% >> THERE ARE JUST DAYS BEFORE
% THE STATEWIDE SPRING ELECTION
% THIS TUESDAY, APRIL 4.
% AS PART OF OUR "HERE AND NOW"
% 2020 ELECTION COVERAGE, WE HEAR
% FROM BOTH CAMPAIGNS ONE LAST
% TIME, MAKING THEIR FINAL APPEALS
% TO VOTERS.
% UP FIRST, CANDIDATE DANIEL
% KELLY, WHO PREVIOUSLY SERVED ON
% THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
% KELLY WAS APPOINTED BY
% REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER
% IN 2016.
% HE RAN FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2020
% AND LOST, BUT SAYS HE IS RUNNING
% AGAIN AS A CONSTITUTIONAL
% CONSERVATIVE.%DANIEL KELLY,
THANK YOU FOR
% BEING WIT US.%>> IT IS A PLE
ASURE.
% THANKS SO MUCH.
% >> I WANTED TO ASK YOU, FIRST,
% WHAT ARE THE STAKES IN THIS
% ELECTION?%>> WELL, I THINK I
T'S THE
% DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RULE OF
% LAW AND THE RULE OF JANET.
% SHE'S MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR
% THAT, IF ELECTED, SHE INTENDS TO
% PLACE HERSELF ABOVE THE LAW.
% SHE'S MADE IT PUBLIC THAT SHE
% SUBSCRIBES TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF
% LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISM.
% THE IDEA BEHIND THAT IS THAT THE
% COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO AMEND
% WHAT THE STATUTES AND THE
% CONSTITUTIONS SAY AND THAT'S
% CERTAINLY NOT THE WAY THAT OUR
% FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS SET UP.
% THOSE CHANGES HAPPEN THROUGH THE
% CONVERSATIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF
% WISCONSIN, WITH THEIR
% LEGISLATURES.% OUR JOB IS R
EALLY VERY HUMBLE.
% OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS SIMPLY TO
% USE THE EXISTING LAW TO DECIDE
% THE CASES THAT COME BEFORE US,
% AND THAT'S IT.
% AND PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN HAVE
% TOLD US THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY
% INTERESTED IN WHAT WE THINK
% ABOUT THE LAWS, WHETHER THEY'RE
% GOOD OR USEFUL.
% THEY SAY RESERVE THOSE
% CONVERSATIONS FOR THE
% LEGISLATURE.
% SO THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING
% TO CONTINUE WITH OUR 175-YEAR
% TRADITION WITH OUR WISCONSIN
% CONSTITUTION, OR ARE WE GOING TO
% TRADE THAT IN FOR SOMEONE WHO
% BELIEVES THAT SHE CAN BE ABOVE
% THE LAW.
% >> YOUR CHALLENGER CALLS YOU A
% THREAT TO DEMOCRACY FOR HAVING,
% QUOTE, EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS
% WITH THE HEAD OF THE STATE
% REPUBLICAN PARTY AND OTHERS
% ABOUT THE FALSE ELECTOR SCHEME.
% WHEN SHE SAID THAT IN THE
% DEBATE, YOU CALLED HER A LIAR.
% >> YES.
% >> AND YET THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
% ANDREW DEPOSITION QUOTES HIM AS
% SEEING ABOUT YOURSELF AND
% ANOTHER G.O.P. LAWYER, QUOTE, HE
% AND I AND ANOTHER LAWYER,
% MR. KELLY, HAD SOME PRETTY
% EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS.
% SO HOW IS WHAT SHE SAID A LIE?
% >> BECAUSE AS YOU PROPERLY KNOW,
% HE'S REFERRING TO MULTIPLE
% ATTORNEYS, SO IF YOU GO ONTO THE
% TRANSCRIPT, HE SAYS THAT HE HAD
% ONE CONVERSATION WITH ME, SO THE
% EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WERE
% OBVIOUSLY WITH THE OTHER LAWYER.
% SO IF SHE HAD BEEN CAREFUL WITH
% HER HOMEWORK, SHE WOULD HAVE
% BEEN ABLE TO AVOID THAT.
% NOW, HERE'S THE THING.
% I THINK SHE KNOWS, AND I THINK
% SHE JUST INTENDED TO LIE BECAUSE
% SHE WANTS TO MAKE IT LOOK BAD.
% SO WHAT THE CONGRESSIONAL
% TESTIMONY SHOWS IS THAT I HAD
% ONE CONVERSATION WITH A CLIENT
% ABOUT THIS SUBJECT.
% HE ASKED IF I WAS IN THE LOOP ON
% THAT QUESTION.
% I SAID I WASN'T BECAUSE I WASN'T
% AND THAT WAS IT.
% >> THAT WAS THE END OF YOUR
% INVOLVEMENT?%>> THAT WAS THE
END OF MY
% INVOLVEMENT.
% >> YOUR ATTACK ADS AGAINST YOUR
% OPPONENT HAVE FOCUSED ON HER
% SENTENCING DECISIONS AS A JUDGE
% IN CRIMINAL CASES.
% WHY, WHEN THE SUPREME COURT
% DOESN'T SENTENCE DEFENDANTS, IS
% THIS RELEVANT?
% >> IT'S AROUND THAT HAMILTON
% SAID 235 YEARS AGO WHEN HE WAS
% WRITING ABOUT THE WAY OUR
% CONSTITUTION WORKS, HE SAID
% COURTS NEITHER HAVE THE POWER,
% THE PURSE NOR THE SWORD, BUT
% MERELY JUDGMENT.
% AND SO WE LOOK AT JURIS
% JUDGMENTS TO FIND OUT HOW THEY
% ACTUALLY USE THEIR AUTHORITY.
% ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE, IF
% YOU'RE A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,
% ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE YOUR
% JUDGMENT BECOMES MOST APPARENT
% IS IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING, AND
% SO WE GO THERE BECAUSE THAT'S
% WHERE TRIAL JUDGES HAVE THE
% GREATEST DISCRETION.
% SO YOU CAN REALLY GET A GLIMPSE
% INTO THEIR MIND BY LOOKING AT
% THEIR JUDGMENTS AND HOW THEY
% SENTENCE.% SO WE LOOK AT TH
AT AND WHAT WE
% FIND THERE IS REALLY PRETTY
% CHILLING.
% >> SHE SAYS YOU'RE CHERRY
% PICKING THOSE CASES.
% >> THEY KEEP COMING OUT DAY
% AFTER DAY AFTER DAY AND THAT
% LIST IS GETTING VERY LONG.
% I DON'T KNOW WHEN CHERRY PICKING
% STOPS BUT A PATTERN STARTS, BUT
% I THINK WE'RE BOTH INTO A
% PATTERN.
% >> YOU BOTH DECIDED TO FOLLOW
% THE LAW.
% ENDORSEMENT FROM ANTI-ABORTION
% GROUPS AND FORMER LEGAL WORK FOR
% THEM NOT HINDER YOUR
% IMPARTIALITY AND YET JANET
% PROTASIEWICZ IS MAKING HER VIEW
% SUPPORTING ABORTION RIGHTS WOULD
% HINDER HER ABILITY?
% >> HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE.
% YOU HAVE TO BE AN ATTORNEY TO BE
% ON THE SUPREME COURT.
% MY WORK AS AN ATTORNEY HAS
% REPRESENTED PEOPLE ALL ACROSS
% THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM WITH ALL
% KINDS OF DIFFERENT INTERESTS AND
% SO WHEN I HAVE CONVERSATIONS
% WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
% THINKING ABOUT ENDORSING ME, THE
% CONVERSATIONS ARE THE SAME
% REGARDLESS OF WHAT I TALK TO.
% IT IS THE SAME CONVERSATION
% EVERYWHERE, AND IT IS THIS.
% I UNDERSTAND THAT WHILE THE
% COURT IS SIMPLY TO APPLY THE
% EXISTING LAW WITHOUT REFERENCE
% TO OTHER POLITICAL OPINIONS, OUR
% POLITICAL VIEWS.
% IN ORDER TO DO THAT, TO
% EFFECTUATE THAT, TO LIVE IT OUT
% ON THE BENCH, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
% SYSTEM FOR DOING IT.
% AND SO HERE'S MY SYSTEM.
% SO I START WITH THE LAW.
% IN ANY CASE I ANALYZE OR ANY
% OPINION THAT I WRITE, I START
% WITH THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THAT
% CASE, WHETHER IT'S A
% CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION,
% STATUTE, REGULATION, COMMON-LAW,
% WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, AND I USE
% RIGOROUS LOGIC TO MOVE FROM
% THOSE PROPOSITIONS ALL THE WAY
% DOWN TO THE CONCLUSION, AND WHEN
% YOU'RE DONE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE
% TO SEE AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF
% LOGIC BETWEEN THE CONCLUSION AND
% THE PREMISES, AND THAT'S YOUR
% GUARANTEE THE CONCLUSION IS
% COMMANDED BY LAW HAS NOT BEEN
% AFFECTED BY PERSONAL POLITICS.
% >> SOME STATES ARE SAYING
% PARENTS CAN BE INVESTIGATED FOR
% CHILD ABUSE IF THEY HELP THEIR
% TRANSGENDER CHILD TRANSITION.
% IN THE UPPER, WOULD SUCH A
% POLICY BE LEGAL PHENOMENON ACTED
% IN WISCONSIN?
% >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
% WE START WITH OHIO YOU DESCRIBED
% IT.%THE POLICY.
% IN THE COURT, WE DON'T DETERMINE
% WHETHER POLICIES ARE GOOD OR BAD
% OR WARRANTED OR NOT.
% >> LEGAL?
% >> WE QUESTION -- WE EXAMINE
% WHETHER THEY'RE LEGAL.
% NOW, WHETHER IT'S LEGAL WILL
% DEPEND ENTIRELY ON THE LANGUAGE
% OF THE STATUTE.
% SO OUR JOB, WHEN CHALLENGES COME
% TO US ON STATUTES, WE LOOK
% CAREFULLY AT THE WORDS OF THE
% STATUTE, WE COMPARE THAT TO THE
% CONSTITUTION, AND IF IT'S
% CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS
% OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE APPLY
% THAT.% AND IF IT'S NOT, WE
PREFER THE
% CONSTITUTION OVER THE STATUTE.
% SO THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION
% IS, WE HAVE TO SEE THE STATUTE.
% >> ONSLAUGHT OF ATTACK ADS IN
% THIS RACE.
% WHAT IS THE ONE THING THAT YOU
% WOULD LIKE TO REFUTE?
% >> ALL OF IT.
% I MEAN, HONESTLY.
% THIS IS JUST A PATTERN OF LYING.
% MY OPPONENT IS A SERIAL LIAR.
% EVERY SINGLE TIME SHE PUTS OUT
% AN AD ABOUT ME, IT'S JUST A LIE.
% AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IT'S NOT
% TAKING OUT OF CONTEXT, IT'S NOT
% SPINNING.
% IT'S JUST A LIE.
% SHE IS MAKING THINGS UP.
% SO THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME IN
% THE AFTERNOON TO REFUTE ALL OF
% THAT.
% WHAT WE CAN DO IS THIS.
% ON MY CAMPAIGN WEBSITE, JUSTICE
% DANIEL KELLY DOT-COM, THAT'S
% JUSTICE DANIEL KELLY DOT-COM, AT
% THE TOP, THERE'S A FACT CHECK
% TAB AND WE'RE COMPILING ALL OF
% MMY OPPONENT'S LIES AND TELLING
% THE TRUTH ABOUT EACH ONE OF
% THEM.%I THINK THIS IS IMPORT
ANT
% BECAUSE, ONE, I THINK IT IS
% REALLY BAD CHARACTER TO BE A
% SERIAL LIAR RUNNING FOR THE
% SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN, BUT
% I FIND THIS PERSONALLY TERRIBLY,
% TERRIBLY OFFENSIVE.
% MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE A THICKER
% SKIN, BUT I DON'T.
% THAT'S PARTLY BECAUSE OF HOW I
% WAS RAISED, THAT YOU DON'T LIE.
% AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THIS: WHEN I
% WAS GROWING UP, OUR FAMILY
% DIDN'T HAVE A LOT.
% I HAD THREE BROTHERS AND THREE
% SISTERS AND MY MOM AND DAD HAD
% TO STRETCH EVERY DOLLAR PRETTY
% FAR TO GET FROM MONTH TO MONTH.
% I STILL REMEMBER WHEN I WAS A
% TEENAGER, MY DAD SAID, DAN, WHEN
% I'M DONE WITH THIS LIFE, I'M NOT
% GOING TO HAVE A LOT TO LEAVE
% YOU, BUT I'LL MAKE YOU THIS
% PROMISE.%I WILL LEAVE YOU A G
OOD NAME.
% NOW, WHEN I GRADUATED LAW SCHOOL
% A YEAR LATER, HIS COMMENTS CAME
% TO PASS, AND HE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH
% TO LEAVE ME.
% A COUPLE OF CUFFLINKS AND A
% BROKEN POCKET WATCH.
% BUT HE LEFT ME A GOOD NAME, AND
% I HAVE TREASURED THAT MY WHOLE
% LIFE.
% IT'S BEEN MY GOAL TO HAND DOWN
% THAT GOOD NAME TO MY CHILDREN
% AND NOW I'VE GOT A SERIAL LIAR
% LIKE JANET PROTASIEWICZ OUT%
THERE TRYING TO TRASH MY
% FATHER'S LEGACY.
% I THINK THAT IS JUST
% INEXCUSABLE.