The first step in any trial (if you're the plaintiff) is convincing the court that there's a legal wrong to be tried in the first place. The first line for any defense is "no, there isn't." Most of us believe this judge, as an Obama appointee, will agree with the defense, at which point Rudy and team will appeal. Lawyerpedes correct me, if I'm retarded.
That’s a legit argument. And the first hurdle you need to overcome in any case. So.....
How could Trump NOT have standing in the case....that makes no sense.
Lawyers will always use this as a step 1. EXCUSE ME YOUR HONOR THE PROSECUTOR LACKS STANDING
if you ever did small claims or a suit, lawyers have a preset list of did you try turning your laptop off and restart? Sort of list
How is ... The guy running in the election, not the one with standing? How is it a legit argument to make?
The first step in any trial (if you're the plaintiff) is convincing the court that there's a legal wrong to be tried in the first place. The first line for any defense is "no, there isn't." Most of us believe this judge, as an Obama appointee, will agree with the defense, at which point Rudy and team will appeal. Lawyerpedes correct me, if I'm retarded.
That doesn't mean it's a good argument.
It's not supposed to be - it's a litmus test