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. Well, the American
Speaker 1: way is to take big problems head on, don't don't
Speaker 1: bury your head in the sand, or you get your
Speaker 1: you know what kicked, and to endure some pain in
Speaker 1: order to a survive, be thrive, and three, you know,
Speaker 1: get more freedom. That That has been the history of America.
Speaker 1: It's the only reason that any of us are here
Speaker 1: right now, speaking English and having the freedoms we do,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And anybody who cannot see that we are
Speaker 1: headed toward the cliff in multiple ways economically, just isn't
Speaker 1: paining attention. Now, does that mean the tariffs are the solution?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm no expert on tariffs, but I
Speaker 1: know we need a solution. And everybody's talking about the
Speaker 1: price of tariffs right now. Hey, I had to look
Speaker 1: at my four oh one k right. I didn't want to,
Speaker 1: but we're doing taxes. So my wife said, okay, give
Speaker 1: me the phone. Then I'll open your schwab app, I'll
Speaker 1: send them what they need. And then unfortunately I saw
Speaker 1: what she opened up. Yeah, it's real painful right now,
Speaker 1: but there is no way that we're going to get
Speaker 1: from here to there economically and get the stability we
Speaker 1: need to get the national security we need to get
Speaker 1: this strong America and American manufacturing. We need to get
Speaker 1: the national debt down the way we need to get
Speaker 1: it down. There's no way we're getting from here to
Speaker 1: there without some kind of pain and some big fix
Speaker 1: right now. I just respect Trump for being willing to
Speaker 1: endure some political pain to try to get us fixed. Now,
Speaker 1: why do I have confidence that this play is going
Speaker 1: to work? Simply because I have confidence in Trump when
Speaker 1: it comes to economic stuff. He's not God, he's not perfect,
Speaker 1: but he's got a lot more success in anybody else
Speaker 1: we've had a long time around here. I also have
Speaker 1: a lot of confidence in his personal desire to win
Speaker 1: and to succeed, right, I mean, that's been proven over time.
Speaker 1: He wouldn't be doing this unless he really believed it
Speaker 1: was going to work and he had a plan. And
Speaker 1: then when it comes to the critics, most of whom
Speaker 1: on the Democrat side are hoping the economy fails. On
Speaker 1: the Republican side, and there are critics they want the
Speaker 1: economy to succeed. They just think he's wrong. But when
Speaker 1: it comes to the critics, think about all the critics
Speaker 1: from both parties who have told you from the beginning
Speaker 1: this is going to be a disaster.
Speaker 2: ANDERR.
Speaker 1: Trump, he's going to start World War three, you know,
Speaker 1: he's colluding with Russia, etc. And then look where we
Speaker 1: end up. Right, So no, I do trust him on this,
Speaker 1: and we'll find out, I think pretty soon, whether it's
Speaker 1: well placed or not. I want to shift gears for
Speaker 1: a second. Go to Jarvis Caldwell. He's a Republican in
Speaker 1: House District twenty elected there and I really appreciate you
Speaker 1: representative posting some sound that I caught on X last night,
Speaker 1: and I'll let you describe it. But I think folks
Speaker 1: really need to hear about this and then we can
Speaker 1: talk about what to do. But please, sir, thank you
Speaker 1: for being here and set the stage.
Speaker 3: Yes, sir, thank you so much for having me. So.
Speaker 3: The context of this was on Tuesday, House built thirteen
Speaker 3: twelve legal protections for transgender individuals, which I will say
Speaker 3: is probably the most radical bill we've seen so far
Speaker 3: this session, and we've seen some pretty bad ones. And
Speaker 3: so what I did on X yesterday was I posted
Speaker 3: a side by side of a portion of my closing
Speaker 3: statement where I was basically saying, you know what we
Speaker 3: heard witness testimony today that this has been stakeholdered for
Speaker 3: over a year, even though the bill just got introduced
Speaker 3: on Friday evening after we went home, and then on
Speaker 3: Monday we found out that this bill was going to
Speaker 3: be heard on Tuesday, and we didn't even realize this
Speaker 3: bill had been introduced. And so I basically said, I
Speaker 3: I posed the question, you know, has this bill been
Speaker 3: stakeholdered with the non LGBT community, specifically the printal rights groups?
Speaker 3: And what the clip demonstrates is the closing statements from
Speaker 3: Representative Yarozo Kai and the Chairman Javier Maybury, and they
Speaker 3: said just flat out, you know, we don't need to
Speaker 3: stakeholder with hate groups. And then Representative o Kai basically
Speaker 3: compared these printal rights groups to the KKK and she said,
Speaker 3: we wouldn't we wouldn't go to the KKK if we're
Speaker 3: writing civil rights legislation. And it was just absolutely stunning.
Speaker 1: Well, it's just it's just nutty, haiti stuff. I can't
Speaker 1: access thirty two on my screen. Rank can you punch
Speaker 1: it for us? Here's the sound, and again this is
Speaker 1: representative Jarvis with us, but but it is it is
Speaker 1: just hateful, nutty stuff. And as we get that queued up,
Speaker 1: we're having a little technical glitch, which means it's my fault, right,
Speaker 1: because I can assure you, representative, anytime there's a technical
Speaker 1: glitch here, somehow it is my fault in reality, in reality.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about it before we get this sound
Speaker 1: cued up. So tell us about the people who would
Speaker 1: do this, tell us about the parental rights groups that
Speaker 1: they're comparing it to, that they're comparing to the KKK,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And tell us about the people who are
Speaker 1: doing that. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, so they didn't say explicitly who these these
Speaker 3: parents groups were. I imagine it's like the Colorado Parents
Speaker 3: Advocacy Network SEAPAN, which are just really concerned parents and
Speaker 3: they're a great group of people. They may have been
Speaker 3: talking about, you know, moms for Liberty groups or something,
Speaker 3: but just in general, all I said was, did you
Speaker 3: talk to the you know, basically the non leftist activist
Speaker 3: parents rights groups, and that was their response to say
Speaker 3: their hate groups, because if you don't fully believe what
Speaker 3: they believe, then you're obviously a part of a hate group.
Speaker 1: Which is incredible.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was incredible to hear.
Speaker 1: Let's listen to that together.
Speaker 4: How willing would you be to look at a new
Speaker 4: food pyramid and instituting.
Speaker 1: We're doing that right now when we okay, okay, it's
Speaker 1: getting better. And by the way, we are going to
Speaker 1: ask you about the new food period food pyramid, Ryan,
Speaker 1: would you fire that we'd heard.
Speaker 3: From multiple witnesses that this bill has been worked on
Speaker 3: for over a year. I will say I learned about
Speaker 3: this bill yesterday. It was introduced Friday evening. I really
Speaker 3: am curious about how much stakeholding went on both sides
Speaker 3: of the issue, and if parent groups that are that
Speaker 3: are not a part of the LGBT community, if they
Speaker 3: were involved.
Speaker 4: A well stakeholded bill does not need to be discussed
Speaker 4: with hate groups. And we don't ask someone passing civil
Speaker 4: rights legislation to go ask the KKK their opinion.
Speaker 5: But I agree there's no reason to go to the
Speaker 5: table with people who are echoing the hate rhetoric going
Speaker 5: around about the trans community.
Speaker 1: Remarkable representative chargists who who are the I assume from
Speaker 1: their comments hateful idiots my words, not yours who made
Speaker 1: those remarks.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so that is Representative Yarozo Kai and the Chairman
Speaker 3: of Judiciary, Representative Javier Maybury. I know Maybury is from Denver.
Speaker 3: I believe so Kai is from maybe a Rapahoe County.
Speaker 3: I don't know specifically the area or their house district
Speaker 3: numbers off the top of my head, but you know,
Speaker 3: they are just very left wing Democrats in the legislature
Speaker 3: and in the bill in general. Is just it's very extreme.
Speaker 3: I mean it basically it says that if you missgender
Speaker 3: your child, your own child, if you miss gender your child,
Speaker 3: that's considered coercive control, which is a form of child
Speaker 3: abuse by definition. And I think the and this is
Speaker 3: my cynical side here, I think the intent is to
Speaker 3: basically get rid of the ability to try to get
Speaker 3: your child help if you're having a gender identity crisis
Speaker 3: or gender dysphoria, because how can you get them help
Speaker 3: if you have to tell them, no, you're not actually
Speaker 3: a girl, you're a boy. We're going to go get
Speaker 3: you help, because just the act of doing that is
Speaker 3: misgendering them, which they are saying in this bill that
Speaker 3: that is child abuse. It is very extreme. And that's
Speaker 3: just one portion of the bill.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about that key point you just made,
Speaker 1: because that's exactly what's going on, and it also, in
Speaker 1: my mind, explains they're extraordinarily hateful rhetoric that they're engaging in.
