As I suggested it might be, this is a cold, clinical dismantling of the Trump campaign's claims and absurd legal strategy. Haven't yet finished the whole opinion, but it's a biting read.
An #AppellateTwitter side-note, Judge Bibas is a magnificent writer. Just wonderful. He uses all of those gifts here - so clear, so crisp.
Rudy's totally terrible oral argument has consequences
Indeed!
Rudy's litigation strategy - of only appealing the denial of leave to amend - comes a cropper (as all the lawyers following the case said)
Bibas's use of section headings to just flatly say the thing is very effective.
When you say it like that, not alleging anything and conceding all possible points *do* seem to be obstacles to winning this case 😂
Judge Bibas also mentions the Trump campaigns ceaseless delays, which alone would be enough for them to lose (in my view, I don't know what the Court thinks)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My mom and I are splitting the T-day cooking duties. I claimed the Turkey, the pie, and the rolls. Roll time!
The base for my Turkey stock is working now.
Some advice for you less experienced cooks from one 6 weeks in culinary school years ago. Work clean! Clean your board after each ingredient. It saves so much heartache later.
I’m a pretty indifferent baker - I’m a cook - but I can be roused to a couple of pies.
It’s just a regular pie crust but with the slightly whole wheat flour I ordered from a mill at the beginning of the pandemic.
I was listening to a podcast tonight, and the guest said, in explaining that he thought Rudy’s out of court statements were worse than what he said in court, that it’s ok if a lawyer makes outlandish arguments in court because those are subject to dispute and testing 1/
I think that’s a common thought - that a lawyer representing a client should say whatever to help their client, and if they’re lying the other lawyers will catch them.
No. Yes, you can make arguments that are not 100% winners. One lawyer word we use for that is colorable.
But you can’t go in there and make up lies. You have an independent obligation as a lawyer not to lie to the Court, even if the lie helps your client. What Rudy and co. were doing was not zealous advocacy. It was deeply offensive to the way law is supposed to work.
The first argument is the mootness problem we've all been discussing. The DNC makes neat work of Trump's claim that the case isn't moot because you can just "decertify" - not a thing, the DNC says.
Similarly, the DNC says, if you want an order saying the legislature can choose the electors, no one who could possibly do that is a defendant in this suit.
I can confirm, this is normally a big problem for a lawsuit.
So this is a signature Raffi-Stapled-to-his-Pompous-White-Horse moment, but the more I do this work, the less likely I am to actually voice the unkind thing about my opponent that I'm thinking in an email or in person, even in private.
A couple of things. Yes, sometimes OC really is a chickensh$#. That's even true if they are a really good lawyer who you are cordial with and get along with. I am sometimes to. It's a given.
Nonetheless, I think you should try to limit this stuff. And it's not just 2/
because sometimes what you said slips out in a reply-all or maybe the person you said it to repeats it to someone else.
I'm having trouble explaining it exactly, but I feel better about my practice when I'm not mad in that way at OC. Yeah, they're representing their client