And welcome to the Dom Salvia show happy happy Friday to us all I know it's Friday double check got it down on my notes got just PS working hard on the board and you could join us today as well 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 8 5 5 7 5 Civic Genesis hell it's Friday and today is my co-host our good friend James Santel He is the host of amicus a law review you check out his fine program on Saturday
that's tomorrow 9 to 11 a.m.
He takes all your calls and questions as well.
Jim, welcome to the show, man.
Great to see you.
Lots of national stuff, lots of local stuff.
I want to start, I guess, primarily in the local arena right now.
Um, the Wisconsin Supreme court race, man, we get judge Susan Crawford to say her name a whole lot more.
Thanks, Chris.
Going against BS.
Thank you, Tom.
His name is Brad Schimel.
We're just going to call him BS.
Cause you know, that's what he's kind of full of.
That's what we got.
We got it all figured out here.
Um, and we know Jim, man, this Eli must, the richest man in the world.
Well, he loves himself.
Some Wisconsin Supreme court justice candidates called BS.
He's putting in a lot of money and now he's got a whole new trick man It's kind of like the old trick, but you know, you know, maybe updated for 2025 as Axios reports Musk's pack Offers $100 to Wisconsin voters in pitch against quote-unquote activist judges.
Yeah, man must give me a hundred bucks.
Let's hear more from Axios
His political action committee is offering Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition expressing their opposition to quote-unquote activist judges, a cause that President Trump is pressing as judges block or delay several of his parts of his agenda.
Well, there's a whole other issue for that because, you know, maybe he's overreaching his mind.
But anyway, I digress.
The move reflects how Musk is throwing his considerable wealth behind Trump's priorities, including an upcoming election in Wisconsin for a crucial seat on the state Supreme Court.
And we all know April 1st is the election.
Again, folks, go out and vote for Susan Crawford, not BS.
Vote for Susan Crawford.
Here's what the petition says.
The Wisconsin campaign is entering its final days as Trump and his allies are attacking federal judges standing the way of his agenda.
Trump has been particularly critical of a judge who was questioning the administration's deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members.
And I know, counselor, we're going to have that conversation in just
Trump and Musk have called for the impeachment of that judge.
And here's what the petition says.
By signing below, I am rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demanding a judiciary that respects its role, interpreting, not legislating, the petition says.
Now, after a voter signs the petition and is credited with $100, must team won't know for sure whether or how the person voted in Wisconsin's election.
But the groups will have one thing the voters data which will allow the group to contact them again in the future Hmm he did something similar right he was he was putting people they were they could
Sign up for a chance to win a million dollars in the 20 last election, right?
They're
Yes.
Yes.
So, I mean, it seems shady as hell, but I must like, well, if he's giving the money away, folks, you'll get the money then.
But I'm thinking, well, don't do that because now you're just encouraging the bastard.
So, Jim, what are your thoughts on this new hustle from Musk and Trump?
Anytime you're paying people to do things,
to express their views, which presumably, if you sign this petition, you believe in what you're putting your name to.
But we still have to encourage you.
We've got to push you over the edge by giving you $100.
And again, that's one of the many problems with this.
We will call also.
This administration also seems to be, again, very money-oriented.
call this other very peculiar thing where the president has said we've got this sort of credit card and you can buy it for $30,000 and you can come here, you can expedite your immigration status.
All these things where there are proper processes that Americans can take advantage of and now we're monetizing them, right?
We're giving people money for again, citing their name.
There is no reason why you should have to do that.
If indeed, you're identifying people who believe that.
And of course, what this really is all about is once again for the media, for consumption by the base that says, yes, indeed.
Yes, indeed.
Here's this stronghold of people in Wisconsin who are rejecting, frankly, Judge Bosberg.
We'll talk about them later.
But frankly, even judges here in Wisconsin who might be labeled as activists, for example, Susan Crawford, she is not.
She doesn't fall in that category.
But this is also really just a campaign trick, if you will, and intended once again to get the attention that he's plainly getting through money, which is the one thing that he and Donald Trump, that's the currency quite literally they
Well,
can't give people water who are sitting in line like down south at 100 degrees for hours, because of course, it's kind of on purpose that way.
Maybe the
disenfranchise them from voting.
You go give them somebody water who's boiling in the heat and you're committing a crime, but Musk can give you a fake petition and give you a hundred bucks and you gotta do what you want.
Now, again, I get it, but I don't think giving water to somebody who's thirsty, standing in line is a violation of that either, any more than this would be.
It certainly is not.
And again, the courts have come down, thankfully, squarely in support of that.
And here's the other point that you just made.
The other thing that this does, of course, is to the extent that these folks who are signing up, presumably, I'm guessing they're providing an email, maybe a phone number.
You get additional numbers, you get additional contacts, so that whether it's in advance of this April 1 election here, down the road for the midterms and 18 months or so,
You've got another great tranche, a great stash of people here that you can go to and say, hey, remember, we were already talking with you about this, this judicial activism thing here.
Now we've got to advance another issue here.
It gives the Trump folks, it gives the Musk people another set of names to reach out to, and again, and even ask for money in support of campaigns down the road.
Ask it
Hell no.
If I was to engage with the Musk bucks in this case, and they gave me a hundred bucks to sign some stupid ass petition, they came around next time and said, hey, how about this?
I'd be like, sure, but that was too fitty.
You know, the price just went up.
You can't, you can't encourage the guys, you know, they're going to want to get paid every time you pick up the phone.
It kind of goes against the whole thing.
But what, I mean,
it's the state of wisconsin and he's already spent like 20 million dollars uh or close to according to the axios article in the state of wisconsin through his different front groups and jim this thing is already i think like 70 million dollars spent with two weeks still to go uh as the wisconsin democracy campaign has predicted perhaps over a hundred million dollars man it's a dr evil of wisconsin supreme court elections
and shouldn't that point, this business with the survey here, the petition here, it's all very interesting, it's silly, it's stupid, but that's the larger point, Dom, right, which is the extent to which money has not just become a part of our election, it is our election right now.
And again, we thank for that, the Supreme Court, this goes back to Citizens United, yes indeed, there are also restrictions in Wisconsin as well, and things you cannot do, but that's the Supreme Law of the Land.
We need desperately to get back to a time when people are not prompted to vote by the number of ads they see on television, the number of hangers on their door, the number of signs in the front yards.
We need to figure out some way of this becoming more merit-based, a number of debates.
We articulate who these candidates are and we cannot, we just can't continue this.
It is truly, truly obscene.
That is James Santel, host of Amicus, a law review broadcasting right here on the Civic Media Radio Network Saturdays, nine to 11.
Jim's going to be with us all day.
I want to move on to some of these other topics.
We do have an early caller, Jeanie from Eau Claire.
Thank you for calling Jeanie.
We'll take your call while we have some moments in this first segment.
Welcome, Jeanie.
Happy Friday.
What do you got for
us?
remember tomorrow morning, nine o'clock, great.
Now I have to bring up a point that's really kind of got my fur a mess.
So by signing this, you are having an eligible or maybe ineligible Wisconsin signature on this petition that states a lie about the position that they're voting on.
And that would be
a person endorsing this lie, validating the lie, because people may say, oh, I see.
Oh, he signed it.
I trust him.
Yeah, we need to do this, you know.
And on every postcard that I've gotten, one of them huge ones, I've gotten nine.
I got one the other day again, you know, with negatives on the female candidate, the wonderful one.
I'm saying act activist judge and things like that.
So I just, and not against him being an activist judge, just want to throw that at you.
Really nefarious.
Bye.
Thank
Yeah, it'd be hard to trust anything with Donald Trump and certainly Elon Musk.
Uh, you know, so be careful what you, what you, what you sign up for and what could they do with their signature?
What do they do with the data?
All those kinds of things, certainly.
Uh, but to, to your point, uh, here's, here's what the, uh, the petition says by signing below, I'm rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demand and a judiciary that respects its role interpreting not legislating.
And of course, Jim, this comes on the heels of the criticism.
Uh, this administration is leveling and frankly the.
threats, both physical and threats of impeachment against these judges who have a temerity to
push back against what they seemingly are slinking our unconstitutional executive orders.
That's why, you know, most folks, most presidents have to push their agenda through Congress.
You know, they got to make laws to impact that.
Not executive orders, but I mean, the guy wanted to do this.
So welcome to it, but he can't get mad when these, you know, Cran written orders get tossed out for being overreaching.
Folks come back with us.
James Santel, former U S attorney, going to come back and talk about, we'll get some more of your calls and Brad Schimel, I want to
get your opinion on something he said not so long ago.
Hell must be empty, because everyone's here.
You can join us as well.
855-752-484-2855, 75 Civic Just B.S.
Worker, the board, James Santel, host of Amicus, a law review joining me today.
On the Friday, of course, you know how we roll, wrap the day up with something good.
So if you got something good, think about it.
Join us in the last segment and share it with the audience so we can go home and smile on our face.
Cause I'm getting a little mad right now, Jim.
Some of the textures here, Jack from the Mac.
Geez.
I don't know if I could trust musky to pay off.
I'm still waiting for Soros checks for the three town halls I attended.
Yeah.
Where's our Soros money, man?
I haven't gotten that yet.
What else we got?
Um, isn't what Musk wants to do to our election, a kind of fraud, a texture from the 608 asks, can't Josh call do something?
This just can't be legal.
I mean, unfortunately, WMDX texture.
It might probably is right.
I mean, he's not impacting the vote and that's really what it's all about right counselor
the other night went with grass Lee Yes, that's it when he said no Elon Musk has no power but in this area once again
I can go out.
You can go out tomorrow and circulate a petition if you want to.
Maybe I can attach some money to it.
It's certainly not official in that sense.
But I think the caller there, and Jeannie before, are onto something.
It's fraught with a small F. Why?
Because the cynicism of this is that it assumes that people believe that this actually has number one, some impact.
But beyond that, the things that are said in this particular petition, they're just plain wrong.
We talked before, Jeannie talked about this as well.
I pulled up here during the break, the flyer that I got here on my front door here.
This is Donald Trump, and it's actually for Brad Schimel, of course.
And the cynicism here is that if you vote for Brad Schimel, apparently, you're not only voting for Donald Trump, but you're also going to secure borders.
You're going to make cities safer and you're going to have a sensible spending.
Let's talk about those secure borders.
That's the federal government, not the not the Wisconsin Supreme Court, safer cities.
We all know that's that's village presidents and mayors who work on on crime and sensible spending.
That's basically your county board, your legislature, your assembly, putting together budgets, not with the exception of some small, small little tendrils.
None of these has anything to do.
with the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
And yet, of course, the important thing here is this fellow's picture and this notion that somehow by putting Brad Schimel, this is the cynicism of this, cynicism of this is that by putting Brad Schimel on the court, you're somehow going to make our borders more secure.
That's completely wrong.
And again, that's the fraud, maybe with a small F.
that I think we're talking
No, right.
I mean, they must, they must, you know, bend to the will of an authoritarian, overreaching, over expansive, you know, monarchy wanting to be executive.
manager.
And let's talk about it.
All right.
So BS recently said once again, Jim, on an interview at a conservative talk radio show, we got to bank our votes, make sure this is too big to rig.
So we don't have to worry at 1130 in Milwaukee.
They're going to find bags of ballots.
They forgot to put in to the machines.
They're throwing this trope out again, Jim, every single time, every time.
And
This could have been fixed.
The assembly, the assembly passed allowing Milwaukee to start counting those votes early.
The Senate blocked it.
It was a bipartisan effort, obviously coming out of Voss's assembly.
They want this argument.
They want this thing to continually scare people about, but this is how the business is done, unfortunately.
And either Brad Schimmel is super, super ignorant, as dumb as a bag of hammers.
Sack
Jim, I know, obviously you're, you're a counselor.
You also work at, at your local polling booth.
What's your, what's your thought on, on the way these Republicans continually present how the counting is done in Milwaukee?
Number one, we know that there really is no voter fraud in America.
It's virtually impossible to have a conspiracy that broad.
So that broad notion is simply wrong.
This issue of finding huge bags of votes and yes, every so often there's an additional group of them that are identified.
