The Death Star Strategy: Is Trump Contemplating The Ultimate Constitutional Trick Shot?

Below is my column in The Hill on the possibility of contesting electoral certifications by key states. With the adverse ruling in Pennsylvania, the Trump legal team is still pledging new evidence of massive fraud as certifications are completed. The options for the team seem more and more reduced to the ultimate constitutional trick shot in engineering a fight on the floor of Congress.

Here is the column:

The Thursday press conference by President Trump’s legal team left many breathless as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani alleged a global communist conspiracy to steal the 2020 election. While making passing references to credible election challenges over provisional ballots or “curing” rules, he repeatedly returned to the allegation of a purported massive conspiracy directed by Democrats to change and “inject” votes into state tallies.

It was a strange narrative that seemed to move away from the provable to the unbelievable. The question is, why?

One possibility: to raise sweeping allegations with insufficient time to resolve them in order to force an Electoral College fight. The idea would be to give license to Republican-controlled legislatures to intervene with their own sets of electors or block the submission of any set of electors. Concern over such a strategy was magnified when Trump called key Republican leaders from Michigan’s legislature to the White House on Friday.

Call it the “Death Star strategy.”

In “Star Wars,” a struggling rebellion was in full retreat on every front against an overwhelming force in the Empire. The rebels were left with just one strategy and literally one shot. Luke Skywalker had to skim the surface of the Death Star along a trench and fire a round into a small thermal exhaust port to travel down an air shaft and cause an explosion in the core reactor. Then poof! No more Death Star.

However, if this is the Trump team’s plan, it will make Luke Skywalker’s shot look like a beanbag toss.

The electoral ‘trench’

The “trench,” in this instance, is found in state election systems leading to the electoral equivalent of the “exhaust port” in the Constitution’s Electoral College. It is the Electoral College where the actual election of an American president occurs. Each state certifies votes to the Electoral College — a figure that adds up to the number of members the states have in the two houses of Congress, or 535. (In addition, for Electoral College purposes, the District of Columbia is given three electors, for a total of 538.) Thus, a candidate must have at least 270 electoral votes to become president.

To reach that “exhaust port,” Trump’s legal-team equivalent of X-wing fighters must get all the way down the electoral “trench” by creating challenges to multiple state certifications and deny Joe Biden the 270 threshold or claim those votes for Trump. The Trump team has focused on states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania. If the litigation can create serious doubts over the authentication or tabulation of ballots, the Trump campaign could force fights on the floors of these state legislatures. However, after meeting with the president on Friday, the Michigan legislative leaders dealt that potential strategy a serious blow by saying they are unaware of anything that would change their state’s certification for Biden.

The electoral ‘shaft’

Once litigation introduces doubt as to the validity of the vote, the matter travels down the electoral version of the Death Star’s air shaft to individual state legislatures. This is when things move into some uncertain constitutional physics.

Article II of the Constitution states that electors are appointed “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” All but a couple of states have directed that all of their electoral votes will go to the candidate with the greater number of statewide votes. The question is, what happens if legislators decide they cannot say with confidence who won the greater number of votes?

Such controversies have arisen before, as in 2004, when Democrats objected to counting Ohio’s electoral votes due to voting irregularities. The greatest controversy occurred in 1876 after a close, heated election between Republican Rutherford Hayes and Democrat Samuel Tilden. Like Biden, Tilden won the popular vote and more electoral votes (184, to Hayes’s 165). The problem was that rampant fraud was alleged in Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. (For example, South Carolina reported 101 percent of voters voting). The controversy led to rival sets of electors being sent to Congress. A long fight led to the improbable election of Hayes as president.

For Trump to pull off a similar maneuver, he would need the cooperation of Republican state legislators. He also would face collateral litigation over who should certify electors — a state’s governor or its legislature. In Bush v. Gore in 2000, the Supreme Court ordered an effective halt to further litigation, but that was just one state. It is possible that such multistate litigation could push the challenges beyond the end of the safe-harbor period for certification on Dec. 8 or beyond Dec. 23, when those votes are supposed to be submitted to Congress. Indeed, it could force a fight on Jan. 6, when Congress gathers in joint session to count the votes.

The electoral ‘reactor’

Only then would the action make it into the “core reactor” equivalent of our constitutional system — the joint session of Congress. This would trigger a law passed after the Hayes-Tilden election. Unfortunately, the Electoral Count Act (ECA) of 1887 is hardly a model of clarity and would become the focus of litigation itself. Under some circumstances, Vice President Pence could issue a ruling in favor of Trump, but one senator and one House member could challenge his ruling.

What if there were insufficient votes overall to elect a president? This is where we could see a rare court intervention in a contested election in Congress. The ECA is ambiguous on what it means to have a majority of electors; it does not clearly state whether a majority of “electors appointed” means a majority of the 538 electors (270) or simply a majority of those electors accepted or successfully certified (allowing election with less than 270 electoral votes). There also are untested terms and provisions, ranging from the weight given to the decision of governors and the meaning of what is “lawfully certified” or whether votes were “regularly given.”

There also is the potential under the 12th Amendment for a “contingent election” when there is a tie or insufficient votes. In such a case, Trump could win again. In that case, the vote for president is held in the House based on state delegations, not individual members. Republicans likely will control a majority of state delegations in the House, despite having fewer seats overall — as well as the Senate, where Pence could be reelected.

Again, that is all quite a long shot — a bit more than Luke Skywalker’s boast that he could sink it because he “used to bull’s-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home.” It is enough to make an Ewok weep. All one can say, to paraphrase Han Solo’s parting words before heading out for Death Star, is “Hey, Rudy. May the Force — and the ECA — be with you.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.


618 thoughts on “The Death Star Strategy: Is Trump Contemplating The Ultimate Constitutional Trick Shot?”

  1. Trump had four years to push his weight around, and to clean up the FBI and CIA and DOJ.
    He let that chance slip by, while operatives there were still working against him. The investigations into the false accusations and against Trump, ala Durham etc, were delayed and postponed, and intentionally castrated with the plea deal they made with Clinesmith.
    Trump ordered declassification and public availability of all documents, more than once, but nothing was released.
    FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop during impeachment hearings, but sat on it.
    Trump had the authority to get things done, to use the legal tools at his executive branch to aggressively investigate and uncover what was actually going on; he had the ability to pre-empt the election fraud he knew was coming.
    Yet he did none of it. He let these things languish and fester, while they waited for their chance to leap against Trump and undo him. And this is what happened. He lost the election on a multiple front attack against him. Because he did not use the executive authority he had to clean that sht up.
    The Democrats, when they had the Whitehouse, had no compunctions in doing everything they could, legal or not, to undo Trump. But Trump played nice, and it bit him in the ass.

    1. Your opening premise that “Trump had four years to push his weight around, and to clean up the FBI and CIA and DOJ” is simply not true. Your conclusion that the current situation is all Pres. Trump’s fault is without foundation. Dem criminality without consequences is the problem.

      We have seen five years preceded by eight years of criminality and corruption by the Obama, Biden, Hillary administration that has gone unpunished and unchecked. Pres. Trump was repeatedly constrained by illegal and thoroughly corrupt behavior, all committed without any indictments or successful prosecution.

      1. “Dem criminality without consequences is the problem.” It didn’t take long to encounter the first ridiculous assertion of the day. Reality truly is the problem…much nicer for some to live a fantasy life. How traumatic it must be to lose an election….Will people start to move away from Trump as what he fears most, the federal felony indictments take force as well as many NY State tax fraud issues? Talk about criminality….love the unintentional irony of the propaganda damaged ones. Vulnerable minds….

    1. The Senate would, in that circumstance, elect the VP. If I understand correctly. If the Senate were controlled by a different party than the party that has control of the House delegates- you could end up with an interesting situation.

  2. One of the initial defining acts of the Harris era is on display tonight in the NFL.

    An act of abject, pure and absolute racism will be imposed through the deployment of an all-black officiating crew on Monday Night Football.

    They said they wanted freedom.

    They really wanted “free stuff.”

    It was never equability they desired.

    It was always dominion.

      1. Given the ensconcing by the Deep Deep State of the wholly unelectable and ineligible spawn of two foreign citizens, and eminently unconstitutional affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, SNAP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., etc., etc., adding up to overall redistribution of wealth in the amount of ~$30 trillion+, I would conjecture that the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have acquired, nay, have been gifted, dominion in what was once the “…land of the free and the home of the brave.”

        1. Sorry, but I got a snicker out of that.
          If you folk cannot stay in reality, you will remain alone in your bubbles.
          I am serious. Hate and political prejudice are not your friends.

        2. George #1: You are seriously confused and deluded by your primitive beliefs about the nature of reality. One life to live…ranting on Res Ipsa…I suppose this feedback in unhelpful and will not help your mind.

  3. Welcome to Road Warrior & Lawlessness rule the day from now until it doesn’t:

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Monday revealed that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia has declined to investigate the funding sources of the “thugs” accused of attacking him after President Donald Trump’s 2020 White House nomination acceptance ceremony in August.

      1. One of the cops that was helping the Paul’s keep from getting hurt was sent to the hospital from your “Most Peaceful” antifa/blm Terrorist!

        You & your American Hating Racist Commies have pissed off about 200 some million Americans. I hope you’ll enjoy the hell you’ve built for yourselves.

    1. Oh WAHHHH. Yelling!!!! How awful! Poor Rand. President Oky1 has a few lies about this below but that is not surprising!

  4. Trump and Rudy are propping up each others’ delusion. I prefer the movie analogy taken from “Dumb and Dumber”:

    Mary: “I’d say more like one out of a million”.
    Lloyd: “So you’re telling me there’s a chance!”

    1. I don’t think they are delusional.
      There are anomalies and illegal acts that we know to have occurred.

      The issue is if Trump and his lawyers can convince the courts that enough illegal activities occurred to change the vote.
      600K votes counted sans republican monitors in PA where the law requires it?

      PA judge making orders that violate the law?

      WI, recount?
      MI, issues in Wayne County where there are more votes that on the voter rolls?
      GA issues?

      NV issues?

      Clearly the election officials want to sweep this under the rug.

      Add to this issues with the Dominion voting machines.
      While Krebs says nothing happpened, Dominion itself in 2016 IL admitted that if the machine is connected to the internet and access was allowed… its possible to change the vote.

      So we would need to have a hand count and even here… monitor the counters.

      Yes its a long shot… but definitely something we need to do in order to try and ensure confidence.

      1. “600K votes counted sans republican monitors in PA where the law requires it?
        PA judge making orders that violate the law?
        MI, issues in Wayne County where there are more votes that on the voter rolls?”

        They haven’t shown any of those things.

      2. I could ask why you are lying…but that’s just the stock in trade normalized by Trump. Normal behavior: prevarication.

    1. Wrong. The “President elect” only occurs after the 14th when the electors cast their vote. There is no President elect.

        1. Funds and the term President-Elect are two different things.

          Commit, your sleight of hand to contradict the statement, “The “President elect” only occurs after the 14th when the electors cast their vote.” changes the meaning of what David Ponts said. It is duly noted.

          I am trying to figure out if that type of sleight of hand should be labelled dishonest.

  5. Michigan has certified it’s votes, Biden won.

    The GSA has approved Biden transition.

    Happy days are here again.
    The sky’s above are clear again.
    Lets raise a glass of cheer again,
    Happy days are here again!

    Democratic celebration song from the late 20s and 30’s. Probably Al Smith, then FDR.

    1. Trump tweets: “I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our Country. She has been harassed, threatened, and abused – and I do not want to see this happen to her, her family, or employees of GSA. Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same.”

      The full text of the GSA letter is included in this CBS news story:

  6. The 270 number required for an Electoral College majority depends upon how may electors the states appoint (thanks to Janes Madison). NY did not appoint Electors in our first presidential election. With any or all of today’s contested states unable to determine who won, they might refuse to appoint Electors to appease the voters of both parties. We would still have a presidential election amongst the remaining 46 to 49 states. That’s not possible for any other tainted election with a secret ballot, which can only be cancelled or redone.

  7. Hayes won the 1876 election because Grant ordered it so, backed with the threat of military intervention.

    Don’t know much history, do you JT?

