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, anywhere.
Good morning to you.
This is where Wisconsin wakes up.
It's Daybreak with Brian Noonan and Jamie Martinson.
Here are your hosts, Brian and Jamie.
I'm Brian Noonan.
Glad you're with us.
Another jam-packed day Wednesday as we
Begin to look toward the second half of the week, which I'm sure will bring just as much happy happy as the first half of the week We'll start as we always do Jamie looking over to the Middle East because We're in a war.
We are a parent.
I don't know if
Iran surely doesn't know or think it's going to be a short-term war and they're one of the big players in this.
So here's the latest.
Sadly about 140 U.S.
service members have been wounded in the war with Iran that according to a Pentagon official yesterday personnel remain under threat from drones and missiles that have left seven U.S.
troops dead.
108 have returned to duty, eight are severely wounded.
news headlines this morning, three vessels were reported to have been hit by unknown projectiles near the Strait of Hormuz earlier today.
This is according to the UK's maritime agency.
Earlier, the US military said it destroyed Iranian mine deploying ships near the Strait.
Sources have told CNN that Tehran had begun laying mines in the Key Waterway.
And if you tweet it, it doesn't really happen either, as one senior official did yesterday saying, oh, we just had, we just took a tanker through there with an escort, everything was fine, and everybody went, no you didn't.
That didn't happen.
You didn't do it.
And so finally they realized, well, we can't gaslight all the time.
So they took that down.
Earlier today, Iran claimed it had launched its, quote, most intense and heaviest operation end, quote, since the start of the war.
State media reported as interceptions were reported across Gulf states and Israel separately, a suspected Iranian drone hit a US diplomatic facility in Iraq yesterday.
an additional wave of strikes on targets in Tehran earlier today.
Beyond the capital, reporters in northern Iran reported nighttime air raids lasting nearly an hour.
Strikes in Iran have killed more than 1,300.
These are the casualties we were talking about just a few minutes ago since the conflict started.
That is according to Iran's UN ambassador.
And finally, Iran's new Supreme Leader Majaba Khamenei is safe, according to the son of the Iranian president, as questions swirl over his public absence and rumors he was wounded during US-Israeli bombing on the country.
It's no surprise.
I mean, his father was not out in public all the time, either.
These guys stay.
Uh, it isn't fantastic.
We don't know why this happened.
We don't know why we're in the middle of this conflict and the administration just keeps trying to spin it in a way that makes it look good for them.
And really all it does, it's doing is creating more angst, more havoc and, uh, well, let's be honest.
Very little transparency to make anybody actually feel good about what is what is happening over there or why it's happening Which I think is the most important part.
Well, we're never gonna get why what we're gonna get and we got this yesterday from pistol Pete Hexeth Defense secretary came out and he said the the war with Iran will end quote on our timeline and in our choosing Unless you surrender if you if you completely surrender, which I'm not
That's I'm not a proponent of surrender.
I'm just
We're crushing the enemy in an overwhelming display of technical skill and military force We will not relent until the enemy is totally
and decisively defeated.
But we do so.
We do so on our timeline and at our choosing.
For example, today will be yet again our most intense day of strikes inside Iran.
The most fighters, the most bombers, the most strikes, intelligence, more refined and better than ever.
also sounds like Iran got it.
Now, in that press conference yesterday, Brian, Hegseth did decline to say how much longer the military campaign might last.
But said the 11 day conflict is still intensifying with one of the most aggressive days of strikes expected.
He also said the military is focused on carrying out the specific mission set forth by the president.
I sure hope they know.
what that is, because the rest
of us
And that the president will determine what the objectives, when the objectives have been met.
Now, this administration has given, as we've said, several mixed signals about the timeline of the war.
We've heard the president say at one point that the conflict was pretty much complete.
The Department of Defense's social media account said that the U.S.
had only just begun to fight.
And then when asked directly how long Americans should expect the war to last,
this president has suggested both statements could be true, saying that the operation has already been successful, but could also continue further.
I mean, mixed messages much.
That's the problem.
Normally, in war, we have to defeat this enemy.
We have to free these people.
Whatever it is, there is no
consistent endgame in this, which is why it's very hard to believe that they have any idea how long this could or will last, because they don't know when they're going to be done.
You listen to Hexeth just throw out more and more adjectives to define his twisted idea of what war is and what success in war is going to be.
