Fifty five krc DE Talk station, Dan Carroll for Brian Thomas. So glad to be here and always glad to welcome in my my next guest, uh local attorney and legal analyst and James Bogan.
Great to have you back on the show. How are you today?
Good? Thanks for having me?
Yeah, absolutely, yea.
Before I get to the subject that we had at hand, I got a couple of questions for you and just a couple of things that occurred to me over the last couple of hours.
You know, it was what was it? It was?
It was like a month, almost two months ago, you and I were talking about the the pending release of the Epstein files. And remember we we we kind of made plans, you know, when those come out, we're gonna we're gonna look at it, We're gonna dissect it. We're going to do a segment on the radio and and talk about that and talk about what's in it, what's not what's not in it? Uh, how those you know,
we're going to break those things down. And then of course, you know the release was delayed that it never happened, and here we are, and this feels like it was a couple of months ago, and I've not seen hide nor hair of the Epstein files. Have you seen any unication at all that those things will ever see the light of day.
Well, here's the thing. They got a truckload of files that next day when Pam Bondi gave that deadline, And in my experience, when you have that many files, I'd be very hard pressed to see how they could have gone through them thoroughly and made the appropriate redactions like redacting out victims' names and so on, which is very routine for any law enforcement to do before releasing documents
to the public. Unless they were doing at twenty four to seven around the clock, and that's the only thing they're working on, I really don't think they would have had it done by now.
Yeah, I was under the impression that one thing, that some of that had already taken place, though her being I remember her being on TV with Jesse Waters talking about, Yeah, you know, those files are coming out tomorrow and we're doing the final reactions and making sure that we don't compromise any information or give away people's names. It shouldn't be given away. I thought they had already done all that stuff.
I don't think so, And the thing is Pam BONDI. She's salivating to release this stuff. You know, Trump is too. That's what I'm thinking. And I don't think they gain anything by holding stuff back if that stuff's been done, because I think they're absolutely chomping at the bit to release this stuff. That's just my thought.
All right, Well, then our plans are still in place, and when those things come out, we'll we'll we'll have you on and we'll break it down and we'll see what's what on the Epstein file. So that so keep that, keep that in your calendar, all right, I will do Dan, all right. The other thing is some information started coming out yesterday about this a fifteen year old that's accused of killing this guy on Short Vine a couple of days ago, and the video came out, yes the video
was released yesterday of how this happened. And you see this guy standing in front of that liquor store on Short Vine. He's got his nose in his cell phone, he's minding his own business. This kid walks up to him, pulls out a gun and sticks it in his midsection. And information started coming out late yesterday that this guy has been in the juvenile system before various judges. I guess in Hamilton County Juvenile court with twenty one felonies, and maybe it's just me, but twenty one when you're
at the age of fifteen sounds like a lot. And yet this kid was still it seems to me like this is a kid who should not have been on the street, should not have had any access to a gun. Is this and I mean in a general sense, if you have a kid that has is fifteen years old, has that many felonies, that much content with court, how is this kid able to be out on the street.
That's a good question. It depends on what those twenty one felonies were. And you see when they count prior felonies, they what they do is they take the total. They don't take look back and say, hey, this could be from like two or three cases.
But yeah, apparently one of them was illegal dischargeable weapon. Uh, there was. There was a couple of them. I think that involved possession of a gun.
And and so that dischargeable weapon is a felony that in adult court typically carries prison time and it's a strict liability offense, which means you can't argue self defense with that one, So yeah, I definitely have questions, But the bigger thing is where the hell are his kids parents?
Yeah? Absolutely?
And are we just unequipped in the juvenile system to deal with this in any in any meaningful way.
I don't know.
I mean, it's really a case by case and i'd say because I've had juvenile clients where you know, I definitely did not question the outcome. But you know, like I said, every case is different.
Yeah, all right, well, James, stay right there. I want to talk about some of the Title nine stuff that that is happening, and it is it is amazing to me that some of these different universities and these different entities think that they can stand their ground against the federal government on this. And we'll get your thoughts on that, but we got to get to a quick break here, So James Bogan stand by and we'll continue on with him on the other side. On fifty five KRC the
talk station. This is fifty five KRC and iHeartRadio station.
Get ready for spring and have your roof gut.
Fifty five KRC DE talk station. Dan Carroll for Ryan Thomas. We are talking with local attorney James Bogan and James. You know, I'm looking at some of the headlines here, and you've got the University of Pennsylvania. Trump is suspending one hundred and seventy five million dollars in federal funding because they continue to allow male athletes to compete in
women's sports. The Secretary of Education is telling these these different universities the NCAA that their policies need to get in line with what the Trump administration is saying about this. You've got main schools who are saying they are not going to not going to change their transgender policies as it relates to sports. What kind of ground do these places have to stand on in order to stand in defiance of what's coming out of the White House.
They have absolutely zero crown on you just look at the text the Title nine, which this executive order is based on. No one shall be excluded from participation in sports or deny the benefit of sports school sports based on gender. And when you allow biological males to compete in girls' sports, you're taking away these opportunities to participate
and have gained the benefits from these sports. Because when you have biological males, even if they take hormones, they're still during puberty, they get bigger muscles, bigger frame, bigger lung capacity, stronger ligament, stronger tendons, more muscle density, and those advantages do not get mitigated by hormone treatment. And feelings certainly don't mitigate these physical advantages, and you'll see
them displacing girls. I mean, we talked about this. Leah Thomas, for example, when as Will Thomas was the number four hundred and sixty two among college men in the two hundred yard freestyle, went from that to number one among college women. Now men's and women's times performances is about a ten to twelve percent different. Thomas's time only dropped by two point sixty six percent or regressed by two point six six percent from the hormones and splockers and
so on. It's and when women girls, when they take steroids, they don't become as good as men. I mean, you saw that we talked about this. There's that Yale swimmer who she was one of the top women in the country actually compete against Leah Thomas. The next year swam for Yale as a guy and wasn't even competitive.
Yeah, And that's the way it happens.
And I love the way you address that argument, because you're talking about nine and Title nine really looks after the rights of women. And we've gone so far down the road on this argument that it always starts with the rights of those who, you know, these transgender individuals, that somehow their rights are being infringe and what gets lost in that argument are the rights of those women
to compete on a fair and level playing field. You know, these women who have sacrificed mightily, who have given up all sorts of things, and then you know, when when it's time for them, you know, for the rubber to hit the road, well, then they have to face another unfair challenge in the form of some dude that's been through puberty and now wants to they have long hair and wear dresses and call himself a woman.
Yeah. I mean, if I would have compete as a woman, I would have been a superstar when.
My son would have been the same way, Would he had better times than Katie Decky for God's sake?
Yeah? And you know what everyone though, the proponents of this crap, they just focus on feelings, feelings, feelings. And these are the same people who said trust the science during COVID.
Yeah, trust the science, that the science at least when it as long as it fits their narrative. So it was, so, where do you see this going? I mean, you know, the Trump administration so far is able to withhold funds, and we've had so many federal judges across the country who feel have been feeling so free to wade into any issue that comes out.
Of the White House.
Are we going to be subject to more federal rulings and federal court judges trying to direct the Trump administration to do this, that and the other thing.
That's an interesting question.
We haven't seen anything brought yet, but unfortunately, with these activist judges out there, I wouldn't be surprised. But this way, the recent New York Times poll showed that seventy nine percent of people are opposed to this crap. And you look at this eventually reaches the Supreme Court. I think once this reaches the Supreme Court, which is more matter when than if there are some penny cases, I think the Court's going to end up ruling on the right side of this.
Yeah, James, before we let you go, you brought to my attention yesterday a situation that's developing within the Cincinnati Police Department, and it has to do with a retired officer who is trying to get a replacement badge after retiring from the force. And there seems to be some so I don't know if it's a misunderstanding or some sort of complication as to this officer getting a replacement badge.
And you know, the way.
The argument was laid out for me, this just sounds to me like something that doesn't really need to get to the left that this thing is getting to already.
Yeah, retired police officer Rachel Baldwin, I've been in chatting with her about this too. She retired in good standing. She lost her retirement badge. Many retired officers request the second retirement badge. One goes in their wallet, one goes on display. It's not nefarious to lose a retirement badge. It says retirement and big letters across the top. It's not like anyone can use it. And people I've talked to with CPD say it's not unpreceded for a retired
officer to get a replacement retirement badge either. Now, Baldwin, she lost her badge. She went to police supply to inquire about the process, you know, to get this replacement badge that she earned through thirty years of service. And
it's something they pay out a pocket for too. And she was told she had to make a report and write a letter and it had to go to the chief, who's the one person who proves and disapproves these for some strange reason now and the chief said no and doubled down on it when FOP President Ken Kober intervened, and she said, one retirement badge to each officer period. To hell with bad things happening, like you're getting stolen.
And the thing is, she retired in good standing, filed the appropriate report when she lost her badge and jumped her all the hoops, and this is what she gets. And Cober he confirmed me the under CPD policy, this is the chief's prerogative. And here's the funny part. Another retired CPD officer, I'm not going to bring his name into this, he started posting about this on Facebook to support Baldwin.
Guess what.
CPD's public information officer decides to call him and advise him to stop discussing on social media. And this officer, he's the kind of guy who doesn't take kindly to bullying. But memo to CPD ad minutes traders, there's a little thing called the First Amendment and any first year laws and can tell you government agencies are bound by it. Hello.
And what's funny is apparently when this part blew up, my understanding is this public relations officer may have claimed that she called this retired officer who was speaking up not to try to get them to stop posting that online, but to try to help. I don't obviously I'd have more questions about that conversation. But here's the thing. If you want to be an effective leader, you need to
make your officers feel appreciated. You need to make your retirees feel appreciated, instead of having your current officers feel that you see them as disposable and that when they retire they'll be thrown out like yesterday's garbage. Not announce of respect. I mean, is that the kind of leadership message you want to send?
I don't know.
It just seems to me like the whole thing is really an unforced there it's a it's a it's a retirement padge, and and the and the pay for it out of your own pocket, do the paperwork, whatever procedures there, and just let let it go and move on.
I don't know.
I just hope this thing gets resolved and gets resolved quickly before it becomes some sort of an issue. But with that, James, we will let you go. Always appreciate the time as always, and we will talk to you again before too long.
Thank you very much, Dan.
Always a privilege, all right, James Bogan on fifty five k r CV Talkstation.
Fifty five KRC dot com. This is Joe Cordell