Talking on all political subjects and taking on all collars, this is Matt Flynn Direct,
with your host, Matt Flynn.
Welcome to Matt Flynn Direct, committee statewide live on civic media.
Our lines are open, eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine.
No subject is off limits.
All points of view are welcome.
Remember, you're not woke if you don't know history.
You're not woke unless, until you know history, you're going right to the front lines of history
in the making.
Big piece of Wisconsin history in the making passed away.
Herb Cole.
Herb Cole, 88 years old, we just got the news yesterday.
And I have a different take on herb.
I mean, we've read all of the statistics.
Herb was an early investor in the Milwaukee Brewers back in the 60s.
He also kept in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Bucks in the mid 1980s.
He ran a very successful grocery and department store chain, Coles.
He continued with the Bucks and sold it, but contributed a lot of money to the, to make
sure that the stadium, the face of arena was built.
The Cole Center in Madison and so many other things, he was a legend.
He really was a legend, but I know him in a different way personally.
Herb was the Democratic State Chairman before he was a senator from 1975 to 1977.
Pat Lucy, who was the governor at the time, appointed him, usually the state chairman is
elected by the delegates, but if the governor, the incumbent wants somebody, that's who they
get.
And herb was a superb choice, he was a great state chairman.
I was a state chairman of the Democratic Party from 1981 to 1985.
I spoke many, many times with herb, he was a good friend, very, very wise guy, a lot of
wisdom from herb, good mentor, very, very good man.
He, uh, one of the pictures that I have that I, the proudest of that I really love is
the picture of me, Herb and Pat Lucy.
Pat Lucy was the chairman of the Democratic Party back in the 50s before he became the
lieutenant governor under John Reynolds in the early 60s, and then of course, ultimately
governor.
But it was Pat from the 50s, Herb 75 to 77, me 81, 85.
It was a, it was a very, very happy lunch we had and I'll always remember that.
So Herb, we're remembering you right now and our prayers are with you and can't thank
you enough for everything you did for the Democratic Party, for the state of Wisconsin, for
the people of Wisconsin, irrespective of party and, uh, one of the major contributors
to modern Wisconsin culture.
It was a tough one, he was 88 years old, he was going to turn 89 in February, he's almost
as 89 birthdays mother, I think, lived into her 90s, everybody at high hopes that he,
he'd last some more, but it is where it is.
So this is in memory of Herb Cole, great senator, he really was a great senator, a great
statesman and the judiciary committee and he was also a great human being.
So Herb, we're thinking of you.
Well onto the more mundane and sorted part of politics, turns out that Donald Trump
in an interview with Rolling Stone has complained that some of his former aides formed a
right wing think tank, but they advertise themselves as his former aides so they're playing
off his name.
They raised $38 million, $38 million, $21 to $22 and he wants a piece of it, he wants a
piece of it.
He grouse to Rolling Stone that they record making a killing off his name and he wants
a piece, he wants a piece, who are there's Larry Cudlow, he can I'm a guy, Rick Perry,
remember him, Rick Perry was the guy that ran for president some time ago and he said
something like there are three cabinet positions I'm going to get rid of, you know, this one
that one, you can only remember two and then people would bait him, well, Secretary
of State, Secretary of Defense, well, he'd forgotten I think in the environment, I feel
what he forgot, but this is a really strange, ranger, really bizarre guy.
So Rick Perry, Larry Cudlow, Linda McMahon, Linda McMahon was in the Trump administration
and the three of them were very smart.
They know that Trump's name is gold in some circles, it's something quite opposite
to that in other circles, but they formed a 501 C3 and they formed a 501 C3 and they're
supposed to with this money, $38 million in one year is a lot of money.
They're supposed to use it for the designed and disclosed purposes of the 501 C3, but
there's not an awful lot of controls over how much they can pay themselves as executives,
consulting and all that.
So Trump knows a scam when he sees one, Trump is a walking scam and he has demanded that
they give him a slice.
I don't know if he wants 10%, 20%, 30%, 10% is $3.8 million, 20% is $7.6 million.
There's one problem and there's a legal problem, there's a very substantial legal problem.
A 501 C3 cannot donate to a partisan political campaign, or any campaign.
That would be illegal.
