September 10, 2026 • 36 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Well, the American.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Way is that your chief law enforcement officer is supposed
to be a tough person, supposed to be a strong person,
especially when it's your attorney general, right? I mean, the
people's lawyer, the people's lawyer better be strong. Better be tough.
Better be up for a fight. Jenna Griswold, the Democrat
nominee for AG, is now refusing to debate Michael Allen? Wow. 303-713-8255, DAN-57739. Now,
(00:44):
I know that doesn't tell you anything about Griswold you
didn't already know, but unfortunately, you're about to see another
example of how much, not all, how much of the
Denver media is in the pocket of the Democratic Party
in Colorado and just protects Colorado Democrats.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
That should be.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
An enormous everyday story. That should be the kind of
story where you see, for example, Kyle Clark's crew go
out and follow Griswold around until she addresses it on camera.
I mean, you're talking about somebody because, you know, that's
what would probably happen to a Republican. And Michael Allen
can't wait to debate her for obvious reasons. He's a
real trial lawyer. He's a real lawyer. Yes, he has
(01:28):
the piece of paper, but he's actually practiced law. It's
been his career. It's been his obsession, his focus. And
he's very good at it, which is what you'd want
in an attorney general. So especially when it comes to
a job like that. Yeah, you can bet if the
Republican wouldn't debate, they'd be forced to answer for it
on camera, even if it was somebody following them to
the grocery store. But this will be, if it's even
(01:52):
a one-day story, it'll be a passing story, which is
really a disservice to the people of Colorado because they
should know. The news media should make it their job
to make sure that every Colorado, by the time they vote,
knows that the Democrat candidate for attorney general is refusing
to debate. And tell me if you think I'm right
(02:15):
or wrong in my belief that it says so much more,
and it's... an even bigger issue in an attorney general's race.
I mean, in any race, right? In any race, if
a candidate will not debate, and listen, you can have
a reasonable disagreement about the particular debate moderator or whatever,
but in any race, if a candidate won't debate, that's
(02:37):
got to be considered a major negative for the candidate,
assuming that the debate would be on fair terms, fair moderator,
all that good stuff, which in Colorado, it usually isn't,
but assuming it was, yeah. If a candidate's not willing
to debate, that's a strike against that candidate. But I
submit to you, when it comes to attorney general, where
that very job is being the people's lawyer, and what
(03:00):
does the lawyer do? The lawyer stands up and speaks.
The lawyer stands up and advocates. The lawyer stands up
and fights for the people of Colorado. If a major
party candidate will not debate in that race, I think
that should be considered an automatic disqualifier. Now, what I
think doesn't really matter What matters is how the media
is going to treat it, because that's the only way
(03:21):
that people of Colorado are going to find out about it.
So this should be an everyday type story, but it
won't be, because what happens in Colorado is when there's
a really bad story for a Democrat, it sometimes gets reported,
but it gets reported in a check-the-box kind of way.
So they can say, oh, yeah, we reported on that,
(03:42):
but it doesn't get reported the way it should be
or the way it would be if it was a
conservative who did that bad thing, because then it would
be an everyday story until all the people knew and
the conservative was run out of office or out of
town or both. So, yeah, Jenna Griswold will not debate
Michael Allen. So let's see how the media treats that. 303-713-8255,
(04:04):
DAN 57739. I understand there are some folks, rational folks,
who might call or text and say, hey, that's the
first sign they've seen of higher intelligence on the part
of Griswold is because she knows she would get her
clock cleaned. As my friend Peter Boyle says, if you
knew where you were going to die, you wouldn't go there.
(04:26):
So some may think, at least we know there's, you know,
functioning there. And I don't mean that in the pejorative.
I just mean we have not seen together in Colorado.
And I've been both. I've been a Democrat and I'm
a Republican. I don't think I've, maybe I was, I
had to be unaffiliated for a certain number of years
in between. because I left the Democratic Party when it
(04:47):
left me, but I had all those negative stereotypes about Republicans,
so I did not become a Republican in the beginning.
So I must have spent a few years as an unaffiliated.
And then I just said, holy cow, man, you cannot
have any real big-time impact as an unaffiliated. The only
way you can advance your causes is to be part
of a major political party. So then I started checking
(05:09):
out the GOP and was very pleasantly surprised.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
But.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Not perfect, but a lot better than the Democrats in very,
very important ways, too. But anyway, I digress, which I've
never done before, right? So anyway, yeah, we're in a
situation here right now where you have a candidate in
Jenna Griswold like we've never seen before, Democrat or Republican,
(05:36):
somebody so grossly, obviously incompetent. And somebody, and I'm talking
about provable ways here, and we've talked about it at
length on air. And then somebody who is obviously so
dangerous as a hyper-partisan, so dangerous in terms of abusing
(05:56):
the position. And then somebody who's been so blatantly dishonest.
I mean, to the point, at least it's funny. I mean,
if you're going to pick something to lie about, and
you're running for attorney general, To lie and say you
argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, at least that's Saturday
night live stuff. But all I'm saying is across party lines,
we haven't seen a candidate this deeply flawed and dangerous.
(06:21):
And I'll stand by that. And please shoot at it.
If you can name anybody else from any party, I'm
talking major party stuff, please hit me with it because
I will prove my case. We have not in the
modern history of Colorado, so let's say the last 60 years,
We have not seen a candidate as deeply flawed and
(06:42):
dangerous as Jenna Griswold. And this is going to be
another great test. And I know you're going to say, oh, Dan,
you're being naive. We already know how this test works out.
But I'm not naive, and I do have some hope.
And so this is a real test to the media. Because, listen,
everybody knows, right? I have a lot of Democrat friends
(07:04):
and Democrat friends at high levels. I'm just telling you.
Everybody knows that everything I just said about her is true.
And there are many, many, many Democrats, including at high,
high levels, who view her as flat out dangerous as
Attorney General. And so, you know, the Democrat media, which
is most of it, knows that too. So this will
be a real test of the media as to whether
(07:25):
it's willing to rise above partisanship and literally for the
good of the state. start regularly exposing Jenna Griswold. You
would think it would have happened before, and I'm not
talking about one-day stories. Those are meaningless. But the regular
coverage that's constantly being advanced and then pressuring the candidate,
the subject of the investigation, into addressing it publicly. There's
(07:49):
been none of that on her, none of that from
the media. So a real test of the media here.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
So we got that going with us. Jenna Griswold refusing
to debate Michael Allen. And, you know, I think back to,
and I went back and watched some tapes of it also,
my good friend and the managing partner of our law firm,
John Kellner, debating Phil Weiser when they ran against each other.
(08:19):
And those were high, high level debates. Those were the
kind of debates the people of Colorado deserved. And my partner,
John Kellner, was absolutely masterful because that's what he is.
It's also why he's a tremendous trial lawyer. And Phil Weiser,
he was no slouch. I mean, listen, Weiser ideologically I
disagree with, and he hasn't had the kind of active
(08:42):
attorney practice that you would want an attorney general, but
he has been a real lawyer. The man clerked on
the U.S. Supreme Court, right? He's been a real lawyer.
And so those are the kind of debates that people deserve.
But Griswold just turning tail and running away from debates
in an attorney general's race? Yeah, let's see what the
media does with that. And let's hope, let's hope that
(09:06):
there's enough money for Michael Allen that he can start
to get the word out about her, but also about himself,
because he is a really appealing candidate. You know, my goodness,
I can't believe ballots are dropping in just a few weeks.
So the time is running short for people to learn
the truth about all this. Yeah, so we're going to
have a lot today. We're going to have some more
(09:27):
sound for some more Lindsey Clancy case jurors who are
coming forward. And then the lawyer who did so well
during trial and such a disservice to her and the
profession and the jurors post-trial, this from him. He's not
quite the silent type. Maybe our computers boycott.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
I didn't dox anybody on that case. All I said
was that I was upset about the verdict that was
never returned.
Speaker 5 (09:53):
For those who are looking at this lone juror as
a hero, as someone who, despite the pressure... from a
lot other jurors, stayed true to their conviction and still
decided to vote with their conscience, what's wrong with that?
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Didn't apply the law. According to the jurors. Looked the
judge in the eye under oath and said he could
apply the law.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Didn't.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
Couldn't.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Ooh, hold out juror, whoever you are. I every now
and then take on some really important public interest cases
for free, and I'll take yours. I'll take yours as
long as the facts support you here, because what he
just said about you is potentially defamatory. if in fact
(10:47):
you did apply the law and came to a different
conclusion from the others, that's defamation. You are not a
public figure. You can sue his behind off. Now, if
you did not apply the law, if you in fact
had reasonable doubt and then simply refused to apply the law,
then it's not defamation because it's true. But I would
(11:09):
do that case as a matter of public service and principle.
If this juror did apply the law and simply came
to a different conclusion, that's defamation. And it's not protected
because that statement was not made in a courtroom. It
was made in the media to attack that juror. You're
on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 6 (11:31):
He described himself as a person who hates Christianity, says
that God is transgender. He called the American flag a
complicated symbol of hate, claimed that the Ten Commandments are
a form of fascism. And when he was asked what
he loved most in the world, he said, I love
transgender children, which.
(11:56):
He was also somebody that hated eating meat. But he
ran a campaign to beat meat. He called it beat meat.
I don't know what the hell he meant by that.
These people are going to tell me what the hell
is he wants to beat meat.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
President getting back in fighting form. But this Tallarico talk
about a target rich environment. I know we're in Colorado.
We don't care about Tallarico except when we do. That's
an important Senate seat, right? GOP needs to hold on
to that. Ken Paxton, not the strongest candidate. Looks like
Elon Musk is ready to spend at least $ 50 million
in Texas if it looks like Paxton has a chance
(12:40):
to win. So let's hope Musk goes all in there.
And while we're talking about this, because this does relate
to Colorado, Telerico now doing an about-face on the number
of sexes and about men in girls' sports. And hopefully
that's a good sign for Colorado. Erin Lee, a frequent
guest and guest host on this show, the force of
(13:01):
nature grassroots organizer, who has with others now put under
her leadership, put these critical ballot measures on the ballot.
Coloradans get a chance to vote now on whether you
should be able to mutilate kids while they're still kids
or whether the doctors have to wait till they're 18.
And Erin says, no, you shouldn't be able to mutilate kids.
Let's hope Coloradans agree with her. And if you can
(13:24):
help that ballot measure in any way, I think it's 133, 134, 135. Now,
double check that, but give some money if you can.
Boots on the ground, even more important. But some good
news in Tallarico's moonwalking here. Because if he's backing up
on this, hopefully a lot of other people are.
Speaker 7 (13:42):
Down here standing with me, you can confidently say there
are two sexes, a man and a woman.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
Absolutely.
Speaker 7 (13:48):
Speaking of gender, would you vote in favor of a
national ban for transgender surgeries when it comes to minors?
Speaker 8 (13:56):
Absolutely.
Speaker 9 (13:56):
And in fact, in the legislature, I voted for an
amendment that would have restricted the bill in question. to
a ban on surgeries for minors.
Speaker 7 (14:06):
In 2023, you voted against SB 14. That was the
Texas law banning transgender surgeries for minors and puberty blockers.
How come you voted against that?
Speaker 8 (14:17):
Because the bill was overly broad.
Speaker 9 (14:19):
And in fact, if you go back and check, I
voted for a major amendment to limit the bill to
banning surgery.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
You know, hey, listen, he's doing the Michael Jackson thing,
but no offense to Michael Jackson. That's fine as long
as he gets it right in the end. I don't
care if he even believes it. right? As long as
he votes the right way. I don't want him in
the U.S. Senate. I just think that's it because I
don't trust him. I think he's a liar. And I
think he's lying to get elected to the Senate. And
(14:45):
so what's critical is he feels he needs to lie
in order to win. That's what's important here because that's
a bellwether of where the public is at. Not that
it takes any expensive political consultant to tell you that.
Just look at the 2024 presidential. So Hopefully that's a
(15:05):
good sign for Colorado and that Coloradans in the face
of a lot of money from the left will just say, no,
this is crazy. You can't be cutting off, you know,
body parts of kids while they're still kids. Shouldn't be
doing it anytime, but you shouldn't do it while they're kids.
And then he also has been reversing himself on boys
and girls sports. So encouraging for Colorado. I want to
(15:27):
get back to this lawyer for Lindsey Clancy. And my
belief that he may have committed big-time defamation here, depending
on one key fact. But listen to his quote.
Speaker 4 (15:40):
I didn't dox anybody on that case. All I said
was that I was upset about the verdict that was
never returned.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
And let me start with this doxing thing, right? Because
he's right about that. You don't dox somebody when you
publicly talk about them. You don't dox somebody when you
use their name. You dox somebody. Now, when it's a juror,
that's different. They're private unless they decide to go public.
(16:11):
But generally speaking, you don't dox somebody just because you
talk about them or use their name. You dox somebody
when you start giving out private information. So I agree
with him that he has not doxed anybody because he
has not given out the juror's name, nor should he.
And if he did, he should be disbarred.
Speaker 5 (16:29):
For those who are looking at this lone juror as
a hero, as someone who, despite the pressure from 11
other jurors, stayed true to their conviction and still decided
to vote with their conscience.
Speaker 10 (16:44):
What's wrong with that?
Speaker 4 (16:46):
Didn't apply the law. Looked the judge in the eye
under oath and said he could apply the law. Didn't, couldn't.
So you tell me what you think of that.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
Well, I think that if the juror did apply the
law and simply came to a different conclusion, then what
that lawyer just said is defamatory. The juror is not
a public figure. You don't become a public figure by
agreeing to serve on a jury. Now, if you serve
on a jury and then decide to go do an
ABC interview and will be playing some amazing sound, not
(17:22):
necessarily in a good way, from a juror on ABC shortly,
then you're a public figure. But if you're just this
holdout And somebody then defames you. They don't get public
figure status for you. So the big question here with
this juror is, did the juror simply defy the law?
(17:46):
So let's say if, and I'm saying if, I have
no idea whether this actually happened. If the juror said
to the fellow jurors, yes, I have reasonable doubt, but
I'm not willing to follow the law, then the juror
was wrong to do that. And there would be no
defamation case because what the lawyer would be saying about
the holdout juror would be true. But if the juror
(18:10):
never said that and simply took the position that when
I apply the law to these facts, I come to
a different conclusion, that is grossly defamatory in my opinion.
