Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft couldn’t justify why Biden should be removed from state ballots during a contentious interview on CNN.

Jay Ashcroft flopped when faced with the most dreaded predicament amongst grandstanding blowhards: a follow-up question

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s attempt to justify his ludicrous threat to have President Joe Biden removed from the state’s electoral ballot spiraled into chaos over the most basic of questions: “How so?”

During a Monday interview with CNN’s Boris Sanchez, the Republican was asked how he justified his threats to have Biden removed from the state’s ballot in retaliation for recent attempts to remove Trump from state ballots on grounds that his actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election constitute insurrection. The constitutionality of such a removal will soon be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

“What would then be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri. Has he engaged in your mind in some kind of insurrection?” Sanchez asked.

“There have been allegations that he’s engaged in insurrection,” Ashcroft replied. He was then met with the most dreaded predicament amongst grandstanding blowhards: a follow-up question.

“How so?” Sanchez asked, prompting Ashcroft to demand that Sanchez stop interrupting him. “You can’t say something like that and not back it up,” Sanchez countered.

“You interrupted me before I could back it up,” a flustered Ashcroft complained. “Are you scared of the truth?”

  • LillyPip
    17·
    6 months ago

    ‘What’s your legal argument?’

    ‘Your honour, it’s the perennial argument of I’m Rubber, You’re Glue, as put forth in the case of Billy vs Jimmy in the schoolyard, 1954. The teacher in that case argued that Billy was, in fact, glue…’

    • Tbird83ii@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      8·
      6 months ago

      I’m sorry, but Billy v Jimmy is not consistent with this nations Historical Traditions. Your argument needs to include a valid ruling from between 1776 and a time period that justifies my argument, whether or not the precedent at that time was to provide justice only to land-owning white men.

      So sayeth we Court Supreme.