Rudy Giuliani, President Trump, Judge Hoover discussed on Bill Handel


There is a press conference scheduled Either the president or the president and or his attorneys are going to be holding this press conference talking about how the path that the president is going to take to win this election. Or maybe he's already won. She's already tweeted. He's won Wisconsin. He's already tweeted that in those states where he lost its all fraud. So we'll see what they have to say. But one of the aspects of this is the president's attorneys are going to court all over and recounts are going nuts, and some are state is ordered. Some are paid for by the party. And so Rudy Giuliani, who has now been put in charge of the legal efforts to have the president win this election. His first appearance in federal court in nearly three decades. Wayne, You listen to every bit of it. So let's talk about Rudy Giuliani and his phenomenal legal prowess. He should actually be doing handle on the law because he's the only person I can think of who would do a better job of not knowing what he's talking about. Yeah, I think that in this press conference, by the way, it may have to do with something they just filed in this case, we're going to talk about where they're asking the judge to declare Pennsylvania's results invalid. And let the Legislature assign Pennsylvania's electoral votes. Which means which is Franchising 11. Million voters. Yeah. So look, let's get to the comedy. I listened to the hearing because, quite honestly, it was entertaining as hell. Rudy Giuliani is very entertaining in court. So here are some things that happened. He forgot which judge he was talking to. He's sitting there in front of Matthew brand US District Judge and a case comes up that was written by a different judge. You know, sometimes they'll say well, in this case, Judge Hoover said Baba. So they're talking about it. And then Rudy Giuliani starts talking to Judge Brand as if Judge brand is Judge Hoover. That's not the real judge's name on the other case and wrote the opinion that they're talking about. He totally forgot. Who the judge was he forgot the name of one of the opposing counsel. He said he wanted to refer to the opposing counsel and he forgot his name and he went to the man who was very angry with me. Does. The other guy had said something about Giuliani's argument. He Used a word that he didn't know the meaning of He was talking about the The ballot observers not being able to get close enough. And Giuliani said this This is a direct quote in the plaintiffs counties. They were denied the opportunity to have another instructed. Excuse me unobstructed observation and ensure opacity. And then Giuliani, who just used the word says I'm not quite sure I know what capacity means It probably means you can see right Head Judge Rand goes It means you can't And the Giuliani goes big words, Your honor. He also said at one point, um For all we know these ballots could have been for Mickey Mouse. There would have been a big batch of ballots where people were voting for Mickey Mouse. Here's another thing while he was in court at a hearing in federal court. He retweeted a tweet from somebody who was giving him kudos for how he was doing in the case. How about the underlying legal arguments that he brought up? What did the judge say? How did the judge react? It's very clear to me that the judge, the judge was a trying to give him a chance to say something relevant, but was also making a very Bulletproof record for when he dismisses the case because he would ask the most simple questions. What is the level of scrutiny required in this case? As you know, Bill, depending on what the issue is, there are different levels of judicial review that are applied. Some are stricter than others. Okay, so everyone this is very basic lawyer, right? Yeah, pretty much, you know, Standard of review. So he goes, what is the level of the standard of review? Rational basis level or strict scrutiny and Juliana goes the normal one. A normal one. What is that? Um The bane issues. In this case, they're going to be this there to voters, who say, because some counties allowed people to fix problems with their ballots, but other counties didn't That this is fraud and my right to vote was damaged, which is kind of interesting because the argument was as to those two voters. The plaintiffs Are they saying Because the Republican Party was not able to observe those votes being counted, therefore their votes should be invalidated. Were everybody else's vote should be invalidated because they're arguing that the entire state should be disenfranchised all the voters in the state and even assuming that in all of these cases that fraud, by the way, has not been proved at all. I mean, that's a given, but wrongdoing or missed votes. There was one case in which 2600 votes were just misplaced because they were on a thumb drive, and during the recount, they found it and that somehow connects to fraud. Although there isn't one fraud allegation that has been established as legit, not one, and with all of that being said, You know, there are some legitimate arguments. This one's a tough one, because it has to the judge has to extrapolated. Okay. Those two are bad, therefore 11 million or bad. They have to look, it's even worse. How How does the Trump campaign have standing here to sue because to individual voters were affected. That's the first problem. The second problem is, why are they suing the state of Pennsylvania for something that they say the county's did? On their own. You're gonna have a standing problem. They're suing the wrong people based on what they're saying happened. And they're saying the remedy is to literally throw out 6.8 million votes and let the Legislature choose who wins Pennsylvania. It's a very tall order. Yeah, it's pretty desperate. I mean, that's the word you have to use. Now in the arguments, and probably they're all gonna end by the end of the week or next week, it will be over and by December 14th When the electoral college formally votes and declares Joe Biden as the president. It may go on right up to that point. I mean, it's crazy making coming.

Coming up next