2020 Presidential Election

[Jeffrey]

I wonder what one does with a lot of rope?

Rope enough to hang himself?
Ain't no call to worry the jury,
His kind takes care of itself.

- Robert Hunter

[cato]

From checking some journalists' twitter feeds, this does not appear to be a problem unique to me.

It cut off for me too at the same time, it appears, as it did for you. I have no idea how you were able to synthesize the arguments so quickly. You either type very quickly or are using some sort of voice recognition software. I am not sure how you could be so precise. Good work and thanks.

From the Court’s website: “The Court is aware of the telephone problem. AT&T is the custodian of the call, and we are working
feverishly to restore access.”

[mkirsh]

From the Court’s website: “The Court is aware of the telephone problem. AT&T is the custodian of the call, and we are working
feverishly to restore access.”

Clearly a deep state conspiracy

[OldPhiKap]

Court in recess for tech issue, but judge just notes the PA S.Ct. Upheld how philly did its voting observers 5-2 apparently.

https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/sta...975362048?s=21

[OldPhiKap]

It cut off for me too at the same time, it appears, as it did for you. I have no idea how you were able to synthesize the arguments so quickly. You either type very quickly or are using some sort of voice recognition software. I am not sure how you could be so precise. Good work and thanks.

These are super quality summations by pfr, hope folks join me in sporking if able.

[Rich]

From the Court’s website: “The Court is aware of the telephone problem. AT&T is the custodian of the call, and we are working
feverishly to restore access.”

Clearly a deep state conspiracy

Well, if you ever listen to John Oliver, you know that's certainly not the case!

[OldPhiKap]

Court in recess for tech issue, but judge just notes the PA S.Ct. Upheld how philly did its voting observers 5-2 apparently.

https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/sta...975362048?s=21

Info on breaking Pa.S.Ct decision:

https://twitter.com/adambonin/status...109095941?s=21

[CameronBornAndBred]

Rudy has this figured out for himself.

Rudy Giuliani, who has helped oversee a string of failed court challenges to President Donald Trump’s defeat in the election, asked the president’s campaign to pay him $20,000 a day for his legal work, multiple people briefed on the matter said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/giuliani-...200126937.html

President Donald Trump’s personal attorney has joined a lawsuit battling the electoral process in Pennsylvania, after multiple lawyers fled the case this week. It’s a last-minute bid to join a lawsuit that Mr Giuliani himself appeared to suggest was doomed to fail: in an interview with Fox Business on Tuesday, the former New York City mayor said: “Frankly, that is a case that we would like to see get to the Supreme Court.”

He continued to his apparent strategy to overturn the results of the election, saying: “We're prepared in some of these cases to lose and to appeal and to get it to the Supreme Court.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rudy-giul...193110388.html

So how many days will it take Rudy to keep losing his way to the SCOTUS?

[JasonEvans]

I'm starting to wonder if Lindsay Graham may get in some trouble for this whole phone call to the GA SoS. He went on the floor of the Senate and said this was not a Georgia thing. He claimed he had also called the SoS in Arizona and Nevada... but the Arizona SoS says Graham never called her.

https://twitter.com/SecretaryHobbs/s...40255395053568

Is Graham lying on the floor of the senate? That could be problematic.

-Jason "of course, he is not up for election for another 6 years so I guess none of this will ever matter... oh well, back to reading about Rudy Goes to Court" Evans

[sagegrouse]

These are super quality summations by pfr, hope folks join me in sporking if able.

Well, to let out a secret, PFRDuke, like most mods here, is just a bot.

[wilson]

Just chiming in to thank pfrduke for the great live-posting of today's hearing. Terrific insight into legal procedure and the Trump campaign's strategies, easily digestible for the layperson.

I swear, you can learn more about something like 90% of things on DBR than anywhere else.

[wilson]

I wonder what one does with a lot of rope?

Rope enough to hang himself?
Ain't no call to worry the jury,
His kind takes care of itself.

- Robert Hunter

As Robert Hunter could also point out, one might also use the rope to rig a ship.

[JasonEvans]

I know... polls don't mean anything...

Still, I'm kinda surprised at these numbers from Morning Consult. They make it clear that Trump faces very little downside in the Republican party for continuing to fight the election for now:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...ht-away-436977

The poll, published Tuesday, reports that 46 percent of registered voters think Trump should concede to Biden “right away.” That total includes 72 percent of Democrats surveyed, 43 percent of independents surveyed and 17 percent of Republicans surveyed.

Another 32 percent of registered voters say Trump should concede the election “eventually if he is unable to back up” his mass fraud claims. In favor of that position are 21 percent of Democratic respondents, 34 percent of independent respondents and 45 percent of Republican respondents.

But 12 percent of registered voters polled believe Trump should refuse to concede to Biden “no matter what” — including 3 percent of Democrats polled, 8 percent of independents polled and 27 percent of Republicans polled — while 9 percent of registered voters surveyed say they do not know or have no opinion.

Bottom line, 70+ percent of Republicans think continuing to fight right now is perfectly fine for Trump. Why would he soften or give up at this point with that kind of backing? Of course, the key for him will be producing evidence and winning some meaningful court cases (both of which seem quite unlikely given what we know thus far). If he cannot do that, then it seems a very large percentage of the electorate will think it is time for him to move on.

[pfrduke]

Back on, picking up a bit midstream. They're addressing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's opinion. I think it's the attorney arguing the abstention issues - it doesn't sound like the Kirkland lawyer (and they had said they were dividing responsibility for the argument).

Talking about pre-election challenges to mail-in ballots as being "susceptible" to fraud and how that gave rise to an alleged Equal Protection violation, which arguments were all rejected pre-election.

Notes that Giuliani talked about fraud 23 times in his argument, but that those have nothing to do with the complaint before the court since the amended complaint took out all the fraud allegations.

[pfrduke]

Explaining why the county-by-county equal protection argument fails. Would let the lowest common denominator set the standard for all counties and create a race to the bottom. That's not a constitutionally permitted outcome.

Incidentally, whoever is speaking is very hard to understand, so it will be a little tougher to real-time.

[pfrduke]

Out of 150 paragraphs, there are 8 vaguely written allegations that even charitably address specific problems with notice and cure regarding absentee ballots with technical defects. These allegations describe efforts that Pennsylvania took to allow qualified Pennsylvania voters to have their ballots counted, and not thrown out, because of a curable, technical defect. "I say Hallelujah to Secretary Boockvar for taking steps to ensure that Pennsylvania voters can have their votes counted."

I feel really bad for Mr. Henry and Mr. Rogers that their county chose not to offer them this opportunity, but that was their counties' choice, and that choice doesn't mean that other counties acted unconstitutionally by making a different choice.

[pfrduke]

Pointing out extensive state remedies available - you only need to look at all the cases the campaign has filed and is pursuing in state court.

[pfrduke]

Side track from the hearing to address the PA Supreme Court decision. This is from the dissent (which dissented primarily based on mootness). In other words, none of the 7 judges on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court think any of the election complaints amount to a hill of beans:

"Finally, short of demonstrated fraud, the notion that presumptively valid ballots cast by the Pennsylvania electorate would be disregarded based on isolated procedural irregularities that have been redressed -- thus disenfranchising potentially thousands of voters -- is misguided. Accordingly, to the degree that there is a concern with protecting or legitimizing the will of the Philadelphians who cast their votes while candidate representatives were unnecessarily restrained at the Convention Center, I fail to see that there is any real issue."

[pfrduke]

Hard to know without being in the courtroom, but it strikes me that this lawyer is talking way too long. This is like a discursive history on voting rights litigation. But good analogy to Jill Stein, who filed a lawsuit in 2016 that was dismissed on abstention grounds: Jill Stein then is the Trump campaign today, and the Trump campaign then is us today. They argued abstention and they were exactly right.

Now getting lectured by the judge not to move around so much so his audio isn't disturbed (this is the only lawyer arguing remotely, I believe).

[pfrduke]

Court now in a 10 minute recess; may be other defense counsel to make arguments, then the judge indicated he would have some questions.