September 9, 2026 • 36 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Let's play. KRFX HD2 Denver.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
KHOW Denver.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
This is 630 KHOW. Denver's talk station. And iHeartRadio station.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Guaranteed human.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Dan Kavkis.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Another perfect day to fight for the American way. Glad
you are here.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
303-713-8255.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
DAN 57739. Text ALIVEALREADY. spinning off the conversation we were
having yesterday. We're on to fresh stuff today. We will
circle back to this conversation about Mayor Mike Johnston and
his preposterous, absurd, provably false, dangerous statements about fentanyl, and
(00:41):
then dive a little bit deeper into why. You know,
we just heard in the Denver market, we're doing the
show out of Denver today, we just heard a promo
for the 9-11 coverage, and I'm really, really sorry that
the 25th anniversary of 9-11 is falling on a Friday.
because it's such a profoundly important day, looking back in
respect to those who were lost, taken, looking forward, though,
(01:05):
to the lessons learned, which are rapidly being forgotten. Think
about how many people are, you know, coming into positions
of real influence now who weren't even alive on 9-11.
So I wish it was on a Monday so that
be more focused on it, because you know how it
is on a Friday, especially, you know, a nice September Friday.
You know, people are kind of tuned out. Two and
a half day weekend. That's too bad. I wish it
(01:27):
was on a Monday, but we'll do the very best
we can. Our little effort here come Friday. 303-713-8255, DAN 57739.
Lots of ground to cover today locally. You know, governor's race,
governor's race, fundraising, updated fundraising totals in. Get you that information.
See what you think of it. Really interesting to see
(01:49):
a headline in the Denver Post about how close the
fundraising totals are between Victor Marks and Phil Weiser and
how much cash on hand, etc. So we'll get into that.
And then as everybody knows, and these are numbers we
don't have access to, of course, and theoretically the campaigns don't,
but we all know what that wink and a nod
looks like on both sides. But the big, big money,
(02:13):
of course, is in these you know, independent expenditure groups,
as they're called. And those totals just aren't available to
the rest of us. So we'll get to that. Also
on the local front, interesting story, and probably worth a
heads up to you, Katie Lankford piece in the Denver Post,
Denver 9-11 flyover of United Airlines plane escorted by F-16s
(02:36):
may be highly visible, city says. Now, this is a
private memorial that United Airlines is doing, you know, coordinating,
with the military. And it's a memorial dedicated to United and,
I believe, American employees who were lost in that terrorist attack.
But Peace says, in part, Denverites can expect to see
(02:59):
a United Airlines passenger jet escorted by a squadron of
F-16s flying over the city on Friday morning as part
of a private 9-11 memorial at the airline's flight training center.
City says it will be highly visible from parts of Denver,
noticeable by sounds, more noticeable than a typical aircraft event.
(03:21):
And so the city putting out the word at this
point that there's no emergency because you know what it's
going to look like, right? It's going to look on
9-11 as if maybe a plane's been hijacked and is
now surrounded by fighter jets. So I think it's very
responsible of the city to put that word out that, no,
this is a commemoration. And it reminds me, you know,
the Denver studio we're in today, it's down by I-25
(03:43):
in Bellevue. And I've seen so many things out these windows.
It's amazing. It's almost like a Forrest Gump deal. But
sitting here doing the show one day, because the windows
face southeast, and sitting here doing the show, and I
see a passenger jet surrounded by fighter jets. And then
(04:06):
just we were trying to figure out, and my producer
at the time, we were trying to figure out what
that is. We called all the newsrooms. Nobody had any
information on it. To this day, we have no idea
what that was. But there was a full-size passenger jet,
which would be just in the, you know, east of
I-25 in Bellevue, surrounded by fighter jets. Whatever it was, fortunately,
(04:28):
did not end in any kind of tragedy. Also sitting
here one day and watched what looked like Air Force
One repeatedly coming past, and it was a training mission,
obviously must have been some kind of high-altitude training mission, so.
Good on the city for letting people know, because otherwise
people could be pretty concerned about that come Friday. 303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
(04:53):
As much as we like to keep it local, do
need to talk about one national story at this point,
because it ties into something we chew on a lot
on this program. And I'm afraid, and I look first
in the mirror on this, right? Because I'm highly, highly
aware of, because I've really kind of immersed in it,
you know, the.
(05:15):
Dramatic is way, way, way, way too much of an understatement.
A tsunami that's about to hit us in terms of
societal change, economic change, job market change, etc. from AI.
And we talk about it on the show. I don't
do it that much because I think people get tired
of it. You know, kind of like the boy who
cried wolf. I'm just like, oh man, we have no
(05:36):
idea what's about to hit us. But this important story
out today has a little bit different twist on it.
This is one of those end of the world kind
of scenarios. And the reason I think it's worth a
minute of your time is because it comes from a
guy who was a big shot at one of the
big AI companies, Anthropic. And what he did, this Evan Hubinger, H-U-B-I-N-G-E-R,
(06:00):
he was Anthropic's alignment science lead. He came out today
and said in a piece, he believes there's a greater
than 10% chance that advanced AI could kill all humans
within the next 10 years. So, Shannon, I think we've
got to get busy with these bucket list items.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
We've got to be done.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Maybe that's on the list.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Maybe it is. Being killed by AI. And I'm not
laughing at this because, you know, you've had so many
people who really know this stuff and are in big
positions within that industry who've come out with serious warnings.
So let me just give you a quick feel for AI.
what this AI big shot is saying. And he has
(06:46):
since left the company. And another guy, Jacob Coxon, C-O-X-O-N,
an anthropic researcher, previously worked on OpenAI, announced he was
quitting anthropic specifically because of AI safety concerns. Now, we
could get into all the technical terminology and all of that,
(07:08):
but what it all boils down to is concerns over
this self-improving super intelligence and where that's going to lead. And,
you know, the technical term that you'll hear is, you know,
this future that so many in AI see where these
(07:28):
systems are capable of recursive self-improvement of AI itself, designing success,
successively more capable AI systems. So stuff that used to
take a year now takes an hour, you know, in
terms of AI development and quote unquote improvement. Now, you're
(07:49):
probably wondering, okay, how in the end is AI going
to be able to kill us? And under this scenario
where it just keeps self-improving and it's able to then
take over and develop more advanced models of itself, the
concern is is that AI is going to get to
(08:10):
the point where it's able to perceive humans as a
threat to the ongoing existence of AI. You know, as
you know, AI has this tremendous demand for water, electricity, etc.
There's a lot of pushback now, and I understand that
the concern is a lot of pushback about, you know,
(08:30):
these data centers, etc. So AI perceives humans as a threat.
And then AI sets about to eliminate the threat in
multiple ways, including taking over weapons systems, shutting down critical infrastructure,
destroying the electronically controlled financial system and other grids, things
(08:51):
like that. That's how, in theory, some of these insiders
believe AI could get motivated to wipe us all out
and then execute it. So that's the theory. Yeah, I
just want to make sure you were aware of that
latest development, just in case you might be heading toward
a good night's sleep. The other part of it in
the meantime that I think is much more of a
(09:14):
day-to-day concern for all of us, because it's started to
hit already. It's like bankruptcy. They say about bankruptcy, right?
It happens very slowly and then all at once. And
right now, in ways that you may be experiencing, and
if you are, I'm sorry about that, in ways that
A lot of us aren't seeing day-to-day, but we know
(09:35):
it's happening. You know, already, you know, the job market's
getting hit by it. Kids out of school are running
into these problems because there are fewer jobs due to AI.
But at a certain point, there's going to be a
tipping point, and it's really going to hit like a
tsunami in terms of, you know, the strain on the
(09:55):
safety net and the ability of society, including the government,
to absorb it. You know, the other concern, of course,
is the safety of everybody's everything. You know, everybody's money,
everybody's stocks, et cetera, as the bad, you know, Guys
and gals out there, I'm talking on the criminal level,
and then the sheer terrorist and state-controlled terrorism, and put
(10:18):
China at the top of that list, Communist Party of China,
are able to utilize AI to get to a point
where they can hack in and steal and disrupt and
destroy just about anything. So that's the big AI story today.
If you have any thoughts on that, of course, you
can text it or call. If you're doing it, I
guess here's where I'd put a bow on this one.
(10:39):
if you're doing anything really concrete right now in your
life to try to protect yourself and your family from
all of this, Hey, share it. And we'll pass it
along because, you know, maybe it it's right. Maybe it's wrong.
Maybe it works for other people. Maybe it doesn't, but
I think it's time that we at least started having
these conversations because the impact on Colorado in many ways,
(11:00):
I think will be larger than the impact on many
other parts of the country, just given the nature of
our industry workforce, et cetera, out here. Um, You know,
but the qualifier on that would be that under Democrat rule,
we've become the bud tender capital of America. And I'm
not quite sure yet of the impact of AI on
our blossoming bud tender industry. You're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said
one day in the end, well, why don't we have
the judge come in and read it again? And we
were like, no, we have it in front of us.
We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And,
(11:49):
you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable doubt.
But he had the hardest time getting off the fact
that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
Wow. That has to be one of the most striking
quotes in the history of juror interviews. He had the
hardest time getting over that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
And I understand the juror's point. I'm not being critical
of the juror in any way. But just think about that.
(12:21):
And so much conversation around the country right now about
the holdout. And, you know, again, I wasn't in the courtroom.
I wasn't following that case day to day. And I've
learned from being in the courtroom, first, my own cases
for more than four decades, including another one next week,
will be in trial on, but also covering big trials
and for networks around the country, I have learned that
(12:44):
it'd be a big mistake for me at least to
try to second guess any jury unless I'm in that
courtroom every day. And so here though, it's more just
about what it would take to hold out and just
about the broader point of, hey, look at all the
great figures in human history, they've all been holdouts. Whether
(13:05):
this guy was right to hold out or not, they've
all been holdouts. And it takes real courage and it
takes real strength and it takes real determination. And you
know the pattern. You've seen it a million times. You
probably had it in your own life. In the beginning,
everybody says you're nuts. Everybody says you're wrong. Everybody mocks
you and ridicules you. And then eventually everybody says it
(13:26):
was their idea before it was yours. I mean, that's
how it works. And then, hey, sometimes it takes more
than a lifetime for society to come along and say, oh,
that guy we all thought was a nut. you know,
40 years ago, he was actually right. So yeah, be
the holdout. I mean, that's, that's a good lesson. And here,
(13:47):
just that point about, yeah, hard to get past that
she viciously murdered her children.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
And it's, it's interesting. And social media is not a
fair barometer of anything. But if you look at social media,
certainly overwhelming support for him. And, and again, though, you
are not going to find me criticizing any any juror
or their service. And I can tell you all those
trials that I have been in the courtroom for the
entire trial, whether it's my trial or it's, you know,
(14:18):
covering a big case, I just, very, very, very rare
that I would disagree with the jury. Certainly only a very, very,
very small handful of times in my 43 years trying
cases and hope to have another 43 years. And the
big national cases I've covered, I mean, everybody's so critical
of the OJ jury, right? But having followed that case
(14:41):
every day, and I wasn't in the courtroom every day
for that case, not at all. I'd occasionally go out
and sit in the courtroom. Most of the coverage was
done from the radio studios here, but saw every minute
of the trial. In the end, I would never in
a million years be critical of that OJ jury. You know,
do I think that he probably did it?
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
But when you're a juror and you're charged with following
the law and the law requires proof beyond a reasonable
doubt and you get these other legal instructions and you
see all of the doubt that popped up in that case,
if you're strictly applying that standard, largely because of mishandling
of evidence and other flaws in the investigation. And then
(15:24):
I think in the O.J. case, there was an underlying doubt.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
A challenge.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
I think there was so much evidence pointing to more
than one person being there. So if you assume OJ
was involved, which I think is a fair assumption, but
if you assume OJ was involved, then there was very
likely somebody else there with him. Doesn't mean that person
was involved in the killing or anything else. And the
prosecution theory could never explain, you know, that evidence. So
(15:51):
that's why I think at the end of the day,
criticism of the OJ jury, I think, is really misplaced
if you're going to strictly apply that proof beyond a
reasonable doubt standard. And then, you know, you think about juries,
and I don't mean to sound all civics class, but
how really, truly lucky we are to live in a
country where we have juries. I'm thinking of the Mike
(16:14):
Tyson trial, when Mike Tyson went on trial in Indianapolis, Indiana,
for allegedly raping a young woman named Desiree Washington. And so, And,
you know, Tyson had the big legal teams out of D.C.
and everything else in the prosecutor's office there went outside
and they brought in an outside guy to try the case.
He'd been with the office years before. But I remember
(16:37):
I was staying. Where was I staying? I was staying
near the courthouse and the jurors were at a different hotel.
And then I hear some noise in the hallway, maybe what,
a couple of days into trial. I open my door.
It's two in the morning. I open my door and
and I don't drink. Right. That's the ironic thing. Shannon,
do you drink? I mean, not during the show.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
Not since 08.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
Oh, really?
Speaker 2 (16:59):
That's impressive. Yeah, I just don't. I just don't want
to lose any sort of edge. The irony is, you know,
I can drink anybody under the table. I just don't
do it. But I don't drink. That's the point of
this story. I open my door in the middle of
the Tyson trial, and all of the jurors, every single
(17:19):
one of the jurors, is standing outside my hotel room
at 2 in the morning. So, of course, I have
to think to myself, why is the jury, which is
not staying in my hotel, outside of my door at
two in the morning? Seemed like a fair question. And
I wanted to ask them, but I knew, you know,
(17:40):
I'm a lawyer covering the case as a legal analyst
for the network and local TV. I knew I could
not speak to jurors, so I could not ask them,
why are you outside my door? But it's funny how
life works, right? I can still remember some of the
faces and the looks on their faces as they saw
(18:00):
me open the door, because I'm there in the courtroom
every day. So I see them, they see me. It's
a small courtroom. It was just so wild. But what
had happened is, and there's no doubt it's arson, you know,
somebody had set the juror's hotel on fire. Probably somebody
who thought, I'm not saying it had anything to do
with the Tyson camp, but probably somebody who thought the
(18:21):
trial wasn't going great for Tyson at that point, which
it wasn't. That's just my own guess. I have no
proof of that. But in any case, yeah, somebody set
the juror's hotel on fire. Fortunately, none of the jurors
were injured. If I remember right, one or two people
were killed in that fire, but that's how they ended
up staying the rest of the trial on my floor
(18:42):
in the hotel. Bottom line, tremendous, tremendous belief in the
jury system. I'm not going to sit here and be
critical of those jurors in the Clancy case, but I
I can't sit here with admiration for the juror who
stuck to his beliefs. And I'm going to play some
more of that interview sound because it's really fascinating to
(19:03):
get that inside look. You're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said
one day in the end, well, why don't we have
the judge come in and read it again? And we
were like, no, we have it in front of us.
