Talking on all political subjects and taking on all callers, this is Matt Flynn Direct
with your host, Matt Flynn.
Welcome to Matt Flynn's Rick Committee Live on Civic Media Statewide. Our lines are open.
844-967-2789. No subject is off limits. All points of you are welcome.
And remember, you're not woke if you don't know history. You're not woke unless and
until you know history, you're going right to the front lines of history and the making.
A lot of blockbuster stories over the weekend, but the biggest blockbuster to me was the announcement
was originally broken on CNN and then it appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today,
that Kenneth Chesbro is cooperating in the Wisconsin Department of Justice probe against the fake electors.
And I went pro, what probe? We've been talking for a long time that we are the only state
apparently other than Pennsylvania and that was a different circumstance where the justice
department in the state is not investigating the fake electors, but it turns out if this
reporting is to be believed that Josh Calls office is investigating the fake electors.
I'm very happy about that. Very, very happy about that. I mean, you can argue, well,
it's a little late and all this. Better late than never. Better late than never.
And one of the things that I think helped this was that that settlement,
you talked about that a couple of days ago, the settlement of the civil case,
these people admitted that they had done this and that it was wrong. They admitted it.
Ken Chesbro, he's originally from Wisconsin. Ken Chesbro is the guy who is one of the chief architects
along with John Eastman of the theory of how Trump would stay in office and overturn the election.
The theory, and I'll boil it down real quick, was something like this.
All 50 states certified their electors, their governors and secretaries of state signed off,
and many of them were Republican governors. Many of them were Republican secretaries of state,
but they all signed off. But there is a provision that they would then be presented
to the vice president who would receive them. That's a ministerial function.
In other words, that's just a no brainer function. That's not a policy function.
If the vice president had the flu or were unconscious and got forbid injured in the car accident,
that nature, you have somebody else to it. It's a question of ceremonially presenting them to the Senate,
ceremonially presenting them to the full Congress, and Pence was available.
Some secret service agents who were in on it tried to get an apple.
Said, remember, the insurrection was the cover. All that was was the cover, Trump knew it,
to cause the disturbance. And then they said, this is Mr. Vice President getting the car here.
We're going to fear safety. They're going to whisk them away. And then there would have been doubt
who was going to receive it. They wouldn't have been received that day.
The Republicans would have said, well, that's, therefore, it's in the House of Representatives.
Under that provision in the Constitution, each state gets one vote.
California gets one vote, even though it might have 56 Congressmen.
Wyoming gets one vote, even though it is one congressman.
And more than half of the states have Republican congressional delegations.
Not because they have a lot of congressmen, but Wyoming has a congressional delegation
that's Republican simply because it only is one congressman.
And two senators, and they're both Republicans. All three of them Republicans.
That was the deal in Chesbro. And Chesbro fled guilty to a felony in Georgia.
Chesbro fled guilty. What he did is he got no jail time.
But he agreed to cooperate. He agreed to cooperate with Jack Smith. He agreed to cooperate now in Nevada.
And now he's cooperating with Wisconsin. I was glad to hear it.
It sounds to me as if Josh Call has opened an investigation.
And was made a lot easier for him. What's a lot easier for him is that in that settlement agreement,
the fake electors all agreed that what they had done was wrong and trying to overturn the election.
That the document in the civil settlement, the fake electors stated that the document,
the fake elector document, was part of an attempt to improperly overturn the 2020 election results.
Before that, what they had said is that it was simply done to maintain all legal avenues.
Now, let me tell you something. That in itself is a fraudulent statement.
They just contradicted it. But more importantly, that's not a defense.
This investigation and prosecution should have occurred a year ago.
And why do I say that? Because you all heard the phrase. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
So when they go, well, to maintain all legal avenues, you had no legal avenues.
All of the courts that looked at it, including the US Supreme Court, said that there was no fraud.
Certainly not fraud that would overturn anything.
For occasional Republican voters who voted twice, because they had houses in the city and houses in Lake Country,
and that kind of thing. But it was a handful of cases, knits and lice, and it did not impact the overall vote.
Now the Secretary of State, Sarah Godluski, has gotten on the bandwagon, and she has stated publicly that at least Spindell,
Spindell was a fake electorate. He's also in the Wisconsin Election Commission.
