Federal judge dismisses Trump election lawsuit in Pennsylvania

NBC News ^ | 11\21\20 | Pete Williams

[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.”

[itsahoot]

No...I mean the types whose motto is “My way or the Highway”.

Isn't that pretty much what the Constitution is? Requires amendment to vary unless you have a Court that assumes Congressional authority, which we have had since Marbury v. Madison.

[DoodleDawg]

The problem, judge, is that evidence shows that 7 million votes are fraud, but exactly whose vote was corrupted is impossible to know.

So every single vote cast was fraudulent?

[xenia]

“I’m sure they want to get all their ducks in a row.”
____________________________________________

Isn’t that what we heard over and over on here about Durham?

[Jim Noble]

The decision to do it this way (instead of going the Dallas route) was made at a very high level, there is as much if not more evidence of coordination between GOP and Dems than there is of foreign influence.

[bigdaddy45]

You aren’t alone

[reviled downesdad]

Have to find a judge sympathetic to the argument enough to allow them to present their case in court.

[entropy12]

Yes, since constitution does not spell out every law in detail, interpretations of what the original intent was are required all the time.

For example constitution says nothing about abortions explicitly. Therefore the justices should be able to rule with a Neutral and Unbiased stance without prejudice instead of rulings based on their personal beliefs.

[libertylover]

Read again.

[dragnet2]

It finally makes sense now how that sleazy, slimy, stupid, anti-American, commie slug, BO, "won" that office twice. The dumpofcraps first learned how to cheat locally in the big cities, then expanded those efforts to a number of states, and finally found a way to apply that cheating thievery to national elections

They've turned our sacred electoral process and our elections into a sham, an epic con-job directed and produced by the entrenched well connected corrupt.

[lepton]

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.”

---

Well, the sample size of state-wide elections where there is evidence, prior to the certification of the election, of such massive compromise in ballots is pretty small.

[lepton]

Expanding the right to vote for some residents of a state does not burden the rights of others.

---

Equal protection says it does.

[libravoter]

Are they allowed to present new evidence during the appeal phase?

[lepton]

From what I’ve seen Powell talks a lot of crap but does nothing.

---

Have you seen what got released due to her efforts in the Flynn case? That she dug in and was able to prove existed?

[lepton]

The judge stated the lawsuit brought about “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” that are “unsupported by evidence.”

---

The issue at hand in regards the ‘evidence’, is that the evidence was destroyed out of observation - an accusation which really is self evident. The mail-in counting office compromised over 600,000 ballots. That is much larger than the difference tally in votes.

[aquila48]

*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.”

Sure sounds like un-equal protection under the law!

So one side gets to “correct” their votes, while the other side does not?

[lepton]

And presenting the evidence in lower courts will give more time for democrats to prepare counter offensive in SCOTUS where the final ruling will occur.

---

All evidence is presented in lower courts. The upper courts decide whether the lower courts reasoned properly based on that evidence.

[itsahoot]

Therefore the justices should be able to rule with a Neutral and Unbiased stance without prejudice instead of rulings based on their personal beliefs.

Well that says a lot about your legal opinion.

[lepton]

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/22/uncured-federal-judge-dismisses-trump-challenge-in-pennsylvania/

Here’s some cooler assessment of the ruling.

It notes some of the logical issues with the ruling and precedent.

[lepton]

Does the judge actually think the campaign should submit complaints from 7 million people? The problem, judge, is that evidence shows that 7 million votes are fraud, but exactly whose vote was corrupted is impossible to know.

---

The judges logic seems to say that if the difference between votes for candidates was 1 vote, and there were shown to have been 3 fraudulent votes, that the initial tally must stand because it would mean throwing out the 7 million for the sake of the 3. That’s just silly reasoning.

[lepton]

So every single vote cast was fraudulent?

---

So, the Trump folks are requesting 7 million votes be thrown out?

The judge is engaging in hyperbole as though it was detailed fact.