Stuart Adams has a problem

>> Bryan Schott: Foreign

hello and welcome to Special Session. This is the podcast

where we discuss the top political stories

in the state of Utah and break them down for you

so you understand how we got here and where we may

be headed. I'm your host, Bryan Schott. Before we get

started today, a little note about the show. I'm retooling

how we do some of the things here on Special Session. We'll

be recording and putting out shorter episodes,

but publishing them more frequently so they're more timely

and more relevant to what's happening right now. Also,

at least one episode per week will be

subscriber only for our paid members

who subscribe at the Sustainer level, which is about

$10 per month, you can subscribe at

UtahPolitical Watch News that starts

next week. Those subscribers are the ones who make

these podcasts possible, who make my journalism possible,

who. So I'm giving them something extra that brings a little more

value to their subscription. So going forward,

shorter episodes, more frequent episodes, and

at least one of them a week will be subscriber only.

Now that that's out of the way, on with today's

episode,

we have to talk about Utah Senate President Stuart

Adams. A little bit of a warning here. We're going to be

discussing sexual crime, sexual

offenses in today's show. So if you have young kids

listening or if you're bothered by these discussions,

go ahead and skip now and I'll catch you on the next

episode. I'm going to pause. You have time to

either turn it off or usher the younger

ears out of the room.

Okay, here we go. This is the story

in broad strokes and I'm sure you've heard about this. But

in case you haven't, last week news

broke that in 2024, Adams

quietly sparked a change to Utah law

that indirectly benefited his step

grandchild, his step granddaugh daughter who was

facing four first degree felonies for

child rape. In 2023, Adam's

granddaughter was charged with two counts

of first degree felony child rape and two

counts of first degree felony sodomy

on a child because of a pair of incidents with

a victim who was a 13 year old male

in Utah, 13 year olds cannot consent to

sex. She was an adult and the victim

was a child. Keep that in mind. So that happened in

2023. During the 2024 legislature,

Adams approached Republican Senator Kurt

Colore and made him aware of the situation involving

his granddaughter. C. Moore consulted with the

defense attorney for Adam's granddaughter. In

response, he inserted some language into a

larger omnibus crime Bill that

allowed for prosecutors to treat

18 year olds who have sex with 13 year

olds as a juvenile in certain

circum instead of a first degree

felony. Because 18 year olds are adults,

13 year olds cannot consent. They are children.

Instead of being charged with a first degree felony,

they can be charged with a third degree

felony, but only if the 18 year

old is still in high school and there was

no coercion involved in the incident.

That provision and the rest of the bill passed without

much notice. A few months after the law

changed, Adam's step granddaughter got a

plea deal in this case with a significantly

reduced sentence. Instead of four first

degree felonies, she pled guilty to a second

degree felony and three misdemeanors.

Instead of possibly spending years behind

bars, she got no additional jail time,

paid a fifteen hundred dollar fine, had to go through

counseling and had to do community service. And she

was also on probation. She does not have to register

as a sex offender. Now this law was not made

retroactive, so it didn't apply to

Adam's granddaughter, but she did benefit

from that change, at least indirectly.

The prosecutor, the defense attorney, you know,

the one that Senator Cullimore consulted with on

this change and the judge all

pointed to this change in the law and

the quote, legislative intent

behind it. And that's what led to this

plea deal for Adam's

granddaughter. Instead of four first degree felonies,

it was a second degree felony, the law says a third

degree felony, but she got a second degree felony. So

again, they were not applying these new standards

to her case, but they were aware of

the change and said that the

legislative intent, what lawmakers

wanted, was a big part of the reason

why Adam's granddaughter got this

plea deal. So that's the story in a nutshell.

Looking at the timeline and how all of this went

down, there is certainly an argument to be made

that the change to the law, which again

only happened because Adams talked to

cmore about the situation involving his

step granddaughter, indirectly benefited a

close member of Adams family. Adams

is currently facing calls to resign because

there's at least the appearance that he

used his position to benefit a family

member. One can certainly make that argument.

Now Adams is defending himself. He says that his hands are

clean in this case. He points to the fact that the law

was not retroactive. His granddaughter pled

guilty to a second degree felony, while this change in the

law says it's a third degree felony.

So you know, it's not the same thing. And

he's defending the process behind how this change

to the law came about. He says every bill that's run

in the legislature has to come from

somewhere. And most of them either come

from lobbyists or someone in the community

or the personal experience of lawmakers.

In an interview with KSL this week, Adam said there

was absolutely nothing unusual about how this change

to the law came about. And in that same interview,

he called the process perfect. No matter what

Adam says to defend himself, that the process was perfect,

that this law was not applied to his granddaughter,

that there was nothing unusual about this process,

you cannot deny that the optics are terrible in this case.

There was no transparency with how this change to the

law came about. And you cannot ignore these facts.

This change to the law was included in a larger

omnibus crime bill. All of the

recommendations that made it into that bill

came from a working group that discussed

changing these criminal statutes

for quite a long time. For several months before

the bill was drafted, the only one they did not

consider was this change

that was sparked by Adams. This was

the only thing that they did not talk about that

eventually made it into that bill. This change to the law is

a very narrowly tailored change.

It only applies in certain circumstances.

But those circumstances just happen to

fit the situation that Adam's granddaughter

was facing. It's really hard to get past those

two pieces of information when you consider that

Adam says the process behind this bill was

not flawed and it was, quote, unquote, perfect. And

Adams really isn't doing himself a lot of favors here. In that

KSL interview, Adams said that the incident

involving his granddaughter, you know, the one where she was

charged with child rape, he called it a, quote,

stupid mistake, stupid mistake. Child

rape. Potato, potato, I guess.

Also, Adams is currently attacking the media

for bringing this story up. He

claims that they're victimizing his granddaughter.

In that KSL interview, Adam says his step

granddaughter has been through enough.

She's been traumatized enough. She

was arrested at her school. She went to

jail for eight days. She was under home arrest

for more than 500 days. She had to wear an

ankle monitor. It was all very embarrassing. And

now they're dread nudging her through the mud again.

His quote was, what a humiliating event.

Now we're heaping on her a scarlet letter on her

forehead. It's wrong. The stories are

wrong. She's been convicted and tried, and

now we're doing it again in the media, and it's wrong. This is

pure deflection by Adams. He doesn't want to answer

questions about this anymore, so he's decided to

hide behind his granddaughter. He Wants to deflect

from what the real story is the

appearance that he used his position as one of the

most powerful legislators in the state of Utah

to push through a change to the law that ended up

benefiting his granddaughter who was facing years

in jail. Understand that Adam's step

granddaughter is not the victim here. That's the 13

year old. The 13 year old child in this

case, Adam's step granddaughter was an adult when this

happened. She was 18, she's an adult now.

The real victim is the 13 year old child. But

Adams is hiding behind his granddaughter,

claiming she's being victimized. She's

having to go through this trauma again. But we haven't heard

him voicing similar concerns about the

victim here. You know, the 13 year old child

who was part of this, the 13 year old who was

victimized by his step granddaughter,

who was an adult and facing first

degree felony charges for child

rape until she got a plea deal. We don't hear

Adams talking about that. By the way, it's pretty

clear that the victim's mother was not 100% on

board with the plea deal that was given to Adam's

granddaughter. She didn't attend the sentencing hearing. And at the

time the prosecutor said it was because she felt there

wasn't enough consideration being given to her son in this case,

you know, her son, the victim. And Adams is

attacking the media. So let's talk about how the media behaved in

this case. The media is not acting

irresponsibly by reporting this story. It is a

legitimate story. And I could argue

that they were extremely careful, even

overly careful when reporting this story. They

gave a lot of deference to Adams when they were reporting

this. When the Salt Lake Tribune first reported this story,

there were very few details about the

perpetrator or the victim. There was no mention

of their genders and no

specifics about exactly how the

perpetrator was related to Adams. They just had a relative

of Adams and one could

easily think they were talking about a cousin, they

were talking about a nephew, you know, a distant

relative. There was a whole spectrum of

relationships to Adams that this could have covered.

They were very vague in their reporting. A

few days later, after I read all of the court documents, I was able to

pin down that it was Adam's grandchild who

was the perpetrator in this case. Which

changes the story, at least in my opinion. I'm sure

it does in public perception as well, because

that familial relationship was much

closer than many people realized.

