09 25 25 The CLOCK is Ticking... and does SC need an election commission?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Jonathan and Kelly Show. Jonathan rush He said,
our proposals ridiculous and radical. Well, they're not radical at all,
Kelly Nash.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
They will not fund law enforcement, they will not fund
the military, they will not fund public safety.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
And that they get free healthcare, free legal aliens.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
We will see if there's enough Democrat senators who are
dumb enough to follow Chuck Schumer off the edge of
that cliff.

Speaker 1 (00:22):
The Jonathan and Kelly Show. I love the back and
forth finger pointing as you flip through the news channels.
The Democrats are going to shut the government down. Republicans
are going to shut the government down. It's the Democrats
that they were going to shut it down. If the
Republicans are going to shut the government down. So, I
don't know how this is going to end up. I
guess we're going to be divided when it's all said

(00:43):
and done, if the government does shut down, and there's
still a chance it's not going.

Speaker 3 (00:47):
To do you think we're going to be divided.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
Nobody's saying nobody's saying they're going to work it out.
They're all too busy pointing their fingers at each other
saying they're not going to work it out, so we're
gonna have to shut the government down. Now, we're already
preparing to lay off federal workers. That's according to the
newest report.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
Have we laid off federal workers in the past, Well,
I guess.

Speaker 3 (01:06):
I guess what we have.

Speaker 2 (01:07):
We quote unquote lay them off while the government should,
and then we pay them later, we back pay them.

Speaker 1 (01:13):
I think that they will not officially lay them off
until we back pay them. Then they lay them off.
That's the dose plan.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
Oh yeah, I don't know, it's it's Look, Chuck Schumer
continues to say that the country will not function, so
he's not backing off his rhetoric. Shutting down the government
is dangerous, and yet it's pretty freaking crystal clear. Look
if Donald Trump is saying and the Republicans are saying,
we'll just continue as is, we just need a continuing resolution.

(01:42):
We're not we're not looking for any budget cuts, we're
not looking to save any money, We're not looking at
any of that stuff. We'll just do next month what
we did the previous month. And Chuck Schumer is going
to put his He's gonna put what do they say,
ten toes down. That's right, he's ten toes down and
say no, no, no, no no. Unless we get the
money back for the illegal alien healthcare, we will shut

(02:04):
this some bitch.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
Down, that's right, unless they get it back.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
So who's the radical again? If you're to believe Chuck
Schumer's what the end result will be. I gu this
is mass starvation. The army doesn't work anymore, social Security
checks don't go out. Now, of course none of that's true,
and Chuck Schumer knows that, but he continues to peddle it,
and then he tries to blame Donald Trump for it,

(02:29):
which doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 1 (02:32):
Well, I know, at the same time, I know six
million Americans. That's not counting the online streams, just the
terrestrial viewing. Six million Americans tuned in I guess, either
on cable or terrestrial. Okay, however it is that you
get it streaming or otherwise originated from an affiliate of
ABC tuned in for the Jimmy Kimmel apology.

Speaker 3 (02:53):
Oh, I was just say I tune in for that.
Did that happen?

Speaker 1 (02:57):
That didn't happen? Now how many tuned in? Who? How
many will tune in tonight? I don't know. But Nonetheless,
that was a huge night for ABC and for Jimmy
Kimmel and for the Constitution, as Donald Trump reinstated or
allowed to be reinstated, the First Amendment. So now as
we go forward with our continuation of late night comedy,

(03:19):
excuse me late night news commentary. Mark Kelly was on
with Stephen Colbert last night describing how we have never
ever in the history of this country, everything has never happened,
especially if you listening to Trump's press conference, never seen
anything like it. But Mark Kelly told you, we have

(03:39):
never ever seen a president use the Department of Justice
in particular, last night was his example to go after
his political enemies like we're witnessing now under the authoritarian regime,
the fascist, the dictator, Donald J. Trump.

Speaker 2 (03:59):
So, you know, I've forgot who said this the other day,
but I thought it was funny. Maybe it was I
was listening to Mark Levin last night, Maybe that's who
said it. I could hear him getting himself all worked
up over this.

Speaker 3 (04:11):
So they say.

Speaker 2 (04:15):
They don't want to see him retaliate, retaliate for what
what the hell is he retaliating for? Because you're trying
to ruin him in with false ecusation you entited him,
you try to come in andto you rated his wife's
panty closet. I mean, look, and the reality of it
is that it's true. Mark is right that they you're

(04:36):
worried about Donald Trump's retaliating against the weaponization against him,
But a better time, I mean, that's one way of
classifying it is his retaliation against you. But a better way,
I think is correcting the problem the people who actually,
when you weaponized the government, you were in fact committing

(04:58):
a crime. The people who come admitted that crime need
to be held accountable. And speaking of people who committed
a crime, the fact that James Comy has danced away
for four years, eleven months and twenty five days or so, TikTok,
and there's only five days left, the countdown is own.

(05:20):
I mean, this is one of the most easy to see.
The question was did James Comy lie to Congress? Because
if he's lied in a sworn testimony, that is a
federal offense. You might not agree with that. You may
feel like that, like the Ice people like I can't
believe that they're deporting people. They should change the law.

Speaker 1 (05:38):
Whatever you might argue, what the definition of is is.

Speaker 2 (05:41):
Yes, but we live in a climate where if you
currently lie to Congress under oath, that is a federal
crime and you can go to prison for it, James
Comy unless he has some sort of spectacular defense. But
James Comy told Lindsey Graham on September thirtieth, twenty twenty,

(06:03):
so there's only five days left on the statue of limitations.
On September thirtieth, twenty twenty, Lindsey Graham asked him the question,
are you sticking with your previous testimony that you were
unaware that the FBI was surveilling the Trump campaign? Yes,
I am. And you also claim that had there been

(06:23):
any surveillance, you would have been aware of it. I
think I would have been said something like that. I
think I would have Okay, Now, I wish Lindsay Graham
had just said, I don't know, maybe the Lindsay Graham
didn't have it at the time, but if somebody would
have at that very moment said okay, well, now, in
order to get the surveillance, we needed what's called a

(06:44):
PAISA warrant, and that has to be signed by the
Director of the FBI in order to surveil a US citizen.
Now at the bottom of this warrant back in twenty fifteen,
do you see that signature right there that says James Comy.
James Comy signed a warrant in twenty fifteen to begin

(07:07):
the surveillance of the Trump campaign. And it's still your
testimony in twenty twenty that you were unaware that there
was any surveillance happening to the Trump campaign.

Speaker 1 (07:17):
That a pless moment.

Speaker 3 (07:18):
One cannot coincide with the other. What was that other
guy's name?

Speaker 2 (07:22):
I can't Why am I keep forgetting the deputy director
Andrew McCabe. That's the guy who call me threw under
the bus. But Andrew McCabe was telling the IG regarding
the Hillary Clinton stuff. Yeah, we talked about that. We talked,
and James Comy told me to leak that information to

(07:43):
the press because he thought it would be best to
have the FBI get out in front of it. And
that's why, Yes, I contacted the Wall Street Journal. I
arranged for the interview per the orders of my boss,
James Comy. James Comby's like, no, I have no idea
what the hell this guy's talking about. So we're to
believe that Andrew McCabe just decided on his own to

(08:07):
go against a man who he testified under oath. I
cannot think of another man that I hold in higher
esteem than James Comy. He just said, f James, call
me the ol Man's crazy. That's what That's what Andrew
McCabe said.

Speaker 3 (08:24):
And to quote a few.

Speaker 2 (08:25):
Good men again, you cut him loose, You cut mccab
b loose. But James, you're gonna have to come up
with a I guess Andrew McCabe is gonna have to
have been the one who signed it as James Comy
back in twenty fifteen in order for this, because if
they don't, there's no possible way. He's not guilty of
lying to Congress.

Speaker 3 (08:44):
No possible way.

Speaker 1 (08:46):
No no. And now, but Kelly, what you're plainly describing,
and we're watching it play out in television, is that
on the news, we're plainly distribing how Donald J. Trump
is using the DOJ to attack his political well.

Speaker 2 (09:01):
And the thing that I hate is the what about
isms and then the we're gonna give you extra details
to make it convoluted. It's so simple that anybody can
understand it. James Comy said in twenty twenty. I had
no idea that the Trump team was under surveillance. In

(09:21):
twenty fifteen, you signed the documents that allowed that surveillance
to begin.

Speaker 3 (09:27):
One.

Speaker 2 (09:28):
I mean, I was playing a clip this morning from
the Chris Wallace I forget when Chris Wallace got fired,
probably around.

Speaker 3 (09:34):
Twenty twenty one or so.

Speaker 2 (09:35):
Is that when he went to MSNBC YE or wherever
he went.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
To CNN, CNN Plus.

Speaker 2 (09:41):
But he's in like twenty twenty ish interviewing James Comy,
which I have no idea why Comy thought this was
going to be a good idea, but it was in
response to the IG report, and the IG is testifying
in front of Congress, and the first one of the
first questions asked was does this report in any way,

(10:03):
uh take James Comy or any of the FBI leadership
off the hook? Does this find them in any way?
The no, Horowitz was Horowitz, OK. Does this let him
off the hook? Absolutely not. In no way. All of
the FBI leadership is to blame for all of the

(10:25):
violations of federal law. That's him under oath. James Comy, Well,
that's not what he said.

Speaker 3 (10:34):
No, no, no, what.

Speaker 2 (10:35):
You know what Okay, he said those words, but what
he meant by those yes, was that he what he's saying,
and I agree with him, and I love it what
he does.

Speaker 3 (10:43):
I agree with him.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
I completely agree with We were sloppy, Okay, I personally
was very sloppy, and then you got Chris Wallace going
more than sloppy.

Speaker 1 (10:55):
Sir.

Speaker 2 (10:56):
Uh, there's seven times that you reauthorized a FAISA warrant
that you knew was invalid, that we that's you know, Look,
I trusted the process that we had set.

Speaker 1 (11:11):
Up and guidelines to avoid that from happening again.

Speaker 2 (11:14):
Yeah, and we had done that previous and I overtrusted.
And that's my mistake. Looking, I'm saying I was wrong.
He's right, I'm wrong. But you know, can we move on?
I mean, there's no criminal intent here. There was some
there was some mis mistakes made. Yes, maybe I misremembered
certain things. Of course, I've got a lot going on here.

(11:37):
But I don't think anyone is saying or even implying
that I did anything illegal.

Speaker 3 (11:43):
That's not what the IG is saying. Under oath.

Speaker 2 (11:45):
He's saying there are federal crimes that were committed by
the head of the FBI, who was you and other
leadership members at the time. No, no, no, no, Look again,
I agree with the IG's report completely that I was sloppy.
I made some mistakes, bad judgment, but no, no criminal intent.

Speaker 3 (12:06):
But that's not what the IG is saying.

Speaker 1 (12:10):
And now on top of that, now I didn't even
hear about this one until this morning or last night.
It's when it broadcast. I heard the playback this morning.
It was with Jensaki on MSNBC. Now, Alex Jones, the
guy who has all of that class action basically lawsuit
against from the parents of the Sandy Hook shooting, he
has information from the DOJ that the previous DJ and

(12:33):
I've forgotten which offices was, I think it was Cincinnati,
in fact orchestrated that lawsuit by collecting all those persons
together and then not only collecting them together for what
would be the lawsuits, but then advising them the federal government,
advising them for their attack on Alex Jones to shut
him down. Now, Alex Jones is it's a little out there.

(12:55):
I got it. So he's an easy target. But he's
going to bring a lawsuit now against the old DOJ
regime who actually instigated the lawsuits that led to his
one point for a billion dollar. Was it a settlement
or a verdict? I've forgotten now, but there was.

Speaker 2 (13:14):
A How can you settle for one point four billion
when you don't have one point four billion?

Speaker 1 (13:18):
No, No, it's got to be a verdict. But he's
going to now bring a lawsuit. So we have got
so much crap from the old regime versus the new
regime that and it's still under the same umbrella. This
is why I think when Cash Petelsa wants to shut the
whole damp thing down so he can start fresh with

(13:38):
the whole new name of an agency. Because we refer
to the Department of Justice. You don't even know which administration,
which era you're talking about. And given the number of
offices and the number of people involved, and as you say,
the mischaracterization of what their agenda was versus their policies
and the norms, you can't forget about the norms. Then

(13:58):
you've got all this kabal all the bull, a cabal
of bull, a Cabala bull that should be the cob
that should be the new the old name is this
coeb the Cabala Bull administration. Maybe that's why he wanted
to shut it down. It turned it into a what
was it, a Museum of American corruption or something like that.

Speaker 2 (14:21):
Well, I mean, you know, we've did change the name,
uh to the Department.

Speaker 1 (14:25):
Of War, brought it back.

Speaker 2 (14:27):
We could we could come up with something like I
don't know, Donald Trump's good at coming up with names.
What do you replace the Department of Justice with the
Department of no longer lying?

Speaker 1 (14:41):
And this is why the American people get so frustrated,
because just to try to put the pieces, even if
you're not able to put all the pieces back together,
just describing what you believed happened under the pre administrations,
in particular with James Comey and how involved he was
with although his signature, he says, is not his signature.
I'm not sure how he's going to get around that,

(15:01):
but plainly he was lying to Congress. So he's five
days away from skating. Meanwhile, we still got the countdown
clock on shutting the government down. They've got a couple
of quick timelines coming down here.

Speaker 2 (15:14):
You know, and whoever you are right now listening to
this podcast, you are plugged in, you are all about
this type of information. Ninety five percent of Americans are
not ninety five percent of Americans. I would say ninety
percent of Americans don't even peruse, you know, the New

(15:35):
York Post or the Washington Times or any papers. They're
not they're not doing that. And then for those ten
percent or so who try to engage, oftentimes it gets
so muddled. That's the problem.

Speaker 3 (15:50):
I think.

Speaker 2 (15:51):
That's why I'm saying that, what about isms and all
of that, Like, you bring up the name James Comy,
the vast majority of Americans don't even know who who
that was or is. But then you get into this
idea of, well, he was lying to Congress about something
that happened in twenty fifteen, but it was it was

(16:11):
in twenty twenty, and there's a lot of dates being
thrown around, and then there's people contradicting what he and
then it's the whole thing is just like, well, do
I even give a crap about James Comy? And then
you hear something, the news will come out and say
Donald under the orders of Donald Trump, the prosecutor in
the Eastern District of Virginia was fired by Pam Bondy,

(16:33):
then replaced with Donald Trump's former personal attorney, who is
now considering bringing charges against his political enemy. And they're like, well,
that sounds pretty freaking bad at all.

Speaker 3 (16:46):
That sounds horrible.

Speaker 2 (16:47):
He fired the person, and the person was a good person.
I guess, well Trump appointed him, so Trump was So
that was a Trump guy who truck didn't do what
Trump said explicitly, and then Trump fired him.

Speaker 3 (16:59):
And I don't know what to think. It just so
much and even.

Speaker 1 (17:05):
The Democrats take advantage. As Kelly was mentioning the the
it's not the stupidity, it's just the uneducation because they're
not plugged in enough and it's a part time job
keeping up with all this crap. So I understand why
people don't know. But I was talking to somebody, I
guess yesterday or the day after, right after Gary Newsom
made his big announcement that ice agents could no longer

(17:28):
wear masks in the state of California.

Speaker 3 (17:30):
Oh, Newsom's making that announcement.

Speaker 1 (17:32):
Oh yeah, he signed a law. So he signed a law.
You can't wear the man And they're like.

Speaker 3 (17:36):
What if I have respiratory problems?

Speaker 1 (17:39):
You didn't get into all that. But I'm like, yeah,
see that that doesn't matter because the ice agents are
part of the federal Yeah, he has no authorization to
tell ice agents anything, and they do not have to
abide by a California state law.

Speaker 3 (17:58):
What are you gonna get.

Speaker 2 (17:59):
You're gonna have Haunch and John pull me over with
chips and then try to send me to jail.

Speaker 1 (18:04):
And the person said to me, oh see, I didn't
even realize that, And I'm like, yeah, I mean there's
a lot going on. But the Democrats are key in
playing these grand standing ideas about what they're going to
do in their state, in particular right now against the
Donald Trump administration, when you really don't even have the
authority and they know it going in, So they're actually

(18:26):
constructing a law they know they cannot enforce, and they're
doing it all so they can make a big announcement
on television and YouTube and get it shared on social
media to show that Newsome is the guy who really
ought to be running the country because he's the guy
who understands the American people. He knows their plight.

Speaker 2 (18:44):
I would I've been saying this since twenty seventeen, So
this is my eighth year, my eighth annual plea possibly
for Donald Trump to use the full weight of the
federal government against the state of calm And what I
mean by that is, you're absolutely correct. Federal law outweighs

(19:07):
state local laws. All of those are trumped if they're
in violation of the federal law. Donald Trump at any
minute could just announce we're sending in the National Guard
because the state of California is overrun with illegal marijuana

(19:29):
stores that is illegal under federal law.

Speaker 3 (19:33):
They've built about.

Speaker 2 (19:35):
An eighth to maybe even many say a fifth of
the California economy now comes.

Speaker 3 (19:41):
From the illegal sale of.

Speaker 2 (19:43):
Cannabis and or gummies and or just whatever.

Speaker 3 (19:48):
All of it's illegal.

