The Rod and Greg Show: American's Hold High Hopes for Trump; Senator Lee on Hegseth Confirmation Hearings

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, it's great to be with you on this Tuesday.
We've got a lot to get to. I thought Pete
Haigseeth did a great job today. Greg. You know, he
took a lot of heat from the Democrats. You expect
that they threw about everything they could at him, and
I thought he handled it very well.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
I did too. I think he was untouched. I think
if it was if I'm a boxing fan, and if
he were walking in that ring, I'd say that he
won a unanimous decision, and they didn't really lay a
glob on him. I mean, I just think he was
bobbing and weaving. And the questions that some of those
Democrats asked their staff or themselves, they're unaware of the
conversations America is having right now about diversity, about we

(00:37):
need a military that looks like us. We have already
had this conversation about we're really not worried about firefighters
that look like us. We're worried about professional firefighters that
can put out fires. The same can be said about
our military. And yet those questions they asked him is
if none of us have been talking about the disaster,
the catastrophe in Los Angeles, what was important about the

(00:58):
identity of a firefighter versus having firefighters, trained, firefighters, competent firefighters,
competent manors. The Democrats I think embarrassed themselves in this
hearing today.

Speaker 3 (01:09):
It was unbelievable.

Speaker 2 (01:10):
But like I said, if you watch that, it's I
think he's said, heg Seth did a very very good job.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
Yeah, we've got a lot of audio sound bites we'll
play for you here in just a minute. Also coming
up a little bit later on very high hopes. Donald
Trump is now what five six days away from becoming
president of the United States. Again, we'll get into that.
We'll talk about the weaponization of the DOJ. It's been
exposed thanks to the resignation of Jack Smith. Mike Lee
will join us a little bit later on. As Abby

(01:37):
mentioned in her newscast and your conversation coming up on
the five o'clock cour should we put conditions on the
federal aid we may be giving to California as a
result of the SoCal fires. Now it does sound doesn't
sound very compassionate, does it, because lives have been lost,
homes have been destroyed. But you look at this, you
go way.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
There is a gap going on here because when we
saw those hurricanes just rage through our states like Kentucky
and the western part of North Carolina, and people were
without power and their homes were destroyed. All I heard
was FEMA and we don't have the budget. Sorry, we
don't have the money. And we were remarking back then
that we have money for Ukraine, but we don money
for them. There hasn't been one one sentence that there

(02:21):
isn't enough money for California. We're talking about should we
actually have some requirements for it? Well, if it were FEMA,
they have programs, they have ways to distribute aid help.
They want a blank check as far as I can read,
far as I'm tracking, and up to the first hundred
or one hundred eighty days, the federal g im will
pay for everything for everyone. What what? And where's FEMA?

(02:41):
Where's the I thought their budget was low. I thought
that was what was the problem.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
With a lot of money. Yeah, I think people.

Speaker 2 (02:47):
Are still suffering from that hurricane in the fall, in
late fall, and they're not as they're not front of
mine like California is right now. I find this to
be a completely disconnected conversation.

Speaker 1 (02:57):
Hip a critical to say the least, well we'll talk
about that as well. But first of all, what is
John Curtis up to?

Speaker 4 (03:02):
Now?

Speaker 1 (03:03):
A lot of people I run into and I think
you've run into the same people following his election. Even
before the election, we're concerned with the election of John Curtis,
who served in Utah's third congressional district, But as now
a US senator, concerns about John Curtis and his loyalty
to Donald Trump, they're they're worried. Greg. I mean, you know,
I had several people ask me, are we getting another

(03:25):
Mitt Romney? That was a major concern.

Speaker 2 (03:28):
Yep, yep, yep, yep, that's a concern. Okay, you're a
freshman senator. There's one hundred of you running around up there,
pretty evenly divided, Republicans Democrats, Republicans have the majority. Do
you really, as a freshman, have to be the one
that Politico goes to, that's the Republican, that's you know,
even casting some shade on the president's cabinet members.

Speaker 3 (03:50):
Can you just keep it internal?

Speaker 2 (03:51):
Can you keep it in the family for a little bit,
or do you got to go out there and just say, well,
I haven't had I'm not satisfied yet.

Speaker 3 (03:58):
Yeah, if I can.

Speaker 2 (03:59):
If you want to point to me the other Republican,
let's take the freshman from Ohio?

Speaker 3 (04:06):
Is he doing?

Speaker 5 (04:06):
What?

Speaker 3 (04:07):
Can I find the same quote from him right now?

Speaker 1 (04:10):
From Marino?

Speaker 4 (04:10):
No?

Speaker 3 (04:11):
No, interesting.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
Here's old John Curtis showing up on a seminar or
forum today with Alex Burns from Politico. It was a
discussion about the first one hundred days and he got
talking about some of Donald Trump's dominie.

Speaker 6 (04:27):
For me, I can't make a good decision whether it's
somebody as controversial as Pete Hegseth or non controversial as
Marco Arrubio if I don't look at the entire sheet
of music. And part of that will be hearings FBI. Right, like,
I don't even yet have all these pieces together, And
I hope all of my colleagues take that same seriousness

(04:49):
in our constitutional responsibility. Could you give us any insight
into how you're thinking about Tulsa Gabbart as a nomination? Yeah,
so Tulsi is the biggest problem for me. She's been
solow profile. She hasn't the others have come to my office.
And so if you go back to that analogy of
a sheet of music, her sheet's pretty blank for me,

(05:09):
and I need more information to start filling that in.
And look, if I can't fill that in, I can't
vote for. So I've got to find a way of
getting that information to make that decision.

Speaker 7 (05:23):
And what's your assessment of the notes that are already
on the page.

Speaker 6 (05:27):
Well, all I have is what's out there, and you know,
in comments, and like I said before, as an elected official,
I'm the first to understand, like you can't really.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
You got to be careful, like with what you're.

Speaker 6 (05:39):
Hearing about somebody, And so I want to do the research.
I will do the research and put the energy in
before I cast that vote to make sure I fully
understand what the package is.

Speaker 1 (05:50):
Now John Curti is on a seminar today with Political
They called it the first one hundred Days. What I
read into this rag and I'm not sure what on
Curtis and saying, well, what I read into it a
little bit is she hasn't come to visit me yet.
So therefore I'm not going to vote for until she
does that, which is I guess it's prerogative.

Speaker 2 (06:11):
Yeah, it's his prerogative, and I would argue that you
can even you can even signal that very quickly, even privately,
without having to say it to Politico and make it
a national story. But let me tell you, in a
freshman legislative orientation, what I would tell freshmen walking into
a brand new body, which John Curtis, is, if you

(06:31):
find yourself saying out loud to the national press, I
hope my colleagues take their respond their constitutional duty and
responsibility as serious as I do. Kay. If you say that,
you're already less effective if you hadn't okay as a freshman,
because a lot of that legislative body is built on trust.
If you are preaching to and lecturing to your Republican

(06:53):
colleagues or even Democrat colleagues in the Senate, that you
really do hope that they're as serious minded as you
are when they do this. I don't know that that's
a that that would not be a way to be
effective in the legislative body, is what I would tell
entering freshman in a state legislative body. So I can
imagine in the US Senate that's not I don't think
everybody's hanging on his every word as he makes that

(07:15):
statement like that.

Speaker 1 (07:15):
But he's getting national attention today it's a lot of
attention from people out there who here here you have
a freshman Republican from a red state like Utah who
is saying today he maybe has some doubts about at
least one of the president cabinet appoints the appointees, and
that's being tells he Gabbert. So I hasn't given him
the answer he wants. I guess.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
Look, I'm not dumb, and I've been on I've been
around the legislative bodies. I don't think anything he said
is is actually I think what he said is a
legitimate issue. He needs to meet with him. I think
that's true with every single senator.

Speaker 1 (07:47):
Sure.

Speaker 2 (07:48):
For him to say and lecture the way he does
to the media and be reported nationally doing it is
does not help our state, does not help us in
our representation in the Senate. It doesn't help it might
he might be singing to acquire that hopes he votes
know against Trump's cabinet members. He's keeping everybody on the
edge of their seat. Those are internal discussions if you're

(08:09):
a serious lawmaker, serious senator, about what you need to
do to get right with that vote. That's not something
that you're playing outside baseball on he's playing outside baseball
sadly for a different reason, and that's that's not a
great way to start.

Speaker 1 (08:21):
And again it raises questions about is John Curtis going
to be another Mett Romney Because there are a lot
of voters out there and you went into them all
the time. I do ask me constantly what about John Curtis?

Speaker 2 (08:32):
And just put a pin in it right now, because
I want to see all these people that are Republicans
talking about how they have to vet so thoroughly these
and fine, go ahead and do it, but I better
hear verbatim when the if a Democrat gets elected president, boy,
I bet you you better be putting him through the
same exact process. And please, whatever you do, make sure
it's then you think out loud to the national media

(08:53):
about that process like you are with President Trump's cabinet
members right now.

Speaker 1 (08:57):
All right, Pete Haig Seth getting a lot of aten
on Capitol Hill today. We'll get into that a little
bit later on in the show. But Donald Trump, like
I said, he is less than a week away from
becoming president of the US for the second time. High
hopes going into this administration. We'll talk about that coming
up on the Roden Gregg Show. So great to have
you along for the ride today if you want to
be a part of the program. Eight eight eight five

(09:19):
seven oh eight zero one zero. A week from today,
we will have a new president. Donald Trump will be
back in office. I guess he's kind of like a
new old president, is that's fair to say, I mean,
second time around.

