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'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.
Now here's your host, Dom and Crute, welcome to the devil's advocates radio show.
Thank God it's Friday, but Dom, it is a broadcast Friday with a former president Donald
Trump.
Welcome to it.
Hey, happy Friday to you, Crutey Nate, thank you for all your hard work, and of course
our audience, happy Friday we made it welcome to the political party.
Man, I've been broke before, we've all been broke.
Somebody knows what it feels like Friday afternoon, don't even have three bucks for a solo
cup tonight to go out drinking with your buddies, got maybe one box of macaroni and cheese,
no butter.
It's got to last you the whole weekend, you know, broadcast, well, no matter how broke
I've been in my life, I've never been three hundred and fifty four million dollars
broadcasts like the former president, Donald Trump, the fines are in, the verdict, just
I would say, Dom, and the pound of flesh, about three hundred and fifty four million, that's
a lot.
That's a lot, and this is of course on top of the E. Jean Carroll, 80 some million dollar
on the second case, and like five million on the first and you know, plus, plus, plus
at some point, you're going to start getting to some real money.
Dominic New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Ingerran on Friday, that's today ordered
former president, Donald Trump, to pay more than three hundred and fifty million dollars
in penalties, handing Tony, hefty penalty, I'd say that's huge, hefty, hefty, hefty,
handing down a hefty penalty following a month's long civil trial in which Trump and
others were accused of financial fraud by New York attorney general Latisha James Ingerran
also said, Trump, and this is going to sting them.
Trump could not serve as an officer or a director of any New York company for three years.
Trump of course has tonight all wrongdoing and assailed the case.
He assailed it.
I tell you.
The sale of New York Times also on this three hundred and fifty five million dollars
and the boys, the kids, junior, right?
And Eric, ordered to pay more than four million dollars each and they, I have an a two year
ban imposed upon them as well.
Damn.
What about Bianca?
She get, she get, I realize she was removed from this case, but how did she get out of
it?
Scott free.
Now, the New York Times goes on to say that Trump, of course, will appeal a financial
penalty, which could double share four hundred million or more, once interest is added,
but we'll have to I come up with either the money or secure a bond within 30 days.
What bail bondsman is got three hundred and fifty million laying around the office to
secure that bond.
I mean, you'd have to go to an actual financial institution, right?
He's not going to be able to get that from Joe the bondsman.
Ah, just go to Russia, man, that the boys, they say they don't money from Russia.
Don't you bank, you know, he's got, he's got, he's got so much money.
He's fine.
Right?
No problem.
No problem.
Dom, I see reporting that says Trump last out at the judge calling it a total shim in
a lengthy statement.
Trump accused the judge of being controlled by Democrats and said his decision will be
overturned on appeal.
Will it?
Trump also said without evidence that he's being tried in the court at the behest, a
president Biden.
It's a New York court.
Biden's got influence over at the New York Supreme Court, which is technically the district
court level in that state.
I know.
It's a, it's a, and it's a civil action.
Doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
He's just going to stand up there on the soapbox and bitch about it, just like our friend
from we're seeing yesterday.
It doesn't matter.
That's the state court versus the federal court.
These things are irrelevant to their crying and moaning and bitching about their guy finally
getting his come up as for what committing fraud over and over and over again.
Do you see what the judge said?
This is nine minutes ago.
Donald Trump and his business earned a steep fine of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Not just because of what the trial left and showed, but also because they engaged in
years worth of corporate malfeasance.
Do you have the other statement from the judge in grand time, a, a, a quote from the actual
ruling page 87 of 92 had to, had to dig this one up, refusal to admit error.
The English poet Alexander Paul first declared to error is human to forgive divine.
Defendants apparently are of a different mind.
After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error inadvertent, of course,
that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump tower penthouse, which
cannot be gainset.
They're complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological.
They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money.
The documents prove this over and over again.
This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin.
Defendants did not commit murder or arson.
They did not rob a bank at gunpoint.
Donald Trump is not Bernie made up yet defendants are incapable of admitting the error of
their ways.
Instead, they adopt a senile evil here, no evil speak, no evil posture that the evidence
belies.
This court is not constituted to judge morality.
It is constituted to find facts and apply the law in this particular case and applying
the law to the facts.
The court intends to protect the integrity of the financial marketplace and thus the
public as a whole.
Defendants refused to admit error indeed to continue it, according to the independent
monitor, constrains this court to conclude that they will engage in it going forward unless
judicially restrained.
Oh, damn.
Well, actually, I had a different statement from the judge, Tom.
I thought you were going this direction again, the reporting from the Washington Post talking
about the corporate malfeasance judge Arthur Ingeron concluded when it comes to fraud Ingeron
wrote, this is not the defendants first rodeo.
Yeah, I've seen that comment that quote once in a while, the first rodeo, man.
And so let's talk this briefly.
I thought about this.
I want to throw this one out there for your consideration for all the megas out there.
Oh, no harm.
No foul.
Nobody got heard.
Everybody made money.
What's the big deal?
Let me put it to you this way.
Just break it down a little bit for you if you worked at a bank, worked at an institution
and you embezzled money from that, put it in your pocket, walked over the casino and
bet it all on black and one and then took the money and stuck it back into the bank account.
Right?
But kept your winnings.
That's still fraud.
The money got returned.
Everybody was paid.
Nobody knew that still fraud.
That's still stealing.
That's still embezzlement.
That's still wrong.
And that's still prosecutable.
Dom, I've heard you make a lot of bad analogies.
That went a little better than most.
All right.
I like that one a little bit.
You at least considered that one before you said it.
Question.
I did.
I thought about it like 10 minutes ago.
Two farmers long again, the post reporting, two former longtime finance executives at the
Trump organization, happened barred for life from working in top financial roles at any
New York company as part of Justice Arthur Ingerand's decision Friday.
One of the former executives, the Ellen Weiselberg, also faces a one million dollar fine.
So it's not just the boys and what because, of course, that kind of prosecution for
perjuring himself in this trial perhaps.
Well, yeah, good luck with that.
I'll wise, so Berg.
But of course, Donald Trump was paying some of these folks.
Great severance packages just so they will not cooperate willingly with any investigation.
Apparently, that's one of the clawbacks that Ingeron has requested.
Apparently, the boys, you know, Don Jr.
Fredo, as we like to reference him and Eric or Beavis' and but had as they're known
collectively, their attorneys Clifford S. Robert said it's a gross injustice.
These four billion dollar fines for the boys.
I don't think that will leave them destitute, but I got to think there's going to be a
capital crunch over at the Trump and they can't even do business, right?
So here's the crazy thing.
Let's assume he can find some way of putting some money down so he doesn't have to put the
entirety of $354 million on account plus interest awaiting appeal.
Let's assuming get a bond.
He's still going to be cash poor.
He may be a billionaire in terms of the assets he holds, or at least that's what he was
claiming, depending on whether he's telling the insuring agencies or the bank or the
taxing authorities, but what I would say is we're going to find out what all this stuff
is really worth at liquidation prices.
I would say start the bidding on Marilago.
Let the fire sale auctions begin.
Donald Trump will be a liquid.
What bank's going to deal with the guy?
I mean, this guy's a deadbeat at this point, he's going to leverage that he has on all
the real estate.
I know he's got a $354 million judgment against him.
I'm waiting for them to start garnishing his wages.
Well, that's one judgment, right?
And it could be up to over 400 million with the interest plus plus the EG and Carol.
So we're talking, you know, what, close to potentially a half a billion dollars in
judgments in the last couple of months, which is in excess of what he's doing.
He ever claimed they have in cash, you know, because one must invest their cash, right?
And real estate holdings or golf courses, you know, he claimed that he had a $400 million
in cash, which would be assing because they're not earning any interest in the cash.
So, but let's assume he's correct in accessible mutual fund.
If that's right with you, Salvia.
That's where I keep all of my liquid assets, I keep mine.
Like Bonnie Willis, man, and the safe, even so, I mean, even if the guy's worth, you
know, $5 billion, $500 million to my math is 10%.
I mean, anybody try to come up with 10% of your net worth right in 30 days.
That's a big ask for anybody.
I might have to go start digging in the backyard.
Look under your mattress, Donald Trump, $354 million.
He's going to be broke as Friday.
You know what I'm saying?
Broke A out.
Never been that broke before.
I mean, I've been broke, but I've never been $354 billion in the whole broke.
Oh, don't worry.
He goes to court March 25th on the dormitannials case.
The criminal trial.
Well, don't look forward.
We're going to turn our attention next to the former chairman of the Republican Party.
