Kayleigh McEnany: Judge who dismissed Trump campaign election suit didn’t understand arguments

 Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE


CHECK OUT WeThePeople.store for best SWAG!

The 3rd Circuit Court judge who tossed a Trump campaign lawsuit alleging widespread vote fraud with dismissive language simply did not understand the argument that was being made, according to Kayleigh McEnany.

Responding in her role as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump’s campaign and not as White House spokeswoman, McEnany said there was “optimism” within the campaign that moving forward, legal challenges to election results in several states will succeed.

Last week, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed by the president, wrote in his ruling that the suit filed by the president’s campaign alleging widespread vote fraud lacked “specific allegations” and “proof.”

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Bibas wrote in a ruling posted Friday.

 

Specifically, the Trump campaign argued that the Pennsylvania secretary of state, along with some counties, restricted and banned poll watchers while allowing some, but not all, voters to ‘cure’ — fix — technical issues with mail-in ballots, in violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

But Bibas rejected those arguments.

“This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the campaign appeals on a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not,” he wrote of a lower court’s previous ruling against the Trump campaign.

“…Nor does the campaign deserve an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification of its votes. The campaign’s claims have no merit,” Bibas, a former Pennsylvania Law School professor, added.

“The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters.”

But McEnany, in a Saturday interview with “Fox & Friends,” said Bibas just didn’t understand the campaign’s argument while vowing to get the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In response to co-host Jedediah Bila’s question about how she thinks the high court will respond given Bibas’ dismissal and comments that “come up repeatedly…in conversation” that what’s “alleged on Twitter or in press conferences is not being alleged in court and cannot be proven in court via evidence.”

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

The Trump campaign believes the constitutional argument is the primary one behind the Pennsylvania legal effort because only voters in certain Democrat-leaning counties were allowed to cure ballots while voters in principally GOP counties were not.

“If you were in the seven blue counties in Pennsylvania, you were given an extraordinary opportunity to fix your mail-in ballot, to cure your ballot. But if you were in the other 60 mainly Republican counties, you didn’t get that privilege. That’s an equal protection violation,” she explained.

“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,” McEnany added.

Jon Dougherty

Comments

Latest Articles