He tell Tan.
Talking on all political subjects and taking on all colors, this is Matt Flynn direct with your host, Matt Flynn.
Welcome back to the second hour of Matt Flynn, you live statewide on civic media. Our lines are open.
844-967-2789.
No subject is off limits and all points of view are welcome.
I want to briefly respond a little more to Bill of a Conwalk and then I'm going to talk about our next topic.
What Bill was talking about is that Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House, has publicly urged Joe Biden to take executive action at the border and not wait for some negotiated deal between Republicans and Democrats to then free up aid to Ukraine and to Israel.
Now, here's what I think we're getting at.
Bill asked, could that splash back on Mike Johnson?
Yeah, theoretically it could, but I don't think that's so much the issue because it's certainly going to be welcome in his district in Louisiana.
I mean, he's just passing the buck to, you know, if you play hards, passing the Queen of Spades, if you play Ole-Made, you know, pressing the Ole-Made, you pass the hot card to Biden and say it's his fault.
Because the Republicans, some of them oppose aid to Ukraine and the ones that don't are, you know, holding out for these lengthy negotiations and he wants to put it back on Joe.
So, yeah, for people like you and me looking at that, that splashes back on him, but we're not going to vote for him anyway.
But I think for the constituents in the Republican Party, they may shrug and say, fine, I don't know.
And that's just speculation. However, the idea of the President using executive authority, executive power, issuing executive orders, it can be done.
Now, with what Trump did, he issued an executive order to ban travel from certain Muslim countries and also to make immigrants stay in Mexico
while they petition for asylum and also force them to along the way petition for asylum in the first country they went through.
So if they came from Guatemala, they had to go through Mexico, they should have petitioned for it there and so forth.
Some of his things were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Some of them were not.
But it is true that the President has executive authority, but as far as legitimacy, legitimacy of what he's doing, you absolutely want it to be with the consent of Congress.
And let me parse this a little more deeply after 9-11 George W. Bush and then even up through Barack Obama restricted travel for some countries like Saudi Arabia.
I mean, they just come into the country and kill almost 3,000 people and that was on Saudi Arabia, you know, of the 19 hijackers, 17 of them were from Saudi Arabia.
And there was evidence in the secret documents that Biden released that in fact, the Saudi Arabian government knew about it and supported it.
So you can do that. There is an imperative not to bring people who are on a terror watch list into this country.
I think Biden's approach and he has signaled and then Mitch McConnell has already said that Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who is the Democratic Senator, is not being effective in terms of getting a deal with Republicans and the U.S. Joe Biden to get involved personally.
But Joe Biden has a lot of things on his plate. This is important, but his phone is always available to Mitch McConnell if he wants to call him.
So I think you're going to find after the New Year. And here's the sad thing. You think these guys, you think they're going to cut their vacation short? Are you kidding me?
The House left on December 15 on Friday. They don't come back till January 9th, 8th or 9th. They even take a week off after New Year.
Look, all right, eat some turkey, have a few beers, go out New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, watch some football. But why do you wait more days to come back? Come on, give me a break. These guys should be working.
They're not all lazy. Some of them are very lazy, but some of them are not. They're not coming back. So I do not think that Biden is going to say to Johnson, OK, OK. Yeah, you give me orders. I'll do it. No, no, no. The idea is lay out what you think we should do. And I will agree with you on some things.
Joe will be tough on the border. But Joe will be human on the border too. And I want that mixture of wisdom, experience, common decency, which does not exist with Donald Trump to inform all of this.
OK, I'm going to tell you something. This really made me angry when I first read it. I don't know. It's Christmas time. I shouldn't read stuff that makes me angry with this dead.
There's a guy named Ken Paxton. Ken Paxton is a attorney general of Texas. He's under indictment for bribery and fraud. He's under indictment for four years and the locals there letting him weasel around on it.
He is the guy that stopped Katie Cox from having an abortion in Texas after her physician. This was not some sort of an elective thing that she desperately wanted this child. She already had two more.
The physician said this child is dead. And if you carry it to term or try to naturally abort it that way, that will affect your health. You could get sepsis. You could die.
The Texas Supreme Court said and she put in a statement from her doctor saying this Texas Supreme Court said, well, the doctor didn't put it under oath.
