A Spine, A Mind And The Pursuit Of Justice (Hour 2)

Welcome, welcome, welcome to civic media mid mornings on the civic media radio network.

My name is Greg Bach.

I'm your host, your buddy, your pal and a gentleman who really believes in all things you.

I'm so happy you're here joining us today, sharing time.

If you want to be part of the conversation, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five, civic leave a comment on the live stream.

We are currently faced.

We are on Facebook, YouTube and the platform that we still call Twitter.

Really, really good show for you today.

I feel like

Ed Sullivan right there.

Really good show for you today.

We got a really good show.

Uh, he's here for a while today.

We got him here for pretty much an hour.

Mr. Jim Santel, host of amicus, a law review.

Uh, we'll be talking about all the major news coming out of the world of law, including news on judge Hannah Dugan's case.

There's more information to talk about there.

The Supreme court is apparently going to allow California to do its thing at this moment.

They should, I should say, and, uh,

an DOJ employee, assistant US attorney has a thought on how their job is in this current department of justice.

Then Paul Noonan from the Acme packing company with sports.

There's an Olympic happening.

There's a Super Bowl happening.

And then there is, I guess the bucks had a really good victory last night.

So we'll talk more about that with Paul.

And then a handy tip from Greg.

to you, to the world, but specifically for all of us.

We all want to take the advice.

I'm not saying I'm the greatest advice giver, but I'm just saying, you know, these tips are just about as much for me as they are for you.

But I want to start right here with a story that's coming out of the Wisconsin public radio website.

This is Josh.

I'm sorry.

Joe Schultz has the byline business groups are

business groups sue to blockport washington residents from interfering with tids.

Tids are what's called a tax increment district.

It is what local municipalities will approve things that will help businesses come in, give them whether it's tax credits, tax breaks, things of that nature, but tax incremental increment districts.

They're most likely in your municipality as well.

There's usually commissions that

head up each TID.

And the reason why the Port Washington is being sued by business groups regarding this is because this spring, there will be a measure on the ballot that possibly will give people a little more power in what comes into their town business wise.

So business groups are suing the city of Port Washington, challenging the legality of proposed ordinance that would give residents more power over local development incentives.

the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, along with six other groups filed lawsuits against Port Washington and its city clerk in Ozaki County last month.

The ordinance in question has been approved to be on the ballot this year, spring elections.

So this is happening in April for them after residents collected enough signatures on a petition to force the city council to take action.

Now, this is all sort of coming from the place of data centers.

We talked.

with no data centers to forest earlier this week.

We've been speaking to other folks about this topic.

We've been hearing stories of groups, individuals coming into their city council meetings and talking about these businesses, trying to build huge structures, which would, for some feel like it does damage on the environment, for other feels, it's going to do damage to their utility bill, but.

We're seeing more folks waking up to the fact that these data centers are trying to come into almost all of our areas of the state and the country.

And the people of Port Washington want to have more to say.

And the reason why is because we spoke about last year a plan to bring a data center in.

And after pretty much everything had gone through, the people stood up and said, wait a minute, this is not what we want.

And it was too late.

So in a measure from the people, they want to put something in place that says, we have the ability to speak more, have more of a voice on what kind of businesses have incentives coming into our community.

And because of this, they are being sued, not the people, the county and the city, they are all being sued by these business groups.

The proposal comes after Port Washington approved creating a TID for a massive 15

billion with a b data center campus campus that has drawn back strong pushback from local residents data center opponents have even launched a recall effort against port washington's mayor one resident says you slip the vantage data center project under our feet without giving us a voice without giving us a vote without respecting the will of the people you serve that comes from tracy finch at a december council meeting and the belief is

That this goes against a state statute that dictates the process and approving tids this is said this is stated by Dale Kojen go who is the president of the Metro Milwaukee Association of Commerce.

He's also a former member of the state Senate.

He served from 2019 till 2023.

He is a Republican.

He was he served as Republican.

He is now a president of the MMAC

And he says, a measure of this nature would not only conflict with state law, it would be devastating for economic development in Port Washington and would set a dangerous precedent with long lasting economic impacts across the region and throughout the state.

Other groups that joined the lawsuit, along with MMAC, was the Associated General Contractors of Greater Milwaukee, building advantage of the Commercial Association of Realtors, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Realtors Association.

I'm going to read that again, Calvin.

The Commercial Association of Realtors Wisconsin.

That's one group.

And then the other group, Wisconsin Realtors Association and the NAIOP Wisconsin and SIDS Sealance LLC at the end there.

They're saying that the state already dictates how tids are created and that's fine.

This can then go to court.

This can then maybe just be decided by.

Appeals be decided by the Woodsconson State Supreme Court.

I don't know where this is going to go.

And if the argument's being made that it bucks against state statutes, then that is something that needs to be handled.

It is on the ballot though, regardless.

And also, if state statute dictates, change the statute then.

I don't feel like the people shouldn't have a say in what's going on here.

I feel like more transparency is better for the community, better for the leaders, better for everybody.

coming at it from the point of view of this is going to be devastating for, what is it says here?

It says, this will be devastating for the process, irreparably harm employees, employers, taxpayers and economic development interests in the city of Port Washington and throughout the region.

I get that language, I understand that, but if you're asking me to choose between whether or not the businesses have

all of the tax incentives, $15 billion tid created and the people don't know about it.

Then I'm going to side with the people and say, maybe the statute needs to change.

Maybe there needs to be more public comment.

Maybe there needs to be a better way of informing everyone because we're seeing more and more individuals waking up to the fact that these businesses are coming in and in some instances striking sweetheart deals for tax incentives, but also making

individual sign NDA so they can't tell anyone either.

And the first time people find out about it is when they're voting on it.

So if this is all to open up the lanes of transparency for the people to understand who's coming into their town to set up businesses and reaping benefits from it, as well as things that could include hiking up your tax bill, I'm not your tax, I'm sorry, your utility bill, then I think it's worth the discussion.

I think it's worth talking about, and I think it's worth empowering folks to have a greater say in what happens in their backyards, for their kids, for their communities, for their future.

Alicia on the live stream says, tids cause utility and property taxes to increase and hurt fire and police departments as well as every other offering from your municipality.

I mean, that's the thing is,

Do I think TID should go away?

I'm not going to speak to that because, you know, I would rather have an expert come in and talk about the pros and the cons.

But if we are talking about how it benefits the people in creating a TID, how does it benefit the community?

Something that Trisha from no data center to forest said about Port Washington and the data center is going in now and saying, all right, you want to come in and you want to reap these rewards.

You want these, you want all these tax breaks, all these incentives, all of these, all these abilities to use our land.

then what are you going to do for us?

How are you going to incentivize the people?

Are you going to build, help build parks, revitalize buildings, give job opportunities?

Because as we know, data centers don't exactly provide tens of thousands of jobs per building either.

And the question that we've asked for a while, and I've heard other people say is, you know, where data centers are right now, the size and the need, it's always about shrinking it, making it smaller.

making sure you can run it as robotically as possible.

So you build a huge data center campus in Port Washington in 10 to 15 years.

Is that system still necessary?

Or they say, well, we can actually do it for one third the size.

And this municipality won't make us do the things because the people don't know.

That is the question as well.

That is the conversation as well.

And people standing up and saying,

We want a voice.

We want to say, I think that's important.

I think that's very, very, uh, that's a, that is a good part of the other process.

And businesses saying, well, this is going to hurt us.

It will hurt you.

I don't know if it'll hurt the community.

The business might not come into town, but maybe you tell the people.

Hey, here's our plan and they say we're on board.

It's about discussion process transparency and involving any for women not just the business leaders and the politicians But the people whose land you are going to be possessing for the next how many decades gene from Eau Claire is on the lives I was on the is on the phone right now Gene how are you doing this morning?

What say you?

Thank you so much for this information because this is really significantly important.

Yeah lived in a town

where a lot of this was going on.

A lot of those tips didn't pan out.

People have their lives invested in their communities, their money, their jobs, their families, their schools.

They need a voice, period.

These should be brought up in votes, that people should get the information.

This is BS.

Look at Foxconn.

Look at all the different places that have been conned with the people and they lose out.

They lose their homes.

He was a lot of different things.

They need to have a voice.

And that's my opinion.

Stick it to it.

And thank you very much, Greg.

This is so important.

Thank you.

Bye.

Bye, Gene.

Thank you so much for calling in.

I always appreciate hearing from you, my friend.

And look, man, I really love to hear from people who disagree with me because I feel like they're out there.

I feel like they're yelling at their radios or their...

Their apps get the civic media by the way put it on your phone or device listen to us anywhere even if you disagree with us I'm not saying at all I will never say get rid of tids get rid of business get rid of all these things I what I will always say and advocate for and always move towards first is saying if you bring more people into the discussion if you bring more people into the process you create transparency and

You create a plan that not only benefits your company, which you should benefit.

You should be paid.

You should make money.

That's why you get into business.

But also, if you can help the community, I don't understand why that's bad.

I don't understand why people will say to my face, you don't believe in capitalism.

You don't believe in this and that.

I guess I just believe enough money is enough.

If a company is coming in and they're going to make billions of dollars, they can throw a billion dollars towards the community.

I'm sorry, but you can say over the next 10 to 15 years, we're going to invest $1.5 billion into the community so we can do these things so we can build a real partnership.

Again, this is all I'm talking about is partnerships here.

Transparency partnerships, growth for everyone, whether it's the family on Main Street or the business.

the business in the middle of the field that's processing our data.

I don't think that's a lot to ask.

I don't think that's a crazy idea.

I don't think I'm anti-American for saying it out loud.

But good on you, Port Washington, for raising your voice.

We'll find out what happens in April.

We'll find out what happens if it passes, if it goes deeper into the courts.

and see where this ends up.

Maybe restructuring the state statute on how businesses get put together here in the state of Wisconsin, but gotta stick around, gotta stay tuned, stay informed on Civic Media mid mornings.

My name is Greg Bach.

When we come back, more news on Wisconsin Eye and a future solid plan to make sure we can see what our lawmakers are talking about.

Stay close, stay tuned.

Welcome, welcome, welcome back to mid mornings on civic media.

My name is Greg Bach.

You are listening to us on the civic media radio network.

If you want to be part of the conversation, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five.

Civic leave a comment on that live stream.

We are streaming on Facebook, YouTube and the platform.

We still call Twitter still ahead after the nine 30 news.

We have Jim Santel here talking to us about all of the news coming out of the world of law, including.

an update on judge Hannah Dugan, former judge Hannah Dugan, as well as, uh, one DOJ employees, Frank thoughts on their job right now in 2026.

And then of course Paul Newton was sports.

He's from the Acme packing company.

And then a handy tip from Greg to round it all out.

And then I'll let you go on your Thursday, but don't go anywhere.

We got lots of great stuff happening.

Um, I mentioned this before we went to the commercial we've, uh, kept, I've

Calvin, I was going to say we've kept our eye on this, but I don't want to say that because the story is about Wisconsin.

I for those who don't know Wisconsin.

I is essentially Wisconsin C span where it allows folks groups, whomever wants to watch meetings and votes happening online to make sure we can stay.

up to speed with what's going on in Madison.

It's an organization that's a nonprofit news organization that livestreams and archives government meetings and legislative sessions.

And it resumed coverage this month after being off the air for nearly, I believe seven weeks because it could not afford to keep the lights on essentially.

Earlier this month, by earlier, I mean like earlier this week, the

Joint committee on legislative organization infused the group about $50,000 cash.

They currently have a go fund me campaign.

I think they've raised a little over $50,000, but there has been a move towards financing it with a trust.

And the story goes like this is what happened is the state said, we will give you 10, when you read it on paper, now you're like, this seems ridiculous for a small organization, but

They were going to be given ten million dollars as an endowment from the state if They could match the dollars up to ten million dollars.

So this group Which was seeking to just live stream our legislative sessions It says well you allocated ten million dollars to Wisconsin I if you could raise ten million will give you the matching dollars up to ten million dollars that is

I was next.

I mean, it wasn't impossible, but it was very, very difficult.

And that was said by Marco, Marco Connell, who's the chair of Wisconsin ice board of directors.

It just became a thing of impossibility to make those matching funds under an assembly proposal.

And this makes me very happy because this is not only this looks like it's moving forward, but it's bipartisan between the minority and the

Majority Leader, the Assembly Speaker, I should say, Robin Voss and Greta Neubauer last month to eliminate the matching fund aspect and give them the $10 million endowment so Wisconsin Eye can still be on the air.

And we can see our leaders at work.

We can, and again, this goes back to what we were talking about earlier with Port Washington about the tids, about the vote.

This is all about transparency.

The people have the right to see their leaders work.

And after Wisconsin I went dark, elected officials made it very difficult for folks to record these sessions because there was no other method.

There are rules in place right now, medicine that say unless you are an elected official or part of certain groups, you cannot record these proceedings.

So because of all that, because of the consternation, because of the outcry and people actually realizing what Wisconsin I was and found out too, by the way, one of the biggest groups that uses

This are the lobby groups.

They watch Wisconsin Eye all the time because they want to see what people are voting for.

Maybe some of their people, what they're voting for.

But this is all good to me.

I think this is fantastic.

I think this is important.

And we're at a proposal right now.

It's moved through.

We'll see where it goes next.

But I will say this wholeheartedly.

Thank you.

Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, she is a Democrat from Racine, and we all know Assembly Speaker Robin Voss from right here in this area in Racine County, Rochester, Republican Democrat coming together to get this taken care of, not just with a $50,000 infusion, that's great.

They can do what they need to do over the time being, but if they can get the $10 million, that would cover them for about a decade.

And maybe between now and 2036, there is a more sustainable,

plan put together in perpetuity that always makes sure Wisconsin is never on the chopping block and never has to go dark because when we can't see what our leaders are doing, that is bad for democracy.

We are seeing that all the time now.

So this is to me a matter of saying kudos to Robin Voss and Greta Neubauer.

Thank you for getting this done.

I hope it goes all the way through before you go on your very long vacation this year.

Again, short work year for the leaders up in

Madison.

They're almost done.

Like nine months off, fully paid, benefits, podium.

But in this time that they're working, they're getting things done and they're doing it together and they're doing that for us.

And I hope that this goes all the way through.

Going back to what we were talking about earlier, Alisa left another comment on the live stream regarding

whether or not tids are good, bad, or should be gotten rid of.

She says, I agree.

Don't get rid of tids completely, but they must be beneficial for the community.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

It's just about process.

I'm not asking a lot.

I think it's kind of like with Wisconsinite.

Hey, we need to be able to see what our leaders are doing.

We need to be able to see what was being said in these meetings regarding massive,

benefits plans for these companies, whether it's tax breaks, tax incentives, things like that, we should know.

The people should know.

They should have every chance to be a part of this.

And it shouldn't just be at the last minute.

So we'll keep an eye on Port Washington.

We'll keep an eye on this piece of legislation, this proposal.

We'll see if it goes through.

But these are all good moments for transparency and democracy and the people.

I just think that's great.

So I'm going to celebrate that.