Speaker 3 (09:30):
Yeah, he's been.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
And now the first rodeo he'll be sworn in. And
I was talking with a couple of people today, Greg.
They're so excited about Donald Trump and the Republicans moving in.
I mean they're just they just and even. And one
of these people, a business owner, said he gets that
sense from his own customers as well, that they're excited.
They're ready for the country to get going after four
years of Joe Biden. So it'll be interesting to see

(09:54):
what happens.

Speaker 3 (09:55):
I couldn't agree more.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
I've got friends that have that have happened at least
in the past, have so eff from Trump derangement syndrome, who,
to my shock, told me they were very excited, super excited.
They think this is a needed change and a hard
reboot that's coming with the president that has the experience
to know where the where all the traps are and
and to get something done. And that's someone that was

(10:17):
not a fan of the president that I understood up
until I heard this conversation.

Speaker 1 (10:23):
So well, let's yeah, let's dig into this a little
bit more. Our next guest is JD too Chili. We've
had JD on before. He's a contributing editor editor at
Reason dot com. JD, how are you welcome back to
the Rodden Greg Show. Thanks for joining us, JD.

Speaker 5 (10:37):
My pleasure.

Speaker 4 (10:38):
Thanks for having me on.

Speaker 8 (10:39):
JD.

Speaker 1 (10:39):
Let me ask you, are our hopes too high? I mean,
are we so excited about this that our hopes may
be a little too high? You know?

Speaker 4 (10:49):
Let me just say that we always ask too much
of incoming presidents. We always do this. We put too
much on the office, and we also give it too
much power. There's nobody who can live up to the
expectations of the residency. But we also handed too much
power to try to live up to try to live
up to those expectations. But that said, and given the
situation we have, which is at an over powerful presidency

(11:12):
with unrealistic hopes, there's an opening here for the new guy.
Coming in, Americans expect Donald Trump to be successful on
a number of issues that are important to them. Those
issues in particular, immigration, unemployment, keeping this country safe from terrorism,
improving the economy, keeping the country out of wark, cutting taxes,

(11:33):
and reducing the crime rate. This you know, this jives
very closely and then that's according to Gallupholsters and jobs
very close with ap nork Polsters found are issues that
are important to the American people. Undoubtedly immigration, which has
been rising as an issue for the public in recent years,
the economy and flesh and obviously we saw that big
surge inflation a couple of years ago. People still aren't

(11:54):
over that, and people are concerned about international intensions. Foreign
policy is up there and that's unused. So there's an
opportunity here for the president to meet people's expectations and
be at least somewhat successful on issues that are important
to the public.

Speaker 2 (12:10):
I think it's important that you note that there's always
these high expectations, maybe unrealistic expectations, and I know that
people like to measure the new presidency by the first
hundred days. All that said, I do think that there
are some things that beyond one hundred days, but in
a pretty short period of time have to be done
when you have control of the House and the Senate
and the Executive branded the White House, like our budgets,

(12:33):
like some of the legislation that needs to go through.
Do you see a very high pace and do you
think that he's going to kind of break the land
speed record for incoming administrations in the first two years
at least that he has where he has control Republican
strength in the House and Senate.

Speaker 4 (12:50):
Well, he kind of has to. I mean that two
year window is fixed, and it's actually more of a
one year window because Congress, the House starts writing for
reelection after the first year. So to the extent that
he can put through through those big, big ticket items,
the ones people really anticipate kind of locky in those
lower tax rates which are which is set to expire

(13:10):
they were passing twenty seventeen, they're going to go away.
Our taxes are going to go up unless they're renewed.
Immigration issues, and a couple of other things that are
that are high in the agenda. He's poised to do
a better job now than in twenty sixteen. We're at Honestly,
he looked like he was unprepared to have actually won
that election. He actually had people in mind now, you know,

(13:31):
for nominations for high office. So he looks like he's
ready out of the gate. But those bills kind of
have to be passed where he's not expected to succeed
and almost certainly won't. Are things that are a couple
of things that are important a Republicans, in particular, which
your government spending in debt. The federal government is completely
out of control it comes to its spending, and honestly, Americans,

(13:52):
a majority of him, don't think that the Trump administration,
the second one, is going to get that under control.
And there probably right about that, and that's extremely unfortunate
because we're coming up to a day of reckoning, probably
sooner rather than later. It gets closer and closer as
that debt rises thirty six trillion dollars plus plus now,
so that's something that may not get under control. In

(14:13):
fact that I'd be surprised if it did get under control,
although be it delighted if it got under control. But
if he can get a tax cut kind of locked
in there's lower tax where it's locked in Iran and
immigration bill passed, that's hopefully more positive and negative and
a couple of other issues. He'll at least start living
up to those early expectations.

Speaker 9 (14:30):
J D.

Speaker 1 (14:30):
He easily won the electoral college, he won the popular vote,
something I didn't say that the public and president would
do that for a long long time. How much power
does that give him or confidence does that get him
in dealing with members of Congress who may not want
to go along with everything he'd like to do.

Speaker 4 (14:50):
You know, I'm not a believer in the idea of
a mandate. I mean, I think we kind of manufactured that.
But that that said, having won that popular vote and
he surprised lot of expectations with that, I think that
the realization that more people are in his corner than
are not gives him some impetus. We see that in

(15:12):
you know, some of the you know, some members of
the Democratic Caucus and the Senate in particular. I'm making
at least friendly noises at some of the legislations talking
about so I think that there's a there's a realization
that American people kind of want to change, they really
want to change. That's going to be met is another
thing entirely, But there is a little, a little bit

(15:35):
of wind in his sales right now. Now against that,
of course, is that razor thin margin and the House
of Representatives that is going to be a tough one overcoming.
He really can't afford to lose any votes in the
Republican caucus.

Speaker 10 (15:45):
There.

Speaker 4 (15:46):
He's got a little more leeway in the Senate, although
the Senate is rarely as cooperative with the president as
the House is, but at least there's an opportunity there.
He doesn't have a House controlled by he doesn't have
either of those Congress controlled by the opposition party, so
there's an opportunity to get his legislation thrill. Some dealers
are going to have to be cut, but that's always

(16:07):
the case, and some Democrats might be willing to compromise
on some of these issues, but the Republicans are going
to have to compromise too.

Speaker 1 (16:14):
JD is always great chatting with you. Thank you for
your insight and we'll be talking again. Thanks, JD.

Speaker 4 (16:20):
Thank you for having me on.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
All right, that's JD two Chili. He is a contributor
at Reason dot com talking about the high hopes that
Americans have for President Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (16:29):
Part of me thinks that because he's never had a honeymoon. Ever,
I mean he's been just ripped it from the moment
he one that even a normal honeymoon feels like it
just feels extraordinary. Because he does have this honeymoon period,
it'll be worrisome when the hard work has to start
and the narratives begin. If he can, he has to
shadow through the status quo. And it's easier to hate

(16:51):
change than to embrace change.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
We know that Donald Trump is a workaholic, and when
it comes to a vacation or a honeymoon he joined
what is that? We'll have to see how he handles
it all, right, mare Coming up on the Rowden greg
Show in Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine can arrests.
Let's talk about what happened over the weekend. This got
some coverage, but with everything going on, I don't think
it got as much as it should have. We're talking
about Special Counsel Jack Smith resigning finally from the Department

(17:17):
of Justice after submitting his final confidential report days before
President elect Donald Trump's inauguration. Joining us on our newsmaker
line to talk more about that right now is Margot Cleveland.
She is a senior legal correspondent at the Federalist. She's
been watching this. Margo, Thanks for joining us this afternoon.
What's your take on the resignation of Jack Smith?

Speaker 11 (17:36):
Margo, Well, that was a foregone conclusion. He was supposedly
only there to do this investigation, and with Trump in office,
that would have been shut down.

Speaker 9 (17:48):
So it makes.

Speaker 11 (17:49):
Perfect sense that he would be submitting his resignation as
he was submitting his final report. But the more problematic
issue is what was done with the report after it
was given to the Attorney General.

Speaker 2 (18:05):
So it was at least the first volume was released
at midnight last night and amazingly, where you would think
you would be front page everywhere I have seen it.
Is it underreported or has the heg seth hearing just
taken it over. What's your take on what was released
at midnight last night of the Jack Smith Report?

Speaker 12 (18:26):
Sure?

Speaker 11 (18:26):
So I think it's a combination of both being underreported
because there is no smoking gun after the January sixth
Committee put on their show trial and Hollywood produced.

Speaker 1 (18:41):
Episodes.

Speaker 11 (18:42):
Really, a dry lawyer written document's not going to get
anywhere near the coverage.

Speaker 8 (18:48):
But the.

Speaker 11 (18:51):
Hearings on the Hill today really took a lot of
the air out of the balloon as well. I think
that the top line takeaway is that Smith said basically
there was no insurrection, But I would quickly put the
second takeaway is his conclusion that there would have been

(19:12):
enough evidence or a jury would have convicted Trump, which
is precisely why this report should not have been released.
This is a prosecutor's report. Trump is still under jeopardy
because they dismissed those charges without prejudice, and the report
goes through and talks about several other individuals who are

(19:34):
still being targeted as part of the law. There the
report should not have been released, and it was appalling
that the Attorney General let it be released, even though
he was keeping Volume two from being released to the
public for those exact reasons, because there are defendants who
are subject to legal jeopardy.

Speaker 1 (19:55):
Margo Margol does the fact that other the second part
of the report that you talk about, I mean, do
you think the public is looking at this and saying,
here we go again, a nothing burger right now, and
it's just another example of how the outgoing administration weaponized
the Department of Justice to go after Donald Trump.

Speaker 9 (20:19):
I do.

Speaker 11 (20:20):
I think that is exactly the public's response, which is
part of the reason it was so little reported today
that there was nothing that they could glove onto, and
the media probably recognizes that the people in the public
don't care. I care, though, because it is an example
of a violation of the rule of law that they

(20:41):
are out there blurring these individuals who are still being
subjected to criminal investigations. So what happened when they released
it I thought was horrifying from a rule of law perspective,
From the perspective of hurting Trump, I actually think it
probably helped him because, as you said, it's more of

(21:04):
the not this again, and people have turned it off.
Trump's favorability ratings have never been higher. It's backfiring on them,
But you still you don't want to celebrate the backfiring
because what they're doing to the country with the law
fair is outrageous.

Speaker 2 (21:24):
So I couldn't agree more. And so how do we
repair that? So at noon, I guess on Monday, after
President elect Trump has sworn and is now president, they
have new teams that come into these departments of Justice
and everywhere. It will be hopefully the people that the
President Trump has hired, and they're coming in. How does

(21:46):
the president, the incoming president, how does he begin to
repair the Department of Justice or even undo or fix
the damage that's been done, even as of tonight or
last night at midnight, with this report putting people at
legal jeopardy, can can this be fixed or repaired with
President Trump at the helm?

Speaker 11 (22:05):
I think that the repair can start, and the repair,
in my view, will start when the behavior stops and
we have transparency. So rather than having more hearings on
the Hill, more investigations, what I would love is for
things to be declassified and made public and let journalists

(22:28):
just put the dots together and say, look at what
was done. And the only way the lawfair is actually
going to end and the weaponization of both the DOJ
and the FBI is when the public has had enough,
and they did, they had enough. That's why Trump was
re elected, That's why all of these moves are backfiring.

(22:52):
But it's going to take the Democrats some time, I think,
to really learn that lesson. As you see that they
still wanted to a sentence in the New York because
the New York liberals didn't care, didn't matter that it
was helping Trump. So I do think that Trump by
stopping the weaponization, going after pro life, peaceful protesters, going

(23:16):
after moms and dads at school boards, focusing on the
dangerous crimes. That's going to be part of it. The
other part is transparency, releasing and declassifying a lot of
the information to show exactly what happened. And then finally
the public basically rolling their eyes at the Democrats and

(23:37):
not voting for them if they continue this.

Speaker 1 (23:40):
Yeah, it certainly has a hill to climb. Along with
Pam Bondi, Margo, thank you very much for your time
and we enjoy enjoyed your conversation. We'll have you back again.
Thanks Margo.

Speaker 11 (23:50):
Sounds great.

Speaker 2 (23:51):
We have the good work. I think the only journalist
I'm going to trust, So keep up the good work.

Speaker 1 (23:55):
All right, Thanks Margo. Margot Cleveland with a federalist of talking,
of course, I'll about the resignation of Jack Smith and
weapons that.

Speaker 3 (24:02):
You can transparency you want.

Speaker 2 (24:03):
They're so called air quote journalists that they are not
interested in the truth. It's like you said with Mattouse,
she's gonna report four or five days a week. She's
she has no interest in the transparency or the truth
of what really happened.

Speaker 1 (24:15):
Not at all. More coming up on the Rotten Greg Show.
The House is actually doing something. What was it? Last week?
We learned that the House has now passed the Lake
and Riley bill. Yes, and I think it's now before
the Senate. You know what they did today? What they
passed a bill banning male athletes from women's schools sports teams.

Speaker 3 (24:32):
It's about time everything I think it is.

Speaker 1 (24:37):
Let me look and yes, had to ask me that, sorry,
any amounts any athletic programs that receive federal funds.

Speaker 3 (24:47):
Perfect, that's that. That's your K through twelve, that's your
higher ed.

Speaker 1 (24:50):
Yeah, and there were even are you ready for this?
Even some Democrats who went along with this in the House,
I would hope. So, I'll bet you I'll buy anything
born again Fetterman, how much anything? He did it?

Speaker 2 (25:03):
This man, he is talking about a deathbed repentance.

Speaker 1 (25:06):
Boy. He is. He has seen the light. This guy,
he is dealing with it all right. Carrie Underwood, you
may have heard going to be performing at the inauguration
ceremonies like Carrie Underwood the Village People I love.

Speaker 2 (25:18):
Well, Hey, that's awesome because that song is awesome and
he's kind of revived the song y MC A good
for them.

Speaker 1 (25:24):
If Trump doesn't do the Trump damce, he will in
one of those performs much. He's got to do it.
He's got to do.

Speaker 3 (25:31):
That isn't an inaugural ball. They're going to perform.

Speaker 1 (25:34):
I think a couple of times they'll be performing.

Speaker 2 (25:36):
Because this I don't know for ladies, gentle I don't
know if you know, but there's not just one inaugural ball.
There are a coalition more than four or four A
bunch of states will come together in very large ballroom
venues in Washington, d C. And so then Trump and
Milania and Evans and they just they make the rounds.
They go to see all of them, and there's always
a great hosts, and there's always great bands. There's always

(25:58):
a lot of like a lists who emc and perform
at those respective balls.

Speaker 1 (26:04):
Also performing will be kid Rock, remember Kid Rock at
the RNC All sake that wrong Man? That was That
was just I can't remember the name of the song,
but it was a lot of fun and I really
got the yeah, fight Fight really got the convengineers charged up.
So he'll be he'll be performing as well. But excellent,
Carrie Underwood, you know a lot of people would be

(26:25):
critical of her, but she said, hey, it's an honor
and a privilege to perform for America.

Speaker 3 (26:29):
It is a different time.

Speaker 2 (26:30):
This was a bit of a stigma back when you
go back to twenty seventeen in January, but this time around,
it's not it's not at all. I think people are
a lot there's a lot more coalescing around this president
and his time to take leadership, and I don't think
it's the stigma.

Speaker 1 (26:44):
Was big three day weekend coming up in the nation's capital,
of course, the inauguration on Monday. All right, hour number two,
Rod and Greg with you as your work your way
home the talk radio one five nine can ters, stay
with us. We are basically a week now since those
fires started. It was last Tuesday afternoon was then when

(27:04):
they started. And uh, they're slowly gaining containment on some
of these fires, but they're still burning and burning, you know,
taking up a lot of acreage right down.

Speaker 2 (27:14):
It's shocking. And as you hear some of these blazes,
they think united or began to burn on New Year's
Eve or on New Year's Eve night, and they didn't
put doubt, they didn't put them out so some of
these are what how many what are.

Speaker 1 (27:28):
We yea how many days?

Speaker 2 (27:32):
And anyway, it's again we will continue to report and
update you on this story because I think it's there's
so much to learn from what's happened by way of
lack of leadership, by way of unaccountability, and things that
we want to learn from to make sure that our
public servants and our role our government are doing the
right things to protect us in emergency.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
Yeah, well, you know, we all have. I don't know
if any of you and our listening audience have people
in that area who who have been affected by this,
their homes destroyed, maybe their schools destroyed. They have friends
down there, and we all have compassion for the people
in southern California. But the question is coming up now, Greg,

(28:16):
what about should we give Southern California and the state
of California a blank federal check when it comes to
recovering from this. Should we just give them a blank check?
I mean, Biden has already done it basically as Nani said,
don't worry about the cost. What the first one hundred
eighty days are free thanks to the American taxpayer. But
should we be giving federal money to that. Now, some

(28:38):
people are going to say, well, you have no compassion. Yes,
I do, but I'm also a realist and I'm looking
at what has happened in California, Greg, and I go,
there's got to be some strings attached to this in
my opinion, And maybe I'm wrong.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
I honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult. I cannot
get my head around this, even this discussion or how
it is that they were able to get one hundred
days or one hundred eight days of the Feds will
pay for everything. When we had the hurricane victims in
North Carolina and other states Kentucky who were told, sorry,
FEMA's out of money, you're out of luck, and they're
out living in a cold and I just can't. I

(29:13):
can't put these two different disasters in how it harmed
Americans into the same idea. We're talking about one you,
here's your blank check, you get everything. We're saying, should
there be some requirement. The other one is FEMA. We
were saying, well, we have federal programs emergency Federal Emergency
Management Act, it's supposed to be there, but we don't
have any money to help you with defined ways that
would even happen. So you go from one extreme to

(29:35):
the complete other extreme with California, and I don't know,
I could never entertain that California conversation when we didn't
have a conversation about the people that are likely still
suffering from the hurricane disasters in the East.

Speaker 4 (29:48):
Well.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was asked about this
on the floor of the House today, was walking to
a meeting by reporters there and he was asked about
aid to California.

Speaker 4 (29:58):
How are you.

Speaker 1 (29:58):
Depot for buying me.

Speaker 9 (30:02):
And conditions.

Speaker 13 (30:05):
I think we've had a serious conversation about that. Obviously,
there's been water resources management for US management mistakes, all
sorts of problems, and it does come down to leadership,
and it appears to us that state and local leaders
were there looked in their duty in many respects. So
that's something that has to be backed in. I think

(30:27):
there should probably be conditions on that day. That's my
personal view. We'll see what the consensus is. I haven't
had a chance to socialize that with any of the
members over the weekend.

Speaker 1 (30:35):
You've all been very busy, but it'll be part of
the discussion and it should be part of the condition,
condition or discussion. I mean, Greg, there should be. I
don't know what kind of conditions you would put on
that money. I don't know how you do it, but
I think as an American taxpayer, and I want to
hear from our listeners tonight if you're comfortable with just
giving California wads of cash to deal with the impact

(30:56):
of these fires.

Speaker 3 (30:58):
I don't have opinion on this.

Speaker 1 (31:00):
I know you just don't I know what to do. Well,
here's the couple of points, a couple of points I
want to make on this. So the California is expecting
some money from the federal government. Right at the same time,
Newsom gruesome, Newsom himself and the Democrats in the California
Legislature have reached a fifty million dollar deal to fight

(31:24):
Donald Trump. Yes, argu are you kidding me?

Speaker 2 (31:30):
I have at least fifty million reasons why I would
not be looking to open up the public treasury federal
treasury for California. It looks like they got money they
don't know what to do with other than to try
and be obstructionist. Yeah, okay, well, why don't you put
that money to more positive use and help some people?
That are in desperate need. I think I would I

(31:50):
would say that fifty million times.

Speaker 1 (31:52):
Ten years ago, voters approved a plan to store water.
Nothing has happened. He has cut back on fire prevention
programs in California. Newsome has I mean the impact on
the you know in the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen
Bass has cut funding for federal and we're supposed to
give him money.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
Tell the story you told me out there before the
show started about they were trying to replace the wooden electrical.

Speaker 1 (32:16):
Power poles with metal one. Yeah, well, here's what happened.
Apparently the effort to do some wildlife or wildfire prevention
was stopped because one person raised questions about an endangered shrub. Yeah, okay,
here's the story in just the latest clash between fire
safety and conservation in California that is coming under scrutiny

(32:39):
following the devastating outbreak in twenty nineteen. Okay, this was
what five years ago, the LA Department of Power and
Water began replacing nearly one hundred year old power line poles,
right and they were cutting through Topanga Park when the
project was halted within days and conservationists outrage that federally

(33:00):
endangered Broaden's milk vecked plants whatever they are, had been
trampled during the process, and they stopped it. I'll bet
you those plants aren't there right now. I bet that
they aren't there right now.

Speaker 2 (33:13):
Good thing they stopped that effort because they don't have
any of those plants.

Speaker 1 (33:16):
So one conservationist raises question, said, hey, you know, this
work you're trying to do to protect this area is
endangering a shrub, so stop it, and they had to
stop it.

Speaker 3 (33:28):
Yeah, how's that shrub doing? Yeah, how's that shrubbling?

Speaker 1 (33:31):
Shrub? Doesn't I bet that shrub's not around right north?
I mean, and then you have the story and this's
been talked about this this fish. Yeah, and they don't
know if the ship fish even exists.

Speaker 2 (33:44):
It's not like a large amouth bass. It's not even
like a trophy fish.

Speaker 1 (33:48):
It's a Yeah, it's a mew for crime, and that
has stopped the development of dams.

Speaker 2 (33:54):
So when they passed, when that's payers paid, like that
pass like a seventeen billion dollars bond for for reservoirs,
did they raise that bond? Did they raise people's taxes?
Probably they had to They're already their pain on the
bond and they have yet to build a single one.

Speaker 1 (34:08):
Yeah. Yeah, Well, I go back to the comment we
had from that pastor in California yesterday who spoke on
Sunday and talked about we are the richest state we have,
We have wealth beyond measure in this state, and we
can't take care of the basic functions that voters want,
So why are we giving them money? If if I could,

(34:29):
as an American taxpayer, I would say to the federal goverment,
I don't want one dime going to California.

Speaker 2 (34:35):
So let me ask you, should I feel Should I
feel compassion for the people trapped living in in such
a you know, a state like California where their leadership
is so bad? Or do I say to them? You know,
elections have consequences, and somehow you elected them all, All
all these jokers you guys wanted, These are the people

(34:56):
you voted for. You had a guy Caruso, who was competent,
had been president of their water company. He told you
there's fire problems, told you wanted to work on real serious,
serious minded things. You went with the identity politics and
voted for Karen Bass who it turns out, really can't
string more than a couple sentences together.

Speaker 1 (35:10):
Tells you.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
If you want to find out more, go to URL. Okay,
that's who you elected. Should we say, well it kind
of made your bed?

Speaker 1 (35:18):
Yeah? I mean, or is that too callous?

Speaker 3 (35:20):
Is that you?

Speaker 1 (35:20):
I I don't know, man, I mean, I don't think
it's callous.

Speaker 2 (35:23):
No, I tell you what. I just think elections have consequences.
And honestly, they even tried to recall Gavin Newsom and
he won by more votes, and he won the first.

Speaker 3 (35:32):
I mean, I just don't know what to do.

Speaker 2 (35:34):
I just I don't know whether to feel compassion for
Californians or just say you know what, you know your
reputs yourself.

Speaker 1 (35:41):
The Greenies in California have been imposing these green initiatives
on that state for nearly sixty years, greg and nobody
had stood up and said we don't want that, we
don't need that. And now the consequences of these devastating
fires that have changed the lives of so many people
twenty four what is a twenty five people I think
now are dead as a result of the fires. And

(36:04):
here we are, you know, the American people are saying, well,
should we give them some money to help them? I would,
And I don't know what kind of conditions you put
on that money, but I ain't giving it to them.
You know what I would do free? I'm sorry, that's
what I do.

Speaker 2 (36:17):
I would take the timeline in western because I keep
saying west western part of North Carolina, because that's the
Those are the communities I think tennse those are the
communities that I know we're suffering through even the winter time,
without power, without homes, all this. I would take that
exact timeline. I would take the amount of federal funds.
I would take everything they've been living through and I
believe still living through today. Okay, And you would not

(36:40):
see one extra effort towards California that you haven't already
have done for these people that have had by a hurricane,
have had their complete communities destroyed. Whatever pace, whatever amount
of money was there, you can expect the same. And
I wouldn't even step up that pace for California until
you did right by the people Americans who have been

(37:01):
absolutely devastated and their communities are gone, just liking callis
southern California, but they have at least better weather. You've
got that going on there, and in the winter time
you fixed that, and we'll come over here and talk
to you. But they've had they've had none of this urgency.
There's now been. There's no blank check that's been given
to these communities that were destroyed over that hurricane.

Speaker 3 (37:21):
So you know what you get, which we'll work. We'll work,
is we'll give you as much.

Speaker 1 (37:25):
As you gave me.

Speaker 2 (37:26):
You give you, you put as much attention and as
much focus and as much you know, excuses like all
femas out of money, and send that same level of
effort over there to California. And if you don't like
in California, step it up over there in North Carolina.

Speaker 1 (37:40):
Good point? All right? Are we are we callous and
saying this? But let me tell you what votes should
the American taxpayer give them a blank federal check to
deal with the devastation caused by these fires? Your thoughts
eight eight eight five seven O egs zero one zero,
triple eight five seven oage zero one zero, or on
your cell phone dial pound two fifty and say, hey, Rod,

(38:02):
your calls and comments coming up on the Rotten Greg Show.

Speaker 2 (38:05):
When you're getting on that Brandy Dangy new X page
of hours. Just put at Rod and Greg show. I've
been saying, go to search Roden Greg show, the Roden
Greg Show. Just put at Rod and Greg show, that
at Roden Greg Show. So that's that's the key, that's
that's the trick, that's the silver bullet. That's what makes

(38:26):
it all happen. That's where the magic happens.

Speaker 3 (38:28):
Right there.

Speaker 1 (38:28):
That's how you sign up, folks, and we invite you
to do it. We want that number to grow and
grow each and every day. All right, if you're just
joining this now we're talking about should we give California
a blank federal check our tax dollars to deal with
the fires in southern California? Now you think I'm being
very callous.

Speaker 2 (38:47):
And I do agree with that on this are we
I asked the question out, is it callous to let
these people live with the leaders they elect or should
they have any kind of help? Or if they do,
what should be what streak should be attached?

Speaker 5 (38:58):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (38:59):
Yeah, yeah yeah. And oh, by the way, fourteen people
have now been arrested in California for looting or stealing.

Speaker 2 (39:06):
Right, No, no, no, the left is fine with looting didn't
you see that, George Ford riots you're fine with looting.

Speaker 1 (39:12):
One of them was dressed up as a firefighter. Oh
that's smart.

Speaker 2 (39:16):
Got to give them points for creativity. All right, let's
go get your thoughts on this. All right, let's go
to our great listeners. Let's go to Daniel, who's been
patiently waiting. Daniel, Welcome to the Roden greg Show from
Pleasant Grove. What's the use, sir?

Speaker 10 (39:31):
I think the federal government should strongly encourage the insurance
companies to pay up on the policies instead of canceling
them all, and then California pay their own debt to
fix their own roads and their own infrastructure that was
neglected by them. It's not our responsibility to fix their problem.
They voted for the who's in office, and they should
pay their price.

Speaker 1 (39:52):
You're you're exactly right, Daniel, And did you I I'm
not sure what the timeframe was, but I think it
was State Farm who canceled seventy two percent. Wasn't it
seventy two percent of the insurance for people living in
the Palisades area just a few months ago?

Speaker 3 (40:07):
It is true.

Speaker 2 (40:08):
And now I gotta tell you I'm not I'm no
honk for the insurance companies. But if they passed the
law there that says that you can't raise any of
the premiums, and then you see that mismanagement going on,
you might start to think down on yourself. I'm insuring
a home. That's just a matter of when this thing
goes up, not if because they're not doing their job.

Speaker 3 (40:23):
I don't know. I think that they have.

Speaker 2 (40:26):
Their lack of leadership has driven a lot of the
insurance companies out of that market.

Speaker 1 (40:30):
Sadly. Yeah, let's go to Brandon and South Salt Lake
tonight here on the rod In Greg Show. Brandon, how
are you? Thanks for joining us tonight.

Speaker 5 (40:38):
I'm doing pretty good. Rod and Mini Me, how are
you doing? Hey? Doing that? Hey? I look at Utah
for example, floods of eighty three, we had water going
down the middle of State Street. What do we do?
Wexed it. Now in twenty twenty three we had the

(41:00):
same snowpack or not more in the mountains and we
didn't have the floods going down the State Street. Why
because we learned from it. If California doesn't learn from it,
let them suffer, let them figure it out. We'll be
glad to help them get there, but if they don't
want to, then we won't give them any money. Unmust
they turn around and they fix their problems.

Speaker 1 (41:22):
Some changes problem. Yeah, all right, Brandon, good idea. We
did it. We did it. I remember those floods in
eighty three, and we had records, no fall last couple
of years, and everything seemed to be handled just fine
because we fixed the problem.

Speaker 2 (41:36):
I've never seen by the way, by way of public
service or anything else. And a blank check by the
federal government. Whatever it's costing you, We've got you covered.
Never I've never seen it, never heard of it before.
Let's go to Bobby and Harriman. Bobby, Welcome to the
Roddy and Greg Show. What do you think of all this?

Speaker 14 (41:52):
Well, I am a communist refugee from the Republic of
California ten years now in Utah.

Speaker 3 (41:59):
Are you a are you a right?

Speaker 11 (42:03):
You know?

Speaker 14 (42:04):
I still have family back there and I still go
back and visit. But this is something this is like
so cyclical. This happens all the time. They don't do
anything to prevent it, and then they act like they're
so surprised when it happens. And then the next thing
that's going to happen are going to be the mud slides,
and then they're gonna act like that's, you know, the

(42:24):
natural disaster, and it's because they just don't learn. And
I appreciate what your previous callers were saying, like, let's
like if the people paid out their insurance money, let
the the government learn how to manage because they they've
been doing this way for decades. It's awful.

Speaker 1 (42:44):
Yeah, yeah, you're you're right, Bobby. And I think that's
what we're saying, isn't it Greg that you know, you
guys figure it out?

Speaker 2 (42:50):
It is I I and in the MUDs. I'm so
glad she brought up the mud slides because I've still
through privately to people that have said that when this
happens and there's not any of that bio, there's biomass,
there's no there's nothing on the hillside. When the rains
come and when things happen, that that mud just gives
way and there will be mud sides coming. This is
not a nift. This isn't a we hope, it's not.
When you have that kind of pervasive wild wildfire on

(43:13):
the mountain sides and then you get the spring rains
and everything else.

Speaker 1 (43:17):
It comes down, and we know when it rains in California,
it rains in California. They get ready.

Speaker 2 (43:23):
They can't be like again clutching pearls and saying, WHOA
didn't see this coming. We're already calling the shot here
it's coming. Bobby called the shot.

Speaker 1 (43:30):
Yeah, all right, we're gonna get some more of your
phone calls coming up on the Rod and Greg Show
eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero. The
question for you to consider it tonight a federal check
to the people of southern California. Should we give it
or should there be some conditions or strings attached to it?
That's coming up with your comments.

Speaker 2 (43:47):
Hey, by the way, thank you for going to at
rotting Gregg shows. I'm seeing new followers that are signing
up as ice peak, so good.

Speaker 1 (43:57):
That's good news. All right, we're talking about helping southern
californ in dealing with these unbelievable fires. Twenty five people
are dead, thousands of homes and businesses have been detroyed, destroyed.
This is the wealthy estate in the country. Yet they
are looking toward Washington to possibly bail them out and
help them out. Joe Biden has already said, don't worry

(44:17):
about the first what ninety one hundred eighty days, feteral
government will take care of all your expenses. But what
about after that? Now, Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House,
and said, we're going to have to put some conditions
on this. We're going to have a discussion about this,
and we want to hear from you. What about giving
California your tax dollars to help bail them out from these
devastating fires. Back to the phones as we go. Let's

(44:39):
begin with Terry in Orm tonight here on the Rodden
Greag Show. Terry, how are you? Thank you very much
for joining us.

Speaker 11 (44:46):
Hi.

Speaker 15 (44:47):
Hey, My thoughts are that I feel really bad for
the people who have died and their loved ones. But
the wealthy liberals that have voted for these liberal policies,
they have money and they can rebuild where they have
insurance whether they don't, and so I feel really bad
for the poor people that don't, and that it's ben't canceled. Yes,

(45:07):
And I just feel I saw what I saw a
film of Kim Kardashian that she's crying because she lost
her billion dollar perse collection, and I don't have a
lot of sympathy for that, and so I think those
people they can rebuild, they can put fences. I think

(45:28):
all the crime and the homelessness, they're not affected, and
they keep voting for these liberal policies. They keep supporting
the democratic liberal policies, and I don't think they deserve
all that money. But I think I think the poor
people they should be helped, you.

Speaker 1 (45:46):
Know what, Terry, Yeah, well, and I appreciate your thoughts
on that. Yeah, you know, I also feel sorry for
the small business owners, many of men there. You know,
maybe it's generational. They've been there forever in that part
of California. Their businesses are destroyed. What do they do
now it's gone?

Speaker 2 (46:04):
I mean, the streets are gone, the big places are gone.
The resident there's nothing there. There's nothing to there's no
commerce that can even occur. If your building wasn't touched,
you'd still be done because there's no one around you
that would go there. Let's keep going. These are important
comments and observations being made. Let's go to Dan in
Salt Lake. Dan, Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 5 (46:26):
Hey, guys, interesting topic.

Speaker 7 (46:28):
By the way, I set up on X the other
day when I was about mister one hundred.

Speaker 1 (46:32):
So that was cool, Okay for you, Good for you, Dan,
you're an og.

Speaker 10 (46:38):
There we go.

Speaker 7 (46:39):
Hey, I am adamantly opposed to sending money to California
unless there are are our restrictions that are tight as
you know.

Speaker 4 (46:47):
Tight as tight.

Speaker 7 (46:50):
And I'm actually totally on in favor of Utah and
surrounding states sending our citizens into the war zone when
California won't bother to make any preparations or or preventative action,
you know, to do that, and to send a blank

(47:12):
check to a state that has spent eighty billion dollars
on the train to nowhere and is nowhere near being fixed.
I mean, the mismanagement and the stupidity.

Speaker 1 (47:23):
Of Mayor U.

Speaker 12 (47:24):
R L and pivern creams.

Speaker 4 (47:29):
With both hands.

Speaker 7 (47:31):
There's no way I would send a dime to those clowns.

Speaker 16 (47:37):
You are out. I love it. Ye, You're absolutely right, Dan,
you know. And firefighters, I mean, there there's a real
brotherhood among firefighters. And yes, we've sent I think we've
sent about fifty four firefighters down to southern California right now.

Speaker 1 (47:52):
We hope they're safe. We did lose one, a couple
of years ago fighting a fire down there. But Dan
is right, I mean, you don't get your act together California. Now,
hopefully we're trying to line up this guest for tomorrow,
but he wrote a terrific article saying there is no
bottom for Blue California. I don't think they've hit rock
bottom yet to really make changes. I'm a pessimist on

(48:14):
this one.

Speaker 2 (48:15):
Greg, I'll tell you, and I'm tracking what our listeners
are saying. I think it's true. We get this one.
Just a comment from a listener. I love this one.
Anyone who posted messages supporting BLM riots, looting and burning
of homes and businesses, you know, during the George Floyd Times,
anything else, they should just be taken right off of
any federal list for funding or help.

Speaker 1 (48:35):
And even the looting.

Speaker 2 (48:36):
I mean, I love that they've all of a sudden
decided they don't like looting, but a lot of them
politically thought that that was absolutely fine.

Speaker 1 (48:43):
All right, more of your calls and comments coming up
here on the Rod and Greg Show. Eight eight eight
five seven o eight zero one zero triple eight five
seven o eight zero one zero. Are your calls and
comments coming out? Let's go back to the phones.

Speaker 2 (48:53):
Let's hear from you, our listeners, the greatest and smartest
listening audience, and all the land. Let's go to Jennifer
in Salt Lake's City. Jennifer, thank you for holding. Welcome
to the Rod and Gregg Show.

Speaker 8 (49:04):
Thanks for taking my phone call. I just want need
maybe a little clarification on this. If you're a homeowner
and you have a mortgage on your home, if you
have to carry fire insurance. I mean, there's no home
in any of the United States if you have a
mortgage on your home, you have to carry fire insurance.

(49:28):
So I don't understand why these people probably were both
told that Gate Farm was going to pull out, probably
months and months and months ago, because they're not going
to just tell you, oh, today, I have no insurance. Yeah, yeah, no, no,
no insurance, and he's going to do that. And all

(49:51):
these phones have house insurance. I've been through a house
fire and myself and when my house up bert my
insurance covered my living expenses for a year. They cover
the rebuilt. Now it's going to take a little bit
of time, but they do cover everything. And so I

(50:15):
don't understand what the big deal is about these fires
and insurance not paying for it. If a person decides
not to cover their house, well that's bad on them.

