Voters from beyond the grave!

In this week's Utah political news:

• Voters from beyond the grave threaten Utah's universal vote by mail.
• Utah Senate President Stuart Adams is big mad because of a story about his campaign finance disclosures.
• The Utah Legislature tees up another round of tax cuts, but they're being coy about their plans.
• Some Utah congressmen have invited a Jan. 6 rioter to Donald Trump's inauguration.
• Congressman Burgess Owens misses out on a big committee assignment.

Plus, Sen. Mitt Romney has a farewell press conference with Utah media. And who the hell is Paul Harvey?

 

Sign up for my newsletter at Utah Political Watch.

Social media:

Bluesky

TikTok

Instagram

Facebook

Threads

Episode Transcript

>> Bryan Schott (00:00):
Come one, come all to a beautiful show.

>> Speaker B (00:03):
It's gonna be awesome. And some other
stuff.

>> Bryan Schott (00:10):
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,

(00:30):
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

(00:52):
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

(01:13):
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

(01:33):
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 (01:49):
Hello, Americans. This is Paul Harvey.
Stand by for news.

>> Bryan Schott (01:53):
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

(02:15):
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 (02:29):
Stand by for news.

>> Bryan Schott (02:34):
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

(02:55):
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

(03:17):
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

(03:38):
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

(04:01):
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

(04:23):
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

(04:43):
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

(05:04):
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

(05:26):
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

(05:46):
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.

(06:06):
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 (06:15):
They'Ve been able to turn up the.

>> Bryan Schott (06:16):
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 (06:27):
There's impersonation fraud as well. There's an avenue.

>> Bryan Schott (06:30):
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

(06:50):
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 (07:03):
Used against vote by mail because vote.

>> Bryan Schott (07:04):
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

(07:25):
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

(07:45):
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

(08:05):
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,

(08:26):
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

(08:48):
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

(09:11):
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

(09:33):
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

(09:55):
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

(10:18):
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

(10:39):
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

(10:59):
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,

(11:19):
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.

(11:42):
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

(12:03):
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

(12:23):
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

(12:45):
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

(13:05):
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

(13:26):
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

(13:48):
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

(14:08):
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

(14:30):
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

(14:53):
$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

(15:15):
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.

(15:38):
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

(16:00):
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

(16:23):
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

(16:45):
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.

(17:06):
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

(17:26):
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,

(17:47):
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

(18:09):
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

(18:32):
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

(18:54):
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

(19:17):
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,

(19:37):
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

(19:57):
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

(20:20):
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

(20:42):
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

(21:02):
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

(21:22):
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

(21:44):
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.

(22:04):
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,

(22:27):
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,

(22:47):
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

(23:10):
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

(23:30):
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

(23:50):
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

(24:12):
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

(24:33):
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

(24:53):
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

(25:16):
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

(25:39):
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

(25:59):
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.

(26:21):
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

(26:41):
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

(27:03):
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

(27:26):
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

(27:46):
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

(28:09):
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.

(28:29):
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

(28:51):
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

(29:12):
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

(29:32):
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 (29:39):
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

(29:59):
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.

(30:19):
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

(30:39):
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

(31:00):
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

(31:20):
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

(31:41):
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

(32:05):
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

(32:25):
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

(32:46):
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

(33:06):
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

(33:28):
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

(33:49):
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,

(34:10):
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

(34:30):
accomplishing. But with that, I'll, turn to you for,
hopefully, any easy, simple,
questions that you have. Yeah, yeah.

>> Bryan Schott (34:37):
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 (34:55):
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

(35:18):
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

(35:38):
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

(35:58):
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.

(36:21):
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 (36:27):
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 (36:35):
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 (36:54):
But he also said in that interview that the January 6th
committee should be jailed. You weren't on the committee?

>> Speaker B (37:00):
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

(37:22):
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

(37:43):
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

(38:06):
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 (38:24):
First, do you consider yourself a Republican
outsider now? Second, will you remain in the
Republican Party?

>> Speaker B (38:31):
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.

(38:51):
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

(39:14):
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,

(39:36):
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

(39:58):
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 (40:13):
You talked about main creek versus mainstream.
Are you. And the creek has gotten
very small.

>> Speaker B (40:20):
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 (40:26):
And, and not to be pejorative here.

>> Speaker B (40:29):
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

(40:52):
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

(41:15):
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

(41:38):
less so.

>> Bryan Schott (41:38):
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 (41:55):
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.

(42:18):
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

(42:38):
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

(43:01):
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

(43:21):
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

(43:43):
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 (43:58):
Do you see any room for working across party lines
anymore? Is there anyone in the new Congress that you think might.

>> Speaker B (44:04):
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

(44:25):
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

(44:46):
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

(45:06):
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.

(45:28):
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 (45:49):
So you think of your replacement, John.

>> Speaker B (45:50):
Curtis, and do you think he'll be.

>> Bryan Schott (45:52):
More along the lines of what you described, passing things, getting stuff
done, or making noise?

>> Speaker B (45:57):
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

(46:19):
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

(46:39):
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,

(47:02):
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 (47:16):
Senator, as someone who wants to shape the future of the Republican
Party, I'm.

>> Speaker B (47:20):
Curious your thoughts on the influence of Trump once
he can't be a candidate anymore post 2028.

>> Bryan Schott (47:25):
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 (47:32):
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

(47:55):
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

(48:16):
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

(48:39):
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

(49:01):
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

(49:24):
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

(49:46):
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

(50:08):
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

(50:28):
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 (50:37):
What big issues. What causes would you like to make
yours?

>> Speaker B (50:40):
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,

(51:03):
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

(51:26):
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

(51:49):
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

(52:11):
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

(52:34):
and is questioning in, ways that would be, I think,
unfortunate for the country. Do you have any interest in being.

>> Bryan Schott (52:39):
Involved in the organization of the 2034.

>> Speaker B (52:42):
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

(53:04):
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.

(53:26):
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 (53:37):
We have time for one more question, Senator.

>> Speaker B (53:40):
We'll get to it. I'll come back. Pardon.

>> Bryan Schott (53:41):
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 (53:48):
Able to work with both sides of the aisle.

>> Bryan Schott (53:50):
Now that your time has come to an end, what do you hope your.

>> Speaker B (53:52):
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

(54:15):
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 (54:36):
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?

(54:57):
That region?

>> Speaker B (54:58):
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

(55:18):
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

(55:40):
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

(56:00):
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

(56:22):
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

(56:43):
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

(57:05):
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

(57:26):
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

(57:48):
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

(58:09):
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?

(58:29):
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

(58:51):
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

(59:13):
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 (59:36):
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

(59:58):
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

(01:00:20):
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

(01:00:42):
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

(01:01:02):
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

(01:01:23):
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,

(01:01:45):
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

(01:02:08):
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

(01:02:29):
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

(01:02:52):
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

(01:03:14):
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

(01:03:35):
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

(01:03:58):
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

(01:04:18):
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

(01:04:41):
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

(01:05:03):
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.

(01:05:26):
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 (01:05:43):
Harvey, now that you know
the rest of the story,
it.