UPDATE:
The Trump campaign said it's looking forward to taking the case to the Supreme Court. Here is its statement from President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and Trump Campaign Senior Legal Adviser Jenna Ellis:
“Today’s decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although we fully disagree with this opinion, we’re thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out the clock.
"We will be seeking an expedited appeal to the Third Circuit. There is so much evidence that in Pennsylvania, Democrats eliminated our opportunity to present 50 witnesses and other evidence that election officials blatantly ignored Pennsylvania’s law denying independent review. This resulted in 682,777 ballots being cast illegally, wittingly or unwittingly. This is just an extension of the Big Tech, Big Media, Corrupt Democrat censorship of damning facts the American public needs to know.
"We are disappointed we did not at least get the opportunity to present our evidence at a hearing. Unfortunately the censorship continues. We hope that the Third Circuit will be as gracious as Judge Brann in deciding our appeal one way or the other as expeditiously as possible. This is another case that appears to be moving quickly to the United States Supreme Court.”
Recommended
ORIGINAL POST:
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann on Saturday dismissed one of the Trump campaign's lawsuits in Pennsylvania. In the lawsuit, the Trump Team accused Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and election officials in a number of counties of creating a "two-tiered" voting system for the 2020 presidential election. The campaign believed voters were held to different standards depending on if they decided to vote in-person or by mail.
According to Brann, the lawsuit was used as an attempt to throw out legally cast votes.
"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," the Obama appointee wrote. "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."
The judge stated the lawsuit brought about "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations" that are "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," he wrote.
Barron stated the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed legislation earlier this year to address the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. Guidelines were provided, like how ballots had to be filled out and sealed and when they had to be returned to election officials, but there were no rules regarding the "curing" of ballots.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member