♪.

TED: COMING UP NEXT ON "ARIZONA HORIZON," THE U.S. SUPREME COURT COMES DOWN WITH A NUMBER OF BIG DECISIONS TODAY.

WE'LL HAVE ANALYSIS.

>>> AND IT'S FRIDAY, TIME FOR THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE.

WE'LL LOOK AT THE WEEK'S TOP STORIES, INCLUDING A RULING THAT OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS CAN BE SWEPT FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CONTROL.

THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE AND THE SUPREME COURT REVIEW NEXT ON "ARIZONA HORIZON."

.

TED: GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO "ARIZONA HORIZON."

I'M TED SIMONS.

WE WILL GET TO THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE IN A MOMENT, BUT FIRST, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TODAY ISSUED RULINGS ON THREE IMPORTANT CASES.

ONE INVOLVED JANUARY 6 RIOTERS.

ANOTHER FOCUSED ON HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS AND THE THIRD IMPACTS THE POWER OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

FOR MORE, WE SPOKE WITH PAUL BENDER WITH ASU'S O'CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW.

PAUL BENDER, ALWAYS A PLEASURE, SO GOOD TO SIGH.

SO MUCH TO TALK ABOUT AND A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME.

LET'S GET TO IT.

START WITH THE JANUARY 6 AND THE IDEA THAT PROSECUTORS OVERREACHED HERE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS ONE?

>> TECHNICALLY A DIFFICULT CASE.

IT'S A STATUTORY INTERPRETATION CASE, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS, AND IT'S VERY TANGLED AND I DON'T THINK IT'S ALL THAT IMPORTANT.

IT DOESN'T AFFECT MANY CASES.

OF ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE JANUARY 6 EVENTS, I THINK THIS IS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THEM, AND I DON'T THINK IT AFFECTS THEM THAT MUCH.

IT'S AN INTERESTING STATUTORY INTERPRETATION CASE.

I DON'T THINK IT TELLS YOU VERY MUCH ABOUT THE COURT IN GENERAL.

TED: DOES IT TELLS YOU MUCH ABOUT THE FEDERAL CASE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP FOR PLOTTING TO SUBVERT THE 2020 ELECTION?

THE COURT SAID THESE FOLKS DIDN'T IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

DOES THAT APPLY TO HIM?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

I'M NOT SURE, BUT MY ANSWER TO THE QUESTION YOU ASK IS MY GUESS IS THAT IT DOESN'T TELL US VERY MUCH, IF ANYTHING, ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO TREAT THE CASE THEY'RE GOING TO DECIDE ON MONDAY.

TED: OKAY, SO THE IDEA -- PAUL, HOW IS THIS NOT IMPEDING AND OBSTRUCTING AN UNOFFICIAL PROCEEDING, WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6?

>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

I'M DOUBTFUL ABOUT WHETHER THE DECISION IS RIGHT, AND MAYBE IT'S THE RESULT OF THEIR GENERAL UNEASINESS WITH WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS DOING WITH TRUMP.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM DOING ANYTHING WITH HIM AT ALL.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON MONDAY.

THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY.

THIS CASE IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT THAT.

THEY DECIDED WHAT TO DO WITH IMMUNITY.

THAT'S THE BIG ISSUE HERE.

IF THEY SHOULD DECIDE TO GIVE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY THAT VIOLATE THE CRIMINAL LAW ANY TIME THE ACTION IS WITHIN THE PRESIDENT'S SCOPE OF AUTHORITY, THAT IS AN AMAZINGLY BROAD AND REVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.

THAT'S THE QUESTION IN MY MIND IS WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO REALLY HAPPEN.

I DON'T THINK IT TELLS YOU WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN EXCEPT THE CASE IS SO DETAILED AND SPECIFIC ABOUT THE STATUTE.

MY GUESS IS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE VERY BROAD ON MONDAY.

THEY WILL NOT DECIDE THE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY VIOLATE FROM THE LAW.

TED: INTERESTING.

INTERESTING.

