Speaker 1: This is Dan Caplis, and welcome to today's online podcast
Speaker 1: edition of The Dan Kaplis Show. Please be sure to
Speaker 1: give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
Speaker 1: and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
Speaker 1: single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: And I sit here right now in amazement for so
Speaker 1: many different reasons. Amazement at the beauty of nature all
Speaker 1: around us, no question, I'm off preparing for trial and
Speaker 1: a cabin in the mountain, so amazement at that, but
Speaker 1: truly amazement. Not to sound naive, right, I'm not a
Speaker 1: little boy, but amazement at how anti anti traditional American values, anti,
Speaker 1: you know, so much of what I've grown up to
Speaker 1: really appreciate and admire in this country. The Colorado Democratic
Speaker 1: Party has become, and so many of its elected officials,
Speaker 1: and listen, I understand they've been far left for a
Speaker 1: long time time. Policy differences, some of them profoundly moral,
Speaker 1: all of that, right, but the extremes that they've gone to,
Speaker 1: you know, I just sit back in amazement and say,
Speaker 1: how did we this great state of Colorado ever get
Speaker 1: to that point. I'm not going to bore you. We
Speaker 1: all know the history, right of the blueprint and how
Speaker 1: a left targeted Colorado licked its jobs, poured money in,
Speaker 1: and was able to execute a plan to turn us
Speaker 1: into a radical, far left governed state. And you can
Speaker 1: see the state now being hurt in so many different
Speaker 1: ways because of it. But what has me today just
Speaker 1: sitting back in amazement and then of course thinking about
Speaker 1: what we can do to salvage it is Phil Wiser,
Speaker 1: chief law enforcement officer of the state, and in that position,
Speaker 1: through both fully pulpit and the powers of the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: if you want to fully exercise and you have the
Speaker 1: opportunity to do so much good, so much good for
Speaker 1: innocent people against true criminals. And we all know, you
Speaker 1: know the litany. We all know how many true, big
Speaker 1: time awful criminals, including cartel members, prey on the people
Speaker 1: of Colorado, and how much true horror and death and
Speaker 1: rape and pillaging and bloody destruction of human life there
Speaker 1: is by criminal elements. And we have a chief law
Speaker 1: enforcement officer who lockstep with the policies of the left
Speaker 1: in Colorado just ignores so much of that, doesn't use
Speaker 1: the power of the office to try to combat those true,
Speaker 1: heinous evil villains, but instead target's law enforcement makes law
Speaker 1: enforcement the enemy, and it's just part of this overall
Speaker 1: trend in Colorado of the left protecting criminals and undermining victims.
Speaker 1: And what I'm talking about today we'll get in more
Speaker 1: detail later in the show, is that the Attorney General
Speaker 1: has now sued He has now sued a Mason County
Speaker 1: Sheriff's deputy in his personal capacity, in his personal capacity,
Speaker 1: over an allegation the deputy violated Colorado law when he
Speaker 1: shared information with federal officials that led to a Utah
Speaker 1: College student immigration.
Speaker 3: Arrests last month. But my point is this.
Speaker 1: Targeting an individual officer in his personal capacity. Now we
Speaker 1: can talk about the underlying conduct of this officer.
Speaker 3: I even studied it. I can't pass judgment.
Speaker 1: But the point is this, there's no dispute that this
Speaker 1: officer didn't shoot anybody and kill anybody. There's no claim
Speaker 1: of any kind of wrongful use of deadly force or
Speaker 1: anything like that. And so to sue an officer in
Speaker 1: their personal capacity, think about the message that sends about
Speaker 1: how that endangers all of us out here. Not only
Speaker 1: do we not see wiser out there, you know, and
Speaker 1: maybe there are some isolated examples, but can you show
Speaker 1: me any kind of regular effort on the part of
Speaker 1: Wiser to use the Attorney General's office to go out
Speaker 1: there and to sue personally, to go out and sue civilly,
Speaker 1: to use the full powers of the office in any
Speaker 1: manner possible, you know, against these drug dealers, against these cartels,
Speaker 1: against these human traffickers. But he makes it a point
Speaker 1: to sue this one individual officer personally. And think about
Speaker 1: how that endangers you right now, if you're living in Colorado,
Speaker 1: how much tougher is it going to be to keep
Speaker 1: good officers and to attract good officers. If you decide
Speaker 1: to courageously serve as a law enforcement officer in Colorado,
Speaker 1: you're walking into ultra far left political boiling pot where
Speaker 1: they can't wait to make you, as an officer, a
Speaker 1: human sacrifice, where the Attorney General of the state takes
Speaker 1: that massive hammer and sues you personally. And as the
Speaker 1: son of a cop, and a cop who I am
Speaker 1: absolutely certain never did anything wrong in his thirty year career,
Speaker 1: but as the son of a cop, the idea that
Speaker 1: the Attorney General of the state would sue an individual
Speaker 1: officer in their personal capacity to make an example of
Speaker 1: them like this.
Speaker 3: It's a kind.
Speaker 1: Of thing that's going to cause a lot of good
Speaker 1: cops to never come here and a lot of good
Speaker 1: cops to leave. But do you think Phil Wiser cares
Speaker 1: about that? No, not at all. And think about the
Speaker 1: issue he's acting on it again, the particular behavior of
Speaker 1: this underlying officer who's not accused of assaulting anybody or
Speaker 1: beating anybody or shooting anybody.
Speaker 3: You know, whether he violated Colorado statute or not, I
Speaker 3: don't know, but this I do know.
Speaker 1: I know that we can point to lots and lots
Speaker 1: and lots of women who have been raped by people
Speaker 1: here illegally. And that's no comment on the college student
Speaker 1: this officer interacted with. I assume she's a very fine
Speaker 1: person who's never done anything wrong in her life.
Speaker 3: That's not the point.
Speaker 1: But the point is we have had a massive amount
Speaker 1: of the worst kinds of crime committed by people in
Speaker 1: this state I legally, And how often have you heard
Speaker 1: Phil Wiser express any concern about that? And I understand
Speaker 1: it's a very small percentage of the people who come
Speaker 1: to our state I legally, who commit crimes like that,
Speaker 1: But there shouldn't be one if you're attorney general of
Speaker 1: this state, there shouldn't be any.
Speaker 3: Acceptable casualty rate.
Speaker 1: But rather than focus they're the massive power of his
Speaker 1: office and there are a lot of great attorneys there
Speaker 1: and tons of money. Rather than focus that effort on
Speaker 1: protecting Colorado's from being further preyed upon by folks who
Speaker 1: come here illegally and commit heinous crimes, he singles out
Speaker 1: an individual officer and sues that officer personally as some
Speaker 1: kind of political stunt to get him self attention during
Speaker 1: a campaign at whose expense.
Speaker 3: Not his.
Speaker 1: You can bet he has plenty of security. But everybody
Speaker 1: else living in Colorado who's very lives and quality of
Speaker 1: life depend on being able to attract and keep good officers.
Speaker 1: How did what the attorney general of this state do
Speaker 1: just do? How did that help any of the rest
Speaker 1: of the people of Colorado who just want to go
Speaker 1: about their lives with safety, and we're all dependent on
Speaker 1: law enforcement for that. So, yeah, that's what I'm amazed
Speaker 1: at that a state like this could go so wildly
Speaker 1: pro criminal. And again, I'm not talking about the young
Speaker 1: lady involved in this incident, not at all. I'm just
Speaker 1: talking about this pro criminal, pro person here legally who
Speaker 1: commits other crimes and then bring the hammer of the
Speaker 1: state down on an individual officer through a suit in
Speaker 1: their personal capacity. And I understand that the significance of
Speaker 1: that may be lost at times, but when law enforcement
Speaker 1: officers get sued and we in our practice, you know,
Speaker 1: we do not do that because my dad was a cop,
Speaker 1: and he was a great cop. And listen, sometimes any
Speaker 1: human endeavor, it could be lawyers, it could be doctors,
Speaker 1: it could be cops. God forbidden, it has been on
Speaker 1: occasion a priest. Any human endeavor, you're going to get
Speaker 1: some bad apples. And if somebody wrongfully hurts somebody, then yeah,
Speaker 1: there should be justice. We just choose in our office
Speaker 1: not to do those particular cases because my dad was
Speaker 1: a cop. We represent so many law enforcement officers, but
Speaker 1: when officers get sued, it's almost always a case of
Speaker 1: getting sued through the department for the Attorney General to command,
Speaker 1: and there are some cases in individual capacity, but for
Speaker 1: the Attorney General to commit the attorney general and target
Speaker 1: this officer in Masa County to sue this deputy in
Speaker 1: their personal capacity, that's a really big deal and it's
Speaker 1: really really harmful to the state of Colorado. You're telling
Speaker 1: me there's no other way the Attorney general could have
Speaker 1: assured that if this officer did violate a Colorado statute
Speaker 1: in the way he handled this particular individual, that wouldn't
Speaker 1: happen again.
Speaker 3: There's no other way he could have accomplished it.
Speaker 1: No wiser decided to grandstand and do something really bad
Speaker 1: and really rare, which is why it gets news to
Speaker 1: make himself a hero on the left at the expense
Speaker 1: of whom everybody else, right, everybody else in Colorado depends
Speaker 1: on law enforcement for safety. So yeah, that's what we've
Speaker 1: got in Colorado right now. So lots to talk about.
Speaker 1: I want to come back. I'll take your calls and
Speaker 1: text on that, But I also want to talk about
Speaker 1: President Trump today very directly accusing Barack Obama of treason.
Speaker 1: Are their prosecutions coming of Barack Obama? Should there be
Speaker 1: three or three seven one three eight two five five
Speaker 1: takes d a n five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3: You're on the dan Capla Show.
Speaker 4: And now back to the dan Caaplas Show podcast, which
Speaker 4: hut that.
Speaker 2: You should be talking about is they caught President Obama
Speaker 2: absolutely called Chelsea Gabbert.
Speaker 5: What they did to this country in.
Speaker 2: Twenty sixteen, starting in twenty sixteen, but going up all
Speaker 2: the way going up to twenty twenty of the election,
Speaker 2: they tried to rig the election.
Speaker 5: Then they got.
Speaker 2: Caught and there should be very severe consequences.
Speaker 5: So that you know, when we.
Speaker 2: Caught Hillary Clinton, I said, you know what, let's not
Speaker 2: let's not go too far here. It's the ex wife
Speaker 2: of a president, and I thought it was sort of.
Speaker 5: Terrible and I let her off the hook and a
Speaker 5: very happy idea. But it's time to start after what
Speaker 5: they did to.
Speaker 2: Me, and whether it's right or wrong, it's time to
Speaker 2: go after people.
Speaker 5: Obama's been caught directly. So people say, oh, you know
Speaker 5: a group, It's not a group, it's Obama.
Speaker 2: His orders are on the paper, the papers are signed,
Speaker 2: The papers came right out of their office. They send
Speaker 2: everything to be highly classified. Well the highly classified it
Speaker 2: has been released. And what they did in twenty sixteen
Speaker 2: and in twenty twenty.
Speaker 5: Is very criminal. It's criminal at the highest level.
Speaker 3: Now this is a big deal. I want to break
Speaker 3: this down with you. Gets your take on it?
Speaker 1: Three or three seven one, three eight two five five
Speaker 1: text D and five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3: I mean, obviously, you have a very.
Speaker 1: Successful sitting president who is accusing a former president of treason.
Speaker 3: And that's a big deal.
Speaker 1: I mean, even in our kind of you very intense
Speaker 1: political climate right now, that's not nothing. So I want
Speaker 1: to dig into, want to get your take out of
Speaker 1: mine on whether he's right, whether it actually happened, and
Speaker 1: then critically on whether it can be proven in a court,
Speaker 1: because as you know, there's a difference between the truth
Speaker 1: and proof. And I've spent my professional life proving the truth,
Speaker 1: and there are many times when you know something is
Speaker 1: absolutely true and then it takes a lot of really
Speaker 1: hard work to be able to go out and prove it.
Speaker 1: Can they prove this or do you disagree and think
Speaker 1: it's just not true?
Speaker 3: Obama didn't do that. But clearly the president setting this
Speaker 3: up right now is one of two things. Right This
Speaker 3: is either a.
Speaker 1: Short lived shot that he really wants to take because
Speaker 1: there's no doubt in his mind that it is true.
Speaker 1: And if we're talking about you know, Barack Obama intentionally
Speaker 1: trying to create this impression that Donald Trump was illegitimate
Speaker 1: and that Russia had colluded with Trump to steal the election.
Speaker 3: Etc.
Speaker 1: Zero dumb Obama did that right? Now, big difference between
Speaker 1: that and did he commit a crime? Did he commit
Speaker 1: a provable crime? I mean, those are different issues that
Speaker 1: I want to start to dissect with you. Three or
Speaker 1: three seven one three eight two five five texts d
Speaker 1: An five seven seven three nine. So it's either the
Speaker 1: president taking that shot because he believes that it's true,
Speaker 1: and obviously he's been He's been wronged more than any
Speaker 1: president in our history who was not assassinated, right and
Speaker 1: lord knows had tried to assassinate him, but he has
Speaker 1: been so severely wronged. It may just be him wanting
Speaker 1: to come out and make sure he put that marker down,
Speaker 1: let everybody know what he thinks happened. Or it may
Speaker 1: be that that DJ is preparing to prosecute. So we've
Speaker 1: got one of those two scenarios, which do you.
