The Rod and Greg Show: Reaction to Legislative Audit on Candidate Signature Gathering; Should Presidential Candidates Embrace Tariffs?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Boy, I have unilatterly all by myself, without the help
of Rod, picked the show, its topics, its format, the
clips we're going to play, you name it, I did it.
So if you hate it, it's my fault and you
can't wait till Rodd gets back. Welcome everybody, Welcome to
the show. Thanks for joining us. There's so much going

(00:21):
on today, and we had some breaking news. I felt
like Utah breaking news. Yesterday, just as we were finishing
the show, an audit up at Capitol Hill came out
on the elections office Dedre Henderson, Lieutenant Governor with who's
on the ticket by the way, top of the ticket
with Governor Cox for re election her office and the

(00:44):
process in which they used to verify signatures who get
signatures to qualify for the primary ballot was audited by
the Legislative auditors and so the audit results in findings
and recommendations came out while we were on the air yesterday,
and we only touched on it briefly yesterday, but there

(01:04):
has been a lot of discussion which I'm going to
get into in this program a little bit later. Prior
to the audit coming out, both by Lieutenant Governor her
commentary about people that question election integrity, people that question transparency,
people that think chain of custody should be stronger. She
has felt that that has been a personal attack on her,

(01:27):
which to me, it has never been. But there's been.
These findings I think are absolutely significant and worth delving into.
And I don't think even our local media you're going
to get this kind of discussion. So we're going to
get in. I've got this, I've got the I know
how to read a legislative audit. I used to be
on the clock up there. I've got it in my hands.
I see the findings, I see what it says, and

(01:48):
I'm going to share it with you. We're also going
to share some perspective, as I said, some backstory about
how this has been framed, those who've sought these answers
in terms of these signatures, and some of the comments
have been made about this process and even looking into this.
There was some harsh criticism that the Lieutenant governor leveled
towards the legislature for even auditing the signatures. But lo

(02:11):
and behold, there's errors, errors in this process, and for
no one wants that to be the case. But many
worried that that might be the case, and it has been.
So we're going to get into that, but folks, we're
going to do that in a five o'clock hour because
what I want to do is I kind of want
to lay this out thoroughly with you in a segment,
but then I want to go to the phones. I
think a lot of people have been tracking this. I

(02:32):
know you the listeners have been tracking our elections process
in the United States or in Utah, across this country.
Election integrity has been weighing on the minds of everyday
Americans since twenty twenty. And what happened there we saw
I just if anyone says, well, there wasn't a court
that did anything about it, those were process decisions. Never

(02:52):
once was any any kind of evidence ever weighed in
a court of law. And look, I'm not even getting
back into the debate about what happened in twenty twenty
or not, but you can minimally say you didn't like
how things rolled out and you'd like it to be better,
and you shouldn't be demonized for saying that. Okay, we
can absolutely expect better of our elections process, and that

(03:14):
includes the state of Utah and how we do it here.
And I think the audit confirms that that we have
room for improvement, which in government shouldn't surprise anybody except
for a guest the Lieutenant governor, who thought the whole
system was beyond reproach and was offended that anyone would
even ask. But like anything in government, it has systems
that absolutely need to be improved. So we're going to

(03:36):
get into that, and I want to get to your
calls on that. That will be in the second hour. Boy,
this race, I don't care. There's a departure, ladies and
gentlemen between the polls, even some of the analytics, the modeling,
and the betting markets. You know, I know I sound
like a broken record when I talk about the poly market.

(03:56):
Just know this in when people put their money where
their mouth, that's a little bit different than just telling
a polster where they are on a race. Minimally, the
polls are telling you that this is a very very
tight race, all within the margin of air. It's anyone's
guest where anything is going to go. And that is
a stronger position for president former President Trump than he

(04:17):
has ever been in sixteen or in twenty twenties elections,
though he was never in these margin of error. But
the betting markets are an interesting tell because if the
odds go too far in favor of Trump, and there's
a lot of people that think, ooh, I could get
a lot better odds voting for putting my money on
Kamala because the odds are with Trump and I think

(04:38):
she's going to win. It's supposed to attract the dollars
and the wagers of those who truly think that Kamala
Harris will win when the odds flip and they start
going towards Trump's way. And that's why it's supposed to
be a good barometer, because it's supposed to level out.
I'll give you an example. I wake up Saturday Sunday
morning and my Steelers are playing the Raiders, and I

(05:00):
look at the market. I look at the line and
it's a It's a minus three, which means that Pittsburgh
has to win the football game by more than three
points to win the wager if you were going to
bet on that game, which I didn't. But that's I
like to see where the where the smart money, so
so you know, so to speak, is going so at
away in Las Vegas. Pittsburgh's a favorite, which means they

(05:22):
think they're a stronger team. By the time kickoff happened,
the number the point spread was even larger, meaning that
Pittsburgh had to win by a larger margin for your
bet to win if you bet then. And the reason
that was is because the money was going to Pittsburgh.
Everyone was saying three points, They're going to easily win
by more than three points. Everybody started putting their money

(05:44):
in there, and there's an adjustment that occurs where they
change the odds. Well, the way the poly market is
set up is if you get this, this thing gets
too out of whack and one side looks like it's
getting too the odds are just too good, and you
really think that the other team is going to win,
you really you go take advantage of those odds, and

(06:04):
they're just not changing. For Kamala Harris, they're getting worse today,
poly Market. This is the high I've been tracking this
since day sixty five, that was September first. I take
a photos, I take a screenshot every single day of this.
This is the largest margin I've seen since I've been
doing this since September first. Right now, the markets, the
poly market, the betting line fifty nine percent likelihood that

(06:29):
Trump is going to win this race, forty one percent
that Kamala Harris is going to win the race. Pennsylvania
is no longer a gray and a swing and an
unknown Pennsylvania. In the betting markets, the smart money fifty
eight percent of the money being bet to win Pennsylvania
and it's nineteen electoral votes is going towards Trump. Forty
one percent of the dollars or wagers going or going

(06:51):
in for Harris. That's a tell. Wisconsin, which was which
was a Harris state up until just recently, is now
fifty four percent of the money the bets or wagers
are going for Trump, only forty five percent for Harris.
You have Michigan again, another strong Harris stronghold. It was

(07:11):
a Biden's stronghold, it was a Harris stronghold. In the
betting markets, it's now fifty five percent of the wagers
are going to Trump to win Michigan, forty four percent
of those of those wagers are going to Harris to win.
And then stingy old Nevada. If you heard the polster
say six out of seven look like they're trending to Trump,
but she's holding onto one state. Well, that was Nevada

(07:34):
in the trend in the in the polymarket betting lines,
it's now finally flipped back. It fluctuates over those sixty
you know, from September first to now, but now that
is even flipped into Trump's favor. Fifty one percent of
the money is going to Trump forty nine percent to Harris,
that was her strongest state at least within the betting markets.
Folks at Arizona sixty seven percent Trump, Georgia sixty four

(07:58):
percent of the money's going in for Trump. That's all
the swing states, that's everyone, and every single one of them.
It is all trending. That means doesn't mean it's final,
but all trending Trump's way. And so when I see
what the poll saying, it's so you know, nip and tuck,
and it's all within the margin of air. The smart

(08:19):
money is saying otherwise, the smart money is identifying a
real momentum happening in this race. And remember the October
surprise had occurred back in twenty twenty where it was
really going to hit Biden negatively, and that was the
Hunter Biden laptop an investigative story that was being revealed

(08:39):
by The New York Post. That's when the social media
completely censored them, shut them down so that the story
could never be told, which did involve then Vice President
Joe Biden, and studies have shown that independent studies have
shown that would have persuaded many people to vote differently
than they had were past that date. So we're deeper
into October, so this moment continues to grow. Today is

(09:01):
the strongest I've seen that momentum since this campaign has
begun for either candidate, and so it feels pretty good.
That's your update on that. We're going to get into
some other issues. There's other on the immigration front. There's
things happening. There's some comments, a really fun nice exchange
between President Trump. You had a town hall meeting with
women to talk about issues that moms and women are

(09:22):
grappling with. I thought it was there were some pretty
some important moments, and there at least one I would
like to share with you. So we have that to
get into. We've got this audit to go into, and
then at the second last hour, we're going to talk
a little history on October surprises and what it means
and from a historian who knows his stuff and connecting
the dots in twenty twenty four what he sees happening

(09:44):
in America today. So as you can tell, big, big
show for you, You're don't want to hang on, you
want to listen to every minute of the Rotten Greg
Show here on Talk Radio one oh five nine. Can
or ass back After this break, Bloomberg had a kind
of a town hall with business leaders to really not
talk in platitudes like campaigns tend to do, but to

(10:04):
have a sit down. And the editor in chief of
Bloomberg News sat down with Donald Trump to ask some
hard questions and get some details, and he made He
extended the same invitation to Kamala Harris. She declined to
have that sit down, so but of course former President
Trump did not decline to do that. They sat down,

(10:26):
they talked this happened yesterday to talk about the issue
specifically that they kind of went back and forth on
that I thought was newsworthy and noteworthy to kind of
dig into ourselves, is the issue of tariffs and what
role they play or don't play in our economy and
in a Trump administration if he were to win, So

(10:47):
joining us on the show Liz Mayor. She is a
president of Mayor's Strategies, a Republican strategist, and she is
of the opinion that Trump and if Harris were to
somehow pull this off, which I'm on the steptic side now, Liz,
but they should not embrace tariffs as an economic tool
in this next administration. Liz, thank you for joining us

(11:09):
on the program.