We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And,
(19:32):
you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable. But
he had the hardest time getting off the fact that
Lindsay viciously killed her children.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Hmm. Yeah, I think you should have a very hard
time getting past that. And I'm sure in certain cases
you should, but yeah, it should be a very hard
time getting past that. Erin Lee, Protect Kids Colorado, she
is a force of nature, got these three very important
(20:02):
ballot measures on the ballot, largely grassroots effort. We wanted
to touch base on that, but also Erin, appreciate your
time today because this really fascinating story of this woman
who's decided to be extraordinarily high profile, Catherine Sasser, who
then made a big deal out of moving her child
(20:24):
to Colorado, her male child who identifies as female. And
it just seems to me a very odd situation, but
I know you're very dialed into that. Welcome back to
the show.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
Hey, Dan. Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
So tell us about this Catherine Sasser situation and then
let's talk about the latest with the campaign.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
You know, Dan, Colorado is what I call a child
mutilation sanctuary state. And Catherine Sasser is a prime example
of that. There are 27 states who have passed similar
law to the ballot measures that have put age restrictions
on these irreversible procedures for kids. that have said, no,
biological males may not participate in single sex female categories.
(21:06):
And Colorado has done the opposite repeatedly, especially since 2019 passing.
I actually have a list on my website of over
20 laws that harm parental rights, that mandate gender ideology.
And parents are flocking here for these, what they call
protections for their kids. I would argue they're harms for
their kids and for all of the kids who are affected.
(21:28):
This little boy, Catherine Susser's son, was a little boy.
And he was used as a prop by the Biden administration.
You'll remember when they had that big rainbow festival and
there was topless people and they were parading kids around.
He was one of the little kids that Biden used
as a political prop. And I think it just furthered
(21:48):
what I call trans housing by proxy in these mothers,
especially with the really young kids.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Explain that, please.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
It's like a designer handbag where they are pushing this
ideology on their child. And, you know, unfortunately it inflated
her head on this issue for her child. And when
they shut down the gender clinics in Missouri, I believe
is where they're from. she moved her child here. And
(22:19):
also because he's an athlete and she wanted him to
be able to compete on the girls' team. And we're
a state that is very openly friendly to both of
those things. That's why the ballot measures are so incredibly important.
But I've seen this over and over, not just with
two-parent households, but especially with parents who are in custody situations,
(22:40):
who bring their children here against, it's usually the father's will,
to come and have the child medicalized without the other
parent's consent. And in Colorado, that's legal. If you can
get them over the state line, you can medicalize them.
And that's what we see happening over and over.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Erin Lee, our guest, Protect Kids Colorado. We'll get in
a second to how you can help on the ballot measures. But, Erin,
one thing I've never understood in a situation like this,
and I'll try to get this Catherine Sasser on the show,
is how does it help your kid to... make them
this public symbol, how does that help the child?
Speaker 3 (23:19):
It doesn't. It's attention for the mother. And, you know, again,
I think when the Biden administration, when other people give
these parents attention, it inflates their head. It inflates their ego.
These kids are truly props to them. They do it
for attention. I've seen it over and over, especially in
the custody situation. There are so many dads here in
(23:40):
Colorado who, where the mother uses them on social media.
There's a mom who's got hundreds of thousands of followers
on TikTok where she bashes the dad as part of
her platform because she loves the attention. People affirm it.
It's that toxic empathy in a lot of cases. I
don't think people mean harm, but they, you know, give
the mother comfort and attention and it just furthers their
(24:02):
desire to use these kids as props for attention.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
And it's so mind blowing to me because, um, I've known,
I think everybody listening has known somebody who truly had
a genuine case of gender dysphoria and confusion over gender.
And whether it's a young person or an older person,
you know, those are sad, sad situations. So then for
(24:25):
somebody to try to turn that into, as you say,
a political prop. Now, I'm sure if Catherine Sasser joins us,
she'll say, no, here's why it's in the best interest
of my child. I'd just love to hear that explanation.
Because I can't see any scenario where it is.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Yeah, it's hard to watch. And I always say that
these ballot measures were born from compassion for everyone involved.
I feel for these little boys who are being manipulated,
who are being lied to, who are being chemically castrated,
having their normal human development stunted. put in the spotlight
when we see these males competing in female sports, I
(25:01):
have so much compassion for them. That must be horrible
to be in that position and to receive that kind
of attention, to be told by adults, by everyone around you, yes,
you are a girl, you belong here, you're just like
the other girls. We all know that's a lie, but
they're being fed this idea by the adults in their lives.
And I feel so bad for the kids who are stuck.
Speaker 4 (25:20):
In the middle of this.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
And it's another reason that if we pass a measure
that says, no, Absolutely not. We cannot have boys participating
in these sports. Then they're not going to be put
in that position where they're the center of attention in
these issues and are making girls uncomfortable. You know, when
they go into those locker rooms and they're told you
belong there, all the girls are then told you better
be quiet. Don't say anything. That boy is supposed to
(25:43):
be here and everyone is put in a horrible situation.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
And I'm glad, Aaron, you used the word compassionate because
these ballot measures, and I'd ask you to give people
a quick overview on how they can help. These ballot
measures are intensely compassionate. I mean, you and the people
supporting you and every voter who supports you are saving children,
saving children from a lifetime of mutilation, saving girls, sports
(26:06):
for girls. I mean, these are intensely compassionate. It's really
a typical deception from the left that they'd make your
truly compassionate efforts out to be some form of the opposite,
when it's truly the left that shows no real concern
or compassion for these kids.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
That's right. And I think a lot of people don't
understand that I've been through this with a child. I
had a 12-year-old daughter who suffered the mental health distress
of wrong sex confusion. It's a horrible situation to be in.
And again, with these kids who are being medicalized, parents
are so often bullied and gaslit with what I call
the suicide, then transition or die. They're put in the
situation where they're told, if you don't give your kids
(26:46):
these hormones and these wrong sex procedures, they're going to
kill themselves. That is an impossible situation we should not
be putting parents into. And also that doctors can profit.
off of mutilating these kids' healthy bodies. It's horrible. So yes,
these are very compassionate measures. They take everyone in the
situation into consideration and they're common sense. Really, it is
(27:06):
such a universally agreed upon measure that we shouldn't be
cutting off the healthy body parts of minor kids. That
single sex categories as enacted by Title IX over 40
years ago are for females and males only. They are
single sex categories. Biological sex is real. It's not hateful
nor bigoted to say that out loud. It's just reality.
(27:28):
And the trafficking measure, that's really a no-brainer. We should
be holding child sex traffickers accountable. So I'm just delighted
that the people of Colorado now have a chance to
vote yes on these. All they have to do is
circle the bubble and turn it in.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
Well, tell them how. Give them the number. How's the
campaign going?
Speaker 3 (27:45):
Yeah, we have proposition numbers. I think this might be
the first time I've been able to say it out
loud on air. We have 133, 134, and 135. So
that is how they will appear on the ballot. Those
are the official numbers. And we are such a grassroots campaign.
This is the engaged citizenry got us this far. It's
(28:06):
how we're going to finish and get over the finish line.
And we're really relying on people to just Tell people,
tell 10 people and tell them to tell 10 to
vote yes on this measure. When people know it's there,
they will vote. But people aren't inclined to vote for
amendments and propositions. So it's just important that we educate them.
They have this opportunity to just vote yes on these
(28:26):
common sense measures. Tell everyone, you know.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
Yeah, no.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
And truth and grassroots is going to have to beat
the money, right? Because the left will print money to
defeat these. So, well, again, phenomenal job on your part.
Appreciate the time today and look forward to the next visit.
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Yeah, I look forward to hosting next week.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Oh, that's right, and thank you for doing that. Yeah,
I'm in trial next week, and Erin's kind enough to
take a day and come in and host, so thank
you for that.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
Thanks so much for having me, Dan.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
Have a great day. That is Erin Lee, a true
force of nature. I mean, it's amazing what she has
been able to accomplish, and hopefully with your help, we'll
get these over the finish line.
Speaker 3 (29:03):
303-713-8255.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
Hey, really interesting calls and texts waiting. I hope you
join in all that. We're talking about the jury in
the Lindsay Clancy case now that some have given interviews
and the insights we're getting there and then broadening it
out to talk about, you know, other high profile cases
and juries in those cases. My basic premise from 43
years of trying cases and covering big cases around the
(29:26):
country for the networks is that jurors almost always get
it right. And so really should be reluctant to second
guess from a distance. But this Lindsay Clancy case, given
the whole... and now some things we're hearing from jurors,
it's it's worth your time. You're on the Dan Kaplan show.
(29:49):
A juror from the Lindsey Clancy trial.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said
one day in the end, well, why don't we have
the judge come in and read it again? And we
were like, no, we have it in front of us.
We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And,
(30:13):
you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable. But
he had the hardest time getting off the fact that
Lindsay viciously killed her children. Wow.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
So a lot of response to that.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
Tax.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
Dan, how did nine women get on the jury? The
prosecution did a horrible job in the Clancy trial. Hey,
I didn't watch the trial, so can't comment on the prosecution.
But I would not be critical of them for putting
nine women on the jury because I'm sure the working premise.
was that every single mother would say there is nothing
on the face of the earth that could make me
(30:47):
kill my children. So my guess is that was their bet. Now,
I'm not being at all critical of the jurors in
the Clancy trial. The holdout, hey, it takes a lot
to hold out. I have to respect that. But, yeah,
I don't know how you'd be critical of the prosecution
for assuming that. Unless there's something else going on in
America right now, and I don't think there is. I
(31:09):
don't think there's some big phenomenon in America now where
all of a sudden across political lines or something else
like that, you've got a whole lot of women saying, no, no,
I could definitely see killing my kids. No, I think
it's universal across party lines. Nothing in the world could
ever make a mother kill her children. Yeah, I think
that was their bet. William in Pueblo, you're on the
(31:30):
Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome. Hi, Dan.
Speaker 4 (31:34):
Something that I understand judges hate the jurors to know
about is jury nullification. My understanding is that that gives
the juror the power to disregard the law and or
the judge's instructions. What is your understanding of that?
Speaker 2 (31:52):
My understanding is it would be a violation of the
law to sit as a juror and to disregard the
law that the court has given you. So I mean,
you're correct. I think every single judge out there is
going to be opposed to jurors disregarding the law.
Speaker 4 (32:09):
But isn't that part of our legal system? Isn't it
written in somewhere? My understanding from reading years ago is
that jury nullification is a part of our heritage.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
No, sir. And I really appreciate you bringing it up
because it is not part of the law. And so
I just think every juror, Every juror raises his or
her right hand and just takes an oath that they
are going to follow the law as given to them
by the court. And if they can't do that, they
don't have to sit on the jury. That's the beauty
(32:42):
of our system. They can just say to the judge, judge,
I can't follow that law. And nobody will get on
their case. They'll just say, well, thank you for showing
up and appreciate your service. So nobody has to follow
a law they don't believe in, but they have to
not sit on that jury. They have to tell the court,
they have to tell the attorneys, I cannot follow that law.
(33:03):
Because once on the jury, they're obligated to follow the law.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
I don't know how to approach this. If someone is
being interviewed for the jury and he mentions jury nullification
in the open court, My understanding is that the judge
(33:26):
can consider him to be in contempt. No, no.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
I think the court, every court I've been in front
of for 43 years wants total honesty from jurors and
jury selection. So if a juror believes in jury nullification,
the court is going to appreciate the fact that the
juror has been honest about that. So the parties can
make sure not to seat that juror. So no, it's,
(33:53):
And that's the interesting thing about jury selection is nobody
is supposed to and nobody really does try to change
anybody's deeply held beliefs during jury selection. It's a matter
of identifying those and whether those are consistent with being
able to serve as a juror on that case.
Speaker 4 (34:11):
Okay, well. I might be misunderstanding what I read about
years ago then.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
Well, I'm sure glad you called on that, my friend,
because if you are, I'm sure many other fine people are.
So thank you for that. Yeah, it's 1,000% that the
key is that nobody should ever sit on a jury
unless they can honestly raise their right hand and promise
to follow the law given to them by the court.
(34:40):
And if you can't follow that law, you just tell
the court that, and the court will make sure you're
not on the jury. So, you know, that's the other
thing that's really striking to me. And again, I mean,
I don't mean to sound, you know, goody two-shoes or anything,
but 43 years of trying cases and hopefully 43 more
to come. It is universal. I mean, over the course
of all those decades, yeah, there were maybe in all
(35:02):
the trials I've had, maybe a very, very small handful
of people who didn't take it seriously. But regardless of
political affiliation or anything, other strong feelings or anything else,
when people get into that courtroom during jury selection, it's
been my experience over the years that they take it very,
very seriously and that people work very, very hard to
(35:22):
be honest in all of their responses. So I appreciate
William calling. And if he got called into a jury,
I would fully expect that he would tell the judge.
He would raise these issues with the court so the
court could identify the issues and make sure that Anybody
who believes in jury nullification does not sit on a jury.
And that is, you think about how hard that is
(35:44):
for judges. You've probably had this experience in some way
in your own life too, how hard it is for
judges and how hard it is sometimes for jurors. When
you have taken that oath and you have promised to
follow the law, then so many judges do that. And
they follow the law to an end that they are
(36:06):
not happy with themselves. But that's why they put on
the robe, because it's not about themselves anymore. It's about
following the law. And, you know, jurors do that, too.
But that's the oath everybody takes. When we come back,
we've got more sound from Clancy Case jurors and United Airlines.
We open the show talking about this big flyover they're
(36:26):
going to do on 9-11. They just canceled it. I'll
explain why.