TODAY THE DECISION, IT'S OKAY TO ARREST THOSE UNHOUSED AND HOMELESS FOR SLEEPING IN PUBLIC PLACES?

TALK TO US ABOUT THIS ONE.

>> WELL, THIS IS A VERY TROUBLESOME CASE TO ME.

THE COURT IS CORRECT IN SAYING THAT USING THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CLAUSE.

THAT'S WHAT THE NINTH CIRCUIT USED TO SAY THAT THE STATE'S PENALIZING PEOPLE FROM SLEEPING IN THE PARK WHEN THEY HAVE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE, THEY HAVE TO SLEEP SOMEWHERE.

THAT'S NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

AND WHAT THE PEOPLE CHALLENGING THE STATUTE WANTED TO USE WAS A DOCTOR THAT STILL IS ON VERY SHAKY GROUND.

THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE PUNISHMENT BURNING AT THE STATE TORTURE, THIS CASE INVOLVES A MUCH MORE PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION WHETHER YOU CAN PENALIZE SOMEBODY'S STATUS.

IT'S VERY HARD TO GET THE QUESTION THIS OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

SO I -- I DON'T THINK IT ENDS UP MEANING VERY MUCH EXCEPT, TO ME, THE MEANING IS THAT THIS IS A COURT THAT IS NOT REALLY INTO DEVELOPING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

THE TRUTH IS THE HOMELESS IS A SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES.

YEARS PAST, THE SUPREME COURT WOULD TAKE AN ISSUE LIKE THAT, DECIDE A NUMBER, LIKE SCHOOL SEGREGATION, FOR EXAMPLE, OR SINGLE SEX MARRIAGE AND DECIDE CASES AND TRY TO REACH A RESOLUTION ON IMPORTANT SOCIAL ISSUES.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SOCIAL ISSUE AND ONE THAT THIS COURT DOESN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN.

SO TO ME, IT'S JUST SHOWING THAT THIS COURT IS GIVING UP THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING BIG, BROAD THINGS WITH REGARD TO POLICY, WITH REGARD TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, AND THAT'S A CHANGE THE COURT HAD BEEN DOING THIS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

THESE PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO DO, THAT AND SO WE'RE GOING TO GET -- THEY'RE GOING TO BE THERE FOR A LONG TIME.

YOU'RE GOING TO GET A PERIOD OF YEARS WHEN NOT VERY MUCH IS DONE IN CREATING CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE.

TED: 40 YEAR PRECEDENT WAS OVERTURNED IN THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE.

THE COURT LIMITING THE POWER OF FEDERAL AGENCY.

I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST ON OUR JUDICIAL REVIEWS AND SUPREME COURT REVIEWS AND WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE.

COURTS, NOT AGENCIES, HAVE PRIORITY IN INTERPRETING LAWS.

THAT'S WHAT THE COURT SAYS TODAY, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY AND THEY MEAN IT, AND IT LOOKS LIKE, HEY, THE COURT IS REALLY TAKING OVER THESE VAST NUMBER OF CASES INVOLVING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.

THEY CAN'T DO THAT.

THERE ARE TOO MANY CASES.

SO THEY HAVE THESE DOCTRINES BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE APPLIED BY THE INDIVIDUAL COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, AND I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO ANYWAY, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER VERY MUCH WHAT THE SUPREME COURT'S GENERAL APPROACH IS, BUT THIS CASE SHOWS, SUPREME COURT GENERAL APPROACH IS THEY'RE LOSING THEIR AUTHORITY OVER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL LAW, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO GIVE IT UP TO THE AGENCIES.

THAT'S THE WAY THE COUNTRY IS WORKING SINCE THE NEW DEAL BEGAN, AND I THINK THESE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE ON THE SUPREME COURT ARE UNCONSCIONABLE WITH THAT MUCH POWER IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, THEY WANT TO KEEP THE POWER FOR THEMSELVES, EVEN THOUGH WHEN THEY HAD THE POWER THEY DON'T USUALLY USE IT IN VERY IMPORTANT WAYS, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING THAT THEY KEEP -- THESE ARE LEGAL QUESTIONS AND COURTS SHOULD DECIDE LEGAL QUESTIONS, NOT ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.

SO IT'S A VERY CONSERVATIVE POINT OF VIEW, IT'S A VERY LIMITED POINT OF VIEW, AND IT'S A VERY ANTI-REGULATORY POINT OF VIEW.

IT'S A VERY AGAINST THE NEW DEAL TYPE OF GOVERNING POINT OF VIEW.

IT'S A RETURN TO MORE LAW MAKING IN TRADITIONAL WAYS, RATHER THAN BY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.

TED: SO PROTECTION FOR WORKERS AND CONSUMERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT, THE IMPACT THERE?

>> OH, YEAH, YEAH.

I MEAN IF YOU GATHER AN AGENCY IN INTERPRETING ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AGGRESSIVELY BECAUSE THE AGENCY THINKS THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AGGRESSIVELY, THAT GIVES THE COURT TO SAY, IT'S AMBIGUOUS, IT'S UP TO US, NOT UP TO YOU WHAT THEY MEAN.

THAT'S A TREMENDOUS SHIFT OF AUTHORITY FROM THE AGENCIES TO THE COURT.

SO THEORETICALLY, IT'S A BIG SHIFT, BUT IT'S A SHIFT TO THE COURTS AND THE COURTS AS A WHOLE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, AND IT CHANGES FROM CASE TO CASE AND TIME TO TIME.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT EFFECT IT'S GOING TO HAVE, BUT IF ANYTHING, IF ANY EFFECT IS CLEAR, IT'S GOING TO SOME SIGNIFICANT EXTENT REDUCE THE AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AGENCIES TO MAKE FEDERAL LAW.

TED: ALL RIGHT, MONDAY THE BIG DAY FOR TRUMP IMMUNITY.

THAT'S THE -- THAT'S THE GRAND FINALE OF THE WHOLE SESSION, HUH?

>> I'M VERY PUZZLED BY THE CASE.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE IDEA OF IMMUNITY WOULD COME FROM.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THE COURT WILL NOT DECIDE THAT THERE'S A BROAD IMMUNITY.

IF THE COURT DECIDES THAT PRESIDENTS ARE IMMUNE FROM THE CRIMINAL LAW WHEN THEY DO SOMETHING REPORTED TO PRESIDENTIAL ACTION, THAT'S REALLY A REVOLUTIONARY THING, AND THAT WOULD BOTH SURPRISE AND DISMAY ME BECAUSE -- AND IT WOULD SURPRISE ME BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A COURT THAT LIKES TO GIVE AUTHORITY IN THAT WAY, AND I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD WANT TO GIVE THAT UP IN THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD BE, BY SAYING THAT PRESIDENTS CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

TED: YEAH, YEAH, PAUL BENDER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS.

VERY BUSY DAY WITH THE COURT.

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, SIR.

.

>> THANKS, TED.

.

TED: AND TIME NOW TO GET TO THE JOURNALISTS' ROUNDTABLE.

JOINING US TONIGHT, WAYNE SCHUTSKY OF KJZZ RADIO AND LAURIE ROBERTS OF AZCENTRAL.

IT SOUNDS LIKE A JUDGE THIS WEEK SAID TO US OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS, LEGISLATURE, GO AHEAD.

ATTORNEY GENERAL, BACK OFF.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IN ORDER TO BALANCE THE BUDGET WHICH HAD A HUGE DEFICIT IN IT, THE STATE ENDED UP PULLING FROM THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT SUPPOSED TO ADDRESS THE EFFECTS OF THE OPIOID CRISIS.

THEY USED IT TO BACKFILL THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BUDGET WHICH IS GOING TO BE HELPING PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THE OPIOID CRISIS.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID WAIT A SECOND, DON'T DO, THAT I ADMINISTER THE FUNDS, PUT THE MONEY AT RISK.