Speaker 3: Think it is?
Speaker 1: Again, you can text us DAN five seven seven three
Speaker 1: nine Before we get to the money bite, and this
Speaker 1: is where you know, the President just comes out and
Speaker 1: says directly that Obama committed treason. Interesting company made there,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure he meant to say the wife of
Speaker 1: an ex president rather than the ex wife of a president,
Speaker 1: but in referring to Hillary Clinton, confirming that he had
Speaker 1: made the decision, you know, not to have her prosecuted,
Speaker 1: because I think clearly if it had just been a
Speaker 1: straight up DOJ followed the evidence deal, that she would
Speaker 1: have been prosecuted because I think she was clearly guilty.
Speaker 3: Now it's been a while, so I haven't.
Speaker 1: Looked into the double jeopardy issues and whether you know
Speaker 1: the fact that you know the prior administration had taken
Speaker 1: a pass on that obviously a corrupt decision in my opinion,
Speaker 1: whether that would create any double jeopardy kind of issues,
Speaker 1: But it makes perfect sense to me that Trump had
Speaker 1: made that decision, No, don't want to go after And
Speaker 1: that's the irony, right he came into office. He came
Speaker 1: into office ready to appoint let bygones be bygones, and
Speaker 1: then go try to serve the country, whereas the left
Speaker 1: came in to execute a coup. And I am prattell
Speaker 1: stopped talking about it, probably never, but I'm very proud
Speaker 1: of the fact that I called it a coup at
Speaker 1: the time that was happening, and now in retrospect, I
Speaker 1: think everybody can see that it was a coup.
Speaker 3: Attempt.
Speaker 1: All right, the president directly saying it, cut forty two plays.
Speaker 2: But the leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack
Speaker 2: Hussein Obama.
Speaker 5: Have you heard of him? And except for the.
Speaker 2: Fact that he gets shielded by the press for his
Speaker 2: entire life.
Speaker 5: That's the one they look. He's guilty. Is that a question?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 5: I like to say, let's give it time. It's there.
Speaker 5: He's guilty. They this was treason. This was every word
Speaker 5: you can think of.
Speaker 2: They tried to steal the election, They tried to obfuscape
Speaker 2: the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined,
Speaker 2: even in other countries.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so just directly accusing him of treason. We've talked
Speaker 1: about it before, we will again. We can break down
Speaker 1: the legal elements, but keep it in mind obviously that
Speaker 1: that DOJ. You know, DOJ works under the president. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously presidents in theory distance themselves from DJ.
Speaker 3: Obviously, administration the.
Speaker 1: Opposite of that, at least when it comes to individual
Speaker 1: charging decisions.
Speaker 3: But what do you think do you think that DOJ is.
Speaker 1: Is actually following through in the process of following through
Speaker 1: the criminal charges, because normally you would think the president
Speaker 1: would not go that far unless he believed it was
Speaker 1: provable and.
Speaker 3: That DOJ was going to act on it.
Speaker 1: So I want to get your take on that and
Speaker 1: break it down in some more detail three h three
Speaker 1: seven one three eight two five five text d an
Speaker 1: five seven seven three nine. As we sit here right now,
Speaker 1: my personal belief and my instincts are normally pretty good
Speaker 1: on these things. But I don't have access to this
Speaker 1: classified information right so all I can do is is
Speaker 1: break it down for what's publicly available, based on what's
Speaker 1: publicly available. Bottom line for me is I do think
Speaker 1: that President Obama did try to destroy, undermine, subvert the
Speaker 1: Trump presidency with a false allegation that Trump had colluded
Speaker 1: with Russia to win the election. So I think President
Speaker 1: Obama did try to destroy Trump personally as well as
Speaker 1: his presidency with the false allegation. Do I think that
Speaker 1: there is the kind of proof that you would need
Speaker 1: to bring charges and to convict on such charges. No,
Speaker 1: my hunches there is not. And the reason I say
Speaker 1: that is that Barack Obama, I think, is a smart operator,
Speaker 1: and I don't think there's any way in the world
Speaker 1: that he would that he would have allowed the kind
Speaker 1: of evidentiary trail that would be necessary to prove the charges,
Speaker 1: to bring the charges, let alone prove them if I'm
Speaker 1: about what came down.
Speaker 3: So that's my take on it. Love to get yours.
Speaker 3: We have that.
Speaker 1: We have a whole lot more going on today as well.
Speaker 1: Three or three someone three eight two five five text
Speaker 1: d A N five seven seven three nine. And of
Speaker 1: course we have to follow up on the Mayor of Denver,
Speaker 1: Mike Johnston with his latest inspirational words.
Speaker 3: Kind of our own bag Dad Bob.
Speaker 1: It's gotten so ludicrous it's hard to even get mad
Speaker 1: about it anymore.
Speaker 3: You just have to kind of marvel and feel sorry
Speaker 3: for him. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4: You're listening to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2: If you look at that those papers, they have a
Speaker 2: stone called and it was President Obama.
Speaker 5: It wasn't lots of people all over the place. It
Speaker 5: was them too.
Speaker 2: But the leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack
Speaker 2: Hussein Obama.
Speaker 5: Have you heard of him? And except for the fact
Speaker 5: that he gets shielded by.
Speaker 2: The press for his entire life, that's the one they
Speaker 2: look He's guilty.
Speaker 5: Is that a question?
Speaker 6: You know?
Speaker 5: I like to say, let's give it time, it's there.
Speaker 5: He's guilty. They this was treason. This was every word
Speaker 5: you can think of.
Speaker 2: They tried to steal the election, They tried to obfuscate
Speaker 2: the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined,
Speaker 2: even in other countries.
Speaker 3: Yeah, laying down the marker.
Speaker 1: So do you expect to see a prosecution at this point?
Speaker 1: Three or three seven one three eight two five five
Speaker 1: the number text d A N five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 1: Do you want to see a prosecution at this point?
Speaker 1: Texter Dan All this is just to wag the dog,
Speaker 1: diversion away from the Epstein issue, trees and coup. January sixth,
Speaker 1: Trump wasn't leaving until they forced him out. Criminal was
Speaker 1: one problem with that theory. He did leave, But I'm
Speaker 1: sure a text would not want to be bothered with
Speaker 1: those facts in a wag the dog.
Speaker 3: Hey, you know timing. Of course, that's a fair question.
Speaker 1: As a president doing this now to distract from this
Speaker 1: Epstein mess, maybe that that wouldn't make it any less true.
Speaker 1: And again, I think we're in a situation where there's
Speaker 1: no question in my mind Barack Obama was trying to
Speaker 1: undermine the Trump presidency. A coup I'm not using it
Speaker 1: in the legal sense, but in the reality sense. With
Speaker 1: these false allegations of Russian colusion, no doubt in my
Speaker 1: mind that happened. And I'm equally confident that the administration
Speaker 1: won't be able to bring a criminal case and prove
Speaker 1: those charges because I think Obama was too smart to
Speaker 1: leave that kind of trail. But we will find out together,
Speaker 1: right Dan, the majority is passing laws that weaken the
Speaker 1: rule of law. Any official with credible info of a
Speaker 1: crime should be expected to report it to proper authorities,
Speaker 1: not be barred by law and prosecuted for doing it.
Speaker 1: The Age is acting in a shameful manner. That's Representative
Speaker 1: Chris Richardson House Sister fifty six representative always welcome to
Speaker 1: join us on the show, so appreciate that at any point.
Speaker 1: But we were talking about earlier where Phil Wiser now
Speaker 1: is targeting an individual, sheriff's deputy in Mason County and
Speaker 1: suing him individually in his personal capacity, allegedly for passing
Speaker 1: along information to Ice about a motorist. He stopped, and
Speaker 1: I was just talking about the very chilling it's a
Speaker 1: nicety legal word effect that it's going to have on
Speaker 1: the ability to keep and recruit police officers to the state,
Speaker 1: regardless of the underlying circumstances. He's not accused of physical assault,
Speaker 1: he's not accused of excessive force or anything else like that.
Speaker 1: So for the age of a state to target an
Speaker 1: individual officer and bring a personal civil lawsuit against that officer, yeah,
Speaker 1: that is just the epitome of the anti cop anti.
Speaker 3: Rule of law.
Speaker 1: Left we have right now trail three seven, three eight,
Speaker 1: two five five the number I Hey, want to get
Speaker 1: to some other hot sound of the day. But I
Speaker 1: know one big question as we kick all this around is, hey,
Speaker 1: what is treason under the law? And is President Trump
Speaker 1: suggesting Obama can be prosecuted? And I don't think the
Speaker 1: president's suggesting that because I don't see any way that
Speaker 1: he could be. Listen, if President Obama left the kind
Speaker 1: of trail, the kind of evidentiary trail it would take
Speaker 1: to bring criminal charges here, from everything I can see,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be criminal charges for treason because treason is
Speaker 1: really narrow.
Speaker 3: No, listen, big grain of salt here. Okay.
Speaker 1: I don't practice criminal law. I do catastrophic injury and
Speaker 1: wrungful death work. So you know, I've covered some big
Speaker 1: criminal trials in our country, including you know, Rodney King, O. J. Simpson,
Speaker 1: Mike Tyson. I think I have a pretty good instinct
Speaker 1: for it, but it's not what I practice. So in
Speaker 1: terms of treason, no, treason is is very narrow. It's
Speaker 1: the only crime defined by the Constitution, Article three, Section three.
Speaker 1: Treason against the United States show consists only in levying
Speaker 1: war against them or in adhering to their enemies giving
Speaker 1: them aid and comfort. Now, the second part of that
Speaker 1: is more broad, right, But what the case is, and
Speaker 1: there've only been forty prosecutions over the years, what the
Speaker 1: cases say is there has to be a specific intent
Speaker 1: to betray your country, and then you get into the
Speaker 1: different forms of aiding the enemy. So let's say that
Speaker 1: what the President said and what I personally believe to
Speaker 1: be true is true, and that Barack Obama is set
Speaker 1: about to destroy the Trump presidency through this false allegation
Speaker 1: of collusia with Russia. I don't think that meets the
Speaker 1: definition of treason at that point because it wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been done to aid a specific enemy. Now, somebody out
Speaker 1: there who practices trees in law, you know, God love
Speaker 1: you you're probably ready for a good meal, but but
Speaker 1: I'd love to get your.
Speaker 3: Take on it.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: Listen, if President Obama did what I personally believe he did,
Speaker 1: and what I'm saying I don't believe can be proven
Speaker 1: and proven in a court of law. So I think
Speaker 1: he's too smart to leave that trail. If he did
Speaker 1: leave a trail and there were crimes that could be pursued,
Speaker 1: I think it's more likely to be along the lines
Speaker 1: of sedition, seditious conspiracy, And that's a different cat. That's
Speaker 1: where you're talking about two or more conspiring to overthrow,
Speaker 1: put down, or destroyed by force the US government or
Speaker 1: prevented from carrying out its lawful functions. And so that
Speaker 1: would seem to fit better the accusation against President Obama.
Speaker 1: So if they had the proof, and if you ever
Speaker 1: did see criminal charges, I think it would be more
Speaker 1: in that category.
Speaker 4: Certainly sub trifuge.
Speaker 7: Dan And there has been a statement issued by the
Speaker 7: Obama camp from Patrick Rodenbush, office of President Barack Obama.
Speaker 4: I may it reads quote.
Speaker 7: Out of respect for the office of the Presidency, our
Speaker 7: office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation
Speaker 7: flowing out of this White House with a response.
Speaker 4: But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.
Speaker 7: These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.
Speaker 3: Do you think we'll see a lawsuit? I think we'll
Speaker 3: see a definition suit.
Speaker 7: Dan, wouldn't that bear out? If these are patently false?
Speaker 7: They wouldn't just issue a statement, they'd have the lawsuit
Speaker 7: to come along with it, as we've seen President Trump
Speaker 7: do against ABC and CBS.
Speaker 1: Yet knowing fairness, and I understand that that line of thought,
Speaker 1: but in fairness which you always risk right when you're
Speaker 1: the target of defamation. And I'm not saying Obama has
Speaker 1: been defamed by Trump. My personal belief is that Obama
Speaker 1: did engage in that type of behavior, but that there
Speaker 1: won't be criminal charges and there won't be the evidence
Speaker 1: to prove criminal charges.
Speaker 3: Okay, now, Ryan, you know that the dilemma.
Speaker 1: Always for somebody falsely accused is you know, if you sue.
Speaker 3: You call more attention to it.
Speaker 1: So I don't think it's fair to just sit back
Speaker 1: here and say, well, somebody didn't file suits, So that's
Speaker 1: an admission. But but listen, you know that Trump, now
Speaker 1: he's right he was the hunted in the worst kind
Speaker 1: of and the most unfair kind of way. Now he's
Speaker 1: the hunter and he has an awful lot of resources
Speaker 1: as the hunter right now. So if the proof is there,
Speaker 1: if the proof is there, then his DOJ should be
Speaker 1: able to bring those charges.
Speaker 4: How did One thing I'd love.
Speaker 1: To know from you and everybody is is would that
Speaker 1: be good for this country? You know, my personal belief
Speaker 1: is that, hey, you got to follow the facts. We
Speaker 1: got to have one justice system, and if the proof
Speaker 1: was there, you got to pursue that proof and bring
Speaker 1: the charges.
Speaker 3: But do you expect to see a prosecution?
Speaker 7: I mean that'll depend on Pam bonding and whether there's
Speaker 7: teeth in our Department of Justice. We saw, you know,
Speaker 7: all these haphazard lawsuits being filed against Donald Trump by
Speaker 7: Merrick Garland.
Speaker 4: And Jack Smith and ridiculousness. This actually happened.
Speaker 7: This is all a product of projection against Donald Trump,
Speaker 7: and I would not hold it against him one bit.
Speaker 2: Dan.
Speaker 7: If Donald Trump fired back to send a message and
Speaker 7: set a president that no president will be undermined in
Speaker 7: this way by his predecessor, that is what happened here.
Speaker 1: Well, Well, listen, I'll take it a step further. If
Speaker 1: the proof is there, he has an absolute obligation to prosecute,
Speaker 1: and if the proof is not there, he has an
Speaker 1: obligation not to prosecute, even if he believes it's likely true.
Speaker 3: I think it's that simple.
Speaker 7: And we have a clip coming back Dan that I
Speaker 7: just found that I thought aged very well for President
Speaker 7: Trump and not so well for a certain reporter interviewing him.
Speaker 3: Well, I cannot wait for that and the announcement.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's great suspense over this, especially at the
Speaker 1: corner bar.
Speaker 3: I'll put that in quotes. That was from Polis.
Speaker 1: He has announced the results of the statewide survey over
Speaker 1: his bridge to nowhere.
Speaker 3: You're on the Dan Campler.
Speaker 4: Show and now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 6: The biggest scandal was when they spied on my campaign.
Speaker 6: They spied in my campaign. There's no real evidence of that,
Speaker 6: of course, there isn't all over the place. Leslie spied
Speaker 6: on my campaign, and they got can.
Speaker 5: I say something?
Speaker 1: You know, this is sixty minutes and we can't put
Speaker 1: on things.
Speaker 3: We can't verify it because it's bad for Biden. We
Speaker 3: can't things we can't verify Leslie.
Speaker 5: They spy to my camp. We can's fine totally verify.
Speaker 6: No, it's been to just go down and get the papers.
Speaker 6: They spied on my campaign. They got caught. No, and
Speaker 6: then they went much further than that, and they got caught.
Speaker 6: And you will see that leslie and you know that,
Speaker 6: but you just don't want to know.
Speaker 5: As a matter of fact, I don't know that.
Speaker 1: For the arrogance of the media. Right when the media
Speaker 1: either knows it's wrong or should know that it's wrong,
Speaker 1: I means it is amazing what Trump has been able
Speaker 1: to accomplish.
Speaker 3: Right in the face of all that.
Speaker 1: And let me throw this question out there, and again,
Speaker 1: I don't think. I don't know that we could find
Speaker 1: anybody who's been more fair and balanced on Trump, praising
Speaker 1: him when he deserves it, also criticize him when he
Speaker 1: deserves it. But could there be Ryan, Can you think
Speaker 1: of any president, any president in let's say our lifetime,
Speaker 1: who could have stood up, endured overcome what Trump did.
Speaker 4: No, not even close.
Speaker 3: How about an American.
Speaker 7: History Maybe George Washington, I mean he defeated the British Empire.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, I think Washington could do it. I think
Speaker 1: Lincoln could do it. I think Teddy Roosevelt could do it.
Speaker 1: It's a short list. I think FDR could do it.
Speaker 1: Maybe JFK. Maybe Reagan, maybe that maybe the line right there.
Speaker 3: Maybe.
Speaker 1: I mean yeah, very very few presidents in American history
Speaker 1: could have and none of them, none of the other
Speaker 1: greats that we just mentioned, had ever faced anything like
Speaker 1: this because they didn't live in an era when those
Speaker 1: kind of technological weapons were available. Technological and media weaponry
Speaker 1: was available to try to take down a president personally
Speaker 1: and professionally. So it really is astounding that he was
Speaker 1: able to do that, and I do think it's launched
Speaker 1: him into this second term with more credibility, more street cred,
Speaker 1: more political cred, more political capital, a more deterrent effect
Speaker 1: on enemies than maybe any president in our lifetime, just
Speaker 1: because of everything he overcame.
Speaker 7: I'm thinking of two instances. One we just heard with
Speaker 7: Leslie Stall and you mentioned her arrogance. This is sixty minutes, sweet,
Speaker 7: don't report. Well, we can't verify he didn't bother to
Speaker 7: do the investigative journalism it required to report on it, Leslie.
Speaker 4: And then prior to that, Dan the whole.
Speaker 7: Charlottesville hoax and Donald Trumps standing up there and I've
Speaker 7: got the sound he's going back and forth with Jim
Speaker 7: Acosta CNN, and he said, you didn't say there were
Speaker 7: very fine people on both sides. He said there were
Speaker 7: some troublemakers on both sides, and there were good people
Speaker 7: on both sides. And he gave that in context. And
Speaker 7: then Acosta was asking him about tearing down statues.
Speaker 4: He goes, you like Thomas Jefferson, you like George Washington.
Speaker 4: They're going to come from them.
Speaker 7: Next, and a Costa admitted that Jefferson was his favorite president.
Speaker 7: Guess what happened? They were tearing down Jefferson and Washington memorials.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but think about I mean, and this is part
Speaker 1: of the great contribution Trump has made to the future
Speaker 1: of the nation, and that is that the media has
Speaker 1: destroyed itself in the course of abandoning all ethics, honesty, etc.
Speaker 1: To destroy Trump. The media destroyed itself. And there are
Speaker 1: still some really, really talented and good people in it,
Speaker 1: sprinkled throughout the media, but as an entity right now,
Speaker 1: I mean, what's the latest polling on media versus What
Speaker 1: do you think the least respected job category is in America?
Speaker 4: I think it's the two that you and I do, Dan.
Speaker 7: I think it's geralists and lawyers, Okay, America.
Speaker 3: I don't know, we'd have to look it up. I
Speaker 3: know people always used car salesman minimums. Cars are getting
Speaker 3: better and better, that's right.
Speaker 1: So yeah, but my point is media now is probably
Speaker 1: below all of us.
Speaker 7: I'll say this, Dan, Donald Trump certainly outpolls both the
Speaker 7: media mainstream and how people feel about them favorable or unfavorable.
Speaker 4: And congressional Democrats.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I'm just talking about long term in this country.
Speaker 1: Media really buried itself and hopefully it will come back
Speaker 1: someday in an incredible, honest form, But it really did
Speaker 1: bury itself. And how about let's go with thirty five? Please,
Speaker 1: just to remind people, Russia hacking the election to elect Trump?
Speaker 4: What is the end of our box?
Speaker 7: Every votes were definitely affected, But you're Russia hacked the
Speaker 7: election to tilted to mister Trump.
Speaker 4: The Russians definitively hacked the election.
Speaker 5: Russia did hack the election, no doubt.
Speaker 4: The Russians hacked the election. Yes, Russia hacked the elections.
Speaker 4: Packed Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 1: President elect Donald Trump still not sounding convinced that Russia
Speaker 1: hacked the election. The President does not want to come
Speaker 1: to terms with the fact that the Russians hacked the election.
Speaker 1: President Trump says he still wonders if if the Russians
Speaker 1: packed the election, if.
Speaker 7: You can get them to accept that Russia hacked the election,
Speaker 7: see if you can get them to.
Speaker 4: Accept who won the Civil Wars.
Speaker 1: If he admits it, it casts a shadow on his
Speaker 1: victory over Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 4: Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 3: Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 4: Russia hacked the election. Russia hacked the election. Let's be clear,
Speaker 4: Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 5: Definitively.
Speaker 4: Russia hacked the election, and Russia is doing it again
Speaker 4: now election related cyber hacking.
Speaker 3: Cyber hacking of US elections, cyber hacking of the election.
Speaker 4: Russia was cyber hacking the election. Russia was cyber hacking.
Speaker 3: Let me off, hacks me off.
Speaker 1: But we need to be reminded of that, right And
Speaker 1: so if you just joined us, thank you. What we're
Speaker 1: talking about is President laid down the mark today. We'll
Speaker 1: play it again in the next segment. Said Obama committed treason.
Speaker 1: And does that mean we're soon going to see charges
Speaker 1: from DJ If we see any charges, which I doubt
Speaker 1: They're not going to be charges of treason. I broke
Speaker 1: that down and why it's virtually impossible to prove. And
Speaker 1: if Obama is guilty as charged here, you know, or
Speaker 1: as charged in the court of public opinion, it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be a trees in charge. It to be some other
Speaker 1: kind of seditious conspiracy charge. I don't expect to see
Speaker 1: those criminal charges. I do believe that President Obama have
Speaker 1: used as power to try to launch and aid this
Speaker 1: coup against Trump. I don't believe that the proof is
Speaker 1: going to be there sufficient to bring and convict on
Speaker 1: criminal charges. So we'll continue that into the five o'clock
Speaker 1: hour and much more. Three all three, someone, three eight,
Speaker 1: two five five. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.