Why Republicans are in Much Better Shape Than You Think

On Tuesday's "Dan O'Donnell Show," Dan looks at the actual data and finds that Democrats might not be in position for a big blue wave year like 2006 and 2018 after all. Plus, GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany joins Dan to discuss his opponent's abysmal record on crime in Milwaukee County.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We are here to cover it all on the Dan
O'Donnell Show. If you would like to join us, 414-799-1130
on our Carpetland USA Flooring Center talk and text line,
you can always email me, dod at iheartmedia.com, at Dan
O'Donnell Show on X, Facebook, Instagram, and our YouTube channel.

(00:21):
And we are back streaming live via the Dan O'Cam.
You can watch the show in addition to listening to it.
at any of our social media channels, X, Facebook. Check
out the conversation on YouTube. We have got a great
group of people who watch the show, who comment along.
Be part of Dan Nation. And if you miss a

(00:43):
single second, be sure to subscribe, like, download, and listen
to each and every day the Dan O'Donnell Show podcast
on iHeartRadio or wherever you.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
Listen to podcasts.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
Just to get you caught up on things that were
going on today, President Trump hosting an event marking nearly
25 years since 9-11. That, of course, big anniversary coming
up on Friday. He was at the White House today.
We will get to that in the Daily Trump Date
later on. Gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany will join us today

(01:17):
after a press conference this morning in which he absolutely
unloaded on David Crowley, his Democratic opponent, and also the
Milwaukee County executive for giving iPads, to jail inmates.

Speaker 3 (01:32):
David Crowley. In 2022, David Crowley signed off on Milwaukee
County's inmate tablet program. Under that program, every inmate, regardless
of their crime, receives a tablet. Earlier this year, a
man being held on domestic violence charges attempted to contact
his victim more than 1,500 times.

Speaker 4 (01:52):
1,500 times.

Speaker 3 (01:57):
He also threatened a Milwaukee police officer and put him
on a hit list. That story became public in May.
David Crowley knew there was a serious problem, but he
did nothing to fix it. No meaningful new safeguards, no
changes to the program, nothing to make sure another victim
wouldn't be terrorized from inside the Milwaukee County Jail.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
And in fact, a triple murder suspect. A couple of
months later, just a few weeks ago, actually was talking
about threatening or possibly intimidating or possibly engaging in violent
acts against potential witnesses to his crimes. Thomas Zollicoffer raised
the ire of the judge in his case, David Borowski,

(02:41):
who went on a viral rant that alerted people to
the fact that every single inmate, regardless of what crime
they committed, and that's absolutely stunning to me, gets a
free jail iPad. We will talk with Tom Tiffany about
that and much more. This, as the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association,

(03:01):
the WBA, announces that for the first time in more
than 35 years, it's not going to.

Speaker 2 (03:08):
Be hosting a debate this fall.

Speaker 1 (03:10):
And we're supposed to feel bad for the WBA, which
I believe is a great organization. But let's face it,
as word now starts to come out that David Crowley's campaign,
of course, agreed to the debate because they know that
the moderators are going to be favorable to Crowley. But
of course, Tom Tiffany, his campaign also knew that those

(03:33):
same moderators were going to be favorable to David Crowley.
The issue of bias is finally starting to bite these
broadcasters and hopefully television networks at the presidential level in
the you-know-where, because you cannot simply expect that Republicans are
going to show up for your debates if your anchors

(03:55):
and if your networks have an overarching pattern of being
biased to one side. For example, If I were to,
when Tom Tiffany comes on the show at about 5.06 p.m.,
invite him to come on for an hour-long debate on
my show and then start advertising it as a big event,

(04:16):
invite David Crowley. Of course, Crowley is not going to
show up for a debate on the Dan O'Donnell Show.
In fact, I would make a substantial donation to the
David Crowley for Governor campaign if Crowley actually had the
guts to debate Tom Tiffany on my show. I could
promise to donate 100,000. I would create my own super
PAC for David Crowley. I could name any number because

(04:39):
I know they don't believe that the man is intellectually
tough enough or strong enough. to be able to hang
with not just his opponent, Tom Tiffany, but also a
debate moderator who is not totally in the tank for him.
And yet we're supposed to pretend that somehow it's a
big scandal that Tom Tiffany didn't want to go into

(05:01):
a liberal hornet's nest and answer questions. Now, the two
campaigns did in fact agree on a debate on WISN
Channel 12 on October 21st because the moderators have proven
themselves over and over and over again to be very fair.
Matt Smith and Jaron Jordan, the anchors of Upfront, the

(05:22):
weekly Sunday news program, they have always been fair. They
do not do soft coverage on the Democrat, nor do
Republicans expect soft coverage on them. They simply expect not
to run into Democrat propaganda. We'll get into this in
a little bit greater depth later on on the Dan

(05:44):
O'Donnell Show.

Speaker 2 (05:45):
But first.

Speaker 1 (05:46):
It is the first day, the day after Labor Day,
when it's generally believed in traditional political circles that people
start paying attention to what's going on in politics. Everybody
got their last trip to the Wisconsin Dells or maybe
Door County, or maybe you had some cookouts, or like me,
you had about 1,500 fantasy drafts. Believe it or not,

(06:08):
I've got my last fantasy football draft tonight after one
on Friday, one on Sunday, two on Monday. won last week.
I think there was a guillotine draft in there somewhere.
The NFL season, of course, starts tomorrow night, Wednesday night
football to kick off the year instead of the traditional
Thursday night football. The reason for that is the Thursday

(06:31):
night game is actually going to be played on a
Friday because it's going to be played in Australia, but
it's going to be broadcast here live because of the
time change. So, You've had a lot to do, is
my point. On Labor Day weekend, you've had a lot
to do over a long, busy summer, kids, baseball, camps,
and vacations, and all sorts of stuff, right? Well, traditionally,

(06:56):
It's believed that people really start to get back into
the rhythm of the rest of the at 7.15 in
the morning every single morning, and there are vacations in there,

(07:17):
so you don't get into a regular schedule. And the
thinking is that most people, most sane people, of course,
here on the Dan O'Donnell Show, we are anything but.
We focus on politics with a laser-like focus every single
second of every single day. unless, of course, we're doing
fantasy football drafts or coaching soccer or something like that.

(07:38):
But for most normal people, the belief is that they
don't want to be focused on the serious issues that
plague the world. They want to listen to some country music,
kick back with the Miller Lite, and relax. But all
of that supposedly changes the day after Labor Day. I've
never bought into that. I believe that people are far

(07:58):
more in tune with politics today because you really can't
escape politics anymore. The left has made politics about everything.
Everything is sort of imbued with leftist politics now and
overt or covert liberal messaging that you'll get in everything
from the summer blockbuster movie that you might see to,

(08:21):
my goodness, you can't even watch the WNBA game without
them complaining about Caitlin Clark and her fans. My point
is that I've never really bought the idea that politics,
people kind of take some time off from it. But
now that people are really locked in, now that they're

(08:43):
really starting to focus on the narrative, the narrative has,
of course, got to be, as it always seems to
be on this, the day after Labor Day, the Democrats
simply can't lose, that Democrats are going to be dominant,
that Democrats are going to run away.

Speaker 2 (08:59):
With this election.

Speaker 1 (09:00):
Of course, this was the narrative that we got two
years ago. Remember Kamala's brat summer. Remember this brat Kamala
is brat. This is like the most 2024 thing ever.

Speaker 2 (09:16):
Brat was, I guess, good.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
I have not heard any Kamala was such a terrible candidate.
that she actually single-handedly killed a teenage saying, like that
something is brat, something is cool, something is very good.
Kamala is brat. When they started pushing Kamala is brat,
the kids are like, oh, cringe. I don't know what

(09:42):
happened to 6-7, if that just sort of petered its
way out, or they tried to somehow tie James Tallarico
to 6-7. Nothing kills a meme quite like Dem politicians
getting involved in said meme. But we were told that...
all the swing states, this was serious polling right before

(10:03):
the 2024 election, that last minute deciders were all in
the swing states breaking for Kamala Harris because, you know,
she's so brat. Every single swing state went for Donald Trump.
The election was not particularly close. In early September, it
was even worse. Well before the first debate, well before

(10:25):
any actual usable polling, which, by the way, was still
over-sampling Democrats and still undercounting Republicans, but it was much
better than it was in 2020 or, of course, 2016,
Kamala Harris was expected to run away with the race.
In midterm elections, you will see polling even more skewed

(10:49):
to Democrats. But what's actually kind of amazing is that
early September polling and what's known as the general election ballot,
the generic ballot. It's been pretty darned accurate. You might

(11:09):
get some outliers, but. While Democrats typically enjoy a big
advantage in polling, in August, by early September, when people
start paying attention, that advantage goes away. In mid-September 2006,
we're going to go all the way back. There were

(11:29):
two years in which Democrats did not control the presidency
and were running in a midterm election. Generally speaking, the
conventional wisdom about midterm elections is that the out party,
the party that does not control the presidency, is going
to do very well because there's just this general desire

(11:51):
on the part of voters. There's this sort of intrinsic,
inherent reflex that we don't want one party to have
too much control or there's a natural backlash to the
president or whatever it is that he's doing. But what
I think it actually is, is the party that just
lost a presidential election two years earlier is going to

(12:11):
be way more motivated, way more ticked off and way
more likely to get all of their voters out to
the polls because they're going to try to avenge the
last loss. So we're going to go all the way
back to 2006, all the way back to 2006. You
might notice that I'm not using 2002, and that.

Speaker 2 (12:32):
Is actually by design.

Speaker 1 (12:34):
2002, because of 9-11 being a little more than a
year later, Republicans did incredibly well. It was the first
time in more than 100 years that the president's party
in a midterm election actually took control of a chamber
of Congress. Republicans won control of the Senate in 2002

(12:55):
because Republicans were way more trusted on the only issue
that mattered back then, national security. So 2006 and 2018
are the only two years where Democrats did not control
the presidency, were trying to win a midterm, but there
wasn't this huge black swan event of 9-11. In 2006,

(13:18):
The Real Clear Politics average of generic ballot polls at
about September 14th, so about a week after right now, five,
six days after right now, the average was Democrats plus 9.7.

Speaker 2 (13:36):
About 10 points.

Speaker 1 (13:38):
Democrats in the House of Representatives that year went on
to win the popular vote. They got more votes in
every single House elections.

Speaker 2 (13:47):
By 7.9%, 8%.

Speaker 1 (13:48):
They gained 31 seats. So there was an overestimation of
about 2% of Democrat performance. 12 years later, in 2018,
President Trump was in the White House, Democrats were the
out party. The 538 average of generic ballot polls was

(14:11):
about 8.5 points. On September 3rd, GOP was down 8.8 points.
Real clear politics average, Democrats up 8.3 on September 15th.
Democrats won the popular vote by 8.4 points and gained

(14:34):
41 seats. So in 2018, polls were actually very, very accurate.
In 2026... Democrats are only up five in the Real
Clear Politics average of generic ballot polling.

Speaker 2 (14:55):
They were up 8.3 in 2018.

Speaker 1 (14:56):
They were up eight, no, excuse me, 10 in 2006.
Those were wave year elections. They won 41 seats in 2018.
They won 31 seats in 2006. What are they going

(15:20):
to win in 2026? Very likely nowhere near, but it's
nowhere near that simple because it's not just about generic
ballot polling. It's also about who has a money advantage.
And for the first time in a long time, It's
not Democrats. We'll discuss that when the Dan O'Donnell show.

(15:42):
The conventional wisdom is that Democrats are going to just
sweep every single race there is to sweep this midterm
election because, well, people really, really hate Trump and the
Iran war and the economy. And, well, it's just their year, right?
And people really, really love that newfangled socialism thing that

(16:04):
seems to be all the rage. Well, the actual data
suggests that they're not going to win as many seats
as you might think, even without getting into the great
redistricting war of 2025 and 2026. that makes it far
more difficult for Democrats to actually win big majorities. Remember,

(16:24):
the big reason that Republicans did not win everything there
was to win in the House in 2022 is because
Democrats had successfully redistricted to the point of extreme gerrymandering
throughout all of the states that they control, especially after
the 2020 census, but really dating back 10, 15, 20 years,

(16:46):
all the while complaining about Wisconsin being a gerrymander while
not noticing that there was nothing that looks like a
continuous geographic or demographic.

Speaker 2 (17:01):
Zone.

Speaker 1 (17:02):
About anything having to do with either maryland or california
or illinois congressional districts democrats have been the king of
the gym seriously look if you don't think that democrats
are the party of gerrymandering look at either maryland or
illinois congressional districts compare those to wisconsin and tell me

(17:24):
which party is the party of gerrymandering but democrats finally
met their match, it seems, as Republicans finally learned the
lesson that you need to get every single advantage that
you possibly can, because Democrats are going to absolutely bury
you if they can. The second they get control of
a state, they're going to gerrymander the hell out of it.

(17:46):
And that's what really, I think, surprised a lot of
Republicans when they only picked up nine seats in 2022.
But even taking that out of the equation, the redistricting
that's going to make it far more difficult for Democrats
to have these big 30, 40 seat waves. The fact
that the polling is actually far tighter than it was

(18:09):
in either 2006 or 2018. The last two times there
were big Democrat waves, the only two times there were
big Democrat waves in midterm elections this century. But it
doesn't just have to do with which party is polling
better in the generic ballot, it also has a lot
to do with how much money is going into these races.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
Would you believe that.

Speaker 1 (18:34):
Since 2010, the party that spent more on House of
Representatives races won every single time?

Speaker 2 (18:44):
2010, 2012, 2013.

Speaker 1 (18:45):
14, 20, 16, 20, 18, 20, 20, 20, 22, and 2024,
the same pattern repeat. If you spend more money, you
are going to win the midterms. Now, in terms of
total spending in both 2006 and 2018, it was actually very,

(19:06):
very close. When you add up the Republican National Committee,
the Republican Senate and House Committees, Those are PACs that
are set up in order to elect Republicans in the
House and the Senate. When you add them up, when
you add up the total spending, it was actually pretty close.
In fact, the Senate Leadership Fund, the RNC, they actually

(19:30):
very nominally outspent Democrats and outraised Democrats. We don't know
who is going to spend more in total on this race,
but we can see what each party has raised, how
much they have in cash on hand. And for the
first time since 2020, Republicans have a massive advantage. The

(19:52):
RNC has no debt. They also have $ 130 million in
cash on hand. Democrats are $ 18 million in debt and
have $ 16 million in cash on hand. The NRCC, the
National Republican Congressional Committee, this is the super PAC that

(20:15):
dumps money into congressional races in order to help swing
state and swing district Republicans. Derek Van Orden, classic example.
Third congressional district in Wisconsin is actually considered quite possibly
the swing district in the country. As goes the third
district out in western Wisconsin. He's being challenged by Democrat

(20:36):
Rebecca Cooke. Potentially so goes the entire Congress. NRCC, $ 93 million. DCCC,
the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, $ 79 million.

Speaker 2 (20:51):
National Republican Senate Committee, $ 56 million. DSCC, $ 41 million.

Speaker 1 (20:55):
So if you take a look, at the three GOP
committees and their super PACs, you've got about $ 657 million
in cash on hand to spend in the upcoming midterm election.

(21:17):
That compares with $ 334 million for their Democratic counterparts. Add
in MAGA Inc., President Trump's super PAC, that's another $ 390 million.
Republicans have a roughly three to one advantage in cash

(21:39):
on hand. Now, does this mean that they're going to
spend three times as much as Democrats?

Speaker 2 (21:46):
I would certainly hope so.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
You never know. Democrats get tons of money coming in
from heaven knows where. I do find it hilarious, though.
We defund USAID. Doge dramatically cuts the size and scope
of the federal government And all of a sudden, Democrats
are struggling for money.

Speaker 2 (22:07):
Weird how that works.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
Fox News, by the way, just put up a power
rankings where they rate every single House race, all 435
races in the House as safe Democrat, safe Republican, and toss-up.
Democrats already have probably about 212 seats in the bag. Republicans, 206. Toss-ups, 17.

(22:37):
This means that it's very likely, even if Democrats win
every single one of those toss-ups, they're only going to
have a 229-206 advantage in the House. And remember, Republicans
only have a very, very slight lead in the House. If, however,
Republicans are able to split some of those races, if

(23:01):
they're able to win just eight or nine, you have
got the exact same very slim majority in the House
for Democrats. Now, is it overwhelmingly likely that Democrats do
take control of the House?

Speaker 2 (23:14):
Yes, it is, because they have to win so few races.
What about in the Senate, though?

Speaker 1 (23:22):
Would you believe that in 2018, as big of a year.

Speaker 2 (23:28):
As Democrats had?

Speaker 1 (23:29):
We were told, we were told Democrats had the best
midterm ever. They were just dominating everything.

Speaker 2 (23:35):
They lost two seats in the Senate.

Speaker 1 (23:39):
It is very likely that Republicans either lose maybe one
seat and they'll keep their majority in the Senate, or
they actually gain a seat because you're likely to see, say, Michigan,
where Abdul El-Sayed is running a very poor campaign against
admittedly a pretty generic Republican in Mike Rogers. But if

(24:03):
you see a Senate flip to Republicans, you might actually
see a very good night for the GOP that could
include a whole lot of surprises at the gubernatorial level
as well. Because Democrats, while the narrative is there for them,
the data, it really isn't. So looking like Republicans, at

(24:26):
least right now, may have a much better night on
November 3rd than anyone might think. You're listening to the
Dan O'Donnell Show. Back today, kicking off a week of
remembrances ahead of Friday's 25th anniversary of 9-11.

Speaker 5 (24:43):
On 9-11, nearly 3,000 precious souls were stolen from us,
killed by evil terrorists at the World Trade Center, the.

Speaker 6 (24:51):
Pentagon, and on Flight 93.

Speaker 5 (24:55):
All of these years later, we gather on another Tuesday
morning in September to reaffirm the sacred vow we made
a quarter of a century ago.

Speaker 6 (25:05):
We will never forget. We say it and we mean it.

Speaker 5 (25:09):
We will never forget those we lost and we will
never forget the immortal heroes of September 11th.

Speaker 6 (25:15):
2001.

Speaker 1 (25:19):
President Trump awarding one of those heroes the posthumous Presidential
Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. We will
get to that as well as why a whole lot
of 9-11 victims' families do not want New York City's
Mayor Zoran Mamdani attending. It has nothing to do with

(25:40):
the fact that he himself is a Muslim, but rather
everything to do with the fact that he himself appears
to be a terrorist sympathizer. All of that coming up
in the four o'clock hour here on the Dan O'Donnell Show.
Also going on this week, President Trump is hosting a
midterm convention. And of course, the reporters are already out

(26:02):
with the big gotchas. That are you going to be
attending the midterm convention? Are you going to be embracing
the unpopular Donald Trump? Who do you suppose got that
question immediately after concluding his remarks at a big press
conference this morning?

Speaker 2 (26:20):
Why, yes, Republican Tom Tiffany.

Speaker 6 (26:22):
Do you plan to attend the Republican midterm convention in Texas?

Speaker 3 (26:27):
I am busy this week. And starting right here in Milwaukee,
we're going to be covering the entire state, going to Madison, Wausau,
Green Bay, and all over the state of Wisconsin.

Speaker 4 (26:37):
We've got meetings going on everywhere.

Speaker 3 (26:39):
So unfortunately, I'll not be able to attend because my
mission here is to meet as many voters in Wisconsin
as possible. We've only got eight weeks before the election,
and I've got a whole lot of voters to be
able to meet until then because the future of our state.

Speaker 6 (26:54):
Is at stake.

Speaker 1 (26:55):
Yeah, of course. You wouldn't expect a gubernatorial candidate in
Wisconsin to take a week off of visiting Wisconsin to
go to Dallas. And so what's going to happen is
every Republican is going to be, well, why aren't you
at the midterm convention? Shouldn't you be at the midterm

(27:18):
convention if you're not at the midterm convention? Does that
mean that there is a rift in MAGA world? You
see how the narrative works.

Speaker 2 (27:28):
Ladies and gentlemen.

Speaker 1 (27:30):
The focus of this week here in Wisconsin, though, should
be the fact that even as every single power that
be Well, I guess in Milwaukee, yeah. Every single power
that be, there are many powers that be, and all
of them are taking victory laughs about how violent crime

(27:51):
is down, how every single crime is down on their watch, yes,
as compared with the insanely inflated crime numbers of post-George
Floyd Milwaukee. Let's compare the numbers to pre-David Crowley, pre-Cavalier Johnson.
Pre-Police Chief Jeffrey Norman, Pre-Sheriff Danita Ball, they are up significantly.

(28:15):
Seven shootings across the city of Milwaukee over Labor Day weekend,
as well as a significant criminal charge. First-degree reckless homicide
charges leveled against Lexus M.

Speaker 5 (28:30):
Ford.

Speaker 1 (28:31):
Yes, his name is Lexus Ford, 34 years old, from Milwaukee.
He is charged in connection with a shootout near a
food truck. 39-year-old Michael Jackson, obviously not that one, also
known as Mike Lee, was found with multiple gunshot wounds.

Speaker 2 (28:52):
He later died of them.

Speaker 1 (28:54):
33-year-old man also shot and hospitalized. Surviving victims said he
was working at a food truck when Jackson arrived. As
they walked towards Jackson's vehicle, a car pulled up and
someone opened fire. Investigators used surveillance video and license plate readers,
those infamous flock cameras, which we are told don't solve

(29:15):
any crime, but rather just contribute to a massive surveillance state.
License plate readers linked a Ford Focus to Ford. Is
anyone surprised that Lexus M Ford was driving a Ford?
and not alexis ford told police his jeep had been
stolen earlier that night he later found people taking property

(29:38):
from it he identified jackson as one of them. A
witness said Ford later admitted he had shot and killed someone.
He made his initial court appearance today. Why do you
think I bring up Lexus M. Ford, who has behaved
far more like a beat-up old Ford than $ 150, 000 Lexus? Because,

(30:00):
of course, he was out on $ 1, 000 cash bail on
a drug charge, manufacturing with intent to deliver cocaine, maintaining
a drug house, and all sorts of assorted drugs. In fact,
Lexus M. Ford has been in and out of jail
since he became an adult in 2010 when he was

(30:24):
charged with possession of cocaine, THC. He's sentenced to the
House of Correction for 12 months. What do you think
the judge immediately did in David Crowley's Milwaukee County? He
stayed the sentence, meaning that the sentence was never actually imposed.
and Lexus Ford get 18 months probation. Now that gets

(30:44):
revoked in 2012 when he's.

Speaker 2 (30:47):
Arrested for criminal damage to property.

Speaker 1 (30:50):
He again, though, gets probation, 12 months probation after he
had already had probation revoked in that possession of cocaine
with intent to deliver charge because he engages in criminal
damage to property. Two years later, He gets busted for

(31:10):
possession of THC and finally goes to jail, three months
in the House of Correction. What do you think happens
as soon as he gets let out? He's still on
probation from all of these. He's still on extended supervision.
Of course, he starts committing more crimes, criminal trespass, bail jumping.

(31:32):
Then he gets six months in jail. but he gets
credit for six months' time served while he's waiting for
his trial, so he serves no time in jail whatsoever.

Speaker 6 (31:43):
2017.

Speaker 1 (31:47):
Keeping a drug house, felon in possession of a firearm.
He finally, finally, finally gets a year in prison and
then a year of extended supervision. He's somehow able to
stay out of trouble. He's got a bunch of paternity suits.
He's driving without a license, but that's sort of par
for the course in David Crowley's Milwaukee County. And then finally,
he gets hit with another drug charge. Now, this one's

(32:07):
actually in Waukesha County. He's released on $ 1, 000 cash bail
on a drug house case massive cocaine ring charge and
he's out on a thousand dollars mail and kills someone
folks this is what is so problematic about david crowley's

(32:29):
milwaukee county is that you have somebody who is clearly
a drug dealer he is clearly a gangbanger but never
actually goes to prison for any of his many crimes
He's got six different cases. He continually thumbs his noses,
his nose, or he has multiple noses.

Speaker 2 (32:47):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (32:48):
You do that much cocaine, you probably need a couple
of replacement noses in there. He thumbs his nose every
single time. He's given break after break after break after break.
And he's right back out on the streets until finally
he kills somebody because he accuses them of stealing stuff
out of his jeep.

Speaker 2 (33:08):
Not a Lexus, not a Ford, but his Jeep.

Speaker 1 (33:14):
Then you wonder why it becomes such a big deal
in David Crowley's Milwaukee County that inmates get iPads even
when they are abusing them. It's not just about the iPads.
It's about the leniency. It's about the posture towards criminality.
And I, for one, am glad that Tom Tiffany is
making this such a big issue in this gubernatorial campaign.

(33:35):
We name the unhinged liberal of the day, and this
one is about as unhinged as it gets. Welcome back
to the Dan O'Donnell Show, conservative thought, not just talk.

Speaker 2 (33:48):
It is time now to.

Speaker 1 (33:49):
Name the unhinged liberal of the day, and it is...
Melina Abdullah, she is a professor of Pan-African Studies at
California State University, L.A. She's a co-founder of Black Lives
Matter Los Angeles. And over Labor Day weekend, she spoke

(34:10):
at the La Defensa del Pueblo Summit in Oxnard, California.
That's an event tied to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
During those remarks, she held up a photo of an
ICE agent and repeatedly doxxed him, saying exactly where he

(34:35):
was staying, what hotel, and exhorting her audience to, quote,
bleep him up.

Speaker 7 (34:42):
The killer ICE agent who we got on good authority
is right down the road at the Hilton Garden Inn
in Oxnard.

Speaker 2 (34:52):
Hold on a sec.

Speaker 1 (34:55):
Is it just me or does she sound exactly like
Michelle Obama? I'm not talking about like what she's saying,
which is totally insane. But her voice sounds exactly like
Michelle Obama. Let's start this again.

Speaker 7 (35:07):
The killer ICE agent who we got on good authority
is right down the road. At the Hilton Garden Inn
in Oxnard. His name is Brian Palacios.

Speaker 2 (35:19):
I'm telling you, that's Michelle Obama.

Speaker 7 (35:21):
Brian Palacios, and we'll show you a picture of.

Speaker 6 (35:24):
His pig ass.

Speaker 2 (35:26):
She wouldn't say that.

Speaker 7 (35:27):
He's at the Hilton Garden Inn in Oxnard. You see
the devil right there, f * * * him up.

Speaker 8 (35:33):
Hello.

Speaker 1 (35:34):
Hello.

Speaker 7 (35:38):
You know that Brian Palacios may be staying at the
Hilton Garden Inn at 2000 Solar Drive down the way.

Speaker 9 (35:49):
F * * * him up.

Speaker 7 (35:52):
F * * * him up. I'm sorry.

Speaker 1 (35:54):
I'm already on the.

Speaker 6 (35:55):
Motherf * * * ing list.

Speaker 1 (35:57):
Yeah, hopefully that would be a list of inmates for
openly threatening an agent of law enforcement or maybe on
the list of unemployed professors. This is a college professor,
Malina Abdullah. She is also your unhinged liberal of the day.

(36:20):
It is stunning to me what these people can get
away with. He's staying at the Hilton Garden Inn. Go
there and bleep him up.

Speaker 2 (36:31):
Just violent, violent people.

Speaker 1 (36:34):
9-11 remembrances kick off today. President Trump held a big one.
We will get to it at the top of the
hour in the Daily Trump Date. And in New York City,
9-11 victims' families don't want the mayor attending. All that
coming up in the 4 o'clock hour. Welcome back to it. No,

(36:56):
no more iHeartRadio Music Festival flyaway contest.

Speaker 2 (36:59):
Have no fear.

Speaker 1 (37:00):
I have it on very good authority. The Fall Fortune
Cash Contest $ 1, 000 giveaways will start very, very soon. Within
the next week or two, if you are listening to us,
with the hope of winning $ 1, 000 or a trip for
two to Las Vegas, we are always giving away money.
We are always giving away trips at iHeartMedia. That's just

(37:22):
how we roll. If you would like to join the program, 414-799-1130.
That is our Carpetland USA Flooring Center talk and text line.
Email DOD at iHeartMedia.com. At Dan O'Donnell Show on X, Facebook, Instagram.
You can also watch the show streaming live on our

(37:43):
YouTube channel. Just search for Dan O'Donnell or Dan O'Donnell Show.
We are also streaming across social media. The Dan O'Cam
is back. We had to do a little bit of retooling.
We're trying to figure out some technical stuff, but we
are back.

Speaker 2 (37:58):
We are streaming.

Speaker 1 (37:58):
You can watch the show in addition to listening to
us at any of our social media channels. PresidentTrump.com. hosting
a big 9-11 remembrance today. It was the Tunnel to
Towers Foundation's Steel Across America event. This was on the

(38:19):
ellipse near the White House. The gathering marked the start
of a week of commemorations for the 25th anniversary of
the September 11, 2001 attacks. The centerpiece is a 21-foot-tall,
nearly 17,000-pound steel beam Recovered from the South Tower of
the World Trade Center, the beam had toured 21 states

(38:42):
before arriving in Washington. It's scheduled to travel through New
York on Friday in a procession, retracing the path of
fallen firefighter Stephen Siller. About 100 first responders from New York, Washington, D.C.,
and Pennsylvania attended, along with some cabinet officials. and members

(39:02):
of Congress, President Trump offered his remembrance of that fateful day.

Speaker 5 (39:07):
In the course of history, there are a few moments
that divide time into really what came before when you
look at what took.

Speaker 6 (39:17):
Place that day.

Speaker 5 (39:18):
Nobody will ever even think of such a thing being
able to happen again, and we're going to do everything
in our power to make sure it doesn't.

Speaker 6 (39:27):
That was a day like... no other.

Speaker 5 (39:31):
September 11th was one of those moments in time where
you always, everybody knows exactly where they were. I know
exactly where I was. I was watching and looking, and
it was a beautiful, beautiful morning. And I looked out
and then all of a sudden I saw an alert
on television.

Speaker 6 (39:50):
I looked out my window and I saw things that
I never want to see again. We're never going to
see them again.

Speaker 5 (39:55):
But in just over 100 minutes, 175,000 tons of steel
and concrete were reduced to ruin and 3,000 lives were extinguished,
immediately extinguished. The world we knew and the nation that
we loved had changed. I said it to myself. And
I looked and I said, wow. The world has changed forever.

(40:18):
So many things have changed because of that day, yet
this battered piece of steel here today on the Ellipse
is a reminder that America is blessed with a strength
no fire.

Speaker 6 (40:28):
Can consume, no evil can conquer, and no terror can destroy.

Speaker 1 (40:33):
The president also praised Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who lost
his brother in the 9-11 attacks. He also lost more
than 650 of his employees at Cantor Fitzgerald. In the towers,
he later rebuilt the firm while supporting victims' families. The
president also highlighted two heroes of 9-11, announcing first that

(40:53):
the Coast Guard would commission a new fast-response cutter in
New York named for firefighter Jeffrey Palazzo, a Coast Guard
reservist who died responding to the attacks, and also posthumously
awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Wells Crowther. popularly
known as the man in the red bandana, who rescued

(41:17):
more than 18 people from the South Tower. President Trump
told his story.

Speaker 6 (41:23):
Today, we also remember another hero of 9-11.

Speaker 5 (41:27):
After the plane hit the South Tower, a group of
people on the 78th floor were trapped with broken bones,
charred skin and eyes and lungs filled with black smoke.
Death was all about them. It was certain they were
sure they were going to die. Then suddenly a rescue appeared.
They call him the man in the red bandana. Have

(41:48):
you heard that term?

Speaker 6 (41:49):
The man in the red bandana has become more famous
than me. I don't like it. Very unhappy, but he's
become much more famous than me.

Speaker 5 (41:59):
Now, as the man in the red bandana, he had
found the only stairwell that barely survived. The stairwells were
all destroyed. Knocked down, you couldn't get by, impassable. He
found an opening in one of the stairwells, and the
impact was so great, there was no other way down,
but this one little opening, this one little hole, and

(42:21):
traveled down from the 104th floor to look for those
trapped and dying. When he heard cries for help on
the 78th floor, he began extinguishing the fires, blocking the exit,
directing survivors who could walk, of which there weren't that many.