Now that obviously doesn't, doesn't bother crooked Donald Trump, lying Donald Trump and
died in four courts, 91 counts, felonies, felonies, 91 felony counts, doesn't bother him
and the slightest, if these clowns that are running, being this right wing think tank,
and you know, one of the things I've, if they don't get some kind of legal advice and
think they're going to pay Trump off, they're both in hot water.
Now it's got a courtroom, but here's a deal.
I do feel bad for these folks who contribute to Trump and to this whole bevy of right wing,
not job groups that have cropped up around them, all saying that, you know, we need you
to stop the steal, whatever that means.
Remember Steve Bannon raised money to build the wall and he never built the wall.
You can say whatever you want to a point, but at some point it becomes a criminal offense.
So give you an example, let's take the NRA.
The NRA, a lot of people send it money every month, ten bucks, twenty five bucks, hard
working people, retired people.
The NRA leadership got out of their incorporation in New York as the attorney general is coming
after him and re-incorporated in Texas.
But their leadership to say they're living high off the hog would be an understatement.
There's a very, very thin line between wasting in a profligate way, 501c3 type money, charitable
money, and embezzling, stealing it.
Well, Patricia James in New York was investigating that now they switched to Texas and if you think
Paxton down there is going to investigate it, you're crazy.
But the other thing about the NRA is that leadership is very cozy with Moscow.
Just remember that Ron Johnson in this state went to Moscow, Russia, Fourth of July, I think
was 2018, Habanab with the big boys, with the autocrats, with the Putin's people.
And if he says he didn't know what was going on, Russia invaded Ukraine and took Crimea
in 2014.
So it was four years after they had already done it and the storms were on the horizon
that they were going to go back again.
So Ron Johnson goes over there, but the NRA goes over there, the leadership, they hang
out.
There's only one problem with that.
Guns are illegal in Russia.
If the average citizen wants a gun in Russia and gets one, he'll be arrested.
Why is that?
Because what most people don't understand is the second amendment initially was a very
liberal amendment.
Why do I say that?
Because in medieval times under King's peasants, the average person were not permitted to
have a sword, weren't permitted to have a weapon.
The King was afraid they would attack him.
In Russia it's the same thing.
The autocrats, fascists, genocidal, sadistic, maniacs basically, they're very afraid.
If everybody in Russia had a gun like in the United States, the Putin would have been
gone a long time ago.
So autocratic regimes, fascist regimes, Nazi regimes, regimes that take away personal
freedoms do not want you to have a gun.
They don't want you to have a gun.
The NRA is supposed to be standing up for gun owners, but why are they hanging around
people who outlaw guns?
In my view, it's because the NRA leadership doesn't give a damn whether you have a gun or
not.
If somebody like Trump got in and under the Patriot Act or something wanted to take away
your guns, the NRA leadership would be great with them.
So keep that in mind.
The Second Amendment does not permit you to own an atomic weapon, biological weapon, radioactive
stuff.
It doesn't permit you to own a machine gun.
It doesn't permit you to own a bazooka, a stinger, a shoulder held, a missile launcher?
No.
The only dispute in our society right now is a dispute where you draw the line.
Nobody is right mind wants you to own a nuclear weapon and they don't want to own one.
But everybody wants a rifle and a pistol and all that.
The question is, AR-15s, that kind of thing, semi-automatic, large magazines easily adapted
to pump a lot of rounds out quickly.
Where should that be?
And the point is that's largely used by people who are mass murderers in psychopaths.
So that should be listed like a machine gun.
And by the way, you can own a machine gun.
If you've been outlawed since 1935 with one exception, you should be able to own a semi-automatic
and AR-15 and I'm not so much semi-automatic hunting rifles.
I'm talking about something like an AR-15.
If you go through the mother of all background checks, which you need to do to get us machine
gun.
So I'm not going to digress on this except to say that Trump is hitting a 501c3 for money
and it's illegal.
Coming up, Lauren Bobbert switches districts.
What's going to happen?
We've got to cut you down, similarly we've got to cut you down.
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.
We turn the send-up, we turn the send-up, I gave a letter to the postman, he put it in
his psyche.
The Macbeth and Drick, their lines are open 844-967-2789.
Lauren Bobbert, the name does not trip lightly off the lips.
Actually, I think the same like pentameter, it's very nice.
In any event, Lauren Bobbert.
What has she done?
She was facing a very, very tough re-election fight against a guy named Adam Fresh who came
within a couple hundred votes of beating her last time.
Adam Fresh, and he has raised $7.7 million to take her on.
She's raised $2.4 million, much less than half, much less than half, about a third.
Much less than a third.
Say what?
She was in trouble.
So what does she do?
She ups and she says, I'm not running in that seat, I'm going to run for Ken Buck's
seat.
Who's Ken Buck?
Ken Buck is a right-wing congressman from Eastern Colorado, and the difference is the Lauren
Bobbert seat, Trump won by eight points when he ran against Biden.
But in Buck's seat, Trump won by 20 points.
So she's thinking, oh great, I'll just mose the on over there, and by the way, you don't
need to live in the district to run for Congress.
You don't need to live in the district to run for Congress under the Constitution.
You just have to move to the state when you're elected.
She's already in the state, but she'll probably get an apartment or something in the new
place.
She doesn't have to.
But there is one thing wrong with her analysis, and also I think this makes it tougher
on Adam Frisch to win.
One of the benefits to Frisch's candidacy was he was running against Lauren Bobbert.
She only got in the first time.
She ran in a primary when she first won, and all the established Republicans out there
endorsed somebody else.
But she had a restaurant or bar in Reifel, Colorado.
Yes, there is a Reifel, Colorado.
Look to Glenwood Springs from Aspen, and then you go a little west, and you're in Reifel,
Colorado.
I've got there.
They have a golf course, a municipal course.
The front nine are all boulders, practically all boulders.
The part three is nothing but boulders between the greens.
If you don't hit the green, normally somewhere, you're in a fairway somewhere.
Here you're going to bounce and look like some sort of bar game.
The ball is bouncing all over the place.
And the part five, so off the side of the mountains, and you drive it, and I don't care if
you're particularly long, long off the tee or not, it looks like you hit into the next
county.
It's kind of a neat little course, strange course.
But the truth is that it's Reifel, Colorado.
That tells you all you need to know about their political leanings.
And she had a bar, and I forget the name, but it was a gun theme.
She made all of her waitresses open carry as they waited on tables.
In other words, they put on a holster, and they put a pistol in the holster, probably
a cowboy hat, and they roamed around, and you know, you wait for a standing there.
Your wait staff.
And she has a gun in a holster right there for your eyes, but people like that apparently.
So she got elected.
But then she's been just, you know, you know, crazier in a loon, and she saw the hand
right out of the wall, especially outspent more than three to one.
So she goes, okay, I'm going to jump over to Ken Buxi.
Ken Buck, by the way, is retiring, so he's retiring.
And there's a ton of people running on that side in the Republican primary.
The reason I think this makes Adam Frisch's job a little harder is because he was running
against someone.
He was running against Lauren Bobbert, who's so crazy.
And people could go, well, you know, look, I don't know if Democrat is, maybe I'm not
a Democrat, but I'm not going to vote for bad feathers crazy either.
Well, now the guy after Bobbert, who is the best shot in the primary is apparently kind
of a faceless type of guy.
And you as a generic Republican, but that's an eight point Republican seat.
It reminds me of when Paul Ryan dropped out of the house race, our candidate was a very,
it's a very good guy, but suddenly he's running against style and nobody knew style.
People were all lathered up about Paul Ryan.
But once he was out of it, it was generic generic, basically, and our guy didn't prevail.
So my fingers across, I think everybody still contributes Adam Frisch, but I think it
was certainly more exciting when he was running against Lauren Bobbert.
But this is also not good news for Lauren Bobbert.
She's coming from a different part of the state to Eastern Colorado.
Okay, she was a Congresswoman, but you know, they're not crazy.
Over there, they followed her.
They know what she's done.
They have TVs and she's just as crazy over there as she is in her own district.
And she's running against several other Republicans.
And they're unknown, basically, and it's the same phenomenon as her successor in terms
of the nomination in her original seat.
So my thought is she's probably not going to win that primary and she's out of her
hair, but it may keep that Republican seat, her seat Republican, which is too bad.
It was a, it was a pickup, I think it was a pickup and it would have been great.
There's so many nuts in this Congress and most, not most, but not all in the Republican
party.
A guy I love, I don't know that you love him.
Actually, I don't love him.
That would be George Santos.
This is terrific.
Listen to this.
George Santos post something on social media.
George Santos goes, um, it's a picture of a car with a shattered rear window.
And he lights into the mayor in New York, Eric Adams, and he says, you, you're a terrible
mayor.
You run a city that's full of crime criminals broke into my car.
And it was brand new and it's worth such and such.
Eric Adams communications department comes back and says, uh, you, you broke into your
own car.
It's not new.
It's a 2018 model and we looked at the blue book and it isn't worth anything near what
you said.
You know, my question is this somehow this clown got into Congress.
Then they gave them the bum's rush.
How do you went?
How do you went?
But he couldn't raise this shooting his mouth off and doing snarky crooked things when
he was in.
But wouldn't you think that his democratic opponent would have done what we call Oppo research,
opposition research on the guy?
And you could turn up any of this stuff that he go to the university went to.
No, was he on the volleyball team?
No.
Um, he said his mother died in the Holocaust and she also died in 9, 11.
How is that possible?
The guy isn't that old either.
His name really George Santos because they use a different name for a number of years.
You think you do, they do Apple research.
That's all I'm saying.
They do some Apple research and the second thing is if you're he and you manage to get
in, would you lie low and not do crooked sneaky things?
Like I can't believe that this guy was ever in Congress coming up in a lot of news, a
lot of weather and we're going to go to the timeline of the redistricting so all
Bologna side, how these maps coming together by March 15th.
Welcome back to Matt Flynn direct our lines are open eight four four nine six seven two seven eight nine.
Well, the full Wisconsin redistricting timeline is out.
And let's talk about that because one of the things that I had been very concerned about.
We had a good Supreme Court in place with the election of Janet Pro to say which outstanding
justice and very independent, very independent, very much inclined to apply the Constitution,
which prior courts had not done.
But how do you do it in time for the 2024 elections?
A lot of people are going around saying there's no way they can do it by 2024.
No way they can do it by 2024.
So maybe 2026, but we're going to get another hit of and then there's going to be another
Supreme Court election and blah, blah, blah and how are we going to do it?
And I am delighted to see the aggressiveness which with which they have attacked this.
And here is the deal is what I remember something.
The case was filed on August 2nd.
On November 21st, there was a three hour oral man.
You know, that's a pretty fast timeline to get or set for oral argument.
On December 22nd, they issued their opinion, you know, about a one month, there's plenty
of time to think about it, but it's a they're fast tracking this and they ordered new maps.
And they put into provision if the Republicans refused to draft them or if they draft them
in Evers, vetoes them, the court will adopt new maps.
So right there, the Republicans are caught between a rock and a hard place.
They say, okay, we're going to go to the Supreme Court, US Supreme Court.
That's the big Kahuna.
That's the 800 pound gorilla that sits in Washington, DC, it is nine justices.
And what they say is final and they say they get cases out of the 50 state Supreme
courts.
They get them out of all the federal courts, but they don't take every case and they're
not supposed to take any case that only involves state law as opposed to federal law.
And Wisconsin Supreme Court was magnificent in that they took this case and only considered
state constitutional law that the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over.
So there you have it.
So December 22nd, they ordered this December 26th was the data for the new maps has to
be identified.
The issue that order on December 26th has to be identified by December 30 against what
December 30th is Saturday, today's Thursday, they got two more days to do it.
The parties have to agree on the redistricting data that can be used or else they have
to report that they can't agree.
And if there's data from sources other than the US Census Bureau with a state legislative
technology services Bureau, they have to give copies to the other side and to the court.
What's that all about?
Well, when you're talking about a population of Wisconsin, which is roughly, I think,
five and a half million people, you have got to be agreed on what data you're using.
What count?
I think the US Census and then Wisconsin's, which is nonpartisan is the best, but if people
in the Republican side want to do something different, they got to come clean.
That's what they're really saying here.
By January 12th, the legislature and Evers and the parties to these cases have to file
their proposed maps.
January 12th, good for the Supreme Court.
In January 15th, the parties then exchange maps and expert data that their expert witnesses
are relying on.
Each of them can hire an expert witness, different from an expert in a regular witness, regular
witness is somebody who actually knows something about what happened.
You know, I was at the accident scene, the light was green, the light was red.
An expert is somebody who's an expert on skidmarks.
He wasn't there.
