Thread by @dfriedman33

3,999 participants on line for Trump for President v. Boockvar, featuring Giuliani. So maybe one more slot open?

Giuliani: "The best description of what we’re alleging … is that it's a widespread nationwide voter fraud of which this is a part...That’s why I’m here. It’s not an isolated case, it’s a case that is repeated in other jurisdictions." He says mail in balloting allows voter fraud.

Giuliani has now called Rahm Emanuel and Jimmy Carter "prophets."

Rudy says that mail in voting creates "a wonderful opportunity to hold back votes, even to produce votes, after an election, to make up a deficit." We'll find out if he has evidence this occurred. Seems unlikely. Instead he's argue Dem officials didn't do enough to prevent fraud.

Couple unneeded biographical asides from Rudy already in these opening statement the judge said he didn't need. Rudy reminded everyone he has run for various offices. "I've been in these contests myself. They are kind of like wrestling matches."

Rudy, while making an equal protection argument regarding ability of voters to have issues with ballots cured. "I don’t understand what the standing argument is."

Giuliani: "We have already begun four lawsuits. We've got three others asserting almost the same thing."

Rudy said that the election was stolen from Trump in Pennsylvania and other states, but the crux of his argument is more modest: That Republican observers weren't close enough in Philadelphia to inspect ballots. "This doesn't happen in an honest place."

Rudy: "Twelve days in Philadelphia, we didn't see a single ballot. Claims observers, including women, were "assaulted" in Philly for trying to get close enough to see ballots.

"In many cases, even Democrats weren't allowed to see it."

"If this is allowed without serious sanctions, meaning the canceling of these ballots, this is gonna become an epidemic," Rudy says. "You give them an inch, they're gonna take a mile...They stole an election, at least in this Commonwealth."

Giuliani says the Trump campaign has "300 affidavits, declarations that have been written down, and or own statements" that will go through affidavit process.

Is Rudy earning his daily $20K so far?nytimes.com/2020/11/17/us/…

Giuliani introduces a photograph of what he says is an observer using binoculars to try to see ballots.

Daniel Donovan, of Kirkland and Ellis for Pa., is making an actual legal argument, He starts by noting most of what Giuliani talked about "is not in the complaint" plaintiffs filed.

Donovan notes most of what plaintiffs are complaining about are ballots that were counted and which they say "should not have been counted."

Donovan starts by arguing the plaintiffs lack standing to assert an equal protection claim.

Donovan says to have standing you have to show "an injury that does specific harm to you." But the Trump campaign is claiming only that "certain particular ballots that were counted may dilute other ballots." Says that's not a "concrete and particularized complaint."

According to Donovan, federal precedent for standing means the injury the Trump plaintiffs cite doesn't cut it. "No single voter is specifically disadvantaged."

Donovan says that the complaint doesn't cite sufficient injuries to change the outcome of the election. "That's not in the complaint judge. There are not such allegations." So, Trump too lacks standing.

Notably, Giuliani didn't make any real attempt to address these arguments. He just asserted he thought it was obvious Trump had standing because "he had an election stolen from him."

Trump for President v. Boockvar, is back, just about, after an hour plus delay. Court not inspiring complete confidence in their tech as they ask an AT&T person live on call if they are okay to restart the hearing. But whatever works. Democracy is messy.

But good for Judge Matthew Brann, who delayed the hearing while the call in line was down so that the public could continue listening in.

Donovan is continuing his argument that the two main plaintiffs don't have standing, or an equal protection clause claim in federal court.

Donovan concludes by saying Pennsylvania's Secretary of State disagrees with Giuliani's unsupported claims of widespread election fraud, "but that's not the issue here." Most of what Giuliani talked about isn't in the complaint or relevant to the issues before the court.

Mark Aronchick, counsel for the Allegheny County Board of Elections, is really tearing into Giuliani. Aronchick says 90% of what Giuliani argued irrelevant to the case before the court.

"Mr. Giuliani is talking about another case, not the case before your honor," Aronchick says.

Enjoying how personal this guy Aronchick's criticism is, wise or not.

https://twitter.com/PaulaReedWard/status/1328808589671231488?s=20

Aronchick: "This is just disgraceful of an American courtroom of any sort."

It's hard to hear Aronchick is saying, but the gist is that Giuliani is making broad allegations about voter fraud unrelated to the case at hand, while ignoring the legal issues at hand, including the prior rulings on standing of the very judge he's in front of.

Aronchick: "Jill Stein is Trump today, the Trump campaign today."

Some people may feel Aronchick's arguments are overly personal or emotional, but for a lot of people this articulation of outrage over baseless legal arguments aimed at disenfranchising Pennsylvanians offers a needed dose of moral clarity.

https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/1328814101183799303?s=20

Aronchick is citing claims Giuliani in his opening statement made that aren't in the complaint he's supposed to be arguing. "Pervasive fraud. Not here."

"Dismiss this case," Aronchick concludes. "Dismiss this case, please, so we can do the real business of this country. "

This Philly lawyer and Penn law lecturer just tore into Rudy Giuliani's shitty legal arguments and anti-democratic conspiracy theorizing. hangley.com/team-member/ma…

DNC lawyer notes that the two plaintiffs in the case claim "vote denial" not "vote dilution." He says that alleged injury "is not traceable to any injury in this case." They should have sued their local counties over that problem, he says.

Brann's first q to Rudy bodes badly for Trump: “You are alleging that two people were denied their right to vote" and "asking this court to invalidate 6.8 million votes...disenfranchising every voter in the Commonwealth. Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified?”

The start of Giuliani's response was not audible, but he says that the conduct he's alleging is so egregious that it requires a "draconian" response.

Giuliani also responds to Aronchick's mockery of him: "I was accused of not reading your opinion and not understanding it," he tells the judge. "I have read you opinion and I do understand it."

Giuliani keeps saying Democrats had "a deliberate plan to do this" and saying they engaged in widespread voter fraud. He has offered no evidence at all for this, but seems to believe repetition is a substitute for that deficiency.

Pushing back on Aronchick again, Rudy refers to him as "The man who was very angry at me. I forgot his name."

Giuliani said he had a due process claim. Donovan points out that's not in his complaint. "He deleted his due process claim."

Brann now questioning Rudy about his pushing claims his complaint doesn't make. "You've repeatedly spoken about your right to have poll watchers... The polls watching claims were delated. They are no longer before the court."

Giuliani, questioned by Judge Brann, says the complaint does allege election fraud. But then Brann asks if it cites particularized fraud claims, ie injuries the court can consider. Giuliani: "No your honor."

So much for that.

Judge asks why plaintiffs are suing Boockvar, Pa.'s Sec. of State, rather than the counties in which the plaintiffs voted, asking how she is responsible for the counties' administration of voting laws. "Isn't the remedy ultimately the court of common plea" in those counties?

Judge Brann asks "what is the injury" to the Trump campaign? Kearns says that "because of the unequal treatment of voters across the Commonwealth, certain votes were counted and certain votes weren't."

The Judge ask if the plaintiff's can cite any ruling from the district they're in, the Middle District of Pennsylvania, that gives them standing.

Giuliani is just repeating the same arguments about how he thinks the law should work, in response to different questions from the judge. He's not making specific arguments. He's the president's lawyer, but he sounds like a dude at a bar with some thoughts to share.

Just amazing arrogance from Giuliani to think he should go in a courtroom and argue a case he clearly doesn't know a lot about.

Aronchick returns, and after saying he doesn't have a personal problem with Giuliani, says he doesn't think Rudy has read the Pa. election code, because it explicitly says it's fine to vote provisionally if you spoil your ballot, a step Aronchick says Rudy called illegal.

Judge says plaintiffs can file a brief in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. Giuliani is confused, and seems to think judge suggested they amend their initial complaint, suggests that means responding to arguments today. No, judge says, it's a response to their motion.

Brann lectures Donovan for what the judge calls a "harassing" call a Kirkland & Ellis associate made to one of the plaintiffs' lawyers. He says the associate caused a problem that "wasted" the time of a busy federal judge, adding: "It's not sanctionable but it's objectionable."

Judge Brann: "This is off the record... but if you're staying over in Williamsport...eat at one of the restaurants here. There are some great restaurants here." Explains its because there's a culinary school in the town. Is now recommending specific places.