Karofsky: "A lot of voters in the state of Wisconsin use this form."
She says that she's looking at it right now, and it's a very detailed form.
She asks him whether voters filling out a form that says application on it are somehow committing fraud.
She says that she's looking at it right now, and it's a very detailed form.
She asks him whether voters filling out a form that says application on it are somehow committing fraud.
Karofsky: How would they not be complying with the statute?
Troupis doesn't have a ready answer to that question, pauses, and hazards an answer before the judge interrupts to point out it says "application" on it.
She spells out the word for him.
Troupis doesn't have a ready answer to that question, pauses, and hazards an answer before the judge interrupts to point out it says "application" on it.
She spells out the word for him.
Correction: Troupis is referring to "WEC" forms, short for Wisconsin Election Commissions.
The accent made it sound as if he was characterizing them as "wack" forms.
The accent made it sound as if he was characterizing them as "wack" forms.
As a point of fact, Troupis is arguing that the WEC forms are, in a sense, wack.
We continue.
We continue.
Dallet notes that Trump is asking to challenge the votes only in "the two most non-white urban counties."
"You're not asking us to throw out votes in any other counties that use that form," she notes.
"You're not asking us to throw out votes in any other counties that use that form," she notes.
Dallet: "He chose not to challenge the votes in the other counties."
"The president is the one that made that choice originally, correct?"
"The president is the one that made that choice originally, correct?"
Karofsky: How much money has Trump raised based on the recount in these counties in this state?
Troupis cites Facebook posts for evidence.
Dallet: Based on Facebook posts?
"We'll keep that in mind as a way to use evidence in the future," she adds with withering criticism.
Dallet: Based on Facebook posts?
"We'll keep that in mind as a way to use evidence in the future," she adds with withering criticism.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley notes that Troupis's theory of the case would make his vote illegal:
"It sounds odd that you are standing before us trying to disenfranchise your vote... and asserting your own vote is illegal."
Troupis:
"In fact, it is."
"It sounds odd that you are standing before us trying to disenfranchise your vote... and asserting your own vote is illegal."
Troupis:
"In fact, it is."
Hagedorn: This is an "odd" suit and an "odd" procedure.
This is how he characterized a different pro-Trump suit recently.
This is how he characterized a different pro-Trump suit recently.
After blistering questioning from most of the panel, Toupis is lobbed a softball by Justice Ziegler—a regular dissenter.
Karofsky: Did people vote at Democracy in the Park or did they not?
Troupis: They did.
Karofsky asks him to point to a name.
"Point me to a Facebook page at this point."
Troupis can't, blames it on Madison authorities.
Troupis: They did.
Karofsky asks him to point to a name.
"Point me to a Facebook page at this point."
Troupis can't, blames it on Madison authorities.
Wisconsin AAG Colin Roth is up:
He's having a much easier time.
He's having a much easier time.
I had to pivot away from the Wisconsin Supreme Court hearing to turn to this new ruling incinerating Trump's federal lawsuit in the same state.
lawandcrime.com/2020-election/…
lawandcrime.com/2020-election/…
That said, I have been listening to the proceedings, and it's more of the same split we've been seeing in Wisconsin's high court.
The same justices who have thrown out other post-election suits grilling Trump's lawyer.
The dissenters in prior cases questioning the state.
The same justices who have thrown out other post-election suits grilling Trump's lawyer.
The dissenters in prior cases questioning the state.
What's most significant about this hearing so far:
It's the first time I have heard any judge—let alone two—call out Trump's post-election litigation strategy as racist.
Two have called out the attempted disenfranchisement of Milwaukee and Dane Counties as racially motivated.
It's the first time I have heard any judge—let alone two—call out Trump's post-election litigation strategy as racist.
Two have called out the attempted disenfranchisement of Milwaukee and Dane Counties as racially motivated.
This also has been the case in Georgia, where the focus has been on Fulton County; Michigan, where Wayne County was targeted; and Pennsylvania, where Philadelphia County was in the crosshairs.
Two Wisconsin judges finally call it out.
Two Wisconsin judges finally call it out.
Biden's attorney John Devaney: "To change the rules after the election... is fundamentally unfair."
Trump didn't complain about these rules at all until he lost, even rules that were in effect when he was elected.
Trump didn't complain about these rules at all until he lost, even rules that were in effect when he was elected.
Devaney notes that Trump chose to bring the suit in two out of 72 counties.
"That's a plain violation of equal protection," he adds, referring to Trump's tactic.
"That's a plain violation of equal protection," he adds, referring to Trump's tactic.
Justice Dallet asks whether he sued to prevent Democracy in the Park, an event he complains about now.
No.
Dallet: He just chooses to challenge it now when he lost the election.
Troupis: I don't think it was a conscious choice.
No.
Dallet: He just chooses to challenge it now when he lost the election.
Troupis: I don't think it was a conscious choice.
Karofsky:
"Now he wants to go back to complain about things that he could have complained about before the election... Now, after the election, he wants to disenfranchise" hundreds of thousands of voters.
"Now he wants to go back to complain about things that he could have complained about before the election... Now, after the election, he wants to disenfranchise" hundreds of thousands of voters.
Justice Karofsky:
Do you have allegations of fraud to bring forward before this court?
Troupis:
This whole case is about fraud.
Karofsky:
What fraud transpired?
Troupis responds with vague, philosophical nonsense. No detailed allegation.
Do you have allegations of fraud to bring forward before this court?
Troupis:
This whole case is about fraud.
Karofsky:
What fraud transpired?
Troupis responds with vague, philosophical nonsense. No detailed allegation.
Troupis says he couldn't have "speculated" about Democracy in the Park before the election.
Dallet:
Attorney Troupis, are you aware that there was a lawsuit brought about Democracy in the Park?
Dallet:
Attorney Troupis, are you aware that there was a lawsuit brought about Democracy in the Park?
Karofsky lays into Troupis for accusing election workers of fraud, without emphasis.
"In this country, we accept the will of the voters, and they spoke."
"What is America? ... It is self-govt. It is not dictates from a king."
"That is so un-American!" she says of his suit.
"In this country, we accept the will of the voters, and they spoke."
"What is America? ... It is self-govt. It is not dictates from a king."
"That is so un-American!" she says of his suit.
Adjourned without a ruling.
But if you have seen the Wisconsin Supreme Court other post-election rulings, and the oral arguments today, what will happen isn't much of a mystery.
But if you have seen the Wisconsin Supreme Court other post-election rulings, and the oral arguments today, what will happen isn't much of a mystery.
* without “evidence,” not “emphasis.”
Indeed, she said it emphatically.
Indeed, she said it emphatically.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