Speaker 2 (11:11):
Yeah, thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (11:12):
Okay, so this is this is these this is well,
no no friendly fire. We are we are on the
same team, and we're and I just I'm really interested
in hearing them from you because I really do believe
that that that the trade situation that the United States
has with either allies or even China, it isn't a
two way street. It seems to be one sided in

(11:33):
terms of they have that they feel very free to
to tariff or place tariffs on our exports, but we
expect not to have any tariffs coming in and their
imports to the United States minimally. I would think that
the way to negotiate that and to see their barriers
come down would be to give a little empathy, a
little two way street with tariffs. But you're worried about

(11:54):
that you think tariffs could have a detrimental impact. Share
with our our listeners. Why are tariffs not a way
to go to maybe look at this trade gap and
maybe get a fair trade agreement with with our partners
around the world.

Speaker 2 (12:10):
Well, I mean, I think, to be honest, if we're
going to cover this properly, we probably need about a
four hour segment. But I think just to take your
point first about about I mean, look, I think that
there are plenty of countries around the world that are
way too terriff happy. I'm not saying that the US
is unique in terms of having politicians who are overly
interested in tariffs. I certainly think, you know, I've done

(12:33):
a lot of work for clients on things like proposed
US EU trade agreements, and you know, I say this
as somebody who you know is also British citizen and
formerly was therefore a part of the European Union. I
think the European Union is far too protectionists and also
puts up way too many true barriers to trade. I

(12:53):
agree with that. However, I will also tell you, in
the context of those particular negotiations and what we saw
under the Trump administration with tariffs, that were being applied
on particular EU goods and then UK goods once we
had Brexit. That actually, know, the ratcheting up did not
result in anybody dismantling trade barriers. The only way to

(13:16):
take a really good example one thing that I worked
on to involving tariffs that were leveraged on the spirits industry.
The only way that ultimately that got dismantled was there
was some signaling by the relevant trade the trade I'm
not even sure was the representative, but the actual person
in charge of dealing with that particular dispute within the

(13:38):
Biden administration that if the UK went ahead and got
rid of its tariffs first, the US would follow suit.
And I will tell you that looking at that industry specifically,
that has been absolutely boon on both sides because what
you actually have in that industry is if you visited
the stillery in Scotland where my family is from, what

(14:00):
they do is they sell their own whiskey, but they
also like to sell things like Kentucky bourbon alongside it.
That's an attraction for tours who visit those distilleries, and
so in actual fact, dismantling those trade barriers has been
tremendously beneficial not just to the Scotch whiskey distilleries, but
also to our own local producers in the United States,

(14:21):
who therefore end up with bigger export markets. And the
workers who are working in those settings predominantly are more
blue collar. They do tend to be more akin to
what you find in the manufacturing sector. It's not people
who have PhDs, MBAs, et cetera, et cetera. It does
tend to be more people who are considered to be

(14:41):
you know, I'm not going to say they're unskilled, because
actually I think a lot of people who work in
those types of jobs and in manufacturing you're tremendously skilled.
But the people that were typically trying to protect with
TIFFs are oftentimes the people that are very much hurt
by terraffs.

Speaker 1 (14:55):
So yeah, so I'm following you. But here's my one
question real quick, and I actually don't think we're seeing
this differently, because that the scenario you shared with me
is what I would hope we would see in negotiations
with tariffs, and that was that the Biden administration said, look,
we'll lower one, you lower, you lower yours will lower first,
and we'll do the same. We don't have a lot

(15:15):
of room to move there because we don't have a
lot of teriffs. Would I would hope that if we
saw a Trump administration that is putting tariffs where there
were none to begin with, those would be the very
tariffs that we would use as leverage to compel our
trading partners to lower theirs, and then ours would then
go away. So when you said that when the Trump,
when Trump implemented these tariffs before, did we have enough time?

(15:39):
Was there enough incubation time to kind of have those
negotiations to see them lower their barriers or their tariffs
and then we would then take ours away?

Speaker 2 (15:48):
Well no, because actually in that situation, the US started it.

Speaker 1 (15:52):
We put tariffs where there weren't any before with the
other country, or.

Speaker 2 (15:56):
Where there were minimalet We were the ones that did
the ratcheting up, That's what I'm saying. And when you
do the ratcheting up, the automatic response that you tend
to see them from the other country is ratchet up again.
And then we ratchet up, and suddenly you end up
in a situation where it becomes really prohibitive, right, and
we start having problems our goods overseas.

Speaker 1 (16:14):
So you have to ratch up if you don't have
one a tariff in the first place. That's the point
I was making, and say, if you don't have a
tariff on they do, and that's where you need to
have one so you can get rid of it if
they get rid of THEIRS or haiffs.

Speaker 2 (16:26):
It wasn't like we were saying that scott whiskey exporters
could export and when goods entered the country they were
paying zero percent. That wasn't the situation. We were ratcheting
things up, and we instigated that. And when you're looking
at what Trump in particular is proposing, although frankly, I
just you know, I think with Harris, I don't think
she's likely to do anything that's necessarily substantially different. I

(16:49):
just think she's not really talking about any policy detail
at all. Right, So when you're talking about Trump, I
mean Trump has gone out and said that he doesn't
care if he slaps the two thousand percent tariff on something. Well,
I guarantee if you slap a two thousand per tariff
on something and then the country on the other side
of that slaps the two thousand percent tariff, that is
absolutely going to hurt American exporters, in American manufacturers, and

(17:11):
American jobs. Also in addition, probably the reality is it
is going to hurt American consumers, which by the way,
includes quite a lot of manufacturing sector companies, right because
one of the things that I think people forget America
is vast and huge, and we have tons of resources
and there's not a ton of stuff that we can
fail to imagine being able to produce here. But there

(17:33):
are actually eighteen particular minerals that are typically used in
the manufacturing process in anything that's involving metals that we
don't have. They don't come from America, so we have
to import them from someplace. And the second you start
getting into teriff wors, that can really dent your ability
to manufacture anything. Right, So I just think this is

(17:56):
you was substantially more complicated.

Speaker 1 (18:01):
Listen, my producer says that we have to go to
we have to I have to end this conversation. I know,
because I have so many questions because I I I
so appreciate what you're saying, and I just I so
thank you for joining us. I there is we we
just all we did is tease the listeners on this topic.
We weren't actually able to jump into it, but thank
you so much for joining us. Thanks for sharing that perspective.

(18:24):
And uh, maybe we could have you back again some
other time. Because Rod's not here, I'm in control. He
doesn't even know what I'm doing, so I get to
have all the guests I want. So I'd love for
you to come.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
Back wait till he comes back tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
And that's right, that's right. Uh, Liz Mayor with Liz
Mayor with Mayor Strategies, President and Republican Strategists. Thank you
for joining us on the program.

Speaker 2 (18:46):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (18:47):
Okay, we're gonna go to a break. When we come back,
I want to touch on this issue just a little bit.
We got some other news and headlines to touch on
before I get into this legislative audit here in the
state of Utah on our signature gathering a verification process
in our state elections office. We're going to do that
in the five o'clock hour. But more to come here
on the Rotten greg Show on Talk Radio one oh

(19:08):
five nine Canters. Rod usually sits in this seat, but
I am in control of this NASA like board and
we are going to keep on going with these issues
folks right now during the show. I know it's probably
a hard decision for you. Brett Behar is interviewing Kamala
Harris or was at the top of the hour, so
you were probably just torn about what to listen to.
Was it the Rotten Greg Show or was it the interview? Well,

(19:30):
if you've chose the Rotten Gregg Show, let me just
tell you how that some of that interview went. I'm
just getting those reports in right now. Kudos to Brett Behar.
He probably drilled down with Kamala Harris on immigration in
a way we obviously have not seen up to date.
I am so tired of the narrative that did somehow
private citizen Donald Trump killed a Senate bill that was

(19:52):
supposedly this the greatest immigration bill since slice Bread. It
was going to stop all illegal immigration. But Donald Trump
didn't on a political solution so he could run on
it and his presidential campaign, so he unilaterally went out
there and just killed it. That is that that narrative
and that accusation. I didn't even think as great of
a job as Jade Vance did in the vice presidential debate.
I felt like he could have shut that false narrative

