HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » BREAKING: Federal Judge ...

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 06:59 PM

BREAKING: Federal Judge tosses Ghouliani's abomination of a case in PA

In scathing opinion, federal judge dismisses Trump campaign lawsuit in Pennsylvania

By Jon Swaine
November 21, 2020 at 6:38 p.m. EST

A lawsuit brought by President Trump’s campaign that sought to block the certification of Pennsylvania’s election results was dismissed by a federal judge on Saturday evening. U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann granted a request from Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar to dismiss the suit, which alleged that Republicans had been illegally disadvantaged because some counties allowed voters to fix errors on their mail ballots.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, personally took charge of the case and appeared at a hearing in Williamsport, Pa., Tuesday in an attempt to justify it. In his order, Brann wrote that Trump’s campaign had used “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” in its effort to throw out millions of votes.

“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,” Brann wrote.

Trump was beaten in Pennsylvania by President-elect Joe Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-judge-dismisses-trump-campaign-lawsuit-in-pa/2020/11/21/cc097fbe-2c50-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html




And from our State Attorney General Josh Shapiro -




TEXT

Josh Shapiro
@JoshShapiroPA
I’ve been telling everyone who will listen: these suits are baseless, stay calm, Rudy has no facts, I’m on it.

When can I say I told you so?
😉


Suit dismissed. Laws matter.
Jeremy Roebuck
@jeremyrroebuck
BREAKING: Federal judge dismisses Trump campaign's last lawsuit seeking to delay certification of Pennsylvania's election results.
Image
6:30 PM · Nov 21, 2020


RULING HERE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-opinion-federal-judge-dismisses-trump-campaign-lawsuit-in-pennsylvania/2afd3821-220b-4596-b172-aaa1d3ab63a5/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8

(one of those embedded document readers)

33 replies, 2570 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply BREAKING: Federal Judge tosses Ghouliani's abomination of a case in PA (Original post)
BumRushDaShow Nov 21 OP
Roland99 Nov 21 #1
regnaD kciN Nov 21 #2
BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #5
Stallion Nov 21 #8
BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #10
Happy Hoosier Nov 21 #12
Drahthaardogs Nov 21 #21
StarfishSaver Nov 21 #22
Gothmog Nov 21 #3
Cha Nov 21 #13
torius Nov 21 #4
sheshe2 Nov 21 #6
BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #7
sheshe2 Nov 21 #9
Cha Nov 21 #11
BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #15
Cha Nov 21 #19
BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #23
Cha Nov 21 #26
BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #28
muriel_volestrangler Nov 21 #14
ProfessorGAC Nov 21 #17
Happy Hoosier Nov 21 #16
BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #18
Happy Hoosier Nov 21 #24
BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #27
Demsrule86 Nov 21 #20
BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #25
jmowreader Nov 21 #29
BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #32
mnmoderatedem Nov 21 #30
Darkstar53142 Nov 21 #31
Pepsidog Nov 21 #33

Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:02 PM

1. 2-34 I think now!

Woo hoo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:03 PM

2. Rudy doesn't care - he'll just take it to SCOTUS...

...where he expects to find a much more receptive audience.

Remember, he even said up-front that the outcome at this level was irrelevant, because the whole purpose of this case was to eventually appeal it to the Supreme Court.

If the latter refuses to take it, it may be "lights out" for 45. If they do decide to hear it, it may be "lights out" for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:10 PM

5. IANAL (like Gothmog) but since this case was a request for "dismissal"

I'm not sure if it can suddenly be resurrected and go up to an appeals court to "un-dismiss".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:15 PM

8. Decision to Dismiss With Prejudice Can Be Reviewed

but since trial on merits has not been had the appellate court could only send it back to district court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:19 PM

10. That's what it sounds like

and I think part of the ruling actually talks about that including having to schedule another hearing if they went that route (which would basically impact the certification, etc.). Obviously that has been one of their goals - to delay delay delay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:24 PM

12. The facts won't change though.

This case was disaster from the beginning. And while he’ll surely appeal, it’s still a disaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:51 PM

21. That was my question. Can you appeal a case that

Never had a judicial decision? It was thrown out, not ruled for or against

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:52 PM

22. He may try but they'll probably shut the door in his face

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:07 PM

3. Breaking: In Total Loss for Trump Campaign in Its Most Major Remaining Election Case, Federal Court

Prof. Hasen is having fun https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118942

In a total loss the the Trump campaign, a federal district court in Pennsylvania has dismissed the most serious case brought by the campaign and denied the campaign a motion to file an amended complaint.

The judge just excoriates this suit, which those of us in the field have called ridiculous from the start:

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.


In a 37-page opinion, the court concluded:

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.


The court had many problems with the complaint, but this goes to the heart of the merits: “Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:28 PM

13. & so is Josh Shapiro!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:07 PM

4. Buh-bye, Coup-liani

It’s not nice to try to fool Mother Justice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:10 PM

6. Yesss!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:14 PM

7. That pic is hilarious



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:18 PM

9. Tis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:23 PM

11. lol@Josh Shapiro.. "Laws Matter" Rt!

Trump was beaten in Pennsylvania by President-elect Joe Biden.

Thank you, BRDS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:35 PM

15. Here is something else to RT - from our Lt. Governor John Fetterman!!




TEXT

John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
·
Nov 21, 2020
Looks like they picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Image
Brad Heath
@bradheath
President Trump's lawyers have filed a new brief explaining why it should get a restraining order to block Pennsylvania from certifying the election results, and it starts off a lot like the others in that it misspells the name of the governor.
Image

John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
If PA doesn’t certify our Election results, after November 30th, we technically don’t have a State House of Representatives and 1/2 a state senate.

Which are controlled by Republicans.
😆
GIF
1:53 PM · Nov 21, 2020 from Pittsburgh, PA


And he's right! If they delay the certification, then the entire GOP-majority State House and 1/2 of the GOP-majority State Senate will no longer exist and will be in limbo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:49 PM

19. Wow.. I couldn't wrap my head around

the PA House & Senate being in Limbo.. if they don't certify! That's some Law they got there.

So the PA gop couldn't get anything done if they don't certify Joe Biden's electors? Stunning!

Thank you for the Tweets, BRDS.. Rt! I don't get that one that says "Still Got It"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:58 PM

23. This year the whole state House and 1/2 of the state Senate were also on the ballot

(in addition to the Presidential campaign), as well as top state-wide offices including the State Attorney General (where Josh just got re-elected), the State Treasurer, and the State Auditor General.

These people are so narrow-focused to "own the libs" that they keep cutting off their noses to spite themselves!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Cha (Reply #26)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:13 PM

28. There you go

They are so terrified of the death threats from their own base stoked by the twitter-loon-in-chief, that he and the other 8 PA GOP Congressional Reps have ignored the fact that they would put themselves in jeopardy by creating vacant seats in their delegation if they don't certify the election!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:31 PM

14. "the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay.

... And bad faith.

The grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay and bad faith. And dilatory motive.

Look, I'll come in and say this again.

The grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, and dilatory motive.

And prejudice.

No, no, it's OK, I've got it:

Among the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility.

Phew!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:42 PM

17. Terrific!

Very funny take, MV!
Even the "I'll come in & do this again"!
Still chuckling!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:39 PM

16. I think he will attempt to appeal directly to SCOTUS.

Alito is the Justice assigned for cases in PA. I think it’s even money he will grant a temporary injunction while certiorari is considered ‘cause he’s a Shitbag. Now we see if the courts hold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Happy Hoosier (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:46 PM

18. Alito has had a mixed record involving stuff here in PA

and has generally skirted right around the legal edge enough to make sense.

I think after that fiasco of a case that Ghouliani produced, I don't think he would touch that with a 10ft pole because the allegations are of "rampant fraud" and not one piece of evidence has been submitted to any court that has proven it and each time, they have withdrawn the allegation and tried to keep the cases going arguing something else.

Alito is in for life and doesn't have to run for office nor does he "owe" 45 anything that would require a quid pro quo.

(ETA - I think if the margin was closer, then he might find it worth it but the margin is >80,000 votes so it's not really close)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:00 PM

24. I hope you're right.

If he’s smart, he will want none of this. Ghoulianai’s case is an embarrassing mess from top to bottom. And that ruling... wow... I’ve never seen an evisceration so complete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Happy Hoosier (Reply #24)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:08 PM

27. Alito went all "states rights" and let our State Supreme Court redraw the Congressional Districts

right before the 2018 election. They were horribly gerrymandered and at the time, the spread was 13 (R) - 5 (D). After the lines were drawn to comply with the PA state Constitution's requirement for districts to be "compact and contiguous", the delegations were changed to 9 (R) - 9 (D).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 07:50 PM

20. Great post. If PA is certified on Monday and hopefully Michigan and Arizona too...

I don't see a path for Trump with only Nevada and Wisconsin remaining...and after the bullshit travesty of a recount is over Wisconsin will be certified as well on the 30th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:05 PM

25. Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes and Nevada has 6

so even if you took those out, it would be 306 - 16 = 290, which still means a win. That could be why Kemp is rumbling around trying to muddy the waters with Georgia. And even if you removed their 16 electoral votes (along with WI & NV votes), Biden would still have 274.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:26 PM

29. You're missing something

The Constitution doesn't say it has to be 270 electoral votes. It says it has to be a majority of the votes cast. So, if a state's EV are removed from the pool, the number of votes needed for a candidate to win the presidency also goes down.

Trump's only hope of winning the election is to remove ALL the blue states from the pool. And that, my young friend, will not happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:47 PM

32. Your argument is then talking "the popular vote"

which they obviously aren't using in a literal sense when it comes to the electoral college (or we wouldn't be in this predicament).

However their strategy is to still have the electoral votes be assigned to a candidate, but NOT by removing "ALL the blue states". It would happen more narrowly by removing the majority of VOTES by Democrats (with their focusing on the mail-in ballots, a method that Democrats used more than Republicans), which would then leave the remainder of the votes as the only ones considered "valid" and mostly for 45.

At that point, they would declare that the "blue state" was a "winner" for him, and would hand over that state's electoral votes to him instead of to Biden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:34 PM

30. the more these court cases develop

the more I believe the primary motive is to provide amusement to bench judges

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 08:43 PM

31. Cheato doesn't take rejection well

Election rejection
office ejection
Time for introspection
Mr. Orange skin complexion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2020, 09:06 PM

33. Trump's complaint was a Frankenstein monster of competing claims. Wow!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread