Nevada Judge Makes Dramatic Ruling Against Trump Sabotage Attempt


Donald Trump is watching his slow-motion defeat from the White House and fighting it with Twitter tantrums and lawsuits, but he cannot change the inevitable: Joe Biden will almost certainly be the next president of the United States and Trump will be the first president to have lost the popular vote twice.


In Nevada, claims of election fraud and mass conspiracies against Donald Trump by the Clark County elections officials fell flat in court on Friday when a judge declined to allow a lawsuit to stop the counting to move forward. The plaintiffs, which include the Republican Party and a woman who claims someone stole her ballot, offered no real evidence of wrongdoing.

In an amicus brief filed in the case, the Clark County Democratic Party said that:

‘Plaintiffs have filed suit with a Complaint that alleges Federal question jurisdiction while citing almost exclusively to Nevada state law, has four Plaintiffs with varying interests, and questionable standing, seeking relief that is declaratory in nature, seemingly unrelated to any injury claimed, and if granted, would be vastly disruptive to the entire national political process. Further, Plaintiffs seek relief that would have the effect of ensuring that completion of the vote count prior to the statutory deadline would be impossible, thus harming the integrity of the system, and harming the voting rights of the Clark County voters prevented from having their votes counted.’

The revolves around 79-year-old Jill Stokke of Nevada, who says that she received a mail-in ballot but that it was stolen and that she was denied the right to vote in person because her stolen ballot had been turned in. She also claims her roommate’s mail-in ballot was stolen, as well. However, election officials say that a ballot was turned in with her name on it and that a signature match determined that she had filled it out.

According to an ABC affiliate in Texas, Joe Gloria, Clark County’s registrar of voters, said that:

‘I personally dealt with (her issue). She brought her claim to me. We reviewed her ballot, and in our opinion, it is her signature. We also gave her an opportunity to provide a statement, if she wanted to object to that and provide a challenge to that. She refused to do so. A member of the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office investigations team also interviewed her, and they had no issue with the assistance we tried to give her.’


According to The Hill, Judge Andrew Gordon of the U.S. District Court for Nevada determined that “the public interest is not in favor of disrupting the completion of the processing and counting of the ballots.” He further stressed that the plaintiffs had brought no sufficient evidence of wrong doing before him, asking “why do I grant extraordinary relief if you don’t have evidence that supports a likelihood of success on the merits?”