not just metadata.

That's a flimsy dodge. Libertarian "convictions" would have given us President Hillary if more voters had followed them. You can't live in a dream world and a vacuum and act like choosing to take away a vote from Trump did not help Hillary. Every voter who voted for Johnson increased Hillary's chances of winning. Thank God there were not enough of such misguided voters to hand her the White House.

The Irony here is that Trump did exactly as Hillary would have done, signed the warrantless surveillance bill into law.

 

[mikegriffith1]

FISA Section 702, the law that Napolitano is concerned with, allows for warrantless surveillance of US citizens. Not just metadata.

You might want to go read it. "Warrantless surveillance" is talking about bulk metadata collection. It's done without a warrant because it's only collecting metadata. No phone call or e-mail or text message can be opened and analyzed without a court order.

That's a flimsy dodge. Libertarian "convictions" would have given us President Hillary if more voters had followed them. You can't live in a dream world and a vacuum and act like choosing to take away a vote from Trump did not help Hillary. Every voter who voted for Johnson increased Hillary's chances of winning. Thank God there were not enough of such misguided voters to hand her the White House.

The Irony here is that Trump did exactly as Hillary would have done, signed the warrantless surveillance bill into law.

That's because even many liberal Democrats are reasonable enough to see that metadata collection is a reasonable and proven method to protect our national security and does not violate anyone's private in any meaningful way.

One of two people were going to win in 2016. We were either going to get Hillary or Trump. That was the reality of the situation. No one else had a chance. Every vote for Johnson or McMullin increased Hillary's chances of winning. If Hillary had won, we'd have a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court, no tax cuts, no declawing of the EPA, no deregulation, no scale-back of Dodd-Frank, no repeal of the individual mandate, etc., etc., etc.

 

[2aguy]

While expressing his extreme "disappointment" with Trump's selection of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, revealed that he voted for Gary Johnson in the 2016 election (you must be kidding me--more on this in a minute). At a different spot on the right-of-center portion of the political spectrum, conservative purists have been attacking Kavanaugh as "part of the swamp" and "the Establishment's pick," claiming that he will be soft on religious freedom and that he defended Obamacare's individual mandate.

If you have any doubts about Kavanaugh's conservative record, these two articles should convince you that he will be a strongly conservative judge:

Brett Kavanaugh Said Obamacare Was Unprecedented And Unlawful
Trump Hits Another Home Run With Supreme Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh

Purists wanted Amy Barrett. So did I. But some of the purists' attacks on Kavanaugh make it sound like he'll be another Stephen Breyer or David Souter, which is ridiculous. The NRA is very happy with Kavanaugh's record on gun rights. The ardently conservative and pro-Christian American Center for Law and Justice says that Kavanaugh's record on religious freedom and the rule of law is strong. The National Federation of Independent Business notes that Kavanaugh has a solid pro-business, anti-over-regulation record.

NRA-ILA | NRA Applauds Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court
Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is “Superb Choice” Showing “Unwavering Commitment to the Rule of Law and the Constitution” | American Center for Law and Justice
NFIB Welcomes SCOTUS Nominee

One of Napolitano's biggest beefs with Kavanaugh is that Kavanaugh does not think it's unconstitutional for intelligence agencies to collect metadata on phone calls and e-mails. This is downright silly, and it shows how little libertarians know about intelligence collection. Collecting metadata on phone calls and e-mails is no different than simply noting the sender's and recipient's names and addresses on an envelope. If the sender's and/or the receiver's name and/or address raises suspicion or is mentioned in known terrorist traffic, then you have to get a judge to allow you to examine the contents of the phone call/e-mail. The argument that you should "just get a warrant" to do metadata collection is not only dangerous but absurd. Most of the time, metadata collection reveals connections that you would have never known about otherwise.

What disturbs me even more than Napolitano's distortion and nit-picking about Kavanaugh is the fact that, with so much at stake in the 2016 election, Napolitano voted for the flake-job Gary Johnson (and his even more bizarre running mate William Weld). Are you kidding me? If more voters had voted the way Napolitano did, Hillary would have won and we would would have a 5-4 liberal majority and all of the key cases that we won in the last few months would have gone the other way.

Libertarians irritate me..... they are like Europe... they can't get elected to office in any numbers to actually have to do anything, so they are free to sit there and bitch about everything.... and anyone voting for a libertarian outside of the republican party right now is wasting his vote and endangering the country.

The libertarians think it is funny when the democrats demonize republicans...... because they haven't had any power that threatens the democrats the way republicans do. If the libertarians ever come close to any real power they will be destroyed by the democrats, easily......

