Posted on 11/27/2020 9:53:45 AM PST by Alter Kaker
Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof.
We have neither here. The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.” Instead, it objects that Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more.
This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the Campaign appeals on a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the Campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not. Most of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint boil down to issues of state law. But Pennsylvania law is willing to overlook many technical defects. It favors counting votes as long as there is no fraud. Indeed, the Campaign has already litigated and lost many of these issues in state courts.
The Campaign tries to repackage these state-law claims as unconstitutional discrimination. Yet its allegations are vague and conclusory. It never alleges that anyone treated the Trump campaign or Trump votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or Biden votes. And federal law does not require poll watchers or specify how they may observe. It also says nothing about curing technical state-law errors in ballots. Each of these defects is fatal, and the proposed Second Amended Complaint does not fix them. So the District Court properly denied leave to amend again.
Nor does the Campaign deserve an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification of its votes. The Campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too. That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to the procedural challenges raised. So we deny the motion for an injunction pending appeal.
You are not allow to alter the record at the level of the USSC. New evidence is barred from being introduced. What the whole point of the USSC rules on is reversible error and misapplication of law. Cannot bring in new stuff. So the record is the record from the original trier of fact — in this case the federal district court.
You do know there are other cases being brought before Pennsylvania right? Somebody posts an article without doing any in-depth reading of what that particular lawsuit was about and everybody here goes nuts
Because his case is based on the constitutionality of the changes the SOS made to elections laws..
Sydney Powell is handling the fraud charges. Its not that difficult to separate see the 2.
Rookie judge writing the opinion. That was designed to be a slap in the face of the President.
Nope, the adhered to the law. Elections are a state issue. For a conservative website there are sure a coterie of Freepers who are literally begging the fedzilla to intervene where it does not belong.
exactly
Right. He's intruding on my safe space.
I agree that things look dire but you have loved posting about how it’s over the second it was announced. There’s something shady about you but I am not in control of the board. Have a good day
let us also not forget generally EVERY DOJ prosecutor wants to be a federal judge so by doing nothing they preserve their political viability.
Every district court of appeals judge, generally, wants to move up to the USSC.
for the swamp dwellers, Trump hurts the swamp.
Correct.
Time is of the essence, so failing in the 3rd Circuit Court as quickly as possible to get to the USSC is the goal.
No one expected the 3rd Circuit Court to take the case seriously.
“For a conservative website there are sure a coterie of Freepers who are literally begging the fedzilla to intervene where it does not belong.”
In case you haven’t noticed, it is the Trump team wanting to go to the Supreme Court.
When most lawyers are afraid of getting killed if they represent trump, it’s hard to get the best election attorneys.
these judges are saying the “widespread fraud” argument.
IOW just because you proved ballot stuffing you only took a picture of SOME but not enough.
IOW you can’t challenge until certified, and once certified are not allowed to challenge.
>>This case is not about whether those claims are true.
So we’re just going to ignore that they’re true.
OK, understand, but what is the strategery, if not to show fraud...?
The lower PA (or other states) court can simply throw the case out because the PA statute allows for “errors”...
I guess they want to get it to SCOTUS ASAP...
But once at SCOTUS, can Rudy, et al. change the pleading to reveal the fraud, like the 600,000/3,200 vote spike switcheroo data...?
Will that be allowed? Moments like this, I wish I was a lawyer...Nahhh!
trump has 232 EVs. he needs 270 total or equivalently 38 more than he has now.
PA has 20 EVs
GA has 16 EVs
MI has 16 EVs
WI has 10 EVs
AZ has 11 EVs
NV has 6 EVs
Without PA, trump can get 38 EVs and win in other ways:
GA, MI, WI 42 EVs
GA, MI, NV 43 EVs
GA, WI, AZ, NV 43 EVs
MI, WI, AZ, NV 43 EVs
not counting VA in which fraud may also have occurred
To clarify - the campaign’s position was, to expedite + focus things, “this case is not a fraud case” - it’s based on other inequities; there was no statement that there was not fraud involved but, for purposes of decision, they didn’t need to go there. The district court and then court of appeals turned those words around to mean something other than was purported.
>Yep, trust Giuliani to undermine the case, saying there was no fraud.
He didn’t say there was no fraud, just that this particular argument wasn’t about fraud but about voter discrimination. I don’t know why the court even brought it up in their decision.
depends on the standard of review.
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.