A hostile takeover, but we’ll resist (Hour 2)

Broadcasting across the state of Wisconsin on the Civic Media Radio Network and around the world on the Civic Media App, this is the Dom Salvia Show. And now, here's your host, Dom Salvia.

And welcome to the Dom Salvia show thank you so much for tuning in you could be a big part join us on the lines eight five five seven five two four eight four two just PS working hard today good to see you just thank you and jazzed as hell my co-host for the day James Santel former US Attorney host of amicus a law review broadcasting right here on the Civic Media Radio Network on Saturdays 9 to 11 a.m. Jim welcome back I'm always a delight

On any day of the week, including Thursdays. I know, kind of working it up, mixing it up a little bit here today. Hey, Jim, are you looking for a job? Apparently. Even a job I used to have, right? Milwaukee's U.S. attorney is out amid Trump's effort to clean house at the Justice Department. You know, got to get rid of the old justice and bring in the new justice. Right, those Biden appointees and heaven forbid, even the Obama appointees, we can't have them around anymore. Especially those guys. Jim.

But this is not uncommon, right? Right. This is so it's good to be measured in a time when everything else is unmeasured, right? This is one of those those stories that should not have people upset just because U.S. attorneys, including Greg Honstead, who was, frankly, I

promoted him to my first assistant position many years ago. I worked with him and he knew, as did I, that when you apply to be the U.S. Attorney and the president nominates you, the Senate confirms you, that there will come a time at the end of the presidential term when you too will leave. It's not always right away. It's not always January 20th, but it will come and it happens in every administration. You are no longer a civil servant, which we've talked about a lot. You are a political appointee. Now the job itself is not political, which is weird and odd.

shouldn't be. But the reality is that this particular decision by the White House is perhaps one of the only orders that does make some sense and as regular, your listeners should not be animated to focus too much on this one. There are a few other things going on right now that probably more appropriately demand and require their attention. So he's not being let go Gregory Honstead because of his performance necessarily. This is just a new administration.

The new guy gets to get his team. And that's just how it is. How did it go? And I saw a list of U.S. attorneys in Milwaukee area. I think General Sentinel had out there and you're down there on the list quite a bit. That was some time ago, right? There's like probably five or six cents. Absolutely. Well, again, when I left, what happened was that Greg Honstead was then my first assistant. And so he became the acting U.S. attorney. And then after that, when the first Trump administration appointed a felony, Matt Krieger, who actually I hired into the office many years ago,

Again, underscoring, we do not ask questions about what your political background is. All these people you hired end up getting fired. I got to question your judgment, sir, especially coming on this show. And so when Matt leaves the office then after the end of Trump number one, once the same thing happens, the first instance becomes an acting and then at some point the new president, as Joe Biden did, appoints someone new.

That was Greg. Lots of, not really revolving doors, but again, you've also got the, my criminal chief elevated to the first assistant position. His name Rick Frohling. Rick Frohling is now the acting U.S. Attorney.

Unlikely, quite well, unlikely that he will apply to be the U.S. attorney. There'll be somebody else there. But for now, he is the one who's more than keeping the lights on. All very competent people. But again, the progression, the succession, if you will, of all of these U.S. attorneys acting and otherwise. I was acting for about a year, even between administrations, many, many years ago. And so none of this is atypical or unusual. Don't have your hair on fire about this.

goldfish last longer than some of these US attorneys. But just as a procedure question, just curious, if it's the...

The assistant has been there. As you said, Rick Frohling, first US assistant attorney since 2015, he's now named the acting US attorney. Why does this go with the US attorney? Why not go down the list? Why not get rid of Rick and everybody else? You know what I mean? What is it about that top one that makes that the ones recycled out when the new administration comes in? I agree with you entirely. Once again, it is this fiction that somehow these appointments are political. It's both the US attorneys and get this, you know,

The United States Marshals are also nominated by a president confirmed by the Senate. You've got all sorts of other agency heads, other special agents in charge. You name the agency, they're there. They don't go through that process. A lot of this is anachronistic going back to 1789. It doesn't make a lot of sense. These should be candidly, maybe not indefinite civil service appointments, but the notion that they are political and therefore we've got to get rid of this person, whether it's Jim Santel or Matt Krieger.

or Greg Honstead or someone else there going back even long before I was there.

because they are so politically steeped and all of their decisions are premised upon what the Republican platform or the Democratic platform would say, that's simply wrong. We just don't talk about those things because we don't have to. Issues of crime and prosecution, issues of civil litigation are guided by, should be guided, historically, under most departments of justice, most good US attorneys and attorneys generals will tell you it is not to be directed.

by a political direction here. And again, I will tell you a story that many of my colleagues have been repeated recently, repeated recently. Every single term, the U.S. Attorneys get together virtually every year to talk about policy and that sort of thing. At the end of my term, we all gathered, yes, that's right, in the West Room of the White House, the West Wing, on the East Room of the White House of that building, and Barack Obama addressed all of us and said, you know what? You are not my...

my attorneys. You don't represent me.

you represent the people of the United States of America. What a lost opportunity, right? I mean, come on, every good strongman will get you guys in line right away, a little loyalty pledge. Exactly. He could have come in and he didn't do it. And he started with that, Dom. It wasn't even talking about, gee, the weather here in Washington or, you know, who had won the World Series, that kind of thing. He was talking from the very start about the rule of law. In this administration, we've got the present Attorney General, Pam Bondi, not only specifically saying,

We are working for this president, but also establishing through the protocols and the policies of her own office, that the president can pick up the phone and direct who it is who should be indicted, who should not be, what litigation should be initiated, which shouldn't be. Again, the president can describe very generally focuses, but not specifics. In this administration, the tradition that I knew for the 30 years that I was there is gone.

You're listening to the Dom Salvia show. That's James Santel. He's the former us attorney, a host of amicus, the law review right here on the civic media radio network on Saturdays, nine to 11 a.m.

A lot of thoughts here. Let's talk about another U S attorney. This one from the district of Columbia. Apparently according to raw story, a rep, Robert Garcia, a Democrat, he posted a letter that he received from us attorney Edward Martin on the department of justice letterhead asking about his attacks, quote unquote on Elon Musk. Oh, this is interesting. Now this is what the, I guess that newly appointed

a US attorney in DC. This is what the letter said to a democratic lawmaker. As US attorney for the district of Columbia, I received requests for information and clarification. I take these requests seriously and act on them with letters like this one you are receiving. Martin began not indicating who sent him the quote unquote requests, according to the author of this piece. The US attorney goes on.

At this time, I respectfully request that you clarify your comments from February 12th of 2025. Man, these guys work fast, man, eight days ago. During a live interview with CNN, when asked how Democrats can stop Elon Musk, you spoke clearly, quote, what is what the American people wants is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy. The letter continued.

Now, Musk, of course, you're talking, you know, all about Musk. Now, Garcia was accused of making a threat against Musk while, while talking about the political battle between Trump and the Democrats as a bar fight. Quote, this sounds to me like a threat to Mr. Mr. Musk and appointed representative of president Donald Trump, who you call a D blank blank K. I can't say it.

and government staff who works for him. Their concerns have led to this inquiry. We take threats against public officials very seriously.

And I look forward to your cooperation with my letter of inquiry after request. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Please respond by February 24th. Should you have further questions? Yada, yada, yada. Congressman Garcia replied, so if you criticize Elon Musk, Trump's DOJ will send you this letter. Members of Congress must have the right to forcefully oppose the Trump administration. I will not be silenced.

Um, so many things to unpack there. Wow, dude. Okay. So, and you just said, you know, historically speaking, generally speaking, these are not, that seems very politically political to me, sir. Do you think that was an actual threat?

I do not. I do not. And again, perhaps Congressman Garcia could have avoided this if he had said, Democrats have got to be up for the fight. And it's just that, you know, that adjunct, the bar fight, it sounds as if you've got knives pulled and you don't. He's talking about pushing back on all of these things that are happening right now. He's not talking about going down to Georgetown and taking on a musk in a bar fight with bottles broken and those kinds of things. And so it's concerning to me.

number one, that in a city where an awful lot of criticism is heaped in all directions, right? This is the kind of thing, frankly, the attorneys general for whom I worked, which included Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch and certainly Janet Reno, on a regular basis, right? They are attacked. They are attacked viciously by members of Congress. I hate to say that's exactly what they bought into, but that's sort of the way this works.

Come on, just step out. Half the people aren't going to dig what you're doing. Absolutely. And again, Eric Holder was at one point held in contempt by Congress. Was he happy about that? No. Did he make comments about Congress people, about their reasons for doing that? Of course he did. That's number one. So we talked about the language. And second, I'm concerned that the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia, the largest United States attorney's office in the nation, they handle not only the federal cases, but we would call the state cases.

and Superior Court there is at this time.

spending his time writing a letter to a congressman. Obviously, it's intended to get exactly the response it gets, which is, gosh, maybe you have crossed the line. And the not-so-subtle implication of that letter, of course, is, congressman, we may be opening a file on you because maybe you have committed a federal crime. The answer is you have not. And I'm really hoping. I'm hoping, and again, I do not know Ed Martin. He certainly has been a loyalist, but hoping that Ed Martin is doing this for the purposes of public consumption and not...

because there is a name now of Congressman Garcia on a criminal investigative file. That shouldn't happen.

Public consumption for Trump's consumption. That's what this is for folks. You're listening to the Dom Salvy show James Santel joining me today You can do so as well eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five civic It's a phone line. It's a text line. Don't forget the end of the show last segment of the day We bring it tell us something good in the show on a positive note got a lot to get to today Things are going great in the Trump administration. Just ask him also cash Patel head of the FBI hell There's probably a file on you now, Jim

Probably are. Also, Congressman Derek Van Orton, well, he is working hard for the Wisconsin citizens. He wants to impeach a federal judge who had the temerity to stop. Elon Musk, come back with us.

Thank you for listening to the Dom Salvia show that musical long-distance dedication going on to our pal Casper Hey, man playing drums singing hard.

Appreciate you, brother 855-752-484-2855 75 civic just ps on the board James Santel joining me today former U.S.

Attorney host of amicus check them out Saturdays 9 to 11 a.m.

Right here in the civic media radio network Derek van Orden, Wisconsin

Congress but I can't believe this guy still around he's working hard for the American people for you and he wants to

Impeach a judge US district judge Paul Engelmeyer issued a preliminary injunction blocking Doge on February 8th in response to a lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general including Wisconsin's AG Josh Call.

The judge was appointed to the bench by Obama.

The lawsuit claimed Doge cannot legally access treasury records that include social security numbers and bank account details.

Why not?

I mean, what's

the

problem?

In response to the injunction, Musk accused the judge of being quote, a corrupt judge, protecting corruption in his social media platform X. He needs to be impeached now.

And he didn't the call.

Derek Van Orden.

I mean, and this isn't even a young kid.

I mean, he's going after a judge.

Van Orden and the Republican from prohibition introduced a bill Tuesday to begin the impeachment process, which accuses the judge of high crimes and misdemeanors quote.

Paul Ingemeyer, as a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, engaged in judicial misconduct when he halted President Donald J. Trump's executive order establishing and implementing the President's Department of Government Efficiency on Purely Political Grounds, demonstrating clear bias and prejudice against the President and the 74 million Americans who voted for him, Derek Van Orden Resolutions State.

The second story in as many minutes almost in which we've got somebody doing something I would say it's for the consumption of maybe half over the entire nation But half of the nation you don't would say it's for the consumption of one who happens to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue That's what this is all about.

It's going nowhere and the thing that people should have their hair on fire about is not the predicate for these articles of impeachment

It is this notion that someone who has not been confirmed by the Senate, let's go back and say just this too.

There is no such thing as a department of government efficiency.

That does not exist, right?

Only the Congress can put that together.

Only a Congress can establish an agency.

So we've got a false construct here.

We've got somebody who I suspect has never undergone a background check of the sort that, frankly, all the U.S.

attorneys do, all the nominees do, and he and his group of... Yeah, but he's rich.

He's rich.

He's rich,

right?

So you don't need a background check

because he's rich.

Apparently not.

Apparently not, right?

Americans then show up at the IRS doors and they say, give us your information.

This is one unlike the departures of U.S.

attorneys where Americans should be in the street.

Oh my goodness, you're going to get all of the tax information, income, all sorts of property information, not just social security numbers, but records of going back many years, records that basically reveal all kinds of things that are protected by law.

I'll give you another reference point.

If during the course of opening a legitimate investigation inside the US Attorney's Office or inside Maine Justice in Washington, DC,

I feel that there is something financial that is appropriate to know what is the income

I have to make an application to get this tax information as the U.S.

Attorney, right?

Because you've got so many protections appropriate.

You can't

just get someone's log on a

password and you'll grab it.

Apparently you cannot and there's an application process.

And again, if you have not established a sufficient basis upon which to do that, you can't simply say, well, we're opening a criminal file and therefore let's get tax records.

You've got to have some financial aspects, something about the property, what they've been doing.

Probable cause?

Probable cause.

some employment information, all those kinds of things.

The United States attorneys, 92 of them are on the country, can't get this information.

But Musk and his wonderkins show up and they say, give it to us.

And so going back again to what our local congressman has done here, this is ridiculous.

This is absurd.

I would like to think he knows better, but I don't know.

And hopefully, hopefully some cooler minds, even on this issue, will prevail.

And this will be going nowhere once again, because it should go nowhere.

eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five, civic.

I'm still thinking about the fact that you're right.

This is not a department.

I mean, this is, this is just something totally

made up.

This is all made up.

And yes, to be clear, the president has,

put together a piece of paper with his very dramatic signature at the bottom and shown it all around.

And yes, he's doing all kinds of things just because the president signs off on something doesn't make it legal.

And once again, there's a manner of putting together mechanisms not only for establishing new things you want to do inside government, but also addressing those things that are out there.

There are an awful lot of things that Congress can and should be doing oversight.

How many times have we talked about that?

They're not going to be

doing any oversight of this guy.

Not right now,

anyway.

Not until it

gets really, really bad

for those

Republicans.

I mean, they've totally allowed Donald Trump and will continue to allow him.

It's only 30 days in, man, to

do whatever they want.

A month ago today, right?

Are you satisfied, Jim?

We only got a couple of minutes left in the segment.

Are you satisfied?

Generally speaking with the, with the pushback, you know, legally speaking and the judges and some of their decisions on this.

I mean, Chuck can allow for some of the stuff to go through, but this judge did not.

What's your sense?

It's kind of overall.

Yeah.

And there are others playing the on birthright citizenship where saying you must be joking and that's happening around the country.

Most of the craziness out there is being met by federal judges who are laughing at the, quite literally, quite literally laughing and saying, well, where are the attorneys talking to the president?

And so you do have federal judges and I think they are the bulwark against

some of this those opinions those decisions of course go up to courts of appeals and where might they end up they might end up we can also get together at the United States Supreme Court and we know that eight months ago the Supreme Court gave Donald Trump the authority to do what he's doing talked about this muscular vibrant need to move quickly and decisively can't be hamstrung by things like criminal cases or frankly even other things

he can't be Jim but must could be those wonderkins could be everyone around him could be they don't get that kind of privilege a president

But if everyone else is breaking the law because the president tells them to they don't get that automatic And

they all those wonderkins and Elon Musk himself should be concerned about that because the opinion from the Supreme Court says nothing about the underlings It's always talking about the president and that's the question if people take assignments from the president Are they also covered the answer is probably at least under this order not?

James Santel, former U.S.

Attorney joining me all day today.

You can chime in as well.

855-752-4842.

Come back with us.

the dom salvia show eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five civic just bs is on the board james santel former u.s.

Attorney host of amicus a law review joining me for the day across the table jim thank you for joining me talking about the the efforts of doge not a department not i mean not a department so it was just called oh

these these people

who are showing up at doors

saying hi

I'll let me, and even that, I have to tell you, this is very much in the weeds, but how do you, and I assume that they've got some letter from somebody, but even to get access to any federal office, including a U.S.

Attorney's Office in Madison or Milwaukee or Green Bay, you have to have an access card, right?

How are these people just walking in and getting access?

It just defies logic across the board.

That's a small aspect of this, but also stunning to me.

There's an article from Washington Post Trump comes close to the red line of opening defying judges experts say Faced with judges orders to block certain initiatives the Trump administration has found ways to tell courts it still has the authority to act We're not withholding the money Jim.

We're just putting it through a different

process to make sure that it's, you know, being allocated properly.

It's a new process.

We're being efficient here.

And, and so they're slowing it down.

I mean, they're not, they're not, not giving it.

They're just, this is taking them longer.

I'd rather, I'd rather owe it.

to you forever than

never pay a judge.

Exactly.

And Judge, you're just an understanding what we're trying to do here.

Let's try to explain it to you.

And again, when those things

happen,

you know, when federal judges are treated that way, I know I appeared before them routinely and still do

from time to time.

They don't take that too kindly.

They're not real crazy about that kind of thing.

And so in addition to this news coming out of the Wall Street Journal today, the federal judge, John McConnell, this is a couple of weeks to go down.

I think we talked about Rhode Island.

He also said that again, this is a judge who previously

You said you can't you can't just withhold all these federal domestic funds out there said stop doing it temporary restraining order and they continue to do it and the judge comes out and says You're failing to comply with my order.

We have a word for that.

It's called contempt And and this is also this is also again in the category of hair on fire today This is also when the system begins to break down right because if you've got a federal judge with the Supreme Court or a federal district court judge there on a life

time appointment confirmed by the Senate once again they've got this authority to do all this and another and they say this is what it's got to be and yeah maybe we're going to change things down the road you got a number of hearings coming up more appeals a federal judge tells you to do something and the answer is no I'm not doing that

That's that's when the Republic begins to crumble that is again a phrase often bandied about with wild with wild abandon is a constitutional crisis That's getting getting close to it if not right in the middle of that when again Judge McConnell says you're in violation of my order and again the White House says I don't

care

Back from the Washington Post, McConnell accused, this is the judge, accused the Trump administration of violating his order after nearly two dozen Democratic state attorneys general told him millions in funding for clean energy and transportation projects were still being impounded by the Trump administration.

That's supposed to be impounded.

We'll go there next.

The Justice Department responded that it had worked in good faith to comply with McConnell's TRO.

but believe some funding was exempt from the order and could still be frozen because it had been paused by a separate action.

The office of management and budget, the judge rejected the idea, writing that his order was quote, clear and unambiguous.

And there are no impediments to the defendant's compliance.

Unequivocal.

Nice, nice try,

gentlemen and gentlemen women for doing this.

But once again, if you've got to do these kinds of, of legal and even linguistic gymnastics to get what you want,

You know you know that you're not building your arguments on a strong foundation this judge is calling them out Hopefully again will enter the the permanent TROs when these things go up to the second circuit there in New York or the DC circuit in DC other places around the nation That the appeals courts will also say no no this is wrong as we said before the concern is when this gets up to the Supreme Court Will John Roberts likewise say yeah, this is a bridge too far you are now violating the clear Commission

the clear commission of the law, which is that when the legislature passes a budget, and yes, there's an appropriations process, and there's an allocation for all kinds of A-words out there that are part of the process, but the president has the obligation to do what?

To execute on that.

That's where

the

executive language comes, right?

And you don't, and this is what got Richard Nixon in trouble, it's the impoundment word that you just used, Dom, right?

You can't simply say, well,

Another branch of government has done this.

I'm not going to follow that or if you do then and a judge tells you no, no, Mr. President or more than a madam president You can't simply be out there freelancing it.

You need to abide by that this White House is not and that should also have people frankly in the streets as we're beginning to see a groundswell of that happening in America

James Santel, former U.S.

Attorney, 855-752-4842.

The citizenship, now my understanding is this has been, where do we stand on that one?

Is there a ruling today, yesterday?

How is it?

Right, we've

got all kinds of judges across the country.

We had one initially out in Washington, and they're at various stages along the way.

They will...

probably be appealed because once again, the lawyers there say that there's this jurisdictional language inside the 14th Amendment says, well, but you've got to be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States of America.

And therefore, for example, if you are not actually the born of people who already are here, don't have jurisdiction over them.

Therefore, we don't have jurisdiction over you and you can't be a citizen.

That also, of course, brings too far into the

the ambit of prohibited people are Native American Indian population, right?

It's just absurd.

And yet again, I will not say high marks, very low marks for trying to find some language to justify what they're doing.

The good news is for your listeners across the country, judges are not.

buying this and hopefully again if it gets to the Supreme Court this absurd notion hopefully the Supreme Court won't even take it and say no no the lower courts have got this just right.

Reuters is reporting six hours ago today.

that the U.S.

appeals court rejects Trump's emergency bid to curtail birthright citizenship.

They rejected the request to stay the nationwide injunction.

A Trump-appointed judge says courts have never recognized an exception to birthright citizenship.

Cases are pending before two other appellate courts as

well.

Right, and so you've got, interestingly, you will not have a division among the appeals courts, which is sometimes the reason why Supreme Court takes a case, right?

If the sex circuit

and the...

San Francisco, right

exactly right you've got appeals court judges around the country saying the same sort of thing shutting all this down Typically again the United States Supreme Court one of the bases upon which it grants review is well There's a split in the circus.

It's good to have a uniformity across the way.

This is not that situation I would hope that John Roberts and the others would look at this We know that least three members of the Supreme Court would not grant certiorari on this, you know

the entire Supreme Court would say, yeah, our lower court, federal appeals court and district court judges have gotten this right.

Let's look at some of the other 62 or 63 cases we've got pending right now.

Let's spend our time on those.

These other cases, now this one in the ninth, apparently two other cases before appellate courts, if all three of them come back and reject this premise, certainly the Trump administration is still kicking up to the US Supreme Court.

Do you think if it's three and all that they will not take it?

I think there's a strong likelihood.

And again, the Trump administration through the Solicitor General, your Solicitor General right now, you should know is advocating for just the opposite, right?

Your Solicitor General.

If indeed you've got three, four, five, six appeals courts and all of these cases are being appealed.

Number one, highly likely the Supreme Court would consolidate all of them so they're not doing this piecemeal.

And second, you'd like to think that they would issue one of these unsigned orders sometime on Friday at 9.15 at night saying, no, no, we're not going to be doing any review here.

And it goes away.

And the law then remains the law from the appeals courts.

8-5-5, 7-5-2, 4-8-4-2, 8-5-5, 7-5, Civic.

I think it was Caroline Levitt.

We have some sound, Jess, of Caroline Levitt, the White

House.

Yeah, yeah, we

do.

This kind of goes a little bit to this point, and I want to get your reaction to Jim, if you'll please.

Let's play cut number one, please.

The president has already signed 73 executive orders.

That is more than double the number signed by Joe Biden and more than quadruple the number signed by Barack Obama over the same period.

Yeah,

and I mean, executive, what?

I mean,

the fact that you can't go to Congress or you're not going to Congress, how many pieces of legislation has the president signed?

Zero.

How

many things have you introduced in, again, through legislators and said, we'd like to do this.

We'd like to do these other things.

We would like, for example, to bring the Department of Education to an end here, introduce legislation.

That's the only way that can be done.

Do some of that.

He's not doing any of that.

So the very fact that he's got

His numbers are higher on this.

I'm trying mightily to figure out a good analogy to this.

Again, just because it's so unprecedented, nothing is coming to mind.

The numbers game, Carolyn, is not what you want to seize upon.

It's the merits of these things and 99.9% of them.

He's done a couple of things which are okay around the edges.

Most, the great majority of them are abject craziness.

I mean, to put it in Trump's terms, he should look at executive orders like,

It's not a basketball score.

We're the higher, the better.

You know what

I

mean?

There's no, what, what is so positive about an executive just spouting out executive, executive orders nonstop.

Yeah.

And what he could do.

70 more, so what?

Absolutely, tonight, tomorrow,

right?

And here's the other cynical part of it.

How dare you, Caroline Levitt, because what she's really doing is she's playing to the lowest common denominators in our nation, right?

People think, oh, did you hear that?

Add fish fries tomorrow night around Wisconsin, other places.

People are saying, did you hear how effective our president's being?

He has already issued all these, and that Obama guy, that Biden guy, they weren't attentive to this.

He's working hard.

She's sending this message that somehow the numbers of these translate into substantive changes to the good in America.

It is so cynical she's relying upon the with due respect.

to the population America, the ignorance and the lack of familiarity and the lack of basic understanding how civics works in America, she's relying upon that.

And of course, that's the basis upon which Donald Trump has built his entire political career.

Was it was it?

Carlin who said, you know, think about how dumb the average person is and then think about the fact that 50% of the people are dumber than that person.

And certainly they pray on this.

It is.

It is.

It's a high score.

It

must be great.

He's being.

Awesome.

He's very efficient.

We got one more from Caroline Levitt.

If you would please just play the historic start, cut number two, please.

Today marks one month of President Trump's return.

Oh my God.

Tell us about it.

And there is no denying this administration is off to a historic

start.

Yes.

We

can't agree on that, Caroline.

There's no doubt.

I don't know.

It's not like right track, wrong track.

I mean, yes, historic.

Historically terrible, but it is historic.

Um, we have what, how's the mill?

Let's do the Stephen Miller too.

We're gonna get all the sick

of fans and suck

ups.

Let's get Stephen Miller out there too.

But how great everything is.

He is packed eight years of transformative action, restoring this nation, restoring our laws, restoring fairness, restoring economic opportunity, restoring national security.

No president comes close to what Donald Trump has achieved over just the last 30 days.

I repeat my statement Wow, so the the sycophant see I don't know the word is the as kissing the suck up the weirdness that the

the demand for

complete loyalty

in everything you do.

That's like really North Korea-y, like evil James Bond-y-y bad guy thing to me to have that kind of suck-up man.

I mean, you want to support the boss, but damn.

Right, right.

And at some point, don't you go home too.

And again, I still believe that people like Stephen Miller, I believe that they are not, plainly, they're not operating the best interests of the government or the people.

Frankly, even of this president,

but that's a road too far, I recognize.

But he's got to go home at night and say, you know what, guess what I just said today?

And let's watch that on the CBS Evening News.

And I'd like to think they're chuckling wildly because once again, they're deceiving at least a significant portion of the American population.

Shame on you, Stephen Miller.

855-752-4842.

James Santel, former U.S.

Attorney, host of Amicus, a law review broadcasting right here at the Civic Media Radio.

Now, on Saturdays, on Saturdays, Jim, I'll be checking you out this Saturday, 9 to 11 a.m., but we got him today.

We got him early.

You can join us as well.

Get to the callers and the text coming up next,

855-75-CIVIC.

And welcome back to the Dom salvia show eight five five seven five two four eight four two just PS on the board James Santel former US Attorney host of amicus joining me today going to get to the lines right now.

I got some textures out there to executive orders.

Who cares who had the most big max is the most important contest.

Well, I think we know who that was eight five five seven five civic.

We'll go to Gail from Kenosha.

Hey Gail, welcome.

What do you got for us?

Yes.

With all the lawsuits against Trump, doesn't that take taxpayers' money to defend those off?

Of course it

does.

Yep, absolutely Gail.

Yeah.

Yeah, and so what you've got are you've got now the lawyers in Dom is going to love this as they say it inside your Justice Department Who are not enforcing the environmental laws who are not enforcing the civil rights laws because we know the civil rights division has been all but shut down But they're running around the country now necessarily and they're appearing in these federal district courts quite literally across the country and They're representing you they're saying I represent the people

the United States of America.

And because of that, now they're salaried people, so it's not as if they're private attorneys who are getting paid by the hour and a contingency fee.

But it's a resource question, right?

Gail, and so you've got it right in the head.

If you're not doing the real important work of the people and of U.S.

Attorney's Office and partner justice in all sorts of areas, including national security and antitrust and tax and environment and all kinds of things out there, civil rights, civil cases generally,

If you're not doing that, you're doing this

instead.

Opportunity cost, Gail.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yes, I have one more question about the people that they're deporting, and they probably have to leave all their possessions behind, or most of them, and some might be sentimental, some might be their pets.

Do these people have a chance to like sue in the future?

The answer is, and this is a wonderful thing about our nation, right?

Even here on the 20th of the month into this presidency, you are protected by the Constitution of the United States of America by virtue of your being here, right?

It's not just citizens and residents.

And if there has been what's called an improper taking, that means exactly what it sounds like if the government has taken, this is why, for example, you've got a process of eminent domain when the government comes in and says, you know what, we need to use your property to make a street or something else.

There you go, right down the street here, right?

If the government does that, if it takes your property, it has to compensate you.

And that applies to all kinds of things across the board, including the kinds of claims that you're identifying right now, Gail.

If the government has improperly treated you...

you've got a cause of action.

Now you need lawyers yesterday to find the statutory basis behind it.

And so it is not an easy thing to do.

And Gail, as you've identified, you've got people are leaving quickly right now because of, and that's part of this too, right?

It's to send this sense of fear, drop everything, leave your pets behind, leave your possessions, your worldly possessions.

I've seen some

reporting that some folks are shipping their stuff from Mexico and you're working on the farm in Wisconsin.

You know, if this is gonna go down, you know, it's gonna happen and I want to lose their stuff

and

into to Gail's point Yeah, you can you can't sue but you gotta have the money you got the wherewithal you got a you know that good luck I

mean,

right?

That's that's tough, you

know, if you're no longer physically here It makes it very difficult and if

you're here, you know working in the dairy farms with a with an inaccurate wrong social security number You're probably not, you know collecting a whole lot of money.

You can afford to use to pay for attorneys.

I mean it's just saying so.

Yes.

Yes, it's sure you can't

But, you know, can you afford it?

That's the question.

855-752-4842.

Cindy from Appleton, you will be next.

Welcome, Cindy.

What do you got for us?

Well, I'm calling what the convicted rapist is doing is an evil contest.

He's out to get as many evil points as possible.

He's like Dr. Evil?

And

that's why Cindy, his press secretary is identifying the numbers, right, of executive orders.

It's to your point about evil points.

Is that it?

Yep, absolutely.

I mean, this would be funny, but it's so freaking scary.

I don't understand how people are still, I mean, I can't believe the people that are still supporting him.

I had another woman tell me today, oh, the whole thing about social security, that's the truth.

All these people are collecting it.

That shouldn't be, and I'm just like, that is not true.

Simply not

true.

They're just buying into this crap.

Yeah, it's, thank you, Cindy.

And that, you know, that's, that's of course the hard thing to deal with is our friends and family and people around us that buy into it and not go.

You know what I mean?

And even as we talked a little bit about yesterday, you know, this whole doge thing and Elon Musk, oh, you know, sometimes we're not going to battle thousands.

We're going to get some things wrong.

Well, in their, in their, one of their lineups of the receipts, they had an eight billion dollar number where an eight million dollar number should have been.

It's

just

a zero diamond.

I mean, come

on.

Or

several zeros, actually.

And

you can't, and so I don't have, they don't have credibility with me, man.

You know, I mean, that's a big problem here.

And we don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

As you mentioned, I mean, what's there and how are they getting in?

Who's doing, how is that

even possible?

And Cindy, to your friend who says that all these things are terrific.

And finally, we're getting social security all cleaned up.

Ask your friend, Cindy, if she is comfortable with the notion that there are 20 year olds, again, presumably without background checks, we're going in and getting your friends fina-

financial data, employment information, health data, addresses for anyone with a social security number, health data, all those kinds of things.

When Elon Musk comes knocking at the door of the Social Security Administration, and yes, indeed, the acting director resigns.

Her name is Michelle King.

She says, you know what?

I cannot count and says, I cannot stand by and watch this happening because it's so contrary to what the law says.

And all this information is one day in the hands of these people, once again, who do not have government.

clearances and all these other things that are necessary for the integrity, the operational government.

How does your friend feel about that?

That her financial information, social security number, frankly, a lot of people have other financial things in there are exposed to non-governmental parties.

It's going to take the federal courts, perhaps maybe some state attorneys general folks stand up be heard 855-752-4842.

Is there a new world order taking shape?

Is that what you voted for?

Just a lower price of eggs.

Come back with us.

Plus Mayor Eric Adams and the governor of New York.

Some of the things that I say will be incorrect.

Broadcasting across the state of Wisconsin on the Civic Media Radio Network and around the world on the Civic Media app.

This is the Dom Salvia Show.

And now, here's your host, Dom Salvia.

And welcome to the Dom Salvia show.

Thank you so much for tuning in being a part.

You can join us eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five.

Civic got just piece working hard on the board for you today and jazzed as hell.

But cohost for the day.

James Santel, former U. S. Attorney, host of amicus, a law review broadcasting right here on the civic media radio network.

9 to 11 a.m.

on Saturday

exactly

right man appreciate I hope we don't use up all your material

but you know we both know that 17 more things will happen between now and Saturday morning

right man well one of the things that happened today counselor

Cash Patel Cash Patel Cash Money Patel man.

He is now in charge of the FBI and Wow, he's an author of children's books Tom,

right?

He is an author of a

book.

One of his books from two thousand and twenty three according to notice.org government gangsters.

You know the guy named cash is talking about gangsters kind of gets me going.

Here's the title.

government gangsters, the deep state, the truth and the battle for our democracy.

He made a list of 60 public officials and staffers, which included members of Trump's first administration as well as former president Joe Biden's claiming they were members of the deep state.

He also claimed the FBI.

Now this is the organization he is now leading.

He claimed the FBI instigated the January six capital riots.

It's the FBI.

It's like Ukraine made Russia.

Invaded

right

now.

Why did you make me hit you again?

You

know what I'm saying?

What are we talking about?

It's the same complete on his head

Not logic, it's mislogic, whatever the opposite of logic is.

And yes, indeed, sometime between now and tomorrow morning when he'll go into that building, that J. Edgar Hoover building, that's the 1970s, kind of an ugly building right there and right across the street from the Department of Justice.

And he'll be in charge of quite literally thousands of special agents, both there in Washington, D.C.

and around the country.

And yes, to the extent that, again, this is a man who's talked about enemies, he's got them in that book.

He's talked about turning the Department of Justice into a museum on day one.

Well, hopefully he won't do that, but we'll see what tomorrow brings.

But this issue, once again, of believing that somehow the special agents, the leadership of the Department of Justice and, yes, indeed, the FBI in particular, orchestrated January 6th.

Again, that should have disqualified him.

from the get-go.

And I realize it doesn't because we've got this extreme loyalty inside the United States Senate these days.

But this is the man who now maybe believes in these kinds of conspiracies and the people around him playing that we know they're also leaving.

They're also leaving because they cannot tolerate the craziness on this, right?

And here's the fine point on it.

We talk again with someone with tongue in cheek, but again, I've often said this and you've said this as well, Dom.

The investigation is the punishment.

right?

You don't necessarily need to get down the street to the Pettyman federal courthouse and get a grand jury to indict.

You open that file.

It says, Don McSalvia on it.

And let's take a look at what he may have done.

Truly a fishing expedition, no basis whatsoever.

Those kinds of cases, they're really begun at the FBI.

At some point, they're walked across the street or they're brought to U.S.

Attorney's offices around the country.

And then the question is, does U.S.

Attorney want to put her or his imprimatur on those and pursue in a grand jury matters?

That new

U.S.

Attorney that was just appointed by Donald Trump?

There you go, right?

Martin, who quite literally is a couple of blocks away in the U.S.

Attorney's office right there.

But the investigations themselves, those can and do begin at the FBI.

And that should send chills, once again, up and down the backs of everybody who's thinking about America and the possibility, once again, that you could be targeted.

if you are, and indeed, their request for your testimony, your statements, your all sorts of, we want documents from you, Mr. Santel, about what you have done about, you know, and again, at the other, at the Treasury Department, right next to the White House there.

By the way, our other friend there, Musk has got access to your tax returns, so maybe we'll get those very easily without going through the process before.

It is just right for all sorts of abuses, absent those checks and balances.

This is a man who has everything about his history up to this point and what he has said, what he has done suggests he has nothing but contempt.

for not only the FBI, but for the process by which investigations are properly undertaken.

Properly.

Is

that subjective?

If he opens the file on me, Jim, it's going to be because I'm guilty of kicking all the ass and taking all the names.

Right.

Right.

And

that

was your New Year's resolution.

Right.

Right.

And again, we haven't chatted about it yet, but I suspect we will.

And the president again, two days ago, says, you know what?

I am now in charge of the FCC.

And I'm in charge of all of these other independent agencies.

when the president, as he did, said that, and that's the other big one that's out there.

I don't want to leave Cash Patel quite yet, but that's the other really big news story, in addition to this musk stuff at the Social Security Administration at the IRS.

When the president of the United States of America, yes, once again, issues a piece of paper with his very elaborate signature on it, but says, you know what, I'm not going to embrace this thing called the Unitary Executive Theory, and all those independent agencies out there

All of them are now in my control and an interpretation of the law, as you said, that contravenes what I say, what the attorney general says is not the law.

Meaning

only I and the Attorney General can tell you what the law is but and of course as part of the That that that smell of authoritarianism

that we've had

burning the last couple of days specifically I mean I guess this week I mean he started out with the with the Napoleon quote, you know You know breaking law if you save in the country comes up exactly with that and then yesterday or the day before yesterday He's the king, you know, there's a very specific progression or at least at least consistent attitude Coming coming out of this administration.

Absolutely.

And again, well

Will those kinds of things be challenged?

Sure they will.

Federal judges, trial judges, and probably appellate judges will similarly stop this from going ahead in terms of the President exercising rulemaking authority and other things with respect to these agencies.

But once again, I've said it now three or four times just this afternoon, once it gets up to the Supreme Court, it's told them back in July one, you got to be able to do what you can do, what you should be able to do to make sure the government goes.

And there is an argument based upon that.

Trump versus the United States case, the first few pages that what he's doing again in undermining not only the Constitution, but basically the very ways in which all of these independent agencies have been established, maybe just maybe the Supreme Court says, yeah, we've gotten it wrong since FD.

and the president should have responsibility.

That's the country in which we're living right now, and that's the specter.

Well, the good news is this is a second term.

We can't run again eight

five seven two four and so he may have authority over the Federal Election Commission, which is also an independent agency.

What do they do?

They establish rules and regulations for federal elections.

Huh?

We're going to have another one and the

commission bipartisan

and they

don't do squat because it's always by you know, it's a republic as a Democrats equal number each or nothing gets done,

right?

And all the more reason then he will say that's the reason why

I need to be the one to supplant these board members who are not doing anything.

We don't have a quorum.

We can't can't get things out of there.

And for that reason, too, he will say, Donald Trump, my president will say, I need authority to direct the the FEC to do what it should do, including the election in 2028.

8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2

8 5 5 7 5 Civic

Mark, from the SAC, you will be next.

Welcome, sir.

What do you got for us?

You know, let's just remember that none of Musk's little minions have been vetted at all.

We don't even know if they're American citizens.

You know, at least when I started with the state of Wisconsin years ago, I mean, that I had to sign off on an ethics agreement.

I agreed to, had to read the ethics code and agreed to comply with it.

These guys haven't had to do that.

They haven't had to go and gone through any, any particular screens, any background checks or anything like that.

The fact that they're digging into our personal information, and Trump is not questioning this kind of thing, we should just put a little bug in Trump's ear and say, hey, Mr. President, those guys are looking at your information too.

Maybe that

would shut everything

down right quick.

And Mark, again, when you work for the state, again, I have myself not worked for the state, but I'm federal government, I know that on your first day and probably once a year, you had to sign off on all those commitments to uphold the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, the United States, and to do things according to rules and regulations, and to do things ethically, and not make disclosures, right?

That's a part and parcel of every employment situation government.

Thanks for the call, Mark.

Appreciate it.

855-752-4842.

James Santel, host of Amicus, the Law Review, broadcasting on Saturdays 9 to 11 a.m.

Right here on the Civic Media Radio Network, giving you a little preview of that fine conversation.

JustPS is on the board.

You folks are on the lines.

Whisko Paul, you will be next.

Welcome, sir.

What do you got for us?

Thanks for taking my call.

Great show today, you guys.

First of all, I'd like to start off by thanking

Eric Garland for not doing his job.

That's a biggie right there.

And then there's another gentleman named Jim Comey was out of the FBI that opened up an investigation on Hillary that should have never happened.

So they're very implicated in this too.

But I want to bring up one thing here.

And that's Trump actually has an army now.

He's

got 1,600 people out there, Paul, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, I think it's because the top of the republicans are scared to death of them.

And I don't, I don't see this ending well.

I think I

just lost the

Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's going to have to step up here.

And then when you think about that also, maybe he has another army, maybe the United States army, because it's

Minion is in charge of that also, but I will just leave you with this.

The financial times that I read today, that in the current course of things with what Mark is doing in the government, shutting down all these research things that are going on, we're headed for a recession in the next six months and not an easy recession.

So there's a lot of things to look at here.

And that's why I'm going home and drinking some Johnny Black.

Usually, it's the spot of call for Pauli, but when it gets a little heavy, you've got to go to the heavy stuff, little Johnny Walker Black.

Thank you for the call.

Wisco, your thoughts, Counselor.

Again, Paul needs to continue to be out there, as do all the other Americans, continuing to highlight these things.

And again, it's happening quickly.

Again, we already highlighted the notion that it's been just one month.

It seems like it's been several years, but it's been just one month, and even with all these numbers of executive orders out there.

Yes, there are people today and do not mean to minimize the dramatic impact upon all these federal employees out there who no longer have jobs today And they're no longer doing their jobs.

There's nobody replacing them right away The consequences of this are immediate.

They're happening right now and again to Paul's good point whether it's six months or eight months down the road Let's take the temperature of the country once again and let's draw the line right back to today And make certain we all understand that this happened because of these things going on in the White House right now

folks.

This is the

Dom Salvi show.

That is James Santel.

We're going to come back with more of your calls, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two.

We can, we can draw this line back to, to 30 days ago.

And, and what's going to happen in 30 days from now and 60 days from now and 90 days from now, his poll numbers are already declining as the results of some of these 70 some executive orders, historic beginning of the Trump administration.

Some folks aren't very happy, including some Republicans and Megas come back with us.

Eight, five, five, seven, five civic.

Welcome back to the Dom Salvi show eight five five seven five two four eight four two just PS on the board.

James Santel across the desk.

You folks are on the lines eight five five seven five civic.

We got a YouTuber comment marks his cash for shells confirmation as FBI director is a massive win for accountability.

He'll expose the deep stage rot.

and refocus the Bureau on law enforcement, not political vendettas.

Didn't he publish an enemy's list today?

I mean, he literally put it in his book, dude.

It is in

his book, yes.

Yeah, the people were going to go after.

And again, the President of the United States of America has said, I am, right, your retribution.

Right?

And the president, as we know now, can pick up the phone and talk to his attorney general about how that retribution gets enacted.

And it's not too much to assume that he'll also call Kashpatel and say, you know what, here are the people we need to go after.

And Casper said, we'll take that call.

We'll take that call.

You better be loyal.

That's how it works.

855-752-4842.

Callers be patient.

Want to talk about this in the break.

I don't want to kind of throw this one out there as well.

Vanity Fair reporting.

They're scared S-less.

Crapless let's call it the threat of political violence informing Trump's grip on Congress with the president smashing norm after norm Even lawmakers within his party have feared for their personal safety And at least one is told confidence that it has swayed his decision-making wait what I mean If you're a member of a political party and you're scared of your constituents, maybe you should not be a member of that political party I'm

just

saying according to one source again

this is Vanity Fair reporting this, according to one source with direct knowledge of events, North Carolina Senator Tom Tillis told people the FBI warned him about credible death threats when he was considering voting against Pete Hage's death nomination for defense secretary.

I'm thinking, so I go across a couple of them.

Number one, if that's true, oh my God, I mean, really, absolutely.

That's crazy.

That is out there.

But now I think about what Senator from Wisconsin Ron Johnson said one time when he was informed by the FBI that he was parroting Russian propaganda and talking points.

He thought he was getting set up by the FBI.

Now, if I'm gonna take the Ron Johnson view of this, is it possible?

Is it probable?

Is it likely that...

There was no death threat, but Trump uses FBI to go tell Tom Tillis that there was, because they needed his vote.

I think the future FBI may well do that.

We're not certain.

Right now, again, I don't think that Cash Patel has brought his family pictures into his office quite yet, but tomorrow morning he'll be

there, right?

I

still have enough confidence right now, even though there have been resignations and other departures from the FBI, that there are enough mainline, kind of high-level...

people there at the J. Edgar Hoover building who have once again the legitimate assignment to keep people safe.

And if you do, remember Christopher Wray, the former director, talked about this a lot.

The threat to America being a domestic threat, right, and our own people threatening each other, threatening federal judges.

My sense is right now, if someone came to Tom Tillis from the FBI, again, the non-Cash Patel FBI and said, Senator, we have some legitimate and they're not going to go public with this.

We've got to make this a confidential briefing.

We've got credible reasons to believe that your life may be in danger.

We're going to probably even protect you somewhat.

As this goes forward, that it would put some stock in the Ron Johnson piece.

Again, the FBI has a legitimate interest in letting him know that what he's advocating here or what he's articulating the public domain is pulled right out of Putin's playbook, right?

And what Ron Johnson says, rather than embracing that, oh gosh, I guess that's not a good thing, he then turns it around.

And then that's when it does become made up.

My point here is just that

under the FBI that I knew, under all administrations, Republican, Democratic, they would do this apolitically and tell a Democrat, tell a Republican, if indeed they're legitimate threats, question, question, will Kash Patel continue to do that?

I certainly hope so, but time will tell.

Once again, that's another reason why Paul's got to continue to monitor all this.

eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two.

Uh, Senator Ron Johnson and articulate are not two words I use in the sentence at the same time.

Eight, five, five, seven, five, Civic Dynamo Dave calling from Duluth, Minnesota.

Welcome, Dave.

What do you got for us?

Thanks.

Thanks for taking my call.

It was wondering, uh, you and your fine listeners recall back, uh,

Then it was Charlie 26 when Trump was telling a group of Christians at the turning point action conference in West Palm Beach, Florida quote In four years you don't have to vote again Have to vote and I was wondering if that relates back to what you guys saying in regards to federal elections

So among the agencies, as we said, that are in this executive order from 48 hours ago, that consolidate power.

And again, you can't overstate the significance of it.

It's ridiculous.

It is craziness.

And yet, there it is.

It's by the President of the United States of America, drawing inside his ambit, the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, which is the one that Dom's afraid of now, right?

The National Labor Relations Board, right?

The Securities and Exchange Commission.

Oh, yeah, I gotta get that

money.

The Federal Reserve.

Right?

All these things that have dramatic impacts upon the way in which we live.

If this president executes not only this executive order, but then works under this theory and nobody pushes back.

And even though these people challenged, if in the end the Supreme Court says, yeah, you can do this, Donald Trump.

That's when I think you're concerned about what happens in 2028 is a whole lot more realistic because you've consolidated all the executive power.

You've got the United States Senate.

plainly cowed by what you're doing here at least the the present majority here

at some point though Jim aren't they're gonna have to go back to you know they're gonna have to get elected again you know and certainly the senators have longer terms obviously but you know there will be consequence to these actions and if it's beyond it's called the the pilfering and the corruption but real you know downwind consequence to these actions you know they're gonna have to come back and push back simply for their own political survival now the question I have is an at what point

does does the mega senator or congressman you know balance their their political survival versus their actual survival i mean if you are literally physically scared asless as vanity fair is reporting and the republicans are scared to death of mega they're scared of their voters their constituents they're scared of the trump supporters well where are we man they're gonna get rolled over

right where where is where is your ethical a lodestone there it doesn't exist anymore it's nowhere to be found

i got plenty

a loading.

Come back with a spirit loading in race scene 855-752-4842.

What?

And welcome back to the Dom Salvia Show, 8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2-8-5-5-7-5.

Civic just PS working hard on the board, spinning the tunes, loving me some rock and roll.

Got James Santel, former U.S.

Attorney, host of Amicus Law Review, broadcasting right here on the Civic Media Radio Network Saturdays, 9 to 11 a.m.

Thank you, Jim.

And don't forget folks, the last segment of the day, tell us something good.

to tell us something good.

Just going to tell us something

good.

Jim's going to tell us something

good.

There's good stuff

out there.

I'm going to come up with something by then to tell you something good.

I got one in my pocket.

So join us for that as well.

855-752-4842.

wrapping up kind of the cash Patel situation here now, the new head of the FBI.

Well, he'll be, I'm sure very happy to learn that the Oath Keepers ex-leader convicted of sedition wants to work for the FBI.

Oh yeah.

Albert Stewart Rhodes, the third founder and former leader of the Oath Keepers.

told reporters at CPAC he would enjoy working for the FBI or for director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabber.

Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison after being convicted of sedition after the January 6 insurrection, but of course was pardoned.

It was all a political witch hunt, Jim, but you know.

only the finest applications for the FBI going forward.

There you go.

And quite literally, once again, the inmates have taken over, right?

Yeah.

Right?

And we don't even have to draw a line from one to the next.

That is happening now.

Literally.

Literally, right?

And this is a man, once again, who wanted to overthrow the government, not just on January 6th, but even before that, he is a violent person.

There is absolutely, positively no way.

under any circumstance that he would pass a background check.

So that means he'll be joining the FBI

soon.

Apparently so.

Apparently so.

Background check.

We don't

do that.

We're efficient.

If you do a background check to slow things down, you're going to slow down with that government bureaucracy by doing a background

check.

Apparently there's a thing called the Department of Government Efficiency, and it's out there.

And presumably once again, if that should happen in any way, all these things, we're not just drop kicking.

regular rules, we're threatening our national security.

It's nothing short of that.

If someone like Stuart Rhodes can get access, if someone like Elon Musk can get access to all this social security information, treasury information, IRS information, if somehow in some way Stuart Rhodes and others get into the FBI,

We need to begin to think we'll talk to our local law enforcement about providing protection that the FBI will no longer be providing to us and they do a huge number of things preventive law enforcement on a regular basis They intercede to stop things from happening.

Will that be a part of the mission?

They do a community outreach to talk to to elderly people about scams out there is the I'm told that's being stopped all kinds of things that are beyond the core work to see us to stop the bank robbers and the human traffickers and the

methamphetamine lab purveyors, those kinds of things, huge numbers of things that we do not see in a regular basis that keep us more safe and more secure.

Stuart Rhodes is not on that plan.

I mean, but if cash Patel, you know, I mean, it's his call, right?

We'll see.

We'll see folks.

We'll see eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two.

Our buddy cam from Appleton miles dump and grounds.

Welcome cam.

What do you got for us?

Oh boy.

Thanks for taking my call.

Uh, where to start?

Cash potato looks like, uh, you know what stare that he has?

He looks laser locked on the nearest woman that's in her menstrual cycle, uh, in his vicinity.

Um, for,

uh, I get that.

I get that.

I didn't quite get it, but please continue.

I don't think I need to hear anymore.

Go ahead, Cam.

That's okay.

That's okay.

Um,

Folks don't understand what they're doing for letting go the federal employees.

They're using a clause in their contracts because they first are gutting the probationary employees, the ones that had just started.

They're going under the clause that it's for performance reasons.

And then they're also extending that to people that aren't even in their probationary periods anymore, even some people that have got or received many awards.

I need to extend to people like CJ that exist out there.

God forbid that they exist.

Would you let a 20-year-old tell you how to run your business?

Would you let a 19-year-old named Big Balls?

tell you how to sell homes or rent homes out CJ, CJ, ask yourself those very easy questions or just divert and start talking about Biden or whatever you want to complain about because you can't focus on anything in the future.

Cause you'll never be happy.

Well, yeah, there, there's a lot of that out there.

Cam.

Thank you for, for your calling your thoughts.

And I think a lot of folks won't really appreciate the,

enormity of what might happen until it affects them.

And I've been seeing some articles recently, Cam and Jim and Jess.

about, you know, some, some, you know, Omega, who, you know, voted for Trump as a veteran and at this place or that place.

And all of a sudden they got the

leather out.

They literally do not have the support, sometimes a physical sport.

Um, the agriculture department, right?

Our, our farmers out there who depend centrally upon that partner agriculture, not only for subsidies and monies, but also basic programming.

You get rid of those people.

There's nobody is on the other end of the phone.

And yes, maybe eventually you're going to put some loyalists in those positions who once again,

do not know how the Department of Agriculture works.

The reason why all of these firings are also catastrophic for the individuals who are losing their jobs, but also you're losing a huge amount of experience and expertise.

Institutional knowledge.

Absolutely.

And when you lose that.

Of how to

work at home for free

without

working.

Right.

I mean, that's what they're saying.

You know, you work in, and the whole, I mean, come on, you gotta, today's technology, you gotta go to the office.

Is that a thing?

You can't do your work remotely.

I think they're just sitting home watching Netflix all day long.

Right,

right.

And it's absurd.

In my own sense, having worked inside the federal government, and actually I worked in Capitol Hill many, many years ago, and in the White House for a very, very period of time as well, the great majority of people are there because they want to serve their nation.

and they do it with varying levels of expertise, but that expertise is all premised upon how long you've been there.

You know how, and I don't mean this in a bad sense, how the systems work and you can make those systems work to the benefit of your constituents.

People coming in after all this expertise is shown the door.

Our government begins to fall apart.

And when you go to your local social security office and say, you know what, I've got a concern about the benefits that I'm getting and nobody is there or you've got to travel to Chicago or to Cleveland to find somebody to talk to.

You better be calling your congressman and your senator

and lighten them up.

It's almost

like the short-term gain, if there is to be any, would be lost by the long-term lack of efficiency when you got people that cannot or do not have the capabilities to properly and efficiently.

do the same job that perhaps someone who's been there for 20, 30 years could do.

And for those residents, those citizens who are dependent upon social security checks for their livelihoods, heaven forbid that at some point we have health concerns or worse among that population as well, because literally their monies are not being sent into their accounts.

855-752-484-2855-756-CIVIC.

85575 Civic Jeannie from Eau Claire.

You are next.

Welcome Jeannie.

What do you got for us today?

Hi you guys.

First of all, I strongly recommend Saturday mornings.

I can't wait.

Anyway, this is still troubling to me because in all honesty, we've seen attempts in our area, in the Eau Claire area, of a unor oil takeover.

It was a hostile takeover, but they brought it up.

However, this reminds me of a hostile takeover.

You're not going in to fix the problem.

You're not getting ideas of people who know the business.

You're just firing everybody.

And then what they would do is take retirement funds.

They'd run the business to the ground.

take the retirement funds and then leave the people.

And this is just a reminder.

It's just kind of a scary thing, you know, the way that they're going after our government like this and totally gutting and starving and going everywhere.

Everything that the people depend on.

So that's just my personal biased opinion.

And I'm happy about it.

About you guys, Civic Media and all of you for doing such a great job keeping people educated.

and have a great evening.

And I look forward to Saturday morning.

Thanks so much.

Call in

as well.

And we can talk more on Saturday.

Thank you for the call, Jeannie.

Appreciate your input as always.

I mean, a hostile takeover they were voted in, you know, uh, unfortunately, and Trump said he was going to do some of these things.

I don't know that, you know, 76 or whatever executive orders is, is a

Wonderful thing.

I mean, I think if you think you've had to have a mandate to have your Congress behind you, you have your party behind it, you need to go through the legislative process.

We are working on a budget right now.

The government could be shut down in the next six weeks.

We haven't gotten there yet.

I mean, because this is all just, this is just 30 days in, man.

There are going to be some real deadlines that are going to have to be met.

There's going to be some real consequence if those deadlines are not met.

This is all

just noise right now.

It is.

And again, as we said before, it's one thing for the president to sign a piece of paper on Tuesday.

It may well be that it's going to be six Tuesdays down the road before the impact of that really happens.

And to Jeannie's point, it appears more and more with each passing day, more and more polling indicating that the American people

Have some buyers or most or at least least almost half of the American population that voted for him looking at him and saying this is not This is not what we intended if we even talked about Ukraine But that

he is

off the charts on that when he is

pointing

up to to Putin right the Americans are not supporting that and Donald Trump is a product of the media right NBC and others you wonder if at some point he Again, I would like to think that at some point he would say

you

know what we've got him

You've

got to try to address those bad

numbers.

I'm tanking here very badly.

But he will plainly just lie about that and move on.

8-5-5-7-5-2-4-4-2.

Margaret from Cottage Grove, you are next.

Welcome, Margaret.

What do you got for us?

Well, it occurs to me, and this is probably more directed at Jim.

What kind of moron fires FBI agents?

and CIA agents and think that there's going to be no retribution at all.

I'm thinking these people that have been fired or are going to be fired might be upset.

Just

a thought.

Absolutely, Margaret.

And again, there is no good news here, but the small glimmer of hope is for them, for those people who are now being illegally fired.

As a previous caller said, yeah, the probationary employees, maybe you can get rid of them without showing some performance issue.

But these others who've been there for a long time, the CIA folks and the FBI folks who you were just talking about, Margaret,

And coming to them after five, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years and saying, you've got performance problems and they can come forward to what's called the MSPB, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and challenge this and talk about putting a burden upon that agency now and what hundreds, maybe thousands of employees who've been there for a long period of time are now appealing through this administrative process, either to get their jobs back, which they may not want, or to get what?

compensation for the damages they have suffered by not being in employment situations, for the pain and suffering they've suffered, that's also a part of this process.

And yes, they can also appeal that to the federal district court if they're unsatisfied with that.

The consequences here are so broad, exactly, Margaret.

8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2.

Tom from Jackson, you are next.

Welcome, Tom.

What are your thoughts?

Well, if it's something good.

My phone says Monday's 42, Tuesday's 42, Wednesday's 41.

It's warming up in Wisco, baby.

That's a good thing.

And, and I think that, um, I think some on the right are finally starting to see that, um, there's something big happening and they need to open their eyes.

I think that's good.

Right on, man.

We appreciate it, Tom.

Thank you so much.

855-752-4842-855-75 civic.

We only got a minute left in the segment, Jim, but he did mention Ukraine and Trump and his foreign

policy and

that what I don't hear it again.

Consider the source Trump calling Zelensky the president though of Ukraine a dictator, right?

He's

not

having elections and

by the way

you brought this war upon

your own nation

Yes, this

is all your fault

and it's certainly you know contradicting the Republicans and in the Senate and in the

Congress a guy named Mike Pence going public today saying you know no Mr. President It was and a war of aggression brought on by Vladimir Putin.

You've got it wrong.

Mr. President.

That's his former vice president saying that

Well, hang my pants.

Right,

right.

That's exactly the first thing.