Thread by @questauthority, Akiva has the full transcript from the Georgia hearing. I'm going to [...]

Akiva has the full transcript from the Georgia hearing. I'm going to do my own read independently - I'm not going to look at Akiva's until I'm done.

He's going to be the more accurate, I'm sure, but it'll be interesting to see how we match up - or don't. https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1334211639067910144

https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1334211639067910144

The attorneys for the defendants are the same two who had to deal with the suit where Lin was a plaintiff.

So I guess they're living in the land-o-suck for the foreseeable future. I seriously feel for them.

Looks like Sidney starts with tech issues - no video.

It looks like the Judge approached this exactly the way Akiva suggested he had - as purely a matter of dealing with the request for the most short term of the relief and nothing else. And was, by the time the hearing started, a bit confused by what was being asked.

For the nonlawyers:
At this kind of a hearing - any kind, really - if the judge tells you that he doesn't understand what you are asking for, that's a question you have to be able to answer quickly, clearly, and concisely. That's critical. You don't get a lot of chances.

Powell -- does not do that. At all. She starts good - "what you ordered in your first order of the day would be perfect." But it goes downhill rapidly. That first order granted no access, and rambling over to Dominion whatever doesn't help a thing.

Which is why this happened next. Judge stopped her and went to the other side to try and clear things up.

Pro tip: You don't want the judge to rely on the other side to talk about what you're asking for.

And it really looks like the court's approach is entirely focused on "if it's potential evidence and we can do this, what's the harm."

Willard, unfortunately, goes a bit long in his response and also a bit rambling, although less so. I think the mistake, to the extent there was one, was throwing the case cite in the middle instead of sticking to the factual issues.

(I'm not slamming Willard here - this is a late hearing, on a Sunday, with utterly bonkers opposing counsel. This is a very hard thing to deal with perfectly.)

Willard does well here, and is able to give solid factual information to the Court on why it's a really bad idea to take all the machines out of service when they need them to vote on Tuesday. (Yesterday.)

And he does well here conveying to the court how nuts this is, and how burdensome this entire process has been for him and his team.

And also in highlighting some critical procedural issues, like full opportunity to respond, which have yet to take place.

Also does well highlighting the issues here, and how much of it is the result of the plaintiffs being stupid and hard to comprehend.

I'm starting to think I was overcritical earlier, and/or that it was a minor lapse.

Many judges like the baby-splitting approach in procedural things in particular - "I gave you X, so why shouldn't I give them Y." It's the kind of thing that can work well when everyone's professional but falls apart really fast when there are gibbering loons on one side.

So this seems to me to be a judge who is focused almost entirely on the matter at hand - initial evidence gathering - and not the case as a whole.

OK. so now we're down to 10 counties - but why on earth did they talk about 600 additional plaintiffs in the nutz notice of appeal?

I really feel bad for Willard. The judge is treating this like a normal case with normal people, and Willard - who has already had much more exposure knows that's wrong but really can't do much about it.

And it doesn't help any that it's a late hearing on a Sunday and the judge is trying to think things through on the fly.

I'm not faulting the judge here either, by the way. What the judge seems to me to be doing is exactly the kind of thing that would generally work out OK under emergency circumstances where the main question is just evidence preservation.

I think this judge is trying to work with both sides and craft a solution that will eliminate any concerns with evidence preservation without kneecapping the state. And again, normal case, normal plaintiff, that might work OK.

And it looks like the judge was even leaning toward permitting the examination - something similar to what we saw in Arizona with the signatures and the duplicated ballots.

This is a judge trying to bend over backward to be fair to everyone.

I'm not sure that mood will be helped by the spouting of conspiracy theories here, however.

I'm not sure, given the judge's balanced mood, that this was the most prudent of all possible responses. But I'm also sure that it was impossible to not say. And I don't blame him a single bit for saying it.

And the shift to the question of security is good, and highlights critical points.

And Sidney jumping right in with more batshit about foreign actors here - and MY LORD she really reminds me of Orly, I don't think it's a grift - REALLY isn't going to help.

Sidney Powell needs - if she believed even a word of that last paragraph and I legitimately fear she did - an intervention of some kind.

And interrupting the judge to add more nutz also really doesn't help even if you go on to suggest observation and holding material under a protective order.

Pro tip: never interrupt the judge.

The judge has now found new reasons that Mr Willard might want to talk about that will lean things away from the inspection and Mr Willard is happy to talk about them.

That was the kind of question we call a "softball."

And, yeah - I suspect that the judge had not, at that point, read the full file.

But he's already talking about laches, which means that he might have "no opinion" but he's got a strong guess he'll have to have an opinion on that soon because the issue is so obvious.

And it looks like the thing is over and the plaintiffs lose.

But then--

And then Lin Wood steps in to save things. He's probably appeared before the judge before, and very well may have some banked credibility. And he's proposing a more modest compromise.

This is very competent advocacy by Lin.

It doesn't quite get to the goal line, but it gets closer. Being - or at least sounding like - the reasonable one never hurts.

And, frankly, it is hard to identify clear harm to the state from Lin's proposal - the imaging would take place, but be turned over to the court and held until further order.

And if the machines are wiped, they're wiped.

So the judge is happy with this idea, and now Willard has an issue to deal with.

And Mr. Willard makes a good counterargument. Both on the law and on the facts.

Wood is a very solid advocate.

But Willard is sticking to his guns regarding the inability to order the counties to do anything.

Powell is not remotely as good an advocate as Wood. The inability to come up with a legal counter is painfully obvious here. "It couldn't be more clear as a matter of law" rings hollow when you cite no law.

So Wood, who is also good on his feet, is jumping back in to try to save things yet again.

I have literally no idea what Powell is talking about here. At all. Don't remember seeing it in any filing anywhere.

One area where I have a serious issue is that it appears that a great deal of argument took place informally, and off the docket. @ASFleischman - is this usual in GA? It seems to run counter to basic public access requirements.

(It sounds like all the communications took place with all parties and the court in the loop, so there aren't ex parte concerns, but legal argument out of public view is - at least as far as I know - quite disfavored.)

I hope one of the media organizations takes a look at this area of this proceeding.

Moving on, it's not clear where the judge is on things here.

But it looks like he was intending to hold a hearing on the matter Monday. And wanted information in particular as to the "harm to the opposing party" factor of the relief.

And it looks like he was operating on the assumption that the case would be promptly amended.

This is a lawyer who is on the edge of just saying "FFS, judge, come on!"

And the court hears the pain, I think, and is swayed.

And then sways back in the countervailng wind of Mr Kleinhendler, whoever he is.

But Willard is officially over it at this point. Officially.

Which doesn't overly thrill the court, but the court splits the baby again and goes with "I'm going to order you and strongly suggest that you chat with the counties and give them a word to the wise. And that word is spoliation."

And the judge is feeling Willard's pain again, and settles things back down.

Mr. Willard raises the social media issue, along with some clarification as to who is covered.

And that seems to about wrap it up.

OK - thoughts.

That was a bit of a train wreck, but an understandable one in the context of emergency relief. While I wasn't terribly impressed with the judge in the context of this hearing, I also suspect that his style generally works well for the vast majority of matters.

But this does make one thing clear -

That appeal they filed yesterday was dumber than I thought and I thought it was the dumbest possible thing. They pissed off a friendly, laid-back, informal judge.

Now I'm going to go look at Akiva's thread and see what I got wrong.

Latest Threads Unrolled: