DECISION DAY SHOCKS NEW YORK AND THE NATION.

WOMEN LOSE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND CARRYING A GUN IN PUBLIC JUST GOT EASIER.

>>> PLUS, BUSINESSMAN HARRY WILSON TAKES US INSIDE HIS OUTSIDER BID FOR GOVERNOR AS "METROFOCUS" STARTS RIGHT NOW.

♪♪ ♪♪ >>> THIS IS "METROFOCUS" WITH RAFAEL PI ROMAN, JACK FORD, AND JENNA FLANAGAN.

>>"METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND, BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION AND BY -- >>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS," I'M JACK FORD.

THIS MORNING THE SUPREME COURT TOOK THE DRAMATIC STEP OF OVERTURNING ROE VERSUS WADE, DEFYING DECADES OF PRECEDENT AND SETTING THE STAGE FOR STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO POSSIBLY OUTLAW ABORTION.

THIS DECISION COMES JUST ONE DAY AFTER ANOTHER MAJOR DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT IN WHICH THE JUSTICES VOTED TO OVERTURN A LONG-STANDING NEW YORK STATE GUN LAW THAT PREVIOUSLY RESTRICTED THE ABILITY TO CARRY GUNS IN PUBLIC.

BOTH DECISIONS WERE TECHNICALLY DECIDED BY A 6-3 VOTE WITH ALL SIX CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES VOTING IN THE MAJORITY, ALL THREE LIBERAL JUSTICES VOTING IN THE MINORITY, ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN THE ABORTION DECISION CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AGREED THAT THE MISSISSIPPI RESTRICTION ON ABORTIONS AFTER 15 WEEKS SHOULD STAND, BUT HE DID NOT AGREE THAT ROE VERSUS WADE SHOULD BE COMPLETELY OVERTURNED.

SO JOINING US TONIGHT NOW TO TALK ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE MAJOR COURT DECISIONS AND EXPLAIN THE IMPACT THAT THEY CAN HAVE ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND ESSENTIALLY ESPECIALLY I SHOULD SAY, HERE IN NEW YORK, WE'RE DELIGHTED TO HAVE WITH US PROFESSOR GLORIA BROWNE-MARSHALL, ONCE AGAIN, A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND ALSO THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK "SHE TOOK JUSTICE: THE BLACK WOMAN LAW AND POWER."

PROFESSOR, ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> LET'S START WITH THE DECISION THIS HAVE MORNING, OVERTURNING ROE VERSUS WADE.

I DON'T THINK GIVEN THE LEAK OF A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT MANY OF US WOULD BE SURPRISED BY THE FACT THAT IT HAPPENED, BUT LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DECISION ITSELF AND THE JUSTIFICATION.

AS I MENTIONED, FIVE JUSTICES VOTED TO COMPLETELY OVERTURN ROE VERSUS WADE, WHICH IS ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO IT, SIX VOTE, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT AGREE WITH THAT PORTION OF THE DECISION.

WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THAT DECISION SAYING WE ARE GOING TO OVERTURN THIS LONG-STANDING PRECEDENT?

>> THEY LOOKED AT TWO AREAS, ONE WOULD BE THE RIGHTS SET OUT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND WHETHER OR NOT THOSE STATED RIGHTS WERE PART OF THE SUPPORT FOR ABORTION.

AND THE OTHER IS LOOKING AT THIS THAT'S BEEN CREATED BY THE SUPREME COURT CALLED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

SO THEY SAID THAT ABORTION WAS NEITHER A RIGHT UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS NOR DID THEY CONSIDER IT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

THEN THEY LOOKED AT THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY AND DECIDED BASED ON THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY WOMEN WEREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE ABORTIONS IN THE PAST, SO THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ABORTIONS NOW.

AND SO AT THIS POINT WE'RE LOOKING AT AN ORIGINALIST VIEWPOINT OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THESE PARTICULAR JUSTICES, EVEN THOUGH THEIR AGES MAY BE YOUNG MINDSET IS RATHER ON THE OLD AND ANTIQUATED SIDE AND THIS IS HOW THEY CAME TO THEIR DECISION GENERALLY.

>> WE KNOW THAT -- THAT THE OPINION DEALT WITH THE NOTION OF STARE DECISIS, IT STANDS DECIDED, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY MEANS, LOOK, THIS CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN THE PAST, SO PERHAPS WE DON'T NEED TO REVISIT IT.

NOW, WE KNOW THAT THE COURT HAS DONE THAT IN THE PAST, THEY HAVE THROWN OUT PRECEDENTS AND THIS OPINION SPECIFICALLY FOCUSES ON THE PLESSY VERSUS FERGUSON DECISION WHICH CREATED SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IN JUSTIFYING SEGREGATION.

WE KNOW THAT DECADES LATER THE SUPREME COURT IN BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF EDUCATION SAID, NO, YOU CANNOT BE SEPARATE AND ALSO EQUAL.

ESSENTIALLY THROWING OUT THAT NOTION OF SEGREGATION.

BUT HERE HOW SURPRISED ARE YOU THAT THE COURT WAS WILLING ONCE AGAIN TO PUT ASIDE THE NOTION OF STARE DECISIS AND SAY EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS DECIDED DECADES AGO, WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE IT?

>> BECAUSE THEY DECIDED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION UPON WHICH THE ORIGINAL ROE VERSUS WADE 1973 DECISION WAS FOUNDED AND SAID, WELL, THAT FOUNDATION WAS INCORRECT.

AND SO IF WE GO BACK TO -- WHICH IS CIRCULAR REASONING BECAUSE THAT'S THE REASON WHY DECISIONS ARE REVERSED IN THE FIRST PLACE IS THAT IT FOUND THAT THE COUNTRY HAS MOVED ON AND IT'S UNTENABLE TO MAINTAIN THE DECISION AS IT STANDS, OR THE DECISION AT ITS CORE WAS NOT SUPPORTED.

AND SO THEY SAID, WELL, ROE WAS NEVER REALLY SUPPORTED AS A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OR AS A RIGHT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND SO, THEREFORE, WE'RE NOT REALLY OVERTURNING PRECEDENT.

THAT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECIDED THAT WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT WAS WRONGLY DECIDED, AND SO WE'RE RIGHTING A WRONG.

EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR 50 YEARS, SINCE THIS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT'S AS THOUGH IT NEVER HAPPENED BECAUSE WE ARE GOING BACK 50 YEARS TO SAY THAT IF WE HAD BEEN ON THE COURT WE WOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SUPPORT IT, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT AND SO, THEREFORE, WE'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING UNTENABLE, WE'RE JUST JUSTIFYING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> LET'S NOW MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THIS DECISION IS IN PLACE, IT IS NOW THE LAW AND ROE VERSUS WADE IS NO LONGER THE LAW OF THE LAND.

AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE OPINION IT READS THAT THIS DECISION, ACCORDING TO THE JUSTICES, PUTS THIS QUESTION BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> THAT MEANS THAT IT'S GOING BACK TO THE STATES AND THEN NOW THE STATES AND THE STATE LEGISLATURES CAN DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO HAVE ABORTION BE A LEGAL AVENUE OR OPTION FOR WOMEN.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, OF COURSE, IS THERE ARE MANY STATES, I BELIEVE 13 AND THEN YOU HAVE OTHERS THAT HAVE OTHER TYPES OF LIMITS ON ABORTION RIGHTS, THAT ARE ALREADY PUT IN PLACE OR GOING TO PUT IN PLACE AS SOON AS THIS DECISION IS INKED TODAY ABSOLUTE PROHIBITIONS ON ABORTION.

AND SO THE STATES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS, BUT WE ALSO HAD PRO-LIFE OR ANTI-ABORTION LEADERS SAY TODAY THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP FOR THEM.

NOW THEY'RE GOING TO THE STATE LEGISLATURES TO UNDERMINE THAT RIGHT WITH THE STATES.

SO IT'S HYPOCRITICAL ON THE PART OF THE SUPREME COURT KNOWING THAT THESE ALLIES OF ANTI-ABORTIONISTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE ALREADY PUT IN PLAY WAYS TO STOP STATES FROM LEGALIZING ABORTION OR MAINTAINING ABORTION, SUCH AS NEW YORK STATE.

>> LAST QUESTION ON THIS AND I WANT TO SHIFT OUR FOCUS, THEN, TO THE GUN DECISION, BUT LEADING UP TO THIS YOU SAW A SIGNIFICANT -- YOU CAN PROBABLY CALL IT A WAVE OF CONCERN ABOUT WHAT OVERTURNING ROE VERSUS WADE COULD MEAN FOR OTHER RIGHTS THAT THE COURT HAS ESTABLISHED, AND WE HEARD PEOPLE EXPRESSING CONCERN FOR PRIVACY RIGHTS, FOR GAY RIGHTS, FOR MARRIAGE RIGHTS.

NOW, IN THE OPINION, THE OPINION WAS CAREFUL TO NOTE THIS, AND THIS WAS IN JUSTICE ALITO'S OPINION HE SAYS NOTHING -- QUOTE, HIS WORDS, NOTHING IN THIS OPINION SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD TO CAST DOUBT ON PRECEDENTS THAT DO NOT CONCERN ABORTION.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH IN HIS CONCURRING OPINION SPECIFICALLY SAID THIS, QUOTE, HIS WORDS, THIS OPINION DOES NOT, AND HE UNDERSCORED THE WORD "NOT" THREATEN OR CAST DOUBT ON THESE PREVIOUS DECISIONS AND HE LISTED THINGS SUCH AS THE RIGHT OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

SO MY QUESTION, I GUESS, IS, AND I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU CAN ANSWER IT, SHOULD THAT PROVIDE SOME REASSURANCE TO PEOPLE THAT THIS DECISION IS THIS DECISION AND IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT THESE OTHER RIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE CHALLENGED OR THREATENED?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

>> WHY DO YOU SAY THAT, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAY THAT IN THE OPINION, WHY DO YOU SAY SO DEFINITIVELY NOT?

>> JACK, THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO SAID IN THEIR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS THAT ROE VERSUS WADE WAS PRECEDENT, THEY WOULDN'T TOUCH.

SO WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THEM?

ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WAS NOT UPSET WHEN THE DRAFT DECISION WAS LEAKED WAS BECAUSE, ONE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT I KNOW OF THAT THE LAW CLERK SIGNED TO SAY THEY WON'T LEAK THE DECISION, IT'S A MATTER OF HONOR AND TRADITION IN THE COURT, BUT IF THE JUSTICES AREN'T GOING TO BE HONORABLE AND IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO UPHOLD THE TRADITIONS OF THE COURT, WHY SHOULD OTHERS?

I MEAN, AS YOU POINTED OUT, FIVE DECISIONS CREATE THE LAW OF THE LAND.

EQUAL TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, EQUAL TO ALL OF CONGRESS.

AND YET THEY SAY IN THEIR CONFIRMATION DECISIONS -- AND OPINIONS AND THEIR COMMENTS, AND THIS IS THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO GO BY BECAUSE ONE THEY SAY THESE THINGS THEY ASCEND TO THE COURT, THEY ARE NOW SEQUESTERED FROM US.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE THINKING EXCEPT IN THOSE OPINIONS.

SO AT THIS POINT BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD AND SOME OF THE SPEECHES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, ESPECIALLY FROM JUSTICE ALITO WHEN HE FIRST ASCENDED TO THE BENCH, I DON'T BELIEVE THEM, AND I DON'T TRUST THEM, AND I DON'T THINK MANY AMERICANS DO, EITHER.

THEY'VE BECOME POLITICAL -- POLITICALLY DEVISED ARMS OF THE CONSERVATIVES AND WE KNOW THIS AND JUST WRITING IT ON A PIECE OF PAPER AND THEN THEIR NEXT OPINION WHEN THEY WRITE SOMETHING ELSE, THEN WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO SAY?

OH, YES, WELL, HERE IS MY CAVEAT PREVIOUSLY.

SO I THINK MANY PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THEM AND THEY CAN WRITE WHAT THEY WANT, BUT THEIR ACTIONS AND THIS DECISION SHOWS WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO DO WHILE THEY ARE ON THE COURT FOR THE 40 YEARS THAT MANY OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE ON THE COURT.

>> LET ME SHIFT OUR FOCUS FOR THE GUN DECISION, WE HAVE THREE OR FOUR MINUTES LEFT BUT I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT.

SO YOU GET, ONCE AGAIN, 6-3 DECISION, THE COURT THROWS OUT A 100-YEAR-OLD -- ALMOST 100-YEAR-OLD STATUTE THAT ESSENTIALLY SETS OUT VERY STRICT RULES FOR CONCEAL CARRY IN PUBLIC.

BASICALLY CARRYING A GUN ON YOUR HIP.

AND THE NEW YORK LAW HAD SAID YOU HAVE TO SHOW A PARTICULAR REASON, A THREAT, SOMETHING -- A REASON FOR YOU TO CARRY.

THEY THREW THAT OUT.

WHERE DO YOU THINK NOW BASED UPON THAT DECISION, WHERE DO YOU THINK OR WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE FUTURE OF GUN SAFETY LAWS MOVING FORWARD?

>> WELL, I WANT TO QUICKLY GO BACK TO HOW THIS LINKS TO ROE VERSUS WADE AND HYPOCRISY.

