There is no evidence of it, and international observers call this false.
"This is one of those situations that you do not let a serious crisis to to waste," he says.
Giuliani calls mail-in ballots a threat of voter fraud.
(Note: Three other lawyers for the Trump campaign have denied such claims in court, when pressed by judges.)
Giuliani:
"We now have an opportunity to hold back votes or produce votes after an election to make up a deficit."
Note: Votes were counted after Election Day, they were not "held back."
Giuliani claims inspectors "weren't allowed to observe" the ballot-counting.
They were, and other Trump attorneys have conceded that.
Giuliani claims this is alleged conspiracy happening in "big cities, controlled by Democrats."
"You'd have to be a fool to think this is an accident."
Side note:
In the original complaint, which has been significantly pared down, Trump's campaign alleged suspected instances of voter fraud in two Republican counties.
Giuliani invokes the specter of a "stolen" election, a claim expressly disclaimed by Team Trump's lawyers in Arizona.
Giuliani rants about Philadelphia, describing it as corrupt in a grand, corrupt, airy conspiracy theory of mass fraud with no specifics:
"This doesn't happen in an honest place."
"This is an outrage, your honor, to do this to people."
Rudy alleged 1.5 million illegal votes.
He doesn't explain how he arrived at that number.
Rudy Giuliani submits an exhibit that he describes as someone using binoculars to observe the process.
A defense counsel asks him to represent as an "officer of the court" that an exhibit is from Philadelphia county.
"I was told that," Giuliani responds.
Giuliani says he'll correct himself if he learns otherwise.
Giuliani's co-counsel declines to add anything.
Up next is Daniel Donovan, representing the Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth for the powerhouse firm Kirkland & Ellis
Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar is working hard to meet the "fast approaching" deadline to certify the vote, Donovan says.
"Counsel on the side of the aisle focused on allegations that aren't in the complaint," Donovan notes.
Put another way, Giuliani's freewheeling opening statement bore little semblance to their actual lawsuit.
Donovan dedicates his opening statement to a far less flashy rebuttal to what their lawsuit says, not what Giuliani declaimed.
"There is no claim in the complaint that any Pennsylvania voter cast more than one ballot."
Donovan: "There's nothing unequal about the ability to cast a vote in this case."
He boils down their actual argument to a claim that a tiny number of ballots were counted and shouldn't have been, therefore all of them should be thrown out.
He calls that claim "un-American."
Donovan moves onto the issue of standing.
"Federal courts have immense power," but limited jurisdiction, he notes.
Donovan:
"The plaintiffs fail to assert particularized concrete injuries under the law."
Donovan delves deeply into standing requirements, i.e. the right to sue.
Lawyers hoping to win a case, rather than using the federal judiciary to get out their PR messaging, must focus on legal issues like this.
Donovan: "The plaintiffs don't actually alleged vote denial."
If the plaintiffs wanted to allege that, they would have sued Fayette and Lancaster County.
They didn't, he notes.
Context:
Fayette: Trump +34
Lancaster:Trump +16
Donovan, referring to the plaintiff's case: "It's just speculation."
Before turning to equal protection claims, Donovan has one final word on his argument that plaintiffs' haven't proven a right to sue.
"On standing, I think that's the place to stop."
The public line has turned to pure static.
Standby.
Still just white noise on the line of the day's most high-profile hearing.
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al. v. Boockvar, et al. 4:20-cv-2078
Shortly before today's hearing, the @AP was denied physical entry into the courtroom because of COVID-19. So tech issues could effectively amount to a courtroom closure.
Still mostly white noise but some barely audible words in the distant background.
Progress?
Restored!
Judge:
"We had the telephone lines go down for reasons that I don't understand."
"My apologies, Mr. Donovan."
He invites the Secretary of the Commonwealth's counsel to pick up his arguments where he left off.
Donovan calls the plaintiffs' equal protection arguments a "mystery."
They do not allege that other counties' efforts to expand voting-access made it harder for them to vote in their counties, he notes.
Mark A. Aronchick, counsel for the Allegheny County Board of Elections, is now up—on a static-filled line.
He calls Rudy Giuliani "really inventive."
Aronchick says the pictures that Giuliani is "waving around" today are "irrelevant" because of the Supreme Court's opinion, which he says he does not believe Giuliani read.
Aronchick:
"Mr. Giuliani is talking about another case. Not the case before your honor."
Aronchick says there Giuliani is turning the equal protection clause "upside down," arguing that making ballot-access easier violates their rights.
If some counties do a poorer job of ballot-access, Aronchick says: "We don't race to the bottom now."
Aronchick: "I believe we have an actual complaint in front of us."
Not the freewheeling riff that Giuliani gave.
"This is just disgraceful," Aronchick says of Giuliani's riff.
Aronchick calls Giuliani's rant unbecoming of a U.S. federal courtroom.
Aronchick on the Trump campaign's complaint:
"There are no specifics. There are no numbers in here."
Aronchick on the request to cancel millions of vote:
"It is disgraceful that you're being asked to do that."
Nkwonta says what the plaintiffs take issue with is not the counting of the ballots but the voters' choices.
Judge Brann gets to his questions:
"You're asking this court to invalidate 6.8 million votes... Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified?"
Giuliani's line was barely audible in his initial answer.
Eventually, he audibly calls the alleged conduct "egregious."
"We're not asking for the entire vote to be canceled," he says, before seemingly asking yet again for just that.
Giuliani claims that the scope of the requested remedy is because of the scope of the alleged violation.
Giuliani:
"Those two men lost their right to vote," referring to his individual clients, who are residents of Fayette and Lancaster, whom he did not sue.
Giuliani says his clients' counties did nothing wrong.
Another federal judge rejected the notion that the other counties did anything wrong, either. lawandcrime.com/2020-election/…
Giuliani refers to "the man who was really angry with me," apparently referring to the counties' attorney, Mr. Aronchick.
Mr. Donovan for Penn. Sec of Commonwealth:
"I think Mr. Giuliani can be more aggrieved because he deleted his due-process claim."
"I know that Mr. Giuliani wants to talk about his canvass which is not in his complaint."
Judge Brann:
In the amended complaint, you repeatedly cite the dangers from voter fraud.
But neither count of your complaint seeks relief for voter fraud.
"So it's correct to say you're not alleging fraud in your amended complaint."
Giuliani says no, he is alleging that.
Judge Brann asks why he should consider claims that were deleted and taken out of the action.
"That's what I'm bound to. The complaint's been amended. Do we agree?"
Giuliani says certainly, with a chuckle.
Judge Brann turns to the "new theory" of standing.
"In the amended complaint, you said your clients tried to vote in Lancaster and Fayette County."
"So why didn't you just sue the counties that are responsible for your clients' injuries?"
Linda Ann Kerns answers that one, claiming that equal protection issues transcend state law.
(The argument is that other counties' efforts to expand ballot access harm those that don't, a notion another attorney described as a race to the bottom.)
Judge Brann:
"Why is Secretary Boockvar here?"
He notes that her actions have nothing to do with their clients' votes, but they sued her.
Q: What is the injury?
Kerns, Trump camp atty: Of the voters or the campaign?
Q: The campaign.
Kerns alleges that if everyone had a chance to cure defective ballots, the results could have been "very, very different."
Biden has a 70K+ lead, and the Trump campaign is saying that could have caught up if only mail-in voters—with whom Biden performed well—had been allowed to cure defective ballots.
That's the claim.
Judge Brann asks whether the Trump campaign is raising any other theories of standing.
Giuliani recites his previously-cited theory of standing.
Judge Brann:
What standard of review should I apply in this case and why?
Giuliani says the "normal one."
Are you arguing that strict scrutiny should apply?
Giuliani says normal scrutiny should apply.
Brann:
How does making it easy for some people to vote burden the plaintiffs' right to vote?
Judge Brann tells the plaintiffs that they need a new motion for an injunction since they have a such a different amended complaint.
"You should write this down. That's what lawyers do. They write things down."
Brann notes that plaintiffs want to file a second amended complaint.
They would have to file a motion requesting the right to file that, the judge notes.
Judge Brann was just about to say he was going to take the matter under advisement.
Then the counties' attorney Mark A. Aronchick asked whether the judge has a problem with the parties answering press inquiries.
No, the judge replies. They can.
Thank you, your honor.
Deleted and replaced the above tweet to correct a typo.
A Georgia judge has VOIDED several rules passed by the GOP-dominated State Election Board.
The Georgia GOP reportedly plans to appeal, per @Bluestein.
I'll break down the now-stricken rules in a thread below, summarizing the ruling linked here. 🔗 assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2…
1) 183-1-12-.02(c.2):
This rule would have allowed county board members to conduct a "reasonable inquiry" of election results, an undefined power they previously never had and was the purview of the courts.
Jack Smith just filed a superseding indictment against Trump.
Prosecutors say the new indictment "reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States."
A superseding indictment replaces an existing indictment.
There are no new charges in today's indictment against Trump here, only the same four leveled against him in connection with the 2020 election, tailored to pass the Supreme Court's new test.
Today's news does, however, mean that another grand jury that did not see the evidence earlier put their stamp on the same charges.
On a quick glance, the latest indictment is shorter, and nixes DOJ-related claims that wouldn't have survived the immunity ruling.
Trump's lawyers filed a motion to vacate his 34 felony convictions and dismiss his New York indictment.
In the wake of SCOTUS's immunity ruling, they argue that certain testimony and evidence shouldn't have been introduced at trial, like the categories shown here.
DA Bragg's deadline to respond to Trump's arguments is July 24.
A few thoughts on this:
Trump's lawyers are not just challenging his convictions, based on the alleged use of "official-acts evidence."
Since prosecutors brought some of this evidence to the grand jury, they want his indictment thrown out too.
Trump's lawyers agree that he isn't immune from prosecution in his N.Y. case, but they argued before trial that prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to use evidence tied to his official acts.