I'm going to celebrate so much, I want to have a guest on to celebrate it.

And my guest is going to be Jim Santel.

We're going to be talking about all the things coming out of the world of law on the other side of the news.

So don't go anywhere, grab some snacks, grab a water, come on back.

You're listening to Civic Media, mid mornings.

My name is Greg Bach.

Stay tuned and stay close.

Welcome, welcome back to civic media mid mornings here on the civic media radio network.

My name is Greg Bach.

I'm your host, your buddy, your pal, your co-conspirator and all things resting, relaxing, taking care of you.

That's what I'm about.

about that in your life.

You are here today.

You are sharing time with us.

If you want to be part of the conversation, always call text.

That's the same number.

No matter what you do, 855-752-4842-855-75 civic.

Leave a comment on the live stream.

We are currently streaming on Facebook, YouTube and the platform that we still call Twitter.

Still ahead, we have Paul Noonan from the Acme Packing Company talking all things bucks, talking all things Super Bowl and all things Olympic.

So don't go anywhere.

Lots of that coming forth.

And then a handy tip from Greg.

And today I'm talking to a gubernatorial candidate in Florida on how you can find new voters.

And this method is not what you think it is.

Now, before we get moving on, just want to remind everybody, sorry, I took a long pause there.

I want to do dramatic pause.

That's dramatics, drama.

Get the Civic Media app on your device, whether it's your phone or your...

Tablet you can call text you can leave a comment or you can leave a voice note

be a part of the conversation, find out your news, customize it to where you live, but the Civic Media app is great and it's absolutely free.

Take us with you wherever you go, including all over the world.

So get that Civic Media app, put it on your device and join us, be part of the conversation.

Now it's Thursday, it's 9 30 something and we have the host of Amicus, a law review, former US attorney, current practicing attorney, Mr. Jim Santel on the show.

Good morning, Jim.

How are you today on this blustery February morning?

Greg, I am honored.

I'm delighted because I'm with you and Calvin and all your listeners.

So my day could not be any better.

And now it will decline a bit as we talk about the news in there.

But we're going to start positively, right?

Yeah, we're going to start.

We have more news coming out of the Hannah Dugan case now, just as a really quick version.

Hannah Dugan was arrested last year on

charges of obstruction because she led a human being out of a room into another room where that human being was arrested.

She was then suspended.

She has been convicted.

She has resigned her position as a county district judge.

And now we are at this point where what is the news coming out of this case or this story?

Sure, we know for a number of weeks, actually ever since the conviction late last year that her attorneys appropriately defending her as they should aggressively and thoughtfully and file a number of motions.

They renewed a number of things that they raised.

Pre-trial matters related to things like the 10th Amendment and other matters.

Most recently, they have identified this issue.

My guess is they're they're basing a lot of their subpoenas happening in Minneapolis.

And they're saying that ICE did not have the authority to arrest the defendant, not Judge Dugan, but the individual who was appearing in front of her on an administrative warrant.

Remember this issue?

They were there in an administrative warrant, not a judicial warrant.

She actually said it was part of the trial.

You need to have a judicial warrant, not administrative warrant.

Well, her attorneys among the many post-conviction motions

They have raised have now raised this issue and said the Officials there the ice folks did not have the authority in the first place to come in to arrest and therefore everything had flowed from that is is subject to not only review but plainly would would trigger the dismissal of the count of the the allegations or perhaps at a minimum a new trial remember to that this is also part of other attacks as I mentioned already the 10th amendment and the one that I think is perhaps

got the most legs, if you will, is this notion that the split verdict, your listeners remember this, that she was acquitted on the misdemeanor, but not on the felony that she was convicted on that, based principally upon a jury instruction given by Judge Edelman.

And they've also attacked that in some previous motions.

That's the one that I think does have at least some colorable merit.

None of these is frivolous.

Judge Lynn Edelman will now at some point have to resolve all of these post-conviction motions.

unlikely he will grant any of them.

But what's going on here is it's setting up the appeal.

So presumably Judge Edelman will deny them.

He will then move to a sentencing proceeding, maybe sometime in the spring or summer of this year.

He will impose a sentence highly unlikely.

It will be any jail time.

And then, and only then will she have the right to appeal to the Southern Circuit Court of Appeals, where you can identify all of these issues again.

You don't get a new trial, but you can identify the errors made, allegedly made.

by the lower court and you can seek reversal.

I think there are some bases upon which the Seventh Circuit might look with great interest in this case, including these constitutional issues, including this instruction issue with respect that the two counts judge gave a different instruction for the two of them and resulted in a different result by the jury.

And if in fact, either one of those instructions was wrong, it could be that the case could be returned for a new trial.

So lots of things not yet resolved.

But again,

recent motions having to do with the authority of ICE agents to execute warrants based upon administrative authority as opposed to judicial authority.

I'm gonna take it off in a moment here take it off the the course for a second and I think I felt like I saw a story that said there was some sort of approval or some sort of

statement by whether it was DHS or the White House saying that they no longer even need warrants.

They can just do what they want.

And because the question was always administrative versus judicial, what you need to do your job.

And now it sounds like they just want to say, don't worry about words at all.

Just go.

You're fine.

You don't need that piece of paper.

It's meaningless.

This stunning, I think you're talking, Greg, appropriately about this stunning memorandum issued by somebody inside of Homeland Security number of months ago and plainly a part of the training such as it has been, if there's been any of these folks indicating, yeah, just the fourth amendment, it's an amendment to this number four.

So don't, don't regard it- And way down the list, Jim, way down the list.

Yeah, exactly.

So when it comes to private homes, you want to go in, it's not quite this flip, but it's pretty darn close.

Yeah.

Basically giving-

them authorizations that are not consistent with the law.

You need it.

The home is the privacy place at the top of the list.

You need a judicial warrant and determination by a judge says there's probable cause to believe there's criminal evidence in that location.

And you've got this memorandum that again, I think everybody at all sides has condemned this as not being an accurate statement of law.

But if you're an ICE agent and you're given this memorandum and told by your superiors or bosses who are doing whatever legal training, practical training you're getting, that you can go in and you don't need to regard the Fourth Amendment and you can do these things without a warrant, that's what you do.

And that is why we're seeing some of this, again, continuing.

absolutely catastrophic, illegal, inhumane conduct going on in Minneapolis.

If you're just joining us on Civic Media, mid mornings, we are talking to Jim Santel.

He's a former U.S.

attorney, current practice attorney and a host of amicus, a law review right here on the network, Saturdays at nine to 11.

And really, you know, that talk about this, maybe another time about the warrants itself.

It just, it feels like when you say there's no warrants needed, you're just

asking it to go to court because I feel like you are, you are violating the most history, American history 101 class teachings ever.

Like a young person in high school or middle school can say, I've always been told you need a warrant.

Why don't we need one?

Not like it just seems ridiculous on its face that they would even say, nah, you know, like they're trying to, like they're trying to seriously rewrite the constitution in real time without, you know, talking to the

People of America saying, hey, should we re-amend this amendment?

No, don't worry about it.

You don't need warrants.

Fourth Amendment's fine.

Just focus on the Second Amendment.

You're good.

Fourth Amendment.

What's even that about?

And even recently, of course, as the president and Kristi Noem and others have gotten themselves in a certain amount of political, if not legal, trouble about the Second Amendment, okay.

The president says, gosh, I wish these folks, in particular, the recent victim of shooting there did not have a gun.

Well what side of this do you want to be on then right the Supreme Court has said that yes indeed You have a right to carry a gun that was in the heller case and mr. President and others What what position are you taking with respect to second amendment?

And it seems as if to your point Greg it is very situational right if it suits your particular Description of how things have got to go then you embrace it if not

then you go in an opposite direction.

Everybody knows this is James Madison stuff.

Everybody knows you're free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

What does that word unreasonable mean?

Even if you don't understand what number it is, although I think we all do, basically it means that you need a warrant to go in.

And the fundamental stuff, whether it's on television or movies or this fine broadcast, others, everybody knows that apparently our government, again, just in these raw exercises of power, says,

We don't care.

And we're going to do what we want.

We're going to instruct people as we want.

That has been the mode.

And that's the reason why, as you and I have discussed for many, many months, we are in the constitutional crisis we are in.

When one branch of government simply says, we don't need to follow that, we don't need to do what federal judges are telling us to do, which is the other big story because coming out of Minneapolis, they've got all these judges quite literally pulling their metaphorical hair out because the government is not following what they're doing.

That just continues.

You have a government.

This is the constitutional crisis we talk about.

That's basically saying to federal judges, no.

And we're sending, we sent to Minneapolis, Tom Holman, the fellow who months ago very notoriously said, federal judges, huh?

What power do they

have?

That's the remedial authority that's now in Minneapolis.

He walked it back a little bit, but that's in addition for my taste.

I mean, it's surprising.

He was even allowed to walk it back.

And he's, any such, I mean, that's, that's not what they do.

And a couple of things too is one, he's brought into quote, I mean, this was, was, was the headline when he was brought in after Greg Bonjino, Bonvino, Bonvino, cause Bonjino was Dan Greg Bonvino was taken out, which is he's there to soften the message.

I'm like, he's not any softer and 700 ice agent still leaves 2000 in the street, still leaves a lot of questions.

And you brought up Heller.

I thought that was very interesting too.

Heller was a case that, that the gun lobby, like all of those folks who wanted to get rid of that restriction, they were salivating over that going through and getting passed and we're getting a decided on there, but on there in their favor.

And now they're speaking directly, I guess against it in a way to say, well, you know, maybe they shouldn't have those guns.

Like it's so confusing.

The things that are coming out of this situation.

And the worst thing is we've lost two people's lives because of it.

And so, yeah, we're going to be talking more about this in the coming weeks because this isn't going to go anywhere.

And especially the fact that, you know, they're right next door and who knows where it will go next.

I do feel like they are starting to feel the heat a little bit.

And I, while 700 troops, I keep on calling them troops, 700 ice agents.

It's not enough, but that's for me to talk about another time.

You don't have to get into that matter, but we're going to talk more about that, more about some other news stories coming out of the world law with Jim Santel, including a news from the Supreme court on this measure coming out of California to create five new congressional seats, which was, you know, indirect.

response to another state, but we'll talk more about that in a little bit, kind of widen out what the perspective is on.

And the fact that we've got a lot going on in the Supreme court, a lot of interesting decisions that are coming on our way this summer, but more with that on civic media, mid-morning with Jim Santel.

He is the host of amicus, a law review.

And you can always catch him here on Thursdays.

We're very happy to have you part of the show.

If you have any questions or comments, call 855-752-4842 855-757.

You can leave a comment on the live stream.

We are on Facebook, YouTube and the platform.

We still call Twitter, but still much more ahead with our guest, Jim Santel.

Don't go anywhere.

You're listening to us.

Stay tuned and stay close.

Welcome, welcome back to civic media.

Mid mornings.

You are listening to us, me, Calvin, sweet Cal B. You know, Calvin, I, I feel like I'm always not like good morning, Calvin.

How are you today?

He's getting his stuff on.

I'm

doing well, Greg.

There it is.

You

know, it's Thursday.

We're almost to the end of the week.

It's true.

Hopefully the weather abates soon.

Whoa.

The weather abates soon.

I love it.

That's

That's very good.

I like that.

I like that.

Well, he is on the ones and twos.

He is with us.

You are with us.

We appreciate you.

Appreciate you sharing your time this morning.

If you want to be part of the conversation, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five, civic leave a comment on the live stream.

We currently are streaming on Facebook, YouTube and the platform.

We still call Twitter still ahead.

We have Paul Noonan with sports, talking all things super bowls and Olympic and I think curling and bucks.

that it's, we're in that weird place where just, you know, if we didn't have the Olympics and the Super Bowl, we wouldn't talk about anything except for the bucks.

I don't even know if they're good, but a couple of things coming through here on the text line, Sue from Franklin says, he's just listening on WA UK said, are you still posting your shows?

Yes, we are Sue.

If you go to civicmedia.us slash shows, click that link and then scroll down and look for like the, you know, the.

Aaron's red son.

It says civic media mid morning.

That's us nine to 11.

You can find episodes there.

Uh, and I believe he want to listen back even further.

You can actually Google civic media matinee around here.

It'll take you that show page as well.

So you can go back and listen to the episodes.

You can do that.

If for anyone who might be missing, missing us live, you can go back and listen to episodes from everything about two months back and get yourself caught up.

You can always subscribe.

Um,

to the shows, like not subscribe, but like just go there and get all the episodes from all the shows that are out there.

But that's the way you do it.

Civic media.us slash shows.

He got caught up.

We are talking to Jim Santel.

He is the host of amicus, a law review.

He's also a former US attorney, current practicing attorney.

Oh, you can also watch the shows on the YouTube channel.

Thank you, Jenny.

She always lets me know.

Yes, the YouTube channel.

You can catch up on the actual program that we are recording that you can watch.

So you can see the awesome T-shirt and the very professional suit that Jim is wearing.

But, uh, we are talking about all the biggest stories coming out of the world of law right now.

We were discussing the updates in the Hannah Duggan case.

We have some calls on the line right now.

Cindy from Appleton is on the line.

Cindy, good morning.

What's going on?

Hey, Cindy.

Hello, Jim.

Well, first of all, what's going on in this country is an abomination.

It's an actual insult to us.

It's an insult to our laws, an insult to our Constitution.

And I am wondering that if we can get rid of the orange man, maybe with the no more November elections, would he eventually be able to be prosecuted along with his administration like the German people did when Hitler was part of their regime?

Would they be able to be prosecuted like a lot of those officials of Hitler?

Fascinating question, Cindy.

And the answer, of course, from me always is complicated, right?

There are at least two of them.

One is a general notion that when you think about the criminal law, typically federal and state cases have a five year statute of limitations.

And so if you have agents out there who are engaging in what could be described as murder by a state,

prosecutor, federal litigation prosecution less likely right now.

You've got five years to do it.

And so you and I can both count and you can obviously identify the notion that you could bring these lawsuits and the criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits, plainly, which are not subject to those same kinds of restrictions long after this administration is done.

The other piece of this Cindy that your question raises, however, is what John Roberts and the Supreme Court did to our nation.

changing the Constitution on July 1 of 2024, telling us what?

Telling us that a sitting president for acts committed in an official capacity that are criminal in nature.

Are not subject to criminal prosecution.

So a little bit more specific than that But that as we have said repeatedly for the past nearly coming up now on at least two years Is a not only a dramatic change in what the law has been in america But answer is your question as to donald trump himself The supreme court has said there's a huge amount of protection here And you can anticipate that even if after his administration there is another federal

or even a state attempt to prosecute, he will raise this issue.

It's United States versus Trump.

in which your Supreme Court said by a majority that, yes, indeed, there's one person in America who is indeed above the law, and that happens to be the president of the United States of America.

That is a catastrophic decision remains so, and it answers, at least in part, speculative though it is, what could happen down the road.

That's not a happy answer.

Everybody should be subject to the laws, but that's another reason why Cindy, as you started Calamity in America,

Calamity coming from the Supreme Court as well, as you appreciate fully.