He's got his big date on the 60 minutes.
And I don't believe him, Doc.
Andrew hit.
We'll play at the sound, and then we'll tell you why he's lying.
More devil's after.
It's the Friday edition.
Thank God.
I ain't broke his Donald Trump.
$1 million.
We're making ass and taking names since the Wisconsin uprising, The Devil's Advocates.
And we're back from D4.
20 great.
Thank you so much for listening to The Devil's Advocates.
Radio show.
Happy Friday to us all.
You can join us on the line.
We air the grievances on Fridays.
If you got any, let us know.
I feel pretty good right now.
I don't know.
My grievances.
Donald Trump didn't get fined more than the $355 million.
I'll be you can call us at 844-967-2789.
Tom, I got to think Trump's probably not going angry shopping today, not a good day
for shopping.
Might have to throw some ketchup, strewn plates at the wall in Marilago.
You know, we're going to find out what that place is worth pretty quick because he's either
going to have to liquidate or borrow against it.
You've got Nick Ramos from the Wisconsin democracy campaign, one of the big issues here
in our backyard, state of Wisconsin.
Should he or shouldn't he, Governor Tony Evers, sign the Republican offered maps, something
I've described as atrocious horse, well, Nick Ramos, disagrees.
I told him this, this interview might go rough on you, Nick, but he's here, he's in
the house.
He'll be here in the studio very, very soon.
I think about being friends with folks, you can argue and leave it on the table.
It doesn't matter.
We're all fine.
We're all adults here.
If I could not get along with people that were often wrong, Tom, it would make it
very difficult to do this show with you.
844-967-2789, let's talk about another guy who somehow turning his, climbing, I would
allege his criminal conspiracy to what?
Put himself forth as a fraudulent fake Trump electorate and we've talked about this quite
a bit in the state of Wisconsin.
There was a civil lawsuit that has now been settled and in the state of Wisconsin, these
10 fake Trump electors have acknowledged a that Joe Biden's the current president and
b, that what they did was wrong.
Now will they ever be criminally charged?
I'm really doubtful, if this late hour, I am quite doubtful that there will be any consequence
for Andrew hit, you know, has played himself quite the victim, Tom.
And we know that he gave testimony during the January 6th and we know that Kenneth cheese
bro has stated that he gave testimony to the attorney general of the state of Wisconsin
and Josh calls office, although we the devil's advocates have not independently verified
that.
Uh, cheese bro has been trying to get himself out in front of his own indictments.
His own pre-offers, well, maybe is that what Andrew hit is doing by going on 60 minutes,
which will apparently air this Sunday.
Well, I don't understand why guy who's still legally vulnerable as I would perceive Andrew
hit to be would ever go on 60 minutes.
Mike Wallace is not your friend.
You know what I mean?
When you saw the 60 minutes cameras walking into some guy's shop through the years, you're
just thinking, oh, this guy's in trouble.
And so many people go to the center of the Cooper, right?
Well, he did indeed sit down with Anderson Cooper.
I'm not sure if he cried.
I'm not sure if Anderson Cooper made him cry.
But one does not go expose oneself on the 60 minutes.
I think he went to tell, let's call it a aspirational story of what he wished.
You would believe about his participation in this crime, this criminal conspiracy.
In my opinion, well, you should have an opinion.
You don't I know have plenty of opinions, but I mean you the audience.
So let's play it for the people date here is what we can anticipate.
Andrew hits interview with 60 minutes, at least a small snippet thereof.
Beautiful kids, Andrew.
Good.
Good.
I'm going to blame you, Andrew, if they don't do it.
Can you imagine the repercussions on myself, my family?
If it was me, Andrew hit who prevented Donald Trump from winning Wisconsin.
You're saying you were scared?
It was not a safe time.
If my lawyer is right, and the whole reason Trump loses Wisconsin is because
of me, I would be scared to death.
There's no way that this is a plausible story.
A, if you weren't comfortable with this circumstance, Andrew hit, you could have been replaced
in your fraudulent criminal conspiracy by any other willing participant.
On your side of the aisle, I've always found there's quite a few willing to take part.
So I don't believe that you, sir, would have been the sole person that would have what
prevented Trump from being elected, duly if it was overturned in court or through some
let's say, you know, cool attempt that you were a part of.
And if you didn't play a part then, then, then you're vulnerable to the mega Republican
Trumpsters that you're the head of the party of.
None of this makes much sense to me.
Very serving this telling you a story.
You think I mean, number one, if that's the case, cowardice, sir, cowardice, what you're
afraid of your own constituency, is that what you're telling me you're afraid of Donald
Trump?
Is that what they're really saying?
If my, what my lawyer told me was right, well, who's your lawyer?
Kind of cheese, bro, Jim Troopis, perhaps who's Jim Troopis will never know what you're
talking about.
And there was some texts that were released from Andrew Hitt during his testimony.
And one of the, what I recall was, oh, this is a basic, and I'm paraphrasing.
This is an ass and an idea.
It's going to fail miserably.
I didn't hear any lamenting about their fear for your life and your children and your
family in anything that was released at all.
So now, now upon reflection, you're scared.
That's why you did it.
And if I'm, if I'm to believe it, then you, sir, our are a coward.
You would engage in an overthrow of the government because you're scared of the man that you voted
for.
That it doesn't make any sense at all.
I don't believe it does either.
I had remembered a point and forgotten it during your rant.
So it'll come back to me, the former chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party in a
new interview with 60 minutes claims he sent Congress paperwork.
He signed posing as an elector for Donald Trump, following the former president's 2020 election
laws out of fear for his safety from the candidate supporters.
Andrew Hitt who was the chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin during the 2020 election
offered the explanation, uh, some of us aren't buying it for his participation in a scheme
designed by Trump and his allies to stay in power after losing reelection during an
episode on CBS 60 minutes in a air Sunday evening in a clip provided.
We played that for you.
It says he was scared down of what Trump supporters would do to him.
And his family, if he did not sign the paperwork and the courts later overturned President
Joe Biden's victory in Wisconsin, well, I remembered my last point down, the caveat,
the disclaimer in the paperwork, I might be more willing to believe, Mr. Hitt seemingly
self-serving account.
If he addressed the fact, there was no caveat saying this is just a procedural thing, just
in case, just in case like they did in the state of Pennsylvania.
Yep.
And in fact, Mike Roman, who's the very same guy who's got what's her face down in Fulton
County.
Yeah.
He is the Trump co-defendant that brought that action trying to have the prosecutor
thrown out.
Well, the Mike Roman said, well, that's heresy.
We don't want to sort of disclaimers.
That's weak language.
We're not.
I think you have that.
Literally.
I think it says F.
We're not doing that.
Well, I, for do you say that once twice now, what do you say to Mr. Hitt on this day,
this fine day, damn.
What's that guy, man?
Come back with us.
By sentiments.
Exactly.
Nick Ramos.
Oh, try not to be so rough on Nick.
I'll see how it goes.
He is the director of the executive director, Wisconsin democracy campaign.
That guy.
Oh, I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those meddling devils advocates.
Look back to the devils, advocates for your show, the Friday edition.
Damn, I've been joined here in the WMDX 92.7 FM studios.
Let's call a big papa.
He is Nick Ramos is the executive director of the Wisconsin democracy campaign, the returning
champion.
We welcome him back.
How you doing?
Man, I'm tired of it, man.
I'm alive.
You boys in the studio, man, happy Friday, gentlemen.
Nick, welcome and for clarity's sake, you did not make a clandestine phone call to me.
I tried to text you, actually.
I hang on a second.
Hang on a sec.
I said, I got receipts for that.
I asked Jay Heckles, like, Jay, can you give me crewed's number?
He did.
I texted it.
I said, a really nice little die tribe to you and I got nothing.
I was on red.
I was on red.
That must have been dumb.
I'd have been an old number, but I felt like I got ghosted today, dude.
I don't even have an old number.
All right.
I'll look back, man.
Fair enough.
I've had the same phone number since rotary days.
Well, okay.
Did I got to go to Jay?
And then Jay's the one to messed up.
I would assume it's all Jay Hexfine or Dominix.
We'll take it to Comic-Con.
Jay Hexfine.
I'd hear it's all the same Jay.
Nick Ramos, the question, the debate we've been having it on and off the air all week
long.
Should Tony Evers sign the Republican past maps that initially were actually Tony Evers
preferred maps, those that he had submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but the Wisconsin
Supreme Court is already made of ruling.
And if Tony were to veto the maps, well, they'll just go forward and let's just say, you
know, put newer different maps, maybe Evers maps, even.
We'll see what the court does, but you think, and I don't mean to put words in your mouth,
Nick, but you think Evers should just go ahead and sign them.
Sign the legislation, take the victory, put one in the wind column.
And that's what you're here to advocate for.
Hell yeah.
I mean, and I double down on that.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Hell yeah.
Double-dog dairy.
Absolutely.
But I disagree with you, Nick.
And the here is what the original deep throw told me going on.
If if Evers were to agree with us, first and foremost, it starts from the premise that
we cannot trust Robin Foss.
We cannot trust these Republicans.
And when they were out there trying to sell this plan to us, man, Nick, you got to admit,
it was being laid on pretty thick.
Oh, no doubt.
They were all reselling it, man.
The first leg goes up.
Von Wongard.
Oh, we will take our stabbing instead of the shooting of a hanging here is the fear that
was expressed to be setting aside, perhaps that it would cut off any avenue of the Mark
Elias group and their lawsuit, which hopes to challenge the congressional maps.
But they weren't the original litigants in this case.
They kind of jumped in late, so upset them aside.
The fear is that if Tony signs these maps because of the incongruence of the activation,
because these maps, according to the way the Republicans passed them, they don't take
a fact till the fall.
But we already know because of a judicial appointment of Lena Taylor, we've got a special
election coming, or we need to, and how's that going to play out?
And the fear is that that opens the door to a trip to the seventh circuit to the federal
courts and theoretically, the implementation of the maps for all of us could be stayed
by the federal courts.
And this is a state court issue.
We don't want it to end up there.
So why is my clandestine source?
What are they missing?
What do I get wrong?
Absolutely.
How much time do I have to cook here, by the way, because I want to make sure, because
you start talking.
I'll cut you off.
It's so good.
Give me the going when we're running out of time.
All right.
There we go.
So check it out.
I mean, look, everybody, it's funny, and I'm an attorney.
So everybody's sitting here making their own legal calculus about this situation.
On one side, you have everything that you just described, and we've been seeing that happen
as far as, you know, certain folks within the legislature making that calculus as far
as, oh my gosh.
The governor's maps.
They get signed into law.
We're going to look at some type of partisan gerrymandering claim.
It's going to go to the seventh district, Diane Sykes, Yadia Diyada, on the other side
of that coin.
Let's look at what has been happening and lurking in the background.
We have seen on the respondent side, all of these motions for reconsideration.
Why is that happening?
Me, Mr. Attorney, would tell you that smells like due process to the US Constitution for
a scotist claim?
So I would counter that, and I would argue and say this, what is more secure in the eyes
of a court, a legislative pass map, or a court installed map?
What can I respond to that?
Go ahead.
Absolutely.
Because here's where I would disagree with your thought process.
I haven't heard the threats of Robin Voss.
I don't know.
We're going to run, we're going to appeal no matter what the ruling has in the course.
We know the ruling is going against, we'll run off to the US Supreme Court.
But here is what I liked about the ruling of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
They used state constitutional issues, and the contiguousness issue.
And this is not for the federal courts.
And I think they were very clear.
And I think this liberal majority, very strategic and smart in their claims and their limitations
of this case just to the state constitutional issues.
So I don't care how many, you know, reconsideration offers Robin Voss sends, I feel much more
confident that because of the nature of the ruling, it would be kept out of the US Supreme
Court.
And I'm not a lawyer.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
Yeah.
But Nick, to answer specifically your question, generally speaking, certainly maps passed
by the legislature and signed by the governor, I would think carry more weight, quote, unquote,
than those asked by a Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Thank you.
Thank you for putting a little weight on that, on that side of the argument.
Correct.
Okay.
So unless Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty decides to go and sue and take this case
to the federal court.
But hang on.
Yeah.
Thank you, guys.
I'm a guest here.
Anyway, my point is this, look, check it out.
Any map no matter what can be challenged.
If you've got money, you've got an attorney, and you can file something, any of these maps,
whether it's court installed, whether it's one that's signed by the governor, all of these
things.
We get to hear all these attorneys coming in here and giving their little legal opinions
about, oh my God, seventh district challenge is, oh, scotus, look, we have the opportunity
to pass something right now, and everybody keeps thinking that Robin Voss has got these
and various things and rightfully so he's a history, there's a history of it, but look,
the legal calculus has been done and we've been speaking with legal folks and look, a
lot of people would argue and say, he's out of moves at the Roman Empire, power grabs,
a lot of things.
I know it's hard to believe this, guys.
He's out of moves.
And I'm going to tell you this, like he can try and take this to court, but the probability
of it actually being successful, whether we're talking about a seventh district challenge,
or we're talking about the thing that I was just describing as far as maybe a VRA claim,
or maybe we're talking about a due process claim.
Like those things, there's probability in there, but I'm not predicting a positive outcome.
There's only a delay that forces them not to institute the map for this elective.
Absolutely.
Which sends us into a desk trial and then we could be potentially looking at unconstitutional
maps.
You're right.
I mean, look, those are all things that there might be on that side then, Nick, do you
assign weight to this side of the argument knowing that doesn't matter what maps are
there and it doesn't matter whether or not ultimately will or Robin Voss or whoever
they get to be the proxy in the lawsuit, ultimately are successful.
It's about the delay.
Do you recognize that?
Do you recognize that?
Totally.
I recognize that, but this is what I'm going to argue and you guys can either take that
and run with it or not.
Okay.
We have the opportunity as far as being in like the fair maps fight.
We're not Democrats.
We're not Republicans.
We're nonpartisan.
We want fair maps.
And at the end of the day, the governor's map is a fair map and it's right in front of
us and it's the most secure way beyond a court installed map to get us fair maps in
the state.
You can argue either side of it, of it being challenged or all these poise and pill provisions
and all this stuff.
Guess what?
There's a lot of attorneys working on this to make sure that they can finagle that particular
thing.
So guess what?
There's a lot of other things down the pipeline that you're going to get to see here soon
down this little show that you guys haven't even been thinking about and it's just one
of those things.
You don't know what I've been thinking.
Yeah.
That's not fair.
That's not fair.
I can't act like a mind reader, but like, but I just think that everyone, everyone knows
that there's so much at stake here and there's so much skin in the game.
That's why it's so sensitive and everybody wants to make sure that this comes out okay
and that we don't get sent into this gerrymandering hell.
So like, I get it, but from us, the governor's map is good.
This is a victory and this is a loss for boss, like, honestly, and people, if you don't
want to sell it that way, you don't want to feel that way.
Got it.
But like, we're doing our legal calculus, man.
Like folks, you are listening to the Devils.
African's radio show.
He's big pop on Nick Ray Morris, the executive director of the Wisconsin democracy campaign.
He's arguing for Tony to sign these Republican offered Trojan horse maps.
And I am fearful and I am skeptical.
And mostly it's got nothing to do with you now.
I trust you, man.
It's Robin Voss.
It's not trustworthy.
No, it sucks.
It's not a question.
If they haven't done such a hard sell, right?
If he'd have made no statement at all there, I might believe it.
But the fact that they came out and said, Tony, one means that they're lying and Tony
did not win.
They've got some other malfeasance in mind.
How do you speak to my instinctive skepticism dog?
I mean, believe me when I think I got a good gut over here.
I've been working on it.
I called the Milwaukee alderman.
Jesus.
Like, you have one of the best spidey senses in the game here.
Okay.
So when you're right, you're right.
Like, and when I'm having conversations and lobbying on this stuff, like, look, you
look in the legislature and everyone is like, look, we can't trust this man anytime.
He has ever done anything bipartisan in quotes.
It is always the advantage for him.
So like, what is his next chess move?
What is he doing?
You can throw a revenue sharing at me.
Oh, God.
I'm like, we don't have to talk about it.
Well, but you know, but you could have said there was this minuscule bipartisan thing.
It was a very big issue.
He screwed.
Well, of course he did, but that's in his nature.
That's it.
Steve.
The skepticism.
We all feel in this moment.
Nick.
Nick Ramos.
Let me ask you.
If, and I, if, um, if the, the Supreme Court ends up, if, if, if Evers beetles the maps and
Wisconsin Supreme Court ends up implementing a map, um, that's the map that will be in play
if there is a lawsuit.
That's, that's my, that's my estimation.
Do you agree with that?
I mean, you say if there's a lawsuit, so if it gets, so if that map gets challenged,
we're, like, can you just explain it a little bit more so I understand.
It was kind of a Supreme Court approved map.
So Tony Evers beetles this current map, you know, passed by the legislature, his own map.
Yeah.
It's on because of the scenario.
Uh, uh, Wisconsin Supreme Court implements their map.
There is then a lawsuit after that.
Yeah.
Well, that map would operate while that lawsuit continued until they stay, like if there
was a situation where they stayed it, then we're looking at maybe some real doomsday
situations.
I mean, there's a world, there's a world and that's why everybody's kind of like up in
arms and worrying, like they want to make sure that we don't get reverted back to potentially.
If it gets, if we get delayed so far, then it could go back to a previous map.
And that's why there's a lot of probabilities, a lot of legal calculus happening and that's
why we want to make sure we get us the fairest map possible, the most secure way in governor
Evers' map gets it done, guys.
Let me ask you.
It was stated to be by deep throat number two of the call I got yesterday off the record.
The statement was a Supreme Court ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court would be subject
to a partisan overruling.
Should we lose the court in 25 or 26?
They would find some other partisan rationale to overturn.
I would come back to the state court issue and the constitutional issue.
Sure.
Return the constitutional predicate that they must be contiguous once that precedent has
been set by the court.
Once it's been ruled, how are you going to turn back and say, well, we're going to rewrite
the constitution and take it out of there.
I don't see how you would possibly overturn this predicated on the ruling they found.
Wow.
A lot to work with there.
But yeah, I mean unpack.
I can give you 90 seconds.
Oh, wow, man.
He's really trying to make me defuse a bomb here live.
Okay, check it out.
Well, look, I mean, what you were saying at the beginning, I think, is really spot on
as far as like this court was very good and thoughtful about how they went about looking
at the maps and deciding at least, you know, these maps that are unconstitutional and just
keeping it a state issue.
So like some of the issues that I was bringing up to you earlier, some of these due process,
VRAs, parts and gerrymandering, you know, it begs the question as far as like in some
of these future, you said 2025 where, you know, Ann Walsh Bradley is on the ballot, Brad
Schimmels running.
If we see a shift in the court, there's a world.
Well, the fact that it's Schimmel already gives me a new confidence, but please continue.
Oh, God.
I hear the music.
So I feel like I'm running out of time here.
We might have to do this after the break, guys.
We get nervous.
Um, so yeah, I mean, look, like there's a world where these things happen, but honestly,
like on our side, man, we've been, we've been speaking with a lot of both state and federal
scholars on this.
And they, they're, they're doing the mental calculus on it and they're saying that look,
they don't think that there's enough cards in the hand for some of the moves that people
are thinking that Vos is going to do with the governor's maps get signed.
They think governor's maps is the safest path right now.
Okay, big papa.
When will we know whether or not Tony Evers is signing the maps?
Have they been printed?
No, no, seriously, like the, the legislation has the clock started on 10 days.
Yes.
So he's got till Tuesday.
So I know it's going to happen.
And if it's going to sign, it's going to be before Tuesday.
Nick Ramos.
I like it when they call you big papa.
Thank you so much executive director, Wisconsin democracy campaign.
Thanks for coming.
Thanks, man.
Thank you, brother.
Thank you for coming around, Nick, I don't know if, you know, we're all rooting for the same outcome.
We just want some fair maps for race and we know you can't trust the Republicans to
do the right thing or they would have done so already plenty of opportunities along the
line to do the right thing here.
The fact that we went into this process with them threatening to impeach, he not yet
and panelled Supreme Court justice, call me skeptical, you know, call me skeptical.
I just don't see how it is possible that Robin Voss and boys and girls over in the Republican
caucus.
If just said, damn it, we lost this time because they never can see defeat, see the election
of 2020 summer still trained to litigate it or at least argue it.
So I don't trust him.
It's.
Nick Ramos, I trust him.
He's a good guy.
And you know, and Nick's a very smart guy and there's some very smart lawyers.
I'm sure looking at this, you know, and if it's, if it, if he ever signs the maps and
they're challenged, you know, do they, do they, are they implemented at while, while
the challenge continues, right, because we can't, we can't continue with the current
maps.
Those are already unconstitutional.
We need new maps.
We need some constitutional maps prior, Helena Taylor's old seat, a special election
and perhaps even a Robin's most recall.
Yeah, let's get to work on that thing.
Mike from Racine, we're talking to you.
So who knows?
And so I don't know like legally the process, what happens in that circumstance, right?
If Tony Evers maps would stay and whether or not it goes to a conservative federal judge,
they keep the maps until something else comes because there's nothing else there, right?
So Tony Evers maps, if he signs his own map, those would be the only ones available, whether
or not they're challenged.
I would assume they would be because that's how they do it.
Hell is not their money.
Just get to call the donors and get them go and file a lawsuit.
Well, some maps still have to be in place.
Something still has to happen.
Something has to be used for a special election and of course, those are already unconstitutional.
Yes, they would be done because of course, they would stay the ruling of the Wisconsin
Supreme Court that called the prior maps unconstitutional.
And we would use the maps utilized in 2022.
We'd be back to the same old GD gerrymander.
Yeah, it's not a happy story.
There's no happy ending if that's the case.
They're going to stay the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
If they saw the merits, if this went to court and they took it up in the federal courts,
notably for partisan end, right, you know, the only good news is Rand is in the grave.
He's not going to catch this case because if Rudolph ran to caught this case in the federal
courts, you know, we would know what the outcome was, right?
Because he'd find the partisan reason to stay.
Doesn't matter.
Ends justify the means.
So it doesn't matter the legal rationale ultimately used to stay at the next point then.
So if we get a lawsuit regardless of which map, let's take that approach.
We're going to have a lawsuit regardless, right?
So which one has the greater ability to stand up because couldn't then even if the Wisconsin
Supreme Court comes up with their maps and will or somebody sews on that, couldn't then
that same court stay, whatever maps are created based on what you're saying and continue
also use the unconstitutional point to leave the only remedy to the highest court of the
land here in the state of Wisconsin would be the US Supreme Court.
And I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the appeal and that's why Robin Voss keeps talking
about the US Supreme Court.
That's why the prior challenge to the least change map, if you'll recall, when the prior
Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled, that's why they didn't go to the seventh district.
A ruling of the Wisconsin Supreme Court can only be overturned in a circumstance like
that to my understanding by the US Supreme Court.
But what we're talking about wouldn't be a ruling.
It would be a concession between evers and the legislative Republicans.
Now again, I'm a layperson, maybe I'm not understanding all the rules of the courtroom.
But I think that gives you more exposure.
The fact that you've basically taken and we all know that you're putting maps that have
either been ruled unconstitutional on the state court, right?
You've got conflict in the maps, you've got a special election.
You've opened up the avenue to go running off to some other court's jurisdiction.
If the only question, because the new maps, the Supreme Court maps would implement immediately
upon the ruling, upon them casting the ruling, they'll set the date.
As of this election, in all elections going forward, these are the new maps.
Well, that's not what this legislation, these Republicans, this Trojan horse,
does, right, puts it off to the fall, leaves a legal question open ended,
something that would have to be contemplated by the federal courts, let's say.
So from my point of view, and understand, I'm just playing strategy,
starting from the assumption that Robin Voss is trying to stick it to us.
When I back up from that assumption, I still, in no offense to our friend,
Big Papa Nick Raymos, but I still am of the conclusion that Tony Evers should veto these
maps.
Oh, it's the delay.
If the maps were to be implemented immediately upon the governor's signature, would you have
that same concern?
Yes.
I have the concern, well, if they implemented immediately, I don't think you've got the
legal challenge with the special election, right?
That takes away that avenue, then what I'm saying is if this ruling goes through to full
carry out, if the Wisconsin Supreme Court without the Evers vetoed maps under my scenario,
if the Wisconsin Supreme Court rules based on state constitutional issues, and I'm correct
and I think I am, but I've been wrong once or it might be sometime in the future, it
could only go to the US Supreme Court.
And the challenge to the state's contiguous constitutional question would probably not
be a question for the US Supreme Court, because that's a state, that's a state constitutional
issue.
And it would be more sensible, from my point of view, for the US Supreme Court to deny,
just say, no, sir, we don't want it.
We're not going to overrule the Wisconsin Supreme Court on a Wisconsin constitutional issue.
I think that's the best outcome.
I think that's the safest outcome.
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the radio.
If you're on the radio, that qualifies you to do everything.
You know, I hope Donald Trump's lawyers got paid up front, because I hear these.
$350, $4 million broker today, and there's also a question, interlocking ignitions for
the one in five Wisconsinites who have had a prior DWI.
I heard it today.
Could save 10,000 lives?
A lot of expense, though, could be you more devils.
