Trump loses BIGLY in Pennsylvania Federal Court Case (vote, Republican, president)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, 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.
That has not happened. 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. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.
Yet another fraudulent suit by Team Trump, bites the dust. What are we up to now - 30 fraudulent Trump lawsuits that have been absolute legal bellyflops? They have had nothing to support all these wild tales. "U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, described the case as 'strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations'. "
I keep hearing Freddie Mercury....dum, dum, dum.....Another one bites the dust.
Quote:
In his ruling, Judge Brann concluded the lawsuit was marred by “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations…unsupported by evidence.”
I wonder if those who have donated their hard-earned money to fund this debacle are amused.
To be fair, any amount donated under $8,000 is kept by Trump's PAC, and doesn't even go to legal fees.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep.
More winning - Federal judge tosses Trump case to block Penn certification
