Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums**Breaking** Fed judge in PA denies GOP effort to toss ballots that initially contained errors
No surprise, but good news, nonetheless
Link to tweet
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
18 replies, 4530 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (95)
ReplyReply to this post
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
**Breaking** Fed judge in PA denies GOP effort to toss ballots that initially contained errors (Original Post)
hlthe2b
Nov 2020
OP
Trump is like Wile E Cyote with props from Acme that keep blowing up in his face...
Kahuna
Nov 2020
#12
... the plaintiffs having moved to withdraw the motion... Sounds like they backed down. nt
Xipe Totec
Nov 2020
#13
The judge didn't toss the motion, the plaintiffs withdrew it. Big difference. Nothing to appeal.
Shrike47
Nov 2020
#15
Probably mismatched address or signatures that don't quite match up or something.
BusyBeingBest
Nov 2020
#7
Things like failure to sign or date or (in PA, include the privacy sleeve), discrepancy of address
hlthe2b
Nov 2020
#8
The thing that caught my eye was "the plaintiffs having moved to withdraw the motion."
alwaysinasnit
Nov 2020
#10
So stupid. It wouldn't have been more than a handful. It wouldn't have mattered.
lindysalsagal
Nov 2020
#11
Ohiogal
(31,887 posts)1. What will they try next...
Toss out all ballots that have coffee stains on them?
Kahuna
(27,311 posts)12. Trump is like Wile E Cyote with props from Acme that keep blowing up in his face...
Dont insult Wile E.!
iluvtennis
(19,821 posts)16. LOL. :-)
Budi
(15,325 posts)2. "On to the Supreme Court!!", they screeched
It won't make any difference.
Trump's hand picked SC can't save him.
NYC Liberal
(20,134 posts)4. I really want them to appeal to SCOTUS and get denied.
Please let it happen.
Budi
(15,325 posts)9. They'd never get over it!!
Xipe Totec
(43,888 posts)13. ... the plaintiffs having moved to withdraw the motion... Sounds like they backed down. nt
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)15. The judge didn't toss the motion, the plaintiffs withdrew it. Big difference. Nothing to appeal.
soothsayer
(38,601 posts)3. Big dumdums
BusyBeingBest
(8,052 posts)5. Welp, there goes that avenue, lol.
TheFarseer
(9,317 posts)6. Sorry I'm a little behind
What is meant by contained errors?
BusyBeingBest
(8,052 posts)7. Probably mismatched address or signatures that don't quite match up or something.
hlthe2b
(102,099 posts)8. Things like failure to sign or date or (in PA, include the privacy sleeve), discrepancy of address
etc.
alwaysinasnit
(5,057 posts)10. The thing that caught my eye was "the plaintiffs having moved to withdraw the motion."
(Temporary Restraining Order)
lindysalsagal
(20,560 posts)11. So stupid. It wouldn't have been more than a handful. It wouldn't have mattered.
Completely pointless. But of course, that's how this narcissist rolls.
warmfeet
(3,321 posts)17. Fuck tRump!
His enablers as well.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,558 posts)18. Not a great start for running the table, is it?
Pile it on!!!