The devil's advocates radio show is broadcast under a time brokerage agreement between devil
radio and civic media ink.
Some portions of this program may be pre-recorded.
Warning!
You are 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.
Now here's your host, Dom and Krut.
Welcome to the devil's advocates radio show, Dom it's a presidential election day Tuesday.
I'm here in Las Vegas, Nevada votes today, but that ain't the lead, isn't buddy.
Oh hell no, it's not good to see you.
Krutty glad you made it there.
Safe and sound, Nate working the board, and hard work you do think you sir.
Of course the audience, man, what a glorious state it is, can't wait to dive into it.
Uh, apparently Michael, former president Donald Trump does not have absolute immunity.
I hear it's been revoked, now just been refoked, oh yeah, little Danny Glover lethal weapon
three, I believe that is, but here's the headline Rachel Weiner at the Washington Post Trump
has no immunity from January 6th prosecution and appeals court rules.
And it, Dom, as you know, and sued the audience, well, a federal appeals court has unanimously
ruled that Donald Trump could be put to trial for trying to stay in power after losing
the 2020 election, rejecting Trump's sweeping claim of presidential immunity is dangerous
and unsupported by the US Constitution and public arguments, yeah, it's too bad for
Trump.
At public arguments in January, the three judges expressed concern over the extreme
implications of Trump's view with one suggesting it would allow a future president to order
the assassination of a political rival.
But in their opinion Tuesday, they say it was Trump's own alleged crimes in unprecedented
assault on the structure of our government, that's the quote from the ruling Dom, that
threatened democracy of lepion, the reach of criminal prosecution, again, another statement
from the unanimous ruling.
We cannot accept former president Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority
to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power,
the recognition and implementation of election results, nor can we sanction his apparent
contention that executive has carte blanche, the violate the rights of individual citizens
to vote and to have their votes count.
Dom, this seemed quite full-throated to me.
Yes, apparently it was a ruling one of several expected this spring that could determine
whether Trump will campaign for president this fall from behind bars and whether he is
able to compete for election at all.
In it comes days before the Supreme Court considers another untested question raised by Trump's
presidency, whether the former president is an insurrectionist prohibited by the Constitution
from returning to the White House because of his actions around January 6th.
Trump was appealing the decision made by Chuck Kim, the judge overseeing it trial in DC,
and has made clear he plans to keep pressing this case to the higher courts.
The DC Circuit panel set tight deadlines for that review, Crudy Fagosa Supreme Court, saying
it would only give Trump until February 12th, that's next Monday folks, to ask the Supreme
Court to intervene.
It is being reported that Trump's legal team is saying they will do that.
That would make it hard for Trump to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
to review the ruling first, while his legal arguments keep failing in court even rulings
against him increases chances of delaying any federal trial in DC until after the presidential
election, in which he is the Republican frontrunner.
Congratulations, Republicans.
A little bit more here, the trial had been scheduled for March 4th, one of four criminal
prosecutions, Trump's facing, while simultaneously campaigning to regain the White House, but
it was postponed indefinitely last week for the appeals process on the immunity issue
to continue.
As you jump the gun last week, Chuck Kim, just wait a week.
Crudy the panel wrote, precarium, meaning they are speaking with one voice.
And these are judges appointed both by Republicans and Democrats.
It was a 57-page opinion addressing all the arguments Trump's attorneys made during
arguments before the appellate court in January.
A quote from Steve Bladdock, a professor at the University of Texas Law School, the opinion
is as strong an argument against Supreme Court intervention as there could have been.
Whether it's strong enough, it's up to the justices.
Five justices would have to agree to keep the trial on hold for Trump's appeal.
Bladdock predicted the court may interrupt you only to acknowledge that I thought it was
four justices.
It is five down.
You were right.
Bladdock predicted that the court would either take the case quickly and decide it before
the term ends in late June or early July or not take it at all.
Another quote, they don't want to be seen as running out the clock.
If they want to step in, I think they would have to step in this term, talking about
the term of the Supreme Court.
I don't know.
I mean, 57 pages, unanimous ruling, sounds like they, I don't read the entirety of it,
but it sounds like they were pretty tight and scathing in their ruling, but they don't
take it out.
Why would they want to get involved?
What about this ruling from the appellate for the possibly think was not done properly?
Little more from the coverage at the post on the lone Republican appointee on the panel,
Karen Henderson, historically, been sympathetic to broad presidential power.
But during the oral argument, she called it paradoxical that a president's duty to faithfully
execute the laws would allow him to violate them.
That characterization is reflected in the final opinion which calls Trump's position a striking
paradox.
That also suggests that some fear of future prosecution serves an important purpose.
You know, Dom, to deter possible abuses of power in criminal behavior, that's why they
charge crimes.
The court quoted Chutkins earlier ruling every president will face difficult decisions
whether to intentionally commit a federal crime should not be one of them.
You know, Dom, there's other instant analysts.
I mean, this is going to be the big story, folks.
If you are unaware, president, former president Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution.
This is the breaking news today.
Go ahead.
Of course, we all know this.
Right.
We intrinsically know this.
I mean, to our 30 years of precedent, we know this.
Of course, it cannot possibly be.
If there were to be the case, Biden could send sealed team six after Trump right now.
So, yes, this is a great point for the rule of law for this country, but why does it
take so long?
Perhaps they're dot their eyes, crossing their teeth, getting their ducks in a row to make
it so tight and so specific that the Supreme Court cannot possibly want the way to take
this thing.
Dominic, I would tell you what, have this ruling come out a different way against the logic
of the constitution that, you know, a president, no president is immune from prosecution.
Had this come out the exact opposite way.
If I was Joe, I'd have called seal team six right away.
I struck while the before the ink settled before the, the appellate ruling by the Supreme
Court, I'd have gone and shown him in reality what the execution of his advocacy would look
like.
Oh, terrible.
Through seal team.
Now, a special prosecutor to stand down order to have Garland, Garland order Jackson
meant to stand down, send out, seals, seal team six, and it's only going to be what?
Joe forever.
I mean, there doesn't make any sense.
And of course, we know this and Donald Trump, they are desperate.
And what really shocks me the most about this, the entirety of this issue is how many Republicans
are there supporting him.
I mean, do they understand that if what you were saying, what you were supporting in Donald
Trump's actions were to come to fruition, well, you could be waxed too, man, it could
be Al Capone around the table talking about baseball, and it could be every one of you
wanted a time.
It just, I just can't believe that they would actually think that this is righteous and
justifiable in any sense.
I agree with you, Dom, Aaron Blake over at the Washington Posting with their coverage for
takeaways from Trump's loss and his immunity case, Dom, Donald Trump suffered a significant
setback Tuesday in his quest to escape criminal conviction with a three judge panel of U.S.
Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruling that he is not immune from charges for his acts
as president and the unanimous decision from two Democratic nominated judges in one Republican
nominated one sets the sage for a potential appeal to the Supreme Court.
Oh, he's appealing.
If Trump ultimately were to succeed, his federal indictment for allegedly illegal effort
to overturn the 2020 election, one of four indictments he faces would be undercut severely.
But for now, the courts have decisively rejected Trump's novel claims with significant
implications for what lies ahead, uh, lies ahead singular, blows some takeaways, plural
them.
I'm going to get started, but I'm going to need your help one as mentioned, the decision
was full throated.
It was one thing to rule against Trump.
It was another to do so as decisively as the unanimous judges did, and repeatedly knocking
down his claims to immunity, they served notice that it wasn't a particularly close call.
It wasn't close, um, uh, a little bit more here.
The judges rejected Trump's claims that allowing a former president to be criminally charged
would kill the actions of future presidents who would be constantly concerned about their
own indictments.
They rejected the idea that impeachment was a substitute, a necessary precursor to criminal
charges for a president, and perhaps, uh, most notably, they cast the idea of Trump
being immune as a potentially dangerous president, again, from the ruling.
At bottom, former president Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers
by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches.
We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law
for all time thereafter.
It later added it would be a striking paradox of the president who alone is vested with
constitutional duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed with the sole officer
capable of defying those laws within punity.
They said there was no functional justification for finding Trump immune, and the judges cast
Trump as effectively seeing a president should have carte blanche to relate the rights of
individual citizens to vote and have their votes count.
And more than that, they noted that Trump's attempt to claim to power illustrates precisely
the kind of case in which such immunity could go badly wrong, again, from the judges.
We can't accept former president Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority
to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power,
the recognition and implementation of election results the judges wrote.
It sounds pretty full-throwed to me, Crudy.
I like a full-throwed, appellate decision, dumb.
We are the Devil's Advocates, Crudy, landed in Vegas, I'll tell you all about the primary
election happening later today, hell it's going on right now, very few voting, but they
are voting.
But the Devil's Advocates, we've got some good news, Trump is not immune from prosecution.
Appeal to the Supreme Court?
Oh, you can bet on it.
Four Devil's Advocates?
Bet on that as well.
Cowboy.
The big and tall of political talk, the Devil's Advocates.
And we're back from the 420 break.
Thank you for listening to the Devil's Advocates radio show.
Love it.
When you join the political party, you can do so at 844-967-2789, the breaking news today.
We're going to talk about it.
We want your opinions.
Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for his efforts of the J6.
During J6, we're going through some of the coverage of it right now, Aaron Blake from
the Washington Post has four takeaways crew to mention the first one.
The decision was full-throwed it again, a unanimous 57-page ruling, Aaron Blake also points
out.
Number two, the decision that the appellate court used Trumps and his lawyers own words
against him.
Oh, I just got to hurt.
Repeatedly in the ruling, the judges pointed to the words of Trump and his own attorneys.
Mirror hours before the decision, Trump on Monday night claimed that not having immunity
would mean all caps.
Every president that leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party
unquote.
The judges in their ruling noted that Trump himself regularly notes that his indictments,
as the former president, are unprecedented, suggesting that any fear of post-presidential
indictments becoming routine is imagined or at least overblown.
The judges know that despite Trump's claim to absolute immunity, his own attorney effectively
conceded that presidents aren't absolutely immune.
The lawyer told the judges last month that a former president could in fact be charged
as long as he is first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
They know that Trump's own impeachment lawyers granted that he still, he could still be
criminally charged, even if acquitted by the Senate.
One of those lawyers said the criminal courts were actually the more appropriate venue given
that Trump was the former president at that point.
And finally, the judges advanced the idea that this very argument might actually have helped
Trump win his impeachment trial.
Yeah, you don't got to do it now.
You can bring him to court, you can sue him or you can try to indict him afterwards,
afterwards.
Yeah, no doubt.
A lot of those Republican senators bought into that and therefore did that meet the threshold
for impeachment.
Here's the quote from the judges.
The 43 senators who voted to acquit him relied on a variety of concerns, many of which
had nothing to do with whether he committed the charge of charged offense.
Indeed, at least 30 senators who voted to acquit relied at least in part on a belief
that the Senate lacked the power to convict a former president.
In essence, the judges called Trump out for disowning the technical argument that may
have won his impeachment acquittal and have it both ways, Trump.
You don't think so, damn, it hamstrings Trump's efforts to delay.
Take away number three.
This one, it's probably got me the most excited, get a little quiver up my leg, Allah.
Chris Matthews, it is always seemed unlikely that Trump would prevail with his novel and
sweeping arguments, but the decision and its timing have some practical implications.
One is that he could face tough sledding if he asked for an in-bong review, one in which
the entire appeals court weighs in or even looks to a more conservative leaning Supreme
Court, the decision just that strongly was just that strongly against him, damn, it was
full throttle, as mentioned.
Perhaps the bigger one, though, is that the decision means for the schedule of his trial.
Yeah, that's the important part, damn.
Part of the motivation for pursuing this community claim appears that it is cause delays in
the trial, which was initially set for next month.
Yeah, I had it circled on my calendar, damn, March 4th, jury selection, damn, Trump has
made clear he doesn't want a face trial during the 2024 campaign, wherever, but judges
have now hamstrung him to some degree.
They put their ruling on hold until Monday, and it would remain and hold only if Trump
appeals to the Supreme Court.
That effectively means he could ask for an on-bong review by the full appeals court first,
but that wouldn't prevent Judge Tanya Chutkin from pressing forward.
And if Trump's strategy is to lay, one tactic has been blunted.
Trump's campaign quickly signaled it would appeal the ruling, but it didn't address
the where or the wind.
And finally, Crudy Aaron Blake out the Washington Post, the implication for a second Trump term
while Trump's legal defense will suffer the most immediate impact, the ruling would also
significantly affect his return to office should he be elected.
Trump has signaled an intent to pursue a more authoritarian vision in that term, and
for now, the justice system is signaling that he won't be able to pursue it unfettered.
Not content to merely reject Trump's arguments based on the text of the Constitution and
historical precedent, the judges repeatedly pointed to the practical consideration of
a president being given such broad immunity.
They cited how he would have, again, carte blanche, to violate the rights of citizens and
how such a thing would collapse our system of separated powers.
And they gestured at the idea that a president could even use his immunity to cling to power
by breaking the law.
Yeah, we talked about that.
Aaron Blake concludes that the Washington Post has all made sense with the way the judges
laid it out made clear just what vast power of the former and potentially future president
was really asking for.
And I don't know, man, I'm taking the odds right now, I don't think.
I don't think the Supreme Court takes it up.
Well, Tom, I've got the MSNBC up here at the MGM grand signature in my room here as
I'm broadcasting and the breaking news, they're reporting at this moment, Scotus, Supreme
Court of the United States, to hear oral arguments on Trump's ballot eligibility after the
appeals court rejected his claims of immunity.
So the 14th Amendment claims, Scotus is going to hear oral arguments on that, whether
or not the man is eligible to be on the ballot time.
Now, predicated on some of the prior conversations we've had there in the prior rulings of even
the Neil Gorsuch, right, the originalist on this court, this could be a real trick back
for Trump.
And this one, this one would exclude him from the ballot of the US Supreme Court doesn't
see his way, I mean, the guy is no longer a candidate.
And that could happen all the way up to election day as far as I'm concerned.
That would affect him all the way until election day.
So if the Scotus is taking up that, again, the 14th Amendment question of whether or not
Trump should remain ballot eligible, well, Tom, we would have a ruling by the end of summer.
CNN kind of brings up this point as well.
One paragraph on Tuesday's ruling caught the attention of legal experts who are also
watching the 14th Amendment, an insurrection ban case that is being argued at the Supreme
Court on Thursday.
The cases are entirely separate, but this is a criminal prosecution against Trump.
And the upcoming Supreme Court case is a civil attempt to remove Trump from the state
ballots.
Further, the appeals court findings and explanations in Tuesday's ruling are not binding
on the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, the appeals ruling refers, describe the president as an officer.
He is an officer.
That's what this ruling came out today, articulates that present former president Trump is an officer.
There is an open legal question being argued Thursday before the Supreme Court over whether
the presidency is an office under the United States and whether the president is an officer
as described in the insurrection ban.
The appeals ruling said quote.
It would be a striking paradox if the president, who alone is vested with the Constitutional
duty to take care, the laws be faithfully executed were the sole officer capable of defying
those laws with impunity.
Apparently, according to this ruling, he is an officer and now the Supreme Court's going
to what?
Address said on Thursday, but Al, you know, he's the leading candidate of GOP.
Good luck, GOP, Megas.
You know, we've got a little poem submission here on the text line, damn, I'm going to read
it for the audience.
It's brief.
Not quite high coup, but brief.
In Megatiers, Cascade Down, like Falling Rain, they'll wander round in Shocking Pain.
The truth all caps comes through.
Maybe jail, too.
Hopefully the Donald is royally screwed.
Thank you for that fine little sonnet there, barred from the sack.
Come on back.
We're talking to you next 844-967-2789.
Truly live from Vegas, they're voting in a primary today, but the big news, Trump
does not have immunity and, uh, see in court, fella.
We're with the top of the back in the sunshine shine, come on, I don't know if you know
the devil's advocates, but the show is kind of a big deal.
Look back to the devil's advocates radio show, the Tuesday edition, it's a primary day.
People are voting in the great state of Nevada, and I'm here, dumb.
I'm on the Vegas trip.
A look out that window, I see the, the sphere of this gigantic new ball that's covered
with diodes or whatever band, it's super cool.
It's out one window, and then out this one, I got some golf going out this window,
dumb up here on the 19th floor of the MGM signature tower.
Oh, man, that's better than a circle circus.
I know.
Very similar accommodations.
I mean, not with me.
Yeah, I see how it works, Brody.
It is certainly an upgrade from when we first started this, this 48 down, we've taken
a few political trips to the state of Nevada.
Most recently, I believe November of 2019, but we will turn our attention to the
Nevada soon.
The breaking news, though, the immunity case, Donald Trump in the DC circuit, unanimous
decision, full-throwed at all three justices or judges in this case, federal judges have
ruled against Trump, and they have done so with a unified voice.
Basically, he has been bitch left by the circuit court judiciary, dumb, and is only possible.
Pardon me, his only possible, what, last ditch hope is the U.S. Supreme Court, and he's
got to make his appeal to them, not non-bonk of the DC circuit, but to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
He's got a week.
He says he'll appeal them, but he doesn't say who he's appealing to because he'd like
to add a step, right?
He'd like to throw another step in there, the on-bonk ruling, because once the appellacort,
in this case, three just judges.
I forget if they're called judges or justices at the appellacort level in the federal, so
I apologize.
I don't usually work in the federal court.
It's more of a state court guy myself, but I am, let's just say, a little excited about
this news, and I look forward to what it might mean for the nation.
Our former president is not a king, and probably, probably he's going to end up going to
trial soon.
Also, more breaking news down, because we didn't have enough.
Pardon me, Scotus will have oral arguments on whether or not Trump should be disqualified
from the ballot over the multitude of 14th Amendment challenges, and apparently, these
Scotus will hear oral arguments.
That's coming up soon, right, Tom?
It is.
That's coming up very soon.
Also, regarding the timing here, who is an Andrew Weissman, former FBI General Counsel
Assistant to U.S. Attorney, I had some comments on the timing, and here's what he said.
Of course, he has one avenue talking about Trump, which is to go to the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court says no, we are not hearing this case, then we could be at trial by
the end of May or with the beginning of June.
Chuck can seem very clear as she wants to hold this case.
Well, Tom, it's time to look forward to, but I want to look a little bit.
My birthday is in June, man, so is Trump's birthday.
We share the same birthday.
What a glorious gift that would be if he was on trial for his J6 insurrection, trying
to overthrow the government antics on his birthday.
What about my birthday?
My birthday is two days away from your birthday.
If Trump said, trial during your birthday, he's probably a trial during my birthday.
They're the same week, dude.
Thanks for thinking of Trump over me, your, your Gemini birthday.
Thanks for trying to slides yourself into someone who's got nothing to do with you.
Were you born on June 14th?
No.
I was.
Trump was.
That's why it mattered.
But yes, true to your birthday is very close to ours as well.
Me and George W. Bush, HW, HW, June 12th, baby, that's the real important day.
Tom, let's, let's consider our audience here.
They may have some comments and I've got some, some local news of a very unsavory sort.
I want to get to, I'm dying to get to the, the Dan Kelly story.
You can't spell Dan Kelly without two else and apparently a horse that will get to that
just a minute, eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine.
You're going to want to stick around for the Dan Kelly story.
This one, and I don't, I don't plan cheesy, shock, easy down, but even, even I was a, a,
a little blush to read this story out of the airplane this morning.
I'm thinking, hmm, I've never, you're just going to have to stick around people.
They're going to have to wait.
You big cheese.
He's the big.
Oh, coming soon.
Very, very soon we'll get to that.
We'll talk about what's going on here in Nevada.
First, want to hear from you, gay comments and Trump's non-immunity, immunity revoked,
eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine.
Let's get to it, Annie, from Watertown.
You're off.
Thank you.
Anybody got forced to that?
Hey, Annie.
What I'm picturing is Trump sitting there, tongue beneath his piece, stubby pencils trying
to fill out forms because he doesn't have a lawyer and he's got to figure out how to
file this appeal all on his own.
He's got lawyers.
I'd rather think of Trump making license plates someday soon, but to each their own, we all
have our own little fantasies, don't we, Annie?
That was mine.
Trump's press of license plates.
Can't wait, can't wait.
Can't wait, can't wait, Annie.
Thank you.
This is an eight, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine.
Dick from Madison.
You are next.
Welcome, Dick.
What do you think?
Oh, hey, guys.
You there?
Yeah.
You're on the air, man.
Oh, I'm sorry.
You know, it's funny.
He takes a stack that the presidents are immune, but on the stump, all the time, he's
saying, one of the first priorities when he's in office, I'm going to go after Biden.
I'm not executing him.
Don't these people see how delusional this guy is?
How can both of those things be true in the same breath, right, Dick?
Right.
Right.
And he, buddy, apparently that's one of his leading things that he never leaves out when
he's out on the stump campaigning, that he's going to prosecute Joe Biden.
Well, I thought he was immune.
Yeah, it is, it is ridiculous at this point.
Thanks for the call.
Dick appreciated eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine.
I was looking for.
I think Trump did have some response.
He's already sending out emails, right?
He's sending out his solicitations for donations because he's not immune.
You got to give me money.
Here's it from the raw story.
I have no immunity.
Trump begs fans for cash.
After court rules, he can be prosecuted.
Trump's all caps message hurls accusations against the Justice Department, the Biden administration
and the federal court system, all of which he claims to have been united in a massive
witch hunt.
I looked to call it a conspiracies because that's what the mega believe in.
They're all about the conspiracy.
Not that your guys just a raging criminal can't help but being a criminal, but that this
is somehow, you know, everyone against him.
But when you're a criminal to that degree, you're going to have, you know, I don't know
the Justice Department coming after you.
Here's what he said, quote, moments ago, federal judges have ruled that quote, all caps.
I have no presidential immunity.
They won't stop until a mega movement is erased.
Trump demands that.
No, that's easy.
I mean, that my life mission.
Trump demands that supporters all chip in, chip in, crude before the day is done so that
he, the former president accused of attempting to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in
the 2020 election can better fight against tyranny.
Joe Biden has weaponized the entire federal government against us.
They'll never stop targeting us, but I know with your support at this very moment, all
caps.
We will win.
We will win.
You will.
I suspect you will lose again.
The grift continues.
844-967-2789.
Tom, may I, may I talk about the Dan Kelly story now?
Okay.
I think, yeah.
I mean, this is breaking news.
We didn't know this was going to happen, but yes, let's address the local story here,
Bernie.
This is shocking, I tell you.
Well, I also find it ironic that as Trump is being found to have no immunity and one of
his claims was, well, you got to, you got to impeach me successfully, and then I would
be, then I would be subject to prosecution.
But today, as I speak to him, do you realize debate is going on on the House floor to impeach
the DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas?
Debate to impeach is going on concurrently with the greatest radio show ever.
That's, that's, you know, a low action thing.
Well, you've been waiting for, folks.
This story from the journal sentinel, you may, you may want to cover the kids ears because
this one gets a little, a little dirty, date like Madison, Wisconsin voters were parted
with ads last year in the most expensive state Supreme Court race in U.S. history.
But they probably didn't notice commercials paid for by Janet Prodecy Woods campaign featured
a number of horses.
Hmm.
Why would they do that?
The unusual detail was never explained to voters until now, when a campaign official
claimed to accrued, not crudy accrued reason, not me for a change.
I'll be both right.
Now, Deb Prodecy Woods is campaigned for Wisconsin Supreme Court, used a portion of its massive
fundraising call to hide horse figurines and feature nang and ads as an appearance subliminal
reference to baseless insight jokes about her opponent fornicating with horses.
What?
Prodecy Woods's campaign manager said in a recent interview.
Now, Prodecy Woods's campaign manager Alejandro Verden, not to be confused with the now being
impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, he again, Alejandro Verden was the campaign manager to
Prodecy Woods, Wisconsin Supreme Court race, and he said in a January 25th appearance with
a liberal podcaster that the campaign had images of horses in negative campaign ads against
former Justice Dan Kelly and used audio of a horse dang in one radio spot to convey
the message he alleged came from focus groups.
The Kelly looked like a, let's just say a horse fornicator dam, because I can't use the
other F word that apparently they used.
He's a horse fornicator, I tell ya.
I mean, I guess I haven't seen, you know, I don't know, maybe you know the one you
don't.
I don't know what, you know, there's a typical look to a horse fornicator, but if there
is, apparently, is Dan Kelly, according to what, focus groups, I mean, how does that come
out?
Hey, what do you, what do you think of this guy?
Oh, I got a child, I don't know much, but it looks like that one guy used to know,
he was a horse fornicator is what?
Do you, do you recall, there was a Wisconsin state Republican legislator, I believe now
Senator Andre Shack, Andre Shack, he's all against the horse fornicating.
He's, he's, now he is, he's very against the horse fornication, but if he were successful
in the, the allegations against Kelly were true down.
If they were true, we don't know if they were true, but how do Kelly respond down?
How does one respond to the allegation that they look like a horse fornicator?
Yes.
Um, Kelly look like the prodigy typical horse fornicator.
This goes a long way towards explaining why Janet Proto say which this campaign was
so dishonest, undignified, and lacking in respect for the office of Supreme Court justice.
This is just sick, Wisconsinites ought to be appalled by this kind of vulgarity and
vileness.
A Paul, I was thinking it should be applauded.
I, I, I, I mean, you know, it's a long campaign, a lot of work done, you know, very important
stuff, but if a alleged horse fornicator is your, you know, opponent for the, for the
bench down and, and you've somehow incorporated this broadly into your advertising campaign
with some gliminal messages and they, I mean, I heard it a couple of times, like during
the, the campaign, but now we know focus groups say Dan Kelly very much resembles a horse
fornicator.
Yes, now that's not the allegation of actual horse fornicating, just that he looks like
someone who would fornicate with the horse, those are two totally separate things that
I want to be clear on that.
And, and of course, you know, I, you know, this kind of humor, like you said, they're
long campaigns, you know, it can get, you know, a little over the top sometimes, but
whatever, it's funny.
It's, that's funny.
It's terrible, but it's funny.
The campaign also ran a radio ad poking fun in Kelly's family history.
The candy describes his dad who worked on ranches in Wyoming, Colorado, and California.
It's an honest to God, cowboy.
Kelly sometimes shared an anecdote of the, on the campaign trail about his father promising
that while he could not leave him many material possessions, he would leave his son a good
name.
There goes dirty Dan Kelly, writing off into the sunset of his pathetic dishonest campaign
said a narrator after the son of a horse named, that's funny.
This was sort of an internal joke that we all kind of laughed about because it was just
such a weird thing, but then like weirdly, we started hearing it out of the campaign
trail from other people.
The devil's advocates because freedom, of course, of course, of course, and no one can talk
to a horse.
Of course, that is, of course, and that's the horse is the famous, Mr.
right.
Welcome back to the devil's advocates radio show.
Thank you for listening.
You can join us eight or four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine, a huge controversy
here in the state of Wisconsin, Molly Beck and Jesse Appointing reporting at the journal
setting of the protests, say what's campaign official claims, vulgar reason for embedding
horses in their ads, apparently, focus groups suggested that Dan Kelly can't take Kelly
without two L's, looks like the kind of guy who would fornicate with the horse, and so
they decided to kind of run with them a little bit more from the reporting.
This was sort of an internal joke that we all kind of laughed about because it was just
such a thing.
It was just a weird thing, but then like weirdly, we started hearing about it on the campaign
trail from other people, the campaign manager, Verdun, said in an interview, Verdun said
that the internal joke was then taken to another level by media consultant Ben Knuckles, who
also worked on Governor Tony Evers campaigns.
He literally hid visuals of horses in nearly every negative ad produced against Dan Kelly
Verdun said, you didn't see it and when we didn't catch on, and like he did it really
well.
Knuckles declined to be interviewed, Verdun said he found the cheddar funny, another
quote.
The thing that was so funny about it was that one, it's an uncommon insult to, it's just
like a very weird thing.
And three, the funniest thing about this is that Dan Kelly, his father was a cowboy from
the west and Dan Kelly himself was a horseman.
I've always heard that about him.
That's the allegation that he looks like a horseman.
Here he's so good.
He rides them bear bag.
Protosset was defeated, Kelly by 11 points in April.
You're confusing Trump and porn stars.
Oh, okay.
I don't know.
I'm so confused.
And finally, Molly Beck and Jesse point the fine reporting of the general Sentinel.
The Protosset was campaign spent nearly 13 million dollars on TV advertising.
It's unclear how much of that was allocated to ads featuring horses.
We've got someone on the text, text line saying, does Andre Jack know about this horse
play?
Cedar Andre Jack, very, very against the horse play, apparently, um, he's not the horse
play.
But I'm, I'm, I think there's these kinds of insults go, I happen a lot, man.
No, and to, to, to have it actually take off in the campaign and have other campaign,
you know, media person sneak a little, I mean, that, that, that's, that's kind of funny.
You know, we don't get it.
We get it now.
Um, but is it, is it really that terrible, you know, something I'm going to call, I'm
not going to call it gallows humor, but it's, it's there again.
Dan Kelly, very, very, very, very, we're like, we're like stables humor down in nice.
Wasn't Dan Kelly very rude to Protosset?
He's the most, if you, to, to no Dan Kelly is to not like Dan Kelly, I mean, if you've
ever met Dan Kelly, I'm shocked, the man has propagated, I'm shocked he has children
because, you know, the, the thought of someone finding Dan Kelly attractive is, is, is, is
really almost implausible because, oh, man, I'm running the love.
No, no, no, but if you ever talk to the man, he's the most contemptuous, pompous ass
I've ever met my life, Dom, and I work with you every day, but let's not forget Kelly's
first attempt at the court when he went against Jill Karofsky and, uh, who is our buddy Ed
Fallon was in the primary at that time.
And in our former life when we were WRD and, and double radio, we actually broadcast that
event.
We provided the exclusive broadcast.
How do I know?
I'm the guy that brought the microphone and wired the room in a suit, like 15 minutes
before it happened.
And so anyways, any pictures you've ever seen of Dan Kelly with like a studio microphone
with funky cord colors, those are ours.
But anyways, I saw Dan Kelly at that event.
Oh my God.
To know this man is to not like this man.
And just, I knew he was going to lose because of the prior history of being a loser.
I mean, I knew who's going to lose with a big exclamation point to Janet Pro to say
what's that?
And 11 points?
That wasn't even a close horse race, was it?
Yeah.
Here's a little bit about, uh, back in April of 2023, not quite a year ago, uh, when
Dan Kelly lost his race, here is his quote unquote, concession speech.
I wish that in a circumstance like this, I would be able to concede to a worthy opponent
but I do not have a worthy opponent to which I can concede if he lost his secretariat,
perhaps, um, here's like Barbara, oh man, couldn't make the last turn.
He said the campaign was deeply deceitful, dishonorable and despicable.
I say this not because we did not prevail.
Yeah, right.
I do not say this because of the ransom slanders that were launched against me.
Although that was bad enough.
But this is not my concern.
My concern is the damage done to the institution of the courts.
My opponent is a serial liar.
She disregarded judicial ethics.
She demeaned the judiciary with her behavior.
This is the future that we have to look forward to in Wisconsin.
I wish Wisconsin the best of luck because it's going to need it.
You know, the fact that Dan Kelly, when he first lost his first Supreme Court race,
he was on the court at the time.
He was an incumbent.
Yeah, right.
He was a point of weight.
I walk her.
Yeah.
Eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine, Jeff from Madison.
Got a Dan Kelly story laid on his job.
Hey, Dan, uh, Jeff.
Hey, hey, hey, hey.
So I, uh, I am 99.9% sure that I ran into Dan Kelly down at a spot.
Like Geneva when I took my wife there for an anniversary.
Was he in the stables?
He was, uh, pull, pull side and in the, uh, in the, uh, robe, but he had, like,
those accordion file holder things.
He had like three of them.
And he, you know, got off him and left midday, but he just,
that's all his garbage and trash just laying all around where he was sitting.
And I'm like, that guy is such a jerk.
When you say garbage and not a horse, thanks for the college, Jeff,
let's grease in Jake and give him about a minute.
Jake, welcome.
When you got for us, you know, everyone knows how much Republicans love Russia,
but I had no idea the Catherine, the great was Dan Kelly's personal.
Go read a history book, folks.
If you don't know the joke, look it up.
It's worth a Google thanks to the college, like, uh, my, I don't know if it's exactly true,
but it has been a story for some times.
Yes.
Catherine, the great, uh, Catherine, the great or Dan, the double loser,
horseman Kelly story, because this is a new news to be dumb.
And, and the, the gentleman that talked about him leaving, you know,
the garbage around him.
Was it all Hay and sugar cubes?
Folks, we're at the devil's advocates.
Crew, he's doing a live Vegas show.
Why, why you might ask?
I'll tell you when we come back because they are voting.
It's a primary day.
Joe Biden's on the ballot.
Mickey Haley's on the ballot and Trump is not on the ballot.
Um, I'll tell you what that all means.
A happier, happier.
Dan Kelly.
I think it's probably true.