Talking on all political subjects and taking on all colors, this is Matt Flynn Direct.
With your host, Matt Flynn.
Welcome to Matt Flynn Direct, come restate wide in live on civic media.
Our lines are open 844-967-2789.
No subject is off limits.
All points of view are welcome.
Remember, you're at woke if you don't know history.
You're not woke unless and until you know history, going right to the front lines of history
and the making.
A lot of being made, but some it was made in the last 10 or 15 minutes, we're going to start
with that one.
Case wrapped up, the Latisha James case in New York, in Donald Trump and two of his children,
Don Jr. and Eric, Ivanka was let out, not because she was innocent, but because what she
had done in the fraud was outside of the statute of limitations.
Because closing argument, Trump wanted to give the closing argument a part of it.
Judge said he couldn't do it because he said, I'll let you give the closing argument
a part of it.
If you'll agree, you're not going to give a campaign speech and say things that are contrary
to what's the evidence in the record.
He wouldn't agree to that, so that Judge said, all right, you're not going to do it.
So his lawyers gave the closing argument, went over all the evidence and all that, but
then Trump, they asked leave for Trump to address the court for about five minutes and
he spat it off in the usual campaign speech.
That corrupt the whole thing was Latisha James did it, she was out to get him, he's innocent
and all this.
And finally, they talked over each other, anger on the judge and Trump.
And point the judge said, control your clients and the lawyers, of course, they can't control
the guy.
This is why he was not permitted to give the full closing statement, which is probably
to his benefit because when a layman and non-lawyer tries to do anything in court, they screw
it up badly.
I've never seen anybody do a good job.
Never seen anybody do a good job.
But here are some of the low lights.
Here are some of the low lights.
And now the case is in the hands of Judge Engoron.
One of the things that Trump complained about, he gave a press conference afterwards, I watched
the press conference, it just got over a few minutes ago and then he took some questions
and the questions were tough and then he finally waved them off and walked away.
But Judge Engoron is the guy that's going to have to decide how much, if anything,
Trump owes for the fraud.
And the first thing Trump said in the press conference afterwards is that basically he
was badly treated because he wanted a jury trial and they denied him one.
That is categorically false.
Under New York law, he had a right to a jury trial.
Patricia James asked for a jury trial.
The astounding Trump, you want a jury trial?
And he said no.
What he did was there was a deadline and he wouldn't say anything.
Then afterwards he started the bench trial.
They call it a bench trial when only the judge is the finder of fact.
Difference between a bench trial and a jury trial and a jury trial, you'll have twelve
jurors and some federal cases, you'll only have six jurors.
Some cases in Milwaukee, you'll have 14 jurors because they want two spares in case somebody
has COVID at the end or sick or whatever and you just plug them in.
They've heard the evidence.
But there's two parts to a case, findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The conclusions of law are always for the judge.
These cannot apply in on that.
But findings of fact if there's a jury or for the jury.
So it might be with a light red or green and so on and so on and so on and so on and
a car accident case or in this case are the documents that you looked at in the testimony
that they show fraud on the part of Mr. Trump or not.
Trump waived his jury trial.
Why did he do that?
There's a lot of reasons to do it.
In this case, I think he made a mistake in doing it.
I'm certain it was his idea as lawyers probably told them they wanted a jury.
But I think he thought that basically because he's a big shot of business man, but basically
because well, heck, he lied about the valuation of his assets overstated them by a couple
of billion dollars with a B, which got him much lower interest rates and all of that.
He could do whatever he wanted.
But a jury saw things like his apartment on 5th Avenue is 10,000 square feet.
Now a 10,000 square foot apartment is a big apartment.
I don't care where you are.
I don't care if you're in Milwaukee or in Manhattan.
But he said it was worth 30,000 square feet and it was worth 300 and some odd million
dollars.
30,000 square foot apartment would be a whole floor and maybe more than that, maybe two
floors.
And it was false.
But by doing that, what he did was he got lower interest rates because the way banks
work lenders, if you borrow a million dollars and you have assets worth a hundred million
dollars, you get a lower interest rate because they know if you default, you have asked
to say, go against.
If you borrow a million dollars and they be crazy to do this and you only have a million
in assets or maybe less, probably wouldn't get the loan.
But if you did, they want a very high interest rate because if you default, they're not going
to get paid.
