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.
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