S*#t You Need To Know: Can We Have Some Consistency?

It's a wake-up call in more ways than one.

Time for some sh** you need to know.

Lot going on and a lot of it involves Jamie's favorite subject to rail against gerrymandering Yesterday in a side note yesterday marked the 72nd anniversary of the US Supreme Court decision on Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka Which led that which held rather that racially segregated public schools were inherently unequal and therefore Unconstitutional which was a great ruling

Now fast forward 72 years and we seem to be going backwards because on Friday the Supreme Court rejected Virginia's bid to restore a congressional map that would have given Democrats a chance to pick up four seats in the closely divided House of Representatives.

The court's order issued without any noted dissent is in the is the latest twist in the nation's mid decade redistricting competition.

It's kicked off.

It was kicked off by Donald Trump urging Republican control.

states to redraw their lines and was supercharged by a recent Supreme Court ruling severely weakening the Voting Rights Act that opened up even more winnable seats for the GOP because why let people of color vote they don't know what they're doing so we're going to go back to the Confederacy.

In recent days the justices have sided with Republicans in Alabama and Louisiana who hope to redo their congressional maps.

to produce more GOP-leaning seats, but the Virginia situation was different.

It stemmed from a 4-3 ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court that struck down a constitutional amendment that voters passed just last month.

Now, they say narrowly passed, but passed is passed.

So the voters said yes.

The state court found that the Democratic control legislature improperly began the process of placing the amendment of the ballot on the ballot

after early voting had begun in Virginia's general election last fall.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, Jamie.

In Louisiana, voting had already begun and

they just

suspended that election altogether.

They did.

They absolutely did.

Yes.

All right.

Just checking.

Yeah.

Supreme Court typically doesn't intervene in state court proceedings unless it's against Donald Trump.

Unless they present an issue of federal law.

So, Virginia Democrats had hoped to persuade the justices of the Virginia court misread federal law and Supreme Court precedent that hold that even if early voting is underway, an election does not happen until Election Day itself.

This is the ripple effect of what happened with the Supreme Court, right?

And in Georgia last week, Governor Brian Kemp said he wasn't going to call for new maps before the midterms.

Turns out he's going to.

He's now asked the state legislators to start drawing up those new maps.

And this is what happens.

This is what happens when the Supreme Court rules in the way that they did.

And this is why this ruling is so

dangerous for democracy.

It's literally a danger to democracy with with what they did and it is going to have a ripple effect because now blue states are trying to counteract and this is this is why I get on my gerrymandering soapbox because this is bad for all voters.

And again there is there has been a bill in the US Congress for years that would put a stop to this but as we've seen that one party

And it either starts with an R or a D, but I think it starts with an R. I don't know for sure.

They're afraid that they will lose their power.

And so they have done everything they can to block that bill.

But let's move on.

There is some other stuff

to

know.

I want to talk to you about

the last story.

Yes, absolutely.

Very much.

So we're going to bring this story closer to home because UW-Madison is closing a pair of libraries this summer as a result of a campus-wide budget cuts.

Friday was the last day students, faculty, staff, and the public could visit the Geology and Geophysics Library, and the Social Work Library closes on August 14th.

Now, the former chancellor of UW-Madison announced in June

that the university departments would need to cut their budgets by 2026 by 5% or 7% for the next school year.

She also went on to say at a February UW Board of Regents meeting that the cost-cutting measures yielded $64 million in savings for UW-Madison.

Now the budget cuts accelerated a planned consolidation of UW-Madison's libraries outlined in a 2017 report.

UW-Madison Libraries Associate Dean for Learning and Engagement

Kerry Cruz said that nearly a decade-long library plan aims to create larger libraries serving the whole campus rather than smaller ones scattered in academic buildings.

Now UW-Madison closed the Astronomy, Mathematics, and Physics Library in August.

In the fall, the Rebecca M. Blank Student Commons, the library and study space named after the late Chancellor, opened in the new Morgan, Morebridge Hall.

Library collections are being transferred to other locations and will remain available.

Students and the campus community checked out their last books this week at the geology library on the fourth floor of Weeks Hall.

Its collections are moving to Steenbach library or the university's shelving facility in Verona.

The campus can request all of the materials in the catalog for delivery to another library for checkout.

The UW libraries will catalog the social work library

materials for at least six months after it closes in August.

So, I mean, you're still going to be able to check these books out, so I guess that's good, and they can still be requested.

I don't know.

Anytime I get it, I get budgets, but anytime I see a library close, it always makes my heart a little sad, because I am a box person.

Yeah,

and these programs are important for

a lot of

students and a lot of faculty and staff, but...

They'll find, pardon me, they will find a way.

All right, this one, normally on, when we're talking about the S, you need to know, we don't invite you to jump in, but you can jump in on this one if you want.

Is there any answer to the obvious corruption that is happening in this administration?

855-75CIVIC, 855-7524842.

I have been apoplectic about this since I heard about it over the weekend, and I'm surprised it's not a bigger thing.

But, you know, we'll make it a bigger thing.

The Department of Justice is finalizing a deal to launch a so-called Truth and Justice Commission, but that is not the full name.

It is the Donald J. Trump Truth and Justice Commission, and establish a compensation fund of $1,776 million.

To pay claims made by alleged victims of government weaponization in exchange for President Trump dropping his ongoing lawsuit against the IRS.

Now that's according to sources and ABC News.

They said that the proposed deal, which is likely to face legal hurdles and has already been criticized by Democrats as a slush fund for Trump's allies, arose after months of deliberation between the White House and DOJ officials who originally attempted to craft a legal justification for the settlement to compensate Trump directly.

Now, the lawsuit is because somebody leaked his tax returns.

The weirdness and you should be able to see this is Donald Trump run is in charge.

He's he's the president all these all these departments are under him, but That's all right He's gonna sue them anyway, but this is this is a slush fund.

That's all it is I'll give you I'll give you a few more facts.

So they're using a centuries old legal practice known as the rule of necessity

DOJ lawyers have argued that no alternative existed other than letting the lawsuit proceed with Trump acting as the plaintiff while being directly in charge of the defendants, the IRS and the Treasury.

So they're saying he's a private citizen as well as the president, which I don't really buy.

In the court filing this week, the attorneys identified serious issues with the lawsuit.

This is

the people on the sensible side, arguing that Trump has extraordinary control over the defendants in the case and that the circumstances raise the specter that defendants and their attorneys may instead be operating at the president's direction.

You think?

Additionally, since taking office, President Trump has significantly expanded the president's oversight and control of the attorney general and the DOJ, including the way in ways that blur the line.

So he would be eligible.

Trump would not be eligible for payment himself, but entities that he controls or that benefit him would be eligible for the funds.

They'd also it also would give settlements to 1600 people who were convicted after the insurrection.

Trump would have the ability to fire some of the people on this commission if they weren't.

giving the money to who he thought was going to be.

This is one more step of this president enriching himself at our expense.

He is suing you for this money.

Don't be mistaken.

This has nothing to do with the IRS.

This has nothing to do with anything.

It's about him getting richer and you're paying for it.

So if that's cool with you, it's not cool with me.

a billion seven hundred and 76 million.

1776, get it?

Yeah.

What I think is fascinating about this is the fact that you're right, we haven't heard a lot about it, but this is a president who has used this office to enrich himself and his inner circle through both versions of the presidency, right?

And

I think

it's been more outright in the second version.

But there's so many things that are wrong with this, right?

First, let's talk about the, I mean, where do you start?

So let's start first.

You see that's just it.

Where do you start?

First of all, the fact that it's even a possibility.

Can

we start there?

That shows, again, Congress has no spine.

And the fact, again, to point out, so rightly what you did, this is taxpayer money.

So we're paying for this.

So first, where's the accountability?

because this proposal would allow this commission to distribute the funds but without any sort of transparency about how those decisions are made.

Second, there's precedent here.

If a government can actually create a fund like this that's tied to political claims,

what stops future administrations, Republican or Democrat, from doing the exact same thing.

Third, I think there's also a trust issue here because there are already concerns about politicization with this administration.

And now we're talking about benefiting allies or specific groups that are tied specifically to the president.

And so when those government actions are tied to politics,

it erodes trust in our institutions.

And so for me, I guess, so many things, again, wrong with this, but those would be the three that would stick out as far as the first three that I would start picking at along with the taxpayer money.

Lynn Texan from Golden Valley, she says, maybe Dems should start campaigning on clawing back funds dispersed under the Trump administration.

I like that idea, Lynn.

It's my

The main thing I keep coming back to before I start breaking it all down is why is nobody stopping this?

It's corruption out in the open.

It used to be if you were corrupt, you kind of had a little shame.

You kept it in the dark.

They're doing it right out in the open and basically begging us to stop them.

and nobody is stopping them.

When you're proposing setting up this slush fund, and that's what I'm going to call it because that's what it is, that's money that is not going to be appropriated by Congress, that's going to be decided by the five commissioners, four of whom were appointed by the Attorney General, who we already know is Trump's first former personal lawyer,

and then the fifth one by the president who has complete power over the commissioners to get rid of them.

If you have any doubt what's happening here, you need to wipe the dew off your eyes and see what's up because this is just the latest.

If this were the only thing it would be, oh wow, how is this happening?

It's just another brick.

in the chain of corruption that's going on.

The enrichment of this president.

It's a wake up call in more ways than one time for some you need to know Baylor outran out outstressed and outpitched Wisconsin early in the Badger season ending 5-2 loss on Saturday in the Austin regional of the NCAA softball tournament Wisconsin scored first Hillary Blumberg had a solo home run in the first inning that gave the Verona native sole possession of the UW single season home run record with 16 congratulations Hillary, but

That lead was short lived Parker.

Baylor answered with a four run bottom of the first inning in part thanks to some shrewd base running.

Oh, you can never out.

You gotta respect shrewd base running and a small ball.

The first run came as Samaya Jones stole second base.

Brooklyn Carter stole home on the throw.

That's always fun to watch.

Baylor then loaded the bases and scored on an RBI single.

So.

The Bears loaded the bases again.

Oh man, Wisconsin.

What happened to your pitching?

Then they walked her, somebody in the fifth.

UW started pitcher Barrett, her.

She stopped the bleeding at that point.

Okay.

And reliever Kendra Lewis worked out of a bases loaded jam in the third.

The Badgers had opportunities to come back.

Frank sent us a headline saying they had won.

That was because the season ending outcome was one day after Wisconsin had beaten.

them had beaten baler in the first round of the austin regional uh in that game hannah conger hit a walk-off double wisconsin ends its 2026 season with a 32 3 21 record not too shabby

The UW is back to back 30 plus wins seasons in 25 and 26.

We're the first for the Badgers since 2011, 2014.

So good for you.

Sorry to end it so soon, Lady Badgers, but we don't call them Lady Badgers anymore, do we?

That sounds

as bad as your softball.

That sounds as dramatic as the White Sox Cubs game yesterday.

And

yes, I'm bringing it back up for your pain, Frank.

Bring it back up.

Thank you.

It is.

Yeah, I am.

I'm on cloud nine today, not just because of the wind, but because of Frank's angst.

That's because we established last week, Jamie, that Frank is fueled by hate.

Yes.

And so.

Again,

we've

established that the week before.

I mean,

I was.

I think

we.

There's always more.

All last week it was, save me the first second.

Save me the first second.

He just texted the show chat telling us we all suck, so.

See, he hates us.

But we suck in first place, Frank.

More stuff you need

to know.

All right, in other news, a proposal to fund $1 billion in security additions for the White House campus and the president's new ballroom failed to meet procedural rules according to the Senate parliamentarian, dealing a blow to Republican plans to include it as part of a bill to fund immigration enforcement agencies for the next three years.

The parliamentarian's ruling described late Saturday by Senate Democrats said that funding for a project as large and complex as president

Trump's massive East Wing renovation is too broad to be included in this narrow GOP budget bill which cannot be filibustered and only needs a simple majority to pass.

The filibuster was a large part of the Wisconsin GOP convention by the way this weekend.

Ron Johnson making it clear that it needs to be completely undone before the Democrats

come

back into power.

I

digress.

I

digress.

Now at this point, it is unclear if Republicans will be able to immediately salvage any part of this billion dollar secret service proposal, which would fund security for Trump's ballroom along with other parts of the White House, including a new visitor screening center, additional training for agents and extra reinforcements for large events.

Republicans said Saturday night that they are revisiting the legislation based on the parliamentarian's advice.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader John Thune wrote in a post on X that quote, none of this is abnormal during the complicated budget process that Republicans are using to try to pass the immigration enforcement and White House security money on a partisan basis.

Democrats have seized on the security request, accusing Republicans of dedicating precious federal resources

resources to the ballroom effort instead of focusing on helping Americans with rising costs.

Republicans have insisted that private donations will be used to build the ballroom and that the federal dollars are focused on much needed security enhancements.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took credit for the ruling after Democrats argued to the parliamentarian that the security money doesn't belong in the bill.

The ruling from the Senate parliamentarian is just advisory, but such rulings are rarely

if ever ignored, okay, when lawmakers put together legislation that can pass with a simple majority.

Most bills are subject to a filibuster and thus need 60 votes for passage, meaning Republicans must find some Democrat support in the 53 to 47 Senate.

And of course, we know that this GOP doesn't really care about the rules or regulations.

And pretty much proceed

however they want.

Can we stop with the lie that it's all going to be privately funded?

We know that's not true.

We know we wouldn't need all these these extra security measures.

We already have a bunker.

There's already Secret Service.

I'm even if you want to make a screening section a little better, which OK, that's fine.

That's not a billion dollars.

You don't need a second bunker under this ballroom.

We don't we didn't need the ballroom.

Nobody wanted the ballroom.

It's just it's a non starter.

But they keep they keep using the same

Talking points and it's it's tiresome quite frankly.

No, we know if you're asking for a billion dollars.

It's not being funded by private donation, right?

It's not

Right.

This is another vanity project.

It's

going to be done a lot of this through taxpayer money.

And here's the same thing.

The government at this stage obviously does not have the same priorities that you and I do.

Because if they did, they would know that the rising costs are most people's main priorities at this point, not a billion dollar security effort in a ballroom that basically isn't really needed.

I mean, there still

is no reason.

There isn't a purpose for this ballroom other than the fact that this administration wants to create a version of the president's private home at the White House.

And now we've taken a historic building that

you and I own because taxpayer owned building because it's the White House and we've destroyed it without any sort of congressional support, votes, anything.

And now we're asking us again.

us to support a building that we've already been supporting for many, many years.

And this is where we're at in this particular loop of events.

It's a billion for this.

It's a billion seven hundred seventy six million for this slush fund deal.

It's just more money rolling in for these vanity projects.

And that's that's really all it is.

It's a guy with a really fragile ego who is

putting up golden statues of himself, erecting arches, repainting the reflecting pool, gilding the White House in tacky gold lame.

The whole thing is creating a kingdom.

And he is being allowed to do that.

But this is this is nuts winner.

It's our money, folks.

It's it's

the

folks

in Washington work for us.

They work for us.

Well, do they?

Yes.

On paper, I know they're supposed to, Jamie.

Do you feel like they work for you?

I honestly don't.

Not, I haven't in quite some time.

Okay.

But at the end of the day, they do still work for us.

Yeah,

but...

That

we don't need to vote

them as somebody primary then.

We can technically fire them at election time, but if...

If you or I are doing as poor a job as Congress would be doing, they're not going to give us six years to vote us out of the Senate.

And a lifetime appointment,

essentially.

Right, exactly.

We are, you and I and everybody else, if we're doing a horrible job, we're ousted right then.

These guys, yes, they, technically, they work for us.

They don't.

Technically, we can fire them.

Yeah, but it's going to take a long time.

And a lot of these guys

They never get fired.

Right.

No matter how awful they are, they never get fired.

Then it's time to buckle up folks and get ready for the midterms because there's some really great candidates and there's a lot of lifelong congressional members that are being primaried.

I mean,

you saw it over the

weekend.

Yeah.

It's time to buckle up and it's time to decide whether we want this government to actually work for the people, which are us who are paying for things like this ballroom, or if we want this government to continue to function as it is.

And I don't know, I'm not done with this experiment called the United States and Democracy yet.

I don't think we've fully seen what it's capable of.

I'm not ready for it to be over, so.

I'm not either, but it really seems like it's on its way out.

And we're just we're just along for the ride.

We're just watching it happen.

And I don't know what I don't know what drastic measures it's going to take other than a huge turnout at the at the polls.

That's it.

That's that's our only recourse.

is

to get everybody out.

Hopefully people are getting upset enough, even with everything we're seeing with the Supreme Court rulings on the Voting Rights Act, the gerrymandering, because none of these states want gerrymandering.

That's it.

A lot of these states have already said, no, we don't want this, which is where this is coming from, right?

Because these state governments that are like, well, they don't possibly know what they want.

Yes, they actually do.

They've told you they don't want this.

They've voted against it.

Yet you're going against the will of the people.

Because the orange one wants it.

And what the orange one wants, the orange one gets.

Lessing.

Real quick, the new lawsuit from the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin argues allowing clerks to decide whether or not to offer absentee voters a chance to correct information on their mail-in ballots, violate the state constitution.

The group is asking a Dane County judge to order a uniform and mandatory process for addressing defective ballots and notifying those who mail them.

The suit was filed Tuesday in Dane County Circuit Court.

It claims giving local clerks the discretion to create their own procedure.

for telling voters about how to fix or fix missing or incomplete information on absentee ballot envelopes, violate state due process provision.

The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin argues that because clerks in some communities can decide not to notify voters who then won't know their ballots weren't counted until after the election.

Oh, that sounds sus.

Wisconsin

doesn't have

a statewide rule on this.

Well,

they need one.

There's a statute.

And we need one.

6.87, but there's no clear statewide rule.

So clerks can essentially decide to do whatever they want to do.

So that's not cohesive.

That's not consistent, which

I

think is what the League of Women Voters is trying to say.

It's about integrity.

Let's have a cohesive rule for everybody that we all have to follow.

Integrity is a big word and a lot of people not only can't pronounce it, they don't understand it.