• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump campaign lawsuit in Pennsylvania vote heads to court

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

A hearing on the Trump campaign’s federal lawsuit seeking to prevent Pennsylvania officials from certifying the vote results remains on track for Tuesday after a judge quickly denied the campaign’s new lawyer’s request for a delay.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann told lawyers for Donald J. Trump for President Inc. and the counties and state election official it has sued that they must show up and “be prepared for argument and questioning” at the federal courthouse in Williamsport.

It also may feature Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and the president’s personal attorney, who filed Tuesday morning to represent Trump in the case. He has not entered an appearance in federal court since 1992, according to online court records. That was the year before he was elected mayor.
=============================================================
With Rudy Giuliani as your attorney, what's to worry?
 

A hearing on the Trump campaign’s federal lawsuit seeking to prevent Pennsylvania officials from certifying the vote results remains on track for Tuesday after a judge quickly denied the campaign’s new lawyer’s request for a delay.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann told lawyers for Donald J. Trump for President Inc. and the counties and state election official it has sued that they must show up and “be prepared for argument and questioning” at the federal courthouse in Williamsport.

It also may feature Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and the president’s personal attorney, who filed Tuesday morning to represent Trump in the case. He has not entered an appearance in federal court since 1992, according to online court records. That was the year before he was elected mayor.
=============================================================
With Rudy Giuliani as your attorney, what's to worry?
LMAO! :ROFLMAO:

This is beyond hillarious!

Trump is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel, with Rudy. Now we know for sure the suits are meritless.
 
[snip]

“You’re alleging that the two individual plaintiffs were denied the right to vote,” Brann said. “But at bottom, you’re asking this court to invalidate more than 6.8 million votes, thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the commonwealth. Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified?” In response, Giuliani said that Trump’s campaign was seeking only to throw out about 680,000 ballots cast in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, because, he said, Republican observers were not allowed to watch them being counted. But Trump’s attorneys had removed legal claims relating to that issue in an amended version of the lawsuit they filed over the weekend, the judge reminded him. “The poll-watching claims were deleted,” Brann told Giuliani. “They’re now not before this court, so why should I consider them now?” Giuiliani . . . said that the campaign would file a third version of its lawsuit restoring the allegations.
.
.

Brann asked what standard of review he should apply in the case. “I think the normal one,” Giuliani replied. “Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by strict scrutiny,” Giuliani said at another point. At a different moment, Giuliani said: “I’m not quite sure what ‘opacity’ means. It probably means you can see.” The judge responded: “It means you can’t.” . . . Brann declined to do so, setting a deadline of 5 p.m. Wednesday for the president’s team to file a motion opposing the election officials’ attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. This, too, appeared to confuse Giuliani, who asked if the judge was inviting him to file the retooled third version of the lawsuit that he’d promised earlier.“This is a brief in opposition to their motion to dismiss,” Brann replied. “Oh!” Giuliani said. “Oh, sure, absolutely.”


[Cont]



Sounds like a real clown show.

I've stumbled over an answer (before correcting myself). Out of all my arguments, I once gave an answer that I didn't correct and have internally winced at since, though fortunately my brief and reply answered it correctly. We all have brain farts. But this sounds exactly the way I thought it would: Rudy doesn't have a damn clue, and was arrogant enough to barely prepare.

He doesn't know what strict scrutiny refers to? Really? Your law school constitutional law class will tell you that there is rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. Most textbooks will also talk about "intermediate plus" which refers to decisions - often around issues involving sex discrimination - that claim to be applying intermediate scrutiny to a law but are much tougher about it than other intermediate scrutiny cases in other areas.

No matter. If an attorney hadn't been in federal court for a while, and especially if like Rudy it was not for 30 years, that attorney would know perfectly damn well that he'd better brush up for a long time. This shit gets complicated fast. The articles I've seen about Rudy's performance read like he partially read and half-skimmed the filings, read news articles reporting on what other suits were about, read a wikipedia link about the federal courts . . . . . then walked into court the next morning.





I'm going to go into the bathroom to see if he appears if I say "malpractice" three times fast with the lights off.
 
At this point they have to know they can't win. It's all just delaying tactics. For what, I don't know. What is Trump & Co gaining by putting off the inevitable?
 
Donald Trump being a baby after he loses. Who would have thunk it.
 
Back
Top Bottom