You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime,
I'm Brian Noodle.
We're glad you're here.
We'll see if we can make it because we know.
Even though it's Wednesday, there's so much more that's going to come out this week.
And we're going to cover it all.
We're glad you're here.
A lot to talk about today.
But the big news to start off with is, and we've touched on this.
We touched on it yesterday.
We touched on it before.
The Clintons have agreed.
to appear for depositions in the Epstein probe.
This means there will be no contempt vote, holding them in contempt.
They've set dates.
Jamie, this is big news.
And the Clintons, even though Bill Clinton has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he was in some pictures with Jeffrey Epstein.
So is the
So are a lot of people.
And this is...
Right.
And I'm going to, you know, this is another, sometimes arguments can be simplistic because that's the way a lot of people understand it.
Right.
You know, there have been a lot of defenders of keeping the Epstein files closed going, well,
Bill Clinton was in there, Democrats, what are you gonna do?
I'll tell you what we do.
If he's proven guilty of anything, we put him in jail.
That's what we do.
Absolutely, absolutely.
So, yeah, when are they going to speak to Congress?
But Chairman James Comer says that Hillary Clinton will testify on February 26th.
Bill Clinton will testify on February 27th.
Comer says that this agreement is a win for transparency and accountability after months of back and forth that included threats of contempt of votes in the...
What I would say is that this is a win for transparency and accountability if all of the other people, the president, Howard Lutnick, maybe Elon Musk, were all also trotted out and given the same treatment and also made to testify and have the same basically process given to them that the Clintons have.
And
There is still disagreements over how these depositions will actually be handled.
Republicans say the testimony will take place behind closed doors as standard committee depositions.
The Clinton's team meanwhile insists that this testimony should be public and says that they're fine with the cameras rolling.
Let's listen to cut one.
This was James Comer what he had to say yesterday.
Look, it could set a precedent.
I think one of the things that we're talking about today, the video, the deposition will be videoed, that was never a thing until the Democrats set a precedent to video the January 6th deposition.
So now there's a precedent to do videos.
This isn't about helping President Trump.
This isn't about protecting President Trump.
This is about doing Tuesdays what we've said all along, getting the truth to the American people about what happened.
with the whole Epstein saga.
And secondly, how did the government fail the victims?
That's the purpose of the whole investigation.
And it's bipartisan.
And hopefully the Clintons will hopefully have some information that'll be helpful to us getting answers.
First of all, it's precedent and setting precedence.
Learn the words.
Very simple.
A couple of letters.
I know it sounds petty, but it is.
And also, what?
Right, what do you mean?
We're getting to the bottom of this investigation.
You're bringing in one person who hasn't been accused of anything who is begging you to do this in public Begging you and you are saying no so it is Obviously about protecting someone it is
You heard Comer mention these video recorded depositions when he was talking there.
The subpoenas themselves explicitly allow for those video recorded depositions, even though House rules don't require them to be open hearings.
Location right now is also unresolved with the Clintons pushing for New York City rather than Washington.
I mean, that's where they live.
They're a little bit
older.
showing up,
done
wish the GOP would look more toward the future and less toward the past because they live in an era of blame the past instead of let's move toward the future and let's listen to our constituents and do what's best for the country.
No, we have to find a scapegoat for everything that we have done wrong in our administrations and it's tiring.
It's just take some responsibility on your own.
It's exhausting.
Yeah, just stop.
of
And I
in
Again, I know I was a grammar Nazi with him, but I also think he doesn't quite understand...
the word transparency.
So a lot of people get to hire echelons of government without really having a basic grasp of the English language, which is terrifying.
But the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee is actually pushing for this and saying, yes, public hearings and letting the Clintons do this in open court, basically, is good for the American people.
And I think that's true.
We see a good chunk of the American people even when the January 6 hearings were televised still didn't believe them Still thought it was all a witch hunt or
a hoax
or whatever whatever adjective you want to put on it So yes, I think it's good It's always good to watch the people testify because then you're not getting a spin from either their people news people anything it's Here we watch the we watch the officials ask them a question
They answered it, now you've heard it, you decide what you think.
