And now back into why the equal protection claims must fail. What plaintiffs have identified are not uneven risks, but merely different types of voting procedures across the counties.

This is from Judge Ranjan (I think from the Western District of PA)

If I were to paint this argument with a broad brush, there is no equal protection argument if the allegation is that there are differences between counties. The federal courts cannot micromanage a state's election procedures.

The two main claims fail because 1. no standing and 2. no equal protection claim. People got the right to vote. No one was denied the right to vote. Any ballot that was counted or affected all candidates equally so no single candidate was treated unfairly.

To say that there is no equal protection claim doesn't mean there can't be challenges. There can be challenges, just not these.

Next lawyer is up. But they are still on mute. I love when people ask if they are unmuted because if you are how would we hear you asking?

Lawyers and public speakers in general, please learn to stop saying "uh" it is super distracting.

Defense counsel brings up the most recent PA Supreme court opinion. And he says Rudy will argue that the PA supreme court just committed an equal protection violation by saying each county can establish it's own election requirements.

I cannot understand anything this lawyer is saying I think his mouth is right up against the phone.

Rudy is asking to violate all mail in ballots and that is misguided and not allowable under PA law. "I don't think Mr. Giuliani read or even understands Judge Rogers opinion. He didn't address it in his argument."

This is how you express outrage. You cite the law and statutes and you them ram it down opposing counsels throat.

"The pictures and papers Mr. Giuliani is waiving around now are irrelevant because of the Supreme Court Opinion."

Defense counsel acknowledges that the judge doesn't need to follow what the PA Supreme Court says "this is the middle district of PA" but you can see that he goes through each of these pictures and papers and see how he addresses them.

Just because some counties chose not to use dropboxes and some did doesn't create an equal protection violation. The fact that they made it easier to vote in a pandemic doesn't make it an equal protection violation.

You don't remedy an equal protection violation by going to the lowest common denominator (I think he means going by the counties that didn't allow the most broad methods of voting but I can't tell the audio is terrible.)

Oh my, he's making fun of Rudy "he remembers the first year of law school with cases and controversies"

"We have an actual complaint in front of us" but instead he's talking about the 1960's the mafia, etc etc he is going all in on Rudy and says "This is disgraceful"

Of 180,000 ballots, there are 8 allegations that discuss ballots and cure. (did I hear this correctly?)

There is now an explanation by defense counsel of provisional ballots and how it works. "I feel really bad for (the two plaintiffs) that their counties didn't have the ability to cure their ballots" But that's what the election officials of that county decided.

My understanding is some counties allowed election officials to tell people they should cure their ballots and other counties didn't. Maybe the republican counties should have done that? I dunno.

Defense counsel: "They are trying to say there is some cabal or mafia in democratic counties. Ridiculous."

Defense counsel is asking how did some people know about provisional ballots, mail in ballots, curing ballots but others didn't. There are the people who listened to Donald Trump and didn't use mail in voting.

I think he's saying these guys knew they could vote provisionally or could have known to cure their ballots but chose not to and now they are showing up saying boohooo I didn't get to fix my ballot.

Defense counsel says "whatever" because he's at a complete loss.

God how many times have you wanted to say "WHATEVER" IN COURT???

I can't' understand a single thing that is being said.

I think he's talking about why mail in voting was so successful. Hint - its the pandemic stupid.

The argument is the same - each county in PA decides how to administer elections. This doesn't make it an equal protection violation simply because each county does it differently. This does seem like a bad way to do things, though.

8,000 votes are being challenged in the Commonwealth courts.

Again, I could be wrong I am having a hard time understanding what he is saying.

He's moved on to the issue of abstention - which basically means the federal court should wait until the state court has decided its cases pending before it. "They've run into this court as if you are some sort of superior appellate court."

Judge Ranjan in the Western District of PA said that the Trump campaign could and should intervene in the State cases if they felt it necessary. But they did not. "I'm urging with you, I'm pleading with you to tell them what Judge Ranjan did: I'm not getting involved."

We know they are here in federal court because they want SCOTUS to get it before it gets certified.

Giving props to Jill Stein and how they conducted themselves with their lawsuits.

I'm sorry, Jill Stein didn't file a lawsuit she wanted a recount but didn't want to pay the bond for it.

The judge asks defense counsel not to move so much. LOL. I can't see what is happening but it seems like he's moving around a lot and that's why we can't really understand him. He says he isn't moving but apparently that isn't accurate.

We lawyers never know when to stop. It is such an important thing to learn and we learn it the hard way (some never learn at all) When to put your butt back in your seat and say "Nothing further, your honor."

"There shouldn't be a hearing, there doesn't need to be a hearing." Calls the whole proceeding a circus. "Stacks of unverified affidavits" Asks for the judge to dismiss the case so "we can move on as a country." And to get the election certified.

Other defense counsel are not allowed to speak. I think they've asked for a brief recess.

other defense counsel are now allowed to speak. 10 minute recess.

Sounds like we are coming back on soon. I know you are all just here for Rudy's rebuttal.

I'm sorry I don't know counsels' names. Elizabeth Duprey I think for Center County Government -- she says she has two minutes. Basically she's saying they didn't do anything wrong as a county.

The correct way to deal with issues or errors in provisional ballots is through the provisional ballot review process. No ballots in center county were challenged.

"I'm here to make a few quick points" When a lawyer says this it is a lie. We never make quick points. But I will say that the prior attorney was actually under two minutes.

Individuals candidates or campaigns do not have standing to enforce the election code generally.

The main source of the plaintiff's authority, Bush v. Gore, says the opposite of what Plaintiff's argues. Plaintiff's argue that Bush v. Gore says that all counties have to have a uniform system for implementing their election procedures. But that's not true.

A state doesn't have to tell localities how to run their elections. PA law says elections are run by county boards and they can be run in any way that is not deemed inconsistent with PA law. There hasn't been a single case that suggests that differences in election

procedures would invalidate an entire election or that it is what is contemplated in Bush v. Gore.

The Trump campaign was asked specifically about voter fraud and whether they were alleging that fraud had occurred. And counsel for the Trump campaign said "to my knowledge, at present, no."

Ms. Kern (who is in court today but has asked to withdraw from the federal court case) herself said that she was not alleging voter fraud. Which is probably why she withdrew from the federal case since that's all that Rudy's been yelling about.

Democrats were not allowed to stand over the employees of the county board of election employees either. It's telling that the plaintiffs aren't complaining about the races where their party has the lead. These are on the same ballots as the presidential race.

"I think this shows that the plaintiffs issue isn't with the ballots, but with the voters choices." BAM. That's a good way to end.

Ohhh laches. Always a good one. Laches basically means you waited too long and now its too long and a party will be harmed by allowing you to bring this case or complaint now.

Plaintiffs want to toss out all of these votes NOW after the whole thing is said and done. No one addressed any of this before. And now they are talking about tossing out potentially millions of votes.

Could the plaintiffs have brought these issues before the election? Yes! But they didn't. Why? (we know why)

A flyer was sent out about curing provisional ballots that said "if you made a mistake on your ballot, can you fix it?" This was sent out before the election and no one complained about it then and they knew about it.

Plaintiffs did file another lawsuit in the summer attacking a number of things re: the election but not this. Laches applies.

If there are no certified elections by the end of the month there is no PA election at all - no PA state house, no PA government.

"Count the legal votes, don't count the illegal votes." No one is talking about illegal votes. Defense counsel says we are talking about ballots and cure. If the ballot is cured, the vote is legal.

Even if you accept the allegation that there was something wrong with being able to cure ballots somewhere, the voters themselves did nothing wrong. They followed the law. They should not be disenfranchised.

Talks about a 70 something year old woman and how she cured her ballot and the difficulty she went through and now the plaintiff's want her vote not to count.

Judge has questions. Asks Ms. Kerns (she is the one who has asked to withdraw) "you are alleging that the two plaintiffs were denied the right to vote, but you are asking the court to invalidate every vote in the commonwealth. Can you tell me how this result can be justified."

Someone is talking but I can't hear them. It doesn't sound like Ms. Kerns it sounds like rudy giuliani.

Rudy is saying the exact same thing he was saying before about observers not being able to watch the ballots. Rudy says the scope of the remedy equal the scope of the violation. And since they weren't able to observe they need to be thrown out.

"As far as we're concerned those ballots could be from Mickey Mouse."

Republicans were almost uniformly refused the right to observe the ballot "I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THIS IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA!"

"throw it in a bin, throw it in a bin, throw it in a bin." Says Rudy about people not looking at the envelopes. Is it true that the law says you can't cure a ballot? This seems to be false.

Rudy says "As a good lawyer" he would tell someone who came to him who asked about curing a ballot "don't do it, you can't cure a ballot" And if the person said "the secretary said I could" I'd tell him "the secretary can't change the law."

Maybe uh, Rudy, you shouldn't be advising people on PA law where you aren't admitted to practice law. I'm just saying.

I may be completely wrong but it seems to me that Rudy doesn't know what the PA law is. And that is why Ms. Kerns didn't answer the question that was put to her.

"To circle back to your original question because it seems we got off on a tangent." Ms. Kerns jumps in to save dumb dumb Rudy. She says today the arguments went off into different issues but that the equal protection violations are undeniable

"If you go through the pleadings you'll see the defendants are flailing and grasping" She is normal. Rudy starts talking again and repeats what she says. But doesn't stop. He's so dumb.

She nailed it and he is ruining it. He's now talking about his argument being a darned good due process claim "if that's the case, it gives us another claim that was just brought up today." THAT ISN'T HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS.

There are no due process claims. Also, what the complaint asks for is to deny certification of the election results even though Ms. Kerns says that all they want is a hearing.

Judge asks why they keep mentioning voter fraud but doesn't ask for any relief from voter fraud. There is no fraud alleged in the amended complaint. Ms. Kerns says there is no fraud alleged. Rudy agrees, but then says he does allege voter fraud.

Now he's agreeing that the complaint doesn't allege fraud in particularity. But it is in there. This makes no sense to me either.

Judge is asking whey the plaintiffs why they didn't sue the counties in county court (state court) why are they in federal court? Ms. Kerns says this complaint was triggered once they found out some voters were allowed to cure and some weren't.

She says it's a federal case because of the unequal treatment of voters regardless of state law. How did they not know this before the election? The two plaintiffs in their case didn't have the chance to cure their ballots.

Oh gosh here goes Rudy again. He cannot just not talk. He is a freaking mansplainer. He's literally repeating what she just said.

Men. Don't do this. Just don't.

Also, don't use terms like "unassailable" because it is clearly not unassailable since we are here all assailing and whatnot.

Judge asks why the secretary is here since no one is alleging she did anything wrong. I'm not really understanding the reasoning follow someone else to figure this out.

Ms. Kerns says "Should these plaintiffs sue their counties to say their votes didn't count?" Judge interjects "Yes, that's exactly what they should do."

Ah, because of the actions of the secretary of state voters were treated differently. But I can't figure out what she did wrong since they say she didn't do anything wrong.

Judge asks what the injury is of the campaign. Ms. Kerns says because of the unequal treatment of voters, some votes were counted and some weren't. (but how do they know the other races weren't affected as well and they aren't asking to invalidate those.)

Judge asks: Why does the campaign have standing when the individual plaintiffs can vindicate those rights on their own. Rudy says the campaign was harmed because in one part of the state they would have been allowed to vote and in another they weren't.

Judge is saying Lancaster county is traditionally GOP and Fayette is Dem. Rudy says well it is a "very very strong Trump county" The judge knows his state. And Rudy does not. Many of those counties that are traditionally democratic "voted for your man" says the judge.

The judge makes a good point - there are counties that are traditionally democratic that voted for Trump. How do they make the claim that the campaign was harmed.

The judge asks for precedent from the East Circuit of PA - of course Giulinai doesn't know.

The precedent is about how you have standing re: equal protection Marks v. Stinson. In that case, the court held that you cannot put your thumb on the scales in favor of one candidate.

You cannot give a competitive advantage to a particular candidate and that is what happened here because they knew mail in voters would be for Biden.

SHUT UP RUDY. Seriously. I have to make dinner and he isn't saying anything new.

I think someone's dog is barking in the background.

Judge is asking what standard of review should I apply and why? Rudy says "the normal one" lolol Judge says "does strict scrutiny apply" and Rudy says "No, the normal one." lolol

What a dope.

Rudy says he doesn't understand strict scrutiny.

The judge asked him if there isn't strict scrutiny, why is it that making it easier for some people to vote harm the plaintiffs in this case?

Judge says "his right to vote was burdened by the SoS?" Rudy says "his right to vote was denied."

Judge asked how were the plaintiffs denied their right to vote. Ms. Kerns steps in to protect Rudy from himself. Let's see how this goes.

Judge doesn't seem bought in on not being able to cure the ballots as a denial of the right to vote.

I'd be like totally it is strict scrutiny.

Judge says in order to bring a constitutional claim it has to be more than just a violation of state law. The plaintiffs are insisting that the law itself violates the equal protection clause. I mean, that seems simple enough. But it's not clear that they are correct.

There is no way Rudy is following any of this. I don't think he understands vote dilution. I don't think he understands the actual law. He doesn't understand standing.

Judge asks defense why Trump campaign doesn't have standing. 1. No derivative standing in election cases. 2. No competitive standing. 3. No causation. Rudy tries to talk about dilution

He says your vote not being counted is the same thing as your vote being denied. Wowza. Ok.

Judge asks defense why is this harm not redressable. Defense says the harm here is dilution. That is a general harm to the entire statewide election not to any particular voter. This dilution applies to all races, not just the presidential.

Judge asks why does Pullman abstention apply here. Because there are proceedings they could invoke (they could intervene in the state cases.) Judge also asks about the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.