Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
One more time for the Channel nine first one to
weather forecast. We have rain, you'll taper off later this afternoon.
Partly cloudy all day with I sixty eight clouds over
night dry though forty seven MARA mostly cloudy sky's isolated
showers maybe mid day fifty five for the high cloudy
and cooler overnight one nine to thirty four. Thursday is
going to be a higher forty with mostly cloudy skies
(00:22):
and a possible rain slash snow chance fifty eight. Right now,
time for final traffick Chuck Ingram.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
From the U SEE Traffic Center. Are you one of
the thirty eight million Americans impacted by diabetes? Get personalized
education and treatment options from the experts that you see
help learn more at you see help dot com. Cruis
are working with an accident. Northbound seventy five near Galbret.
Traffic backs into Saint Bernard inbound Combombia Park. White left
lanes blocked off just before you got to Fort Washington Way.
(00:52):
There's a reqquest two seventy five is ramped to northbound
seventy one. Chuck Ingram, fifty five KRC the talk station.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
It is eight forty five. I think you have per
c DE talk station. You're looking for great lawyers really
on Porter right, you can find them a line at
Porter right. That's where you're gonna find Steve Gooden, who
practices with them. He's a partner there. He's in well
complex commercial litigation primarily. But we always love to get
Steve Gooden on the program to talk about things legal
in a conversation we've been having all morning. Maybe feels
(01:24):
like you listen to the Morning Show all day, a
little bit of beating a dead horse because I started
out of the gate with it at five o'clock. We
just talked about it with the Bright Parts Insights Scoop,
Nick Gilberts and the Capitol Hill Reporter. But Steve Gooden,
welcome to the Morning Show to talk about this unbelievable
reality going on in Pennsylvania with these election board officers
that are just in it out loud, almost joyfully, basically
(01:47):
saying it doesn't matter anymore about the law.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
The law.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
We violate the law all the time, so screw you guys.
We're gonna count these votes even though it violates the law.
In Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court had to come back in
pennscyl from Pennsylvania and smack him down yet again. Welcome back,
Steve Gooden.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Good morning, Brian. What did you did you really they're
saying the quiet part out loud, aren't they They're saying
the quiet part out loud.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Couldn't believe it this this commissioner Elis mar Seglia. I
think we all know that precedent by a court doesn't
matter anymore in this country, and people violate laws anytime
they want. So for me, if I violate the law,
it's because I want a court to pay attention to it. Well, Steve,
that's one thing. If the thing that if the dispute,
(02:34):
the underlying issue at hand, had not been resolved, even
like in the distant past, this is just recently resolved.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said explicitly that what they were
doing was illegal or what did not count, and that
these ballots that they were counting were not to be counted,
and yet they did it anyway. It's like a breakdown
(02:56):
of the system.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Well, Marre's an even scary part of this. She got
three votes on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to support her decision.
It was a four to three decision, which is I
think the most remarkable thing here that isn't being talked about.
You're right, I mean, she made this kind of bizarre
argument that there's some language in the Pennsylvania State Constitution
that says there shall be no impediment to voting whatsoever
(03:20):
in the state. But of course this is an act
of their legislature. Is it arguably out of date? Maybe?
I mean, I think the whole issue is, you know,
whether or not you signed the David your absentee ballot.
It's definitely a holdover from the days when you really
had to get permission to vote absentee, as opposed to
the current kind of no fault absentee regimen we have.
Back when I was in the Army, you had to
actually apply to vote absentee and explain why you were
(03:43):
not in Ohio to vote, and this is sort of
a holdover from that. But all said, she got three votes.
