Thread by @ZoeTillman

Overnight action: A federal judge in Wisconsin dismissed Sidney Powell's election challenge.

"Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country. One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so."
scribd.com/document/48764…

Ruling came a few hours after a federal judge in Arizona reached the same conclusion (which was the same conclusion that every judge to consider Powell's cases has reached to date) -->

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1336825014876844032

A hearing is about to start in the Trump campaign's election challenge in federal court in Wisconsin (this is separate from Sidney Powell's WI case, which was dismissed last night). The court has made an audio stream available here: youtube.com/channel/UCNFX-…

The hearing in the Trump campaign's WI election challenge is underway before Judge Brett Ludwig. It's an evientiary hearing, and they're starting with a discussion of whether there are stipulated facts that both sides can agree on that would mean no witness is needed

Ludwig taking a short break to give the parties more time to agree on stipulated facts. He made v. clear he wants the attys to try to resolve this — Trump counsel complained they couldn't access a redline version of a doc to see changes, and the judge cut him off: "I don't care"

Sidney Powell is appealing yesterday's order dismissing her Arizona election challenge (note the notice from the court that Powell didn't comply with court filing rules — judges have repeatedly dinged her for these types of issues, along with ruling against her on substance)

Annd Powell is also appealing the loss last night in Wisconsin

(We're still waiting for the hearing to resume in Trump's Wisconsin case in federal court - live stream is here when that starts up again: )

The hearing in Trump's Wisconsin case is back on - the parties have reached an agreement on stipulated facts which means no witness testimony is needed

The judge is now having both sides present legal arguments, since the facts at issue are agreed on - he says he wants to "limit the political theater" however

The judge acknowledged it's a political case, and that if he granted the relief requested by Trump's campaign in undoing Biden's win in WI, it would be "probably the most remarkable ruling in the history of this court, or the federal judiciary - that's not lost on me, I get that"

Trump campaign lawyer William Bock is arguing. This case is not about the fraud conspiracy theories Trump and his supporters have pushed elsewhere — it's alleging state election officials expanded mail-in voting in ways that violated state law (i.e. using drop boxes for ballots)

(Deleted prev. tweet that misspelled Bock's name)

The Trump campaign's federal case in Wisconsin does allude to the specter of voter fraud quite a lot, however — it argues broadly that expanding mail-in voting increases the risk of fraud, so the legislature was right to pass laws restricting it

Update on the Trump campaign WI hearing: The campaign finished its presentation, the judge is taking a break and then the defense will present, back at 2:30pm CT/3:30pm CT

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania has responded to Texas's SCOTUS election challenge:
supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2…

"The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees."