U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann posed a routine question to the lead lawyer for President Trump’s election challenge in Pennsylvania: What type of standard should the court use to evaluate the campaign’s claims of fraud in Nov. 3’s presidential election?
“Normal one,” responded Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Lawyers from coast to coast listening in on Tuesday’s pivotal election fraud hearing in Williamsport, Pa. cringed at the response from “America’s Mayor,” making his first argument in court in years as he tried to back up Mr. Trump’s claims the election was stolen from him.
There are only three types of standards for review: rational basis, intermediate and strict scrutiny. Nowhere in law texts is a “normal” review found.
At that moment, the trajectory of Mr. Trump’s legal assault on the ballot count came into grim relief and reaffirmed widespread skepticism that the lawsuits —or the legal team pursuing them — will succeed.
Indeed, the ascendancy of Mr. Giuliani on the lawsuit