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 a shield our airwaves and corporate licensees
for many semblance of liability, responsibility and gullibility.
We must tell you the views represented on the 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.
Once proving its never personal only politics, and now here's your host, Dom and Krut.
Welcome back to the devil's advocates radio show.
The Thursday happy or happy hour, I'll be entirely happy when our pelchum said tell joints.
I hear you screwed it up, don't look, don't look, it was me, it was all me sorry Jim.
I did send you the new link once you get to it, James Santel, our friend former US attorney
will join us here in a few minutes, that's all on me, the state never give me any responsibility
other than like turning the mics on.
State of the, state of the union, Thursday edition, almost stated the state.
You know, I was once a fine guest at a state of the state address, I'm, did I ever tell
you that?
This was where Wisconsin, yeah, where do you think I was getting invited?
Well, I know you live down south for a while, and I know you're a little hoover for a while.
I mean, I know what you're supposed to say before.
Yes, they brought me in from day jail to sit at the state of the state address.
This predates, this might shock you, this predates Tony Evers, I have not been to a state
of the state as the guest of Tony.
And it predates the wanker, because I don't care if I walked on water and saved kids from
a burning building, wanker wasn't going to invite me, never know, but under Jim Doyle,
I was there, Jim Doyle, the autism mandate, and I wasn't always a big fan, but Jim Doyle
I use some of his political capital, pushing through the autism mandate that affected my
family greatly.
And he put me in his gallery, and by only regret, I wasn't wearing a suit, I was wearing
like a turtle neck, no ballcat, you know, it's like a weird look for me, it wasn't a
normal day.
And so like I'm up there, and I'm like, hi, you know, because they bring attention to
you at some point, they point at you and like, hey, look at that, no, no, no, no, no,
at least when you're there as a government, well, you know, it's a thing, I've always,
you know, they always say to you know, never chew gum when you're on camera, I thought
to myself, oh, the hell with that, I get a cotton mouth, I got to chew some gum.
And then then I then I saw myself on camera chewing gum, and then I never did that again.
So yeah, always wear a suit, come on.
We should wear one during this radio product, um, do we got Jim, is Jim with us?
All right.
We got.
Oh, look at him.
He's got at least a sport coat on.
See, he's dressed for the part.
No, no tie today, but but sport coat always, always dressed for you.
Jim, you should have worn a rock and roll t-shirt dress for the job you want, not the
job you got.
There you go.
I want to be a rodeo.
That's what I must my goal in life.
I always get best, the best vocational advice from this radio program.
Yeah.
Wisconsin each welders, Jim, I got to be honest.
And the high paying field of radio, Jim, uh, James Antel former US attorney, current
attorney at law and host of the morning, Kenoli, unless you've renamed it, not not quite
yet.
We're coming in that that direction and some, some modest revisions, not the content,
but just a sort of style and approach.
Excellent.
Well, as long as you're working on it, working title, morning, Kenoli, Saturday morning,
nine to 11 on the civic media network, our friend, Jim, thanks for joining us.
Let's get to some local news, first and foremost, Jim started way back at three o'clock.
We've expanded three hours each week day, um, talking about Ron Johnson, the senator from
Wisconsin, still denying for knowledge that he was passing the fake electors on to the
vice president that that is what he had been asked to do.
But we've seen releases this document dump that Jim Troopers, Kenneth Cheesebro document
dump that would seem to indicate that he was briefed on the whole plan, souped the nuts,
certainly on the vice presidential part, a month prior.
And we've seen other tax that minimum that would seem to imply Ron was well informed
of what it was.
He was perpetrating, uh, Jim, I know some of this new news.
But do you see criminality, perhaps in the actions of our senior U.S. Senator?
A couple of observations about this.
Of course, we don't know precisely the entire landscape here, but it certainly becomes
more clear, especially with this recent release of information, the Troopers emails, uh,
the Chosebro emails, all of that again, confirming this plan that developed right here in
Wisconsin that had a lot of tendrils plainly beyond Wisconsin throughout the United States
America.
And as you just indicated, an awful lot of indication that it was not just those two,
it's not just the fake electors, but that our senior senator was involved at a minimum,
at a minimum with an information base now under the law is simply knowing about something,
a crime, typically not, typically not.
But as we've discussed before, you may be a part of a conspiracy.
You could be a part of an eating and a betting entity.
And you don't have to be a part of every single aspect of that.
If you've done something yourself to advance the purpose of accomplishing an illegal or criminal
end, you yourself can be held culpable.
And so while it's too early right now to say whether or not our senior senator is going
to be in that category, again, the more and more we see about this, the more revelations
are.
It's suggesting that he is a part of this group that plainly had the intention to do
what the same kinds of things that Jack Smith has charged against Donald Trump.
And again, when it gets to trial, if it should, on this package of information or anything
else that may be out there, there are some great great instructions to talk about the
involvement of people, or again, are not maybe the principal movers and shakers, but nonetheless,
did something and, and significantly, the fact that juries and fact binders can impute
knowledge, can impute involvement and can ascribe intent based upon the things that in common
sense suggest that that should be, should be the result.
James Santel, former US Attorney Friend of ours, Jim, what if you, what if you were wanting
to help out in, in furtherance of the conspiracy, but you were unsuccessful in your efforts?
Does that still make you culpable to the greater conspiracy?
What a great question, law school criminality 101 and constitutional law and constitutional
pre-cedural kinds of things, the answer is no.
If the three of us here on public radio here in the public domain begin to discuss and put
together an agreement to violate the law, and we undertake one what's called an overt act
in further and subbed, it doesn't even have to be criminal in its nature.
If we agree to do something, the purpose of which is criminal, and we do one thing to advance
that, we have committed a crime.
If in fact, we're, we're conspiring to rob a bank, but we don't do that in the end, we've
got that agreement, we do one thing like buy masks, buy bags, buy a car, get a car
arrange, that sort of thing.
We are still responsible for that, and the law does not require it, and does not require
that the actual event that was intended happened, it is enough to agree to it, it's enough
to be a part of it, and again, have been involved in some way in this singular event or more
that move it forward.
Jim Santel, let me ask you then, the earlier question, the fake elector scheme.
What we know in the public reporting gym, do you see criminality in that fake elector
scheme from cheeseboro to Andrew Hitt and the other participants here in the state of
Wisconsin?
Do you see criminality there, sir?
The answer is yes, and on this fine radio station, back in the fall of this past year,
you spent a good deal of time on a Saturday morning broadcast, outlining in detail the
specific statutes that under the Wisconsin law, the specific Wisconsin criminal statutes,
there could be invoked, there are four or five or six of them, including conspiracy, including
these kinds of things involving aiding and abetting, other things that kind of support
a criminal enterprise, we talked about them in a great length, we talked about the way
in which the facts of this case could be welded and moved neatly into a prosecution based
upon those statutes, and it would not just focus upon the fake electors themselves, although
that could be the core of it, but anybody else, again, as our discussion here today indicates,
anybody else who is supporting it, aiding it, abetting it, apart of a conspiracy, I would
reference, if you will, in modestly, the show that we did back in the fall that describes
that in detail and provides a way forward to prosecute that case here in the state of
Wisconsin.
Councilor, I want to make a confession on behalf of the panel, dom goes to lots of concerts,
he doesn't get up and listen to the morning can always answer it.
Our fine guest, he is Jim Santel, Jim appreciating, coming round, Kenneth Cheeseboro, his participation
and the contradictory evidence that he's apparently given in the Nevada testimony and
the Michigan testimony, and he claimed he didn't have a social media account, but he did.
And we've seen reporting from the document dump that part of what he wrote way back
at the beginning is it really doesn't matter if litigation is still pending or not.
We are going to use, I believe his words were the cloud of confusion, and I saw columnists
this week called the cloud of deceit.
It was effectively, this is just a plan for any means necessary.
Do I have that right, Councilor?
Absolutely, reporting on this, again, just this past week, again, looking at New York
Times, other reporting here locally, I suggest just that, it is revealing, again, putting
the criminality to one side, the legality to one side, this notion that we know, we acknowledge
that, indeed, there's no real bear there, substantively, but our purpose in doing this
is to do just that, to confuse the electorate, to make a mess of things, to prompt people
to think that, indeed, the election was stolen, that there was something horrific that happened
here, and therefore, by the very process of doing that, accomplish our end.
Not because it's substantively supported, but throwing so much, if you will, on the wall,
hoping that that will happen.
I think that's exactly what the reporting, the release now of these documents recently,
in the civil process, has pretty much confirmed in terms of their purpose, and they were
intently new before about Chesbrows authoring these memorandums, one of them is called the
Wisconsin memorandum, but this gives even more weight, if you will, to that notion that
they knew from the start.
This was ridiculous.
This was fearless, and we're doing it simply to cause chaos.
Does the House of Cards crash on cheeseburg, oh, I can give you 30 seconds, Councilor?
Sure.
It certainly already has, and in Georgia, should in other places, frankly, including right
here in Wisconsin, lots of people looking at him, and he's got lots of criminal culpability
there to be exposed.
Jim, I think the former presidents got some criminal culpability out there in the world
as well.
Let's come back and talk about it.
Our good friend, James Santel, get up early on Saturdays.
Don't be like, Dom, listen to the morning canolies.
I, I, I, I, I, I, I, you can't, I mean, my involve, you know, my, my lack of involvement
was second's worth of texting.
The devil's advocates tackling the issues you're not allowed to talk about at the dinner
table.
I think we're listening to the devil's advocates radio.
So James Santel, former US Attorney, host the morning can only hear on the civic media
network on Saturdays, a second offer, at least one more segment, Jim, thank you for doing
so appreciate it.
I know we're going to get to some of the Trump travails, but I want to circle back briefly
on the Ron Johnson situation that we have greater insight as to the efforts of the conspiracy
and Ron's involvement because of the civil case that was settled and this information
had to be released.
Well, and, and Ron's off the right now, not under oath, claiming I had no idea, although
in the reporting, it specifically says from the Milwaukee General Senate, no, that he,
although he said he had no idea that the documents were for false electric paperwork, these
specs released show that the Trump tank Trump attorney troupe us ask him urgency to deliver
a document on the Wisconsin electorate shortly before Congress can be in the January
6th.
So Ron Johnson's out here in the public, seemingly contradicting what is in the factual
record based on the civil case, my question to you Jim, I mean, how do we get a criminal
case out of this?
Did the true general just call not have access to this kind of information until right
now, until this was released from a civil case?
I just, I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on that effort.
Yeah, it is curious and we don't know our attorney general has said he's neither confirming
or denying the existence of an investigation here.
We don't know what he has had.
He's been very, very quiet about this.
I've commented publicly with you and others on this notion because there's such a dramatic
public interest in this.
This is one of those times when the Department of Justice, federal and the state system can
in fact, can in fact go outside its normal policy and provide the community with some information
to suggest, yes, indeed, we're looking at this.
He may not want to disclose exactly what you've got, whether it's from another source or
your own criminal investigative pursuit, but just to let us know he has not done that.
And so we don't know.
And it's a concern, I think, for anybody who's looking at where we are with Wisconsin
is more generally.
I also wanted to follow up on your good question, Dom, and say, you know, there's also great
jury instruction that says just this, that even though you may not have what we typically
call sort of a smoking gun, an arrow that points directly to somebody's involvement and
an admission, that kind of thing, there's a great jury instruction that always is read.
Civil cases, criminal cases, to jury's finders of fact that says, use your common sense.
Do not check that at the courthouse door.
If all the things around the particular events suggest you that this person has knowledge,
you can find that there's knowledge.
And it's not just circumstantial people often say, well, gee, it's circumstantial evidence.
There is no direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is as compelling as is direct evidence.
And it's just a matter of how much there is and how compelling that evidence is just because
it's not a smoking gun, a fire, that sort of thing that's down the street, doesn't mean,
does it mean that juries cannot impute, as I said before, come to the rational inference
that they would normally engage in in their own common sense lives.
James Anto, our fine guest, Jim Stormy Daniels.
We could have gotten to the bottom of this.
I think 2018, Ron Johnson came down to Brady Street at that time and I'm going to get
to motive here.
We asked Ron Johnson, we said, Ron, contrast, if this was Barack Obama's, you know, mistress
allegedly, this Stormy Daniels should be screaming stormy stormy stormy from the rooftops.
And Ron literally gave us the sergeant shouts, oh, you boys are too young to remember, but
I know nothing.
That was his literal answer, a willingness to cover up because as we pointed out in real
time, he had subpoena power.
He had a gavel.
He was the chairman of the his gang.
He could have gotten to the bottom of the alleged election engineering, the cover up that
really was to keep the access Hollywood tape from multiplying into a loss for him.
So Jim, Stormy Daniels, I didn't want to talk about the sex crimes, but this is the
best we got, man, is Stormy Daniels going to take down the former president?
I think it's a compelling case.
It really is.
I know people have had a tradition here of saying, well, this is the weakest one.
This is the one that's most salacious and therefore less significant.
I think we were talking a week or so, you and I, Dom, about the fact that this does not
just that.
I referred to it as Donald Trump's origin story.
And yes, indeed, as an aside, Ron Johnson wasn't positioned at that time through the oversight
powers of the committee for which he was the chair to conduct an investigation.
As you said, subpoena power, compel people in can't prosecute criminally, but certainly
can do all those things of Congress and the Constitution can do.
He had the authority to do that.
That never happened.
I'll also take another shot at my own Department of Justice under, again, another administration
that also was pursuing this whole issue in the Southern District of New York.
That was dropped under Bill Barr.
And now we finally have Alvin Bragg, who's looking at all this.
And yes, has returned this indictment, these charges that again, are based upon the catch
and kill of the enraged arrangements involving Michael Cohen.
I think the evidence is fairly compelling.
There's some great reporting out there now about the kinds of things that Alvin Bragg is
going to be talking about to address that issue and talk about how this is more than
just paying off a porn star.
This is more than just Michael Cohen, who again is a very damaged witness.
This guy is not compelling, just standing alone, but there's an awful lot of corroborating
information to suggest that, yes, indeed, he was the conduit, that he was paid off.
The receipts were intended to cover up the fact that these monies have been paid to
stormy Daniels and Google, that evidence, I think, is straightforward enough for a jury
to understand.
But it's also going to be put, as we're indicating today, in the context of this larger
issue, which is, this was election interference, too.
This may have been the first iteration of it.
This may have been the first chapter of it.
And therefore, it's not just this insignificant throwaway case.
And it could, in fact, result in the singular criminal conviction of Donald Trump before
the election November.
We'll see.
Jim, $83.3 million.
Do this week, doesn't seem like the former president can make bond.
E. Jean Carroll's got every right to start seizing assets.
Jim, what's that look like?
It looks ugly.
It looks ugly, and it often is ugly.
And it is just pretty much as the reporting out there indicates, whether you're in bankruptcy
court and certainly here, again, Donald Trump is not in bankruptcy court.
But when you cannot pay your bills, there is civil process against, not criminal.
We don't have debtors, prisons in this country, we don't get put people in jail because they
have been paid their bills.
But what do we do?
We seize assets.
We foreclose on properties.
We grab bank assets, all those kinds of things.
In New York, there's a process for doing it.
I've never done it because I practice here in Wisconsin.
But there's a process for doing that to begin to grab the stuff that Donald Trump has
to liquidate it and to begin to pay off this whopping fine.
And that's plural, I should say.
And that's before you get to the other one.
What if he can't make these bonds?
Do you expect Latisha James to go try to seize Trump tower?
And I think she will.
I think she will.
And again, this is not a woman who has been it all reluctant to do what she can do under
the law.
And for that reason, I think you will see her being very aggressive.
She's also talked about the building right across the street from where she is in the Attorney
General's office.
She is going to go after this and more headlines coming out when Donald Trump's empire begins
to get chipped away because he's not going to make this bond, not be able to pay any
of these judgments out there, including the evaluations judgment either.
James Intel.
You got one more segment in you.
You don't have to do it live radio again till Saturday morning, 9 to 11 on the morning
can only Jim, we're going to we're going to ring you out, put you away wet here.
More Devils F gets more of our good friend, James Intel, a valuable, insightful guest.
So we're going to make a work overtime.
Come on back.
I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling Devils advocates.
Welcome back to the Devils.
Advocates for any of us show we got to find guesties, James Intel.
We are in the happier happy hour rolling through it right up into the Badger game in some
markets, state of the union address, President Joe Biden, coverage here from civic media
hosted by Maggie Don and Stuart Waddle.
Jim, I got to ask you, you're going to watch the state of the union address.
Do your civic duty or you like them, you're going to read the transcript tomorrow.
You know, there's nothing like watching it live, at least in the replay, maybe it didn't
matter.
So just because of the immediacy of this very important event, obviously in our nation's
history, it's in the Constitution that the President is supposed to provide a report to Congress
annually.
So it's part of his obligations under the second article of the Constitution, but that
interplay.
Remember very notably last year that there was direct interplay between the President
and some so-called hecklers in the crowd of members of the Congress.
We'll see if that happens again.
I think that the heat is still up, obviously on things like reproductive rights.
This issue coming out of Alabama have been to do with the finding by the Supreme Court
there that embryos are in fact lives and their children.
He's going to bring that up.
He's going to talk about the woman who had to leave Texas to get an abortion because
of the incredibly restrictive legislative action there as well.
And also obviously talk about overseas, guys, you're creating those kinds of things, but
a lot of these things do have direct involvement with the law, the rule of law and the administration
of justice, and he is going to make them very practical tonight.
Jim, probably the biggest audience of the year, so far no presidential debates, although
I saw Trump today challenging Joe Biden anywhere any time.
But this is the biggest predictable bully pulpit this President will have for the rest of
the year.
How important do you think the issue of small de-democracy and obviously it's a campaign
year, Jim.
He's got an opponent, but I would say in part what Trump is representative of is the greater
opponent, because it's not just Trump, it's a whole party willing to cast democracy
aside.
If that's what it takes, do you think he speaks to that, Jim?
I do.
I'll be very interested to see if he actually uses Donald Trump's name.
I suspect he probably won't, but it'll be unmistakably clear who he's talking about.
And we'll also be talking about the very people who are sitting in front of him, right?
Not only in terms of legislative things, I suspect we're also going to hear an awful
lot about this immigration deal, which was with any inches of passing.
And then you had the, not a majority, but the people who are apparently in charge, nixing
the deal in the house.
It's going to talk about that on the small de-issue, absolutely.
You talk about things like the reliance upon, even though we don't always like it, upon
courts to resolve things.
That could also be a sort of an interesting double-on-tonner if he talks about civil
litigation, the importance of that, and criminal prosecutions.
And the reason why those are out there, because we're concerned about our safety and security
as a nation, he can talk about that as well, can talk about voting, which again we're
going to do here, again in Wisconsin, in August, in April, in August, again in November.
And the significant failure, if you will, of the Congress to address some of the previous
Supreme Court cases that chipped away at the Voting Rights Act, he can talk about those
kinds of things, can talk about poll workers too.
The significance of their involvement, the threats that are being made right now, not
only to poll workers, people doing that work, but threats more generally against our
justice system, judges, members of the staff, jurors, witnesses, all those kinds of things.
He can talk about all of that in his broad, there's a lot going on there, but with a good
deal of articulate writing, which I assume is done now, maybe you may be refined right
now, by his staff, he can put that front and center on the stage of America tonight and
explain to them that he supports all those things that do promote justice and bring safety
and security, and there are forces out there without naming them by name or going in just
the opposite direction.
I think he'll spend some time doing that.
We'll call he had this major speech a number of months ago, which he talked just about
that.
It was, again, the subject of some criticism out there because of its so-called darkness.
I didn't find it that at all, but I think that the right spirit tonight, he can resurrect
that same theme and go with it again and bring it home.
A mix of optimism and concern, perhaps, James Santel, former US attorney, our friend,
pardon me, he may not mention Donald Trump, but Donald Trump is going to be sitting in
the courtroom here real soon, Jim.
The Alvin break case starts in a couple of weeks, and my understanding of the judge initially
thought this is going to take six weeks, that's the criminal trial, Jim, Donald Trump has
to be present for the entirety of this trial.
That's exactly right, and this is why these are different from the civil cases where,
again, he was coming and going in the E. Gene Carol matter, coming and going in the New
York matter, all these other cases out there, he has an obligation in criminal matters because
he is the defendant, there are charges pending against him, he is obliged to be there.
And so he'll be obliged, and only to sit there through jury instruction, one of the reasons
why this is going to take six weeks, you got to find a jury, you got to panel them.
You don't have to ask the question, have you ever heard of Donald Trump?
Just simply, you have to find jurors who can bring whatever they think about Donald Trump
and put that to one side and based upon the things they hear in trial, make their decision.
Still, that's going to take a while.
The presentation of the case is presumably weeks, Donald Trump has no obligation to defend
the case by presenting testimony, fascinating to see whether he will take the stand.
If he does, he waves his fifth amendment right, he's subject to cross examination by
Alvin Bragg, you know, get the popcorn purking for that, right?
And so, and then the other part of this, of course, which is implicit in your comment
and question, Dom, is we've got other trials, again, presuming that the Supreme Court
doesn't, in fact, send that immunity thing back to, to Tamiya Chetkin in June or so.
Let's suppose that in, I don't know, September or so, she can get this back on trial.
It is not an unrealistic possibility.
The bad case could begin, begin some time in the fall and whether it's in the midst of
the last weeks of the election, September, October, there was a possibility that election
day, when we're deciding whether Donald Trump will be the next president, he could also
be obliged to be sitting in a courtroom in Washington, D.C.
That is not a completely frivolous possibility, whatever, what year we're living in.
What about the Eileen Cannon case, Jim Centell?
The federal charges, the paper were crimes, as I've sometimes described them, but classified
documents, charged in Palm Beach County, close to home for Trump.
That's where apparently the crime committed, and that's where he was holding them in the
spare bathroom.
Eileen Cannon had shown some deference to some Amicus briefs, and it acted like these
had some positive sway.
These Amicus briefs came from a couple of Trump allies, is she getting ready to try and
dismiss these charges, Jim?
I mean, that'd be Balsey.
Excuse my coarseness.
And there is legal language that also conveys the same thing, and the answer is we don't
know precisely what's in her head treat.
We know that she has been chastised already by the 11th Circuit, which is not exactly the
most liberal circuit in the country, and said you're wrong, wrong, wrong, it came to her
shutting, trying to shut down at least the stop, the movement forward of the investigation.
And she's also done some things, having to do with witnesses, and also the national security
documents that have got Jack Smith very concerned.
She withdrew one of her opinions, going to be clear that she was applying the wrong
legal standard, called it to attention, said, no, Eileen, you got it wrong.
She withdrew that, and perhaps kept herself out of the 11th Circuit again.
But Jack Smith is coming very close, I think, in two areas.
One is to appealing her, if in fact she were to decide wrongly on some of these cases involving
witness security and disclosure of information about them, and national security documents
could take her up to the 11th Circuit, where the law again is relatively clear, could get
her smacked down again, if you will, that is the legal term for it.
And that could happen, or he could also seek to have her recused.
And again, that's a bigger issue, if you will, but all those things are possible.
Boy, if she were to grant a motion to dismiss, yes, then there will be more action by Jack
Smith, and by the special counsel's office, and director's plans to that.
Jim Centell, funny Willis has been through a public muck breaking.
And my understanding is Fulton County has declined to bring up ethical questions in their
public meeting.
I know there was another hearing, in addition to Judge McAfee's hearing, he's supposed
to give us some sort of ruling, whether or not she should be disqualified next week.
Jim, it's my inclination based on his questioning, I watched hours.
He seemed quite thoughtful.
The standard for disqualification seemingly falls entirely on the defense.
He talked a lot about the preponderance of evidence, and I don't think they met that
standard.
Does that mean she goes forward with the prosecution, or is this thing been damaged, this prosecution
down in Fulton County?
I think there's a difference between the legal implications of what hopefully Judge
Scott McAfee will do.
I agree with you entirely, leveling his demeanor.
I think he's been giving the singular defendant who's been tearing water for the others.
And off a lot of leeway to have this hearing and have all these witnesses forward, he's
creating a good record, if you will.
I'd like to think he's bright enough, and I think he is bright enough to determine that,
yes, under Georgia law, this is not a basis for throwing her off the case.
Georgia law basically says if you screw around with the forensic stuff, you make up documents,
you somehow affect witnesses, or in fact, it was truly a conflict between who you are and
what you're doing and the prosecution, which is not here.
Therefore, I think he will find, as you just indicated, not a showing, nowhere near the
required burden by this particular defendant that she should be thrown off.
And so I would like to think that he will shortly tell us that you remain on the case.
This again, goes back to the things that Donald Trump does in America.
Look what he's done in that case.
He's got us all talking about Bonnie Willis and not about him.
He's got Bonnie Willis on the stand.
People are referring to her as the defendant.
Oh my gosh, just the opposite of what's going on here.
And so, again, as I listen to those hearings and digest them, those were days,
even though he's not going to be successful, I think,
keep Donald Trump or the other, the single defendant brought the motion.
In getting her off the case, in the public domain, this case is damaged with a small D.
She will go ahead. She can resurrect this.
She can go forward.
We know this is also a case that's not going to be tried before the election.
It's huge.
Even if it somehow starts, it's not going to be finished by that time.
So she can go forward.
And yes, indeed, she can overcome this.
But this is a small V victory for Donald Trump.
Even the fact that he's got all this attention.
And gosh, he's got the prosecutor on the stand in a case in which he himself
is the defendant.
It's just the opposite of what you would think.
She is not charged with anything as she said.
And so, in the public domain arena, if you will,
I think he was successful in doing what he needed to do here.
What do you want it to do?
It's an embarrassment.
I understand why Judge McAfee entertained it.
I hope that his opinion is as decisive as it can possibly be
in putting this to a conclusion.
And we've got some good soundbites coming out of his order
that make it very clear that there's no there there.
And this case should go on under her leadership.
James Santel, former U.S attorney, our friend,
just a couple more minutes here at Jim
as we do the Trump trials loop.
And we come back north to Manhattan.
Alan Weistelberg, he's guilty once again.
Now, this was done by Manhattan, D.A. Alvin Bragg,
but it was regarding the other case.
And I do recall that that Cohen,
who could be, will be perhaps the witness in this particular case
in Manhattan, the Stormy Daniels and the,
you don't know what a write-off Jerry case is.
He, Cohen, in the recording mentioned Weistelberg,
and hey, we set up this LLC, dah, dah, dah, dah.
My understanding also, Jim, is that Weistelberg
is not required to testify in any of these cases.
And we'll do his time.
What's your sense on that?
Does that add or take away from the Manhattan case?
I'm sure it probably is one of those situations where, again,
Alan Bragg is assessing the importance
of all of these witnesses.
Like Michael Cohen, Weistelberg was damaged from the start.
He's now got this additional perjury
prosecution hanging around his neck.
He's going to spend more months in jail.
And that again, based upon his testimony,
in the case in front of Judge Engoron.
That is the state valuations case.
Are we keeping this all straight?
I'd also underscores, of course.
Is there anybody inside the Trump Organization
who is not subject to challenges and perjury institutions?
So Alan Bragg's got to decide, right?
He's got to call Michael Cohen, who's a damaged witness.
He doesn't want to have all damaged witnesses on this stand.
And I think it's almost a strategic matter,
but whether or not he wants to put this cavalcade
of Trump people, all of whom have lied,
have deceived and asked the jury then to believe them
on this other set of things.
That's a strategic issue. He's got to decide.
Excellent.
Gasting James Santel.
I look forward to getting up and listening on Saturday.
Morning, Dom will sleep in.
But the morning can only until otherwise named,
it's enjoyable.
It's informative.
And it's hosted by James Santel.
Saturdays 9 to 11 more novels.
We still have eight more minutes.
Take care, gentlemen.
The Devil's Advocates Radio for the 99%.
And we are back.
Thank you for listening to the Devil's Advocates Radio.
Show our last spot of the day.
If you got something to say,
hit us up on the lines right now,
eight or four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight,
nine, stick around, busted pencils coming up next.
Dom, want to thank our most recent guest.
What a fine friend he is.
James Santel, former U.S. attorney.
The morning can only Saturday mornings 9 to 11
until otherwise named.
They're keeping it a mystery being very coy.
Like, oh, okay.
All right.
Republicans.
Jim's a good guy.
Listen to his show.
Yes.
Please do.
Unlike them.
The Republicans being very coy.
About who their guests will be for the state of the union address.
It's almost like they want to sneak people in there.
Don't they have to go through secret service?
I mean, they don't have to tell the press.
Well, I mean, this is what is this?
What is this?
They were being coy.
Like, what are you talking about?
Like, Ron Johnson is not telling people who he's bringing in.
Or any of the Republicans.
Republican green.
No one's telling anyone who they're bringing in.
So far, I at least in regards to the Wisconsin Congressional delegation,
no announced guest on the Republican side.
None.
Every Democrat, of course, has their guest.
And now the Republicans have introduced anyone.
I mean, if you're going to honor a constituent,
if you're going to drag someone out to DC for a speech,
you know, the kabuki theater that is the state of the union address,
I mean, wouldn't you want to tell the local media people so they could be so honored, right?
I mean, though, if that was your intent, if it wasn't to be meant to be used as a
prop, perhaps you'd let people know.
This is what we're doing.
This is who we're bringing.
This is why we're doing it.
And this is why we think it's important.
And we honor our constituents.
Sure.
You know what I'm assuming they like seems like a prop to me.
Walker Shaw Police Chief Thompson will be the guest of Tammy Baldwin.
For example, he's not hiding from this.
They put an op-ed out together.
They picked an issue.
They found common ground.
They put it out there.
That's what you do.
Or you pretend like you pretend like, you know, we're we're not going to go and throw
cherry bombs at the president during a speech, but we brought some cherry bombs.
I think these Republicans have nothing but malfeasance planned.
And I think they'd be too embarrassed to be seen with their constituents or vice versa.
So I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of empty seats because these Republicans
don't bring guests.
What do you think of my conspiracy theory down?
Because they're just there to try and what?
Trip up Joe Biden.
Throw spit wads interrupt them.
Heck alum.
Give me the old barge retailer green.
I think it's Michael you don't very well, but speaker Mike Johnson has specifically
asked the Republicans to turn the temperature down during the state of the union.
So we got that going for us, which is nice.
I'm going to be drinking double triple doubles, perhaps.
Kobe Bryant specials.
First I'm going to watch the Badger game that tips off in like six minutes.
Tune in on the civic media network.
That'd be the last name of the year.
I mean, what was the home game on the senior night?
Tyler wall, the senior on the so Tyler wall, like the guy kid played 156 ball games.
I mean, he's like a ninth year senior with the whole COVID in the bonus years.
I swear to God, this guy's this guy's kids getting ready for college.
You know, is it the mass calmed degree?
Well, what's going on here?
That does take a while.
You know, if you work full time in college, I'm, you know, working the public do that?
Well, some did some worked outside the home.
You worked in some organs.
So I've heard, sorry, look forward to the Badger game.
Let's sneak a couple of callers in.
Although, you know, CJ is in the queue.
So against my better judgment,
we'll put him on the back burner and take bark.
How you doing, Mark?
Hi, Mark.
All right.
What's going on, Mark?
Doing great, guys.
I found a nice safe take, except my took notice of the song.
You're playing on the on the walk in today from the break.
That take a walk on the wild side.
Now, that song would freak people out down the band, the books crowd.
And my mother's mom's celebrity that,
because that directly refers to something.
And it occurs to me thinking about that.
Think of all those old Bob Hope movies that were he and was a big cross B
or, you know, that they're a cross.
Some like it hot, man.
Right?
And some like it hot.
Broody and Trump back in the 80s doing the cross-dressing thing.
Yeah, well, yeah.
If that, uh, I mean, they had a TV show.
Busy buddies, right?
Tom Higgs.
Well, man, bud's buddy would be in a dress.
Oh, what people, you know, it was just ridiculous.
If these people freak out about that kind of thing.
And Mike Johnson was brought up the whole, um,
he's got brave new world.
They go up.
That's a book that they would abandon.
Your mom's celebrity would go band.
That book by Dolos Huxley.
That I read when I was in, when I was in eighth grade, I think that, you know,
was a book that was on the line.
Well, look at him turned out, Mark.
I mean, maybe they got a point.
Be well, Mark.
Got a few more to get to.
Eight four four nine six seven two seven eight nine.
Wiscoe Paul.
How you doing, fella?
Hey, Paulie.
Hey, afternoon boys.
The state of the union addresses turned into like a super bowl
commercial kind of where you wait to see what republic is going to embarrass the country.
Well, it can't be any worse than, uh,
JLo's husband Ben Affleck and the whole Dunkin Donuts thing.
I mean, the fact that Matt Damon and Tom Brady got dragged along on that,
they must have paid those guys lots of money.
You know, it would be nice if the Congress people as they sat there in the chamber,
if they had a wear like their sponsors, you know, like on their sport coats,
if they had a wear like, you know, sponsored by the petroleum industry, Wiscoe.
All right.
You know, they can, they look like the flame suits from the race car drivers just covered in the patches.
Yeah, that's true.
Yeah, just like the NASCAR drivers covered in patches,
you can hardly see the person.
But the whole thing I find amazing and the other thing is,
I hope to God Biden does a good job tonight because if any,
to which appears, you're never going to hear the end of it on radio.
So I wish that.
Thanks for your show today, boys.
Have a great one.
All right.
Thank you, Paul.
I appreciate it.
And listen, you know, don't don't worry about what the Republicans and the
makers are going to think they're going to be critical.
I mean, there's, there's no chance in the hell that they're going to stand up and say,
wow, you know what?
That that Joe, he was, he was on point.
He was on target.
He was sharp.
He was witty.
He was, he was empathetic.
He was, he was, he's the guy.
He's, he's, he's really knows what's going on.
They're not going to do that.
Well, we need to see what I want to see.
I'll, I'll judge for myself.
And I'll make that determination because, you know, I'm doing it for me.
And everyone has to do that for themselves.
Don't worry about what Meg is going to do.
Meg is mega.
Don't be going to the concert.
Who are you kid?
Here it is.
Well, that's a later the independence.
Those that are just tuning in right now because the general general started on Wednesday.
So the most important speech of the year for Joe Biden.
You can hear it here on the civic media network.
After I hope it's after the badger game, badgers tipping off in just a couple of minutes,
go Bucky, beat Rodkers, and then tune in for Joe Biden with the incomparable Maggie Don Stuart
Waddle, all the coverage you need right here at Civic Media Network.
You know, thank you.
You're welcome from the Devil's Savings.
I know 10 seconds Matt texted me earlier.