And the Senate actually confirmed to me that it was a

step grandchild. When I laid out how

I knew that it was his grandchild, they said it was actually a

step grandchild. I knew what gender the perpetrator was. I knew

the gender of the victim. But I chose not to include them in

this story because I didn't think it

was relevant. It didn't play a role in this story.

In fact, the public only learned of

the genders of the people in this story that the

perpetrator was Adam's stepdaughter

granddaughter, and that the victim was male

after KSL reported their story. So

if anything, the media was overly

careful about reporting this story. They were

very deferential to Adams

when reporting this out. So for him

to claim that the media is acting

irresponsibly in this case, it is not

a good faith argument. He's not arguing

that in good faith. So where do we go from here? Well, what

Adams did is not illegal. Um, in fact, he

followed the process on the Hill. Lawmakers proposed

bills, they propose laws, everybody

goes through a committee hearing, everybody gets to vote up or down,

and then it goes to the governor for his signature or

veto. So what Adams did is not

illegal. He followed the process. His claim

that this was how the process works is

absolutely true. But it looks

awful. The optics are terrible, and it

casts a cloud over his leadership,

over the Senate, and over the legislature

as a whole, because it colors how

people are going to look at them. And it. It

diminishes trust in that institution.

There is a perception, fair or

unfair, that lawmakers do things to

benefit themselves and that they're trying to benefit

from legislation. They're in it for themselves. They're trying to help

out a family member. And. And this only

adds to that perception. Fair or unfair,

this only adds to that. And

now people can ask questions

about any piece of legislation that

comes up on the Hill. It's a legitimate question

going forward. You can't brush this off

anymore because it's not illegal.

But it's hard to ignore the fact that

Adam's step granddaughter was facing time

in jail, the law changed, and

then she got a much more lenient

sentence in this case. It's really hard to get

past that. And that, I think, is

going to cast a shadow over the legislature going

forward. Adams and his defenders say that they

were just fixing a policy gap. They were

just fixing a problem they saw in the law. But why did

this need fixing now? The only reason they

realize it, quote, needed fixing

was because Adam's granddaughter, his step

granddaughter, was facing jail. Time.

That's the only reason that this came up.

So, yeah, there are going to be questions about this. It

just reinforces the

perception, again, fair or unfair, that

lawmakers are out of touch with their constituents, that they

are benefiting themselves, that they

want to derive a benefit for themselves,

derive a benefit for their family. Not in every piece of

legislation, but those questions are going to come

up. This was not an issue until it

impacted a close member of

Adam's family. The solution they came up with

was narrowly tailored and just so happened to

exactly fit the situation

that was impacting Adam's step

granddaughter. And then directly,

indirectly, she got a benefit out of this.

These are legitimate questions. I wrote a story about this

this week. There's a pattern of behavior

for Adams where he has this

tendency to dance in the

gray area of what is considered ethical

and what is not considered ethical. Last

year, I reported that there were multiple

complaints about the way that he reported

his campaign finance. State

law says that when you make a payment

to a vendor, you cannot list

a credit card company as the payee. But

for years, almost a decade,

Adams, and for his campaign and

for a couple of political action committees that he controls,

was reporting only payments

made to American Express.

Thousands of dollars of payments,

not providing any detail. State law says you have to

provide detail on this, but he wasn't doing

that. And there were complaints filed. When

Adams was contacted by the Lieutenant Governor's office

about this and told that his filing was deficient,

he also got some conflicting information that said

what he was doing was okay. So he continued to do

it. When it flared up again, he pointed to that

conflicting information. And then the Lieutenant Governor's office

said, well, yeah, you've been doing it wrong. You've been

breaking state campaign finance law.

This is law that's explicitly spelled out in the

code. You've been breaking it, but we're not going to

enforce it. So Adams got off, even though he

had been breaking the law for years, simply because somebody

gave him some conflicting information. And you could

argue that as the President of the Senate,

he should have known. He should be aware

of what the campaign finance laws say. But that's not how

he operated for years and years.

In 2022, he and a couple of his

grandchildren traveled to Qatar for the World cup

to watch the United States play in a match. That

trip was paid for by the Qatari government.

That's not illegal here in Utah. There's also not

a requirement that you have

to report that. Former Attorney General Sean Reyes

also traveled to Qatar for the World cup, and

the Qatari government picked up the tab for that

trip, or at least picked up most of the tab for

that trip. Again, you didn't have to disclose it because the

law does not require that. A few

months before Adams and his grandchildren traveled to Qatar for the World

cup, the Senate blocked a bill that was

sponsored by Republican Representative Candace

Perucci that would have required public officials

in Utah who accept gifts or

travel from foreign governments to

disclose them. Wouldn't have made them illegal, just that you had

to disclose them. But the Senate blocked that piece of

legislation. Perucci's been trying to run

that bill ever since, but it

has not gotten out of rules the last couple of years.

Made it to the Senate in 2022,

got blocked, and we haven't seen it yet, but she still

keeps filing it. So, again, there's more of that

perception, because a bill that would have

required public disclosure of this kind

of trip gets blocked, and then Adams takes a trip

to Qatar, and it just feeds into this perception that is

causing people to lose trust in government.

Look at what happened during the COVID pandemic. Right before the

2022 session. The week before the 2022

session, Adams tested positive for Covid.

But he was there on opening day, and during his

opening speech to the legislature, he

triumphantly announced that he had tested negative

that morning. That wasn't true. He actually

tested positive twice, but didn't bother to

tell anyone. In fact, he lied about it. And the Senate only

acknowledged that he tested

positive, that he had misspok.

Had, you know, lied about his COVID test

after the media started asking questions. Meanwhile,

he was standing there in close contact with

people. He wasn't wearing a mask, which was the guidance at

the time, and he was conducting

business as usual, knowing that he had tested positive

twice. In 2020, at the height of the

COVID 19 pandemic, Utah purchased about

20,000 doses of the

antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine,

which we know doesn't do anything for Covid, but it was all

the rage at the time. They spent $800,000 with

this pharmacy. The pharmacy was called Meds in Motion.

The owner was Dan Richards, and he had established a

relationship with Adams during the early

stages of the pandemic because they had

connected as part of this informal group

of Utah policymakers and business leaders and

community leaders who helped shape the state's

initial response. The state purchased those

drugs from Richard's Pharmacy Meds in

Motion. Without telling anyone at the health department. Uh,

when the media asked the Health Department about this

invoice for 20,000 doses of

hydroxychloroquine. The health Department didn't

know anything about it. Now, there was no evidence that Adams

was involved with that, but his close

relationship with Richards cast a

shadow on it. But there was another incident. Richards was

bringing in more of these drugs. And when one of his

shipments got stopped in California,

he reached out to high ranking officials in the state,

including Adams, asking for help getting it out

of Customs. And a few days later, Adams

himself asked the director of the Utah Inland

Port Authority to lend a hand.

Adam stepped in and used his clout

to help out Richards. And it just so happened that

Adams at the time was a huge proponent

of using hydroxychloroquine to treat

Covid, even though there was absolutely no evidence that

it worked. I had spent a lot of time going through old

news reports with Adams, old news articles,

and he's got a long paper trail. He's been in Utah

politics for quite a long time. And there was a

story from 2011 that really jumped out at me. It's not

online anymore. I had to find it through LexisNexis. But in

2011, the Utah Department of

Transportation was planning to erect a

billboard near South Main street and I15

in Layton. And the land that they were going to put this

billboard on was owned by udot.

And they met with city officials and chose

this spot for this billboard. It was part of a

billboard relocation that happened when they built

another construction project. So they had to move these billboards, and

this was one of the places where they were going to relocate it to.

Adams was in the Senate at the time. He. The previous year, he had

taken over for Greg Bell, who had become the

Lieutenant Governor when former

Governor Huntsman left to become the ambassador to China.

And Lieutenant Governor Gary Herbert became the governor,

and Herbert tapped Bell to be his

Lieutenant governor in the Senate at the time,

Adams was actually the other finalist for that job.

And Herbert, when choosing between the two of them, chose

Greg Bell. And Adams then moved

into Bell's Senate seat. Adams was in the Senate at

the time. And shortly before construction on this billboard was

set to start, Adams heard from some constituents

who called him to complain about the billboard.

And so Adam started making some calls to

UDOT officials, to state officials,

trying to figure out what was going on, and he successfully stopped

construction of this billboard. Now,

Adams did have a lot of poll. Not only was he in the Senate, he was the

former chairman of the Utah

Transportation Commission, and he was a member of the Senate

Transportation, Public Utilities and Technology Committee.

So he had those connections, and transportation

officials would listen to him. And he got this billboard

blocked. Well, the constituents that reached out to

him to get this billboard stopped, they were his mom and

dad, just happened to be his mom and dad who lived across the street

from where this billboard was supposed to go up. Now,

Adam said his parents weren't aware that there was going to be a billboard

going up in that location until construction started. And

he faulted U DOT for not holding any hearings, allowing

residents to voice their concerns about the billboard, even though

that wasn't a requirement at the time. And in those news reports, he

said that he would have made the same calls if anyone else had raised

concerns about the billboard. But. But the people who complained

were his mom and dad, and that's why he stepped

in. Now, as I said, at this time, state law did not

require U DOT to seek approval from the

city Council or hold a public hearing on the

billboard placement. You DOT went through the proper

channels. They went through the process.

But Adam's got it stopped because his

parents objected to it. So we know that he's not

averse to stepping in and throwing

his weight around to help a member of his family. He did it back in

2021 to stop a billbo. Bottom line is

that politically, this story is extremely

damaging, not only for Adams, but for the Utah

Legislature as a whole. It damages public trust

in our institutions. It adds to this

perception, earned or not, fair or not,

that public officials use their power

to benefit their friends, benefit their family.

I don't know if that's a fair assessment or not, but it just adds to

that perception, and that's why this is so damaging.

Now Adams is facing calls to resign. He says he's

not going to. I don't know what kind of public pressure is

going to come out of this. I don't know if the pressure is going to

sustain on this, whether he's going to be able to sweep

this under the rug, whether everyone's just gonna move

past this. But it's an extremely damaging story,

and there's still a lot of questions about it that I don't think we've gotten

sufficient answers for now. Adams is up for reelection

in 2026, and we'll see if there's any sort of

backlash, but my sense is there won't be. Voters

in Utah have shown that they're not going to

punish Republican lawmakers for what they see as

bad behavior. Take a look at what happened when they gutted

the Better Boundaries Initiative. Medicaid

expansion and medical cannabis.

The Legislature gutted those initiatives,

which were approved by a majority of voters.

They didn't suffer any consequences. Look at what happened

with Amendment D last year, where lawmakers rushed

into special session in August to put a

question on the ballot that would have allowed them to

override any citizen

initiative. It had misleading language. Adams was

involved in the writing of that language, which

was struck down by the Utah Supreme Court.

They didn't suffer any consequences in the

2024 election. The numbers in the

legislature remain the same. Democrats flipped

one seat, Republicans flipped one seat, and that was it.

So the lesson that Republicans, the lesson the

legislators take from that is you're not going to get punished

for this kind of behavior. Voters aren't going to hold you accountable.

At least they haven't yet. Will it happen to Adams?

It remains to be seen, but history

shows that it's unlikely to happen.

Thank you so much for listening. That's going be to do it for this

episode. But before we go, I need you to do me a

favor. Go to YouTube, go to social media

and follow Utah Political Watch

on anywhere that you can that helps you keep up

to date on our coverage of Utah politics.

Also, go like and subscribe to this

podcast on whatever platform you use to get your

podcasts, itunes, Spotify, wherever

that helps this reach more people people. You can check out

my journalism at UtahPoliticalWatch News. Sign up for

my newsletter for free or you can support my work

by becoming a paid subscriber or even making a one

time donation. You can find that at Utah

PoliticalWatch News. Links are in the show notes

and you know what? I love hearing from listeners

and readers. Drop me an email or send me a message

on social media. All of you have reached out to me in

the past, are amazing and I love love to hear from

more of you. Send your questions, your comments, your

criticisms, recipes,

suggestions for the show, suggestions for the newsletter,

all of it. Send it my way. You can do that on social media

or my email again linked in the show notes.

Thank you so much for listening. You all are

incredible. You're amazing. I appreciate each and

every one of you and I'll be back with another episode of Special

Session real soon. Bye.

Stuart Adams has a problem
Broadcast by