They're accounted, they're put in the process, they're part of the final tally.
The impossibility of this happening, wedded with that.
that scare notion once again that, gosh, those other folks are going to take this election away from us.
And so this is the reason why you've got to get to the polls to make certain that the margin is so great, so great that even the fraudsters can't overcome it.
Again, cynicism unbound, frankly, Judge Schimmel and former district attorney Schimmel, lawyer Schimmel, all of that is just contemptuous.
And again, it's intended to invoke
our lowest common denominator when it comes to voting and the way that we do that in America and right here in Wisconsin.
Once again, Republicans through the assembly had an option to change it so they could actually start counting those votes early.
There's lots of people in Milwaukee that vote absentee.
It's just, it's the biggest city in the state.
Mathematically, it just is what it is.
And everybody- A 10% of the state's population lives in that city.
Everybody knows how it works, man.
The Republicans, the staffers, I mean, back in 2016, I remember when the votes were coming down or maybe it was an election after that, some of the Republicans even saying, well,
Milwaukee hasn't landed yet.
And you know, you can look statistically at the voting in Milwaukee and assume it's going to be probably around the same, right?
Whatever 80, 20, 70, 30, whatever that number is, Democrat versus Republican is going to come in.
And perhaps because of the absentee nature of them, more of those might be Democratic leaning votes.
And you can look at it.
No, there's a big gap there and a big chunk of that gap that's still to come in is going to be Democratic.
You know that's happening.
Everybody knows that's happening, except Brad Schimmel.
Except for Brad Schimmel.
And of course, what is it really all about?
Those scary black people in Milwaukee don't know how to count.
Right BS?
Hey, come back with us.
We got more on Brad Schimmel.
Doug, this one up.
What do you think he would do about interracial marriage back in the 50s?
Stick around.
Salvia show thank you so much for listening 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 8 5 5 7 5 civic just ps working hard on the board James Santel host of amicus a law review broadcasting right here on the civic media radio network
Saturdays 9 to 11 a.m.
Joining me for the day.
Thank you, Jim.
And folks, you haven't checked the show out.
Do so.
He dives.
Jim, you do a hell of a job diving into deep into the topics that we really kind of brunch here, man, because I don't do the homework like you do, man.
And we appreciate
So thank you for joining us and make sure you check about 9 to 11 on Saturdays.
Real quick, Milwaukee Journal of Sentinel reporting a crash has closed lanes on I-94 Westbound in the stadium interchange here in Milwaukee.
So if you're all getting around, be careful out there.
Make sure you plan a little extra time.
Again, a crash closing lanes on I-94 Westbound according to the Journal of Sentinel.
Collars, we see you there.
Be patient.
We'll get to you in just a moment.
We're talking about the Wisconsin Supreme Court race here and in the candidates.
Judge Susan Crawford vote for her and the other guy BS.
And this guy who's, you know, initials are BS and he spews BS.
And I really get mad when I continue to hear and team Trump fighting for Wisconsin.
Exactly.
Jim's holding up.
Man, you're getting delused over there.
Oh, oh,
And so I take great umbrage with the Republicans continuing to stir the pot in line with people.
And frankly, it's racist.
It's a total lie the way that Milwaukee counts their ballots.
And it bothers me.
So you all know that.
You all know that.
Um, but there's more to BS than just that particular BS.
He's got, he's, he's got a career folks.
And, and I, I got some audio dating back years.
So I dug this one up because it just kind of came to me again.
Cause it bothered me then and it bothers me now.
Here is, uh, Brad Schimmel.
I guess when he was running for eight and 16, maybe it was, it's while ago, nine, 10 years ago, maybe 11 years ago, maybe, um, being interviewed by, I believe it was like Oshkosh, some public.
television in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
But anyway, listen to this and then, Gemma, we'll get your reaction as well.
Play it please, Jess.
But if you had been Attorney General in, say, the 1950s in a state that did not allow interracial marriage, do you think the proper role of an Attorney General then was to not put himself or herself into the mix and say this is wrong?
even even yeah it is
and and and I understand the argument your job is to uphold the law even if it's something that we might look back in the future as a observer it might be distasteful to me okay but that's but right I appreciate your
answer
I gotta stay consistent with that as the state's lawyer I it's not my job to pick and choose
Number one, sure it is.
He is kind of your job to pick and choose the prosecutorial discretion.
And number two, I think, Oh man, I mean, if I was attorney general in Alabama back during slavery, I mean, I'd really, I'd really not like to, you know, punish these slaves, but it's the law.
It's
It is outrage.
And again, even if it was 10 or 11 years ago, even it was 10 months ago, it doesn't make a difference.
Frankly, go back much longer than that.
Here's your Supreme Court bit for the day, which is 1967, Brad.
I suspect you
may have been born then.
I don't know exactly what your age is, but somewhere right around there.
And the Supreme Court said, yes, let's all put our hands together unanimously, unanimously, that under our constitutions, but around that time, not quite 250 years as it is today, unanimously establishing a privacy right to marriage as you want it, interracial marriage.
Every single member of the Supreme Court, including people appointed by Republican presidents, Democratic presidents,
This is a timeless issue.
The Supreme Court at that time was catching up candidly with civil rights in America and saying, no, no.
Again, it has the wonderful name of loving versus Virginia is the name of the case.
And Brad Schimmel, even of latest says 10 years ago, whenever he recorded that, the response should have been that we live in the time in which we live.
I am proud to embrace the notion of privacy rights.
Everyone has a right to live as they want to live, marry who they want to live with, love who they want to live.
That's the appropriate affirmation.
And this notion is something we have to be consistent and cannot, as you just said, cannot, as the Attorney General, be an advocate for appropriate change that delivers justice, due process, equal protection under the law.
That's the commission.
That's the oath of office that you take, Mr. Attorney General.
completely wrong, Brad, and it's appropriate to raise it again because, again, not so long ago, that kind of mindset is also the mindset that's running right now to be on our Supreme Court in 2025.
Schimel says, well, the law might be distasteful, but it's not that.
The law blatantly goes against our U.S.
Constitution.
So is this not a case where if you're trying to become the chief law officer of a state, you have to come out and say, no, I will obey the US Constitution.
And if my state's law goes against that, you better be damn sure I will challenge it.
And that is exactly, you need to teach law school yourself, among many other things, and that's exactly right.
That's precisely what an attorney general should be doing, ensuring once again that the fundamental principles that are in our Wisconsin Constitution about due process and equal protection, in addition to our federal Constitution, are upheld.
We often talk, it is overstated, but the arc of justice is long, and yes, we continue to move in the right direction.
You've got to be the one as the people's lawyer who's out there advocating for greater civil rights, greater human rights.
That's the commission that you take distasteful.
Again, that's the cynicism that I'm talking about.
That's the appeal to those people who just don't like that notion.
that there may be people of different races who are marrying.
Frankly, we know, again, Obergefell years later, people of the same sex marriages who are marrying, that sort of thing.
That's an application to their inappropriate response, which is, eh, I just don't like that.
He's basically sanctioning those people who would turn back loving versus Virginia and Obergefell and Windsor and all the other cases of talk about privacy rights in America.
Not the least of which, of course, is Dobbs, right?
Overturning Roe versus Wade, the ultimate privacy right case in American jurisprudence.
Right.
And to the extent, frankly, to take this one step further, you know, I suspect that our, this present candidate for the Supreme Court,
He hasn't spoken on this directly, but certainly there's an analogy very recently to Clarence Thomas, right?
This is a guy in a concurrence just in the last term I said, you know, maybe we need to visit now only these privacy rights issues but also Brown versus Board of Education Supreme Court Justice said that and one has to wonder out loud if indeed with that kind of encouragement that seed being planted that's also when you say well gee
Maybe we should go back to a time when, again, there was not equality and we did not have something approaching equality in America.
Yeah, we don't we don't have it now and we endeavor more so than we did before But you can't tell me we're there and to think we're gonna go back.
I mean look what they're trying to do with the schools I mean a lot of the work of the Department of Education is to address those kinds of issues and they don't like that and they want to sell their kids to these private schools But they want to pay for it.
They want to use some tax dollars.
They got all sorts of problems But Jim I digress 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 I believe that's the BS update for the day indeed.
All right Cindy
from Appleton.
You are next.
Welcome, Cindy.
What do you
got for us?
Well, first of all, I just like to say keep calling him BS and that's what he's full of and his age 12.
at
in my
Well, my question is for Jim Santel My ears picked up this morning when I heard this first on the news The same as jeans did
When he is asking for all these people to say that they disagree with the activist judges and say 500 or 1,000 people are available enough to take the $100, what happens when Trump takes his appeal against these judges to the Supreme Court?
And they don't necessarily use the information per se, the people's names, et cetera, but they use the amount of people.
And this happens in state after state after state.
Wisconsin's just the first one to go.
What happens then?
Here's more Supreme Court wonkiness from Jim Santel Which is you're talking probably about a brand-dice brief It's after a Supreme Court justice and it is you as you've got to just write Ali on a regular basis That may be the other reason for doing this lawyers can in fact look to statistics They look to the things that are out there.
They're not so much legal arguments as much as they are
This is what the population of America is all about.
I'm going to give you some information that will hopefully animate your decision.
And one has to wonder if these kinds of antics involving getting, again, a petition and saying, gosh, in Wisconsin, there are 1,000.
There are 10,000 people who believe strongly on this.
That can end up in a brief to the Supreme Court.
as an attempt to try to persuade them of a particular view.
And so, yes indeed, a Brandeis brief, there's your word for it.
And it usually used for positive purposes to advance civil rights, but can also be used again for inappropriate purposes if lawyers choose to do so and parties choose to do so.
That's the challenge.
know what I
Hey, I got a bunch of people
I paid that agree with me about X, Y, or Z. We better do something about, oh, of course, that's a bunch of bull, right?
I mean, but how do you distinguish that?
I mean, if that were to come around.
And the other thing, could this be used if not necessarily to Ali's point in a court case, but to impeach the judge?
All those kinds of things.
You go on the floor of the House of Representatives right across the parking lot and you say, look, in the state of Wisconsin, we've got all these people who are outraged by this.
We've got to vote to impeach.
You fill in the name of the federal judge.
Absolutely.
The arguably good news with a very small G is that, yes, if you drop that footnote about what's going on in Wisconsin, you better be sure that the opposing side is going to say,
members of the Supreme Court, this was purchased and they will also do their own version of a Brandeis brief and explain how it is that that particular little package of information should be discarded in their deliberation.
You know, I just, I just keep thinking, you know, the, the, the Budweiser distributor, the driver is not drinking Miller products.
You know what I mean?
And what was, it was the Hertz sir.
I forget what he was, but they're not driving the other car.
You know, when you're a paid endorser of a thing, it really is a whole different animal than if it's something organic.
And my humble opinion, folks, come back with us.
Give us your humble or not so humble opinions.
Welcome here.
Eight, five, five, seven, five.
to 484-855-75 Civic.
Lots to get to today, but we'll take your calls next.
And welcome back to the Dom Salvia show.
Happy Friday to us all.
Join us on the lines 8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2 hanging out with just PS on the board.
James.
Santel host of amicus the law review joining me today check his show tomorrow on Saturday 9 to 11 a.m.
Thank you Jim got a callers Let's get to them and lots of topics to get to Federal judges.
Are they gonna go after Donald Trump law firms some of her standing up some of her paying off what is happening there?
They're not they're not they're not
selling out.
They're buying in, Jim.
It's called
And of course, I've been harping all the way trying to get to the point of what's going on with the Democratic Party.
Who's the leadership?
Who are we talking about?
What's the effort?
We're going to get there in the next hour as well.
But in the meantime, we'll get these callers, 855-752-4842.
Joe from Madison, you are next.
Welcome.
What do you got, Joe?
I really want to applaud you for making this change.
I think prompted by Chris yesterday, but to refer to Mr. Schimel is just simply BS.
Yes.
describe him.
He's BS boy.
And let us continue that as we go up to the election because the guy is.
full of it, and his being full of it has real-life ramifications.
I want to return to that issue of the rape kit.
There's an article that people can look at called, titled, it's from January 29, 2025, Urban Milwaukee.
You can find it online.
Title is, Shimo Haunted by Rape Kit Issue.
I would hope that the guy never gets an ounce of sleep for the rest of his pathetic life after reading this.
It is in raging.
He was elected, okay.
He's elected Attorney General in 2015.
All right, 2015.
is a backlog of over 6,000 rape kits sitting there.
In September, he gets federal money of, I believe it is $4 million at that time to go ahead and start processing these rape kits.
And he has a nice little press release he reveals.
Isn't that nice?
A year later, Appleton Post Crescent reports that he hasn't processed one single rape kit.
$4 million, 6,000 rape kits, zero.
Then we get another federal grant for another million dollars.
So he's got $5 million to address this problem of the untested rape kits.
And what does he do?
He sits on it.
He said his office says he's tested hundreds.
Two days later, his spokesperson has to say,
It's just nine that have been processed.
Nine in two years.
This is the level of competence we are going to be getting if Brad Schimmel is back in our lives.
He is a BS artist of the most immense proportions, and this matters people.
It's like 25% of those people who are sexual offenders re-offend.
So those untested rape kits, man, that's your daughter, your girlfriend, your wife, your friends.
Think about it.
Do you want to have this level of incompetence in your life?
BS Boy is the way to describe them and pathetic performance.
Anybody who had a performance like that in their private life, private job would be, they'd be canned.
They'd be absolutely canned.
This is pathetic.
BS Boy is the way to describe them.
Thanks,
And Joe, it is about competence.
You're right.
You do have to be competent to serve on a Supreme Court.
There's something administrative about that.
I'm going to pluck up and pursue your second portion of your comment, which is it's about the victims, right?
And as a member of the Supreme Court, yes, you can't do things to the southern border.
You can't make the cities necessarily safe or all those other things.
But you can, in fact, enforce laws and you're presiding over cases, challenging criminal convictions, sentences, all kinds of things in which victims are involved.
And if you've got that careless.
kind of devil may care attitude when it comes to preserving the rights of victims of sexual assault and rape in Wisconsin.
When you're sitting on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, what is your attitude about all kinds of victims?
Yes, sexual assault victims at the top of list, but also human trafficking, sex trafficking, youth, adults, all monetary victims, white collar victims, all kinds of things.
That is a major role that the Supreme Court has got to embrace.
And they enforce it all the time.
That too is a very important thing when you think about who you want to put on that bench.
That is James Santel and Joe.
Great call.
Thank you for again, reminding us that it is, it is shameful that that was the.
reaction to an attorney general for that many rape kits and to come out and get the money and then to lie about it and then, you know, finally get it done.
But let's, what, what did he do in the meantime?
Oh, I remember he spent like 10 grand on the kick and ass everyday coins, man.
Apparently he loved to sign off on his emails with KAED.
So he took $10,000 to an out of state firm to make up these little commemorative coins because that's important.
And I will tell you how offended most United States attorneys, and frankly, I would say most other prosecutors around the country were when that came out too.
Prosecutor's role is not to forgive the language, once again, kick ass.
That's not the role of a prosecutor.
Prosecutor's role is to preserve the safety and security of the community.
And yes, along the way, we prosecute crimes.
We ensure that people, if they have in fact committed violent crimes,
probably spend some time in jail.
That's the purpose, not to get after people and kick ass.
Again, it expresses, it reveals an attitude that you do not want.
on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Cause I kick all the ass and take all the names.
That was your New Year's resolution.
And I think you're living up to it.
Thank you so much.
Folks, you're listening to the Dom Salvia show.
I got, and someone got some callers here.
So stick around.
We'll take you on the other side, uh, prior to getting into some of these other topics, James Santel, host of amicus, a law review going to stick around for the whole next hour.
Jim, thank you so much for doing.
So really, really want to get your interpretation of what's going on on the federal bench with these, these
cases against Donald Trump and the Department of Justice used to work there, right?
And what they are saying, what they are saying, telling the judge that you're beating a dead horse.
I mean, is that some, is that the kind of talk you have in federal court?
I just think, man, it sounds like these, these, these prosecutors sound like me sometimes.
Come back with us folks, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five civic.