July 22, 2025 • 35 mins
In the first hour of today's edition of the show, Dan Caplis reacts to Donald Trump's damning accusations of Barack Obama and his administration.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis, and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Kaplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
You know.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
And I sit here right now in amazement for so
many different reasons. Amazement at the beauty of nature all
around us, no question, I'm off preparing for trial and
a cabin in the mountain, so amazement at that, but
truly amazement. Not to sound naive, right, I'm not a
little boy, but amazement at how anti anti traditional American values, anti,
(00:43):
you know, so much of what I've grown up to
really appreciate and admire in this country. The Colorado Democratic
Party has become, and so many of its elected officials,
and listen, I understand they've been far left for a
long time time. Policy differences, some of them profoundly moral,
all of that, right, but the extremes that they've gone to,
(01:08):
you know, I just sit back in amazement and say,
how did we this great state of Colorado ever get
to that point. I'm not going to bore you. We
all know the history, right of the blueprint and how
a left targeted Colorado licked its jobs, poured money in,
and was able to execute a plan to turn us
into a radical, far left governed state. And you can
(01:31):
see the state now being hurt in so many different
ways because of it. But what has me today just
sitting back in amazement and then of course thinking about
what we can do to salvage it is Phil Wiser,
chief law enforcement officer of the state, and in that position,
(01:51):
through both fully pulpit and the powers of the Attorney General,
if you want to fully exercise and you have the
opportunity to do so much good, so much good for
innocent people against true criminals. And we all know, you
know the litany. We all know how many true, big
time awful criminals, including cartel members, prey on the people
(02:13):
of Colorado, and how much true horror and death and
rape and pillaging and bloody destruction of human life there
is by criminal elements. And we have a chief law
enforcement officer who lockstep with the policies of the left
in Colorado just ignores so much of that, doesn't use
the power of the office to try to combat those true,
(02:36):
heinous evil villains, but instead target's law enforcement makes law
enforcement the enemy, and it's just part of this overall
trend in Colorado of the left protecting criminals and undermining victims.
And what I'm talking about today we'll get in more
detail later in the show, is that the Attorney General
(03:01):
has now sued He has now sued a Mason County
Sheriff's deputy in his personal capacity, in his personal capacity,
over an allegation the deputy violated Colorado law when he
shared information with federal officials that led to a Utah
College student immigration.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Arrests last month. But my point is this.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
Targeting an individual officer in his personal capacity. Now we
can talk about the underlying conduct of this officer.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
I even studied it. I can't pass judgment.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
But the point is this, there's no dispute that this
officer didn't shoot anybody and kill anybody. There's no claim
of any kind of wrongful use of deadly force or
anything like that. And so to sue an officer in
their personal capacity, think about the message that sends about
(04:00):
how that endangers all of us out here. Not only
do we not see wiser out there, you know, and
maybe there are some isolated examples, but can you show
me any kind of regular effort on the part of
Wiser to use the Attorney General's office to go out
there and to sue personally, to go out and sue civilly,
to use the full powers of the office in any
(04:20):
manner possible, you know, against these drug dealers, against these cartels,
against these human traffickers. But he makes it a point
to sue this one individual officer personally. And think about
how that endangers you right now, if you're living in Colorado,
(04:43):
how much tougher is it going to be to keep
good officers and to attract good officers. If you decide
to courageously serve as a law enforcement officer in Colorado,
you're walking into ultra far left political boiling pot where
(05:06):
they can't wait to make you, as an officer, a
human sacrifice, where the Attorney General of the state takes
that massive hammer and sues you personally. And as the
son of a cop, and a cop who I am
absolutely certain never did anything wrong in his thirty year career,
but as the son of a cop, the idea that
(05:28):
the Attorney General of the state would sue an individual
officer in their personal capacity to make an example of
them like this.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
It's a kind.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Of thing that's going to cause a lot of good
cops to never come here and a lot of good
cops to leave. But do you think Phil Wiser cares
about that? No, not at all. And think about the
issue he's acting on it again, the particular behavior of
this underlying officer who's not accused of assaulting anybody or
beating anybody or shooting anybody.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
You know, whether he violated Colorado statute or not, I
don't know, but this I do know.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
I know that we can point to lots and lots
and lots of women who have been raped by people
here illegally. And that's no comment on the college student
this officer interacted with. I assume she's a very fine
person who's never done anything wrong in her life.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
That's not the point.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
But the point is we have had a massive amount
of the worst kinds of crime committed by people in
this state I legally, And how often have you heard
Phil Wiser express any concern about that? And I understand
it's a very small percentage of the people who come
to our state I legally, who commit crimes like that,
(06:42):
But there shouldn't be one if you're attorney general of
this state, there shouldn't be any.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Acceptable casualty rate.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
But rather than focus they're the massive power of his
office and there are a lot of great attorneys there
and tons of money. Rather than focus that effort on
protecting Colorado's from being further preyed upon by folks who
come here illegally and commit heinous crimes, he singles out
an individual officer and sues that officer personally as some
(07:12):
kind of political stunt to get him self attention during
a campaign at whose expense.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Not his.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
You can bet he has plenty of security. But everybody
else living in Colorado who's very lives and quality of
life depend on being able to attract and keep good officers.
How did what the attorney general of this state do
just do? How did that help any of the rest
of the people of Colorado who just want to go
about their lives with safety, and we're all dependent on
(07:41):
law enforcement for that. So, yeah, that's what I'm amazed
at that a state like this could go so wildly
pro criminal. And again, I'm not talking about the young
lady involved in this incident, not at all. I'm just
talking about this pro criminal, pro person here legally who
commits other crimes and then bring the hammer of the
(08:02):
state down on an individual officer through a suit in
their personal capacity. And I understand that the significance of
that may be lost at times, but when law enforcement
officers get sued and we in our practice, you know,
we do not do that because my dad was a cop,
and he was a great cop. And listen, sometimes any
human endeavor, it could be lawyers, it could be doctors,
(08:24):
it could be cops. God forbidden, it has been on
occasion a priest. Any human endeavor, you're going to get
some bad apples. And if somebody wrongfully hurts somebody, then yeah,
there should be justice. We just choose in our office
not to do those particular cases because my dad was
a cop. We represent so many law enforcement officers, but
(08:47):
when officers get sued, it's almost always a case of
getting sued through the department for the Attorney General to command,
and there are some cases in individual capacity, but for
the Attorney General to commit the attorney general and target
this officer in Masa County to sue this deputy in
(09:08):
their personal capacity, that's a really big deal and it's
really really harmful to the state of Colorado. You're telling
me there's no other way the Attorney general could have
assured that if this officer did violate a Colorado statute
in the way he handled this particular individual, that wouldn't
happen again.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
There's no other way he could have accomplished it.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
No wiser decided to grandstand and do something really bad
and really rare, which is why it gets news to
make himself a hero on the left at the expense
of whom everybody else, right, everybody else in Colorado depends
on law enforcement for safety. So yeah, that's what we've
got in Colorado right now. So lots to talk about.
(09:52):
I want to come back. I'll take your calls and
text on that, But I also want to talk about
President Trump today very directly accusing Barack Obama of treason.
Are their prosecutions coming of Barack Obama? Should there be
three or three seven one three eight two five five
takes d a n five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
You're on the dan Capla Show.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
And now back to the dan Caaplas Show podcast, which
hut that.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
You should be talking about is they caught President Obama
absolutely called Chelsea Gabbert.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
What they did to this country in.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Twenty sixteen, starting in twenty sixteen, but going up all
the way going up to twenty twenty of the election,
they tried to rig the election.
Speaker 5 (10:42):
Then they got.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Caught and there should be very severe consequences.
Speaker 5 (10:45):
So that you know, when we.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Caught Hillary Clinton, I said, you know what, let's not
let's not go too far here. It's the ex wife
of a president, and I thought it was sort of.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Terrible and I let her off the hook and a
very happy idea. But it's time to start after what
they did to.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Me, and whether it's right or wrong, it's time to
go after people.
Speaker 5 (11:09):
Obama's been caught directly. So people say, oh, you know
a group, It's not a group, it's Obama.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
His orders are on the paper, the papers are signed,
The papers came right out of their office. They send
everything to be highly classified. Well the highly classified it
has been released. And what they did in twenty sixteen
and in twenty twenty.
Speaker 5 (11:30):
Is very criminal. It's criminal at the highest level.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
Now this is a big deal. I want to break
this down with you. Gets your take on it?
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Three or three seven one, three eight two five five
text D and five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
I mean, obviously, you have a very.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Successful sitting president who is accusing a former president of treason.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
And that's a big deal.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
I mean, even in our kind of you very intense
political climate right now, that's not nothing. So I want
to dig into, want to get your take out of
mine on whether he's right, whether it actually happened, and
then critically on whether it can be proven in a court,
because as you know, there's a difference between the truth
and proof. And I've spent my professional life proving the truth,
(12:16):
and there are many times when you know something is
absolutely true and then it takes a lot of really
hard work to be able to go out and prove it.
Can they prove this or do you disagree and think
it's just not true?
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Obama didn't do that. But clearly the president setting this
up right now is one of two things. Right This
is either a.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Short lived shot that he really wants to take because
there's no doubt in his mind that it is true.
And if we're talking about you know, Barack Obama intentionally
trying to create this impression that Donald Trump was illegitimate
and that Russia had colluded with Trump to steal the election.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Etc.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Zero dumb Obama did that right? Now, big difference between
that and did he commit a crime? Did he commit
a provable crime? I mean, those are different issues that
I want to start to dissect with you. Three or
three seven one three eight two five five texts d
An five seven seven three nine. So it's either the
president taking that shot because he believes that it's true,
(13:20):
and obviously he's been He's been wronged more than any
president in our history who was not assassinated, right and
lord knows had tried to assassinate him, but he has
been so severely wronged. It may just be him wanting
to come out and make sure he put that marker down,
let everybody know what he thinks happened. Or it may
be that that DJ is preparing to prosecute. So we've
(13:43):
got one of those two scenarios, which do you.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Think it is?
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Again, you can text us DAN five seven seven three
nine Before we get to the money bite, and this
is where you know, the President just comes out and
says directly that Obama committed treason. Interesting company made there,
and I'm sure he meant to say the wife of
an ex president rather than the ex wife of a president,
but in referring to Hillary Clinton, confirming that he had
(14:09):
made the decision, you know, not to have her prosecuted,
because I think clearly if it had just been a
straight up DOJ followed the evidence deal, that she would
have been prosecuted because I think she was clearly guilty.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Now it's been a while, so I haven't.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Looked into the double jeopardy issues and whether you know
the fact that you know the prior administration had taken
a pass on that obviously a corrupt decision in my opinion,
whether that would create any double jeopardy kind of issues,
But it makes perfect sense to me that Trump had
made that decision, No, don't want to go after And
(14:45):
that's the irony, right he came into office. He came
into office ready to appoint let bygones be bygones, and
then go try to serve the country, whereas the left
came in to execute a coup. And I am prattell
stopped talking about it, probably never, but I'm very proud
of the fact that I called it a coup at
the time that was happening, and now in retrospect, I
(15:07):
think everybody can see that it was a coup.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
Attempt.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
All right, the president directly saying it, cut forty two plays.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
But the leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack
Hussein Obama.
Speaker 5 (15:20):
Have you heard of him? And except for the.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Fact that he gets shielded by the press for his
entire life.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
That's the one they look. He's guilty. Is that a question?
Speaker 1 (15:32):
You know?
Speaker 5 (15:32):
I like to say, let's give it time. It's there.
He's guilty. They this was treason. This was every word
you can think of.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
They tried to steal the election, They tried to obfuscape
the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined,
even in other countries.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Yeah, so just directly accusing him of treason. We've talked
about it before, we will again. We can break down
the legal elements, but keep it in mind obviously that
that DOJ. You know, DOJ works under the president. I mean,
obviously presidents in theory distance themselves from DJ.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Obviously, administration the.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Opposite of that, at least when it comes to individual
charging decisions.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
But what do you think do you think that DOJ is.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Is actually following through in the process of following through
the criminal charges, because normally you would think the president
would not go that far unless he believed it was
provable and.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
That DOJ was going to act on it.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
So I want to get your take on that and
break it down in some more detail three h three
seven one three eight two five five text d an
five seven seven three nine. As we sit here right now,
my personal belief and my instincts are normally pretty good
on these things. But I don't have access to this
classified information right so all I can do is is
(16:59):
break it down for what's publicly available, based on what's
publicly available. Bottom line for me is I do think
that President Obama did try to destroy, undermine, subvert the
Trump presidency with a false allegation that Trump had colluded
with Russia to win the election. So I think President
(17:20):
Obama did try to destroy Trump personally as well as
his presidency with the false allegation. Do I think that
there is the kind of proof that you would need
to bring charges and to convict on such charges. No,
my hunches there is not. And the reason I say
that is that Barack Obama, I think, is a smart operator,
(17:45):
and I don't think there's any way in the world
that he would that he would have allowed the kind
of evidentiary trail that would be necessary to prove the charges,
to bring the charges, let alone prove them if I'm
about what came down.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
So that's my take on it. Love to get yours.
We have that.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
We have a whole lot more going on today as well.
Three or three someone three eight two five five text
d A N five seven seven three nine. And of
course we have to follow up on the Mayor of Denver,
Mike Johnston with his latest inspirational words.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Kind of our own bag Dad Bob.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
It's gotten so ludicrous it's hard to even get mad
about it anymore.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
You just have to kind of marvel and feel sorry
for him. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
If you look at that those papers, they have a
stone called and it was President Obama.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
It wasn't lots of people all over the place. It
was them too.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
But the leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack
Hussein Obama.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
Have you heard of him? And except for the fact
that he gets shielded by.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
The press for his entire life, that's the one they
look He's guilty.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
Is that a question?
Speaker 6 (19:08):
You know?
Speaker 5 (19:08):
I like to say, let's give it time, it's there.
He's guilty. They this was treason. This was every word
you can think of.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
They tried to steal the election, They tried to obfuscate
the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined,
even in other countries.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
Yeah, laying down the marker.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
So do you expect to see a prosecution at this point?
Three or three seven one three eight two five five
the number text d A N five seven seven three nine.
Do you want to see a prosecution at this point?
Texter Dan All this is just to wag the dog,
diversion away from the Epstein issue, trees and coup. January sixth,
Trump wasn't leaving until they forced him out. Criminal was
(19:55):
one problem with that theory. He did leave, But I'm
sure a text would not want to be bothered with
those facts in a wag the dog.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Hey, you know timing. Of course, that's a fair question.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
As a president doing this now to distract from this
Epstein mess, maybe that that wouldn't make it any less true.
And again, I think we're in a situation where there's
no question in my mind Barack Obama was trying to
undermine the Trump presidency. A coup I'm not using it
in the legal sense, but in the reality sense. With
(20:28):
these false allegations of Russian colusion, no doubt in my
mind that happened. And I'm equally confident that the administration
won't be able to bring a criminal case and prove
those charges because I think Obama was too smart to
leave that kind of trail. But we will find out together,
right Dan, the majority is passing laws that weaken the
(20:49):
rule of law. Any official with credible info of a
crime should be expected to report it to proper authorities,
not be barred by law and prosecuted for doing it.
The Age is acting in a shameful manner. That's Representative
Chris Richardson House Sister fifty six representative always welcome to
join us on the show, so appreciate that at any point.
(21:09):
But we were talking about earlier where Phil Wiser now
is targeting an individual, sheriff's deputy in Mason County and
suing him individually in his personal capacity, allegedly for passing
along information to Ice about a motorist. He stopped, and
I was just talking about the very chilling it's a
nicety legal word effect that it's going to have on
(21:32):
the ability to keep and recruit police officers to the state,
regardless of the underlying circumstances. He's not accused of physical assault,
he's not accused of excessive force or anything else like that.
So for the age of a state to target an
individual officer and bring a personal civil lawsuit against that officer, yeah,
(21:52):
that is just the epitome of the anti cop anti.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
Rule of law.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Left we have right now trail three seven, three eight,
two five five the number I Hey, want to get
to some other hot sound of the day. But I
know one big question as we kick all this around is, hey,
what is treason under the law? And is President Trump
suggesting Obama can be prosecuted? And I don't think the
(22:19):
president's suggesting that because I don't see any way that
he could be. Listen, if President Obama left the kind
of trail, the kind of evidentiary trail it would take
to bring criminal charges here, from everything I can see,
it wouldn't be criminal charges for treason because treason is
really narrow.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
No, listen, big grain of salt here. Okay.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
I don't practice criminal law. I do catastrophic injury and
wrungful death work. So you know, I've covered some big
criminal trials in our country, including you know, Rodney King, O. J. Simpson,
Mike Tyson. I think I have a pretty good instinct
for it, but it's not what I practice. So in
terms of treason, no, treason is is very narrow. It's
(23:02):
the only crime defined by the Constitution, Article three, Section three.
Treason against the United States show consists only in levying
war against them or in adhering to their enemies giving
them aid and comfort. Now, the second part of that
is more broad, right, But what the case is, and
there've only been forty prosecutions over the years, what the
(23:22):
cases say is there has to be a specific intent
to betray your country, and then you get into the
different forms of aiding the enemy. So let's say that
what the President said and what I personally believe to
be true is true, and that Barack Obama is set
about to destroy the Trump presidency through this false allegation
(23:43):
of collusia with Russia. I don't think that meets the
definition of treason at that point because it wouldn't have
been done to aid a specific enemy. Now, somebody out
there who practices trees in law, you know, God love
you you're probably ready for a good meal, but but
I'd love to get your.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Take on it.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
Now.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
Listen, if President Obama did what I personally believe he did,
and what I'm saying I don't believe can be proven
and proven in a court of law. So I think
he's too smart to leave that trail. If he did
leave a trail and there were crimes that could be pursued,
I think it's more likely to be along the lines
of sedition, seditious conspiracy, And that's a different cat. That's
(24:27):
where you're talking about two or more conspiring to overthrow,
put down, or destroyed by force the US government or
prevented from carrying out its lawful functions. And so that
would seem to fit better the accusation against President Obama.
So if they had the proof, and if you ever
(24:47):
did see criminal charges, I think it would be more
in that category.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
Certainly sub trifuge.
Speaker 7 (24:53):
Dan And there has been a statement issued by the
Obama camp from Patrick Rodenbush, office of President Barack Obama.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
I may it reads quote.
Speaker 7 (25:02):
Out of respect for the office of the Presidency, our
office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation
flowing out of this White House with a response.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.
Speaker 7 (25:15):
These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
Do you think we'll see a lawsuit? I think we'll
see a definition suit.
Speaker 7 (25:25):
Dan, wouldn't that bear out? If these are patently false?
They wouldn't just issue a statement, they'd have the lawsuit
to come along with it, as we've seen President Trump
do against ABC and CBS.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Yet knowing fairness, and I understand that that line of thought,
but in fairness which you always risk right when you're
the target of defamation. And I'm not saying Obama has
been defamed by Trump. My personal belief is that Obama
did engage in that type of behavior, but that there
won't be criminal charges and there won't be the evidence
(25:57):
to prove criminal charges.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
Okay, now, Ryan, you know that the dilemma.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Always for somebody falsely accused is you know, if you sue.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
You call more attention to it.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
So I don't think it's fair to just sit back
here and say, well, somebody didn't file suits, So that's
an admission. But but listen, you know that Trump, now
he's right he was the hunted in the worst kind
of and the most unfair kind of way. Now he's
the hunter and he has an awful lot of resources
as the hunter right now. So if the proof is there,
(26:30):
if the proof is there, then his DOJ should be
able to bring those charges.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
How did One thing I'd love.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
To know from you and everybody is is would that
be good for this country? You know, my personal belief
is that, hey, you got to follow the facts. We
got to have one justice system, and if the proof
was there, you got to pursue that proof and bring
the charges.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
But do you expect to see a prosecution?
Speaker 7 (26:53):
I mean that'll depend on Pam bonding and whether there's
teeth in our Department of Justice. We saw, you know,
all these haphazard lawsuits being filed against Donald Trump by
Merrick Garland.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
And Jack Smith and ridiculousness. This actually happened.
Speaker 7 (27:06):
This is all a product of projection against Donald Trump,
and I would not hold it against him one bit.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Dan.
Speaker 7 (27:12):
If Donald Trump fired back to send a message and
set a president that no president will be undermined in
this way by his predecessor, that is what happened here.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Well, Well, listen, I'll take it a step further. If
the proof is there, he has an absolute obligation to prosecute,
and if the proof is not there, he has an
obligation not to prosecute, even if he believes it's likely true.
Speaker 3 (27:36):
I think it's that simple.
Speaker 7 (27:39):
And we have a clip coming back Dan that I
just found that I thought aged very well for President
Trump and not so well for a certain reporter interviewing him.
Speaker 3 (27:47):
Well, I cannot wait for that and the announcement.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
I'm sure there's great suspense over this, especially at the
corner bar.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
I'll put that in quotes. That was from Polis.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
He has announced the results of the statewide survey over
his bridge to nowhere.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
You're on the Dan Campler.
Speaker 4 (28:04):
Show and now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 6 (28:15):
The biggest scandal was when they spied on my campaign.
They spied in my campaign. There's no real evidence of that,
of course, there isn't all over the place. Leslie spied
on my campaign, and they got can.
Speaker 5 (28:27):
I say something?
Speaker 1 (28:28):
You know, this is sixty minutes and we can't put
on things.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
We can't verify it because it's bad for Biden. We
can't things we can't verify Leslie.
Speaker 5 (28:38):
They spy to my camp. We can's fine totally verify.
Speaker 6 (28:41):
No, it's been to just go down and get the papers.
They spied on my campaign. They got caught. No, and
then they went much further than that, and they got caught.
And you will see that leslie and you know that,
but you just don't want to know.
Speaker 5 (28:54):
As a matter of fact, I don't know that.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
For the arrogance of the media. Right when the media
either knows it's wrong or should know that it's wrong,
I means it is amazing what Trump has been able
to accomplish.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Right in the face of all that.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
And let me throw this question out there, and again,
I don't think. I don't know that we could find
anybody who's been more fair and balanced on Trump, praising
him when he deserves it, also criticize him when he
deserves it. But could there be Ryan, Can you think
of any president, any president in let's say our lifetime,
who could have stood up, endured overcome what Trump did.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
No, not even close.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
How about an American.
Speaker 7 (29:39):
History Maybe George Washington, I mean he defeated the British Empire.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Yeah, No, I think Washington could do it. I think
Lincoln could do it. I think Teddy Roosevelt could do it.
It's a short list. I think FDR could do it.
Maybe JFK. Maybe Reagan, maybe that maybe the line right there.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
Maybe.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
I mean yeah, very very few presidents in American history
could have and none of them, none of the other
greats that we just mentioned, had ever faced anything like
this because they didn't live in an era when those
kind of technological weapons were available. Technological and media weaponry
was available to try to take down a president personally
(30:31):
and professionally. So it really is astounding that he was
able to do that, and I do think it's launched
him into this second term with more credibility, more street cred,
more political cred, more political capital, a more deterrent effect
on enemies than maybe any president in our lifetime, just
(30:53):
because of everything he overcame.
Speaker 7 (30:54):
I'm thinking of two instances. One we just heard with
Leslie Stall and you mentioned her arrogance. This is sixty minutes, sweet,
don't report. Well, we can't verify he didn't bother to
do the investigative journalism it required to report on it, Leslie.
Speaker 4 (31:06):
And then prior to that, Dan the whole.
Speaker 7 (31:08):
Charlottesville hoax and Donald Trumps standing up there and I've
got the sound he's going back and forth with Jim
Acosta CNN, and he said, you didn't say there were
very fine people on both sides. He said there were
some troublemakers on both sides, and there were good people
on both sides. And he gave that in context. And
then Acosta was asking him about tearing down statues.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
He goes, you like Thomas Jefferson, you like George Washington.
They're going to come from them.
Speaker 7 (31:31):
Next, and a Costa admitted that Jefferson was his favorite president.
Guess what happened? They were tearing down Jefferson and Washington memorials.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
Yeah, but think about I mean, and this is part
of the great contribution Trump has made to the future
of the nation, and that is that the media has
destroyed itself in the course of abandoning all ethics, honesty, etc.
To destroy Trump. The media destroyed itself. And there are
still some really, really talented and good people in it,
(32:02):
sprinkled throughout the media, but as an entity right now,
I mean, what's the latest polling on media versus What
do you think the least respected job category is in America?
Speaker 4 (32:18):
I think it's the two that you and I do, Dan.
Speaker 7 (32:20):
I think it's geralists and lawyers, Okay, America.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
I don't know, we'd have to look it up. I
know people always used car salesman minimums. Cars are getting
better and better, that's right.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
So yeah, but my point is media now is probably
below all of us.
Speaker 7 (32:35):
I'll say this, Dan, Donald Trump certainly outpolls both the
media mainstream and how people feel about them favorable or unfavorable.
Speaker 4 (32:42):
And congressional Democrats.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Yeah, but I'm just talking about long term in this country.
Media really buried itself and hopefully it will come back
someday in an incredible, honest form, But it really did
bury itself. And how about let's go with thirty five? Please,
just to remind people, Russia hacking the election to elect Trump?
Speaker 4 (33:06):
What is the end of our box?
Speaker 7 (33:07):
Every votes were definitely affected, But you're Russia hacked the
election to tilted to mister Trump.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
The Russians definitively hacked the election.
Speaker 5 (33:14):
Russia did hack the election, no doubt.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
The Russians hacked the election. Yes, Russia hacked the elections.
Packed Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
President elect Donald Trump still not sounding convinced that Russia
hacked the election. The President does not want to come
to terms with the fact that the Russians hacked the election.
President Trump says he still wonders if if the Russians
packed the election, if.
Speaker 7 (33:37):
You can get them to accept that Russia hacked the election,
see if you can get them to.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
Accept who won the Civil Wars.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
If he admits it, it casts a shadow on his
victory over Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 4 (33:46):
Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 3 (33:48):
Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
Russia hacked the election. Russia hacked the election. Let's be clear,
Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
Definitively.
Speaker 4 (33:56):
Russia hacked the election, and Russia is doing it again
now election related cyber hacking.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
Cyber hacking of US elections, cyber hacking of the election.
Speaker 4 (34:06):
Russia was cyber hacking the election. Russia was cyber hacking.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
Let me off, hacks me off.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
But we need to be reminded of that, right And
so if you just joined us, thank you. What we're
talking about is President laid down the mark today. We'll
play it again in the next segment. Said Obama committed treason.
And does that mean we're soon going to see charges
from DJ If we see any charges, which I doubt
They're not going to be charges of treason. I broke
that down and why it's virtually impossible to prove. And
(34:35):
if Obama is guilty as charged here, you know, or
as charged in the court of public opinion, it wouldn't
be a trees in charge. It to be some other
kind of seditious conspiracy charge. I don't expect to see
those criminal charges. I do believe that President Obama have
used as power to try to launch and aid this
coup against Trump. I don't believe that the proof is
(35:00):
going to be there sufficient to bring and convict on
criminal charges. So we'll continue that into the five o'clock
hour and much more. Three all three, someone, three eight,
two five five. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
This is Dan Caplis, and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Kaplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
You know.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
And I sit here right now in amazement for so
many different reasons. Amazement at the beauty of nature all
around us, no question, I'm off preparing for trial and
a cabin in the mountain, so amazement at that, but
truly amazement. Not to sound naive, right, I'm not a
little boy, but amazement at how anti anti traditional American values, anti,
(00:43):
you know, so much of what I've grown up to
really appreciate and admire in this country. The Colorado Democratic
Party has become, and so many of its elected officials,
and listen, I understand they've been far left for a
long time time. Policy differences, some of them profoundly moral,
all of that, right, but the extremes that they've gone to,
(01:08):
you know, I just sit back in amazement and say,
how did we this great state of Colorado ever get
to that point. I'm not going to bore you. We
all know the history, right of the blueprint and how
a left targeted Colorado licked its jobs, poured money in,
and was able to execute a plan to turn us
into a radical, far left governed state. And you can
(01:31):
see the state now being hurt in so many different
ways because of it. But what has me today just
sitting back in amazement and then of course thinking about
what we can do to salvage it is Phil Wiser,
chief law enforcement officer of the state, and in that position,
(01:51):
through both fully pulpit and the powers of the Attorney General,
if you want to fully exercise and you have the
opportunity to do so much good, so much good for
innocent people against true criminals. And we all know, you
know the litany. We all know how many true, big
time awful criminals, including cartel members, prey on the people
(02:13):
of Colorado, and how much true horror and death and
rape and pillaging and bloody destruction of human life there
is by criminal elements. And we have a chief law
enforcement officer who lockstep with the policies of the left
in Colorado just ignores so much of that, doesn't use
the power of the office to try to combat those true,
(02:36):
heinous evil villains, but instead target's law enforcement makes law
enforcement the enemy, and it's just part of this overall
trend in Colorado of the left protecting criminals and undermining victims.
And what I'm talking about today we'll get in more
detail later in the show, is that the Attorney General
(03:01):
has now sued He has now sued a Mason County
Sheriff's deputy in his personal capacity, in his personal capacity,
over an allegation the deputy violated Colorado law when he
shared information with federal officials that led to a Utah
College student immigration.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Arrests last month. But my point is this.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
Targeting an individual officer in his personal capacity. Now we
can talk about the underlying conduct of this officer.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
I even studied it. I can't pass judgment.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
But the point is this, there's no dispute that this
officer didn't shoot anybody and kill anybody. There's no claim
of any kind of wrongful use of deadly force or
anything like that. And so to sue an officer in
their personal capacity, think about the message that sends about
(04:00):
how that endangers all of us out here. Not only
do we not see wiser out there, you know, and
maybe there are some isolated examples, but can you show
me any kind of regular effort on the part of
Wiser to use the Attorney General's office to go out
there and to sue personally, to go out and sue civilly,
to use the full powers of the office in any
(04:20):
manner possible, you know, against these drug dealers, against these cartels,
against these human traffickers. But he makes it a point
to sue this one individual officer personally. And think about
how that endangers you right now, if you're living in Colorado,
(04:43):
how much tougher is it going to be to keep
good officers and to attract good officers. If you decide
to courageously serve as a law enforcement officer in Colorado,
you're walking into ultra far left political boiling pot where
(05:06):
they can't wait to make you, as an officer, a
human sacrifice, where the Attorney General of the state takes
that massive hammer and sues you personally. And as the
son of a cop, and a cop who I am
absolutely certain never did anything wrong in his thirty year career,
but as the son of a cop, the idea that
(05:28):
the Attorney General of the state would sue an individual
officer in their personal capacity to make an example of
them like this.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
It's a kind.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Of thing that's going to cause a lot of good
cops to never come here and a lot of good
cops to leave. But do you think Phil Wiser cares
about that? No, not at all. And think about the
issue he's acting on it again, the particular behavior of
this underlying officer who's not accused of assaulting anybody or
beating anybody or shooting anybody.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
You know, whether he violated Colorado statute or not, I
don't know, but this I do know.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
I know that we can point to lots and lots
and lots of women who have been raped by people
here illegally. And that's no comment on the college student
this officer interacted with. I assume she's a very fine
person who's never done anything wrong in her life.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
That's not the point.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
But the point is we have had a massive amount
of the worst kinds of crime committed by people in
this state I legally, And how often have you heard
Phil Wiser express any concern about that? And I understand
it's a very small percentage of the people who come
to our state I legally, who commit crimes like that,
(06:42):
But there shouldn't be one if you're attorney general of
this state, there shouldn't be any.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Acceptable casualty rate.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
But rather than focus they're the massive power of his
office and there are a lot of great attorneys there
and tons of money. Rather than focus that effort on
protecting Colorado's from being further preyed upon by folks who
come here illegally and commit heinous crimes, he singles out
an individual officer and sues that officer personally as some
(07:12):
kind of political stunt to get him self attention during
a campaign at whose expense.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Not his.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
You can bet he has plenty of security. But everybody
else living in Colorado who's very lives and quality of
life depend on being able to attract and keep good officers.
How did what the attorney general of this state do
just do? How did that help any of the rest
of the people of Colorado who just want to go
about their lives with safety, and we're all dependent on
(07:41):
law enforcement for that. So, yeah, that's what I'm amazed
at that a state like this could go so wildly
pro criminal. And again, I'm not talking about the young
lady involved in this incident, not at all. I'm just
talking about this pro criminal, pro person here legally who
commits other crimes and then bring the hammer of the
(08:02):
state down on an individual officer through a suit in
their personal capacity. And I understand that the significance of
that may be lost at times, but when law enforcement
officers get sued and we in our practice, you know,
we do not do that because my dad was a cop,
and he was a great cop. And listen, sometimes any
human endeavor, it could be lawyers, it could be doctors,
(08:24):
it could be cops. God forbidden, it has been on
occasion a priest. Any human endeavor, you're going to get
some bad apples. And if somebody wrongfully hurts somebody, then yeah,
there should be justice. We just choose in our office
not to do those particular cases because my dad was
a cop. We represent so many law enforcement officers, but
(08:47):
when officers get sued, it's almost always a case of
getting sued through the department for the Attorney General to command,
and there are some cases in individual capacity, but for
the Attorney General to commit the attorney general and target
this officer in Masa County to sue this deputy in
(09:08):
their personal capacity, that's a really big deal and it's
really really harmful to the state of Colorado. You're telling
me there's no other way the Attorney general could have
assured that if this officer did violate a Colorado statute
in the way he handled this particular individual, that wouldn't
happen again.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
There's no other way he could have accomplished it.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
No wiser decided to grandstand and do something really bad
and really rare, which is why it gets news to
make himself a hero on the left at the expense
of whom everybody else, right, everybody else in Colorado depends
on law enforcement for safety. So yeah, that's what we've
got in Colorado right now. So lots to talk about.