There's a four to three decision to just blatantly go
against the law. It she actually says the law should
be changed, and I was okay, then go to the
legislature and change it. She's even acknowledging it exists.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
That's what courts are supposed to do. I mean, this
is the whole idea of judicial activism versus you know,
judicial conservatism. Maybe they were pointing out to the legislative body,
which maybe should have happened a long time ago, back
in twenty twenty, when they just played fast and loose
with all the laws in Pennsylvania that look, you guys
can change this, but it is the legislature's job to
(04:22):
do it. It's not my job. My job as a
judge is to read what this section says and apply
the law accordingly. And the law requires these signatures, and
these states ergo. If they don't have them, they can't
be counted legislative brands. You're up next.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
That's it. I think that's exactly right. And this comes
at a horrible time, really, because we really are you know,
we come out of the twenty twenty election when there
were there's a lot of folks who didn't believe that
the votes were counted properly, that there were shenanigans at
the state level. I don't believe it was ever proven,
but there were a lot of people out there who
believe it. It was really kind of what was the
us behind the January sixth, you know issues, and now here.
(05:04):
You know, we get through this election and it seems
to be like this general you know, kind of recovery
from that mindset, like we have a popular vote winner,
we have an electoral vote winner. Would they're not split
for once? And now we have a local elected election
official here on the back end saying, oh, by the way,
we don't really follow the law all the time, and
we're not going to hide it. We're going to talk
(05:25):
about it, and I'm going to get three parties in
Supreme Court justices to back me in my state. And that,
you know, that's really bad for the system, bad for
the belief in our electoral system, and just a really
really bad day all the way around. I wish, I
wish they just abide a bit of law and if
they had an issue with it, they can have gone
to their state legislature and introduced to bill telling me
(05:47):
the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Shapiro is sighting with
the Republicans of the Supreme Court saying they don't count
the ballots. He seems to try the winds blowing on this.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Well, he certainly does. And that's the way it should be.
And you know, the almost the second layer of nefarious,
at least from my standpoint. I don't care that three
of the Supreme Court justices, you know, try to justify this.
But the law says what it says. This was over
four hundred and five votes. Now, the winner of the
race was the Republican and he's he's ahead by much
(06:19):
larger than the point five percent margin that would require
a recount. And so my thought was that what this
particular county was doing, and trying to perhaps encourage others
to do it count the votes that should not be
counted under Pennsylvania law. And if we can go around
in all the various counties and gather up one hundred here,
one hundred there, we might be able to close that gap,
(06:39):
end up with less than point five percent separation between
the two of them, and during a recount then engage
in more Shenanigans and result in a different outcome of
the election.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
Well, it's a pretty fair reading of it. I mean,
they're doing exactly what Trump was accused to do it.
You know, they claim that Trump, you know, told the
Georgia Secretary of State get me x number of you know,
clothes there, and this this feels like another instant of
that kind of Trump's arrangement syndrome where they're doing what
they thought he was doing, which is finding the votes
in a close race. I mean, you're right, I mean
(07:13):
I understand it. McCormick's up seventeen thousand. You know, Trump
won Pennsylvania pretty handily. He and almost by two points,
like a one point eight points, so it's not unexpected
that the senator on the red ticket would win as well,
you know Casey, Senator bobcase even sort of an endangered
(07:34):
species there in Pennsylvania, I think for the you know,
since his last term six years ago when he was
last elected. So none of this is really a surprise.
None of this is outside of what the Poland was
or what the other national results were. So the idea
that there are these local officials are you know, almost
calling out for other local officials to join the meres
a really kind of bad day. And I hope it
(07:56):
gets the look that's going to get. I understand that
there are some federal laws it's been filed today on
both sides to try to give another look at this,
so we'll see where that goes.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Well, federal law sits I mean, will this even be
in is there a federal jurisdiction for this, because this
is state law, and I know the federal laws govern
federal elections. But since this states dictate the terms of
conditions of their own elections, will this ever see the
light of a federal court hearing or I mean it
wouldn't go to the Supreme Court? What it's zee?
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Yeah, but well believed it or not, there is a
possibility for that. Back in twenty sixteen, he actually had
a federal lawsuit proud here in the Southern District in
Hamilton County before Judge Susan de Lott regarding keeping some
of the polls open. If you recall, and there's a
kind of a trivity question now, but there was multiple
traffic accidents on election day in two thousand and six,
(08:50):
and they went to court saying, hey, this this implicates
the federal constitutional right to cast your ballot, not just
the state constitutional right. So if they if they can
fast some sort of federal constitutional argument that we are depriving,
that the folks in Pennsylvania are being deprived of their
right to vote because of this requirement, I could see
(09:11):
a district court at least giving them a hearing whether
it goes anywhere or not. I can't fathom that. But
as long as you kind of complying something to talk about,
generally speaking in the US Constitution about the right to vote,
then yes, you can argue that there's concurrent your station.
The Act saw that year back in twenty sixteen, and
(09:32):
the judge actually did order the polls to stay open
an hour later because of the various traffic accidents on
the highway, so that she ruled would have could have
impacted there, like to cast it out, I think that
decision was never appealed. It didn't really matter in that race.
I mean, Trump lost Hamilton County handily anyway, but had
(09:53):
it been a close election, that would have gotten a
lot of scrutiny for the Sixth Circuit.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Well, and real quick here, Stephen, I don't put you
on the spot because I don't know if you know
the answer to the question. I certainly don't. But I
saw that there was an election judge charged in Minnesota
with two felony counts because he allegedly let eleven people
vote that were not registered. Do you know if there's
any corollary provision in Pennsylvania where these these election officials
(10:18):
in defiance of Supreme Court precedent, in defiance of the
law of the state allowed this to happen. Nonetheless, that
they might might have might be facing some sort of charges.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
You know, it's possible. I did quickly look at that.
In Pennsylvania does not have anything as on point Anton
ractice in Minnesota law, but they do have a general
kind of dereliction of duty criminal charges you can file
against an elected official. And it's interesting the woman who
made the statement, she's an elected official. I mean she
is not just an elections official. She's actually a county
(10:52):
commissioner there in Bucks County, excuse me, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
So you know, she has multiple obligations as an elected
official tour of like here in Hamilton County, you know
where you know, an elected divisional can serve on the
board named by the party. Fair enough, special could be
(11:13):
removed as a commissioner as well.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
All right, well, we'll keep our popcorn out on the
federal side as well as what happens are on the
state side. But it is resolved and it's over with,
and at least the governor's on board with well the law.
Steve Gooden always appreciate you coming on the morning show
to share your legal opinions and thoughts and analysis. Porterwright
dot com is where you find Steve and the excellent
legal team that he works with there. Steve, You're always
welcome on the show and I'll look forward to another
(11:36):
discussion with you real soon.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Look forward to it.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Thank you, Bra, Thanks brother. It is eight fifty five.
Come on eighty fifty six. You need to get a
chance to listen, get the empower you seminar It's Thursday,
starts early at six point thirty to party, get your
drink on and get your orders and food on and
then hear the lecture on Elvis Presley by Michael Mercier
and the band which will kick in at eight o'clock
after the seminar. If you're there two twenty five North
and Boulevard to celebrate Live inside Scoop with Bright Bart
(12:01):
News Nick Gilbertson on this most recent topic with Steve
Gooden podcast fifty five kr sea dot com and a
not real uplifting analysis, but a valuable analysis from Daniel
Davis with a deep dive that's at fifty five krs
dot com at well as well. Tune in tomorrow for
the brilliance of Jack Atherton and Judge Ennita paul Atano.
Thank you Joe Strecker for all that you do. Folks,
don't go away. Clembeck's coming right up.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Look what it happened.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
This is the greatest political comment comeback of all time.
There's ever been two, three, four times today fifty five
krc D Talk station
One more time for the Channel nine first one to
weather forecast. We have rain, you'll taper off later this afternoon.
Partly cloudy all day with I sixty eight clouds over
night dry though forty seven MARA mostly cloudy sky's isolated
showers maybe mid day fifty five for the high cloudy
and cooler overnight one nine to thirty four. Thursday is
going to be a higher forty with mostly cloudy skies
(00:22):
and a possible rain slash snow chance fifty eight. Right now,
time for final traffick Chuck Ingram.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
From the U SEE Traffic Center. Are you one of
the thirty eight million Americans impacted by diabetes? Get personalized
education and treatment options from the experts that you see
help learn more at you see help dot com. Cruis
are working with an accident. Northbound seventy five near Galbret.
Traffic backs into Saint Bernard inbound Combombia Park. White left
lanes blocked off just before you got to Fort Washington Way.
(00:52):
There's a reqquest two seventy five is ramped to northbound
seventy one. Chuck Ingram, fifty five KRC the talk station.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
It is eight forty five. I think you have per
c DE talk station. You're looking for great lawyers really
on Porter right, you can find them a line at
Porter right. That's where you're gonna find Steve Gooden, who
practices with them. He's a partner there. He's in well
complex commercial litigation primarily. But we always love to get
Steve Gooden on the program to talk about things legal
in a conversation we've been having all morning. Maybe feels
(01:24):
like you listen to the Morning Show all day, a
little bit of beating a dead horse because I started
out of the gate with it at five o'clock. We
just talked about it with the Bright Parts Insights Scoop,
Nick Gilberts and the Capitol Hill Reporter. But Steve Gooden,
welcome to the Morning Show to talk about this unbelievable
reality going on in Pennsylvania with these election board officers
that are just in it out loud, almost joyfully, basically
(01:47):
saying it doesn't matter anymore about the law.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
The law.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
We violate the law all the time, so screw you guys.
We're gonna count these votes even though it violates the law.
In Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court had to come back in
pennscyl from Pennsylvania and smack him down yet again. Welcome back,
Steve Gooden.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Good morning, Brian. What did you did you really they're
saying the quiet part out loud, aren't they They're saying
the quiet part out loud.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Couldn't believe it this this commissioner Elis mar Seglia. I
think we all know that precedent by a court doesn't
matter anymore in this country, and people violate laws anytime
they want. So for me, if I violate the law,
it's because I want a court to pay attention to it. Well, Steve,
that's one thing. If the thing that if the dispute,
(02:34):
the underlying issue at hand, had not been resolved, even
like in the distant past, this is just recently resolved.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said explicitly that what they were
doing was illegal or what did not count, and that
these ballots that they were counting were not to be counted,
and yet they did it anyway. It's like a breakdown
(02:56):
of the system.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Well, Marre's an even scary part of this. She got
three votes on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to support her decision.
It was a four to three decision, which is I
think the most remarkable thing here that isn't being talked about.
You're right, I mean, she made this kind of bizarre
argument that there's some language in the Pennsylvania State Constitution
that says there shall be no impediment to voting whatsoever
(03:20):
in the state. But of course this is an act
of their legislature. Is it arguably out of date? Maybe?
I mean, I think the whole issue is, you know,
whether or not you signed the David your absentee ballot.
It's definitely a holdover from the days when you really
had to get permission to vote absentee, as opposed to
the current kind of no fault absentee regimen we have.
Back when I was in the Army, you had to
actually apply to vote absentee and explain why you were
(03:43):
not in Ohio to vote, and this is sort of
a holdover from that. But all said, she got three votes.
There's a four to three decision to just blatantly go
against the law. It she actually says the law should
be changed, and I was okay, then go to the
legislature and change it. She's even acknowledging it exists.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
That's what courts are supposed to do. I mean, this
is the whole idea of judicial activism versus you know,
judicial conservatism. Maybe they were pointing out to the legislative body,
which maybe should have happened a long time ago, back
in twenty twenty, when they just played fast and loose
with all the laws in Pennsylvania that look, you guys
can change this, but it is the legislature's job to
(04:22):
do it. It's not my job. My job as a
judge is to read what this section says and apply
the law accordingly. And the law requires these signatures, and
these states ergo. If they don't have them, they can't
be counted legislative brands. You're up next.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
That's it. I think that's exactly right. And this comes
at a horrible time, really, because we really are you know,
we come out of the twenty twenty election when there
were there's a lot of folks who didn't believe that
the votes were counted properly, that there were shenanigans at
the state level. I don't believe it was ever proven,
but there were a lot of people out there who
believe it. It was really kind of what was the
us behind the January sixth, you know issues, and now here.
(05:04):
You know, we get through this election and it seems
to be like this general you know, kind of recovery
from that mindset, like we have a popular vote winner,
we have an electoral vote winner. Would they're not split
for once? And now we have a local elected election
official here on the back end saying, oh, by the way,
we don't really follow the law all the time, and
we're not going to hide it. We're going to talk
(05:25):
about it, and I'm going to get three parties in
Supreme Court justices to back me in my state. And that,
you know, that's really bad for the system, bad for
the belief in our electoral system, and just a really
really bad day all the way around. I wish, I
wish they just abide a bit of law and if
they had an issue with it, they can have gone
to their state legislature and introduced to bill telling me
(05:47):
the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Shapiro is sighting with
the Republicans of the Supreme Court saying they don't count
the ballots. He seems to try the winds blowing on this.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Well, he certainly does. And that's the way it should be.
And you know, the almost the second layer of nefarious,
at least from my standpoint. I don't care that three
of the Supreme Court justices, you know, try to justify this.
But the law says what it says. This was over
four hundred and five votes. Now, the winner of the
race was the Republican and he's he's ahead by much
(06:19):
larger than the point five percent margin that would require
a recount. And so my thought was that what this
particular county was doing, and trying to perhaps encourage others
to do it count the votes that should not be
counted under Pennsylvania law. And if we can go around
in all the various counties and gather up one hundred here,
one hundred there, we might be able to close that gap,
(06:39):
end up with less than point five percent separation between
the two of them, and during a recount then engage
in more Shenanigans and result in a different outcome of
the election.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
Well, it's a pretty fair reading of it. I mean,
they're doing exactly what Trump was accused to do it.
You know, they claim that Trump, you know, told the
Georgia Secretary of State get me x number of you know,
clothes there, and this this feels like another instant of
that kind of Trump's arrangement syndrome where they're doing what
they thought he was doing, which is finding the votes
in a close race. I mean, you're right, I mean
(07:13):
I understand it. McCormick's up seventeen thousand. You know, Trump
won Pennsylvania pretty handily. He and almost by two points,
like a one point eight points, so it's not unexpected
that the senator on the red ticket would win as well,
you know Casey, Senator bobcase even sort of an endangered
(07:34):
species there in Pennsylvania, I think for the you know,
since his last term six years ago when he was
last elected. So none of this is really a surprise.
None of this is outside of what the Poland was
or what the other national results were. So the idea
that there are these local officials are you know, almost
calling out for other local officials to join the meres
a really kind of bad day. And I hope it
(07:56):
gets the look that's going to get. I understand that
there are some federal laws it's been filed today on
both sides to try to give another look at this,
so we'll see where that goes.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Well, federal law sits I mean, will this even be
in is there a federal jurisdiction for this, because this
is state law, and I know the federal laws govern
federal elections. But since this states dictate the terms of
conditions of their own elections, will this ever see the
light of a federal court hearing or I mean it
wouldn't go to the Supreme Court? What it's zee?
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Yeah, but well believed it or not, there is a
possibility for that. Back in twenty sixteen, he actually had
a federal lawsuit proud here in the Southern District in
Hamilton County before Judge Susan de Lott regarding keeping some
of the polls open. If you recall, and there's a
kind of a trivity question now, but there was multiple
traffic accidents on election day in two thousand and six,
(08:50):
and they went to court saying, hey, this this implicates
the federal constitutional right to cast your ballot, not just
the state constitutional right. So if they if they can
fast some sort of federal constitutional argument that we are depriving,
that the folks in Pennsylvania are being deprived of their
right to vote because of this requirement, I could see
(09:11):
a district court at least giving them a hearing whether
it goes anywhere or not. I can't fathom that. But
as long as you kind of complying something to talk about,
generally speaking in the US Constitution about the right to vote,
then yes, you can argue that there's concurrent your station.
The Act saw that year back in twenty sixteen, and
(09:32):
the judge actually did order the polls to stay open
an hour later because of the various traffic accidents on
the highway, so that she ruled would have could have
impacted there, like to cast it out, I think that
decision was never appealed. It didn't really matter in that race.
I mean, Trump lost Hamilton County handily anyway, but had
(09:53):
it been a close election, that would have gotten a
lot of scrutiny for the Sixth Circuit.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Well, and real quick here, Stephen, I don't put you
on the spot because I don't know if you know
the answer to the question. I certainly don't. But I
saw that there was an election judge charged in Minnesota
with two felony counts because he allegedly let eleven people
vote that were not registered. Do you know if there's
any corollary provision in Pennsylvania where these these election officials
(10:18):
in defiance of Supreme Court precedent, in defiance of the
law of the state allowed this to happen. Nonetheless, that
they might might have might be facing some sort of charges.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
You know, it's possible. I did quickly look at that.
In Pennsylvania does not have anything as on point Anton
ractice in Minnesota law, but they do have a general
kind of dereliction of duty criminal charges you can file
against an elected official. And it's interesting the woman who
made the statement, she's an elected official. I mean she
is not just an elections official. She's actually a county
(10:52):
commissioner there in Bucks County, excuse me, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
So you know, she has multiple obligations as an elected
official tour of like here in Hamilton County, you know
where you know, an elected divisional can serve on the
board named by the party. Fair enough, special could be
(11:13):
removed as a commissioner as well.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
All right, well, we'll keep our popcorn out on the
federal side as well as what happens are on the
state side. But it is resolved and it's over with,
and at least the governor's on board with well the law.
Steve Gooden always appreciate you coming on the morning show
to share your legal opinions and thoughts and analysis. Porterwright
dot com is where you find Steve and the excellent
legal team that he works with there. Steve, You're always
welcome on the show and I'll look forward to another
(11:36):
discussion with you real soon.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Look forward to it.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Thank you, Bra, Thanks brother. It is eight fifty five.
Come on eighty fifty six. You need to get a
chance to listen, get the empower you seminar It's Thursday,
starts early at six point thirty to party, get your
drink on and get your orders and food on and
then hear the lecture on Elvis Presley by Michael Mercier
and the band which will kick in at eight o'clock
after the seminar. If you're there two twenty five North
and Boulevard to celebrate Live inside Scoop with Bright Bart
(12:01):
News Nick Gilbertson on this most recent topic with Steve
Gooden podcast fifty five kr sea dot com and a
not real uplifting analysis, but a valuable analysis from Daniel
Davis with a deep dive that's at fifty five krs
dot com at well as well. Tune in tomorrow for
the brilliance of Jack Atherton and Judge Ennita paul Atano.
Thank you Joe Strecker for all that you do. Folks,
don't go away. Clembeck's coming right up.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Look what it happened.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
This is the greatest political comment comeback of all time.
There's ever been two, three, four times today fifty five
krc D Talk station
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Monster: BTK
'Monster: BTK', the newest installment in the 'Monster' franchise, reveals the true story of the Wichita, Kansas serial killer who murdered at least 10 people between 1974 and 1991. Known by the moniker, BTK – Bind Torture Kill, his notoriety was bolstered by the taunting letters he sent to police, and the chilling phone calls he made to media outlets. BTK's identity was finally revealed in 2005 to the shock of his family, his community, and the world. He was the serial killer next door. From Tenderfoot TV & iHeartPodcasts, this is 'Monster: BTK'.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.