Speaker 1: And otherwise I assume smart people saying very idiotic things
Speaker 1: because in my experience, that's what you see. When they
Speaker 1: know that they can't win the argument, they can't win
Speaker 1: the argument on logic or reason or moraleity or law,
Speaker 1: is they start spewing venom like this, right, because it's
Speaker 1: the same thing it's up in the US Supreme Court now,
Speaker 1: as you know, same thing they're trying to do with
Speaker 1: counselors in Colorado. Oh no, a counselor can't be speaking
Speaker 1: the truth to kids about their real gender and telling them, no,
Speaker 1: you really are a boy, and here's how we can
Speaker 1: make sure you're a boy. They try to outlaw that speech,
Speaker 1: which fortunately got the attention of the US Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: which is about to reverse that.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So they started with the counselors, and now they're
Speaker 3: going to the parents. And this bill specifically says that
Speaker 3: if you're in a custody dispute that they call it
Speaker 3: paramount consideration. So basically, the preference goes to the parents
Speaker 3: who affirms the gender, and so they're giving them, they're
Speaker 3: putting the sum on the scale in a legal situation
Speaker 3: to favor the parent who is continuing this gender confusion for.
Speaker 1: The child representative. Can you stay for another segment because
Speaker 1: I'd like to deep dive this with you and I
Speaker 1: want to play that sound again. But they representative either
Speaker 1: obviously very knowledgeable when it comes to what's going on there.
Speaker 1: But the headline today is the elected Colorado Democrats attacking
Speaker 1: the parents groups that'd say, no, wait a second, we
Speaker 1: should be able to talk to our children about their
Speaker 1: true gender, labeling them as hate groups, comparing them to
Speaker 1: the KKK. What does that tell you? You're on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 6: And now back to the dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm twenty two. Glad you're here. Special guest Representative Jarvis Caldwell,
Speaker 1: he's Republican House District twenty, has been deep diving with us.
Speaker 1: He's extraordinarily radical trans rights bills. And I put that
Speaker 1: in quotes because obviously it's a gross deprivation of parental rights,
Speaker 1: of business owner rights, etc. But we're talking about a
Speaker 1: twist to this, and in committee a number of elected
Speaker 1: Democrats comparing parents groups to the KKK and other hate
Speaker 1: groups and saying that's why they won't consult with them
Speaker 1: on this bill. They're trying to sneak through at the
Speaker 1: last minute. So representative for those who may have just
Speaker 1: joined us during the break, I'm going to replay the
Speaker 1: sound that you posted and then ask you to fill
Speaker 1: us in on what occurred and what comes next with
Speaker 1: these bills. So here's what happened in Part and committee.
Speaker 3: We'd heard from multiple witnesses that this bill has been
Speaker 3: worked on for over a year. I will say I
Speaker 3: learned about this bill yesterday. It was introduced Friday evening.
Speaker 3: I really am curious about how much stakeholding went on
Speaker 3: both sides of the issue, and if parent groups that
Speaker 3: are not a part of the LGBT community, if they
Speaker 3: were involved.
Speaker 4: A well stakeholded bill does not need to be discussed
Speaker 4: with hate groups, and we don't ask someone hassing civil
Speaker 4: rights legislation to go ask the KKK their opinion.
Speaker 5: But I agree there's no reason to go to the
Speaker 5: table with people who are echoing the hateful rhetoric going
Speaker 5: around about the trans community.
Speaker 1: And I'd ask you to identify those elected officials in
Speaker 1: a second. But the point being that clearly the reason
Speaker 1: they label these parents groups and these opponents says KKK
Speaker 1: and hate and everything else, is that's their excuse to
Speaker 1: not engage because they know they would lose the argument
Speaker 1: on the merits. But again for those just joining us,
Speaker 1: who are the presumably smart people saying those really hateful,
Speaker 1: dumb things.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So the first the female there is Yara Zokai.
Speaker 3: She is a Democrat, a new legislator that she's a
Speaker 3: freshman like I am, and I believe she's out of
Speaker 3: a rappa hole county. She's an attorney. And then the
Speaker 3: second on there was Javier Mayby who's out of Denver.
Speaker 3: He's an attorney, Democrat and he's actually the chairman of
Speaker 3: how judiciary. So that is that's the situation with our
Speaker 3: judiciary right now.
Speaker 1: Wow. Wow. And then again for those just joining, a
Speaker 1: quick recap of just how radical these bills are. And
Speaker 1: again I take when people make extreme flame throwing obviously
Speaker 1: false in my view, statements like that they're projecting right,
Speaker 1: that they're projecting because they know that what they're doing
Speaker 1: is indefensible. But give people a quick summary of some
Speaker 1: of the worst of these bills.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So this bill is how billed thirteen twelve legal
Speaker 3: protections for transgender individuals. As we talked about on the
Speaker 3: last segment, it makes misgendering of your own child considered
Speaker 3: child abuse and you can specifically lose custody over that.
Speaker 3: It also negates other states laws and court orders. So
Speaker 3: you have two people who live in Kansas, they both
Speaker 3: have custody, two parents. One takes the child to Colorado
Speaker 3: to get gender affirming care. The Kansas court rules that
Speaker 3: you have to bring that child back. We're saying that
Speaker 3: Colorado will now ignore that court order, which in my opinion,
Speaker 3: is a violational Article four, Section one of the US Constitution,
Speaker 3: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And there's some other
Speaker 3: really concerning things like the gender based dress codes. So
Speaker 3: I'm ade charter school board member. We have boys uniforms
Speaker 3: and girls' uniforms, and I specifically asked the bill sponsor
Speaker 3: Lorraina Garcia, another Democrat on Judiciary. Does this mean, if
Speaker 3: this bill passes, we have to do away with boy
Speaker 3: uniforms and girl uniforms and just have a uniform and it's,
Speaker 3: you know, the wild West, and you can wear anything
Speaker 3: you want. She explicitly said.
Speaker 1: Yes, insane. Would that apply to private schools as well
Speaker 1: in the bill?
Speaker 3: Off the top of my head, if I recollect it
Speaker 3: is your public district, rand schools and charter schools specifically.
Speaker 1: It's just outrageous. And when you say representative misgendering, you
Speaker 1: mean if a parent refers to their child by their
Speaker 1: correct gender, that would then cost them in a custody dispute.
Speaker 3: Exactly so, And as we talked about a lesson, I
Speaker 3: think the intent here is to basically try to do
Speaker 3: away with getting treatment for a child if they have
Speaker 3: confusion about their gender, because how can you get them
Speaker 3: treatment if you can't tell them that they're wrong and
Speaker 3: call them the gender that they are. And so you
Speaker 3: can literally lose custody over this, and it should be
Speaker 3: alarming for every parent. Frankly not.
Speaker 1: And in our last minute, can you tell me why
Speaker 1: do you think Democrats are willing to go to these
Speaker 1: bizarre preposterous, illogical child hurting extremes on this issue? What's
Speaker 1: driving it? Because it's clearly out of step with the
Speaker 1: American people, as the election just proved, and I think
Speaker 1: out of up with the people of Colorado. So why
Speaker 1: are they so obsessed with this lunacy that hurts so
Speaker 1: many kids?
Speaker 7: You know?
Speaker 3: I think it's very it's a very left wing ideological
Speaker 3: belief system, and it drives me crazy because the bill
Speaker 3: sponsor UH doesn't doesn't have kids, but almost all for
Speaker 3: bills target children with these left wing ideologies, and so
Speaker 3: that that aspect of it is very concerning U. And
Speaker 3: I want to make sure I get in there before
Speaker 3: we run out of time. That this bill is coming
Speaker 3: to the House floor tomorrow for debate for second readings,
Speaker 3: and so we are gearing up and we're ready to
Speaker 3: fight it all day tomorrow. So if anybody can get
Speaker 3: down to the Capitol or at least tune in and
Speaker 3: listen to us, because we're going to be fighting this
Speaker 3: thing with everything we have.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate what you're doing, and let's stay in
Speaker 1: touch on this, Okay. We'd love to get you on
Speaker 1: for regular updates. How can people follow you on X Yes,
Speaker 1: it's at Rep.
Speaker 3: Caldwell.
Speaker 1: Okay, fighting the good fight, my friend.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, you take care and well we will continue
Speaker 1: to follow. That kind of makes sense, he tells us.
Speaker 1: The bill sponsor doesn't have children. That kind of makes sense, right.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't you think anybody would parents with their hate group?
Speaker 1: Dan Man, Yeah, you would think just anybody who cares
Speaker 1: about children, whether they have children or not, would know
Speaker 1: that a bill like this is insane. But then when
Speaker 1: you look at the Left, so much of what they
Speaker 1: do is radically anti child, radically from their holy grail
Speaker 1: being the mass killing of children before birth and children
Speaker 1: of color in you know, to afford to one rate,
Speaker 1: and then you look at if the child's lucky enough
Speaker 1: to get born under Democrat policies, all the different ways
Speaker 1: the Left's policies just overtly harm children. So where do
Speaker 1: you think that comes from? Well, we'll talk about that
Speaker 1: as well, Hey, perfect iy. After the break is a
Speaker 1: segue George Brockler DA. In the twenty third we'll talk
Speaker 1: about these Tesla terrorists and under Colorado law, what kind
Speaker 1: of charges can be brought? Personally, I want to see
Speaker 1: them charged to the max. Three oh three someone three
Speaker 1: eight two five five text dam five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 1: You're on the Dan Capliss Show.
Speaker 6: You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 7: The next couple of months, we're going to offer our
Speaker 7: customers the same deal that our employees get. And as
Speaker 7: you say, that's worth thousands of dollars, you come into
Speaker 7: our store, you get employee pricing. This is kind of
Speaker 7: to call a little bit of a time out. We've
Speaker 7: heard some uncertainty from our customers and we want we
Speaker 7: want them to be assured that Ford, the most American
Speaker 7: auto company, is going to do right by them. As
Speaker 7: our dealers, we make the most cars here, we employ
Speaker 7: the most, we export the most, and so we here
Speaker 7: at Ford we're in a good position to address customers
Speaker 7: concern and give them a really great deal on a
Speaker 7: great vehicle.
Speaker 1: Glad to hear that, since I owned Ford stock and
Speaker 1: own a Ford Bronco. But GM says it's also going
Speaker 1: to crank things up here in the US of A.
Speaker 8: A General motorspokesperson is now confirming there was a webcast
Speaker 8: to employees a short time ago.
Speaker 2: GM.
Speaker 8: We'll be making operational adjustments at at Fort Wayne Assembly,
Speaker 8: including hiring temporary employees to support current manufacturing and business.
Speaker 1: Glad to hear that, let's go to the VIP line.
Speaker 1: Always a privilege and a pleasure to welcome George Brockler
Speaker 1: the DA in the twenty third and wanted to talk
Speaker 1: to George today about these Tesla terrorists and under Colorado
Speaker 1: state law, what are the most hell, let's just say,
Speaker 1: toughest charges that could be brought George, Welcome back to
Speaker 1: the show.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me on Quick Story, Dan the way,
Speaker 2: if you could. I jumped into a trial, you know,
Speaker 2: as a d I like to do things with the
Speaker 2: younger prostitutors, and I had done one since STEM because
Speaker 2: of the term limits, I was out of office. I
Speaker 2: jumped in on a DUI case and we got a
Speaker 2: conviction and talked to the jury afterwards, and this guy
Speaker 2: on the on the jury recognized me a little bit,
Speaker 2: and I said, I always ask questions like, Hey, is
Speaker 2: there anything we could have done better? Is or things
Speaker 2: that we did that we're distracting, you know, you want
Speaker 2: to learn from the jury. And at one point he goes, well,
Speaker 2: I really have. It's not a question about the case,
Speaker 2: and I go, yeah, yeah, and he goes, do you
Speaker 2: do you.
Speaker 1: Know Dan Kaplis you're making this up.
Speaker 2: I am not making this up.
Speaker 1: Man, Yeah, do you know Dan CAplus?
Speaker 2: I go, no, Dan, I worked for Dan twenty years ago. Man,
Speaker 2: the guy with Dan.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's that's that's awesome. And I'm not
Speaker 1: sure where it went from there, but thank you for
Speaker 1: saying that. No, it's great, that's awesome, And and you
Speaker 1: must have really enjoyed being in court because obviously you're
Speaker 1: an elite trial lawyer plus, and there's just nothing like it.
Speaker 2: There isn't And you know this, you know you and
Speaker 2: I can say things that resonate with us that other
Speaker 2: folks that have never been there and done that it's like, oh,
Speaker 2: that sounds great. You just there's nothing like it. Standing up,
Speaker 2: making an argument, trying to anticipate what the other side's
Speaker 2: going to do, dealing with things on the fly, putting
Speaker 2: out evidence, the nerves that you always have because no
Speaker 2: matter how good your evidence is and how will you
Speaker 2: think you've presented it, you're always like, man, JERRYS can
Speaker 2: do it.
Speaker 1: That's right. They want No, that's that's right. And that's
Speaker 1: how I try to explain it is. It's just one
Speaker 1: of the most and it's one of the ways, right, George.
Speaker 1: It's such a healthy saying. It's one of the most
Speaker 1: humbling things a person can do, because you walk into
Speaker 1: that courtroom and no matter how well you do, whatever
Speaker 1: you do, you are at the mercy of that jury,
Speaker 1: the wisdom of the founders, right, they get to make
Speaker 1: that call, and it's it's a very humbling, moving kind
Speaker 1: of thing. But speaking of moving, I'll bet that defense
Speaker 1: attorney was not pleased to see you walk in to
Speaker 1: try it.
Speaker 2: She made no comment, how did and she I'll tell
Speaker 2: you she did a great job for the case that
Speaker 2: she had. There just wasn't a ton there. And it's
Speaker 2: not like it was a murder or something. It was
Speaker 2: a series d why But I'm telling you, the Douglas
Speaker 2: County Sheriff's deputies did such a good job. The jeerors
Speaker 2: had nothing but praise for him, and I just thought
Speaker 2: that this is great.
Speaker 1: I'm glad I'm back in the corn put to your
Speaker 1: question well and leading from in front, right, because I
Speaker 1: think it's great when das do that and go in
Speaker 1: and try cases. It's just a great example to their
Speaker 1: team because no matter what the case or whatever, and
Speaker 1: everybody listening probably has a real hard job, right, but
Speaker 1: trying a case is a hard job, and so it's
Speaker 1: just great to set that example. But what's the max
Speaker 1: that can be done to these Tesla terrorists? Particularly since
Speaker 1: I may get a cyber truck.
Speaker 2: I think that we're going to find that the Feds
Speaker 2: have the biggest hammer in this one. As long as
Speaker 2: it's property damage. And here's why. If you were to
Speaker 2: do damage arson damage in excess of one hundred thousand
Speaker 2: dollars only looking at a third class felony which is
Speaker 2: presumptively punishable by four to twelve years, but it's a
Speaker 2: probation eligible.
Speaker 1: Wow. Crazy, I know it's crazy.
Speaker 2: If you can tie these people together, and it feels
Speaker 2: like there's a Tesla takedown moment. If you could tie
Speaker 2: them together and somehow find a way to charge our
Speaker 2: organized crime statue which people might know as RICO but
Speaker 2: we call it Colorado here. That elevates it to a
Speaker 2: second class felony, but also probation eligible in the state
Speaker 2: of Colorado under these facts. Crazy, if someone weren't thank god,
Speaker 2: they weren't to be hurt or there was some allegation
Speaker 2: of an attempt murder or crime of violence. That's probably
Speaker 2: the only way we could inch our way into some
Speaker 2: mandatory time. So when you look at the federal charges
Speaker 2: and you see that they're big one the uh what
Speaker 2: is that eight forty four I carries a five to
Speaker 2: twenty year mandatory sentence? You think, Yeah, if we have
Speaker 2: to decide which venue to do this in, probably best
Speaker 2: to do it us court.
Speaker 1: What do you have to prove at the federal level?
Speaker 2: You know, for the federal level, the three charges that
Speaker 2: these guys are indicted on, two of them are firearms
Speaker 2: relating charges. But the other one, the count number three,
Speaker 2: is that they attempted to damage or destroy by means
Speaker 2: of fire and explosive material vehicles in unterstate commerce. So
Speaker 2: it's an arson specific total.
Speaker 1: Gotcha. And I saw an interesting article today on the
Speaker 1: civil side about somebody pursuing a civil case for large
Speaker 1: damages because it's politically motivated type of terrorism. But you know,
Speaker 1: Colorado civil law may not lend itself as well to that.
Speaker 1: So charge shifting away from Tesla for the moment, what's
Speaker 1: the most important thing going on right now that most
Speaker 1: of us probably don't know.
Speaker 2: About in the twenty third judicial district.
Speaker 1: Or anywhere in your view, because I know you are
Speaker 1: kind of a renaissance man. You're watching every saying yeah, yes, so,
Speaker 1: And what's going on right now legislature, you know, because
Speaker 1: obviously we have and it's just so surreal. What seems
Speaker 1: to me a very criminal friendly, you know, state legislature,
Speaker 1: criminal friendly governor. It seems like they're always playing hold
Speaker 1: my beer and watch this. So what's going on down
Speaker 1: there right now concerns you the most?
Speaker 2: Well, there's a nexus here between local control and criminal
Speaker 2: justice that the legislature is poised to blow up, and
Speaker 2: that is they have a bill that they want to
Speaker 2: make a law that would strip away from municipalities the
Speaker 2: ability to prosecute and punish crimes at variance with the state.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So if Aurora wanted to have a mandatory Hey, you're
Speaker 2: going to mandatory jail for ten days for retail theft.
Speaker 2: And that's not the state outcome, and I'm here to
Speaker 2: tell you it's not the state outcome, then Auroras wouldn't.
Speaker 1: Be no good.
Speaker 2: They have to change their laws to get to match this.
Speaker 2: Here's what's going to happen, And we've started to see this.
Speaker 2: When the state started meddling around with telling Aurora basically
Speaker 2: how to prosecute DV cases, Aurora said, guess what, We're
Speaker 2: just going to get out of the business of prosecuting
Speaker 2: DV cases and we're going to save three million Aurora
Speaker 2: taxpayer dollars. And they shifted those hundreds of important cases
Speaker 2: over to the DA's office. So now the DA's office
Speaker 2: is going to the county going, hey, we need to
Speaker 2: hire a ton more prosecutors to handle this. I suspect
Speaker 2: that if the state legislature continues down this road and
Speaker 2: they continue to chisel away at this, two things will happen. One,
Speaker 2: you'll see more counties doing what Douglas is doing, and
Speaker 2: that's trying to become a home rule county. And I
Speaker 2: think you'll also see more municipalities look at the state
Speaker 2: and say you want all these cases, good luck, and
Speaker 2: they're going to get out of the business of any
Speaker 2: municipal prosecution and shove them all on to prosecute.
Speaker 1: State proust, which then triggers all sorts of disasters. Right
Speaker 1: because the judiciary right now in Colorado was swamped nowhere
Speaker 1: near enough judges, and it's you know, they're making it
Speaker 1: so hard for judges to do their job because they're understaffed.
Speaker 1: You know that you're going to be losing good judges
Speaker 1: and making it harder to attract good new judges. So yeah,
Speaker 1: just just the dominos that they're tipping over, you know that,
Speaker 1: just horrible in so many different ways. But George, appreciate
Speaker 1: the time today and hope we connect soon.
Speaker 2: We'll do it. Hey, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1: Thank you, my friend. Take care of that's George Brockler
Speaker 1: doing a great job in the twenty third and the
Speaker 1: tremendous point he was making about the governor and well,
Speaker 1: assume he's going to sign this disaster, but the left
Speaker 1: of the legislature, you know, trying to take this power
Speaker 1: away from these local jurisdictions. My law partner, John Kellner
Speaker 1: until recently was the DA in the eighteenth which included
Speaker 1: at that time a repo on Douglas wrote a great
Speaker 1: piece on that as well, which you can read in
Speaker 1: the Gazette. You're on the Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 6: And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast all the.
Speaker 9: Way to Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton used them to raise revenue.
Speaker 9: He used them to protect the industry, and present Trump
Speaker 9: is added the third leg of the stool, which is strategic.
Speaker 9: So you know, if we are thinking about a ten
Speaker 9: percent global tariff, and let's assume we we import about
Speaker 9: three trillion a year, so that's three hundred billion, and
Speaker 9: that's a substantial revenue raiser that could then be used
Speaker 9: for working Americans on no tax and tips, no tax
Speaker 9: on social security, no tax on overtime, and for those
Speaker 9: buying autos that they can reduce their bills because interest
Speaker 9: on American made cars will be tax deductible. So this
Speaker 9: is really a working class the.
Speaker 1: Tariff and tax plan in terms of goals for all
Speaker 1: those stated goals, et cetera. That's why the things that
Speaker 1: really excites me is that this tariff move appears to
Speaker 1: be geared in a very significant part to working class America.
Speaker 1: And that's the reality, right, is that if there's not
Speaker 1: a fair shake for working class America, not fair opportunity
Speaker 1: for working class America, and not just words, not just cheerleading,
Speaker 1: but real tangible progress and gains and earning gains and
Speaker 1: stability of jobs, et cetera, this country cannot This country
Speaker 1: cannot endure the way it's envisioned, it just can't. And
Speaker 1: then we get to the issues of we're headed for
Speaker 1: an economic cliff otherwise, so something major needs to happen.
Speaker 1: Tariff's the answer. I sure hope. So I trust that Trump,
Speaker 1: who's had a lot of success in the economic front
Speaker 1: and office, you know, it knows what he's doing, and
Speaker 1: obviously he really wants to be a great success. But
Speaker 1: we know one thing status quo No, that is not
Speaker 1: going to work, and it's not going to work long term,
Speaker 1: especially for working people. That was Treasury Secretary. Here's commerce.
Speaker 10: So what's happened to the world is the global governments
Speaker 10: have backed taking our factories away from US. I mean,
Speaker 10: there's nothing about Taiwan that they should be making semiconductors,
Speaker 10: there's nothing about Korea they should be making all of
Speaker 10: the appliances and the electronics.
Speaker 2: Of the world.
Speaker 10: What's happened is they had a policy of their governments
Speaker 10: to let's back our companies and let's take this business
Speaker 10: from America while America is not paying attention. So our
Speaker 10: factories went overseas. But what you're going to see is
Speaker 10: the most modern factories of the world come back here.
