Dan Carroll in for Scott Sloan -- 12/8/25

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Andre w l W nine eight.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
Dan Carroll in for Scott Sloan Sloaney taking the day
off as he basks in the in the aftermath and
the glory of a great Buffalo Bill's victory over the
Cincinnati the hapless Cincinnati Bengals. Austin Elmore will be here
in the eleven o'clock hour, will break down some of
what happened yesterday. And I was really I love Austin Elmore.

(00:24):
I think his analysis on football is great. I was
really debating on whether or not they have him on
we can finally put in the rear view mirror this
season and just to forget about the notion that the
Bengals are going going to be involved in postseason play.
So that's coming up in eleven o'clock hour. Also, Chris
Mindaman will be here in the eleven o'clock hour away

(00:46):
in what's going on in the city of Cincinnati there.
It is amazing the way the stories broke over the weekend.
And let me read to you the words of Kevin Aldrich,
who is the opinion and Engagement editor at the Cincinnati
enquire because I think he really does a great job here.
And this is what he wrote over the weekend. Pervoll

(01:07):
isn't just any he's talking about our mayor have to
have Purvoll. By the way, Purvall isn't just any borrower
trying to make ends meet. He's the mayor of a
major American city responsible for overseeing a multi billion dollar budget.
That job comes with higher expectations of financial responsibility and
just as importantly, transparency. When something goes wrong and the

(01:30):
story the mayor offered up doesn't add up, my auto
pay wasn't working, explanation glosses over the fact that he
would not, or that he would have had to miss
at least three months worth of payments. Most repossessions don't
happen until around ninety days after the first mispayment. By
that point, lenders have called emails, have got out, texted

(01:53):
and mailed letters. They've warned borrowers over and over before
they go to the nuclear option of repossessing a vehicle.
And the man who wrote those words is my guest
this morning, Kevin Aldridge. It's great to have you on
this morning. How the heck are you?

Speaker 3 (02:10):
Damn?

Speaker 4 (02:10):
I'm doing good. I'd be doing better if those Bengals
you just talked about at the top had actually not
folded at the end of the game, So we move on.

Speaker 2 (02:18):
I was joking with you over the weekend, I was
going to have you on to break down the Bengals game.
I think that was before we knew the outcome of
the game. I was hoping it was going to be
a Bengals victory, but I go ahead.

Speaker 5 (02:31):
No, it was looking like it was.

Speaker 4 (02:32):
I mean, and then there's like forty five seconds where
the wheels just came.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
Off and that was it. That was it.

Speaker 2 (02:39):
Then the play, I think really sums up the Bengals
season was at the very end of the game, third
and fifteen, time is running out, and apparently no one
affiliated with the Cincinnati Bengals could entertain the notion that
the Buffalo Bills quarterback might run the ball situation, and

(03:01):
there was no no scheme devised at all to prevent
that from happening.

Speaker 4 (03:06):
Yeah, if I'm the Bengals, I'm thinking one of two things.
Guard the tight end and don't let Josh Allen run.
Anything else from there is okay to let happen because
they're probably not going to get fifteen yards. But you know,
for some reason, our coaching staff is smarter than the
average fan like you and I watching the game in
terms of what's obvious, and as you said, it explains

(03:29):
why you know the Bengals are are four and ten
or whatever we are in the year is over and
now we can all move on and start talking about
the draft and how we're going to fix this, fix
this thing next year.

Speaker 2 (03:40):
How dare we how dare we applying on professional sports?

Speaker 1 (03:43):
We know nothing of it? You and I? We did
We did not play the game.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
So let's talk about what's going on with our mayor
And the question that I think everyone is asking. Was
this information kept under wraps and did not see the
light of day until after the election? Was this done
in a purposeful way to keep this from having any
influence on voters who voted for this mayor in this

(04:10):
city council?

Speaker 4 (04:12):
So so, who are you? Who are you asking? Kept
it under wrest Well? Was there an effort made by
the mayor? Was there an effort made by people who
support him? Was there an effort made by anyone to
keep that And that's the question. I don't know the
answer to that question. It was that was there? In
your opinion?

Speaker 2 (04:32):
Was there an effort made to keep this information from
seeing the light of day before the election.

Speaker 4 (04:38):
Well, yeah, I mean certainly one would. One would have
to say that this is something that the mayor wouldn't
want the mayor wouldn't want out or wouldn't wouldn't want
to be publicized because quite frankly, it is an embarrassing
situation to be the mayor of a you know, major city.
And and I don't say that because these sorts of
things don't happen to people, right. I mean, I myself

(05:00):
in my early youth of my twenties had a car repossessed.
So these things happen to people, particularly when you you know,
may not be the best financial manager, or you know,
the economy is tough and it's tough to make ends meet.
These things happen. That's not the point. But I think
the mayor recognized that, you know, this is probably something

(05:22):
that you're not going to you know, openly report or
reveal unless it's necessary. And I think the interesting thing
for me is how this how this information did get
out because most car repossessions are not in the public domain,
like unless not unless it's it's it's taken the court
and there's some sort of lawsuit involved. So the interesting

(05:44):
thing to me was who, to me is who leaked
this and how did it get out? I mean, I
think we know the site's signal ninety nine. I think
was the one who reported it. But I think what's
more interesting is is how did they get a document
that's not typically in the public domain. So I think
that's a that's an interesting question in terms of how
it got out, I don't I don't think it's possible

(06:06):
for anybody outside of those who might have known the mayor,
the loan company, anybody who might have saw the car
get repossessed when or when or wherever that was. The
mayor hasn't said if he confide it in anybody in
it they might have known, So I think, you know,
this notion of it being a broader cover up outside

(06:28):
of the mayor himself not saying anything, or people who
were in a position to know, I don't necessarily know that.
I would conclude that just because that's the type of
information that's not readily out there in the public domain
where media could do a public records request or something
like that, short of you know, somebody in the know

(06:50):
telling the media about it, well, and.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
They you know, and I look at what you just
said right there, and I can respect that opinion completely.
There's another issue that may involve the covering up of information.
We're going to get to that in a minute. But
I think you make some good points here as you
take Mayor purvol to task that this notion about his
auto pay wasn't working, that we need to hold people

(07:15):
like the mayor of Cincinnati to a higher standard, that
we need to have trust in the people that are
in the administration and people that are in charge of
spending money at city Hall. And it raises the question
that if he can't control his own finances to the
point where something like this happens, and again, the people

(07:38):
make mistakes, there are oversight see these things happen, but
the reality of how a repossession comes to actually take
place doesn't really wash with the story that the mayor
is offering up.

Speaker 4 (07:53):
Yeah, and that's why I said, you know, he's this
could be let's just take for let's just take that
what he says is actually true, that the auto pay
wasn't working. Okay, then just the simple explanation of hey
I wasn't I wasn't paying attention, or hey I got
these notices, and my intention was to take care of it,

(08:17):
and it just kept slipping my mind, Like you know,
some sort of explanation that helps people understand how you
can overlook something like maybe, hey, I don't manage my finances,
I got somebody else who does it. For whatever. The
explanation is, just clarify it, you know, and put it
to bed. And people are generally sympathetic to the fact that, Hey,

(08:38):
these sorts of things happen. We've all missed bills, we've
all had some situations that occur. It doesn't look good,
but you give the full story and you move on.
People forget about it. This would have been, you know,
probably a one day thing. Yeah, the mayor of a
major American city got his car repossessed. It's an embarrassment.

Speaker 5 (08:56):
Hey, we move on.

Speaker 4 (08:57):
We talk about other things that probably are much more
significant to the daily residence. But when you don't tell
the whole story, when it doesn't add up and it
doesn't pass the smell test, then people start to question
what is it that you're not telling us. And if
you're not telling us something about something as maybe as
simple as this, what else.

Speaker 1 (09:17):
Are you not telling us the truth about?

Speaker 4 (09:18):
And that was the point of my column about the mayor,
is is that this thing that could have been something
he could have quickly moved past. Now you've got people
asking additional questions and it's unnecessary. And I think even
the fact that he won't say where the car got repossessed.
I mean, look, it can either be one or two places.

(09:39):
It's either at your home or it's a city hall.
That's where most REPO people look for the vehicles, where
you work and where you live. Now, if it's with
someplace different than that, why is that such proprietary information
that the mayor can say? Again, these are the questions
that when you're looking at it and you're thinking about it,
you're saying, what's the big deal that we can't get

(10:03):
all of the information? And I think you know that
was that was my overall point, all right.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
The other issue, of course, that looks like it could
have been there was an effort made to keep the
information under wraps and not let's see the light of
day until well after the election. Is the issue of
the City of Cincinnati paying out eight point one million
dollars to settle a lawsuit that was brought by about
four hundred individuals who were protesting and in many cases,

(10:31):
not every case, but in many cases causing severe damage
to businesses and property in downtown Cincinnati. Do you believe
that there was an effort made to keep this under
wraps until after the election.

Speaker 6 (10:50):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (10:50):
Wow, you know, Dan, I don't know that. I can't.

Speaker 1 (10:54):
We don't. No, we don't.

Speaker 2 (10:58):
Obviously we don't. We don't know that for sure. But
is that at least a question to your way of thinking,
Kevin Aldridge, that is that is worth looking into?

Speaker 6 (11:10):
Sure?

Speaker 4 (11:10):
I mean sure, it's worth looking into. I mean all
of it's worth looking into. In terms of anytime we
think that, you know, city officials or our politicians are
holding back information that you know could be readily released
to the public earlier, or whatsoever. I think those questions
are always always worth asking. And if there is some

(11:30):
truth to that that that this was, you know, intentionally
held back for political reasons, yeah, I would say I
would say that that is a problem. I think that
the city settlement, though I don't know if it would
have made any kind of significant difference in in any
of the election results. I think, and we talked about this.

Speaker 2 (11:53):
Last problem, you're probably right about that.

Speaker 4 (11:57):
Yeah, and I think that's why I'm not so inclined
to say, hey, you know, they wanted to hold this
until afterwards, because I think, you know, quite frankly, many
of the people who would have supported the Democrats in
this election anyway, which they want overwhelmingly, probably don't have
a problem with the city's payout here. They look at

(12:18):
it as I mean, if you remember back into those
back at that time, you know a lot of people
felt like the police and the tactics that they used
during the protests were inappropriate, were excessive in many cases.
And so this wasn't necessarily a defense of people who

(12:40):
looted or destroyed businesses or did property damage. This was
more of a question of some four hundred or so nonviolent,
peaceful protesters who were subjected to tear gas being bag
pellets being shot at them, being held and detained, and

(13:01):
inhumane conditions, as I think the lawsuit said, and some
other things. So I think it's important to differentiate. And
I don't know who among these.

Speaker 7 (13:09):
Four hundred.