And therefore that isn't a sufficient showing. No, she can't have an abortion. It's a criminal offense in Texas. So she left the state.
Basically to save her own health and her life. Now we come to find out. Now this is beyond belief that Ken Paxton has sent subpoenas to out of state hospitals, including one in Seattle, Washington. And then they suspect some others demanding medical records.
Medical records. He's the indicted for bribery and fraud.
Attorney General of Texas. You know far away. Seattle is from Texas. So the Seattle hospital in the in the in response to the spina put in that he had no jurisdiction in the state of Washington.
For instance, they said we're not incorporated. This is Seattle now for pizza. We're not incorporated. We're not incorporated in Texas. We have no ties to Texas.
We have no bank accounts or property. By the way, I just got a crawling message. I'm going to have to confirm it after this as Wisconsin Supreme Court overturns the maps.
It's all it says in my message. And obviously I can't go to research right now, but I want you to know that a message just came crawling across my screen.
Wisconsin Supreme Court overturns the maps.
Hooray, hooray, hooray. Thank you to Wisconsin Supreme Court for a new majority that's read the Constitution.
But to get back to Paxton, to get back to this hound Paxton, who the heck does he think that he can issue subpoenas to a hospital in Seattle and maybe elsewhere trying to sneak up medical information on Texas residents.
This is right out of the Soviet Union in the 1940s under Stalin.
There was that chief of police there named Lorenzen Beria, who is a sadist. He was a terrible guy.
What he would do is he would go around investigating people. Why are people? He would get parents, their kids to inform on their own parents and send the parents to Siberia.
In other words, the kid would come to him and say, I heard my parents after they felt I was asleep saying that they didn't think Stalin was a good man.
They'd arrest the parents, send them to the Gulag. And the Gulag, no one ever heard of you again, and then reward the kid the snitch for this poor kid who's being bullied by Lorenzen Beria if he suspected that somebody was this loyal.
And they'd put him on the radio and they'd say he gets a medal and he's going to get a scholarship. This is sick. In Texas, they have a snitch bounty.
Ten grand. You suspect that your neighbor is leaving to go somewhere from medical care that might include an abortion.
Whether or not it's the saver life, you read on her, turn her in and get ten grand.
And the doctor could get arrested. This is not Lorenzen Beria in Russia in 1943 or something. This is Texas. Joe Madison, my friend. Thanks for calling Joe. What's in your mind today?
What a busy day at this location. I will just throw one other wrench into the things here. I just want to get your thoughts as a lawyer on this. I've been seeing a lot of commentary on the situation of the 14th Amendment and the ruling that came out of Colorado.
And I've heard people say this is so unjust. This is so unfair to Trump because you need to have a finding of fact in a court of law. This is so unfair to the guy.
Okay, tell me if I'm wrong here, Matt. There was a finding in a court of law. It's not a criminal case. It's a civil case. But there was an evidentiary hearing five days of testimony under the auspices of a woman judge.
Her name is Sarah Wallace in an incana testimony from capital police, Trump lawyers, et cetera, et cetera. They had an evidentiary hearing. Now, the question I would want to ask you is, Trump was not under any kind of criminal charges in this.
All this was was a civil case as I understand it to decide, could his name be on the ballot in the state of Colorado? In the same way that you asked the question of a presidential candidate, are you over 35?
Were you born in America? Not your third term as president, et cetera. And are you tell us you have to be sure that you are not an insurrectionist?
And even more detail than that, that you did not engage in insurrection after you had sworn to defend the Constitution, the sworn public official.
So I guess that's my question is my understanding that is that this evidentiary hearing is what happened in the court of law. It didn't need to be a jury, you know, a criminal case because that wasn't what was being talked about.
So I would like to have your opinion on that. And then the second thing I just want to do to ask is we're looking at this and saying, well, we can never let this people are saying we could never have this happen with Trump because the people of the, you know, mag is people would be all upset and we surely couldn't have this.
I would like to point out that they already did take somebody. They sued them to get out of their public official job.
And this was a guy named left named Griffin, not a new Mexico. He's the county commissioner. He was head of a group called Cowboys for Trump and local citizens sued to get him removed his county commissioner.
Right. So you're right in the money. We're going to step away for a minute. We're going to come back and your answers to your questions, which are terrific. We'll be forthcoming right away when we come back.
Go tell that long tongue liar. Go and tell that midnight writer. Tell the rambler, the gambler, the back batter. Tell him that God's going to cut you down. Tell him that God's going to cut you down. Tell him that God's going to cut you down.
Welcome back to Matt Flint director lines are open eight four four nine six seven two seven eight nine.
I am going to answer Joe of Madison's questions. They're excellent questions and then talk about the literature maps. I've just read the article and four to three that was constant Supreme Court did overturn the maps.
And on two grounds, as we had talked about before one that the districts are not contiguous to that it violated the separation of powers.
They can't circumvent the governor being able to veto if he wants and Jill Karofsky, just as Jill Karofsky wrote the wrote the opinion four to three, but Joe is always asked two great questions.
One of them was if somebody comes up to you and says there was no finding a fact, you know, he wasn't convicted.
The 14th amendment was written by people who knew exactly what they were doing and just because Abraham Lincoln had pardoned the Confederates pardoned.
For instance, Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee, they could not run again. It did not require a criminal conviction.
That is specifically not required. And number two.
They say if somebody may come up to you and go, you know, some sort of Christmas activity, a party and go, well, but there was no finding a fact that is not true.
And Joe pointed out that in front of justice or judge, I should say Sarah Wallace.
She held the trial. There are several kinds of trials. They're bench trials and they're jury trials. And usually you have a right to jury trial, especially if damages are asked for money.
But if money isn't asked for, the court sits frequently in what's called as a court of equity. It's an old English term that goes back hundreds of years almost to the Magna Carta.
In a court of equity, for instance, the divorce court is a court of equity. You have two people want to divorce. They're fighting over things. You don't get a jury to decide. You get a court to decide.
Well, in this particular case, she was sitting as a court of equity. And the Republicans, I mean, if Trump had wanted a jury, he would have certainly asked for it, but he couldn't.
What a court of equity does is takes testimony. They did take testimony from police officers and so forth. And she made a finding a fact.
Judges in bench trials make issue as a sheet that says findings of fact and conclusions of law. The conclusions of law would be the 14th amendment.
For bids, somebody who engages in correction rebellion, who had supported in oath, made an oath to defend the Constitution.
That's the law. The facts are these. Did he do it? And she went exhaustively through the facts. Now, when a finding of fact is entered, it can be entered by a jury or by a judge.
The jury is the one that, for instance, decided that Rudy Giuliani had to pay $148 million. But this was not a damages case. The court said in equity, the court issued a finding of fact. I read it.
So the next time somebody comes up to you and says, there's no fine. In fact, that's just not true. What they're saying is that, okay, she was seen in the court of equity. It should have been a jury trial. And the answer is no.
The law does not provide for that kind of a jury trial. Just as Joe was suggesting is if a guy is rents for president and he's 34 and he put in a fake first certificate or something, you don't get a jury to decide how old the guy is.
I mean, that's ridiculous. Of course, that doesn't happen. But that is very, very analogous to what's going on. I want to talk about this is very exciting. This is a blockbuster thing.
The court, four to three, just as Jill Korovsky writing the opinion, just overturned the maps and said that the state is prohibited from using these old maps. And they are going to go ahead and provide immediately for new maps.
That that that that Evers will have a chance to veto if he wants. In other words, separation of powers, the governor, what they should have done with their maps if they wanted to avoid this argument is pass it as legislation and give it to Evers. He would have vetoed it. Then there would have been negotiation.
They didn't do that. They sent it right to the Supreme Court, which had three election deniers on it. Remember now it is two.
They would do anything to keep the Republicans in power. And so also there's a provision in the Constitution that says that the districts have to be continuous. What does that mean? It has to be one entity. It has to touch.
It has to touch. It has to touch right now. You're not going to believe this in many state senate districts in the state right now.
In many assembly districts, there are a little tufts of votes that are separated. So for instance, I think the fellow that represents Fitchburg in Dane County has to travel out of his district to grab another tuft of votes somewhere like there's a bush up there on the hill.
Go up and order that one. And yes, not even connected. What's going on? I mean, this is unconstitutional. You know what the Republican argument was?
The Republican argument was the word contiguous is ambiguous. In this particular case, it's contiguous if it isn't connected as long as the legislature said it was. That's their argument.
Well, that's a bad argument. You don't have to be a lawyer. You could have to be somebody who knows how to read and write. You go, that's ridiculous.
And then they go, well, we didn't want Evers to veto it because then he'd come back and he'd make a proposal. We'd make a proposal. That is how it's supposed to be done.
So therefore we just put him out of the equation and made the Wisconsin Supreme Court with the election deniers equivalent of the governor. That's what they did.
This is a historic news. I'm going to read the opinion with great interest for this show is over. Unfortunately, time wise, we're going into a weekend and then we're going to go into Christmas day.
And on Tuesday and Christmas day, we're going to have a rerun of this show and all like that and probably Tuesday. So we're not going to get into it too much today, not in my show.
But the questions that I have are very simply this. Who's going to draw the maps? I suspect the Supreme Court will keep track of that and they'll appoint what's called the special master or referee or and they will put together a couple of people say from UW Madison,
UWM, Marquette, a couple of other statisticians, political scientists and say come up with some maps that are contiguous and then we'll look at them and then they'll be submitted to Evers and then Evers can decide where he's going to be tomorrow.
This is a historic day, a truly, truly historic day. And I'm delighted that it broke on the show. I wish it had broken earlier so I could have actually read the opinion.
But I can't tell you enough how this will break the log jam. This will break the log jam of a legislature that will put poisonous chemicals and all our drinking water, drive the UW down starved of money.
Tonight liberal arts programs affect education as badly as they do attack public education. Try to impose an 1849 statute 1849 as 174 years ago 174 years ago about abortion has nothing to do with what's going on right now.
We're going to get rid of the dead wood. I am exulting at this. This is terrific. Okay. Okay. Coming up the New Hampshire poll and a poll in California, one of them in the Republican primary, one of the Senate race that will surprise you.
And I see you on the lines. Do not hang up. I'll get back to you right away.
We're welcome back to Matt Flynn director lines are open eight four four nine six seven two seven eight. Now we're going to reach the lines. Frank of Milwaukee, my friend. Thanks for calling Frank was.
So you're mine today.
First of all, I think you're the finest com liberal commentator ever heard and I've been following politics since 1952.
Thank you.
And I almost I disagree I almost agree with everything you said you listed the president you admire and I agree, but I would throw an LBJ and I know what probably why you didn't use LBJ.
But you got a you got a civil rights act of 64 voting rights act of 65 Medicare, food stamps, et cetera, et cetera, the second new deal. And I know he screwed up and Vietnam and I know his methods and so on.
We might have been a little bit corrupt, but he did a lot of good for the sense he was a teacher in rural Texas and helping the poor kids, making sure they had food.
He spent a life doing good things. I know he was an impossible man, but it takes an impossible man to shove that stuff through sometimes.
And I adore the Kennedys.
I had a great honor of meeting Teddy Kennedy once and I got right in his face and I said, you know, I admire what you and others have tried to do for this country.
And I was his buddy, right? Bam. I was his best pal. So I love I love your commentary and I love your delivery. It's so unthreatening and you are very much appreciated by the people who listen to you.
God bless you and your family. God bless your station. And I wish you the very best.
Frank, thank you very much. That is very touching and it means a lot to me and that you called I'm deeply, deeply grateful for those very, very kind words. I really, really am.
So thank you.
I want to talk just briefly again about the decision to overturn the maps and then we're going to go on to two polls.
But I think overturning the maps is that there is a whole blizzard of questions in my mind is to how it's going to be done and that will be somewhat disclosed in that opinion.
But it does require the appointment of experts and they're usually statisticians, they usually political scientists and they are told by the court what their marching orders are.
They don't just freelance and the marching orders are make these things contiguous.
Number one, and then it will be submitted to the governor for a veto if he wants, but whatever it is, these maps will be a heck of a lot fair than what you already have.
And I'm going to leave everybody we want one admonition before we go to the next topic.
Just because the new maps doesn't ensure victory for either party and I'll say what I mean by that.
There are there are ties in the affairs of men as the poet said and the point of the matter is that.
You know, their conservative elections and liberal elections 2010 was a very good election for Republicans, even without your amended maps 1994 was very, very good for Republicans.
1958 was terrific for Democrats 2018 was very, very good for Democrats 2022 was good for you know, so don't rest on your laurels.
You don't just get to sit there on the couch and the court says, OK, this is what it's going to be.
There's a lot of work to do.
And in the Democratic party, there's a lot of work to do in the Republican party.
Those of you who would like to see the Trump wing out of power and you stand more Liz Cheney and Adam Kinsinger and Romney and people like that get to work.
If you're in the Lincoln project, get to work.
OK, the two polls.
This was fascinating to me.
This is a wink into the future.
There was a poll in New Hampshire.
Only in the Republican primary only in the Republican primary has taken between December 18 and 19.
1,711 people were questioned.
And these are New Hampshire likely voters in the Republican primary.
Trump is still ahead. He is 44%.
Nikki Haley has gone up to 30%.
I mean, that's phenomenal.
More than double what she had just a little while ago.
DeSantis dropped from 11% to 5%.
He is below Vivek Ramaswamy.
The lineup goes like this.
Trump 44%.
Haley 30% in New Hampshire.
Christy 12%.
Ramaswamy 6%.
DeSantis 5%.
He's a Hutchinson 1%.
He also has fallen way behind Haley in Iowa.
DeSantis has.
Even though he spent a ton of time in Iowa, he's concentrating in Iowa.
And even though she hasn't spent a ton.
There are two things going on.
One is, it's very difficult for me to see how DeSantis survives this.
If he goes to Iowa, New Hampshire.
If he pulls below Ramaswamy on election day in New Hampshire.
And that's coming up in February.
That's coming up in February.
He is, I think he's toast.
That's number one.
Number two, Iowa coming up in January.
And actually, New Hampshire is right after that.
So I may be wrong about whether it's late January or early February.
But I don't see DeSantis surviving.
I don't see Ramaswamy surviving or he's a Hutchinson.
And the question is, can Haley catch Trump?
And she catch Trump.
I find it difficult to see because of the ferocity of his base.
But you never know.
The other pole was very surprising to me.
And just chew on this a little bit.
In California, they have a open primary.
That's coming up in March, first Tuesday in March.
We're talking about what, two and a half months roughly.
Not even two and a half months.
They have what's called the jungle primary.
What's the jungle primary?
Jungle primary is totally open primary.
And the top two people that win the primary run against each other
in the election in November.
And they can be in the same party.
So up till now, it looked like the two that would survive March.
I think it's March 4th or 5th would be Adam Schiff, Katie Porter.
Barbara Lee is in third place or she was.
So you have two Democrats against each other.
In Louisiana, they have a jungle primary.
It's usually two Republicans against each other, same in Alaska.
So I don't really like jungle primary.
But each party should nominate somebody in their own primary
and then have them go against each other.
But it is where it is.
The poll that just came out of California stunned a lot of people.
There's a guy named Steve Garvey.
Now, those of you who are baseball fans as I am know that a long time ago,
he was the first basement for the San Diego Padres.
And I think he spent some time with the Los Angeles Dodgers, I think.
Or with the Dodgers.
So you have the San Diego Padres and then you have the Dodgers.
The thing about him is this was a long time ago, the guy's 75 years old.
And even though he was a great first basement, he was a great hitter,
I never thought of him as a senator.
So he rears his ugly head and he sticks his name on the ballot.
And in this poll that just came out, he comes in second in the election in early March.
Adam Schiff is first with 28 percent.
Steve Garvey retired first basement of the Padres and the Dodgers.
Comes in at 19 percent.
Katie Porter 17 percent.
Barbara Lee 14 percent.
Now, just so you know, given margins of error, the spread among 1917 and 14 is margin of error.
Usually they have a three and a half percent margin of error.
So any one of these people could be three and a half percent higher or lower than what I just gave you.
It's pretty clear that Adam Schiff is in the lead, but this is now being played in different ways by the candidate.
Adam Schiff is hoping that Steve Garvey comes in second because then it's a traditional Democrat against the sort of a newbie Republican.
Katie Porter is trying to tell that she's so close to Garvey that she'll probably be second.
And Barbara Lee, even though she's fairly far behind, is going, well, we're all sort of lumped in the teens.
Anything can happen, which is true.
So there you have it in those particular elections.
It looks like the Santas is fading and people say that, but when you place behind Vivek Ramaswami, who is frankly out of his mind.
I mean, the guy has no business being on that stage. He truly doesn't.
He has absolutely no political experience.
And he says he has business experience, but he's being sued by, he has a, a, a, a stock training company.
So a brokerage company and his senior person, sort of the chief operating officer as a woman, she's suing him for security's fraud.
Saying that he told her to do things that violated the security's laws.
Now, how a guy who has no experience and who frankly has a sort of weird personality full of conspiracy theories said that Zelensky, the great president of Ukraine is a Nazi.
That's what he said.
He says he's a Nazi shooting his mouth off all the time and very, very pro Russian week on Ukraine.
And frankly, ambivalent to week on Israel, suddenly is running for president and being sued by his COO for telling her to break the security's laws.
What does this come to? And then I think a Trump, you know, that's sort of, you know, encapsulates when Trump decided to run the first time, but it ain't going to work with this guy.
And I think that Haley will give Trump a run for his money if she upsets him, if she upsets him and either Iowa, New Hampshire, which I don't expect to happen.
Then it's Katie bar the door, but she's also not going to be picked as VP by him because she's gone after him enough that his pride is wounded and it would look very, very bad in general election.
So stay tuned. And in California, largest state in the union, it's the something like six or seven largest economy in the world in the world.
You know, you have China, Japan, Germany, the UK, the United States, if you get who's next, maybe it's Italy, I don't know.
In California, California, unbelievable, but this is going to be a very, very interesting and vital political season.
Couple of other things before we step away, I want to say something else.
Trump has just disclosed who if he is the nominee and if he won and he'll probably be the nominee and he's definitely not going to win because the handrains on the wall of the guy, he has early on setting argument at the mention, you can just see it.
And I've a physician that I saw this weekend.
We had a word of dinner and I was talking to the guy and his he said, I think, you know, they talk about Biden Biden is fine.
Biden's stuttered, you know, and he's a very deliberate cautious guy.
But he's he thought that Trump had early onset dementia, his argumentation, his statements, not just conspiracy theories, but frequent factual statements as many are more than Biden and they weren't due to stuttering.
And then the anger, the argumentative nature of it, which is a hallmark of some early onset dementia.
This guy's not going to win. Joe Biden is going to win.
However, Biden will still claim that he's going to point certain people as cabinet and the guy he says he's going to point is Chris Miller.
Chris Miller was his secretary of the Department of Defense for two months and he selected it as his chief of staff, Cash Patel.
You know, that is he is a really bad guy. Cash Patel is the guy who is pro Russian and who kept attacking everybody for saying that Trump was somehow in legal with Russia when he really was.
That's cash Patel. This guy would be the number two in a sense at the defense department under Trump.
And number one to be Chris Miller, who basically was up to his ears in Trump's business is bad business after he got rid of Esper and some of the other good secretaries of defense.
The thing I want to put on everybody's radar, if Trump got in, he can't get it, but if he gets him.
He's not going to pick a Jim Mattis or a or a John Kelly or people with just absolutely unpeachable credentials who are honest.
He's going to pick Cash Patel and Stephen Miller and this guy Chris Miller, Stephen Miller is the guy that on Saturday night live.
They had depicted by a cobra coming out of a basket whenever they asked him his opinion on immigration, the cobra coming out of the basket.
This will be his cabinet. You can't have a country that is an effect run by a cabinet like that.
We're coming up with two things. I am going to put in a plug for a novel that I've written and I'm going to describe it coming up very shortly.
Welcome back to my friend director. Line's open 844-967-2789.
I wanted everyone to know and I had an interview of me on my friend Todd Albo show yesterday about it that one of the things I enjoyed doing besides this show, which I love doing.
I love the colors. The colors make the show. The colors in this show are really my co-hosts, my interview ease and they are the guts of the show.
But the other thing I like doing is writing and I have published three novels and a work of nonfiction.
I want to mention that to you because from time to time I have people say to me, Matt, you know, I really enjoy the things that you say on the air and I enjoy your colors, questions and your responses.
Have you written anything that would set out maybe in greater detail some of the things you think about these subjects?
I want to respond to that.
My latest novel is called The Court of Last Resort and it was published at the end of last week. It's very current. The Court of Last Resort.
By Matthew Flynn, just so you know, there's another book with the same title. So if you go on Amazon or wherever books are sold, you go on Barnes and Noble, any of them.
Make sure you have the one that's written by Flint. But in any event, the Court of Last Resort is based on my experiences very loosely on my experiences being a lock clerk on the Seven Circuit Court of Appeals.
And my views on a lot of legal subjects. It's a thriller though.
And even though I dedicated to the judges of the Seven Circuit and my fellow lock clerks, it involves a judge who is a former Marine Commando.
And he's sitting on the bench and he demands perfect justice in his court and occasionally very bad people get acquitted or slip out.
But he finally says I've had enough of this and then he goes out after him at night and he executes them.
Now, I want to clear that the judge that I clerk for didn't do that just so very clear, but I think it's a good read.
And at the end when a Supreme Court justice, a corrupt Supreme Court justice is executed in an innocent man is tried for the murder.
This judge tries to get him acquitted is unsuccessful and that sets up the end of the book, the resolution of the book.
It's a heavy read, but you will get out of it if you enjoy reading this kind of thing.
My experiences I frequently talk about legal subjects on this show and you will see some legal subjects that you are probably unless you're a lawyer and not familiar with another novel that I've written is called China code.
And it's a novel about a young math genius who's pursued by the Chinese Communist Party by agents because he has developed an algorithm that breaks their codes.
And he's assigned a CIA agent, a woman is very, very good, but she has a hard time making sure that they don't kill him.
And so she enlists the Latino and African American gangs of Milwaukee to stand with them and protect them.
It's a kind of an interesting book and there's also a lot of foreign policy issues having to do with the Pacific.
And having to do with the United States and conflicts in our government.
Another novel that I've written is called Milwaukee Jihad and that is about ISIS and it's somewhat based on the 9-11.
They come to Washington to blow up the capital during the state of the Union and the same math genius figures out their code, the same CIA agent protects him.
And spoiler alert, let's just put this way, the capital doesn't get blown up.
I've also written a work of nonfiction and it's called confessions of a church lawyer in defense of Christianity.
Now that's the subject that is obviously quite controversial and it occurred to me the core of our institution, the most important thing in our constitution is a separation of church and state in the First Amendment.
And I stand up for that vigorously in this and it's a perspective on religion and Christianity from the perspective of somebody who's a Democrat and who is not ideological about it.
But just using my reason, pointing out the value of things like due process, equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, that kind of thing which owe their origin to our constitution but which our constitution was drafted by people from a Judeo-Christian tradition who wrote themselves out of government but nevertheless had the insight to come up with these terrific principles.
If you're interested in any of those subjects, you might get a kick out of any one of these books, but the most recent one is the Court of last resort.
And if you're on a plane ride or you're looking for something to read, you might, you might find it very, very interesting.
Okay, we're coming up to the end of the show. There's one other subject I do want to talk to and that is a very, very important letter that Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut has written to Chief Justice.
And he's urged him in the strongest terms to ask that Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself and step down from this immunity suit involving Trump.
And the reason is that Jenny Thomas, the wife of the Justice, was at the insurrection on January 6th. She was at the rally.
I don't believe she went into the Capitol, but she has also been hired over the various years by the people that you know about the the Harlan Crow types, not necessarily him, but others, the Heritage Foundation, people like Leonard Leo.
And there's no doubt how Thomas is going to vote on anything having to do with Republican Party and Trump.
But here it's so bald and so obvious that Blumenthal makes the makes the argument. And I think it's a good argument that the Chief Justice and the other justices have got to get together and say to Thomas, you for the good of the court, you've got to step down on this one.
The sad thing is, and I'll leave it with this, if he doesn't, there is no statute or no rule that permits them to force him.
That a great show. Great call as always. Happy holidays to everybody. Merry Christmas. Happy New Year to everybody. Have a wonderful weekend and Christmas coming up.
Matt, then direct back right after the Christmas holiday and Matt, then direct, which is me signing off for today. Thank you.
Like I ain't so.