And that's one aspect of this.

And I want to tag on something with that, you know, Jim is here to give the purview from the point of view of law.

This is where we have to hold our leaders accountable.

Those who come into office during this midterms, those who come into office post midterms, those who want to run whether they are Republican, Democrat, independent.

looking towards people who want to seek justice, they might have a hard hill to fight upon because of the Supreme Court ruling, but it doesn't mean it's impossible and it doesn't mean they are excused from pursuing this fight to hold those who have done the most damage accountable, whether it's the president, whether it's people from the cabinet, his high advisors, people in local state,

election, local state roles.

It's about having leaders who actually want to lead and seek justice for this country and its people.

So that is the thing we have to, as the electorate.

That is a responsibility for us to make sure that those people who want to run for those jobs say when they're running, I want to seek justice.

I will not back down.

I will not write a strongly worded letter or have a really good conversation in an office.

I will seek to the letter of the law with the best of my ability to find justice for the damage they've caused this country.

That is the non-legal thing.

That's me just spouting my opinion, but I think it's very, very important because we have a lot of quote leaders who are like, well, we can talk it out.

We can find out.

No.

No, we want results.

We want answers.

We want justice.

That's what we want.

We want more from you.

Dale, I see you on the phone.

Don't go anywhere.

If you can stick around, I'll take you at the other side after the news break.

I want to talk to you about what you want to discuss regarding the SAVE Act with Jim Santel, who is the host of Amicus, a law review.

He has our guest this morning for another few segments talking about all things from the world of law.

You can be part of the conversation 855-752-4842-855-75 civic.

Leave a comment on that live stream, Facebook, YouTube, the platform.

We still call Twitter, but more coming up after the news break.

Don't go anywhere.

Stay tuned.

Stay close.

Welcome, welcome back to civic media, mid mornings here on the civic media radio network.

My name is Greg Bach, your host, your buddy, your pal, your seeker of all things truth, justice and people's way, the human way, the right way, the cool way.

You're really cool.

You're cool for joining us, sharing your time with us here today.

We got one more hour with you still ahead.

Paul Noonan with sports.

He's a writer with the acne packing company.

He'll be talking about the Olympics.

He'll be talking about the bucks, maybe some curling updates as well.

as the super bowl.

Never heard of it, but I guess it's a big game where there's going to be a really cool halftime show.

I can't wait to watch that part.

But we're talking right now with Jim Santel.

He's the host of amicus, a law review.

He is here with us discussing all the major news coming out of the world of law.

If you want to be part of the conversation, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five.

Civic leave a comment on that live stream.

We are live streaming on Facebook, YouTube and the platform we still call Twitter.

And we are discussing, we were discussing before about, we were talking about the judge Hannah Duggan case.

We were talking about a small change to possibly the fourth amendment cause, you know, warrants who needs them.

But we've been getting into discussion about the matters of justice for those who seek to harm this country and its people.

And it's about standing up and demanding that our current and future leaders actually install the spine and do something about it because nobody is above the law.

I don't care what.

The president says, and I don't care what the Supreme Court says, nobody's above the law.

But we have Dale from Wausau on the line round right now.

He's been very, very patient.

Dale, you wanted to talk about a couple of things this morning.

Start with ICE.

Let's start with ICE here.

Hey, Dale.

Yeah.

Good morning, Jim.

And thanks for taking my call.

In regards to ICE, I think the reason for them wearing masks and no identification of them

is because a certain amount of them have outstanding warrants for their arrest because there is virtually no vetting of them for hire.

And the only other thing that I wanted to mention is there's legislation in the Senate that's being pushed by Senator John Thune to deny women the right to vote because their birth certificate name does not match their married name.

It has passed

in the House of Representatives from what I understand.

And all of these people in the House of Representatives that voted for this, I think their names, the names should be out there of who they are that voted to deny women the right to vote.

Yeah.

Thank you so much for calling Dale.

That is a bigger, very big issue.

Two things I want to say really quick, Dr. Lierly brought this up earlier this week and I spent, I've been seeing it more on social media.

These gentlemen who are these individuals, not just gentlemen, but these individuals who are on the street for ice are also seeing their paychecks not coming through and their bonuses not happening or their bonuses being taxed so hard, they're not getting as much money as they told me.

I think we're going to see a big fallout on this, on this department.

sooner than later because they are being sold a bill of goods on the matter of getting a gun, go and seek injustice, but they're not getting paid either.

And that was one of the big things is like $50,000 sign on bonus, big time pay, school forgiveness programs, things like that.

But we'll keep an eye on that matter for down the road.

But Jim, that's something I'm glad Dale brought it up.

And that's the save act that he is talking about.

And the save act seeks to redefine how voting can happen, how the processes you have to go through

with voting.

And earlier this week, we talked about the make elections great again bill that Wisconsin Congressman Brian Stiles been putting forth, which seeks to get rid of paper, make it all paper ballots, severely limit the amount of early voting.

They would also get rid of rank choice voting.

And, you know, I just have to ask, when you see all these things that are that are doing nothing but

setting up voter intimidation, voter suppression, and just making it more and more difficult to vote.

And the thing that Dale was talking about is that, you know, if your birth certificate says Jane Smith, but your married name is Jane Watson, and you don't have the proper paperwork, then they might be able to deny your ability to vote.

What do you say to all of that, Jim?

It is outrageous.

It's contrary, not only to the trends of America for the past 237 years, but also

it is denying people the franchise.

And it's all these things, whether it's the Stiles bill or the again, interestingly, the name of the SAVE Act, it's an acronym, Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, just the opposite, right?

All these things intended to, as you indicated, inhibit voting, to suppress voting, to make it more difficult to people to vote.

And that too should be a sign for anybody who's going to vote for elected officials who are advocating that.

Why is it

you don't want people to vote.

Don't want just the opposite.

I mean, among the other things, again, that Dale's identifying here, SAVE Act does in fact require for registration and other things, all kinds of problems here.

Married people have changed their names, got to come forward and produce evidence that in fact you are the person, which again, may or may not be on your driver's license.

All kinds of things related to registration, even eliminating mail registration, disrupting online registration.

voter purges and the one that has attracted my attention among all these others is also as someone who and many real listeners do the same thing.

We're also a part of the polling force and who provide support for polling on a regular basis.

There is a provision that would imprison election workers if in fact they

help to register somebody without the correct documents.

In basing criminal prosecution for arguably making an error or not making an error, that kind of thing also is going to send a message to all those people who might be interested in helping out saying, wait a minute.

I get this wrong, and sometimes, yes, people make mistakes.

It's very rare, but it can be corrected properly.

You make a mistake, and I'm being exposed to the possibility of criminal prosecution.

Talk about chilling.

the

what

we want, which is we want people to come in and support this process.

Everything about this is wrong.

I note simply again that we do have an opportunity, following up on what, what Cindy said in the last segment, you have an opportunity to stop this happening even during the course of the Trump administration.

We do have the election, which you've spoken about at great length, Greg.

in November, and if the United States population votes and sends a majority, it doesn't have to be Democrats, but thinking people to the United States House.

And also sends, again, a significant number to the Senate.

You can stop virtually all of this crazy legislation.

And you can basically stop the president, even though he remains the president, from many of these initiatives by conducting oversight, by passing resolutions.

He's not going to sign new legislation.

The legislative process will come to a halt if indeed you elect people who are thoughtful and caring about the future.

But that's the power that Americans have.

That's what you were just talking about.

about, the final thing I will say about that is to Cindy's point, you also have this power of impeachment.

If in fact you get enough people in the house, you need a simple majority to return articles of impeachment, you need this super majority.

That's right, it's 60 people in the Senate.

That seems like a big lift.

But under these present circumstances, if Americans send 60 or more senators who are concerned about the future of this nation,

you could present the possibility of impeaching and removing this president before his term is over.

I want to very quickly say a remote possibility, but that's the power that's existing right now.

And we'll see what happens in November.

And on top of the fact that he wants to nationalize the voting process, which Ron Johnson has come out and said he does not, he does not believe needs to happen, but that all presents.

to me, no more clear case than to be very aware of what's going on for this fall.

You know, Wisconsin, we're electing state senators.

We're electing assembly members.

We're electing a governor or Congress if they live in your district and you still have a voice.

You still have the ability as of this moment right now, I can't speak to a week or a month or a year down the road, but right now as it stands, you still have the ability to do this.

And as you said, Jim, this is not about electing great Democrats.

This is about electing smart.

people.

And that doesn't preclude anyone other than someone who wants to come and say, I need to, this is the work of the people.

So I could talk about this for, for decades.

But yeah, I just think it's so, so very important that people don't treat it like, well, it's just Trump being Trump.

No, this is how, this is how we got in the mess in the first place.

People thought Trump was being Trump.

And now he's going for a third impeachment, possibly.

I mean, he's, he's going to, he's going to have more impeachments than all the other presidents previous combined.

So

Eric in Milwaukee is on the call right now.

He's been very patient.

Eric, what do you say today this morning?

How are you doing?

Eric, how are you?

I'm good.

Thanks.

First of all, I want to say Dave Brubeck for bumper music is really cool.

Haven't heard that in a long time.

But this point that I did want to make is when the governor of Minnesota wall activated the guard in that state, is that something that the governor would have authority over the president or could Trump Trump that to make a bad pun?

Or if a governor thought that, you know, ICE was acting out of control, could they call them the National Guard and the president would not be able to stop that?

That's a great question, Eric.

That's a question I've been thinking about, too.

I'm glad you asked it because you were reminding me.

It's like, if governor walls invokes the Minnesota Guard, can Trump just come and say, nope, they're mine.

They are now nationalized.

They're under my controls.

Too bad, so sad.

How does that work?

Yeah, the very fact that we're talking about this Thursday morning underscores the absurdity and an Unconstitutional situation which we are in generally Eric you've got it.

Just right.

We've forgotten that the National Guard are they can be invoked by a governor That's what this fight is all about and the question up to now Which the Supreme Court is at least for a while put on the back burner and rebuffed is whether the president

can overturn and supersede the decision of the governor who says, no, we don't need to do this and force the National Guard in.

Again, the Supreme Court seems to be siding with governors on that.

The question, once again, we've not gone down this road, right?

And the image that comes to my mind is if we have a situation where the governor, whether it's walls or others around the country calls up the National Guard,

appropriately to protect the safety and security of our country.

And the president either tries to rescind that, which my own view is he doesn't have that authority.

It's not how it's done.

We'll run into court, figure that out.

But, you know, we could also have this situation where who are the National Guard then responding to?

They're responding to federal agents, right?

They're

responding to ICE and Border Patrol.

we're going to have law enforcement fighting law enforcement on the streets of america and again that may not be civil war with a capital c and a capital w that's when again uh true again we're already in crisis situation but true devolution of everything we've known no clear answers on that eric but

Again, courts will decide, but even the fact that we're talking about it is outrageous.

Not to suggest the question isn't a good one, but this is the president who's created that possibility of unconstitutional behavior and the possibility of warring, warring law enforcement forces on the streets of America.

It's the situation we're in that causes us to ask questions where you say, I can't believe I just asked that.

Why did I just, cause that's where we are in 2026.

We have to face situations which beg questions, which make us say 20 years ago, we would have said,

That's ridiculous.

That's a movie.

That's a movie.

We're talking about a bad movie right now We're not talking about America America has his false flaws problems a lot of things can be fixed in this country But one thing we're not talking about is the National Guard fighting

with the local police fighting with this group, with that group.

But like that's a, that's a bad movie that I wouldn't see, but that's where we're at right now.

And it begs the question, no matter how ridiculous, anytime you think of questions, ridiculous folks, you go, that's 2026.

What are we going to do?

We got to find an answer.

So more to come with Jim Santel on the other side of the break.

We're going to talk about important news coming out of the Supreme court and California's

journey to protect the American people.

Don't go anywhere.

If you have any questions, give us a call 855-752-4842-855-755.

Civic, leave a comment in the live stream.

If you're not joining us there, live streams on Facebook, YouTube and the platform, we still call Twitter.

Civic Media, mid mornings.

My name is Greg Box.

Stay tuned.

Stay informed and stay close.

Welcome, welcome back to civic media mid mornings.

My name is Greg Bach, your host, your buddy, your pal, your knower of all things dorky music trivia.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, you're not listening to the live stream, which is on Facebook, YouTube and the platform.

We still call Twitter.

You can always watch that show.

Again, if you, if you miss it live, you can go to our YouTube channel where you can see all the archives of our shows, see what we're talking about, see the cool clothing I'm wearing that I bought in Memphis at the studio.

Cause I'm awesome.

But yeah, we are talking to Jim Santel right now.

If you want to be part of the conversation over the phone or texts from the same number, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five civic.

That comment also, yeah.

Leave a comment on the live stream if you'd like.

We are talking about all the major news coming out of the world of law.

Cornell from Merrill is on the phone right now.

Cornell, good morning.

What do you say?

I hear you want to talk about the 10th Amendment.

Yeah, correct.

Thanks, Jim, for the great show, Amicus.

I enjoy your expertise.

Yeah, well, the 10th Amendment, I've been studying it, and the 10th Amendment was enacted in 1791.

and it says equal power that the state has equal power next to the federal government because they put that in there so the federal government doesn't overreach the states and it's supposed to protect the people and even the judge that she has that power of equal power to protect the state and the people.

Thank you so much for the call.

We really appreciate that.

I mean, what do you say to that, Jim?

I mean, you know, my understanding of the, of the 10th amendment is that, which is not enumerated by the, the, the, the federal government is sent to the States to take care of themselves.

But how, I mean, what kind of 10th amendment fight are we talking about right now?

Right, so both you and Cornell this morning get a pluses in our civics course Which is this radio program because you got it just right and again to be a little silly for a moment Those people who would poo poo the very important notion that you've described the Cornellist described would say oh, it's just it's just another amendment right he got the fourth amendment and this one was the 10th amendment was passed by the first Congress right yeah, but not to be silly about this at all it relates to exactly the things we're talking about in Minneapolis it is

It's animating the discussion about Judge Dugan's situation.

And we do have this thing called the supremacy clause.

And it's also out there that says, yes, the federal government, when there are conflicts, when there are issues that are exclusively federal.

that federal law supersedes and overcomes state law, but to the point that you just made so well based upon your eighth grade civics class, the teacher taught you well, the notion that if there are things in the Constitution that are not specifically set forth, they reserve where to the states.

And that includes, by the way, Mr. President, to tie all of these things together to elections, right?

That's not the 10th Amendment, but it's another portion of the Constitution.

It's also a time, place, and circumstances.

of federal elections are handled where?

By the states.

Again, all these things, representations of our founding fathers wanting to ensure that the states, as Cornell just said, not only have power, but have the appropriate authorities reserved to them to handle their matters.

What does that include?

That includes things like law enforcement, making decisions about their own, even financial status and commercial issues.

And so we have state legislatures, independent of the federal government.

This president in so many ways wants to run roughshod over that and maintain that he has got complete authority with respect to anything.

And I don't think that's hyperbole.

He is going down that road.

The 10th Amendment, it should be one of those blocks.

Federal courts are saying that to him you can't do this you've gone too far But it requires people like Cornell and you and others on this program to stand up and say that's not That's not contemplated by the Constitution the 10th Amendment protects the states and their capacities to work

Yeah, as co equal branches of government doing different things related, but different things in their different venues and jurisdictions.

That's the beauty of our system.

Again, it's been around for 237 years or so.

We'll see if it lasts.

I think to reiterate the point too, for Cornell, for myself or all, it's those things we need to stand up and say, this isn't right.

And then when we look at those leaders again, who are either running for the job again, or trying to take the seat, you better understand that.

for the future, because we cannot do this again.

This cannot happen again.

We need leaders with spines, with minds, and people who are willing to seek justice on behalf of those who put them in the positions in the first place.

Jim, we have like, seriously, just a few moments left.

Really quick, your thoughts on California, the Supreme Court allowing California to add five more seats to their state, which would probably favor Democrats.

Thoughts really quick.

Exactly.

This is another of the emergency applications.

This one comes from the California Republican Party, upset by what California has done, and a federal court, again, had permitted them to go forward.

Supreme Court, without decision, without explanation, without reasoning, basically says, no, we're not going to overturn that.

It stays in place for the future, and presumably for the upcoming elections, huge.

Again in connection with what happened in Texas.

Yes same kind of thing back in December the Supreme Court said we're not going to overturn those Reline realignments and those seats so the same reasoning presumably applies in Texas as it does in California Supreme Court basically saying we're not getting involved in this political stuff and at least for today the governor of California and others are Celebrating a victory that says yes, we can in fact go ahead with these new seats the people of California

California adopted by this major referendum, this initiative in 2025.

It's huge.

I wonder if the California Republicans are mad at the Texas Republicans at all for doing the same thing.

I'm just, I'm just, I'm just asking questions here, Jim.

Just trying to find things

out, Jim.

I'm not trying to be a troublemaker, Jim.

Speaking

of.

Jim Santel, he has been our guest this morning.

He's been here.

We've had you for, for an hour and I can still talk to you for another two hours,

but we'll speak

sooner than later.

Amicus, the law review is on every Saturday from nine to 11 here on the civic media radio network, catch it.

It's a mini law class every single time.

I think if you ask Jean from Eau Claire, he's on episode 185, I think might be, but check that out.

He's always here.

We love having around Jim.

Have a wonderful, wonderful weekend.

We'll talk to you soon, my friend.

I'm going to be with you and your listeners.

Great questions, great insight.

As we work to preserve America.

While

we're preserving America, I want you to preserve your health.

Go grab a snack, grab some water, stay hydrated, come on back.

When we return, we're talking to acne company writer Paul Noonan about all things sports.

You like the Olympic?

You like the Super Bowls?

Do you enjoy the Bucks?

We're talking about all those things this morning.

Don't go anywhere.

Civic media, mid mornings.

Stay tuned.

Stay close.

Welcome, welcome back to civic media mid mornings.

My name is Greg Bach.

I am your host, your buddy, your pal, your fan of all things 80s hair metal.

If you're not hearing this right now on the, on the replay version that we're listening to the seminal eighties ban Europe and the greatest of one hit that was the final countdown here on the show provided to us by sweet Cal B on the boards on the ones and twos.

You are here with us sharing your time.

We appreciate you.

If you want to be part of the conversation, you can always call or text.

It's the number.

It's the same 855-752-4842-855-75.

Civic, leave a comment on the live stream.

We are streaming on Facebook, YouTube, and the platform.

We still call Twitter.

Want to remind everybody that if you can't catch the show live, you can always go to Civic Media's YouTube page and watch our show back.

You can watch it back even if you listened before.

Cause you're like, I gotta hear what Greg said.

I gotta hear that really dumb thing that Greg said.

I'm gonna make fun of him on social media cause people have actually done that.

And that's fine.

You're here, you're giving me your time and I appreciate you.

More still ahead, we've got a handy tip from Greg.

I'm giving a very, very simple tip to a guy running for governor in Florida on how to capture, not capture, like in a van, haha, candy, but like find new voters.

It's not the way you think you should do it, but this is for a gentleman in Florida.

who's running for their seat for governor.

But right now it's Thursday.

It's a little after 1030, which means one thing and one thing only.

We're getting to the thing that I know so much about that is sports.

I'm just kidding.

I know some things, but not enough.

That's why we bring on one of our sports gurus.

And this week it is ACME packing company writer, Mr. Paul Noonan.

Good morning, Paul.

He's coming to us live from an undisclosed location where there is

a window with city.

He is in city America.

Good morning, Paul.

How are you today?

Yep.

I'm doing great.

How are you?

I am doing peachy keen.

There's, all right.

By the way, this is, I am in the Sears tower.

That is where I

am.

Oh, you're in the Willis tower, huh?

You're in that big tower that is it?

Is it?

Okay.

Okay.

Really quick here.

So my wife lived in Chicago for 10 years.

She's still her heart's very deeply in Chicago.

Her mother is from lived in Chicago for a long time.

Um, and I, okay, I'll admit it.

When we drive through Chicago, I always will just, and there'll be a long pause and I'll go, hey, look, the Willis Tower.

And she'll get very upset with me because when it comes to annoying my wife, I go for the small things.

I'm not gonna be a jerk, but I'm gonna say those things here and make her go, I don't know why I ever hang out with you at all, but I always say the Willis Tower.

Now, the question I have for you, because you're a journalist and you know things,

Does that building currently actually have a name at this point?

Because I felt like it was the Sears Tower and then it became the Willis Tower and then Willis went away.

Is it just that big building in Chicago?

The official title, it is still the Willis Tower.

Willis does actually still have a offices in the

building.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's

what it is.

That's the official name.

Yeah.

No one calls it that, but that is the official

name.

Uh, I call it that.

And I love it so much.

So much.

It makes people, it makes people so ridiculously upset for no reason.

It's like when you're like, Hey man, this hot dog could use ketchup, but we're moving on.

Uh, talking about sports, talking, this is, this is a very weird point in Wisconsin sports because we don't have packers, brewers aren't reporting yet.

And the bucks aren't doing great, but there is news because the bucks.

pulled off a, as you put it, ridiculous victory last night?

Yes.

So the Bucks played the Pelicans last night who are terrible.

And one reason I like coming on your show is because it forces me to watch the Bucks.

And the Bucks are often not a good watch, but I feel like I catch the good stuff, honestly.

So this was an overtime victory, Yanis.

Didn't play has been playing for a while, but it was crazy because the bucks had a huge lead at the end of regulation and let train Murphy the third Who the third is good for him because he only is good at shooting three pointers just ripped off like like six threes in a row mostly uncontested ended up tying up the game went to overtime and The bucks at the end of regulation let Murphy have a wide open three that he

Somehow missed

so

people were making fun of them online for it.

They did win the game, which is good It was like 140.

I haven't pulled up in it.

It was 141 to 137 That's the kind of game it was and a lot of those 41 and 37 points were in like the last three minutes plus overtime of the game It was a bonkers game.

No defense was played by anyone which

The polygons are 13 and 40.

One of the few teams in the

league is vastly worse than the

muster.

That is what?

Yes, they're awful.

They're a terrible team.

That's how the Bucks get wins these days.

They skate by awful teams.

Without Yanis, that's what they are.

So that is what they did.

And it was a very entertaining, but terrible basketball game.

But you can still have fun with a rough team sometime.

Okay.

Okay.

You know, before I say anything, cause all of mine is speculation coming from a point of view that knows barely anything about basketball.

It's all like, when I say logic, I'm not trying to be insulting either.

I'm just trying to put the pieces together to understand why teams do what they do.

Calvin, what are your thoughts?

Like this isn't like, I feel like last week I'm hearing the same thing.

They, they, they, they lost to the Washington wizards and the wizards are terrible too.

Like they're

Not they just can't get it together.

What are your thoughts Calvin?

Well

The patented Calvin well, I Don't think they're in full tank mode That being said I definitely

sounds like they're in half tank mode.

They're in what I would call pack it in mode like Don't overextend yourself anyone who's injured gets put on the bench if you're if you're down by a lot you

pull all the starters and just let the bench play.

You don't try to come back.

Like whether Yanis remains on the team after three PM or not, the buck season is kind of over and it needs to be over in order to have a shot at a player that's going to make a difference next

year.

So that's where, okay.

So really quick.

If the, okay.

Where do you see two, two quit?

answer this question and then go right into the trade deadline that's happening at three PM Eastern time today is what is the fate then of Doc Rivers?

Because I feel like this Doc Rivers experiment that I've been hearing him talk, I feel like it's just, it feels like they need a wholesale change in this team, clear the decks, the mother of all rebuilding because it went from a championship team to this.

And I can't believe it's just the players.

I just don't feel like Doc Rivers has it in him to really coach this team all the way through.

Yeah, um doc is well here's the thing it is mostly the players Yeah, it honestly is age comes for everybody

This is not the Bucks team that won, not even close to the Bucks team that won the title.

Yannis isn't playing and hasn't for a while.

I don't think Doc's a good coach.

I think that's pretty independent from everything else that's going on.

I don't think that Phil Jackson could win with the current Bucks roster without Yannis on the court.

But he's not a good coach.

The reason they have Doc is because they screwed up the post-Budenhalzer era of coaching.

selection so badly that they kind of had to grab a guy who's just like, oh, the base level of NBA competence, which is what Doc Rivers is.

So like, they do need to get rid of him and move on.

But one of the problems the Bucks have is they haven't made a lot of good decisions in like 40 years.

They've gotten a lot wrong, coaches, signing like

Not all their faults.

I think Lillard was still a theoretically okay idea when they did it, but tear down everything at this point.

They're not going to do anything.

I don't think they'll do this at the deadline.

They could try to add a minor piece and eke their way into the last playoff spot.

I don't think

that's a good idea, but they're close enough that it's something they could theoretically do if Yanis can come back and play, but I think Calvin's right.

There's already some noise out there on the internet that they're, if they don't trade them by the deadline, they're going to shut them down for the rest of the year.

And just make sure his health is preserved as an asset to trade in the off season.

And that's probably where they are right now.

That's really disappointing.

I mean, it's not the first or last time it's going to happen.

It just seems very disappointing.

And honestly, like as a non basketball fan, when I hear these stories,

No, no offense to the people in the organization, but they're very well paid.

They're going to be fine.

I care about the fans because, you know, this, this team means so much to them and to, and to see it go the way it's been going.

I just feel so bad for folks who really enjoy and you know, I mean, yeah, of course, who doesn't want to ring, but like just.

at least a few years of residue of good playoff seasons after the championship to feel like, Oh, we could still do this.

But it just like came down so hard that yeah, I just feel bad for him.

And I want, I, that's kind of where I'm as like, it's like, whole-tail change, clear the deck, start over.

And maybe in two to five years, there's something there, but we'll have to see where it goes after the trade deadline.

And I'm sure that we'll be talking about it in the future.

So this Sunday.

A a fabulous concert by Bad Bunny is going to be on the television neatly sandwiched between 30 minutes of football that will take somehow nine hours to play.

The Super Bowl is coming.

Are you remotely excited about the teams playing or is it just about the spectacle of it all?

This is not the best matchup.

I've actually had a hard time getting myself excited about it could be worse Yeah had Denver gotten in instead of New England.

This would have been an all-time bad Super Bowl Seattle actually tends to find themselves in those with some regularity Yeah, but at least Drake may as an elite quarterback for the Patriots.

It makes this somewhat interesting the only

the only guy who's managed to put up any good offense against Seattle's defense leaders, Matthew Stafford.

And the Rams almost got by them to get to the Super Bowl again.

But it takes sort of the elite tier guy to do anything.

But I think Seattle probably rolls them in this game without too much trouble.

Seattle has a truly elite defense.

I know nobody pays attention to them because they're out West and they're kind of boring.

Well, they're also not one of the names.

They're not.

If you

want a good storyline in this game, it's fun to make fun of the Vikings.

And the Vikings had Sam Darnold last year, as their quarterback, and they let him go to develop JJ McCarthy instead.

And now Sam Darnold is in the Super Bowl, and he's in the Super Bowl with a team that is very much like the Vikings.

A team with an elite defense, one good receiver.

It's Jackson Smith by this year.

It was Justin Jefferson on the Vikings.

Likely to get it done and that could that could be Minnesota could have been Minnesota this year and instead they they screwed that up That's a fun little storyline But more than anything Drake may is great quarterback, but he doesn't have a great wide receiving court.

It's kind of all him He takes a lot of sacks He does he's a good runner and that's kind of what preserved him the last few games on the AFC side, but

He's got small hands.

And because he has small hands, we track everything, man.

Everything.

Because he has small hands.

He hates tomatoes too, Drake May, awful.

He takes a lot of sacks and he runs a lot and he gets

hit a

lot and he fumbles a lot.

And

Seattle hits quarterbacks more than anybody else.

They're a great, great defense.

They're healthy.

And to win this game, Patriots are going to need Darnell to throw like four picks

and

not fumble.

That's all they got.

I think it's really funny that right now when I hear people talking about the Super Bowl, at least in my circles, because we're not, you know, it's bad bunny and whose owner is the is the better billionaire in the world.

Like that's the thing I keep on hearing like, oh, you guys really don't care about this at all.

It's just this is about nachos and a halftime show that is going to anger a lot of people and make a lot of other people happy.

So

thank God that we have our publicly owned football team in this state and don't have to worry about the fact that five NFL owners show up in the Epstein files.

Oh my

God.

Oh, okay.

Wow.

Well, we're, that's it.

All right.

Paul Newton is our guest here this morning talking all things sports.

Paul, I gotta have you on someday, not talking about sports.

I feel like you have a lot of other order or maybe like

not politics and sports, but like not deep dive analysis, because I feel like there's a lot of opinions there.

We've have not cracked into it.

I want to hear them from you, but Paul is a writer for the Acme packing company.

Check out his work.

His link will be on the show notes.

When we come back, a handy tip from Greg, we're talking to a politician in Florida who wants to be a governor and why, where he's looking for voters is not a good idea, but don't go anywhere.

We're still got lots of show ahead.

Civic Morty.

media mid morning here.

My name is Greg Bach.

Stay tuned and stay close.

Have a good day, Paul.

Later guys.

Welcome.

Welcome back to civic media.

Mid mornings here on the civic media radio network.

My name is Greg Bach.

I am your host, your buddy, your pal, your friend and confidant.

You can tell me secrets.

I won't tell anyone.

I won't even tell Debbie down the hall.

She tells every all the secrets.

So I won't tell her, but you are with us today.

I am appreciating your time.

Always appreciating your time if you want to be part of the conversation 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 8 5 5 7 5 civic leave a comment on that live stream after the 11 o'clock news We have Tom Hartman on from 11 to 2 so don't go anywhere lots of programming still ahead check out the civic media app Excuse me at the cough right there and my cough button See what happened right there folks is I started coughing I press my cough button Excuse me

Wow there, okay Kelvin.

What happened right there?

Did this just happen?

Yeah,

this just happened.