A successful real estate mogul doesn’t go bankrupt repeatedly and any decent lawyer knows the meaning of basic legal terms. Since both of those statements are true, Donald Trump has never been a successful real estate mogul and Rudy Giuliani proved on Saturday that he isn’t really a lawyer, just a former politician charging $20,000 a day to embarrass the president and the country on national television.
Statement for @TeamTrump on Pennsylvania ruling. pic.twitter.com/Oedzlav8aW
— Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) November 22, 2020
As an embarrassment, Giuliani has done an incredible job. As an attorney, he’s brought cases to court for the president that are all but being laughed out of court, including the case brought in Pennsylvania in which Judge Matthew Brann ruled that no evidence of voter fraud had been brought to the court, causing him to dismiss the case.
Giuliani took to Twitter to count it as a win, saying that he and the Trump campaign are now just one step closer to taking their case of a stolen election all the way to the Supreme Court. In a statement released on Twitter, Giuliani said:
‘Today’s decisions turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the u.S. Supreme Court. Although we fully disagree with this opinion, we’re thankful to the Obama-appoint judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out the clock.’
However, the actual text of the ruling shows that Giuliani is either lying or ignorant of the law. In Judge Brann’s ruling, he wrote:
‘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, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
‘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. 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. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.’
A lawsuit dismissed “with prejudice” has a specific meaning for the future of the lawsuit. The definition of “with prejudice” is used by the court to say that ” it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds.”
There will be no Supreme Court case coming from the ruling in Pennsylvania.
As for Judge Brann being an “Obama judge,” several facts are obscured by that characterization.
The “Obama appointee” who ruled against Trump, Judge Brann, was hand picked by Senator Toomey, is a former Republican Party official and a member of the Federalist Society. https://t.co/ZftXLhJkwl
— Rick Hasen, Mr. Practicing Attorney (@rickhasen) November 22, 2020
Twitter had a good laugh at Trump’s pretend lawyer, who reminded him that he’s made an absolute fool of himself throughout this process and is just continuing to do so. Read some of their comments below:
