Trump’s lawyers must have told him that being angry about the election was not a sufficient reason to sue, according to a book.
“Why don’t we go directly to the Supreme Court? He asked, according to the book.
This sparked a “tense and fundamental discussion at Law School 101″ about how to explain the tribunal to Trump.
As President Donald Trump realized last year that he was on the verge of losing re-election, his lawyers had to explain to him that being angry at the results was not reason enough to hire lawsuits, according to a new book.
The conversation took place on November 6, according to the book, three days after election day and the day before major news outlets and television networks cast Joe Biden as the winner. At one point, the discussion took a more basic turn as the president’s lawyers tried to figure out how best to explain to him the basics of how the Supreme Court works.
Related video: Here are the Trump administration’s worst misspellings
That’s according to “Peril,” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa of the Washington Post, of which Insider got a first copy.
Trump’s lawyers began by telling him that it would not be easy to sue for electoral fraud because they would need to prove their standing – a legal principle that states that a party must prove that laws or actions he challenges have caused him harm or prejudice – to appear before a judge.
They made it clear that being upset with the election results did not constitute legal status, according to the book. Trump then took another path.
“Well, why not go straight to the Supreme Court? He asked, according to the book. “Like, why can’t we just go right there?”
The president’s advisers told him there was a specific legal procedure to be followed in order to appear before the Supreme Court. Trump asked them to understand this process, the book says.
What followed was what Woodward and Costa describe as a “tense, basic Law School 101 discussion” between lawyers “about what to say to Trump.”
“They knew they could never go straight to the Supreme Court,” the book says. “Trump should file a case in district courts, then ask a federal appeals court to hear the case, then file a case in the Supreme Court. It would take time.”
Trump has frequently and publicly said during the election campaign that he relies on the Supreme Court to hand him the election if he loses the Electoral College to Biden.
After Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September last year, leaving a vacant seat on the High Court, Reported time that Trump’s allies were weighing what potential Supreme Court choices would help him win the election.
On September 23, Trump made a baseless claim that Democrats were trying to rig the election against him and said he wanted a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that would agree with him.
“I think it will end up in the Supreme Court,” he said. “And I think it’s very important that we have nine judges.”
He ultimately appointed, and the Republican-controlled Senate upheld, judge Amy Coney Barrett in court, cementing a Tory majority of 6-3.
In the following months, Trump publicly urged the court to rule in favor of a long-running lawsuit filed by the state of Texas asking judges to overturn election results in four battlefield states Biden won: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia.
But in December, the Supreme Court threw the case, with all three Trump candidates – Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch – voting to reject him for lack of quality.
The decision, which took the form of an unsigned order, infuriated Trump, who tweeted the next day: “The Supreme Court has really let us down. No wisdom, no courage!”
Two days later, the Electoral College convened and certified Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.
Read the original article on Business intern