A federal judge has given a scathing opinion dismissing the lawsuit argued by Rudy Giuliani on behalf of the Trump campaign that sought to block certification of Pennsylvania’s election results.
The Washington Post reported Saturday evening that U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann granted a request by Pennsylvania’s Democratic Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar to dismiss the suit.
Moreover, the judge dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. A court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that the Trump campaign cannot refile it.
The judge’s ruling clears the way for Pennsylvania state officials to certify the election results as scheduled on Monday. Joe Biden is leading by more than 80,000 votes, and Brann’s ruling is a major blow to the Trump campaign’s desperate attempt to overturn the election.
Giuliani, in his first appearance in a court since 1992, alleged on behalf of the Trump campaign that Republicans had been illegally disadvantaged because some counties allowed voters to fix errors on their mail ballot while others did not.
Giuliani’s appearance at a hearing in Williamsport, Pa., on Tuesday did not go well.
Attorney Marc Elias, who is leading President-elect Joe Biden’s team of lawyers engaged in the state-by-state fight over election challenges, reacted in a Tweet:
Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey issued a statement that Trump has “exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania.” He called on President Trump to accept the result and being the transition process.
Toomey noted that Judge Brann is “a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist.”
And he added this:
“I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory. They are both dedicated public servants and I will be praying for them and for our country.”
In his order, Judge Brann criticized the Trump campaign for using “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.”\
Brann wrote:
“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.”
The judge seemed almost incredulous that the Trump campaign was asking the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters in the Keystone State.
“This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
“That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.”
The judge found that the Trump campaign lacked standing to make the claim and could not prove it had suffered any harm if some counties helped their voters to fix flawed mail-in ballots while others did not.
Brann rejected the argument that Secretary of State Boockvar violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because Democratic counties gave voters who had submitted mail-in ballots with flaws the opportunity to “cure” or fix them, while predominantly Republican counties did not alert voters about flawed mail ballots.
Brann rejected this argument, likening it to Frankenstein’s monster, which had been “haphazardly stitched together.”
As established law firms pulled out of Trump’s election challenges, Giuliani stepped in to lead the legal efforts to challenge Joe Biden’s victory.
But in the federal court on Tuesday, the former U.S. attorney and NYC mayor was clearly rusty and in over his head as he threw around baseless claims that Democrats had engaged in a nationwide conspiracy to steal the election.
When asked by the judge on what basis he was asking the court to invalidate nearly 7 million votes, Giuliani focused only on votes cast in heavily Democratic Philadelphia and Pittsburgh where he said Republican observers were excluded or were too far away to see the ballots.
“The remedy … is draconian because the conduct was egregious,” Giuliani said. “As far as we’re concerned, Your Honor, those ballots could have been for Mickey Mouse.”
And despite making claims about widespread fraud in his opening remarks, Giuliani admitted later that the Trump campaign’s complaint didn’t directly allege fraud.
Brann was nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama in 2012, with the bipartisan support of Pennsylvania Sens. Pat Toomey and Bob Casey. A member of the Federalist Society, Brann had been a Republican official in Pennsylvania before joining the federal bench.
Of course Trump was quick to react to the ruling with a rage tweet directed at Judge Brann.
And of course Trump said the judge’s ruling would be appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has 14 active judges — George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Trump have each appointed four judges, and Bill Clinton two.
As hard as it is to believe, Republican Rep. Mike Kelly has filed an even more ridiculous lawsuit. It claims that the expansion of mail-in ballots under a Pennsylvania law — which incidentally was approved by the Republican-controlled state legislature — is unconstitutional.
His suggested remedy is that all mail-in ballots in the state — about 2.5 million ballots in all, Democratic and Republican alike, or more than a third of the total votes cast — be discarded.
And here is what Biden election lawyer Marc Elias had to say about this lawsuit: