US Election Week 2020

[crazy canuck]

Also relevant to the Giuliani side of things:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/us/politics/giuliani-trump-election-pay.html

Trump: "How are the cases going"

G: "We have had great success.  Don't listen to the fake news reports".

[Grey Fox]

Grifters are grifting.

[The Minsky Moment]

Also relevant to the Giuliani side of things:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/us/politics/giuliani-trump-election-pay.html

Trump: "How are the cases going"

G: "We have had great success.  Don't listen to the fake news reports".

Not exactly.  Trump will be happy with Rudy because Rudy is using the sweeping accusatory rhetoric Trump likes.  Rudy will tell him the "obama judge" is in the bag for Biden and the whole game here is to package the case for appeal to the Supreme Court.   That is what Trump wants.  He things Thomas and Alito will back him and that he "bought" the 3 he appointed so they will have to rule for him.

[OttoVonBismarck]

No transcript yet so based on second hand reports:

Rudy gives a long and florid opening statement filled with crazy accusations about massive fraud and Democratic Party conspiracies, quoting Rahm Emanuel and Mayor Daley.  Maybe he thinks he's in Illinois?

Defendants then give their opening statement and make the point that none of the stuff Rudy talked about is in the amended complaint anymore.

Rudy gets back up and something resembling the following colloquy occurs:

Judge Brann: You are asking for millions of votes to be invalidated across the state. Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified?
Rudy: You need a sweeping remedy because there is sweeping injury.  Fraud fraud fraud there was massive election fraud blah blah blah (goes on)
Judge Brann: Under Federal Rule of Procedure 9(b) fraud has to be pled with particularity. Your amended complaint doesn't do that.
Rudy:  Oh no we aren't trying to plead fraud in our complaint.  Did I say "fraud"   I meant er oh "lord" what long hearing this is . . .
Judge Brann: If the problem is that voters in some [GOP lean] counties weren't allowed to fix those ballots, isn't the remedy for those people to sue to have their votes counted, not throw out the entire election?
Kerns (rudy's co-counsel):  But that would mean that would have to sue their counties!   [NOTE Kerns' client is suing multiple counties in this suit]
Judge Brann:  Right. Nu?
Kerns: well the Trump campaign sued to vindicate everyone's rights.
Judge Brann: But the affected voters can sue themselves if they believe themselves injured.  How does the Trump campaign have standing to sue on their behalf?
Rudy: the counties that allowed cures are bad Democrat counties like *gasp* PHILADELPHIA!
Judge Brann: Ok but what's the answer to my standing question?
Rudy:  Because the end result was good for Biden and bad for Trump
Judge Brann: what standard of review should apply?  Strict scrutiny?
Rudy:  Oh no not that.  Because "this is not a fraud case"
Judge Brann:  Well then it's rational basis.  Doesn't the Penn conduct here qualify as "rational"?
Rudy: We believe "normal scrutiny" should apply
[Every other America lawyer: WTF is "normal scrutiny"?]
Rudy: "Maybe I don't understand what you mean by strict scrutiny."
[Every other America lawyer: Yeah no kidding - you are confusing it with the clear and convincing evidence standard for fraud]
Rudy: We don't think Penn acted rationally because different counties applied different rules for curing ballots
[Every other America lawyer: OK - isn't that why Judge Brann spent the last 10 minutes saying the remedy is for affected voters to sue the counties . . .]

This is largely spot on, I don't have a transcript either but this hearing was actually public and accessible via a conference call system you could dial into in listen-only mode (which is weird that they used that instead of some sort of streaming internet solution), as a complete layman my feeling was the judge was handling Rudy with kid gloves and Rudy seemed really out of his depth. I suspect from not being an active courtroom litigator for many years. The judge informed Rudy near the end of the hearing that he was giving them until 5PM tomorrow (now today) to file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Rudy clearly did not know what such a brief entailed or what the judge was expecting, and asked several confused questions. The judge basically ended up explaining in almost layman's terms the particulars of what he was asking, Rudy just came off as really confused and old.

[The Minsky Moment]

A close colleague of mine, someone with very high professional standards worked with Rudy when he was US attorney in the 80s and thought the world of him.  But you can't roll into a big hearing with one day on the case when you haven't litigated in a courtroom in 30 years.  It's crazy that what is supposed to be the marquee case for the President of the US is being handled in such a slipshod manner.

Rudy was confused about the briefing because he isn't going to handle that - the other new law firm will.  But the court did issue an order saying that Rudy had to register with the court's electronic document filing system, which is typical, but I'm pretty sure Rudy doesn't have a clue about how to do that or how to use such a system.

[Sheilbh]

I know New Yorkers who had to live with him as mayor have a different take, but just echoing celed's point on Rudy's fall from 2001. I find it kind of sad watching him in the last few years and especially now.

[The Brain]

Will they amend the biopic with James Woods to include the landscaping scene and confused court appearances?

[crazy canuck]

Also relevant to the Giuliani side of things:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/us/politics/giuliani-trump-election-pay.html

Trump: "How are the cases going"

G: "We have had great success.  Don't listen to the fake news reports".

Not exactly.  Trump will be happy with Rudy because Rudy is using the sweeping accusatory rhetoric Trump likes.  Rudy will tell him the "obama judge" is in the bag for Biden and the whole game here is to package the case for appeal to the Supreme Court.   That is what Trump wants.  He things Thomas and Alito will back him and that he "bought" the 3 he appointed so they will have to rule for him.

Packaging presumes some basis for appeal.

[grumbler]

A close colleague of mine, someone with very high professional standards worked with Rudy when he was US attorney in the 80s and thought the world of him.  But you can't roll into a big hearing with one day on the case when you haven't litigated in a courtroom in 30 years.  It's crazy that what is supposed to be the marquee case for the President of the US is being handled in such a slipshod manner.

Rudy was confused about the briefing because he isn't going to handle that - the other new law firm will.  But the court did issue an order saying that Rudy had to register with the court's electronic document filing system, which is typical, but I'm pretty sure Rudy doesn't have a clue about how to do that or how to use such a system.

So what do you think of this hypothesis:  Rudy is just humoring Trump and taking one for the team, because the longer he talks about how the Steiner Case is going to save Trump, the longer Trump puts off issuing his Nero Decree.  My hypothesis says that Giuliani doesn't want to win, he just wants to delay Trump's despair and thus limit the damage.

[jimmy olsen]

A close colleague of mine, someone with very high professional standards worked with Rudy when he was US attorney in the 80s and thought the world of him.  But you can't roll into a big hearing with one day on the case when you haven't litigated in a courtroom in 30 years.  It's crazy that what is supposed to be the marquee case for the President of the US is being handled in such a slipshod manner.

Rudy was confused about the briefing because he isn't going to handle that - the other new law firm will.  But the court did issue an order saying that Rudy had to register with the court's electronic document filing system, which is typical, but I'm pretty sure Rudy doesn't have a clue about how to do that or how to use such a system.

So what do you think of this hypothesis:  Rudy is just humoring Trump and taking one for the team, because the longer he talks about how the Steiner Case is going to save Trump, the longer Trump puts off issuing his Nero Decree.  My hypothesis says that Giuliani doesn't want to win, he just wants to delay Trump's despair and thus limit the damage.

1. He's supposedly making $20,000 a day.

2. He wants to throw things in sow so much doubt that the state legislature issue their own slate of electors.

[Gups]

A close colleague of mine, someone with very high professional standards worked with Rudy when he was US attorney in the 80s and thought the world of him.  But you can't roll into a big hearing with one day on the case when you haven't litigated in a courtroom in 30 years.  It's crazy that what is supposed to be the marquee case for the President of the US is being handled in such a slipshod manner.

Rudy was confused about the briefing because he isn't going to handle that - the other new law firm will.  But the court did issue an order saying that Rudy had to register with the court's electronic document filing system, which is typical, but I'm pretty sure Rudy doesn't have a clue about how to do that or how to use such a system.

So what do you think of this hypothesis:  Rudy is just humoring Trump and taking one for the team, because the longer he talks about how the Steiner Case is going to save Trump, the longer Trump puts off issuing his Nero Decree.  My hypothesis says that Giuliani doesn't want to win, he just wants to delay Trump's despair and thus limit the damage.

I dunno. It's not like Rudy wasn't spouting pretty similar level nonsense before the election.

[grumbler]

1. He's supposedly making $20,000 a day.

Note the "supposedly."  That's just a tabloid rumor, and if my hypothesis is correct that would just be to convince trump that his lawyer is good, because he is so expensive.

2. He wants to throw things in sow so much doubt that the state legislature issue their own slate of electors.

That's what he says he wants, but no state legislature is agreeing.  If my hypothesis is correct, then this would conform to his strategy; he's telling Trump via Fox that the Steiner Case is proceeding according to plan, when nothing is actually happening. 

[grumbler]

I dunno. It's not like Rudy wasn't spouting pretty similar level nonsense before the election.

Oh, shush yourself! 

[Syt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/19/wayne-county-rescind-certifying-election/

Wayne County Republican who asked to 'rescind' her vote certifying election results says Trump called her

DETROIT — President Trump called a GOP canvassing board member in Wayne County who announced Wednesday she wanted to rescind her decision to certify the results of the presidential election, the member said in a message to The Washington Post Thursday.

"I did receive a call from President Trump, late Tuesday evening, after the meeting," Monica Palmer, one of two Republican members of the four-member Wayne County canvassing board, told The Post. "He was checking in to make sure I was safe after hearing the threats and doxing that had occurred."

The call came after an hours-long meeting on Tuesday in which the four-member canvassing board voted to certify the results of the Nov. 3 election, a key step toward finalizing President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the state.

In affidavits signed Wednesday evening, the two GOP members of the board allege they were improperly pressured into certifying the election and accused Democrats of reneging on a promise to audit votes in Detroit.

In an interview, Palmer estimated that she talked with Trump for about two minutes Tuesday. She said she felt no pressure to change her vote. Palmer has said she received messages threatening her and her family during and after the Tuesday tense meeting.

"His concern was about my safety and that was really touching. He is a really busy guy and to have his concern about my safety was appreciated," she told The Post.

Asked if they discussed the presidential vote count, she said, "It's hard for me to describe. There was a lot of adrenalin and stress going on. There were general comments about different states but we really didn't discuss the details of the certification."

Asked again about possible pressure from such a call, Palmer said, "It was not pressure. It was genuine concern for my safety."

William Hartmann, the other Republican on the board, has signed a similar affidavit, according a person familiar with the document. Hartmann did not respond to a message from The Post.

Jonathan Kinloch, a Democrat and the board's vice chairman, told The Post it's too late for the pair to reverse course, as the certified results have been sent to the secretary of state in accordance with state rules. He lashed out at the Republicans over their requests.

"Do they understand how they are making us look as a body?" he said. "We have such an amazing and important role in the democratic process, and they're turning it on its head."

At the heart of the dispute is a last-minute compromise between Kinloch and the Republicans to seek a comprehensive audit of results in the Detroit area, where the GOP members said the votes were out of balance — meaning the poll book, the official list of who voted, didn't match the number of ballots received.

Palmer and Hartmann said in their affidavits that they believed they had a firm commitment to an audit. But Palmer says in her affidavit that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) later said she didn't view their resolution asking for an audit as binding.

"I felt misled," Palmer told The Post earlier on Wednesday, before signing the affidavit. "I stand firm in not certifying Wayne County without the audit."

Kinloch, though, said Palmer and Hartmann knew exactly what they were agreeing to on Tuesday, and the board has yet to even formally ask Benson for the audit.

Palmer "knew it wasn't binding," Kinloch said. "We just voted yesterday."

Kinloch said he and Palmer texted each other into the early hours of Wednesday, with the Democrat explaining he had support across the board for the request. But he said Palmer was aware he had not been able to directly reach the secretary of state's office on Tuesday night.

He said the two also communicated about the need to prepare a joint letter to the secretary of state to ask for the audit.

Hours before signing the affidavit, Palmer told The Post that her experience on Tuesday night had left her shaken. After first voting against certifying the results, a parade of activists and elections workers spoke to the board, with many accusing Palmer and Hartmann of racism for calling into question the results from majority-Black Detroit precincts.

"Last night was heartbreaking," Palmer told The Post. "I sat in that chair for two hours listening to people attack me" as a racist who was attempting to disenfranchise Detroit residents. She said her intentions were the opposite — but her efforts have been lost in a sea of invective that night that included death threats against her and her family.

Palmer said she and Hartmann had been concerned since the primary vote last summer that a number of precincts were out of balance. She said she never believed that corrections, which were made in some precincts, would change the vote totals in the county or the state in a way that would upend the victory for Biden, who carried Michigan by nearly 150,000 votes.

"We were not delaying the inevitable," said Palmer, referring to complaints that the GOP board members were stalling on behalf of President Trump. "We always knew that the margin of victory was such that it was not going to change the result."

After she filed her affidavit asking to rescind her vote, Kinloch accused her and Hartmann of bowing to pressure from the Republican Party and the White House, which has waged a legal campaign seeking to overturn the results of the election.

Trump supporters have attacked the decision to certify the Wayne County vote all day on Wednesday, with Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, describing criticisms of Palmer and Hartmann as "mob rule."

In her interview with The Post, Palmer put it differently. "There wasn't mob rule," she said. There was pressure to certify, but she said she didn't succumb to it. She only went forward, she said because of the promise of an audit.

Kinloch lamented the late attempt by Republicans to change their vote.

"They're playing with the vote and the will of the people," Kinloch said.

[Sheilbh]

Apparently Michigan GOP state legislators are flying into Washington at Trump's request to meet with him tomorrow. Which doesn't sound great.