Rules: Fill & Download for Free

What McEnany said on Fox was this: “"Yeah, Jed. I think this 3rd Circuit Court judge misunderstood the argument because, look, it’s an equal protection argument," McEnany answered.McEnany laid out the campaign's claims that voters in certain counties — the counties that were predominately Democratic — were allowed to cure their ballots, while voters in primarily Republican counties were not given the same chance.This is what Judge Judge Bibas—Republican, Federalist Society member, appointed by Trump—had to say:“A violation of the Equal Protection Clause requires more than variation from county to county. It requires unequal treatment of similarly situated parties. But the Campaign never pleads or alleges that anyone treated it differently from the Biden campaign.” “Reasonable county-to-county variation is not discrimination.” “[The Campaign] never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so.”The Third Circuit understood Trump’s argument, it simply ruled that the argument was without merit as a matter of law. I tend to think that if the issue is presented to them, the Supreme Court will be more likely to accept the legal analysis of Judge Bibas than that of Kelly McEnany.BTW, since Rich Swift has disabled comments, I will note that his link includes the following information: “UPDATE 11-28-2020 7 p.m.: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses challenge to mail-in ballot procedures, vacates halt to certification.” And since the Presidential election had already been certified, the stay applied only to down-ballot races in the first place.

Yes, it is true. Mentioned in the decision on Page 48.This Court has observed that the quality of the evidence relied on by the State is remarkably thin. The State’s reliance and the State’s experts’ reliance on compilations such as the Mother Jones Magazine survey is an example. The survey is found in the Attorney General’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Exhibit37. It purports to be a survey of mass shootings. It does not indicate how its data is selected, or assembled, or tested. It is unaccompanied by any declaration as to its accuracy. It is probably not peer-reviewed. It has no widely-accepted reputation for objectivity. While it might be something that an expert considers in forming an admissible opinion, the survey by itself would be inadmissible under the normal rules of evidence.The State says that the survey “has been cited favorably in numerous cases,” citing three decisions. Id. at n. 13. Of the three cases listed, however, the survey is not mentioned at all in one case, mentioned only as something an expert relied on in the second case, and mentioned only in passing as “exhaustive” but without analysis in the third. On the other hand, after the Attorney General’s brief was filed, the Third Circuit noted issues with the Mother Jones Magazine survey, remarking, “Mother Jones has changed it definition of a mass shooting over time, setting a different minimum number of fatalities or shooters, and may have omitted a significant number of mass shooting incidents.” Ass’n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 910 F.3d 106, 113 (3d Cir. 2018); see also Ass’n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Grewal, No. 317CV10507PGSLHG, 2018 WL 4688345, at *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2018) (state’s expert Lucy Allen admitted that the Mother Jones survey omitted 40% of mass shooting cases).Emphasis mine.https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510684/2064261_2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdfThat is NOT a ringing endorsement of the government’s approach to “evidence”.

That was October 22, 2020, before the election.Trump’s Mail-In Voter Fraud Claims Have No Merit, Courts RuleBecause it had not yet happened, the judge ruled it was “highly speculative.”Now it is not speculative--it is highly factual. Now we must deal with it—-injunctions, indictments, runoffs, legislative deliberations, and a whole mess to clean up.