>> 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 PLEASURE.
THANKS SO MUCH.
>> I WANTED TO ASK YOU, FIRST,
WHAT ARE THE STAKES IN THIS
ELECTION?
>> WELL, I THINK IT'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 REALLY 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 THAT 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 IMPORTANT
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 GOOD 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.