Speaker 1: This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
Speaker 1: edition of The Dan Caplis 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: Welcome to the Dan Kaplis Show tonight.
Speaker 3: I'm Christy Burton Brown in for Dan since he is
Speaker 3: in trial, and we're going to get right to the
Speaker 3: phone lines as we start the show because the legislature
Speaker 3: is in their second to last day here at the Capitol,
Speaker 3: and I have State Representative Chris Richardson with me on
Speaker 3: the line. Welcome Representative Richardson to the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4: Bike Christy, it's great to be here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you for stepping away for just a moment
Speaker 3: to join us.
Speaker 2: I know there's been.
Speaker 3: Some good and some bad things that have happened on
Speaker 3: one of these last final days. I especially wanted to
Speaker 3: ask you about the resolution that was going through the
Speaker 3: House to bring a lawsuit against Tabor.
Speaker 2: I think you have some news on that for us.
Speaker 4: Yes, actually this morning the sponsor of the measure actually
Speaker 4: announced publicly that it would not be here heard this year,
Speaker 4: so it is going to die on the calendar. It
Speaker 4: would have been so much more wonderful if we brought
Speaker 4: it to the floor and could vote it down. But
Speaker 4: we'll take any when we can get. I mean, TABOR
Speaker 4: has returned thirteen billion dollars to the taxpayers since it
Speaker 4: was voted and put into place by the people in
Speaker 4: nineteen ninety two. It is probably the most popular measure
Speaker 4: that we have seen it. Generally seventy percent of those
Speaker 4: polled are in favor of it. We don't really know
Speaker 4: what the other thirty percent are thinking about. The rest
Speaker 4: of us like to keep our own money and make
Speaker 4: our own decisions about how it's So it was a
Speaker 4: good day to see this die.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that is good. And for anyone who isn't to
Speaker 3: where exactly what the lawsuit was there was. It was
Speaker 3: a resolution because they kind of wanted to avoid the
Speaker 3: governor if the governor does support TABOR at least sometimes,
Speaker 3: and they wanted to pass a resolution ordering the legislature
Speaker 3: to file lawsuit against TABOR challenging its constitutionality even though
Speaker 3: it's in the state constitution, and a previous similar lawsuit
Speaker 3: challenging the federal constitutionality of our taxpayer's Bill of Rights
Speaker 3: already lost in court after a ten year saga, but
Speaker 3: yet some Democrats wanted to ring it back again. So
Speaker 3: Representative Richardson, that is definitely good news. Is there any
Speaker 3: other bills currently going through that you think people should
Speaker 3: should know about?
Speaker 4: Well, obviously, I think the one that most people are
Speaker 4: paying attention to is thirteen twelve. Yes, the trans rights
Speaker 4: bill that has come out of the Senate. Two Democrats
Speaker 4: did vote against it. They amended it very heavily. It's
Speaker 4: almost unrecognizable, but finally just as bad in other ways.
Speaker 4: That'll be coming to the floor shortly for us to
Speaker 4: determine as a house whether we'll accept the Senate amendments,
Speaker 4: go to conference, or demand that they returned to our
Speaker 4: original version.
Speaker 3: So, and because those amendments are new, Represent Richardson, I
Speaker 3: don't know that most people are aware of what the
Speaker 3: Senate did. I know that in committee they stripped out
Speaker 3: the portion of the bill that took would have taken
Speaker 3: away parents' custody they didn't want to allow their child
Speaker 3: to transition to transgender.
Speaker 2: But what did they add in on the Senate floor.
Speaker 4: They've replaced some sections of the bill with areas that
Speaker 4: allow people to change their gender on their licenses and
Speaker 4: identification papers multiple times, to make changes to marriages, marriage licenses,
Speaker 4: and civil union certificates, and replace that actual, permanent, historical
Speaker 4: recorded record with no indication that it was altered, essentially
Speaker 4: directing clerks to destroy original recorded documents and replace them
Speaker 4: with ones that have been altered. But this changes things
Speaker 4: like birth certificates, drivers licenses, I D. And this includes
Speaker 4: identification documents for what they term people that are not
Speaker 4: lawfully present essentially wow illegals. So it's another doubling down
Speaker 4: on sanctuary within in this bill. It is a tapestry,
Speaker 4: a bad tapestry they're leaving this year. Yes, that is those.
Speaker 3: And did I see right that they could change I'm sorry,
Speaker 3: did I see right? Did they get change the name
Speaker 3: up to three times on a driver's license or certificate?
Speaker 4: Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well, with no.
Speaker 2: Push faction in the government, they just have to let
Speaker 2: them do it basically.
Speaker 4: Yes, after that they'd have to get court permission to
Speaker 4: do so. But wealthy asking those questions on the floor
Speaker 4: today is to why three? Why not five? Why not ten?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 4: They seem very random?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, it doesn't seem like a permanent change.
Speaker 3: If you're like, oh, I'll change it again, and change
Speaker 3: it getting changed again. I mean, do you really know
Speaker 3: your identity if that's the reason you're changing it, and
Speaker 3: yet you want to do it that many times? It
Speaker 3: seems like it opens the door for criminals to hide
Speaker 3: their identity.
Speaker 4: Actually, yes, and particularly concerning on those that aren't here lawfully,
Speaker 4: so you get very specious documentation to start with, and
Speaker 4: then your name, name, and sex changes could make it
Speaker 4: very hard to track somebody that doesn't have a record
Speaker 4: of a presence in the US. But the three times
Speaker 4: change is kind of interesting when you pair this with
Speaker 4: thirteen oh nine, that was the bill that requires that
Speaker 4: gender affirming surgeries be covered freely in people's insurance. We
Speaker 4: tried to amend it to support those that realized that
Speaker 4: they had made an error and wanted to de transition
Speaker 4: that was not allowed. Now we have documentation that you
Speaker 4: can you can change to and from several times, and
Speaker 4: there's disconnects and even what they're doing. And you know,
Speaker 4: with thirty two hours left in this legislative session, gladly
Speaker 4: no more damage can be done. Midnight tomorrow. Okay, they're
Speaker 4: moving too fast to keep track. Of their own bad bills.
Speaker 4: I think at this point it.
Speaker 2: Sounds like it. Do you expect it to go very
Speaker 2: late tomorrow night in the session.
Speaker 4: I believe it will. There's too much that hasn't been addressed,
Speaker 4: and I believe the Majority Party will want to get
Speaker 4: through as much of their own bills as possible. Again,
Speaker 4: at least will not be dealing with a foolish attempt
Speaker 4: to overturn the people's desires in terms of the taxpayer
Speaker 4: bill rights. And I do want to thank everybody this
Speaker 4: listening that reached out to legislators and put pressure on them,
Speaker 4: on both on the Majority Party, to say, don't bring this.
Speaker 4: They certainly realized it was popular. We took every opportunity
Speaker 4: we could to ensure that the majority understood that trying
Speaker 4: to take away taber would be a third rail that
Speaker 4: they they've overstepped so much this year to start with,
Speaker 4: in terms of our rights of self defense, our second
Speaker 4: moment rights, pushing sort the illegal legally ahead of citizens
Speaker 4: of Colorado, in terms of how we're using our text dollars,
Speaker 4: stepping on printal rights initially and firmly with the original
Speaker 4: version of thirteen twelve, and they didn't get it this year,
Speaker 4: but it's a clear signal of the direction that they
Speaker 4: want to continue moving in as long as they hold
Speaker 4: the author.
Speaker 3: Absolutely no, and it's very, very frightening to see all
Speaker 3: the signals that come from them like, oh, well next year,
Speaker 3: we're going to do that. Just keep chipping away at
Speaker 3: it until they get more support to Gearritt of Tabor
Speaker 3: to eliminate parents. That's right to do so many of
Speaker 3: these things. So a representative Chris Richardson is who we're
Speaker 3: talking to you right now. He's about to go back
Speaker 3: to the floor and we have about a minute left
Speaker 3: with you. Are there any updates people should know about
Speaker 3: with the sanctuary state laws? I think the one specifically
Speaker 3: that would require local governments to completely not cooperate with
Speaker 3: ICE or else face of fifty dollars.
Speaker 4: Fine, yeah, that bill that come true? Is it only yesterday?
Speaker 4: I believe? Okay, wow, to continue arguing against and proposed
Speaker 4: changes that will go back to the Senate. There were
Speaker 4: some and they passed it today.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 4: So they accepted the amendments that were made, and again
Speaker 4: it isn't fortunate that hasn't been signed into law. But
Speaker 4: the sanctuary laws that are already on the books generated
Speaker 4: a lawsuit, yes again the state of Colorado, and this
Speaker 4: just doubles down what was already there. So I believe
Speaker 4: we are on a collision course with the federal government.
Speaker 4: I was not surprise if federal funding is withheld. We've
Speaker 4: been told as a state, all the states have been
Speaker 4: told that there are expectations of the federal government and
Speaker 4: that's not meant they will with old funding. And so
Speaker 4: going down this dangerous path in many directions, whether it
Speaker 4: support is the transgenderism, sanctuary, gun rights, these are all
Speaker 4: triggers that we've been told. With the results and the
Speaker 4: loss of federal funding we inserted in all those bills,
Speaker 4: are attempted to amend all those bills to be rendered
Speaker 4: in effective if they threatened federal dollars, those were all rejected,
Speaker 4: and federal dollars are what support are a good portion
Speaker 4: of the funding that goes into our highways, which are
Speaker 4: not in good shape to start with, in the medicaid
Speaker 4: which so many people rely on. So just placing ideology
Speaker 4: ahead of the people of Colorado is a came full
Speaker 4: and that's what's been happening. So I heard whispers of
Speaker 4: a special session if we do lose funding. I don't
Speaker 4: know if that will happen, but if federal funding is withheld,
Speaker 4: the legislature will have to come back trying to get
Speaker 4: a budget together this year with a one point two
Speaker 4: billion dollars short pull at the outset. If we lose them,
Speaker 4: up there another billion here or there.
Speaker 2: A yeah, well, thank you, I have to go to
Speaker 2: a break.
Speaker 3: But Representative Chris Richardson, thank you for giving us that
Speaker 3: important update on the day before the close of the session.
