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. Justice Are the
Speaker 1: American Way, Ryan, and that ties into this signal issue,
Speaker 1: which to me is one of the more interesting issues
Speaker 1: in a long time because it touches on so much right,
Speaker 1: so much that's a big part of your daily life,
Speaker 1: so much that part of our national life as well,
Speaker 1: and I think there are so many different lessons coming
Speaker 1: out of this, but'd love to get your take on
Speaker 1: this and everything else. Three or three someone three A
Speaker 1: two five five text d an five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 1: And we've got a lot on the agenda locally today
Speaker 1: as well. Special guests at four thirty six to talk
Speaker 1: about another situation where we're allegedly, you know, is somebody
Speaker 1: has a miner who maybe they're in the process of
Speaker 1: trying to trans and the parents want the minor back.
Speaker 1: That sort of situation we will get into again at
Speaker 1: four thirty six. Obviously, we've devoted a lot of this
Speaker 1: show to one of the most truly shocking and disturbing
Speaker 1: school related events in a very long time in Colorado.
Speaker 1: The Columbine situation that we've spent so much time on here,
Speaker 1: where people at the school were actually planning to have
Speaker 1: this child declared homeless so she could be taken from
Speaker 1: her parents' home, never even let the parents know about
Speaker 1: all this. She obviously had a very solid home. So
Speaker 1: do we have another one of those situations. That's a
Speaker 1: question that I pose, and we'll get more information at
Speaker 1: four thirty six, But I do want to start with
Speaker 1: this business about that. The accidental involvement of this reporter,
Speaker 1: as Jeffrey Goldberg from the Atlantic, in this obviously ver
Speaker 1: very highly sensitive conversation regarding this plan strike on the
Speaker 1: hutis which as you know, was very successful.
Speaker 2: And to me.
Speaker 1: There are a few things that really jump out, and
Speaker 1: one is if I wish everybody in America could read
Speaker 1: the full text string and if they did, you know
Speaker 1: Trump's approval, which is pretty darn high right now, We've
Speaker 1: got some current sound on that as well from ceeingnoball places.
Speaker 2: I think is approval with Skyrocket.
Speaker 1: I think people would be very impressed with what they
Speaker 1: saw with the communications with the planning. Obviously, the success
Speaker 1: of the strike, I think it would give Americans even
Speaker 1: more confidence in the administration if everybody could read this string.
Speaker 1: At the same time, it's a huge mistake, right, can't
Speaker 1: be doing this, and we're all human. Everything is a
Speaker 1: human process, and this was a big mistake. Fortunately, fortunately
Speaker 1: a mistake that didn't have any consequences. This mission was
Speaker 1: a success, but it's a mistake that could have potentially
Speaker 1: been disastrous, at least in this sense. Okay, at least
Speaker 1: in the sense that the mission may have been called off.
Speaker 1: Let's say that the reporter had immediately notified Walts, which
Speaker 1: he should have. If he should have, the reporter should
Speaker 1: have immediately notified the government he'd been accidentally included. The
Speaker 1: reporter should not have continued to be part of those communications,
Speaker 1: should not have continued to allow himself to have access
Speaker 1: to communications he obviously was not intended to have access to.
Speaker 1: But if he had ironically done what he should and
Speaker 1: notified Waltz or others at that point, the mission probably
Speaker 1: would have had to have been scrapped, right because at
Speaker 1: that point they couldn't be sure there was enough operational security,
Speaker 1: and it would have been tragic if the mission had
Speaker 1: to be scrapped. So that's just kind of the starting
Speaker 1: point on this kind of enormous mistake just can't happen.
Speaker 1: But this we know right in life, enormous mistakes do happen,
Speaker 1: including at the highest levels, including by probably all of
Speaker 1: the greatest figures in American history. And I challenge anybody
Speaker 1: Ryan I'll probably say Woodrow Wilson, because I think that's
Speaker 1: has answered everything, right, But I challenge anybody to point
Speaker 1: to any great figure in American history, and you can
Speaker 1: start with Washington, Lincoln, whoever, any of the founding fathers, mothers,
Speaker 1: bring them in, who has not made some enormous mistake
Speaker 1: which had enormous public consequences.
Speaker 2: It's just part of being human.
Speaker 1: It's of having that level of responsibility, the heavy weight,
Speaker 1: because we all see how these presidents age so dramatically, right,
Speaker 1: And part of that is just the heavy weight of
Speaker 1: knowing you are going to make mistakes, and when you
Speaker 1: make a mistake, it may get a lot of people killed,
Speaker 1: it could get a country killed, and so that's a
Speaker 1: heavy weight to bear. But I would never in a
Speaker 1: million years expect the Trump presidency to be any exception
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, he's wrecking up the w's a lot
Speaker 1: quicker than most anybody in modern time. But there are
Speaker 1: going to be those mistakes. And what I'm disappointed in
Speaker 1: here isn't necessarily the mistake. Wish it hadn't happened, but
Speaker 1: you just know there are going to be some mistakes
Speaker 1: in your life and my life, and the president's life, etc.
Speaker 1: I'm just disappointed in the response to it because that
Speaker 1: the response to it, in my view, should have been, Hey,
Speaker 1: wait a second, everybody go read the text. Look at
Speaker 1: how good we are, look at how good our people are,
Speaker 1: look at how good everybody on that text string is,
Speaker 1: at what they do, and look at the great outcome
Speaker 1: for America. That would have been my first point. My
Speaker 1: second point would have been big mistake and it will
Speaker 1: not happen again. So the effort to try and claim
Speaker 1: there was no classified information, downplay it, attack Jeffrey Goldberg,
Speaker 1: and believe me, I'm no fan of his at all
Speaker 1: at all. Again, I'm very critical of him for not
Speaker 1: a mediately dropping out of that communication he knew.
Speaker 2: He was not supposed to be part of.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, even though he in my view,
Speaker 1: is very often a bad actor on the left. He
Speaker 1: did the right thing in the sense that, while yeah,
Speaker 1: he should have dropped out of the conversation right away,
Speaker 1: he did not publicly revealed the details that could have
Speaker 1: blown up the mission, could have gotten people killed. So
Speaker 1: it's to his credit that he did not reveal those details.
Speaker 1: But the point is, the very best in the world
Speaker 1: are going to make mistakes, just admit it, own it,
Speaker 1: and the American people, I think respect that tremendously, and
Speaker 1: I think there are so many examples that you can
Speaker 1: probably think of him from your own life where if
Speaker 1: people had just stepped up. And this crosses party lines, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, the left screws up a whole lot more
Speaker 1: than the right, but we're all human, we all mess up,
Speaker 1: and these politicians just don't seem to get it. If
Speaker 1: they would just come out and say, Okay, hey, big mistake,
Speaker 1: won't happen again, and then emphasize the positive that can
Speaker 1: be honestly emphasized. But trying to go out and tell
Speaker 1: people there is no classified information here. Maybe they've changed
Speaker 1: the definition of classified information, Ryan, but I think if
Speaker 1: there's information about when you're going to strike, who you're
Speaker 1: going to strike, how you're going to strike shortly before
Speaker 1: you strike. If that ain't classified, nothing should be.
Speaker 3: This is one of those, Dan. I approach it from
Speaker 3: a sports perspective. You know, there's something that the opposing
Speaker 3: team does that maybe gets in the way of you winning.
Speaker 3: And then there's things that you do wrong turnovers like
Speaker 3: in the March Madness tournament, etc. And this is one
Speaker 3: of those by the Trump administration. And I couldn't agree
Speaker 3: with you more. You can point fingers all you want
Speaker 3: at Goldberg or whatnot. And he's not a great guy,
Speaker 3: and he's not an honest arbiter, and he's not an
Speaker 3: actor in good faith. But like you said, he deserves credit.
Speaker 3: He didn't reveal these plans. I think some of that
Speaker 3: was self preservation. He thought he might be getting trolled
Speaker 3: and that this wasn't a legitimate thread. And then he
Speaker 3: went out to his car in the parking lot minutes
Speaker 3: after he got this text information about the strikes, and
Speaker 3: he saw on the Twitter x chatter that it.
Speaker 2: Was happening, so then he knew it was real. But
Speaker 2: wait a second, bro.
Speaker 1: Anybody everybody knows just on their own basic ethics, right,
Speaker 1: if you're not supposed to be part of a conversation,
Speaker 1: you end it right there. You in most situations notify
Speaker 1: the person. Hey, I don't think I'm meant to be
Speaker 1: involved here, but at the very least you cut it off.
Speaker 1: Obviously in my profession, my business law, right, yeah, you
Speaker 1: darn well better, you're not going to have your license right.
Speaker 3: That being set, and I acknowledge that this is a
Speaker 3: mistake by the Trump team and whoever made the mistake,
Speaker 3: if it was a mistake, because why of all reporters,
Speaker 3: this is what Joe Kernan was saying on CNBC with
Speaker 3: Mark Warner, the centator from Virginia. Why have any reporter
Speaker 3: in the in the universe, Brett Behar, you know, anybody
Speaker 3: else that has journalistic and Lester Holt. Why was the
Speaker 3: worst actor against the Trump administration to be Luke?
Speaker 2: And who did it? Why did they do it? How
Speaker 2: did they do it?
