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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
gave us
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.
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
$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
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
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
you
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
a... You should absolutely do
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
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.
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.
one, right?
It's one of
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
too.
Right, he
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
issue.
And frankly,
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.
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?
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,
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.