Rep Jeff Hurd (CO-3) explains votes on bills which have drawn scorn from conservatives

K-R-F-X-H-D-2 Denver. K-H-O-W. Denver. This is 630 K-H-O. Denver's talk station. And I heart radio station. Guaranteed human. Just a few days ago, a member of Congress of this body, Ilhan Omar, shared a video on her social media account about Charlie Kirk's murder. And I'll quote what it said. It said, "Charlie Kirk was Dr. Frankenstein and his monster shot him through the neck." In other words, Charlie had it coming to him. The words that he said naturally led to his assassination. I mean, that is a reprehensible thing for a member of Congress to say, to suggest, to promote in any capacity. And there are people across this country who are losing their jobs for far less than this. And that, by the way, is a just response to acceptance and tolerance of political violence. Representative Brandon Gill, one of the bright young stars in Congress, Republican from Texas, that was back in September of 2025, shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And I had forgotten the details of what Representative Ilhan Omar had done in the wake of that shooting. And Representative Gill is correct. There are a lot of people across the nation that put videos on TikTok celebrating, essentially, the death of Charlie Kirk, and they were summarily fired in their place of employment. Joining us now, Representative Jeff Heard, there are some votes that he wants to give us some more details, color, context to. And this would be one of them, the censurer of Representative Ilhan Omar that he voted against. And he joins us on Ryan Schooling Live. Representative Heard, always thankful for your time. Hey Ryan, great to join you. When this happened, I mean, I want to go in real time, like on the timeline chronologically, Charlie Kirk has assassinated September 10th of last year. And then we see all these horrible reactions in the aftermath of it. And your explanation at the time, and I want you to expand on this, was that you did not want to step into these waters of the First Amendment rights of a fellow member of Congress, so you voted against the censurer. One, do I have that essentially correct? And two, what would you like to add to that? Yeah, but look, Brian, thanks for the question. Ilhan Omar's comments were reprehensible. My colleague, Brennan Gil, my friend, Brennan Gil is right. They're wrong. And I condemn him the right way, just like he did. But the question that we had wasn't whether her comments were reprehensible. The question is whether Congress should use censurer and committee punishment as a political weapon against speech. And I don't think that's right in the First Amendment. Voters should hold members of Congress accountable, not politicians, silence and politicians. So that's why I voted the way I did. And I'll vote the same way when Democrats try to weaponize procedures against Republicans. And I would also say my constituents sent me to Congress to take hard votes. It would have been politically easy to censure Ilhan Omar. But I chose the principle of protecting free speech in the First Amendment. And I hope that the people I represent see that I'm willing to take a principled stand, a tough vote, even if they don't always agree. Let me offer just devil's advocate push back on that in that. Well, I think what Representative Gil is suggesting what I would suggest is that First Amendment comes with, you know, the rights, responsibilities and that it's not freedom from consequences, especially if you hold high elected office. And maybe you're held to a bit of a higher standard representing the people that Ilhan Omar does. Is there a line that she could have crossed? Something she could have said, where you're going, whoa, I can't abide that no matter what I feel about First Amendment. Like if she called for, let's say, God forbid, the assassination of another conservative pundit, other than Charlie Kirk. What would that line be for you? Well, there are certain things. I mean, the Supreme Court has been put certain things, you know, inciting immediate violence that are not protected by the First Amendment. The question for me was should the government be imposing sanctions and punishment? Should the government force another member of conscious stand in silence in the well of the house to take censure and strip that member of committee assignments? That's happened before to Republicans. It was wrong then for what they spoke. So maybe yes, there would be probably a line that we could cross that fundamentally. The consequences, you're exactly right. The consequences for free speech. There should be consequences, but they should come from the voters, not from the government punishing somebody. We did it with Jamal Bowman. Remember, there are other members of the squad that lost their positions in Congress, but the voters kicked them out. Jamal Bowman, we pushed the other sort of left wing. That's the right way to get people to fight speech with free speech. And Frank, I think Charlie, what would Charlie Kirk have said about free speech? I think he was an advocate, an ardent defender of free speech. And yeah, there's probably a line, but I just, I didn't think this was it. This is before your time in Congress, Representative Jeff Herr, joining us in the third congressional district here in Colorado. January 2019, House Republicans stripped Iowa representative Steve King of his committee assignments after he questioned why the terms white supremacist and white nationalists were considered offensive in a New York Times interview. You might recall that Representative Herr, that came from his own party. Did you support a center like that for comments like those? No, I'd have to see. I don't, that's, you said that was 2018. 2019. I'm familiar with those comments. 2019. Yeah. I'm not familiar with this comments, but again, as a general matter, I don't think it's good for government to punish speech. There are certain circumstances where I might be willing to support it, but I think as a general matter, it should be a pretty high bar. And again, this has been a politically unique vote for me to take. Yeah. But I hope that people recognize that there's a print, even if they don't agree with it, they see that there's a fundamental principle there and that willingness to stand up and have a backbone is something that I, you know, I'm taking the other votes as well. Representative Jeff Herr, now there was another matter. And I want to kind of dig into this a little bit more because I know you were in lockstep with Representative Lauren Boebert on the Arkansas Valley conduit and the veto by President Trump that came after it was widely passed in the House and the Senate and bipartisan fashion and just a real quick breakdown of what that bill meant for the people of your district and why you obviously fundamentally disagreed with the veto from President Trump. And do you feel that was in retribution against the state of Colorado for various things, such as the imprisonment of Tina Peters? Well, look, this vote, the Arkansas Valley conduit, without keeping a promise, the federal government committed decades ago to deliver clean drinking water to the southeast from Colorado, 50,000 constituents and Representative Boebert's district in my district, relatively, more than 60 years for drinking water. All this still would have done was it made, was it gave those communities more flexibility to repay the federal government. It lowered the interest rates and extended the repayment terms. It allowed people to pay back the federal government for those, for that investment. In my view, I was deeply disappointed that the President vetoed the bill, looked at reasons, you know, the White House said it was for financial reasons, I don't think those were persuasive at all. And I worked hard to override the veto, I represented Boebert and I worked hard to override the veto in any end. We felt short, we did get a majority that went override the veto, but we didn't meet the two-thirds threshold. But I will tell you, Ron, if you look at the list of people that voted with us to override that veto, there's some of those prominent members of the House, including Chairman of Key Committees. There was a signal that was sent, I think, to the White House, the administration, to leadership in both the House and Senate that this is something serious. We are going to get this done right and we just need to take a long picture of you on it. So between now and then, Representative Herb, what you're talking about, you didn't have the votes to override the veto, you needed a two-thirds majority for that. What happens for the people of your district as it pertains to water? Well, we need to continue on it. Look, the projects are still going to get built, it's just going to be slower and longer. And so we can get this legislation passed. So we're going to get it done. It's just put us back a little bit. But we lost this particular battle, but we're not going to move to where we will get clean drinking water to Southeast Colorado. These are the people that grow the food that we eat, grinds our farmers, ranchers, our working Americans. Many of them, President Trump's strongest, most ardent supporters as well. I think politics killed the still-not-policy and we're going to get it back on track. >> I'm going to get into the politics of this. Representative Jeff Heard, third congressional district joining us here on Ryan Shuling Live. President Trump appeared on the return of the Dan Banjino show yesterday and he raised some eyebrows with these comments about Tina Peters, of course, Mesa County, in the third congressional district that Jeff Heard represents. >> They put a woman in jail, Colorado, put a woman in jail, a wonderful woman, a 72-year-old had cancer, because she was a voting inspector. She was in charge of a voting era and she saw boxes of votes coming. So she went over to check it and they put her in jail for voter manipulation and she's still in jail and they better let her out fast and they're suffering a big price, Colorado. They have this woman in jail who's 71 years old and probably has cancer, she said. And they put her in because she challenged somebody who was dumping ballots into a box, okay? And they didn't put them in jail. This was during Biden's term. The worst president in history. >> They better let her out. Colorado is paying a big price. I mean, that's kind of in big bold letters to me that jumps off the page there, representative Heard. This is a