Wrecking Ball Rudy Strikes Again

What the hell was that?

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

“Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by strict scrutiny,” Rudy Giuliani admitted yesterday in open court. Just moments earlier he’d answered “the normal one” when questioned by U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann as to what standard of review should apply in the Trump campaign’s windmill-tilt lawsuit to get the election results overturned in Pennsylvania.

Should a “rational basis scrutiny” apply, wondered His Honor, unleashing an extended rant from America’s mayor on the irrational way that Philadelphia County counts ballots. In fact, Giuliani had a whole lot to say about vote counting in Philly, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Detroit, and Milwaukee. Probably a coincidence that he chose to attack voters in cities with large Black populations, right?

Since the case was filed on November 9, the Trump campaign has lost two sets of lawyers. The plaintiffs also amended their suit to remove allegations that Republicans were illegally excluded from the canvas after the Third Circuit ruled that a candidate lacks standing to sue the state to enforce its own laws.

But excising five of seven counts didn’t stop Giuliani from going on an extended, freestyle rant alleging “widespread nationwide voter fraud” by Democrats to “hold back votes” to put Joe Biden over the top. Later, he admitted that the instant case alleged no fraud, but hinted that he might just put some in the third amended complaint, so stay tuned!

“You’d have to be a fool to think this was an accident!” he thundered, citing as  evidence that elections officials had pre-ordered plexiglass barriers to separate observers from county employees during the count. And despite the fact that the allegation of illegal exclusion was no longer a live issue in the case, Superlawyer Rudy attempted to introduce photos of canvas observers using binoculars as “exhibits.”

During a hearing on a motion to dismiss.

Sponsored

Without providing copies to defense counsel.

Giuliani only relented when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court released an opinion finding that the trial judge had erred by issuing an emergency order to allow canvas observers to stand closer, holding that the legislature had vested county elections officials with discretion to arrange a safe count during a viral pandemic.

Which left only the claim that contacting voters who’d botched their mail-in ballots so they could vote provisionally in-person somehow violated the Equal Protection Clause. Secretary of Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar issued guidance to all counties that they could contact voters who had “spoiled” their ballots and allow them to “cure” their votes at the polling place. Four “blue” counties did so, but most “red” counties did not. In the Trump campaign’s telling, Secretary Boockvar exceeded her authority by explicating voting procedures — although supervising Pennsylvania’s elections is her actual job — and voters who failed to submit legal ballots were somehow disenfranchised by voters in other counties who were allowed to correct theirs.

Why didn’t the plaintiffs sue the counties which failed to allow for ballot cure, the court wondered. To which Mr. Giuliani responded that ballot cure is illegal under Pennsylvania law as attorneys for county elections boards must have told their bosses. But he didn’t cite any statute or caselaw to support his argument, because it does not exist.

The hearing ended as it began, with the president’s attorney hilariously flubbing basic civil procedure. When asked if he could comply with a 5 o’clock Wednesday deadline to submit a reply to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, he responded that he was all ready to hand in his amended complaint. Upon being reminded that he’d need leave of the court for (another) mulligan, Giuliani promised to submit them both together, so if Judge Brann approved his motion, the new complaint would already be right there in his lap.

Sponsored

“This is a brief in opposition to their motion to dismiss,” the judge explained.

“Oh! Oh, sure, absolutely,” Giuliani replied cheerfully, prompting the judge to remind his co-counsel that she was free to write this all down, because real lawyers take notes.

In the event, Judge Brann canceled the evidentiary hearing scheduled for tomorrow, sparing us all another painful conference call listening to America’s mayor trying to Zapruder a stack of photos of exhausted civil servants getting yelled at. But His Honor did recommend some nice restaurants for dinner in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, from which the Trump campaign has adduced that they are a lock to win this thing.

And who could argue with that.

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar [Docket at Court Listener]


Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.