Special Session with Bryan Schott

>> Bryan Schott: Come one, come all to a beautiful show.

>> Speaker B: It's gonna be awesome. And some other

stuff.

>> Bryan Schott: Some other musical stuff.

Hello and welcome. This is special session for the week

ending Friday, December 13, 2024.

I'm Bryan Schott, managing editor of Utah

Political Watch. This week on the show,

Voters from Beyond the Grave,

Senate President Stuart Adams is

really mad at me. Utah lawmakers

tee up more tax cuts. Mitt Romney holds

his final press conference. Plus, which

members of Utah's congressional delegation invited

a January 6 rioter to attend

Donald Trump's inauguration? Remember to

subscribe to the program wherever you get your

podcast or share it with someone who you think might like the

program. And if you're able, leave a rating and

review, which will help more people find the show. You

can sign up for my newsletter for free at Ah,

UtahPoliticalWatch News. You'll get all of

my stories delivered to your email box when

they're published. Or if you feel like supporting

my work as an independent journalist here in Utah, you can become

a paying subscriber for as little as $5 a

month. What that does is it makes more podcasts,

more stories like what I report every week

possible. So now stand

by for news. Okay, that's supposed to be

Paul Harvey. And if you're under 30, Paul

Harvey hosted a radio program called

the Rest of the Story, and he was

one of the most popular radio hosts in the country

for many, many years. But he had

a really unique

delivery. Here's a clip.

>> Speaker B: Hello, Americans. This is Paul Harvey.

Stand by for news.

>> Bryan Schott: That reminds me of a quick story. My first job was

at a radio station in my hometown in northeastern

Colorado. I was a dj and I delivered

newscasts on nights and weekends. And

another part of my job was recording the feed of Paul

Harvey's show from the ABC satellite channel. And then

we played it back a couple of times throughout the day. Did I

mention I was 13 years old when I first got this

job? Anyway, I worked there for several years before

I headed off to college, so I became very,

very familiar with Paul Har. But

I digress.

So let's get back on track. Do you want to handle this,

Paul?

>> Speaker B: Stand by for news.

>> Bryan Schott: Voters from beyond the grave

could upend Utah's vote by mail

system if you didn't catch this. Earlier this week,

there was a legislative audit of Utah's

election processes, and it turned up some

problems. It found that there were

1400 people who had died

who were still on the state's voter rolls, and

700 of those were still classified as

active. So they would have received a ballot.

And there were two ballots allegedly cast by deceased

voters in Salt Lake county in

2023. Those numbers

sound concerning, but when you look at them in

context, it's a very, very small fraction

of the overall votes that were cast. Those

700 deceased voters

represented.0003%

of all of the active voters in the state. There's more

than 1.8 million active voters in Utah.

And those two dead people who

allegedly voted in the 2023

election, well, that's

just.00004%.

What I just said was four zeros. And then a,

4% of the nearly

47,000 votes cast in Salt

Lake County. In Salt Lake County

District attorney is investigating

those allegations. Utah has been using

some sort of vote by mail since 2012.

2012 counties could offer you vote

by mail as an option. In

2013, lawmakers passed a

bill that allowed counties to opt

into the system. And by the time we got to

2018, all but two counties had

moved to universal vote by mail, which

led to big jumps in voter participation,

especially especially in presidential election years.

I looked up election year data from the University of

Florida's election lab, and the percentage of

Utah's voting eligible population, that's people

18 and over who cast a ballot in

2020 and 2024, was

much higher than 2012 and

2016. Those last two years is when we

had vote by mail. If you look at it, in

2012, the voter eligible

population who participated in the election was

56%. In 2016, it was

50. But in 2020,

that number had jumped to 67%. A little

more than 67%. And in

2024, it was just over

64%. Now, 2020 was a Covid year,

but still you can see that

universal vote by mail has led to

an increase in participation in the

state. Now, despite that, the audit

which showed 700 deceased voters received

a ballot in 2024 and two dead voters

allegedly voted in, it sure looks

like Republican legislative leaders are

poised to make some big changes

to vote by mail in the upcoming session or even eliminate

it completely. This was House speaker Mike Schultz during

that hearing. And this time we found that 1400

likely deceased voters or individuals were

found. Sorry. 1400 likely

deceased individuals were found on voter rolls,

700 active and then 2 that actually

voted in the 2023 election.

If you're dead, how do you vote? Which county

was that in? That's a crime.

that was in Salt Lake County. Salt Lake County. Have they been turned over?

Do they get turned over to the AG's office. Do they get turned over to

the District Attorney? Yeah, we've spoken with the clerk, and.

>> Speaker B: They'Ve been able to turn up the.

>> Bryan Schott: Signatures as applicable for that election in

2023, and they've turned it over. I believe it's currently being investigated.

Well, that's good. At least it's being investigated. If you had in

person voting, can a dead person vote? Not as

easily.

>> Speaker B: There's impersonation fraud as well. There's an avenue.

>> Bryan Schott: Depends on how well they check your id. So if you're showing

ID and you're in person, it's kind of

hard unless you have fake ID

to vote if you're dead. I think the question

comes, is vote by mail really as secure as

in person voting? And based off the audits that we

have in front of us, it's clearly not the case. And

so I think that's concerning to me moving

forward. Now, to her credit, House Minority

Leader Angela Romo Romero sniffed out

what Schultz was getting at with his comments. I would

hate to see this be.

>> Speaker B: Used against vote by mail because vote.

>> Bryan Schott: By mail is very important here in the state. And there are

many people in my district that may not be able to vote election

day because they're working or they. They're working two or three

jobs. I. I just don't want this to be ammunition.

This is my personal perspective, to get rid of vote

by mail and other ways in which we vote here in Utah, because

I think we have, we were able to make sure that

all people have access to, be able to execute their

vote. And not everyone has the same circumstance

or, some people don't live really close to somewhere

to vote in person. So I think I

just. I have concerns that people are going

to use this audit to try to eliminate vote by mail. Now,

the big issue here is cleaning up the voter rolls. And that's

something that the Lieutenant Governor's office has had

a problem with in the recent past. They've been dinged in

previous audits for not maintaining the state's vot

voter rolls properly. And that's why you get

1400 allegedly deceased voters still on the

roll and 700 who are marked

as active. Now, there was one moment in the hearing that

caught my attention that didn't get a lot of

attention in the press. While Schultz was talking

about the perceived insecurities in mail in

voting, State Elections Director Ryan Cowley

said this. Like you said, I've been doing this since 2005, so I've been

in the space for a while. And there's pros and

cons and trade offs. And no matter what system you have,

there's pros and cons. You know, we had one county that had

107 additional voters vote, then

checked in in a polling place and that was in person with

id. So no system is infallible.

