With no evidence of fraud, Trump fails to make headway on legal cases.

first_imgBut none of the dozen or so lawsuits they had brought in battleground states appeared to be gaining any traction in the courts. And none seemed likely to give Mr. Trump the edge he would need in vote counts in the states that will determine the outcome.In seeking to foment widespread doubt about the legitimacy of the election, Mr. Trump and his surrogates seemed less focused on substantive legal arguments that could hold up in court, and more on bolstering the president’s political narrative, unsupported by the facts, that he was somehow being robbed of a second term. President Trump’s bellicose pledge to fight the outcome of the election in the courts crashed on Friday into skeptical judges, daunting Electoral College math and a lack of evidence for his claims of fraud.On a day that began with vote tallies in Georgia and Pennsylvania tipping in favor of Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Trump campaign declared, “This election is not over,” as the Republican National Committee announced it had activated “legal challenge teams” in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The Trump forces also named a new general to lead the effort, the hardened conservative political combatant David Bossie.- Advertisement – The most high-profile step of the day came when Pennsylvania Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and require election officials in the state to segregate ballots that arrived after Election Day and not to include them for now in the vote totals in the largest and most critical of the swing states.- Advertisement – On Friday evening, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed to the request.But the move was almost entirely for show: Pennsylvania is already segregating those ballots, counting them separately and not including them in the announced vote totals. The secretary of state, over the objections of Republicans and Mr. Trump, has said they can be counted if they arrived by 5 p.m. on Friday, in line with a state court ruling that the Supreme Court has left open the possibility of reviewing again. – Advertisement –last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *