The Banker
Diamond Member
- Oct 24, 2017
- 6,632
- 8,848
- Thread starter
- #61
1)In a ruling late Saturday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann — a Republican and Federalist Society member in central Pennsylvania — compared the campaign’s legal arguments to “Frankenstein’s Monster,” concluding that Trump’s team offered only “speculative accusations,” not proof of rampant corruption.A fewYet Trump appointed many of the ones who rejected rudy's crap
most of of the suits were rejected on procedural grounds rather than factual
2) Judge Robert Baldi wrote that most of the contested ballots contained “minor irregularities,” and that tossing them out is “not necessary to prevent fraud, and there would be no other significant interest undermined by allowing these ballots to be counted.”
In fact, in his order, Baldi took pains to point out that the parties in the case “specifically stipulated” that “there exists no evidence of any fraud, misconduct, or any impropriety with respect to the challenged ballots.”
3) “Charges of unfairness are serious,” Bibas wrote in the nonprecedential opinion. “But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
There was no fraud. There was no evidence of fraud. All claims of fraud have been rejected by multiple courts. Its over Trump lost.