This video captures the Republican runoff debate for South Carolina's attorney general position between David Stumbo, a 22-year veteran prosecutor with extensive experience in the 8th Circuit, and Stephen Goldfinch, a military prosecutor and state senator with expertise in federal litigation and civil law. The debate covers key issues including criminal justice backlog, judicial reform, medical marijuana regulation, abortion policy, and federal-state relations, with both candidates presenting their qualifications and policy positions on these critical state issues.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
South Carolina republican attorney general runoff debate
Added:But if you don't um respect the decorum of the debate that I think is necessary as we try to choose our chief legal officer. We have two candidates um left standing had a primary uh 10 12 days ago. Um we're as we say in Pamplico the short rows and we're about to decide who our attorney general is going to be in the Republican party and we have two candidates David Stumbo and Steven Goldfinch. Um, once again, I would ask that you reserve your applause and and certainly no cat calling or booing or or heckling, but um I don't know that we drew straws, but the first person that gives the opening statement will be the the last person to give a closing statement. And I've got some some questions here. And we've got about an hour and a half, hour and 45 minutes, maybe as long as two hours to dig into these two candidates and see where they stand on the very important issues facing the state of South Carolina.
David, if you don't mind, you're you're to my left and I'll um I'll defer to you and let you give an opening remark and then we'll go to Stephen and then we'll begin the debate.
>> Thank you, Ken. Appreciate you hosting this uh event tonight. This is great to have a a great crowd here in the PD in Florence. I am David Stumbbo and I've been a crime fighting prosecutor for over 20 years and I've been in the trenches of the courtrooms of this state fighting crime, fighting child predators, uh prosecuting gang crimes, prosecuting drug offenders, murderers, child abusers, any kind of criminal case you can think of. I've worked with law enforcement uh and and work to fight to keep our families safe. And my wife Vanessa and I and she's here tonight uh 20 almost 27 years now. uh and I we have four children and we have raised our family in a conservative Republican home. We share the values of the vast majority of people in this state which is conservative Republican values. Uh and and as a conservative Republican, I'm going to be fighting uh in the courtroom in the civil realm uh in the public policy realm in the government litigation realm uh to make sure we keep South Carolina the special state that it is. We're the fastest growing state in America right now. And there's a reason for that. We're the fastest growing state cuz people love our values here.
They love our people. And uh if we don't have good leadership on the state level that does things honorably, uh that does things uh with the consistent with the values of the people, uh that we're going to lose what makes this state special. And so, God forbid uh we lose uh the White House in 2028. We have had a great uh run of last year and a half with President Trump. I look forward to serving and partnering with President Trump in the courtrooms of this state uh to make sure uh that we maintain his law and order uh agenda and his America first agenda. Uh President Trump needs a partner like me and the the attorney general's role in South Carolina to fight not only crime, fight illegal immigration, fight the things that are a danger to our state. And so I look forward to working closely with the president to do that. Uh and again, uh I've been a conservative my whole life.
I'm going to be on the right side of issues like life, election integrity, parental rights, medical freedom, religious liberty. Uh those are all things that are part of who Vanessa and I are and how we've lived our lives.
It's not just political jargon. And so I look forward to fighting those fighting that fight for the people of this state and the courtrooms of our state over the next four years. Uh, and I'd love to have uh your support and your vote to be the next attorney general. Okay, Mr. Goldfinch.
>> Thank you, Ken. And thank you all for coming out tonight. I'm honored to see each and every one of you. Uh, my name is Steven Goldfinch running for attorney general. I'm a veteran. I was a military prosecutor, a judge advocate general.
I've prosecuted a lot of cases, including those that threatened our national security and our men and women in uniform. Um, I've done quite a bit of that over the years. I was the chief of military justice for Africam. So, I've got plenty of experience fighting crime, working as a prosecutor in a courtroom.
I've tried every kind of case you can imagine trying. And uh but you know, the the job of the attorney general is one that requires specific qualifications, not just one that a local solicitor may have. It requires a lot of other things, including the civil and the administrative division, which is an extremely important part of what the attorney general does. Protects our freedoms from an oppressive federal government. That's what I do every single day in my law practice today. I fight the federal government for a living. I do what's called administrative and regulatory law.
Fighting the federal government over burdensome regulations, policies, and rules that they may be pushing down on the state government or on local governments here in South Carolina. In my private capacity, in my law firm, I've put 17 billion dollars with a B, 17 billion dollars back into the state's economy just in the last few years, fighting federal oppressive regimes like the Obama and the Biden administration.
And y'all, if we wind up with a Gavin Newsome or a Camala Harris in 2028, we're going to have to have an attorney general that knows how to take that fight to Washington DC all the way up to the US Supreme Court. That is exactly what I do today and that's why I'm qualified to do this job. And I'll give you the third division too while I still have time. That's the legislative and the opinions division of the attorney general's office. Very little known opinions division, but very important division of the attorney general's office. That's where the legislature interacts with the attorney general on a daily basis to figure out whether or not the bills that are coming down the pipe that are going to become laws are constitutional and defensible all the way up to the US Supreme Court. Ladies and gentlemen, that's what I do today. I am a sitting senator today from Orian Georgetown County working with the attorney general in my subcommittee and my committee. My subcommittees are criminal justice and constitutional laws which means I work with the attorney general to ensure that the laws that we're passing are worded correctly and defensible all the way up to the US Supreme Court. That's extraordinarily important. This is a a job that requires special qualifications. I've got all the qualifications for everything that the attorney general's office does. A local solicitor does some great work and in fact I think David's doing great work in his district and I applaud him for that.
But the attorney general's office does more than just prosecute a few crimes.
It does a lot more like protecting our freedoms from an overburdensome federal government and that's what I do for a living and that's why I'm better qualified to do this job and I'd be honored to have your support. Okay, we'll go to the question phase of the debate. We got a timer here on the front row. I'd ask the candidates to be cognizant of of he and he give the one and two and three finger. I'm not going to be a zealot about timing, but I'm going to ask you to stay on schedule.
And for the audience's um edification, um this is forprofit radio, so we have a break at the bottom of the hour and a break at the top of the hour, roughly 4 and 1/2 minutes or so. But um but I want to encourage some not not arguing back and forth, but some bannering back and forth between the two candidates. I believe politics is very much about contrast, and I want you to see what the contrast and difference in these two very capable, competent men are. Ste, the first question is for you. Um, during your campaign for attorney general, you've made policy promises and taken partisan position to win the election. Once in office, how would you set aside political considerations to serve as a state's chief legal officer, prioritizing impartial enforcement of the law, protection of the public interest, and vice to all branches of government regardless of political pressure, while still honoring the platform of which you were elected?
Yeah, great question. Multifaceted question. Um, Ken, I I think the best example of this is the violent crime backlog that we have across the state of South Carolina. We have to look at the enemy in front of us. I look at, you know, the way I look at everything sort of as a military officer. I was, you know, an army officer, Army National Guard officer today. And I look at it, we have to look at the enemy that's in front of us. The enemy that's in front of us on the criminal justice side is the violent crime backlog across this state. We have a four to five year backlog in every single county in South Carolina. It is a significant problem.
What happens when you get to four to five years of a case getting old, right?
The the victims might die. They might go away. They might move to a different jurisdiction. As will the investigators, as will the witnesses, right? The case goes cold. Case goes stale. What happens? Prosecutors have to dismiss the case or plead it down to something that we're not comfortable with. Y'all, this happens on a daily basis. Four to 5 year backlog. in every single county in South Carolina. Some counties much worse than others. Ory County, for instance, one of the lowest backlogs in the state with 20 million people coming to Ory County by car every year. Why is that? That's nothing but a leadership issue, right?
Ory County is doing it right. There are some counties that aren't doing it as well. In Lawrence, and Greenwood and the ETH circuit where David's from, he's got 700. I checked today with the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the court administration. 750 active cases over four years old. Indicted and non-indicted, not indicted cases over 400 that are over four years old. Y'all, this is a real problem. This is a problem for victims because we continue to victimize the victims over and over and over again when these cases aren't resolved and they aren't tried. You have to have an attorney general that's willing to step in and do something about that. I am. We need to add 14 or 15 deputy attorney generals to the vict for to the violent crime backlog. Put them in regional attorney general's offices all across the state and start working those backlogs down for the victims of South Carolina because we have to do justice at the attorney general's office at any cost. Thank you.
David, I'll repeat the question. During your campaign for attorney general, you've made policy promises, taken partisan positions to win the election, once in office. How will you set aside political considerations to serve as the state chief legal officer prioritizing impartial enforcement of the law uh and advice to all branches of government regardless of political pressure while still honoring the platform of which you were elected? Well, I answer the first part of this first. I've learned really early, Ken, as a prosecutor, the worst thing you can do as a prosecutor is utilize the power of your office. And I'm a prosecutor that has has always had this in mind. I remind my pro prosecutors that work for me this often that we never use the power of the office because we have the the ability to take people's freedom away. So we never use it for political purposes. I think that was your your question to me.
Uh how can you set aside political things? Well, I've been doing that for 22 years. Uh we don't use the power of my office to abuse uh political enemies or go after political enemies. So we don't do that. And I just wanted to address what Steven said about our backlog. Uh, look, we have cleared the vast majority of our murder cases in the ETH circuit within 18 months to 24 months. And I challenge him to go and actually break down the numbers. Look, a lot of those old warrants, and this is what he's not going to tell you, are cases that are people that are out on bond for very minor offenses, maybe not even really anything dealing with a victim. And so, when we have victim cases, we prioritize those first. We get to those first. But if somebody's out on a bond and they skip court and they have a we have a bench warrant out on them, those things linger sometimes and until they're caught or pulled over in the car to where we can clear those cases. So the bottom line is uh we do not have a 4 to 5 year backlog on murder cases in my circuit. We clear most of our murders within 18 to 24 months and we work hard to serve our victims and our law enforcement agencies every day in my circuit. I checked just recently, we had 55 warrants that were pending on murder cases in my entire four counties and we cover a 2300 square mile uh circuit. We cover four counties and we had had our murder docket down to 55 cases. That's compared to Orangeberg, which is one of our prior uh opponents in this race in a circuit that had less cases by 3,000 a year had three times the number of murder cases pending. And so, yes, there are circuits in our state that have backlogs, that have problems, but I can promise you the ETH circuit's not one of them because I'm trying a lot of those cases myself. And I've stared down murderers in a courtroom. I've stared down child molesters. I've stared down drug traffickers. And we don't let the serious cases get old. Go ask the law enforcement people in my circuit and they'll tell you that because they know the level of work we do. So, it's deceptive to give that number of 700 cases that are over three years old.
Many of those, I'm telling you, are cases that uh until somebody gets picked up on a bench warrant, they're not going to get prosecuted. But I again, you know, we don't have that problem in our circuit. We fight the good fight and uh we do clear our cases in a timely manner. And again, I do that personally as the leader of our circuit in our four counties.
>> Okay. In this round, the other the the opposite candidate has a chance to to uh rebuttal. So, Mr. Goldfinch, floor is yours.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh, I would just say this. Look, I don't I don't want to beat a dead horse, but what I said was indicted cases. That doesn't mean minor.
That's not game cases. That's not traffic offenses. There's 400 indicted cases, y'all. Those are vast majority of those are serious felonies. 400 indicted cases that are over four years old in that circuit. In Ory County with 20 million people coming by car every single year, there's a total of 300 cases indicted and non-indicted that are over three years old. Y'all, the numbers don't lie. I'm happy to post them on my website tonight. We'll post them on our Facebook tonight. They come from the Chief Justice in the Department of Administration. That is nothing but a leadership problem, y'all. And I I know what it is. I've heard from victims in his district. I know what the issues are. He's a great guy. I I'm not going to beat up on him. He's a great guy. But we have to have the intestinal fortitude to try cases even if they have a little bit of hair on them. Even if they're hard. Sometimes cases are hard. And you have to have the courage to try them.
Look, prosecutors, local solicitors are politicians just like everybody else. He got elected the same year that I did.
Okay. What do they have to run on? They have to run on being tough on crime.
Conviction rate. My conviction rate is 98%. Well, to hold a 98% conviction rate, what do you have to do? You have to make sure that you don't try the hard cases. Okay, that's not leadership.
That's that's not taking cases that are hard. We have to have an attorney general that's not in the local solicitor's boys club and will be willing to objectively hold solicitors responsible for their actions and able to go and work in those offices and to work those backlogs down for the victims of South Carolina. I don't know if a local solicitor that's in that boy club can objectively do that. I think that's a question for the voters.
David, as attorney general, under what circumstances would you appoint or retain outside private counsel or special attorneys for litigation on behalf of the state or its agencies? And how would you ensure that such hires provide value for taxpayers compared to using your own office as attorneys?
>> Well, first of all, my one of my plans is to really boost the civil division of the attorney general's office. We need to do that. There's other state AG's office. I've talked to people in other states in the AG's offices. They have much larger civil divisions than we have. One of the ways we can do that is go into the law schools, create fellowships in our office for some of the best and brightest law students.
Bring them in to work government litigation cases and civil cases. Now, there are times, Ken, where that's impossible to to go and out and you have to outsource. There's certain cases u in our state that that require expertise and high level scientific uh expertise that certain law firms are good at and we need to utilize that for the best interest of the people of our state. But there's a lot of cases that we could utilize the civil division of our office if we had more lawyers. That's a very small division in the AG's office. The vast majority of the attorneys, y'all, and I know this because I've worked there two times uh and I've worked as a criminal prosecutor. I worked in the opinion section that Stephen talked about. Bob Cook is still the solicitor general that writes the opinions there today. I worked for under him. I wrote opinions with him. I worked civil and government litigation cases with him.
But that is a very small part of the office and I hope to change that. We need to have more civil attorneys. So, we don't have to outsource cases so often because a lot of that money that could be uh coming into the state treasury is going out the door in legal fees. Some exorbitant legal legal fees in the millions. And so we need to be careful with just outsourcing every case just to give business to to attorneys and law firms in South Carolina. If we need to because there's an area of expertise, we will do it. But at the end of the day, if we don't have a a more robust civil division, uh that's going to be difficult. So my plan is to build that civil division start on day one when I'm in that office. Stephen, same question. As attorney general, under what circumstance would you appoint or retain outside private counsel or special attorneys for litigation on behalf of the state? And how would you ensure that such hires provide value for taxpayers?
>> Well, let me just begin by saying since David was an intern at the AG's office, things have changed a lot there. I do the budget for the attorney general's office right now on my Senate capacity.
I'm on the finance committee and I can tell you that the civil division is a significant part of what the attorney general's office does. In fact, if I think it was last year alone, we brought in almost a billion dollars through the civil division to our budget. Do y'all know what that means? That's roads, that's bridges, those are schools. Those are important core functions of government that the civil division of the attorney general's office brings back to the state general fund. And I see that every single year in and out.
We also have to understand that the civil division fights for our rights at the federal government, making sure that we stand between us, the some the AG stands between us, our the citizens and the federal government, who by the way is a big scary thing, right? I mean, there's lots of cases across the state right now waiting to be tried or in the process of litigation. The lock and dam and Aken right now and the attorney general's office is in a huge fight right now with the federal government over the lock and dam and Aken and whether or not Aken's going to have a river, you know, anymore. Whether or not that dam's going to be there anymore and they're going to have water anymore.
Same thing on the North Carolina line with York. Y'all may remember 2015 and 16, the PD was tremendously impacted by the floods coming from the dams up north. Y'all, that's an attorney general case right now. And you have to have an attorney general that knows how to engage at that civil level that knows the attorney that have specialized fields in these levels. And I do because it is an extremely important part of the practice. It is not a minuscule thing.
Like I just heard him say, this is an extremely important practice for the attorney general. You got to have somebody that knows what he is doing.
And that's me. That is what I do today, y'all.
>> David, your chance for rebuttal.
>> I never said it was minuscule in the amount of money that comes in. It's just mostly private lawyers bringing in that large sums of money and they're taking big legal fees out of that. So, that's a million dollars gross that's coming in, not counting what's going to the the lawyers in fees. Billions, >> right? Billions. Exactly. But the bottom line is this. We need more lawyers in house to handle those so we're not paying out the huge legal fees and we can do that. Other states are already doing it. I've talked to people that have worked in and with other AG's offices in other states and we can have a better more robust civil division. So we're not losing all this money in legal fees and we're bringing in more. So again, yeah, we may be bringing winning in judgments and settlements a billion dollars every year, but how much is that going that's going out the door to private law firms? That's a problem.
Hopefully, we can cut down on that amount and only outsource uh with these litigation agreements on the outside when it's completely necessary and it's a highly technical area that we just can't handle in house.
>> Stephen, may I respond to that?
>> Well, I'll let each of you have one other shot at it.
>> Yeah, thank you, Ken. Y'all, when you're talking about a billion dollar civil case, I hate to say it like I I love the attorneys at the the attorney general's office. They do great work for us, but when you're talking about a billion dollar civil action against the federal government, it's hard to to find a government employee that has that specialized field that's not off in private practice making a million bucks a year right now. I mean, you it's it is very difficult to ask a government employee to come, you know, to go from a million-doll legal practice where he sues for billions of dollars on the outside to come work for $150,000 a year at the attorney general's office. Y'all, it's difficult to do. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I just want you to think about the practicality of that. We should use in-house counsel as much as we possibly can to to work on the smaller stuff that, you know, we have the the expertise to do. But when you're talking about suing the federal government for a billion dollars over something like a damn case with the core of engineers, we don't have specialized lawyers to do that. It's just not practical. And yes, we need to work on relationships with outside counsel that have that. And I've got those relationships. I've seen those. I've worked with those lawyers in and out of government for years. And I know how to make that work. Ken, David, you get the last word.
>> Sure. I I there's a guy from Greenwood that went to Yale Law School, ended up going to DC and working for a major government litigation firm in DC. His name Blake, good friend. I had lunch with him not that long ago. He told me, he said, "Rag's office in South Carolina is spending way too much on outside litigation agreements." Because he saw it. He was working with South Carolina and other states on these major uh multi-million dollar litigation cases.
And we don't have one case that's bringing in a billion dollars, folks. Uh one of the biggest ones we've had was probably the the Savannah Riverside case, which was a $600 million, I think, lawsuits. Huge case. Uh but at the end of the day, we need to make sure that we get the best and brightest out of these law schools. and they would jump at the opportunity to come and work in an AG's office where they could work for 10 years, then have their law school loans forgiven, which we can do because of the John Justice Act, a solicitor from South Carolina is the one that started that, and they can work in public service for 10 years, have their loans paid off after 10 years. I've had people in my office that have bailed themselves of this, and that is a huge advantage. And we can get the best and brightest out of these law schools. We're just not doing it right now. And the bottom line is we can use them to pro to to bring these civil actions to work on these cases and not spend millions of dollars on outside litigation agreements and fees. Okay, Stephen. Next question. The South Carolina Supreme Court overturned Alec Murdoch's 2023 murder conviction in May of 2026 due to improper jury influence by the clerk of court, ordering a new trial expected no earlier than 2027. As attorney general, would you direct your office to retry the case, potentially seeking the death penalty, and how would you address concerns about cost to taxpayers?
>> Yeah, I would um absolutely retry the the case. I think it would be improper as potentially the next AG to determine that it should or shouldn't be a death penalty without looking at the internal file, but certainly we would seek the highest penalty possible, you know, as attorney general of South Carolina. Um, and how would I address the the money issue, the taxpayer issue? Well, I I would address it like this. The attorney general's job is to do justice at any cost, whether or not the victims are with us or not. Maybe even especially if the victims are not with us, cuz they can't tell us, they can't speak, they can't tell us what they feel, how they feel about this litigation. So, especially if the victims aren't with us anymore, like they aren't in the Murdoch case, it's incumbent upon the attorney general and the attorney general's office to do justice at any cost. ladies and gentlemen, at any cost because that's a deterrent. Right? If I know he's going to be in jail till he's 85 years old or whatever, you know, the number is, I haven't done the math on his age, but he's going to be in jail a long time, right? But he committed a murder allegedly and, you know, committed a murder. If he's committed a murder, we need to try him for murder because that's the right thing to do.
And by the way, it's not going to cost that much money because this is the second time around. The second time around, the case has already been put together. A case that took months to try the first time should only take a week, you know, couple weeks at most the second time. The case has already been put together. It won't cost that much money and we should absolutely try them again to the full extent of the law.
>> David, the Supreme Court overturned the Murdoch case. Um, as attorney general, would you direct your office to retry the case potentially seeking the the death penalty and how would you address concerns and cost to the taxpayers?
>> Absolutely. I don't want to go into too many details of the case because it's pending and if certainly if I'm elected ag, I'm going to be probably the one trying it. And I don't need a tutorial on how to try a murder case, y'all. I've prosecuted hundreds of homicides over the past 22 years of my career. I don't need a beginner's manual to to learn how to pick a jury on those cases of citizens in South Carolina. And I with all due respect, Stephen, he said it should take a week or two. You know, with the defense motions, they're probably going to file a motion to change venue. We're going to have a jury. It took 3 days to pick the jury the first time before they even uh called the first witness or did opening statements or called the first witness.
