Fox's Jedediah Bila threw cold water on the notion that things are looking great for Trump's legal team if any of their frivolous lawsuits finally make their way to the Supreme Court.
November 28, 2020

Despite the best efforts by her Fox & Friends weekend cohosts Will Cain and Pete Hegseth, Jedediah Bila threw cold water on the notion that their frivolous voter fraud cases were going anywhere after a Trump appointed judge practically laughed them out of court this week.

Will Cain read a tweet by Trump lawyer and national embarrassment Jenna Ellis, promising they're moving onto SCOTUS next, and hanging their hopes that Samuel Alito would actually take it up, Hegseth touted another lawsuit that was filed by Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly seeking to invalidate mail-in ballots cast in the presidential election or let the Republican-majority state legislature appoint the state's electors – claiming that Act 77 is unconstitutional – despite the fact that all of them voted for it.

A case that, as Fetterman and others noted, they'd better be careful what they wish for if they win:

After Hegseth nonchalantly pushed the notion that it would somehow be acceptable to just toss out millions of ballots and disenfranchise everyone who voted by mail in Pennsylvania, hoping that the mayhem it creates would also toss the appointment of the state's electors to the legislators as well, Bila reminded them both that things didn't exactly go very well for Trump's lawyers this week, and maybe it's not such a good idea to be attacking Trump appointed judges as the “activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania” as Ellis did on Twitter after losing the case.

BILA: Yeah, that first case you, just a note on that. Jenna Ellis' tweet we had put it up earlier, just talking about how it was an activist court. I don't know how much that holds up, just because the individual who wrote the opinion was actually a Trump appointed judge and the panel that actually weighed in on it, of judges, they were all GOP appointed judges.

So, I don't know how well that holds up. And it was quite blistering. I mean, I was reading through it, saying, you know, "Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here and there is no clear evidence of massive absentee ballot fraud or forgery." They went on and on.

So I think that is a setback, especially when you look at the Supreme Court, and you look at how they may evaluate something like this. Obviously, you have to take into account something that was written this way. Obviously by, like I said, a Trump appointed judge.

So it remains to be seen what they will say about it. Obviously, we're going to keep you posted with what goes on respect to what goes on with that, but this was a blistering opinion, in my opinion.

Can you help us out?

For 17 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.

Discussion

New Commenting System

Our comments are now powered by Insticator. In order to comment you will need to create an Insticator account. The process is quick and simple. When registering you will also be presented with the option to tie all your old Disqus comments to your new Insticator account. Please note that the ability to comment with a C&L site account is no longer available.

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.