June 2, 2026 • 34 mins
In a thought-provoking conversation, Ashe in the studio joins George Brauchler, filling in for Dan Caplis, to discuss the intricacies of the election system and the role of the government in maintaining transparency and accountability. The conversation delves into the complexities of the system, with Ash sharing her personal experiences and insights as a constituent of George Brauchler, the district attorney.
The discussion touches on the importance of scrutinizing government actions and the need for transparency in the election process. Ash shares her concerns about the legitimacy of the system, citing instances where she felt that the government was not acting in good faith. George Brauchler responds with his perspective as a district attorney, emphasizing the need to follow the law and the importance of understanding the limitations of his authority.
The conversation also explores the topic of government accountability, with Ash highlighting the need for checks and balances in the system. George Brauchler shares his experiences with the Colorado Open Records Act, which he believes is often used as a barrier to transparency. The two discuss the importance of holding government officials accountable and the need for a more open and transparent system.
If you're interested in learning more about the complexities of the election system and the role of government in maintaining transparency and accountability, tune in to this episode to hear Ash and George's thought-provoking conversation.
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 Capless 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):
Filling in for Big Daniel J. Caplis. You've already heard
Ryan talk about this in the past, but Dan great
time off to celebrate some great happenings and accomplishments by
his family. Truly a fantastic a fantastic family with some
great performers in the studio with us right now. Don't
adjust your screen. It's real. Ash in America is right
(00:37):
here is Ash in the studio. During the break of course,
she again reiterated, no matter what I say on the radio,
I really think you're right all the time, and I
can't thank you enough for the candor win.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Sure, that's not at all what happens.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Again, we're not under oath, and George Brockler is lying.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
That's not at all what happened. If I were under oath,
I might have said some different things. But we do.
Even when the microphones are off, we're still having a
robust conversation about a bunch of different things, and the
fact that you confess to that one crime, I will
not tell you. Thank you, thank you for that we
were talking about, I think, Tina Peters, but as a
vehicle to describe, I think what you see are some
(01:16):
of the shortcomings of maybe it's all government, but I
like the criminal justice system that just happens to be
the one I'm in. And then you wanted to talk
about Look, the basis for what I see are a
lot of the checks come out of the election system.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
A lot of the checks.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
When I said, look, I kind of have faith in
this system because the ballot box gives us the ability
to put people in positions to do things like, oh,
I don't know, pass laws, sign laws, prosecute laws, be
the sheriff to go make a rest.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Sure, it's the legitimacy for the power, because legends, elections
are the mechanism by which those people give their consent
to be governed agreed right, So if the elections are fake, right,
if the elections are not auditible, if the people can't
confirm or even question that their consent has actually been
given in the manner that they gave it, then isn't.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
The whole system illegitimate.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
If you start from the premise that it is a fraud,
or it's corrupt, or it's not legitimate, then yeah, I
think the problem that we have here is there's enough,
and we talked about this, that there's enough people out
there who have a real skepticism about the legitimacy of
the system that we ought to spend more time talking
about it and trying to take on the arguments, some
(02:34):
of them legitimate, some of them not legitimate, and trying
to address those so that we can get to a
place where we're never going to get one hundred percent
of the people say I agree with the election system
is unbeatable and it's totally legitimate. But I do think
poohing them, writing everybody off who has a question as
an election denier, deplatforming them, prosecuting them, that ain't America,
(02:56):
and that's not how we get to a better place. Well,
and I'm saying I agree with you with the idea
that no, we ought to take these things on and
so you know, when people come forward with legitimate concerns,
I want to hear from them. But the problem I've
had is over the years on this issue, people have said, well, hey,
this could have happened, and you know, people could have
done this, and I'm like that that's not good enough
(03:18):
for me to throw the election system under the bus
that something could have happened. I need to know that
it happened. I need you to show me where it
did happen. And short of that, I'm not going to
jump on Hey, I don't trust this election.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
So for me, it wasn't about specific outcome. I don't
believe the outcome. I don't believe that Joe Biden got
eighty one million, real, lawful American votes. I don't think
that's a real thing that then evaporated for Kamala Harris right. However,
that wasn't what made me into an election denier that
(03:51):
couldn't let it go.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
And I know that people use that as an insult.
I embrace it.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
What made me into an election denier that could and
let it go as the conduct of the government. It
is that and not just the government, because I think
this you know, kind of public private thing that we
have where you know, there's political parties and they have
some statutory authority in our elections, and there's you know, NGOs,
and they had the get out the vote thing, and
there's there's there's a whole ecosystem that works together in
(04:21):
a public private partnership. Some of that is government, some
of that is private entities. However, all of it circled
around the system and said, oh no, absolutely not, especially
here in Colorado.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
Gold Standard.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Ken Buck came out in December of twenty twenty, gave
a town hall and said, you know what Trump is saying,
don't listen to that. That's crazy. We know exactly what
we're doing here, but we weren't allowed to look. And
some of us couldn't let it go. And you know
what we did in the US Election Integrity Plan, which
is the free association that I co founded back in
twenty twenty, We had, you know, people just show up
(04:56):
and they were skilled people. They were data scientists and
you know, retired military and people with all different sorts
of skill sets.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
My background is in people in change.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
It's in change management and you know, building change networks
and motivating and activating people. We all kind of started
working together and the people with you know, uh, cyber
skills went looked at cyber things. I was organizing people.
Other people were working on different things and we became
a threat because we were continuing to look at the election,
(05:29):
and it started with just slander and then it ended
up with with false allegations in federal court that you know,
we're still fighting to this day.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
I listen and you and I have talked about I
don't agree with the idea of shutting down debate or
punishing people for their views. I've never been that way.
The First Amendment is critical to what we do. But
having said that, simply asking questions and saying things about
it somehow has taken on a certain momentum where now
people that you run into on the street, that I
(05:58):
run into on the street, just take it as gospel
that It's like, well, you know, our elections are completely corrupt,
and somebody somewhere else in China perhaps is piping in
all the results of these things. And I'm like, really,
how did I get to be DA? And I ask
you that Ash is a constituent of mine, and thank
you for consenting to the search of your car, But
as a constituent of mine, how did I get to
(06:19):
be DA? If the fix is in.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
Well, I think that my answer to it would be
that the institutional establishment wants you to be da.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Why me though, why do they want? Man? What's the
institution you?
Speaker 4 (06:31):
As to your point about China?
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Every single one of the processors and clear ballot and
dominion is assembled in the US. But the bios engineer,
the guy that controls the basic input output system of
the processors at the server level as a Chinese national
on an H one B visa, every single motherboard and worse,
every single trusted platform module, which is a hardware component
that tests the other hardware components. It's a sec security control.
(06:54):
It's assembled in China. Now saying that I.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Don't know what I don't know what you meant. But
where did that make sure?
Speaker 4 (07:00):
My notes from?
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Yeah, no, I've got a lot of notes, but I
meant to put those on here and the reality and
this detail by the way, USCIP presented to the Republican
Study Committee at the Independence Institute in April of twenty
twenty one. April twenty fourth, twenty twenty one, six days later,
I had the Joint Terrorism Task Force at my house.
(07:22):
So when I say it's not just it wasn't just
questioning the election, Oh you guys in your speech. No,
they're trying to criminalize speech they're doing an end run
around speech, and it's not.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
The divide is not between.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Conservatives, conservatives and liberals. It's between conservatives and progressives. And
conservatives and progressives are in both parties and they work together.
That's where the concept of uniparty comes from.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Yeah, I get that. Hey, can we take a call?
And Ryan, you're the master of this whole thing. If
we take the call right now, are we good to go?
I can't tell if he's flipping me off through the glass.
There's a rebably, what's that.
Speaker 4 (07:57):
I can't hear him at all.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Hey.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Yeah, Brad from Highlands Ran which also in super safe
Douglas County. You're on with George and Ash. How are you?
Speaker 5 (08:04):
Hey, guys, it's good to talk to you both in
the same place. This is pretty cool. I feel like
I'm a little bit.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Of a part of history.
Speaker 6 (08:10):
So I just want to ask you real quick, George,
if I am.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
If I have a government informant in front of me,
and that said government.
Speaker 6 (08:19):
Informant and says if you use my name, if you
put me on.
Speaker 5 (08:22):
Any document, you will be breaking a federal law and undisclosing,
undisclosing who I am. That is the case of Tina Peters.
Speaker 6 (08:34):
That is really the crux of who Cohen Hayes is.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
Conan Hayes is a federal informant. It's on documents, it's
on Tina peterst Us. It has been documented multiple times,
and that is why Tina did what she did and
not in that document.
Speaker 6 (08:54):
Go ahead, Ashley, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
That's part of the that's part of the information that
she was not allowed to present to the jury is
that the reason she turned the cameras off, the reason
she didn't just introduce him as Conan Haes or hire
him as the employee instead of Jerry Wood. The reason
for that is that she had to protect his identity.
She was not allowed to present her well, because.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
I don't even know if that's true. One, but two,
this guy says, hey, do this, and I'm telling you
I'm a protected informant. You'd be violated.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
No.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
On, she goes, that sounds great, let's turn off the cameras.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
No.
Speaker 6 (09:23):
No, she can produce documents. And that's the thing is
that Conaugh Hayes.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
Was never fully brought into the picture.
Speaker 6 (09:31):
Therefore, how do you have a case when you.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
Can't even tell the why they never let Tina get.
Speaker 6 (09:36):
Up and tell the why, and till the end, and.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
She had to speak basically as a citizen.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Hold on during the court case. She didn't testify at all.
Speaker 4 (09:46):
No, he's talking about it sentencing, which yea yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
But I'm saying she didn't get it up to get
to get up and say the why. I don't know
what the judge's ruling would have been on things that
she testified to, but she sure didn't subject herself to
cross examination.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
No, she was so she didn't decide until the very end.
She kept it open until the very end, and Matthew
Barrett very explicitly told her she was not going to
be able to talk about the things she wanted to
talk about, and so then she decided not to testify.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Yeah, I'm just saying she had an opportunity to look
at this jury and say, hey, this is what's going on.
These are some of the things. And I don't know what.
I don't know what Barrett would have said with that
other stuff, but that just sounds nutty to me that
it would be like, man, my defense is a guy
told me to do this, who's a government informant? So
I did it? So how is that a defense?
Speaker 6 (10:32):
Told her it's the last guy standing.
Speaker 5 (10:34):
She went to the county attorneys, she went to the.
Speaker 6 (10:39):
County commissioners.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
She begged for help. She went to the county it
no one would help her. And her job is to
collect the data. Now, I wanted to tell you she
didn't do anything illegal.
Speaker 6 (10:50):
She could do whatever she wanted to with those badges.
Speaker 5 (10:53):
Because at the time, that is the law.
Speaker 6 (10:55):
I don't believe that they had to change the law
moving forward, but not during that time.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
And why are use someone else's I D man? Why
do that? Why not just use her own?
Speaker 6 (11:06):
And the podcaston?
Speaker 2 (11:10):
But why would a federal informant telling you to do something?
How is that a defense to the conduct?
Speaker 5 (11:16):
But he just finished helping prosecute a bunch of drug
people overseas.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
But so what Why would just because he did those things,
why would she listen to him? And Brad forgive me, man,
Ryan is in my ear with profanity. No it's not
really profanity, but he's saying, I got a break, Brad,
forgive me. I love that you listened and caledon. Thanks
for calling buddy, Brad. But I don't get how that's
a defense. So it's not just some guy came to her.
Can we tease it, we'll break. Ryan's going to use
(11:43):
the bad words with you. You'll have an opportunity to
admit I'm right in just a second. George Brockler filling
it for Dan Caplis with Ash in America in the
studio back right after this. She was going to be
in here for like fifteen seconds. But honestly, the conversation
(12:05):
is way too good. Ash in America is Ash in
the studio right now, and I'm telling you, when the
microphones go silent and you end up hearing the ads
for whatever is going on here, the conversation never ends.
I'm not sure we've had fifteen seconds of silence since
we've been in here. Ash, thanks for sticking around, Pleasure.
We had just talked about one how amazingly right I am.
(12:30):
But beyond that deck that may have happened, but not
in this room. But there was something we had just
started to touch upon, and that is you had asked
the question. And this goes back to Grita. Yeah please,
And this go just to set the background. I used
to be on something called Twitter slash X. I have
been off of it since December, the first twenty twenty five.
(12:53):
I left in not maybe not forever, but in large
part because this thing was really interfering with my sleep
because I was on there taking on people all the
time saying so, and I'm like, what am I doing?
So I put it down onto some of the first
I have not been back, but anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
Now that's smart. I think that's a smart choice, because
it is a time suck.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
So October twentieth, twenty twenty four, I was forty. I
I'm trying to decide whether or not I'm going to
vote for you. Yeah, right, because so you're not just Ada,
You're my DA, right, And I messaged you on Twitter.
I posted publicly, mister Brockler as DA, hypothetically, if you
were presented with credible evidence of crimes committed by the government,
(13:37):
would you prosecute those crimes and demand transparency, accountability.
Speaker 4 (13:41):
And justice for the people.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
And your response same day was if it were crimes
within my jurisdiction and my authority to prosecute specific individuals,
of course. And my question to you is, so, what
about Dallas and Ronda in Albert County and what the
Department of State did in weaponizing the government and abusing
their power to tell a story about them in Albert County,
(14:04):
and which is in.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Your gest two things? First, I would say this, this
is the other thing that on Twitter separated me from
just about every other elected official with some exceptions, And
I respond, I don't run from it. I don't have
someone who does my comms and says, please make me sounds.
I will respond. The other answer, though, that I gave
to you off air, was what is the crime? Where
does my authority allow me to do something? Because I
(14:28):
do think and I've been confronted with this even in
Douglas County. People are like, why don't you blank, why
don't you this? And my answer is I am a
guy who is bound by the Constitution and the laws
that flow from it. I am not empowered to just quote,
go do good. And you don't want any DA to
take that upon themselves because someday it ain't going to
(14:48):
be me. It's going to be someone else and you're
going to be like, what are they doing? I feel
bound by the laws that exist. And so if you say, George,
here's what I think the violation of the law is
or in that area, I can take a look at
that and see. But your response was abusive power. I'm like,
there is no statute that's just called abusive power, but there.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Is there a body of law that that defines that right,
because if not, then I'm wondering, are you saying that
you have no authority to investigate so the crime?
Speaker 6 (15:23):
Love?
Speaker 4 (15:23):
Let me just lay out.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
I wrote an article about this last week, going back
to what happened in Elbert County, Dallas took images. In
the response to that, when Jenni Griswold found out, when
this Department of State found.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Out that Dallas took images, there was a.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Full court press, press releases, legal actions, They put a
babysitter on their office, and.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Then demanded that they pay thirty thousand dollars.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Right all of that, there was no crime, There was
no underlying crime.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Dallas didn't violate the law.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
There was no crime committed because, again, as we've discussed,
taking the images in twenty twenty one was not a crime.
It wasn't a crime until they made it a crime
in twenty two with twenty two.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
One fifty three.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
So is the government empowered to wield all of the authority,
full faith and credit to the people right against a
political opponent because they don't like.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
Something that they did.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
If it's not a crime, and if they aren't empowered
to do that, what is the law that they're violating.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
No, well, the answer to your question is no, the
government can't just do whatever it wants whenever it wants,
and when it does, it should be called into question
by you or by me if I'm empowered to do that.
But what you're describing is not a violation of the
Criminal Code Title sixteen, eighteen and nineteen, a little bit
of twenty four and thirty three are pretty much the
(16:40):
parameters of how I can use my authority, and we
want it to be tightly prescribed because I'm a super
powerful person, like there isn't anyone else that can just
start the machinery of government against another person to take
their liberty, their money, their good name. And we've talked
about than this guy. Right, But there are processes to
challenge the government. You're doing it right now and successfully
(17:01):
you've taken on the government in civil court, right that
also NGOs. But also you can take the government to court.
So for instance, there's a law that got passed SENATORA.
Juliganzaz her title not mine had a spearheaded a law
that said I am obligated to suspend my discretion in
(17:22):
deciding who to sign a certification for a you visa. Gosh,
dang it, how do we run out of time on this? Anyway?
I didn't like it, So I'm suing the governor and
the Attorney general right now. That's some of the power
that I have. Listened, are you sticking around? Ash in
the studio is sticking around? I am too. Listen, you
have so many texts. I'm gonna get to some of
these when we come back. Also give us a call
(17:42):
three h three seven one, three eighty two fifty five
like Brad did. But until that time, you're listening to
Ash and George on The Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 7 (17:58):
And now back to the Dan Kaplish Podcast with Ash
in the Studio renamed for purposes of filling in for
Dan Kaplis for the rest of the segment.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
I have no idea where the time has gone, but
we still have some left. We were talking off air
some similarities three boys that you know of. I'm kidding
three boys, and there are similar ages, you said twenty two,
eighteen and fifteen and fifteen. I've got a twenty three
year old daughter, twenty one, eighteen and sixteen year old
(18:29):
boys and so yeah, yeah, yeah, and they all go
to school out here in Douglas County. Here's some of
the texts. You see them now, we can read some
of them and you can choose which ones to respond to.
Here's one. An officer of the court is obligated to
act upon knowledge of the of a crime. Question mark.
That feels like that's to you. No, I'm kidding, it's
The answer is no. There's no affirmative duty to report
(18:52):
a crime by anyone. It's funny. There's a statute that
actually says you're supposed to report a crime, but it's
not punishable, it's not actuable. There's no penalty for not
doing it. And that is that's important. So if I
know of a crime, or certain crimes, and mandatory reporters
fall under this, you do have an obligation like Scott Bottoms.
For instance, when Scott Bottom says I'm aware of a
(19:13):
pedophile ring under the Gold Dome, the law compels him
to notify local law enforcement immediately, not find the law
enforcement person you trust the most and tell them and
let it keep going until and unless you get elected,
in the which case people go to jail. That's what's
obligated under the law. Here's some more. We know you
have several security guards, a black suburban with driver, a
(19:35):
large PR team, et cetera. Lol, Alexa, I have none
of those.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
Yeah, your security guards are awesome.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Ryan is the closest my security guard.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
Right here.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Here's someone I got kicked off a Twitter for criticizing
Liz Cheney.
Speaker 4 (19:49):
Oh, don't skip the one calling me a nut job.
I don't think it's you.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Though, Okay. There's one that says, why is she immediate
darling these days? She's a nut Jeb. I think they're
talking about Tina. I think she's the media. I don't
think it's you.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Hurts my feelings because I was embracing it.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
It's here's one, Okay, if you want this, it must
be hard to live with the level of paranoia.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
Ash has hey Man, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean
I'm not right and.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
Doesn't mean they're not all out to get me right.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Yes, and also, the government lies to you all the time,
So why am I crazy for pointing it out?
Speaker 2 (20:23):
I am a person that embraces the transparency role to include.
I want people to scrutinize what we do, and I
have said that as DA. No matter what you think
about Jared Polis or any state senator or US senator
outside of the President of the United States, no single
individual has more authority in your jurisdiction than your district
(20:46):
attorney does. I can turn on and off the government
in a way that is.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
Very brave for arguing with you because I am in
your section.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
But I also feel like I want people. I've had
people critic even people from inside the system, say why
do you feel like you have to go to the
media and talk about this, that and the other. And
I'm like, because I want people to know what the
hell we're doing, so that when it comes time to vote,
they can be like, you know what, I don't like
that guy. I don't like what he's doing with this,
or I wish he would have prosecuted that, or I
don't I want people to scrutinize what we do, and
(21:17):
so I the paranoia thing, that's someone else's opinion. I
just think it's an opportunity for us to have conversations
about stuff that real people. I have good friends who
doubt the integrity the election system. That tells me we
need to have a much deeper, broader conversation about how
to get people to a place where we either agree
that the system is working or if it doesn't, how
(21:38):
do we make it work. I agree with that.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
Yeah, I think we do need to have those conversations.
And what about if we find out that.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
It isn't working, that it is known to be corrupted,
and that what we've been through over the past several
years is a cover up and that hits your jurisdiction,
will you do something about it?
Speaker 2 (21:57):
If I had evidence of something like that, that that
government that fell under a law I could prosecute, right,
not just hey, government's up to no good. That doesn't
help me. It's got to be what's the no good
they're up to? And does it fall within my purview?
And that is a conservative's view of limited government. I
do not want to be a guy who's just empowered
to go out and right wrongs. That's just not what
(22:18):
I'm supposed to do. But if it were brought to
my attention, yes, and you should know I've prosecuted people
who have attacked the election and integrity system by voting
ballots they shouldn't we sent someone to prison within the
last nine months who voted her dead husband's ballot and
her maybe her son's ballot when she should I take
this seriously. I don't think one human being that shouldn't
(22:39):
get to vote should ever get a ballot. Colorado's approach
to this is let's carpet bomb the state with ballots
and just trust that our signature verification system is so
good that we'll catch up. I don't agree with that.
I don't agree with that. I'm also not a big
fan of the idea that we're going to allow people
who aren't on our team to vote for who our
team reports presentatives are. That's another thing people ask me
(23:01):
about all the time.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
So you want to close it.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
What I don't want to do is disenfranchise Republican voters.
So if the price of leaving the primary that we
have right now is to allow one hundred people inside
a gymnasium decide who our nominees are, absolutely not I
do not want to do that. That's not fair to
the rest of the Republicans. But if we can replace
our current system with one where people who are committed
(23:25):
to the team get to pick our team leaders.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
I'm all in, So what does that look like?
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Because this is actually really I think I think we
might I think we might have common ground here, but
I also think we might be radically disagreeing.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
So like, for me, I want primary ballots to go
to Republicans so closel.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
Only Republicans vote, And I agree.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
That's right, that's absolutely. If you don't do that, then
the parties are meaningless.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
That's right. And by the way, I think that's part
of the goal. The goal is to try to water
down the parties by inviting people to be part of
this who don't want to be committed to the team.
You would never let a Raiders fan to say who
the quarterback for the Broncos should be. How do we
have a system where people who are like I don't
even watch football, but here's who I think should be
the quarterback.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
Yeah, this is this is a main This is a
main dispute in the party right now. And one of
the major reasons that's provided is well, you're going to
disenfranchise unaffiliated voters.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
Well, no, actually they have a choice.
Speaker 5 (24:22):
They do.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
They can try.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
I am unaffiliated since twenty eleven, and if the primaries
were closed and I had to make a choice, I
probably would rejoin so that I could participate in the
process of choosing.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
You could get it for just that vote.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
I don't have to right now, there's no and I
can go vote in the Democrat when if I want to,
and crossover voters are real? Is opening up Republicans to
having their voice diluted?
Speaker 2 (24:42):
And you said concerned about cutting off Republicans who can't
find a way to not only take off a Tuesday
night but also show up to their county Assembly and
then show up to a judicial district. Is there are
too many good Republicans, well informed Republicans that should have
a say in who they're for DA or any other
office should be that we can't just say unless you
(25:03):
can jump through those logistical hoops, we don't care what
your opinion about your nominee is, will tell you who
it should be.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
I mean my experience on this, and you know, watching
covering the Republican Party for the past six years, is
that the Republicans haven't tried to educate the voters at
all about how to participate in their process. They like
the voting member positions being empty because it's easier. In
my opinion, it seems easier.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
To control if you don't have all of that.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
And what we saw twenty in the wake of twenty
twenty with all of those voting you know, members filling
up in the Assembly. In twenty twenty two, they had
over three thousand delegates.
