April 15, 2025 • 15 mins
Dan Carroll talks with local attorney James Bogen about the Short Vine shooting near UC as well as Title IX headlines at Harvard.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Fifty five krc DE Talk station, Dan Carroll for Brian Thomas.
So glad to be here and always glad to welcome
in my my next guest, uh local attorney and legal
analyst and James Bogan.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Great to have you back on the show. How are
you today?
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Good? Thanks for having me?
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Yeah, absolutely, yea.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Before I get to the subject that we had at hand,
I got a couple of questions for you and just
a couple of things that occurred to me over the
last couple of hours.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
You know, it was what was it? It was?
Speaker 1 (00:36):
It was like a month, almost two months ago, you
and I were talking about the the pending release of
the Epstein files. And remember we we we kind of
made plans, you know, when those come out, we're gonna
we're gonna look at it, We're gonna dissect it. We're
going to do a segment on the radio and and
talk about that and talk about what's in it, what's
not what's not in it? Uh, how those you know,
(00:56):
we're going to break those things down. And then of course,
you know the release was delayed that it never happened,
and here we are, and this feels like it was
a couple of months ago, and I've not seen hide
nor hair of the Epstein files. Have you seen any
unication at all that those things will ever see the
light of day.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Well, here's the thing. They got a truckload of files
that next day when Pam Bondi gave that deadline, And
in my experience, when you have that many files, I'd
be very hard pressed to see how they could have
gone through them thoroughly and made the appropriate redactions like
(01:38):
redacting out victims' names and so on, which is very
routine for any law enforcement to do before releasing documents
to the public. Unless they were doing at twenty four
to seven around the clock, and that's the only thing
they're working on, I really don't think they would have
had it done by now.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Yeah, I was under the impression that one thing, that
some of that had already taken place, though her being
I remember her being on TV with Jesse Waters talking about, Yeah,
you know, those files are coming out tomorrow and we're
doing the final reactions and making sure that we don't
compromise any information or give away people's names. It shouldn't
be given away. I thought they had already done all
(02:18):
that stuff.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
I don't think so, And the thing is Pam BONDI.
She's salivating to release this stuff. You know, Trump is too.
That's what I'm thinking. And I don't think they gain
anything by holding stuff back if that stuff's been done,
because I think they're absolutely chomping at the bit to
release this stuff. That's just my thought.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
All right, Well, then our plans are still in place,
and when those things come out, we'll we'll we'll have
you on and we'll break it down and we'll see
what's what on the Epstein file. So that so keep that,
keep that in your calendar, all right, I will do Dan,
all right. The other thing is some information started coming
out yesterday about this a fifteen year old that's accused
(03:01):
of killing this guy on Short Vine a couple of
days ago, and the video came out, yes the video
was released yesterday of how this happened. And you see
this guy standing in front of that liquor store on
Short Vine. He's got his nose in his cell phone,
he's minding his own business. This kid walks up to him,
pulls out a gun and sticks it in his midsection.
(03:22):
And information started coming out late yesterday that this guy
has been in the juvenile system before various judges. I
guess in Hamilton County Juvenile court with twenty one felonies,
and maybe it's just me, but twenty one when you're
at the age of fifteen sounds like a lot. And
yet this kid was still it seems to me like
(03:45):
this is a kid who should not have been on
the street, should not have had any access to a gun.
Is this and I mean in a general sense, if
you have a kid that has is fifteen years old,
has that many felonies, that much content with court, how
is this kid able to be out on the street.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
That's a good question. It depends on what those twenty
one felonies were. And you see when they count prior felonies,
they what they do is they take the total. They
don't take look back and say, hey, this could be
from like two or three cases.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
But yeah, apparently one of them was illegal dischargeable weapon. Uh,
there was. There was a couple of them. I think
that involved possession of a gun.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
And and so that dischargeable weapon is a felony that
in adult court typically carries prison time and it's a
strict liability offense, which means you can't argue self defense
with that one, So yeah, I definitely have questions, But
the bigger thing is where the hell are his kids parents?
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Yeah? Absolutely?
Speaker 1 (04:58):
And are we just unequipped in the juvenile system to
deal with this in any in any meaningful way.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
I mean, it's really a case by case and i'd
say because I've had juvenile clients where you know, I
definitely did not question the outcome. But you know, like
I said, every case is different.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Yeah, all right, well, James, stay right there. I want
to talk about some of the Title nine stuff that
that is happening, and it is it is amazing to
me that some of these different universities and these different
entities think that they can stand their ground against the
federal government on this. And we'll get your thoughts on that,
but we got to get to a quick break here,
(05:42):
So James Bogan stand by and we'll continue on with
him on the other side. On fifty five KRC the
talk station. This is fifty five KRC and iHeartRadio station.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Get ready for spring and have your roof gut.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
Fifty five KRC DE talk station. Dan Carroll for Ryan Thomas.
We are talking with local attorney James Bogan and James.
You know, I'm looking at some of the headlines here,
and you've got the University of Pennsylvania. Trump is suspending
one hundred and seventy five million dollars in federal funding
because they continue to allow male athletes to compete in
(06:24):
women's sports. The Secretary of Education is telling these these
different universities the NCAA that their policies need to get
in line with what the Trump administration is saying about this.
You've got main schools who are saying they are not
going to not going to change their transgender policies as
(06:46):
it relates to sports. What kind of ground do these
places have to stand on in order to stand in
defiance of what's coming out of the White House.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
They have absolutely zero crown on you just look at
the text the Title nine, which this executive order is
based on. No one shall be excluded from participation in
sports or deny the benefit of sports school sports based
on gender. And when you allow biological males to compete
in girls' sports, you're taking away these opportunities to participate
(07:22):
and have gained the benefits from these sports. Because when
you have biological males, even if they take hormones, they're
still during puberty, they get bigger muscles, bigger frame, bigger
lung capacity, stronger ligament, stronger tendons, more muscle density, and
(07:42):
those advantages do not get mitigated by hormone treatment. And
feelings certainly don't mitigate these physical advantages, and you'll see
them displacing girls. I mean, we talked about this. Leah Thomas,
for example, when as Will Thomas was the number four
(08:04):
hundred and sixty two among college men in the two
hundred yard freestyle, went from that to number one among
college women. Now men's and women's times performances is about
a ten to twelve percent different. Thomas's time only dropped
by two point sixty six percent or regressed by two
(08:24):
point six six percent from the hormones and splockers and
so on. It's and when women girls, when they take steroids,
they don't become as good as men. I mean, you
saw that we talked about this. There's that Yale swimmer
who she was one of the top women in the
country actually compete against Leah Thomas. The next year swam
(08:47):
for Yale as a guy and wasn't even competitive.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Yeah, And that's the way it happens.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
And I love the way you address that argument, because
you're talking about nine and Title nine really looks after
the rights of women. And we've gone so far down
the road on this argument that it always starts with
the rights of those who, you know, these transgender individuals,
that somehow their rights are being infringe and what gets
(09:18):
lost in that argument are the rights of those women
to compete on a fair and level playing field. You know,
these women who have sacrificed mightily, who have given up
all sorts of things, and then you know, when when
it's time for them, you know, for the rubber to
hit the road, well, then they have to face another
unfair challenge in the form of some dude that's been
(09:41):
through puberty and now wants to they have long hair
and wear dresses and call himself a woman.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Yeah. I mean, if I would have compete as a woman,
I would have been a superstar when.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
My son would have been the same way, Would he
had better times than Katie Decky for God's sake?
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Yeah? And you know what everyone though, the proponents of
this crap, they just focus on feelings, feelings, feelings. And
these are the same people who said trust the science
during COVID.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Yeah, trust the science, that the science at least when
it as long as it fits their narrative. So it was, so,
where do you see this going? I mean, you know,
the Trump administration so far is able to withhold funds,
and we've had so many federal judges across the country
who feel have been feeling so free to wade into
(10:37):
any issue that comes out.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Of the White House.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Are we going to be subject to more federal rulings
and federal court judges trying to direct the Trump administration
to do this, that and the other thing.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
That's an interesting question.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
We haven't seen anything brought yet, but unfortunately, with these
activist judges out there, I wouldn't be surprised. But this way,
the recent New York Times poll showed that seventy nine
percent of people are opposed to this crap. And you
look at this eventually reaches the Supreme Court. I think
(11:14):
once this reaches the Supreme Court, which is more matter
when than if there are some penny cases, I think
the Court's going to end up ruling on the right
side of this.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Yeah, James, before we let you go, you brought to
my attention yesterday a situation that's developing within the Cincinnati
Police Department, and it has to do with a retired
officer who is trying to get a replacement badge after
retiring from the force. And there seems to be some
(11:43):
so I don't know if it's a misunderstanding or some
sort of complication as to this officer getting a replacement badge.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
And you know, the way.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
The argument was laid out for me, this just sounds
to me like something that doesn't really need to get
to the left that this thing is getting to already.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
Yeah, retired police officer Rachel Baldwin, I've been in chatting
with her about this too. She retired in good standing.
She lost her retirement badge. Many retired officers request the
second retirement badge. One goes in their wallet, one goes
on display. It's not nefarious to lose a retirement badge.
(12:24):
It says retirement and big letters across the top. It's
not like anyone can use it. And people I've talked
to with CPD say it's not unpreceded for a retired
officer to get a replacement retirement badge either. Now, Baldwin,
she lost her badge. She went to police supply to
inquire about the process, you know, to get this replacement
(12:45):
badge that she earned through thirty years of service. And
it's something they pay out a pocket for too. And
she was told she had to make a report and
write a letter and it had to go to the chief,
who's the one person who proves and disapproves these for
some strange reason now and the chief said no and
(13:07):
doubled down on it when FOP President Ken Kober intervened,
and she said, one retirement badge to each officer period.
To hell with bad things happening, like you're getting stolen.
And the thing is, she retired in good standing, filed
the appropriate report when she lost her badge and jumped
her all the hoops, and this is what she gets.
(13:27):
And Cober he confirmed me the under CPD policy, this
is the chief's prerogative. And here's the funny part. Another
retired CPD officer, I'm not going to bring his name
into this, he started posting about this on Facebook to
support Baldwin.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Guess what.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
CPD's public information officer decides to call him and advise
him to stop discussing on social media. And this officer,
he's the kind of guy who doesn't take kindly to bullying.
But memo to CPD ad minutes traders, there's a little
thing called the First Amendment and any first year laws
and can tell you government agencies are bound by it. Hello.
(14:08):
And what's funny is apparently when this part blew up,
my understanding is this public relations officer may have claimed
that she called this retired officer who was speaking up
not to try to get them to stop posting that online,
but to try to help. I don't obviously I'd have
more questions about that conversation. But here's the thing. If
(14:34):
you want to be an effective leader, you need to
make your officers feel appreciated. You need to make your
retirees feel appreciated, instead of having your current officers feel
that you see them as disposable and that when they
retire they'll be thrown out like yesterday's garbage. Not announce
of respect. I mean, is that the kind of leadership
message you want to send?
Speaker 2 (14:55):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
It just seems to me like the whole thing is
really an unforced there it's a it's a it's a
retirement padge, and and the and the pay for it
out of your own pocket, do the paperwork, whatever procedures there,
and just let let it go and move on.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
I just hope this thing gets resolved and gets resolved
quickly before it becomes some sort of an issue. But
with that, James, we will let you go. Always appreciate
the time as always, and we will talk to you
again before too long.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Thank you very much, Dan.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Always a privilege, all right, James Bogan on fifty five
k r CV Talkstation.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Fifty five KRC dot com. This is Joe Cordell
Fifty five krc DE Talk station, Dan Carroll for Brian Thomas.
So glad to be here and always glad to welcome
in my my next guest, uh local attorney and legal
analyst and James Bogan.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Great to have you back on the show. How are
you today?
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Good? Thanks for having me?
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Yeah, absolutely, yea.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Before I get to the subject that we had at hand,
I got a couple of questions for you and just
a couple of things that occurred to me over the
last couple of hours.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
You know, it was what was it? It was?
Speaker 1 (00:36):
It was like a month, almost two months ago, you
and I were talking about the the pending release of
the Epstein files. And remember we we we kind of
made plans, you know, when those come out, we're gonna
we're gonna look at it, We're gonna dissect it. We're
going to do a segment on the radio and and
talk about that and talk about what's in it, what's
not what's not in it? Uh, how those you know,
(00:56):
we're going to break those things down. And then of course,
you know the release was delayed that it never happened,
and here we are, and this feels like it was
a couple of months ago, and I've not seen hide
nor hair of the Epstein files. Have you seen any
unication at all that those things will ever see the
light of day.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Well, here's the thing. They got a truckload of files
that next day when Pam Bondi gave that deadline, And
in my experience, when you have that many files, I'd
be very hard pressed to see how they could have
gone through them thoroughly and made the appropriate redactions like
(01:38):
redacting out victims' names and so on, which is very
routine for any law enforcement to do before releasing documents
to the public. Unless they were doing at twenty four
to seven around the clock, and that's the only thing
they're working on, I really don't think they would have
had it done by now.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Yeah, I was under the impression that one thing, that
some of that had already taken place, though her being
I remember her being on TV with Jesse Waters talking about, Yeah,
you know, those files are coming out tomorrow and we're
doing the final reactions and making sure that we don't
compromise any information or give away people's names. It shouldn't
be given away. I thought they had already done all
(02:18):
that stuff.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
I don't think so, And the thing is Pam BONDI.
She's salivating to release this stuff. You know, Trump is too.
That's what I'm thinking. And I don't think they gain
anything by holding stuff back if that stuff's been done,
because I think they're absolutely chomping at the bit to
release this stuff. That's just my thought.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
All right, Well, then our plans are still in place,
and when those things come out, we'll we'll we'll have
you on and we'll break it down and we'll see
what's what on the Epstein file. So that so keep that,
keep that in your calendar, all right, I will do Dan,
all right. The other thing is some information started coming
out yesterday about this a fifteen year old that's accused
(03:01):
of killing this guy on Short Vine a couple of
days ago, and the video came out, yes the video
was released yesterday of how this happened. And you see
this guy standing in front of that liquor store on
Short Vine. He's got his nose in his cell phone,
he's minding his own business. This kid walks up to him,
pulls out a gun and sticks it in his midsection.
(03:22):
And information started coming out late yesterday that this guy
has been in the juvenile system before various judges. I
guess in Hamilton County Juvenile court with twenty one felonies,
and maybe it's just me, but twenty one when you're
at the age of fifteen sounds like a lot. And
yet this kid was still it seems to me like
(03:45):
this is a kid who should not have been on
the street, should not have had any access to a gun.
Is this and I mean in a general sense, if
you have a kid that has is fifteen years old,
has that many felonies, that much content with court, how
is this kid able to be out on the street.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
That's a good question. It depends on what those twenty
one felonies were. And you see when they count prior felonies,
they what they do is they take the total. They
don't take look back and say, hey, this could be
from like two or three cases.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
But yeah, apparently one of them was illegal dischargeable weapon. Uh,
there was. There was a couple of them. I think
that involved possession of a gun.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
And and so that dischargeable weapon is a felony that
in adult court typically carries prison time and it's a
strict liability offense, which means you can't argue self defense
with that one, So yeah, I definitely have questions, But
the bigger thing is where the hell are his kids parents?
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Yeah? Absolutely?
Speaker 1 (04:58):
And are we just unequipped in the juvenile system to
deal with this in any in any meaningful way.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
I mean, it's really a case by case and i'd
say because I've had juvenile clients where you know, I
definitely did not question the outcome. But you know, like
I said, every case is different.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Yeah, all right, well, James, stay right there. I want
to talk about some of the Title nine stuff that
that is happening, and it is it is amazing to
me that some of these different universities and these different
entities think that they can stand their ground against the
federal government on this. And we'll get your thoughts on that,
but we got to get to a quick break here,
(05:42):
So James Bogan stand by and we'll continue on with
him on the other side. On fifty five KRC the
talk station. This is fifty five KRC and iHeartRadio station.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Get ready for spring and have your roof gut.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
Fifty five KRC DE talk station. Dan Carroll for Ryan Thomas.
We are talking with local attorney James Bogan and James.
You know, I'm looking at some of the headlines here,
and you've got the University of Pennsylvania. Trump is suspending
one hundred and seventy five million dollars in federal funding
because they continue to allow male athletes to compete in
(06:24):
women's sports. The Secretary of Education is telling these these
different universities the NCAA that their policies need to get
in line with what the Trump administration is saying about this.
You've got main schools who are saying they are not
going to not going to change their transgender policies as
(06:46):
it relates to sports. What kind of ground do these
places have to stand on in order to stand in
defiance of what's coming out of the White House.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
They have absolutely zero crown on you just look at
the text the Title nine, which this executive order is
based on. No one shall be excluded from participation in
sports or deny the benefit of sports school sports based
on gender. And when you allow biological males to compete
in girls' sports, you're taking away these opportunities to participate
(07:22):
and have gained the benefits from these sports. Because when
you have biological males, even if they take hormones, they're
still during puberty, they get bigger muscles, bigger frame, bigger
lung capacity, stronger ligament, stronger tendons, more muscle density, and
(07:42):
those advantages do not get mitigated by hormone treatment. And
feelings certainly don't mitigate these physical advantages, and you'll see
them displacing girls. I mean, we talked about this. Leah Thomas,
for example, when as Will Thomas was the number four
(08:04):
hundred and sixty two among college men in the two
hundred yard freestyle, went from that to number one among
college women. Now men's and women's times performances is about
a ten to twelve percent different. Thomas's time only dropped
by two point sixty six percent or regressed by two
(08:24):
point six six percent from the hormones and splockers and
so on. It's and when women girls, when they take steroids,
they don't become as good as men. I mean, you
saw that we talked about this. There's that Yale swimmer
who she was one of the top women in the
country actually compete against Leah Thomas. The next year swam
(08:47):
for Yale as a guy and wasn't even competitive.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Yeah, And that's the way it happens.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
And I love the way you address that argument, because
you're talking about nine and Title nine really looks after
the rights of women. And we've gone so far down
the road on this argument that it always starts with
the rights of those who, you know, these transgender individuals,
that somehow their rights are being infringe and what gets
(09:18):
lost in that argument are the rights of those women
to compete on a fair and level playing field. You know,
these women who have sacrificed mightily, who have given up
all sorts of things, and then you know, when when
it's time for them, you know, for the rubber to
hit the road, well, then they have to face another
unfair challenge in the form of some dude that's been
(09:41):
through puberty and now wants to they have long hair
and wear dresses and call himself a woman.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Yeah. I mean, if I would have compete as a woman,
I would have been a superstar when.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
My son would have been the same way, Would he
had better times than Katie Decky for God's sake?
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Yeah? And you know what everyone though, the proponents of
this crap, they just focus on feelings, feelings, feelings. And
these are the same people who said trust the science
during COVID.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Yeah, trust the science, that the science at least when
it as long as it fits their narrative. So it was, so,
where do you see this going? I mean, you know,
the Trump administration so far is able to withhold funds,
and we've had so many federal judges across the country
who feel have been feeling so free to wade into
(10:37):
any issue that comes out.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Of the White House.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Are we going to be subject to more federal rulings
and federal court judges trying to direct the Trump administration
to do this, that and the other thing.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
That's an interesting question.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
We haven't seen anything brought yet, but unfortunately, with these
activist judges out there, I wouldn't be surprised. But this way,
the recent New York Times poll showed that seventy nine
percent of people are opposed to this crap. And you
look at this eventually reaches the Supreme Court. I think
(11:14):
once this reaches the Supreme Court, which is more matter
when than if there are some penny cases, I think
the Court's going to end up ruling on the right
side of this.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Yeah, James, before we let you go, you brought to
my attention yesterday a situation that's developing within the Cincinnati
Police Department, and it has to do with a retired
officer who is trying to get a replacement badge after
retiring from the force. And there seems to be some
(11:43):
so I don't know if it's a misunderstanding or some
sort of complication as to this officer getting a replacement badge.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
And you know, the way.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
The argument was laid out for me, this just sounds
to me like something that doesn't really need to get
to the left that this thing is getting to already.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
Yeah, retired police officer Rachel Baldwin, I've been in chatting
with her about this too. She retired in good standing.
She lost her retirement badge. Many retired officers request the
second retirement badge. One goes in their wallet, one goes
on display. It's not nefarious to lose a retirement badge.
(12:24):
It says retirement and big letters across the top. It's
not like anyone can use it. And people I've talked
to with CPD say it's not unpreceded for a retired
officer to get a replacement retirement badge either. Now, Baldwin,
she lost her badge. She went to police supply to
inquire about the process, you know, to get this replacement
(12:45):
badge that she earned through thirty years of service. And
it's something they pay out a pocket for too. And
she was told she had to make a report and
write a letter and it had to go to the chief,
who's the one person who proves and disapproves these for
some strange reason now and the chief said no and
(13:07):
doubled down on it when FOP President Ken Kober intervened,
and she said, one retirement badge to each officer period.
To hell with bad things happening, like you're getting stolen.
And the thing is, she retired in good standing, filed
the appropriate report when she lost her badge and jumped
her all the hoops, and this is what she gets.
(13:27):
And Cober he confirmed me the under CPD policy, this
is the chief's prerogative. And here's the funny part. Another
retired CPD officer, I'm not going to bring his name
into this, he started posting about this on Facebook to
support Baldwin.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Guess what.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
CPD's public information officer decides to call him and advise
him to stop discussing on social media. And this officer,
he's the kind of guy who doesn't take kindly to bullying.
But memo to CPD ad minutes traders, there's a little
thing called the First Amendment and any first year laws
and can tell you government agencies are bound by it. Hello.
(14:08):
And what's funny is apparently when this part blew up,
my understanding is this public relations officer may have claimed
that she called this retired officer who was speaking up
not to try to get them to stop posting that online,
but to try to help. I don't obviously I'd have
more questions about that conversation. But here's the thing. If
(14:34):
you want to be an effective leader, you need to
make your officers feel appreciated. You need to make your
retirees feel appreciated, instead of having your current officers feel
that you see them as disposable and that when they
retire they'll be thrown out like yesterday's garbage. Not announce
of respect. I mean, is that the kind of leadership
message you want to send?
Speaker 2 (14:55):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
It just seems to me like the whole thing is
really an unforced there it's a it's a it's a
retirement padge, and and the and the pay for it
out of your own pocket, do the paperwork, whatever procedures there,
and just let let it go and move on.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
I just hope this thing gets resolved and gets resolved
quickly before it becomes some sort of an issue. But
with that, James, we will let you go. Always appreciate
the time as always, and we will talk to you
again before too long.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Thank you very much, Dan.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Always a privilege, all right, James Bogan on fifty five
k r CV Talkstation.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Fifty five KRC dot com. This is Joe Cordell
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.