And we've kind of seen this play out before where they want testimony in private and then they selectively release only what they want after the Republican majority has time to really frame it, spin it, decide what narrative best serves them at this particular time.
And we actually saw that play out just a few weeks ago with Jack Smith and his testimony, right?
So this is the same movie.
It's like Groundhog Day.
We've seen it before.
The
believe that the Clintons are
Well, that's the same question you could have with the Epstein files other than redacting the victim's names and anything that identifies the victims.
Why so much redaction right that's that's their game plan and this is just another form of redaction keeping the keeping everything behind closed doors it it doesn't most people who You know watch TV and movies they see these legal things and we all think well if you've got nothing to hide Why don't you just testify?
Now, in court, and I've talked to attorneys about this, they say, well, that's not always the best way if you're on trial.
If you're on trial for murder, Jamie, they don't want you testifying.
So just keep that in mind.
I will.
I
Again, I'm not an attorney, so my advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.
If you're not hiding something, if you truly want to be transparent, you need to release everything.
You need to let people hear the testimony.
Because this isn't going away just on the Democratic side.
No.
This is not going away ever.
Yeah.
And if it turns out that all of these allegations are founded and you've been covering this up, you're going down too.
I mean, that's just it.
Even if they're idols, it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum they're on.
If it embroils celebrities, whatever it is, if you are guilty of these crimes, you need to be prosecuted.
And really what's happening right now with the Republicans, there's no, the lack of transparency isn't surprising.
To me, it's actually more telling because they don't want truth.
They don't actually want oversight about this.
All they want is the control.
They want to control the timing.
They want to control the messaging.
They want to
control the headlines, and this is a tale as old as time with this particular party.
We could go all the way back to the Benghazi trials, if we wanted to, with Hillary Clinton, to see the same story play out over and over.
This is nothing new.
It's this type of sham proceedings that we see over and over from the GOP in Washington, unfortunately.
And if we go back even farther, you go back to Watergate, and then you look at the role the press had
in uncovering this and really digging in and questing authority and holding people's feet to the fire.
And that has changed which...
Leads us into what you're going to be talking what we've got on tap after the break because we see from the president belittling Caitlin Collins repeatedly in the Oval Office and no other journalist standing up.
We do see some good reporting, some investigative reporting, but with the amalgamation of ownership in the press and...
Everybody independent journalism
We're not and no you're right We have a really important guest who's gonna join us in just a few moments His name is Seth Stern and he is from the Freedom of Press Foundation because obviously as we talk about independent journalism and we talk about these these hearings these public records become more and more
important, especially right now.
And so Seth is going to discuss with us a little bit about Don Lemon and the arrest and what this particularly, particularly means for journalism going forward because you're right, journalism right now.
I've been in journalism a long time, Brian.
And I've had a lot of friends who have been in journalists for a long time.
I've been in newsrooms and this is not like anything I've ever witnessed or grew up in and it's a little mind-boggling to be with the lack of...
Push back, and I don't know if you know, but female reporters are now supposed to smile.
That's what the president told them yesterday.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.
You're listening to Civic Media Mornings on the Civic Media Radio Network.
My name is Jamie Martenson.
And over the last few months, I'll say months because this Trump administration has taken their anger and their aggression out on the press.
And we've seen that happen in multiple ways from different things that they have said.
And most recently to the arrest of Don Lemon for being in a church during a protest.
And we wanted to answer some of the
questions surrounding that arrest and what that could possibly mean for journalism in this country.
Because as we all know, journalists are protected under the First Amendment.
We've got just the guy to explain some of this to us this morning.
His name is Seth Stern.
He is the Chief of Advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
And at one point in time, he also worked as a media and First Amendment lawyer.
So, Seth, good morning and thank you so much for joining us today.
Great to be here.
So we want to clear up some of these misconceptions and maybe from a legal standpoint, you can tell us what actually happened with this Don Lemon case.
What immediately stands out to you first and foremost about the arrest of Don Lemon for being in a church?
First of all, let me ask, is that essentially what it was?
Was he in a church just being a journalist?
He wasn't even protesting.
So what stands out at that point to you?
Right.
He followed protesters into a church.
He was not one of the protesters.
He was there to document a protest that clearly is newsworthy.
The reason that the protest targeted that church is that the pastor there was a higher up in ice.
We're talking about Minneapolis.
There's every reason why a higher up in ICE would be the subject of protest in Minneapolis.
But what really jumped out to me about this is the fact that they pursued Lemon and also Georgia Ford, another independent journalist who was arrested.
More recently, it sounds like Lemon's producer might have also been arrested.
They pursued them.
not only by applying with one judge and then appealing after that judge declined to authorize the arrest, but seeking a grand jury indictment a week later.
Normally when you see journalists arrested covering protests, it's a situation where there's a chaotic scene, tempers are high,
Journalists are sort of looped in with protesters when cops are arresting everyone.
They're accused of trespassing or obstruction or some...
relatively petty state-level misdemeanor, oftentimes they are released without being booked, or if they are charged, the charges are pretty quickly dropped.
Because prosecutors wise up, cooler heads prevail, everyone realizes it is not in the public's interest for us to spend.
our time in taxpayer money prosecuting journalists.
It will have a chilling effect on journalism if journalists believe that they're going to get arrested for doing their jobs, even if we could technically fit their conduct into some element of, with the elements of a recognized offense trespass or whatever it may be.
Here you've got a situation where it's sort of
Instead of looking for reasons not to prosecute journalists, only doing so as a last resort because of the importance of news gathering to our democracy, you've got an administration that is looking for any kind of gotcha claim it can find to go after journalists.
You know, someone is burning the midnight oil, figuring out that this law exists that makes it a federal offense.
to interfere with a religious observance.
Now under that law, nothing Lemon did would constitute a violation.
One, the law requires intent, Lemon's criminal intent.
Lemon's only intent was to document news.
And Georgia Ford's only intent was to document news.
The kind of interference that it contemplates physical obstruction, threats of harm, threats of physical harm,
things that nobody on the scene did.
And we're talking with Seth Stern.
He's the chief of advocacy for the freedom of the press foundation.
And you mentioned the chilling effects that this will have on journalists.
How does this change?
I've worked in journalism.
I've worked in a newsroom.
How does this change how journalists will start approaching major news stories, especially the real time on the ground if they think that this is a ramification of doing their job?
Right.
Well, of course, the prospect of getting arrested at some level, no matter how courageous and bold someone is as a journalist, having that in the back of your head is going to impact your decision making.
It will have different impacts for different people.
I can't predict across the board.
how it will affect all journalists, but just like Trump's slap suit, strategic lawsuits against public participation, that's a legal acronym, his frivolous lawsuits that he files in retaliation for journalism, he doesn't like.
It has an impact.
It makes people be a little bit more careful.
It makes them think twice.
I don't think that
Journalist journalism is just going to roll over and die but it is going to have some incremental impact and I would encourage journalists who have the impulse to self-censor to remember that this is not your traditional Department of Justice that only brings really solid cases and has a 90-something percent conviction rate.
These guys bring a bunch of bogus cases and lose all the time.
because they're not looking to bring meritorious prosecutions.
They're looking to make headlines and intimidate people.
And I guess to wrap up today, I would ask the question, what should we as the public be doing to demand more, I guess, from this administration?
Because we need fair news.
We need to see that play out.
So what should we be demanding right now from this administration to make sure these things don't continue to happen?
Well, we've seen that public pressure does work.
We saw what happened in Minneapolis.
We saw what happened with the Jimmy Kimmel cancellation.
Unfortunately, people do tend to react more so to these moments when there is a recognized name, a Jimmy Kimmel or a Don Lemon involved.
Then they do to the day-to-day harassment of independent journalists.
or just sort of of corporations that offend Trump.