Speaker 17 (50:28):
You know.

Speaker 8 (50:31):
I don't understand what the big SUPA is about the
government has to pay for these people's homes. I don't
get it.

Speaker 6 (50:40):
Well.

Speaker 1 (50:40):
I think what has happened over time, because this is
an area that it's very susceptible to wildfires like we've
witnessed in the past week. I think companies like State
Farm Insurance looked at this, and this may have been
a year ago or six months ago, and said we're
going to start pulling out here because it's just too
much of a high risk area. As you've said, when
insurance they don't like high risk areas well.

Speaker 2 (51:03):
They're in the if business, not the when business. But
I think Jennifer also, so what's happened is I think
that there are qualifications for that home insurance and I
don't know if the mortgage that's holding the mortgage on
the home would be okay with it. But the story
that's coming out of southern California right now is that
you have an amazing number and a sad number of
homes that are either uninsured at all or underinsured where

(51:24):
the insurance they have would not be sufficient to replace
the home if it burned to the ground. So there
is that out there that the insurance companies, how the
mortgage companies would demand that to happen. A lot of
people were going to the state. The state was getting
the state of California was getting into this insurance business
because they had created you can't touch premiums. It has
to be a certain thing. Free market companies left and

(51:46):
they were supposed to pick up the difference. But who
knows what that even means.

Speaker 1 (51:50):
Speaking of insurance, Chris is joining. That's from Roy Chris.
I understand you have a member of your family who's
experienced this insurance being canceled. Is that right?

Speaker 8 (51:59):
Yes?

Speaker 5 (51:59):
I do.

Speaker 1 (52:00):
Wow, tell us about my brother.

Speaker 18 (52:02):
Yeah, my brother actually lives down in a hurricanes just
here in Utah, and he lives on that private airport
down there, and there's been a few fires in the
last four years. I believe there was uh four fires
in the last four years within ten miles of his home.

(52:23):
And so he got a letter. We were in Alaska
hunting moose in September and he got a letter while
we were out there basically informing him that he was
no longer he no longer had fire insurance.

Speaker 1 (52:34):
Wow, ten miles from the fire, yet he got his
insurance canceled.

Speaker 4 (52:39):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (52:40):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (52:40):
So I don't want to get into your brother's business.
But if they're if you're carrying a mortgage, it would
a bank be okay? I mean, what you what would
what would someone's next option be? I guess to find
another insured that would be willing to do it. But
but if if if if if, in every day Utah
has a mortgage, and I don't know that the bank
that was holding that mortgage would be okay with their
being uninsured. I wonder when you have an insurance company

(53:03):
drop you?

Speaker 3 (53:03):
What did?

Speaker 1 (53:04):
What?

Speaker 3 (53:04):
What happens nexts?

Speaker 18 (53:07):
Basically, as far as I know, Sky, I really hadn't
talked to him since then about like I knew that
he was His wife was dealing with it, and she
had called a few other ones, but nothing was set
and stone. And that was about a month ago when
I asked him, you know, kind of a backup.

Speaker 3 (53:22):
But well, that's good background.

Speaker 18 (53:23):
It's happening even here in Utah.

Speaker 1 (53:25):
So interesting, all right, Chris, thank you appreciate that happening
even here in Utah.

Speaker 4 (53:29):
You know.

Speaker 2 (53:30):
That's where I always say, I'm not a honk for
insurance companies. It annoys me that they, I mean, yeah,
you're in the if business. You can't say that in
her can Utah. That's a that's a when, that's not
a when, that's an if. It's ten miles from the
nearest fire, mam. And that makes a whole lot of
sense to me either. All Right, A lot more to
come in the final hour of the Rod and Greg Show.
For this Tuesday afternoon, we'll let you listen in on

(53:50):
our conversation that we had with Utah Senator Mike Lee.
He's miffed about a a social media posting about his
vote against fire prevention in California. Explain that coming up
right here with Ronny Greig Show to stay with us.

(54:12):
We had a chance earlier today to talk with Utah's
senior Senator Mike Lee, who is now chairman of the
Energy Committee and also serves on the Judiciary Committee, where
he'll be confirming Pam Bondy to be the attorney General.

Speaker 1 (54:27):
Had a chance to talk with Mike earlier today about
what's going on in Washington. We asked him, first of all,
for his take on the Pete hegseth hearing today.

Speaker 12 (54:35):
First of all, I wasn't in there, and I was
in other meetings, but from what I've read about how
it went, Pete's holding his own and Pete Heighsaft is
somebody who we really really need in.

Speaker 4 (54:47):
The Department of Defense.

Speaker 12 (54:47):
He's a great example of somebody who's thought served our
country well in the armed forces and as has lived
and worked as a civilian for many years. It's exactly
the kind of sort of rushpace we need inside the
Department of Defense, where we've had a lot of problems.
It's been much more focused on DEI objectives than keeping

(55:08):
America safe. It's been much more focused on punishing service
members who were reluctant to receive COVID vaccine, and the
Department of Defense and many circumstances, fired them even if
they had legitimate religious or medical reasons for wanting to
avoid it. So anyway, he's exactly what the doctor ordered there.

(55:29):
We need to get him confirmed, and I predict that
he will be confirmed.

Speaker 2 (55:32):
You know, the Democrats are so tone deaf, and it's
almost like the senators Democrat senator's staff wrote these questions
without any touch on what's going on around us. They're
making the exact these Democrat senators questions make the exact
same argument for soldiers of color and who you would
recognize in the field of battle as Los Angeles Fire

(55:52):
Department had made for firefighters and who you would recognize
in the throes of an emergency and a fire, a
wildfire or house fire. And it has been said universally
without regard to political affiliation, where really don't care about
the color of the of the firefighter and in this
case the soldier. We just need to be protected. So
it just seems like an irony. So it feels like

(56:15):
the Democrats are just losing in these I don't see
that there's anything happening in there that is making any
kind of great point. I know that you have a
you have a committee coming up soon. Do you do
you think they have any any real defense coming that's
going to maybe slow down the president's cabinet appointments because
I'm not seeing it today when it comes to this
nomination hearing with hag Seth, do you see it happening

(56:36):
with any of these nominees, especially the one you might
be living in front of you.

Speaker 4 (56:40):
Yeah, we know from past experience, and we know from
what they're telling us right now in real time, that
they're planning to delay every time they get the chance.
There are certain rules that we have to follow within
our respective committees, and then those tie into the rules
on the floor about how many days have to elapse
between this step in the confirmation process and the next step.

(57:03):
So we know that they want to do that at
our job is to stay on top of that and
make sure that we're moving them forward as fast as
we possibly can. And that's the plan.

Speaker 12 (57:13):
That's what we've got moving on my committee on the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we're looking forward to holding
those hearings.

Speaker 4 (57:21):
First, we've got both Doug Bergham has.

Speaker 12 (57:24):
Been nominated to be the Interior Secretary, and also Chris Wright,
who has been nominated to be the Energy Secretary. Got
both of them teed up in the coming days for
their hearings, and we're moving them forward. And I know
that corresponding hearings are going on elsewhere. Looking forward to
pan Bond these hearings in front of the Judiciary Committee,
on which I also serve, that's going to be terrific

(57:46):
and it's another important role to make sure that we
have filled immediately.

Speaker 5 (57:50):
Mike.

Speaker 1 (57:51):
It wasn't the Burgham hearing scheduled for tomorrow but has
been delayed because of this delaying tactics by the Democrats.
Is that what happened, Mike.

Speaker 12 (57:58):
Yeah, the Burgham hearing was actually scheduled for today, but
we were late. The opposite of government ethics was slow
in getting the documents to us that we needed. You know,
it snowed last week here in DC, and it's not
like it is in Utah. Here in DC, if it
snows even a little bit, the whole city shut down.

(58:19):
I think that delayed their time getting it through. But
we we have rescheduled that one for Thursday and are
looking forward to that. Also tomorrow, we've got Marco Rubio
is going to be having his hearing on the Senate
Porn Relations Committee. I'm back on that committee now and
John Curtis is on that as well, looking forward to that.

(58:40):
Had a great meeting with Marco Rubio earlier today and
he's going to do a terrific job.

Speaker 2 (58:44):
Hey, let's talk about a recent Supreme Court decision. There
was the State of Utah was hoping to get in
front of the Supreme Court to discuss the lands issues.
I know you're you're steeped in this issue. It's constitutionally
the role of the states have. Can you explain for
our listeners why the Supreme Court decide not to take
it up immediately and would rather the state go through
it the normal channels of decisions and appeals. Do you

(59:08):
see this as a big loss a small loss? How
do you interpret the Supreme Court's decision on Utah's lands case.

Speaker 12 (59:18):
It is a temporary setback, It is a delay. It
is not a denial of relief. What happened yesterday was
that the Court incredibly has been interpreting its own statute
governing its own docket incorrectly. The original jurisdiction statute that
they follow makes quite clear that when one of these
cases is brought to them by a state in these circumstances,

(59:40):
the Court has to take it now. Unfortunately, the Court
has for years been interpreting that same statute as giving
them discretionary authority, authority to treat it as part as
if it were part of their discretionary docket, which is
most of the cases they take each year. In other words,
they're given years. There may be you know, about ten

(01:00:01):
thousand or so cases where one of the parties wants
the Supreme Court to review the case on the merits
and make a decision on the merits of those The
Court typically takes fewer than one hundred, and they have
their own discretionary standards by which they decide what cases
they're going to review. Typically, they're not going to review
a case unless multiple lower federal courts have addressed the

(01:00:21):
same discreete question of federal law and come up with
slightly different answers. But in this circumstance, we're invoking the
court's original jurisdiction. They're just supposed to take it. They're
treating it as though it's part of their discretionary docket, even.

