From the
AP:
A federal judge issued a scathing order Saturday dismissing the Trump
campaign’s futile effort to block the certification of votes in Pennsylvania,
shooting down claims of widespread irregularities with mail-in ballots.
You can read the opinion
here
(and I suggest you do).
Back to the AP:
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote in his order that Trump had
asked the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.
“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,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have
no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many
people. “That has not happened.”
Let's take a deeper look at that section of the opinion - it's the opening of
the 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.
For those who are curious as to what it means to dismiss a case "with
prejudice," it
means:
When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has
made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff
is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds.
And in case my non-attorney research is wrong, here it is from
ABC News:
The judge, a Barack Obama appointee, dismissed the case with prejudice,
meaning the Trump campaign cannot resubmit the case. The defeat levels a blow
to the most high-profile case brought by the president in his multi-state
effort to challenge the results of the Nov. 3 election.
Let's not be so quick to dismiss him as an "Obama appointee" however. Take a
look:
Brann, who is active in Republican politics in Pennsylvania, faced the most
challenging questioning of the hourlong hearing at which five candidates for
federal judgeships and a spot on the U.S. Sentencing Commission were
considered.
Citing Brann's involvement with the state Republican Party, the National
Rifle Association and the conservative legal organization the Federalist
Society, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called him "probably the most
Republican judicial nominee from the Obama White House."
There's more (I'm adding this just in case your MAGA uncle starts ranting
about the Demonrat judge in Pennsylvania who's keeping Trump from fulfilling
God's purpose of at least two terms:
And now, look at what's happenned. Senator Pat Toomey finally
pulls the trigger:
With today’s decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania.
This ruling follows a series of procedural losses for President Trump’s campaign. On Friday, the state of Georgia certified the victory of Joe Biden after a hand recount of paper ballots confirmed the conclusion of the initial electronic count. Michigan lawmakers rejected the apparent attempt by President Trump to thwart the will of Michigan voters and select an illegitimate slate of electoral college electors. These developments, together with the outcomes in the rest of the nation, confirm that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and will become the 46th President of the United States.
I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory. They are both dedicated public servants and I will be praying for them and for our country. Unsurprisingly, I have significant policy disagreements with the President-elect. However, as I have done throughout my career, I will seek to work across the aisle with him and his administration, especially on those areas where we may agree, such as continuing our efforts to combat COVID-19, breaking down barriers to expanding trade, supporting the men and women of our armed forces, and keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.
Of course Toomey is not running for reelection in 2022 so he's got little to lose politically.
Which is good news, I suppose, because:
Again, no evidence of 900,000 fraudulent votes in PA. If there was evidence of such fraud it would have been presented in court.
And it wasn't.