Speaker 4 (13:11):
Complainants in this lawsuit are, but my estimation is is
that most of these are probably the non violent protesters
who felt like their civil rights or their first Amendment
rights were violated were violated in this case, and not
necessarily those who were responsible for the property damage or
looting or the destruction of property. And I think that's

(13:34):
an important distinction because it's easy to say, well, you know,
here the city is paying out criminals, and crime pays.
I think, as the FOP president said, but that takes
away from the fact of who are the folks who
are actually the complainants in this lawsuit and who will
be receiving that And if they're mostly the non violent protesters,

(13:56):
then that's not a fair statement to make that you
know pays, because we don't criminalize peaceful protests, no matter
what you might think about it. Now those who again,
I'm more open to that statement. If you're talking about
people who broke into stores, did property damage, did violent
acts are part of those who will be receiving this

(14:17):
settlement payment, then that's a different conversation. I don't know
that to be the case. I don't know who the
complainants are, but I think we all should know that
before we make statements like that, because I don't think
we want to take the position of criminalizing peaceful protests.

Speaker 2 (14:32):
Well, and I don't think I don't think Cincinnati police
make it a habit to arrest people who are engaging
in peaceful protests, who are doing nothing more than exercising
their First Amendment rights, which we fully support around here.
But when you look at small businesses that had their
windows smashed, when you had planners upturned, dumpster fires, shots

(14:54):
were fired, all these things, and you've got Cincinnati police,
you've got Hamilton County Shriff's deputies who were out on
the street and they witness these acts take place. Those
are the people who got arrested. Four hundred and I
believe the number is four hundred and seventy nine got arrested,
sent to the Justice Center processed. They complained about, well,

(15:14):
they didn't get their potty break, they didn't get food
and water, they didn't get medicine. People were taking their
masks down during the height of the Wuhan. They were
down there at the Transit center while they were waiting
to be processed, and so they weren't processed in a
timely manner. So therefore they're allowed to sue. So I
look at this Kevin Aldridge, and I see, well, look

(15:36):
if I was on the street and I didn't get
arrested and someone right next to me was committing that
crime and they became part of this lawsuit and I
didn't commit any crime and I wasn't part of the lawsuit. Well,
now I see these individuals getting a payout in excess
of twelve thousand dollars. So how do I reconcile that
if I'm someone who didn't get arrested, didn't cause any problem, didn't,

(16:01):
you know, have any reason for police to put cuffs
on me? How do I reconcile that? How do I
escape that notion that we are paying we are giving
people money because they engaged in activity that sent them
to the justice center. We've got about thirty seconds left
and I'm sorry our time is flying by.

Speaker 4 (16:20):
Yeah, no, it's it's all good. And again, Dan, I
think I would need to look at this at these
case by these on a case by case basis, because
I'm assuming that all of these individuals had their due process,
had their day in court, and I think you.

Speaker 2 (16:34):
Have dismissed later on they a lot of them were
dismissed by and you know, and what the judges do
in the legal system do after the arrest and the
booking and the processing takes place to my way of
thinking that that's another matter.

Speaker 4 (16:49):
Yeah, yeah, and it's probably way more than we'll have
an opportunity to get into. Maybe we can, maybe you
can have me back on sometime next time you're on
when we have a little bit more time, and we
can we can dissect exactly what you just said, because
you said a lot of good things there and and
and I know I can't adequately respond to it in
the time that we have left here, but but I definitely,
I definitely think it matters again in looking at things

(17:12):
on a case by case basis, in terms of who
are these complainants, who's getting paid out what they actually did,
because I can tell you for a fact, I know
that there were some people, even some journalists, who were
arrested for simply doing their jobs by Cincinnati police and
who were probably in that number of nonviolent So I'm
not going to sit here and say that everybody who

(17:32):
got arrested did something wrong. And I just don't. And
I think that's part of the problem here with the
case that the police have is I think they want
to make they want to make the case and the
fact that everybody that they arrested had done something out
of order. But when you have journalists who are being
arrested for simply being there and reporting on what that,

(17:53):
that in and of itself tells you that not everybody.

Speaker 2 (17:55):
Arrested the original complaints jests that the curfew that was
issued by the mayor was out of order as well.
But Kevin Alders, we're gonna have to leave it right there.
As always, man, I appreciate the time, great stuff today,
and we will I will definitely be calling on you
again and we will discuss this down the road. But

(18:15):
thanks for the time today. I really appreciate it, all right,
Thanks Dan.

Speaker 1 (18:19):
All right there you.

Speaker 2 (18:19):
Kevin Aldrids of the Cincinnati Inquirer. So are we sending
that message? Is that the message that the City of
Cincinnati is putting out that we pay, we pay people
who engage in criminal criminal activity? Is that what we
are doing? I want to get your thoughts on this,
Sean McMahon, let's open the phone lines five, one, three, seven, four, nine,

(18:39):
eight hundred the big one, Dan Carroll for Scott's loan
late for a break here and I apologize for that.
On seven hundred WLW. So it was in May of
twenty twenty May thirtieth of twenty twenty, when then Mayor
John Cranley imposed a city wide curfew of eight pm,

(19:01):
and these demonstrators were out there in violation of that
curfew and found themselves under arrest. And the intake at
Hamilton County Justice Center is not set up to handle
one hundred or two hundred, or three hundred or four

(19:22):
hundred people at one time, so that processing takes time.
And so while these people sat around in the parking lot,
or as the lawsuit indicates the original complaint, down at
the transit center, waiting for their turn to process, well,
maybe they were a little uncomfortable. Maybe they didn't get

(19:43):
a bottle of water, maybe they didn't get a.

Speaker 1 (19:46):
Bathroom break.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
Sources tell me that that's all complete garbage, But in
any case, that's what the lawsuit is about. So tomorrow
there is a committee of Council that is going to
approve this settlement, and then the money will start flowing.
Over two million dollars to al Gerhartstein and his cohorts,
and then twelve grande about twelve five hundred dollars to

(20:13):
the four hundred and seventy nine plaintiffs in the case.
It's a beautiful thing. So crime pays in the City
of Cincinnati. That is what the committee that is going
to look at this tomorrow is going to vote on.
And here's the I say, I've got to copy the ordinance.
Where what did I do with it? Hold on one second.

Speaker 1 (20:36):
Here it is.

Speaker 2 (20:38):
Authorizing here's the emergency ordinance authorizing the city Manager and
the City Solicitor to execute a settlement agreement in a
class action lawsuit the captioned Kenny at All versus the
City of Cincinnati. Whereas in May of June twenty twenty,
there was a swell of protests across the country and

(21:01):
within the City of Cincinnati in response to the murder
of George Floyd. We know subsequently that George Floyd was
not murdered, that he had an overdose of drugs in
his system that played a major role in ending his life.
And it goes on and on, and it talks about
several of the plaintists on behalf of the class and

(21:23):
the city, the defendants, and the planets engage in an
extensive settlement negotiations. The city and defendants now desire to
resolve the issue. Now I say, go to court, go
to court. Do not send the message out that crime pays,
that you can come into the city of Cincinnati, ignore

(21:45):
the orders, the lawful orders of the Mayor of Cincinnati,
engage in whatever activity you like, and then eventually wind
up getting paid for it. Dave, what say you, David Cincinnati,
what's going on? Then we got Lawrence and then Bobby J.

Speaker 6 (22:04):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (22:04):
I was calling about the I'm paying if you remember correctly,
a few years ago when the girl was stealing from
the Kroger's and the all duty police officer tried to
stop her and it was late at night. They wind
up paying her a bunch of money.

Speaker 2 (22:21):
Well, yeah, we can't. We can't have people. You know,
what kind of city are we're going to live in.
If we're going to have people being held responsible for
crimes they commit, how can we possibly like them.

Speaker 8 (22:34):
Didn't they propose something if you were a criminal with
a gun or something, that they would pay you not
to commit crime.

Speaker 2 (22:41):
Uh? I know ideas like that have been floated out there,
and I don't think those are very good ideas. Lawrence
here on seven hundred WLW. Lawrence, Yes, can you hear me?

Speaker 1 (22:54):
Lawrence?

Speaker 6 (22:54):
Okay, thanks for taking my car?

Speaker 3 (22:56):
All right?

Speaker 5 (22:56):
Thanks?

Speaker 3 (22:57):
Thanks for having me on.

Speaker 9 (22:58):
I just wanted to bring up you and Kevin talked
about as far as the mayor's car being repoked. I remember,
I remember back in twenty nineteen there was an article
written by Sharon Coolis's in The Inquirer regarded Tomaya Dnard
having her car repose.

Speaker 3 (23:14):
Do you remember that?

Speaker 1 (23:15):
I do not remember that in specifically.

Speaker 3 (23:19):
Okay, well, you can check it out on some free time.

Speaker 10 (23:22):
In twenty nineteen, Sharon Coolish wrote an article about tom
de Nord having her car repossessed, and so it was
found out that she did not disclose that on her
financial disclosures to YOHI at this commission, which subjected her
to six months in jail or a thousand dollars fine
as a misdemeanor. Now, I wonder if the media will

(23:45):
do his job and get those financial disclosures of the
mayor during his time and offices mayor and see if
he reported this deb.

Speaker 2 (23:54):
Well, Lawrence, it would be it would be my hope
that there are reporters who are looking into that right
now to see if that in for if that information
is required to be disclosed, if it has indeed been disclosed.
So I would certainly hope there are reporters out there
who are looking at that at this very moment. Bobby
j seven hundred WLW damn.

Speaker 11 (24:13):
Good morning to you, and thanks for taking my call.
And I think do as quick as possible, take the
issue to court.

Speaker 1 (24:20):
You know yourself.

Speaker 11 (24:21):
We've got a democratic mayor, democratic counsel. The individuals who
made these decisions and making the recommendations, they're all Democrats.
They'll hand the money out to anybody that's got their
hand out.

Speaker 1 (24:33):
Take it to court.

Speaker 11 (24:34):
Take it to court because there's no federal violations at all.
There's no civil rights violation. You don't see civil rights
people coming down out of Washington complaining about civil rights violations.
The mayor was exactly correct when he issued what he
did for the unrests and everything curfew. We got juvenile curfews. Now,

(24:56):
now what they're going to do, and the juveniles don't
go ahead and comply with the curfew, it doesn't end.

Speaker 6 (25:02):
It's real simple.

Speaker 1 (25:03):
Take it to.

Speaker 11 (25:03):
Court, stand your ground and go ahead and let these
people know that we're not putting up with this crap.

Speaker 2 (25:09):
Well you go, Bobby Jackie, I thank you very much
for that opinion. Take it to court. But the city
administration is going to tell members of council that this
is the best way forward. It is best to settle
this for eight point one million dollars to issue debt
in order to make this payment happen. Here's the ordinance

(25:35):
right here. The city intends to fund this settlement by
issuing judgment bonds pursuing to RC one thirty three point
one four upon court approval of the settlement agreement, which
will require passage of another ordinance issuing these bonds at
a point in the future. So this, this Council committee
tomorrow is going to be looking at this and probably

(26:00):
us go ahead and.

Speaker 1 (26:02):
Rubber stamp it.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
So yeah, let's go ahead and and we send the
message out that if you commit crime in the City
of Cincinnati, you are in line for a payment. Dick
from Dayton, It's been a while since I've had a
chance to talk to you.

Speaker 1 (26:18):
How are you.

Speaker 3 (26:20):
I'm doing good, Dan?

Speaker 4 (26:21):
How about you?

Speaker 1 (26:22):
All right? What you got for me today?

Speaker 3 (26:24):
I was just listening. I like what the guy did say.

Speaker 7 (26:28):
He may have to take this to court to get
good resolved.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
Take it to court.

Speaker 2 (26:33):
Let's let's see what uh, let's see what what Jurors
federal jurors who are going to be drawn from Hamilton County,
from Claremont County, from Brown County. Let's let's hear what
these jurors think about this. When you've got individuals who
are out violating the curfew, damaging property, breaking windows, some

(26:55):
in some instances there were shots that were fired at
first responders. Let's see how how a jury of our
peers and their peers I think that, well, you know
that they should be paid for their trouble because they
had to because they had to spend a night in
the in the custody of the sheriff, and uh and
and you know, maybe they weren't all that comfortable while

(27:17):
they were while they while they were being detained.

Speaker 3 (27:20):
Were good to talk to you, Dan.

Speaker 2 (27:22):
Thank you, Dick. I appreciate the call. Let's go to Columbus.
This is Eddie, Eddie seven hundred w l W Hey, damn.

Speaker 12 (27:28):
This is just another example of the cities willing to
anything to prevent a riot or or or bad press,
you know, riots or bad news. Tell I think they'd
rather bury a policeman than then defend him in court
or or take this matter to court.

Speaker 2 (27:46):
The the notion that You're going to pay out eight
point one million dollars from the city the size of
Cincinnati to a bunch of thugs, to a bunch of agitators,
to a bunch of people who were crossing about an
issue that didn't even happen in the city of Cincinnati.
The notion that you're going to pay them eight point

(28:07):
one million dollars to me sends out the exact wrong message.

Speaker 12 (28:13):
Absolutely, it's outrage, Dan, it's out rage.

Speaker 2 (28:17):
And to your way of thinking, does this invite more
of this activity to happen in the city of Cincinnati.
I mean, al Gerhardstein is sitting there thinking, Yeah, let's go,
let's get some more protests going on, Let's have another curfew,
let's get another class action lawsuit. Him and him and
his co counsel is going to rake into over two

(28:38):
million dollars on this.

Speaker 12 (28:40):
Yeah, I'd love to see the addresses of the individuals.
There's four hundred or I think it's four hundred and something.
I'd like to see their addresses, their real addresses. I
bet they're professional protesters bust in here.

Speaker 2 (28:52):
Well, we'll see about that. I Actually, I've got the
original complaint here and some of them are listed. All
have to all have to go and look that up.
But Eddie, I appreciate that phone call. All right, there
you go, Eddie, you have a great day. Eight point
one million dollars. Let me see what I do with
this ordinance again, we're not sure we've got Let's see.

(29:17):
Be it ordained by the Council of Cincinnati, State of Ohio,
Section one, that the City Manager and City Solicitor are
authorized to execute a settlement agreement with Maurice Kenney, Quinn Moore,
wild of Ziser, Paula Bennett, Arianna Hicks, Andrew Armine, Susan Lockhart,
Kimberly Galloway, Zoe Keller, William Todd Butler, Administrator of the Estate.

Speaker 1 (29:41):
Boh, blah blah.

Speaker 2 (29:43):
This Ordinance shall be an emergency measure necessary for the
preservation of public peace, health, safety, and the general welfare,
and shall subject the terms of Article two, Section six
of the Charter, or be subject to the terms of
that and be effective immediately.

Speaker 1 (30:02):
That is fantastic.

Speaker 2 (30:03):
Got to preserve the peace, Got to preserve the peace,
Gotta preserve the well being of the City of Cincinnati,
because because what because people complained, they violated the curfew
Cincinnati police said, look, we've got a job to do.

(30:24):
You violate the curfew, you're under arrest. It's it's pretty simple.
It's a it's a misdemeanor. It's a misdemeanor. Thousand dollars fine,
maybe a little bit of time behind bars. Most of
those cases were dismissed in the aftermath. But no, we've
got we've got a city manager and we've got a

(30:49):
law department that says spending two one point eight million
dollars is the way to go.

Speaker 1 (30:56):
Back.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
In twenty twenty, the City Development Corporation three CDC estimated
that approximately eighty businesses in the urban core sustained damage
in excess of two hundred and seventy five thousand dollars.
You had windows that were smashed, planners that were overturned,

(31:17):
dumpsters that were set on fire, general vandalism. You may recall,
as I recalled on over the weekend, saw the video
of a police barricade being smashed into the window of
the Hamilton County Justice Center. The window was busted out.
People were there posing in front of it taking picture

(31:39):
like like it was a trophy, or like they had
caught a giant tuna and they were taking pictures with it.
Several businesses later filed a class action lawsuit against individuals arrested,
trying to seek restitution for the damages. I have no

(32:01):
idea if those businesses were ever made whole in any
sort of way. But if you were out there on
the streets at that time, back in twenty twenty and
you didn't get arrested, or you weren't part of this lawsuit,
no twelve thousand dollars for you. Not people who got arrested,
people who complain, people who want to agitate and cause problem.

(32:23):
Here you go, cutting you a check for twelve five
hundred dollars. Mark and Amelia, what say you?

Speaker 13 (32:30):
I would say, we need to have a peaceful protest
for against paying out to the criminals that were arrested
while committing damage to our city.

Speaker 1 (32:46):
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea.

Speaker 13 (32:50):
And I think you know, we ought a set of time,
a place, and the real people should show up and
peacefully pro tasks. But make sure that this mayor and
this city council understand that we won't put up with this.

Speaker 2 (33:09):
Well, the City council Public Safety and Governance Committee is
going to meet tomorrow and we'll see if they give
final approval to this. And Mark and Emilia thank you
very much for your call. So that's where we stand today.
Chris Smitherman is going to be here at eleven thirty
and he'll weigh in on this as well. In between times,

(33:30):
I've got Craig Banister coming up. He is the managing
editor editor of CNS News. And then a guy named
Gentry Beach with an organization called America First Global, and
we are going to talk about the new way or
the way that we are engaged right now of trying
to bring peace around the world. And it's pretty much

(33:54):
the art of the deal. And he's an interesting guy
and I hope you can stick around for that. So
we'll see what happens between now and then. But it's
Dan Carroll and for Scott's Loan on seven hundred WLW
and Carroll.

Speaker 1 (34:05):
For Scott's Loan On this Monday.

Speaker 2 (34:07):
After the Bengals eliminated pretty much Lea, someone told me
there was a one percent chance of Engles can still
make the playoffs this year. I'm not really holding on
to that, but we will break that down with Austin
Elmore in one hour from now in the meantime, though,
you know, I have people ask me all the time,
where do you find all this information? The stuff you
talk about. One of the things I do is because

(34:29):
of the time that I spent in television, news media
is I love to come to this microphone and sort
of reveal how these things work. And I've been talking
about bias in news coverage for years now. And one
of the great websites that I look at at CNS
News under the umbrella of the Media Research Center, and
Craig Banister is joining us this morning. He is the

(34:49):
managing editor for CNS News and Craig Banister, it's great
to have you on today on seven hundred WLW.

Speaker 5 (34:57):
Good morning, Good morning. How are things going on?

Speaker 2 (35:00):
Well, things aside from the Bengals stinking up the field yesterday,
Well they didn't really stink it up, but they just
kind of let things get away from them late in
the game, and so we're all kind of down on
the dumps. But I think one of the interesting stories
that continues to carry on is the story about the
way the Trump administration is blowing these drug boats out

(35:22):
of the water in the Caribbean. And it was interesting
over the course of last week, how the narrative was
spun up and then died quickly. This whole notion that
Pete hag Seth and some of the admirals and Donald
Trump were committing war crimes, and that was such a

(35:43):
flimsy foundation for that notion. That narrative died, and now
we're back to the narrative that, well, these are just
poor fishermen. That and I heard on the news today
that Donald Trump is blowing up these drug boats and
not presenting any evidence whatsoever that there are drugs on
these boats and just blowing them out of the water.

(36:04):
It's amazing to me how this story just continues to breathe.

Speaker 3 (36:11):
Well.

Speaker 5 (36:11):
And part of the problem is the media will get
that false narrative out there. They will hype it and
hype it and hype it, and as you said, then
it dies down. But dying down isn't the same as
retracting it or actually giving the same amount of coverage
to telling the viewers or readers that they were wrong.

(36:36):
I have the damage is done.

Speaker 1 (36:38):
Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (36:39):
And they said that's something they'd never do is go
back and say, look, we were wrong about this. I
can probably count and I can't think of any examples
that come to mind, but I think there was maybe
one or maybe two times in the last several years
that the media might have admitted they were they were
wrong or mistaken about something. But I've been saying ever
since this he first came to light, since they first

(37:01):
started blowing these drug boats out of the water, and
I think they're up to what twenty five or twenty
six now that if if there were indeed, if these
were just fishermen, just people out there going out for
a joy ride, just minding their own business, not transporting drugs.
I have speculated that CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times,

(37:24):
the Post, they all have they all have reporters in
South America right now looking for that one story that
one family that says, yes, you know, our provider went
out on his fishing boat one day and never came
back because Donald Trump blew his boat out of the water.
Do you think they've got reporters there right now who

(37:48):
are looking and just begging to find that story and
be able to bring that story to light.

Speaker 3 (37:54):
Oh?

Speaker 5 (37:54):
Absolutely, And if they can't find them, they'll continue doing
what they've been doing is citing unnamed sources. So you know, uh,
you really have to wonder about that. If these sources
were so credible, why won't they come forward? So yes,

(38:19):
they are. The media are hungry to find that one
family that that that was accidentally blown up by this effort.
But again you also have to wonder. I mean, yes,
people need, you know, to feed their families. But also

(38:45):
I think there's some onus on people to say, well,
this is a part of the waterfare. Boats are being
blown up, maybe I should I should go fishing somewhere,
or or an a joy ride somewhere else.

Speaker 2 (38:59):
It's there's not a longevity in that line of work anymore.
And at some point I'm thinking these drug runners are
going to get the message that it's probably not a
good idea to engage in that. But you talk about
the unnamed sources, and that's another that's another aspect of
this that just bothers me to know, when how many
times have we been lectured by sixty Minutes or NBC

(39:23):
News that look, we've got these journalistic ethics and standards
and we can't just willy nilly report on anything that
we haven't been able to independently verify. But yet the
Washington Post story where this whole narrative started about the
war crimes being committed, and all the rest of this

(39:44):
was based on what one anonymous source who told The
Washington Post that hey, Pete Hexsas said to kill them all.

Speaker 1 (39:53):
And so, without.

Speaker 2 (39:55):
Any hesitation, every major news outlet in the country jumped
on that story. Could not wait to get it out there.
How much time did they spend verifying this, tracking down
this stores and making sure that this story was accurate
before they went ahead and put it out there.

Speaker 5 (40:13):
Absolutely, And the other danger or problem here is, I
don't know if you remember the old game where people
would sit around in a circle. You'd have a story
and they'd whisper it into each other's ears all the
way around, and when it got to the end, it
was a completely different story than it started out being. Absolutely,

(40:36):
and you see that you see this in the media.
Where As you said, the Post puts something out, the
next media outlet puts it out without questioning and embellishes
it or exaggerates it, if nothing else, paints it into
broader strokes, which has the same effect. And that keeps happening,

(40:59):
and the story gets worse and worse. But as you said,
it's been like so many of these other hoax is
thoroughly debunked. There was actually a JAG officer, a lawyer
in the room at the time when the orders were given,
UH signing off on on on that second strike. And

(41:22):
you know who wasn't in the room is Pete eggscept
So so much of the of the narrative is a
skewed and as UH a media research center, it has
constantly been pointing out it's not just news that is misreported,

(41:43):
but that is reported dishonestly and in some cases, as
in the case of the attractions, that goes unreported. So
there's there's fake news, there's dishonest news, and then there's
new important news that that is just being being ignored

(42:05):
in UH what referred to as the legacy media, the
the old the old Guard, which now is largely being
replaced by my other sources. As you know that that
polls are showing trust in the media is after near
an all time low.

Speaker 1 (42:23):
Well sure, it's it's at an all time low.

Speaker 2 (42:25):
And then I hear I hear these different individuals complain
about it, like Brian Stelter comes to mind from CNN
talking about how it's it's just an absolute shame that
and and somehow it's it's the Trump administration's fault that
people have this distrust of the media. And and I
and I keep repeating the same phrase in my head

(42:49):
over and over and over, is that you brought this
upon yourself. We've we've had a pattern of this for
years now, where the bias is is just as plain
as the nose on your face. And even in some
in some instances, the the the the notion that we're

(43:09):
not trying to be biased anymore is completely out the window.
But then on the other hand, you get people out
there who try to act as if they, the CNNs
of the world, are the arbiters of fair and balanced.

Speaker 5 (43:22):
Information, and they presume that they're the arbiters of truth.
Yea that by saying it it makes it right. Uh
And and for a long time and Bosley today, they
also have have the presumption of information monopoly. No one,

(43:44):
no one's going to chant challenge and certainly no one
with gravitas because they controlled all the outlets of UH
of information and news. And that's that's becoming less and
less the case as more and more sources of media
UH they come out there and gain gain popularity, So

(44:07):
I think they still haven't gotten the message that when
they put out a false narrative, uh, it can be debunked.
Now you have some true believers who will believe whatever
MSNBC tells them unquestioningly. But are there also more and
more people.

Speaker 3 (44:27):
These days who are who.

Speaker 5 (44:30):
Are also being being told the facts And that's leading
to to the lack of lack of trust in the
media as people are seen how they how they've been,
and how they are being manipulated well, and I think

(44:50):
a lot of that is it happens in stories that
are not covered as well.

Speaker 2 (44:54):
And I'm thinking of the story about the just the
the jaw dropping fraud that has been taking place in
Minneapolis within and much of it within the Somalian community there,
and the way that story has been underreported on the news.
I think NBC gave about fifty six seconds to it.

(45:14):
And then the way that ABC and CBS covered it
was they took the remarks of Donald Trump at that
cabinet meeting talking about how they know this is garbage
and these people are garbage and we don't want them
in our country and they're ripping off the country. And
he was talking about the individuals who were engaging in
this fraud that is in excess of a billion dollars now,

(45:37):
and they took those comments completely out of context as
and suggested that, well, he just made these comments out
of the blue, and that Tim Homan is going to
go in there with ice and help round up even
more illegal aliens, and not one word about all this
fraud that when it's you know, when you're supposed to

(45:58):
be feeding the hungry, or help autistic children, or helping
seniors and disabled veterans find housing and things like that,
under all these things that are siphoning money from the
public treasury, the treasury of Minnesota and the treasury of
the United States, in excess of a billion dollars. And
this gets next to no coverage, less than a minute's

(46:21):
worth of coverage. And so there's millions of Americans right now,
Craig Banister who have no knowledge of this story whatsoever.
And that is just it is just one of the
most glaring examples I can think of how poorly served
the American people are by the media establishment in this country.

Speaker 5 (46:43):
Absolutely, as you know, President Trump is hyperbolic. I mean,
that's that's just a fact. But the media as you said,
instead of focusing on this almost unprecedented fraud, is trying

(47:04):
to spin Trump's condemnation of the fraud into racism. To
your point, you know, CNS news is up on the
NewsBusters website the Research Center today a piece up there
by Clay waters As titled TBS creeps up to Minnesota

(47:28):
Somali fraud scandal fixes on zenophobia Trump xenophobic Trumps, it
says here. Friday's News Hour segment by the Minnesota based
special correspondent Fred the Sam Lazaro finally acknowledged the incredible,
slow emerging scandal of taxpayer fraud, but the segment ran

(47:52):
over seven minutes and only thirty five percent was devoted
to the fraud itself. He said, the focus was on
President Trump's verbal fireworks and response and ice raads. Uh. So,
as you said, even if they do acknowledge the theft
of a two billion dollars that was supposed to feed
children during the COVID crisis, they have to they have

(48:16):
they have to spin it as well. But to punish
these people or to actually uh report on this crime,
we have to we have to spin it as as
racism to to to prosecute these folks. Uh, and you
see that across the board when needed, regardless of what

(48:39):
the what the topic is. But but yes, there's always
this effort to to to to divert the focus to
something that that they can pin Trump on.

Speaker 2 (48:55):
But Craig Banister, weren't we assured by the CEO of
Public Broadcasting and the CEOs of NPR that there was
they didn't see any bias when it came to there
when it came to their news coverage, whether we're talking
about cutting congressional Congress was talking about cutting federal funding

(49:15):
for these these these news outlets, And weren't we assured
by these these these leaders of these organizations that look,
this whole notion about bias, especially when it comes to
public radio or public television was was way overblown.

Speaker 5 (49:33):
Well again, and yes, uh, that's that's what they say.
I don't know how much of it is willful ignorance
or just being in a bubble, or or just downright dishonesty,
but you can especially I mean there's some shameless self

(49:54):
promotion here, but especially if you go to NewsBusters, you'll
see over the past several is study after study after
study outing the bias at n P r uh and
p B s Uh. It's it's blatant. And if you
look at the at the staff, also look at their

(50:16):
bona fides, you'll see ties to UH, to liberal activism.
But again, part of it may just be hubris made
believing that that no one can, no one will question them,
certainly no one else in the media.

Speaker 9 (50:34):
UH.

Speaker 5 (50:35):
But but part of it may just be that that
that they're in a bubble and to them it isn't uh,
it isn't biased. Uh. But luckily UH, the the the
Recision bill passed UH to to claw back some of

(50:56):
this money UH that was going to them. And as
Plump and others have said, why is the American taxpayer
having to pay for bias news?

Speaker 1 (51:12):
Yeah? Actually excellent question.

Speaker 2 (51:15):
And they You've got all these other outlets out there
that manage to do it and manage to get plenty
of commercial activity on their outlets. So just let them
fight the battle the same way. But of course that's
never going to happen. Hey, Craig Banister, our time is gone.
We got to run. But as always, I appreciate you,
and I appreciate everything that MRC does and NewsBusters and

(51:39):
CNS News all great websites and keep up the great
work there, and I certainly hope we get a.

Speaker 1 (51:46):
Chance to talk on down the road.

Speaker 5 (51:48):
Thanks a lot.

Speaker 2 (51:48):
All right, there you go, Craig Banaster from CNS News
Managing Editor. Always great to hear those guys. Way In
ten twenty six Dan Carrol for Scoonsland on seven hundred
WW seven hundred don't we u LW ten thirty nine
Dan Carroll in for Scott Sloan and this next segment.
I've been thinking about this next segment for I know

(52:11):
two or three days now, and you know, when you
have a guest on, you want to give a good
intro and then think about some clever way to introduce
the next guest. And over the last couple of days,
I've thought about I don't know, eight or nine or
ten different ways to try and introduce my next guest.
So I decided I'm just going to go with what
it says on his website, America First Global Gentry. Beach

(52:33):
is the founder. He's an American investor and entrepreneur, a
strategist dedicated to advancing prosperity through principled capitalism. And I
could go on and on and on, but Gentry Beach.
It's great to have you on seven hundred WLW. Thanks
for being here. How are you today, you know, thank
you so.

Speaker 7 (52:52):
Much for having me on your wonderful program. I'm actually
coming to you live from Oman today.

Speaker 1 (52:57):
Oman.

Speaker 2 (52:58):
We're working on the transaction over here. So very nice
to be with you. Oh my god, that's absolutely amazing.
But you have spent time working on the Trump campaign.
I also read that you are I guess you went
to college with and you are our friends with Donald
Trump Junior. Tell me about that relationship a little bit.

Speaker 7 (53:17):
Well, yeah, we've been we've been social friends for a
long time. We don't do any business together whatsoever, but
we do like the hunt and fish together and do
other things. He's a he's a great guy, and you know,
has done an incredible amount to get his dad elected
and really support support him in embass He's a very
impressive guy.

Speaker 1 (53:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (53:36):
The one thing that I have said about President Trump
over and over and over again is that he is
he is a businessman, and Trump knows that when it
comes to business, that peace is good for business. And
I think that is why. I think that's a major
component of why he is so dedicated to peaceful negotiations

(53:59):
around the world. And when you look at all these
different places where he's negotiated, either peace agreements or ceasefires,
there's always a component of all these agreements. When you
talk about the Abraham Accords, when you look at what
happened with the Republic of Congo and Rwanda, when you
look at India and Pakistan and all these other places
around the world, there's always a component of economic development

(54:23):
that is a major element of that peace proposal plan.
And I think that's just a part of what Donald
Trump is really all about and the way he sees
things working in the world that if you're a country
and you are busy more consumed with economic prosperity and
what's best for your people, then you're going to be

(54:44):
too busy with that to worry about fighting wars.

Speaker 1 (54:48):
Am I reading that right?

Speaker 6 (54:51):
You couldn't be more right.

Speaker 7 (54:52):
I'll selly you as a business guy and I don't
do any politics. I'm purely a business guy kind of
all over the world, and we've been everywhere from Pakistan
and to you know, you name it internationally. We've been
to a lot of locations in the last twelve months.

Speaker 6 (55:06):
I mean everywhere we go.

Speaker 7 (55:08):
You know, people look at President Trump as not the
president of United States, but the leader of the free world,
someone who stands for peace and prosperity. I will tell
you we were at the very beginning our team was
of the Rwanda DRC peace Agreement and being involved in
that from a business perspective, obviously, the government does what

(55:30):
they do, and we were very focused on it from
how do we start saving lives? You know, hundreds of
people were dying, thousands of people were dying, and you know,
our focus was to bring prosperity in business to a
region that's been fighting for a long time and it's
starting to work. And I think if America really steps
into that opportunity and gets on the ground there, which

(55:50):
is what we hope. From a business perspective, you know.

Speaker 6 (55:54):
You can really what President Trump wants.

Speaker 7 (55:56):
To do is he wants to solve conflicts and problems
with a pin, with smart business, not with bullets. Bullets
are the easy way, and they don't ever work because
there's always a reaction to every action. So if you
can solve those things all around the world, I think
you're going to see the same thing happen soon in
the Russia Ukraine conflict that's going on right now. Piece

(56:19):
is coming, Piece is coming, and it's going to be
good for everybody, and it's going to be good for
American companies.

Speaker 2 (56:25):
Well, let's talk about Russia for a little bit, because
some of the criticism that a lot of the criticism
that I'm hearing about Trump right now as it relates
to his relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin, is that
Trump is somehow seeking to make Russia an ally of
the United States again, because there's this Russia piece through

(56:46):
business plan that is being worked on right now. And
I have looked at this over the years. Even when
Trump has said complimentary things about Vladimir Putin, I don't
see that as him acquiescing to Putin. I see that
as him manipulating pieces on the checks on the chessboard,
because you are you know, you catch more flies with

(57:07):
honey than vinegar, is the old saying. And if Trump
can put put in a position to where he's praising
him on one level, it's going to facilitate a deal
down the road that is going to lead to what
Trump wants or the administration wants ultimately, and the deal,
you know, again, you get back to Trump's business active,

(57:27):
and the deal is a deal that winds up being
good for all the parties involved. Even though he likes
to come out and say America first, there's obviously a
component of that that's going to make America better off.
But it's a good deal for everyone if everyone comes
out ahead at the end. And I see the way
he deals with Russia, to my way of thinking, is

(57:48):
positioning himself in the United States to be able to
cut a deal like that that's going to lead to
the ultimate goal of ending all this war between Russia
and Ukraine.

Speaker 7 (58:00):
President Trump is playing four dimensional chess.

Speaker 6 (58:04):
He is winning. He knows how to win. He is
a winner.

Speaker 7 (58:07):
His team with Witkoff and Marco Rubio as well as
even Jared and other people who are helping out tremendously.
I mean, these guys are putting together a great plan.
And what I would tell you is there'll be a
tough on both sides. I think there's no reason why
we shouldn't be close with both sides. I think the

(58:28):
reality is, you know, you and I grew up in
an age of if you remember the movie Red Dawn,
where you know Wolverine, we were worried about the Russians
invading and all this stuff. All that stuff's over. Russia
should be our ally and posts all this. I believe
you're going to see Russia in the US become very
close allies. And I think we'll do a lot of
work with Ukraine too. And I think there's gonna be

(58:50):
huge opportunities from a business perspective on all sides of
this that I'm personally very excited about. And I think
I think there are huge opportunities. To let me give
you an example. Take the technology that some really really
bright Russian companies have, like a company like Novatech. They
have the best modular LNG technology in the world. It's

(59:12):
the only technology, for example, that we could use as
a country to unlock stranded natural gas reserves in northern Alaska.
We can take that technology, which we already have in
our hands and use it for the benefit of the
Alaskan people, the people of America, and to export democracy

(59:33):
all around the world.

Speaker 6 (59:34):
It's an incredible opportunity.

Speaker 7 (59:35):
That's just one small idea, but that small idea can
increase the GDP of Alaska by more than twenty five
percent in a very short period of time. So That's
one kind of example of how I think American partnerships
can make sense. But there's a long, long list of
them that I think are coming post piece, and I
think there's huge opportunities to rebuild Ukraine and do really

(59:57):
good things with the Ukrainians as well.

Speaker 2 (59:58):
Yeah, I t lot with Daniel Turner, who's the founder
of Power of the Future. I don't know if you're
familiar that much with him at all, but he spends
a lot of time on energy policy, especially as it
relates to Alaska. And the one thing that we talked
about before the re election of Trump or Trump, you know,
Trump forty seven was that if there is going to

(01:00:21):
be an economic resurgence in the United States of America,
that energy policy is going to be on the forefront
of that. And everything that I'm hearing right now and
everything that I'm seeing right now, is that we really
are on the cusp on the verge of economic policy
that is just going to store driven largely by what

(01:00:43):
happens in the energy sect.

Speaker 6 (01:00:47):
You're already seeing that.

Speaker 7 (01:00:48):
I mean, look, just last week they passed some new
federal legislation to unlocked drilling and unlocked development off the
coast of California. There's a there's a great group headed
by Jim Floyes who's doing a tremendous amount of good
work out there off the coast of California, doing things
in a smart environmental way, basically redeveloping the old Exxon

(01:01:10):
fiells out there. But you're right, Look, the days of
windmills and solar panels is over. Okay, not that there's
not certain applications for solar makes a ton of sense,
But we are in an environment where energy density matters
and it's a reality. And they can make you believe
whatever you want with subsidies and all these things, but
at the end of the day, those things do not

(01:01:31):
work from an economic standpoint, and we are going to
get back to rational common sense. Coal is a great
baseload power. It's not going anywhere. In fact, it might
even increase in a lot of different markets. They can
do it cleaner and better than they've done it in
a long time. Natural gas fantastic.

Speaker 6 (01:01:47):
Look up.

Speaker 7 (01:01:47):
President Trump's done recently allowing many of these incredible LNG
producers on the Gulf Coast and other places.

Speaker 6 (01:01:54):
To export their products all over the world.

Speaker 7 (01:01:57):
The huge deals there was just a big deal in
Turkey res where we're now taking huge amounts of American
powers to over to Turkey in Europe anyway, it's incredible
if you think about what the Administration's accomplished on energy
and some of the leadership groups behind that, it's it's
really it's a it's a great time in American history,
maybe a once in a generation type situation.

Speaker 2 (01:02:19):
Yeah, you mentioned solar powers and solar power, solar panels
and windmills and things like that, and I want to
ask you about that. So much of that, what was
going on with the you know, the Green Energy deal
and all the rest of that. When you have the
solar power things and the windmills and all that, all
that was being driven by government subsidies, and a lot
of that that we have right now would not exist

(01:02:41):
but for those government subsidies. There may come a time
when windmills and solar panels do have a place in
the energy sector, but it doesn't that need to come
along at its own pace. Doesn't that the industries that
want to develop that don't. They need to be able
to find that niche on their own and find that

(01:03:03):
sweet spot to where they can produce these things and
then have a rate of return on that that is
reasonable and that is driven by you know, market demand
and prices and just reasonableness instead of government mandate and
government subsidies. I think you were better off, yeah, doing

(01:03:26):
it that way then having someone in Washington saying, you know,
this has to be done by this amount of time
and get it done and paying out all this money
for it for things that don't work.

Speaker 6 (01:03:38):
You're one hundred percent right. Uh.

Speaker 7 (01:03:40):
It's fine at times to get businesses going and help
start businesses like we did well for the electric cars
and other things, but at some point these things have
to stand on their own two feet without subsidies. You
can't steal from one to give it to the other.
You know, it doesn't make any sense and it sends
the wrong message.

Speaker 6 (01:03:57):
And uh, I think.

Speaker 7 (01:03:58):
We're at a point where these businesses need stand on
their own. And the truth of the matter is, in
certain applications, there are some applications that work for solar
in certain environments, but most of that, like you said,
only benefited due to subsidies. So I would tell you
very clearly, I think the green energy revolution is over
for the time being.

Speaker 6 (01:04:17):
And I think in my opinion.

Speaker 7 (01:04:20):
It's you know, there are some applications of certain technologies
that help in one way or another that do stand
on their own, but most of them do not. So anyway,
we're We're excited about what's happening from a natural clean,
natural gas perspective, and I'm really happy to see President
Trump and the administration also helping baseload coal, which is

(01:04:41):
such an important driver for America from a baseload power standpoint.
I also think, you know, we're starting to look at
nuclear power again, which is, you know, some of the
least expensive power in the world and makes a ton
of sense. So all of these things can be big winners,
and we.

Speaker 6 (01:04:56):
Meet all of them.

Speaker 2 (01:04:57):
Yeah, absolutely, genter Beach before alright, I let you go.
I'm looking at your website, America First Global, and I'm
thinking about signing up for your newsletter. Tell me about
America First Global. And if I signed up for your newsletter,
what am I going to get?

Speaker 7 (01:05:14):
Well, Look, at the end of the day, our job
is economic diplomacy. Our job is to do good things
around the world and create value in the right American way.
So you'll see consistent messaging from US and consistent opportunities
out there right now. We have several large projects we're
working on that we're very excited about, everything from Alaska

(01:05:36):
to some international coal opportunities. So we're very focused on
doing what's best for America and creating a lot of
jobs and creating a lot of opportunities for companies here.
So thank you so much for your time.

Speaker 2 (01:05:50):
All right, Jenifery beachs great talking to you. Keep up
the great work, and I certainly hope we get a
chance to talk on down the road. But happy holidays
and Merry Christmas and New Year and all that, and
keep up the great work.

Speaker 7 (01:06:03):
God bless you and your listeners, and thank you so much.
It's the most exciting time, I think in American history.

Speaker 6 (01:06:09):
So let's go make it happen.

Speaker 2 (01:06:10):
This is the first time I've had a guest joined
me from Oman, so I'm very excited about that. I'm
gonna I'm gonna write that down in my note.

Speaker 6 (01:06:18):
Wonderful. Well, it's a blessing being with y'all.

Speaker 1 (01:06:20):
Thank you, all right, Gentry be thank you, thank you
so much. So there you go.

Speaker 2 (01:06:24):
Uh, there's there's a rich guy who's all involved in
energy policy and energy policy in his countries. Is is
really it's it's going to be on the verge, and
I think it's going to make economics in this country
really take off and uh and and probably be something
like most of us have never seen before. Uh, something

(01:06:47):
that we have seen before. Are the Bengals coming up short?
And I'm looking at the highlights right now on ESPN,
they're showing the Bengals Bills highlights from yesterday. Sean McMahon,
are were you upset yesterday watching the Bengals and.

Speaker 1 (01:07:02):
The Bills do what they did? Not hardly? He wasn't upset.

Speaker 2 (01:07:08):
To say, couldn't someone figure out that Josh Allen might
run the ball? Couldn't anyone affiliated with the Bengals figure
that out that that may happen. We'll talk to Austin
Elmore about that coming up. What they're talking about is
Josh Allen good enough to overcome the Bill's bad defense?

(01:07:28):
Do the Bills really have bad defense? I don't know,
but it was better than the Bengals defense. I know that,
and the Bengals won the game. So we'll do a
little breakdown of that as we continue on. Then an
eleven thirty Chris Smitheman is going to weigh in on
all this stuff going on in Cincinnati with the eight
point one million dollar settlement that's going out the mayor

(01:07:49):
and his is he being truthful about his car being
repossessed and all the rest of that. So we will
see how those things develop on down the road. We
got to get to a break right now. Little news
coming up at the top of the hour, and we
will continue on. Dan Carroll in for Scott's loan on
seven hundred W seven hundred wow, Dan Carroll for Scott's

(01:08:12):
loan and Sean mcmanhn go ahead and hit that play.

Speaker 14 (01:08:16):
Allan touching his rib area. That's a signal to the
receiver out to the left, Alan back to throw pump fakes.
Begin scrambling the middle of the field. He is close
to the first down, He's got it. Then Buffalo is
going to win the game. Josh Allen on third and
fifteen scrambles for a seventeen yard game.

Speaker 2 (01:08:38):
Austin Olmore, You heard Dave Lapham. Yeah, when it looked
like Josh Allen was going to run, he could see
it from the booth. There was no one within fifteen
yards in Yeah, and I think that play in a
nutshell pretty much sums up the Bengals season. Man, I mean, coming,

(01:08:58):
come on, did anyone affiliated with the Cincinnati Bengals think
that there was a possibility Josh Allen might run the ball?
Do we not know this is what he does? I mean,
is there any conceivable way they might have schemed to
prevent these sort of things from happening? Because he ran

(01:09:21):
the ball multiple times in that game for a lot
of yard.

Speaker 1 (01:09:24):
I don't know how many charges. He had seventy eight
yards on the ground. Yeah, he had his season high
on the ground this year was forty nine. We know
that he is maybe the most prolific running quarterback of
all time, up there with Lamar Jackson. The rules of
engagement for dealing with Josh Allen are not hard to find,

(01:09:44):
especially this season where his high was forty nine yards
on the ground. And yet the Bengals were undisciplined on
the edge. They didn't set a spy, they couldn't tackle.
They blitzed the hell out of him for some reason.
He's one of those quarterbacks you can't blitz. They ran
a ton of man coverage which allowed him, you know,
to see defenders with their back turn to him and

(01:10:06):
take off and on top of that, he's just a
really good player, and they didn't do enough to take
away the biggest strength of Buffalo, which is Josh Allen's
ability to run the ball. It was as in that
saw didn't occur to them during the course of their
preparation for this game that they if they were going

(01:10:28):
to have any chance, any chance in hell of getting
to the postseason, they had to win this game. And
when Buffalo there was a situation early on where Buffalo
had a four I think it was fourth and four
and then a fourth and fourth, yeah, and then they
didn't hesitate at all to go on fourth down and

(01:10:51):
wound up I think on a couple of those plays
what they gained seventeen yards on one and maybe twenty
or thirty on another one. It was this, I knew
we were struggling to find the world. I knew we
were in trouble last week when the defense played a
pretty good game against Baltimore. And all we heard this

(01:11:11):
past week was, Hey, the defense has woken up. We've
got some serious players there. They're really gonna, you know,
turn things around. And then we go to the Bengals,
go to Buffalo, almost said we the Bengals go to
Buffalo and then lay an egg on the defensive side
of the ball was just embarrassing. Yeah, I mean, I

(01:11:31):
think you know, the point that I've tried to make
at times this year is that you can't allow the
previous three games to let you forget about the first eleven,
which is, you know, just how bad this Bengals defense
has been. And I think sometimes we fall into that trap. Now, Buffalo,
specifically from a matchup standpoint, their play action, their tight ends,

(01:11:54):
those crossing routes, getting those linebackers in conflict, that's their
bread and butter. It is what they're off is built around.
It is the Bengals' biggest weakness. Now, some of these
teams that the Bengals have played in recent weeks, that's
not what they do, that's not what they're found upon,
and the Bengals were just a better schematic fit for
those teams. This game was always going to be difficult,

(01:12:15):
just because Buffalo does what it does, and they do
it really well, and the Bengals players aren't good enough
to consistently get off the field. That being said, they
had multiple fourth and force where Buffalo converted. There was
one where Josh Allen was just Josh Allen. He's gonna
be in the Hall of Fame. One day he threw
a ball through one defender's hands and over the shoulder

(01:12:36):
pad of another, right into a perfect spot. Nothing you
can do. The Bengals also dropped two interceptions. Jordan Battle
dropped one. DJ Turner dropped one. Bengals win the game
if that happens, Like the margin for error is so
unbelievably thin that if Joe Burrow has the ball slip
out of his hands as he's trying to push it

(01:12:57):
to Jamar Chase, you can't cover from that. Or a
batted ball that happens constantly across the NFL falls right
into the hands of another defender. It's just you said
it earlier. Yesterday's game kind of epitomizes the entire season.
All of it happened in one game.

Speaker 2 (01:13:16):
Because you can't rely on the defense for any Didn't
Buffalo punt yesterday?

Speaker 1 (01:13:21):
They did not. There's one punt in the game. It
was by the bank. Yes, they didn't punt a single time.
Didn't punt. Now they turned it over inside that one again.
Apparently the Bengals are the best defense in the history
of the NFL inside the one yard line, if you
remember that Patriots game and then the Ravens last week
and then again this week. But yeah, didn't force a punt,
didn't get off the field, didn't have that big play

(01:13:44):
to give yourself a chance. And the other thing too,
is you know, it's just down down the hall talking
with Tony Pike on the forty yard touchdown run by
Josh Allen that brings it to twenty four to seventeen
I think, or whatever it was, forty one left in
the game, something along those lines. If you make them

(01:14:05):
use two more minutes, three more minutes, different plan on offense,
different execution, probably a different result. But because you give
up a touchdown like that in two plays sixty yards,
because they can't just force a team to chew clock
or make them work for it, we get this result.

Speaker 2 (01:14:26):
Are we done entertaining the notion now that the Bengals
will see postseason play?

Speaker 1 (01:14:32):
I'm not, and I'll tell you why. Eight and listen.
I know it sounds ridiculous. Do Pittsburgh and Baltimore scare
you at all? Baltimore? Baltimore? I think is done at Baltimore.

Speaker 2 (01:14:47):
I was surprised how bad Baltimore looked yesterday.

Speaker 1 (01:14:50):
Baltimore, I think is done and the Bengals can finish
them off this week at home. I wouldn't be surprised
at off the Bengals beat them again. So that's number one.
Number two Pittsburgh. They have to go play Miami in
Miami on a on a Monday night, not easy to
travel on the road in primetime, and Miami is playing
awesome football.

Speaker 2 (01:15:07):
Aaron Rodgers yesterday looked like a completely different guy. That's
that's a fair point. He was having fun. I mean,
but Josh, Josh, Aaron Rodgers that we saw yesterday completely different.

Speaker 1 (01:15:21):
But Pittsburgh still has to play Miami, who's playing really well,
the Detroit Lions, who are fighting for their playoff lives, Cleveland,
who has as good of a defense as there is
in the NFL yesterday notwithstanding, and Baltimore again. So it's
not out of the realm of possibility. I'm just saying,

(01:15:42):
I don't think it's nuts. It's not nuts. If the
Bengals are to win out, and I know that is
a massive if, and there is nothing to really stand
on other than they could and the Steelers maybe come
down a little bit from the way they played. They
almost blew that game yesterday, by the way then and

(01:16:02):
without a bad call by the officials, they probably do
lose that.

Speaker 2 (01:16:04):
You think they think that was a touchdown by likely
should have been a touchdown.

Speaker 1 (01:16:07):
You think, so that's touchdown. But either way, I mean,
if Baltimore can beat them, you never know in that
rivalry over the last thirty games fifteen and fifteen between
Harball and Tomlin. So now that Tomlin won one, Hardball's due.
I'm just saying it's not crazy for the Bengals to
win the AFC North if Pittsburgh falters in any of

(01:16:28):
those games against teams that you know they're evenly matched with,
to say the least. The Bengals went out and Baltimore
has to play New England and Green Bay, both of
those on the road. Those teams are both pretty good,
and if the Bengals beat them, they're done. Wow. Well, no,
I'm not saying it's going to happen. You guys got

(01:16:49):
a lot to talk about down in the hall day,
Oh we do. Yeah, I mean this is we haven't
even got into the college football playoff yet, which is
fascinating in and of itself complete dumpster fire.

Speaker 2 (01:16:59):
So you are not ready to to write off the season?
Why should I?

Speaker 1 (01:17:04):
Joe Burrow played awesome yesterday and the level of opponent
is not going to match that at all the rest
of the year.

Speaker 11 (01:17:13):
Three.

Speaker 1 (01:17:13):
How do you explain the back to back under three
of the last four are at home? How do I
explain just dumb? It was the right call, it was
the right read. I think the ball slipped out of
his hands and he kind of pushed it and Benford
made a great play, and then the second one was
just unlucky. I know everybody wants to blame Joe Burrow
and people are getting mad about that. I thought Jamar

(01:17:34):
Chase was going to catch him. Yeah, that was I
thought Burrow was going to tackle him and didn't. He
didn't really wrap that up. Didn't wrap him up though.
He's got a bad risk, I guess, But yeah, I
know it's uh. I don't put all of it on Joe,
Like I was yelling, come on, Jamar Chase. Yeah, if
he would have had like a better grip on that ball,
maybe he can change the arm angle, maybe he floats

(01:17:56):
it over. It's not going to go for a touchdown.
But it would have been a completion for yards. Keep
it moving. It was the right read. And if you
look at it, it's a run pass option. On the
other end, let's say he hands it off, it was
probably gonna be a tackle for a loss because the
offensive line got destroyed. So it was the right, right decision.
Bad execution by the Bengals, great execution by Benford, made

(01:18:16):
a great play.

Speaker 2 (01:18:17):
You know, the one and one of the storylines that
has cropped up in a lot of these games this
year is that the end result has overshadowed so many
really good performances. The way Flacco played against against the Jets,
the way he played against the Bears, all that totally overlooked,

(01:18:38):
totally forgotten. Yeah, some of the catches that were made
yesterday by especially T Higgins. Yeah, just I mean, unbelievable
and and all that, all that is forgotten now. It's
so it's it's all dust in the wind. Very very
similar to last season.

Speaker 1 (01:18:55):
And that big old l up there, Yeah, very similar
to last season. Burrow had the best season in the
history of this franchise and was certainly could have and
maybe should have won the MVP Award. Jamar Chase triple
crown doesn't matter. They didn't make the playoffs, and now,
for the first time since twenty twenty, they're gonna finish
the season with the losing record, which is kind of

(01:19:18):
hard to believe that they haven't had a losing record
considering some of the situations they've been in. But since
they lost the AFC Championship game in January of twenty three,
so that twenty twenty two season, since they lost that game,
they're twenty two and twenty five. It's not good. It's

(01:19:38):
not good. And their defense in those three seasons has
been among the worst in the history of the National
Football League.

Speaker 2 (01:19:45):
So you will wait till after next week or one
more loss for the Bengals, were until they're mathematically eliminated
to talk about what should happen in the postseason.

