Federal judge rejects Trump campaign's Pa. lawsuit with prejudice, saying it lacks factual proof
A federal judge has dismissed the Trump campaign lawsuit in Pennsylvania seeking to overthrow the 2020 election and issued a stabbing verdict that the president's legal team for filing a disjointed lawsuit that had no compelling legal argument or appeal there is no factual evidence of blowing up.
District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote that he "did not disenfranchise nearly seven million voters," as the Trump campaign had sought.
"One might expect a plaintiff to be mightily armed with compelling legal arguments and factual evidence of rampant corruption in search of such a startling result," Brann wrote. "That didn't happen."
MORE: Michigan GOP lawmakers oppose Trump's brazen efforts to reverse election results
The judge, a judge appointed by Barack Obama, dismissed the case with prejudice, which means the Trump campaign will not be able to resubmit the case. The defeat is a blow to the most famous case brought up by the President in efforts in several states to challenge the results of the November 3 elections.
The crux of the lawsuit against the Trump campaign was that election observers were unable to watch the postal ballot count, which gave "democratic counties" the opportunity to accept fraudulent and technically defective ballots and to "dilute" the power of voters in other counties. .
The Pennsylvania case was discussed in court Tuesday by Trump's personal attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
PHOTO: President Donald Trump looks down during an event to lower prescription drug prices in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House in Washington on November 20, 2020. (Almond Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)
The Trump campaign legal team pledged to appeal the district court ruling to the US Supreme Court if possible.
"Today's decision helps us with our strategy of getting to the US Supreme Court quickly," said Trump attorneys Giuliani and Jenna Ellis in a statement. "While we disagree with this point of view, we are grateful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out of time."
Although Brann was an Obama candidate, he spent years as a Republican Party official, including chairing the Bradford County's Republican Committee.
But the decision prompted Pennsylvania Republican Senator Pat Toomey to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden despite being "deeply disappointed" that Trump had lost.
"In today's decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime Conservative Republican who I know is a fair and impartial lawyer, to dismiss the Trump campaign suit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal avenues to resolve the outcome of the Presidential race in Pennsylvania, "Toomey said in a statement. "I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory. They are both dedicated officials and I will pray for them and for our country."
MORE: 2020 Election: A Look At Trump's Campaign Lawsuits And Where They Stand
"Another ruling on behalf of Pennsylvania voters," Democrat Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in a statement. "These claims were unfounded from the start and for an audience of one. The will of the people will prevail. These baseless complaints must end."
The Biden campaign, which garnered more than 80,000 votes than Trump in the state, said in a statement by campaign spokesman Michael Gwin: "Another court has rejected Trump and Giuliani's unsubstantiated allegations of electoral fraud and their appalling attack on our democracy. Judge Die Decision couldn't be clearer: our people, our laws and institutions are demanding more - and our country will not tolerate Trump's attempt to undo the results of an election that he has decisively lost. "
In a 37-page statement, Brann wrote that the Trump campaign and its co-plaintiffs, two voters who were not allowed to heal their ballots, "are urging the court to violate the rights of over 6.8 million Americans," and then claim that "Granting Plaintiffs' relief requested would necessarily require the invalidation of the ballot papers of every person who voted in Pennsylvania."
PHOTO: President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani speaks during a news conference on November 19, 2020 at the Republican National Committee Headquarters in Washington, DC. (Almond Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)
"Since this court has no power to withdraw the right to vote from even one person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant [the Trump campaign] any requested relief," the statement said.
At one point of opinion, Brann compares the Trump campaign case to "a Frankenstein monster" and says the allegations are "haphazardly sewn together" trying to "mix and match allegations to avoid opposing precedents". This is indicative of a recent federal court ruling that has already invalidated many of the campaign's arguments.
Brann also questioned the clutter of the Trump legal team, with a revolving door of attorneys filing several amended complaints. The decision came after the Trump campaign asked days earlier to file another amended complaint - but the opinion means efforts will not be accepted.
ABC News' Will Steakin and Johnny Verhovek contributed to this report.
Federal judge rejects the pa Prejudice the Trump campaign, saying there is a lack of factual evidence originally posted on abcnews.go.com
Click to receive the most important news as a notification!
Here's How Much the 2021 Social Security Raise Could've Been Under This Biden Plan
The 2 Zodiac Signs That Hold a Grudge (And 2 That Already Forgot Why They Were Mad)
Melania Trump Really Hates Christmas In 'Kimmel' Spoof Of White House Holiday Video
Who could replace Hamilton for the Sakhir GP?
Conservative Magazine Slams Donald Trump’s ‘Most Reprehensible’ Post-Election Tactic
Jim Cramer Sees These Two Non-Pure Play Stocks As Winners On Future Of Hydrogen Energy