« Fox & Friends

McCarthy: Trump must flip Pennsylvania, two other states to take back election

2020-11-08 | 🔗
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy McCarthy looks into the legal battles of the election on 'Fox & Friends Weekend.'
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jedediah, we appreciate it with the Trump team pursuing legal challenges in number of states. Where do things go from here? What happens next lets ask Fox NEWS, contributor, former assistant: U Dot S attorney Andrew Mccarthy, thanks for being on the show, I watched you all week and you have been giving fantastic insight on all of this. Obviously, a couple of lawsuits in Georgia, Michigan have been thrown out. Many others remain. Give us insight what you think happens next, if you can do so in the context of election fraud and voter fraud and what would need to happen to actually affect the outcome of the election, a lot Jed, he would probably the president would probably have to flip Pennsylvania and at least two other states, which is a tall order. There is one bright line, legal issue, and that is the one in Pennsylvania. The other ones are situations where you have to come in and prove factual fraud or
impropriety. The big ticket item in Pennsylvania is that the state Supreme Court changed the rules of the election prior to the election that had been set by Pennsylvania State LAW by the legislature. They gave three extra days for receiving ballots under the constitution. The state legislatures, not the courts, not a bureaucracy, are charged with setting the rules for elections, so they have a very significant legal issue that so far the Supreme Court has been. I think too timid about and hasnt jumped in. I think they should have ruled on this two or three weeks before the election. But the straight question is: should those votes count from the fourth fifth and sixth of November? You dont have to prove any fraud with that. That is a straight up legal issue, the rest of it, I think, is you know we could all see. There was a lot of potential for fraud, because we have this
unprecedented massive use of mail in voting which just innately is not as safe in terms of election integrity as coming into the polls physically and voting. So you have to kind of compare what the potential is, which we can all see, what theyre able to prove as a matter of hard fact, and then it is not just. Can you prove instances of fraud, but can you prove so much that it would actually make a difference in the outcome of the election PETE as you reference the with the mail in mail out balloting, you remove safeguards like signature requirementing. You can understand why people would be concerned. The Gore contest took thirty. Seven days were only five days in some people are alleging. Oh, I havent seen the evidence yet have you talked to any of the litigators and how could we have all the evidence if it hasnt play out in court yet doesnt this have to play out.
I heard from a couple of them and you know theyre theyre, gathering information. They say theyre getting affidavits from relevant people and the like im, not one of these people who worries too much about this. There is no crisis of the regime. Here we have a process whereby the beginning of December statutorily it is December. Eighth, as a practical matter. It is December 14th. That is when the states have to not only have certified their results but sent them to Congress. So you have from now, until December 14th to play a lot of this stuff out and it is going to get as far as the courts are concerned. It will get expedited treatment. Weve already seen. Some cases come in and get dismissed pretty quickly, just because there wasnt enough quantum of fraud evidence it would have made a difference, even if you allow for the fact that there were irregularities which there are in every election.
I dont think this is a crisis. We have a presumptive result. It looks at the moment like what happened to President Trump is kind of what happened for him in two thousand and sixteen in the sense that you have a handful of states that are really razor thin. They can pursue recounts. It is appropriate to do that. The likelihood that it would change ten of thousands of votes is not high, but we have a lot of places where its really tight, so they should pursue their remedies and we got plenty of time to do. It will Andy. We dont have much time nice to see you again. It has been quite some time. Hey will will, let me see if I understand completely where we are when we began this interview. The context of this election is highly irregular. It is high potential for abuse, skepticism would be well earned. There are instances of irregularities or fraud that evidence needs to be brought forward. You are skeptical anything amounts to enough votes to
change. Any state election for the President is that a fair, characterization yeah will just to layer on top of that. What were talking about here is not just changing any one. State right were talking about changing Pennsylvania and at least two.
Transcript generated on 2020-11-08.