The Rod and Greg Show: Utah's Alienation of Affection Law in Jeopardy; How Utah Works with ICE

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're always talking about the mountains. What's your house up
to do with the mountains?

Speaker 2 (00:03):
So I know, we got some snow up there. It
feels like winter finally.

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Well good for you. Doesn't feel like that where I live.
So let let the party.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Let the party start on. Yeah, all right, Well, how
are you everybody? It's great to be with you on
this Thursday afternoon. If you can believe it, Greg, we're
already into Thursday.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
Man. The weeks are flying by, Yes, it is, but
that's every week. I mean you, it's it's hard to
have a slow week when you have a president like
we have in the in the White House.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Yeah, it doesn't slow down, does it.

Speaker 1 (00:29):
There's a bias towards action that keeps this show on
its toes.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Yeah yeah, sure, yeah, we're changing every minute with yes,
with Donald Trump in the White House. All right, we've
got a we've got a great show lined up for
you today. We're going to talk Tom Holman.

Speaker 3 (00:42):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (00:42):
He's been in Minneapolis for a couple of days talking
with the mayor, the governor, other elected leaders there about,
you know, trying to calm that situation down a little bit.
He made some real interesting comments during the news conference today.
We'll give you a shot. We'll let you listen to that.
There's an interesting case in I think North Carolina and
Utah has a law like this. I I didn't know

(01:04):
we did, Greg. Did you know that?

Speaker 1 (01:06):
Which which law?

Speaker 2 (01:07):
The law where you can sue a home wrecker?

Speaker 1 (01:11):
We talked about this in our production. You know that
I'm behind the curve here. I did not know we
had that.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
We have a law in the books, like if someone
has an affair with your husband, you as the spouse,
could sue the woman.

Speaker 1 (01:24):
I can hear a song in my head.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
Yeah, I know you're ready. I don't know we are
ready for yet. We'll get to it. But that's a
that's a weird one. We'll get into that. Selena Zito.
Now you have been interested in John Fetterman. I have
because she may be one of the most fascinating new
senators we have in this country. But Selena and Zito

(01:46):
from Pennsylvania knows that state very very well. Yes, I
wrote an article about being John Fetterman, and Selena is
going to join us later in the show.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
We'll talk about that. She is phenomenal and folks, this
is an a lister. Selena Zito's is sought all over
this country for her commentary. And she's and she's from
southwest Pennsylvania, where I grew up, and she does know
that area of the she knows Pennsylvania well where I
grew up well. But President Trump loves her and she
wrote that book Butler, yep, that it really does describe

(02:15):
I think working class America. So well, anyway, I'm super
excited to speak with her.

Speaker 2 (02:18):
Yeah, address and Steve Moore back with us today.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
Steve extraordinaire at the White House.

Speaker 2 (02:23):
We're going to ask him if he's the next FED chairman.
We'll see how he rep.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
We'll ask him that question for sure. We need to
know if he is. He still has to stay on
our show. We kind of made him, you know it,
kind of he went up from here. He's going to
have to make a pledge to be on our show
if he becomes the new fas he's a dance with
who brungham. That's what I said. That's for sure, that's
for sure.

Speaker 2 (02:42):
Breaking news today, Tim Walls little Uh Timmy says he
he will never seek political office again. You know, there
was not ready for re election. And he told somebody
today I'll never run for public office again.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
And the rest of that sentence is because I'm about
to be indicted for fraud. That's the that's the party
didn't say, but that's probably what's coming because I think
all that, all those billions they were handing out of
taxpayer money, it's it's starting to look like it would
be pretty hard for the governor not to be aware.
And you're we have a department that looks at those
things and keeps telling you, mister governor, we have a

(03:16):
fraud problem. And he says, move along, Yeah, maybe maybe
you should be reassigned.

Speaker 2 (03:21):
Yeah, well, now you know, first you said we have
a fraud problem. Now you know what you're saying now
it's all a myth.

Speaker 4 (03:26):
I know.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
Yeah, nothing like a good riot, nothing like a good
you know, insurrection in Minneapolis to make everybody just have
a just a myth. Race erase the memory banks. Nothing
nothing to hear see here, folks, We're moving on.

Speaker 3 (03:39):
Well.

Speaker 2 (03:39):
Tom Holman met with the media today. Homan was dispatched
in Minneapolis by President Trump. He didn't an indication obviously.
I think he feels Christy Nolan does not have a
handle on that situation. Would you agree. Is she being
pushed aside? I think she is.

Speaker 1 (03:53):
I think they're putting new troops on the front lines.
I think I think I'm happy. I'm fine with Greg Vivino.
I think he's a hero. I don't think they did
anything wrong. I think they I mean bet, I will
tell you that putting new fresh troops on the line.
Don't let don't let the left, you know, create a
narrative and frame the Trump administration with intentions that aren't real.
And I think that they can switch up those those players,

(04:16):
but it doesn't have to be a condemnation towards Secretary
Nome or Greg Bovino.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
Well, a lot of people were looking this as saying,
you know, she's been pushed aside. The President isn't happy
with what's going on because of the situation and what
has happened over the last couple of weeks. He's scaling down.

Speaker 1 (04:32):
Well.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
Tom Holman held the news conference today after his meetings
with all the officials there in Minneapolis, including the mayor
and the governor, and this is what he had to
say about scaling down.

Speaker 5 (04:42):
Clear, I don't read a lout of social media. I
don't read a lot of media. I can't believe half far.
I see, we are not surrendering the president's mission and
immigration enforcement. Let's make that clear. Prioritization of criminal imageles
mean we forget about everybody else. That's just simply ridiculous. Well,
when you have a criminal standing here at a non
criminal standing there, that criminal always should be targeted for

(05:04):
it case. He's a significant concern to the safety and
security administ of the community by at large. For decades,
I licensed CVP have carried out their duties with integrity, professionalism,
when compassion. That remains the expectation of a President Trump
and we will I will hold our agents and officers
to that standard.

Speaker 1 (05:24):
So there you are.

Speaker 2 (05:25):
They're not surrendering Greg, They're making some changes as to
how things are being done.

Speaker 1 (05:31):
Yeah. May I share an example of a smaller scale
example of that moment. So when I was Speaker, we
were working on Operation Rio Grind, which is the Home Sisue.
We were confronting cartels that were engaged in human trafficking
and drug trafficking. There was the criminal element was unbelievable,
and we employed the efforts of our Department of Public Safety,

(05:52):
State and our troopers and they were now doing urban policing,
and so they held a town hall meeting where they
got agreed that his officers, his troopers would come and
listen to the public, and they were just ripping them
for enforcing the law. And I, a speaker, got in
line in that to that microphone, and I got to
that microphone and I thanked those troopers amongst all this crowd,

(06:15):
this mob of angry people, that they were finally and
that that shame on everybody yelling at them because of
the people that were being victimized by these cartels, their mules,
all the trug drug and human trafficking going on. Years later,
those troopers remember that somebody and me somebody looked at
what they did. So that's how I feel when I
look at what's been going on in Minnesota with Greg

(06:36):
Bavino and all of them up till now. They have
been doing the hardest job under the worst of circumstances,
and they've been doing it all over the country. You
got one place where that governor and that mayor have
made it particularly hard. Those men and women doing that
job have nothing but my respect.

Speaker 2 (06:50):
Well they deserve credit for Holman talked about that as well.

Speaker 5 (06:52):
First thing I said to senior staff, and I walked
in here, That's why I told you, And they come
here looking photo ops er headlines. I come here, come
first solutions. I do not want to hear that everything's
been done here has been perfect. Nothing's ever perfect. Anything
that's be improved on. And what we've been working on
is making this operation shafer, more efficient. By the book,

(07:19):
the mission is going to improve because of the changes
we're making it internally.

Speaker 2 (07:25):
Little dig at noman of Bevino saying I'm not here
for publicity. You know what a little bit of a dig.

Speaker 1 (07:31):
Well, we'll see because here's here. It's easy to say.
But I'm telling you, if these if these people continue
to try and engage and do this and there's it
looks like a mistake has been made. If that administration
stays completely silent and never gets in front of a
camera to answer questions and the other side gets to
run their narrative, we'll see how that looking for cameras
angle works. I'm telling you, I think they answered the

(07:52):
questions that need to be answered in the time they
did it.

Speaker 2 (07:55):
Well, here's the question I think are a point that
has been made, and Holman makes it here. It's very simple.
What I think they want out of Minneapolis. They just
want cooperation, cooperation with police. This whole thing over the
last what two or three or four weeks now could
have ended in a minute if the mayor and the
governor and the Attorney general said we are not going
to start cooperating with ICE.

Speaker 1 (08:16):
It is why it works in Utah, is why all
over this country there's not one operation going on in
the United States of America. There's one place where you're
seeing what you're seeing, where you're seeing it wildly successful
at ninety nine percent versus the one percent in Minnesota.
Is the cooperation of law enforcement, public safety being the priority,
and then the enforcement of laws federal and stay all

(08:38):
of it. They're all working together. That's how you do it.
Minneapolis and Minnesota do not do it that way.

Speaker 2 (08:44):
And that's exactly what Holman said today.

Speaker 5 (08:46):
Give us access to the illegal alien, public safety threat,
and the safety and security, but jail. It's common sense.
Is safer for the community, is safer for the agent,
and they're safer for the ani because anything happen on
the street. To us, it just made common sense. And

(09:07):
for the people that argue, well, we're welcome in community.
We want victims and witnesses of crime that are here
illegally to feel safe to come to the police without fear
of the work with ICE. We're not going to talk
to the victim witness of crime. There's no problem there.
They should feel safe to come to the police and

(09:28):
ask for help. All we want is to talk to
the person that local and state law enforcement authorities locked
in the jail cell they chose the lock this person up.
That's where we want to talk to the public safety track.

Speaker 2 (09:44):
Very good point, pretty simple. We just want to talk
to the guys that you've already locked up.

Speaker 1 (09:49):
Yeah, Yeah, that's it.

Speaker 2 (09:51):
That's what he's asking for. All right, when we come back,
how are people here in Utah, law enforcement in Utah
dealing with this issue. We'll talk about that as the
Rod of Gregg Show rose along on this Thursday afternoon
right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine
cann Us.

Speaker 1 (10:05):
I looked at the Desert Left News and I saw
the headline will ICE action lead to violence in Utah?
And I think I know the answer to that question already,
but I wanted to see how they were going to
cover it. And lo and behold, I saw some quotes
from some incredible sheriffs. As you know, folks, I honored
to work with our Utah elected sheriffs in each county
and joining us on the program to talk about some

(10:27):
of the great things that he pointed out in the
article today this morning. Joining us is Mike Smith. He's
the Utah County Sheriff. Sheriff from Utah County Sheriff Smith,
thank you for joining us on the program.

Speaker 4 (10:39):
Absolutely so here.

Speaker 1 (10:41):
I liked your answer. You were asked about, uh, you know,
could this happen? Could this kind of violence take place?
And the circumstances that are happening in Minnesota could they
happen here? And I thought your answer in terms of
how you've always interacted with ice and what you do
in your job for you know, defending public safety, I
thought it was a great answer. Probably not what the

(11:02):
media wanted to hear, because I think it's pretty blunt
and it's true share with our listeners. Can something like
that's going on in Minneapolis, Minnesota happen here in Utah
or Utah County where you're the elected sheriff.

Speaker 6 (11:16):
Well, you know, of course I don't want to say never,
say never, but the reality is your sheriffs across the state,
we've worked diligently with our federal partners and we've worked
with ICE. And I know that's not a popular thing
to say, but you know what, honestly, it's weird because
before President Trump took office, it kind of was a
popular thing to say. We were getting criticized the other way.

(11:38):
But we've worked hard to establish that relationship. And so
my answer is the reality is no, you know, there's
a slight possibility, but because of our efforts to cooperate
and to go after the criminals in our community, No,
I don't see that happening in Utah County or any
other county that is willing to cooperate.

Speaker 2 (12:00):
Sheriff how how cumbersome is the process when someone is arrested,
local officials, be it a sheriff's deputy or a police department,
check and realize the person that we just apprehended has
a criminal record and we need to notify ICE. How
cumbersome over process does it take to turn that individual

(12:20):
over to ICE?

Speaker 6 (12:22):
Well, the reality is, you know, on the street level,
your local law enforcement doesn't have the ability to check that.
You've got to have an ICE agent come out and
do that. The two EDC seven G programs that are
put in place are aim to help do that. But
once they make it to the jail, we run those checks.

(12:43):
And this is something that's happened, you know, far beyond
the Trump administration. This has been happening at least in
my jail for years. Is everybody that comes through, a
check is done, It goes ice, is notified that an
illegal immigrant is in our facility. And also so it's
actually sent twice because the State BCI will send it
in as well. And it's not difficult. It just we're

(13:07):
running those Those checks are being run anyway to try
to identify who it is we have in custody, and
the notifications are made.

Speaker 1 (13:15):
You know, on this program, Sheriff, we've played clips of
then President Obama talking about enforcing immigration laws. We've seen
we've shown where Tom Holman is getting an award for
working under President Obama in President Obama's administration, getting an
award for the work he's doing to UH to enforce
immigration laws. I thought one of your comments in the

(13:35):
in today's paper or today's news story was really important.
Maybe you can share it. I don't think your job
has ever changed. It's just how people want to talk
about it. Are you doing anything different? You weren't, It wasn't.
I think you tell us what you were doing before
what you're doing today, and if there's any difference, I
know the narratives different, but are is the work you're
doing any different?

Speaker 6 (13:57):
No, there's no real difference. The narrative has changed. The narrative.
We all know how the media pushes the narrative. And
it's frustrating because you have ice who's doing a legitimate job.
They've they've been around for several decades under several different
sides of the aisle of administration, and you know, here's
here's the reality. Because it's President Trump right now, it's

(14:21):
all of a sudden the wrong thing to do. And
it's frustrating because no, our jobs haven't changed.

Speaker 2 (14:28):
Sheriff, let me ask you this. We're talking with Mike Smith.
He's the sheriff in Utah County. Sheriff Tom Holman was
on today. He's been in Minneapolis for a couple of
days trying to get a handle on things or better
understand what's going on, and he said, basically, all we
want is cooperation. You know, let us know, when you've
got somebody that we should be taking a look at,
could this all have been avoided? Do you think over

(14:50):
the past two three four weeks, if Minnesota officials and
Minneapolis officials had cooperated with ICE, could it have been avoided?

Speaker 6 (14:58):
Yes? I believe it. I mean the reality is the
level of cooperation that he's even talking about is minimal.
You know, if you have somebody in your jail that
has criminal charges and that's who that's who they are
trying to target first and foremost before you let him
out on the street, notify eyes and let him take

(15:18):
a look at it. I honestly don't think that's too
much to ask.

Speaker 1 (15:22):
So where do you think we go from here? The
one thing I don't like to see is I thought
that Greg Bavino was doing a very good job. I
think he was answering the questions from the media. I
know people have been critical of a Secretary Christy Nome
or even Greg Bavino, head of Border Patrol. I don't
like seeing that because I think every one of them
are doing the work, the hard work. Where you have

(15:42):
a new kind of a change of the guard. You've
got Tom Holman there, Now you have this, he's a
no nonsense guy. Where do you think things go in Minnesota?
Is this kind of a retreat in your mind you
see this or do you think they're going to continue
on the same path? What does Minnesota look like? And
you're just your opinion going forward?

Speaker 6 (16:02):
Hard to say. I mean, I really do hope that
Minnesota decides to cooperate to come to the table, to
be a state that is a rule of the lost state.

Speaker 3 (16:11):
That's you know, that's what I.

Speaker 6 (16:13):
Think they're asking for people who have sworn an off
to defend their communities, that wear a badge on their chest,
remember that it's rule of law and step back from
the politics of it and do the job that you've
taken anolf to do. And I think if they can
do that, then I think we see improvements in Minnesota.

Speaker 2 (16:34):
Well, we can only hope, Sheriff. We appreciate a few
minutes your time. We appreciate everything that you're department and
shaffs throughout this state due for this great state of ours.
Thanks for joining us.

Speaker 1 (16:43):
Thank you all right.

Speaker 2 (16:44):
That is Utah County Sheriff Mike Smith joining us right
here on the Rod and Greg Show in Utah's talk
radio one oh five nine knrs. But apparently it involves
former Arizona Senator Kirsten sentiment. By the way, a BYU
graduate from what I understand and basically says when my
next guest wrote this in an opbed piece and the
Federalist when a home wrecker invades the marriages a marriage

(17:07):
laws in most states provide little recourse for spouses and
children who lives been torn apart the devastation from betrayal
is real. North Carolina is one of the few states,
Greg that offers protection.

Speaker 1 (17:20):
North Carolina. But you're saying, and I think if you're
in Utah as well, well, that's about time these tarts
start getting held accountable.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
I say, well, let's find out more about this. Joining
us on our newsmakerline right now is Beverly Willette. She
is an author. She wrote this article. Beverly, how are you,
and welcome to the Rotting Greg Show.

Speaker 7 (17:39):
Thank you for having me on.

Speaker 2 (17:41):
Beverly. This is I didn't realize there was a law
on the books like this. Does Utah have one similar
to North Carolina?

Speaker 4 (17:49):
Yes?

Speaker 7 (17:49):
It does, and is there You know these laws used
to exist, you know, for for a long time and
starting the turn of the twentieth century, state started eliminating
them one by one, and then, of course we know
we have no fault divorce and adultry laws being eliminated.

(18:09):
But six states, well five as of today. I'll just
tell you the latest six states had them a few
days ago, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, and
North Carolina. And I just learned that New Mexico just
got rid of it literally two days ago. And I

(18:31):
heard that you guys have some Republicans in the legislator there.
The one has introduced a bill, it's passed the Senate,
it's in the House now, and there's momentum behind it
to get rid of your alienation of affection law.

Speaker 1 (18:48):
Oh wait a minute, is that a bad look? I mean,
are they trying to hide something like who would who?
I'm a recovering public servant? Okay, so I'm not a
public servant any longer. But wouldn't it wouldn't there be
an optics issue if you were trying to get ready
get rid of that provision as a lawmaker does in
any other state. Does this happened or where it happens?

(19:09):
Do you think questions are asked about politicians that want to,
you know, take those kind of laws off the books.

Speaker 7 (19:17):
You wonder, don't you you say what is behind it?
Because you know I did some digging with with Utah
and the senator there says it's it's offensive. It's a
patently offensive concept that I have the quotes here. It
disrespects the free will of parties who have decided to

(19:39):
move on to a different relationship.

Speaker 2 (19:43):
WHOA.

Speaker 7 (19:44):
So now we need to protect the home wreckers and
the people that walk out on their marriages and their families,
and we need this is where we need to put
our sympathy. I'm on scratching my head over it.

Speaker 2 (19:57):
Yeah, Beverly, how difficult is it for the plaintiff to
win a case like this? Because as we all know,
it takes two to tango, So how you can play
blame one and up the other? I mean, how difficult
are these cases to win?

Speaker 7 (20:11):
Well? Uh, you know, I don't know the statistics in
terms of how many are brought versus how many are successful,
So I you know, I don't know that. You don't
have to prove, For example, in North Carolina, you don't
have to you don't have to prove that the party
has actually had sex. Okay, so that you know, we
know that that in the old days with adultery and

(20:34):
you had the private investigators going out and trying to
catch people in compromising positions, that was very hard. So
that's that's not part of it. So it's not as
difficult I would I would say, And there, uh, there's
been a lot of activity in North Carolina where this
current suit is going on. There was I mean literally

(20:55):
there's been a lot of suits and well over a
million dollars in two thousand and four teen. Somebody want
to suit for thirty million. And just in November there
was a woman who sued a TikTok star and for
taking her husband and she was awarded by a jury
one point seventy five million. The planet here is demanded

(21:16):
a jury child too.

Speaker 1 (21:18):
So who are the stakeholders that we need to alert
to keep this law in the books so that the
people that want to they I can only imagine that
bill succeeding if no one really knows what it does,
or I just think it has.

Speaker 7 (21:30):
I'm not going to name names, but I do have
some contacts in Utah in this area, and this particular
person that I called today said I was not aware
of that. Thank you.

Speaker 4 (21:41):
I'll get back to you.

Speaker 7 (21:43):
So I think that's incredibly that's a very important question
because if this person that I am not going to
name right now didn't know about it, there are people
that don't know about this. And apparently it's now past
the Senate, it's in the House. It's maybe up for
a vote. I hear uh in May, and it could

(22:03):
it could get passed before anybody knows what's going on.

Speaker 1 (22:06):
Well, we have the fastest session in America that will
be all done before in the first week of March,
so that thing could come in faster. So but that's
what our show's for, especially during the session. We thank
you for bringing this to our attention because I'm interested
in I think Hall and Oates are interested. I think
we have a lot. I think this has been a
running commentary.

Speaker 7 (22:23):
So yeah, you know, I was on I'll just tell
you last I'm sorry. I was on a zoom call
last night with some people called standards, which are basically
they're standing for their marriage even though they've been divorced
against their will. And there's a there was a guy
on the zoom call in Utah and I'm sending him

(22:44):
the information, so let's get the word out.

Speaker 2 (22:46):
Well, yeah, or other are other states interested in this?
Or do they try and we aren't going there with
this issue?

Speaker 7 (22:54):
Well that's on. This is this has got me got
me upset now because we had six states, we were down.
We were left with six states and apparently the people
at the Policy Council in North Carolina told me that
there have been efforts before to get rid of it
in North Carolina where where it's pretty strong, and they
had to fight off attacks back in twenty twenty one.

(23:17):
We know now there's a decision that just came out,
literally just came out from the New Mexico Supreme Court
eliminating it. And now we hear about Utah. So I
don't know. I'm checking out the other.

Speaker 1 (23:30):
States pattern recognition. Do men always sponsor of these bills
to get rid of this law? I'm just taking just wondering,
thinking out loud. Is it always a guy that's trying
to get rid of this alienation of affection laws? Because
you know might well, I.

Speaker 7 (23:45):
See two lawyers in Utah both I think they're both lawyers,
and they're both men. So I don't.

Speaker 1 (23:52):
Know what to say this is trouble all right, Beverly,
thank you. We'll keep our eye on there. This is
very interesting one. We are going to track this. We
appreciate your work on this. Thank you.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
Beverly be author, former litigator and copyrighted attorney. I've never
heard of this. When this story came up, you know,
and we got a note you may want to talk
to Beverly about this. It's a fascinating story.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
Yeah, watch out their man, you know, a careful many
were just we're just trying to mind our own business
and they come around and try to ruin everything. Glad
there's a law. I never knew it, but there ought
to be a law.

Speaker 2 (24:27):
I still say it takes two to ten goo. All right,
more coming up with the Rod and Gregg Show in
Utah's Dark Radio one oh five nine Canterists.

Speaker 1 (24:34):
It's a two line bill. They're getting rid of alien
It is not an actionable, legal actionable item to sue
for alienation of affection, which, to translate, means if someone
went and stole your your man, you can't go after
him for doing can serpe or him maybe or her,
it's not it's up to the gender. But you know,

(24:54):
there's been there's anyway that that is being taked. I
looked at the vote count. Yes, we only have have
one senator who voted against that bill. Yeah, and I
would commend the senator, Senator Dan McKay said, you know what, women, ever,
anyone should have the right to. That's an actionable item.
You should be able to if someone went in and
it was a home wrecker, they might have to pay

(25:16):
for that. Only Senator Dan McKay said that he thought
that was worth being an actionable item. The rest of
the Senate I trying to tell us something. Is there
something going on over there? I don't. I think that's
a litmus test. I don't even I wonder if.

Speaker 2 (25:31):
There are holes in the law that they don't like
or what.

Speaker 1 (25:34):
I have an eyebrow raised at this bill. This is
a very Where did this come from? Was there some
like uprising of tarts and home wreckers saying we don't
want to be sued anymore? What was going on?

Speaker 2 (25:43):
You would think the vorce lawyers would love this bill.
One would think their new avenues.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
Well, yeah, I mean, you know, with social media and
everything else, there's a lot of people that mine in
our own business. The next thing you know, people want
to just you know, mess up.

Speaker 2 (25:56):
Things and for you just joining this all the result
of Kirsten Cinema, the former senator from Arizona, who apparently
had an affection or a relationship or an affair with
one of her employees. Right, and the wife of that
individual is now suing her. Yeah, and there have been
cases where the the the the jilted wife has gotten

(26:19):
millions of dollars to support the family.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
I think that's appropriate. I think that you know, you
mess around, you find out in a whole different way. Right,
I'm just saying just program. But we're trying to defend
the family over here. We're saying, hey, this this is accountability.
You want to go and you're like a family. You
want to be a homewrecker. You gotta face some justice.

Speaker 2 (26:42):
You want to tango baby, you gotta pay for it?

Speaker 1 (26:44):
Yes you do.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
Yeah, that's what That's what I'm thinking.

Speaker 1 (26:47):
Answer the devil, you will get burned. Now apparently not
in the Senate. They don't want that part. We got
to talk to anyone to give Utah senators what are
the up to? I want to yeah, what are they
up to? Because you would never find me voting against
that bill. I was there, but I would be yes,
and Queen Bee, I'm a yes on that. Don't you worry.
Those homewreckers need to get they need to be held accountable. Yeah,

(27:10):
that's where I'm at.

Speaker 2 (27:11):
Well, apparently twenty five twenty six Utah senators don't think
you need to be.

Speaker 1 (27:18):
I think now it's I don't know. I'm so confused,
I really am. I see that bill and I'm like,
this bill has no there's no good optics to it.
I haven't heard any kind of political pressure about it.
It's the weirdest bill.

Speaker 2 (27:29):
Why isn't this come up for more? This would be
a bill that would get a lot of attention, and
it's not getting any One would think.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
Maybe there's just too many people vested in the outcome
of this bill, and I just think that's not a
good look. Or you know, are you a Utah senators,
I'm sure saying I'm trying to understand the motive of
even getting involved in a bill like this, let alone
having such wild say it passed unanimalsly out of committee. Yeah,
it is Unano's out a committee, one loan, no vote
in the Senate floor. I don't know, just very confusing

(28:00):
to me. Yeah, I am not on the side of
that bill. I am here to tell you folks that
I think it should be an actionable item. Yeah, alienation
of affection. If someone's been been harmed, our home has
been wrecked, there should be an actionable idea.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
Well, I want to hear from our listeners. Should we
get rid of this bill or should it be on
I had most of our listeners don't even know we
have such a bill.

Speaker 1 (28:20):
I didn't well, yeah, I didn't know it was a lot.
But once you find out it's a lot, I'm not
the one that's going to remove it. I wouldn't do it,
you know.

Speaker 2 (28:27):
I look, okay, yeah, I saving the family, protecting the family,
helping the family. This, in my opinion, a pro family bill, I.

Speaker 1 (28:35):
Would say, I would say, and look, it's it's not
gender specific. It could be anyone that's out there trying
to break up a home. Yeah, there should be a consequence. Yeah, well,
we're into the Senate. They don't think so, they're all
I guess it's too wild and free over there. I
always thought that was the House of Lords. This seems
a little bit too wild for them to do. Really,
do you think they do what this bill does. Maybe
they don't. I'm going to you know what do after

(28:56):
the show. I'm going to listen to the floor debate.
I want to hear what was said about this boy or.

Speaker 2 (29:00):
Floor debate on it, or any of those debate.

Speaker 1 (29:03):
Yeah, you have to the bill sponsor has to present
the bill. There can be clarifying questions or comments for
support or against, or questions to the sponsor. I want
to know how much deliberation took place.

Speaker 2 (29:14):
It's called the alienation of Affection bill. You may not
have much of a life any longer in Utah.

Speaker 1 (29:21):
I want to hear from our listeners.

Speaker 2 (29:22):
We'll talk about and get your reaction. That's coming up.
Stay with us on the Rotten Gregg Show.

Speaker 1 (29:27):
If you've heard breaking news here on the Rotten Gregg Show.
The Senate and a wave of support are looking to
eliminate the action the legal actionable item of or legal
action of alienation of affection, which apparently me is if
someone were to lure a spouse away from their their

(29:50):
wife or husband and family, that the person that's been
deprived of that love and that companionship can sue the
person who interrupted that family. And it's it's happiness.

Speaker 2 (30:01):
Yeah, if you are with us. Last staff hour, we
spoke with Beverly Willette, who wrote a story about this
in Fox News. This has got our attention.

Speaker 3 (30:08):
Greg.

Speaker 2 (30:08):
Let me just read with it a little bit, or
read for you a little bit of what the article says.
When a home wrecker invades a marriage. Laws in most
states provide little recourse for spouses and children who lives
are torn aport, but devastation from betrayal is real. North
Carolina is one of few states that offers protection to

(30:30):
the spouse. Utah is also one of those states. In
the latest lawsuit for alienation of affections, Heather Ammel, a
wife and mother of three children ranging in age from
ten to fourteen, claims former Arizona Senator Kristin Cinema seduced
her husband and destroyed her fourteen year of marriage and
her family, and she is now seeking financial reparations. Now,

(30:55):
we have a law just like this one in North
Carolina on the books, but apparently there are some lawmakers
up on the hill who want to get rid of it.

Speaker 1 (31:04):
I just think the optics are poor. Yeah, okay, I
don't see how anyone has thought this is urgent enough,
serious enough, or wants to say maybe if they are married.
I don't think a third party that would interrupt the
marriage should be held accountable for doing that. I don't
know how you make that case and not look like
you yourself are callous to the consequences of a harlotte,

(31:27):
a tart, somebody a home wrecker coming in and breaking
up a marriage and a family. How do you how
do you how do you get rid of that without
yourself looking like you're not appreciating that there's there are
consequences to these things.

Speaker 2 (31:41):
This is not the first case that has been filed
like this, and in other cases, as Beverly Willet pointed
out to us, Greg, there have been damages awarded to
the spouse and to the tune of anywhere from one
and a half million to upwards of thirty million dollars
as a result of this. So, I mean, I had
never heard of this, but apparently it does exist on

(32:01):
Utah's law books.

Speaker 1 (32:02):
Well, not for long if he keeps going as fast
as it's going. Right now, everybody but one senator said no,
I think this should stay. Everybody who is an attorney. Also,
by the way, a male attorney but he's saying no,
I think he I think his wife probably saw this
bill and so he was going to be at No, honey,
you're going for this. This is wrong. I agree with you.
Did no way he do not test the medal of

(32:24):
the chair. Yes, this is this is the very senator
we're talking about. He is very smart. I would say
he's I'm going to call him after the show and
say you are a wise senator and head of heart.

Speaker 2 (32:33):
Well, we want to hear what you think eight eight
eight five seven eight zero one zero triple eight five
seven o eight zero one zero on our talkback line.
All you dudes need to download the iHeartRadio app and
leave a message. Is there check it out? All right,
let's go to the phone. See what your reaction to
this is. We begin in South Jordan with Mark Tonight
here on the rod in. Great show. Mark, how are you?
Thanks so much for joining.

Speaker 8 (32:53):
Us, Thanks for having me. This law ought to go
And here's the reasons why. I haven't read the article,
but years and years ago I represented a client who
was involved in an alienation of affection case. What what
happens is that if you could really sue someone anytime

(33:18):
there was a divorce. How many alienation of affection cases
would there be? There would be dozens and hundreds and
thousands and thousands every single year. Mark the burden of
proof is a yes.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Wouldn't that keep there being that many divorces? If you
could do this, I mean, doesn't that? Isn't that a
isn't that a motivation to not break up a home,
a family, the kids? If? If that is a pending law.
To your point.

Speaker 8 (33:47):
Where you're you're you're assuming the requirement of the law
is that the new person is the sole cause, the
predominant cause of the breakup of the marriage, And almost
never is that true. Most people don't have a wandering

(34:10):
eye unless they were not happy at home anyway. The
underlying assumption is that somehow everybody's perfectly happy and then
some other person snatches the other person away. These cases
are rarely, rarely one, and the reason everyone else is

(34:32):
well all the other states except for North Carolina have
abolished them as they're so so difficult to prove. All
you have to do is have espouts this leaving say,
are you kidding? We didn't have a great marriage, I
would have left anyway, And the case goes away.

Speaker 2 (34:48):
Yeah, I was going to ask you, Mark, and I
asked Beverly will at this, who is our author talking
about this? It does take two to tango, And how
do you prove one has more influence over the other one?
I mean, you have to have both parties agree to this.
Is that the real issue here, Mark, that is.

Speaker 8 (35:06):
And the other underlying unstated comment and premise here to
these lawsuits is that the person who's leaving the marriage
was somehow devoid or lost all of their free will.
The other person just to put them away, and they

(35:29):
had no choice in the matter because they choose to go.
There's no alienation of affection. The other person has to
lure them away and overcome their desire to stay in
the marriage. And that's that's just almost impossible.

Speaker 1 (35:46):
Let me ask you, I don't know if you're a
divorce attorney, if this is what your main what you've done.

Speaker 9 (35:50):
Or.

Speaker 8 (35:52):
I have not been. I have not been a divorce
attorney for years and years okay anyway.

