10 14 25 We talk with S.C. A.G. and gubernatorial candidate Alan Wilson

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Jonathan and Kelly Show. I cannot prove
what I'm about to say.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
One of the reasons why Hamas struck when they did
was they knew that I was working very closely with
the Saudis and others in the region to bring peace
to the region.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
Kelly Nash.

Speaker 3 (00:17):
They were very scared of him. Oh, Terris, We're afraid
of Trump. Yeah, they wanted Kamala to be elected.

Speaker 1 (00:24):
He got the hostages out.

Speaker 3 (00:26):
Jonathan and Kelly show, you mean Hamas was not frightened
of the long arm of the law represented. When Joe Biden,
one of the we know, one of the foremost foreign
affairs diplomats of our time, certainly able to muster as
the commander in chief large forces like that.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
It's amazing to see the Jake Sullivan and other Barack
Obama and other Democrat leaders try to make the narrative.
They're trying to read write history right in front of
us and say that it was Joe Biden's piece deal
that got us here, that Joe Biden rescued most of

(01:08):
the hostages, so by that, you know, he had already
set up all of the perimeters that we needed for
the peace deal and Donald Trump just kind of It's
kind of like the guy who did all the pickle
jar opening, although he didn't quite crack it. The next
guy gets to crack it, and then all of a sudden,
you know, now he's the hero. Joe Biden's the hero.

Speaker 3 (01:28):
Joe Biden spent all the time just work in that
pickle jar because this is a tough and the Middle
East peace crisis. They got that in a tightly sealed
pickle jar.

Speaker 1 (01:36):
And they're talking about it. Like.

Speaker 2 (01:37):
The other narrative is Donald Trump is begging for his accolades,
not like Joe Biden als. I hears you people begging
for accolades. You're begging to give the Joe Biden administration
accolades over this when you are the re When Joe
Biden said the reason they attacked, he could have just
said was because I was working. That's why you were

(01:59):
in the White House. That's why they attacked. Same with Russia.

Speaker 1 (02:03):
M m hey.

Speaker 3 (02:05):
We can get into a little more of that coming
up here in just a second, and there's some other
things to come in in the news yesterday and the
aftermath is what has become an incredible Middle East piece
steel at least two Phase one. Phase two still yet
to come. Now we're starting to get warmed by the
talking heads. Phase two is going to be a little
more difficult.

Speaker 1 (02:22):
I thought Phase one was pretty freaking top well.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
To get the Israelis to give up their thousands of
war prisoners that they had taken, knowing that these people
were caught raping and murdering their children, I'm sure that
was not an easy pill for them to swallow. We've
got to send back the people that we caught raping
and murdering our wives and our children. We're going to

(02:46):
send them back in order to get We're sending thousands
of them back in order to get our twenty living hostage.

Speaker 3 (02:52):
One hundred for each one that we give back. All Right, first,
we're going to go to the Jonathan and Kelly double
secret probationary hotline number for this one.

Speaker 1 (03:00):
Call Kelly Nash.

Speaker 3 (03:01):
Welcome on the phone in our state attorney general, currently
also a candidate in the gubernatorial race, Alan Wilson, Good morning.

Speaker 4 (03:08):
Sing Hey, great to be with you again, guys. Thanks
for having me.

Speaker 1 (03:11):
Well.

Speaker 3 (03:11):
One of the things that's been an outrage for the community,
and now we've gotten your input into byring Gibson's position
with the Logan Federico case. Mindy, you're saying this is
an overreach by you, that you're trying to take over
the prosecutor's office.

