Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good morning, Michael and Dragon Dragon. I completely agree with you.
When I heard Sherry Preston say on your news break
yesterday that other passengers came to IRENA's assistance, I lost
my mind. It didn't happen. You're absolutely right, crazy that
they would report it. And Michael, I think all young
women should have to see the video as well. It's
(00:20):
for their own protection and also to open their eyes
about the Democrats that they think they are becoming.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
I'm a good day guess. I I hate talkbacks. You're
absolutely correct. The reason I hate them is I can't
control myself and not comment on what you said, right,
That's what bugs me about it.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
I'm glad it's not just me who noticed the correlation.
That the media was reporting that the five other people
in the frame of that video rushed to help her,
and yet the video shows completely otherwise.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Completely otherwise, And to your point about.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
You can even see one guy get up and leave
right one other person got up the video cuts off.
I as disturbing as it is, I wish the video
went longer, or we could see longer clips of the video,
because it looks like another person is getting up getting
ready to leave.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Well, I think based on the again, I've only seen
I've not seen one complete video even with edits. I
haven't even seen a compilation. I've only seen separate videos
and a few still photos. But again, my my recollection,
so it could be off, is that the heavyset black
(01:49):
woman that's on the right side of the train, maybe
one or two rows ahead, must hear the commotion and
turn and looks, and then when she gets up to
leave the train, it seems she kind of I mean,
it's from the back, so obviously I can't see her eyes,
(02:10):
but it just by the kind of movement of her head,
it's like she kind of like wants to look out
of her peripheral vision about what's going on, but quickly
exits the train, and then everybody else kind of just
quickly exits the.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Train for argument's sake, nobody there. Depending on how everything
could have happened with the knife in the the a
hole's hand, did the murderer's hand, they may not have
seen that, And the way she balled up in a
fetal position relatively quickly, even on the chair, nobody may
have noticed that she had been stabbed. Right the worst
(02:49):
case scenario that they could be thinking of, is that
maybe she just got you know, hit three or four
times by this delusional maniac and then walked away. But
nobody checked on her.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
And I know too that your your eyes go to
the focal point. But what amazes me is she looks
down at herself, So she is looking down to see
she's now noticing pain and she's trying to figure out
where the pain or what's happened. And she looks down.
(03:21):
But even at the point she does that, it appears
to me that you can start to see the blood
stains on her blouse. So anybody walking by, I would think, yes,
you're gonna first look at the face, but I would
think that your eyes, in your peripheral vision would notice, oh,
there's blood. And by the time people are you know,
(03:44):
by the time that the last few people are getting
off the train, it's beginning to pull on the floor,
it's beginning to pull in her lap. And if I recall,
she has on light colored pants because she had she
had a uniform some sort of so why and then
them bugs me that I only see the still photograph
of the one guy who seemed to be trying to help.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
And I haven't seen that yet arguably I have been
looking for it, right.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
But what frustrates me is, you know why we have
that still photograph because that's part of the closed circuit
TV coverage, the video that law enforcement has so show
us the whole thing. To the talkbacks point, it's time
for the entire country to see the entire thing.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
And I would like to have thought that the gentleman
that got up immediately after the attack and left, that
maybe he would have been following the maniac. But there
is other footage of the maniac walking through what we
can assume to be a completely different train, dripping blood
all over the place, and still nobody reacting that.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Do you ever ask yourself what you would do in
that situation?
Speaker 3 (04:54):
I would like to think if this delusional maniac walked
into a separate train and he is dripping blood, I
would like to think that if I had seen that,
I would at least ask him, not knowing what had
just previously happened, I would like to think that I
would least asked him and went, hey, okay, you okay, right,
you're bleeding?
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Yeah. And I would like to think that even as
I'm like that guy and I don't know, maybe he did,
because we don't. I haven't found anything in news stories
about did the light rail operators did they notify law enforcement?
(05:33):
Is someone dial nine to one one? What took place?
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Depending on what news source you look at. The one
cable news network said that yeah, he was picked up
at one of the stations. But how am I supposed
to even believe them when they couldn't even get the
story right about people trying to save this girl? So
it's hard Without the full, unedited, unclipped video, it's hard
to say as to what really happened.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
We run a risk, going back to the talk back,
We run a risk just like and I don't mean
to draw violent movies or video games or anything else
into the discussion, because you and I know the difference
between a violent movie that we watch either on television
(06:21):
or that we see in a movie theater versus the
real violence that occurs in a war zone or downtown Denver.
We know the difference between those two and can differentiate
between those two. I think we run some risk, but
it's a risk that I'm willing to run that if
(06:43):
we put this entire footage out for anyone in the
public who wants to see it to see it, or
that you know Fox, or of course CNN's not going
to do it, because they're still making excuses for it
that at some point people would wake up and recognize
(07:04):
just how bad these people are. I've not listened to this,
but it's CNN, so I'm going to assume that it's
FCC compliant. But this is a conversation on CNN. It
was posted now thirteen hours ago, so it must have
(07:26):
been a well, it could have been any time yesterday.
But the chiron reads light rail murder sparks debate on crime, race, crackdowns?
What possibly crime? A debate on crime, Yes, a debate
(07:51):
on race, possibly because if you want to get really
down and dirty about what we've went, we see the
have you said, overweight black woman ignoring the white woman,
We see the white man helping the white victim, and
(08:13):
we see the black deranged criminal attacking the white woman.
Beyond that, I don't really remember the race of the
other people, so I don't really know. So maybe this
is a debate about race. Also crackdowns. I'd like to
know what crackdowns is that the debate? Are we having
crackdowns or not having crackdowns? Here's the twenty three seconds
(08:36):
that somebody posted on my timeline on x.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
It's not about cashless bill or no cashless bill. It's
about the fact that we don't know how to deal
with people who were hurting in the way this man
was hurting, hurt people, hurt people. What happened was horrible,
but it becomes an opportunity for people to jump on
vandwagons and then for someone like Charlie Kirk, you should
be ashamed of himself.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
No one mentioned the word.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
Race, white, black, or anything except him. What people mentioned
is that the horror of what happened is young woman.
It's not about cashless bill or no cashless.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Bell, yes it is. It is about that.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
It's about the fact that we don't know how to
deal with people who were hurting.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
In the way this man was hurting. Oh, he was hurting.
He was efing crazy. Okay, he's efing crazy with a
lengthy criminal record.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
And he was hurting fourteen times before and everybody else
said on your way on nothing and.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Is he hurting as if he is hurting, or he
is hurting as in the verb he is out hurting others.
I don't think. I think I know exactly what Van
Jones means. Van Jones is taking the position that this
poor old black kid is hurting. Yeah, put him away.
Speaker 4 (09:57):
Hurt people, hurt people.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
What happened? Oh, people hurt people? Okay, well then case
ross raw hurt people, hurt people. So let's just move on.
I think, because we don't want to have an honest
conversation about black and black crime. We don't want to
(10:19):
have an honest conversation about race and victims. Because was
this racially motivated, Well we don't know yet. My guess
is there probably was some racial motivation to it. He
could have easily sat down behind the black woman and
stabbed her, but he didn't do that. He seemed to
contemplate what he was doing before he did it. I
(10:45):
hope for the sake of the family, I know that
this is a horrible thing for them to have to
deal with. But maybe this case, because we finally see it,
will spark some national debate about what we do with
these backcrap, crazy criminals, and that we stop this allowing
(11:11):
all of these truly deranged judges and prosecutors to continue
to do what they are doing. At some point, we've
got to do we've got to have that conversation. And
the failure to have that conversation means that these kinds
of attacks will just continue on and on and on,
(11:34):
and then maybe when it finally happens to somebody that
people care about, you know, what happens to some a
lister in Hollywood, then maybe somebody will finally decide, oh,
we ought to do something about it. It's it's really
pathetic that this goes on. And as I said the
(12:00):
beginning of the program, this is a situation where if
we don't put a stop to it, it will completely
fracture the society. I already have several text messages I
don't have an argument against you about if law enforcement
is not going to do anything, and if law enforcement
(12:24):
and pulit buriaals like the Colorado legislature continue to nick
away at Second Amendment rights in any possible way that
they can, whether that's you know, to get a license,
or that you have to get to certain training or whatever,
and you have to pay for all of that, and
then it's up to the discretion of a sheriff. At
(12:45):
some point, people are going to revote. Taxpayer relief shots
become even more important now I can't imagine this girl
from Ukraine ever thought that she would need to carry
a weapon in order to protect yourself on a light
rail train. On the other hand, someone who's lived in
(13:07):
this country for his entire life and happens to live
in a blue state where crime is running rampant, I
won't go anywhere without carry anywhere. I don't care. I
don't care what your stupid science says out front about
you know, I filled out I have to go back
to my retina, guys, and I'm filling out the online
(13:32):
stuff so I don't have to sit through and the
clinic can do they have a patient code of conduct.
You can't now, I mean, think about this. You can't
harass the employees. I'm not sure what that means. Does
it mean I can't argue about the bill or the
(13:54):
charges treatment, or I can't debate the treat right Or
I can't be upset because you cancel my appointment, you know,
or you failed to properly schedule my appointment. I can't
get upset about that. I can't. I mean any number
of things, but guess what's on that list. Firearms are
(14:15):
not allowed anywhere in the clinic. I know I don't
start jumping down my throat. It's a private organization, it's
a private company. They can set their rules. But what
do you think I'll do? What do you think I'll do?
(14:40):
I'll do what I always do. And what's the remedy?
They're gonna fire me as a patient over that, okay,
And maybe I don't want to use you as doctors.
The US Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina,
guy by the name of Russ Ferguson, indicated during a
(15:02):
late afternoon press conference yesterday that the Department of Justice
is investigating filing additional charges, including federal hate crime charges.
Now part of me says, well, good, I'm glad. You know.
I don't like hate hate crime laws. And this seems
(15:24):
to me to be much ado about nothing. But whatever
they can pile on this dirt bag, then pile it on. Now.
Already the Department of Justice has filed one federal count
of committing an act causing death on a mass transportation system. Okay,
(15:44):
I kind of get that if and who knew? Who
knew that there was a federal statute about causing death
on a mass transportation system and that that was a
federal crime. I thought of murder wherever you committed it
was a murder or causing a death on anywhere? Was
murder one, two or three or manslaughter? But no, there
(16:06):
is a federal statue of committeing or an act committee
an act causing death on a mass transportation system. Now,
when he was asking the press conference directly if DOJ
was considering federal hate crime charges against the dirt bag,
who may have been motivated by anti weight hatred, at
(16:27):
least according to the US attorney, he said, quote, looking
into it. Yes, we're looking into every available charge in
this case. If we find facts that this was a
gender motivated or a race motivated, we will absolutely bring
a federal civil rights charge in the case. If the
facts don't show that, we won't. We're only going to
bring a charge to the facts support. Well, duh, that's
(16:49):
what your job is.
Speaker 5 (16:53):
This potential for other federal charges.
Speaker 6 (16:55):
He confirmed that the canade includes hate crime for our
personal motivated crime, some sort.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Of that canus.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Looking into.
Speaker 6 (17:05):
Yes, we're looking into every available charge in this case.
If we find facts that this was ginder motivated or
race motivated, we'll absolutely bring a sedtle civil rights charge
in this case. If the facts don't show that.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
We won't.
Speaker 6 (17:17):
We're only going to bring a charge that that the
fact support.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
The investigations ongoing.
Speaker 6 (17:22):
We think we very fairly have the facts for this charge,
but we continue to look and we may have charges,
and civil rights charges are certainly on the table.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Well, I'm glad to know that. But is that the
best the media can do in terms of.
Speaker 5 (17:34):
Questions, Michael, what's scary is like Daniel Penny, that marine
in New York that you know got involved and tried
to settle that guy down and he ended up dying. Well,
you know, he went through hell after that. So you know,
good guys with good intentions are now afraid to even
(17:57):
step in because they're like, well, we'll get a prosecutor,
I'll be in prison, and what do I don't have
a bunch of financial backing. I will lose the case
and I'll be spending time in jail trying to do
the right thing.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
Unless your name is Jordan Williams, which happened a month
separate from the Daniel Penny thing. He stabbed a guy
on a New York subway to death after a guy
was assaulting other passengers. No, the Jordan Williams. He's okay.
You can find out for yourselves as to why Jordan
Williams his case got dismissed. Man, can you can find
(18:35):
that out on your own Jordan Williams New York City Subway.
Just google that. Tell me what the big difference between
Daniel Penny and Jordan Williams is.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
If you're when you get dragon like wound up Jordan Williams.
Jordan Williams, Jordan Williams.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
No, No, I am not. I'm not mad at for what
Jordan Williams did. He did a great thing by saving
people's lives by killing the bad guy. But because he
gets off, Daniel Penny does not. I it bottles of
(19:09):
mind as to why.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Huh, I can't possibly imagine. Why can't possibly imagine?
Speaker 3 (19:15):
One got news coverage for years, the other two two
stories online.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
The The other thing I would mention about Daniel Penny
is it wasn't just the criminal charges. Now I don't know.
Let's see, was Daniel Penny sued for wrongfull death? Yes,
(19:44):
this is the point that I want to make. Daniel
Penny was acquitted, so he didn't face any company, he
didn't face any jail time, but he went through the
entire horror of having his case tried in front of
a jury, not knowing what those six or twelve years
of probably twelve jurors, but those twelve jurors might decide
(20:06):
his life in their hands for something that he should
never have been charged with to begin with. Fortunately, they
come back and they acquit him, which I think is
the right decision. But that's not the whole story. He
was sued. This is according to Google. He was sued
for wrongful death by Jordan Neely's father, Andre Zachary in
(20:30):
December of last year, shortly before Penny was acquitted of
the criminal charges. The civil lawsuit seeks financial compensation for
Neelie's death, alleging that Penny's actions were negligent and reckless,
and it continues to be a point of contention in
the aftermath of the criminal trial. Let's see if I
(20:50):
find the status of the lawsuit. The civil case is
apparently still pending, so he has he needs counsel in
this case, not criminal lawyers. He needs civil lawyers that
(21:12):
deal with wrongful death lawsuits. If and I'd be curious
about the relationship between Neely and his father, Andre Zachary.
Two different last names may or may not mean anything.
I don't know, but isn't it interesting that maybe you're
a strange son gets, you know, or dies after he's
(21:35):
trying to attack people in the subway. He is the criminal.
And then the father, who may or may not had
any relationship with the son, then files a wrongful death
lawsuit against Daniel Penny, seeking damages. And the standard of
proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt, it is just
(21:55):
a preponderance of the evidence, so it's a much lower standard.
So now he has to have civil lawyers representing him
in that case. So he's going through all the depositions,
he's reliving, all of the criminal trial. All that stuff's
going through, all happening again, scheduling conferences, pre trial conferences
that at some point, you know, they'll have to settle.
(22:18):
I doubt that Daniel Penny. I don't know what kind
of assets he has, but regardless of what he has,
they're all on the line. And then if which I
think is unlikely, but if they were to succeed in
the wrongful death lawsuit against Penny, and let's just say,
(22:41):
to get a judgment for ten million dollars, which would
not be I mean, I think it would be unreasonable,
wouldn't be unheard of. Where does Daniel Penny come up
with ten million dollars? He probably doesn't have an insurance
policy that covers it. Daniel Penny may not even have
a homeowner's policy but even cover part of it. I
I my last dollar. He doesn't have a liability policy
(23:08):
st on a car. Probably does he have a condo,
an apartment, or a house or some sort of real estate.
Maybe I don't know. I don't I don't know anything
about his financial situation. But it's all still at risk now.
So his life's no longer at risk in terms of incarceration,
but now his financial well being, and it's just ability,
his ability to go out and live a life. Hell's
(23:28):
bails out. There are certain limitations and garnishment, but let's
just say he ends up just working at McDonald somewhere.
They'll take a part of that paycheck year after year
after year after year in order to collect on that judgment.
So don't think that just because he was acquitted that
he's so called Scott free. He's still fighting this and
by the way, this whole case that's prompted so much
(23:52):
discussion today, it's not always the criminal, as I've tried
to point out, it's the liberal activist judges who invest
who have infested and have subverted the judicial system. US
District Judge Indirah Telwaunee, she's a Barack Obama appointed judge.
(24:15):
She's now delivered a blow to, of all things, the
Lake and Riley Act. The Lake and Riley Act was
a law that was passed with both Democrat and Republican
support that prioritizes the arrest of illegal aliens that have
certain criminal records. Now we've encountered this judge before. I'm
(24:37):
sure you don't remember. There's no reason for you to
remember it. She's the federal judge. She's the judge that
ruled that taxpayers, despite the Heighth Amendment that prohibits the
use of federal tax monies to fund abortion, she is
the one that ruled that federal taxpayers must be forced
to fund plant parenthood. Well, she ruled late last week
(25:02):
that detaining an individual solely on the basis of prior
arrest records violates someone's due process. How in the hell
can that be? You have been convicted of previous crimes.
You are a suspect you are, you're an illegal alien.
(25:26):
You have committed crimes for what you have been convicted,
which means you've received your due process, And she's saying
you can't do that. You can't go arrest in the
illegal alien that has a prior record solely based on
that prior record, because that's a violation of his Fourth
Amendment rights. Really explain that one to me, because I
don't get that. As a staunch Fourth Amendment supporter, I
(25:47):
don't get that one at all. Because what you're being
arrested for. It are two things. First and foremost, you're
in the country illegally, so we're going to arrest you.
But we've prioritized your arrest because we're looking for people
who have prior criminal convictions, because that has been determined
by the Executive Branch, by the President of the United
(26:09):
States of America, that we're going to get those with
criminal records out first. Now they're not always adhering to that.
They're going after everybody they can, which is fine with
me because that's the very definition of mass deportation. So
if we're going to do mass deportation, I really don't
care if you have a criminal record or you don't.
If you're in the country illegally. You're in the country illegally,
(26:30):
So detain them, take them in front of an immigration judge.
I went you know, I'm so times, so tired of this.
I went through the changes that were made to the
Immigration and Naturalization Act. You remember the discussion about you're
caught at the border, you're caught within one hundred miles
of the border within fourteen days, or you're caught within
two years and you came across by boat and you
(26:52):
landed somewhere. You know, those are the exceptions. You can
turn them around and you don't have to worry about
a federal judge or an immigration judge. But I don't
care anymore. I believe in due process. But you, I know,
you're in this country, so you are within the jurisdiction
(27:13):
of the United States. So we have to give you
due process. But it doesn't mean we have to give
you the full, the full plethora of due process rights.
We can narrow that down and say, because you have
committed this crime of entering the country illegally, we'll just
take you in front of an immigration judge established that
(27:35):
you came to the country illegally and then we'll give you,
we'll get an order of removal, and we'll deport you
back to a country. And I notice I said a country,
because I really don't care what country they take them too.
I really don't. You took that risk when you illegally
came into this country. You took the risk that we
are going to find you, and we're going to get
an order of removal, and we're going to deport you.
(27:57):
And if the next plane out happens to be going
to ken you're going to Kenya. If the next plane
out happens to be to I don't know, Columbia, are
going to Columbia. I don't give a ratsas's where you go? Anyway,
Back back to the to this judge. In the Lake
and Riley Act, it requires Immigrations and Customs enforcement to
(28:21):
arrest and detain illegal aliens who commit theft offenses, and
also gives states of course color I don't didn't care,
gives states the authority to sue federal officials who refuse
to enforce immigration laws. And obviously it's named after lacoln Riley,
that Georgia nursing student who was murdered by an illegal
(28:44):
alien back in February February of last year. So obviously
we're going to have more Lincoln Rileys if it's up
to this judge. In April of this year, in a
separate in another immigration case, this judge blocked the Trump
administration from revoking the work permits of five hundred and
(29:06):
thirty thousand illegal aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua in Venezuela.
This judge not only opposes US laws and our sovereignty,
but she apparently opposes freedom of expression and factual reality.
Back in twenty twenty three, this same judge sided with
(29:26):
the Massachusetts school district to prevent a twelve year old
student from wearing a T shirt that said there are
only two genders. These are the wackadoodles that between Obama
in twelve years a Democrat rule. These are the dumbasses
(29:47):
that we've got on the bench. Really, you can't wear
a T shirt to a government run school. This says
there are only two genders? Oh, what about the first Amendment?
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Mike, the newspeed just said.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Kamala Harris's book says she should have fought harder to let.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
Biden make the choice to run.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
Huh, they let him someone's eavesdropping on our promo productions,
aren't they? Do you have it ready? I can find it?
Speaker 3 (30:30):
Give me say okay, yeah.
Speaker 6 (30:34):
Mornings at six, the situation with Michael Brown.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
The blame game is beginning. Kamala Harris calls the decision
to let Biden run again a reckless decision in her
new memoir, Huh, I wonder how she justifies her participation
in that. Join me on Thursday at six oh five. Wow,
do you know what that proves? If they think like
(30:59):
I do, that's scary. And you know what that proves.
Not only is it scary, but they think that we
think that the Democrats and the Marxists and the Liberals
and the progressives are all crazy. We're all crazy. I
think the entire world's crazy. I want to read you
a text message because this oftentimes reflects how I feel.
(31:21):
Not today, but oftentimes that's when I've got on vacation.
It's either because I have a specific thing I need
to go do or I've reached this point, Michae I
had to turn it off. This is from Gouber number
zero five to five to three. Had to turn it off.
I just can't. I'm getting absolutely incensed about this story,
while also overwhelmed by a deep felt sadness. Not that
(31:43):
I want to ignore those feelings, but it's too much
to handle right now. When you peel back the layers,
the horrific issues of our society encapsulated in this event
are so troubling it really gives me no hope about
our future. These are generational issues that we've allowed to
fester from I don't know, public transit in the early nineties,
nineteen hundreds, to Rosa Parks to Arenas zer Zerutska. What
(32:07):
the absolute f has happened to us? Just venting this
is all so incredible? Yeah it is, isn't it? But
here's what I do firmly believe. This is why I
have to take off sometimes. We have the mechanisms, and
I think we have the requisite number of souls to
(32:31):
turn this ship of state around, and we started. I
think the election of Donald Trump was the first step
in doing that. But Trump can't solve all the problems.
As Guberver five five to three points out, these are
generational issues, so it's gonna take us more than one
election to turn these things around. But as long as
(32:54):
the Constitution survives, as long as people listen to programs
like this, As long as people like you believe what
you believe, there will be a day of reckoning, and
we will turn the country around. A firmly believe it
Good morning, Michael and Dragon Dragon. I completely agree with you.
When I heard Sherry Preston say on your news break
yesterday that other passengers came to IRENA's assistance, I lost
my mind. It didn't happen. You're absolutely right, crazy that
they would report it. And Michael, I think all young
women should have to see the video as well. It's
(00:20):
for their own protection and also to open their eyes
about the Democrats that they think they are becoming.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
I'm a good day guess. I I hate talkbacks. You're
absolutely correct. The reason I hate them is I can't
control myself and not comment on what you said, right,
That's what bugs me about it.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
I'm glad it's not just me who noticed the correlation.
That the media was reporting that the five other people
in the frame of that video rushed to help her,
and yet the video shows completely otherwise.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Completely otherwise, And to your point about.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
You can even see one guy get up and leave
right one other person got up the video cuts off.
I as disturbing as it is, I wish the video
went longer, or we could see longer clips of the video,
because it looks like another person is getting up getting
ready to leave.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Well, I think based on the again, I've only seen
I've not seen one complete video even with edits. I
haven't even seen a compilation. I've only seen separate videos
and a few still photos. But again, my my recollection,
so it could be off, is that the heavyset black
(01:49):
woman that's on the right side of the train, maybe
one or two rows ahead, must hear the commotion and
turn and looks, and then when she gets up to
leave the train, it seems she kind of I mean,
it's from the back, so obviously I can't see her eyes,
(02:10):
but it just by the kind of movement of her head,
it's like she kind of like wants to look out
of her peripheral vision about what's going on, but quickly
exits the train, and then everybody else kind of just
quickly exits the.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Train for argument's sake, nobody there. Depending on how everything
could have happened with the knife in the the a
hole's hand, did the murderer's hand, they may not have
seen that, And the way she balled up in a
fetal position relatively quickly, even on the chair, nobody may
have noticed that she had been stabbed. Right the worst
(02:49):
case scenario that they could be thinking of, is that
maybe she just got you know, hit three or four
times by this delusional maniac and then walked away. But
nobody checked on her.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
And I know too that your your eyes go to
the focal point. But what amazes me is she looks
down at herself, So she is looking down to see
she's now noticing pain and she's trying to figure out
where the pain or what's happened. And she looks down.
(03:21):
But even at the point she does that, it appears
to me that you can start to see the blood
stains on her blouse. So anybody walking by, I would think, yes,
you're gonna first look at the face, but I would
think that your eyes, in your peripheral vision would notice, oh,
there's blood. And by the time people are you know,
(03:44):
by the time that the last few people are getting
off the train, it's beginning to pull on the floor,
it's beginning to pull in her lap. And if I recall,
she has on light colored pants because she had she
had a uniform some sort of so why and then
them bugs me that I only see the still photograph
of the one guy who seemed to be trying to help.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
And I haven't seen that yet arguably I have been
looking for it, right.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
But what frustrates me is, you know why we have
that still photograph because that's part of the closed circuit
TV coverage, the video that law enforcement has so show
us the whole thing. To the talkbacks point, it's time
for the entire country to see the entire thing.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
And I would like to have thought that the gentleman
that got up immediately after the attack and left, that
maybe he would have been following the maniac. But there
is other footage of the maniac walking through what we
can assume to be a completely different train, dripping blood
all over the place, and still nobody reacting that.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Do you ever ask yourself what you would do in
that situation?
Speaker 3 (04:54):
I would like to think if this delusional maniac walked
into a separate train and he is dripping blood, I
would like to think that if I had seen that,
I would at least ask him, not knowing what had
just previously happened, I would like to think that I
would least asked him and went, hey, okay, you okay, right,
you're bleeding?
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Yeah. And I would like to think that even as
I'm like that guy and I don't know, maybe he did,
because we don't. I haven't found anything in news stories
about did the light rail operators did they notify law enforcement?
(05:33):
Is someone dial nine to one one? What took place?
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Depending on what news source you look at. The one
cable news network said that yeah, he was picked up
at one of the stations. But how am I supposed
to even believe them when they couldn't even get the
story right about people trying to save this girl? So
it's hard Without the full, unedited, unclipped video, it's hard
to say as to what really happened.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
We run a risk, going back to the talk back,
We run a risk just like and I don't mean
to draw violent movies or video games or anything else
into the discussion, because you and I know the difference
between a violent movie that we watch either on television
(06:21):
or that we see in a movie theater versus the
real violence that occurs in a war zone or downtown Denver.
We know the difference between those two and can differentiate
between those two. I think we run some risk, but
it's a risk that I'm willing to run that if
(06:43):
we put this entire footage out for anyone in the
public who wants to see it to see it, or
that you know Fox, or of course CNN's not going
to do it, because they're still making excuses for it
that at some point people would wake up and recognize
(07:04):
just how bad these people are. I've not listened to this,
but it's CNN, so I'm going to assume that it's
FCC compliant. But this is a conversation on CNN. It
was posted now thirteen hours ago, so it must have
(07:26):
been a well, it could have been any time yesterday.
But the chiron reads light rail murder sparks debate on crime, race, crackdowns?
What possibly crime? A debate on crime, Yes, a debate
(07:51):
on race, possibly because if you want to get really
down and dirty about what we've went, we see the
have you said, overweight black woman ignoring the white woman,
We see the white man helping the white victim, and
(08:13):
we see the black deranged criminal attacking the white woman.
Beyond that, I don't really remember the race of the
other people, so I don't really know. So maybe this
is a debate about race. Also crackdowns. I'd like to
know what crackdowns is that the debate? Are we having
crackdowns or not having crackdowns? Here's the twenty three seconds
(08:36):
that somebody posted on my timeline on x.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
It's not about cashless bill or no cashless bill. It's
about the fact that we don't know how to deal
with people who were hurting in the way this man
was hurting, hurt people, hurt people. What happened was horrible,
but it becomes an opportunity for people to jump on
vandwagons and then for someone like Charlie Kirk, you should
be ashamed of himself.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
No one mentioned the word.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
Race, white, black, or anything except him. What people mentioned
is that the horror of what happened is young woman.
It's not about cashless bill or no cashless.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Bell, yes it is. It is about that.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
It's about the fact that we don't know how to
deal with people who were hurting.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
In the way this man was hurting. Oh, he was hurting.
He was efing crazy. Okay, he's efing crazy with a
lengthy criminal record.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
And he was hurting fourteen times before and everybody else
said on your way on nothing and.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Is he hurting as if he is hurting, or he
is hurting as in the verb he is out hurting others.
I don't think. I think I know exactly what Van
Jones means. Van Jones is taking the position that this
poor old black kid is hurting. Yeah, put him away.
Speaker 4 (09:57):
Hurt people, hurt people.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
What happened? Oh, people hurt people? Okay, well then case
ross raw hurt people, hurt people. So let's just move on.
I think, because we don't want to have an honest
conversation about black and black crime. We don't want to
(10:19):
have an honest conversation about race and victims. Because was
this racially motivated, Well we don't know yet. My guess
is there probably was some racial motivation to it. He
could have easily sat down behind the black woman and
stabbed her, but he didn't do that. He seemed to
contemplate what he was doing before he did it. I
(10:45):
hope for the sake of the family, I know that
this is a horrible thing for them to have to
deal with. But maybe this case, because we finally see it,
will spark some national debate about what we do with
these backcrap, crazy criminals, and that we stop this allowing
(11:11):
all of these truly deranged judges and prosecutors to continue
to do what they are doing. At some point, we've
got to do we've got to have that conversation. And
the failure to have that conversation means that these kinds
of attacks will just continue on and on and on,
(11:34):
and then maybe when it finally happens to somebody that
people care about, you know, what happens to some a
lister in Hollywood, then maybe somebody will finally decide, oh,
we ought to do something about it. It's it's really
pathetic that this goes on. And as I said the
(12:00):
beginning of the program, this is a situation where if
we don't put a stop to it, it will completely
fracture the society. I already have several text messages I
don't have an argument against you about if law enforcement
is not going to do anything, and if law enforcement
(12:24):
and pulit buriaals like the Colorado legislature continue to nick
away at Second Amendment rights in any possible way that
they can, whether that's you know, to get a license,
or that you have to get to certain training or whatever,
and you have to pay for all of that, and
then it's up to the discretion of a sheriff. At
(12:45):
some point, people are going to revote. Taxpayer relief shots
become even more important now I can't imagine this girl
from Ukraine ever thought that she would need to carry
a weapon in order to protect yourself on a light
rail train. On the other hand, someone who's lived in
(13:07):
this country for his entire life and happens to live
in a blue state where crime is running rampant, I
won't go anywhere without carry anywhere. I don't care. I
don't care what your stupid science says out front about
you know, I filled out I have to go back
to my retina, guys, and I'm filling out the online
(13:32):
stuff so I don't have to sit through and the
clinic can do they have a patient code of conduct.
You can't now, I mean, think about this. You can't
harass the employees. I'm not sure what that means. Does
it mean I can't argue about the bill or the
(13:54):
charges treatment, or I can't debate the treat right Or
I can't be upset because you cancel my appointment, you know,
or you failed to properly schedule my appointment. I can't
get upset about that. I can't. I mean any number
of things, but guess what's on that list. Firearms are
(14:15):
not allowed anywhere in the clinic. I know I don't
start jumping down my throat. It's a private organization, it's
a private company. They can set their rules. But what
do you think I'll do? What do you think I'll do?
(14:40):
I'll do what I always do. And what's the remedy?
They're gonna fire me as a patient over that, okay,
And maybe I don't want to use you as doctors.
The US Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina,
guy by the name of Russ Ferguson, indicated during a
(15:02):
late afternoon press conference yesterday that the Department of Justice
is investigating filing additional charges, including federal hate crime charges.
Now part of me says, well, good, I'm glad. You know.
I don't like hate hate crime laws. And this seems
(15:24):
to me to be much ado about nothing. But whatever
they can pile on this dirt bag, then pile it on. Now.
Already the Department of Justice has filed one federal count
of committing an act causing death on a mass transportation system. Okay,
(15:44):
I kind of get that if and who knew? Who
knew that there was a federal statute about causing death
on a mass transportation system and that that was a
federal crime. I thought of murder wherever you committed it
was a murder or causing a death on anywhere? Was
murder one, two or three or manslaughter? But no, there
(16:06):
is a federal statue of committeing or an act committee
an act causing death on a mass transportation system. Now,
when he was asking the press conference directly if DOJ
was considering federal hate crime charges against the dirt bag,
who may have been motivated by anti weight hatred, at
(16:27):
least according to the US attorney, he said, quote, looking
into it. Yes, we're looking into every available charge in
this case. If we find facts that this was a
gender motivated or a race motivated, we will absolutely bring
a federal civil rights charge in the case. If the
facts don't show that, we won't. We're only going to
bring a charge to the facts support. Well, duh, that's
(16:49):
what your job is.
Speaker 5 (16:53):
This potential for other federal charges.
Speaker 6 (16:55):
He confirmed that the canade includes hate crime for our
personal motivated crime, some sort.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Of that canus.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Looking into.
Speaker 6 (17:05):
Yes, we're looking into every available charge in this case.
If we find facts that this was ginder motivated or
race motivated, we'll absolutely bring a sedtle civil rights charge
in this case. If the facts don't show that.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
We won't.
Speaker 6 (17:17):
We're only going to bring a charge that that the
fact support.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
The investigations ongoing.
Speaker 6 (17:22):
We think we very fairly have the facts for this charge,
but we continue to look and we may have charges,
and civil rights charges are certainly on the table.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Well, I'm glad to know that. But is that the
best the media can do in terms of.
Speaker 5 (17:34):
Questions, Michael, what's scary is like Daniel Penny, that marine
in New York that you know got involved and tried
to settle that guy down and he ended up dying. Well,
you know, he went through hell after that. So you know,
good guys with good intentions are now afraid to even
(17:57):
step in because they're like, well, we'll get a prosecutor,
I'll be in prison, and what do I don't have
a bunch of financial backing. I will lose the case
and I'll be spending time in jail trying to do
the right thing.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
Unless your name is Jordan Williams, which happened a month
separate from the Daniel Penny thing. He stabbed a guy
on a New York subway to death after a guy
was assaulting other passengers. No, the Jordan Williams. He's okay.
You can find out for yourselves as to why Jordan
Williams his case got dismissed. Man, can you can find
(18:35):
that out on your own Jordan Williams New York City Subway.
Just google that. Tell me what the big difference between
Daniel Penny and Jordan Williams is.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
If you're when you get dragon like wound up Jordan Williams.
Jordan Williams, Jordan Williams.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
No, No, I am not. I'm not mad at for what
Jordan Williams did. He did a great thing by saving
people's lives by killing the bad guy. But because he
gets off, Daniel Penny does not. I it bottles of
(19:09):
mind as to why.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Huh, I can't possibly imagine. Why can't possibly imagine?
Speaker 3 (19:15):
One got news coverage for years, the other two two
stories online.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
The The other thing I would mention about Daniel Penny
is it wasn't just the criminal charges. Now I don't know.
Let's see, was Daniel Penny sued for wrongfull death? Yes,
(19:44):
this is the point that I want to make. Daniel
Penny was acquitted, so he didn't face any company, he
didn't face any jail time, but he went through the
entire horror of having his case tried in front of
a jury, not knowing what those six or twelve years
of probably twelve jurors, but those twelve jurors might decide
(20:06):
his life in their hands for something that he should
never have been charged with to begin with. Fortunately, they
come back and they acquit him, which I think is
the right decision. But that's not the whole story. He
was sued. This is according to Google. He was sued
for wrongful death by Jordan Neely's father, Andre Zachary in
(20:30):
December of last year, shortly before Penny was acquitted of
the criminal charges. The civil lawsuit seeks financial compensation for
Neelie's death, alleging that Penny's actions were negligent and reckless,
and it continues to be a point of contention in
the aftermath of the criminal trial. Let's see if I
(20:50):
find the status of the lawsuit. The civil case is
apparently still pending, so he has he needs counsel in
this case, not criminal lawyers. He needs civil lawyers that
(21:12):
deal with wrongful death lawsuits. If and I'd be curious
about the relationship between Neely and his father, Andre Zachary.
Two different last names may or may not mean anything.
I don't know, but isn't it interesting that maybe you're
a strange son gets, you know, or dies after he's
(21:35):
trying to attack people in the subway. He is the criminal.
And then the father, who may or may not had
any relationship with the son, then files a wrongful death
lawsuit against Daniel Penny, seeking damages. And the standard of
proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt, it is just
(21:55):
a preponderance of the evidence, so it's a much lower standard.
So now he has to have civil lawyers representing him
in that case. So he's going through all the depositions,
he's reliving, all of the criminal trial. All that stuff's
going through, all happening again, scheduling conferences, pre trial conferences
that at some point, you know, they'll have to settle.
(22:18):
I doubt that Daniel Penny. I don't know what kind
of assets he has, but regardless of what he has,
they're all on the line. And then if which I
think is unlikely, but if they were to succeed in
the wrongful death lawsuit against Penny, and let's just say,
(22:41):
to get a judgment for ten million dollars, which would
not be I mean, I think it would be unreasonable,
wouldn't be unheard of. Where does Daniel Penny come up
with ten million dollars? He probably doesn't have an insurance
policy that covers it. Daniel Penny may not even have
a homeowner's policy but even cover part of it. I
I my last dollar. He doesn't have a liability policy
(23:08):
st on a car. Probably does he have a condo,
an apartment, or a house or some sort of real estate.
Maybe I don't know. I don't I don't know anything
about his financial situation. But it's all still at risk now.
So his life's no longer at risk in terms of incarceration,
but now his financial well being, and it's just ability,
his ability to go out and live a life. Hell's
(23:28):
bails out. There are certain limitations and garnishment, but let's
just say he ends up just working at McDonald somewhere.
They'll take a part of that paycheck year after year
after year after year in order to collect on that judgment.
So don't think that just because he was acquitted that
he's so called Scott free. He's still fighting this and
by the way, this whole case that's prompted so much
(23:52):
discussion today, it's not always the criminal, as I've tried
to point out, it's the liberal activist judges who invest
who have infested and have subverted the judicial system. US
District Judge Indirah Telwaunee, she's a Barack Obama appointed judge.
(24:15):
She's now delivered a blow to, of all things, the
Lake and Riley Act. The Lake and Riley Act was
a law that was passed with both Democrat and Republican
support that prioritizes the arrest of illegal aliens that have
certain criminal records. Now we've encountered this judge before. I'm
(24:37):
sure you don't remember. There's no reason for you to
remember it. She's the federal judge. She's the judge that
ruled that taxpayers, despite the Heighth Amendment that prohibits the
use of federal tax monies to fund abortion, she is
the one that ruled that federal taxpayers must be forced
to fund plant parenthood. Well, she ruled late last week
(25:02):
that detaining an individual solely on the basis of prior
arrest records violates someone's due process. How in the hell
can that be? You have been convicted of previous crimes.
You are a suspect you are, you're an illegal alien.
(25:26):
You have committed crimes for what you have been convicted,
which means you've received your due process, And she's saying
you can't do that. You can't go arrest in the
illegal alien that has a prior record solely based on
that prior record, because that's a violation of his Fourth
Amendment rights. Really explain that one to me, because I
don't get that. As a staunch Fourth Amendment supporter, I
(25:47):
don't get that one at all. Because what you're being
arrested for. It are two things. First and foremost, you're
in the country illegally, so we're going to arrest you.
But we've prioritized your arrest because we're looking for people
who have prior criminal convictions, because that has been determined
by the Executive Branch, by the President of the United
(26:09):
States of America, that we're going to get those with
criminal records out first. Now they're not always adhering to that.
They're going after everybody they can, which is fine with
me because that's the very definition of mass deportation. So
if we're going to do mass deportation, I really don't
care if you have a criminal record or you don't.
If you're in the country illegally. You're in the country illegally,
(26:30):
So detain them, take them in front of an immigration judge.
I went you know, I'm so times, so tired of this.
I went through the changes that were made to the
Immigration and Naturalization Act. You remember the discussion about you're
caught at the border, you're caught within one hundred miles
of the border within fourteen days, or you're caught within
two years and you came across by boat and you
(26:52):
landed somewhere. You know, those are the exceptions. You can
turn them around and you don't have to worry about
a federal judge or an immigration judge. But I don't
care anymore. I believe in due process. But you, I know,
you're in this country, so you are within the jurisdiction
(27:13):
of the United States. So we have to give you
due process. But it doesn't mean we have to give
you the full, the full plethora of due process rights.
We can narrow that down and say, because you have
committed this crime of entering the country illegally, we'll just
take you in front of an immigration judge established that
(27:35):
you came to the country illegally and then we'll give you,
we'll get an order of removal, and we'll deport you
back to a country. And I notice I said a country,
because I really don't care what country they take them too.
I really don't. You took that risk when you illegally
came into this country. You took the risk that we
are going to find you, and we're going to get
an order of removal, and we're going to deport you.
(27:57):
And if the next plane out happens to be going
to ken you're going to Kenya. If the next plane
out happens to be to I don't know, Columbia, are
going to Columbia. I don't give a ratsas's where you go? Anyway,
Back back to the to this judge. In the Lake
and Riley Act, it requires Immigrations and Customs enforcement to
(28:21):
arrest and detain illegal aliens who commit theft offenses, and
also gives states of course color I don't didn't care,
gives states the authority to sue federal officials who refuse
to enforce immigration laws. And obviously it's named after lacoln Riley,
that Georgia nursing student who was murdered by an illegal
(28:44):
alien back in February February of last year. So obviously
we're going to have more Lincoln Rileys if it's up
to this judge. In April of this year, in a
separate in another immigration case, this judge blocked the Trump
administration from revoking the work permits of five hundred and
(29:06):
thirty thousand illegal aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua in Venezuela.
This judge not only opposes US laws and our sovereignty,
but she apparently opposes freedom of expression and factual reality.
Back in twenty twenty three, this same judge sided with
(29:26):
the Massachusetts school district to prevent a twelve year old
student from wearing a T shirt that said there are
only two genders. These are the wackadoodles that between Obama
in twelve years a Democrat rule. These are the dumbasses
(29:47):
that we've got on the bench. Really, you can't wear
a T shirt to a government run school. This says
there are only two genders? Oh, what about the first Amendment?
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Mike, the newspeed just said.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Kamala Harris's book says she should have fought harder to let.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
Biden make the choice to run.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
Huh, they let him someone's eavesdropping on our promo productions,
aren't they? Do you have it ready? I can find it?
Speaker 3 (30:30):
Give me say okay, yeah.
Speaker 6 (30:34):
Mornings at six, the situation with Michael Brown.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
The blame game is beginning. Kamala Harris calls the decision
to let Biden run again a reckless decision in her
new memoir, Huh, I wonder how she justifies her participation
in that. Join me on Thursday at six oh five. Wow,
do you know what that proves? If they think like
(30:59):
I do, that's scary. And you know what that proves.
Not only is it scary, but they think that we
think that the Democrats and the Marxists and the Liberals
and the progressives are all crazy. We're all crazy. I
think the entire world's crazy. I want to read you
a text message because this oftentimes reflects how I feel.
(31:21):
Not today, but oftentimes that's when I've got on vacation.
It's either because I have a specific thing I need
to go do or I've reached this point, Michae I
had to turn it off. This is from Gouber number
zero five to five to three. Had to turn it off.
I just can't. I'm getting absolutely incensed about this story,
while also overwhelmed by a deep felt sadness. Not that
(31:43):
I want to ignore those feelings, but it's too much
to handle right now. When you peel back the layers,
the horrific issues of our society encapsulated in this event
are so troubling it really gives me no hope about
our future. These are generational issues that we've allowed to
fester from I don't know, public transit in the early nineties,
nineteen hundreds, to Rosa Parks to Arenas zer Zerutska. What
(32:07):
the absolute f has happened to us? Just venting this
is all so incredible? Yeah it is, isn't it? But
here's what I do firmly believe. This is why I
have to take off sometimes. We have the mechanisms, and
I think we have the requisite number of souls to
(32:31):
turn this ship of state around, and we started. I
think the election of Donald Trump was the first step
in doing that. But Trump can't solve all the problems.
As Guberver five five to three points out, these are
generational issues, so it's gonna take us more than one
election to turn these things around. But as long as
(32:54):
the Constitution survives, as long as people listen to programs
like this, As long as people like you believe what
you believe, there will be a day of reckoning, and
we will turn the country around. A firmly believe it
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.