Speaker 1: Fifty five krc DE Talk station, Dan Carroll for Brian Thomas.
Speaker 1: So glad to be here and always glad to welcome
Speaker 1: in my my next guest, uh local attorney and legal
Speaker 1: analyst and James Bogan.
Speaker 2: Great to have you back on the show. How are
Speaker 2: you today?
Speaker 3: Good? Thanks for having me?
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, yea.
Speaker 1: Before I get to the subject that we had at hand,
Speaker 1: I got a couple of questions for you and just
Speaker 1: a couple of things that occurred to me over the
Speaker 1: last couple of hours.
Speaker 2: You know, it was what was it? It was?
Speaker 1: It was like a month, almost two months ago, you
Speaker 1: and I were talking about the the pending release of
Speaker 1: the Epstein files. And remember we we we kind of
Speaker 1: made plans, you know, when those come out, we're gonna
Speaker 1: we're gonna look at it, We're gonna dissect it. We're
Speaker 1: going to do a segment on the radio and and
Speaker 1: talk about that and talk about what's in it, what's
Speaker 1: not what's not in it? Uh, how those you know,
Speaker 1: we're going to break those things down. And then of course,
Speaker 1: you know the release was delayed that it never happened,
Speaker 1: and here we are, and this feels like it was
Speaker 1: a couple of months ago, and I've not seen hide
Speaker 1: nor hair of the Epstein files. Have you seen any
Speaker 1: unication at all that those things will ever see the
Speaker 1: light of day.
Speaker 3: Well, here's the thing. They got a truckload of files
Speaker 3: that next day when Pam Bondi gave that deadline, And
Speaker 3: in my experience, when you have that many files, I'd
Speaker 3: be very hard pressed to see how they could have
Speaker 3: gone through them thoroughly and made the appropriate redactions like
Speaker 3: redacting out victims' names and so on, which is very
Speaker 3: routine for any law enforcement to do before releasing documents
Speaker 3: to the public. Unless they were doing at twenty four
Speaker 3: to seven around the clock, and that's the only thing
Speaker 3: they're working on, I really don't think they would have
Speaker 3: had it done by now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was under the impression that one thing, that
Speaker 1: some of that had already taken place, though her being
Speaker 1: I remember her being on TV with Jesse Waters talking about, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, those files are coming out tomorrow and we're
Speaker 1: doing the final reactions and making sure that we don't
Speaker 1: compromise any information or give away people's names. It shouldn't
Speaker 1: be given away. I thought they had already done all
Speaker 1: that stuff.
Speaker 3: I don't think so, And the thing is Pam BONDI.
Speaker 3: She's salivating to release this stuff. You know, Trump is too.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm thinking. And I don't think they gain
Speaker 3: anything by holding stuff back if that stuff's been done,
Speaker 3: because I think they're absolutely chomping at the bit to
Speaker 3: release this stuff. That's just my thought.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, then our plans are still in place,
Speaker 1: and when those things come out, we'll we'll we'll have
Speaker 1: you on and we'll break it down and we'll see
Speaker 1: what's what on the Epstein file. So that so keep that,
Speaker 1: keep that in your calendar, all right, I will do Dan,
Speaker 1: all right. The other thing is some information started coming
Speaker 1: out yesterday about this a fifteen year old that's accused
Speaker 1: of killing this guy on Short Vine a couple of
Speaker 1: days ago, and the video came out, yes the video
Speaker 1: was released yesterday of how this happened. And you see
Speaker 1: this guy standing in front of that liquor store on
Speaker 1: Short Vine. He's got his nose in his cell phone,
Speaker 1: he's minding his own business. This kid walks up to him,
Speaker 1: pulls out a gun and sticks it in his midsection.
Speaker 1: And information started coming out late yesterday that this guy
Speaker 1: has been in the juvenile system before various judges. I
Speaker 1: guess in Hamilton County Juvenile court with twenty one felonies,
Speaker 1: and maybe it's just me, but twenty one when you're
Speaker 1: at the age of fifteen sounds like a lot. And
Speaker 1: yet this kid was still it seems to me like
Speaker 1: this is a kid who should not have been on
Speaker 1: the street, should not have had any access to a gun.
Speaker 1: Is this and I mean in a general sense, if
Speaker 1: you have a kid that has is fifteen years old,
Speaker 1: has that many felonies, that much content with court, how
Speaker 1: is this kid able to be out on the street.
Speaker 3: That's a good question. It depends on what those twenty
Speaker 3: one felonies were. And you see when they count prior felonies,
Speaker 3: they what they do is they take the total. They
Speaker 3: don't take look back and say, hey, this could be
Speaker 3: from like two or three cases.
Speaker 1: But yeah, apparently one of them was illegal dischargeable weapon. Uh,
Speaker 1: there was. There was a couple of them. I think
Speaker 1: that involved possession of a gun.