There always are going to be those kinds of things.

I would say that our voter rolls now are cleaner than they ever

have been. And a lot of that is due to vote by mail, doing

the continual mailings and things like that. So

it's not just mail in voting that has

problems. They've documented problem

voting in person as well. Now,

despite these concerns about election integrity

and people gaming the system with vote by mail, voter

fraud is extremely rare in the United

States. A comprehensive analysis of

a number of studies about allegations of

voter fraud by the Brennan center for justice found

incidents of suspected election fraud in

America was

between.0003%

and.005%.

So it's ext. In fact, they said in their

study that it's more likely that an American

would get struck by lightning than for them

to find a verifiable case of voter

fraud. Now, all of this stems from Donald

Trump's falsehoods, his lies

about massive voter fraud in the 2020

election leading to his loss to

Democrat Joe Biden. That didn't happen. There was no fraud.

There's no verifiable fraud. But those claims have

found a home in the Republican Party and

that's why you're seeing this p to change vote

by mail, which Utahns really seem to

like. There are already a couple of bills in the works to

cut back on vote by mail. We know the Representative Trevor

Lee wants to make the system opt in. So instead of

you automatically getting a ballot in the

mail, you would have to physically

request one. Representative Kara Berkland says

she'd like to only send ballots to people who have

voted in the last two or four elections,

which would make sure that you have those active

voters. And there are other electors related

bills in the works.

We haven't quite seen what those are yet. This

whole push is really strange to me because

vote by mail benefits the Republican

Party here in Utah. People who are more likely

to use it are elderly voters and rural

voters, especially rural voters who

don't live near a, Dropbox or a polling

place. They can just drop their ballot in the mail. Now, there

were some problems this year with some rural voters in Congressional

District 2 who mailed in their votes

and they didn't get postmarked in time, so they weren't counted. And there

were some court cases there. But all in all, those

are two groups that really benefit from using

vote by mail, and Republicans want to

make it harder to do that. So right now the

Utah GOP is saying vote by mail is

not secure. But then in a couple of years,

we might hear them saying, why aren't rural Republican voters

turning out anymore? It's almost like they're trying to

write the script of a movie called shooting yourself in the foot.

But a political story.

Senate President Stuart Adams is

really mad at me, and here's why. So on

Thursday of this week, alliance for a Better Utah.

They are a left leaning group here in the state. They filed

a complaint with the lieutenant Governor's office

alleging that Adams is

breaking the state's financial disclosure laws

with his spending reports. It's for him as a

candidate and for two political action committees that

he heads up. They allege that since

2010, Adams and his PACs have

reported

$428,000

in expenditures that were made

primarily to credit card companies. But he doesn't

detail who actually got the money. Now,

Utah law says that candidates

must reveal the actual person

or entity to whom that disbursement

is ultimately made. And they can't

merely disclose or report

the transact intermediary, which

is a credit card company or a bank.

And for Adams, it's American Express.

Hundreds of transactions to American

Express. And even in the FAQ

for candidates and in the candidate guidelines

provided by the Lieutenant Governor's office, they

say, and I'm quoting here, be sure you report

the ultimate payee of an expenditure

and not a transactional intermediary

such as American Express. You didn't pay American Express

for your campaign signs. You paid office

warehouse using American Express. That is a

direct quote. State code is extremely clear

on what candidates must report. And you would think

that Adams would know that. Now this is

something that I've been looking into for the past

several months. Starting in October, I reached out

to the Lieutenant Governor's office on five

separate occasions asking for clarification

on what candidates are required to

disclose. Because it seems pretty clear to me and

the examples that they provide are fairly

straightforward. But I wanted to get ultimate

clarification from the Lieutenant Governor's office. So

on five separate occasions, I reached out to them and I

didn't hear anything back. They ignored me. The most

recent one was actually earlier this week.

The most recent transactions from Adams as a

candidate were for last year. Since he's not up for

reelection this year. He won't have to

file a report until the year end. Reports are

due in early January. But if you look at

his political action committees, his Adams

Leadership PAC, they made a

$16,134 payment

to American Express on January 4th.

And the report classifies it as other.

That's all the information we have about this. We

have no idea, what that money was for. All we

know is that Adams paid $16,000 to

American Express and then classified it as other. And

that's all the information that we have.

It's not just Adams. I actually

identified four other Republican legislators in

the who listed credit card

payments on their financial disclosures without

identifying the actual recipients. Senator don

Ibsen made five payments to American Express

in the last year. Three of those totaling just under

$4,500 were listed as

donations. We don't know who those donations were to.

All we know is that Ipsen, using his credit card,

made around $4,500 in donation

payments. Representative Thomas Peterson made

four payments to American Express, and those were

categorized as Don donations and travel

expenses. Again, no other

information. Senator Mike McCall had 11

payments to American Express this year. He did

offer some detail, noting that some of

the expenses were for reimbursements or

food for events. But again, no other

details on who he paid. And Senator Darren

Owens. His campaign made three payments to

VISA for travel expenses.

Now, there was one candidate in this last

cycle who followed the guidance on credit card

payments to the letter. It was Democrat Aaron

Wiley lost in the Senate District 8

race to Republican Todd Weiler. Now,

Wiley reported 23 payments to

Visa this year, but he made sure to include those

ultimate payees. there was a $100 donation

to Joe Biden's presidential campaign. He

also spent on gasoline, food

and supplies. Now, you may be thinking this is a big nothing

burger, but it's just part of basic

transparency. Candidates should be

detailing how they are spending their campaign

money, who they are donating that campaign money

to. And in these cases, it's simply

just categorized as Visa or

American Express. Adams and his

staffers in the Senate were very upset about

this article. They posted a petty

response on social media that

insulted me personally over this

story. Initially, this response was posted on the

official Utah Senate Facebook, Facebook and Twitter

accounts. But it was taken down after a few

people complained and then moved over to Adam's

personal Twitter account. But this statement was

really insulting towards me. In it, he called me a

former media member. He called my publication

Utah Political Watch, a blog he

Said that my journalism was neglectful.

after he got finished insulting me, you know,

shoot the messenger and ignore the message, he

said that the information on his reports was

accurately reported and in compliance with

state law. That's not true, and I'm going

to explain why in just a second. Adams goes on

in his statement saying, last year, following an inquiry by the

Lieutenant Governor's office into how I reported

certain transactions, I received an M email confirming

I was compliant with state disclosure law.

