September 19, 2025 • 33 mins
Kristi Burton-Brown fills in for Dan once again on Friday, as both she and Ryan marvel at the Left's righteous anger and moral outrage over Jimmy Kimmel potentially losing his show on ABC over telling a lie about Charlie Kirk's assassin being 'MAGA,' while many were silent about Charlie Kirk losing his LIFE over having honest conversations with college students on Utah Valley University's campus.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Capless and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to the Dan's Show on this Friday. I'm Christy
Burton Brown in for Dan again. Good to be with
you all, and we have some good content as always
to cover.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
There never is a lack of things to talk about, and.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
People never have a lack of opinions, of myself included,
but I hope you give you who have opinions who
want to share, We'll call in tonight the numbers three
oh three seven one, three eight two five five, or
you can always text Dan at five seven seven three nine.
So a couple of things I want to make sure
that we cover today are, of course, the ongoing conversation
about Jimmy Jimmy Kimmel's suspension news. More news coming out
(00:49):
today about why ABC and Disney actually.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Made that decision.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
And note it was not government interference, despite what you
would hear on all the all the airwaves and from
all the lip in the media saying oh my goodness,
the president is firing late night comedians not even close
to the truth, So we'll get into that later. AOC
also coming out opposing a resolution along with fifty other
(01:13):
Democrats honoring Charlie klirk Kirk. She claims that we should
be honest about who he was quote uneducated and ignorant.
Seems more to me like she's describing herself, But we'll
tune into her her thoughts later on, and then a
couple other things that we should cover today are more
about what the First Amendment means. As a constitutional lawyer myself,
(01:36):
I'm very passionate about the First Amendment, and I like
when it's in the media and in the news, when
people are thinking about it and talking about it. It's
a very core American freedom and American right to not
only have the freedom to speak, the freedom to associate
with those who we choose, freedom of association, freedom of
the press, and freedom of religion. So many pieces packed
into one constitutional amendment.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
But it is right now the free speech angle.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
That's in the news, in the media, in all the stories,
and I actually want to really get into some a
clip from Pam Bondi, the Attorney General. I think she
got it wrong on free speech and the First Amendment. Now,
I also think Kyle Clark from nine News got it
wrong about the First Amendment in a recent post that
he made. So we'll talk kind of close to home
and also on the national stage and just have a
(02:23):
conversation about really understanding the First Amendment. It's complex, it's complicated,
and yet it's also kind of simple. And I think
one of the biggest things that people really need to
understand about the Constitution and why it's so precious to
us here in the United States of America and why
it is the longest standing document in any government throughout
(02:44):
the world. That it's stayed successful for so long is
because it is a recognition a that our rights do
not come from government and they come from God. But secondly,
it is a protection against the government. It is not
a protection against other people. It is not a protections
private business decisions. It is a protection against the government
(03:04):
encroaching on those God given natural rights. So anyways, we'll
get into both Kyle Clark's comments and his attempt to
relate to some activities to some Supreme Court cases like
the Masterpiece case in three h three that were very
familiar with here in Colorado, and then Pam Bondi and
I will I'll explain why I think they both got
it wrong. And if you think I get it wrong,
(03:26):
you should call it in tell me, but I'll definitely
will have a conversation. But the other piece that I
want to talk about today, news stories continue to come
out about this. I think it's really still being uncovered
how prevalent this is in Colorado. But it's the release
of violent criminals out on our streets in Colorado. But
there's a unique angle to it. You're like, yeah, that
happens all the time in Colorado. Unfortunately with the people
who govern our state and specifically the parole board that
(03:48):
Jared Poles has appointed. This is actually one of the
reasons the organization I work for, Advanced Colorado put Truth
and Sentencing on the ballot last year, is because too
many people were getting paroled early and going out and
committing violent crime again.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
So we already know about that.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
We passed a ballot measure to fix at least part
of that in Colorado. Make sure they serve about seventy
five percent of their sentence before they're even eligible for parole.
They've committed to violent crime. That's a new law that
took It took effect in January. But the piece that
I'm gonna talk about today is it's related to mental incompetence.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
So it's this thing.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
It's a new law that pull Aside, I believe it
was in twenty twenty three signed it into law. Unfortunately,
a lot of Republicans and Democrats actually both voted for it.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Incidentally, Gabe Evans, who.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Was in the state House of Representatives at the time,
was one of the Republicans to vote against it, which
I think should have been a clue on what was
about to happen, because not only did he serve in
the military before becoming a congressman, but he also was
a cop in Oravada on the ground dealing with crime
for years, and he was one of the no votes.
And so what this law did is it basically declared
(04:53):
that if a criminal defendant, someone who has charges brought
against them, is declared permanently mental incompetent within a year.
It actually depends on the level of the crime, so
there's shorter time periods for some crimes. A year is
actually one of the longer times they have to be
all charges have to be dropped and unless they agree
to go to a mental facility, they must be released
(05:15):
back out on the streets. We saw this happen with
Solomon Gallaghan in Aurora. He was a guy who I
actually this had happened with felonies four times in the
last ten years. He committed felonies, just released because they
had to drop the charges. But the most recent one
is he attempted to kidnap a boy outside of an
elementary school. He failed to actually kidnap him, the boy
(05:36):
did run away, but after a year he was declared
permanently mentally incompetent charges had to be released. Even the
far left progressive DA in a Rapahoe County Amy Padden,
has come out and said this law needs to be changed.
It's not okay that we are forced under the law
to drop charges and release people like this back out
(05:57):
into the community. Even Solomon Alligan's family members saying to
the news he had no business being back out on
the streets.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
We don't think that's where he should be.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
So that was sort of the story that I think
captured a lot of people's attention and got people focused
on this issue. But then we turned to El Pasocouty
where a man killed a woman a hit and run
type thing, although he actually like she was dragged by
his vehicle for some time before she died. Obviously charged
with the homicide. He was also declared permanently mentally incompetent,
(06:30):
and not only did the DA down there have to
drop charges on him, even though there was a part
of the record that said this guy knew that if
he could get declared mentally incompetent, charges would be dropped,
like he was trying to game the system, is what
I read in the record. He knew if he'd get
himself declared mentally incompetent, he'd just go free. So he
(06:50):
did not agree to go into a mental hospital or facility.
And so the judge actually made a fairly extensive statement
saying that he had to release him back into the
community because charges were dropped and the judge had no
basis to hold him, and so the judge was none
too happy about it, but it.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Is state law.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
And so now there's yet another case that we're going
to talk about when we get back from the break
that Michael Rourke, the DA in Welld County, is talking about.
And there's some conversation about what pieces of the law
actually need to change to stop all these violent criminals
from being released back out onto the streets of Colorado.
But basically, until the law changes, this is not an
issue that's going away. And there are quite a number
(07:30):
I think higher number of people would expect of so
called mentally incompetent, permanently mentally incompetent people who have no
consequence after being held for a year or less, they
are released back out into the streets if they don't
personally agree to go into a mental facility, and as
you might imagine, a lot of them don't agree to
do that. So we'll talk about the case from Welld
County when we come back. I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're
on the Dan Capla Show. You also can call in
(07:51):
three zero three seven, one three eight two five.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
To five.
Speaker 5 (07:55):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Welcome back to Dan Capler Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
We've been talking about a specific law in Colorado that
is allowing very violent defenders, some of the most violent defenders,
to just be released back out in the streets after
being held for about a year. The charges are dropped
against them, and they can't even be held at a
mental facility unless they agree to be held there for
a certain amount of time. And this is all because
(08:21):
of a law that says, if they are declared permanently
mentally incompetent das must drop charges. Literally doesn't matter how
violent the crime they've committed. That is a requirement. And
so these people are being put back out on the
street and often reoffending and committing more violent crimes against
the community again and again. It's definitely an illustration of
(08:42):
how Colorado legislators, the ones on the left of the
very liberal ones, have passed a multitude of laws that
basically say, we'd rather side with the criminal than the victim.
We'd rather say, oh, this poor person has a mental
incompetence problem. They can't stay in jail, no charges can
be brought against them, we can't hold them in a
(09:02):
mental facility, release them back to the community with I mean, honestly,
that's no concern whatsoever for not only victims that they
have committed crimes against, but victims that they could go
after and often.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Do in the future.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
So it's absolutely a giant public safety issue that Elon
Musk actually helped draw attention to in Colorado, tweeting about
it recently, and then you know, Governor Polis responded and said, oh,
like this is horrible. The das should go ahead and
use I think he said Title twenty seven or something
(09:36):
like that cited some huge portion of Colorado code, and
so they should use that code to keep these people away. Now,
what I find funny is Pulse is actually a smart
person wrong most of the time, but a smart person
to cite an entire title of a criminal code that
says that you actually don't know what area of the
law that you are trying to refer to and say
(09:57):
DA should use or you know, oh that no law
is on point, and you just want to sound like
you're saying, oh, the law totally covers this. Like civil
confinement is some of the law that he was citing to,
and civil confinement in Colorado tends to be for like
seventy two hours, a short period of time, and you
can't do it if someone is declared permanently mentally incompetent.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
So I see that I.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Have a caller on the line. I'm just going to
tell you very quickly about the Well County story and
then I will go to the lines. But this basically
this guy called Debisa Ephriam was his name. He had
a history of assault, burglar and theft arrest, charged with
the attempted murder earlier this year, but had to be
released after being declared incompetent and not restorable or permanently
mentally incompetent. He basically beat someone almost to death who
(10:44):
had to learn to walk again, talk again, do all
the bake sic functions and the DA up there. Michael
Rourke says that it is the law in Colorado mandates
the dismissal of charges when a dependent defendant has been
found incompetent and not restorable.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
This is the law.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
So he also called the governor's statement completely inaccurate.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Where Governor Polis.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Said that DA Rorke and others could have done more
and attempted to point to alternatives in the law, they
don't exist. Roorke explained exactly how they don't exist and
said that permanent mental incompetence actually doesn't fit under the
definition of mental health disorder in Colorado. And so he
adds himself to the long list of das who are
(11:27):
speaking out and saying the law must be changed on
this in Colorado if we want to prevent violent offenders
from being released onto the community. At Advanced Colorado, where
I work, we've said the same thing four months and
suggested that Polus should have done this in the special session.
If he wants to solve economic issues, he should be
solving very pressing crime issues as well. He declined to
do that, but I would expect bills to be brought
(11:49):
forward on this in the next regular session. All right,
I'm gonna go to the phone lines now, Mike from Erie,
Welcome to the Dan Kapli Show.
Speaker 6 (11:59):
Oh thanks, I so glad you accept my call.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Sure, what do you have to talk about.
Speaker 6 (12:05):
About Charlie Kirk. I'm talking about Charlie Kirk. I just
feel like people have been so negative about Charlie kirk at.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
I mean, he's almost like christ Like to me.
Speaker 6 (12:18):
I mean, he's he.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Just spoke the truth, and yet he was killed.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
I tell you agree.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
You know, I hesitate to say that any person is
like like Jesus. I think any Christian would say that
they are attempting to follow Jesus and to be like
him as they as much as they can be. I
also think It's, of course a tragedy that Charlie Kirk
was shot, but a tragedy every day that someone dies
from crime, from other acts that happen a lot here
(12:51):
in Colorado, like we're just talking about on the show.
So I think every human life is precious and we
should be upset when anyone dies.
Speaker 6 (13:00):
He was so so virtuous, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
I mean, he's just like he was just.
Speaker 6 (13:08):
I mean, I just love.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Him, okay, And I mean that's yeah. I mean, there's
a lot of people who do And what what I
guess would be the main thing you'd like to say
about it. I'm oh, I think anyone who's actually watched
his entire videos, that has seen context and doesn't lie
about his statements would very much disagree with you in a.
Speaker 5 (13:29):
Lot of you jerk, Hey, Mike, you jerk.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
Did he deserve to die?
Speaker 5 (13:34):
Did he deserve to get shot in the neck and
murdered for him being a bad person in your view?
Speaker 2 (13:39):
No?
Speaker 3 (13:40):
No, are you sure about that?
Speaker 4 (13:41):
Are you sure about that?
Speaker 6 (13:43):
He did not deserve No, I'm not saying he deserves
to die.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
And you're breaking up pretty bad. Unfortunately, we can't really
hear you. It we're Mike, so thanks for trying to
call in, but you're breaking up. I think, from my opinion,
I just a obviously completely disagree with that perspective.
Speaker 4 (14:11):
And there's so.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Many Democrats and left leaning people, unaffiliated people who are
all over social media saying, oh my goodness, since Charlie
Kirk has been in the news, I've actually turned on
his whole videos for myself instead of the brief statements
that the media has pushed out that he said.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
And he is not racist, he's not homophobic.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
He didn't say the things people claimed he said, So
I think a people should.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Do their own research.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
But b when someone is assassinated and murdered, I think
it is a very bad use of your time to
want to go complain about who they were and call
them names, and if anything, you're perpetuating the situation that
we're in in America that promotes a culture of basically
seeing other people who disagree with us as something less
than human and Nazis, fascists, all these things that the
(15:00):
left in particular calls people on the right, and then
some people think they needed to, you know, act upon
that and do horrible things. So I think it's a
responsibility of every single person, whether you're famous or not,
whether you're a public figure or not, to tone down
the temperature and to stop, you know, just finding the
worst you think about people you disagree with and talk
about them in that way.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
I don't think it helps anyone or anything.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
All Right, you can call in if you have thoughts
three zero three seven one three eight two five five,
or text your thoughts to five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
And sent her on the.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Topic of people who have no clue who Charlie Kirk
actually is or what he stood for. I'm going to
play the clip I mentioned about AOC who is one
of the fifty Democrats who opposed the resolution to honor
Charlie Kirk, and she said, we should be honest about
who he was.
Speaker 7 (15:46):
Here you go, we should be clear about who Charlie
Kirk was, a man who believed that the Civil Rights
Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was
a mistake, who, after the violence attack on Paul Pelosi,
claimed that quote some amazing patriot unquote should bail out
(16:07):
his brutal assailant. An accused Jews of controlling quote not
just the colleges, it's the nonprofits it's the movies, it's Hollywood,
it's all of it.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Unquote.
Speaker 7 (16:20):
His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant, uneducated, and sought to
disenfranchise millions of Americans.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
So that's her opinion.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
That is the opinion of people who listened to clips
of what he said, who did not educate themselves on
the entire context. And there were so many topics that
Charlie Kirk talked about and discussed at length, and he
talked about both sides, and he talked about accusations and
respond to them. And so I think people should go
out and watch the full videos for themselves.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
And also, is anyone ever one hundred percent right? Absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
There's things he said I don't agree with either, but
to call him those things is just brought out faults.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
We'll talk more about.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
The new news on why Jimmy Kimmel actually got suspended
when we come back after the break. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Well, and no one wanted to do with Jimmy Kimmel anymore,
So I'm gonna give you some more news.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
If you haven't read it.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Today, the Hollywood Reporter actually came out with some really
good inside information inside school, you could say, on how
Jimmy Kimmel's suspension actually went down. Now, of course, for
the last what thirty six hours, we've been hearing NonStop
on the cable news and media like, oh my goodness,
this is government interference. Congressman Eric Swallwell going on TV
(17:39):
last night saying the president is firing late night comedians,
which is just laughable. But and as I say yesterday
on the show, just because the government comments doesn't mean
the government is the one making the call. Now, Do
I think it was like a brilliant idea for the
FCC chairman to go on a podcast and talk about it.
Not really, because I think a lot times the free
(18:00):
market does take care of itself, and private businesses like Disney,
like ABC make their own decision. They see the writing
on the wall and say like, we're getting rid of
this guy, And you don't necessarily need to give the
impression that there might be government interference. But that said
that aside, government can still make its claims and say things.
I think there's a huge difference in constant pressure from
(18:23):
the government threats from the government and people in the
government saying like this guy should be fired. We might
have to look into this huge difference. But that aside,
let's talk about what really went down in ABC and Disney.
So I am going to be reading in part from
the Hollywood Reporter and also paraphrasing some of what they said.
But here's the title if you want to look it
up yourself. It says how Jimmy Kimmel's suspension went down
(18:45):
sponsor panic, a defiant host, and a painful call.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
So despite the.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Claves of government interference, it was solely an ABC and
Disney decision to sideline Jimmy Kimmel.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
And why.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
One of the biggest reasons, according to this article, is
because he refused to backtrack at all.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
He wouldn't apologize.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
They didn't demand that he apologized, but they asked how
he was going to handle it, and he was going to.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
Continue to double down.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
So this specifically says his answer was not satisfactory to management. Meanwhile,
while they knew that he was just going to double down,
not apologize, not change his tune, just claimed that he
was right, even though he had said a complete lie
that it was people from the MAGA side of the
aisle who had assassinated Charlie Kirk. That was, you know,
paraphrasing his claim, just absolutely ridiculous, patton blatant lie.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
Meanwhile, while all.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
This is going on, they're like, okay, so he's going
to double down on a lie, it says. Meanwhile, the
advertiser calls began to roll in, and then the big
affiliate conglomerates Next Star in Sinclair threatened to preempt the show.
Another source says that the blowback was snowballing enough that
had ABC not acted, Kimmel's show would have been dark
in a large swath of the country, even beyond the
(20:02):
Sinclair and Nextstar territories, which are very large.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
And so basically, despite.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
People saying like, oh my goodness, like the conspiracy theorists
out there in the media are like, oh my goodness,
what actually happened is that hours after the FCC chairman
made a comment, ABC and Disney cave to government pressure.
They wouldn't stand up for Kimmel's First Amendment rights and
the government forced him out like no. In the hours
of time between his late night show and the time
(20:28):
he was suspended, advertisers were calling in the lower down
stations were calling in and saying, we can't air this,
we don't want this, you have to do something. And
so ABC and Disney were not responding to pressure from
the government. They were responding to pressure from their advertisers
from the stations who are airing the content, and they
(20:49):
decided that it was snowballing and that in the best
interests of their own company they would go ahead and
suspend him. So there's a lot more to the article
than this. I think it's very interesting. It's well worth reading,
and these are exactly the kind of things that should
be exposed when there's literal fake news going on out there,
like just people who want to claim the President Trump
(21:11):
did this, he got him fired.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
No, we didn't.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
The advertisers and stations got him fired because he was
bad for business and he told a lie and wouldn't
back down. So Jimmy Kimmel in many ways got himself
fired because he not only told a lie, but he
wanted to double down on the lie. So that is
the real story. I found the article very interesting. You
should read it too. I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on
the Dan Kapla Show, and you can call in with
any thoughts three zero three seven one three eight two
(21:35):
five five or text them to five seven seven three nine.
Started with Dan, I'm going to go to the phone
lines and talk to Michael from Denver. Welcome to the
Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Christine, thank you so much for taking my call. Can
you hear me? Okay?
Speaker 3 (21:49):
I can hear you? Great?
Speaker 4 (21:51):
Awesome, awesome. Well yeah, first of all, I just want
to say, you know, I had a comment on what
you were talking about with the mental illness and crime,
perfect director, But first of all, just want to say,
you know what Charlie Kirk, you know, he did things
the right way he was doing you know. Ezra Clined
from the New York Times, who is about as liberal
as you can get, wrote a really uh, you know,
appointment of ed about Charlie Kirk and how you know,
(22:15):
college campuses are you know, the the form for that
where you can have that sort of you know, battlefield
of ideas. Right, he was doing things the right way,
and the fact that he got gunned down on a
college campus where you know, that's it's meant for that,
it's meant for that political debate, it's meant for that
engagement is so stark and sad, and there's no other
(22:38):
thing that needs to be said in relations you know,
it's just sad. It is.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
No, that's a good point. Yeah, and that's a well
worth reading of ed by Cline. You're right about that.
Speaker 4 (22:48):
Yeah. And what I was going to say about the
what you were touching on with the mental in Colorado.
You know, I I was under the impression that if
you committed a crime and you have a mental illness,
that would be committed to a hospital to restore that competency,
and then you'd have, you know, you'd remain there until
they determined your competency was restored enough for you to
(23:10):
stand trial, where at that point you would have an
option to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, of
the insanity defense. My thing is like, you know, if
somebody murdered someone, you know, and it was questionable that
they're mentally ill or not, they're not just going to
be released back out into society. They would have that
same process where they would have to have their competency
(23:33):
restored before they could be released. So why is it
any different with you know, this person who was allegedly
transgender and tried to kidnap someone, why would he be
released because well, he might be mentally ill and he's misunderstood,
and you know, we just need no, it shouldn't be
like that. He should have the opportunity to plead not
(23:54):
guilty by reason of insanity, but he shouldn't be released
and restore your compet can see. And that's what I think,
Gabe Evans and you know Colorado, the GOP is trying
to get across here is that they have that right
to plead not guilty by insanity, but they can't just
be released back into a society after they try to
kidnap a child or all these right, all the violence
(24:15):
peoper have done. So, yeah, that was the point I
wanted to make.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Yeah, thank you, and Michael No, I appreciate you making that.
And I think so a couple of things. First of all, yes,
we're in agreement that chargers should not be dropped.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Against people like this.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
What I think a lot of people don't know, though,
is people understand the law to be as you just said,
but it's actually different in Colorado, and especially because of
this new law that Jared Polis signed and I believe
it was twenty twenty three, So basically, and Michael Rourke,
the DA and Weld County, explained this, and he said,
under the Colorado law, there's a very specific definition of
mental health disorder, and too many of these defendants are
(24:47):
not meeting that definition. And so it's a completely separate
thing to plead guilty for by reason of insanity. It
is a different thing to be considered mentally incompetent and
unable to be restored. And so basically, what the DA's
are saying is that this commitment statute, and this is
a quote from them, is entirely too narrow to be
used in this way. They also said that certain conditions
(25:09):
are not considered mental illness under Colorado law, so they
don't qualify someone for civil commitment in a state mental
health hospital. That's actually a quote from a representative Amabele,
who is a Democrat, who's saying that, yes, the state
really should revisit this law because a number of the
disorders that these people are being found to have that
(25:30):
is leading them to a declaration of permanent mental incompetence
aren't under the Colorado law that would allow for civil
confinement until they're restored. Basically, they just said, nope, you
have this disorder, you cannot be restored, you'll never be
competent again. Therefore you cannot be confined civilly and you
will be released. So it's a very odd law, but
that's what's going on.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
Yeah. And the thing is, it's like even if they
went to trial and played the insanity defense and we're
found not guilty very reason of insanity, they would still
be going to a mental institution, you know, plub blow
or the stay hospital. They want to just be released.
