(Photo by Alex Wong / Getty Images)
At yesterday's batshit press, Sidney Powell croaked fantastic allegations of global conspiracies when traces of brown mascara (???) streamed off Rudy Giuliani's sideburns. If these two got on your bus, you'd get off at the next stop. Yet here they represent the leader of the free world in court.
Team Trump yesterday dropped several briefs on District Judge Matthew Brann's file explaining why the court should require the Pennsylvania vote to be confirmed Monday. Amazingly, none of them mentioned a globalist conspiracy set up by Hugo Chavez and funded by George Soros to "tip" the votes for Joe Biden. In fact, there were exactly zero allegations of fraud in connection with this election.
Instead, Trump attorneys argued that thousands of ballot papers showing the will of qualified, registered voters were illegally counted and now, according to a handy formula by Guiliani et al.
If a discovery is granted, plaintiffs will examine those envelopes immediately prior to the hearing to determine the percentage of postal ballots counted illegally – of which Democratic candidate Joseph Biden won approximately 75% and President Trump 25%, a 50% margin for Biden. The plaintiffs will then use statistical expert analysis to extrapolate this percentage to the 1.5 million postal ballot papers. This simple exercise will determine whether the plaintiffs can prove their case – i.e. H. That enough illegal ballot papers were counted to change the election result. If so, the court should overturn those votes and declare Trump the winner.
Dead easy!
Now, a stickler could argue that throwing out a percentage of postal ballot papers defined by Rudy will necessarily have an impact on the ballot papers, since an illegally cast vote is illegal for all races, not just the top of the ticket. But don't worry, "Plaintiffs are not trying to join certification in any other Pennsylvania election." If the court just allows them to use Trump Math to disenfranchise voters and give Donald Trump the 20 Pennsylvania electoral vote, plaintiffs will be on their way and no longer cause problems.
The requests for injunctions and permission to file another amended complaint contain long conclusions and brief evidence. They decipher the "partisan" Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled Tuesday that election officials were free to set their own procedures for election observers, and insist that "the defendants violated the due process clause to To prefer Biden to Trump in such a permeable system. " on “Due Process Violation at First Sight” and the requirement to re-determine all votes that were counted when Republican election observers were “disfellowshipped”. (They weren't excluded.)
Plaintiffs liberally use unsubstantiated allegations to write that "Secretary Boockvar has long advocated that state officials count more postal ballots than the law allows," and accuse them of giving different advice to Democratic and Republican county officials. As evidence, they cite the guidelines issued on October 21, according to which voters whose postal ballot papers were flawed in their faces are allowed to vote in person for the time being, and an email dated November 2 giving officials express permission to view the results of the pre-solicitation pass on to party officials so they can round up their constituents to heal faulty ballot papers. Both went to each individual electoral committee.
Rudy and the Super Friends have moved to table another amendment deferring any allegations that were dismissed following the Third Circle's decision that a candidate could not sue to enforce state election law. However, that motion has not yet been approved, and as Secretary Boockvar noted in her response motion, Trump's lawyers are basing their claim for relief on allegations nowhere to be found in the current lawsuit. "The first amended complaint is effective and cannot be" amended "by a letter of objection which alternatively and incorrectly cites both the original complaint and the amended complaint."
The tone of the secretary's filing can be described as strangled despair. And after reading those gobbledygook pleadings for a week and listening to that gonzo hearing, trust me, I feel you.
Perhaps choosing a lawyer who hasn't appeared at the federal level since 1992 and instead spends all of his time screaming nonsense on YouTube was a strategic mistake?
Ah great. We are corrected.
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v Boockvar (Docket at Court Listener)
Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore, where she writes on law and politics.