Speaker 1 (35:58):
Here, and I'm not an attorney at all, So I
I don't come with any expertise or any firsthand knowledge
of any of this. But there is a saying that
I heard a long time ago that every time. If
I know anyone that's going through a divorce or something
that's saying is nobody lets go over a branch until
they got their hand on the next. If you don't
have your hand on the next branch, you're not letting.

Speaker 6 (36:16):
No other first.

Speaker 1 (36:17):
So there seems to be a motivation, a catalyst for
a lot of these where even if they were not
getting along, if there's another branch to hang on to,
you can let go of the one you were holding
on to before. That's just a saying, I know, but
I guess it says that the standards I'm reading were
just there was a marriage, the defendants wrong factions caused
the loss of affection, and the loss of affection directly

(36:38):
harmed the marriage. The burden of proof is as you say,
it's complex because were they actually happy or not? But
don't you think that it's harder to just walk away
into nothing versus someone else's receiving arms. You know, I'm
just asking, maybe this is better for Oprah to answer.
I don't know, Mark, I'm I'm just wondering what you think.

Speaker 8 (36:58):
Well, and that's the problem. It's a sliding scale. I'm
sure there are people who leave with nowhere else to
go because there's abuse and no one wanted to entice
them away. I'm sure there are people who have had
an unhappy marriage for years and years and years, and
so they're looking for something else and find it. There

(37:20):
are millions and different possibilities of what's out there. The
burden of proof in this specific law is that the
new person had to cause the breakup of the marriage.
That's a that's you almost never succeed with that because

(37:43):
who leaves and somebody else took away their free will
and really caused the breakup of the marriage.

Speaker 2 (37:50):
Yeah, yeah, Mark, great insight. I appreciate your input on this.
That's the point you really. Maybe that's why Utah senators
voted twenty six to one to get rid of it,
because it's so difficult to approve.

Speaker 1 (38:01):
I think to prove, I should say, but here's the deal.
It's the perfect excuse. It wasn't my fault. You heard
the whole of oe story. There's man eaters out there,
there's home wreckers out there. I was I'm a victim
over here. That's what I think. That's a much more
plausible excuse. Guys, what are you doing getting rid of
this law. I don't understand. Yeah, well, all right, more
of your phone. It's not that's true.

Speaker 2 (38:24):
Two a street good go both plays. That's right. Eight
eight eight five seven eight zero one zero eight eight
eight five seven eight zero one zero. We already have
some comments on a talk back line. We'll get to
those when the Rotten Grag Show continues. You're on Utah's
talk radio one oh five nine can ars.

Speaker 1 (38:53):
Welcome back. So the Rotting Greg Show, don't stand so
close to me. The home wrecker. I don't care if
it's not an action wider than Utah, or if it
won't be behave yourself. I can't believe that the Senate
was so excited about this bill. That's all I can
see is excitement. When you pass it with only one
no vote, five partisan support, we're getting rid of. This

(39:16):
leaves me with a lot of questions.

Speaker 2 (39:17):
Well, we have what we're talking about. If you're just
joining this now, Utah is one of five states now
apparently that has a bill called Alienation of affection and
what that allows is a woman to stand up to
an alleged home wrecker and seek financial compensation. This deals
with the case involving Kirsten the sentiment the former senator

(39:37):
out of the state of Arizona, and we're asking you now,
there are attempts to get rid of this law in
this state. Apparently we had someone called in that is very,
very difficult to prove and.

Speaker 1 (39:47):
Maybe good I get a little I joke a little
bit about this, but I thought I thought his information
was important.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
Well, it's important, yeah, and is this a law that
Utah should keep on the books even though it is
difficult to prove.

Speaker 1 (40:01):
I will defer to the collective wisdom of our listeners.
I've never been led astray.

Speaker 2 (40:07):
Let's go to those listeners right now. We go to Marlane,
who is in Sandy tonight here in the Rod and
Greg Show. Marlaane, thanks so much for joining us. What
are your thoughts on this? Marlane?

Speaker 10 (40:17):
Well, actually, my mom was sued for alienation of affection.

Speaker 3 (40:21):
Really, yeah, she's not that's.

Speaker 10 (40:25):
Awkward man either or a homewreckord. I I didn't hear
about this until I as an adult. You want the story, sure, yes, yes,
So back in the sixties, my dad was in the
air forcing station and not in the home, and he
met a lady and married her. And it was not
a very long term marriage. They never had kids or anything,

(40:46):
and she just up and left. She went to live
with her parents in another state. And I don't know
how long this operation was or what was going on,
but he met my mom, who was an Air Force nurse,
liked her, wanted to date her. So he for divorce
or maybe even a moment because it was not a
long marriage, no kids or anything. And the woman came

(41:06):
back and took my mom to court for alienation of affection.

Speaker 1 (41:11):
So did she did the woman who sued your mother
prevail or did your mother win in that tease?

Speaker 3 (41:17):
Not at all?

Speaker 10 (41:18):
No, that the judge threw it right out. It was
a ridiculous case. She had left the marriage there was,
she had no leg to stand on, so he threw
it out of court. But I asked my mom what
was that lady like? And she said she was a
blonde bimbo, which was the first and only time I've
ever heard my mom used the word bimbo. But it
kind of laid it out for me.

Speaker 1 (41:37):
Well, let me ask you this is there. Does the
presence of a law like this though, does that have
a chilling effect at all of people misbehaving trying to
you know, do things they shouldn't, maybe distract in people
they shouldn't. Is there is there anything too alienation of
affection that makes it, you know, not not harmful to
have on the books, Like they couldn't prove it with
your mom, so they threw it out. So no harm,

(41:59):
no foul other than right, Does it have a chilling
effect at all? If you have a law like this.

Speaker 3 (42:06):
You know?

Speaker 10 (42:06):
I mean you think about that the person that is
willing to move in on a married person and lwer
them away. I don't know that they would. They're not
following some laws as it is, or at least not
moral laws, so I don't know that it can be
priven or or if it's even worth anything. I mean,
I mean, I think the spouse that's led away made

(42:28):
a choice, and I hope that they have to take
care of that person monetarily. But that other person in
there and.

Speaker 3 (42:34):
Maybe they just will have their own misery.

Speaker 10 (42:36):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (42:37):
Ye, Marline, thank you for calling. Thank you for sharing
that a real life example. Yeah, that's you know, the circumstances.
I guess each story there is something unique to it.
But I go back to that saying that I said
to to our caller, I don't see you're letting go
of a branch until you get your hand on the
other one the tree. Yes, And so I think that

(43:00):
a lot of times, even if marriages are rocky, what
is the catalyst for maybe a divorce or breaking up
a family? It might be the endorphins felt, the interest
felt in somebody else, and if they've been very aggressive
in that. I don't know, I don't know. I just
I that man's probably a victim.

Speaker 2 (43:18):
Your calls that woman, Yeah, that man eight zero one
zero eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero
or leave us coming on the talkback line. Here's one
of our listeners giving us a talkback thought.

Speaker 9 (43:31):
Hey, Rod and Greg, I just looked up the alienation
of affection law, and it covers more than just someone
taking a spouse away in an affair situation. And you
can also sue a family member or friends who meddle
in other people's marriages.

Speaker 1 (43:49):
I'd like to know, man, we did not know that.

Speaker 2 (43:53):
So a family member could be sued if they're involved
in helping a couple break up, on marriage dissolve.

Speaker 1 (44:01):
This is interesting that we've opened a Pandora's box. You're like,
I didn't I did not notice it law existed, and
now we're hearing examples, we're hearing circumstances. It's very intriguing.

Speaker 2 (44:10):
I just may you know, maybe we've been kind of
going after the senators who voted to get rid of
this bill. But maybe maybe it's two things. It may
be difficult to prove, which one of our callers said earlier,
maybe very difficult to prove. And maybe if it involves
other family members, maybe that's the reason to try and
get rid of this. I'm not sure, you know.

Speaker 1 (44:31):
I think they should leave it. I just I would never, ever,
in a million years, vote for that bill. I'm just
telling you right now, I would not vote for that bill.
I would say no, even if there was justification for
getting rid of it. No, I'm mayor, I'm a married man,
and I'm not going to ever make it easier for
people to get divorced without a consequence. There's no way
in the world I am. I am on the side
of my marriage. That's what I am. I'm never ever

(44:51):
vote for that bill. By the way, in this story,
that would do that, Queen Bee.

Speaker 2 (44:55):
Yeah, in this story, the vice president of the North
Carolina Family Policy Council that's where this measure is taking
place right now, that North Carolina still holds any third
party accountable who seeks to undermine and destroy the sacred
union of marriage.

Speaker 1 (45:12):
You know, I know we got to go break, But
someone telling me that that doesn't happen. Are we supposed
to believe that those things don't occur in life? I
think that there. I think there may be some bad
intentions out there, some selfish intentions out there that ought
to come with a consequence.

Speaker 2 (45:25):
All right, before the break, let's go back, get another
phone call. Let's go to Matt in West Jordan tonight
here in the rod In great show. Matt, how are you?
Thanks for joining us weigh in on this. What are
your thoughts?

Speaker 11 (45:36):
Well, my question would be like, how would that work
for people to have a relationship across state lines? So,
for instance, a lot of relationships start online. Now, so
what if the one person's in count like in Utah,
and the other person's in Florida.

Speaker 1 (45:51):
You know you're thinking this through, aren't you, Matt? I
don't know why. No, I'm just no, You're right. I mean,
I don't know how other states, you know, how the
interstate commerce of all this works. But yeah, online discussions,
but maybe where the person resides whose home is being
broken up. That's where if there's laws or not laws
related to this, where we can go across the state latistictions.

(46:12):
You know that the person you go after in the
jurisdiction where they have the law, you can't break up
that family, or if you do it, the person who
broke it up might find themselves in legal jeopardy.

Speaker 2 (46:21):
Well, it must work across JD lines, Matt, because according
to the story that we saw, Kirsten Cinemon actually lives
in Arizona. This lawsuit and this apparently took place in
Virginia or North Carolina, so they are in fact suing
her even though she lives in the state of Arizona.

Speaker 1 (46:35):
Oh that's a good point. Yeah. So the example of
that law is that across state lines did not make
them immune. No, no, it did not did not from
being charged with her being sued. I think it's a
civil suit.

Speaker 2 (46:47):
But this may be one of the oddest stories that
we've ever talked about on this.

Speaker 1 (46:50):
It's odd, but it's just I mean, it's kind of
the familiar story of life, isn't it. I Mean, aren't
human beings kind of predictable. Doesn't this stuff happen? It
does too often, too often, So I don't know. I
think having some accountability measures for bad behavior, selfish behaviors,
things that might even impact young kids and young families.
I think leave it on the books, all right.

Speaker 2 (47:11):
More more your calls and comments coming up eight eight
eight five seven eight zero one zero or on the
talkback line. Just download the iHeartRadio app and you can
see how you can leave us comment as well. More
coming up with a Rod and Greg show on this
Thursday right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine knrs. In North Carolina, a home record invades a marriage. Okay,

(47:33):
Laws in most state provide little recourse for spouses and
children whose lives have been torn apart. Well not in
North Carolina. And Kirsten Cinemon, the former Arizona senator is
now being sued by a woman who husband had an
affair with the senator from Arizona. We have a similar
law here in the state of Utah. It's called alienation

(47:53):
of affection. But Utah lawmakers may do away with this.
We're talking and getting your reaction of that. Joining us
on our Newsbaker line right now, is Jody in provo tonight, Jody,
how are you?

Speaker 1 (48:05):
Thanks so much for joining us, No, thank you.

Speaker 12 (48:09):
I want to give you another side of this. I
have a male friend who is currently using this law
to sue the man that pursued his wife. He was
completely unaware of it, was completely taken back. He thought
his marriage was great, and so he's using the law

(48:30):
because this man took his wife away.

Speaker 1 (48:34):
So you support that law being on the books or
do you? Or sounds like you do? Right?

Speaker 4 (48:40):
Absolutely absolutely?

Speaker 12 (48:43):
And you know if you're if you meet a woman
and if she tells you that she's not married, if
you don't know her, you got to find out. It's
not any different than a young girl being under age
for consent. Young girls can lie, and if you're a
man and you believe this young girl, you'll still be
charged for rape. So as a as a man, you

(49:06):
need to be aware of who you're hooking up with.

Speaker 1 (49:10):
There you go, That's what jo on this. I really am.

Speaker 2 (49:13):
Well, it cuts both ways. This law has to cut
both ways.

Speaker 1 (49:16):
It has to. Yeah, well, look I've said, without regard
to gender, if you're if you're breaking up a marriage
and a family, I think that they're there, it's an
actionable item. You still have to prove that case in court.
There's there's I hear that it's hard to prove, and
and maybe it should be very hard to prove because
it's a you know, it's it's it's something that if
there was someone that really pursued someone and broke up

(49:37):
that family, then you'd have to have the proof to
show it. But I think there are times, at least
I think human nature isn't that if people if a marriage,
if a couple's not getting along, there is a there
is a divorce on its way. Inevitably, whether they met
someone or not, it's just coming. I don't know that
that's the case. Sometimes you might have some tough times,
things might not be going well, but if you met

(50:00):
someone that was entertaining and pursuing you, that that to me,
I think I've seen this in life has been a
catalyst for those type of big decisions, and those decisions
decisions do have a ripple effect on families and kids
and everything else. So yeah, make it hard to prove.
But I don't say I don't understand getting rid of
that statute.

Speaker 2 (50:20):
Entire right, I keep it. I don't care if it's
hard to prove. I think those who have suffered as
a result of this have a right for some recour.

Speaker 1 (50:29):
Don't your recourse there? Yes, I do, I think I
and I you know I was joking that, but you
know someone calls and says, well, what about this circumstance
asking for a friend? You know, you know it sounds
like you're thinking it's through anyway. I just think that
I am surprised that that bill is flying through so successfully.
I think that that there's at least an argument to

(50:51):
be made that having that bill. I didn't even know
law was on the books, but it is. And I
think that I don't know that it's no harm, no foul.
If it's there and it's hard to prove, then it's
hard to prove. But I'd leave it right where it is.
I would.

Speaker 2 (51:05):
Yeah, I don't, like you said, Greg, I don't care
if it's hard to prove. You know people I know
people mm hm whose marriages and families have been destroyed
by something like this. Yes, and you always feel I
do feel very sorry for the woman involved because she's left,
she's got a family to take care of. In some kids,
unless the children's are older so does she have a

(51:25):
recourse and this law is giving them a recourse.

Speaker 1 (51:29):
And look, especially when children are involved, you know children,
because you see, there's a lot of consequences that come
from divorce. Girls especially have some carry some baggage from divorces.
If that happens in their family, there's a consequence to divorce. Well,
I also know the stories where a couple look like
they were on the absolute guaranteed path to divorce and
then they worked it out. Yeah. And I've heard from

(51:51):
counselors and others that the irony in life is whatever
it takes with whatever number marriage you're on, whatever it
takes to keep any marriage going, would have saved their
original marriage if you had to put the same amount
of work in. I've heard those things. I'm just telling
you that we can't just imagine that if everyone no
one's getting along, that divorce is the ultimate outcome. It
might not. People can come together. And if you know,

(52:14):
and then let's take let's take a net worth in
the in the indicate into into the equation. What if
someone's very very wealthy, and someone's motivated to draw the
attention of someone because to do so would improve their
quality of life mightily is there something there to be
talked about.

Speaker 2 (52:30):
I'm but I'm with you. I'm with you, and I
think you and I together on this. I'm on the
side of the victim, Yes, I really am. And if
that victim had if there's an opportunity to recover some
of the harm, some of the you'll never recover the
emotional harm about this, right, but you're laughed with a
family that you know, this woman who is suing Kirsten

(52:52):
Cinema has three children.

Speaker 1 (52:53):
Yes, yeah, it's these are not small things that happen.
And if you can if you can meet that bar
and you feel like there was an over you think
that that person played an undue influence and what happened
inside that family, then go see if you can make
the case.

Speaker 2 (53:09):
But as our callers said, Greg, these are very very
difficult cases to prove.

Speaker 1 (53:14):
Yeah, that's right. And I look and if you've got
a law in the book, it should be you think
it should be. Yeah, it should be difficult. I don't
think it should be easy. I think it should be.

Speaker 2 (53:22):
But if you've got a law in the books, I
don't care how difficult it is to prove, keep that
law in the books. Because there may be an almost
what's still an avenue to provide some help for the
jilted spouse.

Speaker 1 (53:34):
What I'm still shaking my head about is how did
this rise to the level It's this bill is literally
two lines. It's just this is an alien eight I'll
just read it. I'm not even looking at it. I
know what it says because it's it's such a short bill.
Alienation of affection is no longer an actionable, illegal, actionable item.
You can't sue on it. It just takes it right out.
You just can't do it anymore. It's but I don't

(53:55):
understand what's going on. Where's the wave of you know,
these lawsuits of alien nation of affection that they had
to go run a bill and pass it this year? Like,
where's the lobby I want to meet the lobby for
we want it. We do not want any accountability for
home wreckers. We think home wreckers should wreck homes and
then leave the carnage in the background, and we don't
want to ever have to answer for that. Who who's
representing them in this whole thing. I just find it

(54:19):
to be bizarre.

Speaker 2 (54:20):
How many average tones even though this law is on
the books.

Speaker 1 (54:23):
I think that I would have all people. I was
a law maker, you're you're the big cheese up there.
I didn't know this bill, this law existed, but I'll
tell you I see notes. So for that reason alone,
no harm, no foul if it's I mean, I'm not
seeing victims of this law the other way. I don't
think anyway. I don't know how this rose to the
level of bill. I don't know how it got out
of committee. I don't know how it got such a

(54:45):
warm reception and a unanimous vote coming off the floor. Yeah,
sounds crazy. I wouldn't vote for it. And I commend
the senator that did not vote for this bill. He
is on the ra's on a side, the side of angels.

Speaker 2 (54:57):
But that many six others who did vote working got
be a reason somewhere on this one.

Speaker 1 (55:03):
Then they're usually.

Speaker 2 (55:04):
Would you think in that bill that they're and like
you said, it's what two lines, But maybe they know
the history of this and they're saying, yeah, let's get
off the books.

Speaker 1 (55:16):
Doesn't make it and the history better not be that
your pal's about to get sued for it. You don't
want to get soon. You're protecting cooking the books to
help your pal or yourself. You don't want that to
be the case.

Speaker 2 (55:25):
All right, Mark, coming up the Rod and Gregg Show
on this Thursday afternoon right here on Utah's Talk radio
one oh five nine k n R. S Now it
goes to the house.

Speaker 1 (55:34):
Well, I'll tell you what they might have got through
that with no one watching the last time. But now
we're all watching this bill. But I'll tell you what
I expected. Maybe more of our callers or listeners to
maybe calling an opine. Are they not? Because don't go
there like if you're in a hole, don't dig like
I don't want to touch this one with a ten
foot pole, you know, Or they just don't have an opinion.

(55:55):
But I don't know. I thought we might get some
calls but the and we did, But maybe people are
afraid to apply all this issue. It's a little sensitive,
isn't it. Isn't it a sensitive issue? You'd be well?

Speaker 2 (56:05):
Speaking of the legislature, this and Utah and Idaho are
about to get into a battle over.

Speaker 1 (56:10):
The gas tax I love this battle.

Speaker 2 (56:12):
The Idaho State Legislature has now introduced a bill criticizing
the Utah State Legislature over a bill that would rework
the fuel tax that Utah's paying. There isn't even a
bill before the legislature.

Speaker 1 (56:25):
Yeah, coming, I have my sources, folks, and we've been
talking about this on the program for quite some time.
That we have five refineries, we have all the supply
chain infrastructure for gasoline from the oil and the wells
all the way to the pump, and we pay higher
prices than anywhere regionally, the highest prices. And as we've
seen it go down, we can still see comparatively other

(56:47):
states that do not have refineries, that do not have
the supply chain, that do not pay as much in
gas as we do. And that is not all at
the feet of a gas tax. That is, there's we
used to enjoy historically low gas prices. Well, there's a
bill I think that will be coming. And this is
what Idaho's really stressed about. Yea, they would say, Okay,
we're not going to bear We're not having Utah motorists

(57:08):
bear the one hundred percent cost of this fuel that's
refined here when it goes out of state. If you were,
if you we have a tax at the ract that
everybody pays, including the ones that the comedian stores that
buy it here at gas stations, aby it here. It
will actually lower because you'll be getting a revenue from
those that are that are benefiting from our supply chain
and our refineries. You pay the tax there, our gas

(57:30):
tax can come down in price. I believe there is
going to be a gas tax cut proposed in the
legislative session in the House, and I think we should
all see that as good news. And if Idaho doesn't
like it, well I got some things to say about
that too.

Speaker 2 (57:43):
Yeah, there's some things we don't like about Idaho.

Speaker 1 (57:46):
Well, they go build a refinery if they don't like it,
they don't, or go buy their fuel somewhere else if
they don't like it. Yeah, why are we? Why are
we don't? Why are we? Why are they tax exempt
and we're paying the load?

Speaker 2 (57:55):
All right, let's go back the alienation of Affection bill
that we've been talking about. We've been getting your phone call.
Let's go back to the phones. Let's talk with Randy
in Utah County tonight on the show. Randy, how are you?
Thanks so much for joining us.

Speaker 13 (58:07):
Hey, guys, thanks for taking this call as well. So
I was debating whether to get on or off, But
now I thought wait a second, I want to put
my two cents in. Listen, we talk about the victim. Yeah,
everybody knows somebody who's been through this, and whether friends
or family. What about the cheating spouse who hasn't let

(58:27):
this new love know that they're married. I mean, we'reth
the liability for the spouse who's who's been stepping out.
You know, this person who is the home wrecker might
not even know they're wrecking a home because this person
they're having a lovefair with wasn't honest with him as well.

Speaker 1 (58:49):
I would call that person the victim. Yeah, Randy, that
person's the victim. They you know, they the cheating spouse,
they were just they were just the man eater. Did
you hear the Hall Note song? They were just These
are people coming right after him. They what could they do?
They're just victims? Now, how I look. I I hear
what you're saying. I do think that, and Rod's been
saying it takes two to tango. But you know, I
do like having the law in the books. It gives it, It

(59:11):
puts a little, you know, a little accountability out there.

