Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Anyone else who does more litigation than I do please feel free to correct me, but I don't think this is a viable strategy (presuming some broad similarities between US and Canadian law). Absent some extraordinary circumstance, in any appellate proceedings, Trump will be restricted to the evidence adduced and the issues/arguments made in the court below (only now with the additional onus of demonstrating some incorrectness, unreasonableness, or palpable and overriding error in the judgement of the court below). They have no choice but to put their best foot forward in the court of first instance.
If I'm more or less on the mark, then this smacks of just public relations for the Trump base (to make the inevitable losses at the trial court level appear to be "all part of the plan").
|
I think you're on the mark. Trump's campaign (of deadbeats and snakes) should be stuck with the evidence they marshaled in their initial hearings (which is to say no evidence at all). This leaves them stuck with legal as opposed to factual arguments as they appeal upwards.
That said, part of their tactic is to delay a final outcome, allowing them to continue to push their fabricated narrative so long as they continue to litigate. Even if they can't get anything with a whiff of a chance up to the USSC, they may get one or two remitted for a rehearing, or win the occasional appeal (which they'll claim as proof of the merits of their case).
Basically, I think their plan is twofold: get anything they can before a friendly USSC, and otherwise extend the litigation and their "it was stolen" narrative for as long as possible.
Ultimately, it's still a political rather than legal play IMO.