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 from any 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 Crout.
Welcome back to the Devil's Advocates Radio Show, a festivist Friday news dump edition
rolling into a happier, happier hour.
We've been joined by a fine guest, live via stream, I don't know what method, but stream.
He is a former US attorney, friend of the Devil's Advocates host of the morning, Kenoli.
He's Jim Santel.
Jim, welcome back to the show.
Glad to be with you once again on a Friday afternoon, who says the chords aren't active
on the Friday before Christmas, right?
I thought it was going to be a sleepy little Friday afternoon, you know, maybe we do
some more.
How broke is Rudy jokes, but Jim, before we turn to the federal courts, state Supreme
Court here in the state of Wisconsin ruled on a fourth three.
And as I read the majority decision authored by Karofsky and the, you know, in fact,
it says new maps, but the rationale as I understood it, Jim, was lack of contiguous
districts.
And that is a state law issue.
The state constitution says contiguous districts.
So they went through and they very clearly defined in this 235 page ruling what that meant
and why we're going to need some new maps.
Speaker Robin Voss, who of course doesn't want to hear that, says this will go to the
US Supreme Court.
And Jim, I'm speaking beyond my, let's just say professional legal licensure, but I would
conjecture, sir, that this is a state constitutional issue.
And the way this ruling was crafted, there's a lot of bluster in the dissent, but I didn't
see any arguments against the findings of the court.
Jim, Sydney Rashed off of the US Supreme Court to wait in here.
Your right, first of all, there is an awful lot of bluster in the dissent.
We can talk about some of that very vitriolic language coming from the three dissenting
justices here.
But a couple of things, again, about civics, as we always talk, does the United States
Constitution permit parties to seek review from a high court in a state by the United
States Supreme Court?
The answer is yes, we've seen that.
We see that perhaps coming out of Colorado, this other issue that's out there under the
40th Amendment.
So the procedure is there, but I think you've got a good point to make, which is that the
United States Supreme Court can also decide, as we've learned today, again, in another
situation to take or not to take a case.
And certainly one of the considerations that they will look to is the extent to it, which
it really raises a federal issue, something under the United States Constitution.
Now, you can always craft that, I suppose, as a due process issue, an equal protection
issue, which is also, of course, throughout our United States Constitution.
But I think the argument would be made that this is a state matter that the Supreme Court,
the United States Supreme Court, does not need to weigh in on this because it is an interpretation,
as you said, under this contiguity argument in the state constitution.
Again, this is why lawyers are in business all the time.
They will argue about that, but there is that argument to be made that this is not a matter
for the United States Supreme Court to take on.
We will see what they do in the meantime, again, tick-tock.
We've got limited period of time in which you get all this resolved.
Jim, these maps were not contiguous for a very long time.
I mean, all of a sudden they look at the same map and say, oh, look, they're not contiguous.
How does someone who doesn't pay attention to this process that line of thought?
Right.
So if you look back at some of the decisions even by our Wisconsin courts, they have sort
of turned a blind eye, if you will, to the contiguity argument in the past.
And that was a part of the oral argument, not too long ago, a few weeks ago in November,
which is, you know, why is it this is now coming up here?
Have we not really adopted a non-contiguity posture here throughout recent years?
And the answer is, yes, so there is somebody to be said about the inconsistency, if you will,
in terms of history on this.
This is where, again, the Chief Justice has said, you know,
just because we haven't done it quite right in the past doesn't mean we need,
we should not remedy that problem and go back to a more strict reading, if you will,
the Constitution that says it, yes, districts should be contiguous.
That's what today's opinion is all about.
And it does reflect once again that we've been going back and forth, historically,
legally on this issue.
Today, the Supreme Court identifies a bright line says, nope,
the 54, the 99 assembly districts that are not contiguous,
21 of the 33 of sent districts are not contiguous,
those are in violation of the Constitution.
What they do next is the interesting issue also at the state court level,
opposed to the federal Supreme Court level,
in remedying that problem.
Jim Santel, our fine guest, we got some breaking news out of the great state of Wisconsin,
Wisconsin Supreme Court by a 4-3, and they're going to call it a partisan ruling, Jim.
Has decided that we will have new legislative maps all across the assembly.
Well, new maps uniformly, we will have new elections for the entire assembly,
and half the Senate under this new map formula.
Of course, there are threats of appeal as we've discussed, Jim.
Now, my understanding is the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled prior on partisan gerrymandering,
and has effectively said, I guess that's okay in many cases.
Racial gerrymandering has been less permissible. They've sent it back under still,
and that seems to be about the only thing that will cause offense to the U.S. Supreme Court
in terms of gerrymandering. But the argument that, you know, the legislature's got the right,
does the state Supreme Court alleviate that with this sort of plan B,
plan A, we'll draw the maps because they got to be done quickly. But plan B,
if you really got your stuff together, legislature,
legislature and legislatures, you could still draw the maps, but Evers has got to acknowledge
and sign the maps. Jim, does that alleviate, again, a avenue of appeal?
It does certainly diminish sort of the constitutional due process, as well. And again,
the Supreme Court majority today says, yes, we should go back to the way this normally is supposed
to happen, legislature draws lines, legislature comes up with maps, the governor says yes or no,
if the governor says yes, then we're all taken care of. So they not only identify that as the first
and arguably the best option here, but it recommends that that happen. Realistically, given the
short deadline here, and given the politics that are also described, then not only in the media out
there generally, but in virtually every conversation, unlikely that will happen. So instead,
what they've already done is they've identified some map draws, if you will, some cartographers,
some folks who've done this in the past in New York and Virginia. They have also solicited
comments and memorandums and other statements from the parties in a very brief time schedule,
and they're anticipating fully the Supreme Court, our state Supreme Court, drawing these lines,
again, based upon the consultants, the recommendations of the so-called experts, and certainly the items
that are submitted by the parties about what shouldn't should not happen here. That's more likely
that the issue is going to proceed here. And again, it does, it's lots and lots of arguments
we made here in all sorts of directions procedurally, but this has to be done. I think there's a March 15
deadline here in the state of Wisconsin. You get this all in place, boy, you stop that process
from going ahead. You take appeals to the Supreme Court, which has your absolute right,
said that generally we're focused on the voting rights act under racial discrimination and racial
profiling and those kinds of things. We're not very much looking at partisan issues. All of those
get in the mix here. They could complicate the arguments and arguably once again, the way this,
in a way that we just can't tolerate in 2024. Jim sent out that's the other big breaking or one
of the big breaking issues of the day. Well, that tape out of Detroit apparently, Trump pressuring
more elections officials captured on tape. And also the R&C chair, Ronald McDaniel, and she might
have some new legal problems on her hand in Wayne County, Michigan. But Jim, the US Supreme Court
has not taken up special counselor Jack Smith's ask for expedited hearing and decision on presidential
immunity. And it seems like a ludicrous question that the court will ultimately reject the
arguments, the pleadings of the former president's legal team. But the delay, the delay favors the man.
And you know, this is a partisan court, Jim. It is clearly ruled in partisan fashion. And it's a
six three. So they don't so much have to muddle this is just drag their feet. And suddenly,
Donald Trump could be reelected the president with a lingering federal trial, which I would say
would disqualify him from Colorado's ballot in a lot of other states. Right. A couple of things
again to unpack all those good comments as well. Judge Chuck, and although she has said she's
suspending things, whatever that means in the federal court, she scheduled to begin selecting a
jury in nine weeks from Monday, nine weeks from now. And that's why once again, the theme of our
discussion today is timing, right. The Supreme Court today basically rejecting Jack Smith's request,
as you said, to leapfrog over nothing, nothing inappropriate about that. There's a process for doing
it saying, no, no, we'll have the DC Court of Appeals take this up. The DC Court of Appeals has
scheduled argument on January 9th on this immunity issue. So they're moving with some speed,
but not not complete speed here either. And once again, the issue is timing. If the Court of Appeals
issue is an opinion of three judge panel, you've got the names of the judges already who are there
taking this case on, there could also be an on-bong hearing the Court of Appeals. And then it could go
to the Supreme Court. All, all as you said, Mike, on an argument that we know is ridiculous. The notion
that a president has immune from criminal prosecution for crimes committed in office,
that's a clear, clear issue. The president is not immune. And again, that should be brought to
conclusion very quickly. If it's not, we have another problem at the federal level.
Jim, best case scenarios. I mean, the Supreme Court has taken up cases before and acted
with a lacquerity in the past. Any examples in the last several years. What is the best case
scenario? As you see it, you said, mentioned what January 9th for the DC of Field Court.
Give me the best case scenario, Jim. Sure. Here it is. DC Court of Appeals acts quickly.
These three judges say, nope, no immunity here. Enteres the order. There's a petition for an
on-bong hearing. That gets denied. They take it up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
of the set looks and says, you know what? We are not granting cert. We're not going to review that.
The lower court issue stands and the immunity issue remains the law of the case and the law
of the land. That's what that would have. What date? What date? What date would that happen?
Best case scenario. Realistically, probably in the February or so, it's getting very, very late
as you look at days. That's the only way a trial is going to proceed in March, isn't it, Jim?
And absolutely. Absolutely. It's got to go very quickly.
Come back more Devils Advocates, our fine guest, Jim Centel.
Radio show. We have our good friend, James Centel, former U.S. Attorney host of Morning,
can only hear on the Civic Media Network on Saturday. Morning, Jim. Always the pleasure.
Big news day. Love it when you come around and give us your opinion. A new recording,
apparently, out from Wayne County, Michigan. Man, I was born in Wayne County.
I take exception to what's going on here. Apparently Trump on this recording,
pressuring some of these folks in Michigan to help him overturn the election, not to certify
the election. I'll be really bad. You denied it now. You're going to certify it now.
That'll make you look terrible. Apparently, Romney was there, the Republican head. She was on
the line as well. Hey, we'll pay for the attorneys. Now, it just seems like Trump, hey,
you know, if someone sees someone throw a tomato, knock the hell out of them, I'll pay the attorneys.
We've heard Trump talk like this before. What is it about this case or this issue, this recording
that perhaps doesn't vote very well for the former president? It doesn't vote very well,
because once again, it is another piece of clear evidence where we've got the president speaking,
right? We've got so many situations out there. We've got Cassie Hutchinson, other people saying,
this is what he said. Even those who are cooperating now in Georgia will probably
describing what he may have said. Here you once again have the president, the former president,
I'm on recording talking about this. It's the same sort of thing as this conversation of Brad
Baffinsburg or the Secretary of State in Georgia many years ago, right? Same kind of thing.
And so the reason why it is compelling is because it's just more evidence of this intent issue,
which we've talked about repeatedly. When you go around and you are talking to people, not just
in Georgia, but now in Michigan, presumably other places. And by the way, we've always had a
sense that there was this tape out here. Now we've got information that we know we know, we know
got a transcript here. We've got his actual words out there. The fact that it is out there and
that it is, the president himself is speaking confirms once again the strength of the case against
him and the purpose that he had, which was not, which was not to preserve democracy as his
defense is going to be, but rather to remain in power. My understanding from some of the early
reporting on the tape is that it just goes to that issue. How do we stay in power? Do what you
need to do to keep me here? That kind of thing is very helpful. And it would also be admissible,
if you will, in Jack Smith's case, involving the overall federal insurrection charges, which
are for against the former president. Jim Santel, our fine guest, Jim, my understanding first take
reporting I had seen on this issue, Ronan McDaniel, the R&C chairperson was on this call and not
only was she on it, she was actively involved. And I construed some of the statements she made
to be threatening in nature. My understanding of the facts of this issue, these Wayne County
elections, people had already certified. So what they were being asked to do was change
their assessment of the validity of the election. They had already said valid. We certify it.
Now they were being pressured to change their votes. And in fact, went back and tried to change
their votes. My understanding is McDaniel said, if you don't go back and change your votes,
you'll be arrested. There was a legal threat. There was a bail threat, 48 hours. Do it
or trouble. Did you see similar reporting, Jim? Because I read a lot of stuff. Including a lot of
some great reports. Exactly that same kind of thing. It is in the category, which we're seeing
of the great frequency about threats in America. This one, this one, very specific. And I think
what you just described, Mike, is very important that these are not people who are deliberating.
Your attorneys coming in, even the head of the Republican party is saying they are saying,
well, gee, here's some arguments in favor or not in favor of certifying. This was done. And she
is asking them to return to this issue, to reverse it, and to do it because she is threatening them.
Again, if that's to be, that is confirmed in the language here, that's the kind of thing that
also gets you in criminal trouble. It's the kind of thing that Jack Smith has already charged,
if you will, at least in the four count insurrection case. Fanny Willis describes that sort of thing.
We've got all these things. We've got to fake electors, all those kinds of things. We've got
behavior that is prompted by, in this particular instance, in Michigan, a threat. We've also seen
this in many other areas. We know that the Colorado Supreme Court justices are now being threatened
for what they've been doing, right? We've got all these situations where America now responds to
legitimate decisions by rule of law entities. And what do we do? Not everyone, plainly not a
majority. But we've got these people out there who think this appropriate to threaten,
and apparently it includes the head of a major party in one of our significant states in this
union, who is also not above telling somebody that if they don't basically rescind their previous
decision, they don't go get, if they don't decide to undermine the law, there will be consequences
for that. That can be criminal behavior, depending upon how it's described in the particular
state or federal charges that might be identified there. James Santel, former U.S. attorney,
let's talk about the Colorado Supreme Court decision for just a moment. Many like five or six
Republicans, one independent. They're the ones bringing this case, trying to keep Trump off
of the ballot in Colorado, granted a lot of democratic judges there. Jim, but what's your sense?
Jordan, I argued about this. There's no really no articulation in the Constitution. How this would
go down? Other states have denied it. Colorado said, yeah, you know, you engage in an insurrection,
in a self-evident kind of manner. Jim, what was your opinion on the Colorado Supreme Court?
Sure, right. And again, I cannot tell you that I have read through every last word and every
footnote in that very extensive opinion. But what I have seen is a powerhouse opinion. We haven't
assigned reading to your listeners in a long time. So maybe we'll do a portion of that tonight
or tomorrow. But it is a compelling opinion. This is not a two to three page order. This is going
through all of the legal standards, the constitutional implications of this. It's resting with the
14th Amendment. It's history, it's meaning, it's purpose, and comes to a very, very compelling
decision about the application of the 14th Amendment in this case as to the former president.
Having said that now, then we get into the political side of things, which everyone I think
is accurate in predicting, which is it goes up now. Again, we've talked once again about
the civics here. You can appeal a decision by a state court to the Supreme Court. Let us assume
that the Supreme Court will grant cert as to this issue. They will take this on. We recall it is
in the lifetime of all of us. I think it's also in the lifetime of producer Nate here joining us
today that about 23 years ago, this was an institution, the Supreme Court, that stopped the
counting of votes in a state in America that turned out, basically the voting, and we've looked
at the very end, gave the votes to the opposite candidate. That was Al Gore. They stopped voting.
They stopped counting votes. Is there any doubt that this particular Supreme Court is going to
overturn the Colorado Supreme Court and say, well, maybe on some procedural grounds,
they've got some avenues to do that. Other things that can talk about not giving them a process,
they will not be above that inclination to keep him on the ballot. And I would very much predict,
like many, many other people that that's going to get overturned by the Supreme Court, regrettably.
If Trump were convicted of that, of what he's charged with under with Jack Smith,
would the U.S. Supreme Court, how would that change their opinion in your opinion?
I think it could. I think it could. That's one of the basics of language they may decide this.
You know, what is what is the meaning of insurrection? We've got that case out in New Mexico,
where we do have a conviction of somebody for January 6th, the rioter there, the judge out there
says, yes, indeed, a conviction is sufficient to invoke the language of the 14th Amendment and
keep them off the ballot, kept them out of office. So you've got to come up much more compelling
argument there. We don't have that yet to claim it. Folks, you are listening to the devils,
advocates ready to show it ain't a sleepy little Friday edition. It's a festivist Friday news
dump edition. We got Jim Santel, former U.S. Attorney host of the Morning Canolies. You live
tomorrow morning, Jim. We're alive tomorrow morning more of this wonderful discussion.
I don't know if you know the devil's advocates, but the show is kind of a big deal.
Look back to the devils. Advocates radio show, the happier, happier, the Friday edition
rolling into a holiday weekend. Festivist style. We've kept Jim Santel. Appreciate you,
stick around, counselor. And I want to correct the record. I thought I had read reporting that
Ronald McDaniel had threatened these poll workers in Wayne County. They were not threatened. I
went to the source material, the Detroit news broke this story. They're apparently the ones
that have Trump pressuring these poll workers, but I'm just going to read the very conclusion of
this piece. Chris Thomas, a lawyer who served as Michigan's election director for more than three
decades said the Republican canvassers in Wayne County had no legal reason to block certification
of the election. Now they left the room. They voted to certify. They left the room. They took a
call from McDaniel and Trump in a car. And then they just fled. They didn't sign off on the
certification. And the next day they said they wanted to rescind after being pressured by Trump
and McDaniel. But Thomas says it's pretty unfortunate that Republican leaders offered to give
them something legal protection for not doing their jobs. They said, get out. We'll get you lawyers.
But I don't want to misconstrue. I don't believe there was any threat, but I'm going to end with
Thomas' quote here, offering something of value to a public official to not perform a required
duty may raise legal issues for the person doing so. I would say that'd be both Trump and
McDaniel, but no threats, no clear threats, just pressure and enticements, legal support, and
Joe. Exactly. And what they're pointing is showing us that I've got Donald Trump saying we can't
let these people take our country away from us. It would be terrible. They would look terrible
if they, they used electric, certified the county results after first opposing them.
And then you do have Ronald McDaniel saying, if you can go home tonight, do not sign it, we will
get you attorneys. It is the sort of thing that more than gives you pause, again, about somebody
who is engaging again with officials in the electoral process here and encouraging them to do something
that's plainly contrary to what the facts are on all of this. And I think the quote from the attorney
there is probably accurate. You've got a lot of exposure here. It may not, it's probably not a threat
in the literal sense of the word, but certainly some attempt to course their behavior, which could
also be in the nature of corruption, depending upon the entire context of that conversation. Absolutely.
The attorney general, state of Michigan, she's been a fine guest in this program a few times, Jim.
Dana Dassel, she has charged the false Trump electors under Michigan statute. And one must assume
this is new news to her because she apparently is aggressive in the prosecuting. And I would expect to
see, perhaps, charges leveled against the former president, maybe even Ronald McDaniel,
Jim, am I wishful thinking before the Christmas break here?
I think she you're absolutely right. The attorney general there, very aggressive in doing this.
We know as well that I think it's at least one of the electors that she has charged there.
It's also cooperating, which is significant, right? So that's a part of the process there.
And this has some parallels to Georgia once again, right? You, as you said before, you've got
the former president at the time, the president reaching out to people in the particular state
and asking for a change in the electoral count, basically. That's the same kind of thing that Donald
Trump did at the Secretary of State there in Georgia. The same kind of thing that Bonnie Willis
under Georgia law charged as this Rico case, presumably, presumably the attorney general,
if this is news to her. And it may be, it may not be. We don't always know what's inside the entire
file, the investigative file, until these cases go to trial. She may have had some pretty good
sense of this and may have may not have seen all the ins and outs, but it may also be there.
She certainly would be looking at this once again as Bonnie Willis did when it comes to the former
president's activity, reaching into Michigan to try to change the results there.
Jim, I mean, this is going on three years ago, man. You know, I have a couple of thoughts.
Number one, how can something like this stay hidden quote-unquote for so long, at least from us?
And number two, what does that say about what else might be out there that we do not yet know?
So that's a lot of things, right? Number one, certainly that you've got as a part of any investigation.
I do think, even I think we even exchanged some notes about this other night.
I do think Jack Smith has turned over every rock and probably has again a minute,
five minutes, second by second, accounting what was going on on January 6th. He has done a lot
of this and I wouldn't be surprised if he already had some sense of what other things that Donald
Trump has said to other people in other states, maybe even Wisconsin, we don't know. Those are the
kinds of things that would be disclosed during the trial. They would have to be a part of discovery
as well. The government is obliged, under a thing called Janks and Brady, to produce every bit of
information it has to the defense. That's a part of our system. That may already be out there.
Again, the defense has no great interest in disclosing those kinds of things. That's why we
wouldn't know it. But you're absolutely right. Those kinds of things will be eventually a part of
a trial. And the same time it has been, we're coming up now on 2024, three years since all of this
happened and it does get a bit stale. You have a reason to believe that there's more of it out there.
We don't know how broad that may be.
Folks, we're listening to the Devils Advocates radio show James at Santel,
former US Attorney host of Morning Canoli on Saturdays right here on the Civic Media Radio Network.
Jim, in the last segment, I ask you about a timeline. Certainly as we talked about the US Supreme
Court will not take up this expedited request by Jax Smith to determine whether or not, you know,
Donald Trump has this ultimate absolute immunity for everything ever. It's got to go through the
DC. They already have arguments scheduled for what January 9th and the process go through it. I mean,
so possibly, if everything went perfectly well beforehand, maybe we could still meet the March
deadline, but probably not. I question to you, Jim. Alvin Bragg, man, is there? If this thing got
delayed too long, could he slide back in? Where do we have with the Alvin Bragg, a Manhattan D.A.
investigate? Sure. And so again, that's also in the queue, right? In the springtime as well.
Alvin Bragg, interested in me is saying. Are we back to talking about the Sturvy Daniels?
We are talking about Sturvy Daniels. Once again, we're talking about Sturvy Daniels. The
Hush money is back once again from what? 2016. Talk about your old back scenarios, right?
October of 2016, we're talking about events now. He has generously said, you know what, if all
you other prosecutors, if you want to go ahead of me, I'll be happy to hold back. At the same time,
he plainly has an interest in going ahead with this as well. The narrow specific answer to your
good question, Dom, is trial dates are plainly set by courts. And so just like Jack Smith is seeking
expedited, well, actually, I'm expedited, but appropriately timely trials, both in South Florida,
but and also in the D.C. Alvin Bragg, obviously, should bring this to trial sometimes soon,
get to the criminal judge there and say, schedule this on, confirm this, and get this ready to go
to trial. It was the first case it was indicted. It probably won't be the last one tried, but
probably I will agree with you Mike. Probably the least significant now among all of these
others that is out there, but it should be tried at some point. Gosh, before the decade is out, right?
Jim sent out, I have never utilized the federal courts. I've never been a defendant in the federal
courts state courts, but that's a different, different story, different day. If there is a delay,
let's start with the, the March 4 trial date in D.C. Let's assume our miraculous Christmas
Hail Mary doesn't come through the D.C. Circuit doesn't rule, and then the Supreme Court walks away
and says, let it, let it happen. That would be the most expedited timeline that we could possibly
imagine. Let's say it doesn't happen like that. Jim, how long are trials generally delayed for it?
Let's say March 4 is no longer going to seem like a reality. Well, they're not going to ask you
get on March 5 and March 6 and March 7, they're going to schedule someone else's trial. So, Jim,
what, what sort of a delay would we expect if, if we knew this trial was on the back burner again?
It is an incredibly important question. It has to have practical trial sketching by federal
district court judges. We know that judge shot can much to the anger, if you will, of Donald
Trump and his attorneys has already begun the jury selection process. She's already commissioned
the questionnaires to go out and begin that process. Why? Because it's estimated that to get a jury
there in the district of Columbia, not impossible at all, it's going to take weeks probably.
And she has plainly already set aside weeks to try this case. And again, beginning in early March,
and that means that she has maybe not completely erased her calendar. I'm sure there are things in
second and third settings there, maybe other civil trials that she was going to do during the
period of time. But she has basically carved out a significant period of time, probably a couple
of months, if not more, between jury selection, between presentation of the prosecution case,
defense case as well. If they make one, they don't have an obligation to do so. We're talking
weeks, if not months, to try the case alone. Again, we're not even talking about Florida right now
in the Mar-a-Lago case. This is just the one defendant or count in direction of indictment in
DC. She is going to have to find another significant period in her calendar to reinsert this trial.
Now, can there be reassignments of cases? Yes. The civil doc always takes a second step, if you will,
for the criminal stuff. And there can be other reassignments of cases. And she probably would go
to the chief judge there and say, gee, what can we do to rearrange things among all the district
court judges? That's not easy. And she's already done this once. That's the consequence of delay here.
Could bring you into the summer if she can find time there. Could bring you into the fall,
even when something else significant is going to happen in America. All speculation on my part,
but it's no small thing to reschedule a significant trial like this and to find the time to do it.
I did many two and three gun cases, even white collar cases that can be tried, of course, of a
week or so. This is not that case. And it requires a lot of time finding that time on the calendar.
If it slips from from early March, it's going to be a challenge for her and other judges.
Jim Santel, our fine guest. What if the next hole in the calendar is right around, let's say,
November 1st, could you see a theoretical circumstance where Trump is the nominee and he goes
to trial on election day or as a trial or in some process of being tried in one or multiple jurisdictions?
Is that seem feasible or would they delay the trial start the trial sooner or not have a trial
until post election? I look at the speedy trial act and I would say this that you've got 70 days
from the time and indictment to try to case. Also, it's exceptions for complexity. Also,
it's for other things. I do not see an exception for boy, if the defendant happens to be running for
the presidency and might be elected in a few weeks, that's not there. That's sort of a tongue-in-cheek response.
The more serious response is that these judges have said that yes, they're going to give him. They
have given Donald Trump an awful lot of consideration by virtue of the fact that he is running for
office and who knows how that's going to play out. Super Tuesday coming up, campaigning,
conventions here in Milwaukee, right? Other places around the country where this is going to be 2024
huge amount of campaigning, the judges have still said that he is a defendant and Judge Chutkin,
among others, have said, I'm going to treat you the same way that I would treat other defendants.
Especially if there are all sorts of delays that are going on during the course of the summertime,
other accommodations are being given. I would see a federal judge saying, I'm done with further
delays. Even though this may begin on, whatever October, whatever Halloween, whatever day that is,
and may run into the election, I could see a judge doing this and finally saying,
that's not my consideration. My consideration is the delivery of justice as to this case,
and I'm going to go ahead and schedule this now. James Santel, former U.S attorney,
I love the thought process, the exercise we go through here, Jim. What if Donald Trump wins the
election, but is convicted subsequent to taking office? I think that would play out. Pardon myself.
He's not in office yet, right? He is not in office yet. Lots of considerations there.
Nothing in the Constitution that says that a convicted felon cannot take the oath of office on
January 20th. Appeals will still be going on. Another interesting issue, which we can talk about
another time is what if funny Willis, at some point, convicts him. Kenny State basically
prevents a president from taking office. That's a very interesting constitutional argument as well.
Stay tuned for more civics on civic media and the devil's advocates, right?
And don't forget the morning canolies with Jim Santel, every Saturday morning, including Christmas Eve
get up tomorrow morning, learn a little something from our friend Jim Santel. Have a great weekend,
Jim. I got to hit the mall tomorrow. Here there's a big event coming around soon.
Take care. More devil's advocates, one last chance for your Friday grievances.
Dial them up. Nothing but conservatives in the queue. Eight four four
Earlier premonition, so good. I knew that I wasn't. So good. So good.
I got to hit Feder Asывает Radio show happy Friday to us. I thank you, James Santel, former
US attorney, hosted theobicination, make sure you check his show out tomorrow. nine two eleven.
Let's hear right here on the Civic media network. I always appreciate sir Jim coming around,
our last segment of the day eight four four nine six seven two seven eight nine stick around
to make you don't show coming up next. Don, this is your last segment of the year.
Some of us doing live radio next week, but you are not amongst us.
Uh, that that's what we'll see. We have a lot of things in the works, but uh, my plan right now is
yeah, uh, I'm off next week. So I should root for bad weather. Might reroute you back to a studio.
I'm not cheering against you, buddy, but you know, be a little lonely here without you.
Oh, man. No, I know you're working hard, man. I will be here and Nate will be doing live radio.
So if we got some tremendous breaking news like the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling for new maps
like we did in our one or, you know, the US Supreme Court failing to do the right thing and
quickly with alacrity ruling on presidential immunity, which is acidine, but whatever.
You know, if any of that kind of stuff breaks, I'll be here. I'll be your man.
Damn one. I will. Gary, welcome to the show. Gary from Sussex are conservative love muffin.
How you doing, Gary? Yeah. Hey, Gary. I'm doing good. And Merry Christmas to both you guys.
Oh, Merry Christmas to both you guys. Yeah, right. Okay. Well, happy post-harmic up to it,
because I got a lot of Jewish friends. A lot of my clients are Jewish guys. And I got rabies
everything else, but back to business. All right. Hey, this Colorado thing, right? So what they're
doing is basically convicting Trump before he's convicted and say that he's broken the 14th amendment
and they're not going to let them on the ballot. Well, he's not convicted, but yes, I did say
he engaged in that direction. Therefore, and therefore, well, he's not a conviction. He's not
going to jail. He's not paying a fine, Gary. He doesn't have a privilege of being on the ballot
because he engaged in an insurrection. Look, you're going off. Yeah. Okay. So the fact of the
mayors, they're, they're disenfranchising all the Republicans. They're going to vote for him.
This will never fly. I mean, the government, I'm not, I don't like to use the word you guys,
because I like you guys, but the Democrats are just like, are they insane? What's going to
happen? What's this got to do with Democrats, Gary? These were Republican plaintiffs in the state
of Colorado. This was a decision made by an independent judiciary. And Dominique who didn't have a vote.
Yeah, but the thing is these people are Trump haters in a state that say a blue state. All right,
this isn't going to happen. Colorado's a blue state suddenly.
Well, it's certainly not red. Tell that to Lauren Boeward. Yeah. And you know what I'm saying?
And is it, is it your definition of red? If, if they would have gone along and say, no, Donald
Trump, let me ask you this, Gary. But let's talk about self-evident here, right? Donald Trump
sat on his ass for three hours while his supporters ransacked the Capitol. Can we agree on that?
No, he said go out there to the Capitol. Let him know what you're doing, but do it peacefully.
That's what I heard. Okay, but he did say that along with many other incendiary things, Gary.
But then they attacked the Capitol. And then, and then Donald Trump did nothing for over three
hours, Gary. So can we agree on that? What was he going to do? Stand out there and put his
hands on? He could have said, when he finally said three hours later, Gary, go home. We love
you. You're beautiful. People want a wonderful day. He didn't do that. He let them ransack the
Capitol for three hours, Gary. Can we agree on that? Hey, what happened in the Capitol was in
2010? Listen, Gary, we're talking, let's talk about January 6th. No deaths, no attacks on
Capitol police officers. They're not analogous, Gary. So don't even go there. Yeah, come on, man.
Listen, here's, here's a point, Gary. I don't think you can, I don't think you can defend Donald
Trump's lack of action. If nothing else, if nothing else is absolute lack of action while his
supporters ransacked the Capitol, attempting and successfully stopping the peaceful transfer
of power, Gary, that's what he did. That's what Donald Trump did. His lack of action, if nothing
else would make him part of it, giving aid and comfort to, I don't know, a bunch of insurrectionists
that he fired up. Gary, do you think Donald Trump has zero culpability on anything that happened
on that day? He might have been stuck in the bathroom with a bowel movement problem. Oh, come on,
Gary. Let me ask you a different question, Gary. I'd like to have an answer to that question, Gary.
Here's, yeah, he should, he should probably went to the Capitol and stood out there and said,
go home, go home. He didn't say anything. His own kids told them you got to say something.
And he did not, you know, for hours. Of course not. But the fact is he never told the people to do it.
Because he doesn't say stop it. It doesn't mean it comes to DC. It'll be wild. Come on, man, Gary,
Gary, do believe that if I say go beat up Dominic's ass, but be peaceful. I mean, does that,
does that take away the ass weapon? Or do we look at the net result and say, you know, maybe
you should have been a little more urgent when he said go peacefully because he only kind of
said it once at the end and it was sort of quiet. And the rest of the time, he's like, go fight like
hell. Or they're going to take your country away. Yes, Gary. Come on, man. In every, in any circumstance,
Gary, you and I would think I got to believe, man, politics aside, if someone acted in that behavior,
you're like, man, they're, they're, they're part of the problem. They're part of the reason why
this is happening. Gary, do you give any, any, this Trump bear any responsibility for January
6th and your mind, Gary? He could have done more, but he is not guilty of insurgency.
If he is convicted, should he be excluded from the ballot? If he is convicted? Of course.
Well, first of all, he'll never ever be convicted, not under the Supreme United States Supreme Court.
Well, that means they're partisan, Gary. There's a few more weight and Merry Christmas to you,
fella. Let's go, Paul. What do you got for us? Hey, Paulie.
Well, it's hard to follow that one, but hey, I was done. You can do better now without
even trying, Wiscoe. Come on. Okay. I was done in Arizona in 2010 and it was totally
peaceful and no comparison between the two. My teenage kids sleep in that capital, man. It was
incredibly peaceful. Blue painters tape on the wall. Come on. That's the worst they could say about
us is there's some stick them on the wall, Wiscoe. Great, great date for Wisconsin. That's
Supreme Court rules. We're going to actually have democracy. I'm Merry Christmas to that one. And
Nikki Haley, four points from Trump in New Hampshire. So what's Trump's say right away?
They pull, they pull. So there's Trump. I'm sick of Trump, by the way. Hey, you guys have a
Merry Christmas and thanks for your show. Great show today. All right. No qualifier. Merry Christmas.
No, pretty good. No, really good. Straight to great. Tony, the tiger couldn't set a better Wiscoe,
Paul. Have a Merry Christmas. Everybody I'll be here doing live radio next week with or without
that guy. Nate'll be here. We'll take your calls. Stick around the Maggie Dawn show then
pizza box Mike outside the pizza box here in Madison. And uh,
Peach Wabba doing the night lights eight to 10 right here on the civic media. Keep it locked.
Happy holidays.
