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