Can someone please explain this?🤯🧐
My understanding is that that case was an equal protection / due process case.
They didn’t make an election fraud case because they didn’t have the information that they needed at that time. Matt Braynard’s work is supposed to be included in court filings in PA, GA, MI, WI, and AZ. And he’s supposed to be presenting the VIP findings in person in Arizona.
https://twitter.com/MattBraynard/status/1332446372004573184
Can someone please explain this?🤯🧐 - CondoleezzaProtege
Actually I probably do know why. When the Campaign legal team split with Sidney Powell, they said that litigating the Dominion fraud would take 6 months to a year. And they needed quick rulings to deal with the election.
The 3rd circuit did mention that the campaign had a path for relief for the issues they had raised through state courts and then to the Supreme court. And since discrimination was not alleged, it declined the case saying they were trying to make a federal case out of what should be a state case.
So now, given this judges ruling if the PA Supreme court over turns it, it goes to SCOTUS which might uphold the injunctions.
If the PA legislature acts, then I think it makes all of the court rulings moot. As the courts will likely defer to the legislature.
So what it sounds like to me, is that the campaign legal team didn’t raise the Fraud charges in court, because they couldn’t meet the standard of proof in time to get a ruling before the electors met.
But they raised the fraud charges with the legislative committee, where the burden of proof is lower.
And now this ruling that the absentee voting was unconstitutional given the wording of the PA constitution, gives the Legislature a firm foundation to declare the election unconstitutional and then consider the allegations of fraud and misconduct in selecting electors.
Just did.
This is still good. Since the election a bunch of “freepers” are trying to sow seeds of defeat and confustion.
you have mail
The Nov 9 Trump Team Complaint focused on procedural issues. Namely, their complaint pointed out the times that the PA Secretary of State issued guidelines for the Nov 2020 election that were contrary to the Act 77 law passed in 2019.
It is much easier to prove procedural violations that would invalidate an election than to prove fraud. How many people could you find who would admit to committing a crime?
Now, this latest complaint argued that the Act 77 law is unconstitutional.
Hope this helps.