It's a wake-up call in more ways than one.
Time for some sh** you need to know.
Well, we mentioned King Charles.
He was here with Queen Camilla and he addressed a joint meeting of Congress yesterday marking the second time a British monarch has done so.
He was welcomed with an extended standing ovation and much of his speech focused on the kinship and history between the US and the UK.
At the end of his remarks, lawmakers gave him another long standing ovation.
Charles began his address to Congress by referencing Sunday shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Saturday shooting, rather, saying such violent acts, quote, will never succeed.
He expressed solidarity with the U.S.
We stand united in our commitment to uphold democracy, to protect all of all our people from harm, and to salute the courage of those who daily risk their lives in service of our countries.
In his opening remarks, he did remember his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who was the last monarch to address
the U.S.
Congress.
He used a portion of his speech to praise NATO and the role the defense alliance has played in protecting their citizens and interests.
The mention of Ukraine and the support it needed to defend itself from Russia, Russia's unprovoked aggression, were another part of the king's message to President Trump, who has stopped most military aid to Kiev since returning to the White House in January.
The king took a moment to quote Trump in his speech, reminding the Congress that it was the US leader himself who praised the friendship between the two nations just months before vilifying the UK and its government for not providing significant
military assistance for the war.
He concluded by reminding lawmakers that the United States influence carries weight and meaning.
By the way, it was 1991, the last time a monarch addressed Congress.
I had to look that up because I wasn't sure my timeline there.
It
was the same day that she and the first President Bush planted a tree out on the White House grounds and
I loved, I saw footage of her addressing Congress yesterday at the Queen Elizabeth.
She made a joke because at the press conference for the tree, the microphones were so high, she was very small of
frame.
She's probably the same height as you, Jamie.
so they couldn't see her.
So when
she got
to Congress, the microphones had been lowered and she said, I hope you can see me now, unlike yesterday.
Yeah, no.
You know, I think what you want about Queen Elizabeth, but she always had the right thing to say at the right time and she always did it with a little bit of grace.
And yesterday when we talked about King Charles and Queen Camilla being in the US, I said, I didn't really understand the entire process because it was obviously some sort of
of Diplomacy Act.
And I think essentially after listening to him address Congress yesterday, King Charles, that is, I think that's exactly what this was.
It was simply a diplomacy mission from the king, mostly knowing how much this president reveres the royal family, right?
He has a lot of admiration.
And I think King Charles- Does he know
because he treats them with such disrespect when you saw him yesterday?
But right as Queen Camilla was shaking hands with the cabinet, he literally pushed her aside to shake his own cabinet's hand.
But at the same time, he wants to be acknowledged by kings and queens, and he wants that sort of acknowledgement.
And I think in this particular case, especially with the tensions right now between the US and the UK, I think that King Charles was probably the right diplomat.
to handle that because I can't see this this president being okay with the the prime minister coming in from England coming into the White House yesterday saying the
things yeah you're right no Charles said it in a way he made his points and I thought they were very good I thought he represented people who do not agree with this administration he represented us pretty well yep
said the things that needed to be said in a very diplomatic and regal way, still placating Trump just enough that maybe he'd listen or he wouldn't at least blow up.
So I thought it worked out very well.
It did.
It did.
And so if we're going with the olive branch of diplomacy, then I think King Charles and Camilla were probably the right
people to do that in this particular moment in time.
In other headlines, we're going to bring it right back here to Wisconsin because the Federal Bureau of Investigation yesterday said that it is aware of social media posts made by a Wisconsin activist who launched a promotion to offer free beer for his craft brewery on the day that Donald Trump dies.
Carolyn Clancy, who is a spokeswoman for the FBI Milwaukee office, said in a statement about
recent post made by Kirk Bankstad, he's the owner of the Manaqua Brewing Company.
She said, hateful rhetoric and speech are despicable.
She also went on to say that threats of violence or terrorism will be investigated by the FBI and the public is encouraged to report any threats of violence.
Now, the State Democratic Party on Sunday actually denounced Bankstad's post, promoting the idea of assassinating the president in the wake of the shooting at that DC event that he was in.
We're talking about the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
Bangstead, who, as we mentioned, owns the Minakwa Brewing Company.
He's also the founder of a political action committee that supports progressive politics.
He said Saturday in a post from his Brewing Company's Facebook account, we're not going to give the post any more exposure.
The post was made after a gunman opened fire at the dinner.
U.S.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the gunman
appeared to have targeted Trump and officials in the administration who were attending that event.
Now, Banksta did not directly respond to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's request for comment about the...
Democratic Party's criticism, but did make a separate Facebook post on Sunday where he hit back at the Democrats who criticized the post and actually stood by his previous comments by linking to merchandise for sale that promotes Trump's death.
What I'm gonna say is this has not died down.
He has double tripled and even quadrupled down as far as his views about the president and his posts that went out after the shooting at the White House Correspondents'
Dinner.
he really needs to look in the mirror and do a little self-evaluation.
This isn't edgy.
This isn't satire.
You can't normalize political violence.
Not right now, ever, but especially not right now with the rhetoric.
I said this yesterday.
I'll say it again.
I have no good feelings toward this administration.
That does not mean that in any way, shape, or form, I want somebody to be murdered.
He could be removed from office by election.
He could be removed from office from impeachment.
That would be fine with me if he stands trial for any of the alleged crimes that he's alleged again to have committed.
That would be fine with me.
But to say to promote this violence is irresponsible because in this day and age that we saw how crazy people can be.
The president talked against the Pope and the Pope's brother was getting death threats.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, who I have no good feelings for either.
Trump called her a traitor.
She received death threats.
Stop.
It's a wake-up call in more ways than one.
Time for some sh** you need to know.
All right, well, in the ballroom that will not die news, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has formally asked a federal judge to overturn the judge's own ruling that blocked construction of the White House ballroom.
In a nine page filing late Monday, Blanche argued that the shooting at the White House Correspondents Association dinner is proof that the ballroom is necessary for the president's safety and construction must be allowed to proceed.
Okay.
federal just do the news Brian okay federal judge Richard Leon imposed all I have a conversation excuse me while I talk to myself federal judge Richard Leon imposed a preliminary injunction earlier this month you know this that paused above ground construction until the administration obtains congressional approval well construction of a presidential bunker beneath the east wing was not subject to the injunction because
They want to bury them down there too.
A federal appellate court now reviewing the case then allowed all construction to continue temporarily and will hear further arguments in early June.
The lawsuit against construction was initially filed late last year by the Trust for Historic Preservation.
It said Monday that it had no intention of dropping its lawsuit, which quote, endangers no one and which respectfully asked the administration to follow the law.
That is a crazy request.
Can't do
it, Jamie.
I can't just read it.
Blanche is filing as Judge Leon for an indicative ruling, essentially a request for Leon to consider the impact of the dinner shooting and state whether he would lift the injunction or throw out the case if it were sent back to him.
We can't, I can't do this anymore.
Republican Rand Paul, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee said Monday he would introduce legislation to permit ballroom construction.
How have we kept our president safe?
for 250 years without a ballroom?
I have no idea.
That's a great question.
How are our leaders all over the world kept safe without ballrooms?
Dare I say, how is Vladimir Zelensky kept safe in a war without a ballroom?
Right.
They've had a lot of underground tunnels for Zelensky.
So there is that.
How
many people do those seat?
Oh, I don't know.
I'm assuming probably, you probably don't want that many people down there.
I'm assuming if you have your tunnels full, it's probably not a good day in Ukraine.
And I'm not trying to be facetious.
I'm just saying that if the tunnels are full, it's probably a bad day in that ongoing war.
Another war perpetuated by a country, mind you.
But this is obviously, this is not about security at this point.
I don't care what this administration wants to tell you.
It
is.
Look at, there was a very interesting picture posted online of when King Charles, then Prince Charles, was sitting in the Oval Office with none other than Richard Milhouse Nixon.
Right.
And then a picture of him sitting there yesterday with Donald J. Trump.
The amount of outlandish decoration that has been put in the Oval Office and all over the White House.
And the fact that he does, as you mentioned earlier in the show, Jamie, he idolizes kings and dictators, and he wants this for himself.
He wants his own palace of Versailles in America.
We don't need it.
We don't want it.
And he's trying to break the law by getting it, but it will not go away.
Well, and that's just it.
I mean, if you're looking at, if you're taking out the security issue and you're looking at simply the ego part of it, you're also looking at bypassing all of our constitutional checks and norms.
And I don't care who you are.
If you are somebody who is a more conservative voter, that should be very important to you because in this case, even though this ballroom is being described as privately funded and it's coming from.
but you're right, it's absolutely not.
Because taxpayers are gonna have to be part of the conversation because there is still security infrastructure, there's still federal land, there's still gonna be long-term maintenance on this.
So to even get the thing up and going, it's going to take millions and millions of dollars, which they have not completely accounted for, no matter what they tell you, it has not all been completely raised.
So it is going to have to come from taxpayer money.
So essentially, we're buying the ballroom and not to mention the fact,
that the White House is already owned by the American people.
That's why there's checks and balances.
Yes, it's not his house.
Right.
It is not his house.
It's not Mar-a-Lago.
Plus, more is going to come out about this, but there was a report in the New York Times yesterday that the contractor who is building, supposed to be building this ballroom, got a no-bid government contract on another project that is completely against the law.
Inner
circle?
The Constitution specifically states, the law states,
that there must be open bidding on all government contracts to find the best deal.
They got a no bid contract on something else and then they got this thing too.
So there's a lot more coming out about this, but it is ego driven and it is ridiculous.
Yeah.
But there's more stuff we need to
know.
There is more stuff you need to know.
We're going to bring it right back here to the state of Wisconsin because this is a fascinating story.
I do love gerrymandering.
I do.
A second three panel judge yesterday dismissed a challenge to Wisconsin's congressional maps, ruling it has no authority to act on the claims without further input from the state supreme court.
Now, in this particular ruling, it was stated until the state supreme court says other
non-justiciable and non-con-isable, I knew that was gonna be a hard one for me, under Wisconsin law, according to the judge.
Now, the law firm that brought this suit said it would immediately appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court that lawsuit was brought by law forward.
The decision is one of two cases that have been under consideration by separate panels composed of three judges from different counties
appointed by the Liberal-led state Supreme Court.
The lawsuits, which were filed in July of last year, followed multiple failed attempts to redraw the maps, which are currently represented by six Republicans and two Democrats.
Now, Law Forward is representing a group called Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy.
And the case essentially contends that the current maps amount to an anti-competitive gerrymander.
Republican members, of course, of the state's congressional
delegation and others want to dismiss this lawsuit.
The state's high court issued orders November 25th, concluding that the two legal challenges constituted a quote, an action to challenge the portion month of any congressional or state legislative district under a 2011 state law that requires these challenges to be heard by a panel appointed by the Supreme Court.
This was actually the first time that the 2011 law had been invoked in any sort of redistricting case though.
So we're just making history all over.
the place with this gerrymandering argument.
Here's the thing, you have a solution here, right?
The governor has laid out a solution.
There was a special session that was called two weeks ago now.
Yes.
That the Republicans refused to participate in.
Governor Evers would like to have permanent maps put into place.
So you have
an option here.
You have the option to negotiate with the Democrats to make sure that maps are fair to represent all of the constituents.
Now, if there's a reason you don't want to do that, that might say more about where you think your politics are and who supports you than anything.
But there's an option.
And spell those out.
Don't just use the, it's unfair.
Right.
That's a second grader's defense.
Right.
Tell us, tell us what your reasoning is for not wanting these maps.
permanent.
Yeah, and you can say, well, what about population shifts and that?
Well, the population shifts are mostly going to come from your major cities, Madison, Milwaukee, Eau Claire, bigger, bigger towns.
The population shifts in rural areas, probably are not going to increase.
They may decrease a little.
But what's what's the real reason?
And the real reason is we all know
Holding on to power
now to be
guaranteeing victory in certain
yes absolutely and to be completely fair because I know we have one other story this three panel This this panel of three judges did not say that the maps are fair.
They also didn't say they're unfair It's they simply said we aren't aren't going to decide this yet Which puts everything back in the hands of the state Supreme Court Which by the way will be a 5-2 majority once Chris Taylor is sworn in
So what do you
say?
Well,
here's another fact in more as you need to know, Jimmy Kimmel is in trouble again.
He's in the crosshairs of the president.
We talked about this a little bit yesterday, but now the FCC, which is led by a Republican ally of Donald Trump, is trying to go after the licenses of the parent company, which is Disney, which you know has a new CEO.
So Disney's ABC is hereby directed to file license renewals for all of their licensed TV stations within 30 days.
In other words, by May 28th, 2026, the FCC said in an order published yesterday afternoon, the order is not going to affect local stations right away.
It's just the start of a protracted legal process.
But nevertheless, the FCC order is an extraordinary escalation.
We know the Trump administration is very thin-skinned and cannot take a joke.
We know that they sued CBS and CBS acquiesced.
They sued them over the editing of not a Trump interview, which was edited heavily the other day, but of an old Kamala Harris interview they gave in.
That led to, if you want to connect the dots, that led to Colbert being gone.
Donald Trump has gone after Jimmy Kimmel before.
He was suspended last year for a little bit and came back.
So far, Disney is standing firm and saying, no, we are not canceling Jimmy Kimmel's show.
That was a joke.
It was a joke in the context of a fake roast.
You don't have to like the joke, but it is definitely not.
