June 2, 2026 • 35 mins
The Dan Caplis Show is back with a lively discussion on the topic of justice and accountability in Colorado. Today's episode features a thought-provoking conversation between the host and Ash in America, a popular podcast personality, about the recent case of Tina Peters, a former Mesa County clerk who was convicted of tampering with election equipment. The conversation delves into the complexities of the case, the role of the justice system, and the importance of accountability in government.
The episode explores the nuances of the case, including the charges brought against Peters and the potential motivations behind her actions. Brauchler and Ashe in America discuss the role of the justice system in protecting the rights of the accused and the importance of due process. They also touch on the topic of jury nullification and the potential for government overreach.
As the conversation unfolds, the host and Ashe in America delve into the specifics of the case, discussing the charges and the evidence presented. They also explore the concept of comparative sentencing and the importance of considering the context of the case. The discussion is engaging and informative, providing listeners with a deeper understanding of the complexities of the case and the justice system.
If you're interested in learning more about this fascinating case and the discussion surrounding it, tune in to this episode of The Dan Caplis Show. The conversation is thought-provoking and informative, and provides a unique perspective on the importance of accountability in government.
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):
This is Dan Kaplis, 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 (00:15):
Come to Dan's show. Only Dan ain't be here today.
You are stuck with and buckle up, folks. It is me,
it is I, it's weet whatever, it's me, it's me?
Is it you? Because that's the object of the sentence,
got it? You're the object of my attention right now? Sure,
of course. George Brockler, I am the current district Attorney
(00:38):
for the twenty third Judicial District. Yes, the first and
only district attorney thus far. I'll be with you until
six o'clock. Listen. This is a show that has the potential,
and I like this to go one of a bunch
of different ways, and some of those ways are right
off the rails. Let me begin. We'll have a topic
here in a moment, but I want to set this up.
At four point thirty six, we're going to be joined
(01:00):
apparently in studio by Ash in America. I think the
it's Ash middle initial N, last name, America, which is
a phenomenal name, and Ash in America is going to
join us here now. For those of you that are
regular listeners of the Khow product, and Ryan runs the
morning show masterfully. He has Ash on every Tuesday. I
(01:24):
listen enough that I am sending in texts constantly to Ryan,
probably in an annoying way. Yes that's true. It's true.
And not just about Ash, by the way, but things
that they talked about today I think really piqued my
interest on a lot of different levels, and I want
to talk about them with you. And then I thought,
you know what, we Ash and I seem to be
having a conversation through Ryan and through the radio. Let's
(01:47):
just do this on the radio together. Let's do it.
And I told Ryan this when I came in. I said,
I guess this is just one of the many differences
between me and one of the gubernatorial candidates. If I've
got someone with whom I want to have a conversation
that may not see the world the way I do,
that may even have some criticism. I don't surround myself
with bodyguards and make everybody come to my house to
(02:09):
have a conversation with me. Instead, I say let's get
on the air and let's just do this thing publicly.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
And are you referring to a particular individual at that
reference and description?
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Wait a minute, is there someone that fits that description?
It was sort of made up at the time, Wow
to a tea. Actually, yes, I am. And of course
who Ryan is talking about is Victor Marx. Now I've
never met the man, and so I've tried my best
over the course of this campaign to reserve judgment of
him as a person because I just haven't met him.
I haven't looked in as, I haven't heard his voice
(02:41):
answer my questions. But OMG, I did watch the entire
interview with Kyle Clark and Blue Boy. That was not
a positive experience for one of them. And I'm not
talking about Kyle Clark. If you haven't watched that, folks,
you need to do it. I know there's been a
lot of speculation about whether or not mister Marx is
(03:04):
going to attend the gubernatorial debate today. I you know,
at one point I was three to one no, then
two to one no. I think he could go, and
I think the reason for that, and it's along the
lines of what I've discussed with Ryan and he brought
up on the air I think yesterday or last week,
and that was what if this guy is just a
genius chess player politically, and he is allowing us to
(03:27):
set the bar so low that as long as he
shows up and doesn't try to, you know, conduct an
exorcism on Kyle Clark right there on camera, people are
going to be like, Oh, that wasn't so bad. This
dude could hold his own I mean, a C performance
looks a lot more like a B plus performance when
(03:47):
you set the bar that low. I think that could happen.
I think he could show up. I think that it
is not possible for him to rebound from not showing up.
And I'm not saying he couldn't win. I still think
the guy could win the nomination. There's no chance he
wins the general election, but let's just say this. I
think he could win the nomination. I just don't think
(04:08):
you could rebound. I don't think you can play the
Trump card your first time out of the box running
for office. Everybody knows that Trump did every single debate
humanly possible in twenty sixteen, and he just disappeared people
with his comments on the stage. That's how masterfully was.
I just don't see that here. I am anxious to
see how he does. I have yet to hear him
(04:29):
really talk about policy. He did a little bit on
another show I heard, but not a ton. I've been
to his website. I've talked about it right here on
this show, where the website itself, at least with regard
to public safety. And of course that's my myopic focus
for this thing, is that either AI created it or
someone who isn't actually an attorney created it, because the
(04:51):
same statute is cited multiple times for multiple different propositions,
and ain't a one of them accurate, None of them
are true. And I thought, well, do you blame the
candidate for that? Maybe you don't, Maybe you don't blame
the candidate for the content. But I think what you
(05:12):
do blame the candidate for is who he's surrounding himself with.
And that's more important for this guy than it is
for bottoms In Kirkmeyer, because this guy has run on
I don't really need to know the facts. I don't
really need to know policy. I don't really need to
know how government works because I'm going to surround myself
with great people who will get us to good answers. Okay,
(05:32):
but then when you do things like this, we then
get to criticize you doubly. And that goes for the
signatures thing too, I think. But for this guy ending
up on the ballot through the assembly, we would have
heard that he didn't make it onto the ballot through
the signatures, and that would have been another commentary on
who are you surrounding yourself with? And I know some
of the people on his team, and I like these
(05:52):
there are great people. I presume they're not the ones
pulling all the strings. But I'm not an anti Marx guy.
I'm just I don't know who this guy is and
nothing I have seen on YouTube or anywhere else or
on the radio has told me any more about him.
But I'll say this too. You can't dodge Ryan and
then claim the mantle of I'm just this super tough
(06:14):
guy and I go fight evil and demons and I
go rescue kids. But I can't take on Ryan schuling
on on the radio, or I can't take on Dan Kaplis,
or I don't know, it's just maybe it's just me. Listen,
I want to get your text five seven seven three nine.
As the tech started off with Dan and then jump
right in. Here's a couple right here, Dan Polly Polly.
(06:36):
Mark guarantees a one hundred million if you bet ten
thousand dollars that Mark shows up with a bozo wig.
I didn't even know you could get that specific. Here's
another one. Write this down. I'm on your side with
Ash heading to the debate. Now here's another one. I
watch dozens of police videos every week on Facebook. The
current one from Aurora Police Department with two grapple catches
(06:58):
is absolutely incredible, as you know, and by our friend
Alexa Jorge in the house. Oh yeah, as you know,
big fan of accountability and transparency, and part of that
is police highlighting the good work that they do. Facebook's
a good one. I love it when Douglas County, and
I'm talking Parker, Loan, Tree, Castle, Rock and the mighty
dcs so put their stuff out there. But I love
(07:20):
to hear that Aurora does too. I have a teeny
bit of Aurora in my jurisdiction. It's called Inspiration. It's
the most crime ridden part of Aurora. As anyone who
knows Inspiration is. I'm kidding. It's a fifty five and
older golf community. But those people can get crazy when
they get the Aparel sprits on board. Here's what here's
what I want to do, because we're gonna have Ash
(07:42):
in the studio here at four thirty six. And I
want to kind of tee this up because I've been
interviewed twice today Ryan on the same issue, and it's
the issue of Tina Peters, and so I hope Ash
is listening as she's I don't know, being furloughed or
discharged or whatever it is that she's doing at the moment.
I'm kid esh, you know, I'm kidding. I'm totally kidding.
(08:03):
Please don't bring weapons into the studio, Please don't. But
I've been interviewed by Channel seven and by KKTV down
in the Springs about the same thing, and the question was,
what's your reaction to Tina Peters being granted clemency. I
gotta step way back one. You should know that our
governor has an unfettered clemency power. There's no way to
(08:23):
appeal it, there's no way to undo it, there's no
way to stop it. When you're the governor of the
state of Colorado. It is a superpower like nothing else.
You can do in government. There's no Hay, I'm going
to go to the Supreme Court and say you exercise
this power in a race. There's nothing like that. Man
guy gets to grant whatever clemency he wants at whatever
time he chooses, and I hope that that's something that's
(08:46):
brought up in this debate. I hope we get to
hear how these candidates and Frankly, Wiser and Bennett will
exercise this power, because by and large, my opinion is
that governor pulls and I give him great props for this.
A lot of governors like Hickenloper waited till the end
of their time in office to do a bunch of
these things because they're afraid of the political ramifications. Not
(09:06):
this guy. Polus has been pretty regular about giving a
pardons and clemency of some kind during the course of
his time in office, and I respect that. Now he
tries to hide behind a bunch of things that turn
out to not be true as basis for giving these things,
and we'll talk about that in a bit, but I
do respect that he uses the power. But just know this,
he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and
(09:27):
he's proven that. So when it came to this, my
answer was, well, what do you mean, Because if the
first question is should he have granted a pardon to
Tina Peters, my answer is no, he should not have.
I am a huge believer in our system, our criminal
justice system, and not because it's flawless. It's not thus
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. So I
(09:48):
get that it's not flawless. But our criminal justice system
is not an outcome driven system. It is a process
driven system. And when you have a process driven system,
even if you get an outcome you disagree with, you
don't attack the system as corrupt, flawed, needing to be fixed.
And I think for many many they looked at this
(10:09):
and said Tina Peter should have never been charged, Tina
Peter should have been acquitted, and because those things happened
and she wasn't acquitted, then there's something wrong with the system.
I disagree. We can have a conversation. I hope Ash
comes in and is ready for this, have a conversation
about what things she thinks ought to be improved and how.
But I'm a big fan of this criminal justicism, not
because of its perfection, but because of its many, many,
(10:32):
many checks and balances, and we'll go through those. Listen,
here's what I want to do. I want to cut
away for this break. We have a little bit of
floating time here and then we'll come back. You keep
a lot of texts coming in. You can also call
us three zero three seven one three eighty two fifty
five three zero three seven one three eight two five five.
Please challenge me on what I'm saying or echo it.
I don't mind, uh, But Texas two five seven, seven
(10:55):
three nine start with Dan. It's George Brockler filling in
for the mighty one Dan Capel's on the Day Capel Show.
Back right after this.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
And now back to the Dankplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Does it matter? Yeah, I'd say so. Why killing somebody
is a pretty weighty thing.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
If someone's trying to kill you, or you're in combat.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
It's still a weighty thing to take somebody else's life.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
I mean, it could be self defense, it could be justified,
but it's still a weighty thing.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
So I'm just asking you how many people have you killed? Well?
Speaker 5 (11:31):
If I did, I wouldn't be telling a reporter. I'm
sitting here to my training center.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
How about voters, would you tell voters.
Speaker 5 (11:42):
There's no need. I don't think that's important. It's actually
kind of it's a NodD question to me.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Oh what George Brocker filling in for Dan CAplus on
the Dan CAPLA show. That answer got me. And I know, Ryan,
you had a follow up you wanted to ask me?
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Yes, I wanted to follow up in the spirit of
Comrade Kyle, and ask you, George Brockler, whether you believe,
as an.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Adult, you've killed a person. Ryan. That is an odd
question to ask a fill in hosts who's also the
district attorney. I guess I don't recall if possible, I
suppose anyone could have killed anyone at any time. I
don't really know. I'm not sure why it's relevant. I mean,
(12:30):
maybe because I'm a district attorney who prosecutes people who
kill people illegally. Maybe you'd want to know that if
I were running for governor and I was gonna use
my awesome clemency powers to decide whether or not to
grant clemency two people convicted of killing other people, maybe
you'd want to know if I had killed other people
exact pas. No, of course, no, No, I haven't man.
(12:51):
And let's be clear, I've deployed to Iraq. I was
not in a position mercifully to have to kill anyone
when I I was over there. But I will say
this quick story. I get off the plane and god,
where did we land? It was not ali al Seline.
We flew out of there. But we're getting in the
(13:13):
little hum vy thing and they're driving me over to
where we are to Crete Cobb Spiker. And I turned
to the sergeant and his name's Love, Sergeant Bobby Love.
What a great name. And Sergeant Love says, hey, we
got to go get you a firearm. And I'm like,
I'd love that. And I see that everybody around me
below my rank has some type of an M four
(13:36):
And I said what am I getting? And they're like,
you get the M nine, which is a nine millimeter
And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Why am I
the least armed of these people. I was a young
major at the time. And the response was, hey, sir,
if you need a rifle at any point, we're in
real trouble, okay. So our goal is to not be
(13:57):
in real trouble, so we're just going to give you
the thing that is less likely to be a problem
for us, and that is the not a peace shooter,
but the nine millimeter. Anyway, I've got a caller on
the line, someone who may end up having a front
row seat to this whole thing. We're going to bring
her on the air right now. It's Jennifer from Parker
in beautiful, very safe Douglas County. Jennifer, thanks for.
Speaker 6 (14:20):
Joining us, Very safe Douglas County. Thank you for that,
mister District attorney.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
I appreciate that. Yeah, thank you. Please don't steal, by
the way, because we'd have to put you in jail.
Speaker 6 (14:31):
Yeah, and then if nobody reports it, find somebody. Anyway,
that's a long story. We'll get off on that another time.
But I want to thank you. I really want to
thank you for being outspoken about the Tina Peters thing,
because no one is talking like you, and I think
now that she's out there is this kind of narrative
going on that she didn't do anything wrong. Well, she
(14:53):
was convicted of crimes, and you know what, breaking the
law is also a very weighty thing, and you with
sentenced within the parameters of what felonies and misdemeanors you know,
get you one thing, I'd love for you to explain,
at least explain it to me. And maybe this is
beneficial to listeners. How does the comparative sentencing come into
(15:16):
effect when a judge is deciding a sentence. And I'm
not justifying this judge apparently he's a political activist, what
have you, But how much does that come into play
comparative sentencing?
Speaker 2 (15:29):
I do think it's it's a legit talking point, but
it's not dispositive. You know. The rule that we adhere to,
or that we should adhere to, is that similarly situated
people should be treated similarly. And so the effort when
you go to court on either side is to prove
that your person is dissimilarly situated one way or another.
(15:49):
And in this case, I even had this question from KKTV.
You know, Governor Polis had said this is more harshly
sentenced than other similar cases, and they said, are you
aware of similar cases? And I said, look, I've only
been doing this thirty one years, since I was seven,
but no, I have never heard of a case like
this before. And to be honest, it's not just that
an elected official committed a crime. It's that the elected
(16:12):
official committed the crime. It's a crime about election stuff
over which they see. I mean, it's I've never had
anything quite like that. Like if you had the treasurer
committed DUI, you'd be like, Okay, elected official commits a crime.
You had a treasurer embezzel from the county. Way different, right,
So I don't know of any other cases like this,
So when you try to compare this to something else,
(16:34):
you're kind of left in a weird place. And I'll
talk about this with Ash too, But I think the
real problem here is that had Tina shown up and said, listen,
I have grave, grave concerns about the integrity of our
election system, and frankly, I think it has been exploited.
I think it can be exploited. But the way I
went about trying to prove that I recognize it was wrong,
(16:55):
I shouldn't have done it that way. I think it
makes it very challenging for the to then want to
lock her up. Er certainly for a long time. But
when a drunk driver shows up to court and says,
I think it was okay that I drove drunk. Hell,
I may even drive drunk again. I think I'm a
better driver. When I drive drunk, the judge gott to
put you in jail. It's just got to be that way.
(17:15):
You can't be treated like other people who show up
with remorse. And so there's really nothing to compare it to.
But all the factors I think that she might have
exploited to her benefit, she didn't.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
Well, the other thing is there were people actually hurt
in this situation. I myself spoke to the man whose
identity was stolen. You know, they went through He and
his wife went through quite a lot due to Tina
Peter's actions, So there was harm there. I myself have
spoken to Tina Peters. She is a true believer in
what she thinks she did was right. She had report
(17:50):
number one, Report number two, Report number three. And look,
I'm not all for keeping a seventy year old woman
in prison for ten years under conditions that impact her health.
But at the same time, she was convicted of crime.
So I just struggle with everybody just celebrating her release,
maybe converting it into a shorter sentence, but immediate release.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
And you and I are in a diminishing group of
people who value the rule of law. Hey, I can't
wait to hear your take on this thing that you're
going to go to. We'll talk with you soon. Okay, Hey,
George Brockler filling it for Dan Capla. So when we
come back, Ash in America, Ash in the box right
here with us next George.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
Brockler for the Dan Capler Show, and now back to
the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Podcast in the studio with us right now Ash from
ASH in America and Ryan's Ash Tuesday from RSL, that's
the morning Show. We had a already pretty lively conversation
off air, and the result of it was as we
came on was ASHL, I was right. That's not That's
not what happened at all. It felt like it went
on way we were talking, and you said, I think
(19:05):
you're so right.
Speaker 7 (19:06):
I think that I think that you probably think that
a lot in conversation. I also I left my weapons
in the car, thank you. I I, in good faith
assume you also left your weapons of the car. Although
your weapon is the full power of the government, so
it always goes with you.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
Sir, I really don't have the full power of the
government with me in this room because we're not in
my jurisdiction. So this is this is denverse.
Speaker 8 (19:28):
We're in a safe space.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
We're in a safe space if you're a criminal, because here,
if either one of us were to kill the other,
it's unlikely to be solved or prosecuted. So we're in
a real safe zone right here. Ash, thanks for joining us.
We were talking about TP that's the Tina Peters and
the result of this. I think you listened to some
of the show coming in, and I appreciate that. I
wanted to give you an opportunity to say something about
(19:51):
this or respond to what I was talking about. And
it's great talking with you in person instead of through
Ryan's texts, right, yeah, yeah, No, I agree.
Speaker 7 (19:58):
No, So I think that you and I have a
difference in principle and the principle, the principle of our
our criminal justice process, our criminal justice system protects the
rights of the accused.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Lots of principle that I adhere to I have my
whole career.
Speaker 8 (20:23):
Okay, maybe maybe we don't have a difference.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
We might have a difference of opinion about how the system,
you know, supports that principle, But I don't think we
have a difference in opinion or a difference in principle
what you've said.
Speaker 7 (20:35):
Yeah, I mean, well, you and I have have have
gone back and forth on the Tita Peter's case on
the radio before in text this morning, and that's that
was kind of.
Speaker 8 (20:43):
Where where I lent.
Speaker 7 (20:44):
I also appreciate the criminal justice system.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Yeah, I don't disagree.
Speaker 7 (20:49):
With you about that, but I but I I think
that the prosecutorial discretion, the judicial discretion, the amount of
discretion that is wielded in this massive government that we
have is a problem, and I think it's unconstitutional, and
that think our criminal justice system is unconstitutional. I think
(21:11):
that the way that our that the way that that
certain cases and certain decisions, the amount of discretion in
our criminal justice system that's executed, is how that discretion
is executed is unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Yeah, A couple thoughts. One, could you be specific about
it regarding the Tina Peters thing, and not just I
disagree with her being prosecuted and you and I talked
about some stuff, but also what changes would you make
to the system that you think that would be more
protective of an individual's rights when they run a foul
of the law. I'll start with the second question.
Speaker 7 (21:39):
First, I think that we should have jerry trials actual
we don't we have We have trial by government and
the jury is not empowered. If you go back to
the founding of our nation and you look at what
a trial by jury was, the jury was adjudicating both
the law and the facts of the case. We don't
have that anymore. The judge is the arbiter of the law.
Matthew Barrett said that in the Tina Peter's case, it's
(21:59):
up to me to decide what.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
The law is.
Speaker 7 (22:01):
So the jury has no say about whether or not
the law in a specific case is being executed in
accordance with natural law in the way that our system
was designed.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
That's changed. That says what natural laws?
Speaker 8 (22:14):
Who says what natural law is?
Speaker 2 (22:16):
Like?
Speaker 7 (22:16):
How could I ever historical precedent? You can go back
to English common law?
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Then do you is that what you educate the jury
on natural law? Common law? English law?
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Like?
Speaker 2 (22:25):
How do you see a trial going where jurors are
allowed to disregard the law or make up their own
sense of what the law means?
Speaker 8 (22:32):
Who without that? Who holds the government accountable?
Speaker 2 (22:35):
This is all about accountability And here's why the prosecutor
that makes the decision can't just say I want to
be the district attorney and show up and start wielding
that power. That's the product of an election. By the way,
only das in America that are term limited, right, So
we respond to that, we can be recalled, we could,
we can be removed from office the charges that we bring.
That doesn't just lock a person in and say that's it.
(22:57):
You're going to have to stay in jail till we
get a jury trial. A judge who is appointed by
an elected governor through a process that I'd love to
see change. But I will say this, it's not completely unchecked.
That judge sits there and says, I disagree with you, Brockler.
I'm not giving the kind of bond that you want.
So they let that person out. They might even say
I don't even think you have probable cause, a very
low bar for these charges. I'm going to dismiss this case.
(23:19):
And they could do that. And then along the way
there's all these checks and balances all the way up
to the point where a defendant can say I think
your plea bargain sucks. I don't think I broke the law.
I want my day in trial. And then they get
to sit in a courtroom where people picked from their
community sit in judgment of them based on a law
that was passed by the legislature. Not we didn't invent that.
(23:43):
We didn't just come up with our sense of it,
and it gets instructed to them based upon the law
that exists. And then the jurors sit there and they say,
beyond a reasonable doubt, it's a hell of a standard,
and you didn't prove it, and so we're going to
acquit this person, or they say no, we get it.
We think you proved it beyond a reasonable out. Go ahead. Sorry,
So I.
Speaker 7 (24:01):
Don't I don't think that what you just described was
checks and balances. I think you're describing process points within
a government system.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
But why do they exist if it's not to check government? Like,
why have any checks on me? Why can the judge
stop me from holding someone accountable and putting them in prison?
Speaker 7 (24:15):
So we could do a whole show on why a
lot of this stuff and government exists. I tell me,
why do you think humans get together? They create process?
Bureaucracy grows and grows, and growth point of the process.
Justice Gorsitch wrote a book about this, Overruled The Human
Toll of too much law.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
But in the I think a lot of that's civil too.
But and the and the federal government has in an
ordinate number of criminal laws. I get you, But here
for us, tell me, why do you think this process
that you malign exists to begin with? If it's not
to serve as a check on government power.
Speaker 7 (24:46):
Well, I think the process has evolved over time. I
think that the the criminal justice process that the founding
of the nation was, you know, relatively sound and in
accordance with natural law. You had empowered juries. You had
the people as a check on the government. And that's
why we have That's why empowered juries, because the people
being a check on the government. Otherwise you're just talking
(25:07):
about the government checking and balancing itself. And we see
how that got.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
I disagree. If that were true, I'd win every single
case all the time, right, And I don't. I don't
the jury. When you talk about an empowered jury, are
you talking about a jury unencumbered by the law that exists.
Speaker 7 (25:21):
No, But I'm talking about a jury that is empowered
to evaluate the law with the facts of the case
and determine whether or not the person should be convicted
under that law.
Speaker 8 (25:30):
With that set of facts, they don't. That's how it
always works.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
Sounds like what you're talking about is jury nullification. I
want a jury to be able to say, I realize
this is the law that binds us. I just disagree
with this law.
Speaker 7 (25:41):
I think jury nullification is a part of it, and
I don't understand why jury nullification is a problem, but
I don't.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Think that that's the whole of it.
Speaker 7 (25:49):
I also think if you look at the trials, and
this is probably more civil than criminal at this point,
but the move to more bench trials in the name
of efficiency.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Up for the criminal side not at all, right.
Speaker 7 (26:02):
So more civil, which is where my experience with this
process lies. However, I so if we look at the
the growth of government, so with two hundred and fifty years, right,
America's two hundred and fifty, Yeah, the growth of government
and the process growth along with it, and the growth
of the body of law.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
How can you tell people that.
Speaker 8 (26:25):
They're free in this environment?
Speaker 7 (26:27):
The principle of three felonies a day, right, people are
possibly committing three felonies a day because nobody knows what
the law.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
But that's not about the state law, that's about federal law.
Speaker 8 (26:38):
I don't think that's a problem in state law.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
I don't know. I don't not at all.
Speaker 8 (26:42):
Do you believe that weaponized government exists.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
I believe that government can be weaponized.
Speaker 8 (26:46):
To be Do you think it's happened here in Colorado?
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I think there are cases where it's happened. But I'm
not going to start from the premise of just maligning
the criminal justice system by saying, hey, look at Tina Peter.
She's an example of what's wrong with the system. It's like, then,
what's your fix? And if you're is we need to
instruct jurors that they're not bound by the law, They're
only bound by whatever they think should happen at the time.
And if that's the case. If that's the case, why
have written laws at all? Why even have a legislature
(27:11):
that debates what are the limitations of conduct, either by
the government or individal Why do that if a jury
can just sit there and go, we don't care what
you think. We just we don't like that law because.
Speaker 7 (27:22):
The government should have to convince twelve people of its case.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
And we do every single time beyond a.
Speaker 7 (27:29):
Reasonable de Peters the evidence and stories that were presented
to the jury, what was allowed. What the jury was
allowed to hear was incredibly guardrailed by both the judge
and the prosecution, and at times it seemed like they
were on the side, same side in that trial eying.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Every single case, judges act to limit the evidence in
a way that is protective of the process and the
defendant all the time. And I'll give you an example
when we come back. Ryan just got in our ear
and said something like, George won that one, but let's
take a break. No, I'm kidding, he never say that. Listen,
Ash in America is in the studio along with George
(28:07):
Brockler filling in for Dan Caplis five seven seven three nine.
You can start with Dan George is right, and then
whatever your text is, or give us a call. Three
h three seven one three eighty two fifty five. I'll
way back in just a minute.
Speaker 4 (28:24):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Ash in America is now Ash in the studio. We're
continuing our conversation once again off air. She said, really,
quite frankly, I don't have any strong rebuttal to anything
that you say. I really appreciate you saying that off air,
where that's.
Speaker 8 (28:42):
The truth I mean, if we're not under oath, obviously.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
No, no, no, we're not. And that's why I can
say many of the things that I just said. I
don't think anybody listening to you believes that. By the way,
listen the thing about the evidence that you pointed out.
And I love having this conversation with you because I
think we're probably way more in agreement on stuff than
we disagree on stuff. But the things we disagree on
are legit things we should have a conversation about because
it's the government stuff. But in terms of limiting evidence
(29:07):
that a jury gets to hear, it's important that a
jury not make decisions based on things that are not
either real defenses in the case or real evidence of guilt.
I'll give you an example. When someone is accused of
driving under the influence, low level charge, right, and I
don't mean it's not serious, but low level in the
scheme of things, and they go to trial, the fact
that they have had two, three, four, ten prior DUIs
(29:31):
in their lifetime is never known to the jury. And
the reason for that is they're worried that jurors will
start making decisions based on evidence that isn't relevant to
did you do it right? Here? They don't want you
to make decisions based on obviously, the guy's done it
so many times before, he must have done it here.
That's protective of the defendant. That's defective. That's protective of
due process. But the prosecution is also entitled to protection
(29:54):
of due process as well, right, and so in that
courtroom setting, there are things called choice of evils defenses.
That's legit. There is a choice of evil's defense. I'll
use a dui again. You're out camping with a buddy.
Your buddy gets impaled by a deer, right, and they're
they're bleeding. I don't know how to come up with
this thing, but gets impalled by a deer, they're bleeding out.
(30:15):
You don't have cell coverage. You're trying to get them help.
You've been drinking, so you get behind the wheel and
you drive drunk, but by god, you're trying to do
it to save a life. The law in that circumstance,
and you would hope the prosecution would be a check
on this as well, would say I get it. There's
a choice of evils here. It's not applicable under these
facts with this kind of a charge and it sounds
(30:36):
like what I hear from I think what I hear
from you, you correct me, And what I hear from
other people is well, Tina wasn't allowed to prosecute the
failures of the election integrity system that we have here,
and because of that, she wasn't allowed to say, Look,
maybe I broke the law. Maybe I didn't, but I
did it for a much better reason. And so my
motives that I claim trump the law. That's just not
(31:00):
the way the law works. You don't just get to
come in and say you're right, I punched him in
the face, but you know what, when I was ten,
that kid bullied me and now it was time to
get You just don't get to say things like that
and have them come into evidence because they're not relevant.
I'll give you an example from the trick please.
Speaker 7 (31:15):
Dallas Schroeder was out in Mason County to be a witness.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
I like Dallas good.
Speaker 7 (31:18):
Dallas is great. He's the Dallas and Rondo two of
my favorite people.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
Fantastic folks in your Jersey. Yes, they're great people.
Speaker 7 (31:25):
So a lot of people don't know that Dallas also
took images of his voting machines.
Speaker 8 (31:31):
Are you aware of that.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Not only am I aware of it, We've discussed, but
then he also told the Secretary of State's office, if
you want to compare and contrast to people that did
things differently, dude didn't go in under darkness turn off,
you know, come up with fake id's turnoff cameras, tried
to do it in secret. He didn't do it like that.
Speaker 7 (31:47):
Well, sure, and that's a great point because that's what
she was prosecuted for. Not taking images of voting machines,
not breaching voting machines, not anything to do with voting machines.
Speaker 8 (31:58):
Actually it was the man in which she engaged in that.
Speaker 7 (32:01):
And the reason that that was the trial and not
the voting machine thing is because taking images of voting
machines was.
Speaker 8 (32:07):
Not a crime at the time that she took them.
Speaker 7 (32:09):
It became a crime when they passed Senate Bill twenty
two one point fifty three, the Colorado Election Security Act,
and that was signed into law. But my point of
bringing up Dallas is that Dallas was out in Mason
County to be a witness. They had This is from memory.
I feel like it was like a twenty five minute sidebar.
Speaker 8 (32:28):
They swore him in. He spelled his name.
Speaker 7 (32:30):
They had like a twenty five minute sidebar, and then
they dismissed him from the stand and he was not
allowed to explain his interactions with the Secretary of State
the way that the media was used in that case,
which was egregious. If folks don't know in Albert County,
when Jennickerswold found out that there were images in Elbert County,
(32:53):
he didn't just tell the Secretary of State. He disclosed
it in a lawsuit. And then Christopher Biale said Dallas
is a national security threat, which is not true. And
they did the whole narrative thing that they did with
Tina Peters, which in August twenty twenty one was she stole.
Speaker 8 (33:08):
And leaked passwords and all of this stuff.
Speaker 7 (33:10):
It was not the facts of the case, and it
was not what she was eventually tried about. But this
was happening at the same time, in the same time period,
and the conduct of the Secretary of State's office during
that period of time was relevant to why she did
what she did. Dallas could back her up on that
wasn't allowed to testify.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
But how is what happened with Dallas relevant to what
happened with Tina. When did Dallas do what he did
in relation to when Tina did what she did? Same exactly? So,
how could the Secretary of State's response to Dallas be
the predicate or the excuse or the cover for Tina
to do what she did in the manner in which
(33:51):
she did it. How is that? Why is that relevant
either she did it or didn't, And maybe that's where
we should start. Do you think she violated the law?
Speaker 7 (33:57):
I think that the misrepresentation to the Secretary of State
that Conan Hayes was Jerry Woods.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
Was a violation of the law, yes, okay anything.
Speaker 7 (34:06):
I don't believe that taking the images was a crime.
It wasn't according to the law.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Do you think she was that she broke the laws
she was accused of breaking? Which laws are those well of?
And there were numerous charges and I don't have them
all memorized. I know that the identity was one of them,
but you can't.
Speaker 7 (34:23):
So the three for the first of the first three
felonies are the misrepresentation official misconduct In there it's attempting
that's a misdemeanor. It was attempting to influence public official.
That's three of the felonies. The fourth is conspiracy to
do that. That was not about taking the images, Conan
as Jerry Wood, was not about the taking of the images.
Speaker 8 (34:42):
It was about observing the trusted build.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
Do you think that that's important? But do you think
she did the things that she was convicted of? Yeah,
I just said that you did this to one charge.
But I'm saying, do you.
Speaker 7 (34:53):
Use four felonies the eight years and three months of
her nine year sentence yet?
Speaker 2 (34:56):
And by the way, I'm not we can talk about
the sense. Well, I guess we can't.
Speaker 8 (35:00):
Listen, I made the misrepresentation. That's not in question.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
George.
Speaker 8 (35:03):
That's why I think that this was a show trial.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
I'd love it if you would stick around so we
can do this. You know how this thing goes. If
this thing breaks and I don't say something magical, Ryan's
going to come through the glass. Hey listen. George Brockler
filling for Dan Caplish, thrilled to have Ash in America,
Ash in the studio. Stick around, keep the text coming.
I'll read them to her and you when we come back.
George Brockler on The Dan Caplish Show
This is Dan Kaplis, 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 (00:15):
Come to Dan's show. Only Dan ain't be here today.
You are stuck with and buckle up, folks. It is me,
it is I, it's weet whatever, it's me, it's me?
Is it you? Because that's the object of the sentence,
got it? You're the object of my attention right now? Sure,
of course. George Brockler, I am the current district Attorney
(00:38):
for the twenty third Judicial District. Yes, the first and
only district attorney thus far. I'll be with you until
six o'clock. Listen. This is a show that has the potential,
and I like this to go one of a bunch
of different ways, and some of those ways are right
off the rails. Let me begin. We'll have a topic
here in a moment, but I want to set this up.
At four point thirty six, we're going to be joined
(01:00):
apparently in studio by Ash in America. I think the
it's Ash middle initial N, last name, America, which is
a phenomenal name, and Ash in America is going to
join us here now. For those of you that are
regular listeners of the Khow product, and Ryan runs the
morning show masterfully. He has Ash on every Tuesday. I
(01:24):
listen enough that I am sending in texts constantly to Ryan,
probably in an annoying way. Yes that's true. It's true.
And not just about Ash, by the way, but things
that they talked about today I think really piqued my
interest on a lot of different levels, and I want
to talk about them with you. And then I thought,
you know what, we Ash and I seem to be
having a conversation through Ryan and through the radio. Let's
(01:47):
just do this on the radio together. Let's do it.
And I told Ryan this when I came in. I said,
I guess this is just one of the many differences
between me and one of the gubernatorial candidates. If I've
got someone with whom I want to have a conversation
that may not see the world the way I do,
that may even have some criticism. I don't surround myself
with bodyguards and make everybody come to my house to
(02:09):
have a conversation with me. Instead, I say let's get
on the air and let's just do this thing publicly.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
And are you referring to a particular individual at that
reference and description?
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Wait a minute, is there someone that fits that description?
It was sort of made up at the time, Wow
to a tea. Actually, yes, I am. And of course
who Ryan is talking about is Victor Marx. Now I've
never met the man, and so I've tried my best
over the course of this campaign to reserve judgment of
him as a person because I just haven't met him.
I haven't looked in as, I haven't heard his voice
(02:41):
answer my questions. But OMG, I did watch the entire
interview with Kyle Clark and Blue Boy. That was not
a positive experience for one of them. And I'm not
talking about Kyle Clark. If you haven't watched that, folks,
you need to do it. I know there's been a
lot of speculation about whether or not mister Marx is
(03:04):
going to attend the gubernatorial debate today. I you know,
at one point I was three to one no, then
two to one no. I think he could go, and
I think the reason for that, and it's along the
lines of what I've discussed with Ryan and he brought
up on the air I think yesterday or last week,
and that was what if this guy is just a
genius chess player politically, and he is allowing us to
(03:27):
set the bar so low that as long as he
shows up and doesn't try to, you know, conduct an
exorcism on Kyle Clark right there on camera, people are
going to be like, Oh, that wasn't so bad. This
dude could hold his own I mean, a C performance
looks a lot more like a B plus performance when
(03:47):
you set the bar that low. I think that could happen.
I think he could show up. I think that it
is not possible for him to rebound from not showing up.
And I'm not saying he couldn't win. I still think
the guy could win the nomination. There's no chance he
wins the general election, but let's just say this. I
think he could win the nomination. I just don't think
(04:08):
you could rebound. I don't think you can play the
Trump card your first time out of the box running
for office. Everybody knows that Trump did every single debate
humanly possible in twenty sixteen, and he just disappeared people
with his comments on the stage. That's how masterfully was.
I just don't see that here. I am anxious to
see how he does. I have yet to hear him
(04:29):
really talk about policy. He did a little bit on
another show I heard, but not a ton. I've been
to his website. I've talked about it right here on
this show, where the website itself, at least with regard
to public safety. And of course that's my myopic focus
for this thing, is that either AI created it or
someone who isn't actually an attorney created it, because the
(04:51):
same statute is cited multiple times for multiple different propositions,
and ain't a one of them accurate, None of them
are true. And I thought, well, do you blame the
candidate for that? Maybe you don't, Maybe you don't blame
the candidate for the content. But I think what you
(05:12):
do blame the candidate for is who he's surrounding himself with.
And that's more important for this guy than it is
for bottoms In Kirkmeyer, because this guy has run on
I don't really need to know the facts. I don't
really need to know policy. I don't really need to
know how government works because I'm going to surround myself
with great people who will get us to good answers. Okay,
(05:32):
but then when you do things like this, we then
get to criticize you doubly. And that goes for the
signatures thing too, I think. But for this guy ending
up on the ballot through the assembly, we would have
heard that he didn't make it onto the ballot through
the signatures, and that would have been another commentary on
who are you surrounding yourself with? And I know some
of the people on his team, and I like these
(05:52):
there are great people. I presume they're not the ones
pulling all the strings. But I'm not an anti Marx guy.
I'm just I don't know who this guy is and
nothing I have seen on YouTube or anywhere else or
on the radio has told me any more about him.
But I'll say this too. You can't dodge Ryan and
then claim the mantle of I'm just this super tough
(06:14):
guy and I go fight evil and demons and I
go rescue kids. But I can't take on Ryan schuling
on on the radio, or I can't take on Dan Kaplis,
or I don't know, it's just maybe it's just me. Listen,
I want to get your text five seven seven three nine.
As the tech started off with Dan and then jump
right in. Here's a couple right here, Dan Polly Polly.
(06:36):
Mark guarantees a one hundred million if you bet ten
thousand dollars that Mark shows up with a bozo wig.
I didn't even know you could get that specific. Here's
another one. Write this down. I'm on your side with
Ash heading to the debate. Now here's another one. I
watch dozens of police videos every week on Facebook. The
current one from Aurora Police Department with two grapple catches
(06:58):
is absolutely incredible, as you know, and by our friend
Alexa Jorge in the house. Oh yeah, as you know,
big fan of accountability and transparency, and part of that
is police highlighting the good work that they do. Facebook's
a good one. I love it when Douglas County, and
I'm talking Parker, Loan, Tree, Castle, Rock and the mighty
dcs so put their stuff out there. But I love
(07:20):
to hear that Aurora does too. I have a teeny
bit of Aurora in my jurisdiction. It's called Inspiration. It's
the most crime ridden part of Aurora. As anyone who
knows Inspiration is. I'm kidding. It's a fifty five and
older golf community. But those people can get crazy when
they get the Aparel sprits on board. Here's what here's
what I want to do, because we're gonna have Ash
(07:42):
in the studio here at four thirty six. And I
want to kind of tee this up because I've been
interviewed twice today Ryan on the same issue, and it's
the issue of Tina Peters, and so I hope Ash
is listening as she's I don't know, being furloughed or
discharged or whatever it is that she's doing at the moment.
I'm kid esh, you know, I'm kidding. I'm totally kidding.
(08:03):
Please don't bring weapons into the studio, Please don't. But
I've been interviewed by Channel seven and by KKTV down
in the Springs about the same thing, and the question was,
what's your reaction to Tina Peters being granted clemency. I
gotta step way back one. You should know that our
governor has an unfettered clemency power. There's no way to
(08:23):
appeal it, there's no way to undo it, there's no
way to stop it. When you're the governor of the
state of Colorado. It is a superpower like nothing else.
You can do in government. There's no Hay, I'm going
to go to the Supreme Court and say you exercise
this power in a race. There's nothing like that. Man
guy gets to grant whatever clemency he wants at whatever
time he chooses, and I hope that that's something that's
(08:46):
brought up in this debate. I hope we get to
hear how these candidates and Frankly, Wiser and Bennett will
exercise this power, because by and large, my opinion is
that governor pulls and I give him great props for this.
A lot of governors like Hickenloper waited till the end
of their time in office to do a bunch of
these things because they're afraid of the political ramifications. Not
(09:06):
this guy. Polus has been pretty regular about giving a
pardons and clemency of some kind during the course of
his time in office, and I respect that. Now he
tries to hide behind a bunch of things that turn
out to not be true as basis for giving these things,
and we'll talk about that in a bit, but I
do respect that he uses the power. But just know this,
he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and
(09:27):
he's proven that. So when it came to this, my
answer was, well, what do you mean, Because if the
first question is should he have granted a pardon to
Tina Peters, my answer is no, he should not have.
I am a huge believer in our system, our criminal
justice system, and not because it's flawless. It's not thus
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. So I
(09:48):
get that it's not flawless. But our criminal justice system
is not an outcome driven system. It is a process
driven system. And when you have a process driven system,
even if you get an outcome you disagree with, you
don't attack the system as corrupt, flawed, needing to be fixed.
And I think for many many they looked at this
(10:09):
and said Tina Peter should have never been charged, Tina
Peter should have been acquitted, and because those things happened
and she wasn't acquitted, then there's something wrong with the system.
I disagree. We can have a conversation. I hope Ash
comes in and is ready for this, have a conversation
about what things she thinks ought to be improved and how.
But I'm a big fan of this criminal justicism, not
because of its perfection, but because of its many, many,
(10:32):
many checks and balances, and we'll go through those. Listen,
here's what I want to do. I want to cut
away for this break. We have a little bit of
floating time here and then we'll come back. You keep
a lot of texts coming in. You can also call
us three zero three seven one three eighty two fifty
five three zero three seven one three eight two five five.
Please challenge me on what I'm saying or echo it.
I don't mind, uh, But Texas two five seven, seven
(10:55):
three nine start with Dan. It's George Brockler filling in
for the mighty one Dan Capel's on the Day Capel Show.
Back right after this.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
And now back to the Dankplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Does it matter? Yeah, I'd say so. Why killing somebody
is a pretty weighty thing.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
If someone's trying to kill you, or you're in combat.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
It's still a weighty thing to take somebody else's life.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
I mean, it could be self defense, it could be justified,
but it's still a weighty thing.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
So I'm just asking you how many people have you killed? Well?
Speaker 5 (11:31):
If I did, I wouldn't be telling a reporter. I'm
sitting here to my training center.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
How about voters, would you tell voters.
Speaker 5 (11:42):
There's no need. I don't think that's important. It's actually
kind of it's a NodD question to me.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Oh what George Brocker filling in for Dan CAplus on
the Dan CAPLA show. That answer got me. And I know, Ryan,
you had a follow up you wanted to ask me?
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Yes, I wanted to follow up in the spirit of
Comrade Kyle, and ask you, George Brockler, whether you believe,
as an.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Adult, you've killed a person. Ryan. That is an odd
question to ask a fill in hosts who's also the
district attorney. I guess I don't recall if possible, I
suppose anyone could have killed anyone at any time. I
don't really know. I'm not sure why it's relevant. I mean,
(12:30):
maybe because I'm a district attorney who prosecutes people who
kill people illegally. Maybe you'd want to know that if
I were running for governor and I was gonna use
my awesome clemency powers to decide whether or not to
grant clemency two people convicted of killing other people, maybe
you'd want to know if I had killed other people
exact pas. No, of course, no, No, I haven't man.
(12:51):
And let's be clear, I've deployed to Iraq. I was
not in a position mercifully to have to kill anyone
when I I was over there. But I will say
this quick story. I get off the plane and god,
where did we land? It was not ali al Seline.
We flew out of there. But we're getting in the
(13:13):
little hum vy thing and they're driving me over to
where we are to Crete Cobb Spiker. And I turned
to the sergeant and his name's Love, Sergeant Bobby Love.
What a great name. And Sergeant Love says, hey, we
got to go get you a firearm. And I'm like,
I'd love that. And I see that everybody around me
below my rank has some type of an M four
(13:36):
And I said what am I getting? And they're like,
you get the M nine, which is a nine millimeter
And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Why am I
the least armed of these people. I was a young
major at the time. And the response was, hey, sir,
if you need a rifle at any point, we're in
real trouble, okay. So our goal is to not be
(13:57):
in real trouble, so we're just going to give you
the thing that is less likely to be a problem
for us, and that is the not a peace shooter,
but the nine millimeter. Anyway, I've got a caller on
the line, someone who may end up having a front
row seat to this whole thing. We're going to bring
her on the air right now. It's Jennifer from Parker
in beautiful, very safe Douglas County. Jennifer, thanks for.
Speaker 6 (14:20):
Joining us, Very safe Douglas County. Thank you for that,
mister District attorney.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
I appreciate that. Yeah, thank you. Please don't steal, by
the way, because we'd have to put you in jail.
Speaker 6 (14:31):
Yeah, and then if nobody reports it, find somebody. Anyway,
that's a long story. We'll get off on that another time.
But I want to thank you. I really want to
thank you for being outspoken about the Tina Peters thing,
because no one is talking like you, and I think
now that she's out there is this kind of narrative
going on that she didn't do anything wrong. Well, she
(14:53):
was convicted of crimes, and you know what, breaking the
law is also a very weighty thing, and you with
sentenced within the parameters of what felonies and misdemeanors you know,
get you one thing, I'd love for you to explain,
at least explain it to me. And maybe this is
beneficial to listeners. How does the comparative sentencing come into
(15:16):
effect when a judge is deciding a sentence. And I'm
not justifying this judge apparently he's a political activist, what
have you, But how much does that come into play
comparative sentencing?
Speaker 2 (15:29):
I do think it's it's a legit talking point, but
it's not dispositive. You know. The rule that we adhere to,
or that we should adhere to, is that similarly situated
people should be treated similarly. And so the effort when
you go to court on either side is to prove
that your person is dissimilarly situated one way or another.
(15:49):
And in this case, I even had this question from KKTV.
You know, Governor Polis had said this is more harshly
sentenced than other similar cases, and they said, are you
aware of similar cases? And I said, look, I've only
been doing this thirty one years, since I was seven,
but no, I have never heard of a case like
this before. And to be honest, it's not just that
an elected official committed a crime. It's that the elected
(16:12):
official committed the crime. It's a crime about election stuff
over which they see. I mean, it's I've never had
anything quite like that. Like if you had the treasurer
committed DUI, you'd be like, Okay, elected official commits a crime.
You had a treasurer embezzel from the county. Way different, right,
So I don't know of any other cases like this,
So when you try to compare this to something else,
(16:34):
you're kind of left in a weird place. And I'll
talk about this with Ash too, But I think the
real problem here is that had Tina shown up and said, listen,
I have grave, grave concerns about the integrity of our
election system, and frankly, I think it has been exploited.
I think it can be exploited. But the way I
went about trying to prove that I recognize it was wrong,
(16:55):
I shouldn't have done it that way. I think it
makes it very challenging for the to then want to
lock her up. Er certainly for a long time. But
when a drunk driver shows up to court and says,
I think it was okay that I drove drunk. Hell,
I may even drive drunk again. I think I'm a
better driver. When I drive drunk, the judge gott to
put you in jail. It's just got to be that way.
(17:15):
You can't be treated like other people who show up
with remorse. And so there's really nothing to compare it to.
But all the factors I think that she might have
exploited to her benefit, she didn't.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
Well, the other thing is there were people actually hurt
in this situation. I myself spoke to the man whose
identity was stolen. You know, they went through He and
his wife went through quite a lot due to Tina
Peter's actions, So there was harm there. I myself have
spoken to Tina Peters. She is a true believer in
what she thinks she did was right. She had report
(17:50):
number one, Report number two, Report number three. And look,
I'm not all for keeping a seventy year old woman
in prison for ten years under conditions that impact her health.
But at the same time, she was convicted of crime.
So I just struggle with everybody just celebrating her release,
maybe converting it into a shorter sentence, but immediate release.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
And you and I are in a diminishing group of
people who value the rule of law. Hey, I can't
wait to hear your take on this thing that you're
going to go to. We'll talk with you soon. Okay, Hey,
George Brockler filling it for Dan Capla. So when we
come back, Ash in America, Ash in the box right
here with us next George.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
Brockler for the Dan Capler Show, and now back to
the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Podcast in the studio with us right now Ash from
ASH in America and Ryan's Ash Tuesday from RSL, that's
the morning Show. We had a already pretty lively conversation
off air, and the result of it was as we
came on was ASHL, I was right. That's not That's
not what happened at all. It felt like it went
on way we were talking, and you said, I think
(19:05):
you're so right.
Speaker 7 (19:06):
I think that I think that you probably think that
a lot in conversation. I also I left my weapons
in the car, thank you. I I, in good faith
assume you also left your weapons of the car. Although
your weapon is the full power of the government, so
it always goes with you.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
Sir, I really don't have the full power of the
government with me in this room because we're not in
my jurisdiction. So this is this is denverse.
Speaker 8 (19:28):
We're in a safe space.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
We're in a safe space if you're a criminal, because here,
if either one of us were to kill the other,
it's unlikely to be solved or prosecuted. So we're in
a real safe zone right here. Ash, thanks for joining us.
We were talking about TP that's the Tina Peters and
the result of this. I think you listened to some
of the show coming in, and I appreciate that. I
wanted to give you an opportunity to say something about
(19:51):
this or respond to what I was talking about. And
it's great talking with you in person instead of through
Ryan's texts, right, yeah, yeah, No, I agree.
Speaker 7 (19:58):
No, So I think that you and I have a
difference in principle and the principle, the principle of our
our criminal justice process, our criminal justice system protects the
rights of the accused.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Lots of principle that I adhere to I have my
whole career.
Speaker 8 (20:23):
Okay, maybe maybe we don't have a difference.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
We might have a difference of opinion about how the system,
you know, supports that principle, But I don't think we
have a difference in opinion or a difference in principle
what you've said.
Speaker 7 (20:35):
Yeah, I mean, well, you and I have have have
gone back and forth on the Tita Peter's case on
the radio before in text this morning, and that's that
was kind of.
Speaker 8 (20:43):
Where where I lent.
Speaker 7 (20:44):
I also appreciate the criminal justice system.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Yeah, I don't disagree.
Speaker 7 (20:49):
With you about that, but I but I I think
that the prosecutorial discretion, the judicial discretion, the amount of
discretion that is wielded in this massive government that we
have is a problem, and I think it's unconstitutional, and
that think our criminal justice system is unconstitutional. I think
(21:11):
that the way that our that the way that that
certain cases and certain decisions, the amount of discretion in
our criminal justice system that's executed, is how that discretion
is executed is unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Yeah, A couple thoughts. One, could you be specific about
it regarding the Tina Peters thing, and not just I
disagree with her being prosecuted and you and I talked
about some stuff, but also what changes would you make
to the system that you think that would be more
protective of an individual's rights when they run a foul
of the law. I'll start with the second question.
Speaker 7 (21:39):
First, I think that we should have jerry trials actual
we don't we have We have trial by government and
the jury is not empowered. If you go back to
the founding of our nation and you look at what
a trial by jury was, the jury was adjudicating both
the law and the facts of the case. We don't
have that anymore. The judge is the arbiter of the law.
Matthew Barrett said that in the Tina Peter's case, it's
(21:59):
up to me to decide what.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
The law is.
Speaker 7 (22:01):
So the jury has no say about whether or not
the law in a specific case is being executed in
accordance with natural law in the way that our system
was designed.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
That's changed. That says what natural laws?
Speaker 8 (22:14):
Who says what natural law is?
Speaker 2 (22:16):
Like?
Speaker 7 (22:16):
How could I ever historical precedent? You can go back
to English common law?
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Then do you is that what you educate the jury
on natural law? Common law? English law?
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Like?
Speaker 2 (22:25):
How do you see a trial going where jurors are
allowed to disregard the law or make up their own
sense of what the law means?
Speaker 8 (22:32):
Who without that? Who holds the government accountable?
Speaker 2 (22:35):
This is all about accountability And here's why the prosecutor
that makes the decision can't just say I want to
be the district attorney and show up and start wielding
that power. That's the product of an election. By the way,
only das in America that are term limited, right, So
we respond to that, we can be recalled, we could,
we can be removed from office the charges that we bring.
That doesn't just lock a person in and say that's it.
(22:57):
You're going to have to stay in jail till we
get a jury trial. A judge who is appointed by
an elected governor through a process that I'd love to
see change. But I will say this, it's not completely unchecked.
That judge sits there and says, I disagree with you, Brockler.
I'm not giving the kind of bond that you want.
So they let that person out. They might even say
I don't even think you have probable cause, a very
low bar for these charges. I'm going to dismiss this case.
(23:19):
And they could do that. And then along the way
there's all these checks and balances all the way up
to the point where a defendant can say I think
your plea bargain sucks. I don't think I broke the law.
I want my day in trial. And then they get
to sit in a courtroom where people picked from their
community sit in judgment of them based on a law
that was passed by the legislature. Not we didn't invent that.
(23:43):
We didn't just come up with our sense of it,
and it gets instructed to them based upon the law
that exists. And then the jurors sit there and they say,
beyond a reasonable doubt, it's a hell of a standard,
and you didn't prove it, and so we're going to
acquit this person, or they say no, we get it.
We think you proved it beyond a reasonable out. Go ahead. Sorry,
So I.
Speaker 7 (24:01):
Don't I don't think that what you just described was
checks and balances. I think you're describing process points within
a government system.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
But why do they exist if it's not to check government? Like,
why have any checks on me? Why can the judge
stop me from holding someone accountable and putting them in prison?
Speaker 7 (24:15):
So we could do a whole show on why a
lot of this stuff and government exists. I tell me,
why do you think humans get together? They create process?
Bureaucracy grows and grows, and growth point of the process.
Justice Gorsitch wrote a book about this, Overruled The Human
Toll of too much law.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
But in the I think a lot of that's civil too.
But and the and the federal government has in an
ordinate number of criminal laws. I get you, But here
for us, tell me, why do you think this process
that you malign exists to begin with? If it's not
to serve as a check on government power.
Speaker 7 (24:46):
Well, I think the process has evolved over time. I
think that the the criminal justice process that the founding
of the nation was, you know, relatively sound and in
accordance with natural law. You had empowered juries. You had
the people as a check on the government. And that's
why we have That's why empowered juries, because the people
being a check on the government. Otherwise you're just talking
(25:07):
about the government checking and balancing itself. And we see
how that got.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
I disagree. If that were true, I'd win every single
case all the time, right, And I don't. I don't
the jury. When you talk about an empowered jury, are
you talking about a jury unencumbered by the law that exists.
Speaker 7 (25:21):
No, But I'm talking about a jury that is empowered
to evaluate the law with the facts of the case
and determine whether or not the person should be convicted
under that law.
Speaker 8 (25:30):
With that set of facts, they don't. That's how it
always works.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
Sounds like what you're talking about is jury nullification. I
want a jury to be able to say, I realize
this is the law that binds us. I just disagree
with this law.
Speaker 7 (25:41):
I think jury nullification is a part of it, and
I don't understand why jury nullification is a problem, but
I don't.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Think that that's the whole of it.
Speaker 7 (25:49):
I also think if you look at the trials, and
this is probably more civil than criminal at this point,
but the move to more bench trials in the name
of efficiency.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Up for the criminal side not at all, right.
Speaker 7 (26:02):
So more civil, which is where my experience with this
process lies. However, I so if we look at the
the growth of government, so with two hundred and fifty years, right,
America's two hundred and fifty, Yeah, the growth of government
and the process growth along with it, and the growth
of the body of law.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
How can you tell people that.
Speaker 8 (26:25):
They're free in this environment?
Speaker 7 (26:27):
The principle of three felonies a day, right, people are
possibly committing three felonies a day because nobody knows what
the law.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
But that's not about the state law, that's about federal law.
Speaker 8 (26:38):
I don't think that's a problem in state law.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
I don't know. I don't not at all.
Speaker 8 (26:42):
Do you believe that weaponized government exists.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
I believe that government can be weaponized.
Speaker 8 (26:46):
To be Do you think it's happened here in Colorado?
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I think there are cases where it's happened. But I'm
not going to start from the premise of just maligning
the criminal justice system by saying, hey, look at Tina Peter.
She's an example of what's wrong with the system. It's like, then,
what's your fix? And if you're is we need to
instruct jurors that they're not bound by the law, They're
only bound by whatever they think should happen at the time.
And if that's the case. If that's the case, why
have written laws at all? Why even have a legislature
(27:11):
that debates what are the limitations of conduct, either by
the government or individal Why do that if a jury
can just sit there and go, we don't care what
you think. We just we don't like that law because.
Speaker 7 (27:22):
The government should have to convince twelve people of its case.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
And we do every single time beyond a.
Speaker 7 (27:29):
Reasonable de Peters the evidence and stories that were presented
to the jury, what was allowed. What the jury was
allowed to hear was incredibly guardrailed by both the judge
and the prosecution, and at times it seemed like they
were on the side, same side in that trial eying.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Every single case, judges act to limit the evidence in
a way that is protective of the process and the
defendant all the time. And I'll give you an example
when we come back. Ryan just got in our ear
and said something like, George won that one, but let's
take a break. No, I'm kidding, he never say that. Listen,
Ash in America is in the studio along with George
(28:07):
Brockler filling in for Dan Caplis five seven seven three nine.
You can start with Dan George is right, and then
whatever your text is, or give us a call. Three
h three seven one three eighty two fifty five. I'll
way back in just a minute.
Speaker 4 (28:24):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Ash in America is now Ash in the studio. We're
continuing our conversation once again off air. She said, really,
quite frankly, I don't have any strong rebuttal to anything
that you say. I really appreciate you saying that off air,
where that's.
Speaker 8 (28:42):
The truth I mean, if we're not under oath, obviously.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
No, no, no, we're not. And that's why I can
say many of the things that I just said. I
don't think anybody listening to you believes that. By the way,
listen the thing about the evidence that you pointed out.
And I love having this conversation with you because I
think we're probably way more in agreement on stuff than
we disagree on stuff. But the things we disagree on
are legit things we should have a conversation about because
it's the government stuff. But in terms of limiting evidence
(29:07):
that a jury gets to hear, it's important that a
jury not make decisions based on things that are not
either real defenses in the case or real evidence of guilt.
I'll give you an example. When someone is accused of
driving under the influence, low level charge, right, and I
don't mean it's not serious, but low level in the
scheme of things, and they go to trial, the fact
that they have had two, three, four, ten prior DUIs
(29:31):
in their lifetime is never known to the jury. And
the reason for that is they're worried that jurors will
start making decisions based on evidence that isn't relevant to
did you do it right? Here? They don't want you
to make decisions based on obviously, the guy's done it
so many times before, he must have done it here.
That's protective of the defendant. That's defective. That's protective of
due process. But the prosecution is also entitled to protection
(29:54):
of due process as well, right, and so in that
courtroom setting, there are things called choice of evils defenses.
That's legit. There is a choice of evil's defense. I'll
use a dui again. You're out camping with a buddy.
Your buddy gets impaled by a deer, right, and they're
they're bleeding. I don't know how to come up with
this thing, but gets impalled by a deer, they're bleeding out.
(30:15):
You don't have cell coverage. You're trying to get them help.
You've been drinking, so you get behind the wheel and
you drive drunk, but by god, you're trying to do
it to save a life. The law in that circumstance,
and you would hope the prosecution would be a check
on this as well, would say I get it. There's
a choice of evils here. It's not applicable under these
facts with this kind of a charge and it sounds
(30:36):
like what I hear from I think what I hear
from you, you correct me, And what I hear from
other people is well, Tina wasn't allowed to prosecute the
failures of the election integrity system that we have here,
and because of that, she wasn't allowed to say, Look,
maybe I broke the law. Maybe I didn't, but I
did it for a much better reason. And so my
motives that I claim trump the law. That's just not
(31:00):
the way the law works. You don't just get to
come in and say you're right, I punched him in
the face, but you know what, when I was ten,
that kid bullied me and now it was time to
get You just don't get to say things like that
and have them come into evidence because they're not relevant.
I'll give you an example from the trick please.
Speaker 7 (31:15):
Dallas Schroeder was out in Mason County to be a witness.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
I like Dallas good.
Speaker 7 (31:18):
Dallas is great. He's the Dallas and Rondo two of
my favorite people.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
Fantastic folks in your Jersey. Yes, they're great people.
Speaker 7 (31:25):
So a lot of people don't know that Dallas also
took images of his voting machines.
Speaker 8 (31:31):
Are you aware of that.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Not only am I aware of it, We've discussed, but
then he also told the Secretary of State's office, if
you want to compare and contrast to people that did
things differently, dude didn't go in under darkness turn off,
you know, come up with fake id's turnoff cameras, tried
to do it in secret. He didn't do it like that.
Speaker 7 (31:47):
Well, sure, and that's a great point because that's what
she was prosecuted for. Not taking images of voting machines,
not breaching voting machines, not anything to do with voting machines.
Speaker 8 (31:58):
Actually it was the man in which she engaged in that.
Speaker 7 (32:01):
And the reason that that was the trial and not
the voting machine thing is because taking images of voting
machines was.
Speaker 8 (32:07):
Not a crime at the time that she took them.
Speaker 7 (32:09):
It became a crime when they passed Senate Bill twenty
two one point fifty three, the Colorado Election Security Act,
and that was signed into law. But my point of
bringing up Dallas is that Dallas was out in Mason
County to be a witness. They had This is from memory.
I feel like it was like a twenty five minute sidebar.
Speaker 8 (32:28):
They swore him in. He spelled his name.
Speaker 7 (32:30):
They had like a twenty five minute sidebar, and then
they dismissed him from the stand and he was not
allowed to explain his interactions with the Secretary of State
the way that the media was used in that case,
which was egregious. If folks don't know in Albert County,
when Jennickerswold found out that there were images in Elbert County,
(32:53):
he didn't just tell the Secretary of State. He disclosed
it in a lawsuit. And then Christopher Biale said Dallas
is a national security threat, which is not true. And
they did the whole narrative thing that they did with
Tina Peters, which in August twenty twenty one was she stole.
Speaker 8 (33:08):
And leaked passwords and all of this stuff.
Speaker 7 (33:10):
It was not the facts of the case, and it
was not what she was eventually tried about. But this
was happening at the same time, in the same time period,
and the conduct of the Secretary of State's office during
that period of time was relevant to why she did
what she did. Dallas could back her up on that
wasn't allowed to testify.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
But how is what happened with Dallas relevant to what
happened with Tina. When did Dallas do what he did
in relation to when Tina did what she did? Same exactly? So,
how could the Secretary of State's response to Dallas be
the predicate or the excuse or the cover for Tina
to do what she did in the manner in which
(33:51):
she did it. How is that? Why is that relevant
either she did it or didn't, And maybe that's where
we should start. Do you think she violated the law?
Speaker 7 (33:57):
I think that the misrepresentation to the Secretary of State
that Conan Hayes was Jerry Woods.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
Was a violation of the law, yes, okay anything.
Speaker 7 (34:06):
I don't believe that taking the images was a crime.
It wasn't according to the law.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Do you think she was that she broke the laws
she was accused of breaking? Which laws are those well of?
And there were numerous charges and I don't have them
all memorized. I know that the identity was one of them,
but you can't.
Speaker 7 (34:23):
So the three for the first of the first three
felonies are the misrepresentation official misconduct In there it's attempting
that's a misdemeanor. It was attempting to influence public official.
That's three of the felonies. The fourth is conspiracy to
do that. That was not about taking the images, Conan
as Jerry Wood, was not about the taking of the images.
Speaker 8 (34:42):
It was about observing the trusted build.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
Do you think that that's important? But do you think
she did the things that she was convicted of? Yeah,
I just said that you did this to one charge.
But I'm saying, do you.
Speaker 7 (34:53):
Use four felonies the eight years and three months of
her nine year sentence yet?
Speaker 2 (34:56):
And by the way, I'm not we can talk about
the sense. Well, I guess we can't.
Speaker 8 (35:00):
Listen, I made the misrepresentation. That's not in question.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
George.
Speaker 8 (35:03):
That's why I think that this was a show trial.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
I'd love it if you would stick around so we
can do this. You know how this thing goes. If
this thing breaks and I don't say something magical, Ryan's
going to come through the glass. Hey listen. George Brockler
filling for Dan Caplish, thrilled to have Ash in America,
Ash in the studio. Stick around, keep the text coming.
I'll read them to her and you when we come back.
George Brockler on The Dan Caplish Show
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.