President Trump told Fox News' Brian Kilmeade on Saturday, in a clip broadcast Sunday, that no judges have had "the courage" to allow his lawyers and allies to argue his baseless claims that the election was "stolen," specifically criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court for declining to "go into the evidence" on his cases because of "little technicalities, like a thing called standing."
In fact, several courts have offered to hear pro-Trump lawyers argue their case, and U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig in Wisconsin shot down the latest of those cases on Saturday. "A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred," wrote Ludwig, a Trump appointee. "This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff 'asks that the Rule of Law be followed.' It has been."
The "most telling aspect" of Ludwig's ruling isn't that "the rejecting was done by a Trump-appointed judge" or "that it was done on the merits," Andrew McCarthy argues at National Review. It's when Ludwig notes that "on the morning of the hearing, the parties reached agreement on a stipulated set of facts," meaning "there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case."
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Latest Videos FromThe Week
In other words, "there was no there there," McCarthy writes. "Despite telling the country for weeks that this was the most rigged election in history, the campaign didn't think it was worth calling a single witness. Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, 'Never mind.'" And "this is not the first time the campaign ducked an opportunity to prove its claims of a stolen election in court," he adds. In Wisconsin, as in Pennsylvania and Michigan, "every time a court offers him an opportunity to establish by proof what he is promoting by Twitter, Team Trump folds." Read more about Ludwig's ruling at National Review.
