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.
Welcome to Matt and air on air.
My name is Greg Bach.
I am your host and you are listening to us on the civic media radio network.
You can always call or get in touch with us.
The phone number is the same.
No matter what it's 855-752-4842-855-75 civic.
You can also leave a comment on the live stream.
We are currently streaming on Facebook.
YouTube and the platform that we in this house still call Twitter.
We have a fantastic show for you today.
It is December the 19th.
We are six days away from Christmas.
I hope you have at least an idea of what you are going to be buying in mind before all the stores become pure insanity.
We're going to be talking later on in the show after the 9 30 news with Jim Santel.
He's the host of amicus a law review, which is on civic media every Saturday from 9 a.m.
to 11 a.m.
I
Very much suggest you listen.
It's kind of like a handy dandy two-hour trip to law school every single weekend and we'll be talking about a lot of things specifically the
the result of the verdict, I should say, of the Hannah Duggan case, who is a Milwaukee County circuit court judge who was arrested earlier this year for obstruction.
We're going to be talking about the verdict and that, what it means going forward, as well as other things in the news with regard to what is happening in law.
Supreme court is, of course, big docket this year.
And we have the
The third time, I think, the try and fail to try to indict Letitia James.
So we want to discuss that as well.
But you can always, as I said, be part of that conversation by calling or texting 855-752-484-2855-75CIVIC.
Leave a comment on that livestream.
But first, we turn to the subject.
of refugees.
And I want to read something if you're really quick here.
It says, since 1975, the U.S.
has taken in over 3 million refugees, and that's according to the U.N.
And according to New York Times reporting in 2024, about 100,000 refugees settled in the U.S.
This year, that number will be closer to zero, largely due to Trump's administration's hard shift in policies.
In his first term, Mr. Trump has set a new low, set a new low of admitting refugees with just 11,000.
Before 2025, this was the lowest number of refugees allowed in the country.
And to talk about the current state of refugees in our state, we're inviting Gail Cornelius onto the show today.
Gail is the regional director of World Refugee here in Wisconsin.
And according to the website, World Refugee is a global Christian humanitarian organization in the, in the United States, World Refugee, I'm sorry, World Relief, I'm sorry.
It's Friday.
I got coffee.
I can see Gail right now saying, you're saying it all wrong.
You're saying it all wrong.
World Relief, my apologies.
World Relief is a global Christian, are you listening at WNBA?
That's award-winning right there.
World Relief is a global Christian humanitarian organization that focuses on helping refugees and other immigrants in vulnerable situations to help rebuild their lives in a new country.
Gail is our guest.
It's World Relief.
Thank you for being here.
How are you doing this morning besides my whiffing many times?
Hi, Greg.
Thanks so much for having me quite the introduction.
It would have been a lot better had I got the words right.
But you know, well, there's always Mondays show, so we'll try there.
But welcome to the show.
Good morning.
How are you today?
I'm good.
Thank you so much.
Counting down the days till till the holidays as well and happy to be
joining you.
Yeah, we really appreciate that.
We really appreciate your time.
And I just want to start really quick because I feel personally that
When we talk about the topic of individuals from other countries coming here, there is, the word nuance doesn't begin to explain that discussion point, but I want you to start simple for me, because I just showed you, I can't read.
So can you define to me, what is a refugee?
What deems a person a refugee?
What is the, I guess they say the qualifications.
Absolutely.
A refugee is an internationally recognized legal status for someone that has had to flee their home due to fear or actual persecution related to their ethnicity, social group, political beliefs, any number of things.
Their lives are in danger very simply and they had to flee.
Refugees don't leave their homes by choice.
Just like any of us, we wouldn't.
We wouldn't want to pick up everything that we know, everything that we have made our lives out of and move somewhere where we have no idea, no family, no support system.
So the plight of a refugee is a really difficult one.
And I'm sure we'll get into this a bit more, but becoming a refugee or having that designated status is an incredibly long.
and recognized process that starts actually with the UN and the UN High Commissioner on Refugees.
So for the US, that means that we recognize that legal status and for folks that come here to resettle in the US, they come at the invitation of the US government.
So it's different than a lot of other immigration statuses.
As you said,
It's very confusing right now.
Nuanced is a good way to put it, but I would say it's just really challenging to understand all of the different statuses.
And so sometimes we kind of lose the core of who is a refugee when the conversation is so difficult around immigration in general right now.
And in a normal pattern where we're not looking at
We're not looking at, as they literally said in news stories, doors being slammed shut, far less being admitted.
When we're talking about the regular numbers of refugees who are admitted into the United States, where does world relief come into that?
How do you step in and be part of that process?
We actually partner with the US government on that process.
So we work in partnership with the federal government on the US Refugee Admission Program, which means that the government tells us who we're working with, who we're receiving in our communities, and how we're supporting them.
So we work under that program to be the first folks of welcome for refugees when they arrive in the US.
So we literally meet them at the airport
We get them set up in their new communities.
And for us, we work in several communities across the state of Wisconsin and actually around the country as well.
But everything from securing housing, making sure the kids are enrolled in school, working really quickly to have those first jobs here in the U.S.
and just really provide that start to their new lives as they're coming
here.
when they come to the country and they, I guess the question, because really when it comes to the state of refugees coming here, Wisconsin has a big, not a big role, but there's a big part of now this kind of uneasy history, which is the last refugees allowed into this country were placed in Eau Claire up North.
And I'm wondering.
I guess from a kind of almost a curious standpoint, why Eau Claire?
Is that a place where that is designated or is it just is what's the process in deciding where they are placed in Wisconsin?
Sure.
And actually again, that's a federal government choice.
So the agency works with resettlement agencies across the United States.
This had been managed.
historically or up until this year by the US State Department.
And so the State Department would manage the program, admit refugees into the country, and then really find their best fit location.
In communities all over the country, we have certain populations or maybe family groups that we really try to keep together, just ensures a better chance of success and possibility to make their new home here.
So
It is a choice of the government.
We work in partnership with the government to say, yes, this is a great community.
We're here to support.
And in Eau Claire specifically, the city of Eau Claire has been incredible partners to us and to the federal government as well in terms of the support and welcome and just the way that the community has wrapped around the families that we've been able to work with there.
If you're just joining us on Matt and Aaron air, we are talking to Gail Cornelius, who is the regional director of world relief right here in Wisconsin.
And you mentioned partnership with the federal government.
And I think that probably in the before times, that was an easier thing to talk about.
How has all of this impacted the work that world relief does?
Where are you standing as an organization on what you can do to help?
people who I guess are now here.
You're not looking at who's coming in.
It's now just you have to focus on those who are part of the population.
And what portion of the population here in Wisconsin are refugees?
Sure, it's actually a really small portion that are our refugees.
So for world relief over the course of the past five years, we have supported about 1400 individuals that we've welcomed across the state for the state of Wisconsin with all of the different agencies that numbers about 5000 across the entire state of refugees that we have welcomed and resettled, which is a pretty small portion of our population.
And so
You know, this last year has been one of the most difficult for our work, a lot of uncertainty, a lot of very quick changes that we're having to navigate.
And I think the part that's really been the most difficult is the families that we do walk alongside and support.
have a lot of uncertainty of if they're actually welcome here, if they should be here.
A lot of them have families that are still overseas that they were intending that would be resettled as well and that would join them.
And so now they're missing half of their families and their lives and they're here and that
is indefinite at this point.
We don't know when that will change.
And so in the work that we do, it's about the people for us, of course.
And we're called to this work through our Christian calling.
And so for us, it's really hard to see that heartbreak, that uncertainty, the fear that now the refugees have
flood, right?
Because of fear.
And now they're here and they're experiencing that fear all over again.
So there's a lot of retraumatization that happens as well.
And that's something I've seen in the articles too, is that, you know, you come to this country that, that in theory welcomes you in through the legal process, you're going through all the steps.
And it's not an easy step either.
You don't just walk on to, you don't walk into, to LaGuardia and say, I'm a refugee, I will, I pick Eau Claire, you have to go through a process, some would say,
legal and doing it the right way, but that's for another conversation.
But it's not all sunshine and roses.
When you're in a country that is telling, I mean, telling you and many people who don't even look like you, who live here saying you are not of this country, you don't belong here, you're not welcome.
And, you know, I think that one thing I want to, I want to say really quickly before we.
had out for a moment, we'll come back and we'll keep on discussing this issue is the fact that I love the fact that you make it known that you are a Christian organization.
I, I'm not a religious person, but I say that I think it's important because I think at today's day and age, when we see people who say I'm a Christian doing Christian work, we're talking about helping others, which is the, I feel like the baseline for the book.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't know.
I haven't been to church in a while, but I think that's an important thing to talk about is the fact that you are here in the service of others who are trying to find a better life.
And when we come back on the other side, I want to talk about world relief, the future going forward, and how folks are stepping up, of course.
And that's, I think that's the through line for Wisconsin and many other states, but we're the best.
It's not just about stepping up, but also what we expect from our leaders.
But I want to talk more about that with you when we return.
And we're going to take a quick momentary walk away.
We're going to grab some snacks.
We're going to grab some water because you got to stay hydrated, folks.
Stay hydrated.
It's dry outside.
Stay hydrated.
But we are talking to Gail Cornelius from World Relief.
Got it right this time.
She is the regional director.
We're discussing refugees in Wisconsin, in America.
in the face of a Trump administration and how we move forward to help those who want to have a better life here in this country.
Don't go anywhere.
You are listening to Matinair on air on the Civic Media Radio Network.
If you want to call or text 855-752-4842, 855-756.
Be part of the conversation.
Love to hear from you.
And after the 930 news, Jim Santel.
So don't go anywhere.
We've got lots of great show.
You are listening to Matinair on air on the Civic Media Radio Network.
Stay tuned.
Stay close.
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.
Welcome back to Matt and Aaron air.
My name is Greg Bogg and I'm your host here on the Civic Media Radio Network.
If you want to call or text, you can always do that by using the same number.
It's 855-752-484-2855-757.
You can also use the free Civic Media app to call or text or leave us a voice note.
And guess what?
You don't even have to like me to do it.
You can say whatever you want.
It's fine.
But you can also leave a comment on the live stream.
We are on Facebook, YouTube and the platform.
We still call Twitter.
We are continuing our conversation with Gail Cornelius, who is the regional director of world relief here in Wisconsin.
And we are talking about the state of refugees here in the state across the country and the major changes in, especially in the face of the second Trump White House and Gail.
One of the things we always see in times like this, whether we're talking about funding being cut for refugee assistance, funding being cut for SNAP, funding being cut for, you name it, a lot of funding this year has been cut.
What we see from folks, especially here in Wisconsin, are communities stepping up and helping and being part of the solution.
And what are you seeing from the various communities here in Wisconsin to help?
with what is being lost by the funding being cut.
How do you see people helping out where, you know, you need it?
That's a great question.
And I love to be able to speak to this before the break you said you think Wisconsin is the best
and I
happen to agree.
Yeah.
Take that Minnesota.
We've certainly seen that through this time as well.
So one of the really challenging things that happened within the first week of this administration was that funding was cut for refugee families that had just arrived into the country.
And so what that meant is there is a small amount of funding that comes from the federal government that goes to support direct expenses for these families as they're arriving and starting their new lives here.
Because that funding was lost, that meant significant challenges for us as an organization, but more importantly for those families who had been
promised these particular resources when they arrived.
And what we saw from our communities is individuals that stepped up.
They donated, they gave rides, they found housing.
We saw foundations, local foundations that helped to fill in the gap.
We saw communities, literal cities that helped to fill in the gap.
So it has been really, really hard, but also just really beautiful to see the ways that folks have stepped
in to wrap around these families and say, no, you, you are welcome here.
We
want you to have this good start to your lives here.
And we want that as, as our new neighbors here in, in the cities and communities where we work.
I think that, you know, that's a, that's a, a through line, a, an important thing to highlight because we've been talking about this since the 2024 election when
So many of those folks in Springfield were just maligned.
The community itself, the whole community was maligned for welcoming in refugees for a long time.
And we don't even talk, and like, we can't even, we don't have enough time to even talk about the economic impact those refugees have on Wisconsin and the United States.
I mean, that in and of itself is a great conversation to have.
But one thing I want to bring up, and I will, I'm okay with you saying nothing at this point, because this is just me being a little snarky.
is that the conversation seems to be revolving around and about coming here the right way, the legal way, doing things by the right steps.
And what we see is the changing of the goalposts on a regular basis.
And the work that you were trying to do is simply bringing people here, welcoming into communities, getting them stable and getting them away from a life that, to be a refugee, you come from a bad, you come from bad backgrounds.
Like there's, I shouldn't, let me rephrase that.
It is a living
condition that is not good.
You don't come to America as a refugee and say, I just wanted to change.
So these folks are putting everything on the line, going through the process, filling out all the paperwork, doing the interviews.
And yet when we change the goalposts, it makes it hard to define the right thing.
But that's what these folks are doing.
They're doing it the right way.
That's right, and and oftentimes refugees aren't even choosing to say come to the United States They've had to flee they they have to go somewhere else to make their homes and so It's it's our government that's selecting these folks to say of you know the 123 million people that are displaced in our world right now We will accept you know prior to this year was somewhere around 100,000 of those so such a small portion
And these folks are coming from really, really difficult situations where often they've had backgrounds of torture or they've had a lot of death or just, like I said, fear and violence in their situations.
Yeah, it's it's hard and they're vetted.
The waiting process to become a refugee is very long.
We have families that we received last year that had been waiting for 30 years.
Oh my goodness.
Oh my goodness.
Yes.
Exactly, so you know they're living in refugee camps often overseas until until they're chosen and through that time they go through the vetting process multiple times over and over again and like I said previously they come at the invitation of
our government of us.
So we really see it as our role to be those hands and feet of Jesus that welcome them
here.
Well, and I don't want to say that too on top of this.
It's wonderful to see the folks step up and help communities, local municipalities, but
It shouldn't always be up to us to foot the bill all the time.
We need investment in government and leaders who will actually help as well to be a total partnership.
So when we look at who we elect and who we vote for, we need to make sure we see people who
think that having refugees are an asset to this country, therefore, funding programs and funding grant systems that allow you at World Relief to do your job.
So we're all in this together.
That's what it's all about.
We're all in this together.
And it starts with our leaders.
and we are a part of that conversation.
But Gail Cornelius, thank you so much for being part of the show today.
She is the Regional Director of World Relief here in Wisconsin.
I'll put all your information in the show notes so people can get in touch, get aware, and be part of the process if they'd like to.
Thank you so much.
Have a wonderful weekend Gail, and have a great holiday.
Thank you, you too.
Thank you for having me.
All right, after the 930 News, Jim Santel, host of Amicus, a Law Review, is here to talk about, you know, the law.
Nothing going on, but there's a lot going on.
Update on the Hannadooga case coming up next.
Don't go anywhere.
You'll listen to Matt and Aaron Error.
Stay close.
Stay tuned.
Good morning.
Welcome.
Welcome back to Matt and air on air.
My name is Greg block.
I am your host and you are listening to us on the civic media radio network.
If you'd like to call or text, you can always get in touch with us.
The number is the same 8557524842.
You can also leave a comment on the live stream.
We are streaming right now on Facebook, YouTube and the platform.
We still call Twitter.
You can also get in touch with us through the civic media app.
If you don't have it, it's app.
Absolutely free.
That's a pun.
That's for you on Friday for the weekend.
You can download it.
You can call us.
You can text us.
You can be part of our statewide text to win contest.
You can also stream us through the app anywhere in the world.
We get text messages from all over the place, Vienna, New Zealand, East Brunswick, New Jersey.
That's an important one.
I want to get that East Brunswick, New Jersey audience.
But yeah, you can be part of us.
You can be listening to us.
Get us in your life, the Civic Media app.
It's absolutely free.
It's great.
Just trust me.
All right.
All right.
This next guy, this next guest, this wonderful, wonderful human being is someone you can absolutely trust.
He is the host of Amicus, a law review, which is on civic media 9 to 11 a.m.
every Saturday.
Mr. Jim Santel, attorney Jim Santel.
He's a former U.S.
attorney.
practicing and turning right now.
Just a wonderful human being very excited to have you here.
Always wonderful to talk to you.
And I don't know if you know this, Jim, but I will be producing your show tomorrow.
So we'll be hanging out live and in person.
There you go.
Wow.
You're really setting the bar high for me.
Just pushing buttons.
Sweet.
Uh, so I wasn't expecting, I mean, let me ask, start with this.
We're going to start with the Hannah Dugan case, big news coming out yesterday afternoon.
I was kind of surprised with the speed at which this went.
I thought we would be waiting a little bit longer for the end of the trial and the verdict, but can you tell the audience?
Hannah Dugan was arrested early this year for obstruction.
There was video.
There was a lot of consternation.
There was a lot of talk.
It made the headlines nationwide.
And we came to a verdict yesterday.
Can you talk about that, Jim?
And again, I agree with you, my friend, that when the attorneys, especially for the prosecution, talked about as many as 28 witnesses, the fence obviously promised a case as well, which they put on, looked at that and thought, gee, there's entirely a possibility this could go into even next week, given the notion that you want to have a jury that's attentive and is moving a pace.