And so, I don't think it should take 6 weeks. I think we'll be able to try that case in two to three weeks. But one week is pipe dreams. I mean, it's going to take a few days just to get a jury seated. And I I know this because I've tried murder cases, y'all. I know how hard it is on some of the most simple homicide cases in my circuit. We've gone over a week. Uh we had one tried two of my best prosecutors in Lawrence County just the week before last tried a murder case and it was a fairly simple case, not of probably 15 witnesses. Uh the case went into a second week and they didn't get a verdict until uh well in the weekend. They got a verdict on Saturday evening. and it was sentenced.
And then we've had one before that in Greenwood that went into the second week and it went into Monday and Tuesday. So y'all, those were simple cases. We're going to have cameras from all over the world at the Murdoch case. It's going to take two to three weeks to try. And the bottom line is I I can work I've worked with the guy that was the first chair prosecutor the first time. Kraton Waters and I were co-supervisors of the state grand jury before I ran for circuit solicitor. And uh Kraton is a is a great lawyer. He tried that case with John Meadows. John Meadows, very good friend of mine who I've go way back with John Meadows. He's one of the most experienced trial CA prosecutors in the state. And so I'm excited to work with those guys who are my friends and my colleagues uh to prepare that case for trial again. But it is it's not going to be a snap of the finger and wave of the wand and we get a guilty verdict. I promise that. It's going to be hard bare- knuckled litigation with very good defense attorneys that have a lot of money behind them. And to get good results on cases like that, you need somebody who's been there and done it.
And with all due respect to Stephen, he hasn't tried murder cases in state court. I have. And so, uh, that's, uh, we're ready on day one to get get to work on that case.
>> Stephen, your chance at rebuttal?
>> Yeah, I have tried murder cases. I like the fact that in state court like it matters. I think that means my military service is in some way diminished because I tried murders in the military.
I I don't know exactly what that means, but y'all, I've done this. I I can do this, too. I have literally prosecuted murder cases. I have literally dealt with all crimes of any kind, and it can be done on day one. And yeah, I agree it's not going to be done in a week. And if I said a week, I misspoke. It's probably is more like 2 to 4 weeks. But yes, it's important that it gets done.
It's important that it gets done with justice. And it it quite frankly it's important that the cost of it is not a consideration because it is important for South Carolina to see that its attorney general's office is going to do everything it can to seek justice on behalf of victims of South Carolina.
Since I'm in a room full of Republicans, I won't call it a commercial break. I'll call it a celebration of capitalism.
We're going to take four and a half minutes to to pay some bills. We'll be back in just a couple of minutes.
>> Hey folks, it's Kenard and I've got a little advice for you. Father's Day is coming up and if you want to treat dad right, you need to head over to Butler's Fine Men's clothing and I've been in there myself many times. And let me tell you, these folks know style. Whether it's a sharp suit, a classic polo, or the perfect accessory, Butlers has it all. Don't settle for another tie from the bargain bin. Get dad something that makes him feel like a million bucks.
Stop by Butlers today and make this Father's Day one he won't forget. Tell him Ken Art sent you. Looking for a safe, welcoming place to learn about firearms or sharpen your skills?
>> Hey, Josh.
>> Give me some countdowns when we're in our last minute.
All right, cut cut the second segment just ers and distinctive gifts you won't find just anywhere.
There are stylish cigar cases and accessories here for you, too. Smoker, you're covered. Premium Brier, Mir, and Cherrywood pipes, plus rich aromatic pipe tobacos ready to pack and enjoy.
Cigar South is at I95 South and Highway 52 intersection. and enjoy a warm southern welcome at Cigar South.
We're back live from Florence. South Carolina Decision 2026 continues presented by Butler's Fine Men's Clothing and River's Edge Hunting, Wedding, and Event Venue on Live 95 and the I Corridor Talk Network. We're back at the Stbridge Suites in Florence, South Carolina for the Republican runoff debate for the state's attorney general.
David Stumbo and um Steven Goldfinch are our two contestants, two candidates.
Thank you for the politeness and respect you've shown um this process. Um David, the first question and the second part is for you. most judges through the legislature via the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, which screens candidates before the General Assembly votes. As attorney general, what role should your office play in improving or reforming this process?
Well, we're going to have to be the bully pulpit, unfortunately, because the legislature is the only entity that can change the way we elect judges. And uh they've had an opportunity many times to do that. A number of law enforcement leaders around the state, including myself, have been calling for judicial reform for some time now. That doesn't mean we have all bad judges in South Carolina. In fact, we have some great judges. The chief justice, uh, who Stephen mentioned earlier, John Kitridge, is one of the finest men I know, and he is doing a fantastic job leading our state as the South Carolina Chief Justice. But the before him, the legislature had elected a chief justice that was not a good chief justice. And quite frankly, during the COVID years, we took a wrecking ball to our criminal dockets in this state uh because of the prolonged court shutdowns under my under Chief Justice Kitri's predecessor. And so, we need to have a a way we elect judges that balances the branches of government. Right now, we have a judiciary that is hired that is can be fired or rehired and funded completely by the South Carolina legislature. The executive branch has traditionally had zero input. Now, we passed a a judicial reform bill a couple years ago uh or last year uh that changed a little bit.
It gave the governor uh four appointments on the judicial merit screening commission. Changed the the number that could come out of screening.
But the bottom line, y'all, is those were those were tweaks and band-aids on a gaping wound. Uh the biggest problem the way we have to elect judges, and I've had friends that have run for judge and say it's a horrific process. They've got to run around the state house and beg for votes. And it just is an unseammly way to do it. There's a reason why there's only two states in the country that the legislature elects the judges completely and has that power.
And that's a problem. Some of the oldest cases on my docket in the eth circuit are a state senator's cases who's a criminal defense lawyer. And so the reason is they they're in the session all the time and then when they're not in session they they don't seem to have to come to court that much. We need the governor to appoint y'all the just like we see in Washington DC. Every year every four years we elect a president.
What happens? We have to have a president that elects what conservative judges to the bench in the federal system. And that's an issue there.
There's accountability with your president. We need accountability with the governor in the same way. And the legislature can give an up or down vote after confirmation hearings on one candidate. And the reason that's one candidate is important. The one appointee that the governor has doesn't have to run around the general assembly and beg for votes from senators and house members. They will have hearings and if they're not qualified and the governor appoints a bad judicial candidate, the legislature can give the down vote and say, "Nope, governor, this one's not qualified. You need to send us one that is." And that system works.
It's what y'all are used to seeing every time there's a vacancy on the US Supreme Court. And that system would work in South Carolina. We need to go to that system yesterday. And hopefully we scrap the JMSC. We go to a gubanatorial appointment. I would be in favor of that immediately as soon as we can put it on the ballot. Uh I would be in favor of that and I think that system works. It's one that you the citizens would have confidence in. Stephen, as um as you know, South Carolina selects most judges through the legislature via the judicial merit selection commission. Um as it screens candidates, General Assembly votes. As attorney general, what role should you and your office play in improving or reforming the process?
>> Thank you for the question. I I'm afraid to tell y'all that you're not going to find a lot of sunlight between David and I on this answer. I I'm the same way.
Look, look, 90 99.99% of the judges in South Carolina are great people doing great work for South Carolina. But the 0.1% that aren't tend to taint the entire, you know, it's like a bad apple, right? Tend to taint the entire system. Everybody, it's okay to hate the legislature. Everybody hates their legislature, right? I mean, even I hate the legislature and I've been a part of it. But you to hate the judiciary is a whole another or distrust the judiciary is a whole another problem in and of itself, right? I mean, distrusting the judiciary and the fairness of the judiciary is that's the seed of a revolution. That's a real problem. And so, even if there's the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary, I think it's important that we address it and we fix it. So, from day one, I I totally agree as attorney general, I would certainly start advocating for a system much more like the federal system where the governor makes the appointments and the general assembly. I I would even be okay with the Senate um you know, doing the doing the confirmations. But um knowing the general assembly in the way that I do, both bodies would want to have a say so in that. Uh but yes, I think that's the federal system is the better system.
It's the more recognized system and um I certainly think it would instill a little more confidence into the into the the general citizenry and and into the judiciary as a whole. And I think that's that's the right way to go.
>> David rebuttal. Ju just very briefly, I I didn't touch on this and I I'm I'm thankful Stephen is is in favor of more of a federal model. I think that's what would work in our state. Uh but also we need to to to definitely reform the way and I talked to the governor about this recently and I've talked to others. Uh the way we've appointed magistrates for years just doesn't work y'all. Uh it gives uh way too much authority to a senator to appoint a magistrate. Um and so I think that we need a better system.
We need magistrates. I would love to see us go to a system where the magistrates uh do have to have some legal training.
Uh maybe be lawyers. I know that's that's a little more difficult. You have to pay them more to do that. So, we would have to come up with a uniform system of magistrates to pay the magistrates uh if we're going to make have them have law degrees, period. Uh but right now, it's just that's an antiquated system. The way we appoint magistrates in our state, it gives a way outsized authority to the state senators in their given area to do that. So, I would call for reform in that area as well. Respond real. Sure.
>> Totally agree. Some of my biggest headaches over the years as a senator has been appointing magistrates. And you know, if a magistrate is not doing their job, showing up to court trying to figure out a way to get rid of them in order to move a case docket. I mean th this is the biggest headache that many senators have across South Carolina. And I would love to figure out a way to to de to get rid of the m that's the wrong way of saying that, but to get rid of the magistrates in the Senate in the Senate process. I think that's a great idea and I certainly would advocate to do that as well.
>> David, anything to add?
>> Uh nothing. just that that again it gives just I think way too much power to one person and I think anytime in our system we give too much power to one person to appoint a position as important as a magistrate judge that's a that's a bad way to go so I would call for reform there Stephen question for you medical marijuana and THC products including hemp derived edibles drinks are debated consistently debated in the legislature um where do you stand on legalization for medical use recreational use regulation of existing product and concern concerns like impairing drive or impaired driving standards.
>> A lot lot of lot to unpack there. I wish I had 30 minutes to talk about this rather than three. Um I'm absolutely against recreational use of marijuana. I think you know the if you go to Colorado and you sort of see the degradation of the culture there or California or any of the, you know, 30 states that have gone in that direction. Um it's a bad thing, y'all. All right. Medical marijuana, I think, is a different thing. I think we have to have a discussion on medical marijuana. Um, you know, certainly in a clinical setting, I'm not in favor of these really liberal medical marijuana laws that have passed in many of the states across uh across the nation, but I, you know, I've met with a lot of the kids that ended up with um, you know, that had birth diseases or, you know, they were born with genetic diseases, they were born with epilepsy. I met with a lot of those moms and I couldn't figure out I was totally against medical marijuana and I could not figure out at the end of those meetings after meeting with hundreds of those kids and their moms. I couldn't figure out why we were trying to keep pot out of the hands of a pthead at the expense of a kid that could really use it, you know. And I'm not talking none I'm not talking about smoking marijuana.
