September 23, 2025 • 34 mins
After entering the trial bunker more than a calendar month ago, Dan returns to the airwaves with his take on the $200 million case he won and efforts to remove Jimmy Kimmel from ABC's late night lineup.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caples and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Wow, it is good to be back. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Four h six three h three seven one three eight
two five five the number in the middle of that,
I thought, are you going to remember this number? Guess
it's been what five weeks since I've been on air.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Wow, So great to be back.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Da N five seven seven three nine for the text
and the thank yous could take up the whole show right,
Just thanking Sheriff Steve Reims and George Bronckler and Heidi
Ganall and Christy Burton Brown and Matt Donne and John
Caldera and Ryan and Kelly for holding.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Down the fort while I was in trial.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
And I've been in a very long trial in beautiful
glen Wood Springs, Colorado, and I had never spent really
any real time there other than blowing in and out
for depositions. But everybody on trial team and we all
hold up there. We all hold up in a hotel
for the entire duration. We came away just loving Glenwood Springs.
It is a remarkable city at the Roaring Fork Valley
(01:12):
is a remarkable area, and so if you haven't had
time to check it out, I just got to tell
you we came away from there just loving the entire
area and really loving the people. Because and I'm not
going to spend the whole show on it, but I
appreciate you indulging me for a second, because it's been
one of the most important things I've ever done in
my life. But to go up there and to try
(01:33):
a case for that long, and it's a case on
behalf of the parents of this six year old girl
who has dropped ten stories to her death from an
amusement park ride at a local amusement park up there,
and first have the privilege of representing these amazing parents
and grew up in a small village in Ethiopia, immigrated
(01:55):
to the United States, built a successful life for their
young daughter and then her younger brother, and they drive
four hours to take her to an amusement park along
with low cousins and everything else, and then she's dropped
ten stories to her death down a mine shaft. One
of the most gruesome deaths imaginable, and so one of
the images I'll never get out of my head. And
(02:16):
then I'll get to the point of this whole story
is there is videotape of mom and Dad, Rahele and Estefanos,
you know, waiting to get on the ride, and then
and then all of a sudden you see minutes later
and more videotape done by bystanders outside as they're wailing
on the ground.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Because they're beautiful six year old they've built their.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Lives around She's now dead at the bottom of a
mine shaft, you know. And so the privilege of going
up there to try this case and this wonderful courthouse
in Garfield County at the base of the mountain where
this little girl was killed, and to go in there
and to choose and then.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Trust a local jury.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
And it was such an incredibly hard working, smart, analytical,
rational jury that just week after week after week, dug
into the evidence, had all these great questions. You'll never
see a jury more dialed into the facts. And then
at the end of the day they followed the facts
to a really true and just verdict. And it was
(03:18):
just so heartwarming to see that happened literally at the
base of the mountain where she was killed. And to
see the parents as the verdict was read and they
start sobbing and realize that their daughter, that their daughter's
human dignity and value has been recognized by this verdict.
That the park which had denied liability year after year
(03:39):
after year. You know, a jury in Garfield County said
lobying clearly that park was liable. It was just one
of the most heartwarming things just to see the long
fight the parents had waged, you know, come to fruition.
It was just, in my mind, at least the best
of our justice systems. So yeah, just a beauty full
(04:00):
thing to behold. And the key thing is and this
is what was driving the parents so much from day one.
This verdict will save lives. You can be sure about it.
Anytime a jury returns a verdict of two hundred million
dollars one hundred and twenty three million in punitive damages
against the corporate ownership of the park and very very
(04:20):
very well founded justified verdict. I mean, as I told
that the jury in closing, it was absolutely true. You
could award a billion dollars in punitive damages and it
would not be too much in this case.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
So this is a very thoughtful, rational jury.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
But the point is the size of that verdict two
hundred and five million total. The size of that verdict
is going to save lives because it's going to do
what these punitive damages are intended to do, change the
bad behavior at the one park, and then send a
message to every other park in the country. So the
parents fought the good fight for their daughter, but also
(04:54):
for everybody else, and they won. And everybody who goes
to amusement parks is going to be safer because that.
So thank you to everybody who filled in, really appreciated.
I know it's been an amazing month. And Ryan Kelly,
I'm going to depend on you guys a bunch because
you know, I've been in a bubble and everybody knows
from whatever you do in life, right, it can be
(05:15):
if you've devoted your life to stay at home with
the kids or whatever, and then there are one of
those stretches where maybe it's an illness, maybe it's something else,
maybe it's an opportunity, but you're just in that bubble
for a month. I've been in a bubble for a month,
a trial bubble, and so the entire outside world frozen out,
just frozen out. And so I'm just catching up on
a lot of this stuff. But something that cut through
(05:36):
the noise certainly while we were in that trial bubble is,
you know, the assassination of Charlie Kirk. So I have
some thoughts on that I want to kick around with
you and on the broader as well, meaning of what's
going on with the left right now and what's to
come from the left and what we need to do
to try to combat that. I want to talk today
about some very important statements made by President Trump at
(06:00):
the UN and around the UN, including Trump now urging
Ukraine to fight to total victory against Russia. So the
kind of bookending things right there and then everything in between,
And do allow me to mention before I go back
in that. Hey, when you try a case like this,
you know it is just a total team effort. And
(06:21):
I had the privilege of being lead counsel and all that.
But you know, my partner, Barbara Wah, Carrie Jones, Doolan,
John Kellner, Sabrina Robinson, our daughter Caroline, part of the
trial team. She's part of every trial team, and every
trial I do our daughter and that's one of the
coolest things imaginable, is going to trial with your daughter,
Texter says Broccola. Reims show was fabulous. That does not
(06:45):
surprise me, Guys, tell me more about that. Because as
we were setting up this schedule for the five weeks
I'd be gone. Somehow the idea came up of teaming
those two. One of the two suggested it, and it
might have been George, but how to go. It had
to go great.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
It was remarkable, Dan, because that was September ninth, ye
and we had such a great day and a great time.
The listeners had fun interacting with those two. And then
the very next day was the Evergreen High School shooting
and the Charlie Kirk assassination.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
So quite the dichotomy there. Oh man.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Yeah, I want to go back to the tape and
listen to those two together. I'm I'm just a big
believer in kind of these co hosted shows, you know,
or you get two or three people together whatever, if
they're the right people, Yeah, it can really pop, Dan Text,
is it really you haven't heard from you since eight eighteen, Yeah,
it has been that long.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Hasn't it? A few things have happened since then.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Congrats helping the family of on Gallist finals that from Alexa.
Thank you, Alexia, sure do appreciate that. And has it
really been since eight eighteen?
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Well, I do want to start with the Charlie Kirk
stuff and we'll play some of, you know, the most
important sounds surrounding that story, including the hater coming in
and talking about the memorial service, lying about the memorial
service saying it's an example of religious nationalism. Do want
to get into that as well? And why the left
fears that so much? Right and the left would have
(08:13):
feared the Founders because remember it's the Founders who closed
the Declaration of Independence, which in many ways was writing
their own death. Weren't right, because I mean, what were
the odds that the Founders were going to win, that
the revolution was going to succeed? And they all knew
they'd be hung from a tall tree until dead if
they were lucky, if they weren't tortured for hours first
(08:34):
if the revolution failed. But their last line is with
reliance on divine providence. We pledged you our lives, our fortune,
our sacred honor, and so so That is what the
left fears. The left fears a nation that you know,
turns to God. The left fears of faithful nation because
(08:54):
if people vote their faith, not saying a Catholic votes Catholic,
that that's not the point. But if people vote consistent
with the core values of their faith, if they vote
that way for candidates who are going to act that
way on policy, the left's dead.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
The left is dead in the water. So the left.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Absolutely fears faith and people voting their faith. And that's
why they I think one of the reasons they so
feared Charlie Kirk and one of the reasons the left
so upset about his memorial.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
You're on the Dan Capla Show.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
That man, that young man, I forgive him. I forgive
him because it was what Christ did and is what
(09:50):
Charlie would do.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Ah, what a powerful moment.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
And you know what made it a hundred times more
powerful was just everybody spun taneously rising to their feet
for that and that because I personally believe, I do
think we're in one of those big transition moments in
America in the world right now, and I think it
followed the reelection of Donald Trump, and I think it's
(10:16):
about much something, much bigger than that. But I think
Trump was a big part of that. And I think
the reaction to this vile assassination has to on multiple levels.
Right for those who believe as I do it, it
has to scare the hell out of Satan. It has
to scare the hell out of the left. And I'm
not equating the two. I'm just saying that when you
(10:38):
look at it on every level, what we see happening
in America right now is it's a beautiful thing. And
on a political level, yeah, it obviously terrifies the left
draft because as I've said for years on air, none
of us have to be a math major to get it.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
If people start voting their faith talking about that the
principles behind their faith, yeah, the left is dead. They're done,
They're gone, because so much of what they do, probably
eighty nine to percent is directly contrary to the faith
teachings of most people.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Three out three someone three eight, two, five five, the number.
So continue to have some sound from that.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
I do want to talk about this Charlie Kirk assassination,
and you know, the bigger terms as well as the
loss of just a wonderful political and faith leader. But
one of the ways is listen, we've all seen for
a long time right the left's playbook. They can't win
on the facts and logic and argument all that, so
their playbook includes violence and the threat of violence. And
(11:38):
one thing I think is really important for society. And
this will lead into the Jimmy Kimmel thing, and I'm
anxious to get your take on that. Have either of
you guys ever been to the Jimmy Kimmel Show, By
the way.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
I was just talking about that yesterday on my program
here in Denver. The answer is yes.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Should we talk some more about your program because I
haven't promoted at two to four Monday through Friday. Outstanding show,
And it is you are one of my wife's favorite shows,
and she doesn't like many radio shows.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
That is a high compliment. It is.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
I think she listens to you more than she listens
to me. I really do, boy.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
It is the Dan Capla's pregame shows I.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Like to Collegeah yeah right, that's a warm's always crowd,
which really means say my show's back.
Speaker 4 (12:17):
No, no, no, I mean his.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
But we were roped in so as part of this
college group called ae Ro Alpha Epsilon ROW, the National
Broadcasting Society. It's professional fraternity at Central Michigan University. We're
touring Los Angeles and by the Chinese Theater and that,
and one of the producer assistants production assistants, probably an intern.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
Hey, you guys are college age, k why don't you
come in.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
We're recording the Jimmy Kimel Live and we need you
guys what we like? Twenty of us all went in
there and watched a taped episode of Jimmy Kimmel Liive.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
Okay, this is back before he was you know, insane.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Yeah no, and yeah he just just got so just
so venomous, so venomous. And that's the hall market left right,
which is kind of my broader point that and I've
been on the receiving end of it. You know, the
left has to resort to violence because they can't win
any other way. And they don't always resort to violence,
but it is one of the key pages of the
(13:11):
left's playbook.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
And it can be different forms, right.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
It can be the politics of personal destruction of an individual,
it can be actual physical violence, et cetera. And so
I think one thing that's really important, but I want
to bookend it with the Kimmel thing, is I think
it's really important that, to the extent we can do
so constitutionally, we have to really crank up the penalties
for threats, because threats have such a damaging effect on
(13:39):
people's lives. They are more damaging. These threats that are saying,
never carried out can be more damaging to the intended
target than if somebody had just come and broke their lake, right,
And so we've really got to ramp up, to the
extent it's allowed under the First Amendment, We've got to
ramp up the criminal statutes on threat got to do
(14:01):
that now. That wouldn't have save Charlie Kirk. I get that,
but there are so many other people right now, and
often they're on the right, often politically motivated threats. Sometimes
there's nothing to do with politics, and it's often women,
you know, And our stalking laws have gotten better, etc.
But we need we need more teeth in the laws
regarding threats. Now we can talk about how to make
(14:23):
that happen, what that should look like. On the other
side of it, Listen, I think Kimmel is a venomous vial.
I'm not saying he's an evil person, but he often
spreads evil. So in my mind, I can't say anything good,
nothing good I can think of about the way Jimmy
Kimmel behaves. So don't take what I'm about to say
(14:43):
the wrong way. But I think this push to get
him on air off there, and the fact that we
have you know, the FCC Commissioner weighing in on that,
I think that is way wrong.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
I think that is way wrong.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
I don't think there should be other than just urging
consumers to be smart and not consume you know, that excrement.
I don't think there should be any push at all
to use the FCC, any pressure from the FCC, any
pressure other than consumers just making good judgments, which means
they wouldn't watch Jimmy Kimmel. I don't think there should
be any of that political pressure to try to have
(15:21):
the FCC take them off air, or the FCC pressure
the networker affiliates to take them off air. I think
that is just such a dangerous, dangerous precedent. And even
if we could sit here and know that, okay, conservatives
are going to win every major election for the next
two hundred years, and so this is never going to
come back on us. Even if that was the case,
I would say the government shouldn't get involved in trying
(15:44):
to get Jimmy Kimmel off air because it just goes
It goes against who we are as a people and
what we value. And when you have government action involved,
you can get some First Amendment issues. So, as much
as I truly despise, but the way kim will be
haves and the evil, vicious lies he tells, et cetera
a huge mistake in my mind. Further to be Trump
(16:07):
administration involvement or any government involvement in trying to force
him off air. I don't personally understand how there's enough
of a market for him to keep him on air,
and I I just believe governments stay out of it.
And if the network wants to continue to have him
on air, even though it's hard for me to believe
he makes the money, you know, then you just let
(16:30):
those those market forces take over. I would imagine a
lot of good people disagree with me on that. I'd
love to hear from you. Eight five five four zero
five eight two five five text d An five seven
seven three nine Dan, I'm an independent uses as there
are thousands and thousands of horrible things posted by both
sides every day. In my opinion, the moderates of both
parties need to tell the fringes that they're done.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
I'd like to get a little more precise on that,
because to me, the relativism thing doesn't hold up when
it comes to violence. In political violence, you'll get the
occasional whack on the right, but when you look at
the left, it's it's systematic. For the left, it's part
of the regular, ongoing process. The difference being the right
(17:13):
can win the argument just based on facts and logic
and reason. The left can't. That's why they have a
playbook full of these other tools. And so Texter, if
you want to call I sure to appreciate that. Three
h three he se one three eight two five five
the number when we come back, I want to play.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
You this Don Lemons sound.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Now he might have just said that because nobody talks
about Don Lemon anymore. But this accusation, the Kirk Memorial
was white nationalism wrapped in religious nationalism. Obviously, that's low
hanging fruit, right, my dead dog could dissect that argument.
God rest his canine soul. Do canines have souls? We
(17:53):
can talk about that. Also, you're on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
You're listening to the Dan Caplis Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
This case and the way it happened is so uniquely horrifying.
Speaker 6 (18:09):
On Friday, a jury awarded the family of one Gala
Estefano's two hundred and five million dollars. The little girl
died from blunt force injury she suffered after falling one
hundred and ten feet from a ride at Glenwood Cavern's
Adventure Park in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
You had the wrongful death award, the compensatory damages award,
which is meant to value the loss of this little
girl to her parents and what her parents suffer with.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Every day because of the horrific way she died.
Speaker 6 (18:40):
Attorney Dan Kaplis represented the family and says the verdict
is significant for many reasons, and the whole purpose of the.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Law and punitive damages is learn the lessons, make the
world safer, make sure this never happens again, and that's
been the parents quest from day one.
Speaker 6 (18:56):
A state investigation found there were several factors that led
to Estefano's death. She wasn't buckled in properly. Instead, she
was sitting on top of the still locked seat belts.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
I respect and understand that you'res finding that a portion
of this fault goes to the manufacture, But at the
end of the day, you have two operators from this
park sitting there with a six year old girl in
front of them and a red light for her seat
that says there's a dangerous problem with her seat belt.
Speaker 6 (19:23):
In a statement, Glenwood Caverns blames the ride manufacturer, Soaring Eagle,
accusing them of building Haunted Mind Drop with a defective
restraint system that caused Stefano's death. Caplist tells nine News
Soaring Eagle no longer exists, so when it comes to
getting accountability from them.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
It's going to be interesting.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
That's going to be litigated separately after this trial, So
there's not a clear answer to that at this point.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
Capla says he's confident the verdict will have other amusement
parks thinking twice about protecting their patrons.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
When it gets too expensive to do it wrong, they'll
do it right when it gets too expensive to do
it dangerously, they'll do it safely. And the story goes
on from there, really well, really well reported story by
Shlima Maharaj at KUSA of extraordinarily impressive journalist three all
(20:16):
three seven one three eight two five five text d
A N five seven seven three nine. Lots to talk
about today, my first day on air since a Texter
said August eighteenth, Wow, I've been in trial up in
Glenwood Springs the case you just heard about there in
that KUSA reports. So again, thanks to everybody who filled
in and just catching up today. But what strikes me
(20:37):
right now, and Ryan Kelly, you can set me straight
on this, but what strikes me right now is really
standing out over these let me do the math. Maybe
five or six weeks I've been off air, the assassination
of Charlie Kirk and everything that means for America and
the lessons to be learned from that and what.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
To take forward.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
And then today I think very very very very significant
comments from President Trump that Ukraine now, Ukraine now with
the support that it's marshaled, is in a position to
just defeat Rush on the battlefield and take back all
its territory. Obviously, the President at this point, I think
trying to position through strength for a peace deal. But
(21:19):
I think very significant that he would go down that
road and also today, and it relates back to Kirk.
Obviously it's the reason that he was taken off air.
Jimmy Kimmel now reinstated by Disney, but some of the affiliates,
depending who they're owned by, not airing the Kimmel Show.
I want to get your take on that. Should he
have ever been taken off air? Should he be back
(21:39):
on air? Do you want him back on your local station,
even though I hope you don't watch him because he
truly is a vile liar. But my position is, and
to me, this is one of the clearest issues I've
ever talked about on air in thirtieth years. There's no
way he should have been taken off air to begin with,
and there should never have been any political pressure from
the Trump administration, no matter how vile he is, no
(22:02):
matter how big a liar he is, no matter how
disgusting he is, I wouldn't watch him if literally he
was the last thing on earth. How much would somebody
have to pay you to watch Jimmy Kimmel. Somebody would
have to pay me a very, very large amount of money,
and even then I'm not sure I would watch him.
But my point is this, in this nation, we shouldn't
(22:23):
be in the business other than through consumers voting with
their eyeballs and their feet. We shouldn't be in the
nation in the business in this nation of running people
off air because of vile, repugnant views. Now, if somebody
crosses the line into advocating violence, in advocating violence under
the legal framework where you can prosecute eve, etc. That's
a different critter. But I don't think Kimmel ever should
(22:46):
have been taken off air. Am I missing something because
I've been in a trial bubble now for a lot
of weeks? Am I missing something in that?
Speaker 4 (22:53):
Ryan?
Speaker 3 (22:53):
I am largely with you on this. I didn't like
the timing of the FCC share Brendan Carr appearing on
the Benn Johns and.
Speaker 4 (23:00):
Podcasts talking about this.
Speaker 3 (23:02):
Ted Cruz, even the Senator from Texas said it kind
of had the feel of a good fella's scene, where
it's like it'd be a shame if you lost your
TV show there you know it's happened to it. But
for me, it's exactly what you said, Jimmy Kimmel doesn't
want you watching, Dan, doesn't want me watching, doesn't want
Kelly watching, doesn't.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
Want most of our listeners watching what he wants. And
that's fine, and he can do that.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
We call that narrow casting as opposed to broadcasting. And
he's on a nationwide network ABC, in which he's already
vilified and condescended to half of his potential audience.
Speaker 4 (23:34):
It's stupid business.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
But let's just follow that path now, Sinclair in Nexstar.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
This is the update to the story.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
Dan are refusing to air his episodes until or unless
he retracts the lie that he told to his viewers,
his audience in America that the shooter was Maga, which
was fake news. It's false, it's a lie. It's not
even funny, it's not even a joke. That was the
point Stephen A. Smith actually made about it, which, like
you said, in the marketplace of ideas. His show has failed.
(24:00):
His ratings are tanking. Guttfeld is absolutely destroying him in
staid ratings, and it's in ABC Disney's interest, I think,
to replace him as a program much the same way
CBS has chosen to do with Colbert.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
But You're exactly right.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Let it run its course in the marketplace of ideas,
capitalistic economy, that type of over the year broadcasting.
Speaker 4 (24:21):
It depends on advertisers.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
And when you follow that to its logical end, I
think Jimmy kimmellive dies on the vine on its own.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
Interesting point you raise about, say the owners of individual affiliates,
right like Nextstar or Sinclair, and listen, I get it.
If say an individual affiliate wants to take the position
or an owner of an affiliate that wait a second,
that's a flat out lie. We don't want to be
(24:50):
using our resources to give liars a platform.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
I get that.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
I get that if they want to make that decision,
and I'd respect that. What I don't think we should
be doing in this country is taking people off air
because they have political views that are vile and abhorrent, etc.
Short of directly advocating violence. But this point about wait
a second, I didn't work my whole life to build
(25:17):
this TV station or to be able to buy these
stations or whatever, only to put liars on.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
That's a different story in my mind. That's a different story.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
But when it's political viewpoint, and I sure don't think
the administration should be involved at that point. Listen, if
somebody's telling a lie, which is the defamatory, and this
lie about Mega, this lie that the shooter was Mega,
wouldn't be considered defamation because you don't have you don't
have an actual individual or organization that would have standing
(25:49):
to sue, etc.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
So that's kind of in its own category.
Speaker 4 (25:51):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Of course, any TV station, radio station, etc. As a
right to take people.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Down if they're going to be defaming people on their
airwaves this kind of lie. Yeah, I still do think
that the owner of a station has a right to
say I don't want a liar on my air. It's
the political stuff, and I think Brendan Carr probably got
involved because of the political stuff. I don't think there's
any question he got involved because of the political stuff.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
And that's where I think it's wrong.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Kimmel, I've got to believe that it can't be a
financial consideration for ABC to have kept him on air.
I have to believe that it was a political consideration
for ABC to put him on air and keep him
on air. It's relationship with the left, etc. Because he
can't have enough viewers, Canny Ryan, he can't have enough
viewers to make the math work. No, yeah, but would
(26:44):
love your take on all that. So when we come back,
what I'd like to do is, I'd like to deep
dive some of the sound from the Charlie Kirk memorial
because first, I think it's compelling, but it also ties
into these broader issues from a policy standpoint, concrete stuff. Yeah,
I think we've got to be cranking up. I think
we've got to be cranking up our criminal laws when
(27:04):
it comes to threats of violence. We got to crank
him up. We got to dial him up as high
as we can take him, take those laws without violating
the constitution.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
What do you think the penalty should be?
Speaker 1 (27:16):
What do you think then, should there be mandatory jail
for somebody who makes a threat of violence against somebody else?
Three or three seOne three eight two five five text
d A N five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
You're on the Dan Capler Show.
Speaker 4 (27:32):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast. It
was a missionary with a noble spirit and a great,
great purpose.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
He did not hate his opponents.
Speaker 4 (27:42):
He wanted.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
The best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
I hate my opponent and I don't want the best
for them.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
I am sorry Erica.
Speaker 7 (27:56):
But now Erica can talk to me and the whole
group and maybe they can convince me that that's not right.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
But I can't stand.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
My opponent.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Think you was serious.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
He's joking. I think trying to provide some levity there.
I think there's an element of seriousness to it. His opponents,
some of them wanted him dead, Dan some of them
were okay if he was dead or assassinated. It's about
a third of Democrats and polling. Many of them wanted
him imprisoned. These felonious, erroneous charges that were leveled against him,
(28:29):
thirty four of them by Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Fannie Willis,
Jack Smith, the Biden, doj Merrick Garland. I don't think
you could blame Donald Trump for not exactly wanted to
make nice with you.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
I truly was just curious as to whether he was
serious there or not. Listen, if there's anybody who had
ever right to hate their opponents, it would be Donald Trump.
I mean, what was done to him is all those
things you just described. It's demonic. But I was just
wondering whether he was serious there, and you know, I
(29:05):
admire I admire her so much for forgiving the person
who killed her husband, and I think that was one
of the greatest examples that we've ever seen on the
public stage from Erica Kirk. And while I don't agree
if President Trump was being serious, I obviously don't agree
(29:28):
with the underlying premise of hate your enemies. You know,
like I assume a lot of people listening, I try
very very very hard to be a good Christian, in
my case of Catholic Christian. Obviously I have a long
way to go, but loving your enemies is a huge
part of that. It doesn't mean you don't fight them.
Everybody listening, I'm sure fights, you know, for good and
(29:51):
against bad in lots of ways. I just finished, along
with my great colleagues weeks and weeks and weeks of
doing that in a trial. Doesn't mean don't fight him
and fight them hard and beat him. But the question
is do you cross that line into hating your enemies?
And me, as a Christian, that'd be a sin.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
I can't.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
I'm commanded not to, and I don't mean to preach,
but obviously, you know, Christ dying on the cross forgive
them father, They know not what they do.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
I don't have the right to hate my enemies.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
I have the right to fight them and defeat them,
but not hate them. But what I admire about that
statement of Trump's, if he was serious, is not the
underlying message, because I disagree with it, but the honesty,
just the brutal honesty and going all the way back
when Craig and I would sit in the studio, like
back in twenty eleven or so, when they're first started
to be talk of Trump running for office a set
(30:43):
on air. Then he's going to be successful, but for
a lot of reasons, but including his honesty. America craves honesty.
I think we're wired to crave and to recognize brutal honesty,
and Trump boy, I think was serious and he was
being brutally honest there.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
And I do respect that.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
I respect anybody, whether they agree or disagree with me
on a particular point or a worldview. I respect people
who are honest, and that's one enormous reason for.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
His success, his honesty.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
I'd love to get your take on this underline, you know,
forgiving enemies.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
So let's go to Eric in Lubbock, Texas. You're on
the Dan Kaplis Show. Welcome Eric, Hi Dan.
Speaker 7 (31:23):
I've got two sides of me and I don't know
which one's gonna win out, but I'll just put it
out there, you know, because I used to live in
the gun Barrel in Nywat area, both Republic of Boulders.
So the nice part of me says, you know, like
the ancients, they would put somebody that would steal uh
in the in the city circle and say nice things
(31:47):
about them for hours, and that that could be as
torturesome as not worse than having you know, bad things said,
you know, you know done to you because you're actually
you're being loved back into existence. That's the Boulder side
of me. Now the other side of me is I
remember guys like Michael Fay back in nineteen ninety three
(32:08):
that was caned for stealing in Singapore, you know, you know,
in the open, you know. But then again, you know,
we have a society that just refuses to take personal
accountability for their actions. So that's why I was I
mentioned the first yeah is that maybe to have people,
(32:32):
but this is going to take a community effort. Yes,
The thing is, do people want to be that involved
into letting people back into existence.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Well, get great question there, Eric, and that brings us
back to Erica. Kirk, and I think that the left
was absolutely terrified, absolutely terrified to hear her say this.
Speaker 5 (32:55):
That man, that young man, I forgive him, and they.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
Were terrified to see the crowd spontaneously leap to its feet.
Because what poses the greatest threat to the left right now,
to the very existence of the left in America, it's
people living their faith, people voting their faith. That doesn't
mean a Catholic voting for a Catholic. I'm Catholic, but
you have some Catholics running for officeing vote for me,
I'm Catholic, and they would use the power you give
(33:30):
them to go out and push legal abortion on demand
through the moment of delivery. No, it means voting your
faith means obviously voting for people who in office are
going to act on policies that are consistent with the
core teachings of your faith.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
That's what it means.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
The left knows if people in America actually live their faith,
the left is done.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
That's why Jared Polus, remember after he won the governor's
office the first time, the very first.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Thing he did the next day was come out publicly
and say to keep their faith out of the public square.
So no, what Erica did is the single most frightening
thing to the left, and when those people rose to
their feet spontaneously to admire for it, Yeah, that's got
to terrify the left.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
Texter Dan.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
In January twenty five, Kimmel had one point nine four
to six total viewers per month. By August he only
had one point one zero four. So yeah, the biggest
expense for Disney in those shows is the host salary
that they wanted out for financial reasons at from Alexi, Yeah,
I think the only reason Disney kept Kimmel on was
just to play kate the left.
