Thread by @DKaplanWTAE

BREAKING:

Federal Judge Matthew Brann has dismissed the Trump Campaign lawsuit and has included some strong language in his opinion.

"...This court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations...unsupported by evidence."

BRANN: "In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more."

Reading through more of opinion now. Additions to thread shortly.

One of Trump campaign's arguments was an inconsistency btw counties about "curing" ballots. Secretary of State Boockvar gave a guidance to ALL counties about letting voters correct ballots, but it appears only SOME took advantage of that.

Brann says all counties had opportunity.

Brann then talks about the "tortured procedural history" of this case, discussing the various changes in lawyers for the Trump campaign.

He outlines the changes to arguments in briefs and changes to legal teams that distracted from issue at hand.

Reminder: I'm not a lawyer.

As I read it, bc of OFFICIAL Trump campaign argument, Brann could only consider whether curing procedures were so unfair to the 2 voters part of the lawsuit, that ALL votes needed to be disqualified.

"This claim, like Frankenstein's Monster..."

As whether or not these voters suffered harm because of the law, the judge says they didn't.

These 2 voters made mistakes w/ ballots. Brann says the fact that they weren't able to fix isn't because of the law, but THEIR mistake, it doesn't mean nullifying ALL votes is solution.

Brann says these voters were injured inasmuch as their votes didn't count.

But Brann says the votes weren't specifically cancelled because of any actions of Kathy Boockvar. Instead, Brann says, the Boockvar email to counties ENCOURAGED ways to fix ballots like the two plaintiffs

BIG paragraph from Brann here.

"Prohibiting certification of the election results would not reinstate the Individual Plaintiffs' right to vote. It would simply deny more than 6.8 million people their right to vote."

Brann says the Trump campaign doesn't have standing either. Brann says he didn't think the campaign made clear what the injury to the campaign was and go through the cases they cited to determine what the argument was, still denying it.

As to whether "curing" procedures disadvantaged these two voters, as Trump campaign argued, Brann says no.

"Expanding the right to vote for some residents of a state does not burden the rights of others."

Reminder: The two voters DON'T live in any of the 7 counties sued.

"Though every injury must have its proper redress, a court may not prescribe a remedy unhinged from the underlying right being asserted. By seeking injunctive relief preventing certification of the Pennsylvania election results, plaintiffs ask this Court to do exactly that."