The Rod and Greg Show: Cleta Mitchell on Trump's Speech; Stopping Asylum Fraud Schemes

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
But that speech last night by the President whoa.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
It is, and you know, we owe it to this
good audience to really unpack what was discussed, because, as
you might have heard or have observed much of the media,
the result ignored it.

Speaker 1 (00:13):
Well, they're doing we haven't learned anything new. There's nothing
new here. Who you know, what's so startling about this information,
Donald Trump. That's what they're saying.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
And the problem with that answer, and you're right, that's
the answer that they threw out there, is that it's
not consistent. They ran with anything that Joe Biden said.
And when he became president back in twenty twenty one,
sworn in soon after he's been he was sworn in,
he had a national dress about election integrity and foreign influence,
and he was saying to the nation on all the channels,
by the way, including CNN, that there had been evidence

(00:47):
of Russian interference in our elections.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
And he was announcing that.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
Night to the American people that there would be sanctions
against Russia because of their interference in our elections. And
he went on to talk about how important election integrity
is and the security of those elections. I was covered
widely in that speech. President Biden did not offer any
examples of Russian interference. He did not include in the

(01:12):
White House website documents that you could download or review
for yourself, as was done last night. And I didn't
hear the regime media saying we can't really air that
in real time. We're going to go ahead and listen
to what Biden says, then we're going to go fact
check it. You couldn't fact check it because the things
he was saying that Russia was guilty of, he provided
no context, facts, nothing to check. There was nothing to check.

(01:34):
So if you were to compare that to the way
that they're doing it with the President Trump last night,
I don't know what they would have checked to conclude
whether it was true or not.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
Yeah, yeah, Well, you'll want to be listening to the
show today because does the name Cleta Mitchell ring a
bell with any of our listeners out there. Clida Mitchell
is one of the more foremost experts on election law
election financing. She even met with the President this week.
Her team met with the President this week to go
over a lot of this documentation. She will be joining

(02:06):
us in the five o'clock hour and we'll get her
reaction and she'll explain to everybody out there what happened
last night.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
Yeah, you know, she is leading this organization Election Integrity Network,
and they are working closely with you know, with the
Republican National Committee, and this sadly shouldn't be a part
of an issue election integrity. But really we have some
real holes in what's going on here. We've talked about
a lot on our show. In Utah is probably one
of the one of the bad examples, but we are

(02:33):
chain of custody and our transparency is lacking. And when
you have those variables in an election, all bets are
off in terms of whether they're actually legit or if
there's any you know, funny stuff going on because you
don't know, because again, your chain of custody is is
weak and your transparency is lacking, and that's where the
trouble can come. And then we saw we heard last

(02:54):
night or learned last night from the President that China
has taken full advantage of state's lack of transparency or
chain of custody, and that it is not it really
lends some troubling circumstances or potential circumstances of the country.
You got to get right, and then you find out
that there are intelligence community purposely and articulated clearly that

(03:14):
they did not want President Trump, when he was still
president in his first term, to be aware of any
of this, to have any knowledge of this, and they
slow rolled it to get out of that administration. Because
these are records dated March November twentieth of twenty twenty,
so this is after the election. They wanted to slow
roll that information out in presidential daily briefings to extend

(03:36):
past his time in office and into the Biden administration's office.

Speaker 1 (03:39):
Yeah. Yeah, so we've got a lot to get to.
We're going to be talking about that. I don't know
if anybody saw this. You may have seen clips of this,
but that senatorial debate on Main last night was a
clown show. You know, if I were in Main, I
would vote for Graham Platner after seeing the other candidates.

Speaker 4 (03:58):
Gary.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
I mean, people have no clue as to what they're doing.
We'll talk about that a little bit later on. We'll
talk about another fraud taking place in this country when
it comes to asylum here in the United States, and
we'll talk about the president's approval ratings. Why can't you
get a real take on where the president stands with
the American people Right now. The polls are all over

(04:19):
the place. Why can't we get a read on that.

Speaker 3 (04:22):
Yeah, it's a good question.

Speaker 2 (04:23):
And at the end of the day, how they get
those polls and who answers poles and who doesn't nowadays,
I don't know that the President's putting a lot of
weight behind it, and I don't know that any of
us are watching that very closely either.

Speaker 1 (04:33):
Well, let's touch on a little bit about what the
President had to say last night. One of the first
issues that he brought up last night, Greg was the
fact that the Chinese had access to two hundred and
twenty million voter information files. That's trials their files.

Speaker 3 (04:53):
Now is that's you know what, Rod, this is a
tough one, and I know that.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
Us not knowing that tell was and purposely kept from
the president is a giant problem. The one what the
cure is and I would be and I will be
listening closely to figure it out, is we have to
have very very publicly available and transparent voting records so
that we know that the people that vote, we can
cross reference it. That's one of the things that we
complain about in terms of transparency in our elections, but

(05:23):
how do you make it? The big question being how
do you make sure that's a very transparent process without
it getting hacked?

Speaker 1 (05:28):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (05:29):
Okay, because that's what that is the challenge, because we
will find we've heard last night and there is a
continuing discussion and we'll hear it in today's show. In
our interview with Clia Mitchell. How does what does China
do with that information? How can they use that to
change the outcome of an election? What kind of risks
do we face when China, through multiple domains and sources,

(05:50):
gathers that kind of information about Americans and American voters.

Speaker 1 (05:53):
Well, that's the question I had. He said, all right,
they've had access to two hundred and twenty million voter
files in America. I said, Okay, what do they do
with that? What does that give them? How can they
do it?

Speaker 5 (06:03):
Well?

Speaker 1 (06:03):
There are two answers. Will play one now, this is
John Solomon who showed up on CBS News last night. John,
of course is with just the News. They've done a.

Speaker 3 (06:11):
Lot of work on this, We've had him on the program.

Speaker 1 (06:14):
He explained last night to CBS News how the Chinese
could use that information.

Speaker 3 (06:19):
Six things they could do.

Speaker 6 (06:19):
They can vote in your name and you would show
up one day and you wouldn't be able to vote
because they'll tell you someone else vote for you. They
could register in another location. You would never know that
they voted for you another location because they have all
your data, everything they need to fill out a legitimate
a registration form. They could go and change something on
your address, and when you showed up with your ballot
or with your idea, like you're not that person, You're

(06:41):
registered at another dress. All of those things were imagined
by our intelligence community.

Speaker 1 (06:47):
They warned about it.

Speaker 6 (06:48):
They called it the softast the vulnerabilities, the most severe
vulnerabilities our system had. It gets hocked, and then they
don't tell any of us. You know, we get informed
when our bank accounts are taken. Why shouldn't we get
informed when our voter back point?

Speaker 1 (07:01):
Very good question. That's John Solomon on CBS News last night.
A couple other points. We'll get into this a little
bit later on. What are we going to do with China?

Speaker 3 (07:09):
Yeah, there needs to be a reaction.

Speaker 1 (07:11):
What are we going to do with China?

Speaker 3 (07:13):
I'll tell you one.

Speaker 2 (07:14):
Of the things that I was disappointed. Queen Bee was disappointed.
And I've seen some discussion online and on X and things.
You know, we add what we heard last night China
being a bad player infiltrating voter records, even we haven't
even talked about this. This Nikki Flores, a senior FBI
official that was who, in her own words, was running

(07:35):
a shadow government. You can add all this to Fauci line,
to Congress, to all these things going. I was hoping
to see actionable items. I was wanting to hear warrant
served or people were under indictment. There has I'm just
I would think we were further along if you have
an FBA, if you have an email with an FBI

(07:56):
a senior FBI official encounter to intelligence looking at who's
responsible over China and North Korea, informing people that we
know there's these vulnerabilities that they're hacking our systems, and
then says I'm running a shadow government to keep this
from the president. Why is that person not already Benjo,
Why have they not already been charged? I'm disappointed by that,

(08:17):
and I really don't understand why we get we're privy
to this type of disturbing information but we're not seeing
the adjudication of laws that I think all of us
as Americans, if we broke these laws, we would be
arrested for doing it.

Speaker 1 (08:30):
One other thing, the President last night did point out
that Democrat states do not regularly clean their voter rolls
and have access to that right. He did not mention Utah.
But there's a problem here in Utah as well. Yet
our lieutenant governor is refusing to cooperate.

Speaker 3 (08:49):
He will not hand over any records at all.

Speaker 1 (08:50):
No.

Speaker 2 (08:51):
By the way, and I think, and I'd like to
fact checked on this if I'm wrong with our listeners.
There's a system called ERIC where a lot of states
have filed and they put all in this to cross
our fort to see if people are voting maybe more
than once from other states. It's it's supposed to be
done under voter integrity. That's a private organization that is
not a government entity. How is it that Utah is

(09:11):
providing that level of information to this entity called ERIC,
but to the the DOJ, really it's illegal to do it.
It seems like an inconsistent position that the lieutenant governor
is taking the way I'm hearing.

Speaker 1 (09:24):
It well, Clida Mitchell I think we'll have something to
say about our lieutenant governor coming up later on our
interview with Cleida. But we've got more to come. We'll
go to Maine and talk about what's going on in Maine.
That's coming up right here on the Rodden Graig Show
in Utah's Talk Radio one oh five. Die can arrest
President Trump's efforts when it comes to election and integrity.
We're talking about Clida Mitchell. She will be joining us

(09:44):
coming up in the five o'clock hour, and she had
more light on what the President told the nation about
election integrity and the lack thereof coming up in the
five o'clock hour.

Speaker 2 (09:53):
Yeah, we're pretty fortunate to get her on the program.
She has been a tip of the spear on integrity issues,
so that will be a very interest and form of discussion.

Speaker 1 (10:01):
Now, have you seen clips of the senatorial debate in May?

Speaker 2 (10:08):
I think clowns would be It would protest if we
were to call it a clown show. They would say, hey,
wait a minute, we're not this bad. We're clowns, but
we're not we're not senate. Can you have Senate candidates
in Maine? You better, you better back off of us.

Speaker 1 (10:21):
Yeah, it was just it was very entertaining last night.
Let's go back to Graham Platner. You know what was funny, Greg,
that the Democrats would accept almost everything he did until
the very end. Isn't that funny? How they held on
to him, held on to him, and finally they just
had to say he's got to go.

Speaker 5 (10:39):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (10:39):
And and with the interesting part, and this will be
a discussion we're about to have, was it was it
his conduct or was it his polling that was the
ultimate deal question for poor old Graham Platner and all
of his his baggage that they seemed to at one
point be fine with.

Speaker 1 (10:54):
Well, let's talk more about that. Stephen Sokob is director
of the Political Forum Institute. He's jinning this on our
Newsmaker line right now. Steven, how are you welcome back
to the Rod and Gregg Show.

Speaker 5 (11:05):
I'm great, Thanks for having me back. I appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (11:07):
And Stephen, we want to ask you. Greg just made
a very interesting question. Was it the polls or his
actions that got him kicked off the ticket?

Speaker 7 (11:14):
Oh?

Speaker 5 (11:15):
I think it was probably either the polls or fear
of what the polls would do. Once it was clear
that the allegations of rape against him were pretty serious.

Speaker 2 (11:28):
Yeah, that's and so that's I think that is ultimately
the issue because you had you had Elizabeth Warren saying,
this is my kind of guy, and the information about
his sexual assaults and that his behavior was out there,
was documented. You had all these people that had situational
morals and logic about him. My question is, is that
just maimed politics?

Speaker 3 (11:48):
Is that just him?

Speaker 2 (11:49):
Or do we see something going on with the Democrat
Party and their lust for power that will transcend any
moral dilemma, any issue that would normally just qualify someone
for running for office.

Speaker 5 (12:02):
Well, it's certainly a much larger issue than just Maine.
It's been an issue that's been growing, probably for the
last several decades, but that it's come to the forefront
since Donald Trump appeared on the political stage. Their hatred
for him, their insistence that he is a threat to democracy,

(12:24):
which really translates into a threat to everything that they
believe that they have a right to control, has floored
the accelerator on this. This is something that has become
a major problem in the last decade, specifically because of
the Democrats response to and their desire to counter Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (12:45):
Stephen, didn't the Democrats try and use his argument about
rationalization with Bill Clinton back in the late nineties, didn't
I hear the same thing.

Speaker 5 (12:54):
Yeah, well, that was a big part of it. And
at the time, you know, we have to we have
to be willing to tolerate anything and do anything, and
to put up with any of Bill's behavior, because the
alternative is new Gingrish, who is just horrible, awful, terrible evil,
you know, the worst thing that could ever happen. And
now I think that they would probably take They would

(13:15):
tell us that Newton was so much of a moderate
and so much better of a person than Donald Trump.
And again, the whole point, the quote that I got
that led me into this story, was that in five years,
ten years, fifteen years, they're going to be saying the
same things about Donald Trump that they say about George W.
Bush now, or that they would say about new Gingrish. Well,

(13:36):
he was great. It's too bad that people can't behave
like him. It's whatever the current Republican is, the threat
is the risk, and whatever they have to do to
make the case that they are the ones who have
a natural right to political power is what they will do.

Speaker 2 (13:51):
You know, Roger just mentioned Bill Clinton. See you go
back in time and you can see the end justifies
the means, and this seems to be a political ploy.
But it seems to be at an incredible extra dream
right now. It doesn't seem like there's anything that the
Democrats would do. You look at these candidates that they're
pushing out there, trying to check certain boxes for guys
like you know, tell A Rico. He doesn't show well
when you look at him in terms of authenticity. You've

(14:12):
got you know, you have Governor Wallas that was supposed
to be the man's man as a vice presidential ticket,
you know, on the ticket, and he I mean, I
think he failed that test as well. My question is
does all of this can you just does the pendulum
keep swinging to the point where the American people just
can see the pageantry and performative nature to it all
that they can see through it? I guess is that

(14:34):
going to happen or can they actually get away with
this situational logic and morals?

Speaker 5 (14:40):
Well? I think that with Tillerico and certainly with Tim Walls,
so the American people did see right through it. The
Democrats as a party, not every individual Democrat, but the
leadership and the established establishment of the party have no
understanding who regular people are, especially who regular men are,

(15:02):
or what regular men believe. So they find somebody who
they think looks like a regular man, and they trot
them out and say this is our regular man. And
it turns out they have nothing whatsoever to do, I
mean nothing whatsoever in common with what regular men are,
what they believe, how they live their lives, and it
becomes so readily transparent that it backfires on them. I

(15:23):
think that Tim Waltz was a choice for the Democrats
in twenty twenty four in large part because nobody else
wanted to run with Kamala Harris, but also it was
a way to basically burn his political ambitions.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
Yeah, would you want to run with Kamala Harris? And
I don't know about that. That's a good point, Stephen,
going back to your main point. I think it does
come down to it's all about power. They will look
the other way on almost everything if it's an effort
for them to gain power. Doesn't come down to that, Yeah,
I think it does.

Speaker 5 (15:55):
And I try to be nuanced in the column and
in my thinking generally, and that this is more a
ruling class issue than specifically a Democratic Party issue. It's
just that the Democratic Party, he represents the ruling class
far more cleanly than the Republican Party does. They it's
a far better representation of the ruling class. So it

(16:18):
most often appears with the Democrats. But yeah, it's about power,
and it's about countering the risks that they see to
their power from the country class, from the people who
don't accept their version of how the world should work.
And that's in large part why they've hated Donald Trump
from the very beginning.

Speaker 1 (16:38):
Steven, thank you so much. It's always good to have
you on the show and enjoy the weekend. Thanks Steven,
thank you very much. Appreciate it all right, joining us
on our newsmaker Lion Stephen Soakup talking about the rationalization
of almost everything when it comes to the Democratic Party.
It sure is all right, mare, coming up the Rod
and Greg Show with you on this Friday afternoon and
Talk Radio one zero five nine. Ken, I'm Rod.

Speaker 3 (17:00):
Arquet, Susan Hughes.

Speaker 1 (17:02):
Let's talk about immigration. You know, that's one thing Greg,
I wish the administration would talk more about. Is the
success that's taking place down on the southern border.

Speaker 2 (17:11):
You know, I agree, and I think we can feel it.
I think you're seeing a measurable change. I think that
this what was the saying that every state had turned
into a border state under Biden. I think we're feeling
a different reality now than we did back then when
housing and employment and crime and they were all being
really impacted by this open border.

Speaker 3 (17:32):
We're seeing it. But wouldn't you like to connect the thoughts.

Speaker 1 (17:34):
A little better? Yeah, yeah, Well, there is a story
out there. It's an enforcement tool that needs to be done.
And we're talking about asylum fraud. What is that all about. Well,
joining us on our newsmaker line now is Todd Bensman.
He's a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Todd,
you've been taking a look into asylum fraud exactly what
is going on?

Speaker 7 (17:54):
So this has been going on for years and years.
It's a fundamental flaw in our asylum system and our
island law that people can cross the border and say
I need asylum, even though they don't. It starts a process.
They're not here to win or lose asylum. They're here
to start the process because the process lets them into

(18:16):
the country. Under other presidents, not this one. Forever. They
never whether they win or lose, they win, you know,
because they're here, and that's the point of it. They
use it to get in, and then the fraud happens
where they just lie about what happened to them in
their home country, flagrant lies. They use the same stories

(18:40):
over and over, they recirculate the same whatever's working at
the time, and they just flat out lie about whatever
where they were living. Even for example, you know, most
of the Haitians that crossed over the border during the
Biden administration and came in on humanitarian protection grounds were
not coming from Haiti. They had not lived in Haiti

(19:02):
in ten years. They were living safely and prosperously in
adoptive countries that already gave them asylum, in residency and
work permits, like Chile and Brazil. So they just omit
the fact that they were living in those says they
were already safe, and so that's fraud. That's prosecutable as
a felony if somebody just wanted to. My argument is

(19:27):
that the US Attorney's offices, the Attorney General needs to
start putting individuals who do that in prison, prosecute them
and put them in prison in order to send a
message for the first time ever to the entire world
that you could end up in prison if you do that.

Speaker 2 (19:47):
Here's what surprised me about what you're describing. I thought
that a scam was that the Bidn administration had signs
around these port of entries that just said, say the
word asylum.

Speaker 3 (19:56):
You don't have to give any context.

Speaker 2 (19:57):
So they go and they say asylum, and then they
said an they get their name, They tell them here,
you're gonna have a quirt hearing, but it's gonna be
like three to five years away. So all these people
would come in and know one and the failure to
a periode I heard was well into the ninety percent.
I thought that was the major, major gap, or the
major crime that was going on. But you're saying, of
the few that or the small amount that actually appear

(20:19):
for these asylum hearings, they're just making stuff up anyway.
That's fraudulent as well. Are they both things we should
be spending the same amount of time on or should
we just not even let anyone in before their hearing
is scheduled.

Speaker 7 (20:34):
Well, I would argue that what Trump is doing right
now is the way to go, which is to cite
I in a to twelve F. Go google it to
twelve F of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is
that he can deny anybody and everybody the right to
claim asylum at our southern border. That's why nobody's crossing

(21:00):
anymore because he did that. They when you start to
let them do the asylum game, then they fled in
by the in the torrance. You can't even control it.
So this is a very important thing. Now, Yes, both
of those situations you described are happening, but hundreds of

(21:22):
thousands I think we're well over a million actually backlogged
in the system. More than a million backlogged in the system.
Do go through and claim asylum because when you claim,
there's an incentive to do it, to go to the paperwork,
because you get work authorization after one hundred and eighty days,

(21:42):
and you qualify for welfare and driver's licenses and everything
else so that you can live the rest of your
life claiming asylum. That's the point where you can do
prosecutions because they're filling out papers, they're attesting to narratives
and worries about where they've been living and what happened
in the old country, and you can do prosecutions on

(22:07):
and investigations when when people actually go through the process,
and many of them do. The thing about it is
is that US attorneys traditionally have shied away from doing
these kinds of prosecutions. I write in my daily wire
piece all about this. This has to change. They won't

(22:29):
do them because they figure, well, it's not very sexy.
You don't get a big bang, big enough bang for
the buck. My argument is, so what do it? You
don't have to do? Spend your your entire office doing these,
do some in all ninety four judicial districts every month

(22:51):
and over a year. You've actually created a real deterrence.
Why because when you prosecute somebody, when you enforce a
law that's never been enforced, and word gets out, it
spreads like like the COVID virus, the black plague. I mean,

(23:11):
it is just like everybody in the world hears about this,
and it actually creates a real this.

Speaker 1 (23:18):
Incentive Todd, we all know that nothing happens in this
world without money. Is there money involved in this? In
this game? I mean, are we talking a lot of
money involved in this?

Speaker 7 (23:30):
Well? There, I mean so there's there's a lot of uh,
I would say, public welfare fraud associated with it, because
when you apply for asylum and you make all your
claims and you signed and you swear the oath and
it's all true when it's not u you then become
eligible for the full range of public welfare benefits, yeah,

(23:55):
while you're waiting, and that that is an extreme cost.

Speaker 8 (24:00):
And there are gains that.

Speaker 7 (24:02):
Are being run all over Latin America where they're charging
money for advice. I put that in air quote it's
basically it's basically quote coaching about what to say and
what not to say when you get to the US
border and when you get in front of an asylum officer.

(24:22):
So there's money being made, big time money on that.
And then lawyers in the US, you know, make a
huge business out of helping people get through the asylum
process too fraudulently occasionally. My big complaint in the Daily
Wire piece is that you know, we only ever just

(24:44):
go after these lawyers in some way, some fashion. We
don't even really put them in prison. We you know,
hit them with fines. And I'm saying, okay, keep doing that.
But you can do two things at once. Why don't
you go get some real mind and pop illegal aliens
that lied in their asylum cases and send them to

(25:06):
prison for three or four years each and then publicize that.

Speaker 1 (25:11):
Todd Bensman, he's with the Heritage Foundation talking about stopping
asylum fraud schemes in this country today, they will do
anything to make money.

Speaker 2 (25:19):
Well, I think his point about you adjudicate this, you
prosecute it. The word gets out and it does have
a chilling effect on illegal behavior when people know that
they'll be accountable if they committed Yeah, commit a crime.

Speaker 1 (25:31):
All right, more coming up, Rodd and Greg with you
on this Friday afternoon. The President last night hinted again
during his speech last night, it is time for America
to step up, Greg and require people to show ID
if they vote in a federal election. Call this ave
act right, call this act absolutely now. If the federal
government can't do it, why on earth is Olive Garden

(25:54):
doing it? If you ever heard this story, it's just nuts.

Speaker 2 (26:00):
Well, if you ask a Democrat, they're probably ready to
protest all of Garden. This is Jim Crow two point
zero that they would for their all you can eat
pasta pass. You better if you if you buy that
pasta pass.

Speaker 5 (26:12):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (26:12):
They have published the policy today. You have to have
a state issued ID that would match the name on
the all you can eat pasta pass, or you aren't
getting it. You're not getting that pasta unless they're so
they have some pasta security. They have taken the Fetacini
and they've said, look, pat you're just not coming in
here and getting it because you say you have a

(26:32):
pass or you want to show someone's pass. We need
some chain of custody, some transparency on our pasta passes.

Speaker 3 (26:39):
You're gonna have to provide it. So you know, all
of Garden.

Speaker 2 (26:42):
I'm sure the Democrats they're going to receive a lot
of iron because people are not going to be able
to get that pasta pass.

Speaker 1 (26:48):
According to Democrats, passes are personalized. They are not transferable,
but that must present a valid ID along with the
pass at the time of ordering. It's just so ridiculous.
Ye have to show ID but to vote. Oh who cares?

(27:10):
Anybody can get that show.

Speaker 2 (27:12):
I still see people going, you know, this stops women
from voting. These people that say this, and they're guys
saying it, they must not be married. I would not
accuse my Queen Bee of not being smart enough to
be able to vote if she got married to me.

Speaker 3 (27:26):
It didn't happen.

Speaker 2 (27:27):
She somehow navigated the voter registration with a new name,
you know, leaving her maiden name behind, taking on the
name Hughes. She was able to do it. Any guy
right now saying this would just confound and confuse every
woman in America?

Speaker 3 (27:40):
Pretty rude?

Speaker 1 (27:41):
Does this stop women from eating at olive garden?

Speaker 2 (27:43):
Apparently carried the logic across olive gardens? Just stopped women
from patronizing their establishment.

Speaker 1 (27:50):
Cleet of Mitchell talking about the President's speech, She'll join
us next. If the Chinese paid an American journalist to
write a negative story about Donald.

Speaker 3 (27:59):
Trump, Well, it wouldn't that be interesting?

Speaker 2 (28:02):
It was reference that that could be the case yesterday
in the presidential address. Here's the other thing. We know
that the Southern Poverty Law Center paid played paid clue
Clucks clan members to create rallies. We know that that
Cuba and what is it, Cuba and Iran funded out Antifa.
I mean, there's just there's all these connections, so I

(28:24):
wouldn't put it past them.

Speaker 1 (28:25):
Yeah, Yeah, What I want to know is what is
the President going to do about China.

Speaker 2 (28:33):
Yes, in light of the information we get, how do
we digest what we heard last night and what do
we do about it?

Speaker 1 (28:38):
Yeah? Well, joining us on our news micro line someone
who really knows, now, Cleta Mitchell is what do you
call it?

Speaker 2 (28:44):
The tip of the spear, tip of the spear on
election integrity. They met with the President this week and
with members of the Repolan National Committee also did It's
sad that it's a part of an issue, but she
is really she understands this issue. Well, she's an attorney,
senior legal fellow, and she's part I think she's a

(29:05):
founder of Election in Tigery Network, which is the group
that's really cracking down and getting to the details of
how fraud is occurring in our election.

Speaker 1 (29:12):
Well, Clida is in London right now, but we were
able to catch up to her a little bit earlier
today and talk about the President's speech last night and
the information that came out of that. And we began
by asking Cleidah, first of all, what's the one takeaway
or two takeaways that she thinks the American people should
be paying attention to right now.

Speaker 9 (29:30):
Well, the very.

Speaker 10 (29:32):
First thing the President talked about are the most important things.
Number One, that the Chinese Communist Party set at sides
on being able to acquire data and information about in
records unlawfully from America's voting infrastructure, the voter roles, including
information that is not public information, and acquired two hundred

(29:57):
and twenty million voting records of voters in the United
States for the sole purpose of using it to influence
the US election in twenty twenty. But the most important
thing to my way of thinking is that the intelligence community,
at the highest levels of the United States government and
the CIA and the FBI, in January twenty twenty, made

(30:19):
a decision to keep that information from the president, who
was Donald Trump at the time. Subsequently didn't brief his successor,
Joe Biden, or the Congress and until now the American people.
What that means is that they broke federal law and
manipulated the intelligence information so that it would not be

(30:42):
seen or known by the president, which meant that the
law that requires any vulnerability or threats to America's critical
infrastructure infrastructure of which elections are one component, that was
done by Obama on his way out the door in

(31:02):
January twenty seventeen as the legal basis for the pursuit
by the federal government of Donald Trump in the whole
Russia collusion hoax, when Jay Johnson, Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security,
added elections as one of the items on critical infrastructure.

(31:27):
And what that means is when there is a threat
that is identified that is a threat to America's critical infrastructure,
it triggers a legal response by the Department of Homeland
Security to take immediate steps to mitigate the threat and
to protect the critical infrastructure from those incursions in those vulnerabilities.

(31:50):
That was not done in twenty twenty because the intelligence
community did not disclose the threat. Now every one who
was involved with that needs to be investigated and prosecuted.
They broke the law. And what always en is up
happening is everybody's views everything through the prison of Donald

(32:14):
Trump's presidency. But it is it's not Donald Trump's presidency
that we are talking about. We're talking about what is
the legal obligation of the intelligence community. What did they
do and why did they make that decision? Who was
involved with that? And every one of those people should
be prosecuted because those that's not their decision. To make
it's not optional, it mandatory.

Speaker 11 (32:35):
You know.

Speaker 3 (32:35):
And to that point.

Speaker 2 (32:36):
And this is the part that I think that I
was expecting and I was surprised to not hear. And
I think this is if there's any if there's any
concern post the President's addressed to the nation not carried
by networks amazingly. But it's when you get to someone
like Nikki Senior FBI if a official, Nicki Flores and

(32:56):
and and the President said they're and quoted that this
FBI agent was saying they were running a shadow government
is as dracona as you get. It was news to
all of us that that wasn't already in process of prosecution,
that this person is running you know, Microsoft's you know cybersecurity. Yes,

(33:17):
what and so it almost feels farcicles just to show
such damning evidence, but we don't see anything by way
of accountability. What's the timing of that? You're an attorney,
why is why are we hearing about that? But we're
not seeing anything that's already been done about I would
think you come across an email like that and they're
they're going to see her, and she's getting at least
charged pretty quick after something like that is revealed.

Speaker 4 (33:41):
You know what.

Speaker 10 (33:42):
I hope you're right, and I think it's up to
all of us to make that, to create the steady
drum beat, because now it's it is squarely in the
lap Cash, Totel and the FBI to investigate and to
work with the prosecutors at dj and to bring charges.
It's their job now they have to do that. Again,

(34:04):
this is not optional. This has to be done, and
I agree with you. They should have been prepared to announce.
I don't know when. Honestly, you know, this was all classified.
It was declassified yesterday, I presume, But I'm with you.
Would need to say with you know, Cash telling me
to have a press conference announcing the opening of the

(34:25):
investigation or the status a SAP. I agree with you.

Speaker 1 (34:27):
Plead, Do you believe there's an inclination to go ahead
and do that? Are they going to sit on this
even more? What? What's your take? I mean, you've been
involved in this, what's your take on it?

