Announcer:

A PBS Wisconsin original production. The following program is part of our “Here & Now” 2020 election coverage.

Frederica Freyberg:

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” a check-in from Washington on the Iran crisis. U.S. Representatives Gallagher and Pocan will join us in a moment. State Supreme Court candidate Ed Fallone here, the second of our interviews with the candidates running for the high court. And McCoshen and Ross gaze into the political crystal ball and make some bold predictions for 2020. It’s “Here & Now” for January 10.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

In our first look tonight, the U.S. House votes to limit President Donald Trump’s war powers in the midst of strikes against Iran. We hear from two members of Congress. In a moment, Wisconsin 2nd District U.S. Representative, Democrat Mark Pocan. But first, 8th District Congressman, Mike Gallagher, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a former marine who deployed twice to Iraq and was a commander of intelligence teams. He joins us from Washington by phone. Thanks very much for doing so.

Mike Gallagher:

Happy to be with you. Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why did you vote no on the House resolution to limit President Trump’s war powers in Iran?

Mike Gallagher:

Because since the INS v Chadha decision, a concurrent resolution has been viewed as a legislative veto and therefore unconstitutional. I think it’s a shame because I do agree with the intent of the War Powers Resolution. The lead House proponent for it was a Wisconsinite. It was Clement Zablocki but the sad fact is since its passage in 1973 over Nixon’s veto, it has completely failed to achieve its very noble gains. Had the Democrats had the courage of their convictions, they would have submitted a joint resolution. They did not. But clearly in this case, because we are not initiating new hostilities with Iran, we are taking defensive action. Pursuant to Article 2, and the 2002 AUMF that allows our troops to be in Iraq. The president had the authority he needed to do what was necessary to defend our troops and our diplomatic personnel.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why do you support the killing of General Soleimani?

Mike Gallagher:

Soleimani was the head of a designated terrorist organization. He was himself a terrorist. He has the blood of over 600 Americans on his hands as well as thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Arabs across the Middle East, people that I work with, that I fought with. The carnage in Syria, the genocide in Syria. I can’t think of anyone with the possible exception of Vladimir Putin and President Assad himself was more responsible for that. He’s also irreplaceable in terms of being the world’s top terrorist mastermind. So I believe the world is a safer place with him gone. And he has the blood, recently, of Americans on his hands. And we simply cannot let terrorists kill our people in impunity.

Frederica Freyberg:

Was targeting him for his past behavior or because of imminent, current threats?

Mike Gallagher:

I think it was a mixture of both. Now I should confess that I –prior to the most recent intelligence reporting had said we should not hesitate to take Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Soleimani off the battlefield, if indeed they are threatening our troops. If he did not want to be taken off the battlefield, then he should have complied with the UN sanctions that said he was not to leave Iran. He was a uniformed military officer on an active battlefield where our troops have the right to defend themselves. We know, with recent evidence — in open source, independent of the intelligence reporting that they conducted a rocket attack, Iranian proxies that killed at least one American and wounded four other service members. But they also attacked our embassy. So I think we were more than justified in taking the necessary defensive action to protect our people. And my hope is and the early indications are – although very early – that we have restored some semblance of deterrence in the Middle East. That’s the best way to avoid war over the long term and reduce our presence, is to have a credible military deterrent and a clear red line that we’re willing to enforce.

Frederica Freyberg:

And yet, even after retaliatory missile strikes that reportedly caused no American casualties, Iran was saying to soon expect harsher revenge. So do you believe that threat has passed?

Mike Gallagher:

It’s hard to tell what is a real threat and what is just posturing for a domestic audience because simultaneously Foreign Minister Zarif has said on Twitter that they are seeking de-escalation. So it’s too early to tell. I would expect Iran to revert to proxy warfare. Iran does not have 100% operational control of the Shia militias in Iraq and those militias could take matters into their own hands. We should all prepare for the possibility of a cyber-attack emanating from Iran. We have very diligent and vigilant people in our government working on that very problem.

Frederica Freyberg:

Iraq seems to be signaling that it wants the U.S. out of its country. What do you think of that?

Mike Gallagher:

No. I think, I think that vote in the parliament was very significant, but for precisely the opposite reason. They were barely able to muster a quorum. In fact, the reports in the last few days suggest they actually didn’t legally have a quorum. More to the point, there’s a caretaker government that does not have the legal authority to kick us out. It was a nonbinding resolution. So I just would say to people watching this, don’t believe what you hear on Iranian state TV. You really have to read the Arabic language source in Iraq. What we know incontrovertibly is that for the 73rd day in a row, Iraqis have taken to the streets to protest Iran’s influence in their country. So we have strong partners on the ground that want to work on us. Of course, our goal is a free, independent, sovereign Iraq. Iran’s goal is to use Iraq as a launching pad for attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia. And that’s bad for the people of Iraq.

Frederica Freyberg:

I understood that some of those people protesting in Iraq were also protesting against U.S. presence still in Iraq. You would like to stay, have the U.S. military stay?

Mike Gallagher:

I would. I think we’ve actually, through a painful process of trial and error, arrived at a sustainable approach where for a very small investment of troops and special operators, we can work by, with and through Iraqis on the ground. We’ve had incredible success in the fight against ISIS. That fight is not over. So I think the partnership is worth continuing. Now there are a lot of my constituents that would like us to pull out, but I just would caution against that. We saw what happened when President Obama pulled out precipitously. And I think, you know, for a modest investment of resources, if we can counter Iran’s influence not only in Iraq, but throughout the rest of our region, and draw closer to our traditional allies, again, as I alluded to before, I think that’s the best way over the long term to be able to move more of our forces to more important theaters of the world, particularly Asia and INDOPACOM.

Frederica Freyberg:

We need to leave it there. U.S. Representative Mike Gallagher, thanks very much for joining us.

Mike Gallagher:

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now to the Democratic side of the aisle and back to Washington to speak with 2nd District Representative Mark Pocan. Congressman, thanks very much for being here.

Mark Pocan:

Thank you, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why did you support limiting the president’s war powers in Iran?

Mark Pocan:

Well, honestly, this has been overdue from probably a few decades. Congress, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has the sole responsibility for putting our country into a war unless there has been an attack directly against our country and a few other provisions. And it’s very clear that the last couple decades, Congress has given up too much of that Article 1 power to the executive branch and presidents. Both Democrats and Republicans have very loosely used old 2001, 2002 authorizations to go into war for other purposes. And it’s long overdue that we did something about it. What we saw the president do last weekend was another example of someone not coming to Congress as they’re supposed to for advice and consent. We just need to do this not just for Donald Trump, but for any future president. We have to go back to what the Constitution says and that means Congress has that sole power.

Frederica Freyberg:

Representative Gallagher says that the resolution passed in the House was a political effort that will have the practical effect of undermining our military. What is your reaction to that?

Mark Pocan:

That’s political rhetoric. You know, I think when it comes to things that involve war, we have to get beyond our little what team we’re on, what party we’re on and talk about what’s right for the country. And in this case, if you are a coequal branch of government, Congress, and Constitution — you know, explicitly says it’s Congress’ role, we should, Democrats and Republicans, get together and reclaim that role because what we don’t want to happen is presidents loosely using old AUMFs, authorizations to go into war for other purposes. For example, in this case, that 2002 authorization to go into war was specifically about Saddam Hussain in Iraq and it was the rationale used by the president this time to do something in Iraq just because it had the word Iraq. That’s clearly not what was intended by Congress back in 2002. That’s why we just need to, again, as the constitutional authority is given to Congress, take that back so that any president, Democrat or Republican, understands they have to come before Congress in order to do that.

Frederica Freyberg:

What’s your position on the assassination of General Soleimani?

Mark Pocan:

Again, I think one of the troubling things we had, we had a classified briefing this week. Also I went into a classified setting and read the president’s two-page reasons why we did this. The problem is — and it’s not just coming from me, but it’s coming from Republicans in the Senate and others, they didn’t give us any justification. In fact, Secretary Pompeo did an interview recently this week where he said well, we didn’t know where or we didn’t know when, but we knew it was imminent. That’s not the same definition of imminent, right. It should be something that is actually factual. So every time we asked, well, what was the imminent warning? Well, it was imminent. Yeah, but what was imminent? Well, it was a warning. Yeah but — it was a circular who’s on first, what’s on second routine. We need hard facts to know if it’s something the president had to do or did he have the time to come to Congress and do it. In this particular case that assassination has been considered by previous presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, who did not do it because the consequences are severe. We did get some background what those consequences could be according to the intelligence community and it was a bad assessment without a real imminent reason. That’s why I just think again, Congress needs to understand it is a coequal branch of government. It’s not about Democrats and Republicans. It’s about being Americans. We need to reclaim that authority per the Constitution that Congress has. And I think you’re going to see some other measures coming in the coming weeks that are also going to do that, Frederica. I think we’re going to have something explicitly that says no funds can go towards war with Iran and I think you’re going to see something actually repealing that 2002 AUMF, something we should have done quite honestly a long time ago.

Frederica Freyberg:

Where do you think this U.S. military action and continued threats of Iranian revenge for it leaves our people?

Mark Pocan:

We are without a doubt less safe today than we were a week ago because by doing something that is essentially assassinating the number two person of a country that has the eighth largest military on the planet that is not a good idea unless you had some real reason. And since we have not seen a real reason in classified or non-classified settings, it puts us at greater risk. Even though we saw one reaction from Iran, what we think is going to happen is there’s going to be more surrogate reactions that could happen in the weeks to come that make the region less safe. That, at the end of the day, is a bad thing. If we ever have to consider sending men and women from the United States over to the Mideast, that has to be a very thoughtful decision. The president promised he was going to end endless wars. He was going to bring troops home, but right now Frederica, we have 15,000 more troops in the Mideast than we did six months ago and that’s not good for peace.

Frederica Freyberg:

Just very briefly as we close this out, all of this said, I trust does not mean that you are defending Soleimani?

Mark Pocan:

No. No one is. In fact, today Republicans are starting to apologize for their rhetoric of the week when they said people were standing in the ayatollah or whatever else. That’s all, again, just absolutely ridiculous garbage. What is important right now at a time like this is you don’t put the blue or the red cap on. You say what is in the best interest of peace in the Middle East and what is in the best interest of not having to send American men and women overseas and put their lives at risk. Right now, it is by having de-escalation, having diplomacy and I’m hoping that’s what we’ll do moving forward in dealing with Iran.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Representative Mark Pocan, thanks very much.

Mark Pocan:

Yeah. Thank you, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now back to 2020 election coverage of the state Supreme Court race. In tonight’s closer look, we continue our interviews with the candidates running in the February 18 primary race for the high court. Last week, we spoke with incumbent Justice Daniel Kelly. Next week Jill Karofsky will be here. Tonight, a conversation with Ed Fallone who began his career in private law practice in Washington D.C. He’s been on the faculty at the Marquette University Law School for the past 25 years. Ed Fallone joins us tonight from Milwaukee and thanks very much for being here.

Ed Fallone:

Pleasure to be here, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, why are you running for the state Supreme Court?

Ed Fallone:

Oh, well, I’ll tell you. You mentioned I ran for the court in 2013. At that time I was talking about the dysfunction in the court. The fact that we had one justice physically assault another justice. And I said it was time to end the dysfunction and get the court working together. And as I’ve watched since then, as we get to now 2020, if anything, the court is more divided. It seems they don’t talk to each other. And I think we more than ever need to reform the court and make a change.

Frederica Freyberg:

How do you reform the court to fix what you described then and say persists as dysfunction?

Ed Fallone:

Well, I think it’s important to recognize that we need a wider diversity of experience and a wider diversity of legal perspectives on the court. If you want to change the work of the court and make it better, you bring more viewpoints, more perspectives. And so what I bring is a constitutional law professor. Someone who’s an experienced criminal defense lawyer and someone who’s worked as a community advocate in community-based groups providing lawyers to working families and try and get more perspective so we can get the communication going and try to build consensus on the court. Just electing more of the same judges with narrow perspectives is not going to change our system.

Frederica Freyberg:

You also said seven years that it is a mistake to inject politics into judicial races and yet today, the idea that Supreme Court elections are nonpartisan is largely in name only. You yourself are endorsed I saw by the Milwaukee County Democratic Party. Why shouldn’t citizens believe that the conservative-liberal split on the court results in partisan, foregone decisions?

Ed Fallone:

Well, first let me correct you. I don’t believe I’ve been endorsed by the Milwaukee County Democratic Party. If it happened, it was news to me. I am running a nonpartisan campaign. In fact, I’m the only candidate who’s trying to keep politics out of this race. We have our incumbent, Daniel Kelly, who you interviewed last week. He’s located his campaign headquarters in the Republican Party headquarters. He’s embraced his political affiliation. On the other hand, we see attacks being made, partisan attacks by other candidates that really poison the waters and prevent any sort of cooperation or consensus-building. My campaign has been to make an affirmative case for my experience as a law professor. My experience standing shoulder to shoulder with working families who have legal problems and trying to help them get legal representation. And my experience in the Latino community. I would be the first Latino justice on our state Supreme Court. And I understand the challenges of our immigrant communities in the state and have been working for over 25 years to try and help and give back to that community. So I’m making an affirmative case based on my qualifications. I am not engaging in partisan attacks.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you feel as though any recent decisions from our high court have been political?

Ed Fallone:

Oh, I think so. I think we see some very troubling trends. We’ve seen opinions in the last few years where certain justices on the court make notice of the political affiliation of the parties in the case, which is never relevant to deciding a legal question. And we see instances where the courts — the justices sometimes don’t even seem to talk to each other. One block is talking to itself, writing its own opinion. The other block is dissenting. And I don’t see any effort, any effort really to reach across the divide and try and find consensus in the middle. And that’s what I find troubling. Because the court belongs to all of us in Wisconsin. It works for all of us. And it’s self-indulgent for the justices to just view it as their own partisan fight to express their own partisan views.

Frederica Freyberg:

What’s your position on whether recusal rules should be tighter?

Ed Fallone:

Well, this is something I’ve been very consistent on. When I ran in 2013, it was one of my major campaign platforms and it continues to be a major campaign platform. Look, it’s just this simple. We have a current court rule that allows justices to sit on cases and decide cases when a major campaign contributor is one of the parties in the case. And that’s just wrong, because if someone loses in a lawsuit at our state Supreme Court or anywhere and they walk away from the courtroom without knowing whether they lost on the merits or they lost because their opponent had made significant campaign contributions to the judge that undermines our system of justice. We need to change that rule, and that’s something I’ve consistently argued for, both as a candidate and even in working with Common Cause Wisconsin and other groups advocating for change since then.

Frederica Freyberg:

One of the candidates running, incumbent Justice Daniel Kelly says he only applies the law in cases and doesn’t, “legislate from the bench.” How would you view your role as a justice?

Ed Fallone:

Well, first of all, I would completely take issue with Justice Kelly’s self-serving description of what he does. It’s very clear that he has an agenda on the bench. This is someone who attended the Christian Broadcasting Network University School of Law, a law school that was founded with the purpose of advocating a biblical interpretation of our Constitution. It’s someone who represented Republican office holders and the Republican Party in his legal practice. He’s someone who his whole legal career really has advocated for an agenda. So if there is such a thing as an activist on the right, certainly Justice Kelly fits that definition. I, on the other hand, have been very principled. I have stood for things like righting for our equal protection under the law, fighting for our free speech under the law. But these are principles that are grounded in our Constitution. They’re not partisan principles. And they’re the same exact principles I’ll fight for when I take the oath of office on the bench.

Frederica Freyberg:

Ed Fallone, thanks very much for joining us.

Ed Fallone:

My pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:

In fact, a quick recheck of Ed Fallone’s endorsements shows the Democratic Party of Milwaukee County itself did not endorse, but people listing their affiliation with the party have done so. Next week, candidate Jill Karofsky will join us. For some election year foresight, we now turn to our political panelists Scot Ross and Bill McCoshen. A full week into the new year is too late for resolutions but it’s not too late for 2020 predictions and that’s what we asked our pundits to provide tonight. Happy New Year to Bill McCoshen and Scot Ross.

Scot Ross:

Happy New Year.

Bill McCoshen:

Thanks for having us.

Frederica Freyberg:

So on these predictions, we start with you, Bill. Your first one is that House Democrats will lose 14 seats and come back with a slim, unmanageable majority, 218, in 2021. So why do you think that?

Bill McCoshen:

That’s as of today. We’re in January. That could change. And they could lose the House. But as of today, there’s 232 Democrats, 198 Republicans, one independent and four vacancies including the Wisconsin 7th District which won’t get decided until May. My contention is that Nancy Pelosi will likely keep her majority, but by the slimmest of margins. There are 32 Democrats who are in seats that Donald Trump won. I think at least half of those will flip back to the Republicans.

Frederica Freyberg:

What do you think about that?

Scot Ross:

I think that Democrats and independents literally ran to the polls in 2018 to reject Donald Trump. I think when he’s on the ballot, it’s going to be even more distinct. I think they grow the majority.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, I guess it’s a prediction and we’ll see, right? Let’s go to yours, Scot. You say that the Democratic presidential candidate will win Wisconsin’s ten Electoral College votes, leading to a Democratic president January 20, 2021. So you see the momentum for that?

Scot Ross:

Yup. Three reasons. One, the Democratic candidate will be a better candidate and a better human being than the racist, sexist, xenophobic nightmare the Republicans will put up. Second, they’re right on the issues whether it’s higher wages, better health care, student loan reform, ending the tax cuts that have given companies like IBM, Netflix and others hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks when they’re making — Amazon, Amazon for instance. $11 billions in profit. It actually got $129 million back as a result of the Trump tax cuts. The third reason is because Democrats are not going to take Wisconsin for granted this time. They’re already doing communications, attacking Trump on a daily basis in the local media, in the state media, in digital and at the doors. That’s going to be the key. Wisconsin will be a Democratic state in 2020.

Bill McCoshen:

Trump wins Wisconsin. He takes the ten electoral votes, just like he did four years ago. Democrats are well on their way to nominating someone who will keep at least a portion of their party home just like Hillary Clinton did.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why do you think that?

Bill McCoshen:

Joe Biden. AOC has already said the progressives won’t come out for Joe Biden. He’s likely to be their nominee at this point.

Scot Ross:

I did not realize you were the AOC whisperer.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Let’s move to some state political predictions for 2020. Here is Bill McCoshen’s. The GOP will win two out of the following three Senate seats. Either the 10th in western Wisconsin, the 30th in Green Bay or the 32nd in La Crosse and come back with a record 21 seats. So these are all interesting districts.

Bill McCoshen:

Right.

Frederica Freyberg:

You’re suggesting that Jennifer Shilling goes down.

Bill McCoshen:

Let’s talk about the other two. The 10th District had been Republican for a very long time. This is along the Mississippi River. Sheila Harsdorf, her brother Jim before that. This has been primary a Republican seat that Patty Schachtner won in a special election during the Walker years. Donald Trump got 55% in that seat. Scott Walker got 54. Even Leah Vukmir got 53% in that seat. That is a Republican seat. 53% on average Republican seat. So just normal performance would put a Republican back in that seat. That would put Republicans at 20. The other one I think they can get is now Dave Hanson’s seat, the 30th in Green Bay. Donald Trump got 52, Scott Walker got 52. Vukmir did not win that seat but she got 48%. That seat on the numbers is about a 51%. Dave Hanson announced this week he’s retiring. He’s a strong candidate. I think he would have been the favorite to get re-elected there but as an open seat, that gives Republicans an opportunity to get their 21st seat, which would be their largest Senate majority in 50 years.

Frederica Freyberg:

What about Jennifer Shilling’s district?

Bill McCoshen:

Shilling’s seat is a tougher one. Trump does really well along western Wisconsin. It’s entirely likely Ron Kind will be targeted by the RNC again. If the Republican Party nationally puts the resources in that district, then there’s a good chance that that seat could be competitive again. The last time she won by less than 2,000 votes.

Frederica Freyberg:

Comments on this?

Scot Ross:

Couple things. One, Ron Kind didn’t have an opponent last time. If Ron Kind has an opponent and puts $3 million on TV up there saying here’s what the Democrats offer, it’s going to be bad news for the Republicans. It wasn’t competitive last time. The second thing is, listen, people are sick of the dysfunction of state government. And the dysfunction of state government exists because of Robin Vos and Scott Fitzgerald. That’s why Governor Evers had to issue homework to the Legislature on issues like on clean water and clean air and al that sort of thing. If you act like a child Robin, they’re going to treat you like a child.

Frederica Freyberg:

We don’t have a lot of time left but your last prediction is that as a result of all the attention in Milwaukee of the DNC convention that people are going to move there after they see Milwaukee?

Scot Ross:

Absolutely. We got 15,000 volunteers are being put together to support and to promote to the world how great Milwaukee is. There is this incredible opportunity to bring people together that’s going to last long beyond the convention and we are going to definitely have — Milwaukee’s going to shine. I think people are going to come there.

Bill McCoshen:

I hope he’s right.

Frederica Freyberg:

That’s right. We all like that.

Scot Ross:

Build it and they’re going to stay.

Frederica Freyberg:

Bill and Scot, thanks very much.

Scot Ross, Bill McCoshen:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

New Wisconsin flu statistics were released this afternoon. Case numbers that concern officials at the Department of Health Services. Today’s influenza status report shows 962 total diagnosed cases of flu since October. There have been a total of 622 hospitalizations for the flu. 15 Wisconsinites have died this season due to flu-related illnesses. Health Services Flu Specialist Tom Haupt put these numbers in perspective in our mid-week interview on “Noon Wednesday.”

Tom Haupt:

Well, it’s significantly higher than it was last year at this time. One big difference that we’ve seen this year is the influence the hospitalizations have really been affecting the younger population. Our highest number is between the 18 and 49-year-old range compared to previous years, where it’s always been over 65. We are seeing a higher incidence of outpatient influenza-like illnesses as well compared to previous years.

Frederica Freyberg:

Today’s health services update reports the state’s first pediatric death due to the flu. That is all for tonight’s program. Next week state Supreme Court candidate Jill Karofsky will be here. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

For more “Here & Now” 2020 election coverage go to pbs.org and click on ‘news’.

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.