But still, I was also surprised by this, the prosecution in the unrested
on Wednesday.
after calling again a number of different witnesses, including some agents, some law enforcement, who described a lot about the geography of the courthouse, the courtrooms themselves, that included also very notably the chief judge of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, his name was Carl Ashley, and maybe the principal and key hesitated to call them star witnesses was a judge named Cristella Severa, and she was a major prosecution witness describing her involvement
involvement in these events.
Her great discomfort.
She placed a lot of distance between herself and Judge Dugan and said that judges should not be involved in making these kinds of arrests.
So lots of activity early on
in the
Ah,
He was a great witness, right?
Interesting.
We should chat about that.
We had a couple more judges who also came in, again, circuit court judges, which makes this entire proceeding so fascinating that most of the witnesses, Greg, as you well know, were judges.
right?
The last time you've heard that they came in and talked about the development of a policy to handle these circumstances where you've got agents showing up to arrest people who are subject to immigration warrants.
The fact that that's still in process.
There is again the point of that was a certain amount of confusion suggesting that Anna Dugan also did not have clear direction.
And then the case ended at noon time yesterday.
The judge provided them with jury instructions.
They deliberated from early afternoon until about 8.30 last night, about six hours or so.
returned a verdict again late last night as you just accurately in a civic media supporting accurately found her guilty on a on a the principal felony count involving obstructing a proceeding found her not guilty on another account which was a misdemeanor also having to do with the same fact scenario but charging a slightly different matter and so
This morning and last night, we acknowledged that Hannah Dugan, she is still a Wisconsin circuit court judge.
She's been suspended.
She's on administrative leave.
She is a convicted felon as of this morning based upon what the jury has done.
We need to talk about that, Greg.
I think all of us need to think about what that means and how we put that into into place here.
And then we should also talk about, of course, what happens next.
She is not in custody.
She is not as you and I
and Jane have talked at such great length in the past.
She never was and never will be a risk of flight, a danger to the community.
She was released by Judge Adelman last night and there will be an awful lot of proceedings now following this.
No immediate sentencing here, probably my prediction for reasons we can chat about.
I can fill in all these details.
Which I think are interesting.
probably she'll be sentenced sometime, maybe even in the summer of this year, and then an appeal will necessarily follow.
Her judgment will not become final.
maybe for as long as a year before this is all completely resolved.
You know, I think I'm going to call Tom Hartman and see if we can just take like the first hour of his show.
Cause I have a lot of questions.
If you are listening to us right now, if you're just joining us, you're listening to Matt Nair on air on the civic media radio network.
And we are talking to Jim Santel, who is a former US attorney, currently a practicing attorney.
I would say perfecting a law, but whatever, we'll not get into that.
But then also he's also the host of amicus, a law review, which is on.
media every Saturday, 9am to 11am.
It's a great, great show.
Very informative, very digestible for those who don't get wonky in the world of law.
But I suggest you listen to it, catch up with it on civic media.us slash shows.
But I just think it's a great show.
I adore it.
But let me get to some, okay, let me break this down a little bit because I feel like, and again, I am not what experts call smart.
When I saw that video,
Is it all based on the fact that she simply took him out another door?
And she did it herself because when you watch the video, she brings him into the courtroom, she takes him through another door, which leads him right to the hallway.
He goes to the hallway, he gets in an elevator with Eith agents, they go downstairs, he's arrested on the steps.
And I guess for me, I was never able to contemplate why what she did was such a horrific crime worthy of two counts.
And now she's facing conviction.
She has been convicted on one of those counts.
And it feels like there was like, when you want to talk about mountains out of molehills, I didn't understand why this was such a, a, a, a severe crime that had to be pursued so swiftly.
Honestly, when you think about, I mean, between April to now, I don't, I don't understand.
What did I miss?
What don't I see that makes this so like such a terrible thing she may have done.
And I
for the
And then we'll talk about the larger issue, which goes to your last point, which should this case have been charged at all?
And maybe asking what's really going on here, right?
With respect to that.
alternative remedies in all kinds of situations.
Let's mark the notion of prosecutorial discretion and the choices that prosecutors have.
Let's do the first one first.
It was a part of the trial here that they described.
Again, the geography.
We saw the videos.
We saw the doors.
We heard about representations about going downstairs, moving in different areas.
The notion of this particular hallway was not a part of the public domain in this area.
And the issue, which is a very narrow legal issue, but I think it answers in part the concern about whether or not there's even a basis for probable cause and a prosecution here is that, and again, I think a lot of people are looking at this in the same way.
All this happens very quickly.
The defendant is still arrested.
That is the defendant appearing in front of her very quickly.
Plainly, the obstruction, the attempt to undermine the proceeding, so to speak, does not last long.
at all, and he is in custody.
He has since been deported for what it's worth.
So
But here's the point.
And that is that the law contemplates that if you are obstructing, if somehow you're putting up
barriers to the government's proceeding.
Here they're asking to and they've got warrants to arrest him.
That that is the event, that's the nature of the crime.
And to put a fine point on it, it doesn't matter in the end.
And this is what prosecutors argued to the jury that your efforts were or were not successful in the end.
I compare it somewhat to the issue of by going to a bank and again, analogies are always difficult to do.
Think about it this way.
You go into a bank and you say I've got I've got a demand slip here I've got a briefcase put money in this and as I'm walking out I have second thoughts and I turn around I give the money back and I say all is forgiven Well, it's not all forgiven.
You've still attempted to do that.
Just
not a perfect analogy, but the law contemplates that you do not have to basically consummate the ultimate result of what you intended, doesn't have to happen.
It's your conduct itself that partakes of obstruction.
And that's what the government argued.
That's what the jury had to deliberate on in part.
Again, even though that's what the law is, that's what the judge instructed them on.
Juries have great latitude, as we saw in some of their questions and some of their notes to the judge.
last night to determine things along the way.
That's one piece, I think, that you're articulating here.
And that is the wonky.
That's the legal explanation for it.
It does go to the larger issue, however, and I think your very good point is, should this case have been prosecuted at all?
And that's why I think the debate should be.
We had a situation here where, OK, we have these agents who are appearing now fairly routinely.
What are the circumstances where that should happen?
that's not completely done.
That was also a part of this trial.
Again, lack of direction, lack of clarity on what you do.
That was a part of the defense position.
I will tell you that when I first heard about this event,
Here's my proposal, and again, I'm not the US attorney.
I don't mean to second guess.
I don't have all the information before the grand jury.
Here's what you do.
You call up and say, hey, listen, federal agents have a right to make an arrest.
We know that.
We need to make certain that it's done in a way that people are safe and secure.
You call up the chief judge, Carl Ashley, who testified, and you say, listen, we got a problem here.
Can we sit down with you and talk about that protocol?
So what happened here on April 19th does not happen again.
and we can resolve the issue.
Maybe we write a sternly worded letter, that sort of thing.
I don't know to your good point that this is in the nature of a criminal prosecution that needed to be done to exact some sort of deterrent impact given the circumstances.
Many, many other things need to be prosecuted.
My own.
From the start, my own disinclination about all this was other remedies that prosecutors have to enforce the law, to ensure that laws are enforced.
Great, you've said this repeatedly.
Nobody's proposing that we not permit agents to do what they've got to do.
present circumstances, situations, that's what we've got to focus on.
Was this the right thing to do from the start?
That's the question.
And that's what I want to take into the next segment.
When we come back, we're going to grab some snacks, grab some water, because it's dry out there, stay hydrated, folks.
I want to talk about the process and the process in the face of an agency who doesn't care about.
rules and or processes, but we are talking to Jim Santel.
He is the, uh, I won't say the owner.
You are the owner.
You are the host of amicus, a law review, uh, every Saturday, nine a.m.
to 11 a.m.
Don't go anywhere.
We're going to come back.
Keep this conversation going.
Cindy, I see you on the phone line.
Don't go anywhere.
We'll take your call next.
You're listening to Matt and air on air on the civic media radio network.
Stay tuned.
Stay close.
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.
You're listening to us on the civic media radio network.
You can always get in touch with us.
The number is the same.
Whether you call or text, it's 855-752-4842-855-75 civic.
You can also leave a comment on the live stream.
We are currently streaming on Facebook, YouTube, and the platform that we in this house still call Twitter.
Lots of shows still ahead.
Jim's going to be here for a while today because we got a lot going on, lots to talk about.
But at the 1030, after the 1030 news break, we're going to be talking about
What are you watching over the Christmas break?
If you have some days off, are you, are you knocking out Hall Hallmark movies?
Are you going to rewatch a Marvel movie?
Are you going to go see a movie that I don't think should deserve $2 billion of the box office?
That really made Calvin mad when I said that, by the way, we'll get into that later.
And we're also celebrating not the 25th, not the 30th, but the 28th anniversary of a movie that certainly did not sink.
You do the math at 10 35 talking about that during audio survey.
And of course, this shouldn't be a thing rounding the show off.
Today it is the finger looking good worldwide edition.
Don't go anywhere.
Stay close.
Got lots of talk about what we were talking to Jim about the Hannah Duggan case that was decided yesterday, uh, after many hours of deliberation.
If you don't, if you don't remember, judge Hannah Duggan was arrested early this year on charges of obstruction for what was believed to be helping out someone who ICE had an interest in detaining, but we're going to talk more about that in a moment.
I want to get to Cindy's call.
Cindy from Appletons on the line.
She's been very patient.
Cindy.
How are you doing?
What's going on, my friend?
Sandy there.
All right, Cindy, if you want to call back, we'll get in touch to get in touch with us.
I think that that might be having a connection problem there, but call back Cindy.
If you'd like to ask a question or make a comment, love to hear from you.
Always love to hear from you.
So you spoke before, Jim.
about the fact that after this whole process went, after the, after the arrest went down, which made headline news.
And before James Comey, before Letitia James, who we are going to talk about in a little bit was kind of a, this was a high file arrest because this is a judge believed to be standing in the way of ICE doing their job.
This is when ICE was very much in the headlines.
This was, it wasn't new, but this new version of ICE was in the headlines and there was a lot.
of debate back and forth.
But as you mentioned, after it happened, there were conversations to be had about, all right, how do we do this properly about ICE agents coming in, executing warrants, correct warrants too, might I add.
And that's all well and good.
Who doesn't love a strongly worded letter better than me?
I love process.
I love rules.
I am a perpetual rule follower.
But the problem is, is that there's an agency, agencies, I should say.
that are headed up by a president, if the Supreme Court gives him his way, who say otherwise, we don't care about your processes, we don't care about your letters, we don't care about your rules, we want the people we want and we're going to take it.
How do the courts or people who adhere to processes or the law, how do they make those changes in the face of what seems to be chaos?
And again, a second area for a discussion that is spot on in terms of what the public discourse should be all about.
You're absolutely right, Greg.
This happened in April.
Not that ICE wasn't out there, they plainly were, but all these other events have happened even since that time, Chicago, Portland, all sorts of other going on throughout the country.
And I think in the end, it seems to be in this situation, a part by prosecutor, by grand jury about whether to prosecute,
And then to the extent to which as Attorney General decided to not write the strongly worded letter, not to engage in trying to do something admittedly, not go well, but trying to get to a result that's good for everybody in the end, what is the first example to be made of somebody who stands in the ice.
and what it wants to do.
And even the policies, as you indicated, is to advance and to follow.
And is a one, especially since U.S.
Attorney and the Justice and a grand jury in Milwaukee ultimately make that decision.
But it's certainly certainly seen, did it not, to you and the others, the arrest of Anna Dugan again 10 days after this event itself.
And what did we
We saw she was walking around inside the federal courthouse.
We have pictures of her situation and cannot help but wonder if the descent, which is also a decision made to do that in that way to arrest her under those circumstances, again, could have very easily just summoned her in.
She is not a risk of flight.
She's not a danger to the community.
It's not that decision, which is a process decision also reflect upon.
what is really the intent of this administration, which, yes, is to prosecute cases, but also to send messages that if you in any way advance the notion that we're going to push back on immigration,
We are going to go after you
at
We're going to indict you.
We're going to arrest you.
We're going to shackle you.
We're going to deprive you of your liberty.
That is a concern that moves again beyond as significant as this case is for Hannah Duggan and for all of us.
That's an issue that's far beyond just the prosecution that ended yesterday, even though we'll continue.
in in the federal courthouse in milwaukee that's the one that i have also great concerns about when it comes to what is going on here with the agency that i worked for for 30 years
and that's what i want to talk about after the top of the hour news break two are the optics reality versus the papers what that means right now and how it pertains to
the high profile arrests of other folks.
Is this a witch hunt?
Is this prosecuting your enemies?
And where do we go from here?
But we're going to keep talking to Jim Santel, who is the host of amicus a law review, nine a.m.
to 11 a.m.
Saturday mornings here on civic media.
As I said before, be part of the conversation.
Ask questions.
We want to hear from you.
You were listening to Matt and they're on air on the civic media radio network.
Stay tuned.
Stay close.
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.
