Last Tuesday, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani appeared in federal court for the first time in 30 years, representing the Trump campaign in an effort to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying the victory of President-elect Joe Biden in that state.
That’s one Disaster for Giuliani. The mayor and senior federal attorney once struggled to say exactly what the basis of Trump’s legal claims was. He further added that he was not familiar with such basic legal provisions.Strict study, “One of the basic vocabularies taught to every law student when the Constitution was introduced.
On Saturday evening, Judge Matthew Brann gave his opinion on the case. President V. Donald J. to Bouquet. Trump, And the judge did not pull the punches. Fran did not reject the legal arguments of the Trump campaign, he mocked the campaign for its inability to present a consistent argument – or provided any legal support for key elements of their claims.
Referring to the primary legal argument of the Trump campaign, he said, “This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, is bound together by two distinct principles in an attempt to avoid pioneering.” This is also one of the many bad lines from a judge who is clearly frustrated with the incompetent legislature on display in his courtroom.
It is noteworthy that Judge Bran was appointed to the Federal Bench by Democratic President Barack Obama He held several leadership positions within the Republican Party. Obama often had to do that Strike agreements with Republican senators to appoint GOP judges, In order to prevent those senators from blocking Obama’s other candidates.
In fact, one person who was particularly inspired by Fran’s conservative street debt was Sen. Pat Doomi (R-PA) issued a statement shortly after Fran’s decision was presented, congratulating President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. “To dismiss the case of the Trump campaign, by today’s decision of longtime Conservative Republican Judge Matthew Bran, whom I know to be a fair and impartial judge,” Tommy said in his statement, “President Trump All credible legal options to challenge the outcome of the presidential race in Pennsylvania are exhausted. ”
Trump can appeal against Fran’s decision, and He says he will. But, considering the weakness of the arguments of his campaign that Bran repeatedly points out, such an appeal is unlikely to prevail.
Trump wanted millions of voters to vote
The main argument of the Trump campaign is that Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Booger has challenged e-mails sent to district-level voting officials, urging them to “provide information during the canvas in front of party and candidate representatives, which will identify voters who have rejected the ballot,” so that they can cast their ballots on the ballot. The error can be declared, and the error will have a chance to be corrected.
If this changes, not all districts will take this advice. The Trump campaign claims that Democrat stronghold Philadelphia has declared that voters need to fix ballot errors that they do not have, and that district officials in Republican-leaning districts have not done so. Thus, the campaign claims that non-Biden-friendly Philadelphia votes are more likely to be counted than votes cast in more Trump-friendly regions of the state – and this contradiction implies unconstitutional discrimination.
But the campaign seeks a radical solution to this violation: it asked Judge Bran to bar the state from certifying the results of the 2020 election. The Trump campaign is urging Fran to eliminate the entire state of Pennsylvania – something the branch is openly refusing to do – as it is said that a smaller number of Trump voters will have a harder time voting than some Biden voters.
As Bran writes, “Restricting the certification of election results does not re-establish the right of individual plaintiffs to vote. It would deny more than 6.8 million people the right to vote. ”
If the Trump campaign is right that some voters violated the Constitution of Pennsylvania by declaring the need to correct the errors in ballots that they do not have, then the right solution must be found. All An opportunity for voters who need to cure their vote to do so. This is not about devaluing millions. “The answer to invalid votes is not to invalidate millions more,” Bran writes.
Frank’s comment has repeatedly been blamed for the incompetence of Trump’s lawyers
Judicial opinions are standard documents that generally avoid direct criticism of legal attorneys – a professional respect and judges generally prefer to avoid the notion that ignoring a particular lawyer may affect their decision. But Judge Bran clearly believes that Trump’s lawyers behaved very badly in his courtroom and that this behavior needs to be reconsidered in his opinion.
At the beginning of his comment, Bran summarizes the case in ten bad words: “Voters are asking this court to allow seven million voters to vote.” It is just daring that even Trump’s lawyers would demand such things. As Bran points out, “In contesting an election a plaintiff could not find any case seeking such a drastic settlement, based on the amount of votes asked to be invalid.”
Yet, Trump’s lawyers have not come to court with any evidence or legal authorities to justify such a decision. “When looking for such a startling conclusion, one can expect a plaintiff to be armed with compelling legal arguments and factual evidence of widespread corruption,” writes Bran. But “it didn’t happen. Instead, this court is presented with serious legal arguments without merit and speculation charges, not included in the operational complaint and not supported by evidence. ”
Fran spends the entirety of his commentary describing the musical chairs game that Trump’s lawyers seem to be playing when they are actively suing Bhoogwar Case. “The plaintiffs have made several attempts to correct the plaintiffs, and within seventy-two hours the plaintiffs have appeared and withdrawn,” he writes. Prior to the oral argument, Trump tried to change his entire legal team. Giuliani was added to the team on the same day as the trial, which appeared to be unfamiliar with the basics of the former New York City mayor’s case.
At other points in his opinion, Fran calls the inability of the Trump legal team to explain essential parts of their legal argument. For example, in order to bring a case to federal court, a plaintiff must show that they were injured in some way by the defendant – this is called “standing”. However, as Fran writes, “The consistent investigation into the Trump campaign is particularly bad, because neither [campaign’s amended complaint] The Trump campaign has not made clear what its injury is. ”
This led Judge Bran to “carry out a comprehensive plan to examine each case cited by the plaintiffs to unify the doctrine that stands in support of this plaintiff – Trump campaign.”
So, despite the harsh rhetoric in his opinion, Fran was extraordinarily generous to the Trump campaign and its lawyers. Rather than simply taking the incompetent arguments presented to him and dismissing them out of hand, Judge Trump took the time to create a coherent version of the arguments – and then he rejected that better version.
I could consistently beat this horse, but it was already dead. Election law professor Rick Hassan said of Giuliani’s appearance in Fran’s courtroom, “I have never in my life seen the worst legislation in an election law case. Fran’s comment makes clear how bad the legitimacy of the Trump campaign was.