And she correctly pointed out that if you have a guy who now has signed a document saying that it was part of a fake electorate attempt to improper,
quote, improperly overturned the 2020 election results, he can't be on the Wisconsin Election Commission.
That's like putting an arsonist in the fire department. You cannot do it.
I think this is a little late, and in the scheme of things, they should all be criminally prosecuted,
and I assume that that's what Josh Call is looking at.
So he has that. Now the other interesting thing will be, what will Josh Call do about Ron Johnson and Fitzgerald and Boss?
They were part of the conspiracy. And why do I say that? They were part of the conspiracy because Ron Johnson had the fake electors from Wisconsin and Michigan in his possession,
and had his chief of staff try to palm him off on Pence's chief of staff.
Pence had chickened out by that point. He's no great moralist. He chickened out. He was thinking to go along. He said, oh, my marine son told me not to do it.
Yeah, well, I think what he realized is that if he pulled something like that, try to pull that off in the United States, he would be in very deep trouble.
So he didn't use the fake electors, but Ron Johnson tried to palm off on him.
Fitzgerald and Boss arranged for the conference room and arranged for it to be sneaky and secret.
Not tell the press, not listen on a marquee, not tell anybody.
You know, I can't believe these guys. I mean, they've been in politics a long time.
You think stuff like that stays sneaky and secret? Ever? Are you kidding me? You don't think staffers know? You don't think janitors know what's going on?
So now the question becomes how long will this investigation take?
Right now he has Chesbro talking to him, Josh called this apparently, which is great.
He has the document from the settlement. That's great.
But now he should convene a grand jury or a John Doe and subpoena the 10 fake electors and Ron Johnson and Fitzgerald and Boss.
And have them come in. You know, the congressman and the senators who were subpoenaed in DC blew it off.
And they didn't get in trouble because it wasn't really a subpoena. They were asked, they were tickled under the chin with a turkey feather and say,
would you please come in and talk to us, blah, blah.
A subpoena from the attorney general Wisconsin to them, they can't blow that off. They have to move for to quash it.
Well, they have to move for protective order to limit things or whatever they want to do.
But ultimately, and this court is going to tell them just to testify.
And they got to testify in real. They can take the fifth amendment.
You know, what is Ron Johnson doing? I know what he did.
Remember the one reporter, he said, wait a minute on the phone. She said, you're not on the phone. I can see the screen.
He said, it was only for a few seconds.
We might kill a guy, takes less than a few seconds to pull the trigger.
What do you mean a few seconds? What he meant was he told his aide, give pants these fake electors.
And the guy said, yes, sir. And that took three seconds. Okay.
Give me a break. Give me a break.
How the question is, is, is, is, is call going to go against Johnson Fitzgerald and boss.
It would be an epic thing to do. It would be the correct thing to do.
It would be a courageous thing to do.
And I'd be an historical thing to do. It should be done. And why do I say that?
Panny Willis isn't even the attorney general in Georgia.
And she has indicted criminally charged Trump himself, Giuliani and Mark Meadows in Georgia.
Well, let me tell you something. When it comes to the hierarchy of the big cajonas,
I would say the Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows are higher up on the totem pole than Ron Johnson,
Scott Fitzgerald and Robin Boss. There's plenty of cover here, plenty of cover.
But I'm glad to see that Chesbro is cooperating. And frankly, with that settlement document,
well, they flat out say right in the settlement document.
This document was, with my signature on it, by the way,
that was their signature was used as part of an attempt to improperly overturn the 2020 election results.
I mean, what more do you want?
As criminal defendants, if Josh Call charges them, they don't have to take the stand.
They can't be subpoenaed in the criminal case to take the stand.
They can take the Fifth Amendment. They do not have to testify.
At the end of Josh Call's case, he'll put on Chesbro who will say that he met with some of these people.
And that he instructed them to keep it secret. And they've admitted that it was part of an attempt to improperly overturn the election.
The judge will then look at counsel, defense counsel, say counsel, do you have any witnesses?
What is he going to do? What's whoever representing them going to do?
What is he going to put on an expert witness to say that they, by saying that didn't necessarily mean it was criminal culpability, give me a break.
