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 happy Friday to us all folks We made it and you'd be a part of this fine production 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 8 5 5 7 5 Civic got just ps on the board and James Santel host of amicus a law review joining me co-host
for today.
You could check out his fine program tomorrow on Saturdays nine to 11.
Jim, welcome to the show.
I
was delighted to be with you on a good Friday afternoon.
The sun is shining.
The sky is blue.
The orange and palm trees.
Oh,
no, that's too much.
Right.
Close.
Close.
My car said 78 on the way down here today.
It was it was amazing.
What else is amazing?
Our break into spring text to win statewide contest.
Today's keyword.
Splash!
Splash!
Very chance to win a hundred bucks
cash!
Hey!
Cool, honey!
So download the Civic Media app, find your favorite Civic Media radio station, use the text bottom.
button at the bottom of the screen to text the keyword splash we're gonna make a splash it's so hot today when I go splash in the lake actually that one is gonna be really cold so you know the role folks break into spring download the app and use the text
button to send in the word splash.
This will go on until five o'clock PM central time today.
So we'll remind you throughout the hour.
Uh, James Santel, former US attorney.
That means you're a law guy, you know, something about the law.
And I appreciate that.
Like bringing smarter people to me on this program.
Um,
It's a lot, once again.
Let's just begin with that.
Every
single broadcast, my friend.
It's a lot.
Well, when this administration is specifically going after the judiciary, we're going to have lots of legal discussions.
And when this administration puts forth a blizzard of unconstitutional executive orders,
throwing the stuff at the wall just to see what sticks, we're gonna have to assume there's going to be talk about legal discussions and the role and the reach of the executive branch and the judicial branch and so on and so forth.
And we have to talk about the Constitution.
What?
The Constitution.
We still have that?
We should introduce that into the Oval Office,
perhaps the president.
I know he wants the Declaration of Independence there in his Oval Office.
Maybe we should introduce the Constitution and ask him
just to
read it.
It would take just, well, I don't know how quick.
He reads, but would not take that long to do a read through.
We can get him an audio book.
There you go.
Exactly.
Right.
Right.
And of course, the money in the politics, Jim.
And we had Judge Susan Crawford on yesterday, of course, running for Wisconsin's Supreme Court race against BS.
We know that guy and Elon Musk waiting into this.
Guys already spent, I guess, upwards about.
20 million dollars of his money front group money America this and whatever that Race
that I'm told anyway is for an excess of 80 million dollars now on both sides 80
million dollars and then we still got another four days to go here Listen, but this is a big spending weekend right?
You're gonna try to watch the brewers came this weekend might want to pause during the commercials
a few
minutes,
just turn the commercials off, except on civic media, play all the commercials here.
And now Elon Musk is, is waiting in even more.
The news as it stands right now, Milwaukee general Sentinel reporting, Molly Beck and Allison Durr, attorney general, Wisconsin attorney general, Josh call says he will take legal action against Elon Musk over his plans to award $1 million checks to two Wisconsin voters ahead of Tuesday's pivotal state Supreme court election.
Remember, vote judge Susan Crawford.
In a since deleted post, that was deleted.
This is interesting, why would he delete it?
Which
is sometimes an acknowledgement that maybe that was a mistake,
right?
He said Musk in the since deleted post said that he would hold an event Sunday in Wisconsin and hand out one million dollar checks to voters, quote, in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.
We appreciate your vote, here's a million dollars.
But!
But after election experts and Democrats raised questions about whether the offer violated the state's election bribery laws, Musk deleted the post and said he would instead be handing over the checks to two people who would serve as spokespeople for his petition in opposition to activist judges.
The post also no longer said attendance would be limited to those who have voted in the Supreme Court election as the original post stated.
Must grow to clarify your previous post I take it all back Entrance is limited to those who have assigned the petition in opposition to activist judges I will also hand overchecks for a million dollars to two people to be spokesman for the petition
The Wisconsin, here's what Josh Call had to say, the Wisconsin Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that elections in Wisconsin are safe, secure, free, and fair.
We are aware of the offer recently posted by Elon Musk to award a million dollars to two people at an event in Wisconsin this weekend based on our understanding of applicable Wisconsin law we intend to take legal action today to seek a court order to stop this from happening.
James Santel, you know what I know, what are your thoughts at the first blush?
It
certainly does sound like election bribery, right?
And we've got a number of different things here.
We've got state laws, we're playing the federal laws.
I always think about the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which plainly prevents, generally it's not this general, but generally when it comes to elections, money shouldn't be changing hands.
That's the basic concept behind all this.
You wanna pay people to vote, you don't wanna have to assess people, money to vote.
None of that should happen.
And the state laws, again,
Attorney General invoking this notion that there should not be bribery when it comes to getting people to vote, incentives, all those kinds of things.
And one of the challenges here is because, as you just said, Dom, we've got a moving...
proposal here, right?
We've got first in a statement that I'm gonna hand out checks, then I'm gonna go through a second party.
I don't know that that insulates you aside from simply
expanding
the nature of the conspiracy, right?
It adds more defendants to the criminal complaint.
Doesn't necessarily mean that you're not involved in that anymore, right?
That doesn't do that as a basic legal principle.
But there's so many aspects of this.
How is this going to happen?
What exactly do you expect?
What exactly do you expect from the people who are getting these $1 million checks?
Are you and of course implicitly if not explicitly the notion is that you have or you will vote for
the non Susan
Crawford candidate,
right?
And, and that again, judges often say, you know, I may have been born on the night, but I wasn't born last night, right?
That's the common phrase these days.
You need to look at all this and figure out exactly what is it?
What are you doing?
Elon Musk, whether it's directly through these other people, if there is money being exchanged in connection with voting, that raises a red flag, a strict scrutiny, higher scrutiny for that generally.
What is the expectation?
Are you basic?
bribing people to get their vote.
If that is the case, and that's the finding of a judge in an injunctive proceeding, which could happen tonight, tomorrow, Sunday, whenever this is going to go forward, then you've got a real problem here.
If, on the other hand, you are simply saying, hey, I want to encourage people to come and enjoy my rally here, that may be a different thing.
We know that that's not really going on here, and that's the challenge, that's the problem.
Apparently, illegal filing in Dane County Circuit Court today call accused Musk of attempting to buy votes through a high-profile social media campaign promising cash.
I believe this has been filed, right?
And I've also seen, as our audience is texting into me today, that it looks like Susan Crawford was initially assigned the case.
It's already been reassigned to Andrew Voight.
Right?
Do
we have any recusal rules we do?
And thankfully, once again, I'm sure that that she was very quick to indicate that listen, this
is why would most have a problem with that?
You know, we were if we want a responsive judiciary, right?
I mean, if Susan Crawford should take that case, you know, demand must show up today.
And then if he doesn't, you know, she can put out an order for his arrest.
I mean, why not?
I guess in these situations, I would think to myself, what would Trump do?
Right?
Or what
remembers, at
least two members of the Supreme Court do.
Their names are Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas when it comes to recusals.
We know we've had some problems there, some cases over which they should not have been presiding.
Why?
Because you've got, in that instance, friends, allies on the other side, but playing the opponents on one side of the case.
So again,
it is, it is a small bit of refreshing news inside this other very troubling.
Very very troubling action by Elon Musk that we again have a a a judicial officer who name is Susan
Crawford She is
a Wisconsin circuit court judge for Dane County who has said no no I should not be presiding over this I'm sure that the clerk of court there again as you indicated promptly reassigned it and that should happen But the larger issue is still when this gets to the judge what happened here?
What are you anticipating and if you did indeed paying people for their votes?
There should be an injunction
order, a temporary restraining order, frankly, a permanent restraining order preventing that kind of thing from happening, whether it's Sunday, Monday, heaven forbid, Tuesday.
As PJ points out on the YouTube, a restraining order was filed this afternoon around three PM.
I gave out the case number.
You can find it on Wisconsin's C cap.
And I did pull it up.
Thank you, PJ.
Dane County case two, zero, two, five, CV, zero, zero, one, zero, eight, seven, Josh call et al versus Elon Musk.
Uh, responsible fish shoe and roof.
Oh, damn.
Come
on,
season Crawford should have pulled that one.
Uh, the plaintiff, of course, Josh called defendant Elon Musk.
Another plaintiff as it listed here is America pack.
Um, interesting.
All right.
So there we go.
Uh, just call is on it and I'm down, man.
I've, but what about, how does this pertain to the other $100 thing that he's doing to sign the petition?
Right?
Give me a hundred bucks to sign the petition.
I've been, I kind of, you know, just kind of philosophically.
toyed with this idea.
Do you take the money and sign whatever you want for the hundred bucks?
I thought, well, nothing's worth the hundred bucks.
Not to play with those cats, man.
I don't like those guys.
I want nothing to do with those guys.
Your name is still in a document in perpetuity.
This is what I'm saying, man.
Oh, you took the Elon Musk money.
That could be a bad thing someday.
And I think it is a bad thing.
But
is that illegal?
Probably not right.
I mean that this is the point if I come to you and Justin say you know what?
Traffic is heavy out there on I-94 this afternoon Let's have a petition to add an additional lane to I-94 so we can get back and forth more quickly And I say listen in just to sign off on this I'm gonna give you a $50 because you too have an interest in this Probably nothing illegal in putting together a private petition when it gets inside government Obviously, then you've got an entirely different set of circumstances the larger issue even with the $100 on this is presumably going to
this to some government office, maybe a court at some point and say, look, all these people agree with me on this, and the question's going to be, and how do we know who these people are?
Well, the answer is I paid them all $100.
It
completely throws out the legitimacy of that petition.
If that is the point of the petition versus buying all of your information and tying you now forever and ever and ever.
to Elon Musk and Donald Trump and the mega circus that it is.
Folks are listening to the Dom Salvi show, James Santel going to be sticking around with me all day today, just PS working on the board, going to take your calls coming up next, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five civic might surprise you.
The Ron Johnson and Wisconsin Republicans, they back a move to limit judicial power to block Trump.
Of course they do.
Come back with us.
And welcome back to the Dom Salvia show eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five Civic it's our break into spring text to win the statewide Contest your chance to win a hundred dollars cool cash download Civic media app find your favorite radio station use the text button at the bottom of the screen and send in the keyword here it is folks splash SPL a SH make it a splash here in Wisconsin
Join us on the lines 8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2.
We'll get to you, callers.
Momentarily, James Santel, host of Amicus Law Review, his show on Saturdays 9 to 11 am.
Stick with me until the 6 o'clock hour.
Jess PPS working hard on the board.
Some of the textures out there jumping in.
TJ from Oshkosh.
Anyone who signed the petition not to vote for activist judges.
Uh, can't vote for BS now because he's an activist judge for muscle control.
Oh, I don't know if they get that TJ, but I see what you're saying.
Our pal Dana from La Crosse.
I am predicting that Elon's little bribery tour is going to backfire on him.
I hope it discuss enough people and it will turn out the anti-Elon vote.
Hopefully.
Hopefully.
And by the way, you can still go into the judge's court, whether that's tonight, tomorrow and say.
You know what, Your Honor?
We've decided to shut down the entire operation.
We've thought better of it.
And we're just gonna encourage generally people to vote.
If you say that to the judge, he'll say, any objection to the dismissal of this action for a preliminary injunction, the answer should be no, and we'll be done with it.
So again, Elon has the capacity, if indeed, the caller here is right, to bring this all to a conclusion once I was almost about to say Dom,
calmer, more sane
minds.
apply here, but the, but that could happen if indeed somebody gets, gets into this year and says, we really can't be doing this.
But I get the impression that folks like Elon Musk and Donald Trump don't like being told no,
no,
absolutely.
And do not back down.
That's a part
of the playbook.
And I got money.
So I'm just going to spend it.
And we're going to, this is what we're, I mean, this is the attitude, right?
I mean, to hell with what the actual
Rules are the actual laws are what the point of not even what the laws are.
What's the point of the law?
What's the spirit?
What are we trying to accomplish right by doing these things by not allowing?
You know folks like Elon Musk to go bribe people to vote for Brad Schimel so he can get his four dealerships in the state of Wisconsin, right
exactly
And we see that approach, not only in the litigation, but beyond it, right?
