Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at The
Federalist and as always, your experienced sure pot not today's
quest for knowledge. As always, you can email the show
at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow us on
x at fbr LST, make sure to subscribe wherever you
download your podcast, and of course to the premium version
of our website as well. Our guest today is Hans
von Spokowski, senior legal fellow in the new Edwin Meese,
the Third Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing
American Freedom. Hans is a constitutional expert and a election
law expert. We've talked to him many times and appreciated
his expertise on the complicated world of election law. Hans
joins us today to talk about the fate of the
Save America Act, the election integrity pitfalls ahead, and the
dems ceaseless lawfare campaign against Trump's allies. Hans, thank you
so much for joining us in this edition of the
Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: Oh, Matt, thanks for abouting me back.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, we're going to need every bit of your expertise
to figure out the lay of the land. Here on
the Save America Act, we have a House that has
the Republican controlled House, with very little help from Democrats,
on multiple occasions, has passed a version of what the
Save America Act, the current version of the Save America Act.
It's two core principles, of course, involve verification. Voter verification.
You've got to be a US citizenship to to vote
in the US elections, to be registered, and you've got
to show ID photo ID to vote in US elections.
That's a concept that the vast majority of Americans somewhere
between seventy and eighty five percent support. So why has
it been so difficult after it moves from the House,
and it has on multiple occasions, why is it so
difficult at the Senate level at this point.
Speaker 3: Well, one thing I want to point out, because you know,
the Democrats are just talking about how outrageous it is
and how this will you know, supposedly disenfranchise all these Americans.
Speaker 2: I like to point out that.
Speaker 3: Those two requirements proving your identity and proving your citizenship
are already the law. If, for example, you want to
apply for welfare public assistance benefits, federal all the federal
programs require you to be a citizen and to prove
your identity.
Speaker 2: Not only that, but I.
Speaker 3: Would remind everybody that Matt, you and me and everybody
listening to this podcast, in order to get the job
that you have that you use to support yourself and
your family under federal law, what did you have to
do to your prospective employer who was hiring You had
to prove your identity and either your citizenship or the
fact that you were an alien here legally and have
a work permit. So the idea that being advanced by
Democrats is somehow outrageous is just wrong.
Speaker 2: And it's hard to justify their opposition other.
Speaker 3: Than they like the fact that aliens are illegally registering
and voting, and enough of them are doing it that
they could make the difference in a close election.
Speaker 2: There's really no other justification for it.
Speaker 1: And clearly Americans know that I mean, and that is
with Democrats in a sustained campaign forever. You know, look
at the state battles over photo ID, and you know
they have been long and arduous to get to this point.
But a lot of states have photo ID to vote,
and their residents love it. They support it, they back it,
and more and more have come along over the last
twenty twenty five years in this country. But at every
turn Democrats have tried to create the narrative that this
would be disenfranchising to millions of Americans, that this is
Jim Crow two point zero, as Chuck Schumer and crew
like to call it. Americans aren't buying that clearly, So
why is it Democrats keep selling it Other than the
you know, the idea of you just mentioned that they
really want legal aliens, non citizens to vote in our elections.
Speaker 3: Well, the other problem that they have, and this is
particularly true for example, with voter ID, is that look,
Democratic leaders.
Speaker 2: You know, people like Chuck Shaw, they know.
Speaker 3: That, in fact, their constituents, you know, majority of Democrats
who vote for them, don't agree with their stance on
voter ID.
Speaker 2: I mean, the.
Speaker 3: Polling overwhelmingly shows that a majority of Democrats and a
majority of all Americans, no matter ethnicity, including Hispanics and
Black Americans, all think voter ID is a good idea.
But remember, huge amounts of money and support for the
Democrats come from all of these big, very rich foundations
and very big advocacy groups. Everyone from the Legal Women Voters,
which long ago became a democratic supporting orgization to other
organizations like the NAASV. They are adamantly opposed to voter
ID or proof of citizenship, and democratic leadership doesn't want
to upset basically the source of the money that helps
them get elected.
Speaker 2: And that's the dichotomy day face.
Speaker 1: You bet follow the money is always the guiding principle
for all of this stuff. That the other a question
about it. Okay, so we know the Democrats, we know
their resistance and their resistance movement. So what about Republicans
who say that they're all about election integrity but don't
seem to want to work for that in the US Senate.
Speaker 3: Well, the thing is, you know, I was just looking
at this the other day, and overwhelmingly the Republicans support
the Save Act. There's only a handful of exceptions. You know,
Susan Collins of Maine, the two supposedly Republican senators from Alaska,
Mitch McConnell also is voiced opposition to it. You know,
that's four out of fifty three. I wish that wasn't so,
but that's that's pretty good. You know, it's hard often
on many issues to find. Basically, you know, ninety five
ninety six percent of the Republicans in the Senate agreeing
on it.
Speaker 2: Look, the big problem they have is the filibuster rules.
You know, it takes.
Speaker 3: Sixty votes not only to end debate on a bill
once it gets to the floor, but just to get
the bill to the floor. A lot of people are
ignoring the fact that in order to have a bill
like the Save Act get to the floor of the
Senate where everything can start going, you have to first
make a motion to bring the bill to the floor.
That is a debatable motion and it obviously can be filibustered.
So overcoming those sixty votes is very, very difficult. And
in this case, this is one of those issues where
the Democrats are just uniformly party line against anything that
would increase the integrity and security election process.
Speaker 1: Now they got Fetterman back. Fetterman was all on board.
John Fetterman from Pennsylvania, who has been the only truly
voice of reason coming out of that party over the
last year plus in this country, is the only one
who doesn't suffer a severe bout of Trump derangement syndrome.
He was all in line for securing our elections through
the Save America Act. Now he's decided that it's not
going to happen. My understanding is Susan Collins actually came
out in support of this, so they would have her
at least the last that I heard. It's the Murkowskis
and the Mitch McConnell's of the world. And I realized
there is that threshold, that philibuster threshold, sixty votes is
very difficult, even when you have a solid majority in
the Senate. That said, there have been ways presented to
go around that sixty vote threshold. The talking philibuster is
that way.
Speaker 2: What do you think about that?
Speaker 1: And what do you think about John Thune's resistance to
that based he says on the numbers, on the math.
Speaker 3: Well, look, I can't argue with him on the numbers
when he says he doesn't have the vote to get
it to the floor to even start the debate, much
less get a debate going with a talking filibuster, And
I look, I want this bill to pass, but it's
hard to argue with the fact it doesn't have the numbers.
I really think one of the only ways they could
get this through is if they could somehow attach it
to one of those must pass bills that Congress has
usually connected with with the budget with appropriation, so that
so far hasn't been done.
Speaker 2: And even there, as you know, look, we really need.
Speaker 3: To fund the Department of Homeland Security, given that we
are in an armed conflict abroad, and we're now starting
to see a series of terrorist attacks inside the United States.
And yet even with those circumstances, the Democrats are fusing
to fund the Department of Homeland Security. I mean, that
is such an extreme position that it's very hard to
fighter about that against me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it should come as no surprise though for anybody
who's been paying attention, this is the same party that
has launched attacks, insurrections. Truly, if January sixth, twenty twenty
one was an insurrection, what we have seen attacks on
federal installations and federal employees is definitely an insurrection. And
it continues to go on because they don't like ice,
and they don't like they don't like federal law, enforcement
of federal immigration laws. And unfortunately, sadly, that's where we're
at in America. So perhaps it's no surprise. Do you
think there clearly is mounting pressure for some deal to
be set. How likely do you think it is that
Republicans would smartly use this in a reconciliation way to
get around the cloture sixty vote cloture rule, to fund DHS,
which needs to be done, fully fund DHS, and to
move the Save America Act through.
Speaker 3: I think politically it would be very smart for them
to do that, and I think folks like Mike Lee
and Ted Cruz realize that. I mean, yeah, it's politically smart,
it's also something that's needed to secure our elections.
Speaker 2: Look, one point I want.
Speaker 3: To make, if I may, is that, you know, the
biggest claim that's being made by the opposition of this
is that and you saw the Hillary Clinton claimed made
this absolutely absurd claim that seventy million women wouldn't be
able to vote.
Speaker 2: Yes, that is just so dumb. That is just so idiotic.
Speaker 3: People need to understand that the Same Act has this
whole process that it requires states to put in so
that if someone doesn't have the most easy obvious ways
of proving citizenship anything from a passport to a real ID,
a driver's license to birth certificate, they've got a set
up a process for folks where they can sign an
AFFI davit and provide whatever other documentation they.
Speaker 2: Have that shows they're US citizen.
Speaker 3: And you know, the idea that married women aren't going
to be able to do that, well, I guess she
must claim that seventy million married women are unable to
get on airplanes across the United States because somehow their
new married name doesn't match their original driver's license.
Speaker 2: I mean, that is just a ridiculous claim, right, You
check out a.
Speaker 1: Book from the library, Hans, and check out a book
from the library just you know, or buy a pack
of cigarettes if that married woman is a smoker or
booze or whatever. Again, Americans see through this nonsense. But
you know, when you're constantly battered with the same message,
and the accomplished media, of course, goes right along with it, well,
then you know you're going to get some Americans who
aren't really paying attention saying, oh my goodness, am I
going to not be allowed to vote here because the
Democrats are telling me that over and over again, and
the you know, corporate media is pushing that message out
as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: The other thing about this I think it's important to
note is, you know, folks on the Left kept saying, oh,
this never happens. You know, aliens, they don't register, they
don't vote, so there's no need for that.
Speaker 2: That again is just not true.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: If you do an easy, simple Google search, you'll find,
for example, before the twenty four election Virginia, Texas, once
they started checking their DMV records, we're finding folks who
had got you know, they were here legally, for example,
but they had gotten driver's licenses and they'd also registered vote.
They were removing thousands, thousands of aliens who were registered
to vote. And we've just very recently, I mean, the
US Attorney just arrested and indicted an illegal alien who's
been voting in every presidential election since two thousand and
eight in Philadelphia. Right, that's how bad the system is,
and it shows how it doesn't catch individuals. Of course,
that should be no surprise because, as you'll recall, a
couple of years ago, the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania
was forced to resign after it was revealed because of
a glitch in the state's DMV system, for the last
twenty years, they've been registering aliens to vote, and ever
since then they've been resisting revealing how many aliens actually
got registered and how many have voted. I mean, the
estimates are could be anywhere from ten thousand to one
hundred thousand, but we don't know because Pennsylvania has been
fighting fiercely in court to avoid revealing the number.
Speaker 2: That in itself tells you a lot.
Speaker 4: Eighteen hundred companies are in the amazing tariff for refund.
Race the Watchdout on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet. One hundred
and thirty billion dollars was taken in tariffs. Because those
tariffs were called off, Companies want their money back. Will
they get it? Whether it's happening in DC or down
on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watchdotal on Wall Street podcast with Chris
mccowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Absolutely it does. And here's the bigger problem. That's created
a bigger problem. You know you've been tracking this for
a long time. There was an explosion of leftist so
called nonprofit groups five oh one C three's that got
inside election offices election administration operations for the twenty twenty election.
They've been planning it for a very long time. They
were able to do that, and we are seeing the
fruits of those labors through very dirty voter rolls, particularly
in blue states that where you have these organizations that
had registered illegal aliens to vote. We've seen thousands upon
thousands on these voter rolls. And as you mentioned, we
have states Michigan that they as at least fifteen sixteen
illegal immigrants voted in the twenty twenty four election. Iowa
fifteen illegal immigrants they found voted in the last presidential election.
This is a reality and it cannot be divorced from
election integrity. It's gotten worse and worse. Let me ask
you this, though, do you think that the president President
Trump has is obviously very serious about this as top priority.
He's threatened he won't sign basically any other legislation until
this Save America Act goes to his desk it passes
the Congress. But do you think his recent calls to
add other things, including non election related reforms, to this bill,
is that a motivator to pass this bill or is
it distraction?
Speaker 3: I'll see it's unclear what he wants to have added
in Going back to what we were talking about before,
I really think the only way they can get this
past the almost completely uniformed Democratic opposition is to attach
it to some must pass.