(20:15):
down and better, and I don't think he did. But
Brett Baird corrected the record and said, look, men and
Vice President, that bill was a Senate bill and six
Democrats voted against it as well. It would have allowed
one point eight million illegal people to cross legally into
this country. There was there were there were problems with

(20:37):
that bill from beginning, middle to end. It was not
a great bipartisan bill. Frankly, what it was was you
had a few Republicans that liked it because there was
a spending bill they wanted to get to and they
hoped that would be good enough. That was not a
good piece of policy, and you can defend against the
passage of that bill. And it had nothing to do
with Donald Trump going in somehow controlling the Senate and

(20:58):
sixth Senate, you know, Democrat senators to vote against it.
That's a false narrative any culture on it, which I appreciate.
She's also saying breaking news that she does not believe
in decriminalizing the border, and as she has not done
it as vice president, that would be news to all
of us who feel like we're now the country is
a border state. We're all border states. Now the number

(21:18):
that has come across is unparalleled, unprecedented, and it is
in fact decriminalized in that these are considered civil detentions.
If you were to find someone I talked to sheriffs
I'm proud to represent sheriff elected sheriffs in the state
of Utah, that civil detention by ice and the change
in policy with the Biden Harris administration creates a scenario

(21:42):
that jails they're for criminals, and they don't fit in
the in the in the contracts, or in detention because
it's a civil penalty, not a criminal and that that
border and it's illegal crossing has been in fact decriminalized
by this administration. That is not debatable. So so that

(22:02):
debate's going on. We'll probably see clips of it before.
But I just want to share some other things with you. Also,
the rhetoric is heating up. You're hearing you know, we
have a president that's endured two assassination attempts and uh
and it's it's and yet they still want to call
him a fascist. They want to say that he is
a true danger uh to the to Americans and to

(22:25):
the population. And and so we have so we have
that rhetoric heating up, and they yet they don't want
to take any responsibility for some of the violence that's
been attempted against the president, former President Trump because of
their reckless and their vitriolic rhetoric. It's it's just irresponsible
on every front. And and we're gonna get into some

(22:45):
examples of it. But let me give you a contrast
before I do that of a good moment, actually, let
me do this. Let me go to this is the mayor.
This isn't a good moment, this is one of This
is the vitriol. This is the the the kind of
speech that we have no time for that when we
talk about deportation and try to undo the chaos that
that Kamala Harris Joe Biden have created. When you hear

(23:09):
this mayor from Jacksonville, Florida and how she describes deportation, one,
you won't subscribe to it. But this is what this
is how the left wants to describe anything that would
try to fix the chaos we live in with the
open borders that we've had for almost four years.

Speaker 3 (23:26):
But to put people in what would would really amount
to a concentration camp type situation to round them out
of the country doesn't seem to me to be a
very American thing to do.

Speaker 4 (23:37):
I'm the use of the time concentration companies eluded you
consider that's completely justified.

Speaker 1 (23:42):
Well, what what what would we call them?

Speaker 3 (23:44):
If you're rounding people up and putting them in camps,
what what would.

Speaker 1 (23:47):
We call those?

Speaker 3 (23:49):
It's a concentration of people that are in a camp.
I'm not suggesting anything beyond that, but I but I
just think I think it seems rather inhumane to me.

Speaker 1 (24:00):
Going to find out is that the Inspector General, the
Inspector General of the Homeland Security, has shown that hundreds
upon maybe millions of people that have come across are illegal,
have violent criminal histories, back backgrounds. We have hundreds of
thousands of children that have tragically been lost in the Fray,
have been trafficked across across there into our country without

(24:20):
any knowledge of where they are. There is so much
illegality connected to these open borders that all you really
have to do is say that you're going to criminalize
it once again because it's not and that you're going
to deport those, especially those that you are able to
come across. Law enforcement comes across instead of resettling them
somewhere in the United States or giving them a court

(24:41):
date five years from now send them back. That would
be the quickest way. And that does not include any
concentration camp as she's describing. Unless by concentration camp she
means the violent criminals, the people that traffic children, the
people that have that are here and causing the violence
and the chaos and harming our communities. Upon discuss by
law enforcement, they are sent given the turned over to

(25:04):
Ice and immediately deported. That would be I think America.
But without regard to political party support that and that
is not a reference to a Nazi concentration camp, as
the Jacksonville mayor has said it was. So uh, that's
some of the that's some of the inflammatory language that
we're gonna have to endure from now to election day
because they are getting desperate. They're going to it's gonna

(25:26):
get worse out there, folks, in terms of what they're
willing to say about President Trump if elected. It's going
to blow your mind and it's gonna sound sick, and
we just have to know and that that's that's that's
the last card they have with this candidate, especially as
this Brent Barry interview is not going well. All right,
we got more to talk about when we come back
after the break. You're listening to Talk Radio one oh

(25:47):
five nine Canterais. There's there are there is no trade
if we can't send things to other countries and enjoy
this a similar trade experience with those other countries. A
Liz's example where we did not raise a tariff, or
we had a tariff and we would lower it if
they lowered theirs, suggests the existence of a tariff where
there are no tariffs. In a country like China, three

(26:09):
hundred million people in their middle class alone, not old people,
young people, just three hundred million in their buying class.
You would think that the United States, it's American automakers,
you name it, have plenty of vehicles, it would be
attractive to China and it's middle class, and they are,
but their tariffs are so high. What China says to
GM and Ford and everyone else is that you come

(26:32):
to our country and you domicile here, you build your
plants here, and you hire China workers from China to
build these cars. Then you get into the the the
the proprietary information that gets stolen. You get and all
of that happens, but that tariff prevents them for US

(26:52):
export our cars there, you end up building them there.
Trump would like that so be reversed and see US
build and sell and export from the United States. We
come back, we're going to talk about an election audit.
Stay tuned. I have so much information here that these
segments just go too fast. I'm going to try and
get through this as clearly and as quickly as I can.

(27:14):
I'm staring at an article from twenty twenty one December eighth,
twenty twenty one, where after the twenty twenty election, election
integrity became an issue and that discussion was on front
of mind here in the state of Utah. We had
lawmakers who wanted to see an audit of our election
process to see if, like other states, we had some

(27:35):
areas of improvement that needed to happen, greater transparency, chain
of custody issues on our ballots. There were some very
an ap story of that date December eighth, twenty twenty one,
a Republican Lieutenant Governor Dieter Henderson, the election's chief, had
some very harsh words for the legislators who decided in

(27:56):
the legislature who decided who had asked for an audit this,
she said, from all the things that I have seen,
the endgame here is to fundamentally destroy the voting system
we have here in the state of Utah. Let's not
deliberately spread lize falsehoods, misinformation and do it in a
way that ensures that people don't have access to the ballot.

(28:17):
My question to those elected officials, and she's talking to
the legislators who ask for the audit, is why are
you allowed? Why are you afraid to let people vote?
She went on to say in that article, I'm very
concerned about any lawmaker who signs on to these notions
that where there is no evidence and these are baseless
allegations that were deliberately making them in order to undermine

(28:39):
public trust and faith in our foundation of our democratic republic.
They're doing it, doing it not to solve problems, but
to score political points. To me, that's reprehensible and that
is what I'm concerned about. I don't think you get
any more pointed. I don't think that you could be
more fundamentally outraged that you're processes and systems of how

(29:01):
we certify elections or signatures in the state. How dare you?
Is that? Is that argument to lawmakers and by extension,
to any Utah citizen who's worried about transparency and chain
of custody and legitimacy of our election process. I'm going
to play a clip for you just this month. Let's see, Yeah,

(29:21):
in October, it might have been late September. The Lieutenant governor, who's,
by the way, is running for a re election with
Spencer Cox on the ballot. Was that the I think
it was the Hinckley School of politics, But they asked
her about election integrity and what she's doing to protect
it and the concerns that are not just national but
are here also in the state of Utah and have

(29:43):
become an issue. Let's hear what Lieutenant Governor Dedra Henderson
had to say about her role and her job in
the elections office.

Speaker 5 (29:52):
It's just not politically popular, especially for someone in my
political party to stand up for elections. It's just not
and and so you know, we don't score political points
by speaking truth in elections in my party. And that's hard.

Speaker 1 (30:15):
So she continues to frame this as this is any
question about transparency, chain of custody process, and how elections
are conducted and if they're done accurately, is no more
than just cheap retail politics looking to score political points.
And in that quote that you just saw, she is condemning.

(30:36):
She's saying it's very hard for her to do the
right thing and to stick up for election integrity, of which,
if you listen to the Lieutenant governor's comments, there is
nothing that merits scrutiny. There is nothing that merits and
improvement in our process. I don't I don't want to
lose street cred with you folks, but I did what

(30:57):
Andrew Breitbart said, you do, you go into the belly
of the bea. I participate in the PBS Hinkley Reports.
It's a newsca. It's a kind of a political talk show.
It's on public television. It's very whispery, and I'm not
very whisp I'm not a very whispery guy. But I
got a minute of that clip. I got a couple
clips i'd like to share with you of an exchange
I had about election integrity and in light of the

(31:19):
comments that you just heard. So that clip you just
heard was played in this panel for this program that
I participated in on the Hinckley report. And this was
one of the things I said. By the way, this
is October fourth, so not in hindsight, not since the
audit came out, this is October fourth, earlier this month.
So what you're hearing is this is a very personalized issue.

(31:40):
So you hear at Lieutenant Governor talking about the security
of our elections and her statement that defending our elections
process is not popular in Utah. I could not disagree more.
What we're talking about is and when I served as
a public servant, I would never tell you that our
processes in government are perfect or that they have no problems,

(32:00):
or that there aren't things going on that are anomalies
or irregularities that we have to look at. Government is
not a perfect thing, and it's processes or not. The
way you solve that is transparency. It's always been put
the bright lights of transparency on your process. So when
it comes to elections, chain of custody, transparency, if we
can improve in any of those areas, and there's been
audits that have given recommendations and findings to say we

(32:23):
can be the state of you talk and do this
in a more transparent way. That is not an indictment
on our lieutenant governor. That did not mean that she's
not an honest person. But if her position is to
even ask or to want more transparency is an attack
on her or her office, it just simply is not.
And so I am at a loss of why this

(32:43):
is such a personal issue for the lieutenant governor that
she would not join every Utah and the legislature and saying, look,
let's stare at these processes, let's see if we're getting
it right. Let me go one more clip real quick,
let me go one more here, And this was again
I get a little pushback. We got a Democrat on there, great,

(33:05):
great member of the House, Jennifer represented, Jennifer Daily provo.
She's in their House minority leadership. I quite like her,
but of course she's going to have a different opinion.
And her point is that she was I'm responding to
her point that the only people that ever want election
integrity issues looked at her those that lose elections, and
that's just what it really is all about. And I

(33:27):
respond to that, you had to have like a what
was it a point five percent to even qualify for
that account prior. Let me give some reference there. This
is the moment where I'm talking about we were able
to find some anomaly, some problems with our election when
the congressional race between Congresswoman Celestia Malloy and Kobe Jenkins,
over seven hundred thousand people voted, came down to seventh

(33:49):
came down one hundred and forty eight votes, which triggered
a recount and greater transparency on a process that otherwise
it would not have had. And so that's that is that,
that's what I'm referencing. On the half of percent here
to that recount, we were told that these processes are
without air, they are without a problem. That unique situation

(34:10):
did allow for some additional scrutiny. I think where the
suspicion just rises, even by perception, is if we're saying
this whole system's fine, it isn't wrong. We're not doing
it in a way that we're doing it accurately. It's safe,
you can depend on it. But as you look at that,
in that case, there were things that were different than
the way it's been described as a process that doesn't

(34:33):
have those types of problems. There were problems. Just be
open to that, always be and keep that. I would take,
for instance, the signatures to qualify for the ballot. I
don't know when that law changed. Because those used to
be public records that you could see the signatures of
those that qualified. That isn't a public record anymore, and
I don't know that that serves to raise the level

(34:54):
of confidence with the public in our elections process. Those
things are what I'm arguing should be far more transpar
than we have right now. Well, guess what, folks, The
audit came in, and that happens to be the case.
It's not hard. I mean, these aren't. Actually, it doesn't
take an audit to say what I said on October
fourth or what I've been saying and what you the
listeners have been saying, and that is we need a

(35:16):
lot lot more transparency in this process. Key findings, so
you know from this audit, let me read them to you.
A random sample of signatures identified some errors. Improvements should
be made to signature verification processes. Another finding signature verification
standards would benefit from Get this hang onto your hat.

(35:37):
Further clarification and transparency recommendations. The Office of Lieutenant Governor
should establish and follow a quality control process for calculating
an error rate on signature verification of candidate petition packets
and factor that error rate into the number of signatures
that must be verified for each candidate. They should require training.

(35:59):
Imagine this training to be done based on the errors
that are identified in the quality control process. They should
further clarify what substantially similar these are quoted words that
they use by way of rule or quote reasonably consistent
actually mean in the context of signature verification. They should
make They should make sure the standards and assumptions and

(36:21):
characteristics are utilized by election officials to determine validity of
the signatures and administer and administrative and training sources should
be made publicly accessible. They found errors, folks. They took
a thousand of each of John Curtis's, Spencer Cox and
Derek Brown's signatures a thousand, and they found incorrectly validated

(36:43):
signatures in those sample portions. And they can extrapolate that
there were a lot more errors based on what they
were able to find. These are the problems that we
have been saying all along. I have more that I
can get into in this audit, but I would love
to hear from you as well. I know this is
an issue that been hot and it's been heavy on
everybody's minds eight eight eight five seven zero eight zero

(37:06):
one zero eight eight eight five seven zero eight zero
one zero. If you would like to comment on the
audit on transparency and integrity in our elections and the
signature process, and I'll tell you if you were someone
that was trying to get signatures for the flag issue,
were you given the benefit of the doubt? Were you
given the past? Was it was it easy peasy getting
those signatures in? And was everybody saying no harm, no

(37:28):
foul like they are now. I'd love to hear from
you as well, So we're gonna get to your calls
when we come back. You're listening to Talk Radio one
oh five nine Canteras. But right now we've been talking
about the legislative audit that came out last night yesterday
afternoon with key findings and recommendations from our Legislative Auditor
General on how to improve our our election and our

(37:49):
specifically our signature verifying processes. And it turns out we
have room for improvement. I don't know why that would
be earth shattering or news to anyone who knows government
or knows its tendencies. But apparently the Lieutenant governor was
swearing prior to this audit that any question of the

(38:10):
election process was just cheap political points with no merit
to it whatsoever, and that what they did was absolutely
fine and above reproach. But the audit does identify that
of the twenty eight thousand signatures that were meant to
be that were validated to qualify for the ballot, you
have some that were validated but should not have been.
So let's go to let's get to the phones. Let's

(38:32):
say you folks, let's go to Richard in Mill Creek. Richard,
welcome to the program sir, thank you for holding what
say you?

Speaker 6 (38:40):
Well?

Speaker 7 (38:41):
Thank you?

Speaker 8 (38:41):
Greg.

Speaker 7 (38:42):
Let me just I'll stick to my notes. Why but
you know, I came out of the womb or Republican.

Speaker 8 (38:47):
I was.

Speaker 7 (38:48):
My dad was a chief of a chief of staff
the US senator as a kid. So I decided to
become a state delegate this year. And it was an
absolute eye opener. And I think you and Rod Bryce
cast from the convention. But Phil Wyman absolutely flew that
convention away in front of four thousand people. And here's
Cox getting himself booed right off the stage, and when
he had an opportunity to follow up, he sent a

(39:11):
rancher out there because he didn't want to be subjected
to the to all the negative things that were being
said about him. And as you obviously also know, he
was the only incumbent that's got less than forty percent
of the vote to automatically qualify to be on the ballot.
And I'm I'm just looking at this. I'm going and
then you wonder why, you know, they don't want to
verify the signatures or white nobody wants to verify. Well,

(39:31):
you've got Henderson, who's his running mate, who's responsible for verifying,
verifying the signatures. So of course she's going to say
what she's been saying all day. And the bottom line,
as you said, this audit, it definitely proves shows that
he just doesn't have the signatures. And when you look
at that, and then you think, and I guarantee you Greg,
the same thing is true with John Curtis, is true

(39:54):
with Derek Brown. And my humble opinion is my personal
belief is in Utah, this is this, this is the
most corrupt place I've ever lived in terms of the
way they handle this whole election process. This isn't an election,
it's a coronation. And in my opinion, you look on
the ballot today, we don't have one legitimate candidate. Almost
every candidate on this ballot now is someone who used

(40:16):
the signature process to get on the ballot. And this
is why I'm aggressively and very aggressively supporting Phil Wyman,
because I would read I would so much rather write
him in. And I think I think we all ought
to be looking at that. We ought to likit every
one of these candidates and look at look at what
happened at the convention, and give these guys a chance.

Speaker 1 (40:35):
And Richard, I got it. Thank you so much for
your call, Thank you for holding, and I appreciate the take.
We've got a lot of calls. I'm trying to get
to these calls, but I'm telling you you can hear
the passion and Richard's voice. He's you know, he's he's
frustrated and rightly. So let's go to Brian and Bluffdale. Brian,
thank you for holding, thank you for calling the Rod

(40:56):
and Greg show. What's say you, sir?

Speaker 9 (40:59):
Hey, Greg, I had a big spiel I was gonna
tell you about I'm gonna tell you just.

Speaker 4 (41:06):
The previous caller, Richard.

Speaker 1 (41:08):
I believe, Yes, he's spot on.

Speaker 4 (41:11):
He is spot on.

Speaker 9 (41:14):
And uh uh Dedra the as far as I'm concerned,
she at the very least, she's a.

Speaker 10 (41:23):
Lino just like her her boss.

Speaker 11 (41:26):
Uh.

Speaker 9 (41:27):
And I'm just gonna leave it at that.

Speaker 10 (41:29):
Richard was spot on.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
Yeah, I appreciate it. Thank you, Thank you, Brian, thank
you for your comments. Let's go now to Tina, Tina
in Davis County. Tina, thank you for holding. Welcome to
the Rod and Greg show. Uh this this audit, what
do you think about it?

Speaker 12 (41:49):
Well, I'm just a little bit frustrated to stay the least.
I am a delegate, I.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
I ran for a position. I'm on the state Central.

Speaker 12 (42:00):
We've been fighting this battle now for months in trying
to be able to get the audits, to be able
to verify the signatures, and we've been told the entire
time there's nothing to see here, and clearly there is
something to see here. I was at the Davis County
Administration building today where we had a tour of the

(42:21):
facility there and Brian McKenzie took questions and he was,
you know, just giving an a plus report on the
whole signature process, and I asked him, I said, you know,
I'm offended that you're sitting here telling me that I
have nothing to be concerned about, when yesterday it's reported

(42:42):
that the signatures were we didn't yet. I'm supposed to
feel comfortable with mailing ballots and the signatures that have
to be verified. It's absolutely crazy. In June, well, first
there was the publican convention, which has already been said
Phil Lyman one handily with a huge percentage. Cox didn't

(43:07):
even qualify. Frankly, I believe that Rob Axton should have
sent his name all the way to the general according
to our constitution. In June, Cox won the primary.

Speaker 2 (43:17):
I don't know.

Speaker 12 (43:18):
I'm kind of wondering if they had a problem counting.

Speaker 13 (43:20):
Those bas as well. You know, I have to take
a criminal investigation.

Speaker 1 (43:24):
Yeah, I have to go. I appreciate so much. I
have to go to a break. We have callers on hold.
I want to get to these callers after we come
out the other side. Thank you for calling outside the
other side of this break. I knew that we'd hear
from you. I know that there's been frustration on this
for a long time. So we're going to stay with
this topic and these calls and your observations when we
come back to the Roden Greg Show here on Talk

(43:44):
Radio one oh five nine KNRS. I said seven hundred
thousand votes. It was not it was over one hundred thousand.
It was one hundred and seven thousand, over one hundred
and seven thousand votes cast in the primary in CD
two that election with one hundred and forty six votes
difference or there in about I mean, it's very close
to that number, but that's the half a percent that
triggered a recount, which shouldn't be that need to be

(44:07):
that close to have a recount. But what that did
is allowed for worker poll watchers from both campaigns to
kind of look, watch and learn, and there were errors
and there were things that were discovered that wouldn't have otherwise,
which is I would say healthy to the process. Things
that we can learn and improve from. And that's kind
of the point, isn't it. Let's go to Andrew and Sandy. Andrew,

(44:29):
thank you for holding and thank you for calling the
Rod and Greg Show. What do you have to say
about this audit where we have signatures that were verified, validated,
but actually we have signatures that should not have been validated.

Speaker 8 (44:44):
Yeah, I agree with a lot of your previous callers.
You know, there's a lot of I think confusion with
the election process that creates a lot of distrust amongst
the population. You look at sports, for example, there's replay,
there's challenges, there's all this stuff, and that allows the
fan base to accept the outcome. The elections are the opposite.
Everything's hush hush, private. You can't see the names on

(45:06):
signature oals and just create suspicion and creates distrust amongst
the population. In my opinion, with the outcome of the audit,
kind of what we all expected Cox and Henderson to
step down. This is complete dishonesty, and I would prefer
I'd love to have the GOP for the state of
Utah stepping and take their names off the ballot, reprint

(45:26):
the ballots, whatever they need to do, because this is
complete dishonesty. They're stealing the election essentially.

Speaker 1 (45:33):
Thank you, Andrew. I got to tell you're not alone
in that sentiment. It's whether it was on purpose or
whether it's just a neglect or just a hubris. I
actually put it in the area of Huberts. I think
there is just you for someone to take it personally
that we want to study, understand, and improve our election
processes through greater transparency, stronger chain of custody. Anybody who says, well,

(45:58):
that's a kooky idea. You're just trying to score political points,
I think they are detached from what the rest of
us are feeling and seeing out there. Let's go to
k in South Jordan. Kay, welcome to the program. What
say you.

Speaker 6 (46:16):
Hi there?

Speaker 13 (46:16):
I just wanted to tell you really nailed it. I mean,
why are we being shamed for asking for transparency? Why
is it that when we ask for grammar requests and
grammar request and I know that Phil Lyman and Natalie
Cloth and have filed numerous grammar requests, asking for cast
boat wrecords, asking for voter rolls, things that are normally

(46:37):
available and that by law should be available, some of
these things. But ddres up there, the megalomaniac, and she
gets to decide, Oh, no, we're just going to deny
that request. Oh we're going to just put that off. No,
we're not going to respond to that. Why is that
we've asked for? Phil Lyman said many times if Spencer
Cox would show us his signatures and I could see
that that was valid, then I would step aside. But

(46:59):
they refuse to do it. Now, why are they refusing
to do that? I mean, it makes absolutely no sense.
But you know, just to let all those Utahns out
there know, there should have never been a primary with
Spencer Cox, because our Republican rules say that if you
do not hit that forty percent threshold, regardless of whether
or not you gather signatures, you do not go on

(47:21):
to the general. And any nominee that got over sixty percent,
which would include Phil Lyman, Trance Staggs, and their a
few other Chris Kimball, a few others, if they got
over that percentage, they go directly directly.

Speaker 6 (47:33):
To the general.

Speaker 13 (47:34):
But somehow those rules are misinterpreted and they're changed, And
I really wonder rob Axson said he sent the letter
saying who's supposed to be on the ballot, and Spencer
Cox's name wasn't on it? So whose line is it?
Rob Axson? Or is it Dedra who's in charge of
her own election? And why don't we have a secretary
of state?

Speaker 1 (47:52):
Okay, you're a gatling gun of of points and I
can't agree more. We got some people. I'm running out
of a segment, but thank you so much for coming
and then you're you know, and well taken. I appreciate
it so much. Let's quickly let's go to Aaron Davidson
in Utah County. Aaron, welcome to the Rodd and Greg Show.
Let's say you, sir, you might have a unique insight

(48:14):
into this audit and its conclude or its findings. Yeah.

Speaker 11 (48:20):
Well, I mean the biggest finding for me is the
fact that it came out that signature verification is a
subjective process. I've been arguing that and lieutenant governors chastised
me because I am the Utah County Clerk in Utah County,
and they ran me through the media just last month
and also in January for saying that and outcomes this

(48:42):
report saying that signature verification is subjective.

Speaker 1 (48:47):
So let me make that clear sea that everybody heard
it because I saw it on our color ID. But
I wanted you to go ahead and share with our
listeners who you are. You are the Utah County Clerk.
It is the second largest county, most populous county in
the state of Utah. You've been very candid about your
concerns about the subjective nature of signature verifications its processes,
and you've been beat up a little bit for it,
haven't you. I have, yes, and I've read the I've

(49:11):
read the same audit you have, and it absolutely verifies
that there it is. There is no set policy. It
even points out states that have a far greater prescriptive
process for this that that Utah would do well to
follow or improve upon. So where do you go from here? Uh,
Aaron Davidson, our Utah County clerk, with this, with this
audit in hand, what's your next step to make sure

(49:34):
that your voters get their votes counted and that this
process gets better.

Speaker 11 (49:39):
Well, I've been the big advocate of using in person
or the drop boxes and shy away from the using
the US Postal Service. There's been some other issues with
the US Postal Service. But you know, I was kind
of beat up and said I need to be a
little bit more lenient with my signature verification. But this

(50:00):
report basically justifies my position, and I feel like I'm
not going to back down on signature verification. I'm not
going to be super strict, but we're going to maintain
the same standard that we have.

Speaker 4 (50:12):
In the past.

Speaker 1 (50:13):
I appreciate your call. I appreciate your leadership. Look you,
I don't know if you heard at the pre game
of the program, but we played the Lieutenant governor's comments
and she had nothing but vitriol for anyone who questioned
this process. Sounds like you're on the receiving end of that.
Your point about maybe we shouldn't have the US Postal
Service administer our elections in delivering these ballots is heard

(50:34):
loud and clear for me. Maybe you can mail them out,
but you certainly should have to bring them into a
drop box. And I wouldn't mind having if you had
maybe volunteer judges that can scan a driver's license when
they bring their ballot to the drop box. Wouldn't that be.

Speaker 11 (50:47):
Something that would be you know, I actually just found
out that Minnesota you actually have to have your signature
validated by a dang it, I'm missing the term.

Speaker 1 (51:04):
A notary.