Let's play. KRFX HD2 Denver.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
KHOW Denver.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
This is 630 KHOW. Denver's talk station. And iHeartRadio station.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Guaranteed human.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Dan Kavkis.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Another perfect day to fight for the American way. Glad
you are here.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
303-713-8255.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
DAN 57739. Text ALIVEALREADY. spinning off the conversation we were
having yesterday. We're on to fresh stuff today. We will
circle back to this conversation about Mayor Mike Johnston and
his preposterous, absurd, provably false, dangerous statements about fentanyl, and
(00:41):
then dive a little bit deeper into why. You know,
we just heard in the Denver market, we're doing the
show out of Denver today, we just heard a promo
for the 9-11 coverage, and I'm really, really sorry that
the 25th anniversary of 9-11 is falling on a Friday.
because it's such a profoundly important day, looking back in
respect to those who were lost, taken, looking forward, though,
(01:05):
to the lessons learned, which are rapidly being forgotten. Think
about how many people are, you know, coming into positions
of real influence now who weren't even alive on 9-11.
So I wish it was on a Monday so that
be more focused on it, because you know how it
is on a Friday, especially, you know, a nice September Friday.
You know, people are kind of tuned out. Two and
a half day weekend. That's too bad. I wish it
(01:27):
was on a Monday, but we'll do the very best
we can. Our little effort here come Friday. 303-713-8255, DAN 57739.
Lots of ground to cover today locally. You know, governor's race,
governor's race, fundraising, updated fundraising totals in. Get you that information.
See what you think of it. Really interesting to see
(01:49):
a headline in the Denver Post about how close the
fundraising totals are between Victor Marks and Phil Weiser and
how much cash on hand, etc. So we'll get into that.
And then as everybody knows, and these are numbers we
don't have access to, of course, and theoretically the campaigns don't,
but we all know what that wink and a nod
looks like on both sides. But the big, big money,
(02:13):
of course, is in these you know, independent expenditure groups,
as they're called. And those totals just aren't available to
the rest of us. So we'll get to that. Also
on the local front, interesting story, and probably worth a
heads up to you, Katie Lankford piece in the Denver Post,
Denver 9-11 flyover of United Airlines plane escorted by F-16s
(02:36):
may be highly visible, city says. Now, this is a
private memorial that United Airlines is doing, you know, coordinating,
with the military. And it's a memorial dedicated to United and,
I believe, American employees who were lost in that terrorist attack.
But Peace says, in part, Denverites can expect to see
(02:59):
a United Airlines passenger jet escorted by a squadron of
F-16s flying over the city on Friday morning as part
of a private 9-11 memorial at the airline's flight training center.
City says it will be highly visible from parts of Denver,
noticeable by sounds, more noticeable than a typical aircraft event.
(03:21):
And so the city putting out the word at this
point that there's no emergency because you know what it's
going to look like, right? It's going to look on
9-11 as if maybe a plane's been hijacked and is
now surrounded by fighter jets. So I think it's very
responsible of the city to put that word out that, no,
this is a commemoration. And it reminds me, you know,
the Denver studio we're in today, it's down by I-25
(03:43):
in Bellevue. And I've seen so many things out these windows.
It's amazing. It's almost like a Forrest Gump deal. But
sitting here doing the show one day, because the windows
face southeast, and sitting here doing the show, and I
see a passenger jet surrounded by fighter jets. And then
(04:06):
just we were trying to figure out, and my producer
at the time, we were trying to figure out what
that is. We called all the newsrooms. Nobody had any
information on it. To this day, we have no idea
what that was. But there was a full-size passenger jet,
which would be just in the, you know, east of
I-25 in Bellevue, surrounded by fighter jets. Whatever it was, fortunately,
(04:28):
did not end in any kind of tragedy. Also sitting
here one day and watched what looked like Air Force
One repeatedly coming past, and it was a training mission,
obviously must have been some kind of high-altitude training mission, so.
Good on the city for letting people know, because otherwise
people could be pretty concerned about that come Friday. 303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
(04:53):
As much as we like to keep it local, do
need to talk about one national story at this point,
because it ties into something we chew on a lot
on this program. And I'm afraid, and I look first
in the mirror on this, right? Because I'm highly, highly
aware of, because I've really kind of immersed in it,
you know, the.
(05:15):
Dramatic is way, way, way, way too much of an understatement.
A tsunami that's about to hit us in terms of
societal change, economic change, job market change, etc. from AI.
And we talk about it on the show. I don't
do it that much because I think people get tired
of it. You know, kind of like the boy who
cried wolf. I'm just like, oh man, we have no
(05:36):
idea what's about to hit us. But this important story
out today has a little bit different twist on it.
This is one of those end of the world kind
of scenarios. And the reason I think it's worth a
minute of your time is because it comes from a
guy who was a big shot at one of the
big AI companies, Anthropic. And what he did, this Evan Hubinger, H-U-B-I-N-G-E-R,
(06:00):
he was Anthropic's alignment science lead. He came out today
and said in a piece, he believes there's a greater
than 10% chance that advanced AI could kill all humans
within the next 10 years. So, Shannon, I think we've
got to get busy with these bucket list items.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
We've got to be done.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Maybe that's on the list.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Maybe it is. Being killed by AI. And I'm not
laughing at this because, you know, you've had so many
people who really know this stuff and are in big
positions within that industry who've come out with serious warnings.
So let me just give you a quick feel for AI.
what this AI big shot is saying. And he has
(06:46):
since left the company. And another guy, Jacob Coxon, C-O-X-O-N,
an anthropic researcher, previously worked on OpenAI, announced he was
quitting anthropic specifically because of AI safety concerns. Now, we
could get into all the technical terminology and all of that,
(07:08):
but what it all boils down to is concerns over
this self-improving super intelligence and where that's going to lead. And,
you know, the technical term that you'll hear is, you know,
this future that so many in AI see where these
(07:28):
systems are capable of recursive self-improvement of AI itself, designing success,
successively more capable AI systems. So stuff that used to
take a year now takes an hour, you know, in
terms of AI development and quote unquote improvement. Now, you're
(07:49):
probably wondering, okay, how in the end is AI going
to be able to kill us? And under this scenario
where it just keeps self-improving and it's able to then
take over and develop more advanced models of itself, the
concern is is that AI is going to get to
(08:10):
the point where it's able to perceive humans as a
threat to the ongoing existence of AI. You know, as
you know, AI has this tremendous demand for water, electricity, etc.
There's a lot of pushback now, and I understand that
the concern is a lot of pushback about, you know,
(08:30):
these data centers, etc. So AI perceives humans as a threat.
And then AI sets about to eliminate the threat in
multiple ways, including taking over weapons systems, shutting down critical infrastructure,
destroying the electronically controlled financial system and other grids, things
(08:51):
like that. That's how, in theory, some of these insiders
believe AI could get motivated to wipe us all out
and then execute it. So that's the theory. Yeah, I
just want to make sure you were aware of that
latest development, just in case you might be heading toward
a good night's sleep. The other part of it in
the meantime that I think is much more of a
(09:14):
day-to-day concern for all of us, because it's started to
hit already. It's like bankruptcy. They say about bankruptcy, right?