It is, you deny that you've done anything wrong.
I think we'll talk about that signal case, right?
You deny that you've done anything wrong.
If in fact, there is some acknowledgement of something that happened, you minimize it dramatically.
You say it has no impact whatsoever.
You blame other people for it, which we're already seeing.
Coffee boys.
Exactly.
Somebody else did this.
And oh, by the way, the other side, whoever those people are, are wildly overreacting.
And they're the problem, right?
They're the problem.
That four-part approach to all this, probably a foot here once again.
Is there a fifth part, kill the messenger,
blame Jeffrey Goldberg?
And what was he doing in there?
It probably has five or six or seven different parts.
If you look at all the sub parts to it, all the footnotes along the way.
Eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, Dale from Wausau.
You are up.
Welcome, Dale.
Happy Friday, buddy.
What do you got for us?
Yeah, thanks, Dom.
With all this money that's coming into the state for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, it's from Musk.
And you know, the mafia will entice you to do what they want by paying you a lot of money.
If after they pay you that money, you don't do what they want, they will threaten your life and the life of your family.
So it amounts to a two-stage process.
They will bribe you and tice you with money to begin with.
The second stage is...
If you don't do what they want, they will entice you with extortion.
Yeah, it always starts out great Dale Ray.
Hey, you have something I'll take some of that money.
We've seen the movies.
We know how that works
out and Mario Puzo wrote about this extensively and Francis Ford Coppola
gave us
some movies that described exactly that.
That's basically the plot of all of those.
Absolutely.
And what a shame.
What a shame it is that America 2025 we are now commonly describing our president and the White House not only as a bully.
but an extortionist, we're comparing him legitimately based upon the things he is doing to mafia.
You know, I have conversations and the folks will tell me, ask me, help this make sense to me.
Make this make sense to me.
And my reaction is always, don't think about this as politics.
Think about him as a gangster.
You look at it in a gangster perspective, it makes absolutely
total sense.
You look at the extortion.
We're going to talk about some of these law firms that were targets of these executive orders.
Some of them are fighting back.
Some of them are
acquiescing.
They're
acquiescing $40 million here.
$100 million.
Another one.
We'll get to that as well.
855-752-484-2855-75 civic in that regard.
Let's talk about the judiciary.
Ron Johnson and Wisconsin Republicans, they're down.
They think they've got to live at this judicial power that it's blocking Trump.
Ron Johnson told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the judiciary, quote, is overstepping its constitutional bounds, unquote, by declaring Trump actions unconstitutional.
Let's just stop there for a moment, if we may.
Counselor.
Senator Johnson says the judiciary is overstepping its constitutional bounds by declaring Trump actions unconstitutional.
If Trump's actions are unconstitutional, aren't they
doing their job?
Absolutely.
And this goes back again to the very early 1800s when we had a Supreme Court justice who said, it's decidedly our province.
It's decidedly the province of the judiciary to tell you what the law is.
That's Marbury versus Madison.
Everybody knows that.
I'm hoping that Senator Johnson remembers that.
If not, maybe he's listening to this program and can go back and take a look at that once again.
That has been the rule of law.
Once again, capital R, capital L in our nation ever since then.
And let's also remember, I know that right now they're not happy with these judges who are looking at the president saying you can't do these things.
Remember as well, that there have been other times when Oh, a fellow named Joe Biden and a fellow named Barack Obama have also issued executive orders.
Remember the executive order that Joe Biden issued during the course of COVID saying,
Every single company that has more than a hundred people needs to certify that you've got Testing going on all that sort of thing what what happened the Supreme Court came back and said you can't do it unconstitutional too big too new major major questions doctrine is the longest it happens all the time I was hoping that maybe senator Johnson would harken back to that and recognize He was totally fine with
the the overstepping of the constitutional bonds
in another
president right that in that case the court did the right thing right but not in this case and this is what we see everything
that goes against drop is is overstepping and everything that is for Trump is Oh, it's totally right.
I mean, but this is this is this is how it is and we We know the difference come back with us taking your calls and more 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 James Santel just PS not a beautiful Friday in the MKE
Welcome back to the Dom salvia show 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 8 5 5 7 5 civic It's a break into spring text to win statewide contest here at civic media today's word is splash Make it a splash so download the civic media app find your favorite radio station use the text button at the bottom and Send the keyword splash for your chance to win today's Contest 100 bucks cash $100 cash cash is king
So you
don't even have to sign a petition for
it.
Nice.
But
you
do got to double the app.
That is true.
And send the keyword splash to get the cash.
That's how we roll.
James Santel, former US Attorney, host of his own fine program, amicus, a law review, broadcasting right here on the Civic Media Radio Network on Saturdays, 9 to 11 a.m.
Of course, just PS on the board with us as well.
Callers and textures we do see will get you momentarily want to throw a little bit more out there on this particular article.
As mentioned, Ron John.
saying today that the judiciary is overstepping its constitutional bounds by declaring Trump's actions unconstitutional and again declaring Trump's unconstitutional actions unconstitutional seems not to overstem their constitutional bounds seems to actually go along with what they're supposed to be doing Mr. Santel
absolutely we take a look at things that the legislature has done the executive branch has done and we determine whether or not
That is consistent with what?
Again, this is the other part of this.
People who are so focused as we can all be on the founding fathers, right?
What did our founding fathers anticipate?
What did they expect?
The focus of all of that is on the fundamental notions of government that were established by our founding fathers.
If you believe in the tradition of America, you believe in courts, you believe that, and you know what you can do, and we've talked about this before, Dom, I can say, you know what?
I think the judges come to the wrong conclusion about that.
I apply the standards, I look at the facts, and I think, gee, maybe that injunction should not have been entered, or I think the judgment of the jury was wrong.
We do that all the time.
the First Amendment that's protected, right?
The difference and the line that's being crossed here by Ron Johnson and everybody else who takes these attacks is they're going to the basic authority of the judiciary to act in the first place, to show up for work in the morning, right?
And to say, you know what, I've got the authority to preside over this adversarial system we call justice.
They're attacking the very capacity of judicial officers, men, women across the board, district court judges, appellate court judges, arguably even the support
the Supreme Court to do what we command, we expect that they do by virtue of their oath of office.
That's the problem.
We can disagree with them, and that's fine, but that notion that they do not have the authority, I think maybe the things we're gonna hear from Pam this afternoon, that they don't have the power.
No, no, Madam Attorney General, that is completely wrong.
And again, you went to a place called Stetson Law School in Florida.
I actually looked up
the
dean,
and I'm
thinking of sending him
a... You should absolutely do
that.
A tersely word of letter saying, here are the things that your graduate has said.
Is this what you're teaching at the Stetson Law School in Florida?
And if so, we need to talk about the ABA accreditation of your law school.
I didn't know a hat manufacturer and had a law school.
752-484-2855, 75 Civic.
Aaron Johnson continued on his tirade.
They've got to discipline.
They've got to put some guardrails around this.
This is getting completely out of control.
Yeah, your guy's getting completely out of control and he's getting his unconstitutional executive orders.
Tossed out.
Not all of them.
It's not across the
board.
Absolutely.
There's some judges out there, including Tanya Chotkin, who from time to time has said, no, no, I'm not going to do this.
That's a bridge too far.
But again, Senator Johnson, that's our system of government.
And frankly, if you agree with the notion there are checks and balances, Senator, that this is one of this is how it works.
And then as the Chief Justice has said recently, unhappy with it.
What do you do?
You don't call for the impeachment of the judges.
You don't call for them to stand down.
You appeal their decisions.
And at some point then somebody says, and right now it's the Supreme Court that's probably gonna give you an awful lot of what you want in the end.
The Supreme Court in the end will be the final word on these things.
That's our process.
Stop it, knock it off.
They cannot help themselves, Jim.
In interviews on Thursday, Wisconsin top Republicans on Capitol Hill expressed support for limiting the power of district judges and left open the door for punishing judges they see as hindering Trump's agenda.
Now, Johnson said in a brief interview that the issue is something the Supreme Court, Roberts, quote, ought to take care of.
He said the US Supreme Court needs to slap down these district judges and limit their powers to issue statewide stays.
Now, Ron Johnson said that.
Now, I'm thinking to myself, well, what other stays have judges put down?
that perhaps Republicans would support, Jim.
Can you think of any?
We were just chatting over the break, you and I and Jess, about one that's, again, we talked about from this very place, right?
Your call at a time, it still is a hot issue in America, it's abortion.
And there's a drug called Mipha Pristone.
We all remember that
one, right?
It's one of
the two principal drugs that are used in providing those reproductive services.
Commonplace, we know the FDA, 25, almost 30 years of safety testing, we know it's been good.
There was a judge, Northern District
Texas, named Kazmerick.
appointed by Donald Trump, who unilaterally found, again, based upon his review of some articles, clearly contrary to what the FDA
did.
He did his own research.
He did his
own research, found some articles, footnote, the articles subsequently withdrawn that no peer review of those and discredited.
But what does he do, putting aside the merits of what he did?
He followed up the
internet,
too.
Right, he
did, right?
And what Judge Kesmerich, Federal District Court Judge Kesmerich did, he's got lifetime tenure, as do all of them, as he said, nation
wide ban on Mithopristone.
And you recall the time, right?
This was a time when an awful lot of people looked at this and said for various reproductive reasons, other reasons.
This is a drug that is safe.
A federal district court judge entered an injunctive order preventing the FDA from going ahead with this.
I don't know that.
that my senator, my senior senator at that time
was
animated about that particular
issue.
And frankly,
this is one of them we all remember.
We can with a little bit, not much study, we can come up with 10, 15, 20 of these in Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, where again, federal district court judges will do things.
Frankly, at the same time, there was another judge, remember this in Washington, went in the opposite direction.
So we've got, and he applied his order to just those particular attorneys.
general who are appearing in front of them.
We do this all the time.
What is the remedy for that?
We go to the appeals
court, right?
And Senator Johnson, what a great opportunity this would be to teach us all some civics and affirm what the Supreme Court Chief Justice has said.
Go up to, these should be appealed.
I disagree with the opinion.
Let's pursue this to the Fifth Circuit, to the DC Circuit.
Let's do that.
That's happening right now.
don't simply call basically, basically threatening these judges, which is a part of this style as well.
That behavior, that behavior is unconscionable.
Folks are listening to the Dom Salvia show, that's James Santel, former U.S.
Attorney joining us for the day.
Jim, just on that basic premise, the thought that a federal district judge could put in an order and stop something nationwide, that certainly is a lot of power.
It is an awful lot of power.
Is there...
What's the reason for that?
I mean, well, should there be a limitation on that power?
I mean, I'm just saying this objectively, you know, Ron Johnson had no problem with the McPristone one.
He's got a problem with this.
I'm not looking at that from a political or situational.
I'm just saying as a general rule, why should a federal district judge have that much power?
Right.
And the answer is this once again, how often do we talk about reasonable people being able to disagree about reasonable things?
This is one of those.
You get some folks, frankly, on all sides of the political aisle, once again, who will say, you know, they should.
And if they do if there is a judge who doesn't plainly judges have jurisdiction over the parties in front of them I just made mention of the of the Washington case Well, he had in front of my forgot maybe 15 20 different states and he said okay I have jurisdiction over you my order is only going to extend to you We've seen that in other six circumstances recently District Court judges even an appeals court will say we're articulating this view But it only applies to those states within the sixth circuit the 11th circuit the 10th circuit
And then I think we can get a little better, our heads around that, right?
There are an awful lot of people who say that that shouldn't happen.
The idea on the other side, of course, is if there's a judge who is confronted with something, again, in the nature of a true emergency, that there is something that's discovered, the plutonium has been exposed, right, that sort of thing, the ones that are all used.
The bridge is burning, the flood is about to happen.
Maybe not a national catastrophe, but something big.
You've got to be able to invest in that one judge, the authority to...
to stop it and make it happen right away.
If he or she is wrong, that's why you run then right away to the court of appeals and go to the court of appeals and say, you know what, overstepping and that's where those arguments, they happen all the time in the seventh circuit, all the circuits and the appeal, the Supreme Court also wrestles with this routinely.
What is the breadth of a district court judge's power?
It all depends on the circumstances and also your sense, frankly, about what a federal district court judge should and should not do.
appeals court what should they do right and then ultimately we've got the Supreme Court I think we all agree
that the Supreme Court, they are the final voice on all of this, even though, again, we can disagree with them, but we're not calling for the dissolution of the Supreme Court, right?
Well, not yet, until they rule against Trump, and then you'll see, you're like, oh my God, who assigned all these hacks?
Oh, that's right.
Come on, the guy renegotiated after USMCA, and now he's complaining about the deal that he struck.
Well, yeah, the dingus who
said that.
That guy really screwed everybody over.
Mr. President, can I talk
to you about
something?
happened about five, six
years ago.
No, no one to hear about.
We're talking about, we're moving to Wisconsin forward.
Uh, rep Derek van Orden this month received the maximum $6,600 campaign donation from Elon Musk after calling for the impeachment of a New York judge.
Oh, imagine that.
Nothing nothing to do with each other whatsoever, you know, they had no idea nothing to do with it.
Nothing to do Let's get some of our colleagues have been patient eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five Civic Len from Madtown.
You are up.
Happy Friday Len.
Welcome.
What do you got for us?
I?
Hope you guys are doing well Hey, obviously a lot in the news today about Elon Musk, but I think we need to be cautious when it comes to criticizing him everybody complains about money and elections, but it's
In a way, it's disingenuous and it makes us look bad.
I mean Crawford has outraised and outspent Schimmel by at least double.
And there was an article in the Milwaukee Journal of Sentinel today saying that out of the tens of millions of dollars coming into this election from out of state, 77% is going to Crawford.
So we're fortunate that out of state interests are supporting Crawford and helping her outspend Schimmel.
But with Wisconsin's demographics, Crawford and Schimmel are running neck and neck.
If we keep focusing on Musk and complaining about quote-unquote fairness or a level playing field, and we get it, we might lose Wisconsin.
You know what?
Listen,
man, I hear what you're saying.
Um, but I think my position has been a lot of folks that we talked to was that it's, we don't want it on any side, man.
We don't want the left buying judges.
We don't want the right buying judges.
So I mean, and, and beyond that, there's nobody giving more as one singular person than Elon Musk.
You know, if you look at JB Pritzker, you look at George Soros, they're not giving, you know, $20 million, man.
They're not playing this game where they're giving folks a hundred bucks to sign this petition against activist judges or actually going out there and saying,
and give you a million dollars in appreciation for your vote.
This is something beyond all of that.
And all of that was already bad, Len.
This is above and beyond.
If he's 10 times as much as George Soros, man, I mean, isn't that something at least worth mentioning?
I
think the reality is that Musk isn't even able to come close to closing the funding gap between them.
And I think we should just keep it that way and win as much as we can without disturbing the rules.
that allow us to keep doing that.
Man, I hear what you're saying.
And I'm thankful that, at least at these last couple of election cycles, the Dems have been raising pretty good money.
Thank you, Ben Wickler and team.
But, you know, this is, I think everybody, Tom said, you know, they built the sandbox.
We're just playing in it.
You know what I'm saying?
I'd rather not have the sandbox.
There's also an important note.
I did look up that journal Sentinel article then and 77% of Crawford's donors.
are from out of state, not the funds raised.
The number of physical
individual donors.
She has far more individual donors, whereas 15% of Schimel's donors are out of state.
However, Musk has contributed over a full quarter.
25% of all of the funding of this race is coming from one man.
That's something to talk about.
And that is...
Len, and I know, I know, I know what you're saying, dude.
I really do.
And I appreciate your call.
I appreciate you listening.
We need to move beyond this and to have 25% of a hundred million dollars or 80 million, it'll be a hundred million by the time Tuesday rolls around coming from the richest man in the world who's trying to open up some dealerships.
It's got to be talked about.
Uh, and, and it got to be talked about in, in a couple of levels, certainly the money in politics, the influence, the buying of a Wisconsin Supreme court justice.
Uh, yeah, those are things to talk about.
Speaking of justice.
The Department of Justice, Pam Bondi.
Well, she's got some thoughts about our runaway judiciary as well.
She's your attorney general, by the way, just to let you know that.
Thank you.
Come back with us.
Welcome back to the Dom Salvia show.
Happy Friday to us all.
Join us 855-752-484-2855.
75 civic it's the break into spring text-to-win statewide Contest only go until 5 o'clock p.m.
Central folks today's super secret keyword is Splash Splash Download the civic media app find your favorite radio station hit the text button at the bottom and send the keyword splash for your chance to win today's statewide Contest $100 in cash so text over splash take the cash
All right, that's enough.
And we go till 5 o'clock P.M.
Central.
So good luck to you all.
We appreciate you playing along with us.
855-752-4842.
855-75 Civic.
I'll get to the college momentarily.
We talked about Derek Van Orden getting the maximum payout.
Now, he was the first member of the Republican conference to file an impeachment resolution against a district judge.
Van Orden called for the impeachment of Judge Earl Inglemeyer, a district judge from New York, who attempted to limit the Musk-led department of government efficiencies access to sensitive treasury department data.
Musk later donated the maximum campaign donation for an individual to Van Orden, as well as several other Republicans who filed similar resolutions.
So the word's up, right?
If you filed an impeachment resolution, boom, Musk is
going to pay you.
This is the transactional part of this,
right?
I'm elected to Congress, and I know that my particular article of impeachment is not going anywhere unlikely.
Again, to his credit, Mike Johnson, which I don't often say, Speaker of the House of Representatives, has said, I'm not going down the impeachment.
but any member of the 435 of them, they can all file their article, right?
And you get that out there and you issue a press release, right?
You express outrage.
about what this particular federal judge has done, and you get the attention of someone who can then give you money for your campaign.
That's the transactional part of it.
You know, to Len's good point before as well, and I'm not gonna say anything profound here, the fact that we're talking about $80 million, that is obscene.
That is obscene, right?
And we've got the Supreme Court to thank for that, right?
We've got some Wisconsin statutes as well on this, but this is Citizens United, right?
I know this is silly, I know people
roll the eyes when I say this, but wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a three month campaign
period
and every single week we would have the Crawfords and the Brad Schimels into the studios around the state and they'd show up at the women's clubs, the men's clubs, or across the state and they would debate consistently and they could spend
Give them a million dollars each for yard signs and that sort of thing.
And frankly, there are other countries, as you know well, who have limited this.
It reduces the overall wear and tear on all of us, but more importantly, it gets the money out of this.
And the things that Len and all of us are talking about, then we don't have to deal with that sort of inappropriate motive.
Jen is informing me, Schimel campaign raised $14 million in Wisconsin and around the country.
Musk and his group have spent over 20 million as an outside force.
Thank you for the clarity.
And my understanding as well, 77% of the donors, I'll have to stand in front of me.
We'll wait for Justin, come back with us.
We'll get the callers in the meantime, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, Ali from the Northwards.
You are up.
Welcome, Ali.
Happy Friday.
What do you got for
us?
I have a question about the
lawyers.
For Mr. Jim.
And my question is, when those lawyers give Trump $40,000 or a million dollars or whatever the total is in pro bono work, isn't that basically
payoff by them.
It certainly sounds
that way, doesn't
Ali?
And this is why, let's give them some names.
This is Paul Weiss Rifkin.
They're big law.
They're in New York, but they're around the world.
And these are the ones who are the first ones to capitulate a few days back.
And they said, well, we'll give you $40 million.
You tell us what, and pro bono legal services, Ali, you've got it just right.
You tell us what you'd like to work on, right?
And so, and then we've got Scannarps, right?
$100 million, presumed the same deal.
And if, for that, and, Ali, to your po-
This is the problem with it.
It sure sounds like a payoff.
It sure sounds like a deal, extortion.
Call it what you will, depending upon your perspective on this.
Who is making the deal?
Who is zooming?
Whom's, so to speak.
But the work of lawyers in America, I would say, around the world should not be...
Purchased right and you shouldn't be able to to number one You shouldn't be able to threaten them as the president United States of America to keep them out of the courthouses Think about that concept, right?
He's he's telling telling GSA when when the scat-narves the Paul Weiss attorneys Frankie the Perkins co-eternies Wilmer Hale general block when they show up at the at the front gate Keep them out.
Keep them out.
That's number one.
It's hard to do business when you defend your clients or advocate for your clients when you can't get in the room
when you can't get in the room and be doing other things present the president been doing this
And the way to get around that, the chief executive officer of Wilmer Hale or Jenren Block, pay me, basically, pay me some money for the clauses that I think are important and I will lift that restriction.
Like the Donald Trump defense fund.
You know, give to the fireman's ball.
8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2.
Let's squeeze one more in.
Robert from Eau Claire, you'll have the last word this hour.
Walk up, Robert.
What do you got?
Yeah, hey, I just wanted to thank you guys for doing the work that you do the details are so important and It's just such crazy times.
Yeah, I don't know how half those freaking people sleep it But you know, really how can they look them?
You know He or she look herself in the mirror, you know with regards to some of the stuff that's going on right now.
It's insane
It's all been done before.
I saw a woman at Tufts University and all I could think of were the brown shirt.
Yeah, that's terrible.
That's terrible.
Robert, we're gonna get into that in the next hour as well.
Thank you so much for listening.
Thank you for the very kind words.
Folks, come back with us.
James Santel, former U.S.
Attorney Jess P.S.
is on the board.
We're gonna get into Attorney General Pam Bondi and her concerns about these judges.
Come back with us.
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 happy Friday to us all 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 8 5 5 7 5 Civic got just PS working hard on the board James Santel former US Attorney host of amicus a law review broadcasting here on Saturdays as tomorrow From 9 to 11 a.m.
Check out his fine program Jim.
Thanks for coming around man.
Good to be with you again to talk about
It's a lot.
It's a lot.
It's
a
lot.
It's changed the name of the show to It's a Lot.
It's a lot.
Because it is a lot.
And we got a lot for you in this hour.
Pam Bondi.
She's your attorney general, by the
way.
She's your attorney general.
She's not my attorney general.
She's your attorney general.
The United States Senate confirmed her for that position, right?
Yes,
yes.
Just so you know.
If you were still in your old job, she would have been your boss.
She would have been my boss, absolutely.
And I will tell you, again, as an entree into this next segment here, I worked for, I believe it was nine different attorneys general, most of them Republican.
And the reality is that, again, you compare the things that those Republicans and
Democratic Attorneys General said, there's nothing like what we're getting from her these days.
Again, nothing even close.
She is a political operative in the Department of Justice, and it is shocking.
It is just shocking to see what she says, to hear what she says.
You're gonna love
this.
Jess, I got
the
sound.
Thank you so much for
your
hard work today for slicing and dicing up the Attorney General.
Let's hear what she had to say about these district judges.
Many judges need to be removed.
Judge Howell included, Judge Reyes, Judge Bostberg.
These judges obviously cannot be impartial.
They cannot be objective.
They are district judges trying to control our entire country, our entire country, and they're trying to obstruct Donald Trump's agenda.
Jim one for
his notes She was the one who said no no you can't stop transgender people from serving in the military.
That's what she said, right?
I'm James Bosberg obviously stopped the planes and we're still working on that as well Ellen Hollander.
She's from Maryland She was the one who said yeah, I can't get access to the social security stuff a theater Chang said USAID can't shutter them although
basically the agents used on.
So at least she's got her reference points correct, but there are an awful lot of them out there.
All of these people, all of these people, Attorney General Bondi, all of them have to be brought down, as that's what she's saying.
They need to be removed.
Of course, Bosberg also landed the signal case from American oversight, their lawsuit, which of course is random, literally random, and they have a problem with that.
Well, I mean, we saw just...
An hour ago that sometimes the random selection can land some pretty big coincidences with the case against Elon Musk getting
randomly assigned
to Susan
Crawford.
There was a certain lawsuit brought by a guy named Jack Smith.
It was a criminal case and it happened to be randomly assigned to a federal district court judge in the cylinders to Florida, her name Eileen Cannon.
We know with all that.
Wasn't that
randomly positive
for
Donald Trump?
And I don't remember Pam Bondy much like when we talked about the last hour, complaining about that Texas judge who ruled that mythopistrone could no longer be used before then.
So literally one guy,
national rule, and that stood until the appeal, right?
Absolutely.
And again, the Fifth Circuit did change that a bit.
It went up to the Supreme Court ultimately, and I know your listeners all know this.
Supreme Court basically said, ah, we don't want to get involved in abortion right now.
Found that there was no standing in the first place.
Kind of suggested, gee, Judge Kazmarek, maybe we should have thought about whether or not the people who were coming forward really had some skin in this game, as they say.
They did not.
And so sent it all back down.
And again, sounds like an activist judge.
And those were the members of the Supreme Court, a majority of those members.
And the good news, again, for your listeners, is that Mifepresto, until this day, remains accessible to Americans.
That's also the major drug used to treat Cushing's disease.
people please.
More from your Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and Laura Ingram, I guess this is who's doing the interview over at Don't Call It Fox News.
Cut number two, please.
Sure.
More on Judge Boseberg.
And Judge Boseberg is a busy judge.
He was assigned to the Signal Gate, which is such a ridiculous name, but the Signal Gate, which is a lawsuit filed by parties, which I'm not sure they have standing to file, but
President Trump calls it disgraceful that this judge, again, who's ruled against you on the trend or our Agua deportations, is now assigned to the signal case.
Your reaction tonight to that.
Laura, he has multiple cases.
I guess it's a wild coincidence against Donald Trump and our administration.
And now he has the signal case.
He shouldn't be on any of these cases.
He cannot be objective.
He's made that crystal clear.
You know, these judges are taking personal attacks to it at many of the cabinet secretaries and these judges across the country.
And again, they think they have authority, but it's going to be short lived.
I don't know
how.
Wise it is for an attorney general who was who's whose department's certainly going to be in front of these judges Absolutely
to
talk like that.
I
remember there used to be a day man, you know before I think Trump really started going after judges But right now apparently it's open season on the judges
exactly and again if you get in front of let's list their names again Ted Chang and James Boseburg and Alina Hollander and Areas and Tonya Chotkin as well When you are the assistant US attorney or you're you're there from the name the division inside of me
and justice.
It's entirely appropriate for a federal district court judge to say, okay, we're gonna talk about the substance of this.
Let's talk about the merits of this request for a TRO.
And I also noted on the front page of the New York Times that the attorney general, your boss, Mr. Assistant United States Attorney, Madam United States Attorney, has called me and then you fill in the blank, the name calling.
And that too, right?
And it
has happened, right?
And that kind of thing, it's fascinating, it's horrifying that the attorney general,
the general says that they're doing the name calling.
No, no, it's just the opposite.
And Boasberg has been on the receiving end of more than virtually anything else.
He's approaching the Tanya Chutkin levels, right?
And so again, and beyond that, this is a small point, she knows well that when it comes to the assignment of cases, she was the attorney general in Florida, she was a practicing lawyer.
These things are randomly done.
Do you think for a moment, do you think for one moment in the United States of America, if somebody was saying, oh, get that,
case now to Judge Bosberg, that somebody will not find that out and get that into the media?
Of course.
This is randomly assigned.
You've got civil servants in the clerk's office who are doing this, right?
And so, again, don't mislead.
How cynical to suggest that, again, civil servants are somehow skewing the case assignments now.
Is that what we're doing, Madam Attorney Trump?
They
were just speculating,
just
asking questions,
just
observing the wild coincidence of it.
I mean, who wants to pull Trump cases?
You know what I mean?
Like, oh, God, I got to deal with this
again.
But, you know, that's the job.
And so I'm looking forward to hearing how Boseberg handles all these multiple Trump administration cases.
One more, I believe, a Lord Ingram Pam Bondi on no investigation needed for signal, right?
No.
But let's listen to this.
This is...
not a concern of yours, Inspector General, you know, idea of Inspector General investigation or congressional investigation down the road, you are completely confident that this was, this was a mistake and nothing more than that.
We are.
We are.
And all of our intelligence officials who were on it are confident of that as well.
I mean, do you not know, like, how many Democrats that I know over the years who have been on signal, I mean, of the highest level Democrats?
And that, is that changing in the government now, though, is
not going to be used, or is it going to be used going forward?
Are
you aware of it?
Well, I think signal is a very safe way to communicate.
I don't think foreign adversaries are able to hack signal, as far as I know.
And maybe people just have to keep an eye on their contact list a little bit more carefully going forward.
They learn their lesson.
So much.
I have such a problem with this.
But basically, Jim, if government officials
Democrats or Republicans are using signal they can set to delete the messaging, then we don't have records of
what's happening in our country.
Absolutely.
We don't have historical records or present records.
When it comes to these lawsuits that may be out there, we cannot produce discovery about significant material communications with the policies that are being discussed, all those kinds of things.
If anything, you want to use all the mechanisms possible to record what you're doing, and there are all sorts of protection.
for that, there's a deliberative privilege, all kinds of things out there.
And beyond that, just the notion that the attorney general who does have some oversight responsibilities with respect to the integrity of processes in America.
This is gonna sound very very wonky, but when I was in Iraq, there are mechanisms inside government.
There are quotes called a siper net account.
Here's here's the here's the acronym the secret internet protocol router network There was one in sitting in front of me for two years at the embassy.
There's another thing of course skiffs.
We've got skiffs all over the place.
Why don't you go in there?
Why are we talking about signal at all anymore?
Why don't we just reaffirm that again when it comes to war engagement bombing Houthi's bomb?
other people, engaging in other things where our armed services are put in jeopardy and we're attempting to do something that is, you know, violent and maybe very necessary, that's a policy decision that's made.
We should be communicating that in the most secure mechanism possible.
How wonderful it would be if my attorney general, and she, again, she's yours as well, if she had come forward and said, instead of attacking this and suggesting we're not gonna have an investigation of all, she had said, you know what, I have written a letter.
to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State.
And I have reaffirmed the notion that when it comes to these fundamental kinds of things, my National Security Division has confirmed for me, we should be using skips.
We should be using something called JWICS.
It's the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communication System.
Get on your SIPRnet account, do that, and we can ensure.
And then we can also tell Congress, by the way, that from going forward here, we're never gonna do this again.
Boom, you're
done.
Yeah, but do all those super fancy secret networks have emojis?
And of course very problematic and they use these things because they don't want you to find out and It harkens back to the Mueller investigation.
Yeah, and I just pulled this up from CNN back in 2019
Despite the report's comprehensive pages, it could have been longer if Mueller's team had access to more communications, a quote from the Mueller report.
Some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated, including some associated with the Trump campaign, deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records.
In such cases, the office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaries communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
They've been doing this the whole time.
They continue to do it.
They got away with it.
When the Mueller report, they get away with it.
Now the judge has ordered the relevant parties here to hold this data if it's still there.
But he did not expand that order to all other potential signal communications within the government.
So, like I said yesterday, if the lights are dimming, that's the energy being used while the entire government of Trump administration deletes all their signal apps or messages.
Come back with us.
855-752-4842.
Welcome back to this is a lot, but I'm sorry.
It's just PS and James Santel.
It
is a lot.
I'm going to get to your calls and your texts as well.
855-752-4842-8557-5 civic.
Um, talking about Pam Bondi, the attorney general and downplaying, uh, any sort of investigation, perhaps we can play that club one more time.
Uh, if you would, uh, specifically about the.
No investigation needed, according to, don't call it Foxy News, Laura Ingram, and Pam Bond of the Attorney
General.
Not a concern of yours, Inspector General, you know, idea of Inspector General
investigation or
congressional investigation down the road.
You are completely confident that this was a mistake and nothing more than
that.
We are.
And all of our
intelligence officials... We are.
We are.
I mean, if it's a mistake, Jim, does that make it any less illegal?
It does not.
And again, in fairness, which I'm trying to find some basis upon, which to be fair to my attorney general, it is good that we identify all the people who should be looking at this, right?
There should be the Inspector General, the Department of Defense, maybe the Department of State as well.
They're supposed to be, until we know, just as we affirm for us today, until they get fired by the President of the United States, they're supposed to be somewhat independent inside.
They should be conducting an inquiry.
They don't indict anybody.
They've got no charging power.
They simply make findings about what happened.
What a great office that would be to answer what the American people want to know.
And then at the other end of the mall, you've got a thing called the United States Congress.
it would be appropriate again i recognize under the president composition of the senate the house is not going to happen for there to be an oversight uh... committee review of this right and and call witnesses in and ask them what happened here and yes indeed here and here's the point
Any attorney general under any administration, regardless of who appoints him, should at a minimum open a file.
What she should have said today to Fox News was, we don't know where this is going.
We have a responsibility under the oath that I took, the Department of Justice.
We need to investigate this to determine whether a crime was committed here.
We don't know.
We don't know any of this.
She comes to that summary without any examination at all.
We have simply opened a file.
I am not confirming for you anything.
about whether there will be civil pursuit of this criminal, that's what you say.
And we're simply, I've assigned good people to investigate this, come back to me, and I may come back to it at some point and say, you know what, we've examined this all, there is nothing to charge here.
But at least pursue the effort while the inspector general is looking at this, while the Congress is looking at this, probably coming all to the same result if they had integrity.
the Attorney General should be at the forefront of that saying, yes, we've opened an investigation.
We will tell you when we're done with it.
That's what a good attorney general does, not a summary conclusion.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we're all we're all
confident.
It was a mistake.
You know, what's the mistake that it got out that we found out about it?
Was it a mistake that they added Jeffrey Goldberg to it?
Was it was it a mistake that they were like so cavalierly talking about, you know, trying to shake down Egypt and Europe for the cost of this operation that presumably the year wasn't even talked to about it up front.
I mean, what what?
What part of this is the mistake the mistake that the dude actually was the Hague South was kind of bragging He didn't need to put all the information the timestamp dates of when the bombs are actually going to start dropping I mean he did the whole agenda for the day man.
That was a mistake There are all sorts of things that were a mistake Jim, but she's no problem here.
Nothing there.
What about the fact that this is
According to the American oversight lawsuit an unlawful destruction of federal records and to compel recovery of records created through the unauthorized use of signal if it's unlawful to destroy these records as these things were set to delete and we know
just based on life experience.
This is not the first time that signal or messaging and encrypted apps have been used by this administration.
Guaranteed, man.
So if that's the case, isn't that unlawful?
And this is one of those situations where the cover-up can be worse than the underlying event, right?
We talk about that a lot in American history.
You have an obligation, an oath of office once again to be transparent.
Let me hasten to add that, yes indeed, I mentioned it just in passing before, there's a thing called the deliberative privilege and that's right.
You want to have policy created at the presidential level, at the cabinet level, all across the board, U.S.
Attorney's offices.
You want to be able to sit down with your staff and say, listen, let's talk through this.
And be candid.
And Dom, you've got a different view than I do.
Let's chew over that, right?
Let's figure out, let's talk to the FBI, let's talk to the local sheriff, figure out what's going on.
You don't want all that in the news the following day, right?
You do need to keep records of all that.
cause you want to establish down the road if there's a request for discovery.
If there's an allegation, which is what is permeating all this, that there was some inappropriate motive.
If somebody somehow did intend to throw this out there, and there was an intent to disclose this in some way, you want to have records of all that.
And to your first point, if you are destroying the very records upon which that inquiry can be made, that in and of itself.
can be a crime.
And that's the other reason my Pam Bondi at a minimum.
If she finds that, yes, it was a mistake.
And then afterwards, there were all these attempts to try to suppress the information.
That, again, the cover-up worse than the crime is classic Watergate stuff, right?
8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2-8-5-5-7-5 Civic.
History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
It rhymes exactly.
Mark
from
the
Sec.
You are up.
Welcome, Mark.
What do you got for us
today?
There's not a lever long enough to pull Ron Johnson's head out of his butt with his latest thing.
I mean, it was just beyond me.
And for all this other stuff, I mean, these people didn't use a skiff.
I looked up what a skiff actually is.
I mean, that's where this should have been discussed.
They wanted to do this so you have a happy, happy joy, joy of people dying.
Sorry to cut you short, man, but we're going to come into a hard one.