Speaker 4 (25:40):
This past time they had two thousand, and that likes.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
That it's another exodus, and that has to do with
I think the the institutional powers that have been controlling
the party have liked to keep it controllable.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
With the time we have left, I'd love to dip
our toe into some of the current political events here.
Are you voting for Bennett or Wiser?
Speaker 4 (26:05):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (26:06):
Boy, No, I am probably so. In the primary, Yeah,
I will vote for Scott Bottoms.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
If the nominee is not Scott Bottoms, I will vote
for Greg Lopez.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
I've heard of Greg. No, I'm kidding. He's an albert
County guy too. Yeah, and Greg and I have known
each other for a long long time. I'm disappointed that
he chose this route because I don't think it's a
path towards success for him or the Republican nominee. I
think it makes it easier for the DEMPS.
Speaker 4 (26:30):
That's what I think.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Elections are fake, and so my calculus is not at
all about getting someone elected. My calculus is, let's finish
the job from twenty ten and make the Republicans the
minor party.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
You want the Republicans to be a minor pars absolutely, well,
then what happens? What's good about that?
Speaker 4 (26:45):
I think that then we build something new? Who's we
the people?
Speaker 2 (26:49):
How do you build something new? You think you're going
to call us around another party?
Speaker 3 (26:52):
Me and the fifty one percent of the unaffiliated. It's
all organized and ready to pounce charts.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
So we should talk about this too, because you and
Ryan talked about it a little bit this morning. But look,
fifteen minutes from now, there's going to be a debate
that we're all going to watch, in part just to
see if people show up. Isn't that crazy? It's not
just bottom, But who's going to be there when we
come back? On a scale of nine to ten, I'm
going to ask how much you support Victor Marx. It's
(27:19):
Ash in the studio, George Brockler filling in for Dan Caplis.
Stick around, we'll be back right after this.
Speaker 7 (27:29):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast in.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
The studio, filling in for Dan Capless, Ryan told me
the news that Pebo Bryson had passed away today at
age seventy five. Incredible voice, real good talent. I had
no idea that Kat was seventy five years old, but
piece to him and his family. Listen. In the limited
time that we have left, I wanted to talk with
Ash about can you describe why you think I'm right
(27:56):
about everything? And two if you would talk a little
bit about the politics. So if we've had these great
conversations off air, but they lead to topics we can't
resolve in seven minutes, so can we talk? And I
asked you this, if you were going to ask one
of the three or two people that show up to
the debate tonight a question that you think is most
(28:18):
important to you, what would it be?
Speaker 3 (28:19):
I said, I would ask Victor Marx what his favorite
demon is?
Speaker 2 (28:23):
You did say that, But what would ask one that
would fit all three of them? Because they'd obviously have
different answers on the demon stuff.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Yeah, I mean I've been you know, I don't really
have any questions left for the candidates. I think that
they've aside from Victor Marx. They've been grilled at this point,
and I think we know where they stand. We see
a pretty clear divide in my opinion, between Barb Kirkmeyer.
Speaker 4 (28:47):
And Scott Bottoms.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
There's you know, we were just talking off air about
how governance is about decision rights. I think that Barb
Kirkmeyer occupies the lane of the system is sound. The
decision rights that are centralized are the right ones, but
they're being mismanaged and we need to manage them better.
I want to wield those decision rights. Scott Bottoms wants
to transform it. He wants to, I think, take a
(29:10):
very more of a Trumpian approach, do a doge. You know,
sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Using authority, though, how is he going to do that?
Speaker 3 (29:20):
Well, that is a question, right, there's the use of
executive orders, but you have to do a lot of
these things through the legislature, and I don't think that
the Republicans are going to get the legislature. So it's
an excellent question thanks that I don't know that he
can answer, and I don't know that either one of
them has any shot of winning, right, I have.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
That same concern. I will say this though, based on
some of the things that Scott has said, I have
concerns about his understanding about how government works. And I
don't mean that to be dismissive, but at one point,
when talking about the child trafficking slash rape stuff that's
going on that he won't reveal to anyone except some
unnamed FBI agent another state, he had said, you know,
(30:00):
when I'm governor, me and the sheriffs are going to
get together and we're going to blank. And I'm like, yeah,
using what authority? You have no authority over the sheriffs.
The sheriffs will tell you that to your face, and
they've done that to Hick and Looper and others like
you aren't our boss kind of a thing. And when
people make these claims, it makes me wonder, do you
know how government works? Do you know the limitations of government?
(30:20):
Because take in an expansive view of his executive authority
to accomplish good goals, which is what you're describing with
the doge thing. It concerns me. I want people who
feel bound and limited by the Constitution and the laws,
and that they'll do as much as they can within
the confines of that, but by God, They're not going
to decide this law doesn't suit me, so I'm not
going to follow it.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
That concerns me so about so you know more about
this than I do. On the doge thing, does the
governor does the chief executive of the state have the
authority to go and do an assessment of the executive
branch agencies and I you know, through that process identify
waste for fraud abuse, and then action it is that.
Speaker 4 (30:59):
Does that authority exist for the actionate?
Speaker 2 (31:01):
Part is the part that I don't know that they
have that authority on their own because the legislature, much
like we see with Congress and President Trump, they appropriate
moneys to be spent by the executive for certain things.
I'm not sure that Trump has enjoyed a lot of
success in courts by saying I just disagree with you,
I'm not going to spend that money on that thing.
I'm going to spend it on my wall or something
like that. I think that Scott would run into that
(31:21):
same issue. Could he audit and assess? Sure? I think
he can do that.
Speaker 4 (31:27):
And what do you think?
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Do you think that that is a fruitful endeavor or
are you more like Barb Kirkmeyer where you don't think
there's corruption, you think it's just mismanagement and the police administration.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Well one, I think that both of those things don't
have to be true to say, let's audit the hell
out of our government and let's do some kind of
baseline budget and go back and figure Yeah, yeah, I'm
excited to do that. I'd like people to say, let's
look at the DA's office. What's the DA's office. Why
do you have a hot tub in your office? Like
I want an answer. I don't actually have a hot
tub in the office. It's a bathtub. No, I'm kidding.
(31:59):
I don't have that either. But I want to be
scrutinized because at the end of the day, when people
feel like they have the authority to come in, poke
their finger around, look around, ask questions, and then hold
you accountable, they tend to trust government more. It's when
you throw up walls obscurity, give reasons why you can't
have this information or have a CORARA system all Open
(32:20):
Records Act where you say, oh, you can request it,
but it's going to cost you fourteen thousand dollars for
us to print that.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
Informallion or whatever it is. A million.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
We were quoted as part of USIP on election related documents.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
They quoted US four million. I can show you the email.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
Yeah. See, that is just another barrier that makes CORA
a fake. It makes it a facade, but it is
mismanagement in this way, a different person making those decisions
could say, Ash, I'll get you that information and it's
not going to cost you four million dollars. That's not
a problem with the system. It's a problem with the
people operating inside the system.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
I would argue that's a problem with the law. That's
a problem with the Corara law. The fact that they
have discretion about whether or not they follow it.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
It's not follow it. It's the charging part concern.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
They have discretion in terms of whether or not they
fulfill an open records request.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
That discretion, by the way, is reviewable by a court.
You can take him to court. Here's the other part though,
that concerns me. The judicial brand has opted itself out
of COORRA and they said you can trust us. We
have our own CORA type law that they have. Well
that's offensive to me. I'm like, well, you shouldn't be
able to regulate what information you want to give up
about you, And so Polly Lawrence, who'd been a representative
(33:28):
in our jurisdiction for years, three times ran a bill
that said, you know what, the judicial brand should be
subject to korra to and the Dems killed it every
single time. If any last thoughts, who's going to win
out in the La Mayor thing?
Speaker 5 (33:41):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (33:41):
I hope Spencer Pratt, I do.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
I hope it's Spencer Pratt. Now listen the Big Thing
And I can't believe we're advertising for nine News. That
debate is about to start. Everyone's waiting to see will
he show up and if he does, how will he perform?
I'll be there too. George Brockler ash in the studio,
filling in for Dan Caplis. I think the big Man's
back tomorrow, see ye
This is Dan Capless 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):
Filling in for Big Daniel J. Caplis. You've already heard
Ryan talk about this in the past, but Dan great
time off to celebrate some great happenings and accomplishments by
his family. Truly a fantastic a fantastic family with some
great performers in the studio with us right now. Don't
adjust your screen. It's real. Ash in America is right
(00:37):
here is Ash in the studio. During the break of course,
she again reiterated, no matter what I say on the radio,
I really think you're right all the time, and I
can't thank you enough for the candor win.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Sure, that's not at all what happens.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Again, we're not under oath, and George Brockler is lying.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
That's not at all what happened. If I were under oath,
I might have said some different things. But we do.
Even when the microphones are off, we're still having a
robust conversation about a bunch of different things, and the
fact that you confess to that one crime, I will
not tell you. Thank you, thank you for that we
were talking about, I think, Tina Peters, but as a
vehicle to describe, I think what you see are some
(01:16):
of the shortcomings of maybe it's all government, but I
like the criminal justice system that just happens to be
the one I'm in. And then you wanted to talk
about Look, the basis for what I see are a
lot of the checks come out of the election system.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
A lot of the checks.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
When I said, look, I kind of have faith in
this system because the ballot box gives us the ability
to put people in positions to do things like, oh,
I don't know, pass laws, sign laws, prosecute laws, be
the sheriff to go make a rest.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Sure, it's the legitimacy for the power, because legends, elections
are the mechanism by which those people give their consent
to be governed agreed right, So if the elections are fake, right,
if the elections are not auditible, if the people can't
confirm or even question that their consent has actually been
given in the manner that they gave it, then isn't.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
The whole system illegitimate.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
If you start from the premise that it is a fraud,
or it's corrupt, or it's not legitimate, then yeah, I
think the problem that we have here is there's enough,
and we talked about this, that there's enough people out
there who have a real skepticism about the legitimacy of
the system that we ought to spend more time talking
about it and trying to take on the arguments, some
(02:34):
of them legitimate, some of them not legitimate, and trying
to address those so that we can get to a
place where we're never going to get one hundred percent
of the people say I agree with the election system
is unbeatable and it's totally legitimate. But I do think
poohing them, writing everybody off who has a question as
an election denier, deplatforming them, prosecuting them, that ain't America,
(02:56):
and that's not how we get to a better place. Well,
and I'm saying I agree with you with the idea
that no, we ought to take these things on and
so you know, when people come forward with legitimate concerns,
I want to hear from them. But the problem I've
had is over the years on this issue, people have said, well, hey,
this could have happened, and you know, people could have
done this, and I'm like that that's not good enough
(03:18):
for me to throw the election system under the bus
that something could have happened. I need to know that
it happened. I need you to show me where it
did happen. And short of that, I'm not going to
jump on Hey, I don't trust this election.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
So for me, it wasn't about specific outcome. I don't
believe the outcome. I don't believe that Joe Biden got
eighty one million, real, lawful American votes. I don't think
that's a real thing that then evaporated for Kamala Harris right. However,
that wasn't what made me into an election denier that
(03:51):
couldn't let it go.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
And I know that people use that as an insult.
I embrace it.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
What made me into an election denier that could and
let it go as the conduct of the government. It
is that and not just the government, because I think
this you know, kind of public private thing that we
have where you know, there's political parties and they have
some statutory authority in our elections, and there's you know, NGOs,
and they had the get out the vote thing, and
there's there's there's a whole ecosystem that works together in
(04:21):
a public private partnership. Some of that is government, some
of that is private entities. However, all of it circled
around the system and said, oh no, absolutely not, especially
here in Colorado.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
Gold Standard.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Ken Buck came out in December of twenty twenty, gave
a town hall and said, you know what Trump is saying,
don't listen to that. That's crazy. We know exactly what
we're doing here, but we weren't allowed to look. And
some of us couldn't let it go. And you know
what we did in the US Election Integrity Plan, which
is the free association that I co founded back in
twenty twenty, We had, you know, people just show up
(04:56):
and they were skilled people. They were data scientists and
you know, retired military and people with all different sorts
of skill sets.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
My background is in people in change.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
It's in change management and you know, building change networks
and motivating and activating people. We all kind of started
working together and the people with you know, uh, cyber
skills went looked at cyber things. I was organizing people.
Other people were working on different things and we became
a threat because we were continuing to look at the election,
(05:29):
and it started with just slander and then it ended
up with with false allegations in federal court that you know,
we're still fighting to this day.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
I listen and you and I have talked about I
don't agree with the idea of shutting down debate or
punishing people for their views. I've never been that way.
The First Amendment is critical to what we do. But
having said that, simply asking questions and saying things about
it somehow has taken on a certain momentum where now
people that you run into on the street, that I
(05:58):
run into on the street, just take it as gospel
that It's like, well, you know, our elections are completely corrupt,
and somebody somewhere else in China perhaps is piping in
all the results of these things. And I'm like, really,
how did I get to be DA? And I ask
you that Ash is a constituent of mine, and thank
you for consenting to the search of your car, But
as a constituent of mine, how did I get to
(06:19):
be DA? If the fix is in.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
Well, I think that my answer to it would be
that the institutional establishment wants you to be da.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Why me though, why do they want? Man? What's the
institution you?
Speaker 4 (06:31):
As to your point about China?
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Every single one of the processors and clear ballot and
dominion is assembled in the US. But the bios engineer,
the guy that controls the basic input output system of
the processors at the server level as a Chinese national
on an H one B visa, every single motherboard and worse,
every single trusted platform module, which is a hardware component
that tests the other hardware components. It's a sec security control.
(06:54):
It's assembled in China. Now saying that I.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Don't know what I don't know what you meant. But
where did that make sure?
Speaker 4 (07:00):
My notes from?
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Yeah, no, I've got a lot of notes, but I
meant to put those on here and the reality and
this detail by the way, USCIP presented to the Republican
Study Committee at the Independence Institute in April of twenty
twenty one. April twenty fourth, twenty twenty one, six days later,
I had the Joint Terrorism Task Force at my house.
(07:22):
So when I say it's not just it wasn't just
questioning the election, Oh you guys in your speech. No,
they're trying to criminalize speech they're doing an end run
around speech, and it's not.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
The divide is not between.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Conservatives, conservatives and liberals. It's between conservatives and progressives. And
conservatives and progressives are in both parties and they work together.
That's where the concept of uniparty comes from.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Yeah, I get that. Hey, can we take a call?
And Ryan, you're the master of this whole thing. If
we take the call right now, are we good to go?
I can't tell if he's flipping me off through the glass.
There's a rebably, what's that.
Speaker 4 (07:57):
I can't hear him at all.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Hey.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Yeah, Brad from Highlands Ran which also in super safe
Douglas County. You're on with George and Ash. How are you?
Speaker 5 (08:04):
Hey, guys, it's good to talk to you both in
the same place. This is pretty cool. I feel like
I'm a little bit.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Of a part of history.
Speaker 6 (08:10):
So I just want to ask you real quick, George,
if I am.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
If I have a government informant in front of me,
and that said government.
Speaker 6 (08:19):
Informant and says if you use my name, if you
put me on.
Speaker 5 (08:22):
Any document, you will be breaking a federal law and undisclosing,
undisclosing who I am. That is the case of Tina Peters.
Speaker 6 (08:34):
That is really the crux of who Cohen Hayes is.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
Conan Hayes is a federal informant. It's on documents, it's
on Tina peterst Us. It has been documented multiple times,
and that is why Tina did what she did and
not in that document.
Speaker 6 (08:54):
Go ahead, Ashley, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
That's part of the that's part of the information that
she was not allowed to present to the jury is
that the reason she turned the cameras off, the reason
she didn't just introduce him as Conan Haes or hire
him as the employee instead of Jerry Wood. The reason
for that is that she had to protect his identity.
She was not allowed to present her well, because.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
I don't even know if that's true. One, but two,
this guy says, hey, do this, and I'm telling you
I'm a protected informant. You'd be violated.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
No.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
On, she goes, that sounds great, let's turn off the cameras.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
No.
Speaker 6 (09:23):
No, she can produce documents. And that's the thing is
that Conaugh Hayes.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
Was never fully brought into the picture.
Speaker 6 (09:31):
Therefore, how do you have a case when you.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
Can't even tell the why they never let Tina get.
Speaker 6 (09:36):
Up and tell the why, and till the end, and.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
She had to speak basically as a citizen.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Hold on during the court case. She didn't testify at all.
Speaker 4 (09:46):
No, he's talking about it sentencing, which yea yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
But I'm saying she didn't get it up to get
to get up and say the why. I don't know
what the judge's ruling would have been on things that
she testified to, but she sure didn't subject herself to
cross examination.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
No, she was so she didn't decide until the very end.
She kept it open until the very end, and Matthew
Barrett very explicitly told her she was not going to
be able to talk about the things she wanted to
talk about, and so then she decided not to testify.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Yeah, I'm just saying she had an opportunity to look
at this jury and say, hey, this is what's going on.
These are some of the things. And I don't know what.
I don't know what Barrett would have said with that
other stuff, but that just sounds nutty to me that
it would be like, man, my defense is a guy
told me to do this, who's a government informant? So
I did it? So how is that a defense?
Speaker 6 (10:32):
Told her it's the last guy standing.
Speaker 5 (10:34):
She went to the county attorneys, she went to the.
Speaker 6 (10:39):
County commissioners.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
She begged for help. She went to the county it
no one would help her. And her job is to
collect the data. Now, I wanted to tell you she
didn't do anything illegal.
Speaker 6 (10:50):
She could do whatever she wanted to with those badges.
Speaker 5 (10:53):
Because at the time, that is the law.
Speaker 6 (10:55):
I don't believe that they had to change the law
moving forward, but not during that time.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
And why are use someone else's I D man? Why
do that? Why not just use her own?
Speaker 6 (11:06):
And the podcaston?
Speaker 2 (11:10):
But why would a federal informant telling you to do something?
How is that a defense to the conduct?
Speaker 5 (11:16):
But he just finished helping prosecute a bunch of drug
people overseas.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
But so what Why would just because he did those things,
why would she listen to him? And Brad forgive me, man,
Ryan is in my ear with profanity. No it's not
really profanity, but he's saying, I got a break, Brad,
forgive me. I love that you listened and caledon. Thanks
for calling buddy, Brad. But I don't get how that's
a defense. So it's not just some guy came to her.
Can we tease it, we'll break. Ryan's going to use
(11:43):
the bad words with you. You'll have an opportunity to
admit I'm right in just a second. George Brockler filling
it for Dan Caplis with Ash in America in the
studio back right after this. She was going to be
in here for like fifteen seconds. But honestly, the conversation
(12:05):
is way too good. Ash in America is Ash in
the studio right now, and I'm telling you, when the
microphones go silent and you end up hearing the ads
for whatever is going on here, the conversation never ends.
I'm not sure we've had fifteen seconds of silence since
we've been in here. Ash, thanks for sticking around, Pleasure.
We had just talked about one how amazingly right I am.
(12:30):
But beyond that deck that may have happened, but not
in this room. But there was something we had just
started to touch upon, and that is you had asked
the question. And this goes back to Grita. Yeah please,
And this go just to set the background. I used
to be on something called Twitter slash X. I have
been off of it since December, the first twenty twenty five.
(12:53):
I left in not maybe not forever, but in large
part because this thing was really interfering with my sleep
because I was on there taking on people all the
time saying so, and I'm like, what am I doing?
So I put it down onto some of the first
I have not been back, but anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
Now that's smart. I think that's a smart choice, because
it is a time suck.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
So October twentieth, twenty twenty four, I was forty. I
I'm trying to decide whether or not I'm going to
vote for you. Yeah, right, because so you're not just Ada,
You're my DA, right, And I messaged you on Twitter.
I posted publicly, mister Brockler as DA, hypothetically, if you
were presented with credible evidence of crimes committed by the government,
(13:37):
would you prosecute those crimes and demand transparency, accountability.
Speaker 4 (13:41):
And justice for the people.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
And your response same day was if it were crimes
within my jurisdiction and my authority to prosecute specific individuals,
of course. And my question to you is, so, what
about Dallas and Ronda in Albert County and what the
Department of State did in weaponizing the government and abusing
their power to tell a story about them in Albert County,
(14:04):
and which is in.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Your gest two things? First, I would say this, this
is the other thing that on Twitter separated me from
just about every other elected official with some exceptions, And
I respond, I don't run from it. I don't have
someone who does my comms and says, please make me sounds.
I will respond. The other answer, though, that I gave
to you off air, was what is the crime? Where
does my authority allow me to do something? Because I
(14:28):
do think and I've been confronted with this even in
Douglas County. People are like, why don't you blank, why
don't you this? And my answer is I am a
guy who is bound by the Constitution and the laws
that flow from it. I am not empowered to just quote,
go do good. And you don't want any DA to
take that upon themselves because someday it ain't going to
(14:48):
be me. It's going to be someone else and you're
going to be like, what are they doing? I feel
bound by the laws that exist. And so if you say, George,
here's what I think the violation of the law is
or in that area, I can take a look at
that and see. But your response was abusive power. I'm like,
there is no statute that's just called abusive power, but there.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Is there a body of law that that defines that right,
because if not, then I'm wondering, are you saying that
you have no authority to investigate so the crime?
Speaker 6 (15:23):
Love?
Speaker 4 (15:23):
Let me just lay out.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
I wrote an article about this last week, going back
to what happened in Elbert County, Dallas took images. In
the response to that, when Jenni Griswold found out, when
this Department of State found.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Out that Dallas took images, there was a.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Full court press, press releases, legal actions, They put a
babysitter on their office, and.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Then demanded that they pay thirty thousand dollars.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Right all of that, there was no crime, There was
no underlying crime.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Dallas didn't violate the law.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
There was no crime committed because, again, as we've discussed,
taking the images in twenty twenty one was not a crime.
It wasn't a crime until they made it a crime
in twenty two with twenty two.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
One fifty three.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
So is the government empowered to wield all of the authority,
full faith and credit to the people right against a
political opponent because they don't like.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
Something that they did.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
If it's not a crime, and if they aren't empowered
to do that, what is the law that they're violating.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
No, well, the answer to your question is no, the
government can't just do whatever it wants whenever it wants,
and when it does, it should be called into question
by you or by me if I'm empowered to do that.
But what you're describing is not a violation of the
Criminal Code Title sixteen, eighteen and nineteen, a little bit
of twenty four and thirty three are pretty much the
(16:40):
parameters of how I can use my authority, and we
want it to be tightly prescribed because I'm a super
powerful person, like there isn't anyone else that can just
start the machinery of government against another person to take
their liberty, their money, their good name. And we've talked
about than this guy. Right, But there are processes to
challenge the government. You're doing it right now and successfully
(17:01):
you've taken on the government in civil court, right that
also NGOs. But also you can take the government to court.
So for instance, there's a law that got passed SENATORA.
Juliganzaz her title not mine had a spearheaded a law
that said I am obligated to suspend my discretion in
(17:22):
deciding who to sign a certification for a you visa. Gosh,
dang it, how do we run out of time on this? Anyway?
I didn't like it, So I'm suing the governor and
the Attorney general right now. That's some of the power
that I have. Listened, are you sticking around? Ash in
the studio is sticking around? I am too. Listen, you
have so many texts. I'm gonna get to some of
these when we come back. Also give us a call
(17:42):
three h three seven one, three eighty two fifty five
like Brad did. But until that time, you're listening to
Ash and George on The Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 7 (17:58):
And now back to the Dan Kaplish Podcast with Ash
in the Studio renamed for purposes of filling in for
Dan Kaplis for the rest of the segment.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
I have no idea where the time has gone, but
we still have some left. We were talking off air
some similarities three boys that you know of. I'm kidding
three boys, and there are similar ages, you said twenty two,
eighteen and fifteen and fifteen. I've got a twenty three
year old daughter, twenty one, eighteen and sixteen year old
(18:29):
boys and so yeah, yeah, yeah, and they all go
to school out here in Douglas County. Here's some of
the texts. You see them now, we can read some
of them and you can choose which ones to respond to.
Here's one. An officer of the court is obligated to
act upon knowledge of the of a crime. Question mark.
That feels like that's to you. No, I'm kidding, it's
The answer is no. There's no affirmative duty to report
(18:52):
a crime by anyone. It's funny. There's a statute that
actually says you're supposed to report a crime, but it's
not punishable, it's not actuable. There's no penalty for not
doing it. And that is that's important. So if I
know of a crime, or certain crimes, and mandatory reporters
fall under this, you do have an obligation like Scott Bottoms.
For instance, when Scott Bottom says I'm aware of a
(19:13):
pedophile ring under the Gold Dome, the law compels him
to notify local law enforcement immediately, not find the law
enforcement person you trust the most and tell them and
let it keep going until and unless you get elected,
in the which case people go to jail. That's what's
obligated under the law. Here's some more. We know you
have several security guards, a black suburban with driver, a
(19:35):
large PR team, et cetera. Lol, Alexa, I have none
of those.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
Yeah, your security guards are awesome.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Ryan is the closest my security guard.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
Right here.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Here's someone I got kicked off a Twitter for criticizing
Liz Cheney.
Speaker 4 (19:49):
Oh, don't skip the one calling me a nut job.
I don't think it's you.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Though, Okay. There's one that says, why is she immediate
darling these days? She's a nut Jeb. I think they're
talking about Tina. I think she's the media. I don't
think it's you.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Hurts my feelings because I was embracing it.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
It's here's one, Okay, if you want this, it must
be hard to live with the level of paranoia.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
Ash has hey Man, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean
I'm not right and.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
Doesn't mean they're not all out to get me right.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Yes, and also, the government lies to you all the time,
So why am I crazy for pointing it out?
Speaker 2 (20:23):
I am a person that embraces the transparency role to include.
I want people to scrutinize what we do, and I
have said that as DA. No matter what you think
about Jared Polis or any state senator or US senator
outside of the President of the United States, no single
individual has more authority in your jurisdiction than your district
(20:46):
attorney does. I can turn on and off the government
in a way that is.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
Very brave for arguing with you because I am in
your section.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
But I also feel like I want people. I've had
people critic even people from inside the system, say why
do you feel like you have to go to the
media and talk about this, that and the other. And
I'm like, because I want people to know what the
hell we're doing, so that when it comes time to vote,
they can be like, you know what, I don't like
that guy. I don't like what he's doing with this,
or I wish he would have prosecuted that, or I
don't I want people to scrutinize what we do, and
(21:17):
so I the paranoia thing, that's someone else's opinion. I
just think it's an opportunity for us to have conversations
about stuff that real people. I have good friends who
doubt the integrity the election system. That tells me we
need to have a much deeper, broader conversation about how
to get people to a place where we either agree
that the system is working or if it doesn't, how
(21:38):
do we make it work. I agree with that.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
Yeah, I think we do need to have those conversations.
And what about if we find out that.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
It isn't working, that it is known to be corrupted,
and that what we've been through over the past several
years is a cover up and that hits your jurisdiction,
will you do something about it?
Speaker 2 (21:57):
If I had evidence of something like that, that that
government that fell under a law I could prosecute, right,
not just hey, government's up to no good. That doesn't
help me. It's got to be what's the no good
they're up to? And does it fall within my purview?
And that is a conservative's view of limited government. I
do not want to be a guy who's just empowered
to go out and right wrongs. That's just not what
(22:18):
I'm supposed to do. But if it were brought to
my attention, yes, and you should know I've prosecuted people
who have attacked the election and integrity system by voting
ballots they shouldn't we sent someone to prison within the
last nine months who voted her dead husband's ballot and
her maybe her son's ballot when she should I take
this seriously. I don't think one human being that shouldn't
(22:39):
get to vote should ever get a ballot. Colorado's approach
to this is let's carpet bomb the state with ballots
and just trust that our signature verification system is so
good that we'll catch up. I don't agree with that.
I don't agree with that. I'm also not a big
fan of the idea that we're going to allow people
who aren't on our team to vote for who our
team reports presentatives are. That's another thing people ask me
(23:01):
about all the time.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
So you want to close it.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
What I don't want to do is disenfranchise Republican voters.
So if the price of leaving the primary that we
have right now is to allow one hundred people inside
a gymnasium decide who our nominees are, absolutely not I
do not want to do that. That's not fair to
the rest of the Republicans. But if we can replace
our current system with one where people who are committed
(23:25):
to the team get to pick our team leaders.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
I'm all in, So what does that look like?
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Because this is actually really I think I think we
might I think we might have common ground here, but
I also think we might be radically disagreeing.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
So like, for me, I want primary ballots to go
to Republicans so closel.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
Only Republicans vote, And I agree.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
That's right, that's absolutely. If you don't do that, then
the parties are meaningless.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
That's right. And by the way, I think that's part
of the goal. The goal is to try to water
down the parties by inviting people to be part of
this who don't want to be committed to the team.
You would never let a Raiders fan to say who
the quarterback for the Broncos should be. How do we
have a system where people who are like I don't
even watch football, but here's who I think should be
the quarterback.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
Yeah, this is this is a main This is a
main dispute in the party right now. And one of
the major reasons that's provided is well, you're going to
disenfranchise unaffiliated voters.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
Well, no, actually they have a choice.
Speaker 5 (24:22):
They do.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
They can try.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
I am unaffiliated since twenty eleven, and if the primaries
were closed and I had to make a choice, I
probably would rejoin so that I could participate in the
process of choosing.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
You could get it for just that vote.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
I don't have to right now, there's no and I
can go vote in the Democrat when if I want to,
and crossover voters are real? Is opening up Republicans to
having their voice diluted?
Speaker 2 (24:42):
And you said concerned about cutting off Republicans who can't
find a way to not only take off a Tuesday
night but also show up to their county Assembly and
then show up to a judicial district. Is there are
too many good Republicans, well informed Republicans that should have
a say in who they're for DA or any other
office should be that we can't just say unless you
(25:03):
can jump through those logistical hoops, we don't care what
your opinion about your nominee is, will tell you who
it should be.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
I mean my experience on this, and you know, watching
covering the Republican Party for the past six years, is
that the Republicans haven't tried to educate the voters at
all about how to participate in their process. They like
the voting member positions being empty because it's easier. In
my opinion, it seems easier.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
To control if you don't have all of that.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
And what we saw twenty in the wake of twenty
twenty with all of those voting you know, members filling
up in the Assembly. In twenty twenty two, they had
over three thousand delegates.
Speaker 4 (25:40):
This past time they had two thousand, and that likes.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
That it's another exodus, and that has to do with
I think the the institutional powers that have been controlling
the party have liked to keep it controllable.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
With the time we have left, I'd love to dip
our toe into some of the current political events here.
Are you voting for Bennett or Wiser?
Speaker 4 (26:05):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (26:06):
Boy, No, I am probably so. In the primary, Yeah,
I will vote for Scott Bottoms.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
If the nominee is not Scott Bottoms, I will vote
for Greg Lopez.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
I've heard of Greg. No, I'm kidding. He's an albert
County guy too. Yeah, and Greg and I have known
each other for a long long time. I'm disappointed that
he chose this route because I don't think it's a
path towards success for him or the Republican nominee. I
think it makes it easier for the DEMPS.
Speaker 4 (26:30):
That's what I think.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Elections are fake, and so my calculus is not at
all about getting someone elected. My calculus is, let's finish
the job from twenty ten and make the Republicans the
minor party.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
You want the Republicans to be a minor pars absolutely, well,
then what happens? What's good about that?
Speaker 4 (26:45):
I think that then we build something new? Who's we
the people?
Speaker 2 (26:49):
How do you build something new? You think you're going
to call us around another party?
Speaker 3 (26:52):
Me and the fifty one percent of the unaffiliated. It's
all organized and ready to pounce charts.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
So we should talk about this too, because you and
Ryan talked about it a little bit this morning. But look,
fifteen minutes from now, there's going to be a debate
that we're all going to watch, in part just to
see if people show up. Isn't that crazy? It's not
just bottom, But who's going to be there when we
come back? On a scale of nine to ten, I'm
going to ask how much you support Victor Marx. It's
(27:19):
Ash in the studio, George Brockler filling in for Dan Caplis.
Stick around, we'll be back right after this.
Speaker 7 (27:29):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast in.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
The studio, filling in for Dan Capless, Ryan told me
the news that Pebo Bryson had passed away today at
age seventy five. Incredible voice, real good talent. I had
no idea that Kat was seventy five years old, but
piece to him and his family. Listen. In the limited
time that we have left, I wanted to talk with
Ash about can you describe why you think I'm right
(27:56):
about everything? And two if you would talk a little
bit about the politics. So if we've had these great
conversations off air, but they lead to topics we can't
resolve in seven minutes, so can we talk? And I
asked you this, if you were going to ask one
of the three or two people that show up to
the debate tonight a question that you think is most
(28:18):
important to you, what would it be?
Speaker 3 (28:19):
I said, I would ask Victor Marx what his favorite
demon is?
Speaker 2 (28:23):
You did say that, But what would ask one that
would fit all three of them? Because they'd obviously have
different answers on the demon stuff.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Yeah, I mean I've been you know, I don't really
have any questions left for the candidates. I think that
they've aside from Victor Marx. They've been grilled at this point,
and I think we know where they stand. We see
a pretty clear divide in my opinion, between Barb Kirkmeyer.
Speaker 4 (28:47):
And Scott Bottoms.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
There's you know, we were just talking off air about
how governance is about decision rights. I think that Barb
Kirkmeyer occupies the lane of the system is sound. The
decision rights that are centralized are the right ones, but
they're being mismanaged and we need to manage them better.
I want to wield those decision rights. Scott Bottoms wants
to transform it. He wants to, I think, take a
(29:10):
very more of a Trumpian approach, do a doge. You know,
sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Using authority, though, how is he going to do that?
Speaker 3 (29:20):
Well, that is a question, right, there's the use of
executive orders, but you have to do a lot of
these things through the legislature, and I don't think that
the Republicans are going to get the legislature. So it's
an excellent question thanks that I don't know that he
can answer, and I don't know that either one of
them has any shot of winning, right, I have.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
That same concern. I will say this though, based on
some of the things that Scott has said, I have
concerns about his understanding about how government works. And I
don't mean that to be dismissive, but at one point,
when talking about the child trafficking slash rape stuff that's
going on that he won't reveal to anyone except some
unnamed FBI agent another state, he had said, you know,
(30:00):
when I'm governor, me and the sheriffs are going to
get together and we're going to blank. And I'm like, yeah,
using what authority? You have no authority over the sheriffs.
The sheriffs will tell you that to your face, and
they've done that to Hick and Looper and others like
you aren't our boss kind of a thing. And when
people make these claims, it makes me wonder, do you
know how government works? Do you know the limitations of government?
(30:20):
Because take in an expansive view of his executive authority
to accomplish good goals, which is what you're describing with
the doge thing. It concerns me. I want people who
feel bound and limited by the Constitution and the laws,
and that they'll do as much as they can within
the confines of that, but by God, They're not going
to decide this law doesn't suit me, so I'm not
going to follow it.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
That concerns me so about so you know more about
this than I do. On the doge thing, does the
governor does the chief executive of the state have the
authority to go and do an assessment of the executive
branch agencies and I you know, through that process identify
waste for fraud abuse, and then action it is that.
Speaker 4 (30:59):
Does that authority exist for the actionate?
Speaker 2 (31:01):
Part is the part that I don't know that they
have that authority on their own because the legislature, much
like we see with Congress and President Trump, they appropriate
moneys to be spent by the executive for certain things.
I'm not sure that Trump has enjoyed a lot of
success in courts by saying I just disagree with you,
I'm not going to spend that money on that thing.
I'm going to spend it on my wall or something
like that. I think that Scott would run into that
(31:21):
same issue. Could he audit and assess? Sure? I think
he can do that.
Speaker 4 (31:27):
And what do you think?
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Do you think that that is a fruitful endeavor or
are you more like Barb Kirkmeyer where you don't think
there's corruption, you think it's just mismanagement and the police administration.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Well one, I think that both of those things don't
have to be true to say, let's audit the hell
out of our government and let's do some kind of
baseline budget and go back and figure Yeah, yeah, I'm
excited to do that. I'd like people to say, let's
look at the DA's office. What's the DA's office. Why
do you have a hot tub in your office? Like
I want an answer. I don't actually have a hot
tub in the office. It's a bathtub. No, I'm kidding.
(31:59):
I don't have that either. But I want to be
scrutinized because at the end of the day, when people
feel like they have the authority to come in, poke
their finger around, look around, ask questions, and then hold
you accountable, they tend to trust government more. It's when
you throw up walls obscurity, give reasons why you can't
have this information or have a CORARA system all Open
(32:20):
Records Act where you say, oh, you can request it,
but it's going to cost you fourteen thousand dollars for
us to print that.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
Informallion or whatever it is. A million.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
We were quoted as part of USIP on election related documents.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
They quoted US four million. I can show you the email.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
Yeah. See, that is just another barrier that makes CORA
a fake. It makes it a facade, but it is
mismanagement in this way, a different person making those decisions
could say, Ash, I'll get you that information and it's
not going to cost you four million dollars. That's not
a problem with the system. It's a problem with the
people operating inside the system.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
I would argue that's a problem with the law. That's
a problem with the Corara law. The fact that they
have discretion about whether or not they follow it.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
It's not follow it. It's the charging part concern.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
They have discretion in terms of whether or not they
fulfill an open records request.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
That discretion, by the way, is reviewable by a court.
You can take him to court. Here's the other part though,
that concerns me. The judicial brand has opted itself out
of COORRA and they said you can trust us. We
have our own CORA type law that they have. Well
that's offensive to me. I'm like, well, you shouldn't be
able to regulate what information you want to give up
about you, And so Polly Lawrence, who'd been a representative
(33:28):
in our jurisdiction for years, three times ran a bill
that said, you know what, the judicial brand should be
subject to korra to and the Dems killed it every
single time. If any last thoughts, who's going to win
out in the La Mayor thing?
Speaker 5 (33:41):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (33:41):
I hope Spencer Pratt, I do.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
I hope it's Spencer Pratt. Now listen the Big Thing
And I can't believe we're advertising for nine News. That
debate is about to start. Everyone's waiting to see will
he show up and if he does, how will he perform?
I'll be there too. George Brockler ash in the studio,
filling in for Dan Caplis. I think the big Man's
back tomorrow, see ye
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.