This is Trump's latest tweet:

"700,000 ballots were not allowed to be viewed in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh which means, based on our great Constitution, we win the State of Pennsylvania!"

What is he referring to with this statement? Does this refer to a court ruling?

  • 15
    Voting to close an opinion-seeking. Tweets like this are Trump flailing for some explanation that absolves him of being a loser. There's no sense reading more into it than that. – Ted Wrigley Nov 14 '20 at 2:09
  • 10
    How is this seeking opinions, or only opinion based? This seems totally answerable objectively to me. This either is referring to a ruling in Pennsylvania, or it is not. That ruling--if it exists--should be publicly available. – user29681 Nov 14 '20 at 5:05
  • 3
    Be careful with the language, "flailing ... absolves him of being a loser". A little too strong. A better wording might be, "Trump is so far behind vote-wise, that he can only really resort to absurd claims, such as this, to gain any hope of winning. These claims should be taken with a grain of salt." – Matthaeus Gaius Caesar Nov 15 '20 at 11:24
  • 3
    No opinion is being sought; there are very obvious candidates for the referents of Trump's claim. Instead, the top-voted comment here is providing an unsolicited and off-topic opinion. I am not impressed. – Karl Knechtel Nov 16 '20 at 3:09
  • 3
    @KarlKnechtel : indeed, the reactions and comments on this question made me lose even more faith in this site. The question asked "what Trump is referring to", yet most of the crowd still sees this question as "voice your opinions about Trump as loudly as possible". Would you people pretty please realize that the question is about what Trump is referring to in his statement and NOT about what your opinion is about his statement? – vsz Nov 16 '20 at 10:42

That tweet is probably referring to this complaint filed on 9th of November which is effectively calling into question the fairness and legality of some practices of some counties in the Pennsylvania election.

The portion of the complaint he's probably referring to is the allegation that 682,479 mail-in ballots were illegal.

Rather than engaging in an open and transparent process to give credibility to Pennsylvania’s brand-new voting system, the processes were hidden during the receipt, review, opening, and tabulation of those 682,479 votes in direct contravention of the Election Code.

I feel these quotes summarise the part relevant to the tweet:

The right to vote includes not just the right to cast a ballot, but also the right to have it fairly counted if it is legally cast. The right to vote is infringed if a vote is cancelled or diluted by a fraudulent or illegal vote, including without limitation when a single person votes multiple times.

The disparate treatment of Pennsylvania voters, in subjecting one class of voters to greater burdens or scrutiny than another, violates Equal Protection guarantees because “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.”

Through the arbitrary and illegal actions of the Secretary, Pennsylvania created a two-track system of voting resulting in voters being treated differently depending on how they chose to exercise their franchise. The first, marked by voters appearing personally at the polls complied with transparency and verifiability requirements of Pennsylvania Election Code. The second, marked by a mass of paper ballots received through the mail, was cloaked in darkness and complied with none of those transparency and verifiability requirements. This two-track election system not only violates Plaintiffs’ rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, but also violates the structure of the Constitution that elections in the States must be carried out as directed by their respective legislatures

There is a lot more contained within the complaint filed, but I don't think it's directly relevant to this the tweet in question, as there's also a broader complaint that mail-in voting was illegitimate contained within the same complaint. If you'd like more context I'd recommend reading through the introduction part (up to page 8) as it's quite easy to understand.

Remember that until this has gone through the courts nothing is official - it's an important part of the election process that an incumbent President cannot directly interfere. The only thing you could really read from his tweet with some degree of confidence is that Trump is feeling pretty positive about his chances.

  • 16
    Going by other cases, including ones already tossed out, these "unproven allegations" are the result of observers having no damn idea what's going on in the first place, because they didn't attend any orientations that explained how the process works. So what they saw was perfectly normal, law abiding procedures, and they just inserted their own conspiracy nonsense to cover their ignorance and conform to their preconstructed narrative. – zibadawa timmy Nov 14 '20 at 4:14
  • 2
    One problem here (not with the answer) is that even if whatever number of ballots were not properly observed when counting (I am not saying that is true), it does not mean that they just get thrown out or subtracted. At best (worst?) it might lead to an order to repeat the count in those areas. – Damila Nov 14 '20 at 4:39
  • 3
    To be impartial, you should really say something about what has happened to this lawsuit, including specifically that the law firm bringing it has withdrawn from the case. – DJClayworth Nov 14 '20 at 16:36
  • 1
    @DJClayworth I'm really hesitant to include it since I know there's been targeted harassment at the lawyers and law firms involved. Even the article you linked mentions The Lincoln Project being suspended from Twitter for doxing lawyers, and it also includes links to directly to pages containing contact details for individual lawyers - normally they'd just name the lawyer the quote was from right? That's a really messy subject that I don't think can be approached neutrally. – Brett Nov 15 '20 at 1:21
  • 1
    The most recent development is that the Trump campaign has dropped the claim that observers were not present. – Mark Nov 17 '20 at 1:32

He is referring to the allegation that monitors were kicked out while counts continued. If this is true, and there is a chance that it is, he asserts that the ballots are invalid and must be discarded.

Well, then how would he win? Certainly the ballots would contain a mix of Biden and Trump votes!

There have also been allegations that loads of ballots were delivered late in the count consisting of only presidential votes for Biden, or something like 99.5% for Biden (no local or national house/senate selections). The only evidence of this seems to be count records with odd statistical anomalies. There is plenty of information available if you dare to venture further down that hole.

We need to wait and see what the courts decide. The right should be eager to see what the courts have to say, as should the left! I see no downside for the Democrats here. They should be begging for lawsuits since, at this point, winning suits is the only way to reclaim the perception of legitimacy.

Trump has much to prove if he is to win this election. I have no doubt that he will try. As to whether or not the actual evidence exists has yet to be seen.

  • 11
    "I see no downside for the Democrats here. They should be begging for lawsuits since, at this point, winning suits is the only way to reclaim the perception of legitimacy." Internet rule no. 1 -- DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. Entertaining law suits legitimizes the baseless accusations. – bishop Nov 14 '20 at 3:27
  • 3
    Generally I agree. But Trump is screaming into his bullhorn. Defeating him in the courts is the best way to prove to the world that he is wrong. He is going to file the suits no matter what you or I think or say. If Biden's team can't convert those into wins then they need to be fired. – acpilot Nov 14 '20 at 3:48
  • 3
    Trump's lawyers have withdrawn, or judges have rejected, every allegation Trump's team has made in court about substantive amounts of fraudulent votes in Nevada, Arizona, Detroit, and Pennsylvania, and Georgia is doing a recount. At some point it ceases to be reasonable. – jeffronicus Nov 14 '20 at 4:29
  • 3
    Can someone explain the downvotes? Is is the standard acpilot penalty or is there actually something wrong? – acpilot Nov 14 '20 at 14:04
  • 9
    @acpilot meddling via influence (2016) and meddling by physically changing vote counts (2020) are two entirely different levels of intervention. To equate them as your comment seems to is a huge stretch. – Jontia Nov 14 '20 at 14:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .