When I was on @NewsHour on November 5, I said that Trump had no grand legal strategy to overturn the results of the election. Nothing has changed in a month, other than a streak of losing, poorly conceived and worse executed cases. pbs.org/newshour/show/…
If anything, the lawsuits in the last weeks have gotten worse
You've got to be kidding me.
At the appellate level and Supreme Court level, the appointing judge is the best predictor of how a judge/justice will vote in the highest profile cases.
Not because they are hacks, but because they were chosen for their genuinely held ideology.
I can predict with near certainty how almost every Supreme Court Justice will vote in nearly every election case. And my first rule of thumb is which President appointed the Justice.
#ELB: Donor Sues True the Vote Claiming He Gave $2.5 Million to Fund Jim Bopp Litigation to Expose Fraud in Battleground States to Help Trump, But the Group Withdrew Their Complaints and Did Nothing. He Wants a Refund. electionlawblog.org/?p=119080
The complaint alleges that True the Vote through Bopp finally agreed to give back only $1 million of the $2.5 million to fund absurd voter fraud litigation, in exchange for an agreement not to sue for the rest.
The complaint also alleges that True the Vote withdrew its four lawsuits filed by Bopp in consultation with the Trump campaign.
The reason for the withdrawal have not been made clear publicly.
First thing to note about the Trump campaign brief in the 3rd Circuit: it throws Trump's prior counsel under the bus for "incorrectly omitt[ing] numerous allegations and counts"
Key point: the Trump brief says it is not trying to disenfranchise 6.8 million PA voters, "just" throw out about 70,000 votes. BUT it also asks ultimately for court to void election, and let PA legislature choose electors. That IS disenfranchising 6.8 million PA voters.
The brief is procedurally weird, asking casually for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. Trump campaign should be asking for an injunction pending appeal if it wants preliminary relief. But it doesn't. It wants remand to reconsider proposed amended complaint
#ELB: Breaking: In Total Loss for Trump Campaign in Its Most Major Remaining Election Case, Federal Court in Pennsylvania Dismisses Case and Denies Motion to File Amended Complaint [link to opinion] electionlawblog.org/?p=118942
The federal court judge just EXCORIATES the Trump campaign for seeking to disenfranchise nearly seven million Pennsylvania voters with SHODDY legal arguments. We told you it would be this way:
From the judge on the merits: "Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent."
The Trump Campaign has filed its proposed Second Amended Complaint in the PA federal voting case. It's not much different than the earlier one and seeks the same relief. courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
They have tried to restore the claims arguing that the legislature and Secretary of State usurped the power of the state legislature under the Elections and Elector clauses, something they had abandoned given a new 3rd Circuit has saying they had no standing.
At bottom they are asking for the federal court to throw out the votes of millions of Pennsylvania voters and declare Trump the winner of the election (or let the legislature pick Trump). This is not a thing.