President Trump's lawyers have filed a new motion in Pennsylvania making clear that they only want to block the state from certifying the results of the presidential election, which they claim was fraudulent. It can certify the other races, decided on the same ballots, they say.
Marks v. Stinson has become the hydroxychloroquine of the president's post-election litigation.
Interesting concession in Trump's filing: If PA certifies its electors by Dec. 8, its certification "shall be conclusive" when Congress meets to count electoral votes. (That's in the statute, but you'd think they'd want some wiggle room here.)
Here the Trump campaign worries that if it doesn't get an injunction blocking PA from certifying the election results, we would be in "Constitutionally uncharted ground," which is also a quite good description of what happens if they do get an injunction.
The Trump campaign says PA officials "jeopardized ... the ability of Pennsylvanians to select their leaders" when they allowed some voters to correct "small errors" that would otherwise have led to their votes being discarded. This is the bottom line of its entire federal case.
Anyway, here it is. Read it and see if you can spot the massive vote-rigging campaign the president's lawyers described today in their notably not-in-court press conference.…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Brad Heath

Brad Heath Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @bradheath

22 Nov
It is certainly true that losing a case gets you one step closer to appellate review. However /
If you had instead won the case, you would have already won and wouldn't need to appeal, which is the usual strategy in litigation.
Also, if your goal is to tee up a case for appellate review, you don't want to lose like this.

You don't want to have to take up a case that you lost in part because it was incompetently litigated. And you don't want to take up a case you lost for Every Possible Reason.
Read 11 tweets
21 Nov
The judge observes that the Trump campaign is "trying to mix-and-match claims to bypass contrary precedent." Image
The court rules that both the Trump campaign and its two attempted-voter plaintiffs lack standing to bring the case. Image
The voter-plaintiffs lack standing because although they were denied the right to vote (because their ballots were invalid), they sued other counties and the state that did not invalidate their votes, not the counties that did. Image
Read 19 tweets
21 Nov
Meanwhile, some Pennsylvania Republicans led by Rep. @MikeKellyPA are asking a state court to declare that the state's entire vote-by-mail system, violates the state constitution and that millions of votes cast this year must now be invalidated. Image
The lawsuit is marked as having been filed at 4 a.m. Image
The lawsuit is a challenge to Act 77, which it says is "another illegal attempt to override the limitations on absentee voting" in the state constitution. The act was approved more than a year ago; the lawsuit doesn't say why they waited until after this election to challenge it. Image
Read 14 tweets
20 Nov
And the court says that even if Wood could bring this lawsuit (which he can't) and if he hadn't waited too long (which he did), he'd also lose on the merits. Image
The judge (a Trump appointee), goes out of his way to shoot down Wood's theory of an Equal Protection violation, which is very similar to the arguments Trump's campaign has made in its own lawsuit in Pennsylvania. Image
The judge said claims that lots of invalid ballots were counted in Georgia is "not supported by the evidence at this stage." The rejection rate for absentee ballots in Georgia in 2020 was the same as it was two years ago. Image
Read 7 tweets
20 Nov
Exhibit J: Military ballots were "very clean." Many of the ballots "were for Biden. Many batches went 100% for Biden." Also, the watermark on three of the ballots didn't look right. "I believe the military ballots are highly suspicious of fraud." Image
[We're more than halfway there!]
Exhibit K: A witness says some workers did "fast counting" of ballots - instead of having each one verified by two people. Ballot boxes were left unattended. Some damaged ballots were "duplicated," but she wasn't allowed to ask what that meant. (It's a normal thing.) Image
Read 15 tweets
20 Nov
Trump's lawyers said the other day that the press refuses to look at all the evidence the president and his allies have put forward of a massive scheme to rig the election.

I did.

Georgia edition, from the case filed by Trump ally L. Lin Wood ->
Exhibit A: A witness declares she was "not close enough to see much of anything" during Georgia's recount. Image
Exhibit B: A witness declares that people conducting the recount were not great at math. Also, sometimes ballots were left unattended on a table and drinks also were left on those tables. Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!