S COMING UP NEXT ON ARIZONA HORIZON, WE'LL LOOK AT THE WEEK'S TOP STORIES INCLUDING KARI LAKE CONCEDING THE DEFAMATION SUIT FILED BY HER MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY BE STEPHEN RICHER, THE JOURNALIST ROUND TABLE IS NEXT ON ARIZONA HORIZON.

>> GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO ARIZONA HORIZON.

I'M TED SIMONS.

IT'S FRIDAY, AND THAT MEANS IT'S TIME FOR ANOTHER EDITION OF JOURNALIST' ROUND TABLE.

JOINING US TONIGHT HOWIE FISCHER OF CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES AND CAMRYN SANCHEZ AND WAYNE SCHUTSKY.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

I WANTED TO START ABOUT THE CONCEDING DEFAMATION.

THE TAMALE BILL JUST GOT SIGNED.

WHAT'S GOING ON THERE?

>> YES, WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING BEFORE THE TAMALE BILL.

THE GOVERNOR JUST BEFORE WE WENT ON SIGNED A WHOLE HOST OF BILLS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE -- I CALLED IT INFAMOUS TAMALE BILL, WHICH SHE VETOED LAST YEAR AND IT STARTED A WHOLE STORM OF FRUSTRATION FROM DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN SUPPORTED WITH WERE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT WHICH IS SO RARE SOMETIMES AT THE CAPITOL.

THIS YEAR SHE HAS AGREED TO SOME CHANGES, BUT IT'S PRETTY SIMILAR.

>> SOME CHANGES, A NEW TAMALE?

>> WELL, LET'S JUST SAY I-WASH WOULD BE A TERM I WOULD USE.

IT DEFINE WHAT IS IS A HOME KITCHEN.

IT CAN'T BE MORE THAN 1,000 SQUARE FEET, DESIGNED TO KEEP COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS FROM COMING IN.

THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE, SOME ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ABOVE AND BEYOND, YOU KNOW, THAT IT WAS MADE AT HOME.

MAY HAVE ALLERGENS IN THERE.

BUT THIS IS BASICALLY THE SAME BILL.

SHE SCHOOLED UP LAST YEAR.

SHE HAD NO IDEA AND EVEN ADMITTED IT AFTER THE SESSION THAT SHE HAD -- MY STAFF IS NEW, MY LEGISLATIVE STAFF DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

THEY DIDN'T STAY IN CONTACT, AND SHE HAD NO IDEA UNTIL THE BILL HIT HER DESK AND THEN OF COURSE THERE WAS THE -- CALL ABOUT A SCREW-UP.

YOU REMEMBER HER VETO MESSAGE WHERE SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT -- >> I THOUGHT SAFETY CONCERNS WAS -- THOSE ARE MAJOR FACTORS.

SAFETY CONCERNS NO MORE.

>> YEAH, I THINK SHE WAS GETTING COVERED BY THE MINOR CHANGES DEFINING WHAT A KITCHEN MEANT.

IT IS WORTH NOTING IT WASN'T WITHOUT DRAMA.

I THINK LEADING UP TO THIS BILL, EVERYONE THOUGHT SHE'D SIGN IT THIS YEAR, SHE EVEN SAID A POSSIBILITY OR SO AGO THAT SHE DID SUPPORT THIS VERSION BUT THEN MOST DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE ENDED UP VOTING AGAINST IT, SO WE STARTED THINKING WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.

SENATOR HERNANDEZ TOLD ME THAT SHE OPPOSED IT BECAUSE SHE WANTED AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD STOP CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR THE FOLKS WHO VIOLATE THE LAW.

SHE SAID THE WHOLE POINT IS TO TRY TO STOP THESE PEOPLE FROM JUST MAKING A LITTLE EXTRA MONEY SUPPORTING THEIR FAMILIES WITH THESE TYPE OF PRODUCTS FROM BEING PROSECUTED CRIMINALLY.

SHE DIDN'T GET IT, SO SHE VOTED AGAINST IT BUT STILL SAID SHE SUPPORTED THE GOVERNOR.

>> ANY STATEMENT FROM THE GOVERNOR, ANY REASON FOR THE SIGNING?

ANYTHING AT ALL?

>> NOT REALLY.

WE ASKED HEARD ABOUT IT YESTERDAY AND SHE WOULDN'T COMMENT ON IT.

SHE WAS LIKE, I CAN'T SAY WHAT I'M GOING TO DO.

AND I WAS LIKE, JUST SAY YOU'RE GOING TO SIGN IT.

ANYWAY, SHE ENDED UP SIGNING IT.

THE AMENDMENT DIDN'T GO FORWARD BUT MAYBE THEY CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE NEXT YEAR.

