August 7, 2025 • 37 mins
Jimmy Sengenberger, investigative journalist and columnist for The Denver Gazette, joins Dan to discuss 'reporter' Shelly Bradbury's hit piece in The @DenverPost on CO citizens exercising their free speech rights, designed to put them in the line of fire for deranged lunatics. Thing is, much of @DoBetterDNVR reporting is spot-on. So why is The Post carrying water for Denver's Democrat leaders?
Jimmy Sengenberger on X: "The @denverpost doxed 3 sources who don't run @DoBetterDNVR—digging through CORA requests to unmask critics of City Hall. Why? Because they passed some material to the citizen journalism account that dares to show Denver in decay. Today @DenverGazette: https://t.co/Dhn57gYByh https://t.co/wOCETJT1mq" / X
Jimmy Sengenberger on X: "The @denverpost doxed 3 sources who don't run @DoBetterDNVR—digging through CORA requests to unmask critics of City Hall. Why? Because they passed some material to the citizen journalism account that dares to show Denver in decay. Today @DenverGazette: https://t.co/Dhn57gYByh https://t.co/wOCETJT1mq" / X
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. Love when these
texts come in overnight, right then, you know somebody's really
dialed in. They're they're really intense. They care. I love
(00:22):
that three all three seven one three A two five
five the number text d A N five seven seven
three nine. And we've got a lot of those topics
going on right now, Young Ryan. That's a nice beat.
We can dance to it. Who do we have on
the VP line?
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Nobody?
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Hell?
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Can you hit that with your elbow?
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Oh? I did not. I'm totally innocent, and I'm the
first to always say, come on now, I'm not gonna
blame the woman with the net right out of surgery,
blaming her own.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
You do have VIPs coming up, though, I am, Oh
we do.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Yeah, We've got some good guests today, looking forward to that,
right so, I know Jimmy Sanenberger, he's going to join
us on the latest do Better Denver And if you're
new to that topic, I look forward to having that
conversation with you. And I love a topic like that
because it's something you know, we can all get together
on to help stop bad things, do good things, that
sort of stuff. So Jimmy will join us on that.
(01:15):
And then now we're going to have a look at
Holy Cow. Is Colorado really one of the worst in
the country right now when it comes to unemployment at
least trend lines And we'll have an expert on that also.
But there's a topic that came up yesterday that is
so interesting and involves so many different important, you know,
bigger issues in life and politics. I want to continue
(01:37):
that role today as we weave in and out of
and we were doing the weave with all due respect
long before President Trump was, but just kind of weave
that in and out of other topics today. And as
you know, hopefully from yesterday's show, it is King Polis
now dictating that food stamp recipients in Colorado, Yeah, you
can't buy coke, you know, no cake free. So is
(02:01):
that right or wrong? Is that government overreach? And unfortunately
the administration it's an RFK Junior thing. And I like
him in so many ways, but not on this one
OURFK Junior pushing that as well. If you're on food stamps,
now you can't spend them on pop, but you can
spend them on ice cream, et cetera. So we'll continue
that conversation because what we found yesterday, I think you'd agree,
(02:22):
Ryan is on a show that's known for its great callers.
We had maybe our best wire to wire crew of
callers split about seventy thirty against me, maybe sixty forty
against me, but whether they agreed or disagreed, just the
highest quality calls you can imagine from start to finish
in that show, because it does raise so many really
(02:43):
important questions about the proper role and scope of government, etc.
But hey, then if you're on taxpayer dime when it
comes to buying the stuff, should the government be able
to say you can have the ice cream but not
the coke that kind of stuff? Three all three, seven
to one, three, five to five the number text d
an five, seven, seven through nine. And of course it
(03:04):
was it was just fun to talk about Polus's obvious hypocrisy,
right because he pushes I mean, this is my constitutionally
protected opinion, but how do you draw any other conclusion
you've got a governor here who pushes dope on kids.
I'm not saying he's out there selling dope to kids.
He's not. I'm not saying he's lowering the age where
you can buy marijuana to twelve or anything like that.
(03:26):
But how do you conclude otherwise when you've got a
governor who is pushing these license plates that glorify dope
and mainstream dope, knowing the kids all over the state
are going to see them. And that's that's like official
state messaging on the license plates, right with these these
blatant pro dope messages. So he's got to understand all
(03:49):
these things he's doing on the dope side are making
it far more likely the kids end up doing dope.
So he can't sit there and say he cares so
much about the poor kids on food stamps and they're
out that he's going to make sure they can't drink
Coca cola. No, the real play there is he's looking
for some moderate lane quote unquote moderate lane in the
(04:09):
Democratic Party as he tries to go national, and it's
all a con, it's all fake. Three oh three seven
one three eight two five five. The number tex D
A N five, seven, seven, three nine, So we'll continue
that convo as well. Now one I want to I
want to get into with you today because you know
I used to live in Boulder. I lived in Boulder
(04:30):
until the day I got married, literally, and then I
married a woman who was working nights in Denver news
anchor at Channel four, and we just celebrated our thirty
first anniversary. But I didn't move out of Boulder until
noon on my wedding day. And you know, that's how
much I loved living in Boulder. And I know it's
lefty in this and that, but who cares, you can
handle that stuff. Just absolutely beautiful place. So I you know,
(04:52):
i'd be walking my dog all the time and North
Boulder and then out what did you call it out of?
Jay wrote? It was still in Boulder. So when I
saw the story about this person, they're walking their dog
in North Boulder and this mountain lion comes and takes
the dog right off the leash, and you know that
that is obviously absolutely traumatizing. You're probably the same as
(05:14):
our family, which is hey that they're not human, right,
but they are a member of your family. And to
have that dog just taken right before your eyes. That's
a hard, hard thing. So then the question is do
you let the mountain lion live? Do you let that
mountain lion live because they got the mountain lion? Do
you let the mountain lion live? Or do you put
(05:35):
the mountain lion down? Three oh three seven one three
eight two five five the number text d an five
seven seven three nine overnight text or Dan let the
Mountain Lion live? All in caps, multiple exclamation points. So
would love to get your take on that, Brian, do
you have any strong feelings about the mountain lion? Should
(05:58):
the mountain lion thumbs up, thumbs down? Go to well
over the Rainbow Bridge for mountain lions or or wander free?
Speaker 3 (06:06):
I mean, it's one of God's creatures, right, and it's
a wild animal, so it's just doing what its predatory
instincts directed to do. But if it's a threat in
a human area where it's you know, residential, then I
don't think you can allow a mountainline to be there.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Well, not a threat to humans, threat to dogs. It
could be a threat to human yeah, but not really
hands yeah, but that that's a freak deal, right, yeah.
I mean, but listen, I appreciate you raising the point.
I don't think somebody could really make the case that
it's an ongoing threat to humans, and in my opinion,
not to the point you put it down. But the
threat to animals is this big deal. Right our neighborhood,
(06:45):
we had in our part of town, we had at
one point twenty five dogs killed by kyotes. And then
my wife said she did enough of that, she took over.
And I can't get into all the details, but I
will tell you she she paid a guy with a gun,
and I'm all, legally yeah. And then then the city
(07:07):
got involved and did some really good work as well.
But yeah, I mean, I know kyo's natural habitat all
that stuff, but I remember one taking our dog.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Well, what about the reintroduction of wolves. Ha's caused so
much problem for our ranchers out there. That's just Polis
right there. That's just his double.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Middle finger to ranchers. True, yeah, And how is it?
I mean, he doesn't even care for animals, right? Have
you ever met a colder fish? And I enjoyed polists,
I really do. When we used to have mine air
and we'd have good back and force, I enjoyed them. Thoroughly,
but talk about an unfeeling cold fish. He doesn't even
care about animals, because how is it good for these
(07:44):
wolves to bring them up here just to have them die?
And it's sure not good for the lives doctor, killing
the farmers, the ranchers. Yeah, but I digress, my friend.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Yeah, the mountain lion, though I struggled with.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
I always want to err on the side of not
killing animal, but if it's out of its natural habitat
and invades where humans now reside, although you can argue
that we took over their habitat, so that comes into
the argument as well that if this mountain lion was
relentlessly lurking around was a danger to animals in the area,
(08:18):
then yeah, I don't see a problem with taking the
animal out if you can't relocate it.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Yeah. No, I'd love to get I'd love to get
people's take on that. I can tell you if it's
my dog and I see the animal coming for my dog,
I'm and if I have a gun and I have
the ability to take out that mountain lion, I'm going
to do that. At the time, I think the tougher
question comes afterwards, And like when we were in the
middle of that coyote infestation. I was carrying a gun
(08:46):
when I walk the dogs. I think about how bizarre
that is carrying a gun when you're walking the dog.
Because there were so many cows. There were times, you know,
and we live five minutes from the station, you know,
there were times we would we'd have three of them
in the yard at one time and they had everything
but a bib on with with a knife and fork,
waiting for our dogs to come out. So and then
(09:09):
the one got our dog, runs off of our dog.
Kyo crossed me like six grand I remember this, put
that dog back together. But I thank god I had
the opportunity to because you remember Ryan, the name of
the neighbor's dog that saved ours from the house.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Give him a big t bone.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Yeah, Ryan has this great memory. Amos Amos, God rest
his soul. He crossed that rainbow bridge. He's a hero.
Oh he was. Yeah, he chased that kyot down, tackled
the kyote, got our dog back.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
That's amazing.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Yeah. Our dog turns one hundred and nineteen on Friday.
Can you believe that one hundred and nineteen and.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Dog years A life well lived?
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Yeah, stopped going to the bathroom outside at about four,
but come three out three three k two five five.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Amy loves the dog, and I have great respect for
the dog. It's absolutely brilliant. I mean, its brain must
be the size of a small p and it's one
of the smartest living things you've ever met, smart enough
to survive one hundred and fifteen years with a heavy
preference for going using the restroom inside. Three or three
someone three eight two five five text d an five
(10:24):
seven seven three nine. What do you think is it
wrong now for polists to be telling, you know, poor
people in Colorado you cannot use those food stamps for
Coca cola. You're on the Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 4 (10:45):
Dollars a day on Snap and about ten percent is
going to sugar be drinks and between and if you
add candies to that, it's about thirteen to seventeen percent.
And we all believe in free choice. We live in
a democracy. People can make their own choice about what
(11:05):
they're going to buy and what they're not going to buy.
If you want to buy a sugary soda, you ought
to be able to do that. The US taxpayer should
not pay for it. The US taxpayers should not be
paying to feed kids foods supporest kids in our country
with foods that are going to give them diabetes, and
(11:27):
then my agency ends up through Medicaid and medicare paying
for those injuries. We're going to put an end to that,
and we're doing it step by step, state by state.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Listen. I love a lot that RFK Junior is doing,
and I have zero doubt about his sincerity. I think
he is one hundred percent sincere in what he's doing.
I do not feel that way about your Polis. I
think this is a cynical political move by Polis telling
the poor people of Colorado you can't use your food
stamps for Coca cola anymore right, because plist does so
(12:00):
much to undermine the health of the children of those
poor people. I don't think he's shown anything that suggests
he truly cares about the health of the children of
those poor people. And so I get the good arguments
on both sides. Where I come down is when you're
talking about freedom and any kind of impingement on freedom,
I think by the government, I think you have to
(12:21):
have a really clear right line. I think it has
to be consistent across the board, and I don't think
this is here. I think on police's part, it's a
spasmatic political play. And I don't think you should allow
government to reach into somebody's freedom like that. And I
get your point that, wait a second, when it's a
taxpayer's money, then it isn't your freedom, But I respectfully
(12:45):
disagree with that. More broadly like that, I mean, if
you're saying, these people otherwise qualify for this government program,
and I'm sure there's fraud in every government program ever, right,
but if you're saying these people qualify and you have
somebody who truly does was qualified, they're badly in need
like that, to me, it's still a matter of the
government telling one telling them what they can eat or not. Now,
(13:09):
we'd all agree right that, no, you can't buy alcohol
with it, you can't buy drugs so called legal marijuana
with Every single person would agree with that. But when
you're allowing it to be used for food, including you know,
ice cream and things like that, you should the government
be able to reach in and micromanage that way. Personally,
(13:31):
I don't think so. And part of it, I think
is the dignity of the poor people. And I know
you've got a lot of folks who feel this way,
as our Texter Dan, food stamps. Any government resource like that,
it's being paid for by the taxpayer, needs to be
barebones's minimum. No cake, no coke, no candy or potato chips.
They get what they need to survive. Listen. I could
(13:53):
at least that's an intellectually consistent approach that I could
absolutely respect. I'm not saying it'd be my choice for
how to run the program, but it's intellectually consistent. If
you're going to say, all right, it's just the essentials,
it's just those bare bone essentials and make sure people
and their kids are healthy and well fed, I could
(14:14):
support that. But once you broaden it out and you're
including stuff like ice cream, how do you justify Polish
reaching in and saying no coke? Texter Dan, are you
freaking kidding me to give up their right to choose
what they buy when they start mooching off the taxpayer.
If you can't feel oh no, I'm not reading that
last part. It's just racist crap. But no, see, and
(14:39):
this is where I just disagree, and it comes back
to human dignity, right, basic human dignity, And it's not
socialism to have a safety net with rules for those
truly in need. Now, when you get a Mike Johnston,
Mary of Denver saying to anybody, hey, come to Denver,
we will get you a home, right, that's not the
(15:00):
same as as something like a true limited safety net
for those desperately in need. And I think when people
qualify for that, and I think any civilized society is
going to have that true safety net. Now, obviously the
Democrats want to expand it so you know, pretty much
anybody can get on it. But if you have rules
so it's only in dire need, then I don't think
(15:21):
people should lose their human dignity because they're in that situation. There,
but for the grace of God, go any of us.
Speaker 5 (15:30):
Right.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
Yeah, so no, I think this is a cynical political
play by Polis. I don't like it, RFK Junior. He's
doing it sincerely, I still don't like it. If you
want to go to a truly just the basics kind
of program, well then at least you're being consistent.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
You got to define it.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Because I'm thinking about what I had in my lunches
growing up in the eighties and nineties.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Dan, and they'll sound like a fruit roll up? Now
is that nutritious that the sugar isn't it? If it does,
then why is that okay? And where do you draw line?
How much sugar? What kind of sugar? Right? You know
what type of items are we banning here? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (16:05):
I think the rule and I researched this. I think
what they're banning is Polus has said if it has
five grams or more per twelve ounces. I think it's
something like that. But I'm sure you can find all
sorts of stuff that does that's not banned, right, I
mean what about ice cream? Colorado Snap program allows ice cream. Yeah.
(16:29):
A lot of texts rolling into this. I'd like some
more text on the Mountain lion because I really I
think that's an important issue to people. Should at live
or die? The one that got caught after it ate
the dog right off the leash and boulder, Dan, we're
definitely agreeing to disagree. You're not spending their own money
on that garbage food. They're spending my money. No, they
want garbage food, they pay for it with their own money.
(16:50):
Valid point, But again, I think it's fair to assume
that a lot of people on food stamps. Yeah, they've
got some of their own money, but they probably need
to be spending it on rent and gas and things
like that. Right, So, again, to me, the bigger issue
here is government overreach, government intrusion on freedoms. And do
(17:14):
you really think a guy like Polus, his mentality and
his type of lefty you really think he wants to
stop with the poor people. Today they come for the
poor people's coca cola. Tomorrow they're coming for yours. That's
a pretty good promo, right there, isn't it, Ryan, I
can say it with some more emphasis.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Yeah, then re record today.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Polus comes for the coca cola of the poor. Tomorrow
he's coming for yours. I'm joining us at four oh six. Yeah,
but it's true. Right, Does anybody on the right mind
think Polus is stopping with poor people's coke? No? No,
they're coming after yours. And listen, I haven't had a
(17:57):
coke in forty years. Shouldn't have said that. I don't
want to admit I'm that old, but I haven't. So
it's not about me drinking coke. It's just about freedom.
I love what RFK Junior is doing in terms of
trying to clean up the US health supply. Heals it's right, yeah, freudian,
but correct the US food supply. Can you imagine all
(18:19):
the stuff that's in our food? Yeah. So anyway, we'll
take some more calls and text on. This is Jimmy next. Yes,
oh good. Jimmy Sangenberger joins us.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Next.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
He actually talked to the woman behind Do Better Denver
that came under this extraordinary attack from the Denver Post
last week. So you know, Do Better Denver must be
doing something really right for the Post to have, in
my opinion, crossed all those lines to try to hurt
Do Better Denver. Jimmy next on the Dame Kaplis Show.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Turn in right. It looks and feels like it's going
to rain, but it's not supposed to. I think it's
just probably smoke from some of those fires out there.
Three h three someone three eight two five five the
number text d an five seven seven three nine. As
we go to the VIP line, Welcome Jimmy Sangenberger back
to the show. Jimmy has an important piece today in
the Denver Gazette, do better Denver under attack. Jimmy, Welcome
(19:25):
to the show.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
Hey Dan, good to be here, brother, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Thanks well, thanks for writing the piece because I think
you know this is so very important. I mean, to
a certain extent, we're all do better Denver right when
you've got the Denver Post. My own personal belief it's
coming from the Johnston administration training that masthead and all
of its power on what three ladies who are just
kind of working from home submitting public records requests. My
(19:52):
belief is trying to intimidate them out of publishing critical
stuff about the city. Then I think there's a bigger
issue here. But Jimmy, please, you've done great work on it.
Speaker 5 (20:02):
Taking a run, Yeah, I mean, I would just say
that when you are a major news outlet, whatever you are,
and you docs, which means to publish personally identifiable information
about someone with malicious intent, and that make the mistake
is what I think was done here in this Denver
(20:22):
Post story last week. Three everyday citizens who simply have
concern about what's happening in Denver, and they submit open
records requests through the city for information and then pass
that along to this account Do Better Denver, and then
they end up getting docs not just named in the story,
(20:43):
but also their political affiliations and one case sharing real
estate information and more personal stuff that shows a vindicativeness
that to me is not journalism but embodies a witch
hunt trying to get to the box attom of who
is do Better Denver. And by the way, Dan, keep
(21:04):
in mind, they did have an opportunity to interview the
woman behind that account, but she said, look, I'll talk
to you, but you got to make sure that you
keep me anonymous, and they refuse to do that, even
though Denver Post policy allows for that to happen, and
(21:25):
so they didn't end up getting that an interview. I did, though,
and I respected her request for anonymity. And I'll just
point to one example. Ast why let's go back seventeen
eighty seven. You remember this, the Federalist Papers. Don Jay,
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton published the Federalist Papers to arguing
(21:45):
for the Constitution. We didn't know who they were because
it was under the pseudonym Poplius. That it's literally a
tradition for hundreds of years in this country, and the
Denver Post refused to respect that.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah, why did you do all that? I mean, it's
so much that went so far beyond anything I've ever
seen before. My own constitutionally protected opinion, I think they
were out to intimidate not only these people, but anybody
would think of submitting to Do Better Denver. My own
personal belief is I think the Johnston administration probably initiated
(22:20):
all of this because Do Better Denver is exposing a
lot of failure on the part of the Johnston administration.
And I think this post piece went out of its
way to signal that anybody submitting to Do Better Denver
would be putting themselves in danger physically. And I'll quote
from the piece as to where I think the post
did that. So what's going on here, Jimmy.
Speaker 5 (22:43):
Well, I absolutely think this is a chilling effect on
not just people who might want to submit information or
videos or any sort of content to Do Better Denver,
thinking now they might think, hey, I'm not sure if
I want to provide this information because threesources were docked.
And by the way, that's one percent or less than
(23:05):
one percent of the content that Do Better Denver has
posted on Instagram and x But there's also a very
chilling effect on people who might want to criticize city Hall,
whether that's Johnston or it is the City Council, what
have you, they might be a little bit hesitant. And
here's the thing that really just sticks at me is
(23:26):
that in the piece they specifically quote the Johnston administration
and they're spokesperson and so forth is talking about how
do better? Denver is not sufficiently solution oriented, as though
the Duncant administration has anything to do with solving problems
the Denver then, alae dad. The idea that a politician
(23:49):
gets to decide whether or not somebody, a constituent, a journalist,
you name it is sufficiently solution oriented is astonishing. And third,
and I'll say, I don't know for a fact whether
the Johnston administration is behind this or not, but it's
sure at a minimum, strikes me as pandering to Johnston.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
And I think if I'm right, and it's just my
belief that the Johnston administration is behind this, you know,
The question then becomes, why would the Post be willing to,
in my view, just violate basic tenets of journalism, Because
this idea of outing just these private people, these are
(24:33):
just three women out there doing public records requests, outing
them knowing that it would cause them to get threats.
The Post acknowledges that, and the piece what would motivate
the Post to do that for the Johnston administration? Because
I want to coach you something here, Jimmy. Of course
I know you know this, but to me, it's so extraordinary.
I've never seen anything like it in any kind of
(24:55):
credible journalism, where the Post in my view, essentially sends
the message to everybody green lights threats against journalists and
sends the message to anybody you'd want to help do
better denver that hey, if you decide to help them,
expect to put yourself in danger. So here's what it
says in part and the piece, and then if you
can join us in a second segment, I'd love that.
Jimmy quoting from the Post piece on Monday, Osa Osa,
(25:19):
and that's one of the women talk about a war
on women. That's one of the women who the Post outed.
Osa told the Posts that publishing her name and information
about her could constitute doc scene, which traditionally has been
defined as publishing someone's personal information online to try to
shame or intimidate them. She and Pacheco, another one cited
threats to do better Denver is the reason why their
(25:41):
names should not be published. Then what the post does
is it quotes some handpick quote expert, a journalism professor
from cu Frucci. It says, Ferrucci, the journalism professor, dismissed
both criticism. Do better Denver's people do better. Denver's actions
(26:02):
have turned the people behind it into partial public figures,
he said, and receiving threats is an expected part of
being a journalist. Wait a second, So the Post is
now declaring, through this quote expert that anybody who submits
to do better Denver, even these three women working behind
(26:22):
the scenes doing public records request, are now a new
invention called quote partial public figures. Clearly they're not. They
just made that up because the Post cannot possibly justify
putting at risk people who are not public figures and
just doing public records a quest. But Jimmy, do you
see where, at least in my view, the Post is
(26:45):
green lighting threats against anybody who submits to do better
Denver because the post now says you're a partial public
figure and threats are part of the business.
Speaker 5 (26:59):
It is absurd to think that three women who have
never been named in the press until this very Denver
Post article, that you would consider them to be partial
public figures or anything of the sort. And I would
say fundamentally, Dan, that this is not in any way,
shape or form straight news journalism. It's a witch hunt.
As I write in my column in the Denver ga
(27:20):
is that a pre baked narrative bolstered by hand pick
journalism experts, just as you mentioned to justify the article itself,
And that, to me is what this piece is about.
I really wanted to say, let's understand what's going on
with you better Denver. They would have granted anonymity and
not said we're going to go ahead with this doxing regime,
(27:43):
and if you don't want to do an interview, then
we're not gonna you know, we're not going to take it.
We're going to do this story anyway, and if you
want to do an interview, we're not going to trust
or we're not going to give you the anonymity that
you request. That is not journalism.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Bro, You're correct about all that, But listen, I grew
up in Chicago. I caddied for some true mobsters. That
this is mob style intimidation. That's what this is, right
up to the point of saying in the piece, Hey, no,
you're you're going to do this, you housewives submitting public
records requests. You're going to do this and provide the
(28:21):
information to do better Denver, you should expect threats. I'm
not quoting verbatim. That's the messaging here that the Post
chose to put a section in here on threats. The
Post chose to bring in a so called experts to say, oh, no,
you should expect threats. If you're going to do something
like these people are doing, how is that anything other
than mob style intimidation. I'm not saying the Post has
(28:41):
violating any laws here, but I'm talking about laws of decency.
I'm talking about laws of morality. I'm talking about basic
laws of journalism, you know, being used as a tool
by the Johnston administration. My belief I can't prove it.
If I had subpoena power, I bet it could prove it.
Because that's my belief here. That just violates all the
basic tenets of journalism. And Jimmy, you know you've been
(29:02):
around this a long time. The Denver Post has a
very proud history with a lot of great journalists who
have gone through there. There are a lot of great
journalists who still work there now. I had a very
positive experience with the editor on a very important issue
that we work together on. But for the Post to
be involved in this kind of rank, blatant intimidation of
(29:24):
private people, man, that tells you some very bad things. Jimmy,
can you do another segment? Yeah, we'll come back with
Jimmy Saning and Berger talk about his excellent piece in
the Denver Zett. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
So important on so many levels. Talking about the I
view it as an attack and outright attack on do
Better Denver. This this great sight on X that exposes
the feelings of the John administration. We've detailed the nature
of this attack from the Denver Post and Jimmy is
a great piece on it. Ncauzette, Jimmy floorsiers, my friend,
(30:08):
please reset and then tell us about you. You talked
to the woman behind it, right and one of the
Do Better Denver. One of the questions I have is
how mechanically can the folks in our audience help do
Better Denver. When they see something newsworthy in Denver, how
do they get that video to Do Better Denver? How
(30:30):
can they support them?
Speaker 5 (30:33):
So I think that what they can do to just
answer that question first is direct message or comment on
one of the posts, either on X or on Instagram
and say, hey, I have material, reach out to me.
I'd like to share it with you. My guess is
that would be the case. In fact, it's the case
for me on X for example, and so many of
(30:55):
us who would certainly be more than willing to hear
from anybody at any time, but especially in the case
of Do Better Denver. If you have videos of things
that you see going on in Denver, that is I
think the best contribution that Do Better Denver has to
our media ecosystem in Colorado is in the visual and
(31:16):
that's so much of what it's about. When I interviewed
the woman behind Do Better Denver, who by the way,
has a different paid job, doesn't make any money from this.
This is just something she started doing and that has
taken on a life of its own, and people have
been sources that attributed so much to But she talked
to me about telling a story, and that's one of
(31:37):
the big things that the visuals do is tell a story.
The other thing that was so striking is explaining to
me why she would say I really want to make
sure that my anonymity is secure is because she will
post do better Denver's account will post criminal records and
arrest records and information about they were on the ship
(32:00):
of the spear in that account well for Trenderragua, and
that means death threats, which she's got.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
Well, but my brother, everybody could understand why she'd want
to be anonymous, right, look at the left's playbook. The
left's playbook is the politics of personal destruction. The left's
playbook includes violence. I'm not saying for people like you
know that mainstream on the left, but there are plenty
of lefties who believe in violence, and there are lots
of quote mainstream lefties who believe in personal destruction of
(32:28):
people who oppose them. Because the Left can't win on
the facts, they can't win on the issues, they can't
win on the logic. So yeah, of course any sane
person would want to stay anonymous. I mean, someday I
will write a book about what the left has done
to me and to my family and people won't even
believe it, and it goes so far beyond threats. Yeah,
(32:48):
anybody would want to stay anonymous, And that's why this
Post piece is so insidious, because the message it's sending
people is we won't let you stay anonymous. We are
going to make your name public so that you will
receive threats. That's what I believe is going on here.
Speaker 5 (33:05):
Wee, my opinion, going to in the media determine whether
or not you are due privacy and do protection for
your safety. And that is the most audacious thing. And
I think when you said mob style intimidation tactics in
the last segment, that's right on. I mean, what else
are you doing here with this kind of approach under
(33:25):
the guise of journalism than that?
Speaker 1 (33:27):
Well, and why do you choose to put in your story,
to bring in a so called expert to put in
your story that, Yeah, you should fully expect threats. If
you're going to be a woman out there, so here
a housewife out there, you're going to submit some core
requests to denver, get some information, give it to do better, Denver,
you better expect threats. The Post went out of its
way to put that in the piece and to legitimize it.
(33:51):
What else could they be trying to do here?
Speaker 5 (33:53):
That is all that is is justifying it's okay that
we are doing so thing as dirty as this, as
intimidating as this, because we have people from the journalism
establishment that are justifying it, that are explaining why we
are in the right, and that is that, to me,
(34:14):
is the clearest piece of evidence you need from that.
Piece of what they are trying to do is when
you dress it up with the aura of legitimacy through
different institutions, that shows all you're doing is intimidating and
trying to provide an excuse for why you're doing it.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Yeah, my opinion, the message from the Post was if
you are going to support this website, you are putting
yourself in physical danger. That's what exactly I believe the
message was. And you extend that. I think the message
was you're going to do things. You're going to do
things to expose the Johnston administration. Yeah, expect threats. That's
(34:53):
my personal opinion, but I think everybody can look at
those facts for themselves. I don't know how you draw
any other conclusion that that's what the Post is trying
to do. And let me say this, Jimmy. When I
say the Post, it is literally not a figure speech.
It is literally hard for me to believe that the
actual powers that be at the Denver Post would have
(35:14):
authorized that because what I'm describing here, if I'm right
about what's going on, it is so far beyond any
acceptable standard of journalism, any acceptable standard of decency. I
still can't believe that the actual powers at the Denver
Post would have authorized that. I can It's in the paper.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
I absolutely, I absolutely believe that this was authorized approved.
It is in the paper in fact, and I would
just I mean, there is another newspaper. I'll just give
the plug. I'm at the Denverget due great guy, you know,
and I would say, that's the paper that you should
be reading. And you can do it online Vergazette dot com.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
But but I wish the Gazette. I wish the owners
of the Gazette is that still Fillan shoots whoever it is.
I wish they would buy the Post, you know what
I mean, because the Gazette is, the gazett is doing
great work. It's doing great work in Denver, it's doing
great work in the Springs. It's been doing great work
for a long time, you know it is it is
(36:14):
worthy of that mass tab now. I know the Post
has been lefty for a long time, but there was
a time it was a great, great paper in the
Dean Singleton era. And the Gazette now, the Gazette now
is doing so much more of that great work.