And I will repeat my offer to do that case
for free for that juror. If that juror did apply
the law and just came to a different conclusion, So
(18:32):
it just, I've got to tell you, as a guy
who's been trying cases for 43 years and I'm trying
another one next week, it just offends me to my
marrow that in any kind of case, it'd be a
case nobody cares about or talks about. But in a
case like this, the whole nation is watching for this
lawyer to be on a personal crusade against this juror.
(18:55):
It's one of the worst things I've ever seen. I've
seen a lot of bad things. You're on the Dan
Kaplan Show. Bishop Robert Barron and Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 11 (19:15):
Hello, everybody.
Speaker 4 (19:16):
This is Bishop Barron.
Speaker 11 (19:16):
I'm coming to you on this somber anniversary of the
brutal murder of Charlie Kirk just a year ago. It's funny,
in a way it seems much longer ago, in a
way it seems like it just happened yesterday, but one
year ago today. So I'm here to urge you, first
of all, to pray for him, pray for the repose
of his soul. I must say, as I think about
(19:37):
Charlie's death, I go back to a supreme irony Very
often when he was on college campuses, people would say,
what are you doing here? Why are you having these events?
His answer was always the same. It was because when
people stop talking to each other, bad things happen. And
we mentioned like when couples stop talking to each other,
divorce happens. Then he would say, when we stop talking
(19:59):
about our political differences with each other, then violence happens.
The fact that he died violently, precisely while he was
doing that work on a college campus, As I said
a year ago in a sermon I gave, he died
with a microphone in his hand, not with a gun
or a knife or a weapon. He died with an
instrument of communication in his hand. That's what he stood for,
(20:20):
was open, honest, public dialogue. And he felt, and he
was right, that when that breaks down, then violence tends
to break out.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Very wise, and it goes on from there. This Bishop
Barron is fantastic. And whether you're Catholic or not, atheist, whatever,
he's a very, very wise person. And I listen to
him literally every single morning. When I get up, go
down to work out, I turn him on. And then
I'll listen to other stuff. But he does a lot
of good five, six, seven, eight-minute YouTubes. And yeah, very
(20:50):
wise guy. And he's been very courageous when it comes
to Charlie Kirk. And so I'm glad he spoke out
on this very sad anniversary.
Speaker 8 (20:57):
303-713-8255.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
But a reminder, as we head into 9-11, 25th Remembrance Tomorrow, that,
you know, for those who can't win based on truth
and logic and morality, violence becomes their path to victory
(21:17):
in their minds. And so, and these are, I'm not
comparing the American left to Al-Qaeda, but the point is
that you have the same dynamic at work. And with
the American left at this point, I'm not talking about
your typical Democrat. They have no interest in violence. They'd
condemn it. But there are many activists on the left
(21:39):
who absolutely believe in violence, advocate it, support it, encourage it.
And we've talked about a thousand different examples of that
on this show. And then when it comes to, you know,
radical Islamic terrorists and others, you know, who have you know,
just done the calculation and determined that the way they're
(22:00):
going to take over the world is through violence and
suppressing and subjugation. You know, I just wish tomorrow would
be more of a reminder of the reality of part
of the evil we face in the world. We face
a lot evil in other forms as well, you know,
such as Putin, Xi, etc. But you look at tip
(22:22):
of the spear, in terms of the most immediate threat
of mass destruction of the world, should they get a
nuclear weapon. And that's the radical Islamist regime in Iran.
But tomorrow won't be anywhere near the type of reminder
or lesson it should be in this country. And think
about how many people weren't born when 9-11 happened. And
(22:44):
the media has so understated it and reported it and, and,
only infrequently revisited it because, again, it doesn't fit the
leftist agenda. So tomorrow we'll be suppressed. You'll see everybody
will do, all the stations will do some pro forma
type of remembrance, but not what it deserves. I just
think it's critical every single school kid, at least once
(23:09):
a year, see the video of those planes hitting the
Twin Towers. I mean, they have to have an understanding
of our history. Not so they judge any particular religion
or people or faith or anything like that in some
stereotypical way, no. But so they know the reality of
(23:30):
who the enemy is here. And the fact that the
people who were willing to do that on that day
and still advocate it, they are enemies of America. They
are not Islam. You know, they don't represent Islam. That's
not the point. But kids need to understand the reality
of our true enemies out there. 303-713-8255, DAN 57739. I'm
(23:54):
also bummed out that it's on a Friday. You know,
it's such an important every year on 9-11.
Speaker 4 (24:00):
It's important.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
But the 25th, yeah, I wish it was on a Monday.
So the big conversations that come out of that could
just at least have a week to roll out. Speaking
of rolling out, we're starting to see a lot more
jurors from the Lindsey Clancy case come out. This one,
you've just got to hear. This is a gentleman named
Nick Dargy. And he, obviously one of the 11. And
(24:24):
he's talking now about his view of the holdout juror.
But listen to the story he tells and the way
he tells it. And see if you react with the
same kind of disgust that he does.
Speaker 8 (24:37):
But he wouldn't engage or couldn't find something to support
his view.
Speaker 12 (24:42):
There was times he wouldn't engage, like he'd be scrolling
on his phone while people were talking to him, things
like that.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Dargie told us one time he confronted the holdout after
the man picked up what Clancy used to strangle her kids.
Speaker 12 (24:56):
He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed
an empty water bottle, and tied the band around.
Speaker 10 (25:06):
The water bottle and pulled it.
Speaker 8 (25:08):
Did he explain why he did that?
Speaker 10 (25:10):
No.
Speaker 12 (25:11):
He might have.
Speaker 10 (25:12):
I'm not entirely. I think I was just so shocked
that he.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
Did he need to explain it? Wasn't it pretty obvious
what he was doing? Now, listen, I'm not critical of
the 11. I'm not critical of the holdout. I don't
know enough to be critical of either. Just don't. And
nobody does. Nobody who wasn't in that room knows enough. So,
(25:37):
but my point is, would he have to explain that?
Isn't he just making the point about these three children
being brutally, violently murdered in really a torture-type killing?
Speaker 10 (25:52):
Did that, Mike.
Speaker 8 (25:53):
Is that a mimic of how she killed the children?
Speaker 10 (25:57):
Yeah, I assume so, yeah.
Speaker 8 (26:00):
What did you think when he did that?
Speaker 10 (26:02):
I was shocked. It didn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 8 (26:03):
We're not.
Speaker 12 (26:05):
In here to play detective, it's not a game of Clue. Like,
this is serious.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
But wait a second. I mean, I don't understand that comment.
And I'm not saying that detective's a direct analogy, but
jurors are in there to apply the law to the
facts and to render a verdict. jurors aren't in there
to determine the law. The court hands down the law
(26:33):
and jurors take an oath to follow it. But I'm
not sure I understand that criticism. I mean, a lot
of the work a lot of jurors do is to
figure out what happened and why.
Speaker 10 (26:45):
Ask them, why are you doing that?
Speaker 8 (26:48):
That's a ban that was used to strangle a child.
Speaker 10 (26:50):
It's disgusting.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Yeah, the ban being used to strangle the child is very,
very disgusting. If the juror was just trying to make
a point in a more vivid way after words had
failed that the juror thought might get across, I wouldn't
have a criticism of that. Again, the missing link here,
what I don't know, you don't know, nobody outside that
room knows, is did this juror, as one suggested, but
(27:20):
didn't go all the way there, did this juror actually say,
I have reasonable doubt, but I am not willing to
follow this law and to quit? If the juror said that,
then yeah. I mean, that's wrong. You can't do that.
But if it's simply a matter of the one disagreeing
(27:42):
with the ultimate conclusion, then again, I go back to
if that's the case, then I think this attack from
the Clancy lawyer is actionable defamation.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
I didn't dox anybody on that case. All I said
was that I was upset. about the verdict that was
never returned.
Speaker 5 (27:59):
For those who are looking at this lone juror as
a hero, as someone who, despite the pressure from 11
other jurors, stayed true to their conviction and still decided
to vote with their conscience, what's wrong with that?
Speaker 4 (28:16):
Didn't apply the law. Looked the judge in the eye
under oath and said he could apply the law.
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Didn't.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Couldn't. Wow.
Speaker 10 (28:29):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Depending on what the facts are, that could be a
massive defamation action against that lawyer. Because what he just
said about this juror, who is not a public figure,
by the way, so that the public figure standard would
not be applied here. What he said is he starts
with the implication that he lied to the judge. But
(28:51):
then he goes on to say he just refused to
apply the law.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
Unless that juror said in there, I do believe there's
reasonable doubt. I think A, and more importantly, the attacks
of this lawyer are just absolutely despicable and actionable. And B,
I think the juror would have a heck of a
defamation case. Again, it depends on facts. We just can't
know from the outside. I really hope the holdout will speak. Shannon,
(29:23):
you think he's going to talk? You think he's going
to do an interview at some point?
Speaker 10 (29:26):
I would be terrified.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
Well, what's interesting is you go on certain social media
at this point. Some would describe it as conservative, that
would be overbroad. And the holdout is a real hero.
So it'll be interesting to see if he does talk.
And let me throw this out there. We'll come back
and pick it up on this.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
I'll start with some text. If you were the holdout,
would you go public? Would you go public in a
media interview? Would you write and sell a book? Or
would you try to stay anonymous the rest of your life?
You're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 13 (30:11):
Because we've done so well, and because our country is
making so much money, that only I can make this
promise to you.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
And here is my promise.
Speaker 13 (30:23):
If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the
United States Senate, both of them, because of our economic,
tremendous economic success, like in history, we've never had anything
like what's happening. But because of our tremendous strength and
success economically. I will issue a dividend to every adult
(30:47):
citizen in the United States.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
Of America for $ 5, 000. So what do you think of that?
Speaker 2 (30:58):
What do you think of that promise? Would love your take. 303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
If you just joined, thank you. We've been talking a
lot about developments in the Lindsay Clancy case, a number
of jurors coming forward now with remarkable things to say
about what happened in the jury room. The attorney for
Lindsay Clancy attacking the holdout again, in a way, I think,
(31:22):
is going to set up a very large defamation action
if the juror, in fact, followed the law and came
to a different conclusion, the lawyer accusing the juror of
deliberately not following the law. So that all turns on
a critical fact we don't have available to us. Did
the juror say to the others, that he believed there
was reasonable doubt, but he was not willing to acquit.
(31:44):
If he did, then he was wrong. He was wrong
to do it. But if he did not say that
and simply came to a different conclusion than not, then
I think the lawyer's very vulnerable on this. I want
to get to some text. I do want to say again, please,
no matter where you are right now, when the light
turns green, when your light turns green, do not go.
(32:05):
Look both ways. When the light turns green, look both ways.
I see it on air all the time. I have
people calling text all the time saying it saved their life.
I saw it happen again, both yesterday and today for me.
When a big old, and I ordered up the video,
I should have the video by tomorrow. A big old,
(32:25):
had to be probably a 65,000 pound dump truck, ran
a red light in front of me at probably 70
miles an hour. And I'm going to get that video
and I'm going to call that company And I'm just
going to say, hey, you got to protect the people
on the road. And then this morning, it was a
large pickup going the other direction. So it wouldn't have
(32:46):
clocked me if I went right away, but it blatantly
ran the red lights. So when the light turns green,
look both ways. That's how out of control it's gotten
in Colorado. People routinely running red lights at high speed
because they have no fear of law enforcement because the
left has undermined law enforcement. So save yourself. Look both
ways when the light turns green. Let me get to
(33:08):
some text. Dan, I thought jurors weren't supposed to do
their own tests, and why was he allowed to scroll
through his phone during deliberation? Excellent point on the second
part of that, Texter, and one I should have picked
up on. I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't. Let
me play that sound again for those who weren't with us.
This is Clancy juror Nick Dargey, and he just spoke out.
(33:32):
Here's the sound.
Speaker 8 (33:34):
But he wouldn't engage or couldn't find something to support
his view.
Speaker 12 (33:39):
There was times he wouldn't engage, like he'd be scrolling
on his phone while people are talking to him.
Speaker 10 (33:45):
Yeah, things like that.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
Darjeet told us one time he confronted the holdout after the- Let's.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Start with that. That could not have been in the
deliberation room. Could not have been. In my 43 years
of experience, now I haven't tried a case in Massachusetts,
but I can't imagine Any place in the country where
jurors are allowed to have their cell phones in the
deliberation room. So my guess is that that would have
(34:13):
been a conversation like out during a break. It could
not just could not have been in the jury room
because think about it. They wanted to get rid of
this guy. All they had to do was go to
the court and say he's looking at his cell phone
during deliberations. Guy would have been tossed out a window,
metaphorically speaking.
Speaker 3 (34:34):
Yeah, you can't do that.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
I tried a big case once where a juror got
tossed in the middle of the case for glancing at
his cell phone while in a break in open court.
So there is no way, can't be anywhere in America,
a juror is allowed to have the cell phone in deliberation.
So thank you, Texter, for picking up on that. And
(34:56):
then the Texter's point about testing, here's what he's talking
about with one of the bands that was used to
to brutally murder the three children.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
The man picked up what Clancy used to strangle her kids.
Speaker 12 (35:08):
He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed
an empty water bottle, and tied the band around the water.
Speaker 10 (35:18):
Bottle and pulled it.
Speaker 8 (35:19):
Did he explain why he did that?
Speaker 10 (35:21):
No. He might have. I'm not entirely sure. I think
I was just so shocked that he did that.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Obviously, wasn't he, as the interviewer says, wasn't he trying
to make a point to other jurors? Hey, remember, this
is what happened. To the texter's question about that being
a test, no, I wouldn't look at it like that
at all. It was the juror clearly just trying to
remind the other jurors as to what had actually happened here,
because there's nothing about the water bottle that would mimic
(35:53):
one of the children, and there was no doubt about
the fact she had killed the children and how she
killed the children. He was just making a demonstrative point. Yeah,
but great text. I really do appreciate that.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
Hey, when we come back, we'll continue along these lines
because there's so much interesting stuff going on in connection
with that case, but I also want to come back
to Jenna Griswold. refusing to debate Michael Allen? And what
do you think of the president promising $ 5, 000 to each
American if the Republicans win?
Well, the American.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Way is that your chief law enforcement officer is supposed
to be a tough person, supposed to be a strong person,
especially when it's your attorney general, right? I mean, the
people's lawyer, the people's lawyer better be strong. Better be tough.
Better be up for a fight. Jenna Griswold, the Democrat
nominee for AG, is now refusing to debate Michael Allen? Wow. 303-713-8255, DAN-57739. Now,
(00:44):
I know that doesn't tell you anything about Griswold you
didn't already know, but unfortunately, you're about to see another
example of how much, not all, how much of the
Denver media is in the pocket of the Democratic Party
in Colorado and just protects Colorado Democrats.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
That should be.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
An enormous everyday story. That should be the kind of
story where you see, for example, Kyle Clark's crew go
out and follow Griswold around until she addresses it on camera.
I mean, you're talking about somebody because, you know, that's
what would probably happen to a Republican. And Michael Allen
can't wait to debate her for obvious reasons. He's a
real trial lawyer. He's a real lawyer. Yes, he has
(01:28):
the piece of paper, but he's actually practiced law. It's
been his career. It's been his obsession, his focus. And
he's very good at it, which is what you'd want
in an attorney general. So especially when it comes to
a job like that. Yeah, you can bet if the
Republican wouldn't debate, they'd be forced to answer for it
on camera, even if it was somebody following them to
the grocery store. But this will be, if it's even
(01:52):
a one-day story, it'll be a passing story, which is
really a disservice to the people of Colorado because they
should know. The news media should make it their job
to make sure that every Colorado, by the time they vote,
knows that the Democrat candidate for attorney general is refusing
to debate. And tell me if you think I'm right
(02:15):
or wrong in my belief that it says so much more,
and it's... an even bigger issue in an attorney general's race.
I mean, in any race, right? In any race, if
a candidate will not debate, and listen, you can have
a reasonable disagreement about the particular debate moderator or whatever,
but in any race, if a candidate won't debate, that's
(02:37):
got to be considered a major negative for the candidate,
assuming that the debate would be on fair terms, fair moderator,
all that good stuff, which in Colorado, it usually isn't,
but assuming it was, yeah. If a candidate's not willing
to debate, that's a strike against that candidate. But I
submit to you, when it comes to attorney general, where
that very job is being the people's lawyer, and what
(03:00):
does the lawyer do? The lawyer stands up and speaks.
The lawyer stands up and advocates. The lawyer stands up
and fights for the people of Colorado. If a major
party candidate will not debate in that race, I think
that should be considered an automatic disqualifier. Now, what I
think doesn't really matter What matters is how the media
is going to treat it, because that's the only way
(03:21):
that people of Colorado are going to find out about it.
So this should be an everyday type story, but it
won't be, because what happens in Colorado is when there's
a really bad story for a Democrat, it sometimes gets reported,
but it gets reported in a check-the-box kind of way.
So they can say, oh, yeah, we reported on that,
(03:42):
but it doesn't get reported the way it should be
or the way it would be if it was a
conservative who did that bad thing, because then it would
be an everyday story until all the people knew and
the conservative was run out of office or out of
town or both. So, yeah, Jenna Griswold will not debate
Michael Allen. So let's see how the media treats that. 303-713-8255,
(04:04):
DAN 57739. I understand there are some folks, rational folks,
who might call or text and say, hey, that's the
first sign they've seen of higher intelligence on the part
of Griswold is because she knows she would get her
clock cleaned. As my friend Peter Boyle says, if you
knew where you were going to die, you wouldn't go there.
(04:26):
So some may think, at least we know there's, you know,
functioning there. And I don't mean that in the pejorative.
I just mean we have not seen together in Colorado.
And I've been both. I've been a Democrat and I'm
a Republican. I don't think I've, maybe I was, I
had to be unaffiliated for a certain number of years
in between. because I left the Democratic Party when it
(04:47):
left me, but I had all those negative stereotypes about Republicans,
so I did not become a Republican in the beginning.
So I must have spent a few years as an unaffiliated.
And then I just said, holy cow, man, you cannot
have any real big-time impact as an unaffiliated. The only
way you can advance your causes is to be part
of a major political party. So then I started checking
(05:09):
out the GOP and was very pleasantly surprised.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
But.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Not perfect, but a lot better than the Democrats in very,
very important ways, too. But anyway, I digress, which I've
never done before, right? So anyway, yeah, we're in a
situation here right now where you have a candidate in
Jenna Griswold like we've never seen before, Democrat or Republican,
(05:36):
somebody so grossly, obviously incompetent. And somebody, and I'm talking
about provable ways here, and we've talked about it at
length on air. And then somebody who is obviously so
dangerous as a hyper-partisan, so dangerous in terms of abusing
(05:56):
the position. And then somebody who's been so blatantly dishonest.
I mean, to the point, at least it's funny. I mean,
if you're going to pick something to lie about, and
you're running for attorney general, To lie and say you
argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, at least that's Saturday
night live stuff. But all I'm saying is across party lines,
we haven't seen a candidate this deeply flawed and dangerous.
(06:21):
And I'll stand by that. And please shoot at it.
If you can name anybody else from any party, I'm
talking major party stuff, please hit me with it because
I will prove my case. We have not in the
modern history of Colorado, so let's say the last 60 years,
We have not seen a candidate as deeply flawed and
(06:42):
dangerous as Jenna Griswold. And this is going to be
another great test. And I know you're going to say, oh, Dan,
you're being naive. We already know how this test works out.
But I'm not naive, and I do have some hope.
And so this is a real test to the media. Because, listen,
everybody knows, right? I have a lot of Democrat friends
(07:04):
and Democrat friends at high levels. I'm just telling you.
Everybody knows that everything I just said about her is true.
And there are many, many, many Democrats, including at high,
high levels, who view her as flat out dangerous as
Attorney General. And so, you know, the Democrat media, which
is most of it, knows that too. So this will
be a real test of the media as to whether
(07:25):
it's willing to rise above partisanship and literally for the
good of the state. start regularly exposing Jenna Griswold. You
would think it would have happened before, and I'm not
talking about one-day stories. Those are meaningless. But the regular
coverage that's constantly being advanced and then pressuring the candidate,
the subject of the investigation, into addressing it publicly. There's
(07:49):
been none of that on her, none of that from
the media. So a real test of the media here.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
So we got that going with us. Jenna Griswold refusing
to debate Michael Allen. And, you know, I think back to,
and I went back and watched some tapes of it also,
my good friend and the managing partner of our law firm,
John Kellner, debating Phil Weiser when they ran against each other.
(08:19):
And those were high, high level debates. Those were the
kind of debates the people of Colorado deserved. And my partner,
John Kellner, was absolutely masterful because that's what he is.
It's also why he's a tremendous trial lawyer. And Phil Weiser,
he was no slouch. I mean, listen, Weiser ideologically I
disagree with, and he hasn't had the kind of active
(08:42):
attorney practice that you would want an attorney general, but
he has been a real lawyer. The man clerked on
the U.S. Supreme Court, right? He's been a real lawyer.
And so those are the kind of debates that people deserve.
But Griswold just turning tail and running away from debates
in an attorney general's race? Yeah, let's see what the
media does with that. And let's hope, let's hope that
(09:06):
there's enough money for Michael Allen that he can start
to get the word out about her, but also about himself,
because he is a really appealing candidate. You know, my goodness,
I can't believe ballots are dropping in just a few weeks.
So the time is running short for people to learn
the truth about all this. Yeah, so we're going to
have a lot today. We're going to have some more
(09:27):
sound for some more Lindsey Clancy case jurors who are
coming forward. And then the lawyer who did so well
during trial and such a disservice to her and the
profession and the jurors post-trial, this from him. He's not
quite the silent type. Maybe our computers boycott.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
I didn't dox anybody on that case. All I said
was that I was upset about the verdict that was
never returned.
Speaker 5 (09:53):
For those who are looking at this lone juror as
a hero, as someone who, despite the pressure... from a
lot other jurors, stayed true to their conviction and still
decided to vote with their conscience, what's wrong with that?
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Didn't apply the law. According to the jurors. Looked the
judge in the eye under oath and said he could
apply the law.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Didn't.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
Couldn't.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Ooh, hold out juror, whoever you are. I every now
and then take on some really important public interest cases
for free, and I'll take yours. I'll take yours as
long as the facts support you here, because what he
just said about you is potentially defamatory. if in fact
(10:47):
you did apply the law and came to a different
conclusion from the others, that's defamation. You are not a
public figure. You can sue his behind off. Now, if
you did not apply the law, if you in fact
had reasonable doubt and then simply refused to apply the law,
then it's not defamation because it's true. But I would
(11:09):
do that case as a matter of public service and principle.
If this juror did apply the law and simply came
to a different conclusion, that's defamation. And it's not protected
because that statement was not made in a courtroom. It
was made in the media to attack that juror. You're
on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 6 (11:31):
He described himself as a person who hates Christianity, says
that God is transgender. He called the American flag a
complicated symbol of hate, claimed that the Ten Commandments are
a form of fascism. And when he was asked what
he loved most in the world, he said, I love
transgender children, which.
(11:56):
He was also somebody that hated eating meat. But he
ran a campaign to beat meat. He called it beat meat.
I don't know what the hell he meant by that.
These people are going to tell me what the hell
is he wants to beat meat.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
President getting back in fighting form. But this Tallarico talk
about a target rich environment. I know we're in Colorado.
We don't care about Tallarico except when we do. That's
an important Senate seat, right? GOP needs to hold on
to that. Ken Paxton, not the strongest candidate. Looks like
Elon Musk is ready to spend at least $ 50 million
in Texas if it looks like Paxton has a chance
(12:40):
to win. So let's hope Musk goes all in there.
And while we're talking about this, because this does relate
to Colorado, Telerico now doing an about-face on the number
of sexes and about men in girls' sports. And hopefully
that's a good sign for Colorado. Erin Lee, a frequent
guest and guest host on this show, the force of
(13:01):
nature grassroots organizer, who has with others now put under
her leadership, put these critical ballot measures on the ballot.
Coloradans get a chance to vote now on whether you
should be able to mutilate kids while they're still kids
or whether the doctors have to wait till they're 18.
And Erin says, no, you shouldn't be able to mutilate kids.
Let's hope Coloradans agree with her. And if you can
(13:24):
help that ballot measure in any way, I think it's 133, 134, 135. Now,
double check that, but give some money if you can.
Boots on the ground, even more important. But some good
news in Tallarico's moonwalking here. Because if he's backing up
on this, hopefully a lot of other people are.
Speaker 7 (13:42):
Down here standing with me, you can confidently say there
are two sexes, a man and a woman.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
Absolutely.
Speaker 7 (13:48):
Speaking of gender, would you vote in favor of a
national ban for transgender surgeries when it comes to minors?
Speaker 8 (13:56):
Absolutely.
Speaker 9 (13:56):
And in fact, in the legislature, I voted for an
amendment that would have restricted the bill in question. to
a ban on surgeries for minors.
Speaker 7 (14:06):
In 2023, you voted against SB 14. That was the
Texas law banning transgender surgeries for minors and puberty blockers.
How come you voted against that?
Speaker 8 (14:17):
Because the bill was overly broad.
Speaker 9 (14:19):
And in fact, if you go back and check, I
voted for a major amendment to limit the bill to
banning surgery.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
You know, hey, listen, he's doing the Michael Jackson thing,
but no offense to Michael Jackson. That's fine as long
as he gets it right in the end. I don't
care if he even believes it. right? As long as
he votes the right way. I don't want him in
the U.S. Senate. I just think that's it because I
don't trust him. I think he's a liar. And I
think he's lying to get elected to the Senate. And
(14:45):
so what's critical is he feels he needs to lie
in order to win. That's what's important here because that's
a bellwether of where the public is at. Not that
it takes any expensive political consultant to tell you that.
Just look at the 2024 presidential. So Hopefully that's a
(15:05):
good sign for Colorado and that Coloradans in the face
of a lot of money from the left will just say, no,
this is crazy. You can't be cutting off, you know,
body parts of kids while they're still kids. Shouldn't be
doing it anytime, but you shouldn't do it while they're kids.
And then he also has been reversing himself on boys
and girls sports. So encouraging for Colorado. I want to
(15:27):
get back to this lawyer for Lindsey Clancy. And my
belief that he may have committed big-time defamation here, depending
on one key fact. But listen to his quote.
Speaker 4 (15:40):
I didn't dox anybody on that case. All I said
was that I was upset about the verdict that was
never returned.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
And let me start with this doxing thing, right? Because
he's right about that. You don't dox somebody when you
publicly talk about them. You don't dox somebody when you
use their name. You dox somebody. Now, when it's a juror,
that's different. They're private unless they decide to go public.
(16:11):
But generally speaking, you don't dox somebody just because you
talk about them or use their name. You dox somebody
when you start giving out private information. So I agree
with him that he has not doxed anybody because he
has not given out the juror's name, nor should he.
And if he did, he should be disbarred.
Speaker 5 (16:29):
For those who are looking at this lone juror as
a hero, as someone who, despite the pressure from 11
other jurors, stayed true to their conviction and still decided
to vote with their conscience.
Speaker 10 (16:44):
What's wrong with that?
Speaker 4 (16:46):
Didn't apply the law. Looked the judge in the eye
under oath and said he could apply the law. Didn't, couldn't.
So you tell me what you think of that.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
Well, I think that if the juror did apply the
law and simply came to a different conclusion, then what
that lawyer just said is defamatory. The juror is not
a public figure. You don't become a public figure by
agreeing to serve on a jury. Now, if you serve
on a jury and then decide to go do an
ABC interview and will be playing some amazing sound, not
(17:22):
necessarily in a good way, from a juror on ABC shortly,
then you're a public figure. But if you're just this
holdout And somebody then defames you. They don't get public
figure status for you. So the big question here with
this juror is, did the juror simply defy the law?
(17:46):
So let's say if, and I'm saying if, I have
no idea whether this actually happened. If the juror said
to the fellow jurors, yes, I have reasonable doubt, but
I'm not willing to follow the law, then the juror
was wrong to do that. And there would be no
defamation case because what the lawyer would be saying about
the holdout juror would be true. But if the juror
(18:10):
never said that and simply took the position that when
I apply the law to these facts, I come to
a different conclusion, that is grossly defamatory in my opinion.
And I will repeat my offer to do that case
for free for that juror. If that juror did apply
the law and just came to a different conclusion, So
(18:32):
it just, I've got to tell you, as a guy
who's been trying cases for 43 years and I'm trying
another one next week, it just offends me to my
marrow that in any kind of case, it'd be a
case nobody cares about or talks about. But in a
case like this, the whole nation is watching for this
lawyer to be on a personal crusade against this juror.
(18:55):
It's one of the worst things I've ever seen. I've
seen a lot of bad things. You're on the Dan
Kaplan Show. Bishop Robert Barron and Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 11 (19:15):
Hello, everybody.
Speaker 4 (19:16):
This is Bishop Barron.
Speaker 11 (19:16):
I'm coming to you on this somber anniversary of the
brutal murder of Charlie Kirk just a year ago. It's funny,
in a way it seems much longer ago, in a
way it seems like it just happened yesterday, but one
year ago today. So I'm here to urge you, first
of all, to pray for him, pray for the repose
of his soul. I must say, as I think about
(19:37):
Charlie's death, I go back to a supreme irony Very
often when he was on college campuses, people would say,
what are you doing here? Why are you having these events?
His answer was always the same. It was because when
people stop talking to each other, bad things happen. And
we mentioned like when couples stop talking to each other,
divorce happens. Then he would say, when we stop talking
(19:59):
about our political differences with each other, then violence happens.
The fact that he died violently, precisely while he was
doing that work on a college campus, As I said
a year ago in a sermon I gave, he died
with a microphone in his hand, not with a gun
or a knife or a weapon. He died with an
instrument of communication in his hand. That's what he stood for,
(20:20):
was open, honest, public dialogue. And he felt, and he
was right, that when that breaks down, then violence tends
to break out.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Very wise, and it goes on from there. This Bishop
Barron is fantastic. And whether you're Catholic or not, atheist, whatever,
he's a very, very wise person. And I listen to
him literally every single morning. When I get up, go
down to work out, I turn him on. And then
I'll listen to other stuff. But he does a lot
of good five, six, seven, eight-minute YouTubes. And yeah, very
(20:50):
wise guy. And he's been very courageous when it comes
to Charlie Kirk. And so I'm glad he spoke out
on this very sad anniversary.
Speaker 8 (20:57):
303-713-8255.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
But a reminder, as we head into 9-11, 25th Remembrance Tomorrow, that,
you know, for those who can't win based on truth
and logic and morality, violence becomes their path to victory
(21:17):
in their minds. And so, and these are, I'm not
comparing the American left to Al-Qaeda, but the point is
that you have the same dynamic at work. And with
the American left at this point, I'm not talking about
your typical Democrat. They have no interest in violence. They'd
condemn it. But there are many activists on the left
(21:39):
who absolutely believe in violence, advocate it, support it, encourage it.
And we've talked about a thousand different examples of that
on this show. And then when it comes to, you know,
radical Islamic terrorists and others, you know, who have you know,
just done the calculation and determined that the way they're
(22:00):
going to take over the world is through violence and
suppressing and subjugation. You know, I just wish tomorrow would
be more of a reminder of the reality of part
of the evil we face in the world. We face
a lot evil in other forms as well, you know,
such as Putin, Xi, etc. But you look at tip
(22:22):
of the spear, in terms of the most immediate threat
of mass destruction of the world, should they get a
nuclear weapon. And that's the radical Islamist regime in Iran.
But tomorrow won't be anywhere near the type of reminder
or lesson it should be in this country. And think
about how many people weren't born when 9-11 happened. And
(22:44):
the media has so understated it and reported it and, and,
only infrequently revisited it because, again, it doesn't fit the
leftist agenda. So tomorrow we'll be suppressed. You'll see everybody
will do, all the stations will do some pro forma
type of remembrance, but not what it deserves. I just
think it's critical every single school kid, at least once
(23:09):
a year, see the video of those planes hitting the
Twin Towers. I mean, they have to have an understanding
of our history. Not so they judge any particular religion
or people or faith or anything like that in some
stereotypical way, no. But so they know the reality of
(23:30):
who the enemy is here. And the fact that the
people who were willing to do that on that day
and still advocate it, they are enemies of America. They
are not Islam. You know, they don't represent Islam. That's
not the point. But kids need to understand the reality
of our true enemies out there. 303-713-8255, DAN 57739. I'm
(23:54):
also bummed out that it's on a Friday. You know,
it's such an important every year on 9-11.
Speaker 4 (24:00):
It's important.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
But the 25th, yeah, I wish it was on a Monday.
So the big conversations that come out of that could
just at least have a week to roll out. Speaking
of rolling out, we're starting to see a lot more
jurors from the Lindsey Clancy case come out. This one,
you've just got to hear. This is a gentleman named
Nick Dargy. And he, obviously one of the 11. And
(24:24):
he's talking now about his view of the holdout juror.
But listen to the story he tells and the way
he tells it. And see if you react with the
same kind of disgust that he does.
Speaker 8 (24:37):
But he wouldn't engage or couldn't find something to support
his view.
Speaker 12 (24:42):
There was times he wouldn't engage, like he'd be scrolling
on his phone while people were talking to him, things
like that.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Dargie told us one time he confronted the holdout after
the man picked up what Clancy used to strangle her kids.
Speaker 12 (24:56):
He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed
an empty water bottle, and tied the band around.
Speaker 10 (25:06):
The water bottle and pulled it.
Speaker 8 (25:08):
Did he explain why he did that?
Speaker 10 (25:10):
No.
Speaker 12 (25:11):
He might have.
Speaker 10 (25:12):
I'm not entirely. I think I was just so shocked
that he.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
Did he need to explain it? Wasn't it pretty obvious
what he was doing? Now, listen, I'm not critical of
the 11. I'm not critical of the holdout. I don't
know enough to be critical of either. Just don't. And
nobody does. Nobody who wasn't in that room knows enough. So,
(25:37):
but my point is, would he have to explain that?
Isn't he just making the point about these three children
being brutally, violently murdered in really a torture-type killing?
Speaker 10 (25:52):
Did that, Mike.
Speaker 8 (25:53):
Is that a mimic of how she killed the children?
Speaker 10 (25:57):
Yeah, I assume so, yeah.
Speaker 8 (26:00):
What did you think when he did that?
Speaker 10 (26:02):
I was shocked. It didn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 8 (26:03):
We're not.
Speaker 12 (26:05):
In here to play detective, it's not a game of Clue. Like,
this is serious.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
But wait a second. I mean, I don't understand that comment.
And I'm not saying that detective's a direct analogy, but
jurors are in there to apply the law to the
facts and to render a verdict. jurors aren't in there
to determine the law. The court hands down the law
(26:33):
and jurors take an oath to follow it. But I'm
not sure I understand that criticism. I mean, a lot
of the work a lot of jurors do is to
figure out what happened and why.
Speaker 10 (26:45):
Ask them, why are you doing that?
Speaker 8 (26:48):
That's a ban that was used to strangle a child.
Speaker 10 (26:50):
It's disgusting.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Yeah, the ban being used to strangle the child is very,
very disgusting. If the juror was just trying to make
a point in a more vivid way after words had
failed that the juror thought might get across, I wouldn't
have a criticism of that. Again, the missing link here,
what I don't know, you don't know, nobody outside that
room knows, is did this juror, as one suggested, but
(27:20):
didn't go all the way there, did this juror actually say,
I have reasonable doubt, but I am not willing to
follow this law and to quit? If the juror said that,
then yeah. I mean, that's wrong. You can't do that.
But if it's simply a matter of the one disagreeing
(27:42):
with the ultimate conclusion, then again, I go back to
if that's the case, then I think this attack from
the Clancy lawyer is actionable defamation.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
I didn't dox anybody on that case. All I said
was that I was upset. about the verdict that was
never returned.
Speaker 5 (27:59):
For those who are looking at this lone juror as
a hero, as someone who, despite the pressure from 11
other jurors, stayed true to their conviction and still decided
to vote with their conscience, what's wrong with that?
Speaker 4 (28:16):
Didn't apply the law. Looked the judge in the eye
under oath and said he could apply the law.
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Didn't.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Couldn't. Wow.
Speaker 10 (28:29):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Depending on what the facts are, that could be a
massive defamation action against that lawyer. Because what he just
said about this juror, who is not a public figure,
by the way, so that the public figure standard would
not be applied here. What he said is he starts
with the implication that he lied to the judge. But
(28:51):
then he goes on to say he just refused to
apply the law.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
Unless that juror said in there, I do believe there's
reasonable doubt. I think A, and more importantly, the attacks
of this lawyer are just absolutely despicable and actionable. And B,
I think the juror would have a heck of a
defamation case. Again, it depends on facts. We just can't
know from the outside. I really hope the holdout will speak. Shannon,
(29:23):
you think he's going to talk? You think he's going
to do an interview at some point?
Speaker 10 (29:26):
I would be terrified.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
Well, what's interesting is you go on certain social media
at this point. Some would describe it as conservative, that
would be overbroad. And the holdout is a real hero.
So it'll be interesting to see if he does talk.
And let me throw this out there. We'll come back
and pick it up on this.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
I'll start with some text. If you were the holdout,
would you go public? Would you go public in a
media interview? Would you write and sell a book? Or
would you try to stay anonymous the rest of your life?
You're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 13 (30:11):
Because we've done so well, and because our country is
making so much money, that only I can make this
promise to you.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
And here is my promise.
Speaker 13 (30:23):
If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the
United States Senate, both of them, because of our economic,
tremendous economic success, like in history, we've never had anything
like what's happening. But because of our tremendous strength and
success economically. I will issue a dividend to every adult
(30:47):
citizen in the United States.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
Of America for $ 5, 000. So what do you think of that?
Speaker 2 (30:58):
What do you think of that promise? Would love your take. 303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
If you just joined, thank you. We've been talking a
lot about developments in the Lindsay Clancy case, a number
of jurors coming forward now with remarkable things to say
about what happened in the jury room. The attorney for
Lindsay Clancy attacking the holdout again, in a way, I think,
(31:22):
is going to set up a very large defamation action
if the juror, in fact, followed the law and came
to a different conclusion, the lawyer accusing the juror of
deliberately not following the law. So that all turns on
a critical fact we don't have available to us. Did
the juror say to the others, that he believed there
was reasonable doubt, but he was not willing to acquit.
(31:44):
If he did, then he was wrong. He was wrong
to do it. But if he did not say that
and simply came to a different conclusion than not, then
I think the lawyer's very vulnerable on this. I want
to get to some text. I do want to say again, please,
no matter where you are right now, when the light
turns green, when your light turns green, do not go.
(32:05):
Look both ways. When the light turns green, look both ways.
I see it on air all the time. I have
people calling text all the time saying it saved their life.
I saw it happen again, both yesterday and today for me.
When a big old, and I ordered up the video,
I should have the video by tomorrow. A big old,
(32:25):
had to be probably a 65,000 pound dump truck, ran
a red light in front of me at probably 70
miles an hour. And I'm going to get that video
and I'm going to call that company And I'm just
going to say, hey, you got to protect the people
on the road. And then this morning, it was a
large pickup going the other direction. So it wouldn't have
(32:46):
clocked me if I went right away, but it blatantly
ran the red lights. So when the light turns green,
look both ways. That's how out of control it's gotten
in Colorado. People routinely running red lights at high speed
because they have no fear of law enforcement because the
left has undermined law enforcement. So save yourself. Look both
ways when the light turns green. Let me get to
(33:08):
some text. Dan, I thought jurors weren't supposed to do
their own tests, and why was he allowed to scroll
through his phone during deliberation? Excellent point on the second
part of that, Texter, and one I should have picked
up on. I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't. Let
me play that sound again for those who weren't with us.
This is Clancy juror Nick Dargey, and he just spoke out.
(33:32):
Here's the sound.
Speaker 8 (33:34):
But he wouldn't engage or couldn't find something to support
his view.
Speaker 12 (33:39):
There was times he wouldn't engage, like he'd be scrolling
on his phone while people are talking to him.
Speaker 10 (33:45):
Yeah, things like that.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
Darjeet told us one time he confronted the holdout after the- Let's.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Start with that. That could not have been in the
deliberation room. Could not have been. In my 43 years
of experience, now I haven't tried a case in Massachusetts,
but I can't imagine Any place in the country where
jurors are allowed to have their cell phones in the
deliberation room. So my guess is that that would have
(34:13):
been a conversation like out during a break. It could
not just could not have been in the jury room
because think about it. They wanted to get rid of
this guy. All they had to do was go to
the court and say he's looking at his cell phone
during deliberations. Guy would have been tossed out a window,
metaphorically speaking.
Speaker 3 (34:34):
Yeah, you can't do that.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
I tried a big case once where a juror got
tossed in the middle of the case for glancing at
his cell phone while in a break in open court.
So there is no way, can't be anywhere in America,
a juror is allowed to have the cell phone in deliberation.
So thank you, Texter, for picking up on that. And
(34:56):
then the Texter's point about testing, here's what he's talking
about with one of the bands that was used to
to brutally murder the three children.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
The man picked up what Clancy used to strangle her kids.
Speaker 12 (35:08):
He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed
an empty water bottle, and tied the band around the water.
Speaker 10 (35:18):
Bottle and pulled it.
Speaker 8 (35:19):
Did he explain why he did that?
Speaker 10 (35:21):
No. He might have. I'm not entirely sure. I think
I was just so shocked that he did that.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Obviously, wasn't he, as the interviewer says, wasn't he trying
to make a point to other jurors? Hey, remember, this
is what happened. To the texter's question about that being
a test, no, I wouldn't look at it like that
at all. It was the juror clearly just trying to
remind the other jurors as to what had actually happened here,
because there's nothing about the water bottle that would mimic
(35:53):
one of the children, and there was no doubt about
the fact she had killed the children and how she
killed the children. He was just making a demonstrative point. Yeah,
but great text. I really do appreciate that.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
Hey, when we come back, we'll continue along these lines
because there's so much interesting stuff going on in connection
with that case, but I also want to come back
to Jenna Griswold. refusing to debate Michael Allen? And what
do you think of the president promising $ 5, 000 to each
American if the Republicans win?
Popular Podcasts
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.
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
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.