Speaker 2 (59:13):
Yeah, but Randy, I think thank you for calling Randy,
Thank you for calling Randy in Utah County.

Speaker 1 (59:18):
But he does my good point, he does, he does.
But family, man, go listen to those songs again. They're
Grade eighty songs, but they they are warning us. You
know that there's there's some there's some man ears out there. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (59:34):
I would really like to know why the Senators voted
to get rid of this bill. Because in a state
that is so pro family like this state is in
the state legislature, is why they would let one like
this go. Maybe it's simply because it is difficult to prove,
and why have a law in the books.

Speaker 1 (59:50):
It's difficult to prove. I don't know. We love to
find out. Yeah, I want to know.

Speaker 2 (59:56):
You'll be up on the hill tomorrow. I will someone's
going to come up. Are gonna say, hey, what are
you going after us for? You know those stators.

Speaker 1 (01:00:06):
Look, you know, in politics, perception is reality. Okay, that
means optics matter. I do not understand the optics of
this bill. I don't This is lose lose. I do
not know how in the world does this rose to
the level of a bill.

Speaker 2 (01:00:19):
Well, I I unless you're in the divorce industry, which
is a pretty good sized industry. In this state and
other states. Most Utahns don't even know about this bill.

Speaker 1 (01:00:30):
No they don't, but you and I didn't. But now
that they ran a bill, we all know about it.
This you know, the millions that listen to this show
every day, we all know about this. Yeah, the whole
state basically, now that our listeners, which I would call
the whole state of Utah, are now.

Speaker 2 (01:00:45):
Aware, it's pretty big. But it's not quite the entire state.

Speaker 1 (01:00:49):
I think it is at least the reasonable ones, the
normal ones. Yes, yeah, soah, folks, we are not We
are going to I'm going to stay on top of this.
I'm going to be your roving reporter on this bill.
We're gonna find out what's going on here. I'm gonna
have some conversations with lawmakers and see what's going on,
what is driving what is going on with this bill?

Speaker 2 (01:01:07):
All right, we've got another hour coming your way. When
we come back after a news update, someone we always
enjoy talking to, Selena and Zito will join us and
we'll talk about John Fetterman and what's up with being
John Fetterman. That's coming up next on the Rotting Gregg Show.

Speaker 1 (01:01:27):
You know, the Roding Greg show. We have a lot
of guests, but this is our this is our a lister,
this is a this is the author of the book
Butler that I love. I grew up in this area.
I love Selena Zito and I'm so excited to hear
from her on the show.

Speaker 2 (01:01:41):
So yeah, yeah, Well, Selena Zito joining us on our
any hour Newsmaker line. She is a national political and
culture reporter at the Washington Examiner. She has her pulse,
I think her finger on the pulse of America, and
I say that these are She talks to common sense,
fair minded Americans about what they think is going on
in the country.

Speaker 1 (01:02:00):
Yes, joining us on the show, Selena Zeito, I have
a story before you even begin. I want to tell
you that I'm a recovering public public servant and I
do a little more television or television and radio commentary.
There was a television show right after Senator John Fetterman
was elected out of Pennsylvania, and typically when I would
go on this panel, I would dress appropriately with a

(01:02:21):
suit or sport jacket and a tie. I went in
my du cane Duke's hoodie. Okay to that, and I
said I and everyone I looked out of place, and
I said, nope, this is now the apparel of the
US Senate. This hoodie i'm wearing it is Senator John
Setterman is now a centator and he can wear a
du Cane Duke's sweatshirt. I'm wearing it right here on

(01:02:44):
this show. So I'm watching this guy.

Speaker 2 (01:02:46):
There is no doubt the John Fetterman, who you've written
an article about about being John Feenderman, is one of
the most interesting characters that comes out of the twenty
twenty four election. You've taken a look at this guy.
What are your thoughts on, John min Selena.

Speaker 4 (01:03:02):
Well, first of all, thanks so much for having me on.
So I've covered John Fetterman for twenty five years since
he first was elected mayor of Braddock by one absentee ballot.
With the exception of his post stroke recovery, John Fetterman
has never been the darling of his own party. He

(01:03:23):
has always been his own person. He's never once received
the endorsement of his party whether he ran for mayor.
When he ran for lieutenant governor, he unseated a sitting Democrat.
So when I see national reporters writing, oh my gosh,
look what he's doing. He's going against his party, and

(01:03:45):
I'm like, he's always gone against his party. This is
absolutely nothing new if you lived in Western Pennsylvania. The
only time he really wasn't himself was when other people
were running his messages after the stroke, assuming what his
beliefs were as opposed to really what his beliefs are.

(01:04:09):
And so when I see Senator Fetterman taking stances, that's
why I met up with him and interviewed them. You know,
I just kind of wanted to see where he was
on ice on on several things that the president has done,
from Venezuela to Iran and to with Greenland, and and

(01:04:34):
he was just pretty fair minded about the only thing everything.
He's very supportive of removing illegal immigrants from the country,
but he is not supportive of Christino. He wanted the
President to sideline her because he didn't believe that she
had lost her effectiveness.

Speaker 1 (01:04:55):
You know, It's this is information I wasn't aware because
and it's good to hear because because the way I
learned about John Fetterman or saw him, was in that
Senate race. He did have the stroke, and then his
platform seemed to be very very liberal, very radical it
even more concerning the way he dressed, but that he
had a stroke and had a difficult time speaking in

(01:05:16):
a campaign. In real time, he gets elected and he
goes he takes some time for counseling for depression and
things like that, and it seemed to me, but maybe
I'm not accurate on this because I don't have the history,
it seemed like he came out of that experience from counseling,
seeking counseling for depression, that time off he took where
he was celebrating American victories, where he was calling balls

(01:05:39):
and strikes. It's easy for me to understand why he's
frustrated with Christy Nome because I think he was frustrated
with Alejandro my Orcis. I don't think he was a
quarter there. I think the guy's been calling it balls
and strikes and he's consistent that way, Selena. So my
question is has he changed or is this the guy
he's always been.

Speaker 4 (01:05:58):
So it's the guy he's always been. He's always been
this guy. He's never had the support of his own party.
He's always been very vocal about how he views what
is right, and a lot of that has to do
with taking the pulse of the people around him. You know,
people just come up and talk to him like like

(01:06:19):
he's their best friend. Right, It's really interesting to watch,
you know, sort of in the middle of western Pennsylvania,
in the middle of Braddock or Homestead or asmen Wald,
you know named just the small river town around Pittsburgh.
People just engage with him, and he absorbs that. He listens.

(01:06:40):
So the decisions that he makes doesn't just come from, oh,
I want to be, you know, a flamethrower. It comes
to the conversations that he has with people. This is
always who he's been. It's only when other people ran
his message during the stroke recovery that you believe that

(01:07:01):
he was someone.

Speaker 2 (01:07:01):
Else, Selena, does he care if people don't like what
he says? Even in his own party? Does he really care?

Speaker 4 (01:07:09):
Never has, I'm telling you guy, now, he's always he
has pissed the party off. I mean, Western Pennsylvania is
almost all Democrat, right, He's made all the electeds mad
for twenty five years. Nothing has changed. It's just on

(01:07:29):
this national platform.

Speaker 1 (01:07:31):
So but I think I saw a poll recently that
he is being well received. His approval ratings seem to
be high even amongst Republicans. I thought I saw that
he had a good, solid approval rating for Republicans, saying
talking about a Democrat senator, but monkst independence, I'm just wondering.
I love you know, I'm from Pennsylvania. I think it's
I just I get what you get that you write

(01:07:54):
in the book a butler. But my question is, I
don't see the party he write that he's a member
of doing what he does. They don't celebrate American victories,
they don't call balls and strikes. They're very, very far
to the left, and it's almost a reading off sheet music.
Does he have Is he doing something that shows a
formula to be real, to be have the normies, maybe
like a candidate again there or an elected official that's

(01:08:16):
a Democrat. Does he have what it takes to be
a leader amongst Democrats in America?

Speaker 4 (01:08:21):
Do you think I think he has a place to
be a leader among a lot of people, not just Democrats,
around people in the way that Trump does. Right. Trump
was certainly not a classical Republican, and yet he had
a way of forming coalitions of people that were tired

(01:08:45):
of the status quo. And I think that that is
betterman's appeal.

Speaker 2 (01:08:51):
Certainly enough that he cares, but does leadership, democratic leadership
in the Senate pay attention to what he says?

Speaker 4 (01:09:00):
No, and I mean no, no, no, And and because
he's never you know, enjoyed that kind of those kind
of accolades coming from within his party ever, like ever,
do you all really need to understand? No one's ever

(01:09:21):
liked him in the party in Pennsylvany.

Speaker 1 (01:09:24):
In Pennsylvania, so is he So is he gonna get primary?
Do you think in that in that state? He is?

Speaker 4 (01:09:33):
I'm sure he's gonna get primaried, But good luck with that.
Like if he decides to run again and they try
to primary him, good luck doing that because the person
that would primary him and maybe be successful at it
would be someone to his far left. And and if

(01:09:53):
you are to his far left, Pennsylvania we have famously
never elected and anybody far right or far left. You
take a look at everyone that's been our governor and
our US senator, none of them have been. Shapiro isn't governor,
Ridge wasn't governor, Thornberg wasn't governor, Rendell wasn't. So you know,

(01:10:19):
Dave McCormick is not uh so so we have a
habit of of of electing people in a general election.
They're pretty you know, center center right, even our Democrats.
And so if you if you primary him with someone
that's far left, you're gonna lose the Senate seat.

Speaker 1 (01:10:42):
Selena's you know your friend. I got a very pressing question.
I think my co host is going to get give
me the look when I asked Steelers coach Mike Thomas,
I knew, I knew it, and I just I'm gonna
need you to walk me through the Mike McCarthy hire.
Make me feel good about that? Can you make me
feel good about.

Speaker 4 (01:10:57):
That home run? It is a home run? This guy
is a through and shrud. And if you don't know
what a gensur is, a inur is someone from Pittsburgh
who and we say, instead of you all, we say,
what are you doing?

Speaker 3 (01:11:24):
Yes, you're you're happy.

Speaker 1 (01:11:27):
With this high. You're happy with this high. You think
that this is gonna be good for.

Speaker 4 (01:11:29):
You, so happy with this, with this hire. And all
you have to do is go read my book Butler
about the importance of place. Yes, and it'll it'll crystallize
for you.

Speaker 1 (01:11:42):
Yes, ma'am. And I've been reading that book. I'm dead. Yes,
I hear you. Selenia.

Speaker 2 (01:11:46):
You just burst my co host bubble because because he.

Speaker 4 (01:11:55):
Don't be a ja.

Speaker 1 (01:11:58):
I know, yes, I they don't know. They don't know
what you just said, but I do.

Speaker 2 (01:12:04):
Selena has always it's a lot of fun to have
you on the air. Thanks for joining us. We appreciate your.

Speaker 1 (01:12:09):
Time, Selena, thanks for having me. Thank you all right? Selena?
Is he doing?

