Less Dolls And NOTHING For Grandma! (Hour 2)

Good morning.

Welcome.

Welcome to Matt and air on air Jane Matt and air Greg Bach and Calvin Butenoff coming to you live from our home at Radio Park in Racine where you can join us.

Call her text.

The number is the same 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 busy, busy show coming up today.

Our friend and colleague and host of Amicus Law Review, Jim Santel, is going to be here.

Amicus Ears, by the way, Saturday mornings from 9 to 11 across the network.

He is a former U.S.

attorney.

He's an acting attorney.

Yes.

And there's a lot going on in the legal world.

Yes.

Involving the Trump administration.

And his Thursday, you know, stop buys, his joining the show every Thursday is a nice...

is a nice little introduction to what he does on

Saturdays.

These are both deep dives, but incredibly digestible discussions he has.

Well, it's him.

He is talking for two hours, but it is all pertinent.

It's relevant.

It affects us whether he's talking about decisions coming out of the Supreme Court or how

Other decisions affect what goes on in our lives.

That's nine to 11 every Saturday.

And if you can't listen to it live, you could always download it by going to civicmedia.us slash shows.

Great podcast.

Look for that or subscribe to it as a podcast, as you can do with this show

as

well.

Yes.

All

of the shows you can

download as podcasts.

Follow us on social media too.

We're kind of blowing up on Instagram with them.

We got a

thing.

We got a

video that's, that's, that's, I mean, for us, I know for some people they're like adorable.

650,000 views.

That's adorable for us.

That's a lot.

That's amazing.

People are looking at our faces.

My gosh, that's a lot of faces.

So Jim Santel will be here.

Obviously, we're going to talk about the Epstein files.

We're also going to talk about this prosecution that the Trump administration wants to bring against James Comey.

Boy, that's going well for them.

Wow.

You know, if you're going to

go after your enemies, at least hire a good lawyer.

No.

You hire them based on their looks.

Everybody knows that.

You're telling me

you can't find a hot that goes for men or women or in between.

I don't care.

Everyone can be hot.

Loyal, smart lawyer.

You can't go somewhere and find that combination.

Well, and actually, loyal would be first.

Over

looks.

I think loyalist first over looks.

If it's

lady, it's looks loyal.

If it's a man, it's

loyal

looks.

That's how that

works.

Fair enough.

That's the, you know, you know, and if it's his children, he doesn't want to call them back.

Right.

Jim Santel coming up after the 9 to 30 news in hour number two.

We did talk about this yesterday and we're going to talk about it again about healthcare.

And Bill Cassidy is in our Congress.

He's a doctor.

He is actually a, if I'm not mistaken, he's a U.S.

Senator.

He's

a U.S.

Senator.

Senator Bill Cassidy is a doctor.

From Louisiana.

And this $2,000 that they're talking about, sending everybody for health insurance, he's got a great explanation.

on how this is going to work, everybody.

Listen up, ladies.

This one involves you.

Yes.

Making us smart consumers, ladies.

So we'll talk about that to kick off hour number two.

Then we'll lighten it up after 10 30 with audio sorbet.

The Acme packing companies, Paul Noonan is going to join us to talk all things sports.

We will talk about the Packers and the bucks.

And we'll just pretend the batteries don't

exist.

Yes or no, Calvin.

Badgers and Packers are

Packers and Bucks, there's too many teams.

Are they sucking right now?

I have no idea.

I don't pay attention to football.

Well, Yannis got hurt, right,

Calvin?

Yeah.

So the Bucks are sort of struggling and Yannis is going to be out for two weeks.

Okay.

And the Badgers are not doing great.

I can't remember what happened last week, but the week before that they won a pretty surprisingly big game for them.

All right.

Well, then we'll talk more about it with Paul.

I just, yeah, once Brewers is

over.

You kind of check out check out and then we'll end the show as we always do with this shouldn't be a thing today dude.

Where's my driveway?

Addition it's a good one Calvin found this one that will come up at the very end of the show One of the start off with things at home though.

This is from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Jesse O'Poyn who does a great job.

Oh my gosh has the byline the headline reads speaker Robin Voss warts procedural move

to force votes on expanding Medicaid for new mothers.

Okay, Jane, I've mentioned this before.

This isn't so much FCC compliance, but this is more show compliance.

Whenever we speak about the assembly speaker, he must be introduced with his theme song, which Calvin laboriously put together.

So, Calvin, before we move on, can we at least give him the proper respect he deserves?

There we go.

Ah,

yes, the popcorn

king has arrived.

Yeah, Wisconsin.

It's Robin State.

We just get to live here.

I mean, seriously, one man stops pretty much all the progress in Wisconsin and that one man is Robin boss.

Yeah, despite many of their members backing the bill Republicans

thwarted an effort by Democrats to expand Medicaid coverage for moms who have just given birth.

We've talked about this numerous times with Dr. Kristen Lyrely and other guests as well.

We are the only state.

It's us and Arkansas who have not expanded Medicaid coverage for new moms up to a

year.

This isn't about free health care.

This isn't about Obamacare.

This isn't about all of the things that make I believe Access to health insurance or specifically the ACA these ACA dollars that we've been offered for well since 2010 and It's not about any of that really it's about simply saying instead of I believe the current is three months.

It's two months.

It's two

Wow.

I'm

sorry.

It's 60 days.

It's three months

No, that's too much.

No,

that's

too much.

The

popcorn king has arrived.

Okay.

So it's two months currently for women who have access to have access to Medicaid for an

additional two for the first two months after giving birth.

And we just want to expand that to 12.

And not only is that medically sound because as Dr. Lierly and Dr. Laura Hanks have told us that, you know, and I'll say this, I didn't know this so much, Jane.

