Judge Matthew Brann of the U.S. District Court in central Pennsylvania wrote Saturday in a dilapidated decision, just hours after the final filing in the case came, the judge vehemently rejected Trump’s’s attempts to win the election by defeating Mr. Bensen. Biden has more than 81,000 votes in the state.
“In the United States, such a thing could not confirm the dissolution of a single voter, leaving all six states’ most populous voters in the sixth-largest population,” the judge wrote.
But Brann, a longtime Republican candidate in Pennsylvania, refused.
Importantly, this is the last major case seeking to cast or block enough votes that could swing a key state in Trump’s resignation, and Brann’s decision on Saturday was largely a loss or withdrawal from the 30th election day since the Trump election. There were only two Republican court victories, by a narrow margin.
“The plaintiff called on the court to end the voting of nearly 7 million people. The tribunal could not find any case in which the plaintiff sought such a radical solution in the run-up to the election, in terms of the number of votes calling for it to be annulled,” Brann wrote on Saturday.
In that case, Trump’s legal team, led by Giuliani, tried to assert the equal rights of two Pennsylvania voters because the state had allowed the county to decide that the invalid ballot could result in technical issues being resolved by the electorate. Both voters in the case said that in their constituency, they were not allowed to “vote”, and therefore their vote was rejected, while other counties, such as the city of Philadelphia, allowed voters to “vote.” The difference, they argue, is that the result of the Pennsylvania election in all of them should be blocked by a court order, which could theoretically give Biden 20 votes.
Mr Brann called for a legal reason behind Trump’s campaign’s claim to be “Frankenstein’s Monster.”
“The answer to a fraudulent vote is not to give millions more,” Brann wrote.
Mr. Brann also warned the Trump process for providing false evidence about voter fraud or other allegations – evidence that Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump’s supporters have repeatedly said they did not do so. Elected officials in several states and judges have said there will be no widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
Giuliani, who filed the last-minute lawsuit before Tuesday’s hearing before Brann, has been widely accused of ignoring legal grounds, leading a team to err on the side of filing, and encouraging baseless and unreasonable allegations. Anti-Trump in a city based on democracy.
“One might expect that when seeking such a shocking outcome, the plaintiff may be armed with legal arguments and evidence of the existence of serious corruption, such as that this court will have no choice but to provide unlawful assistance to the public, even if there is no civil action.” “Instead, this court was dismissed with arbitrary legal arguments, without justified allegations, without grievances in action and without substantive evidence.”
The counties are due to confirm their election results on Monday.
The judge said further hearing on the matter “would be too late to resolve” the issue of confirmation, and he closed the case. His order on Saturday noted that the Trump campaign could not try to upgrade their claim to a change of motion.
Trump’s campaign on Saturday night said they would appeal Brann’s ruling, and soon, with the intention of taking the case to the United States Supreme Court.
This story has been updated.
Kelly Mena contributed to this report.