question that I posed at a Republican candidate forum for governor in Greeley a month ago and I got three different answers from three different candidates and I just want to kind of get where you're coming from on a potential pardon of Tina Peters. A picture of Governor Polis has hinted that he might grant her clemency in some way. A Barb Kirkmeyer, the senator, said that unless there were new facts that came to her, Tina Peters was convicted of a crime by a jury of repairs, fairly sentenced and that's kind of the baseline where she starts. Sheriff Jason Mikesell from Teller County, one along the lines what we're hearing from Governor Polis that it wouldn't be a full pardon, but that for times served and you compare it to maybe some of the sentences that are more violent criminals are getting in the state. It's not proportional and that he would grant her clemency. Representative Scott bottom set outright. She did nothing wrong. She was trying to discover fraud in the 2020 election. He would grant her a full out pardon. Where do you come down on Tina Peters? How should that proceed from here? >> Well, listen, ultimately decision is up to the governor, Governor Polis. As she was, Tina Peters was convicted of a crime. I think the underlying facts that we just heard in that clip are quite consistent with what happened out in Mesa County that is my home County. She was convicted of a crime by a jury of her peers in what is a predominantly overwhelming Republican County. Whether or not the sentence was too long given the underlying circumstances first time offender or non-violent offense, I think that's something that the governor can certainly take into account is he's considering whether or not to reduce the sentence or commute her sentence. But I would tell you that I think it would be very unlikely to see the governor do something like this, obviously to show his it's not mine, but until there's some sort of acceptance of responsibility. I broke the law, my intent was good, but I broke the law something along those lines absent that that's usually what you see in the situation of a commutation or a pardon. I haven't seen that here until we see something like that. I think it would be tough for the governor to justify any sort of action, but ultimately that's his decision and and and and you know, unfortunately Colorado something to consider is I will tell you though, Ryan, you know, we've done a heck of a lot with the president, you know, in terms of what we've accomplished is last Congress, in terms of securing the border, strengthening the government, you know, forcing at the border, delivering major tax relief. And all of you, Ryan, when you're filling out your taxes, when everyone listening to this interview is filling out their taxes and they see the relief that they're getting from the federal government. That is President Trump that's the House, the Senate Republican leadership, getting those dollars back in their pockets, rolling back by near regulations, advancing American energy dominance. We've been active more than 70 of the president's executive orders. Anyway, it's a very long-winded way of saying there's a heck of a lot that we've gotten done here. And yes, Colorado, there's some pickups that we're having with Arkansas Valley, conduit and some other issues. We're going to get through those, but big picture. I hope people see the incredible success we've had in this Congress so far. >> Catching up with Representative Jeff Hurd, their congressional district here on Ryan Schueling live, other votes that I know that you want to have time and a platform here. We're grateful to provide it for you to explain in detail, and again, get under the hood. I know that, you know, Congress is kind of like this sausage factory, and not everybody sees the details, you know, in these long bills. I don't even know how your staff reads them in time to cast votes on them. That's another matter, maybe for another day. But on the issue of the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, the extension of certain subsidies and provisions, it seems like this program is set up to fail and collapse under the weight of itself. Now, I was strongly against Obamacare when it first passed way back when in the late 2000s, without a single Republican vote. It was purely partisan. It was shoved through. It was signed into law, and we were promised more affordable health care, literally the title of the bill that has been anything but the case. And now it's relying upon these subsidies to prop it up. You voted for the subsidies for the extension. Representative Hurd, how would you explain that vote, and why did that make sense to you to do it? >> Great question. You're right. Obamacare is broken. The Affordable Care Act is anything, but what said that from day one? Here's the reality, though, from my perspective, pulling those subsidies overnight without some sort of replacement would have caused massive premium spikes, especially for ranchers and small business owners and self-employed folks in rural Colorado. So, I voted, at the end of the day, to advance this as a vehicle to get to the Senate reform we were promised. Originally, look, I was on bills that would have had income caps for these subsidies that would have perched