GRANTHAM SAYS HE WAS NEVER CONSULTED ABOUT THE AMENDMENT, HE CALLED IT A TERRORIST ATTACK AMENDMENT.

>> FROM TAMALES TO TERRORISM.

>> LOOK, I THINK THIS GROWING PAINS IN THE NEW HOBBS ADMINISTRATION, SHE GOT RESISTED HER CHIEF OF STAFF, SHE GOT RID OF HER COLUMNS DIRECTOR AND A FEW OTHER PEOPLE AND SUDDENLY, HEY, WHY DON'T WE BRING IN SOME PEOPLE WHO -- WOULD NOT EXACTLY BE READY FOR PRIME TIME ON THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.

SO NOW SHE'S BACK-PEDALING.

BUT I'VE SIGNED IT.

SHE DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO ISSUE A STATEMENT.

AS CAMRYN SAD, I DON'T THINK SHE WANTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS BASICALLY THE SAME BILL SHE STREET OLD LAST YEAR.

>> ALL RIGHT.

LET'S MOVE ON.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER THINGS SHE SIGNED TODAY BUT WE GOTTA GET TO THE CONCESSION HERE, ALTHOUGH, I DON'T THINK SHE WILL CALL A CONCESSION, KARI LAKE DECIDES NOT TO CHALLENGE THE DEFAMATION SUIT FROM STEVEN RICHARD.

YEAH, THEY TECHNICALLY DEFAULTED ON THE CASE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ANSWER THE COMPLAINT.

THEY WERE GIVEN X AMOUNT OF DAYS TO DO THAT AND INSTEAD OF DOING THAT THEY ASKED THE JUDGE TO ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT.

AND IN LEGAL TERMS THE JUDGE SAID SHE BASICALLY ASSUME LIABILITY IN THE CASE AND CAN NO LONGER ARGUE THAT SHE DIDN'T DO WHAT RICHARD ACCUSED HER OF.

>> AND NOT ONLY DID SHE CONCEDE OF WHAT SHE SAID BUT EVERYTHING IN THE COMPLAINT INCLUDING THAT SHE KNEW OR HAD REASON TO KNOW THEY WERE FALSE AND THAT SHE ACTED WITH ACTUAL MALICE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT UNDER LEGAL STANDARDS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL THAT YOU CAN ONLY SUE FOR SLANDER IN TERMS OF ACTUAL MALICE.

>> WHICH GETS TO THE DAMAGES THAT YOU WERE TALKING, AS WELL, STEVEN JUST CAME OUT AND SAID SHE LIED.

>> YEAH, HE SAID SHE'S COLLIDE AND THIS IS HER ADMITTING SHE LIED.

SHE'S PUT OUT MULTIPLE VIDEO APPEARANCES SAYING THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THAT I'M A VICTIM OF LAW-FARE, THAT'S A TERM WE'RE HEARING NOW AND I NEED TO FOCUS ON MY SENATE CAMPAIGN, SO I WON'T DIGNIFY THIS BY PARTICIPATING ANY LONGER.

BUT AGAIN, THE LEGAL STANDARD IS WHAT SHE HAS DONE HERE IS LEGALLY SHE HAS SAID THAT SHE HAS CONCEDED.

ALL THAT'S LEFT NOW TO DETERMINE WHAT AND HOW MUCH SHE OWES STEVEN RICHARD.

>> AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A QUESTION OF TIME.

SHE SEEMS TO BELIEVE, WELL, WE COULD HAVE A LITTLE TRIAL IN FIVE, SIX DAYS, AND WE COULD FIGURE OUT.

AT ONE POINT SHE PUT OUT A TWEET THAT SAID I'LL BUY HIM SOME TRANQUILIZERS AND THAT WILL DEAL WITH HIS EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

WELL, NO.

THE NATURE OF THIS IS GOING THROUGH AND DOING DISCOVERY, YOU KNOW, WHAT DID SHE SAY, WHEN DID SHE SAY IT, AND MORE TO THE POINT, SHE WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE SUED, ALSO HER CAMPAIGN AND ALSO HER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE.

AND SHE WOULD MAKE STATEMENTS AND SAY, YOU KNOW, STEVEN RICHARD DID THIS, HAND ME MONEY.

WHAT THE LAWYERS WANTED TO FIGURE OUT IS HOW MUCH MONEY WENT TO THE PACT.

>> WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS APPARENTLY THIS HAPPENED RIGHT BEFORE DISCOVERY.

THE DAMAGES, THERE'S DISCOVERY WITH DAMAGES, AS WELL.

THIS INFORMATION, SOME OF IT, IS GOING TO GET OUT ANYWAY.

>> YES.

AND IT IS AN UNUSUAL MOVE FOR CONTEXT.

THESE PEOPLE HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING THE CASE.

SHE'S A DEFENDANT AND ADMITTING THAT SHE DID SOMETHING WRONG.

USUALLY IT'S NOT THE DEFENDANT WHO WANTS TO DEFAULT LIKE THIS.

GOING FORWARD, THE JUDGE SAID THEY HAVE TO COOPERATE AT LEIGH A LITTLE BIT AND THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK IN APRIL AND GO BACK BEFORE THE JUDGE AND SEE WHAT THEY AGREED UPON.

I EXPECT THE DAMAGES WILL BE SOMEWHAT SIGNIFICANT.

I ASSUME RICHARD WILL BE ASKING FOR A LOT.

SIGNIFICANT IS WHAT HE TOLD ME.

>> AND THERE'S ONE OTHER PIECE OF THIS, RICHARD IS SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

STEPHEN RICHER.

IT WAS INTENTION SIGNAL SHE KNEW, PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS WHERE YOU GET INTO THE REALLY BIG NUMBERS.

>> AND SHE SAYS HE'S IN A PANIC, AND THAT HE NEEDS A PSYCHIATRIST AND HE NEEDS MEDICATION AND A THERAPY DOG, ALL OF THIS.

THIS IS GONNA IMPACT -- I MEAN, AGAIN, AS WITH DONALD TRUMP, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU CAN'T SEEM TO SHUT THE FAUCET OFF.

>> YEAH, SHE CAN'T SEEM TO GET OUT OF HER OWN WAY WHEN IT COMES TO ATTACKING SOME REPUBLICANS.

DURING THE SENATE CAMPAIGN WE'VE HEARD HER SAY SHE'S TRYING TO BRING THE McCAIN REPUBLICANS BACK SHE EXPLICITLY TOLD TO GET OUT OF THE PARKING LAST TIME AROUND.

BUT NOW STEPHEN RICHER IS A FELLOW REPUBLICAN, AND THERE ARE FELLOW REPUBLICANS WHO LIKE HIM.

HE RECEIVED MORE VOTES THAN HER I BELIEVE IN MARICOPA COUNTY.

SO SHE'S NOW ATTACKING HIM ON MENTAL ILLNESS, WHICH ALSO IS REALLY NOT A WIN WE ARE A LOT OF VOTERS.

>> AND WE'VE SEEN NATIONALLY THERE ARE SOME REPUBLICAN DONORS EXPRESSION A LITTLE BIT OF HESITATION TO DONATE TO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE BECAUSE THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO DONATE TO DONALD TRUMP'S DEFENSE, BUT -- WHAT'S THIS GOING TO DO TO HER FUNDRAISING THAT NUMBER COMES BACK AND IT'S A WHOPPER?

>> I MEAN, I CAN'T IMAGINE IT WILL BE A GOOD THING.

COULD BE A GREAT THING FOR HIS CAMPAIGN, THOUGH, BECAUSE HE'S ALSO RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION FOR MAYOR COPE PAP COUNTY COMPTROLLER WHO IS LIKE A MAGA CROWD AND MORE CARRIE LAKE SPEED.

I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER IF THE JUDGE RECOGNIZED SOMETHING MORE THAN MONETARY DAMAGE LIKE IF SHE HAS TO APOLOGIZE IF I GET THIS FUNDRAISER, I KNOW THIS ISN'T GOING TO HELP HER GET ELECTED, THIS IS GOING TO HELP HER PAY OFF A FINE, I'M GOING TO KEEP MY PEN AND MY CHECKBOOK IN MY POCKET.

>> AND HOW DOES ALL OF THIS IMPACT THE U.S. SENATE RACE?

>> GOING BACK TO THAT WHAT I MENTIONED BEFORE, I THINK SHE'S JUST DOING MORE HARM TO WHAT SHE NEEDS TO DO, WHICH IS TO BRING THE REPUBLICANS WHO DIDN'T VOTE FOR HER LAST TIME INTO THE FOLD, WE'VE SEEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT DEMOCRATS WHO WANT TO WIN STATEWIDE IN ARIZONA THEY NEED TO WIN A GOOD PORTION OF INCIDENTS AND BRING OVER SOME REPUBLICANS WHO MAYBE DON'T LIKE THE CANDIDATE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE LIKE WE SAW IN 2021 AND 2022.

SHE'S NOT DOING MUCH TO CONVINCE THOSE MODERATE REPUBLICANS WHO LIKES STEPHEN RICHER THAT SHE'S A CHANGED PERSON FROM THE LAST CAMPAIGN.

>> AND AGAIN, BACK TO THE TRUMP ANALOGY HERE, PLAYING THE VICTIM HAS NOT NECESSARILY HURT DONALD TRUMP IN HIS CAMPAIGN SO FAR.

CAN CARI LAKE PLAY THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE -- CAN KARI LAKE PLAY THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE?

>> WELL, SHE'S NOT TRUMP, AND THIS WHOLE -- IT'S A TERM WE HEARD FROM SENATOR KEARN AND OTHER REPUBLICANS WHO ARE IN THE TRUMP WING OF THE PARTY WHO SORT OF FALL IN HIS FOOTSTEPS, BUT I DO BELIEVE THIS WILL BE DAMAGING FOR HER.

>> YEAH.

MORE BAD THAN GOOD I WOULD IMAGE.

>> YEAH.

LOOK, AT A CERTAIN POINT, ASSUMING THE POSSIBILITY AS CAMRYN MENTIONED MAYBE SHE'LL BE ASKED, TOLD, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE TO APOLOGIZE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE JUDGE CAN ORDER THAT, MAYBE WILL SAY THERE'S ONE HERE, BUT IF YOU DON'T APOLOGIZE, HERE'S HOW MUCH MORE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY.

>> WHAT'S SHE GONNA SAY, I'M SORRY THAT I SAID SOMETHING THAT LED TO DEATH THREATS TO THE FAMILY?

>> AGAIN, THE QUESTION BECOMES -- THE WORDING GETS OUT, IT'S SORT LIKE -- SOMEBODY SAYS, YOU'RE STUPID, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY I'M SORRY YOU'RE STUPID.

THAT TYPE OF THING.

IT DEPENDS ON THE WORDING.

I WAS WRONG.

THE STATEMENTS I MADE WERE INCORRECT.

I LIED.

IT'S THOSE SORT OF STATEMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, WILL COME UP IN THE ANTICIPATE?

CAMPAIGN AND WILL BE PLAYED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

>> AND COULD ALSO AFFECT WHAT SHE'S ABLE TO SAY GOING FORWARD.

IT'S NOT AN APPLES/APPLES CASE BUT IN THE TRUMP CASE WE SAW HIM GET IN TROUBLE AFTER THE INITIAL CASE FOR CONTINUING TO REPEAT THE COMMENTS THAT HE WAS INITIALLY -- LITIGATION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM FOR.

SO SHE STILL LIKES TO PLAY UP THAT "THIS ELECTION WAS STOLEN FROM ME" CARD.

IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW SHE'S ABLE TO MAKE COMMENTS IN THE FUTURE DEPENDING ON WHAT THE JUDGE RULES.

>> LET'S ASSUME THE JUDGE ISSUES SOME SORT OF INJUNCTION, THIS HAPPENED IN THE TRUMP CASE.

YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE TO APOLOGIZE, BUT YOU CANNOT REPEAT THESE LIES.

MAYBE SHE'S GOT SOME NEW ONES, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT IF THE JUDGE ISSUES AN INJUNCTION AND SAYS HERE'S WHAT YOU CANNOT SAY AND THEN SHE PUSHES THE LINE ON THAT, NOW WE'RE BACK IN COURT.

>> YEAH.

YEAH.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON HERE.

CAMRYN, EARLY VOTING, IT LOOKS AS THEY'RE STILL GOING AFTER EARLY VOTING, HUH.

WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

>> YES, THERE'S LEGISLATION TO STOP EARLY VOTING, WHICH IS EXTRAORDINARILY POPULAR IN ARIZONA.

I THINK SOMETHING LIKE 90, 91% OF PEOPLE IN 2020 VOTED EARLY.

PEOPLE LIKE VOTING BY MAIL.

IT'S CONVENIENT, BUT THERE ARE CONCERNS FROM REPUBLICANS ABOUT EARLY VOTING, AND WANT PEOPLE TO GO ON THE DAY TO THE POLLS IN PERSON, I GUESS, WITH ID, AND ONE DAY, ONE VOTE.

IT'S A WHOLE MOVEMENT.

>> WHY?

AGAIN, NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE LIVES OF 2020 AND 2022 THAT THERE WERE A BUNCH OF -- 300,000 EARLY BALLOTS INJECTED INTO THE SYSTEM.

THE QUESTION OF WHERE SIGNATURES MATCHED TO THE ENVELOPE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE ONLY DOING THEM 2 SECONDS A PIECE, THE BELIEF THAT SOMEHOW PEOPLE ARE BEING INFLUENCED.

I MEAN, WE'VE HAD CASES SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE VOTING IN PERSON, AND IF YOU VOTE EARLY, MAYBE SOMEBODY FROM YOUR UNION COULD BE LOOKING OVER YOUR SHOULDER AND ALL OF THAT.

AND IT GOES A STEP BEYOND THAT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ONLY TALKING ABOUT VOTING IN PERSON, WE'RE GETTING RID OF THE VOTE CENTERS.

THE ADVANTAGE OF THE VOTE CENTERS IS IF I'M NOT SURE WHAT MY PRECINCT IS, OR LET'S SAY I'M DOWNTOWN, MY PRECINCT IS IN LEVINE, BUT I CAN GO INTO ANY VOTE CENTER.

THEY HAVE A WAY OF PULLING UP THE INFORMATION.

I GET A BALLOT SPECIFIC TO MY PRECINCT AND I VOTE.

THIS SAYS I HAVE TO GO TO MY PRECINCT TO ONLY VOTE THEY ARE AND ONLY ON ELECTION DAY.

>> UNLESS YOU LIVE IN A SMALLER COUNTY, AND I BELIEVE THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS.

>> IT'S FOR COUNTIES OVER 500,000.

>> YEAH, OKAY.

>> THE PROBLEM WITH LOGISTICS BECAUSE THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH ALL OF THESE CENTERS, QUITE A FEW MORE THAN THEY'VE HAD IN THE PAST.

>> THEY GOTTA COME UP WITH A WHOLE LOT OF FOLKS.

>> AND THE COUNTY BASICALLY SAID THIS IS TOO EXPENSIVE.

LIKE WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH ALL OF THESE EXTRA FOLKS AND VOTING CENTERS, AND THEY'RE SAYING WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE GETTING ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MAN THE ONES WE HAVE ALREADY AND IN ADDITION TO THAT NOW YOU'RE INJECTING MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE THERE ON THE DAY OF IF YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THE MAIL-IN VOTING OPTION.

>> AND NOT JUST THE PEOPLE BUT THE LOCATIONS.

USED TO BE CERTAIN CHURCHES WOULD LET US COME IN.

CERTAIN COMMUNITY CENTERS.

WE'RE NOT INTERESTED PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE SHOWING UP ARMED WITH CAMO GEAR AND BATTLE GEAR AND SAYING -- WE DON'T WANT THAT HERE.

>> TO CAMRYN'S POINT, I THINK 95% OF THE PPE WAS EARLY VOTING.

I MEAN, THIS IS A C CHANGE IN THE PROCESS, DO THEY REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO HERE?

>> WELL OVER THREE DECADES WE'VE BEEN DOING VOTING THIS WAY IN ARIZONA.

AND A HIGH OF 90 IN 2020.

AND ARE VOTERS GOING TO SAY I'D MUCH RATHER BE INCONVENIENCED WHEN I VOTE?

I MEAN, WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

>> I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT VOTERS WOULD APPROVE THIS, GIVEN HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL BE VOTING BY MAIL CHECKING OFF THE BALLOT.

BUT AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE VOTER FATIGUE AS WELL BECAUSE THEY'RE REFERRING SO MANY MEASURES TO THE BALLOT, AND SO IF IT ENDS UP BEING THAT NOT MANY PEOPLE ARE EVEN MAKING IT THERE, THAT COULD THROW A WRENCH INTO ANY EXPECTATION.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD BRING IT AT LEAST HIGHER IF NOT PHYSICALLY ON THE BALLOT IS IF I AM A DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKER OR A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR, I WILL SAY GO OUT AND VOTE AGAINST PROPOSITION 20-WHATEVER, AND WHILE YOU'RE, THERE VOTE AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS WHO WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR VOTING RIGHTS.

SO THEY WOULD USE THIS AS A CALDERON.

>> I'M SURE THEY WILL.

CAMRYN, IT LOOKS LIKE HOUSE REPUBLICANS ARE TARGETING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND, QUOTE, OTHER STATE OFFICIALS.

NO NAMES THERE, BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS NAMED.

WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

>> WE HAVE A NEW COMMITTEE, A HOUSE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRIS MAIZE SPECIFICALLY BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LIMIT IT TO HER.

I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THEY EXPAND IT TO TALK ABOUT HOBBS, AND OTHER DEMOCRATIC ELECTED OFFICIALS.

THERE'S A SERIES OF ALLEGATIONS THEY SAY THEY NEED TO INVESTIGATE.

THEY SAY THAT SHE ISN'T DOING HER JOB DEFENDING STATE LAWS THAT SHE DOESN'T LIKE, AND TRUE, SHE DOESN'T DEFEND THE STATE LAWS SHE DOESN'T LIKE, BUT THAT'S NOT JUST HER.

ALSO THAT SHE'S GONE AFTER PATIENTS UNFAIRLY AND THERE WAS A CLAIM THAT, YOU KNOW, SHE'S BEEN USING HER OFFICE TO PLAY PARTS AND POLITICS AND ABUSE THE SYSTEM.

MAIZE SAID IT'S RID INCLUDES AND THAT SHE'S NOT EVEN GOING TO THINK ABOUT IT.

