Giuliani representing Trump in the Pennsylvania election case
In a courtroom in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, Giuliani argued that the Trump campaign had prevented ballot surveillance in major cities and that Democrats may have conspired to commit electoral fraud by counting absent votes – both judges repeatedly dismissed in court as unfounded or false.
With Giuliani entering the court, that could be the end result of the Trump campaign’s active attempt to formalize the victory of President – elect Joe Biden.
“If it is allowed without severe restrictions, it will become an epidemic,” Giuliani told Judge Matthew Brann, in his first oral arguments before a trial judge for decades. “Everything happened in the big cities controlled by the Democrats. They suddenly decided that you have no right to inspect a ballot that they do not have. … You must be foolish to think that this is an accident.”
Giuliani’s jump to argue the case is the latest in a legal battle for Trump. Six days after the election, the Trump campaign changed lawyers twice as the Pennsylvania lawsuit was filed in federal court. First, a medium-sized regional company withdrew from the case, and a second group of lawyers withdrew Monday night following a decision by Giuliani to take Trump’s election strategy to court.
The Trump campaign has greatly reduced its complaints in this case in recent days, with the Court of Appeals ruling that it was unconstitutional after the election to close the legal path for voters to vote.
Trump and his supporters have faced ridicule from the legal community for bringing in unfit cases to challenge the election and spreading false information to undermine Biden’s victory, and legal experts have repeatedly said that these cases will not put Trump in office for a second time.
In the aftermath of the election, judges in several states quickly dismissed suspicions of vote rigging in the Trump campaign and his supporters because even witnesses in court showed no reason to believe there was widespread fraud.
The Pennsylvania case is not always very likely to win. But in reducing legal complaints, the wars for Biden are seen as significant in Trump’s last attempt to block the state vote. Tuesday’s hearing is ahead of Obama’s nominee Fran, known as a longtime Republican and straight shooter. Prior to the election, Fran rejected a Republican attempt to block funding for the absentee ballot.
In the aftermath of the election, at press conferences and other appearances, Giuliani put forward conspiracy theories about voter fraud and pledged a dazzling legal strategy. He has clashed with election law brass in the Trump campaign because the president has refused to acknowledge or acknowledge Biden’s victory.
When asked to delay the Trump campaign arguments, the last-minute scramble was already on display Monday, a request Fran denied.
Trump’s biggest election case in Michigan has had its own hiccups in recent days. The federal judge pointed out this morning that lawyers for the Trump campaign were not taking action to move their case quickly. Judge Janet Nef wrote in the court order that Trump campaign defendants did not prosecute Michigan’s Secretary of State and Wayne County election officials and did not ask the court to consider its case urgently.
Trump campaign lawyers have outlined the need to intervene to stop election results in Michigan over the next few weeks, as December 8 is the initial election college deadline for finalizing the referendum results.
“Despite setting this accidental deadline, they have classified the request as ’emergency’ relief, but to date, none of the plaintiffs have served their complaint against the defendants or filed any motion for immediate injunction relief,” Neff wrote.
If the case is to continue, the Trump campaign must present the case to Michigan authorities by 5 p.m., Tuesday, he added.
The story has been updated with details from Tuesday’s hearing.