Speaker 2 (01:12:14):
By the way, if you want to read her article
you did, you can see it on our X page.
Just go to uh, yes, do you want to explain
what she just called you?

Speaker 1 (01:12:23):
Yeah, jack off? That's a that is a a pejorative term. Yeah,
it's not it's not a complimentary thing to be. And
so yeah, if you're don't Actually you don't even use
it in play company. But so many people don't know
what a jack off is. I guess you could say it.
I feel awkward saying it on the radio, But yeah,
that's a that's that's a Pittsburgh Ey's kind of a
like I said, a pejorative towards someone. Don't be don't

(01:12:45):
be a jack off?

Speaker 2 (01:12:46):
What does it mean the most? Don't be a jerk,
don't be a jack Off.

Speaker 1 (01:12:51):
Yeah, don't be a jerk. I think bill be a
jerk would be the nicest way to put what's ay.
So they said, we say, you'll say our yen's going somewhere,
You going down there, going over there? So they we
use the word YenS instead of you, instead of proper English.
We've been saying in so people that use the organs
they call you a yensers you're as. That's more of

(01:13:13):
a south side. But I was on the north. But
but my my, my family has used it. I've heard
it my whole life. Enss. I mean, I all right,
and I can and we sing our words, and everything's
up or down because there's so many hills. Are you
going up there? Are YenS going up? Down there? Or
up there? You don't even think up bear down there?
Down there as going? So anyway, it's a it's a

(01:13:36):
very unique accent Pittsburgh has.

Speaker 2 (01:13:38):
Have you know, I'm learning, I'm learning more about you
and you really are weird.

Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
Yeah, well there I learn, I've I have. I've always
maintained that Pittsburgh is it's a drinking town with a
football problem.

Speaker 2 (01:13:50):
That's story. Selena loves Mike McCarthy, so you're gonna have front.

Speaker 1 (01:13:54):
They have a bar. He's grown up there, he's miss
He truly is a inser, he really is. And so
there's that connection, there's that there's that family or that
community connection with Mike McCarthy for sure. But I like
playoff wins and Super Bowls. That's what I'm really in it. Yeah,
well if he wins, you one, will you be happy?
Very I'm happy to be wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:14:14):
Or coming up on the Rodney greg Show and Utah's
Talk Radio one oh five nine can arrest well if
you if you're just doing you know, we had Lelina
Zeito on the show before in the last segment she's
from Pittsburgh. Y know its Pittsburgh. Well, big fan of
Mike McCarthy, really excited about that. He's the new coach
of the Steelers. And I was a little skeptical since

(01:14:35):
I was very happy.

Speaker 1 (01:14:35):
Told me not to be something that we say in
Pittsburgh a bit when we're trying to be cut. What's
the other one? Because we use the word are Yenn's
doing this or Yenn's going there? It's yenns it's you know,
well the South says y'all. So think of where you
would say y'all live. I know that y'all where you

(01:14:56):
would say y'all and Pittsburgh replace y'all with Yin's says
are are are you coming? Yep? Are you coming? Yes?
That's it. You did it? Are you coming?

Speaker 2 (01:15:08):
And if you're being a jerk, you're called a.

Speaker 1 (01:15:12):
I can't believe. I can't believe this is.

Speaker 2 (01:15:16):
See to most people around the country, they aren't offended
by that.

Speaker 1 (01:15:19):
I mean, my Pittsburgh friends are going to have such
a big laugh of this, and they like our show.
By the way we have we have we have we
have like three in Pittsburgh. It's an army. We have
people that have moved from Pittsburgh that I grew up
with that live in Utah. Took anyway, Shall we continue
with the show? Okay?

Speaker 2 (01:15:38):
I love stories from what I used to call the
Stupid Crook File. Yeah, these are criminals who if they're criminals,
they aren't the brightest people in the world. Again, right well,
this Missouri woman was complaining about police at a city
council meetium recently. Right well, in the audience, we're members
of the police department, and they recognized her as being

(01:16:01):
wanted for allegedly stabbing her boyfriend. So here she is
at the city council meeting complaining to the city council
about the police department, and they realized, I think she's wanted.

Speaker 1 (01:16:18):
Yeah, you know, if being dumb isn't a crime, well
this is this is kind of this is dumb and
it's it's it's making crime not pay. You went and
talked to the police about how bad you think they are,
and you happened to be there was a warrant for
your arrest them. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:16:32):
Well, apparently a police major in the meeting at the
time said to himself, are you kidding me? Was my
reaction because we were trying to get her to come
talk to us and she refused. But she showed up
at a city council meeting complaining about police.

Speaker 1 (01:16:48):
Well there you go. Well, you know, it's just there's consequences,
Thank goodness.

Speaker 2 (01:16:53):
Still, by the way, we learned today Greg the president
had another cabinet meeting today, right, Yes, everyone was allowed
to speak. Scott Besson came through again today and this
is probably something that Robert F. Kennedy did not want
to hear. No, but Beston admitted today that he starts
his day with a doctor pepper every morning.

Speaker 1 (01:17:12):
Yeah, not the sugar free one either. He's going this straight,
all the caffeine, all the sugar. He starts his day
with it. The man looks like he's in health. It
has good health, So you know, maybe that's it.

Speaker 2 (01:17:25):
He back, He said, probably RFK will not like this
because of Maha. But I start my day with a
doctor Pepper.

Speaker 1 (01:17:31):
Well, we all we all stare at our caffeine at
different temperatures. So that's just kind of I think that's
the way everybody wakes up to some degree anymore. Some do.
Mine's called a rain three hundred mili of caffeine veins.
But you know what, you drink almost zero calories, no sugar,
that's what. Because I'm a health freak.

Speaker 2 (01:17:49):
Yeah yeah, yeah drinking that makes you a health free
yea sugar all right. When we come back the uh,
Steve Moore will join us.

Speaker 1 (01:17:57):
The economist extraordinary man's in the White House. He's on
TV at night, but where his origin story right here running.

Speaker 2 (01:18:05):
Will get a look at what his thoughts are on
the what they call it the Trump account, and what's
going on with the economy. That's coming up next right
here on the Rod and Greg Show and Utah's Talk
Radio one oh five nine. Okay, and all right, speaking
of fun, it's always great having Steve Moore on. Steve
of course as a top economic advisor one time to

(01:18:26):
President Trump during his first time, he came up with
the original Trump text cut plan in the first time.

Speaker 1 (01:18:32):
Well, we taught him a lot. Well, you know, we
teach correct principles and we let him out and he
gets to govern himself and he gets it right.

Speaker 2 (01:18:39):
He's also a co founder of Unleashed Prosperity. If you
check this out, because you should get it every day
in your email. It's a great quick quick look. I
would think Greg, you would agree with me on that
would some of the more interesting news stories of the day.

Speaker 1 (01:18:53):
Yeah, Unleashed Prosperity. So the the email addresses, let's see
how they say it is it's Unleashed Prosperity dot com.
And it is. It's his daily news news. His newsletter
comes out every morning. Committee to Unleash Prosperity dot com. Long,
Committee to Unleash Prosperity dot Com. But you get that

(01:19:14):
newsletter and you'll get like five bullet points and you
can click in to learn more. About them. They'll give
you the five big economic news items of the day
every day.

Speaker 2 (01:19:22):
Well, Steve Moore is now joining us on our newsmaker line. Steve,
we won't charge anything for giving you a free plug
on this one. But a big day of the White
House yesterday the President unveiled his Trump's accounts. What do
you make of it? What do you think?

Speaker 3 (01:19:34):
Well, I was there for the ceremony. It was a
great event. It was very inspiring to see not just
tomp talk about these Trump accounts, which basically put we'll
put one thousand dollars into the account of every child
who is born, and then they will be able to
people will be able to put money into those accounts
for their kids tax free. And the idea is that

(01:19:56):
by the time these our children and grandchildren reached the
age of eighteen or twenty, they might have one hundred
and fifty two hundred and three hundred thousand dollars in
these accounts because of the of what Albert Einstein was
called the most powerful force in the universe, which is
compound interest. So I think it's a cool thing, and
I think it was really cool that a bunch of
these major companies said that they were going to put

(01:20:17):
money into these accounts for these children if they're of
low income families, And what a great head start program
for people. And I like the idea that the money
will be put in an index fund of all stocks.
But this is a good idea because it now means
that every American will own a piece of the rock.

Speaker 1 (01:20:35):
You know, your your newsletter showed that visa looks like that.
You can put your rewards points or that value cash
value towards this your Trump account. You're even I didn't
even know you you knuse Nicki minaj if you were
sitting next to her, but you're touting even Nicki Minaje
is going to put in into her fans accounts and
you're highlighting it. So didn't know you were a big

(01:20:57):
Nicki Minaje vamp. But that's good. She's good. Yeah, Steve Hip,
you don't know that about me. I know you economists,
you always you know, I can never pin you down.
I just you always surprising me. Here's here's I'm not negative.
I'm just saying talk about a notch baby syndrome. Here,
if you get the thousand bucks when you're born in
that in Trump's term, Here now that's a pretty good deal.

(01:21:19):
What do we say to the kids that were the
day before and the day after? I mean, these kids
are going to look around and say, wait a minute,
what this is? I got through?

Speaker 3 (01:21:28):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:21:29):
Is there anything? Can anyone buy into this program if
they want?

Speaker 3 (01:21:33):
You know that the thing is a work in progress.
So that would be a good idea. Maybe, you know,
it's not you don't follow off the cliff. Maybe instead
of a thousand and you put nine hundred or something
in for a younger kid. The whole idea though, is,
you know, if we want to reduce wealth inequality in
this country, the way you build wealth is you start
investing at a very very early age. And at this

(01:21:54):
with this program, you're investing is a newborn and and
that will mean, by the way, if you keep that money,
do the account. By the time you're say thirty five,
you'll have you know, five hundred thousand dollars in that account.
It just shows how much money accumulates, you know, under
the American amazing stock market. So very encouraged by this now,

(01:22:15):
as you guys know, I would I want, I think
what would be a much better idea than this? And
I like this idea. But why not let every young
people person who's age twenty five years old take their
ten percent of their paycheck that now goes to the
black hole Social Security and put that into an indexed
pot and then then kids would these well it would
be adults, but when they when they retired, they'd have

(01:22:36):
well over a million dollars in these accounts and they
wouldn't you know, they wouldn't need so they get much
better deal than Solid Security offers them. So that's what
I'm urging the president to do.

Speaker 2 (01:22:45):
Steve, let me ask you. I want to go back
to the Trump account's idea. I mean, how unique of
an idea is this? Is anything like this has ever
been tried that you're aware of, Steve, I.

Speaker 3 (01:22:55):
Don't know if it has been tried before, but I
know that this this idea has been floating around for
you know, ten or fifteen years. People have suggested this.
And you know, this is the thing about Trump p
You know, if he sees a good idea and he
likes it, he just goes for it. And so this
is really an interesting thing. It was it was kind
of cool.

Speaker 1 (01:23:15):
To be at this event.

Speaker 3 (01:23:15):
You just saw people of all you know, ethnicities and
all ages and stuff. There are a lot of little
kids at this event yesterday because they're the big beneficiaries
of the program. So I like this because now the
left isn't going to be able to say, oh, well
only the rich people have money in the stock market.
Now everyone will have money in the stock market.

Speaker 1 (01:23:35):
Yeah, I want to switch gears. I saw Paul, We've
talked about this on our program earlier this week, that
consumer confidence is down, maybe historically down, way down. Every
time we talked to Steven More on the Ron and
Greg show how our confidence is up, we are listeners
were feeling bullish about what's coming our way. What do
you attribute that?

Speaker 4 (01:23:53):
He?

Speaker 1 (01:23:53):
Do you think that the poll is accurate? And what
would you attribute that to? Because we do have some
signs of recovery coming. I mean, I'm waiting for quick
to give me the high sign that we're we're doing
way better. But I haven't heard that yet in our home.
But but I do think things are going in the
right direction. Why did we see such a drop in
consumer consumer comedy as well?

Speaker 3 (01:24:11):
It's you know, I wish I had a dime for
every time everyone someone asked me that question. I'd be
a rich man, because you know, I do get asked
that all the time, and you know, I've been thinking
a lot about it. Like, there are a couple of
things going on here. At number one, you know, Donald
Trump is an extremely polarizing figures. We're living in very
polarized times. So even if Donald Trump, you know, created

(01:24:32):
the Garden of Eden here in the United States, people
would be complaining because they just don't like Trump, right,
So I think, you know, he's never going to get
more than fifty percent support for anything he does. But
there has been a decline and I think, I think
this is kind of an obvious point, but people are
upset about the prices of things, everything from healthcare to housing,
to a state to ground beef to you know, things

(01:24:55):
that have been going up in price. And so my
only response to that is, yeah, you should be angry
and prices. Eighty six percent of the increase in prices
happened under Joe Biden. It didn't happen under Trump. Trump's
Trump's brought the inflation rate down, not up. And the
other point I would make is, you know, you're there
in Utah, which is a fast growing state, your cost

(01:25:21):
of living, even though you're a fast growing state. It's
a lot lower than the cost of living in say
California and New Yorker, New Jersey, or in Massachusetts.

Speaker 7 (01:25:28):
So you know, the.

Speaker 3 (01:25:29):
Five states with the highest cost of living where people
have the least affordability are blue states with liberal policies
like high taxes and high regulation and forced union policies,
et cetera. So I guess my response to this is,
if you don't like the high cost of things, you
know we should be moving away from liberal, big government policies.

Speaker 2 (01:25:50):
Yeah, Steve the President his cabinet meeting said today about
the FED chairman, he's got somebody in mind. He'll probably
announce it next week. We want you to come clean,
Steve Lose on the Running Great Show.

Speaker 1 (01:26:01):
You're it? Are you the next bed chairs? Just us?

Speaker 3 (01:26:07):
So it's I'm also confused by this too, because I
would have guessed very high odds, you know, a week ago,
that it would have been either Kevin Hassett or or
Kevin Worsp, two of the top economic and monterary economists
in the country, both friends of mine. By the way,
I'm a little biased, but I think they're really smart
and would do a great job now we've got these

(01:26:28):
two new names that Flodo Chris Waller who's on the
THUD Reserve board, and I forget the fellow's name, but
he's a Blackrock economist. So frankly, I don't know where
he's going right now, and I just hope he doesn't
screw it up. Every time I see President Trump, first
thing he says is, Steve, I made a big mistake
with your own Paul. I said, yes, you did, you know?

(01:26:48):
And I don't want him to screw this one up.
So we'll see what happens. But I think that there
will be a big parade down Pennsylvania Avenue when when
when our current chairman.

Speaker 1 (01:27:01):
My vote is Steven Moore as long as he doesn't
go Hollywood and doesn't and keeps calling the So if
you're that chair, you still got to come. We still
have to have our weekly chat, okay, promise?

Speaker 3 (01:27:13):
Yeah, well, I'd love to do it, except you know that,
as you know, if you open up my closet, the skeletons,
I don't want to go through that again.

Speaker 2 (01:27:21):
Steve Moore joining us on our newsmaker line. And as
we were talking with Steve, uh word came across tonight
that the President will announce his new FIT chairman tomorrow.
He told, there's red carpet right now. It's Mulania is
the documentary which is premiering in the nation's capital, and
him and the first Lady are there, and he said
he was asked about the FED chairman. He said, well,
announced my choice tomorrow. So I don't know if.

Speaker 1 (01:27:44):
It's going to be Steve because he probably would have known, Well,
you might have had that. Have keep those secrets, true.
I hope it's him. Have keep those as long as
he keeps calling us. Yeah, we need we need the
FED chair to call the Rottendric show.

Speaker 2 (01:27:55):
Did you see the story out of Los Angeles? You
know Mulania is documentary premiering tomorrow, big event, right Apparently apparently, Uh,
there were I think one hundred La Metro buses with
a billboard on the side of it that said Milania,
don't promote them.

Speaker 1 (01:28:11):
Do you see that? Right?

Speaker 3 (01:28:12):
Yep?

Speaker 2 (01:28:13):
Word is a whistleblower says they've all been told to
stay in the shop.

Speaker 1 (01:28:17):
Over the weekend.

Speaker 2 (01:28:18):
They do not want them out driving around promoting her documentary.

Speaker 1 (01:28:21):
Then they should give them their money back. Whoever bought
that advertisement, because that's not that's like the opposite of advertising.
When you leave those buses inside the shop thinks they're
just getting so ridiculous. They're losing so many people in
that state. If they just want to keep being insane,
the place is just going to keep, you know, getting out,
getting getting crazier and crazier. Yeah, yeah, all right.

Speaker 2 (01:28:40):
Mare coming up the Rod and Greg show with you.
You're on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine can Arrests.
You're pointing a finger.

Speaker 1 (01:28:46):
Yeah, I want to do it. I know you have
something we want to bring up. But last final statement,
we were just talking about who's going to be the FED.
It's going to be announced tomorrow, so that you know,
you know polymarket, right, people put money on the they
say eighty seven percent, So that's the eighty seven percent.
It's going to be Kevin Walsh. I don't know who
that is. His name's Steve mentioned his name, Yeah, Kevin Walsh.
So he's he's the he's the odds on favorite right now.

(01:29:09):
It was looking like rick a Reader was most popular
for a while, but it's just plummeted. In eighty seven.
Kevin Walsh as new FED chair.

Speaker 2 (01:29:19):
Yeah, the President announced on the red carpet tonight, getting
ready for the premiere of the documentary on Malania, that
he would have an announcement tomorrow. So we'll see what happens,
see how that affects the markets too. Yes, it's going
to be interesting. I want to bring this up, Greg,
you have been a big defender of Border Patrol Chief
Greg Bovino. Yes, right, he's kind of been shuffled out

(01:29:40):
of town, and you think he did a fantastic job,
worked hard, did everything he could, and you didn't like
the way the pair the president kind of said he's
kind of out there and you didn't like that.

Speaker 1 (01:29:51):
No, I thought it was of all the people. I mean, hey,
he has a lot of there was a lot of
loyalty problems in his first term certainly, and people have
leveled a lot of criticism at President Trump. And this
man was doing everything he was asked to do by
President Trump, and I think taking on an almost impossible job.
That's the last guy that you should be saying maybe
he's a little two out there.

Speaker 2 (01:30:11):
Well, he took to Instagram and here's what he said
to the guys he's been working with in Minneapolis on
border patrol.

Speaker 14 (01:30:17):
Team behind me are a few individuals there that's the
original Turn and Burn, the folks that help make America.
But you know what, I'm very proud of what you
the mean Green Machine, are doing in Minneapolis right now,
just like you've done it across the United States over
these past tough nine months. And I want you to

(01:30:39):
know that you're the modern day equivalent Turn and Burn.
Makes me very proud. Also want you to know that
I've got your back now and always. I love you,
I support you, and I salute you.

Speaker 2 (01:30:52):
Greg Pavino, he did that standing in front of Mount Westmore, Yeah,
is where that was recorded.

Speaker 1 (01:30:57):
So well, look, I think that you know, there's inside baseball,
outside baseball, maybe Trump's advisors and everyone wants everyone to
know that this change of the guard is kind of
a hard, hard, you know, hard reset, and they're trying
to maybe slow down or quiet the clamor. But I
would hope that the inside baseball is that they are
giving Greg Bavino a lot of things and a lot

(01:31:20):
of support and you know, having his back because I
think he took on that job. That's an impossible job
out there.

Speaker 2 (01:31:27):
I don't know how they get away doing this. Greg
but Florida Governor Ronda Santis announced today that the Florida legislature,
and I love this, have passed legislation to remove mayors
or anyone in the government who doesn't cooperate with ice.

Speaker 1 (01:31:44):
I love that. That's what he announced today.

Speaker 15 (01:31:46):
I don't want a Minneapolis mayor situation in Florida. Well,
well guess what because of that legislation that we insisted on.
You know, if you did have a situation where they
were trying to well want if they were even non cooperative,
refusing to cooperate, but if they try to sabotage, especially,
we have the ability to remove them from office, suspend

(01:32:08):
them from their positions. And so there's real teeth into
what we're doing. Everyone knows their duties, everyone knows they've
got to cooperate. I'm also I understand some will be
a little bit show a little more zeal in doing
that than others. But you cannot not cooperate, and you
definitely can't sabotage because there'll be consequences.

Speaker 1 (01:32:26):
I like that bill.

Speaker 2 (01:32:28):
I legally, I don't know if you're going to remove
a mayor who's been elected by voters, could.

Speaker 1 (01:32:33):
You you know, it's states are different. I mean depending
on how their laws set up, how how a political
subdivision is organized. They set the laws if you know
of how what that is, what the what the definitions are.
I think the legislature does have the power to create
statute around the governance of a city or how a
city is and how it works, and they can put

(01:32:55):
they can put those provisions in. It's a state rights
aren't the same as maybe local rights or city or
county rights. If your state started first and everything after
the state of Utah started, or any state is a
political subdivision that the legislative body of that state creates,
then it's always subject to a lot to bills and statutes.
That's true now if you get to if you go

(01:33:16):
to Pennsylvania, gets a little harder because there's townships that
are older than the country. You know, they got places
that were around before America was America, and that gets
a little different. But in states that are newer states
where they were a state first and then they start
to divide up into counties and cities, that's a that's
a legislative process.

Speaker 2 (01:33:32):
Yeah, yeah, well we'll see what happens and they do
an employed you know, we're going to miss the sentence.
I mean, how what is he done in twenty eight.

Speaker 1 (01:33:39):
I don't know this year. He's elected in sixteen, twenty
twenty four, no two terms. I don't know. I'd have
to look. I miss him. Yeah, he's great. He's great.
He's a great governor and barely won his first reelection
completely outside the second shows what kind of leader he
is and.

Speaker 2 (01:33:57):
Man, and he changed Florida's all right, that doesn't for
us tonight, head up, shoulders back. May God bless you
and your family in this great country of ours. Thanks
very much for joining us today. We'll talk to you
en tomorrow, and for have a good evening.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Betrayal Season 5

.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: Utah's Alienation of Affection Law in Jeopardy; How Utah Works with ICE

Episode Transcript

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

Popular Podcasts

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

Dateline NBC

Betrayal Season 5

All Episodes