Welcome to day + 21...

It appears that the Trump legal team continues to pursue their Pennsylvania case, claiming massive election fraud in the media and filing allegations of procedural errors in the courts.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Trump team's request for an expedited review of a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann that dismissed a lawsuit that requested the remedy of disenfranchising seven million voters, which would give Trump a victory in Pennsylvania.

Request for review…

What the Trump team is asking is for a ruling to compel the original lower court to accept an amended complaint contending that election officials excluded observers as part of an effort to process thousands of flawed mail-in ballots that largely favored Biden. The team did not seek an immediate order from the 3rd Circuit to block certification of Biden as the winner and suggested that they would seek “decertification” if the vote were certified.

“The proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF 172-2) asserts claims under the Civil Rights Act for violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses because Defendants, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and seven County Boards of Elections, controlled by Democrats, engaged in a intentional scheme to count defective mail ballots which they knew would favor Joseph Biden over Presidential Donald J. Trump.”  [Case: 20-3371; Document: 5; Filed: 11/22/2020]

The original claim…

The Trump team argued that seven million mail-in ballots in seven majority-Democrat counties in Pennsylvania should be disqualified because of procedural errors; among them were various claims that observers were not generally given full access to the ballot-opening and counting process. This was backed by hundreds of sworn affidavits executed under penalty of perjury and submitted as evidence. The opposition argued the legal action should be dismissed as there was no claim of voter fraud.

The Judge wrote…

“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.”

V. CONCLUSION

“Defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint are granted with prejudice. Leave to amend is denied. “Among the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility.” Given that: (1) Plaintiffs have already amended once as of right; (2) Plaintiffs seek to amend simply in order to effectively reinstate their initial complaint and claims; and (3) the deadline for counties in Pennsylvania to certify their election results to Secretary Boockvar is November 23, 2020, amendment would unduly delay resolution of the issues. This is especially true because the Court would need to implement a new briefing schedule, conduct a second oral argument, and then decide the issues.”  [Memorandum Opinion: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Kathy Boockvar; Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB; Document 202; Filed 11/21/20]

Bottom line…

Still waiting for word of Jordan Sekulow’s “shocking filing” in Georgia.

I see no need for the Trump Team or surrogates to further inflame the lower court by suggesting the Obama-appointed judge lacked the ability of a first-year law student or other pejorative remarks, which I find are highly unprofessional.

We continue to be spectators in this spectacle.  You may want to read: A dozen compelling allegations of voting irregularities in 2020 election .

We are so screwed.

--steve