Speaker 3: And and so that dischargeable weapon is a felony that
Speaker 3: in adult court typically carries prison time and it's a
Speaker 3: strict liability offense, which means you can't argue self defense
Speaker 3: with that one, So yeah, I definitely have questions, But
Speaker 3: the bigger thing is where the hell are his kids parents?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: And are we just unequipped in the juvenile system to
Speaker 1: deal with this in any in any meaningful way.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's really a case by case and i'd
Speaker 3: say because I've had juvenile clients where you know, I
Speaker 3: definitely did not question the outcome. But you know, like
Speaker 3: I said, every case is different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, well, James, stay right there. I want
Speaker 1: to talk about some of the Title nine stuff that
Speaker 1: that is happening, and it is it is amazing to
Speaker 1: me that some of these different universities and these different
Speaker 1: entities think that they can stand their ground against the
Speaker 1: federal government on this. And we'll get your thoughts on that,
Speaker 1: but we got to get to a quick break here,
Speaker 1: So James Bogan stand by and we'll continue on with
Speaker 1: him on the other side. On fifty five KRC the
Speaker 1: talk station. This is fifty five KRC and iHeartRadio station.
Speaker 2: Get ready for spring and have your roof gut.
Speaker 1: Fifty five KRC DE talk station. Dan Carroll for Ryan Thomas.
Speaker 1: We are talking with local attorney James Bogan and James.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm looking at some of the headlines here,
Speaker 1: and you've got the University of Pennsylvania. Trump is suspending
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy five million dollars in federal funding
Speaker 1: because they continue to allow male athletes to compete in
Speaker 1: women's sports. The Secretary of Education is telling these these
Speaker 1: different universities the NCAA that their policies need to get
Speaker 1: in line with what the Trump administration is saying about this.
Speaker 1: You've got main schools who are saying they are not
Speaker 1: going to not going to change their transgender policies as
Speaker 1: it relates to sports. What kind of ground do these
Speaker 1: places have to stand on in order to stand in
Speaker 1: defiance of what's coming out of the White House.
Speaker 3: They have absolutely zero crown on you just look at
Speaker 3: the text the Title nine, which this executive order is
Speaker 3: based on. No one shall be excluded from participation in
Speaker 3: sports or deny the benefit of sports school sports based
Speaker 3: on gender. And when you allow biological males to compete
Speaker 3: in girls' sports, you're taking away these opportunities to participate
Speaker 3: and have gained the benefits from these sports. Because when
Speaker 3: you have biological males, even if they take hormones, they're
Speaker 3: still during puberty, they get bigger muscles, bigger frame, bigger
Speaker 3: lung capacity, stronger ligament, stronger tendons, more muscle density, and
Speaker 3: those advantages do not get mitigated by hormone treatment. And
Speaker 3: feelings certainly don't mitigate these physical advantages, and you'll see
Speaker 3: them displacing girls. I mean, we talked about this. Leah Thomas,
Speaker 3: for example, when as Will Thomas was the number four
Speaker 3: hundred and sixty two among college men in the two
Speaker 3: hundred yard freestyle, went from that to number one among
Speaker 3: college women. Now men's and women's times performances is about
Speaker 3: a ten to twelve percent different. Thomas's time only dropped
Speaker 3: by two point sixty six percent or regressed by two
Speaker 3: point six six percent from the hormones and splockers and
Speaker 3: so on. It's and when women girls, when they take steroids,
Speaker 3: they don't become as good as men. I mean, you
Speaker 3: saw that we talked about this. There's that Yale swimmer
Speaker 3: who she was one of the top women in the
Speaker 3: country actually compete against Leah Thomas. The next year swam
Speaker 3: for Yale as a guy and wasn't even competitive.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And that's the way it happens.
Speaker 1: And I love the way you address that argument, because
Speaker 1: you're talking about nine and Title nine really looks after
Speaker 1: the rights of women. And we've gone so far down
Speaker 1: the road on this argument that it always starts with
Speaker 1: the rights of those who, you know, these transgender individuals,
Speaker 1: that somehow their rights are being infringe and what gets
Speaker 1: lost in that argument are the rights of those women
Speaker 1: to compete on a fair and level playing field. You know,
Speaker 1: these women who have sacrificed mightily, who have given up
Speaker 1: all sorts of things, and then you know, when when
Speaker 1: it's time for them, you know, for the rubber to
Speaker 1: hit the road, well, then they have to face another
Speaker 1: unfair challenge in the form of some dude that's been
Speaker 1: through puberty and now wants to they have long hair
Speaker 1: and wear dresses and call himself a woman.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, if I would have compete as a woman,
Speaker 3: I would have been a superstar when.
Speaker 1: My son would have been the same way, Would he
Speaker 1: had better times than Katie Decky for God's sake?
Speaker 3: Yeah? And you know what everyone though, the proponents of
Speaker 3: this crap, they just focus on feelings, feelings, feelings. And
Speaker 3: these are the same people who said trust the science
Speaker 3: during COVID.
Speaker 1: Yeah, trust the science, that the science at least when
Speaker 1: it as long as it fits their narrative. So it was, so,
Speaker 1: where do you see this going? I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration so far is able to withhold funds,
Speaker 1: and we've had so many federal judges across the country
Speaker 1: who feel have been feeling so free to wade into
Speaker 1: any issue that comes out.
Speaker 2: Of the White House.
Speaker 1: Are we going to be subject to more federal rulings
Speaker 1: and federal court judges trying to direct the Trump administration
Speaker 1: to do this, that and the other thing.
Speaker 2: That's an interesting question.
Speaker 3: We haven't seen anything brought yet, but unfortunately, with these
Speaker 3: activist judges out there, I wouldn't be surprised. But this way,
Speaker 3: the recent New York Times poll showed that seventy nine
Speaker 3: percent of people are opposed to this crap. And you
Speaker 3: look at this eventually reaches the Supreme Court. I think
Speaker 3: once this reaches the Supreme Court, which is more matter
Speaker 3: when than if there are some penny cases, I think
Speaker 3: the Court's going to end up ruling on the right
Speaker 3: side of this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, James, before we let you go, you brought to
Speaker 1: my attention yesterday a situation that's developing within the Cincinnati
Speaker 1: Police Department, and it has to do with a retired
Speaker 1: officer who is trying to get a replacement badge after
Speaker 1: retiring from the force. And there seems to be some
Speaker 1: so I don't know if it's a misunderstanding or some
Speaker 1: sort of complication as to this officer getting a replacement badge.
Speaker 2: And you know, the way.
Speaker 1: The argument was laid out for me, this just sounds
Speaker 1: to me like something that doesn't really need to get
Speaker 1: to the left that this thing is getting to already.
Speaker 3: Yeah, retired police officer Rachel Baldwin, I've been in chatting
Speaker 3: with her about this too. She retired in good standing.
Speaker 3: She lost her retirement badge. Many retired officers request the
Speaker 3: second retirement badge. One goes in their wallet, one goes
Speaker 3: on display. It's not nefarious to lose a retirement badge.
Speaker 3: It says retirement and big letters across the top. It's
Speaker 3: not like anyone can use it. And people I've talked
Speaker 3: to with CPD say it's not unpreceded for a retired
Speaker 3: officer to get a replacement retirement badge either. Now, Baldwin,
Speaker 3: she lost her badge. She went to police supply to
Speaker 3: inquire about the process, you know, to get this replacement
Speaker 3: badge that she earned through thirty years of service. And
Speaker 3: it's something they pay out a pocket for too. And
Speaker 3: she was told she had to make a report and
Speaker 3: write a letter and it had to go to the chief,
Speaker 3: who's the one person who proves and disapproves these for
Speaker 3: some strange reason now and the chief said no and
Speaker 3: doubled down on it when FOP President Ken Kober intervened,
Speaker 3: and she said, one retirement badge to each officer period.
Speaker 3: To hell with bad things happening, like you're getting stolen.
Speaker 3: And the thing is, she retired in good standing, filed
Speaker 3: the appropriate report when she lost her badge and jumped
Speaker 3: her all the hoops, and this is what she gets.
Speaker 3: And Cober he confirmed me the under CPD policy, this
Speaker 3: is the chief's prerogative. And here's the funny part. Another
Speaker 3: retired CPD officer, I'm not going to bring his name
Speaker 3: into this, he started posting about this on Facebook to
Speaker 3: support Baldwin.
Speaker 2: Guess what.
Speaker 3: CPD's public information officer decides to call him and advise
Speaker 3: him to stop discussing on social media. And this officer,
Speaker 3: he's the kind of guy who doesn't take kindly to bullying.
Speaker 3: But memo to CPD ad minutes traders, there's a little
Speaker 3: thing called the First Amendment and any first year laws
Speaker 3: and can tell you government agencies are bound by it. Hello.
Speaker 3: And what's funny is apparently when this part blew up,
Speaker 3: my understanding is this public relations officer may have claimed
Speaker 3: that she called this retired officer who was speaking up
Speaker 3: not to try to get them to stop posting that online,
Speaker 3: but to try to help. I don't obviously I'd have
Speaker 3: more questions about that conversation. But here's the thing. If
Speaker 3: you want to be an effective leader, you need to
Speaker 3: make your officers feel appreciated. You need to make your
Speaker 3: retirees feel appreciated, instead of having your current officers feel
Speaker 3: that you see them as disposable and that when they
Speaker 3: retire they'll be thrown out like yesterday's garbage. Not announce
Speaker 3: of respect. I mean, is that the kind of leadership
Speaker 3: message you want to send?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: It just seems to me like the whole thing is
Speaker 1: really an unforced there it's a it's a it's a
Speaker 1: retirement padge, and and the and the pay for it
Speaker 1: out of your own pocket, do the paperwork, whatever procedures there,
Speaker 1: and just let let it go and move on.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just hope this thing gets resolved and gets resolved
Speaker 1: quickly before it becomes some sort of an issue. But
Speaker 1: with that, James, we will let you go. Always appreciate
Speaker 1: the time as always, and we will talk to you
Speaker 1: again before too long.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Dan.
Speaker 1: Always a privilege, all right, James Bogan on fifty five
Speaker 1: k r CV Talkstation.
Speaker 2: Fifty five KRC dot com. This is Joe Cordell