In a total loss the the Trump campaign, a federal district court in Pennsylvania has dismissed the most serious case brought by the campaign and denied the campaign a motion to file an amended complaint.

The judge just excoriates this suit, which those of us in the field have called ridiculous from the start:

In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. 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, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants' motions and dismiss Plaintiffs' action with prejudice.

In a 37-page opinion, the court concluded:

Defendants' motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint are granted with prejudice. Leave to amend is denied. "Among the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility." Given that: (1) Plaintiffs have already amended once as of right; (2) Plaintiffs seek to amend simply in order to effectively reinstate their initial complaint and claims; and (3) the deadline for counties in Pennsylvania to certify their election results to Secretary Boockvar is November 23, 2020, amendment would unduly delay resolution of the issues. This is especially true because the Court would need to implement a new briefing schedule, conduct a second oral argument, and then decide the issues.

Bellwether Counties Nearly Wiped Out by 2020 Election
All but one county that had chosen every presidential winner since 1980 went for President Trump this year; Washington state's Clallam County is the lone survivor

He must have read my comment about how great it is to not hear his whiny voice for 8 days.

His Excellency will hold an audience any moment.  

"If it [TRump's effort] succeeded in denying Mr. Biden 270 electoral votes, the result would be a backlash that would be a calamity for the GOP. It would draw legal challenges and might head to the Supreme Court. For the gambit to work, more than one state would have to be involved. But even if a single state took this course, it would be a terrible precedent that Republicans would live to regret," the editorial stated.

They then closed with a pointed warning to the president.

"Republicans have given Mr. Trump ample leeway to prove his case for ballot fraud, and we've approached his claims with an open mind," they wrote. "But if there's no evidence beyond general innuendo, the President's charges of a stolen election will undermine public faith in the electoral system. That won't serve the country, his party, or his supporters, who will sour on politics and in the process cede elections to the left. None of this will serve Mr. Trump, his legacy, or whatever hope he has to run again in 2024."

link