I mean, this these are oils that they put on the inside of the the cheek or pill that they take. Um, and it really helps these kids. And so I I really I struggle with that. I know that there is a slippery slope that could happen in moving towards recreational. And I do not want us to ever move towards recreational usage. But I'll tell you this much. The Federal Farm Bill of 2018 essentially legalized marijuana in South Carolina, y'all. I mean, you may not have gone to any of these sketchy gas stations, but THC in the hemp with THC infused in it is legal in South Carolina right now. It's in it's in Publix. It's in Lowe's foods. I mean, it's in every corner gas station right now. I mean, the gummies, the drinks, it's all there.
So, when we're talking about this, I want everybody to realize this might actually just be a moot point because it's already out there and it's already legal. And by the way, I voted to regulate it this year. You know, I mean, there is right now there is no law regulating there is no law regulating that. A kid that's 14 years old, worse.
A kid that's 15 years old with a driver's license can go get a drink at the corner gas station that has seven or eight joints worth of THC in it and drive.
Yo, that's terrible. And we, the general assembly, the general assembly couldn't come to a consensus on regulating that for kids for people that are under the age of 18 because you got some people that want to ban it outright. You got some people that don't want to do anything. You got some people in the middle. And there's not enough consensus.
That is a real problem for South Carolina. It's legal right now for kids.
For kids. So this this whole conversation is really kind of a moot point when it's on every single street corner right now in South Carolina.
>> David, mar medical marijuana, THC products, including hemp derived edibles drinks are debated in the legislature.
Where do you stand on legalization for medical use, recreational use, regulation of existing products, and concerns like impaired driving standards?
>> Well, you know, and Stephen brought up, there was a bill this year, and this was a major initiative, and it's because we have kids now drinking these THC drinks that they're buying in the stores.
There's no regulation. It's a complete train wreck. We're hearing from nurses and medical professionals that are seeing people come into our emergency rooms now that are completely out of their minds, stoned. And we're not talking about your daddy's pot from uh Woodstock. This is stuff that is supercharged uh THC that is causing people to hallucinate. Very dangerous stuff and it's being sold right now in our stores.
And so I I I think the general assembly's failure to address that this year is a problem. It's going to continue to be a problem for another year. And I applaud Stephen for working on the regulation part uh to try to get that done. We got to get that done cuz it is extremely dangerous. But at the end of the day, medical marijuana, y'all, that is a different thing than what we're using for health products already. I know the farm bill in 2018, what it did is allow us to use hemp products like CBD oils that are very good for you. I've had a lot of people in my family take CBD oils. It's very good for their health, for pain, for inflammation, for all sorts of things.
And it's not the kind that gets you high, that doesn't have THC in it. And so the bottom line is yes, that's already legal. But this medical marijuana argument, y'all, I mean, every state that has tried it, it's an absolute disgrace. Cuz what happens is the demographic in Colorado and all these other states that legalize it, they did mar medical marijuana first for it's just a Trojan horse to get recreational use. That's all it is. And at the end of the day, you have males between the age of 18 and 30 are your main demographic getting slips to go get to the dispensaries to get marijuana.
And you think they're the ones that need medical marijuana? Generally not. No, they're going to get high. And so if we're going to have the recreational marijuana debate, let's have it. I mean, I'd rather us go ahead and have that argument. we're wasting time on the the medical marijuana because it's just this one step that they're going to take to, you know, so at the end of the day, we're going to have a recreational debate. Let's go ahead and have it. And uh but one thing I can promise you all, as someone who's a prosecutor in this state, and I've seen the trouble already because of our DUI laws being so difficult, it's harder to try DUI case than a murder because there's so many loopholes in it that the general assembly has put in there into the law.
But right now, until we fix the THC impairment level, think about troopers that are pulling people over on the side of the road. They don't even have an impairment level or THC in their system to tell whether they're impaired to drive. And I'm not going to put our troopers and our officers in a bind by legalizing a product when we can't even tell the level that would make them impaired, too impaired to drive. So, we're putting the cart way before the horse. If we're going to have legalized marijuana that's reg regulated, we better have an impairment level that law enforcement can test when they pull people over on the side of the road.
>> Stephen, you anything >> that I mean that's been done. I I know he doesn't follow the general assembly like I do, but I mean we had DUI reform debate this year and all that's been done. I mean right now right now we passed uh Ken, we passed DUI reform last year in this past general assembly where you know now you can go get a blood test on the side of the road. I mean, 80% of the DUIs right now, 80% of them have some component other than alcohol. Most of the time it is marijuana. It's THC.
And so, it was important for us to fix that and we did. It was fixed. But, you know, I'll also say DUI itself needed to be fixed and it was under the DUI reform bill. I mean, in the past, he's exactly right. I mean, they were extremely difficult to try in the past. In the past, DUI, you had to have somebody on camera every single step of the way. And if they stepped out of the camera view, they threw it had to throw out the entire piece of evidence for, you know, the entire camera as piece of evidence.
We fixed that in the DUI reform bill. So we we are making significant progress on DUI in South Carolina. We're making significant progress on holding people accountable for using marijuana, you know, that that, you know, comes out as a DWAC or a DUI. Uh so we are I mean South Carolina's making progress on that for sure and I'm I'm proud of the progress we've made. I think we need to keep going forward. If I could respond just briefly, my understanding is the DUI reform bill that was passed out and Stephen may be able to tell me otherwise because we have prosecution commission folks that are in there every day. Lisa Catalinado and Megan uh keep keep us very in tune to what's going on. My understanding is the DUI reform bill did pass the Senate. The went over the House. The House butchered it up and put a ton of terrible amendments in it. And so it came back over and it was non-concurred in the Senate because of the horrible amendments in the House.
Rightfully so. I'm glad the Senate didn't concur because it was a terrible bill that came back out of the House. My understanding is it's still in conference committee and it hasn't been passed.
>> My my understanding is that conference was finishing and we're actually uh the general assembly is going back June 25th which I think >> right >> sometime next week Thursday but it has not passed. It has not been signed into law by the governor because and I hope so. I hope you're right about that because it was pretty demoralizing as prosecutors when it didn't get across the finish line. There were some great things in that bill. The House really screwed it up when it went through House Judiciary and the Senate, I think rightfully so, said, "No, we're not we're not concurring with the House amendments cuz they were terrible." Uh, and they had to conference it. So, I hope it gets out of conference committee with the Senate version and goes to the governor's desk for signatures. So, as prosecutors, we can really get after DUI again.
>> Anything to add, Stephen? or we get there.
>> Prosecutors will have to actually prosecute DUIs now, too, by the way, under the DUI reform bill. In the past, it was the trooper or the deputy that had to prosecute those cases. And a lot of times, you know, you got a a slick defense attorney working working against a state trooper. And I mean, state troopers are great. They know what they're doing, but sometimes you got a slick defense attorney working against a state trooper, it just doesn't work out.
Now, many of these cases, they're going to have to be tried by a prosecutor that's got experience litigating these cases. It's a good move forward.
>> Just FYI, in the eighth circuit, even uh when those cases go to trial, all of our state troopers and our local agencies know they can call on us to get a prosecutor to come down and try the case in magistrate's court. So, they do resolve a lot of their cases on the front end and those that don't plead and are going to trial, we send a lawyer down there to prosecute them already.
Some circuits don't do that. And so, um yes, we're going to continue to fight a DUI. I've personally tried numerous DUI cases throughout my career myself.
>> Okay, David, this question is yours.
It's meant to be provocative. It's meant to make the candidates uncomfortable because I believe the most important thing government does is apply justice.
And you guys will be for the most part responsible for South Carolina's application interpretation of what justice is. As attorney general, um there's a there's a bill being bandied about the House that's called the Prenatal Equal Protection Act. It basically classifies abortion as a prenatal homicide from fertilization.
Um, as attorney general, how would you balance enforcement with the existing state exceptions for saving the mother's life? Medical judgment, constitutional challenges. It is a hypothetical, but there is legislation being debated in the general assembly as we speak.
>> Correct. And uh I'll tell you this, the heartbeat bill passing a few years ago was a huge breath of air for the pro-life movement. It ended most of the abortions that we see in clinics. And but what it did is took those out of the clinics and it put them into the homes where we have uh the abortion pill that's completely legal and unregulated in South Carolina. Again, the general assembly has not passed a bill to to ban the abortion pill, y'all. And so most of the abortions in South Carolina, I've heard up to 80% of abortions now in our state and around the country are mail order abortion pills and they're coming in from out of state. And as a prosecutor, I would love to be able to prosecute these out of state abortionist doctors that are sending these dangerous drugs into our state because they're not only killing a life, the baby, they're also harming the girls that are taking them that have no idea what they're doing. And so, you know, Stephen and I both uh returned a survey that answered the questions the exact same way. He sent out a text message from his campaign this week and basically said Stumbo's in favor of prosecuting uh girls that get abortions with with murder and 30 to life. And it's just not true, y'all. I've never advocated for prosecuting a girl in a crisis pregnancy to get an abortion and who has an abortion to be prosecuted with mur a murder charge. never. But yet he put it in an attack ad this week that said I did. It's just not true. It's purely uh made up. So uh that survey we both returned had the same answers. What I would say is this. Whatever the general assembly passes, we will pro we will uh enforce the law. That's our job as prosecutors. We enforce the law that the general assembly passes. And so I've done that my whole career as a prosecutor. We don't get to pick and choose what laws that are passed by the legislature, but we have to enforce the laws. So, look, the bottom line is this, y'all. We had a case in our circuit a year ago where a man took a gun, put it to the belly of his pregnant wife and pulled the trigger, killed her, killed the baby. And guess how many counts of murder we tried him with? We we indicted him for and prosecuted him for two. So, that baby, that unborn baby was going to get justice. And we got guilty verdicts on both of those in my circuit in Lawrence County a year ago. Murder out of Grey Court, South Carolina. And so we if we don't start treating y'all, we're not consistent with the way we treat the life in the womb. We have to treat the life in the womb. But we also and and look, I don't I'm not going to take lectures from anybody cuz my wife and I have worked in crisis pregnancy centers.
We've literally walked side by side with girls in crisis pregnancies. We've given our resources. We've given our time to the pro-life movement for 26 and a half years. And so I'm not going to be told I want to prosecute a bunch of girls that are in crisis pregnancies. is one, it's not true, and two, I've proven by our life's work that we and Vanessa's been on the hotline walking girls through this, going into the birthing room with them. We're not for prosecuting girls that are in crisis pregnancies with murder. Not true.
>> Stephen, you want me to read the question verbatim?
>> No, sir. I I've got it.
>> Y'all, I'm This is one of the things that I am most disappointed about in this race. Um, there is a fringe group called Equal Protection SC. And if you're part of it, I'm sorry, but I I don't like it. Okay? Equal Protection SC advocates that a woman who aborts her child, let's say she's been raped. Okay?
A woman who was raped and aborts that child should get more time than the rapist who raped her.
Okay? I want you to think about that for a second. The woman who was raped and aborts her child gets homicide. life in prison while the rapist gets a whole lot less time like half the time.
Y'all, the way I was explaining that, Bill, you know, standing in a line somewhere at a fairground in Aken was that exactly what David just said. If somebody shoots a woman in the belly, that's two homicides. I totally agree with that and I would absolutely pro prosecute two homicides. But if you're asking me if I would ever prosecute a woman for having an abortion when she needs I mean look I am as pro-life as anybody ever in this room. I've got a 100% pro-life rating from South Carolina Citizens for Life. I've got a 100% pro-life rating from Palmetto Family Council. I have been pro-life my entire life. My wife and I also have worked with abortion with pro-life groups, anti-abortion groups on the coast. I am absolutely pro-life, but I cannot bring myself to ever even think about prosecuting a woman when she needs support. She needs education. She needs to be looked at with compassion and she needs to be convinced, don't ever do this again. She does not need to be convicted of homicide when her rapist gets half the time. That is an abomination for South Carolina to even think about. And that man accepted their endorsement. You know why they endorsed him and didn't endorse me? Because I told him that I wouldn't do that. So, I'm glad to hear that you wouldn't do that. And I'd love for you to just condemn them and say this is a fringe group and I absolutely will not prosecute people that have or have an abortion. If you'll say that, then I'm I'm done.
>> They never asked, nor did we offer, to my knowledge, would you prosecute a woman who had been raped >> uh for murder. I never was asked that question. Here's the questionnaire right here. Here, Stephen Equal Protection South Carolina. So, you can >> Stephen Goldfinch signed it, signed it, and printed his name on April 11th or April 1st, uh, 2026, and you answered these questions in the affirmative. Do you agree that abortion constitutes the unjust killing of a human being and should be treated under South Carolina law in accordance with existing homicide statutes? You answered yes.
>> So, you condemn it as well?
>> Well, you answered yes. Well, I answered yes. What I would do is make sure make sure and it doesn't say anything about rape in this question.
>> Do you condemn them for this stance?
That's a simple question.
>> If you condemn them, why did you even return the uh the questionnaire?
>> Why did they endorse you over me?
>> I I have no idea. You ask them that.
condemn it right now and tell the world you don't agree with prosecuting women who've had an abortion. Do it right now.
>> I will not prosecute a woman with a murder who has had an abortion.
>> What will you prosecute him with? You said a murder. What will you prosecute?
>> Well, I you know what we need to fix and y'all haven't addressed is the abortion pill.
>> Answer the question.
>> What if they have are in possession with an abortion pill that the purpose of the pill is to kill a life? Right now, Stephen, I have cases on my docket where girls take crack and fentinel and they have babies that are damaged and killed.
You know what they're charged with? They should be prosecuted with unlawful conduct of a child. they should be prosecuted.
>> So why wouldn't you pro want to have a law that prosecutes for possessing a pill that the possess the possession of it just like any other drug that's dangerous.
>> So you that's what I'm talking about with criminal penalties.
>> So you do agree >> not murder case.
>> So you you do agree you would prosecute a woman for having an abortion >> not with hom not with murder.
>> But what would you charge them with?
>> What we would charge them with is if they have the bill 80% of these are the pill. If they have abortion pill in their in their system, just like if they had crack, just like if they had fentanyl, just like if they had meth, they would be charged with unlawful conduct towards a child. That's a 10-year f up to zero to 10 years. And you know how we've handled those cases, Stephen? We haven't put them in prison for 10 years. What we do with those girls, cuz I've actually prosecuted these, is we get them help. Most of these women are drug addicts that end up having a baby. Some of them don't even know they're pregnant. And so what we do, if you don't have a penalty, y'all, what is the deterrent? If I don't have any penalty for taking a drug that kills a child, why would they not do it if they wanted to? And so it's the same thing as any other drug. The general assembly's failed to outlaw mifroin and msoprotool, which are the two abortion drugs. They're bad drugs. The purpose is to kill a life. And so I when we talk about the crime, what the the leftist abortionist lobby wants to do is make it look like we want to prosecute women for murder. And that is a smoke screen.
>> That's what that's what you agreed to on that same point.
>> Well, you did too. You checked the yes box.
>> So why did you check the yes if you're not going to prosecute him for homicide?
>> Well, it says existing homicide statutes, right? So why did >> So there's a lot more homicide statutes than murder. You said in the text message that I would prosecute him for something that carries 30 to life.
There's a lot of other homicide statute out there that don't carry 30 to life.
Okay. Manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter carries zero to five years.
>> So, just just for clarity, you would prosecute him under the homicide statutes.
>> Well, you know, involuntary manslaughter, Stephen, and I know this cuz I'm a South Carolina prosecutor, is a homicide statute prosecutor, too.
>> Do you know what it carries?
>> What? Involuntary manslaughter? Yes.
>> Yeah. Two to five.
>> No. Zero to five. It doesn't even carry a minimum.
>> So, at the end of the day, you wouldn't even have to send a woman for prison.
You could prosecute him for involuntary manslaughter for taking a drug negligently to kill the child. So, this is a smoke screen to make it look like I want to prosecute women for murder, y'all. It's not accurate. It's not true.
And it was attack ad that went out on text message this week. The homicide statutes are more than just murder. It's murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter.
>> I totally agree with that. It's it it is a lot more than murder. So the difference it sounds like the difference the daylight between David and I is that David would prosecute a woman who's had an abortion under the current homicide statutes. I would not I mean that's that's the daylight between us and I think that's fair way to say that >> I think it is fair you know and ultimately we have cases right now on our docket where we have women that took drugs and had a baby that was either dead or damaged and it carries 0 to 10 years. That's a unlawful neglect or abuse of a child. It's the same offense for child abuse. So, we already do that in South Carolina and a lot. But what we need is to make sure that pill, y'all, is illegal because if we don't make that pill illegal, we're going to keep seeing girls order them on the mail in the in the mail from out of state abortionist take them here and and not only kill the baby, but maybe them bleeding out on a bathroom floor because they're not under medical care. I, as a prosecutor, would love to go after abortionists out of state that are sending that pill into South Carolina. Right now, because the legislature hadn't passed a bill making it illegal or scheduling the drug, I can't. And I that kills me that I can't prosecute people that are selling, distributing, and possessing a deadly drug.
Look, as far as far as far as the the pill goes, I voted for it this seemed this very year I voted in caucus and I I pled to change the rules for me to vote against uh the rule change so that we could get to a vote to outlaw the pills the pill by abortion mail and pill by abortion. I totally agree with that. We ought to outlaw it. But to say that you're going to prosecute a woman under the homicide statute for having an abortion, it y'all I think that's wrong. I think there is a better way to do that. I think that takes us backwards in our pro-life movement in South Carolina.
We've got a fantastic pro one of the strictest in the nation at six weeks.
And I worked hard, very hard to get to six weeks, saving thousands of babies every single year. And to stand up here and say, "I'm going to prosecute a woman under the homicide statutes of South Carolina for having an abortion." I think it takes us backwards. It sounds real good. It's a great sound bite, but I think it takes us backwards in our pro-life movement. I think it's dangerous.
>> Is that everybody good with that?
Another um another celebration of capitalism. We'll be back in a few.
The UPS store in Florence can help you stand out. We offer 26 continues presented by Butler's Fine Men's Clothing and River's Edge Hunting Wedding and Event Venue on Live 95 and the I Corridor Talk. We are back at the Stbridge Suites in Florence, South Carolina, hosting a Republican runoff debate for attorney general of the state of South Carolina. Steven Goldfinch and David Stumbbo are the last two standing um runoff on Tuesday um statewide.
Stephen, this question is yours in our third segment. As South Carolina's attorney general, you serve as the state's chief legal officer with the authority to challenge federal actions in court. Under what circumstances would you initiate or join lawsuits against the federal government to defend state laws and sovereignty?
>> Thank you, Ken. This is um this is my field of focus, y'all. Uh I sue the federal government for a living. I do what's called administrative and regulatory law just in my private capacity. I put $17 billion back into South Carolina's economy. Billion with a B back into South Carolina's economy, fighting rules and regulations and policies that have been pushed down from the federal government. And I can give you a couple of examples of those. The red snapper debacle. I know y'all don't have a lot of red snappers swimming in your rivers in Florence, but the red snapper debacle. The red snapper fishery off of South Carolina is a 7 billion dollar industry. 7 billion dollar industry. All the commercial fishing, the recreational fishing. Think about the ice and the fuel and everything that goes into that. That started under the Obama administration 15 years ago. We proved my me and my private capacity. We proved that the Obama administration was off by 50% on their data, which they admitted to 50%, which you know, if the federal government tells you they're off by 50, they're more more likely to be off by 90, right? We proved that they were off by at least 50%. This year, we got a red snapper fishery off of South Carolina. That's a 7 billion economic impact. Now, again, they've appealed it, but we're going to win this appeal in court. But that's a $7 billion economic impact. The Biden administration just two years ago pushed down a rule from some cubicle in Bethesda, Maryland. They pushed down a rule that would have cost us 10 billion dollars off of South Carolina. They tried to do a whale speed limit. A whale speed limit, y'all. We haven't hit a whale off of South Carolina since the 80s. I think it was ' 89. And Joe Biden said no boat, no boat may go more than 10 miles an hour from 0 to 100 miles off the coast of South Carolina. That's freigherss, tugboats, commercial traffic, recreational traffic. A10 billion dollar economic impact to South Carolina. We fought that and we won it. Y'all, if I can do this in my private capacity, can you imagine what I can do as the state's attorney general with a the full weight of the state behind me. This is exactly where I shine, Ken. This is what I can do. We'll both prosecute cases. David's a nice guy and he's a good prosecutor. No problem with that. I was, too. I could prosecute a case, too. But where we really need help in this state and where qualifications matter and judgment matters, that's also in the civil and the administrative division. And I'm afraid we've only got one candidate in this race that's got that experience.
Thank you, David. Same question. As South Carolina's Attorney General, you serve as the state's legal chief legal officer with the authority to challenge federal actions in court. Under what circumstances would you initiate or join lawsuits against the federal government to defend state law and sovereignty?
Okay, just briefly to to respond real quick on the the you know, we'll both we'll both prosecute and have prosecuted. I mean, the problem is nobody can really fact check and I'm not questioning his military service. I'm thankful and I've told Stephen this. I'm thankful that he served our country in the military and done some jag work, but uh there's no way to tell. I mean, every case I've ever prosecuted in state court in South Carolina, every single one is on public record. You can go to the courouses and every place where I prosecuted and pull the records on those cases and the worst of the worst. I don't know because military records to my knowledge, none of y'all can go pull those records or or view them. And so I don't know if he has prosecuted a murder case or other serious violent crimes cases. I'd love to hear about them and that's fine. I but I have no way to fact check uh whether he's done it or not.