Cause I didn't really pay attention.

I don't have children.

My wife has never been pregnant.

So I just doesn't fall into my life, but now it does cause we talk about it.

A woman's body just doesn't snap back after pregnancy.

I'm sorry.

Don't get mad at me and laugh at me for saying that.

But I think a lot of people men think that and it takes some time.

It's as, as a, I believe Dr.

Liarly calls it a traumatic body event and it takes time to heal and get yours and that is just and that by the way is if you have a relatively smooth pregnancy exactly not

no complications no complications.

Well, right.

Just think about hormone levels your home after you deliver your hormones don't just automatically reset themselves within 24 hours.

That's

not how it works.

No, so yes, there are numerous things that can go wrong

post birth.

And that's why they want to expand this coverage for new moms for up to a year.

So here's what happened yesterday.

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer tried to use a rarely used process to withdraw this bill that would expand this coverage from this committee where it has been sitting since February without a hearing.

Because Robin doesn't want to bring it up.

So they wanted to

use this special petition to move the bill so they could get it out onto the floor for a vote.

If a majority of lawmakers had signed onto it, they could have forced a vote on it.

However, Greta Neubauer says, assembly GOP leaders were told in advance about this.

First mistake.

And then they moved the bill to another committee.

where it has to sit for three weeks.

What happens in three weeks, they're going to be gone.

Two things on that point.

First of all, this is only controversial in as much as we haven't passed this, unlike the 48 other states in America that have.

But also, this is a bill that enjoys, I think Pat said it best this week.

It shouldn't be called bipartisan.

A mandate.

You have religious, scientific, pro-life, pro-choice.

Everyone is on board.

This is one where they all come to the table and say, yeah, this is the definition of a no-brainer.

And it probably has very little to no chance of being taken up next year, as I'm going to keep saying this because we need to remind people, next year is there.

eight, I'm sorry, 10 month vacation.

They work eight weeks and then they're done for the rest of the year because it's not a budget year.

So therefore they're going to get everything in.

They want to get in.

They're going to make, they're going to make everything.

They feel important.

The spotlight and it's not going to be about healthcare, education, childcare, gun safety, legalization of marijuana.

None of that stuff is on the table.

It's not going to be on the table because it never is.

It's going to be about standing around, puttering around,

doing this and that, a couple things, passing some bills, shaking some hands, and then guess what everyone, we pay for their vacation.

For almost of the year, and what jumps out at me about this in particular, is the person who is preventing this legislation from even getting onto the floor for a vote is a childless man.

Robin Voss does not have children.

I don't have children either.

I don't have children either.

But he is the one who gets to decide.

Whether or not for people who do have children, whether or not this will go

forward.

And while we're talking, I'm going to find a clip of Robin Voss speaking to Luanne Bird earlier this year about this topic.

And I want people to hear his words, speak so poorly on the topic, so ill-informed.

on the topic as well.

Well, he doesn't want to expand welfare.

That's what he said the whole time.

Neubauer told reporters, this is a blatant effort by the speaker to prevent this bill from getting a vote on the floor.

I hope my assembly Republican colleagues will stop being pushed around by their leader and will join us in getting this bill to the floor for a vote one way or another.

A spokesperson for the popcorn king did not immediately respond for a comment.

Boss has been consistent in opposing the bill saying he does not want to expand welfare programs.

This measure passed the Senate in April, 32 to one.

It's Robin State.

We just get to live here.

And

he keeps on using that term,

welfare.

But again, we love babies and we want more women to have babies and we want young families to move here So they have babies But we don't do anything to encourage them to come here when they have babies.

No and and and this week there was an article I believe in the Wisconsin examiner that we talked about with Pat regarding the whole fact that this is now getting national attention pro-publica

published a piece on Robin Voss specifically, not on, not on stubborn GOP members, not on a mega strongholds.

This was about Robin Voss himself in the national spotlight in pro-publica talking about the fact that this state still does not offer expanded Medicaid for new moms up to 12 months.

And to me, he spins it as welfare and it's not, this is not welfare.

And in that art, in the article we cited,

he is at a rally in the capital, in the rotunda, where it says pro babies, pro life, pro women.

So which one is it?

Which one of those three are you?

Cause you can't be all three when you have an attitude like this.

Well, they wouldn't bring this up yesterday.

Robin wouldn't bring this up for a vote, but guess what measures did come up?

They were related to voting and voting restrictions.

Interesting.

We will talk about that next.

Cindy, I see you on the line.

We will take you on the other side.

Stay with us.

You are listening to Matt Nair on air.

This is the Civic Media Radio Network.

We'll be right back.

Good morning.

Welcome back to Matt and air on air Jane that near Greg mock doctor slide on the board a committee from our studio at radio Park in Racine join us call or text at 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 Leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream on Facebook YouTube and what used to be Twitter

Host of amicus a law review Saturdays from 9 to 11 across the network Jim Santel We'll be joining us after the 9 30 news.

Oh, baby.

There's a lot to talk about Wow This is what happens when you hire your least qualified cousins But anyway, we'll get to that in just a little bit right before the break.

We were talking about popcorn king Robin Voss Of course refusing to bring Up to a vote expanding Medicaid coverage

for new moms up to a year.

Wisconsin and Arkansas, we're the only ones who don't.

And we've been talking about this for at least a year.

A

long

time.

Cindy from Appleton has been waiting on the phone.

Thank you for your patience, Cindy.

Good morning.

What do you want to say?

Cindy, you there, buddy?

OK.

Cindy, we got you.

We

can't hear you, Cindy.

You may want to try back 855-752-4842 855-756.

So they didn't get around to that yesterday.

