September 26, 2025 • 35 mins
In the first hour of today's show, Dan discusses if James Comey is likely to see any repercussions for his actions following his indictment.
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 Kaplis 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.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
And a guy who stands for the opposite of that
is James Comy. Right, the big question is did he
commit crimes? So I want to deep dive that today.
Three or three seven one three eight two five five
The number text d A N five seven seven three nine.
So lots to do Friday afternoon. We like to keep
it light, though I don't think we ever have done that,
have we?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Ryan?
Speaker 4 (00:35):
We always try and we always fail.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Yeah, but but hey, we're going to keep trying and
we're going to fail spectacularly, right absolutely. And you know,
and the reason that we fail to keep it light
on Friday afternoons is, you know, we.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Just follow the news. We just follow the news. And
when did this start?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
You know, it was this five ten years ago when
all of a sudden, there's something big almost every day,
or something that seems big, maybe because that competitive twenty
four to seven cycle just turns it up.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
But hey, anytime you have a.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Former FBI director charged with the crime, you know they
could put them away for five years. Yeah, that's pretty
big stuff and other consequences right for this nation, because
if he's guilty, is charged, well, he absolutely should be pursued.
If he's not guilty, is charged, well, we're another step
down that road toward a banana republic. And that's one
(01:28):
reason President Trump won. A lot of people in this
nation rightfully didn't want us to become a banana republic.
And that's clearly what the left was doing.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Now.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
The starting point with Kobe, I think most would agree
outside the Kome household.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
And who knows, maybe inside the Kobe household.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
Starting point with Komy I think is you've got somebody
who has done great damage to America. You have somebody,
in my humble opinion, who's the opposite of a patriot.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
I think that James Komy.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
For all of my inherent respect for law enforcement, right
my dad a cop for thirty years, For all of
that respect for law enforcement have had since I was born,
you know, And it's because of that respect for law
enforcement I've had since I was born, a guy like
James Comy is a disgrace, he's disgraced.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
The FBI, he's heard the reputation of the FBI.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
He led a coup attempt against a duly elected president. Now,
then we get to the issue of, Okay, he's also
a smart guy, and in the context of leading this
coup attempt, was he able to draw within the legal lines?
Because there are all sorts of things, as you know,
there are all sorts of bad things for America that
(02:38):
a person can do that are not illegal, and you
would expect a guy like James Comy to sort of
map out that route right and qualify this testimony and
protect himself on that flank so he can pursue this
coup while protecting himself from later criminal prosecution.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
So the question is did he thread that needle well enough?
Speaker 3 (03:00):
None of us can know right now from the outside, right,
we don't have access to the US Attorney's file in
the Eastern District of Virginia.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
We don't have access to that.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
We can't possibly know at this point what precise testimony
they expect to get from different COMI high level aids, including.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
The FBI's Council.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
So we just can't know, and we're going to find
out together because the way these things work and I
don't do criminal I do catastrophic injury work and wrongful
death cases. But the way the law works in this area,
and I based this on Andy McCarthy and some things
he's written and said, is that the courts will normally
(03:44):
let the juries decide a charge like this, and the
courts will not normally dismiss an allegation like this pre trial.
And we'll get Andy on to talk about that in
more granular depths, but that's the gist of it. So
this lullly ends up in a trial and then we
find out together three oh three seven one three eight
(04:05):
two five five the number texts d A N five
seven seven three nine. But by all accounts now and
certainly based on the indictment itself, which we you know,
I read on air yesterday, this is going to come
down to whether Comy authorized certain leaks. And the big
(04:27):
question is, Hey, does that US attorney, you know, have
testimony in the bag from others high level in the office,
you know, whether it's McCabe, you know, Comy's right hand man,
whether it's the FBI's council at the time, Baker, does
he have does she have in this case that testimony
in the bag, and so that that one of.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
The big issues.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
Another big issue I'd suggest that we keep our eyes
on is whether there is more coming when it gets
to Jim Comy, because because we're up against this five
year statute of imitations, because this testimony to Congress was
you know, twenty twenty September thirty of twenty twenty, so
they had to get this indictment before that that five
(05:10):
years ran. But is there more coming? Is there more
coming where they have more time to work with under
whatever may be the theory of the case.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
You see some credible reporting out there that there may.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Be and that this was just rush to try to
beat the statute on this particular charge. And so me,
you know, if I had to bet you that the
Truckster Boy, it'd be a close call. Because on the
one hand, anytime you get somebody who goes to such
a dark place where they are willing to lead a
coup attempt against a sitting president, anything's possible, right because
(05:47):
at that point they may still have their high level
of intelligence, but they're out of their mind in terms
of their motivations, in terms of what they're trying to accomplish.
So yeah, maybe he made other mistakes along the way
that we'll get him indicted on other charges. And then
of course the flip of that, which is that he
carefully navigated this. So we just can't know right now,
(06:11):
and we are going to find out together. Be interesting
to see whether Kmy pushes for a very quick trial.
As you already know, defendants in these situations are normally
in a position where you know, they can push it
off a bit and sometimes more than a bit, which
lots of defendants like to do because that tends to
favor defendants. Right, Memories can fade, and people can die,
(06:34):
and other things can happen that can and you know,
the energy behind a prosecution can start to drift.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
So yeah, defendants generally like to delay these things.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Is that what Komy will try to do or is
he going to try to push for a true speedy trial.
If you see him trying to push for a true
speedy trial, obviously that's an indicator that he thinks his
defense is particularly strong.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
So anyway, we'll.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Talk a lot of that today, will play a lot
of the flashback sound, including sound from that testimony before
Congress on September thirty, twenty twenty, which is now.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
The focus of this case.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Three oh three seven one three eight two five five
the number text d an five seven seven three nine.
Why don't we start our nine thirty twenty testimony with
Senator Ted Cruz on offense cut ten please?
Speaker 5 (07:26):
On May third, twenty seventeen, in this committee, Chairman Grassley
asked you point blank, quote, have you ever been an
anonymous source in news report about matters relating to the
Trump investigation of the Clinton investigation? You responded under oath
quote never. He then asked you, quote, have you ever
(07:47):
authorized someone else of the FBI to be an anonymous
source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the
Clinton administration? You responded again under oath no. Now, as
you know, mister McKay, who works for you as publicly
and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall
Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it
(08:09):
and that you directly authorized it.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
So that's where all of this starts, right, And not
to get into the weeds, but one of the big
issues is going to be.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Was McCabe inferring.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
From different things Comy said or did not say, et cetera.
That he had Komy's authority, or was there direct authority
from Komy? Did Kmy speak those words to him, et cetera.
Because I know that sounds, you know, kind of picky,
but when you get down to this kind of prosecution,
(08:49):
this kind of perjury type prosecution, obviously, those fine points
matter a lot.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Cut eleven, Please.
Speaker 5 (08:58):
Now, miss McCabe is saying and what you testify to
this committee cannot both be true.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth.
I just can only speak to my testimony.
Speaker 6 (09:11):
I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I
gave in May of twenty seventeen.
Speaker 5 (09:16):
So your testimony as you've never authorized anyone to leak,
and mister McCabe, when if he says contrary, is not
telling the truth?
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Is that correct?
Speaker 6 (09:24):
Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine
is the same today.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Interesting, So again it's going to come down to those
kind of fine points.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
You know, was there this direct? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Andy, Hey, okay, go out and tell so and so this,
or yeah, Andy, you can go do that, or was
mckab been ferring?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah, So it's we'll find out.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
We'll find out a trial hopefully we'll get more information
we can rely on in the meantime. One one interesting
wrinkle to this, and again can't pin this down right now,
but apparently one of the leaks in question was, or
i should say reportedly one of the leaks in question
was a leak that was was very helpful to President
(10:10):
Trump if this reporting turns out to be true, Because
you may remember, just before the twenty sixteen election, there
had been these scurrilous lives that you know, Putin was
in Trump's corner, was helping Trump win.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
The election, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
And then there was a leak about a week before
election day, because election day was late that year, I
think it was on Halloween, there was a leak to
the New York Times that, hey, the FBI had determined
the note Putin was not.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Trying to actively help Trump.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
So so, according to some reporting, one of these leaks
is a leak that actually helped President Trump. But hey,
when we come back on to get your take on
this and much more, three oh three seven one three
A two five five the number.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Do you think this is just the tip of the iceberg?
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Are there more charges to come against Komi? Should there
be what should they be. You're on the Dan Caplas Show.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
And now back to the Dan Taplass Show podcast.
Speaker 7 (11:12):
The key testimony against James Comany is going to come
from his inner circle. One of the people that he
trusted and ran the FBI alongside of will be the
key witness saying no, he authorized me to leak information
contrary to what he testified the Congress. That's going to
be a difficult case for James. Jonny mckabn, I just
want to step back. Well, it could be mckabe, it
(11:33):
could be Daniel Richie, it could be James Baker. I
keep an eye on James Baker. Remember the documents we
had on your show a couple of weeks ago. All
three of those are in a position to testify they
were authorized to leak. We'll see which one is Person
three for me in the indictment, but I would bet
it's James Baker from what I.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Know, James Speaker having been if I remember an FBI
council Glad you're here, so we'll keep an eye on
that story. I know there's a text here that I
think nails. It nails the way an awful lot of
people are feeling. Three O three seven one three eight
two five five text d A N five seven seven
three nine Texter just isn't interest in this topic because
(12:14):
they don't think it's going to go anywhere.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Dan.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
Unfortunately, I find this James Comy stuff uncompelling, and it's
because we've seen for years and years people that have
broken the law on the left and nothing ever happens
to them. I'm so disenfranchised. I feel like this is
a waste of time. Hopefully I'm wrong, So I think
there are an awful lot of folks who feel that way.
And listen, in this case with Comy, I'm not going
(12:38):
to sit there and tell this text that I'm expecting
a conviction, not at all. These are tough charges to prosecute,
and at this point we don't have access to the
evidence that matters most so I can't look them in
the eye and say I'm expecting a conviction here.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
We will find out together.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Interesting there is so much talk about the prosecutor Halligan,
who has a lot of Colorado ties. A Holy Family
student grew up in Broomfield. Holy Family Student then went
to Regis Great School, both Greade schools, and then went
on to law school and then eventually ended up ended
(13:16):
up in the Trump administration, ended up as counsel to
President Trump as he was I think fighting off.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
I think she was.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Involved in responding to that horrific raid at mar A
Lago and fighting some of the legal battles stemming out
of that. Taking some heat in some local media because
she is a former Miss Colorado contestant. Seems to me
that should be a plus, not a minus for anybody,
as long as they're a woman, and so no, it's
(13:46):
great to have one of Colorado's own right in the
middle of all that, Lindsey Halligan. I'd say we'd try
to get an interview but that's going to be impossible
with the US attorney in the middle of a case
like this. Maybe when the case is over three or
three someone three eight, two, five, five the number. So
we'll get into that.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
There are some other things I want to cover with
you this afternoon as well. I want to talk.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
About that teacher in Mead, Colorado, who is no longer
there after Charlie Kirk social media post, I should say
no longer in the classroom.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
I'm quoting from an Amy Bounce piece in the Denver Post.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
A meat high school language arts teacher is no longer
in the classroom following parent complaints about a social media
post you made after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie
Kirk shortly after Kirk's death. I think it should say killing,
but shortly after Kirk's death. Teacher Christine E N G
(14:40):
E L E n Hey birthday boy, how would you
pronounce that?
Speaker 8 (14:43):
Tell that again?
Speaker 2 (14:45):
E G E L E n angling angling?
Speaker 3 (14:50):
Now, do you do anything special on air on your birthday?
I know some people like to then drink and do
a show on their birthday. Other people have other traditions.
Do you do you do anything special?
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Well?
Speaker 8 (15:02):
I had a pleasant surprise that was special, and that
Craig Robinson joined me on the air.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
I was not expecting that.
Speaker 8 (15:08):
And he's performing at Comedy Works tonight, where I will
be going with friends to celebrate.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Yes, yes, wonderful. Well, what a nice surprise.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Very yeah, And Comedy Works is always a blasters.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
By the way, when are we gonna do?
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Remember we used to do those Battle of the Talk
Show Hosts things that Comedy Works and those things would
be sold out in like a minute. But that's back
when we had people who disagreed a lot. Do we
have enough talk show hosts in the in the I
heard constellation here who disagree, disagree enough to do one
of those things.
Speaker 8 (15:40):
I think ros Kaminski disagrees with you plenty on Trump,
for instance.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
And on legalized marijuana. I'm a fan of Ross and
his show. But yeah, no, yeah, yeah, I think.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
That would be compelling.
Speaker 8 (15:52):
And Marty Lenz would be another one I'd love to
see on a stage with you.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
Yeah no, that'd be Those things used to be awesome,
and you know, people would people would be not necessarily impaired,
but they would be juiced a little about.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
The crowd would be just for these events city in
a good way. Dad, Oh, all of it was great?
All right?
Speaker 3 (16:15):
This goes on to say teacher Christine Engelen reposted a
Facebook post by a different person that described Kirk as
a fascist. The post urged people to quote more in
the children he tried to erase, not the propagandists who
put them in the crosshairs. More in the communities he
sought to criminalize, not the grifter who made millions stoking
hate against them. He can rest and piss. She shouldn't
(16:37):
be allowed within one hundred miles of any Colorado school
in my humble, constitutionally protected opinion based on this quote.
And I understand she's posting somebody else's, but when you
do that, you adopt it.
Speaker 8 (16:48):
Right absolutely, And you have to know that as a
either a public figure or somebody that works in the
public eye in a public forum like working for a
public school, that anything you put out there, whether it's
your personal page or not, is reflective of you as
an employee, and you have to stand by it. And
I just imagine Dan and I know this is it
(17:10):
just blows your mind to even think about reverse the
roles here. God forbid, something happened to a liberal young
activist that would be the equivalent of Charlie Kirk, and
then some far right whatever one online and posted that
kind of venom and vitriol and awfulness and evilness.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
In response to that, of course you and I.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
Would say that instructor should be fired, without question, without meditation.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
No bringer, because it comes back to the kids, right,
and it comes back to who you can trust to
be teaching kids. I don't know anything about this person,
their ability to teach, how they are in the classroom,
et cetera. Beyond what's in this post. All I'm saying
is you're right. Whether this was aimed at the right
or aimed at the left, it's aimed at a victim
(17:54):
of an assassination. And it seems to me that somebody
would do something like this should not be teaching kids,
regardless of their politics. So in any case, meet parents,
meet High parents advocated for her firing through emails and
at a community meeting with the superintendent, and parents reported
she had encouraged students to follow her on social media accounts,
(18:16):
so she was able to influence students with her posts.
So if you have thoughts on that story, let's do it.
Speaker 6 (18:22):
Hey.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Senator Bob Gardner will join us after the break.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
We're talking about this five alarm fire, how to fix
this bill that on the part of some was well intentioned,
became law and now has created this crisis where dangerously
and competence are put back on the street.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 9 (18:50):
Danny said, never have we had facts, certainly not in
our political lifetime. Certainly not since Watergate have we had
an abuse of power.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Coming not only from the.
Speaker 9 (19:05):
White House but also the Justice Department in a charge.
And again, let's just sum this up the way the
New York Times did this morning, Maggie Haberman, Allen feor
in Las, Johona Bromwick.
Speaker 8 (19:17):
I just wanted to get to the New York Times
part because please, ironically, that is the outlet that James
Comy is rumored to have been leaking to about were
the Russian collusion hoax?
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Right?
Speaker 3 (19:29):
No, exactly, and ironically irony within the irony. Allegedly one
of those leaks was actually good for Trump. Obviously others weren't.
But yeah, so but this whole business, how does Scarborough
even have a show?
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Truly? I mean, I understand he's talented, smart.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Guy, who's you know this con of I used to
be a GOP congressman and now and this and that
he's made it work.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
But here's the point. When somebody goes on air it
tells the nation this is the best blank in version
of Joe Biden never blanked you.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
If you don't see it, how do they have the
credibility left to be able to get a cab let
alone have a national show?
Speaker 4 (20:09):
Great question?
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Yeah, but anyway, it's good for our show because he
says stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Not since Watergate.
Speaker 10 (20:15):
No, not since the founding of this nation have we
seen such an abuse of power as these prosecutions against Trump,
this thing against Komi.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
Hey, we'll follow the evidence and see where it lands.
But it's a grain of sand on the beach compared
what was done to President Trump, you know, starting when
he was a sitting president during that coup a time. Hey,
let's go to Senator Bob Gardner, who's kind enough to
join us. Really appreciate that, because I've learned a lot
about this build that has led us to this crisis
(20:48):
point right where we have a lot of dangerously incompetent
people who are being released back out on the streets
where they're almost certain to commit other serious crimes, again
because because of a bill that's set up a framework.
But what I've learned over the last few days is
that a lot of people have great respect for voted
for that bill because there wasn't law enforcement opposition. They
(21:11):
thought it was necessary constitutionally. So the question I have
now is, now that we know that we've got this
five alarm fire, how do we fix it?
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Senator Bob Gardner kind enough to join us on that. Senator,
how you doing good?
Speaker 11 (21:26):
Good.
Speaker 6 (21:26):
How are you? And actually I'm a citizen Bob Bergner
these days.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Former Senator Okay, well, I just promoted you.
Speaker 6 (21:35):
Yeah, Thomas Jefferson said it was the highest office in
the land.
Speaker 11 (21:39):
But I appreciate you.
Speaker 6 (21:41):
Having Yeah, we've got to address this problem.
Speaker 11 (21:47):
In my time in the Senate, I have.
Speaker 6 (21:50):
To say, over eight years we've really wrestled with the
issue of criminal defendants who were found to be in
competent could not stand trial. And the public needs to
understand that that's a constitutional restriction or requirement that once
(22:10):
the defendant's found to not be able to participate in
their defense, as you know, they just can't be tried.
And Colorado is under a federal consent decree because of
a kind of a longstanding practice of leaving those defendants
(22:31):
in jail. And there's again a case from nineteen seventy two,
Jackson versus Indiana that basically says you can't keep those
people indefinitely. You have to commit them civilly or release them.
We had three different bills over my eight years trying
(22:51):
to deal with that, and again the federal court standing
over us imposing sixty million dollars worth of fines because
we had done nothing. But the solution is not just
to keep them in jail, because we can't do that,
(23:11):
but it is to close this gap that that occurred
in the process. I don't think it was intended by
any of us. I know it wasn't intended by any
of US prosecutors will for present law enforcement was present.
We we didn't get it right. I don't know how
(23:35):
many politicians will say that, but we didn't get that
piece right, and it's got to be fixed.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
Ask you this go ahead, and thank you for their
great setup.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
I really do appreciate that and the acknowledgment, as in
all of us, all of our lives. Sometimes well intentioned
we don't get something right. But what is the fix
right now? Because it seems to me that that the
fatal flaw, uh is that there's not this mechanism to
get a quick, certain civil commitment to keep people off
(24:08):
the streets.
Speaker 11 (24:11):
Yeah, and right now there are people working on this
at the capital, and and I kind of wish people
would quit throwing rocks and grandstanding and just get their
nose to the grindstone. We've got to we've got to change.
Speaker 6 (24:28):
The process a bit at the criminal courthouse. So that
the presumption is not for release, but that das have
an ability to say this person has to go to
civil commitment. We can't just put them out on the street.
And we're going to have to fund that.
Speaker 11 (24:49):
Damn.
Speaker 6 (24:50):
That's that's a real hurdle, dear.
Speaker 11 (24:52):
We're going to have to fund more mental health events.
Speaker 6 (24:56):
But uh, it's not a it's not a simple solution.
It's going to require things like eliminating the presumption against
being able to restore these people, because once they're found nonrestorable,
they either have to be committed or release.
Speaker 11 (25:16):
And so we're gonna have to do that.
Speaker 6 (25:18):
We're going to have to change some civil commitment civil
certification crimes area to ensure that dangerous criminals that are
incompetent and unrestorable or are committed. We don't have enough
state hospital beds, and again that's going to take the
money to do it, but public safety demands it and
(25:39):
we need to prioritize that.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
Well well said, Well said, sir, and appreciate you coming
on to talk about that. What I'm expecting next chapter
is that there's going to be ferocious opposition from the
left to the common sense fix you just suggested for
ideological reasons, and underpinning that, in my opinion is I
think I think the left is so pro criminal at
(26:03):
this point in Colorado and has so little concerned for
the innocent citizens.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
I think there's going to be a.
Speaker 3 (26:09):
Big battle there, but I think everybody has a much
better understanding of how we got to this point, and
now the fight's over the fix well.
Speaker 6 (26:17):
And if I can take a moment, and my hope
would be that frankly, my Republican colleagues on the far
right don't continue to just say, well, lock them up,
lock them up. That's easy to say. We've got to
come to the table with some people across the aisle
(26:39):
from us who are more reasonable and do the things
that I've mentioned, Plus three or four more again about process,
about funding mental health beds and improving our civil commitments
the process and giving both prosecutors and judges some options
(27:00):
of what to do with folks that is observed, few
process rights, and it's rankly humane and protects citizens, which
is the priority.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
And last question.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Because the only person who can call the special session
now is Governor Poulis. And now that everybody's seen that
we have a crisis here, why won't he call this
special session?
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Why didn't he include this in the last special session?
Speaker 6 (27:27):
Well, I can't answer why I didn't include it in
the last one. For that matter, why he hasn't called
one yet. I will say this, we don't need to
call a special session until people get sat down the
stakeholders on this, prosecutors, mental health advocates, leaders and both
(27:48):
parties and both chambers sat down for a couple of
three days. And they're going to beat each other over
the headbed, and people are going to get mad and
leave the room and have to come back in. But
we got to solve the problem. And when they do,
they need to turn to the governor and say, we
have this solution, we need to pass it. We can
pass it in three days and be done and move on.
(28:10):
And that's what it takes to get things done in Denver.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
And I know you're being realistic there, but what drives
me crazy is we all know that if God forbid
that this guy who just got out in Greeley because
of this, if there had been a mass shooting on
that campus by him, that all of a sudden, those
meetings would be happening. The special session would be happening,
and I'm sure you're the same way. It shouldn't have
(28:36):
to take something like that for people to do what
they should be doing anyway. But I'm grateful to you
for coming on and having the honest conversation about it,
and I think that helps everybody's understanding.
Speaker 11 (28:48):
Well, for my.
Speaker 6 (28:50):
Former colleagues that are listening, would you call somebody across
the aisle and say, we've got to sit down and
got to get this done this week.
Speaker 11 (28:58):
That's what it's going to take.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
Amen, Thank you, sir, appreciate it, Thank you, you take
care of that's former Senator Bob Gardner. So yeah, right,
I mean, and we've got to hit this hardbreak. We'll
talk about it more on the other side. But we
all know right right now the way this thing is
shaping up. Everybody knows clear and present danger. We've had
horrific consequences already, and with Democrats leading the state, it
(29:26):
looks like it's going to take some mass catastrophe before
they act.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
And that's dead wrong. You're on the Dan Capless Show.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
And now back to the Dan Tapless Show podcast.
Speaker 12 (29:42):
If his reaction to that, since this part of the
book has come out, if you've had any reflection on that, or.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
I guess.
Speaker 12 (29:52):
I guess I'd ask you to just elaborate on that
a little bit.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
It's hard to hear.
Speaker 12 (29:57):
With you running, as you know, you're the first woman
elected vice p ssident, you're a black woman and a
South Asian woman elected to that high office, very nearly
elected president, to say that he couldn't be on the
ticket effectively because he was gay, it's hard to.
Speaker 13 (30:09):
Go No, No, that's not what I said. That's that
he couldn't be on the ticket because he is gay.
My point, as I write in the book, is that
I was clear that in one hundred and seven days,
in one of the most hotly contested elections for president
(30:30):
United States, against someone like Donald Trump, who knows no floor,
to be a black woman running for president United States
and as a vice presidential running mate a gay man,
with the stakes being so high, it made me very sad,
(30:51):
But I also realized it would be a real risk.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Well, it made you a very sad coward. Be it
made you a very said liar. And Donald Trump the
one with the floor. Donald Trump is far better on
gay rights than Kamala Harris or really any other major player.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
On the left. I mean, Scot isent, right, Our.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
Treasury secretary is gay and probably and there's a lot
of talent in that administration, but he's probably numero uno
beyond the VP and the President himself.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
So what a great look into.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
The left that is, right, because at the highest levels,
I'm not talking about your typical Democrat, including the one
I've been privileged to sleep with for thirty one years now,
but you talk about the left that controls the party,
they're liars. They're just flat out liars and the worst
kind of hypocrites.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
Right.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
They're so holier than now when it comes to equality
and everything else, and then they spend pretty much all
day every day kicking people of color in the crotch,
kicking people of colors kids in the crotch.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
You know.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
They just they're such and an exhibit A, right. I mean,
it's hard to say she's not exhibit A there, but
I think exhibit A. And it goes back to a bump.
You played Sweet Home Alabama, right, because everybody likes that
song because it's a cool song. But the reason not
to like that song is it talks about George Wallace,
(32:18):
you know, the the former governor of Alabama, and George
Wallace was a guide in the wool racist, which means
just inherently evil behavior, because racists are inherently evil behaving.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
And so there was this phrase.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
About George Wallace, and you know he stood in the
school house store, because he literally stood in the school
house store in order to prevent, in order to prevent,
you know, the breaking these these racist barriers down, integrating schools,
et cetera. He literally stood in the school house store.
But what we're seeing now with this modern Democratic party
(32:59):
is is we're seeing a different form of the same outcome,
right because I would never look at the modern Democrats.
I'd never look at a guy like Michael Bannet or
John Haickenlooper Jared Polis and say they are George Wallace.
It wouldn't be accurate, it wouldn't be true. These are
not people who are racists the way that George Wallace was.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
They're not.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
But in terms of the effect of their policies and
their actions, it's the same kind of effect. It's the
same kind of racist effect. And one obvious glaring exhibit
right now is these phony Democrat leaders in Colorado, right,
they brag about how enlightened they are. But they have
(33:43):
all the power in the state. Right, Okay, where's the
female governor? You know, where is the governor of color?
Where's the female senator? Where's the Senator of color? The
Democrats have all the power, They have the big money,
everything else. So they could have their female governor or senator.
(34:03):
They could have their senator of color or female you know,
where is it. We don't see that because their phonies,
and right now today we could have a highly qualified,
though ideologically wrong US Senator in Joanagose, a Senator of color.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
And the only reason we don't have that Senator.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
Of color today is because Michael Bennett's preventing it. Bennett's
running for governor. He should resign that Senate seat to
run for governor, and Joannah Goose is the almost certain appointment.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
So that's the point. That's the point.
Speaker 3 (34:40):
In that sense, you have Bennett and you have these
other lefties standing in the schoolhouse door, and they prevent it.
I mean, we would have had our first woman governor
in Kerrie Kennedy. She was state treasurer and then Jared
pulled a steamroller with his money and won the primer.
Now she would have been a bad governor because of ideology,
but she would have been otherwise competent. Yeah, So these
(35:02):
lefties total phonies, and it's great to see.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
It's great to see this kind of eating them.
Speaker 3 (35:11):
You know, they're eating each other before our eyes, and
it's beautiful to see it exposed like that. So how
do we take advantage of it and winning Colorado? You're
on the Dan Kaplis Show.
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Kaplis 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.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
And a guy who stands for the opposite of that
is James Comy. Right, the big question is did he
commit crimes? So I want to deep dive that today.
Three or three seven one three eight two five five
The number text d A N five seven seven three nine.
So lots to do Friday afternoon. We like to keep
it light, though I don't think we ever have done that,
have we?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Ryan?
Speaker 4 (00:35):
We always try and we always fail.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Yeah, but but hey, we're going to keep trying and
we're going to fail spectacularly, right absolutely. And you know,
and the reason that we fail to keep it light
on Friday afternoons is, you know, we.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Just follow the news. We just follow the news. And
when did this start?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
You know, it was this five ten years ago when
all of a sudden, there's something big almost every day,
or something that seems big, maybe because that competitive twenty
four to seven cycle just turns it up.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
But hey, anytime you have a.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Former FBI director charged with the crime, you know they
could put them away for five years. Yeah, that's pretty
big stuff and other consequences right for this nation, because
if he's guilty, is charged, well, he absolutely should be pursued.
If he's not guilty, is charged, well, we're another step
down that road toward a banana republic. And that's one
(01:28):
reason President Trump won. A lot of people in this
nation rightfully didn't want us to become a banana republic.
And that's clearly what the left was doing.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Now.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
The starting point with Kobe, I think most would agree
outside the Kome household.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
And who knows, maybe inside the Kobe household.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
Starting point with Komy I think is you've got somebody
who has done great damage to America. You have somebody,
in my humble opinion, who's the opposite of a patriot.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
I think that James Komy.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
For all of my inherent respect for law enforcement, right
my dad a cop for thirty years, For all of
that respect for law enforcement have had since I was born,
you know, And it's because of that respect for law
enforcement I've had since I was born, a guy like
James Comy is a disgrace, he's disgraced.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
The FBI, he's heard the reputation of the FBI.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
He led a coup attempt against a duly elected president. Now,
then we get to the issue of, Okay, he's also
a smart guy, and in the context of leading this
coup attempt, was he able to draw within the legal lines?
Because there are all sorts of things, as you know,
there are all sorts of bad things for America that
(02:38):
a person can do that are not illegal, and you
would expect a guy like James Comy to sort of
map out that route right and qualify this testimony and
protect himself on that flank so he can pursue this
coup while protecting himself from later criminal prosecution.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
So the question is did he thread that needle well enough?
Speaker 3 (03:00):
None of us can know right now from the outside, right,
we don't have access to the US Attorney's file in
the Eastern District of Virginia.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
We don't have access to that.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
We can't possibly know at this point what precise testimony
they expect to get from different COMI high level aids, including.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
The FBI's Council.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
So we just can't know, and we're going to find
out together because the way these things work and I
don't do criminal I do catastrophic injury work and wrongful
death cases. But the way the law works in this area,
and I based this on Andy McCarthy and some things
he's written and said, is that the courts will normally
(03:44):
let the juries decide a charge like this, and the
courts will not normally dismiss an allegation like this pre trial.
And we'll get Andy on to talk about that in
more granular depths, but that's the gist of it. So
this lullly ends up in a trial and then we
find out together three oh three seven one three eight
(04:05):
two five five the number texts d A N five
seven seven three nine. But by all accounts now and
certainly based on the indictment itself, which we you know,
I read on air yesterday, this is going to come
down to whether Comy authorized certain leaks. And the big
(04:27):
question is, Hey, does that US attorney, you know, have
testimony in the bag from others high level in the office,
you know, whether it's McCabe, you know, Comy's right hand man,
whether it's the FBI's council at the time, Baker, does
he have does she have in this case that testimony
in the bag, and so that that one of.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
The big issues.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
Another big issue I'd suggest that we keep our eyes
on is whether there is more coming when it gets
to Jim Comy, because because we're up against this five
year statute of imitations, because this testimony to Congress was
you know, twenty twenty September thirty of twenty twenty, so
they had to get this indictment before that that five
(05:10):
years ran. But is there more coming? Is there more
coming where they have more time to work with under
whatever may be the theory of the case.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
You see some credible reporting out there that there may.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Be and that this was just rush to try to
beat the statute on this particular charge. And so me,
you know, if I had to bet you that the
Truckster Boy, it'd be a close call. Because on the
one hand, anytime you get somebody who goes to such
a dark place where they are willing to lead a
coup attempt against a sitting president, anything's possible, right because
(05:47):
at that point they may still have their high level
of intelligence, but they're out of their mind in terms
of their motivations, in terms of what they're trying to accomplish.
So yeah, maybe he made other mistakes along the way
that we'll get him indicted on other charges. And then
of course the flip of that, which is that he
carefully navigated this. So we just can't know right now,
(06:11):
and we are going to find out together. Be interesting
to see whether Kmy pushes for a very quick trial.
As you already know, defendants in these situations are normally
in a position where you know, they can push it
off a bit and sometimes more than a bit, which
lots of defendants like to do because that tends to
favor defendants. Right, Memories can fade, and people can die,
(06:34):
and other things can happen that can and you know,
the energy behind a prosecution can start to drift.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
So yeah, defendants generally like to delay these things.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Is that what Komy will try to do or is
he going to try to push for a true speedy trial.
If you see him trying to push for a true
speedy trial, obviously that's an indicator that he thinks his
defense is particularly strong.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
So anyway, we'll.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Talk a lot of that today, will play a lot
of the flashback sound, including sound from that testimony before
Congress on September thirty, twenty twenty, which is now.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
The focus of this case.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Three oh three seven one three eight two five five
the number text d an five seven seven three nine.
Why don't we start our nine thirty twenty testimony with
Senator Ted Cruz on offense cut ten please?
Speaker 5 (07:26):
On May third, twenty seventeen, in this committee, Chairman Grassley
asked you point blank, quote, have you ever been an
anonymous source in news report about matters relating to the
Trump investigation of the Clinton investigation? You responded under oath
quote never. He then asked you, quote, have you ever
(07:47):
authorized someone else of the FBI to be an anonymous
source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the
Clinton administration? You responded again under oath no. Now, as
you know, mister McKay, who works for you as publicly
and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall
Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it
(08:09):
and that you directly authorized it.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
So that's where all of this starts, right, And not
to get into the weeds, but one of the big
issues is going to be.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Was McCabe inferring.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
From different things Comy said or did not say, et cetera.
That he had Komy's authority, or was there direct authority
from Komy? Did Kmy speak those words to him, et cetera.
Because I know that sounds, you know, kind of picky,
but when you get down to this kind of prosecution,
(08:49):
this kind of perjury type prosecution, obviously, those fine points
matter a lot.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Cut eleven, Please.
Speaker 5 (08:58):
Now, miss McCabe is saying and what you testify to
this committee cannot both be true.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth.
I just can only speak to my testimony.
Speaker 6 (09:11):
I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I
gave in May of twenty seventeen.
Speaker 5 (09:16):
So your testimony as you've never authorized anyone to leak,
and mister McCabe, when if he says contrary, is not
telling the truth?
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Is that correct?
Speaker 6 (09:24):
Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine
is the same today.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Interesting, So again it's going to come down to those
kind of fine points.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
You know, was there this direct? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Andy, Hey, okay, go out and tell so and so this,
or yeah, Andy, you can go do that, or was
mckab been ferring?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah, So it's we'll find out.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
We'll find out a trial hopefully we'll get more information
we can rely on in the meantime. One one interesting
wrinkle to this, and again can't pin this down right now,
but apparently one of the leaks in question was, or
i should say reportedly one of the leaks in question
was a leak that was was very helpful to President
(10:10):
Trump if this reporting turns out to be true, Because
you may remember, just before the twenty sixteen election, there
had been these scurrilous lives that you know, Putin was
in Trump's corner, was helping Trump win.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
The election, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
And then there was a leak about a week before
election day, because election day was late that year, I
think it was on Halloween, there was a leak to
the New York Times that, hey, the FBI had determined
the note Putin was not.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Trying to actively help Trump.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
So so, according to some reporting, one of these leaks
is a leak that actually helped President Trump. But hey,
when we come back on to get your take on
this and much more, three oh three seven one three
A two five five the number.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Do you think this is just the tip of the iceberg?
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Are there more charges to come against Komi? Should there
be what should they be. You're on the Dan Caplas Show.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
And now back to the Dan Taplass Show podcast.
Speaker 7 (11:12):
The key testimony against James Comany is going to come
from his inner circle. One of the people that he
trusted and ran the FBI alongside of will be the
key witness saying no, he authorized me to leak information
contrary to what he testified the Congress. That's going to
be a difficult case for James. Jonny mckabn, I just
want to step back. Well, it could be mckabe, it
(11:33):
could be Daniel Richie, it could be James Baker. I
keep an eye on James Baker. Remember the documents we
had on your show a couple of weeks ago. All
three of those are in a position to testify they
were authorized to leak. We'll see which one is Person
three for me in the indictment, but I would bet
it's James Baker from what I.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Know, James Speaker having been if I remember an FBI
council Glad you're here, so we'll keep an eye on
that story. I know there's a text here that I
think nails. It nails the way an awful lot of
people are feeling. Three O three seven one three eight
two five five text d A N five seven seven
three nine Texter just isn't interest in this topic because
(12:14):
they don't think it's going to go anywhere.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Dan.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
Unfortunately, I find this James Comy stuff uncompelling, and it's
because we've seen for years and years people that have
broken the law on the left and nothing ever happens
to them. I'm so disenfranchised. I feel like this is
a waste of time. Hopefully I'm wrong, So I think
there are an awful lot of folks who feel that way.
And listen, in this case with Comy, I'm not going
(12:38):
to sit there and tell this text that I'm expecting
a conviction, not at all. These are tough charges to prosecute,
and at this point we don't have access to the
evidence that matters most so I can't look them in
the eye and say I'm expecting a conviction here.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
We will find out together.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Interesting there is so much talk about the prosecutor Halligan,
who has a lot of Colorado ties. A Holy Family
student grew up in Broomfield. Holy Family Student then went
to Regis Great School, both Greade schools, and then went
on to law school and then eventually ended up ended
(13:16):
up in the Trump administration, ended up as counsel to
President Trump as he was I think fighting off.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
I think she was.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Involved in responding to that horrific raid at mar A
Lago and fighting some of the legal battles stemming out
of that. Taking some heat in some local media because
she is a former Miss Colorado contestant. Seems to me
that should be a plus, not a minus for anybody,
as long as they're a woman, and so no, it's
(13:46):
great to have one of Colorado's own right in the
middle of all that, Lindsey Halligan. I'd say we'd try
to get an interview but that's going to be impossible
with the US attorney in the middle of a case
like this. Maybe when the case is over three or
three someone three eight, two, five, five the number. So
we'll get into that.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
There are some other things I want to cover with
you this afternoon as well. I want to talk.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
About that teacher in Mead, Colorado, who is no longer
there after Charlie Kirk social media post, I should say
no longer in the classroom.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
I'm quoting from an Amy Bounce piece in the Denver Post.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
A meat high school language arts teacher is no longer
in the classroom following parent complaints about a social media
post you made after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie
Kirk shortly after Kirk's death. I think it should say killing,
but shortly after Kirk's death. Teacher Christine E N G
(14:40):
E L E n Hey birthday boy, how would you
pronounce that?
Speaker 8 (14:43):
Tell that again?
Speaker 2 (14:45):
E G E L E n angling angling?
Speaker 3 (14:50):
Now, do you do anything special on air on your birthday?
I know some people like to then drink and do
a show on their birthday. Other people have other traditions.
Do you do you do anything special?
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Well?
Speaker 8 (15:02):
I had a pleasant surprise that was special, and that
Craig Robinson joined me on the air.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
I was not expecting that.
Speaker 8 (15:08):
And he's performing at Comedy Works tonight, where I will
be going with friends to celebrate.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Yes, yes, wonderful. Well, what a nice surprise.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Very yeah, And Comedy Works is always a blasters.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
By the way, when are we gonna do?
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Remember we used to do those Battle of the Talk
Show Hosts things that Comedy Works and those things would
be sold out in like a minute. But that's back
when we had people who disagreed a lot. Do we
have enough talk show hosts in the in the I
heard constellation here who disagree, disagree enough to do one
of those things.
Speaker 8 (15:40):
I think ros Kaminski disagrees with you plenty on Trump,
for instance.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
And on legalized marijuana. I'm a fan of Ross and
his show. But yeah, no, yeah, yeah, I think.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
That would be compelling.
Speaker 8 (15:52):
And Marty Lenz would be another one I'd love to
see on a stage with you.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
Yeah no, that'd be Those things used to be awesome,
and you know, people would people would be not necessarily impaired,
but they would be juiced a little about.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
The crowd would be just for these events city in
a good way. Dad, Oh, all of it was great?
All right?
Speaker 3 (16:15):
This goes on to say teacher Christine Engelen reposted a
Facebook post by a different person that described Kirk as
a fascist. The post urged people to quote more in
the children he tried to erase, not the propagandists who
put them in the crosshairs. More in the communities he
sought to criminalize, not the grifter who made millions stoking
hate against them. He can rest and piss. She shouldn't
(16:37):
be allowed within one hundred miles of any Colorado school
in my humble, constitutionally protected opinion based on this quote.
And I understand she's posting somebody else's, but when you
do that, you adopt it.
Speaker 8 (16:48):
Right absolutely, And you have to know that as a
either a public figure or somebody that works in the
public eye in a public forum like working for a
public school, that anything you put out there, whether it's
your personal page or not, is reflective of you as
an employee, and you have to stand by it. And
I just imagine Dan and I know this is it
(17:10):
just blows your mind to even think about reverse the
roles here. God forbid, something happened to a liberal young
activist that would be the equivalent of Charlie Kirk, and
then some far right whatever one online and posted that
kind of venom and vitriol and awfulness and evilness.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
In response to that, of course you and I.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
Would say that instructor should be fired, without question, without meditation.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
No bringer, because it comes back to the kids, right,
and it comes back to who you can trust to
be teaching kids. I don't know anything about this person,
their ability to teach, how they are in the classroom,
et cetera. Beyond what's in this post. All I'm saying
is you're right. Whether this was aimed at the right
or aimed at the left, it's aimed at a victim
(17:54):
of an assassination. And it seems to me that somebody
would do something like this should not be teaching kids,
regardless of their politics. So in any case, meet parents,
meet High parents advocated for her firing through emails and
at a community meeting with the superintendent, and parents reported
she had encouraged students to follow her on social media accounts,
(18:16):
so she was able to influence students with her posts.
So if you have thoughts on that story, let's do it.
Speaker 6 (18:22):
Hey.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Senator Bob Gardner will join us after the break.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
We're talking about this five alarm fire, how to fix
this bill that on the part of some was well intentioned,
became law and now has created this crisis where dangerously
and competence are put back on the street.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 9 (18:50):
Danny said, never have we had facts, certainly not in
our political lifetime. Certainly not since Watergate have we had
an abuse of power.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Coming not only from the.
Speaker 9 (19:05):
White House but also the Justice Department in a charge.
And again, let's just sum this up the way the
New York Times did this morning, Maggie Haberman, Allen feor
in Las, Johona Bromwick.
Speaker 8 (19:17):
I just wanted to get to the New York Times
part because please, ironically, that is the outlet that James
Comy is rumored to have been leaking to about were
the Russian collusion hoax?
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Right?
Speaker 3 (19:29):
No, exactly, and ironically irony within the irony. Allegedly one
of those leaks was actually good for Trump. Obviously others weren't.
But yeah, so but this whole business, how does Scarborough
even have a show?
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Truly? I mean, I understand he's talented, smart.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Guy, who's you know this con of I used to
be a GOP congressman and now and this and that
he's made it work.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
But here's the point. When somebody goes on air it
tells the nation this is the best blank in version
of Joe Biden never blanked you.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
If you don't see it, how do they have the
credibility left to be able to get a cab let
alone have a national show?
Speaker 4 (20:09):
Great question?
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Yeah, but anyway, it's good for our show because he
says stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Not since Watergate.
Speaker 10 (20:15):
No, not since the founding of this nation have we
seen such an abuse of power as these prosecutions against Trump,
this thing against Komi.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
Hey, we'll follow the evidence and see where it lands.
But it's a grain of sand on the beach compared
what was done to President Trump, you know, starting when
he was a sitting president during that coup a time. Hey,
let's go to Senator Bob Gardner, who's kind enough to
join us. Really appreciate that, because I've learned a lot
about this build that has led us to this crisis
(20:48):
point right where we have a lot of dangerously incompetent
people who are being released back out on the streets
where they're almost certain to commit other serious crimes, again
because because of a bill that's set up a framework.
But what I've learned over the last few days is
that a lot of people have great respect for voted
for that bill because there wasn't law enforcement opposition. They
(21:11):
thought it was necessary constitutionally. So the question I have
now is, now that we know that we've got this
five alarm fire, how do we fix it?
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Senator Bob Gardner kind enough to join us on that. Senator,
how you doing good?
Speaker 11 (21:26):
Good.
Speaker 6 (21:26):
How are you? And actually I'm a citizen Bob Bergner
these days.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Former Senator Okay, well, I just promoted you.
Speaker 6 (21:35):
Yeah, Thomas Jefferson said it was the highest office in
the land.
Speaker 11 (21:39):
But I appreciate you.
Speaker 6 (21:41):
Having Yeah, we've got to address this problem.
Speaker 11 (21:47):
In my time in the Senate, I have.
Speaker 6 (21:50):
To say, over eight years we've really wrestled with the
issue of criminal defendants who were found to be in
competent could not stand trial. And the public needs to
understand that that's a constitutional restriction or requirement that once
(22:10):
the defendant's found to not be able to participate in
their defense, as you know, they just can't be tried.
And Colorado is under a federal consent decree because of
a kind of a longstanding practice of leaving those defendants
(22:31):
in jail. And there's again a case from nineteen seventy two,
Jackson versus Indiana that basically says you can't keep those
people indefinitely. You have to commit them civilly or release them.
We had three different bills over my eight years trying
(22:51):
to deal with that, and again the federal court standing
over us imposing sixty million dollars worth of fines because
we had done nothing. But the solution is not just
to keep them in jail, because we can't do that,
(23:11):
but it is to close this gap that that occurred
in the process. I don't think it was intended by
any of us. I know it wasn't intended by any
of US prosecutors will for present law enforcement was present.
We we didn't get it right. I don't know how
(23:35):
many politicians will say that, but we didn't get that
piece right, and it's got to be fixed.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
Ask you this go ahead, and thank you for their
great setup.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
I really do appreciate that and the acknowledgment, as in
all of us, all of our lives. Sometimes well intentioned
we don't get something right. But what is the fix
right now? Because it seems to me that that the
fatal flaw, uh is that there's not this mechanism to
get a quick, certain civil commitment to keep people off
(24:08):
the streets.
Speaker 11 (24:11):
Yeah, and right now there are people working on this
at the capital, and and I kind of wish people
would quit throwing rocks and grandstanding and just get their
nose to the grindstone. We've got to we've got to change.
Speaker 6 (24:28):
The process a bit at the criminal courthouse. So that
the presumption is not for release, but that das have
an ability to say this person has to go to
civil commitment. We can't just put them out on the street.
And we're going to have to fund that.
Speaker 11 (24:49):
Damn.
Speaker 6 (24:50):
That's that's a real hurdle, dear.
Speaker 11 (24:52):
We're going to have to fund more mental health events.
Speaker 6 (24:56):
But uh, it's not a it's not a simple solution.
It's going to require things like eliminating the presumption against
being able to restore these people, because once they're found nonrestorable,
they either have to be committed or release.
Speaker 11 (25:16):
And so we're gonna have to do that.
Speaker 6 (25:18):
We're going to have to change some civil commitment civil
certification crimes area to ensure that dangerous criminals that are
incompetent and unrestorable or are committed. We don't have enough
state hospital beds, and again that's going to take the
money to do it, but public safety demands it and
(25:39):
we need to prioritize that.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
Well well said, Well said, sir, and appreciate you coming
on to talk about that. What I'm expecting next chapter
is that there's going to be ferocious opposition from the
left to the common sense fix you just suggested for
ideological reasons, and underpinning that, in my opinion is I
think I think the left is so pro criminal at
(26:03):
this point in Colorado and has so little concerned for
the innocent citizens.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
I think there's going to be a.
Speaker 3 (26:09):
Big battle there, but I think everybody has a much
better understanding of how we got to this point, and
now the fight's over the fix well.
Speaker 6 (26:17):
And if I can take a moment, and my hope
would be that frankly, my Republican colleagues on the far
right don't continue to just say, well, lock them up,
lock them up. That's easy to say. We've got to
come to the table with some people across the aisle
(26:39):
from us who are more reasonable and do the things
that I've mentioned, Plus three or four more again about process,
about funding mental health beds and improving our civil commitments
the process and giving both prosecutors and judges some options
(27:00):
of what to do with folks that is observed, few
process rights, and it's rankly humane and protects citizens, which
is the priority.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
And last question.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Because the only person who can call the special session
now is Governor Poulis. And now that everybody's seen that
we have a crisis here, why won't he call this
special session?
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Why didn't he include this in the last special session?
Speaker 6 (27:27):
Well, I can't answer why I didn't include it in
the last one. For that matter, why he hasn't called
one yet. I will say this, we don't need to
call a special session until people get sat down the
stakeholders on this, prosecutors, mental health advocates, leaders and both
(27:48):
parties and both chambers sat down for a couple of
three days. And they're going to beat each other over
the headbed, and people are going to get mad and
leave the room and have to come back in. But
we got to solve the problem. And when they do,
they need to turn to the governor and say, we
have this solution, we need to pass it. We can
pass it in three days and be done and move on.
(28:10):
And that's what it takes to get things done in Denver.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
And I know you're being realistic there, but what drives
me crazy is we all know that if God forbid
that this guy who just got out in Greeley because
of this, if there had been a mass shooting on
that campus by him, that all of a sudden, those
meetings would be happening. The special session would be happening,
and I'm sure you're the same way. It shouldn't have
(28:36):
to take something like that for people to do what
they should be doing anyway. But I'm grateful to you
for coming on and having the honest conversation about it,
and I think that helps everybody's understanding.
Speaker 11 (28:48):
Well, for my.
Speaker 6 (28:50):
Former colleagues that are listening, would you call somebody across
the aisle and say, we've got to sit down and
got to get this done this week.
Speaker 11 (28:58):
That's what it's going to take.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
Amen, Thank you, sir, appreciate it, Thank you, you take
care of that's former Senator Bob Gardner. So yeah, right,
I mean, and we've got to hit this hardbreak. We'll
talk about it more on the other side. But we
all know right right now the way this thing is
shaping up. Everybody knows clear and present danger. We've had
horrific consequences already, and with Democrats leading the state, it
(29:26):
looks like it's going to take some mass catastrophe before
they act.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
And that's dead wrong. You're on the Dan Capless Show.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
And now back to the Dan Tapless Show podcast.
Speaker 12 (29:42):
If his reaction to that, since this part of the
book has come out, if you've had any reflection on that, or.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
I guess.
Speaker 12 (29:52):
I guess I'd ask you to just elaborate on that
a little bit.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
It's hard to hear.
Speaker 12 (29:57):
With you running, as you know, you're the first woman
elected vice p ssident, you're a black woman and a
South Asian woman elected to that high office, very nearly
elected president, to say that he couldn't be on the
ticket effectively because he was gay, it's hard to.
Speaker 13 (30:09):
Go No, No, that's not what I said. That's that
he couldn't be on the ticket because he is gay.
My point, as I write in the book, is that
I was clear that in one hundred and seven days,
in one of the most hotly contested elections for president
(30:30):
United States, against someone like Donald Trump, who knows no floor,
to be a black woman running for president United States
and as a vice presidential running mate a gay man,
with the stakes being so high, it made me very sad,
(30:51):
But I also realized it would be a real risk.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Well, it made you a very sad coward. Be it
made you a very said liar. And Donald Trump the
one with the floor. Donald Trump is far better on
gay rights than Kamala Harris or really any other major player.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
On the left. I mean, Scot isent, right, Our.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
Treasury secretary is gay and probably and there's a lot
of talent in that administration, but he's probably numero uno
beyond the VP and the President himself.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
So what a great look into.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
The left that is, right, because at the highest levels,
I'm not talking about your typical Democrat, including the one
I've been privileged to sleep with for thirty one years now,
but you talk about the left that controls the party,
they're liars. They're just flat out liars and the worst
kind of hypocrites.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
Right.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
They're so holier than now when it comes to equality
and everything else, and then they spend pretty much all
day every day kicking people of color in the crotch,
kicking people of colors kids in the crotch.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
You know.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
They just they're such and an exhibit A, right. I mean,
it's hard to say she's not exhibit A there, but
I think exhibit A. And it goes back to a bump.
You played Sweet Home Alabama, right, because everybody likes that
song because it's a cool song. But the reason not
to like that song is it talks about George Wallace,
(32:18):
you know, the the former governor of Alabama, and George
Wallace was a guide in the wool racist, which means
just inherently evil behavior, because racists are inherently evil behaving.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
And so there was this phrase.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
About George Wallace, and you know he stood in the
school house store, because he literally stood in the school
house store in order to prevent, in order to prevent,
you know, the breaking these these racist barriers down, integrating schools,
et cetera. He literally stood in the school house store.
But what we're seeing now with this modern Democratic party
(32:59):
is is we're seeing a different form of the same outcome,
right because I would never look at the modern Democrats.
I'd never look at a guy like Michael Bannet or
John Haickenlooper Jared Polis and say they are George Wallace.
It wouldn't be accurate, it wouldn't be true. These are
not people who are racists the way that George Wallace was.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
They're not.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
But in terms of the effect of their policies and
their actions, it's the same kind of effect. It's the
same kind of racist effect. And one obvious glaring exhibit
right now is these phony Democrat leaders in Colorado, right,
they brag about how enlightened they are. But they have
(33:43):
all the power in the state. Right, Okay, where's the
female governor? You know, where is the governor of color?
Where's the female senator? Where's the Senator of color? The
Democrats have all the power, They have the big money,
everything else. So they could have their female governor or senator.
(34:03):
They could have their senator of color or female you know,
where is it. We don't see that because their phonies,
and right now today we could have a highly qualified,
though ideologically wrong US Senator in Joanagose, a Senator of color.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
And the only reason we don't have that Senator.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
Of color today is because Michael Bennett's preventing it. Bennett's
running for governor. He should resign that Senate seat to
run for governor, and Joannah Goose is the almost certain appointment.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
So that's the point. That's the point.
Speaker 3 (34:40):
In that sense, you have Bennett and you have these
other lefties standing in the schoolhouse door, and they prevent it.
I mean, we would have had our first woman governor
in Kerrie Kennedy. She was state treasurer and then Jared
pulled a steamroller with his money and won the primer.
Now she would have been a bad governor because of ideology,
but she would have been otherwise competent. Yeah, So these
(35:02):
lefties total phonies, and it's great to see.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
It's great to see this kind of eating them.
Speaker 3 (35:11):
You know, they're eating each other before our eyes, and
it's beautiful to see it exposed like that. So how
do we take advantage of it and winning Colorado? You're
on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.