You are listening to the Daily Roundup here as part of the Reality. Steve Podcast, I’m your host reality. Steve, thank you all for tuning in on this Monday. Yeah, we’re gonna go over that interview from Friday with Rachel Juarez and David Ingris. I’m gonna give you my thoughts on it now that you’ve listened to it and or watched it.
I’ve got a few things that I want to go over. We’re also finally gonna get to my thoughts on Kaitlyn’s podcast where she really revealed some details regarding her relationship with Jason, and then also Deanna Pappas’s statement that she released on her Instagram story at the end of last week. We will get to all that momentarily.
First thing I want to get to in regards to Friday’s interview with David Ingris and Rachel Juarez is, well, how did the interview all come together? Because early last week, I was absolutely crucifying him and basically cursing him out. Yeah, I was, but at no point, as I told you. I had not had a text message conversation with David Ingris since December.
I had basically stopped contacting him because I was like, he doesn’t listen and there’s no reason for me to just have him on my podcast by myself. Just wasn’t gonna go well, and I didn’t think really go well for me ’cause I can’t debate him when it comes to legal stuff. My whole issue with him was his behavior, his online behavior, and I brought it up in the podcast on Friday.
So the only reason him and I came in contact last week was after the video he released with Laura, if you watch that video, he said my name three times. So I texted him for the first time since last, I think it was December 12th, was the date I gave you. I texted him and I was like. Hey man. Thanks for the shout out on your podcast today.
Three times. I’m glad I’m still living in your head. Something along those lines like, thanks for bringing my name up. It was more of a just a f you, and he said, I don’t listen to you. I was just notified on my Google alerts that you mentioned to me. And then we had a back and forth where. I basically said to him the exact same thing I said to him on Friday about how I feel about his behavior.
He’s a totally different person when him and I have spoken over the phone versus when he gets in front of a microphone or when he blogs or when he tweets, and I said, David, you have to understand something. This is what I was saying in the text message, which leads to how this all came about. I basically sent him this long text about, Hey, I haven’t spoken about you in four months.
Ever since you did the appeal and I have Rachel on, and then we were just waiting for the Court of Appeals in Arizona to make a judgment. I was just, I don’t talk about you, nor did I really talk about Laura or this case. There was nothing to talk about. The last thing we ever discussed was when we had Rachel on and she broke down Jinger’s argument and then what Wood Nick did in response, and then what Jra said after that.
That was the last time we talked about it. I mean, maybe a sentence here or there over the last three months since like January, something like that. But it was never anything where I was dedicating hours and hours to this case. ’cause I was just waiting for the court of appeals to make their decision. So I told him that in a text.
I said, man, I don’t talk about you. I don’t know what you think, but I don’t really talk about you. And it’s not like I’ve just decided to talk about you and shit, talk you, because I just felt like it and it had been a long time. The court of appeals made their decision and you lost again for the Teenth time in this case.
So of course I’m gonna bring it up. And then I texted, and it’s not like I’m bringing it up and because I Googled something and I think I’m some sort of lawyer, I’m not proficient in law at all. That’s why I have Rachel Juarez to come on to explain to my masses what exactly is happening and what exactly is gonna go down with the court of appeals.
I said I’m having Rachel on Thursday. And I sent this what last Tuesday. I said I’m having Rachel on Thursday to go over the court of appeals decision, and he said I’d love to join if she would like, but I have to run it by Laura ’cause he’s her lawyer. He can’t just go on a podcast without her permission.
Everything he does on his own YouTube channel, it’s clearly with her permission. But he couldn’t come on mine without her permission. He said, I’ll get back to you. You check with Rachel. I checked with Rachel, she said. I guess that’d be fine. And within two minutes he got back to me and said, Laura approved, I’m in.
And this was on Tuesday. And then I said, can we record tomorrow? And he said, I can. And Rachel said she couldn’t do it until Thursday, which is why I pushed the weekly podcast back a day. So that’s how it came to be. I hadn’t texted the guy in four months, and then I basically told him I’m recording with Rachel this week to talk about the court of appeals decision, and he kind of invited himself on.
Now you said, Steve, you could have said no. Well, yeah, I could have, but after what you heard on Friday, why would I have said no? You have to understand something. My whole motivation behind all of this. Was every time David Ingris has tweeted, every time he has blogged, every time he has released a YouTube video, it’s just him.
Yeah, he has Laura on there, but Laura just nods her head and just approves of everything that he says. She doesn’t know law, she doesn’t know anything about the law. She’s just there as a mouthpiece to just back up what he says and approve what he says. But every time he does put out a blog post and every time he does put out a video, I sit there and watch it and go.
For anybody that doesn’t know law, they might just say, yeah, this guy’s got a great point. Look at the cases that he cited. He’s never been, had to been challenged publicly since this whole case started. We’ve never heard him on a phone call going back and forth with anybody. We’ve never heard him on a YouTube video going back and forth with every anybody.
That’s why it didn’t make sense for me to have him on my podcast by myself. ’cause I wouldn’t have been able to go back and forth with him in the legal department. I could tell him what I thought of him as a person and how he’s handled parts of the cases, but that would’ve only have gone so far ’cause he would’ve said, I disagree with you, which is kind of what he said a lot on Friday.
But I wanted him to go up against somebody who would challenge him on everything that the Court of Appeal said. The things that he did in the trial. You heard Friday’s podcast. You know why I put Rachel on? That was the whole point because I knew she knows more about this case than he does because she actually read the stuff before he took over and she knows law.
So I was like, this is going to expose him. So while, look, if you go to my YouTube channel and you read the comments, 99% of ’em are positive and 99% of ’em are absolutely destroying David Jing Gris for how he came across, how he was so condescending, how he spoke down to Rachel, how he interrupted Rachel. Not to mention so many good points that people who have followed this case longer than Jers have made in those comments.
Just go read the comments on my YouTube channel. It is 99% positive. Now, I’m not gonna focus and spend five minutes talking about the negative, but the one negative to come out of this was, Steve, why did you give this guy a platform? And to me that wasn’t giving him a platform. Giving David Jinger a platform to me would’ve been him coming on with just me.
Me just letting him ramble, letting him lay out all his stuff and say, thank you, David. I really appreciate you coming on and sharing your side. No, no, no, no. That would be platforming him. Do you think that he came across well on Friday? The funny thing is, you know, after he recorded the interview Thursday with me or after it aired on Friday, you know, that guy went to the mirror and said, huh, I showed them.
You know, he did. Because you see his attitude. He doesn’t think he’s wrong about anything. And yes. Numerous times when you felt like Rachel backed him into a corner and Rachel challenged him on something that he thought he would say, huh, let’s just move on. I mean, exactly what I thought would happen happened.
My whole thing with the way I handled it was I just wish I would’ve shortened his answers because that first question of why did you not cross examine Clayton Took like 15 minutes. And it was a basic answer. Then he went to all this other stuff. That’s where I should have stepped in and said, okay, okay David, let’s get to the question at hand.
You’re going off on a bunch of tangents. That’s where I wish I would’ve stepped in, but overall, I’m glad I had him on ’cause it accomplished exactly what I thought it would. I think he got exposed for not knowing a lot about this case. He had to in real time for the first time since he took over in March of 2024.
For the first time, he had to answer stuff about this case against somebody who knew just as much as he did and is very much smarter than he is when it comes to the knowledge of this case. When it comes to the law, Rachel’s a fucking rockstar, and I think you all saw that on Friday. I think a lot of you knew Rachel was a rockstar from all the times I had put her on my podcast in the past.
But again, when she comes on my podcast, she’s just saying what she believes about things and she’s never had to debate anybody either. But I knew her debating Jerris, if you wanna call that a debate. I knew him, her challenge, maybe not debate, but her challenging him on cases that he cited, behavior that he showed in the court behavior that he has shown online.
I knew that she was going to cook him and she did. I think one thing you also gotta remember about this whole thing, not that anybody is siding with Gingis, but this is almost a message to Gris, is that Gris says all this stuff and says, look at this case that I cited. I’m, I’m sorry, Rachel, that you don’t see it the way I do, but this is the way I interpret it.
It’s not like Rachel Juarez is the only person that is interpreting it a different way than what David Ingris is interpreting it as. You know, who else is interpreting it differently than David Ingris, judges in Arizona who actually have the final say on all this stuff. All Rachel’s doing is saying, do you see why the judges see this?
And he just continues to basically say, no, I don’t, I don’t understand it. Essentially, I think we were robbed. I think they’re misinterpreting this. They’re looking at this wrongly. Okay. Well, Mona did it wrongly. The three judges in Arizona, in the, in Tucson, Arizona, and the Court of Appeals apparently did it wrong.
He’s the only one that sees his side, and yet if you were to tell him that it doesn’t seem to register. He just thinks he’s right about everything and unfortunately he’s not. Even when they lose for reconsider, and even when they lose the Arizona Supreme Court, and even when they lose to the US Supreme Court, which he’s going to file, he’s gonna say at the end of all of this, no, I just don’t agree with it.
I still think I’m right. You know, he’s going to, he’s not gonna be like, holy shit, I lost eight motions and every single judgment handed down in this case. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I was wrong about all this. He’s never going to say that. You know, this. So I don’t think I gave him any sort of platform whatsoever.
If I did give him a platform, it was, Hey buddy, here’s your rope. Now go hang yourself with it. To me, I kind of feel that’s what happened on Friday because nobody is taking his side. And if you were to say that to David Ingris after the fact, dude, have you read the comments? Nobody is like, wow, jingles came off better than I thought he would.
He really made some good points. I already know what his answer would be to that. Ugh. It’s just a bunch of JFC people that don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t like me anyway, so they’re not gonna convince me. No, it’s not that. See, that’s what he doesn’t understand. There are smart people who know the law that don’t agree with what he said.
Many smart people who know the law that don’t agree with what he said, but he’ll tell you he’s got a bunch of people on his side that believe that Clayton was wrong in all of this and that the judges in Arizona are wrong. So that’s what I mean, but. You’ve seen the sentiment online, you’re very well aware at this point.
This guy was absolutely cooked on Friday and he didn’t know what to do. ’cause it was the first time he ever had to debate somebody publicly about everything involving this case and all this stuff that he’s been spewing to everybody that we’re supposed to just take as a hundred percent fact. Well, now you’ve got a family law attorney that says, no, no, no, no, no.
What about this? No, no, no, no, no. What about this? What about in these cases ever says what you’re claiming it does, David, and he just didn’t have any answers. And the thing that bothered me probably the most is how many times during that podcast did he say, tell me that I’m wrong. And then Rachel would tell him how she thought he was wrong.
And then he would just say, Hey, I don’t agree. Well, then you’re not really asking her to tell you how you’re wrong. You really aren’t, because it doesn’t sound like you’re open to any sort of discussion on how you could possibly be wrong. Even though Rachel Juarez thinks you’re wrong, judge Mata thinks you’re wrong, and three judges in the Court of appeals in Tucson, Arizona think you’re wrong.
That’s what I mean. So I had no problem putting him on. I have no problem thinking that. I had no problem thinking that this was any sort of platform. It wasn’t. I knew what I was doing. I knew putting Rachel on with him was the smart thing to do. Giving him a platform would’ve been just me and him because he would’ve spewed all his stuff out.
I wouldn’t have been able to fight back with any sort of retorts when it came to Rule 26 and Rule 11 and cross-examination stuff and Mike Marini and warrants and all this stuff. I, I don’t know that stuff. I haven’t, I followed the case obviously from the beginning, but in terms of details like that and legal issues, no, I wouldn’t be able to debate him.
I can only debate him on his behavior and what I think of him, of things that he has said and done on YouTube videos and in tweets, all that stuff. That’s the only reason I could go one-on-one with him. The second legal stuff gets brought up. I’m out. He’s going to overpower me with stuff like that.
That’s why I wanted Rachel. And Rachel absolutely destroyed him in my eyes. I know he didn’t think that. He probably thinks he won. Read the room. Not the roving room. Read the room. This podcast is brought to you by Zocdoc. When was the last time you needed to go to the doctor but you pushed it off? Made the excuse, oh, oh, I’m too busy.
I don’t need any help. I don’t. I don’t know which doctor to go to. I think we’ve all been there. Booking a doctor appointment can feel daunting at times, but thanks to Zocdoc, there’s no reason to delay. They make it so easy to find and book a doctor who’s right for you. Have you ever woken up with a funky symptom and you’re like.
What is this pain in my neck? Why is my eye itching? And immediately Googled it or searched TikTok to find out an answer. We’ve all gone down that rabbit hole, but it’s time to get the help and care you really need with Zocdoc. Have you ever been to a therapist who only has openings in the middle of the day when you’re working, or a primary care doctor with a literal six month wake to get in for a visit?
Well, I’m here to tell you that you don’t have to settle anymore when it comes to finding the right doctor. With Zocdoc, you’ve got options. Zocdoc is a free app and website where you can search and compare high quality in-network doctors and click to instantly book an appointment. Appointments made through Zocdoc also happen fast.
Typically within 24 to 72 hours of booking, you can even score same day appointments. If I needed this, this is exactly what I would use. Stop putting off those doctor’s appointments and go to zocdoc.com/reality. Steve, to find and instantly book a top rated doctor today. That’s Zocdoc ZOC. Do c.com/reality.
Steve zocdoc.com/reality. Steve.
