TEAM TRUMP's RESPONSE TO THE PA RULING
Posted on 11/22/2020 6:47:15 AM PST by Fawn
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Saturday dismissed a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump's campaign in Pennsylvania, saying it contained "strained legal argument without merit."
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann turned down the request for an injunction, dealing another blow to Trump's hopes of invalidating the election's results.
In his 37-page ruling, Brann said the Trump campaign asked him to “disenfranchise almost seven million voters” and said he could not find any case in which a plaintiff “has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election.”
With such a request, the judge said, one might expect compelling legal argument “and factual proof of rampant corruption.” Instead, Brann added, “this court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Summary.
Obama judge.
Off to the SCOTUS.
And this judge is a Republican too.
Here are the details of the ruling ....
According to Brann, the lawsuit had melded two claims that should be kept separate: equal-protection claims from the Trump campaign and from the plaintiff individual voters. He ruled that both parties lacked standing and a good equal-protection argument.
The voters claimed that their votes were thrown out because Boockvar had allowed some counties to set up a ballot “curing” system and allowed other counties not to do so. The individual voters live in Republican-leaning counties, where election officials did not set up such a system. In Democrat-leaning counties, officials did set up such a system and contacted people who had improperly filled out their ballots, in order to give these voters a chance to cast provisional ballots.
Pennsylvania law does not mandate or forbid election officials from setting up such a system. While the individual plaintiff voters did have their ballots cast out, it was not because of Boockvar nor because of the Democratic counties in the lawsuit. Therefore, Brann reasoned, the individual voters lacked standing to bring a case.
Although it is unfortunate that the plaintiffs’ ballots were thrown out, the judge noted that when Democratic-leaning counties set up a ballot curing procedure, they “in fact lifted a burden on the right to vote, even if only for those who live in those counties. Expanding the right to vote for some residents of a state does not burden the rights of others.” Brann ruled that Boockvar did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing some counties to set up a curing procedure while others did not.
The Trump campaign’s standing arguments proved particularly weak because they involved twisting precedent out of context, Brann argued. As for the campaign’s equal-protection claims, they boiled down to one paragraph and took the Bush v. Gore (2000) case out of context, he claimed.
It remains to be seen how the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will handle the case, and whether or not the Trump campaign will be able to appeal to the Supreme Court in time to prevent Pennsylvania’s certification of its election results.
We’re always told to vote if we want to be heard. It ain’t workin.
Obama-appointed judges hear election lawsuits — but Trump ...
Search domain www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/12/obama-appointed-judges-hear-election-lawsuits-trum/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/12/obama-appointed-judges-hear-election-lawsuits-trum/
Nov 12, 2020President Trump’s lawsuit alleging voter fraud in Pennsylvania went to U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, who was appointed by President Obama in 2012.
When reading Toomey’s statement, one should remember that he brokered a “compromise” with Democrats on gun control (shortly after Adam Lanza’s bloody rampage in Sandy Hook) while on a boat cruise up and down the Potomac River that is used exclusively for politicians and their ilk and is fully stocked with booze and food.
This is surreal. Everyone - EVERYONE - knows that this election is rife with extensive fraud. Only a few are willing to combat it.
“in fact lifted a burden on the right to vote, even if only for those who live in those counties. Expanding the right to vote for some residents of a state does not burden the rights of others.”
What is wrong with this persons brain?
From what I’ve seen Powell talks a lot of crap but does nothing. It’s time to put up or shut up. If she or Rudy have all this evidence they need to stop talking about it to the media and show it to a judge.
I think in the near future ballots will be high speed, they will be cast a 2250 fps fast.
They need to find a judge that is willing to let them present their case.
They haven’t gotten to that point yet unfortunately.
The judge was appointed by Obama but he is a conservative.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_W._Brann
“He also spent years as a Republican Party official in Pennsylvania and was active in the Federalist Society and National Rifle Association.[3] In private practice, he focused on tort, contract, commercial, and real estate litigation.”
If he ruled against Trump then there is no there there. Considering the amount of e-mails I’ve been getting(15 yesterday) from the Trump campaign for contributions to “fight the fraud” I’m starting to believe this is just a cash grab. And I voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020.
Someone here went to law school with him. Dr franklin
They have already to a large extent taken away the soapbox and the ballot box.
Follow the Judge’s logic here:
According to Judge Brann, the lawsuit was used as an attempt to throw out legally cast votes.
“Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated, One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.”
The judge stated the lawsuit brought about “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” that are “unsupported by evidence.”
THERE’s THAT WORD AGAIN — EVIDENCE.
Yes they were. This is from the judges ruling.
“ “In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters,” U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann wrote in a 37-page opinion. “This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.”
“That has not happened,” Brann emphasized. “Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”
All this talk to the media of mountains of evidence yet they are not presenting it in court? i know a scam when I see one and this is a scam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.