By Maryclaire Dale

President Donald Trump’s legal team suffered yet another defeat in court Friday as a federal appeals court in Philadelphia roundly rejected the campaign's latest effort to challenge the state’s election results.

Trump’s lawyers vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court despite the judges' assessment that the “campaign’s claims have no merit.”

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” 3rd Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.

The case had been argued last week in a lower court by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who insisted during five hours of oral arguments that the 2020 presidential election had been marred by widespread fraud in Pennsylvania. However, Giuliani failed to offer any tangible proof of that in court.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann had said the campaign's error-filled complaint, “like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together” and denied Giuliani the right to amend it for a second time.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called that decision justified. The three judges on the panel were all appointed by Republican presidents. including Bibas, a former University of Pennsylvania law professor appointed by Trump. Trump’s sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, sat on the court for 20 years, retiring in 2019.

“Voters, not lawyers, choose the president. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections,” Bibas said in the opinion, which also denied the campaign's request to stop the state from certifying its results, a demand he called “breathtaking.”

In fact, Pennsylvania officials had certified their vote count Monday for President-elect Joe Biden, who defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes in the state. Nationally, Biden and running mate Kamala Harris garnered nearly 80 million votes, a record in U.S. presidential elections.

Trump has said he hopes the Supreme Court will intervene in the race as it did in 2000 when its decision to stop the recount in Florida gave the election to Republican George W. Bush. On Nov. 5, as the vote count continued, Trump posted a tweet saying the “U.S. Supreme Court should decide!”

Ever since, Trump and his surrogates have attacked the election as flawed and filed a flurry of lawsuits to try to block the results in six battleground states. But they’ve found little sympathy from judges, nearly all of whom dismissed their complaints about the security of mail-in ballots, which millions of people used to vote from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump perhaps hopes a Supreme Court he helped steer toward a conservative 6-3 majority would be more open to his pleas, especially since the high court upheld Pennsylvania’s decision to accept mail-in ballots through Nov. 6 by only a 4-4 vote last month. Since then, Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett has joined the court.

“The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud,” Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis tweeted after Friday's ruling. “On to SCOTUS!”

In the case before Brann, the Trump campaign asked to disenfranchise the state’s 6.8 million voters, or at least the 700,000 who voted by mail in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other Democratic-leaning areas.

“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,” Brann wrote in his scathing ruling on Nov. 21. “That has not happened.”

A separate Republican challenge that reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week seeks to stop the state from further certifying any races on the ballot. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration is fighting that effort, saying it would prevent the state’s legislature and congressional delegation from being seated in the coming weeks.

On Thursday, Trump said the Nov. 3 election was still far from over. Yet he offered the clearest signal to date that he would leave the White House peaceably on Jan. 20 if the Electoral College formalizes Biden’s win.

“Certainly I will. But you know that,” Trump said at the White House, taking questions from reporters for the first time since Election Day.

On Friday, however, he continued to baselessly attack Detroit, Atlanta and other Democratic cities with large Black populations as the source of “massive voter fraud.” And he claimed, without evidence, that a Pennsylvania poll watcher had uncovered computer memory drives that “gave Biden 50,000 votes” apiece.

All 50 states must certify their results before the Electoral College meets on Dec. 14, and any challenge to the results must be resolved by Dec. 8. Biden won both the Electoral College and popular vote by wide margins.

Updated on November 27, 2020, at 2:41 p.m. ET with the latest information.

Share:
More In Politics
Rep. Dianna DeGette (D-CO) Responds to Zuckerberg's Testimony
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified on Capitol Hill Tuesday about the massive data scandal at the social media giant. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) shares her reaction, and what she plans to ask Zuckerberg when he speaks to the House of Representatives Wednesday.
Will the U.S. Adopt European Style Regulation?
During both of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's testimonies on the Cambridge Analytica scandal, lawmakers hinted at the potential for basing regulation off European laws. But the First Amendment might make that difficult, says the New Yorker's Andrew Marantz.
Why John Boehner Changed His Mind on Cannabis
The former House Speaker, who has long been a firm opponent of legalizing marijuana, said Wednesday he'd be joining the board of Acreage Holdings, a company that cultivates and dispenses the drug in 11 states. The President of Acreage told Cheddar that helping veterans was what convinced Boehner to flip.
Speaker Ryan's Retirement Is a "Football Captain Quitting Halfway Through"
Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) says Ryan's decision not to seek re-election indicates that Republicans face a tough fight in the midterm elections. "He knows he's going to be a minority leader next year." Ryan made the surprise announcement Wednesday, saying he took the speaker position "reluctantly" in the first place.
Opening Bell: April 11, 2018
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg returns to Capitol Hill for a second day of questioning. Today, Zuckerberg testifies before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Ahead of the hearing, we spoke to Congressman Debbie Dingell (D-MI) about what she wants to hear from the Facebook CEO. Dingell is concerned about the privacy of Americans who use the social networking site and speculates about what a regulated Facebook would look like. In other Washington news, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) announced today that he will not seek re-election this November. Ryan held a press conference to elaborate on his decision. He said he thinks he's done his part and looks forward to spending more time with his family. Also, Joanna Coles stops by to talk about her new book, "Love Rules." She says her book can help readers find real love in the age of Tinder and Bumble. Coales, who sits on the board of directors for Snap, discusses what it's like to be a woman on the board of a Silicon Valley tech giant.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) on What Facebook Regulation May Look Like
The Congresswoman admitted that changes won't come in time for the midterm elections in November. But the question is no longer whether social media be regulated but what that regulation should look like, says Dingell. She says European laws serve as good models. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg faces a House committee Wednesday for a second round of questioning on the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Load More