PA Judge throws out Trump case

[Shaul]

Ever hear of the concept of the "vexatious litigant"?

Vexatious litigation - Wikipedia

Yes, and I’ve heard of biased judges too.

Funny none of the Left complained over all the subsequently overturned challenges to President Trump’s Executive Orders. Talk about vexatious litigation.

 

[Shaul]

This raises the question why they've not presented
any even when appropriate under our system....
Federal judge dismisses Trump campaign Pennsylvania lawsuit - CNNPolitics
Trump campaign lawsuit in Michigan thrown out of court

The reason is this Court refuses to hear the evidence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That was simply a brilliant contra-indicating ruse.

At this point I think the Dems against Spock in 3D chess would be a slobberknocker leaving Spock with a mud hole stomped in him. The Dems pulled this all off I bow to their intellectual might. Pulling off 9/11 would have been like cutting butter with a hot knife for them since they were able to do this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Team Trump has evidence. It will be presented in a court following the rules of evidence. The cases are actually working. It takes time. But the evidence will become public record. That is what Trump’s opponents are fighting and trying to stall.

The evidence is presented in court. They already failed to do this. You don't get to run the show when you are in court like Trump apparently seems to think with his wanting to "edit in" the evidence later. There is no "case dismissed" and then "ta-da" as Rudy pulls evidence out of a magic hat.

 

[exchemist]

They would go to the he Supreme Court to rule that this PA court must hear the evidence, not to take the evidence to the Supreme Court. The PA Court is fighting to not hear the evidence. It doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence.

..fighting not to hear the evidence?....

"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 from a well-respected judge who is a Republican, by all accounts.

This will go no nowhere at the Supreme Court - if it ever gets there.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and I’ve heard of biased judges too.

Funny none of the Left complained over all the subsequently overturned challenges to President Trump’s Executive Orders. Talk about vexatious litigation.

This is a Republican judge. You do realise that, I hope.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This will go no nowhere at the Supreme Court - if it ever gets there.

It begs to be asked why they would even bother when Trump has produced no evidence.

 

[exchemist]

Aye, they've already shown independence.

Well of course. They may have political views but they are professional judges, at the end of the day.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The reason is this Court refuses to hear the evidence.

Evidence of this claim?

 

[Shaul]

The evidence is presented in court. They already failed to do this. You don't get to run the show when you are in court like Trump apparently seems to think with his wanting to "edit in" the evidence later. There is no "case dismissed" and then "ta-da" as Rudy pulls evidence out of a magic hat.

Except that isn’t what happened. This PA court didn’t consider the evidence at all. It’s ruling was in effect, “we don’t like the possible remedy” of disqualified votes, so we won’t even give you the chance to present your evidence.

 

[fantome profane]

The reason is this Court refuses to hear the evidence.

Can you give us an example of what evidence was rejected by this court?

 

[Shaul]

Evidence of this claim?

The court’s ruling. It’s basis for rejecting the case was it possible remedy, not the quality of the evidence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They had their lives. Screw 'em. Paint the walls red with them.

 

[exchemist]

It begs to be asked why they would even bother when Trump has produced no evidence.

Yeah, it's baloney. If they try to go to the Supreme Court with this lack of evidence, they will get thrown out. And if they go with better evidence, it will be sent back to the original court to re-hear, I'd have thought. None of this makes any sense.

I don't believe any of this charade is about actually winning a court case. They know they can't do that.

The only object I can see is to fool gullible supporters into thinking there is something nebulously fishy about Biden's win, to keep a rolling grievance campaign going throughout his presidency. That will, they hope, keep the Trumpies "nursing their wrath to keep it warm" [pace Robbie Burns], ready for another blizzard of preposterous lies in 2024.

 

[viole]

Trump lost the big one. Actually, "lost" is too mild of a word to describe the outcome. The judge ripped Guiliani and Trump new you-know-whats.

In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.

In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.
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.”
...
Brann ruled that Pennsylvania officials can certify election results that currently show Biden winning the state by more than 80,000 votes. He said the Trump campaign presented “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations ... 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,” the opinion said. “Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

Sen. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican who had a hand in placing Brann on the bench during the Obama administration, said the ruling showed Trump had exhausted all possible legal avenues in the state and went on to congratulate Biden on his victory. He called Brann “a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist.”

​

On a slightly different note, I reviewed the outcomes of all the Trump election lawsuits (same website, further down). In roughly half of the cases, the plaintiffs/attorneys withdrew. These were mostly the type of cases where one or several individuals "swore" they saw or heard something wrong with the ballot/counting process.

​

There is a big difference between signing an affidavit and standing in a courtroom in front of a judge. In those circumstances, one's memory of the situation oft times changes. So all the affidavits Giuliani was waving around during his press conference - pretty much worthless.

The sad/funny part is that the lawyers had to know, coming in, that these suits would amount to nothing. But, they are getting paid big bucks - win or lose. It strokes Trump's ego having a whole lot of cases challenging the outcome. When he loses, he can rail on about liberal judges deciding an election.

Who is paying these expensive lawyers? Mostly the sheeples who continue to contribute money to the Rudy Giuliani retirement fund...

Giuliani Is Said to Seek $20,000 a Day Payment for Trump Legal Work
Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has helped oversee a string of failed court challenges to President Trump’s defeat in the election, asked the president’s campaign to pay him $20,000 a day for his legal work, multiple people briefed on the matter said.​

He looks more and more like the Black Night in Monty Python’s “Holy Grail”.

ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

The reason is this Court refuses to hear the evidence.

This is indeed a wide multi-state conspiracy against Trump.
His only recourse now is to release it to the public.

 

[exchemist]

Team Trump has evidence. It will be presented in a court following the rules of evidence. The cases are actually working. It takes time. But the evidence will become public record. That is what Trump’s opponents are fighting and trying to stall.

It won’t work. Once again Trump’s opponents underestimate him. Trump has several goals. One is to win re-election. That’s true. His opponents are focusing on that. But Trump has other goals too. One of which is to “drain the swamp”. Which includes documenting systemic voting irregularities. In other words, all these court cases work to Trump’s long term goal. After all is said and done the meme of “Where’s the evidence?” will be rend asunder.

Why, then, is Trump losing all these cases for lack of credible evidence?

 

[Revoltingest]

They had their lives. Screw 'em. Paint the walls red with them.

Anti-zombite!

 

[exchemist]

This is indeed a wide multi-state conspiracy against Trump.
His only recourse now is to release it to the public.

Indeed. But, strangely, his legal adviser Sidney [sic] Powell has already refused to release it, even to a friendly news channel like Fox.

I wonder what the clever plan is here..........

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The court’s ruling. It’s basis for rejecting the case was it possible remedy, not the quality of the evidence.

Yeah, that's not what happened.
Federal judge rejects Trump campaign's Pa. lawsuit with prejudice, saying it lacks factual proof

A federal judge has dismissed the Trump campaign's Pennsylvania lawsuit attempting to overturn the 2020 election, issuing a stinging opinion that blasts the president's legal team for a filing a disjointed lawsuit that lacked a compelling legal argument or factual proof to support it.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote that he would not "disenfranchise almost seven million voters," as the Trump campaign had sought.

"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. "That has not happened."

Notice this is a federal judge who dismissed the case based on the lack of evidence. As should everyone, he expected great evidence to go along with such a great claim. Trump's brand of "I have all this stuff you're going to love" wasn't impressive. Trump isn't trying to convince his screaming fan base of pudding brains who would believe he craps gold. He is having to convince judges, and do it in a situation where he simply cannot play a waiting game until the other side runs out of money. There are no contractual loopholes for him to exploit. But he knows many people will basically believe and support anything he does regardless of whatever.