>>> THE ACCUSED BRIBERS FACING CHARGES IN THE HB-6 SCANDAL.

>>> WELCOME TO "COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD."

MORE THAN 3.5 YEARS AFTER LARRY HOUSEHOLDER AND OTHERS WERE INDICTED FOR ACCEPTING BRIBES, THE PEOPLE ACCUSED OF ISSUING THOSE BRIBES NOW FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES.

IT IS THE STATE OF OHIO THAT HAS CHARGED THE FIRSTENERGY EXECUTIVE, CHUCK JONES AND MIKE ALLEN WITH BRIBING CHAIRMAN SAVER AND ALSO.

GOVERNOR MIKE APPOINTED RENDAZO AFTER PROSECUTORS SAY HE $4.3 MILLION BRIBE HE SAYS HE KNOWS NOTHING OF THE PAVEMENT BUT NOW -- RENDAZO SAYS THE MONEY WAS FOR CHARGES.

IF THE BRIBEES ARE IN PRISON, WHY AREN'T THE BRIBERS?

>> IT IS AT THE STATE LEVEL.

STILL NO CHARGES AGAINST THE FORMER CEO, CHUCK JONES AND THE FORMER SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, MICHAEL BALLARD AND.

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT FEDERAL CHARGES COULD INTENTIONALLY BE COMING BUT WE DON'T KNOW.

FEDERAL PROSECUTORS ARE CONTINUING THEIR INVESTIGATION BUT, RIGHT NOW, THE ONE THING WE HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO AS JOURNALISTS IS THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN IN SUMMIT COUNTY WHERE THERE ARE NOT THE RESECTION -- RESTRICTIONS ON CAMERA LIKE THERE ARE IN FEDERAL COURT.

WE MAY FIND OUT A LOT MORE INFORMATION IF THIS EVER GOES TO TRIAL AND THERE ISN'T A PLEA DEAL.

>> WE HAVE SEEN THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THESE THREE WAS NOT IN A CARTOON BUT WAS ACTUALLY A VIDEO FROM THE COURTROOM.

DO WE EXPECT THE STATE CASE TO GIVE US ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW?

>> IT IS I THINK WE ALL KNEW THAT THE INVESTIGATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WAS GOING ON AND WE ALL ASKED THE QUESTION, HOW COME HE HAS NOT YET BEEN INDICTED BY THE FEDS?

SO I ASSUME THERE IS MORE TO BE UNCOVERED AT BOTH LEVELS AND WHAT I FOUND FASCINATING IS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RUSH FELL IS THAT THEY VIOLATED STATE LAW, IT IS MY JOB, I AM GOING TO IMPACT PROSECUTE THEM BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE WAITED -- WEIGHED IN AND SAID THERE IS ANOTHER AGENDA AND THAT IS THE WILL BE WHO RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE HE MIGHT BE RUNNING AGAINST MIGHT SO HE IS GOING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE IS ON THE GOOD SIDE OF THE ISSUE AND HE IS AGGRESSIVELY CHALLENGING.

WHAT I DON'T KNOW IS WHAT HAPPENS IF THE FEDS INDICT THE SAME PEOPLE.

I ASSUME THE FEDERAL THING WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE STATE.

>> I THINK THERE WAS SOME THOUGHT THAT THE STATE WAS WAITING TO.

KIND OF DEFERRED TO THE FEDS BUT IT HAS TAKEN A LONG TIME.

TO INDICT RENDAZO AND THEY STILL HAVE NOT CHARGED EXECUTIVES.

>> APPARENTLY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL BUT HE IS GOING TO GET CRITICIZED WHETHER HE DOES HIS JOB OR HE DOESN'T.

IF HE DOESN'T DO ANYTHING, IT WILL BE LIKE, WHY DIDN'T HE DO ANYTHING.

HE SAYS, I AM GOING TO DO MY JOB AND GO AFTER THE CHECK WRITERS AND AFTER THAT, LET'S MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

AS FOR THESE GUYS SAYING, I DIDN'T KNOW.

COME ON.

THAT IS RIDICULOUS.

LET'S GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.

IF WE DON'T, IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

LET'S GET EVERYBODY.

>> HE SAID HE DID NOT KNOW WHO RENDAZO WAS BUT WHILE HE KNEW HE WAS CONNECTED TO FIRSTENERGY, HE CLAIMS HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE PAYMENTS.

APPARENTLY, HIS CHIEF OF STAFF DID AT THE TIME ACCORDING TO INDICT REPORTS AND TESTIMONY.

>> HE IS SAYING THAT HE KNEW THAT INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS A $3.4 MILLION PAYMENT BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED AS CHAIR, HE WOULD NOT HAVE APPOINTED HIM TO THAT POSITION.

$3.4 MILLION IS THE FINAL PAYMENT OF A CONSULTING AGREEMENT AND IF HE DID SHARE THAT INFORMATION, THAT IS PRETTY AMAZING, $4.3 MILLION FOR A CONSULTING AGREEMENT.

THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY BUT HE HAS SAID THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS THAT HE DID NOT KNOW CERTAINLY, NO ONE KNEW IT WAS A BRIBE.

>> IT IS FRUSTRATING THAT PEOPLE ON THE STAFF PRESUMABLY DID NOT INFORM HIM OF THIS.

AND I THINK, MAYBE THAT WILL BE SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS.

WHO KNEW WHAT, WHEN AND WHAT DID THEY SHARE WITH THE GOVERNOR?

>> THE INDICTMENT, AND AGED TOLD THE FIRSTENERGY FOLKS HOW TO HANDLE THE GOVERNOR IN A HANDWRITTEN NOTE THAT DOWLING GAVE TO JONES THAT SAID DON'T MENTION THE $4.3 MILLION, DON'T MENTION THE MEETING WITH RENDAZO AND DON'T PUT ANYTHING IN WRITING.

>> DON'T PUT ANYTHING IN WRITING BUT THERE WERE PHOTOS OF THESE NOTES IN WRITING WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING.

>> AND THE GOVERNOR ACTING SURPRISED, HE WAS STILL TRYING TO HANDLE THE GOVERNOR.

>> WHAT DOES THE GOVERNOR KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

ONE OF THE CHALLENGES OF THE FENCE, IN RECENT YEARS, THE US SUPREME COURT HAS MADE A NUMBER OF DECISIONS THAT MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR BRIBERY SO THE FEDS SPEND A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT LAWS UNDER WHICH THEY CAN MOVE THE CASE FORWARD AND GET THE EVIDENCE THEY NEED BECAUSE EFFECTIVELY, WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR COUNTRY RIGHT NOW IS THAT A LOT OF CROOKS BEHAVIOR HAS BEEN DECRIMINALIZED.

>> THE CROSS POLLINATION, THE BACK-AND-FORTH AND THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN FIRSTENERGY AND THE STATEHOUSE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WERE PRETTY TIGHT WITH PEOPLE, KNOWING EACH OTHER, BEING MARRIED TO EACH OTHER AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD AND THE FACTS IN THE FEDERAL CASE ARE LAID OUT, ALL I KNOW IS WHAT WE READ IN THE PAPER BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD AND THAT IS WHY I SAID MOMENTS AGO, IF WE ARE JUST GOING AFTER THE BIG FISH, IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

LOBBYISTS AND THE LAWYERS AND IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN BUT UNTIL SUCH TIME, BUSINESS AS USUAL.

>> SOME DEMOCRATS SAY THE WAY TO KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN IS TO CHANGE STATE LAW.

IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF TRACTION TOWARD CHANGING BUT I WOULD ADD THAT THERE IS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ISSUE THAT YOST MENTIONED AND PART OF THE REASON WHY HE CONTINUED HIS INVESTIGATION SO BUT UP AGAINST THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROBLEM AND ALSO, WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS ILLEGAL TO NOT TELL THE GOVERNOR THESE THINGS.

IS THAT ILLEGAL OR NOT AND I HAVING -- AM NOT A LAWYER AND HAVE NO IDEA.

>> THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL CLEANUP THIS SUMMER AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

IF THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE -- EVEN THOUGH VOTERS ENSHRINED ABORTION-RIGHTS INTO THE PRIZE -- CONSTITUTION LAST FALL, PROMISING TO MOVE LARGE CANDIDATES OPPOSE ABORTION RIGHTS BUT MATT AND PERINO BOTH SAY THEY SUPPORT A FEDERAL LAW THAT WOULD ALLOW ABORTIONS UP TO 15 WEEKS.

ROSE ALSO SUPPORTS A FEDERAL STANDARD BUT HE HAS DECLINED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC.

ROSE BECAME THE FACE OF THE TWO ISSUE CAMPAIGNS LAST YEAR, FIRST, MAKING IT HARDER TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION AND SECOND TO GUARANTEE RIGHT TO ABORTION.

ON THIS WEEK, HE ENDORSED THE BID FOR U.S. SENATE BUT ALSO ENDORSED ONE OF HIS OPPONENTS, BERNIE MARINO.

WHY ENDORSE TWO OUT OF THREE CANDIDATES?

>> WE RARELY DO.

THE LAST TIME, JD VANCE ONLY IN A CROWDED FIELD OF 2022 BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, BOTH MEN EARNED OUR ENDORSEMENT.

THE LEGISLATURE AND THE STATEWIDE OFFICE HOLDER HAS WORKED WITH US, WORKED WITH ME OVER THE SUMMER ON THE AUGUST ISSUE AND NOVEMBER AND BOTH MADE A COMPELLING CASE.

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES MET WITH US AND WE THINK EITHER ONE.

WE CANNOT -- 'S BACK TO YOU OWES LOYALTY TO FRANK BECAUSE HE DID TAKE A LOT OF HEAT FOR THE ISSUE IN AUGUST AND LEADING THE CHARGE IN NOVEMBER.

>> IT WASN'T BASED ON LOYALTY BUT IT WAS BASED ON HIS BODY OF WORK.

IN 2014, HE VOTED AGAINST ME TO BE ON THE STATE MEDICAL BOARD AND HERE WE ARE TODAY, STILL FRIENDS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE BILLS HE HAS INTRODUCED, COSPONSORED IN THE STANDS HE HAS TAKEN WITH US, HE HAS BEEN A LOYAL FRIEND.

>> HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE WILL ABORTION BE IN THIS UNITED STATES SENATE RACE GIVEN THAT THE OHIOANS HAVE ALREADY DECIDED AND TWO OUT OF THREE HAVE SOFTENED THEIR HEART ON THE PRO-LIFE STANCE.

>> IF YOU NOTICE, ALL OF THE CANDIDATES ARE NOT USING THE WORD BAN.

THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE IN WASHINGTON THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT.

WE WILL NOW PASS LEGISLATION AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL THAT WILL IN ABORTION AFTER 15 WEEKS.

THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT 15 WEEK BUT THEY DON'T CALL THAT A BAN.

IF THEY CALLED IT A BAN, YOU HAVE JUST HANDED AN ISSUE TO SHARON BROWN THAT MY OPPONENTS ARE TRYING TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE VOTERS BUT THEY ARE CUTER WE DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT ANYTHING BEYOND 15 WEEKS.

THAT IS WHAT I SAY IS SENDING A SIGNAL THAT IF ONE OF THEM IS ELECTED AND THERE IS A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CALL FOR A 15-WEEK BAN, THEY MIGHT SUPPORT IT BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO SAY IT NOW BECAUSE THAT WOULD ACT AS A PRO-CHOICE IN OHIO.

>> ONE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP IS SAYING THAT HE FAVORS A 16-WEEK BAN WHICH IS AN INTERESTING NUMBER.

THAT IS A NUMBER WE HAVEN'T HEARD BEFORE.

IT IS A SMALL DIFFERENCE BUT AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE AND IT COULD PLAY A ROLE IN TERMS OF ALL THREE CANDIDATES SUPPORTING TRUMP POLICY.

SO WHERE ARE THEY ON THIS ISSUE?

>> WHERE DOES THE FOLKS THAT STRONGLY OPPOSE ABORTION RIGHTS WHERE DO THEY STAND ON A QUOTE BACK 15 WEEK STANDARD OR 15 WEEK BAN, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT?

>> IT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE CONGRESSIONAL LEVEL.

IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN A DIVIDED CONGRESS.

WE ALL KNOW WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT IS GOING TO BE.

WHAT ARE THESE CANDIDATES TALKING ABOUT?

CAR SEATS, CRIBS, FORMULA.

CHILDCARE, THOSE ARE THE ISSUES OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT.

HERE WE ARE IN THE PRESENT.

IS HE OKAY WITH A NON-MONTH ABORTION BAN?

WHERE ARE THOSE QUESTIONS?

ABORTION IS GOING TO PLAY A ROLE AND WHERE DOES HE THINK ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?

WHERE DOES HE THINK WE SHOULD SAY NO ABORTIONS AFTER WHAT TIME?

WHAT IS THE LIMIT AND HE CAN ANSWER THAT.

>> HE CAN ANSWER THAT.

WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND THE AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR RARE EXCEPTIONS WHEREAS THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER AND AS CERTIFIED BY DOCTORS AND AFTER 24 WEEKS.

FOR THE NINE-MONTH THING, THAT IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES THAT YOUR SIDE LEADS TO TRY TO SCARE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT ABORTION ON DEMAND.

AND HE DOESN'T.

THAT QUESTION SHOULD BE ASKED OF HIM BUT LIKEWISE, THE SAME QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED AND ASKED, WHEN DONALD TRUMP NOW SAYS 16 WEEKS, HE IS NOT DOING ANYBODY ANY FAVOR ON YOUR SIDE BECAUSE MANY OF YOUR SUPPORTERS WILL SAY, WE WANTED ZERO WEEKS.

WE DON'T WANT ANY.

>> THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS IN TRUMP'S PROPOSAL.

>> AND HE IS USING THE WORD BAN.

WHEN YOU PUT THAT WORD OUT THERE, YOU HAVE YOUR CANDIDATES HAVING TO SAY, DO YOU SUPPORT A BAN?

AND YOU IN THE SENSE OF THINGS, WE ALSO BE TALKING ABOUT WHAT KINDS OF POLICIES WE ADOPT THAT WOULD MAKE IT LESS LIKELY FOR PEOPLE TO EITHER WANT OR NEED TO HAVE AN ABORTION.

AND WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT SERIOUSLY 10 YEARS AGO, 20 YEARS AGO.

AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TALKING 10 OR 20 YEARS AGO ABOUT MAYBE A 15-WEEK --BUT WE DID NOT DO THAT.

WE WENT DOWN A DIFFERENT PATH AND IF WE CAN MOVE BACK TO A PATH WHERE WE FOCUS ON, HOW DO WE PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY?

>> COULDN'T LIVE WITH THIS 15 WEEK STANDARD?

NO RESTRICTIONS OR VERY FEW RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION UP TO 15 WEEKS AND AFTER 15 WEEKS, ONLY FOR THE HEALTH OR THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

>> YOU JUST SAID MOMENTS AGO THAT 95% HAPPENED BEFORE 15 WEEKS AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO SETTLE ON SOME ARBITRARY NUMBER, 15, 16.

THE DOBBS DECISION DECIDED THAT IT IS UP TO THE STATE AND EACH STATE CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION.

IS THERE A FEDERAL FLOOR?

YES, WE SHOULD HAVE A FEDERAL FLOOR.

IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE KNOW THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A BILL IN CONGRESS.

IF WE CANNOT PROTECT THE SOUTHERN BORDER, WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANY AGREEMENT.

>>> WEST VIRGINIA TO JOE MADSEN OUT HIS LISTENING TOUR TO OHIO, THIS WEEK.

THE DEMOCRATS NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION SAYS HE IS TRYING TO FOR A THIRD-PARTY TO COUNTER WHAT HE CALLS DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WEAPONIZED OF AMERICAN POLITICS.

HE SPOKE TO THE CLEVELAND IN THE MORNING AND THE LUNCHTIME SPEECH INTERVIEW AT THE METROPOLITAN CLUB WHERE WHEN QUESTIONED BY COUNSEL, HE INSISTED THAT HE WAS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

MY PURPOSE OF COMING AROUND AND BEING HERE IS NOT TO PROPOSE OR PROTECT ME RUNNING FOR ANY OFFICE.

I AM NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND I AM NOT AS YOU'RE RUNNING ON ANY PARTY FOR ANY OTHER OFFICE.

THEY SAID, THERE MIGHT BE AN OPENING AS A THIRD PARTY.

THAT IS A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION.

AND IS THERE EVER A CHANCE THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO OPEN UP TO WHERE A THIRD PARTY COULD BE MORE COMPETITIVE?

WE NEED TO EXAMINE THAT BECAUSE THE MORE COMPETITION, THE BETTER PARTICIPATION AND YOU BRING MORE PEOPLE INTO THE PROCESS.

LIKE WHAT HE HEARD IN COLUMBUS, JOE MANCHIN SAID I AM NOT GOING TO RUN AS A THIRD OF THE CANDIDATE.

WHAT IS HE RUNNING, DO YOU THINK?

PERHAPS TO HAVE SOME FUTURE IMPACT ON THE DIRECTION OF AMERICAN POLITICS THEY DID A SUPER JOB OF INTERVIEWING HIM AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN SCARE HIM OUT OF THE RACE BECAUSE HE IS TOO WISE.

HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN BUT THE POINT HE MAKES OUR VERY VALID AND IT'S INTERESTING WHAT YOU DID GET FROM HIM IS THAT HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT TRUMP.

HE MADE THE CASE AGAINST BIDEN VERY WELL IN TERMS OF THE FACT THAT JOE HAS MOVED TOO FAR TO THE LEFT AND HE REALLY RAISED THE QUESTION, CAN JOE MOVE BACK TO THE CENTER?

AND HE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION.

AND THERE, HE SAID, WE FINALLY ARE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT.

WE IN THE SENATE BIPARTISAN OUT.

>> IN THE MORNING, HE SAID THAT BIDEN WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE BORDER SO HE WAS PRETTY CRITICAL >> HE SAID THAT AT THE METROPOLITAN CLUB.

HIS CRITICISM ABOUT TRUMP FOCUS MORE ON COMMENTS ABOUT JOHN McCAIN BACK IN 2015 AND THAT CONCERNS ABOUT NATO, RECENT CONCERNS ABOUT NOT SUPPORTING NATO MEMBERS AGAINST AGGRESSION BUT HE DID SAY HE IS UNDECIDED ON SUPPORTING BIDEN BUT WOULD NOT SUPPORT TRUMP.

>> HE ALSO GAVE CREDIT TO THE SENATE THAT A BIPARTISAN MAJORITY IN FACT CAME UP WITH AN IMMIGRATION PLAN AND THAT IT WAS SABOTAGED BY THE REPUBLICANS AND DONALD TRUMP.

SO HE WAS VERY FRUSTRATED ABOUT THAT.

>> DO THEY PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT HE IS SAYING?

>> I THINK WHEN HE BEATS UP HIS OWN PARTY, THEY DO.

I DON'T THINK HE IS LOUSY.

HE HAS BEEN THERE FOREVER AND A DAY AND HE READS THAT HE LEAVES.

HIM GETTING WHAT YOU LIKE TO GET RE-ELECTED TO GET A FOURTH TERM, IT IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BUT THE POLLS SHOW THAT TRUMP IS UP BY 11 IN OHIO.

TO SOME EXTENT, TO CONGRESS, THE BAR IS LOW, RIGHT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

>> WATCHING BOTH OF THESE PRESENTATIONS, THERE WAS A CHANCE THAT BIDEN MAY NOT BE THE NOMINATE.

THERE IS A LONG TIME TO GO BEFORE JULY AND JOE MADSEN SAYS A LIFETIME.

COULD HE BE REMAINING RELEVANT TO BECOME A POSSIBLE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION.

>> THE PARTY IS FAR TOO LIBERAL BUT HE CAN BE A PLAYER AND HE CAN HELP VALIDATE WHOEVER THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE MIGHT BE.

IN THAT SENSE, HE WOULD HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY BUT HE WOULD NOT BE A NOMINEE.

>> WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT NOT VOTING FOR BIDEN OR A THIRD- PARTY CANDIDATE, THAT IS A PROBLEM FOR BIDEN IN PARTICULAR.

ANYTIME YOU START TALKING ABOUT A THIRD OPTION AND WHAT IS A BINARY CHOICE BETWEEN TRUMP OR BIDEN, THAT POTENTIALLY COST ONE OF THE OTHER BOATS.

>> THERE IS ALSO THE POSSIBILITY THAT DOWN THE ROAD, MONTHS FOR NOW, MANSION COULD ANNOUNCE, I HAVE HAD MY RESERVATION BUT THE CHOICE IS CLEAR, IT HAS GOT TO BE JOE BIDEN AND HE CAN DO THAT.

>> IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN?

>> I THINK A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE CAN RUN.

ROSS PEROT PLAYED SPOILER.

ROBERT F KENNEDY JUNIOR IS GOING TO PLAY SPOILER.

I THINK THAT IS THE MOST THAT WILL HAPPEN FROM A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE.

>> SOME REPUBLICANS CONTINUE TO HAVE A HARD TIME JUST GETTING ALONG.

THEY CONTINUE TO FIGHT OVER WHO CONTROLS THE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE WHICH HELPS THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES.

STEVENS CONTROLLED THE MONEY OVER THE OPPOSITION OF RIVAL REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE THIS WEEK, A JUDGE DENIED THE REQUEST TO FREEZE THOSE FUNDS AND THAT MEANS STEVENS CAN CONTINUE TO USE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR TV ADS FOR HOUSE MEMBERS WHO SUPPORT HIM AS SPEAKER.

THIS HAS GONE ON.

HOW DOES IT AFFECT LAWMAKERS?

>> THE LOBBYISTS AND OTHER PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT EXACT SUBJECT AND THEY ARE SAYING IT IS DIFFICULT.

THE LEGISLATOR WAS THE LEAST PRODUCTIVE IN TERMS OF PASSING LEGISLATURE LAST YEAR SINCE THE 50s AND THIS BACK-AND-FORTH BETWEEN THE SUPPORTERS OF STEVENS AND THE SUPPORTERS OF REPUBLICAN SUPPORTERS OF MAREN THAT THERE ARE STEVENS AND IT HAS BEEN A BIT OF A PROBLEM.

FOR THOSE WHO THOUGHT THIS WOULD GO AWAY WHEN STEVENS WAS THE SPEAKER AND IT WAS GOING TO GET RESOLVED BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN SQUABBLES LIKE THIS BEFORE.

THERE IS STILL A LOT OF FRUSTRATION ON THE REPORT AND THERE HAVE BEEN ENDORSEMENTS OF THE BLUE 22 AS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS CALLED, THE 22 REPUBLICANS WHO SUPPORT STEVENS >> DID HE DO ENOUGH TO HEAL THOSE WOUNDS OR IS IT POSSIBLE?

OR ARE THEY JUST TOO DEEP?

>> WHAT I KNOW IS THE CAUCUS IS THERE TO HELP ANYONE.

ADAM MATTHEWS DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE SPEAKER, THEY HAVE COMPETITIVE PRIMARIES.

THE SPEAKERS ARE HELPING THEM PRIMARILY DOSED FINANCIALLY SO THERE IS PRECEDENCE OF HIM SAYING, I AM NOT GOING TO PROTECT THE 2022.

WHAT HE CAN'T DO IN MY OPINION IS WORK WITH SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT THERE.

IF REPRESENTATIVE X REFUSES TO WORK WITH THE SPEAKER, HOW CAN THEY SPEAK OR HELP HIM?

>> THERE IS ANOTHER PLAYER, THE REPRESENTATIVE WHO MANY PEOPLE SAY ASPIRES TO BE THE NEXT SPEAKER.

>> HE IS RUNNING FOR THE HOUSE NOW AND IF HE IS ELECTED, HE WILL PRESUMABLY RUN FOR SPEAKER >> PRESUMABLY, PEOPLE ARE SAYING HE'S FINGERPRINTS ARE ON THE PRIMARY CHALLENGE FOR STEVENS SUPPORTERS.

IF YOU HAVE THE SENATE PRESIDENT WHO IS HELPING TO FERMENT DECISION IN THE CAUCUS, THAT IS A PROBLEM FOR LEADERSHIP.

>> WHAT ARE THEY SAYING?

IF IT IS TOUGHER STEVENS AND THEY GO HEAD-TO-HEAD, DOES ONE BOW OUT?

>> I STOPPED TRYING TO HANDICAP A LONG TIME AGO, WE SAW 11 ROUNDS WHENEVER GOING AT IT FOR SPEAKER SO IT IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO KNOW.