The first priority...get rid of as many democrats in elected office as possible each election.... next, get rid of as many squish republicans as possible after that... the most important priority is keeping democrats out of power...... and then limiting the stupidity of the republicans.....

 

[Tehon]

You might want to go read it.

I know what it is. It has nothing to do with the collection of metadata. It has everything to do with surveillance of foreigners and Napolitano believes that it is being abused.

[USC04] 50 USC 1881a: Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons

 

[mikegriffith1]

You might want to go read it.

I know what it is. It has nothing to do with the collection of metadata. It has everything to do with surveillance of foreigners and Napolitano believes that it is being abused.

[USC04] 50 USC 1881a: Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons

HUH??? You don't know what you're reading. I did that job for 20 years. Sit down and READ what you linked and you'll see all the safeguards for due process. You talk about our intel community like the 60s' radicals talked about the U.S. military.

When you're in a live operation and some metadata provide some potential terrorist-link returns, you don't have time to go running to some regular federal judge. You need a mechanism that can give you temporary, provisional, conditional authority to act on the metadata. If further review determines that there was no actionable information or no indications of wrongdoing, the matter is dropped.

 

[Tehon]

You might want to go read it.

I know what it is. It has nothing to do with the collection of metadata. It has everything to do with surveillance of foreigners and Napolitano believes that it is being abused.

[USC04] 50 USC 1881a: Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons

HUH??? You don't know what you're reading. I did that job for 20 years. Sit down and READ what you linked and you'll see all the safeguards for due process. You talk about our intel community like the 60s' radicals talked about the U.S. military.

When you're in a live operation and some metadata provide some potential terrorist-link returns, you don't have time to go running to some regular federal judge. You need a mechanism that can give you temporary, provisional, conditional authority to act on the metadata. If further review determines that there was no actionable information or no indications of wrongdoing, the matter is dropped.

Nope, you don't know what you're talking about. Napolitano is right.
This the FISA ruling showing that the NSA was in breach of their own protocol.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

They were sharing information on US citizens with the FBI among other things. The US code was amended to bring the breaches within the law. Trump signed it, proving Napolitano correct. Trump can't be trusted to safeguard the constitution.

Napolitano is a stand up dude. I like people with convictions and that refuse to succumb to the lesser of two evils guilt trip.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What disturbs me even more than Napolitano's distortion and nit-picking about Kavanaugh is the fact that, with so much at stake in the 2016 election, Napolitano voted for the flake-job Gary Johnson (and his even more bizarre running mate William Weld). Are you kidding me? If more voters had voted the way Napolitano did, Hillary would have won and we would would have a 5-4 liberal majority and all of the key cases that we won in the last few months would have gone the other way.

I voted for Johnson too. Trump is a non-presidential president and Hillary is a corrupt, power hungry whore. Every election you guys use the Supreme Court as a de facto excuse to elect a Republican president while they continue to spend our country into oblivion and get our soldiers killed nation building all over the world.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You might want to go read it.

I know what it is. It has nothing to do with the collection of metadata. It has everything to do with surveillance of foreigners and Napolitano believes that it is being abused.

[USC04] 50 USC 1881a: Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons

HUH??? You don't know what you're reading. I did that job for 20 years. Sit down and READ what you linked and you'll see all the safeguards for due process. You talk about our intel community like the 60s' radicals talked about the U.S. military.

When you're in a live operation and some metadata provide some potential terrorist-link returns, you don't have time to go running to some regular federal judge. You need a mechanism that can give you temporary, provisional, conditional authority to act on the metadata. If further review determines that there was no actionable information or no indications of wrongdoing, the matter is dropped.

Nope, you don't know what you're talking about. Napolitano is right.
This the FISA ruling showing that the NSA was in breach of their own protocol.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

They were sharing information on US citizens with the FBI among other things. The US code was amended to bring the breaches within the law. Trump signed it, proving Napolitano correct. Trump can't be trusted to safeguard the constitution.

Napolitano is a stand up dude. I like people with convictions and that refuse to succumb to the lesser of two evils guilt trip.

And why were they sharing that information with the FBI? Why did they do that? Do you care?

The law was amended so that hyper-picky judges can't prevent vital intelligence sharing and operations by a narrow, draconian reading of the law.

And if more Americans had had Napolitano's "stand-up convictions," we would have President Hillary, a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court, no tax cuts, no repeal of the Obamacare mandate, no deregulation, no declawing of the EPA, no appointing of dozens of conservative judges to federal appellate and district judicial positions, no cancelling of the insane Iran nuke deal, no pulling out of the absurd Paris climate accords, no moving of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, no selling of weapons to Ukraine, no calling out of NATO nations for failing to meet their treaty obligations on defense spending, no rebuilding of our military, no cancellation of Obama's sick transgender edict to public schools, no ending of Obama's war on coal, no reversal of Obama's cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, etc, etc., etc. We wouldn't have any of those things.

I have no respect for the judgment of libertarians and other Never Trumpers who even now, after all the good things that Trump has done, can't admit that they were wrong.

 

[McRocket]

One of Napolitano's biggest beefs with Kavanaugh is that Kavanaugh does not think it's unconstitutional for intelligence agencies to collect metadata on phone calls and e-mails. This is downright silly, and it shows how little libertarians know about intelligence collection. Collecting metadata on phone calls and e-mails is no different than simply noting the sender's and recipient's names and addresses on an envelope. If the sender's and/or the receiver's name and/or address raises suspicion or is mentioned in known terrorist traffic, then you have to get a judge to allow you to examine the contents of the phone call/e-mail. The argument that you should "just get a warrant" to do metadata collection is not only dangerous but absurd. Most of the time, metadata collection reveals connections that you would have never known about otherwise.

One. I bet you that most Americans agree with Napolitano on this - and I agree with them. Two - the judge had other reasons for not liking Kavanaugh than the one you mentioned. Three...the Judge knows a HELL of a lot more about this than you do.
His word carries weight. Yours - a faceless, nameless, nobody on a chat forum - carries exactly ZERO weight.

What disturbs me even more than Napolitano's distortion and nit-picking about Kavanaugh is the fact that, with so much at stake in the 2016 election, Napolitano voted for the flake-job Gary Johnson (and his even more bizarre running mate William Weld). Are you kidding me? If more voters had voted the way Napolitano did, Hillary would have won and we would would have a 5-4 liberal majority and all of the key cases that we won in the last few months would have gone the other way.

This is purely asinine. Who someone votes for has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with why they think Kavanaugh would be a lousy SCOTUS. To even use whom he voted for as a reason not to agree with him on a matter TOTALLY unrelated is absurd in the extremis.
What's next...you judge people on whether they put ketchup on their hamburgers or not?

 

[mikegriffith1]

One of Napolitano's biggest beefs with Kavanaugh is that Kavanaugh does not think it's unconstitutional for intelligence agencies to collect metadata on phone calls and e-mails. This is downright silly, and it shows how little libertarians know about intelligence collection. Collecting metadata on phone calls and e-mails is no different than simply noting the sender's and recipient's names and addresses on an envelope. If the sender's and/or the receiver's name and/or address raises suspicion or is mentioned in known terrorist traffic, then you have to get a judge to allow you to examine the contents of the phone call/e-mail. The argument that you should "just get a warrant" to do metadata collection is not only dangerous but absurd. Most of the time, metadata collection reveals connections that you would have never known about otherwise.

One. I bet you that most Americans agree with Napolitano on this - and I agree with them. Two - the judge had other reasons for not liking Kavanaugh than the one you mentioned. Three...the Judge knows a HELL of a lot more about this than you do.
His word carries weight. Yours - a faceless, nameless, nobody on a chat forum - carries exactly ZERO weight.

What disturbs me even more than Napolitano's distortion and nit-picking about Kavanaugh is the fact that, with so much at stake in the 2016 election, Napolitano voted for the flake-job Gary Johnson (and his even more bizarre running mate William Weld). Are you kidding me? If more voters had voted the way Napolitano did, Hillary would have won and we would would have a 5-4 liberal majority and all of the key cases that we won in the last few months would have gone the other way.

This is purely asinine. Who someone votes for has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with why they think Kavanaugh would be a lousy SCOTUS. To even use whom he voted for as a reason not to agree with him on a matter TOTALLY unrelated is absurd in the extremis.
What's next...you judge people on whether they put ketchup on their hamburgers or not?

I did the very job that Napolitano is talking about for 20 years. He is either blissfully ignorant of the realities involved here or he's so far out in La La Land that he doesn't care. There's a reason that even many liberal Dems had enough sense to vote to amend the law to clearly allow these vital intel operations to continue.

Napolitano's "other reasons" are baseless. Any rational, reasonable conservative should be thrilled with Kavanaugh. Any honest, fair reading of his record shows him to be a solidly conservative judge (as I show in my OP). That's why the NRA, the NFIB, the ACLJ, etc., have endorsed him. That's why liberal think tanks are horrified over his selection--they've looked at this record, and they can see that he'll be a conservative vote on the Supreme Court.

You are an unreasonable conservative if you cannot admit that Trump has proven to be a conservative on the vast majority of issues. No conservative in his or her right mind can dispute that we are much better off under Trump than we would have been under Hillary. If you can't bring yourself to admit these two obvious facts, that explains why you wasted your vote on a flake like Gary Johnson.

By the way, Mike Griffith is my real name, and my website is linked in my signature block and on my profile.

 

[sparky]

It's a fairly understandable 4th amendment issue Mike

Security Vs Freedom

We can't have it both ways

~S~

 

[mikegriffith1]

It's a fairly understandable 4th amendment issue Mike. Security Vs Freedom We can't have it both ways~S~

Oh, nonsense. Just nonsense. This is something that has wide bipartisan support. The Senate approved it with 60 out of 98 votes, and it got 256 votes in the House. Only people on each fringe have a problem with it. Bulk metadata collection and allowing narrow exceptions for surveillance of Americans overseas do not violate the Fourth Amendment. There are plenty of safeguards for due process in the law that Trump signed. The Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact that would prevent the government from taking reasonable measures to defend itself against deadly enemies.

If you care about facts, and not far-left/libertarian hysteria, read these:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/updated_setting_the_record_straight_on_section_702.pdf

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/updated_usp_fact_check.pdf

 

[Tehon]

You might want to go read it.

I know what it is. It has nothing to do with the collection of metadata. It has everything to do with surveillance of foreigners and Napolitano believes that it is being abused.

[USC04] 50 USC 1881a: Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons

HUH??? You don't know what you're reading. I did that job for 20 years. Sit down and READ what you linked and you'll see all the safeguards for due process. You talk about our intel community like the 60s' radicals talked about the U.S. military.

When you're in a live operation and some metadata provide some potential terrorist-link returns, you don't have time to go running to some regular federal judge. You need a mechanism that can give you temporary, provisional, conditional authority to act on the metadata. If further review determines that there was no actionable information or no indications of wrongdoing, the matter is dropped.

Nope, you don't know what you're talking about. Napolitano is right.
This the FISA ruling showing that the NSA was in breach of their own protocol.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

They were sharing information on US citizens with the FBI among other things. The US code was amended to bring the breaches within the law. Trump signed it, proving Napolitano correct. Trump can't be trusted to safeguard the constitution.

Napolitano is a stand up dude. I like people with convictions and that refuse to succumb to the lesser of two evils guilt trip.

And why were they sharing that information with the FBI? Why did they do that? Do you care?

The law was amended so that hyper-picky judges can't prevent vital intelligence sharing and operations by a narrow, draconian reading of the law.

And if more Americans had had Napolitano's "stand-up convictions," we would have President Hillary, a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court, no tax cuts, no repeal of the Obamacare mandate, no deregulation, no declawing of the EPA, no dozens of conservative judges put in district and appellate federal judicial positions, no cancelling of the insane Iran nuke deal, no pulling out of the absurd climate accords, etc, etc., etc.

I have no respect for the judgment of libertarians and other Never Trumpers who even now, after all the good things that Trump has done, can't admit that they were wrong.

Yes, I want to know why the NSA is sharing our personal communications with other agencies in the government. I want it explained to the American people, in the national spotlight not in a secret court, why the court gave the opinion in Oct. 2016 that the NSA's "lack of candor" represented a "very serious fourth amendment issue".

We are supposed to have rights in this country that are guaranteed by the constitution. The President has no greater duty than to defend those rights. He is derelict in his duty to uphold the constitutional rights of Americans.

Napolitano is right.

 

[sparky]

Oh, nonsense. Just nonsense. This is something that has wide bipartisan support. The Senate approved it with 60 out of 98 votes, and it got 256 votes in the House. Only people on each fringe have a problem with it.

Most of them voted in the Patriot Act as well, knowing they would not be targets of it Mike

Bulk metadata collection and allowing narrow exceptions for surveillance of Americans overseas do not violate the Fourth Amendment. There are plenty of safeguards for due process in the law that Trump signed.

methinks you make light of just how deep the data mining really goes

consider NSA Utah facility>>

every utterance on this soul sucking device is processed , certian terms are triggers, etc

if you've been part of the industry , you may already be aware what bizillions of tax $$$ can do...

The Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact that would prevent the government from taking reasonable measures to defend itself against deadly enemies

So just where is that fine line betwix defense and subjugation would be the Q

At the risk of appearing a constitutional funamentalist , our FF's did in fact warn us about 'big bro'

~S~