Just finished listening to oral arguments in the
@realDonaldTrump campaign's latest federal action, feat.
@RudyGiuliani, and I won't necessarily rehash the whole thing but I have few of thoughts ... (1) If the Court gets to the merits, I see this as nothing more than ...

a pedestrian and fairly weak state election law claim dressed up as a federal equal protection case, and it should be dismissed. (2) Rudy is desperately trying to back-door some elaborate election fraud claim, but already lost that claim and this judge isn't biting (at all) ...

(3) It is entirely possible (likely?) that entire action gets tossed on standing or even latches grounds. (4) I think the judge tipped his hand when (in explaining why he would allow the filing of additional papers) he said that he didn't want either party, BUT ESPECIALLY

THE PLAINTIFFS (Trump)--to claim that they did not get to make all of their arguments. (5) Rudy was given a lot of time to make every possible argument and they simply don't have any real evidence of anything nefarious. It's all unsubstantiated insinuation, trying to morph ...

minor and isolated procedural errors into a giant conspiracy by some evil cabal (although I'm not even sure they were actually errors). As Clara Peller might say, "Where's the beef?!" (6) Rudy is no longer a good lawyer. He got tripped up on VERY basic points that any ...

3L law student would get. He genuinely did not seem to know two very basic legal standards (strict scrutiny and rational basis) or what they meant or even which one would benefit his client! That may sound far-fetched, or like Rudy bashing, but I kid you not. He didn't know.