You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime,
anywhere.
Coming to you live from our home at Radio Park in Racine, you can always join us, call or text the number is the same at 855.
752-4842.
You can also leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream on Facebook, YouTube and what used to be Twitter.
We have a jam-packed show.
Yes, we do.
Jim Santel, friend, colleague, host of Amicus, a law review Saturday mornings 9 to 11 across the network.
He will join us after 9 30.
Lots of things going on in the world of the law and the Trump administration.
And wow, it just again, it's a fire hose every day.
trying to narrow down what we're going to talk about.
In hour number two, and I want to thank listener PJ because he brought this up on the live stream yesterday.
We did not have a chance to talk about it.
In the bill that was just passed to reopen the government, there's a little provision they slipped in there about hemp and hemp related products.
And there is also something happening on the state level.
regarding hemp sales in Wisconsin, and we're talking about gummies, lots of things, lots of people use, including me.
There's gummies, there's sodas, there's there's
seltzers, candies.
The whole thing there, I mean, is a wide, wide array of products you can purchase that one, utilize hemp and two, have real, real positive effects for people's, you know,
ailments, pain, mental illness, struggles, not sleeping.
Exactly.
And so, yeah.
And of course they want to get rid of
it.
Yes, they do.
So Aaron Kelly, who is the owner of Kelly's greens in Walter Tosa is going to be joining us after the 10 o'clock news.
She owns, again, Kelly's Greens in Tosa, which sells all those things.
She's going to be joining us to talk about what this will mean for her business.
She's not the only one.
These businesses are all over the state.
Employing people.
Employing people, making money.
Making
money, yes.
Contributing to our economy.
Yes, all those things.
So we'll be talking about that in hour number two.
And then Journal Sentinel Sports Guru JR Radcliffe.
We'll be here for Audio Sorbet today after 10.30 to talk about all things sports packers playing at noon on Sunday.
We'll wrap it up as we always do.
With this shouldn't be a thing.
All aboard edition.
All aboard edition.
Stick around for that.
Wanted to start off though with
Again, the government shutdown is now over.
So where are we?
What does that mean?
The government reopened without extending subsidies for the Affordable Care Act.
But they got a promise.
Yes, John Thune promises they're going to talk about it later.
We'll see if and when that ever happens.
But I think it's interesting.
difference of opinion on political sides on how to fix our health care problems.
First of all, just to do a little accounting of who voted for what, shockingly, Wisconsin's eight U.S.
House members divided along party lines on ending the government shutdown, the state's Republican House members, all of them voted to pass the new spending bill, which does not include an extension of the Obamacare subsidies.
The Democrats voted against none of Wisconsin Democrats voted for the bill.
So Tammy Baldwin brought up a measure that would have extended the subsidies for one year.
Yeah, just one so that people aren't gonna be facing 100% 200% increases after the first of the year because enrollment is going on now right now Yeah, she brought that up.
They all voted against it.
Yeah
So the so of the eight of the eight we have six voted against it the Republicans Republicans yeah, and
It's But it's okay because they have plans.
Oh, no what wait what yeah, no plans.
I thought they had a plan.
No, they have pages of ideas Mike Johnson has said that speaker of the house.
They have notebooks full of ideas.
It's been
more than 15 years that they had a chance to do something about health care and they still got nothing and
that didn't stop them during the Obama years from Demonizing it well not just demonizing it, but how many times did the House vote to repeal it over and over and it was never taken seriously in the Senate I think it was over a hundred times.
Oh, yeah, right now.
They spent a lot of time trying to repeal Obamacare
with no replacement.
And they still don't have one.
Tom Tiffany, Republican gubernatorial candidate, essentially said he was asked about this.
He dodged a question on whether he will vote to extend ACA subsidies saying, I don't accept the premise of your question that we should simply do one or the other.
When asked to follow-up question about asking what the Republican plan is after 16 years, Tom Tiffany said, quote, unfortunately that has not been done, unquote.
Wow, that's revelatory, Tom.
Thank you.
Thank you for explaining that.
Yeah, you didn't do anything.
Can't wait for that kind of deep thinking and big policy execution to come to Madison in the governor's office.
Really quick, just as an update here, the Congress has voted 100 times to repeal Obamacare.
Jane, ask me how I know.
How do you know that?
Great.
Because I went to a website that's called, and this is true.
How many times has the house voted to repeal Obamacare.com?
That's the website.
That's the website.
And it's right there, 100.
And, but then it lists every single resolution from 2022 on, or from, I'm sorry, it started in 2017 to 2022.
It gives the breakdowns who voted or the yay versus nay votes, but it's right there 100 times.
How many times has the house voted to repeal Obamacare.com?
But yeah.
Yeah, they wanted to take it away, but they had nothing to replace it.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And that's where we are now.
And that's exactly where we are now.
Well, people are trying to figure out how they are going to afford their healthcare when you see spikes.
50, 75, 100 plus percent on these premiums.
And it's gonna be devastating for people.
And that's what they, and that's the weird thing is that's what they want.
That's what they want.
Well, it sure feels that way because again, they can't seem to come up with anything except the answer now is we're gonna give money to people.
And then you can be your own health insurance entrepreneur and find your own insurance.
that you will then buy from an insurance company.
So two days ago, Donald Trump said that we need to take the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being sucked away by the terrible insurance companies and put them into the hands of the people so they can find their own insurance.
So what we're going to do is we are going to give people the money.
I doubt in a check, most likely in a tax credit or a subsidy, a subsidy, they will then take that subsidy and find their own insurance to get themselves some coverage.
Congratulations, Donald Trump.
You just invented the Affordable Care Act.
And I said this to earlier, he just wants to call it Trump care.
He wants to take the whole plan, which he doesn't care about and just.
Rename it Trump care and he can say how much way
better it is more affordable.
This is the greatest health care in the history of the world
Your subsidy is gonna come in the form of a gold check.
It's gonna be amazing But that's all he's done.
He has simply just repackaged Obamacare and that's
it.
Well, and We've I want someone to remind me of when Republicans started hating insurance companies
All of a sudden they're like insurance companies are bad.
Why are we subsidizing the evil insurance companies insurance companies?
I'm pretty sure that if you do a check We can look at all of the money our elected officials have taken from insurance companies because I'm kind of sure that there is some
there.
Yeah, and And now they but now they hate them
Well, right now they hate them.
They're not great and they're terrible.
One of the worst things ever.
But ultimately people will still have to go to insurance companies in order to get health coverage.
Well, and
that was the whole thing too, is that this is what never made sense to me.
Obamacare is not healthcare.
It's the ability or the Affordable Care Act is the ability to get
access to the exchange, which allows you to buy health insurance on an individual basis that's just a little cheaper.
It's not Medicaid or Medicare for all.
It's not a socialized medical system.
Well, and depending upon what you make, depends upon how much help you get in form of subsidies.
But when it's all said and done, the insurance companies are still making their money.
So these folks who are paying, these folks who are putting money in the pockets of our politicians are still making billions of dollars a year, whether it's through getting through someone like me who I get my health insurance through my wife or someone like my friend Nick who gets his health insurance through the ACA.
They're still getting, everyone's still getting paid.
This isn't, they've somehow managed to muddle the waters and make it seem like the ACA is some
you know, side hustle of Medicaid or Medicare and that somehow we're all getting free medical care.
It's not, none of that stuff is true.
I never understood their hatred of this because the insurance companies still make out like bandits at the end of the day.
Yeah, they're really
struggling.
In fact, they're, they're going to make more money if you think about it because before the ACA 45 million Americans didn't have health insurance.
That's 45 million people who weren't paying.
to money-to-health insurance companies.
Because of the ACA, now people can pay money to those insurance companies.
Therefore, because of the ACA, they make more money.
Why is this a bad thing?
Because Barack Obama and the Democrats came up with it.
And they don't like the
name.
And
they've never
been able to give them the win.
8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2.
Gene Fremont-Claire joining us on the line.
Good morning, Gene.
Plus, it created a pool.
that prevents discrimination against pre-existing conditions or all of the different things that, you know, were discriminated against in the past and those will come back.
In addition, I wanted to quick send a note out to everybody who votes in the state of Wisconsin.
Right now, you call your representative because they are answering their phones or, you know, after
the show,
of course, and let them know how you feel and what you want them to do because they are answering their phones.
Have a great day and keep up the great work.
Thanks
a lot, Jean.
Really appreciate it.
Jean inspired me.
Mm-hmm because she calls our lawmakers yes, she does so I called Ron Johnson's office yesterday
Ron Johnson's office his office number is two zero two two two four five three two three
there was there was nobody there picking up I was really really sent to
an answering machine Well, if you want to find out more information and more about who represents you you can simply go to my vote dot W I dot go there put in your information at my vote dot W I dot gov Find out who represents you from your president to the dog catcher if that is someone you
vote on, but call them, write them, visit them if you can, be nice, be courteous, and call them if you like what they're doing too.
Let them know they're doing a good job.
Don't just go and say, like, I don't like this thing you're doing.
Call them and let them know.
But we're going to be talking more with Aaron Kelly about a specific lawmaker in Wisconsin.
And we have his information available as well.
But you want to stick around for that conversation in the second hour.
But be
like me.
Let's all call Ron Johnson.
Be like Jane.
And just check in and find out how he's doing.
And yeah.
They're there.
They're there.
We pay their salaries.
The government's open.
They work for us.
Yeah.
Yeah, they should kind of, you know, respond.
We will talk about Ron Johnson and the $500,000 little windfall that was also stuck into that bill to reopen the government.
That's on the way.
Stay with us.
You are listening to Mattnair on Air on the Civic Media radio network.
We will be right back.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.
Good morning and welcome back to Matt Nair on air.
Jane Matt Nair, Greg Mock, Dr. Slide on the board coming to you from our studio at Radio Park in Racine.
You can always join us.
Call or text at 855-752-4842.
Leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream on Facebook, YouTube, and what used to be Twitter coming up in just a little bit after the 930 News.
Jim Santel will join us.
Former U.S.
Attorney, Acting Attorney.
He hosts a show called amicus a law review on Saturdays across the network 9 to 11 great show He's also a pretzel bites enthusiast.
He is a pretzel bites enthusiast Lots of things going on in the world of law.
Yeah, so Jim Santel will be joining us after 9 30 I hope you can stick around for that wanted to talk about this because we did address this a little bit yesterday And I know Todd all but talked about it on his show
as
well
snuck into that little measure to reopen the government.
I thought it was such a clean CR they talked about.
Clean CR people.
Not so much.
And it's amazing.
No one has taken responsibility for putting this in the bill either.
I don't understand why that's a thing.
That should not be
it's amazing how they can be so sneaky when this country is supposed to be about checks and balances and accountability
Accountability personal responsibility.
Yeah, not so much So a provision slipped in there would allow eight senators including our very own senior senator Ron Johnson to sue the federal government for up to $500,000
over searches of their phone records that were tied to the January 6th attack against the Capitol.
These were legally authorized subpoenas for this information.
And now they want to be able to sue essentially us, my friends,
us.
Well, Jane, one little thing, it's $500,000.
per violation.
Per
violation.
So
depending on who the person is and how many violations they feel like has violated their gentle souls, even though this is all done above board and legally, they can sue on each count.
Yeah.
I called Ron Johnson's office yesterday.
And
he'd be like, pick up the phone and say,
Jane, good to hear from you.
No, I left a message and I just said, I'm just hoping for some clarification that in addition to the privilege of helping to pay for Senator Johnson's salary of $174,500 a year, that if this goes through, then I will also get the privilege as a U.S.
taxpayer of helping pay him $500,000 per.
because he was involved and investigated for his role in the January 6th attack at the Capitol.
I said, I'm sure you'll get back to me.
I'm looking forward to chatting.
Ron Johnson has now come out and said he's not going to pursue this-ish.
I mean, well, no, do I believe him?
We'll see
but he said that he's not going to take advantage of this and now they're saying that they're gonna have a vote next week to take this
out
So they want to get rid of the provision
altogether.
Mike Johnson has said, yeah, we might, we might go on and
we need, cause that's what happens.
They do something, they slip something into a bill and then it gets found out and then they go, oh, how did that
get in there?
I've never
seen that before.
I can't
believe we had that out.
Well, company was here and they say, oh, we will, that was, that was a working idea.
Right.
Okay.
I'll tell you what, put together a press conference or just a press release, the person who slipped that into the bill,
should say they want to take it out themselves.
So then we know who put it in the first place.
That's what I would love to know.
I think this is something on which we could all agree that if you put something into a measure to become law, you should be required to claim it as yours.
This anonymous, let's just stick this in the bill.
That's happened here in Wisconsin as well.
on both sides.
I don't, I don't think that's something we will agree upon because it depends on who's doing it.
But I think as constituents, yeah, of course, it's just our lawmakers who are like, yeah, well, I don't have to have to sign my name to that.
That would make me look bad.
Yeah,
I think this is, I mean,
Can you can you give me a I mean there are there of course I'm not better examples But just another gold standard example of this administration and what they think they can get away with to put more money into the pockets of rich people really wealthy people really wealthy people who I mean I'll Take a $500,000 I do a lot with that money first of all I pay my
tax folks like us that would that would go a long way
my tax yeah, but it's just that like
You keep trying and trying and trying to do these things and make sure but but fortunately for these individuals fortune for these lawmakers and those who are in this bubble They're now living in a 24-hour news cycle and a social media Vortex and a vacuum of information that allows them to do these things and then 48 hours we forget and that's not me blaming anyone We've talked about this before we're busy.
We have lives and how many times this year have you heard someone from?
Washington say something, go, I totally forgot about that.
That they
did that.
Like Elon Musk and Doge.
We don't talk about that anymore.
Yeah.
No, at all.
By the way, if you would like to call Senator Ron Johnson, because I know he'd love to hear from you.
That's what his voicemail said when I called yesterday.
We would love to hear from you.
I give him a jingle at 202-224-5323.
Make sure.
He's not going to take advantage and sue for us, essentially as U.S.
taxpayers for $500,000 per offense.
Just let him know how you
feel.
I think that's one of the big problems too, Jane, that you just nailed by saying is the fact that people just think there's money.
And the money is there for something.
It comes from somewhere.
It always comes from us.
We're the
taxpayers.
We are
the funders of this government.
Aren't we lucky?
News is coming up next, and then Jim Santel, host of Amicus, a law review, will join us.
Stay with us.
You are listening to Matt Nair on air, coming to you across the vast statewide, countrywide, you can pick us up around the world on the Civic Media Radio Network.
Good morning and welcome.
Welcome to Matt Nair on air.
Jane Matt Nair, Greg Bach, Sweet Calbee on the board coming to you live from our studio at Radio Park in Racine.
You can always join us at 855-752-4842.
Leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream.
Good morning, live stream on Facebook, YouTube and what used to be Twitter.
He joins us every Thursday at this time.
You can catch him
On Saturdays, I highly encourage you to do so.
Saturday mornings from 9 to 11 with Amicus, a law review.
Jim Santel is here.
Good morning, sir.
How are you?
you go.
It is going to be a beautiful fall day, actually, if you have the chance to get outside.
Before you joined us, Jim, we were talking about this.
little provision that got snuck into this deal to reopen the government that gives eight Republican senators the ability to sue the federal government for $500,000 each instance because they were subpoenaed about their involvement in the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
Can we list them as it's 17, 18, 19 things aside from the policy notion that we've got these folks as you indicated in the previous segment who are public figures, who again, are apparently eggshell in their skin, so to speak.
Beyond that, it would be, let's start with this notion.
Any legitimate investigation, this is the Jack Smith investigation, any legitimate investigation in which
part of the focus is on who is speaking to whom, what kind of communications were going on, what do you do to find out what was going on, whether there was a conspiracy, whether it was a crime or not, you talk to the people who are engaged in the conversations.
And yes, indeed, I will tell you with absolute certainty, it is routine.
This may come as a surprise to those Republicans in Congress, but it is routine for
criminal federal investigators to get what are called telephone tolls.
What do you do?
It simply establishes, well, you know what, Jane, on this particular day, at this particular moment, you and Greg had a phone call.
That's what it shows.
Josh Hawley, who was part of a hearing a couple of days or so ago, said, they're wiretapping our phones.
That did not happen.
Wiretapping, Josh, as you know, you're the former attorney general in Missouri.
You know that's wrong.
This is not a wiretap, but again, a legitimate law enforcement effort to try to figure out who was talking to whom at a time when the nation was under attack before, during, after that.
the kinds of things that are going on, it would have been, and Republicans and Democrats would be shouting this from the rooftops in any other circumstance, a professional prosecutorial malpractice not to trace the communications.
This is what we do every single day, every hour in America when we're investigating cases.
There is no violation of constitutional rights here, as you indicated before, authorized also legally, lawfully.
No problem there.
These are lawsuits that are doomed to fail, frankly, and even the legislation is ridiculous.
If you are the subject of, you're the victim of some constitutional violation of by law enforcement, you can file a lawsuit.
You don't need legislative approval to do it.
It's all just for the purpose of highlighting this horrific thing that frankly never happened.
Again, those are probably about four or five of the 19 things that are wrong.
with this going ahead.
Not at all surprised that they said, well, maybe we're going to withdraw this afterwards.
Well, let's do that.
Because
he got
caught.
Yeah, exactly.
And I want to go back to and I know we're not going to solve this.
I do not understand how it is legal that no one has to claim they are the one who slipped this into
this
bill.
That should not be a thing.
That should
And maybe
There are records of that.
That's how the legislation works.
So many problems, so many problems.
Let's send the messages as you're indicating to our senators.
I am pleased for once that my own senator is not going to down this road.
Nobody should.
There's no lawsuit here.
Move on to, oh, I don't know, representing the people of the United States of America in the United States Senate.
How about that?
How about doing that?
I don't know.
That would be your job.
I guess people, you know, you could look at it that way.
Jim Santel is here, host of Amicus, a law review across civic media Saturday mornings from 9 to 11.
Check it out.
It is fantastic.
Before we move on, I do want to talk a little bit about
We have a treasure trove of Jeffrey Epstein emails now that have come out just in the last two days.
And it just looks worse and worse and worse for Donald Trump and his unceasing efforts to not release the Epstein files.
Distancing himself plainly, as you just indicated, every single day, more indications that, yes, they may have had a falling out at some point, but as they both said, they were
Maybe best friends or close to best friends for a long period of time.
These latest revelations, again, Donald Trump knowing about the girls.
Of course he did, right?
Of course they have these conversations.
None of this surprising, but now I've got a confirmation.
And Jane, here is your larger most important point.
Not bring this to a conclusion, but bring this portion of it to a conclusion.
Simply release the files.
Pam Bondi can do this this morning by noon time.
and they're out there and then everyone can take a look at them.
I know there will still be those allegations that there's still a cover up.
There are things not produced, but this can be produced.
And it does go to this central issue, which is if you don't want them released, why not?
And the answer, of course, has got to be there are things in there that are even worse than what we've already seen.
Although, as I've said before, not legally, not just my general commentary, which is
Is there anything about this president in his personal and professional behavior that could possibly be revealed that would make me think less of him?
He is already at the bottom of my list, if you will, about people who behave terribly toward other human beings, including women and presumably girls as well.
His financial behavior, his political behavior, his business behavior, everything about him is just absolutely despicable.
Will it really be surprising to anybody if in fact when these files do in fact come out there is more confirmation of his knowledge of his participation in this?
Of course, it's there of course, but just release it and maybe then we can again move on at some point
understanding who our president is, but maybe sort of kind of moving on toward the time when Congress can work on things important to the American population.
But I think it's critically important that people remember after he was first elected, they sent out all of these right-wing influencers out of the White House with binders that said these were the Epstein files because Trump ran on that PAM body, Kashpatel, all the
All those guys, we're gonna release it, we're gonna release it.
They sent those influencers out with these binders and now it's a hoax, it's a democratic
hoax.
The thing with the binders is that the day of, day after those influencers were.
hopping mad to find out that those binders had
no
information in them whatsoever.
And people like Cash Patel made his bones into that office on the backs of the Epstein files.
And I think, Jim, you said something that's very, very important as well is.
the president, the president in concert with the attorney general or the attorney general, correct me if I'm wrong, as you said, consign a document, releasing the files to the American people, but they won't do it.
Congress has to take action to do it.
If the president's attorney general won't do it, which is, if she's not doing it, that's by order of the president.
What does that say about what's in the file if he won't release
And the house full of Republicans who want it released are
possibly going to be turning their backs on him for this.
Well, and let's not forget that the White House reached out to Lauren Bovert and one other Republican House member who is on to release those bills, they were trying to get them to flip their bills.
Why, why, why if you are so innocent?
And this has nothing to do with you.
