Speaker 1: A keyword on our website.
Speaker 2: Happy. That's happy.
Speaker 1: Enter it now, you want to be in Americanity. This Radio
Speaker 1: seven hundred WLW Mike Allen in for Scott Sloan this morning.
Speaker 1: I will be in for him Thursday as well.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what, there's a lot going on both
Speaker 1: locally and nationally. The big story that everybody's talking about,
Speaker 1: and I mean talking about it more today, I think,
Speaker 1: is the situation with the what's been referred to by
Speaker 1: the police union president and I agree a backroom deal
Speaker 1: with the Hinton family with respect to the shooting that occurred,
Speaker 1: which the county prosecutor County Pillage ruled that it was
Speaker 1: a justifiable shooting. But apparently the city of Cincinnati wants,
Speaker 1: through the city manager in the administration, not so much
Speaker 1: at least for two council members. And we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about those two in a minute. They want to
Speaker 1: give them money. I don't really know why. I don't
Speaker 1: get the theory behind it. And you know, I've heard
Speaker 1: it times. I got coffee this morning. You know, hey,
Speaker 1: I guess crime really does pay in Cincinnati. People are
Speaker 1: really really honked off about this, and you know, the
Speaker 1: FOP president as I said Ken Kober good Man, Great
Speaker 1: FOP President, he kind of blew the whistle on this
Speaker 1: thing last week. City Council went into executive session yesterday afternoon.
Speaker 1: Executive session is a situation where they go in a
Speaker 1: room and the public can't be there, the media certainly
Speaker 1: can't be there, and they talk about settlements things like that,
Speaker 1: different things, but mainly financial deals. And I get it
Speaker 1: there's a good reason for executive session, but I don't
Speaker 1: think this one is. But anyway, they talked about it,
Speaker 1: although we can't really say for sure that they talked
Speaker 1: about it because nobody no one would confirm it, but
Speaker 1: I'm sure that's what they talked about for about two hours.
Speaker 1: They all came out. Nobody's saying anything. So I think
Speaker 1: this is one where the city, through the administration, kind
Speaker 1: of walked in uh Tiger's den in this thing, and
Speaker 1: people aren't happy about it. I'll tell you what. Just
Speaker 1: in the this thing broke last week. I don't know
Speaker 1: how many people have stopped me and want to talk
Speaker 1: about this because they're p oed. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: this family. I don't know why the City of Cincinnati.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the Hinton family would want to reward them.
Speaker 1: I mean, the father is on trial for just brutally
Speaker 1: brutally murdering a police officer with his vehicle. Well, anyway,
Speaker 1: like I said, they met behind closed doors yesterday. Again,
Speaker 1: we think they were probably talking about the settlement with
Speaker 1: the family of Ryan Hinton. Now, the kid Ryan, he's
Speaker 1: an eighteen year old. He was fatally shot by police.
Speaker 1: And you know, I certainly don't have all the information,
Speaker 1: but have a little experience in doing these things, and
Speaker 1: from everything that I've seen, it sure looks to me
Speaker 1: like the prosecute was right. He was a justifiable shooting.
Speaker 1: But the news of the possible settlement last week, as
Speaker 1: I said, sparked some really strong reactions from the police union.
Speaker 1: And this settlement, potential settlement, it follows on the heels
Speaker 1: of the city paying eight point one million bucks to
Speaker 1: protesters who were arrested in the what some referred to
Speaker 1: as the racial Justice protest in two thousand. But with
Speaker 1: respect to what we're talking about here, the hint and deal,
Speaker 1: the city manager, Cheryl Long, she said last week that
Speaker 1: the city definitely has not reached the settlement agreement. Didn't
Speaker 1: say they didn't talk about it. The attorney for the
Speaker 1: Hinting family, he didn't want to talk about it either,
Speaker 1: and of course he's representing his client. I understand that,
Speaker 1: but it's just a deal. Where Like Ken Kober, the
Speaker 1: FOP president, said, why would you do this in executive session? Well,
Speaker 1: I understand it from the city's point of view. But
Speaker 1: Ken went on to say, hey, doesn't the public have
Speaker 1: a right to know what the hell's going on and
Speaker 1: how their money's being spent? And you know, I have
Speaker 1: to say that I agree with him on that, but
Speaker 1: we're going to keep our eyes on this one and
Speaker 1: see what happens. But I did, I did, and I
Speaker 1: did this Saturday too. On my Saturday show. I wanted
Speaker 1: to point out two people, two council members Democrats, who
Speaker 1: had the stones to stand up and I think do
Speaker 1: the right thing, and I wanted to kind of talk
Speaker 1: about them for a minute.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 1: One was Jeff Kramerting. He's the chair of the Budget,
Speaker 1: Finance and Governance Committee, and he said pretty unequivocally, he
Speaker 1: doesn't support a settlement with the Hinton family. And here's
Speaker 1: what he said. I'm going to quote him directly. Councilman
Speaker 1: Kramerton said, I think the city's position is that the
Speaker 1: officer has done nothing wrong. I see nothing in the
Speaker 1: video contrary to that. I do not feel a settlement
Speaker 1: is warranted. I think that would send the wrong message
Speaker 1: to the Cincinnati Police. Well, you better believe it. I mean,
Speaker 1: they are honked off about this, and justifiably so. Councilman
Speaker 1: Seth Walsh. And by the way, I met him a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago at a function and frote an
Speaker 1: impressive young man. He called the situation, in his words, abhorrent.
Speaker 1: But here's what he had to say. I think this
Speaker 1: some it up just perfectly. He says, it is a
Speaker 1: tremendous disrespect to the families involved and to make the
Speaker 1: public and to make a public spectacle out of a tragedy.
Speaker 1: I think it's unconscionable for the City of Cincinnati to
Speaker 1: be considering a settlement without the full deliberation of council.
Speaker 1: The tragedy that unfolded in May devastated our community, and
Speaker 1: it is our responsibility to heal the wreckage, not create
Speaker 1: more division. Amen, and thanks to you, Councilman Seth Walsh.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's he's got the tone in the feel
Speaker 1: of what the public is thinking, I think, and both
Speaker 1: he and counsel in cramity through their strong statements, I
Speaker 1: think they've made it very clear where they stand. Now.
Speaker 1: Whether that can translate into majority of council and the
Speaker 1: mayor jumping on board for no settlement, I don't know.
Speaker 1: We'll just have to see in the coming days. But
Speaker 1: you know, it sure like seems like down at city
Speaker 1: Hall the right hand doesn't know what the left hand
Speaker 1: is doing half the time. And you know they had
Speaker 1: a situation with the fire chief, and again I don't
Speaker 1: know who made the call. I guess counseled collectively to
Speaker 1: pay eight point one million dollars to protesters, But it
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense to me. Hey, I'm gonna take
Speaker 1: a break here for a minute, but I wanted to
Speaker 1: let you know you can call in if you have
Speaker 1: an opinion on this. Seven four nine, seven thousand, one,
Speaker 1: eight hundred the big one. Those are the numbers, and
Speaker 1: I've got open lines from nine thirty to ten, so
Speaker 1: if you want to call, I'll give his call. Seven
Speaker 1: four nine, seven thousand, one eight hundred. The big one
Speaker 1: are the numbers. Mike Allen in for Slowey seven hundred
Speaker 1: WLW Kay, We're back Mike Allen in for Sloaney seven
Speaker 1: hundred WLW today and Thursday, Well, we talked about the
Speaker 1: situation with the City of Cincinnati meeting in executive session
Speaker 1: to discuss a potential settlement on the Hinting case. I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk about something else here just for a moment,
Speaker 1: and then we'll break go to news and then I'll
Speaker 1: take your calls. Seven four nine, seven thousand, one, eight hundred,
Speaker 1: The big one are the numbers. But I wanted to
Speaker 1: talk about this because it's coming up today the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: United States Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments
Speaker 1: today on two big cases that have to do with
Speaker 1: men in women's sports. It's not even a close question
Speaker 1: as far as what the public thinks, and I'll give
Speaker 1: you that in just a second here, But anyway, it's
Speaker 1: challenging the state bands these two cases, ones from West Virginia,
Speaker 1: the other ones from Idaho. Challenging these bands on transgender
Speaker 1: athletes and girls and women's sports, and it can also
Speaker 1: impact about twenty other states who have similar laws. So
Speaker 1: it's important, you know, Honestly, sometimes it's hard for me
Speaker 1: to fathom that in the year twenty twenty five, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six. We're talking about biological men in women's sports.
Speaker 1: The whole thing is it's just an absurdity in and
Speaker 1: of itself. But hey, that's just me. The people involved
Speaker 1: transgender athlete Becky pepper Jackson, she's in the West Virginia case,
Speaker 1: and Lindsey Heacox, she's with the Idaho case. They're both
Speaker 1: arguing that the bands violate Title nine of the Equal
Speaker 1: Protection Clause. The states come back and they say what
Speaker 1: they say that They assert that fair competition for cisgender
Speaker 1: females and I guess that's the term coming out of
Speaker 1: the college campus for females who are not transgender. I
Speaker 1: don't know, you know, they make up all these new
Speaker 1: terms and statements. I've made it a point not to
Speaker 1: say them, actually try to figure out what the hell
Speaker 1: they are. But here's the thing. Here's the athlete's argument.
Speaker 1: They say that the bands discriminate against transgender girls and women,
Speaker 1: violating Title nine. Again, Title nine. It's used quite a
Speaker 1: bit legitimately in most cases, but Title nine prohibits sex
Speaker 1: based discrimination in education. They're also arguing the Equal Protection
Speaker 1: Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Okay, the two states Idaho
Speaker 1: and West Virginia are saying that these bands are necessary
Speaker 1: to ensure fair competition and equal opportunities for cisgender girls,
Speaker 1: citing potential biological advantages. This is the pre Supreme Court
Speaker 1: United State Supreme Court's first time in addressing the legality
Speaker 1: of these kind of cases, and it's going to set
Speaker 1: a precedent. Like I said, there's about twenty other states
Speaker 1: that have the same situation, So it's important. Oral argument
Speaker 1: is that portion of the case where the attorneys go
Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court, stand in the well behind e
Speaker 1: lectern and argue before the highest court in the land.
Speaker 1: I've never had the opportunity to do it, but I've
Speaker 1: talked to lawyers that have, and they said, from a
Speaker 1: lawyer's point of view, no matter what side you're on,
Speaker 1: there's nothing like it. But let's talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about what the public thinks about this, and it's basically
Speaker 1: an eighty twenty issue. And I'm telling you, I mean,
Speaker 1: I've been involved in politics and public affairs for a
Speaker 1: long long time. You never get an eighty twenty issue.
Speaker 1: You don't get a seventy thirty issue. What people think
Speaker 1: about this through all kinds of political lines raised everything else.
Speaker 1: There's really no there's no middle ground in it. But anyway,
Speaker 1: most recent pull I could find January twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: not very long ago, cited in Fox News reports, and
Speaker 1: again they kept this thing updated throughout late twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: and also the latest one early twenty twenty six. Are
Speaker 1: you ready? Found that seventy nine percent of participants believe
Speaker 1: biological males who identify as women should not be allowed
Speaker 1: to participate in women's sports. Seventy nine percent believe that,
Speaker 1: I what the hell are we doing? W can you
Speaker 1: imagine how much time has been expended on this thing?
Speaker 1: Seventy nine percent. Now, I know you know, majority rules
Speaker 1: but not always, but I mean, not even cluartion to this.
Speaker 1: This might surprise you. The same data showed that sixty
Speaker 1: seven percent of Democrats or Democrat leading participants ninety four
Speaker 1: percent of Republicans That doesn't surprise me opposed transgender athletes
Speaker 1: competing in women's divisions independence. I thought this might have
Speaker 1: been a little bit higher, but still pretty high. Among
Speaker 1: independent voters, sixty four percent expressed opposition to transgender athletes
Speaker 1: in women's sports, while twenty six percent declined to answer.
Speaker 1: So you know, and that's just not the only survey
Speaker 1: that says that I saw one this morning. I was
Speaker 1: looking at New York Times about a year or so ago,
Speaker 1: same thing, pretty much eighty twenty. This thing needs to
Speaker 1: be put to bed once and for all. It's pretty
Speaker 1: damn simple, folks. I mean, you know, the Good Lord
Speaker 1: made you one of two things. He made you a
Speaker 1: man or he made you a woman. And it's just
Speaker 1: patently unfair to let biological men compete in women's sports.
Speaker 1: And you might say, what's the big deal, Mike, Nobody
Speaker 1: loses money or anything like that. I'll tell you what
Speaker 1: the big deal is. What about these women that are
Speaker 1: competing for scholarships, are competing for the Olympics. It's just
Speaker 1: it's ridiculous. And I hope the Supreme Court comes out
Speaker 1: quickly and very clearly on this, and I kind of
Speaker 1: think that they will. Hey, we do have to take
Speaker 1: a break for the news. But before we do that,
Speaker 1: I wanted to let you know what we got on
Speaker 1: the show today, ten o'clock, nine point thirty to ten
Speaker 1: Calls ten o'clock. Janis Heisel of the Epoch Times. I
Speaker 1: have her on my Saturday show frequently. She is all
Speaker 1: over the situation in Minnesota with the fraud cases. She's
Speaker 1: on this like the proverbial white on Rice. She filed
Speaker 1: three stories last week and they will update us the
Speaker 1: stories that she filed on what's going on out there.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you what. It just keeps getting bigger
Speaker 1: and bigger and bigger. It's snowballing. Christopher Smith. I'm at
Speaker 1: ten thirty going to ask Christopher, a former vice mayor
Speaker 1: and chair of the Law and Public Safety Committee, what
Speaker 1: he thinks about this proposed settlement, And at eleven o'clock
Speaker 1: to talk to legal analyst Steve Gooden going to talk
Speaker 1: about the potential hitting settlement with the city. Steve was
Speaker 1: also a former Cincinnati council member also Delay yesterday. DeLay's
Speaker 1: in the what I referred to as the Downtown beatdown trial,
Speaker 1: and I'm also going to ask him will the Ice
Speaker 1: agent who shot that lady last week be prosecuted? Not
Speaker 1: going to be prosecuted federally, but the state may come in.
Speaker 1: I'm going to talk to Steve about that, but anyway,
Speaker 1: we'll do that when we get back. Mike Allen in
Speaker 1: for Scott Sloan's seven hundred WLW in today and Thursday.
Speaker 1: I'm going to get to the phones here in just
Speaker 1: a second. But this morning Fox News published a list
Speaker 1: of athletes, coaches, lawmakers who have picked a side in
Speaker 1: this battle that the Supreme Court is going to hear
Speaker 1: oral arguments on today. Of course, that's the situation with
Speaker 1: biological men in women's sports. Okay, here are some just
Speaker 1: some boy, this list goes on and on. Some of
Speaker 1: the some who opposed biological men in women's sports. Martina
Speaker 1: let Nevra Talova kind of a surprise. She's pretty liberal person.
Speaker 1: But and I get here a while back talking about it.
Speaker 1: She gets it. Of course, Riley Gains, she's been outspoken
Speaker 1: on this, you know, I mean, it's pretty much you
Speaker 1: would think that opposed this. Megan Rapahos, she's a two
Speaker 1: time Women's World Cup champion, former co captain of the
Speaker 1: US women's national soccer team. And you got just oodles
Speaker 1: and oodles of Republican lawmakers. No surprise there. Okay, here
Speaker 1: are the ones that signed an Amikas brief, and an
Speaker 1: Amikas brief is a Friend of the Court brief to
Speaker 1: support transcends athletes. No surprises here. Leading the list, of course,
Speaker 1: is crazy Mazie Arona Senator Mazie Herona of Hawaii. Probably,
Speaker 1: although it's arguable probably the stupidest person in the United
Speaker 1: States Senate. She really shouldn't be there. I don't think
Speaker 1: she's got an IQ of four. Ed Markey, Senator from Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: shifty shift California, no shocker there, And of course Pocahontas herself,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren and big mouth Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Jay
Speaker 1: Paul Democrat from Washington, King Jeffries, I don't think that
Speaker 1: man knows how to smile AOC Nancy Pelosi, Jamie Raskin
Speaker 1: rasheated to leave, pretty much the usual suspects. But well,
Speaker 1: it's kind of taken sides on this thing. And if
Speaker 1: you want to look at this, it's on Fox News,
Speaker 1: and man, it goes pages and pages. So hey, let's
Speaker 1: get to the phones here. Let's talk to Ron in Fairfield. Hey,
Speaker 1: good morning, Ron.
Speaker 3: Hey, good morning, Mike. Hey, great show. I always I
Speaker 3: love listening to you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Hey.
Speaker 3: I'm surprised. And Megan Rapino goes against that transcender sports.
Speaker 3: I'm glass year. That's great. My question this morning, though,
Speaker 3: is if the officer, the sheriff they got killed. If
Speaker 3: we give the money to that family, the Hinton family,
Speaker 3: can they turn around and sue the Hintons for that lawful,
Speaker 3: an awful death?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: You know what, then I'm sorry, I go ahead. I
Speaker 1: didn't mean to.
Speaker 3: I wasna saying the same with the people who just
Speaker 3: got the eight point two million. Can the property damaged
Speaker 3: people go back and get money from those people?
Speaker 1: I don't know why they can't. I mean, with respect
Speaker 1: to the situation with Sergeant Henderson, and that was, yes,
Speaker 1: so brutal the way he died, it would have to
Speaker 1: be his estate that does it. And you know, I'm
Speaker 1: no expert on that, but I don't see a reason
Speaker 1: why they couldn't. I mean, the initial thought would be
Speaker 1: with respect to Hinton is you know, it's kind of
Speaker 1: like blood out of a turnip. But I mean, you're right,
Speaker 1: if they get tons of money dumped on them by
Speaker 1: city council, yeah, I don't see why they couldn't, But
Speaker 1: it would have to be the estate.
Speaker 3: Okay, thanks for asking my question. I'm a great day.
Speaker 1: Okay, you too, Thank you. That is an interesting question.
Speaker 1: I may drill down on that a little bit. I'm
Speaker 1: going to make sure I get it right. I would
Speaker 1: certainly think in both cases they especially with respect to
Speaker 1: Sergeant Henderson, they would have a legitimate argument for it,
Speaker 1: you know, but it all can be just obviated, if
Speaker 1: you will, if City Council does the right thing. But
Speaker 1: as we all know, don't hold your breath on that. Hey,
Speaker 1: let's talk to Lawrence and Heartwell. Hey, good morning, Lawrence.
Speaker 1: How you doing.
Speaker 4: I'm good, My good morning to you, great show.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: I'm calling because I wanted to ask you a question,
Speaker 4: knowing your background this executive session meeting that City Council
Speaker 4: had yesterday. My riding of the law, I have a
Speaker 4: lot of agree. My rinting of the.
Speaker 5: Law is that they have to state why they go.
Speaker 4: Into an executive session.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 4: That's my understanding of it, and I have not yet
Speaker 4: to see any statement as to why they went to
Speaker 4: an executive session. I went to the agenda, I went
Speaker 4: to the agenda packet, I watched the meeting, even when
Speaker 4: they had to vote, they didn't say why they were
Speaker 4: going into executive session. That is concerning to me, because
Speaker 4: they can go back there and blow smoking mirrors and
Speaker 4: do whatever they want to do if they're not stating
Speaker 4: why they're an executive session and taxpayer money is potentially
Speaker 4: on the line. Do you think somebody I said this
Speaker 4: they might have a right to sue them for this.
Speaker 1: I think so, and let me I'm glad you brought
Speaker 1: this up. I really am. I looked during the break Daveost.
Speaker 1: Of course, he's the attorney General. On his website he
Speaker 1: explains executive sessions, and obviously he's the Ohio Attorney General,
Speaker 1: so this would comport with Ohio law. Just a couple
Speaker 1: sentences here, and it addresses what your question is. Executive
Speaker 1: sessions are the only portions of meetings that are closed
Speaker 1: to the public. A public body cannot vote or take
Speaker 1: official action during an executive session. A public body must
Speaker 1: follow a specific procedure to convene an executive session, and
Speaker 1: can convene only for specific reasons. I think there are
Speaker 1: nine of them. I don't have those in front of me,
Speaker 1: but anyway, he goes on to say, this is the
Speaker 1: Ohio Attorney General. To convene an executive session, the public
Speaker 1: body must first have a roll call vote, followed by
Speaker 1: a motion and a second and then a vote to
Speaker 1: adjourn by a majority of quorum of the public body.
Speaker 1: The role call vote must be recorded in the minutes. Lastly, importantly,
Speaker 1: a public body can convene in an executive session to
Speaker 1: discuss only nine specific topics which are listed in the
Speaker 1: Open Meetings Act. The topics that the public body will
Speaker 1: discuss during executive session must be put into the minutes,
Speaker 1: and the public body cannot discuss any topic other than
Speaker 1: those put into the record. So I don't have those
Speaker 1: nine reasons in front of me, but that gives you
Speaker 1: a pretty good idea I think of what the law
Speaker 1: is with respect to Ohio and these executive sessions.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I read the none that you mentioned, and one
Speaker 4: is a case of litigation. But then if you drop
Speaker 4: down and read the subsettions, you see where they have
Speaker 4: to actually state which subsets they're going into executive session for.
Speaker 5: They never did that.
Speaker 4: Well, I said, I've got about as a matter of law.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if they didn't, then it can be challenged.
Speaker 1: I mean, and my guess is that if they do
Speaker 1: end up throwing a bunch of money at this family,
Speaker 1: that somebody's going to challenge that. I had somebody ask
Speaker 1: me Saturday, I think it was on my Saturday show
Speaker 1: if there could be a taxpayer lawsuit with respect to that,
Speaker 1: and I looked at it just very briefly, and I
Speaker 1: don't see why not a lot of people aren't happy
Speaker 1: about this lawrence. But yeah, I'm glad.
Speaker 4: If they just say why they were having the session,
Speaker 4: I will probably be okay with it. But the fact
Speaker 4: that I took the time to watch the beating, look
Speaker 4: at the agenda, look at the agenda packet, and saw
Speaker 4: no reason why they were having this execut decession causes concern.
Speaker 4: And I just want to know if there was remedy
Speaker 4: for the taxpayers.
Speaker 1: Yep, you know what I mean. I'm glad that you
Speaker 1: asked the question. You obviously have done your homework. Are
Speaker 1: you a practicing lawyer anywhere?
Speaker 4: I do not practice. I went to Michigan State for laws.
Speaker 4: Who you know, I took to the ball one time
Speaker 4: in Michigan, didn't do it, and went on to bigger
Speaker 4: and better things.
Speaker 1: Anyway, Ah, there you go. I'm a happily retired lawyer.
Speaker 2: So are you retired?
Speaker 6: Man?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know what, And I'm enjoying. I love doing
Speaker 1: the radio. But at fifty one years in the criminal
Speaker 1: justice system in one way, shape or form, that's enough
Speaker 1: for anybody I.
Speaker 4: Think I can imagine that you have a good day.
Speaker 1: Okay, Lawrence, thanks for the call. Yeah, I tell you what,
Speaker 1: it's great when you get a caller that knows what
Speaker 1: the hell he or she is talking about, and Lawrence did.
Speaker 1: There's all kinds of things. Those nine things, apparently Lawrence
Speaker 1: read them time to do. But they can be attacked
Speaker 1: on that if they don't follow the law on that.
Speaker 1: There's a presumption that all meetings, all business discussed by
Speaker 1: a public body should be public. And I tell you what,
Speaker 1: I can't disagree with that he mentioned too, and he's right.
Speaker 1: The reasons why they'll go into executive session is to
Speaker 1: discuss pending litigation. Well, guess what litigation to me infers
Speaker 1: that a lawsuit has been filed. None has been filed
Speaker 1: in this case. So I don't know what reason they use,
Speaker 1: but I tell you what, a guy like Lawrence, he'll
Speaker 1: keep up with it. And they do have to have
Speaker 1: a record. Council has to make a record of what
Speaker 1: they do. So this thing, obviously you haven't heard the
Speaker 1: last of it. I mean, this is going to go
Speaker 1: on for a while and I'm going to keep my
Speaker 1: eye on it because I think, well, like I just
Speaker 1: said before I stopped to get coffee coming in this morning,
Speaker 1: and the guys over there recognized me. Great guys stop
Speaker 1: over there all the time. And one of them said,
Speaker 1: there is no way the city of Cincinnati could give
Speaker 1: that family that money. I mean, people are p od
Speaker 1: about this, and no one is more pod than Ken Kober,
Speaker 1: the FOP president. He's a damn good FOP president too. Well,
Speaker 1: let's do this, uh, seven four, one, eight hundred. The
Speaker 1: big one are the numbers. If you want to call,
Speaker 1: I'll take a short break and come back and if
Speaker 1: we get some calls, we'll finish up on that. If not,
Speaker 1: we'll find something else to talk about. Mike Allen in
Speaker 1: for Sloaney seven hundred WLW. Hey, we're back, Mike Allen
Speaker 1: in for Scott Sloan and we'll be Thursday as well.