Speaker 2: Appropriations bill.
Speaker 3: I really think that's the only way they can get
it through because I just don't think they can overcome
the filibuster.
Speaker 2: Threat in the Senate.
Speaker 3: And look, I know some people have said, well, we
should change the filibuster rule and get rid of it.
Speaker 2: Well, that's difficult to do because changing the.
Speaker 3: Rules requires a two thirds vote of the Senate. Right,
Democrats aren't going to agree to that. Others have said, well,
exercise of the nuclear option the way Harry Reid did
to change the interpretation of a rule without having that vote.
But look, Republicans need to think about the future and
the fact that at some point they will be in
the minority again. That just guaranteed. That's the way politics work.
And it was only the filibuster actually led by Mitch McConnell,
that stopped probably the worst election bill that could have
passed in the entire history of United States. Back when
Nancy Pelosi in the House passed HR one a bill
that would have nationalized our elections and do things like
ban all voter ID laws across the country. And if
we get rid of the philibuster at some point in
the future Democrats take over, that's exactly the kind of
thing they'll do.
Speaker 1: Our guest today is Hans Van Spokowski, senior legal fellow
in the new Edwin Mees the Third Institute for the
Rule of Law at Advance American Freedom. We're talking today
about the fate of the Save America Act, the election
integrity pitfalls ahead, and of course the democrats ceaseless lawfair
campaign against Trump's allies and where they will go from
here if they seize power again. And that's really at
the core of the Save America Act. Because we saw
what happened in twenty twenty. The editor in chief of
this news organization, Molly Hemingway, wrote a fantastic book called Rigged,
because that's exactly what the twenty twenty election was. It
was rigged, and not in the way that some insists
that it was. But there were all kinds of things
that were shoved in under the cover of COVID in
twenty twenty that were absolute violation of election law. There's
no doubt about that. Again, we saw these leftists organizations
embedded in election administration offices in some of the biggest, deepest,
bluest counties in the country. It was a rigged election.
So I'm curious, after having the left and their Trump
derangement syndrome for four years up to that point desperate
to obviously to remove this guy from office, they are
even more desperate now as we get to these critical midterms.
How many Shenanigans do you expect from the left in
this upcoming election year, given their absolute derangement and desperation,
and how much of that could be prevented by passage
of the Save Act.
Speaker 3: Well, as you know, there's always a huge voter registration
drive in an election year, and that particularly has already
started going on this year.
Speaker 2: So I mean, the.
Speaker 3: Same act would help prevent aliens from registering and voting.
Speaker 2: And I know folks are always talking.
Speaker 3: About illegal aliens, but the problem is both aliens who
are here illegally and aliens who are here illegally easily
registering and vote because we have such an honor system.
So yeah, I mean that's potentially a problem. We've also
had the issue unfortunately of judges, mostly liberal appointees, federal judges,
liberal appointees from Biden Obama, who have been ruling against
the Justice Department. The Justice Department has been trying to
get state voter registration lists, particularly from loose states, so
that they can see whether those lists are being accurately maintained.
I think they have a right to that under various
federal statutes, but you have judges ruling against them, saying
they're non titled to very bizarre rulings because, as you
well know, almost anybody else can get these lists. The
party organization's candidates buy these lists from the states, and
yet the judges are saying that the Justice Department, which
is tasked by federal law with enforcing and making sure
that those lists are accurate, can't get those lists. I mean,
it's really just another sign of how bad the federal
courts have gotten, and that also is an issue in
this upcoming election.
Speaker 1: Polling. Is interesting on this because it takes us into
a broader bill that I know you very much support.
It's called the Mega Act Make Elections Great Again. As
I note in a piece on the same America Act
that published at the Federalists today. You know, this mega
act would go well beyond in terms of election integrity reform.
What we're seeing from this very humble ask in the
Save America Act. It includes all the things that we
have seen wrong, inherently wrong. You noted at a roundtable
discussion last month about this bill. This would fix so
many of the things that not only plague our election
systems with all kinds of security and integrity issues, it
would do so much to restore flagging confidence in our elections.
New polling out suggests that just sixty percent of Americans
feel confident that votes nationally will be counted accurately and
fairly in the twenty twenty six election. That's down from
seventy seven percent as I understand it, from the twenty
twenty four presidential election. We've got to do something, don't
we about confidence in our elections?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, we do.
Speaker 3: And you know, the Supreme US Supreme Court itself noted
the importance of public confidence back in two thousand and
eight when it upheld one of the first photo ID
law requirements for voting in the country. You know, Indiana
passed that law. They were of course sued by the
ACLU and all these liberal groups. Supreme Court said that
there's nothing wrong with requiring a photo ID to vote,
that it's perfectly constitutional, and they pointed at two things.
One the fact that the US has a long history,
unfortunately of election fraud. But second, they said that that
kind of a requirement is very important to maintaining public
confidence in the election process because people aren't confident, they're
not going to turn out to vote. Not only that,
but it means that the winners of disputed elections, they
don't really have the mandate that they would normally get
for winning an election to actually engage in elected office
and you know, work on the kind of policy solutions
we need for our public policy problem. So yeah, and
maintaining and public confidence is extremely important.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it has been battered, of course over
the last several years in this country. What would the
Mega Act do? And if we can't get a basic
election reform bill passed in the Senate, how likely is
it this manifold very good but you know, very involved
election reform bill gets passed and signed in the law.
Speaker 2: Well, there's no question in my mind that.
Speaker 3: It'll pass in the House, which is controlled by Republicans,
even with a very narrow vote. But again they have
extreme problems passing it in the Senate because Democrats, now
for really three decades, have been adamantly against almost anything
that increases the security election process, including maintaining the accuracy
of voter registration roles. Again, this was demonstrated, you know,
I talked about HR one, the Nancy Pelosi bill.
Speaker 2: The Democrats passed.
Speaker 3: It had provisions in it to restrict the ability of
states to take ineligible voters you know, people.
Speaker 2: Who have moved away, et cetera, off the voter rolls.
Speaker 3: In essence, if that bill had become law, it would
have been almost impossible for states to remove ineligible voters
from their voter roles. And that that it was what
they thought was a good idea.
Speaker 2: And again it's just another example.
Speaker 3: I mean, the Mega Act, it incorporates the Save Act,
but then it has a whole.
Speaker 2: Bunch of provisions on.
Speaker 3: Increasing the accuracy of voter roles, for example, directing that
all federal agencies, not just the Department of Homeland Security
which has an alien database, but all federal agencies that
have potentially relevant information such as the Social Security Administration,
would have to cooperate with state efforts to verify both
identity and citizenship and residents of people registering to vote.
Speaker 2: Right now, you know you're that that's not happening.
Speaker 1: Well, what on earth is the justification for that not happening?
And it's really coming from once again the Democrats, obstructionist
to any election integrity reform.
Speaker 3: Well, you know they claim, oh, this will lead to
the purging they like that word, the purging of legitimate
voters because of mistakes in databases.
Speaker 2: Well, there's two problems with that.
Speaker 3: First of all, no state election officials automatically remove somebody
from the rules when they get some kind of evidence
that perhaps, for example, they don't actually live in the state.
When they get that kind of evidence, they individually investigate
that case to determine whether that information is correct. Same thing,
if they get information from the Department Homeland Security that
someone may not be US citizen, they don't automatically remove them.
Speaker 2: They investigate first.
Speaker 3: And the second thing is is there is not a
single individual in this country who, if they are an
eligible voter and they were registered, if they are mistakenly
through an error removed by election officials, every single one
of those people.
Speaker 2: Will be able to vote.
Speaker 3: Why because in two thousand and two, in the Help
America Vote at Congress passed a provision that requires every
state to put in a procedure for provisional ballots. That
means that if you show up at your polling place
and the polling people say, oh, they're not registered to
vote because they made a mistake, they removed you, all
you have to do is assert, oh, no, no, I'm
an eligible voter. I registered to vote. They have to
hand you a ballot. It's called a provisional ballot. You
get to voted. Election officials then, by law are obligated
to investigate, and if in fact they find they made
the mistake, they have to count your vote. So this
idea that all these eligible voters will be purged will
be able to vote, that's just a falsehood, once again
put by the left to oppose eluxur reform efforts.
Speaker 1: Indeed, in it's interesting to me this constant fight about
that because they clearly don't want the investigation. It's the
same thing with the honor system they keep talking about.
Is some kind of real defense against non citizens voting
in our elections, Well, we already have laws on the books.
It's a felony to lie about your citizenship when you register.
Whoever gets caught doing that, Hans, Well, it's not.
Speaker 3: Only that people don't get caught. I mean when we
say honor system, people need to understand. What we're talking
about is when you registered to oh, you had to
ask you whether a US citizen or not. But if
you are an alien and you check the box and say, uh,
I'm a citizen, the vast majority says they do absolutely
nothing to verify that.
Speaker 2: And that's why so many aliens.
Speaker 3: Aliens are able to successfully get registered and to vote.
And that is the whole problem right there, is that
we have that kind of an honor system that doesn't
actually do any checking to verify that really you really
are a US citizen.
Speaker 1: We have an honor system for people whose first act
of entering the country was to break the law. You
make that make sense, I guess.
Speaker 2: But yeah.
Speaker 3: Plus, look, it's overwhelmingly true that even when states discover
that someone is not a US citizen, most election officials
simply remove them from the roles. They do not prosecute them.
I know that from both personal experience as a county
election official, and I've seen that in many states.
Speaker 2: Who uh.
Speaker 3: You know, they'll they'll put out press releases saying, oh,
we removed you know this many aliens for our voter
rolls after discovering that they were now US citizens. But
then when you go to them and say, well, do
you turn this over to prosecutors, they'll say, uh no.
Speaker 2: And even if they did turn it.
Speaker 3: Over to prosecutors, that you often find the prosecutors don't
do anything about it not a priority.
Speaker 1: It hasn't really ever been in these and and and
part of that, A big part of that is das
have plenty of other things to worry about and they
don't see this as a priority. And that's the problem.
I know this, this probably never happened, but I want
to get your thoughts on this. Do you think it
should be disqualifying to run for office? If you are
this adamant adamantly against protecting our elections.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, giving.
Speaker 3: Giving government bodies the ability to just quali from running
for office, unfortunately, it could open up a Pandora's box.
Speaker 2: And I do think if that's your public stand.
Speaker 3: People should not vote for you. But extending and giving
government officials the ability to disqualify people running for office
to me, that's not a good idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I understand. I understand the pitfalls of that, just
as I understand the pitfalls of nuking the filibuster and
what that means for the future. But it comes from
a point of frustration. I think a lot of Americans
share that frustration with, you know, a party that simply
does not really want free and fair elections. How to
close with a great piece he wrote this week in
The Federalist. It is about the weaponizing of justice. It
was extremely vile and continues to be the lawfair that
has gone on to target allies of President Trump after
his first term. And he wrote in particular about a
story that I'm very familiar with. I havn't investigated this
for some time, and it is the state of Wisconsin's
attack under Democrat Attorney General Josh call On. Jim troopis
who is by any measure, a well respected attorney. He
is an expert on recount law in this country, the
go to guy for that.
Speaker 2: For years.
Speaker 1: He was a Dane County judge and held in nationally
high esteem. And he has been dragged through the mud
and over the hot coals in what I think is
nothing less than a political witch hunt to try to
go after Donald Trump by proxy. Tell us a little
bit about that case, where it stands, and why you
believe it should end. Now, Look, he's.
Speaker 3: Being criminally prosecuted for fraud because he did his job
as a lawyer representing Donald Trump in the twenty twenty
election when there was an election challenge.
Speaker 2: An election challenge went all the way to the state
Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: Now Biden won that, but it was a four to
three vote, which in a case, it was not a
frivolous challenge, and the recount.
Speaker 2: That was going on in this state.
Speaker 3: And yet Jim Troop is basically for doing his best
as a lawyer as being prosecuted for fraud. This is
such a bogus case that the Attorney General's own legal staff,
when they were consulted about it, they present a legal
opinion saying there had been no violation of Wisconsin state law.
But Carl basically overrode that got Jim troopis indicted anyway,
And there's nothing to this case other than a political vendetta.
And that has been made worse by the fact that
there's now evidence that the trial judge in the case
who issued an order refusing to dismiss the criminal prosecution.
There's evidence that he didn't even draft that order, that
it may have been drafted by another judge, a retired judge,
all of which is a huge violation of the judicial
code of conduct, and that trial judge, when confronted with this,
has refused to do anything about it, leading to Troopists
appealing the case. Your court, the Court of Appeals Wisconsin,
refused to do.
Speaker 2: Anything about it.
Speaker 3: It's now before the state Supreme Court, and even there
he has a problem because you have two justices on
that court, including the chief Justice, who have acted in
a way that is outrageous, attacking Troopis's character, qualifications, and
credentials publicly podcasts, press releases. I don't know if you
realize it, a matt but that's the kind of action.
If I, as a lawyer, did that attacked the credentials, qualifications,
character of a judge, I could be disciplined by my
state bar association. And yet these two justices on the
Supreme Court have acted in a way that really should
disqualify them from actually being on that court.
Speaker 2: And that's who his appeal is up before. Now.
Speaker 1: Their attorneys, their jurist. Why are there any repercussions for
them and their conduct which is absolutely abhorrent if you
read some of the politically charged statements that these two
justices have made to taint the waters, and they refuse
to recuse themselves. And that's really what this comes down to,
is that Jim Troops, and I should mention it's not
just Jim troopis there are two others as well, also
an attorney who has been practicing campaign law for a
long time. His name is Ken Cheesebro, And you know
that Ken Chezebro was involved in what the left keeps
calling the fake elector falsely calling it that alternative alternate elector.
He advised the Gore campaign to follow this strategy. The
Gore campaign was very much considering it, but decided against
it in the two thousand election, and they did so
even the liberal justices of the Supreme Court said they
did so at their own political peril. So this can
be seen as nothing but a politically charged prosecution to
three individuals who clearly are caught up in this very political,
you know, motive, politically motivated, which hunt that is going
on right now? Where do you see this ending? Is
there a way that these three men avoid being convicted
of these insane charges.
Speaker 2: Well, it's only if the.
Speaker 3: Two Supreme Court justices, who have acted in what I
considered be an unethical and unprofessional manner, if they astu
accuse them, or if they finally do the right thing.
And unfortunately, the evidence about the Wisconsin judicial system is
that it is biased, that it is unfair that just
judges and prosecutors there I have no hesitation about using
the system to go after members of the opposite political party. So,
you know, maybe I'm being cynical, but I have my
doubts that this tremendous wrong is going to be rectified.
Speaker 1: I don't think you're cynical at all about this. One
need only look at the notorious, infamous John Doe investigation
of the previous decade to know just what the leftist
in Wisconsin, including the judicial system, is capable of doing.
Final question for you, appreciate all of your time and
your expertise today, But given what is going on in Wisconsin,
given the desperation of the Democrat Party in this country,
if they regain power, where do you see law fare
going in America after twenty twenty six?
Speaker 3: Oh? I think it'll be even worse than it was
after the twenty twenty election. Democrats have shown that they
have no regrets, no compunction whatsoever about using the criminal
justice system against their political opponents, and I would expect
that Star Chambers Soviet style show trials will be implemented
in as many blue states as possible and blue cities
as possible to go after Republicans who they oppose. And
that's going to be the final straw, I'm sorry, sorry,
final nail in corrupting our judicial system, which already is
having problems because of the Romanium radical liberal left wing
judges appointed by Joe Biden and Barack Obama who are
not complying with the law, twisting the law, breaking the law.
Speaker 2: For political purposes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we've spent it time and time again. Just look
at the past to know what the future holds. Thanks
to my guest today, Hans von Spakowski, senior legal fellow
in the new Edwin Meaes the Third Institute for the
Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom, You've been listening
to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt
Kittle's senior elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back
soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom. I'm
anxious for the frame. I heard the fame voice the Reason,
and then it faded away.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm