Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
When you don't have the law, argue the facts. When you don't have the facts, argue the law.
My understanding was they moved from "we didn't get to observe" to an equal protection argument where D counties allowed curing and R counties didn't.
Expect defense counsel to argue: "If certain counties didn't allow correction of minor technical errors, aren't they the ones who should be sued for violating voters' rights and not the ones who zealously protected those rights?"
It's interesting to contrast the GOP attacks on Philadelphia with the words of someone whom Trump thinks he is better than (or just as good as):
When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound the law.
He made exactly this point. The plaintiffs didn't sue their own home counties. Why would they not seek to have these votes counted, rather than "cancelling" the votes in Philly.
Tweeter feed. He has been cut off too.
The second defense lawyer is arguing the abstention issue now. Both PA lawyers have noted this very timely intervening decision of the PA Supreme Court and argued it takes Rudy's arguments about the observers off the table. The second PA lawyer is much more aggressive in tone, directly attacking Giuliani's competence. Unfortunately, he's arguing remotely via telephone and is very hard to hear.
He just called Rudy's comments about Philadelphia "disgraceful" (Rudy said something about the mafia in his argument) - really going after him, but he is making some good points. He said he doesn't think Rudy even read the main case he cited or understands the law he is arguing.
Knowing a lot of lawyers, hard to believe that they are winging this. Has to be orchestrated the way you surmise.
I was texting with a lawyer friend of mine in Philadelphia who said this second guy (Aronchick) is very well known, smart, arrogant and is almost certainly well known to this judge. That's how he came off. I can't remember all the stuff he said about Rudy but was really blistering him at times - "nonsense" "fantasy" said his E.P. argument was "upside down." He settled down a bit near the end and asked the judge to "please, dismiss this case so the country can move on" - repeated that several times. Overall, I think he was very effective, just maybe a bit too emotional in his argument, and the worst part was his phone connection sucked so he was coming and going. At one point, the judge interrupted and asked him if he was moving around, told him to sit still - some comic relief. There is a 10 minute recess now, but I've had to tap out - got a client call in 20 minutes and have to get something done today.
I always thought Trump kept Rudy around because he stroked his ego and worked for free. Now I see Rudy want's $20k a day for his work?? Surely this is a last grasp of grifting from this administration??? No one would really pay crazy Rudy that, would they??
They say you can indict a ham sandwich but when you can't eat that ham sandwich in the most creative way possible.
They want to file a 2nd amended complaint, and need leave of the court before they can do that under the rules. The judge gave them a deadline of tomorrow to make that motion. The whole thing about normal v strict scrutiny was a discussion I missed when I was doing some work.
Are the threats the reason Kerns asked to come off the case? Or just the excuse?
No - but it was a strange story. Her firm moved to withdraw from the case a few days ago, and the judge oddly granted the motion for all the lawyers except her. That meant she had to appear in court today. She stated at the outset she would not be arguing, but at some point during the hearing she did argue a few issues. At the very end the judge noted that he kept her in the case just to address this issue. Lawyers usually don't give the reason they are withdrawing due to confidentiality concerns, but 90% of the time its due to nonpayment or some ethical issue. This case is different so no one can say for certain.
