Warning, you're about to listen to the greatest radio show ever.
And due to contractual obligations and to shield our airwaves and corporate licensees
for many semblance of liability, responsibility, and gullibility, we must tell you the views
represented on this show are not necessarily those of this station or its management.
This radio show contains differing points of view on current political topics.
And due to the nature of its contents, it should be heard by everyone.
Thank you for listening.
Now live from the Civic Media Studios in Madison, Wisconsin, where the political party is
just beginning, welcome to the Devil's Advocates Radio Show.
Friends proving it's never personal, only politics.
And now here's your host, Dom and Krut.
Welcome back to the Devil's Advocates Radio Show.
On the edition, calling it the Bob Spindell Moscow edition, but Jim, I won't drag you into
my little personal grievances with the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Jim, Santel, former US Attorney, our friend.
Welcome back to the second greatest radio show ever behind the morning, Kenoli.
Hey, Jim.
It's a close call between the two of them.
And today I think you win, delighted to be with both of you as always.
And Jim, so many issues to take up the biggest breaking news is probably that the special
counselor is run into the US Supreme Court and wants to find out once and for all this
Trump have any legitimate claim, the presidential immunity.
Do I understand this correctly, counselor?
You got it just right, exactly.
The special counsel, Jack Smith, is looking at his calendar as we all should be doing and
identifying this March date that Tonya Chuck and the judge has set for the trial.
And he's counted the days.
He's kind of the week.
And he says, geez, this is pending right now before the DC Court of Appeals on precisely the
issue identified, which is whether or not this absolutely ridiculous notion that Donald
Trump has somehow immune from prosecution by virtue of his past presidency.
And all by the way that he also has already tried double jeopardy in the United States
Senate and for that reason cannot go forward, neither one of those has any merit to it whatsoever.
He is concerned, however, about the length of time that this may take in front of the DC
Court of Appeals.
And so yes, indeed, there is a process by which you can say the United States Supreme Court
an issue of great concern, great focus, great interest for America.
Take this up right now, compel us to file briefs and argue it promptly.
Select this result so we can stay on track for that March deadline that the judge has
set that we can select a jury on that day.
That's what he's concerned about.
And frankly, it makes perfect sense that the the process itself is not unknown.
It is a typical.
It is not routinely involved, but it is there to grant such a rare eye in a situation like
this when you've got that interest.
Jim, some breaking news from the Washington polls, apparently the Supreme Court will consider
fast-tracking Trump's appeal on the DC trial they have.
Trump's lawyers were told to file briefs on the issue by December 20th.
There you go.
So again, briefs coming in, you know, we do have a Supreme Court.
You were called about 23 years ago that can handle things very quickly.
It happened to be the election of 2000 and virtually every other day.
They were issuing opinions, ultimately Bush versus Gore.
They can act as quickly as any other court in the land can do.
And immediately it takes nine of them to sit down and talk through things.
This should be handled expeditiously.
That's what Jack Smith wants.
And again, get this back to the district court and get Tanya Chutkin to handle all the
pretrial matters, other things that she has got to take care of, including not a small
thing like jury selection, getting a big pool of jurors in there to begin that process
in March.
Jim Santel, our fine guest.
He is also the host of Morning Canoli on the Saturday mornings.
Jim, here's my concern.
Six, three, conservative court.
And I know Alito's chomping at the bit.
I know Thomas is probably willing to sell his soul for this issue.
I'm less concerned about a few of the newer appointees, but should I be Jim?
Should I be worried about the math?
You should be.
We should all be a little worried because as we say all the time, including Saturday
morning, just this past week, we can't know.
We don't know until we actually see what they have decided on this particular issue.
Whether or not there is presidential immunity, there's precedent from a fellow named Richard
Nixon that's already out there, that should be compelling.
And even putting that to one side, as I said, this is such a ridiculous issue, the notion
that somehow a president by virtue of his presidency now past is subject to current prosecution
for the things that he has done in that past period.
Even if they're not inclined to go along with this, if they don't want to do it, I would
say that they're obliged.
As a pure matter of law and for the future of the democracy, if you will, to say yes
indeed, there's nothing here to this notion about immunity by this former president.
It opens up.
They do.
They go down that door.
It opens up a huge number of other cases out there by defendants across the country who
will go back and revisit the issue of communities generally.
It changes quite dramatically, the very fabric of what immunity principles have been all
about.
Folks, you're listening to the Devils, F. Kent's radio show.
We got to find guest, James Antel, former US attorney, friend of ours, Trump was supposed
to be given testimony in his own defense in the fraud trial, New York, the civil trial.
And apparently he discovered the fact that he lies copiously might be a perjury trap
for him.
If he had to go give testimony to the validity of his prior statements, well, Jim, it may
not play out well in the court of law.
So somehow he's blaming it on the gag order, this no shocker, Trump not giving testimony
today.
Yeah.
It is, it is a shock only that this is the first time I recall that Donald Trump declined
an opportunity when a microphone is in front of him to talk, right?
The reason why the so-called gag order is not applicable here, the gag order relates
to things outside of court.
And we hope now that those things are being affirmed that he understands that.
When you are in court and you're under oath, you're required to tell the truth, and that's
his problem.
I think this may also be a landmark day in American history, at least for Donald Trump,
because it might be the first time in a recent recollection that he might have actually followed
the advice of his attorneys to be quiet and that to talk further, especially since
when he was on the stand, previously recalled that Latisha James called him in her case in
chief.
Two big things happened.
The media focused a lot upon the sparring between him and Judge Engoran.
That was a lot of fun.
That was a lot of craziness in the courtroom back and forth.
But the other thing that kind of got a second heading in the newspapers was that just
to what he did not go well for him.
This was not a compelling presentation before.
He wanted to go back and get beaten up again by the prosecution, not so much.
This is, frankly, perhaps one of the few wise things that Donald Trump has done to stay
off the stand.
We now have closing arguments and will come up in January.
The judge has indicated he wants to get this resolved by late January.
He will write a copious, very long opinion on this, hopefully by sometime in February.
When we're back together, I'm on your show again.
We can talk about what Judge Engoran has done not only to reaffirm his position that
there was fraud in these evaluations of properties, but now how much money Donald Trump has to
pay for that and the other consequences to his company, his corporation related to the
future of his status there in New York.
Well, Jim, I'm not surprised at all that Trump did not testify today.
My understanding in Forbes has a recording of him talking about the 33,000 square foot
panels he owns.
You can't really go back and say, oh, this was a mistake by somebody else, if there's
a recording of him saying that out there, so I'm not going to open himself up to that
kind of liability, I would imagine.
I want to get back briefly, if I may, to the, to Jack Smith, kind of leapfrog in the
appellate court going right to the Supreme Court, again, apparently the Trump's lawyers
were told to have their briefs on the issue filed by December 20th.
How do you see this playing out, Jim?
So the Supreme Court could take it or deny it, right, or not take it.
I mean, that's going to be it.
So if they, if they take it well, then, then, then they take it and I hope they do.
And this will, you know, speed forward.
If they don't take it, just go back to the appellate court, or does it, or does it depend
on their wording when they don't take it?
All right.
All very good questions.
So it sounds, and I'm going to rely upon your good information, Dom, that you're pulling
off the media right now.
Sounds as if they have decided to accept the request of Jack Smith to take this case.
If you're directing attorneys to file briefs, that's basically saying, okay, we'll entertain
this.
And they recognize, again, that this, while the underlying merits are frivolous and, and
just ridiculous, how many times am I using that word this afternoon, well, they recognize
that.
They want to put this to bed.
So, not surprising that they would take this up.
It does mean, of course, that, that Tanya Chutkin doesn't have to hold up on things, but
she is also, pointedly, preparing still for that trial, coming up in March.
We should anticipate, with December 20th briefs, probably, by early, right after the holidays
here of all sorts, that there would be something coming out of the Supreme Court.
They can do a couple of things.
They can issue a lengthy opinion and say, no, there's no, no immunity here.
Or they can issue a very brief opinion, saying the same thing.
And again, send this direct this back to the district court, effectively, obviating the
need for the appeals court to do anything with this Supreme Court speaks.
That is law for everybody else below them.
And that's it.
Jim, if this somehow, Trump were to win this case, I might understand a lot of these
other cases, specifically the Georgia case, would be in peril.
But what is that, what is that allow for the next president?
If I'm understanding this and to go to an extreme, if they don't run it, if they don't
run it.
Joe Biden is going straight to the bank.
The rabbit.
This is what I'm saying.
If you have unlimited, ultimate, absolute immunity as president to do anything, then
Donald Trump could be elected president.
And on that first day that he's a dictator, could literally walk up and execute every single
one of his political rivals.
And there would be no lawful charge to go after him.
Is that correct?
Frankly, again, that's why this is not only such a stunningly bad argument.
In its consequence, it is catastrophic.
In the very unlikely notion that the Supreme Court says that there is a bear there, that
he does have some immunity, if going down that hypothetical role that you've just identified,
it is catastrophe for our government.
The notion that a sitting president is not subject to the law.
The last line, the Mueller report, do you know what was coming today?
No one is above the law.
Everybody has said that.
Judges have said, including Tonya Chutkin, presidents are not things.
That has been a fundamental focus of all of this.
You go down that road, you combine an immunity grant with the notion which he continues to
double down on, which he is, will be a dictator and say all the other things he's saying.
And you've got a recipe for the end of the republic, quite literally.
Your comment is not overstating it.
And that's why it's unthinkable to me that the Supreme Court would open up that door.
Jim, I got to ask you about Rudy.
Rudy started trial today, a defamation trial in the state of Georgia.
The election workers, he went off after.
Apparently, they handed off a mint and he said, it's clear this is evidence, it's a
thumb drive and they stole in the election and they're suing him for defamation.
And Rudy's defending himself.
Maybe I get that part wrong.
We'll find out for sure.
These come back.
James Santella.
Find gas.
He is the host of Morning Canoli, Saturday mornings and former US attorney and most importantly,
friend of ours.
Gonna be at the Christmas party hope, so more Devils.
The Devils advocates, radio, we're the 99% of the tech to lose, Devils advocates, radio
show if you miss any of this fine program and why would you maybe just want to re-live
the fighter points, make sure you go to civicmedia.us, click on the shows tab, look for the Devils
advocate's fine.
All of our awesome podcasts.
Dominic here on the text line, we're getting some Jim Santella love.
Jim is the greatest addition to your station.
Just such an informative show, nice hire, crudey, well, I'll take the credit then, even
so you're early hire of Dom.
I don't want to be blamed for that either, but we got fine gas.
He is Jim Santella, he's the host of the Morning Canoli on Saturday mornings, 9 to 11
a.m., you can listen across the civic media network, but Jim, I got to ask you about
the Rudy Giuliani going to trial today and he made effectively baseless allegations against
two election workers in Georgia and they were threatened in multiple different ways, Jim.
It wasn't just Rudy, it was multiple people that went after these mother daughter duo
and quite frankly, they were threatened if you don't confess, you're going to jail within
48 hours.
That's what they were told.
Jim, what's your impression of what's happening here in the Rudy, Rudy Freeman and Shea
Moss trial?
Right.
You've identified I think the most important thing to say of all, which is if these two
people, Shea Moss and Rudy Freeman, they are victims with a capital B. Not only by
virtue of the things that Rudy Giuliani said about them, defaming them, again saying
these things, they are quite obviously surficiously passing USB ports as if they're vials of heroin
or cocaine.
Wow, just chock full of untruths and arguably some racist allegations there as well, interestingly
here, not only have they been defamed, but they as they testified before the House Committee
way back when they can't go outside anymore.
They have been seriously, seriously damaged by this there.
The threats as you indicate in Mike, so the damages are huge and yes, that's what this
case is about.
Just like the matter involving Donald Trump in the valuations case, the judge, this in
this case is Barrel Howell, should we have heard from her before, federal judge in DC,
same court in which Donald Trump will be tried in March, that same court house, she's
already found the defamation is taken place.
She basically didn't participate, that is Rudy didn't participate in this.
This trial is once again about how much money he's going to have to pay to try to compensate
them for the damages they have suffered, the threats that he sent in their direction,
and along the way we do get an awful lot of indication about that one sort of tongue
and cheek thing that I understand from the trial itself.
The thing that they were passing back and forth was not of course a USB port, nothing
to indicate this was investigated to the ends of the earth, nothing to support this allegation,
they were undermining the voting.
It was a mint as we all know, and sure enough the lawyers for the two plaintiffs are going
to introduce and at least try to present before the jury what an actual box of mint looks
like as opposed to the USB port, so we look forward to that happening in federal court
to underscore not only the craziness of Rudy Giuliani's behavior, but the significance
of the victimization that their clients have suffered here, anticipated again a jury looking
at this, not only about the defamation, the reduction in their reputation, but the things
have happened Mike, as you just said to them since that time, the things they've testified
about, they'll tell you more about it and the way in which their lives have probably
forever been changed by virtue of his misrepresentations about what they did and did not do as poll
workers.
Here's the other point, right?
But chilling effect on poll workers across the country, this is what you've got to do now
to try to regain your reputation, regain your life, you've got to go into federal court
and go after somebody used to be a US attorney and mayor and advisor to a president, my goodness.
This is just horrific.
Another piece of litigation, only good thing, once again, Rudy Giuliani, like others,
maybe getting paid back now for his misbehavior, his misconduct, and I would offer his criminal
behavior as well.
Just want to clarify, Rudy does have an attorney, Joseph Sibley, apparently, for the defense,
the attorney for defense, defend on Giuliani has been getting chastised for objecting
to basically every piece of evidence.
And again, why would one do that, right?
And you're in front of a jury that already knows that your client has committed this fraud
defamed, don't you, at this point, don't you want to try to curry as much favor as you
possibly can, whatever minimal amount that might be, and not try to obstruct the course
of justice here, and argue about the dollar amounts in the end, argue about those things
that are relevant.
Again, I look at the trial attorneys here, and I wonder what they're thinking across
the board for Rudy Giuliani, for Donald Trump.
They haven't spent much time in a trial court, do not understand the room in which they
are playing.
I'm actually listening to the Devils Advocates, James Santelli, the former U.S. Attorney
host of Born It Canola here on the Civic Meeting Network on Saturdays, Jim always a pleasure
man.
I want to turn off this election fraud, I'll bring this home just for a minute.
I'll law forward settle the case with a couple of Biden electors with the 10, the civil
case with 10 fraudulent electors here from the state of Wisconsin.
We know from the reporting last week Jim Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, going after their fraudulent
electors, criminally, and we've come to find out that Bob Spin, I'm sorry, who's the
other guy?
It's Ken Chasbro is here.
Chasbro, yeah, he is apparently in conversations with the court of the reporting investigations
here in the state of Wisconsin, I mean that means to me, Jim, Josh Call, what's your take
on the reporting?
Could be something there as well, and again, you're absolutely right.
We know of three states, Nevada, Michigan, and Georgia, where the fight pick electors
have been charged criminally, crimes committed in those states.
What we don't have yet, we've got two, at least two other investigations going on because
they've been acknowledged by the attorneys general.
Our attorney general, as you said in your prior segment, has not confirmed or denied that.
Given the focus of this, that's the kind of thing that you can certainly affirm without
undermining the investigation if it's back is taking place.
We would hope.
We would hope, and frankly, to do a little bit of a plug a couple of months ago on the
Saturday morning broadcast, we identified the specific statutes, the criminal statutes
here in Wisconsin that could be invoked.
We talked about the authority of the attorney general to do this.
We talked about the substantive basis upon which to do it.
It's all there.
There's no reason for him not to charge criminally.
The civil disposition is huge.
Do not in any way to minimize the significance of that, but at the same time, their decision
to settle these cases goes along, again, they write this letter saying, yes, we're acknowledging
that the purpose of our doing this was to throw the election, that sort of thing.
What they don't explicitly say and what you get in a criminal prosecution is what I did
was wrong.
There's a difference between those two things, and that's why these criminal prosecutions
are so important.
That's why we're still waiting for our attorney general to do the right thing here and charge
these people with the crimes that they committed here in the state of Wisconsin.
Jim, along that same line, Devin LeMayhew, the Senate Majority Leader Republican, Bob
Spendel, this now admitted fake Trump-elect or was his appointee.
We think he should be stripped of his position, but LeMayhew came out this afternoon, basically
using the statement, the legal parsing of the words.
The fact they didn't have to accept culpability specifically for their actions, Jim seems
like thing grueled to me, but want to get your legal opinion.
I mean, do we need an indictment and a conviction before Bob Spendel gets his ass thrown
off this commission?
You should have to do that.
You were talking before you been about the legal things that happened to lawyers when they
made misrepresentations.
People in responsible positions should not be doing this, even with the limited acknowledgement
that what you're doing was intending to undermine the election.
You shouldn't have to depend upon a criminal prosecution to get the result you're talking
about.
Criminal prosecution makes it even clearer, but these people should be removed from the
positions of responsibility just based upon their acknowledgments that they have made
in that civil case.
You know, I should mess with the entire audience and ask you to stick around, but Jim, I know
we all got a packer gave to plan for.
Really appreciate you joining us today, sir.
Always a pleasure, my friends, and we'll talk to you again very soon, expect more things
going on in Wisconsin and the United States of America.
Thanks, Joe.
Charged, never convicted, the devil's advocates.
Look back to the devil's advocates radio show the Bob Spindell Musco Monday edition, a happier,
happier hour.
Always happy up in here when our friend Jim sent outcomes round.
Did I mention the bear still suck, even though they beat Detroit and I, I feel like I had
a root and interest in that game, suddenly, so go bears, WC 820 AM, shout out tough, tough
game for my liars.
Uh, Jim sent out a fine host in Saturday mornings.
He does morning can always nine to 11 AM.
I would encourage you to listen, get, get yourself ecumcated.
He does a hell of a job.
A little bit more.
I'd like to throw out there before we jump into Giuliani comparing his own client to
Amber herd and the civil suit to a death penalty.
Oh, my, that's the headline over at the raw story.
We'll get there in a minute, but I want to acknowledge a couple of things.
When Jim stays long and we've invited him to stay before and I, I like to peak every
so often and see if the audience sticks around because the audience loves Jim.
And I know if they're streaming or not, you know, I like to see all the little, the dots.
Well, I know if we keep Jim long, half the people in our audience are going to be
eating quick trip rotisserie chicken before the packer game tonight, because they're not
going to get home.
They're going to sit in the driveway and they're not going to cook dinner.
They're going to eat up the gym.
The morning can always and they're going to find themselves hungry by halftime dumb.
So you know, you don't need anything more had to give you a break, had to let you go,
get yourself fed, but this showing done, you can still be a part eight, four, four, nine,
six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine, uh, met a guy this weekend, Kurt listening from
Richland Center and how did I know I was at a wrestling mean as a big prep wrestling
meet hundreds of kids there, uh, my kid, third place in his weight division.
I was proud of him.
Nice.
I get the medals, but he did this weekend, so good job, Karsten.
And I met this father there with his own kid and his name was Kurt.
And he was from Richland Center and as I'm talking to him, I was talking about this time
of year and you know, got to be careful of COVID and the Christmas parties and that kind
of stuff.
And we're, oh, what do you do?
He's, he's, um, he works for, I believe the city or the county.
And I told him, I, in the radio business, he's like, Oh, you know, some people bought
out the local radio station around here, some specific folks and Kurt has become a big
fan of the civic.
He said he's always got the 107.7 FM on, which is the, you know, the FM we're playing on
right now in Richland Center, uh, news from the center, 107.7 FM, I believe it's, well,
I got to do this by memory, damn, I believe it's 1450 AM.
You can listen to us there as well.
And I know he gets his Packer games and such, but he also told me he's a big bucks fan.
So tonight, we're giving way to the bucks game over on the W R C E and of course, the
Packers playing on the W R C L. Kurt, you're welcome.
Keep listening, Kurt, we appreciate it.
And I asked him, I said, yeah, we're coached that product in the late afternoon.
He said the devil's advocates said, yeah, what do you think of that show?
He said, I love those guys.
I said, I'm, I'm one of those guys.
He said, which one?
I said the good one, of course.
Yeah.
Crudey, Crudey, I'm, I'm, I'm the good one Kurt.
I'm Crudey.
So anyways, very nice to meet Kurt.
And nice to know that, you know, we got a bucks fan listed out in W R C E land and a
big fan of the devil's advocates, you know, couldn't be half as big a fan as we are,
but anyways, welcome to the party, pal, eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven,
eight, nine.
You ready for this intriguing roster?
We had mine.
I mean, I'll dig it out, man, let's, let's, let's hear it, man, let's hear it.
The lawyer compares client to Amber herd, you remember that trail?
Amber herd's the one that crapped on her ex-husband's bed, Johnny Depp's bed, right?
Uh-huh.
Is that, yeah, I guess what, what a strange thing to compare one's client to.
Although I heard it laid down in the, in the borad film and put his hand down his pants,
like he was expecting something from somebody.
One of, one of Trump's witnesses in the fraud trial recently, compared his disclaimer
to like the disclaimer on a pack of cigarettes, when, when you're comparing your, your client
to a, you know, the warning label on a pack of cigarettes, I'm just saying.
So anyways, this is where we find ourselves Rudy Giuliani's attorney Monday.
That's today, Dom, compared his client to Johnny Depp's ex-wife, likened civil litigation
to the death penalty and wrapped up his opening statement in about five minutes, according
to a reporter in the courtroom.
He's been paid by the hour and Rudy's running out of cash.
The aforementioned and he does have counsel, Dom, he's not, he's not doing it himself.
Rudy's lawyer, Joe Sibley's slap dash summary came after Giuliani infuriated Washington
DC's civil court judge, overseeing two Georgia poll workers, $43 million civil defamation
case by strolling in the court late.
Hey, I thought this is a man that wanted to watch his, remember, I'm wearing two watches,
remember that day Giuliani, and he said that so he can bill him twice.
The man strolls in as a criminal, well, a civil defendant strolls into his own court
appearance late, Dom, even, even I think you would, I would keep Lombardi time going
out in the court.
I mean, $43 million, yeah, I think it's so up for that one.
Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss have said that they faced death threats after Giuliani accused
them of interfering with the 2020 election by passing around a USB drive like illegal drugs.
The object turned out to be a gingerbread and their opening statements that turned
me for Freeman and Moss say their lives became a perpetual nightmare when they were targeted
by Giuliani without evidence on that, according to CBS news, they didn't stop simply from
slamming the women's attorney Monday for seeking the civil equivalent of the death penalty
and damages reports McFarlane, well, but maybe, I mean, let's, I mean, shouldn't
it defamed them?
Well, if you're, the civil equivalence of the death penalty, perhaps as warranted when
the plaintiffs are receiving death threats based on the BS, your client was shoveling.
Yeah, dude.
That's messed up.
Well, apparently, that's where he, he started comparing his client to Amber, heard the
one that took a dump in the bad, that Johnny, anyways, simply then tried to compare the
large amounts up by Freeman and Moss to those depth demanded from Amanda, who was unable
to pay the movie star 15 million in damages for calling herself a survivor of domestic
abuse, credit MacFarlane, well, she was still ordered to pay.
You know, that's lifetime earnings, damn, when you talk about a, a judgment, really
still got a few good years, maybe left in them.
Ha, he mean good luck, 43 million, I assume, all right.
So he's, this is already, it's like the Trump thing is already guilty of it, right?
The Trumps already been guilty of the fraud and the civil fraud in New York state.
And Rudy has already been found guilty of this defamation.
Now it's a matter of negotiating or discovering how much money should it be?
Should it be, you know, $43 million, should it be $4.3 million, should it be $43, you know,
that will be to be determined.
But I mean, I cannot imagine, Julian, I don't know anything, that he's got 43 million
sitting cash, you know what I'm saying?
Well, he's stiffing in something's lawyers, apparently, although he did, apparently
buy a very nice engagement ring for the woman he allegedly was stumpin' down at the
office.
Now, wasn't he selling the condo too though?
You'll see a lot of evidence of harm, according to Juliannie's attorney-cibly, but not
a lot of evidence, Mr. Juliannie was the cause.
But they accused themselves just because someone else was the actual vessel of the harm.
Someone else made the death threats.
Juliannie didn't come down to their house personally and make the death threats.
He just targeted the death threats.
I mean, defaming accusations.
Do you recall did Trump jump in on this as well?
I mean, I think Trump has referenced them.
So if it's Juliannie, I'm curious on the legal thing here.
I recall, and you know, my memory, man, but Trump was kind of jumping on that bandwagon
referring to these folks.
If not by name, certainly by topic and subject.
I would then be shocked, but this is Juliannie's trial.
Trump will already get blood all of his money at other subsequent fraud trials in E. Jean
Carroll.
And perhaps even a few civil penalties for causing an insurrection on January 6th,
that might, that might come from civil forfeatures.
I can tell you with my own run in it's with the law, they have some fines and some court
fees.
Just saying eight four, nine seven, two, seven, eight, nine, you never let me get out
the phone number eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine, that's
eight, four, four, nine, six party much better when you do it nearly uninterrupted reiterated.
NBC news from June of this year, years after the lies were turned upside down, that conspiracy
theorists Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Shemoss, officially cleared by Georgia authorities,
Georgia state election board dismissing its year's long investigation into alleged election
fraud in the state farm arena in Atlanta for the two years after conspiracy theorists.
And then President Donald Trump claimed that Freeman and her daughter had committed election
fraud in the 2020 presidential elections.
Fraud claims were unsubstantiated and found to have no merit at the investigative concluded,
reporting on the work of the FBI, the Georgia Bureau of Investigations and investigators
from the Secretary of State's office vetting the alleged fraud during their efforts to overturn
the election.
Trump and his ally Rudy Giuliani repeatedly claimed that Freeman and Mossick commit election
fraud, a heavily edited brief clip of security forje was widely circulated on line by
Trump allies as supposed supposed proof.
Freeman in particular became a target for Trump and the former president made false comments
about her social media as recently as January, again, January 2023.
So how was this all Trump not charged in this as well?
Why is there not criminal charges there are civil accusations?
Sure, but Trump was on it as well, man.
Trump was a piece of that as well.
So anyway, I find that interesting, maybe they'll go after him next.
Perhaps they will.
I found a little headline here.
This one's intriguing, dumb at the Washington Post.
Trump's day one dictatorship becomes an applause line.
You know, they're, they're playing this one now, like playing it to the GOP base.
The author of this, I better make sure I get this accurate.
It's Philip Bump at the post.
The author writes, the last time I wrote about Gavin wax, the head of the hard right New
York Young Republicans Club was in the wake of its annual fundraising dinner last December.
Wax was joined that evening by Donald Trump Jr.
Brett Marchery Taylor Green and other figures from the right, most friends of the national
and international politics describe his vision for political activism.
Here's what Wax said, we want total war.
We must be prepared to do battle in every arena in the media, in the courtroom at the
bell box, and in the streets, charming guy down at the time.
This was simply a small component of a broad, shallow, rhetoric hinting a political violence
in a need for extremists, response to the moment, not unimportant, but still distant from
actual anti-democratic actions.
But on Saturday, dumb, if he in Y, Y R C's 2023 iteration of the dinner, Wax returned
to the theme.
Here's what he said.
Once President Trump is back in office, according to Politico, we won't be playing nice anymore.
It'll be time for retribution.
I am your retribution.
All those responsible for destroying our once great country will be held to account after
baseless years of investigation and government lies and media lies against this man.
This time, though, there was much less distance between what he said in the mechanism for
making it a reality.
Unlike last time, Wax's comments were followed by a speech from Trump himself.
Trump marveled at the outset, that was an excellent speech, that was an excellent speech.
The crowd applauded a Chen Gavan broke out, then the man whom Wax saw his vehicle for far
right retribution, the man had himself introduced the idea that he was such a vehicle, dug into
his remarks, much of the speech centered on familiar themes in rhetoric.
These people are sick, they're bad.
He said of the media he offered an example that New York Times Peter Baker said that I
want to be a dictator, I didn't say that, I said I want to be a dictator for day one.
You know why I want to be a dictator, because I want a wall right, because I want a wall,
I want a drill, drill, drill, loud cheers from the crowd and then the chant, build that wall.
And then, I think I heard it, the bear still sucked, more devils.
Thank you, no politics, again, welcome to the devil's advocates.
Welcome back to the devil's advocates radio show our last segment of the day, if you
got something to say, hit us up right now on the lines of 844-967-2789 and keep it
locked, stick around, the Maggie Dawn show coming up at 6.
Now, Crudy, I know we're talking about Trump and this dictator conversation, Sky Palma
over at the raw store, apparently today, Trump, it was just a joke, Trump said money, he
was just joking when he said he would only be a dictator on day one, what was the joke,
he'd be a dictator for all days, let's read.
Trump was responding on truth social to New York Times Peter writer Baker's column on the
dictatorship comments he reportedly repeated over the weekend.
Mike News writer Peter Obama Baker of the family of New York Times just wrote in a major
front page story that I want to be a dictator, but doesn't mention it was said in a joking
manner and completed it with, but only for a day because I'm going to close the border
and drill, drill, drill, in much different attitude and meaning.
You know, perhaps similar in the same being, right, as, you know, you got to fight like
hell, you're not going to have a country anymore and go in peace.
You know, kind of covers it all.
It's a funny joke.
Cody says it's just a joke.
You know, after day one, you won't be a dictator promises, pinky promise.
Cross your heart and hope to die, promise, die industry, it's got to fight in the streets.
I mean, come on, man, really, I mean, you're going to go, you're going to go fight in
the streets to defend this guy.
You know what that makes me think of, Dom, your buddy, Sheriff David A Clark Jr.
Pitchforson, torture time in America.
We heard him say that specifically at a Donald Trump rally.
That was back in 2016 time frame, well, now Sheriff David A Clark Jr. says he doesn't
care what the national Republican say is going to be a ground war here in Wisconsin.
I think he's angling that he would be the right guy to represent the Republican interest
against Tammy Baldwin.
Don't you think that's why he keeps talking to the press, doing the podcast, Dom, and
going on the Vicki McKinnish show, you know, to object to lots of stuff.
Well, he's not just doing it to hear himself talk.
He's doing it because he's running for the US Senate soon, don't you think?
Should be an interesting primary.
I'm cheering for this action.
Graph Sheriff David A Clark Jr.
We need you in this race.
I need it for the entertainment value, you know, really for the next year, Dom, because
sometimes politics gets boring, but I got to what I got to think that was make it
boring.
Ever since the devil's advocate started politics has never been boring.
You remember that one day in 2014?
No, it was boring that day.
9 6 7 2 7 8 9 CJ never thought I'd be bored enough to think you'd be a good choice,
but here we are.
Why every Monday, CJ, what do you got?
Hey guys, hey, I thought you said you were now my buddy, Rudy.
I am your buddy.
I'm in your buddy.
I bust my buddy's balls all the time, man, just as Dom.
That's what being a buddy's all about, man, you get a little bit of room to bust some
jobs, man, that's why you're friends with people.
Well, you guys avoid the real news like the president, the way he runs to Marine 1 now without
answering any questions.
Well, are you asking a question or are you this president, what the hell, what, what
we missed today, CJ, bring us up to speed, because I haven't been on Fox News in a while.
So what's the breaking at Fox News?
Well, I know you guys fantasized about Donald Trump all the time, but you know, you should
really look at the news, uh, how this president has taken money from China through his
nine indicted son, nine counts indictment.
Are you talking about the truck payments, dude?
Come on, come on, comers, because it all leads back to the big guy that, well, why would
they charge Hunter?
Then if it leads to the big guy, CJ, why wouldn't they charge Biden, then it's coming,
the truth is coming down and hard as you Democrats deflect, you deflect, it's not deflecting.
This is just a straight up question, man.
And as I said it before, and I'll say Trump's been charged four different jurisdictions, 91
times.
If, if, if Hunter Biden did something illegal, and he should be charged and pay the consequences,
if Joe Biden did something illegal, he should be charged and pay the consequence.
If, if Donald Trump did something illegal, he should be charged and pay the consequence.
Can you, can we agree on that, CJ?
But you only want one of those, yes or no, man.
Before we continue, I've just got to listen, listen, I, I just laid it out there, brother.
I just want to know if you agree with my statement, yes or no, do you agree with that?
You don't want him in best again.
I mean, I just don't know how to tell you, man.
It's a very simple question, eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, seven, eight, nine,
maybe answered after the holidays.
The next time we let him on, down.
Let's keep going on the lines, eight, four, four, nine, six party, Kevin from Madison,
you are next, welcome, Kevin.
Kevin.
He got to it.
Well, I just tuned in.
I'm on my way home from work and if David Clark's running against Tammy Baldwin, he
ain't going to win because if a black man can barely win a Democrat thing, definitely
win in the Republican side, the Republicans are all raised.
Oh, come on, Kevin.
Look at how well Tim Scott did in the presidential race.
I know.
I had to laugh with that.
What was that?
Obama 2.0?
Come on.
Well, I mean, Nikki Haley seems to be coming up strong in the, in the runner up race for
the Republican presidential nomination.
What's that mean?
Down 30.
She's down in her home stage.
Who was the you becky, becky, becky, becky, becky, stand guy for, um, was that Stabby McStabberson,
you know, they act like they like Republicans act like they like black candidates, but
they never advanced throughout the primaries.
That has been my experience just historically looking casting show me I'm wrong.
Anything else today, Kevin?
Go packers fellow go packers go pack when Julian Bradley wins the presidency, then, then
I'll believe they truly have embraced, you know, diversity over there in the Republican
party.
But well, well, Robin Foss takes the attitude that we don't give people raises and we don't
build engineering schools and we fire faculty because there might be some implied growth
and diversity education, which also is like veterans in different groups that like my
son, who's a disabled student, he falls under the DEI category, Robin Foss, but you make
it all about racism.
And you wonder why we make accusations against you and your party, because we're calling
to spade a spade.
Thank you all for listening.
What a wrap up with this thought Bob Spindell must go.
Please call center Devon Lamehu, 608266 2056, he needs to be fired from the Wisconsin
elections commission.
Thank you Jim said tell stick around for Maggie Don go packers and the bear still suck.
Are you serious Claire?