Give me a break. We did not fall off the turn of truck on the way into town here, okay?
None of them will testify. And when they don't testify, I'll tell you what, I know what that jury's going to do.
I'll tell you what, very exciting, coming up.
The Texas Supreme Court stops a woman whose life is in danger from having an abortion. I can't believe this.
We're looking back to Matt van Director, lines are open, eight four four nine six seven two seven eight nine.
I'll tell you an unbelievable decision in Texas. And this really, really, really highlights what the six tarantulas did on the Supreme Court in overturning roby weight.
And just so we're clear is actually five of the tarantulas. And you may say, what?
Yeah, it was the Mississippi case, Dobbs versus Mississippi. Six of the tarantulas upheld the 15 week limit of the Mississippi statute.
But when it came time to overturning roby weight, which was not even implicated in this, they didn't have to do it.
Roberts backed out his five to four is five of the tarantulas. However, however, there is a doctrine, a core doctrine.
If you go to law school and you take constitutional law, one of the first things you learn is, if you can decide a case without deciding a constitutional issue, do it.
The constitutional issue is a last resort. That is law 101 and constitutional law.
In other words, if you can decide it under the state constitution, under a statute, under common law, what's common law?
Common law is the whole series of court decisions going back hundreds of years.
And sometimes I've seen briefs that cite court decisions from English courts 400 years ago.
And that's, of course, coming less and less in favor, but it can be common law, can be statutory law, can be the state constitution.
At all costs, stay away from the constitutional issue, if you can.
And these clowns, the five tarantulas, after they've already in that decision, said that Mississippi's 15 week ban was okay, they could have stopped.
That was the only issue in front of them. That was the only fair issue in front of them.
And what the tarantulas did is say, well, what the hell? We'll just, we'll knock off Roe v. Wait, 50 years of unbelievable.
Anyway, this poor woman, Texas, I think she's 31 years old, she married, she has two kids.
She's carrying a feed, a baby that is not going to survive.
It will very likely will die before she gives birth. And if it doesn't, it'll die right afterwards. And more to the point, it'll only make her sterile, but it could kill her.
Now, Texas is so be knighted. Think about this. What are you supposed to have 3000 lawsuits every year when women's life is in danger?
You're supposed to have them get 3000 lawyers, 5000 lawyers, 10,000 lawyers.
This decision is a matter of privacy, and it's a matter of a woman's privacy, and it's also a matter of her getting the best advice she can from a physician.
There's no physician and no woman who seeks this out and wants this. This is a terrible thing. There's a terrible thing.
However, at some point, the decision should be made by the woman, and she gets good advice from her physician.
And the state shouldn't be involved in it. In this case, the judge who looked at it immediately said, yeah, you can absolutely go ahead.
Grant it a relief. This guy Paxton, the attorney general down there, he is a really bad guy.
You may remember from some prior discussions. He's under criminal indictment down there for front and bribery.
And because it's the Texas state system, and they've been protecting him, this is going back five years, five years and he keeps getting delays.
He's the guy who then said, and this is even before he appealed, he said, if a doctor performs that abortion, I will criminally prosecute him.
That is, that is an unconstitutional threat, if a court says, for instance, this is the law, and you prosecute somebody, you threaten to, to deter them from exercising their rights under that law, because of the attorney general.
But that does is it chills the desire of any OBGYN to provide that care. Why?
Because the doctor could, yeah, he could hire a lawyer, and with all the fees and the appeals, it could be 50 or 100 grand. He could do that, or she could do that.
The insurance company won't pay for it. They will very likely lose, maybe, in the Texas Supreme Court, probably win, even among the tarantulas.
But there is another rule of law that most people don't realize even some lawyers. And that is, if a judge enters an injunction, even if it turns out to be the wrong injunction, even if it's crazy on his face,
this obeying it is a separate offense, even as irrational, and even as overturned. And what that implicates is here, the Texas Supreme Court stopped the one from having an abortion.
That is so clearly unconstitutional. She has a right to privacy under the ninth amendment. She isn't right to privacy under the right, the ninth amendment, just like she has a right to buy birth control pills.
The difference between our democracy and authoritarian countries, communist countries, jihadist countries, all these countries, is that you have a right to privacy.
You have a right to privacy, except in Texas, where they have the snitch bounty. So we'll see what happens. The Texas Supreme Court, you know, I like to see them arrested quite frankly.
And that's an overstatement. I understand that. But that was not in good faith. That was not in good faith that they tell this woman. And then we off the wait and see. What do you mean you wait and see? There's medical issues here.
Gina will clear my friend. Thanks for calling. What's your mind, Eugene?
Point great subjects today, Matt. Good show. Yeah, you know, they're anti-women. All women need to get the heck out of Texas. And women need to band together to get these dangerous people out. I mean, there's zero respect for women's health and their lives. And it's showing right up in, you know, we should put a big sign with all kinds of lights on it. Don't go to Texas, ladies, and don't go to a lot of the states.
This is horrible. These are men making these decisions from some bad women. I'm sorry to say, but God dang it. Matt, I just can't believe it. It's like, I never thought I'd see this in my lifetime. And then, you know, to see, you know, Donald Trump and these people that are still kissing his feet. And then, you know, and then people being concerned about maybe not voting for Joe Biden or the goofy. I hope people are waking up here because these people are dangerous and they don't care about.
And they don't care about anybody, especially women, but they don't care about anybody. Thank you very much. Matt, for this subject. Those poor women. I say that's pretty smart. Bye-bye.
Right. Thanks a lot. Yeah, she's 31 years old. She has two kids. She's like them more apparently. And what right to privacy? You at least have the right to the privacy of saving your own life. I would think the right to privacy of saving your own life.
I mean, life liberty in the pursuit of happiness. Life comes first. It's your life. She makes that decision. Here she has medical testimony to back it up.
I mean, what happens if she's on operating table and she's going to die? Is the doctor supposed to get the hospital lawyer or at his own expense?
Ask a judge if it's okay to provide care. I mean, seriously, seriously, you can get sepsis. You can die. And if she does die, how many other people down in Texas are expected to go, okay, well, I'll wait till I get in the injunction lifted. That's absolutely, absolutely disgusting.
Coming up, coming up, a lot of news, a lot of weather, and the regents reject the deal with boss.
Welcome back to Method and Director. Lines are open. 844-967-2789. We're going to write to the lines. Wiscopal, my friend. Thanks for coming. It's your morning. Wiscopal.
Hi, good afternoon. Good show, as Jeanne says. You always have a good show. My first question is Ron Johnson is up to his neck and the fake electors.
And he probably should be showing out of the Senate for what he did. And if he does, if it gets that far, does Tony get to appoint somebody or is there a special election?
And my second question you're about to get to, I don't understand the regents turning on that deal. I know it wasn't a great deal, but it seems to me you're hurting the working person at UW more than a boss.
And for boss, he wouldn't do anything after this. That's also nuts. So that's my two things today. Thanks Matt.
Yeah, excellent questions, Paul. Let's take them in order. The first one is no. Evers does not get to appoint someone. Some states. That's what happens. They appoint them for a limited period of time. Sometimes it's still an ex election. Sometimes it's for a short period of time.
And what happens in Wisconsin is if there's a vacancy, if, for instance, Josh call in criminally charges Ron Johnson, Ron Johnson is convicted and asked to go to the go to prison.
Believe it or not, he could theoretically still stay in the Senate. He wonder though at what point the Senate Republicans have thrown out where the Democrats would would bring a resolution to throw them out.
The premise, you know, you have Bob Menendez in New Jersey. He has been charged. And he has been charged with taking money to represent Egypt, including gold bars. And he's not being thrown out. Now, it takes first of all a resolution. It doesn't happen automatically. Secondly, a lot of people are saying in the Senate, including Republicans. Well, let's see if he's convicted, but he's not going to be convicted before the election next fall. And he said he's not running again.
Throw someone out and it takes 67 votes in the Senate. Or it takes two thirds votes in the House, if it's a congressman, like if it were going to be somebody like Fitzgerald.
Getting two thirds of any chamber to do something is tough because it means you have to get a lot of votes from their own caucus. And so I would suspect that if Ron Johnson were prosecuted, he would not leave the Senate. And he, frankly, there's no way they get 67.
And vote's because I don't think any Republicans vote for it because nobody's done this about Menendez. Now, number two, then what happens? You know, he's in for five more years. Somehow a lot of this stuff didn't get, you know, didn't get discussed in the campaign, which is terrible because it's a very close campaign.
And I think instead of if the people that were running at the consultants and all that had thought about it at all, they would have realized that what he'd done with fake electors and his attacks on democracy and his attacks on the FBI and the CIA and pro Trump just hit that straight on.
That wasn't done. That was not done. So he's in for five more years. Well, these things can drag out with appeals and all that.
If at some point, he is tossed out. And I think if he were convicted at some point and went to prison, I think he would be thrown out. Then what happens is Tony Evers schedules an election.
And probably to save money, it would be around another election, spring election or August primary or November election. But that's what he would do. Now, as far as the Regents rejecting the deal.
And that is the subject of what I want to talk about right now. So I'm going to roll it all into one Paul in response to your question.
The deal that the UW system struck with boss had to be approved by the Regents because the fact is that yes, we have a president, Rothman of the system and we have chancellors and all that. But ultimately, that's a policy decision by the Regents.
And they debated it very hotly. And by a vote of nine to eight, they turned it down. So eight Regents wanted it, said they go along with it, nine did not.
And you know, Dana walks put out a statement. I thought it was a good statement where he said, you know, we're not, you know, can be railroaded on this. And there's a there's a there's a deeper issue in my view, a deeper issue.
Who runs a university system? It has got to be Regents and professors and administrators. This is Wisconsin. This is an honest state with a great educational system.
The legislature has an important role. One role, of course, is providing money for the UW system. The other one is they get to approve the Regents.
So the next time there's a vacancy and a governor that they don't like, even though they're gerrymandered and I don't think they're a valid legislature, but if they don't like a Regent, they can refuse to endorse that Regent.
And so that is their proper role. But once there are Regents that are endorsed, that are approved, that are confirmed, then it should be up to the Regents.
And for Voss to shoot his mouth off and say, well, that's it. And so bad. No raises, no engineering building. Consider what the Regents did, what they turned down. And frankly, I do support what they did.
First of all, it would have removed something like a third of the positions that are deemed DEI is a very, very vague term, slippery term.
I agree that DEI positions that are being abused at Harvard and Stanford that are really basically used to exclude Jewish students that are anti-Semitic.
They have no place in those institutions and they have no place in ours. I do not believe we have those kinds of positions or people.
I believe that we have a population that I would call First Generation College. And it's not exclusively racial. It's not exclusively ethnic.
There are many of the kids who are African-American background. They sent Latino, Native American, Indigenous, rural, Northern Wisconsin, Western, rural.
So having people who are available to counsel them, think of all the tens of thousands of students there are, to counsel them, to advise them on what courses they might want to take.
Remember something. For those of us who are blessed to be born in families that stressed education, and I consider myself right at the top of that list.
I had the most wonderful parents the way I ever had. I really did. My mom and dad spent all their time with us. They counseled us on things.
But suppose you are in a family that a single mom is running the family and she's working two jobs and she herself never went to high school.
And you're a smart kid and you end up at the University of Wisconsin. And any of the campuses, you have no idea what course to take.
You have no idea to go in to a DEI counselor that says, we're glad you're here. We welcome you.
How are you doing? What kind of activities you interested in? What subject in high school did you really like? Oh, I like history or I like math.
Okay. Well, here are some suggestions. And, you know, based on your board scores. I mean, some kids will start with elementary courses. That's exactly fine. Absolutely fine.
That's number one. Number two, they, what they, they veto, so to speak, or they wouldn't agree to the regents was a creation of a professorship on conservative thought.
That's something right in 1984. Let me tell you something. Among professors, I want the best professors, the best historians.
I want the best professors of philosophy of mathematics, of physics, of geology, of chemistry, of biology, of economics, of sociology, the best, the best.
Now, if you are the best, conservative thought doesn't come in in mathematics. It is what it is. It doesn't come in in physics.
Quantum mechanics isn't conservative or liberal. It does come in in history. It does come in in literature. It does come in in philosophy.
But the best professors teach the whole range of thought. They don't just teach conservative or liberal philosophers or conservative or liberal historians.
They don't do that. They don't in economics. There are conservative economists and liberal economists. You teach them all. Any economist worth his salt has studied them all.
The professor can say, I find this more persuasive. You may not read original sources. One of the things I always love to do in history courses and at college was there be an original document.
You know, read the Magna Carta. Actually read the Declaration of Independence. And you hear a professor lecturing on what it says. I read the things. And in some cases, I agreed with them. And in a lot of cases, I didn't agree with them.
I thought, yeah, you can say that. But here's my impression. The whole idea of an education is to open up horizons that you never knew existed.
And this legislature cheapens everything it touches because it's gerrymandered and is trying to appease and appeal to a fringe that they don't truly understand. And I think they actually miscalculate their constituency.
But there should not be a professor of conservative thought, liberal thought, any of that. There should be a professor of thought.
Period. Do your own thinking. I'm not doing your thinking for you. I'm your professor. You know what I say? You know, Andrew Detroit, Chuckles and says professor. Well, no, I'm not a professor. But you know that I have a point of view.
That this is talk radio. Some of you have a different point of view on some things. All points of you are welcome. But I also give you facts. And you can take those facts. And you can say, yeah, Matt, but.
And that's what I love. But with the regions did. And then there's the engineering building. A lot of it was going to be paid by private donations for Pete's sake.
They did it out of spite. Now, the mayhew, by the way, is for the raises. He is the majority leader of the Senate. And what's going to what's happened is that Tony Evers has brought suit on the wages because they were passed already.
And was simply saying that he and his committee get to have to approve it. There's nothing in the Constitution. This is when the legislature passes a bill, a funding bill for raises, for instance.
The governor signs that that's the law. You don't have some guy off on the side. Some guys afraid of Trump going, yeah, you may be ill stick it to him. That doesn't work. I think the raises will pass. The problem is, they're not going to be current.
They'll be retroactive. But I've talked to at least one chance who said, you know, this is really hurting the university because there are a lot of people saying I like working for the university. But if I can get $25 an hour at Amazon or something.
And they won't even give me a raise. I'm not sticking around. They badly hurt the university. The Republican party has badly hurt the university. I understand whether regions did it because at what point do you stop?
And it's sort of like having Mike Johnson suddenly sitting there in your classroom saying, yeah, I don't agree with that or boss. Yeah, I don't agree with that. Well, it's because you don't understand that. Where'd you guys study?
I don't know what they studied quite frankly. If they had studied a full liberal arts curriculum, by the way, the word liberal arts is a praiseworthy term. It's been used forever.
Some people say that an 18th century liberal is a 20th century conservative, 21st century. They don't know what they're talking about.
They flat out don't know what they're talking about. So where do we go from here? Ebers lawsuit will results in those raises. However, it'll be four to three. However, it's going to be a while.
And these people will get a retroactive chunk of money. But this is not right. This is not right. The mayhew. I hope it comes out more forcefully.
And secondly, there shouldn't be a professorship on conservative thought. And thirdly, these DEI positions in Wisconsin. This isn't the way they're doing it in the Ivy League, which is terrible.
This is to help people who are first generation collegians. That's what it is.
Okay, coming up. Coming up. This is great. Coming up. Trump's experts get $2 million. One of them gets almost $1 million. And you won't believe what it was for.
Welcome back to Method and Director. Lines are open. 844-967-2789. Well, this is amazing. This is amazing. Here's what Trump has done. By the way, he's not testifying today.
Not testifying today. And you know, the cheap shot. You can say we're chickened out. The truth of the matter is he's a disaster. He's a walking crime wave. He is crime on the hoof.
And if he gets on that stand, he's already testified once. He gets on that stand. And what is he going to say? Your experts said that the valuations were untrue. You're going to contradict them.
One of them then said you didn't have fraudulent intent, which is not his area of expertise. And that is a legal question for the judge. Not for an expert. And you're going to spout off. You're going to mouth off.
And so he decided not to testify. But here are the facts. Here are the facts. And we don't need a professor of conservative thought.
I'm going to give you the facts and you decide what you want. That's the purpose of a liberal education. You're going to get it right now.
Trump expert was paid about 900 grand. 900 grand. Reviewing a few financial statements. Doing a deposition. That's fine at trial. When I was trying cases, even the most expensive expert in the most complicated case, there'd be somewhere 50,000, 75,000.
Almost a million bucks. Who paid it? It was split between the Trump organization and Trump save America pack. In other words, political donations to help them run for president.
I've got news for you. That should be income to Trump. If he's dipping into his political donations for a personal reason because he doesn't want to lose his wealth, he should pay income tax as having received that money.
His pack spent more than 20 million dollars on Trump's legal fees in the first six months of 2023. More than 20 million bucks. That's two thirds of the packs total spending of the six months.
Paying Trump's legal fees, especially in a case that's trying to seize 250 million bucks of his personal assets. That is a personal expenditure. That money should be reported as income. In fact, it must be reported as income. We'll see if he does. It's happening right now.
Right now, the return will be filed in April. He'll put in for an extension. It'll be October. You know what he's going to do. One of his experts, the big Kahuna, was from NYU, respected institution. I guess how much he charges an hour?
$1,350 per hour. And the way these guys operate, if the guys shave me in the morning, he's thinking about the case. That's an hour. Or that's half an hour and then brushing his teeth as the other half hour.
As he thinks about it, he goes to bed. Here's what he said. He said, and he's got to live by this. He spent 650 hours on the case.
Over three months, 50 hour work weeks, only on this case. A 50 hour work week is seven hours at seven hours a day. That's 49 hours. So a little over seven hours a day.
Every day for over three months. Do you really think he did that? A couple of financial statements. Do you really think he did that? I don't think he did that.
At the end of it, he testified that, yes, there was untrue information on the financial statements. That's the ballgame.
There's already been some re-judgment entered against Trump on liability. This is on damages. How much? The Tisha James wants 250 million.
And his own expert who said, I spent seven hours a day every day for three months. How many times did you read that financial statement, Jack?
The Tisha James says that's the ballgame and she's right because he said the information is false. But then he said, like, what, he's a psychiatrist. He goes, well, Trump didn't have a fraudulent intent.
You must understand something. Intent is cannot be testified to by any witness other than the person who claims he had the intent.
You cannot put on an expert witness in a case to say that somebody else is lying or telling the truth. That is an invalid witness.
It's invalid for this guy. No matter how much he was paid to say that, well, I'm sure that Trump didn't mean anything bad about it. Basically is what he said.
And he did it because he wanted a million bucks. He had two high price expert witnesses, another one. More than two million was paid on these witnesses.
And they all admitted that the valuations were inflated on Trump's properties. That they were not proper or reasonable. I mean, for Pete's sake, they were proper or reasonable.
But Pete's sake, Bill Lovacanovaak, my friend. Thanks for going. What's your my day, Bill?
Actually, I'm going to take a little bit of a turn from what you're talking about. I really think that when it comes to Trump, he's on such a walk so far out of that plank. He can't walk it back anymore. I didn't really believe that.
But here's why I'm calling about Robin Voss and what he's trying to do to our educational system here in Wisconsin. I think enough is enough.
And everybody says, oh, what can you do? What can you do? You can do a lot. Our state has something. There's any state in the nation has something called a referendum.
We can ask that he be removed from office for inadequate support of the taxpayers. We've got all the evidence in the world to produce it. If we had enough signatures and we could get him, we can maybe get him through civic media radio.
But he's gone. He's toast. If we, if the taxpayers just one person, I would do it if enough people sent him a letter saying like, you've got two choices. Either you start working with the citizens of Wisconsin or resign and avoid embarrassment because he is just done.
I just can't believe that people roll over and play dead when he doesn't stuff. What do you say, Matt? You're the legal authority. I need your opinion.
Yeah. Well, first of all, you're absolutely right and the gist of what you say. He's cost us an engineering school raises 35,000 people, including janitors.
And he's doing this just because what he wants to show off the Trump or whoever. Secondly, how to get recall. You can recall somebody, but the question of recalling him in that district.
That district is a gerrymandered right wing district. A statewide recall. I don't think it would be a referendum. But I think that the recall process realistically. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done.
It would be very, very difficult here. But everybody should listen to what Bill just said and what I'm saying here. This guy has put a knife in the University of Wisconsin.
Coming up a lot more news and weather and the president of the University of Wisconsin.