Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 2000, “counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm” during the presidential election recount dispute between George W. Bush and Al Gore in Florida.
This is a simple principle which a number of judges are shrouding as the campaign of President Donald Trump requests that precincts with disputed elections simply count every legal vote.
Instead the judges appear willing to allow Democrats to get away with election fraud by counting ballots from non-existent people, dead people, ballots without signature validation, illegally harvested ballots, illegally cured ballots, late arriving ballots and ballots from pre-dawn drops counted without any oversight from the Republican Party.
These judges spout convoluted, confusing and even demeaning opinions that have nothing to do with the cases being presented. They don’t even want to hear from witnesses. What is really going on? Something stinks.
Consider Judge Matthew Brann of the US District Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania who raised the standard of election fraud to “rampant corruption” before he would even consider granting Trump’s campaign any relief.
The legal team “was not armed w/compelling legal arguments/factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant proposed injunctive relief despite impact on such a large group of citizens,” Brann wrote on Saturday.
The lawsuit accused Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and election officials in several counties of creating a “two-tiered” voting system for the 2020 presidential election because voters were held to different standards based on whether they voted by mail or in-person.
Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and Trump Campaign Senior Legal Adviser Jenna Ellis argued that the rights of two Pennsylvania voters to equal protection were violated because the state had allowed counties to decide whether absentee ballots sent in with technical problems could be fixed by the voters.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit said that in their counties, they were not allowed to “cure” their ballots and their ballots were rejected, while other counties, like heavily Democratic Philadelphia County, allowed voters to “cure” absentee ballots. They called for Pennsylvania’s election results to be blocked by court order.
The lawyers also argued that they had evidence to prove that 682,777 ballots were cast illegally because poll workers denied the Republican Party’s right to independent review, but Brann claimed “Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters.”
The judge refused to even allow the lawyers to present any of their 50 witnesses. He called their allegation of equal protection violation “Frankenstein’s Monster,” writing that the legal argument “has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent.”
In response the campaign said they are glad the judge expedited his ruling and look forward to taking the case to the Supreme Court.
“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.”
Last Tuesday the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an equally shocking ruling. The judges threw out a Trump campaign complaint that poll observers were kept so far away from ballot counting areas that they couldn’t see any details.
The court ruled that officials in Philadelphia did not violate state law by maintaining at least 15 feet of separation between observers and the workers counting ballots.
It said Pennsylvania law only requires that observers be allowed “in the room” where ballots are counted but does not set a minimum distance between them and the counting tables, so it was up to county elections boards to make these decisions.
It’s all about the signatures on the envelopes,” Trump tweeted Sunday. “Why are the Democrats fighting so hard to hide them. We will find massive numbers of fraudulent ballots. The signatures won’t match. Fight hard Republicans. Don’t let them destroy the evidence!