November 24, 2025 • 36 mins
Dan and Ryan debate which politican's successes are more ill-begotten and undeserved - former Vice President Kamala Harris or current U.S. Senator from Colorado, Michael Bennet.
Also, Dan revisits the political backfire of Congressman Jason 'Benedict' Crow (D-CO) and other Democrat members of Congress who, as military veterans, issued a challenge and request of our currently serving members of the armed forces and intelligence communities to defy 'unlawful orders' from President Trump. Problem is, none of them could - or would, perhaps out of fear of legal repercussions - ANY illegal orders being given by the commander-in-chief on their tour of the Sunday news shows this weekend.
Also, Dan revisits the political backfire of Congressman Jason 'Benedict' Crow (D-CO) and other Democrat members of Congress who, as military veterans, issued a challenge and request of our currently serving members of the armed forces and intelligence communities to defy 'unlawful orders' from President Trump. Problem is, none of them could - or would, perhaps out of fear of legal repercussions - ANY illegal orders being given by the commander-in-chief on their tour of the Sunday news shows this weekend.
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. The American Way
is aunty cornucopia, and that's what.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
We have today.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Oh my goodness. You know, it used to be like
the week before or the week of Thanksgiving things. It's
sort of quiet down and everybody's leaving town, nobody's working
news cycles there come home.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
My goodness, what a day today.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
So we're going to dive into all of that, starting
with the dismissals of the indictments against Comy and James.
I've actually read the court's order and I want to
give you my quick take on that and get your
reaction to a couple of things that roll from that.
And if Benedict Crowe, Benedict Crowe, I think digging himself
(00:51):
in deeper out there on the national shows as many
of those many of those who decided to undermine our
military and our nation. You know, those six Democrats are
now trying to justify their behavior.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Three h three seven one three.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Eight two five five tags d A N five seven,
seven through nine. In the case of Mark Kelly, justice
coming out, No, in fact, I think it was Department
of Work coming out and saying that they are examining
at this point whether he's violated the Military Code and
whether they are going to be legal proceedings against him.
So bring you up to date on all that. A
(01:29):
fascinating story from Channel seven in Denver about folks fleeing
Denver and the reasons they're fleeing Denver hit me over
the weekend. I was in Madison, Wisconsin this morning visiting
my brother Mike, who's a year younger. One of the
greatest people you'll ever meet. As I've talked about Mike
on air before, due to his mental illness, he's fought
(01:51):
a lot of battles, but he's just one of the best,
happiest people you will ever be around. And had a
great visit with him yesterday. But the point is, my
uber driver had moved from the Denver area to Madison, Wisconsin.
I'm thinking, wait a second, have you ever seen the
weather in Madison, Wisconsin? I mean, beautiful place and all
of that when the weather's nice. So you get those
(02:13):
three four days a year. You're in great shape.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
And I'm trying to figure out the difference in political
climate between Boulder and Madison.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
Dayan, I can't think of any Denver area. Well, no,
that's great.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Madison's probably a little bit left to Boulder, I would
guess you think, so, yeah, probably a little bit, if
there's any room there at all. Speaking of Ryan Shooling,
I almost never disagree with Ryan, but i'm driving in today.
Ryan does this tremendous show in the Denver market on
six point thirty kitsch it right before this one, and
I heard you say something this rarely happens. By the way,
great show, I mean, I love the way you're making
(02:48):
everything pop. But you said something that I think is
provably wrong, which is extremely rare for you, but only
proves you're human, which should come as a great comfort
to because I do think we're going to start hearing
a bunch of AI generated shows, but at least they'll know.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
You are human. That's right.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
The rare mistake, And you can tell me if I'm
making a mistake about your mistake. But I heard you
say that if Kamala Harris was a white dude, we
would have never heard her name, Did you say that?
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Yes? Correct, Thank you. Now, I think that's provably false.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
And I've got one good local example for you, Michael Bennett.
I mean equally completely thoroughly unaccomplished. You can make you
can make a case that that, in fact, Kamala Harris
is more accomplished than Michael Bennett. Now, she would have
(03:42):
been a horrible president. And I was saying on their forever,
I think you were too. There's no way America is
going to let Kamala Harris just was never going to happen,
certainly not up against Donald Trump, and certainly not up
against Trump, you know, after Butler. But but yeah, look
at Michael Bennett. I mean, Harris is arguably, not even arguably,
Harris is demonstrably more accomplished than Bennett. Never has anyone.
(04:06):
And I don't say this in the pejorative. I'm sure
he's a great husband and father, and in the end
that counts more than an awful lot of other stuff,
and probably more than any other stuff as long as
you're right with God.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
But here's the question, has.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Anyone known to young Ryan Shuling or to anybody listening,
has anyone ever done less with more than Michael Bennett.
Born into wealth, born into connections, all the best schools,
What in the world has he done with it? He's
appointed the US Senate, stumbles into a first victory because
our candidate, otherwise great guy, made a mistake late in
(04:41):
the game, and then he has the blessing of a
US n it's one of the most powerful platforms ever
placed on the face of the earth, and does nothing
with it. He has one elk like episode of bellowing
toward Ted Cruz or something kind of hard to make
out other than that she's done nothing with that US
(05:02):
Senate seat. Can anybody tell us three h three sevene
three eight two five five takes d an five seven
seven three nine has anybody in public life ever done
less with more than Michael Bennett.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
So my only point is.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Is you can't say that about Kamala Harris, because here's
a white dude, Michael Bennett, who's less accomplished and has
been in the US Senate for one hundred years.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
This is all true.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
He was born in the wealth, as you state, so
he was basically born on third base.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
He didn't have to do much to get where he
is born stealing home.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
But maybe but he's boring, and I've got to flip
the script this way. If you can name for me
the equivalent for Michael Bennett to Willie Brown for Kamala Harris,
then i'll give you the point.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Well, if your suggestion.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Is that Kamala Harris slept her way to the top,
that's Ryan's suggestion.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
They're not mine. Right.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
He was a mayor, he was a powerful and influential person.
She was spotted with him in public. It was open knowledge.
He was married. He was married. While having her as
a mistress, well with her to all these public events,
propped up her career, connected her politically, gave her that jumpstart.
And that's just incidental to the relationship, the romantic relationship
(06:17):
that they had.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Very fair question you ask, But let's frame it, if
you're okay with this, with the generosity of spirit at
present during this holiday season, Let's say that the Kamala
Harris advanced to where she was because she had friendships.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
With people in high places.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Okay, Well, that's directly analogous to a similar form of
rocket fuel for somebody completely unqualified. In Michael Bennett's case,
it was money and connections. If I remember correctly, I
think his brother may have been editorial pages editor of
the New York Times. You know, his father very prominent
in political circles, held high positions of the family, lots
(06:56):
of money. So the same kind of thing, right, is
something other than competence, That's my point, White dude Bennett,
something other than competence. He rises to this very high
level while accomplishing nothing.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
Yeah, and I'm not here as a member of the
Michael Bennett cheer squaw at all.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
He's very uninspired, cold found it. I would. I'll do
it with my impression of him.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
Please, But again, if I'm doing the equation here with
variables and constants, If Willie Brown is not a part
of Kamala Harris's life, and she lied about being a
fry cook at McDonald's, okay, I don't believe she gets
involved in politics. She certainly doesn't have the connections of politics.
And let's not sugarcoat it. She was his mistress.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
This is known. It has not been denied. That is
not some kind of slander that.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Happened, all right, For the sake of argument, take that
is true. How is that any different than Bennett's rise
to the top. Wealthy, well connected, political family, lots of money,
other New York Times pages editor, and then all of
a sudden, Bennett gets placed in this position and does
virtually nothing with it in all those years?
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Are we all?
Speaker 1 (08:10):
My only point is, and it's okay, Ryan, I've said
it on air occasionally over the years. It's been cleansing.
It enhances credibility. It lets you look in the mirror
every morning with more enthusiasm. It's okay to say you
were wrong about something, particularly something this minor.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Well, on the scale I hate that I'm doing this,
that I'm defending Michael Bennett. But on the scale of
personal integrity, like you said, he's a married man, he's
got a family, right, he's a father. I don't have
any reason to question any of that. I don't know
any kind of salacious details about his personal life, never
suggested otherwise that would affect his judgment, his personal integrity.
(08:47):
She knowingly had an affair with a married man to
advance her political career. To me, that's way worse, way
worse than anything Michael Bennett did or didn't do it.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
I had never interjected into this conversation the issue of
integrat I was simply making the point which you very
adroitly are avoiding, but making the point that yes, it
is possible for a totally unaccomplished white dude to rise
to high, high levels of power, just as Kamala Harris,
(09:19):
without apparent ability or accomplishment, has risen to that high
level of power. That's the only point I was making.
Integrity had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
Well, two very different paths that'll I will agree with
you on, but I guess it'll be up to the
listeners to decide.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yeah, well, that's the beauty of it.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Three or three seven three eight two five five the
number texts Dan five seven seven three, And I want
to come back on to take you through the court's
opinion which I read dismissing the indictment of Comy and
Leticia James and then give you my take on whether
that's going to get flipped and whether those charges are
going to be reinstated.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
You're on the Dan Capla Show.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
So let's talk right now.
Speaker 5 (09:57):
Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?
Speaker 6 (10:02):
To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that
are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that
are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related
to Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
My goodness, that just confirms it.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
It confirms what we were talking about last week that yes,
they've given themselves a legal shield by saying unlawfully, but
since he hasn't issued any unlawful orders, what they're really
asking people to do, including Benedict Crowe, is to violate
legal orders.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
She just admitted it.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
And wait till we get to Benedict's comments on the
Sunday shows that those didn't help him at all. Three
h three seven one three two five five the number
text d A N five seven seven three or nine.
I'm going to break down the court's ruling today. I
read the whole thing in the Komian Letitia James case
dismissing those cases and fill you in on the procedural
basis it was not based on merit, and whether.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
It's likely that justice will be able to.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Bring those charges back. In the meantime, let's go to
Las Vegas, New Mexico. Talk to Charles. You're on the
dan Kaplas.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
You're welcome, man.
Speaker 7 (11:07):
I don't have much to say today. I'm very, very
impressed with the way the two of you debated Bennett
and Harris. I think it's it's just entertainment beyond belief
and also intelligence. You know, Like I said, I didn't
call to Carrie Water for anybody. I was just very
(11:28):
very impressed with that segment. And I just don't have
anything else to say but thank you for that great moment.
You guys work really well together. Are you working this weekend?
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Dan?
Speaker 3 (11:42):
Thank you, Charles.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
You just gave us tomorrow's promo, So I'm going to
be working a little less hard this coming weekend.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
Yes, sir am We start a trial next week.
Speaker 7 (11:50):
Okay, all right, those of us retired, we'll think about you.
But love you and thank you again.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
For an incredible segment.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Thank you.
Speaker 7 (11:58):
You guys work great to get to so kind.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Of a random act of kindness. Thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Charles three or three seven, one, three eight, two five
five the number? Hey, quick take on the court's order today.
I'm sure you've seen the headline by now that the
charges against Comy and James different types of charges. One
in the mortgage fraud for James and call me that's
a perjury charge. The court dismissing both on procedural grounds.
And and what the court held is at the prosecutor,
(12:26):
the US Attorney, Lindsay Halligan, had not been properly appointed,
and therefore anything she did was void, could not have
been legally done. And the court was referring to the
appointments clause related as statutes. And I know you're probably
driving now, so I won't cause you to hit a
(12:46):
telephone poll and take you into the weeds. But the
gist of it being the court found that wait a second,
the administration can make a one hundred and twenty day
temporary appointment of a US attorney, which it had done
with Miss Halligan's predecessor, who had resigned shortly before, but
it can't do more than once. So that's what this
(13:06):
whole darn procedural thing comes down to. You know, can
the administration, through the Attorney General, make only one one
day temporary appointment or can they make two with two
separate people. That's what it all comes down to. And
then you know we're going to find out I think
pretty quickly. I imagine this will be rocket docket stuff when
(13:28):
it comes to the federal appellate court level called the circuits.
When you're the tenth Circuit Ninth Circuit, et cetera. You're
talking about appellate level at the Federal Court, and we'll
it get to the Supreme Court very quickly. We'll we'll
find out together. But my guess is this will move
a lot faster than cases normally do. Now, another little
(13:49):
wrinkle there, Okay, when a case is when an indictment's
brought like this and then it's a dismissed for certain reasons.
Normally the statute of limitations is put on ice, called told,
and then the charge can be brought later. Because here
the court dismissed it without prejudice, meaning it could be
(14:13):
under certain circumstances brought later. When the court dismisses something
with prejudice, bang your debt. So but here's the twist.
Here's a twist with Comy. The five year statute of
limitations for perjury has already run. It ran the day
after he was indicted, and so the court's saying no,
(14:36):
because miss Halligan, the court is concluded, did not have
legal authority to do what she did. Comy cannot be
charged later. At least that's a strong indication from the court.
With Letitia James, there's not the same Statute of limitations issues,
so expect her to be.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Recharged.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
So anyway, that's the Latland three or three someone three
eight two five five text DA five seven seventh three nine,
if you want to follow up on any of that.
I know this is not a popular opinion. I respect that,
I get it. But as to both of those cases,
you know, I don't believe either should have been brought,
not because the people aren't guilty, but because they were
(15:16):
politically motivated. And whether it's Republicans or Democrats doing it,
and it's the Democrats who do it ninety nine percent
of the time, it's the Democrats who started this insidious,
cancerous law fare that threatens the very foundation of our nation.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
And the voter spoke.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Loudly and clearly in November twenty twenty four. Was that
on the fourth or seventh r it's such a great
day in history. But I can't remember election Day twenty
twenty four. But the voter spoke. Voters do not want
us to become a banana republic. And it doesn't matter
whether it's Democrats turning us into a banana republic by
bringing politically motivated charges, and by that I mean charges
(15:53):
which clearly would not have been brought except for politics,
and except for the political involvement in nature of the target,
we don't do that in America. That doesn't mean Comy
is innocent or Letitia James is innocent, and we all
know they both did evil, evil things to this country
and to Donald Trump. We could spend multiple shows talking
(16:14):
about all the evil James Comy did de Trump in
this nation, but not all evil violates a criminal statue.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
But even if it did, I do not think.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
We should be bringing politically motivated charges. It's just so
bad for this country. President Trump. I can't even imagine,
you know, what he went through and what he feels
being the target of those those bogus, bogus, corrupt, politically
motivated charges. But for the good of this nation, neither
(16:47):
party should do that. Let's go back to the phone lines.
Leonard in Pueblo, you're on the Dan Kapli show.
Speaker 8 (16:54):
Welcome, Yes, sir, I had a couple of comen about
Jason Crow and his bull hearts. I think bringing that
little montage up to cover that they filed being brought out.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Oh interesting theory, Leonard. I'm sorry, We've got a little
buzz in your background. I'm so glad Leonard from Pueblo
brought that up because clearly that maneuver knocked Epstein off
the front pages. And was it because the Democrats wanted
the Epstein story killed? Because Trump was very effectively, as
we talked about on airs, starting turned down on the
Democrats because it should be turned on the Democrats. Is
(17:36):
that why they pulled that extraordinarily reckless, dangerous stunt then
or did they pull it for some other reasons and
it just had the effect of knocking Epstein off the
front pages because Epstein on the front pages was also
hurting Trump. There's no question about it. So I don't know, Lord,
(17:57):
what do you think? Grin Leonard may be right because
in the end, you know, you always follow facts. People
say follow the money. I say, follow the facts, and
that includes the money. Fact is Epstein was a Democrat problem,
That's right. It only became a Trump problem because President
Trump promised release during the campaign and then Pambondi made
the mistake of saying she had the Epstein client list
(18:18):
on her desk. But in terms of reality, the demonic
behavior of Epstein, the mass rape committed by Epstein, that's
a Democrat problem it is.
Speaker 4 (18:30):
I just can't understand why somebody like Pambondi wouldn't have
every detail buttoned down like with these Letitia James call
me prosecutions.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Why leave that door open with Halligan at all?
Speaker 4 (18:40):
And why not put somebody on that you know can
try the case well.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
But in fairness to Pambondy, you know, the President just
days before had gone public in that tweet addressed to
Pambondi by name, saying get those two charged. So I
think things were coming together a lot more quickly than
they normally do.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
You're on the Dankaplat Show.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
You're listening to the dan Kaplis Show podcast Jason Crowe.
Speaker 5 (19:09):
So are you saying that there was not necessarily any
particular precipitating event. There is no specific thing out there
that made you decide now.
Speaker 9 (19:16):
Was the right time?
Speaker 3 (19:18):
That's right?
Speaker 10 (19:18):
To be clear, we're not calling on folks right now
to debate to disobey any type of unlawful order.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
What why, Penedic Crow? Then that just confirms what I
was saying last week. While you protected yourself legally by
saying unlawfully, you're really asking people to disobey lawful orders
that you don't like because there's no doubt that's what
they were doing last week. In my constitutionally protected opinion,
(19:45):
I should say, there's no doubt in my mind that's
what they were really doing, was protecting themselves legally by
inserting the word unlawfully, but really trying to disrupt the
military by encouraging people to disobey law orders. Decide for yourself.
But isn't that what Crow just conceded. Isn't that what
he just conceded?
Speaker 5 (20:06):
So are you saying that there was not necessarily any
particular precipitating event. There is no specific thing out there
that made you decide now was the right time?
Speaker 2 (20:15):
That's right.
Speaker 10 (20:16):
To be clear, we are not calling on folks right
now to debate to disobey any type of unlawful order.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Now I'm sure you have, but let's break this down logically.
The only reason you would say we're not asking them
to disobey any.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Unlawful order.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Is there are no unlawful orders, which goes back to
the point of why did they do it to begin with?
My belief is because they're encouraging people to disobey lawful orders. Well,
think about what that means about them. And did you
(20:55):
have these six smart, accomplished people who had to know.
Can somebody point out a logical fallacy here? I know
Eerie Mike's on the line, will get to his call
as well and see if he can. He's never been
able to before. But there's always a chance of a
first a logical fallacy in this that, whether it's Benedict Crowe,
(21:15):
Mark Kelly Slot, can any of them. They had to
know that when they pushed go on that video, they
were dramatically increasing the risk of the assassination of Donald Trump.
They had to know that. I'm not saying that was
their intent, but they had to know that would be
the effect. But they pushed go, not being able to
(21:40):
point to a single order which they consider to be unlawful,
Then why'd they do it? Well, let's go to Eerie
Mike for the answer. Michael, welcome back to the Dan
Kapli Show.
Speaker 11 (21:56):
Hey, thank you, Dan, glad to be back. What a
beautiful day. Just got off the golf course.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Oh man, how'd you hit him?
Speaker 11 (22:04):
I did not hit him.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Well, no golfer ever does. I had a great time.
Speaker 11 (22:09):
I had a great time. Hey, Dan, you know you
know you and I debated last week a little bit
about this very topic. And you know, I'm a firm
believer that you know, words mean things, and language is
meant to demonstrate intent, and so I take what their
(22:31):
words were as they said it, and that's the way
I take it.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
You give it the benefit like when Trump says something
you said, Oh, it must be true because Trump said it.
Speaker 11 (22:42):
I think I do, because you know, he he specifically
said on his kind of two bit secondary Twitter that
you know, uh, those guys were participating in seditious activities
and that was punishable about I take those words for
what he says.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
I mean, Okay, oh no, no, what I'm what I'm
looking at right now? Hold on one second. We'll take
it point by point. We'd love for you to stay
for days. But I'm looking at Trump right now. How
many followers he has on his two bits secondary Twitter?
Speaker 3 (23:12):
And how many do you.
Speaker 11 (23:13):
Mike, Oh, I don't have any heart Okay, yeah, yeah,
So let's say ten. I don't try to do that.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
Let's say ten. Okay, well, you're catching up to him.
He's only got one hundred and nine point five million.
But on that two bit second rate Twitter. The only
reason I challenge you on that, Mike is as much
as we love you, it becomes just a waste of
everybody's time when you come right out of the gates
seeing all these provably false things. Can we confine it
to reality for a second?
Speaker 11 (23:42):
Well, what did I just say?
Speaker 3 (23:45):
Two bit second rate Twitter and that?
Speaker 1 (23:47):
But this other thing which can't possibly be true if
you're smart enough to call this show, and I believe
you're a smart guy.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
But you call this.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
Show and you say you just accept what Jason Crow
said on his word, no matter what the evidence shows,
You're just going to take Jason Crow at a his word.
Speaker 11 (24:05):
Well, what what I said was is that I believe
language is designed to indicate intent, and so I read
their words, and I read Trump's words, and they're intent.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Okay, So what is crows intent?
Speaker 1 (24:20):
No, no, no, Michael, we're hoping you will unlock the
secrets of the universe.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
What is Crow's intent? Then? I mean, you just heard
the sound.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Of Crow saying, oh no, no, we're not saying there
are any unlawful orders.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
Now, what was his intent? Then?
Speaker 1 (24:33):
In releasing a video that said members of the military,
this administration has turned against the American people. You must
save the ship defy on lawful orders. What was Crow's intent?
Speaker 11 (24:44):
Well, you're you're adding, you're adding words to that because
I watched it. But I mean, what did I am when?
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Where was I wrong?
Speaker 11 (24:53):
They did say a thing about the current administration? Oh
they sure didn't that they used the word and they
did not.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
No, Okay, Michael, Michael, Michael, I'm cheaper than a therapist.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
Go ahead, get it all.
Speaker 11 (25:08):
Out, Okay. One of the reasons I called was that
I don't know, maybe it was a month ago. I
don't know, it was before I was in Europe. Anyway,
I said something that offended you, and I want to
apologize because it clearly.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
I want to get to the bottom of this, Michael, Michael,
I wanted, Michael, I want to get to No, no, no, Michael.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
I'm not. I'm not.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
I want to get to the bottom of this. What
did Jason Crow intend?
Speaker 3 (25:33):
All right? Yeah, See that's what he does. He calls
the show.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
You prove him wrong, or you corner him to the
point he's about to be proven wrong, and then he
just filibusters three h three seven one three eight two
five five. The number takes d A N five seven
seven three nine. But there's desperate flailing of six politically
drowning figures this weekend who had tried to undermine that
(25:59):
the US military last week what do you think they
were doing? Even Joe Scarborough is out there saying, what
are you doing?
Speaker 5 (26:07):
So are you saying that there was not necessarily any
particular precipitating event. There is no specific thing out there
that made you decide now was the right time?
Speaker 3 (26:16):
That's right.
Speaker 10 (26:16):
To be clear, we are not calling on folks right
now to debate to disobey any type of unlawful order.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
Yes, that's the setup right there. And then I played
Slatkin earlier, you know who was saying, yeah, no, no,
we're not saying anything's unlawful.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Right now, here's Scarborough.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
Then, Okay, wrong answer.
Speaker 12 (26:35):
I'm sorry, with all due respect, wrong answer.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
President of the United States.
Speaker 12 (26:40):
The commander in chief does have Jonathan Omeir white latitude,
just does, and the Senate can.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Take that up.
Speaker 12 (26:48):
But he has white latitude on strikes, ask Barack Obama
and drone strikes.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Ask George W. Bush and drone strikes.
Speaker 12 (26:56):
But where we know the President has said I am
going they.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
Give illegal orders the people in the military is when
he was on air force one coming back. I forget
where he was coming back from.
Speaker 12 (27:10):
I must have said, I can send the Marines, I
can send the Army, I can send the Air Force,
I can send the Coastguard into any city. I want
to control crime, and the courts can't do anything about it.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
That's illegal.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
So Scarborough can't point to any illegal orders either. And
when when Benedict Crow and the rest of his gang
came out and issue this, they didn't say that. They
didn't say what Scarborough's saying. Scarborough's now having to make
it up for him. And these are smart people. Don't
you think they would have said in the video listen,
we think President Trump's about to give illegal orders tender
(27:47):
American cities.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
They didn't say it. You know why they didn't say it, Joe, because.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
They know if they say to people, disobey this order,
hinds there ended up in jail. That's why they didn't
point to any specific order, because there are no unlawful
orders and if they say disobey this specific.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
Order, they're going to jail. It's that simple. So why
do you think they did it in the beginning?
Speaker 1 (28:21):
Anyway, we're talking about that where breaking down the court's
order today dismissing the Komy and Letitia James indictments.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
They did it in detail earlier. Short story.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
It was purely procedural stuff, the court say, and Lindsay
Halligan her one hundred and twenty day temporary appointment was
invalid because the administration had previously appointed the prior US
attorney on a one hundred and twenty day temporary appointment.
So that's what that comes down to. Now, the question
is can they bring back the charge against Kome? Can
(28:51):
they bring back the charge against James? Simple answer, clearly
they can against James, maybe not against Komy because of
the statute of limitations running in the meantime. That's the
short and simple version. If you want to kick that around,
love to you're on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
Linda ronstaid at Red Rocks. That sounds amazing. Man. Remember
her in her prime.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
She's gorgeous and she was very talented.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
Boy, she sure was three or three seven one three
eight two five five The number takes d A N
five seven seven three nine All right, uh, Texter here
and this refers to the court's dismissal today of the
indictments against Comy and Letitia James, and I've broken that
(29:39):
down earlier in the show and walked you through the
reasoning and where I think the courts, including the Supreme Court,
are going to focus probably in short order. A great
text Dan a question that goes right to the heart
of all of this. Does the one hundred and twenty
day clock reset for a different person? And that's from
JB from Loveland, Because the reason the court dismissed the
(30:01):
Comy and James indictments is the court concluded that Lindsay Halligan,
the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, did
not have legal authority to act because she had been
appointed on a one hundred and twenty day temporary basis,
which is normally fine under the law. But what the
court said is, wait a second. The guy before her,
(30:24):
the US attorney for the same district right before her,
was also appointed on a one hundred and twenty day
temporary appointment. And you can't do two back to back.
And so JB has just hit on the seminal question.
Does that mean you can't do the same person back
to back, or you can't do two different people back
(30:44):
to back. So that's what the Federal Appellate Court, called
the Circuit will now focus on, and likely the US
Supreme Court eventually. It won't matter when it comes to
James because she can just be recharged. The issue with
Comy is the statute of limitation has since run, so
more of a question there as to whether he could
be recharged or whether the statute of limitations was told
(31:08):
put on ice by the indictment three H three seven
one three eight two five five text d A N
five seven seven three nine. Benedict Crowe just digging himself
deeper and deeper.
Speaker 5 (31:21):
So are you saying that there was not necessarily any
particular precipitating event. There is no specific thing out there
that made you decide now was the right time.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
That's right.
Speaker 10 (31:30):
To be clear, we're not calling on folks right now
to debate to disobey any type of unlawful order.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
Wow. And see that's the thing. He doesn't want to point,
as I said last week, to.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
Any particular order because then he'd end up in jail
because there are no orders from this president that are illegal.
That's what's going on right now with Crow.
Speaker 3 (31:51):
So why do you do it?
Speaker 1 (31:52):
To begin with, and then the Department of War and
I'll get to the phone lines in a second. Here
the Department of War issuing this statement. The Department of
Warriors received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly
in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, citations
and other applicable regulations. A thorough review of these allegations
(32:15):
has been initiated to determine for their actions, which may
include recalled active duty for court martial proceedings or administrative measures.
This matter will be handled in compliance with the military
law ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will
be limited to preserve the integrity of the proceedings. Pete
(32:35):
He said the video made by the Seditious six was despicable,
reckless and false, encouraging our warriors to ignore it. The
orders of their commanders undermines every aspect of good order
and discipline. Their foolish creed so stubt and confusion which
only puts our warriors in danger. Rick gin Thornton, You're
on the Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Welcome, Hi Dan. How are you doing living the dream?
Speaker 3 (32:56):
My friend?
Speaker 9 (33:00):
You know these crazy people then you know like you said,
they don't think before they speak. Number one, Before it's
a lawful order, it has to go to many people.
It's if not one person say I want you to
annihilate everybody in Nigeria, it has to go a certain
(33:20):
amount and everybody has to agree. So there's a lot
of accountability right there.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
Yeah, Ran, Yeah, go ahead, my friend.
Speaker 9 (33:29):
And if you if you are growing, if you're retired
and drawing a pension, you are still part of the military,
whatever the branch is, and they can call you in
at any time to fulfill whatever, whatever the shortages or what.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
Now, Rick, you sound like a veteran. Did you serve?
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Yes, I did twenty years which branch army, hey man,
thank you for your service.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
Really do appreciate that.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
And Rick's starting point, I think these all, each and
every one of the six, thought long and hard about
this before they did it.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
I think they lawyered up.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
I think they knew that this would put President Trump
in grave danger of assassination. I'm not saying that it
was their intent, but as smart people, they had to
realize that would be an effect of what they were doing.
And I think they went ahead and did it anyway.
I don't think this was some spur of the moment thing.
Speaker 3 (34:36):
It couldn't be just.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
All the different production involved in everything else. But you
can bet they lawyered it up. And that's why they inserted,
in my opinion, this word unlawfully as a legal shield.
But we now see it all breaking down. We now
see it all breaking down. Crow conceding they're not calling
on anybody to violate any unlawful order at this point
because Crow knows, they all know if they point to
(35:00):
a single order, a single order that they are asking
people to disobey, they're going to jail because they can't
show any.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Of those orders that are unlawful. Listen to Slotkin. So
let's talk right now.
Speaker 5 (35:12):
Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?
Speaker 6 (35:17):
To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that
are illegal, but.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Certain yeah, right, they won't point.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
And this is why I called Crow such a coward
last week, undermining our military, putting the president, whether it
was his intent or not, in grave danger, and then
not having the guts to point to a single order that.
Speaker 3 (35:35):
He believed was unlawful as anybody can anybody.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
Think of a more cowardly act of importance in politics
in their lifetime and what Jason Crowe just did. Texts,
great calls, want to come back. I'll do a quick
recap breaking down the court's order in Comy and Letis James.
Do you think those cases should be rebrought? But the
headline coming up great story on Channel seven why so
(36:01):
many people are leaving Denver.
Speaker 3 (36:03):
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. The American Way
is aunty cornucopia, and that's what.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
We have today.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Oh my goodness. You know, it used to be like
the week before or the week of Thanksgiving things. It's
sort of quiet down and everybody's leaving town, nobody's working
news cycles there come home.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
My goodness, what a day today.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
So we're going to dive into all of that, starting
with the dismissals of the indictments against Comy and James.
I've actually read the court's order and I want to
give you my quick take on that and get your
reaction to a couple of things that roll from that.
And if Benedict Crowe, Benedict Crowe, I think digging himself
(00:51):
in deeper out there on the national shows as many
of those many of those who decided to undermine our
military and our nation. You know, those six Democrats are
now trying to justify their behavior.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Three h three seven one three.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Eight two five five tags d A N five seven,
seven through nine. In the case of Mark Kelly, justice
coming out, No, in fact, I think it was Department
of Work coming out and saying that they are examining
at this point whether he's violated the Military Code and
whether they are going to be legal proceedings against him.
So bring you up to date on all that. A
(01:29):
fascinating story from Channel seven in Denver about folks fleeing
Denver and the reasons they're fleeing Denver hit me over
the weekend. I was in Madison, Wisconsin this morning visiting
my brother Mike, who's a year younger. One of the
greatest people you'll ever meet. As I've talked about Mike
on air before, due to his mental illness, he's fought
(01:51):
a lot of battles, but he's just one of the best,
happiest people you will ever be around. And had a
great visit with him yesterday. But the point is, my
uber driver had moved from the Denver area to Madison, Wisconsin.
I'm thinking, wait a second, have you ever seen the
weather in Madison, Wisconsin? I mean, beautiful place and all
of that when the weather's nice. So you get those
(02:13):
three four days a year. You're in great shape.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
And I'm trying to figure out the difference in political
climate between Boulder and Madison.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
Dayan, I can't think of any Denver area. Well, no,
that's great.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Madison's probably a little bit left to Boulder, I would
guess you think, so, yeah, probably a little bit, if
there's any room there at all. Speaking of Ryan Shooling,
I almost never disagree with Ryan, but i'm driving in today.
Ryan does this tremendous show in the Denver market on
six point thirty kitsch it right before this one, and
I heard you say something this rarely happens. By the way,
great show, I mean, I love the way you're making
(02:48):
everything pop. But you said something that I think is
provably wrong, which is extremely rare for you, but only
proves you're human, which should come as a great comfort
to because I do think we're going to start hearing
a bunch of AI generated shows, but at least they'll know.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
You are human. That's right.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
The rare mistake, And you can tell me if I'm
making a mistake about your mistake. But I heard you
say that if Kamala Harris was a white dude, we
would have never heard her name, Did you say that?
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Yes? Correct, Thank you. Now, I think that's provably false.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
And I've got one good local example for you, Michael Bennett.
I mean equally completely thoroughly unaccomplished. You can make you
can make a case that that, in fact, Kamala Harris
is more accomplished than Michael Bennett. Now, she would have
(03:42):
been a horrible president. And I was saying on their forever,
I think you were too. There's no way America is
going to let Kamala Harris just was never going to happen,
certainly not up against Donald Trump, and certainly not up
against Trump, you know, after Butler. But but yeah, look
at Michael Bennett. I mean, Harris is arguably, not even arguably,
Harris is demonstrably more accomplished than Bennett. Never has anyone.
(04:06):
And I don't say this in the pejorative. I'm sure
he's a great husband and father, and in the end
that counts more than an awful lot of other stuff,
and probably more than any other stuff as long as
you're right with God.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
But here's the question, has.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Anyone known to young Ryan Shuling or to anybody listening,
has anyone ever done less with more than Michael Bennett.
Born into wealth, born into connections, all the best schools,
What in the world has he done with it? He's
appointed the US Senate, stumbles into a first victory because
our candidate, otherwise great guy, made a mistake late in
(04:41):
the game, and then he has the blessing of a
US n it's one of the most powerful platforms ever
placed on the face of the earth, and does nothing
with it. He has one elk like episode of bellowing
toward Ted Cruz or something kind of hard to make
out other than that she's done nothing with that US
(05:02):
Senate seat. Can anybody tell us three h three sevene
three eight two five five takes d an five seven
seven three nine has anybody in public life ever done
less with more than Michael Bennett.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
So my only point is.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Is you can't say that about Kamala Harris, because here's
a white dude, Michael Bennett, who's less accomplished and has
been in the US Senate for one hundred years.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
This is all true.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
He was born in the wealth, as you state, so
he was basically born on third base.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
He didn't have to do much to get where he
is born stealing home.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
But maybe but he's boring, and I've got to flip
the script this way. If you can name for me
the equivalent for Michael Bennett to Willie Brown for Kamala Harris,
then i'll give you the point.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Well, if your suggestion.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Is that Kamala Harris slept her way to the top,
that's Ryan's suggestion.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
They're not mine. Right.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
He was a mayor, he was a powerful and influential person.
She was spotted with him in public. It was open knowledge.
He was married. He was married. While having her as
a mistress, well with her to all these public events,
propped up her career, connected her politically, gave her that jumpstart.
And that's just incidental to the relationship, the romantic relationship
(06:17):
that they had.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Very fair question you ask, But let's frame it, if
you're okay with this, with the generosity of spirit at
present during this holiday season, Let's say that the Kamala
Harris advanced to where she was because she had friendships.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
With people in high places.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Okay, Well, that's directly analogous to a similar form of
rocket fuel for somebody completely unqualified. In Michael Bennett's case,
it was money and connections. If I remember correctly, I
think his brother may have been editorial pages editor of
the New York Times. You know, his father very prominent
in political circles, held high positions of the family, lots
(06:56):
of money. So the same kind of thing, right, is
something other than competence, That's my point, White dude Bennett,
something other than competence. He rises to this very high
level while accomplishing nothing.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
Yeah, and I'm not here as a member of the
Michael Bennett cheer squaw at all.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
He's very uninspired, cold found it. I would. I'll do
it with my impression of him.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
Please, But again, if I'm doing the equation here with
variables and constants, If Willie Brown is not a part
of Kamala Harris's life, and she lied about being a
fry cook at McDonald's, okay, I don't believe she gets
involved in politics. She certainly doesn't have the connections of politics.
And let's not sugarcoat it. She was his mistress.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
This is known. It has not been denied. That is
not some kind of slander that.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Happened, all right, For the sake of argument, take that
is true. How is that any different than Bennett's rise
to the top. Wealthy, well connected, political family, lots of money,
other New York Times pages editor, and then all of
a sudden, Bennett gets placed in this position and does
virtually nothing with it in all those years?
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Are we all?
Speaker 1 (08:10):
My only point is, and it's okay, Ryan, I've said
it on air occasionally over the years. It's been cleansing.
It enhances credibility. It lets you look in the mirror
every morning with more enthusiasm. It's okay to say you
were wrong about something, particularly something this minor.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Well, on the scale I hate that I'm doing this,
that I'm defending Michael Bennett. But on the scale of
personal integrity, like you said, he's a married man, he's
got a family, right, he's a father. I don't have
any reason to question any of that. I don't know
any kind of salacious details about his personal life, never
suggested otherwise that would affect his judgment, his personal integrity.
(08:47):
She knowingly had an affair with a married man to
advance her political career. To me, that's way worse, way
worse than anything Michael Bennett did or didn't do it.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
I had never interjected into this conversation the issue of
integrat I was simply making the point which you very
adroitly are avoiding, but making the point that yes, it
is possible for a totally unaccomplished white dude to rise
to high, high levels of power, just as Kamala Harris,
(09:19):
without apparent ability or accomplishment, has risen to that high
level of power. That's the only point I was making.
Integrity had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
Well, two very different paths that'll I will agree with
you on, but I guess it'll be up to the
listeners to decide.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yeah, well, that's the beauty of it.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Three or three seven three eight two five five the
number texts Dan five seven seven three, And I want
to come back on to take you through the court's
opinion which I read dismissing the indictment of Comy and
Leticia James and then give you my take on whether
that's going to get flipped and whether those charges are
going to be reinstated.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
You're on the Dan Capla Show.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
So let's talk right now.
Speaker 5 (09:57):
Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?
Speaker 6 (10:02):
To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that
are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that
are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related
to Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
My goodness, that just confirms it.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
It confirms what we were talking about last week that yes,
they've given themselves a legal shield by saying unlawfully, but
since he hasn't issued any unlawful orders, what they're really
asking people to do, including Benedict Crowe, is to violate
legal orders.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
She just admitted it.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
And wait till we get to Benedict's comments on the
Sunday shows that those didn't help him at all. Three
h three seven one three two five five the number
text d A N five seven seven three or nine.
I'm going to break down the court's ruling today. I
read the whole thing in the Komian Letitia James case
dismissing those cases and fill you in on the procedural
basis it was not based on merit, and whether.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
It's likely that justice will be able to.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Bring those charges back. In the meantime, let's go to
Las Vegas, New Mexico. Talk to Charles. You're on the
dan Kaplas.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
You're welcome, man.
Speaker 7 (11:07):
I don't have much to say today. I'm very, very
impressed with the way the two of you debated Bennett
and Harris. I think it's it's just entertainment beyond belief
and also intelligence. You know, Like I said, I didn't
call to Carrie Water for anybody. I was just very
(11:28):
very impressed with that segment. And I just don't have
anything else to say but thank you for that great moment.
You guys work really well together. Are you working this weekend?
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Dan?
Speaker 3 (11:42):
Thank you, Charles.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
You just gave us tomorrow's promo, So I'm going to
be working a little less hard this coming weekend.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
Yes, sir am We start a trial next week.
Speaker 7 (11:50):
Okay, all right, those of us retired, we'll think about you.
But love you and thank you again.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
For an incredible segment.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Thank you.
Speaker 7 (11:58):
You guys work great to get to so kind.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Of a random act of kindness. Thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Charles three or three seven, one, three eight, two five
five the number? Hey, quick take on the court's order today.
I'm sure you've seen the headline by now that the
charges against Comy and James different types of charges. One
in the mortgage fraud for James and call me that's
a perjury charge. The court dismissing both on procedural grounds.
And and what the court held is at the prosecutor,
(12:26):
the US Attorney, Lindsay Halligan, had not been properly appointed,
and therefore anything she did was void, could not have
been legally done. And the court was referring to the
appointments clause related as statutes. And I know you're probably
driving now, so I won't cause you to hit a
(12:46):
telephone poll and take you into the weeds. But the
gist of it being the court found that wait a second,
the administration can make a one hundred and twenty day
temporary appointment of a US attorney, which it had done
with Miss Halligan's predecessor, who had resigned shortly before, but
it can't do more than once. So that's what this
(13:06):
whole darn procedural thing comes down to. You know, can
the administration, through the Attorney General, make only one one
day temporary appointment or can they make two with two
separate people. That's what it all comes down to. And
then you know we're going to find out I think
pretty quickly. I imagine this will be rocket docket stuff when
(13:28):
it comes to the federal appellate court level called the circuits.
When you're the tenth Circuit Ninth Circuit, et cetera. You're
talking about appellate level at the Federal Court, and we'll
it get to the Supreme Court very quickly. We'll we'll
find out together. But my guess is this will move
a lot faster than cases normally do. Now, another little
(13:49):
wrinkle there, Okay, when a case is when an indictment's
brought like this and then it's a dismissed for certain reasons.
Normally the statute of limitations is put on ice, called told,
and then the charge can be brought later. Because here
the court dismissed it without prejudice, meaning it could be
(14:13):
under certain circumstances brought later. When the court dismisses something
with prejudice, bang your debt. So but here's the twist.
Here's a twist with Comy. The five year statute of
limitations for perjury has already run. It ran the day
after he was indicted, and so the court's saying no,
(14:36):
because miss Halligan, the court is concluded, did not have
legal authority to do what she did. Comy cannot be
charged later. At least that's a strong indication from the court.
With Letitia James, there's not the same Statute of limitations issues,
so expect her to be.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Recharged.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
So anyway, that's the Latland three or three someone three
eight two five five text DA five seven seventh three nine,
if you want to follow up on any of that.
I know this is not a popular opinion. I respect that,
I get it. But as to both of those cases,
you know, I don't believe either should have been brought,
not because the people aren't guilty, but because they were
(15:16):
politically motivated. And whether it's Republicans or Democrats doing it,
and it's the Democrats who do it ninety nine percent
of the time, it's the Democrats who started this insidious,
cancerous law fare that threatens the very foundation of our nation.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
And the voter spoke.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Loudly and clearly in November twenty twenty four. Was that
on the fourth or seventh r it's such a great
day in history. But I can't remember election Day twenty
twenty four. But the voter spoke. Voters do not want
us to become a banana republic. And it doesn't matter
whether it's Democrats turning us into a banana republic by
bringing politically motivated charges, and by that I mean charges
(15:53):
which clearly would not have been brought except for politics,
and except for the political involvement in nature of the target,
we don't do that in America. That doesn't mean Comy
is innocent or Letitia James is innocent, and we all
know they both did evil, evil things to this country
and to Donald Trump. We could spend multiple shows talking
(16:14):
about all the evil James Comy did de Trump in
this nation, but not all evil violates a criminal statue.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
But even if it did, I do not think.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
We should be bringing politically motivated charges. It's just so
bad for this country. President Trump. I can't even imagine,
you know, what he went through and what he feels
being the target of those those bogus, bogus, corrupt, politically
motivated charges. But for the good of this nation, neither
(16:47):
party should do that. Let's go back to the phone lines.
Leonard in Pueblo, you're on the Dan Kapli show.
Speaker 8 (16:54):
Welcome, Yes, sir, I had a couple of comen about
Jason Crow and his bull hearts. I think bringing that
little montage up to cover that they filed being brought out.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Oh interesting theory, Leonard. I'm sorry, We've got a little
buzz in your background. I'm so glad Leonard from Pueblo
brought that up because clearly that maneuver knocked Epstein off
the front pages. And was it because the Democrats wanted
the Epstein story killed? Because Trump was very effectively, as
we talked about on airs, starting turned down on the
Democrats because it should be turned on the Democrats. Is
(17:36):
that why they pulled that extraordinarily reckless, dangerous stunt then
or did they pull it for some other reasons and
it just had the effect of knocking Epstein off the
front pages because Epstein on the front pages was also
hurting Trump. There's no question about it. So I don't know, Lord,
(17:57):
what do you think? Grin Leonard may be right because
in the end, you know, you always follow facts. People
say follow the money. I say, follow the facts, and
that includes the money. Fact is Epstein was a Democrat problem,
That's right. It only became a Trump problem because President
Trump promised release during the campaign and then Pambondi made
the mistake of saying she had the Epstein client list
(18:18):
on her desk. But in terms of reality, the demonic
behavior of Epstein, the mass rape committed by Epstein, that's
a Democrat problem it is.
Speaker 4 (18:30):
I just can't understand why somebody like Pambondi wouldn't have
every detail buttoned down like with these Letitia James call
me prosecutions.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Why leave that door open with Halligan at all?
Speaker 4 (18:40):
And why not put somebody on that you know can
try the case well.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
But in fairness to Pambondy, you know, the President just
days before had gone public in that tweet addressed to
Pambondi by name, saying get those two charged. So I
think things were coming together a lot more quickly than
they normally do.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
You're on the Dankaplat Show.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
You're listening to the dan Kaplis Show podcast Jason Crowe.
Speaker 5 (19:09):
So are you saying that there was not necessarily any
particular precipitating event. There is no specific thing out there
that made you decide now.
Speaker 9 (19:16):
Was the right time?
Speaker 3 (19:18):
That's right?
Speaker 10 (19:18):
To be clear, we're not calling on folks right now
to debate to disobey any type of unlawful order.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
What why, Penedic Crow? Then that just confirms what I
was saying last week. While you protected yourself legally by
saying unlawfully, you're really asking people to disobey lawful orders
that you don't like because there's no doubt that's what
they were doing last week. In my constitutionally protected opinion,
(19:45):
I should say, there's no doubt in my mind that's
what they were really doing, was protecting themselves legally by
inserting the word unlawfully, but really trying to disrupt the
military by encouraging people to disobey law orders. Decide for yourself.
But isn't that what Crow just conceded. Isn't that what
he just conceded?
Speaker 5 (20:06):
So are you saying that there was not necessarily any
particular precipitating event. There is no specific thing out there
that made you decide now was the right time?
Speaker 2 (20:15):
That's right.
Speaker 10 (20:16):
To be clear, we are not calling on folks right
now to debate to disobey any type of unlawful order.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Now I'm sure you have, but let's break this down logically.
The only reason you would say we're not asking them
to disobey any.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Unlawful order.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Is there are no unlawful orders, which goes back to
the point of why did they do it to begin with?
My belief is because they're encouraging people to disobey lawful orders. Well,
think about what that means about them. And did you
(20:55):
have these six smart, accomplished people who had to know.
Can somebody point out a logical fallacy here? I know
Eerie Mike's on the line, will get to his call
as well and see if he can. He's never been
able to before. But there's always a chance of a
first a logical fallacy in this that, whether it's Benedict Crowe,
(21:15):
Mark Kelly Slot, can any of them. They had to
know that when they pushed go on that video, they
were dramatically increasing the risk of the assassination of Donald Trump.
They had to know that. I'm not saying that was
their intent, but they had to know that would be
the effect. But they pushed go, not being able to
(21:40):
point to a single order which they consider to be unlawful,
Then why'd they do it? Well, let's go to Eerie
Mike for the answer. Michael, welcome back to the Dan
Kapli Show.
Speaker 11 (21:56):
Hey, thank you, Dan, glad to be back. What a
beautiful day. Just got off the golf course.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Oh man, how'd you hit him?
Speaker 11 (22:04):
I did not hit him.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Well, no golfer ever does. I had a great time.
Speaker 11 (22:09):
I had a great time. Hey, Dan, you know you
know you and I debated last week a little bit
about this very topic. And you know, I'm a firm
believer that you know, words mean things, and language is
meant to demonstrate intent, and so I take what their
(22:31):
words were as they said it, and that's the way
I take it.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
You give it the benefit like when Trump says something
you said, Oh, it must be true because Trump said it.
Speaker 11 (22:42):
I think I do, because you know, he he specifically
said on his kind of two bit secondary Twitter that
you know, uh, those guys were participating in seditious activities
and that was punishable about I take those words for
what he says.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
I mean, Okay, oh no, no, what I'm what I'm
looking at right now? Hold on one second. We'll take
it point by point. We'd love for you to stay
for days. But I'm looking at Trump right now. How
many followers he has on his two bits secondary Twitter?
Speaker 3 (23:12):
And how many do you.
Speaker 11 (23:13):
Mike, Oh, I don't have any heart Okay, yeah, yeah,
So let's say ten. I don't try to do that.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
Let's say ten. Okay, well, you're catching up to him.
He's only got one hundred and nine point five million.
But on that two bit second rate Twitter. The only
reason I challenge you on that, Mike is as much
as we love you, it becomes just a waste of
everybody's time when you come right out of the gates
seeing all these provably false things. Can we confine it
to reality for a second?
Speaker 11 (23:42):
Well, what did I just say?
Speaker 3 (23:45):
Two bit second rate Twitter and that?
Speaker 1 (23:47):
But this other thing which can't possibly be true if
you're smart enough to call this show, and I believe
you're a smart guy.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
But you call this.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
Show and you say you just accept what Jason Crow
said on his word, no matter what the evidence shows,
You're just going to take Jason Crow at a his word.
Speaker 11 (24:05):
Well, what what I said was is that I believe
language is designed to indicate intent, and so I read
their words, and I read Trump's words, and they're intent.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Okay, So what is crows intent?
Speaker 1 (24:20):
No, no, no, Michael, we're hoping you will unlock the
secrets of the universe.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
What is Crow's intent? Then? I mean, you just heard
the sound.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Of Crow saying, oh no, no, we're not saying there
are any unlawful orders.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
Now, what was his intent? Then?
Speaker 1 (24:33):
In releasing a video that said members of the military,
this administration has turned against the American people. You must
save the ship defy on lawful orders. What was Crow's intent?
Speaker 11 (24:44):
Well, you're you're adding, you're adding words to that because
I watched it. But I mean, what did I am when?
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Where was I wrong?
Speaker 11 (24:53):
They did say a thing about the current administration? Oh
they sure didn't that they used the word and they
did not.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
No, Okay, Michael, Michael, Michael, I'm cheaper than a therapist.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
Go ahead, get it all.
Speaker 11 (25:08):
Out, Okay. One of the reasons I called was that
I don't know, maybe it was a month ago. I
don't know, it was before I was in Europe. Anyway,
I said something that offended you, and I want to
apologize because it clearly.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
I want to get to the bottom of this, Michael, Michael,
I wanted, Michael, I want to get to No, no, no, Michael.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
I'm not. I'm not.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
I want to get to the bottom of this. What
did Jason Crow intend?
Speaker 3 (25:33):
All right? Yeah, See that's what he does. He calls
the show.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
You prove him wrong, or you corner him to the
point he's about to be proven wrong, and then he
just filibusters three h three seven one three eight two
five five. The number takes d A N five seven
seven three nine. But there's desperate flailing of six politically
drowning figures this weekend who had tried to undermine that
(25:59):
the US military last week what do you think they
were doing? Even Joe Scarborough is out there saying, what
are you doing?
Speaker 5 (26:07):
So are you saying that there was not necessarily any
particular precipitating event. There is no specific thing out there
that made you decide now was the right time?
Speaker 3 (26:16):
That's right.
Speaker 10 (26:16):
To be clear, we are not calling on folks right
now to debate to disobey any type of unlawful order.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
Yes, that's the setup right there. And then I played
Slatkin earlier, you know who was saying, yeah, no, no,
we're not saying anything's unlawful.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Right now, here's Scarborough.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
Then, Okay, wrong answer.
Speaker 12 (26:35):
I'm sorry, with all due respect, wrong answer.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
President of the United States.
Speaker 12 (26:40):
The commander in chief does have Jonathan Omeir white latitude,
just does, and the Senate can.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Take that up.
Speaker 12 (26:48):
But he has white latitude on strikes, ask Barack Obama
and drone strikes.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Ask George W. Bush and drone strikes.
Speaker 12 (26:56):
But where we know the President has said I am
going they.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
Give illegal orders the people in the military is when
he was on air force one coming back. I forget
where he was coming back from.
Speaker 12 (27:10):
I must have said, I can send the Marines, I
can send the Army, I can send the Air Force,
I can send the Coastguard into any city. I want
to control crime, and the courts can't do anything about it.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
That's illegal.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
So Scarborough can't point to any illegal orders either. And
when when Benedict Crow and the rest of his gang
came out and issue this, they didn't say that. They
didn't say what Scarborough's saying. Scarborough's now having to make
it up for him. And these are smart people. Don't
you think they would have said in the video listen,
we think President Trump's about to give illegal orders tender
(27:47):
American cities.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
They didn't say it. You know why they didn't say it, Joe, because.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
They know if they say to people, disobey this order,
hinds there ended up in jail. That's why they didn't
point to any specific order, because there are no unlawful
orders and if they say disobey this specific.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
Order, they're going to jail. It's that simple. So why
do you think they did it in the beginning?
Speaker 1 (28:21):
Anyway, we're talking about that where breaking down the court's
order today dismissing the Komy and Letitia James indictments.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
They did it in detail earlier. Short story.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
It was purely procedural stuff, the court say, and Lindsay
Halligan her one hundred and twenty day temporary appointment was
invalid because the administration had previously appointed the prior US
attorney on a one hundred and twenty day temporary appointment.
So that's what that comes down to. Now, the question
is can they bring back the charge against Kome? Can
(28:51):
they bring back the charge against James? Simple answer, clearly
they can against James, maybe not against Komy because of
the statute of limitations running in the meantime. That's the
short and simple version. If you want to kick that around,
love to you're on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
Linda ronstaid at Red Rocks. That sounds amazing. Man. Remember
her in her prime.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
She's gorgeous and she was very talented.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
Boy, she sure was three or three seven one three
eight two five five The number takes d A N
five seven seven three nine All right, uh, Texter here
and this refers to the court's dismissal today of the
indictments against Comy and Letitia James, and I've broken that
(29:39):
down earlier in the show and walked you through the
reasoning and where I think the courts, including the Supreme Court,
are going to focus probably in short order. A great
text Dan a question that goes right to the heart
of all of this. Does the one hundred and twenty
day clock reset for a different person? And that's from
JB from Loveland, Because the reason the court dismissed the
(30:01):
Comy and James indictments is the court concluded that Lindsay Halligan,
the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, did
not have legal authority to act because she had been
appointed on a one hundred and twenty day temporary basis,
which is normally fine under the law. But what the
court said is, wait a second. The guy before her,
(30:24):
the US attorney for the same district right before her,
was also appointed on a one hundred and twenty day
temporary appointment. And you can't do two back to back.
And so JB has just hit on the seminal question.
Does that mean you can't do the same person back
to back, or you can't do two different people back
(30:44):
to back. So that's what the Federal Appellate Court, called
the Circuit will now focus on, and likely the US
Supreme Court eventually. It won't matter when it comes to
James because she can just be recharged. The issue with
Comy is the statute of limitation has since run, so
more of a question there as to whether he could
be recharged or whether the statute of limitations was told
(31:08):
put on ice by the indictment three H three seven
one three eight two five five text d A N
five seven seven three nine. Benedict Crowe just digging himself
deeper and deeper.
Speaker 5 (31:21):
So are you saying that there was not necessarily any
particular precipitating event. There is no specific thing out there
that made you decide now was the right time.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
That's right.
Speaker 10 (31:30):
To be clear, we're not calling on folks right now
to debate to disobey any type of unlawful order.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
Wow. And see that's the thing. He doesn't want to point,
as I said last week, to.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
Any particular order because then he'd end up in jail
because there are no orders from this president that are illegal.
That's what's going on right now with Crow.
Speaker 3 (31:51):
So why do you do it?
Speaker 1 (31:52):
To begin with, and then the Department of War and
I'll get to the phone lines in a second. Here
the Department of War issuing this statement. The Department of
Warriors received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly
in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, citations
and other applicable regulations. A thorough review of these allegations
(32:15):
has been initiated to determine for their actions, which may
include recalled active duty for court martial proceedings or administrative measures.
This matter will be handled in compliance with the military
law ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will
be limited to preserve the integrity of the proceedings. Pete
(32:35):
He said the video made by the Seditious six was despicable,
reckless and false, encouraging our warriors to ignore it. The
orders of their commanders undermines every aspect of good order
and discipline. Their foolish creed so stubt and confusion which
only puts our warriors in danger. Rick gin Thornton, You're
on the Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Welcome, Hi Dan. How are you doing living the dream?
Speaker 3 (32:56):
My friend?
Speaker 9 (33:00):
You know these crazy people then you know like you said,
they don't think before they speak. Number one, Before it's
a lawful order, it has to go to many people.
It's if not one person say I want you to
annihilate everybody in Nigeria, it has to go a certain
(33:20):
amount and everybody has to agree. So there's a lot
of accountability right there.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
Yeah, Ran, Yeah, go ahead, my friend.
Speaker 9 (33:29):
And if you if you are growing, if you're retired
and drawing a pension, you are still part of the military,
whatever the branch is, and they can call you in
at any time to fulfill whatever, whatever the shortages or what.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
Now, Rick, you sound like a veteran. Did you serve?
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Yes, I did twenty years which branch army, hey man,
thank you for your service.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
Really do appreciate that.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
And Rick's starting point, I think these all, each and
every one of the six, thought long and hard about
this before they did it.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
I think they lawyered up.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
I think they knew that this would put President Trump
in grave danger of assassination. I'm not saying that it
was their intent, but as smart people, they had to
realize that would be an effect of what they were doing.
And I think they went ahead and did it anyway.
I don't think this was some spur of the moment thing.
Speaker 3 (34:36):
It couldn't be just.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
All the different production involved in everything else. But you
can bet they lawyered it up. And that's why they inserted,
in my opinion, this word unlawfully as a legal shield.
But we now see it all breaking down. We now
see it all breaking down. Crow conceding they're not calling
on anybody to violate any unlawful order at this point
because Crow knows, they all know if they point to
(35:00):
a single order, a single order that they are asking
people to disobey, they're going to jail because they can't
show any.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Of those orders that are unlawful. Listen to Slotkin. So
let's talk right now.
Speaker 5 (35:12):
Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?
Speaker 6 (35:17):
To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that
are illegal, but.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Certain yeah, right, they won't point.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
And this is why I called Crow such a coward
last week, undermining our military, putting the president, whether it
was his intent or not, in grave danger, and then
not having the guts to point to a single order that.
Speaker 3 (35:35):
He believed was unlawful as anybody can anybody.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
Think of a more cowardly act of importance in politics
in their lifetime and what Jason Crowe just did. Texts,
great calls, want to come back. I'll do a quick
recap breaking down the court's order in Comy and Letis James.
Do you think those cases should be rebrought? But the
headline coming up great story on Channel seven why so
(36:01):
many people are leaving Denver.
Speaker 3 (36:03):
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Popular Podcasts
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.
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.