Speaker 6 (42:37):
He helped some out physically. They literally pulled them out toward.

Speaker 5 (42:42):
The only working stairwell and carried those who couldn't walk.
And he just did things that people said were not
even imaginable because they knew they were dead.

Speaker 6 (42:52):
They said, we're goners. One guy was screaming, we're goners,
we're goners.

Speaker 5 (42:57):
He didn't know that those he helped, and nor who
would have known, but he willingly made all of these
trips up.

Speaker 6 (43:05):
And down, up and down, up and down, over and
over again, saving life after life.

Speaker 5 (43:11):
That rescuer was a 24-year-old equities trader and volunteer firefighter
from Rockland County named Wells Crowther. And Wells' father, also
a firefighter, great firefighter, had given him that bandana as
a very special tribute when he was a boy. He
probably knew something about his son. When asked why he

(43:34):
always kept it, Wells replied, with this red bandana, I'm
going to change the world. I'm going to change the
world with this bandana. Little did he know, on September 11th,
Wells saved many, many people before losing his own life
in the South Tower.

Speaker 1 (43:52):
If you've never seen it, Please check out the 15-minute
or so documentary that ESPN put together for its 30
for 30 series entitled The Man in the Red Bandana.
It is a truly remarkable story. And in fact, after
Wells disappeared on 9-11, it wasn't until months later that

(44:14):
his mother died. actually was able to confirm that in–
she happened to see an interview of a woman who
was talking about being rescued from the South Tower and saying, no,
there was this man in a red bandana. He had
a red bandana over his face and he saved all
of us. Welles' mother said, wait a second. Welles always

(44:34):
wore a red bandana. She was able to figure out that, yes,
it was. She showed– she tracked down the woman and said,
was this the.

Speaker 2 (44:40):
Man who saved you?

Speaker 1 (44:42):
She said, yes, that was Welles. When Wells didn't come home,
of course, after 9-11, his family found a nearly completed
application to become a New York firefighter. It's an amazing
story of heroism and sacrifice, just so very, very well
done by ESPN. In fact, I had tears in my

(45:06):
eyes last week. My kid's school got a note home.
saying that, hey, we're going to show the kids the
man in the red bandana on 9-11. Because I just
heard a truly stunning stat. Will Kane over on Fox
News during that commercial break, I had to run back
to my office.

Speaker 2 (45:26):
He said one.

Speaker 1 (45:27):
Third of this country, 100 million people were not alive
on September 11th, 2001. September 11th, is very quickly fading
into historical status. It's a historical event to pretty much everybody.
I tell this story often.

Speaker 6 (45:44):
9-11 was.

Speaker 1 (45:46):
What sort of changed the trajectory of my life. I
knew I wanted to be in broadcasting. I had no
idea what I wanted to do. 9-11 happened and it
sort of jolted me out of this self-centered bubble I
had been in as a college sophomore. I was doing
a wacky Marquette Radio morning zoo show. The very second

(46:09):
day of it, September 11th, 2001, we were broadcasting 9-11 live.
As it happened, we were on for about three, four hours.
And then I think I spent the next week and
a half, two weeks doing nothing but watching television, doing
nothing but consuming news and really learning about the life.

Speaker 2 (46:29):
You're 20 years old.

Speaker 1 (46:30):
You're focused on grades and classes and girls and parties
and friends and all of that. Well, 9-11 was the
thing that really pierced that bubble that I had been in.
And I realized that I wanted to do news and
politics and current events. And then I had always been
sort of vaguely conservative. But then seeing the mask sort

(46:53):
of slip off of the Democratic Party, pretending.

Speaker 2 (46:56):
To support George W. Bush for a.

Speaker 1 (47:01):
And then their rhetoric sounded almost indistinguishable from that of
the terrorists and the sympathetic nature with which they dealt with.
I'll never forget. Never, ever, ever forget. Day after 9-11,
I go to one of my classes at Marquette. My teacher,
I could not tell you what class it was. I

(47:23):
could not tell you the name of this professor. I
remember he was a Jesuit priest. And he actually asked me, what?
Ladies and gentlemen, do you think that America could have
done that would make people this mad that they would
strike out looking around and kids are raising their hands
and offering the dumbest possible suggestion?

Speaker 2 (47:43):
How could anybody think like this?

Speaker 1 (47:48):
And then about a, I don't know, decade and a
half later, maybe two decades later, one of Osama bin
Laden's manifestos goes viral on TikTok with a whole bunch
of equally brain dead college students in height visit today
that yeah i kind of agree with those some of

(48:08):
the blood about how terrible america is all summer long
we were really focused on this show on the patriotism
survey every year gallup does a patriotism survey they started
weirdly enough in nine eleven uh... i did not not
only the two thousand one couple months before nine eleven.

Speaker 2 (48:28):
Would you believe.

Speaker 1 (48:31):
Republicans have become more patriotic. 93% versus 90% back in
2001 now say they are extremely proud to be American. 85%
of Democrats said they were extremely proud to be American
in 2001.

Speaker 10 (48:41):
Now, 49%.

Speaker 1 (48:41):
Less than half are proud to be American. What does
that say? about where we are as a country who
we've become and what the political divide is really about

(49:03):
we're going to get into that coming up in just
a couple of minutes right now though we check in
with dave spano to help you know the difference between
financial advisors and dave when you think about 9-11 and
all of that, it's, you know, difficult. I'm sure you
remember exactly where you were on 9-11, right?

Speaker 11 (49:23):
Well, nearly everyone does. I saw a poll that, you know, 90%
of people remember where they were. I was, you know,
it was before market.

Speaker 12 (49:31):
It was a Tuesday.

Speaker 11 (49:32):
We were doing, we had some team meetings and we
watched the first thing go down. And then you know,
obviously went to the second and that was stunning. You know,
you think about where you were. I mean, most people
know that. I mean, it's our, uh, JFK assassination because
obviously that was before, I mean, you have to be what,

(49:52):
65 years old to have been alive during that time. And,
And you just think about what has changed since then.
And I know that's not what we're going to talk about.
But you talk about everything from airport travel to foreign
policy to, as you relay now, public attitudes towards the
United States, towards terrorism, towards the sense of security that

(50:16):
we have in this country. I mean, you and I
could talk about this for the next hour. What do
you got going on?

Speaker 4 (50:23):
But you're right.

Speaker 1 (50:24):
You're right. I think more than more than any other
event of our lifetime, including for those of us of
a certain vintage, you do remember we're alive during the
Kennedy assassination. 9-11 was easily the seminal moment. The thing
I would say in this century and probably going back
to World War II, I would say going back to D-Day.
the thing that changed the most about american life and

(50:46):
people say well you know we forgot about nine eleven
and nine eleven doesn't really have much impacted it yes
absolutely it does it it one hundred the entire foreign
policy posture of the united states has changed it's not
just air travel it is security pretty much everywhere immediately
changed the idea of terrorism being a massive deadly potentially globe-altering,

(51:12):
globe-threatening menace, was sort of born on that day. Yes,
we had Khobar Towers. We had the USS Cole. Yes,
but airplane hijackings. In fact, one of the big reasons
that people ask, well, why didn't those first planes fight
back like Flight 93? Because it was just assumed, okay,
this is a plane hijacking. Everybody had seen, remember, the

(51:32):
Yasser Arafat era of the 1970s. All right, they're going
to land at some other– airport and they're going to
negotiate for the release of some hostages in some God
awful place in the middle East. It was more seen
as like a hassle than anything else. It was sort
of inconceivable that you would use planes as a weapon

(51:52):
and fly them into buildings. It was only when the
people on flight 93 were talking to people on the ground.
Everybody remembers the, the famous Todd Beamer phone call.

Speaker 2 (52:03):
Okay, let's roll. That was his last words.

Speaker 1 (52:06):
They fought back because they knew that their plane was
going to be used as well. That had never been
conceived of. That had never been heard of before. It
changed so much. I'm sure we are going to be
talking a lot about this. over the course of this
next week. But Dave, we have you on to talk
about markets. It seems sort of so small compared to that.

(52:28):
But one of the big things that George W. Bush
and everybody was saying back then, I can still remember
as a young college kid, all those years ago was
life has to go on.

Speaker 2 (52:37):
We have to move on.

Speaker 1 (52:39):
And the markets move on As well, we have seen
the most resilient market, just like the American people post 9-11.
This market has been resilient, shaking off global war in
the Middle East, shaking off instability in the price of
crude oil, shaking off pretty much everything and anything. You know,
no rate cuts this year. We were told we would

(53:01):
get rate cuts. Doesn't matter because profits have been just
utterly spectacular. I think buoyed by AI almost entirely.

Speaker 12 (53:09):
Yeah, that's for sure. And let's think about what we're
talking about. We're talking about oil prices.

Speaker 11 (53:13):
And I remember, and this is how old I am,
in 1979, was you remember the hostages, right? And right
when Reagan came into power the day he got sworn in,
and that was, by the way, that was 25 years
in the making. So this whole thing with Iran has
been going on through most people's lifetimes. It really started

(53:36):
in 1953, but then 1979, the hostage, and then here
we are fast forward today talking about oil prices, which
in fact was the reason why the market was down
628 points today. because oil prices ran up and touched
off $ 100 a barrel again.

Speaker 12 (53:52):
And these things are all connected. Moving forward to another
segue part, Dan.

Speaker 11 (53:57):
Is coming up on 9-11, this September 11th, is the
CPI report. CPI is going to be a big determinant
of what happens with interest rate policy in the short term.
That report comes out on September 11th. And if the
CPI report is higher than expected, You're going to see conversation.

Speaker 12 (54:17):
About should the Fed raise rates? Why would it be higher?
It would be higher because oil prices are higher.

Speaker 11 (54:24):
And that is all of this is going to tie
together in the fact that the Federal Reserve might have
to raise rates right now when mortgage rates are already
unaffordable to some. If they raise rates, you'll see mortgage
rates rise as well. So all of these things are interconnected.
But you said something really important, which is the fact
that it is buoyed by the fact that AI in

(54:46):
the development there in the tech business is keeping the
markets up. That is the reason why you're starting to
see such great earnings reports, not just in tech, but
across the industry, because there's organizations and companies that service
those all the way down to industrials, And that's what
we're seeing right now.

Speaker 12 (55:05):
So even though we're going to.

Speaker 11 (55:06):
Have September, which is a seasonally weak month, it's the
weakest month of the year.

Speaker 12 (55:10):
You could see some volatility here, Dan.

Speaker 11 (55:12):
But, you know, think to Q4 into 2027 when earnings
are supposed to be as good or almost as good
as they were this year.

Speaker 1 (55:23):
That's why when there is volatility, when there are market-moving events,
you need to be working with someone who's working with
and for you. As a fee-only fiduciary, to find them,
head to AnnexWealth.com. Always appreciate talking with you, my friend,
Dave Spano, whether it's remembering 9-11, talking about market-moving events. AnnexWealth.com,

(55:44):
where you can find more. So why is it that
the 9-11 victims' families... Do not want Zoran Mamdani, the
mayor of New York, attending on Friday's ceremony to mark
the 25th anniversary. We will discuss it in just, what,
three days? We are going to be marking the 25th

(56:05):
anniversary of 9-11. As has happened every year since September 11th, 2002,
at the moment that the planes hit, There are going
to be bells rung. Every single victim's name is going
to be read by the families of those victims. A

(56:28):
whole lot of victims' families do not want Zoran Mamdani,
the mayor of New York, to attend the 25th anniversary commemoration,
a petition to have him stay home. has now gathered
more than 101,000 signatures and was actually delivered to City

(56:49):
Hall today. Those families described the ceremony as a personal
day of mourning that should stay focused on the victims
and the first responders, not on politics. Now, the main
objections focus on Mamdani's public record. and his associations, not
on his religion, not on his background. Mandani is, in fact,

(57:13):
a practicing Muslim, but that has nothing to do with it,
the victim's families say. It's because he has not clearly
condemned the slogan, Globalize the Intifada, which the families interpret
as normalizing or even endorsing violence.

Speaker 2 (57:31):
How about this?

Speaker 1 (57:33):
He has associated or hired people who are actually involved
in 9-11. Imam Siraj Wahaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the
1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ramzi Qasim, who's an attorney

(57:57):
who previously represented an al-Qaeda operative. And commentator Hassan Piker,
who has said America deserved 9-11. Mamdani's father wrote that
suicide bombing is a form of modern political violence rather

(58:18):
than something to be stigmatized. In other words, he comes
from a family who has written about terrorism being a
noble political act. He is associated with people who are
quite literally, involved in terrorist attacks on the World Trade

(58:39):
Center or who have defended those who engaged in terrorism
on 9-11 and supported or were members of Al-Qaeda.

Speaker 2 (58:50):
He is a terrorist sympathizer.

Speaker 1 (58:53):
Catholic League President Bill Donahue at an event in New
York today.

Speaker 9 (58:57):
On that fateful day at 9-11, he looked out my
window on 34th Street and 7th Avenue and saw the
Twin Towers go down. I'm a veteran, United States veteran,
and I don't have a whole lot to say about
Zoran Mandani. He should not be here. I wrote him
a letter on August the 3rd. It's up on our
website explaining why he's such a divisive figure. He said

(59:18):
that something happened on 9-11.

Speaker 1 (59:21):
I'll tell you what happened.

Speaker 9 (59:22):
Radical Muslims came in here to bomb the United States
of America. I don't say Muslims, because that's wrong. I'm
talking about radical Muslims. He can't bring himself to say that.
He is more concerned about Islamophobia than he is the
death of 3,000 people, innocent people on that day. This
man is a disgrace to veterans. And believe me, as

(59:42):
a Catholic, we contacted the NYPD, the FDNY.

Speaker 1 (59:46):
And Port Authority a year later.

Speaker 9 (59:48):
Eighty five to 90 percent of the first responders who
were murdered, they were Catholic. So we have a special
interest in that, too. And we stand with our Jewish
brothers and sisters against the likes of Hassan Piker, who
says nothing but good things about the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Speaker 6 (01:00:04):
It's a disgrace.

Speaker 1 (01:00:06):
Madami, do us all a favor and just stay home. Now,
not only has Mamdani had these very questionable ties, but
I mentioned this attorney, Hassam, right? On Friday, Mamdani signed
a pair of executive orders at City Hall ahead of
the 25th anniversary, one designated September 11th to 2026 as

(01:00:28):
a citywide day of remembrance and service, another updated emergency
preparedness plans, that sort of thing. After he signed those
two proclamations, he handed the ceremonial pen to his NYPD commissioner,
Jessica Tisch, and then asked her to pass the pen
to his chief counsel, Ramzi Qasim. According to the New

(01:00:54):
York Post, Qasem gave a smirk that he was getting
the 9-11 pen. Qasem represented Ahmed al-Darby, an al-Qaeda operative
who pleaded guilty to charges tied to the French oil
tanker bombing in 2002. Al-Darby's sister was married to Khalid al-Midhar.

Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
That name sounds familiar.

Speaker 1 (01:01:22):
He was one of the freaking hijackers on American Airlines
Flight 77 that struck the Pentagon. His brother-in-law, this is
chief counsel for Zoran Mamdani, his brother-in-law was a 9-11 hijacker.

(01:01:48):
Kasim himself literally has defended Al Qaeda members. Now, 9-11
families called this gesture tone deaf and disrespectful. Why would
you ever give the symbolic pen from a 9-11 commemoration

(01:02:09):
to somebody with that history?

Speaker 2 (01:02:11):
His brother-in-law, the man.

Speaker 1 (01:02:15):
His sister chose to marry, or his let's be honest
with ourselves, was forced to marry was one of the
9-11 hijackers. This is the guy who gets the symbolic pet.
No wonder.

Speaker 2 (01:02:32):
Would you?

Speaker 1 (01:02:33):
Okay, let's say your mother is murdered. And the guy
who His sister was married to the murderer, wants to attend.
You'd be like, okay, I'm not going to condemn you

(01:02:53):
for the crimes of, you know, someone you know or
someone you were related to by marriage. But, you know,
maybe it might be. And why of all people, why
of all people would Ramzi Qasem get this pen? Because

(01:03:15):
Mamdani is too cute by half. He is a theater
kid politician. He knows every gesture is important. Remember the
thing with all of the Islamists in front of the
George Washington desk ahead of July 4th? He knew what
he was doing. He knew how disrespectful that was. Also,
it was hilarious. He was sitting on the wrong side

(01:03:37):
of the desk. It's almost like, Zoran Mamdani had no
idea how desks actually work because he's never actually done
an honest day's work in his life. He knew what
he was doing with that. He knows. He knows how
these victims' families see him. But it's all about constantly sticking.
It's all about saying, yes, I know I am sympathetic

(01:04:00):
to the 9-11 terrorists, but there is nothing you can
do to stop me from going to this event. Coming up,
major controversy in college football. It turns out that when
you are leading a football game at the end of regulation,
you are no longer guaranteed of winning a football game,

(01:04:23):
at least when you're playing the Michigan Wolverines at the
big house. We will explain and why the Mac is
so upset and filing a formal appeal. That's next here.
I got Doug Russell, my producer today, big sports guys,
the sports director, a program director of our Fox Sports
920 sister station. They're not that terrible, right? They got

(01:04:47):
beat up by Notre Dame pretty good. But it wasn't
a very good second half, I'll give you that. But
they were able to hang with them sort of in
the first half. Notre Dame looks very, very, very good.
They were the beneficiaries of some, shall we say, questionable calls.
Not nearly the sort of questionable call that cost Western

(01:05:11):
Michigan a victory over the Michigan Wolverines. This would have
been one of the very biggest upsets, I think, in
recent college football memory. Michigan is not nearly as good
as they have been in recent years. They won the
national title a couple of years ago. And then Jim
Harbaugh got out of town ahead of the NCAA regulators.

(01:05:32):
But it would have been a big upset. If you
missed the controversy... It is absolutely stunning. Western Michigan is
about to win. They're up five points, 12-7. Michigan has
time for one last Hail Mary. It's about nine seconds
on the clock. Quarterback just heaves it into the end zone.

(01:05:52):
The clock hits zero.

Speaker 2 (01:05:54):
Game over. Western Michigan wins.

Speaker 6 (01:05:57):
Wait a minute, though.

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
The referees, after using instant replay... determined that a Western
Michigan defender had touched the ball with one second left
on the clock, and therefore there is one second left.

Speaker 2 (01:06:16):
The clock did not hit zero.

Speaker 1 (01:06:19):
The ball hit the Western Michigan defender's hand, and therefore
Michigan gets another shot. Well, you can already guess what happens.

Speaker 2 (01:06:27):
Another Hail Mary. Michigan converts. They win 13-12 the finals.

Speaker 1 (01:06:34):
Fans stormed the field. Western Michigan left shocked. Players were crying.
They felt that they were robbed. And they most certainly were. Now,
the MAC, the Mid-America Conference, where Western Michigan plays, Big
Ten was handling the refereeing because this was a game

(01:06:57):
in Ann Arbor.

Speaker 2 (01:06:58):
It was a Michigan home game.

Speaker 1 (01:07:02):
The Mac has put out a statement from Commissioner Dr.
John Steinbrecher, who.

Speaker 2 (01:07:08):
Is not at all happy.

Speaker 1 (01:07:10):
After further study and investigation, it is now evident that
replay protocol was not properly followed in determining whether time
remained on the game clock at the conclusion of the
Western Michigan versus Michigan football game. The established replay protocol
requires that the game clock displayed on the program feed
be used in determining whether time remained. Instead, the Big

(01:07:34):
Ten Conference replay crew relied upon the clock feed embedded
within its replay system. As a result, one second was
placed back on the game clock and an additional play
was awarded. This was not a judgment regarding the proper
amount of time to place on the clock. It was
an error in the application of the established replay protocol

(01:07:56):
governing this specific end-of-game timing situation. Had the protocol been
properly followed and the program feed clock been used, no
additional play would have been awarded and Western Michigan would
have won the game 12-7. As a result, the Mid-American
Conference has submitted formal appeals to the NCAA FBS Oversight

(01:08:19):
Committee and the College Football Playoff. The Mac is requesting
that those bodies recognize Western Michigan as the actual winner
of the game for purposes of their respective rankings, evaluations,
and selection deliberations and take such other corrective action as
may be within their authority. Is there anyone who thinks

(01:08:45):
that Western Michigan or the Mac is out of bounds here?
They are appealing the results of that game because officials
who are responsible for neutralizing. applying the rules and using
a universally established set of rules for how you run

(01:09:06):
a football game, that they didn't follow those rules. Instead,
they just sort of went rogue. They used a different standard.
And they awarded a second to Michigan that shouldn't have
been awarded. Nobody thinks that they're out of bounds, right?

(01:09:29):
Anyone see where I'm going with this? You wouldn't think
of trying to throw Dr. John Steinbrecher in federal prison,
would you?

Speaker 2 (01:09:45):
Of course not.

Speaker 1 (01:09:46):
Because he wants an investigation into, he wants an appeal of,
and he wants some vindication and at the very least
clarification of why it was that these officials who are
responsible for running a football game, or in the analogy
that I am quite obviously making now, an election of

(01:10:11):
When you just sort of change the rules midway through
and award an additional second, let's call it that second
was just sort of mailed in from the replay booth.
You get an extra mail in second that is counted
in secret, not using the actual established protocol. for counting seconds,

(01:10:37):
but rather the male in second is just sort of
added to the total of seconds in the football game,
you think, hey, there's something a little screwy going on here,
isn't there? You think, hey, wait a second, maybe the

(01:10:59):
outcome of that game was stolen from Western Michigan and
awarded to Michigan based on a deliberate misapplication of the rules,
or maybe it wasn't deliberate. Maybe there was the outside
chance that the Big Ten referees just inadvertently used the

(01:11:19):
wrong clock. Either way, sure seems like Western Michigan actually
won Doesn't it? Sure seems like Michigan wasn't actually the winner.
And in fact, it was the referees who awarded that
extra mail-in second. Just like, oh, I don't know, in

(01:11:40):
one of those elections that we ran, there were some
mail-in ballots that were allowed that shouldn't have been allowed.
Maybe there were some rules that were changed. There were
some laws that just kind of weren't followed. But it's
sort of weird because whenever anyone who is on the

(01:12:06):
losing team and that one complains about it, we're an
election denier. Do you realize President Trump was actually indicted
in both Georgia and federally? for trying to investigate, using
the power that he very clearly has as head of

(01:12:27):
the Department of Justice, he was impeached and criminally charged
at both the state and federal level for trying to investigate,
for trying to get some sort of clarification, for trying
to figure out what exactly happened in the football game
that we call the 2020 presidential election. Now, why is

(01:12:48):
it that a whole lot of the same people who
are taking the side of Western Michigan, saying, yes, this
is a horrible travesty of justice, that this game was
stolen from Western Michigan, are also saying we should investigate
and criminally charge anyone who dares to look into or

(01:13:10):
even question the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Speaker 2 (01:13:14):
You're listening to... I'm not saying.

Speaker 1 (01:13:17):
that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. In fact, I'm
not even coming close to saying that. I just think
it's weird that you can question the results of a
football game, but not a presidential election. I mean, just
imagine if the same standard, the Mid-American Conference, where Western

(01:13:38):
Michigan plays, has now formally appealed the game ending. and
says that the NCAA FBS, the football, what is it,
the football bowl system? It's not the BCS anymore, whatever
it is, the college football player. What does FBS stand for, though, Doug?
Football Bowl Subdivision. See, I knew it was a bowl series,

(01:14:00):
bowl subdivision, something like that. They're saying that they should
be recognized. Western Michigan should be recognized as the victor.
This is the conference conference. Western Michigan plays it. It
is not Western Michigan. Of course, Western Michigan thinks they won, right?
This is the Mac saying, we actually won this game.
We are awaiting a call any minute now from Tom Tiffany,

(01:14:23):
Republican gubernatorial nominee, congressman, and he put out a very
hard-hitting ad today attacking David Crowley for giving iPads, yes, iPads,
to jail inmates. We'll get to him in just a second.
DoD at iHeartMedia.com, at Dan O'Donnell Show on X, on Facebook,

(01:14:49):
on Instagram, pretty much wherever you can find me on
social media. We are also streaming the show live on YouTube,
across social media, Facebook, X, Instagram.

Speaker 2 (01:15:02):
Pretty much anywhere.

Speaker 1 (01:15:04):
And if you miss a single second of the Dan
O'Donnell Show, be sure to subscribe to, like, download, find
us anywhere on your favorite podcast system. But we hope
it's iHeartRadio, iHeartRadio, or wherever you listen to podcasts. No,

(01:15:25):
we are not giving away any more trips to Las Vegas, unfortunately. Normally,
over the last month or so, this would be the
time where we would play the iHeartRadio Music.

Speaker 2 (01:15:33):
Festival Fly Away Contest. However, that ended on Friday.

Speaker 1 (01:15:38):
Don't worry. Very, very shortly. I'm guessing probably within the
next week or two, we're going to be starting up
again with the Fall Fortune Cash Contest. I'm guessing $ 1, 000.
Don't know if it's going to be a texting contest
or what, but that is coming up very, very shortly.
Big ad released today. Tom Tiffany hitting David Crowley on

(01:16:00):
iPads for inmates.

Speaker 4 (01:16:02):
Why is the sheriff's department?

Speaker 1 (01:16:04):
Handing laptops or iPads to defendants.

Speaker 13 (01:16:08):
Because David Crowley approved the program, one domestic abuser contacted
his victim 1,500 times. A murder suspect threatened a witness.
Another accessed child pornography. Here's Crowley's signature, giving tablets to
violent inmates.

Speaker 6 (01:16:24):
It's preposterous.

Speaker 12 (01:16:25):
He's right.

Speaker 2 (01:16:26):
I'm Tom Tiffany.

Speaker 3 (01:16:27):
When I become governor, I'll protect victims and hold criminals accountable.

Speaker 1 (01:16:33):
That is the ad released today, a press conference this morning.
Tiffany really hit Crowley hard on the iPads for inmates.

Speaker 3 (01:16:43):
David Crowley, in 2022, David Crowley signed off on Milwaukee
County's inmate tablet program. Under that program, every inmate, regardless
of their crime, receives a tablet. Earlier this year, a
man being held on domestic violence charges attempted to contact
his victim more than 1,500 times. He also threatened a

(01:17:09):
Milwaukee police officer and put him on a hit list.
That story became public in May. David Crowley knew there
was a serious problem, but he did nothing to fix it.
No meaningful new safeguards, no changes to the program, nothing
to make sure another victim wouldn't be terrorized from inside

(01:17:30):
the Milwaukee County Jail.

Speaker 2 (01:17:32):
So let's get this straight.

Speaker 1 (01:17:34):
Just since the start of, what, March, April, we had
one Milwaukee County jail inmate looking at child pornography on
the iPads, which are supposed to prevent such things from
being able to be accessed. We had another one sending
1,500 messages to his ex, who, by the way, he

(01:17:58):
was in the Milwaukee County jail for stalking. So he's
showing up at this woman's door. He's sending her unwanted
messages while he's out of jail. He goes to jail
and then he sends her 1,500 more messages.

Speaker 7 (01:18:15):
How?

Speaker 1 (01:18:17):
And then this finally becomes a massive scandal when you
heard our friend Judge David Borowski. basically taking prosecutors to task, saying,
how does Thomas Zollicoffer, who's charged in a triple murder,
have an iPad?

Speaker 2 (01:18:34):
How is this even possible?

Speaker 1 (01:18:38):
Well, joining us now to hopefully get some answers is
gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany. Sir, welcome to the Dan O'Donnell Show.

Speaker 4 (01:18:49):
Good afternoon, Dan. If I may answer your question, as
the judge said, it's preposterous.

Speaker 1 (01:18:57):
I've never, to be honest with you, I have never
heard of this program before. And in theory, I can
sort of see, all right, you know, it's easier than,
you know, coordinating visits and moving inmates from their cell
to go. And, you know, everybody's seen on TV or

(01:19:18):
in the movies, you know, you talk to the guy
through the glass on the little phone. I get that.

Speaker 2 (01:19:23):
I get that.

Speaker 6 (01:19:24):
Okay. It's easier.

Speaker 1 (01:19:25):
Give them an iPad and they can, you know, talk
on the iPad to their loved ones. How is it
that they're able to completely unsupervised look at child pornography,
stalk exes, and then talk about, in a triple murder.

Speaker 2 (01:19:44):
Intimidating witnesses?

Speaker 1 (01:19:46):
I just said that blows my mind, to be totally
honest with you.

Speaker 4 (01:19:51):
It is the soft on crime mentality. I can't explain it,
but there's just some that believe that if we're just
nice to the violent criminals, that somehow they'll be nice
to them. And we just know that that is not
the case. People do the crime. They should do the time. And,
I mean, let's face it, David Crowley coddles criminals and

(01:20:15):
leaves victims vulnerable. I mean, that is what he's doing
in this instance. And he has a history of doing it.
I mean, when you go back to his legislative days
when there were enhanced penalties that were proposed for a
fifth and sixth drunk driving, he voted against it. He's
voted against other proposals that would be tougher on those

(01:20:38):
that are domestic abusers. He's voted against those bills also.
It's just his mentality. And we cannot make what a
Milwaukee politician has been doing the way of life here
for all of us in Wisconsin.

Speaker 1 (01:20:59):
Do you believe that the iPads for Inmates program that
is currently going on at the Department of Corrections at
the Milwaukee, or excuse me, the Wisconsin prison system, would
that be expanded under a Governor David Crowley?

Speaker 4 (01:21:15):
Oh, I think without a doubt, and I think you'd
see examples like this happen time after time. I mean,
it's clear he's not doing the oversight of his job
as county executive. I mean, go back to when the
health insurance for all county employees expired. I think that
was the end of last year. Yep. He allowed it
to expire. I mean, it's the most basic functions of
being an executive, make sure that the trains are running

(01:21:38):
on time. And this is part and parcel of that where, okay,
are we going to make sure that we protect victims
of crime? And the answer is clearly no with David Crowley.

Speaker 1 (01:21:53):
Tom Tiffany, Republican gubernatorial candidate, joining me here on the
Dan O'Donnell Show. Do you therefore believe that it's any
real accident that while the nation's violent crime rate has
dropped by the single biggest year-over-year amount ever? I mean,
when President Trump took office from 2024 to 2025, we
saw the single biggest drop.

Speaker 2 (01:22:17):
In the crime rate.

Speaker 1 (01:22:18):
Since the FBI began keeping statistics in the 1930s, the
murder rate dropped by the single biggest year-over-year amount since
record-keeping began in 1900. Yet Milwaukee's murder rate and violent
crime rate did not go down. In fact, the number

(01:22:38):
of murders that we had in 2025 decreased. were greater
than the number of murders that we had in 2024.
How do you account for Milwaukee being such an obvious
and big outlier?

Speaker 4 (01:22:53):
There is no doubt. When you take a soft-on-crime approach,
you are going to get more crime. I mean, I
think about Washington serving out there. You can see it
on the streets that they're more safe now. as a
result of the crackdown on crime, and I think they've
seen as much as a 20% reduction in Washington, D.C.,

(01:23:14):
in violent crime. I mean, in some ways, it's a
different city now. And so it can be done, and
that's ultimately the point here. You don't have to accept it.
I mean, we as Americans and Wisconsiners, for the last
few decades, people have kind of accepted this high crime.

(01:23:36):
And What President Trump did and what I believe we
should do in Wisconsin is say, no, that's not acceptable.
That doesn't have to be the status quo. Because David Crowley,
whether it's taxes and the economy or crime like this,
he's clearly the status quo candidate in this election. We
do not have to accept the status quo. As I

(01:24:00):
said at the press conference this morning, I don't care
if you're Milwaukee or Monaco, you should expect to have
safe streets.

Speaker 1 (01:24:08):
There's no question about that. And crime is clearly the
biggest issue, I think, across Milwaukee County.

Speaker 2 (01:24:16):
Also taxation.

Speaker 1 (01:24:18):
And both of you were asked, I believe, by Fox
6's Jason Kelvey about Act 10. Crowley said he would
actually repeal Act 10. Of course, the landmark collective bargaining
legislation that has led to an estimated $ 35 billion in
tax savings since it was enacted 15 years ago by

(01:24:40):
Governor Walker. and a Republican legislature. He said, well, I
would need the state Senate and the state assembly to
also go Democrat. But then, yeah, yeah, you can't take
it for granted, but then it would be gone. You
are very clear in your response, no, Act 10 would
be safe under a Tiffany administration. What does it say

(01:25:03):
that your opponent wants Act 10 to be repealed?

Speaker 4 (01:25:09):
At the start of the campaign, earlier this year for him,
it was one of the first things that he said
is that Act 10 should be repealed. So we know
immediately in the first year, property taxes in Wisconsin are
going to go up $ 2 billion. And we had the
largest increase in property taxes in 30 years last December,

(01:25:31):
largely as a result of the 400-year veto by Governor Evers.
So the 400-year veto If David Crowley is elected, we'll
continue to stay in place because he said he will
change very little from what is going on right now
in Wisconsin as a status quo candidate. And so then
you add on top of that another $ 2 billion. Buckle up, Wisconsin,

(01:25:56):
because your property taxes are going to go through the roof.

Speaker 1 (01:26:00):
In fact, coming up on the Dan O'Donnell Show, we
are going to get into precisely how much your taxes
would go up if David Crowley has his way, gets elected,
there is a Republican Assembly, or excuse me, a Democratic Assembly,
Democratic State Senate, and Act 10 is gone. It might
be gone anyway because the case is now before the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 liberal majority and

(01:26:25):
seems poised to strike it down. But I want to
switch gears just a little bit, if I may, sir.
It came out today that the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association has
now canceled the debate that it was planning to hold
between you and Crowley. Crowley says he accepted that debate,

(01:26:46):
and there is some criticism of you for not accepting.
accepting that debate. Did you accept the WBA debate? Is
there a reason you didn't want to do their debate?
What's the story there?

Speaker 4 (01:27:00):
Yeah, I had no time to accept the debate. So
there was lots of negotiations going on behind the scenes
that WBA had offered us to do the debate and
talk to others, including WISN. Ultimately, both camps agreed to
the WISN debate, and we agreed to do one debate.

(01:27:24):
One debate is sufficient to be able to cover the
issues that need to be covered. And having been through
more than a few debates over the years, both in
Congress and in the state legislature, one debate, we're going
to be able to cover the critical issues before the
people of the state of Wisconsin. And I think that
is going to be essential.

Speaker 1 (01:27:44):
So ultimately, you just said, hey, let's do one debate.
Why choose the Channel 12 debate over WBA?

Speaker 4 (01:27:54):
In watching how Matt Smith and Darren Jordan have done
their job in regards to Democrat debate, as well as
interviews they're doing, they do and stuff like that. I
think they are very fair and they set up what
appears to be to make for a good.

Speaker 1 (01:28:15):
So in other words, it means that Republicans are no
longer going to just, you know, allow themselves to be
candy Crowley. I think everybody remembers Crowley in the 2012
debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, basically throwing herself
in front of Obama when Romney said he didn't decry

(01:28:37):
the September 11th, 2014. 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Speaker 2 (01:28:43):
And she said, well, yes, he did.

Speaker 1 (01:28:45):
Yes, he did.

Speaker 13 (01:28:46):
Mr.

Speaker 2 (01:28:46):
It turns out she was wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:28:49):
So is this is this you saying that, hey, we
respect journalists who are fair journalists who provide balanced coverage?
We're not just going to do a debate with journalists
who might not be fair and balanced because an organization said, well,
we've done a debate every year for 35 years. Is
that sort of what I'm getting from you?

Speaker 4 (01:29:16):
Yeah, it's only going to take one debate to be
able to get the information out there for the people
of Wisconsin to see. I mean, they're going to see
David Crowley's failed policy with one debate. That's all it's
going to take. But to your point, Dan, I just
always look for fairness in reporters. And there's good reporters

(01:29:39):
around Wisconsin. And I just think how... WISN has set
theirs up in the past. They've been eminently fair with
all candidates, whether it's a primary debate or whether it's
a general election debate. And I think they'll do a
fair job. And we look forward to the debate.

Speaker 1 (01:29:59):
I look forward to it as well. So one debate
is sufficient. I guess that means there's going to be
one debate in this gubernatorial race. It is going to
be the Channel 12 debate between David Crowley and my guest,
hopefully Wisconsin's next governor, Tom Tiffany. Let me ask you,
let me ask you before, but I know you're a
busy guy, sir. If I were to say, OK, I'd

(01:30:23):
like to host a debate today. and I announce it,
and you say, yes, of course I'll do the debate,
but then David Crowley doesn't do the debate, does that
seem like it's sort of, do you think it was
a little weird that WBA just kind of said, yes,
we're having a debate before both candidates agreed to the debate?

Speaker 4 (01:30:44):
Well, I think there were a couple of media outlets
that announced very early on that they wanted to have debates,
and they threw dates out and stuff like that, and
And I think it was to coax us into it. And,
I mean, we take a measured approach with all this stuff.
We think it through and make sure that it's going

(01:31:05):
to be most effective for the people of the state
of Wisconsin, that it's going to work towards having a good,
robust debate for people in the state of Wisconsin to
be able to make a decision. I think at the
end of the day, we're making the right decision here.
It's going to serve the people of the state of
Wisconsin well.

Speaker 2 (01:31:27):
Well, I think so, too.

Speaker 1 (01:31:28):
That said, you'd totally do a Dan O'Donnell show debate, though, right?

Speaker 4 (01:31:31):
I'll be on any time, Dan.

Speaker 1 (01:31:35):
All right. I can guarantee, I was going to say,
I can guarantee your opponent won't. Tom Tiffany, always great
talking to you, sir. I'm sure we will talk again soon,
and good luck in that one debate.

Speaker 6 (01:31:49):
Yeah.

Speaker 14 (01:31:49):
Thanks.

Speaker 2 (01:31:50):
All right. Take care.

Speaker 1 (01:31:52):
He is Tom Tiffany, a candidate for governor. Well, I
guess we broke a little news there. Tom Tiffany says
we're only doing one debate. We will discuss and get
more into David Crowley said, yeah, if I'm elected, act
10 is from the news makers who break that news.
Tom Tiffany, Republican gubernatorial candidate, telling me just a second

(01:32:14):
ago that One debate will be sufficient, indicating he is
only going to participate in the already scheduled October 21st
debate on WISN-TV. Now, before all of you lib nutcases say, well,
that's because WISN-TV and WISN-Radio are Republican TV and Republican radio.

Speaker 5 (01:32:39):
No.

Speaker 1 (01:32:40):
We have not had any affiliation with WISN-TV in 25 years. Yes,
both the radio station and the television station were once
owned by the Hearst Corporation. WISN-Radio has been sold, what, 10,
15 times? We are currently owned by iHeartMedia, and WISN-TV

(01:33:03):
is still owned by the Hearst Corporation. There is no
news partnership, no any. The only thing we share is
call letters. The reason that Tiffany says he's only going
to participate in the WISN TV debate is that unlike
other media outlets, the moderators, Jaron Jordan and Matt Smith,

(01:33:27):
are very fair, not just in how they've hosted prior debates,
but also in how they go about reporting on the candidates.
I have said there are a number of very, very
good political reporters who I find to be very fair. Smith,
chief among them. I actually don't see Jaron Jordan reporting

(01:33:48):
a lot day to day. I think he anchors more
than he does like actual political reporting. But I find
all of his questions on Upfront to be very good,
very incisive, very fair.

Speaker 2 (01:34:01):
I think A.J.

Speaker 1 (01:34:03):
Byatt-Poor is a very good and very fair reporter. I
think Jason Calvey over at Fox 6 is a very,
very good reporter. I would be perfectly fine with any
of them moderating a debate. But when you have the
Wisconsin Broadcasters Association, I went through the list of the
people who were involved in the debate.

Speaker 2 (01:34:25):
And it was lib, lib, lib.

Speaker 1 (01:34:29):
Bizarrely, WTMJ radio traffic reporter is on the list of
somebody who's going to be like doing questions. Okay, I
get that it's radio. We all wear multiple hats, but
really the traffic guy? Arnie Pie in the sky from
the Simpsons is doing the debate question. Okay. So, This,

(01:34:56):
I think, should be a sort of a wake-up call.
Republicans are no longer going to play this game. where, oh, well,
you've got to submit to whatever. And they were going
to get audience questions. They were going to get they
were going to do live fact checking. Who do you
suppose that was going to benefit? Who do you suppose
they were going to before you say, well, it's because

(01:35:17):
Tom Tiffany lies way more often. Do you know how
easy it is for me to fact check literally everything
Democrats say in real time? This is why David Crowley
will never, ever, ever come on this show. It's why
he would never, anytime you think, oh, well, the Republican
is too scared to go on a debate. Think, would

(01:35:41):
your candidate ever do a debate moderated by me? Would
your candidate ever come on this show and get asked
questions by me? It has nothing to do with the
fact that I'm It has nothing to do with the
fact that– what do they call us now? Epstein BFFs
or is it fascists or is it pedophile protectors? What's

(01:36:05):
the childish nickname du jour that you libs have?

Speaker 2 (01:36:11):
It's not because of that.

Speaker 1 (01:36:12):
It's because they're scared I'll be able to trip them up.

Speaker 2 (01:36:16):
It's because they're scared.

Speaker 1 (01:36:17):
Deep down, David Crowley and his handlers all know that
the local radio guy is a lot smarter. and a
lot better at doing this sort of stuff than their candidate.
God help Francesca Hong. I would have made her Fox
News and CNN appearances look like, I don't know, a

(01:36:42):
star turn on ER in terms of how successful a
TV appearance that would have been. They all know it.
They all know none of them can actually answer tough questions.
But they expect, oh, the Republican to answer trap questions.
This is why I have done this every year since

(01:37:04):
like the first Trump debate with Hillary Clinton, where I
would do, I will do nothing but analyze the questions
that each candidate gets. You can tell how slanted a
debate is in terms of the questions that each candidate receives.
It was so Lester Holt. had quite possibly the most

(01:37:25):
biased debate I've ever heard when he moderated the first
one between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I still remember
it almost 10 years later. That's how bad it was.
Candy Crowley was the most notorious. That one, I think, actually...
ended the presidential commission on debates. If I remember correctly,

(01:37:46):
where there would always be three and each of the
major networks would get one of the debates and that's
how it always was. And one of the major network
anchors would get to moderate this debate and that debate
or Republicans just for whatever reason would always submit to it.
But then candy Crowley happened. Candy Crowley. I, I, have

(01:38:08):
never seen a performance like that until four years later
when Lester Holt was nearly as bad. But Candy Crowley
made it just way too obvious. All right, we are
going to get into David Crowley saying, yeah, I'm totally
going to repeal Act 10. We also have Lindsay Clancy's
attorney admitting he knows absolutely nothing about the law and some.

Speaker 9 (01:38:29):
Of the legal.

Speaker 1 (01:38:30):
Clancy jurors are now speaking out. The trial that has
gripped the nation ended in a mistrial on Friday. Lindsey
Clancy's jury could not come to you unanimous verdict because
one holdout, a man, just could not go along with
the rest of the jurors, nine women and two other men,

(01:38:54):
who believed that she was not guilty by reason of insanity.
Three of those jurors are now speaking out. One of
them just gave an all-timer of a quote. All three
look exactly how I sort of pictured in my mind.

(01:39:15):
I'm going to go Boomer Lib to Older Gen X Lib.
All look like they are very, very angry at one
particular gender.

Speaker 2 (01:39:27):
I'll let you guess which one.

Speaker 1 (01:39:28):
Out of all of the 57 genders that Libs believe
there are. One juror, though, said this. Yeah, she just
couldn't believe this man was hung up on the fact that,
you know, Lindsay killed her kids and should go to
prison for it.

Speaker 10 (01:39:47):
Every one of us, in the hours of our frustration,
would get up and walk the room. Because you just
couldn't sit anymore. And we'd all go to the cart
with the exhibits. He, I think, got up to the
cart once, very briefly, and went back to his seat.
He would not.

(01:40:08):
He would not interact with us and try to understand.
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said
one day in the end, well, why don't we have
the judge come in and read it again? And we

(01:40:28):
were like, no, we have it in front of us.
We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And,
you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable. But
he had the hardest time getting off the fact that
Lindsay viciously killed her children.

Speaker 4 (01:40:46):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:40:48):
How dare he? How dare he get hung up on
the fact that the murder trial is about the murder?
I feel like I'm living in bizarro world here. He
did not have reasonable doubt. There was no doubt. So

(01:41:10):
you're saying that this holdout juror was absolutely convinced, he
was beyond any reasonable doubt, that Lindsay Clancy possessed the
faculties and was legally liable and thus not insane for
her actions. That is the reasonable doubt. This is like

(01:41:31):
the definition. Of guilt in the mind of a juror
beyond any reason. He could not be convinced. There was,
for six days, you've got nine Karens and two totally
cucked dudes. Two simps, as the kids say. Say, no,
hold out, juror. Don't you just want to go home?

(01:41:53):
Don't you just want to go along with the rest
of us? She's not guilty by reason. He could not
be convinced. He could not get off the fact that
she brutally murdered her two children. So the Karens have
a different definition of what constitutes reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt.

(01:42:13):
There is no set in stone definition because what is
reasonable to one person, one ordinary prudent person, That's literally
the definition of reasonable in the context of the law.
That which an ordinary prudent person would do. There is
no strict definition of reasonable doubt by definition. If someone

(01:42:37):
is so convinced based upon the evidence that he also
saw and cannot possibly be shaken from that conviction, then
the reasonable doubt standard is clearly met. This man was
very obviously convinced by the exact same evidence that the
Karens saw, the exact same evidence that the ice cube

(01:43:00):
throwing crazy people on TikTok saw.

Speaker 2 (01:43:04):
This was during the trial, a popular meme.

Speaker 1 (01:43:07):
Where women would film themselves throwing ice cubes into the
bathtub while screaming because they just felt exactly like Lindsay Clancy.
And let me tell you, friend, If you or possibly
your wife is sick, she feels just like Lindsay Clancy,
please let me know because I will call Child Protective Services.

(01:43:28):
Trust me, I have been frustrated. My wife has been
frustrated as a parent, especially when the kids were very young.
It is an insanely stressful time. We're now sort of
reliving that again with a puppy. The puppy had to
have little puppy surgery about two months ago. He had
a necrosis or bone thing on his hip. He's just

(01:43:51):
recovered from that. Then he gets little puppy diarrhea. Then
he gets puppy constipation. We had to express the puppy's
anal glands. I didn't even know that was a thing,
but I paid for it. The puppy was up all
last night with diarrhea. The puppy got stung on his
paw by a bee. It's like taking care of a

(01:44:12):
little baby. My wife said it felt like the kids
were babies again. I was up all night with Buddy.
Never once did she say, you know what, I feel
like strangling the dog. And by the way, if Lindsay
Clancy had strangled three puppies instead of three children, is

(01:44:32):
there any chance that she would be a sympathetic figure?
Of course not. The bigger thing here, though, is that
There are a whole lot of people, and I think
this goes deeper than just one trial. There are a
whole lot of people who just cannot fathom that others

(01:44:55):
can see the exact same facts. This man, whoever he was,
whatever juror, this man saw the exact same trial. He
saw the exact same presentation of evidence. And he comes
to a different conclusion. And because that conclusion is not
the same as 11 other jurors, He must be wrong.

(01:45:15):
That there must be something wrong with him. That this
juror has gone rogue. Not that the other 11. I'll
tell you what. First of all, it absolutely kills me.
There is zero chance I will ever be on a
jury in my life. I am probably the only human
being whose lifelong dream is to be picked for a jury.

(01:45:35):
I don't even care what. I just think it would
be fascinating. And maybe it's sort of like, you know,
the forbidden fruit thing. Because I've got a law degree
and I'm a relatively well-known talk show host in the
community where I would be picked to serve as a juror.
There is like zero chance because both attorneys would know

(01:45:58):
that they would only be presenting the case to me.
And also my biases politically are pretty doggone well-known. Even
I've never made it past in either Milwaukee or Waukesha counties.
or I guess I lived in Dane County for a while,
the three counties that I've lived in. I have never
gotten past the, hey, call up for jury. I guarantee

(01:46:19):
if I would make it to a jury pool, I
would be struck without question instantly by one of the attorneys.
One of the attorneys would recognize as soon as they're,
so what do you do for a living? I'm a
talk show host. All right, I'm using one of my
peremptory strikes. I would have been the exact same as
that holdout juror. There is nothing that would convince me

(01:46:41):
that Lindsay Clancy... Oh, you're telling me she heard the
voice for exactly 18 minutes telling her to kill the
children and she killed the children and then the voice
went away? She never heard any voices. She never had
any sort of schizophrenic behavior. She was documenting her own
mental health decline in language that was perfectly lucid in

(01:47:02):
a diary... And she sent the husband out and was
monitoring him to make sure that he wasn't going to
come back and interrupt her murders.

Speaker 2 (01:47:12):
That's pre-planning. That's lucidity.

Speaker 1 (01:47:14):
That is someone who very obviously can appreciate the difference
between right and wrong and thus can be culpable for
her actions. Also, today her attorney, Kevin Reddington, who, by
the way, was on Friday, in case you missed it,
after the mistrial in a press conference. We covered this extensively,

(01:47:37):
but I'll forgive you if you didn't. You're probably starting
your Labor Day weekend early. He was essentially turning the
angry mob on this holdout juror because he thought he
could get his client off on a not guilty by
reason of insanity verdict. Now the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is
going to decide whether or not to do this all
over again. My very strong suspicion is that they don't.

(01:47:59):
They immediately go for a plea agreement in which Lindsay
Clancy is sent to a mental health facility. That's my
guess for how this will end. So this guy, Reddington,
who is a mob attorney, he has defended Irish mobsters
in Boston. He clearly knows what he's doing. He holds
a press conference where he's basically blasting this juror for

(01:48:20):
daring to look at evidence differently than everybody else on
that jury pool. Today, he goes on ABC's Good Morning
America with George Stephanopoulos and asks President Trump for a
pardon for his client.

Speaker 12 (01:48:38):
What's next for Lindsay?

Speaker 8 (01:48:41):
I'd like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt
compelled to speak out about this case, may very well, Mr. President,
I would hope that you would consider this young lady,
the type of person she is, what she's been through,
and consider a pardon.

Speaker 1 (01:48:58):
What's the problem with that? Doug, my producer, you have
no legal background. I didn't even get out the question
to Doug. with no legal background whatsoever. What's the problem
with this? He says it's a state charge. The president
can't pardon somebody for a state crime. There's this whole

(01:49:19):
thing called federalism. Honest to goodness, am I the only one?
And my producer, Doug. Well done, Doug. You should take
over this. You know way more about sports than I do,
and apparently you know just as much about civics. and
much more about civics than the average high-profile Boston criminal
defense attorney, apparently, I'm telling you, either this guy is

(01:49:42):
a complete idiot, unlikely, or he thinks his entire audience
is idiots, highly likely, especially since he was talking to
George Stephanopoulos. The president can't pardon Lindsay Clancy. Technically, I
believe you can. It's a symbolic thing where it's one

(01:50:04):
of those like 150 years later where a black man
is lynched for, you know, wolf whistling at a white woman.

Speaker 2 (01:50:13):
The president issues a pardon. It's symbolic.

Speaker 1 (01:50:16):
Everyone involved is long dead now. It has no legal effect.
It would be like asking Governor Evers to issue a federal–
could Governor Evers pardon Hunter Biden or Dr. Anthony Fauci
on his way out the door? Sure, I'm sure he
could try. It would have no actual legal consequence. Boy,

(01:50:41):
these people are just hell-bent after the trial is now over.
They are hell-bent on turning this thing into like a
posthumous circus. You're listening to the Dan O'Donnell Show. Are
not wasting a single one. I do want to get
to this. Jason Calvi of Fox 6 asking David Crowley
at Milwaukee's Labor Fest, Labor Day celebration yesterday whether in

(01:51:04):
a Crowley administration Act 10, Act 10, I kind of,
Mixed up Act 12 and Act 10.

Speaker 2 (01:51:12):
Act 10, the collective bargaining one.

Speaker 1 (01:51:13):
Act 12 was David Crowley raising taxes on everybody. Act
10 was Scott Walker lowering taxes. Crowley said, yeah, we
got a trifecta.

Speaker 2 (01:51:22):
It's gone.

Speaker 12 (01:51:23):
Act 10 goes away under Crowley administration.

Speaker 2 (01:51:25):
Well, this doesn't go away.

Speaker 14 (01:51:26):
You have to make sure that we take back the
state Senate and take back the assembly as well to
make sure that you have a legislator to actually make
it happen. At the end of the day, this administration
is about making sure that workers have a seat at
the table, which is a stark contrast from my opponent,
Congressman Tom Tiffany.

Speaker 1 (01:51:41):
So in other words, yeah, we win the Senate. We
win the assembly. I win the governor's race. We are
absolutely repealing Act 10. That is saved Wisconsinites 35.