President Trump offers 5,000 dollars if the GOP wins the Midterm Elections

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Yeah, you know, I use this phrase all the time
that it's a 9-10 mentality, right? When we're talking about
the fact that we're being oblivious to something big that's
coming down the road. And today it is 9-10 and

(00:29):
it's a perfect day to make this point. We have
a 9-10 mentality when it comes to AI and when
it comes to how it's about to dramatically upset our
society as we know it. And then whether it ends
up being a net positive or negative can be debated
and we'll find out together. But the fact that there's

(00:50):
about to be major upset to kind of basic structures
of societal organization, starting with employment, I think is highly likely.
So we have a 9-10 mentality on that. And I
want to play some sound for you from this anthropic,
former anthropic employee, Jacob Coxon, talking about why he thinks,

(01:13):
based on what he's seen at Anthropic, that AI may
kill us all within 10 years. So we'll be touching
on that. We have this ongoing conversation going about The
latest information in the Clancy case, the one where the
mother brutally killed the three children, and then the 11,
I wanted to find her essentially not guilty by reason
of insanity. And there's been so much focus on the one.

Speaker 2 (01:34):
Hold out.

Speaker 1 (01:34):
More jurors are talking each day. That's what I have
for you that's new and fresh. And then this in particular,
so let me start with it from this juror, Nick Dargey,
has raised a lot of questions on the show because
you'll hear him talk about two things. You'll hear him
talk in the beginning about how the holdout would ignore
them while they were trying to make points to him

(01:57):
and the holdout would be scrolling on his phone. And
so a texter made that good point. And I said, well,
obviously you can't have a cell phone during deliberations, which
has led to a series of texts about, Dan, if
the holdout was on his phone outside of deliberations, would
the other jurors be in trouble for discussing the case
outside of the deliberations? What great questions. So I want

(02:18):
to play you the setup sound, and then I'll answer
that question.

Speaker 3 (02:21):
Mimic of how she killed the children?

Speaker 4 (02:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:26):
Yeah, let me reset. We'll get to that part second.
That's where this juror, part of the 11, was angry
that the holdout took the band that was used to
kill the children and wrapped it around a plastic water bottle,
apparently as a reminder of what had been done with
that band.

Speaker 3 (02:45):
But he wouldn't engage or couldn't find something to support
his view. 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 1 (02:58):
Okay. You cannot have a cell phone in jury deliberations.
That's everywhere in the country, including Massachusetts. I did that
research during the break just to be sure. Yeah, you
cannot have a cell phone with you. You can't be
Let me be more precise. You cannot be looking at

(03:20):
a cell phone during jury deliberations, period. So we know
that what that juror just described would not have been
during jury deliberations. So when was it? Now, in Massachusetts,
and I confirmed this during the break, but it's typical
across the country, jurors are not allowed to discuss the

(03:42):
case outside of the jury room. when they're all together
in the jury room. And some states require that to
be in a formal deliberative process after the case. Some
other states will allow, in certain cases, jurors to communicate
before deliberations, but only when they're all together in the
jury room. So what must have happened here is this juror,

(04:07):
this holdout, must have been scrolling on his cell phone
during a lunch break, injury deliberations. Because Massachusetts does allow that.
You can take your cell phone out during a lunch
break in deliberations and be looking at your phone as

(04:28):
long as you're not accessing any information about the case.
So my inference is that must have been what was happening.
It's a lunch break and the holdout's looking at his
phone and others are trying to convince him. I can't
imagine any other scenario because obviously the 11 wanted to

(04:49):
get rid of the one. I'm not being critical of
either the 11 or the one. I don't have enough
information to be. But the 11 obviously wanted to get
rid of the one. And if the one had been
violating a cell phone rule, that would have been just
like an automatic ejection. So that's all I can think of.
And then it would lead to the question, if I'm right,

(05:11):
and he's just looking at his phone during a lunch break,
Would the other jurors have been wrong then to have
been trying to talk about the case during the lunch break?
Fair question. But again, I'm not accusing anybody of any
kind of jury impropriety or anything else. Just very interesting
questions raised by that juror. Hey, I do want to

(05:32):
touch back on this. I've got a lot of text
I'll get to in a second, but I do want
to touch back on this. Just in case nobody else
is interested, I just feel very strongly about this.

Speaker 5 (05:49):
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 4 (06:00):
And here is my promise.

Speaker 5 (06:02):
If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the
United States Senate, both of them, because.

Speaker 1 (06:09):
Of our economic....

Speaker 5 (06:11):
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
citizen in the United States of America for $ 5, 000.

Speaker 1 (06:38):
No, no. I mean, this is one of the great
presidents of our lifetime. But you can look at all
the great presidents of our lifetime, and they all had
a few bad ideas along the road. I mean, this
is a very, very bad idea. Very, very bad idea
for this country on multiple levels. First of all, fiscally,

(07:01):
can't afford it. Just can't do that. Second, it doesn't
make any sense in terms of public policy. Just $ 5, 000
to everybody? Including all the rich people? But that just
doesn't make any sense to me. The other thing is,

(07:21):
you don't want to set the precedent of, and I'm
not saying this is the president's intent. Maybe it is,
maybe it isn't. But you don't want to set the
precedent of appearing to try to bribe the American people
into voting for your party. I mean, what's to stop
the Democrats? Let's say this works. What's to stop the
Democrats from next time saying, hey, you know, we win.

(07:45):
Everybody's getting 10,000. I mean, so I think what happened here,
I'd love to know if the president even cleared it
with his staff. He just got this idea while he
was up there because there are so many downsides to this.

Speaker 5 (08:03):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (08:04):
And then listen, if you look at most of the
greatest figures in world history, not all, but most of them,
when they make their mistakes, they make them full speed,
they're big and bold, they color outside the lines. I'm
not talking about criminal lines here. They color outside the
lines sometimes because when you're going to live big and bold,
it's impossible to stay in the lines all the time.

(08:26):
And so maybe he just got this idea, okay, the
midterms looking bad for us, this is how we pull
it out. But you can't do it. It's just wrong
on every single level. So not that there was ever
any chance of it really happening, but I just don't
think the president should be promising this or advocating this.

(08:47):
You can certainly see a day coming because the Democrats now,
they're openly socialist. And so you can see a day
coming where to get power or keep power, they simply
say income redistribution. You elect us and we're going to go,
we're going to take that money from hardworking Shannon Scott.

(09:10):
We're going to take that money from all those hardworking
people and we're going to give it to you because
you know what? We got enough voters that we can
outvote them. And once we outvote them, we're going to
take their money, we're going to take their stuff, and
we're going to give it to you. I'm not saying
the American people would fall for that because the American
people are better than that, but that wouldn't stop Democrats

(09:33):
from trying because they are now openly socialist. So I
think this is just a bad idea on every level. 303-713-8255. Hey,
when we come back, I'm getting flooded with really thoughtful, deep,
intelligent text about jurors in this and the jury process
in this Clancy case, which has, these questions have broader

(09:54):
application as well. As phone calls, we'll get back, we'll
deep dive that. You're on the Dan Kaplan Show. I
don't know if I can even start the segment. I
was just during the break, I was watching this segment
on Fox and it's during the GOP convention. We'll find
the sound and we'll play it with the warning. It's

(10:14):
this father of yet another daughter, brutally murdered, by somebody
in the country illegally with a criminal history. And that's
not a reflection on all the people in the country
legally who are not criminals. But Polis knew, Hickenlooper knew,
Bennett knew, Crowe knew, they all knew that with these

(10:36):
open borders, you were going to get a large number
of people flooding in who were just hardcore murderers, rapists, etc.
And these damn Democrats, they didn't care. All they wanted
was those new voters. And to watch this dad talk
about his little girl, just, yeah. And there are so

(11:00):
many of these, right? And it is so, it's just
so immoral, deeply, deeply, deeply immoral on the part of
all these Democrats who push the open borders knowing it's
going to mean. A lot of raped women, a lot
of dead women, a lot of crime victims. And again,

(11:21):
not a reflection on the broader illegal immigrant population. Not
at all. As I've said on air before, some of
the most impressive people I have ever met in my
life are some people who are here illegally. But at
the same time, some of the most dangerous, hardened criminals
we will ever encounter are people who the Democrats allowed

(11:42):
to flow into this country through open borders. And that
can never, ever be justified. Profoundly immoral. an evil act
to knowingly permit that. But yeah, this Sheridan Gorman's parents
speaking at the GOP convention. So I'll get that sound
and we'll play it. It's just, man. 303-713-8255, D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9. And

(12:07):
there are so many of those stories, so many of
those angel moms and angel dads. But isn't it amazing
how these, and I'm talking these elected Democrats, you know,
just who pretend to be so holier than thou when
it's the opposite. They literally don't even care about these victims.

(12:28):
They never speak of them. It's really one of the
very cruel ironies and cons that the Democratic Party, the
modern party, gets away with, is pretending to be the
party of women when in fact it's the opposite in
every way. And it holds on to this party of
women moniker because it, enthusiastically cheers and helps the killing

(12:54):
of 750,000 females a year? Yeah, that's some sick, sick stuff. Evan,
you're on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome.

Speaker 2 (13:05):
Oh, yes, sir. I thought I'd been following this trial
fairly closely, but maybe I missed a significant portion. It
seems to me that everybody, including the judge... have forgotten
or pushed aside the simple fact that this woman murdered
three of her own children. If one guy wants to

(13:26):
hold out for whatever reason he has, I don't see
the big brouhaha. Maybe you could expand on that for
me and clarify.

Speaker 1 (13:35):
Yeah, thank you, Evan. And thank you for the question,
because I think a lot of Americans are having the
exact same question that you do. And what I would say,
first in defense of the judge who's just administering the
case and the law, is the law in Massachusetts says
that if you're not sane at the time, and it

(13:57):
defines it generally as if you either don't know what
you're doing is wrong, you're so mentally disturbed you don't
know what you're doing is wrong, or you know it's wrong,
but you're so mentally disturbed you can't help yourself, then
in Massachusetts, you're not guilty by reason of mental disturbance.

(14:18):
And that doesn't mean that you go home when you're
found not guilty that way. It means you go into
an institution, but that doesn't mean for life. It's then reviewed.
If I remember right, I think in Massachusetts, it's reviewed
at six months, then a year, then annually. So I
guess my first question for you would be, are you
okay with having a law like that? Or do you

(14:40):
think that And I don't know whether Lindsay Clancy was
insane or not, but, or do you think the law
should just say, no, it doesn't matter if you're insane
or not, if you can tell right from wrong, if
you do this, then you're going to be convicted like
everybody else.

Speaker 2 (14:58):
Well, to me, it brings up shades of Tate LaBianca.
Those people went back again and again to be released
and they were denied and I don't know if they
were finally declared insane or if they claimed to be
insane when they committed that murder in California. So it's

(15:19):
along those lines. I'm not an attorney and don't claim
to have much legal knowledge. It's just that if you
murder somebody and you're insane, I think you should be
marched off right away to whatever mental institution is appropriate
for your condition.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
And should that be for life? Because that is how
the laws work right now. Yeah, you don't get to
go home. You go to a mental institution, but then
you can get out once you can show that you're
no longer insane. Do you think it should be for
life if you kill somebody while you are insane?

Speaker 2 (15:54):
So it's kind of like being sentenced to 10, 15,
20 years in penitentiary or reviewed periodically. I guess if
you show some improvement, they'll finally let you out, which
seems to be the pattern we're into in this country
right now.

Speaker 1 (16:11):
Well, certain states.

Speaker 2 (16:14):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 1 (16:14):
Certain states. You're right. Like a lot of these blue
states will let people out when they shouldn't. But going
back to the Tate murders that you were referring to,
that was a case, if I remember right, where these
were straight convictions. There was no insanity issue. And then
you're correct, Evan, in talking about, these horrific beasts coming

(16:37):
up for review on a regular basis and always getting denied,
but it didn't have anything to do with mental illness.

Speaker 2 (16:45):
Yeah, I see. My understanding was the simple brutality and
violence of the act that denied him any kind of
parole or release.

Speaker 1 (16:54):
Yeah, you're right. You're right. You're right. 100%. 100%. Hey,
great call, man. I hope we hear from you often.
I do think there probably is really sizable number of
americans who just say no listen if you're going to
brutally kill your three kids that's it you don't get
out and um yeah you know it's it's interesting to

(17:19):
kind of trace the history of that law in america
the whole not guilty by reason of insanity thing but
but it is the law across the country right now
and when we talk about the massachusetts case you know,
the big unanswered question at this point is, is the holdout.
Did the holdout really, as one juror seemed to imply,

(17:41):
did the holdout say, I know there is reasonable doubt,
but I'm not willing to acquit anyway. You know, I,
I would not want to believe that. I wouldn't believe
that unless and until I saw some absolute proof of it,
because that, that would seem very, very odd. But, uh,

(18:03):
But again, there's a lot we still don't know in
that case. Or is this just a more typical kind
of case where one person applied the law to the
facts and just came to a different conclusion? And did
Lindsay Clancy's lawyer just defame this juror? And can he
be sued? Just got done cutting the promo for tomorrow's show.

(18:27):
Hard to believe 25 years since 9-11.

Speaker 4 (18:28):
Man.

Speaker 1 (18:32):
I remember being, I was at work when it happened,
and then remember being coming straight to the studio to
anchor the coverage for KOA. Did that coverage with Kathy
Walker that day. And just remember, were you with us
that day, Shannon? Were you on air with us that day?
I'm trying to remember. For 9-11, I don't remember who

(18:53):
I was working with. I'd done the Monday night football
game before on KOA.

Speaker 4 (18:56):
Oh, that's right.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
The night before, that was when McCaffrey broke.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
The head out of his leg. Yes, that's right. And, uh,
but I just remember sitting there in the first few
hours of the coverage. And if you had told me that,
that America would not suffer another nine 11 style attack, um,
I would have been the happiest and most surprised guy

(19:22):
in the world because remember on nine 11, you know, uh, uh,
I think across the country, people were just bracing for
the next series of attacks because at that point, you know,
all the norms had been shattered. Even the president wasn't
returning to Washington. But yeah, just so much to talk about.

(19:42):
I sure wish that this 25th was hitting on a
Monday so we'd have the whole week to roll out. But,
you know, tomorrow's a Friday and kind of a late
summer Friday. And I'm just afraid it won't get the
attention it deserves. And we know it won't, right, because
most of the media is aligned with the Democratic Party.
And the Democratic Party doesn't want focus on the reality

(20:04):
of our enemy. It doesn't want focus on the reality
of our heroes. All of that work against the far
left narrative. And one of the things I'll really be
interested to see tomorrow is, you know, there are a
bunch of these left. I'm not talking Democrats. Some of
them happen to be Democrats, but a bunch of these
anti-American lefties who just in their hearts, they celebrate 9-11.

(20:30):
And are they going to be able to control themselves tomorrow?
Or are they going to openly celebrate it in some
way tomorrow? That's going to be really interesting to see. Because,
I mean, think about it. You've got here in Colorado,
first CD in Denver, you've got a socialist, Milat Kiros,
wins the Dem nomination after campaigning with Assange Piker multiple times,

(20:55):
who celebrates 9-11, celebrates 9-11 attacks. And she openly campaigns
with him. Yeah, so it's going to be interesting to see.
My expectation is a lot of these hardcore lefties will
discipline themselves barely tomorrow, but we'll find out together. I'm

(21:16):
also really focused on the lessons, what lessons learned, what
lessons not learned, because 25 years is a long time,
but it's also a very short period of time when
it comes to the staying power of evil. And we
know that for the evil that attacked us on 9-11...
25 years is nothing. Evil's playing the long game. So

(21:37):
the idea that evil isn't every single day plotting the
next one, I think, would be worse than naive. All righty,
let me get back to the calls and texts. So
many of them today on the latest information from jurors
in the Clancy case and some really interesting things said
by a number of different jurors. And I want to
get this one to you right out of the gate

(21:58):
in case you haven't heard it. This one just came out.
A male juror, Nick Dargey, And he was one of
the 11. And he says two interesting things here. One
about how the holdout would ignore them and just be
scrolling through his cell phone while they were trying to
talk to him. Well, you cannot have a cell phone
in during deliberations. There's no way that holdout was using

(22:23):
his cell phone during deliberations or he would have been
thrown off the jury in a heartbeat. So what's that
all about? Was it on a lunch break or something?
And then He's upset about a point the holdout made
using the ban that was used to kill the children.

Speaker 3 (22:36):
But he wouldn't engage or couldn't find something to support
his view. 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 6 (22:48):
Dargie told us one time he confronted the holdout after
the man picked up what Clancy used to strangle their kids.

Speaker 3 (22:56):
He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed
an empty water bottle, and tied the band around the
water bottle and pulled it. Did he explain why he
did that? No. He might have. I'm not entirely sure.
I think I was just so shocked that he did that.
Is that a mimic of how she killed the children?

Speaker 1 (23:20):
Yeah, I assume so, yeah. What did you think when
he did that?

Speaker 2 (23:25):
I was shocked.

Speaker 3 (23:25):
It didn't make any sense to me. We're not in
here to play detective. It's not a game of Clue. Like,
this is serious. I asked him, why are you doing that?
That's a band that was used to strangle a child.
It's disgusting.

Speaker 1 (23:41):
Well, and I'm not being critical of Mr. Darjeet. Again,
I can't know. None of us can know because we
weren't in that room. You know, who's wrong here, whether
it's the 11 or the holdout, or maybe nobody's wrong.
Maybe it's just an honest disagreement based on the evidence,
and that can sure as heck happen. But it sure

(24:02):
sounds to me like the holdout was just trying to
make a point.

Speaker 2 (24:08):
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (24:09):
And a powerful point, but trying to make a point.
I think the big question here is, did the holdout,
as one juror implied, did the holdout actually say, I
believe there is reasonable doubt, but I'm not going to
be willing to acquit? If, and I underline if, because
I have not seen proof of that, but if the

(24:31):
holdout said that, then yeah, the holdout would be wrong.
But if the holdout simply looked at the same evidence,
applied the same law, and came to a different conclusion,
then this latest bizarre attack from Lindsey Clancy's lawyer on
the holdout would, I think, be flat-out defamatory and actionable.
Listen to this.

Speaker 4 (24:49):
I didn't dox anybody on that case. All I said
was that I was upset about the verdict that was
never returned.

Speaker 6 (24:56):
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 1 (25:11):
What's wrong with that?

Speaker 4 (25:12):
Didn't apply the law. Looked the judge in the eye
under oath and said he could apply the law.

Speaker 2 (25:21):
Didn't.

Speaker 1 (25:23):
Implying the juror violated his oath? That's really, really serious stuff.
So either this lawyer has some evidence that's not publicly available,
or that is very, very risky territory.

Speaker 4 (25:39):
Couldn't. So you tell me what you think of that.
Would you want that guy on your jury?

Speaker 6 (25:45):
It just seems like a slippery slope.

Speaker 4 (25:47):
It's not a slippery slope. You want to say that
this individual is just a marvelous person, stand-alone, he's a
wonderful individual, he's got backbone, and he's standing for the children.
That's not the way the law works.

Speaker 1 (26:02):
Well, again, we don't have access to the same information
Clancy's lawyer does. But unless he has conclusive information that
that juror was violating the legal instructions given by the judge, first,
it would be a very unfair, insidious attack. And second,

(26:23):
it could very well be defamation. Again, we don't have
access to these two or three key bits of information
we need. I do hope the holdout speaks out at
some point and we can learn more about that. Texters, Dan,
has Colorado fixed its competency law yet? Good question. Let
me go back and check during the break on that. And,

(26:44):
of course, what the texter is referring to is this
horrendous situation in Colorado where you are getting mentally disturbed
people who– We're found to be mentally disturbed, and then
we're just being released after committing very, very violent acts,
including attempted kidnapping of a child under Colorado's law. And

(27:09):
I'll double check during the break and see if that
scheme was fixed. And anybody who kills their own children
is insane by definition. No sane person kills their own kids.
So now we're going to let all child killers off
the hook. Let me pick that up when we come back,
because there are a few different things I want to
get at in there. I've read one commentator today who

(27:30):
is making the case that, um, you know, all of
these women who were lining the streets to support Lindsay Clancy,
et cetera, is, is, is this an extension of this, um,
this bizarre illogical, you know, anti science point that, that
we've reached in America where one major political party is

(27:54):
devoted to the legalized killing of children up to the
moment of birth? Is this an extension of that where
you now have a group of people saying you should
be able to kill the child after birth? Somebody was
making that argument of peace today. I want to touch
on that when we come back. And then so many

(28:16):
texts tied to the Clancy case, all of them really
deep and insightful. It kind of reminds me of the
quality of the analysis and argument and questions that we
used to get during the OJ case, you're on The
Dan Kaplan Show.

Speaker 4 (28:35):
I didn't dox anybody on that case. All I said
was that I was upset about the verdict that was
never returned.

Speaker 6 (28:41):
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 1 (28:56):
What's wrong with that?

Speaker 4 (28:58):
Didn't apply the law. Looked the judge in the eye
under oath and said he could apply the law. Didn't.

Speaker 3 (29:08):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (29:09):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (29:09):
I sure hope this holdout speaks out. Because unless that
holdout said, I believe there is reasonable doubt, but I'm
not going to acquit anyway. I think.
I think that may very well be defamatory. But again,
we don't know the critical facts to be able to
reach that conclusion. I do think this attorney has gone

(29:30):
way out of bounds in singling out that holdout. I
think it's very harmful to the system. It's wrong on
every level. And I think the guy, you know, I
don't know whether the spotlight's gotten to him or what,
but it doesn't justify it. It's very wrong. Hey, we
had a texter earlier who asked whether Colorado had fixed
its competency laws quick search during the break. So this,

(29:53):
you know, this isn't really reliable. But what I could
see during the break was that It looks like there
was an SB 26149 Pathways for Individuals with Mental Health
Disorder that changed what happens when a criminal defendant is
found unrestorable or reaches that max restoration time. And if

(30:14):
the article I'm looking at is right, then rather than
simply having the charges dismissed and just releasing the danger
into society, prosecutors can now try to get a longer
civil commitment, etc., if they meet certain criteria. So that's
my quick research during the break. Again, don't rely on that.
But it does jive with my rough memory that they

(30:37):
had done something on that. Let's see. The Dan, anybody
who kills their own children is insane by definition. No,
I just don't think that's true. Factually evil. There's a
distinction between being evil and being insane. And being evil
is never going to be. a criminal defense or defense

(30:59):
to a criminal charge, it's going to be an aggravator
and a reason to lock somebody up longer. Insanity, I think,
can be truly met in only rare circumstances, and that's
where the person, by reason of mental disability, truly doesn't
know the difference between right and wrong or does know
but can't control their actions. Obviously, there are very few
of those cases, but there are some, but very Phew, Dan,

(31:23):
20 to 50 years from now, people will look back
on the U.S. from 2010 to 2026 and be appalled
at what was allowed. Alexa, boy, Alexa, I think that
is very true, and I think it's happening right now. Dan,
Mike Johnson told us it was doctors and lawyers coming
to the U.S. illegally. We are talking about just the
true evil, the raw evil of these elected Democrats making

(31:46):
a conscious decision to allow a significant number of people
into this country illegally who they knew you know, were rapists, murderers,
et cetera, at the country of origin. That is not
in any way, shape, or form the majority of folks
who came here illegally, not at all. But it's still
a large number of people, and these elected Democrats were
willing to inflict all of this rape, all of this murder,

(32:08):
all of this other harm on women and others in
America just so the Democrats could get more voters and
the political advantage of illegal immigration. Sick, sick, sick stuff.
And what prompted that was the GOP convention, which is
very well done down in Dallas. He had some incredibly
courageous angel parents, parents of young women killed by folks

(32:32):
here illegally, had them speaking at the convention. We'll try
to pull some of that sound. Dan, Trump makes ludicrous
promises over and over. We're living in Looneyville. He has
zero principles. I disagree with that. I did say on
the show today, my own initiative, that the president's promise
to pay every American adult $ 5, 000 if the GOP wins

(32:53):
the midterms is wrong. But my point is, you know,
it doesn't overshadow all the great stuff he's done. And
people who live big and bold and things like that,
they just sometimes color outside the lines like that. But
that's a very bad idea on multiple levels, starting with
our financial sanity, but then going to really big issues.

(33:13):
Like we are not an income redistribution society. And we
don't want to set a precedent where, oh, then the
Democrats say, okay, you vote us in next time everybody
gets 10,000. Because we know the Democrats right now have
been taken over by socialists. And they are trying to
move us to an income redistribution society where they just
say to a majority, hey, vote for us. And we're

(33:35):
going to take the money away from the Shannon Scotts
of the world and give it to you. I mean,
that's a bad, bad, bad idea by the president himself. Dan,
if I was to hold out here, I'd write a book,
Nine Angry Women. It's interesting because obviously you see a
lot of folks online, especially trying to make this a

(33:55):
gender thing. And I understand there were nine female jurors,
but that was only because the prosecution wanted to go
heavy on women jurors, I assume, and wanted to do that,
assuming that, of course, any mother would say, no, under
no circumstances would I kill a child. But I do not.

(34:16):
I'd need a lot more information to suggest to me
that this is some kind of purely gender thing. I mean,
we're playing the sound from, you know, the male holdout juror.
And pardon me, we have not heard from the holdout
by one of the 11. There were two men among
the 11 who wanted to acquit. And we played some
sound from him, from Nick Dargie today. So I'm not

(34:38):
sitting here based on the information we have right now
viewing this as necessarily a gender issue. breakdown. Dan, didn't
Trump and Republicans say the government handing out checks is
what drove inflation under Biden? Fair point. Yeah, that's one
of the many reasons I think this is a bad
idea on the part of the president. He's had many

(34:58):
more great ideas than bad ideas, but this one is
a bad idea. Shannon Scott, thank you for your great
work as always, my friend. Remember, please, when the light
turns green, look both ways. So many people running red
lights these days. God and management willing to We'll be
back tomorrow at 4, talking about the 25 years since 9-11.
Lessons learned, lessons not learned.