Speaker 2: Here on the Dan Tapla Show.
Speaker 5: And now back to the Dan Tamplass Show podcast.
Speaker 2: You're back to the Dan Taplas Show.
Speaker 3: I'm Christy Burton Brown and for Dan because he's in
Speaker 3: trial and the legislature still in session through tonight and
Speaker 3: then tomorrow until midnight. Then they have to be done
Speaker 3: unless they end up calling a special session. There's some
Speaker 3: rumors going around that they may call a special session
Speaker 3: dependent on what the federal government decides to do. There's
Speaker 3: some bills the federal government is considering dealing with Medicaid
Speaker 3: and Medicare, and then Colorado suggesting that if they lose
Speaker 3: federal spending or federal funds, they may go to a
Speaker 3: special session.
Speaker 2: To see how they can find more money.
Speaker 3: Good luck with that, since the state is already in
Speaker 3: a budget shortfall. Now, for anyone who on the liberal
Speaker 3: side of the aisle who loves to claim that the
Speaker 3: state just isn't getting enough money, here's what actually happened.
Speaker 3: The state just doesn't get the increase in spending that
Speaker 3: it wanted to get. It also put itself in a
Speaker 3: budget shortfall because when extra federal funds were pouring in,
Speaker 3: in part because of COVID, in part because of other reasons,
Speaker 3: they committed to long lasting programs that they did not
Speaker 3: have the full funding for, And now they're coming back
Speaker 3: and saying, oh, we can't fund everything we committed to. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's kind of what happens when you don't budget according
Speaker 3: to the money you actually have and can project on
Speaker 3: the horizon. So for anyone on the liberal side the
Speaker 3: al who wants to complain, they just don't know how
Speaker 3: finances work. Also, of all the states, when we look
Speaker 3: at Medicaid and Medicare and some considerations the federal government
Speaker 3: is making, we see that Colorado is actually one of
Speaker 3: the worst states when it comes to medicaid fraud and
Speaker 3: medicaid waste. Congressman Gabe Evans has talked about this somewhat
Speaker 3: in some news hits that he's done on social media
Speaker 3: and expose that Colorado has been one of the top
Speaker 3: states committing waste and fraud. We just had Representative Chris Richardson,
Speaker 3: who's in his first year at the state legislature, on
Speaker 3: with us in the last segment, and he was talking
Speaker 3: about how it is highly likely that Colorado is going
Speaker 3: to lose some form of federal funding. If you look
Speaker 3: at collectively all the things that Colorado is doing basically
Speaker 3: to defy the Trump administration. And this is outside the
Speaker 3: category of medicaid waste and fraud, which is its own problem.
Speaker 3: But if you look at all the ways Colorado is
Speaker 3: basically saying to the Try administration, will do whatever we want,
Speaker 3: and by the way, please send us money, Like that's
Speaker 3: really not how it works. If you look at Phil Wiser,
Speaker 3: the attorney general, who really is just on his campaign
Speaker 3: for governor at this point, he's filed fifteen lawsuits already
Speaker 3: in the first hundred days of the Trump administration.
Speaker 2: It continues to file them.
Speaker 3: I don't know what he's actually doing on behalf of
Speaker 3: the state of Colorado. He's really running his own campaign
Speaker 3: in defiance to the Trump administration. You see both the
Speaker 3: city of Denver and this state of Colorado as a
Speaker 3: whole not only digging in their heels when it comes
Speaker 3: to being a sanctuary state. You know, while out of
Speaker 3: one side of their mouth they're like, oh, we're not
Speaker 3: a sanctuary state. But then in actual law and in
Speaker 3: actual new bills they propose they forbid all local governments
Speaker 3: and all law enforcement from cooperating with ICE or the
Speaker 3: Department of Homeland Security. Or according to the new bill
Speaker 3: that is I believe about to get passed, local governments
Speaker 3: would get fined fifty thousand dollars per time they decided
Speaker 3: to cooperate with ICE or the Department of Homeland Security,
Speaker 3: even if the cooperation was with a with ICE on
Speaker 3: a violent criminal or repeat fellon. Like, that's not even
Speaker 3: good enough for the state of Colorado. And yet Governor
Speaker 3: Polis wants to say, oh, we're not a sanctuary state,
Speaker 3: but they want to defy the Trump administration and say
Speaker 3: we're going to pass these.
Speaker 2: Laws send us money. Anyway.
Speaker 3: We've already seen the Trump administration cut I believe was
Speaker 3: twenty four million dollars to the city of Denver, because
Speaker 3: they are proudly a sanctuary city, continue to impose those
Speaker 3: policies despite the costs to their own citizens. And I
Speaker 3: think that's what's interesting that Representative Richardson pointed out that
Speaker 3: is true no matter what area you're looking at right now,
Speaker 3: where Colorado wants to defy the federal administration is they
Speaker 3: are not concerned with the well being of citizens in Colorado.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna get to some statistics later on in this
Speaker 3: show where I show you exactly how Colorado has fallen
Speaker 3: in all of the important standings that people actually care
Speaker 3: about when they try and make a state their home,
Speaker 3: whether we're talking about the ability to own a house,
Speaker 3: whether we're talking about the job market, whether talking about
Speaker 3: the basic cost of living like buying your groceries or
Speaker 3: the price of gas, where we're talking about how safe
Speaker 3: a state is, how much crime is committed in different cities.
Speaker 3: We've seen Colorado across the years fall in all of
Speaker 3: these categories, and yet instead of trying to change life
Speaker 3: in the right ways for their citizens, we see the
Speaker 3: leaders of Colorado being like, you know what, We're going
Speaker 3: to go to war against the Trump administration. Who cares
Speaker 3: if that takes money away from our citizens. We want
Speaker 3: to fund illegal immigrants, We want to give them money
Speaker 3: to have housing here in Colorado. And if that makes
Speaker 3: the federal government take money away from our citizens, we
Speaker 3: don't care because we just want to defy them that badly.
Speaker 2: Like that's literally what's.
Speaker 3: Going on right now, and we will see how far
Speaker 3: the federal government wants to push it.
Speaker 2: I know they do have Colorado on their radar.
Speaker 3: We all saw that late last week when the White
Speaker 3: House announced that they were suing the state of Colorado
Speaker 3: Governor Polis for being a sanctuary state. I of course
Speaker 3: thought it was kind of funny that one of the
Speaker 3: only responses in the media from Colorado was, well, we
Speaker 3: actually aren't a sanctuary state. I'm pretty sure the Trump
Speaker 3: administration can see the bills going through your legislature. I'm
Speaker 3: pretty sure they can read the statutes that are on
Speaker 3: the books and see that we are one of the
Speaker 3: only states that forbids all law enforcement from cooperating with ICE,
Speaker 3: and if they decide to cooperate with ICE, they will
Speaker 3: be stripped from participation in the state data system. This
Speaker 3: data system Colorado drives is what it's called. That's what
Speaker 3: law enforcement officers use when they pull people over and
Speaker 3: check their driver's license. So they basically set it up
Speaker 3: where you cannot operate as a law enforcement agency in
Speaker 3: the state of Colorado unless you sign an agreement to
Speaker 3: not cooperate with ice whatsoever.
Speaker 2: But we're not a sanctuary state.
Speaker 3: And that's just one of three laws that have already
Speaker 3: been passed, in addition to this fourth one that is
Speaker 3: almost certainly going to pass as well. I think it
Speaker 3: remains to be seen why their governor Polls is actually
Speaker 3: going to sign it, especially in the middle of this lawsuit.
Speaker 3: This would just cement the fact that Colorado is a
Speaker 3: sanctuary state. So I'm actually very interested to see if
Speaker 3: he ends up signing the bill or not. If you
Speaker 3: have thoughts or if there are any bills that you
Speaker 3: want to know what's happening to them at the last
Speaker 3: minute in the legislature today and tomorrow, you can call
Speaker 3: into the show. We can talk about any bill you
Speaker 3: want to talk about. You can also text a question.
Speaker 3: I can probably get you an answer because I'm following
Speaker 3: a lot of these bills myself in my work with
Speaker 3: Advanced Colorado and just because I'm a political nerd.
Speaker 2: So I follow these bills for fun, but you can.
Speaker 3: Call anytime eight five to five for zero five eight
Speaker 3: two five five. You can also text Dan to five
Speaker 3: seven seven three nine. I see that we did get
Speaker 3: a couple texts on what represented Richardson and I were
Speaker 3: talking about in the last.
Speaker 2: Segment the bill thirteen twelve.
Speaker 3: How that bill was completely reworked in the Senate to
Speaker 3: now allow people to change their name up to three
Speaker 3: times on official documents, whether it be marriage certificates, birth certificates,
Speaker 3: driver's licenses. They specifically put a provision for illegal immigrants
Speaker 3: to do that. A couple of people texting in saying, well,
Speaker 3: you can change names, but if you're arrested, you can't
Speaker 3: change fingerprints. Does this direct CBI to delete criminal history?
Speaker 3: I don't think it does, but that's one of the problems.
Speaker 3: How do you match up who you're actually looking for
Speaker 3: If you're police, going after a criminal makes it so
Speaker 3: much easier for criminals to conceal their identity.
Speaker 2: That is a huge problem. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 3: You're here on the Dan Kapli show, calling over the
Speaker 3: break eight five five four zero five eight two five five.
Speaker 3: When we come back, we'll talk about Tina Peters and
Speaker 3: Donald Trump's trying to insert himself in that case.
Speaker 5: You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to The Dan Kaplich Show.
Speaker 3: Out of Christy Burton Brown, I agree with a Texter
Speaker 3: who just sent in a message saying it would be
Speaker 3: interesting to see what happens if Trump would offer to
Speaker 3: reimburse any fifty thousand dollars fines for helping ICE. We
Speaker 3: were talking about this bill that's still making its way
Speaker 3: through the Colorida legislature in the final two days of
Speaker 3: session ends tomorrow at midnight or sooner if the Dems
Speaker 3: decide they're done before then. But this bill would basically
Speaker 3: extend to Colorado sanctuary state status to all local governments,
Speaker 3: go beyond even law enforcement, who already has to comply
Speaker 3: according to the state. But say, if any member of
Speaker 3: a local government helps ICE or the Department of Homeland Security,
Speaker 3: they can be fined fifty thousand dollars per incident. No
Speaker 3: exceptions exist in this law in the latest version I've seen.
Speaker 3: So even if you think, well, you know what, maybe
Speaker 3: when we're dealing with this violent criminal over here, we
Speaker 3: should maybe go ahead and help out Ice. Oh, you know,
Speaker 3: there's this repeat fellon over here. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 3: contact the Department of Homeland Security and give them the
Speaker 3: information they want. You do that as a local government official,
Speaker 3: member the judicial branch, a probation officer in Colorado. According
Speaker 3: to this bill, if it passes, you be fined fifty
Speaker 3: thousand dollars. So good point. What would the Trump administration
Speaker 3: do if this passes? Will they take care of that
Speaker 3: fine and go ahead and try and compel local governments
Speaker 3: or encourage them the ones that want to cooperate anyway,
Speaker 3: to go ahead and cooperate.
Speaker 2: I'm really not sure.
Speaker 3: I think they're going to just lean into the lawsuits
Speaker 3: that they are filing against the state of Colorado, which
Speaker 3: is specifically suing Colorado for being a sanctuary state the
Speaker 3: laws we already have on the books, and basically saying
Speaker 3: that Coloridle's laws are prev and taking the federal government
Speaker 3: from doing their job and keeping the nation safe when
Speaker 3: it comes to illegal immigration and crime and drug trafficking
Speaker 3: issues in particular.
Speaker 2: I don't know, to be.
Speaker 3: Honest with you, that I think the lawsuit is going
Speaker 3: to be successful, because you know, there's already been court
Speaker 3: cases saying the federal government cannot compel states to help
Speaker 3: them with a federal job or to do basically the
Speaker 3: federal government's job. So it's definitely a different take on
Speaker 3: it to say, well, kind of state actually passed laws
Speaker 3: to prevent the federal government from doing its own job?
Speaker 3: And can they get in the way, stand in the path,
Speaker 3: so to speak, of the federal government trying to do
Speaker 3: its duty to the nation, especially when those duties that
Speaker 3: the federal government has to keep the nation safe from
Speaker 3: illegal immigrants. In many ways, it's sort of like an
Speaker 3: interstate commerce issue. Well that is actually nothing to do
Speaker 3: with commerce. It's interstate lines. Like you see these illegal
Speaker 3: immigrants who are criminals crossing state lines, leaving one state,
Speaker 3: going to another, and in many cases event all over
Speaker 3: the news killing someone in the second or third state
Speaker 3: that they travel to. So I think that would be
Speaker 3: the federal government's argument is that the state of Colorado
Speaker 3: is preventing them from keeping people safe because Colorado is
Speaker 3: harboring these criminals and then they can move on to
Speaker 3: other states, and then those citizens who maybe they're law
Speaker 3: enforcement wants to cooperate, but they're not tipped off to
Speaker 3: who these people are, and so do there's a federal government,
Speaker 3: and then citizens all across the US are less safe.
Speaker 3: I don't know where that would go to it. It's
Speaker 3: a kind of a novel theory in my opinion. I
Speaker 3: haven't read every single word of their arguments, but it's
Speaker 3: definitely a different take on something the Court in the
Speaker 3: past has said. You know, you can't compel states to
Speaker 3: do a federal job, but can a state purposely act
Speaker 3: to get in the way of the federal government from
Speaker 3: completing its duty to the rest of citizens across the nation.
Speaker 2: I don't know. We'll see what happens in the near future.
Speaker 3: We can definitely talk more about that bill or other
Speaker 3: immigration issues. If you're interested, you call in anytime eight
Speaker 3: five five four zero five eight two five five, or
Speaker 3: text your thoughts to five seven seven three nine start
Speaker 3: them with dan.
Speaker 2: Oh, such a nice text. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Someone said that I am their favorite Colorado GOP chair ever.
Speaker 3: That's so nice.
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening today. And I actually want to
Speaker 2: talk about.
Speaker 3: An issue that came up originally when I was chairman,
Speaker 3: and this is Tina Peters. A lot of you are
Speaker 3: probably familiar with Trump's post on social media saying that
Speaker 3: the state of Colorado should stop holding Tina Peters hostage.
Speaker 2: I believe that is the word that he used.
Speaker 3: He always loves to use, you know, big extreme words,
Speaker 3: part of the reason people like him. But sometimes they
Speaker 3: just don't really.
Speaker 5: Apply a lot of randomly capitalized words too.
Speaker 3: Yes, I'm not sure that he, you know, ever needed
Speaker 3: English grammar to be successful. Clearly he found a path
Speaker 3: through regardless. But I grew with part of a statement, though,
Speaker 3: So let's actually go through it, he says. Radical left
Speaker 3: Colorado Attorney General Phil Wiser ignores illegals committing violent crimes
Speaker 3: like rape and murder in his state. Well, we know
Speaker 3: that's true, and instead jailed Tina Peters.
Speaker 2: Now, okay, i'mnna stop right here.
Speaker 3: Actually it wasn't Phil Wiser who prosecuted Tina Peters. It
Speaker 3: was a local Republican district attorney. So we will clear
Speaker 3: that up a little bit, all right. Jail Tina Peters,
Speaker 3: a sixty nine year old gold star mother who worked
Speaker 3: to expose and document Democrat election fraud. Okay, also true,
Speaker 3: that was her stated goal. That's what she thought she
Speaker 3: was looking for. I will say, because again I was
Speaker 3: chairman when a lot of this happened, there were other
Speaker 3: clerks who were also interested in making sure there was
Speaker 3: not fraud, or if there was fraud, to expose it.
Speaker 3: They used legal means at their disposal to figure it
Speaker 3: out instead of illegal means, which is what Tina Peters did.
Speaker 3: Donald Trump continues, Tina is an innocent political prisoner being
Speaker 3: horribly and unjustly punished in the form of cruel and
Speaker 3: unusual punishment. The more random capitalization for that phrase, cruel
Speaker 3: and unusual punishment. This is a communist persecution by the
Speaker 3: radical left Democrats to cover up their election crimes and
Speaker 3: misdeeds in twenty twenty. Now I'll interject here to say again,
Speaker 3: while I understand the sentiment there, it was not a
Speaker 3: Democrat prosecutor, and she was sentenced by a judge in
Speaker 3: a very conservative area of Colorado, her home county.
Speaker 2: Of Mesa County. So this was actually not the.
Speaker 3: Democrats and communists going after her in this situation. They
Speaker 3: certainly do go after a lot of people, but that
Speaker 3: wasn't the case here. And then President Trump continues, the
Speaker 3: same Democrat party that flies to El Salvador to try
Speaker 3: to free an MS thirteen terrorists is cruely imprisoning perhaps
Speaker 3: for life, it was actually nine years, not life, but
Speaker 3: a grandmother who's brave and heroic son gave his life
Speaker 3: for America. Colorado must end this unjust incarceration of itness
Speaker 3: an American. I'm hereby directing the Department of Justice to
Speaker 3: take all necessary action to help secure the release of
Speaker 3: this hostage being held in the Colorado prison by the
Speaker 3: Democrats for political reasons.
Speaker 2: Free Tina Peters.
Speaker 5: Now, So that.
Speaker 3: Is a very long, extensive message by President Trump advocating
Speaker 3: for Tina Peters. This is something a Congresswoman, Lauren Bobert
Speaker 3: actually reached out to FBI Director Cash Patel to ask
Speaker 3: him to do this. This is something a number of
Speaker 3: people have really put pressure on the Trump administration to do.
Speaker 3: But and the reality is that the federal government actually
Speaker 3: has zero say over what happens to Tina Peters. Like
Speaker 3: DOOJ can certainly investigate whatever they want to if they
Speaker 3: thought it was a corrupt prosecution, I of course don't
Speaker 3: think that it was. They can investigate that. But she
Speaker 3: was imprisoned for a state level crime. Only the state
Speaker 3: actually has a say over that. And I think there's
Speaker 3: a huge difference in two issues at play. Okay, there's
Speaker 3: one issue of do you think Tina Peters was guilty?
Speaker 3: I made a statement when I was chairman that she
Speaker 3: shouldn't be running for a Secretary of State because she
Speaker 3: was charged with felonies and crimes ended up she ended
Speaker 3: up being convicted of them. So one question is is
Speaker 3: she guilty? Did she maybe attempt to do a good
Speaker 3: thing the wrong way? And in my view, you should
Speaker 3: not encourage those kind of actions. We need to do
Speaker 3: the right things the right way, because I know of
Speaker 3: other people who did things the right way instead of
Speaker 3: breaking the law to get the data that was necessary.
Speaker 3: The separate question is was her sentence too long? Is
Speaker 3: it unjust to imprison someone who obtained and released data
Speaker 3: in an illegal fashion for nine years when violent criminals
Speaker 3: in Colorado get off with far less of a sentence.
Speaker 3: I mean, we saw a very well known case and
Speaker 3: Aurora of a sex offender who would target illegal immigrants.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, they weren't illegal, just immigrants. He would target
Speaker 3: immigrant homes, pretend to be an ICE agent checking up
Speaker 3: on them, sexually assault the women and children in the home.
Speaker 3: He was sentenced to twenty years, got out after serving
Speaker 3: only eight years. Released by Jared Poulse's parole board went
Speaker 3: back into the exact same thing to a seven year
Speaker 3: old girl within a couple weeks. So someone like that
Speaker 3: only serves eight years and TEENA Peter sentenced to nine.
Speaker 3: So that is where I actually grew with President Trump.
Speaker 3: The sentence is excessive when you compare the sentences that
Speaker 3: violent and repeat criminals get here in Colorado. What I
Speaker 3: disagree with is the insinuation that everything she did was
Speaker 3: completely right and above board, like it wasn't and it
Speaker 3: wasn't Democrats prosecuting her. That's just not the fact. Now,
Speaker 3: one other point I'll make it, then we do have
Speaker 3: to take a break. I read through a congresswomen Lauren
Speaker 3: Bobert's letter to the FBI trying to get Tina Peters released.
Speaker 3: She did make a very good point that Secretary of
Speaker 3: State Jenna Griswold has not gotten in actual trouble at
Speaker 3: all for the release of voting system passwords on the internet,
Speaker 3: because you know she can just do that with nothing,
Speaker 3: nothing happening to her. And now Tina Peters's actions were intentional.
Speaker 3: I think Jenna Griswold is highly incompetent. No one has
Speaker 3: really said that her release of the passwords were intentional.
Speaker 3: So sometimes that is a difference in law incompetent actions
Speaker 3: and intentional actions. But we can talk more about this.
Speaker 3: I see people are texting in. You can give your
Speaker 3: comments as well. Five seven, seven, three nine, starting with
Speaker 3: Dan or call in eight five five four zero five
Speaker 3: eight two five five.
Speaker 2: I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on the Dan Capla Show.
Speaker 5: And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3: All right, let's go to the text line. Lots of
Speaker 3: people said again their thoughts. I'm Christy Burton Brown, You're
Speaker 3: on the Dan Kapliss Show. We were just talking about
Speaker 3: Tina Peters and Jenna Griswolds, Like, what's what's the relationship.
Speaker 3: What's the difference between the actions that they took in elections?
Speaker 3: Tanna Peters knowingly intentionally discovering and releasing data that she
Speaker 3: was for, would you say, prohibited from releasing according to
Speaker 3: the law, So I mean she intentionally did what she did.
Speaker 3: Jenner Griswoll did allow passwords to be exposed on the
Speaker 3: Secretary of State's website that could have influenced and affected elections.
Speaker 3: Of course, they claim, according to their audits, said it didn't.
Speaker 3: But the question from this Texter, could the DOJ go
Speaker 3: after Secretary of State Jenna Grizwol for what she did?
Speaker 2: She was reckless?
Speaker 3: Also, the Department of Justice can investigate people for reckless actions.
Speaker 3: They can do that here. I think, and I'm no
Speaker 3: defender or fan of Jenna Grizswoll. I think she's highly incomptent.
Speaker 3: Don't want her as Attorney General. I think that would
Speaker 3: be a disaster for Colorado. Of course, not only do
Speaker 3: I disagree with her politically, but I just don't think
Speaker 3: people who are completely incompetent should be in state office.
Speaker 3: It makes all of our jobs Harderney General.
Speaker 2: Who's that Ryan?
Speaker 5: Somebody with the initials Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, you are very kind, not serious.
Speaker 5: I'm not joking.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you, that's very nice qualified.
Speaker 5: You're far more qualified than she is.
Speaker 2: Well, you're very nicely, I'm.
Speaker 5: Not very correct, but you're welcome.
Speaker 3: But here's what I think is an issue when we
Speaker 3: talk about tech things. No question, when someone intentionally uses
Speaker 3: tech to violate the law, they should be treated like
Speaker 3: anyone else who intentionally violates the law. But when you
Speaker 3: are incompetent with technology, you allow passwords to be exposed.
Speaker 3: You don't do proper audits. You create a program with
Speaker 3: an algorithm that does something a little bit different than
Speaker 3: you meant it to do, and should you have known
Speaker 3: it did that? There are so many issues with like,
Speaker 3: let's take the use of AI today. There are a
Speaker 3: lot of people using technology that are not competent in
Speaker 3: its use, uh, and I think you have to be
Speaker 3: able to show a difference in complete recklessness and incompetence.
Speaker 3: There's also delegation when it comes to a lot of technology.
Speaker 3: So was Jenna Griswold herself personally the one that put
Speaker 3: those passwords on the website? Or was that something that
Speaker 3: someone on her staff did through incompetence. To my understanding
Speaker 3: that that's actually how it happened, it wasn't her personally,
Speaker 3: And so a lot of times the DJ isn't going
Speaker 3: to go after someone when there's not a clearly traceable
Speaker 3: line to an intentional action that that person did, just
Speaker 3: because there's so many things they investigate, they typically aren't
Speaker 3: going to go after something that's that layered. And so
Speaker 3: I think there's just so many problems too when we
Speaker 3: talk about tech, and the government has a huge misunderstanding
Speaker 3: when it comes to AI, when it comes to tech,
Speaker 3: when it comes to developers. You see that actually through
Speaker 3: one of the bills going through the state legislature right
Speaker 3: now that is trying to penalize developers for programs they
Speaker 3: create that have an effect that the state doesn't prefer
Speaker 3: when it comes to certain discriminatory impact. It's kind of
Speaker 3: just a disaster unfortunately when government gets involved with tech
Speaker 3: because they do not elect tech experts. We are in
Speaker 3: a technological driven world to so many innovations that government
Speaker 3: does not understand, and when they try to get their
Speaker 3: hands in it, they often mess up. And this is
Speaker 3: why I think with someone like Jenner Griswold should be doing,
Speaker 3: and what the state law should require is that the
Speaker 3: state government and Secretary State's Office actually has to use
Speaker 3: technology experts, not political people to do these kind of jobs.
Speaker 3: I think they need to have the right kind of
Speaker 3: audits in place, the right kind of technology experts in place,
Speaker 3: because otherwise you see political government people attempting to do
Speaker 3: tech jobs that they're completely unqualified to do. And then
Speaker 3: I haven't investigated in myself, so I don't know if
Speaker 3: it's INCOMPETENTI or recklessness.
Speaker 2: In this scenario.
Speaker 3: But the problem is that government as a whole has
Speaker 3: a big open door to hackers, to tech mishaps because
Speaker 3: they flat out don't know what they're doing and they're
Speaker 3: not hiring the experts to inform them of what they
Speaker 3: need to do. So and I just went on a
Speaker 3: rabbit trail there and love the variant, but I have
Speaker 3: a big problem with the big holes that government has
Speaker 3: when it comes to technology and all the things that
Speaker 3: we've opened ourselves up to being hacked and our systems
Speaker 3: not being safe because government just refuses to put the
Speaker 3: actual experts there.
Speaker 2: So that's one of the issues that I have with that.
Speaker 3: Let's go to some other texts saying, the trucker that
Speaker 3: killed four people on I seventy got his sentence reduced
Speaker 3: to ten years by Polis, and Peters got nine. Yes,
Speaker 3: perfect illustration. Criminals get off easy in Colorado, and yet
Speaker 3: we want to stick to nine years for TEENA Peters.
Speaker 3: I am no fan of Tina Peters. I don't think
Speaker 3: she did the right thing. I think it's possible to
Speaker 3: expose fraud in legal ways, she didn't take that path,
Speaker 3: But nine years I think is highly excessive, especially when
Speaker 3: there is no proof she actually altered the outcome of
Speaker 3: an election. So again, I think a very different question.
Speaker 3: Do you think she's guilty and do you think the
Speaker 3: sentence was excessive? Someone else saying nine years for TEENA
Speaker 3: Peters could be a life sentence. Well, well, true, but
Speaker 3: usually the age of a criminal defendant isn't considered when
Speaker 3: they're given a sentence. It's not like, oh, if you're
Speaker 3: seventy years old when you commit a crime, will only
Speaker 3: give you five years, But for your twenty we'll give
Speaker 3: you twenty years. Like that's actually not how sentences work.
Speaker 3: There's a certain sentence for our crime, and it's not
Speaker 3: based on your own age. Okay, A lot of you
Speaker 3: have opinions Tina Peters broke the law, knowingly broke the law.
Speaker 2: She deserves what she got.
Speaker 3: Someone else saying, I agree with Donald Trump that she's
Speaker 3: a political prisoner being held in the fascist state of Colorado.
Speaker 3: Definitely some differing opinions on Tina Peters. I think it
Speaker 3: would be a lot cleaner case if we would say,
Speaker 3: as conservatives, if we want to expose fraud, if we
Speaker 3: want to expose waste, like, let's look beyond election integrity.
Speaker 3: Let's look at many levels of our government. There are
Speaker 3: legal ways to do it. Does it take a little
Speaker 3: longer sometimes? Do we have to jump through a few
Speaker 3: more hoops? Yes, but we also can keep everyone on
Speaker 3: our side while we do it. Instead of saying, oh,
Speaker 3: it's worth it to break laws and sit in prison,
Speaker 3: I don't actually think that's worth it. And what's the
Speaker 3: likelihood that Jared pols is actually going to reduce Jenna
Speaker 3: Griswold's or sorry not jenifersol Tina Peters sentence and give
Speaker 3: her any sort of commutation. I don't think by Donald
Speaker 3: Trump pushing on him to do it that that makes
Speaker 3: it more likely for him to do it.
Speaker 2: So we'll see what happens.
Speaker 3: Appreciate all of you text again, you can send more
Speaker 3: thoughts five seven, seven three nine's start it with Dan.
Speaker 2: I will read them. Answer your questions.
Speaker 3: Did you have any You can also call in eight
Speaker 3: five five four zero five eight two five five. I
Speaker 3: have decided that some of the most annoying words I
Speaker 3: ever hear from congressmen or women is reclaiming my time,
Speaker 3: reclaiming my time. I don't know how many of you
Speaker 3: listen to Christy Nomes's testimony in front of Congress, testifying
Speaker 3: as a member of President Trump's cabinet. So many of
Speaker 3: the Democrat congressmen wanted to force her into one word
Speaker 3: answers because they don't like it when we get time
Speaker 3: to explain what we're actually doing. And every time christyom
Speaker 3: would say anything other than yes or no, which she
Speaker 3: practically never said, they would say, reclaiming my time, reclaiming
Speaker 3: my time, I.
Speaker 2: Am not going to allow you to filibuster.
Speaker 3: Well, do you actually want to answer to your question
Speaker 3: or do you want time to give a speech for
Speaker 3: your next campaign. That's actually what they're doing. We'll get
Speaker 3: into a little bit of the actual discussions shocked about
Speaker 3: posibly shutting dow, FEMA and a few other things that
Speaker 3: are pretty interesting. We'll get to that on the next
Speaker 3: segment of the dan CAPLA Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 3: You're on the dan CAPLA Show, calling over the break
Speaker 3: eight five five four zero five eight two five five