Speaker 1: All right, let's continue this Friday afternoon of the tri State.
Speaker 1: Quite rainy, but nonetheless sometime this afternoon early evening things
Speaker 1: should clear out. Saturday and Sunday look pretty damn good.
Speaker 1: Reds Baseball kicks off live in Chicago. First pitch about
Speaker 1: three twenty our time, and we're going to go to
Speaker 1: the inside pitch about two fifteen or so. But until then,
Speaker 1: it's you, me and the American people joining you. And
Speaker 1: I now is Stephen Gooden. He is a big time
Speaker 1: lawyer with Porter Wright. It's done about everything you can
Speaker 1: in politics and in practicing law. Has been a veteran
Speaker 1: of the Peace Corps in the US Army Reserve, was
Speaker 1: on city Council, got a couple of coffee on city
Speaker 1: council about twenty twenty as the corruption scandal was proliferating.
Speaker 1: It's also been a prosecutor and in a criminal defense
Speaker 1: attorney and more. And Steve Gooden, welcome again to the
Speaker 1: Bill Cunningham Show. And first of all, Steve, all the
Speaker 1: headlines locally and around the nation is how could this happen?
Speaker 1: How could pg Sittenfeld, a registered card carrying member of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party, all of a sudden have inroads into
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Out of nowhere he gets a full
Speaker 1: complete partner. I have it here in front of me.
Speaker 1: Explain that to the American people.
Speaker 2: Well, it's pretty straightforward, Willie. Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 2: You know, it's almost as though money and personal connections
Speaker 2: can trump politics, and that's pretty clearly.
Speaker 3: You know what happened here.
Speaker 2: It was part of Sittenfeld's defense team that he hired
Speaker 2: was from a law firm called Jones Day. It's a big,
Speaker 2: big time law firm with a big DC office, and
Speaker 2: one of his former lawyers, we have learned, now works
Speaker 2: in the Trump administration. So I can't imagine that hurt
Speaker 2: his chances in any way shape or for him. We'll
Speaker 2: probably never know exactly what was said or done, but
Speaker 2: that's clearly a big part of it. He had one
Speaker 2: of the thousand hour, thousand dollars an hour law firms
Speaker 2: in DC working on his appeals, and one of those
Speaker 2: lawyers went right into the Trump Civil Division of the
Speaker 2: Justice Department. So that's certainly didn't hurt. But we also
Speaker 2: know that Trump rightfully so feels that he was wrongly
Speaker 2: prosecuted by overreaching prosecutors during his time out of office,
Speaker 2: and that certainly probably has colored his view of who
Speaker 2: should get pardoned. There have been several other folks going
Speaker 2: back to Blagoyevitch on his first term, who he felt
Speaker 2: well even were Democrats, but he felt were the victim
Speaker 2: of politically motivated prosecution. So between those two things, none
Speaker 2: of us should really surprise anybody.
Speaker 1: And as far as the Jones Day Law firm, one
Speaker 1: of the most dominant law firms in Washington Little Cincinnati, Ohio,
Speaker 1: it's kind of odd that PG Sittenfeld would have access
Speaker 1: to millions and millions and millions of dollars to prosecute
Speaker 1: this appeal one thousand dollars an hour, having numerous lawyers
Speaker 1: working on it, and one of the attorneys, Ed Martin,
Speaker 1: was the US attorney for the Washington DC area. He
Speaker 1: couldn't get confirmed because the Senator tallis and so Ed
Speaker 1: Martin now is in charge of pardons, and the lawyers
Speaker 1: hired heard by PG Sittenfeld have great inroads into Ed
Speaker 1: Martin and those who actually recommend for the pardons. I
Speaker 1: would think Donald Trump has never met PG Sittenfeld, couldn't
Speaker 1: identify him in a lineup, but somebody said close to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump this guy was a victim of government corruption,
Speaker 1: much like a few others in the Tri State. I'm
Speaker 1: going to ask you about Larry Householder and Matt Borch's
Speaker 1: here in a minute. But PG Sentenfeld had to play
Speaker 1: the game. He still has almost a million dollars in
Speaker 1: campaign money he can give away to other candidates or
Speaker 1: to run himself if that's the case. But it's kind
Speaker 1: of odd that a liberal Democrat who I would imagine
Speaker 1: never voted for Donald Trump, would never vote for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: probably doesn't like Donald Trump, and everything about Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is using Donald Trump for personal benefit. Can you smell
Speaker 1: when I'm cooking?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Absolutely, I think everybody can. And look you can
Speaker 2: if you get on the internet, within thirty seconds, you
Speaker 2: will find videos of PG sitting Feld comparing Trump to
Speaker 2: you know, basically calling him a fascist, and I mean
Speaker 2: not just not voting for him, but saying I think
Speaker 2: there's a clip that says where PG says, it wasn't
Speaker 2: this isn't politics as usual, and he's going to deport everybody.
Speaker 2: And I mean there were some really negative, tough things,
Speaker 2: you know, that he said over the years, but you know,
Speaker 2: you know, you know, like there's an old saying there's
Speaker 2: no permanent to friends or no permanent enemies in politics,
Speaker 2: and here really the stars aligned. And another piece of
Speaker 2: the two is most of the folks Trump has pardoned
Speaker 2: tend to be on the right side of the political aisle.
Speaker 2: So it probably I can imagine people around Trump saying, look,
Speaker 2: you're going to have to put some Democrats in the
Speaker 2: mix here too, so it doesn't look overtly political. So
Speaker 2: he probably benefited from that. There was a certain amount
Speaker 2: of just luck actually in being a progressive Democrat. So
Speaker 2: it maybe, you know, takes away the argument that these
Speaker 2: are all just blatantly political pardons because he partnered a
Speaker 2: lot of other folks too, with similar cases and different things.
Speaker 1: Sure, and so PG sent and Fellow put aside his
Speaker 1: personal political feelings in order to get a pardon, which
Speaker 1: I am understand completely now. I made the comment yesterday
Speaker 1: Steve Goodin of Porter Write Law Firm, a big time
Speaker 1: blue blood law firm here in Cincinnati on Fifth Street,
Speaker 1: that PG sitting Feld's conviction was. It was played yesterday
Speaker 1: by Karen Johnson again the key parts of the FBI,
Speaker 1: and PG says, you know, this isn't a quid pro
Speaker 1: quo we can't do a quid pro quo, etc. Then
Speaker 1: the checks were delivered and I made the comment I
Speaker 1: found it hard to believe that criminalizing politics is something
Speaker 1: we should do anyway. But you told me off the
Speaker 1: air that you actually attended the trial and many times
Speaker 1: what happened inside the courtroom is different than the media
Speaker 1: accounts of what happened inside the courtroom. And he told
Speaker 1: me off the air, you probably would have convicted him.
Speaker 2: Too, you know I would if I set through the
Speaker 2: bulk of the testimony. And I'll tell you, I mean
Speaker 2: a lot of the case against him was total nonsense.
Speaker 2: There was this ridiculous FBI sting investigation where it was
Speaker 2: I think these guys thought they were on an episode
Speaker 2: of the Sopranos, and the jury acquitted him of most
Speaker 2: of the stuff where they were pretud to be developers
Speaker 2: and mobsters from Rhode Island, and it was all pretty silly.
Speaker 2: But that key piece of testimony, and actually that recorded
Speaker 2: telephone call between he and in Duke Way, who was
Speaker 2: working as a developer, you could just feel it in
Speaker 2: the room when they played it that the jury did
Speaker 2: not like it. And it really is pretty hard to
Speaker 2: get around. I mean, they are discussing political fundraising and
Speaker 2: the approval of this project at the Convention centerarya there
Speaker 2: on Elm Street at the same time, and there was
Speaker 2: a moment where PG the line that I think got
Speaker 2: him convicted, which is when he says I want this money,
Speaker 2: I want these contributions. He said, I don't want to
Speaker 2: be in a position where I love you but can't
Speaker 2: and basically saying, look, you know, you know, there's a
Speaker 2: couple of ways to read it, but the most common
Speaker 2: sense way to read it, and you could tell the
Speaker 2: jury in the moment the way they were reading it
Speaker 2: was if you don't pay me, I'm not going to
Speaker 2: push your project through. So it was anyone who's tried
Speaker 2: a case to a jury knows that there are just
Speaker 2: certain things that played differently in a jury and in
Speaker 2: a courtroom, and they do out in public. And it
Speaker 2: was the air went out of the room that day,
Speaker 2: and it was very clear he was getting convicted to
Speaker 2: something right there in the moment. It was during COVID too.
Speaker 2: It was fascinating because the jurors all were wearing masks,
Speaker 2: but you could see it in their eyes, like, God,
Speaker 2: that's terrible. That's exactly the worst thing we think about
Speaker 2: with politicians, it's what we assume is going on behind
Speaker 2: the scenes. You're talking about campaign contributions in this project
Speaker 2: in the same breath, and you're clearly linking them, and
Speaker 2: that gets you into the quid pro quo area. But
Speaker 2: that said, I think his whole defense was, Hey, you know,
Speaker 2: it's first Amendment. Politicians should be allowed to talk like this.
Speaker 2: But if that's the case, they need to amend the
Speaker 2: law right now. With the law, the federal statute very
Speaker 2: clear that this kind of quid pro quo thing, that
Speaker 2: particular piece is illegal. And I think if the way
Speaker 2: that jury was charged, I think I would have had
Speaker 2: a hard time saying he was not guilty.
Speaker 1: Well, also, you were appointed to counsel to fill out
Speaker 1: a term because of all these scandals, how do you
Speaker 1: react to those like the Jeff and Tomya Dinard both
Speaker 1: did hard time in real federal prison as by the way,
Speaker 1: PG did four and a half months of his sixteen
Speaker 1: month sentence. He could have done another year if he
Speaker 1: lost the appeal in the Supreme Court. Now that's over with,
Speaker 1: But how's it fair the Jeff Pastor who was in
Speaker 1: that private jet down to Miami all wired up for
Speaker 1: sound by FBI agents posing as developers. They were wind
Speaker 1: dying in pocket lining Jeff Pastor and taking cash, and
Speaker 1: Tomi Denard shook down Tom Gableman, who was just relieve
Speaker 1: of his duties on the Banks project with cash. And
Speaker 1: Tom Gableman is an ethical guy. First thing, idiot was
Speaker 1: contact the FBI. They wired up Tom Gableman. And so
Speaker 1: how come pg Sittenfeld was treated differently than Jeff Pastor
Speaker 1: and Tomayoa Denard when he came to a pardon? Is
Speaker 1: it the lawyers didn't hire the right lawyers.
Speaker 2: Well, a couple things. Number one, and I don't want
Speaker 2: to feel like I'm to meeting neither Pastor or Donar,
Speaker 2: but I doubt, based on what I know about their circumstances,
Speaker 2: that they have the resources to hire a Jones Day
Speaker 2: to get their you know, get their case in front
Speaker 2: of someone and the Trump administration. But the other thing
Speaker 2: is too Their cases were a little different in that
Speaker 2: there was clear evidence that they both personally pocketed the money.
Speaker 2: Both the Pastor and Dinard kept the dialects. I mean,
Speaker 2: the testimony was that they were and they both played
Speaker 2: guilty to it. By the way, we both accepted responsibility,
Speaker 2: but they both had personal financial problems, which doesn't excuse this.
Speaker 2: But they took the money, and in fact, Jeff took
Speaker 2: the money, our pastor took the money from the same
Speaker 2: group that was trying to set up sit and Felt Sittenfeld. However,
Speaker 2: he didn't keep the money. These were all these were
Speaker 2: all he fell with the Sopranos guys, actually, but they
Speaker 2: sitt and fell. Every dime of it did go into
Speaker 2: his campaign account. And that's a big part of his
Speaker 2: defense too, which is like, look, this wasn't a personal shakedown.
Speaker 2: Basically was a political shakedown. A political shakedown should be allowed,
Speaker 2: and I means so that is where the real legal
Speaker 2: difference comes in. The jury could have cared less. They thought,
Speaker 2: you know, the money is the money, and it's for
Speaker 2: his use in one way or another. And that was
Speaker 2: a distinction that the jury clearly didn't care about. But
Speaker 2: that is something that I could see the Justice Department
Speaker 2: lawyers looking at now as they're looking at this as
Speaker 2: a pardon and thinking, well, that is a distinction that
Speaker 2: has some miror.
Speaker 1: Well, if Jeff Pastor Tamai Dinard could hire Jones Day
Speaker 1: and have an extra million dollars or so off to
Speaker 1: the side in order to prosecute appeals with the connections
Speaker 1: to the Trump DOJ maybe that he get a different result. Secondly,
Speaker 1: I spoke to someone who spoke to someone, and of
Speaker 1: course the media is a flutter today. Is PG sitting
Speaker 1: felt it's going to run for council? He has until
Speaker 1: August a file the Democratic Party has. I think they're
Speaker 1: nine endorsed candidates, very likely to win the mayor after
Speaker 1: have Puerival is running against jd Vance's half brother, and
Speaker 1: jd Vance's half brother thinks the Mega movement would work
Speaker 1: in the city of Cincinnati. I would say, good luck
Speaker 1: with that. But do you see PG arising like Jerry
Speaker 1: Springer who gave the check to a hooker?
Speaker 2: You know, I really don't. And I'll say this, like
Speaker 2: I said, I haven't spoken to Sittenfeld in some time,
Speaker 2: but the last time I did see him was at
Speaker 2: the trial and he told me clearly he was finished
Speaker 2: for politics. Then I heard from some mutual acquaintances last
Speaker 2: night that that's still the case. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: in fairness to him, I think this has been extraordinarily
Speaker 2: hard on his family. He's got a young family, he's
Speaker 2: got two kids. I think another on the way. From
Speaker 2: what I'm told, I don't think he has any appetite
Speaker 2: to get back into politics as an elected official. Look,
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't really see a path for him either.
Speaker 2: I mean, the mayor seems to be on the glide
Speaker 2: path the reelection. I respectfully disagree that all those Democrats
Speaker 2: are going to get re elected this time. I think
Speaker 2: there are new issues there, but I don't see Sittenfeld
Speaker 2: coming back there. And there really isn't a path with
Speaker 2: either of the congressional districts right now unless he tried
Speaker 2: the primary Greg Landsman or something like that. And I
Speaker 2: just think that if he ever tried to run for
Speaker 2: office again, the commercials would right themselves and that phone
Speaker 2: call within Duke Way would come right back in the commercial.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a very tough thing to get around,
Speaker 2: and to the average person, all the legal leaves doesn't
Speaker 2: really matter. You know, he was on a phone call
Speaker 2: talking about campaign contributions in exchange for supporting a development project,
Speaker 2: and that's a really tough thing.
Speaker 3: Stave Good.
Speaker 1: What happens to the almost a million dollars in his
Speaker 1: campaign account? Some say you can take it out and
Speaker 1: use it. That's not true. You've gone through this quite often.
Speaker 1: What can happen to the eight hundred and seventy five
Speaker 1: thousand dollars page Sentenfeld has just sitting there.
Speaker 2: Well, you can only do three things with it under
Speaker 2: both Ohio and federal law. I think he's got a
Speaker 2: federal leadership pack and like a separate state pack. And
Speaker 2: really all he can do is he can either donate
Speaker 2: it to charity, he can donate it to other candidates,
Speaker 2: or he can repurpose it to run for office himself.
Speaker 2: It's one of the three. So with the third one
Speaker 2: out of the picture, apparently he can either donate it
Speaker 2: to other candidates or I would expect him to ultimately
Speaker 2: probably give it to charity. But he cannot withdraw it
Speaker 2: for personal use. I mean, that is very well established,
Speaker 2: and you have to file a report every I think
Speaker 2: almost six months as to where it is. You even
Speaker 2: have to account for the banker for its interest to
Speaker 2: the penny. So his ability to do something funny with
Speaker 2: that is it's just not there. I was totally would
Speaker 2: I would look for him to do the charitable thing.
Speaker 1: Probably Steve Goodanov is told he's a broken man. Is
Speaker 1: that fair to say?
Speaker 2: You know, again, I haven't seen or spoken with him recently,
Speaker 2: but I will tell you from from people that know
Speaker 2: him that I know, I think that's a I think
Speaker 2: that's fair. I mean, there is a certain I mean, look,
Speaker 2: he did. This is a guy that went to an
Speaker 2: ivy league school, was the top vote getter here, who
Speaker 2: briefly ran for the US Senate, whose star was rising,
Speaker 2: who ended up doing some jail time. I think all
Speaker 2: jail time is hard jail time, but particularly for somebody
Speaker 2: who's you know, who had that kind of a future
Speaker 2: and coming from that. I can only imagine what it
Speaker 2: did to him into his family. So, you know, I
Speaker 2: don't want to you know, I don't want to sell
Speaker 2: it for piling on here. You know, he's he's been
Speaker 2: through a lot. And uh and I think as his
Speaker 2: career as a public official is over, and I wish
Speaker 2: you find a way forward, I wish him well. At
Speaker 2: this point, that's all you can say.
Speaker 3: I wish him well. I agree lastly about minute remaining.
Speaker 1: The grand jury in Hamley County is gathering evidence relative
Speaker 1: to the shooting of Ryan Hinton. It's a simple case
Speaker 1: in a sense, there's not thousands of witnesses or hundreds.
Speaker 1: There's two or three cops at the scene in uniform
Speaker 1: who can testify about gun gun, gun, and the actual
Speaker 1: police officer who was in shall I say, playing clothes
Speaker 1: actually shot he killed Ryan Hinton. I don't think he
Speaker 1: murdered him. I think he shot him and he died.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: There's clear evidence that the original pronouncements of the Chief
Speaker 1: of Police Fiji that a gun was pointed at at
Speaker 1: the police officer who did the shooting of Ryan Hinton
Speaker 1: and then a bullet went into the sternam and came
Speaker 1: out the back. All that's inaccurate or shalla say, cannot
Speaker 1: be proven. And at this point the prosecutor, Connie Pillach
Speaker 1: has a huge decision to make to present it to
Speaker 1: the grand jury or not. She's under no duty to
Speaker 1: present it to the grand jury. If she does not
Speaker 1: firmly believe she can get a conviction a trial, she
Speaker 1: should not present it at all. What is your sense,
Speaker 1: assuming there is a non true bill, given there's no
Speaker 1: indictment of the police officer, are you worried about shall
Speaker 1: I say, civil unrest?
Speaker 2: You know? At this point I'm really not, you know,
Speaker 2: and I'm not sure what calculation is going into the
Speaker 2: decision to present this to the grand jury, or even
Speaker 2: the hesitation about it. Everything I have read in the
Speaker 2: public record and everyone I have talked to, and I
Speaker 2: spent some time down at Deputy Anderson's visitation and talked
Speaker 2: to some of the officers there, I don't understand what
Speaker 2: the hesitation is. I don't know why the officer hasn't
Speaker 2: been cleared at this point. I do know some bigger
Speaker 2: cities and jurisdictions now present every officer involved shooting to
Speaker 2: the grand jury just as a matter of course, even
Speaker 2: if they think there's no choice or no chance of
Speaker 2: an indictment, And if that's going to be the new
Speaker 2: policy here, they need to announce that and treat everyone
Speaker 2: the same. So I really feel to this officer right
Speaker 2: now and his family who are sitting in limbo right
Speaker 2: now wondering if they're going to be indicted. But I
Speaker 2: do think that enough time has elapsed, and I think
Speaker 2: there's so many sensitivities around this, and I do think
Speaker 2: police community relations are in a better place. I will
Speaker 2: be surprised if we have more than a few scattered protests.
Speaker 2: Knock on wood. I hope and pray that it doesn't
Speaker 2: turn into another situation like we had back in two
Speaker 2: thousand and one. I don't believe the facts are there,
Speaker 2: but you know, we won't know until we know.
Speaker 1: Oh, Steve Gooden, there's been two other police shootings with
Speaker 1: Connie Pellach and she's cleared. Both officers presented neither to
Speaker 1: the grand jury, and so the fact she seemingly may
Speaker 1: present this to the grand jury could be a difficulty.
Speaker 3: And we'll see what happens. But Steven P.
Speaker 1: Gooden with Porter Wright, thanks for coming on the Bill
Speaker 1: Cunningham Show. In your perspective of PG Sittingfeld, once again,
Speaker 1: I pray for his complete recovery, and I hope he
Speaker 1: gets on with his life and just be a good
Speaker 1: husband and a good dad and get on with his
Speaker 1: life and maybe in some other cities what I'm told,
Speaker 1: because his name and face is somewhat difficult to walk
Speaker 1: around here, and he wants to raise his kid is
Speaker 1: in an environment free of that stain. So we'll see
Speaker 1: what happens. But Steve Gooden, once again, thanks for coming
Speaker 1: on the Bill Cunningham Show. And Steve, you're a great American.
Speaker 2: Thank you wise, thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: God bless you. Let's continue with more. The line becomes
Speaker 1: available five one, three, seven, four, nine, seven thousand, Bill
Speaker 1: cunning in the Great American Live at the Home of
Speaker 1: your Reds and an icon Segman Dennison on news radio
Speaker 1: seven hundred WLW. Now let's continue. We never stop here,
Speaker 1: We simply continue. And a Red Space kicks off a
Speaker 1: bit early today. First pitch about three twenty. Our coverage
Speaker 1: begins about two fifteen or so with the inside pitch
Speaker 1: and so much more. And the Reds are in Chicago.
Speaker 1: The weather's great there by the way, and they need
Speaker 1: a couple wins. They're uh one game under five hundred,
Speaker 1: about ready to Marsch for glory. We'll see what happens
Speaker 1: down the road and heading toward the All Star break,
Speaker 1: et cetera. The discussions I had with Steve Gooden were
Speaker 1: very illustrative of a difficulty that any new prosecutor has.
Speaker 1: And we have a new one on the line with
Speaker 1: Connie Pillach. I've reached out to her and she's going
Speaker 1: to join me when the decision is made to indict
Speaker 1: or not indict the Cincinnati Police officer. And I can
Speaker 1: give you, I can't give any inroads whatsoever. This person
Speaker 1: did not know exactly what was occurring, but I knew
Speaker 1: do know a couple things, and that is that the
Speaker 1: grand jury presentation would be somewhat brief. Unlike many other offenses,
Speaker 1: there may be two or three in uniform cops chasing
Speaker 1: those desperadoes, those car thieves, and then there's the one
Speaker 1: cop that actually did the shooting. And then there's only one.
Speaker 1: I understand there's only one videotape. There's not two or
Speaker 1: three or four. So there's one videotape and you've seen
Speaker 1: it maybe one hundred times, and that lasted total of
Speaker 1: about six seconds. The critical part lasted less than two seconds.
Speaker 1: The four defendants, the three defenders Torell Austin and de
Speaker 1: Anthony Bullocks and Sincere Grigsby eighteen and nineteen years old,
Speaker 1: all had extensive previous criminal records and they went one direction,
Speaker 1: as Ryan Hinton won a different direction. And when the
Speaker 1: matters presented before the grand jury, you're going to have
Speaker 1: essentially the coroner's report that indicated that the fatal shot
Speaker 1: was fired about three inches below the left armpit and
Speaker 1: exited out the sternum and tore the heart apart, and
Speaker 1: there was another bullet that went into the left side
Speaker 1: of the clavical and launched himself on the back of
Speaker 1: the neck. The coroner, doctor Lastmi some Marco, said that
Speaker 1: did not indicate that that shot came from the rear.
Speaker 1: That possibly probably as Ryan Hinton was shot and his
Speaker 1: body immediately reacted to his heart having a bullet go
Speaker 1: through at a high rate of speed, he instinctively turned
Speaker 1: to the right, which caused the second bullet to make
Speaker 1: it look as if it entered the back when it didn't.
Speaker 1: She said to me, and she said to you, and
Speaker 1: she said to everyone. He was shot in the side.
Speaker 1: It was not a backshot. And so there are some
Speaker 1: who want to make this worse than what it is
Speaker 1: for political purposes and to make money out of the deal.
Speaker 1: And I get that completely. I'm a lawyer. I understand
Speaker 1: that the reality is that one person was in charge
Speaker 1: of this shooting, and that was Ryan Hinton. So, as
Speaker 1: Steve Goodin said, he is somewhat surprised at this point
Speaker 1: that the officer has not yet been cleared. It's been
Speaker 1: almost thirty days since it took place. In fact, four
Speaker 1: weeks ago it happened, and the relevant part took about
Speaker 1: two seconds and Ryan Hinton is dead. I think after
Speaker 1: the murder the next day of Larry Henderson, Deputy Sheriff Henderson,
Speaker 1: that there was a sense that the so called community
Speaker 1: that may want to write and commit acts of violence
Speaker 1: and relationship to this the airs out of the bubble
Speaker 1: and there's not a sense, sadly because of Larry's death,
Speaker 1: that there's much of a sense of injustice happening if
Speaker 1: the officer is not indicted, and of course he should
Speaker 1: not be indicted. However, the prosecutor can indict a ham
Speaker 1: Sandwich if he or she wants to, and I don't
Speaker 1: think that's the case here. You may recall about ten
Speaker 1: days after the event, I had on Connie Pillach with
Speaker 1: me and she said she'd seen nothing at that point
Speaker 1: to indicate the police officer committed a crime. And by
Speaker 1: that point she did not have, by the way, the
Speaker 1: coroner's report yet, but she did have the videotape that
Speaker 1: was available to all to see. That is the key
Speaker 1: piece of evidence, and nothing in the corner's report which
Speaker 1: throw any shade on the belief that the officer had
Speaker 1: a perception that his life was in jeopardy when he
Speaker 1: fired the shot. The fatal shot that killed Ryan Hinton,
Speaker 1: who by the way, just turned eighteen about ten days before,
Speaker 1: and in other grand juries. In these kinds of cases,
Speaker 1: there are some local county prosecutors that clear the officers
Speaker 1: without presenting it to the grand jury, and there's some
Speaker 1: that presented to the grand jury. As a matter of policy.
Speaker 1: Every time, I'm thinking the prosecutor Mike Moser, good friend
Speaker 1: of Richard K. Jones and Butler County, and he said,
Speaker 1: and my pace and my policy is to always present
Speaker 1: it to the grand jury and then instruct them as
Speaker 1: to the law. I might bring a different Common Police
Speaker 1: Court judge to instruct the grand juries to the law,
Speaker 1: and from that the jurors know what my feeling is
Speaker 1: on the matter and how to proceed. And in fact,
Speaker 1: the prosecutors under an ethical duty to only present for
Speaker 1: indictment if the prosecutor believes quote, that there is a
Speaker 1: likelihood of success at trial, which is different than probable cause.
Speaker 1: So for a prosecutor to present this case and seek
Speaker 1: an indictment, it would have to mean that Connie Pillage
Speaker 1: believed there was a likelihood of success. By that, I
Speaker 1: mean a conviction of murder of Cincinnati police at trial.
Speaker 1: I don't think a reasonable person can look at this
Speaker 1: and say anything other then there's a likelihood of being
Speaker 1: found not guilty at trial, just the opposite of what
Speaker 1: is required, and so an experienced prosecutor, if you present
Speaker 1: it to the grand jury, they must be led to
Speaker 1: a defined result that you desire. In previous police shootings
Speaker 1: in Hamilton County, there have been at least two, maybe
Speaker 1: three in the last six months. Neither were presented to
Speaker 1: the grand jury by Connie Pillage. She didn't present either case.
Speaker 1: I had her on that one case that happened an
Speaker 1: I seventy five might have been an Evendale officer, or
Speaker 1: it might have been spring Down. I'm not sure who
Speaker 1: killed someone, she said. I did not firmly believe that
Speaker 1: the officer doing the shooting and killing that immigrant committed
Speaker 1: an offense, so I didn't present it. And there still
Speaker 1: is an opportunity for her not to present this case
Speaker 1: either under the idea that let's let some more time
Speaker 1: go by and see what happens. I think that, in
Speaker 1: all fairness to my respect for law enforcement, the chief
Speaker 1: of Police Thiji, made a blunder, a mistake within twenty
Speaker 1: four hours speaking about the barrel of the gun pointed
Speaker 1: at the officer and a bullet went in the chest
Speaker 1: and came out the back. In this case, Ryan Hinton
Speaker 1: was facing the officer, shot in the chest and the
Speaker 1: boy came out the back, and the evidence seems to
Speaker 1: indicate that did not take place. And I think in
Speaker 1: the future maybe she'll be a bit more circumspect. She
Speaker 1: should answer questions by saying, I have to wait to
Speaker 1: comment on this until I get the coroner's report and
Speaker 1: gather more evidence and more information.
Speaker 3: Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: But she is also somewhat new to the job and
Speaker 1: thought she would get out there quickly with information to
Speaker 1: calm things down, when instead of calming things down, she's
Speaker 1: kind of fired things up by talking about barrel of
Speaker 1: the gun pointed at the officer standing ten feet apart,
Speaker 1: and the officer fired and the bullet went in Hinton's
Speaker 1: chess came out the back.
Speaker 3: She shouldn't have done that.
Speaker 1: Everyone I talked to in law enforcement kind of hangs
Speaker 1: their head and say, well, she shouldn't have done that.
Speaker 1: And everyone says she shouldn't have done that, And I
Speaker 1: hope she learns from that. She shouldn't have done that,
Speaker 1: But other than that, if Connie Pillach even presents it
Speaker 1: to the grand jury, that would be somewhat surprising because
Speaker 1: in other cases she's not presented it. Now, when I
Speaker 1: talked to Rob's Sanders, as you know the Kent County prosecutor,
Speaker 1: he seldom presents to the grand jury in Kenton County
Speaker 1: a indictment of a police officer unless he wants an indictment.
Speaker 1: He said, Look, I'm not going to risk a grand
Speaker 1: jury who has no experience in these matters coming up
Speaker 1: with a indictment that's not justified. That I can't take
Speaker 1: the court. See, the law requires the prosecutor to present
Speaker 1: to the grand jury on any case, but especially a
Speaker 1: police shooting case, only if the prosecutor believes there's a
Speaker 1: likelihood here or she can get a conviction of trial.
Speaker 1: I think no one can claim that the police officer
Speaker 1: in Cincinnati would likely be convicted of murder of Ryan
Speaker 1: Hinton in this environment.
Speaker 3: I don't see it.
Speaker 1: Despite the mistakes during the investigation, there have been some
Speaker 1: mistakes made, but the mistakes aren't criminal. The mistakes are mistakes.
Speaker 1: Mistakes happen in life. The evidence speaks through the Corners
Speaker 1: report and through the videotape and that's about it, and
Speaker 1: I suspect County Pillage is waiting a little bit more
Speaker 1: time to gather more evidence. There's a couple of subpoenas
Speaker 1: out that I'm aware of. Somebody called me that had one,
Speaker 1: and I know they're gathering information to present it to
Speaker 1: the grand jury. And the subpoenas came from a grand jury.
Speaker 1: As you know, in Hamlet County, there's always one grand
Speaker 1: jury working and their citizens picked from the voter rules,
Speaker 1: just like trial jury members are picked. You're in the
Speaker 1: you show up for report your duty and on a
Speaker 1: Monday and you're assigned to a courtroom or you're assigned
Speaker 1: to the grand jury. You go upstairs. There's nine persons
Speaker 1: on a grand jury, and to get an indictment, you
Speaker 1: need seven of the nine to vote a true it's
Speaker 1: called true bill and or report a nobill. And they're
Speaker 1: gathering evidence in order to present to a grand jury
Speaker 1: sometime in the near future, within a week or ten days.
Speaker 1: And at that point, as I understand it, the Prosecutor's
Speaker 1: office will speak to the city police and a Charmaine
Speaker 1: McGuffey to have a staging area for police officers to
Speaker 1: prepare in case it is a no bill which means
Speaker 1: no indictment. In case a few people want to act
Speaker 1: up a little bit, which happens. And when I see
Speaker 1: signs like one down, many to go, a father defending
Speaker 1: his family, referring to Rodney Hinton the father. There is
Speaker 1: some sense that there may be some civil unrest, which
Speaker 1: I think, as a great American, will not take place.
Speaker 3: But what do I know?
Speaker 1: And Steve Gooden has been on council and thinks that
Speaker 1: there will not be significant civil unrest. But the police
Speaker 1: must be prepared. And once again, the officer had no
Speaker 1: desire whatsoever to be in this situation. The person responsible
Speaker 1: for getting shot was Ryan Hinton. Any reasonable cop would
Speaker 1: have done exactly what this police officer did. And secondly,
Speaker 1: Connie Pillage could present to the grand jury a use
Speaker 1: of for expert to describe when a police officer is
Speaker 1: justified or not justified to shoot. You may have seen
Speaker 1: the videotape I may put it on my x account
Speaker 1: and the Columbus area there was a car was pulled
Speaker 1: over for a traffic violation and the passenger jumps out
Speaker 1: of the car and begins running. A police officer begins running. Also,
Speaker 1: unbeknownst to the police officer, the person running had a gun,
Speaker 1: and as he was running, he took his right hand,
Speaker 1: stuck it under his left armpit, and fired shots at
Speaker 1: the police, hitting two police officers from a distance of
Speaker 1: twenty five to fifty feet. Both officers one was in
Speaker 1: critical condition, one in serious Both now are going to survive.
Speaker 1: It shows the danger when someone steals something his arm
Speaker 1: with a gun unbeknownst by the police and they begin
Speaker 1: to run. Fountain Square tastes to Cincinnati. About four days ago.
Speaker 1: One of the he's a I think the guy's name
Speaker 1: was Jabari Johnson, who is twenty three years old, was
Speaker 1: breaking into cars all over Court Street and Vine Street
Speaker 1: in order to find guns and god knows what else.
Speaker 1: He was identified by police as possible a suspect. They
Speaker 1: asked him to yell at him on Fountain Scure, Hey,
Speaker 1: let me talk to you for a moment. He starts running.
Speaker 1: At that point, did those two Cincinnati cops know he
Speaker 1: had a gun? Absolutely not. One of the officers pulled
Speaker 1: out a taser in order to tase the guy. Jabari
Speaker 1: Johnson stops, turns around, pulls out a gun from his
Speaker 1: waistband is prepared to kill a police officer on Fountain
Speaker 1: Square as the taser think God takes effect about half
Speaker 1: the time a taser does not take effect. The officers
Speaker 1: did not know who he had a gun.
Speaker 3: Unlike the Ryan Hinton situation.
Speaker 1: When the officers there knew he had a gun, they
Speaker 1: yelled gun, gun, gun, and they saw the gun. So
Speaker 1: this officer was uniquely positioned to shoot Ryan Hillton because
Speaker 1: the officer believed he was in possession of a gun
Speaker 1: which within a quarter of a second could have been
Speaker 1: used to kill him, kill him and his fellow officers.
Speaker 1: So we'll see what happens, and I hope Connie Pillage
Speaker 1: does not present it. Some have said that she's going
Speaker 1: to present the case to provide political cover for her
Speaker 1: as more or less a liberal Democrat. She wants to
Speaker 1: tell her core constituency base, well, look, it wasn't me.
Speaker 1: It was the grand jury of Hamlin County, and she
Speaker 1: can manipulate the grand jury to a defined result. I
Speaker 1: had one prosecutor tell me once that if you have
Speaker 1: three or four strong members of a grand jury listening
Speaker 1: to evidence, whether inan dit or not, and they're heading
Speaker 1: one direction, and you don't want me to go that direction.
Speaker 1: You say, look, we're going to reconvene this grand jury
Speaker 1: to a different point, and then we need different we
Speaker 1: need some more evidence, and then get a different grand
Speaker 1: jury to hear the evidence. There's all kinds of ways
Speaker 1: the prosecutor can can have the grand jury dance to
Speaker 1: its tune and do what the prosecutor wants to do.
Speaker 1: And in this case, I hope the case in a
Speaker 1: sense is not presented that the officer by this point
Speaker 1: should have been freed. He's on desk duty as we speak.
Speaker 1: And if the case is presented in the next week
Speaker 1: or two or three, and I pray to God there's
Speaker 1: a no bill, because if there is an indictment for
Speaker 1: murder in this circumstance, I don't see any cop ever
Speaker 1: chasing anybody ever again anywhere when they could have a
Speaker 1: gun and turn around and shoot him like happening Columbus
Speaker 1: to those two officers, and almost for a split second
Speaker 1: happened at the Taste on Fountain Square. And if anything,
Speaker 1: this officer should get our thanks and a medal for
Speaker 1: courage for standing up to this because Ryan Hinton and
Speaker 1: this gang of thieves Austin Bullocks and Grigsby were the
Speaker 1: ones responsible for the circumstances that led ultimately to the
Speaker 1: murder of Larry Henderson. There is a break and proximate
Speaker 1: cause you can't charge these three with Larry Henderson's murder.
Speaker 1: But if they didn't do what they did, Ryan Hinton
Speaker 1: would have not done what he did, which means Larry
Speaker 1: would be alive today. Let's continue with more and uh
Speaker 1: if the line becomes available. Five one, three, seven, four, nine,
Speaker 1: seven thousand Reds Baseball kicks off about twenty minutes or so.
Speaker 1: First pitch about three twenty heading toward I can't believe
Speaker 1: June is almost here, and after Memorial Day it's Rainy's
Speaker 1: gonna have a great weekend. Spend it with time, spend
Speaker 1: your time with friends and family. But those officers I
Speaker 1: speak to is deputy sheriff CEOs. Federal authorities would be
Speaker 1: shocked if this officer was indicted for murder under this
Speaker 1: fact pattern. Let's continue twelve fifty six HOMEO Reds. Here's
Speaker 1: radio seven hundred WOLW today.
Speaker 3: You know I wouldn't note to my left at this point.
Speaker 1: Trump and Elon Musk on the White House News conference
Speaker 1: in which Elon is leaving, but Doze remains. He's keeping
Speaker 1: some of the eggheads behind to find out more waste
Speaker 1: fraud and abuse, and the Department of Agriculture just discovered
Speaker 1: the largest food stamp fraud in American history, to the
Speaker 1: tune of about eighty five million dollars. An employee of
Speaker 1: the USDA was working with others to issue EBT cards
Speaker 1: and then taking fifty percent discount. They were putting millions
Speaker 1: of dollars of cash in their pocket selling the cards,
Speaker 1: which is indicative of what Doge was doing. And the
Speaker 1: one rub for Elon Musk is he donated all this
Speaker 1: time and money and also it appears costing him billions
Speaker 1: of dollars because the leftists came after him hard. And
Speaker 1: he made the comment the other day that instead of
Speaker 1: cutting federal spending, the Republicans are increasing federal spending, which
Speaker 1: is true, and it's my view that if you cannot
Speaker 1: cut federal spending in this environment with Donald Trump in
Speaker 1: his last term only term as president, along with Republicans
Speaker 1: in the House in the Senate, there's never going to
Speaker 1: be a cut in federal spending. Despite the protestations of
Speaker 1: federal workers and also shutting down various pieces of foreign
Speaker 1: aid which needed to be extracted. The amount of money
Speaker 1: to be saved is somewhat paltry compared to the spending
Speaker 1: of the federal government. For example, if you would take
Speaker 1: the Department of Defense, which is going up and spending
Speaker 1: fifteen percent, the president probably deserves it. One hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty billion dollar increase in the Defense department. We're going
Speaker 1: to spend about one point one trillion dollars in defense,
Speaker 1: fifteen percent increase. Take the Defense Department plus interest on
Speaker 1: the national debt, just the interest, which is over a
Speaker 1: trillion dollars a year. Add on top of that Medicare, Medicaid,
Speaker 1: those four programs, and there's no cuts to Medicaid whatsoever.
Speaker 1: At the bottom line, it's making getting rid of waste, fraud,
Speaker 1: and abuse. Absolutely, is it going to change the trajectory
Speaker 1: of Medicaid spending goes to the increase of doctors and
Speaker 1: hospital fees. No, So you take Defense, take interest on
Speaker 1: the national debt, take Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those
Speaker 1: items are untouched, in fact increasing under Donald Trump's budget,
Speaker 1: and that that represents about seventy percent of federal spending.
Speaker 1: So my good friend and your Senator Ron Johnson of
Speaker 1: Wisconsin kind of laid out what's been happening rather illustrative.
Speaker 1: He made the point that during the eight years of
Speaker 1: Barack Hussein Obama, Obama averaged about nine hundred and ten
Speaker 1: billion of deficits every year, nine hund and ten billion,
Speaker 1: which was ridiculous in peacetime, nine hundred and ten billion.
Speaker 1: Who borrowd every dollar of that? And then after Trump's
Speaker 1: first three years before COVID hit, Trump averaged eight hundred
Speaker 1: and ten billion a year. And then when COVID hit,
Speaker 1: the deficit in one year was three trillion dollars and
Speaker 1: one year, So then Biden takes over, and of course
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, they said, a hell with
Speaker 1: any caps on anything, We're going to grossly increase and
Speaker 1: spend four trillion dollars more money. So under under Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: the deficit by itself went up eight trillion dollars, taking
Speaker 1: into account COVID. Under Trump, the deficit spending and the
Speaker 1: accumulated debt won up another eight trillion dollars, and under
Speaker 1: Obama that was eight trillion dollars. So Johnson's making the point,
Speaker 1: how about returning to the spending of the year twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: is that a real sacrifice. Well, in twenty twenty, the
Speaker 1: total federal spending was four point seven trillion dollars. The
Speaker 1: physical year starting October first of this year is going
Speaker 1: to be seven trillion. That's under Trump and the Republicans.
Speaker 1: So from four point seven trillion in twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: trillion and twenty twenty five, we're gonna borrow now well
Speaker 1: north of two trillion dollars to fund our spending habits.
Speaker 1: And we can't stop spending as far as income tax
Speaker 1: collections of people like this segment, et cetera. The taxpayers
Speaker 1: have given to the federal government five trillion dollars of
Speaker 1: our money in the year twenty twenty four to twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, five trillion dollars irs, terras, whatever it is, fees,
Speaker 1: and they can't stay within that. The Republicans are gonna
Speaker 1: borrow two trillion dollars. More so, if we want, if
Speaker 1: we simply said, whatever we spend in the year twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, which wasn't exactly one hundred years ago, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, we're going to spend that amount of money
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five we would have a three hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollar surplus instead of a two trillion dollar deficit.
Speaker 1: If we cannot stop spending now with the Trumpster and
Speaker 1: Michael Johnson and John fun and all this going on,
Speaker 1: we're never going to be able to do it. In
Speaker 1: which case, the deficit accumulated debt right now in the
Speaker 1: nation is thirty seven trillion. When Trump leaves office, it's
Speaker 1: going to be forty five trillion dollars. The interest on
Speaker 1: that will be two trillion dollars a year, which means
Speaker 1: the interest on the payment of national debt will double
Speaker 1: between now in the next eight years. Double Where does
Speaker 1: the money come from? And then you add on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
Speaker 1: defense interest on the national debt that's going to be
Speaker 1: seventy seven percent of the federal budget. We can't live
Speaker 1: like this and survive as a nation. And if it
Speaker 1: doesn't happen now and not going to happen, and seemingly
Speaker 1: it's not going to happen, Ron Johnson said Coot, I
Speaker 1: have nothing but respect for Speaker Johnson, understand and sympathize
Speaker 1: with the challenge she has. I have nothing but support
Speaker 1: for what Trump is trying to do. But this is unsustainable.
Speaker 1: It'd be interesting if the CNN's of the world in
Speaker 1: ABC News would deal with that issue. Whether Republican or Democrat.
Speaker 1: Everyone spends way past the ability of our economy to
Speaker 1: grow and have a balanced budget. Take out twenty twenty
Speaker 1: one budget. That's what we're going to spend. We have
Speaker 1: a three hundred billion dollar surplus. That's not the way
Speaker 1: things work. Segment, your comments.
Speaker 3: It's a lot of money. Segment.
Speaker 1: Let's get into, shall we say, the reds, pregame activities
Speaker 1: and all that represents