It happens very slowly and then all at once. And
right now, in ways that you may be experiencing, and
if you are, I'm sorry about that, in ways that
A lot of us aren't seeing day-to-day, but we know
(09:35):
it's happening. You know, already, you know, the job market's
getting hit by it. Kids out of school are running
into these problems because there are fewer jobs due to AI.
But at a certain point, there's going to be a
tipping point, and it's really going to hit like a
tsunami in terms of, you know, the strain on the
(09:55):
safety net and the ability of society, including the government,
to absorb it. You know, the other concern, of course,
is the safety of everybody's everything. You know, everybody's money,
everybody's stocks, et cetera, as the bad, you know, Guys
and gals out there, I'm talking on the criminal level,
and then the sheer terrorist and state-controlled terrorism, and put
(10:18):
China at the top of that list, Communist Party of China,
are able to utilize AI to get to a point
where they can hack in and steal and disrupt and
destroy just about anything. So that's the big AI story today.
If you have any thoughts on that, of course, you
can text it or call. If you're doing it, I
guess here's where I'd put a bow on this one.
(10:39):
if you're doing anything really concrete right now in your
life to try to protect yourself and your family from
all of this, Hey, share it. And we'll pass it
along because, you know, maybe it it's right. Maybe it's wrong.
Maybe it works for other people. Maybe it doesn't, but
I think it's time that we at least started having
these conversations because the impact on Colorado in many ways,
(11:00):
I think will be larger than the impact on many
other parts of the country, just given the nature of
our industry workforce, et cetera, out here. Um, You know,
but the qualifier on that would be that under Democrat rule,
we've become the bud tender capital of America. And I'm
not quite sure yet of the impact of AI on
our blossoming bud tender industry. You're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said
one day in the end, well, why don't we have
the judge come in and read it again? And we
were like, no, we have it in front of us.
We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And,
(11:49):
you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable doubt.
But he had the hardest time getting off the fact
that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
Wow. That has to be one of the most striking
quotes in the history of juror interviews. He had the
hardest time getting over that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
And I understand the juror's point. I'm not being critical
of the juror in any way. But just think about that.
(12:21):
And so much conversation around the country right now about
the holdout. And, you know, again, I wasn't in the courtroom.
I wasn't following that case day to day. And I've
learned from being in the courtroom, first, my own cases
for more than four decades, including another one next week,
will be in trial on, but also covering big trials
and for networks around the country, I have learned that
(12:44):
it'd be a big mistake for me at least to
try to second guess any jury unless I'm in that
courtroom every day. And so here though, it's more just
about what it would take to hold out and just
about the broader point of, hey, look at all the
great figures in human history, they've all been holdouts. Whether
(13:05):
this guy was right to hold out or not, they've
all been holdouts. And it takes real courage and it
takes real strength and it takes real determination. And you
know the pattern. You've seen it a million times. You
probably had it in your own life. In the beginning,
everybody says you're nuts. Everybody says you're wrong. Everybody mocks
you and ridicules you. And then eventually everybody says it
(13:26):
was their idea before it was yours. I mean, that's
how it works. And then, hey, sometimes it takes more
than a lifetime for society to come along and say, oh,
that guy we all thought was a nut. you know,
40 years ago, he was actually right. So yeah, be
the holdout. I mean, that's, that's a good lesson. And here,
(13:47):
just that point about, yeah, hard to get past that
she viciously murdered her children.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
And it's, it's interesting. And social media is not a
fair barometer of anything. But if you look at social media,
certainly overwhelming support for him. And, and again, though, you
are not going to find me criticizing any any juror
or their service. And I can tell you all those
trials that I have been in the courtroom for the
entire trial, whether it's my trial or it's, you know,
(14:18):
covering a big case, I just, very, very, very rare
that I would disagree with the jury. Certainly only a very, very,
very small handful of times in my 43 years trying
cases and hope to have another 43 years. And the
big national cases I've covered, I mean, everybody's so critical
of the OJ jury, right? But having followed that case
(14:41):
every day, and I wasn't in the courtroom every day
for that case, not at all. I'd occasionally go out
and sit in the courtroom. Most of the coverage was
done from the radio studios here, but saw every minute
of the trial. In the end, I would never in
a million years be critical of that OJ jury. You know,
do I think that he probably did it?
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
But when you're a juror and you're charged with following
the law and the law requires proof beyond a reasonable
doubt and you get these other legal instructions and you
see all of the doubt that popped up in that case,
if you're strictly applying that standard, largely because of mishandling
of evidence and other flaws in the investigation. And then
(15:24):
I think in the O.J. case, there was an underlying doubt.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
A challenge.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
I think there was so much evidence pointing to more
than one person being there. So if you assume OJ
was involved, which I think is a fair assumption, but
if you assume OJ was involved, then there was very
likely somebody else there with him. Doesn't mean that person
was involved in the killing or anything else. And the
prosecution theory could never explain, you know, that evidence. So
(15:51):
that's why I think at the end of the day,
criticism of the OJ jury, I think, is really misplaced
if you're going to strictly apply that proof beyond a
reasonable doubt standard. And then, you know, you think about juries,
and I don't mean to sound all civics class, but
how really, truly lucky we are to live in a
country where we have juries. I'm thinking of the Mike
(16:14):
Tyson trial, when Mike Tyson went on trial in Indianapolis, Indiana,
for allegedly raping a young woman named Desiree Washington. And so, And,
you know, Tyson had the big legal teams out of D.C.
and everything else in the prosecutor's office there went outside
and they brought in an outside guy to try the case.
He'd been with the office years before. But I remember
(16:37):
I was staying. Where was I staying? I was staying
near the courthouse and the jurors were at a different hotel.
And then I hear some noise in the hallway, maybe what,
a couple of days into trial. I open my door.
It's two in the morning. I open my door and
and I don't drink. Right. That's the ironic thing. Shannon,
do you drink? I mean, not during the show.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
Not since 08.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
Oh, really?
Speaker 2 (16:59):
That's impressive. Yeah, I just don't. I just don't want
to lose any sort of edge. The irony is, you know,
I can drink anybody under the table. I just don't
do it. But I don't drink. That's the point of
this story. I open my door in the middle of
the Tyson trial, and all of the jurors, every single
(17:19):
one of the jurors, is standing outside my hotel room
at 2 in the morning. So, of course, I have
to think to myself, why is the jury, which is
not staying in my hotel, outside of my door at
two in the morning? Seemed like a fair question. And
I wanted to ask them, but I knew, you know,
(17:40):
I'm a lawyer covering the case as a legal analyst
for the network and local TV. I knew I could
not speak to jurors, so I could not ask them,
why are you outside my door? But it's funny how
life works, right? I can still remember some of the
faces and the looks on their faces as they saw
(18:00):
me open the door, because I'm there in the courtroom
every day. So I see them, they see me. It's
a small courtroom. It was just so wild. But what
had happened is, and there's no doubt it's arson, you know,
somebody had set the juror's hotel on fire. Probably somebody
who thought, I'm not saying it had anything to do
with the Tyson camp, but probably somebody who thought the
(18:21):
trial wasn't going great for Tyson at that point, which
it wasn't. That's just my own guess. I have no
proof of that. But in any case, yeah, somebody set
the juror's hotel on fire. Fortunately, none of the jurors
were injured. If I remember right, one or two people
were killed in that fire, but that's how they ended
up staying the rest of the trial on my floor
(18:42):
in the hotel. Bottom line, tremendous, tremendous belief in the
jury system. I'm not going to sit here and be
critical of those jurors in the Clancy case, but I
I can't sit here with admiration for the juror who
stuck to his beliefs. And I'm going to play some
more of that interview sound because it's really fascinating to
(19:03):
get that inside look. You're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said
one day in the end, well, why don't we have
the judge come in and read it again? And we
were like, no, we have it in front of us.
We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And,
(19:32):
you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable. But
he had the hardest time getting off the fact that
Lindsay viciously killed her children.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Hmm. Yeah, I think you should have a very hard
time getting past that. And I'm sure in certain cases
you should, but yeah, it should be a very hard
time getting past that. Erin Lee, Protect Kids Colorado, she
is a force of nature, got these three very important
(20:02):
ballot measures on the ballot, largely grassroots effort. We wanted
to touch base on that, but also Erin, appreciate your
time today because this really fascinating story of this woman
who's decided to be extraordinarily high profile, Catherine Sasser, who
then made a big deal out of moving her child
(20:24):
to Colorado, her male child who identifies as female. And
it just seems to me a very odd situation, but
I know you're very dialed into that. Welcome back to
the show.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
Hey, Dan. Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
So tell us about this Catherine Sasser situation and then
let's talk about the latest with the campaign.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
You know, Dan, Colorado is what I call a child
mutilation sanctuary state. And Catherine Sasser is a prime example
of that. There are 27 states who have passed similar
law to the ballot measures that have put age restrictions
on these irreversible procedures for kids. that have said, no,
biological males may not participate in single sex female categories.
(21:06):
And Colorado has done the opposite repeatedly, especially since 2019 passing.
I actually have a list on my website of over
20 laws that harm parental rights, that mandate gender ideology.
And parents are flocking here for these, what they call
protections for their kids. I would argue they're harms for
their kids and for all of the kids who are affected.
(21:28):
This little boy, Catherine Susser's son, was a little boy.
And he was used as a prop by the Biden administration.
You'll remember when they had that big rainbow festival and
there was topless people and they were parading kids around.
He was one of the little kids that Biden used
as a political prop. And I think it just furthered
(21:48):
what I call trans housing by proxy in these mothers,
especially with the really young kids.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Explain that, please.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
It's like a designer handbag where they are pushing this
ideology on their child. And, you know, unfortunately it inflated
her head on this issue for her child. And when
they shut down the gender clinics in Missouri, I believe
is where they're from. she moved her child here. And
(22:19):
also because he's an athlete and she wanted him to
be able to compete on the girls' team. And we're
a state that is very openly friendly to both of
those things. That's why the ballot measures are so incredibly important.
But I've seen this over and over, not just with
two-parent households, but especially with parents who are in custody situations,
(22:40):
who bring their children here against, it's usually the father's will,
to come and have the child medicalized without the other
parent's consent. And in Colorado, that's legal. If you can
get them over the state line, you can medicalize them.
And that's what we see happening over and over.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Erin Lee, our guest, Protect Kids Colorado. We'll get in
a second to how you can help on the ballot measures. But, Erin,
one thing I've never understood in a situation like this,
and I'll try to get this Catherine Sasser on the show,
is how does it help your kid to... make them
this public symbol, how does that help the child?
Speaker 3 (23:19):
It doesn't. It's attention for the mother. And, you know, again,
I think when the Biden administration, when other people give
these parents attention, it inflates their head. It inflates their ego.
These kids are truly props to them. They do it
for attention. I've seen it over and over, especially in
the custody situation. There are so many dads here in
(23:40):
Colorado who, where the mother uses them on social media.
There's a mom who's got hundreds of thousands of followers
on TikTok where she bashes the dad as part of
her platform because she loves the attention. People affirm it.
It's that toxic empathy in a lot of cases. I
don't think people mean harm, but they, you know, give
the mother comfort and attention and it just furthers their
(24:02):
desire to use these kids as props for attention.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
And it's so mind blowing to me because, um, I've known,
I think everybody listening has known somebody who truly had
a genuine case of gender dysphoria and confusion over gender.
And whether it's a young person or an older person,
you know, those are sad, sad situations. So then for
(24:25):
somebody to try to turn that into, as you say,
a political prop. Now, I'm sure if Catherine Sasser joins us,
she'll say, no, here's why it's in the best interest
of my child. I'd just love to hear that explanation.
Because I can't see any scenario where it is.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Yeah, it's hard to watch. And I always say that
these ballot measures were born from compassion for everyone involved.
I feel for these little boys who are being manipulated,
who are being lied to, who are being chemically castrated,
having their normal human development stunted. put in the spotlight
when we see these males competing in female sports, I
(25:01):
have so much compassion for them. That must be horrible
to be in that position and to receive that kind
of attention, to be told by adults, by everyone around you, yes,
you are a girl, you belong here, you're just like
the other girls. We all know that's a lie, but
they're being fed this idea by the adults in their lives.
And I feel so bad for the kids who are stuck.
Speaker 4 (25:20):
In the middle of this.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
And it's another reason that if we pass a measure
that says, no, Absolutely not. We cannot have boys participating
in these sports. Then they're not going to be put
in that position where they're the center of attention in
these issues and are making girls uncomfortable. You know, when
they go into those locker rooms and they're told you
belong there, all the girls are then told you better
be quiet. Don't say anything. That boy is supposed to
(25:43):
be here and everyone is put in a horrible situation.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
And I'm glad, Aaron, you used the word compassionate because
these ballot measures, and I'd ask you to give people
a quick overview on how they can help. These ballot
measures are intensely compassionate. I mean, you and the people
supporting you and every voter who supports you are saving children,
saving children from a lifetime of mutilation, saving girls, sports
(26:06):
for girls. I mean, these are intensely compassionate. It's really
a typical deception from the left that they'd make your
truly compassionate efforts out to be some form of the opposite,
when it's truly the left that shows no real concern
or compassion for these kids.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
That's right. And I think a lot of people don't
understand that I've been through this with a child. I
had a 12-year-old daughter who suffered the mental health distress
of wrong sex confusion. It's a horrible situation to be in.
And again, with these kids who are being medicalized, parents
are so often bullied and gaslit with what I call
the suicide, then transition or die. They're put in the
situation where they're told, if you don't give your kids
(26:46):
these hormones and these wrong sex procedures, they're going to
kill themselves. That is an impossible situation we should not
be putting parents into. And also that doctors can profit.
off of mutilating these kids' healthy bodies. It's horrible. So yes,
these are very compassionate measures. They take everyone in the
situation into consideration and they're common sense. Really, it is
(27:06):
such a universally agreed upon measure that we shouldn't be
cutting off the healthy body parts of minor kids. That
single sex categories as enacted by Title IX over 40
years ago are for females and males only. They are
single sex categories. Biological sex is real. It's not hateful
nor bigoted to say that out loud. It's just reality.
(27:28):
And the trafficking measure, that's really a no-brainer. We should
be holding child sex traffickers accountable. So I'm just delighted
that the people of Colorado now have a chance to
vote yes on these. All they have to do is
circle the bubble and turn it in.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
Well, tell them how. Give them the number. How's the
campaign going?
Speaker 3 (27:45):
Yeah, we have proposition numbers. I think this might be
the first time I've been able to say it out
loud on air. We have 133, 134, and 135. So
that is how they will appear on the ballot. Those
are the official numbers. And we are such a grassroots campaign.
This is the engaged citizenry got us this far. It's
(28:06):
how we're going to finish and get over the finish line.
And we're really relying on people to just Tell people,
tell 10 people and tell them to tell 10 to
vote yes on this measure. When people know it's there,
they will vote. But people aren't inclined to vote for
amendments and propositions. So it's just important that we educate them.
They have this opportunity to just vote yes on these
(28:26):
common sense measures. Tell everyone, you know.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
Yeah, no.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
And truth and grassroots is going to have to beat
the money, right? Because the left will print money to
defeat these. So, well, again, phenomenal job on your part.
Appreciate the time today and look forward to the next visit.
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Yeah, I look forward to hosting next week.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Oh, that's right, and thank you for doing that. Yeah,
I'm in trial next week, and Erin's kind enough to
take a day and come in and host, so thank
you for that.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
Thanks so much for having me, Dan.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
Have a great day. That is Erin Lee, a true
force of nature. I mean, it's amazing what she has
been able to accomplish, and hopefully with your help, we'll
get these over the finish line.
Speaker 3 (29:03):
303-713-8255.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
Hey, really interesting calls and texts waiting. I hope you
join in all that. We're talking about the jury in
the Lindsay Clancy case now that some have given interviews
and the insights we're getting there and then broadening it
out to talk about, you know, other high profile cases
and juries in those cases. My basic premise from 43
years of trying cases and covering big cases around the
(29:26):
country for the networks is that jurors almost always get
it right. And so really should be reluctant to second
guess from a distance. But this Lindsay Clancy case, given
the whole... and now some things we're hearing from jurors,
it's it's worth your time. You're on the Dan Kaplan show.
(29:49):
A juror from the Lindsey Clancy trial.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said
one day in the end, well, why don't we have
the judge come in and read it again? And we
were like, no, we have it in front of us.
We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And,
(30:13):
you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable. But
he had the hardest time getting off the fact that
Lindsay viciously killed her children. Wow.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
So a lot of response to that.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
Tax.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
Dan, how did nine women get on the jury? The
prosecution did a horrible job in the Clancy trial. Hey,
I didn't watch the trial, so can't comment on the prosecution.
But I would not be critical of them for putting
nine women on the jury because I'm sure the working premise.
was that every single mother would say there is nothing
on the face of the earth that could make me
(30:47):
kill my children. So my guess is that was their bet. Now,
I'm not being at all critical of the jurors in
the Clancy trial. The holdout, hey, it takes a lot
to hold out. I have to respect that. But, yeah,
I don't know how you'd be critical of the prosecution
for assuming that. Unless there's something else going on in
America right now, and I don't think there is. I
(31:09):
don't think there's some big phenomenon in America now where
all of a sudden across political lines or something else
like that, you've got a whole lot of women saying, no, no,
I could definitely see killing my kids. No, I think
it's universal across party lines. Nothing in the world could
ever make a mother kill her children. Yeah, I think
that was their bet. William in Pueblo, you're on the
(31:30):
Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome. Hi, Dan.
Speaker 4 (31:34):
Something that I understand judges hate the jurors to know
about is jury nullification. My understanding is that that gives
the juror the power to disregard the law and or
the judge's instructions. What is your understanding of that?
Speaker 2 (31:52):
My understanding is it would be a violation of the
law to sit as a juror and to disregard the
law that the court has given you. So I mean,
you're correct. I think every single judge out there is
going to be opposed to jurors disregarding the law.
Speaker 4 (32:09):
But isn't that part of our legal system? Isn't it
written in somewhere? My understanding from reading years ago is
that jury nullification is a part of our heritage.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
No, sir. And I really appreciate you bringing it up
because it is not part of the law. And so
I just think every juror, Every juror raises his or
her right hand and just takes an oath that they
are going to follow the law as given to them
by the court. And if they can't do that, they
don't have to sit on the jury. That's the beauty
(32:42):
of our system. They can just say to the judge, judge,
I can't follow that law. And nobody will get on
their case. They'll just say, well, thank you for showing
up and appreciate your service. So nobody has to follow
a law they don't believe in, but they have to
not sit on that jury. They have to tell the court,
they have to tell the attorneys, I cannot follow that law.
(33:03):
Because once on the jury, they're obligated to follow the law.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
I don't know how to approach this. If someone is
being interviewed for the jury and he mentions jury nullification
in the open court, My understanding is that the judge
(33:26):
can consider him to be in contempt. No, no.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
I think the court, every court I've been in front
of for 43 years wants total honesty from jurors and
jury selection. So if a juror believes in jury nullification,
the court is going to appreciate the fact that the
juror has been honest about that. So the parties can
make sure not to seat that juror. So no, it's,
(33:53):
And that's the interesting thing about jury selection is nobody
is supposed to and nobody really does try to change
anybody's deeply held beliefs during jury selection. It's a matter
of identifying those and whether those are consistent with being
able to serve as a juror on that case.
Speaker 4 (34:11):
Okay, well. I might be misunderstanding what I read about
years ago then.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
Well, I'm sure glad you called on that, my friend,
because if you are, I'm sure many other fine people are.
So thank you for that. Yeah, it's 1,000% that the
key is that nobody should ever sit on a jury
unless they can honestly raise their right hand and promise
to follow the law given to them by the court.
(34:40):
And if you can't follow that law, you just tell
the court that, and the court will make sure you're
not on the jury. So, you know, that's the other
thing that's really striking to me. And again, I mean,
I don't mean to sound, you know, goody two-shoes or anything,
but 43 years of trying cases and hopefully 43 more
to come. It is universal. I mean, over the course
of all those decades, yeah, there were maybe in all
(35:02):
the trials I've had, maybe a very, very small handful
of people who didn't take it seriously. But regardless of
political affiliation or anything, other strong feelings or anything else,
when people get into that courtroom during jury selection, it's
been my experience over the years that they take it very,
very seriously and that people work very, very hard to
(35:22):
be honest in all of their responses. So I appreciate
William calling. And if he got called into a jury,
I would fully expect that he would tell the judge.
He would raise these issues with the court so the
court could identify the issues and make sure that Anybody
who believes in jury nullification does not sit on a jury.
And that is, you think about how hard that is
(35:44):
for judges. You've probably had this experience in some way
in your own life too, how hard it is for
judges and how hard it is sometimes for jurors. When
you have taken that oath and you have promised to
follow the law, then so many judges do that. And
they follow the law to an end that they are
(36:06):
not happy with themselves. But that's why they put on
the robe, because it's not about themselves anymore. It's about
following the law. And, you know, jurors do that, too.
But that's the oath everybody takes. When we come back,
we've got more sound from Clancy Case jurors and United Airlines.
We open the show talking about this big flyover they're
(36:26):
going to do on 9-11. They just canceled it. I'll
explain why.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.