>> AND BASICALLY THEY ARE CHARGING THAT SHE IS, QUOTE, WEAPONIZING HER OFFICE, AND I BELIEVE THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE STAKE ELECTOR -- THE FAKE ELECTOR INVESTIGATION, DOES IT NOT.

>> THE FAKE ELECTOR INVESTIGATION IS OBVIOUSLY A PART OF THAT.

WE HAVE TWO SENATORS THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO THAT INVESTIGATION, AND ALSO THE COUNTY INVESTIGATION AND SUPERVISORS WHO TRIED TO FORCE A HAND COUNT THAT, YOU KNOW, MANY LEGAL OPINIONS TOLD THEM WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

SO, YES, GOING AFTER REPUBLICANS WHO SHE DOES BELIEVE VIOLATED THE LAW, AND THE REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THESE ARE POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS.

>> NOW, POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED, LET'S REMEMBER LONG BEFORE BEN PEOPLE IN FORMED THE COMMITTEE, AND REMEMBER HE'S A CANDIDATE FOR CD-8.

ANTHONY KEARN GOT A VOTE IN HIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO LAUNCH AN INVESTIGATION INTO CHRIS MAIZE.

ANDY KEARN WHO IS ALSO RUNNING FOR A CDA.

YOU'VE GOT A COMMITTEE, I'VE GOT A BIGGER COMMUNITY.

>> AND REPRESENTATIVE JACQUELINE PARKER I BELIEVE WILL BE LEADING THIS.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT JACQUELINE PARK CENTER.

>> SHE DOESN'T LIKE CHRIS MAIZE.

SHE'S IN THE FREEDOM CKS, SHE'S A FAR RIGHT REPUBLICAN.

SHE'S PRETTY AGGRESSIVE, AND SHE WOULDN'T COMMENT ON IT BUT IT SEEMS HER MIND IS PRETTY MUCH MADE UP.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN INVESTIGATION INTO CLAIMS BUT HER STATEMENT KIND OF MADE IT SEEM LIKE SHE ALREADY BELIEVES THAT HAYES IS GUILTY.

>> SHE'S OF COURSE AN ALLY OF SENATOR JAY KAUFMAN, HEAD OF THE FREEDOM CKS, WHO IS OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE ACCUSED.

>> WHAT DO WE MAKE OF THAT IS ALL?

IS THIS ELECTION YEAR POSTURE SOMETHING IN.

>> I'M SHOCKED WOULD YOU ASK THAT QUESTION.

HERE'S PART OF THE PROBLEM, FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS TRUE CHRIS MAIZE DID NOT DEFEND THE TERRITORIAL ABORTION LAW BUT INSTEAD SIDED WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

ATTORNEYS GENERAL YOU DO THAT ALL THE TIME, SHE IS NOT DEFENDING THE LAW THAT SAYS QUOTE/UNQUOTE BIOLOGICAL BOYS, TRANSGENDER BOYS CONSIDERING NOT PLAY ON GIRLS TEAMS.

SHE SAID YOU WANT TO DEFEND IT, GO OUT AND HIRE YOUR OWN ATTORNEY.

SO THERE ARE SOME FACTUAL BASIS FOR THIS.

IS THAT THE REASON TO LOOK -- THE POWER THE LEGISLATURE HAS IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATUTES, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS ONLY THOSE POWERS THAT ARE DESIGNATED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS.

IF THEY WANT TO THEY COULD STRIP HER EVERYTHING BUT A DESK AND SECRETARY AND THAT'S THE REAL POWER OVER HER.

>> WELL WELL, THEY COULD CERTAINLY TRY.

>> THEY COULD CERTAINLY TRY.

THEY MAY NEED THE VOTES, THEY COULDN'T GET THE 2/3 IN TERMS OF GETTING IT PASSED TO GOVERNOR BUT THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THEY CAN DO IN THE BUDGET.

>> REPUBLICAN KIM DUNN WANTS AGE VERIFICATION FOR ADULT WEBSITES IN ARIZONA.

I THINK OTHER STATES HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS, HAVE THEY NOT?

>> THESE ARE LAWS WE'RE SEEING IN OTHER STATES.

THEY'RE PITCH IS A WAY TO PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN FROM BEING EXPOSED TO ONLINE PORNOGRAPHY.

I THINK TEXAS IS THE MOST PROMINENT ONE BECAUSE PORN HUB, THE LARGE SENATE INTERNET PORN WEBSITE, SAID IT'S UNATTENNABLE FOR US TO BE DOING THIS SO STOPPED OPERATING IN THE STATE ALL TOGETHER.

BUT YOU GET INTO SOME INTERESTING PRIVACY CONCERNS HERE ON BOTH ENDS OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM.

OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE FOLKS WHO SAY THEY WANT TO PROTECT CHILDREN AGAINST PORN, AND OF COURSE IT'S LIKE WITH THE SUPREME COURT DEFINITION, I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU HAVE PEOPLE SAYING, WAIT A SECOND, I AM AN ADULT, I AM ENTITLED TO SEE THIS.

WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO GIVE INFORMATION, MY DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER, MY DATE OF BIRTH AND ALL THAT, WHICH WILL END UP IN A RECORD SOMEWHERE.

>> AND THAT BRINGS UP THE FIRST AMENDMENT SITUATIONS HERE.

ACLU NOT CRAZY ABOUT THIS.

AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, FOLKS, A GOVERNMENT DATABASE COULD BE USED HERE.

THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF QUESTIONS HERE.

>> I BRIEFLY DUNN SAID SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF ASSURING PEOPLE THAT THEIR INFORMATION WOULDN'T BE SAVED AND IF IT IS YOU CAN BRING A SUIT AGAINST IT.

BUT I THINK THAT WOULD SCARE PEOPLE OFF MAYBE FROM USING THESE TYPES OF SITES THAT THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO GIVE OUT ALL THIS INFORMATION ABOUT THEMSELVES FOR FEAR, IF NOTHING ELSE, THAT IT COULD BECOME PUBLIC AND BE BASTING.

BUT, YEAH, I GUESS TEXAS IS VERY BIG THIS YEAR.

WE LIKE TO WATCH WHAT THEY DO AND DO SOMETHING SIMILAR.

BUT PORN HUB I THINK SUED THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL A YEAR AGO WHEN THEY FIRST PASSED THE LAW.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNOR WOULD DO WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

>> I'M INCLINED ON THE ONE HAND TO SAY SHE WOULD REBUKE IT BECAUSE OF THE FREE SPEECH CAMPAIGNS.

>> SHE'S NOT UP FOR ELECTION THIS YEAR, THOUGH.

>> AND AGAIN THOSE OF YOU WHO BELIEVE THAT IF YOU GIVE A PRIVATE IS SOME INFORMATION, DON'T WORRY, THEY WON'T KEEP IT.

AHA.

HAVE YOU EVER SIGNED UP TO SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET AND YOU'VE NEVER -- YOU NEVER GET AN END TO THE EMAILS?

>> WAYNE, SOUNDS LIKE THE LEERLDZ OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE ARE JOINING THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AIR POLLUTION STANDARDS ARE NOW BEING TARGETED HERE.

WHAT'S GOING ON?

>> YEAH.

THEY JOIN THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN THIS SUIT AND SEVERAL -- MANY OTHER STATES HAVE FILED SUIT AGAINST THE RULES AS WELL.

BASICALLY ARGUING THAT THE EPA IS OVERSTEPPING ITS BOUNDARIES WITH THESE REGULATIONS WHICH IS LOWERING THE THRESHOLD FOR THE AMOUNT OF A CERTAIN PARTICULATE THAT CAN BE MEASURED IN THE AIR IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AND SAYING IT'S GOING TO HURT INDUSTRY HERE, NUMBER 1, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO LIMIT THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT CAN HAPPEN, BUILDING, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF AND ON THE OTHER HAND THEY'RE SAYING IT'S NOT NECESSARILY OUR FAULT.

THEY'RE CLAIMING A LOT OF THIS POLLUTION IS BASICALLY BEING BLOWN INTO ARIZONA.

SO YOU'RE GIVING US THIS RULE AND WE HAVE NO WAY OF COMPLYING WITH IT.

>> ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, ABUSE OF DISCRETION... >> YES.

>> SO WHAT YOU'VE GOT HERE IS WHAT THEY CALL PM2.5, THESE ARE PART OF THE DUSTS THAT A 2 AND A HALF BICROMETERS ACROSS, FAR LESS THAN THE HUMAN HAIR, BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE SO SMALL, THEY CAN GET INTO THE LUNGS, WHAT THE EPA SAYS YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A CERTAIN LEVEL PER CUBIC YARD OF AIR.

WE ARE GOING TO LOWER THAT AND THREE COUNTIES ARE ALREADY OUT OF COMPLIANCE BASED ON WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE NOW, MARICOPA, SANTA CRUZ...

THE QUESTION BECOMES, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING, THERE A WAY OF DELAYING THIS AND IS THIS REALLY NECESSARY FROM A HEALTH PERSPECTIVE, AND WHAT ABOUT THE -- WHERE'S THE ECONOMIC BALANCE IN ALL THIS.

>> AND IS IT LEGAL?

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT'S BROUGHT UP, AS WELL.

I BELIEVE PRESIDENT PETERSON ALSO GOT THE WORLD TYRANNICAL IN THERE, AS WELL.

>> HE DID.

HE'S SAYING IS IT OUR FAULT THAT ARIZONA IS A DUSTY STATE AND WE HAVE WILDFIRES AND STUFF.

WHY DON'T YOU SUE GOD?

HE DIDN'T SAY THAT, BUT FOR MAKING US THAT WAY.

HE'S SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO PENALIZE OUR BUSINESSES WHO ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THIS POLLUTION.

ARIZONA HAS ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THIS AND HE EVEN WENT AS FAR TO SAY WE HAVE THE CLEANEST AIR EVER, WHICH MIGHT NOT BE CORRECT, BUT I HOPE IT IS.

BUT AGAIN, AS WE MENTIONED,th NOT JUST ARIZONA, A LOT OF STATES ARE DOING THIS.

THIS IS HOW IT GOES WITH THESE CLIMATE MANDATES, THE INTENTION OF CREATING A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT IS MAYBE SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE CAN AGREE ON BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE PRACTICE, IT RESULTS IN THESE EXPENSIVE MANDATES AND PEOPLE PUSH BACK ON THEM.

>> CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE PRESIDENT PULSE OH POINTED THE FINGER BACK AT THE FEDS AND SAID ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS IN THE STATE IS WILDFIRES, AND HE ADDS THAT WILDFIRES ON THE FEDERAL LANDS MUCH LESS WELL KEPT THAT MAYBE SOME PRIVATE FOR THE HE'S AND THE WILDFIRES RESULT IN MORE POLLUTION.

AGAIN, YOU MAY HAVE TO LOOK BACK >> I'M NOT SURE THE WILDFIRES ARE WHAT PRODUCED THE PM2.5 THAT ARE PRODUCING LARGER PARTICULATES, SO EVERYBODY'S GOT AN EXCUSE.

>> A COMMITTEE LAST SUMMER BLAMED CHINA AND CALIFORNIA BECAUSE THAT WAS A POPULAR THING.

>> EVERYBODY IS A SCIENTIST AS THE GUY IS TALKING ABOUT PM2.5 AND MICROSCOPIC.

WHO'S WANTS THE PLUTO STORY?

>> ALL RIGHT, CAMRYN.

IT'S A PLANET AGAIN.

>> SO BACK IN 1930 PLUTO WAS DISCOVERED BY A SCIENTIST AT THE OBSERVATORY UP IN FLAGSTAFF AND IT WAS GROUND-BREAKING NEWS.

ARIZONA IS THE ONLY STATE TO HAVE DISCOVERED A PLANET, SO EVERY OTHER PLANET WAS DISCOVERED IN EUROPE BUT AFTER SEVERAL YEARS ABOUT, 80 YEARS, THE INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION VOTED IN 2006 WITHOUT THE PLURALITY OF AMERICAN PLANETARIUM ASTRONOMERS TO SPLIT PLUTO OF ITS STATUS OF THE PLANET BECAUSE PLUTO DIDN'T COMPLETELY CLEAR ITS ORBIT, IT NO LONGER QUALIFIES AND THAT WAS A PROBLEM FOR REPRESENTATIVE WILLMIS WHO IS A SELF DESCRIBED NERD, I MIGHT SAY GEEK, BUT HE REALLY LIKES OUTER SPACE, AND WANTED TO MAKE PLUTO OUR DESIGNATED STATE PLANET JUST BASICALLY FOR THE FUN OF IT, FOR THE COMMERCE, YOU KNOW, THAT IT BRINGS AND STICK IT TO THE EUROPEANS, AND ALSO IT'S THE STATE'S PLANET, WE DISCOVERED IT.

>> ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT?

>> WHAT'S FUN SEE PEOPLE SAY WHY ARE WE DOING THIS.

IT'S SILLY.

WE HAVE A STATE RATTLE SNAKE.

WE HAVE A STATE AMPHIBIAN, WITH VERY A STATE MINERAL, WE HAVE A STATE GUN.

WE HAVE A STATE DRINK, WHICH IN MY PERSPECTIVE SHOULD BE TEQUILA, IT'S LEMONADE.

AND SO THIS IS JUST PART OF, YOU KNOW, A LONG LIST OF THINGS THEY SAY, WE NEED OFFICIAL STATE ITEMS.

>> NOW WE HAVE A STATE PLANET THAT'S NOT A PLANET.

>> ACCORDING TO REPRESENTATIVE WILLMIS IT IS.

SO I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE WHOLE FUN OF THAT, IS THAT HE CAN NOW -- NO ONE CAN CLAIM IT ISN'T A PLANET BECAUSE ARIZONA SAYS IT IS, AND IN ARIZONA WE DO WHAT WE WANT.

>> ALL RIGHT, PANEL.

THAT IS IT.

WE WILL END ON PLUTO.

THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.