- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
On Friday the Trump Campaign lost a case in the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The campaign, without offering significant evidence, argued that there had been a fraudulent election system and improper ballot counting. Judge Matthew Brann wrote as follows:
"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. Instead, this court has been presented with 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 complete article can be found here: In scathing ruling, judge dismisses Trump campaign's effort to overturn election results in Pennsylvania (msn.com)
Earlier in the week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court--the oldest appellate court in the nation--overturned a decision by the Commonwealth Court that required that election observers be allowed within six feet of ballot-counting operations. The court relied on the language of the law, which simply requires that observers be allowed "in the room" where the ballots are being counted. The law does not specify a distance.
The article about that case can be found here: Pennsylvania Supreme Court reverses ruling in election observers case (nypost.com)
If Trump has this overwhelming evidence that Trump supporters claim, where is it? Why does he keep loosing in court?
"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. Instead, this court has been presented with 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 complete article can be found here: In scathing ruling, judge dismisses Trump campaign's effort to overturn election results in Pennsylvania (msn.com)
Earlier in the week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court--the oldest appellate court in the nation--overturned a decision by the Commonwealth Court that required that election observers be allowed within six feet of ballot-counting operations. The court relied on the language of the law, which simply requires that observers be allowed "in the room" where the ballots are being counted. The law does not specify a distance.
The article about that case can be found here: Pennsylvania Supreme Court reverses ruling in election observers case (nypost.com)
If Trump has this overwhelming evidence that Trump supporters claim, where is it? Why does he keep loosing in court?
Last edited:
