November 19, 2024 • 35 mins
In the first hour of today's edition of the Dan Caplis Show, Andy McCarthy, legal columnist for National Review joins Dan to discuss Judge Juan Merchan's postponement today of Donald Trump's sentencing in the felony case alleging falsification of business records prosecuted by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg.
What does it mean for the case going forward? Could President-elect Trump conceivably be sentenced upon leaving office at age 82 in four years? Andy outlines the potential range of outcomes in his most recent article for National Review, 'In Lawfare, Unprecedented Is Complicated.'
In Lawfare, Unprecedented Is Complicated | National Review
Then, Dan Caplis talks about the crisis at the border, Donald Trump's plans to fix it, and how that will impact the state of Colorado.
What does it mean for the case going forward? Could President-elect Trump conceivably be sentenced upon leaving office at age 82 in four years? Andy outlines the potential range of outcomes in his most recent article for National Review, 'In Lawfare, Unprecedented Is Complicated.'
In Lawfare, Unprecedented Is Complicated | National Review
Then, Dan Caplis talks about the crisis at the border, Donald Trump's plans to fix it, and how that will impact the state of Colorado.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. Start with Andy
McCarthy is a good day on the Dan Kaplis Show.
As the celebration continues, Andy, welcome back to The Dan
(00:22):
Caplis Show.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Grateful for your time, and thank you so much for
having me.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Well, it is my pleasure. And for those new to
maybe the planet, want to let you know that Andy
is I believe clearly the top legal analyst in the country.
In fact, Andy, if you allow me a ten second digression,
you know I consider myself a pretty good legal analyst.
I was among you know, the first to go on
TV with all this covered Tyson, Rodney King, et cetera,
(00:47):
for the network. But I think you are truly the
best legal analyst in TV history at this point. Admittedly
a new kind of a new thing, but it goes
back now twenty or thirty years and there's never been
anybody better and the McCarthy Report the podcast than Andy
does with Rich Lowry don't miss it. Whether you agree
or disagree with Andy on this issue or that issue,
(01:09):
it's one of the most intelligent entertaining options out there anywhere.
So with that said, my friend, and forgive that digression,
forgive that, but it's all true. I am so glad
you're out there, because I haven't agreed with every little
thing you've said all the time, but I've just never
(01:32):
seen anybody better at capturing this and figuring out and
you've got such a deep background in all of this,
including DJ. So let me start, though, my friend, with
of course, what happened today, which is Bragg's office indicating,
if published reports are true, that they're willing to put
the sentencing on pause for four years. And what's your
(01:53):
take on all that? Where does this end?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
I think, and I'll have a piece going up in
nationally about this. I think there's a chess game going
on and that Brag is basically trying to get Trump
to be the main one acting for the four year delay.
You know, there's a lot of people out there saying,
you know, what is R. John doing and what is bragged?
(02:19):
But the delay up until this point has been completely
supported by Trump's legal team and of course, they were
out there today doing a victory lap, trying to get
convince the public that a postponement would be a great
victory in the case, which kind of I think has
some of the commentators puzzled because they want to express
outrage over the fact that this, you know, the idea
(02:42):
that this would be hanging over Trump throughout is presidency.
But the thing is, and this is a little bit
inside baseball, but we have to explain it for people
to understand it. Trump obviously wants complete vindication, and those
of us who've looked really hard at this case see
about a thousand reasons why he should get it. This
(03:03):
case should be reversed on appeal. Here's the problem. Trump
can't get to appeal until the judge pronounces sentence and
enters formally the judgment of conviction on the court record.
Even though the Democrats are now saying, and have been
throughout the campaign, that Trump's a convicted sellon, he's not right.
(03:26):
He doesn't have a conviction on his record. The conviction
has not entered until the judge enters, imposes a sentence,
and enters the judgment. And that may be a legalism
that's to a lot of people is just trivial. I
think to Trump, it's probably everything he's lived his whole life.
He's had a lot of ups and downs, but one
(03:47):
thing he's managed to do is not have a criminal record,
and I don't think he wants one, and I don't
think he wants to have one as president. I think
Bragg knows that. And if Trump had his brothers, he
would obviously like to be completely cleared. But if he
has to undergo sentencing and a judgment of conviction in
(04:08):
order to get to the appeal, I think he'd rather
have the four year delay, right, And I think Bragg
thinks that too, And that's why what's happening is happening.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Boy, that makes perfect sense in you McCarthy our guests,
because until I heard you say it, I didn't realize that, Yeah,
he's not a convicted felon until after sentence seen. So
I assume President Trump's bad and I hope it's a
correct one. Is that by the time he gets to
the end of the term, there'll be no appetite to
continue the case further, and somehow it gets dismissed.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
I think that's right. I also think though that and
I say this is somebody who's got their stars who
disapprove it. I think it's a mistake to think about
Trump's calculations as if he were an analyst like we are.
I think Trump is more of a fatalist than an analyst,
you know what I mean by that? As analysts look
(05:02):
at the alternatives that are available and try to pick
the best one or the least bad one, whereas I
think Trump wants to get through today without the disaster
that could happen happening, and he'll worry about tomorrow tomorrow.
And even though to me that sounds like you're kind
of a crazy way to exist, it's worked for him
(05:23):
for seventy eight years. As any analyst a year ago,
if they would have believed that the three other legal
cases against Trump, the priminal cases, would have collapsed by now,
nobody would have believed that. But Trump believes it. Trump
believed that if he could delay things long enough, things
would start to swing his way. And it did.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Yeah, kiss this ingredient, Andy, right, that this just amazing
confidence that he's going to prevail, that it's going to
work out, etc. I mean a lot of yeah, historic
figures have had that, and I can think of very
few in our lifetime we can match his.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
I think that's right. I think you know, to us
who are just like sort of legal analysts, we say,
you know, eventually the music christ is going to stop
and you're going to be left without a share. You know,
nobody can do this and make it work forever. But
he's made it work for seventy eight years.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Yeah, and I'm so glad to see this at least
temporarily set aside. And you've Andy has done tremendous work
on this, pointing out what a first that New York
prosecution is. If I may shift to Gates for a second,
and that nomination, knowing DJ as intimately as you do,
two questions. One is do you think he'll be confirmed?
And I've been reading all your stuff on this, I
don't know if it's changed today. But second, if he
(06:45):
is confirmed and Trump appears to be fighting very hard
for him, what do you think DJ is going to
look like under Matt Gates?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
See my biggest problem with Gates. To answer your first question,
if he gets a confirmation process, then my complaints are over,
because I just think it would be very wrong for
President Trump to try to evade the constitutional process. If
(07:14):
Gates goes through it, it's a political judgment, it's not
a legal one. And if he gets through, then he'll
be the Attorney General, and people like me will say,
I think this was a missed opportunity for Trump, who
could have picked somebody who knows the Justice Department better
to try to fix it. But at least the Constitution
will have been honored and I won't have much more
(07:36):
to complain about. My main beef with Gates is not
that Trump is wrong when he says that the Justice
Department the FBI badly need reform, but that he's right.
I know that institution very well because I work there
for twenty years. It will eat alive somebody who doesn't
(07:56):
know where the levers are and how they come at you.
You know Alberto Gonzalez, the Attorney General, one of the
attorney generals and the President Bush. He had a long,
distinguished state legal career. He was a judge in Texas.
He had a lot more depth of experience than Matt
(08:18):
Gates does in the law. Gates only practiced laws for
like a nanosecond down in Florida, and then he jumped
into electoral politics, he's never been a prosecutor. He doesn't
know anything about the Justice Department other than that he's
done oversight over investigations of Trump, which is not really
a comprehensive view of the Justice Department and what's wrong
(08:40):
with it. I mentioned Gonzalez because even though he had
intimate ties to the centers of power, he didn't know
the Justice Department. And when he went in there, they
ate him alive and he never even saw it coming.
And when it did come, all of the connection to
to President Bush and the Bush White House couldn't say
(09:00):
them because his enemies managed to take something that was
trivial and turn it into a major scandal, and he
had to leave. I think that Gates is in much
worse position than Gonzalez, because at least Gonzales was widely
liked on Capitol Hill until they decided to do him in,
whereas Gates would come in with a lot of hostility
(09:22):
from both parties, both chambers on Capitol Hill. And what
I worry about, Dan is the kind of reform of
the Justice Department and the FBI that we're talking about
is going to require not a blowtorch, but a savvy, experienced,
soft touch and part of that's going to be convincing
(09:44):
Congress to come along with you, because the only enduring
change in this areas want these stuff to get sprafted
into statutory law. And I just don't see if I
had to pick five people in Washington who were the
least likely to get that done, Gates would be on
the list, and I think I'd still have a couple
of fingers left.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Andy. My last question for you, maybe an unfair one,
is let's say you got the call from the President
and he said, Okay, I've just had Matt Gates confirmed.
I'd like you to help them. I'd like to go
into justice. Would you do that.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
I would not go to work for the Justice Department,
but I would certainly do what I've always done with
respect to members of both parties. If there was stuff
that I acquired in my experience, whether it was just
you counter terrorism or law enforcement stuff, I'd be happy
(10:39):
to be consulted if they thought that there was something
I could do that would be helpful. And I wouldn't
not help Matt Gates because I don't particularly care for them,
because it's the country that we care about. And if
he becomes Attorney general, I'll want.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Him to succeed.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
I don't think he should be attorney general, but you know,
I don't get a lot of things I want. The
thing is we try to do the best we can
so that the country succeeds. So I would certainly try
to help in that regard.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
I'll tell you you you are one of the best
on every level and so grateful you're out there. Appreciate
your time today and look forward to the next conversation.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Thanks so much, Dan, Thank you my friend.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
That is Andy McCarthy. Do not miss the McCarthy Report,
which is this tremendous podcast. Also writes for National Review
eight five five for zero five eight two five five
texts d An five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
How do you stop him if he decides to order
the state of Colorado to round up every single undocumented
person there and send them to an internment camp. What
do you do? Joy?
Speaker 4 (11:53):
I appreciate your familiarity with Colorado, and you know the
story of Ralph Carr Rap Carr faced this very question.
The president at the time said we're going to in
turn Japanese Americans, and that was based on an unconstitutional plan.
The Supreme Court has later made clear that.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
It was unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Now.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
At the time, FDR was able to get it through,
but Ralph Carr stood up for our constitution for equal protection.
Speaker 5 (12:19):
Of the laws.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
They're either both idiots or they think you are. It's
one of the two, right. I mean, how can you
even begin to make that comparison? You can't. No honest,
intelligent person can make that comparison between the Japanese in Colorado,
innocent people hadn't broken any law sent off to camps,
and people who have not only broken the law and
(12:43):
entering illegally, but then committed another serious crime while they
were here or before they got here. You cannot make
that comparison unless you really want to deeply insult the
innocent Japanese people who were sent to camps in Colorado.
So it's just please keep talking like that, Phil, because
I understand it's a real uphill battle for Republicans in
(13:04):
Colorado to win statewide. But you keep talking like that, Yeah,
a Republican just might beat you for governor. Yeah, especially
since you're involved in this Griswold cover up, deeply involved.
You know, wiser polists, they're all involved in the cover
up in this sense that they're not demanding an independent
special counsel right now to get to the bottom of
(13:26):
this scandal. The scandal, as I define it, is Griswold
making the decision to not tell the public, including her
own clerks, that those passwords had been online for months.
To me, that's the scandal. Putting the passwords out there
to begin with, that's horrific incompetence. I believe that's where
the evidence would fall, but probably didn't lead to any
(13:46):
breach of the system. But how do we know that
without a full independent investigation. So when you get Wiser
is supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer of
the state, yeah, the state of Denial. When you get
Wiser helping to cover this up by not doing his
job and insisting on that independent investigation and pollus the same,
(14:06):
then how can you blame anybody in the public for wondering,
Wait a second, Okay, did it go beyond that? Did
it go beyond just recklessness with these passwords? Is there
something else they're covering up here? Personally, I don't think
there is something else they're covering up, But I can't
blame anybody for wondering because it's an obvious, massive cover up,
(14:28):
and maybe it's just as simple as Okay, she has
the same color jersey. She's a Democrat, so we're going
to undermine further confidence in our elections in order to
protect a fellow Democrat. That wouldn't surprise me, because all
these people are phonies. All these people they don't care
about you. They don't care about election integrity, they don't
care about crime, they don't care about illegal immigrants. They
(14:50):
keep luring them up here knowing that lots of women
are going to be raped on the way up, lots
of girls are going to be raped on the way up,
lots of children are going to be sex trafficked. These
Democrats they don't give these policies elected types. They don't
care about any of that because they don't care about
these people as people. So it wouldn't surprise me if
they're willing to engage in this cover up and all
the harm that comes with it just because she wears
(15:13):
a blue jersey too, That wouldn't surprise me. My guess
is that's the starting point, and that their motives, their
selfish motives, go deeper in that, Hey, she's an inconvenient
candidate for governor, right because she happens to be female.
And as much as all these pompous Polis and Wiser
and Hickenlooper and Bennett types look down on the rest
(15:35):
of us and talk about how enlightened they are. Look
who holds all the top jobs. You know, it's all
old or middle aged white guys. So they're total phonies.
And so they got to be careful with Griswold because
she happens to be female and Democratic Party is all
about identity politics, and so they're kind of treating her
with kit gloves. They're believing that there's no way that
(15:56):
she'll win a primary, and I'm sure they're right about that,
But bottom line is confidence and elections. They don't care
about any of that. They really obviously don't. Eight five
to five for zero five eight two five five the number.
And if Wiser is going to be the Democrat nominee, yeah,
I think that's the best chance that Colorado GOP has
had in a long time. And more from Phil Wiser. Yeah,
(16:20):
Aurora the ellis island of the West, well for those
here legally it is, and it's a beautiful thing. And
Aurora has some tremendous things going on in terms of
being a melting pot, but in terms of attracting criminal illegals,
which is clearly the case for some of the folks there. Yeah, Wiser,
you want you might want to be a little careful
about praising and encouraging that.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
And here in Colorado, I want to say what Aurora
really stands for or the Ellis Island of the West.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
So he's trying to get more to come up.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
TDA send more, send.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
More to Aurora. I mean, it's but this is the
mentality Ryan. They believe they cannot lose. It's and I
guarantee you this one hundred percent certainty, whether it's Wiser
or any of them, that they believe they cannot lose.
They can go as crazily goofly Kamala, Harris, far Left
and beyond to win the primary and it doesn't matter
(17:15):
because they think they're bulletproof in the general.
Speaker 6 (17:17):
What an insult that is to legal immigrants who came
to this country through Ellis Island and followed all the
rules and went through the proper channels and are legal
immigrants to this kind. I just cannot believe that he
is so intellectually dishonest and to just lump in those
who came here illegally, and most of them did so
for a reason because they couldn't get in legally.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Right. But it's a continuation, right Like in basketball. Okay,
you're making a move at the free throw line and
then they follow you there, but you go all the
way to the basket, you get continuation. Same thing here. Listen,
this whole thing, this whole massive open border invited invasion,
has all been about getting more Democrat voters, and Wiser
is literally encouraging more people to come in illegally. That's
(18:03):
the way I interpret his comments anyway. This is an open,
active and encouragement of more people to enter this country illegally,
whether they've committed other crimes in the country they're coming
from or not. How else do you read the things
he's doing. Everything he's doing is all because all these lefties,
they don't care about the crimes that people commit against
(18:25):
you here, any of that. They don't care about the
crimes they commit against other folks coming to the country
illegally who may be very law abiding. All they care
about is getting more votes their phonies. They should be
thrown out.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 7 (18:49):
I think the President wants a hammer at the DOJ
and as a hammer and all these other appointments. He's
very confident and where they're at and can deliver the
administration that he's wanting. His picks have been maybe unconventional,
but we hired an unconventional president, and the American people
(19:10):
wanted that. They don't want politics as usual, They want to.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Play That is so very true, right eight five five
for zero five two five five the number text d
A N five seven seven three nine. The other thing
Americans know is that, hey, life was better under Trump.
You know, whatever approach he took, it worked out better
for the vast majority of people. So I think this
Gates thing is all going to come down to how
badly President Trump wants him as AG and if Trump
(19:35):
is thoroughly committed to getting him as AG, I believe
Trump's going to get him as AG. And the road
from here to there may be a winding one, but
I think that's where it's going to end up. And
my view is, as you know, if you listen to
the show, I've never been a big fan of Matt
Gates at all, but I believe the president won and
he should get his people, unless, in the case of Gates,
(19:57):
for example, if he is gilt of the crimes that
he's accused of in the media, well then yeah, I
think that'd be a disqualifier. But wait a second, DOJ,
which hates him, did not prosecute him for those alleged crimes.
So are we now just going to take it face
value that the claim of a witness, who you have
(20:19):
to assume at this point DOJ determined was not credible
enough to rely on. Yes. So eight five zero five
A two five five texts DA N five seven seven
three nine. The only other thing about the Gates thing
is listen, blame the Democrats, right if you don't like Gates,
if you don't like that approach of a loyalist is AG.
Blame the Democrats because by unleashing this monster of lawfare,
(20:43):
they have assured every Republican president for the rest of
time their first criteria now and choosing an AG will
have to be ultimate loyalty, because in AG is the
one person in all of the federal government who can
end to presidency first week on their own. And so
every president, every Republican president, is going to have to
(21:05):
act defensively when it comes to that pick, So blame
the Democrats for that. All right, lots to do here.
I'm going to get to some texts before we take
some calls in more sound. Hey, Phil Wiser, Aurora is
the felon island of the entire us. That's a response
to Colorado's Attorney general, who's clearly running for governor undeclared
(21:26):
at this point, comparing Aurora to Ellis Island. And what's
interesting to me is maybe it's out there somewhere. It
might be in a statement somewhere I even't seen or heard.
But do these people, whether it's Jason Crow or Phil Wiser,
do they ever draw a distinction between folks here legally
and folks here illegally? Do they ever draw a distinction
(21:49):
between folks here illegally who do not commit other crimes
and folks here illegally who do commit other crimes if
they're drawing that distinction, I missed him, So Ryan, can
you get Phil Wiser on the show so we can
ask him about that.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
He has been on this program before, Yes, I.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Remember, I long treated him very well. Yeah, well, and
he never came back.
Speaker 6 (22:11):
Well, I think it was an issue that he actually
agreed with him on the whole time.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Without would explained it. And Jason Crow, how about Jason Crow?
Will he join us?
Speaker 3 (22:19):
That's an o fer. He has never come on. They've
never even responded to my across.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Yeah, and that's where you have to come back to
a guy like Jason Crow I always meet personally. I
hope everybody else too, will always admire the physical courage
he served showed serving his country and be grateful for that.
On the other hand, it's fair to draw the distinction
between the physical courage he showed serving this country and
the distinct utter lack of courage he shows in public office.
(22:45):
That's a fair distinction to draw eight five for zero
five eight two five five the number takes d an
five seven seven three nine. Nancy Mayce. They've got now
this transcongress person, right, So of course the media is
making a big deal about are you going to let
her use the bathroom? Nancy mace on some of that,
(23:07):
But that being a feminist makes me an extremist. I'm
totally here for it.
Speaker 4 (23:11):
Is this effort in response to Comngressman McBride coming to Congress.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
Yes, and absolutely and then some I'm not going to
stand for a man. You know, if someone with a
penis is in the women's locker room, that's not okay.
And I'm a victim of abuse myself. I'm a rape survivor.
I have PTSD from the abuse I've suffered at the
hands of a man, and I know how vulnerable women
and girls are in private spaces. So I'm absolutely, one
(23:37):
hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
Going to stand in the way of any man who
wants to be in a women's restroom, in our locker rooms,
in our changing rooms, I will be there fighting you
every step of the way.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
Any reasonable person disagree with that. Isn't that a ninety
ten issue in America at least? And I don't know
who the other ten are. I mean, parts are parts.
You got to be in the shower that fits your parts,
And in no sense saying society can someone with male
parts being a female shower. You know, it's it's just madness.
(24:08):
And the longer the Democrats try to claim, oh no,
that's normal and if you don't agree, you're a bigot.
You know, the further down the tubes are going to
go texture and then I'll get to calls I don't
remember anyone on the left busting on Biden when his
nominees were hard left are chosen solely based on gender
and skin color instead of qualification. You're one hundred percent right.
Two words, three words, Admiral Rachel Levy. Right, I mean
(24:32):
that just says it all. And and so no, Trump's
entitled to his picks, and unless there's something grossly disqualifying,
and I don't consider that to include just a different
judgment as to whether somebody will be good in that
position or not. All right, let's go to beautiful Longmont color.
I don't rob you're on the Dan Kaplis show. Welcome.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
How you doing live in the dream?
Speaker 8 (24:56):
My friend?
Speaker 5 (24:58):
So the whole mac g allegations. We've seen this game
before with the Kavanaugh hearing, Yeah, confirmation hearings with that
joker rinse and repeat. Is that what the Bens are
trying here?
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Well, you know, I think you make a great point,
and the starting point has to be any allegation by
the Democrats of any kind of sexual impropriety has to
be taken with an enormous grain of salt to start with, right,
because it's the boy you cried wolfs. They've made false
allegation after false allegation, and then of course you look
at all the available facts and weigh them, but you
(25:36):
start out dubious because of the left's history of lying,
as they employ the politics of personal destruction.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Well, that's all they have is lies.
Speaker 5 (25:47):
I mean, if they had anything concrete, they would have
gone after him long ago when he was stirring the pot.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Well don't you think, don't you think you would have
been criminally charged by the Biden administry. They have not
been shy about doing that to political opponents.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
Exactly.
Speaker 5 (26:07):
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more with you.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Yeah, Rob, appreciate the call and listen. I'm not trying
to champion Matt Gates. I've never been a fan. I'm
just trying to be fair and honest here. And Donald
Trump risk his life to win the nomination to win
the presidency. He won, he should get his people unless somebody's,
you know, in this example, guilty of some serious crime.
And this is a serious allegation. And if he's guilty,
(26:30):
yeah he should not be a g but that's a
huge if, and he should be presumed innocent. In the meantime,
Tony and Lakewood, welcome to the Dan Kaplis show.
Speaker 8 (26:40):
So, Dan, I'm calling in reference to your comments on Wiser.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
And Polis regarding.
Speaker 4 (26:45):
Our secretary of State, and in.
Speaker 8 (26:48):
Those comments you said their unwillingness to tackle this lessons
are faith in the election processed.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
I want to take it a step further.
Speaker 8 (27:03):
Their unwillingness to tackle this with a more open and
complete investigation, to me, is attack on our constitutional republic
because just as is supposed to be blind, it's not
an art their team kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
Great, so they are.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Literally attacking the very.
Speaker 8 (27:25):
Fabric and by.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
All these people that continue to vote on the left,
they don't they don't seem to care because it's our team.
Well that's fine when.
Speaker 5 (27:37):
The shoe flips.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
And that's why I'm four Gates and let them have it.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
Gates is exactly what the left is, except for he's
on the right. So more power to him. Appreciate to
call her a Tony, great point, Tony makes I've been
so focused on how Wiser Polists, Griswold, the whole bunch
of lefties are undermining confidence in our elections by up
here and not having a full independent prosecutor with subpoena
(28:04):
power and a public report issued. But he's right. They're
also undermining confidence in our judicial system, which is a
real crime to do that. Because Wiser is Attorney General,
he should be stepping up and he should be saying,
we need this independent prosecutor, we need a public report,
we need subpoena power in order to in order to
(28:26):
make sure there's full confidence in our justice system. But
he's right. When people see Wiser acting this way, it's
a mockery. It's a mockery of the justice system. And
it goes back to again, the operating premise of the
left is that they are bulletproof in a general election.
They can do whatever they want. All they have to
do is curry favor on the left and win a
(28:47):
primary and they're in. That's the way they're operating. In
the meantime, they're doing great harm to the state, starting
with undermining confidence in our elections and our justice system.
You're on the Dan Kapli.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
Show and now back to the Dan Kampla Show podcast.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
We are going to see a time where our institutions
are tested. In the first administration of President Trump, John
Roberts ruled for Stakes who challenged the Trump administration on
an effort to undermine the census, asking questions that we're
going to intimidate people with immigrant family members. We also
protected the dreamers, and John Roberts sided with state attorney
(29:31):
general who challenged the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (29:34):
John Roberts once again.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
May face cases where it's either the rule of law
on one side or the Trump administration on the other.
This is going to be a moment of truth for
Chief Justice Roberts, for the Supreme Court, and for our
judicial system.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Can you get him on the show, because I've got
to ask him. I know he sports Colorado Legal, so
called legal marijuana. Is he not just a supporter but
a customer? I've got to ask him because some of
this stuff, if he's saying, is just nut so I mean,
and I assume he makes these comments totally sober. My
last comments somewhat in jest, but again he thinks we're
(30:11):
all dummies. Roberts, the Roberts Court has ruled in Trump's
favor over and over and over and over again. And
if Wiser has somehow deluded himself into thinking that the
US Supreme Court is going to back Phil Wiser over
Donald Trump in enforcing immigration laws, that's madness. I mean,
(30:35):
What do we always hear from these state bozos who
just want to let an unlimited number of folks come
here illegally because they think they'll be Democrat voters. What
do we hear from people who take that approach? What
we hear from is, oh, no, nothing we can do.
That's all federal jurisdiction. It's all on the fence. Well,
guess what. Making folks here illegally, you have committed other
(30:56):
crimes while they're here, and pose a threat to safety.
Making them leave is federal prerogative, not state prerogative. So
all these tough talking, you know, Phil Wiser's and the
Pritsker and the rest of them, it's just so phony,
it's just so dishonest. This is in the federal wheelhouse.
(31:16):
Donald Trump is soon going to be president of the
United States, and the American people are behind him. I
would bet eighty twenty ninety ten on this. When you
talk about getting rid of folks who are here illegally
and have committed other serious crimes while here, or are
here illegally and committed serious crime in the country of
(31:37):
their origin. Yeah, I've got to believe that's an eighty
twenty or ninety ten issue. Here's Tom Homan to clarify that.
For Phil Wiser, we are going.
Speaker 4 (31:48):
To see a time where institutions are tested in the
first administration.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
You're an echo there. I would much rather now hear
our friend Tom Holman, who actually is speaking the truth.
Speaker 9 (32:00):
We got three rails of business lawrence. First ball, we
got securitive order. We know how to do that, We've
done it before, a sycoboul. We need to run this
deportation operations. The President's been clear we're going to out
of the gate. We're going to focus on public safety
threats and national security threats first, and TREESUS.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
If those who.
Speaker 9 (32:17):
Cross the word legally had great due process, a great
taxpairs fans were order removed by an immigration judge then
didn't leave, they're also a priority.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Now. Can anybody argue with that? Can Fill Wiser argue
with that, or Jared Polis or any of them, or
Jason Crow, I'd love to hear him try.
Speaker 9 (32:34):
Third rail, we got to find them. With three hundred
thousand children that were released into this country to so
called sponsors that the government can't find, we also got
to find them children to try to say.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
That, and remarkable how a wiser and pro and the
rest of them seem to have no interest in that,
no interest in tracking down the missing children, right, Yeah,
And I think what it all comes back to, and
you see this runs throughout the left. Now, I wouldn't
say Democrats, because your typical everyday Democrat isn't like this,
But the secular left it owns and operates the Democratic
(33:05):
Party is just this profound lack of respect for the
dignity and value of each human life. And because the
secular left that that operates the party starts out secular
I probably not believe in God, then they're going to
be far less likely to believe that. Yeah, each each
individual has this inherent dignity and value, and we need
(33:27):
to care about each child. We need to care about
each little girl, We need to care about each young woman,
We need to care about each woman. To the secular
left that operates the Democratic Party, all of the rapes,
all the sexual abuse, all the child trafficking, all of
that is an acceptable casualty rate. That's my assumption because
of the way they behave they clearly don't care about
(33:51):
the individual humanity, the individual suffering of all these people
they lure up to the border, hoping to use as
political chits. They just don't care about the humanity. Yeah,
it's very hard to wrap one's arms around because the
vast majority of everyday Democrats I know do care about humanity.
(34:13):
They may disagree with me on how to best serve
that humanity. They may be dead wrong in the policies
they choose, but they do care about the humanity. But
the secular left that runs the party, the people in power,
clearly if they do care about the humanity, they have
made a deliberate choice to sacrifice that humanity. Because think
(34:35):
about what they do. They make this deliberate choice to
sacrifice millions of people of color to a death before birth,
being killed before birth at a five to one rate.
They make the deliberate choice to lure all these people up,
knowing all these girls, all these young women, all these
women are going to be raped, all these children, traffic,
(34:56):
they make the deliberate choice to just accept all of
that as part of gaining and keeping power themselves. What
a very sorry way to live. Well, the answer is
we got to get them out of office. Eight five
five purser A five A two five five text d
A N five seven seven three nine, You're on the
dan Kapla show.
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. Start with Andy
McCarthy is a good day on the Dan Kaplis Show.
As the celebration continues, Andy, welcome back to The Dan
(00:22):
Caplis Show.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Grateful for your time, and thank you so much for
having me.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Well, it is my pleasure. And for those new to
maybe the planet, want to let you know that Andy
is I believe clearly the top legal analyst in the country.
In fact, Andy, if you allow me a ten second digression,
you know I consider myself a pretty good legal analyst.
I was among you know, the first to go on
TV with all this covered Tyson, Rodney King, et cetera,
(00:47):
for the network. But I think you are truly the
best legal analyst in TV history at this point. Admittedly
a new kind of a new thing, but it goes
back now twenty or thirty years and there's never been
anybody better and the McCarthy Report the podcast than Andy
does with Rich Lowry don't miss it. Whether you agree
or disagree with Andy on this issue or that issue,
(01:09):
it's one of the most intelligent entertaining options out there anywhere.
So with that said, my friend, and forgive that digression,
forgive that, but it's all true. I am so glad
you're out there, because I haven't agreed with every little
thing you've said all the time, but I've just never
(01:32):
seen anybody better at capturing this and figuring out and
you've got such a deep background in all of this,
including DJ. So let me start, though, my friend, with
of course, what happened today, which is Bragg's office indicating,
if published reports are true, that they're willing to put
the sentencing on pause for four years. And what's your
(01:53):
take on all that? Where does this end?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
I think, and I'll have a piece going up in
nationally about this. I think there's a chess game going
on and that Brag is basically trying to get Trump
to be the main one acting for the four year delay.
You know, there's a lot of people out there saying,
you know, what is R. John doing and what is bragged?
(02:19):
But the delay up until this point has been completely
supported by Trump's legal team and of course, they were
out there today doing a victory lap, trying to get
convince the public that a postponement would be a great
victory in the case, which kind of I think has
some of the commentators puzzled because they want to express
outrage over the fact that this, you know, the idea
(02:42):
that this would be hanging over Trump throughout is presidency.
But the thing is, and this is a little bit
inside baseball, but we have to explain it for people
to understand it. Trump obviously wants complete vindication, and those
of us who've looked really hard at this case see
about a thousand reasons why he should get it. This
(03:03):
case should be reversed on appeal. Here's the problem. Trump
can't get to appeal until the judge pronounces sentence and
enters formally the judgment of conviction on the court record.
Even though the Democrats are now saying, and have been
throughout the campaign, that Trump's a convicted sellon, he's not right.
(03:26):
He doesn't have a conviction on his record. The conviction
has not entered until the judge enters, imposes a sentence,
and enters the judgment. And that may be a legalism
that's to a lot of people is just trivial. I
think to Trump, it's probably everything he's lived his whole life.
He's had a lot of ups and downs, but one
(03:47):
thing he's managed to do is not have a criminal record,
and I don't think he wants one, and I don't
think he wants to have one as president. I think
Bragg knows that. And if Trump had his brothers, he
would obviously like to be completely cleared. But if he
has to undergo sentencing and a judgment of conviction in
(04:08):
order to get to the appeal, I think he'd rather
have the four year delay, right, And I think Bragg
thinks that too, And that's why what's happening is happening.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Boy, that makes perfect sense in you McCarthy our guests,
because until I heard you say it, I didn't realize that, Yeah,
he's not a convicted felon until after sentence seen. So
I assume President Trump's bad and I hope it's a
correct one. Is that by the time he gets to
the end of the term, there'll be no appetite to
continue the case further, and somehow it gets dismissed.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
I think that's right. I also think though that and
I say this is somebody who's got their stars who
disapprove it. I think it's a mistake to think about
Trump's calculations as if he were an analyst like we are.
I think Trump is more of a fatalist than an analyst,
you know what I mean by that? As analysts look
(05:02):
at the alternatives that are available and try to pick
the best one or the least bad one, whereas I
think Trump wants to get through today without the disaster
that could happen happening, and he'll worry about tomorrow tomorrow.
And even though to me that sounds like you're kind
of a crazy way to exist, it's worked for him
(05:23):
for seventy eight years. As any analyst a year ago,
if they would have believed that the three other legal
cases against Trump, the priminal cases, would have collapsed by now,
nobody would have believed that. But Trump believes it. Trump
believed that if he could delay things long enough, things
would start to swing his way. And it did.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Yeah, kiss this ingredient, Andy, right, that this just amazing
confidence that he's going to prevail, that it's going to
work out, etc. I mean a lot of yeah, historic
figures have had that, and I can think of very
few in our lifetime we can match his.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
I think that's right. I think you know, to us
who are just like sort of legal analysts, we say,
you know, eventually the music christ is going to stop
and you're going to be left without a share. You know,
nobody can do this and make it work forever. But
he's made it work for seventy eight years.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Yeah, and I'm so glad to see this at least
temporarily set aside. And you've Andy has done tremendous work
on this, pointing out what a first that New York
prosecution is. If I may shift to Gates for a second,
and that nomination, knowing DJ as intimately as you do,
two questions. One is do you think he'll be confirmed?
And I've been reading all your stuff on this, I
don't know if it's changed today. But second, if he
(06:45):
is confirmed and Trump appears to be fighting very hard
for him, what do you think DJ is going to
look like under Matt Gates?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
See my biggest problem with Gates. To answer your first question,
if he gets a confirmation process, then my complaints are over,
because I just think it would be very wrong for
President Trump to try to evade the constitutional process. If
(07:14):
Gates goes through it, it's a political judgment, it's not
a legal one. And if he gets through, then he'll
be the Attorney General, and people like me will say,
I think this was a missed opportunity for Trump, who
could have picked somebody who knows the Justice Department better
to try to fix it. But at least the Constitution
will have been honored and I won't have much more
(07:36):
to complain about. My main beef with Gates is not
that Trump is wrong when he says that the Justice
Department the FBI badly need reform, but that he's right.
I know that institution very well because I work there
for twenty years. It will eat alive somebody who doesn't
(07:56):
know where the levers are and how they come at you.
You know Alberto Gonzalez, the Attorney General, one of the
attorney generals and the President Bush. He had a long,
distinguished state legal career. He was a judge in Texas.
He had a lot more depth of experience than Matt
(08:18):
Gates does in the law. Gates only practiced laws for
like a nanosecond down in Florida, and then he jumped
into electoral politics, he's never been a prosecutor. He doesn't
know anything about the Justice Department other than that he's
done oversight over investigations of Trump, which is not really
a comprehensive view of the Justice Department and what's wrong
(08:40):
with it. I mentioned Gonzalez because even though he had
intimate ties to the centers of power, he didn't know
the Justice Department. And when he went in there, they
ate him alive and he never even saw it coming.
And when it did come, all of the connection to
to President Bush and the Bush White House couldn't say
(09:00):
them because his enemies managed to take something that was
trivial and turn it into a major scandal, and he
had to leave. I think that Gates is in much
worse position than Gonzalez, because at least Gonzales was widely
liked on Capitol Hill until they decided to do him in,
whereas Gates would come in with a lot of hostility
(09:22):
from both parties, both chambers on Capitol Hill. And what
I worry about, Dan is the kind of reform of
the Justice Department and the FBI that we're talking about
is going to require not a blowtorch, but a savvy, experienced,
soft touch and part of that's going to be convincing
(09:44):
Congress to come along with you, because the only enduring
change in this areas want these stuff to get sprafted
into statutory law. And I just don't see if I
had to pick five people in Washington who were the
least likely to get that done, Gates would be on
the list, and I think I'd still have a couple
of fingers left.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Andy. My last question for you, maybe an unfair one,
is let's say you got the call from the President
and he said, Okay, I've just had Matt Gates confirmed.
I'd like you to help them. I'd like to go
into justice. Would you do that.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
I would not go to work for the Justice Department,
but I would certainly do what I've always done with
respect to members of both parties. If there was stuff
that I acquired in my experience, whether it was just
you counter terrorism or law enforcement stuff, I'd be happy
(10:39):
to be consulted if they thought that there was something
I could do that would be helpful. And I wouldn't
not help Matt Gates because I don't particularly care for them,
because it's the country that we care about. And if
he becomes Attorney general, I'll want.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Him to succeed.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
I don't think he should be attorney general, but you know,
I don't get a lot of things I want. The
thing is we try to do the best we can
so that the country succeeds. So I would certainly try
to help in that regard.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
I'll tell you you you are one of the best
on every level and so grateful you're out there. Appreciate
your time today and look forward to the next conversation.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Thanks so much, Dan, Thank you my friend.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
That is Andy McCarthy. Do not miss the McCarthy Report,
which is this tremendous podcast. Also writes for National Review
eight five five for zero five eight two five five
texts d An five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
How do you stop him if he decides to order
the state of Colorado to round up every single undocumented
person there and send them to an internment camp. What
do you do? Joy?
Speaker 4 (11:53):
I appreciate your familiarity with Colorado, and you know the
story of Ralph Carr Rap Carr faced this very question.
The president at the time said we're going to in
turn Japanese Americans, and that was based on an unconstitutional plan.
The Supreme Court has later made clear that.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
It was unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Now.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
At the time, FDR was able to get it through,
but Ralph Carr stood up for our constitution for equal protection.
Speaker 5 (12:19):
Of the laws.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
They're either both idiots or they think you are. It's
one of the two, right. I mean, how can you
even begin to make that comparison? You can't. No honest,
intelligent person can make that comparison between the Japanese in Colorado,
innocent people hadn't broken any law sent off to camps,
and people who have not only broken the law and
(12:43):
entering illegally, but then committed another serious crime while they
were here or before they got here. You cannot make
that comparison unless you really want to deeply insult the
innocent Japanese people who were sent to camps in Colorado.
So it's just please keep talking like that, Phil, because
I understand it's a real uphill battle for Republicans in
(13:04):
Colorado to win statewide. But you keep talking like that, Yeah,
a Republican just might beat you for governor. Yeah, especially
since you're involved in this Griswold cover up, deeply involved.
You know, wiser polists, they're all involved in the cover
up in this sense that they're not demanding an independent
special counsel right now to get to the bottom of
(13:26):
this scandal. The scandal, as I define it, is Griswold
making the decision to not tell the public, including her
own clerks, that those passwords had been online for months.
To me, that's the scandal. Putting the passwords out there
to begin with, that's horrific incompetence. I believe that's where
the evidence would fall, but probably didn't lead to any
(13:46):
breach of the system. But how do we know that
without a full independent investigation. So when you get Wiser
is supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer of
the state, yeah, the state of Denial. When you get
Wiser helping to cover this up by not doing his
job and insisting on that independent investigation and pollus the same,
(14:06):
then how can you blame anybody in the public for wondering,
Wait a second, Okay, did it go beyond that? Did
it go beyond just recklessness with these passwords? Is there
something else they're covering up here? Personally, I don't think
there is something else they're covering up, But I can't
blame anybody for wondering because it's an obvious, massive cover up,
(14:28):
and maybe it's just as simple as Okay, she has
the same color jersey. She's a Democrat, so we're going
to undermine further confidence in our elections in order to
protect a fellow Democrat. That wouldn't surprise me, because all
these people are phonies. All these people they don't care
about you. They don't care about election integrity, they don't
care about crime, they don't care about illegal immigrants. They
(14:50):
keep luring them up here knowing that lots of women
are going to be raped on the way up, lots
of girls are going to be raped on the way up,
lots of children are going to be sex trafficked. These
Democrats they don't give these policies elected types. They don't
care about any of that because they don't care about
these people as people. So it wouldn't surprise me if
they're willing to engage in this cover up and all
the harm that comes with it just because she wears
(15:13):
a blue jersey too, That wouldn't surprise me. My guess
is that's the starting point, and that their motives, their
selfish motives, go deeper in that, Hey, she's an inconvenient
candidate for governor, right because she happens to be female.
And as much as all these pompous Polis and Wiser
and Hickenlooper and Bennett types look down on the rest
(15:35):
of us and talk about how enlightened they are. Look
who holds all the top jobs. You know, it's all
old or middle aged white guys. So they're total phonies.
And so they got to be careful with Griswold because
she happens to be female and Democratic Party is all
about identity politics, and so they're kind of treating her
with kit gloves. They're believing that there's no way that
(15:56):
she'll win a primary, and I'm sure they're right about that,
But bottom line is confidence and elections. They don't care
about any of that. They really obviously don't. Eight five
to five for zero five eight two five five the number.
And if Wiser is going to be the Democrat nominee, yeah,
I think that's the best chance that Colorado GOP has
had in a long time. And more from Phil Wiser. Yeah,
(16:20):
Aurora the ellis island of the West, well for those
here legally it is, and it's a beautiful thing. And
Aurora has some tremendous things going on in terms of
being a melting pot, but in terms of attracting criminal illegals,
which is clearly the case for some of the folks there. Yeah, Wiser,
you want you might want to be a little careful
about praising and encouraging that.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
And here in Colorado, I want to say what Aurora
really stands for or the Ellis Island of the West.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
So he's trying to get more to come up.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
TDA send more, send.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
More to Aurora. I mean, it's but this is the
mentality Ryan. They believe they cannot lose. It's and I
guarantee you this one hundred percent certainty, whether it's Wiser
or any of them, that they believe they cannot lose.
They can go as crazily goofly Kamala, Harris, far Left
and beyond to win the primary and it doesn't matter
(17:15):
because they think they're bulletproof in the general.
Speaker 6 (17:17):
What an insult that is to legal immigrants who came
to this country through Ellis Island and followed all the
rules and went through the proper channels and are legal
immigrants to this kind. I just cannot believe that he
is so intellectually dishonest and to just lump in those
who came here illegally, and most of them did so
for a reason because they couldn't get in legally.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Right. But it's a continuation, right Like in basketball. Okay,
you're making a move at the free throw line and
then they follow you there, but you go all the
way to the basket, you get continuation. Same thing here. Listen,
this whole thing, this whole massive open border invited invasion,
has all been about getting more Democrat voters, and Wiser
is literally encouraging more people to come in illegally. That's
(18:03):
the way I interpret his comments anyway. This is an open,
active and encouragement of more people to enter this country illegally,
whether they've committed other crimes in the country they're coming
from or not. How else do you read the things
he's doing. Everything he's doing is all because all these lefties,
they don't care about the crimes that people commit against
(18:25):
you here, any of that. They don't care about the
crimes they commit against other folks coming to the country
illegally who may be very law abiding. All they care
about is getting more votes their phonies. They should be
thrown out.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 7 (18:49):
I think the President wants a hammer at the DOJ
and as a hammer and all these other appointments. He's
very confident and where they're at and can deliver the
administration that he's wanting. His picks have been maybe unconventional,
but we hired an unconventional president, and the American people
(19:10):
wanted that. They don't want politics as usual, They want to.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Play That is so very true, right eight five five
for zero five two five five the number text d
A N five seven seven three nine. The other thing
Americans know is that, hey, life was better under Trump.
You know, whatever approach he took, it worked out better
for the vast majority of people. So I think this
Gates thing is all going to come down to how
badly President Trump wants him as AG and if Trump
(19:35):
is thoroughly committed to getting him as AG, I believe
Trump's going to get him as AG. And the road
from here to there may be a winding one, but
I think that's where it's going to end up. And
my view is, as you know, if you listen to
the show, I've never been a big fan of Matt
Gates at all, but I believe the president won and
he should get his people, unless, in the case of Gates,
(19:57):
for example, if he is gilt of the crimes that
he's accused of in the media, well then yeah, I
think that'd be a disqualifier. But wait a second, DOJ,
which hates him, did not prosecute him for those alleged crimes.
So are we now just going to take it face
value that the claim of a witness, who you have
(20:19):
to assume at this point DOJ determined was not credible
enough to rely on. Yes. So eight five zero five
A two five five texts DA N five seven seven
three nine. The only other thing about the Gates thing
is listen, blame the Democrats, right if you don't like Gates,
if you don't like that approach of a loyalist is AG.
Blame the Democrats because by unleashing this monster of lawfare,
(20:43):
they have assured every Republican president for the rest of
time their first criteria now and choosing an AG will
have to be ultimate loyalty, because in AG is the
one person in all of the federal government who can
end to presidency first week on their own. And so
every president, every Republican president, is going to have to
(21:05):
act defensively when it comes to that pick, So blame
the Democrats for that. All right, lots to do here.
I'm going to get to some texts before we take
some calls in more sound. Hey, Phil Wiser, Aurora is
the felon island of the entire us. That's a response
to Colorado's Attorney general, who's clearly running for governor undeclared
(21:26):
at this point, comparing Aurora to Ellis Island. And what's
interesting to me is maybe it's out there somewhere. It
might be in a statement somewhere I even't seen or heard.
But do these people, whether it's Jason Crow or Phil Wiser,
do they ever draw a distinction between folks here legally
and folks here illegally? Do they ever draw a distinction
(21:49):
between folks here illegally who do not commit other crimes
and folks here illegally who do commit other crimes if
they're drawing that distinction, I missed him, So Ryan, can
you get Phil Wiser on the show so we can
ask him about that.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
He has been on this program before, Yes, I.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Remember, I long treated him very well. Yeah, well, and
he never came back.
Speaker 6 (22:11):
Well, I think it was an issue that he actually
agreed with him on the whole time.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Without would explained it. And Jason Crow, how about Jason Crow?
Will he join us?
Speaker 3 (22:19):
That's an o fer. He has never come on. They've
never even responded to my across.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Yeah, and that's where you have to come back to
a guy like Jason Crow I always meet personally. I
hope everybody else too, will always admire the physical courage
he served showed serving his country and be grateful for that.
On the other hand, it's fair to draw the distinction
between the physical courage he showed serving this country and
the distinct utter lack of courage he shows in public office.
(22:45):
That's a fair distinction to draw eight five for zero
five eight two five five the number takes d an
five seven seven three nine. Nancy Mayce. They've got now
this transcongress person, right, So of course the media is
making a big deal about are you going to let
her use the bathroom? Nancy mace on some of that,
(23:07):
But that being a feminist makes me an extremist. I'm
totally here for it.
Speaker 4 (23:11):
Is this effort in response to Comngressman McBride coming to Congress.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
Yes, and absolutely and then some I'm not going to
stand for a man. You know, if someone with a
penis is in the women's locker room, that's not okay.
And I'm a victim of abuse myself. I'm a rape survivor.
I have PTSD from the abuse I've suffered at the
hands of a man, and I know how vulnerable women
and girls are in private spaces. So I'm absolutely, one
(23:37):
hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
Going to stand in the way of any man who
wants to be in a women's restroom, in our locker rooms,
in our changing rooms, I will be there fighting you
every step of the way.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
Any reasonable person disagree with that. Isn't that a ninety
ten issue in America at least? And I don't know
who the other ten are. I mean, parts are parts.
You got to be in the shower that fits your parts,
And in no sense saying society can someone with male
parts being a female shower. You know, it's it's just madness.
(24:08):
And the longer the Democrats try to claim, oh no,
that's normal and if you don't agree, you're a bigot.
You know, the further down the tubes are going to
go texture and then I'll get to calls I don't
remember anyone on the left busting on Biden when his
nominees were hard left are chosen solely based on gender
and skin color instead of qualification. You're one hundred percent right.
Two words, three words, Admiral Rachel Levy. Right, I mean
(24:32):
that just says it all. And and so no, Trump's
entitled to his picks, and unless there's something grossly disqualifying,
and I don't consider that to include just a different
judgment as to whether somebody will be good in that
position or not. All right, let's go to beautiful Longmont color.
I don't rob you're on the Dan Kaplis show. Welcome.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
How you doing live in the dream?
Speaker 8 (24:56):
My friend?
Speaker 5 (24:58):
So the whole mac g allegations. We've seen this game
before with the Kavanaugh hearing, Yeah, confirmation hearings with that
joker rinse and repeat. Is that what the Bens are
trying here?
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Well, you know, I think you make a great point,
and the starting point has to be any allegation by
the Democrats of any kind of sexual impropriety has to
be taken with an enormous grain of salt to start with, right,
because it's the boy you cried wolfs. They've made false
allegation after false allegation, and then of course you look
at all the available facts and weigh them, but you
(25:36):
start out dubious because of the left's history of lying,
as they employ the politics of personal destruction.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Well, that's all they have is lies.
Speaker 5 (25:47):
I mean, if they had anything concrete, they would have
gone after him long ago when he was stirring the pot.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Well don't you think, don't you think you would have
been criminally charged by the Biden administry. They have not
been shy about doing that to political opponents.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
Exactly.
Speaker 5 (26:07):
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more with you.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Yeah, Rob, appreciate the call and listen. I'm not trying
to champion Matt Gates. I've never been a fan. I'm
just trying to be fair and honest here. And Donald
Trump risk his life to win the nomination to win
the presidency. He won, he should get his people unless somebody's,
you know, in this example, guilty of some serious crime.
And this is a serious allegation. And if he's guilty,
(26:30):
yeah he should not be a g but that's a
huge if, and he should be presumed innocent. In the meantime,
Tony and Lakewood, welcome to the Dan Kaplis show.
Speaker 8 (26:40):
So, Dan, I'm calling in reference to your comments on Wiser.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
And Polis regarding.
Speaker 4 (26:45):
Our secretary of State, and in.
Speaker 8 (26:48):
Those comments you said their unwillingness to tackle this lessons
are faith in the election processed.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
I want to take it a step further.
Speaker 8 (27:03):
Their unwillingness to tackle this with a more open and
complete investigation, to me, is attack on our constitutional republic
because just as is supposed to be blind, it's not
an art their team kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
Great, so they are.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Literally attacking the very.
Speaker 8 (27:25):
Fabric and by.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
All these people that continue to vote on the left,
they don't they don't seem to care because it's our team.
Well that's fine when.
Speaker 5 (27:37):
The shoe flips.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
And that's why I'm four Gates and let them have it.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
Gates is exactly what the left is, except for he's
on the right. So more power to him. Appreciate to
call her a Tony, great point, Tony makes I've been
so focused on how Wiser Polists, Griswold, the whole bunch
of lefties are undermining confidence in our elections by up
here and not having a full independent prosecutor with subpoena
(28:04):
power and a public report issued. But he's right. They're
also undermining confidence in our judicial system, which is a
real crime to do that. Because Wiser is Attorney General,
he should be stepping up and he should be saying,
we need this independent prosecutor, we need a public report,
we need subpoena power in order to in order to
(28:26):
make sure there's full confidence in our justice system. But
he's right. When people see Wiser acting this way, it's
a mockery. It's a mockery of the justice system. And
it goes back to again, the operating premise of the
left is that they are bulletproof in a general election.
They can do whatever they want. All they have to
do is curry favor on the left and win a
(28:47):
primary and they're in. That's the way they're operating. In
the meantime, they're doing great harm to the state, starting
with undermining confidence in our elections and our justice system.
You're on the Dan Kapli.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
Show and now back to the Dan Kampla Show podcast.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
We are going to see a time where our institutions
are tested. In the first administration of President Trump, John
Roberts ruled for Stakes who challenged the Trump administration on
an effort to undermine the census, asking questions that we're
going to intimidate people with immigrant family members. We also
protected the dreamers, and John Roberts sided with state attorney
(29:31):
general who challenged the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (29:34):
John Roberts once again.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
May face cases where it's either the rule of law
on one side or the Trump administration on the other.
This is going to be a moment of truth for
Chief Justice Roberts, for the Supreme Court, and for our
judicial system.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Can you get him on the show, because I've got
to ask him. I know he sports Colorado Legal, so
called legal marijuana. Is he not just a supporter but
a customer? I've got to ask him because some of
this stuff, if he's saying, is just nut so I mean,
and I assume he makes these comments totally sober. My
last comments somewhat in jest, but again he thinks we're
(30:11):
all dummies. Roberts, the Roberts Court has ruled in Trump's
favor over and over and over and over again. And
if Wiser has somehow deluded himself into thinking that the
US Supreme Court is going to back Phil Wiser over
Donald Trump in enforcing immigration laws, that's madness. I mean,
(30:35):
What do we always hear from these state bozos who
just want to let an unlimited number of folks come
here illegally because they think they'll be Democrat voters. What
do we hear from people who take that approach? What
we hear from is, oh, no, nothing we can do.
That's all federal jurisdiction. It's all on the fence. Well,
guess what. Making folks here illegally, you have committed other
(30:56):
crimes while they're here, and pose a threat to safety.
Making them leave is federal prerogative, not state prerogative. So
all these tough talking, you know, Phil Wiser's and the
Pritsker and the rest of them, it's just so phony,
it's just so dishonest. This is in the federal wheelhouse.
(31:16):
Donald Trump is soon going to be president of the
United States, and the American people are behind him. I
would bet eighty twenty ninety ten on this. When you
talk about getting rid of folks who are here illegally
and have committed other serious crimes while here, or are
here illegally and committed serious crime in the country of
(31:37):
their origin. Yeah, I've got to believe that's an eighty
twenty or ninety ten issue. Here's Tom Homan to clarify that.
For Phil Wiser, we are going.
Speaker 4 (31:48):
To see a time where institutions are tested in the
first administration.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
You're an echo there. I would much rather now hear
our friend Tom Holman, who actually is speaking the truth.
Speaker 9 (32:00):
We got three rails of business lawrence. First ball, we
got securitive order. We know how to do that, We've
done it before, a sycoboul. We need to run this
deportation operations. The President's been clear we're going to out
of the gate. We're going to focus on public safety
threats and national security threats first, and TREESUS.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
If those who.
Speaker 9 (32:17):
Cross the word legally had great due process, a great
taxpairs fans were order removed by an immigration judge then
didn't leave, they're also a priority.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Now. Can anybody argue with that? Can Fill Wiser argue
with that, or Jared Polis or any of them, or
Jason Crow, I'd love to hear him try.
Speaker 9 (32:34):
Third rail, we got to find them. With three hundred
thousand children that were released into this country to so
called sponsors that the government can't find, we also got
to find them children to try to say.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
That, and remarkable how a wiser and pro and the
rest of them seem to have no interest in that,
no interest in tracking down the missing children, right, Yeah,
And I think what it all comes back to, and
you see this runs throughout the left. Now, I wouldn't
say Democrats, because your typical everyday Democrat isn't like this,
But the secular left it owns and operates the Democratic
(33:05):
Party is just this profound lack of respect for the
dignity and value of each human life. And because the
secular left that that operates the party starts out secular
I probably not believe in God, then they're going to
be far less likely to believe that. Yeah, each each
individual has this inherent dignity and value, and we need
(33:27):
to care about each child. We need to care about
each little girl, We need to care about each young woman,
We need to care about each woman. To the secular
left that operates the Democratic Party, all of the rapes,
all the sexual abuse, all the child trafficking, all of
that is an acceptable casualty rate. That's my assumption because
of the way they behave they clearly don't care about
(33:51):
the individual humanity, the individual suffering of all these people
they lure up to the border, hoping to use as
political chits. They just don't care about the humanity. Yeah,
it's very hard to wrap one's arms around because the
vast majority of everyday Democrats I know do care about humanity.
(34:13):
They may disagree with me on how to best serve
that humanity. They may be dead wrong in the policies
they choose, but they do care about the humanity. But
the secular left that runs the party, the people in power,
clearly if they do care about the humanity, they have
made a deliberate choice to sacrifice that humanity. Because think
(34:35):
about what they do. They make this deliberate choice to
sacrifice millions of people of color to a death before birth,
being killed before birth at a five to one rate.
They make the deliberate choice to lure all these people up,
knowing all these girls, all these young women, all these
women are going to be raped, all these children, traffic,
(34:56):
they make the deliberate choice to just accept all of
that as part of gaining and keeping power themselves. What
a very sorry way to live. Well, the answer is
we got to get them out of office. Eight five
five purser A five A two five five text d
A N five seven seven three nine, You're on the
dan Kapla show.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
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.