Kayleigh McEnany Rips Pennsylvania Judge Who ‘Misunderstood’ Trump Lawsuit Argument

Kayleigh McEnany believes the Pennsylvania judge who rejected the Trump campaign’s latest election lawsuit didn’t understand its legal argument.

“I think this 3rd Circuit Court judge misunderstood the argument because, look, it’s an equal protection argument.”


Jedediah: After a federal appeals panel in Pennsylvania dismissed their lawsuit over alleged voter fraud, the Trump campaign says they’re taking their post-election battle to America’s highest court.

Pete: Attorney Jenna Ellis tweeting the activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover-up allegations of massive fraud. We’re very thankful to have had the opportunity to present proof and the facts to the PA legislature.

Will: Here with an update on the president’s legal strategy, Trump 2020 senior advisor Kayleigh McEnany. Kayleigh thanks so much for being with us this morning.

> Good to join you.

Will: What would you say is the outlook right now within the campaign on the legal strategy going forward, now arriving at the Supreme Court. Is there optimism, pessimism, what does the campaign feel about the prospects of their legal battle?

>> There’s optimism, there will be a petition filed with the Supreme Court. It will be up to the Supreme Court whether to grant certiorari, but two significant developments happened, one late last night and I heard you guys mention this earlier. There’s a separate court case with representative Mike Kelly in Pennsylvania and he actually is likely to succeed on the merits of that case in Pennsylvania, alleging that the whole mail-in system was unconstitutional and he was deemed likely to succeed on the merit so that will be going up to the Supreme Court there in Pennsylvania, so two cases going on in the state of Pennsylvania and many more across the country.

Jedediah: Kayleigh I want to ask you about that ruling because as we look forward to the Supreme Court, we’re all curious as to how the Supreme Court would receive something like this, and you know, if you look at the ruling, this is from a Trump-appointed judge obviously we know that wrote the opinion, it’s pretty tough. It says charges require specific allegations and then proof, we have neither here, calling an election unfair does not make it so. There’s no clear evidence of massive absentee ballot fraud or forgery and it is something that has come up repeatedly in conversation that what is being alleged on Twitter is not being alleged in court and cannot be proven in court via evidence so what do you expect? First of all, will that change and secondly, how do you expect the Supreme Court will receive this given how this particular judge wrote this opinion and what they perceive to have been presented or not presented in court?

> Yeah, Jed, I think the third circuit court judge misunderstood the argument because look, it’s an equal protection argument, the one we’ve been making in court and it says that if you were in the seven blue counties in Pennsylvania, you were given an extraordinary opportunity to fix your mail in ballot, tourer your ballot but if you were in the other 60 mainly Republican counties you didn’t get that privilege and that’s an equal protection violation and we have a right to ask these questions and we have presented affidavits and there are declarations made as well, so there is evidence there and it’s important for the Supreme Court, we feel, to take a look at this but I do want to highlight one other- reported case and it’s what’s happening in into Nevada pretty extraordinary but we were given the opportunity to start investigating into the discovery phase and the moment the Trump campaign was granted the ability to depose witnesses, the moment that that happened you had the Democrats bring out their swat team, 10 lawyers from Perkins Coie, the Fusion GPS firm that did the dossier trying to stop our ability to simply ask questions and there’s a reason democrats don’t want to get into the investigatory stage of litigation because they’re afraid they will uncover the fraud that has been alleged but we have a right to ask questions and we’re thankful to that judge in Nevada for allowing that to proceed.

Pete: Very interesting and also very clear that the Trump legal team plans to continue to fight and is optimistic as you’ve said I want to go back to Pennsylvania though for a moment another part of what could go up to the Supreme Court is the idea that Republicans were not allowed to observe the 682000 votes in many parts of Pennsylvania and the ruling says that well democrats didn’t either but what about if workers, a lot of the workers especially in the big cities, hired by democrats, controlled by Democrats, if you can’t observe it, how can you know it was above dashboard? You think an argument like that gets more resonance at a higher court?

> Absolutely I think that’s a very key point Pete because it’s also an equal protection argument. If you have republican observers that aren’t able to observe these ballots that are a football field away and one of the best pieces of analysis I’ve seen of this election is a piece by j. b. sherkin is he points out all of these statistical anomalies that somehow Joe Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro say four, those four being Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Detroit. If you’re noticing something in common it’s that those are the four key metros and swing states one of which, as you just noted, was Philadelphia where observers were kept a football field away. Why did that happen?

Pete: Good question.

Jedediah: Well Kayleigh that’s all the time we have today, but I do want to on a lighter note I have to say I saw a video you had posted of your daughter making funny animal sounds and I swear I am now with my son, we are doing sounds, like what sound does the cow make and making him go “moo” so on a lighter note I hope you had a very happy holiday and that video brightened my day amid all of the crazy chaos going on it as a much-needed post so thank you

Viết một bình luận