Where is Air Wisconsin Flying? (Hour 3)

It's 6.06 right now.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning on the Civic Media Network.

I am Jamie Martinson.

And I am the aforementioned Brian Noon.

I'm glad to have you here.

We look forward to talking to you today.

So jump in at your leisure, 855-75, Civic 855-7524842.

Another big news day as we prep for the what is sure to be.

an unbelievable state of the union address tonight.

We've got a lot to get to.

I'm proud of your

optimism.

Look at you on a

Tuesday morning.

My tongue is firmly in cheek.

I'm surprised I can enunciate words that way.

But we endeavor to go on.

Once again, hail Britannia and their justice system because the

The Dominos are starting to fall in other countries regarding the Epstein files.

Of course, you remember former Prince Andrew was arrested the other day.

Now, he's out, but he hasn't been cleared of anything.

He's just out.

They investigated him.

Not for alleged pedophilia.

or child abuse or anything like that.

No, they invested him for sharing documents while with Epstein while he was in office.

Well, now police have arrested former UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson on suspicion of misconduct in public office tied to the jeep free Epstein investigation, which is the same charge that Andrew was arrested under misconduct in public office.

So.

Other countries taking this very seriously and other countries are Especially the UK is already gloating a little bit.

Yeah Once we have to subpoena all the records for these cases everything's coming out

Yes, and I think if you are somebody who's been following this closely if you've wanted some of You know the people mentioned in the Epstein files to face some sort of consequence I think it's best that you

put your sites on the UK in Europe, because we've talked about it on this program before.

They are taking these allegations much more seriously than obviously our current DOJ is in the United States.

And I think you're going to see the most fallout there.

In fact, with Mandelson, there's actually photos of him in the White House, in the Oval Office

with

President Trump.

So the ties are a little closer than maybe the former Prince Andrew on this one.

And police actually

searched two of his properties before they took him in for questioning.

He has denied, of course, any wrongdoing

and

authorities say the arrest is not related to sex offense charges.

Documents also show that Mandelson referred to Epstein as my best pal years earlier and also

allegedly

received payments totaling $75,000, which he says he does not recall and has questioned the authenticity of.

His arrest comes less than a week after the former Prince Andrew.

in the United States, we're also starting to see a few ripple effects, right?

There's a celebrity doctor, he's also a best-selling author, his name is Peter Atia.

I had not heard of him until last night when I was watching the news, but an aging doctor, an anti-aging specialist,

allegedly.

Yeah, and he's now stepped down as a CBS News contributor after emails showed that he exchanged messages and jokes with Epstein in the 2010s.

So Atea has not been accused of any crime.

He says his contact with Epstein had nothing to do with abuse and that he was never on Epstein's plane or on the infamous island.

He did apologize for what he called embarrassing and tasteless emails.

I also think it's interesting because Hollywood mogul Casey Wasserman, who, you know, owns some talent agencies, he is on the 2028 Olympic committee, you know, because the Olympics are going to be in LA.

He is being asked to step down from

that role.

I'll say, I know he sold his talent agency.

There was a question about that.

It would be wise of him to step down.

Now, see, here's the thing for a lot of these guys.

And innocent until proven guilty, I get it.

You could make an argument if you travel in social circles in New York that you had met Jeffrey Epstein.

There's probably at a party you might have been introduced to him.

You say, hello.

Once you start...

Said like you meet a lot of people Jamie.

I mean a lot of people Parker met one person sometimes a while ago.

It was Frank.

Yeah Yeah, you met Frank now.

You don't email Frank all the time with tasteless jokes You know, we don't everybody you meet you don't all of a sudden start exchanging emails with that's when that's when your story doesn't hold water Well, I only met him once.

Yeah, but we have all these emails.

So you you obviously struck up some sort of

relationship, and relationship may be a strong word, but that's the best one to describe when two people are in contact with each other.

So, yeah, with this ATIA and everybody else, and some are more, some are easier, like Wasserman's emails to Galen Maxwell, it's very easy to say, all right, this is not just a casual

meeting.

Yeah.

When

you want to see somebody in a leather outfit.

Now, I've met a lot of women in my time.

I'm friendly with people.

I don't usually... Have you ever started that way?

No, I never.

Okay,

all right.

No, and I've never really even ended that way.

I never, you know, I

don't... That's good.

That's good.

Yeah, I don't send those types of emails or texts.

I mean, I

say, I whisper them into their ears so nobody can else get here and there's no

witness.

But Jamie, that's another story.

I think the fallout that we're seeing in the UK, in the media, in politics, it's a very good thing.

And if powerful people did have these inappropriate relationships, because remember at this point, these are alleged crimes, right?

If they shared sensitive information, if they were enabled any of this wrongdoing, they deserve whatever consequences come their way.

And accountability shouldn't depend on the status.

It shouldn't depend on their title or their connection.

And let's be honest, I think if you're sitting here in the United States and you're watching what's happening in the UK between the former Prince and now Mandelson, you're kind of wishing some of that fallout was happening here in the United States too, because... What's the big difference?

Well, the big difference is the DOJ and who is running our current DOJ, but I guess the argument goes back to, for some people...

the Biden administration also sat on these files for a really long time, you know.

And here's the thing, we can parse out who these files have been under, whose DOJ was involved.

If there's wrongdoing, there's wrongdoing.

If crimes were committed, crimes were committed, and those people need to be prosecuted.

I also think it's interesting that as we mentioned the state of the union address tonight, several House Democrats will be bringing Epstein survivors as guests to the president's address.

makers, including Ro Khanna, Jamie Raskin, Robert Garcia, say that the goal is to push for transparency and full accountability in the handling of the Epstein files.

Some Democrats are planning to attend the speech.

Others will participate in what they're calling an alternative people's state of the union address.

I'm not exactly sure what that entails yet.

Um, you know, uh, you look at a representative Massey, uh, he will be bringing his wife to tonight's state of the union, which

I think is interesting because President Trump has basically called her out specifically on social media and threatened Thomas Massey's wife.

So he'll be bringing her as a guest tonight.

I

hope she stands up and goes, I'm right here.

All that's between us is there an opportunity.

And I just sucked up all the air.

Mr. President, let's go.

I think it's going to be a fascinating event tonight when we talk about the State of the Union.

And I understand what Democrats are trying to do by bringing some of these victims.

They're highlighting them.

They're making a moral statement, and they're saying that the story isn't.

going away.

But here's my question when I actually sat down and thought about this.

Does it move the needle in any sort of way?

Because this president has shown time and again that public pressure is not going to shame him.

It's not going to rattle him.

And I'm not sure that it's going to rattle a lot of the Republicans who are going to be standing there with him.

I disagree with part of that.

I think it does rattle him, which is why then he goes into

bigger and more varied deflections.

So I think he gets rattled.

I don't think he, it's like the old commercial, never let him see a sweat.

I think he believes that we don't see him panicking, but we do because of his actions.

And going back to something you said about the, with the Justice Department and the Biden administration, they did convict Epstein and Maxwell.

during that.

Now, if there was an attempt to cover those documents during Biden's administration, that needs to be looked into too.

But Biden didn't campaign on one of his main platforms being that they're going to release all the files.

People are coming to justice.

Well, that's fine until your name starts popping up thousands of times.

And this is what I, he sues everybody, Donald Trump.

for nothing.

Being called a pedophile is a really serious thing.

Yep.

I know where you're going with this one.

Right.

Do you have it suited anybody for that?

Yeah.

That's like, that would be probably the first thing and only thing, not the only thing, but the first thing if somebody started publicly saying that about me, oh man, I'd have all my money invested in attorneys trying to get that straightened out.

If you're innocent, you fight that.

If you're a defense attorney and you're listening, I know a lot of times defense attorneys go, no, you don't want to put your client on the stand.

You don't want them to have to testify.

I don't know.

In some cases, silence speaks volumes.

I think it's going to be fascinating to watch this play out, especially if the UK is about making some sort of prosecution.

And I mean, we've talked about this on this program before.

I don't know if most of the, if any prosecutions come even in the UK, I don't believe it's going to be tied to what's in the Epstein files.

It's going to be other crimes that tie them and at least land

them

in prison or some sort of,

There's gonna be some sort of prosecution involved, but it's probably not

gonna

be tied directly to the files,

right?

It doesn't have to be a big headline-making crime.

It can be something boring.

Sharing documents is a boring crime, but it has teeth, and it'll get you time.

So, okay, if that's what they get you on, boom.

And I mean, at any point, I'm sure the survivors would love to see people be prosecuted for the crimes,

the alleged

crimes in the Epstein files, and I totally understand that.

But at some point, if they are in the files thousands of times,

I just want to see him in jail for something, right?

John and Oshkosh listening on WISS this morning chimes in on the text line saying that the Dems have to keep this in the forefront until those responsible are held to justice, release the Trump Epstein files.

Thank you for the comment this morning.

If you want to chime in on any of the conversation, because let's be honest, we have great conversation here.

It's a lot going

on.

1-855-752-4842.

That number is 1-855-75 Civic.

We'd love to hear your.

thoughts.

And, you know, when it comes to, I don't know if anybody has handled these files properly, right?

Between all of the administrations who have been involved and you are, you are absolutely right.

At least the Biden administration was able to prosecute Epstein and also Ghislaine Maxwell, but I don't believe any of the,

presidential administrations have handled these files well.

It's almost like, you know, there's stuff in them that they don't want people to see.

And

that's what it feels like, right?

It does feel that way.

And I'm tired of the justification of, well, if these are all released, it could crumble.

The government can crumble this.

Good, let's go.

Because quite frankly, it's not in the strongest state anyway right now.

And you know, Republicans will always say, well, what if so and so is it?

I don't care who's in the file.

And you shouldn't care either.

And I don't care what side of the aisle they're on.

I don't care who you voted for.

I don't, none of that should matter.

What should matter is you have all these young women telling you that they were victims.

Case after case after case has proven that women don't lie about this.

The amount of false testimony in sexual assaults and abuse is miniscule.

So the fact that we still, after all this time, won't believe women is unconscionable.

Believe

the women.

We have to do better.

Believe the women.

It is 619 right now.

You are listening to Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.

Yes, and this is the Civic Media Network.

We have, we'll talk about a texture question.

after this.

Thank you so much for joining us 622 right now.

You are listening to Daybreak on the Civic Media Network.

Hopefully you're having a great start to your Tuesday.

Yes, we're happy to have you here.

And as the big voice guy told you, we want you to get involved.

And that's how we came to this little segment.

Because if you're joining us today and you weren't here with us yesterday, really, there's no excuse for that.

Civic relaunched civic media relaunched the talk network.

Yes

And as you can tell now we have a fancy new name for the show Jamie and I are still here.

We're the same Parker still here.

Thank goodness and Frank still here So the crew is the crew is the same the name is different But the network has changed a little too and the approach of the company to what is on the air Has changed not drastically and Jamie I'm so that I don't misspeak

because God knows I am a fan of misspeak.

I'll let you explain the little bit of direction before we get to this.

Somebody texted us last week and it made us, Jamie and I were talking about this and so we decided we would bring it to the air and use it as a kind of explainer for what we're trying to do.

So the foundation that civic media was built on was essentially building a stronger democracy and democracy with a little D. One that all voters, no matter where their part, where your party alliances are, can come together and have open dialogue and conversation.

Because we feel here at Civic Media, when that happens, we build a stronger...

We built a stronger democracy.

That's essentially what we do.

We also want to talk about the stories in the news, but follow those up with not just a bunch of hyperbole, and sometimes you're gonna get that because, you know, we give our opinions too, but a lot of fact-based...

discussion about what's happening in the news.

And that is essentially what we have built civic media on.

Um, and I know for some of our listeners, it's been a little bit of a different switch because we, we have talked more of the fact based instead of just opinion all of the time, but we try to lead a little bit with both and, but our opinions are always based in the facts.

And we also want to make sure that if our opinions are wrong or we give the wrong information that we are

to correct that because we also feel here at Civic Media that that builds a stronger democracy but we believe everybody has a vote no matter how you how you

What happens when you go to the ballot box?

Everybody has a say in how government operates.

And that starts at our very local levels all the way up to Washington DC.

And so that is essentially what we are trying to do here at Civic Media.

And we've gone through some changes because let's be

honest,

it's expensive to run radio and

it's

expensive.

So budget has been a concern.

And so we've had to peel back a little bit so that we can build back up into what our foundation is.

So.

Yeah, and nothing is, like this is not the end.

This is not how Civic Media Network will look forever.

This is, you know, hopefully Jamie and I are here forever.

And you got Pete and Greg from Five to Seven on Nightlight.

And then the other shows in there, but things evolve.

And that's why I'm here because when I talk to everybody at Civic, they're like, well, it's a politics show and a news show.

And I was like, okay.

I said, but are we, where are we on the far edge of either thing?

And they said, no, we want you to talk about it based in facts and facts are facts.

And yes, then as Jamie said, we get to give our opinion and you can argue with my opinion all day long.

But really, we can't argue with facts.

And there are no my facts and your facts and our facts and their facts.

Turns

out

the facts are kind of

fact, right?

There's like one fact of how it all should go.

And that's what we want to do here at Civic.

Right.

So in an effort to do that, we are not screaming and yelling from far ends of either spectrum.

We're trying to, we're trying to not be

Not be milk toasty in the middle.

You're gonna know exactly where we stand because you

think we're conservative by the way So

we're also trying to bring more people under the tent and somebody said love civic texture And I don't they didn't include their name.

They're relatively new texture as a former maga I just caution against talking down or elitism.

I don't focus I don't consider myself that but fact-checking is good exposing half truths is great

being gentle with us is nice.

And listen, I know sometimes you'll hear me do a voice of a character.

Those voices are unfortunately in my head and they have to come out.

They are not an attack at any individual person.

Sometimes, yes, they lump in a group, but if we're honest, humor can be used to point out the

silliness, the absurdity, the craziness of a certain group of people.

And that doesn't mean, do I think all Republicans think that way?

Absolutely not.

And I'm only speaking for me.

My criticisms are mostly for the administration.

Because who you voted for, it's in the past.

You're allowed to change your mind like this, like this texture.

It sounds like they're changing their mind about that.

That's fine.

So I'm not criticizing people.

I'm criticizing the administration.

Vote isn't about ideology or party strategy.

It's about sometimes what people just simply know.

It's about the family, the jobs they're in, the churches, their neighbors.

It's about wanting stability, safety, opportunity for all of the people they love.

And this is where I feel like we always have common ground no matter how we're voting because most of us want strong communities.

We want good schools.

We want safe neighborhoods.

We want a fair shot at success.

We want to be able to pay for our medicines.

Philosophically,

we might land in very different places on how

we get

there.

It's often the same.

The desire to get there is often the same.

But we should be willing to fact check, including ourselves.

No politician, no party, no media outlet should be above any sort of scrutiny.

And if we care about our communities, then that truth really matters.

And the facts are always going to matter.

So we want to debate the ideas.

We want to challenge policies here at Civic Media, but we cannot dismiss or demean the people behind those votes.

And that is never our intention.

And if we're all serious about moving forward as a country, then that's going to start with respecting most Americans, even the ones that we might disagree with and, you know, believe that they're just trying to do the right thing at the end of the day.

And that's, I think, how we

actually ended

up in this situation, right?

That's what we hope for anyway.

Absolutely.

Well, speaking of a situation, surprise, surprise, a Trump-appointed judge has barred the release of...

a special document from Jack Smith.

We'll talk about that after this.

It's Daybreak on the Civic Media Network.

It's 635 right now.

If you're listening in Wausau and WXCO or in Eau Claire on 93.5 the tab or maybe even in La Crosse this morning on WLCX.

Thank you so much for joining us.

We do appreciate it.

You're listening to the Civic Media Network.

I want you to get involved because I'm wondering from you when we tell you this story about a judge barring Jack Smith's final report.

How do you feel about this?

Are you surprised is this business as usual?

Let us know 855-757-855-752-4842.

Yes, yesterday you may have heard Jack Smith had written his final report and it's been in court for a while.