Speaker 3: And the biggest thing for me, Dan as a Trump supporter,
Speaker 3: that person, whoever it is, needs to be rooted out,
Speaker 3: fired and made an example.
Speaker 1: If it was Espionache, if somebody on the inside intentionally
Speaker 1: looped Goldberg in, well they need to be prosecuted. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: they need to be fired and prosecuted. If it was
Speaker 1: some kind of human error, and I think that can
Speaker 1: I think there are a number of different ways that
Speaker 1: human error could happen, and we can get into some
Speaker 1: of those after the break will take calls starting after
Speaker 1: the break will start.
Speaker 3: What do you think, as a matter of principle, Dan,
Speaker 3: somebody needs to be held accountable for this on the
Speaker 3: Trump team and cut out.
Speaker 1: Well, not necessarily, and I'll expand on that. I know
Speaker 1: we have to this break, but here's my point. If
Speaker 1: it was not done intentionally, and if there is some
Speaker 1: explanation that stops short of just grossing competence, some kind
Speaker 1: of technical switcheroo, then I don't think somebody necessarily has
Speaker 1: to be fired. That's where I think you come back to.
Speaker 1: Looking at you know, the Ledger. They're overall good, how
Speaker 1: much good they do.
Speaker 2: Versus this mistake.
Speaker 1: But so no, I don't think it's an automatic somebody's
Speaker 1: got to be fired over this. This isn't like the
Speaker 1: disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, which has premeditated, deliberate, planned out
Speaker 1: over time, et cetera. This, if it is what it
Speaker 1: appears to be, was one enormous human error, you get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of it then make those calls three
Speaker 1: or three someone three eight two five five text d
Speaker 1: A N five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 2: Y're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4: And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast, Chevan Leclaire.
Speaker 5: One of the first things that happened when I was
Speaker 5: confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my
Speaker 5: computer at the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers.
Speaker 5: One of the things that I was briefed on very
Speaker 5: early Senator was by the CIA records management folks about
Speaker 5: the use of Signal as a permissible work use. It
Speaker 5: is that is a practice that preceded the current administration
Speaker 5: to the Biden mine.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then I think the question would be why.
Speaker 1: And again my starting point if you just joined us
Speaker 1: and we'll go to the phone lines now, is I
Speaker 1: wish every American could read the excuse me, the full
Speaker 1: text string because you'd be very, very impressed with his
Speaker 1: Trump team obviously with the outcome of the mission. But
Speaker 1: why is anybody using an open source app like that?
Speaker 1: And I don't doubt the director there that it's been
Speaker 1: in use for a while, But why, There's got to
Speaker 1: be a better way. Let's go to Dean and Ravada.
Speaker 1: You're on the Dan Kaplas.
Speaker 2: You'll welcome.
Speaker 6: Hey, Hey, Dan, that the Hey. The question I have,
Speaker 6: why haven't well maybe they have, Maybe they are the
Speaker 6: FBI and investigating the reporter. Number one.
Speaker 2: He needs to be.
Speaker 6: Questioned thoroughly on when he got this, why he didn't
Speaker 6: turn it over right away. You know, there's a lot
Speaker 6: of like he has responsibility as a reporter to to
Speaker 6: you know, to let the government know I'm in the
Speaker 6: wrong chat here.
Speaker 1: Well, I think his responsibility I'm not saying a legal responsibility,
Speaker 1: and somebody may educate me. I don't think there's a
Speaker 1: statute that he violated, but I think his responsibility was
Speaker 1: like it would be with any conversation. If you accidentally
Speaker 1: texted him thinking you were texting your wife, the responsibility
Speaker 1: is to drop out of that communication because you know,
Speaker 1: you aren't supposed to.
Speaker 2: Be part of it.
Speaker 1: Obviously, when we talk about something of this nature, you know, he,
Speaker 1: I think would have to know whether it's basic journalistic ethics,
Speaker 1: you know, basic human ethics. He should not have continued
Speaker 1: to monitor it. But I do respect the fact that
Speaker 1: he did not publicize these facts at a time when
Speaker 1: they could have gotten people killed.
Speaker 6: Right, No, that's true. I think that Brian makes a
Speaker 6: good point. They define this sore all the way back
Speaker 6: to how this happened.
Speaker 5: You know it was.
Speaker 6: Trump guy, you know, the one that admitted fault, and
Speaker 6: I guess he takes full responsibility, but I'm thinking someone
Speaker 6: else had something to do with it as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we got to know.
Speaker 6: Last thing. Last thing, I want to know when we're
Speaker 6: going to get some people charged with fraudways and abuse,
Speaker 6: and I want to see I want to see some
Speaker 6: people in trouble over this. Oh no, you getting away
Speaker 6: with this for millions. I let you go down.