insurance rules with those beneficiaries. A ton of reforms that we can institute to these subsidies short-term to get us to the next stage. And this was a vehicle to get to the Senate, something that they could use to institute some of those reforms. I had many of those senators before that vote. Originally, I was going to vote against it. I'm not a big fan of subsidies. The system isn't working when we have subsidies, but the fact of the matter is we need some sort of temporary extension to provide relief while we work on the underlying structural drivers of the increasing costs in health care. And that was the reason I voted on this. It's a way to get us some of those needed reforms in a bridge to more meaningful reforms that will be to affordable care. I go back in time to representative heard to Paul Ryan and the Republican Congress at the time that ran on the premise of repealing a replacing Obamacare. And the thing that stands out for everybody and visually is when Senator John McCain gave that thumbs down vote. We're this close to perhaps doing that and undoing some of these burdens and the subsidies and the red tape and all of these things that have made Obamacare a disaster. In short form, what would be some basic steps, things that you could cobble together, maybe with the rest of the Republicans in Congress to get something across the finish line that could do some of these things. You're talking short term, I get it. You extend these subsidies because you don't want the bottom to fall out from under everybody and that makes sense. But what is maybe a quick short term fix that you could work on working toward a long term fix? Well, listen, we've done some, we've passed the legislation in this last Congress. The Association Health Plan is increasing, our decreasing, I should say premiums. We did pass the bill that was different than the extension of the subsidies that would decrease premiums that people have to face. What I would say is the long term what we need to be looking at, Ryan, is we need to change from a volume-based system of care to a value-based system. Right now the incentives are misaligned. Order more procedures, order more tests, even if they're not needed and rack up the cost rather than see what costs, what procedures are really needed. We also need legal reform. Doctors are afraid of getting sued and so they are ordering multiple tests and procedures that they don't need to order just because they're afraid some lawyers are going to sue them so we need reform in that regard. We also need prescription drug reform, lower the cost of prescription drugs. All of those things together, I think, are long-term reforms that would help sustain our health system and improve it. You're absolutely right. The system now is broken. We got to fix it. I'm one of those Republicans that committed to serious thoughtful reform. Representative Jeff Herd, their congressional district, joining us here, catching up on some votes and some bills that got through Congress. This one, I know really got stuck in the crowd, libertarians, and this was the so-called kill switch vote. Now, I've got some details here as to maybe why there's not a fair characterization of what it is, but from a 30,000-foot view from my perspective, and I do have some libertarian shades to me, I don't like the notion of the government having any control over my vehicle and whether or not it'll operate, whether they can shut it down or not. I don't care what the reason is. Can you take us through that vote, that bill, what it really was, and why you voted in favor of this kill switch, so-called? >> Yeah, thanks for your right. It is overstated. I appreciate that you've created that way. There's no government kill switch. There's no remote shutdown, no tracking, no federal control of your vehicle. What this actually involved was impaired driving safety technology, like when you start the vehicle, similar to, you know, to ignition lock that was designed to prevent drunk driving deaths. There's no kill switch. There's no monitoring. So, look, the way, here's the way things work, and you want to know why this is- this made the news is because certain members of Congress need to get issues out in front so that they can raise money, and so they'll take a topic like this in order to generate interest and support, and they'll get people on their side. And oftentimes, what happens is they take an issue and they frame it in a way that will maximize the likelihood that it gets covered by the media, they get attention, and they get to a small garlic donation. So, this was one of those issues that unfortunately was mistated, and so, yeah, I voted the right way on this one. There's no kill switch, and the folks that are chatting, most likely about this, there's a little bit of politics there. One of the most recent bills that you're taking heat for was this appropriations amendment, and the fact that it went to fund transgender surgeries, that there was a amendment to defund that portion of a bill. And I know there's a lot of pork barrel, these bills are real complicated and they're real dense, and then certain things maybe have to compromise on, but this seems like a sticky wicked and a big issue here in Colorado representative. There are three