Speaker 2 (34:36):
I think if it was market forces, he goes.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
My point is government shouldn't be involved in trying to
run Kimmel off.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
That that's wrong. We don't want that precedent. What do
you think You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
This is Dan Caples and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Wow, it is good to be back. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Four h six three h three seven one three eight
two five five the number in the middle of that,
I thought, are you going to remember this number? Guess
it's been what five weeks since I've been on air.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Wow, So great to be back.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Da N five seven seven three nine for the text
and the thank yous could take up the whole show right,
Just thanking Sheriff Steve Reims and George Bronckler and Heidi
Ganall and Christy Burton Brown and Matt Donne and John
Caldera and Ryan and Kelly for holding.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Down the fort while I was in trial.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
And I've been in a very long trial in beautiful
glen Wood Springs, Colorado, and I had never spent really
any real time there other than blowing in and out
for depositions. But everybody on trial team and we all
hold up there. We all hold up in a hotel
for the entire duration. We came away just loving Glenwood Springs.
It is a remarkable city at the Roaring Fork Valley
(01:12):
is a remarkable area, and so if you haven't had
time to check it out, I just got to tell
you we came away from there just loving the entire
area and really loving the people. Because and I'm not
going to spend the whole show on it, but I
appreciate you indulging me for a second, because it's been
one of the most important things I've ever done in
my life. But to go up there and to try
(01:33):
a case for that long, and it's a case on
behalf of the parents of this six year old girl
who has dropped ten stories to her death from an
amusement park ride at a local amusement park up there,
and first have the privilege of representing these amazing parents
and grew up in a small village in Ethiopia, immigrated
(01:55):
to the United States, built a successful life for their
young daughter and then her younger brother, and they drive
four hours to take her to an amusement park along
with low cousins and everything else, and then she's dropped
ten stories to her death down a mine shaft. One
of the most gruesome deaths imaginable, and so one of
the images I'll never get out of my head. And
(02:16):
then I'll get to the point of this whole story
is there is videotape of mom and Dad, Rahele and Estefanos,
you know, waiting to get on the ride, and then
and then all of a sudden you see minutes later
and more videotape done by bystanders outside as they're wailing
on the ground.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Because they're beautiful six year old they've built their.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Lives around She's now dead at the bottom of a
mine shaft, you know. And so the privilege of going
up there to try this case and this wonderful courthouse
in Garfield County at the base of the mountain where
this little girl was killed, and to go in there
and to choose and then.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Trust a local jury.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
And it was such an incredibly hard working, smart, analytical,
rational jury that just week after week after week, dug
into the evidence, had all these great questions. You'll never
see a jury more dialed into the facts. And then
at the end of the day they followed the facts
to a really true and just verdict. And it was
(03:18):
just so heartwarming to see that happened literally at the
base of the mountain where she was killed. And to
see the parents as the verdict was read and they
start sobbing and realize that their daughter, that their daughter's
human dignity and value has been recognized by this verdict.
That the park which had denied liability year after year
(03:39):
after year. You know, a jury in Garfield County said
lobying clearly that park was liable. It was just one
of the most heartwarming things just to see the long
fight the parents had waged, you know, come to fruition.
It was just, in my mind, at least the best
of our justice systems. So yeah, just a beauty full
(04:00):
thing to behold. And the key thing is and this
is what was driving the parents so much from day one.
This verdict will save lives. You can be sure about it.
Anytime a jury returns a verdict of two hundred million
dollars one hundred and twenty three million in punitive damages
against the corporate ownership of the park and very very
(04:20):
very well founded justified verdict. I mean, as I told
that the jury in closing, it was absolutely true. You
could award a billion dollars in punitive damages and it
would not be too much in this case.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
So this is a very thoughtful, rational jury.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
But the point is the size of that verdict two
hundred and five million total. The size of that verdict
is going to save lives because it's going to do
what these punitive damages are intended to do, change the
bad behavior at the one park, and then send a
message to every other park in the country. So the
parents fought the good fight for their daughter, but also
(04:54):
for everybody else, and they won. And everybody who goes
to amusement parks is going to be safer because that.
So thank you to everybody who filled in, really appreciated.
I know it's been an amazing month. And Ryan Kelly,
I'm going to depend on you guys a bunch because
you know, I've been in a bubble and everybody knows
from whatever you do in life, right, it can be
(05:15):
if you've devoted your life to stay at home with
the kids or whatever, and then there are one of
those stretches where maybe it's an illness, maybe it's something else,
maybe it's an opportunity, but you're just in that bubble
for a month. I've been in a bubble for a month,
a trial bubble, and so the entire outside world frozen out,
just frozen out. And so I'm just catching up on
a lot of this stuff. But something that cut through
(05:36):
the noise certainly while we were in that trial bubble is,
you know, the assassination of Charlie Kirk. So I have
some thoughts on that I want to kick around with
you and on the broader as well, meaning of what's
going on with the left right now and what's to
come from the left and what we need to do
to try to combat that. I want to talk today
about some very important statements made by President Trump at
(06:00):
the UN and around the UN, including Trump now urging
Ukraine to fight to total victory against Russia. So the
kind of bookending things right there and then everything in between,
And do allow me to mention before I go back
in that. Hey, when you try a case like this,
you know it is just a total team effort. And
(06:21):
I had the privilege of being lead counsel and all that.
But you know, my partner, Barbara Wah, Carrie Jones, Doolan,
John Kellner, Sabrina Robinson, our daughter Caroline, part of the
trial team. She's part of every trial team, and every
trial I do our daughter and that's one of the
coolest things imaginable, is going to trial with your daughter,
Texter says Broccola. Reims show was fabulous. That does not
(06:45):
surprise me, Guys, tell me more about that. Because as
we were setting up this schedule for the five weeks
I'd be gone. Somehow the idea came up of teaming
those two. One of the two suggested it, and it
might have been George, but how to go. It had
to go great.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
It was remarkable, Dan, because that was September ninth, ye
and we had such a great day and a great time.
The listeners had fun interacting with those two. And then
the very next day was the Evergreen High School shooting
and the Charlie Kirk assassination.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
So quite the dichotomy there. Oh man.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Yeah, I want to go back to the tape and
listen to those two together. I'm I'm just a big
believer in kind of these co hosted shows, you know,
or you get two or three people together whatever, if
they're the right people, Yeah, it can really pop, Dan Text,
is it really you haven't heard from you since eight eighteen, Yeah,
it has been that long.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Hasn't it? A few things have happened since then.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Congrats helping the family of on Gallist finals that from Alexa.
Thank you, Alexia, sure do appreciate that. And has it
really been since eight eighteen?
