Governor Jared Polis appeared on The Ross Kaminsky Show to explain his signing of the final version of House Bill 25-1312, 'Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals.' Ryan believes the very title of the bill is a misleading misnomer, even with changes made through amendments to the language in the bill on 'deadnaming' and 'misgendering.' Erin Lee, mother of a daughter who experienced gender dysphoria after a similarly falsely labeled 'Art Club' afterschool LGBTQ club meeting, joins Ryan to offer a rebuttal to claims made by Polis in Tuesday's interview.
Then, Weston Imer has been an up-and-coming young voice in Colorado Republican politics, as a former RNC Youth Advisory Council Member and former staffer for the Colorado GOP. Now, he finds himself embroiled in a 'revenge porn' scandal and joins the show to provide his side of the story as President Trump signs the 'Take It Down Act' into law.
Then, Weston Imer has been an up-and-coming young voice in Colorado Republican politics, as a former RNC Youth Advisory Council Member and former staffer for the Colorado GOP. Now, he finds himself embroiled in a 'revenge porn' scandal and joins the show to provide his side of the story as President Trump signs the 'Take It Down Act' into law.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You should not treat them differently because of how they view,
you know, giving or not getting gender affirming care to
their kid. I mean, one parent says, oh, wait till
you're eighteen. Another says, I want to start at fourteen.
The courts this bill would have made the courts effectively
favor the one who said started at fourteen. So I
think those are personal matters. They should have be sided
by families. It's always in the best interest of the
(00:21):
child to be connected with both parents.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
That's totally separating the state. If a parent kicks their
kid out for being you know, trans or something like that,
they lose their custody rights.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
This is a loving parent who just says, you know,
wait till you're an adult to make these decisions, versus
maybe the other parents say too it earlier.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
So that was some of the problems all of us
had with the bill.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
It would have set up a very difficult family law
situation that when you have two loving parents who cared
for the kid, would have led to potentially taken one
of those parents out of the kid's life.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Okay, now there's some heavy lifting to do right out
of the gate here. This is a real suck in
the face kind of shell. This Tuesday edition, Ryan Schreuling Live,
happened to be along with you, Zack Seegers, alongside Kelly
somewhere wandering. But that, of course was Governor Jared Polis
and trying to arrest his attention and answer a question directly.
(01:10):
Is like the proverbial nailing Jello to the wall. Jared
Polis is very slippery, and it's very intentional. He speaks
very quickly. He does this in debates. I've talked about
it with Heidi Ganal who ran against him. He does
this in interviews. And the only person that Governor Polis
will agree to appear on a show with is our
(01:33):
own Ross Komensky across the Hall at KOA. That's just
the way he views it. His handlers have explained it, well,
we go on Ross and that's enough.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Now.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
I don't anticipate he would ever come on this program
or on Dan Kaplis, although he has in the past,
way back when, like right before I started here at
iHeart Deenver and began producing the show that was Capitalist
and Kafer. Jared Poulis, immediately upon winning the governor's race
in twenty eighteen, was on with Dan Kaplis, and he
(02:03):
has not been on since.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
One of the reasons why is an issue like this one.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
He's talking about Houseville twenty five thirteen twelve that he
signed into law in a Friday night news dump. Now
what that is in my business, in this business, is
a public figure intentionally dumps an unfavorable story into the
news cycle after five pm on a Friday local time.
(02:32):
They do this to avoid immediate negative blowback and coverage
from shows like this one, from media that's doing its
job journalistically, and to give themselves a buffer of an
entire weekend with the hope that by Monday the story
will be flushed out of the news cycle. Not a
chance that that was happening on this show with thirteen
(02:53):
twelve or many others I know that are covering this
very closely. Polus is off ramp and out here is
always been.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
Look.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
I agree with the parents who showed up to testify
against this bill on the core matters, and you'll hear
that in just a moment, the dead naming, the misgendering,
at least by literal definition, those were removed from the bill.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
With some Senate amendments.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
But our next guest is going to elucidate us as
to why the core the heartbeat of this bill as
poisonous of a pill as it is remained intact when
Jared pol As signed it, whether or not he's willing
to admit it, and he's not now. He is saying
in this case that if there's one parent who says,
go ahead with the gender affirming care so called the
(03:41):
mutilation the reassignment of sex, which is foolhardy and a
fool's errand and absolutely not going to deliver the happiness
that it promises. Go watch What Is a Woman Matt
Walsh documentary. It's so important even for an adult individual
that decides to become trans, that's a decision you make
(04:03):
later in life you can present as the opposite sex.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
I have no problem with that.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
I think trans individuals should have liberties, civil rights, etc.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
But they should not encroach upon the rights.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Of others in sports, in spaces, and in businesses. And
that's where it gets real sticky. This wicket for Jared Polis.
But my whole contention I'm going to start here. Gender
affirming care so called it's a misnomer. It's gender denying care.
It denies the gender that you were born with as
(04:34):
assigned by God or even by biology. If you don't
believe in God, one or the other, you're born a
certain way.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
That's it. That's the end of the story.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Those procedures should be banned on anyone under the age
of eighteen. They are in Finland, they are in Sweden,
they are now in the UK, they are in various
parts of the United States. They should be here in Colorado.
But this just fast tracked and green lighted that p
And I'm telling you this is coming to a crossroads.
This is coming to loggerheads at some point constitutionally. And
our next guest is going to talk about her objections
(05:10):
to it, which are deeply founded. In Personal thirteen twelve,
it's Aaron Lee. Her daughter was part of a completely
misnamed art club and was indoctrinated into LGBTQ trans ideology
during one of those after school sessions meetings of this
said club that was disguised as an art club. You
(05:32):
can watch that video that documentary on YouTube and also
at artclubmovie dot com. Aaron Lee, our guest on Ryan
Schuling Live. Aaron, welcome back.
Speaker 5 (05:41):
Thanks Brian, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
Absolutely now right out of the gate here Governor Paulis's
first comment that you know, the shouldn't be brought into
the courtroom and custody battles. If one parent favors getting
the care so called for a fourteen year old, but
the other one wants to wait to eighteen, shouldn't be
a factor.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Is that the case with this bill that has been
amended so much to unpack h.
Speaker 5 (06:04):
From that one little clip. I mean, first of all,
he makes it akin to this is all about gender
affirming care, and it's not. It's about whether or not
you will deny reality and call your child by a
different sex, even separate from the medical procedures. And his
example is a dispute between two parents who have differing
(06:24):
opinions about when to medicalize their child, but he makes
it seem as though they're both on board with transitioning
the child. He refers to that situation as two loving parents,
both of whom agree to transition, but disagree on when
to start sterilizing and chopping off body parts. But what
he totally skirted is the actual situation that's playing out
(06:46):
of parents who won't affirm the lie that their child
was born in the wrong body. I mean, what about
Dustin Gonzalez, who you've interviewed, What about Jason Zook who
is at the Mom's for Liberty panel, What about Gene Mayine?
All of these our dads in Colorado who have lost
custody rights because they were not willing to socially affirm
(07:07):
their children and medically transition them. And what about all
the dads who live in other states whose exes have
moved here because of our child mutilation shield laws? So
all of didn't actually address the issue at all in
through Polish fashion. And Ryan I believed truly that the
reason they stripped the explicit language around parental rights and
(07:28):
course of control is because that's already practiced in Colorado.
As I've just mentioned, with those three dads who are
public about it, the unaffirming parent, meaning the one not
willing to transition their child socially or medically, is already
losing custody. Colorado Parent Advocacy Network has highlighted a lot
of their stories, but there are so many more suffering
(07:49):
through this who don't feel like they can be public
about it. And if they were to put what they're
already practicing explicitly into law, then we could have directly
challenged it in court. It would have been backwards progress
for the child mutilation movement, and they got some good
lawyers on the case to reframe the language so that
KADA still defined it as strip discrimination to not use
(08:11):
a child to share the name, which can and will
still be used against parents in court.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
The legal battle has begun against this being codified into law.
Aaron is joining us and she has helped leading that effort.
She cannot discuss the particulars of the case, but specifically
the lawsuit is about violations of the first and fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
We'll get into those details a little bit later on.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
I'm going to get to as many of these police
clips as possible and simply a volleyball it back to
Aaron for her retorts. Here is cut number two his
interview with Ross Komenski earlier this morning on KOA about
dead naming being stripped out of thirteen twelve.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
So fast forward to where we are a lot of outcry.
They did a lot of other things too.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
I mean it actually changed some of our cops of
the right statues to put dead naming in there.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
It did a number of things in there. All that
was stripped.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Out because of the massive outcry. And again I didn't
agree with everything.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
That a lot of those people who testified said, but
I certainly agreed with the core of it, some of the.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
When you got to the specifics, I mean, I didn't
agree with that people who just said transgender, aah bad.
But I agreed with the folks who said this should
not be in family law, we should not be explicitly
in our civil rights statutes.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
So what we did is there was a strike below.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Basically there was enough pressure from legislators, moderate Democrats and
others and to their credit, the LGBT rights organizations and
say get rid of all that stuff with the strike below.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Aaron, you're smarter than me on this issue and virtually
everything else. I would think, what does he mean by
strike below?
Speaker 5 (09:39):
So they removed portions of the bill by section two
that was labeling it as course of control for a
parent not to affirm their child's confusion. But then they
added in new language. So they struck some of the
most offensive, outwardly egregious language. But again I cannot stress
enough that I believe thirteen twelve end result is the same.
(10:02):
They played semantics, they manipulated language, They struck some things,
they added some others, but the end result is the same.
And it's interesting that he talked About'm glad he reacted
to the massive outcry. I'm glad he recognized that that
happened because the entire state revolted against this bill. But
I believe the pressure he actually responded to weren't those
(10:22):
LGBTQ rights works that pointed out to him that the
explicit language like the coer so control peace would lead
to backwards progress of what's already practiced in the state.
I think they got crappy with the language to achieve
the same result. And when thirteen twelve was in the House,
it was so poorly written that they just refined it
(10:43):
to raise the bar for our legal challenges.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Aaron Lee fighting thirteen twelve as a parental rights advocate,
and that fight continues in the legal realm. Polus on
more of What does thirteen twelve actually do now that
it's been amended and now that he signed it.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Here's what it does, Okay. It simplifies updates the family documents.
It makes it easier to update if your generous change
your marriage license for their documents. Who did this with
fir certificates years ago, just adds other documents to that.
When a school has a policy of telling parents that
their kid wants to go by another name because of
their gender, and this is very important, they now have
(11:20):
to make sure that that is a policy of telling
the parents the kid goes by another name for any reason.
So it takes the transgender piece out of it. It
just says, you know, your kid, Sally now wants to
go by you know Mo, and that's what everybody calls
her school. If the school notifies the parent, they say
Sally wants to go by Mo. Doesn't matter whether Sally's
transgender or just wants to go.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
By right, but it could be the other way right
this now, with Ross interrupting there, he does a very
astute job of pivoting this on its axis. Because Polis
is only telling half the story. Ross comes at this
from the exact opposite angle. And listen to Polus's response.
Speaker 6 (11:56):
The school could adopt a policy that says we will
not tell the parents about any name change, whether it's
gender related or not. It just has to be included
in whatever the policy is.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
Right, that's ruc.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
This does not change that this is a local control
education state. There is no band aid for schools that
you either do or don't call people by names. I
think there are schools that probably say we only call
people by their legal name, but there are many reasons
that kids go by nicknames. This's just put them all
on equal footing.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Now let's windle that down eron what Polus is acknowledging
here is there are schools in the state that could go,
you know what, We're just not going to notify parents
of any name change for any reason. And as long
as that's as that is the across the board policy,
we're good, right, He says, if.
Speaker 5 (12:39):
The school has a policy to inform parents, it changes
how that's done. But he knows, like I know that
most school districts have refused to pass the parental notification policy.
So last year police signed ten thirty nine, which forced
all districts to pass policy that requires teachers to call
a child whatever they want to be called. Even if
five year olds wants to be Billy on Tuesday in
(13:02):
a cat on Wednesday and the parents say, don't transition
my child. This law compels teachers and schools to socially
transition that child, even if it's against the parents will,
which the bill sponsor Janis Marchman explicitly said to me
on X but most sisters don't have that parental notification policy.
In fact, Representative Jarvis Caldwell tried to get an amendment
(13:24):
through that would ensure parents are notified, and the Democrats
you latterly voted that down. So it's such a wormy, slippery,
smokescreen answer from Polish. But what's really rich to me
is how he teuts we're a local control state.
Speaker 7 (13:37):
Well, we're a.
Speaker 5 (13:38):
Local control street, so we can't force a parent notification
policy in the same breadth as talking about how he
signed a law that forces all schools, including charter schools,
to socially transition children. So much hypocrisy in just one statement.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
Oh, and there's so much more. Aaron Lee joining us
breaking down this.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Jared Polis interview from earlier this morning on ros Keominski's
program over on kale A. Here he's discussing the civil
rights component of thirteen twelve and again circles back to
these terms misgendering and.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Dead naming, and then it adds language that is not specific.
And this is where again I think there's an essence of.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
A disagreement, but it's not about this bill. There's a
lot of disagreement about the Civil Rights Commission. Right, you've
talked about the master piece kkse who talked about all
these This is not in any way Shope perform like
the original bill did. But misgendering or dead naming, those
are nowhere in the statute.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
What about the Civil Rights Commission that component of it?
Speaker 5 (14:33):
Aaron, Well, he's correct that misgendering and dead naming were removed.
Those terms but even more vaguely described chosen name and
how the individual chooses to be addressed or added to
the definition of gender expression in KATA. So they just
took out again the more like raisingly egregious terms and
(14:56):
replaced them with more vague and confusing terms. In my opinion,
that's even more unconstitutional. It's semantics. It's a shell game.
You really thinks Colon Roddam's are so dumb that we're
going to go, oh good, they took out miss gendering
and daming, so dead dating, it's all good. Nothing to
see here, and not touch on that. They just use
different terminology to achieve the same result.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
In Cauda, listen very closely to this red herring that
Polus presents as well. It's using a different example to
make a point, but it's not addressing the core issue
at hand.
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Listen very closely.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
What it does is it makes a slightly different definition
there where it says people, if you're calling people at
work by a name that's not their name, that could
be a cause.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
For a civil rights complaint. I'll just give you two examples.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Let's say you have a colleague who's a little overweight
and he called fatso all the time. Now, if that
is persistent, and maybe he doesn't take it in good spirits,
that could very well be a work for civil rights
because he could say, Hey.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
My colleague calls me fatso all the time.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
You know it?
Speaker 1 (15:55):
Really, every time I hear it, it tears me apart
because I have, you know whatever.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
That's one.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Another one would be let's say, Ross, you're at work
and to demean you.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Your colleagues are calling you Rosie. Okay.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
And there's been look, I'm gay, there's been a feminine
gay guys who thinks this, right, I'm not particularly feminate,
but people call them by a webisader and maybe even
guys are effeminate, right, And people start calling you rosie
around the marketplace, you know, around the workplace. That could
be workplace harassment discrimination. I think could be, because there's
a whole burner proof. It doesn't go to the court,
it goes to Civil Rights Commission.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
You can get but it's not you know, it's not
a crime.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
It's just something that you deserve to be safe at
work and not called rosy or fatso.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
So that's what the bill does. All the stuff that
people objected to was taken out of it. I get it.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
People still don't like the whole business around the Civil
Rights Commission, but this does not any significant way change
any of that.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Now, I like, I love the part where he drops it.
I'm not particularly ifemined. I'm gay, but I'm not particularly effeminate.
But how about those two examples there, Aaron calling somebody
fatso in the workplace or calling Ross rosy when he
doesn't want to.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
Be called that.
Speaker 5 (16:53):
He's just completely skirting the issue by directing it all
back to the workplace and ignoring the fact that this
lies to all places of public accommodation, which is businesses, schools,
private schools, church organizations like a Christis pregnancy center. This
is not just applicable in the workplace, it impacts far
(17:13):
more Colorado ins than just those beholding the workplace requirements.
And he just totally skirts the question here again, like
you said, it's a red herring and his examples are
complete bs and skirts the transgender issue. Calling someone fat, though,
has nothing to do with the transgender Bill of Rights.
It forces all of us to call people whatever name
and pronoun they demand.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
Or else, let me put forth an example as to
why Aaron is exactly right on this, why it's so slippery.
And Ross does the same technique here, and he was
brilliant in its execution.
Speaker 4 (17:46):
He reverse engineers that.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
Yeah, you go in the workplace, you call somebody fat,
So that's the meaning somebody doesn't like it in in
a workplace setting. Maybe something could be done about that
from a disciplinary standpoint. But what if you call somebody
by their gift an original name to Aaron's point, and
you refuse to acknowledge the new gender identity, the new
name that the person wants to be called, That could
(18:08):
still be considered unwelcomed name calling in the workplace, ie
dead naming. So Ross gets right to the point on
this and then Paulus offers his response, it will blow
your mind.
Speaker 6 (18:22):
Let's say there's somebody born male who's going is Jill.
Now when somebody keeps calling him Joe, it seems to
me under the law, Yeah, now, you could have some
civil rights complaint for the wrong name. But if they
were doing the wrong name to do the other gender,
then they could have filed that complaint anyway. So I
want to make this a little bigger thing. Don't you
think this whole thing is potentially a massive violation of First.
Speaker 4 (18:45):
Amendment speech rights? Like why?
Speaker 6 (18:47):
I mean, I realize it might offend somebody if I
call him by the wrong name or the wrong gender,
But but how is that a matter of law that
should trump my First Amendment rights?
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Well, first of all, you already would have had to
complay before this bill passed.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Absolutely somebody could plain that you were calling them by
the wrong name. This makes it more explicit. Let me
give another example. I think most of your listeners will.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Agree with regards to race.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
If you have a colleague who happens to be African
American and people call him the N word, Okay, that
is I think a typical example of workfaceed and workforce
discrimination and arrassment. I mean, I think most of your
decision agree. Maybe someone a radical fringe would. So this
is basically saying yes for reasons related to gender. I
can't be calling you Rosie at work. It's the meaning
just call people by their name. It's not a criminal
(19:32):
act to do otherwise, but it can be a civil
rights infringement at work, and people should be safe at work.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
To not be discriminated again. So this is not a
transgender that or.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Had cole productions just as much before, and this doesn't.
Speaker 3 (19:45):
Change that transgenders had just as much protection before. That
goes to Aaron's point that this bill doesn't change anything
that was already within state law. And the further point
I want to make here, Aaron, have you respond to
is why this is a slippery slope as I've heard it.
I've seen it for those protransactivists that.
Speaker 4 (20:02):
Are out there.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
They equate dead naming to the N word, the very
example that police just gave.
Speaker 5 (20:10):
Yeah, they gave that example in testimony during the hearings
for this bill. That was one of their explanations. I'm sorry.
If this was already law, then why do we need
to pass thirteen twelve, which he knew of sets the
majority of Colorado's in the entire country. If it was
already law, why did you sign this? That riddle me
that it makes no sense to me. Again, another slippery
(20:31):
non answer from Polish.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Final quote here.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
And I'm so thankful for Aaron Lee helping us break
this down. Jared Poulos, the governor, his interview Ros Komenski
this morning on KOA. And this does get into the
First Amendment waters and the basis for this lawsuit that
Aaron is helping lead. She can't talk about it yet,
and when she can, she'll do it on this show.
First Amendment rights, Fourteenth Amendment rights. But listen carefully for
(20:55):
the First Amendment portion of it right here. This is
Polis's final comment on the matter this morning. You don't
think it's an infringement on the First Amendment? Is that
what you're saying?
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Well, look, obviously you have to if you have an employer,
there's things you can say you can't say at work, right,
I mean, this is not like you know, with your
friends in your house at all, right, right, I mean
that's not against the law. When you go to work,
you cannot call your African American colleague, the N word.
I mean that that is, you know, that is a
civil rights violation.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
So of course this is a great diverse state.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
You may have to work with somebody whose transgenders something,
you may have to work with somebody who who's African
American like. You just have to respect whoever you work with.
You you know, and you all try to get along.
And that is in the professional side of things, how
we all get together as a state.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
And I would add this.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Goes always if you have a doubt Christian who you
work with, you have to respect that. You never mock
their Christianity. You never mocked their faith at work.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Again, in your.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
Own home, you know, if you're with friends.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
And you can argue about Christianity or transgender and you
can get mean and vicious, and there's no violation of
a law.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Totally free speech. But when you're at work, absolutely there.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Are expectations of what you do at work. Can treat
everybody civilly. This bill doesn't too much about that, but
that was already the law in Colorado.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
But this has been asked, an answered, and decided in
a court of law. Citing specifically one that he mentioned earlier,
Aaron Jared Polis, and that is Masterpiece Cake Shop and
Jack Phillips if a customer comes into his place of business.
Let me offer this third example. There's your home that
Jared Polis mentioned, there's the workplace, but then there's out
in public. If you're a customer at a restaurant or
(22:25):
at a bake shop like Jack Phillips runs, and he
refuses to acknowledge, endorse, and concede the gender change of
an individual. The Supreme Court of the United States has
already ruled that he doesn't have to, that it infringes
upon his religious rights under the First Amendment. So what
is the point Jared Polis exactly is making here?
Speaker 5 (22:46):
To me, it's a virtue signal to the transgender radical activist.
If it's already law, and it's already been struck down
that you can't compel people in that way. It seems
like a virtue signaling move in my opinion. But I
really believe that it's bay In this case, he has
woken up a lot of people who previously did not
pay attention to all the nonsense that he was calling.
So I think it was a virtue signal move all
(23:08):
around the whole transgender Bill of Rights, and it's backfired.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
We've got a little bit long in the segment, but
it's a very important topic and the battle continues. I
invite everyone to read online this article at foxnews dot com,
written by Lindsay Kornick. Colorado parent groups sue state over
controversial new transgender law enforcing quote compelled speech. Aaron Lee
is at the front lines of that battle. Aaron, you
(23:33):
do great work. We appreciate how you break it down
as well. Best luck going forward, and please join us
again with any updates on this case.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
N sure, well, thanks, Ryan, all right, Aeronlee right.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
There, parental right to advocate your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (23:44):
On thirteen twelve, we'll get to another interview with Weston
Eimer coming up next. There was a bill and act
signed into law by President Trump yesterday and Weston claims
he has been directly impacted by the subject matter, which
is revenge.
Speaker 4 (24:00):
Here and Ryan schuling live.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Ashley Key is the key to your next move, and
that means going from wherever you're living right now to
the next home that you've got on the horizon, your
dream home. You want to pursue it well. Ashley Key
specializes in mountain properties, cross state relocations, luxury properties. But
her true passion is working.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
With quality people.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
And we know that all of you in this audience
are quality people. That's why Ashley so generously endorses this
program and wants to work with people like you. Her
premiere listing services include expert staging, professional photography, both aerial
and twilight shots, and they're all backed by the global
reach of Live Sotheby's International Realty. And get this, this
(24:44):
should be the tipping point for your decision. Ten percent
of every closing. She has donated since twenty twenty two
to Jeff co Kids. First talking with Aaron Lee earlier,
We've talked with Lindsay Datco. We were all unified in
this cause and Ashley Key is part of that cause.
You want to reach out to me personally, connect with
listeners like you. And if you are looking to buy
(25:05):
or sell a new home in Colorado, you can visit
online Keyfront Range Homes dot com. That's Keyfront Range Homes
dot com. Ashley Key the key to your next move.
Speaker 8 (25:20):
It's my honor to officially sign the Take It Down
Act into law. This big thing, very important, so horrible
what takes place. This would be the first ever federal
law to combat the distribution of explicit imaginary posted without
subjects consent.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
They take horrible pictures.
Speaker 8 (25:41):
And I guess sometimes even make up the pictures, and
they post it without consent or anything else. And very importantly,
this includes for forgeries generated by artificial intelligence known as
deep fakes. We've all heard about deep fakes. I have
all the time, but nobody says anything. I asked, Pam,
can you help me, Pam, She says no, I'm too busy,
too busy doing other things. Don't worry.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
You'll survive.
Speaker 8 (26:03):
But a lot of people don't survive. That's true and
so horrible. With the rise of AI image generation, countless
women have been harassed with deep facts and other explicit
images distributed against their will. This is the wrong and
it's just so horribly wrong, and it's a very abusive situation,
like in some cases people have never seen before. And
(26:27):
today we're making it totally illegal.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
President Trump yesterday signing the Take It Down Act, nearly
unanimously passing through both branches of Congress, the House and
the Senate. You don't see that very often, but it
goes to the seriousness of this issue and the fact
that it was bipartisan. It elicited a press release response
from our next guest, Weston Imer, and it's entitled former
(26:53):
RNC Youth Council member and co chair of Team i'mer pack.
Weston Imer, victim of Revenge porn releases statement on signing
of Take It Down Act in support of it. He
joins us now to provide more details here on Ryan Schuling.
Live well, West and welcome back.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 7 (27:09):
Ryan.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
It's good to be back with you now.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
I want to get caught up with you because we
go back now. It's almost been two full months, but
so much has happened.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
March twenty fifth.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
In your press release, you cite as when this incident
took place, take us through the nuts and bulls the
details of it and what exactly went down.
Speaker 7 (27:27):
Yeah, of course, So we were in the heat of
the Colorado GOP chairman's race here in Colorado at that time,
and I had been working with a candidate for that office,
Lori Saine, and just on March twenty fifth, right before
the reorganizational meeting of the Colorado GOP and email, actually
(27:47):
two emails were sent out from a spoofed proton mail
email address using my name to send out explicit photos
of me that we're years old, to the entirety or
mostly the entirety of the Colorado Republican Party Central Committee List,
(28:08):
which is the governing body of the Colorado Republican Party, right,
And it contained two illicit photos as well as other imagery,
and it was signed that I want to be your
future presidents and here's how you can get to know me.
And it sent the photos, which was then the email
(28:28):
was signed as Western Eimer, Member of the Republican National
Committee Youth Advisory Council. So this email goes out in
the afternoon evening. We start getting blown up with phone
calls and emails from friends and acquaintances and concerned people
of like, what on earth is this? Did you really
(28:48):
just send this? And of course they sent it to
me as well. The Twitter didn't even try and hide it.
They sent it directly to me, They sent it directly
to my mother, they sent it to the terror of
the party, all of these people.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
Right.
Speaker 7 (29:00):
So obviously I did not do this, and I am
now exposed in a way that I never could have
imagined being exposed. And so we acted pretty quick. We
got in touch with our attorneys.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
We called the local.
Speaker 7 (29:15):
Sheriff's office in Jefferson County to report it as revenge porn.
Here in Colorado, we have a statute that predates the
Take It Down Act, which made it illegal in Colorado
in a state crime to send out images like this
over the airwaves, whether on social media, email, text message,
what have you, and.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
We reported it to jeff Tho.
Speaker 7 (29:37):
There's been an ongoing investigation since March twenty fifth into
this incident, and now yesterday President Trump signed the Take
It Down Act into law, which makes it a federal crime,
which will now be able to bring the FBI in
to try and get to the bottom of who's behind this.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
I first met Weston Eimer at a gathering where we
were celebrating President Trump's primary when hearing Colorado over Nikki Haley.
I met his mother, Laurel as well, and that's who
he's referring to there.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
He joins us.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
I'm noticing on your Facebook page Weston a lot of formers,
including in your injured title your biography, saying former RNC
Youth Advisory Council member, former staffer at Colorado GOP, did.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
This incident cost you those positions?
Speaker 7 (30:23):
It did not cost me the Colorado GOP one, but
I have reason to believe it cost me the RNC one.
About a week after Brita Horne was elected chair, I
was mysteriously removed from the RNC Youth Advisory Council with
no reason given by the RNC, and I have reason
to believe that this email was misconstrued and sent to
(30:44):
the Republican National Committee saying that I did this and
my seriously. A week later, I was removed, told to
change everything to former, remove the GOP branding from any
social media, and that I was barred from addressing anyone
as a member of the council here forthwith, so that
I have a feeling was involved in linked to this.
(31:06):
I recently returned from Miami, Florida, where I was supposed
to have a meeting with the chiefest staff of the RNC,
who mysteriously canceled our meeting right before it was supposed
to happen, and I have not heard from anyone.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Since Westin Eimer our guests now, I did receive a
few texts from names that our audience would know that
were telling me that you had direct involvement in the
images themselves I'm not casting aspersions as to their origin
or where they might have originally been posted. But I
want to read you these texts Weston and just have
(31:40):
you respond to them.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
They are as follows.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
It says, isn't this law the one that President Trump
just signed to take it down?
Speaker 4 (31:47):
Act?
Speaker 3 (31:48):
Isn't this law to protect underaged children for photos that
were non consenting? Wasn't Weston an adult when he posted
these pictures? And then following up same text message, how
is it revenge porn? When Western himself texted a group
of young Republicans his grinder handle, he did this to himself?
Speaker 7 (32:07):
Your response, so none of those facts are true, and
maybe off air you can share with me who that is,
because I'm sure Jefferson County Sheriff's office would love to
talk to this person because they seem to have some knowledge. So,
for one, I have never posted inappropriate photos of myself
on any platform, dating app, social media, website, anything, Never
(32:32):
would never have. I pride myself on being a very
discreet individual. You know, and every person in my generation
is guilty of this same behavior. You can ask any
gen Z individual in the country and they will say, yep,
we've done it. We aren't proud of it. We've done
it right, and that's the truth. Not proud of it. Yes,
(32:53):
the photos are of me, Yes, I may have taken them,
but to misconstrue them as my choice to have these
distributed and to say that I posted them somewhere is
patently false and that is provable. If you go back
through my social media, you will never find anything of
the sort post it. You will never find even the
reference to anything sexual on.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Any of my platforms.
Speaker 7 (33:17):
And so what happened here is someone got their hands
in these photos. I have never sent out a screenshot
of a Grinder profile to anyone. I've never sent these
photos out into a group of young Republicans. I've never
done any of those things right. So, if you really
want to delve into it, these people that are saying
this are covering for whoever is responsible. And these photos
(33:41):
were found gotten their hands on by someone. There's been
suspicion that somebody hacked into my Snapchat account and obtained
them that way through. There's a private folder on there
that you can lock things in that is not as
secure as I once thought it was. And we've had
some tech gurus that have been looking into that. But
these people got their.
Speaker 9 (34:00):
Hands on these photos and made a choice, a criminal,
negligent choice, to send them out to hundreds of individuals
to an effect commit a political assassination against me. And
they've been successful for.
Speaker 7 (34:19):
The most part. And that is something that I just
cannot believe is happening in this day and age, especially
with the signing of the Take Adown Act and the
criminalization of this behavior federally. This is something that is
highly alarming. There is I believe a conspiracy behind this
from the establishment that don't want me anywhere near Colorado
(34:40):
politics or federal politics for that matter, and they are
getting away with it. And as you mentioned, these are
prominent people that just sent you these messages. These people
are high up. They don't like me for whatever reason,
and they want to see me removed in any way possible.
Speaker 4 (34:55):
Westin How old are you right now?
Speaker 7 (34:57):
I am twenty one. To follow up on your point
of the younger aspect, the bill is not ah specific
in any way.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
Well, I remember being twenty one and doing a lot
of things that I'll tell you this. I am glad
I did not grow up in your gen Z generation
because the nineties were a much different time, and the
only thing I had to worry about where those Kodak
instamatic cameras and people having those types of pictures developed.
So Western Imer or pull it right, yeah, right, that
one you see happen right away. You can be a
(35:27):
little bit more stealth at the instematic back in the day.
You can follow him at real Weston. I'mer on X.
That's w E s t O N. I am er Western.
We appreciate you sharing your story with us here today
and we'll see where it goes from here now that
President Trump has signed that into law.
Speaker 7 (35:43):
Yes, thank you, Brian, and I appreciate you having me
on to share my story. And please, if if anyone
else is a victim of this, don't be afraid to
speak up and please, you know, reach out if you
have any information. The Jeffson Kindt of Sheriff's Office has
a case. You can call them directly or you can
reach out to me and we can go from there.
Speaker 4 (35:59):
Thank you, yep.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
To take it down Act now Law courtesy of President Trump.
A break, we're back wrapping up our number one after
this on Ryan Schuling Live all right. Confession to make
when it comes to wealth building and retirement planning.
Speaker 4 (36:11):
I know nothing, so I can't give that to you.
But the good news is.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
Tradean Wealth can not just for me, but for you
as well. In fact, I'll be meeting with Trade and
Wealth on Wednesday morning.
Speaker 4 (36:23):
That's tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (36:24):
I better set my alarm clock right here in the
Denver Tech Center in Greenwood Village. They've also got offices
locally in Broomfield and Loveland. You can set up your
free personal one on one consultation at seven two oh
four zero five thirty three hundred. That's seven two oh
four zero five thirty three hundred. Trajan Wealth's fiduciary advisors
are committed to working collaboratively with you. They're going to
(36:47):
sit you down, You're going to look you in the eye.
They're going to offer their knowledge and expertise to provide
a path forward to your most successful possible wealth planning
and retirement. And when it comes to your wealth management plan,
no one size does not fit all. They're not going
to give you just a template to work with. They're
gonna map you through that template and develop a personalized,
(37:08):
specific plan designed only for you. Contact Trajan Wealth today
and you can discuss those strategies. With them to weather
the current market turbulence, just as I will be on
Wednesday morning. Check them out online Trajanwealth dot com or
by phone one more time seven two oh four zero
five thirty three hundred. Seven to two oh four zero
five thirty three hundred. You got that number, I hope
(37:30):
so if not again. Website Trajanwealth dot Com for Trajan Wealth,
a proud sponsor of Ryan Schuling. Live advisory service is
offered through Trajan Wealth LLC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor.
Paid advertisement.
Speaker 4 (37:48):
Are more to come straight ahead.
Speaker 3 (37:50):
Greg Warren, host of the Champ a comedy special coming
up and it's actually available right now.
Speaker 4 (37:55):
On YouTube, will be joining us.
Speaker 3 (37:57):
Got some texts uh responding to the Weston Imor interview.
Will get into all that hour number two straight ahead
You should not treat them differently because of how they view,
you know, giving or not getting gender affirming care to
their kid. I mean, one parent says, oh, wait till
you're eighteen. Another says, I want to start at fourteen.
The courts this bill would have made the courts effectively
favor the one who said started at fourteen. So I
think those are personal matters. They should have be sided
by families. It's always in the best interest of the
(00:21):
child to be connected with both parents.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
That's totally separating the state. If a parent kicks their
kid out for being you know, trans or something like that,
they lose their custody rights.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
This is a loving parent who just says, you know,
wait till you're an adult to make these decisions, versus
maybe the other parents say too it earlier.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
So that was some of the problems all of us
had with the bill.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
It would have set up a very difficult family law
situation that when you have two loving parents who cared
for the kid, would have led to potentially taken one
of those parents out of the kid's life.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Okay, now there's some heavy lifting to do right out
of the gate here. This is a real suck in
the face kind of shell. This Tuesday edition, Ryan Schreuling Live,
happened to be along with you, Zack Seegers, alongside Kelly
somewhere wandering. But that, of course was Governor Jared Polis
and trying to arrest his attention and answer a question directly.
(01:10):
Is like the proverbial nailing Jello to the wall. Jared
Polis is very slippery, and it's very intentional. He speaks
very quickly. He does this in debates. I've talked about
it with Heidi Ganal who ran against him. He does
this in interviews. And the only person that Governor Polis
will agree to appear on a show with is our
(01:33):
own Ross Komensky across the Hall at KOA. That's just
the way he views it. His handlers have explained it, well,
we go on Ross and that's enough.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Now.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
I don't anticipate he would ever come on this program
or on Dan Kaplis, although he has in the past,
way back when, like right before I started here at
iHeart Deenver and began producing the show that was Capitalist
and Kafer. Jared Poulis, immediately upon winning the governor's race
in twenty eighteen, was on with Dan Kaplis, and he
(02:03):
has not been on since.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
One of the reasons why is an issue like this one.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
He's talking about Houseville twenty five thirteen twelve that he
signed into law in a Friday night news dump. Now
what that is in my business, in this business, is
a public figure intentionally dumps an unfavorable story into the
news cycle after five pm on a Friday local time.
(02:32):
They do this to avoid immediate negative blowback and coverage
from shows like this one, from media that's doing its
job journalistically, and to give themselves a buffer of an
entire weekend with the hope that by Monday the story
will be flushed out of the news cycle. Not a
chance that that was happening on this show with thirteen
(02:53):
twelve or many others I know that are covering this
very closely. Polus is off ramp and out here is
always been.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
Look.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
I agree with the parents who showed up to testify
against this bill on the core matters, and you'll hear
that in just a moment, the dead naming, the misgendering,
at least by literal definition, those were removed from the bill.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
With some Senate amendments.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
But our next guest is going to elucidate us as
to why the core the heartbeat of this bill as
poisonous of a pill as it is remained intact when
Jared pol As signed it, whether or not he's willing
to admit it, and he's not now. He is saying
in this case that if there's one parent who says,
go ahead with the gender affirming care so called the
(03:41):
mutilation the reassignment of sex, which is foolhardy and a
fool's errand and absolutely not going to deliver the happiness
that it promises. Go watch What Is a Woman Matt
Walsh documentary. It's so important even for an adult individual
that decides to become trans, that's a decision you make
(04:03):
later in life you can present as the opposite sex.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
I have no problem with that.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
I think trans individuals should have liberties, civil rights, etc.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
But they should not encroach upon the rights.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Of others in sports, in spaces, and in businesses. And
that's where it gets real sticky. This wicket for Jared Polis.
But my whole contention I'm going to start here. Gender
affirming care so called it's a misnomer. It's gender denying care.
It denies the gender that you were born with as
(04:34):
assigned by God or even by biology. If you don't
believe in God, one or the other, you're born a
certain way.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
That's it. That's the end of the story.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Those procedures should be banned on anyone under the age
of eighteen. They are in Finland, they are in Sweden,
they are now in the UK, they are in various
parts of the United States. They should be here in Colorado.
But this just fast tracked and green lighted that p
And I'm telling you this is coming to a crossroads.
This is coming to loggerheads at some point constitutionally. And
our next guest is going to talk about her objections
(05:10):
to it, which are deeply founded. In Personal thirteen twelve,
it's Aaron Lee. Her daughter was part of a completely
misnamed art club and was indoctrinated into LGBTQ trans ideology
during one of those after school sessions meetings of this
said club that was disguised as an art club. You
(05:32):
can watch that video that documentary on YouTube and also
at artclubmovie dot com. Aaron Lee, our guest on Ryan
Schuling Live. Aaron, welcome back.
Speaker 5 (05:41):
Thanks Brian, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
Absolutely now right out of the gate here Governor Paulis's
first comment that you know, the shouldn't be brought into
the courtroom and custody battles. If one parent favors getting
the care so called for a fourteen year old, but
the other one wants to wait to eighteen, shouldn't be
a factor.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Is that the case with this bill that has been
amended so much to unpack h.
Speaker 5 (06:04):
From that one little clip. I mean, first of all,
he makes it akin to this is all about gender
affirming care, and it's not. It's about whether or not
you will deny reality and call your child by a
different sex, even separate from the medical procedures. And his
example is a dispute between two parents who have differing
(06:24):
opinions about when to medicalize their child, but he makes
it seem as though they're both on board with transitioning
the child. He refers to that situation as two loving parents,
both of whom agree to transition, but disagree on when
to start sterilizing and chopping off body parts. But what
he totally skirted is the actual situation that's playing out
(06:46):
of parents who won't affirm the lie that their child
was born in the wrong body. I mean, what about
Dustin Gonzalez, who you've interviewed, What about Jason Zook who
is at the Mom's for Liberty panel, What about Gene Mayine?
All of these our dads in Colorado who have lost
custody rights because they were not willing to socially affirm
(07:07):
their children and medically transition them. And what about all
the dads who live in other states whose exes have
moved here because of our child mutilation shield laws? So
all of didn't actually address the issue at all in
through Polish fashion. And Ryan I believed truly that the
reason they stripped the explicit language around parental rights and
(07:28):
course of control is because that's already practiced in Colorado.
As I've just mentioned, with those three dads who are
public about it, the unaffirming parent, meaning the one not
willing to transition their child socially or medically, is already
losing custody. Colorado Parent Advocacy Network has highlighted a lot
of their stories, but there are so many more suffering
(07:49):
through this who don't feel like they can be public
about it. And if they were to put what they're
already practicing explicitly into law, then we could have directly
challenged it in court. It would have been backwards progress
for the child mutilation movement, and they got some good
lawyers on the case to reframe the language so that
KADA still defined it as strip discrimination to not use
(08:11):
a child to share the name, which can and will
still be used against parents in court.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
The legal battle has begun against this being codified into law.
Aaron is joining us and she has helped leading that effort.
She cannot discuss the particulars of the case, but specifically
the lawsuit is about violations of the first and fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
We'll get into those details a little bit later on.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
I'm going to get to as many of these police
clips as possible and simply a volleyball it back to
Aaron for her retorts. Here is cut number two his
interview with Ross Komenski earlier this morning on KOA about
dead naming being stripped out of thirteen twelve.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
So fast forward to where we are a lot of outcry.
They did a lot of other things too.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
I mean it actually changed some of our cops of
the right statues to put dead naming in there.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
It did a number of things in there. All that
was stripped.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Out because of the massive outcry. And again I didn't
agree with everything.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
That a lot of those people who testified said, but
I certainly agreed with the core of it, some of the.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
When you got to the specifics, I mean, I didn't
agree with that people who just said transgender, aah bad.
But I agreed with the folks who said this should
not be in family law, we should not be explicitly
in our civil rights statutes.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
So what we did is there was a strike below.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Basically there was enough pressure from legislators, moderate Democrats and
others and to their credit, the LGBT rights organizations and
say get rid of all that stuff with the strike below.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Aaron, you're smarter than me on this issue and virtually
everything else. I would think, what does he mean by
strike below?
Speaker 5 (09:39):
So they removed portions of the bill by section two
that was labeling it as course of control for a
parent not to affirm their child's confusion. But then they
added in new language. So they struck some of the
most offensive, outwardly egregious language. But again I cannot stress
enough that I believe thirteen twelve end result is the same.
(10:02):
They played semantics, they manipulated language, They struck some things,
they added some others, but the end result is the same.
And it's interesting that he talked About'm glad he reacted
to the massive outcry. I'm glad he recognized that that
happened because the entire state revolted against this bill. But
I believe the pressure he actually responded to weren't those
(10:22):
LGBTQ rights works that pointed out to him that the
explicit language like the coer so control peace would lead
to backwards progress of what's already practiced in the state.
I think they got crappy with the language to achieve
the same result. And when thirteen twelve was in the House,
it was so poorly written that they just refined it
(10:43):
to raise the bar for our legal challenges.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Aaron Lee fighting thirteen twelve as a parental rights advocate,
and that fight continues in the legal realm. Polus on
more of What does thirteen twelve actually do now that
it's been amended and now that he signed it.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Here's what it does, Okay. It simplifies updates the family documents.
It makes it easier to update if your generous change
your marriage license for their documents. Who did this with
fir certificates years ago, just adds other documents to that.
When a school has a policy of telling parents that
their kid wants to go by another name because of
their gender, and this is very important, they now have
(11:20):
to make sure that that is a policy of telling
the parents the kid goes by another name for any reason.
So it takes the transgender piece out of it. It
just says, you know, your kid, Sally now wants to
go by you know Mo, and that's what everybody calls
her school. If the school notifies the parent, they say
Sally wants to go by Mo. Doesn't matter whether Sally's
transgender or just wants to go.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
By right, but it could be the other way right
this now, with Ross interrupting there, he does a very
astute job of pivoting this on its axis. Because Polis
is only telling half the story. Ross comes at this
from the exact opposite angle. And listen to Polus's response.
Speaker 6 (11:56):
The school could adopt a policy that says we will
not tell the parents about any name change, whether it's
gender related or not. It just has to be included
in whatever the policy is.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
Right, that's ruc.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
This does not change that this is a local control
education state. There is no band aid for schools that
you either do or don't call people by names. I
think there are schools that probably say we only call
people by their legal name, but there are many reasons
that kids go by nicknames. This's just put them all
on equal footing.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Now let's windle that down eron what Polus is acknowledging
here is there are schools in the state that could go,
you know what, We're just not going to notify parents
of any name change for any reason. And as long
as that's as that is the across the board policy,
we're good, right, He says, if.
Speaker 5 (12:39):
The school has a policy to inform parents, it changes
how that's done. But he knows, like I know that
most school districts have refused to pass the parental notification policy.
So last year police signed ten thirty nine, which forced
all districts to pass policy that requires teachers to call
a child whatever they want to be called. Even if
five year olds wants to be Billy on Tuesday in
(13:02):
a cat on Wednesday and the parents say, don't transition
my child. This law compels teachers and schools to socially
transition that child, even if it's against the parents will,
which the bill sponsor Janis Marchman explicitly said to me
on X but most sisters don't have that parental notification policy.
In fact, Representative Jarvis Caldwell tried to get an amendment
(13:24):
through that would ensure parents are notified, and the Democrats
you latterly voted that down. So it's such a wormy, slippery,
smokescreen answer from Polish. But what's really rich to me
is how he teuts we're a local control state.
Speaker 7 (13:37):
Well, we're a.
Speaker 5 (13:38):
Local control street, so we can't force a parent notification
policy in the same breadth as talking about how he
signed a law that forces all schools, including charter schools,
to socially transition children. So much hypocrisy in just one statement.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
Oh, and there's so much more. Aaron Lee joining us
breaking down this.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Jared Polis interview from earlier this morning on ros Keominski's
program over on kale A. Here he's discussing the civil
rights component of thirteen twelve and again circles back to
these terms misgendering and.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Dead naming, and then it adds language that is not specific.
And this is where again I think there's an essence of.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
A disagreement, but it's not about this bill. There's a
lot of disagreement about the Civil Rights Commission. Right, you've
talked about the master piece kkse who talked about all
these This is not in any way Shope perform like
the original bill did. But misgendering or dead naming, those
are nowhere in the statute.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
What about the Civil Rights Commission that component of it?
Speaker 5 (14:33):
Aaron, Well, he's correct that misgendering and dead naming were removed.
Those terms but even more vaguely described chosen name and
how the individual chooses to be addressed or added to
the definition of gender expression in KATA. So they just
took out again the more like raisingly egregious terms and
(14:56):
replaced them with more vague and confusing terms. In my opinion,
that's even more unconstitutional. It's semantics. It's a shell game.
You really thinks Colon Roddam's are so dumb that we're
going to go, oh good, they took out miss gendering
and daming, so dead dating, it's all good. Nothing to
see here, and not touch on that. They just use
different terminology to achieve the same result.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
In Cauda, listen very closely to this red herring that
Polus presents as well. It's using a different example to
make a point, but it's not addressing the core issue
at hand.
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Listen very closely.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
What it does is it makes a slightly different definition
there where it says people, if you're calling people at
work by a name that's not their name, that could
be a cause.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
For a civil rights complaint. I'll just give you two examples.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Let's say you have a colleague who's a little overweight
and he called fatso all the time. Now, if that
is persistent, and maybe he doesn't take it in good spirits,
that could very well be a work for civil rights
because he could say, Hey.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
My colleague calls me fatso all the time.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
You know it?
Speaker 1 (15:55):
Really, every time I hear it, it tears me apart
because I have, you know whatever.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
That's one.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Another one would be let's say, Ross, you're at work
and to demean you.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Your colleagues are calling you Rosie. Okay.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
And there's been look, I'm gay, there's been a feminine
gay guys who thinks this, right, I'm not particularly feminate,
but people call them by a webisader and maybe even
guys are effeminate, right, And people start calling you rosie
around the marketplace, you know, around the workplace. That could
be workplace harassment discrimination. I think could be, because there's
a whole burner proof. It doesn't go to the court,
it goes to Civil Rights Commission.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
You can get but it's not you know, it's not
a crime.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
It's just something that you deserve to be safe at
work and not called rosy or fatso.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
So that's what the bill does. All the stuff that
people objected to was taken out of it. I get it.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
People still don't like the whole business around the Civil
Rights Commission, but this does not any significant way change
any of that.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Now, I like, I love the part where he drops it.
I'm not particularly ifemined. I'm gay, but I'm not particularly effeminate.
But how about those two examples there, Aaron calling somebody
fatso in the workplace or calling Ross rosy when he
doesn't want to.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
Be called that.
Speaker 5 (16:53):
He's just completely skirting the issue by directing it all
back to the workplace and ignoring the fact that this
lies to all places of public accommodation, which is businesses, schools,
private schools, church organizations like a Christis pregnancy center. This
is not just applicable in the workplace, it impacts far
(17:13):
more Colorado ins than just those beholding the workplace requirements.
And he just totally skirts the question here again, like
you said, it's a red herring and his examples are
complete bs and skirts the transgender issue. Calling someone fat, though,
has nothing to do with the transgender Bill of Rights.
It forces all of us to call people whatever name
and pronoun they demand.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
Or else, let me put forth an example as to
why Aaron is exactly right on this, why it's so slippery.
And Ross does the same technique here, and he was
brilliant in its execution.
Speaker 4 (17:46):
He reverse engineers that.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
Yeah, you go in the workplace, you call somebody fat,
So that's the meaning somebody doesn't like it in in
a workplace setting. Maybe something could be done about that
from a disciplinary standpoint. But what if you call somebody
by their gift an original name to Aaron's point, and
you refuse to acknowledge the new gender identity, the new
name that the person wants to be called, That could
(18:08):
still be considered unwelcomed name calling in the workplace, ie
dead naming. So Ross gets right to the point on
this and then Paulus offers his response, it will blow
your mind.
Speaker 6 (18:22):
Let's say there's somebody born male who's going is Jill.
Now when somebody keeps calling him Joe, it seems to
me under the law, Yeah, now, you could have some
civil rights complaint for the wrong name. But if they
were doing the wrong name to do the other gender,
then they could have filed that complaint anyway. So I
want to make this a little bigger thing. Don't you
think this whole thing is potentially a massive violation of First.
Speaker 4 (18:45):
Amendment speech rights? Like why?
Speaker 6 (18:47):
I mean, I realize it might offend somebody if I
call him by the wrong name or the wrong gender,
But but how is that a matter of law that
should trump my First Amendment rights?
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Well, first of all, you already would have had to
complay before this bill passed.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Absolutely somebody could plain that you were calling them by
the wrong name. This makes it more explicit. Let me
give another example. I think most of your listeners will.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Agree with regards to race.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
If you have a colleague who happens to be African
American and people call him the N word, Okay, that
is I think a typical example of workfaceed and workforce
discrimination and arrassment. I mean, I think most of your
decision agree. Maybe someone a radical fringe would. So this
is basically saying yes for reasons related to gender. I
can't be calling you Rosie at work. It's the meaning
just call people by their name. It's not a criminal
(19:32):
act to do otherwise, but it can be a civil
rights infringement at work, and people should be safe at work.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
To not be discriminated again. So this is not a
transgender that or.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Had cole productions just as much before, and this doesn't.
Speaker 3 (19:45):
Change that transgenders had just as much protection before. That
goes to Aaron's point that this bill doesn't change anything
that was already within state law. And the further point
I want to make here, Aaron, have you respond to
is why this is a slippery slope as I've heard it.
I've seen it for those protransactivists that.
Speaker 4 (20:02):
Are out there.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
They equate dead naming to the N word, the very
example that police just gave.
Speaker 5 (20:10):
Yeah, they gave that example in testimony during the hearings
for this bill. That was one of their explanations. I'm sorry.
If this was already law, then why do we need
to pass thirteen twelve, which he knew of sets the
majority of Colorado's in the entire country. If it was
already law, why did you sign this? That riddle me
that it makes no sense to me. Again, another slippery
(20:31):
non answer from Polish.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Final quote here.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
And I'm so thankful for Aaron Lee helping us break
this down. Jared Poulos, the governor, his interview Ros Komenski
this morning on KOA. And this does get into the
First Amendment waters and the basis for this lawsuit that
Aaron is helping lead. She can't talk about it yet,
and when she can, she'll do it on this show.
First Amendment rights, Fourteenth Amendment rights. But listen carefully for
(20:55):
the First Amendment portion of it right here. This is
Polis's final comment on the matter this morning. You don't
think it's an infringement on the First Amendment? Is that
what you're saying?
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Well, look, obviously you have to if you have an employer,
there's things you can say you can't say at work, right,
I mean, this is not like you know, with your
friends in your house at all, right, right, I mean
that's not against the law. When you go to work,
you cannot call your African American colleague, the N word.
I mean that that is, you know, that is a
civil rights violation.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
So of course this is a great diverse state.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
You may have to work with somebody whose transgenders something,
you may have to work with somebody who who's African
American like. You just have to respect whoever you work with.
You you know, and you all try to get along.
And that is in the professional side of things, how
we all get together as a state.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
And I would add this.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Goes always if you have a doubt Christian who you
work with, you have to respect that. You never mock
their Christianity. You never mocked their faith at work.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Again, in your.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
Own home, you know, if you're with friends.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
And you can argue about Christianity or transgender and you
can get mean and vicious, and there's no violation of
a law.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Totally free speech. But when you're at work, absolutely there.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Are expectations of what you do at work. Can treat
everybody civilly. This bill doesn't too much about that, but
that was already the law in Colorado.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
But this has been asked, an answered, and decided in
a court of law. Citing specifically one that he mentioned earlier,
Aaron Jared Polis, and that is Masterpiece Cake Shop and
Jack Phillips if a customer comes into his place of business.
Let me offer this third example. There's your home that
Jared Polis mentioned, there's the workplace, but then there's out
in public. If you're a customer at a restaurant or
(22:25):
at a bake shop like Jack Phillips runs, and he
refuses to acknowledge, endorse, and concede the gender change of
an individual. The Supreme Court of the United States has
already ruled that he doesn't have to, that it infringes
upon his religious rights under the First Amendment. So what
is the point Jared Polis exactly is making here?
Speaker 5 (22:46):
To me, it's a virtue signal to the transgender radical activist.
If it's already law, and it's already been struck down
that you can't compel people in that way. It seems
like a virtue signaling move in my opinion. But I
really believe that it's bay In this case, he has
woken up a lot of people who previously did not
pay attention to all the nonsense that he was calling.
So I think it was a virtue signal move all
(23:08):
around the whole transgender Bill of Rights, and it's backfired.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
We've got a little bit long in the segment, but
it's a very important topic and the battle continues. I
invite everyone to read online this article at foxnews dot com,
written by Lindsay Kornick. Colorado parent groups sue state over
controversial new transgender law enforcing quote compelled speech. Aaron Lee
is at the front lines of that battle. Aaron, you
(23:33):
do great work. We appreciate how you break it down
as well. Best luck going forward, and please join us
again with any updates on this case.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
N sure, well, thanks, Ryan, all right, Aeronlee right.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
There, parental right to advocate your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (23:44):
On thirteen twelve, we'll get to another interview with Weston
Eimer coming up next. There was a bill and act
signed into law by President Trump yesterday and Weston claims
he has been directly impacted by the subject matter, which
is revenge.
Speaker 4 (24:00):
Here and Ryan schuling live.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Ashley Key is the key to your next move, and
that means going from wherever you're living right now to
the next home that you've got on the horizon, your
dream home. You want to pursue it well. Ashley Key
specializes in mountain properties, cross state relocations, luxury properties. But
her true passion is working.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
With quality people.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
And we know that all of you in this audience
are quality people. That's why Ashley so generously endorses this
program and wants to work with people like you. Her
premiere listing services include expert staging, professional photography, both aerial
and twilight shots, and they're all backed by the global
reach of Live Sotheby's International Realty. And get this, this
(24:44):
should be the tipping point for your decision. Ten percent
of every closing. She has donated since twenty twenty two
to Jeff co Kids. First talking with Aaron Lee earlier,
We've talked with Lindsay Datco. We were all unified in
this cause and Ashley Key is part of that cause.
You want to reach out to me personally, connect with
listeners like you. And if you are looking to buy
(25:05):
or sell a new home in Colorado, you can visit
online Keyfront Range Homes dot com. That's Keyfront Range Homes
dot com. Ashley Key the key to your next move.
Speaker 8 (25:20):
It's my honor to officially sign the Take It Down
Act into law. This big thing, very important, so horrible
what takes place. This would be the first ever federal
law to combat the distribution of explicit imaginary posted without
subjects consent.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
They take horrible pictures.
Speaker 8 (25:41):
And I guess sometimes even make up the pictures, and
they post it without consent or anything else. And very importantly,
this includes for forgeries generated by artificial intelligence known as
deep fakes. We've all heard about deep fakes. I have
all the time, but nobody says anything. I asked, Pam,
can you help me, Pam, She says no, I'm too busy,
too busy doing other things. Don't worry.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
You'll survive.
Speaker 8 (26:03):
But a lot of people don't survive. That's true and
so horrible. With the rise of AI image generation, countless
women have been harassed with deep facts and other explicit
images distributed against their will. This is the wrong and
it's just so horribly wrong, and it's a very abusive situation,
like in some cases people have never seen before. And
(26:27):
today we're making it totally illegal.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
President Trump yesterday signing the Take It Down Act, nearly
unanimously passing through both branches of Congress, the House and
the Senate. You don't see that very often, but it
goes to the seriousness of this issue and the fact
that it was bipartisan. It elicited a press release response
from our next guest, Weston Imer, and it's entitled former
(26:53):
RNC Youth Council member and co chair of Team i'mer pack.
Weston Imer, victim of Revenge porn releases statement on signing
of Take It Down Act in support of it. He
joins us now to provide more details here on Ryan Schuling.
Live well, West and welcome back.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 7 (27:09):
Ryan.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
It's good to be back with you now.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
I want to get caught up with you because we
go back now. It's almost been two full months, but
so much has happened.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
March twenty fifth.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
In your press release, you cite as when this incident
took place, take us through the nuts and bulls the
details of it and what exactly went down.
Speaker 7 (27:27):
Yeah, of course, So we were in the heat of
the Colorado GOP chairman's race here in Colorado at that time,
and I had been working with a candidate for that office,
Lori Saine, and just on March twenty fifth, right before
the reorganizational meeting of the Colorado GOP and email, actually
(27:47):
two emails were sent out from a spoofed proton mail
email address using my name to send out explicit photos
of me that we're years old, to the entirety or
mostly the entirety of the Colorado Republican Party Central Committee List,
(28:08):
which is the governing body of the Colorado Republican Party, right,
And it contained two illicit photos as well as other imagery,
and it was signed that I want to be your
future presidents and here's how you can get to know me.
And it sent the photos, which was then the email
(28:28):
was signed as Western Eimer, Member of the Republican National
Committee Youth Advisory Council. So this email goes out in
the afternoon evening. We start getting blown up with phone
calls and emails from friends and acquaintances and concerned people
of like, what on earth is this? Did you really
(28:48):
just send this? And of course they sent it to
me as well. The Twitter didn't even try and hide it.
They sent it directly to me, They sent it directly
to my mother, they sent it to the terror of
the party, all of these people.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
Right.
Speaker 7 (29:00):
So obviously I did not do this, and I am
now exposed in a way that I never could have
imagined being exposed. And so we acted pretty quick. We
got in touch with our attorneys.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
We called the local.
Speaker 7 (29:15):
Sheriff's office in Jefferson County to report it as revenge porn.
Here in Colorado, we have a statute that predates the
Take It Down Act, which made it illegal in Colorado
in a state crime to send out images like this
over the airwaves, whether on social media, email, text message,
what have you, and.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
We reported it to jeff Tho.
Speaker 7 (29:37):
There's been an ongoing investigation since March twenty fifth into
this incident, and now yesterday President Trump signed the Take
It Down Act into law, which makes it a federal crime,
which will now be able to bring the FBI in
to try and get to the bottom of who's behind this.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
I first met Weston Eimer at a gathering where we
were celebrating President Trump's primary when hearing Colorado over Nikki Haley.
I met his mother, Laurel as well, and that's who
he's referring to there.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
He joins us.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
I'm noticing on your Facebook page Weston a lot of formers,
including in your injured title your biography, saying former RNC
Youth Advisory Council member, former staffer at Colorado GOP, did.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
This incident cost you those positions?
Speaker 7 (30:23):
It did not cost me the Colorado GOP one, but
I have reason to believe it cost me the RNC one.
About a week after Brita Horne was elected chair, I
was mysteriously removed from the RNC Youth Advisory Council with
no reason given by the RNC, and I have reason
to believe that this email was misconstrued and sent to
(30:44):
the Republican National Committee saying that I did this and
my seriously. A week later, I was removed, told to
change everything to former, remove the GOP branding from any
social media, and that I was barred from addressing anyone
as a member of the council here forthwith, so that
I have a feeling was involved in linked to this.
(31:06):
I recently returned from Miami, Florida, where I was supposed
to have a meeting with the chiefest staff of the RNC,
who mysteriously canceled our meeting right before it was supposed
to happen, and I have not heard from anyone.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Since Westin Eimer our guests now, I did receive a
few texts from names that our audience would know that
were telling me that you had direct involvement in the
images themselves I'm not casting aspersions as to their origin
or where they might have originally been posted. But I
want to read you these texts Weston and just have
(31:40):
you respond to them.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
They are as follows.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
It says, isn't this law the one that President Trump
just signed to take it down?
Speaker 4 (31:47):
Act?
Speaker 3 (31:48):
Isn't this law to protect underaged children for photos that
were non consenting? Wasn't Weston an adult when he posted
these pictures? And then following up same text message, how
is it revenge porn? When Western himself texted a group
of young Republicans his grinder handle, he did this to himself?
Speaker 7 (32:07):
Your response, so none of those facts are true, and
maybe off air you can share with me who that is,
because I'm sure Jefferson County Sheriff's office would love to
talk to this person because they seem to have some knowledge. So,
for one, I have never posted inappropriate photos of myself
on any platform, dating app, social media, website, anything, Never
(32:32):
would never have. I pride myself on being a very
discreet individual. You know, and every person in my generation
is guilty of this same behavior. You can ask any
gen Z individual in the country and they will say, yep,
we've done it. We aren't proud of it. We've done
it right, and that's the truth. Not proud of it. Yes,
(32:53):
the photos are of me, Yes, I may have taken them,
but to misconstrue them as my choice to have these
distributed and to say that I posted them somewhere is
patently false and that is provable. If you go back
through my social media, you will never find anything of
the sort post it. You will never find even the
reference to anything sexual on.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Any of my platforms.
Speaker 7 (33:17):
And so what happened here is someone got their hands
in these photos. I have never sent out a screenshot
of a Grinder profile to anyone. I've never sent these
photos out into a group of young Republicans. I've never
done any of those things right. So, if you really
want to delve into it, these people that are saying
this are covering for whoever is responsible. And these photos
(33:41):
were found gotten their hands on by someone. There's been
suspicion that somebody hacked into my Snapchat account and obtained
them that way through. There's a private folder on there
that you can lock things in that is not as
secure as I once thought it was. And we've had
some tech gurus that have been looking into that. But
these people got their.
Speaker 9 (34:00):
Hands on these photos and made a choice, a criminal,
negligent choice, to send them out to hundreds of individuals
to an effect commit a political assassination against me. And
they've been successful for.
Speaker 7 (34:19):
The most part. And that is something that I just
cannot believe is happening in this day and age, especially
with the signing of the Take Adown Act and the
criminalization of this behavior federally. This is something that is
highly alarming. There is I believe a conspiracy behind this
from the establishment that don't want me anywhere near Colorado
(34:40):
politics or federal politics for that matter, and they are
getting away with it. And as you mentioned, these are
prominent people that just sent you these messages. These people
are high up. They don't like me for whatever reason,
and they want to see me removed in any way possible.
Speaker 4 (34:55):
Westin How old are you right now?
Speaker 7 (34:57):
I am twenty one. To follow up on your point
of the younger aspect, the bill is not ah specific
in any way.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
Well, I remember being twenty one and doing a lot
of things that I'll tell you this. I am glad
I did not grow up in your gen Z generation
because the nineties were a much different time, and the
only thing I had to worry about where those Kodak
instamatic cameras and people having those types of pictures developed.
So Western Imer or pull it right, yeah, right, that
one you see happen right away. You can be a
(35:27):
little bit more stealth at the instematic back in the day.
You can follow him at real Weston. I'mer on X.
That's w E s t O N. I am er Western.
We appreciate you sharing your story with us here today
and we'll see where it goes from here now that
President Trump has signed that into law.
Speaker 7 (35:43):
Yes, thank you, Brian, and I appreciate you having me
on to share my story. And please, if if anyone
else is a victim of this, don't be afraid to
speak up and please, you know, reach out if you
have any information. The Jeffson Kindt of Sheriff's Office has
a case. You can call them directly or you can
reach out to me and we can go from there.
Speaker 4 (35:59):
Thank you, yep.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
To take it down Act now Law courtesy of President Trump.
A break, we're back wrapping up our number one after
this on Ryan Schuling Live all right. Confession to make
when it comes to wealth building and retirement planning.
Speaker 4 (36:11):
I know nothing, so I can't give that to you.
But the good news is.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
Tradean Wealth can not just for me, but for you
as well. In fact, I'll be meeting with Trade and
Wealth on Wednesday morning.
Speaker 4 (36:23):
That's tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (36:24):
I better set my alarm clock right here in the
Denver Tech Center in Greenwood Village. They've also got offices
locally in Broomfield and Loveland. You can set up your
free personal one on one consultation at seven two oh
four zero five thirty three hundred. That's seven two oh
four zero five thirty three hundred. Trajan Wealth's fiduciary advisors
are committed to working collaboratively with you. They're going to
(36:47):
sit you down, You're going to look you in the eye.
They're going to offer their knowledge and expertise to provide
a path forward to your most successful possible wealth planning
and retirement. And when it comes to your wealth management plan,
no one size does not fit all. They're not going
to give you just a template to work with. They're
gonna map you through that template and develop a personalized,
(37:08):
specific plan designed only for you. Contact Trajan Wealth today
and you can discuss those strategies. With them to weather
the current market turbulence, just as I will be on
Wednesday morning. Check them out online Trajanwealth dot com or
by phone one more time seven two oh four zero
five thirty three hundred. Seven to two oh four zero
five thirty three hundred. You got that number, I hope
(37:30):
so if not again. Website Trajanwealth dot Com for Trajan Wealth,
a proud sponsor of Ryan Schuling. Live advisory service is
offered through Trajan Wealth LLC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor.
Paid advertisement.
Speaker 4 (37:48):
Are more to come straight ahead.
Speaker 3 (37:50):
Greg Warren, host of the Champ a comedy special coming
up and it's actually available right now.
Speaker 4 (37:55):
On YouTube, will be joining us.
Speaker 3 (37:57):
Got some texts uh responding to the Weston Imor interview.
Will get into all that hour number two straight ahead
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.