Kristi Burton-Brown fills in for Dan and welcomes state Rep. Chris Richardson (R-56) to the program with the latest on Democrat efforts to submarine TABOR as the early 2025 House session comes to a close. Will there be a special session called for, so Democrats can attempt to ram through even more insanity than they've already tried to inflict on the state of Colorado?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to the Dan Kaplis Show tonight.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
I'm Christy Burton Brown in for Dan since he is
in trial, and we're going to get right to the
phone lines as we start the show because the legislature
is in their second to last day here at the Capitol,
and I have State Representative Chris Richardson with me on
the line. Welcome Representative Richardson to the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
Bike Christy, it's great to be here.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Yeah, thank you for stepping away for just a moment
to join us.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
I know there's been.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Some good and some bad things that have happened on
one of these last final days. I especially wanted to
ask you about the resolution that was going through the
House to bring a lawsuit against Tabor.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
I think you have some news on that for us.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Yes, actually this morning the sponsor of the measure actually
announced publicly that it would not be here heard this year,
so it is going to die on the calendar. It
would have been so much more wonderful if we brought
it to the floor and could vote it down. But
we'll take any when we can get. I mean, TABOR
(01:16):
has returned thirteen billion dollars to the taxpayers since it
was voted and put into place by the people in
nineteen ninety two. It is probably the most popular measure
that we have seen it. Generally seventy percent of those
polled are in favor of it. We don't really know
(01:38):
what the other thirty percent are thinking about. The rest
of us like to keep our own money and make
our own decisions about how it's So it was a
good day to see this die.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Yeah, that is good. And for anyone who isn't to
where exactly what the lawsuit was there was. It was
a resolution because they kind of wanted to avoid the
governor if the governor does support TABOR at least sometimes,
and they wanted to pass a resolution ordering the legislature
to file lawsuit against TABOR challenging its constitutionality even though
it's in the state constitution, and a previous similar lawsuit
(02:09):
challenging the federal constitutionality of our taxpayer's Bill of Rights
already lost in court after a ten year saga, but
yet some Democrats wanted to ring it back again. So
Representative Richardson, that is definitely good news. Is there any
other bills currently going through that you think people should
should know about?
Speaker 4 (02:28):
Well, obviously, I think the one that most people are
paying attention to is thirteen twelve. Yes, the trans rights
bill that has come out of the Senate. Two Democrats
did vote against it. They amended it very heavily. It's
almost unrecognizable, but finally just as bad in other ways.
(02:48):
That'll be coming to the floor shortly for us to
determine as a house whether we'll accept the Senate amendments,
go to conference, or demand that they returned to our
original version.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
So, and because those amendments are new, Represent Richardson, I
don't know that most people are aware of what the
Senate did. I know that in committee they stripped out
the portion of the bill that took would have taken
away parents' custody they didn't want to allow their child
to transition to transgender.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
But what did they add in on the Senate floor.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
They've replaced some sections of the bill with areas that
allow people to change their gender on their licenses and
identification papers multiple times, to make changes to marriages, marriage licenses,
and civil union certificates, and replace that actual, permanent, historical
(03:47):
recorded record with no indication that it was altered, essentially
directing clerks to destroy original recorded documents and replace them
with ones that have been altered. But this changes things
like birth certificates, drivers licenses, I D. And this includes
identification documents for what they term people that are not
(04:09):
lawfully present essentially wow illegals. So it's another doubling down
on sanctuary within in this bill. It is a tapestry,
a bad tapestry they're leaving this year. Yes, that is those.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
And did I see right that they could change I'm sorry,
did I see right? Did they get change the name
up to three times on a driver's license or certificate?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Okay, Well, with no.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Push faction in the government, they just have to let
them do it basically.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Yes, after that they'd have to get court permission to
do so. But wealthy asking those questions on the floor
today is to why three? Why not five? Why not ten?
Speaker 3 (04:53):
Right?
Speaker 4 (04:54):
They seem very random?
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Well, I mean, it doesn't seem like a permanent change.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
If you're like, oh, I'll change it again, and change
it getting changed again. I mean, do you really know
your identity if that's the reason you're changing it, and
yet you want to do it that many times? It
seems like it opens the door for criminals to hide
their identity.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
Actually, yes, and particularly concerning on those that aren't here lawfully,
so you get very specious documentation to start with, and
then your name, name, and sex changes could make it
very hard to track somebody that doesn't have a record
of a presence in the US. But the three times
(05:30):
change is kind of interesting when you pair this with
thirteen oh nine, that was the bill that requires that
gender affirming surgeries be covered freely in people's insurance. We
tried to amend it to support those that realized that
they had made an error and wanted to de transition
(05:51):
that was not allowed. Now we have documentation that you
can you can change to and from several times, and
there's disconnects and even what they're doing. And you know,
with thirty two hours left in this legislative session, gladly
no more damage can be done. Midnight tomorrow. Okay, they're
(06:14):
moving too fast to keep track. Of their own bad bills.
I think at this point it.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Sounds like it. Do you expect it to go very
late tomorrow night in the session.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
I believe it will. There's too much that hasn't been addressed,
and I believe the Majority Party will want to get
through as much of their own bills as possible. Again,
at least will not be dealing with a foolish attempt
to overturn the people's desires in terms of the taxpayer
(06:45):
bill rights. And I do want to thank everybody this
listening that reached out to legislators and put pressure on them,
on both on the Majority Party, to say, don't bring this.
They certainly realized it was popular. We took every opportunity
we could to ensure that the majority understood that trying
(07:09):
to take away taber would be a third rail that
they they've overstepped so much this year to start with,
in terms of our rights of self defense, our second
moment rights, pushing sort the illegal legally ahead of citizens
of Colorado, in terms of how we're using our text dollars,
(07:32):
stepping on printal rights initially and firmly with the original
version of thirteen twelve, and they didn't get it this year,
but it's a clear signal of the direction that they
want to continue moving in as long as they hold
the author.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Absolutely no, and it's very, very frightening to see all
the signals that come from them like, oh, well next year,
we're going to do that. Just keep chipping away at
it until they get more support to Gearritt of Tabor
to eliminate parents. That's right to do so many of
these things. So a representative Chris Richardson is who we're
talking to you right now. He's about to go back
to the floor and we have about a minute left
with you. Are there any updates people should know about
(08:11):
with the sanctuary state laws? I think the one specifically
that would require local governments to completely not cooperate with
ICE or else face of fifty dollars.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Fine, yeah, that bill that come true? Is it only yesterday?
I believe? Okay, wow, to continue arguing against and proposed
changes that will go back to the Senate. There were
some and they passed it today.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
So they accepted the amendments that were made, and again
it isn't fortunate that hasn't been signed into law. But
the sanctuary laws that are already on the books generated
a lawsuit, yes again the state of Colorado, and this
just doubles down what was already there. So I believe
we are on a collision course with the federal government.
(09:06):
I was not surprise if federal funding is withheld. We've
been told as a state, all the states have been
told that there are expectations of the federal government and
that's not meant they will with old funding. And so
going down this dangerous path in many directions, whether it
(09:26):
support is the transgenderism, sanctuary, gun rights, these are all
triggers that we've been told. With the results and the
loss of federal funding we inserted in all those bills,
are attempted to amend all those bills to be rendered
in effective if they threatened federal dollars, those were all rejected,
(09:51):
and federal dollars are what support are a good portion
of the funding that goes into our highways, which are
not in good shape to start with, in the medicaid
which so many people rely on. So just placing ideology
ahead of the people of Colorado is a came full
and that's what's been happening. So I heard whispers of
(10:14):
a special session if we do lose funding. I don't
know if that will happen, but if federal funding is withheld,
the legislature will have to come back trying to get
a budget together this year with a one point two
billion dollars short pull at the outset. If we lose them,
up there another billion here or there.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
A yeah, well, thank you, I have to go to
a break.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
But Representative Chris Richardson, thank you for giving us that
important update on the day before the close of the session.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Here on the Dan Tapla Show.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
And now back to the Dan Tamplass Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
You're back to the Dan Taplas Show.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
I'm Christy Burton Brown and for Dan because he's in
trial and the legislature still in session through tonight and
then tomorrow until midnight. Then they have to be done
unless they end up calling a special session. There's some
rumors going around that they may call a special session
dependent on what the federal government decides to do. There's
some bills the federal government is considering dealing with Medicaid
(11:16):
and Medicare, and then Colorado suggesting that if they lose
federal spending or federal funds, they may go to a
special session.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
To see how they can find more money.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Good luck with that, since the state is already in
a budget shortfall. Now, for anyone who on the liberal
side of the aisle who loves to claim that the
state just isn't getting enough money, here's what actually happened.
The state just doesn't get the increase in spending that
it wanted to get. It also put itself in a
budget shortfall because when extra federal funds were pouring in,
(11:49):
in part because of COVID, in part because of other reasons,
they committed to long lasting programs that they did not
have the full funding for, And now they're coming back
and saying, oh, we can't fund everything we committed to. Yeah,
that's kind of what happens when you don't budget according
to the money you actually have and can project on
the horizon. So for anyone on the liberal side the
al who wants to complain, they just don't know how
(12:10):
finances work. Also, of all the states, when we look
at Medicaid and Medicare and some considerations the federal government
is making, we see that Colorado is actually one of
the worst states when it comes to medicaid fraud and
medicaid waste. Congressman Gabe Evans has talked about this somewhat
in some news hits that he's done on social media
and expose that Colorado has been one of the top
(12:30):
states committing waste and fraud. We just had Representative Chris Richardson,
who's in his first year at the state legislature, on
with us in the last segment, and he was talking
about how it is highly likely that Colorado is going
to lose some form of federal funding. If you look
at collectively all the things that Colorado is doing basically
to defy the Trump administration. And this is outside the
(12:53):
category of medicaid waste and fraud, which is its own problem.
But if you look at all the ways Colorado is
basically saying to the Try administration, will do whatever we want,
and by the way, please send us money, Like that's
really not how it works. If you look at Phil Wiser,
the attorney general, who really is just on his campaign
for governor at this point, he's filed fifteen lawsuits already
in the first hundred days of the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
It continues to file them.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
I don't know what he's actually doing on behalf of
the state of Colorado. He's really running his own campaign
in defiance to the Trump administration. You see both the
city of Denver and this state of Colorado as a
whole not only digging in their heels when it comes
to being a sanctuary state. You know, while out of
one side of their mouth they're like, oh, we're not
a sanctuary state. But then in actual law and in
(13:40):
actual new bills they propose they forbid all local governments
and all law enforcement from cooperating with ICE or the
Department of Homeland Security. Or according to the new bill
that is I believe about to get passed, local governments
would get fined fifty thousand dollars per time they decided
to cooperate with ICE or the Department of Homeland Security,
even if the cooperation was with a with ICE on
(14:03):
a violent criminal or repeat fellon. Like, that's not even
good enough for the state of Colorado. And yet Governor
Polis wants to say, oh, we're not a sanctuary state,
but they want to defy the Trump administration and say
we're going to pass these.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Laws send us money. Anyway.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
We've already seen the Trump administration cut I believe was
twenty four million dollars to the city of Denver, because
they are proudly a sanctuary city, continue to impose those
policies despite the costs to their own citizens. And I
think that's what's interesting that Representative Richardson pointed out that
is true no matter what area you're looking at right now,
where Colorado wants to defy the federal administration is they
(14:40):
are not concerned with the well being of citizens in Colorado.
I'm gonna get to some statistics later on in this
show where I show you exactly how Colorado has fallen
in all of the important standings that people actually care
about when they try and make a state their home,
whether we're talking about the ability to own a house,
whether we're talking about the job market, whether talking about
(15:00):
the basic cost of living like buying your groceries or
the price of gas, where we're talking about how safe
a state is, how much crime is committed in different cities.
We've seen Colorado across the years fall in all of
these categories, and yet instead of trying to change life
in the right ways for their citizens, we see the
leaders of Colorado being like, you know what, We're going
to go to war against the Trump administration. Who cares
(15:22):
if that takes money away from our citizens. We want
to fund illegal immigrants, We want to give them money
to have housing here in Colorado. And if that makes
the federal government take money away from our citizens, we
don't care because we just want to defy them that badly.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Like that's literally what's.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
Going on right now, and we will see how far
the federal government wants to push it.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
I know they do have Colorado on their radar.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
We all saw that late last week when the White
House announced that they were suing the state of Colorado
Governor Polis for being a sanctuary state. I of course
thought it was kind of funny that one of the
only responses in the media from Colorado was, well, we
actually aren't a sanctuary state. I'm pretty sure the Trump
administration can see the bills going through your legislature. I'm
pretty sure they can read the statutes that are on
(16:05):
the books and see that we are one of the
only states that forbids all law enforcement from cooperating with ICE,
and if they decide to cooperate with ICE, they will
be stripped from participation in the state data system. This
data system Colorado drives is what it's called. That's what
law enforcement officers use when they pull people over and
check their driver's license. So they basically set it up
(16:26):
where you cannot operate as a law enforcement agency in
the state of Colorado unless you sign an agreement to
not cooperate with ice whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
But we're not a sanctuary state.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
And that's just one of three laws that have already
been passed, in addition to this fourth one that is
almost certainly going to pass as well. I think it
remains to be seen why their governor Polls is actually
going to sign it, especially in the middle of this lawsuit.
This would just cement the fact that Colorado is a
sanctuary state. So I'm actually very interested to see if
he ends up signing the bill or not. If you
(16:56):
have thoughts or if there are any bills that you
want to know what's happening to them at the last
minute in the legislature today and tomorrow, you can call
into the show. We can talk about any bill you
want to talk about. You can also text a question.
I can probably get you an answer because I'm following
a lot of these bills myself in my work with
Advanced Colorado and just because I'm a political nerd.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
So I follow these bills for fun, but you can.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Call anytime eight five to five for zero five eight
two five five. You can also text Dan to five
seven seven three nine. I see that we did get
a couple texts on what represented Richardson and I were
talking about in the last.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Segment the bill thirteen twelve.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
How that bill was completely reworked in the Senate to
now allow people to change their name up to three
times on official documents, whether it be marriage certificates, birth certificates,
driver's licenses. They specifically put a provision for illegal immigrants
to do that. A couple of people texting in saying, well,
you can change names, but if you're arrested, you can't
change fingerprints. Does this direct CBI to delete criminal history?
(17:54):
I don't think it does, but that's one of the problems.
How do you match up who you're actually looking for
If you're police, going after a criminal makes it so
much easier for criminals to conceal their identity.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
That is a huge problem. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
You're here on the Dan Kapli show, calling over the
break eight five five four zero five eight two five five.
When we come back, we'll talk about Tina Peters and
Donald Trump's trying to insert himself in that case.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Welcome back to The Dan Kaplich Show.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Out of Christy Burton Brown, I agree with a Texter
who just sent in a message saying it would be
interesting to see what happens if Trump would offer to
reimburse any fifty thousand dollars fines for helping ICE. We
were talking about this bill that's still making its way
through the Colorida legislature in the final two days of
session ends tomorrow at midnight or sooner if the Dems
decide they're done before then. But this bill would basically
(18:47):
extend to Colorado sanctuary state status to all local governments,
go beyond even law enforcement, who already has to comply
according to the state. But say, if any member of
a local government helps ICE or the Department of Homeland Security,
they can be fined fifty thousand dollars per incident. No
exceptions exist in this law in the latest version I've seen.
So even if you think, well, you know what, maybe
(19:09):
when we're dealing with this violent criminal over here, we
should maybe go ahead and help out Ice. Oh, you know,
there's this repeat fellon over here. Let's go ahead and
contact the Department of Homeland Security and give them the
information they want. You do that as a local government official,
member the judicial branch, a probation officer in Colorado. According
to this bill, if it passes, you be fined fifty
thousand dollars. So good point. What would the Trump administration
(19:32):
do if this passes? Will they take care of that
fine and go ahead and try and compel local governments
or encourage them the ones that want to cooperate anyway,
to go ahead and cooperate.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
I'm really not sure.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
I think they're going to just lean into the lawsuits
that they are filing against the state of Colorado, which
is specifically suing Colorado for being a sanctuary state the
laws we already have on the books, and basically saying
that Coloridle's laws are prev and taking the federal government
from doing their job and keeping the nation safe when
it comes to illegal immigration and crime and drug trafficking
(20:07):
issues in particular.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
I don't know, to be.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Honest with you, that I think the lawsuit is going
to be successful, because you know, there's already been court
cases saying the federal government cannot compel states to help
them with a federal job or to do basically the
federal government's job. So it's definitely a different take on
it to say, well, kind of state actually passed laws
to prevent the federal government from doing its own job?
(20:33):
And can they get in the way, stand in the path,
so to speak, of the federal government trying to do
its duty to the nation, especially when those duties that
the federal government has to keep the nation safe from
illegal immigrants. In many ways, it's sort of like an
interstate commerce issue. Well that is actually nothing to do
with commerce. It's interstate lines. Like you see these illegal
immigrants who are criminals crossing state lines, leaving one state,
(20:54):
going to another, and in many cases event all over
the news killing someone in the second or third state
that they travel to. So I think that would be
the federal government's argument is that the state of Colorado
is preventing them from keeping people safe because Colorado is
harboring these criminals and then they can move on to
other states, and then those citizens who maybe they're law
enforcement wants to cooperate, but they're not tipped off to
(21:16):
who these people are, and so do there's a federal government,
and then citizens all across the US are less safe.
I don't know where that would go to it. It's
a kind of a novel theory in my opinion. I
haven't read every single word of their arguments, but it's
definitely a different take on something the Court in the
past has said. You know, you can't compel states to
do a federal job, but can a state purposely act
(21:39):
to get in the way of the federal government from
completing its duty to the rest of citizens across the nation.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
I don't know. We'll see what happens in the near future.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
We can definitely talk more about that bill or other
immigration issues. If you're interested, you call in anytime eight
five five four zero five eight two five five, or
text your thoughts to five seven seven three nine start
them with dan.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Oh, such a nice text. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Someone said that I am their favorite Colorado GOP chair ever.
That's so nice.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Thank you for listening today. And I actually want to
talk about.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
An issue that came up originally when I was chairman,
and this is Tina Peters. A lot of you are
probably familiar with Trump's post on social media saying that
the state of Colorado should stop holding Tina Peters hostage.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
I believe that is the word that he used.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
He always loves to use, you know, big extreme words,
part of the reason people like him. But sometimes they
just don't really.
Speaker 5 (22:34):
Apply a lot of randomly capitalized words too.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yes, I'm not sure that he, you know, ever needed
English grammar to be successful. Clearly he found a path
through regardless. But I grew with part of a statement, though,
So let's actually go through it, he says. Radical left
Colorado Attorney General Phil Wiser ignores illegals committing violent crimes
like rape and murder in his state. Well, we know
that's true, and instead jailed Tina Peters.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Now, okay, i'mnna stop right here.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
Actually it wasn't Phil Wiser who prosecuted Tina Peters. It
was a local Republican district attorney. So we will clear
that up a little bit, all right. Jail Tina Peters,
a sixty nine year old gold star mother who worked
to expose and document Democrat election fraud. Okay, also true,
that was her stated goal. That's what she thought she
was looking for. I will say, because again I was
chairman when a lot of this happened, there were other
(23:23):
clerks who were also interested in making sure there was
not fraud, or if there was fraud, to expose it.
They used legal means at their disposal to figure it
out instead of illegal means, which is what Tina Peters did.
Donald Trump continues, Tina is an innocent political prisoner being
horribly and unjustly punished in the form of cruel and
unusual punishment. The more random capitalization for that phrase, cruel
(23:46):
and unusual punishment. This is a communist persecution by the
radical left Democrats to cover up their election crimes and
misdeeds in twenty twenty. Now I'll interject here to say again,
while I understand the sentiment there, it was not a
Democrat prosecutor, and she was sentenced by a judge in
a very conservative area of Colorado, her home county.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Of Mesa County. So this was actually not the.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Democrats and communists going after her in this situation. They
certainly do go after a lot of people, but that
wasn't the case here. And then President Trump continues, the
same Democrat party that flies to El Salvador to try
to free an MS thirteen terrorists is cruely imprisoning perhaps
for life, it was actually nine years, not life, but
a grandmother who's brave and heroic son gave his life
for America. Colorado must end this unjust incarceration of itness
(24:31):
an American. I'm hereby directing the Department of Justice to
take all necessary action to help secure the release of
this hostage being held in the Colorado prison by the
Democrats for political reasons.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
Free Tina Peters.
Speaker 5 (24:41):
Now, So that.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Is a very long, extensive message by President Trump advocating
for Tina Peters. This is something a Congresswoman, Lauren Bobert
actually reached out to FBI Director Cash Patel to ask
him to do this. This is something a number of
people have really put pressure on the Trump administration to do.
But and the reality is that the federal government actually
has zero say over what happens to Tina Peters. Like
(25:04):
DOOJ can certainly investigate whatever they want to if they
thought it was a corrupt prosecution, I of course don't
think that it was. They can investigate that. But she
was imprisoned for a state level crime. Only the state
actually has a say over that. And I think there's
a huge difference in two issues at play. Okay, there's
one issue of do you think Tina Peters was guilty?
I made a statement when I was chairman that she
(25:25):
shouldn't be running for a Secretary of State because she
was charged with felonies and crimes ended up she ended
up being convicted of them. So one question is is
she guilty? Did she maybe attempt to do a good
thing the wrong way? And in my view, you should
not encourage those kind of actions. We need to do
the right things the right way, because I know of
other people who did things the right way instead of
breaking the law to get the data that was necessary.
(25:48):
The separate question is was her sentence too long? Is
it unjust to imprison someone who obtained and released data
in an illegal fashion for nine years when violent criminals
in Colorado get off with far less of a sentence.
I mean, we saw a very well known case and
(26:09):
Aurora of a sex offender who would target illegal immigrants.
I'm sorry, they weren't illegal, just immigrants. He would target
immigrant homes, pretend to be an ICE agent checking up
on them, sexually assault the women and children in the home.
He was sentenced to twenty years, got out after serving
only eight years. Released by Jared Poulse's parole board went
back into the exact same thing to a seven year
(26:31):
old girl within a couple weeks. So someone like that
only serves eight years and TEENA Peter sentenced to nine.
So that is where I actually grew with President Trump.
The sentence is excessive when you compare the sentences that
violent and repeat criminals get here in Colorado. What I
disagree with is the insinuation that everything she did was
completely right and above board, like it wasn't and it
(26:52):
wasn't Democrats prosecuting her. That's just not the fact. Now,
one other point I'll make it, then we do have
to take a break. I read through a congresswomen Lauren
Bobert's letter to the FBI trying to get Tina Peters released.
She did make a very good point that Secretary of
State Jenna Griswold has not gotten in actual trouble at
all for the release of voting system passwords on the internet,
(27:13):
because you know she can just do that with nothing,
nothing happening to her. And now Tina Peters's actions were intentional.
I think Jenna Griswold is highly incompetent. No one has
really said that her release of the passwords were intentional.
So sometimes that is a difference in law incompetent actions
and intentional actions. But we can talk more about this.
I see people are texting in. You can give your
comments as well. Five seven, seven, three nine, starting with
(27:34):
Dan or call in eight five five four zero five
eight two five five.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on the Dan Capla Show.
Speaker 5 (27:42):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
All right, let's go to the text line. Lots of
people said again their thoughts. I'm Christy Burton Brown, You're
on the Dan Kapliss Show. We were just talking about
Tina Peters and Jenna Griswolds, Like, what's what's the relationship.
What's the difference between the actions that they took in elections?
Tanna Peters knowingly intentionally discovering and releasing data that she
(28:06):
was for, would you say, prohibited from releasing according to
the law, So I mean she intentionally did what she did.
Jenner Griswoll did allow passwords to be exposed on the
Secretary of State's website that could have influenced and affected elections.
Of course, they claim, according to their audits, said it didn't.
But the question from this Texter, could the DOJ go
(28:28):
after Secretary of State Jenna Grizwol for what she did?
Speaker 2 (28:30):
She was reckless?
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Also, the Department of Justice can investigate people for reckless actions.
They can do that here. I think, and I'm no
defender or fan of Jenna Grizswoll. I think she's highly incomptent.
Don't want her as Attorney General. I think that would
be a disaster for Colorado. Of course, not only do
I disagree with her politically, but I just don't think
people who are completely incompetent should be in state office.
(28:51):
It makes all of our jobs Harderney General.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Who's that Ryan?
Speaker 5 (28:56):
Somebody with the initials Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Yeah, No, you are very kind, not serious.
Speaker 5 (29:02):
I'm not joking.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
Well, thank you, that's very nice qualified.
Speaker 5 (29:05):
You're far more qualified than she is.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Well, you're very nicely, I'm.
Speaker 5 (29:08):
Not very correct, but you're welcome.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
But here's what I think is an issue when we
talk about tech things. No question, when someone intentionally uses
tech to violate the law, they should be treated like
anyone else who intentionally violates the law. But when you
are incompetent with technology, you allow passwords to be exposed.
You don't do proper audits. You create a program with
(29:35):
an algorithm that does something a little bit different than
you meant it to do, and should you have known
it did that? There are so many issues with like,
let's take the use of AI today. There are a
lot of people using technology that are not competent in
its use, uh, and I think you have to be
able to show a difference in complete recklessness and incompetence.
(29:57):
There's also delegation when it comes to a lot of technology.
So was Jenna Griswold herself personally the one that put
those passwords on the website? Or was that something that
someone on her staff did through incompetence. To my understanding
that that's actually how it happened, it wasn't her personally,
And so a lot of times the DJ isn't going
to go after someone when there's not a clearly traceable
line to an intentional action that that person did, just
(30:19):
because there's so many things they investigate, they typically aren't
going to go after something that's that layered. And so
I think there's just so many problems too when we
talk about tech, and the government has a huge misunderstanding
when it comes to AI, when it comes to tech,
when it comes to developers. You see that actually through
one of the bills going through the state legislature right
(30:39):
now that is trying to penalize developers for programs they
create that have an effect that the state doesn't prefer
when it comes to certain discriminatory impact. It's kind of
just a disaster unfortunately when government gets involved with tech
because they do not elect tech experts. We are in
a technological driven world to so many innovations that government
(31:00):
does not understand, and when they try to get their
hands in it, they often mess up. And this is
why I think with someone like Jenner Griswold should be doing,
and what the state law should require is that the
state government and Secretary State's Office actually has to use
technology experts, not political people to do these kind of jobs.
I think they need to have the right kind of
audits in place, the right kind of technology experts in place,
(31:22):
because otherwise you see political government people attempting to do
tech jobs that they're completely unqualified to do. And then
I haven't investigated in myself, so I don't know if
it's INCOMPETENTI or recklessness.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
In this scenario.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
But the problem is that government as a whole has
a big open door to hackers, to tech mishaps because
they flat out don't know what they're doing and they're
not hiring the experts to inform them of what they
need to do. So and I just went on a
rabbit trail there and love the variant, but I have
a big problem with the big holes that government has
when it comes to technology and all the things that
(31:57):
we've opened ourselves up to being hacked and our systems
not being safe because government just refuses to put the
actual experts there.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
So that's one of the issues that I have with that.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
Let's go to some other texts saying, the trucker that
killed four people on I seventy got his sentence reduced
to ten years by Polis, and Peters got nine. Yes,
perfect illustration. Criminals get off easy in Colorado, and yet
we want to stick to nine years for TEENA Peters.
I am no fan of Tina Peters. I don't think
she did the right thing. I think it's possible to
expose fraud in legal ways, she didn't take that path,
(32:29):
But nine years I think is highly excessive, especially when
there is no proof she actually altered the outcome of
an election. So again, I think a very different question.
Do you think she's guilty and do you think the
sentence was excessive? Someone else saying nine years for TEENA
Peters could be a life sentence. Well, well, true, but
usually the age of a criminal defendant isn't considered when
(32:49):
they're given a sentence. It's not like, oh, if you're
seventy years old when you commit a crime, will only
give you five years, But for your twenty we'll give
you twenty years. Like that's actually not how sentences work.
There's a certain sentence for our crime, and it's not
based on your own age. Okay, A lot of you
have opinions Tina Peters broke the law, knowingly broke the law.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
She deserves what she got.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
Someone else saying, I agree with Donald Trump that she's
a political prisoner being held in the fascist state of Colorado.
Definitely some differing opinions on Tina Peters. I think it
would be a lot cleaner case if we would say,
as conservatives, if we want to expose fraud, if we
want to expose waste, like, let's look beyond election integrity.
Let's look at many levels of our government. There are
(33:31):
legal ways to do it. Does it take a little
longer sometimes? Do we have to jump through a few
more hoops? Yes, but we also can keep everyone on
our side while we do it. Instead of saying, oh,
it's worth it to break laws and sit in prison,
I don't actually think that's worth it. And what's the
likelihood that Jared pols is actually going to reduce Jenna
Griswold's or sorry not jenifersol Tina Peters sentence and give
(33:54):
her any sort of commutation. I don't think by Donald
Trump pushing on him to do it that that makes
it more likely for him to do it.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
So we'll see what happens.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
Appreciate all of you text again, you can send more
thoughts five seven, seven three nine's start it with Dan.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
I will read them. Answer your questions.
Speaker 3 (34:09):
Did you have any You can also call in eight
five five four zero five eight two five five. I
have decided that some of the most annoying words I
ever hear from congressmen or women is reclaiming my time,
reclaiming my time. I don't know how many of you
listen to Christy Nomes's testimony in front of Congress, testifying
as a member of President Trump's cabinet. So many of
(34:30):
the Democrat congressmen wanted to force her into one word
answers because they don't like it when we get time
to explain what we're actually doing. And every time christyom
would say anything other than yes or no, which she
practically never said, they would say, reclaiming my time, reclaiming
my time, I.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Am not going to allow you to filibuster.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Well, do you actually want to answer to your question
or do you want time to give a speech for
your next campaign. That's actually what they're doing. We'll get
into a little bit of the actual discussions shocked about
posibly shutting dow, FEMA and a few other things that
are pretty interesting. We'll get to that on the next
segment of the dan CAPLA Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
You're on the dan CAPLA Show, calling over the break
eight five five four zero five eight two five five
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to the Dan Kaplis Show tonight.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
I'm Christy Burton Brown in for Dan since he is
in trial, and we're going to get right to the
phone lines as we start the show because the legislature
is in their second to last day here at the Capitol,
and I have State Representative Chris Richardson with me on
the line. Welcome Representative Richardson to the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
Bike Christy, it's great to be here.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Yeah, thank you for stepping away for just a moment
to join us.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
I know there's been.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Some good and some bad things that have happened on
one of these last final days. I especially wanted to
ask you about the resolution that was going through the
House to bring a lawsuit against Tabor.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
I think you have some news on that for us.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Yes, actually this morning the sponsor of the measure actually
announced publicly that it would not be here heard this year,
so it is going to die on the calendar. It
would have been so much more wonderful if we brought
it to the floor and could vote it down. But
we'll take any when we can get. I mean, TABOR
(01:16):
has returned thirteen billion dollars to the taxpayers since it
was voted and put into place by the people in
nineteen ninety two. It is probably the most popular measure
that we have seen it. Generally seventy percent of those
polled are in favor of it. We don't really know
(01:38):
what the other thirty percent are thinking about. The rest
of us like to keep our own money and make
our own decisions about how it's So it was a
good day to see this die.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Yeah, that is good. And for anyone who isn't to
where exactly what the lawsuit was there was. It was
a resolution because they kind of wanted to avoid the
governor if the governor does support TABOR at least sometimes,
and they wanted to pass a resolution ordering the legislature
to file lawsuit against TABOR challenging its constitutionality even though
it's in the state constitution, and a previous similar lawsuit
(02:09):
challenging the federal constitutionality of our taxpayer's Bill of Rights
already lost in court after a ten year saga, but
yet some Democrats wanted to ring it back again. So
Representative Richardson, that is definitely good news. Is there any
other bills currently going through that you think people should
should know about?
Speaker 4 (02:28):
Well, obviously, I think the one that most people are
paying attention to is thirteen twelve. Yes, the trans rights
bill that has come out of the Senate. Two Democrats
did vote against it. They amended it very heavily. It's
almost unrecognizable, but finally just as bad in other ways.
(02:48):
That'll be coming to the floor shortly for us to
determine as a house whether we'll accept the Senate amendments,
go to conference, or demand that they returned to our
original version.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
So, and because those amendments are new, Represent Richardson, I
don't know that most people are aware of what the
Senate did. I know that in committee they stripped out
the portion of the bill that took would have taken
away parents' custody they didn't want to allow their child
to transition to transgender.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
But what did they add in on the Senate floor.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
They've replaced some sections of the bill with areas that
allow people to change their gender on their licenses and
identification papers multiple times, to make changes to marriages, marriage licenses,
and civil union certificates, and replace that actual, permanent, historical
(03:47):
recorded record with no indication that it was altered, essentially
directing clerks to destroy original recorded documents and replace them
with ones that have been altered. But this changes things
like birth certificates, drivers licenses, I D. And this includes
identification documents for what they term people that are not
(04:09):
lawfully present essentially wow illegals. So it's another doubling down
on sanctuary within in this bill. It is a tapestry,
a bad tapestry they're leaving this year. Yes, that is those.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
And did I see right that they could change I'm sorry,
did I see right? Did they get change the name
up to three times on a driver's license or certificate?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Okay, Well, with no.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Push faction in the government, they just have to let
them do it basically.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Yes, after that they'd have to get court permission to
do so. But wealthy asking those questions on the floor
today is to why three? Why not five? Why not ten?
Speaker 3 (04:53):
Right?
Speaker 4 (04:54):
They seem very random?
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Well, I mean, it doesn't seem like a permanent change.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
If you're like, oh, I'll change it again, and change
it getting changed again. I mean, do you really know
your identity if that's the reason you're changing it, and
yet you want to do it that many times? It
seems like it opens the door for criminals to hide
their identity.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
Actually, yes, and particularly concerning on those that aren't here lawfully,
so you get very specious documentation to start with, and
then your name, name, and sex changes could make it
very hard to track somebody that doesn't have a record
of a presence in the US. But the three times
(05:30):
change is kind of interesting when you pair this with
thirteen oh nine, that was the bill that requires that
gender affirming surgeries be covered freely in people's insurance. We
tried to amend it to support those that realized that
they had made an error and wanted to de transition
(05:51):
that was not allowed. Now we have documentation that you
can you can change to and from several times, and
there's disconnects and even what they're doing. And you know,
with thirty two hours left in this legislative session, gladly
no more damage can be done. Midnight tomorrow. Okay, they're
(06:14):
moving too fast to keep track. Of their own bad bills.
I think at this point it.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Sounds like it. Do you expect it to go very
late tomorrow night in the session.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
I believe it will. There's too much that hasn't been addressed,
and I believe the Majority Party will want to get
through as much of their own bills as possible. Again,
at least will not be dealing with a foolish attempt
to overturn the people's desires in terms of the taxpayer
(06:45):
bill rights. And I do want to thank everybody this
listening that reached out to legislators and put pressure on them,
on both on the Majority Party, to say, don't bring this.
They certainly realized it was popular. We took every opportunity
we could to ensure that the majority understood that trying
(07:09):
to take away taber would be a third rail that
they they've overstepped so much this year to start with,
in terms of our rights of self defense, our second
moment rights, pushing sort the illegal legally ahead of citizens
of Colorado, in terms of how we're using our text dollars,
(07:32):
stepping on printal rights initially and firmly with the original
version of thirteen twelve, and they didn't get it this year,
but it's a clear signal of the direction that they
want to continue moving in as long as they hold
the author.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Absolutely no, and it's very, very frightening to see all
the signals that come from them like, oh, well next year,
we're going to do that. Just keep chipping away at
it until they get more support to Gearritt of Tabor
to eliminate parents. That's right to do so many of
these things. So a representative Chris Richardson is who we're
talking to you right now. He's about to go back
to the floor and we have about a minute left
with you. Are there any updates people should know about
(08:11):
with the sanctuary state laws? I think the one specifically
that would require local governments to completely not cooperate with
ICE or else face of fifty dollars.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Fine, yeah, that bill that come true? Is it only yesterday?
I believe? Okay, wow, to continue arguing against and proposed
changes that will go back to the Senate. There were
some and they passed it today.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
So they accepted the amendments that were made, and again
it isn't fortunate that hasn't been signed into law. But
the sanctuary laws that are already on the books generated
a lawsuit, yes again the state of Colorado, and this
just doubles down what was already there. So I believe
we are on a collision course with the federal government.
(09:06):
I was not surprise if federal funding is withheld. We've
been told as a state, all the states have been
told that there are expectations of the federal government and
that's not meant they will with old funding. And so
going down this dangerous path in many directions, whether it
(09:26):
support is the transgenderism, sanctuary, gun rights, these are all
triggers that we've been told. With the results and the
loss of federal funding we inserted in all those bills,
are attempted to amend all those bills to be rendered
in effective if they threatened federal dollars, those were all rejected,
(09:51):
and federal dollars are what support are a good portion
of the funding that goes into our highways, which are
not in good shape to start with, in the medicaid
which so many people rely on. So just placing ideology
ahead of the people of Colorado is a came full
and that's what's been happening. So I heard whispers of
(10:14):
a special session if we do lose funding. I don't
know if that will happen, but if federal funding is withheld,
the legislature will have to come back trying to get
a budget together this year with a one point two
billion dollars short pull at the outset. If we lose them,
up there another billion here or there.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
A yeah, well, thank you, I have to go to
a break.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
But Representative Chris Richardson, thank you for giving us that
important update on the day before the close of the session.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Here on the Dan Tapla Show.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
And now back to the Dan Tamplass Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
You're back to the Dan Taplas Show.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
I'm Christy Burton Brown and for Dan because he's in
trial and the legislature still in session through tonight and
then tomorrow until midnight. Then they have to be done
unless they end up calling a special session. There's some
rumors going around that they may call a special session
dependent on what the federal government decides to do. There's
some bills the federal government is considering dealing with Medicaid
(11:16):
and Medicare, and then Colorado suggesting that if they lose
federal spending or federal funds, they may go to a
special session.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
To see how they can find more money.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Good luck with that, since the state is already in
a budget shortfall. Now, for anyone who on the liberal
side of the aisle who loves to claim that the
state just isn't getting enough money, here's what actually happened.
The state just doesn't get the increase in spending that
it wanted to get. It also put itself in a
budget shortfall because when extra federal funds were pouring in,
(11:49):
in part because of COVID, in part because of other reasons,
they committed to long lasting programs that they did not
have the full funding for, And now they're coming back
and saying, oh, we can't fund everything we committed to. Yeah,
that's kind of what happens when you don't budget according
to the money you actually have and can project on
the horizon. So for anyone on the liberal side the
al who wants to complain, they just don't know how
(12:10):
finances work. Also, of all the states, when we look
at Medicaid and Medicare and some considerations the federal government
is making, we see that Colorado is actually one of
the worst states when it comes to medicaid fraud and
medicaid waste. Congressman Gabe Evans has talked about this somewhat
in some news hits that he's done on social media
and expose that Colorado has been one of the top
(12:30):
states committing waste and fraud. We just had Representative Chris Richardson,
who's in his first year at the state legislature, on
with us in the last segment, and he was talking
about how it is highly likely that Colorado is going
to lose some form of federal funding. If you look
at collectively all the things that Colorado is doing basically
to defy the Trump administration. And this is outside the
(12:53):
category of medicaid waste and fraud, which is its own problem.
But if you look at all the ways Colorado is
basically saying to the Try administration, will do whatever we want,
and by the way, please send us money, Like that's
really not how it works. If you look at Phil Wiser,
the attorney general, who really is just on his campaign
for governor at this point, he's filed fifteen lawsuits already
in the first hundred days of the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
It continues to file them.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
I don't know what he's actually doing on behalf of
the state of Colorado. He's really running his own campaign
in defiance to the Trump administration. You see both the
city of Denver and this state of Colorado as a
whole not only digging in their heels when it comes
to being a sanctuary state. You know, while out of
one side of their mouth they're like, oh, we're not
a sanctuary state. But then in actual law and in
(13:40):
actual new bills they propose they forbid all local governments
and all law enforcement from cooperating with ICE or the
Department of Homeland Security. Or according to the new bill
that is I believe about to get passed, local governments
would get fined fifty thousand dollars per time they decided
to cooperate with ICE or the Department of Homeland Security,
even if the cooperation was with a with ICE on
(14:03):
a violent criminal or repeat fellon. Like, that's not even
good enough for the state of Colorado. And yet Governor
Polis wants to say, oh, we're not a sanctuary state,
but they want to defy the Trump administration and say
we're going to pass these.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Laws send us money. Anyway.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
We've already seen the Trump administration cut I believe was
twenty four million dollars to the city of Denver, because
they are proudly a sanctuary city, continue to impose those
policies despite the costs to their own citizens. And I
think that's what's interesting that Representative Richardson pointed out that
is true no matter what area you're looking at right now,
where Colorado wants to defy the federal administration is they
(14:40):
are not concerned with the well being of citizens in Colorado.
I'm gonna get to some statistics later on in this
show where I show you exactly how Colorado has fallen
in all of the important standings that people actually care
about when they try and make a state their home,
whether we're talking about the ability to own a house,
whether we're talking about the job market, whether talking about
(15:00):
the basic cost of living like buying your groceries or
the price of gas, where we're talking about how safe
a state is, how much crime is committed in different cities.
We've seen Colorado across the years fall in all of
these categories, and yet instead of trying to change life
in the right ways for their citizens, we see the
leaders of Colorado being like, you know what, We're going
to go to war against the Trump administration. Who cares
(15:22):
if that takes money away from our citizens. We want
to fund illegal immigrants, We want to give them money
to have housing here in Colorado. And if that makes
the federal government take money away from our citizens, we
don't care because we just want to defy them that badly.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Like that's literally what's.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
Going on right now, and we will see how far
the federal government wants to push it.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
I know they do have Colorado on their radar.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
We all saw that late last week when the White
House announced that they were suing the state of Colorado
Governor Polis for being a sanctuary state. I of course
thought it was kind of funny that one of the
only responses in the media from Colorado was, well, we
actually aren't a sanctuary state. I'm pretty sure the Trump
administration can see the bills going through your legislature. I'm
pretty sure they can read the statutes that are on
(16:05):
the books and see that we are one of the
only states that forbids all law enforcement from cooperating with ICE,
and if they decide to cooperate with ICE, they will
be stripped from participation in the state data system. This
data system Colorado drives is what it's called. That's what
law enforcement officers use when they pull people over and
check their driver's license. So they basically set it up
(16:26):
where you cannot operate as a law enforcement agency in
the state of Colorado unless you sign an agreement to
not cooperate with ice whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
But we're not a sanctuary state.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
And that's just one of three laws that have already
been passed, in addition to this fourth one that is
almost certainly going to pass as well. I think it
remains to be seen why their governor Polls is actually
going to sign it, especially in the middle of this lawsuit.
This would just cement the fact that Colorado is a
sanctuary state. So I'm actually very interested to see if
he ends up signing the bill or not. If you
(16:56):
have thoughts or if there are any bills that you
want to know what's happening to them at the last
minute in the legislature today and tomorrow, you can call
into the show. We can talk about any bill you
want to talk about. You can also text a question.
I can probably get you an answer because I'm following
a lot of these bills myself in my work with
Advanced Colorado and just because I'm a political nerd.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
So I follow these bills for fun, but you can.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Call anytime eight five to five for zero five eight
two five five. You can also text Dan to five
seven seven three nine. I see that we did get
a couple texts on what represented Richardson and I were
talking about in the last.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Segment the bill thirteen twelve.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
How that bill was completely reworked in the Senate to
now allow people to change their name up to three
times on official documents, whether it be marriage certificates, birth certificates,
driver's licenses. They specifically put a provision for illegal immigrants
to do that. A couple of people texting in saying, well,
you can change names, but if you're arrested, you can't
change fingerprints. Does this direct CBI to delete criminal history?
(17:54):
I don't think it does, but that's one of the problems.
How do you match up who you're actually looking for
If you're police, going after a criminal makes it so
much easier for criminals to conceal their identity.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
That is a huge problem. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
You're here on the Dan Kapli show, calling over the
break eight five five four zero five eight two five five.
When we come back, we'll talk about Tina Peters and
Donald Trump's trying to insert himself in that case.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Welcome back to The Dan Kaplich Show.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Out of Christy Burton Brown, I agree with a Texter
who just sent in a message saying it would be
interesting to see what happens if Trump would offer to
reimburse any fifty thousand dollars fines for helping ICE. We
were talking about this bill that's still making its way
through the Colorida legislature in the final two days of
session ends tomorrow at midnight or sooner if the Dems
decide they're done before then. But this bill would basically
(18:47):
extend to Colorado sanctuary state status to all local governments,
go beyond even law enforcement, who already has to comply
according to the state. But say, if any member of
a local government helps ICE or the Department of Homeland Security,
they can be fined fifty thousand dollars per incident. No
exceptions exist in this law in the latest version I've seen.
So even if you think, well, you know what, maybe
(19:09):
when we're dealing with this violent criminal over here, we
should maybe go ahead and help out Ice. Oh, you know,
there's this repeat fellon over here. Let's go ahead and
contact the Department of Homeland Security and give them the
information they want. You do that as a local government official,
member the judicial branch, a probation officer in Colorado. According
to this bill, if it passes, you be fined fifty
thousand dollars. So good point. What would the Trump administration
(19:32):
do if this passes? Will they take care of that
fine and go ahead and try and compel local governments
or encourage them the ones that want to cooperate anyway,
to go ahead and cooperate.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
I'm really not sure.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
I think they're going to just lean into the lawsuits
that they are filing against the state of Colorado, which
is specifically suing Colorado for being a sanctuary state the
laws we already have on the books, and basically saying
that Coloridle's laws are prev and taking the federal government
from doing their job and keeping the nation safe when
it comes to illegal immigration and crime and drug trafficking
(20:07):
issues in particular.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
I don't know, to be.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Honest with you, that I think the lawsuit is going
to be successful, because you know, there's already been court
cases saying the federal government cannot compel states to help
them with a federal job or to do basically the
federal government's job. So it's definitely a different take on
it to say, well, kind of state actually passed laws
to prevent the federal government from doing its own job?
(20:33):
And can they get in the way, stand in the path,
so to speak, of the federal government trying to do
its duty to the nation, especially when those duties that
the federal government has to keep the nation safe from
illegal immigrants. In many ways, it's sort of like an
interstate commerce issue. Well that is actually nothing to do
with commerce. It's interstate lines. Like you see these illegal
immigrants who are criminals crossing state lines, leaving one state,
(20:54):
going to another, and in many cases event all over
the news killing someone in the second or third state
that they travel to. So I think that would be
the federal government's argument is that the state of Colorado
is preventing them from keeping people safe because Colorado is
harboring these criminals and then they can move on to
other states, and then those citizens who maybe they're law
enforcement wants to cooperate, but they're not tipped off to
(21:16):
who these people are, and so do there's a federal government,
and then citizens all across the US are less safe.
I don't know where that would go to it. It's
a kind of a novel theory in my opinion. I
haven't read every single word of their arguments, but it's
definitely a different take on something the Court in the
past has said. You know, you can't compel states to
do a federal job, but can a state purposely act
(21:39):
to get in the way of the federal government from
completing its duty to the rest of citizens across the nation.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
I don't know. We'll see what happens in the near future.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
We can definitely talk more about that bill or other
immigration issues. If you're interested, you call in anytime eight
five five four zero five eight two five five, or
text your thoughts to five seven seven three nine start
them with dan.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Oh, such a nice text. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Someone said that I am their favorite Colorado GOP chair ever.
That's so nice.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Thank you for listening today. And I actually want to
talk about.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
An issue that came up originally when I was chairman,
and this is Tina Peters. A lot of you are
probably familiar with Trump's post on social media saying that
the state of Colorado should stop holding Tina Peters hostage.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
I believe that is the word that he used.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
He always loves to use, you know, big extreme words,
part of the reason people like him. But sometimes they
just don't really.
Speaker 5 (22:34):
Apply a lot of randomly capitalized words too.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yes, I'm not sure that he, you know, ever needed
English grammar to be successful. Clearly he found a path
through regardless. But I grew with part of a statement, though,
So let's actually go through it, he says. Radical left
Colorado Attorney General Phil Wiser ignores illegals committing violent crimes
like rape and murder in his state. Well, we know
that's true, and instead jailed Tina Peters.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Now, okay, i'mnna stop right here.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
Actually it wasn't Phil Wiser who prosecuted Tina Peters. It
was a local Republican district attorney. So we will clear
that up a little bit, all right. Jail Tina Peters,
a sixty nine year old gold star mother who worked
to expose and document Democrat election fraud. Okay, also true,
that was her stated goal. That's what she thought she
was looking for. I will say, because again I was
chairman when a lot of this happened, there were other
(23:23):
clerks who were also interested in making sure there was
not fraud, or if there was fraud, to expose it.
They used legal means at their disposal to figure it
out instead of illegal means, which is what Tina Peters did.
Donald Trump continues, Tina is an innocent political prisoner being
horribly and unjustly punished in the form of cruel and
unusual punishment. The more random capitalization for that phrase, cruel
(23:46):
and unusual punishment. This is a communist persecution by the
radical left Democrats to cover up their election crimes and
misdeeds in twenty twenty. Now I'll interject here to say again,
while I understand the sentiment there, it was not a
Democrat prosecutor, and she was sentenced by a judge in
a very conservative area of Colorado, her home county.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Of Mesa County. So this was actually not the.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Democrats and communists going after her in this situation. They
certainly do go after a lot of people, but that
wasn't the case here. And then President Trump continues, the
same Democrat party that flies to El Salvador to try
to free an MS thirteen terrorists is cruely imprisoning perhaps
for life, it was actually nine years, not life, but
a grandmother who's brave and heroic son gave his life
for America. Colorado must end this unjust incarceration of itness
(24:31):
an American. I'm hereby directing the Department of Justice to
take all necessary action to help secure the release of
this hostage being held in the Colorado prison by the
Democrats for political reasons.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
Free Tina Peters.
Speaker 5 (24:41):
Now, So that.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Is a very long, extensive message by President Trump advocating
for Tina Peters. This is something a Congresswoman, Lauren Bobert
actually reached out to FBI Director Cash Patel to ask
him to do this. This is something a number of
people have really put pressure on the Trump administration to do.
But and the reality is that the federal government actually
has zero say over what happens to Tina Peters. Like
(25:04):
DOOJ can certainly investigate whatever they want to if they
thought it was a corrupt prosecution, I of course don't
think that it was. They can investigate that. But she
was imprisoned for a state level crime. Only the state
actually has a say over that. And I think there's
a huge difference in two issues at play. Okay, there's
one issue of do you think Tina Peters was guilty?
I made a statement when I was chairman that she
(25:25):
shouldn't be running for a Secretary of State because she
was charged with felonies and crimes ended up she ended
up being convicted of them. So one question is is
she guilty? Did she maybe attempt to do a good
thing the wrong way? And in my view, you should
not encourage those kind of actions. We need to do
the right things the right way, because I know of
other people who did things the right way instead of
breaking the law to get the data that was necessary.
(25:48):
The separate question is was her sentence too long? Is
it unjust to imprison someone who obtained and released data
in an illegal fashion for nine years when violent criminals
in Colorado get off with far less of a sentence.
I mean, we saw a very well known case and
(26:09):
Aurora of a sex offender who would target illegal immigrants.
I'm sorry, they weren't illegal, just immigrants. He would target
immigrant homes, pretend to be an ICE agent checking up
on them, sexually assault the women and children in the home.
He was sentenced to twenty years, got out after serving
only eight years. Released by Jared Poulse's parole board went
back into the exact same thing to a seven year
(26:31):
old girl within a couple weeks. So someone like that
only serves eight years and TEENA Peter sentenced to nine.
So that is where I actually grew with President Trump.
The sentence is excessive when you compare the sentences that
violent and repeat criminals get here in Colorado. What I
disagree with is the insinuation that everything she did was
completely right and above board, like it wasn't and it
(26:52):
wasn't Democrats prosecuting her. That's just not the fact. Now,
one other point I'll make it, then we do have
to take a break. I read through a congresswomen Lauren
Bobert's letter to the FBI trying to get Tina Peters released.
She did make a very good point that Secretary of
State Jenna Griswold has not gotten in actual trouble at
all for the release of voting system passwords on the internet,
(27:13):
because you know she can just do that with nothing,
nothing happening to her. And now Tina Peters's actions were intentional.
I think Jenna Griswold is highly incompetent. No one has
really said that her release of the passwords were intentional.
So sometimes that is a difference in law incompetent actions
and intentional actions. But we can talk more about this.
I see people are texting in. You can give your
comments as well. Five seven, seven, three nine, starting with
(27:34):
Dan or call in eight five five four zero five
eight two five five.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on the Dan Capla Show.
Speaker 5 (27:42):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
All right, let's go to the text line. Lots of
people said again their thoughts. I'm Christy Burton Brown, You're
on the Dan Kapliss Show. We were just talking about
Tina Peters and Jenna Griswolds, Like, what's what's the relationship.
What's the difference between the actions that they took in elections?
Tanna Peters knowingly intentionally discovering and releasing data that she
(28:06):
was for, would you say, prohibited from releasing according to
the law, So I mean she intentionally did what she did.
Jenner Griswoll did allow passwords to be exposed on the
Secretary of State's website that could have influenced and affected elections.
Of course, they claim, according to their audits, said it didn't.
But the question from this Texter, could the DOJ go
(28:28):
after Secretary of State Jenna Grizwol for what she did?
Speaker 2 (28:30):
She was reckless?
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Also, the Department of Justice can investigate people for reckless actions.
They can do that here. I think, and I'm no
defender or fan of Jenna Grizswoll. I think she's highly incomptent.
Don't want her as Attorney General. I think that would
be a disaster for Colorado. Of course, not only do
I disagree with her politically, but I just don't think
people who are completely incompetent should be in state office.
(28:51):
It makes all of our jobs Harderney General.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Who's that Ryan?
Speaker 5 (28:56):
Somebody with the initials Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Yeah, No, you are very kind, not serious.
Speaker 5 (29:02):
I'm not joking.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
Well, thank you, that's very nice qualified.
Speaker 5 (29:05):
You're far more qualified than she is.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Well, you're very nicely, I'm.
Speaker 5 (29:08):
Not very correct, but you're welcome.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
But here's what I think is an issue when we
talk about tech things. No question, when someone intentionally uses
tech to violate the law, they should be treated like
anyone else who intentionally violates the law. But when you
are incompetent with technology, you allow passwords to be exposed.
You don't do proper audits. You create a program with
(29:35):
an algorithm that does something a little bit different than
you meant it to do, and should you have known
it did that? There are so many issues with like,
let's take the use of AI today. There are a
lot of people using technology that are not competent in
its use, uh, and I think you have to be
able to show a difference in complete recklessness and incompetence.
(29:57):
There's also delegation when it comes to a lot of technology.
So was Jenna Griswold herself personally the one that put
those passwords on the website? Or was that something that
someone on her staff did through incompetence. To my understanding
that that's actually how it happened, it wasn't her personally,
And so a lot of times the DJ isn't going
to go after someone when there's not a clearly traceable
line to an intentional action that that person did, just
(30:19):
because there's so many things they investigate, they typically aren't
going to go after something that's that layered. And so
I think there's just so many problems too when we
talk about tech, and the government has a huge misunderstanding
when it comes to AI, when it comes to tech,
when it comes to developers. You see that actually through
one of the bills going through the state legislature right
(30:39):
now that is trying to penalize developers for programs they
create that have an effect that the state doesn't prefer
when it comes to certain discriminatory impact. It's kind of
just a disaster unfortunately when government gets involved with tech
because they do not elect tech experts. We are in
a technological driven world to so many innovations that government
(31:00):
does not understand, and when they try to get their
hands in it, they often mess up. And this is
why I think with someone like Jenner Griswold should be doing,
and what the state law should require is that the
state government and Secretary State's Office actually has to use
technology experts, not political people to do these kind of jobs.
I think they need to have the right kind of
audits in place, the right kind of technology experts in place,
(31:22):
because otherwise you see political government people attempting to do
tech jobs that they're completely unqualified to do. And then
I haven't investigated in myself, so I don't know if
it's INCOMPETENTI or recklessness.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
In this scenario.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
But the problem is that government as a whole has
a big open door to hackers, to tech mishaps because
they flat out don't know what they're doing and they're
not hiring the experts to inform them of what they
need to do. So and I just went on a
rabbit trail there and love the variant, but I have
a big problem with the big holes that government has
when it comes to technology and all the things that
(31:57):
we've opened ourselves up to being hacked and our systems
not being safe because government just refuses to put the
actual experts there.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
So that's one of the issues that I have with that.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
Let's go to some other texts saying, the trucker that
killed four people on I seventy got his sentence reduced
to ten years by Polis, and Peters got nine. Yes,
perfect illustration. Criminals get off easy in Colorado, and yet
we want to stick to nine years for TEENA Peters.
I am no fan of Tina Peters. I don't think
she did the right thing. I think it's possible to
expose fraud in legal ways, she didn't take that path,
(32:29):
But nine years I think is highly excessive, especially when
there is no proof she actually altered the outcome of
an election. So again, I think a very different question.
Do you think she's guilty and do you think the
sentence was excessive? Someone else saying nine years for TEENA
Peters could be a life sentence. Well, well, true, but
usually the age of a criminal defendant isn't considered when
(32:49):
they're given a sentence. It's not like, oh, if you're
seventy years old when you commit a crime, will only
give you five years, But for your twenty we'll give
you twenty years. Like that's actually not how sentences work.
There's a certain sentence for our crime, and it's not
based on your own age. Okay, A lot of you
have opinions Tina Peters broke the law, knowingly broke the law.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
She deserves what she got.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
Someone else saying, I agree with Donald Trump that she's
a political prisoner being held in the fascist state of Colorado.
Definitely some differing opinions on Tina Peters. I think it
would be a lot cleaner case if we would say,
as conservatives, if we want to expose fraud, if we
want to expose waste, like, let's look beyond election integrity.
Let's look at many levels of our government. There are
(33:31):
legal ways to do it. Does it take a little
longer sometimes? Do we have to jump through a few
more hoops? Yes, but we also can keep everyone on
our side while we do it. Instead of saying, oh,
it's worth it to break laws and sit in prison,
I don't actually think that's worth it. And what's the
likelihood that Jared pols is actually going to reduce Jenna
Griswold's or sorry not jenifersol Tina Peters sentence and give
(33:54):
her any sort of commutation. I don't think by Donald
Trump pushing on him to do it that that makes
it more likely for him to do it.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
So we'll see what happens.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
Appreciate all of you text again, you can send more
thoughts five seven, seven three nine's start it with Dan.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
I will read them. Answer your questions.
Speaker 3 (34:09):
Did you have any You can also call in eight
five five four zero five eight two five five. I
have decided that some of the most annoying words I
ever hear from congressmen or women is reclaiming my time,
reclaiming my time. I don't know how many of you
listen to Christy Nomes's testimony in front of Congress, testifying
as a member of President Trump's cabinet. So many of
(34:30):
the Democrat congressmen wanted to force her into one word
answers because they don't like it when we get time
to explain what we're actually doing. And every time christyom
would say anything other than yes or no, which she
practically never said, they would say, reclaiming my time, reclaiming
my time, I.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Am not going to allow you to filibuster.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Well, do you actually want to answer to your question
or do you want time to give a speech for
your next campaign. That's actually what they're doing. We'll get
into a little bit of the actual discussions shocked about
posibly shutting dow, FEMA and a few other things that
are pretty interesting. We'll get to that on the next
segment of the dan CAPLA Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
You're on the dan CAPLA Show, calling over the break
eight five five four zero five eight two five five
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.