And it's
It's just like listening to the president.
It's very juvenile very basic.
It sounds like something you would do with your buddies Well, yeah, we're gonna go and we're gonna crush these guys that they're gonna like you're getting ready for
have a coordinated strategy at least, right?
Like if you're gonna lie to us and you're gonna gaslight us and you're gonna tell us that things are going great and it's almost over, at least have every department within the administration saying the same thing.
Because right now, I mean, this, it looks...
And
I've given up hoping for the best with these people.
There's no, there hasn't been any reason, any glimmer of hope for anything.
And there's no, no help coming from Congress.
So the question of what is Congress going to do?
Nothing.
And
Just when you listen to everyone, it all comes back to a unilateral decision-making process from Trump.
There is no more checks and balances.
There are no more, there's no more coordinating.
When he has, he's getting Hegseth, his son-in-law, and one other guy, they're the ones who are helping him decide if we should go to war.
This is not how things
are
you
The Iranians and other civilians over there are going to be killed.
It's going to get worse and worse.
Prices are going to go up.
They're already saying that this could lead to another recession.
Things are not going to change because one man has been given
ultimate power.
For some reason, America is fine with that.
Mr. President you've said the war is quote very complete, but your defense secretary says this is just the beginning So which is it and how long should Americans be well?
I
Do you have to take him out does he have a target on his back?
how can there be in Iran?
You've said you have someone in mind to be the new Iranian leadership, if not the Ayatollah's son.
What are you looking for in that person?
Are you looking at someone internal, given that you just said that their leadership has been decided?
I
Come to think of it.
But I like the idea of internal because it works well.
I mean, I think we've proven that so far.
In Venezuela, we have a woman, Delcey, who has been, you know, president of the country, very respected, very doing a great job.
And it's, you know, no disruption.
You have called him an unacceptable choice.
So does he have a target on his back?
How can you say?
I
But, hey, look, I had a target on my back because, as you people wrote pretty well, they caught the assassin that was after me.
So we just got them first, but they caught the assassin.
They have him now in custody of those after me.
So
when
end.
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.
Local news, community stories, and the conversations that matter most.
Now, more Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.
I'm Brian Noonan.
If you want to get involved with the program at all, 855-75-CIVIC.
855-75-248-42.
You remember Brad Schimmel, don't you?
He was running for Supreme Court in the last race.
It was the one where he was backed by Elon and Trump and got to be the most...
expensive Supreme Court race in Wisconsin history.
It was crazy.
Well, then Brad Schimmel was appointed temporary US attorney.
And last week we talked about Brad Schimmel because he was blindsided by the fact that Tammy Baldwin would not support him to to be the US attorney anymore, because his his interim title was running out.
Well,
Time has run out for Brad Schimmel.
Federal judges in Milwaukee announced they will not extend Brad Schimmel's temporary appointment as U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, meaning that next week Brad Schimmel is the former temporary U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
He was appointed by Pam Bondi on November 17th, shortly after that.
ill-fated run for Wisconsin's Supreme Court and the interim attorney can only serve 120 days.
And tic-toc, tic-toc, that time
So I mean, kudos to him for keeping his name, I guess, in the news.
I don't know if this is how I want to be known.
Wisconsin's bipartisan nominating commission, which is actually led by U.S.
Senators Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson had not actually agreed on a permanent candidate.
and Schimmel's appointment reached that 120-day limit.
So the judges in the Eastern Eastern district decided not to use their authority to extend it In the announcement the judges said the decision was not a criticism of Schimel or the prosecutors in the office noting the US Attorney's office had continued to represent the public well the court said that it now is waiting for the president and the US Senate to nominate and Confirm a permanent US Attorney for the district now as you mentioned Baldwin had previously opposed Schimel's
appointment saying she was concerned that the administration was trying to keep the interim U.S.
attorneys in place longer than the law allows.
She did praise the judge's decision yesterday and said she hopes to continue working with Senator Ron Johnson and this bipartisan nominating commission to select a qualified, she said that, qualified impartial candidate.
Those were her actual words.
Because there have been disputes over interim appointments happening in several other states, too.
And the courts have ruled that some U.S.
attorney appointments made by this administration were not legal.
Courts in places like New Jersey, New York, and even Virginia have had to step in to make sure that their
temporary appointments after ruling that federal officials improperly extended interim terms and of course
times
you have to do this?
Maybe take a hint kind of thing?
Every, I say it every day and I've noticed that I've said it every day, mind boggling.
It's the only thing I could come up with because I can't play enough mental gymnastics to make this administration and some of the things they do actually make sense in my own mind.
But of course you can imagine Brian, the legal scholars are weighing in on, on these appointments and they're warning that the uncertainty over who leads federal prosecutor offices can actually slow down cases, complicate trials and.
disrupt the justice system.
To me, it would make more sense to slow down and get somebody qualified because then you're going to spend all of your time in the courts dealing with the people who are unqualified instead of moving through the cases that need to actually get moved through and taking up judges' docket time and making them do things that, you know, I don't know, probably are unnecessary if you just do the...
do it the right way the first time.
But again, I think this goes back to the argument that this administration doesn't really care if these people are qualified.
They want to make sure that they feel it's somebody who's going to uphold their agenda.
It doesn't really matter to them the qualifications as long as they say, oh, we agree with you on that.
And that's in our next segment, when we talk about something else, it's the same thing.
It's
You have to agree.
And I know this is... I get bored sounding like a broken record.
Trying to say the same thing different ways because there is no accountability.
And you can this president has been allowed to do whatever he wants.
And he is emboldened.
And now there seem to be at least in the first term, there were a couple of things that we thought somebody is going to stop.
I really can't see other than losses in court, which don't seem to bother him because he lost in court with the Supreme Court ruled against him in the tariffs.
He just did something.
He imposed other ones.
And one if those get struck down, he's going to find another.
He does whatever he wants with no accountability.
and it's exhausting and demoralizing at times, but it also is infuriating just from a level of, there are norms that we are not adhering to at
Across the state of Wisconsin, Daybreak with Brian and Jamie is back.
Thank you for joining us this morning.
If you're in Wausau, listening on WXCO or in Eau Claire, listening on 93.5 the tap, or even in Richland Center on WRCE.
We are glad that you're here.
And remember, if you're listening over the air, we appreciate that.
You can also check out our app by downloading that for free over at the Google or the Apple store.
And of course, you can always check out our social media pages too.
We'll give those a little plug this morning, Brian, because
Too much access but we're glad to have you here and
What do you think about the SAVE Act?
Let's just give us your feelings about that.
85575 Civic, 8557524842.
It's back in the news.
You know, Wisconsin has primary elections in April.
We have the midterms in November.
The president is really, really...
really pushing for the SAVE Act because, well, quite frankly, it appears that that might be the last gasp for Republican control of Congress.
It's starting so far, primary results have indicated, and it's not unusual for the midterm of a president for the party in control of the Congress to change.
That's how it's pretty much always been.
However, there are really
dire consequences for this administration if that control changes.
Well, you know, it passed the House because Mike Johnson will do anything that daddy wants.
And so the SAVE Act passed the House.
Now, I have to say this, Jamie, and I don't know if you'll agree or not.
This is a this is a another example of the administration creating a problem that didn't exist.
And then lying about it enough.
that people will believe it, and then trying to fix it with something that only benefits
You always have to look at it from the other side.
If this act potentially passes, this is just bad for democracy all the way around.
And at the same time, this is going to at some point also
Because whatever goes around comes around in politics.
So at some point it will benefit both It will benefit the other side in a way.
You don't want it to so you
Not if you never lose power, which is the end goal of Pam Johnson on our social media saying the save act is voter suppression.
Yeah agreed Well, the reason we're talking about it today is yesterday Senate Majority Leader John Thune Said that there are not enough votes in the Senate to change the filibuster rule to pass the save act which if you're unfamiliar they need
60 votes
in
And that is despite ongoing pressure from a fearless leader.
The SAVE Act would require people to show documented proof of U.S.
citizenship when registering to vote because, oh my goodness, Jamie, I don't know if you know this.
I've, you know, I've watched reports for years and years.
I guess thousands, perhaps millions, maybe billions of illegal aliens are voting.
That's what I've heard.
Jamie, they're voting in wide numbers.
They're coming in, we're busing them over from all the countries.
It turns out that again, because we like to dabble in the facts around here, that can't actually happen no matter what this administration says.
There are a few laws, just a few laws that prohibit this from even happening.
So whatever the Republicans are trying to use as an excuse, it's just not.
It's not there.
It's voter suppression.
Pam is not wrong.
It's voter suppression.
John pointing out
so
We don't have the votes either to proceed, get on a talking filibuster, nor to sustain one if we got on it.
But that is just a function of math.
And there is anything I can do about that.
I mean, I understand the president's got a passion to see this issue addressed as we all do.
Does he understand that?
Well, we've conveyed that to him, but we will continue to make that argument because I think it's important that everybody understand that this really is about, it's about the votes, it's about the math.
And for better or worse, I'm the one who has to be the clear-eyed realist about what we can achieve here.
And so we'll continue to convey that.
And I think that we're going to have the fight on the floor.
We're going to vote on this.
We're going to put it out.
And we'll give the Democrats the opportunity to cast their vote on whether or not they think non-citizens ought to vote in American elections.
And so that debate will happen.
But like I said, I can guarantee the debate.
I can guarantee a vote.
I just can't guarantee an outcome.
no
I toss a little musical in there.
Sure, why
debate
Can we debate that you're going to keep women from voting and you're putting a financial hardship on people and you're really trying to make sure that only as you know RIP from the DHS, Kristi Noem said only getting the right people to vote.
That's a quote.
That's not me being exaggerating.
That was her quote.
We're going to make sure that only the right people vote.
Right rhymes with another word that I think they really wanted to say, but they could not.
In many ways, they already have just by picking on the fact that undocumented immigrants are voting again.
We'll keep reiterating that this morning.
It's not happening.
So they've already basically said what were rhymes with right.
They've said it without actually saying the
Well, because of course, it's all about making sure that people who don't necessarily in bigger numbers agree with this administration don't get a chance to cast a vote.
But that's what I don't understand about this, is there were plenty, millions of women, millions of minorities who voted for this.
president in the last election.
And you're not
But here's what I think is interesting.
The Republicans are playing a long game in this as well because they're not going to give up that filibuster.
They're not going to do anything to change the rules there because if they lose the midterms, that's
trouble for them if the filibuster rules are changed.
This is something the president doesn't understand.
So he's going to continue to push the SAVE Act, he's going to continue to change the filibuster rules, trying to basically salvage the midterms and not realizing what the ramifications would be if you change those rules and then you still lose an election.
His motivation is to win the midterms to preserve his spot because he knows if Democrats take control,
impeachment, removal, it all comes tumbling down.
Because once the Democrats have control of Congress and they get some new leadership in there, things will change.
And they're going to change for the worse for Donald Trump and his minions.
And then there will be investigations.
Well, I don't think there will ever be true accountability.
I don't think anybody in this administration is ever going to- Somebody to slow-roll it,
I would hope, but I don't think that's going to be the case.
I don't see legal ramifications for any of these people, but it would at least put the checks and balances back in place.
And it would curb his ability to do whatever he wants and act as, you know...
he's acting like a guy who's losing his faculties and Old that happens to old people.
He has a family history of that.
Mm-hmm.
So it's that's not a personal criticism.
That's
Gary from Madison listening on WMDX this morning says, if the SAVAC pass, there's no way millions of people going through time process to get birth certificates and passports.
Now, if you want to chime in this morning, one eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, one, eight, five, five, seven, five, civic.
Now, I think we need to talk about the, the person, the mouth for President Trump
because
Caroline Levitt was at the podium yesterday and she talked about the SAVE Act as well.
She says that requiring people to show documented proof of citizenship when registering to vote is what this bill would essentially do again, the fact show that it's actually a thing.
We already have to do this.
But during her briefing yesterday,
Caroline said that the bill would not prevent people from voting.
She did acknowledge, though, that married women or anyone who changed their name would need to update their voter registration documents before voting.
But nothing's going to change.
It's not that big of a deal.
Let's hear Caroline in her own words.
This is cut four, please.
My first question is actually about the Save America Act.
So one of the biggest things that the Democrats are saying, the claims that they're making, is that the Save America Act
It would prevent married women from voting in elections or make it harder for them.
What do you have to say to those claims?
Is there any validity to them?
And where do you think they're they're getting
this from?
There is zero validity to these claims.
And I'm glad that you brought them up because you have the Democrats who have created this myth and it has been perpetuated, unfortunately, by many in the mainstream media.
Let me be very clear, the Save America Act does not prohibit anyone from voting with the exception of illegal aliens.
And the greatest way to disenfranchise American citizens from voting in American elections is to allow illegal aliens.
to vote, which is what Democrats want to do.
We see it taking place in Democrat jurisdictions at the state and local level across this country.
So the Save America Act corrects that.
And as far as married women who have changed their name, if they're already registered to vote, they're entirely unaffected by the Save Act.
And for the small fraction of individuals who have changed their name or their address, they can still register to vote.
Of course, they just have to go through their state processes to update that documentation.
And this is something that the American people
married women, and minorities, and people all across this country who Democrats are insultingly saying cannot do this, they're already doing it every day, going to the Social Security Office, going to the DMV, and I think it's frankly insulting that the Democrats are saying that there are certain groups of people in this country who aren't smart enough to update their documentation to allow them to vote.
Again, this is a huge myth, and thank you for giving me
listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
Now back to more of Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.
more
like
She's woefully, historically, unbelievably wrong.
She's spewing filth and lies and garbage.
No, she's just wrong.
Over 50% of this country does not have a passport.
Many, many women, I don't know the numbers, but women, when they get married, they change their names.
people who don't drive or don't have a state ID, they don't go to the DMV to get these IDs.
It has never been proven that illegal aliens are voting.
In fact, and we keep going back to this, the proven episodes of election fraud are so minimal.
They don't even they barely barely register.
It's like point zero one percent is essentially what it is and Lady, it's just as you're listening to Caroline Levitt here this morning Let me remind you that here in Wisconsin alone three point two million residents do not have a passport That's just Wisconsin and more than one million of those are married women many of those women as you
rightly pointed out, Brian, change their last names after marriage or divorce.
That means their birth certificate may not match their current legal name.
And so if proof of citizenship requirements rely on documents like your birth certificate, that mismatch is going to create extra steps, extra paperwork and extra headaches just to register to vote.
So yes, you are right.
She is wrong.
I often wonder about this, and this, I really, you're the only one on the show who can give this perspective.
I never understood, and I talk about this with my wife and daughter, how women are voting against their own self-interest.
It's, it...
Your predecessors, ladies, have fought.
so hard to gain the rights that you're now willfully and voluntarily giving up.
I don't understand it.
Jamie, you're a woman.
What's going on with your gender?
Is this why we didn't let you vote for so long, hysteria?
Probably.
I don't know because I wish I had an answer for you because I also don't understand it.
It's a conversation I have had with my friends over and over again.
And many of my friend group, we've met because we've worked in expanding vo-
We've volunteered.
We've registered people to vote.
We haven't cared what side of the aisle you voted on because we believe it's your civic duty.
So I wish I had an answer for you.
I wish I had some clarity because I would also love to know the answer because I really am at a loss for the fact that somebody like Caroline Levitt, just being a female, can stand at the podium and say, we're not trying to make it harder when in fact you're trying to make it harder.
You are.
That's what you're doing.
It's also for veterans.
Yes.
Because another lady in the news, Erica Kirk, you know her because she was married to somebody who was famous.
Erica Kirk is the widow of Charlie Kirk.
Yesterday, she was appointed to the Air Force Academy Board to continue Charlie Kirk's legacy.
Now, I didn't even know Charlie Kirk had been on that advisory board.
But he is, and now his widow is on there because she's made such a contribution to the country.
I'm sure the Air Force is just delighted.
Please step back for this just a moment though, because while serving on the board, Charlie Kirk actually asked Air Force Academy staff for details on how they followed President Trump's orders on critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
He also pushed to speed up the renovation of the U.S.
Air Force Academy Chapel, which I think is fascinating because why was he qualified also to be on this board, which is a whole different level of questioning, right?
I am trying to figure out what, maybe other than this law degree, what qualification she has, and is this bothersome?
To me, I'm not a veteran.
I know plenty of people who have served.
bothersome to me that we are making appointees to boards of our armed forces like Charlie Kirk and now his widow.
This should bother
The whole Charlie Kirk thing should bother everybody.
The the amount of time, listen, I just, something as, and when I say simple, it should be a simple
Call but something as simple as flying flags at half staff for Charlie Kirk and not flying flags at half staff now because we've lost service members in a war Is abominable not flying them for flying them for Charlie Kirk and not for Jesse Jackson, right?
Makes no sense putting Charlie's
on Day 3.
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.