Speaker 4 (01:00:33):
Though it's not so.

Speaker 12 (01:00:34):
All this means is that the State of Utah will
have to refile in one of the lower federal courts
and we'll get to the Supreme Court one way or another.

Speaker 4 (01:00:43):
It's just a delay.

Speaker 1 (01:00:44):
Mike, Let's talk about what's going on in southern California.
Mike Johnson, the Speaker the House quoted yesterday, is saying,
you know, the federal government may help out, American taxpayers
may help out, but with certain conditions, under certain conditions.
I want to get your reaction to that about American
taxpayer money going to California to battle those fires. And
the other question I have is about this post that
we saw in which you voted against some funding for

(01:01:07):
California fire prevention at the end of last year, but
there was a reason behind that. Let's address both those issues.
First of all, let's start with the funding. Should we
put conditions on the funding for California?

Speaker 4 (01:01:20):
Well, first of.

Speaker 12 (01:01:20):
All, I at a time went we're thirty six trillion
dollars in debt, and at a time when we're dealing
with the state like California that has deliberately avoided doing
the things one would need to do in order to
be prepared for a cash trosick wildfire situation like this one.
I asked the question, is it right for us to

(01:01:40):
force forty nine other states and hard working taxpayers in
every one of those states to send money to Gavin
Newsom to cover the failures of Gavin Newsom the local
officials in and around Los Angeles and Los Angeles County?
Is that the right thing to do? I really would
like that question to be answer. Nobody has answered that

(01:02:01):
to my satisfaction.

Speaker 4 (01:02:02):
Thus far.

Speaker 12 (01:02:03):
I've got a real problem with this idea of Gavin
Newsom walking into this using a federal fire bailout as
his plan. A. I don't understand how that's fare. It
certainly doesn't seem wise.

Speaker 2 (01:02:18):
Yeah, So I just don't understand. When we saw the
hurricanes that came through Kentucky and the western part of
North Carolina, it was FEMA supposed to do that. Guess what,
they don't have any money. Sorry, you're out. Everything was
about FEMA, about finite resources, about budgets and not having
enough money. Then you get to California and it will

(01:02:39):
pay one hundred percent of anything and everything for the
next one hundred and eighty days. They're going to print
money over there and send it. There is a disconnect
even in the discussion of what the federal role is.
When a hurricane comes tearing through some states and then
what's happened in California, it doesn't track to me as
the same conversation. Is there something? Is there an inconsistency there?

Speaker 4 (01:03:01):
Well?

Speaker 12 (01:03:01):
There is. And look, the American people understand that California
is crown zero for extreme climate policies, bowing down to
the whims of environmentalists is completely hampered date any kind
of effective active land management efforts. And then you add
to that the fact that they've let their reservoirs run

(01:03:23):
dry because they're more worried about some fish here or
there than they are actual people has contributed to it.
These consequences are unfortunately devastating. They're devastating to the very
environment that they claim to be protecting. And yet, as
we've seen, that kind of approach harms the environment, it
doesn't benefit it. I just think about all the airborne emissions.

(01:03:44):
They're separate apart from the devastation caused by the fires themselves,
the homes, the buildings, the trees, all sorts of things
that have been consumed by these fires.

Speaker 4 (01:03:55):
Even if you just look at the emissions, those two
are devastating.

Speaker 12 (01:03:58):
The harm caused flora, fauna, the watershed, the airshed, air
quality in the area, it's all bad. And when a
state makes that many bad choices, and then the federal
government comes in and just unloads truckloads of money saying
here you go, what does that do and what impact
does that have on our environment? What impact does that

(01:04:20):
have on the poor Americans throughout the country were working
hard just to get by, who were then forced to
backfill for California's reckless, like deliberately consciously bad decisions.

Speaker 4 (01:04:33):
I've got real concerns with it.

Speaker 1 (01:04:35):
We'll follow up as well, Mike, about that that social
media post that's going around today about you voting against
a measure that would have given California some fire prevention
money late last year. It's one of those bills where
they throw everything but the kitchen sink at it. You
voted against it, along with many other centers, including former
center Romney. Here your explanations to why you voted against it, Mike.

Speaker 12 (01:04:58):
Look, and they love to crow stuff that's like this
out there, so they'll throw in a bill that has
a whole bunch of things in it, and then one
of those things happens to be the thing that they
want to focus on at the moment and forever on
where they can say, well, so and so voted against
forest management wildfire prevention funding in December. That that is

(01:05:20):
utterly dishonest. It's disingenuous. Whoever is saying this is either
lying or they don't know what they're talking about. If
that is an unfair characterization, nobody's done more than I
have to introduced foster promote legislation, often bipartisan legislation to
try to fix the wildfire problem, to try to identify
the fact that we've got wildfire risks that are out

(01:05:41):
of control because we've allowed fuel build up to accumulate
for decades on end. So, yeah, they can't throw one
of these in a larger bill. Have people both know
because the bill has problems and then later say, oh,
he doesn't care about wildfire prevention. That is utter disingenuous system.
They should be ashamed.

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
Mike was a little uh ticked off on that mentioned
Greg about him voting against money for California wildfire prevention. Yeah,
I think it was a little bit ticked off. All right,
A lot to come. Uh, you know, we haven't been
able to share with our audience yet. Some of the
sound coming out of the hag seth hearing tonight when
we come back, we'll take We'll give you a listeners

(01:06:20):
to what was said, kind of entertaining at times. That's
all coming up on The Rotten Greg Show.

Speaker 3 (01:06:47):
Welcome back.

Speaker 2 (01:06:49):
It's a home stretch of The Rotten Gregg Show today
this Tuesday here on Talk Radio one oh five nine.
Can ars everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.

Speaker 1 (01:06:59):
I'm citizen and I'm rod ur Kit Howmani's appeared before
a Senate committee talking about being Secretary of Defense. Of
course we're talking about pig Pete haig Seth. This is
what he had to say in his opening remarks today.

Speaker 19 (01:07:11):
Unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in
military matters. We are not Republicans, we are not Democrats.
We are American warriors. Now, it is true and has
been acknowledged, that I don't have a similar biography to
defense secretaries of the last thirty years. But as President
Trump also told me, we've repeatedly placed people atop the

(01:07:34):
Pentagon with supposedly the right credentials, whether they are retire generals, academics,
or defense contractor executives. And where has it gotten us?
He believes, and I humbly agree, that it's time to
give someone with dust on his boots the helm, a
change agent, someone with no vested interest in certain companies

(01:07:56):
or specific programs or approved narratives. My only special interest
is the warfighter. I've sworn an oath to the Constitution before,
and if confirmed, I will proudly do it again. This
time for the most important deployment of my life.

Speaker 1 (01:08:14):
You know what, greg I thought, he gave a very
strong performance today. He stood up to the challenges and
the barbs being thrown at him from the Democrats, including
Tim Kaine, who just went after the guy. But all
of them went after him, including Elizabeth Warren. I love
this exchange where she talked about his contractor commitment.

Speaker 17 (01:08:32):
Mister Hackstaff, you've written that after they retire, general should
be banned from working for the defense industry for ten years.
You and I agree on the corrosive effects of the
revolving door between the Pentagon and defense contractors. It's something
I would have liked to talk to you about if
you'd come and been willing to visit with me. But

(01:08:53):
the question I have for you on this is will
you put your money where your mouth is and agree
that when you leave this job, you will not work
for the defense industry for ten years?

Speaker 5 (01:09:04):
Senator.

Speaker 19 (01:09:04):
It's not even a question I've thought about, because it's
not right now. It's not one my motivation for this job.

Speaker 17 (01:09:11):
I understand.

Speaker 10 (01:09:12):
I just need yes.

Speaker 17 (01:09:15):
Time is short, I just need a yes or no.

Speaker 19 (01:09:17):
I would consult with the President about what the policies.

Speaker 17 (01:09:19):
In other words, you're quite sure that every general who
serves should not go directly into the defense industry for
ten years. You're not willing to make that same pledge.

Speaker 3 (01:09:33):
I'm not a general.

Speaker 1 (01:09:37):
You'll be the one. You can't make a pledge if
he's not a general, right, Greg, They shudder down.

Speaker 4 (01:09:43):
Great.

Speaker 2 (01:09:44):
I mean, just I love the spontaneous laughter from those
in the hearing room because you're not supposed to latch
heer or boo or do anything. But they couldn't help
it because it was just that humors. I'm not a general, Senator.
This is what we talk about. These lifetime generals, their
whole life there. It's a little different. I mean, I
do anyway I thought that was. I think these Democrats, honestly,

(01:10:07):
they it's almost like a white flag their questions and
how hypocritical they are. You got some of the I think,
I swear to Blumenthal has lied about his military experience
and his campaigns brochures in his stead, these guys, the
Pentagon has lost when they've done the audits billions of dollars,
and they're saying, you know, when you were working on

(01:10:29):
this pack, this veterans pack, when McCain was running for president.
You know they ran into a deficit. Do you know
there's thirty six trillion dollars of a deficit that you're
on the clock overseeing. Do you know that your candidate
for president is spent a billion dollars in less than
ninety days and left fifty million, you know, in debt.
I'm not even saying that one is an equivalent of

(01:10:50):
the other, but what they find outrage in wouldn't you
love just for them to have that kind of outrage
over the debt of this nation? Wouldn't you love to
see some of the outrage of these Democrats four and
on behalf of the people that are supposed to represent
or this country the issue they have none of it,
none of it.

Speaker 1 (01:11:05):
Yeah, they don't. Another giggle moment came when Gary Peters
Democratic Center from Michigan challenged Pete Haig seth about the
fact that he's never really supervised a lot of people
like he would if he became Secretary.

Speaker 18 (01:11:17):
Of Defense, significant management experience, and I'm.

Speaker 19 (01:11:21):
Grateful to be hired by one of the most successful
CEOs in American history, should I be confirmed. Mister Haig
said that it seems to me that you've supervised far
more people than the average United States senator supervisors.

Speaker 1 (01:11:38):
To that is the chairman of the committee, Wiker, and
each look, you've probably supervised more people than any of
us have on this committee. So that's a pretty good moment.

Speaker 13 (01:11:53):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:11:54):
And again, I just think that all of the outrage
that they're showing. Or Tim Kaine, who is the running
mate of Hillary Clinton, and we know the story, the
Bill Clinton story, in Hillary Clinton story, he was happy
to be a running mate, but now he's up at night,
late at night thinking about all those sexual harassment things
that Pegsath might have done or not.

Speaker 1 (01:12:14):
Just a hypocrisy at the highest level. Sure is all right?
When we come back, the deep state prepares to battle
Donald Trump, I'm late to hear what they're trying to do.
That's coming up on The Rodden Greg Show in Utah's
Talk Radio one oh five nine k n RS.

Speaker 2 (01:12:28):
So now we've talked about this, I'm excited about our
next guest coming on the program. We've talked about this
since President Trump's been elected, but we've all worried, We've
been handwringing about this deep state, you know, draining the
swamp and there's a really important article, a survey that
was done where the American people are on his side.
Even the elite are looking at wanting to find you've

(01:12:49):
seen it as the trips tomorrow lago have occurred, wanting
to make a good go of this and see if
we can come together as Americans see some change. But sadly,
those that work for the federal government, the polls are disturbing.
These those that are willing to answer truthfully. It is
about split where half of those polled were saying that

(01:13:10):
they don't have any intention of supporting the commander in
chief the president, half saying that they would. And then
there's it's like forty four and forty two percent. I
guess the restaurant decided. But joining us on the Joining
us on the program is Tyler O'Neill, who is the
managing editor of The Daily Signal highlighted this brought it
to our attention. Mister O'Neil, thank you for joining us

(01:13:31):
on the Rotting Greg Show.

Speaker 10 (01:13:33):
Hey my pleasure.

Speaker 3 (01:13:34):
Thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (01:13:36):
So say it ain't so? Tell us what what? What?

Speaker 2 (01:13:39):
What did Let's share with our listeners the poll that
was done and what what sentiment you found? Amongst federal employees.

Speaker 9 (01:13:47):
Yeah, so this is a really important poll done by
RG Research. They are founded by Scott Rasperson.

Speaker 3 (01:13:55):
Yes, so he has a.

Speaker 9 (01:13:57):
Long check record, and he's been zeroing in on a
few segments of the population that rarely actually get surveyed
and get reported on. So he has what he calls
the elite one percent, which is people who make over
one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. They have

(01:14:18):
not just a college degree, but a higher education degree
beyond that, and a graduate degree, and they live in
densely packed urban areas. And these sorts of people tend
to have different views from those who don't have either
of those three characteristics. You know who he called main

(01:14:39):
street Americans, and main street Americans are those who make
less than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year,
don't live in urban areas, and are don't have advanced degrees.
And so he's really zeroing in on this gap. And
then he also surveyed and I think this is really
revealing because the federal government managers that he's you know

(01:15:03):
that he's been surveying. Here are people who work for
the federal government. They live in the Washington, DC area,
and they make a certain amount of money so that
they qualify for this, and he is really hit on
a nerve because these you know, if if you want
to understand American politics today, to understand how far left

(01:15:28):
the federal government managers and the elites are and then
what the main street Americans think, it's it's extremely revealing
and you can see from these groups how important it was,
you know, why President Trump won re election.

Speaker 5 (01:15:45):
But also you.

Speaker 9 (01:15:46):
Know, this this unveils the deep state phenomena, and I
think it really is a phenomena across the federal government.
Like you were saying, you know, forty two percent of
these federal government managers say you know. And they were asked, well,
your political efforts be primarily to support the Trump administration
or resist the Trump administration? They said their political efforts

(01:16:07):
will be to resist. And the really key metric here
was that they were asked about whether they would follow
a lawful order from Trump that they considered to be
bad policy. And get this, only seventy percent of those

(01:16:28):
who identified as Democratic and say they voted for Compla.
Harris would follow a lawful order from Trump. Sixty four
percent that they would ignore the order out they thought
was bestow.

Speaker 4 (01:16:42):
So I mean, right.

Speaker 9 (01:16:43):
There is where you see the deep state. These are
bureaucrats who are supposed to be public servants and they
are deciding to follow their own agenda against the people's
elected president of the United States.

Speaker 1 (01:16:57):
Tyler, Are they in anywhere, in any way fearful of
what Elon Musk and Ramswami made do to their jobs
or their departments? Does that come up at all? Is
that discussed? Do they fear the incoming department of government efficiency?

Speaker 9 (01:17:12):
So we don't have much pulling on that. I think
between you and me and the lamps, I think they
fear a certain man named Russell Vote even more than
they fear Doge because Doge is not part of the government.
And I mean, I'm really excited. I'm really glad to

(01:17:32):
see what the vaik Ramaswami and Elon Musk are going
to do. I think they're already off to a great start.
They killed that horrible omnibus bill effectively. I mean that
was that was pretty much them who killed that bill
last last month, and that was a great win. But
at the same time, they don't have real power in

(01:17:56):
the sense of like making the decisions. Russ Vote, who
hopefully will be reconfirmed at MB, is going to have
a lot of decision making power over the federal bureaucracy,
and it's extremely important. I mean, he's he's a great
pick for that role. It's extremely important that Trump's administration
gets off the ground quickly. And I think what we

(01:18:19):
saw with Pete Hagseth doing really well in his confirmation
hearing today, we are you know, the new administration is
gearing up, but this this is a tremendous challenge that
they're facing.

Speaker 2 (01:18:31):
Washington Post they identified four kind of members that they
did not endorse. Three of them you'd expect you've heard
on the headlines. Russ vote was one that that surprised me.
But you've explained why they why the Washington Post would
not want him to be confirmed. It's kind of member
Just real quick, what what?

Speaker 8 (01:18:47):
What?

Speaker 1 (01:18:47):
What will this deep stage?

Speaker 2 (01:18:48):
What will these federal workers be able to do, even
if they don't want to do What what could they
do to try and stop this agenda, even just by
technique or practice.

Speaker 9 (01:18:59):
Yeah, so they're a lot of ways they can gum
up the works. They've already been doing it in the
towards the end of the Biden administration where they're creating
new policies in place that are technically you know, they
like to say, oh, we're protecting science, but really what
they're doing is entrenching the climate alarmist narrative. And then

(01:19:20):
they are get this. This was also in the Washington Post,
not that story, but a separate story. The Washington Post
had a story about federal government employees changing their job
titles to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion so that they
wouldn't get fired.

Speaker 1 (01:19:38):
For that is funny. It's funny but sad.

Speaker 9 (01:19:43):
Yeah, but I mean, how are they going to hire
Are they going to try to like deep memory, deep
sex memory holes everything? The reason why they got hired
in the first place. It's it's not something you can hide.
If you were hired for DEI just gonna figure it out,
and he's gonna get rid of.

Speaker 3 (01:20:04):
Your scope of works a limited leave that hour.

Speaker 1 (01:20:07):
Tyler, Thank you very much for joining us for a
few minutes tonight. We appreciate your time. Great work on
that story. Thank you, please keep.

Speaker 12 (01:20:13):
It up, pleasure.

Speaker 16 (01:20:15):
Thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (01:20:16):
All right. That's Tyler o'neial, man and editor of the
Daily Signal. More coming up on the Rotten Gregg Show.
Imagine that you think anyone.

Speaker 3 (01:20:25):
But I don't.

Speaker 2 (01:20:26):
I think that's the same thing with the Jimmy Carter deal.
I think when you saw it, when you saw Obama
batching it at the Jimmy Carter funeral, Carter funeral by himself.

Speaker 3 (01:20:34):
She she could have been there.

Speaker 1 (01:20:35):
She is sure and she could be She could be
there on Monday, but apparently not everyone in that funeral
for two pews. Boy, they were throwing looks at each other.
There's a lot going on. Can you imagine she was there?

Speaker 9 (01:20:45):
What it looked like.

Speaker 1 (01:20:47):
Hey, it is the wing Man Wednesday tomorrow on the
Rodden Greg Joke. We invite you to join us, head up,
shouldered back. May God bless you and your family in
this great country of ours. We'll talk to you tomorrow
at four. Have a good evening.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: American's Hold High Hopes for Trump; Senator Lee on Hegseth Confirmation Hearings

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News .css-1q01m3q{margin:0 0 -2px 0;}

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

All Episodes