Speaker 10 (34:37):
Well, let me just say it this year, were on
the other foot and it was Republicans, they'd be after
us and we'd all be in jail already by nightfall.
That's right, ye, yes, But the question is whether or
not whether or not any of these, any of these lefties,
any of these democrats, any these deep state will be
held accountable. But I want to go back to something
that that you referenced a moment ago, and that is

(34:59):
can you imagine? And I wanted to just people want
everybody to stop and think for a moment. What we
just are describing is a scheme, a plan by one
of our number one foreign adversary to adversely attack and
influence and interfere with a US election. That's bad enough,

(35:19):
which we have three networks who don't think that's newsworthy.
Let's start with that. So why is that not newsworthy?
Did they already know about it? Were they being paid
by the CCP? Why was it not need did they
already know? Obviously they don't think it's newsworthy. But number two,
they don't think it's newsworthy that the CIA and the

(35:43):
FBI knew about it, sat on it, lied to the president,
broke the law, manipulated data so that he wouldn't be
become aware of it. They didn't advise him, They did
invise Biden, they didn't avise Congress. They'd advise anybody, and
they lied publicly for two ever since saying there was
no us of any foreign and interference. I mean, seriously,

(36:04):
they don't think that's newsbroken as to me? Is this
shocking to me? And they should not be able to
get away with that.

Speaker 2 (36:14):
And don't you think clear that when you see an
example and we've seen that this is this is one
of the things that's I think gone viral today that
they show an example of. I think it was in
April of twenty twenty twenty one, when when Biden is
in office for his first few months, he addresses the
nation covered by all the networks, including CNN, announcing the
American people that they have discovered that Russia had attempted

(36:37):
to influence the outcome of the election, and to whatever
degree they were, he was imposing sanctions on Russia. He
did not provide any any any source material, He didn't
provide any example, and yet everything that that President Biden
said was taken at face value by every single network
and there was not even a question about whether Russia,
whether what he was saying Russia had done to attempt

(36:59):
to influence of the outcome of an election was valid
or not. Nobody had the fact check it first and
not air the interview and to see if it was true.
You're hearing from this media a completely different approach than
they had with with President Biden. Doesn't that indict them
even further when you say they should do it this way?
The fact that they've not, They've done it the polar opposite.
What how how what are we supposed to.

Speaker 4 (37:20):
Do with that?

Speaker 10 (37:22):
I don't know. Honestly, I think that the FCC should, uh,
you know, should end all their licenses. I mean, they
don't license CNN because it's a cable outlet, But honestly,
it's just they have these licenses from the FCC. They've
had them for decades. They're worth a lot of money

(37:45):
that they haven't had to pay, and they should they
should be punished and I but, you know, honestly, I
think we have to start calling them the deep state media.
I mean, I am old enough to remember when the
idea that the CIA and the FBI would lie to
the President and lie to Congress and lie to the
American people, that would have been a big story and

(38:08):
the media would have been all over that. But instead
they're covering. They're covering. I mean, CBS aired it, but
spent the whole night coming up with oh, nothing new
here really, So, Margaret Brennan, you're telling us that you
already knew. You knew that the CCP had all those million,

(38:31):
two hundred million voter wrecords, and you knew they had
a design to try to influence our elections, and you
knew that there was a cover up.

Speaker 12 (38:39):
You knew all that.

Speaker 10 (38:40):
Wow, let's hear more.

Speaker 1 (38:42):
Margaret excluded a final question for you, and we appreciate
your time. Where do we go from here? You know
you mentioned cash Betel. The information is out there. Now,
where do we go from here? In your opinion?

Speaker 8 (38:55):
Cleta, Well, I.

Speaker 10 (38:57):
Think two things. You know, Look, I I wish that
I thought that there were Democrats in the Congress that
still cared about attacks on our sovereignty and still cared
about fighting China instead of always just caring about fighting Trump.
I wish that I thought that people like Amy Klovichar,

(39:19):
who had a bill that she introduced in twenty seventeen
and again in twenty nineteen that would have required any
any time an intelligence agency became aware of a threat
to elections in any state, that they would be required
to immediately notify the governor and the chief election official

(39:41):
of the state. It didn't become law. I actually thought
it had become law, but I guess it didn't. I
looked it up this morning. Ron Wyden, Senator Widen from Oregon,
he had a bill that he introduced in twenty nineteen
with fourteen Democrats co sponsors to try to address threats
and vulnerabilities of voting machines. Now this is before twenty

(40:03):
twenty and Amy Cloverstar's bill had James Langford, Republican of
Oklahoma as a chief co sponsor and forty Democrats Republicans
in the Senate co sponsoring that bill to require the
intelligence community to share intelligence about threats to elections. Where
are those people today? Are they willing to still care

(40:24):
about those things? Are they willing to say, Hey, we
got to sit down around the table. This is a
threat to our sovereignty and we need to figure out
how to fix it. That's the question that I think
we need to be asking those Democrats. And I got
to tell you, you guys are in Utah, you need
to be asking your lieutenant governor. She's a big problem.
She is a very big problem because she seems to

(40:45):
also care more about fighting President Trump than election integrity,
and I'm really kind of tired of her, as I'm
sure you are, and.

Speaker 1 (40:55):
And our listeners by the weakly, and our listeners as well.

Speaker 10 (41:00):
But these people need to stop thinking and they have
to stop thinking and looking at everything through the prison
when we hate President Trump on that. No, this is
about our country, This is about our sovereignty. This is
about We just celebrated the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary
of the Declaration of Independence, which says that governments derived

(41:21):
there are organized by men and derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed. The way we give
and withdraw our consent as the government is through elections.
And if we lose our ability to do that because
of foreign interference, because our own government is lying to
us or withholding information that would lead to taking steps

(41:44):
as required by federal law to mitigate threats to our elections,
when we have that, it tramples on the basic principles
of the Declaration of Independence that we just celebrated. So
this is very serious. I'm very proud of the President
for always for bucking the norms in Washington and telling

(42:06):
the American people what really happened declassifying all these materials,
and hopefully, you know, maybe maybe there will be some
Democrats who will remember, who'll wake up from their you know,
TDS tunt arrangement center. We have TDS syndrome and care

(42:27):
about America.

Speaker 1 (42:28):
Again, we sure do, hope so, But I wouldn't come
on it. Clida Mitchell joining us on any hour Newsmaker Line.
She's a senior legal fellow also a founder of the
Election Integrity Network. Knows a lot about what's going on.

Speaker 2 (42:42):
Yeah, she does, And maybe we'll get into this in
the next segment that I lieutenant She mentioned the lieutenant
governor and how she's been problematic. Well, she put out
a statement out today. When we come back from break,
I want to maybe discuss that a little bit.

Speaker 1 (42:52):
All right, mare coming up the Rod and Gregg Show
and Talk Radio one oh five nine Canners, our esteemed
lieutenant governor is responding to what happened last night. We'll
get to her comments. Coming up on the Rod and
Gregg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.
Ky Nrs talking about the President's speech last night, just
unveiling some just all kinds of information. I love the

(43:13):
fact I think Donald Trump knew going into this that
he was going to be criticized, and those on the
left certainly are doing so today. But I think he
felt this information is so important for the American people
to understand he was willing to take that chance.

Speaker 2 (43:27):
Well, I'll tell you, I think that's important. I kind
of assumed that some of these prosecutions were well underway.
I think he set a baseline, and he's also within
the white House dot gov website has the declassified information
and material that they have discovered. He is not only
declassified but made available on that site. It's a very
thorough uh litigation of the case he's making. I think

(43:51):
that his baseline is China got involved and is involved,
and we have we have vulnerabilities, and the intelligence community
of the United States of America purposefully slow rolled and
kept away from the sitting president of the United States
critical national security information which they do have proof this.
Nikki flor As being the FBI director that called who

(44:13):
in an email said she was running a shadow government
back in twenty twenty November of twenty twenty. Those are
disturbing revelations and I think that what he doesn't want
to see is when we've come across the other issues
that have broken the law, we just talk about it
amongst ourselves. I think he wanted there to be a
stake in the ground this is not going to work

(44:33):
going forward, and so I think that that's why he
did it, even with the christ Is. John Solomon reported
that every intelligence agent CIA, NSA, they all reviewed his
speech to make sure that there was no inaccuracies in
what he was going to share. It passed that vetting.
So when the left hates it, they hate it because
it embarrasses them. They will run with any theory or

(44:55):
narrative that makes the present look bad and anything that
would counter that they're going to be against.

Speaker 1 (44:59):
One of the issues the President brought up last night,
Greg was that there are democratic states who do not
regularly clean their voter rolls. That's why the DOJ wants
to take a look at some of them, including the
ones here in Utah. But our lieutenant governor says it's
against the law and she cannot release that information.

Speaker 2 (45:16):
She is she suffers from Trump derangement syndrome. She has
fallen for every time the deep state wanted to take
one of President Trump's orders, say Arlington National Cemetery, and
they found the most logical extreme application and put it
out there that Trump wants to take away certain people's
recognition at Arlington. She'd be the first person to either
take the bait or just want to perpetuate the absurdity

(45:36):
herself and go after it and push it out. Well,
she still will not hand over doj asks for information
about our voter roles as red states have complied. Blue
states have not Utahs or red state. We're in that
problem state category, the Lieutenant governor put out. And by
the way, she says, all our elections are fine. Nothing
to see here. As audits come out, we see their

(45:58):
issues and she'll just missed them as nothing small, nothing
to worry about.

Speaker 1 (46:02):
If that's the case, the why now release the information exactly?
And you know, if she wants to brag and she
does about our election and mail in voting and all that, greg,
just show us the information.

Speaker 2 (46:14):
Yes, Queen b made an interesting observation about dedre Henderson,
Lieutenant Governor dedre Henderson, and mind Queen Bee has her
political leanings and they're similar to mine, but she she's
had enough. She says that that dedre Henderson gives off
a lot of Margaret Brennan vibes. Okay, she's like the
Margaret Brennan of lieutenant governors. And by that she means

(46:37):
that some of the things she says, because we use
Margaret Brennan clips every Monday after she's had her Sunday
show because there's always something absurd that she's made some
case for. Well in true true deform and on brand
and a Margaret Brennan brand. This is the statement that
the Lieutenant governor put out today, or part of it.
She says that Utah has yet to receive and in
regards to his statement or his address yesterday, Utah is

(47:01):
yet to receive any information from the White House Intelligence
Community or other federal agencies about specific threats to the
twenty twenty sixth election. She goes on to chastise the
federal government for its lack of funding for election security,
and she says, in the meantime, Utah election officials will
continue to deliver secure, free, fair elections for the voters

(47:21):
of our state. To that, I say to our Lieutenant governor,
you didn't get the information from our intelligence community or
anyone else. Will join the club because that was that
was what the president didn't get that information either. That's
kind of his point last night, is that the intelligence
community withheld that critical information from him as president. And
so I thought I would invite her to go to

(47:42):
the website look at the information that's been declassified and
made publicly available, to see where those vulnerabilities lie, because
they are there, including the FBI agents quoted saying we're
running a shadow government.

Speaker 3 (47:54):
This should concern everybody.

Speaker 1 (47:55):
Yeah, well, and you know, we know she doesn't like
the Trump administration. That's pretty of it, right. What prevents
her from picking up the phone and calling the DOJ
and say what do you want? Yes, and let's get
it to you?

Speaker 8 (48:07):
Then?

Speaker 1 (48:08):
Really, I mean, if she is so proud of clean
elections here in the state of Utah, yes, call the
DOJ and say what do you want, Let's get it
to you.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
So there's this this nonprofit entity called ERIC. Well that's
its acronym, okay, And what it stands for is what
is it? Election Electronic regis Registration Information Center ERIC ERIC.
Many states contribute or send their election data to this
non price.

Speaker 3 (48:34):
It's not a government entity.

Speaker 2 (48:35):
It's a nonprofit, but it's privately run to get to
make and the argument was we're going to do this
to compare states, to make sure that people aren't voting
in multiple states, and it was done under the banner
of election integrity. But this thing's turned out to be
a bit of a leftist movement, and so you see
a lot of states getting out of this ERIC database
because again, no government, it's it's this private nonprofit. It

(48:56):
is my understanding that UTAH participates in providing voter information
to the Electronic Registration Information Center or ERIC. So I
don't understand when the Lieutenant governor says I can't turn
over this information to the DOJ because we have laws
that prohibit the sharing of voter information. If it is
the case that UTAH is providing the election information, you know,

(49:20):
voter information to ERIC Electronic Registration Information Center, then I
fail to see how the Department of Justice would not
be also eligible for that information.

Speaker 1 (49:30):
I want to make sure I understand this. So the
state is giving information, probably the same information the DOJ
is asking for to this ERIC organization, willingly to do so, right,
but the DOJ asked for it and they say no,
it's against state law.

Speaker 3 (49:44):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (49:44):
Now, explain that one I could be there could have
been a law last session that changed everything, and I
could be maybe I'm understanding it wrong. But what I
understand and I've asked around, does Utah still participate in
eric I believe that they did, that the state does.
But I do not understand how are Lieutenant Governor would
would even want because she doesn't want to comply with
the dj or says our hands are tied. There's a

(50:05):
lot that doesn't Why would there be any participation? And
I do know for fact that the Utah has for
some time been in that use that or provided information
for that nonprofit in the past. I just it seems
contradicting to me. Someone can can sort that out, or
if I've got the information wrong, let me know what

(50:25):
it is. But I tend to think that there isn't
a problem with being transparent on election roles. I think
the biggest challenge we have, if we're talking shop is
how do you make election voter information, which I think
should be transparent, not subject to being hacked Because if
it is a public record, how do you keep China
and other enemies of the state from using that information

(50:46):
to tamper with our elections? That's the part I don't
I don't have my head around, but I will go
on the side of transparency and elections all day. You
got to be able to see how many people voted
and how many people are registered to vote, and count
and compare and know that you got the same number.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
All right, more coming up the Rod and Gregg Show
with you on this Friday afternoon right here on Utah's
Talk Radio one oh five. Dye can arress Greig. Let's
go to j T and Laighton. JT. How are you
welcome to the Rod and Gregg Show.

Speaker 4 (51:13):
Glad to be here. So I was listening to you
guys and you were talking about Eric.

Speaker 7 (51:17):
Yeah, Dr for sure, still in Eric.

Speaker 4 (51:21):
We're actually one of the founding members of Eric. When
I wrote a book that mentions this, and it's called
the Utah Ciggate, and in it, when I was doing
my research, I found I got a hold of the
data scientists that pointed me to these Tila voter rolls,
and the Tilla voter rolls didn't make any sense at all,

(51:43):
like negative addresses and highways that don't exist. So yet
these people voted.

Speaker 1 (51:52):
Yeah that'.

Speaker 4 (51:55):
He pointed to me, Like there's the same pattern, the
same mathematical equation in Texas and the New York and well,
I kind of looked at it, and I said, well,
in order for this to happen, someone would have to
have read and write access to all these voter databases.

Speaker 11 (52:13):
And I thought about it.

Speaker 4 (52:15):
I'm like, wait a minute, that's Eric, because Eric has
access to all these states. Texas just barely left.

Speaker 2 (52:22):
I was just going to say, I think Texas and
maybe even Florida.

Speaker 3 (52:25):
Did Florida leaf too. I think Florida might have left.

Speaker 1 (52:28):
Florida may have left.

Speaker 11 (52:30):
And yeah, sure left, I think three years ago.

Speaker 4 (52:33):
Texas left last year.

Speaker 2 (52:36):
So we are so so JT we it is official.
I'm actually looking at the website now, so I see it.
So I appreciate the updates. So we do we actually
turn over this information. So when the Lieutenant Governor says
I cannot turn over to the DJ's request voter information
because it's not legal, I don't know how that would
be not legal for the Department of Justice, which, by
the way, federal elections impact the whole country. Congress, Senate, President,

(53:00):
all that. You can't you can't a supply, you can't
provide that for the Department Justice. But to a non government,
nonprofit eric organization. We're just handing it all over. It
does not seem consistent at all.

Speaker 1 (53:12):
Yeah, it doesn't, It sure doesn't. All right, Let's hear
from one of our listeners who left us a message
on the talk back line. Here's what they said. Well,
now here's the thing. Instead of doing an idea that
everybody seems to be having.

Speaker 13 (53:24):
Problems getting to, why don't you just register your fingerprint
with the government and then you'll know whether or not
the person voting is a member of society or not
because their finger print will be on file.

Speaker 1 (53:40):
Right, you don't. That is a terrific idea because one
of what is one of the arguments the Democrats make, well,
they can't find this information. Everybody has a fingerprint, and.

Speaker 2 (53:52):
With some tell some people would rather not give the
government their fingerprint on file, you know, for they would
they would actually probably say, you know what, it turns
out I can find that pertipicate I fingerprint. I think
you know what this whole burst of it's easy. I'd
love to give it. I'd love to go that route. Thanks,
Let's get in one more call. Let's go to Bradley
and Clearfield tonight. Bradley, how are you welcome to the

(54:13):
Rod and Gregg Show?

Speaker 8 (54:17):
Great?

Speaker 1 (54:17):
How are you good?

Speaker 8 (54:18):
Thank you?

Speaker 1 (54:18):
Go ahead, you got.

Speaker 9 (54:21):
I just want to talk about rationalization of grand Platner flaws.
Oh yeah, Republicans are far far worse about that because
they rationalize far worst flaws from Donald Trump, corruption, sexual assault.

Speaker 2 (54:35):
He's just like he's got a Nazi tattoo on his chest.
Doesn't he give me a break?

Speaker 3 (54:40):
Bradley. See, they left.

Speaker 2 (54:41):
They like to listen to they like to monitor the show.
That's good, you know they Yeah, you know what you
judge a show by it. It's antagonists and we're freaking
them out. They have to listen and they have to
monitor because you know, they know that we're our audience
isn't to be messed with. So we're afraid, no fear.
I can smell the fear and bread.

Speaker 1 (55:00):
That's true.

Speaker 3 (55:00):
It's smell it.

Speaker 1 (55:01):
All right. We've got a lot more to get to
coming up in our number three our Listen Back Friday segments,
and we'll talk about Donald Trump's approval ratings. Why is
it so hard to gauge whether or not Donald Trump
is popular or not?

Speaker 4 (55:15):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (55:16):
And how might us care?

Speaker 1 (55:17):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (55:17):
What those calls are saying I don't think president does.

Speaker 1 (55:20):
A lot of people don't. All right, more coming up.
Our number three is honest way to stay with us.
All Right, We've got a busy hour coming your way
this hour, our listen back. Friday segments are coming up.
We'll replay the interview we did with the Speaker of
the Utah House, Mike Schultz. Big announcement took place on Monday, right.

Speaker 3 (55:41):
Yeah, big week for Utah.

Speaker 2 (55:42):
Always good when we have the presidence full attention, which
we received, and he made major decision one he'd made
in sixteen, but even a better one this time, reducing
the National Monument created by Barack Obama for Bears Ears
and the Clinton National Monument of Bill Clinton, one of
the staircase escalant. Both were reduced to its minimum size
of one hundred and eighty thousand acres or whatever. But

(56:03):
this was this is a big deal for Utah, but
poterlarly for those of Utah's who live in Royal Utah.

Speaker 1 (56:09):
Yeah, yeah, well we'll talk about that. We've got other
things are CEOs you should know, segment coming up as
we wrap up this hour. But let's start off talking
about presidential polls. Another poll out today, Greg, I think
this one by CNBC saying that the economy and concerns
about the economy are still weighing down the president and
I don't know how he does it, but he does

(56:29):
need to address this as we head into the midterms.

Speaker 3 (56:32):
It does.

Speaker 2 (56:32):
I mean, he's walking a razor's edge right now with Iran,
trying to get that to a place of stability and
then staring we're staring at the midterms. I mean really,
Labor Day weekend, it's off to the race. That is
the beginning of the midterm race officially.

Speaker 1 (56:45):
Yeah, that sure is well. Joining us on our Newsmaker
line right now to talk about presidential polling is Jennifer Graham.
She's an ideas and cultural editor with the des Red News.
She did an article about why presidential polling, or polling
in general, is so difficult, and I asked her, this
business of analyzing how popular a president is is very tricky.
Why is that da thing? Jennifer?

Speaker 8 (57:06):
Well, and it really is a business too, which is
interesting to me because there are all these websites that
daily track what the approval rating is. And I think
most people, you know, we might think about the president's
approval rating once a month, once every two months, whenever
something big hits the headlines. But no, there are people
who care about this so much that they wake up

(57:26):
every morning looking for a small different grade in how
he's doing so. And the reason that it's so much
in the news right now, besides the fact that the
President is also tweeting about it, is that there's so
much at stake in the midterm elections in November. And
I think basically Democrats at this point kind of smell

(57:47):
blood in the water in terms of the president's approval
ratings which are not great, which are underwater and have
been even in Utah over the past few months, and
so they're thinking this might be a leading indicator, so
to speak, of how people are going to vote in November,
and they're hoping that it's going to change their fortunes.

Speaker 1 (58:08):
Jennifer I heard he speaking of pollsters. We air a
comment yesterday on the show from Frank Lunz, who for
a long time was a polster with Fox News. He's
not doing work for CNN, and he went out and
he asked Democrats who voted for Hillary and voted for Joe.
But then in twenty you know, the latest last election,
voted for Donald Trump and asked him how they feel

(58:28):
about the president, and the response that he felt was
quite common was that we don't like his mannerisms, we
don't like what he does at times, but we like
the fact he's getting things done. Now, if you're a polster,
how do you differentiate between those two when you're asking
someone about Donald Trump.

Speaker 8 (58:47):
Yeah, well, that's a significant problem, right, Yeah, but it
also helps to explain. Yeah, it explains the difference in
how Republicans are responding as well, because if you look
at the at the president's favorabilities over the past couple
of months and in recent weeks in particular, they're all underwater.

(59:10):
But I mean some are in the high thirties, some
are in the low forties, but they're all underwater. But
they're underwater because of how Independents are responding and because
of how Democrats are responding, not how Republicans are responding,
because across the board, Republicans are usually in giving him

(59:30):
favorables to the tunes of in the eighties, So I
mean among Republicans, they may be holding their nose at
some things. There may be some fluctuations like we saw
in Utah. There was a pretty significant fluctuation in his
favorabilities in April, and if you remember April, that was
right around Easter when there was a lot of controversy

(59:52):
over his social media post on Easter Morning in which
he used some profanities. A week after that, he posted
that very controversial meme that some people said was himself
posing as Jesus, and he did take a hit for
that among Utah Republicans and religious voters, and his favorables
went down then. But again you look at consistency over time.

(01:00:16):
Republicans for the most part are giving him thumbs up.
But that's not something he can take for granted given
the polling on how he's doing in Iran, because people
are not happy with what's going on in Iran, and
at some point that's going to be reflected in these
Republican polling as well.

Speaker 1 (01:00:35):
Jennifer, speaking of the midterm elections, he will not be
on the ballot in November, but I think he will
be on the ballot in November, will he not? I mean,
how does this all play outcome November?

Speaker 8 (01:00:46):
Well, you know, some people think he's going to be
on the ballot three years from now. We don't really know, right,
I mean, he definitely has his thumb on certain candidates, right,
And in recent months, we've seen that, you know, regardless
of how people may be feeling about Iran or about
the economy, that the core Trump voters still tend to

(01:01:10):
vote for the person he tells them to vote for.
And so that's kind of what's at play here. And so, yeah,
his popularity does matter and will likely continue to matter
for the next couple of years.

Speaker 1 (01:01:23):
The media loves to eat up on these polls and
take a look at the numbers, But how much does
the average voter pay attention to polls in your opinion, Jennifer, Yeah,
I don't.

Speaker 8 (01:01:33):
Know any statistics about that, but I would say very little,
because you know, I don't think the average voter pays
that much attention to politics, to be honest. You know,
they're paying attention to how they're going to pay their
bills this month, and what their last receipt said at
the grocery store, and what it's going to cost to
fill up their gas tank, and you know, all those

(01:01:54):
things obviously translate into how they feel about politics. But yeah,
I don't think the average American and could tell you
what Trump's approval rating is right now, except of course
for people who listen to your show.

Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
And that needs Well, let me ask you this too, Jennifer. Then,
if you've got the average American out there who's not
paying a whole lot of attention to politics in general,
how do you get them to the polls to vote
for the candidate that they want or the candidate you
think they should choose.

Speaker 3 (01:02:23):
How do you do that?

Speaker 8 (01:02:24):
Well? That that is the challenge, and it's something that's
interesting to me amid all to talk about the president's
approval rating, because it seems to me that the thing
that's more important in November is what they call an
enthusiasm gap, in terms of whether people are enthused about
going to the polls or not. And I mean, we're

(01:02:47):
we're still some months off, although it was pointed out
to me recently we're just three months from Halloween, which
is kind of scary, but yeah, we've got some distance there.
But there are people looking at this already, and it
seems like the past couple of reports I've seen have
shown that Democrats are winning in terms of enthusiasm when

(01:03:09):
they're asked, you know, how likely are you to vote
in November, and are you excited about voting in November?
Right now, Democrats seem to have the momentum, but that
could change it any time for any reason.

Speaker 1 (01:03:21):
Jennifer Graham joining us on our any hour newsmaker line
talking about presidential pulling. All right, our list back Friday
segments are coming your way next right here on Utah's
Talk Radio one oh five nine can arrests. There are
so many issues out there that you and I discuss
every day. Greg, Even though we'd like them to listen
three hours a day every day, we understand the realities
of life. They can't do that.

Speaker 3 (01:03:43):
Yeah, and they just they can't.

Speaker 7 (01:03:44):
They can't.

Speaker 3 (01:03:45):
People distract them.

Speaker 2 (01:03:46):
We have very important listeners, so their tension can be
pulled away from the show.

Speaker 1 (01:03:50):
Yeah, and it can be so to help them, Yes,
with that, we always carry our list back Friday segments.
We select a couple of interviews that we did this
week and replay those back. Of course, the big news
on Monday was the President's decision. Here we go again
on Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase. Ask a lot.

Speaker 2 (01:04:08):
You know somebody in Washington, in that Beltway, that swamp.
They look at states like Utah and they say, that's
flyer our country.

Speaker 3 (01:04:13):
They don't care.

Speaker 1 (01:04:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:04:14):
So anytime that we see the President of the United
States really drilling down looking at an executive order that
really does impact in a positive way the state of Utah.
And you get to see our speaker Mike states State
House Speaker Mike Schultz in attendance, Well he's worth talking
to you. I'd say, yeah, hear what he had to say.

Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
Good sign. So we asked as we began our conversation
with the Speaker of the House, Mike Schultz, we asked him,
this is kind of like a pinball back and forth.
We've been to this rodeo before. We asked them, basically,
is there anything different this time compared to the last
time when it comes to Bear's ears and Grand staircase.

Speaker 12 (01:04:45):
Well, you know, I don't know that. We're you know,
if the next administration comes back in and changes it,
you know, it's quite likely or possible that that could happen,
but we're going to do a few things to try
and prevent that. I can tell you that. So I'm
super grateful to the President for coming in making these changes,
reducing these down to sizes that are somewhat reasonable we

(01:05:08):
have to recognize and pay attention also the in Antiquities Act,
where Congress pass pass the Antiquities Act specifically says that
these monuments must be only the size necessary and as
small as possible to protect the architecture the resources that
is trying to be protected. One point three million acres

(01:05:30):
on Bears Ears, one point nine million acres on Grand
Staircase is absolutely ridiculous. Most of the monuments that we
have here in the state of Utah are only a
few thousand acres, and so, you know, to reduce them
down to the size that's reasonable and appropriate, I think
is super important. Right now, Bearsiers one hundred and twenty
thousand acres still, Grand Staircase one hundred and eighty thousand

(01:05:52):
acres still, and so there's still some of the largest
monuments that we have here in the state of Utah.
And so just grateful President Trump coming in and do it.

Speaker 5 (01:06:02):
Now.

Speaker 12 (01:06:02):
We are working and trying to work with Congress to
address Antiquities Act, but Congress doesn't seem to be doing
a whole lot right now. So you know, I don't
know what's going to happen there, but we are continuing
forward with our lawsuits, and there will be other lawsuits filed,
and so I think that's the place where I think
we'll find that the courts and the judiciary, we'll look

(01:06:22):
at this and look at what the Antiquities Act says
and rule in favor that says. President Clinton and President
Biden clearly went outside of what Antiquities Act that was
passed by Congress and the size of these monuments. So
we're going to keep on this. We're going to keep
working to keep these monuments the size that President Trump

(01:06:46):
just made them.

Speaker 2 (01:06:46):
Speaker Chaulet you know, if you live along the Wall
Satch Front, you don't interface with the Bureau of Land
Management very often. You don't know what it means that
the federal government owns land inside of our state. Our
rural communities know this one of the things that people
might not know and because they ask, Okay, it's not
a monument, now what is it. It's still federal land.
This is this Bureau of Land Management land. But the
access the land used permits the access that the public

(01:07:08):
has always had to the land, or any any Utah
has Utah has had to the land, that is restored
when you see a president that pulls this in I
think these monuments were in the millions of acres. Maybe
share with our listeners, what is it that has improved
today for Utahon's with the President scaling these monuments back
versus what they looked like under these Democrat Obama and

(01:07:30):
Biden expanding them out in millions of acres.

Speaker 12 (01:07:34):
Yeah, so great question. And what happens with the land
as it just reverts back to the BLM with the
same protections that it had in place. However, it then
does allow to have the land manage and it doesn't
create the same processes to shut down off shut down
access under the Biden administration. We saw the Biden administration

(01:07:56):
come in and close over two thousand miles of road
on our public lands. A lot of those was targeted
inside of Bear's Ears and targeted inside of Grand Staircase.
And you know, we fought to get them open back up.
So one that's the other thing. So these monuments are
designed to go through travel management plans with the intent
of closing down access to the citizens of the state.

(01:08:19):
That's wrong and that's what we saw happen. And so
that's why this is so important. Also on Bears Years,
it specifically says that the pinion junipers should be protected. Well,
guess what. Pinion junipers don't need to be protected. They
are actually in basic tree that come in and take
over everything and push out all the grasses and all
the other habitat, which then takes away resources for our

(01:08:42):
meal deer herds and our elk herds and our other
forms a while bye, as well as suck up all
the water out of the ground, leading less water in
our rivers and in our lakes, and so in the
Babylon fire you're seeing it right now, that's because of
overgoing junipers. It's gone crazy. And so being come able

(01:09:03):
to come in and do prescribe burns, knock back some
of the junipers and create more habitat for our deer
and elk and our wildlife herds is another crucial thing
that we'll be able to start doing again and working
with the DLM to do this.

Speaker 1 (01:09:21):
Speakers shows, could we see some changes right away? So
I don't know how significant the changes would be, but
even some minor changes right away. With the President's order yesterday,
could we see some right away?

Speaker 12 (01:09:31):
Well, oh, absolutely, I do believe we could. At the
speed in which the Trump administration is moving and the
things they're getting done, and that with the emphasis on
the wildfires right now, there's a lot of things that
we could go in and do and make these lands
better and do better maintenance on them and make them

(01:09:52):
more productive, and try to increase our wildlife herds. Get
some of these access roads that have been closed off
to the public, get them open back up again. Absolutely,
I think we'll start to see certainly media action out
of the Trump administration and thel on this.

Speaker 2 (01:10:08):
Yes, Speaker Shultz, this time yesterday, just twenty four hours ago.
You were at the White House, you're at you're in
the West Wing, you're in the Oval Office. I are
there any fun facts, any kind of inside stories that
you can share with our audience. When I've been to
the White House, there has been these maybe some unguarded
moments that have been funny. But anything that because you know,

(01:10:29):
what we don't see is the sea of cameras that
you're looking at standing behind the desk the Oval Office,
behind the President. But any anything that struck struck you
as you were in that ceremony yesterday that you might
want to share.

Speaker 1 (01:10:41):
You didn't lift any pens or any any envelope.

Speaker 2 (01:10:45):
I louted Air Force one when I got inside it,
I'll just confess it.

Speaker 3 (01:10:49):
But did you get any good you swag out of
this scene?

Speaker 12 (01:10:53):
I'll tell you what was an incredible opportunity. And I
just felt extremely blessed to be there and to be
working on this issue over the last couple of years
and to have it come together. I just felt incredibly
blessed to be there. But yeah, so President Trump actually
has on his desk a red button that he can
push for a diet col I almost push that button,

(01:11:14):
butause it was right there in front of me, is
everything I could to not push it. But when I
was about ready to push it, Marco Rubio comes in
and Marco says, mister's president, Sir Iran just hit two
cargo ships with drones in the in the in Iran
or in the Strait of Hormus. And uh so it
was interesting to watch watch that play out real time

(01:11:38):
and uh and and to listen to the President's reactions
and uh the first thing he said was how much
damage was there? And was anybody killed? And so it
just it just shows the level of intensity that I
think our president is going through right now, that he
truly does care about our nation and and and and
world peace and getting things right. And then you know,

(01:12:00):
he said, well they're going to get bombed to night
and wait for next week. So it was just kind
of interesting to watch that all play out in real life.

Speaker 1 (01:12:08):
Yeah, Speaker of the House Mike Schultz talking about the
reduction of Bear's Ears and Grand staircase. I hope it holds. Greg.
I'm not holding my breath though.

Speaker 2 (01:12:15):
Oh, there's just some mitigation going on too. I'd love
to get an audience with the US Supreme Court on
some of those constitutional issues of what's happened to Utah
in this fight over national monuments and encumbering more and
more land of our state. And I think those lawsuits
are going through and I would love to see this
Supreme Court rule on the side of states rights.

Speaker 3 (01:12:33):
Yeah, and I think that's so that's.

Speaker 1 (01:12:35):
The ultimate goal. I think, Yeah, it is all right
when we come back the US and leash in another
night of terror on Iran. We'll talk about that coming
up on our Listen Back Friday segments right here on
the Rod and Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one
oh five nine knrs. They're hitting bridges, they're hitting communication centers.
Greg The president means business and he's going to disrupt

(01:12:57):
everyday life in Iran until he and get them to capitulate.

Speaker 3 (01:13:01):
Yeah, well then you know, yeah, it's time.

Speaker 2 (01:13:03):
It really is time to get to find a sustainable
path forward that doesn't it require as much engagement. But
does newter this country.

Speaker 8 (01:13:10):
It is.

Speaker 2 (01:13:11):
I don't think we realized how dangerous and how far
along they were until it's required the kind of effort
that you're seeing taking place right now from a president
that doesn't like foreign engagements. He didn't run on it,
he's not doing it, but there's information that you are
confronted with that you have to act. In this president's acting, Yeah, I.

Speaker 1 (01:13:27):
Get a sense he's really weighing the decision whether or
not to put boots on the ground, I mean, like
to take over Cargo Island. Do you kind of get
that sense that that's at least in the thought process, Yes,
it is.

Speaker 2 (01:13:38):
It's a tough decision to make. Carg Island represents probably
Iran's complete power in the oil industry and how they
get oil and refine it, and that's their wealth, that's
their source of wealth. Taking that away from him would
really cripple that country. But how do you do it?
To you destroy it? Do you occupy it? It's a
tough one. I'm not really excited about boots on the ground.

Speaker 1 (01:13:58):
Well, we had a chance to talk with Peter Lamb,
senior editor at The Washington Examiner, about an article he
wrote earlier this week talking about how the president needs
any Iranian reset, and we asked him about what that
reset should look like.

Speaker 11 (01:14:10):
Well, I think it's the right thing to do. I
think it's the right thing to be aggressive. I don't
know that a fee will hold up, And like a
lot of things Trump says, I don't know if the
intention is for it to hold up or if he's
simply pressing his leverage as far as he can to
improve the United States' position here. But I think the
Iranian regime needs to be deposed, and I think that

(01:14:34):
was now the late Senator Lindsay Graham's genius simple insight
into all of this is that peace in the Middle
East and in a larger world is not possible with
this hostile, theocratic death cult with its hands on the
lever of power, and so we need to do everything

(01:14:55):
we possibly can to get them out. There's no to
go siating with these people, and there's there's no peaceful
solution to this problem, and so we need to continue
pressing the military option. I believe that, and you know
today's news, we're back on with the blockade and okay,

(01:15:16):
games back on. We're back in the game, and now
hopefully we can make something happen, because we would all
like to see a future with a peaceful Middle East.

Speaker 2 (01:15:25):
You know, Peter, everything that I saw the administration doing
in this issue, in this conflict with Iran, be it
the ceasefires or the MOUs or whatever has happened, it
seemed that like mid August was really the drop dead
date to have this thing maybe buttoned up, And it
made sense to me because they have. You we have
the midterms coming and people look to Labor Day as
kind of the beginning of that campaign season. Do you

(01:15:45):
see with today's announcement or whatever's gone on the breaking
of the ceasefire last week, do you think that we
can get this under control in a way that that
prices stabilized, The oil is stabilized in terms of price.
People feel like we've got this under control before the
mid terms.

Speaker 11 (01:16:02):
You know, it's impossible to know, but my instinct is
that no, we can't. And that goes to a problem
we've had in waging this war from the very beginning,
is that the Trump administration, while I believe it was
correct on the policy, never did the work of convincing
the people that this needed to be done. And if
we learned anything in the last fifty years of waging war,

(01:16:25):
it's impossible for the United States of America to win
a war without overwhelming public support, and as soon as
that public support starts to flag, the leaders in charge
can't do the things that are necessary to win wars.
Wars are messy, there are setbacks, they take a long time,
and if all of our decisions are merely political, we're

(01:16:45):
never going to be able to do what's necessary to
win a war. We have elections every year in this country,
even our off years, we have important elections, and it's
always a referendum on how the presidential administration is doing.

Speaker 4 (01:16:58):
Now.

Speaker 11 (01:16:58):
Under these conditions, you need to maintain a certain level
of public support for your war to be seen through
to its end, and the Trump administration never did what
was necessary to convince Americans that this was necessary. Now,
I believe this war was necessary, and it remains necessary
because fundamentally, a nuclear Iran is a strategic and moral catastrophe.

(01:17:25):
Now you think that that should go without saying that
we need to keep a ran from not having nuclear weapon.
But I don't think the case was ever made to
the American people why it's so urgent that we not
allowed this crazy regime to get a nuclear weapon. And
I think if the people understood that, they would back
this war. And so I would like to see this
moment now, Senator Graham's death, the restarting of the conflict

(01:17:49):
as a reset moment, a moment where the administration can
begin to really level with the American people about why
we need to do this. And you know, politically, we
just got to do our best. But the courageous thing,
the right thing, the wise thing, is to press this
case forward and depose you running regime.

Speaker 1 (01:18:06):
We're talking right now with Peter laughing with the Washington Examiner. Peter,
I want to ask you Donald Trump. And I think
most people recognize that Donald Trump is a pretty darn
good negotiator, but even today in his interviews this morning,
I think it was on Fox News, he basically said,
you know, the Iranians are bad negotiators, And how do
you deal with bad negotiators if you're trying to negotiate
a settlement to your Peter.

Speaker 11 (01:18:28):
Yeah, you know, that gouts to a fundamental problem. There's
the reason we have this conflict to begin with, that
these people cannot negotiate in good faith. Now elsewhere, Donald
Trump has said, I think very accurately that Iran never
wins wars, but they always win negotiations. And the reason
they win negotiations is because they're not telling the truth
and nobody holds and nobody holds them to that standard

(01:18:50):
because they have total control over their people, and they
don't care about the condition of their people. They don't
care if their people starve, they don't care if their
people don't have electricity. And those political conditions are actually
very optimal for winning negotiations. It's really hard to negotiate
if you're always telling the truth and you're always doing
things in an upright way that everybody in America agrees with.

(01:19:13):
It's very difficult for America to wage war under these conditions.
And it goes back to the more fundamental problem of
the whole thing is that if you can negotiate with
these people and they are theologically convinced that they need
to wipe Israel off the map, and they need to
destroy the Great State in the United States, and they
need Islamic domination of the globe. What are you really

(01:19:35):
negotiating with now? Is the problem with the MoU For me,
once again, we were led into this fable of an
Iranian moderate, you know, the fabled Iranian moderates, who's going
to spring up from this stew of insanity. It's never
going to happen. It's a delusion, and so I'm happy
to see us pressing forward.

Speaker 2 (01:19:55):
So you mentioned public support. I think back I wasn't
around during World War Two. Out of imagine there was
a lot of support against Germany and Adolf Hitler, and
but the last public support at least that I've tracked
would be post nine to eleven. But that didn't really
lend itself to a quick or easy war or a victory.

(01:20:15):
What does public support for a war even look like?
As you say it, I'm trying to imagine an example.
I can't think of one.

Speaker 11 (01:20:23):
No, it's a great question, and we can, I think,
make the same critique about how the Bush administration waged
the Post nine to eleven worse, the rationale wasn't fully explained,
wasn't on solid evidence sometimes, and the effort to convince
people and to sustain their support simply wasn't made. There's

(01:20:44):
something really arrogant about the way we've been waging foreign
policy for the last twenty five years. And this goes
for both parties. Presidential administration's behaving as if, first of all,
they don't need to convince the public, and by way extension,
they don't need to convince Congress. What drives me crazy

(01:21:04):
about this conflict is we have the truth on our side.
An Iranian nuclear weapon is a moral and strategic catastrophe,
and history would judge the people who allowed a nuclear
Iranian regime to happen so abominably. We would rise up.
The American people would rise up to meet this moment.

(01:21:27):
Americans are wise and moral. They just need things explained
to them. And if you think back to the start
of this conflict with a Ran back in February, back
in March, this case was not made. Now, some of
that is by design. Donald Trump is great with strategic ambiguity.
He surprised the Venezuelans, he surprised the Iranians, a year

(01:21:50):
and a half ago or a year ago with Operation
Midnight Hammer, and that worked out very well for him.
But this kind of sustained war is much different than
those very short term operations. This sustain war requires public
support because we've talked about there's always an election around
the corner, and we're at a point now where I

(01:22:11):
don't think the politics of this are going to really work.
Not in time for the midterms. Certainly, probably in time
for twenty twenty eight, but not in time for the midterms.
And it's just the time to just do.

Speaker 1 (01:22:20):
The right thing on our newsmaker line. Peter Laughin Sedi,
editor of the Washington Examiner. Now, when we come back,
are CEOs you should know right here on the Rodd
and Greg Show, CEOs you should know. It's a conversation
with some of the top business leaders in Utah. We
like to explore the ups and downs of creating and
running their business. And I'm joined now with April James,

(01:22:42):
April is Hearts Knitz together that in charge of that organization.
We'll get into what that organization is. But first of all,
welcome to CEOs. You should know.

Speaker 14 (01:22:50):
Thank you. I'm so happy to be here.

Speaker 1 (01:22:51):
We're going to have some challenges as we talk about
the challenges that you face. But what we like to
do at the beginning is called you and sixty. Now
I'm going to rapid fires questions at you. Don't put
a stopwatch to it, and it just gives us a
chance to get to know you a little bit better.
Are you okay? All right? Here we go. We call
it you in sixty with April Jane's let's get the

(01:23:14):
stopwatch going and it's working all right? Cancer, dogs dogs okay?
Early riser or night owl?

Speaker 14 (01:23:20):
Night owl for sure?

Speaker 1 (01:23:22):
Rock and roller, country, country TV or YouTube YouTube, Star
Trek or Star Wars. Neither sleep or workout? Uh sleep
city or suburbs suburbs? Energy drink or soda? Energy drinks
drink all right? Winter or summer?

Speaker 3 (01:23:43):
Winter?

Speaker 1 (01:23:44):
Driving or riding.

Speaker 14 (01:23:47):
Now driving driving for sure? Driving?

Speaker 1 (01:23:50):
Salty or sweet both both okay. Pancakes or waffles, waffles, chancer, checkers, checkers,
Superman or man?

Speaker 14 (01:24:01):
Hmmm Superman?

Speaker 1 (01:24:03):
Favorite song?

Speaker 14 (01:24:05):
Oh bitch, that's a tough one. And I don't know,
I can't think of one.

Speaker 1 (01:24:10):
Well, we'll make this the okay, childhood hero, childhood hero
times up?

Speaker 14 (01:24:17):
Missed it? I don't know. I can't even think of
a hero. I was gonna say, Jesus.

Speaker 4 (01:24:22):
There you go.

Speaker 1 (01:24:24):
And that's fine too. Well, let's get to know you
a little bit more and about Hearts Knit Together, April.
What is the organization? What are you trying to do
with Heartsnit Together?

Speaker 14 (01:24:33):
So we're a nonprofit that offers support to victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and refugees throughout the state of Utah.
So we do that business to business, we support the
agencies who are serving those victims, and so we offer
large comfort kits to those agencies so they're able to

(01:24:53):
provide the necessities, but a lot of comfort items as
well to those victims as they come into their hair,
which just instantly creates bonds and trust and starts the
healing process a lot quicker.

Speaker 1 (01:25:07):
Why did you get involved in an organization like Hearts
In It Together, you save, it's a nonprofit organization. Why
did you get involved?

Speaker 14 (01:25:13):
Well, my mom was the founder, Okay, So the organization
started in two thousand and seven when my mom met
a little group of women who wanted to do some
good and they started knitting hats and scarves for the homeless,
and now here we are almost twenty years later, We've
given over close to eighty thousand gift bags throughout the

(01:25:34):
state of Utah.

Speaker 1 (01:25:36):
What is the biggest challenge when it comes to running
a nonprofit?

Speaker 8 (01:25:39):
I think just.

Speaker 14 (01:25:40):
Keeping our heads above water financially and keeping on top
of making sure we have donations that meet the demands.
I think that is probably the biggest challenge. Is just
keeping things rolling all the time. We're always in need
and always needing to spread the word.

Speaker 1 (01:25:56):
What do you like about doing this?

Speaker 14 (01:26:00):
We are a hub of miracles. There's so much good
coming in, so many people who find value and purpose
in serving and it changes and blesses their lives, and
they're able to do that with us, and then there's
all of the good going out. We talk about the
honeybee hive and all the worker bees doing all the
work and then the honey that is the result, and

(01:26:22):
that is very, very similar to what we are. And
I just get to be in the middle of all
of it.

Speaker 1 (01:26:26):
I imagine, April, that you deal with some very tough situations.
How do you get through it? How do you maintain
that positive attitude and trying to maintain and keep the
momentum going. How difficult.

Speaker 14 (01:26:37):
Is that honestly working with all of the people who
serve and feeling of their goodness and just the goodness
in our space, and there's so much there's so much
joy in service that that's what balances out the negative.
That's what helps me keep above the dark side.

Speaker 5 (01:26:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:26:57):
Yeah, and I mind you to run into that. The volunteer.
How do you recruit volunteers? Do they come to you?
How does it happen?

Speaker 14 (01:27:03):
Yeah, So we're open Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and then
we also schedule regular service projects in the community, So
we go to businesses and corporations or different organizations and
we'll do service projects there or they can come in.
And then we also the second Saturday of every month,
we have a second Saturday service day at our location

(01:27:24):
that anybody can come, any age, any ability, and we
just have various service stations throughout our organization that they
can help do.

Speaker 1 (01:27:34):
So, as you mentioned, you deal with domestic violence. What
do people out there at the general public, what do
they not understand about domestic violence? What do you think
the one thing they should know about domestic violence?

Speaker 14 (01:27:46):
One thing I share is the statistic that is out
there that one in three Utah women will experience sexual
or domestic violence in her lifetime. That is staggering.

Speaker 1 (01:28:00):
That is I didn't realize the number was that high.

Speaker 14 (01:28:03):
Yeah, that's domestic or sexual violence. And you know, as
I talk to the twenty somethings these days, a lot
of them say, oh, that doesn't surprise me at all.

Speaker 1 (01:28:12):
Well, the physical abuse, of course, you know, happens, but
what about verbal abuse? How do you deal with that?

Speaker 14 (01:28:19):
Yeah, there's a lot of forms of abuse, and it
ranges from you know, everybody thinks of the domestic violence
where you're beaten and battered, but there's so much that
happens on the control side. There's so much verbal abuse
that's almost harder to break than the physical abuse.

Speaker 1 (01:28:40):
How do women overcome this?

Speaker 14 (01:28:42):
They reach out to is that what it is? They
need to ask for help, They need to talk to
trusted individuals. There's support and help out there. We have
over sixteen well we have sixteen domestic violent shelters in
the state, and they can reach out, ask for help,
talk to trusted friends, and seek for help. It doesn't

(01:29:02):
always necessarily have to mean that they have to leave
the life that they're in. They can get help for
both them and their abuser. But oftentimes it means making
a clean separation.

Speaker 1 (01:29:15):
April, thank you so much for joining us. Fascinating an organization.
Good luck with it continued success.

Speaker 14 (01:29:20):
Appreciate the opportunity think April James.

Speaker 1 (01:29:22):
She is the head of Hearts knit together. Here on
CEOs you should Know, bringing you insights. We like to
do this from business leaders, leaders in this community who
are achieving success. CEOs you should Know right here on
Talk Radio one oh five nine knrs

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Betrayal Weekly

Dateline NBC

.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: Cleta Mitchell on Trump's Speech; Stopping Asylum Fraud Schemes

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

Betrayal Weekly

Dateline NBC

All Episodes