They're not going to get paid.
During the subprime meltdown back how many years ago, 15, 16 years ago, some of these
lenders were lending to people who were unemployed, lending them 800 grand by a house and they
were unemployed and had no assets because there's one reason the M&I bank basically went
under or had to be sold because they did things like that.
In this case, a 30,000 square foot apartment worth 300,000, some odd million dollars got
them a lower interest rate and by doing this in many, many different properties, he saved
168 million in interest and that's fraud.
That's fraud.
The banks, the lenders had a right to more interest than he paid and that's just one example
of the fraud.
Anyway, the Tisha James initially sought 250 million.
She gooseed it up to 370 million after the evidence came in.
Today, there was a bomb threat against trench ingorant at his home, a bomb threat.
One of the Trump supporters called in a bomb threat trying to disrupt the proceedings
today.
This is not the only time this kind of thing has happened.
Ever since Trump reared his ugly head in politics, there have been a series of bomb threats,
actual threats, people showing up with guns when there was the Marlago search warrant and
he attacked the FBI a couple of years ago that the a nut with a gun went to attack the
FBI offices with a gun in Cincinnati, Ohio.
There are death threats, bomb threats, swatting it's called and just death threats to poll
workers, to health care workers during the pandemic, anything that Trump criticizes in
his code that they're deranged, that they're unfair, that they're dishonest, they're corrupt,
they get bomb threats.
That's what he does.
It turns out that trench ingorant that it was a swatting, there was no bomb, but he had
to be given more security today and it took a lot longer to get the lawyers and spectators
through security.
Now there's typically a machine like at the airport, but for something like this, there's
a lot more.
Now here's the deal, here's the deal.
The judge is being asked to shut Trump down and not be able to do business in New York
for at least five years in the other kinds of remedies, forfeit anywhere from $250
to $370 million, put some of his properties in receiverships so he can't scam them, he
can't convey them to somebody in his family and get out of town.
Now here's the deal on that at the press conference, it was a whining press conference.
It was a pure campaign event.
He said that he was being set upon that Joe Biden was doing it, that he did nothing wrong,
that there was no fraud in any of the documents, that he'd been denied a right to a jury trial.
All that's false.
All of that is false.
Michael Cohen testified that when the financials were drawn up, Trump would look at them and
tell both Michael Cohen and the CFO Alan Weiselberg to just change the numbers.
Because the lenders that he talked to said, well, you're going to get, you've got 5% rate.
If you have this, but you'll have 7 or 8% of you have that, he said, make it the 5% and
they did stupid things.
For instance, saying he has a 30,000 square foot apartment and Marlago is being down in
Florida, it's being valued at many hundreds of millions of dollars over what it is.
And they just did it.
They just, in effect, white it out, they're not the white out.
They just give it to a secretary and the secretary then just reprints it with the different
figures.
That is fraud.
In fact, that's criminal fraud.
In this case, I do not know why there wasn't a criminal case fraud.
It could have been brought by Alvin Bragg, the DA, he chickened out early on.
He did finally bring one fraud suit against Trump.
But to Latisha James, by the time she got to it, I'm sure maybe the specialization said
expired in a criminal case.
And so she went ahead and did it this way.
I don't know what's going to happen.
Judge Engleron is going to decide at some point.
And we think in January, which gives him about two more weeks, and judges somewhat make
up their minds as they hear the evidence, but they keep an open mind so they hear the
summations, the closing arguments.
I've given many closing arguments.
I've never been convinced that that won the case, but sometimes it's the icing on the
cake that gets the verdict that you want.
And I'll say in this particular case, Latisha James, the great lawyers are great lawyers.
Engleron is an honest guy.
And I'm not one who thinks that because Trump insults at him, attacked him, he finds
Trump $15,000 for blowing off the gag water and all that, attacked his clerk that somehow
he's going to screw Trump.
I don't think that's true.
I personally think he may bend over backwards not to, but he's already found that Trump
committed fraud and summary judgment.
That's no longer an issue in the case.
And so going forward, what's going to happen is he's going to issue something.
I think that he's going to issue a financial amount and an injunction about doing business,
but I don't think it's going to be as bad as people think.
Okay, coming up, we're trying to recall Robin Voss.
Why might they not be able to?
Welcome back to Madison director, lines are open, eight four four nine six seven two
seven eight nine, well, some people are trying to recall Robin Voss and I'm not shedding
any tears, but I don't know if they've looked at the statute books recently.
Remember one thing on a recall, unlike say an impeachment, whereas the state Senate
that's going to impeach someone, where it can only be for criminality, criminal conduct
in office, where they've committed a crime, a recall can be for any reason.
The recall is the citizens, the voters and the head of it could get up and say, I don't
like his looks, or could they could have a racist motive, they can, whatever they want,
if they get the signatures and then there's a recall election.
Now, in this particular case, Robin Voss is someone whom I have attacked frequently
in this show.
He is responsible in my judgment for the cancer causing chemicals in the water throughout
the state.
He's responsible for the attacks on higher education in the state, the UW system, but having
said that, here is the basis for the recall and here is the impediment.
The crowd that is doing it, those of you who live around his district in Southeast Wisconsin,
so you watch Milwaukee TV and it may have been in Madison to him, not sure.
But there is a shadowy group that didn't disclose who's giving the money that put on
a lot of ads and then a lot of print ads in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel saying that
because Voss wouldn't impeach me and Wolf, he's got to be recalled.
And they say, call Voss, tell him to impeach me and Wolf, Wolf, Megan Wolf, and then they
had a very unfettering, flattering picture.
Anybody can take an unfettering picture, you and I, anybody else.
So that's the way they do it.
Anyway, they're now going through with it and the ostensible reason, the reason given
by the clowns that are behind this thing are that he refused to impeach Megan Wolf
and number two, that he's opposed to Trump, I'm not kidding, that's what they said,
opposed to Trump.
So he would not permit an impeachment vote to go to the assembly on Megan Wolf and he
did it not because he agrees with mayor, he's a good guy, he did it because not every
Republican would have voted for it, but it would have passed because they're jerrymandered.
But the poll showed, and Megan Wolf's team put up such a good job, and by team, I mean,
some donors to the Democratic Party that put on quite a bit of advertising, that Republican
voters didn't like it.
He would have hurt the party by doing it.
And these clowns, these, and the donors, I think at least one of them's out of state,
if not more, nevertheless say, okay, we're going to get rid of Robin Bus.
Remember, they try to get rid of him, Trump try to get rid of him before, and they had
this no named guy, 29 year old guy, who as far as I can see has never accomplished anything
in his life, ran, and he almost beat for us.
He almost beat him, remember, it was like a point, point and a half, 29 year old guy
with no experience running against the speaker.
So in this one, what's going to happen?
Well, first of all, Boss put out some word, I have not double checked it, but he said
they have to come up with 7,000 signatures by April.
Well, 7,000 signatures by April, and it can only be in that assembly district, it can't
be statewide, is a heck of a lot of signatures.
But there's a better argument that Vos had, and that is this, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
has ruled that those lines are invalid.
Those assembly district lines are invalid, and they have to be corrected, and there's
a process, the legislature is trying to come up with a, with, I know what they're doing,
they're trying to pretend they're doing something that's compliant, and still keeps the
gerrymander, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court wasn't born yesterday, and they're going
to see through that.
Then it goes to two experts.
Two experts, one of them has a history in the past, he's a professor from California of
drawing lines that are slightly favorable to Democrats, and the other one has a history
in the past, he's a professor in New York that draw lines, that draws lines slightly
favorable to Republicans, and they're given very strict conditions, so there's not a
lot of wiggle room.
We're going to come up with new maps.
So if Vos is smart, what he will say is, you can't recall me because you don't know
what district to circulate the signatures in, and if you do, I'm going to attack them,
so you can't recall me until there is a new district that I'm in, and then you have
to assume I'm going to run free election, and I am, and that'll be for that district
probably.
You see what I mean?
In other words, these people are the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
These people who would say slap leather partner, and then they shoot their toes off.
These are not the brightest bulbs on the tree.
But whatever, let's suppose it goes forward, well, you know, there are these conservative
and liberal legal firms in the state, Rick Essenberg is the guy at one of the conservative
ones.
He came out against this.
Everybody else has no brief for Revin Vos, they don't want Revin Vos, but they certainly
don't want the clown that ran against Revin Vos and came within a point of beating
him.
You know, it's not like a Democrat is going to beat him.