Speaker 2: No, Dean, you make.
Speaker 1: Such a great point, my friend, and I'm with you,
Speaker 1: and that is it drives me crazy. In my law practice,
Speaker 1: I'd have been doing this forty years and we represent
Speaker 1: catastrophically injured people or people who've been killed through the
Speaker 1: recklessness of others. And I've had so many of these cases.
Speaker 1: I have multiple going right now, you know, against these
Speaker 1: big corporations where in my view, you know, the deliberate
Speaker 1: decisions are made, Okay, we're going to do something dangerous
Speaker 1: because it's going to be cheaper to pay the claims
Speaker 1: that then it's going to be to do something safer.
Speaker 2: That's my take on it.
Speaker 1: Not every case, but some right, some other cases are
Speaker 1: their negligence, their carelessness, and yes, they've got to make
Speaker 1: it right, they've got to compensate people. But you get
Speaker 1: these other cases where there are these conscious, deliberate decisions
Speaker 1: made that that people have to know could easily get
Speaker 1: somebody killed.
Speaker 2: Why aren't people going to jail in those cases? Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, you get somebody they go into a seven
Speaker 1: to eleven. Maybe not in Colorado because Polis and the
Speaker 1: left right now are so criminal friendly, but most saying
Speaker 1: places in America, you get somebody they walk into a
Speaker 1: seven eleven.
Speaker 2: They stick that place up.
Speaker 1: They're probably going to the state pen for a lot
Speaker 1: of years, and they should. But why do you get
Speaker 1: these top corporate types who sit there in these fancy boardrooms,
Speaker 1: being catered all these nice beverages and food, and then
Speaker 1: they make these conscious deliberate decisions. Yeah, yeah, we're going
Speaker 1: to do it this way, and we know it'll probably
Speaker 1: get people killed, but it's cheaper to pay the claims.
Speaker 1: Why don't they end up in a jail cell? I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, we'll hit them for a lot of money
Speaker 1: and a jury verdict or this or that, But why
Speaker 1: don't they end up in a jail cell. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: with the caller. I'm frustrated by all that. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying anybody needs to go to jail over this signal thing,
Speaker 1: but we need the full truth in the end of
Speaker 1: how it happened.
Speaker 2: The public needs to know. My guess is we're going
Speaker 2: to find out that it was some kind.
Speaker 1: Of text switcheroo and sometime somehow the wrong name got
Speaker 1: into somebody's contacts or into somebody's file and got onto
Speaker 1: this string. And I think it's most likely going to
Speaker 1: be something like that. And in a case like that,
Speaker 1: I think you just need to clean it up, make
Speaker 1: sure it never happens again. But I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: you fire Waltz over this, you know, unless there are
Speaker 1: different facts that come to the four. The reporter didn't
Speaker 1: break any laws, did something admirable in not reporting it
Speaker 1: while the mission was still being carried out, But I
Speaker 1: think it was unethical for him to stay in that conversation.
Speaker 1: Let me get to some text here as well. Dan,
Speaker 1: I agree with you the mistakes are made by humans.
Speaker 1: That being said, I agree with Ryan that when the
Speaker 1: genus simple because identified that person loses their job and
Speaker 1: clearance and listen, that may need to happen, you know,
Speaker 1: based upon Okay, was this such gross negligence and recklessness
Speaker 1: that person just has to be fired as an example
Speaker 1: to others, or can't be trusted.
Speaker 2: Maybe there will be some level.
Speaker 1: Of criminal culpability there because the laws, you know, when
Speaker 1: it comes to classified information are so strict.
Speaker 2: The problem we have is that once.
Speaker 1: The Democrats decided they were going to let all the
Speaker 1: Democrats off without any criminal culpability, starting with Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: that all of a sudden, the standard has been dramatically lowered. Dan,
Speaker 1: My question is why was the reporter's name and number
Speaker 1: anywhere near this textcrip? Yeah, we've got to get an
Speaker 1: answer to that. I don't know. You know, some possibilities
Speaker 1: are if you look on the more innocent side. I
Speaker 1: think you have a lot of situations where people think
Speaker 1: that they've put let's say, a contact that they put
Speaker 1: the contact information for person A in the person A file,
Speaker 1: but then they accidentally put somebody else's contact information in there.
Speaker 1: I think we've probably all had that happen, but obviously
Speaker 1: it can't be happening at this level, Dan Love, while
Speaker 1: you try to flip the blame on the reporter for
Speaker 1: not getting out of the chat room soon enough, how
Speaker 1: long was he in there?
Speaker 2: Do you know?
Speaker 1: He was in there for a long time, right, He
Speaker 1: was monitoring this thing as it unfolded. And obviously I
Speaker 1: have praised the reporter, who I don't like. I don't
Speaker 1: like his lefty stuff. I think he does a lot
Speaker 1: of dishonest stuff. I have praised him for not publicizing
Speaker 1: these facts at the time when they could have blown
Speaker 1: up the operation in or gotten somebody killed. I praised
Speaker 1: him for that, But ethically, how could anybody justify him
Speaker 1: staying in? And obviously I've been critical of the people
Speaker 1: in the Trump administration for not just owning up to
Speaker 1: the mistake, saying, hey, read the text, you'll be very.
Speaker 2: Impressed with how we operated this mission.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that was a mistake that can't happen again,
Speaker 1: and we're going to get you the full truth on it.
Speaker 1: And the problem with the Trump administration admitting a mistake
Speaker 1: is that the mainstream media would pick that up and
Speaker 1: it would be the news cycle inte Election twenty eight.
Speaker 2: Who cares? First of all, you know it from the
Speaker 2: time you were a little kid. It's in our DNA.
Speaker 1: As Americans, we respond very favorably, no matter how bad
Speaker 1: the offense to somebody saying hey, I'm sorry, I made
Speaker 1: a mistake.
Speaker 2: It'll never happen again.
Speaker 1: We're just wired to respond positively in that first, I
Speaker 1: think it would be good politics. More importantly, it's the
Speaker 1: right thing to do here on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 4: You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2: What is it about Colorado?
Speaker 1: All of this insane craziness, this utter disrespect for parents'
Speaker 1: rights and this belief to somehow elevating as a SAO
Speaker 1: sacred right trans in kids.
Speaker 2: What's going on here?
Speaker 1: I'm going to talk to laur Gimmelstein right now from
Speaker 1: Colorado Parent Advocacy Network about a story that they've been following.
Speaker 1: We have some sound from that as well. Laurie, Welcome
Speaker 1: to the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 7: Good actinute, Dan, thank you so much for the opportunity
Speaker 7: to join you today.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, and please just set the scene for
Speaker 1: everybody and then we'll play some of this sound.
Speaker 7: Absolutely so if the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network we have
Speaker 7: an incident reporting tool. It's really the heart of what
Speaker 7: we do to help families and educators across the state
Speaker 7: of Colorado that are experiencing difficulties. And in November, a
Speaker 7: mom named Cindy Stein from Durango submitted an incident report
Speaker 7: and her daughter at the time in November, when the
Speaker 7: report came in, had basically sent her a text message
Speaker 7: indicating that she was a Now she not only thought
Speaker 7: she was a boy, but that she is a boy.
Speaker 7: And that was a text message that came into mom
Speaker 7: and Mom, you know, it was completely taken aback. It
Speaker 7: had not you know, she was just like, what is
Speaker 7: going on? You're not a boy or my daughter? You know,
Speaker 7: basically a conversation that every parent would have with their
Speaker 7: child when their child brings up a topic where you know,
Speaker 7: they need some guidance and some direction on. And the conversation,
Speaker 7: you know, basically ended with mom, you know, basically say
Speaker 7: we're gonna we're going to move, We're going to go
Speaker 7: up to Denver, going to spend some time with your grandmother,
Speaker 7: and we're going to kind of get away from this environment.
Speaker 7: And uh, the child ended up leaving and running away
Speaker 7: and mom didn't know where she was.
Speaker 2: And that's that's.
Speaker 7: When kind of the calls came into to CPAN because
Speaker 7: she needed to get some assistance, and she was eventually
Speaker 7: returned home and life was quite tense. And we've uncovered
Speaker 7: through all of our research and in our investigation that
Speaker 7: she had developed a very close relationship with a former
Speaker 7: math teacher at Durrangele High School named joe Anne Smotherman.
Speaker 7: Now Smotherman may be a familiar name to some of
Speaker 7: your listeners because the and sub motherman Joanne's spouse, who
Speaker 7: is a biological male that believes he's a transgender woman,
Speaker 7: is UH. His is married to joe Ane and Uh.
Speaker 7: And that's where why the name might be familiar to
Speaker 7: several of your listeners. But they essentially are l g B,
Speaker 7: t Q activist. They really encouraged Jocelyn to move away
Speaker 7: from her parents. We have documentation of text messages not
Speaker 7: only between you know, Joanne and Uh, the daughter, but
Speaker 7: also between the school counselor where there are bates basically
Speaker 7: coaching her and coercing her to boove away from her family. Uh,
Speaker 7: the counselor providing information on how to go in and
Speaker 7: take the parents off the medical records, giving information on
Speaker 7: how to get an apartment. The Joanne motherman Uh. At
Speaker 7: the time when she was starting to be friends, the
Speaker 7: daughter had encouraged her to drop out of high school.
Speaker 7: So this was junior year, and there are some you
Speaker 7: know that the daughter's very vulnerable, she's got some comorbidities
Speaker 7: like autism and ADHD. She's very high functioning, but you
Speaker 7: struggled in school, struggled socially, and you know, this relationship
Speaker 7: came at a time when her mother had been diagnosed
Speaker 7: with cancer and was going to extremely aggressive therapy. And
Speaker 7: so mom, you know, felt like, well, maybe she has
Speaker 7: a friend at school and thought maybe the GED is
Speaker 7: a good idea, and you know, had a gut feeling
Speaker 7: maybe this isn't the right thing, but you know, her
Speaker 7: her daughter was upset and really wanted to do this,
Speaker 7: and allowed her daughter to go to the Adult Drango
Speaker 7: adult education senator to pursue her GED, which she did get.
Speaker 2: And we've uncovered and learned.
Speaker 7: That there is a gigantic gender ideology component in that
Speaker 7: center and the people that work there. And when as
Speaker 7: we're getting into December, the relationship that the family is
Speaker 7: getting very tense. The daughters is dressing like a male
Speaker 7: using you know, male yodorant and shampoo and getting a
Speaker 7: kind of more aggressive and unhappy and they have an argument.
Speaker 7: And part of the agreement and after the November runaway
Speaker 7: experience was that they would find two homes where the
Speaker 7: daughter could go in the event that she was you know,
Speaker 7: stressed out, uncomfortable, unhappy, quote unquote unsafe, felt unsafe, and
Speaker 7: that was what agreed upon. It was great upon which
Speaker 7: health Protective services. And the daughter said, I'm leaving and
Speaker 7: mom said, I'm not going to stand in your way,
Speaker 7: and that's what the mom said. She'd say, I'm kissing
Speaker 7: you out.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to say.
Speaker 7: I think you're just going to go to one of
Speaker 7: these two places, which she doesn't do. And when we
Speaker 7: realize that she is with this teacher that she doesn't
Speaker 7: have permission to be with, we file a runaway report
Speaker 7: with the Laplatta County Deputy Share Office and this was
Speaker 7: December twenty sixth, and we were eventually told that they
Speaker 7: removed the runaway status. They weren't going to do anything.
Speaker 7: They said, you can do whatever you want.
Speaker 2: You can pick her up.
Speaker 7: And we have multiple communications that we've documented with the
Speaker 7: Laplatta County Police department. We actually file the complaint today
Speaker 7: for a full investigation into everything.
Speaker 2: That's gone down. But Cindy went to.
Speaker 7: Retrieve her daughter on January stipth, and that's the story
Speaker 7: that broke yesterday, that particular story.
Speaker 1: So the sound we're about to hear, and the videos
Speaker 1: available as well, I've seen it, is when Cindy goes
Speaker 1: to retrieve her daughter and then there are two other
Speaker 1: women in the car. Who's in the car with Cindy.
Speaker 7: Two friends?
Speaker 2: Two friends? Yeah, okay, and that's okay.
Speaker 1: I don't need the names, but I was just kind
Speaker 1: of curious watching the video. But that's what people are
Speaker 1: about to hear.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Describe for folks the visual on the first part of
Speaker 1: this sound, which appears to me as if an officer
Speaker 1: is in the home now talking to the daughter.
Speaker 2: Is that right?
Speaker 7: Yes, So when the officers arrived on scene, they walked
Speaker 7: up the stairs of the other man's very small, one
Speaker 7: bedroom home and they kind of giggled and laughed, and
Speaker 7: you know, it's very friendly. Just in the deputy server
Speaker 7: basically just claimed that he was just there for a
Speaker 7: welfare check, very very calm, and they walked in and
Speaker 7: the daughter was sitting on a couch and Joanne was
Speaker 7: sitting to her left to the officer's right. And you know,
Speaker 7: when any any time that there is a situation where
Speaker 7: a child feels threatened or is it the situation with
Speaker 7: an abuser and the abuser is in that room, that
Speaker 7: child is not going to admit anything.
Speaker 1: Now, let me let me ask you this before I
Speaker 1: go to sound, and I want folks to hear some
Speaker 1: of the sound before the breakthrough. The rest of it
Speaker 1: will have to come after the break But at this point,
Speaker 1: would you refer to somebody as an abuser. There haven't
Speaker 1: been any charges brought against disjoint smothermen or anybody else. Right,
Speaker 1: that's so you're giving your opinion on what you thinks.