He actually left a whole bunch out of that.

I asked his staffers for copies of those

emails. They provided them, and here's

what actually happened happened. Last year, in September,

the Lieutenant Governor's office emailed Adams about

a complaint that was filed about his campaign

finance reporting. And in that email,

Adams was informed that Utah

state law prohibited listing a financial

intermediary like credit cards on campaign

disclosures. The very next day, Adams

got another email from the Lieutenant Governor's

office that reiterated he was

not allowed to list American Express

as the payee on his disclosures,

and he must make a correction. Now, here's

where things get a little strange. A few hours

later, Adams gets a separate email from a different person

in the Lieutenant Governor's office. And they said,

as a candidate or office holder, he

was not required to list the actual

recipients of credit card expenditures. Now, that email

is 100% erroneous. That's not in the

statute anywhere. And again, you would think that

Adams would know what is in the disclosure

law law. But anyway, they said, based on our records and the

information above, you are compliant with state

disclosure law. So Adams latches

onto that, and he latches on hard.

Fast forward to August of this year.

There's another complaint filed with

the Lieutenant Governor's office about Adam's

campaign finance reporting. They send him a letter

saying, there's been a complaint filed. We looked at

it, and you are not reporting your

expenditures correctly, and you have seven

days to correct those reports. Adams

takes the email that said he was in

compliance, sends it back to the Lieutenant Governor's office

and says, wait a minute. You told me last year that I

was in compliance, despite the fact that he had been

told twice in two days that he was not in compliance.

After they get that email, the Lieutenant Governor's office says,

oh, it looks like we gave you conflicting information.

We're going to take a look at this. Don't do anything

until we get back to you. And then nothing

happens for several months. Last week, they

finally send him another email that says

the previous determination that he

was complying with state law was

wrong. And that means that he has

not been filling out his campaign finance reports

correctly for years. But since they

gave him the wrong information last

year. And that's what Adams was using

when he continued to put down American

Express on his reports, even

though he was told twice last year that

you're doing it wrong and then again this year that you're doing it

wrong. And the statute is pretty darn

clear. They said they were not going to apply any

punishment retroactively to him, but that they would

start enforcing this going forward, starting with the

next round of reports, which are the year end reports,

which are due at the beginning of January.

So the TLDR here is President

Stuart Adams was credibly accused

of not following state campaign finance

laws. When I reported them, he attacked me

personally and said that my report was

false and misleading and erroneous when

it wasn't. And his explanation

left out key details that

supported my story. Has he apologized?

No. Has he taken down this insulting social

media post? No. It's still up there now.

I was exchanging messages with one

of his staffers for several hours

after I reported this story and corrected it

twice. Twice. You would think that the

Senate president would do the same thing. But I guess he

thinks that since I'm a former member of the

media that he can insult me and just

leave it at that.

Again with the tax cuts for the Utah

Legislature. After cutting taxes more than

$1.3 billion over the last four

years, it looks like Utah lawmakers are teeing up

yet another round of tax cuts next

year. On Monday this week, legislative leaders

set aside about $230 million

for tax reduction next year. 165

million of that is ongoing revenue, and

66 million comes from one time money.

Under the Constitution, the state

budget is divided into two buckets. One bucket,

known as the income tax fund, is just what it sounds

like. All of the revenue the state collects from personal income

taxes and from corporate income taxes goes

into that fund. And the only

things that money can be used for under the

Constitution is paying for public education,

higher education, and some social services

for disabled people. The rest of the money

goes into what's called the general fund. That's where

sales taxes, gas taxes, fees,

all the other stuff that the state brings in goes

into that fund. And that funds everything else in the

budget. So if you're going to do an income tax cut,

it's going to come out of the income

tax fund. Up until a few years ago, the income

tax fund was known as the education Fund,

because that's what it funded. But

lawmakers changed that a couple of years ago, making it the

income tax fund, because they felt that better

reflected the source of the money rather

than where it goes. But they didn't rename the

general fund. You know, Orwell would be very proud

with that renaming scheme. So if lawmakers

are going to do an income tax cut, it comes out of the income

tax fund, which is money that could be used

for schools, or it can be used

to cut taxes. And over the past few years,

lawmakers have reduced income tax rates to the

tune of around $640 million,

which is money that could be going

to future funding of public

education, higher education, and social services. But

instead, they decided to use that money to pay for

tax cuts. In his budget proposal, Governor

Spencer Cox proposed eliminating the

taxes on Social Security benefits, which is

an income tax. And that would cost just about

the same amount as the ongoing money

that lawmakers set aside for that tax cut.

So it could go towards an income tax cut. It

could go towards cutting Social Security

taxes. The problem is lawmakers are

intentionally not saying which fund they plan to

raid to pay for these tax cuts. If the money were

to come out of the general fund, well, that can only be used for

a sales tax cut, but if it comes out of the income

tax fund, it can only be used to cut income

taxes. I asked a spokesperson for the legislature what

fund that $230 million is coming out of. Is

it coming out of the income tax fund, or is it coming out of

the general fund? They said that that won't be decided until

they get into the session, and then they'll decide which

fund they're going to take that money out of. By

staying mom on these income tax plans,

they've created a sort of Schrodinger's tax cut

that exists and does not exist at

the same time. It's certainly possible that both

sales and income tax cuts are on the table in the

upcoming session. They could do a mix of money from the

income tax fund and the general fund, but the

available data, as you look at it, suggests

that they're probably going to cut income taxes.

They approved updated revenue estimates on

Monday, and it shows the state has an extra

489 million in ongoing revenue

to spend next year. with most of that about

$343 million coming

from the income tax fund, the

non income tax surplus, which is about

146 million. That's not enough to cover

the 165 million that lawmakers put

aside now. For some perspective and maybe a little

insight on what lawmakers are planning on doing

year, when they dropped the

state's income tax rate by

0.2% from

4.85% to

4.65%, that cost

$160 million, and they paid for

it out of, future revenues that could go to

schools, higher education, and

social services. If the

$165 million in

ongoing revenue that they set aside for a tax cut comes

from the income tax fund, they could

conveniently pay for yet another

0.2% rate reduction. And it could

also pay for Cox's proposed elimination

of Social Security taxes. But they haven't said anything about that.

If you remember, when they approved that

income tax cut, they did a tenth of a percent

in 2023 and then two

tenths of a percent in 2024. Most of the money

from those income tax cuts went to the

state's wealthiest residents. There was an anal done

by the Institute on Taxation and Economic

Policy. They found that more than

60% of the money from that

tax cut went to taxpayers with the top

20% of incomes and the

top 1%, which is people who make more than

$3.2 million a year on

average. They got m almost 25% of

the money from that tax cut. Now, lawmakers say

if you make money and you get an income tax cut, yeah, your income

tax cut, then your tax cut is going to

be larger. But the reality of the situation is

they are raiding money that could go to pay

for the state's public education, higher

education, and some social services to pay for these

tax cuts that go to the

wealthiest residents in the state. And they could be

teeing up something similar this year. We don't

know what they're going to do because they're refusing

to say. Now, one reason lawmakers could be staying mum

about those plans is a troubling revenue

forecast for next year. When they set the budget for the current

fiscal year back in February, they

expected the revenues from individual income taxes

to increase by about

2.9% this year. But instead,

they've dropped 1.6% over

the first four months of the current fiscal year,

which is between 146 million

and $567 million below

projections. And during those first four months of the fiscal year,

corporate income tax collections dropped, dropped

between 80 and 135 million below

projections. And if that trend continues, and they're staring

at a deficit next year, and as you might surmise

selling a tax cut when you've got a

deficit, that could be A big problem if these trends

continue.

The first time I ever met mitt Romney was

22 years ago, in February of 2000,

2002. He was directing traffic outside of the men's

downhill competition at Snow Basin. I was working for

KSL radio at the time and had been recently hired,

so I was fortunate enough to be a part of their coverage of the

2002 Olympics. And on that day, there were traffic problems

for people trying to get into the venue. And Mitt Romney

jumped out of his car and started to direct traffic so

people could get into the venue. It made a really good story.

Since that day, I have interacted with him several

times, interviewed him many, many times. And

on Friday, Romney gave his farewell

press conference with members of the Utah media. This is where

my public service career began, and this is where

it ends, romney said. During that half hour conversation

with reporters, he touched on his legacy, the

future of the Republican Party under Donald Trump, and

his plans for the future. It was a very enlightening

conversation. Romney has always been very

articulate and engaging and

interesting. When I've had a chance to hear him speak, and I

thought I'd give you a chance hear that press

conference in its entirety on today's show, it's certainly

worth a listen.

>> Speaker B: Good. morning. I was, in my office this

morning upstairs and saw, some

pins on the desk. And this pin came

to my attention. It's, a pin from my father's

campaign when he was running for governor in

1962 in Michigan. and

I would have a pocket full of these and go

across the state and sell them for, a dollar

apiece. And, at that time, that was a fair amount

of money and was used to help the campaign. And I

sold a lot of these. I was the number one salesman of these

Romney pins. And it reminded me that I never

imagined I would get involved in politics. I did not

expect that public service would be part of my life.

my dad's counsel to our family was,

don't get involved in politics unless your kids are

raised and you're independent financially

because you don't want to have to win elections to pay the mortgage.

So I presume those things would never occur. Didn't cross my

mind. And then something happened, which is,

I got asked by a friend, Kem Gardner, and

another friend, Mike Levitt, to come to

Utah to help organize the Olympic Winter Games.

And that, as they say, changed everything.

this is where my public service career began. Began,

and this is where it ends. it's been an

extraordinary 25 years, taking

me obviously first here in Utah, but

then the journey took me through Massachusetts where we had

lived for a long time with our kids and my career was

there, ultimately running for president and

then being able to come back and run for the United States

Senate and becoming senator from Utah. I'm asked

from time to time what was the most enjoyable of my

public sector jobs. And the question is without

question, helping organize the Olympic Winter Games.

And I am absolutely delighted that they're coming back to

Utah. I hope I'm alive to see them. but

Frazier Bullock is fantastic and will do a superb job in

my view to get us ready for 2034.

the Senate has been an extraordinarily

rewarding experience I think for me and hopefully for

the state as well, which is I was part of a group

that was able to pass

legislation that makes a difference for

Utah and for the country. And that doesn't

happen a lot. I mean I think you all recognize this and

it's not something that's easy to popularize with the public at

large. But when you read about a candidate and their list

of economists accomplishments, they'll talk about legislation

they introduced,

that means it never got voted on or passed.

They'll talk about something they voted for again,

it means it didn't become law. They may talk about

something that they did see become law,

but they weren't key in helping organize it. and

of course the weakest of

all is to say I fought for this, which is there's a lot of fighting that

goes on without a lot of accomplishing. I was lucky enough

to come together with a group of 10 people,

that got things passed into

law where the Senate voted for them, the House

voted for them, the president signed them. And so the

infrastructure law with its provisions for

broadband, for water, for wildfire relief, they

became law. Our wildfire legislation

became law. Our legislation on

the great Salt Lake and getting the Army Corps

of Engineers to be involved in that and the task force studies that

are funded by that became law. And those were

things I promoted and negotiated with the help

of others in that group. The Electoral Count act

reform, I don't know how important you think that might

be, but the Electoral Count act reform, among other things, said the

vice president doesn't decide who's the next

president. And given the fact that right now the vice

president is Kamala Harris, I would think Republicans would say,

hey, good job There, Mitt and others who worked on

that, legislation. I also worked very hard to

make sure that religious liberty protections were included

in the marriage law, and that firearm

legislation promoted safety. So

these are things that I worked on, I helped negotiate,

and that became law. And I'm proud of that. At

the same time, I'm disappointed that things I wanted to do

didn't get done. We, as a country, don't have an immigration

law. How can that be? 30 years talking

about it and not doing it. we also have not begun

to balance our budget or get close to it. The debt

continues to rise dangerously. We will

ultimately have calamity in our country unless we

deal with the fact that we spend more than we take in.

And one party wants to keep spending more and more,

the other party wants to keep lowering taxes more and

more. And guess what? If you lower

revenues and increase spending, you're not going

to ever come to a point where you balance your budget.

So, some of those things are frustrations. I care

very deeply about them and hope that my colleagues are able to take them on

in a way that, I was unsuccessful in

accomplishing. But with that, I'll, turn to you for,

hopefully, any easy, simple,

questions that you have. Yeah, yeah.

>> Bryan Schott: Hannah Schomau, you said just before the

election that you weren't voting for Trump, but that you also were not

making an endorsement because you wanted to preserve your ability to

have influence in the Republican Party in the future. So

how do you feel about the current direction of the Republican Party

under Trump, and how do you see yourself making a future

impact?

>> Speaker B: Well, the Republican Party really is shaped by Donald Trump

now. And you'll find the House and

the Senate members of the Republican Republican Party pretty much following

what he puts out there. I have to tell you, I agree

with President Trump on most policy issues.

There are probably a few that I don't, but overwhelmingly, we're

on the same page. As a matter of fact, if you look at my record, when he was

president, I voted with him, I think, even more than

Senator Lee. All right, so I'm a

conservative, and he put in place, by and large, conservative policies

on public lands, on spending, and

a number of things. So I agree with a lot of what President

Trump. Trump will do. The areas I had difficulty

with President Trump were character areas.

the sexual assault, decision by

the court, what shall I say?

A relaxed relationship with the truth. there are a number of things

that I found to be very troubling on a Character front and that prevented

me from supporting him. what

the party does going forward we'll see as time

goes on. I think so far we have a sense that he's doing what he said he

would do, which is, you look at his cabinet

appointments and they're all over the map. All

right. I mean you have someone like RFK

Jr. Who's kind of a, liberal. I

mean a real liberal on most issues. On

some he's not, but on most he is. It's like. Well

that's interesting. Tulsi Gabbard, she was a

Democrat and has kind of liberal views

as well. So he's got in people at different points, points of view.

and that's kind of what he said he'd do. He's going to bring people in to shake things

up and shake things up. he is

doing.

>> Bryan Schott: Senator, do you at all fear any type of personal retribution

from President Trump? I know that was the topic of an Atlantic

article recently by McKay Coppins.

>> Speaker B: For you or your family. Do you have any fears of that? I think

President Trump, in his Meet the Press interview a couple of days

ago or a couple weeks ago, said he's focused

on forward. I think that's probably the course will take.

and there's not something in my past that I'm particularly worried

about someone taking a look at. I've been pretty

careful in my life to follow the law. Well.

>> Bryan Schott: But he also said in that interview that the January 6th

committee should be jailed. You weren't on the committee?

>> Speaker B: Yeah, no, I wasn't on that committee. Why? Did you

vote for the Yeah, again

I don't know which things he will actually focus on or

what his team will focus on. I think it

would be a missed opportunity for him to promote his

agenda in his first hundred days. For instance, if he

spends time going after the past

and I think he's savvy enough

to say, hey, I want to get stuff done. I want to be known for

having done things. He's a one term president now or

obviously the second term, but a final term. He wants to

have a legacy of being admired and respected

and, and spending your time going after the past is not

going to do that as well as getting things passed. I mean, I think

what you're going to see is he is going to stop the immigration

mess. I mean how in the world did Joe Biden let

immigration become the problem it's become?

What was he thinking? I Simply can't

figure out why they handed such a political issue to

the Republicans and to his opponents. But he

did. I think Donald Trump will fix that.

and, you know, I think he's going to, take on other

measures. I think he wants to bring manufacturing back to the country. We'll see if

he's successful in doing that or not. But, you know, I think he

will promote things that, he said he was going to do when he was

campaigning. And some things will mark down

as hyperbole. I hope some of those things are.

But you never know, so time will tell.

Senator, looking forward,

several questions.

>> Bryan Schott: First, do you consider yourself a Republican

outsider now? Second, will you remain in the

Republican Party?

>> Speaker B: And third, will your primary residence be in

Utah? Well, my primary residence is in Utah and

continues to be, I am a, Republican.

Consider myself a Republican. I'm, a narrow slice,

if you will. What we used to call the

mainstream Republicans, the stream has gotten a little smaller. It's

more like the main creek, Republicans now.

But there are a number of us, there are quite a few

that, view, as I do, that we need to get serious

about reforming our mandatory spending. That means our

entitlements and our taxing. I mean, I know there's

some Republicans, for instance, that feel all tax cuts are

good. I feel some tax cuts, cuts are

good and promote growth, but I think some

actually cost the government revenue. And, we need to have

enough revenue, to get to a balanced

budget and to reduce the debt. I mean,

I go on in this. I don't know that people care about it much, but

we'll spend a trillion dollars this year on interest,

more than on national defense. If we

didn't have that interest, we would be able to

buy three times as much military equipment as we're

buying. We would be able to double,

alternatively, Social Security payments.

I mean, and we're going to pass a trillion a year

on to our kids and grandkids. That's not going

away. Only question is, how m. Much higher are we going to make

it? That for me, is something the

Republican Party ought to be focused on. But,

I have high hope that the Doge Group, the Elon

Musk, and Vivek Ramaswamy will find ways to

account. But I don't think they're looking at

finding a trillion a year. And that's what we have to do,

either in revenue or in spending. So you will remain a

Republican? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay.

And in terms of the View as an outsider.

>> Bryan Schott: You talked about main creek versus mainstream.

Are you. And the creek has gotten

very small.

>> Speaker B: The creek is very small. You have to look at it very carefully.

At some point it's going to be under the sand. We have to dig down a little bit.

>> Bryan Schott: And, and not to be pejorative here.

>> Speaker B: But do you think the creek includes

you and Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney?

Yeah. I can't speak for others, but I

believe that I fall in the tradition, of

Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and George W.

Bush and John McCain. And I believe all of

them would say they are, proud

Republicans and would agree on a whole host of

issues. I mean I'm a

conservative. I'm a classic conservative.

and that doesn't mean, I mean my dad used to say that he's as

progressive, as Lincoln and as conservative as the

Constitution. And I've always felt that's a good, a good

characterization. There's some areas where I'm progressive, where people

think, wow, you're pretty moderate on that. There are others where I'm pretty

darn conservative. I'm one of those that believes we

shouldn't be spending massively more than we take in and that

adding the amount of debt we're adding is a danger to our

future. but that doesn't seem to catch.

Interestingly, our state is the only

state in the nation that ranked that as the number one issue when

I ran in 2018. no other state

did. And I think people here in

Utah recognize this is important and around the country

less so.

>> Bryan Schott: But in a relatively short period of time, going to

a fine phase, you've gone from being the party's

standard bearer, the nominee for the presidency, to

being sort of an outsider, a main creature, I

guess. How did that happen and do you think

that's a healthy direction if the party continues?

