- He made a political decision, in my opinion, in this case, as to what would help him in his campaign.

- Capital P, Political.

- They're huge moneymakers for these cities and towns.

- My concern is a bigger one.

I think we have become a surveillance country.

(dramatic lively music) - And welcome into our latest episode of "Lively."

I'm Jim Hummel.

We're joined this week by attorney and former chairman of the Rhode Island Democratic Party, Bill Lynch, and former Rhode Island attorney general and columnist, Arlene Violet.

If the fix was in, Dan McKee didn't get the memo.

The governor, on Wednesday, bypassed former House Speaker Joe Shekarchi for a coveted position on the Rhode Island Supreme Court, and McKee may have given a boost to his struggling campaign heading toward primary day.

Arlene, let me begin with you.

We'll get into the politics in a minute, but let's talk about the choice.

longtime Superior Court Judge Luis Matos, good judicial chops.

What do you think about the pick?

- I certainly think it's an excellent pick, A+ for Dan McKee in choosing him from a political perspective.

From a loyalty perspective and whether there was a deal that he retracted, et cetera, remains to be seen.

But I think he made a wise decision for his campaign, but he also made a wise decision for us in the state of Rhode Island because Judge Matos is a very good judge.

- Yeah, I think the good thing, people make fun of Rhode Island being a small place, but we have a lot of great judges, and there were great judges.

Obviously Judge Matos would be fantastic.

He's been a great Superior Court judge, Republican appointment, so I figure Arlene had something to do with him- (both laughing) - Years ago, right?

- Getting elevated to the Supreme Court.

And Judge D'Ambra would've been fantastic.

And Joe Shekarchi would've been fantastic.

So I think it's two, I agree, two very different issues.

I think that the appointment will be fantastic.

He'll do a great job.

I've been in front of him many times in a Superior Court, and he's a great judge, widely- - [Jim] Very level-headed.

- Very fair, very widely respected, good temperament, which I think is important for some of these judges.

But I feel bad for Joe Shekarchi in a way because I think that he would've been, and hopefully he'll stay involved and resubmit his name.

I think he got caught up in this whirlwind, with the ethics commission.

I think that the governor should have waited, frankly, until the Supreme Court had a chance to weigh in on the decision that was made by the Superior Court.

I don't know what the rush was.

The Supreme Court's not sitting right now anyway.

So if anything, I think the judge should have waited.

I had concerns a few weeks ago when Governor McKee came out and sort of flipped on the charter schools.

If there's one thing you can say typically about Dan McKee is that he takes a position and that's where he stays, and he's been sort of the leader on charter schools in Rhode Island for many years by his own admission.

And then suddenly he does a complete 180 and kills the legislation, which basically killed charter schools at least for now and for the indeterminate future in Rhode Island.

And then got a endorsement from the teachers.

So listen, I'm not a big charter school person, but whichever side of that issue you're on, to me, that was a message that if I was Joe Shekarchi, I'd be concerned.

And Joe I think had all the right things to be a great Supreme Court judge and would've been.

And I kind of get a kick out of people who say the politics has been removed from the judicial appointment process because- - It's just different type of- - I just don't think that- - It's a different, but Arlene, what about the ethics commission and this whole process?

Because that's not going away.

They've decided to appeal Judge Leach's decision.

Why should people care?

Even the decisions made, why should they care about the process?

- Well first of all, there's a revolving door.

You're not supposed to do that.

It'd be interesting to see if the Supreme Court bunts on the case by saying it's moot now because Mr.

Shekarchi's no longer a candidate, or I think they should decide the issue because it's just going on ad infinitum.

But coming out of this, the Black guy belongs actually to the Superior Court Judiciary.

The presiding justice should never, never have selected someone who himself did not follow the revolving door.

- [Jim] Judge Leach.

- So he made a personal decision, obviously, when he applied for the job that it didn't apply to him.

And then of the 22 judges, he got chosen.

Now, I think he's an excellent jurist.

I'm not debating the merits of his decision or not.

But from the appearance of impropriety, a former legislator who is now a presiding judge should not choose someone who is the poster child of becoming a judge and not having any reference to the revolving door legislation either.

So I think when all is said and done, the judiciary has suffered a blow in Rhode Island just because the beginning part of all of this.

- And so much of it is perception, isn't it?

With Rhode Islanders, you know, whether Joe Shekarchi's a good lawyer, would make a good judge, whether Leach is a good judge, whatever.

When you have that kind of stew of potential controversies, I think that's what makes people a little cynical.

- You know, I think Judge Leach made a good decision on the law.

And I agree.

I hope the Supreme Court does handle it.

They may very well not because of the circumstances have now changed.

- And they have a sitting judge who went through the whole thing, right?

A justice.

- But none of these judges get appointed like Judge Leach.

And his comment I thought was apropos when it was announced that he was going to be handling the issue.

And he said, "Look, whatever I decide, 50% of the people are going to be upset with me no matter what I do."

And I think he made a well-reasoned decision.

I was interested to see what the Supreme Court did prior to the governor kind of jumping the gun, I think, a little bit as to how he handled this.

But listen, there are consequences to elections.

I've said that on this program many times, and this is a perfect example.

The governor is authorized and did what he's certainly entitled to do.

He doesn't have to wait because some people may think he should have waited for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

He made a political decision, in my opinion, in this case, as to what would help him in his campaign.

And that's no reflection on his selection, who's a fantastic selection.

But I think it was 99% of it was political on Governor McKee's part.

- If the governor loses the primary, do you think the General Assembly's going to pass his appointment?

- We'll have to come back.

- [Jim] Mitch McConnell or what?

- We'll have to come back on this program and debate that after the primary.

- So let's play that out.

When the Governor submits the name, which he hasn't done yet, they have 60 days to approve?

It's a certain period of time.

But certainly before the next session that they would have to come back, the General Assembly would have to come back in a special session.

- Maybe, maybe not.

I mean, the session would start in October for the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Whether they come back before then remains to be seen, or they wait in January- - I'm talking about the special session of the House and Senate.

- I hear what you're saying, they don't, will they come back?

- I don't think they have to.

I think they made it clear they're definitely not gonna consider anything prior to the- - The November election.

- The election.

And then we'll see what happens.

Not a lot happens at the State House, as you know, between November and December with the holidays.

- And does it matter who wins that election in terms of what they'll do relative to the nominee?

Another story to unfold.

- You know, the other thing, you mentioned the timeline, and Arlene, I don't know what you think about this.

The Governor has been, let's say, less than speedy on a lot of appointments for years.

Boards have, you know, there've been openings and judges have taken a long time.

This one went right through.

Any doubt in your mind it was a political move in addition to this election?

- Capital P, Political.

- [Jim] Yeah.

- It absolutely was political.

There's no doubt about it.

I mean, the- - So he can what?

Say I'm not part, you know, everybody though the fix was in, but, you know, not so fast, right?

- Yes.

And I'm not sure that it won't have the reverse effect.

So we'll see.

It'll be interesting to see how everybody sees this after the dust settles a little bit.

I know that there are a lot of people who have supported and worked with the Governor in the House and in the Senate who I think feel maybe this wasn't the right way to go.

At least the timing of it was suspect, to put it mildly.

You are correct.

The Governor has, as is his right, has taken a long time to make a lot of appointments.

There are still vacancies and people, you've written about it on these commissions that are serving years past when their term expired.

The Supreme Court isn't sitting now until October, the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

So believe me, I haven't had anybody come up to me and say, "Geez, I'm really worried about the Rhode Supreme Court.

(Jim laughing) You're down a judge.

I mean, we really got to address that."

- Yeah, 'cause this is the downtime.

All right.

So now it's in the legislature's hands and we shall see.

A growing number of communities in Rhode Island are either declining to install or removing altogether flock cameras from their roads, which law enforcement has touted as a key tool to catching criminals.

But privacy advocates say the cameras can and have been misused.

This is interesting, Bill.

For years, the flock cameras kind of went in under the radar screen, and now a couple of, a growing number of communities are saying, "We just don't like the Big Brother."

What do you think?

- You know, they started slowly with cameras near schools.

And the whole premise, publicly at least, was that this is a safety issue.

Whether or not it's really a safety issue, I think is up for some discussion.

They're huge moneymakers for these cities and towns.

And I mean, I live in Pawtucket.

I think the last time I checked, Pawtucket was making millions of dollars a year.

- And how many, how much of that's come out of your pocket?

- I paid my share of the taxes.

(Jim laughing) By the way, I pay them.

- Yeah, yeah.

- I pay them.

And so, I think people were a little slow to kind of catch on to what was happening.

And then with the increase and then with the flock cameras, and then, of course, with a couple of arrests that we've seen where clearly the flock cameras were not just taking photos, the argument was, "Well, it only takes pictures of the license plate and the type of car."

And then you see people getting arrested because they're using people's, what they think are photographs of people operating those cars.

And as it turns out, naturally, it was the wrong person, at least in one or two instances.

So I think people finally have kind of woken up and said, "Well, wait a minute, I haven't really been paying very close attention.

What are these flock cameras and what are they doing?

And what are we doing about them?"

And now you've seen a couple towns already say, "We want them out."

So it'd be interesting to see if that continues.

- Well, I've contributed to Pawtucket's bottom line as well.

- And I ease Providence and Providence.

- [Bill] Thank you for keeping my taxes down.

- Yeah, that's the speed cameras in schools.

- Considerably.

As a former Attorney General, of course, I like any tool that helps to catch criminals and to bring justice to the victims.

Having said that, however, while I support in general the tool, it has to have very, very, very narrow guardrails.

There only should be a select group of people who can even have access to look at that.

There have to be penalties of people outside that team.

You know, when they put cameras in downtown Providence initially some years ago, they said that there was only a unit that could police that.

We need to go back to a very narrow conscription of who has access to that information.

And certainly the company shouldn't own it.

And people should be really prosecuted if they violate that, because my concern is a bigger one.

I think we have become a surveillance country.

And when I see President Pinocchio really having the Justice Department become so politicized, going after his political enemies, the US attorneys, like Jeanine Pirro and others, just, "Yes, sir," "No, sir."

All the good people have left from the Department of Justice, the lawyers who used to really just go by the rules.

Now they lie to the court, et cetera.

Sending troops into towns and cities, particularly Democratic states, et cetera.

I just think we're becoming far too much of surveillance country.

So these tools misused really caused me grave concern, particularly in the hands of President Pinocchio.

- Yeah, and you know, it- - I just want to say I'm glad I've lived long enough at this point to be on this program with Arlene to hear her talk about the Republican Party like this.

I'm gonna meet with her afterwards and see if I can finally get her to register as a Democrat.

- (laughs) Don't hold your breath.

I think the Republican Party may have left you behind a long time ago, but that's a whole nother show.

So Bill, you would refer to the speed cameras started and tremendous amount of revenue.

And I've said in my own town, we both live in Barrington.

I told the General the town council, it's only a third letter I've ever written to "The Barrington Times" in all my years living there.

I said, "If it's really about safety and not revenue, let's take all the money that you're taking, put it aside, don't touch it, keep it in a restrictive receipt account.

And next year when we have that huge budget increase come, use that to offset."

Well, they get addicted to the money like Providence and East Providence, but the flock cameras are a whole different deal.

Because as you said, it was supposed to just take the license plates.

And the chiefs will come out and say, "It helped with the Brown University shooting.

It helped in other things."

Years ago, as a reporter, I used to be able to call cop sources and say "Can you run a license plate for me?"

Now they have cracked down on that and they have a record.

And everybody thought that was gonna be true with the flock cameras.

Now, some cops are going after ex-partners and all of that.

So that's where they really need to tighten it up if they're going to use it, right?

- I think Arlene's correct.

You know, it's one of those things that sounds like a good idea when it's probably proposed.

And people don't maybe pay that close attention to it either.

And then, as Arlene has pointed out, and as you have, that's exactly what's been going on.

You have apparently complete access to the records by anybody that wants them.

And as opposed to using it for safety or security purposes, you have people looking after ex-girlfriends, ex-partners.

- But there's gotta be a fingerprint on that, right?

If you pull up a flock camera, don't you think?

If you pull up a record by the police, maybe that's the problem is that there's no regulation on it, right?

- Yeah, it depends.

Of course, it's left up to the local police department, I think, in terms of what kind of access information they have when people go into the computer.

Can they find out who accessed the information?

So guardrails, guardrails, guardrails.

But also I think we have to keep an eye out, that we have to watch out that we don't become a tyrannical country.

- You know, it's interesting, there was a young officer on the Pawtucket Police Department who spoke out.

He made the mistake of speaking to a reporter for "The Valley Breeze," shouldn't have done it.

It was a violation of department policy.

They had it in for him and they trumped up charges and he basically left the force.

He was one of their best guys.

And he was ahead of the curve.

He was four years ago saying, "I'm really concerned about where these flock cameras are."

The department didn't want to hear it and moved on.

And now he's spoken to a couple national outlets, but he was prescient in his concern from the patrol car.

- And it cost him his career.

- Yeah, yeah, it's too bad.

And, you know, then the black mark goes if he's trying to get a job with another place.

So we shall see where it goes.

With less than a month to Primary Day and early voting beginning next week, the race is on for candidates to make an impression with voters.

In some statewide races, that has been an uphill battle.

So Arlene, the vast majority has been focused on the governor's race, but we do have AG race, lieutenant governor's race.

What's on your mind as we're heading to the home stretch?

- Well, with early voting, right around the corner, what, August 20th or whatever, at least some of the candidates have not really even been on television.

And I just think while they're good candidates, people don't know who they are and what they stand for.

So I think much of this is going to be driven by who shows up at the poll.

And then people who know a candidate because he's been a representative or they've had some job that she was also in the state legislature.

They're going to vote according to the person they just know without actually considering the other candidates because there doesn't seem to be enough exposure of who the candidates are.

- I mean, you would expect the governor's race is getting the majority of the attention.

And there was a very spirited debate last night.

So I think more and more people are starting to tune in, which is always a struggle even when I was the chair, was how do you get people to pay close attention in August when everything that's going on at the end of the summer, kids going back to school and- - Vacations.

- Yeah.

- And then the primary's right on top of you.

And the governor's race certainly is sucking a lot of the oxygen out of the room, both financially and otherwise.

So it's been a struggle for some of these other, I think, down ballot, so to speak, races for people to really, you know, get people's attention.

But listen, I think Arlene's right.

I think if you've got your own base and turnout is gonna be critical, I think that the mayor's race in Providence will drive up- - Participation.

- Turnout in Providence.

So that that may help certain candidates more than others.

I have to think that Mayor Smiley, as well as David Morales, have a get out to vote effort ready to go.

So that I would think that Providence would have a pretty good turnout and that that will maybe roll over into some other areas.

But it's the same old story.

If you don't have any contested races locally, now, Pawtucket has a, you know- - Mayor's race.

- Interesting mayor's race.

So maybe the numbers go up a little.

But if you look around the state, you know, are there a lot of those?

Maybe not so many.

So, does that help Sabina Matos, the Providence mayoral race because turnout's gonna be high, presumably in Providence.

- [Jim] She's a former city council president.

- Yeah.

So I kind of look at where people are from, so to speak.

You know, the AG's race, which we have a particular interest in for various reasons, is one that we watch.

But we have, on the Democratic side, four very good candidates.

- What are they going to win?

With 18%?

- Well, I was gonna say, I mean, none of them have, it's been very difficult for them to separate- - Undecided as a commanding lead.

What do you think about the AG?

- 70%.

- Yeah, what do you think about the AG's race?

- Well, in my column for GoLocalProv, I mentioned that the Democrats have an embarrassment of riches.

You know, all four of the candidates, I think, are quality candidates.

There are nuances among them that makes one stand out on one issue and one stand out on the other.

But nobody knows that because he and I follow this race because we're lawyers far too closely and most people don't.

So I think it's going to be driven by geography.

Who shows up in Providence?

Who shows up in Barrington and Warwick- - Cranston.

- And Newport.

The lieutenant governor's race.

One of the candidates was from there.

It's all going to be about who shows up.

- And wasn't that always when you were the chairman, and it's not whether it's you or your predecessor or your successor, is it really is that get out the vote?

Because signs don't vote and endorsements don't vote.

But I think of the Providence race, Brett Smiley has run races before.

He's been in politics.

He ran Charlie Fogarty's race 20 years ago.

So he knows how to get out the vote.

- Yeah, I was gonna say that I met Brett Smiley when, I hate to say it was 20 years ago, is that how long ago it was?

- When he ran Charlie Fogarty and he was running against Don Carcieri.

- Yeah, he came to Rhode Island to run Charlie Fogarty's race and almost won.

And so, yeah, I think as much as things have changed campaign-wise, mainly with social media and the internet, you know, taking such a huge role now, it still comes down to, particularly on a lot of these races, the old-fashioned get out the vote.

You've got to identify people who support you, and then you've got to figure out a way to get them to the polls or to early vote, either one.

Particularly in a primary, and it's still difficult.

People do not.

A lot of people, not everybody, but a lot of people generally think, "Well, it's just the primary.

You know, I'm going to vote in November."

And many times, in the years we've been doing it, it's over by September.

And then people will say, "Well, geez, I was gonna support you in November."

- I think the one race that's interesting, though, is after the primary, is John Laughlin running for lieutenant governor.

He has high, he's been a state rep, he's been on the radio.

He had the Inspector General idea, but I think he's going to at least give it a spirited campaign to whoever emerges.

- He has the best chance, at least in terms of some recognition.

He doesn't have money, so I don't know where the rest of it's going to go for people who didn't listen and don't listen to talk radio on a Saturday morning.

But I think he got good free press over the Inspector General issue, because he was the one who brought it up saying, "I'll make that office the Inspector General Office."

Then of course the General Assembly passed the Inspector General legislation, at his urging, I think.

But I think he's perhaps the Republican that has a chance to get that office.

- Let me shift gears.

Just last topic before we go to outrageous and kudos.

Nationally, Todd Blanche gets confirmed as DOJ, and I don't know what Bill Cassidy was thinking.

He's been burned so many times.

He says he had regrets.

This is a senator from Louisiana, right?

He had regrets with confirming RFK Jr.

And he still votes.

Talk about the Republican Party leaving you behind.

I mean, as lawyers- - [Bill] Don't start picking on Arlene now about the Republican Party.

- As lawyers, what do you think about this?

- Cassidy, man up!

I'm infuriated with him because he's been a doormat.

Blanche, as the Attorney General, is disgraceful.

He's a Donald Trump stamp, for him to do a deal of those funds for what, $2.6 billion that- - For January 6th people, yeah.

- For the January 6th people.

To give forgiveness for even future income taxes that the Trump family may submit is absolutely outrageous.

It tells you exactly that he is the attorney in the top seat to do Donald Trump's bidding, the heck with the people.

The Attorney General's supposed to serve the public.

He's the antithesis of that.

It's disgraceful that he's in that office, and Cassidy could have stopped it, but he didn't man up.

- Well, he's a disgrace, I think, Cassidy.

I mean, the fact that he's done this before.

- And he's on his way out.

- [Bill] And it's just... - [Arlene] But he wants his $3 million lobby.

- His interest is, he wants to be a lobbyist and be able to just walk on the floor of the Senate, which is a perk given to former people that serve there.

And he should be ashamed of himself, but seems to have no shame, frankly.

And as far as Blanche goes, I mean, look, he's Donald Trump's lawyer.

He's in Trump's pocket.

He's going to, I'm sure, be paid significantly when they leave office by the Trump family out of the billions and billions, not millions, billions of dollars that they're making because Donald is in the White House.

And so, that's his only goal.

And, frankly, he doesn't even seem to really even try to hide it, frankly, at this point.

So it's a disgrace.

And people like Cassidy who could have stopped it should be ashamed of themselves.

You know, we like to come out here and I'd like to come on here and we talk about all these things.

But the real judgment for these people is history who judges, who will judge these elected officials.

And the Cassidys of the world of Donald Trump.

So I think Donald Trump will be regarded as the worst president in US history by the time he's done.

One of the richest, by the way, but one of the worst.

- Can't take it with you, Bill, last I checked.

But just briefly, finally, the silver lining has been the judiciary.

People appointed by all presidents of all stripes have stood in the way, and Trump keeps pressing it, but at least the Supreme Court in most cases and some of the federal judges have said enough.

- Yeah, well, most have, most have.

What I worry about and I recently talked about this, a fungus among us, is that we get domesticated.

That we no longer recognize how outrageous self-dealing is.

You know, to make $2.2 billion when you're president to run down our weaponry because your sons, among other things, have the drones and intercepted drones.

So now they're going to have these contracts from the Pentagon to rebuild the drone, hundreds of millions of dollars.

The self-dealing is outrageous.

- [Jim] They don't even try to hide it.

- But who's objecting to it?

Then the public is ho-hum about it.

That's what I find outrageous.

- I think Arlene's point is well taken, which is that, and I don't think it's by accident, they've continued to just so blatantly commit these violations and these conflicts of interest that, after a while, the average person's saying like, "I'm too busy.

I can't follow this anymore."

And it just feeds into this hysteria.

- Well, it's Trump flooding the zone because it's another controversy and which one are you going to pick?

All right, let's go to our outrageous and/or kudos.

Ms.

Violet, what do you have this week?

- Well, first of all, I want to give a kudos to you for your story that you've done for the Hummel Report.

And it really relates to people who had their houses already in place, but like asphalt factories come in- - [Jim] In Quonset.

- In Quonset.

The smell is just killing people in the sense of their summer is ruined or whatever.

You know, it's one thing if you buy a house and you move toward the nuisance.

The nuisance came to them.

And I'm glad you wrote that story.

I think the town fathers in Quonset gave it, they've got to do something about that because those people have put their heart and soul into living into that neighborhood and they don't deserve to have everything attacked during the spring and summer and fall that they can't enjoy their houses.

- And you can read that article on Hummel Report and "The Providence Journal."

Thank you for that.

Bill, what do you have to say?

- So I want to say kind of a kudo, I guess.

But we're taping this on Thursday morning and I'm leaving to go to Steve Alves' funeral this morning, former senator for 18 years from West Warwick.

And, you know, sad day obviously for him and his family and a big loss for Rhode Island.

He was an unabashed Democrat, no doubt about that.

But the thing I would note is that he was, what's missing, I think, particularly in Washington, is the ability to take a position on a particular argument and vehemently argue and vote a certain way.

And then that was it.

You know, he'd be the first person to reach across the aisle to have dinner or a drink and be able to talk about different issues and be able to work that way.

And that doesn't exist anymore, certainly in Washington.

And I think to some extent, that's starting to sort of leak into Rhode Island at our own state house.

And I think it'd be a good time for people to stop and think maybe that's not such a good way to do business politically.

- All right.

Good show.

Thank you, Bill and Arlene.

Appreciate it.

- Thank you.

- We'll hold the Supreme Court discussion for later, maybe later in the year we'll have you back.

Thank you for joining us.

Be sure and check us out on Facebook, X, Instagram, and on the Ocean State Media YouTube channel and wherever you get your favorite podcasts.

We'll see you next time right here on "Lively."

(dramatic music) - [Announcer] "Lively" is generously supported in part by John Hazen White's "Lookout."