Apparently 3999 people called in to the hearing in the Trump campaign PA case. (the line max was 4,000).

Rudy confirms that only 2 remaining counts in Trump lawsuit are the alleged violations of equal protection of 14th amendment and elections/electors clause

Rudy says theyre going to file another amended complaint to restore a due process claim that he says was removed mistakenly

Rudy: "The best description of what we’re alleging...is it’s a widespread nationwide voter fraud."

Giuliani citing Carter report "warning against" mail voting. Report was released before several verification methods were put in place and Carter has since Trump's allies shouldn't cite it to argue against vote by mail.

Rudy equates their lawsuit to a claim about Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley stealing a 1960 race

More Giuliani insinuation about "big cities" doing "corrupt" things.

Giuliani claims that "inspections, watchers, observers" were not allowed to observe the counting of absentee ballots. Another lawyer for the campaign has said in another case that they did have poll watchers present.

Giuliani is just rattling off random claims with no specificity. Complains about "cages" that were being set up for poll watchers. Says there must have been a contract for all these jurisdiction to get all the stanchions.

ok now we're getting into what the case is supposedly about: some counties letting voters cure ballots with deficiencies and others not.

RG says that Dem-leaning counties using a different set of policies for letting curing than other counties is a " classic violation of equal protection."

"That is exactly Bush v Gore.”

Claims voters were discriminated against depending on where they lived.

RG says one of the reasons they've had to amend the complaint is "as compared to last week, we have twice as much evidence."

OK we have drifted back into the poll watcher allegations. RG complaining about observers being kept in "barricades" so "far away they cant see a darn thing" and they have to use a binocular

"And this isn't fraud?"

"it's an outrage to do this people." RG complaining about poll watchers supposedly being ejected. He says that several people were "assaulted," pushed around, "including women."

RG claims that 1.5 million votes are illegal b/c only election officials had a view for how they were being processed.

maybe it's hard to capture it in twitter thread but it's absolutely bizarre to hear someone just treat a court hearing like a Fox News hit.

RG says that if the ballots aren't cancelled this will become an "epidemic" because if you give people an inch they'll take a mile.

RG says they have "hundreds" of affidavits, and the question is how they will present the evidence the court without "overburdening" it.

OK RG winding down by queueing up some exhibits:
Ex. A is a photo of a woman "20-30 feet" away from where the counting was happening in Philly

I missed Ex. B, but Ex. C is a photo of a poll watcher using binoculars in Pittsburgh?

I'll note that this is a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss, so this evidence doesn't come into play until we get passed that stage.

Judge Brann says he wanted Linda Kerns here today b/c he has some questions for her (Kerns was involved in the case before throughout the various legal team shakeups)

Daniel Donovan, who's repping the PA SoS, is up now..

In contrast to Giuliani's free-wheeling rant, defendants' presentation is organized into four parts that he's laying out at the top. We're starting with the first focus, on plaintiffs' supposed lack of standing.

Donovan noting that the individual voters who have joined Trump camp has plaintiffs are not even suing their home counties for supposedly rejecting their votes.

Line is back, and it sounds like we'll be getting restarted once everyone has been reconnected.

Before tossing the final part of the defendants' arguments to another lawyer, Donovan emphasizes that, despite Giuliani's focus, on the poll watcher access issues, those claims had been removed in the second complaint.

"They deleted things Mr. Giuliani talked about.”

Mark Aronchick, who is representing Allegheny county, kicks off his section by noting the PA Supreme Court decision that just come down today finding no state law violations of poll watcher access in Philly.

"That's over. That cannot be hijacked into an equal protection case"

Donovan addressed Giuliani a few times but was pretty dry. Aronchick going after Giuliani more aggressively.: "I don't think Giuliani has even read Judge Ranjan's opinion."

(Judge Ranjan presided over another PA election lawsuit)

Aronchick: "Mr. Giuliani is talking about another case ...some fantasy world."