And when there is redistricting, and when the gerrymandor, the foot of the gerrymandor
is taken off the neck of that district, it still may very well be slightly Republican.
There's plenty of reasons not to vote for Revin Vos, I wouldn't, in that district, but
you got to run a good Democratic candidate as a head on his shoulders and her shoulders
and does a good job.
So there you have it, Revin Vos, right now, subject to a recall petition on its face
for saying that he's opposed to Trump, and I have no idea where this is true, he sucked
up the Trump enough, sucked up the Trump enough, he pointed Gableman to spend $3 million
of your money and my money going around the state, pretending to look for fraud to
peace Trump, I think he's plenty compliant to Trump, plenty, plenty compliant to Trump.
But they don't think he's compliant enough, apparently, okay, fine.
And he wouldn't impeach Megan Wolf, and others he wouldn't even let it go to the floor.
That's because he knows that the Republicans who vote for that are going to get hurt in
the election for doing it because all the polls are shown that Republicans themselves
don't like it.
I was at a luncheon with a bunch of people, and there was a guy sitting not too far away
from me who's a conservative Republican, and the issue came up, he said, I don't like
it.
He said, this general pro to say what's this is back when it started hasn't even taken
the bench.
Has it done anything?
It takes a criminal, it takes fraudulent activity in office or conviction on a criminal
offense, and that isn't here, and quote, you can't just impeach people because they beat
you in an election and quote, this is a Republican.
So he didn't go that route, but these out of state donors, and I think I know very well
who it is, and you probably do too.
I don't know if it's this Richard E line, but the guy pumps money in here like it's going
out of style.
Anyway, don't get me started on this.
I don't think Voss is getting impeached or recalled or anything else, but there you
have it.
Coming up, a lot of news, a lot of weather, and Republican chaos in the House of Representatives.
Welcome back to Matt Flynn Direct, our lines are open 844-967-2789.
The Republican caucus is in chaos in the House of Representatives.
They basically can afford to lose two votes on anything or down they go.
Remember that Kevin McCarthy resigned and partly had a bitterness to deny them a vote.
George Santos was thrown out.
There's a guy in Ohio that resigned, take a job as a president of small college.
So there you have it.
They can lose two votes.
If they lose three votes, they don't get to 217, which is what they need right now.
Here's the deal.
They're turning on Mike Johnson.
They're turning on Mike Johnson because over the weekend, he cut a deal with Chuck Schumer,
Ikeem Jeffries, the minority leader in the House went along with it, and it basically
funds the government to the end of the upcoming fiscal year, September 30, 2024, $1.66
trillion, with a $69 billion supplement with some social programs that are essential,
and it was essentially going by the deal that McCarthy had cut with Biden in the spring.
That's how it's done.
Joe Biden invited McCarthy to the White House, said, look, you're the head of the Speaker
of the House, Chuck Schumer and I have an idea, here's what it is, McCarthy pushed back.
And what he came up with, quite frankly, was to sort of split it in half.
I mean, it does not give any inflation increases, and if inflation is a 3% or 2% or whatever
it is, and you keep spending flat, that's a cut because the salaries you're paying are
gone up, paper goes up, furniture goes up, fuel goes up, everything goes up.
Okay, everybody thought that was hunky dory, but you know, you have these hardcore right wing
nuts.
Now there are a lot of Republicans that I respect, I respect Adam Kinsinger, Liz Cheney.
I respect people who sit down and negotiate in good faith and stick to the Constitution.
I respect admit Romney for voting to convict Donald Trump on two impeachment, the Ukraine
impeachment, and the insurrection impeachment.
But I don't respect, or the fringe, the wild men and women of the Republican Party.
Some of the guys look like bounty hunters or bushwackers, you know, you'd seem in the
old kind of cheaper westerns, they'd have Buckskins on, tobacco stain teeth, maybe not
all their teeth, gibberine, especially when they're around women, and trying to shoot people
and that kind of thing.
Very, very bad memories of those kinds of bushwackers and bounty hunters and cheap westerns.
Unfortunately, some of them are in the Republican Party in Congress.
So yeah, who do you got?
You got Matt Gates, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Bobber.
That Paul Gosar, Mo Biggs, Mo Brooks, I should say, you have Biggs, Verizona.
You have people, you have good, what a name.
This guy is not good, but his name is good for Virginia, Scott Perry, and all that.
They sit like assassins on the sideline, ready to shoot down whatever would benefit America.
The Senate, you have Tuberville, who hates the military.
He ever served in the military, shoots his mouth off, says it's a bureaucracy, he doesn't
know.
He doesn't know.
You have Rand Paul.
You have these kinds of folks.
Anyway, in the Congress, there is the thing.
If the speaker decides to put a bill on the floor, there is a vote called a rule vote.
Rule vote is a pro-former vote.
It's basically, okay, we're going to send this to the floor.
You don't have to like the bill.
You don't have to want the bill.
You could be opposed to the bill, but typically everybody in the majority party, and so that's
the speaker that's putting the bill on the floor, says, okay, the rules vote, it goes to
the floor, and then you can do whatever you want.
Here are the statistics.
In 1995 to 2022, it's 27 years, the rules vote only lost eight times.
The ultimate legislation might not pass.
Maybe forward against, but the rules vote, the pro-former sleepy vote to go to the floor
only lost eight times.
In the whole speakership of Newt Gingrich, he was very controversial, he only lost six
rule votes, under the speakership of Hester, he only lost two rule votes.
In the less than a year that McCarthy was speaker, he lost three of them, and Mike Johnson's
only been in since what October, and he's very lost two of them.
That is because the Bushwackers, the bounty hunters, the jibbering idiots in the Buckskins
or the tobacco-stained teeth, have decided that they will control the Congress, the whole
Congress, just by a handful of people, kind of like the Tubervilles are doing in the Senate
with unanimous consent in the filibuster.
Now what happened here?
The bills that they blocked the rules vote on were unrelated to the financial bill
the deal that Mike Johnson cut.
So this is a warning shot over Mike Johnson's bow, but the way this works, and I have a message
to my fellow Democrats, I'm kind of peed at this.
The way this works is that typically the majority party passes at the rules vote, then it
goes to the floor and then it's Katie Bar the door, and the minority party all vote against
the rules vote.
So that's what happened here.
So all of the Democrats voted against the rules vote for this unrelated bill, and 12
of these Bushwackers and bounty hunters voted against it too.
So they're like 225 votes against it, and that was not, you know, then there was only
205 or so Republicans maybe who voted for it.
Now that is the book on how you do it, but I got, I've got some word for the Democrats.
When these financial bills come up and listen to this real good vote for the rules vote,
because you're going to have these 12 Bushwackers and a couple of others vote against it.
Get it on the floor, because we want it, Biden wants it, Schumer wants it.
I want it, the Democrats want it.
We want it.
I don't care what weirdos you have on the flank on the left with you people vote for the rules
vote.
If you do that, there'll be 200 or so Republicans, and over 200 Democrats, it'll be an
overwhelming show of force.
Then when it's on the floor, you vote for it, you're here, you vote for it, and you'll
have 150 Republicans vote for it, and it'll pass with two-thirds of the House.
And let me tell you something else.
If Mike Johnson sticks to his word and lets this thing, this financial bill to fund the
government through the end of the coming fiscal year passes, and he's a stand-up guy and
he doesn't, it's weird as he is, you know, lying about having no bank account.
Weirdos is he is on social stuff.
When some of the Bushwackers tried to declare the chair vacant, give him the votes he needs
to stay in the speakership.
There'll be a new Congress elected this November.
With any luck, we're going to win, and there'll be a Democratic speaker, presumably Hacking
and Jeffries.
But if for any reason there isn't, he has to run again as speaker, and you can deal with
it then, but do not screw around, do not just go to the textbook and go, oh well, we vote
against everything that they want, that's not true.
We cannot have that, we absolutely cannot permit that this time.
You did that with McCarthy, I don't blame you, because McCarthy shot his mouth off and
was untrusted worthy and looked untrusted worthy.
But we have got to start controlling this government from the broad mass of people who want
to do the right thing.
And that's about 200 Democrats and about 150 Republicans in the House, and it's 51 Democratic
senators and independents, and probably another 20, 25 of the rest of them.
You can't permit these Bushwackers, these bounty hunters, these fugitives in the Senate
from just going, oh, unanimous consent, oh, filibuster, or in the House, oh, the chair's
vacant.
And we have 10 of these people drooling saying, no, we don't want anybody, who do you want?
They don't want anybody.
They want to shut the government down.
We cannot permit that.
We cannot permit them to shut the government down.
See what happens, it's coming up, and it's coming up, and I'm not sure that the old
reason Mike Johnson is going to survive is because they can't think of anyone else.
They screwed everybody else, they screwed everybody else.
You can talk about the debate last night coming up, but Chris Christie dropped out of
the race.
You know that, everybody knows that.
You watched it last night in the evening news.
Now Chris Christie is a guy that if he hadn't done the bridge gate thing, if he hadn't gotten
so full of himself, he was head in the polls by 60% against the Democrat nominee for governor.
He goes, well, maybe I like 65%.
So there are these mayors in northern New Jersey who are Democrats, and he basically extorted
them.
He said, I want you to support me publicly, and one of them goes, well, look Chris, you're
a great guy.
I can't.
I'm a Democrat.
I'll get screwed.
I'll get beaten into primaries.
So you know what he does?
He shuts down the highway because it's right near this guy's town that goes into New
York City.
There was an elderly woman in an ambulance who died in the ambulance because she couldn't
get to the hospital because of that.
People that wanted to get to work in New York City every day couldn't get to work.
And he did it out of petrolants and bridge gate and a couple of his people that he did
it were convicted and sent to jail briefly into the US Supreme Court overturn their conviction.
But they said he told me to do it, and he denied it.
That's not the kind of guy you want as president.
However, at the very, very end in this campaign, he sort of quasi redeemed himself.
How did he do that?
Well, he was fairly upfront about Trump.
He said, you can't have Trump again or democracies in danger.
And basically he went kind of Liz Cheney.
He went Adam Kinsinger.
He's probably sincere.
But there was no way after bridge gate that he was going to get elected.
And he took a tack, you know, what DeSantis and Haley have done is for a sneakier, I don't
like it either.
We're going to talk about that debate.
But what Christie did is just attack Trump head on and in fairly explicit terms.
And I'm glad he did it.
It had to be done.
He was very, very glad, for instance, in the first debate in Milwaukee.
People were asked, raise your hand.
If you would, and if you lose this primary, would you support the winner if he was a convicted
felon?
And that's Trump, of course, they all raised their hands, except Chris Christie.
I like that.
I like it very much, but that's not enough to elect a president.
Now the question is, what is the, what are, who benefits?
What is the result of this thing?
Well, the polls seem to say in New Hampshire that the beneficiary is Nikki Haley, because
people in the polls there were asked, who's your second choice if your guy doesn't make
it?
And a very large majority of Nikki Haley's people said, Chris Christie in Iowa.
I don't know, except that in Iowa right now, it looks like Haley is about nine points
ahead, nine points ahead of Ron DeSantis.
And that's coming up on Monday.
It's also going to be seven below zero.
And I think that it's going to be a very, very chilly set of caucuses.
I do not know what's going to happen.
I do not know what's going to happen.
But what I do know is that Donald Trump is likely to win it.
Okay.
Seven away quickly, coming up, the debate, the Haley DeSantis debate, and cheater alert,
neither one of them is ready for prime time.
Welcome back to Madeline Direct, our lines are open, eight, four, four, nine, six,
seven, two, seven, eight, nine, less night, there was a debate that Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis
debate.
Chris Christie, of course, had dropped out, he didn't make the debate.
Vivek Ramaswami, I don't know where he is, probably on the loose, probably on the lamb, not
going anywhere.
Poor Aza Hutchinson still is prowling around, I don't know where he is, but it's the two
of them, Haley and DeSantis, and I'm going to give you my impression of it.
First of all, neither of them was presidential.
Now presidential is an intangible and I understand it and all that, but these were basically two
mediocre high school, college, debaters accusing each other of line.
They're not showing up, which she did on purpose.
They basically attacked each other as lying all night long.
I can tell you something, and I'm going to tell you my personal experiences because
I went to the Iowa caucuses to caucus for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and I'm going to
tell you my impression.
But last night, Nikki Haley thought it would be a good idea right in her opening statement.
She goes, go to the website DeSantisLies.com.
Now the minute I heard that, and she thought that was quite smarmy and clever and sneaky.
The minute I heard that, there's a rule of thumb for anybody who litigates cases, trialers.
You almost never use the word lie.
You never accuse someone of lie.
When you say someone is a liar, that's a bucket of cold water in the face as a slap
aggressive face.
Only in the rarest circumstances, you could say Vladimir Putin is a liar, yes he is.
But with most cases, what you do is you sort of look sorrowfully and say, well, what he
said isn't so.
What he says is contrary to fact.
It's contrary to what he said two days ago or two minutes ago.
It's a false even, you can say, we're not true.
False is also problematic, but it's just not true.
And then he must have forgotten that he said something different two days ago.
That kind of thing.
She was sitting there like, you know, liar, liar, your pants are on fire, noses longer
than a telephone wire.
You keep on telling me those lies.
You know, I mean, that's literally what it was, it was.
She talked about DeSantisLies.com, the website, and I haven't gone on it.
Of course he lies.
So does she.
Trump lies in particular.
These caucuses are on the 15th, they're on the 15th, it's coming Monday, and it's going
to be very cold.
I think in Milwaukee, it's going to be seven below zero Sunday night, if I'm not mistaken.
You can't imagine what it is out there, not in your Lake Michigan, but in any of them.
She made some good points.
She was strong on Ukraine.
I like to see that.
She was very, very weak on health care.
She is weak on a lot of things.
But she came across slightly more reasonable than DeSantis, but tonally and not only tonally,
but everything from immigration to abortion to everything else.
She tries to sort of slip slightly around and it doesn't work.
But overall, you think of the Lincoln Douglas debates.
You think of the Kennedy Nixon debates, and I got news for you.
The Haley DeSantis debate was not that.
And she came across, frankly, as a lightweight, who is just going liar, you know, sort of
hunched liar, you know, that kind of, DeSantis was worse.
Now, DeSantis is a guy who had a real shot at beating Trump.
If early on, he had just said, look, I'm in Florida, this is what I do, I'm a good governor.
Ukraine, we're going to stand with him like Reagan would have, like Eisenhower, like Jack
Kennedy would have indeed, like everybody in both parties has done.
If he said that, we're going to beat the Russians, keep them out.
He was good on Israel, and she was good on Israel, supporting Israel.
But on Ukraine, he has, like Trump, subservient to Putin.
Find it down, don't send him any more supplies.
He screwed himself by doing that early on in his campaign.
The second thing is by taking on Disney, and he looted to it again, I have no idea what
Disney did that ticked him off, but here's the deal.
You could very plausibly say, people say it's the, don't say gay bill.
Well, what the bill says is, in kindergarten, first and second grade, I don't want people
going in and talking to people about gender or sexuality, not in kindergarten for a second
grade.
That's a very reasonable position.
And most people, I think, agree with that.
But he goes after Disney for the hell of it.
Disney has a lot of good stuff, kids like Disney, Disney World, that kind of thing.
And he came across his clumsy, insincere, and he rattled off a lot of stuff about Florida.
Like we're number one in, you know, I don't know, reading.
We're number one in this.
He rattled it off like a machine gun when you go, I'm number one in this, I'm number one
in this, I'm number one in this, I'm number one in this, I'm number one in this.
Everybody goes, oh, well, okay, if you're in order, you go, we are first in the nation in
reading.
I'm very proud of that.
First in the nation in, if it's true, math, I'm very proud of that.
They did not come across as presidential, and neither one of them would I want in charge
of our military, if the Russians decided to test NATO by going in and doing something
in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, any of the Baltic states, Romania, not a Baltic
state, but very, very vulnerable to Russia.
Moldova, not NATO, very vulnerable, we've got to hold the Ruskies are genocidal sadas,
not the whole population.
There's some good people over there.
I spent time in St. Petersburg and in Moscow in 97, 97 during the, the Glacnos, but their
leaders are genocidal sadas.
And let me tell you this about the Iowa caucus.
I went down to 2008 and they had a rule that said, you can come in from out of state if
you're a Democrat.
So I came in and I was supposed to head up something and I said, Matt Flynn, former party chairman,
is to get out of here.
So I had to kind of look around and try to encourage people and couldn't get involved
myself.
There are no rules, they don't adhere to anything as a mob scene, mob scene down there.
Coming up, coming up, a lot of news, a lot of weather.
And I'll tell you what, Trump admits, quote, doing services for a crooked Chinese bank.
We've got to listen to this coming.