Speaker 1: You know, you've heard so much in recent days about
Speaker 1: what's going on in Minnesota, Minneapolis, Portland, Cincinnati, even too
Speaker 1: other cities. They're all out in force, and you know,
Speaker 1: the women with the pink hair and the nose rings
Speaker 1: and everything else, and many of them are carrying signs
Speaker 1: that appear to be not the one you sit down
Speaker 1: like Jethro Bod used to do and just take a
Speaker 1: paintbrush and write something. Looks like they've been kind of
Speaker 1: made at the same place, which indicates to me, and
Speaker 1: there are people looking at this, that these things are
Speaker 1: being financed by someone, probably a guy like George Soros
Speaker 1: or his son or his ilk. But I watched these things,
Speaker 1: and I talked about this Saturday. I just asked myself
Speaker 1: a question, and maybe I don't get it. I don't
Speaker 1: think so. I think I do. Okay, let's just do
Speaker 1: this by the numbers real quickly. Here there is a
Speaker 1: federal law. I don't have it in front of me now,
Speaker 1: but it basically says, thou shalt not trespass into our country.
Speaker 1: You have to enter at a place designated by ICE
Speaker 1: to come in, real, real simple. The law was adopted
Speaker 1: by Congress in nineteen fifty two. Some minor changes to
Speaker 1: it throughout the years, but it's still there, still there.
Speaker 1: It is a crime to trespass into our country, the
Speaker 1: United States of America, plain and simple. The Immigration and
Speaker 1: Customs Enforcement are is the federal agency charged with taking
Speaker 1: care of these kind of things and prosecuting these kind
Speaker 1: of things. If you will or at least getting the
Speaker 1: process started. Crystal clear, they raised their hand and they
Speaker 1: take an oath to uphold the law and the constitution
Speaker 1: of the United States. Okay, this is just a long
Speaker 1: way of saying, they're doing their job. They're doing what
Speaker 1: they're paid to do, what they're sworn to do. And
Speaker 1: my god, they're making Trump and others look like the
Speaker 1: devil on all of these things. And I was thinking
Speaker 1: about it. I was thinking about this yesterday. And you know,
Speaker 1: my recollection is Barack Obama is eight years, was no
Speaker 1: slouch in the deportment department, and there are some that
Speaker 1: have referred to him as the deporter in chief. Just
Speaker 1: listen to this just for a minute here. Okay, Like
Speaker 1: I said, you got these protests in Minneapolis, Portland, other place,
Speaker 1: all active idiots. A horrible tragedy with that lady dying,
Speaker 1: but it was a tragedy of her own making. Okay.
Speaker 1: And this is from AI, and I'm using AI a lot,
Speaker 1: and I found it to be reliable. I found it
Speaker 1: to be fair. During his eight year presidency, the Obama
Speaker 1: administered deported ready approximately three million people. Three million. This
Speaker 1: total typically refers to removals, which are former legal orders
Speaker 1: that carry the stiff penalties for re entry rather than returns.
Speaker 1: It's all just a fancy way of saying deportations. So
Speaker 1: you know, again, Ice is simply doing the job that
Speaker 1: they were sworn to do. Getting back to Saint Obama. Here,
Speaker 1: total removals for him during his eight years. Estimates generally ranged,
Speaker 1: like I just said, from two point seven million two
Speaker 1: three point one million, depending upon whether the full fiscal
Speaker 1: year of two thousand and nine is included. Here's the
Speaker 1: peak year twenty thirteen. He's still he just finished. He's
Speaker 1: in his second term. Okay, first term two thousand and
Speaker 1: nine to twenty twelve, approximately one point six million deportations
Speaker 1: occurred the peak year. The peak year was in twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: four hundred and thirty eight thousand, four hundred twenty one deportations.
Speaker 1: His second term slowed down a little bit here, just
Speaker 1: a real little bit. Twenty thirteen to twenty sixteen, one
Speaker 1: point six million removals. So, I mean, there you go.
Speaker 1: Where were these pink haired, fat ugly quote protesters unquote
Speaker 1: when Obama was doing it? I mean, it just it
Speaker 1: boggles the mind. It really doesn't given today's situation. But
Speaker 1: when was the last time you heard anything about a
Speaker 1: comparison with the deporter in chief Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Now, granted,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump's into the first year of his second term.
Speaker 1: He hasn't deported anything near that number. My point is this,
Speaker 1: And you know what, I'm glad Obama did what he did,
Speaker 1: because again they're breaking the law. They're trespassing into our country,
Speaker 1: your and my country. I'm glad he did it. But
Speaker 1: where were they then? Where was the media being all
Speaker 1: over them? Where was Joy Behar Where were all these
Speaker 1: other big mouth liberals screaming and yelling? You know, Where
Speaker 1: were the people shouting at the cops and getting in
Speaker 1: their face and taunting them? Then? I don't recall any
Speaker 1: whatsoever at all boils down to this. It's all about
Speaker 1: Donald J. Trump. They freaking hate him, and no matter what,
Speaker 1: you know, Donald Trump could be walking down the street
Speaker 1: and there's a burning building and there's one hundred babies
Speaker 1: in that building, and Trump could run out and save
Speaker 1: ninety nine of them, and he'd get crap for not
Speaker 1: saving that last one. And you know what, and I've
Speaker 1: been pretty upfront about this, some of this stuff he
Speaker 1: tends to bring on himself. But that's just the way
Speaker 1: he operates. And I'm telling you the first term, and
Speaker 1: especially early into the second term, you sure can't argue
Speaker 1: with the results. But again, it just shows theocrisy of
Speaker 1: the mainstream media and the hypocrisy in general of the left. Good.
Speaker 1: I got that off my chest. I feel better. Hey,
Speaker 1: we got to take a break. But when we get back,
Speaker 1: as I said, Janis Heisel of the Epoch Times, and
Speaker 1: if you're not reading Epoch Times, you should be. She
Speaker 1: is all over this thing in Minnesota, to the point
Speaker 1: where none other than Nut Gingrich himself has publicly praised
Speaker 1: her reporting of it. I think she's probably into it
Speaker 1: more than any other journalists in the country. She's going
Speaker 1: to give us the new developments in that situation when
Speaker 1: we come back and talk to her. And there's some
Speaker 1: things going on that just tend to indicate that, man,
Speaker 1: you ain't seen nothing yet. So we'll talk to Janis
Speaker 1: when we get back from the news. Mike Allen's seven
Speaker 1: hundred WLW the congressional hearings started with respect to the
Speaker 1: Minnesota which is now multi billion dollar fraud scandal, and
Speaker 1: Congress is looking into this through the US House Committee
Speaker 1: on Oversight and government reform. The hancho or not that
Speaker 1: is Representative James Comer from Kentucky here to talk about
Speaker 1: it is Janis Heisel of the Epoch Times. And as
Speaker 1: I said, if you're not reading the Epoch Times, you should.
Speaker 1: And I'll say it again because she's too modest to
Speaker 1: say it. Janie's reporting has been looked at and has
Speaker 1: been commented upon by none other than former Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House Newt Gingrid's basically saying that her reporting is
Speaker 1: as thorough as any that he's ever read on this,
Speaker 1: And to me, that's a big deal. Hey, Janis, thanks
Speaker 1: for joining us again this morning.
Speaker 7: Absolutely, thank you very much for having me. This has
Speaker 7: obviously been one of the biggest news stories. I feel
Speaker 7: like we've packed in almost a year's worth of news
Speaker 7: just in the last few weeks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well you're right about that, so go ahead.
Speaker 7: So this this congressional hearing that you mentioned, there were
Speaker 7: three representatives, you know, state reps from Minnesota who were
Speaker 7: the main witnesses for that.
Speaker 8: And I've got to tell you if it.
Speaker 7: Was one of the more uh animated, I guess, shall
Speaker 7: we say, sure, uh congressional parings that I've covered I did,
Speaker 7: covered only by live stream, Uh, but it was you
Speaker 7: could just see there was a lot of back and forth,
Speaker 7: people were storming out of the room. Uh, it got
Speaker 7: a little bit, uh, very animated. But all that heat,
Speaker 7: aside the light they shed here was really really worth
Speaker 7: noting because these legislators have been in contact with whistleblowers
Speaker 7: about the Minnesota Somali fraud, and one of them in particular,
Speaker 7: testified quite extensively about the.
Speaker 8: Ways in which people who reported fraud were accused.
Speaker 7: Of being I'm aplobic racist and then had many worse
Speaker 7: things happened to them, such as threats against them, possibly
Speaker 7: even using military app surveillance apparatus to pinpoint their locations,
Speaker 7: in voluntary job reassignments, all kinds of retaliation against them.
Speaker 8: And so with that as the backdrop, that is.
Speaker 7: Why this Minnesota fraud has literally exploded over a course
Speaker 7: of years. It didn't just happen, you know, overnight. It's
Speaker 7: just finally people are actually paying.
Speaker 8: Attention to it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, you're right, and the story that you
Speaker 1: have there, you published three I think last week, but
Speaker 1: this one I just want to read a couple paragraphs
Speaker 1: and not paragraphs, just really sentences talking about what happened
Speaker 1: in this hearing, talking about their collective message has been
Speaker 1: completely consistent. Instead of focusing on the fraudsters, DHS leadership
Speaker 1: instead focuses on its surveillance on employees. That was one
Speaker 1: of the state life that testified to that, and Janes
Speaker 1: here's the kicker. After one whistleblower raised concerns, she faced
Speaker 1: a lengthy investigation, was escorted out of the building. Again,
Speaker 1: this is a whistleblower on this this fraud was escorted
Speaker 1: out of the building and was transferred involuntarily to another
Speaker 1: state agency, according to Representative Rarek one more sentence uh.
Speaker 1: Other employees have reported being threatened with being fired, being
Speaker 1: blacklisted from all state agencies, and receiving quote a veiled
Speaker 1: threat of the use of military intelligence against them close quote.
Speaker 1: Have you ever, in all the years you've been reporting,
Speaker 1: ever heard of anything like that? In a word, no
Speaker 1: military intelligence are going to sick on you if you
Speaker 1: dare to stand up and blow the whistle on this stuff.
Speaker 1: It's beyond belief. In my opinion, there.
Speaker 7: Are details that I ended up not including in my
Speaker 7: story that I would like to share here is you know,
Speaker 7: how would you feel if you were an employee of
Speaker 7: one of these agencies, you had come forward and you
Speaker 7: asked to see your personnel file and you find pictures
Speaker 7: of your home in it. Things like that. It made
Speaker 7: people feel like that they were definitely being scrutinized for
Speaker 7: literally raising concerns about billing that they didn't think was right,
Speaker 7: like maybe the documentation is not right, or maybe it's
Speaker 7: suspicious that they just went into business yesterday and their bill.
Speaker 9: Is for thousands and thousands of thousands of.
Speaker 7: Dollars for one day of work or things like that,
Speaker 7: and so you know, that is why you know, when
Speaker 7: you have a chilling effect from people reporting concerns and
Speaker 7: then then they don't really take ash the sixth that
Speaker 7: the systemic this is, this is a big Frauden's going
Speaker 7: to happen.
Speaker 8: People are going to find game systems.
Speaker 7: But when the people in charge of the systems know
Speaker 7: that they should change and aspects of the operation because
Speaker 7: it's vulnerable to fraud, and they simply don't, that is
Speaker 7: where you create the fertile territory for fraud to just flourish.
Speaker 1: And they've done that over a period of years too.
Speaker 1: And you've pointed out numerous times that it's people that
Speaker 1: should know about this didn't know about it. They did,
Speaker 1: but they chose to do nothing. And what I'm reading
Speaker 1: for your reporting and others is a big reason for
Speaker 1: that is they didn't want to get the scarlet letter
Speaker 1: of the R word being accused of racists or being
Speaker 1: an islamophobe, so they shut up and didn't do anything
Speaker 1: about it. Is that consistent with what you're seeing?
Speaker 7: Absolutely, that is what I've heard from people that I interviewed.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 7: Unfortunately, so far, I haven't directly spoken to a whistleblower,
Speaker 7: and I am sure trying. I've asked everybody that has
Speaker 7: had contact with whistleblowers with whom I have spoken. I'm
Speaker 7: telling them, hey, I would I would really like to
Speaker 7: speak to a whistleblower, but these people are terrified to
Speaker 7: tell a story. Even I rarely give out promises of anonymity,
Speaker 7: but I've had to do that a lot more lately
Speaker 7: under the circumstances that I've been covering.
Speaker 1: Something tells me that if you keep going at it,
Speaker 1: you're going to get it eventually. Uh. You know, you
Speaker 1: have a situation where people are being threatened with military
Speaker 1: uh investigations. You know something happening to their homes things
Speaker 1: like that. It's just not something that can be tolerated.
Speaker 1: And what I'm hearing lately, janis is other states are
Speaker 1: starting to look into this stuff and they're finding things too.
Speaker 1: Is that consistent with what you're finding?
Speaker 8: Yes, to a certain degree.
Speaker 7: You know, like I said, fraud is going to you
Speaker 7: know pretty much what I've spoken to in government acknowledges
Speaker 7: programs are vulnerable to fraud. Businesses are vulnerable to you know,
Speaker 7: shoplifters for example. I think people who can cheat and
Speaker 7: steal find ways to do it. Even sometimes despite the
Speaker 7: best things you can come up with, they get crafty
Speaker 7: and they find ways around it.
Speaker 8: And so yes, I am finding that out. But one
Speaker 8: of the differences it seems.
Speaker 7: To be so far whether or not when people.
Speaker 8: Make reports, whether action is taken, or whether they're ignored.
Speaker 7: That is a key component in whether the fraud just
Speaker 7: takes off like wildfire. Because after one story I wrote,
Speaker 7: the headline was something like they saw other people getting
Speaker 7: away with it. One way I interviewed who has a
Speaker 7: scholarly background, was studying all of those situations happening in Minnesota.
Speaker 8: Four years. Once again, we're America is.
Speaker 7: Just now noticing what has been going on in Minnesota
Speaker 7: four years.
Speaker 8: How it's been like a snowball effect.
Speaker 7: It has literally gain momentum because when one person says, ooh,
Speaker 7: I'm driving around at a BMW and here's how I
Speaker 7: got it, then the neighbor's going to be I want
Speaker 7: one too, you know, And how'd you do that? Oh?
Speaker 7: Here there is hot.
Speaker 8: Works, here's a roadmap.
Speaker 7: And so there are quite a few people in the
Speaker 7: legislature and in other official positions in Minnesota and even
Speaker 7: in the federal.
Speaker 8: Government that are really trying hard to dissect a how
Speaker 8: did this fraud happen in the first place?
Speaker 7: Be what fixes need to be made to prevent it?
Speaker 7: And see who ignored or were shit punished.
Speaker 8: The people who were trying to report it.
Speaker 7: So those are the main components of what to boil
Speaker 7: it down. What is happening with the Minnesota fraud right now?
Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you this a specific question. I
Speaker 1: guess it was last week or maybe the week before
Speaker 1: land doctor memot oz He is the Medicare and Medicaid
Speaker 1: administrator for the Trump administration. He testified, maybe he didn't testify. No,
Speaker 1: I don't think he did. He just spoke. He said
Speaker 1: he's going to claw back fraud funds from Minnesota. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you Janis, you know, I just I really do
Speaker 1: admire and appreciate him at some point trying to do that.
Speaker 1: But my experiences in these and I never had one
Speaker 1: anything close to this is in a situation like this,
Speaker 1: you're not going to get even close to what was stolen,
Speaker 1: but I think you still have to try. Is that
Speaker 1: your recollection of his testimony.
Speaker 8: Yes, he actually.
Speaker 7: Wrote a letter about this to put the state of
Speaker 7: Minnesota on notice that that is what is happening.
Speaker 8: But in addition to that, the second component.
Speaker 7: Of it is they're subtracting from payments quote unquote owed
Speaker 7: or whatever expected by the staves Minnesota. They're subtracting the
Speaker 7: amounts that they say are fraudulent that from the past
Speaker 7: from those payments.
Speaker 8: So they're trying as best they can't. Now, this is
Speaker 8: something you and.
Speaker 7: I have discussed a little bit in the past, Mike,
Speaker 7: and that is as a former prosecutor, you know as
Speaker 7: well as I know.
Speaker 8: I don't know if the listeners understand that people are.
Speaker 7: Demanding money back. Yeah, but if the money has already
Speaker 7: been spent, or if it's been used by a foreign property,
Speaker 7: which some of this was spent by these fraudsters have owned,
Speaker 7: they now own properties in places like ken You you're
Speaker 7: not going to get that money back, No.
Speaker 1: You're not. I mean they have to try. It has
Speaker 1: to be if it goes to try or plea or
Speaker 1: whatever and results in a guilty finding, it has to
Speaker 1: be a part of the sentence. But I just I
Speaker 1: don't see it happening. It's just so big, the people
Speaker 1: involved are so dishonest. It's just going to be no
Speaker 1: way that that happens. But again, and that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that you don't try. I wanted to ask you to
Speaker 1: in one of your stories. I forget which one. It
Speaker 1: was one of these programs. One grantee got seven hundred
Speaker 1: thousand bucks for a single month of quote work unquote.
Speaker 1: Can you expound on that one a little bit because
Speaker 1: I don't have it right in front of me, but
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you about it.
Speaker 7: Yeah, in that particular, Chanse, what happened is that there
Speaker 7: is a watchdog agency. It's called the Office of Legislative Auditor.
Speaker 7: It's been in place in the episode for many years.
Speaker 7: They do a deep look at various agencies.
Speaker 8: They kind of pick them just to kind of.
Speaker 7: Periodically check when they.
Speaker 8: Especially when they have concerns.
Speaker 7: So every year they pick a few to look at,
Speaker 7: and they decided to look at a branch of the
Speaker 7: welfare agency called behavioral health Services.
Speaker 8: They deal that agency is supposed.
Speaker 7: To help people who have, you know, mental issues or disabilities,
Speaker 7: things like that, and they administer grants to providers.
Speaker 8: Who are supposed to help these people. So that's where that.
Speaker 7: Particular recollection of yours comes from, Mike, is that that
Speaker 7: seven hundred thousand dollars payment went to a company, and
Speaker 7: when the auditors were trying to figure out what was
Speaker 7: going on, they flagged that transaction is being suspicious, and
Speaker 7: they also started asking questions about, well, did you verify
Speaker 7: that the grantee, the agency that received the money, the
Speaker 7: provider was actually helping people the way they promised. They
Speaker 7: weren't able to provide the documentation, so they backdated and said, okay,
Speaker 7: even though this visit with the auditors in February of
Speaker 7: last year, that yes, we really really really did go
Speaker 7: and visit and scrutinize this agency late in twenty twenty
Speaker 7: four several times, and here.
Speaker 8: Are the days they didn't keep.
Speaker 7: The records at the time, and so there's a lot
Speaker 7: of suspicion about that being possibly misrepresented or completely fabricated.
Speaker 7: And the things that I was surprised by is the
Speaker 7: report from the auditor makes no recommendation or reference to
Speaker 7: what can or should happen to multiple employees who were
Speaker 7: involved with backdating records creating new documents in the midst
Speaker 7: of an audit. That is an unanswered question that I
Speaker 7: haven't actually had time to explore just yet, but it
Speaker 7: is definitely on my list of many my very long
Speaker 7: and growing list of questions about the Minnesota fraud.
Speaker 8: It's just I don't even know what to say about
Speaker 8: that one.
Speaker 7: And then furthermore, a person who approved the grant that
Speaker 7: was you know, how did you do, you know, justify
Speaker 7: a seven hundred thousand dollars payment for one month of work?
Speaker 7: The person within the agency who approved the state agency
Speaker 7: who approved that grant ended up later.
Speaker 8: Taking a job with the company.
Speaker 9: That got that money.
Speaker 1: Gee, what a shocker that is. Yeah, you did a
Speaker 1: whole story last week on the Minnesota agency staff backdated records,
Speaker 1: as you've just talked about, as auditors found failures, and boy,
Speaker 1: that is absolutely eye opening. Hey, we got a couple
Speaker 1: of minutes left. I wanted to ask you a couple things. First,
Speaker 1: is Columbus we heard about a week or so ago,
Speaker 1: I guess week and a half, and all this stuff
Speaker 1: is percolating and brewing in Columbus. Somebody went up there.
Speaker 1: It wasn't the guy whose name escapes me now from
Speaker 1: that blew the whistle in Minnesota. What the heck's that
Speaker 1: guy's name? Janis? Can you recall there are a bunch of.
Speaker 7: Different people who've gone up there and film that daycare centers, Uh,
Speaker 7: not just literally people upon Columbus.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Nick Shirley was a guy in Minnesota, but he
Speaker 1: didn't go to Columbus. It's just a long way of
Speaker 1: asking you, what are you hearing about that is anything
Speaker 1: of substance coming out of it? Because I've not heard
Speaker 1: anything of substance yet.
Speaker 7: Well, as I mentioned earlier in our conversation, Mike, I
Speaker 7: just yesterday actually was on the phone with the Dan Tierney,
Speaker 7: who is a spokesman for Governor Mike DeWine here in Ohio,
Speaker 7: and I was asking questions of him, and also I
Speaker 7: spoke to uh a state Senator George Lang and asked
Speaker 7: about you know, are there is there any sign that
Speaker 7: there's systemic fraud here in Ohio. Again, everybody agrees fraud
Speaker 7: is happening, and Ohio says it's doing its best to uh.
Speaker 8: Clamp down on it. Sometimes a few of these suspicions
Speaker 8: raised by citizens don't pan out right.
Speaker 7: For example, there was a widely circulated photo of this address.
Speaker 8: Is supposed to be a.
Speaker 7: Daycare, but guess what instead, it's a tobacco shop.
Speaker 8: Well, it turns out the.
Speaker 7: Photo was taken in twenty twenty two and the daycare didn't.
Speaker 8: Open until twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you got to do your homework. And it seems like,
Speaker 1: maybe so far at least that's the case in Ohio.
Speaker 7: But I know, however, there are quite a few videos
Speaker 7: and confirms raised by the public that the state of
Speaker 7: Ohio says it is, you know, investigating, and the lawmakers
Speaker 7: did all banded together on the Republican side at least,
Speaker 7: and they're asking the auditor as well as the Department
Speaker 7: of Youth and Children, which administers the daycare, to look
Speaker 7: at all of this and see.
Speaker 8: If there is systemic fraud.
Speaker 7: They also it out that fire to again this huge firestorm,
Speaker 7: media firestorm, over all of this. Earlier last year, early
Speaker 7: like a year ago, Ohio had taken action against several
Speaker 7: daycares and shut down the ones that appeared to be
Speaker 7: operating fraudulently.
Speaker 8: Some of them are fighting back in court too, So
Speaker 8: there's that.
Speaker 1: Well, somebody's keeping an eye on it. Unfortunately we're out
Speaker 1: of time. Janis, again, I can't tell you how much
Speaker 1: I appreciate. I know my listeners do as well, your
Speaker 1: steadfastness on this case. And hope we can call on
Speaker 1: you again.
Speaker 4: Thank you again.
Speaker 8: I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, Janis Eizel of the Epoch Times on
Speaker 1: it like White on Rice, and I check in with
Speaker 1: her a couple times a week, and as soon as
Speaker 1: something happens up there, she'll know about it. She'll tell
Speaker 1: us about it. Hey, you got to take a break.
Speaker 1: Button we get back. Going to talk to former Vice
Speaker 1: Mayor and chair of the Law and Public Safety Committee,
Speaker 1: Christopher Smith. I want to ask him about the case
Speaker 1: in the downtown beatdowns, what I call it being continued yesterday.
Speaker 1: Also going to ask him, of course, about the situation
Speaker 1: with a possible payment to the Hinton family. We'll do
Speaker 1: that when we get back Mike Allen seven hundred WLW.
Speaker 2: Hey, we're back.
Speaker 1: Mike Allen in for Scott Sloan today and Thursday. Well,
Speaker 1: the beat goes on with Cincinnati City Council yesterday an
Speaker 1: executive session presumably, although we don't know this for one
Speaker 1: hundred percent certain, presumably to talk about a proposed settlement
Speaker 1: with the Hinton family. Of course, you have the situation
Speaker 1: there where CPD officer had to shoot the young Hinton
Speaker 1: I think eighteen years of age, ruled by the prosecutor
Speaker 1: to be a justifiable shooting, and then the next day
Speaker 1: the father of that young man brutally and I stress
Speaker 1: brutally kills a former deputy sheriff, Sergeant Henderson by mowing
Speaker 1: him down in his vehicle. And it just doesn't get
Speaker 1: any worse than that. You know, there's a thought that
Speaker 1: there might be a settlement. Boy, I'll tell you what,
Speaker 1: a lot of people are weighing in on that. And
Speaker 1: the loudest, I think appropriately so is FOP President Ken Kober.
Speaker 1: Here to talk about it is former Vice mayor and
Speaker 1: former chair of the Law and Public Safety Committee, Christopher Smith.
Speaker 1: And Christopher, thanks so much. For checking in with us
Speaker 1: this morning.
Speaker 5: Hey, Mike, thanks for having me on. And you know,
Speaker 5: my heart goes out to Sergeant Henderson's family. Yeah, this
Speaker 5: has got to be real tough on them, his widow children, grandkids,
Speaker 5: you know, nieces and nephews. And I think for law
Speaker 5: enforcement really all across the country, Mike, And you know
Speaker 5: this is your profession. I mean, you know all about it,
Speaker 5: law enforcement, and these are the kind of things that
Speaker 5: undermine the profession and make it difficult for us to
Speaker 5: recruit to retain law enforcement officers across the country.
Speaker 1: You know, Christian to your point, that's an understatement. I
Speaker 1: talked to Ken Kober about a week or so ago.
Speaker 1: They are having a dickens of a time trying to
Speaker 1: find people that want to be Cincinnati police officers. And
Speaker 1: that's happening all over the country. And I'll tell you,
Speaker 1: I never thought I would see that, But it's a problem.
Speaker 5: It's a big problem because you know, if you if
Speaker 5: you're if you make a decision like in the case
Speaker 5: we're talking about, that officer's life, you know, was hanging
Speaker 5: in the balance for a long time. No one knew
Speaker 5: kind of what was going to happen. You know, my
Speaker 5: heart goes out to the Hinting family. I mean, I
Speaker 5: have children. I certainly would not want anything like this
Speaker 5: to happen to my eighteen year old son anytime there's
Speaker 5: a loss of life.
Speaker 4: But you've got to.
Speaker 5: Look at a circumstance like this where you've got a
Speaker 5: young man in a stolen car with a gun running
Speaker 5: from a police officer and turns in that officer's direction,
Speaker 5: and it's a recipe for what ultimately happened. Officers have
Speaker 5: to make these split second decisions. And if you've never
Speaker 5: done those simulations where you're have a fire army you're
Speaker 5: trying to make you shoot, you shoot or not. It's
Speaker 5: really difficult out there. And so we're asking, Mike so
Speaker 5: much of our officers. We're asking them to be big
Speaker 5: brothers and big sisters. We're asking them to be aucts
Speaker 5: and uncles, dads, all these kind of things that Wekatina
Speaker 5: ask our police officers. And their job is out there,
Speaker 5: you know, just to keep us safe. For city Council,
Speaker 5: you should never go into executive session without us knowing
Speaker 5: your agenda. Yes, you know, I served on council, Mike,
Speaker 5: and I'm gonna tell you I've never we never did
Speaker 5: executive session in all my years of serving on council. Really,
Speaker 5: so this is a no, this is new. This is
Speaker 5: a new tool that this council is deciding to exercise.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 5: When I served with John Cranley or Charlie Luken as example,
Speaker 5: we never went into executive session. The people's business was
Speaker 5: always in the light, the sunshine rule was always there.
Speaker 5: But for them to go into executive session and not
Speaker 5: even tell us the agenda, right, it shows you how
Speaker 5: aggressive this council is as far as discussing taxpayer business.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was gonna say that it's used in a
Speaker 1: lot of cases for discussing pending litigation. And you're saying
Speaker 1: that that never happened while.
Speaker 6: You were on.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 5: Wow, you know we didn't. We did, we didn't. You know,
Speaker 5: we didn't use executive session. This is something new under
Speaker 5: this mayor and Council that they have now moved to
Speaker 5: using executive session. And again, you know, we dealt with
Speaker 5: the Gang of Five, who were, you know, illegally holding
Speaker 5: meetings outside of the regular business of council. You know,
Speaker 5: I'm saying if you're you know, I sit on the
Speaker 5: casino board for the State of Ohio appointed by Governor
Speaker 5: Mike DeWine. In the last two months, we had to
Speaker 5: go into executive session. The agenda said this is why
Speaker 5: we're going into executive session, pending litigation against the commission.
Speaker 5: And we were advised by our attorney during that executive session.
Speaker 5: And then we came out of executive session. But there
Speaker 5: was not anybody in the audience knew why we were
Speaker 5: going into executive session. The problem in this case is
Speaker 5: it's okay to use executive session. I'm not knocking executive sess.
Speaker 5: I'm asking counsel and the mayor and the manager and
Speaker 5: the city' Sollersh's office. Why can't the public know your agenda?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I don't see what's wrong with that.
Speaker 1: And well, I'll tell you what. As I said in
Speaker 1: the intro to you, Christopher, I mean, people in this
Speaker 1: city are really really honked off about this. Just the
Speaker 1: proposition in general in this thing paying money to the
Speaker 1: hint And family. I can't tell you. And it happened
Speaker 1: this morning. I stopped me that coffee before I came
Speaker 1: in this morning. People recognized me and said, what the
Speaker 1: hell's going on with that? Your thoughts in general on it.
Speaker 1: It just it defies belief.
Speaker 5: In my opinion, Yeah, I agree with you. It's a
Speaker 5: bad decision for Cincinnati City Council to do this. And
Speaker 5: we see a pattern in Cincinnati and across the country.
Speaker 5: I mean, the eight point one million.
Speaker 4: Dollars I thought was bill at five.
Speaker 5: This is another example where crime does pay. And you
Speaker 5: know this notion that you know, we continue to you know,
Speaker 5: support or protect criminals. And we're seeing this with ice,
Speaker 5: We're seeing this with sheriffs. We're seeing this with police departments.
Speaker 5: I mean, no matter FBI, at f DEA, we're seeing
Speaker 5: this kind of behavior where it's about protecting the criminal
Speaker 5: and not the law abiding citizens. And so this is
Speaker 5: a terrible decision. It would be devastating for the morale
Speaker 5: of the Cincinnati Police Department, the Hamilton County Sheriff's department.
Speaker 5: For even the entertaining of it, right, is so ridiculous.
Speaker 5: The entertaining of it. But let's say they actually settle
Speaker 5: and they give the family money. How that's going to
Speaker 5: make law enforcement feel? But I think that's where we are.
Speaker 5: We're in the defund the police were in to reimagine
Speaker 5: the police were into. You know, we don't need the police.
Speaker 5: We said, Mike in the last election in November going
Speaker 5: into twenty t twenty five, that this election was about
Speaker 5: all the Wines, and fifty two neighborhoods super majority voted
Speaker 5: for this. So elections have consequences, and I would assume
Speaker 5: that the electorate who showed up and voted they support this.
Speaker 5: Those who didn't vote one hundred and sixty thousand people
Speaker 5: didn't show up and vote at all, and let's say
Speaker 5: say thirty percent of those are like minded people like
Speaker 5: you and I. You know, elections have consequences, Mike. If
Speaker 5: you don't show up and participate in vote, you can't
Speaker 5: complain about any of these outcomes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I tell you, And it's got me scratching my
Speaker 1: head and a lot of other people. Would you care to,
Speaker 1: based on your background, training, and experience and counsel, kind
Speaker 1: of give us your thoughts on what you think is
Speaker 1: going to happen on this thing. It seems like they
Speaker 1: realize they're in a jam with this and a lot
Speaker 1: of other things too. What do you think is going
Speaker 1: to happen? Christopher?
Speaker 5: I think the city is going to give the family money.
Speaker 5: That's what I think. I think that's the culture of
Speaker 5: this council and the mayor and the city manager. I
Speaker 5: think they're gonna I don't know what that dollar amount
Speaker 5: will be, we certainly will see it. But I think
Speaker 5: they're going to give the They're going to give the
Speaker 5: family money. And I think we're going to see more
Speaker 5: of this. You know, notice that you know again, I
Speaker 5: want to highlight she's Washington who was terminated wrongly.
Speaker 4: She's Fiji.
Speaker 5: She's still on administrative lead getting paid. There's a pending lawsuit.
Speaker 5: The gentleman who was attacked at city Hall in that
Speaker 5: city Hall, attacked downtown, punched in the back of the head,
Speaker 5: that was the beginning of the fight, was forced. It
Speaker 5: looked like cities listeners demanded that somebody might be charged.
Speaker 5: That person was charged. His lawyer is saying, no, we're
Speaker 5: going to go to trial. There was a continuance, I
Speaker 5: think yesterday there was, and that's gonna eventually, that's gonna
Speaker 5: that's going to end up in a lawsuit against the
Speaker 5: City of Cincinnati. So you know, taxpayers are getting hit
Speaker 5: while the mayor, Mike Allen, is saying that he would
Speaker 5: like to increase taxes and so this is all going
Speaker 5: to come to a head thirty one, a thirty three
Speaker 5: million dollar deficit in all of his pending litigation with
Speaker 5: judgment bonds. Again, elections have consequences.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you on the situation with the railroad funding.
Speaker 1: I understand that that has to be used for infrastructure,
Speaker 1: which frankly is high drive around the city, especially on
Speaker 1: the West side. I ain't seeing any evidence of that
Speaker 1: at all. But because of the fact that that money
Speaker 1: can be taken out of that fund for that purpose infrastructure,
Speaker 1: wouldn't that therefore mean that there would be more money
Speaker 1: available for public safety without raising the income tax or
Speaker 1: is that just kind of a pipe dream?
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's a separate pot of money. I mean, the
Speaker 5: capital dollars are for bridges, roads, pothole you know, infrastructure.
Speaker 5: You know, we can't we can't use those dollars for operation.
Speaker 5: We certainly could use those dollars, which I wouldn't agree
Speaker 5: with with putting infrastructure in for the second phase of
Speaker 5: the streetcar. But again, as many of us discussed a
Speaker 5: decade ago, it wasn't well for me. It was the
Speaker 5: capital expenditure too, but the bigger part of it was
Speaker 5: the operation of the streetcar, which is now competing with
Speaker 5: basic services like police and fire and sanitation. So we're
Speaker 5: spending five million dollars or so is my estimation a
Speaker 5: year to operate the streetcar. People aren't paying to get
Speaker 5: on the street car. It's not free. We're just subsidizing
Speaker 5: it with five million dollars. And the city Council just
Speaker 5: seems to not want to make the tough decision. So
Speaker 5: for a quick example, with there, you're struggling in your
Speaker 5: household with the amount of money you're bringing in, but
Speaker 5: you still have cable. You're still paying two hundred dollars
Speaker 5: a month for cable, or you have Netflix, so you
Speaker 5: have Disney. You're not willing to give up any of
Speaker 5: the bills and whistles. This is what's wrong with city Hall.
Speaker 5: They're not willing to pull in their own rain of
Speaker 5: their spending, but they want us to pay more in taxes.
Speaker 5: And I think you know that's what you're going to
Speaker 5: see this this. You know, members, the citizens who are
Speaker 5: living in the fifty two neighborhoods are saying, my property
Speaker 5: taxes are going through the roof, and now you're going
Speaker 5: to hit me with a higher income tax. It's going
Speaker 5: to be it's going to be very very tough.
Speaker 1: It is a practical matter. How will that come down, Christopher?
Speaker 1: I mean, that's something counsel can do on their own,
Speaker 1: But can't it somehow be get some find some way
Speaker 1: to get it on the ballot. I'm just not sure
Speaker 1: the ins and outs of that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, they pass it without passing an emergency, which I
Speaker 5: would think, you know, a fair transparent city council would
Speaker 5: pass a tax increase and not pass an emergency, meaning
Speaker 5: it goes into effect within uh you know, uh thirty
Speaker 5: days of passage, meaning you're giving the citizens the ability
Speaker 5: to petition. But if they pass the tax increase and
Speaker 5: also pass an emergency, then it will it will make
Speaker 5: it impossible for taxpayers to go out and collect senators
Speaker 5: to stop it. But based on what I'm seeing from
Speaker 5: this council and this mayor and this administration, I would
Speaker 5: predict they're going to do all of those all of
Speaker 5: those things. Mike Allen, this is a very tough time.
Speaker 5: You know, when you look at democratic cities, you know
Speaker 5: your your your show goes all over the United States
Speaker 5: of America. I mean, people are listening to this in Florida,
Speaker 5: and so when you look across the state of Ohio.
Speaker 5: This is why I say the zk Ramaswami, who I'm
Speaker 5: supporting for governor, is so critical, meaning we have got
Speaker 5: to hold the line in this gubernatorial race that we
Speaker 5: don't lose the governor's office to liberal Democrats. I just
Speaker 5: can't see it, and I want to really just share
Speaker 5: with you know, those farmers across Ohio, those small towns
Speaker 5: across Ohio, whether it's Preble County or Butler County, whatever,
Speaker 5: Claremont County, We've got to really focus in on that
Speaker 5: gubernatorial race and make sure we're registering all the young
Speaker 5: people of our families, those who are going away to college.
Speaker 5: We want to make sure they come back and vote
Speaker 5: in Ohio, vote in our local election, and make sure
Speaker 5: that we vote for vivek Ramaswami to be the next
Speaker 5: governor of the state of Ohio. I think it's just
Speaker 5: a critical race because our judicial system is very, very
Speaker 5: liberal across the state of Ohio, our county commissioners very liberal
Speaker 5: across our counties. If we lose the state of Ohio,
Speaker 5: we're in real trouble.
Speaker 1: No, I hear you, and I agree with you too.
Speaker 1: Only have a couple minutes left. I know this is
Speaker 1: a little bit off topic, but I wanted to ask
Speaker 1: you your thoughts on the oral arguments that are happy.
Speaker 1: I think even as we speak in the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: on the issue of transgenderism with in sports, college, high school,
Speaker 1: whatever your thoughts on that. Again, it's the oral argument
Speaker 1: is today sometime.
Speaker 5: I'm a girl dad. I mean, you know, I've had
Speaker 5: a wonderful, beautiful daughter at Seaton High School. She's a
Speaker 5: varsity swimmer. My shout out to coach Jody Schaeffer. I
Speaker 5: would not want men or boys swimming against my daughter
Speaker 5: or anybody on the Seaton swim team. I think women
Speaker 5: deserve the protection in our sports. We're talking about protecting them.
Speaker 5: Whether they're playing volleyball, whether they're playing soccer, whether they're swimming.
Speaker 5: They should have protection women. So I support the lgbt
Speaker 5: Q plus community. You know, I'm a supporter of gay rights.
Speaker 5: This is just a bridge too far that I think
Speaker 5: that having men competing against women is just not fair.
Speaker 5: The last point I'll make about it, Mike Allen, I
Speaker 5: have blown away that we're even destopping it at the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court. Like you and I, our grandparents are turning
Speaker 5: over yes in their grades, they think that the Supreme
Speaker 5: Court has to make this common sense decision that girls
Speaker 5: and women in weightlifting, in boxing, and swimming need to
Speaker 5: be protected so that men aren't competing against them in sports.
Speaker 5: That's I think the reality and why these elections coming
Speaker 5: up are so critical lacking common sense.
Speaker 1: Yep, Hey, we're out of time, Christopher. I really appreciate
Speaker 1: you weighing in and hope we can call on you
Speaker 1: again sometime.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much, Mike Allen. People can follow me
Speaker 5: if they want on X at vote Smitherman.
Speaker 1: All right, my friend, thank you. All right. Well, I'll
Speaker 1: tell you what. He's always got good insights into everything,
Speaker 1: and that last thing that he said I just have
Speaker 1: to echo. And I got a few years on Christopher.
Speaker 1: But to even think that that subject, that topic is
Speaker 1: before the highest court in the land just blows me away.
Speaker 1: But hey, maybe that's just me. Hey, we got to
Speaker 1: take a break. But when we get back, we are
Speaker 1: going to talk to legal analyst and former Cincinnati City
Speaker 1: Council member Steve Gooden. I'm going to ask him his
Speaker 1: thoughts on the proposed settlement with the Hinton family, also
Speaker 1: his thoughts on the delay, the continuous the third one
Speaker 1: I believe in the Downtown beat down trial. I want
Speaker 1: to ask him too, will the ICE agent who was
Speaker 1: involved in that tragic shooting tragic because it was promulgated
Speaker 1: by the person that died, unfortunately, but whether that ICE
Speaker 1: agent can be prosecuted in state court by state agencies
Speaker 1: because I don't think the fedger are going to touch it.
Speaker 1: We'll do that when we get back. Mike Allen in
Speaker 1: Forslowe's seven hundred WLW asked Steve. He he is with
Speaker 1: the law firm of Port of Right, where he handles
Speaker 1: complicated civil and criminal matters. Steve, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us this morning.
Speaker 9: But thank you, Mike. I think we're going to talk
Speaker 9: about some very complicated matters.
Speaker 1: Boy, you know what, I was thinking the same thing, Steve. Well,
Speaker 1: here's one that shouldn't be too complicated, the Downtown beat
Speaker 1: down case, Alex. I think I'm pronouncing this right Stravinsky.
Speaker 1: He was set to go to trial yesterday. It was
Speaker 1: continued for the third time, somewhat unusual, but the judges
Speaker 1: judged Dante Johnson, who I feel is an excellent judge
Speaker 1: and knows what he's doing. What's your thought on that?
Speaker 1: I mean the reason for the continuance. It could be
Speaker 1: just about anything, but just your thoughts briefly and in
Speaker 1: general about that.
Speaker 9: Well, you know, I watched some of the video of
Speaker 9: the preceding and I'm with you. I think, you know,
Speaker 9: Dante Johnson is one of the really, you know, kind
Speaker 9: of rising star of great young judges down there, and
Speaker 9: he really has a reputation for being even handed and fair,
Speaker 9: and I think he was yesterday. What the City Solicitor's
Speaker 9: office stated was this was that there was a witness
Speaker 9: to whatever happened on Fourth Street, so called a beat down, brawl,
Speaker 9: whatever you want to call it, who allegedly was an
Speaker 9: FBI informant. The prosecutor yesterday stated in open court that
Speaker 9: that was false, that the person is not an FBI informant,
Speaker 9: and that the news reports suggesting that the person was
Speaker 9: an FBI informant has placed that person in jeopardy, and
Speaker 9: that that person, whatever the name was, was afraid to
Speaker 9: show up as a witness, and that the prosecution needed
Speaker 9: more time to get their case together. So again, this
Speaker 9: is one of these situations where you don't know who
Speaker 9: or what to believe. I looked as though the prosecutor
Speaker 9: was sort of putting this whole FBI informant identification thing
Speaker 9: on the defense attorney. The defense attorney denied that what
Speaker 9: the truth actually is, I don't know, but the judge
Speaker 9: basically gave them another month a month and a half
Speaker 9: to kind of sport all of this out. This does
Speaker 9: look as though it was heading for a trial. This
Speaker 9: guy is charged with disorderly conduct at a low level misdemeanor,
Speaker 9: under the theory that he sort of helped like agitate
Speaker 9: or cause the quote unquote violent reaction that kind of
Speaker 9: led to this whole incident. So you know, what the
Speaker 9: truth is, I don't know. I don't know that anybody
Speaker 9: knows at this point. But a lot of it all
Speaker 9: yesterday all hinged on this idea that there was an
Speaker 9: FBI in format potentially involved as a witness to this case.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, and like you said, I forget the exact date,
Speaker 1: but it's a short continuance. And again he's charged with
Speaker 1: disorderly conduct. A lot of controversy about it. Deck apparently
Speaker 1: had a real difficult time finding a cop that would
Speaker 1: actually file the charge. As many believe, and I'm one
Speaker 1: of them, that he's charged only because skin color happens
Speaker 1: to be white. But hey, that's just me. I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask you to This one is a little more complicated,
Speaker 1: the potential hint in settlement. Yesterday, Council went into executive
Speaker 1: session for apparently a couple hours in the afternoon, came out.
Speaker 1: Nobody's saying anything. What are your thoughts on that.
Speaker 9: Steve, Well, there's a couple of things. I mean, this
Speaker 9: is a human tragedy on multiple multiple levels. I mean,
Speaker 9: what we have is the young man, Ryan Hinton, who
Speaker 9: was shot and killed by CPD officers. You know what
Speaker 9: the what we know, or what we've been told, is
Speaker 9: that he was fleeing with a gun from a stolen car.
Speaker 9: The county prosecutor cleared the officers, as has the city,
Speaker 9: and basically, I never people called a good shooting. There
Speaker 9: is no good shooting. It's a shooting that probably appears.
Speaker 2: To be legal.
Speaker 9: We do know the Hinton family, you know, the young
Speaker 9: man apparently had never been in trouble before, so they've
Speaker 9: got a lot of questions about how this all came about.
Speaker 9: You know, they of hired council. They have not filed
Speaker 9: a lawsuit at this point. We also know that within
Speaker 9: a day or two. The young man's father, Rodney Hinton,
Speaker 9: then goes off and kills Larry Henderson, a retired deputy
Speaker 9: from Hamilton County. You know, he's now on facing murder
Speaker 9: charges and is basically has all but set the table
Speaker 9: for a not guilty by reason of insanity defense in
Speaker 9: which you know, he doesn't really deny that he did it,
Speaker 9: but argues that he had some sort of pre existing
Speaker 9: mental conditions. So we have these two families that are
Speaker 9: sort of forever linked, and just the way that that
Speaker 9: the random, kind of awful way that these things happen.
Speaker 9: What we do know that is this about yesterday. Ken Kober,
Speaker 9: who's the head of the f UP, issued appress release
Speaker 9: last week basically saying that the city manager, I guess
Speaker 9: city solicitor have been secretly negotiating a settlement and that
Speaker 9: and the city manager dinn But yet they did go
Speaker 9: into executive session yesterday council to be briefed on the matter.
Speaker 9: And under Ohio law, the only two things you can
Speaker 9: be briefed about an executive session as an elected official
Speaker 9: are either a potential settlement of a lawsuit impending litigation,
Speaker 9: or some sort of a personnel matter. They didn't say
Speaker 9: which one. They really weren't supposed to say that, but
Speaker 9: based upon a couple different council number statements that looked
Speaker 9: as though there were some discussion about a hint, either
Speaker 9: a hint in lawsuit that might be coming or settlement.
Speaker 9: We do know that his the hint and family lawyer
Speaker 9: Fanon Rucker has stated publicly that there is no settlement
Speaker 9: that has been reached. So what occurred yesterday, we don't know.
Speaker 9: Everyone was very tight lipt when they left. It was
Speaker 9: an attorney client privileged discussion. They were allowed to talk
Speaker 9: about it, but it probably been told not to by
Speaker 9: their counsel, and that's typically a smart thing to do.
Speaker 9: So we do know they were briefed yesterday. We presume
Speaker 9: it to be about that. There really is no indication
Speaker 9: that a final settlement has been reached. There is no lawsuit,
Speaker 9: and I just know that I would note that the
Speaker 9: context of this really matters. You know, the city did
Speaker 9: just enter into a very controversial eight point one million
Speaker 9: dollar lawsuit with some of the George Floyd protesters. A
Speaker 9: lot of police officers feel very burned by that and
Speaker 9: question that. I mean, that's something you know that the
Speaker 9: city actually had had, you know, had had the prior
Speaker 9: city solicitor had approved this curfew to shut down the protest,
Speaker 9: they went out and forced it. So there's a lot
Speaker 9: of questions about that settlement. I think that lingers over
Speaker 9: whatever is or isn't happening on the Hint matter. So
Speaker 9: you know, that's why a lot of folks are really
Speaker 9: really watching that right now. So again, we don't know
Speaker 9: what's happening. It's not particularly unusual that we don't know
Speaker 9: at this stage. We know that no lawsuit has been filed,
Speaker 9: and I think based on the public discussions, it's pretty
Speaker 9: clear that you know, they family's council has had some
Speaker 9: discussions with the city. What the basis of a settlement
Speaker 9: could be is very unclear, and I think it's also
Speaker 9: pretty clear from some of the statements by a couple
Speaker 9: of the different council members, Walsh and Cranberton, particularly that
Speaker 9: they had a very negative reaction even to the concept
Speaker 9: of settling. I think, particularly given the fact that you know,
Speaker 9: what the young man's father appears to have done, so
Speaker 9: just an extraordinarily complicated thing that's going to take some
Speaker 9: time to play out, and I just think it's very
Speaker 9: unfortunate that that this is surfacing after that giant settlement
Speaker 9: to the protesters, which I think a lot of folks
Speaker 9: in the community, and particularly in the law enforcement community,
Speaker 9: think was a very very bad thing.
Speaker 1: You know, Steve across town where I go places in
Speaker 1: it happened this morning too. I mean people literally stop
Speaker 1: me and ask me about and the general maybe swear
Speaker 1: I hang out, But the general kind of question is
Speaker 1: how in the hell can the city of Cincinnati paid
Speaker 1: money to that family. I mean, it just it defies
Speaker 1: all logic and in many people's opinion, common sense. Put
Speaker 1: your political hat on for a minute. You served on
Speaker 1: city council, I mean, are you surprised that they are
Speaker 1: apparently even considering this? And I understand nuisance settlements, but
Speaker 1: this appears to be something that's more of a principal thing.
Speaker 9: Well, you know, you know, it's really hard to say.
Speaker 9: On the facts that I have seen, I would agree
Speaker 9: with your friends, Okay, I don't see. You know, when
Speaker 9: when you have a police shooting of the sort that
Speaker 9: we that we've seen here what we know about anyway,
Speaker 9: when you have multiple people having looked at it and
Speaker 9: declared that nothing illegal or improper happened there. It's really
Speaker 9: really hard to even, you know, understand how the city
Speaker 9: could owe the family money. And I know, from from
Speaker 9: a common sense standpoint idea, I think the concern is, well,
Speaker 9: my God, could somehow the father who is who is
Speaker 9: a waiting trial for murder somehow benefit from this suit.
Speaker 9: I mean that is those are very common sense, natural questions.
Speaker 9: I don't see it. I don't get it. But there
Speaker 9: may be some piece of this that we don't know, right,
Speaker 9: so I think we have to reserve a little judgment
Speaker 9: there because we don't know everything. But I'll just based
Speaker 9: on the facts that are publicly available. It is really
Speaker 9: a hard thing for a lot of people to get
Speaker 9: their head around. And just like this last settlement was,
Speaker 9: and I think there was just this this fear that
Speaker 9: that right or wrong. There is this perception, particularly in
Speaker 9: the law enforcement community and among a lot of regular voters,
Speaker 9: that these are some of these settlements are more political
Speaker 9: minded than vile minded. And I hope that isn't the case,
Speaker 9: but you know, we just have to kind of wait
Speaker 9: and see on this one. Again, there's no lawsuit filed.
Speaker 9: We don't know particularly what's being alleged here, but we
Speaker 9: do know that both the county prosecutor, who all note
Speaker 9: it's an elected Democrats, and the Internal Affairs a CPD
Speaker 9: and everyone else, everyone has has cleared the officer who
Speaker 9: pulled the trigger in regards to the younger Hinton. So
Speaker 9: you know, I'm at a loss for what it could be.
Speaker 9: But again, there may be something we don't know, uh so,
Speaker 9: But but right now I think it will be a
Speaker 9: very very hard sell, I think, for for for the community,
Speaker 9: and particularly for the law enforcement community to ever get
Speaker 9: there wrapt.
Speaker 1: No question about it. Big day, big day in the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court of the United States today, oral argument on
Speaker 1: whether biological men can compete in women's sports. I think
Speaker 1: it's or Utah maybe or in West Virginia, two separates, No,
Speaker 1: it's I don't know. It doesn't matter two separate states
Speaker 1: are bringing that suit or that suit is being brought
Speaker 1: against them by uh people representing the people that want
Speaker 1: to participate in those sports. Your thoughts on that, Steven,
Speaker 1: And as a practicing lawyer, how important in your mind
Speaker 1: is oral argument mainly in front of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I've always kind of wondered that I've never been an
Speaker 1: appella judge, but just wanted to get your thoughts on that.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 9: You know, I think just in my experience, I mean,
Speaker 9: oral arguments probably only matter about fifteen or twenty percent
Speaker 9: of the time. By and large, I think most appellate
Speaker 9: judges have read the briefs and kind of have their
Speaker 9: minds made up. Frankly, it looks as though to me
Speaker 9: the Supreme Court is very much primed to go back
Speaker 9: to a much more and I think correctly go back
Speaker 9: to a much more traditional, common sense view of gender.
Speaker 9: You know, I don't think the oral arguments are going
Speaker 9: to matter that much. I count six about its right
Speaker 9: away to stick with a biological definition of man and
Speaker 9: female when it comes to sport. I mean, I think
Speaker 9: that's just common sense. It's where the public is, it's
Speaker 9: where our traditions are. I think it's very interesting too,
Speaker 9: that just a couple of months ago, Uh, basically the
Speaker 9: British Supreme Court, you know, has already gone that way.
Speaker 9: It's basically said, hey, look, you know, how we're born matters,
Speaker 9: what biology is matters. Uh, And they have gone back.
Speaker 9: Even in the sort of more lefty United Kingdom has
Speaker 9: adopted a just the common sense gender definition there that's
Speaker 9: not to say that people don't have issues with you know, uh,
Speaker 9: you know, there are i know, the medical issues, there's intersects,
Speaker 9: you know, people who were born that way. I understand
Speaker 9: all those things. But by and large, when it comes
Speaker 9: to actually, you know, competing in sports and making common
Speaker 9: sense definitions for education and accommodations, you know, the the
Speaker 9: vast majority of people in the world, you know, have
Speaker 9: a biological gender and and that is kind of the
Speaker 9: way our society is organized and based. And and the
Speaker 9: idea that we've struggling with that as a legal community
Speaker 9: or as a society is just one of those like
Speaker 9: very bizarre things to me. To me, it's just common sense.
Speaker 9: It looks as though the court's going to go that way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, everyone that I have talked to literally has said
Speaker 1: the same thing. That can't believe that we're even in
Speaker 1: this posture where it has to be decided by the
Speaker 1: highest court in the land. But you know, that's life
Speaker 1: in the year twenty twenty six. I'm afraid, Hey, I
Speaker 1: don't have a lot of time for this, darnet. And
Speaker 1: this is one I really wanted to dig into you
Speaker 1: with the question of whether state charges can be filed
Speaker 1: in a prosecution en sue for ice officer Jonathan Ross
Speaker 1: and that shooting in Minneapolis. I guess it seems to
Speaker 1: me like, yes, they can be fouled if some things
Speaker 1: are meant, and then possibly even removed to federal court.
Speaker 1: I only got you about a minute and a half left, Steve.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: Well, yeah, I'll be I'll be real quick on this one.
Speaker 9: The answer, that's going to be a big question mark
Speaker 9: going forward. I think that's what everyone's watching to see
Speaker 9: if they do try to indict him. I mean, there
Speaker 9: is an argument that the federal law could preempt There
Speaker 9: is an argument if the local authorities do indict him,
Speaker 9: that they could try to remove it to federal court,
Speaker 9: where jurisdiction will presumably be more favorable. You know, I mean,
Speaker 9: typically speaking on federal agians are only subject to federal jurisdiction.
Speaker 9: But you know this, this is we are heading into.
Speaker 1: A very very weird time where.
Speaker 9: A lot of those lines are being are being blurred.
Speaker 9: So I will be surprised if they don't try to
Speaker 9: indict him locally there in Minneapolis. So we're just going
Speaker 9: to have to wait and see. The short version is
Speaker 9: we're gonna we're digging into questions that have not been
Speaker 9: litigated in many, many, many many decades, where you have
Speaker 9: local authorities that are standing in direct opposition to federal directives.
Speaker 9: So it's a very again unfortunate time, you know that,
Speaker 9: where we're litigating issues I think we all thought were
Speaker 9: long settled. Typically the federal agent would be would be
Speaker 9: dealt with by the federal authorities, but now we have
Speaker 9: local authorities. It seemed to have a very very very
Speaker 9: different view to forwards.
Speaker 1: All right, time, all right, Steve, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate we covered a lot of ground and
Speaker 1: I thank you for it.
Speaker 9: Anytime.
Speaker 1: Might take care, Okay, bye bye. All right, Steve good
Speaker 1: and legal analyst. I'll tell you what he's good. He
Speaker 1: knows the stuff. I wish I would have asked that
Speaker 1: question about whether that ice officer can be charged statewide
Speaker 1: earlier we could have expounded on a little bit. What
Speaker 1: I'm reading is the answer is yes, and then I
Speaker 1: think if some circumstances apply, it can possibly be removed
Speaker 1: a federal court. Like Steve said, it is an absolute
Speaker 1: mess and it's going to be one of those stay
Speaker 1: tuned deals. Hey, we got to take a break. But
Speaker 1: when we get back open lines if you want to
Speaker 1: call seven four, nine, seven one, eight hundred, the big
Speaker 1: one are the numbers. Mike Allen in for Scott Sloan's
Speaker 1: seven hundred WLW eleven thirty eight News Radio, seven hundred
Speaker 1: WLW Mike Allen in for Scott Sloan today and thirdsday.
Speaker 1: As promised, I'm going right to the phones. Let's talk
Speaker 1: to Greg in Michigan. Hey, good morning, Greg, Hey, good
Speaker 1: morning Mike.
Speaker 6: Mister positive thanks for taking my call. When you talk
Speaker 6: about the situation in Minnesota, we have to understand the
Speaker 6: fundamental axiom of confirmation bias. You and I, Mike can
Speaker 6: look at a situation and we can see the exact
Speaker 6: same thing. We're going to come out with different conclusions.
Speaker 6: Ask yourself why You've got to understand that what you
Speaker 6: believe from the past, you're going to make predicate your
Speaker 6: decision upon that. Me and Chris Cuom will talk about
Speaker 6: this all the time you look at something, I'm going
Speaker 6: to judge you, Mike Allen, about what you did in
Speaker 6: the past, and I'm going to assert it with the
Speaker 6: situation that's directly in front of us. We can't do that,
Speaker 6: Ladies and gentlemen, you have to look at the situation
Speaker 6: rate in front of us in Minnesota.
Speaker 2: No matter.
Speaker 6: She did not use the car to run him over.
Speaker 6: You see the tires turn away. Why would she back up?
Speaker 6: If I want to run Mike Allen over, I'm going
Speaker 6: to go directly straight. I'm not going to back up.
Speaker 6: This is such a divisive country that we're not looking
Speaker 6: at things objectively. I need people to read philosophy, understand
Speaker 6: iron Ran, understand the law of identity A is a
Speaker 6: Aristotelian logic.
Speaker 2: People are just so.
Speaker 6: Emotional on this and they cannot separate their emotion from logic.
Speaker 2: What say you, Michael, I'll tell you what.
Speaker 1: It's an interesting conversation. And I don't discount all of
Speaker 1: what you say. I mean, you're right. You do bring
Speaker 1: your prior I guess, biases or experiences into a question
Speaker 1: like about something like this. But everybody's gonna feel a
Speaker 1: different way or not really that the two sides they're
Speaker 1: about equal number. The battle lines have been drawn and
Speaker 1: we are not listening to each other. I certainly agree
Speaker 1: with you on that, and I wish we can find
Speaker 1: a way to do that.
Speaker 6: Oh you're you're spot on. Thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 6: Everybody find man Facebook, Gregory Baltef, mister positive he.
Speaker 1: Can you can you smell your last night? Because I
Speaker 1: want to look you up.
Speaker 4: Man.
Speaker 2: Please g R E g r E g o r y.
Speaker 2: That's my first name.
Speaker 6: Baltef spelled B like boy a, l T, like Tom, E,
Speaker 6: like Elvis, F like Frank Frank.
Speaker 2: You can hear me on Stephen A.
Speaker 6: Smith, Chris Cuomo. I'm a shaker remover. I want to
Speaker 6: make people believe in their dreams. I want everyone to
Speaker 6: go for your dreams. And I wish Bill Cunningham would
Speaker 6: put me on a show. He sometimes doesn't treat me well,
Speaker 6: but I want him to read more philosophy. I want
Speaker 6: him to not to be a reporter. I want Billy.
Speaker 6: I love Rappin' Bill. I want him to be more philosophical,
Speaker 6: not just say this is what happened in New York,
Speaker 6: this is what happened in Cincinnati. I want him to
Speaker 6: be like Cuomo and be philosophical and get to the
Speaker 6: nitty gritty, because that's the only way we're going to
Speaker 6: find truth.
Speaker 2: Everybody, everybody, go for your dreams.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That was interesting, But I mean I was
Speaker 1: telling the truth. I don't discount that. I don't. And
Speaker 1: as far as reading philosophy, yeah, I had to do
Speaker 1: that in college, and I wasn't really a big fan.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'd read a lot, but it's mostly biographies
Speaker 1: and things like that. I don't know. I just don't
Speaker 1: think brain's kind of set up for the classics. But
Speaker 1: I don't denigrate it. But he's right. I mean, we
Speaker 1: should be trying to talk to each other. It's not happening.
Speaker 1: And you know, I'm going to have a point of
Speaker 1: view on that. I think a conservative is much much,
Speaker 1: much more willing to have a conversation with someone of
Speaker 1: a different political persuasion than if you flip it. Because
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I mean I have to generalize here because
Speaker 1: I think I'm right more than half the vast majority
Speaker 1: of those on the left, they feel sanctified. They feel
Speaker 1: like they're right, no matter what they feel like. Well,
Speaker 1: professor told me this, so it's got to be true.
Speaker 1: I think that's the big problem with a lot of them.
Speaker 1: You're much more likely to get a debate, and boy,
Speaker 1: my Saturday Show proves this. You're much more likely to
Speaker 1: get a debate with a conservative then with a liberal.
Speaker 1: Because I mean, they do it. They'll call, with some exceptions,
Speaker 1: they'll call, you know, they'll yell and scream, and you
Speaker 1: try to engage them, and more often than not, it
Speaker 1: ends up with them hanging up on you. There's a
Speaker 1: guy and I had a guy Saturday. He was a
Speaker 1: leftist kind of guy. He had a good conversation and
Speaker 1: we're talking back and forth. He said, Yeah, I wish
Speaker 1: we still had Glenn from Mason. You may remember him.
Speaker 1: Glenn was on the left, unapologetic, and man, if you
Speaker 1: locked horns with him, you better be ready because he was.
Speaker 1: And that's what we need. We need that so badly.
Speaker 1: But the other side they ain't willing to do that.
Speaker 1: They're not I've said it since literally my first radio show,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna say it till my last, which I
Speaker 1: hope is not is a long way off. It's the
Speaker 1: arrogance of liberal is they think they are right no
Speaker 1: matter what. It is very rare that they will engage
Speaker 1: with you, and if they do, in many, if not
Speaker 1: most cases, it ends up with them calling, at least
Speaker 1: on my show, call me a name and hanging up
Speaker 1: on me. But I really that an interesting call, and
Speaker 1: I look that dude, up when I get home. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's talk to Ken in Sharonville. Hey, Ken, how you doing.
Speaker 10: Good morning, Mike. I just wanted to tell you. I
Speaker 10: was listening to the WHIO twelve ninety o Kepin Dayton
Speaker 10: and they were reporting some protests that they had up there.
Speaker 10: I guess it was Sunday, And then after reporting it,
Speaker 10: they also reported the group that organized it. Okay, and
Speaker 10: I think the group was I think I got this right,
Speaker 10: American Socialist Marxist Society. So that was honest reporting. These
Speaker 10: news agencies like yours that have a lead story every time,
Speaker 10: and they've done this for all day yesterday and all
Speaker 10: day to day about these paid for protests and don't
Speaker 10: tell who's organizing it. Then they're part They're in on
Speaker 10: the scam.
Speaker 1: You know what. I gotta agree with you on that.
Speaker 1: The only thing is, let me say this with respect
Speaker 1: to radio boy, you are so limited in time as
Speaker 1: to how deep you can dig into it. But hey,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'm with you, man. I would love
Speaker 1: for someone in the media, and it's not going to
Speaker 1: be any of the mainstream media. It would have to
Speaker 1: be someone on the right to dig into that and
Speaker 1: look at it because from everything I'm seeing. I'm watching
Speaker 1: these things going back and forth, and it sure looks
Speaker 1: to me like in some cities they're carrying the same
Speaker 1: signs as they are in other cities. And you're right,
Speaker 1: it is very relevant who's bankrolling these damn things, And
Speaker 1: they sure don't look spontaneous to me. Thank you, Mike, Okay,
Speaker 1: thank you. Yeah. I mean that's a really, really good point.
Speaker 1: And I wish somebody would do that, because I think
Speaker 1: some people may be surprised at what you find. You know,
Speaker 1: and you can say, well, who cares. They still have
Speaker 1: a right to proch. Yeah, they do. But I think
Speaker 1: that's something that the public has a right to know
Speaker 1: and should know. And well, I hope somebody picks up
Speaker 1: on that someday, someday soon. Hey, let's talk to Ross
Speaker 1: and Portsmouth. Hey, Ross, how you doing.
Speaker 9: I'm doing good.
Speaker 11: It's very unfortunate that a person had to lose their
Speaker 11: eyes in these situations. My understanding is they had been
Speaker 11: told several times to quit obstructing law in their process
Speaker 11: that day. That wasn't the first place that had happened.
Speaker 11: The road was blocked, which is a violation.
Speaker 5: Of the law.
Speaker 11: The thing is here's the thing. When a law enforcement officer,
Speaker 11: no matter who it is, ice, city police, sheriff's department,
Speaker 11: FBI instructs you, requests you, or tells you.
Speaker 5: To do something.
Speaker 11: If you follow their instructions, probably nobody's gonna get hurt,
Speaker 11: little and killed.
Speaker 1: You are absolutely right about that. You're right now.
Speaker 11: You can protest and you can do what you want.
Speaker 11: The other gentleman, I respect his opinion about the turning
Speaker 11: of the wheels in the backing up, but how did
Speaker 11: the officer get hit and the vehicle will be going
Speaker 11: forward when the shots was fired? Well, see my question
Speaker 11: to him. And number two to the lady that in
Speaker 11: Butler County addressed. My question to her would be.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 11: I think it's time personally that most places have federal funding.
Speaker 11: Means probably the Butler County Jail has federal money. You
Speaker 11: can't refuse to incarcerate people that a federal agent has
Speaker 11: arrested without the loss or the chance of the loss
Speaker 11: of federal funding. And I think the only thing that's
Speaker 11: ever going to be understood in these liberal cities, in
Speaker 11: the liberal areas and by the liberals is when the
Speaker 11: money dries up, then when the services they want is
Speaker 11: not there, then they start crying and hollering. Then you
Speaker 11: can pull them out. This is what you asked for.
Speaker 11: This is what we are giving you what you asked for.
Speaker 11: And are elected politicians from the lowest level right to
Speaker 11: the state, right to Washington, d C. I personally believe
Speaker 11: it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican or
Speaker 11: an independent. They do not listen to their constituent. And
Speaker 11: what you guys have got on in Cincinnati's horrible. And
Speaker 11: I'll throw this out there. There is a thing I
Speaker 11: think you can do it. I thought you could do it,
Speaker 11: recall petition for an election to people ont of office.
Speaker 11: Why don't someone in Cincinnati get a recall petition?
Speaker 4: If they're not going to.
Speaker 11: Follow the will of the people, then fine, get them out.
Speaker 11: But you know what, when you put someone in office,
Speaker 11: they're gonna be decisions that are not popular. There's gonna
Speaker 11: be a lot of decisions that are unpopular, and you
Speaker 11: can't weigh that into your decision. You got to do
Speaker 11: what's right because that's what the people are elected you for.
Speaker 11: But these people are only worried about being re elected
Speaker 11: for whatever their personal reasons are.
Speaker 1: And it's hard.
Speaker 11: It's just time. It's just time the elected officials are
Speaker 11: held accountable.
Speaker 1: Well, you know what accountability is, the is the key
Speaker 1: to all of it. Ross And I appreciate the call,
Speaker 1: thank you, I really do. Yeah, I mean a recall petition.
Speaker 1: I believe Ohio has provision. I'm sure they have provision
Speaker 1: for that. But boy, I'll tell you my recollection is
Speaker 1: and it's been a long time since I looked at
Speaker 1: it as it is. It's really hard to do. You
Speaker 1: need a ton of signatures. But you know, there again,
Speaker 1: and that's a Donald Trump takes so much crap for
Speaker 1: so much. I'll tell you one thing he can't shouldn't
Speaker 1: take crap for is not doing what he said he's
Speaker 1: going to do. I mean, he was elected, not overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: like he says, but it wasn't really close, let's just
Speaker 1: say comfortably elected. And you know, people that voted for him,
Speaker 1: the majority that did, heard what he had to say,
Speaker 1: and he's following through on it. So I think there's
Speaker 1: accountability there with him at least. Hey, let's talk to
Speaker 1: Steven Lovelin. Hey, Steve, real quick, Okay.
Speaker 12: I was just going to say the other day, and
Speaker 12: it was the morning after the shooting.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 12: Fox had a an article and basically they know who
Speaker 12: these people are. They put something out and they did
Speaker 12: this timeline and it's basically American socialists, but they named names.
Speaker 12: They named time Reed when they were getting signs. Yeah,
Speaker 12: so that's they know. And I think it's probably because
Speaker 12: they have people on the inside, but they put that
Speaker 12: all together so they.
Speaker 5: Know who's causing this.
Speaker 12: The funny thing is, I don't think all these liberal
Speaker 12: moms realize that, you know, that it's socialistations that are
Speaker 12: calling for this kind of revolution and again young susceptible
Speaker 12: to revolution, but they do know.
Speaker 1: I guess this is the well Yeah, I mean because
Speaker 1: their professors cram it down their throats and they don't
Speaker 1: have the stones that have another side presented because they're
Speaker 1: afraid that they wouldn't that students wouldn't agree with them,
Speaker 1: they'd agree with the other side. It just doesn't happen.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you, because I'm gonna drill down on it.
Speaker 1: So it was on National Fox News. Was it like
Speaker 1: a story, a written.
Speaker 12: Story or it was Yeah, it was on on an
Speaker 12: app on my phone and it was a written story, Okay,
Speaker 12: but it was Fox News.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm gonna check that out because I was waiting
Speaker 1: for somebody to do that, and earlier caller today was
Speaker 1: kind of saying the same thing. And it doesn't surprise
Speaker 1: me at all. Let me ask you if you can
Speaker 1: recall did the name George Sorows come up at all
Speaker 1: in that story?
Speaker 5: Surprisingly, no, there was but same names.
Speaker 12: And I was looking for his name now, But there
Speaker 12: there were I think a couple of a couple of
Speaker 12: female names, you know, who were who were prominent? Uh uh,
Speaker 12: you know the ones who are calling the shot?
Speaker 1: Sure, sure that way, yeah.
Speaker 5: But no, it wasn't there.
Speaker 12: There really wasn't anything that tied him to it.
Speaker 1: I was looking for, you know what, I'm gonna check
Speaker 1: it out. I really appreciated Steve. That's important and people
Speaker 1: need to know. So I'm gonna try and see if
Speaker 1: I can find it.
Speaker 12: All right, Hey, Mike, thanks a love three times.
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I'll tell you what. As soon
Speaker 1: as I get home, I'm gonna drill down and try
Speaker 1: to find that. And you know, it doesn't surprise me
Speaker 1: at all. What he said is to who they are
Speaker 1: this socialist organization, that socialist organization, And I'm telling you
Speaker 1: you know, some people think I'm obsessed with it. Maybe
Speaker 1: I am, maybe I'm not. This stuff so much of
Speaker 1: it starts with the college professor. And now I mean
Speaker 1: even high school teachers and even as young as Great School,
Speaker 1: they start the indoctrination. That's got to stop or we're
Speaker 1: never going to see an end to dealing with this.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at it. When we were kids,
Speaker 1: we were raised in a conservative household, and we discussed
Speaker 1: issues around the dinner table. I don't think that happens anymore.
Speaker 1: And a lot of reasons is because mom's working, dad's working.
Speaker 1: Somebody's got to make the dinner and maybe they don't
Speaker 1: have time. But I guess that's just a long way
Speaker 1: of saying that we need to do a little bit
Speaker 1: more work on what is being taught to our kids.
Speaker 1: Now Donald Trump, God bless him, he's put the screws
Speaker 1: to some of these Ivy League schools and others too.
Speaker 1: With you know, okay, you don't want to give both
Speaker 1: a little diversity of thought. You love diversity so much.
Speaker 1: Got a little diversity of thought on these college campuses.
Speaker 1: By the way, if you don't, you ain't getting your
Speaker 1: federal funds. It's the only way you can do it
Speaker 1: with these people because they're arrogant, especially a college professor.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, they're obsessed with the sixties, and
Speaker 1: that's just a fact they are. And many of that,
Speaker 1: not many, there aren't many left, but that's where they
Speaker 1: kind of got their got their idea of how things
Speaker 1: should be. But again, and the other thing too, is
Speaker 1: if people say this till they're blue in the face,
Speaker 1: give me an example, please, please give me an example
Speaker 1: of where socialism has worked. Please. But it ain't gonna
Speaker 1: happen because they can't do it. Hey, listen, I'm blathering
Speaker 1: on here and I am getting out of here, but
Speaker 1: I'll be back on Thursday. Mike Allen's seven hundred WLW