President Donald Trump filed another appeal for his Pennsylvania suit to stop the votes from being counted in the state. This suit goes to the Third Circuit Court, and the filing was due at 4 p.m. In true Trump-legal team style, however, the filing didn't drop until 4:19 p.m.
"This latest filing - where Trump is now seeking to prevent certification in Pennsylvania - has now ascended the Mount Rushmore of banana-pants," tweeted appellate lawyer Raffi Melkonian. "Among other insanities - 1) you needed to file this days ago; 2) why are you asking for an extra 1,000 words on the motion when YOU ARE FILING A 14,000 WORD APPELLATE BRIEF ALSO TODAY; 3) It is not called a TRO."
Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal found it odd that the Trump legal team would try to file a restraining order in a U.S. district court of appeals when it wasn't in the first case.
Making his way through the legal filing, Reuters crime and justice reporter Brad Heath cited the point that Trump's team isn't trying to disenfranchise 6.8 million voters. They're trying to disenfranchise a subset of 1.5 million voters. Later on in the filing, however, the campaign says that irregularities mean the whole election should be thrown out and handed to the Republican-led legislature to decide. That would essentially nullify the 6.8 million votes they say they're not trying to disenfranchise.
"Trump's lawyers say the only issues they want the Third Circuit to resolve are whether they should have been able to amend their complaint to reinstate claims they dropped by mistake, and whether they can revive a related injunction motion," tweeted Heath. "Trump's lawyers want to be able to go back to the district court so they can argue that a bunch of election procedures they didn't like - curing of mail-in ballots, canvassing observation, etc - were part of a deliberate scheme to help Joe Biden become president."
Trump's lawyers went on to say that telling counties to count absentee ballots without secrecy envelopes was a scheme to help Biden win. "Nevermind that the state Supreme Court said they shouldn't be counted and it appears they, therefore, weren't," tweeted Heath.
The filing doesn't include much about why Judge Matthew Brann's ruling should be reversed, other than lawyers saying they didn't want to wait too long to amend their complaint because it would prejudice defendants.
Former Federal Prosecutor Joyce White Vance said that the courts may have to decide at what point to issue sanctions for such absurd lawsuits.
