" the Trump campaign than its federal case in Pennsylvania.
That was the only case where Rudy Giuliani, who is in charge of the campaign's legal effort, appeared personally to present his arguments in court.
It did not go well.
On Saturday evening, Judge Matthew W. Brann dismissed the case in a scathing decision:
In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between.
In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters...
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.
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.
Our people, laws, and ins utions demand more.
This was not a decision written by a liberal activist. Before his nomination by President Obama,
Brann "was involved in Republican politics, the NRA and the Federalist Society."
He was nominated on the recommendation of Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA). "
-- email from Popular Information