How's Rudy getting along in court?

It was Rudy Giuliani’s first appearance in federal court since the early 1990s, and by late afternoon Tuesday it was clear that US District Judge Matthew Brann was losing patience with President Trump’s personal attorney.

Trump is seeking to stop the certification of Pennsylvania’s vote in the Nov. 3 election, alleging that Republican voters in the state were illegally disadvantaged because some Democratic-leaning counties allowed voters to fix errors on their mail ballots. Two voters named as co-plaintiffs with Trump’s campaign in the long-shot suit had their ballots voided and allege that they were not given a chance to correct their mistakes.

’'You’re alleging that the two individual plaintiffs were denied the right to vote,’' Brann said. ’'But at bottom, you’re asking this court to invalidate more than 6.8 million votes, thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the commonwealth. Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified?’'

  Boston Globe

Buckle up, Judge.

Giuliani said that Trump’s campaign was seeking only to throw out about 680,000 ballots cast in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, because, he said, Republican observers were not allowed to watch them being counted.

Wait. Is that a different complaint? Not that two voters couldn't cure their ballots, but that observers couldn't observe?

Trump’s attorneys had removed legal claims relating to that issue in an amended version of the lawsuit they filed over the weekend, the judge reminded him.

’'The poll-watching claims were deleted,’' Brann told Giuliani. ’'They’re now not before this court, so why should I consider them now?’'

[...]

On Wednesday Trump’s legal team informed the court that it intended to file a third version of its federal lawsuit.

[...]

The president’s attorney opened his appearance in court with a broad claim: that the Trump campaign was alleging ‘‘widespread nationwide voter fraud.’’

But he was unable to provide evidence of any fraud, and said later under questioning from Brann that the lawsuit did not allege fraud as a matter of law and that ‘‘this is not a fraud case.’’

Then why allege fraud? Oh, yeah. That's right. He's an incompetent, ignorant, boob.

Giuliani painted a sinister picture of Democratic Party machines conspiring to fix the election against Trump. He alleged without proof that mail ballots counted after Election Day in cities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were somehow faked to help Democrat Joe Biden make up a lead that Trump held among in-person voters on Election Day, whose ballots were counted first.

Addressing the one formal claim that remained in Trump’s lawsuit, Giuliani argued that Trump’s campaign and Republican voters had their constitutional rights violated when the Democratic-leaning counties invited voters to ‘‘cure,’’ or fix, defective ballots.

[...]

’'The Trump campaign has been treated totally differently than the Bush campaign,’' Giuliani said, misstating the name of President-elect Biden.

He may well think that's who Trump ran against.

Brann asked what standard of review he should apply in the case. ’'I think the normal one,’' Giuliani replied.

Hahahahahahaha.

’'Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by strict scrutiny,’' Giuliani said at another point.

All legal terminology that a qualified, competent attorney would know before filing the suit.

At a different moment, Giuliani said: ’'I’m not quite sure what ‘opacity’ means. It probably means you can see.’'

WT everloving F???

The judge responded: ’'It means you can’t.’'

And come back when you know wtf you're doing.

In a heated 45-minute speech delivered over a patchy telephone link, Mark Aronchick, an attorney representing several Pennsylvania counties, said that Giuliani was ignorant of the law, living in ‘‘some fantasy world,’’ and pushing wild allegations that were ’’disgraceful in an American courtroom.’’

Aronchick concluded by urging Brann: ’'Dismiss this case. Please, dismiss this case. So we can move on.’'

Brann declined to do so, setting a deadline of 5 p.m. Wednesday for the president’s team to file a motion opposing the election officials’ attempt to dismiss the lawsuit.

This, too, appeared to confuse Giuliani, who asked if the judge was inviting him to file the retooled third version of the lawsuit that he’d promised earlier.

’'This is a brief in opposition to their motion to dismiss,’' Brann replied.

’'Oh!’' Giuliani said. ’'Oh, sure, absolutely.’'

Dios mio.

The defense attorneys repeatedly criticized Giuliani for basing his arguments on the discarded allegations that Republican observers were not allowed to watch ballots being counted, noting that three formal counts and a request for action over the issue had been erased in the revised version of the lawsuit.

While the hearing was taking place, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against Trump in a separate case on the count observers, holding that Philadelphia authorities had given reasonable access to representatives from Trump’s campaign.

[...]

According to the New York Times, Giuliani had asked the president’s campaign to pay him $20,000 a day for his legal work.

JESUS. Oh well, doesn't matter what he asks. He probably won't get paid.

Reached by phone, Giuliani strenuously denied requesting that much.

“I never asked for $20,000,” said Giuliani, saying the president volunteered to make sure he was paid after the cases concluded. “The arrangement is, we’ll work it out at the end.”

Hahahahahaha. You fool.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Ordinarily one finds evidence which one then takes to court.  Not the other way around, like the Trump folks.

UPDATE:

UPDATE:  Rudy must also be his own secretary.

UPDATE:  !!!!