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Well, I do want to start with the Charlie Kirk
stuff and we'll play some of, you know, the most
important sounds surrounding that story, including the hater coming in
and talking about the memorial service, lying about the memorial
service saying it's an example of religious nationalism. Do want
to get into that as well? And why the left
fears that so much? Right and the left would have
(08:13):
feared the Founders because remember it's the Founders who closed
the Declaration of Independence, which in many ways was writing
their own death. Weren't right, because I mean, what were
the odds that the Founders were going to win, that
the revolution was going to succeed? And they all knew
they'd be hung from a tall tree until dead if
they were lucky, if they weren't tortured for hours first
(08:34):
if the revolution failed. But their last line is with
reliance on divine providence. We pledged you our lives, our fortune,
our sacred honor, and so so That is what the
left fears. The left fears a nation that you know,
turns to God. The left fears of faithful nation because
(08:54):
if people vote their faith, not saying a Catholic votes Catholic,
that that's not the point. But if people vote consistent
with the core values of their faith, if they vote
that way for candidates who are going to act that
way on policy, the left's dead.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
The left is dead in the water. So the left.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Absolutely fears faith and people voting their faith. And that's
why they I think one of the reasons they so
feared Charlie Kirk and one of the reasons the left
so upset about his memorial.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
You're on the Dan Capla Show.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
That man, that young man, I forgive him. I forgive
him because it was what Christ did and is what
(09:50):
Charlie would do.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Ah, what a powerful moment.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
And you know what made it a hundred times more
powerful was just everybody spun taneously rising to their feet
for that and that because I personally believe, I do
think we're in one of those big transition moments in
America in the world right now, and I think it
followed the reelection of Donald Trump, and I think it's
(10:16):
about much something, much bigger than that. But I think
Trump was a big part of that. And I think
the reaction to this vile assassination has to on multiple levels.
Right for those who believe as I do it, it
has to scare the hell out of Satan. It has
to scare the hell out of the left. And I'm
not equating the two. I'm just saying that when you
(10:38):
look at it on every level, what we see happening
in America right now is it's a beautiful thing. And
on a political level, yeah, it obviously terrifies the left
draft because as I've said for years on air, none
of us have to be a math major to get it.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
If people start voting their faith talking about that the
principles behind their faith, yeah, the left is dead. They're done,
They're gone, because so much of what they do, probably
eighty nine to percent is directly contrary to the faith
teachings of most people.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Three out three someone three eight, two, five five, the number.
So continue to have some sound from that.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
I do want to talk about this Charlie Kirk assassination,
and you know, the bigger terms as well as the
loss of just a wonderful political and faith leader. But
one of the ways is listen, we've all seen for
a long time right the left's playbook. They can't win
on the facts and logic and argument all that, so
their playbook includes violence and the threat of violence. And
(11:38):
one thing I think is really important for society. And
this will lead into the Jimmy Kimmel thing, and I'm
anxious to get your take on that. Have either of
you guys ever been to the Jimmy Kimmel Show, By
the way.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
I was just talking about that yesterday on my program
here in Denver. The answer is yes.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Should we talk some more about your program because I
haven't promoted at two to four Monday through Friday. Outstanding show,
And it is you are one of my wife's favorite shows,
and she doesn't like many radio shows.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
That is a high compliment. It is.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
I think she listens to you more than she listens
to me. I really do, boy.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
It is the Dan Capla's pregame shows I.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Like to Collegeah yeah right, that's a warm's always crowd,
which really means say my show's back.
Speaker 4 (12:17):
No, no, no, I mean his.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
But we were roped in so as part of this
college group called ae Ro Alpha Epsilon ROW, the National
Broadcasting Society. It's professional fraternity at Central Michigan University. We're
touring Los Angeles and by the Chinese Theater and that,
and one of the producer assistants production assistants, probably an intern.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
Hey, you guys are college age, k why don't you
come in.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
We're recording the Jimmy Kimel Live and we need you
guys what we like? Twenty of us all went in
there and watched a taped episode of Jimmy Kimmel Liive.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
Okay, this is back before he was you know, insane.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Yeah no, and yeah he just just got so just
so venomous, so venomous. And that's the hall market left right,
which is kind of my broader point that and I've
been on the receiving end of it. You know, the
left has to resort to violence because they can't win
any other way. And they don't always resort to violence,
but it is one of the key pages of the
(13:11):
left's playbook.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
And it can be different forms, right.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
It can be the politics of personal destruction of an individual,
it can be actual physical violence, et cetera. And so
I think one thing that's really important, but I want
to bookend it with the Kimmel thing, is I think
it's really important that, to the extent we can do
so constitutionally, we have to really crank up the penalties
for threats, because threats have such a damaging effect on
(13:39):
people's lives. They are more damaging. These threats that are saying,
never carried out can be more damaging to the intended
target than if somebody had just come and broke their lake, right,
And so we've really got to ramp up, to the
extent it's allowed under the First Amendment, We've got to
ramp up the criminal statutes on threat got to do
(14:01):
that now. That wouldn't have save Charlie Kirk. I get that,
but there are so many other people right now, and
often they're on the right, often politically motivated threats. Sometimes
there's nothing to do with politics, and it's often women,
you know, And our stalking laws have gotten better, etc.
But we need we need more teeth in the laws
regarding threats. Now we can talk about how to make
(14:23):
that happen, what that should look like. On the other
side of it, Listen, I think Kimmel is a venomous vial.
I'm not saying he's an evil person, but he often
spreads evil. So in my mind, I can't say anything good,
nothing good I can think of about the way Jimmy
Kimmel behaves. So don't take what I'm about to say
(14:43):
the wrong way. But I think this push to get
him on air off there, and the fact that we
have you know, the FCC Commissioner weighing in on that,
I think that is way wrong.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
I think that is way wrong.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
I don't think there should be other than just urging
consumers to be smart and not consume you know, that excrement.
I don't think there should be any push at all
to use the FCC, any pressure from the FCC, any
pressure other than consumers just making good judgments, which means
they wouldn't watch Jimmy Kimmel. I don't think there should
be any of that political pressure to try to have
(15:21):
the FCC take them off air, or the FCC pressure
the networker affiliates to take them off air. I think
that is just such a dangerous, dangerous precedent. And even
if we could sit here and know that, okay, conservatives
are going to win every major election for the next
two hundred years, and so this is never going to
come back on us. Even if that was the case,
I would say the government shouldn't get involved in trying
(15:44):
to get Jimmy Kimmel off air because it just goes
It goes against who we are as a people and
what we value. And when you have government action involved,
you can get some First Amendment issues. So, as much
as I truly despise, but the way kim will be
haves and the evil, vicious lies he tells, et cetera
a huge mistake in my mind. Further to be Trump
(16:07):
administration involvement or any government involvement in trying to force
him off air. I don't personally understand how there's enough
of a market for him to keep him on air,
and I I just believe governments stay out of it.
And if the network wants to continue to have him
on air, even though it's hard for me to believe
he makes the money, you know, then you just let
(16:30):
those those market forces take over. I would imagine a
lot of good people disagree with me on that. I'd
love to hear from you. Eight five five four zero
five eight two five five text d An five seven
seven three nine Dan, I'm an independent uses as there
are thousands and thousands of horrible things posted by both
sides every day. In my opinion, the moderates of both
parties need to tell the fringes that they're done.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
I'd like to get a little more precise on that,
because to me, the relativism thing doesn't hold up when
it comes to violence. In political violence, you'll get the
occasional whack on the right, but when you look at
the left, it's it's systematic. For the left, it's part
of the regular, ongoing process. The difference being the right
(17:13):
can win the argument just based on facts and logic
and reason. The left can't. That's why they have a
playbook full of these other tools. And so Texter, if
you want to call I sure to appreciate that. Three
h three he se one three eight two five five
the number when we come back, I want to play.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
You this Don Lemons sound.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Now he might have just said that because nobody talks
about Don Lemon anymore. But this accusation, the Kirk Memorial
was white nationalism wrapped in religious nationalism. Obviously, that's low
hanging fruit, right, my dead dog could dissect that argument.
God rest his canine soul. Do canines have souls? We
(17:53):
can talk about that. Also, you're on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
You're listening to the Dan Caplis Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
This case and the way it happened is so uniquely horrifying.
Speaker 6 (18:09):
On Friday, a jury awarded the family of one Gala
Estefano's two hundred and five million dollars. The little girl
died from blunt force injury she suffered after falling one
hundred and ten feet from a ride at Glenwood Cavern's
Adventure Park in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
You had the wrongful death award, the compensatory damages award,
which is meant to value the loss of this little
girl to her parents and what her parents suffer with.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Every day because of the horrific way she died.
Speaker 6 (18:40):
Attorney Dan Kaplis represented the family and says the verdict
is significant for many reasons, and the whole purpose of the.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Law and punitive damages is learn the lessons, make the
world safer, make sure this never happens again, and that's
been the parents quest from day one.
Speaker 6 (18:56):
A state investigation found there were several factors that led
to Estefano's death. She wasn't buckled in properly. Instead, she
was sitting on top of the still locked seat belts.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
I respect and understand that you'res finding that a portion
of this fault goes to the manufacture, But at the
end of the day, you have two operators from this
park sitting there with a six year old girl in
front of them and a red light for her seat
that says there's a dangerous problem with her seat belt.
Speaker 6 (19:23):
In a statement, Glenwood Caverns blames the ride manufacturer, Soaring Eagle,
accusing them of building Haunted Mind Drop with a defective
restraint system that caused Stefano's death. Caplist tells nine News
Soaring Eagle no longer exists, so when it comes to
getting accountability from them.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
It's going to be interesting.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
That's going to be litigated separately after this trial, So
there's not a clear answer to that at this point.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
Capla says he's confident the verdict will have other amusement
parks thinking twice about protecting their patrons.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
When it gets too expensive to do it wrong, they'll
do it right when it gets too expensive to do
it dangerously, they'll do it safely. And the story goes
on from there, really well, really well reported story by
Shlima Maharaj at KUSA of extraordinarily impressive journalist three all
(20:16):
three seven one three eight two five five text d
A N five seven seven three nine. Lots to talk
about today, my first day on air since a Texter
said August eighteenth, Wow, I've been in trial up in
Glenwood Springs the case you just heard about there in
that KUSA reports. So again, thanks to everybody who filled
in and just catching up today. But what strikes me
(20:37):
right now, and Ryan Kelly, you can set me straight
on this, but what strikes me right now is really
standing out over these let me do the math. Maybe
five or six weeks I've been off air, the assassination
of Charlie Kirk and everything that means for America and
the lessons to be learned from that and what.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
To take forward.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
And then today I think very very very very significant
comments from President Trump that Ukraine now, Ukraine now with
the support that it's marshaled, is in a position to
just defeat Rush on the battlefield and take back all
its territory. Obviously, the President at this point, I think
trying to position through strength for a peace deal. But
(21:19):
I think very significant that he would go down that
road and also today, and it relates back to Kirk.
Obviously it's the reason that he was taken off air.
Jimmy Kimmel now reinstated by Disney, but some of the affiliates,
depending who they're owned by, not airing the Kimmel Show.
I want to get your take on that. Should he
have ever been taken off air? Should he be back
(21:39):
on air? Do you want him back on your local station,
even though I hope you don't watch him because he
truly is a vile liar. But my position is, and
to me, this is one of the clearest issues I've
ever talked about on air in thirtieth years. There's no
way he should have been taken off air to begin with,
and there should never have been any political pressure from
the Trump administration, no matter how vile he is, no
(22:02):
matter how big a liar he is, no matter how
disgusting he is, I wouldn't watch him if literally he
was the last thing on earth. How much would somebody
have to pay you to watch Jimmy Kimmel. Somebody would
have to pay me a very, very large amount of money,
and even then I'm not sure I would watch him.
But my point is this, in this nation, we shouldn't
(22:23):
be in the business other than through consumers voting with
their eyeballs and their feet. We shouldn't be in the
nation in the business in this nation of running people
off air because of vile, repugnant views. Now, if somebody
crosses the line into advocating violence, in advocating violence under
the legal framework where you can prosecute eve, etc. That's
a different critter. But I don't think Kimmel ever should
(22:46):
have been taken off air. Am I missing something because
I've been in a trial bubble now for a lot
of weeks? Am I missing something in that?
Speaker 4 (22:53):
Ryan?
Speaker 3 (22:53):
I am largely with you on this. I didn't like
the timing of the FCC share Brendan Carr appearing on
the Benn Johns and.
Speaker 4 (23:00):
Podcasts talking about this.
Speaker 3 (23:02):
Ted Cruz, even the Senator from Texas said it kind
of had the feel of a good fella's scene, where
it's like it'd be a shame if you lost your
TV show there you know it's happened to it. But
for me, it's exactly what you said, Jimmy Kimmel doesn't
want you watching, Dan, doesn't want me watching, doesn't want
Kelly watching, doesn't.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
Want most of our listeners watching what he wants. And
that's fine, and he can do that.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
We call that narrow casting as opposed to broadcasting. And
he's on a nationwide network ABC, in which he's already
vilified and condescended to half of his potential audience.
Speaker 4 (23:34):
It's stupid business.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
But let's just follow that path now, Sinclair in Nexstar.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
This is the update to the story.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
Dan are refusing to air his episodes until or unless
he retracts the lie that he told to his viewers,
his audience in America that the shooter was Maga, which
was fake news. It's false, it's a lie. It's not
even funny, it's not even a joke. That was the
point Stephen A. Smith actually made about it, which, like
you said, in the marketplace of ideas. His show has failed.
(24:00):
His ratings are tanking. Guttfeld is absolutely destroying him in
staid ratings, and it's in ABC Disney's interest, I think,
to replace him as a program much the same way
CBS has chosen to do with Colbert.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
But You're exactly right.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Let it run its course in the marketplace of ideas,
capitalistic economy, that type of over the year broadcasting.
Speaker 4 (24:21):
It depends on advertisers.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
And when you follow that to its logical end, I
think Jimmy kimmellive dies on the vine on its own.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
Interesting point you raise about, say the owners of individual affiliates,
right like Nextstar or Sinclair, and listen, I get it.
If say an individual affiliate wants to take the position
or an owner of an affiliate that wait a second,
that's a flat out lie. We don't want to be
(24:50):
using our resources to give liars a platform.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
I get that.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
I get that if they want to make that decision,
and I'd respect that. What I don't think we should
be doing in this country is taking people off air
because they have political views that are vile and abhorrent, etc.
Short of directly advocating violence. But this point about wait
a second, I didn't work my whole life to build
(25:17):
this TV station or to be able to buy these
stations or whatever, only to put liars on.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
That's a different story in my mind. That's a different story.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
But when it's political viewpoint, and I sure don't think
the administration should be involved at that point. Listen, if
somebody's telling a lie, which is the defamatory, and this
lie about Mega, this lie that the shooter was Mega,
wouldn't be considered defamation because you don't have you don't
have an actual individual or organization that would have standing
(25:49):
to sue, etc.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
So that's kind of in its own category.
Speaker 4 (25:51):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Of course, any TV station, radio station, etc. As a
right to take people.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Down if they're going to be defaming people on their
airwaves this kind of lie. Yeah, I still do think
that the owner of a station has a right to
say I don't want a liar on my air. It's
the political stuff, and I think Brendan Carr probably got
involved because of the political stuff. I don't think there's
any question he got involved because of the political stuff.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
And that's where I think it's wrong.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Kimmel, I've got to believe that it can't be a
financial consideration for ABC to have kept him on air.
I have to believe that it was a political consideration
for ABC to put him on air and keep him
on air. It's relationship with the left, etc. Because he
can't have enough viewers, Canny Ryan, he can't have enough
viewers to make the math work. No, yeah, but would
(26:44):
love your take on all that. So when we come back,
what I'd like to do is, I'd like to deep
dive some of the sound from the Charlie Kirk memorial
because first, I think it's compelling, but it also ties
into these broader issues from a policy standpoint, concrete stuff. Yeah,
I think we've got to be cranking up. I think
we've got to be cranking up our criminal laws when
(27:04):
it comes to threats of violence. We got to crank
him up. We got to dial him up as high
as we can take him, take those laws without violating
the constitution.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
What do you think the penalty should be?
Speaker 1 (27:16):
What do you think then, should there be mandatory jail
for somebody who makes a threat of violence against somebody else?
Three or three seOne three eight two five five text
d A N five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
You're on the Dan Capler Show.
Speaker 4 (27:32):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast. It
was a missionary with a noble spirit and a great,
great purpose.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
He did not hate his opponents.
Speaker 4 (27:42):
He wanted.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
The best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
I hate my opponent and I don't want the best
for them.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
I am sorry Erica.
Speaker 7 (27:56):
But now Erica can talk to me and the whole
group and maybe they can convince me that that's not right.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
But I can't stand.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
My opponent.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Think you was serious.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
He's joking. I think trying to provide some levity there.
I think there's an element of seriousness to it. His opponents,
some of them wanted him dead, Dan some of them
were okay if he was dead or assassinated. It's about
a third of Democrats and polling. Many of them wanted
him imprisoned. These felonious, erroneous charges that were leveled against him,
(28:29):
thirty four of them by Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Fannie Willis,
Jack Smith, the Biden, doj Merrick Garland. I don't think
you could blame Donald Trump for not exactly wanted to
make nice with you.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
I truly was just curious as to whether he was
serious there or not. Listen, if there's anybody who had
ever right to hate their opponents, it would be Donald Trump.
I mean, what was done to him is all those
things you just described. It's demonic. But I was just
wondering whether he was serious there, and you know, I
(29:05):
admire I admire her so much for forgiving the person
who killed her husband, and I think that was one
of the greatest examples that we've ever seen on the
public stage from Erica Kirk. And while I don't agree
if President Trump was being serious, I obviously don't agree
(29:28):
with the underlying premise of hate your enemies. You know,
like I assume a lot of people listening, I try
very very very hard to be a good Christian, in
my case of Catholic Christian. Obviously I have a long
way to go, but loving your enemies is a huge
part of that. It doesn't mean you don't fight them.
Everybody listening, I'm sure fights, you know, for good and
(29:51):
against bad in lots of ways. I just finished, along
with my great colleagues weeks and weeks and weeks of
doing that in a trial. Doesn't mean don't fight him
and fight them hard and beat him. But the question
is do you cross that line into hating your enemies?
And me, as a Christian, that'd be a sin.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
I can't.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
I'm commanded not to, and I don't mean to preach,
but obviously, you know, Christ dying on the cross forgive
them father, They know not what they do.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
I don't have the right to hate my enemies.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
I have the right to fight them and defeat them,
but not hate them. But what I admire about that
statement of Trump's, if he was serious, is not the
underlying message, because I disagree with it, but the honesty,
just the brutal honesty and going all the way back
when Craig and I would sit in the studio, like
back in twenty eleven or so, when they're first started
to be talk of Trump running for office a set
(30:43):
on air. Then he's going to be successful, but for
a lot of reasons, but including his honesty. America craves honesty.
I think we're wired to crave and to recognize brutal honesty,
and Trump boy, I think was serious and he was
being brutally honest there.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
And I do respect that.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
I respect anybody, whether they agree or disagree with me
on a particular point or a worldview. I respect people
who are honest, and that's one enormous reason for.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
His success, his honesty.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
I'd love to get your take on this underline, you know,
forgiving enemies.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
So let's go to Eric in Lubbock, Texas. You're on
the Dan Kaplis Show. Welcome Eric, Hi Dan.
Speaker 7 (31:23):
I've got two sides of me and I don't know
which one's gonna win out, but I'll just put it
out there, you know, because I used to live in
the gun Barrel in Nywat area, both Republic of Boulders.
So the nice part of me says, you know, like
the ancients, they would put somebody that would steal uh
in the in the city circle and say nice things
(31:47):
about them for hours, and that that could be as
torturesome as not worse than having you know, bad things said,
you know, you know done to you because you're actually
you're being loved back into existence. That's the Boulder side
of me. Now the other side of me is I
remember guys like Michael Fay back in nineteen ninety three
(32:08):
that was caned for stealing in Singapore, you know, you know,
in the open, you know. But then again, you know,
we have a society that just refuses to take personal
accountability for their actions. So that's why I was I
mentioned the first yeah is that maybe to have people,
(32:32):
but this is going to take a community effort. Yes,
The thing is, do people want to be that involved
into letting people back into existence.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Well, get great question there, Eric, and that brings us
back to Erica. Kirk, and I think that the left
was absolutely terrified, absolutely terrified to hear her say this.
Speaker 5 (32:55):
That man, that young man, I forgive him, and they.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
Were terrified to see the crowd spontaneously leap to its feet.
Because what poses the greatest threat to the left right now,
to the very existence of the left in America, it's
people living their faith, people voting their faith. That doesn't
mean a Catholic voting for a Catholic. I'm Catholic, but
you have some Catholics running for officeing vote for me,
I'm Catholic, and they would use the power you give
(33:30):
them to go out and push legal abortion on demand
through the moment of delivery. No, it means voting your
faith means obviously voting for people who in office are
going to act on policies that are consistent with the
core teachings of your faith.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
That's what it means.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
The left knows if people in America actually live their faith,
the left is done.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
That's why Jared Polus, remember after he won the governor's
office the first time, the very first.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Thing he did the next day was come out publicly
and say to keep their faith out of the public square.
So no, what Erica did is the single most frightening
thing to the left, and when those people rose to
their feet spontaneously to admire for it, Yeah, that's got
to terrify the left.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
Texter Dan.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
In January twenty five, Kimmel had one point nine four
to six total viewers per month. By August he only
had one point one zero four. So yeah, the biggest
expense for Disney in those shows is the host salary
that they wanted out for financial reasons at from Alexi, Yeah,
I think the only reason Disney kept Kimmel on was
just to play kate the left.
Speaker 2 (34:36):
I think if it was market forces, he goes.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
My point is government shouldn't be involved in trying to
run Kimmel off.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
That that's wrong. We don't want that precedent. What do
you think You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.