Aronchick says they can't find any case — pandemic or not — where there was equal protection violation b/c election officials made voting easier. He says campaign has turned the EP clause "upside down."

Aronchick's line is pretty fuzzy — particularly as he rails against Giuliani — but I just caught this: "This is just disgraceful.”

Aronchick says that Giuliani's insinuations about a "cabal" of Democratic election officials is "ridiculous."

Aronchick: "Can you imagine anyone understanding a court order cancelling [~1 million votes]...based on nothing?"

"It is disgraceful that you would be asked to do that.”

judge is now asking the campaign some questions but I can't really here giuliani's (?) response

Ok I can hear Giuliani now. Judge has asked how throwing out thousands votes is an appropriate remedy. Missed the beginning of Giuliani's response but he's bringing up the fact that the counties purchased the barriers that were used to pen poll watchers ahead of time.

Kerns has interjected to get things on track. She says that their equal protection claims focused on the county by county policies on curing are "well established and strong" and should survive a motion to dismiss. She acknowledges that parts of this day have gone off that point.

She also says that's the defendants who are "flailing" and "grasping at excuses"

Judge: "its correct to say you're not alleging voter fraud" in the amended complaint?

Giuliani says that's incorrect and they are alleging fraud.

Judge now asking why he should be considering the poll watching issues since those sections were deleted from the amended complaint

Judge: Why didn't you sue the counties that caused your clients’ injuries?
(he's referring to the GOP counties that weren't as proactive in helping voters cure ballots).

Kerns coming back to the equal protection argument about votes in Philly being treated differently (i.e. voters are given more assistance) than they are elsewhere. She complains that her plaintiffs weren't told pre-election about the issues with their mail ballots.

Judge: Why is Sec. Boockvar here? Can you explain how the secretary's actions led to the counties not helping the individual plaintiffs with ballot curing?

Judge: isn't the remedy ultimately the court of common pleas (in the counties where the voters live)?

Kerns: we're here because all citizens were treated unequally.

Judge : what is the injury of the campaign?
Kerns: because of the unequal treatment of voters across the commonwealth... certain votes were counted and certain votes weren't.

Kerns: If everyone had a chance to cure...it's very likely that the results would be very very different. And if no county had given the opportunity to cure the results would be very very different.

Giuliani tries to blame the Secretary of State for giving "inconsistent" advice, but judge asks if he means "selective advice," and Giuliani corrects himself, to "selective and adds it was "ambiguous" advice

Judge: What standard of review should i apply?

Giuliani: “I think the normal one”

Judge: Strict scrutiny?

Giuliani: “No, the normal scrutiny”

Giuliani: “Maybe I don't understand what you mean by strict scrutiny”

Judge asks question about applying a rational basis standard.

Giuliani: "How is it rational for one state to have two different standards" for curing ballots

Judge has wrapped up his question is now laying out a schedule for additional briefing. He tells the plaintiffs that they should consider filing a new preliminary injunction motion and gives them a 5 pm tomorrow deadline to do so.

Judge now addressing the voice mail Kerns (Trump camp lawyer) received from someone (not involved in this case) who works at the firm repping the Pa SoS. Judge said it was "bad form" but not a sanctionable matter.

Judge tells Donovan (the firm lawyer who is involved in the case) that he should have a chat with the voice mail leaver, if he hasn't already, and convey the judge's "disdain" for it. Judge says that it was not "a threatening call" but broadly could be described as harassing.

Judge — having said his piece — is ready to move on, but Kerns wants to keep harping about the voice mail, and specifically the firm's handling of it when she raised it to the lawyers involved in the case.

Kerns says that Donovan nor the firm nor the voice mail leaver has apologized to him.

OK judge now just giving the lawyers restaurant recommendations if they're spending the night town.

"There are better than usual" restaurants b/c there's a culinary school in Williamsport. (Fun fact! Noted!)