You know what they did get around to?

Universal background checks, full educational funding,

some

childcare tax credits.

Yeah, no, no.

This from Wisconsin Public Radio, GOP elections bills.

Advance in the Wisconsin Assembly.

They approved a slate of GOP authored election bills, including one that will change how absentee ballots are processed and eliminate the use of central count locations.

What they don't include?

You know what this does not include?

Getting

rid of voter

ID?

No, allowing us to process absentee ballots the day before.

Weren't they, wait a minute, I'm

confused.

I thought there was a bill going through that was actually, and was Republican led that was trying to get it that the absentee ballots could be processed.

the day of, during the day, like they're hearing the entire day.

They didn't have to wait for polls to close.

They could take care of these and get them done.

So it would lessen the load for everybody

involved.

And hopefully bring results in faster.

That is the whole point because Republicans continue to claim without evidence that there are these ballot dumps in the middle of the night to no one knows where they come from and they're all secretive and it's all sketchy.

No, it's not.

This happens because by law, they cannot count the absentee ballots until the polls close on election night.

That takes a long time.

But they won't do that.

Because they want to be able to continue to go to this and claim

fraud.

When you take a step back and you look at everything, first of all, Governor Evers is going to veto any of these bills that come through now can go back for an override vote.

But I think some of these are really for show because they know the governor is going to veto them.

Then they then they automatically have a built in argument.

When it comes back around, they'll get headlines.

They'll get they'll get the rage

they want.

They get the press they want.

And then people can go into their constituency constituency and say, this is what we're trying to do to secure the election.

But the question the problem I have is

Choose a side Republicans Robin Voss says the the the elections are safe in 2020 So why are we doing this now?

There's no evidence of widespread fraud or any sort of of hinkiness Ron Johnson himself

said the

2024 Olympics elections that in Milwaukee the count was going well when he stood there and watched it happening I was very shocked when it happened

And then you have a bill that says that you can count absentee ballots during the day to help lessen the load and make things easier for everyone so we can get those results

quicker

Choose Elaine got my friends because one time you're saying let's do this then you're saying let's do that.

I mean it's back and forth another example Bank your vote

Voting early is great.

Voting early is wonderful.

Please bank your vote.

And then six months later, this is the scourge of freedom.

We

cannot, it is going to destroy this democracy.

The measures approved do not include a plan to start processing absentee ballots the day before.

An idea that has long enjoyed bipartisan support.

Republican backers of the plan.

Now say there's not enough GOP support to get it across the finish line, because again, they want to be able to continue using this as an excuse and casting suspicion about this.

They have the opportunity to help fix it and they won't.

And you know what the other thing too, Jane, is at the end of this, you know, we're sitting here talking about what seems like the absolute incompetence of some is that it's such a miniscule news story in the vein of

Everything that their incompetency is not called out and they are not held responsible for doing what we've talked about before which is You want to talk about trying to Intimidate voters trying to disenfranchise people look at the party who is consistently and always trying to pass laws that curb the ability to vote It's in the Supreme Court.

It's in our state houses.

It's in our federal government the party that's put point point the finger

They're the ones who probably don't want you voting.

And by the way, one more little tidbit here before we go to the news.

They did include one thing very specific to one specific lawmaker.

They approved a bill requiring anyone who wants to recall someone from office to live in Wisconsin.

This comes after twice failed efforts to recall Popcorn King Robin Voss.

which he described as put together by out-of-state activists.

People want you out of your job.

They were able to do that for the popcorn king, just not for new moms and the rest of us.

We'll see if he stands for re-election in 2026, because that's probably the hottest question in Wisconsin politics.

Will he run?

We have news.

On the way.

And then when we return, Jim Santel, host of Amicus, a law review will be here too bad.

There's absolutely nothing to talk about.

That's all coming up.

We're talking about pretzel bites.

You're listening to Matt Nair on air.

This is the vast statewide, countrywide.

You can even pick us up around the globe on the Civic Media Radio Network.

Stay with us.

Good morning.

Welcome.

Welcome to Matt and air on air.

Jane Matt and air Greg Bach and sweet Calbee coming to you live from our home at Radio Park in Racine.

You can join us.

Call or text.

at 855-752-4842.

You can also 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 also catch his show, Amicus, A Law Review, Saturday mornings from 9 to 11 across the network.

Jim Santel is here, Jim.

I really wanted to replace your intro music with, I don't know, Benny Hill theme or Keystone cops or something.

Something

could go well with the clown car, perhaps, right?

Three stooches.

Send in the clowns.

It's unbelievable.

And I

really

I just want to share this one quote from Abby Phillips from CNN.

It continues to be striking to me that the administration that keeps talking about merit-based keeps putting people who are not qualified into jobs and then they make egregious mistakes and then we're supposed to just ignore it as if it's not happening.

This is what happens when you surround yourself with your least qualified cousins because their only qualification is loyalty to Trump.

That's exactly right Shane it is a human an HR lesson is it not and how to employ and not employ people in positions of responsibility and yes We can be light-hearted about some of this but understand that what's going on Revealed just in the past week or so is something that is hugely important Yes, we have the the nation grand juries have indicted individuals alleging federal

criminal offenses.

That is the single most significant thing that a government can do for two, four with any of us.

Yes, there's also the death penalty out there in some states.

But this is at the top of the list.

You've got to get this one right.

It is not a matter of simply the president's latest outrageous linguistic gymnastics, that sort of thing.

This is huge.

And it compromises, frankly, not only these particular cases, which we will talk about, I am sure, but also

the very nature of what our process is all about.

Is there anybody in America, including me, including you, including your listeners, who looks at the grand jury process and thinks anymore, gosh, if this can happen inside this institution, which is the threshold to justice in America, can any of us be indicted?

What is the nature of our rule of law system in America?

That's what's revealed, and that is the longstanding damage.

How dare you, Pam Bondi?

How dare you, Donald Trump?

How dare you, Lindsey Halligan, abuse our system in this way?

It is outrageous.

Well, let me short of that.

Let's talk about Lindsey Halligan and the case.

Case.

Loose, loose word there.

Against

Jim Comey, because that's where this is all coming from.

All right, she is as we have spoken at great length on this wonderful broadcast She is sent in not well by a clown perhaps but but sent in by the president to indict his enemies including Letitia James and James Comey She does this within hours of arriving in the U.S.

Attorney's office in Eastern Virginia She walks into the grand jury interestingly alone which suggests again that nobody wanted to help her Nobody wanted anything to do with this the previous U.S.

Attorney had advocated the field to get out from under

And

that's an important point, right?

Because the person who was in that position before her said, no, I'm not doing this.

There's nothing here to charge him with.

And then they replaced her with Lindsay Halligan, who was an insurance

lawyer.

Entirely honorable practice of law, insurance.

I don't know anything about it.

I would be incompetent, Shane and Greg, to do insurance law and I would recognize that if you came to me and asked me to do some work.

She goes in and would it discover again, three different hearings last Thursday, Monday and Wednesday.

Hard to know which one to start with because each one of them is a revelation of a bombshell about what happens inside.

and outside the grand jury.

Let's go back to Monday.

This is in front of the magistrate judge whose response were some of the pretrial matters.

He is looking at the grand jury transcripts of what happened on that day when she walked into the grand jury.

And he says these three, and he's reading from the transcript.

Again, astonishing things.

He says, number one, this fundamental misstatement law, the US attorney told the grand jury,

that the putative defendant here, James Comey, will not have the right under the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying at his own trial.

What?

What?

That's the Fifth Amendment.

That's James Madison.

You have to be a lawyer.

Everybody in America knows that.

She just told them misstatement of the law.

And oh, by the way, we can basically compel them to testify.

It gets worse.

The judge goes on to say, during the course of this presentation,

she told the grandeur is that you know what you don't have to rely exclusively on the record before you the things that we have presented to you as the finders of fact here to return this indictment but you and these are her words you can't you could be assured that the government has more evidence perhaps even better evidence that will present a trial what oh my goodness so

lindsay halligan went to the grand jury and said

The stuff that we are presenting to you is not all the stuff we have, but just trust me that I have more stuff,

so you should do this.

And really quick, that isn't surprising when you think about it.

How many times does Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, or Caroline Levitt said to reporters,

We'll show you that later.

Listening to John Sauer's testimony in front of the Supreme Court regarding, what were you talking about?

Oh my gosh.

Tariffs.

Tariffs.

There's very much an air of, don't worry about it.

Like they, what they, I believe what they think is.

is that the people they're speaking to are as loyal as they are.

So therefore they don't have to provide the information.

They're like, Ed, I'll get to you later on the golf course.

Ah, it's fine though.

But that really is that it is the, we'll show you later.

Or it's fine.

You know, that's not, we're not worried about that right now.

Let's talk about this thing.

That is the overarching theme of anybody who must defend this administration is obfuscate and meh, it's okay.

Right.

And just trust us.

You know, it comes from how many times has this president, first term and not so much this term, but first term said, you know what, two weeks from now.

I'm going to use that.

Trust me, two weeks from now, it's going to be infrastructure week.

We're going to do those two weeks from now.

And again, you know what, we can, again, it's outrageous in that setting, but we can sort of fluff that off and say, you know what, that's just him being Donald Trump.

This is a presentation to a federal grand jury who relies upon the government to be honest about what the law is, to present the evidence that does in fact support this.

There's also more indication again from the magistrate judge that maybe, I was always wondering, who is the agent who presented the information?

Turns out that the sole witness, he may have inadvertently disclosed, yes, hold on, some attorney client privileged matters.

That is also a violation of the law in front of the grand jury.

And oh, by the way, the upside of this hearing on Monday was this is not everything.

This is the things that the judge viewed in the transcripts he has seen to this point.

He has directed the extraordinary thing that the government provide the full record to the defense so that they can look at it.

There is more coming out of this.

These may be the highlights every single American should have.

There is her hair on fire about this.

This is nothing short of that.

In addition to the fact that it presages the complete destruction, the demise, the dismissal of these cases, it is coming.

This is one of the three bases upon which these judges are going to get rid of this litigation.

Ill-founded from the start, badly managed, incompetence, and defiance.

Defiance said, don't worry, again, as we're saying,

We've got enough at trial.

No, no, United States Attorney Haligan.

That's not how this works.

I know you don't know what you're doing.

You should have said no to the president when he said to you, go over there beyond the Potomac River and be the United States Attorney.

How many times have the three of us said, you know what, if I was asked to be the chief of staff for a major medical facility, I'd be flattered and I would say absolutely not.

I am not qualified to do this.

This is more significant than that.

It's the undermining of the rule of law in America.

People have been charged with a criminal offense.

The cases are certain to go away.

Donald Trump will bemoan that.

You know what he said when Jim Comey was initially indicted?

Justice in America.

All caps, exclamation marks.

That's mission accomplished essentially.

Exactly.

When these cases are dismissed, let's all say,

justice in America.

Again, regrettably that we had to go down this road at all.

Regrettable also for Leticia James and for James Comey to be indicted.

That is no small thing in America.

I did that for 30 years.

I was always very much aware of the fact that this is a huge power, a huge authority.

I've got to get it just right.

And you do not play fast and lose, which is what this administration has done.

How dare they?

How dare they do this to the American

judicial system.

If you're just joining us on Matt Nair on air, our guest is Jim Santel.

He is a former U.S.

attorney and acting attorney and host of Amicus, a law review Saturday mornings from 9 to 11 across the network.

We are talking about the government case against James Comey and this Lindsey Heligan that Donald Trump essentially set in there to sick her on James Comey.

And I just just to again do a little wrap on this, Jim.

Essentially, Lindsay Halligan went to the grand jury.

They rejected several charges.

Yes.

Then instead of going back with the new charges, taking it back to the complete grand jury, she talked to like three members of the panel and then gave that approval.

That's not how that works.

You take it to the entire grand jury, right?

You don't get to selectively pick.

Well, I'll show this one and this one and this

one.

That sounds like it's almost like.

Forgive me for saying this, but that almost sounds like tampering.

Then if you're only picking certain people and you're not presenting to everyone, that doesn't seem, that seems very bad.

Wow.

And that's over and above.

That's after she made all these misstatements.

Then she's got these two drafts of the indictment.

We know that one had three counts, one had two.

We've talked about this before.

The grand jury comes back and says, no, no,

we're not

indicting on that other count.

So now she's got these two.

They make reference again to a first person, a third person.

There's no second person.

It's a mess.

And she goes back, as you've just accurately said, Jane, and she goes back to the fourth person, maybe others, and says, you know what?

just made some changes here.

Sign

off on this,

will you?

Absolutely wrong.

There are three words for that.

It's called grand jury abuse.

Government misconduct.

And what again, there are times frankly, when you as a prostitute, you go in and maybe you've got a number transposed, something else is out there.

And you go back and you say members of the grand jury, I realized that the section number under which in the caption has been transposed.

Let me change this and I will come back.

And you know what you do?

You come back and you reread every single word of the new document.

And everyone that votes on the new document, that's not just being procedurally precise.

That's a constitutional mandate that the grand jury decide on a case and approve of an indictment based on what's before them.

And it underscores once again.

that the indictment that the magistrate judge looked at in the end, she was also confused.

She says, which one of these?

Absolutely.

These cases are messy, beyond messy.

And they're also not just subject, they need to be dismissed.

This is misconduct of the highest levels.

Paul Spooner, Paul from Spooner, listening on WAUK says James Comey has a huge lawsuit coming against the DOJ and Trump.

And we'll talk about.

Lindsay Halligan's future as an attorney.

When we continue, Jim Santel is here to talk all things legal.

Stay with us.

Woop, woop, boing.

You're listening

to Matt Mair on air on the Civic Media Radio Network.

Good morning.

Welcome back to Matt Nair on air.

Jane Matt Nair, Greg Bach.

Our one our only Calzone on the board committee from our studio at Radio Park in Racine You can join us call or text 855-752-4842 Leave a comment on the live stream on Facebook YouTube and what used to be Twitter He joins us every Thursday to talk all things legal the host of amicus a law review Saturday mornings across the network from 9 to 11 Jim Santel is here right before the break gym.

We were talking about the

Trump administration's case against Jim Comey really just kind of blowing up in their faces.

And Lindsay Halligan, this insurance attorney who got tapped by Trump to step in and handle this, what could be the possible fallout for her?

She's got to be, again, she is a human being.

She's got to be feeling professionally and personally

very, very uncomfortable right now.

Are there bar consequences for this, telling a grand jury that an individual does not have Fifth Amendment rights?

Yes, there are.

You can get in trouble for those kinds of things.

So that is out there.

As your very astute caller, your author of one of his texts coming in, does James Comey, in addition to fighting back on this case, does he have a cause of action against your United States government?

you bet he does.

It's called malicious prosecution.

And that's based upon an issue we're not even talking about right now, which is whether this was vindictively prompted in the first place, right?

She is facing an awful lot of problems, as is the Attorney General of the United States of America, the Attorney General, who along the way, when it came to this authorization issue, whether Lindsay Haligan could be the US Attorney at all, she authors a document says I'm going to make her a special attorney.

And that covers it.

And once again, Greg and Jane, if you said before, she's basically saying, that's okay.

Just trust me.

Now we've got the imprimatur of my signature.

It's all good.

Right.

It's all good.

And as to that, to add even more to this, we're talking about the two hearings of justice past week.

A week ago, there was another judge, her name is McGowan Curry, Cameron McGowan Curry.

She's brought in because of some conflicts among the judges appropriately in that district.

And she also says during the course of the

question about whether or not Lindsay Halligan is properly appointed there.

She gasps in the courtroom when she asks this question.

She says, government, can you tell me if the classified documents case, the Mar-a-Lago documents case in Florida against Donald Trump was incorrectly dismissed?

And everyone's thinking, what are you talking about?

Well, what she's talking about, remember Eileen Cannon?

Yes.

And the district court judge who said, you know what?

I've got to dismiss this case because Jack Smith was not confirmed by the United States Senate.

He was not properly there.

Therefore, the case goes, this very astute judge reaches back into our recent history and says, if that case had to go, doesn't this one gasps in the courtroom as people realize she's right.

There's a thing called precedent.

So we've got a lack of authorization to do this.

We've got grand jury abuse and we've got vindictive prosecution.

could we have anything, and it's just Thursday morning, right?

What else is going to happen in the next week or so?

These cases are doomed, as is, by the way, as is Letitia James case.

We're talking about Comey in particular, also suffering from the same authorizations and even victim prosecution issues.

These cases are going to go away.

I know they're blocked on American history by this president, by this attorney general.

Well, and again, how can you come to a jury and say that this is not

Trump directed when he is all over social media saying, prosecute these people, they're terrible.