Speaker 7: Going and an analogy. I'm using an analogy. I'm not
Speaker 7: claiming that she's an abuser. I'm just saying that in
Speaker 7: this if that was a situation, we have a mom
Speaker 7: calling in distress, saying her child is being harbored by
Speaker 7: an adult that won't let her go, that she doesn't
Speaker 7: have permission to be with. And so that's concern. The
Speaker 7: mother is concerned that there is abuse happening, and in
Speaker 7: that situation, the police officer you know, his due diligence
Speaker 7: is his duty is to investigate that well.
Speaker 1: And what we'll do now because I want folks to
Speaker 1: be able to hear the sound in a coherent way.
Speaker 2: And thank you for that set up there.
Speaker 1: Lourie Kimmostein is our guest Colorado Parent Advocacy Network.
Speaker 2: We'll come back and we'll pick it up now.
Speaker 1: That you've had a description of what we're about to hear,
Speaker 1: we'll pick it up with the audio again. There's video
Speaker 1: that goes with this, and then we'll cycle back and
Speaker 1: talk about what can be done here. You're on the
Speaker 1: Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4: And now back to the Dan Kapla Show Podcast fifty.
Speaker 2: Glad you're here.
Speaker 1: Larry Kimmostein our guest from Colorado Parent Advocacy Network. We
Speaker 1: won't repeat the long setup. Lurie spent the last segment
Speaker 1: telling us this story is I understand it of a
Speaker 1: seventeen year old girl who had texted her mom saying
Speaker 1: that hey, I'm really a boy, and then the mother
Speaker 1: said no, you're not, and one thing led to another,
Speaker 1: and then the child ends up, as I understand it,
Speaker 1: living at the home of some other adults and the
Speaker 1: mother wants her out of there, and that's what we're
Speaker 1: going to pick up this sound and there's video as
Speaker 1: well that goes with this, and we'll tell you when
Speaker 1: we're done where you can see that video when you
Speaker 1: get home. Anything you want to add to that, Lourie,
Speaker 1: before I fired up, Hey.
Speaker 7: Deputies are on scene at the home. Mom has called
Speaker 7: nine one one, The teacher has refused to release her daughter,
Speaker 7: called their attorney and now deputies are finally on scene
Speaker 7: after the mom waited over an hour for them to arrive.
Speaker 1: And when you say teacher for those not with us
Speaker 1: in the last segment, this is apparently a former math
Speaker 1: teacher of the daughter who the daughter is now staying with.
Speaker 7: Correct, And I'm also employed by the Durango Adult Education Center,
Speaker 7: so she works there as well.
Speaker 1: And at this point in the story, is the daughter
Speaker 1: still viewing herself as a male or has that phase passed?
Speaker 7: No, the mother and call her ONYX and you tee
Speaker 7: him pronounce or they pronounce.
Speaker 2: For Cindy's daughter. Okay, And here is where the story
Speaker 2: picks up.
Speaker 1: And again the visual here is I understand it is
Speaker 1: the officer walking into the home where the daughter's present
Speaker 1: along with Laurie tells us the smotherman's and then you'll
Speaker 1: hear that, and then you'll hear the officer walk back out,
Speaker 1: and then you'll hear that the child's mother interact with
Speaker 1: the officers.
Speaker 8: I'm deputy server. How are you very good? That's all
Speaker 8: I need to basically hear. I'm just coming by to
Speaker 8: make sure you're good, you know what I mean. I'm
Speaker 8: not going to try to insert myself into something that's
Speaker 8: already sort of in process or whatever you're doing.
Speaker 2: You know, and by legal standard.
Speaker 8: You're technically a minor as a seventeen year old. But
Speaker 8: I just wanted to make sure you're good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Okrect're very good. That's all I need for now.
Speaker 8: And I appreciate you guys, and I appreciate your willingness
Speaker 8: to I don't know, I guess help me check boxes, right.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm going to pause it for a second, Lorie.
Speaker 1: And again, I'm not involved in this. I don't know
Speaker 1: all the intimate details. I don't know whether she was
Speaker 1: good or not at that moment. But I think your
Speaker 1: point being that, hypothetically, let's not even talk about that situation.
Speaker 1: Just generally speaking, if if a miner in that situation
Speaker 1: was not good. You know, could an officer rely on
Speaker 1: that exchange to conclude that the miner was good?
Speaker 2: Correct?
Speaker 7: Usually in an investigation and discuss in discussions with other
Speaker 7: investigators is that the individual is interviewed separately, away from
Speaker 7: the people that you know they're being that are housing now, right,
Speaker 7: So if there's a concern by a parent, the investigation
Speaker 7: would separate the child from the people and then give
Speaker 7: them an opportunity to disclose in private if anything was happening.
Speaker 2: There was.
Speaker 7: There was absolutely no effort on Deputy Server's part to
Speaker 7: verify or validate anything that the mom claims or you
Speaker 7: know that others, some other men are just like, yes, absolutely,
Speaker 7: she's totally fine, everything's great. And instead he just said,
Speaker 7: I'm just there to check boxes. I mean, this was
Speaker 7: not an investigation at all. There was no due diligence
Speaker 7: in this investigation. It's outrageous and.
Speaker 1: We'll certainly invite the deputy on it. And obviously, you know,
Speaker 1: I've got to bias in the son of a thirty
Speaker 1: year cup, a fantastic cup, and and so I tend
Speaker 1: to give a lot of deference to law enforcement their
Speaker 1: feel for a situation, how to best handle a situation,
Speaker 1: how to evaluate it, you know, based upon everything that
Speaker 1: can be seen and heard and sensed. I get you concern,
Speaker 1: I certainly do, but let me pick it up from here.
Speaker 8: I'm probably going to have to speak with them.
Speaker 2: Adown exactly now who's he referring to at that point?
Speaker 7: So the two deputies are walking to their vehicles. They're
Speaker 7: about to drive down to Cindy's vehicle, which is just
Speaker 7: off the property on the street, and one of the
Speaker 7: deputies says, you know, we're probably gonna have to speak
Speaker 7: with them, and actually I think it was Deputy Server
Speaker 7: that said we're going to have to speak with them,
Speaker 7: and then the other deputy said they're probably going to
Speaker 7: have a meltdown, and then they both have started laughing, and.
Speaker 1: Then we being Cindy being the mother, so we'll we'll
Speaker 1: pick it up from there.
Speaker 8: So I'm Deputy Server, and you folks are I'm mom.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, okay.
Speaker 8: So I basically went and did a welfare check and
Speaker 8: I don't see signs of distress.
Speaker 9: There doesn't need to be distressed. She needs to come home.
Speaker 9: She's harbored by these folks. That does not have my
Speaker 9: permission to be here. She is a minor. I don't
Speaker 9: care if she's a day away from eighteen. A minor
Speaker 9: is a minor, and she does not had my permission.
Speaker 8: To be here, right, But again, it doesn't rise to
Speaker 8: the level of law enforcement involvement.
Speaker 2: She's not in distress right now.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry you're telling me that you're not going.
Speaker 2: To physically rip her out of that home.
Speaker 9: Yeah, even if there was an agreement between CPS and
Speaker 9: her and the mother that.
Speaker 8: That those are civil agreements and you're gonna have to
Speaker 8: deal with those on a civil level.
Speaker 9: So even though she is a minor, she has no
Speaker 9: permission to be here, she's technically a runaway.
Speaker 8: At this point.
Speaker 2: They're harboring and that's okay.
Speaker 3: I mean, we heard you.
Speaker 9: Guys laugh up there, So there's obviously something that was fun.
Speaker 9: Isn't they kidnapping when you were supposed to give a
Speaker 9: child back? No, seriously, So what was funny is what
Speaker 9: I'd like to know what you guys were laughing at them?
Speaker 7: So what was funny?
Speaker 2: I don't believe that's relevant.
Speaker 7: I do when you're talking about a child.
Speaker 2: This is a seventeen year old. He's still a minor.
Speaker 8: Minor and child are different, and distress was not seen.
Speaker 8: I was told to distress, there isn't.
Speaker 1: Any and Laurie, I only pause it there because of
Speaker 1: remaining time in the segment. So why don't you close
Speaker 1: out the segment for us and then tell people how
Speaker 1: they can follow you, how they can learn more about
Speaker 1: your group, and where they can see the video.
Speaker 7: Absolutely, you know. So what I would really like to
Speaker 7: mention to the listeners is that there has been a
Speaker 7: formal complaint filed against the La Plata County Sheriff's office.
Speaker 7: Cindy is a mom and she's done everything in her
Speaker 7: power to go through the proper channels and follow the
Speaker 7: law and protect her child, and she's just been treated
Speaker 7: really with contempt and disregard by the very people that
Speaker 7: are supposed to a full justice. So people can learn more,
Speaker 7: follow us on x at CPN Colorado and subscribe on
Speaker 7: our website, join us, join the movement Coloradoparents dot org.
Speaker 1: Heay, thank you, Laurie. Really appreciate the time today. We're
Speaker 1: pleased with so many in the law enforcement community in
Speaker 1: our audience.
Speaker 2: Would love your reaction to what you heard.
Speaker 1: What you think the proper protocol would be here if
Speaker 1: you're on the Dankapito Show.