U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann (a Republican) in Williamsport, Penn., rejected a request by the Trump campaign for an injunction that would stop the certification of the election as the campaign seeks to overturn that state's results. PA will be certified Monday.
For those keeping track, that's 30 losses by the Trump legal team and two (minor) victories. Any more winning and the Trump team might have a chance to take on the 1962 Mets.
Here's part of the judge's ruling.
"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."
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2020 08:21 PM by Fort Bend Owl.)
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann (a Republican) in Williamsport, Penn., rejected a request by the Trump campaign for an injunction that would stop the certification of the election as the campaign seeks to overturn that state's results. PA will be certified Monday.
For those keeping track, that's 30 losses by the Trump legal team and two (minor) victories. Any more winning and the Trump team might have a chance to take on the 1962 Mets.
Here's part of the judge's ruling.
"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."
The Trump legal team hasn’t even filed 30 cases... where do y’all get your information from?!? This is getting ridiculous that some posters here spew the same nonsense that the mainstream media does. At some point, you need to do your own research.
RE: Republican judge hands Trump legal team another resounding loss
Oh and I forgot to say the judge dismissed it with prejudice. I believe that means they can't refile a lawsuit in PA? Perhaps it means that they can bring it to a higher court, but from what I'm reading, words to that effect usually mean the judge is highly p.o.'ed about his or her time being wasted with a frivolous lawsuit.
RE: Republican judge hands Trump legal team another resounding loss
His reference to the number of votes may be the undoing of his ruling. Nothing in any election law is in any way dependent on the number of votes involved.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann (a Republican) in Williamsport, Penn., rejected a request by the Trump campaign for an injunction that would stop the certification of the election as the campaign seeks to overturn that state's results. PA will be certified Monday.
For those keeping track, that's 30 losses by the Trump legal team and two (minor) victories. Any more winning and the Trump team might have a chance to take on the 1962 Mets.
Here's part of the judge's ruling.
"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."
The Trump legal team hasn’t even filed 30 cases... where do y’all get your information from?!? This is getting ridiculous that some posters here spew the same nonsense that the mainstream media does. At some point, you need to do your own research.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann (a Republican) in Williamsport, Penn., rejected a request by the Trump campaign for an injunction that would stop the certification of the election as the campaign seeks to overturn that state's results. PA will be certified Monday.
For those keeping track, that's 30 losses by the Trump legal team and two (minor) victories. Any more winning and the Trump team might have a chance to take on the 1962 Mets.
Here's part of the judge's ruling.
"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."
The Trump legal team hasn’t even filed 30 cases... where do y’all get your information from?!? This is getting ridiculous that some posters here spew the same nonsense that the mainstream media does. At some point, you need to do your own research.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann (a Republican) in Williamsport, Penn., rejected a request by the Trump campaign for an injunction that would stop the certification of the election as the campaign seeks to overturn that state's results. PA will be certified Monday.
For those keeping track, that's 30 losses by the Trump legal team and two (minor) victories. Any more winning and the Trump team might have a chance to take on the 1962 Mets.
Here's part of the judge's ruling.
"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."
I always thought the remedy requested made no sense. What made better sense to me as a remedy would be a reverification of signature match given the number of mail in ballots were so relevant in the outcome and prone to fraud.
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2020 08:45 PM by Attackcoog.)
RE: Republican judge hands Trump legal team another resounding loss
Trump Team has responded.
“Today’s decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although we fully disagree with this opinion, we’re thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out the clock.
"We will be seeking an expedited appeal to the Third Circuit.
Republican judge hands Trump legal team another resounding loss
(11-21-2020 08:46 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: Trump Team has responded.
“Today’s decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although we fully disagree with this opinion, we’re thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out the clock.
"We will be seeking an expedited appeal to the Third Circuit.
Bahahahahahahaha shhh don’t tell the libtards that! They think they just won the World Series!
RE: Republican judge hands Trump legal team another resounding loss
The law is clear on this. The judge is saying it will disenfranchise voters. But by the constitution these votes are invalid because the decision to allow them was not made by the state legislature. There is no way I see the SCOTUS ruling against the Trump lawyers. Local laws are one thing. The constitution is another. And guess which one TRUMPS the other.
The very constitution is at stake here.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann (a Republican) in Williamsport, Penn., rejected a request by the Trump campaign for an injunction that would stop the certification of the election as the campaign seeks to overturn that state's results. PA will be certified Monday.
For those keeping track, that's 30 losses by the Trump legal team and two (minor) victories. Any more winning and the Trump team might have a chance to take on the 1962 Mets.
Here's part of the judge's ruling.
"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."
The Trump legal team hasn’t even filed 30 cases... where do y’all get your information from?!? This is getting ridiculous that some posters here spew the same nonsense that the mainstream media does. At some point, you need to do your own research.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann (a Republican) in Williamsport, Penn., rejected a request by the Trump campaign for an injunction that would stop the certification of the election as the campaign seeks to overturn that state's results. PA will be certified Monday.
For those keeping track, that's 30 losses by the Trump legal team and two (minor) victories. Any more winning and the Trump team might have a chance to take on the 1962 Mets.
Here's part of the judge's ruling.
"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."
The Trump legal team hasn’t even filed 30 cases... where do y’all get your information from?!? This is getting ridiculous that some posters here spew the same nonsense that the mainstream media does. At some point, you need to do your own research.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann (a Republican) in Williamsport, Penn., rejected a request by the Trump campaign for an injunction that would stop the certification of the election as the campaign seeks to overturn that state's results. PA will be certified Monday.
For those keeping track, that's 30 losses by the Trump legal team and two (minor) victories. Any more winning and the Trump team might have a chance to take on the 1962 Mets.
Here's part of the judge's ruling.
"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."
The Trump legal team hasn’t even filed 30 cases... where do y’all get your information from?!? This is getting ridiculous that some posters here spew the same nonsense that the mainstream media does. At some point, you need to do your own research.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann (a Republican) in Williamsport, Penn., rejected a request by the Trump campaign for an injunction that would stop the certification of the election as the campaign seeks to overturn that state's results. PA will be certified Monday.
For those keeping track, that's 30 losses by the Trump legal team and two (minor) victories. Any more winning and the Trump team might have a chance to take on the 1962 Mets.
Here's part of the judge's ruling.
"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."
The Trump legal team hasn’t even filed 30 cases... where do y’all get your information from?!? This is getting ridiculous that some posters here spew the same nonsense that the mainstream media does. At some point, you need to do your own research.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann (a Republican) in Williamsport, Penn., rejected a request by the Trump campaign for an injunction that would stop the certification of the election as the campaign seeks to overturn that state's results. PA will be certified Monday.
For those keeping track, that's 30 losses by the Trump legal team and two (minor) victories. Any more winning and the Trump team might have a chance to take on the 1962 Mets.
Here's part of the judge's ruling.
"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."
RE: Republican judge hands Trump legal team another resounding loss
(11-21-2020 08:42 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: the judge was appointed by obama. wonder why they left that out?
Several cases came up to Trump's appointed judges that also ruled against Trump. Trump wants the judges to take away the Constitutional rights of voting from citizens who are legal to vote. Do you think it is right to toss out all the votes of certain counties in all 50 states? Right now, you have Republicans in these states fighting back at Trump.