Rep. Ron Weinberg accused of sexual harassment; Rep. Gabe Evans on BBB passage, effects

full truth about the Epstein files. And so when I got home last night, I thought, well, you know what, I'm going to dive in a little bit on Facebook. See what the world of social media is saying about this current the current situation as it revolves to Jeffrey Epstein and all the curiosity around him. And lo and behold, my Facebook page was just riddled with information about an issue happening here in Colorado at the Colorado State House.

As you guys know, yesterday we had Representative Carlos baron On who had just been named the new House Minority Whip for the Republicans, and we were paid him a lot of praise. I think Carlos Baron has done a great job representing House District forty eight, taken over for Congressman Gabe Evans in that particular district, has built a

lot of relationships down to the State House. We were very supportive of I was very supportive of him moving into that seat or into that role as the whip, and had no idea about some of the turmoil that had gone on behind the scenes. We knew that Carlos Baron had kind of faced off against Representative Brandy Bradley and Representative Ron Weinberg had also been in the running for that position, but Carlos had come out on top.

And again I was completely unaware of some of the stuff that had gone on behind the scenes.

kind of soaked it in last night. You know, I didn't want to respond too quickly and decided that, you know, this morning, about five thirty in the morning, when I was finishing up my workout, I messaged Representative Weinberger message on through Facebook and just said, Hey, if you've got a desire to come on the radio today and give your side of these accusations, because I had seen every major news station had had run a story about this,

that Hey, here's your opportunity, and I just kind of waited. I Represented Weinberg responded and said, Hey, let me check with my attorney see where see what's the smartest way for us to respond, and I'll get back with you. So that leads me to kind of where we're at here today. And holy smokes, like I said, what twenty four hours will do. And if you haven't listened, if you weren't listening to Ryan Schuling live, you should have been. He had a fire show, for sure, And I say

that in the kindest of ways. He definitely was batting for the fences. So welcome back from vacation, Ryan. He came back to a home run. I'm not sure that it's good for Republican Party to have this kind of stuff in the news, but it does make for a very interesting radio and your guests were on fire.

And yet Representative Brandy Bradley went there and we were awaiting as well in response to the accusations made by Jacqueline Anderson, who is one of the first to come forward these victim impact statements about what happened to her, not once by her allegation, but twice back to back years at LPR with her husband correct and with Representative Weinberg consuming alcohol, and that kind of lending itself to inappropriate comments, according to her, that were targeted in her direction,

right in front of her husband. And the second time around the next year, that husband confronted Represented Weinberg and he was subsequently banned from the event. So I don't know how Representive Weinberg going to respond to that part of the allegation, but I know that you got a statement from him.

that's all I can go. I'll go with on the air right now. I have told Ron representative Weinberg that if he changes his mind he wants to come on the show, he's welcome to do so at any time. And when I spoke with him, I said, look, I'm not judging you. I'm not making a case for or against you. You know, one side of the story's been told. I'm giving you an opportunity to tell the other side.

And that's as fair as I can be. I truly do want to give him a platform to say, you know, say his peace and defend himself if that's what if that's what needs to occur, you know, especially in a world where we were told for a little while there that and this is no knock against Jaqueline Anderson, that says no knock against Brandy Bradley or any of the others.

But there was this narrative that was going on from the left for a while of believe all women, and we knew that some of the statements that were being made against people that were, you know, Supreme Court nominees and that kind of stuff. It was a little controversial and there were some questions about whether those folks were telling the truth. And I, you know, I want to give Jacqueline Anderson and Brandy Bradley all the credit in the world that they're coming forward to tell their story.

I think Ron should have the opportunity to tell his story too, and he does if he wants to come on the radio, he has this platform. I'm sure you would invite him on your show as well, Ryan, and that that opportunity still stands. So if he changes his mind, he's welcome to come on the show. But I think it's it's one of those things in Republican politics, which I'm deeply involved in in many ways, these are this is one of those unforced errors and you know, whatever

is driving this situation. You know that I say in law enforcement, the truth is always somewhere in the middle. There's one side, there's the other side, and then there's the truth. That's not to say that the truth doesn't lean more to one side than the other, but it's never as clear cut as it's as it's painted to be typically. So I think when all this is said and done, well, we'll know we'll have a truth that we can all agree on, unless it's something like along

the Epstein lines. I think we'll all have a truth that we can agree on, and somewhere in this it'll all make sense. But it takes everybody's story getting out there in the news, and right now, Representative Weinberg controls that timeline. So you know, I'm pretty shocked. I'm sure the listeners are as well, if especially if they were listening in the last hour with with what's our last two hours with what went on in on Ryan Shuling Live. If you have some early text or our thoughts, you

want to call in. The number here is three O three seven one three eight two five five, or you can text Dan at five seven seven three nine. I'd love to hear your feedback. But just to kind of summarize the story, what we have that's been alleged is that Representative Ron Weinberg who filled in when Hugh McKean died in office. Representive Weinberg I believe was appointed to the seat and then later ran for the seat and

won the election. He's been down at the State House for that amount of time, I think, the last couple of years. Technically this would be his third third term

or third year in office, I believe. But apparently over that time and since maybe twenty twenty one, there's been some allegations that he may have made some inappropriate comments to different women, one of those being Jacqueline Anderson at a leadership program of the Rockies event, both in twenty twenty one and again in twenty twenty two, I believe, and then also some interesting comments back and forth I guess, between he and Representative Brandy Bradley down at the State Capitol.

But in addition to that, when Jacqueline Anderson posted her information out on Facebook. There's a story one as well that is written by another person, and I'm just going to read this on air. Actually, we'll go to break and I'll read it when we come back. Let's do that that way, we can let all of you load the text lines and load the phone lines if you'd like. We'll read that story as soon as we come back

from break. You listen to Dan Capless Show here on six point thirty k HOW with Well Kenny Sheriff Steve Reims in the guest seat.

charged comments that have been made to several persons. It sounds as if maybe the case or allegedly the case Jacqueline Anderson, a former I guess Party member over a Republican Party member over in Mason County, and then Brandy Bradley State rep in a different district than Ron Weinberg. And we're gathering a little bit more information as this

thing kind of continues to unfold. But before we went to break, I was going to read victim impact statement story one which was posted by by Jacqueline Anderson also but it's referenced in a Colorado politics story. This person is identified as Heather Booth and Elizabeth's school boy. Remember, and I'm just going to read story one as she told it. At a very large event in February of twenty twenty two, my husband and I were going back and forth to the bar, getting my friends and me drinks.

While he was gone, I was joking with my friend about needing a facelift. Out of no where, Ron, who I barely even know, came to us. At first, he told me not to get a facelift because I was beautiful. I think'd him politely, but then he kept repeating it and it started to feel uncomfortable. Suddenly he said something so vile that I was in shock. He told me, no, I mean, I'd put my blank in your blank. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. My friend and I

were stunned. We didn't even know how to react. Then Ron took it even further, saying, Oh, I'm sorry, would you rather me put my blank in your blank? It was humiliating, disgusting, and terrifying. We were dressed up at a public event and this man thought it was okay to sexually degrade me like that. I still can't shake how powerless and violated I felt. So I'll let you fill in the words. Obviously, there's some things we can't

say on the radio for reasons. And so that's the story from Heather Booth, as told by Jacqueline Anderson via also coloradopolitics dot com. I don't know where all this thing, where this thing all ends, but I know that it is extremely bad for the Republican Party to have this kind of stuff going on, and the absence of a response just lets this thing build. And I'm again we've offered the opportunity for Representative Weinberg to come on the

air and tell his side of the story. I don't know if that helps or hurts, but at least it gets both sides of the story out on the radio waves. But as a as a Republican in the state of Colorado, I've said many times over, we can't afford to lose a steed at the state House. We cannot afford to have an unforced error, and this feels like we could be headed to an unforced error if it's not resolved very quickly, and if this issue isn't cleaned up again.

If you want to text and give your comments, you can at five seven seven three nine, start your text with Dan, or you can call in at three O three seven one three eight two five five. We've got a text from one of our loyal listeners here says if I was one of these women, I might have just repeated what he said back to him in a very loud voice for all to hear. Yeah, that's that's

probably a way of handling it. I can tell you if as if I were the husband of either of these ladies who have told their story, I don't know that I would have been nearly as calm in my response as it appears that they were. If these things are are true, if these allegations are true, Yeah, it's it's it's a bad look for sure. That being said, you know, we'll give Representative Weinberg the benefit of the

doubt until it's proven. Otherwise, as far as giving him opportunity to come on the radio and say whatever you'd like, or respond in court as he's as as it sounds like that maybe the direction he plans on tape. So I don't want to put words in his mouth. I don't want to. I don't want to say anything that isn't absolutely true.

kind of coming to fruition. He was being arrested, sitting in prison, and just kind of wondering how a guy goes from being basically a math teacher to a billionaire almost billionaire, with really no tracking of how he raised money, how he how he got there. Always had me scratching my head. I mean, you know, more on anybody, more to anybody that can make that kind of money and do so quite easily. I haven't had that same success,

I guess. But as time went on, we kept hearing from the former Trump administration or people associated with the Trump administration that something wasn't quite right, that you know, there was more to this story. The client list was

going to come out. And I will tell you from a person in law enforcement, I don't know how how you can look at one of these cases and say there's not more to the story, And you know, quite honestly, that's kind of the same view I take when I look at the incident we were talking about that's going on down at the state Capitol. There's always more to

the story. But even if there's not a printed client list that Jeffrey Epstein wrote out somewhere in this case, there had to have been people who were associated with Jeffrey Epstein. We know there was a list of people who flew on the Lolita Express. We know that there were witnesses that saw one another on the island. We know that there were people that had to have been talked to. We know there were victims of this crime spree from Jeffrey Epstein and Giselle Maxwell or however you

say her first name. He's sitting in prison for a crime that now I guess we're not certain was even committed. Jeffrey Epstein was in custody for crimes when he died, whether that was by suicide or some other means. So there's a lot of questions here about how can we not have a client list of some kind, and maybe it's not handwritten by Jeffrey Epstein, but there should be

a client list. And I guess what really gets me going on this or what causes me the point of concern is a comment that was made by a G. Pam Bondi just a few months back. And if we could, I'd like to play the clip where I think it kind of resurfaced this whole thing, and that's clip one, Ryan, could we get that going?

there's a list. And I remember the hubbub that went on not only on talk radio, you know, on conservative talk radio, but even on mainstream news, that hey, this client list could be dropping, and we might also see the JFK files, the RFK files, the MLK files. There's going to be a a dump of information. And then we waited, and we waited, and we waited and we waited,

and it was a big nothing burger. And then we get to the point where over the weekend, on I think a Sunday night, we get a drop saying oh, well, there's nothing to see here, there's nothing to look at. Don't worry about it. There is no Epstein list. It just it doesn't make sense. We're gonna shift gears when we come back from break and try to look at

something a little more positive. We're gonna have Congressman Gabe Evans on talking about some wins for the Republicans, especially out at the national level on the Big Beautiful Bill. You're listening to the Dan Capless Show here with well Knty Sriff Steve Reims as your guest host.

Shaff Steve Reims. And we've been kind of covering some controversial topics here in in the state of Colorado down at the Golden Dome, but we're going to get to something that is a little more nationally based, and that is our Congressman from the eighth Congressional District, Gave Evans just recently cast his vote on the Big Beautiful Bill and actually had a press conference down at the state Capitol and support of that set and supportive said bill, and we wanted to have gabon to kind of talk

about some of the highlights of this bill, what it does, what it doesn't do, and hear it directly from one of the guys that voted for it. Congressman Evans, how are you doing all?

the Senate, we don't have a filibuster proof majority. And so about the only way that we could we could get a piece of legislation passed without having the Democrats block it is this thing called the reconciliation process, and it's basically a budgetary process by which as long as whatever we're doing is predominantly budgetaryan nature, it actually can pass through the Senate with a simple majority vote instead

of being subject to the filibuster. So that was the process that we used for this big, beautiful bill, and it's a very complex process. We have to pass the bill twice. You have to figure out is this thing budgetary or not budgetary. If it's not budgetary, then the you know, the parliamentary in was making some news last week. The parliamentarian in the Senate says who it says, says if that provision is going to be subject to the

filibuster or not. But that was the process that we had to follow in order to get this thing passed. Because there's a lot of things in there that do just outstandingly amazing things for the Americans. But you know, unfortunately some of our Democrat colleagues don't don't agree with that. So, you know, these are things like tax cuts we're we're not only extending, but we're increasing the tax cuts, and these tax cuts are for middle class, lower income working Americans.

We we actually increase the size of the child tax deduction. So if you've got kids like me, young kids, this year you're able to deduce excuse me, a deduct you'd get two thousand dollars back in taxes just for the price of having a kid. We were able to raise that a little bit. It's now twenty two hundred dollars. The alternative was it actually expired at the end of this year if we did not pass the bill. So on the one hand, we were facing these major tax

increases that would happen when the cuts expired. So we were able to extend and make permanent those tax cuts and actually make them bigger. So again the child tax credit is going from two thousand dollars to twenty two hundred dollars. We were able to put some other things in there. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime. So when I was a cop, your deputies, you know, when they're doing their job, yess what that overtime is now tax free up to a certain amount. Twelve five

hundred dollars of overtime is now tax free. Other things in there to help out seniors. One of the rules for reconciliation, you can't say the word social security and the Reconciliation Bill, that's just one of the Senate, one of the Senate's rules, so we couldn't say no tax on Social Security. Instead, we were able to put a six thousand dollars tax deduction in the bill, so that your average retiree who makes seventy five thousand dollars a year or less in retirement, they now have no tax

liability for Social Security. We were able to help We were able to help small businesses in there. Small businesses. They were looking at their tax rate doubling when the tax cuts expired at the end of this year. So we made their tax rate permanent, so small businesses now have tax stability. I mean, it's just a long laundry list of tax cuts to make life more affordable, to put more money back in people's pockets. And then you know you're a you're a sheriff. I was a coffee

soldier for a while. We've got resources in here to secure the border. We've got resources in here to make sure that we're going after the gangs and the cartels and the drug dealers that are causing problems in our community, and we're being good stewards of tax payer money by cutting out the fraud, waste, and abuse and programs like Medicaid and SNAP, which I'm sure we'll talk about here in a little bit, because that's what all of our friends on the left are screaming about right now, is

how Republicans have gutted these programs. Guess what, that's actually blatantly false. All we did was cut the fraud, waste and abuse out of them.

for the border wall. There's enough funding for I think ten thousand new ICE agents and maybe two thousand new border patrol agents. I don't know what the dollars work out to on those particular items, and I may be a little off on my figures, but.

So being able to secure the border, being able to go find uh, these sleeper cells, these these folks from Iran or other countries that have no no love loss for the United States, Being able to find the cartels, the terrorsts, the gang bangers that have come into our country, this is a huge win, especially in a state like Colorado, which as you well know, has done everything possible to handcuff costs and empower criminals, which is why we're now the second most dangerous state in the country.

big beautiful bill. The math that I was doing, or the math that I've heard, is each illegal that comes into the country costs the United States about seventy thousand dollars a year, times out by twenty million people, and you get to one point four trillion dollars. Is that the one point five trillion that's being referred to as the savings in this bill? Or is there an additional one point five trillion that is just in other things? Are you prepared to answer that, Congressman Evans, Yeah.

just keeps going up. Right, A lot of that is driven by mandatory spending. So when we say cuts like this isn't really a cut, we're stopping the deficit spending. We're stopping spending money that okaya and saddling our kids. But to your point, a lot of that comes from just basic common sense reforms, like no taxpayer fund, did healthcare money to go to illegal immigrants? We saw the Denver Post. I'll say that again, the Denver Post, not

known for being a right leaning newspaper. The Denver Post ran a headline a couple of days ago that said, under this bill, twenty one thousand illegal immigrants in Colorado. So they call them undocumented Colorado's, but you know it's illegal immigrants. Twenty one thousand illegal immigrants in Colorado may lose their medicaid funding. Well, you know at Newslash that's taxpayer money going to illegal immigrants, and we're putting a stop to that in this big, beautiful bill that has

a cost savings measure. It's other things. You'll hear a lot of folks saying, oh my gosh, you know, Republicans destroyed the safety net for SNAP, which is food stamps. No, here's the two things that we did for the SNAP program. Number one, able bodied, working aged adults with a kid fourteen years of age or older. And we picked that age specifically because an all fifty states it's legal for a fourteen year old to stay home all by themselves.

So if you're nable bodied, working aged adult and your kids are older fourteen or above, in order to qualify for food stamps, you have to work, volunteer or go to school part time defined is eighty hours a month, basically twenty hours a week. So that was one reform that we did in the SNAP program. Again taxpayer funded,

you know, nutrition supplement basically food. The other thing that we did was right now today, SNAP food stamps is one hundred percent funded by the federal government, but it's the state government that actually administers the program, which is very odd. Well, yeah, and the problem is is it doesn't give the state government has no incentive to actually run a good program because they got no skin in the game. The Feds are writing one hundred percent of

the check. So all we said for the SNAP program was if a state is running a bad program such that the fraud, waste and abuse in the program is higher than six percent. So if you got, you know, a million dollar program, if more than six percent of that, more than sixty thousand dollars is fraud, waste, and abuse, then the state has to start kicking in some money until they can get that error rate, that fraud, waste

and abuse back below six percent. And once they get it below six percent, then the will continue to write one hundred percent of the check.

that on the show. We just had Congressman Gabe Evans talking on talking about the Big Beautiful Bill, and I love having gave Evans on because he is a hometown guy. He's a hometown boy from Colorado. You know, this is this is his roots. And I bring that up because one of his opponents, one of his announced opponents on the other side of the aisle, an individual named Manny ruttinal is also you know, claim to be a Colorado guy and that you know, he's he's for Colorado values,

and this race actually matters to me. CD eight represents a large part of Weld County. I don't live in CDY eight, but I work a lot in CDY eight, and a lot of Weld County is in CDY eight where Congressman Evans represents.

like a big deal. But if you can't step out of your front door or you know, drive a little ways and take a picture of our actual Rocky Mountains here in Colorado, I don't know how well you truly want to represent this state. So I just I don't know. It's it's kind of like, you know, we're talking unforced errors. That's just that's it's just dumb. It looks stupid. And I'll stick with Gabe Evans. I know that if he's going to take a picture of the mountains, he's probably

going to do it from his backyard. So with that, we have a color on the line. We have Mike from Eerie and he wants to comment about Ron Weinberg. And I'm sure this is going to be a little saucy. Are you with us, Mike?