President Donald Trump has filed a motion to join the Texas Attorney General's lawsuit to overturn elections in four states he has lost – and his new attorney has produced a file claiming the results are "deeply false" be.
Attorney John Eastman, who posted a comment this summer, has doubts that Vice-President-elect Kamal Harris is a candidate for office despite her birth in California.
The new legal mandate, in Trump's name, a motion for Trump identified as president to "intervene in his personal capacity as a candidate for re-election," contains many of the same arguments Trump made on his Twitter account, including Wednesday As Trump tweeted, no candidate has ever lost the White House while wearing Florida and Ohio.
"The fact that almost half of the country believe the election was stolen should come as no surprise," the file said. President Trump prevailed on almost all historical indicators of success in the presidential election. For example, he won both Florida and Ohio; No candidate in history – Republican or Democrat – has ever lost the election after winning both states. & # 39;
It also relies on statistical claims about the vote. In one race, Trump claimed he was "manipulated" even though Joe Biden received 7 million more votes than he did.
& # 39; This despite the fact that the nearly 75 million votes he received – a record for any incumbent president – was almost 12 million more than in the 2016 election, also a record (unlike the 2012 election, in which the incumbent president received 3 million fewer votes than four years ago, but still prevailed. "
Attorney John Eastman, who filed for Trump to intervene in the Texas lawsuit, wrote a comment this summer doubting whether Vice-President-elect Kamal Harris would be an option despite her birth in California
"These things don't usually happen, and a large percentage of Americans know something is deeply wrong," said the file, which after the safe haven deadline has passed and enough states have confirmed their vote, Joe Biden wins the electoral college.
Trump has asked Texas Senator Ted Cruz to discuss the case. Cruz argued numerous cases in the Supreme Court before he was elected to the Senate. He was a loyal Trump defender, though he also ran for president in 2016 when Trump made fun of his wife and accused his father of being part of a Kennedy murder conspiracy theory.
To remedy this, Trump is calling for the vote to be dropped and for the Supreme Court to "instruct" state lawmakers to have the power to appoint a new group of voters in a manner that does not violate the electoral clause, or to do not appoint any voters at all ”- which would result in millions of votes in the four states being nullified.
Attempts are also made to allocate costs to the plaintiff for intervention as well as "other facilities that the court deems to be fair and reasonable".
It said the Supreme Court should "order the defendant states to review their election results in accordance with pre-existing state law and to count only legally cast ballots to determine who actually won the contest for President of the United States."
Federal judges overseeing cases of Trump allies in Michigan and other states have poked fun at remedial action that would wipe away millions of votes. "People spoke," said Michigan District Court Judge Linda V. Parker when she dismissed a lawsuit.
President-elect Joe Biden won 306 electoral college votes compared to 232 for Trump, while he received 81 million votes nationwide, compared to 74 million for Trump.
Amid the Republicans' rush to back Trump, despite all 50 states and D.C. Having confirmed their votes, Utah Senator Mitt Romney blew up the idea that state legislation should overturn the will of voters.
& # 39; It's just insane. The idea of replacing the referendum with partisan legislators is so completely out of our national character that it's just insane, ”said Romney.
Of course, the president has the right to challenge the results in court and to have recounts. But these efforts to undermine the voices of the people are dangerous and destroy the cause of democracy, ”he added.
The electoral college will meet on Monday, the next inaugural milestone on January 20.
Trump said earlier Wednesday that his administration would join an action by the Republican Attorney General in Texas to overthrow elections in four battlefield states sponsored by Joe Biden.
And seventeen attorneys general – all Republicans and all from states Trump promoted in November – put their names on the effort and sign a friend's court report, filed later on Wednesday.
"Interferences by other state actors in the authority of state legislation violate the separation of powers and threaten individual freedom," wrote the states who want to get the court to overthrow the vote in four other states.
"States have a strong interest in ensuring that the votes of their own citizens are not diluted by the unconstitutional administration of elections in other states," they write.
Signed were the best law enforcement officers from Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
The attorney general joined Trump's efforts at a time when House Republicans were handing out a petition to support them – the latest sign of the president's grip on the Republican Party despite being against Joe by more than 7 million votes Biden has lost and only has a few weeks left in the office.
In the lawsuit, filed late Monday on behalf of the state of Texas, its attorney general Ken Paxton argued that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia violated the constitutional electoral clause with their dramatic expansion of postal ballots amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The case, previously described as "insane" by a University of Texas law professor, follows a string of legal defeats for Team Trump. Paxton is under investigation by the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The case does not seek to expose the "massive" fraud alleged by Trump and his legal team that has been fought in state and federal courts, but rather to say that election changes make it "undetectable".
& # 39; Despite the chaos on election night and the days that followed, the media have repeatedly announced that no widespread election fraud has been proven. But this observation misses the point. The constitutional question is not whether voters committed fraud, but whether state officials broke the law by systematically relaxing the ballot integrity measures so that fraud is no longer detectable. "
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to contest another case aimed at nullifying the Pennsylvania certification process by invalidating its postal ballot papers. No judiciary registered dissent – suggesting that the decision against Republican Mike Kelly could have been 9-0, whose case would also have voided the presidential election result if it had succeeded.
And in Nevada, late Tuesday the Supreme Court knocked down Trump's offer to unanimously overthrow the election, ruling that he had provided no evidence of significant fraud.
Just over 12 hours later, Trump wrote on Twitter that his legal efforts will continue despite a safe haven deadline expiring and that the two lawyers – Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis – are on hold after testing positive for the coronavirus.
& # 39; We will intervene in the Texas (and many other states) case. This is the big one. Our country needs a victory! & # 39; Trump wrote. He later tweeted "RIGGED ELECTION!"
It is unclear how exactly he would intervene and on whom & # 39; we & # 39; relate. The White House and its campaign did not comment.
"Missouri is in the fight," tweeted Attorney General Eric Schmitt.
The Trump campaign could file a pleading in support of the Texas case, or the federal government could move to intervene in the case, which means it will join it as the aggrieved party suing the four battlefield states.
This would be politically explosive, however, and would require action by both Attorney General Bill Barr – who has said there is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud – and Attorney General Jeff Wall, who is expected to argue before the judges.
It is a case with a severely reduced chance of success, legal observers said.
The case, filed this week, includes an affidavit from Mellissa Carone, whose wild and antagonistic testimony went viral and was sketched out on Saturday night. It pertains to a case filed in Michigan supported by the affidavit, and contains their affidavit attached to the case.
Carone testified as the star witness for Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani, who attended a hearing in Michigan last week where her demeanor went viral after investigating lawmakers and making unsupported claims. Saturday Night Live also did a sketch of them impaling their testimony.
She was recently paroled, as revealed by DailyMail.com, after initially being charged with profanity and cybercrime. She also worked at a Sopranos-inspired strip club in Michigan called Bada Bing.
Despite her prolonged, exposed contact with Giuliani, who is being treated for coronavirus at Georgetown University Hospital, she told the Washington Post that she did not intend to quarantine or be tested.
President Donald Trump said Wednesday he would intervene in a long-term case filed by the Texas Republican Attorney General to overthrow voting in four other states
Mellissa Carone, the star witness in Trump's Michigan election fraud case, used to work as a stripper at a now-closed men's club called Bada Bing, named after The Sopranos, sources told DailyMail.com. The Texas Attorney General includes her affidavit in the Supreme Court action seeking to overturn the vote in four states that voted Joe Biden
Trump named a case in which Texas is suing four states that indicted Joe Biden over their electoral laws, "the big ones."
Trump wrote after a major setback that the Pennsylvania case was "not my case," while describing a Texas case filed earlier this week as "very strong." A University of Texas law professor called the case "insane."
Trump approvingly tweeted a link to a story from the pro-Trump outlet Justthenews.com with her testimony. He also tweeted, "Melissa is great!"
She also made a number of bizarre claims against SarahPalin.com, a website she contacted after entering the scene.
She denied being drunk during her testimony. "That's what they're doing with Trump," she said. & # 39; It won't work for me. I will not back down because I am very religious and know that God is watching over me. & # 39;
She then talked about the origins of the virus and linked it to voting machines that Trump lawyers alleged were implicated in a conspiracy involving Venezuela, Cuba and China.
& # 39; That started with COVID. The Obamas funded this Wuhan lab to make COVID. Then the impeachment process. They used every opportunity to cheat, they used Dominion. Dominion software was created to cheat. I have a folder from Dominion that proves this. There's so much more to be revealed, ”she said.
Top election attorney Ben Ginsburg told CNN after Trump's tweet about joining the case: “There is no basis for it. I don't think the Supreme Court will for a moment consider bringing this case up. & # 39;
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, called the lawsuit "insane" and quipped on Twitter, "It looks like we have a new leader in" the craziest lawsuit alleged to challenge the electoral category. "
The lawsuit accuses the four battlefield states that have ruled Joe Biden for "unconstitutional acts" for "unrestrained lawlessness," even though the constitution gives states the power to hold general elections. Pennsylvania voted to create an apology-free mail-in vote in 2019 when the state's Democratic governor signed a bipartisan bill.
Trump has also beaten the media for coverage of the High Court's decision not to take the Pennsylvania case.
& # 39; This was not my case, as has been so misreported. The case everyone has been waiting for is the case of the state where Texas and numerous others are joining. It is very strong, ALL CRITERIA MET. How can you have a presidency when a large majority thinks the election was RIGGED? & # 39;
But the Supreme Court decision on Tuesday was seen as a major blow to Trump's efforts.
Within minutes of the judges' decision, Trump's campaign triggered an appeal to supporters who had admitted defeat in court and said, “Everything Pres. Trump did it, is at stake on January 5th – the day before the meeting of Congress to confirm the result of the electoral college.
This is Trump's last chance to dismiss the election result by somehow convincing Congress to annul Biden's victory in enough states to bring his electoral college below 270 and leave it to the House to decide who President is. If the House can decide, each state delegation gets a vote, and Republicans have a majority in 26 state delegations – which apparently means Trump will be named president.
The Supreme Court's blow means his Conservative majority of 6 to 3 with three Trump judges on the bench has so far refused to help him.
The reprimand came just before the House ignored a threat of veto from Trump and voted overwhelmingly to pass a defense law. Trump called for an amendment to a communications law and opposed a provision to rename military bases named after Confederate officers. The $ 741 billion bill was passed with a bipartisan vote between 335 and 78.
How the Trump Campaign Reacted: January 5th is the day before the Congress meeting to confirm the Electoral College result and, with it, Joe Biden's victory. The SCOTUS ruling means that Trump has effectively given up hope of conservative judges who will come to his aid
Response from Pennsylvania: Josh Shapiro, the attorney general, slammed the suit as a "circus".
Wisconsin Reaction: Attorney General Josh Kaul compared his chances in court to Texas at the Ice Bowl
Adulterer and an FBI Probe: Meet the AG behind Hagel Mary to annul the election
The FBI is investigating allegations that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton broke the law when he used his office for a wealthy donor.
Federal agents are investigating allegations by former Paxton employees that the Republican committed bribery, abuse of office, and other crimes to aid Austin real estate developer Nate Paul.
The investigation was reported by the Associated Press in mid-November.
Paxton has denied wrongdoing and declined calls to resign after his top MPs reported him to federal authorities in late September.
Trump ally: Ken Paxton with Eric Trump and his wife Angela – whom he's cheating on
It is unclear to what extent the FBI is investigating the allegations against Paxton. A spokeswoman for the agency in San Antonio declined to comment.
Paxton is accused of using his position as the best law enforcement officer in Texas to help Paul in a variety of ways.
At the center of their claims is the fact that Paxton hired an outside attorney to investigate the developer's allegations that the FBI failed to properly search his home and office over the past year.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (right, with Trump in the Beast in 2018) has filed lawsuits against four states that voted for Joe Biden, asking the Supreme Court to elect Republican-led lawmakers and the presidency Donald Trump surrender
Each of Paxton's accusers has resigned, been suspended, or released since reporting him. Last week, four of them filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the attorney general, claiming he had suppressed them in retaliation.
The full nature of the connection between Paxton and Paul remains unclear. In 2018 Paul donated $ 25,000 to the Attorney General's re-election campaign. The developer said in a recent statement that Paxton recommended a woman for her job at his company.
Two people previously told The Associated Press that in 2018 Paxton admitted to having an extramarital affair with the woman, who was then a Senate assistant. People spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.
Paxton has spent most of his tenure in office maintaining his innocence in the face of an unrelated securities fraud charge. The case has stalled for years due to legal challenges.
The case rejected by the judges was the only one that even made it to them. Judge Samuel Alito, who is responsible for the federal courts in Pennsylvania, had postponed the deadline for filing motions by a day, apparently bringing hope to the president and his supporters.
However, this meant that the judges had put it down on “Safe Haven Day” when all litigation in the state elections had to be closed.
That means Trump and his Republican and legal allies, including COVID-hit Rudy Giulaini and Jenna Ellis and conspiracy theorists Sidney Powell and L. Lin Wood, could not change the outcome of any single state or win all but one case, which affected less than 2,000 votes.
It also means that when the electoral college meets next week, it will certify Biden's victory – leaving Trump's only hope of January 6th Congressional session.
By targeting the four swing states, Paxton's lawsuit seeks to either get the Republican majority representatives to nominate voters for the electoral college, transfer the majority to Trump, or completely invalidate their voters, thereby removing the majority of the Biden electoral college is reduced to under 270 and the decision is made on the presidency in the House of Representatives.
The Supreme Court doesn't need to take the case up and could just ignore it. The Michigan and Wisconsin attorneys general – both Democrats – mocked the legal offer and accused Paxton of running a "circus."
Paxton claims the four states went against their own constitutions to facilitate voting in the pandemic, and that doing so harmed Texas voters by violating the federal constitution's equal treatment clause.
"Whether well-intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect – they made the 2020 election less certain in the accused states," the lawsuit said.
& # 39; These changes are contrary to relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative bodies without the consent of state legislators. The actions of these officials were thus directly against the constitution. & # 39;
Trump has again called for other Republican states to join the lawsuit and a list of when their attorneys general's terms have expired – meaning they should face the primaries if they don't go along.
The lawsuit alleges that the four states should be instructed by the judges to return to lawmakers the power to select voters for the electoral college under Article 1 of the Constitution.
The constitutional electoral clause in Article 1 states that “the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives in each state are prescribed by its legislature” – determining the role of each state in conducting its elections .
For this reason, some countries allowed universal mail-in voting years ago, while others took a different course.
The lawsuit claims, however, that the four swing states have "flooded their citizens with millions of ballot requests and ballot papers contrary to legal controls on how they are lawfully received, rated and counted".
It calls for "non-legislative changes to the" electoral laws "of the accused states by state courts and election officials.
The lawsuit is asking the Supreme Court to postpone the December 14th electoral college meeting to allow an investigation. It accused the states of "rampant lawlessness" and tried to "usurp" the powers of their legislators.
The lawsuit seeks to return the nomination of voters to state legislatures – all of which are led by Republicans – for legislative nomination rather than referendum.
It is explicitly stated that if this does not happen, Texas AG would like to throw the election on January 6th. Each state delegation receives one vote, which would bring Republicans to a majority if they voted.
The Texas lawsuit alleges "rampant lawlessness" and cites some of the same allegations that have either been debunked or already thrown out of court.
For example, it cited "suitcases full of ballot papers pulled out from under tables after election observers were told to leave Georgia" despite an official from the Republican Foreign Minister's office in Georgia provided an affidavit stating that there was no wrongdoing.
"Our investigation and review of all security materials found that no mysterious ballot papers were tabled from an unknown location and hidden under tables, as some have reported," wrote investigator Frances Watson.
Texas itself allows mail-in voting but sets categories and requires a reason: traveling, over 65, imprisoned, or disabled.
Pennsylvania lawmakers voted for an apologetic mail-in vote in 2019 ahead of the pandemic. The democratic governor Tom Wolf signed the law, which was passed bipartisan.
The appeal to the Supreme Court comes despite the fact that the judges were among the sharpest critics of the legal arguments put forward by Trump's legal team, often dismissing them with scathing language of denial.
A DARING LAWSUIT – OR DOOMED TO BEAT THE WASTE?
Texas AG's lawsuit against Ken Paxton makes a legal hail of Mary by going straight to the Supreme Court – which means he can either win big or just be ignored.
The Supreme Court is the place to go for disputes between states, but usually such disputes are protracted, for example over water rights. In 2014, Oklahoma and Nebraska asked the Supreme Court to stop Colorado's marijuana legalization – but they declined to hear the case.
That could be the judges' first answer to Paxton.
To convince them to take the case, he must convince them that the people of Texas – whom he represents – have been harmed by the election result and that the four states have either violated the Article 1 clause that establishes how elections are conducted; or anti-equality safeguard by making the votes of the people of Texas somehow less important than those of the swing states.
The states themselves can point out that the right to vote is regulated in individual states and that cases there have generally been lost. You can also refer to the results of federal courts and, in Pennsylvania, federal appeals courts that have also dismissed claims.
Even if the judges are convinced they should take the case, it remains a difficult task for the Republican Attorney General to win.
The usual approach by judges to interstate disputes is to set up their own special court under a “special master” to examine the cases on both sides, gather evidence and approach the case as a separate trial.
This is because the Supreme Court is unusually starting from scratch, not dealing with a case that has already found its way through the judicial system and is very well defined. This time, however, the clock is ticking and the judges may choose to hear the case for themselves.
Either way, P.axton would have to produce substantial evidence to support his demand that millions of ballot papers be invalidated and the election results of four swing states overturned.
At the heart of Paxton's case is that the four states changed the rules for voting by post before the election and then used them to fraudulently switch Trump's result to Biden.
The Supreme Court would have to rule both that the four states acted unconstitutionally and that the way to deal with those acts is to annul their elections. Such an extreme act contradicts the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year on "unfaithful voters" which allowed states to punish or remove those who intended to vote against the states' victorious candidate.
During the case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh spoke about the "chaos principle of judgment" and said if there is a "close call … we should not allow or create chaos".
As for his evidence, Paxton faces an obvious challenge: his submission rests on a number of allegations about both states' constitutional measures to allow wider access to mail-in voting and fraud already dated by the United States State was struck down and federal judges in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia.
"Evidence" includes Republicans banned from watching ballots counted in Philadelphia, which was laughed out of court when a Trump attorney admitted there was a "non-zero" number of observers.
He also claims that Georgia's postal ballots would have gone to Trump if they had been rejected at the same rate as in 2016 – which the state has already ruled out.
In Michigan, the evidence includes Jessy Jacob's affidavit, already dismissed by a Detroit judge, claiming that election workers trained voters to vote for either Biden or Straight Democrat by standing next to them in the polling station, and that she was asked not to seek photo ID from voters. The judge dismissed her claims as "generalized", saying she did nothing about it when she claimed it had happened and did not step forward until Trump lost.
In Wisconsin, Paxton alleged that voting boxes were unconstitutional. The attorney general can invoke so-called "laughs," a defense that Paxton should have sued at the time the boxes were approved, rather than waiting for the result of the vote. It also includes a claim by a USPS subcontractor that ballots will be backdated once the polls are complete – even though the state had already reported the result.
And in all four states, Paxton cites a statistical analysis: “The likelihood that former Vice President Biden will win the referendum in the four accused states – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – is independent of President Trump's early lead in those states from 3 on November 4, 2020 is less than one in a quadrillion or one in 1,000,000,000,000,000. & # 39; However, its basis is undeclared and comes from an energy economist, not an elective specialist.
ANOTHER BRANCH: THIS TIME NEVADAS JUDGE TRUMP
The Supreme Court of Nevada declined an appeal from the president late Tuesday Donald TrumpThe campaign to overthrow the election results in the state confirms the elected president Joe Bidenwins in one of the Battlefield states.
"In order to enforce this appeal, the complainants must prove legal errors, findings of fact that are not supported by substantial evidence or a misuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court," says the decision. "We are not convinced that they did this."
Trump says the result was fraudulent, but no court has found evidence to support his claims.
Last week, a Nevada district court ruled that the Trump campaign had failed to prove an allegation that there was a malfunction in the voting machines and that the competition between Trump and Biden had been rigged.
"We are also not convinced that the district court erred in imposing a burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence, as shown in the cases cited in the district court order," the Nevada Supreme Court said in its ruling .
The Republican Party of Nevada said it was "extremely disappointed" with the decision.
"We had no opportunity to write our brief or discuss the case in front of the court." Nevada's GOP said in a statement.
"The total denial of legitimate procedural and appeal rights is truly unprecedented, shocking and extraordinary," it said.
One of the court's judges, Elissa Cadish, declined to rule on the appeal, saying she had a personal relationship with several of the Biden voters the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Trump's campaign wanted Justice James W. Hardesty to recycle himself by congratulating Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske on "an extraordinarily successful election," the paper also reported.
Hardesty filed a motion stating that his comment was "an appropriately polite and professional response and in no way reflected any disposition or opinion of me on the facts or questions raised in this case".
The Trump campaign has also lost this argument.
Biden won Nevada by 33,596 votes, giving him the six votes of the state on the electoral college that elects the president.
The Democrat Hillary Clinton also won the state over Trump in 2016.
This is true regardless of whether the judge was appointed by a Democrat or a Republican, including those named by Trump himself.
The court rulings that have rejected Trump's unfounded allegations of widespread electoral fraud have underscored not only the futility of the President the Lame Duck's attempt to sabotage the will of the people, but also the role of the courts in overseeing his unprecedented efforts at the Power to stay.
The complaints did not stop the litigation.
Despite those losses in court, Trump has claimed he actually won the election.
And he's moved out of the courts to speak directly to lawmakers as his losses mount. He brought Michigan lawmakers to the White House to suspend the vote and called Georgia Governor Brian Kemp asking him to set up a special term to reverse the states' results. Kemp refused.
And Trump tweeted in all caps: "I won the election, big."
While this is not the case, it is true that Trump is quick to run out of legal runway.
Of around 50 lawsuits filed, more than 35 were dropped or dismissed.
Many of the lawsuits indicate a lack of understanding of how elections actually work.
In Georgia, US District Judge Timothy Batten, appointed by President George W. Bush, dismissed a lawsuit from Powell who left the Trump legal team a few weeks ago but has continued to spread flawed electoral claims.
Powell's lawsuit alleged widespread fraud designed to illegally manipulate the vote count in Biden's favor. The lawsuit said the program was carried out in a variety of ways, including ballot papers, votes cast from Trump to Biden by the electoral system, and issues with postal voting. The judge flatly denied these claims.
Batten said the lawsuit sought "perhaps the most extraordinary relief ever sought in federal court in connection with an election."
He said the lawsuit sought to ignore the will of voters in Georgia, which the state re-affirmed for Biden on Monday after three votes.
"They want this court to replace the verdict of two and a half million Georgian voters who voted for Joe Biden, and I am not ready," Batten said.
Much like Trump, his lawyers attempt to blame the judge's political leanings after their legal arguments have been invalidated.
When a federal appeals body in Philadelphia rejected Trump's campaign just five days after reaching court, Trump's legal advisor Jenna Ellis – who learned on Tuesday that she had COVID – called her work a product of the Pennsylvania's activist judicial machinery. & # 39;
But Trump appointed the judge who drafted the November 27 opinion.
& # 39; Voters, not lawyers, elect the president. Ballots, not briefings, make elections, ”wrote Judge Stephanos Bibas when the US 3rd Circuit Panel refused to prevent the state from confirming its results for Democrat Joe Biden, a demand he called“ breathtaking ”.
All three panel members were appointed by Republican presidents.
And they upheld the decision of a fourth Republican, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, a conservative lawyer and a member of the Federalist Society. Brann had described the campaign litigation, which was being discussed in court by Rudy Giuliani, as an "arbitrary" mess that resembled "Frankenstein's monster".
The lawsuits have also failed in state courts. In Arizona, Judge Randall Warner, an independent judge appointed by former Democratic governor Janet Napolitano in 2007, made an offer to reverse Biden's victory.
Arizona Republican Party leader Kelli Ward challenged ballot papers on Metro Phoenix that were duplicated because previous voter ballot papers were corrupted or untabbed.
Warner wrote, “There is no evidence that the inaccuracies were intentional or part of any fraudulent scheme. They were mistakes. And given the low number of duplicate ballots and the low margin of error, the evidence shows no impact on the outcome. & # 39;
In Nevada, Carson City Judge James Todd Russell ruled Friday that Republican voter lawyers failed to provide clear or convincing evidence of fraud or illegality.
Nevada judges are impartial. But Russell's father was the Republican governor of the state from 1951 to 1959.
Trump has argued with the court repeatedly this year after suffering some high profile disappointments 6-3 despite the court's conservative stance.
In June, the court ruled against his government's decision to end the DACA in a blistering statement describing the government's action as "arbitrary and capricious". This resulted in a federal judge ordering the administration last week to accept new requests.
Trump raged on Twitter, it was "NOT FAIR!" after the 7-2 judgment.
Trump also called out Chief Justice John Roberts that summer after partnering with Liberals on key decisions. & # 39; & # 39; Courts in the past have & # 39; wide respect & # 39; given. BUT NOT ME! & # 39; he complained.
Roberts, along with Trump-appointed Judge Neil Gorsuch, has applied anti-discrimination laws to LGBT workers. Roberts also ruled that the president should be subject to grand jury subpoenas – a matter close to Trump's interest as he is being prosecuted by New York prosecutors and lawmakers looking for tax return information.
Trump could hope he could be better off after installing Justice Amy Coney Barrett – his third election in court and the sixth member of the Conservative majority.
He spoke of the potential for the Supreme Court to rule the election before it was upheld a few weeks before the election. The Democrats warned that this could be part of a plan to win the race from the bench.
Trump posted a bizarre tweet from & # 39; Major Patriot & # 39; retweeted, which showed Barrett with bright eyes.
“They got caught because we were being led by so much more than they ever thought possible. Late night ballot papers went crazy! Trump wrote.
The user wrote: & # 39; The wheels are coming off. Trump's inspired massive MAGA tsunami turnout forced them to cheat so much that they went mad in a frenzy of fraud. Their unconstitutional legal actions alone make them doomed. & # 39;
Twitter has flagged it for "controversial" allegations of election fraud. The user had published a variety of conspiracy theories.
(tagsToTranslate) Dailymail (t) News (t) Breaking News (t) Republican (t) US Election 2020 (t) Rudy Giuliani (t) Texas (t) Donald Trump (t) US Politics (t) Joe Biden ( t)) US swing states