Surprise, surprise! When it comes to a key voting dispute in the Keystone State, Don Lemon is all in with John Fetterman, while casting aspersions on Republicans!
Pennsylvania law requires that absentee and mail-in voters must "fill out, date and sign the declaration" on their mail-in ballot. The dispute is whether mail-in ballots that are undated or incorrectly dated should be counted. Fetterman has brought a federal suit to overturn a state-court ruling that such ballots should be set aside.
Lemon began by parroting Stacey Abrams' argument in Georgia: just because people are voting in record numbers doesn't mean those ee-vil Republicans aren't suppressing the vote!
After Lemon dismissed the Republican position as "fishy," and made his case for counting the improperly-submitted ballots, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig noted that what Lemon said was "precisely the argument that Fetterman's team is making."
Replied Lemon: "And I think it's a very good argument, by the way."
Lemon also offered some unintentional humor, at one point acknowledging:
"I know [Republicans] say it's the law and things."
Yeah: that inconvenient law thingy!
Memo to CNN boss Chris Licht: how is any of this building trust with Republicans?
On CNN This Morning, Don Lemon branding Republican arguments on a Pennsylvania ballot dispute "fishy," while calling Democrat John Fetterman's argument "very good," was sponsored in part by Hulu, Xfinity, Skechers, and GoDaddy.
Here's the transcript.
CNN
CNN This Morning
11/8/22
6:23 am ETELIE HONIG: The fundamental legal dispute here comes down to this -- Republicans on one side are arguing, well, the law of the state or the Commonwealth in this case, of Pennsylvania says that you have to write the date on the outside of the ballot envelope. And the date has to fall between the set dates for the start of mail-in balloting back in August or September, mail-in or absentee, and November 8th. If it does not comply: no good, throw it out.
The response from Democratic interests has been, yes. But that has nothing to do with whether the person is who the person says they are, that has nothing to do with who the person is attempting to vote for. Therefore, this requirement violates the federal voting rights act.
. . .
LEMON: I always say that, look, when people talk about voter suppression, that does not mean -- just because a lot of people are voting -- that does not mean that there aren't suppressive efforts. And why wouldn't you want every single vote to count? I just don't understand.
And I know they say it's the law and that things that have to go here [?] But there are ways to check to see if these people are real and, you, one would think you would want as many to have access, to be able to vote, as possible. This is fishy and odd.
ELIE HONIG: Precisely the argument that Fetterman's team is making.
LEMON: And I think it's a very good argument, by the way.
