in

A Republican judge just tore into Trump’s election lawyers for their incompetence. Trump’s lawyers asked a judge to disenfranchise nearly 7 million voters. It ended badly for Trump.

A Republican judge just tore into Trump’s election lawyers for their incompetence. Trump’s lawyers asked a judge to disenfranchise nearly 7 million voters. It ended badly for Trump.

A Republican judge just tore into Trump’s election lawyers for their incompetence. Trump’s lawyers asked a judge to disenfranchise nearly 7 million voters. It ended badly for Trump.



View Reddit by roku44View Source

What do you think?

49 Points
Upvote Downvote

Written by USA

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. “One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann writes. But “that has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.”

    It’s a shame that Giuliani’s head leakage conference will be the bigger headline. This is what people should take away.

  2. This lawsuit is incredible.

    Two Pennsylvania voters had their mail-in ballots rejected. The counties in which they voted failed to notify them that they could “cure” their ballots. So who do they sue? The SOS and a bunch of counties NOT INCLUDING the counties that rejected their ballots.

    And what do the plaintiffs seek? Surely its for their votes to be counted, right? NOPE. They are suing to invalidate 6 million other votes.

    Everything about this lawsuit is rotten and contemptible. It perfectly embodies Trump and his presidency.

  3. Anyone else tired of the only consequences to this sort of behavior is being “torn into”? Like ok great, thanks social media for all the memes and the headlines dunking on this criminally incompetent bunch of crypto fascists. But I’m pretty tired of them getting snarky comeuppance and…nothing else.

  4. Meanwhile conservatives are complaining that liberals don’t wanna work together and Biden doesn’t wanna unite the country.

  5. > Thus, despite the harsh rhetoric in his opinion, Brann was extraordinarily generous to the Trump campaign and its lawyers. **Rather than simply taking the incompetent arguments that were presented to him and rejecting them out of hand, the judge took the time to construct a coherent version of Trump’s arguments — and then he rejected that better version.**

    Oof.

  6. It’s worth noting that, while Brann was appointed to the federal bench by Democratic President Barack Obama, the judge held multiple leadership positions within the Republican Party

    Has Trump or even Cheney administration ever appointed Democrat federal judge?

    I don’t think so. This is why Republican could pack the SOCTUS which is now crooked.

  7. The Judge should have ordered Guiliani to attend a very long refresher course in how to practice law before he can appear in court again.

  8. > “President Trump has exhausted all *plausible* legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania.”

    Time for the implausible ones now.

    Break out the bingo cards boys. It’s drinking time!

  9. This isn’t about winning, it’s essentially a magic trick. We pay attention to the legal stuff while Trump destroys evidence, raises money, and poisons the well that is legitimate voting. He benefits the whole time and then has the political capital to pressure key officials in the state to prevent the election from being certified. By continuing to have cases, they can continue to claim there’s a legitimate argument by citing outstanding court cases, which fuels the conspiracy theories and helps them spread. The court cases at this point are a distraction from his actual plan of action. It is probably dumb and half cooked, but it’ll shake us all even more before it’s over. He seems to legitimately be angling for a civil war at this point.

  10. Republican Judge Matthew Brann didn’t just reject the Trump campaign’s legal arguments, he mocked the campaign for its inability to present a coherent argument — or to provide any legal support whatsoever for crucial elements on their claims.

    Referring to the Trump campaign’s primary legal argument, Brann writes that…

    >”this claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together”

  11. I’m really not surprised that Rudy doesn’t know the meaning of strict scrutiny when he doesn’t even know what opacity means.

  12. Even if Trump’s team was able to convince judges that “mail-in voting is bad,” wouldn’t ex-post-facto mean it can’t do anything to this year’s election?

  13. At this point it looks like Giuliani is a washed up conman who is selling Trump a promise he has no ability to deliver. Financially those around Trump should be asking who is really going to benefit financially in the short term.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading…

0

I made a letterboxd just the other day and I’m going through trying to remember all the days I watched movies and do mini reviews *nothing special* but if anyone her has it follow me and I’ll be sure to follow yall back and check your stuff out :)

Jason Miciak

Trump Plotting 2024 Run Which He Wants to Announce By the End of the Year