President Trump appeared with Fox’s Maria Bartiromo on Sunday morning for his first post-election interview to discuss Trump’s strategy as his legal challenges of the election play out in court.
Trump has met resistance from judges in several states in his quest to overturn the results of several states’ presidential election, and accused those judges of judicial activism during the sit-down with Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures.
President Trump has indicated that he will not concede the election until all lawsuits have played out or the electoral college votes to install Joe Biden in the White House.
In the meantime, judges in key states such as Nevada, Arizona, and Pennsylvania have thrown up significant roadblocks in front of Trump’s legal team, despite the presentation of sworn affidavits alleging voter fraud in election irregularities.
“We’re trying to put the evidence in, and the judges won’t allow us to do it,” Trump told Bartiromo. “We have so much evidence. You probably saw Wednesday last week we had a hearing in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. … Unbelievable witnesses, highly-respected people, that were truly aggrieved.”
“We’re not allowed to put in our proof. They say you don’t have standing,” Trump explained. “I would like to file one nice big beautiful lawsuit, talking about this and many other things, with tremendous proof. We have affidavits, we have hundreds and hundreds of affidavits.”
“You mean as president of the United States, I don’t have standing? What kind of a court system is this?” Trump asked.
Indeed, the mainstream media and Democrat establishment has summarily dismissed any evidence of election irregularities or fraud, and crowned Joe Biden the next president of the United States, despite the fact that the elecion has yet to be fully certified.
Keeping the faith
The most recent blow to Trump’s election challenges comes from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which moved on Saturday to strike down a GOP request to halt the certification of the Keystone state’s election results.
The request, led by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), asked the court to invalidate a universal mail-in voting policy passed by the state’s legislature last year that Kelly alleged was unconstitutional.
If the court had chosen to grant Kelly’s request, millions of mail-in ballots would have been invalidated in the state, and could potentially have overturned Biden’s presumptive win.
However, the court ultimately decided against granting the request, writing in the decision that “upon consideration of the parties’ filings in Commonwealth Court, we hereby dismiss the petition for review with prejudice based upon Petitioners’ failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner.”