Are you fighting so hard for the American people not to see these files?
There's also I mean in in trials.
I've argued about that again obstruction cases situations where people are trying to evade the law Why are you doing that?
People don't just get up and say you know what this morning?
I want to have fun with law enforcement You're doing it for a reason right and that is you don't want things disclosed you obstruct you engage in conspiracies to obstruct that's in large part what what
brought down Richard Nixon, right?
And eventually it comes out and it does bring him down when those tapes are revealed because there's substance to them.
Same kind of thing here, much worse here in terms of an overall administration, makes Richard Nixon pale in comparison.
But still, release these materials, let's look at them.
And again, whatever results come, it's too late to prosecute.
This is far beyond the statute of limitations, but as everyone has said, and you've said it on this show as well, there are victims out there who are still suffering every single day.
For them, it is a small piece of an imperfect restitution.
It's not going to restore major portions of their lives, but give them some sense that the public now knows what they suffered.
There's a legitimate law enforcement, a legitimate governmental,
a legitimate public interest in that disclosure for them.
Do that, Mr. President.
Jim Santel is our guest host of Amicus Law Review Saturday mornings 9 to 11 across civic media.
One more note on this.
We keep getting more tidbits about the cushy life that Jelaine Maxwell is spending in club fed.
She has a puppy.
She gets to have visitors.
She has all kinds of special treatment.
This woman was sentenced to 20 years for her role in helping procure girls for Jeffrey Epstein and his buddies.
And it looks like we're getting closer and closer to him giving her a partner, commuting her sentence.
The puppy is maybe the best illustration of this.
Again, in the many years that I was inside the Department of Justice, working as routinely with corrections officials as well, the Bureau of Prisons, there may be some therapy dogs involved and that's purposeful and good in some settings.
This is not that, but it's an indication of exactly how we're treating her.
The President commutes her sentence, which basically mean not pardoning her, but
from where they are basically be released from prison based upon time served.
or pardoning her entirely, just the latest wild, wild injustice.
And again, a slap in the face beyond that, a kick in the shins for all the victims of what she did so violently.
She should be a maximum security prison for the next 19 years
of her life.
And speaking of Jelaine Maxwell, Todd Blanche sat down with her.
He is the Trump attorney who made this deal to move her to a club fed.
All of these emails that we're seeing between her and Jeffrey Epstein, shouldn't he have known about those
Should we be asked about those?
That's what a good investigative interviewer does.
It's the reason why, again, as we have said previously, that was a sham that was obviously put together for the purpose of trying to give the president some cover.
And maybe it's a predicate to her getting her sentence commuted or being pardoned outright.
But again, the deputy attorney general
Again, politically attractive, maybe to the White House, but prosecutorial, malpractice, and embarrassing for the second person in control of the Department of Justice to engage in that kind of completely ineffective and non-informative interview.
It's kind of a
bad
job.
It's amazing.
We're going
Continue talking with Jim Santel, host of Amicus, a law review.
Stay close.
You are listening to Matt Nair on air.
This is the Civic Media Radio Network.
We'll be right
back.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
Good morning and welcome back to Mattnare on Air.
Jane Mattnare, Greg Bach, our resident young person, Calvin on the board, coming to you from our studio at Radio Park in Racine.
You can join us.
Call our text at 855-752-4842.
Leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream on Facebook, YouTube and what used to be Twitter.
Coming up after the 10 o'clock news, Aaron Kelly from Kelly's Greens in Wauwatosa is going to join us.
They're a CBD shop
in
Wauwatosa.
They sell gummies and cupcakes and all those things and seltzers.
And with another provision that was slipped into the
legislation to reopen the government, they're coming after those.
People also were to talk to Aaron Kelly coming up after the 10 o'clock news.
Right now we are joined by Jim Santel, former U.S.
Attorney and host of Amicus, a law review across the network.
On Saturday mornings from 9 to 11, government is reopened.
Snap benefits should start flowing.
air traffic controllers, hopefully back on the job.
Let's talk a little bit about Katanji Brown Jackson's decision to, because she got some heat for this.
On unjustly also, so if I can come to the defense of this wonderful jurist.
And again, it's contrary to an awful lot of the knee-jerk reactions we saw last Friday night with the weekend saying, what is she doing?
Is she not in favor of providing 42 million people in America with food and nutrition?
And the answer is yes, she was.
And again, this is one of those times, Jane and Greg, when regrettably in America of 2025, we've got to go down the rabbit hole of legal stuff and civics and understand what she did.
This was coming out of the judge in Rhode Island.
who said, yes indeed, Mr. President, go ahead, release those funds, get this money flowing.
The appeals court there in the first circuit did not have an opportunity.
They touched this briefly, did not have an opportunity to review that.
And what Katanji Brown Jackson did, she is responsible for this because she's assigned responsibility for the first circuit, which is where Rhode Island is.
What she did is she said, you know what, I'm gonna keep this from going to the rest of the Supreme Court.
where they would probably stay the entire thing.
I'm going to stay it.
I'm going to prevent this from going forward so that the appeals court can have the opportunity that it should have to review this case to give us a full decision.
And again, come back eventually to the Supreme Court without having the imprimatur of a full court that said, no, no, stop it, which they probably would have done.
And so in a strange twist of procedural history here, what she was actually doing was trying to protect the interests.
Of those people out there who were getting food stamps in the end her prediction sort of came true Happens with breakneck speed even after the court of appeals late sunday does in fact reaffirm the lower court What does the trump administration do they come right back roaring back to the supreme court and saying stop that from happening And again to jump through an awful lot of additional hoops since that time Even after it was clear that the government is going to reopen your department of justice your solicitor general still
going to the Supreme Court and saying, prevent these funds from being released.
They now will be, as you're indicating, Jane and Greg, by virtue of the new appropriation here.
But that is stunning.
And that itself is an indication of how vehemently, strongly this administration did not want to provide food for families in America.
And again, the larger issue here, the smaller issue here is, Tanji Brown Jackson
was, from my perspective, the hero in this.
She should not be receiving the criticism that she was receiving.
Yeah, the important part here is how hard the Trump administration tried to stop.
Seniors and kids and people who are working, considered they're working for and farmers and veterinarians from getting SNAP benefits.
They really, really, really didn't want that to happen.
If within hours, the government is back in session and we're back in operation here, this will all go away.
But until that happens, do not release these funds.
There is your admission.
There is your admission about your policy statement on SNAP.
Well, I'll put on top of that too when, you know, Tony Evers put together the funding for the food share program in here.
You got a call from them saying, stop doing that.
You just want people to starve.
Well, they wanted people to be hurt.
so that they could make this the Democrats' fault and make the Democrats look bad.
They didn't care if people were suffering.
They just wanted the blame to go to the other party.
Well, that 40 days of being shut down didn't really do them any good.
They kept saying Schumer shut down, Democrat, Democrat.
That didn't take
off.
All
the polling said everyone knew where this was coming from.
Everyone understood.
Well, not everyone.
A majority of Americans knew that this was on the heads of the Republicans who are, after all, in charge of
Yeah, they pretty much are.
Very, very quickly, we only got two minutes left.
ProPublica, or Politico rather, has an article out today about this raid that the ICE did on this building in Chicago.
It was full of trendy Agua gang members.
They bashed in people's doors.
They pulled kids out of their beds.
No charges have been filed.
No criminal charges have been filed after that raid.
Do these people have any legal recourse?
They do, and it's things called, you know, false arrest, malicious prosecution if there was a prosecution and their violations of constitutional rights is a case, springboard case called Bivens.
Basically says if law enforcement acts badly, violates your rights to privacy, violates other rights you can sue.
Now, whether or not they do that,
that's another
It's right.
Exactly.
And the larger point here, Greg is Greg and Jane is just that what's going on here.
This is what the federal district court judge in Northern Illinois is screaming about appropriately.
How are you conducting yourself?
Again, abide by the standards of that work and do it now.
Join him.
That's the problem.
On Saturday mornings, 9 to 11 across civic media for Amicus, a law review.
Jim Santel, always a pleasure.
Thank you so much.
We will see you next week.
News is next.
And when we return, we're going to talk to Ellen, Erin Kelly.
Words are tricky.
Erin Kelly from Kelly's Greens in Wauwatosa.
Talking about another measure slipped into... What a surprise.
All the details on the way.
Stay with us.
You're listening to Matt Nair on air on the Civic Media Radio Network.
The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.
