Appeals Courts — including the Supreme Court — do not generally take up matters without a factual record. You don’t call witnesses and take testimony in the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court. So if you want the Supreme Court to consider what witnesses have to say about what happened in the seven Pennsylvania Counties that have been named as defendants, that needs to happen in the district court where today’s hearing took place.

The ONLY goal today was to keep this case alive long enough to have the evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction that was scheduled to take place later in the week. Witnesses would have testified and been cross-examined under oath. But Judge Brann canceled that hearing today — which is not a good sign.

The argument today needed to be good enough to convince Brann to let that factual record be established BEFORE he dismisses the case on standing grounds — which I’m pretty sure he is going to do. That is actually what the Trump side wants because that pushes the case quicker out of the trial court and into the appeals courts, and an effort can be made to seek SCOTUS review immediately. This would be rare, but possible given that the clock is running on the inauguration date for the next president.

But, the case going forward to those other courts needs to have a factual record established as to WHAT HAPPENED in those Pennsylvania counties with regard to illegal pre-canvassing of ballots, and the use of that information to “cure” invalid ballots. At this point, the Trump Campaign has no hard factual data on how many ballots were involved. It needs to get that information from the defendants, and it is going to need the Court’s processes — subpoenas, an evidentiary hearing, and discovery — to get that information. //

Chris2
13 hours ago
Rudy made the standing arguments very well. Brann's question to Ds was that he didn't understand how Ps don't have standing; he said he didn't understand why this wrong did NOT have a remedy (according to them). Highlight of hearing was when Rudy pointed out co-counsel was plaintiff in 3rd circuit case that held candidate had standing. Rudy was very sharp - don't trust those who did NOT hear arguments attempt to rate Rudy. //

Chris2
13 hours ago
PS Brann invited Rudy to file a response to new motion to dismiss. He also said original motion to dismiss was MOOT - which was precisely what all Ds briefs had denied. That is, Brann dismissed the Ds main argument, explicitly & implicitly. He told Ds to file a reply brief - why? Didn't they already win? Reply briefs are optional, so why did Brann want one? //

"He who hath made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all.
Heaven hath trusted us with the management of things for eternity, and man denies us ability to judge of the present, or to know from our feelings the experience that which will make us happy. One day we will restore the Sovereign, to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and beholds with a propitious eye his children assuming that freedom of thought, and dignity of self direction which HE bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, May his kingdom come. " -- Sam Adams