And that also is part of the exchange with the magistrate judge earlier.

It almost takes a second share to these other outrages.

But the magistrate judge is also saying, isn't this a source of vindictiveness?

Again, the district court judge, who's also reviewing all of this, also asked about that his name for what it's worth is Nakmanov.

Remember that name, Nakmanov.

He's the district judge who's going to decide all this in the end.

He also says, I'm looking at this.

Is there any way that this is not vindictive?

The government attorney tries to explain it as just normal, and you can tell the judge is rolling his eyes in disbelief.

Absolutely.

During the course of the same year, again, I'm thinking about how uncomfortable this must have been.

The judge about this grand jury document asked Haligan to stand up.

Stand up, Ms.

Haligan in court and answer my question.

Was the entire grand jury, they have the opportunity to see the second indictment to her credit?

She doesn't lie.

She says it had not.

He thanks her and tells her to sit down.

That's a judge who's made up his mind.

That happened yesterday in the district court in eastern Virginia.

Oh my

goodness.

That was essentially a kind of a that that was a slap from the judge.

Right.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

And a signal about what he's going to do here.

I also think it's really interesting that we are giving a lawyer credit for standing up and telling the truth.

Right.

Right.

That's right.

But that's

so it's

so

rare now.

Unfortunately that has to be pointed out.

That's

not a

lie.

Wow.

Exactly.

Right.

And because of course they're getting all the transcripts.

I was, I was, I note that out of surprise because one of the things this administration does, even knowing they will be discovered today, how do we get through today?

And if we need to lie today, even though tomorrow will be found out, we'll do that too.

They've done that all across the board in other federal district courts, Guatemalan children.

We lied about the reasons for deporting them.

I can go on.

We can all go on and Judge Boasberg, Judge Zinnis, all have been lied to by this administration.

Now it's brought to the fore.

And we're going to see the dismissals of these cases.

I hope in the end, that Judge Nakmanov issues a three-part order on all of these and says, no authorization, grand jury abruce, and oh, by the way, Mr. President, vindictive prosecution.

I hope he doesn't seize on just one of them and dismisses it.

Do all of this, Judge, and get rid of this and send this message to this president.

You don't behave this way.

Jim Santel is host of Amicus, a law review.

It's fantastic.

Listen to it Saturday mornings, 9 to 11 across the network.

Thank you so much, Jim.

We will see you in two weeks next week

is Thanksgiving.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

Take care.

You as well.

News is coming up next when we return.

Oh, grandma doesn't need a Christmas present.

Come on.

You're listening to Matt Nair on air.

This is the Civic Media Radio Network.

Good morning.

Welcome.

Welcome to Matt Nair on air.

Jane Matt Nair, Greg Bach and Calvin Butenoff 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 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 later on this hour after the 10 30 news for audio sorbet today, we're going to be joined by the ACME packing company, sports guru Paul Newton.

We'll be here to talk Packers and bucks

and badgers to it.

Well, we'll just pretend the badgers don't exist.

Brandon Woodruff also in the news about the brewers.

So, Paul Noonan joining us after 10.30.

We'll wrap up the show as we always do.

With this, shouldn't be a thing today, dude.

Where's my driveway edition?

That's all coming up a little bit later on.

Wanted to start off with this, though, and we talked yesterday about health care.

What would you... David, four about health care.

Yes, it's a big issue.

What would you like to see happen?

What is the fix for health care 855?

752-4842.

It's been interesting watching some of the Republicans try to sell folks on getting rid of the ACA and then allowing taxpayers to be in charge of where their money is going to go.

So Senator Bill Cassidy

Senator of Louisiana.

Who is a doctor?

A doctor who voted to confirm RFK Jr.

Yes, as our head of Health and Human Services.

Yes, Senator Cassidy has a great example on how this is going to work if we all get $2,000 from the government to spend on healthcare.

Calvin, can you play that clip from Senator Bill Cassidy, please?

By giving the patient the money herself though, she becomes a wiser consumer.

And just think about it.

If she goes and gets two types of shampoo and one's a dollar cheaper, she'll get the cheaper one.

And the other one lowers their price.

Once you give her the power of having the purse, the power of making the decision, she's going to shop, get the lower price.

That begins to save her money and squeeze fat and waste out of the healthcare system that ultimately translates into lower premiums.

This is the first step.

and lower in health care costs, give the patient the power.

Yeah, it's in health care is just like shampoo.

So it's they're so similar, except choosing my shampoo isn't going to make a difference when I'm about to die.

That's that's pretty true.

Actually, I feel

like yeah, the whole death sickness thing.

I

mean, so

I mean, not even dying just a matter of, I've never had to declare bankruptcy because I bought too much Pantene.

So yeah, that's true too.

But there are three points on that that he talks about that are very, it's very interesting to me as one, that's not how consumer shopping works.

It's not how the free market or, you know, prices work because I, when I shop, most of the things I'm trying to buy, I'm trying to stay within a budget.

I'll buy off.

No brand name types of items.

I'll shop at the mid to lower part of the aisle because that's where the savings are.

Those purchases aren't tracked by those companies.

Therefore, they don't make the people on the mid to higher shelf.

Like if I buy soup and it just says, you know, chicken noodle soup from best value.

Right.

Campbell's doesn't see that and go, well, we got to lower our prices now.

But me buying cheaper does not mean they lower their price.

That's never how anything works.

Period.

So that's a fallacy.

And two, the power of the purse, I'm glad he brought that up because that's the Congress's job.

If we want to talk about money and how to distribute money and how to fund things and get the best bang for the buck for the people, how about we do it through the congressional legislation and making sure they can take care of the money because they're in charge of the purse strings.

And if you give me $2,000, I feel like, Jane, I don't know about you, but if you give any American $2,000,

and say, we want you to use it for health insurance versus this is a tax credit or this is money that can only go towards, or you set up an account, like you set up an exchange online and you sign up and there's a $2,000 credit in there, like a subsidy from the government.

Seems

like something we have

already.

It sounds

like something, I've seen this movie before.

It's fine, it could be better, but it's fine.

If you just give me a check for $2,000, people are gonna use it to pay down bills, pay on rent, pay on food, pay for childcare.

They might blow it on something they want to do.

They might buy a guitar in the middle of the night while watching a documentary on their phone.

It's never happened to me.

But from start to finish, his words make no sense whatsoever.

And it shows how out of touch he is with the American people and just the shopping

process.

Well, for a man who's a doctor, you would think he would be a little more familiar with how our health care system actually works.

And the other thing, she

is already shopping and comparing when she goes to the marketplace and she selects a plan.

So that's already happening.

And it's not like if I'm in a car accident and I need emergency surgery, I'm not gonna be calling around for where I'm gonna get the best deal.

No, well, unfortunately in this country, you...

If you get into a car accident, they almost expect you to call around to see who's in network.

That's your first, that's your first worry.

Can you just bleed slower?

Would you mind?

The thing I, you know, we asked the question last week, what would you do?

And I think overwhelmingly most people said they would like some form of single payer public option, something akin to we see in other developed nations around the world.

But just how about you start here?

Instead of saying, I'm going to shove 2000 bucks in your hand.

go.

Why don't you hold town halls and actually talk to the people, get their input, do studies, do long term planning, and then maybe take all that in consideration, pass a bill to the Congress on how to spend the money, because they do hold the power of the purse, and then actually try to make a change.

I'm not saying the, I'm not saying don't, I'm not, I am never going to say the ACA is perfectly leave it alone, don't ever change it, but

You don't have to get rid of it.

You could make it better.

It could

make it better.

Yeah, Ronnie from Horicontexting and listening on WA UK whoopee a check for $2,000 is a hundred and sixty six bucks per month That's not gonna go very far and While we're on the topic of this $2,000 and Jack and Jean will take you just a second.

I see you on the phone there Scott neck brace percent was asked about this $2,000 check

And whether or not this is going to goose and heat up inflation, because that was the whole criticism against the Biden administration during COVID.

When those stimulus checks were sent out, all it did was heat up inflation.

Well, the answer to this, according to our head of the Treasury, is, well, maybe people won't spend it and they'll save it.

What?

No.

The whole point of these $2,000 checks.

I thought, because that's what you said out loud, was for us to take control of our health care.

And now Scott Bassent is saying, well, hopefully people will just save it, and that way it won't heat up inflation.

Does anyone in this administration talk to other people in the administration so they can at least get their talking points the same?

Well, also,

we shouldn't be talking to the Treasury Secretary about health care.

We shouldn't be talking

to a lot of people in the White House.

We should be talking to the HHS, to maybe senators on committee, Congress people on committee, hearing from the, I'm sorry, the Catholic, my gosh, I'm sorry, words are very, very difficult.

The press secretary putting forth the president's ideas on this, but it seems like anyone, it's like, Hey,

Ag Secretary, do you want to talk about construction?

You go.

But I will do this.

I will give Scott Bassett some credit.

Because we spoke about him earlier this week with his thoughts on beef prices.

Yes.

At least he didn't say this is all because undocumented people are bringing illegal checks into the country.

that's true they're bringing illegal cash

they are

bringing illegal cows

they're

bringing they're bringing in illegal cows but they're not bringing in illegal insurance contracts so

good to know

but yeah i think you're absolutely right though it's not a matter of who is the most qualified person in this administration to speak on these things it is who is available who's who's not at lunch right now get on cnn and talk and let the chips fall where they may and how stupid you

look that that actually would make sense to me yeah

Yeah, it's like we need somebody that you CNN is calling.

They want someone to talk on X. You're here.

You go.

That at least would explain why they can't get on the same page.

It seems about anything.

Michael and Pleasant Prairie listening on WAUK.

They're not interested in what consumers think about health care.

They only care about what their political donors, i.e.

the insurance industry,

Now all the Republicans are coming out about those evil, bad, bloated, rich insurance companies.

What?

I've never heard any of you say anything before about bad, bad insurance companies.

really?

That makes me think there was a meeting that happened sometime this past month, where they said, hey, look, guys, we're going to throw some lobs at you.

Just take them.

It's fine.

Don't

worry about it.

Here's what you say.

855-752-4842.

Jack from Merrimack is joining us.

Good morning, Jack.

What do you want to say about this?

Good morning.

Well, I got three things to say about that.

Thing number one, Jen, I agree 100% with you.

You get into an accident or you have an appendicitis attack or a heart attack.

You're not going to call around to the hospital and say, how much would you charge me for this?

First of all, they don't even know exactly what your problem is.

Right.

Okay.

So secondly, $2,000.

I'm on Medicare.

and Medicare supplement policies that I've looked at that are decent.

I'm not talking about the ones where, you know, you are still called Medicare.

With an advantage, yeah.

Yeah, but the Medicare disadvantage is what I call

them

anyway.

Those cost some more than $400, $600 a month.

I don't think 2000 is going to quite cover it.

And finally,

There is an answer to this.

You start weaning the insurance companies off of the medical insurance, and what you do is you take that money and you put it into Medicare, which has about a 2% administrative cost as opposed to close to 20% with the insurance companies.

That'll give you something around 18% more than the dollars to work with.

You then expand Medicare downward, which actually, since you're going to do that, you're going to get younger and healthier people.

That's going to cause increased savings on Medicare.

And those savings then get plowed back into Medicare.

And then that thing should be instantaneous because the insurance companies really will need some time to adapt to this.

But they'll still sell high-end policies for really fancy hospital stays and elective stuff.

Anyway, you keep on doing this.

We pay twice as much per person as any place else in the world.

for our medical costs, and if you can even get that down to one and a half times as much, I'm willing to bet that there'd be enough money to actually cover every single America.

They've run these numbers before, and it's really a wonder when you say, thank you so much for

coming.

Thanks a lot, Jack.

You make so much sense.

That's why they'll never listen to you.

Yeah.

Their whole thing was finding the waste, fraud, and abuse in the government, the fact that there is actually consistency and low cost in the government.

They would never admit to that.

They would never do it.

They want you to believe that government would ruin everything.

When, in fact, it runs smoother than you would like to believe,

just

ask some of the former Doge employees.

Yeah.

Talk, call Big Balls.

He's available.

When we return, gee, Fox is really spinning grocery prices in a unique and unusual way.

We'll kick that around next.

Stay close.

You are listening to Matt Mayer on air.

This is the Civic Media Radio Network, and we'll be right back.

Good morning and welcome back to Matt and air on air Jane Matt and air Greg Mach our resident young person Calvin on the board coming to you from our studio at Radio Park in Racine join us call or text 855-752-4842 leave a comment on the live stream on Facebook YouTube and what used to be Twitter before the break we were talking about health care

Couple of conflicting messages coming out of the Trump administration.

On the one hand, they're going to send us all $2,000 to buy health care because it's just like shopping for shampoo.

And on the other hand, you should save it so it doesn't goose inflation.

Yeah, we should we should take that $2,000 and just bank it.

So that doesn't happen.

So yeah, we're not quite sure what's going on with that.

Jean from Eau Claire has been waiting very patiently on the phone.

Good morning, Jean.

What did you want to say?

Well, first of all, thank you guys for the outstanding public service that you give to us and all of you and Kelvin, too.

Um, you know, the biggest threat, the biggest and overwhelming threat to Americans was what they're doing.

And if they mess with the ACA, it eliminates the largest, um, hurtful thing for Americans health is return of the pre existing conditions that

was what threw forward.

You know, they pushed forward the ACA because so many, they stubbed their toe or they have something, forget to put on their insurance.

You know that you had this condition or you went to hospital at this time or whatever.

They wouldn't pay their bills and they refused to pay the bills.

So this is significant, folks.

This is unbelievable.

Gotta fight for your healthcare.

Thank you guys.

Have a great day.

Keep up the great work.

Thanks a lot, Gene.

Appreciate it.

Yeah, again, the ACA is not perfect.

It's not.

But going back to pre-ACA was also not perfect.

And the fact that the Republicans now are coming out and saying, well, this is terrible.

We need to get rid of it.

We're at the same place we were when they tried to repeal it, and they had no replacement 15 years ago.

Do you know what this is, Jane?

I'm not kidding you.

What's happening in front of us?

So there's the ACA.

They've tried to repeal it 100 times.

I looked it up on a website.

100 times.

They told us in 2024 at the debate, he said, he said, they have concepts of a plan.

These are their concepts.

They're not sketched out.

They're not, they haven't been run in a room.

They haven't been tested for language.

They haven't done the things they need to do before they roll out a huge announcement.

They're just throwing out concepts of a plan and seeing what works.

And I think as long as the Epstein files aren't in my hand or the, the budget is not reversed to benefit the people, they're going to keep throwing out these

These these concepts and we'll keep talking about them and then we'll move on to something else because that's what they're trying to do It's all about that distraction.

Yeah

We would have spent a little time about this.

It was not it was just a couple of weeks ago I could swear a couple of weeks ago.

What's time that Fox?

Little reminder the network that was fined almost a billion dollars for lying to its listeners and telling them that Trump won the 2020 election that they kept fine for that lie

Almost a billion dollars.

But Fox just a couple of weeks ago was all excited because hamburger helper usage is on the rise.

Now they had a guest on recently on Fox.

Money's tight.

But don't worry, it's all good.

All you have to do now are buy fewer gifts.

Listen to this guest on Fox explaining how to head into the holidays.

Calvin, can we play that clip, please?

budget budget budget you need a plan also remember adults don't need gifts okay focus on the people in your life who are aged 3 to 18 grandma doesn't need slippers yeah they don't live by you don't get them a gift now is not the time to spend and break the bank sending packages across the country Dana focus on the people in your life ages 3 to 18 that's my 30 seconds for you

why should

I focus on them the government won't well

First of all, I kind of agree with her, actually.

At a certain point, I don't need more stuff.

The

last thing I need is more stuff.

Hey, you

and

her,

be quiet.

I like presents.

I love how they're just trying to spin.

On the one hand, the economy is great if you watch Fox.

Yeah.

Everything is down.

Prices are down.

Groceries are down, maybe not in real life, but in their heads.

But yet, at the same time, there's no money to buy gifts.

So you got to tighten your belt.

I do agree with one thing, though.

You don't need to buy baby's gifts, gifts.

Like, yeah.

Infants.

Yeah, you don't need to, like, they don't, they buy, give them a box.

They love it.

Actually, you're probably right.

That's a whole, that's an audio survey.

Who gets presents?

I'll tell you one group who doesn't get presents.

Babies, they've had it too good for too long.

Well, and let's not forget, it wasn't that long ago that our president, the president of the United States, had a comment about dolls.

Calvin, do we have that clip, please?

Let's play that

flick.

Maybe now she'll

just have half a doll.

Just

give her the head.