A JUDGE SAID NO, DISSOLVED AN INJUNCTION ON THE MONEY, THE BUDGET IS LAW AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO STAND IN THE WAY OF THAT.

TED: CLEARLY, YOU SAID CLEARLY THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE POWER TO APPROPRIATE THAT?

>> RIGHT, RIGHT.

SHE'S SAYING THIS IS MY MONEY TO DOLE OUT AND SUPPOSED TO BE FOR FIGHTING THE OPIOID PROBLEM, AND THE JUDGE BASICALLY SAID NO, THIS MONEY IS SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND THEY HAVE.

LOST IN ALL OF THIS IS WHY DO THEY ACTUALLY NEED THIS MONEY.

TWO YEARS AGO WE WERE AT A POINT WE HAD A SLUSH FUND GOING AND EVERY LEGISLATOR GOT UPWARDS OF $30 MILLION TO SPEND WENT DISTRICTS HOWEVER THEY WANTED TO USE IT.

ALL OF A SUDDEN, WHAT WAS IT?

>> 1.3 BILLION.

>> 1.3 BILLION IN THE HOLE BECAUSE OF THE FLAT TAX, THE INCOME TAX CUTS THEY DID, AND PART OF IT IS THIS RUNAWAY SCHOOL VOUCHER PROGRAM.

IF THEY DEALT WITH THOSE THINGS, KATIE HOBBS WOULDN'T HAVE TO AGREE TO TAKE AWAY THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT MONEY.

TED: BUT THEY TOOK IT AWAY AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS THAT COULD JEOPARDIZE FUTURE PAYMENTS.

SHE GOT A POINT THERE?

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW, BUT, YES, I THINK IT POSSIBLY COULD, IF WE'RE USING THE MONEY TO RUNT DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SEEMS IT WOULD BE FAIR FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES OR THE JUDGE INVOLVED IN THE BANKRUPTCY CASES AND THE LIKE TO SAY WHAT ARE YOU USING THIS MONEY FOR?

IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.

IF YOU CAN'T USE IT FOR OPIOID TREATMENT, WE'RE GOING TO SEND IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

>> WHAT THE JUDGE SAID ESSENTIALLY, POTENTIALLY IN THE FUTURE, IF THEY DO THAT, MAYES MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND CLAW THE MONEY BACK.

BUDGET HAS LANGUAGE IN IT THAT SAYS THE MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT CONSISTENT WITH THE SETTLEMENTS.

WHETHER THAT IS THE CASE, WE'LL HAVE TO SEE HOW THEY SPEND IT.

TED: THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE CAME OUT STRONGLY AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

GOVERNOR AND ATTORNEY GENERAL NOT THE BEST OF PALS THESE DAYS?

>> THEY ARE HAVING A FEW RUN-INS.

I ASKED THE GOVERNOR AND THE HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ARE YOU WORRIED THAT TWO TOP ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE FIGHTING.

THEY'RE SAYING THE RIGHT THINGS AND SAYING NO THIS IS A POLICY ISSUE BUT WE'RE STILL UNITED GOING INTO THE ELECTION, IT'S DISCONCERTING FOR DEMOCRATS TRYING TO RETAKE THE LEGISLATURE THEY HAVE THE TOP TWO OFFICIALS GOING AT IT.

>> THEY'VE NEVER BEEN THE BEST OF FRIENDS, THEY ARE SOME WAYS POLITICAL RIVALS.

YOU'VE SEEN CASES WHERE THE PERSON WHO HAS RISEN UP TO LEAD THE STATE ON CERTAIN ISSUES HAS BEEN KRIS MAYES, NOT KATIE HOBBS, AND I THINK, OF COURSE, IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE FACT SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE THE NEXT GOVERNOR WHENEVER KATIE HOBBS DECIDES SHE'S GOING TO STEP DOWN.

SHE HAS ADRIAN FONTES WAITING IN THE WINGS.