Speaker 5 (36:29):
And if I could sort of leave you with this,
because I know we're coming up on the time, that
to me is what may be the most sad about
this is that you have a media institution like the
Post in Denver that has gone so far off the
rails as to rest up intimidation as journalism and engage
in a witch hunt like this. It is completely inexcusable
(36:53):
and beyond the pale.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
And Jimmy Green about five seconds the great work Jimmy Sangenberger.
I hope everybody reads your piece. You're on the Dancapitla
shop
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. Love when these
texts come in overnight, right then, you know somebody's really
dialed in. They're they're really intense. They care. I love
(00:22):
that three all three seven one three A two five
five the number text d A N five seven seven
three nine. And we've got a lot of those topics
going on right now, Young Ryan. That's a nice beat.
We can dance to it. Who do we have on
the VP line?
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Nobody?
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Hell?
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Can you hit that with your elbow?
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Oh? I did not. I'm totally innocent, and I'm the
first to always say, come on now, I'm not gonna
blame the woman with the net right out of surgery,
blaming her own.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
You do have VIPs coming up, though, I am, Oh
we do.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Yeah, We've got some good guests today, looking forward to that,
right so, I know Jimmy Sanenberger, he's going to join
us on the latest do Better Denver And if you're
new to that topic, I look forward to having that
conversation with you. And I love a topic like that
because it's something you know, we can all get together
on to help stop bad things, do good things, that
sort of stuff. So Jimmy will join us on that.
(01:15):
And then now we're going to have a look at
Holy Cow. Is Colorado really one of the worst in
the country right now when it comes to unemployment at
least trend lines And we'll have an expert on that also.
But there's a topic that came up yesterday that is
so interesting and involves so many different important, you know,
bigger issues in life and politics. I want to continue
(01:37):
that role today as we weave in and out of
and we were doing the weave with all due respect
long before President Trump was, but just kind of weave
that in and out of other topics today. And as
you know, hopefully from yesterday's show, it is King Polis
now dictating that food stamp recipients in Colorado, Yeah, you
can't buy coke, you know, no cake free. So is
(02:01):
that right or wrong? Is that government overreach? And unfortunately
the administration it's an RFK Junior thing. And I like
him in so many ways, but not on this one
OURFK Junior pushing that as well. If you're on food stamps,
now you can't spend them on pop, but you can
spend them on ice cream, et cetera. So we'll continue
that conversation because what we found yesterday, I think you'd agree,
(02:22):
Ryan is on a show that's known for its great callers.
We had maybe our best wire to wire crew of
callers split about seventy thirty against me, maybe sixty forty
against me, but whether they agreed or disagreed, just the
highest quality calls you can imagine from start to finish
in that show, because it does raise so many really
(02:43):
important questions about the proper role and scope of government, etc.
But hey, then if you're on taxpayer dime when it
comes to buying the stuff, should the government be able
to say you can have the ice cream but not
the coke that kind of stuff? Three all three, seven
to one, three, five to five the number text d
an five, seven, seven through nine. And of course it
(03:04):
was it was just fun to talk about Polus's obvious hypocrisy,
right because he pushes I mean, this is my constitutionally
protected opinion, but how do you draw any other conclusion
you've got a governor here who pushes dope on kids.
I'm not saying he's out there selling dope to kids.
He's not. I'm not saying he's lowering the age where
you can buy marijuana to twelve or anything like that.
(03:26):
But how do you conclude otherwise when you've got a
governor who is pushing these license plates that glorify dope
and mainstream dope, knowing the kids all over the state
are going to see them. And that's that's like official
state messaging on the license plates, right with these these
blatant pro dope messages. So he's got to understand all
(03:49):
these things he's doing on the dope side are making
it far more likely the kids end up doing dope.
So he can't sit there and say he cares so
much about the poor kids on food stamps and they're
out that he's going to make sure they can't drink
Coca cola. No, the real play there is he's looking
for some moderate lane quote unquote moderate lane in the
(04:09):
Democratic Party as he tries to go national, and it's
all a con, it's all fake. Three oh three seven
one three eight two five five. The number tex D
A N five, seven, seven, three nine, So we'll continue
that convo as well. Now one I want to I
want to get into with you today because you know
I used to live in Boulder. I lived in Boulder
(04:30):
until the day I got married, literally, and then I
married a woman who was working nights in Denver news
anchor at Channel four, and we just celebrated our thirty
first anniversary. But I didn't move out of Boulder until
noon on my wedding day. And you know, that's how
much I loved living in Boulder. And I know it's
lefty in this and that, but who cares, you can
handle that stuff. Just absolutely beautiful place. So I you know,
(04:52):
i'd be walking my dog all the time and North
Boulder and then out what did you call it out of?
Jay wrote? It was still in Boulder. So when I
saw the story about this person, they're walking their dog
in North Boulder and this mountain lion comes and takes
the dog right off the leash, and you know that
that is obviously absolutely traumatizing. You're probably the same as
(05:14):
our family, which is hey that they're not human, right,
but they are a member of your family. And to
have that dog just taken right before your eyes. That's
a hard, hard thing. So then the question is do
you let the mountain lion live? Do you let that
mountain lion live because they got the mountain lion? Do
you let the mountain lion live? Or do you put
(05:35):
the mountain lion down? Three oh three seven one three
eight two five five the number text d an five
seven seven three nine overnight text or Dan let the
Mountain Lion live? All in caps, multiple exclamation points. So
would love to get your take on that, Brian, do
you have any strong feelings about the mountain lion? Should
(05:58):
the mountain lion thumbs up, thumbs down? Go to well
over the Rainbow Bridge for mountain lions or or wander free?
Speaker 3 (06:06):
I mean, it's one of God's creatures, right, and it's
a wild animal, so it's just doing what its predatory
instincts directed to do. But if it's a threat in
a human area where it's you know, residential, then I
don't think you can allow a mountainline to be there.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Well, not a threat to humans, threat to dogs. It
could be a threat to human yeah, but not really
hands yeah, but that that's a freak deal, right, yeah.
I mean, but listen, I appreciate you raising the point.
I don't think somebody could really make the case that
it's an ongoing threat to humans, and in my opinion,
not to the point you put it down. But the
threat to animals is this big deal. Right our neighborhood,
(06:45):
we had in our part of town, we had at
one point twenty five dogs killed by kyotes. And then
my wife said she did enough of that, she took over.
And I can't get into all the details, but I
will tell you she she paid a guy with a gun,
and I'm all, legally yeah. And then then the city
(07:07):
got involved and did some really good work as well.
But yeah, I mean, I know kyo's natural habitat all
that stuff, but I remember one taking our dog.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Well, what about the reintroduction of wolves. Ha's caused so
much problem for our ranchers out there. That's just Polis
right there. That's just his double.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Middle finger to ranchers. True, yeah, And how is it?
I mean, he doesn't even care for animals, right? Have
you ever met a colder fish? And I enjoyed polists,
I really do. When we used to have mine air
and we'd have good back and force, I enjoyed them. Thoroughly,
but talk about an unfeeling cold fish. He doesn't even
care about animals, because how is it good for these
(07:44):
wolves to bring them up here just to have them die?
And it's sure not good for the lives doctor, killing
the farmers, the ranchers. Yeah, but I digress, my friend.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Yeah, the mountain lion, though I struggled with.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
I always want to err on the side of not
killing animal, but if it's out of its natural habitat
and invades where humans now reside, although you can argue
that we took over their habitat, so that comes into
the argument as well that if this mountain lion was
relentlessly lurking around was a danger to animals in the area,
(08:18):
then yeah, I don't see a problem with taking the
animal out if you can't relocate it.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Yeah. No, I'd love to get I'd love to get
people's take on that. I can tell you if it's
my dog and I see the animal coming for my dog,
I'm and if I have a gun and I have
the ability to take out that mountain lion, I'm going
to do that. At the time, I think the tougher
question comes afterwards, And like when we were in the
middle of that coyote infestation. I was carrying a gun
(08:46):
when I walk the dogs. I think about how bizarre
that is carrying a gun when you're walking the dog.
Because there were so many cows. There were times, you know,
and we live five minutes from the station, you know,
there were times we would we'd have three of them
in the yard at one time and they had everything
but a bib on with with a knife and fork,
waiting for our dogs to come out. So and then
(09:09):
the one got our dog, runs off of our dog.
Kyo crossed me like six grand I remember this, put
that dog back together. But I thank god I had
the opportunity to because you remember Ryan, the name of
the neighbor's dog that saved ours from the house.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Give him a big t bone.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Yeah, Ryan has this great memory. Amos Amos, God rest
his soul. He crossed that rainbow bridge. He's a hero.
Oh he was. Yeah, he chased that kyot down, tackled
the kyote, got our dog back.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
That's amazing.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Yeah. Our dog turns one hundred and nineteen on Friday.
Can you believe that one hundred and nineteen and.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Dog years A life well lived?
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Yeah, stopped going to the bathroom outside at about four,
but come three out three three k two five five.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Amy loves the dog, and I have great respect for
the dog. It's absolutely brilliant. I mean, its brain must
be the size of a small p and it's one
of the smartest living things you've ever met, smart enough
to survive one hundred and fifteen years with a heavy
preference for going using the restroom inside. Three or three
someone three eight two five five text d an five
(10:24):
seven seven three nine. What do you think is it
wrong now for polists to be telling, you know, poor
people in Colorado you cannot use those food stamps for
Coca cola. You're on the Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 4 (10:45):
Dollars a day on Snap and about ten percent is
going to sugar be drinks and between and if you
add candies to that, it's about thirteen to seventeen percent.
And we all believe in free choice. We live in
a democracy. People can make their own choice about what
(11:05):
they're going to buy and what they're not going to buy.
If you want to buy a sugary soda, you ought
to be able to do that. The US taxpayer should
not pay for it. The US taxpayers should not be
paying to feed kids foods supporest kids in our country
with foods that are going to give them diabetes, and
(11:27):
then my agency ends up through Medicaid and medicare paying
for those injuries. We're going to put an end to that,
and we're doing it step by step, state by state.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Listen. I love a lot that RFK Junior is doing,
and I have zero doubt about his sincerity. I think
he is one hundred percent sincere in what he's doing.
I do not feel that way about your Polis. I
think this is a cynical political move by Polis telling
the poor people of Colorado you can't use your food
stamps for Coca cola anymore right, because plist does so
(12:00):
much to undermine the health of the children of those
poor people. I don't think he's shown anything that suggests
he truly cares about the health of the children of
those poor people. And so I get the good arguments
on both sides. Where I come down is when you're
talking about freedom and any kind of impingement on freedom,
I think by the government, I think you have to
(12:21):
have a really clear right line. I think it has
to be consistent across the board, and I don't think
this is here. I think on police's part, it's a
spasmatic political play. And I don't think you should allow
government to reach into somebody's freedom like that. And I
get your point that, wait a second, when it's a
taxpayer's money, then it isn't your freedom, But I respectfully
(12:45):
disagree with that. More broadly like that, I mean, if
you're saying, these people otherwise qualify for this government program,
and I'm sure there's fraud in every government program ever, right,
but if you're saying these people qualify and you have
somebody who truly does was qualified, they're badly in need
like that, to me, it's still a matter of the
government telling one telling them what they can eat or not. Now,
(13:09):
we'd all agree right that, no, you can't buy alcohol
with it, you can't buy drugs so called legal marijuana
with Every single person would agree with that. But when
you're allowing it to be used for food, including you know,
ice cream and things like that, you should the government
be able to reach in and micromanage that way. Personally,
(13:31):
I don't think so. And part of it, I think
is the dignity of the poor people. And I know
you've got a lot of folks who feel this way,
as our Texter Dan, food stamps. Any government resource like that,
it's being paid for by the taxpayer, needs to be
barebones's minimum. No cake, no coke, no candy or potato chips.
They get what they need to survive. Listen. I could
(13:53):
at least that's an intellectually consistent approach that I could
absolutely respect. I'm not saying it'd be my choice for
how to run the program, but it's intellectually consistent. If
you're going to say, all right, it's just the essentials,
it's just those bare bone essentials and make sure people
and their kids are healthy and well fed, I could
(14:14):
support that. But once you broaden it out and you're
including stuff like ice cream, how do you justify Polish
reaching in and saying no coke? Texter Dan, are you
freaking kidding me to give up their right to choose
what they buy when they start mooching off the taxpayer.
If you can't feel oh no, I'm not reading that
last part. It's just racist crap. But no, see, and
(14:39):
this is where I just disagree, and it comes back
to human dignity, right, basic human dignity, And it's not
socialism to have a safety net with rules for those
truly in need. Now, when you get a Mike Johnston,
Mary of Denver saying to anybody, hey, come to Denver,
we will get you a home, right, that's not the
(15:00):
same as as something like a true limited safety net
for those desperately in need. And I think when people
qualify for that, and I think any civilized society is
going to have that true safety net. Now, obviously the
Democrats want to expand it so you know, pretty much
anybody can get on it. But if you have rules
so it's only in dire need, then I don't think
(15:21):
people should lose their human dignity because they're in that situation. There,
but for the grace of God, go any of us.
Speaker 5 (15:30):
Right.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
Yeah, so no, I think this is a cynical political
play by Polis. I don't like it, RFK Junior. He's
doing it sincerely, I still don't like it. If you
want to go to a truly just the basics kind
of program, well then at least you're being consistent.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
You got to define it.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Because I'm thinking about what I had in my lunches
growing up in the eighties and nineties.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Dan, and they'll sound like a fruit roll up? Now
is that nutritious that the sugar isn't it? If it does,
then why is that okay? And where do you draw line?
How much sugar? What kind of sugar? Right? You know
what type of items are we banning here? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (16:05):
I think the rule and I researched this. I think
what they're banning is Polus has said if it has
five grams or more per twelve ounces. I think it's
something like that. But I'm sure you can find all
sorts of stuff that does that's not banned, right, I
mean what about ice cream? Colorado Snap program allows ice cream. Yeah.
(16:29):
A lot of texts rolling into this. I'd like some
more text on the Mountain lion because I really I
think that's an important issue to people. Should at live
or die? The one that got caught after it ate
the dog right off the leash and boulder, Dan, we're
definitely agreeing to disagree. You're not spending their own money
on that garbage food. They're spending my money. No, they
want garbage food, they pay for it with their own money.
(16:50):
Valid point, But again, I think it's fair to assume
that a lot of people on food stamps. Yeah, they've
got some of their own money, but they probably need
to be spending it on rent and gas and things
like that. Right, So, again, to me, the bigger issue
here is government overreach, government intrusion on freedoms. And do
(17:14):
you really think a guy like Polus, his mentality and
his type of lefty you really think he wants to
stop with the poor people. Today they come for the
poor people's coca cola. Tomorrow they're coming for yours. That's
a pretty good promo, right there, isn't it, Ryan, I
can say it with some more emphasis.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Yeah, then re record today.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Polus comes for the coca cola of the poor. Tomorrow
he's coming for yours. I'm joining us at four oh six. Yeah,
but it's true. Right, Does anybody on the right mind
think Polus is stopping with poor people's coke? No? No,
they're coming after yours. And listen, I haven't had a
(17:57):
coke in forty years. Shouldn't have said that. I don't
want to admit I'm that old, but I haven't. So
it's not about me drinking coke. It's just about freedom.
I love what RFK Junior is doing in terms of
trying to clean up the US health supply. Heals it's right, yeah, freudian,
but correct the US food supply. Can you imagine all
(18:19):
the stuff that's in our food? Yeah. So anyway, we'll
take some more calls and text on. This is Jimmy next. Yes,
oh good. Jimmy Sangenberger joins us.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Next.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
He actually talked to the woman behind Do Better Denver
that came under this extraordinary attack from the Denver Post
last week. So you know, Do Better Denver must be
doing something really right for the Post to have, in
my opinion, crossed all those lines to try to hurt
Do Better Denver. Jimmy next on the Dame Kaplis Show.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Turn in right. It looks and feels like it's going
to rain, but it's not supposed to. I think it's
just probably smoke from some of those fires out there.
Three h three someone three eight two five five the
number text d an five seven seven three nine. As
we go to the VIP line, Welcome Jimmy Sangenberger back
to the show. Jimmy has an important piece today in
the Denver Gazette, do better Denver under attack. Jimmy, Welcome
(19:25):
to the show.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
Hey Dan, good to be here, brother, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Thanks well, thanks for writing the piece because I think
you know this is so very important. I mean, to
a certain extent, we're all do better Denver right when
you've got the Denver Post. My own personal belief it's
coming from the Johnston administration training that masthead and all
of its power on what three ladies who are just
kind of working from home submitting public records requests. My
(19:52):
belief is trying to intimidate them out of publishing critical
stuff about the city. Then I think there's a bigger
issue here. But Jimmy, please, you've done great work on it.
Speaker 5 (20:02):
Taking a run, Yeah, I mean, I would just say
that when you are a major news outlet, whatever you are,
and you docs, which means to publish personally identifiable information
about someone with malicious intent, and that make the mistake
is what I think was done here in this Denver
(20:22):
Post story last week. Three everyday citizens who simply have
concern about what's happening in Denver, and they submit open
records requests through the city for information and then pass
that along to this account Do Better Denver, and then
they end up getting docs not just named in the story,
(20:43):
but also their political affiliations and one case sharing real
estate information and more personal stuff that shows a vindicativeness
that to me is not journalism but embodies a witch
hunt trying to get to the box attom of who
is do Better Denver. And by the way, Dan, keep
(21:04):
in mind, they did have an opportunity to interview the
woman behind that account, but she said, look, I'll talk
to you, but you got to make sure that you
keep me anonymous, and they refuse to do that, even
though Denver Post policy allows for that to happen, and
(21:25):
so they didn't end up getting that an interview. I did, though,
and I respected her request for anonymity. And I'll just
point to one example. Ast why let's go back seventeen
eighty seven. You remember this, the Federalist Papers. Don Jay,
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton published the Federalist Papers to arguing
(21:45):
for the Constitution. We didn't know who they were because
it was under the pseudonym Poplius. That it's literally a
tradition for hundreds of years in this country, and the
Denver Post refused to respect that.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah, why did you do all that? I mean, it's
so much that went so far beyond anything I've ever
seen before. My own constitutionally protected opinion, I think they
were out to intimidate not only these people, but anybody
would think of submitting to Do Better Denver. My own
personal belief is I think the Johnston administration probably initiated
(22:20):
all of this because Do Better Denver is exposing a
lot of failure on the part of the Johnston administration.
And I think this post piece went out of its
way to signal that anybody submitting to Do Better Denver
would be putting themselves in danger physically. And I'll quote
from the piece as to where I think the post
did that. So what's going on here, Jimmy.
Speaker 5 (22:43):
Well, I absolutely think this is a chilling effect on
not just people who might want to submit information or
videos or any sort of content to Do Better Denver,
thinking now they might think, hey, I'm not sure if
I want to provide this information because threesources were docked.
And by the way, that's one percent or less than
(23:05):
one percent of the content that Do Better Denver has
posted on Instagram and x But there's also a very
chilling effect on people who might want to criticize city Hall,
whether that's Johnston or it is the City Council, what
have you, they might be a little bit hesitant. And
here's the thing that really just sticks at me is
(23:26):
that in the piece they specifically quote the Johnston administration
and they're spokesperson and so forth is talking about how
do better? Denver is not sufficiently solution oriented, as though
the Duncant administration has anything to do with solving problems
the Denver then, alae dad. The idea that a politician
(23:49):
gets to decide whether or not somebody, a constituent, a journalist,
you name it is sufficiently solution oriented is astonishing. And third,
and I'll say, I don't know for a fact whether
the Johnston administration is behind this or not, but it's
sure at a minimum, strikes me as pandering to Johnston.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
And I think if I'm right, and it's just my
belief that the Johnston administration is behind this, you know,
The question then becomes, why would the Post be willing to,
in my view, just violate basic tenets of journalism, Because
this idea of outing just these private people, these are
(24:33):
just three women out there doing public records requests, outing
them knowing that it would cause them to get threats.
The Post acknowledges that, and the piece what would motivate
the Post to do that for the Johnston administration? Because
I want to coach you something here, Jimmy. Of course
I know you know this, but to me, it's so extraordinary.
I've never seen anything like it in any kind of
(24:55):
credible journalism, where the Post in my view, essentially sends
the message to everybody green lights threats against journalists and
sends the message to anybody you'd want to help do
better denver that hey, if you decide to help them,
expect to put yourself in danger. So here's what it
says in part and the piece, and then if you
can join us in a second segment, I'd love that.
Jimmy quoting from the Post piece on Monday, Osa Osa,
(25:19):
and that's one of the women talk about a war
on women. That's one of the women who the Post outed.
Osa told the Posts that publishing her name and information
about her could constitute doc scene, which traditionally has been
defined as publishing someone's personal information online to try to
shame or intimidate them. She and Pacheco, another one cited
threats to do better Denver is the reason why their
(25:41):
names should not be published. Then what the post does
is it quotes some handpick quote expert, a journalism professor
from cu Frucci. It says, Ferrucci, the journalism professor, dismissed
both criticism. Do better Denver's people do better. Denver's actions
(26:02):
have turned the people behind it into partial public figures,
he said, and receiving threats is an expected part of
being a journalist. Wait a second, So the Post is
now declaring, through this quote expert that anybody who submits
to do better Denver, even these three women working behind
(26:22):
the scenes doing public records request, are now a new
invention called quote partial public figures. Clearly they're not. They
just made that up because the Post cannot possibly justify
putting at risk people who are not public figures and
just doing public records a quest. But Jimmy, do you
see where, at least in my view, the Post is
(26:45):
green lighting threats against anybody who submits to do better
Denver because the post now says you're a partial public
figure and threats are part of the business.
Speaker 5 (26:59):
It is absurd to think that three women who have
never been named in the press until this very Denver
Post article, that you would consider them to be partial
public figures or anything of the sort. And I would
say fundamentally, Dan, that this is not in any way,
shape or form straight news journalism. It's a witch hunt.
As I write in my column in the Denver ga
(27:20):
is that a pre baked narrative bolstered by hand pick
journalism experts, just as you mentioned to justify the article itself,
And that, to me is what this piece is about.
I really wanted to say, let's understand what's going on
with you better Denver. They would have granted anonymity and
not said we're going to go ahead with this doxing regime,
(27:43):
and if you don't want to do an interview, then
we're not gonna you know, we're not going to take it.
We're going to do this story anyway, and if you
want to do an interview, we're not going to trust
or we're not going to give you the anonymity that
you request. That is not journalism.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Bro, You're correct about all that, But listen, I grew
up in Chicago. I caddied for some true mobsters. That
this is mob style intimidation. That's what this is, right
up to the point of saying in the piece, Hey, no,
you're you're going to do this, you housewives submitting public
records requests. You're going to do this and provide the
(28:21):
information to do better Denver, you should expect threats. I'm
not quoting verbatim. That's the messaging here that the Post
chose to put a section in here on threats. The
Post chose to bring in a so called experts to say, oh, no,
you should expect threats. If you're going to do something
like these people are doing, how is that anything other
than mob style intimidation. I'm not saying the Post has
(28:41):
violating any laws here, but I'm talking about laws of decency.
I'm talking about laws of morality. I'm talking about basic
laws of journalism, you know, being used as a tool
by the Johnston administration. My belief I can't prove it.
If I had subpoena power, I bet it could prove it.
Because that's my belief here. That just violates all the
basic tenets of journalism. And Jimmy, you know you've been
(29:02):
around this a long time. The Denver Post has a
very proud history with a lot of great journalists who
have gone through there. There are a lot of great
journalists who still work there now. I had a very
positive experience with the editor on a very important issue
that we work together on. But for the Post to
be involved in this kind of rank, blatant intimidation of
(29:24):
private people, man, that tells you some very bad things. Jimmy,
can you do another segment? Yeah, we'll come back with
Jimmy Saning and Berger talk about his excellent piece in
the Denver Zett. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
So important on so many levels. Talking about the I
view it as an attack and outright attack on do
Better Denver. This this great sight on X that exposes
the feelings of the John administration. We've detailed the nature
of this attack from the Denver Post and Jimmy is
a great piece on it. Ncauzette, Jimmy floorsiers, my friend,
(30:08):
please reset and then tell us about you. You talked
to the woman behind it, right and one of the
Do Better Denver. One of the questions I have is
how mechanically can the folks in our audience help do
Better Denver. When they see something newsworthy in Denver, how
do they get that video to Do Better Denver? How
(30:30):
can they support them?
Speaker 5 (30:33):
So I think that what they can do to just
answer that question first is direct message or comment on
one of the posts, either on X or on Instagram
and say, hey, I have material, reach out to me.
I'd like to share it with you. My guess is
that would be the case. In fact, it's the case
for me on X for example, and so many of
(30:55):
us who would certainly be more than willing to hear
from anybody at any time, but especially in the case
of Do Better Denver. If you have videos of things
that you see going on in Denver, that is I
think the best contribution that Do Better Denver has to
our media ecosystem in Colorado is in the visual and
(31:16):
that's so much of what it's about. When I interviewed
the woman behind Do Better Denver, who by the way,
has a different paid job, doesn't make any money from this.
This is just something she started doing and that has
taken on a life of its own, and people have
been sources that attributed so much to But she talked
to me about telling a story, and that's one of
(31:37):
the big things that the visuals do is tell a story.
The other thing that was so striking is explaining to
me why she would say I really want to make
sure that my anonymity is secure is because she will
post do better Denver's account will post criminal records and
arrest records and information about they were on the ship
(32:00):
of the spear in that account well for Trenderragua, and
that means death threats, which she's got.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
Well, but my brother, everybody could understand why she'd want
to be anonymous, right, look at the left's playbook. The
left's playbook is the politics of personal destruction. The left's
playbook includes violence. I'm not saying for people like you
know that mainstream on the left, but there are plenty
of lefties who believe in violence, and there are lots
of quote mainstream lefties who believe in personal destruction of
(32:28):
people who oppose them. Because the Left can't win on
the facts, they can't win on the issues, they can't
win on the logic. So yeah, of course any sane
person would want to stay anonymous. I mean, someday I
will write a book about what the left has done
to me and to my family and people won't even
believe it, and it goes so far beyond threats. Yeah,
(32:48):
anybody would want to stay anonymous, And that's why this
Post piece is so insidious, because the message it's sending
people is we won't let you stay anonymous. We are
going to make your name public so that you will
receive threats. That's what I believe is going on here.
Speaker 5 (33:05):
Wee, my opinion, going to in the media determine whether
or not you are due privacy and do protection for
your safety. And that is the most audacious thing. And
I think when you said mob style intimidation tactics in
the last segment, that's right on. I mean, what else
are you doing here with this kind of approach under
(33:25):
the guise of journalism than that?
Speaker 1 (33:27):
Well, and why do you choose to put in your story,
to bring in a so called expert to put in
your story that, Yeah, you should fully expect threats. If
you're going to be a woman out there, so here
a housewife out there, you're going to submit some core
requests to denver, get some information, give it to do better, Denver,
you better expect threats. The Post went out of its
way to put that in the piece and to legitimize it.
(33:51):
What else could they be trying to do here?
Speaker 5 (33:53):
That is all that is is justifying it's okay that
we are doing so thing as dirty as this, as
intimidating as this, because we have people from the journalism
establishment that are justifying it, that are explaining why we
are in the right, and that is that, to me,
(34:14):
is the clearest piece of evidence you need from that.
Piece of what they are trying to do is when
you dress it up with the aura of legitimacy through
different institutions, that shows all you're doing is intimidating and
trying to provide an excuse for why you're doing it.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Yeah, my opinion, the message from the Post was if
you are going to support this website, you are putting
yourself in physical danger. That's what exactly I believe the
message was. And you extend that. I think the message
was you're going to do things. You're going to do
things to expose the Johnston administration. Yeah, expect threats. That's
(34:53):
my personal opinion, but I think everybody can look at
those facts for themselves. I don't know how you draw
any other conclusion that that's what the Post is trying
to do. And let me say this, Jimmy. When I
say the Post, it is literally not a figure speech.
It is literally hard for me to believe that the
actual powers that be at the Denver Post would have
(35:14):
authorized that because what I'm describing here, if I'm right
about what's going on, it is so far beyond any
acceptable standard of journalism, any acceptable standard of decency. I
still can't believe that the actual powers at the Denver
Post would have authorized that. I can It's in the paper.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
I absolutely, I absolutely believe that this was authorized approved.
It is in the paper in fact, and I would
just I mean, there is another newspaper. I'll just give
the plug. I'm at the Denverget due great guy, you know,
and I would say, that's the paper that you should
be reading. And you can do it online Vergazette dot com.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
But but I wish the Gazette. I wish the owners
of the Gazette is that still Fillan shoots whoever it is.
I wish they would buy the Post, you know what
I mean, because the Gazette is, the gazett is doing
great work. It's doing great work in Denver, it's doing
great work in the Springs. It's been doing great work
for a long time, you know it is it is
(36:14):
worthy of that mass tab now. I know the Post
has been lefty for a long time, but there was
a time it was a great, great paper in the
Dean Singleton era. And the Gazette now, the Gazette now
is doing so much more of that great work.
Speaker 5 (36:29):
And if I could sort of leave you with this,
because I know we're coming up on the time, that
to me is what may be the most sad about
this is that you have a media institution like the
Post in Denver that has gone so far off the
rails as to rest up intimidation as journalism and engage
in a witch hunt like this. It is completely inexcusable
(36:53):
and beyond the pale.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
And Jimmy Green about five seconds the great work Jimmy Sangenberger.
I hope everybody reads your piece. You're on the Dancapitla
shop
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.