Note: All 4,000 available public access spots have been taken up.
https://twitter.com/zoetillman/status/1328765268030525442
Follow-up note: I got on the second line with another apparent 4,000 spots. pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/pamd/fil…
It’s really wild to hear Rudy Giuliani, two weeks AFTER the election, complain about processes for mail-in voting put in place well BEFORE the election for the election. This is a joke, if it wasn’t an attempt by him to steal the election from Biden and for Trump.
Giuliani is making wild allegations about corruption and fraud with no basis in fact or with facts to the contrary. This is embarrassing.
One of Rudy’s clearest points was a claim that cities held back votes to later find or create votes — basically, explicit allegation of fraud — w/ no evidence & ignoring the reality that the reason there were no counts of the mail-in ballots ahead of time bc of the GOP lawmakers.
Rudy’s complaints about curing of ballots ignores the fact that other counties could have had the same curing process but chose not to do so.
Oh, here comes the Clark County bullshit. Recall, all that was affected there was a local race with a 10-vote difference.
Here’s my thread on that from last night —>
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1328485319294021632
This is disgusting.
What a sad, pitiful man.
To have a Republicans claim that they are the victims of voter suppression is the greatest example of gaslightinging I can imagine.
The good news is this isn’t OAN or Newsmax. It’s a court.
“This would become an epidemic,” Rudy says of their wild claims, with no sense of irony.
“This would become an epidemic,” Rudy says of their wild claims, with no sense of irony.
He’s introducing evidence and he tells the court he’s ~pretty sure~ what counties they’re from — but will correct the record if he’s wrong. 🙃
https://twitter.com/zimmy1998/status/1328781123367866370
Counsel for the defendants says he’s going to focus on the actual legal arguments and actual amended complaint, which he noted was not the path chosen by his opposing counsel (ie, Rudy).
Oh, this sounds like a real legal argument. Wild how that works. He will address the lack of standing and the failure of the plaintiffs to state an equal protection claim, as well as abstention.
“I think that’s what Mr. Giuliani was talking about.”
Counsel for the defendants is, effectively, having to try to connect his logical argument to Rudy’s rant.
Counsel for the defendants is, effectively, having to try to connect his logical argument to Rudy’s rant.
Second line appears to have disappeared, and first line is still full.
Everyone who was on the second line is now out in the cold, it appears.
https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/1328788497059209218
First line had issues, too.
https://twitter.com/carlbotterud/status/1328789953363394560
Well, this is kind of the court.
https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1328790472316301315
Have other work now, so not able to dial back in! Follow @ZoeTillman @Popehat and everyone noted above for the latest.
Oh, yeah, this is what this case needed.
https://twitter.com/rmfifthcircuit/status/1328809839661895680
It really is disgraceful, and someone needs to have said it, on the record, in court.
https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/1328814101183799303
All rise for a 10-minute recess.
The Centre County lawyer was impressive and succinct.
A lawyer for the DNC is drawing out the fact that the Trump campaign, in other cases, acknowledged that they have not presented actual allegations of fraud — despite what Giuliani said in his opening today.
Lachesssssssss!
His laches argument is right and is basically what I was saying here way back when this started. —>
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1328776486267052032
Per @joshgerstein, that lawyer was David Zionts, and he did excellent arguing on behalf of civil rights groups.
The judge's first question is to the plaintiffs, noting their desire to have the court toss out votes, and his question is: "Can you tell me how this result could possibly be justified?"
Rudy is just making up shit, saying the boards' "egregious" conduct was premeditated, happened in other states, and that the votes could have been for Mickey Mouse.
[This is not an answer to the question, and also does not appear to relate to the actual complaint in court.]
[This is not an answer to the question, and also does not appear to relate to the actual complaint in court.]
This is wild!
The Trump campaign has no lawyers here today; they just have Rudy.
The Trump campaign has no lawyers here today; they just have Rudy.
I think Kerns just spoke up to try to save Rudy by trying to actually respond to the judge's question.
The lawyer who is seeking to withdraw from representing Trump here, Kerns, had to speak up to save Rudy, who is really just shitting all over the floor.
Yeah, this lawsuit makes no sense. They're claiming they should, instead, bring a lawsuit here because it's an equal protection violation to have Philadelphia voters be able to cure.
https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1328832456833855489
Yeah, Kerns is trying again, but it's not setting up an equal protection violation.
https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1328833449722056706
And, the judge agrees, saying, "Isn't the place to go the court of common pleas in Lancaster County?" Etc.
Giuliani explaining the Trump campaign's argument for standing is like ... well, not explaining standing.
Rudy saying words that don't mean anything, let alone are words that confer standing.
We have a dog on the line.
"Maybe I don't understand what you mean by strict scrutiny." - Rudy Giuliani
Kerns, again, responds when Rudy has utterly failed to do so.
Rudy didn't understand what the judge meant by filing a response to the motion to dismiss, necessitating Kerns to weigh in saying she understood.
Judge Brann addressed the call from a Kirkland associate who was not on the case. He says, "It's not sanctionable, but it's bad form. ... And don't do that again." The judge also notes to tell the associate that he wasted the court's time.
Kerns is insisting on now ... taking up more of the court's time ... by continuing to raise issues about this issue that we've already known. : shrug :
Brann to Kerns: "Do you still want to withdraw?"
LOLLLLL.
He can't actually say it, but Brann sure seems to want her to stay so that he can have a real lawyer to talk with on their side.
LOLLLLL.
He can't actually say it, but Brann sure seems to want her to stay so that he can have a real lawyer to talk with on their side.
That's the end of my live-tweeting of that. Rudy is embarrassing, and the case is bad. Next.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
