President Trump, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Supreme Court discussed on Mornings on the Mall with Brian Wilson

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Here from the media Research Center Dinner. 8 35. We talked to Mark Levin. The great one Right here in the morning On mornings on the mom Vince colonies with Mary Walter. Good morning and joining us now. Joe Degenova legal analyst, Former U. S attorney to the District of Columbia and a member of the Trump campaign. Legal team, Joe, Thanks for joining us. Good morning. Good. Good to have you. I'm sure you had a busy weekend. The president was on with Maria Bartiromo yesterday, and and I watched that entire interview and she tried very, very hard to get the president to give some kind of timeline. No one could where? When can we expect any of these cases to come before the Supreme Court? When do you think you're going to? This is going to be some kind of action in bringing in some kind of decision anything because you got some deadlines, The 14th the electors cast their ballots were looking at basically two weeks from now. Do you have any kind of timelines? You could not get the president to answer that question. Well, the president doesn't have to answer that question, because it Z question for which there is no answer. The question is will get our opportunities when the court gives us one So far on appeal to the Supreme Court will be the Pennsylvania decision, which was by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. That's the Mike Kelly congressman case. That's a very good case with an excellent trial court decision, which, by the way made the federal judges in the third Circuit, both the trial judge in the third Circuit look like fools. McCullough wrote A beautiful This woman wrote a magnificent decision, which was an UN reported on except by. You know some of the media that covers this stuff in detail, which clearly shows the pathway to victory in Pennsylvania by throwing out all of the votes because of the unconstitutional actions of the governor. On the attorney general and the secretary of state that we will get our opportunity now because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court going up, it's not unusual for a client like the president of the United States. Not to know timelines that he's not a lawyer. His job is to fight from four for the election. So you I'm one of the president's lawyers along with Victoria something My wife, I can tell you. There are cases headed up to the Supreme Court. We're well within our time frame to do stuff. President's not going to be able to articulate all of that stuff. We're on our way. We've got two cases coming from Pennsylvania. There'll be stuff coming up from Georgia. And from Michigan on Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a mess. It may even be worse than Pennsylvania and Michigan. There's so much corruption in Wisconsin that it's beyond belief. But machines are being looked at out there The Dominion machines as well as elsewhere. The judge has impounded the Dominion machines in Georgia, those they're going to be examined by forensic people immediately. For for errors and for problems which are legion. The system is a mess that Dominion has voiced it upon the world. Tell us more about those problems if you could, if you could break them down. What are the issues that you see with the Dominion? Not an expert on women. I'm not an expert on Dominion. We're gonna find out how bad it is. We get there. But people who knows his opinion machinery already know that the systems are flawed. They do have back doors. They can be manipulated. You can put thumb drives in them. There's all sorts of problems. In addition, there, there are statements from the Million employees who have become whistle blowers about the problems with the machine. So just give us an opportunity to examine them Forensically. That's all we've ever asked for. That seems to be a big problem for Democrats who don't want the machines look that gosh, I wonder why, Yeah. Yeah. So, um, then, in the Maria Bartiromo interview, the president had said, you know, boy, I wish I could file kind of an all encompassing case President Donald Trump versus I guess all of these states. All these battleground states is that just as the technical question is that in any way legally possible, or do each of these cases have to be individually litigated based on individual voters or individual incidents of fraud? How would that work? It is possible to file multi district litigation. It's a complex process. It is being considered and worked on by a group of lawyers who've been given that assignment proposal has been made, and that is being evaluated for its legal sufficiency. Yes, the answer is, yes, it can be done, and it may be done and in multiple states like that which court would first have jurisdiction in this during a game that that is that is being looked at. You know, you have to decide where you're gonna file that's a very important decision. You have to go where you think you have a chance. Not a friendly court. But affair court. You know, You don't want a court that wants to give you what you want, but you want to court that's going to be fair and listen. For example, in Pennsylvania, the trial judge in that case, Judge Brand wrote one of the most sophomoric juvenile decisions I have ever read. He didn't apply the proper legal standards and emotion to dismiss which the defendant, Pennsylvania defendants did. You don't give them the benefit you get the benefits of to President Trump. He gets the benefit of all the doubts in the case. The facts as alleged by the president are supposed to be presumed. Absolutely correct. Neither he judge Brand nor the third Circuit did that They completely turned the law on its head. Not only that. The decision by Brandon this end of third circuit. We're both snarky, unnecessarily political, nasty, accusatory. I've never seen such garbage legal writing by federal judges, as in the Pennsylvania that to be. This is really funny. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denied President Trump his rights. But at least they did so in a professional way. They never called him nasty names or his lawyers. The federal judge in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Judge Breen and the third Circuit ruling. We're obnoxious legally. And those of Federalist society judges, never Trumpers people say. Oh, you can't say that about federal judges. Will, you sure can. It was some of the worst legal writing in the third Circuit and the district court to federal groups of federal judges that I have ever seen. Unbelievably bad stuff. You know, I.

Coming up next