They're trying to figure out what to do with it.

Well, this is all about Donald Trump's alleged mishandling of classified records and obstruction of justice at Mar-a-Lago.

You remember the pictures, boxes of files in the bathroom, which is where I keep

all my important files.

All our show materials is right next to my... We also hear it's

weary spends a lot of time, so I guess it makes sense if you're going through them piece by piece, right?

Better than his chair in the oval, but that's neither here nor there.

This file is not going to be released because a U.S.

district judge, Eileen Cannon, who just happens to be a Trump appointee from where you may ask, Florida, yes, she threw out the case that Smith, she also had thrown out the case that Smith brought against the president.

Now she's saying he can't even release the file.

What could possibly be in there, Jamie, that again, nobody wants us to see?

Well, if you followed the career of Eileen Cannon, where you've even followed just

this

portion of what's been happening with Jack Smith over the last year and a half, two years or so, you'll know that she's been very kind to the former president at the time when this case started and now the current president.

Now, she called the unlawful appointment

of Jack Smith and the Justice Department determination, reason to not disclose this particular report.

Now, she'd previously dismissed all the classified documents case in July of 2024, ruling that Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.

So we're going way back, we're going into the way back machine for some of

this.

So she's blaming Merrick Garland for appointing Jack Smith.

Yes.

an independent investigator, which was supposedly the way to go.

Let's get an independent eye in here, a guy with a great record.

Yes.

And let him go to work.

That's exactly right.

And the Justice Department appealed that decision at the time.

Now, in this order that came out yesterday, Cannon said that Smith continued preparing the report after she dismissed the case and used discovery materials that were subject to a protective order, which she says bars public disclosure without court approval.

So she's argued that it's not customary for prosecutors to release detailed reports when a case has been dismissed without

what a finding of guilt.

So I feel like at this point, she's stretching a little bit to find reasons why she can't move things forward.

And if you followed the case going back to 2024, she was also doing that at the time.

But of course you're in Florida, so things move a little slower and they like to stall things on behalf of certain individuals.

So we never really did get to see any of this come to fruition.

Now, Eileen Cannon had already barred the Justice Department from sharing the report with members of Congress earlier this year, saying that it contains extensive evidence that was never made public in court filings.

Guess why it was never made public in

court

filings?

Yes, yes, you, Brian.

We'll call

on you.

That she dismissed the case.

Yes, that.

So we couldn't get it into the record.

All right, point for Brian today.

Yes.

I'm feeling cocky.

Yes.

I'm feeling good.

The whole the whole thing smells like a cover-up again, and I know see that's that's this is the opinion part of the program Yes, we're giving you the facts, but my opinion and I want to hear yours, too We both want to hear your opinion eight five five seven five civic eight five five seven five two four eight four two It it doesn't make sense what we were able to hear from Jack Smith when he was initially testifying things seem to point toward wrongdoing

Okay, again, if there's nothing there, tell us.

If you've got something to hide...

That's when you use all the machinations, all the loopholes.

You stretch, you stay within the law, but you stretch it to its boundaries to make sure that you get the desired results.

Some of Trump's defendants, or co-defendants rather, actually asked for this file to be destroyed.

Yes.

Now the judge said no, she wasn't going to destroy it.

But what are you, what's going on?

And how do you expect us not to

be skeptical and not to question and not to assume when you do nothing to I know you're not I know in the legal system you don't have to prove innocence right people the state or the country has to prove your guilt but again common sense and that's I know I operate in that area much to my chagrin and but why not why not prove your innocence

Right.

Or at least clear your name or erase any suspicion.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

I mean, Judge Cannon has shown a clear pattern in this case from the very beginning.

In fact, a lot of legal experts that are rulings consistently favored the president.

And now it's

interesting.

I'm not an expert.

I said it too.

But now.

You know, just days after a lot of us were applauding the Supreme Court for upholding the rule of law in the tariff case, we've got Judge Candid, who steps in again, and this time just blocks the public from seeing any of the special counsel's report,

which,

you know, there's serious questions being raised here.

So, you know, you can applaud part of the judicial system and then realize that some of them were put there for a certain reason.

Now, before leaving the Justice Department, Jack Smith actually told lawmakers, if you remember, this just happened a few weeks ago in those closed doors,

depositions, and then eventually in a public hearing, that his team had gathered what he described as powerful evidence that President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice.

Critics of this particular ruling, including watchdog groups and free speech advocates, say that blocking this report keeps the public from seeing the full factual record of a taxpayer-funded investigation involving this country's national security.

And Trump's attorneys are praising the decision, as you can imagine, arguing that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional and that the investigation itself was improperly funded.

Well, it was funded through taxpayer dollars.

And

if we're talking

about improperly funding things, let's not bring up the tariff discussion again.

But if this case has already been

dis... We will,

though.

We will,

because it's

important.

I mean,

you

can't... No, I'm kidding.

It can't be right if you believe that it's right, and it can't be wrong if you believe that it's wrong.

I mean, sometimes there is truth that is in the middle, and this administration likes to skew the...

facts and the evidence to their benefit.

They do it over and over again.

Now, the public paid for this investigation.

We can't see what's being released.

Congress can't see what's in this report.

And if you, I don't care how you vote, that is a transparency issue.

And this is what matters in this country.

When an administration works this hard to keep a report like this from seeing the light of day,

I mean, it's fair to ask the question, what are they afraid of us seeing?

What are they actually afraid of us seeing if they're working this hard between Eileen Cannon telling us that, basically gaslighting us saying that, oh, there's no evidence there.

It's fine.

It's fine.

Well, you shouldn't have written it anyway.

Right.

I mean,

that is, that's

gaslighting us.

And that leads to serious questions about what they are actually trying to...

to make sure that we aren't seeing as a public, as voters, as Americans, right?

Yep.

John and Oshkosh text in the whole Trump regime as a cover-up.

It's hard not to argue.

It's hard not to agree with John, so I won't.

I will agree with him.

I'm not going to argue.

Again, I know sometimes it seems very basic and a lot of...

And I've had this conversation with attorneys for decades.

Sometimes when I look at the law, I look at it to my peril from a common sense, everyday guy kind of view, because that's what I am.

And I know if I were being accused of all kinds of heinous acts, whether it's obstruction of justice or keeping classified material in a bathroom or...

trying to rig an election, all these alleged crimes.

If I was being accused of those, I would want to fight until my last breath to clear my name.

I understand that the political class and the powerful in this country operate under another set of laws than you and I do.

That we're all supposed to operate under the same set of laws, but you and I

do not operate under the same set of laws.

Look at any time someone is excused from their horrible behavior because of who they are or who they know.

And think about would that be extended to me?

And no, it wouldn't.

So the fact that they are keeping this report under wraps, when Jack Smith had an unimpeachable record,

leading up to being appointed by Merrick Garland, which nobody said was unconstitutional at a time.

At the time, people said, oh, this is great.

Let's get an independent investigator in here.

Let them work outside of the Justice Department because we're, you know, already we were a little dubious about the Justice Department with Merrick Garland and his slow walking things here and all of that.

So it was great.

Well, the problem with saying getting a special investigator is great.

Is that that person is going to investigate?

And if you didn't think that Jack Smith was going to get to the bottom of this, you hadn't been paying attention because he was going to get to the bottom of this case.

And it sounds like he did from what we were able to glean from his public testimony and what Congress has said.

He got to the bottom of it.

Now we're at the point where you don't want it released.

That can tell a logical guy like myself only one thing.

And I don't know what it tells you, but it should at least at least raise red flags.

Scott from Addison listening on WMDX this morning, texts in.

If you think this judge is great now, wait till she gets nominated to the Supreme Court next year.

Can't probably argue with a lot of that

either.

I was going to say,

who's leaving though, Scott?

Right?

1-855-752-4842, 1-855-75 Civic, if you want to get involved in the conversation.

This is about accountability.

And if there is evidence that a sitting or former president tried to interfere with the lawful transfer of power, obstruct judge justice,

All of us deserve to know that information.

Transparency is not optional when you are in a democracy, especially when it involves the president of the United States.

And yes, that is very Pollyanna of me, but it is how the Constitution works and it's how our government was set up to work.

Now you brought up Merrick Garland and I know we're getting close to a break, but there's always been some consternation around Merrick Garland and his role.

And there was a lot of people who didn't think he did his job.

Do you think he did his job or do you think he was being slowed and trying to build an airtight case?

See, in my opinion, he slow walked it.

Because here's what I know from all the research I did on Jack Smith when he was brought into this.

He's not going to give Merrick Garland a case that has to, when he delivered that report, it was locked down.

Jack Smith and his team had locked everything down.

Merrick Garland decided not to act for whatever reason, and I'm not here to read Merrick Garland's mind, but I don't believe he did his job correctly.

I think he slow walked this.

I think it was another horrible reminiscent of James Comey, right before a week before the election, that kind of thing.

So, no.

There's my long answer to a short question.

I think it was slow walked in the fiat that I in my opinion he was trying to make it so airtight because when you go after the king you have one shot, right?

When you

go after

the king you have one shot and that was his one shot.

There could be no mistakes.

It sounded like they had the one shot loaded.

They just didn't pull the trigger.

I guess

we'll never know, right?

Those Democrats and their ideals.

648 right now, you're listening to Daybreak.

Yes, after this we will

turn our attention to Duncan and a lot of cold beverages on the Civic Media Network.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning.

It is 6.52.

You are listening to the Civic Media Network.

And I know you're a coffee drinker, Brian.

I am.

I am

not.

Always lots of coffee.

Sometimes.

Sometimes I will partake in an iced coffee.

But duck it.

All right.

Can we... But before... Hold on.

This is what... This is... No, no, no.

This is a debate I have with everybody.

Okay.

I don't...

Like iced coffee, God intended coffee to be hot and steamy.

I don't get this whole iced coffee.

I don't understand it.

I don't like it.

I only, I am not, part of my reason for not drinking coffee is the flavor of coffee.

And for some reason, if I can add- So you want a milkshake or chocolate milk?

So if I only add just a little almond milk to it, but it's something about the bitterness of the coffee for me that I can handle a little bit better when it's iced versus when it's

hot.

I think you just need better coffee.

Probably, but you know, my husband-

Bob's house of roasters.

You know, you get it Aldi, no shade on Aldi.

I was

there yesterday.

I love Aldi.

My husband won't let me invest in better coffee because I don't drink it enough, right?

And that's totally legit because let's be real, if you're a coffee drinker who makes your coffee at home or you go to your favorite coffee shop, coffee's expensive right now.

It is very expensive.

It's a lot

cheaper at home than it is

if you go with it.

It is.

And I don't drink it enough for my husband to be like, you deserve the finest.

Get something cheap because it sits there for a while is essentially what I get.

So, you know, you do what you gotta do.

Sometimes you gotta treat yourself.

Plus, I'll be honest, it's a lot easier to put something like a nice spiced rum or a little bourbon into an iced coffee and mix it in there than it is in a hot coffee.

I'm sorry, the country of

Ireland would beg to differ.

Okay, all right.

Irish coffee, always

hot.

We're

gonna take stands on iced coffee versus hot coffee.

And my husband's a hot coffee drinker, I'll be honest.

There you go, I knew I liked him

better.

Yeah, yeah, you should.

But you started to say, Duncan, Duncan is going, oh, Duncan needs you to hydrate, but not with water.

With 48 ounces of a cold beverage.

bucket.

It's nearly half gallon.

That's nearly half gallon.

This is actually kind of crazy.

It's called a Duncan refresher.

And this bucket comes with a handle.

It comes with a lid and it comes with an extra long straw because duff 48 ounces.

And it's currently being tested at fewer than 10 locations, mostly in the Northeast.

Well, with the snow, they're not getting those in the next couple of

days.

That's where Duncan's

home.

I've seen Ben Affleck.

Popped up on social media before national food outlets picked up on the story.

There's some early reports that say prices start around about nine bucks for iced coffee and about, uh, about 10 bucks for these refreshers.

Unlike regular Duncan orders, they appear to be prefilled and they are not customizable.

So you grab whatever's available on the shelf.

Now there's been, as you can imagine, a lot of online reaction on, on these because, you know,

Well, it's ranged from everything from excitement to complete disbelief.

And some fans are begging for a nationwide rollout.

Others are joking that the drink is as big as my head on some social media platforms and wondering how it would even fit into a car cup holder.

I feel like at that point, if you're doing 48 ounces, you really want this for the morning.

And by the way, who needs that much coffee?

You're gonna need some sort of specialized cup holder for your car, which then adds to the cost of all of this.

Now, there are some questions already about this.

as far as the caffeine levels, which could easily hit triple digits in milligrams for the coffee version.

Here we

go.

Big caffeine

trying to

put their boot on our neck.

Listen, I know that doctors are gonna say too much caffeine is bad for you.

I say too little caffeine is really bad for me.

One, because I'd be snoozing during the show.

Two, I would be grumpy grumpy.

And three, I'd probably fall asleep everywhere.

Yeah.

I love, I love caffeine.

I use it on the days when I'm going on about, you know, four hours of sleep, which happens more times than I want to admit.

But Duncan hasn't said whether or not this giant bucket will expand beyond its limited test market of the Northeast corridor right now, but it is definitely getting some attention.

I also love that this is not customizable, right?

Like you can't, yeah, you can't do any milk swaps.

There's no extra pumps.

Here's your bucket.

There's no old phone.

involved and you can't really have it your way.

You just get what's in the bucket and you go on your merry way and you're gonna deal with it.

And Duncan says, I don't care what you think.

Drink your 48 ounces and be happy.

Time to slap the hogs.

Just get your bucket.

It reminds me of if you've ever been to a truck stop and I'm not sure if quick trip they had those those giant coffee mugs and you would see it like at first I only saw them at like I said at truck stops and then I would see them at other

convenient stores, and they were the big thing like this.

Now, Jamie, John and Oshkosh.

I see this.

Touching in at 855-75-CIVIC, 855-75-248-402.

Kind of backing my play, he says, sturgeon spirits in Oshkosh may or may not have a chocolate liqueur that may go well in hot coffee, hypothetically speaking, of course.

That sounds like hypothetically, John.

a breakfast of champions.

I like John's hypothetical.

I like John's hypothetical.

I'm always about trying that.

Um, I don't, yeah, I don't know.

Hot coffee for me has never been a thing.

It just, I can't, can't do it.

There's something about the taste of it.

I have to add too many things.

I didn't start drinking it until I was 30 and now I can't stop.

But going back to this Duncan thing, 40, a big.

The barrel is going to be heavy.

Maybe people are using this as their morning workout and hydration all in one.

You get two and you're doing curls while you're driving with your knees.

Not

safe, but effective.

I feel like a half gallon of coffee is more of a lifestyle choice.

It's actually like a commitment, something that you're going to bring to the tailgate the next time the Packers or Brewers are playing, right?

And to not even just grab whatever's on the shelf.

OK.

I'll take that one.

Can you imagine walking into work with your 48 ounces of coffee?

Don't talk to me until I finish my bucket, please.

I can 100%, but then I might have to use this bucket for something

else.

I gotta say I respect it a little bit.

If you're that committed to the 48 ounces, I am gonna give you all my respect.

I can't say.

Cheers

to the hot coffee.

I love it.

I love it.

It is 6.59 right now.

You are listening to Daybreak.

Thank you for joining us this morning.

On the other side, we will a little preview of the State of the Union.

Oh, that's gonna be fun to listen to.

We'll talk about that and so much more on Daybreak here on the Civic Media Network.

706 right now.

Good, good music choice, Parker.

I try.

You know, considering we're about to talk about the State of the Union and what's to come in Washington, D.C.

tonight, I feel like little lies by Fleetwood Mack is

very

appropriate this morning, Brian.

It is very appropriate.

We want to hear from you.

What do you expect to hear tonight during the State of the Union?

8-5-5-7-5, Civic 8-5-5-7-5, 2-4-8-4-2.

You know the President is going to use tonight's State of the Union to argue that

his tariffs and his economic agenda is working that we are stronger than ever that this is the golden age of America that he is doing everything to protect you and the radical left and the insane Democrats and everybody who dares speak against him has trumped arrangement syndrome and I'm setting the over under at length at the at two hours and 17 minutes.

Jamie, do you want to bet the over or the

under?

I'm gonna go under, only because this speech starts at 9 p.m.

Eastern time, and I feel like that's a little late for this particular president.

I'm gonna say that it clocks in just under two hours, is what I'm

going

to say.

So we'll see who is correct.

I'm betting the over, Jamie is betting the under.

Parker, you wanna bet on this, or you get the over or under?

I want it on this.

217 is the

line.

217 is crazy.

I don't think that I can talk for two hours and 17 minutes.

I'm gonna go under.

Okay.

Wow.

All right.

All

right.

I'm confident that something will go wrong and his handlers will pull him away.

All right.

Now, well, yes, if he's pulled away for some sort of accident, let's say, like in the Oval Office, we'll use that as an example.

If all of a sudden the State of the Union has to stop because of some unforeseen issues.

I think the bet is negated.

We'll leave that.

Frank can be the judge of

that.

Oh, no, no, no.

Oh, you don't

think?

No, that's fine.

That's part

of the game.

OK, all right, we'll do that.

So you and Jamie are betting the under.

We'll bet $1 each.

OK.

That way it's a bet.

Sure.

So I stand to make the most money.

Frank, do

you want to get in on this?

I see you pop in.

Frank, do you want to get in on

this?

What do you mean negated?

That's part of the game.

I'm on board with Parker.

OK, so are you betting over or under?

The only reason I would bet over is because I didn't know right?

No, it's because Jamie and Parker both bet under But there's no way it's got to be under I'm going under 217

is so does he

have you guys don't remember you guys don't remember the other No, I remember

this

is not it's not out of the realm of possibility.

No, it's not

Because he has grievances, Jamie.

He does.

He does.

He has grievances against the Supreme Court.

He has grievances against other countries.

He does.

He has grievances against everybody.

But there's a couple reasons why I think it might be under that, first and foremost, because of the time, right?

I believe this is very late at night for

him for the audience.

Yeah, you're banking on that time at start time.

Plus, he loves a good audience, right?

By 9 p.m.

Eastern, if you're going to 11 p.m.

Eastern, you've lost a good majority of the American public.

Even his own supporters don't necessarily, as we've seen time and again, stay with him for that amount

of time.

You don't think Mitch McConnell can stay up all night?

Well, Mitch McConnell is having a hard time standing at a podium for 20 minutes at a crack.

I'm fair enough.

Yes, I predict about halfway through this, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, you just see drool coming out to their sleep.

The Supreme Court has just gotten up and left.

Even the women that will be wearing whites are just going to float out.

The other reason I think that his

handlers are going to try to limit how much he's at the podium is simply because of his polling numbers already in the second term.

I think they know, I hope they understand, or somebody gets the message across to him that less is more.

Which, again, two hours would be crazy long as it is, but it's never stopped him before.

I was gonna say, are you guys new?

This is not, this is not somebody who less is more.

I'm sorry.

Have you seen the interior decoration in

the

office?

Have you seen the golden toilets?

Less is if you're not first, you're left.

He is the Ricky Bobby of politicians.

If you're not first, you're last.

Go big or go home.

This guy doesn't care and he is going to air.

He's going to go after everybody.

He's going to paint the rosiest picture of his policies and the worst picture of everything else.

It's going to go back to his first inauguration speech where he talked about what a hellhole this country is.

He's going to keep doing it and blaming, blaming, blaming.

I

kind of feel like we need prop bets involved in this.

Like, is he going to do the weave?

How is he going to?

Like, I feel

like

there should be prop bets involved

in this.

He's going to start the weave at eight o'clock and the weave will end at 10.

20.

I feel

like

we're

so hard to

follow.

I

feel like we're missing the boat if we're not doing prop bets on this, but I think it's interesting because

Pulling right now, if you've been following this, shows that his approval rating is at 36%.

And those are incredibly weak numbers, especially if you look at the independence, which any candidate needs independence

to

win an election.

They are largely driven by concerns over affordability and the cost of living.

That's made up.

We just make things up as we go.

This speech is expected to mark the unofficial kickoff of the midterm campaign.

the president will use it to argue that his economic agenda is working.

Never mind what the Supreme Court just told me, but it's working.

And I've got these 15% tariffs now and that there are better days ahead.

He's also going to make sure that

he tells us there are better days

ahead.

Down the road,

down

the

road,

there are better days.

We all

got it.

We're counting the days till the better days show

up.

From what we know as of right now, he is likely to highlight last year's Republican tax package, what he calls the big beautiful bill, of course.

He is also going to claim that Americans will soon see larger tax refunds.

What we know right now is that he's also going to point to eliminating certain taxes on tips and overtime and to corporate investment pledges that he's made since he came into office.

And of course, the speech comes with some pretty significant challenges, right?

We've already talked a little bit about the Supreme Court recently striking down the emergency tariffs, which were a central piece of the administration's economic strategy.

He has responded by attacking those rulings and warning that the countries that play games could face even higher tariffs.

What kind of games?

like

say they don't want to pay they don't want to pay illegal tariffs are those the games that we're talking yes

i believe those are the games that he's talking about the un won't strike any trade deals with him right now because of these blanket policies that he put into effect after that supreme court ruling so i think those are the games that this this president is probably referring to

Oh, well, John, John's back from Oshkosh.

We're glad to have you.

You can jump into what do you expect to hear tonight when the president takes the stage?

And if you want to get in on the betting, the over under, we're not taking your money or betting your money, but you could just you could just give us the over under two.

You could do that at 855-757-855-7524-842.

We'll keep a tally of how many overs and unders we get, but.

John says they put up barricades around the White House, so not surprised if he announced his martial law or something nuts like that.

I don't think he'll do that, but there will be talk about ICE.

There will be talk about going into these cities because obviously Democratic mayors and governors in sanctuary

cities

and states can't handle things.

So we're going to talk about that.

We're going to talk about how important the SAVE Act is because we've got to protect our election integrity.

Nationalized elections.

That'll be about 20 minutes worth of rambling in coherent lies.

Then there'll be a mention of the concept of health care because, you know, God forbid, after a decade, his plan actually comes out.

I

believe

when we get into the save act, he's also going to go back to the 2020 election, how he actually won that.

He's going to talk

about Fulton County, Georgia.

That that's also going to come up.

I believe at some point during the speech.

So I mean, we're going to, I think we pull out all of the greatest hits.

I think

we essentially pull out

the greatest hits.

There's one of your prop bets, Jamie.

How many times will he say that he actually won the 2020 election?

I'm going to set the line.

I'm going to set.

the line at nine.

At nine, oh.

At nine, are you going over or under?

Oh gosh, that one's a tough one.

I'm gonna go over.

I'm gonna go over.

I

believe that a lot of the speech is gonna be based on that.

because he wants the SAVE Act passed, because he wants to nationalize elections, because of Fulton County, because of the fact that he can tie that into the immigration as well, which, by the way, are

all things he's

done in the past.

So I think he goes over that.

Parker, what say you?

Is he gonna go over, under, on?

Over, under nine?

Mm-hmm.

I'm gonna go under.

Under, okay,

all right.

All

right, all right.

Frank, I know you popped out, but okay, do you wanna get in on this?

Over, under, on the prop bet.

Remember, all the prop bets are a dollar.

House

gets all the money.

I think Jamie's right.

It's going to be over because this is going to be a huge talk,

a huge, huge, bigly, lot to talk about.

All right.

Frank went over.

Parker went under.

Jamie went over.

Boy, this one, this one, even though the money's not going to be there, we're going to all have to take 33% of Parker's money.

I'm going to go with the over too.

This is too easy.

This is too easy of a prop bet.

And remember, you can always jump in.

Well, let's... Dick has been hanging on.

He wants

to get

on.

He's in Madison.

We're glad to have you.

Dick, welcome to the show.

I say it depends on how much Adderall they pump and follow.

I'm saying too, also, a new poll just came out on Morning Joe this morning amongst independents.

Last year at this time, he was at 41%.

is now at 26.

Whoa.

Yeah.

You can't get much lower than that.

No.

No.

Isn't that crazy?

26%.

I never heard of a number like that.

No, that's why I feel like it goes back to what I said when we started talking about this.

The less they have him out there, I think even some of the worst minds in his administration know the less he talks, the better it might be at this point.

Dick, we appreciate the update.

Thanks very much for the call.

See, and again, Jamie, as a logical human being, you

make perfect sense.

I know.

But

we're not talking about logical human beings.

We're talking about a guy who can do whatever he wants.

Right.

And if you actually think there's somebody in that room with him that can tell him, listen, you need to talk less.

Yeah.

I really, I want Parker to go in and check what's in that big mug you're drinking out of, because it's got to be straight up Scotch whiskey.

It smells so good.

There's no way.

Yes, just don't let a match in here, Parker.

It gets a little iffy in there.

But no, he's going to do what he's going to do.

And nobody else

is

going to have any input on there.

This is going to be a frustrating, infuriating, I believe, falsehood filled train

wreck.

And we're going to cover one hour of it here tonight on Civic Media.

From eight to nine, we are going to

bring

you parts of the speech.

We will have some great coverage.

We will talk about all of the things that we can get to in that one hour.

And so join us for that if you'd like to see some commentary.

Now, I think it's interesting because we were talking about the poll numbers, Dick called up with those newest numbers.

And I did a little digging into how he's doing here.

in Wisconsin.

So a new statewide poll shows that the president's approval rating is also under water right now in Wisconsin.

Of course, everybody watches Wisconsin because it is a swing state.

A new tip survey found that 39% of registered Wisconsin voters approve of the president's job performance, 54% disapprove, which is a net negative of 15 points.

Now this poll was just conducted at the beginning of February, somewhere between the sixth and the 12th among about

1500 registered voters here in the state.

And it had a margin of error, because I know people like to look into these things to make sure they're accurate, of less than 3%.

No obvious-

Do we think these unfavorable numbers will lead to, uh, Techn America also stopping to release approval numbers, since that's been, uh, we didn't even talk about that.

No,

no.

There's so much, the tsunami of garbage that comes out of this administration.

Yes.

But, uh, yeah, these are not, these are not good.

No.

That's why, going back to something we said before, he is in a panic, and he will flip out.

Well, I guess we'll see you tonight,

huh?

7-19 right now.

You're listening to Daybreak on the Civic Media Network.

That got cut

short.

722

right now.

Somebody need to cue that up right

now.

What

happened to their Parker?

No, you know, just off my own little world.

So much big talk from our technical bridge.