Speaker 1: But you know there seems to me to be a
Speaker 1: lot of truth in that, and that's one thing that
Speaker 1: I think often gets forgotten, even allies. Right, they're competitors,
Speaker 1: I mean, and there's nothing wrong or immoral or dishonest
Speaker 1: about that. They're competitors. They're competing with us. They want
Speaker 1: what's best for their own It's just like state to state. Hey,
Speaker 1: we're all brothers and sisters united as Americans. But you
Speaker 1: can bet there's cutthroat com petition between states for the
Speaker 1: best jobs, the best companies, et cetera. And you've you
Speaker 1: can't just sit back and let yourself get plucked like that.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go back to the phone lines. So
Speaker 1: we'll let's start in Inglewood, Colorado, got at least in
Speaker 1: the metro doing the show out of Denver. I was
Speaker 1: in Colorado Springs the Great caseysj today in court down there.
Speaker 1: But in the Denver Metro, we've got a decent little
Speaker 1: snow going. Ron and Inglewood's are on the Dan Kaplis show.
Speaker 11: Welcome, Thank you, Dan. I'll say that truck has a
Speaker 11: striking profile.
Speaker 1: Oh the cyber truck. Do you think it's good look?
Speaker 1: I don't think it's good look. And I just want one.
Speaker 11: Well, I'm curious about it. I've never seen me inside.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's nice. It's it's kind of bear and spartan,
Speaker 1: but it's nice and it's roomy and it's comfortable.
Speaker 11: Well, I think you should get one in Well, I
Speaker 11: do too.
Speaker 1: Do you happen to know my wife? It is literally
Speaker 1: impossible to have a better wife than I have, And
Speaker 1: I'm not going to disrespect her by getting a vehicle
Speaker 1: that she thinks is the ugliest thing she's ever seen.
Speaker 1: But I am, But I am still hoping to be
Speaker 1: able to persuade my way there. I'm sure you will, no,
Speaker 1: because I really want to get it. I want to
Speaker 1: stand up to these Tesla terrorists. Now, admittedly I'm not
Speaker 1: as as excited about standing up to him by but
Speaker 1: why buying one of the other Tesla cars. I'd rather
Speaker 1: stand up to him by buying a cyber truck.
Speaker 11: Well, I think if you were apt it, it'd be great.
Speaker 1: Yeah, think of the possibilities. I know, and a cyber
Speaker 1: truck is unmistakably strong. Right, nobody will ever look at
Speaker 1: that and think anything other than strength. Yes, I agree,
Speaker 1: I know that's what you called about.
Speaker 11: Go ahead, my friend, Okay, thank you. I wanted to
Speaker 11: make a comment. When the Supreme Court decided in favor
Speaker 11: of Jack Phillips. He was based on the Civil Rights
Speaker 11: Commission and one of the members named Rice, who likened
Speaker 11: Jack to the Nazis. Yeah, lay, and they called it unprofessional.
Speaker 11: So this language that they're using in the committee is
Speaker 11: just a perfect setup for the Supreme Court to say
Speaker 11: you can't do that.
Speaker 1: Well, right, what a great point. What Ron's referring to
Speaker 1: is we were talking earlier with the Colorado State Rep.
Speaker 1: Jarvis Caldwell, and we played sound and committee of Democrats
Speaker 1: saying no, they're not going to talk to parents groups
Speaker 1: about these radical trans rights bills because you don't talk
Speaker 1: to the KKK about civil rights bills, is what they said. Now,
Speaker 1: to Ron's point, the common denominator between that and comparing
Speaker 1: Jack Phillips to a Nazi, when Jack Phillips is obviously
Speaker 1: a great American hero is the Left uses those kind
Speaker 1: of tactics and language because it knows it can't win
Speaker 1: the argument, not on logic, not on values, not on law,
Speaker 1: not on morality, So they will not engage in the
Speaker 1: conversation because they know they can't win the argument. And
Speaker 1: that's where the US Supreme Court is to step in. Said,
Speaker 1: you can bet. I mean, this will be so facially unconstitutional,
Speaker 1: this bill that apparently is on track to pass and
Speaker 1: become law, because you're going to tell a parent. Now
Speaker 1: you can't say to your own son. You can't say
Speaker 1: to your own son's son, you're really you're really a boy,
Speaker 1: You're not a girl, right, you miss gender that's now
Speaker 1: going to be used against you to in a custody battle. Okay, runs,
Speaker 1: Oh well, good question. I don't think the bill gets
Speaker 1: to this point unless they expect him to sign it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ron for your call. Enjoyed it right, You're
Speaker 1: the best as always, Kelly, thank you. Please be careful
Speaker 1: out there. It looks like there's going to be some
Speaker 1: tricky weather tonight. I know it's already started in Denver.
Speaker 1: Hope to have you back here tomorrow on The Dan
Speaker 1: Kapla Show