Lawyers for the Trump campaign's Pennsylvania lawsuit have withdrawn from the case on the eve of the first hearing in the case.
This move follows the withdrawal on Friday of the lawyers who initially filed the suit.
With no lawyers left to argue its case, the Trump case has asked the judge to postpone tomorrow's hearing...
Ouch.
The federal judge overseeing the PA case, Matthew Brann, has just denied the Trump campaign's request to delay tomorrow's hearing.
It will go on as scheduled.
The Trump campaign's fast-moving Pennsylvania case now has new lawyers--from the Scaringi Law Firm of Harrisburg--and they are going to have to argue at tomorrow's hearing with less than a day's preparation, it seems.
More bad news for the Trump campaign's legal efforts:
A state appeals court in Michigan has denied their request to overturn last week's loss in a big lawsuit challenging the results of the election in Wayne County.
A little more on Marc Scaringi, the lawyer who has taken over the Pennsylvania case in advance of tomorrow's oral arguments...
It's worth pausing to reflect on the fact that the Trump campaign's suit in Pennsylvania was filed ONE week ago and they are already on their THIRD set of lawyers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: Wow.
US Justice Department under AG William Barr is dropping charges against Salvador Cienfuegos, ex-defense minister of Mexico so that he can be charged in Mexico.
New:
It's official.
Rudy has been approved to appear in the Pennsylvania election case.
If all goes according to schedule, we're moments from beginning the hearing in Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar (the PA secretary of state).
A quick cast of characters:
The judge is Matthew Brann, who was appointed by President Obama in 2012. Before taking the bench Judge Brann was a lawyer in private practice and, interestingly, a Republican party official in Pennsylvania.
New: Here's a quick look at what to expect at this afternoon's federal election case hearing in Pennsylvania--and at the legal snafus the case has already been through. nytimes.com/live/2020/11/1…
The Trump's campaign chief argument here is that PA elections officials violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The reason? In some Dem counties, officials alerted voters that their mail-in ballots needed fixing while that didn't happen in some GOP counties.
Lawyers for the Dems have countered:
It's not the fault of Dem counties that allowed voters to fix (or "cure") their ballots if GOP counties didn't do that.
They argue that the Trump campaign should have sued those counties but did not.
Each of these suits was similarly structured. "Ordinary voters" filed them claiming that the certification of the vote in key counties should be stopped b/c of election irregularities.
There is a mention of the observer issue in the introduction to the suit. (See below.)
But the issue is not brought up in the section alleging counts of the complaint.
Which is to say, those section that require proving.
Here, for example, is the amended complaint's first count: It seeks relief for disparate treatment of ballot in different counties.