Speaker 4 (03:24):
What do you say, Well, first off, the Attorney General
has the constitutional authority to take any case, any case
under the constitution. I'm the chief prosecutor of the state,
so I can't overreach when it's just reach the constitution says.
So first off, people who are saying I'm overreaching don't
understand the law in the constitution. However, factually, I'm not

(03:46):
trying to overreach, or I'm not even trying to take
a case. What I wanted to find out was whether
Solicitor Gibson and his team were evaluating the case for
capital punishment. I don't know if it would qualify for
the death penalty because I'm not in the room. But
when I sent that letter several weeks ago, I called
the solicitor. We had a very good conversation. I told

(04:06):
him the letter was coming. He responded the next day
that they actually were considering capital punishment. I had given
him a deadline of about a week and a half
to let us know if he was actually considering for
capital punishment. He indicated that he was, and so therefore
the deadline has been met. We just wanted to know
that it was on the table for consideration. Whether or

(04:26):
not they choose capital punishment will have to be evaluated
by the attorneys. One thing that I did do is
I sent our chief Appellate Attorney in the Capital Litigation
Division of the Attorney General's office. This is the person
who has to defend all of the death penalties on
appeal for many, many years. And I sent her or
assigned her to consult with them, which she does on

(04:46):
many death penalty cases around the state, to provide them
counsel and advice as they consider and evaluate this case.
We wanted them to have all the tools at their disposal,
and that's what we're doing. And so everyone who's saying
we overreached doesn't understand the law. Everyone who is you know,
complained about this doesn't really understand the facts.

Speaker 2 (05:04):
We're talking with Alan Wilson, the Attorney General for South Carolina,
and this Federico case has broken a lot of people's hearts.
You know, innocent girls is visiting friends in Columbia, murdered
by what some would call a career criminal. According to
Mark Keel over its sled, this is because he is

(05:26):
there has been some sort of error made in the
way Lexington processes their paperwork Lexington County that apparently most
of his crimes happened in Lexington County. And he went
on to say, you need to put fingerprints and all
the records on every one of the arrests. That way
we understand what we're dealing with. And that wasn't met.

(05:48):
Is this a systemic problem in South Carolina do you think?
Or is this just an isolated incident? What do you
see moving forward?

Speaker 4 (05:55):
Well, yeah, I agree with Chief Keel. First off, it's
hard to pin this on any one individual. You see
people out there in the political space wanting to assign
blame you for political hits. It is a systemic issue.
You know, systems are created by human beings and then
within those systems, human beings are implementing policies that are
in the systems. So that's what makes it fallible or flawed.

(06:19):
If you can take the human beings out of the system,
then then you might have a better system, but that's
impossible to do.

Speaker 3 (06:25):
So.

Speaker 4 (06:25):
Yeah, for instance, you have someone going to someone who
is arrested in charge with a crime, they go to
jail and they're sitting in jail, and other charges come
in while they're in jail. There is that potential gap
where their fingerprints aren't taken and their rap sheets aren't updated,
and so the prosecutors and the judges don't have all
the information. So obviously we need to close those gaps,

(06:46):
and we need to address this issue systemically. Let me
say this one of the things that when I sent
Byron Gibson the letter that I did and he responded
to it when I find the Pellot attorney to go
help him, I also put in that letter what our
office was doing. We are currently doing an internal forensic
audit of the history of the individual, mister Dickey, who

(07:08):
committed that heinous murder to find out how and where
the system failed, so that we can have a report
with findings and recommendations that we can turn over to
the General Assembly that will give us the information we
need to make an informed decision about how to best
reform our criminal justice system. So I'm out there working
with our team to try to identify those gaps so

(07:28):
that we can have a thoughtful comprehensive reform that will
prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again.

Speaker 1 (07:34):
Well, that may be the saving grace of it all.

Speaker 3 (07:36):
Because even Stephen Federico, when he was very upset when
he made his position clear in North Carolina, but also
then started the conversation about South Carolina, that he wanted
to make sure this never happened again. So if this
becomes a microcosm of a problem that has been probably
involving several different law enforcement agencies, it'd be great to hear.
And I'd love to hear Martin Keel talk about some

(07:57):
of his recommendations for law enforcement to make sure that
this doesn't happen going forward. I don't know if you've
had a conversation or you've seen this happen in other cases,
but certainly this is a great opportunity for us examine
how to hell we're processing this information.

Speaker 4 (08:10):
Well, absolutely, and I've had a number of conversations with
mister Federico and what I see as a father who
has suffered the most unimaginable tragedy that a parent can
possibly suffer, and he's wanting to find purpose in it.
The purpose is something that has no purpose and I've
committed to him that I'll do everything within my power
to find the gaps in the system and to reform

(08:33):
the system, and to hold those accountable within the system,
including mister Dickey who was the murder or the alleged murderer,
hold them accountable and so that this can never ever
ever happen to another family. That is what we're going
to seek to do.

Speaker 2 (08:47):
Talking with the Attorney General, Alan Wilson, who usually your
social media at least on x that's where I follow you,
is usually pretty standard stuff. I've noticed you've kind of
gotten it a little hotter lately, and you retweeted Jay Jones,
the guy running for the attorney general up in Virginia

(09:08):
who was caught texting and then calling a Republican to
let him know what that individual know that he would
like to put two bullets and the speaker's head and
then maybe change it out to one for the speaker
and then one for his child, so that the child
could die in the mother's arms. He tweeted something about
this race will decide whether we have an attorney general

(09:29):
who defends the freedoms, protects our democracy, prioritizes the needs
of Virginians or takes the directives of Donald Trump, And
you retweeted it with quote, this race is about whether
Virginians will have an attorney general who fantasizes about and
wishes murder on his political opponents, or one who keeps
family safe. I fixed it for you, is are we
seeing on the left? A we're talking about systemic It

(09:51):
sounds like the left is not They're not distancing themselves
from Jay Jones, and more and more of the people
on the left sound like they're becoming violent.

Speaker 4 (10:00):
Well, if you've looked at the text thread that Jay
Jones engaged in several years ago that have now gone
out into the open space, it is reprehensible. It will
make your skin crawl, you know, not just that, but
making references to if more police were killed, we'd have less,
you know, police misconduct kind of stuff. I mean, just
really vile and reprehensible stuff. And this is the person
running to be the chief legal officer and prosecutor of Virginia,

(10:22):
you know. And so my opinion is is that if
you're going to have someone running for attorney general and
they're making those kind of statements, that is a disqualifying
right from the go. And it's to me, it's very simple.
You know, you're either going to stand on the side
of someone who fantasizes about his political opponents being murdered.
Are you going to stay on the side of someone
who upholds the rule of law and forces the laws,
which is what Jason we are as the current attorney general,

(10:44):
is doing.

Speaker 3 (10:45):
So.

Speaker 4 (10:45):
I'm Jason's a dear friend, as a personal friend of mine.
Jay Jones, I do not know him. All I know
about him is what he has said, and I want
as many people in Virginia to know about it. And
that is why we're taking a position we are. Anyone
on the left or anyone who's a political who can't
see that, then you need to go down with Jay Jones.
And I do believe at the end of the day,
he's going to lose this race and Jason Miarz.

Speaker 3 (11:05):
Will win all across the Palmetto State. And now I'm
reading in particular Greenwood, the Emerald City, along with Irmo,
Richland County and other county or local governance have passed
hate crime laws that you claim now aren't going to
stand up the muster. Give us some guidance on that,
because a lot of law enforcement we talk to like

(11:27):
the idea of having the extra hate crime that they
can pile on, to use the term loosely, to make
sure that we get these criminals off the street.

Speaker 4 (11:35):
So, first off, my issue isn't particularly with the actual
hate crime law. It's with a patchwork of hate crime
ordinances throughout the entire state. If you have and they're
not even hate crimes, they're basically trying to say, if
you target someone because of their their ethnicity, their gender,

(11:55):
their sexuality, whatever, whatever, protect the class you want to
call out, then you could have a different policy and casey,
a different one enforced aaker is a different one in Colombia,
a different one in the town of Lexington, and so on.
And if the state of South Carolina wants to pass
a hate crime law that allows law enforcement to elevate
a sentence with an enhancement penalty because you killed someone
because of their race, that is one thing. But if

(12:18):
you're going to allow cities and municipalities all over the
state to have a patch work and that is not enforceable,
that is not coherent, and I think the General Assembly
is better situated to do that. I do want to
make sure that whatever hate crime law the General Assembly
does consider is one that is an enhancement, not one
that changes the underlying crime. Meaning, you know, I don't

(12:39):
think you should be treating, you know, crimes different based
on the race or the gender of the victim. It
should be treated equally. However, if someone is murdered because
of their race, or their sexuality, or gender or faith,
then you can enhance that at an extra five years
on the end of the sentence. I'm totally fine with that,
and that is a tool that law enforcement can use.

Speaker 2 (12:59):
Talking with the attorneys General, Alan Wilson, who is running
for governor and one of your political opponents I won't
say her name, used her official office letterhead to call
you a pro pedophile, referencing a report that was put
out by another candidate running for the attorney general who
said that you had dismissed ninety two percent of all

(13:21):
pedophile cases in the at least in one county. But
the reality of it is there was three hundred and
eighty five warrants but only actual forty two cases, and
I believe you prosecuted every one of those.

Speaker 4 (13:34):
Yeah, So the candidate for attorney general walked that statement
that was made several years ago they walked it back
a little bit. Mis Mace didn't say that. But the
other thing is is people conflate warrants with cases. One
case can have ten, twenty thirty fifty warrants, and oftentimes
law enforcement goes in and does an initial charge and
they sign off on a warrant. But when you start

(13:56):
investigating a number of things can happen. You might not
be able to prosecute every warrant because there might be
insufficient evidence. These are very technical crimes. You know, someone
can walk in your house and download child porn on
their phone, but your IP address will show up, and
we can't prove who downloaded the child porn or transmitted
the child porn. So those are examples of, you know,

(14:16):
where you can't prove who actually did it. There are cases.
There was one case where the defendant died and there
were a number of warrants that had to be dismissed.
There have been cases in which we work with the
FEDS and they take the case because it has a
multi state component to it which we can't prosecute, and
so they'll take a case or two which has you know,
a couple of dozen warrants assigned to those and so

(14:38):
we dismiss those warrants because they're being prosecuted in another jurisdiction.
Sometimes we take we'll have fifty warrants on one case,
and we'll consolidate the warrants into one global indictment or
maybe two or three global indictments instead of thirty. And
so sometimes when we dismiss those warrants, we're not dismissing
the actual facts of the case. We're consolid them into

(15:00):
a global one, which makes it easier to prosecute. So
it's judicial economy. We're not letting people off the hook.
And so when people talk about ninety two percent of
cases are being dismissed or conflating warrants and cases, the
vast majority of the people that that low Country congresswoman
and that other candidate talked about were prosecuted. One died,

(15:21):
several went to the FEDS, and there was a few
where there was insufficient evidence, but the rest they pled
guilty and on the sex offender registry or in prison.

Speaker 3 (15:29):
Currently serving as our state Attorney General, Alan Wilson and
a gubernatorial candidate, and if I was ever elected governor,
the first thing I'll do is outlaw the use of
the word gubernatorial.

Speaker 1 (15:40):
That just doesn't sound like something that you'd want to be.

Speaker 3 (15:43):
Nonetheless, I understand you're having a lot of success on
the campaign trail, raising a lot of funds. According to
the News, you are leading the pack in your availability
of raising money for the race to way. Is your
team already in talks about when we're going to hear
the first debates and those kind of things.

Speaker 4 (16:00):
Well, yeah, I mean we are. We're talking to a
number of organizations that want to host suder matorial their
aesthetic good matorial debates after the holidays, and we are
looking forward to that opportunity. Listen, I'm a big believer
that candidates need to be compared and contrasted with each other,
and I think being on a debate stage with my
competitors for this office would be a great way for

(16:21):
people to see my approach to dealing with issues versus
their approach to dealing with issues, and I really look
forward to that opportunity. I would expect you'll see those
debates and those forms coming here in the very near future,
but probably not till after the first of the year,
when people are really starting to think about this race More.

Speaker 2 (16:36):
Always a pleasure to have you on the show. Attorney
General Alan Wilson.

Speaker 4 (16:40):
Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate you having me on.

Speaker 3 (16:42):
And I know that as the dust starts to settle
in phase one, as we were talking earlier about the
Middle East peace deal, we have to immediately get the
dust going again. Here, let's dust it up over here
with the shutdown, we're going into two weeks, and Speaker
Johnson's already told you this could be a record setting
shutdown if it goes more than thirty seven days. I

(17:05):
think thirty seven days is the longest one. I know
that because I was corrected. I said thirty nine, and
somebody corrected me and said thirty seven.

Speaker 2 (17:13):
Now how do we know that that someone was correct I.

Speaker 3 (17:15):
Immediately bristled and went to the Internet, which is guaranteed
to lie to me. So I'm still not sure, but
I believe it'd be thirty seven days.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
Anyway.

Speaker 3 (17:24):
The Schumer shutdown continues, and they're continuing with their unbelievable
line of get no pushback BS answers to questions you're
seeing from a lot of the hosts, not necessarily all
the Sunday shows, some of them do push back.

Speaker 2 (17:38):
You were playing me a clip this morning. I don't
even know who that moron was that was saying, let's
be clear, this is not a clean continuing resolution. Well,
it's the exact same one that's been past thirteen times.
What's changed? Why is it not clean?

Speaker 1 (17:53):
They can't give you a description of what has changed.
But we know this.

Speaker 3 (17:57):
Americans are going to have to pay four times more
for your health care insurance.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
That is because Obamacare was a horrific idea.

Speaker 3 (18:07):
I remember saving twenty five hundred dollars. I know, oh
you do not remember.

Speaker 2 (18:11):
That, because that is the exact opposite of what happened.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
I remember being able to keep my doctor. If I
tell you.

Speaker 2 (18:16):
That true, Joe Wilson was right.

Speaker 1 (18:20):
You lie. You did lie.

Speaker 3 (18:21):
That is a celebrated moment, one of my favorite celebrated
moments in American history. You lie, and it was proudly
has its own Wikipedia page.

Speaker 2 (18:31):
I mean, and again, we are in the position where
the majority of Americans seem to believe that Obamacare helps
them when it's actually hurting them. It's like it's the
beginning of socialism. And so you know, I heard this
analogy a couple of weeks ago I might have used
it here on the show previous, but this idea if

(18:51):
you're desperate enough, So right now people are desperate for
I call it insurance, they call it healthcare. You have
access to hell health care. Health Care is what you
do to take care of yourself. That's your healthcare. You
can work with a doctor, you can work with therapists.
All that's healthcare. How you pay for it is insurance
or how you pay for it out of your pocket?

(19:12):
What are those That's what they're talking about. So when
you have access to insurance, Obamacare is a form of socialism.
There was trying to force people into the programs that
don't want it, and they're forcing them to pay for it,
and that helps other people. That was the basic gist
of it. Socialism is been proven time and time again

(19:35):
to fail. It always ends in violence, it ends in chaos.
It but if you're desperate enough, you will try it.
And that is like the person who is set a
drift after a c wreck or a shipwreck and they're
stuck in the ocean.

Speaker 1 (19:51):
They know.

Speaker 2 (19:53):
You know that drinking salt water will kill you. You don't
have to have much of intelligence at all. You drink
that water you're gonna die. But when you're thirsty enough
and you've given up hope of anything else, you say,
it's wet.

Speaker 1 (20:09):
That's a great word picture. I will try it. That
is a great word picture.

Speaker 2 (20:12):
And the people in New York are so desperate right
now that they're like, we'll try socialism.

Speaker 1 (20:17):
Will go all in. We've seen what happens in all
these other countries.

Speaker 2 (20:20):
Venezuela, the girl won the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting
against socialism. Right she's fighting socialism. She wins a Nobel
Peace Prize, and you people are like, we want some
of that here in New York.

Speaker 3 (20:34):
Oh. And with the big rally, he even had Tis
James show up. She went to preaching to you, they're
coming after all of us. A minute, we all commit
mortgage fraud. They're coming after all of us. Kelly, and
if you come against me, she said, you're coming after
all of us.

Speaker 1 (20:49):
Sah. She put the preacher last syllable in that sentence.

Speaker 2 (20:53):
For you, I feel like, if you're going after Tiss James,
I'm almost paraphrasing Jaws here, you're gonna need a bigger
sell