[ad_1]
Rudy Giuliani, the attorney who represented Trump in the Pennsylvania lawsuit, demonstrated a lack of preparation and basic knowledge when arguing in court.
Rudy Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, former mayor of New York and private attorney for President Donald Trump, entered the courtroom in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, on November 17, with a few dozen Trump supporters cheering him on. cross the street.
This is the first time in nearly three decades that Giuliani has appeared in court as an attorney, representing his powerful client in an attempt to convince a federal judge of the president’s re-election chances. Trump has been “robbed.”
According to the predictions of the American media, the Democratic candidate Joe Biden became president-elect with 306 electoral votes after winning in Pennsylvania with a difference of more than 82,000 votes. However, President Trump refused to lose and is constantly pushing for legal efforts to prevent Biden’s victory.
Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, during a press conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 7. Image: Reuters.
Yet what Giuliani, to whom Trump “chose to send gold” for a large-scale legal effort, shows in court only a mess of basic legal concepts and at least one Sometimes, he also showed a low level of English.
He began the litigation session by taunting the defendant’s attorney, calling him “very angry with me, but I forgot his name.” He confused Judge Matthew Brann, who was presiding over the trial, with another Pennsylvania federal judge who had dismissed a Trump campaign lawsuit. “Your Honor, they accuse me of not understanding what you mean and I don’t understand it at all,” Giuliani said.
Giuliani even misinterpreted the meaning of the word “opacity” (opacity) as “clear”.
“In the counties mentioned by the plaintiff, they do not have the possibility to be monitored smoothly and guaranteed opacity,” he said. “I’m not sure what this word ‘opacity’ means. It means you can see through, right?”
“It means you can’t see through,” Judge Brann interrupted, reinterpreting the meaning of the English word for Giuliani.
“These are really important words, Your Honor,” Giuliani replied.
The lawsuit was filed by President Trump’s reelection campaign alleging that there were many irregularities in the counting process in Pennsylvania. They assumed that 14,000 votes in Pennsylvania should be disqualified and that the electoral process in the state was unconstitutional because election officials here restricted their observers from monitoring the vote count.
When asked by a judge what oversight standards should apply to the Pennsylvania government’s vote counting, Giuliani responded, “Standard of the ordinary.”
This response caused Giuliani to receive a lot of ridicule from the legal community, with many attorneys and prosecutors saying that Trump’s agent did not appear to have any understanding of basic legal concepts. such as “reasonable reasoning” (the normal standard of judgment that courts apply when considering constitutional questions), “intermediate scrutiny” (second level of decision-making matters). use judicial review) and “strict scrutiny” (the highest and strictest standard for judicial review and which leads judges to cancel a law).
At the end of the trial, Giuliani even admitted that he did not know what the term “strict supervision” meant.
Opening the debate, Giuliani “debated” allegations of voter fraud against Pennsylvania officials without presenting any convincing evidence. A few hours later, he admitted to the judge: “This is not a fraud.”
After hearing Giuliani’s statement, Judge Brann canceled a hearing scheduled for November 19 to hear a presentation of evidence of voter fraud. The judge argued that there is no need to further consider the issue of “fraud” as the Trump campaign no longer carries.
At times Giuliani had difficulty answering questions from Judge Brann or Philadelphia City Attorney Linda Kerns.
Mark Aronchick, an attorney representing the defendant, objects to Giuliani’s repeated argument that it is illegal for counties to help people vote.
“I don’t think he knows the electoral rules of Pennsylvania,” Aronchick said, implying that Giuliani did not appear prepared before attending the trial.
The Trump campaign seeks to prevent Pennsylvania from confirming the election results. The lawsuit was filed on the basis of an allegation that Philadelphia and the six Democratic-leaning counties caused voters to correct incorrect details on mailed ballots; otherwise, they would be disqualified for technical errors, such as missing envelope or signature.
It’s unclear how many of the associated ballots have been corrected, but attorneys representing the state of Pennsylvania say they are too few to change the election results.
During the November 17 hearing, the accused attorneys asked Judge Brann to drop the case, calling the cited evidence “unusual,” insufficient to change Pennsylvania’s election results.
Once a tough federal prosecutor who made a name for himself for his efforts to crack down on notorious New York criminals in the 1980s, Giuliani has never appeared in court as an attorney since. year 1992.
Giuliani served as an attorney in charge of the Southern District of New York before winning the New York mayoral race in 1993. In 2002, he retired as mayor and ran for president in 2008.
Giuliani is a confidant alongside Trump, who has been entrusted by the President of the United States with the responsibility of leading his legal team in the Russian investigation of US election interference conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
When he walked out of the courtroom in Williamsport on the night of November 17, Giuliani, 76, seemed indifferent whether or not he would lose his lawsuit. “Obviously, if we lose, we will appeal,” he told reporters. “There are eight lawsuits, I’m afraid I’ll tell you.”
Vu hoang (According to the AP, law and crime)