Did you just pull a happy, happy, joy, joy, red and stimpy on me, man?
I used to love red and stimpy.
Happy, happy, joy, joy.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
This should have been taken seriously, and it wasn't.
And because the reason it wasn't, because these are not serious people, they're not.
And we heard about the concern that so many people had with, with Hegze.
And the dude didn't get 61 days in, man.
It was the 24th that he got confirmed, and it was the 24th of March when this all blew up.
And keep in mind, February
was a short month.
I'm saying man eat two months man and the thing blew up and there's still we still got to deal with this folks come back with us eight five five seven five two four eight four two how does this impact freedom of information acts and we want to get into some of these attorneys some law firms targeted by Trump summer rolling over summer fighting back come back with us oh and don't forget end of it show tell us something good eight five five seven five two four eight four two
back to the Dom Salvia show 855-752-4842 this long-distance dedication going out to Casper love you buddy hope to see you soon join us on the lines James Santel joining us on the desk you can join us as well 855-757 just piece working hard on the board
We've heard from Wisconsin Republicans, elected Republicans, Ron Johnson, Tom Tiffany, uh, Drunkey Van Orden.
Uh, and then we also heard from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Everybody's attacking these judges.
Oh, these, these judges are unconstitutional.
They're, they're throwing out all of.
not all, but lots of Trump's executive orders and going against his agenda and thinking, well, yeah, maybe he's being unconstitutional.
They're doing their job.
We can't have a rule of law in America, at least in the state of Wisconsin.
The
rule of Trump is what they want, and what's the rule of Trump?
Well, whatever it is, the day he says it, which is why we have the rule of law.
We don't want an absolute monarchy, Jim.
And I find this so super offensive, the guy puts a crown on his head and acts like this is a joke.
I mean,
With that kind of attitude, you can come and pluck people off the street and ship them off to be renditioned another.
Oh, wait, what's happening?
Oh, right?
Exactly.
A little
too close
to home, Jim.
What do you think?
And this is Sonia Sotomayor, right?
We go back to July 1 of 2024.
and Sonia and, and, uh, Kenji Brown Jackson playing the Lena Kagan, all writing these scoria, excoriating dissents with respect to that immunities case.
We forget that the first portion of that written by John Roberts gives the president of the United States of America this incredible amount of power, right?
Talks about the need for a president to be active, to be vigorous, decisive, energetic, speedy.
Um, if you can't be feeble because of feeble executive
implies a feeble execution of government.
That's what the chief, that's the law of the land as articulated by the Chief Justice and our president gets that and frankly he's doing that, right?
I put a lot of responsibility at John Robert's feet and yes indeed this very nice statement that he made early on about all we shouldn't be talking about impeaching, we should be appealing, not nearly enough John, not nearly enough.
We need to be out there with a full-throated
condemnation of this, put it all to an end.
He's done some of that in the past.
I suspect once again, he's intimidated by this fellow who's living in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
It is time for the Chief Justice to be very clear.
that none of this, that this is the rule of law.
He is the head of the federal judiciary and all the people under him are being attacked.
It is time to come forward, John, and defend your people.
It's not his people specifically, but it is the federal judiciary for which he's responsible.
I guess just a quick thought on that.
Given that Trump was elected and whether or not they ruled the way they did on that, and I agree with you, this was an overreach by Roberts and I agree with the dissent on there.
But Donald Trump was elected and whether or not they ruled that way, he still would have been elected.
He
still would have dismissed
all these cases.
And I believe Donald Trump still would have gone through with haste, with alacrity and speed and all those things as he's doing right now.
So I don't think that necessarily the actions of this administration have changed any because of that particular rule.
At least not yet.
He's thrown everything at the wall.
Now he'd have done that regardless, in my opinion.
Now the question is, of course, the actions that this administration is doing...
blatantly unconstitutional in many, many regards, and specifically some of these deportation things, man.
I mean, oh my God, I mean, if they can, if you don't have the right to say, no, I'm not a Venezuelan gang member, you know what I mean?
Then they can rendition anybody.
Right.
And in fact, the tattoo based upon which you've decided that I am a member of this gang affiliation here,
That's because I like soccer.
And the point of that, we don't know that for certain, is due process, right?
And that's why these people are saying, no, no, these judges cannot do it.
The judges are not.
They're not finding, as a matter of fact, that the 200 people are right now sitting in this high security prison in El Salvador, that every single one of them is or is not a gang member.
We haven't gotten to that point.
If you're attacking Judge Boasberg for what he is doing,
attacking the fundamental notion of due process.
Boseberg, I suspect it may not happen, but Boseberg and the appeals court may well one day say, you know what?
And maybe the Supreme Court, which apparently is going to get this very soon, may well say, you know what, he can use this alien enemies act, he can do this.
We're not even there yet because, and here it is, this is what Patricia Millet said 48 hours ago.
Two to one panel saying no, Judge Boseberg is just fine.
We're supporting what he is doing in this case.
She said the government's removals,
scheme denies plaintiffs and that plaintiffs are these that frankly not maybe not all the 200 but basically it is that and I love this phrase even a gossamer thread what's the last time you use the expression gossamer thread Dom I don't know what that means what's a gossamer thread is basically a light and kind of flighty you think about it in meadow just every kind of a thing very very non-specific substantial insubstantial that's not even a gossamer thread of Dupro
and then she goes on to confirm this as a part of the presentation of the Court of Appeals, DC.
Even though the government, that's Pam Bondi, that's the attorneys I was talking about before we're presenting this case, even though the government acknowledges their right to judicial review of the removability.
We're all in agreement.
that they should have gotten that but they're sitting right now in a prison in El Salvador and maybe they should be there we don't know that maybe they are a threat to our nation we haven't decided that because we didn't afford them something that every single and you don't have to be a citizen if you are here you are afforded the protections of the Constitution and if you don't think that we are it's only for citizens you are wrong
Go back and revisit what it is our country is based upon.
You've got another judge, same, same panel.
Her name is Karen Henderson.
She says, sensitive subject matter alone.
This goes to the power issue that Pambani is talking about.
And again, Henderson, for what it's worth, she's an appointee of George H. W. Bush, been there a long time.
She says, sensitive subject matter alone does not shroud a law from the judicial eye.
Just because this is sensitive, doesn't mean we can't look at it.
She says, we have previously considered the precise sort of question the government contends we cannot.
That's telling Pam Bondi, wrong,
wrong,
wrong.
And we've got a panel basically saying that, yes indeed, we have a constitutional violation here.
And meanwhile, meanwhile, you still have Judge Boesberg saying, aside from that, again, more proceedings in front of him, you still haven't told me.
Were you in violation of my order when on
the 15th you
sent those planes in the air?
And again, this is the thing that's so stunning to me.
Somebody knows when those planes were wheels up, right?
There's a document out there that says, here's the order that's been given.
Here's the manifest.
It's when they left.
Here's when they were in the air.
This information is known.
The judge wants it.
And it's not coming forward.
Why?
Because it probably, the presumption is, because it probably shows that sometime, maybe after Judge Boser said, no, no, you keep those planes on the ground.
Somebody said, we don't care about judges.
They don't have any power.
Send the planes on.
And that's when the Republic, that's quite literally, it's not hyperbole.
That's when the Republic begins to disintegrate because you're not following the rule of law.
You've got a judge's plural saying, don't do this, do not send the student from Tufts University overseas, do not, and even that sending her to Louisiana.
Keep her local here.
We don't know the timing of that.
If you are doing things purposely to undermine what the judges are telling you to do, you are not only in contempt, you're basically ripping up the Constitution and the due process that every single person in this country, all your listeners, regardless of where they are in the political arena, every single one of them.
embraces and would expect if they were on the receiving end of anything from the government.
Well, Jim, they're not in contempt yet because they have provided the information.
Exactly.
And they're
hiding behind, what, national security?
Right,
exactly.
So where does that stand?
You know, the administration hiding behind the national security on this contempt issue, whether or not the planes were in the air wheels up at the time he gave his verbals versus written order, all those kinds of things.
Where does that stand as far as the legal process is concerned in number two?
Let's assume they are in contempt
What's the
remedy?
What's the remedy, right?
So, so plainly Judge Bosberg is not satisfied and continues to yell.
He can use to settle these deadlines.
And at some point, I think he will make a finding of contempt.
The question then is, as we've talked before, what do you do with that?
Right?
Again, as, as Andrew Jackson said to Supreme Court many, many years ago, go ahead and force your order, right?
Well, Judge Bosberg has some capacity here, doesn't have an army, doesn't have as the U.S.
Marshals.
Ooh, but they're inside the Department of Justice, right?
That's another bit of a challenge here.
He does have the capacity, depending upon the kind of contempt to jail someone.
And if somebody at some mid or high level purposely made the decision on the 15th of March to send those planes in the air knowing that there was an order prohibiting that, that person is a contempt, and he can find that indeed you need to spend some time behind bars because of the violation of the court directive, not because of a violation of the criminal law,
And beyond that, beyond that, what's next?
Again, you've got the Court of Appeals affirming what Judge Boasberg is doing.
I am hearing just this afternoon, not surprisingly, that again, you're my Solicitor General is now asking the United States Supreme Court to review all of this.
And again, where we've seen this in a couple of cases before, now the Supreme Court, presumably, would get involved to try to figure out who is right, who is wrong.
John Roberts has another chance, John, to redeem yourself.
Do the right thing here.
And if we do have charges of contempt, if those then come with a sentencing, would those be federal or state, meaning could Trump then just turn around and...
use his pardon
abilities.
These are all federal judges.
You're absolutely right.
And the question is, again, you're absolutely right.
He enters a judgment of contempt.
He orders someone jailed for some period of time.
The pardon power is pretty extreme, right?
We know that.
It doesn't apply to cases of impeachment, but beyond that, it's fairly broad.
Even so, even so, at some point, as we've talked before, and I know this sounds, again, hyperbolic
and preps over the
top,
U.S.
Marshall, take Mr. Johnson, take Ms.
Phillips into custody and keep them in custody.
And then, and then again, maybe the president is going to release that person promptly, but for a moment, for a moment, that would be the appropriate thing to do because you've violated a basic tenant of a republic.
We follow the rule of law.
We do.
Can you send the bailiff after him?
Okay, let's go one step further.
This goes to the Supreme Court,
as it
stands right now.
This specific
case.
It's an emergency petition.
Once again, the so-called, you know, the shadow docket, they're taking up very quickly.
They've got 64 cases.
They're gonna somehow insert this one in, presumably, if they decide to review it, they don't have to.
They could keep things in place as they are, but if they do decide to review it, then they'll do some expedited, presumably some expedited briefing or a argument.
And is this on the case whether or not that this act, action by this administration, I guess under the Alien
Enemies
Act, is appropriate in this situation?
Is that what we're reviewing?
That's the core issue, right?
Does the President have the right to use that, to use that, again, 19th century law of finding, again, that we are at war?
and that these are aliens who are, again, compromising our national security.
That's the core issue, and that's what the judges are, again, very strongly indicating, again, this two-to-one panel saying that the Venezuelan migrants likely to succeed in their claims.
The government cannot use that wartime law.
That's what they already found.
So that's gonna be the core of this, depending upon what Judge Boesberg does.
It could be wrapped up also in a contempt citation, too.
All this could, depending upon how they define what they're reviewing,
They could take all of this or very little of it, carve it out, figure out what they want to decide.
But that issue, that issue about whether or not the underlying invocation of the law by this president is legal.
That should be before them.
And have John Roberts tell us that we were at war with Venezuelan gang members right
now?
Right, because it's not even Venezuela.
Right.
Also, some additional news on this topic.
We'll get to your callers.
Your calls, folks, be patient in the next segment.
Tell us something good, then we'll talk more about these topics.
New York Times is reporting that Trump's efforts to deport migrants to places other than their country of origin hit a new roadblock today when a federal judge issued a temporary order.
requiring the administration to give migrants an opportunity to contest their removal on the grounds that they might be at risk of persecution or
do process that's what we call the process court
judge Brian Murphy who sits in Boston or to the government to give migrants a chance to contest their removal to a so-called third country under a federal law that limits deportations to places where the deportees quote life or freedom would be threatened he also cited a United Nations treaty against torture
eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five civic who do we see who was taking the pictures of the DH in front of the prisoners what's her name I'm gonna get back to it she was down there you know she cosplays her role homeland
security maybe
no there we go yeah nice nice look eight five five seven five seven come back with us
Cut.
Welcome back to the Dom Salvia show eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five Civic last segment of the day if you got something to say you want to hit us up Tell us something good.
That's how we end the day the week.
It's been a week It's kind of a lot.
It's a lot Let's get to the colors you're lining up.
We do appreciate you playing along Kurt from Madison.
You are up.
Welcome Kurt.
What do you
got for us?
I'm curious, given the the debate between BS and Crawford that they're both judges, would it be kind of fun to have them both swear on Bible that everything they see is the truth and all truth, nothing but the truth?
It would it certainly is what we do in court, right?
We and we because we presume that if you do that you will in fact tell the truth That's always the concern, right?
But again anything anything that can get more honesty in our process Let's give it a shot.
I agree Kurt
yeah, Kurt you got have something good for us
Yeah, thanks to this 70 degree day Yeah, I got it was destroyed to landscaping last year
I was able to get the whole thing raked and seated, and now I'm drinking my Bloody Mary with my beer chaser.
And
your Bible is there too, right?
Have a great weekend.
The testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Some folks think those guys, those cats were not being entirely truthful.
And they
are under oath to tell the truth and you can be prosecuted for, that's just to be in court.
When you take the oath to tell the truth the whole truth and you do not
do that and something that's material and provably wrong, you are committing perjury.
It's a tough thing to prove.
It's a tough thing to prove, but nonetheless, if it is that clear, black and white, and you knew at the time that what you were saying under oath is wrong, you've got the intent to commit the
crime.
I'm confused so for example someone saying that nothing in the signal chat was classified information if we then find out oh yeah the document that Pete Hegseth was copying and pasting the exact plans from was a top-secret classified document
and you knew that at the time that you made that statement you are in big trouble absolutely just yeah
eight five five seven five two four eight four two Margaret from cottage Grove welcome to the show tell us something
good
Well, I wanted to say that regarding the earthquake and Myanmar
terrible
my brother.
I was horrible.
My brother lives in Thailand.
And not too far from where it happened.
He had 7.7 earthquake.
Yeah, but he's okay.
I'm glad to hear that.
He was
complaining.
Because because he started smart off, he was complaining that he couldn't get his nap.
That'd be his biggest concern.
Yeah, right.
Uh, thank you, Margaret.
Yeah.
Terrible earthquake and Myanmar, uh, lots of people to build is down.
It's, it's not a great scene.
So I'm glad your family is okay, Margaret, thinking of all those folks.
Enjoy the days.
You never know when years is coming.
Eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two.
Again, not, not to, again, it is tragic.
Another point, part and point.
When we are overseas with an entity called the United States Agency for International Development, that's the kind of thing that we do.
We support people who have absolute meltdown crises and people die.
The agency all but shuttered today.
It's over.
There are 900 people left.
They're inside the Department of State and we do not have that capacity now.
To assist, I'm not saying in Myanmar we'd be there right away, but that's the kind of thing that our nation has always done and we're not doing that anymore.
That's tragic.
The staff of us aid will be reduced to some 15 legally required positions.
The agency employed about 10,000 people before Trump entered office.
It's all over.
It's done.
According to the New York Times, uh, Claire, you are up the OC.
Welcome, Claire.
What do you got for us?
Tell us something good.
Hi, Tom.
I've got a joke to hopefully cheer everybody up for Friday night.
All right.
Let's hear it.
Okay.
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Who who who?
What are you now?
Thank you Claire appreciate it as always cam from Appleton you are next welcome.
Tell us something good cam
Well, but something that I got is that my union contacted me today and said we will do our Hardest job to make sure that you are not let go.
Hey,
that's why you're here.
All right.
Excellent man.
Great news
Appreciate it, man.
Anything else for us today?
All right, we'll take it.
Thank you, Cam.
Take care up in Appleton.
My old stomping ground.
L.A.
Tom, you are Nox.
Tell us something good, buddy.
Absolutely.
First, something good is that civic media.
If we didn't have civic media in the state of Wisconsin and actually around the country through the app,
We've got one less outlet of media that's not just corporatized, but actually just faxed.
So I think the fact of having civic media is a very, very positive thing and everyone needs to realize what it would be like without civic media.
Right on, man.
Appreciate it.
Tom, have a wonderful weekend out in LA.
Hell, it's almost LA weather here, dude.
It's like 78 when I was driving in James Santel.
You got anything you want to throw out there last 30 seconds?
I do, yes.
And this is the University of Maryland having its commencement exercises on May 21st.
The president of the university announcing to graduates and families their speaker at the time is going to be the world's most famous amphibian, Kermit the Frog.
Love it.
Cur me.
Folks, have a wonderful weekend.
Thank you, James Santel.
Listen to his show tomorrow, Saturdays 9 to 11 a.m.
Amicus, a law review.
Thank you, Jess P.S.
Folks.
Have a wonderful weekend.
We'll see you on the radio on Monday.
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 can be a part eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five. Civic got just PS working hard on the board today. And our super secret guest, we got to reference it a little bit yesterday. Well, it has come through and super jazz is held to introduce to you was constant Supreme Court candidate circa Dane County, circuit court judge Susan Crawford, Judge Crawford. Welcome to the Dom Salvia show.
Do we have the judge? There we go. All right. It is great to be here. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you so much. Glad you can join us. A judge before we get into it, you know, we're five days out. How you feeling right now? We are feeling great, feeling really strong and Chris crossing the state, talking to as many voters.
as we can just fighting for every last vote as we lead up to the election day. Judge Susan Crawford joining me today. I want to get spent a minute or two if we could please on your on your bio on your background. My understanding you grew up in Chippewa Falls. Is that correct? That is true. Yes. Excellent. Go ahead. Proud graduate of Chi High.
high school there, triple falls high school, one or four kids. It was a great place to grow up. And you stayed in Wisconsin, your college career, getting an English degree from Lawrence University in Appleton. My brother got an English degree from Lawrence University in Appleton. What made you stick around for your undergraduate, Susan?
Well, you know, I was paying my own way in college dom and I had to watch the dollars and cents and Lawrence University was really generous with scholarships and gave me a great financial aid package. So that was a but I got a great education there. It was a great place for me to go to school.
Excellent. It was a fine institution. Cruz the Ave college Avenue up there when I was a kids judge Crawford joining me today. Let's get into perhaps of course, why you're here running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Why is it that you're running judge? What, what are you hoping to accomplish here? What drives you to seek this office?
Yeah, you know Dom I've always just throughout my whole legal career look for ways that I can use my experience and my skills to protect Wisconsinites under our laws and Constitution and I've been doing that now for about six and a half years as a circuit court judge case by case family by family and this is an opportunity for me to take that really to a statewide basis to take part in decisions that will protect Wisconsinites under our laws.
You know, the, the role of the Wisconsin Supreme court is, as I think is, is confusing to some folks. And if we, if we allow ourselves to look at the many, many plethora of ads that are just all over the airwaves, I think people will get a, a misimpression. What judge, do you consider the role of the Wisconsin Supreme court here in the state of Wisconsin?
Yeah, so the Supreme Court is the final court in our state court system and that means that cases come to them after they have gone through the circuit court often after they have gone through the court of appeals and then you know lawyers for their clients can ask the Supreme Court to take up cases and they only take up cases if at least three justices on the court believe that the case raises an important issue that needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, so there's
You know, usually a lot has happened. There might have been a trial or hearings where evidence was presented. And by the time the case comes to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, it boils down usually to just one or two really central legal issues that the Supreme Court has to decide. So judge Crawford, you're not like, you're not taking testimony from witnesses. There's no, no like, like a Matlock kind of court action going on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That's not how it works.
That's exactly right. So there are no trials heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The hearings that happen in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are called oral arguments and their opportunities for the lawyers to present their arguments on the legal issues before the court and for the justices to ask them questions about their positions and really kind of dig into
the precedents that they're citing and the kind of finer points of interpreting the law.
Folks, you're listening to the Dom Salvia Show. Our guest today, Judge Susan Crawford. She is a Dane County circuit short court judge. She is seeking a spot on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. We're happy to have you with us, Judge Crawford. What do you want people to know about you? Why should people vote for you? What do you want people to know about your record that would encourage them to get out and support your efforts here?
Starting point I'd want people to know is about my judicial philosophy and that is that I believe our laws in constitution exist to protect the rights of Wisconsinites and they should be interpreted with that purpose in mind and to make sure that our rights are all. Oh, looks like we lost Judge Crawford.
folks are listening to the Dom Salvia show. Judge Susan Crawford, perhaps we can reconnect that at some point. We'll make the efforts again, running for Wisconsin's Supreme Court. She's a Dane County circuit court judge. And we've been saying it the whole time, folks, go vote for her.
Don't vote for the BS. Stay away from the BS. We have the judges back. All right. Welcome, Susan. Sorry about that. Not sure what happened there. Welcome back to the test. All right. So anyway, Dom, you know, I hope we, I have a couple of more minutes. Just wanted to, you know, I'm really working to protect the rights of Wisconsinites under a laws and constitution. I have really broad legal experience, both working as a prosecutor, working in our court.
courtrooms as a lawyer to fight for the rights of Wisconsinites and now six and a half years or so on the bench as a judge. So I have, and I've argued several cases in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. So I know how things work up there. And I want to bring all that Wisconsin, all that experience as both a lawyer and a judge to the highest court to help out Wisconsin families and communities. Judge, I've seen your statements protecting the basic rights and freedoms of Wisconsinites.
I mean, I absolutely agree with that. How does that, how does that happen? How do you, how do you apply that philosophy as a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme court? Yeah. Well, the Wisconsin Supreme court gets cases every year. They take up cases every year that affect our fundamental rights and freedoms. So those might be issues like the right to vote or our fair elections or women's reproductive healthcare rights. So that has certainly been a
an issue that is occupying the Wisconsin Supreme Court's time this very term. There are two cases pending before the Supreme Court that will decide whether women have the right to make their own health care decisions during pregnancy. And you can foresee in the future that the Supreme Court will take up cases. This is just based on past experience, but they will take up cases that involve
community safety, public safety issues, things like the safety of our drinking water in Wisconsin. That's been a really hot issue in courts across the state as communities are dealing with things like PFAS contamination and issues like that. Any number of issues that involve health and safety of Wisconsinites and our ability to
make our own decisions about our private and personal lives and, um, to, you know, exercise the freedoms that we have under the constitution. Folks are listening to the Dom Salvia show. That is judge Susan Crawford, candidate for Wisconsin's supreme court, uh, judge, uh, the money in the race. And, and on this program, we talk in lament a lot about the money in politics in general, and it just keeps getting more and more to our opinion out of hand. Uh, Wisconsin democracy campaign, estimating that perhaps this.
election cycle will blow past a hundred million dollars and we have the richest man in the world who is not a wisconsin citizen uh jumping in and funding your opponent in this race what's what's your sense on where we stand uh not only in in your race susan but certainly as as a country with with the money in our politics in our elections yeah well you know i never expected it to get quite this out of hand um but here we are and that's because elan musk has decided to
weighed into a state judicial race and tried to buy himself a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. So he has spent upwards of $20 million to prop up Brad Jimmel's campaign. He's out there funding paid canvassers who are going door-to-door handing out leaflets that say things like support the Trump agenda, put Brad Jimmel on the Supreme Court. And that is absolutely not what the Supreme Court is for.
And there are a lot of different reasons why Elon Musk might be doing this, not the least of which is that his company Tesla filed a lawsuit against the state of Wisconsin within days of Elon Musk starting to spend millions of dollars on the race. So he's got some financial stakes here. I think he is making this a test case to see whether he can be successful in buying a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And if he manages to do it, I think we'll see him doing this around the country.
Judge Crawford, you mentioned the Canvasser. There was an article recently, a Canvasser, recorded in the suburbs of Milwaukee. And my point to the question here, Susan, is they redacted. They didn't put out the person's name for fear of retribution. And we're certainly seemingly in a different environment than we were years ago. And safety can be a concern. Have you had any issues, personal safety threats of those kinds in the selection cycle? Well, Dom, that is...
Something that I can't answer personally I will say more broadly that Judicial security has been a growing concern across the country and certainly a concern in Wisconsin It's something that the state court system is paying a great deal of attention to right now And we have taken precautions as a campaign. That's about all I can say about that But there are people who are threatening our judges. We're seeing that happening nationally
when lawsuits have been filed against some of the actions taken by the so-called Doge that Elon Musk is running. Elon Musk is calling for the impeachment of judges, not even because they're ruling against him, but because they're just saying, hey, we got to put a halt to what's going on to give the court a chance to take some evidence and figure out the lawfulness of some of these actions. Elon Musk is saying,
get those judges off the court. That is just un-American, and it is unconstitutional for him to be saying things like that. But, you know, an unfortunate side effect of it is that those judges are being targeted and threatened. And, you know, Wisconsinites and Americans should not stand for that.
Uh, it's a shame. We even have to talk about it and ask the question. Uh, just Crawford in the last 45 seconds, if you would please growing up in Chippewa Falls. Are you a fan of, of the beer? And if so, what do you prefer a summer shandy, a grapefruit shandy or the October fest? I have to, I have to reject all those choices down and say, why any Google's original?
a line is original. The pure essence of Chippewa Falls, not just line of cool. Judge Susan Crawford. Good luck, Judge Crawford. We will be rooting for you. Five days out, folks. Get to it. Thank you for coming around. Fantastic. Thanks so much, Dom. Thank you.
to the Dom Salvia show, eight by five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five civic. Can't find my pen. Oh, now it's my fault. Harvey K. Professor Emeritus of Democracy from the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, joining me for the hour. You can join us as well. Eight, five, five, seven, five civic. Uh, did find some news on the Greenland delegation. Harvey, but you wanted to talk about Steve Banner.
No, I just wanted to quote Steve. Okay, please. Okay. So this is back leading up to the first Trump administration. Steve Bannon basically wanted to emulate Lenin and his advice, I believe to Trump and others is to smash the state, destroy the state. And I keep thinking about that. And when I heard that news today, I thought, you know, it's almost as if the insidiousness has gotten to the point of revealing
our international security secrets as a means by which you can destroy the American government. I mean, that's how perverse things have gotten. Well, I mean, they could have been the first Trump administration. How he took everything with him down to Mar-a-Lago, man. Who knows what happened to that stuff?
I have no faith in this president, in this administration. And obviously, I mean, it's, it's nefarious. Certainly if it was purposeful, but even evil and stupid Harvey, I mean, not a great combination. This is, how does this happen? And how is not everybody can, you know what I'm saying? And where, where I'm, I cannot wait to listen to Fox news. Don't call it news. I cannot wait to hear the conservative talk radio folks. I can't wait to hear the.
Conservative pundits. Well, how are you gonna spin this? What what is your what is your defense of this? Well consider this I during the break I googled Michael waltz Okay, if I've got the right guy. Yeah, he was a former special he's a former special army special forces officer I Mean, what is that? What what kind of people are we dealing with here? I mean the army special forces and then he's sending out
and quote, state secrets to, uh, to failing magazines like the Atlantic. Uh, yeah. Michael, Michael Walts. I, and as he wrote, I assume Michael Walts in question was president Trump's national security advisor. I mean, this is, this is the administration. There is no getting around this. This is everybody quote, the national security leaders. These are the leaders.
And they were so critical with the Biden administration. They were so critical, of course, going back to the black guy, of course, the Obama administration, very critical. But what's the reaction now? What is the righty reaction now? Well, I wish I could take it back. That's what Fox don't call it, news says. I wish I could take it back. We're not calling for massive investigations. We're not calling for hearings that never end. Yeah, it's funny. I said to Lorna, I said to my wife earlier, I said, you know, at least if we had
the House, the Democrats could at least do some kind of investigation. My God. What are the chances that Republicans are even going to say anything about...
I'm with you, man. If I was a betting man, they're not going to do a squat. I mean, they're not going to open an investigation into their own. I don't believe that for a minute. But if they were righteous, they absolutely would, man. You know what I'm saying? If I believe in X, Y, and Z, and my party or any party or anybody goes against X, Y, and Z, and it can become, it's termed as illegal or unconstitutional or breaking the law because it's not an approved system, whatever the case is. Yeah, man. That's what you do.
That's called credibility. Do you know what I mean? It's not selling out, not buying in. That's called following through on the principles by which you were elected, on the constitution by which you swore an oath. Swore an oath. Swore an oath, but doesn't mean anything, Harvey. It doesn't mean anything to these people. Nothing. You're right. Absolutely nothing.
folks, you're listening to the Dom Salvi show. That's Harvey K eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two. Okay. Real quick before we get to the callers, a ABC news reporting. Secondly, the Usha Vance will be part of a delegation traveling to Greenland this week after Trump's repeated statements that the U S should own and control the semi-autonomous Danish territory. Cause I mean, Putin can do it. What can I, I want one too.
The US has a vested national security interest in the Arctic region and it should not be a surprise that national security advisor and secretary of energy are visiting a US space base to get firsthand briefings from our service members on the ground. The national security council spokesperson, Brian Hughes said in a statement, now Greenland's prime minister in a statement called the upcoming visit quote, very aggressive American pressure against the Greenland community and called for an international community step in to rebuke it.
making friends everywhere, influencing people and making friends everywhere we go. And the old man, when presented with these questions, doesn't know anything. Can we- He also couldn't remember Usha's name, so there was that. Is that true? Is that true? Yeah, I'm very much like to say proud of Mrs. JD Vance. First lady that- What's her name? The wife of the vice president.
Do we have something? He may have asked Melania first, but she probably gave him the finger. She'd have to be there to give him the finger. Let's get the caller in. Mark from the sec. You are all happy Monday. Mark, you're on with Dom and Harvey K. But killer is email. Right, man. For the love of God. I mean, nobody looked at the CC list of this thing. And why is this going?
We just mentioned, you know, I talked to her, you can't, you have a long user on a, on a phone call. But I mean, this is the kind of thing you have a phone call on a secured line to do this stuff, rather than saying, send an email that can go anywhere, anywhere. It gets forward to, I mean, I'm trying to keep my mouth, my jaw from dropping down in my chest because this is just such amateur hour stuff. This is it. And nobody noticed this until the guy from the Atlantic actually.
He was hanging out there like a fly on the wall for like a week or something, man. And not only that, Mark and Harvey, thank you for the call, Mark. Harvey, no one else on that signal conversation piped up and said a word. Nobody thought that this was a bad idea. They all thought it was fun. They all thought it was fun. They were high five in each other on video call, I'm sure. And no one, no one looked at who all was on that list to maybe go, uh.
Who's, who's this other one? Who's that guy? Who's that guy that's not responding to any of our fun little jokes and are ripping on their European allies and, and trying to shake down what Egypt and Europe, because if we, if we do something, you know, you guys gotta, oh, it's a remote, remote. What was the term again, Harvey? Remunerate. Remunerate. Thank you. We've got to get remunerated. Back in my day, they just called it extortion, but you know, it's really fancy when Stephen Miller says it. Folks, come back with us. Some good news. Some great news. Well, we do good news. Tell us something good at the end of the hour, which we'll always do.
But man, you see the crowds for Bernie and ALC over the weekend. It is outrageous. 15,000 in Phoenix, 30 plus thousand in Colorado. We're going to go there next with Harvey K. Professor Barrett is from the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. Join us.
the Dom salvia show eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five civic it's a break into spring text to win statewide contest download the civic media app find your favorite radio station click the text button at the bottom and send the keyword swim swim is the keyword for today go until five o'clock p.m. ct your chance to win a chulavi star
overnight getaway swim, uh, Matt Ross, child, Jess P S working with me today, uh, talking about the money and the politics. This one I'll throw this one out there before we talk about the, some of the parks and the issues we have there. Uh, Daniel Bice from the Milwaukee journey will set and all has tweeted out that Elon Musk and his two groups, America pack and building America's future are up to $19.85 million in the Wisconsin Supreme court race, man.
It's a lot of cabbage. You know, you ever see a fundraiser where they got like the thermometer, you know, they got to keep, you know, is it 20 million? Is it how, how much does it matter? And then I'm like, well, the guy's like the richest man in the world. Why 20? Why not? Why not? Why not a hundred million? I mean, if you're really, if you're really serious about it, why not just buy everything? Go get it all, man. You want those Tesla dealerships act like you want them. How many Teslas is this?
Oh, I don't know, but a hundred percent of them, at least the trucks will need to be recalled. Matt Russell, there is a continued fallout, man. And people are outdoorsy folks. And I'm getting there, man. I used to eat when I was a kid. I was really outdoorsy. And I'm like, I gotta, I gotta get some city in me. And now I'm kind of slowly getting back to the nature, enjoying the walks and springtime, seeing the birds. And I know you are a big outdoors fan. What's happening here in the state of Wisconsin?
Well, there's an article in the state journal today by Lucas Robinson, great reporter there, about Wisconsin's flagship hiking trail, the Ice Age Trail. Now, the Ice Age Trail is suffering because of Elon Musk's cuts. I'm just going to read a couple paragraphs. Wisconsin's Ice Age Trail is feeling the heat from federal funding changes as the National Park Service
and the partnering nonprofit that supports the trail are caught up in the spending cuts from the Trump administration. The trail's Park Service office has had its staff cut from seven to four due to the firings, hiring freezes and buyouts, and at the Ice Age Trail Alliance staff remain locked out of obtaining $600,000 in federal funding that's been promised to the group through
of the Park Service and the National Park Foundation. Now, the Ice Age Trail was in the midst of expanding its trails all across the state, and it's not going to be able to do so. I mean, it had eight upcoming trail projects planned for community stretching from Mantua County on Lake Michigan, of course, to Polk County on the Mississippi River. Of those eight trail projects, four have now been put in limbo. And so this could be disastrous for small and rural communities.
Ice Age Trail Alliance Executive Director has pointed out. And yeah, I mean, it's not just the Ice Age Trail. I mean, think, you know, Horicon Marsh. I'm sure they're getting hit badly by this. Think of, if you want to go to Yellowstone this summer, good luck getting a camping site or Yosemite or Zion or wherever you want to go, the Everglades. You know, any of the national parks are being just strangled right now. So for those of you who like to go visit our national parks, as I do,
And I was just out in Yellowstone this winter and it was gorgeous in the winter. You know, things are really going to be hard and you're not going to be able to enjoy our great natural treasures because of Elon Musk.
Cost cutting will affect your next park visit. You might get talking points instead of a straight answer. You know what I'm saying? This is how they're doing it. A series of emails sent late last month to frontline staff at parks across the country provided rangers with instructions on how to describe the highly publicized staff cuts. Park leaders further instructed staff to avoid the word fired and not blame closures on staffing levels. Yeah, don't just ignore it. It's gonna be fine.
On February 14th, at least 1,000 Park Service employees were terminated as part of a broad reduction to the federal workforce by the Trump administration. As a result,
Visitor centers have reduced hours, tours of popular attractions have been canceled, lines have spiraled, bathrooms may go uncleaned, habitat restoration has ceased and water has gone unchecked for toxic algae. Meanwhile, rangers have been ordered to describe these cuts or attrition as attrition workforce management actions according to the talking points. As prioritizing fiscal responsibility and staffing to meet the evolving needs of our visitors, they should tell the visitors the parks will continue to ensure, quote,
and meaningful experiences for all.
I remember that memorable experience when all the bathrooms had been cleaned in months. Remember I got the toxic algae infection. That was great. I remember at the bottom of the pro-publica piece. As we're talking, Viva O'Neill, executive director of the Great Basin National Park Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports a small park in the remote corner of Nevada. Bristol at the idea put forth in the talking points that parks can continue to provide the same level of quote unquote, memorable experiences.
cuts. When the park lost five of its 26 permanent employees in February, it was forced to close tours of a signature attraction leaving caves. To help restore services, the Foundation raised the money to temporarily hire the terminated workers. O'Neill said quote.
How do they do their day-to-day operations when you don't have the staff? As you mentioned, Matt, going from what? Seven employees down to four. You know, that's a huge percentage. You're going losing five of your 26 permanent employees. You can say that you're going to have a memorable experience, but as mentioned, that could be good or bad. Yeah, I mean, no clean water, no clean bathrooms. I mean, that's going to be a fun family vacation. Lines that stretch out for hours and hours?
certainly memorable. Oh, come on. It just, just go, go to vacation at Mar-a-Lago, man. Just go to Florida, get on a plane. You know, and here's, here's the other thing about this. I get the impression, a lot of these folks like, I don't know, last time Donald Trump went to a national park.
You know what I'm saying recently, you know, he looks at that. It's like, well, that's some great development opportunities. You know what I'm saying? Uh, you know, the, the unwashed masses use the national parks and use our local parks, right? All the rich folks, they can fly wherever they want. So if we're going to cut something, whatever, they can wait in line a little longer, Matt.
But this is where I think we can make common cause with people who voted for Trump, because a lot of Trump people like to go on hikes. A lot of Trump people like to go to Yosemite and like to go to Yellowstone and like to enjoy our national parks and our state parks. And, you know, they're going to come up face to face with what Elon Musk has done or what Donald Trump has done because Musk and Trump, they don't believe in anything public.
because they think everything private is good and everything public is bad. But we love our national parks. As one of the, Tom, one of your Textors said, Teddy Roosevelt's rolling over in his grave. This was a Republican idea, you know, have national parks. And they're destroying our national parks. And people love our national parks. And, you know, you're gonna be unhappy this summer.
trying to see with the national parks where the lines is just to say they're going to be a mile long and you're not going to be able to get in there. And then when you get in there, it's going to be a mess. No one's going to be picking up the garbage except for the bears. You think they're going to put some funding towards Mount Rushmore to see if they can somehow get Trump's face up on there. I bet they got no spend problem spending that money, Matt. I know he wants it. He wants to carve his face in that.
I mean, this is stupid for so many reasons. But I mean, you talk about someone who ran on the platform of making America great again, when one of the things that has always made America so great are our parks, are the natural resources that we have, the incredible landscapes, the incredible park systems that have been community gathering places, things that have made our country incredible. Community, that sounds like communism.
Did you say community? No, they don't believe in community. This is what I'm saying, man. That's what I'm saying. And I think, you know, Matt, and that's a great point, Jess. And Matt, I think you're right as well. If you talk about where to find commonality with folks, and I'm not a big camper, you know, don't get me wrong. I love a, I love a good campfire. I'll go hang out with y'all until it's nighttime and I go find a hotel and go sleep somewhere. But I mean, certainly the outdoors have lots of folks regardless of their political persuasions.
How do you not love the natural beauty, man? You know, I mean, the nature of all of it. And that's, if there's places that come together, it's around the campfire, it's out in nature. You know what I mean? People are more chill, even. You can have those conversations, and people still have those conversations, but it just seems like it's a little lighter when everyone's outdoors like that. Yeah, and I think we need to make the point to our friends, you know, this is what happens when you cut government spending, when you, you know, let Elon Musk run.
crazy through our, you know, national park service in other aspects of our government. You're not going to be able to enjoy the things that we as a community, we as Americans think are precious to us like Yellowstone or Yosemite or Zion or Horicon or wherever Everglades, you name it. 855-752-4842. Let's not forget Frackin and Drillin also. A lot of that to be done. Yeah, man. I mean, we could maybe open up some of those national parks, you know, some oil discovery.
That would be great, right? Why not? I mean, we're gonna drill baby drill. Yeah, I think Trump has already green-lighted that, hasn't he? Once upon a time, there was conservatives were meant to conserve.
thing is conservation. That's all hippie now. It's too, it's too woke. If you can't cut it, slice it, dice it, you know, prioritize it and make a little money off of it. Yeah. You know, why are we even bothering? I know. But see, but this is a philosophical, obviously philosophical difference. And I think, you know, most of you folks out there, me, certainly, you know, I'm not sure I got a lot in common with the guy like Elon Musk. And I'm not sure Elon Musk has a lot in common with a lot of folks, man.
And for a guy like that to be jumping in with his, with his, you know, doge, dogey bros, um, and, and, and making cuts because what? Because it fits on the spreadsheet. Cause why, why, why again, man? Oh, that's right. Let's never forget these conversations. When it comes to closing, or the ice age trail or the different services or the people getting fired in Nevada and all these different places, one reason only, cause these cats are trying to scrape up four and a half trillion dollars to give tax.
breaks for millionaires. That's why we're doing this, Matt. That's why. Millionaires and billionaires. They don't want their their top marginal tax rate to go up. And they don't want, you know, any of their spoiled little kids to have to pay any taxes on their inheritance. That's what it's about. Come on. But there's so many more of us. I just don't understand. I mean, we crush them on the numbers, right?
We crush them. I mean, there may be 300,000, you know, whatever million. I mean, it's a very small number. This, this 1% of the 1% man. And when you think about how much money those cats own of the total wealth in, in this country, and certainly you can look at the world as well, but in this country, it's an outrageous percentage of the top 1% of the 1%, right? But there's so many of us and we all got votes.
We all got votes. We could, we can change it. We can go back to, I don't know, I'd like to say a hundred years ago, but maybe back to 2015 when we say, no, what you cannot spend $20 million Elon Musk on a Wisconsin state supreme court race. So you can get your four dealerships. You can't do that. You, in fact, you can't even vote in the state of Wisconsin. You know, you can give a little something will allow you that because this is we, the people, not you, the billionaires.
And I'd like that. I mean, I'd like for only people in Wisconsin to be able to, you know, buy ads during our elections so that we can determine what happens here. But that's not the way it is either. But yeah, you know, I'd love to have in 2026 or 2028 a debate, you know, do you support the national parks or not? You know, because Elon Musk and Donald Trump, they can buy their own private park, but the rest of us, we can't do that. You know, we need to get in the car and go visit them. Yeah. But the ones that want to buy are.
public parks. So what better way squeeze them? And then you can get them at a low price back cause no one's going there anymore. Cause they got toxic algae and the bears are crapping all over the place. Eight five five seven five two four eight four two Jim from Appleton. You are up. Welcome Jim. What do you got for us? Oh, I'm just thinking Trump's been in office two months. It's going to take us decades.
You put it like that, man. It sounds pretty rough. Ah, you know what? The good news is Jim is a lot of these executive orders. They don't carry the weight. Uh, and the good news is we see, we see those that used to be, uh, for, you know, the separation of powers and for democracy and, and for, you know, equal branches of government and for Congress to, you know, actually write the laws and instill the budget and the executive branch to enforce it. Those, all those theories and all those folks and all those philosophies that the Republicans have claimed over the years have just been cast aside, let alone.
family values, fiscal conservatism, you know, national intelligence, you know, those kinds of things. We're going to get to that next. Thank you, Jim, for the call. I don't think it'll take that long to recover, but it depends on who comes in next. Come back with us. 855-752-4842. More fallout from the signal gate. Whiskey gate. Whiskey signal. What are we saying?
We'll call it something. Whiskey leaks. 8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2. See? Thank you, Jess.
And welcome back to the Dom Salvia show. Last segment of the day. If you got something to say, hit us up right now, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five. Civic gets a phone line as a text line. And you know how we roll in the last segment of the day. Tell us something good and then tell us what's on your mind. Let's get to it. What's go, Paul, you will be next. Welcome. What do you got for us, Paulie? Hey, good afternoon, Dom. Great show today, by the way. Very interesting. My good is the.
Mark Johnson and the Wisconsin women's NCAA team hockey team winning the national yeah man seven seven time that's just totally awesome someday there'll be a statue and him on front of the bottom arena there so thanks thanks for the great show and uh the Badger hockey women's team is awesome
Yeah, man. Paulie. Thank you for bringing that up. We didn't get to it yesterday. Congratulations. Wisconsin Badgers women hockey team national champions. They are tough. Oh man. That's, that's awesome. Thank you so much, Paulie, for bringing up, reminding us and congratulations to the Badgers. How about you, Jesse? I think good. You want to share? I do. So.
Yesterday, my friend and yours, Greg Bach, gave me a music recommendation. I get a little stuck in my ways sometimes with my music. Every once in a while, when I know someone has musical tastes that line up with me, I'll ask them. And I was looking for some new Prague rock, or some old Prague rock recommendations, and he recommended Dream Theater to me. And I listened to their album, Awake. Start to finish while I was making dinner last night.
And it was just a really excellent way to decompress from the day, enjoy some music, and just be. So if any of y'all are looking for a nice little music rec, I think it's like a 1994 album, it's older than I am. We got to play, is that Pull Me Under? Is the song I remember from then? Yeah, it's not on there. That is one of theirs. Yes, maybe we should go Pull Me Under.
That's good stuff. That's good stuff. You got something good? Well, I got, I got a couple of things. Um, number one saw on the planner and then my shared calendar of my lovely wife's stuff tonight. We got a date night tonight. Yeah. So we're going out to this restaurant that opened up in Bayview recently and it's supposed to be really good. We haven't been there yet and it.
kind of happened. My brothers in law had reservations for tonight, but a week or two ago, they just happened to be at the bar and went and ate and drank and got their fix. And so kept the reservation gave it to us delightful. And now when we get done with this show today,
I'm gonna go home and pick up my wife, but we are gonna go get some food and drinks. Oh, yeah. Would you enjoy that and report back? I will certainly do so. And Stephie's a foodie. I mean, I'll eat anything. I'll eat anything, I'll drink anything. Certainly some stuff tastes better. But she has a very distinguished taste, obviously. So yeah, I'm looking forward to that. And then this other one, it's just too damn cute. Found this one on the Drudge Report.
World's oldest cat marks 30th birthday as owner says she only drinks bottled water Leslie took over carrying for Millie the cat when his late wife Paula passed away with COVID now the pair have marked the muggy's milestone 30th birthday Oh Oh, kitty credits a kitty's life for a long life to drinking only bottled water. Huh interesting, huh?
Leslie believes a cat. His tortoise shell cat, Millie is the oldest living feline. Now the quote here was kind of sad. Here's what he said. I had a birthday cake made with her face on it. It was such a hot day. She was licking all the ice cream off. My life ambition is to get her in the Guinness Book of World Records, but I can't prove her age. The only person who can do that is my late wife who sadly died five years ago.
Oh, oh, Leslie. So congratulations. Millie, the Kenny, the old ass Kenny, drink a bottle of water, man. Eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five. Civic Jack from the Mac. You got something good. Sure. With us, buddy. Welcome. What do you got? Yeah. My wife, the artist is leaving this weekend. That is to say she and my stepdaughter are going on a retreat that the Georgia O'Keefe Museum down in New Mexico.
Nice. So that's a thing? Right on, Zach. So what are you going to do, man? Are you going to get out? What's your plan?
I'll probably sit in and do a few tunes at some jazz club or other. All right. Well, right on, Jack. Enjoy your time playing the tunes. Andrew from Maine says, my good thing for the day, it warmed up enough to rain instead of snow today. While most of the bumper music, I know it was good. It was. We always got good bumper music here. Do you know what? Well, you know, audience, we have a playlist on Spotify.
We have all of our bumper music. Oh, yeah? Yeah. So that's public. Anyone can go see that. Anyone can go see it. It's linked in every episode of our show notes. What's the name of the playlist? The Dom Salvia show.
bumper library. It's very, very original. Digging deep on that one. Oh, no, no, no. I go there sometimes because I obviously love the music we play. So sometimes I go there, but I like what you're saying. You got to get a reach out and get some new ones in a while. Absolutely. Meanwhile, I've been, I've been going back to the James game. You know, something about that seventies rock, man. There was this little dirtier back then. Hey folks, thank you so much for hanging out with us and listening today. We certainly appreciate it. Tomorrow, Matt Rusch out.
going to join us again tomorrow. We'll get y'all caught up on the news of the day and the continued follow-up from this administration. And the other thing also remember, folks, when we're paying attention to things like this, there's always something else going on. So now keep your head on a swivel and keep it locked. Stick around, Pete Schwab, the night light is coming up next. Have a great night. We'll see you on the radio tomorrow.