petitions circulating right now, and Erin Lee is behind that effort. I support that effort to ban transgender surgeries from minors. Where do you come down one on that issue, just writ large, and then two on this appropriations amendment, why you voted the way that you did? We should ban transgender surgeries on minors, absolutely. We should keep boys out of girl sports. I say this is a father of two daughters. I think this is an easy issue. What I would say on the specific, so that's where I am on the transgender issue, but when it comes to this specific issue, it's completely false. This argument that this vote would have funded transgender surgery or abortion, other things completely false. The people that are arguing this need to get off of social media and actually read the bill text. There was nothing in that amendment that would fund DEI or gender ideology or abortions or transgender surgeries. I read through the text of the underlying bill before voting on it. What I did see is that this bill would have killed Colorado projects that passed the Senate and were already negotiated. These are funding rural hospitals, emergency services and mental health programs. I'm not willing to defund those just to make a symbolic point that dies in the Senate. I completely oppose DEI mandates, gender ideology, transgender surgery and I oppose boys and girls sports to be voted on that in Congress as well. So my record proved that, but I'm not going to sacrifice real Colorado communities for messaging expense and that's what this was. I had a conversation before the holidays representative heard with your colleague, representative Gabe Evans in the eighth congressional district and he took some heat along similar lines for a pair of bills that he voted on at that time. One of them was sponsored by Marjorie Taylor Greene and it would have criminalized doctors who performed transgender surgeries on minors and sought to arrest them and Gabe said he didn't want to make a production out of that and to have police going into hospitals and having that visual of those optics. He instead supported a Dan Crenshaw sponsored bill that was largely along the same lines but did not criminalize those procedures. First, is that a fair characterization of those two bills? Secondly, how did you vote on those and why? As a fair characterization bills, I did vote in favor of the green legislation that would have criminalized transgender surgeries. I don't know if that's going to go anywhere I doubt that that will get out of the Senate, but that's an example of how I feel about this issue. Transgender surgery on minors is absolutely wrong and I think history will show that what I would also say, Ryan, the more realistic path to preventing this and stopping this civil action. There's actually a lawsuit, I can't remember where it was out of the Northwest, I think, for an individual that won a $2 million verdict for a critical transitioning surgery that had happened a few years ago where it turned out that the doctors and individuals involved with that hadn't really thought through the process and kind of pushed this at the time minor girl into this gender surgery and I think that civil lawsuit is a signal of what we could see in the future. Again, I'm opposed to transgender surgeries. I think they're wrong. They create irreparable harm for minors and I think what we'll most likely see is not criminal action, but we'll see civil action. We've already seen it already and I think we'll see it in the future and again, it's to address an issue that is a fundamental wrong. We should not be doing this to minors. A couple of items representative Jeff heard very generous with this time this morning. We always appreciate it. The three ballot initiatives that I describe that Erin Lee protect kids Colorado are circulating there close to getting those across the finish line onto the ballot. I'm reading from your comments that you support all three of those. >> Remind me of all three, yes, on the giant banning of transgender surgeries for minors. What's the other boys out of girls sports? >> That's correct. >> Yes, on that, if that's the second one, what's the third one, Ryan? >> It has to do with parental rights along those lines and then being informed about transgender surgeries. >> Yeah, I would be in favor of all three. I'm going to, you know, that's absolutely something that I think is wrong that we're doing in the state of Colorado. And yes, I'm absolutely in favor of all three of those ballot initiatives. >> Finally, representative heard. I want to give you the opportunity to bring people inside that crazy place called Congress and just everything that goes into how you vote on a bill. Again, I don't know how you do it with your staff. It's like some of these bills are like a thousand pages long and you got like 24 hours to decide on it. How do you even do that? >> That's a great question. Okay, so here's the secret, Ryan. Anybody that says they read through every bill isn't quite being accurate. You can look through every bill and I look through every bill, but part of it is like, you know, delete this word and this section, add a semi-colon here. And if you're just reading through the bill, you have no idea what that means. So you need to rely on your staff to help you understand exactly what the legislation is doing in context. But also, I will tell you, Ryan, what I use is AI. And AI is a great help, X-GROC, CHATGBT, CLOT. They are great ways to supplement your understanding of legislation and what is this doing. So for example, the one big beautiful bill, I read through every single provision of that bill before I voted on it. But there were some parts that were really hard to understand, just add a context. And so what I would do is I would take that, I'd plug it into an AI machine and explain this to me exactly what's happening here. And so you can break down the bill in that way. But you're right. So a lot of it is AI assisted now. I use that heavily with the works that I'm doing in analyzing bills. But also having a great staff that helps you make sure that you're on top of things. I would say if I voting yes on it, I've read it, but there are a lot of bills that I never read. If I vote no on it, then I feel less obligated to have read through the whole thing. But if I'm voting yes on it, I take a serious responsibility to make sure that I understand what I'm voting yes on it. And that's the way that you handle things in committee and amendments, stuff like that. If you're going to, if you're not going to read it, I'm okay voting no on it. But if I'm going to vote yes on it, then I need to make sure I understand exactly what I'm voting on. Fascinating. The use of AI now infiltrating and I make sense to kind of go through all of these bills and get to the quick of the matter. Representative Jeff Heard, our guest this morning representing the third congressional district in Colorado. You can follow him on X at rep Jeff Heard, HRD. Jeff, thankful for your time. Great conversation. Thank you so much. We'll talk to you again down the line. Sounds great. Thanks so much, Ryan. All right. Representative Jeff Heard, your thoughts, your reaction. 57739, be a text. 3037138255 by phone or use the talkback feature on your iHeart radio app. Lock it in to 630K on your listening to Ryan's Healing Live. Is your love language money? Well, count them in. Call Trajan Well for a free consultation today because it's one thing to save for retirement. It's another thing all together to feel ready for it. I didn't feel ready for it. I didn't feel like I had my affairs in order. I didn't feel like I had everything going in the same direction on the same page. So I turned to Trajan Well and their fiduciary advisors. And they helped me build a real plan with less guesswork, more peace of mind that last part you cannot underestimate that. You cannot put a dollar amount on that piece of mind. They explained everything to me in a one-on-one consultation. Andy Justice was his name right here in Greenwood, a village. He gave me options. He never once tried to upsell me something I didn't need. And now I'm a client. I couldn't be happier. I could not more strongly recommend Trajan Well to you for that clear path forward. Call Trajan Well today. You met, you meet them. You go one-on-one. They take you from there. They get you into a plan. They can put together your old 401Ks. There are so many directions they can go with you. And every plan is tailored for your individual needs and risk tolerance level. And every person is different when it comes to that. 7209153000. That is the number. And it could be Greenwood Village, but you can also meet with them in Brumfield or Loveland. 7209153000. Check them out online. TrajanWell.com. Trajan Well, the proud sponsor of Ryan Schuling Live. Advisory Services through TrajanWells LLC, SEC registered investment advisor, client paid advertisement, additional disclosures at TrajanWells.com. They put a woman in jail, Colorado. Put a woman in jail, a wonderful woman, a 72-year-old had cancer. Because she was a voting inspector. She was in charge of a voting era. And she saw boxes of votes coming. So she went over to check it. And they put her in jail for voter manipulation. And she's still in jail. And they better let her out fast. And they're suffering a big price, Colorado. They have this woman in jail who's 71 years old and probably has cancer, she's sick. President Trump on the Dan Banjino show, which returned yesterday. To much fanfare, it was like 280,000 live viewers on his podcast, rightfully so love Dan. I think he does great work. But President Trump, with the point on Tina Peters, and then you guessed it. Comrade Kyle, counterpoint. President Trump today directly linked his retaliation against Colorado to his political ally, Tina Peters, being in prison here for leading a breach of election system security. And Trump's latest comments about her case, called a question whether the president even knows what Peters did to land her in prison and unleash his retribution on Colorado. She was in charge of a voting era and she still boxes of votes coming. So she went over to check it and they put her in jail for voter manipulation as she still in jail. And they put her in because she challenged somebody who is dumping ballots into a box, okay? >> Well, President Trump said there is almost entirely like word for word false. Have no idea where he is getting this story about Tina Peters challenging someone dumping ballots into a box. We have covered Peters for five years and have never heard anyone claim that. What Peters did is well established. Even her own legal team admits it, they just say that it was justified. Peters snuck a hacker around security protocols using another person's ID so that hacker could make a copy of election systems. She's not in jail for voter manipulation like President Trump said, whatever that means. She's in jail on four felonies and three misdemeanors for her role in that election systems breach. We did not impact any actual votes. Trump also claims that Peters probably has cancer. She had cancer years ago. Recently, she had a cough, which her lawyer says has improved. All of this to say it is not clear if President Trump knows what Tina Peters did to land in prison leading to his campaign of retaliation against Colorado, where he's withheld disaster funding, tried to freeze federal spending here, vetoed a clean drinking water project, relocated a military command and is closing a major science lab. Clark 9 news, your response to what you just heard from him. And then President Trump, basically saying if I think this is audio in the right place. And they're suffering a big price God. The whole thing here. And they're suffering a big price Colorado. That sounds pretty direct. Where I come down on this as we had to break is probably where Sheriff Michael did tell her counting in his response to my question about this. It was the very first question that was asked because it had been in the news. Governor Jared Polis sitting down with Sean Boyd, best reporter in the market. She she's the best. Okay. CBS 4 Colorado. And giving away the fact that he was considering granting clemency to Tina Peters along with a lot of other maybe elderly inmates for time served. And that's for political reasons. That's not out of the goodness of his heart. But where I come down is is where Sheriff Michael was where Dan Campless is where I think Jared Polis is and what should be the endgame here. Practical pragmatic solutions. Right. That's what we're looking for here. Priorities based in principle. We got T to Peter's out on our out of jail. And she she served enough time. She did the crime. She was convicted. Sentence was harsh. Governor Polis said that and he's right. Especially when you can pair it to the runaway truck driver who is getting probably one year for each person he incinerated with his semi truck and I 70. But Tina Peters is supposed to survey here. Come on. Come on. Come on. She didn't. She didn't hurt anybody. Not saying it was a victimless crime. She shouldn't have done it. And he needs to be a precedent set. I get all that. But to commuter sentence to letter out to get her out of incarceration. That should be the endgame. And politically how that plays it does matter does matter whether it's for polis or anybody else. Representative bottoms who I respect calling for a full pardon wouldn't go that far. I don't think you need to go that far. And Senator Barb Kirkmeier saying, Hey, well, look, unless I get new facts, if I'm governor, and I'm going to stick to the sentence in the script of what Dan Rubenstein prosecuted, what the jury convicted and what the judge sentenced. And I don't want to go that far because I'm okay with two parts of that equation, but not the third. Not the way this judge behaved in this case with his personal animus against Tina Peters. He let that political opinion. And anything she expressed that he may disagree with outside the courtroom into his sentencing after not allowing that kind of conjecture and presentation during her trial before a jury. And he made a point of doing that. So he kind of dictated himself on that basis alone. Tina Peters should be free. That's my opinion. I asked her congressman because Mesa County, that's the third congressional district representative Jeff heard about it. And it sounded like two parts that, you know, that's up to the governor. Okay. Good enough. But that perhaps judging by the fact that proportional sentencing was it fair? Was it the right sentence? He might be open to the clemency and granting that. That's what I interpreted. If I'm wrong, let me straight 57739. By phone, you can talk about it 303 7138255. We'll get to your text when we come back. And also primary challenger of representative Jeff heard, she was listening in the third hope shuffling sent me some text. I'll share some of those with you when we come back on Ryan Julie live. Some great text to close out this hour of RSL Shannon's got on the other side of the glass. We reminisce about Detroit every now and then the Detroit connection. That's what we call us. And it was in full force last night folks. The Colorado Abilance have the best record in the NHL Shannon shaken his hand. I was at that game last night. And I got to tell you maybe a conservative estimate. Two thirds of that arena red. Two thirds of ball arena, the best team in hockey, the avalanche peppered with Red Wings fans, including myself in my Steve Iserman, Jersey. And the Red Wings won two to nothing. They scored the first goal of the game like 30 seconds in. And then there was no other scoring until the very end on an empty netter. And of course, this was revenge and retribution for Saturday's defeat. And little Caesars arena in Detroit, in which the Colorado Abilance stopped the Red Wings five. Nothing. So we're even, right? Okay. Sounds good. But I don't understand this Detroit fans. That would never happen ever in a million years. Any fan base, even though there are a lot of Toronto Maple Leafs fans that cross over the border and come to the games. There are a lot, not that many. I don't know what's happening in this town is Denver's a great sports town. I know it's a Broncos town. But the avalanche are elite. They're exceptional. How do they not fill that arena with avalanche fans? Who are the fans that are selling their tickets to Red Wings fans? I'm honestly asking this because if I was an abs fan in that building last night, I would have been disgusted with what I saw. I would have been disgusted with me. It was fun. I gladly embrace the villain role when it comes to this. I'm sorry. It's the only team I cannot abide. I cannot root for the avalanche. I'll be happy for all of you avalanche fans if they win the cup this year and they very well could. And I'll kind of grin and bear it. And I'll give credit where credit is due. But this is like an all time rivalry like Hulk Hogan Andre the giant going back to WrestleMania three. There's a documentary about the Red Wings avalanche wars that occurred between 1996 and 2002. What a glorious time it was. That's old time hockey. These two teams, these two franchises, these two fan bases hated one another visceral hatred. They were in each other's way in the Western conference at that time. The two best teams in that era going head to head. Those were some those were some fun times because you got to have a good villain, right? Any good movie has to have a great villain. And for you guys, the Red Wings were that they were even featured in South Park episodes as being villainous and beating up on eight-year-olds on the ice. That was a good time last night. All right, tax five, seven, seven, three, nine. In relation to Tina Peters and Tim Nith Colorado, a woman was distracted driving, hit and killed a little boy on his bicycle riding in the neighborhood. That's awful. Continuing, that was a few years ago. And after only serving nine months in jail, she is set to be released. She killed not on purpose, but killed a little boy and got a misdemeanor. Make it make sense. That's this is simply awful and it goes to this texture as well. Ryan, let's protest arresting and deporting criminal illegals, but let's keep a victimless crime perpetrated by a 70-year-old lady makes perfect sense. It's about perspective and proportion and the sentence is not proportional. It's just not given the soft on crime policies in this state of Colorado, which we live. Filisers say, you know, by the fourth or fifth time somebody steals a car. They got to do jail time. It's like, what about like a second or third time, bro? What about the first time? You steal a car, you go to jail. I don't care who you are. That's the state we live in. Or Jared Polis with Kim Kardashian whispering sweet nothings in his ear, which again, I'm trying to do the math there, because Shannon, last time I checked, Governor Polis does not play for the same team we do if you know what I mean. So why would Kim Kardashian whispering in his ear have any effect? What's the, who cares? And he commutes the sentence of like 100 years down to 10 out and five for the runaway truck driver that incinerated five people in I 70. Make that make sense. When we're talking about that by scale, by comparison, then of course, the sentence for Tina Peters is egregious and capricious. I learned the word for you today. Ryan, the judge during sentencing literally said Tina was giving her the, he was giving her the harsh penalty because of her state stance on voter fraud. Yeah. Yeah. He injected political views into the sense. And I'll tell you what, the three judge appeals board, Colorado Court of Appeals, populated by Democrat appointees, I might add had that same exact concern. And they were not letting go of Phil Weiser's office. That's another thing as we go to break. Where was Phil none the Weiser? This is the biggest case in the state of Colorado right now. Bar none. There's none bigger, right? National news. President Trump's talking about it. And Phil couldn't muster the time himself to stand in that courtroom and deliver on a topic for which he feels very strongly. And he makes many television appearances about how we have to stick to the script on the sentencing of Tina Peters, but he sends an acolyte in there to get her headhanded tour. She was completely eviscerated by that three judge panel. Ask yourselves why? Why did Phil Weiser send a sacrificial lamb in there rather than stand and deliver himself? What other case would he do that for? He just delegates everything in his heart. What does he do? What do you say he does here other than file lawsuits against President Trump, which he seems to do as a hobby? It's fun for him. Did some questions? Feel free to answer them during the break. When we come back, looking forward to a very interesting conversation with conservative TikTok influencer, free as can be. And he has some thoughts on Victor Marx as a candidate for governor. We'll have those for you when we come back. This is Ryan Schueling live.