THE SUPREME COURT CONSERVATIVES SAY, OH, YOUR LEDGES LAY TERSE SHOULD BE THE ONCE DECIDED THIS IN YOUR STATE.

THE STATE OF NEW YORK DECIDED THIS AND YET THE SUPREME COURT IS SAYING, NO, IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT THE STATE WANTS, IT'S ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WHEN IT COMES TO THE RIGHT TO CONCEAL A WEAPON.

NOT EVEN TO CARRY IT ON YOUR HIP SO WE KNOW YOU HAVE IT, BUT TO HAVE IT IN YOUR POCKET AND NOT KNOW YOU HAVE IT AND THAT YOU DON'T JUST NEED IT FOR YOUR HOME SAFETY, BUT ANYTHING YOU WANT IT FOR.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE A REASON FOR HAVING THAT WEAPON ON YOU, YOU JUST WANT TO CARRY A WEAPON.

SO AT THIS POINT WE DON'T KNOW AS INDIVIDUALS, WE WOULDN'T KNOW THE STATE LEGISLATURES, THIS DEPENDS ON THE POLITICAL WHIM OF THOSE CONSERVATIVES ON THE COURT AS TO WHAT RIGHTS WE HAVE AND WHAT RIGHTS WE DON'T HAVE.

THEY ARE LIKE NERO AT THIS POINT, EMPERORS WHO ARE LEADING THIS COUNTRY BASED ON THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS.

>> GOT ABOUT A MINUTE AND A HALF LEFT.

WE KNOW THAT GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAS SAID THAT NEW YORK LEGISLATORS ARE GOING TO GET TOGETHER, WE'VE HEARD FROM OTHER STATES THAT THEY ALSO INTEND TO DO THE SAME THING TO TRY TO CARVE OUT WHAT THEY CALL SENSITIVE PLACES WHERE THE COURT SEEMED TO SUGGEST, ALL RIGHT, THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN.

INTERESTINGLY THE COURT SAID PLACES LIKE COURTROOMS, FOR INSTANCE, OR LEGISLATURES, FOR INSTANCE, YOU CAN HAVE A RULE THAT SAYS NO GUNS THERE.

DO YOU FEEL, AGAIN, WE HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE, DO YOU FEEL THAT THERE WILL BE A FUTURE WHERE THE HIGHER COURT WILL ALLOW SOME OF THESE CARVEOUTS, IF YOU WILL, SO THERE WILL NOT BE A BLANKET RULE THAT SAYS PEOPLE CAN CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANY PLACE.

>> UNFORTUNATELY JUSTICE ALITO SAID IN ORAL ARGUMENT THAT PEOPLE CARRY GUNS ON THE SUBWAY SO WHY SHOULDN'T OTHER PEOPLE BE ARMED ON THE SUBWAY?

THEY ARE SO SEQUESTERED AND SO CLOISTERED AS PEOPLE AND SO OUT OF TOUCH THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE EVERYBODY ON THE SUBWAY HAS A GUN SO WHY SHOULDN'T THERE BE PERMITS TO HAVE GUNS.

THEIR IDEA OF A CARVEOUT MIGHT NOT BE WHAT WE NEED AS NEW YORKERS AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM BECAUSE THEY ARE PROTECTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, THEY ARE PART OF THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA AND WHATEVER THEY BELIEVE IS NECESSARY FOR THEIR FURTHERANCE OF THAT AGENDA IS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

OUR CARVEOUTS CAN GO OUT THE WINDOW AS FAR AS THEY'RE CONCERNED.

>> I THINK WE EVER' GOING TO SEE A FUTURE OF MUCH MORE LITIGATION HERE WITH REGARD TO THE GUN RULES.

PROFESSOR GLORIA BROWNE-MARSHALL, YOU ALWAYS HELP US UNDERSTAND THESE ISSUES, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

YOU BE WELL.

WE WILL SEE YOU AGAIN SOON.

>> THANK YOU.

♪♪ >>> WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS," I'M RAFAEL PI ROMAN.

NEW YORK'S GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE HARRY WILSON IS PERHAPS THE BIGGEST WILD CARD IN TUESDAY'S GOP PRIMARY.

HE IS A PRO-CHOICE REPUBLICAN, A FORMER ADVISER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION AND SOMEONE WHO CALLS HIMSELF A REAGAN CONSERVATIVE.

WILSON MADE MILLIONS ON WALL STREET TURNING AROUND TROUBLED COMPANIES AND HE ALSO CAME CLOSER THAN ANY OTHER RECENT REPUBLICAN TO WINNING A MAJOR STATEWIDE OFFICE WHEN HE RAN FOR CONTROLLER AGAINST DEMOCRAT TOM DENAPOLI IN 2010.

WHILE HIS PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND HIS SO-CALLED OUTSIDER CAMPAIGN BE ENOUGH TO PERSUADE NEW YORK REPUBLICANS TO MAKE HIM AND NOT ONE OF HIS THREE PRIMARY OPPONENTS THEIR NOMINEE IN NOVEMBER?

MR. WILSON JOINS US NOW.

MR. WILSON, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK WITH US THIS MORNING.

>> GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> NOW, MR. WILSON, LET'S START WITH THE VERY BASICS, WHY ARE YOU RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR AND WHY SHOULD NEW YORK REPUBLICAN VOTERS CHOOSE YOU RATHER THAN CONGRESSMAN LEE ZELDIN, ANDREW GIULIANI OR ROB ASTORINO YOUR THREE PRIMARY OPPONENTS?

>> SURE.

I'M RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR BECAUSE I SPENT 30 YEARS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF AMERICAN BUSINESS FIXING FAILED ORGANIZATIONS AND I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY THE SKILL SET NEW YORK NEEDS IN THEIR GOVERNOR TO FIX THE BROKEN STATE GOVERNMENT.

THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHY EVEN BOTHER TO DO IT?

I'VE BEEN BLESSED WITH THE AMERICAN DEEM IN NEW YORK STATE, GREW UP IN A WORKING CLASS FAMILY IN JOHNSTOWN, FIRST MY FAMILY TO GO TO COLLEGE, I'VE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD A WONDERFUL FAMILY AND BUSINESS CAREER HERE IN NEW YORK.

I THINK THAT OPPORTUNITY IS DENIED TOO MANY KIDS BECAUSE OF BAD POLICIES COMING OUT OF ALBANY.

I KNOW I CAN FIX T IF I'M ELECTED GOVERNOR I WILL FIX IT AND I THINK I NEED TO DO THAT TO PRESERVE THE AMERICAN DREAM FOR THE NEXT GENERATION.

RELATIVE TO THE OTHER CANDIDATES THE QUESTIONS I ASK NEW YORK REPUBLICANS ARE TWOFOLD WHO HAS THE SKILL SET TO BE THE TRANSFORMATIONAL GOVERNOR OUR STATE NEEDS, TO ACTUALLY FIX A BROKEN STATE.

SECONDLY WHO CAN WIN STATEWIDE AND THE LATTER I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS COME CLOSE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS TO BUILD A COALITION YOU NEED FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

>> YOU DID THAT, YOU CAME CLOSE TO DEFEATING MR. DENAPOLI AND ALSO IN THAT RACE YOU GARNERED THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE NEW YORK POST, THE DAILY NEWS AND "THE NEW YORK TIMES," TRIFECTA THAT'S UNUSUAL FOR A REPUBLICAN RUNNING IN NEW YORK STATE.

AT THE TIME MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK REPUBLICAN PARTY SAW YOU AS THE FUTURE OF THE PARTY, YET YOU DECIDED NOT TO RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN, YOU WAITED 12 YEARS BEFORE RUNNING FOR OFFICE AGAIN.

WHY?

>> SURE.

SO TO PICK UP ON ONE POINT YOU MADE, YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT TRIFECTA OF ENDORSEMENTS HASN'T HAPPENED SINCE 1976 OTHER THAN MYSELF AND [ INAUDIBLE ] IN MY LIFETIME.

AND I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE PEOPLE SAW MY APPEAL ACROSS THE SPECTRUM, THAT'S WHY THE STATE PARTY HAS BEEN TRYING TO CONVINCE ME TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR EVER SINCE.

I'M NOT A POLITICIAN LOOKING FOR A JOB, I HAVE A WONDERFUL FAMILY, FOUR GIRLS, TWO IN COLLEGE, COMMITMENTS TO CLIENTS AND INVESTORS AND THE LIKE.

IT'S GOT TO BE A TIME THAT LINES UP FOR THE REST OF MY COMMITMENTS IN LIFE BUT ALSO THE CHANCE TO WIN, IT'S HARD TO WIN AS A REPUBLICAN IN NEW YORK.

WE HAVE A MASSIVE REGISTRATION AND THIS IS BECAUSE OF POLITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE STATES, THE HOCHUL ADMINISTRATION I THINK THIS IS A ONCE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY FOR A REPUBLICAN TO WIN.

SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, MY FAMILY, MY BUSINESS COMMITMENTS AND THE POLITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES FINALLY LINED UP IN A WAY THAT MADE SENSE.

THE STATE PARTY CAME TO ME FOR THIS CYCLE, AT THE TIME I WAS RUNNING ONE OF THE LARGEST NURSING HOME CHAINS IN THE COUNTRY THAT WAS IN NEED OF OUR TIME AND FOCUS AND I COULDN'T COMMIT.

BY THE TIME I FINISHED THAT THOSE SAME PEOPLE SAID THEIR CANDIDATES CAN'T WIN YOU CAN YOU OUGHT TO RECONSIDER THAT'S WHAT LED TO MY ULTIMATE ENTRY TO THE RACE IN FEBRUARY.

>> YOU ARE PRO-CHOICE AND HAVE ALSO SAID THAT YOU DID NOT VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP IN THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

TWO THINGS THAT SHOULD HELP ANY REPUBLICAN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

ESPECIALLY WHEN -- WHEN NEW YORK IS SO PRO-CHOICE AND WHEN MR. BIDEN DEFEATED THE FORMER PRESIDENT BY ALMOST 25% IN THIS STATE.

NEVERTHELESS YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE GAUNTLET OF THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY WHICH IN THESE POLARIZED TIMES SEEM TO HAVE GOTTEN VERY CONSERVATIVE AND IS -- TENDS TO BE VERY STRONG PRO-TRUMP.

HOW DO YOU NAVIGATE THAT DUAL REALITY?

>> SURE.

SO I THINK TWO THINGS, THERE IS A PHILOSOPHICAL PIECE AND A STYLISTIC/BACKGROUND PIECE.

ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL PIECE I DO BELIEVE IN LIMITED GOVERNMENT ACROSS THE BOARD, I CELEBRATE AND FOCUS ON MAXIMIZING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL OPPORTUNITY.

I THINK THAT'S THE CORE OF THE PARTY.

SO MY PHILOSOPHY IS CONSISTENT ACROSS THAT, ACROSS ALL ISSUES, BOTH ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL.

SO THAT I THINK IS PHILOSOPHICALLY [ INAUDIBLE ] DIFFERENCES WITH SOME PARTS OF THE BASE, THE CORE IS, I THINK, VERY CONSISTENT.

THE SECOND PIECE IS KIND OF BROADLY PART OF THE APPEAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP TO THE BASE IS SOMEONE WHO REALLY FOCUSED ON IMPROVING POLICIES FOR WORKING PEOPLE, THAT'S MY BACKGROUND AND FOCUS AND SECONDLY SOMEONE WHO IS AN OUTSIDER BUSINESS GUY NOT A CAREER POLITICIAN AND I'M RUNNING AGAINST THREE CAREER POLITICIANS, TWO ARE FINE GENTLEMEN BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT PEOPLE ON THEIR RESULTS.

THE STATE IS BROKEN, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN POLITICS FOR THE LAST 15 MINUTES IN MY OPINION HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THE SUCCESS WE NEED TO DELIVER FOR WORKING PEOPLE.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE SPENT MY LIFE DOING FIXING BROKEN ORGANIZATIONS TO DELIVER FOR THE CUSTOMERS AND STAKEHOLDERS WHICH IN THIS CASE FOR NEW YORK STATE ARE THE VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS FOR THE STATE.

THE REASON I HAVE HAD SO MUCH SUCCESS AND SUPPORT IN THAT YEAR'S PRIMARY IS PEOPLE SEE ME AS THE PERSON WHO CAN MAKE STATE GOVERNMENT WORK FOR THEM AND THAT'S A CORE FOCUS FOR OUR PARTY AS IT SHOULD BE FOR ALL VOTERS.

>> AND YOU SAID TWO OF THE THREE ARE FINE GENTLEMEN.

I WON'T GET INTO THAT BECAUSE HE HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS BUT THAT'S INTERESTING.

WE'RE CONDUCTING THIS INTERVIEW EARLY IN THE MORNING AND IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT BY THE TIME THIS INTERVIEW AIRS IN THE EVENING THAT THE SUPREME COURT WILL HAVE OVERTURNED ROE v. WADE AS MANY PEOPLE EXPECTED THEY WILL DO EVENTUALLY.

EVEN THOUGH, AS I SAID, YOU ARE PRO-CHOICE YOU HAVE TRIED NOT TO EMPHASIZE SOCIAL ISSUES IN THIS CAMPAIGN FOCUSING INSTEAD ON THE ECONOMY AND ON PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT IF ROE v. WADE IS OVERTURNED, THAT MAY BE A DIFFICULT THING TO CONTINUE IF YOU GET -- IF YOU WIN THE PRIMARY AND GO ON TO THE GENERAL ELECTION.

HOW WOULD THAT CHANGE YOUR CAMPAIGN FOR THE GENERAL -- DURING THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER AND IF YOU ARE ELECTED, WHAT WILL BE YOUR POSTURE TOWARDS THE ALREADY EXISTING ABORTION LEGISLATION LAWS OF THE STATE?

>> SURE.

SO AS YOU SAID I AM PRO CHOICE AND I HAVE SAID I'M RUNNING NO THE ON A SOCIAL AGENDA BECAUSE I WANT TO FIX THE STATE, PARTICULARLY THE THINGS THAT MATTER MOST, ECONOMICS, PUBLIC SAFETY, COST OF LIVING AND CRIME.

I'M SAD BECAUSE OF THAT POSITION I'M NOT FOCUSED ON MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE EXISTING ABORTION LAWS.

YOU KNOW, AND AS A RESULT -- WHICH ARE MUCH MORE EXPANSIVE THAN ROE v. WADE IS TODAY AND SO I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY NEED TO CHANGE THOSE -- BROADEN THOSE LAWS AS GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAS PROPOSED, I WOULD JUST FOCUS ON LEAVING EXISTING LAWS IN PLACE AND FOCUSING ON THE THINGS THAT I THINK MATTER MOST, REDUCING TAXES, REDUCING COST OF LIVING AND STOPPING CRIME.

>> OKAY.

SO NOW LET'S TURN TO YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE, THE ECONOMY.

YOU BELIEVE OBVIOUSLY THAT NEW YORK ECONOMY IS NOT WORKING OR NOT WORKING VERY WELL AND NEEDS SOME SERIOUS FIXING.

FOR THE SAKE OF TIME CAN YOU GIVE US A TWO OR THREE STEPS THAT YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY TAKE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NEW YORK STATE ECONOMY BETTER FOR ALL NEW YORKERS?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

SO, LOOK, PHILOSOPHICALLY I BELIEVE IN A LIMITED GOVERNMENT APPROACH, I BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT WE HAVE SHOULD BE WORLD CLASS IN EVERYTHING IT DOES.

TO DO THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED OVER $25 BILLION IN MISSPENT RESOURCES THAT WE WILL CUT.

WE WILL RETURN ALL THOSE DOLLARS TO TAX PA IRS IN THE FORM OF THE LARGEST TAX CUT NOTICE HISTORY OF ANY STATE.

REDUCE INCOME TAXES AND PROPERTY TAXES BY 20%.

A TOTAL GAME CHANGER FOR NEW YORK FAMILIES.

REDUCING THE COST OF LIVING BECAUSE WHILE THE NEW YORK GOVERNOR CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT WASHINGTON-DRIVEN INFLATION, HE OR SHE CAN ENGAGE IN REGULATORY REFORM ON THE ALBANY REGULATIONS THAT NEEDLESSLY DRIVE UP THE COST OF FOOD, ENERGY AND HOUSING AND, THEREFORE, OFFSET THE IMPACT OF INFLATION ON WORKING FAMILIES.

SO THOSE TWO THINGS COMBINED WOULD ADD ABOUT $5,000 A YEAR INTO THE POCKETS OF MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES, TOTAL GAME CHANGER FOR FAMILIES STRUGGLING TO GET BY.

THE LAST PIECE IS EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT.

OUR APPROACH HAS BEEN TO BASICALLY GIVE FAVORED TAX BREAKS TO POLITICALLY FAVORED CONSTITUENCIES THAT GIVE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO INCUMBENTS.

I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY CORRUPT AND NOT WORKING.

THE BETTER APPROACH IS TO HAVE A LOW TAX BUSINESS FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT COMBINED WITH A FOCUS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH CLUSTERS LEVERAGING THE CORE STRENGTHS OF OUR STATE WHICH ARE REGIONAL IN NATURE AND USING THOSE AS A PERMANENT JOB CREATION DEVICE BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT CRIME, WE ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES LEFT.

WHAT STEPS DO YOU INTEND TO TAKE, AGAIN, JUST NAME THE ONE OR TWO THAT YOU WILL TAKE IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE CRIME WAVE THAT HIT NEW YORK CITY AND NEW YORK STATE OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS.

>> YEAH, SO WE HAVE A HOLISTIC 14-PAGE CRIME PLAN MAKING NEW YORK SAFE ON OUR WEBSITE.

REVERSING BAIL REFORM, SUPPORTING MEN AND WOMEN IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRING DISTRICT ATTORNEYS WHO DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW AND A LONG SERIES OF STEPS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED BUT DON'T GET AS MUCH ATTENTION TO THE CURRENT CRIME WAVE INCLUDING DISCOVERY REFORM, BAIL REFORM, A HOLISTIC APPROACH BY INTERVIEWING MEMBERS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY ACROSS THE BOARD TO IDENTIFY THE ROOT CAUSES AND HAVE A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO RETURNING US TO THE SAFE STREETS WE HAD A FEW SHORT YEARS AGO.

>> YOU SAY YOU WOULD FIRE ROGUE DAs THAT DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW BUT IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT YOU CONTRIBUTED TO ALVIN BRAGG, SOME PEOPLE SAY HE'S ONE, HE COULD BE PUT IN THAT CATEGORY.

WHY DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO HIS CAMPAIGN?

>> YEAH, WELL, SO ALVIN AND I WENT TO COLLEGE TOGETHER, A MUTUAL FRIEND CAME TO ME OVER TWO YEARS AGO AND SAID HE'S RUNNING WOULD YOU GIVE A CONTRIBUTION SO I DID.

I KNEW ALVIN AS A MODERATE DEMOCRAT IN COLLEGE, DID NOT EXPECT HIM TOMORROW COULD OUT WITH THE POLICIES HE DID.

HE ACTUALLY -- >> BUT HE WAS PRETTY CLEAR DURING HIS CAMPAIGN.

>> WELL, DURING HIS CAMPAIGN, REMEMBER, THIS IS OVER TWO YEARS AGO.

THE FIRST TIME HE MADE ANY PUBLIC REFERENCE TO HIS POLICIES WAS A YEAR AFTER MY DONATION.

SO IT WASN'T I AGREE WITH HIS PHILOSOPHY, IT WAS A GUY I KNEW IN COLLEGE AND IT WAS A TINY AMOUNT OF MONEY RELATIVE TO MY OTHER POLITICAL GICHKS AND RELATIVE TO HIS CAMPAIGN.

IT WASN'T A PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW, IT WAS JUST A GUY I KNEW AND I GAVE ONE DONATION.

>> IN THE MINUTE THAT WE HAVE LEFT AS WE KNOW YESTERDAY THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE LONG-TIME RESTRICTIONS THAT NEW YORK HAS PLACED ON CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS WAS A VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AND 14th AMENDMENT AND STRUCK THEM DOWN.

HOW DO YOU THINK THIS WILL AFFECT GUN VIOLENCE IN NEW YORK AND AS A GOVERNOR WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH OUR EXISTING GUN RESTRICTION LAWS?

>> I THINK IF WE FOCUS ON THE ROOT CAUSES, CRIMINALS, THE MENTAL ILL WITH VIOLENT TENDENCIES IT WON'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON GUN VIOLENCE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB ON THESE THREE CATEGORIES THAT ARE DRIVERS OF THAT VIOLENCE.

THAT'S HOW THE POLITICIANS DEFAULT TO THE EASY TALKING POINTS AND BLAMING THE OTHER SIDE WHEN THE REALITY IS WE KNOW WHAT CATEGORIES OF -- THAT DRIVE GUN VIOLENCE ARE, WE JUST DO A BAD JOB OF ATTACKING THOSE AND MAKING THOSE A PRIORITY BECAUSE THE EASY TALKING POINTS ARE FRANKLY EASIER FOR POLITICIANS.

IF WE DO OUR JOB AND FOCUS ON THINGS I'VE TALKED ABOUT I THINK WE WILL DRAMATICALLY REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE AND NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS THAT AREN'T THE PROBLEM.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WE ARE JUST ABOUT 20 SECONDS LEFT.

IF YOU DO NOT PREVAIL IN THE PRIMARY ARE YOU COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING ANY -- THE WINNER OF THE PRIMARY NO MATTER WHO HE IS?

>> YES.

YES.

>> OKAY.

THAT WAS A QUICK ANSWER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. WILSON, FOR TAKING THE TIME.

IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TALKING TO YOU.

>> GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.

THANKS SO MUCH.

♪♪ >>"METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND, BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION, AND BY -- ♪♪ ♪♪ THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN