The Devil's Advocate's radio show is broadcast under a time brokerage agreement between
Devil Radio and Civic Media Inc.
Some portions of this program may be pre-recorded.
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 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 Advocate's radio show.
Friends proving it's never personal, only politics.
Now here's your host, Dom and Krut.
Welcome back to the Devil's Advocates radio show, a Biden-Bilden Bridges Thursday edition
of Happier, Happy Hour, and it gets happier.
Right now we've got James Santel, former US Attorney, host of a soon-to-be rebranded
show, Saturday Mornings 9-11 on Civic Media, probably the Jim Santel show.
That'd be an excellent name for it.
Jim, welcome back to the Devil's Advocates.
We should have been the Michael Krut show and Dom.
However you brand yourselves, I'm always delighted to be in your company, including in
a Thursday afternoon.
Well, what an interesting contrast.
The current president of the United States, bringing home the bacon, delivering a bridge
in northern Wisconsin, a bridge to another state, to a future, and the former president
sitting in a defamation trial.
And let me start with this question.
Did Trump have to be there?
There was nothing compelling his testimony today.
He didn't accomplish anything except probably making himself unsympathetic to the jury.
Why was he there other than what?
What?
It is once again.
It is once again a head scratcher and you have to believe that all these court appearances
are not in any way to have an impact upon the ultimate judgment, but are instead for
his purposes so that tonight on Truth Social and other appearances on the campaign trail
he can once again talk about how he has been victimized.
Of course, just the opposite is true.
This is the portion of the trial, Judge Lewis Kaplan, federal judge, has previously ruled
that the finding of defamation is solid.
It is there.
This is the portion of the trial we're focusing on damages.
How much money?
How much money should Donald Trump pay to attempt to restore E. Jean Carroll's reputation
and her basic solid reputation in the nation?
That's what this issue is about.
The case, again, focusing upon monetary damages, to answer your question, no, he could certainly
be there.
He's right to be there as a defendant, but does not need to be there and does not need
to testify because as you indicated, I think about three and a half minutes of
testimony, all of it irrelevant, frankly, to any damages issue and as you indicated in
a previous segment, you've got Judge Kaplan also cutting him off on the second question
asked because once again, he's gone outside of the parameters of the judges set, focusing
on damages and not on liability.
Also his responsibility to rein that in, responsibility also of the trial attorneys themselves to organize
this, this not well done by them once again.
And James Santel, our good friend former US attorney, the underlying allegation here is that
he raped a woman in a Bergstrom department store dressing room.
And he has said many times, well, I don't know this woman.
I don't recognize this woman.
In my understanding, his prior deposition was played again and we've, we've seen this.
We've got this sound.
We play it.
If you'll indulge us, counsel date, I'm going to need your help play Trump from his prior
deposition and he confuses Eugene Carroll with his former wife and they played this again
today in my understanding from the reporting I saw from the courtroom.
The courtroom went silent, play it for the people.
I think so, yes.
And you were come when you first saw this photo.
At some point during the process, I saw, that's, I guess her husband, John Johnson, who
was an anchor for ABC, nice guy.
I thought, I mean, I don't know him, but I thought he was pretty good at what he did.
I don't even know who the woman, let's say, I don't know who it's Marla.
No.
You're saying Marla is in this photo?
That's Marla.
Yeah, that's, that's my wife.
Which woman are you pointing to now?
Here.
Oh, that.
Oh, I see.
Who is that?
And the person on the right is, you're, that's why this was the picture.
I assume that's John Johnson.
Is that Carol?
Carol?
Because it's very blurry.
No, it's not.
It's getting blurry right about now, Jim.
He of course used as a defense that I would never find a woman like this attractive, you
know, that, of course, is always his defense because there are many allegations that this
man is raped or sexually assaulted women, but this is a pretty damning video testimony.
I mean, how damning is this to a jury and the rest of the video I've seen or saw reported
on Jim?
It was him posting about how rich he is and how wealthy he is and what a powerful brand
he has and they're setting the damages based on this guy's claims of how rich he is.
This could get really expensive, couldn't it, Jim?
Could get very expensive and to go to that point, recognize that this jury has before
it, not only the question about compensatory damages as we just spoke, but also punitive
damages.
What is the amount of money that can stop Donald Trump from doing this in the future?
There and there, unlike the compensatory damages where E. Jean Carroll's presented
witnesses who talk about her economic losses, there the jury is not completely on its own,
but can make a determination about what they think this particular fellow needs to have
on his judgment that will stop him from doing that in the future.
And that's why these kinds of tapes are all telling no doubt silence in the courtroom.
You can even hear Roberta Kaplan sort of during the course of the deposition, she's representing
E. Jean Carroll during the course of the deposition, but also at trial, she is also probably
just taken aback by this in the deposition when Donald Trump has identified Marla, Marla
and in fact that's E. Jean Carroll.
It is stunning and it's been a part of the trials previously.
This is not going to go well and it's just more indication that the jury has in front
of it, not only a substantial basis upon which to return, virtually everything that E. Jean
Carroll and Roberta Kaplan are asking for, but also then to punish him to stop him, to
try to get his attention if that's possible with Donald Trump and to tell him that you
now have to pay this amount of money, you continue to do this, it's only going to get worse.
Folks, you're listening to the devil's advocates radio show former US Attorney James Santel
joining us.
The pleasure, Donald Trump continues, like even last night to my understanding, like
30 some tweets or messages out there in a social media, ripping on the judge on E. Jean
Carroll.
This continues literally to this day gym and this is something that this is the second
one.
I've seen reporting that perhaps there could be a third, I mean, if he continues to do this,
so how does this work, if the guy, can they come back with, he's already got five million
right, you come back with 10, you come back with 20, 100, can you make it contingent that
if he keeps every time he says something, he's got to pay another 10 million, I mean,
for real, what can practically be done, because if the guy never shuts up, if he continues
to do it and blows off what the court says and continues to defame E. Jean Carroll, what
can be done about it?
Where is the end of this exactly?
And also, of course, we know that during the course of the trial itself, he has been doing
the same thing.
I'm not only in these campaign appearances, but quite literally in real time, while the
trial is going on, he's doing it.
It is stunning and to Roberta Kaplan's credit, she is finding out about that and playing
them to the jury almost in real time.
There's more damage being done while the trial is going on, it is incredible.
And to answer your question about contingencies and what about the future, when the judgment
comes back, that draws a right line, if you will, at least on the engagement of defamation
that Donald Trump has done to that point.
He does it again after the judgment comes back and you're absolutely right, E. Jean Carroll
can go back again and say, let's initiate at a third round of litigation and start this
over again.
Again, that kind of thing, I suspect she's going to be arguing about that tomorrow morning
when oral arguments happen, be fascinating to hear what Donald Trump's lawyers are going
to say about all this, but that issue once again of stopping him from doing this, that's
what this case is all about.
Who knows if he will ever, ever pay these multi-million dollar judgments, but they're intended
to do just that deterrence, which we talk about a lot, stop this, stop this, it's only going
to get worse.
All right, Jim, let's move along the three judge panel, the US Court of Appeals in
D.C., they heard oral arguments back in January 9th about Trump's ultimate presidential
immunity.
I can do anything.
I can, you know, assassinate my political rivals.
We haven't heard a thing back yet, Jim.
What does that say to you?
This seems like a slam dunk to me.
What are your thoughts, folks?
It is a slam dunk.
This is a no-brainer.
This is nothing to see here kind of a thing as we have chatted about before.
No president in our history, no president of the Constitution has a right to complete
pass when it comes to criminal activity, and again, to make the point that we have shared
before on this fine broadcast.
If any court, including the Court of Appeals, including the Supreme Court, they shouldn't
even come close to this.
If any court says yes indeed, there is even some area of behavior where he has got a criminal
immunity.
That's when we've got kings.
That's when our republic is destroyed.
We go back then to having a monarchy, as opposed to what we have today.
So the Court of Appeals, that's right, January 9th, has taken this under advisement.
It is the kind of thing that is so important to the nation, although the underlying issue
is so ridiculous, but it's important to get this resolved and get this put to bed because
it is the one thing that's standing between the start of the trial in DC in front of Judge
Shotgun on what Mike identifies as the single most important case appropriately.
This is the interference case.
The Court of Appeals needs to issue this opinion.
I assume that they're putting together a 50-hundred-page order to establish this so it's clear
on appeal.
It goes up to the Supreme Court that they've done their work, but this should be done
expeditiously.
They need to stay up all night to get this done, get this resolved, Supreme Court, if Donald
Trump seeks review before them, should say no, goes back to Judge Shotgun, so the trial
can be conducted forthless.
I'm sure listening to the Devil's Advocates Radio Show James Santel, our friend, former
US attorney, he's going to stick around for another segment, lots and lots of things
to discuss.
I always apply to him when you come around the Devil's Advocates because we appreciate
it.
Folks, you stick around.
Jim, think about this for a moment.
In this particular case, Republican appointed Judge Karen Anderson, any concerns, and think
about this when we come back, that maybe she would write her own opinion on this perhaps,
throw it back to Chuckkin, we'll address that in some other issues as well, stick around.
You got it, you got another one, right there, that's another one, one more, right there.
I'm doing society a favor.
The Devil's Advocates may not agree on, but it's been plenty and good, it's been plenty.
The Devil's Advocates Radio Show James Santel, former US attorney, our friend, sticking
around for a segment.
Thank you, Jim, before the break, talking about Judge Karen Anderson, the DC Court of Appeals,
perhaps wondering if she could write her own opinion, bring it back, throw it back to
Chuckkin, suggesting perhaps the actions could be considered official acts as President,
what do you think the odds are of this?
It's entirely possible.
So, the procedure here is, you've got three judges, and it's fairly clear from the comments
and the questions during the course of the oral argument that none of them is buying
into this theory.
Even Judge Anderson said something like it's paradoxical, we'll say that there's a
constitutional duty to take care of the laws, be faithfully executed, and then also can
go out and violate the criminal laws.
So, I think she's going to write an opinion if she does decide to concur, it is again supporting
the ultimate judgment, but she could, she could, if she doesn't join the opinion of the
other two, she could write in concurrence, agreeing with them, but on a different basis.
And she was asking some procedural questions, as do all of the public court judges about
the consequences of this.
My sense is that you'll get either a two to one, that's probably remote, but probably
a three oh, and maybe, maybe Dom is you're indicating Judge Anderson will write separately
to support the judgment, but find it maybe on a different basis, although once again,
he was pretty clear during the course of the oral argument that even she was not buying
into what Donald Trump and his attorneys were attempting to sell on that day.
Jim, you're probably very aware, we're right in the middle of a presidential campaign now,
right?
And Donald Trump, apparently these, these indictments make him irresistible to the
Magger Republican base.
I don't understand it, Jim, but I'm not a Magger Republican.
But those that are, apparently are picking this guy.
And when he goes in the court with Eugene Carroll for no apparent reason, well, of course,
the reason is because then the cameras flock him, then he has a media opportunity.
And strangely, I don't think this guy truly feels like there is any bad press because
he continues to steal the attention of the American people.
So again, we contrast Joe Biden, delivered bridges and bringing home the bacon in the
state of Wisconsin today.
And this guy is going to face down a second defamation trial against the woman.
He's already incredibly been, you know, civilly found rape the woman.
And this is the association he goes back to over and over again.
And oh, yeah, by the way, he's defaming her in real time during the trial.
So I don't get it, Jim.
This could be a monstrous financial ruling if it is.
If the jury says a billion dollars, Kaplan will probably knock that down.
But they not with with the judge not knock that down to some realistic figure could do
that again.
The jury should be I hesitate to say temperate, but at least balanced in rendering a punitive
judgment amount here, but you're absolutely right, Mike.
So what's really going on here is even this, even today gives Donald Trump more fodder
out there in the world beyond the court and why because he can come back and say Lewis
Kaplan again, no relationship to the attorney who's representing E. Jean Carroll, Lewis
Kaplan cuts him off when he begins to talk once again about his intent and those kinds
of things, even in a relatively scripted understanding with counsel about what he cannot say, why?
So he will now go out there and say, yep, once again, I'm in court and the judge didn't
let me testify.
That is not the case.
That is simply not the case.
There's a thing called relevance.
And again, we're focused upon as you just indicated the monetary part of this.
The judge gave him his opportunity, his attorney asked some badly worded questions, he responds
in a way that's kind of irrelevant to and the judge says, we're done with this.
Roberta Kaplan then comes back and she is equally brief because she recognizes there's
nothing here to say.
And again, Donald Trump may well say, gee, even E. Jean Carroll's attorney had nothing
to question me on.
All of that is a misrepresentation of what goes on.
And you know what, it depends upon, it depends fundamentally.
It is horrible to say on the lack of understanding of at least his portion of the American public
of what's really going on here.
Judges don't just cut people off for no reason.
They decide on evidence.
And when people don't understand that, they can buy into the crazy that Donald Trump
then describes his trial as, that's the problem here.
People, he depends upon them, not understanding what's going on.
Folks, E.S.
James Santel, you're listening to the devil's advocates.
I know you're always a gracious guy.
But let's talk for just a moment about Trump's counsel, Alina Haba.
Jim, the look says it.
I wish the people on the radio could hear your look.
But Alina Haba, well, she is of questionable credentials as a lawyer.
Let's just say I'll be gracious for you, Jim.
But here's something interesting.
She claims she had COVID last week and then went to a Trump party that night.
And it is my understanding that the judge in this case may sanction her over her misrepresentation
to the court.
Jim, I've always tried to tell the truth to the court.
Can you tell me what would that look like and, you know, is this monetary?
Could she get a disbarment?
How serious could this be?
Yes, yes and yes.
So you might think, well, gee, that's unrelated to the substance of the trial.
The judge has no jurisdiction.
Just the opposite.
If, especially in a situation like this, where the trial was what, the trial was delayed
because of this COVID concern, right?
If I stand up and I say, you know what, Your Honor, I can't go ahead because my witness
is not prepared, they haven't arrived yet.
There's some other problem I have.
I've got a personal issue.
My family has a health emergency of some kind.
And I make that representation as an officer of the court and it has an impact upon the
trial.
And it turns out that what I have said is not true.
Absolutely.
You don't do this in front of the jury, but you inquire the following morning counsel.
Let's talk about what you said to me yesterday and let me determine whether or not what you
said is true or not.
That had an impact upon the trial.
And therefore, what can a judge do?
You bet.
Sanction and attorney, money, the $500, $1,000, more than that, depending upon what the
judge feels once again, should be imposed upon that attorney for violating the basic rules
of the court which are ultimately, fundamentally, being honest if nothing more.
She is not, in addition, my expression, which maybe the viewer is watching this and my
live streaming here saw, she's also plainly, as the judges pointed out, incompetent.
Yes, I'll use the I word.
Even a singular question today, did you ever instruct anyone to hurt Ms. Carol in your
statements?
Huh?
What?
What does that have to do with damages?
And the judge let's sit in, and thankfully the whole thing concludes, she had some problems
early on, even getting documents in, doesn't understand how to establish what's called
a foundation, and the judge has to instruct her on how to do that.
This is law school trial practice stuff, and she is plainly not up to this job.
Jim, last 60 seconds, New York Times is reporting today that the Manhattan DA is quietly preparing
for a Trump trial.
I mean, if this thing gets delayed, at least the J6, the March date, do you think Alvin
Bragg would be the first to go?
Could be.
He has always been very gracious, if you will, and saying, you know what, if these other
trials don't, if they go, I'm willing to take a second stage to you.
But he's got, again, this the payoff trial, he's got the hush money trial.
It's not a small trial, but it's not that elaborate either, and he's always said, I'm ready
to go.
He could, well, I hesitate to say slip in there, but the judge in front of him that could
also say, I've got time.
Let's try this in a week or so.
Let's get this underway, and that couldn't happen.
That could be the first trial not only to go, but also the first criminal indictment,
as we were called, against Donald Trump a long, long time ago.
And you, Councilor, will be invited back to describe the testimony given that the former
president, Rod Dog, to porn star, thank you, Councilor, for joining us here on the
Devil's Ev, it's Jim Santel, calling Habba in competent, Jim, I never thought I'd
hear it from you.
Wonderful to see you, Councilor.
Thank you.
I think it's with you as always, Jim, I'm going to take care.
Grass fed locally raised, 100% organic, the Devil's advocate.
Welcome back to the Devil's Samkets Radio Show.
Thursday, that makes it Friday, Eve up in here, right down.
I love living for the weekends, well, air some grievances, but Jim Santel is not one
of them.
Thank you to our good friend, the fine host of the Saturday morning 9 to 11 slide.
Looking, looking to maybe do a rebrand.
You know, the problem is, the morning Kenoli's program, as you may know it, Kenoli is the
plural of Kenoli.
So calling it the morning Kenoli's is grammatically incorrect and is bothered many of the fine
intelligence people that listen to Jim show it.
He's such a gracious and nice guy.
He just let it pass.
I feel like we stuck him with that moniker in some way, shape or form down.
You know, we played the, the, they don't blame me, man, I love Kenoli wasn't me.
Well, the Godfather, right?
Leave the gun, take the Kenoli's.
He says, Kenoli's, so of course, that's the way it's always sad and, you know, poor
Jim stuck with an ungrammatical morning show, but it's excellent in content and soon
to have a new brand, but you should listen, no matter what they call it, it's damn good
radio.
Thank you, Jim.
Come on.
You can always be a part of this show, make this damn good.
Some would say the greatest radio show ever.
And you know, people continue to ask me, Dom, I was asked last night, close friends.
Hi, why are you guys so lacking in humility?
What do you call it?
The greatest radio show ever.
I said, well, the Amitants, the truth, eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven,
eight.
I've been listening to the radio my whole life, this, this, this is literally the greatest
radio show ever.
What do you want me to say?
You're welcome.
Ah, Mary from Wabatosa.
Welcome.
What do you got for us, Mary?
Hi, Mary.
Hi, gentlemen.
Thanks for this opportunity to express my opinion about what has so many of us perplexed
about Donald Trump.
The significant part of my life has been that of a caregiver for a relative having a serious
mental illness, a lot of suffering there.
And as a result, I've had a close up look at the condition of psychosis, also known as
detachment from reality.
And one time at the wisdom and guidance of an RN who taught that family members and consumers
needed a better understanding of psychosis.
She offered us a course called How to Enter the World of Psychosis.
It was revealing.
And so in my lay opinion, as we all hear about, and, you know, from Donald Trump, and try
with great difficulty to understand him, I think we all have a front, front, a role
of you of psychosis.
Just my opinion.
I hear your comments off the air.
Thank you.
Well, Mary, Mary, I admire caregivers and for those that know
and listen long enough, you may know that my wife does the empowered caregiver show here
on the media network Wednesday nights.
It also plays out Saturdays at 8 a.m.
I encourage people to listen to that.
It's a big part of the population.
So first and foremost, thank you for what you do.
But psychosis.
I mean, I think that gives him the benefit of the doubt time.
I don't want to attribute anything other than his own flaws to him.
I don't want to blame it on something.
I mean, he is who he is.
And, you know, the clinicians can argue over what you call it, but I don't want to somehow
diminish it or someone else's condition by saying, oh, that guy's got the same thing
Donald Trump has.
Well, certainly, and thank you for your call.
Certainly Donald Trump has issues, I would say it, you know, narcissism, you know, being
let off the hook, getting away with things his entire life.
But that's not the psychosis.
Perhaps there is an aging issue, Nikki Haley's been hitting him on this before.
But I would point out the drugs report literally today has a link to the express.com
concerned White House staff called psychiatrists, but Trump's mental instability in 2017.
Again, on the drudge at the dash express dot com.
Let's assume that's the case.
So this has been perhaps going on for quite some time.
I mean, it's certainly concerning.
It's hard to analyze anyone just from what we see in the short time that we have for
this Trump's all over the place.
But when someone like Donald Trump is posting on a social media, like 30 or 40 times late
at night going off the rails, I mean, that's not normal behavior.
You know what I mean?
That's beyond the narcissism.
I think there's something there is related to the age.
Is it something different?
I have absolutely no idea.
All I do know is that if that guy was sitting next to me at the bar, I'd be bust in his
chops and I accepted anything he had to say eight for four nine six seven two seven eight
nine done before we go to additional colors, be patient for a minute.
Let's, let's question what his current mental state might be.
Here is fresh reporting from the Washington Post as Trump has come out of the trial today.
A visibly angry Donald Trump took the witness stand in New York federal court Thursday,
delivering a few minutes of testimony in a defamation damages trial against him before
walking out of court in a huff declaring, this is not America.
He's having a bad day.
The barber president's much anticipated testimony in a civil trial brought by writer E.
Jean Carroll for defaming her did not offer much in the way of evidence.
But the front runner for the GOP presidential nomination complained bitterly before and after
testifying that the judge was being unfair to him unfair.
This guy is the biggest snowflake in the history of America.
I mean, because being held responsible to someone who's never been held responsible can
seem like persecution to everybody else is just the way of the world, man.
The trial is meant to determine what if any damages he owes, we know that part.
You know, the first one of five billion, I think it could be, I, here's the over under
50.
There's no, no, I, I've got a bigger number than that.
I think it's going to be over 50.
I'm going to use this the over under the prior judgment against Rudy Giuliani, $148 million.
That was a defamation suit.
Wasn't that I'm going to say $148 million, this thing's going to, all right, I'm taking
the under.
I'm taking the under coming on the heels of a resounding win in New Hampshire's primary
this week.
This courthouse hearing highlighted the degree to which his legal trouble seemed to have boosted
not hampered his appeal to Republican voters.
CJ is out there thinking this is my guy.
This is the famous race rapist.
My guy, these are all the characters I look for in leadership, 91 indictments, I love
them more.
Trump also faces four separate criminal trials.
He's denied wrong doing it all cases.
U.S. District Judge Louis A. Kaplan had repeatedly warned Trump lawyer Alina Habba that
if the former president testified, the number of topics he could discuss would be severely
limited based in part on the rules of evidence.
We talked about that with Jim Santel.
I want to know everything he's going to say before he gets on the stand, Kaplan said
sternly as the lawyers discussed the boundary lines of Trump's testimony.
That's always a guy who's, you know, he's always, he likes boundaries, right?
Tom, like, like I do, I like, I like to be restrained to be some guardrails.
The former president muttered loud enough for some of the surfers in the courtroom to
hear, I never, I've never seen her before.
Trump said from the defense table, noting that he didn't attend the first trial.
Those comments immediately earned the judges' wrath.
Mr. Trump, please keep your voice down, the judge scolded him.
Trump didn't heed the warning and Kaplan reprimanded him again, quickly saying, I'm sorry,
Mr. Trump, you're interrupting these proceedings by talking loudly while your attorney is talking
and that is not permitted.
I don't think Trump's having a good day.
This psychosis, it might really be kicking his ass right about now.
844-967-2789.
There's a little bit here as well.
This one from the media, I'd, and I'm going to give you some warning right now, parents.
If your children are in the car, give them the earmuffs, here is what is being reported.
Following a brief recess, Judge Lewis Kaplan asked Trump's attorney, Lynn Habba, if she
had any more witnesses to call the stand.
When Habba responded that the former president intended to testify Kaplan interrupted her
to make a statement, quote, I have a few things to say.
There was a trial last year about the truth or false city of Ms. Let Carol's claims.
Mr. Trump was listed as a witness, but did not testify.
The jury found for Ms. Carol.
There are no do overs.
It's called, it's, it's called issue, preclusion or collateral stop all Kaplan informed the jury
according to journalist Matthew Russell Kaplan added, and here's the earmuffs.
The jury found that Mr. Trump inserted his fingers into her vagina.
This is the judge and that Ms. Carol did not make up her claim.
And that Mr. Trump's June 11th and June 22nd statements were defamatory.
Now Mr. Trump may not make any argument against this.
That's how he was introduced to the jury on his way to testify in his defense, quote unquote.
From the Washington Post, when Habba told Kaplan that Trump had denied this sexual assault,
Trump said angrily still do.
Oh, maybe 100 million is really close.
I mean, come on.
148 million over under.
He's still doing it.
He's still doing it like two of this day yesterday.
He's still doing it.
And he say, you know, 50 million, 100 million, he's still going to do it.
Then what, a billion, when does, at what point does the guy shut his mouth?
Unbelievable.
The former president muttered to himself at one point as he stood in the well of the
court.
Trump could be heard complaining bitterly to his lawyer, saying, you should be able to
do this.
This is a separate trial.
I don't even know what that means.
One in time, it was time to stop reviewing matters with the judge and start testifying
Trump lumbered slowly to the witness stand walking past the nine member jury without looking
at them.
He raised his right hand, swore to tell the truth, swore to tell the truth.
I know it's hard for me to say and quickly angered the judge again.
Why, by lying, but let's read what the post reports, though Kaplan had warned Trump and
his lawyers to keep his answers brief.
Trump said he denied Carol's accusation when she first made them because I just wanted
to defend myself, my family and frankly, the presidency.
Kaplan immediately ordered that statement, stricken from the official record of the trial.
Trump was briefly cross examined as noted by our pal, James Intel, by Carol's attorney
Roberto Kaplan, but had his total time on the witness stand done within five minutes,
five minutes.
This is not America.
A phrase he repeated getting louder and louder, Trump, as he walked out of the room, flanked
by his lawyers.
844-967-2789, Jennifer from Madison, Wisconsin.
You are next welcome, Jennifer.
What do you got for us?
Oh, hi.
I just have a comment about Trump's bloody hands that he was showing the other day after
he came out of that courtroom.
Yeah.
He has apparently lesions on his hands.
I saw the pictures, the close-ups on talking point memo, and he has some sort of bloody
lesions on his hands.
Well, I've heard things like, oh, he is simple as because he stopped with us, you know,
whatever.
Anyway, but that's not what I think it is.
So here's my theory, and I haven't heard that in a while.
I think he got mad through a little bit, cut his hands, and then thought, well, gee,
I have all of these evangelicals that are really thinking on the Savior, and I can pretend
this was the big motto.
So you think?
I mean, we call those things like, you know, we're thinking it's a new Jesus, so that's
my theory.
From the personal point of view, I would rather be the second coming of Christ than the
guy with syphilis.
You know, that's just a better narrative for my point of view.
You might ask, yeah, he could be both, but, you know, and, you know, in reference to
how crazy he is, just listened to Mary Trump, and I've also heard, there's some woman
and she's a clinical psychologist, and she's written a book, and I can't remember her
name.
You know, there's a lot of professionals in the field that think he's a malignant narcissist,
so I don't think it's like speculation on the part of just the general public that he's
got a serious problem.
Well, being a narcissist isn't, and thank you for the scholarship, I certainly appreciate
it.
I mean, anyone could be a narcissist if you try hard enough, but if you have some other
mental issues that perhaps you cannot control, that's really the question, but we certainly
appreciate you listening and hanging out with us.
And I would just question Jennifer, don't we, the American people, don't all of us, don't
we have the problem?
You know, because this guy's trying to be the president again.
Come back one last segment for your phone calls, 844-967-2789, the Devils have gets rolling
through a Thursday, happier, happier hour.
So Devils advocates know how to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and we're all out of
bubble gum.
Yeah, thank you for listening to me, Devils advocates are rating a show hour last segment
of the days.
So if you want to shout out to the devil, do so right now at 844-967-2789, stick around
to make you don't show coming up next.
Well, you stole my thunder, I was going to, I thought I had a cool way of introducing
Maggie Shoe, but now it's not worth repeating.
She is a good friend, and I enjoyed her company immensely last night.
I get very possessive of Maggie's company because I don't get to hang out with her.
She's, she's Milwaukee, Milwaukee and Milwaukee, I, she lives in Milwaukee with you a lot
more than you.
I know, I'm jealous.
So very cool to hang out with Maggie and Catherine and my wife, and Casper came down
as well.
Oh, he's great to see you guys.
844-967-2789, you can be welcomed here on the Devils advocates, shout at us, give
us a call.
Let's go to the phones, John, from Boaz, how you doing, John?
Hey, John.
Hi.
Hi, it's just the greatest radio show ever, and you guys are, you're doing it right
now because you're, you're making this airweeds.
And Mike, can I be respectful asking you be nothing without your little buddy, Dom?
I know, most days he does have to carry me.
I'm like Gilligan over here, man.
John, drop the mic.
What you, you know, you are much better natured on the radio than in real life, I'll just
say that.
844-967-2789, just as ranty, but the, the friendly happy Dom, I only see on the radio.
So I have to be, I can't say what I really want to say, filter, earbuffs, Jack from Mary
Mack.
Welcome back to the show.
What do you got for us, Jack?
Jack.
Yeah, first of all, yes, the URI, or let's say the Wakashaw parade murderer were to
make the kinds of crazy things that Trump is saying in court, they'd be shut into a
glass soundproof cage, oh, that's what they actually did with this guy.
So why don't they do it with Trump?
That's the first thing.
One thing is about Kerry Lake, I'm going to make you offer your cat reviews and, you know,
if it quacks like a bride and it, it, it, it, it, it walks like a bride and it is a bride.
And finally, the, my grievance for the day, don't call it in Wisconsin a bi-partisan
bill because not one single Wisconsin Republican voted for it.
Not only that, Jack, not one single Republican voted for the Infrastructure Act period, not
just Wisconsin.
No, no Republicans voted for it, Jack.
No, that's not true.
This, this bi-partisan bill was a bi-partisan bill.
There were two infrastructure bills that passed.
This one that was being touted today was a bi-partisan bill, according to the White
House and did have some, some congressional support, but you make an absolutely perfect
point.
Jack, not for many of the Wisconsin Republicans.
And certainly not from Ron Johnson.
Yeah.
Who wants to close the entire Mexican border?
Ah, Jack, you make an interesting point.
Have a great day, buddy.
Thanks for listening.
I see that Republican Senate leadership is bagging the former president, not to come
waiting into this whole Ukraine border bill negotiations.
I mean, it's bad enough trying to negotiate with the terrorists from your own party.
And I mean, Ron Johnson and the Mike Lee factions, but you throw a trumpet, man.
This still is going to come apart.
He's already out there today, tweeting whatever, truthy out, Mitt Romney was the gas that
Donald Trump would want to hold up some sort of Republican democratic deal to address the
migration issue here in this country.
And Donald Trump much like his attitude with regards to the economy.
I hope it crashes.
I mean, Donald Trump wants bad things to happen.
So it hurts his political opponent.
And then he can come in on his white horse and his mega crowd and quote unquote, what
solved the problem then to assign the same deal that perhaps the Republicans and the Democrats
are working diligently on.
I mean, what kind of person would want, you know, terrible things to happen to the country
that they want to represent that they live in that they want to be the president of just
to help their own political aspirations.
I mean, this narcissist, I mean, I don't know what you call it.
Maybe there's more than that, but damn, I don't want that guy.
Why would you want that person?
Would you hire that person?
You want the person dating a family member?
I mean, would you hang out with that person?
I don't think you would.
Certainly, I would not want Trump dating a family member.
I think it's sort of awkward.
He wants to date his own family members down, but that's a different conversation.
But here's one thing I want to, my final thought for the day down, it's not just Trump.
It is all the Democrats, they have all become his enablers.
You know, we just mentioned the fact there wasn't a single Republican of conscience that
voted for the bipartisan investment deal and Joe Biden got some bipartisan stuff done,
but not with these Republicans, not with these Wisconsin Republicans.
Look it up, man.
It's worth a Google.
I don't look it up, but that's why I'm still a little confused, but please continue.
I'm not going to deal with it right now.
When would be the time Friday when we air the grievances, you're going to have a bridge,
you're going to throw me under the bus.
Well, how can you say bipartisan when you just said it's a bipartisan deal, but no Republican
voted for it?
Well, isn't the devil in the white person Republican?
I didn't say no Republican voted.
I wanted to draw that distinction because you said no Republican vote for it.
And I said, yes, indeed, they did just none, none of ours, none of the six jury-mandered
current Republican congressmen from the state of Wisconsin.
And from the inflation reduction act, is that what I must want to be clear on what bill
you're talking about?
I believe they were touting the bipartisan infrastructure investment today in the
superior Wisconsin.
I believe that was actually what was being touted was the bipartisan bill, but so often
it is Republicans that voted against that want to go and claim the credit.
Now, again, the president of the United States was in superior, delivering the bacon
today, a big old bucket full of money to build a bridge from here to deliver a bacon
mixed theme like it's park, man, I mean, we're talking about infrastructure.
You got a 60-year-old bridge that's going to be a billion dollars to replace.
I mean, it's not the only bridge in this country.
We need to continually do this.
It's infrastructure.
I don't know if you know, Don, but when I say something's bacon, that's a compliment.
That's a positive.
I love bacon.
I love bacon.
That's everybody.
They love bacon.
Not everybody loves bacon, but I love bacon.
Only Republicans would refuse the bacon.
They refused to expand the Medicaid.
They refused to expand.
They refused high speed rail, broadband, internet expansion.
Only Republicans hate bacon.
We love Jim Santel.
Thank you so much, James, for joining us on this show.
Tune in Saturday morning's 9 to 11.
I don't know what it's called, but you'll find him there.
And tune in to us on Friday.
Maggie Don is next.
We're going to build a bridge from here to there.