    1. The similarly illegitimate and unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments” were forcibly imposed by “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s despotic and tyrannical “excessors” under the duress of brutal post-war military occupation, having deprived actual Americans of their constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities.

      1. It’s time to divorce the blue states with their fake elections. fake news and fake elections.

        the way they handle voting is a total cheat on red states.

        divorce, break up the USA already. we’ve had enough

  8. To expand your metaphor, Luke was never supposed to take that shot, it was the Y-wing gunners with their fancy targeting computers as the plan. And Luke wouldn’t have made it if a random smuggler (black swan) hadn’t shown up at the last minute and Ben hadn’t guided him from beyond the veil.

    The core idea was valid but all the tactics were failures right up until the last moment …

    // Let Go, Jonathan.
    // Trust Me.

    … when sheer fortune/Force smiled upon them …

    // He’s switched off his targeting computer.

    … to save the last echos of the Old Republic.

  9. Marc Elias just tweeted:
    “BREAKING: Pennsylvania Supreme Court AFFIRMS our 5 victories in Philadelphia and REVERSES our one loss in Allegheny County.
    “Trump and his allies are now 1-35 in post-election litigation.”

    Elias is with Democracy Docket and their website has a very helpful interface that let’s you look up the post-election cases by state:
    And their state pages have copies of complaints, orders, etc. Here’s an example for the Pennsylvania cases:

    I suspect the number of Trump Campaign losses will increase soon, based on comments I’ve seen from knowledgeable lawyers about the 3rd Circuit appeal that the Trump Campaign has to submit by 4pm today.

    1. Meanwhile:

      1. GSA offers to brief lawmakers on Biden transition next week (but it might not be Emily Murphy):

      2. Fox News reports criticism of Biden for picking an interventionist to lead the State Department:

      I am past ready for ascertainment, CTHD, but I would rather not prepare for more illegal war under a Biden administration.

        1. Perhaps you are talking about conscription in Israel? A draft has not been operational in the US since the 1970s, and Selective Service Registration currently applies not to younger people, inclusively, but to younger men only:

          “The Military Selective Service Act, as it is written, only authorizes the registration of “male persons”. In order for the Selective Service to be authorized to register women, Congress would have to pass legislation amending the current law.”

          Some relevant excerpts from “The Final Report of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service” (March 2020):

          “To meet military personnel needs in the face of future threats and to demonstrate America’s resolve to international allies and adversaries, the Nation needs the Selective Service System to remain a viable U.S. national security institution.”

          “While the United States should maintain the ability to conscript individuals into military service in response to a national emergency, the President and Congress should encourage Americans to voluntarily join the military through an official call for volunteers before resorting to the draft.”

          “In reviewing the question of whether Selective Service registration should include women, the Commission seriously considered a wide range of deeply felt moral, legal, and practical arguments and explored the available empirical evidence.”

          “The Commission concluded that the time is right to extend Selective Service System registration to include men and women, between the ages of 18 and 26. This is a necessary and fair step, making it possible to draw on the talent of a unified Nation in a time of national emergency.”

        1. Will China Benefit from the US’s Conflict With Iran?

          The first and most direct reaction to the killing of Mr. Soleimani in China was delight. While some Chinese applauded the event as the U.S. “stirring up the hornets’ nest” (therefore, bound to be severely stung), more Chinese policy wonks saw the reemergence of a long-desired “window of strategic opportunity.”

          The last “window” came about after the 9/11 attacks, when the war on terror bogged the U.S. down while China was free to grow its GDP sixfold during the following 10 years. That golden decade came to an end as China became increasingly assertive in maritime disputes and in its foreign policy, which in turn led to U.S. pushback and eventually to the reemergence of a great power competition (with China and Russia) as the top priority for U.S. national security.

          China’s hope is that another strategic diversion or distraction, such as a conflict with Iran, will suck the U.S. back into a quagmire in the Middle East. The last time the Chinese bore similar hope was during the Syrian “red line” crisis. But in that case, the U.S. eventually decided not to send in ground troops, to China’s disappointment.


          Does Trump really want to end American interventionism?

          Recently, in a speech at the West Point Military Academy officers’ graduation ceremony, U.S. President Donald Trump stated that the era of endless wars is over and that the American armed forces will no longer be the police of the world. According to Trump, the US is at a crucial moment in its history, after which the government’s attitude must change drastically, no longer adopting the global interventionist policy previously implemented, but avoiding participation in continuous wars and building a new path for the country’s foreign policy.

          Yet, is this also Biden’s wish? The presidential candidate and opponent of Trump seems, on the contrary, much more willing to maintain the interventionism and practice of the world police, which will cause much more world wars and tensions.

            1. I am an independent.

              Military spending (in billions) increased under Reagan and Bush, leveled out under Clinton, dramatically increased under George W Bush, continued to increase during the first few years of the Obama presidency, declined somewhat under the next five years of Obama, then increased again under Trump (military expenditures data from SIPRI):


              Will a President Biden finally end the 2001 AUMF blank security sector check he helped vote into existence, or will he use the 2001 AUMF to commit an impeachable war crime in Syria, Yemen and/or Iran during his first few months in office?


              Day One: pull all US troops out of Syria or secure approval from both the Syrian government and Congress for their lawful presence in that country.

          1. Jonathan, withdrawing from leadership in world affairs and cooperation with other democracies, while recklessly jerking from belligerence to abandonment is not a coherent foreign policy. We cannot remove ourselves from the world nor should we wish to. I share somewhat your reluctance to use our military as the world police, or worse as in Iraq – I was an opponent from the beginning – but that does not mean the world does not need world police. One way or another they will become necessary and hopefully before a crisis grows into another WWI or WWII or worse. Withdrawal is not an option in modern times.

            1. I share a common “UN family” commitment to lawful, multilateral, discriminate and proportionate UN Security Council peace enforcement operations wherever appropriate, JF.

              Hopefully Biden will be able to confirm Linda Thomas-Greenfield as his Cabinet-level Permanent Representative to the United Nations and hopefully she is all for balanced and equitable UN Security Council reform:


              Good global policing demands effective administration of the UN Security Council.

              1. Jonathan, I share your hope for peace keeping through the UN, but it has often been dysfunctional and ineffective in that role in the past, due to lack of commitment and acceptance of it’s authority by member states. Would an insistence on it’s authority by the new administration help? Almost certainly, but it probably wouldn’t solve those problems.and washing our hands of responsibility – along with other nations – in the face of a crisis the UN can’t or won’t handle might not be the best response. I agree on Thomas-Greenfield.

                1. I’m inclined to say it’s hegemonic US militarism that has been dysfunctional and ineffective, Joe, not US-UN multilateralism. DOD advocates are welcome to argue the Pentagon’s post-WWII military successes to the contrary. To be clear, I am talking more about Chapter VII of the UN Charter than Chapter VI.

                  Greater US commitment to the rule of law and acceptance of UN authority will help, but reform of key UN institutions – especially the UN Security Council – is paramount.

                  Many other nations are willing, ready and able to step up.

                  We need to cut the Pentagon budget in half, contract our military footprint, denuclearize our arsenal and invest heavily in sustainable domestic infrastructure, possibly centered around a nuclear baseload, if Congressional hearings prove that a massive 30-year investment in renewables just won’t work to secure the future through 2050-2100 and beyond.

                  1. Your recipe for success is too drastic. We cannot disarm that far, nor can we afford nuclear power.
                    The latest nukes have either been cancelled after wasting $48,000,000,000 (!), or kept under construction while having power costs of about 15 cents/kWh. Solar is UNDER 2 cents/kWh,and it costs 1.3 cents/kWh for storage. This leaves nukes costing WAY too much.

                    My own household and both electric cars are powered by our PV system on the roof of the house.

                    1. We could have cut the Pentagon budget in half from 1990 to 2000:


                      Military experts from previous administrations told Congress on Tuesday that the $300 billion annual Pentagon budget could be cut in half over the next decade because of the reduced threat from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

                      “By such a shift, we should be able to enhance global stability, strengthen our own security and, at the same time, produce the resources to support a much-needed restructuring of the economy,” said Robert S. McNamara, defense secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

                      Now we need to quarter our military budget over two decades – if we can convince the rest of a reformed UN Security Council to maintain parity.

                      I have reservations about both renewables-intensive and nuclear-intensive strategies. What evidence do we have that renewables are scalable by 2035 or 2050? What about the PV waste stream? A moonshot approach to nuclear reactor development in the US would substantially lower the cost of nuclear, according to folks like Joshua Goldstein and Mike Shellenberger.

                    2. Thanks for the reply. First,I have to correct my typo: The waste at the cancelled powerplant is eight billion dollars, not forty-eight. I got too many hits on that 4/$ key I suppose.

                      Are you serious about renewables being non-scalable? We are doing it now. A recent study showed 74% of our coal plants could be retired now and save money, instead of letting them age out producing pollution the entire time! LADWP bought hundreds of megawatt-hours from PV plus battery storage for under 2 cents/kWh daytime and 3.3 cents/kWh at night.

                      My entire household and both electric cars are powered primarily by our PV system on the roof. It paid back in three years in gasoline replacement alone. Do you still pay and go gas up?

                      And I am well familiar with Mister McNamara,being a Vietnam Vet.

                    3. JM, isn’t this the platform of the Biden Presidency for the country? That article might be deplatformed when the Democrats push in this direction.

                    4. I missed the reply by Maxon, but that treatise brought up conditions which as usual were exaggerated. Yes, those megawatts will not be easy to replace. But nuclear power is now the most expensive source we have.
                      And how can you “forget” Devil’s Canyon is riven with geological faults? Does Fukushima sound familiar? Chernobyl? Fermi I? Brown’s Ferry? Rancho Seco?

                      PG&E hired me in 1980 to help their customers reduce their use of electricity through modernization, weatherization, infrastructure and technological changes. They were just building Diablo.I told them it was a big mistake, but my job was to help make sure we did not need it. My customers saved an average of 20%,often with little or no cost to them. Now,we have to replace it, and can do it easily. But I want to know who is going to guard the intensely-radioactive nuclear waste for 240,000 years?

                    5. George227, I am not advocating any one form of energy over another. My concern is with the political nature of energy policy. The US has done tremendously well in eliminating pollution (and a carbon footprint), so well that it likely has done better or at least as good as any of the others belonging to the Paris treaty.

                      There are the known factors that are blasted into our heads but the unknown is quietly tucked away. When we forget the unknown we forget the Broken Windows theory of Bastiat and move in the wrong direction.

                      I have no problem with any suggestions you make to keep our environment clean. However, economic costs mean that the development of new energy not presently seen by most, will be delayed so cost to the environment can be a negative when politics gets in front of reality.

                    6. I missed this the first time, and replied to a reply to you. Yup, we can do it. Those examples were as usual exaggerated. As a former Senior Engineer in Technical Services for PG&E with a MS in Energy and the Environment, you came to the right person.

                      LADWP contracted for hundreds of megawatts from PV and battery storage for 2cents/kWh daytime and 3.3 cents/kWh at night. Th new Vogtle nukes,in Georgia,will have power costs of about 15 cents/kWh because of construction costs. Whose power do you want to buy?

                      No filthy coal plant can compete with renewables today.

                    7. S Meyer ignores the fact that we are 2nd in CO2 emissions, but 1st per capita. Since emissions are banked, we are also responsible for a much larger portion of existing CO2 than China and India, and therefore of the total. With 4% of the population we are responsible for about 1/3 of excess CO2.

                    8. Joe F., I won’t discuss difficult things with you. Too much of your data is wrong and you don’t know how to weigh evidence.

                  2. Your conversation with george227 is better than what you would have gotten from me/ Let me just say I agree on your goals though I don’t know enough to judge how possible they are.

  10. President Donald Trump’s campaign on Monday secured a legal win after the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted an expedited review of their appeal from a Pennsylvania court, according to Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis.

    According to the order, Trump’s “motion for emergency expedited review is granted at the direction of the court.”

    Their brief now needs to be filed by 4 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 23. “The court will advise if oral argument desired,” it said.

Leave a Reply