一名联邦法官驳回了特朗普竞选团队试图推翻2020年法案的宾夕法尼亚州诉讼选举发表尖锐的意见，抨击总统的法律团队提出一个不连贯的诉讼缺乏令人信服的法律论据或事实证据来支持它。

美国地方法院法官马修·布兰恩写道，他不会像特朗普竞选团队所寻求的那样，“剥夺近700万选民的选举权”。

“人们可能会期望，当寻求这样一个令人吃惊的结果时，原告会以令人信服的法律论据和腐败猖獗的事实证据来武装自己，”布兰恩写道。“这并没有发生。”

巴拉克·奥巴马任命的法官带着偏见驳回了此案，这意味着特朗普竞选团队不能重新提交此案。这次失败对总统在挑战11月3日选举结果的多州努力中提出的最引人注目的案件构成了打击。

特朗普竞选诉讼的关键是，其投票观察人员无法观察邮寄选票的计数，这为“民主党县”接受欺诈性和技术缺陷的选票创造了机会，并“稀释”了其他县选民的权力。

周二，特朗普的私人律师、前纽约市长鲁迪·朱利安尼在法庭上就宾夕法尼亚州的案件进行了辩论。

曼德尔·颜/法新社通过盖蒂图像

2020年11月20日，华盛顿白宫布雷迪简报室，唐纳德·特朗普总统在降低处方药价格的活动中低头。

特朗普竞选团队的法律团队誓言，如果可能，将向美国最高法院上诉地区法院的裁决。

特朗普的律师朱利安尼(Giuliani)和詹娜埃利斯(Jenna Ellis)在声明中表示:“今天的决定证明有助于我们制定战略，尽快诉诸美国最高法院。”。“尽管我们完全不同意这一观点，但我们感谢奥巴马任命的法官迅速做出了这一预期的决定，而不是简单地试图拖延时间。”

尽管布兰恩是奥巴马任命的人，但他作为共和党官员度过了数年，包括担任布拉德福德县共和党委员会主席。

但这一决定导致宾夕法尼亚州共和党参议员帕特·图梅(Pat Toomey)祝贺当选总统乔·拜登(Joe Biden)，尽管他补充说，特朗普输了，他“深感失望”。

图梅在一份声明中说:“马修·布兰恩法官是一位长期保守的共和党人，我知道他是一位公平公正的法学家，他今天决定驳回特朗普的竞选诉讼，特朗普总统已经用尽了所有可能的法律选择来挑战宾夕法尼亚州总统竞选的结果。”。“我祝贺当选总统拜登和当选副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯的胜利。他们都是忠诚的公务员，我将为他们和我们的国家祈祷。”

“代表宾夕法尼亚州选民的另一项判决，”民主党人、州司法部长乔希·夏皮罗在一份声明中说。“这些主张从一开始就没有价值，对于一个人的观众来说也是如此。人民的意志将占上风。这些毫无根据的诉讼需要结束。”

拜登竞选团队在该州获得的选票比特朗普多8万多张，他们在竞选发言人迈克尔·格文的一份声明中说，“然而，另一家法院驳回了特朗普和朱利安尼关于选民欺诈的毫无根据的指控以及他们对我们民主的骇人攻击。法官的裁决再清楚不过了:我们的人民、法律和机构要求更多——我们的国家不会容忍特朗普试图扭转他决定性失败的选举结果。”

在一份37页的意见中，布兰恩写道，特朗普的竞选团队及其共同原告是两名不被允许修改选票的选民，“要求法院侵犯680多万美国人的权利”，然后辩称，“同意原告要求的救济必然需要使在宾夕法尼亚州投票的每个人的选票无效。"

曼德尔·颜/法新社通过盖蒂图像

2020年11月19日，唐纳德·特朗普总统的私人律师鲁迪·朱利安尼在华盛顿特区共和党全国委员会总部的新闻发布会上发言。

该意见称:“因为该法院无权剥夺哪怕是一个人的投票权，更不用说数百万公民的投票权，所以它不能给予(特朗普竞选团队)所要求的救济。”

在意见的某一点上，布兰恩将特朗普竞选团队的情况比作“弗兰肯斯坦的怪物”，称这些说法是“随意拼凑的”，并试图“混合搭配这些说法，以绕过相反的先例。”这指的是联邦法院最近的一项判决使该运动的许多论点无效。

布兰恩还对特朗普法律团队的混乱表示不满——在这种混乱中律师的旋转门提出了多项修正投诉。这一决定是在特朗普竞选团队几天前要求提交另一份修改后的投诉时做出的——但这一意见意味着这一努力不会被接受。

Federal judge rejects Trump campaign's Pa. lawsuit with prejudice, saying it lacks factual proof

A federal judge has dismissed the Trump campaign's Pennsylvania lawsuit attempting to overturn the 2020election, issuing a stinging opinion that blasts the president's legal teamfor a filing a disjointed lawsuitthat lacked a compelling legal argument or factual proof to support it.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote that he would not "disenfranchise almost seven million voters," as the Trump campaign had sought.

"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. "That has not happened."

The judge, a Barack Obama appointee, dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the Trump campaign cannot resubmit the case. The defeat levels a blow to the most high-profile case brought by the president in his multi-state effort to challenge the results of the Nov. 3 election.

The crux of the Trump campaign lawsuit was that its poll watchers were not able to observe the counting of mail-in ballots, creating opportunities for "Democratic counties" to accept fraudulent and technically deficient ballots and "diluting" the power of voters in other counties.

The case in Pennsylvania was argued Tuesday in court by Trump's personal attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The Trump campaign's legal team vowed to appeal the district court ruling, if possible, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Today's decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court," the statement from Trump lawyers Giuliani and Jenna Ellis said. "Although we fully disagree with this opinion, we're thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out the clock."

Though Brann was an Obama appointee, he spent years as a Republican Party official, including as chairman of the Bradford County Republican Committee.

But the decision led Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden, despite adding he was "deeply disappointed" Trump lost.

"With today's decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign's lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania," Toomey said in a statement. "I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory. They are both dedicated public servants and I will be praying for them and for our country."

"Another judgement on behalf of the voters of Pennsylvania," said state Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, in a statement. "These claims were meritless from the start and for an audience of one. The will of the people will prevail. These baseless lawsuits need to end."

The Biden campaign, which received over 80,000 more votes than Trump in the state, said in a statement from campaign spokesman Michael Gwin, "Yet another court has rejected Trump and Giuliani's baseless claims of voter fraud and their appalling assault on our democracy. The judge's ruling couldn't be clearer: our people, laws, and institutions demand more -- and our country will not tolerate Trump's attempt to reverse the results of an election that he decisively lost."

In a 37-page opinion, Brann wrote that the Trump campaign and its co-plaintiffs, two voters who were not allowed to cure their ballots, "ask the Court to violate the rights of over 6.8 million Americans," then contends that "Granting Plaintiffs' requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania."

"Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant [the Trump campaign's] requested relief," the opinion stated.

At one point in the opinion, Brann compares the Trump campaign's case to "a Frankenstein's Monster," saying the claims are "haphazardly stitched together" and attempt to "mix-and-match claims to bypass contrary precedent." That's a reference to a recent federal court decision that alreadyinvalidated many of the campaign's arguments.

Brann also took issue with the Trump legal team's disarray -- in whicha revolving door of attorneysfiled multiple amended complaints. The decision came as the Trump campaign had asked days earlier to file another amended complaint -- but the opinion means that effort will not be accepted.