Speaker 11 (51:06):
A notary. Thank you, I just mind, don't worry. So
someone from Minnesota came into our office and are my
assistant elections director just became a notary. And she kind
of came into my office and was kind of excited
about the fact that she had to notarize a voter's signature.
Going back to Minnesota.

Speaker 1 (51:26):
Yeah, I think there's a lot of examples. The audit
points out there states doing it a lot better than
Utah that we can we can always improve these processes.
Thank you for speaking up, and thank you for calling
into the show. I think it's important for our callers,
to our listeners to know we have public servants out
there that aren't all in lockstep with with the lack
of transparency or the chain of cussy that absolutely could improve. Look,

(51:50):
there's still more calls. I'm gonna stick with this this
entire hour. If I'm in, you're If you're in, I'm in,
and I see that the lines of it lit up.
If you'd like to call comment number eight eight eight
five seven zero eight zero one zero. We're gonna have
one more segment of calls if we can keep him brief,
because I'd like to get to everyone that's been patiently
waiting on the on the line when we come back
after the break. You're listening to the Rotting Greg Show

(52:12):
here on Talk Radio one oh five nine Cannus. The
audit the election. Let's go to Russell, who's been patiently
waiting in Syracuse. Russell, thank you for waiting, Thank you
for calling the rotting Greg Show, what say you, sir?

Speaker 4 (52:25):
Hey, citizen to you. Thanks for taking my call.

Speaker 1 (52:27):
Thank you for holding, sir. You've been patient.

Speaker 4 (52:30):
Yeah, no worries. So yeah, there's a lot of sentiments,
a lot of all the callers have listed a lot
of you know, damning, you know, scenarios that our leaders
are doing.

Speaker 11 (52:46):
And you know.

Speaker 4 (52:49):
This nonsense started back in two thousand and four, when
you know the judge overturned the world of people about
how marriage is supposed to be in the state. I mean,
there's be fifty four, there's there's just a list, a
myriad of things, and that's all fine and dandy, because
you know, if we look at the Book of Mormon,

(53:13):
this is going to happen like we have to repent
as a people. That's my only comment.

Speaker 1 (53:19):
Russell, thank you for your call. Appreciate it. Let's go
to Let's go to Chris in Lehi. Chris, thank you
for holding. Thank you for calling the Rod and Greg
Show what say you? Sir?

Speaker 5 (53:29):
Yeah?

Speaker 10 (53:30):
Great, thank you. My question is since Cocks, clearly at
this point it seems did not reach the twenty eight
thousand threshold. We now have Stuart Adams and Mike Schultz
coming out and making a statement saying not to worry,
it's not going to change the upcoming elections. I'd like
to know what legal authority they have to circumvent election
lawn and essentially throw out the requirement for the twenty

(53:52):
eight thousand signatures.

Speaker 1 (53:54):
You know what I'm I'm going to answer that. I
know it's a good question, and mine with one of
the conclusions, and I don't know if I'll have time
because I want to hear from the callers that I'm
going to make is that there is a completely inconsistent
application of the law when it comes to election laws.
If you are an in favor candidate and in favor issue,
you seem to have a very different path in front
of you than an out of favor candidate or an

(54:15):
out of favor issue. It's one that the legislature is
going to have to address systemically. But as far as
this election goes, the argument's going to be made and
no one's going to challenge it. They could that the
candidates acted in good faith and they depended on the
election's clerk to administer their job accurately and faithfully, and
they were not allowed to submit more signatures after they

(54:36):
were told that their signatures had been verified. We've learned
that they are no longer that that's not the case,
but that's going to be their statement. But what I'd
like to see from this legislature is a true review
and change this process one that it has more transparency,
is stronger chain of custody. Let's go to do we
have time? E ray for another Let's go one more.
Tracy and Riverton, thank you for holding what say you?

Speaker 9 (55:00):
Hi?

Speaker 6 (55:01):
I was a part of the Flag initiative. I started
the flag initiative to try to get the signatures and
restore our state flag. And the way they treated us
was totally different of how they're treating this situation. You
made one mistake.

Speaker 1 (55:18):
No, you're supposed to, Tracy. You should get the benefit
of the doubt. You should get the benefit of the doubt.
Like everybody, just did you know you did you work
in good faith? Right?

Speaker 6 (55:28):
Yeah? She was one mistake on a date that somebody
misput their date. They would disqualify fifty signatures and the
like Aaron Davidson would would qualify the packet, and it
would go up to her and they would go through
those books and try to find anything, and then they'd
send them back and say, you can't count these. This
is how bad they were to us.

Speaker 1 (55:48):
Tracy, you got my ear. I'm going to hear the
outro music here any second, but I want to I
want to confirm what I just heard you say. So
you'd have a packet, it would have fifty signatures in it.
They have a date on one of the signature lines.
It's wrong, and so they would throw out all the signatures,
including the illegally submitted ones, correct all of them. Wow,

(56:09):
so they did that for you. But the signatures that
didn't qualify to twenty eight thousand for the candidates are
those are going to be fine? Hey, thank you for
your call. Thank you for that information. I think that's
again that shows that there are two standards going on
in this state right now, and it's a it's a tragedy, folks.
I've run out of time. I wish so badly I
could take your call. We got to move on to

(56:29):
some other topics here, but I have more to say
about this issue in coming. Shows that we weren't able
to get to today because this issue is bigger than
just two segments or an hour. We have Susan Shelley
coming up to talk about the deportation of illegals. What
should happen? What should not happen? When we come back
on the Roden greg Show here on Talk radio one
oh five nine canners, We're going to start the hour

(56:53):
talking to Susan Shelley. An incredible article in the Los
Angeles Daily News about what the US government should do
the US. The title of her column is, the US
government should be removing, not shielding migrants with criminal records.
Susan Shelley, Welcome to the show. I appreciate you joining us.
Here's what I keep hearing from the regime I call
them the regime media. What are you going to do

(57:14):
with the children? What are you going to do with
these If you're going to support mass deportation by the
way most Americans do because of what's happening to our states,
what are you going to do with children? Trying to
make it sound like it's the worst thing anyone's ever done.
You know, what do you say to a question that
is framed that way?

Speaker 14 (57:32):
Well, the first thing is to sort out what the
situation is for the children we're talking about. If we're
talking about families that are right out of a nineteen
fifty sitcom, the mother and the father and the child,
and they're coming over for a better life. That's one situation.
But what if the children are being trafficked. What if
they're being brought over by cartel members, what if they've

(57:54):
been sold. There are more than three hundred thousand children
who have come over the border unaccompanied. The government doesn't
know where they are. The US government has lost track
of them. This could be a very dire situation for
these little kids who are coming over the border, either
with traffickers or unaccompanied sent by traffickers. So we really
have to change the subject to what's the circumstance that

(58:17):
these children are in and are we rescuing them by
taking them away from the adults who have custody of
them at the border. So that's a big question, and
we don't know. And one of the problems with this
open border policy that the Biden Harris administration has put
in place is that we don't know who anybody is.
They're coming over the border without identification documents, and we

(58:40):
just found out from an Inspector General's Report. At DHS,
the Department of Homeland Security, the immigration officers are not
even required to keep track of how many people are
coming in without identification documents, So essentially they just type
into the database whatever the immigrant tells them who they are,
what their background is, what where they're coming from, their age, anything.

(59:02):
Any information that they have that's biographical is typed into
the system as if it's verified, and it's completely not verified,
so we don't know who anybody is. And in response
to a letter from members of Congress, the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Service just told us how many thousands, tens

(59:23):
of thousands of convicted criminals are in our country right
now because they were released by our immigration services into
the country. Why because well, they say they don't have
enough beds to detain everyone who doesn't have identification while
they check them, so they just let them in. And
there's more than thirteen thousand convicted murderers that they know

(59:43):
of who are in the country right now.

Speaker 1 (59:46):
We're speaking with Susan Shelley talking about the governments requirement
we should be removing, not shielding migrants with criminal records.
The numbers that you're sharing or staggering. And this just
came with the Inspector General report timely today. I read
that the Afghan refugee as he's been called, that came
here after the withdrawal from Afghanistan, that the Biden and

(01:00:10):
Harris administration had said those migrants, those refugees had been
thoroughly vetted. They have apprehended, arrested this one individual who
had planned a terroristic event on an election day, and
it turns out today the news is that he had
not been vetted as thoroughly as originally reported. So in
addition to the criminals that they've let through that the

(01:00:31):
Inspector General has showed us, you have this refugee program
that's new under this administration, and you know Biden and
our borders are Harris. Add that to the concern about
the dangerous people that are in here through this refugee program.
How do you imagine if President Trump were re elected

(01:00:52):
as president in this next election, what would it look
like to begin to identify and to remove people that
are sincerely and legitimately dangerous to the general public.

Speaker 14 (01:01:05):
Well at the point where they're in the custody of
law enforcement, whether federal or state or local, there is
an opportunity to transfer them to another country. And I
think that's how this would work. If people are apprehended,
even on traffic violations, and we know that they have
extensive criminal records, and we've done biometric matches of fingerprints

(01:01:27):
or whatever else they're checking. If we know that they
have criminal records and they are in the custody of
law enforcement, instead of going into some migrant resettlement program
where we put them up in a hotel in New
York at our expense, instead of that, they would go
into a transfer program to return them to the country
of origin. I think that's how that would work. I

(01:01:48):
don't foresee that President Trump would go door to door
and look for people who are in the country without documentation.
He's never said that that's his intent. But certainly the
people who are in custody who currently are being released
because they're in sanctuary cities or sanctuary states like California,
and none of the law enforcement agencies will cooperate with

(01:02:08):
an ICE detainer. So if there is a detainer in
place where someone is to be returned to federal immigration authorities,
the local governments are refusing to do it, and people
are being released and then we have needless preventable crimes
against the people of the United States. This is not
national security. You know, we have a Department of Homeland
Security that was formed to prevent foreign threats, and as

(01:02:32):
I said in the column, it's now a doorman for them.

Speaker 1 (01:02:35):
Yeah, you know. I just final question from me, and
thank you by the way. You make so much sense.
I mean, this is common sense and I appreciate it
because you're exactly right. With the volume of people we
have with criminal records, upon any apprehension at all, this
should be a milk run, frankly, to be able to
remove these people that got here illegally and had no

(01:02:56):
business being here in the first place. And I agree
with you that that is a doing that would be
day and night different than what we're seeing today. We
here in Utah, we have a suburb in Salt Lake
County where you would never expect it, where we have
six thousand Venezuelan refugees that are impacting our public schools
and our jobs and our public safety. And there's just

(01:03:17):
a but people they want to be nice neighbors, they
want to try and help, but there is just a
we feel like a border state Shelley. I think every
state is feeling like a border state. My question to
you is, do you have any sense of how much
this is a bipartisan issue of we have got to
clean this up, We have got to address what's happened
in the last three and a half years. And it

(01:03:38):
really isn't political anymore. It's really not part of a
political party. It's about our our public safety and our
schools and jobs and housing and everything else. You get
a sense of that.

Speaker 14 (01:03:49):
Yes, absolutely, I do. I think people throughout the country
are just feeling like their government has abandoned them and
doesn't put their needs first. There are elected represents, and
they're putting the needs of people from other countries ahead
of their own citizens, and people I think are tired
of it. People who are low income and rely on
public services, subsidized housing and different programs, they're the ones

(01:04:12):
that are paying the steepest price for this because the
housing is not available and the resources are not available.
We've seen public parks and even schools be turned into
migrant shelters at the expense of the community that relies
on those amenities and that paid for those amenities, and
it isn't right there's no reason for this. There's no
reason for having complete uncontrolled immigration at the southern border.

(01:04:37):
Tens of thousands, millions of people. No one even knows,
but we certainly know that we're paying for it, and
we didn't authorize that, we didn't vote for it.

Speaker 1 (01:04:45):
Thank you, Susan Shelley, Los Angeles Daily News article. Very informative.
Thank you very much. We'll be back. Stay tuned. We're
going to talk to Patrick O'Donnell. Has writtenn incredible book.
Is also going to tell us about the First October
Surprise and presidential history way back in in the day's
of Lincoln. Yeah, they've been around a long time. You're
gonna want to hang on and hear that. That interview
we're coming up right next after this break. You're listening

(01:05:08):
to the Roden Greig Show here on Talk Radio one
oh five nine. Canteris Patrick O'Donnell. He's an acclaimed military
historian and he's written a bunch of books. I thought
I read most a lot of them, but he's actually
thirteen novels he's written or military history books. His recent one,
The Unvanquished. You got to get it if you haven't.
It tells the story of the elite secret forces that

(01:05:31):
both the Union Armies Confederates had and how that shaped
this country forever. In that he does an essay just
recently in Fox News about the first October Surprise. Back
in October of eighteen sixty four. There's a Civil war
going on in the United States. President Abraham Lincoln's in
the middle of his reelection and there's some people that

(01:05:52):
want to say, Hey, it's this We got to get
rid of this Lincoln guy. We're in a war we
can't get out of, and there's an October Surprise that
lands here in America. To explain that the details of
that and why that might be relevant in the days
that we live in now, is joining us on the show.
Patrick O'Donnell. Patrick, thank you so much for joining us

(01:06:12):
on this program. You're a historian, you know these facts,
you know these details. You don't mess around. Maybe you
can share for listeners what it was it like back
in eighteen sixty four for President Abraham Lincoln in his
reelection in the middle of October.

Speaker 15 (01:06:26):
The October Surprise, arguably the first was in October eighteen
sixty four, which at that time was the most important
election in American history. The Civil War is ranging and
Lincoln is fretting his reelection. He's very gloomy about the
prospects in recently. Only a few weeks earlier, the Democrats

(01:06:51):
had their convention in Chicago, ironically, and it was the
Copperhead Democrats who were the rising movement and the most
powerful arm within the Democratic Party at the time, and
they had their campaign platform, which was written by the
Confederate Secret Service, was a an armistice with the South,

(01:07:12):
to make peace with the South. It was a forever war,
as they said, and there was a need for course correction,
and there was only one way to win the war,
which is negotiating. And that also meant the continuations slavery.
And it's in that sort of arena that we find
ourselves in October eighteen sixty four, and the Confederate Army

(01:07:34):
has a huge surprise for Abraham Lincoln to benefit the
Copperhead movement and to benefit George McClellan who's running against Lincoln,
and that is to defeat an army on the battlefield
at a place called Cedar Creek. And this is right
outside of Winchester, Virginia. It's only a few miles away
and on October eighteenth, the Union army had a glaring

(01:07:57):
weakness in its lines. General John Brown Gordon, who's one
of the most audacious Confederate generals, a few days earlier
climbed up on a nearby mountain with his field glasses
and noticed that General Sheridan had left his left flank
open because there was a massive mountain guarding it and
they thought it was impassable. I mean, Gordon saw an

(01:08:18):
opportunity there, and they had about fifteen thousand Confederates. In
the dead of night on October eighteenth, they launched a
surprise attack and it was an overwhelming surprise that nearly,
you know, destroyed Sheridan's army. That morning, around five am,
you know, with the autumn mists and fog, the Confederate

(01:08:40):
army crossed, you know, remote mountain trails and surprised the
sleeping Union army and surprised them in their tents and
was murdering them with bannets. And it was an absolute route.
Gordon's men and jubil early were controlling the field and
it was the Confederate had had Most of the men

(01:09:01):
were shoeless. They were also hungry. They had been marching
for almost twenty four hours, and they stumbled upon, you know,
food in the Union camp and they started to eat it.
And in early seas in the morning, around ten a m.
That they had nearly destroyed the entire Union army, but
they were concerned about the exhaustion of his men. And

(01:09:21):
he pauses and Gordon is, you know, dumbstruck, because he
kind of it looks like Jettisburg all over again, is
what he says, and his heart literally sinks to his boots.
And this is called the fatal Pause. And the Confederates
are winning the entire battle, and they paused at about
ten thirty in the morning, and they start to hear

(01:09:43):
this cheer in the background and they sense that there's
probably Union reinforcements, maybe an entire core coming up, when
in reality it's one man, General Sheridan, riding on a
horse all the way from Winchester to Middleton, virgin and
it's called the Ride, and it's one of the most
epic rides in the American history of world history. And

(01:10:06):
he rallies his men as he's riding through their ranks
as they're retreating, and he rallies them and they stand
firm and they initially their lines kind of they settle down,
and then they face the Confederates and it's at that
point he launches a massive counter attack and the Union
the Confederate lines actually hold and you know, for several

(01:10:31):
hours they hold, and eventually the Confederates are flanked and
it becomes one of the great you know, comebacks in
all American history. And it's called the Ride and and
and during the campaign they literally feature shared in his
horse and it's you know, the famous thing you don't

(01:10:53):
want to change horses mid Stream comes from this battle
at Cedar Creek, and it's one of my favorite stories
in The Unvanquished, which is, as you mentioned, a best
selling book about the Jesse Scouts, which is Lincoln special
forces who have a role in this battle. And they
literally are able to smell out this attack. But at
the time General Sheridan is on is at Washington, DC,

(01:11:16):
and General Crook is in charge at the time, and
they don't listen. Kok doesn't listen to the Scouts with
the information that they have, and unfortunately what happens is
the Union army surprised and almost annihilated. It would have
changed the course of the election and it.

Speaker 1 (01:11:31):
Would have changed the course because that defeat, I mean
it was only fourteen thousand Confederates versus thirty two Union troops.
It would have made the case that the Democrats were
making Comprahead Democrats were making at their convention that this
was an endless war. That defeat would have made their
case in the heart of October, and really you're arguing

(01:11:52):
would have would have probably led to President Lincoln's defeat
in his re election. Is that right?

Speaker 15 (01:12:00):
Right? And what's fascinating is that the Confederate Secret Service
had assets within the Copperhead movement. The main head of
the Copperhead movement was under their control. He helps write
their campaign platform, and they literally are as part of
the deal with McLellan, they are going to install him
as the Secretary of War. So this guy is a

(01:12:21):
total he's totally on board for the South, as well
as the vice presidential candidate, a guy with the name
of Pendleton, who's also a hardcore Copperhead Democrat and a
Southerner that you know they're going to derail, you know,
any kind of plans for continuing the offensive. So history
would have changed, and you know, the South may have

(01:12:43):
been an independent nation. You know, election gone the other way.

Speaker 1 (01:12:47):
Okay, we're gonna break, and I want to thank you
Patrick o'donald. Look, we're not done here, folks, because we're
going to keep going. I want to go another segment
on this topic, because now that we know what's happened,
we're going to try and next segment connect the dots
as to what's coming in front of us in this
election this October twenty twenty four. So you want to
hang on and listen when we go to part two
of our interview here on the Roden greg Show on

(01:13:10):
Talk Radio one oh five to nine Cannas. And I
got to tell you Patrick, welcome back to the show.
For the second segment. I want to connect some dots
right now, your article and your comparison of the times
that we were living in then when this happened and today.
It was on my mind when I was watching one
of these regime media, as I call them, these talking heads.
One is from this group called the Lincoln Project, and

(01:13:32):
it would be like these what you call the copperhead Democrats,
that we're really all in with the Confederates, this Lincoln Project.
They pretend that they're Republicans, but I'm going to tell
you in my book, these guys are not Republicans. They
want they want Kamala Harris to win this race desperately.
They're on the television and they're looking at the camera
and they're saying, this is what's going to happen, folks.
Donald Trump and his supporters are going to burn down

(01:13:55):
the election centers in every one of the United States
major metropolitan areas where the minority vote is the strongest,
the black vote is the strongest, to try and take
away that vote, and they are going to try to
survive from election day until Inauguration Day with those votes
being unable to be counted. And when he said that,
it's so ludicrous, it's so insane of a premise. Nobody

(01:14:17):
has ever thought this, This is not real. But this crew,
this group could be trying a crazy October surprise like that,
trying to blame it on Trump or Maga. What are
you seeing out there as a history, knowing all that
you know, what are you seeing that could be an
October surprise? What are the tells help us see what
are the parallels with twenty twenty four?

Speaker 15 (01:14:37):
Well, what's old is new? And this book the Unvanquished
uncovers a lot of different things, and one of the
things that is political interference. Election interfer operations are very
prevalent in this book. One of my favorite lines is
from a Confederate operative that says, the democracy is in
possession of the press. What's true in eighteen sixty four

(01:14:59):
and eighteen sixty five is true today. And you know,
the democracy is the favorite term that the Democrats loved
to call themselves since nine eighteen fifty. And they were
in possession of the press then and they are in
possession of now. And there's the Confederate Secret Service has
some very novel operations. One of them was to influence
the press to write articles about the Forever War and

(01:15:22):
how it was fruitless and how it was a it
was an endless you know, a series of casualties that
was never going to end and only negotiated solution would
would you know, call it would be the the the answer,
much like Israel today.

Speaker 1 (01:15:34):
Right.

Speaker 15 (01:15:35):
And then you look at another operation that they had
was the origins of what we called the color a
color revolution, and there was an insurrection plan first around
the Democrat convention in Chicago, where they were going to
release prisoners of war from Camp Douglas and then they
were going to have a massive There were hundreds of
thousands of copperheads that were part of the Sons of

(01:15:56):
Liberty was called, and they were armed by the Confederacy,
and they were planning on having an uprising, an insurrection
fire in the rear. I mean, these are things that
are you know, they are you know, much like twenty twenty.
We have to, you know, we have to be aware
of what's going on in our in our country, and

(01:16:18):
it's We're at a true inflection point in history. This
is some of the probably the most dangerous times in
history because you've got you know, internally strikes, you have
debt at thirty six trillion dollars. I mean, the American
economy is the engine of growth that is America, as
well as the idea of freedom and liberty. All these
things are under assault. Plus you have you know, us

(01:16:41):
on the verge of World War three. I mean, there's
so many things that are going on now. But I
still trust the wisdom of the American people to see
through a lot of the of what's out there.

Speaker 1 (01:16:53):
We've run long, Patrick and I but I want to
thank you because when I know how steeped in history,
I know how many years you spend uh studying the
might the finite details of historical moments of this country
and how it has shaped this country. So I don't
take it lightly when you say this is an inflection
point and this is a critically important moment in our
nation's history as to where we're going to go next.

(01:17:16):
And I want to thank you for because it's probably
too trey to as saying for a historian to hear.
But if you don't learn from your history, you're doomed
to repeat it. And I got to tell you we
need to hear from people like your historians, like yourself,
to say this isn't actually new, This isn't these these
words of insurrection and uh, you know in October surprise
and all these other things. They've happened before. But I

(01:17:38):
do believe in a divine providence that beyond everything, after
everything we can do, we got we got the man
upstairs watching us as well.

Speaker 15 (01:17:46):
That's absolutely true. And i'd also say that you know
what's true in the Unvanquished is agency individuals can change
the course of history. You know, it's over and over
we see that, and you know, there's a lot of
patriots out there that will you do the right thing,
you know, follow the constitution, bring the country together, and

(01:18:08):
I think this is one of the most important elections
in history.

Speaker 1 (01:18:12):
Patrick o'donald, historian, author thirteen books, and really do in
really do, focusing in your novels on the agency of
individuals that truly did change the course of our American
history for the better. Thank you so much for joining
us on the program, and please keep up the good
work and let's stay in touch. I feel like I'm
a big time because I get to talk to you,

(01:18:33):
because you're just so an.

Speaker 15 (01:18:34):
Honor, honor and a pleasure. Greg. I always love coming
on your show. It really is a pleasure.

Speaker 1 (01:18:41):
Patrick o'donald, military historian, author of so many great books.
Thank you for joining us. Thanks for joining us on
the program. Folks. Well, we'll be back with our final
segment here on the Running Greg Show on Talk Radio
one oh five nine. O kyn rs. It's up to
Rod to tell you he's having an adventure this week,
and so I'm flying a little solo here today on Wednesday.
What a show. I got to tell you that the

(01:19:03):
discussion with Patrick O'Donnell here. I really had to have
two segments. You know, we don't do this normally on
the show, and that's why when the cat's away, the
mice will play Rod's Away. So I'm going to make
it two segments. But I really felt it was important
for us to have kind of that historical perspective. Nothing
here is new. We're not doing it. There's nothing. You know,
words like insurrection or you know, the October surprise, all

(01:19:24):
of these things have been a part of our history.
I do believe in divine providence. I believe, after all
that we can do, there's a man upstairs watching after us.
And in many moments in American history, we know that
some of these I would call it, some of the skullduggery,
I would call it, it does not succeed. So I
thought that it was important to have the historical perspective,
but then also hear from Patrick what dots he's connecting,

(01:19:48):
and then have that discussion with you want to thank
him for joining us on the program. He's become a
good friend. Also, Susan Shelley, she's great that she's on.
I love how she flipped the script on these kids.
You want to talk about removing kids from homes. We
don't know where these children are. I think it's such
an important detail. It's not even a small detail. It's
the biggest detail. We have hundreds of thousands of kids.

(01:20:10):
We don't know what happened to once they got over
this border. With these cartels. That is the tragedy, that
is the absolute crisis that we are in the middle of.
Don't let anyone tell you that we're trying to rip
these like Shelley, Like Susan said, these sitcom families apart
from one another. So I want to thank her. On
the show, folks, we've had a great program really drilling

(01:20:32):
down on that audit. We all care about election integrity.
Everything we're talking about on this show, whether it's the
Trump campaign, the presidential campaign, what's happening around this country,
but really what's happening here in Utah, it absolutely matters.
We care about our elections. We care about election integrity.
What a great discussion we had about this legislative audit
in its findings and the conclusions from you listeners are

(01:20:56):
just gold. I could just go to the phones forever
when we talk about things like this. So thank you
for joining me. Thanks for being a part of the
Roden greg Show, and we'll see you back here tomorrow,
same BAT time, same BAT channel. Just listen. I want
you to keep your chin down, I want you to
keep your hands up and your eyes forward, and I
want you to always answering the bell. We'll see you tomorrow,

(01:21:18):
four pm.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Rod Arquette Show News

Popular Podcasts

Good Game with Sarah Spain

Dateline NBC

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

.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: Reaction to Legislative Audit on Candidate Signature Gathering; Should Presidential Candidates Embrace Tariffs?

Episode Transcript

Rod Arquette 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;}Good Game with Sarah Spain

Dateline NBC

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

All Episodes