Speaker 1 (01:19:56):
No, no, they talk about all that stuff. No, yeah,
of course, yeah, when this season is still alive, it is.
It doesn't change. That's the point though. That's the point though,
is you can't allow what happens between yesterday and the
end of this season to change what you've already seen

(01:20:17):
for the first fourteen weeks.

Speaker 2 (01:20:18):
Now, I don't want to be upset by this, but
I am what are you upset about? Because it's just
it is so much is there for the taking? Oh yeah,
for sure? And to let these opportunities? What is this
Joe Burrows six or seventh year in the league season, Yeah,
sixth The guy is in the prime of his NFL career.
And that window, I mean, we can see we can
see that, you know that windows starting to and and

(01:20:41):
I'm not saying it's closing, but I mean, is this
something And I think I heard Tony Pike talking about
this a couple of days ago. Is this the sort
of situation you can fix in one off season or
two off seasons? Or do we need a couple more
rounds where we nail we nail some draft picks.

Speaker 1 (01:20:56):
The these are supposed to be the golden years of
being football and Duke Tobin and the front office have
failed Joe Burrow, Jamar Chase and t Higgins because they
have not given them a good enough defense to keep
them in games. Again, you don't need the defense to
be the number one defense in the NFL. You don't
need them to be number ten. You could survive on

(01:21:18):
seventeenth if they had the seventeenth best defense in the NFL.
This year, they'd probably be the number two seed in
the afc' that's how thin the margin is. To answer
your question, though, I do believe it can be fixed
sooner rather than later. Number one. Again, we're not trying
to go from thirty two to one. You're trying to

(01:21:40):
go from thirty two to twenty. Can you get the twentieth?
I know that's a low bar, but going into next year,
they already have sixty four million dollars in cap space.
That's a lot. You're not gonna bring back Trey Hendrickson,
You're gonna let him walk, and you can probably bring
back Joe's of OSI or Miles Murphy on team friendly deals,

(01:22:03):
and that's still going to provide a lot of space
for you to bring in players on defense. And you
haven't even restructured Joe Burrow's contract.

Speaker 2 (01:22:15):
Getting if getting a stop on on third and fifteen
is asking too much for this group, it is. I
think these things are asking too much.

Speaker 1 (01:22:23):
For them to get better players. Yeah, okay, I mean
they certainly have failed in the draft, but they have tried.
Now trying, it doesn't matter if you don't execute. But
I don't think it's like, Okay, we have to strip
this thing down and rebuild it. I think they can
be competitive again next year.

Speaker 2 (01:22:43):
The AutoZone Liberty Bowl January two, Memphis, Tennessee.

Speaker 1 (01:22:46):
How does that sit with UC fans? M I don't
know that anyone that cares.

Speaker 2 (01:22:53):
I would rather them have gone to the Snoop Dog Bowl.

Speaker 1 (01:22:56):
I want to.

Speaker 2 (01:22:56):
I want to see what the idea, what the Snoop
Dog Bowl is all about?

Speaker 1 (01:22:59):
It just I think I think it pretty much sums
it up. Snoop dog He doesn't get enough time on television.
I think, so, yeah, does he? Yeah? Well, I think
does it do the national anthem and everything? Yeah? Could
you imagine Snoop Dogg singing the national anthem?

Speaker 4 (01:23:15):
He's not.

Speaker 2 (01:23:16):
He's not really a good say. Can you see? Because
I watched Snoop do O double G. I watched his
voice a little bit, and he's the he sings from time.
He seems like a girly guy. I mean, he's like
an awesome vibe. Personality wise, he's fantastic. I don't know
that I need the Snoop Dog Bowl.

Speaker 1 (01:23:33):
I think seventy five percent of the bowl games these
days are pointless.

Speaker 2 (01:23:36):
Miami University is going to be in that we should
we should put that broadcast.

Speaker 1 (01:23:40):
Are there is Miami going to the Snoop dogg Bawl?
I think I think I saw that. Good for Universo.
I think that's two years in a row they're in
the Snoop Dog Bowl. That's big for them. I guess
that's fantastic. Gosh, I don't get I don't care at
all about these bowl games that are not playoff games.
Don't you think they're a little oversaturated?

Speaker 2 (01:23:58):
Yeah, yeah, it's well, I mean someone's making money on him,
so they're gonna happen.

Speaker 1 (01:24:03):
Yeah, of course I'll get it.

Speaker 2 (01:24:04):
But if you don't make, if you don't make the
playoff games, then yeah, and good.

Speaker 1 (01:24:10):
The players don't want to.

Speaker 2 (01:24:11):
Play good for play I mean a lot of these
guys for UC are they gonna Nobody knows.

Speaker 1 (01:24:17):
I mean, I can't imagine that Brendan Soresby would play
if the reports out there are true that he's being
offered four million dollars what allegedly play quarterback? Uh, we
don't know. I mean, I know, I know last year
he got a pretty good offer from from Notre Dame.
I think he's upset he left Indiana now, man, I

(01:24:38):
bet Kurt Signette's happy left he found somebody.

Speaker 2 (01:24:42):
But uh wow, by the way, how about that game
that that was all of the football game?

Speaker 1 (01:24:47):
Yeah, I mean the way that the Indiana I mean
that game was just it was theater in the trenches.
The way that those two teams play each other, especially
on defense, I mean that was it was.

Speaker 2 (01:24:58):
It was like the throwback to what Big Ten football. Yeah,
it used to be exactly right. A lot of pots.
That was a dirt field. It was a lot of
three It really was.

Speaker 1 (01:25:06):
It was. I wouldn't say it from my perspective as
an Ohio State fan that it was fun to watch,
but it was interesting and I think it was good
for Ohio State to kind of get punched in them
Mount States. Bigger fish to fry they do. There are
there are bigger goals for Ohio State than the Big
Ten championship.

Speaker 3 (01:25:22):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:25:22):
Still pretty big though. But yeah, I'm glad the committee
did the right thing by not like moving them down
to three or four. A three point loss in Indianapolis
against Indiana, you probably could have at least tied it
except chip shot field goal was missed. They only knocked
them down one spot. I thought that was a good
thing in Indianapolis. No, it's in there every it's there
every year. Yeah, yeah, okay, that's where they're headquartered. So

(01:25:44):
couldn't get better. The hoois all right, what are you
guys talking about? On fifteen thirty two, We're going to
be talking a lot about the Bengals, to Tony's chagrin.
We will talk about the Crosstown shootout because Xavier won again,
which I think is that it was a great game.
We'll talk about that find out if I'm to say,
it looks kind of like you is that your son?
I wish he wish he was. All right, we will

(01:26:07):
talk about that a lot of a lot of Bengals
and uh, I'm sure Tony has given up and I'll
do what we just did and chart the past. Uh
and that'll be fun. But yeah, Monday shows are great,
a lot to talk.

Speaker 2 (01:26:20):
I also saw war Skyline has a pizza now, Oh really, yes, okay,
you you have not event I have not tried that.

Speaker 1 (01:26:26):
If some shows up here at the station, then you'll oh, yeah,
I've made a Skyline pizza myself in the past. It's sensation.
You were obviously ahead of the car. Yeah, absolutely, it's
a great great for Super Bowl Sunday skyline. Maybe we'll
be watching the Bengals Austin. We'll see you later on

(01:26:48):
seven hundred W l W.

Speaker 2 (01:26:54):
Tiger on the Big One, seven hundred W l W
eleven thirty nine, coming down the home stretch. Dan Carroll
in for or Scottsloan, Bill Cunningham, The Great American is
coming up at twelve noon, so you want to be
here for that. When I saw this story over the
weekend about the eight point one million dollars that the
City of Cincinnati is going to pay out to people
who were rioting in the streets of downtown Cincinnati, I

(01:27:16):
wrote this Cincinnati where criminals do no time, where punks
and agitators can riot and get paid, and the politicians
and judges who allow it to happen get re elected
on a regular basis. Of course, we couldn't let this
story pass without having our buddy Chris Smithman, the one
time Vice mayor of the City of Cincinnati, the head

(01:27:37):
of the Law and Public Safety Committee, weigh in on
this as well. Chris Smitheman, great to have you here.
Is that a fair statement that I wrote that punks
and agitators can riot and get paid by the city
of Cincinnati. Are is that the message that we are
going to send when this settlement gets approved?

Speaker 3 (01:27:57):
Oh yeah, you know when you think about this, And
I said this publicly and I'll say it again here,
the city did not have to settle Dan Care. The
city could have fought this and said I'm going to
go to a jury trial. I'm going to present evidence,

(01:28:17):
and I'm going to allow a jury to make the decision.

Speaker 8 (01:28:20):
Right.

Speaker 3 (01:28:20):
They knew before the election that we just had which
is another problem, that they were moving or had probably
already disettled this case. So this is all gamesmanship from
the elected officials downtown. You know, I heard the beginning,
which I just think is riveting. You're the lawyer for

(01:28:43):
the gentleman who was viciously attacked in downtown, who city
call called a white racist, who said council members said,
I've got one in the chamber, and you got forty
eight hours to arrest somebody white. You heard that lawyer say,
I'm not gonna settle, I'm gonna go to a jury trial.

(01:29:06):
Now what he's saying here is that a city you
are better be prepared to come into a court and
explain your actions, not just from the public, but specifically
the members of council, the President pro Tien who said
that Holly, who was almost, in my estimation, was almost
murdered when she hit the ground, You're gonna have to

(01:29:29):
come in the court and explain your words to us.
And you know what's going to happen, Dan Carroll. At
the end of that trial, they're gonna say this man
did not start the fight. Because we've seen the videos.
We now know that he didn't start the fight, and
so we know that the city's gonna have to settle
the case. Now, if we just gave this these group

(01:29:49):
of people eight or ten million, because the lawyers are
gonna get two million, know that they're gonna there's gonna
be another level of judgment bombs in the next couple
of years for this case that we're talking about, where
at the music festival we had a group of people
that were viciously attacked and ambushed and clearly we can
see that they didn't start the fight. We also have

(01:30:12):
Chief Washington, this administration fired him wrongly. A judge has
already said you all fired him wrongly. It was appealed.
They lost. They're in settlements case. They're in settlement talks
right now, but there was a trial at least there
was there was discussion, and ultimately the judge looked at
them and said, you're going to lose. Now we got

(01:30:32):
Chief Fiji, our police chief, who's now negotiating. So this
isn't just the ten million that I believe. It is
a two million to the lawyers in eight point one
million in settlement too, as you've indicated, twelve thousand or
so per person. When you put all these cases together,
you're probably talking about twenty million dollars or north of that.
Because we don't know what this gentleman is going to

(01:30:55):
get from downtown. He might get ten or fifteen million
dollars himself because you called him a racist on the
national stage. How does he repair How does that man
repair his reputation when you have the President pro tien,
the Chair of Law and Public Safety, members of council
saying go arrest somebody white. So when you when you

(01:31:17):
talk about this to me, it's the context, Dan Carroll,
of all of that together, and this is the most
outrageous thing that you would see because in the future,
what's gonna happen is we have some incident that's that's
five hundred miles away from the city of Cincinnati, and
which we had nothing to do with George Floyd, meaning

(01:31:38):
our officers did not suffocate George Floyd. We have nothing
to do with it. But people decided they were going
to come down and block our highways and set things
on fire and break into businesses. And one officer was shot.
He had a helmet on, so his ballistic helmet stopped him.
If not, we would have one of our officers killed

(01:31:59):
in down town. You're gonna you're gonna pay out eight
point one million dollars. And I want the president of
the FOP to understand that the position here from the
city is the problem is the city should have fought
the case and said we're going to go to trial.
We're gonna put we're gonna put everybody on trial and
figure it out, not get in a room and settle

(01:32:19):
the case and make the taxpayers pay that kind of money.

Speaker 2 (01:32:23):
So part of this settlement includes the creation of a
guidebook that establishes former standard formal standards for dealing with
protests and similar events, a standard for dispersal orders that
police used during civil unrest, and updated procedures for mass
arrests at the Hamilton County Municipal Court.

Speaker 1 (01:32:42):
So, Chris Smitheman, we are you know.

Speaker 2 (01:32:45):
They they talk about how well the settlement doesn't you know,
accepts no blame or it doesn't it doesn't find fault
with the City of Cincinnati. But now we have to
go back and say our police officers need additional training.
Is IRA really going to be in charge of the
training now? Is are we going to hear from some

(01:33:05):
community organizers on how police ought to deal with these issues?

Speaker 1 (01:33:10):
Now?

Speaker 2 (01:33:10):
Are we going to say that the mayor is powerless
to issue an emergency order for a curfew when there
is damage and and vandalism being committed on the streets
of Cincinnati, that we have to refer now to this
guidebook in order to see how to deal with that,
that the mayor can't exercise his proper his or her

(01:33:33):
proper powers to deal with these situations in the future.
And then, Chris Smitheman, what if you're one of the
ones who are out there and did not get arrested,
did not spend the night. And I'm told by people
who are close to the situation that this notion that
there weren't bathrooms available, a water or a blanket because
they might have spent the night waiting to be processed

(01:33:56):
into the justice center. What about the people who didn't
get arrested, who didn't spend the night out there? How
do you reconcile that If someone right next to you
who did get arrested winds up getting a twelve thousand
dollars payday and you're sitting there with nothing, how do
you how do you deal with that if you're one
of those people?

Speaker 3 (01:34:15):
I don't I don't think you reconcile it, Dan Carrol.
But at the heart of it is the problem here
is that the city didn't fight the nonsense. Right they
surrender to it.

Speaker 1 (01:34:26):
Go to court.

Speaker 3 (01:34:27):
That's the whole part. Court, that's the whole that. Let's
go to court.

Speaker 1 (01:34:30):
Come on, how committed are you to direct that's it.

Speaker 3 (01:34:35):
Let's go, let's rock and roll. I'm gonna I'm going
to bring my best to the table, even if I
have to hire outside council and pay them a million
dollars to fight you because of the implication of losing
control of the the strong mayor to make decisions like
a curfew here. I mean, you're neutering the mayor. When
you do these kinds of things, this is a horrific

(01:34:57):
decision of public policy. And the money that they're paying out,
it's just it's just completely out rapist. Let me also
say that John Cranley, if he's listening, if his father
and mother are listening, you know, if his wife is listening,
his son is listening. John Cranley, you are a great mayor.
You made the right decision at the right time. You

(01:35:18):
saved our city from being put on fire. Right, this
is this is where you have the blue dog Democrats
like the John Cranleys, the Tom Lukens, the Charlie Lucins,
who really don't exist anymore. They've been marginalized by this
very liberal left part of the Democratic Party. And and
anybody who doesn't believe that the left has taken over

(01:35:39):
the city of Cincinnati. These are the kinds of decisions
because because our mayor, our city manager, nor the city
solicitor had to settle this case, they made the decision
we're gonna settle the case. I believe that this thing
would have gone to trial. They wouldn't have found a
jury in our in our county, in our state. Even
if they had moved venue, they wouldn't have found anybody

(01:36:02):
that would have said that our Mayor John Cranley and
facing that what was happening with George Floyd, with highways
and streets being blocked, things set on fire, businesses being robbed,
an officer being shocked, that we're gonna sit back and
pay eight point one million dollars out to anybody. Now,
the peaceful protesters, you and I aren't discussing. I don't

(01:36:23):
you know. I can engage in a peaceful protest. That's
that's not the issue. And so the people who protested peacefully,
I don't have a beef with that. That's why I
love this country. My first Amendment right, my second Amendment right,
there's no issue with that.

Speaker 6 (01:36:39):
Visu here is that.

Speaker 3 (01:36:40):
Every everybody wasn't doing that if and there wouldn't have
been fires, streets blocked, businesses robbed and broken into. So
everybody wasn't peaceful, and so you're rewarding that bad behavior,
Dan Carroll, And that's what you're worried about. And at
the backdrop of it, and I'm gonna say this publicly,
is that this is a way that people try to

(01:37:02):
say racism. This is about racism. This is about white
people doing stuff to African Americans, African Americans, and not
that everybody that was arrested with African American. That's not
what I'm saying. It's this notion that our institution in
itself is racist and that we weren't out there doing
our job the city that we're governed to protect, we're

(01:37:25):
sworn to protect. And you're gonna see that come out
in the trial of the white guy who was beat
up and ambushed in downtown. His lawyer is taking the
right position that our city solicitors should have taken. Let's
take this thing to court. I'm not gonna settle. We're
gonna I want a trial. I want you to dismiss
all of the all of the dog one charges against

(01:37:47):
my client, because when that's all over, you know what's
gonna happen. He's gonna sue the city of Cincinnati and win.

Speaker 1 (01:37:55):
Well, Chris smitheman.

Speaker 2 (01:37:56):
When I look back and I remember those times in May,
in late May, in the beginning of June and twenty twenty,
I remember telling my wife, what are we going to
watch on TV tonight?

Speaker 1 (01:38:05):
Well, I'm going to turn the riots on.

Speaker 2 (01:38:07):
There are riots happening all across the country, city after
city where there were police cars being overturned, businesses on fire,
there were demonstrations and fights going on out in the streets.
And then these individuals tried to bring the same thing
to the city of Cincinnati. And guess what, it didn't
happen in the city of Cincinnati because of the actions

(01:38:28):
they were taken by our law enforcement and by Mayor
John Cramley. I had my differences with John Cranley over
the years, but I think in this instance he did
the exact right thing. Put the curfew in place, shut
it down, limited the damage, and did what was right
for the people of Cincinnati. And he said, he commented

(01:38:49):
on the Fox nineteen piece that was put out over
the weekend, he said that curfew in our police department
saved our city when other cities were burning. Everything I
saw was of the utmost profe essonalism and restraint, and
their actions saved our city. I want the record to
show that they did a great job. And so now

(01:39:09):
we have to for all these protesters who were out
there and and claimed about you that, you know, they
they might have been a little uncomfortable when they were
getting booked into the Hamilton County Justice Center. That we're
going to cough up eight point one million dollars to
satisfy them and make this go away, and then set
ourselves up for future protesters to do the exact same thing.

(01:39:32):
To me, is just despicable and there's no way this
should be happening.

Speaker 3 (01:39:36):
Well, let me tell you something that happened to me.
I parked when I was parking at City Hall. You're
the parking lot is across from Plumb and I walked
across the street and this young white Nile as I
was crossing the street, demanded that I kneel to him.
Hear what I said. I demanded that I'm going into
city Hall. This is doing these riots during this craziness.

(01:40:01):
I looked at this young white dude and I said, dude,
have you lost your mind? If you think that I'm
going to be somebody that's gonna kneel to you, you
have lost your total mind. Now. My problem was, unfortunately,
and this needs to change, I had to leave my
weapon in my car every time I got out, and

(01:40:21):
I'm looking at this craziness happening around City Hall. Because
we had our swat team in the basement. They're all
lined up prepared because they're all surrounding City Hall as
we're going in, right, I'm saying when I got into
that basement, from the door all the way down that hallway,
we had to have our swat teams out there. These
dudes that are big as big as elephants. Man, they're
just bative dudes like linemen, and they're down there in

(01:40:44):
all of that. I shook everybody's hand as I went
down that hallway, but I had had some guy outside
as I'm walking in tell me that I needed to kneel.
And I'm an African American. This is a white dude
telling me I need to kneel. Kneel for what?

Speaker 6 (01:40:58):
Brother?

Speaker 12 (01:40:59):
What?

Speaker 3 (01:40:59):
What the heck are you talking about? That is how
crazy it was down there during that period of time
right where people are trying to make us feel uncomfortable
as we're trying to do the business of the city.
It is unbelievable. And I'm going to emphasize here John
Cranley did a great job if he had not made

(01:41:20):
the decisions he made. And by the way I was
on and off the phone with John, I was the
vice mayor at the time, as he was trying to
sort it all out and make the decisions he was
making so John Cranley, and I don't want to detach
from the mayor here. He was making very good decisions,
and I was doing the very best I could at
his vice mayor to advise him on how to make

(01:41:41):
good decisions to protect the city of Cincinnati. But they
were his decisions to make, and I am glad he
made him. If he hadn't done it, as you indicated,
Dan Carroll, Downtown would have been on fire.

Speaker 2 (01:41:52):
Well, Chris Mithaman. Tomorrow, Tuesday, December ninth, the City of
Cincinnati's Public Council or I'm sorry, Public Safety and Governance
Committee is expected to look at this settlement, review it,
and approve it. I would urge the members of that
committee to say no. I would urge the members of
that committee to say, we need to take this to court.

(01:42:13):
We need to stand up as a city for what's
right and send the message that you cannot come into
our city and agitate and do property damage and ignore
lawful orders of the Mayor of the City of Cincinnati
and Cincinnati Police and not expect to be paid for
We've got one minute, let's right.

Speaker 3 (01:42:33):
And all I will say is that you and I
agree that peaceful protests in this country are fine all day.
Maybe you're coming here and it's all days. It's what
makes the United States the United States. We are the
greatest experiment on the globe. It's when you come and
you start destroying things that you and I are talking about.

(01:42:54):
And by the way, I'm very sympathetic to what happened
to George Floyd. In my opinion, it shouldn't have happened.
It was bad policing, but it had nothing to do
with the city of Cincinnati. That's the most important part
of here. We've gone through the collaborative agreement, we've had
federal oversight. Saul Green has given us the green light.
This is the greatest Cincinnati Police department. People come from

(01:43:16):
all over the world to see how we do policing
in the city of Cincinnati. This is a flap in
the face. Obviously, counsel will rubber stamp this tomorrow. I
don't have anything that they'll do anything different.

Speaker 2 (01:43:27):
Thank you so much, brother, all Right, you're the best
press we got to run, and thank you so much
for that. Bill Cunningham is coming up next on seven
hundred wlw

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Dan Carroll in for Scott Sloan -- 12/8/25

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

Dan Carroll in for Scott Sloan -- 12/8/25

Stuff You Should Know