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.
A pox on him too. But dont doubt that Kushner wanted it too.
If Kushner and Ivanka wanted Bannon to stay..he would have stayed.
I do hope Bannon gets a secret pardon for whatever he did
I have no visibility into the decision making process inside DJT’s legal team.
However, if Giuliani is DJT’s personal attorney, it is up to him to interview and identify the best attorneys, and to coordinate litigation strategy.
For him to let a solo-practice custody and alimony lawyer to handle the most important case in the nation, and then go out there and amend the complaint and strike all the critical allegations and causes of action, and then waltzing into a courtroom with zero experience, and then appealing the wrong question of law ... just inexcusable.
Giuliani is DJT’s personal attorney. DJT has put his trust in Giuliani, and Giuliani failed
For him to let a solo-practice custody and alimony lawyer .....
Wait. Are you talking about Rudy? RICO Rudy??
I do no believe Guiliani is a saboteur. I think he is way past his prime
People keep talking about how he took down the mob. Great. That doesn’t mean he was capable of handling election issues this complicated and of this magnitude.
I try to get people to understand by saying do you really think the great Gerry Spence would be able to handle some of his greatest cases today in the same way?
But many don’t even know who he is.
On the other hand, I do question what the deal is with “Micro penis” Jenna.
SCOTUS reviews only the issues raised in the lower courts. Giuliani not only didn't allege fraud in the lower court, he affirmatively stipulated that the Trump campaign wasn't claiming fraud.
Yes, Rudy. At one point, DJT’s attorney in the all-important Federal District Court for Pennsylvania was a Linda Ann Kerns.
Google her. Check out her website. God bless her, she tried, but she was clearly in way over her head.
If a lone soldier is left on the front lines to stop an armored column, I don’t blame the soldier for losing the battle. I blame the colonel who put her there.
The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory.
Trump trusts Rudy. Rudy is his kind of guy.
I think even Kushner would have a hard time getting Trump to let go of Rudy...and this is coming from someone who blames Kushner for the horrible ground game of this election.
After reading through 80 posts, (I couldn’t take anymore), I came to the conclusion that NONE of you know what the hell you are talking about.
1. This NOT the only case.
2. The Supremes may not be needed for Trump to win.
3. Trump can still win by WINNING.
4. Trump can win in the House of Representatives.
Galaxy Quest comes to mind...
“Never give up, never surrender”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ2hJezvd2I
Rudy is a trusted ally and OK as the team media face but i’m not certain he was good choice to lead a legal team.
We need Lin Wood on the case. Gerry Spence is still alive but I don't know how well he is doing at his age.
As it is right now the Supreme court will not even hear the case. Because Guiliani allowed that idiotic case to stand.
I don’t think so. The Supreme Court does not hear evidence, only arguments of law. If the campaign tried to introduce new evidence, SCOTUS could send it back to a lower court. Appeals are generally limited to arguments about procedural errors or incorrect application of the law.
This belief in some quarters that the Trump campaign’s lawyers are sitting on a pile of damning evidence and only waiting until it’s in the Supreme Court to show it is absurd.
This stuff is too important to allow it to fall through the cracks of our goofy Judicial system.
Where is Jay Sekulow? He is at least competent
I listened to the full 3 hour hearing. The EVIDENCE is overwhelming.
+++++
That itself is excellent news. So can you tell us if the legality of the Governor’s 3 day extension for mail in votes was discussed at this hearing?
Is so, what did the judges have to say on the subject? That one looked like a slam dunk to me.
If it goes to congress, we win.
But he hasn’t.....it’s going to Scotus as planned.
Your reasoning aligns with my confusion why not much seems to be getting done
“Then you need to alert Trump and tell him not to waste time in addressing the Pennsylvania legislature, or his team in testifying about fraud to them.”
PDJT didn’t address the PA legislature. He called and talked to a few members who were conducting a hearing in a hotel lobby. The Republican majority in the state legislature appears to have zero interest in changing the result of the election or in naming a new slate of Electors.
It wasn’t an unfair election.
It was a fraudulent election.
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.