But as term in terms of federal actions, and I think this is very important here, the environmental regulations that Stephen talked about that are just ridiculous on the whale case uh on red snapper. Look, we need to we do not need business killing federal regulations. We need to go to court. We need to fight them. Just a few years ago, the Biden administration did try to do mass loan forgiveness. I'm not talking about loan forgiveness like in my prosecutors and public defenders that give 10 years of service to the people and then they have their loans forgiven. We're just talking about Biden was trying to forgive everybody's loans, which are again business killers. And that's something that our AG's office fought. I would stand on the line and do the same thing that AG Wilson's office did in fighting that federal overreach during CO. Y'all, we better be ready if there's another pandemic out there that we don't let what happened in 2020 and 2021 happen again. That was a problem. Businesses closed. Kids missed years of school. It was an absolute disgrace what happened during CO. Thankfully, in South Carolina, we came out of that a little bit quicker than these left-wing radical states did. But we need to fight every single day if we have another pandemic to not have our citizens affected by it, not be forcing things like the vaccines, the COVID vaccine or our military guys were having to leave the military. Can you imagine how many good soldiers we lost over that? We need to make sure businesses aren't shut down with with ridiculous uh pandemic regulations. So, we have to have an AG that's ready to fight on those issues. And I'm ready to do that because I've fought in courtrooms my entire career. And you know the DJ DOJ when you have a liberal Democrat in the White House is going to come and try to attack our election integrity laws. Our voter ID law was challenged in South Carolina in 2011 when we passed it. And thankfully we fought that. The AG's office fought it all the way to the DC Court of Appeals.
It was upheld. And we have uh election integrity a lot we have a lot better election integrity in South Carolina than we have in so many states of the country. get the save acts passed. We're going to have to go to court as the AGs to work with the other state AGs to make sure that that's upheld. And President Trump has said, "Don't give me another bill till you send me the Save Act." And we need that nationwide. So, uh, those are just several examples of ways we would fight back against the federal government. Stephen Rebuttal, anything to add?
>> No, nothing to add.
>> Okay. Uh, David, this is your question.
Um, during the Obama administration, there were policy initiatives such as the Fair Sentencing Act. There were clemency initiatives. Um I think commuted somewhere around 1,700 sentences. Uh it basically emphasized leniency for certain non-violent drug offenders and it was to address over incarceration. As South Carolina attorney general, what is your view on these? How do how do you and and and painted with a broad brush view some of these initiatives?
>> Well, in 2010, Ken is a great question.
uh our state passed sentencing reform which you know the the pretext of the sentencing reform in 2010 was where our prisons are overcrowded and today most people don't realize this they think our prisons are still overcrowded. Our prison population today after 16 years of the this is about half of what it was before sentencing reform was passed. And so the problem we have right now is the the the legislators consistently, particularly criminal defense lawyers in the legislature are trying to undercut sentencing. They're trying to undercut mandatory minimums for a lot of our crimes. And we've had to fight that battle. I've had to go to Colombia more times than I can count with other solicitors to fight against the new round of sentencing reform that was proposed in 2018. I wrote an op-ed uh against it and said this is a bad idea for South Carolina because it's going to put more criminals back on the street to be a danger to your families. And so we have to make sure in South Carolina that we for appropriate offenses, violent crimes, have people going to prison for a long time. Period. Violent crimes, crimes against children. We need to make sure that those people don't see the light of day again and go to prison. uh particularly in our homicide cases, particularly in our child abuse cases that they go away for many years. And so uh as your attorney general, y'all, I've been on the front lines doing this for 22 years. I know what it takes to keep our community safe. We turned around our circuit in the 8th circuit. When I took over, I had two sheriffs and a police chief ask me to run. The reason is that my predecessor and his administration, they were dropping the ball. They weren't trying a lot of cases. They were letting a lot of these guys go out the door. We have we we've changed the culture in our circuit, period. And so, uh, I'm proud of that, what we've done over the last 14 years. I want to take what we've been doing in our circuit and restoring the morale of our law enforcement agencies and take that to the state level because Stephen's right.
There are areas of South Carolina with these four and fiveyear backlogs in certain circuits that we have to fix.
And I'm the one that has the experience to fix it. Stephen, >> leniency.
I have a hard time with that word because, you know, I know I've been reached out to by many, many, many people on the campaign trail about leniency in the A circuit in David's circuit. And I could give you a list of them. Zayn Sper killed in 2018 by a woman texting and driving, nonprosecuted. Not since 2018 that family hadn't seen justice. It's his case. Benny Ray Brown killed a woman and a cop. The case was just too hard. Took the death penalty off the table. His case. William Ryan Looper raped and murdered a toddler in his district.
A toddler.
It was too hard to pursue the death penalty. Kaden Moses, 14year-old boy, shot in the head by somebody. 14year-old boy. It was too hard. Refused to prosecute it.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is this is yes, this is qualifications are important and I have made the case. I have the qualifications to do this job, but judgment is important for the attorney general's office. Judgment is extremely important.
You can't have a member of the local solicitor's boys club objectively looking out for his buddies that are also members of the local solisters boys club. I think that's asking that's the fox guarding the hen house. That's asking for trouble.
If you want somebody that's an outsider, somebody that is not a part of that local solicitor's boys club that is going to hold the local solicitors accountable for not prosecuting cases because they're too hard. Maybe they got a little hair on them. Maybe they're a little difficult. Then you're looking at me. I'm that guy. I can do that. You can all all you have to do is look at my record and know I don't mind hard. I don't mind difficult. I don't mind challenging the system. I don't mind challenging Republicans. I don't mind challenging Democrats. That's why we're standing up a public corruption unit in South Carolina. That's been in my platform since day one.
I don't mind tackling the Republicans, the Democrats, the solicitors, the judges, anybody in the system that's not doing their job. I don't mind tackling it. And I'm not a member of the club.
So, I don't owe them anything. And I think that's important for South Carolina citizens to ask themselves when they go to the polls whether or not you want a member of the boys club or whether or not you want an outsider that's willing to tackle it.
>> David, I got a lot to say about this, Ken. First of all, the last case he mentioned, I'm not even going to mention the name because I can't under state law. And this is what a political cheap shot looks like when you try to attack somebody that involves two juveniles, two 14y olds, one that's killed, one that survives. And the bottom line is I can't say any more about that case to defend the decision we made on it. But the bottom line is this. When law enforcement doesn't want somebody charged because they don't have the evidence, you know how hard it is just in a hypothetical situation here. We're going to talk about hypotheticals. When sled comes to you or a local law enforcement investigator says, "This case we we don't have the evidence to to prove it." Who do you think I have to put on the witness stand to prove the case? The law enforcement officer. Ed Clemens knows that. Solicer Clemens, your solicitors in this room. How many cases has he tried? Hundreds. Thousands over the years. he knows to prove a case, you have to have the law enforcement officer. And how what do you think that's going to happen when the jury looks at the law enforcement officer and they say they don't think they have enough evidence. Okay, so that happens often in court. And in fact, the Zay I can talk about Zayn Spager because I remember that case. I met with that family for hours and explained the law to them with the highway patrol. Guess who else in that case didn't think they had the evidence to prove it? the South Carolina Highway Patrol troopers that investigated the case. So y'all, I spent time and I walked and I don't want to get lectures from someone who's never had to walk with crime victims through these horrific situations. And I did in that case. Let's talk about Benny Ray Brown. You know what happened in that case? I did try that case. That was a trial. It was a trial that ended in two life without parole sentences for Benny Brown. We did not take death penalty off the case table as he's trying to convince you we did. That's not the facts of the case. The judge after a one-week hearing on uh Atkins v.
Virginia, which is basically a Supreme US Supreme Court said you can't execute mentally people or intellectually disabled is the other term for it. It's the modern term for mental retardation. That's the case from 2003. We had a week-long hearing. I had the expert from the state find that he was intellectually disabled. Horrible.
And I had to go hire my own experts. We fought our tails off on that case to keep death penalty on the table and a judge that was elected by the general assembly took the death penalty off the table for us. And so what we had to do was try the case as a death a regular murder case. Benny Ray Brown was convicted of two counts of murder. He was sentenced by that same judge and I'll give him credit to two consecutive life without parole sentences. and Benny Ray Brown died three years later in the South Carolina Department of Corrections in a dark corner of a maximum security prison. You tell me how that's light on crime. And the judge took death off the table. And guess what? Even if he hadn't, Benny Ray Brown died three years later of a heart attack. He never would have seen the death chamber because of the ridiculously long appeals. And so at the end of the day, y'all painting Benny Ray Brown and that and I litigated that case. I walk through. Stacy Rice is the wife, the widow of Roger Rice Jr. who was killed by Benny Ray Brown. She is still very good friends with me today.
We talk on Facebook. She is remarried.
Her kids are grown. I walked through that sentencing with the kids, that whole trial. So again, walking through these things with these family members is important. And we have to be honest about these cases. I never took death penalty off the table. A judge did. and Benny Ray Brown died a lonely death in the maximum security prison in our state just a few years later. And you tell me how that's a light approach on crime.
I'm I'd love to hear it. William Looper, I've got a whole thing right now if you want to go to my Facebook page and see the explanation from one of our current solicitors in South Carolina is Micah Black. He worked in my office. He was just elected two years ago to Anderson and Okone as the 10th Circuit solicitor.
Micah was in my office when that case was worked. And Micah can give you the whole playbyplay as to we did seek the death penalty on William Looper. We ended up being able to not only send him to prison for life without parole where he sits today. He'll come out of prison in a pond box and he agreed to testify against his own abusive father who I never would have been able to send to prison for 15 years without his agreement to testify. So again, I I would all day long tell you that that family 100% approved. The family of the 2-year-old that was killed in that case approved of what we did in that case.
Law enforcement approved of what we did in that case. Everyone did. And so to to paint these as some kind of light on crime approach, y'all, is just being it's just dishonest. You want to add anything? I tell you what's not dishonest are the families that have reached out to us and said they're disappointed in the light on crime approach that Sister Stumbo has invoked in his district. I mean the look, he's great at defending his record. I I have no doubt about that. He's a great attorney. Um and the truth of the matter is you got a lot of families in that part of the world that are upset with Sister Stumbo. And you know, if we want to do that statewide, um, y'all, this is about qualifications, but it's also about judgment. It's all I have to say. Deb, do you get last word?
>> Go ask the Hines family what they think about my approach to justice. Go ask Emily Joy, who I prosecuted, the man who strangled her daughter to death with a USB cord. I prosecuted him. I sent him to prison for life. Ask her what I what I do with violent criminals in the eighth circuit. So, I don't know what these cases he's talking about. I'd be glad to address any one of them. Look, if if you don't have some people complaining about your record as a prosecutor, you're probably not doing your job because at the end of the day, we have to make tough calls. We have to make tough calls all the time. Not on cases that are borderline. I try those all the time. If they're 50/50 cases, I can't tell you how many of those I've tried. But at the end of the day, if you don't have the evidence to prosecute a case of a crime and you try to as a prosecutor, guess what that's called?
That's misconduct. That means I could get disbarred if I took a case into court that I did not have evidence to present to a jury that's sufficient to to prosecute the case. That's misconduct. And so sometimes I have to tell grieving families, we don't have the evidence. Literally not. It's a close case. It's if I prosecute this case because of the evidence, lack of evidence, I could I could be brought up on a disciplinary offense to ODC because I don't have the evidence. That's unethical for us to do that to prosecute cases without evidence. And so those are tough decisions that we have to make y'all every day as prosecutors. And I've made them one one more thing, Ken.
>> Sure. May I?
>> Let's just say he's right about all of that. Okay, we'll just accept that as fact for right now. Let's just say he's right about all of that. Does South Carolina want a solicitor, a local solicitor in the club overseeing the other solicitors who are making these judgment calls?
Do we want an AG that has been a solicister in the boys club overseeing the other solicitors who are making these judgment calls, his friends, or do we want somebody that's objective outsider that can go in and look and say, "You're right. You made the right call." Or, "I'm sorry, you've made the wrong call." I think that's an important question for South Carolinians to ask themselves. I am not an insider. I am not a sitting local solicitor. I've got the qualifications to do this job and I've explained that to all of you, but I'm an outsider willing to stand up to the system and to tell the system you're wrong. You're wrong and you got to have somebody that can objectively do that at the state level.
>> Dave, you get the last word. I want to make sure we're fair here.
>> I mean, at the end of the day, I just would like I would like to ask that question of, you know, I if I mean, without violating any confidentiality of a case or client of uh, you know, confidentiality of a state's case or or military case. What murder case have you prosecuted, Stephen? I mean, I'd like to know the name of it at least if you have done a homicide or murder case in military court.
>> I I can give I can I've actually done one in civil court in in civilian court, too. I'm happy to give those to you afterwards.
>> Okay. You prosecuted them or defended them?
>> No, I've defended one and I've prosecuted them. I've done both.
>> You've prosecuted a a homic a murder case or homicide case in state court in South Carolina?
>> No, no, no. Absolutely not. I've never been a local solicitor, you know, and you know the answer to that. And you keep saying in state court in South Carolina, you know the answer to that, David. I've been a military prosecutor.
I prosecuted national security cases for a combatant command called Ariccom. You know the answer to that question. No, I've never been a local solicitor. No.
>> Well, I mean the question though is when military court, how many times have our soldiers in our United States military committed a murder? I mean, I've heard you prosecute the worst of the worst. I hope that our our soldiers in our our military, y'all are not the worst of the worst. I mean, I know they get in trouble sometimes and they have to be prosecuted for a number of things in the military, but it's typically not what we're talking about with murderers, drug traffickers, uh you know, horrible, horrible people of society.
>> Actually, there there is some of that and you have to protect them from the men and women that are also predators in the military. But um I'm afraid you don't have a lot of knowledge in this arena, but what you're saying is just like that's only 10% of what a national security lawyer does. We're talking about terrorism cases. We're talking about military justice cases. So yeah, I mean the answer to your question is yes, but um yeah, you're off base. I'm >> and well, I hope you have prosecuted terrorists. I mean I hope you know that that's great. I'd love to hear about those cases. Maybe we can talk about that offline later cuz we need to prosecute the people that are harming our our national security threats. I'd love to hear about those.
>> Okay, Stephen, the next question is for you.
>> Sure.
>> Um, >> I've talked to judges and law enforcement agents, and you guys have have kind of thrown it out there that they're very good solicitors, they're very good magistrates, and then they're underperforming solicitors and underperforming magistrates. Stephen, um, what can you legally do to improve that situation and what are you willing to do to improve some of those deficits within our state judicial system?
>> Well, let's let's talk about solicitors for a minute. And, you know, I've been harping on this, I feel like, from the beginning, so I hope I'm not beating a dead horse, but the attorney general's job is to oversee prosecutors. And you know, if you have a sitting prosecutor, uh, you know, again, a member of the local prosecutor's club that is the attorney general, I think there's there's an object objectivity problem.
There's clearly an objectivity problem.
I've got law enforcement support from all over the state. In fact, you know, the sheriff of this county, TJ Joy, is supporting me. We picked up JCON in Lexington today, and we've got dozen other sheriffs across the state that are supporting me because they know I'm tough on crime. My conservative Republican record shows that. In fact, I am the only person in this race that actually has a conservative Republican record. You know, I've heard my opponent say many times, he's the conservative Republican prosecutor. I'm the only person in this race that you can objectively say has a conservative Republican prosecution record. That's me. That's me. So, you know, to answer your question, the AG has a responsibility of o overseeing prosecutors when they're not doing their jobs to step in. Like, for instance, in the violent crime uh in the violent crime problem that we have in South Carolina with the four to five year backlog, it's the attorney general's job and the violent crime reduction task force job to step in and to do justice when local solicitors aren't doing them.
And like you said, Ken, a lot of solicitors are doing a great job, but some are not. Some are not. And we have to be able to objectively step in and say you're not doing your job. We're installing a deputy attorney general to do that job for you when you are not able to do it yourself. And by the way, the attorney general has a bully pulpit, too, to stand up, especially in a dis in a district or a circuit, a judicial circuit where a solicitor is not doing their job and say, "Ladies and gentlemen, in this circuit, your solicitor is not doing your job. They're not doing their job. They're not serving victims." That's an important thing that you have to count on your attorney general to be able to do and I think it'd be very difficult for a member of the local solicitor club to do that.
>> David, I'll repeat the question if you need.
>> It's fine. I think I I get it, Ken. Um, you know, we have two circuits in the state where the violent crimes reduction task force at the AG's office has gone into and worked. And that's the fourth circuit, which is close to here, and the third circuit. And they've come in and provided resource attorneys to prosecute very violent crimes. In fact, I talked to Angie Tanner, who's one of those lawyers recently. She just got done prosecuting a case that was a death penalty case, and the guy ended up pleading again a life without parole out of the AG's office. That was Angie's, her husband is PJ Tanner, the sheriff of uh Bufort who's endorsing me in this race. But Angie's one of those lawyers.
I've talked to Heather Weiss who's running that unit. She's a very good friend of mine. Heather is doing a great job using those attorneys in places where they are needed. and they are needed in the fourth circuit. And and Solister Burch, by the way, was just elected in 2024. He inherited a a docket that was really out of control. Solicer Burch has added staff and he's doing a great job on his own right, but he still needs help because his resources, he's the only solicister in the state that gets less funding than I do in the Fourth Circuit. But I'll tell you this, even though I'm the second lowest funded in the state, we get more with less done in the ETH circuit. We have for 14 years. I'm the second lowest funded solicister in South Carolina by the county numbers and I got them right here and we handle and for example Stephen brought up his home circuit the 15th circuit and they do a great job there but in the 15th circuit he gets five times the funding I do five times they have three to four times the number of lawyers and then all the support staff to go along with it to handle about 25% more cases. So let me let me break that down for you. It's not five times the number of cases in Ore and Georgetown counties. It's about two thou I prosecute on average the last 5 years about 8,500 cases with my 16 lawyers in the ETH circuit, including myself. And Solicer Richardson does a great job with this document, but they prosecute about 10,500.
So, a little bit more than we do with five times the funding. So, I want you to think about how efficient we've been in the ETH circuit. I don't need the violent crimes reduction task force in my circuit because we're getting the job done. But certain circuits need it, y'all. I think they need it down in the first circuit right now. They need it in some some other circuits that just need manpower because they don't get the county funding they need. And as attorney general, I know the needs that they have because I've been there. I've seen it. I've seen what they need. I've seen how we can help them and be a resource. I don't plan to be an AG that's in Colombia fighting political battles all the time. I plan to be around the state meeting with our sheriffs, meeting with our solicitors, meeting with our police chiefs, meeting with our troopers, meeting with our sled agents. What do y'all need? What do you need me to do as your AG to help you do your job better and keep our families safe? And that's the kind of AG I plan to be and do it from experience. I do have 22 sheriffs endorsing me now. Uh we picked up two this week, including Cambo Streeter over here in Chesterfield and Steve Mueller in Cherokee. Uh neighboring uh sheriff right here in Darlington, Michael August, has endorsed me for months. Uh we have sheriffs from Bufort to the PD to the a ton of the upstate sheriff supporting me in this race and it's because of the experience I have prosecuting crime. Stephen, you want to need a rebuttal?
>> No, sir. I'm good.
>> Okay, last question and then we'll take a break and come back and give our closing statements. Um I think this is um I think this is David, your your question first. Um illegal immigration enforcement has been a campaign focus.
What specific actions would you take as AG to support stricter border related prosecutions cooperating or not with the federal authorities? Right. We have SLED agents in our state right now in their immigration unit at SLED and I work very closely with them. In fact, Whit McMahon's one of their agents. We work very closely with him and his guys just recently on a case in my circuit out of Abyville County. It was a state grand jury case. I can't talk a lot about it because it's pending prosecution right now and I'm part of the prosecution team with the AG's office working that case.
But it was it it involves basically businesses y'all that are stealing identities and giving them to illegal immigrants. And that's a problem.
Stealing citizens identities and allow so they can they can fund their uh basically have employees in their their uh in their uh uh businesses. So, we need to make sure not only are we a are we cooperating with ICE and Homeland Security, which we did in that case.
They were a big part of that investigation. It took two years of a lot of hard work with the Abyville Sheriff's Office, with SLED, which with the federal authorities. So, I have experience working with these multiple agencies, building big investigations that get the job done. But in and we need to stand with our federal partners to make sure immigration laws are enforced. What happened in Minnesota, y'all, was a disgrace. Basically, you had state officials up there standing in the way of federal uh agents that were trying to do their jobs. And because they stood down, there were violent confrontations between ICE agents and those protesters. And so, we need to make sure that we keep uh the ICE agents when they come here to do their jobs, stay out of their way, give them the assistance they need, partner with them so they can do their jobs here in South Carolina.
>> Stephen, same question.
Uh, I helped start the illegal immigration task force for the attorney general's office. I helped fund that for the attorney general's office. Um, y'all, we we've got a real big problem with illegal immigration, but it it's deeper than that, right? Like, we have a problem with cartels in South Carolina right now. And you may not be aware, but cartels are more in the business of human trafficking now than they are actually drug trafficking, narcotics trafficking. So when they bring people across the border, you know, unfortunately it's the little girls that get prostituted out or human trafficked and it's the little boys that go to the corner and sell narcotics. This is a humanity problem. So right now the legal immigration task force is doing great work. I'm proud to have participated in that. But we need a cartel task force and we need to double down on that problem as well because that's the root of the problem, right? I mean legal immigration in of itself is a problem.
We got asked this question weeks ago and um you know everybody expected we're going to track down you know the answers were going to track down violent illegal immigrants. Well look it's the job of the attorney general to enforce the law.
Illegal immigration is illegal. It's illegal. It is a crime ladies and gentlemen. So as the attorney general it's incumbent upon us to enforce the law whatever case is presented to us. Yes, the state grand jury has certain jurisdictions, but ultimately at the end of the day, it's the attorney general's job to enforce the law. And until Congress decides to do something different, or you know, the general assembly, but specifically Congress decides to do something different and fix our illegal immigration problem, it's the attorney general's job to hold illegal immigration to account. And I'll do that as the next attorney general.
>> David, your chanc I agree with uh really what all Stephen said there. We need to fight hard to to go after the cartels.
And and again, I' I've done that. We've prosecuted the drug cartels in that are bringing drugs into the eighth circuit.
We have had cases where we had drugs and fentinel coming directly out of Mexico and we sent these guys uh that were bringing it into our circuit to prison for for long-term prison sentences. And we attacked the fentanel problem just a few years ago. We had pills that were going for $2 a pill, these little blue pills that they press fentinel into locally. Uh we knew it was a problem.
They used Greenwood cuz it was kind of off the beaten path. And we started attacking it with a DEA agent, with SLED partners, with our locals. And that same fentanyl pill now is five times what it was. Uh and my narcotics guys, in my office, the prosecutors, we had guys, these investigators working out of our office in the solicitor's office and we formed a task force to attack the problem. We started a human trafficking task force in the eth circuit to partner with the AG's office and Stephen mentioned that and that's a great had to have a statewide human trafficking task force that we're working with. I'm ready to enhance that unit to even a a greater level. Uh we're just scratching the surface right now y'all on human trafficking. Uh there are there are victims that are being trafficked every day in our state and we're we've barely pulled the lid back because it's so hard to detect and they don't come forward and report. So we have to raise awareness. We have to get after the the traffickers when we find them, wherever we find them, and send them to prison for many years and get those survivors uh those victims out to survivorship into places like Doors to Freedom in the Low Country that's doing phenomenal work. I spoke with their leaders not that long ago. So, we we have to get after the human trafficking problem in South Carolina, and I'm ready to do that as your AG.
>> We'll take our last break. We'll be back with closing remarks in just a few moments.
Father's Day. Give dad the gift.
sponsors. Monra Roofing, Piglu, Wiggly of Darlington and Hartsville, Slowpoke Pay and Tackle, Twin States Chevrolet, Galloway Autoglass, Carquest of Sumpter, RNW Golf Carts, and National Hardware.
>> The Braves Grand family getaway starts now.
>> We're back live from Florence. South Carolina Decision 2026 continues presented by Butler's Fine Men's Clothing and River's Edge Hunting, Wedding, and Event Venue on Live 95 and the Eye Corridor Talk Network. We are at the State Bridge Suite in Florence, South Carolina, about an hour and 45 or so minutes into a debate for the attorney general's runoff race uh in the Republican primary, state of South Carolina. I want to congratulate and thank the audience. I don't know how well behaved the radio and and I think we got some media I mean some my video coverage here. I don't know how well they behaved, but you folks have really acquitted yourselves admirably. So, thank you um for for the good behavior there. I thank the two candidates and and I mean this sincerely um having once upon a time run for statewide, it ain't for the weak of heart and and I and I mean that sincerely. It takes a lot of courage to put your name on a ballot and let people judge accordingly. So, I congratulate both of these guys and appreciate the bannering and the discussion. It's been very frank and blunt at times, but I think it's been respectful one of another. Um, kind of reminds me of the old Jefferson Hamilton debate uh back back in the day. Um, I I'll regress. I'll I'll host a radio show and I know sometimes I get rolling and don't know don't know when to stop.
Uh, the the closing remarks uh I think uh David went first in the opening remarks. So, Stephen Goldfinch will um will basically um plead his case as to why he believes he's the best candidate to be attorney general of South Carolina. Stephen, >> uh thank you, Ken, and thank you to the Florence County Republican Party for putting this on. I'm honored to be here and to and to try to earn your vote, and that's what I want to do is earn your vote. Um I'd like to thank David and Vanessa for their service, too. And I think David's convinced me that he's a great local solicitor and I hope that he stays there and continues to do great work for the ETH circuit. Um, but I I I'd like to just tell you a quick story if I could about me and why I want to run and be the next attorney general.
So, a few years ago, I was deployed to a combat zone in North Africa. I was serving as the chief of military justice and then did some national security law for him there. And while I was there, I was injured. I fell in a bunker. Thank God it wasn't a combat injury or anything like that. I fell in a bunker.
Y'all may remember Yemen was the Houthies in Yemen were firing rockets across the Red Sea. And so we were familiar with bunkers and I was in and out of bunkers all the time. I fell in this bunker and I hyperextended my shoulder and I tore my pectoral and my rotator and my labum right off of my shoulder. Kind of a nasty injury, but not a an emergent injury. I wasn't bleeding out or anything. So, uh, they called a medevac for me and put me on this airfield. And while I was waiting on this airfield, you know, they told me that the medevac would be there any minute. And I waited for seven days.
Seven days for the medevac. And I had a lot of time to sit around and think about what makes South Carolina great. A lot of time, seven days. And when the C7 finally started circling, I said, "Thank God for the Air Force." C7 started circling and it landed and two pilots and a nurse got out. And I got to talking to the pilot and the pilot told me he was from Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. I was in North Africa between, you know, the best place to if you can imagine the Horn of Africa between Djibouti and Moadishu out in the middle of nowhere. Not a great place to vacation.
He was from Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. And the last thing that I remember about North Africa before I got medevaced out was the tail fin on the back of that plane had a Palmeta flag painted on it. They had flown from Joint Base Charleston to pick me up.
Y'all, this place is an amazing place to live and work and raise a family because of our faith and our family and our culture and our values. South Carolina is an amazing place and I owe it a tremendous debt of gratitude and my debt's not paid yet. My service is not done. Yes, I've served I've served in the House. I've served in the Senate.
I've served in the military. I've served in my private capacity, but my service is not done. I want to continue to serve the people of South Carolina, and I want to continue to serve the people of South Carolina as your next attorney general.
and I would be honored to have your vote and your support June 23rd. Thank you, >> David.
>> Thank you. And as I said before, I I am so thankful for Steven's service to our country. Thank you, Stephen, for that.
And as he talked about too, we've gotten Vanessa and I have been able to get to know Stephen and Renee on the campaign trail. I'm very cool to see the way they raising their children and uh as good parents. So, thank you for just being good citizens and uh parents and uh it's been a pleasure to get to know them along the campaign trail. Um, ultimately, you know, what I believe is important right here is leadership, y'all. And I've led, and I'm going to talk about this just as a distinction. I have led from a position where I have had to lead an executive agency in this state, and that's the 8 circuit solicitor's office. Um, the job of attorney general is a leadership position. And we need a good good leader in governor. We need a good leader in attorney general, and people that have led large agencies before. And the attorney general's office is larger than the eighth circuit solicitor, but it is a prosecution agency that does civil work, that does government litigation, but at the end of the day, you need leadership to lead. And I have had that experience over the last 14 years.
That's not to diminish Steven's been in the the Senate. He's cast a lot of good votes for the people of South Carolina and conservatives. Uh but but again, I I think leading an executive agency is the experience I have. I don't have leg the the legislative part. Despite that, we do have 30 members of the general assembly or just under 30 members of the general assembly that have endorsed my candidacy in this race. So, I know how to work with the legislature to get legislation passed. Uh, and I look forward I hope again Stephen stays in the the Senate and we can work together on getting uh good legislation passed uh for the citizens of this state and to make sure our law enforcement agencies have the tools they need um and and to to fight crime to get justice in this state. So at the end of the day all though it's about leadership. It's about uh what you've done and your experience.
And I believe my experience uh as a lifelong career prosecutor and a conservative Republican who stood on issues like life uh and religious liberty and medical freedom, that's how we've raised our children and our family. Uh that those issues are important. And uh so as a conservative prosecutor of over 22 years, I believe my experience has uh built me for this job and I am ready uh and excited to be your next attorney general. I would love to have uh all the listeners and people that are watching on the live stream, I'd love to have your vote. If you didn't get out and vote today or yesterday in early voting u and you still need to vote, I'd encourage you to get out to the polls on the 23rd. Tell your friends, tell your family. We need everybody to turn out and have a real good turnout for runoffs. People forget about it because it's the summertime and uh that's understandable, but make sure you get out and vote. And I would love to have your vote. I can't say that I I don't want to get the end of this campaign say I didn't ask for your vote, so I'm asking for it now. I'd love to have your vote to be the next attorney general of South Carolina. And thank you all for having Vanessa and I to beautiful Florence, South Carolina tonight. Thank you.
>> Okay, that concludes our debate. Good night.
Butler men's clothing in Florence. I've been in there myself many times and let me tell you these folks. Whether it's a sharp suit, a classic polo, or the perfect accessory, Butlers has it all.
Don't settle for another time in the bargain bin. Get dad something that makes him feel like a million bucks.
Stop by Butlers today and make this Father's Day one he won't forget. Tell him Ken Art sent you.
>> I hope so.
>> I hope so.
>> After this is over.
Bring your appetite to eight Carolina.
kick things off with their dollar wings with six different flavor.
Related Videos
JAMIA BA LLB 2026 Offline Mock Interview | Final Interview Round Preparation
MLSLAWACADEMY
104 views•2026-06-16
6/15/26 Lively v. Wayfarer - Full Settlement Agreement is now public
littlegirlattorney
11K views•2026-06-15
HOA Demolished My Yacht for “Unauthorized Docking” — Too Bad I Own the Entire Marina!
Pro-RevengeStories
423 views•2026-06-15
JACKSON KIHARA'S SECRET DEAL: The Deal That Brought Out Jackson Kihara From Jail | LifeLens TV
LifeLens254
5K views•2026-06-14
Guelph's New Renoviction By-Law Explained.
CallCodyRE
807 views•2026-06-14
SCOTUS Rules 9-0 on Gun Rights for Marijuana Users
TheReloadSite
164 views•2026-06-18
A Family Tradition of Federal Time
LoneWolfUsul
603 views•2026-06-14
YouTuber Alexander Zabel Jr arrested again near Nancy Guthrie’s home amid investigation disruption
StarBuzzHD
136 views•2026-06-15