>> Speaker B: Well, I disagree with it or I'd be in the other

stream. But I think what's happened

is kind of two things, which is that the

Democrat Party had a coalition of, I'll

call them, pointy headed liberal faculty

at Harvard and that type, if you will,

the elite, the education elite, and then the working

class voters, as well as minorities.

That was kind of their coalition. And a couple of

things happened. One was some of these,

if you will, elite progressives started saying some

absolute nutty stuff. All right?

Defund the political police in the,

in the inner cities. The idea of defunding the police is

about as crazy as you're going to possibly hear. And so

they lost a lot of people, living in the inner cities, including

minorities, open borders,

allowing millions. What the New York Times article two days

ago said, what is it, 8 million additional,

individuals came into the country, most illegally under

Biden. Hispanic,

individuals found that to be offensive. the whole

transgender and biological males competing

in girls sports that drove

a lot of working families and

minorities out of the Democratic Party and moved them

towards the Republican Party. And then Donald Trump and his

rhetoric was only so good at drawing them in.

So the Republican Party is now, I think if

you look at the polling and demographics, the

Republican Party is now the class of working

America used to be Democrats. All the time I've been alive,

it was Democrats. They had the working class

voter. Now it's, the Republican Party.

And, a lot of people in the Republican Party have gone to the,

independent rolls and line

up with me, on a whole

host of issues, but don't line up with President Trump. I

think the Democrat Party is in real trouble, by the way,

because they've lost, they've lost their base.

I mean, yeah, they'll do well on campus, all

right. And not necessarily with the students, but among the

faculty. But they're not doing very well with the voters.

>> Bryan Schott: Do you see any room for working across party lines

anymore? Is there anyone in the new Congress that you think might.

>> Speaker B: There's no need to. There's no need to,

for the next two years at least. And that's because Republicans

will have the House, the Senate and the White House. And so what's

going to be done, is done by the

process known as reconciliation. It's a kind of a

detour around the 60 vote rule, and the

filibuster rule. And so Republicans

will basically have free reign on all things

that relate to spending and taxing,

major issues like reforming our

immigration system, that will be harder to do.

Maybe there will be some bipartisan effort.

It's possible that, President Trump

could lead that kind of effort to say, you know, there are some things we all

agree on. We all agree that highly educated

people that are going to school here in our

country that want to stay ought to be able to, if they've come from a

foreign country, ought to be able to stay. and even President

Trump, I think the other day they said that he thought dreamers, ought to

be able to stay, if I read that correctly. so there may

be a way to actually get legislation

on a bipartisan nature. But the next couple of years, I think are going to

be, driven by Republicans, and

then after that, who knows?

Fundamentally, in my view, we're going to have to deal with

our entitlements. And, you know, there are

arithmetically two ways of doing that. One, raising

revenue, which is taxes on higher income people,

or number two, cutting benefits. And no one wants to see that.

And no one's going to cut benefits for anyone that's retired or

near retirement. No one that

I have ever spoken to that's elected wants to do

that. So. But those are the two arithmetic things you'd

have to do. And that, that's going to take presidential

leadership and bipartisan effort, which I don't

see coming in the next couple of years. But President Trump could

surprises.

>> Bryan Schott: So you think of your replacement, John.

>> Speaker B: Curtis, and do you think he'll be.

>> Bryan Schott: More along the lines of what you described, passing things, getting stuff

done, or making noise?

>> Speaker B: no, I think he's going to the Senate to do

things. and, I don't think he is,

someone who's focused,

on performance as much as he is focused on doing

the job for our state. And he's not

a. There are a lot of senators,

both sides of the aisle, that go there to get stuff

done. the performers

are more in the House, I think, in part because

they got to perform every two years than in the Senate.

but there are a lot of people in both houses that want to get things

done, and he's one of them. I think he, so

far he, has made very positive

impressions on the, members, members of the Republican

caucus. I've had a number of people, you know, there are almost 50

of us in the Republican Senate group. I've had a number

of senators come to me and say, you know, sorry to see you go,

but I'm really happy to see that your replacement is such a

fine person and comes with such a great reputation.

Having served in the House as effectively as he

has, he's got a lot of people sort of, you know, giving

him recommendations and, I mean, I

think he will have an outsized,

impact in the Senate. One, of

the challenges of the Senate is, of course, that it's

run so much by seniority, and,

that presents some challenges. but, he'll be

there a long time, I hope, and be able to have influence.

>> Bryan Schott: Senator, as someone who wants to shape the future of the Republican

Party, I'm.

>> Speaker B: Curious your thoughts on the influence of Trump once

he can't be a candidate anymore post 2028.

>> Bryan Schott: Do you think this creek you're in now could eventually

become a river? Is there room for that? Or is the

Republican Party squarely the.

>> Speaker B: Party of Trumpism now? Yeah, a lot depends on what the

Democrats do. some depends on what we

as Republicans do. I would like to see the

party m. return to more conservative

principles and a principle based, character

based priority, in our party. And

I think there's a prospect for that happening. But

right now there's kind of a, I mean for those of you that sort of. I

mean I'm not a political scientist, I should

note. I did take political science in college

one semester. It's the only college grade where I

got a D, so I'm not

an expert in political science. But I do

say that the Republican Party made up of

working class Americans and Republican

policy positions don't necessarily line up terribly

well. So you know, we're

as a party opposed to raising the minimum wage. Not me, but as

a party we're anti minimum wage. Well, but the working

class voters want to raise the minimum wage. So our

policy doesn't line up with our voters terribly well.

And unions, we as a party have been pushing back

on un Unions and the nlrb. We don't want it

run by progressives and so forth. Well,

but our voting bloc

actually kind of likes the nlrb, making it easier for

unions. So there's kind of a

fissure that exists between Republican voters

and Republican policy and that may present

opportunities for some kind of realignment. I think the parties

are going to have to realign at some point, and

they will either follow Donald Trump,

and pursue that path or another. If Donald

Trump has a successful presidency, which he

very well may as measured by the American people,

then J.D. vance is very likely to be the next

Republican nominee. And

he is a smart guy, well spoken person

and, and will have a very powerful influence

as well.

Senator, speaking about the future, have

you, I assume you've been thinking about what's next. Have you made

any decisions? Yes, I'll be doing nothing.

I say that jokingly. You know, I will be.

I'll be working with young people probably in some college

settings. I'll be speaking from time to time. I'm

not going to be going back into business. but I'm not going to

be a political person. I'm not

speaking earlier with some folks which I said to them

that as I look at people

who've Run and lost, like Mike

Dukakis and others, and then people

who. And Hillary Clinton and Then people who've

run and won in the presidency, like George Herbert Walker

Bush, they by and large step away from

politics and become involved in

something of significance. Habitat for

Humanity by Jimmy Carter, clearly, Global ah,

Warming by Al Gore, George W.

Bush, our veterans. So I'm

more likely to pursue something of that nature. But I don't plan

on being out there campaigning against this

Republican or that Republican or this Democrat and

trying to get the microphone again. My time on that

political stage is, over. Started here. Ends

here.

>> Bryan Schott: What big issues. What causes would you like to make

yours?

>> Speaker B: Yeah, I don't know the answer to that at this stage. I

mean, you know, frankly, It

was, Benjamin Franklin who was

reported to have said to someone who asked, do we have a monarchy or a

republic? He said, a republic, if you can keep it.

And for me, a, Big part of my life has been trying to

find out how we can keep it. and I think

it was Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address that said, You know,

raised the question about whether a nation of,

by and. Well, for. Of by and for the

people would long endure. And history

suggests that nations of, by and for the people

don't long endure. So I will do things

I think are, Going to promote the preservation

of the Union and the cause of

freedom. and that may well be in education with

our young people. It, may be in speaking to leaders in

various communities. One of the things that struck me through my

career is the impact of

an individual.

that one person standing can have

enormous impact that people tend to

follow. you know, whether it's Gandhi

or Martin Luther King or. I

mean they're just. It's amazing that one person that

stands up, one person of character and courage that

stands up and speaks can have enormous influence. So

I hope to encourage people, to stand up and

speak. And sometimes the consequence for them is not.

Not, Cheerful initially think

about Nelson Mandela in South Africa, but

extraordinary. So my confidence in the

future of our country, flows from those

experiences. I also think that our state has a

lot to offer the country. our

state believes in balancing our budget. That's sort of a political

thing. But also we kind of believe in people

getting married and having families. We believe

that your, most important occupation is as a

Parent. These are things I think the nation needs

and is questioning in, ways that would be, I think,

unfortunate for the country. Do you have any interest in being.

>> Bryan Schott: Involved in the organization of the 2034.

>> Speaker B: Olympics, or are those days behind you? Yeah,

I think I have full confidence in

Frazier, to do that. He is better prepared to do

that than I am in that I helped organize the Games,

obviously in 2002 with him and others as part of our

team. But, he has continued to be involved in Games

since then as a consultant to a number of other Games.

So he's surpassed my knowledge there. I'm happy to help in

some way, but I'm kind of long of tooth to be,

telling him how to run a Games. But

what a fabulous, recognition, for

Utah to have had the games in

2002 and then to have the world say, we'd

like you to do it again. Yours were so

successful, as Dick Ebersol of NBC said,

the most successful Winter Games ever.

And to get the Games back and to

be able to welcome the world again and to

showcase, not just the beauty of the state, but the character of the

state is something that, I am absolutely delighted.

>> Bryan Schott: We have time for one more question, Senator.

>> Speaker B: We'll get to it. I'll come back. Pardon.

>> Bryan Schott: Towards the end of his service, John McCain was also considered an outsider.

But as time has passed, his legacy has become one

of someone who was.

>> Speaker B: Able to work with both sides of the aisle.

>> Bryan Schott: Now that your time has come to an end, what do you hope your.

>> Speaker B: Legacy will be as that time has passed? Yeah, I

hope my legacy is that I, lived by and

subscribed to my values. and, and

you know, I happen to believe that you devote yourself

to a purpose in life if you want to have a fulfilling

life. And my purpose is to help preserve the

Union, and the country that my. It's my political

purpose. and I believe I've done that in every

way I knew how to do, helping the American people preserve the

institutions that keep America the hope of the Earth. and

I contributed to that, that I single

handedly saved the Union. Abstract. Absolutely not. I'm not Abraham

Lincoln. but I devoted myself,

as fully as I knew how to doing what was right for our

country and for the people that I represented.

>> Bryan Schott: You've been credited recently for your

recognition of Putin and Russia as being a

global threat. It was kind of mocked at the time. Now everybody's

like, oh, wait he was right. are you concerned at all

about the current administration or the incoming

administration's position vis a vis

Russia and what that means going forward?

That region?

>> Speaker B: Yeah. I mean, you know, I have not looked

closely at Tulsi Gabbard's, position.

I know my colleagues in the Senate will spend time talking to

her. Some of the things she said in the past,

gave me pause, but I haven't spoken with her. And so I don't

really have a basis on which to make that assessment of

her, or other members of the cabinet. I have to

believe that, the Trump

administration, will have clear eyes

on what represent threats and

what. And who represents, friends and

allies. and, at the time I made the

comment about Russia, I mean, it was obviously the case

Russia was our geopolitical political

adversary. I actually didn't call it a

threat. President, Obama

said that. I called it a threat. I didn't say it was a threat. I said it was our

geopolitical adversary. And it was. Every time we did

something, they were on the opposite side on, the

U.N. for instance, when we would be for something, they were on the other side.

They were supporting the bad guys throughout the world. They were a

geopolitical adversary. We weren't at war

with them. and, they're, The

adversarial nature of Russia has continued

to, be revealed. right now the greatest,

threat would probably be from the. From

China, just because it's so much stronger than Russia is. But Russia is

also today given their military,

prowess and their military ambition and

actions. you'd have to look at it as a threat

as well. But there's an axis now of

China, Russia, North Korea,

and, Iran. That's,

a real danger to freedom.

And I just note, I know you

recognize this, but we're involved in the

world because

we Americans are better off when the world is

at peace and when we're able to trade with one another

and when we don't have to, spend lives in

treasure protecting ourselves,

we're involved in the world. We. I mean, the reason we care about

what happens in Ukraine is we recognize that if what,

Russia does in Ukraine spreads to other

places, it will be bad for us. It'll be bad for

them too, of course, but it'll also be bad for

us. We recognize that if China

invades Taiwan, that'll be bad

for us. It'll be bad for the Taiwanese, but we

care about Taiwan in part because

that's where most of our semiconductors come from. All

right? And a lot of stuff that we get come

from there and we sell them things and we have this trade that goes

on. But if the world gets closed

down by invasions of

authoritarians, the life in America will

not be as good, we won't be as free.

And one of the lessons of history is that

authoritarians are never satisfied.

They always want to conquer more

and usually that's their downfall. I mean,

you know history as well as I do, probably better.

But the idea of saying, oh, they just, he just wants Ukraine and then

he'll stop. Well, we said that about Crimea. He just wanted

Crimea. No, he wants Ukraine. And by the

way, if he gets Ukraine and if he takes Kyiv at some

point, he'll want more, he'll keep

going. And, that's not good for us

because ultimately they come for us. So we're involved in

the world clear eyed about the

ambition of Putin and Xi Jinping

and these others in order to

protect our interest. And I know people say,

oh, why are we giving money to the, to help Ukraine?

It's because it's in our interest to do so.

it's a lot cheaper, particularly when there's

none of our blood being spilled to help the Ukrainians

fight against this

authoritarian thug than it is

to say, oh, let them just run all over Europe and

have a huge impact on America and ultimately threaten

us and have us have to spend extra

trillions and trillions of dollars to try and defend ourselves and our

military and blood potentially. So, I

mean this whole isolationist

idea in my opinion is

a, very short term

perspective. I mentioned this morning a quote that I

just saw from Warren, Buffett, which is, the

lesson you learn from history is we don't learn the lessons of

history. And the lesson of history that I'm referring

to is that authoritarians always want more.

They're never satisfied with

that. You're shooting me off. That's

that, guys. You never have to see me again.

Take care.

>> Bryan Schott: As we get ready to wrap up the show this week, there are a few other

political stories from here in Utah that are worth

mentioning and a little bit of your attention. The Salt

Lake Tribune and KSL both reported that three

members of Utah's Congress congressional delegation invited a

California man who was convicted as one

of the capitol rioters on January

6th to attend Donald Trump's

inauguration on January 20th. Now,

they don't know who the three members of the delegation

were, but former Representative Chris

Stewart wrote a letter to a judge

asking for permission so that the man could

travel to the event. Now, the person

in question is a California man named Russell, Russell

Taylor. He was one of several men charged with

conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding

after prosecutors said he helped organize, quote,

a group of fighters to disrupt the

certification of the presidential election during that attack on

the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

He later pleaded guilty to a felony and

must receive a judge's permission to travel to

Washington. He's on probation right now, and that's why he would need

a judge's person permission to travel. In the letter

to the judge, Stewart says that the

invitation to the inauguration was extended on

behalf of him and three other

current members of the Utah congressional delegation,

but we don't know who that is. The Salt Lake Tribune reached out

to the current members of the delegation and Senator Mitt

Romney, Senator Elect John Curtis, who's a representative

right now, and Representative Blake Moore all said that they did

not issue the invitation to Taylor. And

that makes sense, given their past statements and positions, that it would be

very surprising if any of them did, especially Mitt Romney, who

has been very outspoken about the insurrection and

the attack on the Capitol. That leaves Senator

Mike Lee and Representative Celeste Malloy and

Burgess Owens and Representative Elect Mike

Kennedy, who has yet to take office. For her part,

a spokesperson from Iloy said that the

Congresswoman has not issued any invitations to

the inauguration as of yet, but refused to comment

when asked if Malloy would give a ticket to

Taylor if he's allowed to travel. The three others,

Senator Lee, Representative Owens and

Representative Elect Kennedy, did not

comment. And if you'll remember, Chris

Stewart and Burgess Owens were two of the people

who voted against the certification of

the 2020 election on

January 6, 2021, which came after

that mob of pro Trump supporters attacked the

Capitol trying to delay or stop the

certification. And Senator Lee was a

central player in Trump's effort to overturn

his 2020 election election loss if you will

remember, leading up to January

6, 2021, both Owens and

Stewart cast doubt on the

results of the election, on whether they were

accurate or not. Owens made nearly a

dozen posts on Twitter amplifying

Trump's lies, his falsehoods, that

the election was not conducted fairly.

Right after the riot and then a couple

of days after the riot. Oh Owens defended

his vote to overturn Biden's win in

Pennsylvania, alleging decades of election

fraud by Democrats in that state.

And for his part, when he was still in office, Stewart's

social media Posts leading up to the

insurrection also cast doubt on those

election results. This is not the first time that Chris

Stewart has wrote a letter to a judge

on behalf of someone who is convicted. Convicted of something. in

2022, he sent a letter

of support for former Nebraska

Representative Jeff Fortenberry, who was convicted by the

feds for accepting about $30,000 in

illegal campaign donations from a

foreign billionaire from Nigeria. So Stewart has

done this before and it's not surprising that he would step in

like this.

Speaking of Owens, he was hoping to become

the chair of the House Education and the Workforce

Committee in the upcoming Congress, but that's

not going to happen. Earlier this week, the

Republican Steering Committee, which decides who most of

the committee chairs will be, voted to give the

gavel on that committee to Michigan

Representative Tim Wahlberg over Owens.

Politico reported that both Owens and

Wahlberg gave presentations to the committee

this week. And following that, the committee voted

to make Walls the chairman

and not Owens. And that's obviously a blow to

Owens, who was really hoping he would take over for Representative

Virginia Fox on the committee. She was given a

waiver to seek another term. She was going to be term

limited out, but she decided not to, which is why the

chairmanship was open. And Owens was really

hoping that he would be the one to succeed her. And

he was planning on using the chairmanship

to go after higher education for, for

alleged anti Semitism and get rid

of wokeness in higher education as

well. And while he will still occupy a seat on

that committee and still probably chair some of the

subcommittees, he will not be in charge of the committee

itself. And that will do it for

this week. Thank you so much for listening. Remember to rate

and review this podcast on Apple Podcasts

or wherever you download your show because

that really helps m new listeners find the show. The

algorithm takes note of those ratings and reviews and

then suggests the program to new people. Also, you can

share this on your own social media or let someone know

about the program. If there's a topic you'd like me to comment

on or tackle, or a guest you'd like to hear on the show, reach

out, let me know. You can email me or find me

on threads, Bluesky, Facebook,

Instagram. Also, I'd like to again ask you to sign up

for my newsletter at Utah Police PoliticalWatch News.

Sign up for free or you can become a paying

subscriber which will support this work and allow me to

continue committing acts of journalism. Special

Session with Bryan Schott is written and produced

by me, Bryan Schott. Thanks for listening.

We'll talk to you next week. Take it away, Paul.

>> Speaker B: Harvey, now that you know

the rest of the story,

it.