CERTAINLY, HE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME AND HAS A LOT OF STRONG SUPPORTERS.

STEVENS IS WORKING WITH REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE, TRYING TO GET SOME OF THESE THINGS DONE AND SUPPORTING SOME OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM AS SPEAKER.

>> STEVENS VERSUS HUFFMAN.

THE SAME THING CAN HAPPEN AGAIN WHERE DEMOCRATS HELPED PUT STEVENS OVER THE TOP.

>> HUFFMAN VERSUS STEVENS, WOULD DEMOCRATS GO WITH STEVENS?

WOULD REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE STILL GO WITH STEVENS AS A CHOICE?

>> THE RULES ARE PRETTY CLEAR.

IT IS NOT JUST REPUBLICANS, ALL NINE MEN AND WOMEN GET TO VOTE AND IF STEVENS HAS THE 33, THE 34, WHATEVER THE FINAL NUMBERS, THAT IS A HUGE ADVANTAGE.

I DON'T DOUBT BETTY MAN, I THINK JASON IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.

>> THE DEMOCRATS, WHAT DO THEY GET FROM THIS FORUM?

WAS THERE EVIDENCE THEY GOT ANYTHING OUT OF THE SPORT FOR STEVENS?

>> I DON'T KNOW BUT SOME OF THE BILLS THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, THE REVOLUTION THAT PUT --RESOLUTION THAT PUT ON THE BALLOT AND I AM SURE THERE ARE A LOT OF DEMOCRATS THAT ARE FRUSTRATED BUT WHAT ARE THEIR OPTIONS.

THEY ARE A SUPER MINORITY SO THEIR OPTIONS ARE LIMITED.

>> NOT AS BLATANTLY.

CAUCUS IS OFF INFECTIONS.

I DON'T REMEMBER IT PLAYING OUT LIKE THIS.

THERE WAS ONE TIME WHEN IT WAS SENATOR MAURICE JACKSON HE WAS GOING TO VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS TO HAVE -- BUT THE PRESSURE GOT TO HIM.

>> LET'S GET TO OUR FINAL OFF THE RECORD PARTING SHOTS.

>> THERE IS AN IMPORTANT PUSH FOR CONGRESS.

THIS WEEK, HE FAMOUSLY WENT ONLINE AND SAID ANY OHIOAN WITH A SPECIAL NEED IN SPECIAL OLYMPICS IS THE R WORD AND I AM NOT GOING TO USE THAT LANGUAGE.

IF HE IS THE NOMINEE, NO ONE SHOULD VOTE FOR HIM AND IT IS SAD.

AND SENATORS HAVE ENDORSED THIS GUY.

WHAT THE HECK ARE WE DOING HERE?

>> JD VANCE, ON MONDAY, JD VANCE WILL ANNOUNCE THAT HE AND BROWN ARE WORKING IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION ON ISSUES IMPORTANT TO OHIOANS AND THE NEXT DAY, HE SEEMS TO BE IN A COMPETITION WITH TUCKER CARLSON TO BE PRESIDENT OF A VLADIMIR PUTIN FAN CLUB.

>> AND I KEEP HEARING JD VANCE NAME BEING TOSSED AROUND AS A PRIMARY VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

NEXT WEEK, THERE IS A MEETING OF A COMMITTEE LOOKING INTO GAMBLING AND SPORTS BETTING IN OHIO AND I GAMING WHICH IS CASINOS AND ONLINE GAMING, MORE GAMBLING IN OHIO AND WHETHER THAT IS A GOOD IDEA OR NOT.

THEY WILL BE LOOKING INTO THAT >> THE FORMER DEPUTY, HIS MURDER TRIAL ENDED UP IN A MISTRIAL.

NO DOUBT THE JURORS WERE FRUSTRATED BUT THERE WAS NOBODY CAMERA FOOTAGE FROM THE FORMER DEPUTY, MEADE, HIMSELF.

FRANKLIN COUNTY NOW HAS SOMEBODY CAMERAS THAT SHOULD CLEAR UP THE CASE.

CHECK US OUT LIVE ON FACEBOOK, ANY TIME AT WOSU.ORG.

I AM MIKE DOTSON.

HAVE A GOOD WEEK!