In the course of Friday more and more chess was played.
One day, nine cases that should have attacked, refused, or dropped President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in key states contributed to a series of cruel losses for a president who had already lost and refused to let go. Many of these cases are based on the basic premise that absenteeism and minor mismanagement in elections lead to large-scale fraud, which has not been proven, and the vast majority of Heads of State have stated that this will not be the case in 2020.
Moreover, the law firm that manages the largest construction site in Pennsylvania – perhaps the most important state in Trump’s post-electoral battle – has given up.
Mr Trump’s campaign continues to hope to find a judge who will treat complaints as tweets, said Justin Levitt, a law professor in Loyola and an expert in electoral law, on Friday. Repeatedly, all the men in dresses he met would talk: I’m sorry, this is a legitimate business.
However, Lawyers representing Trump, Republicans and voters dissatisfied with the election results are moving forward in a long and increasingly desperate attempt to influence Trump’s Election College in his favor, whether or not they vote for Biden and win the vote and the count.
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Appeal
The inscription is already on the wall in many election proposals – and in some respects already on paper.
On Friday, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the voters and Congressional candidate from Pennsylvania could not sue and were too close to the election to deny their claim.
Friday’s decision also seems to prevent voters in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which are under federal court oversight, from making broad theoretical demands under the Constitution’s equality protection clause for a possible dilution of their votes.
This notion of a weakening of the vote – the counting of ballots by public institutions in violation of the Public Elections Act – does not constitute specific damage within the meaning of the paragraph on equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court wrote. Two voters could have voted by post before election day, but given the USPS postal delivery system, perhaps only one of their ballots arrived before 8 p.m. on election day. It is strange to assume that one of these voters does not get the same protection from the law when both votes are counted.
Lawyers representing Republicans in other minor lawsuits since election day have tried similar constitutional arguments to block Biden’s victory in states, including Pennsylvania.
In a widely-publicized case in Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign agreed Friday night that it could no longer insist on some of the constitutional demands it wanted to make, with a nod to the ruling of the Pennsylvania Court of Appeal that day.
The campaign and other participants in the Pennsylvania case will appear in the federal courtroom in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday and Thursday. Old Republican Justice Matthew Brann will hear arguments for a bold proposal to prevent the state from confirming Pennsylvania’s election result – which theoretically could have denied the state’s victory – because of the perceived dishonesty of the absent vote. Brann can also hear testimony.
But even attempts to draw attention to him, such as a trial in which witnesses would be called to testify, did not succeed for Trump’s campaign. At Thursday’s hearing in Arizona, where an attempt was made to block voter certification because of widespread accusations of electoral irregularities, the judge refused to consider certain witness statements.
Let me set the record straight, Judge Daniel Kylie said. Your call to the witnesses was made through certain sworn statements of the jury, which you yourself clearly defined as false and spam, as you said, he asked Trump’s lawyer in court.
The ones you couldn’t prove are the lies you filed in court? the judge said before he allowed the Maricopa County attorney’s motion to rule out the evidence.
On Friday, a judge in Michigan also responded negatively to the written testimony.
Judge Timothy Kenney of Wayne County, Michigan, noted that election observers who complained about the handling of the ballots in the Detroit court had never complained before and had never attended any election training where they could ask questions about the practice. He pointed to the accusation of a Republican observer who pointed out that a large part of the votes for Biden could have been thrown in the ballot box.
It’s not surprising that a large portion of the votes [observed by the witness] were for Biden, given that former Vice President Biden received about 220,000 more votes than President Trump, Kenny wrote.
Trump and his supporters are still trying to block Biden’s victory certificate in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania with a patchwork of business deals.
One of the most recent reruns of these cases came from a group of voters from Wisconsin. The trial claims that the election results in the areas where Biden won should be invalidated statewide because the analysis of the data could have shown that some ballot papers, in particular those issued in absentia, should not have been counted.
But there is no evidence, not even an affidavit in the trial, that could support his claim that there were illegal votes in Wisconsin.
Indeed, voters who feel that their vote is unclear are wrong to admit that they have not yet proven their case.
This evidence will be presented shortly, when the relevant documents are final and available, which promises a claim.
dallas jones,dominion voting systems,obama twitter,project veritas,newsmax,2020 election predictions,trump twitter,2020 election results,election results #election2020,election polls,election 2020,election map,trump tweets