ecco
Veteran Member
Trump lost the big one. Actually, "lost" is too mild of a word to describe the outcome. The judge ripped Guiliani and Trump new you-know-whats.
There is a big difference between signing an affidavit and standing in a courtroom in front of a judge. In those circumstances, one's memory of the situation oft times changes. So all the affidavits Giuliani was waving around during his press conference - pretty much worthless.
The sad/funny part is that the lawyers had to know, coming in, that these suits would amount to nothing. But, they are getting paid big bucks - win or lose. It strokes Trump's ego having a whole lot of cases challenging the outcome. When he loses, he can rail on about liberal judges deciding an election.
Who is paying these expensive lawyers? Mostly the sheeples who continue to contribute money to the Rudy Giuliani retirement fund...
In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.
On a slightly different note, I reviewed the outcomes of all the Trump election lawsuits (same website, further down). In roughly half of the cases, the plaintiffs/attorneys withdrew. These were mostly the type of cases where one or several individuals "swore" they saw or heard something wrong with the ballot/counting process.In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote in his order that Trump had asked the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.
“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 wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”
...
Brann ruled that Pennsylvania officials can certify election results that currently show Biden winning the state by more than 80,000 votes. He said the Trump campaign presented “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations ... unsupported by evidence.”
“In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state,” the opinion said. “Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”
Sen. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican who had a hand in placing Brann on the bench during the Obama administration, said the ruling showed Trump had exhausted all possible legal avenues in the state and went on to congratulate Biden on his victory. He called Brann “a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist.”
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote in his order that Trump had asked the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.
“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 wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”
...
Brann ruled that Pennsylvania officials can certify election results that currently show Biden winning the state by more than 80,000 votes. He said the Trump campaign presented “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations ... unsupported by evidence.”
“In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state,” the opinion said. “Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”
Sen. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican who had a hand in placing Brann on the bench during the Obama administration, said the ruling showed Trump had exhausted all possible legal avenues in the state and went on to congratulate Biden on his victory. He called Brann “a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist.”
The sad/funny part is that the lawyers had to know, coming in, that these suits would amount to nothing. But, they are getting paid big bucks - win or lose. It strokes Trump's ego having a whole lot of cases challenging the outcome. When he loses, he can rail on about liberal judges deciding an election.
Who is paying these expensive lawyers? Mostly the sheeples who continue to contribute money to the Rudy Giuliani retirement fund...
Giuliani Is Said to Seek $20,000 a Day Payment for Trump Legal Work
Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has helped oversee a string of failed court challenges to President Trump’s defeat in the election, asked the president’s campaign to pay him $20,000 a day for his legal work, multiple people briefed on the matter said.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has helped oversee a string of failed court challenges to President Trump’s defeat in the election, asked the president’s campaign to pay him $20,000 a day for his legal work, multiple people briefed on the matter said.