So I think we need to use this moment as a tipping point and speak out and be vocal and let the administration know, despite the struggles of the news industry, the American public still cares about its
Thank you so much.
Sester and the Chief of Advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, you're listening to Civic Media Morning.
635 right now.
We hope you are having a great start to your morning.
And if you are listening in Oshkosh or Appleton on W-I-S-S, thank you for having us on or maybe even in Richland Center on W-R-C-E.
We're also glad that you are joining the program this morning.
Remember, if you have comments or, you know, you just like to chat this morning, say hi.
1-855-752.
Small
not true.
It's not
They're struggling.
It's true.
It's true.
All right.
school for
All right now you remember just a couple years ago and by a couple years ago I mean last year the Wisconsin Supreme Court race and Elon Musk pumping in untold millions it was told but it was a lot and he thought he would buy the race that there would be a Republican elected the Supreme Court that did not happen well guess what there's another Supreme Court race and the money is
Pouring in again not to the extent yet of the last one, but
it's a
And you mentioned Elon Musk.
Just to remind everybody how expensive that race was, the most expensive race basically in history, just over $100 million to as high as $144 million.
And that wasn't just the Republican candidates.
That also was in support of Judge Susan Crawford.
Brad actually, Susan Crawford.
spent over 40 million on her race.
And Brad Schimmel, if you remember Brad being in that race, he was supported by nearly $50 million.
And then there was an additional 30 million that went toward petition efforts that were tied to the race.
Much of that was affiliated with groups.
You know, that kind of associated and had Elon Musk's name attached.
But we don't talk about those things.
But you're right.
The money here in Wisconsin is starting to come in at a pretty rapid pace, I should say.
And it turns out that...
Judge Chris Taylor is vastly out raising Maria Lazar at this particular point.
In fact, Judge Taylor has already raised more than two and a half million dollars, about 10 times what conservative Judge Maria Lazar has brought in so far.
And in Wisconsin,
even if you're a money out of politics person, which I am, because I think it's unfair for both sides to have that kind of spending advantage.
And who wants their elections bought?
Let's be real.
But the advantage
It's crazy.
But in a state where recent spring elections have reshaped the courts, liberals already have a 4-3 majority.
If Taylor wins, obviously that would be their fourth straight Supreme Court victory in just a few years.
The contrast in support, though, right now is pretty stark, Brian, because Taylor's campaign is powered by thousands of small dollar donors.
In fact, their camp is reporting that they have about 11,000 small dollar donors, which are making up about 80% of Chris Taylor's coffers right now, which
is,
has
raised more overall money from Wisconsin donors than Lazar, despite also drawing some national support.
Taylor also uses consultants at a much lower rate, though, than Lazar is.
Lazar's campaign is very consultant driven.
About 90% of her expenditure
are currently going to consultants.
For Chris Taylor, it's only about 28% of her money going towards consultants.
So it's kind of like when you try to be a real human being with actual principles, you don't need people to polish you up quite so much.
Just pointing out some things this morning.
It's fine, it's fine.
He ran big statewide campaigns.
I saw the inside of campaigns.
It is a nasty business.
It's not how you want the government to run.
It's not how you want the people who are going to represent you to be elected.
But that's what we have.
Yes, taking money out of it would change it.
If you look at just these two cases that you're citing here,
You could you can out raise if you're a good candidate you can out raise your opponent just with regular folks Yeah, you know you don't need you don't need so much and maybe you do maybe I'm naive all this money for a Supreme Court race on television and radio ads and all this stuff and Consultants it's like just Be a good candidate right tell people tell people who you are.
Yeah, and I know that sounds very
Pollyanna, but it's it's not isn't that what we want because there's a there's a race for Cook County president
going on
politics and using outside
This is not just a democratic thing.
This is not just a Republican thing.
It's happening on both sides.
I find it interesting because
Money in politics, we can have this big debate, but it's really how we got to where we are right now, right?
By having too many big level donors.
And too often it feels like our representatives are being chosen by the wealthy and not by the people they're supposed to represent.
Which is why I am fascinated and also enlightened to see that most of Chris Taylor's funding is coming from regular people.
Regular people who might actually want to see her make a decision,
for their best interest on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
And that gives me hope, honestly.
It really does, because it means that people are paying attention to what's happening around them, and they are also putting their foot down on big money being involved in politics, and also saying, we don't want you to be involved in who we choose is our representation.
They want
vote
Your outside money isn't going to work.
That's one place you could start the limits.
If you don't do business in a state, you don't get to be part of us giving money to a statewide election.
You know, if you're a multinational company and you have a big headquarters in that state, okay, you can get involved because you are invested in the community.
But other than that, keep your mitts off.
And what I also appreciate about Chris Taylor's campaign right now is...
pulling this much grass root support.
This is a talking point for Democrats a lot.
We want money out of politics, but yet they go through and they have big money donors.
So I often think that it's a little hypocrisy involved because that's what happens in politics.
But in this particular case with what Chris Taylor is doing, and obviously there's going to be more numbers that are going to come out and she's probably going to have some bigger number donors, some big name donors, I get that.
But at least right
this very moment, the Democrats tend to be practicing what they're preaching and what they're saying and they're actually doing the grassroots donors.
And I know there's been other candidates across the country that have relied on those grassroots donors, but at the end of the day, when you're in a really competitive race, they also have to rely on big money that they get from the Democratic Party or whatever it happens to be, right?
And because you have to be viable in those races when you're competing as well, especially if you want the seats.
And we know that this is going to be a really competitive.
midterm.
an ad or
to
blah, blah, blah?
Well,
But other than that, if you're a regular voter, you don't want to hear all these ads.
You know who you're going to vote for.
You know why you're going to vote for them.
And it doesn't matter how much money gets spent.
And that is evidence, especially here in Wisconsin, where we've already said,
No, your money doesn't buy our elections.
on the Civic Media Radio Network.
The question for you, I do too.
How much technology are you willing to have in your home?
855-75 Civic, 855-7524842.
The reason I'm asking this, we've been inundated and I am not a Luddite.
I enjoy
technology to a point.
I do not want any technology in my house.
He says knowing that his phone is listening, his TV is listening, the doorbell is probably listening, everything is listening.
I don't I don't necessarily want to make the conscious decision to bring things into my house that are listening.
Right.
But other people do.
There is a new robot.
Would you want a robot in your house, Jamie?
Everything's always listening.
I don't need it to tell me things when I'm not asking it.
I find them a little creepy with these voices that just come out of nowhere.
I also have been in homes where Alexa is being used and I don't always find Alexa to be all that helpful.
I really don't.
I can find the answer myself or I can look it up or I can use my own hands or my own fingers or whatever it is to do something myself to find.
things, I don't need Alexa to do things for me.
correct.
I
It's intrusive and it's creepy.
Yes.
And I don't... I understand.
You know, I'm still amazed when Debbie and I will be having a conversation and then I open Instagram and it's all ads for the same thing.
Right.
Wait a minute.
Right.
Or, you know...
And there's nothing that I'm, you know, I'm not making plans to overthrow the government or to commit penis crimes in my house.
It's kind of various.
It just feels intrusive.
Right, I just don't want you listening to me all the time.
Oh my gosh.
I am looking up right now and oh, you are exactly right.
It's, it's to a T.
is,
And it was started by this startup company, Fauna Robotics, about two years ago of secret research and development, went into Sprout.
Now, their public debut on earlier this week
is really, the whole purpose is to jumpstart a whole new industry of building approachable robots for homes, schools, and social spaces.
And in a lot of ways, this is gonna be a first of its kind, especially here in the United States.
We don't have a lot of rapid advancements in artificial intelligence.
Elon Musk doesn't count.
We don't have a lot of advancements there.
So I think that this is fascinating, but Sprout isn't cheap, Brian.
What?
Radio Network.
but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.