Speaker 2 (19:51):
If Donald Trump wanted to, he could go in there,
send the federal troops to shut those places down and
burn them to the ground. Like Sherman, Now, what are
you gonna do? Donald Trump doing what the federal government
has got the power to do. You got no power
to stop him. Now again, I guess that this inflamed
moment in time would not be an opportune time for

(20:13):
him to do that. But in twenty eighteen or twenty nineteen,
when Gavin Newsom in California was acting crazy, I always
thought Trump should have gone in there and shut him down.
In Chicago shut him down in New York.

Speaker 1 (20:25):
You could have done it multiple states.

Speaker 2 (20:27):
But now that keeps talking about what we're sanctuary state,
and somehow we still haven't been able to figure that
riddle out.

Speaker 1 (20:33):
I think they think they got UN protection and you
in law Trump's US law.

Speaker 3 (20:37):
Oh is that true?

Speaker 1 (20:38):
Yeah, that's the way, because a bigger organization, it's a worldwide.

Speaker 3 (20:42):
We'll kick him out of New York and soon, you know,
we laugh about that.

Speaker 1 (20:44):
But I bets you asking the average American who is
not watching news or plugged into it, which does you
in law trump US law? I got to, I got
to it's worldwide, it's all the countries.

Speaker 2 (20:54):
I mean, Donald Trump making a very strong point, what
the hell does the UN do?

Speaker 1 (20:58):
I always had such I've all always said it had great,
such such great potential.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
Yeah you got you write very strongly worded letters and
then there's nothing.

Speaker 1 (21:07):
And you're talking to somebody about the U N And
I love the examples. I don't think they're currently on
the Human Rights Commission? Are they? Is China currently still
on the Human Rights Commissioner? Do they rotate off of
that one?

Speaker 3 (21:17):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (21:18):
But you bring up the fact that you in China
on the Human Rights Council and that was their subcommittee.
And they're like, and Mike, it's China. Is that bad?
I mean not if you don't live in China.

Speaker 2 (21:36):
I mean, you know, well it depends on if you're
the right kind of Chinaman. That's true, all right, So justified,
I'm gonna do I haven't done this in a long time.
I'm going to put China c H I N A,
and then I'm going to put wiggers w I G
G E R S and see what do we get? Okay,

(21:59):
here we go. Why does China continue to put the
wiggers into re education camps? More than a million Wiggers
have been murdered in China. This is and again this
is a Muslim group, So they're being prosecuted specifically based
off their religion. Who are the wigam Wigger Muslims? And

(22:20):
why does China keep killing them? The true story of China's.

Speaker 3 (22:25):
Genocide against the full time job. So again, think.

Speaker 2 (22:28):
About that A million or more are currently serving in
a camp, a camp and I would have gone to.

Speaker 1 (22:36):
Is it it's not a summer camp?

Speaker 2 (22:39):
I mean that how can this group China be allowed
to pass any kind of human rights.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
Or even cast a vote.

Speaker 2 (22:50):
Did you hear the hot mic moment between Putin and Chi,
the hot mic moment during with Putin and Chi when
they were meeting about two weeks ago. I think it
was Putin who said it, but she was laughing about
it in agreement. Now again, maybe just a straight up joke,
not a very funny joke, depending on where your perspective.

Speaker 1 (23:11):
We don't know Russian humor.

Speaker 2 (23:13):
But the joke was basically, you and I can now
live forever because we have enough prisoners that we can
always get fresh new organs.

Speaker 1 (23:25):
Putin was saying this, Yes, so it's not a joke.

Speaker 2 (23:28):
He mean, yeah, thanks to the never ending supply of organs,
we can get fresh new organs. Get yourself a new
heart and new kidney, new lungs, get them all. Treat yourself,
get the whole package.

Speaker 1 (23:40):
I'm not going to stir up the I'm not going
to stir up the Clinton conspiracy people. So we'll stop
right there because we only got a few minutes left
in our podcast. Today, we learned that a well a
week ago, we learned that the head Howard Knapp of
the South Carolina License Commission have been fired. Has nothing
to do. They go way out of their way. Very
early in the article a week ago, if I remember correctly,

(24:02):
had nothing to do with the federal government reaching into
the South Carolina Election Commission to get data about our voters.
And I didn't even realize that you even know that
our voters data may include your social Security number and
the like, maybe your mailing address and all that kind
of stuff. Do you think the federal government would love

(24:22):
to get their hands on that, Oh, they already do.

Speaker 2 (24:24):
I would think that since the federal government gave me
my social Security number, they know my social Security number.
And I'm thinking, because I pay taxes to the federal government,
they already know my home address. I think that because
I have my direct deposit from the federal government on
my tax returns, they also know my bank account.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
And I can tell you because on my voter registration
if in the state of South Carolina, my first name
is misspelled and I receive solicitation unrequested solicitation for business,
about once a month, I'll get a letter addressed to
that misspelling my name. I'm like, Wow, the State of
South Carolina sold in my information obviously, so nonetheless, and

(25:05):
maybe it was part of a public record somewhere. I
don't know. Anyway, we'll get back to the story. So
a week ago we let Howard Knapp go from the
South Carolina Election Commission. Now the second in command has
been unceremoniously dismissed.

Speaker 3 (25:20):
You don't think there was a ceremony for this dismissal.

Speaker 1 (25:23):
She was terminated for maliciously using abusive and profane language
toward fellow employeest within the earshot of the public.

Speaker 3 (25:36):
And those employees were startled.

Speaker 1 (25:39):
This was visibly shaken.

Speaker 3 (25:40):
Yes, they clutch the pearl.

Speaker 1 (25:42):
Let's just take that that one sentence right there for
a second. So I understand if you're using abusive and
profane language towards fellow employees, and I'm assuming these are
people under you, it wouldn't even matter if they were
people on the same level.

Speaker 3 (25:55):
Well, they can't be above her, because when above her
was fired.

Speaker 1 (25:57):
Exactly, So it's got it's got to be either lateral
or below. But if you're using that kind of language,
I get it. That's reason to believe someone. They can't
be walking around testing out the employees can't, but within
an earshot of the public, I think is an interesting
little insight into why she really could have been released
for that, because you look, we don't care how you

(26:20):
run your agency, apparently, but you're not going to do
it to embarrass us. You can't do that in public
or they also and maybe this is just piling on
unauthorized device was used in the Columbia Agency's training room,
a room that official said, a move that official said
raised serious concerns regarding trust, confidentiality, and workplace integrity.

Speaker 2 (26:43):
The sentence before that, though, I think is important. It's
the same day, Yes, the same day that she used
the abusive language, allegedly is the same day that she
was recorded on video placing an unauthorized device into that
training room. The unauthorized device, we are led to believe
is a recording device. She was recorded by them recording them.

(27:10):
Wait a minute, I'm recording you, and you're recording me,
and yet I'm in violation and you're correct.

Speaker 1 (27:17):
Now, granted, we don't know what the motivations of her
recording is, and we don't know all the money.

Speaker 2 (27:22):
But I'm guessing it has something to do with her
using the abuse of language. You people aren't going to
often talk to me like this.

Speaker 1 (27:29):
Just reading the information in the paper that we know of.
We have yet again, just like we had a week ago,
more questions than we have answers, given the fact that
now two heads of the Election Commission have been released
and now we're down to the interim director that will
be the chief of Staff, Jenny Wooten, who I'm assuming
by this time next week will be fired.

Speaker 3 (27:50):
Well not needed, right do we ask?

Speaker 2 (27:52):
Because Howard Napp is what do they say, tatas on
a bull, According to his now former employees, serve no
purpose as the head. And now the deputy executive director,
Paige Salinage, she's lost her one hundred and forty two
thousand dollars a year job and they say she has
no impact on elections.

Speaker 1 (28:13):
Now, TikTok is not just the midterms we're talking about,
because we also have elections coming up for mayor races
and the like. The consecutive firings of the body's two
top officials comes as towns and municipalities across the state
go to the polls in the next six weeks November fourth,
the local elections covering offices such as mayor and councils.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
But the good news is we don't need those people
apparently not. And I guess if we don't need those
people to run the elections, why would we ever replace them?
This has been a huge budget saving move. We just
found out that I'm assuming between the two of them,
if she was making one hundred and what do they say,
one hundred and forty two thousand, he had to have
been making minimum. I'd say one seventy.

Speaker 1 (28:55):
Five somewhere in the range.

Speaker 2 (28:57):
So if he's at one seventy five and she's at fifty.

Speaker 3 (29:02):
I mean, you just saved yourself. You know, a quarter
of a million dollars here? Good going South Carolina?

Speaker 1 (29:07):
What is going on at the South Carolina Legend Commission?
And we got nobody in the Governor's office making a statement.
What did HVAC say after they released Howard.

Speaker 3 (29:19):
Napp I thought he had no comment.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
He had no That's right, he said nothing. He had
no comment. We got no answers.