Read on Twitter
shoutout to everyone else who has been jamming out to this hold music for half an hour so as to make sure we make it on the ‘Rudy Giuliani attempts to lawyer’ call before the 4,000 person limit is reached
We begin! “There are three ... thousand ... nine ... hundred ... ninety nine participants on the call.”
Of course, Rudy immediately wants to take his mask off
“The best description of this situation is that it's a widespread nationwide voter fraud,” argues Rudy Giuliani. “Mail-in balloting is the largest source of voter fraud and I don't think there's any dispute about that.”
(I have yet to hear any actual legal argument.)
(I have yet to hear any actual legal argument.)
Rudy keeps talking about “allegations” about mail-in balloting and how mail-in ballots are “widely criticized” but instead of offering specific evidence, he talks about “democrat machines controlled by democrats” and says “You'd have to be a fool to think this is an accident.”
This is one of the most ineffective arguments by counsel I've ever heard. Rudy is all over the place. He just told the court he can enter into the record all the political corruption convictions in Philadelphia over the last 20-30 years to show ... I'm not clear precisely what.
Rudy concludes by proclaiming “I went to law school” and then attempts to introduce photographs into evidence (promising to tell the court later if he's wrong about where they were taken) and remarks that he hopes he's doing it right in case he needs a job after this.
The defense is explaining the elements of Rudy's argument (to attack it) way more clearly than Rudy did. Defense counsel says plaintiffs lack standing, their injuries are speculative and aren't particularized. Judge was about to start asking questions, then the call dropped.
I've been sitting on the backup number for almost an hour now, and someone just loudly said "HEY GUYS, there's 480 people on the call" and then it went to silence again. Welp.
I feel like you're having a bad day when a judge asks: you're asking this court to invalidate 6.8 million votes. Can you tell me how this result could possibly be justified?
Various Rudy Giuliani quotes:
“I'm not sure I know what ‘opacity’ means.”
“Those ballots could've been from Mickey Mouse, we have no idea.”
“Mr.—the man who was very angry at me, I forgot his name—...”
“I'm not sure I know what ‘opacity’ means.”
“Those ballots could've been from Mickey Mouse, we have no idea.”
“Mr.—the man who was very angry at me, I forgot his name—...”
Judge asks Rudy if the complaint pleads fraud. He says it does. Then suggests it doesn't. Then says it should be 'interpreted' as charging fraud. Then he says it doesn't plead fraud with particularity. Then he says it doesn't plead fraud. Then he says it pleads a 'plan or scheme'
“Maybe I don't understand what you mean by strict scrutiny” is not a phase your attorney should say (a) ever, and (b) especially before a federal judge
Judge: What standard of review should I apply and why?
Rudy: The normal one. [incomprehensible rambling]
...
Judge: Are you arguing the strict scrutiny standard should apply?
Rudy: No, normal scrutiny. This isn't a fraud case.
Rudy: The normal one. [incomprehensible rambling]
...
Judge: Are you arguing the strict scrutiny standard should apply?
Rudy: No, normal scrutiny. This isn't a fraud case.
Judge Brann is great. The perfect combination of friendly, forgiving, serious, and direct. He scolded someone for leaving a rude voicemail for one of the Trump lawyers and said “I don't know what's going on in this country.” Now he's giving the lawyers restaurant recommendations.