He can tell you by the skidmarks how fast it was going.
January 22nd, I see you in the lines.
Do not hang up.
I'll get to you right away.
January 22nd, responsive briefs, February 1st, February 1st, consultants review the maps
and they are only supposed to look at population, that's the equal population, whether they're
contiguous, they have to be contiguous, they have to touch.
And communities of interest are kept together, towns, wards, that kind of thing, as much
as possible, and make sure that there's no partisan advantage to either side.
And what they can do, these experts is either propose their own maps or use one of the parties
maps with minor changes.
Well, who are these consultants?
Their experts, but they're different from the experts to the party and they've been
named.
There's a guy named Bernard Groffman.
He is a professor of political science at University of California, Irvine.
And then there's another fellow, Jonathan Service, he's at Carnegie Mellon.
What's brilliant about this is that the guy at California Irvine, did the Virginia maps,
he's an expert, a national expert, and in some of the maps he's produced, it's benefited
the Democrats.
On the other hand, the guy from Carnegie Mellon, did the New York maps and they benefited
the Republicans, just slightly.
Their major thing has got to be equal population, contiguous lines, contiguous lines, and
try to make sure that there's no partisan advantage given to either side.
In February 8th, the party's respond and March 15th deadline for the Wisconsin Election
Commission to have the maps filed and bingo.
They did it.
They'll do it in time for the 2024 elections.
Now, if the clowns and the Republican party are successful in getting into the Supreme
Court, which they shouldn't, the U.S. Supreme Court, then it all bets they're off on this.
Whisco Paul, my friend.
Thanks for calling.
What's your mind?
Hey, Matt.
Thanks for taking my call.
My understanding is that contiguous lines, that's the big deal, right?
Even if it was to go to the Supreme Court, they probably can't take the case because right
now you were exploring, and several shows ago, that some of these guys can't get to their
district unless they cross another district, and that is the biggest part of this correct
point, where they can't turn this down when I'm trying to say, because I get worried,
the Republicans will drag this out, so that's my question to they, Matt.
Yeah.
No, that's a very insightful question, and yeah, they are going to try to drag it out,
and they put in what's called a petition for rid of search or error.
And then they'll ask the Supreme Court to stay this ruling.
The Supreme Court won't do that.
This Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court could do it, but if they did that, when the issue is the contiguous
nature of the districts, and I think the guy that represents Fitchbar, I guess, to drive
across another district to get to a chunk of other votes that he's supposed to be looking
at, that's against their constitution, and the Republicans Supreme Court that approved
this a couple of years ago, they just chuckled and they said, well, contiguous means what
we say it means, quite literally, quite literally, that's what they said.
Where the charge is A, they have to be contiguous, B, they have to keep communities of interests
together.
That's in the Constitution, by the way, that's in the Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution.
So you try to keep counties together when you can and the rural areas, you try to keep
cities obviously in Milwaukee, you can't keep the county together because a lot of different
districts, but wherever you can, cities, towns, that kind of thing.
All of that was violated before, all of it was violated before.
So the Supreme Court will have a very, very hard time, US Supreme Court, they are tarantulas
and they will do what they can to help the Republican Party, but at some point they can't
do it stupid, you know, they can't say, well, we think that contiguous doesn't mean
that in the Wisconsin Constitution, that's not legal, they have the power to do it because
everybody is deferred to them, but people are getting very tired of them.
People are getting very tired with their crooked ways, they're taking money and that kind
of thing and tipping things, citizens united, five, four, guy took money, jobs, five, four,
guy took money, Shelby County, voting rights act, five, four, guy took money.
People are getting real tired of that.
I have a feeling they're not going to take this and if they don't, this has to be done
and the beauty that the Supreme Court baked in Paul is that they go, okay, and if you
don't cooperate, okay, you know, we're not going to force you to cooperate, legislature,
but then if you don't turn in maps and evres does, then this is going to be turned over
to the two out of town experts, there's a, there's a, this Bernard Graffman from University
California, Irvine and the Carnegie Mellon guy, Jonathan service and these two are going
to look at their experts, they've done this in Virginia, they've done this in a lot of
cases, states, they're going to look at it and they're going to say, what is our charge?
And the Supreme Court says, your charge is they've got to be contiguous, you've got to
keep communities, the municipal of interest, the municipal communities intact in so far
as possible.
And then it had, you should ensure that it doesn't give a partisan advantage to either party.
And each of these people, one of them, the guy from California Irvine did Virginia and
it added a couple of democratic seats, the guy from, from Carnegie Mellon did New York
and it added a couple of republicans seats.
So they're going to sit down, they're experts and they will come up with the maps.
The Supreme Court will look at them, the Supreme Court can change something if they want,
they probably won't.
Then they'll say, these are the maps and that meets the March 15 deadline, the Wisconsin
Election Commission and then all of you out there who are in legislature or thinking
of running for the legislature and I have some advice on that right now, you'll know
where you're running, you can circulate papers.
And I want to say one other thing and I want to say this for a long time.
We need new blood in politics and Wisconsin, we need new blood.
And because of the gerrymander, people have been sort of forced out because it's hard
to break through, but you're going to have some competitive districts here.
I would strongly encourage young people in their 20s and 30s if you're an alderman somewhere
or something, okay, you don't have to be run, run for these districts and run on an
issue.
And if you're running against an incumbent so much the better, that's a respite goal
got in the early 80s, run against an old incumbent.
There's a lot of incumbents out there in both parties that are mutton dressed up like
lamb.
They have no new ideas, no new enthusiasm.
This is going to be the year of the challenger in my view.
And the reason why Biden Trump are so close is because they've seen as two incumbents,
two incumbents.
There are five legislators in the Democratic Party, for instance, who basically cited against
Israel and basically, though they want to admit it, cited up with Hamas.
And there's a lot of folks that don't like that, including me.
So I would encourage if you're a young person, one of those districts, run in the primary.
And in the Republican Party, you have a couple of real right wing nut jobs.
Well, if you're a young Republican, you're 20s and 30s and brimming with new ideas, and
you don't have any background in the issues that they can attack you on, run in your primary,
bring some common sense to this thing.
Remember an old adage in politics.
What's important is that you have a message.
It almost is less important what your message is, but you must have a message.
You must stand for something.
You know, I mean, you know, we had two people in our party who wouldn't vote for a resolution,
condemning anti-Semitism.
That's nutty.
You have people in the Republican Party who would not vote for resolution condemning
QAnon.
Let's get some common sense out there.
Let's get some young folks out there.
Don't think you got to work your way up or something.
You know, over in the third congressional district, you're seeing this phenomenon at work
in the Dane County race for Dane County executive, you're seeing it.
You should see it all around the state.
You're going to get those districts very likely in March 15.
Look at them.
And if you've always wanted to career in politics, get off the couch and do something about it.
Get off the couch and do something about it.
Well, coming up, I'll say what?
Coming up, Jack Smith brought an excellent motion to Bart Trump from his Skull Duggery
in Washington.
It's an unusual motion and I will describe it coming back very quickly.
Well, welcome back to Math and Direct.
Their lines are open.
844-967-278.
Now we go right to the line.
Scott of Windsor.
Thanks for calling Scott.
What's in your mind today?
Hey, Matt.
Talk about the ledger.
I actually have flopped through and read the entire recent opinion on ordering new maps.
And I at first thought that they would just say that you're breaking up.
Can you do you want to speak or phone Scott?
Can you take that off the speaker phone?
Absolutely.
Okay.
Go ahead Scott.
Thank you.
My back.
So I flopped through the recent opinion, ordering new maps.
And at first I thought that they senting opinions overblown and overwrapped.
I think if this does get to the U.S. Supreme Court despite your suggestion that they won't
intervene, I think they might actually dive in on this.
Talk me out the ledge.
I want this to work.
Okay, get off the ledge, Scott, because I think we're in good shape.
Here's the deal.
When that lawsuit was brought, it had a whole range of issues.
And some of them did invoke either federal issues or something where the federal Supreme
Court.
And remember, I'm using the word Supreme Court in two senses here, U.S. and State.
U.S. there's nine of them.
There's in Washington State, there's seven of them, they're in Madison.
The nine of them in Washington, ultimately the big Cahunas, but they're not supposed to
take anything having to do with the state law.
Okay.
So in this particular case, the Supreme Court took review, the State Supreme Court, because
they can window it down.
You can go to them and say, I want you to consider these four issues.
And they go, no, I'm going to consider two of them get lost on the other two.
That's what they did.
In effect.
So the two that they took were contiguity in the Constitution and also separation of powers.
The contiguous issue was it contiguous means what it says.
The prior Republicans to Supreme Court said, well, this is contiguous enough, we just
find what contiguous is.
And now this Supreme Court is going to go the other way.
The second thing is separation of powers before the governor was eased out of it.
And it went just directly to the Supreme Court and they imposed the maps.
Now that is a separation of power, violation in the Constitution.
The governor has the right to veto and that he will be able to do that now.
The legislature and he can't get together.
Then what's going to happen is the Supreme Court will use their two experts.
I'm not sure what you're referring to in the dissent that concerns you, but one of
the things might be, look, just a few years ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved
these maps.
Now, these people want to switch it and they have somebody who was just elected, Janet
Proto-Sewitz, who said the maps were rigged during the campaign.
If that's what's bothering you, don't let it bother you in my opinion.
I once tried a case and it was not a redistricting case, but it was the case of whether or
not insurers should pay it to clean up pollution for companies.
And that was the big issue in Wisconsin.
And shortly before I argued this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court had already ruled
that insurance companies did not have to pay to clean up for pollution because it wasn't
in the contracts.
So I made a different argument.
I went before the Supreme Court in Wisconsin and won.
And they said, we're overturning our previous case, which wasn't that old.
This is very recent.
A subsequent Supreme Court can overturn, can overturn any case that it as a court had entered,
even if it was yesterday.
So that's number one.
Number two.
Janet Proto-Sewitz said, is open to reading the briefs and all of that kind of thing.
Everybody that ran for those seats took a position on abortion and on the maps.
Everyone, everyone.
Kelly and all the rest of them, the Republicans, said they wanted to preserve the 1849 statute.
Janet Proto-Sewitz said that she felt that that statute was no good.
Everybody campaigns on that and on the maps, both Kelly and several of the Republicans,
Supreme Court, justice is there before and the campaign said the maps are fine.
That's fine.
If the other thing that's bothering you is the business of financial contributions, the
Democratic Party, which supported Janet Proto-Sewitz, the Republican Party, by the way,
supported Gabelman in the past and now Kelly,
she's not a party.
If the Democratic Party were a party, so to speak, in other words, a plaintiff, that's
a different thing.
They're not.
The people who are the plaintiffs are folks who, frankly, are voters.
And they don't like to see their vote diluted.
She absolutely and all of them can absolutely hone in on that issue.
So the only issues before the Wisconsin Supreme Court right now are the contiguous or the
lack of continuity into the present maps and the fact that the Evers got you could add
to the whole thing.
And now they're going to correct that, Wisconsin Constitution.
So yes, there are six torrents on the Supreme Court, but they have already aroused a lot
of iron, and if they suddenly go, no, we're going to start weighing in on status.
I think there'll be a rebellion among a lot of states.
I want to say one other thing, Jack Smith has brought a motion, a motion to bar Trump
from using conspiracy theories at the trial.
This isn't a tiny, chutnik thing.
He can't, no partisan political attacks, nothing that's irrelevant, prejudicial.
He can't say that January 6 was an FBI attack.
He cannot argue that it's selective enforcement.
He can't say it's his first amendment, right?
And you're not going to believe why he can get away with doing this and probably winning
this motion.
He can't say that the indictment is a threat to the fabric of the country, which is what
he's saying, threat to his family and their livelihood.
He can't blame it on the Capitol Police, the National Guard or the mayor.
Now, you've got to wait a minute, Matt.
You guys are defending.
You can get up and say anything you want, right?
That's not right.
If you try a criminal case, give an example.
You can't just get on the stand and say, I have an alibi.
I was in New York at a play when this happened, and here's a buddy of mine who said he saw
me there.
If you want to give an alibi defense, you have to give advance time.
You have to give at least 10 days, maybe more for the other side to investigate it.
All the rest of the stuff, if you have no basis for saying it, they're not going to let
you say it to a jury.
You can't say to a jury.
I'm afraid I'm going to jail or any of that stuff.
You can only talk about what's relevant to the case.
Okay.
Coming up, a lot of news, a lot of weather, and I'll tell you what, the Trump has been
presenting himself as a godly figure and it's a alarm psychiatrist.
More break, but he's on pushing me around, but I stand my ground and I won't.