Stop Bickering And Do Your Job! (Hour 1)

Good, good morning.

Welcome.

Welcome.

Welcome back to Matt and air on air on the civic media radio network.

My name is Greg box sitting in for Jane Matt and air who is currently vacating deservedly, relaxing Lee and she misses you all.

She'll be back before you know, but you got me.

You got sweet Cal B, AKA the board Lord on the ones in Tuesday.

Hey, how you doing the Kelvin?

I'm doing fantastic.

Right.

How are you?

I'm doing peachy keen.

I got, I woke up this morning, like,

I woke up really early this morning, like 4.45 this morning and I just was full of gusto and life and purpose and I came in to work early and I got stuff done and I did that thing where you just can work in a space with no one around and you're like, I'm getting more work done than ever and just felt really good.

So I'm, I'm, I've got a lot of coffee in my system, Calvin.

So that's going to be really fun throughout the show.

So if I just start babbling more than usual, just kind of give me a signal.

So, but

We're going to have a really great show for you today.

It's very, very packed.

It's Thursday, which means 9 30 9 35.

Exactly.

Actually, after the news, Jim Santelli is a former U S attorney, currently a practicing attorney and the host of amicus, a law review, which is on every Saturday on the civic media radio network.

He will be our guest as usual on Thursday.

He breaks down all the information that's coming out of the world of law.

Lots happening here and abroad, including an update on the case of Judge Hannah Dugan.

We're going to talk about the LA occupation from the National Guard.

We're also going to speak about a ruling that came down yesterday about Harvard University and their ability to get funding and what they are entitled to and not.

So 935 is when Jim will be joining us.

And then, of course, it's Thursday.

Brittany Merleau is here with Weather and Wine giving us

the cooler outlook because it's getting cooler fall is creeping closer and closer.

Calvin, we're both in hoodie weather right now.

Like both rock and hoodies.

It's very, very, uh, comfy.

And then 10, did I say 10 35?

I'm going to say 10 22.

That's Brittany Merleau.

That's Brittany Merleau coming to 10 22.

And then 10 35 is JR Radcliffe.

He is our, one of our sports gurus.

He's a writer for the journal Sentinel and he'll be talking all things sports brewers, packers, and now badgers.

The badger season has started.

We'll be getting an update and maybe if we have time, we'll talk about that weird interaction between a pitcher and a catcher and major league baseball, but you're going to have to stick around to be a part of that.

You're going to have to stay, stay close, stay tuned.

If you want to be part of the conversation, you can call us or text us at the same number, eight, five, five, seven, five, civic eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, or if you're on the live stream right now, you can leave a comment.

We are on Facebook, YouTube and the platform.

We still call Twitter.

And yeah, we're gonna have, it's gonna be, and Calvin, how could I have forgotten?

How could I have forgotten the last segment of the show?

Some would say the most popular, this shouldn't be a thing at 1052.

Today it's the Shell of a Guy edition.

Very, very proud of that title.

This shouldn't be a thing at 1052.

It's gonna be really, really fun, great, great show.

I'm very excited to have all sorts of great conversations.

I do wanna kick it off though.

with a story that you all may have seen in the paper.

This is coming from the Wisconsin Examiner, Baylor Spears with the byline.

This came out yesterday, or actually came out this morning.

Veterans housing sites are set to close in a month.

A bipartisan fix appears out of reach.

Calvin, I don't know about you, but it just seems pretty clear to me that, you know, when it comes to funding and helping our vets,

I don't feel like this should be something that is a back and forth.

I'm going to give you the information on this, but just the title alone, veterans housing sites are set to close in a month, a bipartisan fix out of reach.

I don't know how that makes you feel Kelvin.

Well, I'm sure it makes me feel like how it makes most people feel is frustrated, annoyed, bothered.

Like it just doesn't make any sense.

And

Yeah, let us know how you feel out there in Wisconsin

on the

live stream or on the civic media app or you can always call at 855-752-4842.

Yeah,

so last month I'm gonna I'm gonna read from this article here less than a month before the plan closure of two Wisconsin veteran housing sites Republicans and Democrats have their

They're not coming together to form a solution.

Both sides are forming their own bills.

And meanwhile, blaming each other on the lack of funding that is causing the closures.

Governor Evers announced after the state budget last month, or actually two months ago now, wow, oh my gosh, that two veterans housing.

uh, two, they're, they're called veteran housing and recovery program, VHRP.

There are two sites, one in Chippewa Falls and one in Green Bay will be closing at the end of this month because of a lack of funding from the state budget, which means that they could not come together in a state budget and find monies to fund these sites for our vets.

These programs are run through the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs.

They serve veterans who are on the verge or are already experiencing homelessness.

Includes also people who have been incarcerated, unemployed, may have physical or mental health problems.

They get access to transitional housing, referrals to service providers, financial assistance, assistance to seek and vocational opportunities, and access to a room to reduce rent for working veterans.

Any of this sound bad to you yet?

Any of this sound like a waste of money to you yet?

This is all funded through appropriations of the Veterans Trust Fund.

Payments are made by program participants in a per diem payment, which is made by the agency to the federal government.

Unfortunately, because of growing staffing and maintenance costs at the facilities, they needed more state support.

And Governor Evers had included a financial or funding proposal in his budget, but it was removed by wait for it, Calvin.

You want to guess who?

Guess who?

Guess who removed it?

Was it?

He was one of them Republican lawmakers removed a proposal to fund these sites.

So.

So say senators Jeff Smith and Jamie Wall introduced a bill that would dedicate $1.9 million to the sites.

That's what we're talking about here folks.

We're not talking about billions, hundreds of millions, not trillions.

We're not looking for a big, beautiful deal for veterans.

We're looking for $1.9 million to find two sites to help vets who are going through it.

People who have dedicated their time, some of them their lives, to our military, to our freedom.

$1.9 million.

And at a press conference, Senate Minority Leader Diane Hesselbein urged Republicans to schedule a hearing for this bill and do it fast for citing the closures.

They don't want, they don't want people left out on the streets.

According to the Associated Press, the state Senate is not planning to meet for the floor session, for a floor session this month.

I don't know what to do with this information.

There was a vote on this, a state senator Smith called the Republicans lack of action.

Callous noting that the Democrats tried months ago to include funding in the budget when Democrats proposed an amendment to fund the housing sites in the state budget.

Every Republican voted against it except for

Andre Jacques of New Franken.

Thank you.

I'm being dead serious.

State Senator Franken or Jacques.

Thank you for your vote for this.

It's unlikely that the Republican led legislature will allow Democrats bill to advance.

But don't you worry, folks, on the other side, Andre Jacques and Representative Benjamin Franklin.

That's his real name.

Benjamin Franklin of Depeer also have a $1.9 million dollar bill.

for the VHRP program as well as two other policy changes.

There are some policy changes.

They would require the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin to provide funding for the UW Missing in Action Recovery and Identification Project.

to support missions to recover and identify Wisconsin veterans who are missing.

It's great.

The other would lower the eligibility threshold for veterans and survivor spouses to claim the veterans and surviving spouses property tax credits.

I don't know why they included those.

I'm not against them.

I don't, you know, they have their reasons.

That's fine.

But Kelvin, I don't know about you, but we have two sides of the aisle with $1.9 million bills, essentially.

And the Republicans aren't going to take it up on the Democrat side.

Jacques has said he found a lot of support from his Republican colleagues, and hopefully the bill will be referred to the State Committee on Natural Resources, Veteran and Military Affairs, which he actually chairs.

In response to the question about Jacques's bill and whether Democrats are working with Republicans to advance funding for the facilities, Hesselbein brushed off the GOP bill, saying it's simply pulled from Democrats.

I don't care which side put this together.

Whoever did it first, $1.9 million.

Some of you working in that building could pay for it out of your pocket.

I am tired, sick to death, tired.

of listening to politicians talk about how much they love vets and we can't come together over $1.9 million?

Republicans continually voted this down.

This was not the first time, by the way, Kelvin, listeners, watchers.

This was not the first time they voted down this funding.

They knew this was coming.

They knew they needed more funding and yet it was constantly removed or voted down and now it's not gonna be taken up.

Hopefully the bill that

Senator Jacques put together is taken up.

I have no idea.

I just, I cannot get over this.

They are bickering back and forth about who did what to who.

Meanwhile, there are real people, real vets, who face homelessness because we, as legislators, and not me, I'm not one of them, can't get our junk together.

Debbie from South Dakota,

on the phone line.

Debbie, how are you doing?

Good.

How are you?

I'm doing well, my dear.

What say you to this?

So it's such a horde trickle effect because the states get funding from the federal government.

Somebody in the White House had to throw himself a big old parade.

And a lot of that money could have been used for this.

I'm so

annoyed.

Now, the, what he went on is, Oh, our vets, we're going to do this for our vets.

So we're going to do this for our vets.

Yeah.

Yeah, never happened.

No.

And you're absolutely right, Debbie, $45 million for a parade.

We could have taken a chunk of that.

We could have, we could have funded this and

uh, both sides of the aisle here in Wisconsin could have raised their hands and saying, we did it, but instead we're doing this right now.

We're back and forth.

They did this.

And, and, and, and I, like I said, Debbie, I don't care.

Pass one or the other bills.

Just do it.

There's no reason why we should be, we should be persnickety about these things.

These are vets who are facing homelessness.

Thank you so much, Debbie, for calling.

I love you very much.

And I miss you.

Why did I say that folks?

That's my cousin.

She's in South Dakota and I love her a great deal.

Thanks for calling Debbie.

I'll talk to you sooner than later.

Please call us.

Text us.

Let us know how you feel about this because I read this and I felt like I'm not a parent, but I felt like the parent of two children who just can't get along right now and just get your chores done.

Get it done.

Fix the problem.

It's $1.9 million.

Comment on the live stream.

Give us a call.

Send us a text 855-752-484-2855-756.

You're listening to Matt and air on air on the civic media radio network.

We're going to keep it going.

Stay tuned.

Stay close.

Good morning.

Welcome back to Matt and Aaron air.

My name is Greg box sitting in for Jane, Matt and air, and we got sweet Cal B behind the boards.

And if you want to call or text, get in touch with us 855-752-4842-8557, five seven five six.

I did it right.

You can leave a comment on the live stream, uh, whether it's on Facebook, YouTube or the place we still call Twitter.

And if you're just joining us right now, thank you so much for being here.

We appreciate you.

If you're wondering where Jane is, she is resting and relaxing, and she'll be back before you know it.

But we were talking about a story in the Wisconsin Examiner, byline by Baylor Spears, about a bipartisan fix that seems out of reach to keep two veteran veterans housing sites open.

They're being, they're on schedule to close at the end of this month.

They were not able to find funding in the budget.

This is not the first budget they weren't able to find funding in.

And the Democrats have a fix, and the Republicans have a fix.

The Republicans probably won't take it up because the Senate isn't voting on anything this month.

And it's both bills for $1.9 million.

$1.9 million.

And I ask you the question, how do you feel about something like that?

Aren't we supposed to be protecting our veterans?

Aren't we always talking about how important they are to us?

is $1.9 million too little to spend on them or too much to spend on them, I should say.

We're coming up on a date on an anniversary next week, a very important moment in American history where we throw a lot of words of well-wishing to veterans through social media.

I think it's time for our lawmakers in Madison to put up or shut up.

The fact that both sides can't get together on this the fact that one has a bill and the other has a bill and now they're just Bickering about who did what to who when well, we're all doing this the veterans together fix this Tony on the live stream just simply says furious Yep He also goes on to say not having priorities in order to it's just absolutely It's sort of indicative of what goes on especially I've seen Madison too it's it's

Just get the work done.

You've got the thing in front of you.

We got the budget done, not everyone's happy, and I understand that.

There's a lot of things in that budget I'm not happy about as well.

You know, childcare funding did not get funded to the extent it needed to.

We didn't get K through 12 funding for schools here in Wisconsin for some reason.

And $1.9 million wasn't approved for our veterans so they can make sure they came out of hopefulness and also thrive, not just survive.

Because they do the hard work that a lot of us, including myself, didn't do.

I didn't sign up.

They did.

They deserve help.

It's a contract.

It's a deal.

So I want to hear from you.

I want to know what you're thinking about this.

And Debbie called earlier.

And she said, yeah, we could have used some of that money from the parade to do to take it.

I mean, yeah, there's there's a lot of money out there.

But unfortunately, if it's the federal government is being given to the rich, if it's the state government, it's just not being funded.

We got a lot of money in that.

Calvin, we got a lot of money in that surplus.

Don't we enough to pay for this many times over?

I thought, am I wrong?

That's not our money, Greg.

Who's money is that?

It's Robin Voss.

It's money.

You're right.

And Robin Voss actually does not like being told what to do.

He doesn't like having his power usurped.

He doesn't like, he doesn't like when he's not in control.

And I bring that up for another reason, because in another story in the Wisconsin examiner, also by Baylor Spears, I should be paying Baylor for all of this inside information.

It's not, it's on the website.

Go to Wisconsinexaminer.com for more information on them because they're great.

It's a great news.

here in Wisconsin.

You would think it'd be very, very simple.

Legislative committee approves pay rises that Evers already implemented.

And the Joint Committee on Employment Relations unanimously approved pay rises for state and university Wisconsin employees on Wednesday morning yesterday, but not without criticism from top assembly Republicans of Governor Tony Evers decision to implement ahead of the committee.

You guessed it right before guess who's talking this time again Calvin guess who's talking who's upset with Tony Evers It's none other than the famous popcorn King the popcorn King is back Assembly Speaker Robin Voss complained about Evers actions before the committee voted Wednesday saying Evers administration is quote.

I love this drunk with power Unquote

and is upending a process that quote that has literally worked for generations know it doesn't Robin because you all won't approve things or you all won't pay for things that have been approved and allocated so governor evers has to step around you and do something because these individuals deserve pay raises and if you don't think i'm correct that's fine but people who work in the university people who have jobs are

have a right to basic pay rises that keep up with inflation and if you're saying, oh, they must be making millions of dollars.

No, they're not.

Again, Senate Minority Leader Diane Hesselbein went to say, I'm glad that we're doing the adjustment, but I would have liked to note after a conversation with representatives of hardworking men and women throughout the state providing public service that the compensation for the average

State employee does not remain 18% below inflation since 2012.

While this is small, this is a small step in the right direction, we have a lot to do.

We have a lot more to do going forward.

PJ in the live stream said Robin Voss needs to take a long look in the mirror about who's drunk with power.

Absolutely.

Robin Voss, as you said earlier, it's kind of like one of our many slogans here.

It's Robin Voss's money.

We're just you know, he does what he wants with it That money was allocated.

It was implemented.

It was ready to go it needed the committee to it didn't need the committee to do anything because as we saw with the Evers versus Markline decision that came down That basically that the committee is especially the joint findings committee

They were not, they were not sending money through.

They were not awarding money.

They were not funding programs that had been voted on to be funded.

And the courts basically said, this is ridiculous.

And you can't, and six to one, by the way, six to one, one of those was the, was, I can't think of his name right now, but he is not a liberal judge.

He is not a liberal judge.

So this is just another, this is another example of our lawmakers just not playing nice with each other.

And it's costing us, it's costing our vets.

So

We're going to get grab some snacks, grab some water.

I need a snack and some water.

I'm getting dehydrated here.

So when we come back, Jim Santel, host of amicus, a law review will be here to talk about all things in the law world.

Don't go anywhere.

Stay close.

Stay tuned.

You're listening to Matt and Aaron air on the civic media radio network.

Good morning.

Welcome back to Matt and air on air.

My name is Greg box sitting in for Jane Matt and air who is currently vacating, relax, relaxing, resting, deservedly.

Should we back before you know it?

And she misses you.

You're listening to the show here on the civic media radio network.

You can call or commentate as you see fit.

Call or text the same number is the same 8557 5248 4285 575 civic.

You can also leave a comment.

On the livestream, we are on Facebook, YouTube, and the site we still call.

Twitter.

Hey folks, if you have the Civic Media app tomorrow is Friday, which means free ticket Friday is coming up.

You know what that means.

And we're going to give you a keyword during the show.

You're going to text it in through the Civic Media app and you will enter in for a chance to win a four pack of club level tickets to see the brewers take on the St.

Louis Cardinals on Saturday, September the 13th.

You got to have the Civic Media app to participate.

So all you got to do if you don't have it, go to your app store of choice, whether it be the Apple store or Google.

Play Store.

I don't know if there's any other places to get apps, Calvin, but those are the two main spots.

Download the Civic Media app.

It's absolutely free.

That's a pun.

And you can participate in all of our free ticket giveaways, our statewide ticket contest.

We are going to be doing a statewide text to win contest later in a few weeks.

Have more information about that.

But for now, to participate tomorrow and free ticket Friday, you need to get that Civic Media app.

Wait for that keyword.

Text it in, text it in spelled correctly, and you will be entered.

There'll be five chances throughout the day to enter, and you will be hopefully going to a game with three of your friends to see the Brewers take on St.

Louis on the 13th of September.

So once again, tomorrow free ticket Friday, get that Civic Media app in your life, and you will be happier for it.

You're welcome.

Now, a person who makes me very happy to be around because he is just so...

So smart, so informed, so amazing, so good hearted.

He is the host of Amicus, a law review, which is on every single Saturday.

He is also a former U.S.

attorney, current practicing attorney, and just a good guy all around.

He brings snacks to the studio when he does his show.

I know that because I've done it, and I'll be there on Saturday and we're excited.

So Jim Santel is our guest as always on Thursdays.

Jim, how are you doing this morning?

Greg, good to be with you.

It's always looking forward to Saturday.

We'll tell you later on what the snacks on Saturday may well be.

But also setting a very high bar this morning.

I don't know if I can live up to that, but we'll give it a shot given everything that's going on.

As you always say, you and I and others, it's a lot, right?

It's a lot.

That's a lot.

Well, we're going to kick things off locally here in Milwaukee, southeastern Wisconsin.

We talked about this a little bit last week, but there was a development.

Small development in the case against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan.

Right, absolutely.

And so we talked last week on this very broadcast about the fact that the presiding judge, his name is Lynn Adelman.

He's a federal trial court judge.

He's been there for a very long time.

He's got a very good reputation in terms of wrestling with the issues.

He decided to deny, deny the motion, basically was a two-part motion from Hannah Duggan to dismiss the case against her.

This is the federal indictment against her for obstructing the actions of federal officers.

And he said, you know what, we're going to wait until there's a trial on this.

There really is no judicial immunity at this point.

And also said there's really not a 10th Amendment issue with respect to the state and the federal government being kind of mixed up together.

And so he denied those.

And the reason why this is significant back again in the news is that everyone anticipated, I shouldn't say everything.

I'm sounding like our president, don't

I?

Many people, including me.

Many people are saying, Jim, people are talking.

Nobody knew.

Nobody

knew.

But

that's when many people anticipated that given the fact that he denied those motions.

that the judge, through her attorneys, would take what's called an interlocutory appeal, go to the 7th Circuit and get their review on it.

Just because that is, again, part of the process, there's nothing wrong with that, it's due process.

And it also has some strategic advantages just in terms of maybe slowing some things down, which almost always is to the advantage of the defense.

I mean, things happen over time if things are delayed.

Interesting that the judge through attorneys announced just this past week that they're not going to be appealing that.

And they'll go ahead with trial.

The judge then set it on for trial coming up in December.

And the reason why I think we're talking about it, you and I and Calvin and maybe your listeners as well, is interesting strategy here.

No obligation, obviously, to appeal.

It would not be a regular for to do that, but as I thought through it...

Again, a number of important civics issues coming out of this.

One, of course, is the client always makes a decision, right?

It's not the lawyers on these big ticket items.

You think it's always the lawyers, some strategic things, yes.

But my guess is that Hannah Duggan said, you know what?

I'm administrative leave.

I am sitting at home right now.

I'm doing things in the community.

I would like this to be resolved.

And as long as we, if we go to the seventh circuit, it might be tried sometime in 2026, maybe.

2027, given the time that the Seventh Circuit could take on this, you never know how long this could be.

And she probably said, you know what, I'm a Circuit Court judge.

Let's go to trial.

And I've got legitimate defenses, factual defenses, there may be other things to raise.

Let's do this.

And so she said, let's go ahead.

And again, it appears it will be on for December.

could move again, depending upon other pretrial matters that happened here, but something of a small S surprise, but not completely unanticipated, given the interest that she may have.

Obviously, government and the people have an interest in expedited trial.

Another footnote is she can always raise these issues if there is a conviction after this trial and she is sentenced by the judge.

She can then appeal everything, including these pretrial motion decisions by judge.

So it doesn't wave.

It doesn't give it up entirely.

Just postpone that down the road.

And I think what she's saying is, let's go to trial.

Let's get the merits of this out there.

Let's get the people to understand what this case was and was not about.

And it is good for her, good for the government again, good for expedited justice, right?

To move forward and get some resolution on these things as opposed to talking about 2026 or 2027.

Now,

a couple of questions I have for you is,

Was there a chance that the judge, I mean, I know they went for a dismissal on other aspects, but could the judge have just looked at the video and simply said, there's nothing here that shows any sort of wrongdoing dismissed completely.

Or as you put it, I think last week, it's advantageous to the defense for a jury to see this video, to make up their own minds.

to sort of protect them from the start.

Cause if a judge says no, it dismissed, they can come back and say there could be other, there can be other problems, but sending it to a jury actually is better in the long run.

I believe, is that what you said?

I think so.

I think so.

I mean, we all, I think we embrace the system of trial by jury.

It's not common, frankly, on the face of the planet.

We should know that.

We are not alone, but most places have just trials by judges, right?

Here we go based upon the Constitution.

This is a federal case.

We've got an estate constitution as well.

We rely on the people of our community to make a determination about what the facts say.

And that's really what the judge was saying and denying the motion to, which is, let's have some people come in.

And let's have them listen to what the facts are all about this.

Let's talk about in detail, who said what to whom?

Where were you positioned?

inside the courtroom, outside the courtroom.

What were you doing?

What were the conversations?

How did this look?

Was there really obstruction or was there something else going on?

Where were people located?

All those kinds of things in the weeds.

Let's get that on the docket.

And so it kind of is the video review of this that a jury should take a look at.

Judges do have some capacity

if the government wholly fails either to allege something in indictment, or if wholly fails to prove it at the end of their cases, called the judgment notwithstanding the, I'm sorry, it's a directed verdict, but it would be unusual in a criminal case for the judge completely to take it away from a jury.

And again, I think that everybody is looking at this and saying,

Let's look at what exactly happened here.

We've seen the video, but their plainly video, as we know, doesn't always tell everything.

Let's get people in the stand to describe who they talked to, what was going on, and maybe, just maybe, the judge may choose, she doesn't oblige to do it.

She's got a fifth amendment right, not to, but maybe she gets on the stand also.

I think the jury may want to hear from her.

When she says, you know what, presumably she will, I had no intent to derail the attempts by the agents.

I was doing just the opposite.

And she would take that position.

That's a credibility determination, right?

The jury can make that, as with other agents.

So this is a movement, I would say, in the right direction, although once again, a bit of a surprise in terms of what lawyers normally do and do not do.

If you're just joining us on Matt and Aaron air, we are speaking to the host of amicus a law review.

His name is Jim Santel.

He is a former U. S attorney, a current practicing attorney.

His show is on every Saturday on the civic media radio network at nine AM.

It's like a two hour masterclass in law school.

Don't shake your head, Jim.

Don't blush.

Take a compliment.

Let's move along.

Another quick question in this.

I mean, this is just something that popped into my brain, but from your experience in, in a situation like this where.

She is going to be out of her job for at least six, eight months, possibly a year.

Does she have recourse to get money back if they find her not guilty?

I mean, the Wisconsin Supreme Court took away her right to be a judge as part of the process.

There was nothing untoward or out of procedure for that.

But if she goes a year without working and then they find her not guilty, does she have recourse to get

money's back or is she just that's just I mean sorry sorry it happened but you're welcome back

right that's always a good question my understanding is the Supreme Court placed her on administrative leave

and that

means that she is ob she's she's still a circuit court judge my understanding is that she is still getting compensated

for that position.

That's administratively leave as opposed to just leave or dismissal.

And if that is not the case, if there's some other things that she is no longer getting benefits from, then plainly she can go back to the court through the administrative process and recoup some of that.

But I believe, I'll have to check on exactly what the order said about this, I believe that she is still getting paid, which again is another

reason

for the people of Wisconsin to say,

Let's get the benefit of our payment to

the judge, right?

Let's

get her back on the bench and and go ahead and so all sorts of good things could come from a more expedited trial.

Yes

now and the other thing too I want to touch on this because I want to reiterate the sheer gravity of this case because when it first happened this was I mean ice was just starting to starting the detainments

all of these things were going on, and they had arrested a judge in the courthouse in Milwaukee.

It made national news.

And if she is found not guilty, because as far as I'm aware, I have not seen any other judges around the country being arrested.

This was kind of the first time.

And so far, fingers crossed, the only time we see it happen.

But what kind of message does this send if she's found not guilty as well?

Do you think there is a version of this where

The federal government says, eh, it's not worth our time.

I mean, we've only got one.

It ended up being not guilty.

We can focus our attention somewhere else.

You would like to think that it should

I would love to think that

especially right to write to write and that you would like to think the US Attorney's Office US Department of Justice headed by Pam Bondi We look at that if there is in fact a finding of not guilty and acquittal by a jury that gosh Maybe we should rethink our strategy on all this.

There was one other case out east Years ago case was dismissed by a judge under a case which is against a judge similar circumstances But as you said Greg this has attracted worldwide attention

and right nation wide attention, worldwide attention, and if in fact, whatever the verdict may be after the jury comes back here, is going to get a lot of focus and again, whatever the direction may be, if there is an acquittal here, it does send a dramatic message again.

As this president and this attorney general are getting all the time from judges and courts to step back, not to do this and to go in a different direction, to do traditional law enforcement where you're not raising these issues about

the involvement of the federal government and state matters.

And you like to think that, again, our attorney general would take that to heart.

We know, we know because he does it again just recently, he would attack the jury, right?

A crazy jury in Milwaukee and that's what he does when he doesn't get a decision he likes.

That should not be the case.

So we'll see what happens.

All right, we're going to keep our conversation with Jim Santel Cohen when we return a huge decision in favor of a major university.

to find out more.

Stay close.

Stay tuned to Matt Nara Nara.

You're listening on the Civic Media Radio Network.

Get some water.

Get a snack.

Come on back.

We'll see you in a

bit.

Good morning.

Welcome back to Matt and air on air.

My name is Greg box sitting in for Jane Matt and air who is currently vacating and doing it deservedly.

She would back before you know it and she sends her love and she misses you, but you can always be a part of the show by calling or texting.

It's the same number 8557 5248 4285575 civic or leave a comment on the live stream.

It's on Facebook, YouTube and the platform.

We still call Twitter.

We are speaking with Jim Santel, who is the host of Amicus, a law review, which is available every single Saturday at 9 AM.

Actually, the show takes place live on Saturdays.

It's always available by going to civicmedia.us slash shows where you can find the show, you can download it and listen to it on your device anytime, anywhere.

Like I said, two hours of law school class every Saturday with Jim.

He's also a former U.S.

attorney, current practicing attorney, my friend, your friend, bring your snacks and mirth.

And we are going to talk now about a decision that came down this week regarding a lawsuit against the Trump administration and finding in favor of Harvard University.

It's a big deal for a number of reasons, right?

It's an academic issue.

It is a ruling.

Again, as we said in the previous segment, my friend, telling the Trump administration, you can't do this, knock it off, stop it.

This comes way back in April.

We first began to chat about it on this fine broadcast.

In April, you may recall the administration, Donald Trump sends a letter to Harvard saying that your access to federal research money is going to dry up.

And you got to do some things to change what you're doing.

You got to be audited by us.

You have to establish merit-based admissions programs, hiring practices.

You got to shut down all that DEI stuff that you're doing there in Cambridge.

And you got to be going to examine your programs and departments that most fuel harassment.

or reflect ideological capture, whatever that means.

So in other words, basically we're taking over Harvard, right?

And so Harvard doesn't take lightly to this.

And as you said, files a lawsuit, federal court in Boston.

And we always like to identify those judges who are out there who are, from my perspective, I think yours as well.

Most of your listeners doing the right thing.

This is Allison Burroughs, B-U-R-R-O-U-G-H-S.

She's a U.S.

District Judge in Boston.

She's just like Lynn Edelman here.

in Milwaukee.

She's the same kind of thing.

She's a trial judge out there.

And she once again says, nope, can't be doing this.

This is a violation.

And along the way, she basically says that the government has broken the law.

You violated the law by freezing billions of dollars in research for Harvard in the name of stamping out anti-Semitism.

It is a First Amendment case, and she goes on to say this.

She said, yes, indeed, we have to fight anti-Semitism, but we equally need to protect our rights, including our right to free speech, and neither goal should nor needs to be sacrificed on the altar of the other.

Isn't that great language?

84 pages of this she goes on.

Harvard, she says, is currently, even if belatedly,

taking steps it needs to combat anti-Semitism and seems willing to do even more if need be.

Now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up to act to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution, Mr. President, and to ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda, no matter the cost.

Wow, those are words from a district court judge telling Donald Trump, telling the education department, telling everybody the litigators to from the Department of Justice back off.

Yeah, you've got no authority to do this big, big deal, big deal.

Absolutely.

And I imagine I mean, what I think one of the other points of this whole lawsuit that's important is that, you know, I don't think there is a more targeted university for rhetoric than Harvard from the Republicans.

They love to hate on education.

They love to look at

Ivy League schools that for better or for worse, have a have a proven track record of providing some of the greatest scholars of our time.

And I, what I think is funny is that their whole thing against DEI, well, that's fine.

You don't like DEI and you want merit based.

Then some of those buddies of yours who work in the administration, their kids aren't going either.

Cause they're not good enough to get in no matter how many millions of dollars you put into building a cafeteria.

So yeah, this

This seemed like a, you know, there's been a lot of, I want to say wins for democracy coming down the pike this week.

And we're going to talk about one and actually you've been very nice enough to stay on for the next segment.

Cause I want to talk about a decision that came out of an LA court courthouse this week, but I also want to discuss how it pertains to Milwaukee and how it pertains to.

other big cities and we're going to talk more about that on the other side after the news.

But that is the kind of decision, Jim, that I like to print out, kick my feet up with a nice glass of apple juice and just read because for me personally, there's nothing better than reading a decision that has just the best language.

And this one really does stay.

Stop it.

Knock it off.

You can't do this.

Exactly.

And again, what can't you do?

You can't step on academic freedom, right?

That's what universities and colleges are all about, and trade schools and other places of learning.

We want them to engage in research because we get better by doing that.

And when you cut that off, you're literally cutting off our academic lifelines to the future.

That's what she's saying.

I can't agree more, Greg.

It's very readable.

Judge Burroughs has written a readable opinion.

And she's also basically sort of challenged, if you will, when you think about Harvard, let's count the number of Supreme Court justices who are graduates of Harvard.

It's Harvard, Yale, right?

And no one yet from the University of Chicago, Maya Mamada, but maybe one day.

But the reality is that this has been, as you said, both the attractive kicking of focus for an awful lot of people, but also the source of an awful lot of academic starters.

It's our first college, our first university, and then

nation and it stands today as an important ruling.

We'll see what the appeals court does on this.

We'd like to think they would reaffirm her, maybe goes after the Supreme Court again.

But today, today a real stand for education in America.

Well, when we come back from our snack time and our water time after the news, we're going to go from the East Coast judge saying no to a West Coast judge saying no.

And how that decision coming out of Los Angeles

applies to Milwaukee.

You're listening to Matt Nair on air.

We are talking to Jim Santel, host of Amicus a Law Review, who I heard is going to be hosting tonight from Maggie Domba.

We'll talk about more of that

in a little

bit.

But yeah, stay close, stay tuned.

You're listening to us on the Civic Media Radio Network.

good morning.

Welcome.

Welcome back to Jane to Matt and air on air.

My name is Greg box city in for Jane Matt and air who is currently on vacation resting, relaxing.

She'll be back before you know it and she misses you desperately.

We have a wonderful, wonderful hour ahead of you, including sports with J. R. Radcliffe at 10 35 weather and wine at 10 22 with Britney Merleau.

But before we get into anything, Jim Santella is still here.

Host of amicus a law review.

He stuck around.

to talk more about everything going on in the law world.

And if you want to be part of the conversation, you can call or text the number is the same 855-752-4842-855-757.

Leave a comment on the live stream.

We are currently on Facebook, YouTube, and the site we still call Twitter.

Really quick here.

baseball action happening as I can see today against the Philadelphia Phillies Milwaukee taking them on this 235 is the broadcast start.

You can listen to it on W R C E. You can in Richland Center W I S S and Oshkosh W R J N in Racine where we are right now and W C Q M in Park Falls as well as W B Z H are newest.

Brewers affiliate in Hayward.

So yeah, you have to listen to it on terrestrial radio.

You cannot access the game to the app.

That's fine.

Find yourself a radio.

If you're in the area, kick back, listen to some ball.

Brewers are playing great.

Still the best team, still the best team in baseball, in my opinion, best record, all that good stuff.

We're going to march our way to October and take that playoff spot we so rightfully deserve.

But yes, broadcast starts at 235 Brewers versus the Philadelphia Phillies.

Listen to the brewers on the I guess we're a brewers radio network.

Yeah, so cool now We're talking to Jim Santel about all the things going on in the law world right now and there was a big decision that came out of Los Angeles regarding I'm gonna say at the occupation of the city via federal troops as ordered by the Trump administration and a judge ruled that the National Guard in LA was not

He ruled against it.

He said it was not lawful, not legal.

He could not do it.

Absolutely.

In terms, it could not be more stark.

And once again, it has to be sending shock waves through the West Wing right now.

Although, again, the president has already reached out and said this particular judge, like all the others, is unfounded doing what he's doing.

Let's give you his name once again.

This is Charles Breyer, B-R-E-Y-E-R.

So Greg, you and I have been in Milwaukee with district court judges, Boston district court judges, and now we're out in California.

And he has before him this challenge to whether or not the president

can, in fact, send in federal troops to do law enforcement in Los Angeles, principally.

And the judge says, no, we can't do this.

And here's the list of things that the judge tells the White House.

You can't do it, these people.

And ask yourself, is there anything missing from this list?

You can't have troops engage anywhere in California, he says, to engage in.

Here's his list.

Arrests.

apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants.

Gosh, I think that pretty much exhausts everything when it comes to law enforcement.

Again, to use the language we're using this morning, can't do it, Mr. President.

And what does the judge do?

He goes back to 1878.

Calvin was just a teenager way back then, but we still remember the Posse Comitatus Act.

Posse Comitatus

Justice Act says it's illegal.

It is wrong.

Can't do it.

To use federal troops for domestic policing.

We've talked about this before.

We've got two different kinds of things going on here under normal circumstances.

And so the law, again, 1878, still good.

Can't do this.

And under these particular circumstances, the judge says you have violated the law.

You have arguably violated the Constitution as well.

And as a result of that, stop it.

We also had a judge, again, you remember a couple weeks ago we talked about it, named Frimpong, who also said, even with respect to some of the things that the government is doing, you have to apply the right standards.

So even before we got to this, we had law enforcement, federal law enforcement, engaging in arrests and apprehensions.

Now this judge has said, can't do any of that because you haven't met the predicates of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Can't do it.

And I know, as you said, the next question is okay.

Can't do it in California.

What about other places, right, my friend?

Absolutely.

And before we get to that, I want to quote something that the judge actually said that I thought it's sticking with me because Governor Newsom actually put it in his statement, but Judge Breyer actually said that the.

What he was doing was creating a national police force with the president as its chief and this is something we have seen coming out of the White House since he got into office in January, which is I'm the president I can dot dot dot whether it's I can direct the military I can I can take over cities I can take over agencies basically I'm the president I get to do whatever I want because checks and balances do not apply to this guy and

on the live stream King Rat wrote, and I wanted to bring this up to you because he has pointed his finger at Chicago as next.

And we talked about this story yesterday.

And I said, well, when they run out of big cities like New York, LA, well, actually can Jim imagine a world where.

Trump tries to send any troops into New York.

I just don't think that will go well.

But when they start running out of the big cities, they'll start pointing their fingers at other quote, liberal bastions of blue waves of people who don't like freedom in America.

And Milwaukee is something that's been on, you know, we've been talking about this now for about a week.

And King Rat asked, he said, as an attorney, how do you feel about the National Guard maybe coming to Milwaukee?

Can officers refuse illegal orders since the troops?

deployed to LA were deemed illegal.

And I'll put on top of that, that yesterday it was released that the police chief, I'm sorry, I'm gonna rephrase that, the president of the police union in Milwaukee was quote, weighing whether or not to ask President Trump for help.

So Milwaukee is definitely in the mix, even though Chicago seems to be the next target.

Right and of course this notion of invitations is something that our president is Focusing a lot with Governor Pritzker with the mayor of the city of Chicago and asking why don't you just invite me in right you know and again That's not the standard mr. President and again it goes all of the observations Including those of your listeners of course it we do fundamentally different things when we have civilian law enforcement and Military operations.

They're trained differently.

They do different things.

I spent more

to my career working with domestic law enforcement.

When I was in Iraq, we worked with military forces.

And again, trying to establish safety and security, they have different functions.

They do things differently.

And that's the reason why we have not only these clashes, quite literally on the streets that we now have sometimes in Washington, D.C., but also this fundamental difference in the way in which we go about keeping people safe and secure.

If, in fact, Mr. President, you want to improve the quality of safety and security and law enforcement, you can do that.

You can have the Congress, you can have, allocate through various programs, more law enforcement, but it's domestic law enforcement.

It's not troops going in with tanks and doing the checkpoints and the kinds of things we're talking about.

But it does raise the specter, not only of Chicago, 90 miles to our south as we get together here this morning, Greg, but also in Milwaukee, right here.

And again, our mayor has said, no need to do this.

We know what we're doing.

We've got our situation under control.

If our police chief

invites the president in, that changes the dynamic, does it not?

And so we need to be focused on that, that kind of outreach.

But again, this is an overreach.

You know, in the context of things he does, just because he's a president, he's also once again issuing orders about how elections will be conducted.

The president has no capacity to engage in election rules and regulations.

That's a state matter once again.

He just doesn't get this, or he doesn't.

he doesn't care.

And that's the big takeaway on all this.

King Rat actually had a comment for what you just said to invite me in.

Sounds just like a vampire.

I don't know if a description and comparison has been more apt, King.

Thank you very much for commenting.

That's, you know, that was something we talked about yesterday with Sarah Gonski, who is the state director of policy, a policy director, yeah, for the Institute for.

responsive government talking about the fact that we're now back in this conversation about voting machines and mail in voting when it felt like.

It felt like the Republicans had gotten pretty much on board with this.

It definitely worked in their favor in 2024, but now, all of a sudden, it's terrible again.

It's the worst again.

It couldn't possibly be done.

It is a damaging mark on democracy, Jim.

Mail-in voting that's been happening for decades.

And, you know, let's just get rid of it and see what happens, because that's the only way elections are solved or are handled is through

in person on the day voting and if you can't vote too bad.

Right.

And again, it's proven wrong in so many ways that we've got no instances.

Let's all say it again.

No instances that mail-in voting, that absentee voting corrupt somehow the system.

No, it doesn't do that.

And those of us, including you and other people, your listeners who are poll workers, know that, the checks and balances are there.

There's just nothing to see here.

Beyond that, oh yeah, once again, we got that little James Madison problem, Mr. President, who said, you know, the time, circumstances, the trappings of elections, those are left to

What?

Let's all say it together, the states,

including the state of

Wisconsin.

That's why we've got disputes internal to the state about how we do drop boxes and mail-in voting, all those kinds of things.

The president is the one federal officer who has nothing to do.

The Congress does.

Sure, they review not only electoral college votes, other things.

They can pass laws.

The president is the one person in our government who has nothing to do with this.

And so the irony is dripping.

The outrage.

is even greater here.

And again, we'll go into court once again if he pursues these things and push back on it.

We shouldn't have to do all of this, right?

Aren't we just exhausted by all of this?

And again, he is losing.

I'm looking recently at his win-loss record.

He's about 66%, about two-thirds of the things that are challenged

I find that, yes, indeed, you're doing this improperly, illegally, Mr. President.

He's not winning in court.

And maybe that's the point.

Maybe he doesn't care about it.

Maybe it's just pushback on all of this.

But along the way, sending the message that come 2026, a little bit more than a year from now, that he's either setting it up to suggest that the voting is not proper.

My own view is I think we're going into an election in 2026.

My concern getting back to our first issue, Greg, is

If there is so much oppression in places where, for example, like Houston or Chicago or Los Angeles, where there is voting, and in fact, you've got people who are afraid to go to the polls because of the presence of national federal officers and federal police there, and you are suppressing the vote by virtue of what you are doing, you don't have to call off elections.

You're simply preventing people from voting in the first place by scaring them and having them stay home.

That's my concern about this president.

this recent bandering about a new executive order also supports that.

Let me just send you the message that bad things are going to happen if

you

don't follow what I say.

And when it comes down to it, when people want to talk about this topic, remember, all of those tactics are nothing more than voter intimidation and voter disenfranchisement.

And that is against what we are guaranteed in our Constitution, the right to cast a ballot, unencumbered, unmolested, undone by anybody else.

We shall be

We shall raise our voices through the voting system and he cannot stop us.

He shouldn't be able to stop us because this

I'm going to listen to you, Jim.

You are very knowledgeable.

So if you think there's going to be an election in 2026, I hold a little bit of fear.

But we will talk about that more as we go forward down the road through the weeks as we get closer and closer to elections.

But for now, I want to thank you, Jim Santel, for being here because we love having you around.

You are hosting for Maggie Dawn tonight from 4 to 6 PM.

And you can listen to that live on the Civic Media app and then also tomorrow amicus a law review from 9 to

you.

We'll have a great weekend.

We'll have a great weekend on 11.

Jim will be there as well.

Jim.

Thank you so much.

I will talk to you on Saturday, but still have a great weekend.

You also and all your listeners as well as a delight to be with you and Calvin.

Thanks so much, Greg.

When we come back, it's time for weather and wine with Brittany Merlot.

It's getting cooler.

There's nothing we can do about it.

So get out those sweaters.

Get that pumpkin spice because Britney's gonna be talking about this weekend's forecast.

Don't go far.

Stay close.

Stay tuned.

You're listening to

Yeah!

Good morning.

Welcome back to Matt and they're on air.

My name is Greg box sitting in for Jane.

Matt and there was currently vacating, but we'll be back before you know it and she misses you.

She just told me.

If you want to get in touch with us, you can be part of the conversation.

Call her text 855-752-484-2855.

75 civic leave a comment on the live stream or you can get in touch with us You can leave a voice note on the civic media app.

You can call in text there as well So once again get the civic media app tomorrow's free ticket Friday.

You can participate that way I'll talk more about that in a little while, but yeah civic media app You can call text voice note say hi love to hear from you even if you don't like us We've gotten those voice notes too, but

Civic Media app.

Get in touch with us.

Be part of the conversation.

We are currently live streaming on Facebook, YouTube and the site.

We still call Twitter.

She is an award-winning meteorologist and writer here at Civic Media.

She is our good buddy, our good pal here every Thursday with a little weather and wine.

Miss Brittany Merleau.

Brittany, how are you today?

I'm all right a lot of winers out there, of course a lot of weather and

winers Okay, so so let me guess a Month ago those same winers were it's too hot now those same winers like it's cold It's

too cold too soon.

Yeah, what happens

every year?

Have you never lived here before?

I know, right?

It's just a little cold snap.

We're gonna still see some 80s in the future hanging there.

It's

not over yet.

Oh, really?

Oh, I thought we were done with that.

Okay.

Right.

And the heat and humidity, the humidity is gone.

That's the good part.

Oh, yeah.

So if we get 80s, it's not gonna be as sticky as in the middle of summer.

Yeah.

Now, you said the cold snap, there were flurries in Minnesota

happening.

I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, at least on radar.

I'm still waiting to verify from people living up there if it truly did happen But radar showed that flip to the white stuff flying around way north in Minnesota like the arrowhead by a lee area

Yeah, okay.

Well, and I mean all right.

That's I Don't want to be shocked.

It's September you said you said it last week.

It's sweater weather pumpkin spice weather pumpkin spice and everything nice

And but you also mentioned 80s possibly are we gonna be seeing any of that like that warmer weather coming through or is it gonna be stay cold and Like yesterday very very wet.

Are we gonna be seeing that's coming up in the next few days?

So first thing first for this weekend.

We have to battle the

near record colds.

We're going to be in the mid 40s far north to about 60 degrees south Friday.

It's going to be windy winds whipping up to 30 35 miles per hour.

A gale warning on Lake Michigan waves are going to be climbing 10 to 13 feet high.

This is going to be our start to the weekend.

So battling the wind chill.

But it will get better.

We are feeling like mid-October in case you were wondering.

This is what it usually is for mid-October.

We should be in the mid-70s pretty much all throughout the state for highs.

So it's going to take a minute to return to that but we will get there by next week.

We are looking at um 50s to about 60 statewide on Saturday.

Maybe some spotty sprinkles mixing in there as well.

And then overnight, a chance for frost again, especially north Sunday morning.

That sneaks back in as temperatures fall back down to the mid-30s.

And then Sunday, we're looking at upper 50s to mid-60s.

Mostly sunny, so getting warmer.

You're headed to the Packers game.

It looks like a good day.

Winds finally calming down to beat those lions.

Sorry.

Sorry.

It's football weather.

Right.

So it just came in at the right time and then it's going to leave because as soon as next week, I mean, we're already looking at mid sixties to near seventy on Monday.

A little bit of rain cools us down on Tuesday.

But Wednesday next week, it's seventies to about eighty.

We'll dip a little bit again.

But let me tell you, if you're looking for days to take PTO, the following week, September 15th through the 19th,

eighties,

eighties, eighties, eighties,

eighties, eighties, eighties.

A week.

Well,

you gotta

make sure you get on your, your, your HR website and submit that time off because yeah, that's just, that sounds like a good time for a drive because I feel like, are you telling me that after that weather, after that week of eighties, are we just going to see a dip then?

Because that's going to, we're going to be marching towards October.

And even though this is, I mean, last night, I think when I opened the windows, it was like mid fifties.

It's gonna start dipping even further if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not a meteorologist, my friends.

I just look outside me like it's cold.

But I imagine that a week of 80s will be followed by a week and month of reality.

Yes, you are right on there, Greg.

That is what's gonna happen, most likely.

We'll still get some spikes of heat mixed in, but the trend will go down from there.

And I'll tell you what, I went up north, like far north by Lake Superior, and it felt like...

The S word was possible.

Snow, snow.

And I know, I don't want to say it,

but... Do we have

to, Calvin, do we

have to beep her if she says snow this early in the year?

I don't

know.

I don't know what the FCC says.

I

will bleep her just because I hate snow.

Okay,

all right.

Calvin has spoken.

Okay, how about this?

I did notice fall colors.

I've seen some red popping, those Tamarack trees changing to that orange up north.

I'm so excited.

And I was looking, it looks like the second week of October, Northeast Wisconsin hits peak a month away.

Oh, it is a month away.

I still think we're in October.

We're still in August.

I've

still

not gotten used to August and I get it.

Okay.

You're right.

October.

And that's right.

That's, that's peak color changing time.

And I'm sure we'll talk more and more about that as the weeks go on.

And I'm looking forward to that.

I'm looking forward to a nice drive out in the country to see all those colors, but we'll discuss that more in the coming days because fall is here, whether you like it or not.

And don't let the eighties fool you.

We are in for cooler weather.

Brittany Merleau.

Thank you so much for being here.

As always, we love having you on weather and wine.

And if you want to check out more from what Brittany's writing, go to civicmedia.us slash news.

You can find her award winning journalism award winning.

And yeah, we love talking to you, Brittany.

And we will see you next Thursday, my friend.

Sounds good.

Stay

warm.

Indeed.

All right.

After the news, we are going to be returning with sports reporter from the general Sentinel, Mr. J. R. Rankliffe, our sports guru to talk about everything Brewers Packers and Wisconsin Badgers.

Go get yourself a snack.

It's self hydrated.

Come on back.

Stay close.

Stay tuned.

You are listening to Matt and air on the Civic Media Radio Network.

Good good morning.

Welcome back to Matt and air on air My name is Greg box sitting in for Jane Matt and air who is currently Vacating deservedly and she misses you and she'll be back before you know it I'm pretty sure Calvin when we signed off before the news break.

I called the show Matt and air I just called it Matt and air didn't even say Matt and air on air It was too lazy to say the whole thing But I just want to apologize to our listeners and to Jane because I understand branding Calvin Yeah, she's like shit the new sheriff.

She just goes by Matt and air now

I like that.

Oh, I could I could see t-shirts with that bedazzle just matinee Well, you're here at the show if you want to be part of the conversation You can call or text the numbers the same eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five Civic leave a comment on the live stream.

We are currently on Facebook YouTube and the site We still call Twitter lots of great shows lots of great things happening after us at 11 o'clock is the Tom Hartman show and then following that will be Todd all but from two to four Maggie Don who is being guest hosted?

By Jim Santel who was just on and then nightlight with Pete Schwabba from six to eight then great program after that too I mean just great go to civic media dot US slash shows for more information on everything we have on a daily basis Download shows have yourselves a ball dogs and cats living together mass hysteria Speaking of one of my favorite cats in the world.

It's JR Radcliffe reporter sports writer for the journal Sentinel in Milwaukee JR How are you doing today?

You're looking all cool with your microphone set up

Yeah.

Well, it's not, it's not my normal setup.

It's actually not, I suppose, as nice as the usual one.

But speaking of cats and dogs, I assume you saw that it was bark at the park night at American Family Field last night.

Oh, it was last

night.

Yes.

The movies were represented as cats on the scoreboard.

Instead of pictures of the players, it was a picture of a giant cat, various different cats.

It was, it was excellent.

It was really well done.

So, okay.

I thought for some reason it was next Wednesday.

I totally blanked, which is fine because I was struggling with the idea of going.

I have a Puppers.

Her name is Maybell.

I love her.

I love baseball.

The only problem with Maybell is that sometimes she's just super cool.

Like sometimes when there's so much happening, she just shuts down and like looks forward ahead.

And so it's just like, I'm going to look, I'm going to walk ahead.

I'm not going to focus on anything, but I feel like it would have been, Oh, we were there for half a half an inning.

Then we went home.

Yeah, it's like having a child bringing a child to a game and it's like maybe we make it to the third and then they get a little older Maybe we make it to the fourth and they get a little older.

Well, they're gonna be on the playground So I probably will see an inning but we might make it to the sixth or seventh.

We might see the sauce the trace

you know, and then they get older and they're old enough to actually go to the whole thing.

It's kind of nice.

I don't know if the dog will ever get there, but

it could happen, but you heard it here folks.

JR Radcliffe said that having a dog is exactly like having children.

I'm a parent.

I

get to

have new opinions on things.

Speaking of the brewers though, since the last time we talked,

It's gotten a little tighter.

Not a lot.

I mean, the Brewers are still ahead by six games.

That's a huge lead over the Cubs.

They still have the, they were the first team to hit 70, the first team to hit 80, they're marching towards 90 wins.

And it's about as a Brewers fan, I'm sure you feel this and a lot of people feel this keeping a level head, moving forward, six games ahead is still wonderful.

We, we beat the, we beat the Toronto Blue Jays who are in a tough division as well.

So.

really we're we're doing good and we have one month of baseball left.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize.

What do you what do you say?

What are your thoughts on this chair?

Yeah, well, a couple things.

So on September 1st, they had a five and a half game lead and I looked at all the teams since the current divisional format came into existence, the sixth division format in

1994 how many teams had a five game lead at that point in the season on that calendar date and didn't end up winning the division and I found two two out of 100 possible teams with a five game lead or more who actually ended up losing the division and one of them the last one back in 2006 was the Detroit Tigers and they were already clinched they ended up as a wildcard team

And they went to the World Series.

So it's it's really, really unlikely.

There are a lot of teams that had a much bigger lead than five games.

So that's kind of a little bit of an unfair sample.

But the bottom line is it's really it's really hard for the Brewers to lose what they have right now.

And that was on September 1st, because today it's a six game lead after a Tuesday night game that I or Wednesday night game that I would say really good for the vibes, you know, at least from my perspective, I think the team is totally.

You know, they're much more level-headed, of course, than fans, but, you know, you beat the Phillies.

You get a tiebreaker over a team that they could be competing with for seeding purposes.

For the number one seed in the National League, they already have a pretty hefty lead, and it's bigger now, and they have the tiebreaker.

That's not nothing.

That's a huge get.

already have it over the Dodgers who whom they swept this year in six games.

That's another team that's kind of in that mix as well as division champions and you know they the the Brewers win the Cubs lose the Dodgers lose.

It felt like a really important night on Wednesday to really just kind of settle things down.

It's not that they've been playing terribly.

It's been a little sloppy.

Looks like they needed a break.

They got that break on Tuesday and now maybe, you know, maybe that was in fact the reset that they needed because, uh, because it's hard, it's hard to feel doom when you're up six games.

Like that's

just,

that's just a huge number.

Yeah.

As we wake up on September 4th.

So that was, it was, it was a really nice win.

And yes, they are, they're in great position.

They're, they're probably going to be the number one seed in the national league.

That is not a given, you know, and, and the division is not yet a given, but it is looking, I mean,

They're certainly going to the playoffs and it is increasingly likely that they will in fact be the top team in the postseason and that's going to be a great and viewable position to be in.

And for me, it's all about being able to secure a playoff spot where we don't have to go to the wild card again because that for me, and it looks like where we're going right now, that seems like where we're headed.

Of course, there's no guarantees.

We still have, I think 20 games, 21 games left to play this, this month, but.

It's just so frustrating as a brewers fan to see them, you know, we're in the post season for a day and then we're out.

So it's, you know, like I said, you keep me level headed.

I look at the scores every day.

I look at the standings every day.

And when I, you know, six, I was like, okay, good, six is better than five.

It's not as good as nine, but still that they're doing great.

So we're just going to.

We're going to, we're going to move on from the brewers because if I keep talking about them, I'll start to, for some reason, get angry.

I don't know why, but if you're just joining us on matinee on air, we're talking to JR Radcliffe.

He is our sports guru, sports writer for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

And the Packers are opening up against the Detroit Tigers this weekend.

That is going to be a game.

I mean, the Tigers, even three, four years ago, we've been like,

Well, who cares?

But the Tigers have been on fire for the past two seasons, and this is going to be a good matchup.

Yes, you mean the Detroit Lions?

Why do I like