And I just it just it just boggles my mind
how this legislation how is set up currently. And you know,
(26:10):
I'm glad the GOP is doing something about it because
we need we need a change, and I appreciate that.
But thank you so much, thank you much, thank you
my call and all you do.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Thank you, thanks for calling and good to talk to you.
Speaker 4 (26:21):
All Right.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
You're on the Dan Kapla Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
You can call in over the break three oh three
seven one three eight two five five or text your
thoughts to five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5 (26:31):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
You're here on the Dan Caple Show. I'm going to
answer a question from a Texter. Where was the article
explaining how the Kimmel suspension went down? I'd love to
read it, so Fretty d who missed that segment? Uh?
The Hollywood Reporter came out with a really great, in
depth article with multiple sources citing exactly how Jimmy Kimmel's
suspension happened, and the fact that it was totally ABC
(26:56):
and Disney's decision, and that they were getting multiple that
were snowballing from their advertisers from other stations including Nextstar
in Sinclair, but other stations even lower down in local
areas and basically all wanting him to get off the air.
And then add to that the fact that Jimmy Kimble
they asked him what his plan was to handle it
the next night, and he was not going to apologize,
(27:18):
He was not going to backtrack. He was going to
double down and basically insist that his lie was correct.
So all of that led to ABC and Disney saying,
all right, he is going to be suspended.
Speaker 3 (27:28):
So now government interference.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
But if you want to read the details for yourself,
just go to the Hollywood Reporter and type in Google
like how Jimmy Kimmel's suspension went down. You'll find the article.
It's very interesting. All right, let's go to the phone lines.
I'm going to talk to Mike from Fort Collins. Welcome
to the Dan Kepler Show.
Speaker 6 (27:46):
Yeah, thanks for having me. I just wanted to say,
I think it's really embarrassing and really patronizing. What was
this The FDC's name, I think is Brendan Carr. Yeah,
went on the go on the podcast and Voice and Opinion.
He used the words we can do this the easy
way or the hard way direct quote.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Yep, And he said we might need to invest.
Speaker 6 (28:12):
On the ABC is relying on the administration's approval for
the merger. So there are people out there that.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
Know what's next that's waiting for the merger. Actually not ABC.
It's what you're doing.
Speaker 6 (28:27):
Like people know that what you're doing is cheerleading and
just if you're comfortable just playing one side regardless of
the fact. Even Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
The problem is that you don't actually like have facts
would be the problem. You're making assumptions based on the
fact that the FCC chairman got on a podcast, made
some comments, used some hyperbolice that they might need to investigate.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
You are drawing the conclusion.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
That that is what led to ABC and Disney's cancelation,
when actual sources from ABC and Disney are saying, Nope,
it wasn't that. It was the advertiser, it was the stations,
and it was Jimmy Kimmel himself refusing to backtrack and
wanting to double down on a lie on the public airway.
Speaker 6 (29:05):
I heard the podcast and they said, Jimmy Kimmel needs
to step down. We can do this the easy way
or the hard way.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
That's not a direct quote. Actually I've read it myself.
Speaker 6 (29:16):
You're making the argument right now that the Godfather when
he said I made him an offer, he couldn't.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
That's funny. But what I'm saying, No, I'm saying that
you can.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Have government or private people use hyperbole. You can have
them use statements like Trump does it all the time,
like all that guy should get fired. Oh, we're going
to come after him, and how many come does this
actually happen? Like he says a bunch of stuff because
that's how he talks. Is that the way I would
talk if I were in that position. No, But is
the fact that a member of the government makes a
statement like that, but you have zero proof they actually
(29:47):
used any pressure whatsoever. And you do have proof that
advertisers were calling for hours, that stations were calling for hours,
and that Jimmy Kimmel refused to back down from a
blatant lie. Those are facts, and you want to say,
oh no, it was probably the godfather quote from the
FCC chairman that made ABC and Disney do it.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
Like no actual sources say you're wrong.
Speaker 6 (30:10):
Jimmy Kimmel needs to step down. We can do this
the easy way or the hard way. Tutor Carlton is
calling BS. What you're doing is embarrassing. It's really really embarrassing.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
I'm okay if you are embarrassed by what I am saying,
but thank you for calling in.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
I appreciate it. Mike, you have a good night. All right.
I'm christ Brown. You're on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
You also can call in with your opinions three zero
three seven one three eight two five five or text
them to five seven seven three nine. I just think
that in our culture in general, we need to stop
blowing things out of proportion. We need to stop assuming
that we know how everything goes down and believing every
possible conspiracy theory out there. You know, I think if
you're going to make a claim, especially a claim that
(30:51):
would have big implications to it.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
For example, if there's real.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
Government interference in private business that's illegal, something should be
done about that.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
I'm a constitutional attorney. They can't do that. They do
that to people.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
But you better have facts, You better have proof, not
just like, oh my goodness, I'm going to assume that
a comment made by Trump let's let's draw our line
in the sand.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
Oh my goodness, it led to.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
This, like you're making an assumption, Like, good luck to
you proving your assumption.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
If you can, then go do it.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
But if you can't actually prove your claims, you should
not talk about them until you can prove them.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
And that's actually what I think.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
I think way too many people love to make claims
and do not have evidence, don't have anything to back
it up. And it's I think ABC, Disney, big companies
out there, would actually laugh at people's assumption that with
one small comment from the government, they're they're like cowering
in fear and saying, oh my goodness, we better do
exactly what like that doesn't happen like have you known
anyone that owns big companies, have you like heard how
(31:46):
much they are willing to actually push back against the government,
Like do you know why they have lobbyists?
Speaker 3 (31:50):
Like do you know how it actually works?
Speaker 2 (31:52):
Because if you think they just bow down to the
government with one small comment that wasn't even made directly
to them, Like, here's the interesting thing, No one is
is actually making the claim that the FCC chairman even
ever called ABC or Disney and made a threat to them,
because there's no evidence.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
Of that whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
And I will say, if there's ever evidence that the
government is misusing their power and pressuring and threatening private
businesses actually not just in the media making comments, but
actually directly pressuring them, I'm against that. I don't think
it's right on the right side of the aisle or
the left side of the aisle a government to let
private business make their own decisions.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
What I am saying is, if you don't have proof.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
You shouldn't make the claim, especially when there's a whole
lot of proof on the other side. So if you're
just tuning in, make sure you read the Hollywood Reporter
article that describes information from the sources saying exactly what
written down with Jimmy Kimmel's suspension. Here's what I actually
think is interesting too. Chris Colmo, who very much has
never been my favorite person, but I do think his
(32:50):
change in recent years has actually been quite interesting to me.
He's backtracked and changed on a whole lot of things
that he said, and I've that to actually be like
a good move. When you find out that you're wrong,
you should go ahead and make some adjustments. And he
doesn't always admit that he's wrong or that he was wrong.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
In fact, he has a little bit of a problem.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
With that, but he'll often he's changed his opinion, and
a lot of what he says is actually kind of
right on the money, which I'm shocked I'm actually saying that,
but it's it's been true, and he was really really
right on the money about Jimmy Kimmel getting yanked off
the air. And here is actually what he said. He said,
you can like or not like Disney's decision on Kimmel,
but until I see proof of actual government coersion of
(33:30):
their decision, this is about Disney making a business decision.
What we do know is that the outrage at ABC
Disney for what he said was more impressive to them
than his ratings. Apparently they had the rights to make
that choice. It is not a First Amendment issue until
you have proof of government intervention. The speculation to me
is rage bait. That is right on the money. He
is correct. You're on the Dan Kaplo Show. I'm Christy
(33:52):
Burton Brown calling over the braak three h three seven
one three eight two five to five
This is Dan Capless and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to the Dan's Show on this Friday. I'm Christy
Burton Brown in for Dan again. Good to be with
you all, and we have some good content as always
to cover.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
There never is a lack of things to talk about, and.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
People never have a lack of opinions, of myself included,
but I hope you give you who have opinions who
want to share, We'll call in tonight the numbers three
oh three seven one, three eight two five five, or
you can always text Dan at five seven seven three nine.
So a couple of things I want to make sure
that we cover today are, of course, the ongoing conversation
about Jimmy Jimmy Kimmel's suspension news. More news coming out
(00:49):
today about why ABC and Disney actually.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Made that decision.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
And note it was not government interference, despite what you
would hear on all the all the airwaves and from
all the lip in the media saying oh my goodness,
the president is firing late night comedians not even close
to the truth, So we'll get into that later. AOC
also coming out opposing a resolution along with fifty other
(01:13):
Democrats honoring Charlie klirk Kirk. She claims that we should
be honest about who he was quote uneducated and ignorant.
Seems more to me like she's describing herself, But we'll
tune into her her thoughts later on, and then a
couple other things that we should cover today are more
about what the First Amendment means. As a constitutional lawyer myself,
(01:36):
I'm very passionate about the First Amendment, and I like
when it's in the media and in the news, when
people are thinking about it and talking about it. It's
a very core American freedom and American right to not
only have the freedom to speak, the freedom to associate
with those who we choose, freedom of association, freedom of
the press, and freedom of religion. So many pieces packed
into one constitutional amendment.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
But it is right now the free speech angle.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
That's in the news, in the media, in all the stories,
and I actually want to really get into some a
clip from Pam Bondi, the Attorney General. I think she
got it wrong on free speech and the First Amendment. Now,
I also think Kyle Clark from nine News got it
wrong about the First Amendment in a recent post that
he made. So we'll talk kind of close to home
and also on the national stage and just have a
(02:23):
conversation about really understanding the First Amendment. It's complex, it's complicated,
and yet it's also kind of simple. And I think
one of the biggest things that people really need to
understand about the Constitution and why it's so precious to
us here in the United States of America and why
it is the longest standing document in any government throughout
(02:44):
the world. That it's stayed successful for so long is
because it is a recognition a that our rights do
not come from government and they come from God. But secondly,
it is a protection against the government. It is not
a protection against other people. It is not a protections
private business decisions. It is a protection against the government
(03:04):
encroaching on those God given natural rights. So anyways, we'll
get into both Kyle Clark's comments and his attempt to
relate to some activities to some Supreme Court cases like
the Masterpiece case in three h three that were very
familiar with here in Colorado, and then Pam Bondi and
I will I'll explain why I think they both got
it wrong. And if you think I get it wrong,
(03:26):
you should call it in tell me, but I'll definitely
will have a conversation. But the other piece that I
want to talk about today, news stories continue to come
out about this. I think it's really still being uncovered
how prevalent this is in Colorado. But it's the release
of violent criminals out on our streets in Colorado. But
there's a unique angle to it. You're like, yeah, that
happens all the time in Colorado. Unfortunately with the people
who govern our state and specifically the parole board that
(03:48):
Jared Poles has appointed. This is actually one of the
reasons the organization I work for, Advanced Colorado put Truth
and Sentencing on the ballot last year, is because too
many people were getting paroled early and going out and
committing violent crime again.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
So we already know about that.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
We passed a ballot measure to fix at least part
of that in Colorado. Make sure they serve about seventy
five percent of their sentence before they're even eligible for parole.
They've committed to violent crime. That's a new law that
took It took effect in January. But the piece that
I'm gonna talk about today is it's related to mental incompetence.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
So it's this thing.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
It's a new law that pull Aside, I believe it
was in twenty twenty three signed it into law. Unfortunately,
a lot of Republicans and Democrats actually both voted for it.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Incidentally, Gabe Evans, who.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Was in the state House of Representatives at the time,
was one of the Republicans to vote against it, which
I think should have been a clue on what was
about to happen, because not only did he serve in
the military before becoming a congressman, but he also was
a cop in Oravada on the ground dealing with crime
for years, and he was one of the no votes.
And so what this law did is it basically declared
(04:53):
that if a criminal defendant, someone who has charges brought
against them, is declared permanently mental incompetent within a year.
It actually depends on the level of the crime, so
there's shorter time periods for some crimes. A year is
actually one of the longer times they have to be
all charges have to be dropped and unless they agree
to go to a mental facility, they must be released
(05:15):
back out on the streets. We saw this happen with
Solomon Gallaghan in Aurora. He was a guy who I
actually this had happened with felonies four times in the
last ten years. He committed felonies, just released because they
had to drop the charges. But the most recent one
is he attempted to kidnap a boy outside of an
elementary school. He failed to actually kidnap him, the boy
(05:36):
did run away, but after a year he was declared
permanently mentally incompetent charges had to be released. Even the
far left progressive DA in a Rapahoe County Amy Padden,
has come out and said this law needs to be changed.
It's not okay that we are forced under the law
to drop charges and release people like this back out
(05:57):
into the community. Even Solomon Alligan's family members saying to
the news he had no business being back out on
the streets.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
We don't think that's where he should be.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
So that was sort of the story that I think
captured a lot of people's attention and got people focused
on this issue. But then we turned to El Pasocouty
where a man killed a woman a hit and run
type thing, although he actually like she was dragged by
his vehicle for some time before she died. Obviously charged
with the homicide. He was also declared permanently mentally incompetent,
(06:30):
and not only did the DA down there have to
drop charges on him, even though there was a part
of the record that said this guy knew that if
he could get declared mentally incompetent, charges would be dropped,
like he was trying to game the system, is what
I read in the record. He knew if he'd get
himself declared mentally incompetent, he'd just go free. So he
(06:50):
did not agree to go into a mental hospital or facility.
And so the judge actually made a fairly extensive statement
saying that he had to release him back into the
community because charges were dropped and the judge had no
basis to hold him, and so the judge was none
too happy about it, but it.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Is state law.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
And so now there's yet another case that we're going
to talk about when we get back from the break
that Michael Rourke, the DA in Welld County, is talking about.
And there's some conversation about what pieces of the law
actually need to change to stop all these violent criminals
from being released back out onto the streets of Colorado.
But basically, until the law changes, this is not an
issue that's going away. And there are quite a number
(07:30):
I think higher number of people would expect of so
called mentally incompetent, permanently mentally incompetent people who have no
consequence after being held for a year or less, they
are released back out into the streets if they don't
personally agree to go into a mental facility, and as
you might imagine, a lot of them don't agree to
do that. So we'll talk about the case from Welld
County when we come back. I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're
on the Dan Capla Show. You also can call in
(07:51):
three zero three seven, one three eight two five.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
To five.
Speaker 5 (07:55):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Welcome back to Dan Capler Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
We've been talking about a specific law in Colorado that
is allowing very violent defenders, some of the most violent defenders,
to just be released back out in the streets after
being held for about a year. The charges are dropped
against them, and they can't even be held at a
mental facility unless they agree to be held there for
a certain amount of time. And this is all because
(08:21):
of a law that says, if they are declared permanently
mentally incompetent das must drop charges. Literally doesn't matter how
violent the crime they've committed. That is a requirement. And
so these people are being put back out on the
street and often reoffending and committing more violent crimes against
the community again and again. It's definitely an illustration of
(08:42):
how Colorado legislators, the ones on the left of the
very liberal ones, have passed a multitude of laws that
basically say, we'd rather side with the criminal than the victim.
We'd rather say, oh, this poor person has a mental
incompetence problem. They can't stay in jail, no charges can
be brought against them, we can't hold them in a
(09:02):
mental facility, release them back to the community with I mean, honestly,
that's no concern whatsoever for not only victims that they
have committed crimes against, but victims that they could go
after and often.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Do in the future.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
So it's absolutely a giant public safety issue that Elon
Musk actually helped draw attention to in Colorado, tweeting about
it recently, and then you know, Governor Polis responded and said, oh,
like this is horrible. The das should go ahead and
use I think he said Title twenty seven or something
(09:36):
like that cited some huge portion of Colorado code, and
so they should use that code to keep these people away. Now,
what I find funny is Pulse is actually a smart
person wrong most of the time, but a smart person
to cite an entire title of a criminal code that
says that you actually don't know what area of the
law that you are trying to refer to and say
(09:57):
DA should use or you know, oh that no law
is on point, and you just want to sound like
you're saying, oh, the law totally covers this. Like civil
confinement is some of the law that he was citing to,
and civil confinement in Colorado tends to be for like
seventy two hours, a short period of time, and you
can't do it if someone is declared permanently mentally incompetent.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
So I see that I.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Have a caller on the line. I'm just going to
tell you very quickly about the Well County story and
then I will go to the lines. But this basically
this guy called Debisa Ephriam was his name. He had
a history of assault, burglar and theft arrest, charged with
the attempted murder earlier this year, but had to be
released after being declared incompetent and not restorable or permanently
mentally incompetent. He basically beat someone almost to death who
(10:44):
had to learn to walk again, talk again, do all
the bake sic functions and the DA up there. Michael
Rourke says that it is the law in Colorado mandates
the dismissal of charges when a dependent defendant has been
found incompetent and not restorable.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
This is the law.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
So he also called the governor's statement completely inaccurate.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Where Governor Polis.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Said that DA Rorke and others could have done more
and attempted to point to alternatives in the law, they
don't exist. Roorke explained exactly how they don't exist and
said that permanent mental incompetence actually doesn't fit under the
definition of mental health disorder in Colorado. And so he
adds himself to the long list of das who are
(11:27):
speaking out and saying the law must be changed on
this in Colorado if we want to prevent violent offenders
from being released onto the community. At Advanced Colorado, where
I work, we've said the same thing four months and
suggested that Polus should have done this in the special session.
If he wants to solve economic issues, he should be
solving very pressing crime issues as well. He declined to
do that, but I would expect bills to be brought
(11:49):
forward on this in the next regular session. All right,
I'm gonna go to the phone lines now, Mike from Erie,
Welcome to the Dan Kapli Show.
Speaker 6 (11:59):
Oh thanks, I so glad you accept my call.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Sure, what do you have to talk about.
Speaker 6 (12:05):
About Charlie Kirk. I'm talking about Charlie Kirk. I just
feel like people have been so negative about Charlie kirk at.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
I mean, he's almost like christ Like to me.
Speaker 6 (12:18):
I mean, he's he.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Just spoke the truth, and yet he was killed.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
I tell you agree.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
You know, I hesitate to say that any person is
like like Jesus. I think any Christian would say that
they are attempting to follow Jesus and to be like
him as they as much as they can be. I
also think It's, of course a tragedy that Charlie Kirk
was shot, but a tragedy every day that someone dies
from crime, from other acts that happen a lot here
(12:51):
in Colorado, like we're just talking about on the show.
So I think every human life is precious and we
should be upset when anyone dies.
Speaker 6 (13:00):
He was so so virtuous, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
I mean, he's just like he was just.
Speaker 6 (13:08):
I mean, I just love.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Him, okay, And I mean that's yeah. I mean, there's
a lot of people who do And what what I
guess would be the main thing you'd like to say
about it. I'm oh, I think anyone who's actually watched
his entire videos, that has seen context and doesn't lie
about his statements would very much disagree with you in a.
Speaker 5 (13:29):
Lot of you jerk, Hey, Mike, you jerk.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
Did he deserve to die?
Speaker 5 (13:34):
Did he deserve to get shot in the neck and
murdered for him being a bad person in your view?
Speaker 2 (13:39):
No?
Speaker 3 (13:40):
No, are you sure about that?
Speaker 4 (13:41):
Are you sure about that?
Speaker 6 (13:43):
He did not deserve No, I'm not saying he deserves
to die.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
And you're breaking up pretty bad. Unfortunately, we can't really
hear you. It we're Mike, so thanks for trying to
call in, but you're breaking up. I think, from my opinion,
I just a obviously completely disagree with that perspective.
Speaker 4 (14:11):
And there's so.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Many Democrats and left leaning people, unaffiliated people who are
all over social media saying, oh my goodness, since Charlie
Kirk has been in the news, I've actually turned on
his whole videos for myself instead of the brief statements
that the media has pushed out that he said.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
And he is not racist, he's not homophobic.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
He didn't say the things people claimed he said, So
I think a people should.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Do their own research.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
But b when someone is assassinated and murdered, I think
it is a very bad use of your time to
want to go complain about who they were and call
them names, and if anything, you're perpetuating the situation that
we're in in America that promotes a culture of basically
seeing other people who disagree with us as something less
than human and Nazis, fascists, all these things that the
(15:00):
left in particular calls people on the right, and then
some people think they needed to, you know, act upon
that and do horrible things. So I think it's a
responsibility of every single person, whether you're famous or not,
whether you're a public figure or not, to tone down
the temperature and to stop, you know, just finding the
worst you think about people you disagree with and talk
about them in that way.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
I don't think it helps anyone or anything.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
All Right, you can call in if you have thoughts
three zero three seven one three eight two five five,
or text your thoughts to five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
And sent her on the.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Topic of people who have no clue who Charlie Kirk
actually is or what he stood for. I'm going to
play the clip I mentioned about AOC who is one
of the fifty Democrats who opposed the resolution to honor
Charlie Kirk, and she said, we should be honest about
who he was.
Speaker 7 (15:46):
Here you go, we should be clear about who Charlie
Kirk was, a man who believed that the Civil Rights
Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was
a mistake, who, after the violence attack on Paul Pelosi,
claimed that quote some amazing patriot unquote should bail out
(16:07):
his brutal assailant. An accused Jews of controlling quote not
just the colleges, it's the nonprofits it's the movies, it's Hollywood,
it's all of it.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Unquote.
Speaker 7 (16:20):
His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant, uneducated, and sought to
disenfranchise millions of Americans.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
So that's her opinion.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
That is the opinion of people who listened to clips
of what he said, who did not educate themselves on
the entire context. And there were so many topics that
Charlie Kirk talked about and discussed at length, and he
talked about both sides, and he talked about accusations and
respond to them. And so I think people should go
out and watch the full videos for themselves.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
And also, is anyone ever one hundred percent right? Absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
There's things he said I don't agree with either, but
to call him those things is just brought out faults.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
We'll talk more about.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
The new news on why Jimmy Kimmel actually got suspended
when we come back after the break. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Well, and no one wanted to do with Jimmy Kimmel anymore,
So I'm gonna give you some more news.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
If you haven't read it.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Today, the Hollywood Reporter actually came out with some really
good inside information inside school, you could say, on how
Jimmy Kimmel's suspension actually went down. Now, of course, for
the last what thirty six hours, we've been hearing NonStop
on the cable news and media like, oh my goodness,
this is government interference. Congressman Eric Swallwell going on TV
(17:39):
last night saying the president is firing late night comedians,
which is just laughable. But and as I say yesterday
on the show, just because the government comments doesn't mean
the government is the one making the call. Now, Do
I think it was like a brilliant idea for the
FCC chairman to go on a podcast and talk about it.
Not really, because I think a lot times the free
(18:00):
market does take care of itself, and private businesses like Disney,
like ABC make their own decision. They see the writing
on the wall and say like, we're getting rid of
this guy, And you don't necessarily need to give the
impression that there might be government interference. But that said
that aside, government can still make its claims and say things.
I think there's a huge difference in constant pressure from
(18:23):
the government threats from the government and people in the
government saying like this guy should be fired. We might
have to look into this huge difference. But that aside,
let's talk about what really went down in ABC and Disney.
So I am going to be reading in part from
the Hollywood Reporter and also paraphrasing some of what they said.
But here's the title if you want to look it
up yourself. It says how Jimmy Kimmel's suspension went down
(18:45):
sponsor panic, a defiant host, and a painful call.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
So despite the.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Claves of government interference, it was solely an ABC and
Disney decision to sideline Jimmy Kimmel.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
And why.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
One of the biggest reasons, according to this article, is
because he refused to backtrack at all.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
He wouldn't apologize.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
They didn't demand that he apologized, but they asked how
he was going to handle it, and he was going to.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
Continue to double down.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
So this specifically says his answer was not satisfactory to management. Meanwhile,
while they knew that he was just going to double down,
not apologize, not change his tune, just claimed that he
was right, even though he had said a complete lie
that it was people from the MAGA side of the
aisle who had assassinated Charlie Kirk. That was, you know,
paraphrasing his claim, just absolutely ridiculous, patton blatant lie.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
Meanwhile, while all.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
This is going on, they're like, okay, so he's going
to double down on a lie, it says. Meanwhile, the
advertiser calls began to roll in, and then the big
affiliate conglomerates Next Star in Sinclair threatened to preempt the show.
Another source says that the blowback was snowballing enough that
had ABC not acted, Kimmel's show would have been dark
in a large swath of the country, even beyond the
(20:02):
Sinclair and Nextstar territories, which are very large.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
And so basically, despite.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
People saying like, oh my goodness, like the conspiracy theorists
out there in the media are like, oh my goodness,
what actually happened is that hours after the FCC chairman
made a comment, ABC and Disney cave to government pressure.
They wouldn't stand up for Kimmel's First Amendment rights and
the government forced him out like no. In the hours
of time between his late night show and the time
(20:28):
he was suspended, advertisers were calling in the lower down
stations were calling in and saying, we can't air this,
we don't want this, you have to do something. And
so ABC and Disney were not responding to pressure from
the government. They were responding to pressure from their advertisers
from the stations who are airing the content, and they
(20:49):
decided that it was snowballing and that in the best
interests of their own company they would go ahead and
suspend him. So there's a lot more to the article
than this. I think it's very interesting. It's well worth reading,
and these are exactly the kind of things that should
be exposed when there's literal fake news going on out there,
like just people who want to claim the President Trump
(21:11):
did this, he got him fired.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
No, we didn't.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
The advertisers and stations got him fired because he was
bad for business and he told a lie and wouldn't
back down. So Jimmy Kimmel in many ways got himself
fired because he not only told a lie, but he
wanted to double down on the lie. So that is
the real story. I found the article very interesting. You
should read it too. I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on
the Dan Kapla Show, and you can call in with
any thoughts three zero three seven one three eight two
(21:35):
five five or text them to five seven seven three nine.
Started with Dan, I'm going to go to the phone
lines and talk to Michael from Denver. Welcome to the
Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Christine, thank you so much for taking my call. Can
you hear me? Okay?
Speaker 3 (21:49):
I can hear you? Great?
Speaker 4 (21:51):
Awesome, awesome. Well yeah, first of all, I just want
to say, you know, I had a comment on what
you were talking about with the mental illness and crime,
perfect director, But first of all, just want to say,
you know what Charlie Kirk, you know, he did things
the right way he was doing you know. Ezra Clined
from the New York Times, who is about as liberal
as you can get, wrote a really uh, you know,
appointment of ed about Charlie Kirk and how you know,
(22:15):
college campuses are you know, the the form for that
where you can have that sort of you know, battlefield
of ideas. Right, he was doing things the right way,
and the fact that he got gunned down on a
college campus where you know, that's it's meant for that,
it's meant for that political debate, it's meant for that
engagement is so stark and sad, and there's no other
(22:38):
thing that needs to be said in relations you know,
it's just sad. It is.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
No, that's a good point. Yeah, and that's a well
worth reading of ed by Cline. You're right about that.
Speaker 4 (22:48):
Yeah. And what I was going to say about the
what you were touching on with the mental in Colorado.
You know, I I was under the impression that if
you committed a crime and you have a mental illness,
that would be committed to a hospital to restore that competency,
and then you'd have, you know, you'd remain there until
they determined your competency was restored enough for you to
(23:10):
stand trial, where at that point you would have an
option to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, of
the insanity defense. My thing is like, you know, if
somebody murdered someone, you know, and it was questionable that
they're mentally ill or not, they're not just going to
be released back out into society. They would have that
same process where they would have to have their competency
(23:33):
restored before they could be released. So why is it
any different with you know, this person who was allegedly
transgender and tried to kidnap someone, why would he be
released because well, he might be mentally ill and he's misunderstood,
and you know, we just need no, it shouldn't be
like that. He should have the opportunity to plead not
(23:54):
guilty by reason of insanity, but he shouldn't be released
and restore your compet can see. And that's what I think,
Gabe Evans and you know Colorado, the GOP is trying
to get across here is that they have that right
to plead not guilty by insanity, but they can't just
be released back into a society after they try to
kidnap a child or all these right, all the violence
(24:15):
peoper have done. So, yeah, that was the point I
wanted to make.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Yeah, thank you, and Michael No, I appreciate you making that.
And I think so a couple of things. First of all, yes,
we're in agreement that chargers should not be dropped.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Against people like this.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
What I think a lot of people don't know, though,
is people understand the law to be as you just said,
but it's actually different in Colorado, and especially because of
this new law that Jared Polis signed and I believe
it was twenty twenty three, So basically, and Michael Rourke,
the DA and Weld County, explained this, and he said,
under the Colorado law, there's a very specific definition of
mental health disorder, and too many of these defendants are
(24:47):
not meeting that definition. And so it's a completely separate
thing to plead guilty for by reason of insanity. It
is a different thing to be considered mentally incompetent and
unable to be restored. And so basically, what the DA's
are saying is that this commitment statute, and this is
a quote from them, is entirely too narrow to be
used in this way. They also said that certain conditions
(25:09):
are not considered mental illness under Colorado law, so they
don't qualify someone for civil commitment in a state mental
health hospital. That's actually a quote from a representative Amabele,
who is a Democrat, who's saying that, yes, the state
really should revisit this law because a number of the
disorders that these people are being found to have that
(25:30):
is leading them to a declaration of permanent mental incompetence
aren't under the Colorado law that would allow for civil
confinement until they're restored. Basically, they just said, nope, you
have this disorder, you cannot be restored, you'll never be
competent again. Therefore you cannot be confined civilly and you
will be released. So it's a very odd law, but
that's what's going on.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
Yeah. And the thing is, it's like even if they
went to trial and played the insanity defense and we're
found not guilty very reason of insanity, they would still
be going to a mental institution, you know, plub blow
or the stay hospital. They want to just be released.
And I just it just it just boggles my mind
how this legislation how is set up currently. And you know,
(26:10):
I'm glad the GOP is doing something about it because
we need we need a change, and I appreciate that.
But thank you so much, thank you much, thank you
my call and all you do.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Thank you, thanks for calling and good to talk to you.
Speaker 4 (26:21):
All Right.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
You're on the Dan Kapla Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
You can call in over the break three oh three
seven one three eight two five five or text your
thoughts to five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5 (26:31):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
You're here on the Dan Caple Show. I'm going to
answer a question from a Texter. Where was the article
explaining how the Kimmel suspension went down? I'd love to
read it, so Fretty d who missed that segment? Uh?
The Hollywood Reporter came out with a really great, in
depth article with multiple sources citing exactly how Jimmy Kimmel's
suspension happened, and the fact that it was totally ABC
(26:56):
and Disney's decision, and that they were getting multiple that
were snowballing from their advertisers from other stations including Nextstar
in Sinclair, but other stations even lower down in local
areas and basically all wanting him to get off the air.
And then add to that the fact that Jimmy Kimble
they asked him what his plan was to handle it
the next night, and he was not going to apologize,
(27:18):
He was not going to backtrack. He was going to
double down and basically insist that his lie was correct.
So all of that led to ABC and Disney saying,
all right, he is going to be suspended.
Speaker 3 (27:28):
So now government interference.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
But if you want to read the details for yourself,
just go to the Hollywood Reporter and type in Google
like how Jimmy Kimmel's suspension went down. You'll find the article.
It's very interesting. All right, let's go to the phone lines.
I'm going to talk to Mike from Fort Collins. Welcome
to the Dan Kepler Show.
Speaker 6 (27:46):
Yeah, thanks for having me. I just wanted to say,
I think it's really embarrassing and really patronizing. What was
this The FDC's name, I think is Brendan Carr. Yeah,
went on the go on the podcast and Voice and Opinion.
He used the words we can do this the easy
way or the hard way direct quote.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Yep, And he said we might need to invest.
Speaker 6 (28:12):
On the ABC is relying on the administration's approval for
the merger. So there are people out there that.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
Know what's next that's waiting for the merger. Actually not ABC.
It's what you're doing.
Speaker 6 (28:27):
Like people know that what you're doing is cheerleading and
just if you're comfortable just playing one side regardless of
the fact. Even Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
The problem is that you don't actually like have facts
would be the problem. You're making assumptions based on the
fact that the FCC chairman got on a podcast, made
some comments, used some hyperbolice that they might need to investigate.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
You are drawing the conclusion.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
That that is what led to ABC and Disney's cancelation,
when actual sources from ABC and Disney are saying, Nope,
it wasn't that. It was the advertiser, it was the stations,
and it was Jimmy Kimmel himself refusing to backtrack and
wanting to double down on a lie on the public airway.
Speaker 6 (29:05):
I heard the podcast and they said, Jimmy Kimmel needs
to step down. We can do this the easy way
or the hard way.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
That's not a direct quote. Actually I've read it myself.
Speaker 6 (29:16):
You're making the argument right now that the Godfather when
he said I made him an offer, he couldn't.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
That's funny. But what I'm saying, No, I'm saying that
you can.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Have government or private people use hyperbole. You can have
them use statements like Trump does it all the time,
like all that guy should get fired. Oh, we're going
to come after him, and how many come does this
actually happen? Like he says a bunch of stuff because
that's how he talks. Is that the way I would
talk if I were in that position. No, But is
the fact that a member of the government makes a
statement like that, but you have zero proof they actually
(29:47):
used any pressure whatsoever. And you do have proof that
advertisers were calling for hours, that stations were calling for hours,
and that Jimmy Kimmel refused to back down from a
blatant lie. Those are facts, and you want to say,
oh no, it was probably the godfather quote from the
FCC chairman that made ABC and Disney do it.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
Like no actual sources say you're wrong.
Speaker 6 (30:10):
Jimmy Kimmel needs to step down. We can do this
the easy way or the hard way. Tutor Carlton is
calling BS. What you're doing is embarrassing. It's really really embarrassing.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
I'm okay if you are embarrassed by what I am saying,
but thank you for calling in.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
I appreciate it. Mike, you have a good night. All right.
I'm christ Brown. You're on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
You also can call in with your opinions three zero
three seven one three eight two five five or text
them to five seven seven three nine. I just think
that in our culture in general, we need to stop
blowing things out of proportion. We need to stop assuming
that we know how everything goes down and believing every
possible conspiracy theory out there. You know, I think if
you're going to make a claim, especially a claim that
(30:51):
would have big implications to it.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
For example, if there's real.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
Government interference in private business that's illegal, something should be
done about that.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
I'm a constitutional attorney. They can't do that. They do
that to people.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
But you better have facts, You better have proof, not
just like, oh my goodness, I'm going to assume that
a comment made by Trump let's let's draw our line
in the sand.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
Oh my goodness, it led to.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
This, like you're making an assumption, Like, good luck to
you proving your assumption.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
If you can, then go do it.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
But if you can't actually prove your claims, you should
not talk about them until you can prove them.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
And that's actually what I think.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
I think way too many people love to make claims
and do not have evidence, don't have anything to back
it up. And it's I think ABC, Disney, big companies
out there, would actually laugh at people's assumption that with
one small comment from the government, they're they're like cowering
in fear and saying, oh my goodness, we better do
exactly what like that doesn't happen like have you known
anyone that owns big companies, have you like heard how
(31:46):
much they are willing to actually push back against the government,
Like do you know why they have lobbyists?
Speaker 3 (31:50):
Like do you know how it actually works?
Speaker 2 (31:52):
Because if you think they just bow down to the
government with one small comment that wasn't even made directly
to them, Like, here's the interesting thing, No one is
is actually making the claim that the FCC chairman even
ever called ABC or Disney and made a threat to them,
because there's no evidence.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
Of that whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
And I will say, if there's ever evidence that the
government is misusing their power and pressuring and threatening private
businesses actually not just in the media making comments, but
actually directly pressuring them, I'm against that. I don't think
it's right on the right side of the aisle or
the left side of the aisle a government to let
private business make their own decisions.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
What I am saying is, if you don't have proof.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
You shouldn't make the claim, especially when there's a whole
lot of proof on the other side. So if you're
just tuning in, make sure you read the Hollywood Reporter
article that describes information from the sources saying exactly what
written down with Jimmy Kimmel's suspension. Here's what I actually
think is interesting too. Chris Colmo, who very much has
never been my favorite person, but I do think his
(32:50):
change in recent years has actually been quite interesting to me.
He's backtracked and changed on a whole lot of things
that he said, and I've that to actually be like
a good move. When you find out that you're wrong,
you should go ahead and make some adjustments. And he
doesn't always admit that he's wrong or that he was wrong.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
In fact, he has a little bit of a problem.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
With that, but he'll often he's changed his opinion, and
a lot of what he says is actually kind of
right on the money, which I'm shocked I'm actually saying that,
but it's it's been true, and he was really really
right on the money about Jimmy Kimmel getting yanked off
the air. And here is actually what he said. He said,
you can like or not like Disney's decision on Kimmel,
but until I see proof of actual government coersion of
(33:30):
their decision, this is about Disney making a business decision.
What we do know is that the outrage at ABC
Disney for what he said was more impressive to them
than his ratings. Apparently they had the rights to make
that choice. It is not a First Amendment issue until
you have proof of government intervention. The speculation to me
is rage bait. That is right on the money. He
is correct. You're on the Dan Kaplo Show. I'm Christy
(33:52):
Burton Brown calling over the braak three h three seven
one three eight two five to five
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.