SHE'S DONE A LOT TO ESTABLISH HERSELF AS A LEADER, OUTSPOKEN LEADER AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT IT'S GOING INEVITABLY CAUSE FRICTION WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, WHEN YOU TRY TO ACT LIKE THE MINI GOVERNOR.

TED: YEAH, SPEAKING OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SHE ISSUED CLARIFICATION ON STATE ABORTION LAWS THIS WEEK.

THIS WAS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT MADE THE RULING IN IDAHO.

WHAT DID SHE SAY?

>> A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, COUPLE LEGISLATORS ASKED HER TO PUT OUT ADVISORY OPINION, WORRIED IF A WOMAN WERE TO GO IN FOR ABORTION NEEDED TO SAVE HER LIFE, SEE WHAT'S HAPPENED IN PLACES LIKE IDAHO.

OTHER PLACES WHERE WOMEN ARE TURNED AWAY OR HAVE TO LEAVE THE STATE.

THEY WANTED OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT WOMEN CAN GET AN EMERGENCY ABORTION IN THE STATE IN THE EVENT OF MEDICAL EMERGENCY.

SHE CAME OUT WITH MEDICAL OPINION THAT SAID YES, IF A PHYSICIAN USES IN THEIR BEST CLINICAL JUDGMENT, OPERATES IN GOOD FAITH THAT A WOMAN IS GOING TO LOSE HER LIFE IF SHE DOESN'T HAVE AN ABORTION OR IF SHE DOESN'T HAVE IMMEDIATE ABORTION, LOSE A MAJOR BODILY FUNCTION, SHE CAN HAVE AN ABORTION AFTER 15 WEEKS AND THE DOCTOR WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE IMMUNE.

INTERESTING IN HER RULING, SHE PUT A CAUTIONARY NOTE TO COUNTY ATTORNEYS THAT THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO PROSECUTE IN THESE CASES OF MEDICAL EMERGENCIES.

SHE'S TRYING TO LET THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY GO.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS, IF A WOMAN COMES IN AT 20 WEEKS AND IN NEED OF ABORTION TO SAVE HER LIFE, YOU CAN DO IT WITHOUT THE RISK OF BEING SUED.

TED: GOOD FAITH WAS EMPHASIZED A NUMBER OF TIMES.

>> AND SPECIFIED THAT DOESN'T MEAN AFTER THE FACT IF DOCTORS HAVE THE OPINION, THAT YOU WERE WRONG.

YOU ACTED IN GOOD FAITH.

IT COULD BE MOOT BECAUSE MAYES SAID SHE'S NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE ANY DOCTOR IN AN ABORTION CASE, AND THEN WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE THIS ABORTION ACCESS BALLOT MEASURE COMING IN NOVEMBER.

SO IF THAT PASSES, THEN THIS ARGUMENT CAN ULTIMATELY BE MOOT.

TED: TO ALL OF THAT, DID ANYONE SPEAK OUT AGAINST WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID?

>> I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING AT THIS POINT.

I THINK MAYES WAS RELYING ON THE FACT THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAW ABOUT THE EXCEPTIONS THEY WROTE INTO THE LAW MEAN.

AND SAID IF THEY WANTED TO, THEY COULD HAVE DEFINED THAT.

WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IS DOCTORS ACTING IN THEIR BEST JUDGMENT.

>> THOSE EYEING THE ARIZONA ABORTION ACT, WHICH WOULD LEGALIZE ABORTION UP TO THE POINT OF VIABILITY AND BEYOND IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THOSE WHO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT DOES NOT PARKS WHICH I THINK IT WILL, THERE'S NO WAY THEY'RE GOING TO COME OUT AND SAY NO, IF A WOMAN IS DYING AT 20 WEEKS, YOU BETTER NOT GIVE HER AN ABORTION, WE'RE GOING TO COME OFF.

THERE IS NO WAY THEY'RE GOING TO COME AFTER THEM.

>> THEY WANT THE 15 WEEK LAW TO STATEMENT ANYONE IN BETWEEN WANTING THE 15 WEEK AND GREATER ACCESS INITIATIVE, THEY WANT THE FOLKS TO LAND ON THEIR SIDE.

TED: WAYNE, WHO IS SHELBY BUSH AND WHY IS SHE THREATENING TO LYNCH PEOPLE?

>> THE VICE CHAIR OF THE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, THE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY ESSENTIALLY AND VIDEO CAME OUT WHERE SHE SAID SHE WANTED TO LYNCH MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER STEPHEN RICHER.

ONE OF THE FEW ELECTED OFFICIALS WILLING TO STAND UP AND SAY THE ELECTIONS WEREN'T STOLEN.

BUSH LANDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT ARGUMENT.

LEADS A GROUP KNOWN FOR SPREADING ELECTION CONSPIRACY THEORY, AND SHE MADE THE REMARK, SAID IT WAS A JOKE, BUT FOLKS LIKE RICHER, WHEN YOUR LIFE IS THREATENED DIDN'T THINK IT WAS FUNNY.

TED: A LOT OF RELIGIOUS ASPECTS, TOO.

>> THIS WOMAN JOKES ABOUT LYNCHING PEOPLE, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IT'S PARTICULARLY FUNNY ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT STEPHEN RICHER IS JEWISH.

THE PREFACE OF HER REMARKS IS WE NEED TO UNIFY WITH GOOD CHRISTIAN MEN AND WANT THE CHRISTIAN IDEALS AND THAT'S WHEN WHO WE NEED TO BE WITH.

AND SAID IF STEPHEN RICHER CAME IN HERE, I WOULD LYNCH HIM.

WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THE CONVERSATION WAS APPARENTLY TAPED IN MARCH.

EARLIER THIS MONTH, HER GROUP GOT A LAWSUIT SEEKING TO FIND THE IDENTITIES, GET THE NAMES OF ELECTION WORKERS.

THAT INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN AVAILABLE TO THEM BECAUSE OF WORRIES ABOUT THREATS WHICH THERE HAVE BEEN MANY.

APPARENTLY SHELBY BUSH EARLIER THIS MONTH TESTIFIED UNDER OATH IN THAT CASE WHEN SOMEONE ASKED HER, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY THREATS TO ELECTIONS WORKERS?

SHE SAID NO.

NOT DISCLOSING THE FACT SHE MADE HER OWN THREAT TWO MONTHS AGO.

THE JUDGE IS GOING TO REOPEN THAT AND SEE IF IT IMPEACHES HER TESTIMONY ON THAT, BUT I CERTAINLY THINK IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK GOOD FOR HER ON THE CASE WHERE SHE'S SEEKING THE NAMES OF ELECTIONS WORKERS WHEN SHE'S TALKING ABOUT LYNCHING THE CHIEF ELECTION WORKER.

TED: YOU HAVE TO FIND PAST JOKES ABOUT LYNCHING AND BE HEADING AND WHATEVER ELSE SHE FINDS FUNNY.

>> THE GUILLOTINE IS FUNNY.

TED: I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FUNNY.

>> THE JUDGE SAID IT'S PRETTY DAMNING.

TED: OKAY, SO, SHE'S WALKED THIS BACK, SHE SAID SHE WOULD NEVER CONDONE VIOLENCE AGAINST ANYONE, HAS ANYONE ELSE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SAID THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE?

>> YOU'VE SEEN MODERATE REPUBLICANS, RICHER ALLIES, COMMENTS FROM THEM AND OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS, SIMILAR COMMENTS WE'RE SEEING HERE, THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE, NOT ACCEPTABLE LANGUAGE, I REACHED OUT TO ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR COMMENT.

I REACHED OUT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PARTY AND GOT CRICKETS BACK FROM BOTH.

TED: AND RICHER, AMONG THE MANY THINGS SAID THIS ISN'T HEALTHY.

>> THE REASON THEY'RE NOT HORRIFIED IS THEY'RE TOO BUSY APPLAUDING HER.

THEY DO NOT LIKE STEPHEN RICHER, HE IS THE NUMBER ONE TARGET, BUT THAT JUST -- THE FACT THAT SHELBY BUSH IS VICE CHAIR OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE SHOULD TELL YOU HOW FAR TO THE RIGHT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN ARIZONA HAS GONE.

SHE IS ALSO, I BELIEVE, LEADING THE DELEGATION TO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION.

SHE'S THE HEAD PERSON.

TED: SO WELL KNOWN IN REPUBLICAN POLITICS.

>> WELL KNOWN BEFORE SHE GOT THE CHAIRMANSHIP.

THE GROUP SHE'S WITH, WE THE PEOPLE ARIZONA, HAVE BEEN SUING THE COUNTY SINCE 2022.

THIS CASE GOES BACK TO THAT.

THEY'RE ONE OF THE MANY GROUPS THAT CAME OUT AFTER THE 2020 ELECTION AND CRYING FRAUD AND THIS CASE IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THAT.

TED: LAURIE, FORMER GOVERNOR JAN BREWER, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK, CAME OUT WITH AN OP-ED IN YOUR PUBLICATION AND SAID THE MISPORTION WE GOT TO STOP RELENTLESS AND INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS, WE NEED TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE WHO HAVE ELECTION DENYING CLAIMS AND THIS WEEK SAID SHE'S VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP.

>> YEAH.

I HATE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TALKING ABOUT ELECTION DENIAL, BUT THE PERSON THAT SET THEM UP TO DO THAT, I'M VOTING FOR HIM.

WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, I REMEMBER WHEN DOUG DUCEY WAS GOING AFTER SOMETHING THEY THINK IT WAS ANTI-SEMITIC REMARKS THAT SENATOR WENDY ROGERS HAD MADE.

AND SOMEONE ASKED THE QUESTION, GIVEN THE THINGS SHE'S SAYING, DO YOU REGRET GIVING A MILLION DOLLARS TO HER CAMPAIGN OR HOWEVER MUCH HIS PAC GAVE TO HER CAMPAIGN?

HE SAID NO, I'D VOTE FOR HER AGAIN, BECAUSE SHE WAS THE 16th VOTE IN THE SENATE.

THE DECIDING VOTE.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE WILL ACCEPT OUTRAGEOUS PEOPLE.

TED: YOU HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE, EXCEPT THE GUY THAT LED THEM DOWN THE PATH TO BEGIN WITH?

>> THAT'S INDICATIVE OF POLITICS THESE DAYS, BEYOND THESE PEOPLE, IT'S THEY IDENTIFY WITH THE PARTY, AND APPARENTLY NOTHING SOMEONE CAN DO TO LOSE THAT AFFILIATION UNLESS YOU ATTACK THEM DIRECTLY.

I KNOW STEPHEN RICHER SAID HE WAS GOING TO VOTE FOR JOE BIDEN.

TED: THAT'S A CHANGE FOR STEPHEN RICHER, QUITE AWHILE BACK, HE CONSIDERED HIMSELF A REPUBLICAN.

I THINK HE PROBABLY HAD ENOUGH.

>> BUT HE'S BEEN PERSONALLY VICTIMIZED.

MAYBE THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES?

RUSTY BOWERS, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE DIDN'T GO AS FAR AS SAYING HE WOULD VOTE FOR JOE BIDEN, HE SAID HE WOULDN'T VOTE FOR EITHER OF THEM.

>> THAT IS A CHANGE FROM A FEW YEARS AGO WHERE HE SAID HE WOULD.

THAT SAY CHANGE FROM THE EVANGELICAL COMMUNITY AND CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY GETTING BEHIND A PRESIDENT WHO IS A PHILANDERER, CHEATING ON HIS WIFE WHEN SHE WAS PREGNANT WITH A PORN QUEEN, HAS QUESTIONABLE MORALE VALUES.

THEY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HIM BECAUSE HE'S DONALD TRUMP.

THE MAN IS TEFLON.

TED: DOESN'T IT DILUTE THE MESSAGE THE GOVERNOR HAS TO HOLD THESE PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE AND CAN'T CONTINUE TO QUESTION THE ELECTIONS AND THE VIABLE PROCESS?

>> OF COURSE IT DOES.

I GIVE HER CREDIT FOR STANDING UP TO THE MAGA FOLKS TRYING TO TAKE OVER MARICOPA COUNTY AND ENDORSING THE ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS WHO ARE NOW IN CHARGE OF THE COUNTY BECAUSE VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE STANDING UP IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ANYMORE.

THAT'S WHY WE FIND OURSELVES WHERE WE ARE NOW.

TED: INTERESTING.

WAYNE, ARE YOU A BIG HOCKEY FAN AT ALL?

>> I FOLLOW IT.

TED: YOU KNOW THE COYOTES, ALEX MERUELO?

>> YES.

TED: HE'S OUT OF HERE.

WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?

>> SOLD THE TEAM OFF TO UTAH BECAUSE HE COULDN'T GET A STADIUM BUILT.

WANTED TO BUY STATE TRUST LAND, COULDN'T GET A STADIUM THERE.

NHL GAVE HIM A WAY OUT.

YOU CAN GET THE TEAM OUT FOR FIVE YEARS.

HE RUNS INTO ANOTHER SNAG.

THE LAND DEPARTMENT SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO SELL YOU THAT LAND UNTIL YOU GET THE PERMITS TO GET IT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE AND HE FINALLY SAID I'M OUT.

TED: WHO PUTS TOGETHER A PROJECT LIKE THIS AND DOESN'T GET THE PERMITS?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, HE'S HAD SO MANY MISSTEPS IN THE TIME HE'S BEEN HERE.

I DON'T THINK HE REALLY HAD INTEREST IN BUILDING AN ARENA.

HIS INTEREST ALWAYS HAS BEEN IN BUILDING A BIG DEVELOPMENT.

HOCKEY CENTERED, HOCKEY THEMED, BUT WHAT WE NEED, AND THE REASON THAT SO MANY PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH HIM HERE, HOCKEY KIND OF BUSINESS, OR GET INTO ONE OF THE DEALS WITH HIM IS IN PART BECAUSE HE DOESN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON THINGS AND MAKES SO MANY MISSTEPS, IN PART BECAUSE HE WASN'T REALLY A HOCKEY LOVER WHO WANTED TO BRING HOCKEY TO THE VALLEY AND HAVE A TEAM AND A COMMUNITY AND ALL.

HE WANTED TO BUILD A BIG DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S WHAT WE WAS.

THE GOOD THING WAS, IN MY VIEW, HE LEFT AND TURNED RIGHTS OVER TO THE TEAM AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FIVE YEARS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY IN FIVE YEARS, HE WAS GOING TO GET AN ARENA BUILT IN ORDER TO GET AN EXPANSION TEAM.

IF THERE IS AN OWNERSHIP GROUP OUT, THERE THEY CAN GET TO WORK ON THIS.

TED: YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE HOCKEY ARENA PLAN IN THE ETHER, DON'T YOU?

>> CAN I POINT OUT, THE COYOTES ARE GOING TO SALT LAKE CITY AND PLAYING IN, I THINK IT'S THE DELTA CENTER.

IT IS A BASKETBALL ARENA.

THEY'LL BE MAKE CHANGES.

>> I REMEMBER WATCHING THE COYOTES PLAY IN A BASKETBALL ARENA.

TED: SO DO I. I SAT IN ONE OF THE BLIND SPOTS WHEN YOU WERE UP THERE, AND COULD NOT SEE THE GOAL AND COULD NOT SEE BAN EIGHTH OF THE COURT.

>> YOU CANNOT FIX SOME OF THESE THINGS?

DOES IT NOT MAKE SENSE TO RENOVATE THE PLACE.

HOCKEY BELONGS DOWNTOWN.

TED: EVERYONE ALWAYS FORGETS THE MAD HOUSE ON McDOWELL.

IT IS THERE AND AWAITS.

THANK YOU, BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

APPRECIATE IT.

THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.