Why don't the lawyers for the Trump campaign bring in all the evidence they claim to have when they go to court? Appealing a ruling requires whatever court is appealing the ruling to review the ruling made by the lower court, if the lower court made the ruling based on a lack of evidence presented by the lawyers for the Trump campaign 99 times out of a hundred they will rule the same way.

The lawyers for the Trump campaign have stated in a number of cases that they have no evidence of voter fraud, how do you think a judge is going to rule?? An appellate judge or panel is going to read the statement made by the lawyers saying they have no proof as recorded by the court reporter and rule the same way.

Now Rudy is taking over the legal battle for the Trump campaign, recall Rudy held his famous press event at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping warehouse. Rudy was a fantastic federal prosecutor when he had great success putting some very serious New York mob figures in jail. The most famous of Rudy's prosecutions was probably putting the the Teflon, Don Gotti, behind bars. I think Gotti had escaped at least 5 prosecutions. Then Rudy did a great job cleaning up New York by implementing his "No Broken Windows" campaign which strongly encouraged cops and prosecutors to go after all crimes, no crime was too small. Arresting people accused of small crimes like far jumping had the great benefit of bringing in many people with outstanding warrants and possessing drugs and weapons.

Rudy was a great legal mind as a prosecutor not as a constitutional or election jurist, in addition he lacks experience in these areas that most would seek out to represent them in hearings the Trump campaign is facing. Why were 4 lawsuits pulled off the docket by the Trump campaign on Friday? Maybe losing 8 for 8 of the cases Friday was the reason. Why do you think two major law firms no longer are representing the Trump Campaign? Having Rudy represent you for voter fraud cases would be like having a radioneurologist be your lead advisor for a pandemic worse than has been seen for over 1 100 years.

Rudy is quite a mouth piece and that works well in the court of TV, Twitter, Facebook, ... as these venues do not require proof of any allegations. Unfortunately, the court system requires proof not verbal gymnastics.

Grand claims are being made they are going to take their case all the way to the supreme court. One should ask oneself "How does a case get to the Supreme court?" This should explain how that happens, the source for the explanation is here.

The Constitution states that the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case. The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. Appellate jurisdiction means that the Court has the authority to review the decisions of lower courts. Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts.

I don't see how the Trump campaign would be able to get the court to claim original jurisdiction as the cases are neither "disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers." So the only path to the US Supreme Court is if it can act as a appellate court so they have to present a case that has enough meat on the bones to have a majority of the jurists on the court vote for an appeal. Some are going to say that is easy as there are 6 conservative versus 3 liberals on the court and 3 have been appointed by Trump so they will vote to hear the appeal to give back. Recall Supreme Court judges are granted lifetime appointments, unless they are impeached for some breach of conduct, giving them the flexibility that separation of powers laid out by the US Constitution. In addition, the US Supreme Court judges all know their writings and decisions will be investigated by other jurists and academics for at least as long as Old Glory still flies proudly and they do not want to be seen as making bad law. Like most people US Supreme judges are proud of their work product, unlike most their work product will be pored over in extreme detail and no one wants to look like a fool.

The biggest hurdle is they have demonstrate to courts in at least 3 states that there is significant enough fraud to reduce Biden's electoral votes to below 270, necessary to "flip" the election. An uphill battle to say the least.

I imagine this posting is going to elicit comments about my character and other such none sense, that is like gimg to court claiming a grievance and being unable to show evidence of such. Many would call that a waste of time and money. I would be pondering many of the points I laid out above if I were in Trump's employment, calling me names questioning my parentage does not change the points I bring up they just show limied intellect and childlike behavior.

Have a nice day,
wade