The FBI, in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, has gone to court and gotten a judge to order Apple to write software to decrypt the iPhones the two terrorists used. The FBI has been unable to decrypt them on their own.
Apple has refused to comply.
After reading much of the back and forth between government and Apple, I’m with Apple. As the Electronic Freedom Frontier said:
The government is asking Apple to create a master key so that it can open a single phone,” it said Tuesday evening. “And once that master key is created, we’re certain that our government will ask for it again and again, for other phones, and turn this power against any software or device that has the audacity to offer strong security.”
It’s about violating your privacy by being ordered to hand the government the key with implied permission to use it. Think Pandora’s Box. Forget security, you may as well not encrypt a phone if a master key is available out there. We’d love to believe the government when it says it will only use that software once, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence (and experience with governments) knows how likely that is. And, well, we also know how well our government does cyber security, don’t we Ms. Clinton?
Er, anyway – the government is using a 18th century law, the All Writs Act, to claim that it can demand such software from Apple.
The law lets judges “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
A little word salad that has the government claiming it has every right to make this demand do just about anything it chooses (if it can get a judge to say so).
Marc J. Zwillinger, a lawyer for Apple, wrote in a letter for a related case in October that the All Writs Act could not be interpreted to “force a company to take possession of a device outside of its possession or control and perform services on that device, particularly where the company does not perform such services as part of its business and there may be alternative means of obtaining the requested information available to the government.”
The government says it does not have those alternative means.
Mr. Cook’s statement called the government’s demands “chilling.”
“If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.”
This is another indicator of how corrosive the “War on Terror” has been to our liberties. It’s like slow drip acid, with every drop another assault on what we once took for granted as protections against an invasive government. And our government has been more and more invasive as concerns our privacy since this “war” began.
Sometimes, looking at what the government attempts to do in the name of security, you’d think the terrorists had won, wouldn’t you?
Don’t expect this sort of treatment should Queen Hillary ever get the nomination. Expect every one of the GOP candidates to be treated like this if they’re even somewhat viable. The Washington Post takes Bernie to the whipping post:
Mr. Sanders’s story continues with fantastical claims about how he would make the European social model work in the United States. He admits that he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan, and he promises massive savings on health-care costs that would translate into generous benefits for ordinary people, putting them well ahead, on net. But he does not adequately explain where those massive savings would come from. Getting rid of corporate advertising and overhead would only yield so much. Savings would also have to come from slashing payments to doctors and hospitals and denying benefits that people want.
He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.
And that’s just a sample. They pretty much trash the low information, economically illiterate’s dream candidate. Bernie’s the “free stuff” guy, yet even he has to admit that someone has to pay for his “free stuff”. Of course those who support him stop listening right after “free”.
But that’s really not the point. Hillary is sinking in the polls. The presumptive favorite is in a tight race in the first two primary states. Bernie, despite the fact that he’s clueless, is almost even with the chosen one of the big time Washington media establishment. You know, the one’s with Democrats with bylines? Way to close for comfort. And Clinton isn’t helping. In fact, it seems she’s beginning to crack a little bit. Additionally, she’s wearing thin with the voters who are just as tired of the circus she was a ringmaster in as they are of the Bush dynasty. And all these reminders of her past residence in the big house is beginning to make inroads and erode her support. Then there’s that email thingie.
So up steps the editorial board of the WaPo to take a few well aimed pot shots at her closest competitor. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t necessarily disagree with anything they say about Bernie. I just question the timing and intent.
That said, I loved this chaser they included near the end:
Mr. Sanders tops off his narrative with a deus ex machina: He assures Democrats concerned about the political obstacles in the way of his agenda that he will lead a “political revolution” that will help him clear the capital of corruption and influence-peddling. This self-regarding analysis implies a national consensus favoring his agenda when there is none and ignores the many legitimate checks and balances in the political system that he cannot wish away.
Mr. Obama shed a tear yesterday as he told us why he was going to bypass Congress and enact gun control (at least a small part of it) by executive order. Speaking of “gun violence” instead of violence in general, he said:
“We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom,” Obama said.
That’s simply poppycock. We don’t have to like it but freedom, as has been said any thousands of times, is not free. Nor is it pretty or neat. Nor are there those who don’t suffer because of it. It always has a cost – a price. But the alternative, what most Democrats seem to want, is the state deciding everything you can or cannot do, everything you can or cannot own. That alternative is unacceptable to those who value freedom and are willing to suffer the cost.
No one is in favor of “carnage”. But it isn’t the guns which cause the violence, sir. Figure it out please. When you tell me that abortion instruments are what kill about a million unborn human beings in the US each year, perhaps I’ll at least consider your thinking to be somewhat consistent. And of course, that means cars and pools and rope, well you name it, also need to be controlled even more because the “carnage” they cause rivals anything to do with that involving guns.
Gee, given the numbers, perhaps he ought to be going after Planned Parenthood instead of demonizing the NRA.
Oh, and this was rich:
“No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this. I get it,” he said. “But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Apparently he thinks he knows the Constitution, but if true, he’d know it doesn’t allow aristocracy, and certainly it doesn’t allow kings. Laws are passed through Congress and if the President doesn’t have the heft or gravitas or whatever he needs to see it done, then it doesn’t get done. Obama doesn’t have any of that. And the people have been quite clear that they don’t consider guns or gun control to be much of an issue. In fact, it barely registers, no pun intended. So instead he does “work arounds” with executive orders. Tell us again about how you know the Constitution, please?
But let’s get to the nuts and bolts of what went on yesterday, shall we? It is about, get ready for it, ideology:
Despite professing an unflinching commitment to curbing gun violence, Obama and Biden have been thwarted by Congress and what Obama calls a lack of national will to change the way Americans think about guns.
Got it. It’s about changing the way you think about guns. Its about making them the equivalent of a cigarette. You remember when cigarettes were popular? And what happened? Well, think about it. It wasn’t about people making poor choices and suffering for them that was the “cause” of their diseases. It wasn’t about their refusal to heed the strident warnings about smoking. It became “the cigarette”. That was the “cause”. And it was the cigarette that was killing people, not the people’s choices. The object became the problem. People were excused for making poor decisions even though the information that cigarettes caused horrific health problems had been out for years … decades.
The same sort of argument is being made about guns and “the strategy of a tear” was just the latest emotional appeal to a people who’ve been pretty darn logical about guns so far and aren’t buying into the argument as readily as they did with cigarettes. In fact, they’re not buying into it at all and are, instead, buying more and more guns. If you can’t get them to swing your way, cry on national TV. That’ll show ’em how sincere you are. And, of course, it seems to have fooled a good number of people out there already.
But to the point – this is frustration for Obama because you and most Americans won’t think the way he wants you to. So? So screw you, he’ll stamp his feet, hold his breath and make you do it by taking unilateral action. But he knows the Constitution, by George.
This is just another in a long line of tantrums by this man. When he can’t get his way, he simply looks for a means to impose his will. He has no concept of what a President is or what one is supposed to do and he’s certainly no Constitutional scholar. This is just the latest example.
So why is the cigarette model not working for the left? For the most part it is because there really is no redeeming value to a cigarette. But there is tremendous positive value to a gun. You can’t defend yourself or your family with a cigarette. You can’t feel more secure in your person with a cigarette. You can’t protect your life or your property with a cigarette. So despite the demonization of the object the left has committed itself too, the positive aspects of gun ownership simply won’t be buried, even with a tear.
The bottom line however should be clear – the left will do whatever it thinks necessary to strip Americans of their right to own firearms. You will see every sort of argument tendered and numbers that, without context, seem horrific. Such as “30,000” gun deaths – 62% of which are suicides. Anyone who believes removing guns will prevent suicide just isn’t very serious about discussing suicide. Japan, which has strict gun control laws, has more suicides than the US. The problem isn’t the means. It is the mental state of the person. 35% are homicides, most gang related. No matter the laws passed, criminals are not going to obey them. This seems to be a point the left can’t comprehend. And finally accidents claim most of the remainder (about 606 in 2010). “Mass shootings”? A small minority of the final total. And, in fact, gun violence and gun homicides are and have been trending down for quite some time.
However, like “climate change”, the alarmist hysteria continues despite the fact that the data doesn’t support it.
So now, it is all about an emotion. A tear.
My freedom isn’t for sale for a tear, crocodile or otherwise, Mr. Obama.
Yeah, me neither. Yet, we have a group of people out there who are more than willing to take the chance of “inviting” known killers who hate us into the country.
As usual, the media and some pundits have turned a very gray area into stark black and white arguments. You’re apparently for allowing open immigration to anyone or you’re a racist and a bigot if you opt to be selective.
What I’m talking about is the majority of the nation which is reasonably concerned that those who would kill us are seeking entry into the country without being screened and, if necessary, rejected. This is characterized as “unAmerican”. So, then, was Ellis Island where we rejected would be immigrants if they were sick or had criminal backgrounds, etc.
Let’s bear in mind that permitting immigration is a discretionary national act. There is no right to immigrate to the United States, and the United States has no obligation to accept immigrants from any country, including Muslim-majority countries. We could lawfully cut off all immigration, period, if we wanted to. Plus, it has always been a basic tenet of legal immigration to promote fidelity to the Constitution and assimilation into American society — principles to which classical sharia is antithetical. . . .
All important points, but the final point is most likely the most important. McCarthy again:
Our constitutional principle of religious liberty is derived from the Western concept that the spiritual realm should be separate from civic and political life. The concept flows from the New Testament injunction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.
Crucially, the interpretation of Islam that is mainstream in most Muslim-majority countries does not accept a division between mosque and state. . . .
The lack of separation between spiritual and civic life is not the only problem with Islam. Sharia is counter-constitutional in its most basic elements — beginning with the elementary belief that people do not have a right to govern themselves freely. Islam, instead, requires adherence to sharia and rejection of all law that contradicts it. So we start with fundamental incompatibility, before we ever get to other aspects of sharia: its systematic discrimination against non-Muslims and women; its denial of religious liberty, free speech, economic freedom, privacy rights, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments; and its endorsement of violent jihad in furtherance of protecting and expanding the territory it governs.
And that’s where we must draw the line. If an immigrant wants to become an American, recognize the separation of church and state and embrace the constitutional principles which govern this country, I say “welcome”. If not, I say, “don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass as you leave”.
Of course, the left’s legacy of “multiculturalism” says we must respect different cultures and learn to live with them. I say, no we don’t. Why? Because some cultures are destructive and some cultures are inferiors. I know, not politically correct, but certainly reality based (something the left once tried to convince us was a description of their ideological grounding).
You would no more invite a killer that hated you and wanted to take over your house into your home than any other sane person. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t apply the same principle to this country (and for those of you who don’t read carefully, that means we don’t keep out all Muslims, only those (of any religion or ethnic group) who refuse to recognize our Constitutional principles and won’t assimilate).
We don’t “owe” them anything.
One – the immediate politicization of any tragedy involving guns, facts or no facts:
Just when we think that politics can’t sink any lower, President Obama once again proves us wrong by politicizing the tragedy in San Bernardino before the facts were even known. What we do know is that the American people are heartbroken by these horrific crimes — and despite what the president would have us believe — America’s law-abiding gun owners are heartbroken by these horrific crimes as well. At the same time, we are sick and tired of this president suggesting the men and women of the National Rifle Association are somehow to blame.
Why, you ask? Well because this supposed “leader” of ours is all about politics and agendas. He’s already decided what is “best” for the rest of us whether or not the actual fact match the narrative or not.
Two, which is related to One. The hypocrisy and cowardice of the left. Radical Islam has struck more than once here in the US the and cowards won’t acknowledge it or face it. But they will vilify and defame those who won’t strike back and blame them for the problem such as Christians, the NRA, and the Right in general. God help you if you believe in the 2nd Amendment.
Yes I know Jon Gabriel and yes I know he’s being totally sarcastic. I also know he makes the point perfectly. By the way, did you see where Bloomberg and MSNBC tweeted that the shooting was only “blocks away from a Planned Parenthood” facility. See “One” above. Think narrative construction.
Three – we now have the Attorney General of the United States promising to take action against US citizens if she considers their rhetoric to be anti-Muslim and “edges” towards violence:
Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Thursday warned that the Justice Department could take aggressive action against people whose anti-Muslim rhetoric “edges towards violence” and told the Muslim community that “we stand with you in this.”
Speaking at Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner, Lynch said since the terrorist attacks in Paris last month, she is increasingly concerned with the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric … that fear is my greatest fear.”
Who will be the arbiter? And, why selective treatment? See “Two” above. They won’t face the real enemy and they want to chill speech pretending it is anti-Muslim rhetoric that is the problem, not Radical Islamists.
These three things are consistent in every shooting that involved radical muslims. One, the attempt to initially frame it so that the right is the problem. Then to frame it as if it was just another “mass shooting” – you know, “workplace violence.” The cause: guns, not followers of a 7th century death cult. Two, deny, deny, deny and try to shift the blame. Don’t face the reality of the problem. “ISIS is contained”. Instead of facing the problem and addressing it, Mr. Obama’s answer is to contemplate stricter gun laws by executive order that will do nothing to stop what happened in CA. But the left believes that the criminals and killers out there will be done … even though in California had every law Obama want’s nationally in place and supposedly functioning and the Islamic Radicals still had the banned weapons. Third, the erosion of freedom. Now we have the AG saying she’ll decide what “edges” toward violent rhetoric and will apparently act unilaterally to arrest the “perpetrator”. However rhetoric “edging” toward violence against any other non-protected group?
That, at least, is the result of a survey recently completed:
To put some numbers behind that perception, The William F. Buckley Jr. Program at Yale recently commissioned a survey from McLaughlin & Associates about attitudes towards free speech on campus. Some 800 students at a variety of colleges across the country were surveyed. The results, though not surprising, are nevertheless alarming. By a margin of 51 percent to 36 percent, students favor their school having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty. Sixty-three percent favor requiring professors to employ “trigger warnings” to alert students to material that might be discomfiting. One-third of the students polled could not identify the First Amendment as the part of the Constitution that dealt with free speech. Thirty-five percent said that the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech,” while 30 percent of self-identified liberal students say the First Amendment is outdated.
This is simply the latest proof that colleges and universities in this nation are turning from bastions of free speech and academic freedom to institutions that are enabling and enforcing “speech codes” that student activists demand. The result is the death of “robust intellectual debate” on campus. Now administrations feel moved to “protect” those who are uncomfortable with uncomfortable ideas. And they demand penalties and the quashing of those ideas. The very notion that our great institutions of higher learning have bought into this anti-intellectualism should be an anathema to them. But instead they support these sorts of movements.
Just recently Williams College began an “Uncomfortable Learning” speaker series to provide “intellectual diversity” on campus. Ironically, it then disinvited conservative writer Suzanne Venker when, according to the college, her proposed visit was “stirring a lot of angry reactions among students on campus.” Obviously her ideas went beyond “uncomfortable learning”, however Willams College now defines that phrase. But one thing is clear, Williams College is about as committed to “intellectual diversity” as Hillary Clinton is to the truth.
Given all this, is anyone even remotely surprised to see supposed intellectuals who are the products of this sort of education system calling for the jailing of “climate deniers” and the banning of their speech? Free speech is dying in this country and it is doing so in the very institutions that should be its staunchest defender.
A Kentucky man shot down an $1,800 drone hovering over his sunbathing daughter and was then arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first-degree wanton endangerment.
“My daughter comes in and says, ‘Dad, there’s a drone out here flying,’ ” William H. Merideth, 47, told a local Fox News affiliate reported Tuesday. The Bullitt County father shot at the drone, which crashed in a field near his yard Sunday night.
The owner of the drone claims he was only trying to take pictures of a friend’s house, the station reported.
“I went and got my shotgun and I said, ‘I’m not going to do anything unless it’s directly over my property,’ ” Mr. Merideth said, noting that the drone briefly disappeared when his daughter waved it off. “Within a minute or so, here it came. It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky. I didn’t shoot across the road, I didn’t shoot across my neighbor’s fences, I shot directly into the air.”
Most people would say, “good for him”. He felt his privacy and property rights were being violated by some possible peeping Tom and he took action to protect both. As he says, he “didn’t shoot across the road, I didn’t shoot across my neighbor’s fences, I shot directly into the air.”
He had a good, sound reason to take action:
“He didn’t just fly over,” he said. “If he had been moving and just kept moving, that would have been one thing — but when he come directly over our heads, and just hovered there, I felt like I had the right.”
“You know, when you’re in your own property, within a six-foot privacy fence, you have the expectation of privacy,” he said. “We don’t know if he was looking at the girls. We don’t know if he was looking for something to steal. To me, it was the same as trespassing.”
Exactly. The unknown, coupled with the concerns plus the fact that the drone was purposely and repeatedly being flown where it had no permission to fly, prompted Merideth to action. And he removed the possible threat.
End of story?
Hardly. The 4 people who were engaged in flying and hovering the drone over his property showed up to confront him. Then the police showed up. Who got arrested? Well the property owner, of course.
As Scott Shackford of Hit & Run points out:
You’d think it would be obvious that it’s not a good idea to pilot an expensive piece of surveillance equipment just casually over other people’s properties, not just out of respect for other people’s privacy, but because you could lose the thing.
You’d think. But instead it is the man who was guarding both is privacy and his property rights who ends up going to jail. Apparently his expectation of privacy and his property rights concerning trespass weren’t enough to save him from catching a ride in the police van.
Tell me again about our “Constitutional rights” to both privacy and property? Apparently drone’s trump them.
Almost half of all Federal criminal charges are made in 5 southern border districts, but we don’t have a border security or illegal immigration problem
41.7% of all Federal criminal charges come from 5 districts that are on the US southern border. In one district, West Texas, the US attorney filed 5,832 cases. That’s more than all the cases filed for the entire length of the US norther border (5,257). The southern district of Texas ranked 2nd, followed by Arizona, New Mexico and Southern California.
“In addition to criminal cases brought before United States district judges, the United States Attorneys also handle a considerable criminal caseload before United States magistrate judges,” explained the U.S. attorneys’ statistical report for fiscal 2013. “The utilization of magistrate judges varies from district to district in response to local conditions and changing caseloads.”
“Magistrate judges are authorized by statute to perform a variety of duties as assigned by the United States district judges, including presiding over misdemeanor trials, conducting preliminary hearings, and entering rulings or recommended dispositions on pretrial motions,” said the report.
In fiscal 2014, according to the Table 2B, 67,401 criminal defendants were determined to be guilty in magistrate proceedings. Of those, 63,253 — or 93.8 percent — were in the five districts along the U.S.-Mexico border.
And yet this administration has, for its entire tenure, ignored the crisis on the border and even encouraged illegal immigrants to enter the country. While some may buy into the argument that the fault lies with Congress (and, more specifically the GOP) for not passing immigration reform legislation, the problem at the border is a law enforcement problem.
Law enforcement is not a Congressional duty, but instead, the job of the Executive branch. However, despite their being laws on the books concerning illegal immigration, this administration refuses to enforce them and has, in fact, has defied them. Compound that with blue cities offering sanctuary to illegals (again, in defiance of existing law) and you have a situation out of control.
While it is certainly true that some form of immigration reform needs to be legislated, that doesn’t excuse the lax or non-existent enforcement of existing laws by the administration. It is clear to most that this crime wave that has engulfed the southern border is squarely the responsibility of the Obama administration, and no amount of attempted blame shifting will change that.
I pretty much agree with Andrew McCarthy:
Already, an ocean of ink has been spilled analyzing, lauding, and bemoaning the Supreme Court’s work this week: a second life line tossed to SCOTUScare in just three years; the location of a heretofore unknown constitutional right to same-sex marriage almost a century-and-a-half after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment; and the refashioning of Congress’s Fair Housing Act to embrace legal academe’s loopy “disparate impact” theory of inducing discrimination.
Yet, for all the non-stop commentary, one detail goes nearly unmentioned — the omission that best explains this week’s Fundamental Transformation trifecta. Did you notice that there was not an iota of speculation about how the four Progressive justices would vote?There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by these three cases, there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left’s voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation.
Indeed, if there is any speculation it centers mostly around Justice Kennedy and now, of all people, Roberts. There’s not much of a doubt on any case that comes before the court as to how either the liberal bloc or the conservative bloc will vote. Up for grabs, apparently, are only two votes. And you can expect absolutely tortured verbiage and logic from those two (and others who believe in a “living Constitution”) in order to justify their vote.
Elizabeth Price Foley wants to lay it off on liberals:
But we all know why Thomas, Scalia, Alito and, oh yeah, Roberts, ended up on the Supreme Court. The conservatives believe “law is politics” just as much as the left – they just haven’t been as successful at it recently. There is a reason there are veritable political wars about who gets appointed to the highest bench in the land. This isn’t some sort of scoop.
It’s a pity though. You expect politics in Congress, which is why it’s reputation is so … low. You want a statesman in the presidency. And you expect justice and law from the judiciary.
Instead, we have nothing but politics from all three.
And they wonder why the people’s view of government is at a nadir?
We all know what “politics” means … and it has nothing to do with integrity, justice, the law, statesmanship or what is best for the citizenry.
You know, anymore you have to wait a couple of days for the hysteria to settle before you can figure out what may or may not have happened. And unfortunately, our “National Enquirer” media is usually the leaders of the hysteria.
This supposed “treasonous” letter, for instance. Finally, Jennifer Rubin lends a little sanity to what have been the equivalent of click bait headlines these past few days.
[T]he letter was “open” — that is, akin to an op-ed, not dropped in the mail with a Tehran address. This is not a private negotiation or even a message primarily to the Iranians; it was a statement concerning the president’s powers, in contravention of prior promises, to make an critically important deal without Congress. It was unfortunate that it was not instead a letter to the editor or the president; the content would have been the same and Democrats would have been deprived of a silly but unifying talking point. But let’s get to the reason it had to be sent in the first place. As Jeb Bush noted in a statement, “The Senators are reacting to reports of a bad deal that will likely enable Iran to become a nuclear state over time. They would not have been put in this position had the Administration consulted regularly with them rather than ignoring their input.”
Can’t begin to see how that measures up to “treason”. I can see how the subversion of the Constitution could lead in that direction though.
Second it is a warning to Iran to deal straight with the President:
Republicans are saying to the mullahs they’d better not sucker the president into a sweetheart deal because ultimately that deal will have to pass muster with Congress. Any savvy negotiator would use that to say to the mullahs they need to deliver more, not less, because of the ornery lawmakers. But Obama is so determined to give the mullahs whatever they demand he cannot recognize bargaining leverage when it is staring him in the face. It is only when you are trying to give away the store that you consider a letter warning the mullahs the bar will be high for a deal to be “sabotage.”
So instead, it’s backing this
idiot’s sucker’s President’s play. They’ve actually managed to give Obama some leverage and Obama is rejecting it for heaven sake.
The letter was meant to highlight a point about which critics have not quarreled: The president can have a binding treaty with Senate approval, or he can have an executive agreement that may be null and void when he leaves office. (If he has told the Iranians otherwise, either he is confused or he is selling snake oil.)
Got that? Deal straight and make the sort of deal we will approve in the Senate.
But, as Rubin points out, there’s a bigger question:
What does the president think he is negotiating if he intends to keep Congress in the dark and present a fait accompli?
Does he understand that if he thinks its a “treaty” and it doesn’t go before (and get passed by) the Senate, it isn’t worth a war bucket of spit? I mean, he may have a pen and a phone, but he can’t agree to a treaty without Congress’s okay no matter how hard he tries to pretend he can.
Which may necessitate some more “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” reasoning from Democrats.
There’s the story.
So, in terms of the letter, another partisan tempest in a teapot.
Meanwhile, the big Constitutional question mostly gets ignored.