(09:52):
I want to come back. I'll take your calls and
text on that, But I also want to talk about
President Trump today very directly accusing Barack Obama of treason.
Are their prosecutions coming of Barack Obama? Should there be
three or three seven one three eight two five five
takes d a n five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
You're on the dan Capla Show.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
And now back to the dan Caaplas Show podcast, which
hut that.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
You should be talking about is they caught President Obama
absolutely called Chelsea Gabbert.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
What they did to this country in.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Twenty sixteen, starting in twenty sixteen, but going up all
the way going up to twenty twenty of the election,
they tried to rig the election.
Speaker 5 (10:42):
Then they got.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Caught and there should be very severe consequences.
Speaker 5 (10:45):
So that you know, when we.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Caught Hillary Clinton, I said, you know what, let's not
let's not go too far here. It's the ex wife
of a president, and I thought it was sort of.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Terrible and I let her off the hook and a
very happy idea. But it's time to start after what
they did to.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Me, and whether it's right or wrong, it's time to
go after people.
Speaker 5 (11:09):
Obama's been caught directly. So people say, oh, you know
a group, It's not a group, it's Obama.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
His orders are on the paper, the papers are signed,
The papers came right out of their office. They send
everything to be highly classified. Well the highly classified it
has been released. And what they did in twenty sixteen
and in twenty twenty.
Speaker 5 (11:30):
Is very criminal. It's criminal at the highest level.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
Now this is a big deal. I want to break
this down with you. Gets your take on it?
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Three or three seven one, three eight two five five
text D and five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
I mean, obviously, you have a very.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Successful sitting president who is accusing a former president of treason.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
And that's a big deal.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
I mean, even in our kind of you very intense
political climate right now, that's not nothing. So I want
to dig into, want to get your take out of
mine on whether he's right, whether it actually happened, and
then critically on whether it can be proven in a court,
because as you know, there's a difference between the truth
and proof. And I've spent my professional life proving the truth,
(12:16):
and there are many times when you know something is
absolutely true and then it takes a lot of really
hard work to be able to go out and prove it.
Can they prove this or do you disagree and think
it's just not true?
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Obama didn't do that. But clearly the president setting this
up right now is one of two things. Right This
is either a.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Short lived shot that he really wants to take because
there's no doubt in his mind that it is true.
And if we're talking about you know, Barack Obama intentionally
trying to create this impression that Donald Trump was illegitimate
and that Russia had colluded with Trump to steal the election.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Etc.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Zero dumb Obama did that right? Now, big difference between
that and did he commit a crime? Did he commit
a provable crime? I mean, those are different issues that
I want to start to dissect with you. Three or
three seven one three eight two five five texts d
An five seven seven three nine. So it's either the
president taking that shot because he believes that it's true,
(13:20):
and obviously he's been He's been wronged more than any
president in our history who was not assassinated, right and
lord knows had tried to assassinate him, but he has
been so severely wronged. It may just be him wanting
to come out and make sure he put that marker down,
let everybody know what he thinks happened. Or it may
be that that DJ is preparing to prosecute. So we've
(13:43):
got one of those two scenarios, which do you.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Think it is?
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Again, you can text us DAN five seven seven three
nine Before we get to the money bite, and this
is where you know, the President just comes out and
says directly that Obama committed treason. Interesting company made there,
and I'm sure he meant to say the wife of
an ex president rather than the ex wife of a president,
but in referring to Hillary Clinton, confirming that he had
(14:09):
made the decision, you know, not to have her prosecuted,
because I think clearly if it had just been a
straight up DOJ followed the evidence deal, that she would
have been prosecuted because I think she was clearly guilty.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Now it's been a while, so I haven't.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Looked into the double jeopardy issues and whether you know
the fact that you know the prior administration had taken
a pass on that obviously a corrupt decision in my opinion,
whether that would create any double jeopardy kind of issues,
But it makes perfect sense to me that Trump had
made that decision, No, don't want to go after And
(14:45):
that's the irony, right he came into office. He came
into office ready to appoint let bygones be bygones, and
then go try to serve the country, whereas the left
came in to execute a coup. And I am prattell
stopped talking about it, probably never, but I'm very proud
of the fact that I called it a coup at
the time that was happening, and now in retrospect, I
(15:07):
think everybody can see that it was a coup.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
Attempt.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
All right, the president directly saying it, cut forty two plays.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
But the leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack
Hussein Obama.
Speaker 5 (15:20):
Have you heard of him? And except for the.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Fact that he gets shielded by the press for his
entire life.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
That's the one they look. He's guilty. Is that a question?
Speaker 1 (15:32):
You know?
Speaker 5 (15:32):
I like to say, let's give it time. It's there.
He's guilty. They this was treason. This was every word
you can think of.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
They tried to steal the election, They tried to obfuscape
the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined,
even in other countries.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Yeah, so just directly accusing him of treason. We've talked
about it before, we will again. We can break down
the legal elements, but keep it in mind obviously that
that DOJ. You know, DOJ works under the president. I mean,
obviously presidents in theory distance themselves from DJ.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Obviously, administration the.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Opposite of that, at least when it comes to individual
charging decisions.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
But what do you think do you think that DOJ is.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Is actually following through in the process of following through
the criminal charges, because normally you would think the president
would not go that far unless he believed it was
provable and.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
That DOJ was going to act on it.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
So I want to get your take on that and
break it down in some more detail three h three
seven one three eight two five five text d an
five seven seven three nine. As we sit here right now,
my personal belief and my instincts are normally pretty good
on these things. But I don't have access to this
classified information right so all I can do is is
(16:59):
break it down for what's publicly available, based on what's
publicly available. Bottom line for me is I do think
that President Obama did try to destroy, undermine, subvert the
Trump presidency with a false allegation that Trump had colluded
with Russia to win the election. So I think President
(17:20):
Obama did try to destroy Trump personally as well as
his presidency with the false allegation. Do I think that
there is the kind of proof that you would need
to bring charges and to convict on such charges. No,
my hunches there is not. And the reason I say
that is that Barack Obama, I think, is a smart operator,
(17:45):
and I don't think there's any way in the world
that he would that he would have allowed the kind
of evidentiary trail that would be necessary to prove the charges,
to bring the charges, let alone prove them if I'm
about what came down.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
So that's my take on it. Love to get yours.
We have that.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
We have a whole lot more going on today as well.
Three or three someone three eight two five five text
d A N five seven seven three nine. And of
course we have to follow up on the Mayor of Denver,
Mike Johnston with his latest inspirational words.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Kind of our own bag Dad Bob.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
It's gotten so ludicrous it's hard to even get mad
about it anymore.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
You just have to kind of marvel and feel sorry
for him. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
If you look at that those papers, they have a
stone called and it was President Obama.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
It wasn't lots of people all over the place. It
was them too.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
But the leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack
Hussein Obama.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
Have you heard of him? And except for the fact
that he gets shielded by.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
The press for his entire life, that's the one they
look He's guilty.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
Is that a question?
Speaker 6 (19:08):
You know?
Speaker 5 (19:08):
I like to say, let's give it time, it's there.
He's guilty. They this was treason. This was every word
you can think of.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
They tried to steal the election, They tried to obfuscate
the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined,
even in other countries.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
Yeah, laying down the marker.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
So do you expect to see a prosecution at this point?
Three or three seven one three eight two five five
the number text d A N five seven seven three nine.
Do you want to see a prosecution at this point?
Texter Dan All this is just to wag the dog,
diversion away from the Epstein issue, trees and coup. January sixth,
Trump wasn't leaving until they forced him out. Criminal was
(19:55):
one problem with that theory. He did leave, But I'm
sure a text would not want to be bothered with
those facts in a wag the dog.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Hey, you know timing. Of course, that's a fair question.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
As a president doing this now to distract from this
Epstein mess, maybe that that wouldn't make it any less true.
And again, I think we're in a situation where there's
no question in my mind Barack Obama was trying to
undermine the Trump presidency. A coup I'm not using it
in the legal sense, but in the reality sense. With
(20:28):
these false allegations of Russian colusion, no doubt in my
mind that happened. And I'm equally confident that the administration
won't be able to bring a criminal case and prove
those charges because I think Obama was too smart to
leave that kind of trail. But we will find out together,
right Dan, the majority is passing laws that weaken the
(20:49):
rule of law. Any official with credible info of a
crime should be expected to report it to proper authorities,
not be barred by law and prosecuted for doing it.
The Age is acting in a shameful manner. That's Representative
Chris Richardson House Sister fifty six representative always welcome to
join us on the show, so appreciate that at any point.
(21:09):
But we were talking about earlier where Phil Wiser now
is targeting an individual, sheriff's deputy in Mason County and
suing him individually in his personal capacity, allegedly for passing
along information to Ice about a motorist. He stopped, and
I was just talking about the very chilling it's a
nicety legal word effect that it's going to have on
(21:32):
the ability to keep and recruit police officers to the state,
regardless of the underlying circumstances. He's not accused of physical assault,
he's not accused of excessive force or anything else like that.
So for the age of a state to target an
individual officer and bring a personal civil lawsuit against that officer, yeah,
(21:52):
that is just the epitome of the anti cop anti.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
Rule of law.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Left we have right now trail three seven, three eight,
two five five the number I Hey, want to get
to some other hot sound of the day. But I
know one big question as we kick all this around is, hey,
what is treason under the law? And is President Trump
suggesting Obama can be prosecuted? And I don't think the
(22:19):
president's suggesting that because I don't see any way that
he could be. Listen, if President Obama left the kind
of trail, the kind of evidentiary trail it would take
to bring criminal charges here, from everything I can see,
it wouldn't be criminal charges for treason because treason is
really narrow.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
No, listen, big grain of salt here. Okay.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
I don't practice criminal law. I do catastrophic injury and
wrungful death work. So you know, I've covered some big
criminal trials in our country, including you know, Rodney King, O. J. Simpson,
Mike Tyson. I think I have a pretty good instinct
for it, but it's not what I practice. So in
terms of treason, no, treason is is very narrow. It's
(23:02):
the only crime defined by the Constitution, Article three, Section three.
Treason against the United States show consists only in levying
war against them or in adhering to their enemies giving
them aid and comfort. Now, the second part of that
is more broad, right, But what the case is, and
there've only been forty prosecutions over the years, what the
(23:22):
cases say is there has to be a specific intent
to betray your country, and then you get into the
different forms of aiding the enemy. So let's say that
what the President said and what I personally believe to
be true is true, and that Barack Obama is set
about to destroy the Trump presidency through this false allegation
(23:43):
of collusia with Russia. I don't think that meets the
definition of treason at that point because it wouldn't have
been done to aid a specific enemy. Now, somebody out
there who practices trees in law, you know, God love
you you're probably ready for a good meal, but but
I'd love to get your.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Take on it.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
Now.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
Listen, if President Obama did what I personally believe he did,
and what I'm saying I don't believe can be proven
and proven in a court of law. So I think
he's too smart to leave that trail. If he did
leave a trail and there were crimes that could be pursued,
I think it's more likely to be along the lines
of sedition, seditious conspiracy, And that's a different cat. That's
(24:27):
where you're talking about two or more conspiring to overthrow,
put down, or destroyed by force the US government or
prevented from carrying out its lawful functions. And so that
would seem to fit better the accusation against President Obama.
So if they had the proof, and if you ever
(24:47):
did see criminal charges, I think it would be more
in that category.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
Certainly sub trifuge.
Speaker 7 (24:53):
Dan And there has been a statement issued by the
Obama camp from Patrick Rodenbush, office of President Barack Obama.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
I may it reads quote.
Speaker 7 (25:02):
Out of respect for the office of the Presidency, our
office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation
flowing out of this White House with a response.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.
Speaker 7 (25:15):
These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
Do you think we'll see a lawsuit? I think we'll
see a definition suit.
Speaker 7 (25:25):
Dan, wouldn't that bear out? If these are patently false?
They wouldn't just issue a statement, they'd have the lawsuit
to come along with it, as we've seen President Trump
do against ABC and CBS.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Yet knowing fairness, and I understand that that line of thought,
but in fairness which you always risk right when you're
the target of defamation. And I'm not saying Obama has
been defamed by Trump. My personal belief is that Obama
did engage in that type of behavior, but that there
won't be criminal charges and there won't be the evidence
(25:57):
to prove criminal charges.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
Okay, now, Ryan, you know that the dilemma.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Always for somebody falsely accused is you know, if you sue.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
You call more attention to it.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
So I don't think it's fair to just sit back
here and say, well, somebody didn't file suits, So that's
an admission. But but listen, you know that Trump, now
he's right he was the hunted in the worst kind
of and the most unfair kind of way. Now he's
the hunter and he has an awful lot of resources
as the hunter right now. So if the proof is there,
(26:30):
if the proof is there, then his DOJ should be
able to bring those charges.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
How did One thing I'd love.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
To know from you and everybody is is would that
be good for this country? You know, my personal belief
is that, hey, you got to follow the facts. We
got to have one justice system, and if the proof
was there, you got to pursue that proof and bring
the charges.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
But do you expect to see a prosecution?
Speaker 7 (26:53):
I mean that'll depend on Pam bonding and whether there's
teeth in our Department of Justice. We saw, you know,
all these haphazard lawsuits being filed against Donald Trump by
Merrick Garland.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
And Jack Smith and ridiculousness. This actually happened.
Speaker 7 (27:06):
This is all a product of projection against Donald Trump,
and I would not hold it against him one bit.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Dan.
Speaker 7 (27:12):
If Donald Trump fired back to send a message and
set a president that no president will be undermined in
this way by his predecessor, that is what happened here.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Well, Well, listen, I'll take it a step further. If
the proof is there, he has an absolute obligation to prosecute,
and if the proof is not there, he has an
obligation not to prosecute, even if he believes it's likely true.
Speaker 3 (27:36):
I think it's that simple.
Speaker 7 (27:39):
And we have a clip coming back Dan that I
just found that I thought aged very well for President
Trump and not so well for a certain reporter interviewing him.
Speaker 3 (27:47):
Well, I cannot wait for that and the announcement.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
I'm sure there's great suspense over this, especially at the
corner bar.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
I'll put that in quotes. That was from Polis.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
He has announced the results of the statewide survey over
his bridge to nowhere.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
You're on the Dan Campler.
Speaker 4 (28:04):
Show and now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 6 (28:15):
The biggest scandal was when they spied on my campaign.
They spied in my campaign. There's no real evidence of that,
of course, there isn't all over the place. Leslie spied
on my campaign, and they got can.
Speaker 5 (28:27):
I say something?
Speaker 1 (28:28):
You know, this is sixty minutes and we can't put
on things.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
We can't verify it because it's bad for Biden. We
can't things we can't verify Leslie.
Speaker 5 (28:38):
They spy to my camp. We can's fine totally verify.
Speaker 6 (28:41):
No, it's been to just go down and get the papers.
They spied on my campaign. They got caught. No, and
then they went much further than that, and they got caught.
And you will see that leslie and you know that,
but you just don't want to know.
Speaker 5 (28:54):
As a matter of fact, I don't know that.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
For the arrogance of the media. Right when the media
either knows it's wrong or should know that it's wrong,
I means it is amazing what Trump has been able
to accomplish.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Right in the face of all that.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
And let me throw this question out there, and again,
I don't think. I don't know that we could find
anybody who's been more fair and balanced on Trump, praising
him when he deserves it, also criticize him when he
deserves it. But could there be Ryan, Can you think
of any president, any president in let's say our lifetime,
who could have stood up, endured overcome what Trump did.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
No, not even close.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
How about an American.
Speaker 7 (29:39):
History Maybe George Washington, I mean he defeated the British Empire.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Yeah, No, I think Washington could do it. I think
Lincoln could do it. I think Teddy Roosevelt could do it.
It's a short list. I think FDR could do it.
Maybe JFK. Maybe Reagan, maybe that maybe the line right there.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
Maybe.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
I mean yeah, very very few presidents in American history
could have and none of them, none of the other
greats that we just mentioned, had ever faced anything like
this because they didn't live in an era when those
kind of technological weapons were available. Technological and media weaponry
was available to try to take down a president personally
(30:31):
and professionally. So it really is astounding that he was
able to do that, and I do think it's launched
him into this second term with more credibility, more street cred,
more political cred, more political capital, a more deterrent effect
on enemies than maybe any president in our lifetime, just
(30:53):
because of everything he overcame.
Speaker 7 (30:54):
I'm thinking of two instances. One we just heard with
Leslie Stall and you mentioned her arrogance. This is sixty minutes, sweet,
don't report. Well, we can't verify he didn't bother to
do the investigative journalism it required to report on it, Leslie.
Speaker 4 (31:06):
And then prior to that, Dan the whole.
Speaker 7 (31:08):
Charlottesville hoax and Donald Trumps standing up there and I've
got the sound he's going back and forth with Jim
Acosta CNN, and he said, you didn't say there were
very fine people on both sides. He said there were
some troublemakers on both sides, and there were good people
on both sides. And he gave that in context. And
then Acosta was asking him about tearing down statues.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
He goes, you like Thomas Jefferson, you like George Washington.
They're going to come from them.
Speaker 7 (31:31):
Next, and a Costa admitted that Jefferson was his favorite president.
Guess what happened? They were tearing down Jefferson and Washington memorials.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
Yeah, but think about I mean, and this is part
of the great contribution Trump has made to the future
of the nation, and that is that the media has
destroyed itself in the course of abandoning all ethics, honesty, etc.
To destroy Trump. The media destroyed itself. And there are
still some really, really talented and good people in it,
(32:02):
sprinkled throughout the media, but as an entity right now,
I mean, what's the latest polling on media versus What
do you think the least respected job category is in America?
Speaker 4 (32:18):
I think it's the two that you and I do, Dan.
Speaker 7 (32:20):
I think it's geralists and lawyers, Okay, America.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
I don't know, we'd have to look it up. I
know people always used car salesman minimums. Cars are getting
better and better, that's right.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
So yeah, but my point is media now is probably
below all of us.
Speaker 7 (32:35):
I'll say this, Dan, Donald Trump certainly outpolls both the
media mainstream and how people feel about them favorable or unfavorable.
Speaker 4 (32:42):
And congressional Democrats.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Yeah, but I'm just talking about long term in this country.
Media really buried itself and hopefully it will come back
someday in an incredible, honest form, But it really did
bury itself. And how about let's go with thirty five? Please,
just to remind people, Russia hacking the election to elect Trump?
Speaker 4 (33:06):
What is the end of our box?
Speaker 7 (33:07):
Every votes were definitely affected, But you're Russia hacked the
election to tilted to mister Trump.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
The Russians definitively hacked the election.
Speaker 5 (33:14):
Russia did hack the election, no doubt.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
The Russians hacked the election. Yes, Russia hacked the elections.
Packed Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
President elect Donald Trump still not sounding convinced that Russia
hacked the election. The President does not want to come
to terms with the fact that the Russians hacked the election.
President Trump says he still wonders if if the Russians
packed the election, if.
Speaker 7 (33:37):
You can get them to accept that Russia hacked the election,
see if you can get them to.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
Accept who won the Civil Wars.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
If he admits it, it casts a shadow on his
victory over Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 4 (33:46):
Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 3 (33:48):
Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
Russia hacked the election. Russia hacked the election. Let's be clear,
Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
Definitively.
Speaker 4 (33:56):
Russia hacked the election, and Russia is doing it again
now election related cyber hacking.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
Cyber hacking of US elections, cyber hacking of the election.
Speaker 4 (34:06):
Russia was cyber hacking the election. Russia was cyber hacking.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
Let me off, hacks me off.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
But we need to be reminded of that, right And
so if you just joined us, thank you. What we're
talking about is President laid down the mark today. We'll
play it again in the next segment. Said Obama committed treason.
And does that mean we're soon going to see charges
from DJ If we see any charges, which I doubt
They're not going to be charges of treason. I broke
that down and why it's virtually impossible to prove. And
(34:35):
if Obama is guilty as charged here, you know, or
as charged in the court of public opinion, it wouldn't
be a trees in charge. It to be some other
kind of seditious conspiracy charge. I don't expect to see
those criminal charges. I do believe that President Obama have
used as power to try to launch and aid this
coup against Trump. I don't believe that the proof is
(35:00):
going to be there sufficient to bring and convict on
criminal charges. So we'll continue that into the five o'clock
hour and much more. Three all three, someone, three eight,
two five five. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.