OK - we're waiting for the public feed to come back up in King v Whitmer.

When it does, this will be the thread for Part 2. Looks like cameras are starting to come back up. (Hi, Lin!)

This has run much longer than expected; I'll have a recap on my Twitch stream tonight but I'll have to jump right into some work whenever this finishes so my post-hearing comments may be limited.

Court staff have done a really excellent job with this, by the way --

This should be a model for hearings in the future. There are nearly 4000 people watching something that normally would receive attention only from the specialist press.

That might manifest itself in ways that some would consider to not fully respect the dignity of the court and court proceedings, but I strongly believe that demystifying the 3rd Branch is extremely important.

The link to my Twitch channel is in my bio, if anyone is interested in my recap later. (7:30 Central start time.)

Still waiting for proceedings to resume. (Not uncommon at all.)

Looks like we're coming back up.

Judge's law clerk is one of the Zoom participants. Given how incredibly well-prepared the judge has been, I don't think it would be going out on a limb to guess that she's very very good at her job.

And we're back.

Starting with Lin -

Wants to make clear that he's appearing subject to his objection that he's not subject to the court's jurisdiction.

I have a feeling that this might be good for making a record on appeal but it's 100% the wrong argument to make right now.

Wants an evidentiary hearing -
Says each lawyer will affirm that I had nothing to do with this.

Had no notice.

I'll cover this tonight. But it's absolutely an unhelpful argument right now.

Lin finishing his disclaimer of all knowledge.

Judge:
Mr Fink, I'm not going to let you respond because we're going to do supplemental briefing on this issue since it's factually in dispute.

Oh good, Carone affidavit up next.

Lin got up and we're looking at the literal back of his chair because he's a fool.

Judge quoting from Carone affidavit. The "food van" things. Which were called an "illegal dump" in the Amended Complaint.

Who talked to her?

Campbell wants a paragraph number.

Lambert talked to her. But not about the complaint or affidavit.

Klown:
"I refer you to the Ramsland affidavit."

[Why, I don't know.]

Oh, maybe Klown put this in without talking to her - he put it in based on Ramsland vouching for her.

[That's very noncompliant with Rule 11]

Judge:
Anyone else?

No.

Fink - but judge politely hinting that she maybe has this without him.

Judge:
Is it counsel's hearing that a coincidence is support for an evidentiary allegation?

Campbell:
"We have an expert who relied on that for purposes of his analysis."

Campbell:
If a witness said inaccurate stuff, that can be dealt with. It doesn't mean a lawyer's duty was breached.

Judge: Mr. Fink? Your turn.

Fink:
It wasn't just the expert. Paragraph 94 of the complaint referenced her affidavit.

She claimed that batches were being repeatedly run through. Any expert would know that's patently absurd.

Because they did no due diligence they relied on stuff that was blatantly false.

Fink:
Also, Campbell was wrong that there was no finding on the state court. There were on the record findings from Judge Kenny (sp?). Explicitly covered some of these same affidavits.

Fink might not be sitting down and shutting up when he's winning.

Fink is making the case again, though that there was no diligence at all by the lawyers.

And it's not fair game to repeat from other cases.

Haller:
(Clearly not sufficiently woodshedded)

"We didn't represent that we created these." It's from the other court.

Judge:
What was purpose for which you attached it?

Haller:
Ramsland cited it and she might testify.

The Judge's other law clerk is also on the call, looks like - so we've got multiple awesome support.

Haller - interrupting and being allowed to dig.

Claiming that the statement isn't hearsay.

Klown wants to talk.

Judge:
So you're saying that it wasn't attached in support of your factual allegations?

Haller:
That's not what I'm saying.

[I cannot for the life of me figure out what the hell Haller is saying.]

We've established that nobody including Haller understands what is going on right now.

Kleinhandler [hereinafter "Klown"] is now digging.

Sidney Powell is saying nothing at all making her the smartest of the brigade of clowns representing the plaintiffs.

Klown just got yelled at again and backpedaled something. I didn't quite catch what it was.

Klown:
Carone never testified so it was fair game here.

Campbell:
Cleaning up minor mistake from earlier.

Judge - let's move on.

Conran's affidavit - lawyer for the Republicans.

Judge about to point out the number of levels of hearsay in this affidavit.

Yup.

This is an affidavit based on I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another that ballot dates were being messed with.

Anyone want to explain this?

Campbell -
This explained the unsigned post it note photo.

Judge:
Multiple layers of hearsay.

Campbell:
It wasn't submitted for the truth of the matter asserted.

Judge:
Did anyone try to identify any of the other people?

No volunteers.

Moving on to Jacobs? affidavit.

This is a bloodbath. This is far more than I was expecting from this hearing.

Judge is pissed. SERIOUSLY PISSED.

Question:
Did anyone attempt to determine if there is an explanation for what was in this affidavit?

Haller can't remember anything.

Fink:
The Jacob affidavit was filed in Constantino. Jacob didn't work for clerk's office. Thomas explained this in the other case. They said nothing about that.

be right back - need 2 minutes.

I'm back.

Haller is at the shovel. Again.

Arguing that courts can rely on bare affidavits and continuing to complain about lack of evidentiary hearing.

Judge - very patiently. Kind of.

We have Constantino case affidavits. But my question is just what did you do to review the contents of these affidavits or question anything.

Ms Haller, can you answer that?

Haller:
I guess I'm confused. We submitted it on the good faith basis that it was submitted in another court.

I thought we were supposed to be talking about bad faith. So I'm confused.

Judge:
It sounds like you're concluding that you have no obligation if you have a sworn affidavit. Campbell, what do you think?

Campbell:
Normally, sure? But here? This is a statement from someone who was there. And other lawyers saw it.

oh campbell no no

He's cutting off the judge; she's pissed.

Not good. He's losing the thread and the court.

Fink:
Ms Haller was right. She doesn't understand.

The question is what obligation they have to vet the facts. This wasn't unquestioned. It was questioned. There was a determination by a judge that it was wrong.

What matters is that they didn't talk to her and create a new affidavit.

Haller interrupting.

Haller wants to know if Fink spoke to her. Klown has a hand up.

Judge doesn't think it's relevant. [Judge is right]

Haller is really worked up and has no clue what her duties are as a lawyer.

Judge moving on - won't hear from Klown.
Bowmer (sp?) affidavit.
"I believe workers were changing votes" - 1AC calls this "eyewitness testimony" of election workers.

Question: Does an affiant's belief constitute evidence that something happened.

Campbell:
If supported by evidence.

Judge:
That's not in the affidavit. What's the basis of his belief?
He didn't say he saw it.

Campbell:
"I'm not so sure you can say in the world of language" that she didn't see it. I think the court's wrong to say she didn't see it.

Judge:
I think it's wrong to submit an affidavit in support if there's been no investigation. What am I supposed to draw from this.

Campbell:
Evidentiary hearing.

Kleinhendler basically arguing that they submitted the stuff that was consistent with their experts and preconceptions.

And telling the court that the court can't nitpick individual affidavits.

[VERY VERY WRONG, KLOWN]

Klown:
We came into court with 960 pages. ohfuckaduck

"And that is my response" to "paragraph whateveritwas" isn't a good response Klown.

Fink wants to talk about the vote flip thing that Klown just said. They just can't include things because they think it supports this?

Judge:
Did anyone enquire at to whether this guy saw anything----OUCHOUCH

Judge:
"Let the record reflect that nobody made that inquiry."

Nail. Coffin.

Moving on - don't know which daffydavit this is - OK, Jacobs.

Talking about the double voting thing.

Haller keeps wanting to talk about evidentiary hearing. Judge keeps trying to point out that any attorney has a minimal duty in submitting the damn things in the first place.

I drifted off for a second there, sorry.

Campbell and Judge fighting with each other. Lawyers don't win those.

Campbell keeps trying to dig up. He is terribly miscalculating his angle of attack.

Fink, being careful and nearly tiptoeing, pointing again to the prior proceeding as a lack of due dilligence.

Lots of this stuff was physically impossible. And they vetted nothing.

Klown wants to respond.

Judge: "Briefly."

Judge:
YIKESYIKESYIKESYIKESYIKES

Judge to Klown:
The only reason I'd allow you to speak at this point is if you have direct knowledge that answers one of my questions.

Moving on to more stuff.

This is just a slaughter at this point.

Judge referring to many affidavits.

Question:
Did counsel inquire as to whether there was a reason stacks of ballots might be run through machines more than once.

Did anyone ask the simple question as to why this would happen?

Haller:
Can I please have references?

Judge: ECF 6, Para 190(g)

Haller: Getting more detail and looking stuff up.

Judge: Giving rope.

Haller: Can I can see it?

Law clerk: OUCH

Law Clerk:
Judge, you're referring to the complaint. It's going to take us a few minutes to get the affidavits due to the lack of indexing by the plaintiffs.

Haller:
Oh, you're citing to the complaint. I was very confused.

[I believe that.]

Judge:
Did anyone enquire as to why that might happen?

Haller:
Well, we talked about that, went through a lot of stuff.

Judge:
So you saw there were possible non-fraudulent reasons?

Haller:
This depends on context. If they were testing, they might, but not in counting.

Judge: Mr Fink?

Fink:
The question was whether there is a reason that this might happen. The answer is yes.

Fink's answer isn't particularly critical, so I'm going to make a style comment:

He's reading the room well, calming down, slowing down, and doing his best to not further aggro the judge.

Haller: We object. He's testifying.

Judge:
Moving on. Johnson wants to talk.

Judge reading next allegations. This is going to be the same kind of question - did you investigate anything from the other affidavits yourself.

By the way:

This isn't rubble-bouncing by the judge. She's making a very very careful record right now and giving plaintiffs' lawyers lots of opportunity to show why they shouldn't be sanctioned.

Judge: How is [thing I just said] evidence for the vote dilution claim?

Haller:
Pointing to Brig-- excuse me, *Doctor* Briggs -- affidavit. But referring to Johnson.

Kleinhandler:
We don't have to show - NO KLOWN NO - that a vote flipped. It is enough that the integrity was compromised.

Judge:
This goes to your equal protection claim.

Kleinhandler:
We just have to show fraud.

Judge:
You asked the court to attribute votes to Trump.

Kleinhandler:
We had multiple layers of requested relief. We don't have to show that the malfeasance flipped the vote. It makes the vote non-countable.

Judge:
Thank you. Follow-up to allegation about absentee ballots counted without signatures/postmarks.

Judge:
In Michigan, do absentee ballots need to be received through the mail and have postmarks?

Haller:
The Secretary of State was admonished and this makes them all bad.

Judge:
Fink - no, let's hear from Meingast.

Meingast:
There was nothing different about counting. There was a different case about receipt time. There was no change in handling/process.

Haller:
We're objecting to testimony.

Meingast:
That's the published opinion from the court of appeals.

Haller:
There was a dissent.

Fink:
Court's question was do absentee ballots have to be mailed. They don't. They can go in drop boxes; they can be handed in across the counter.

The Secretary of State doesn't handle this. Local governments do. And they still don't get this.

Absolutely no due dilligence.

Johnson, looking to get in on the dumbest lawyer question.

Campbell may have given up at this point.

I honestly have no damn clue what the hell Johnson's point even is here. I'm not sure anyone does.

Campbell's face is a study. Rohl is on his phone.

Judge:
Mr. Fink - be quick I want to move on.

Fink:
These allegations were made about how votes were counted. Is there a basis to say that the absence of a postmark indicates fraud? No.

Judge:
Larson(sp?) affidavit.

Judge:
Affiant said ballots were counted with no privacy cover, and was perplexed and thought that they were being put in problem box based on who they voted for. Is this enough to take to court?

Campbell:
This OHSHIT

Campbell:
Absolutely this is evidentiary support

Judge:
*REALLY??*

Judge:
He's "perplexed" by something. This is quite a low standard, but I'll move on.

Campbell:
He's perplexed because there seems to be a question as to how they go

OHSHITSHITSHITSHITSHITSHITSHIT

Campbell just fairly directly challenged judge's conduct of the case.

Judge Parker...
...did not suffer this foolishness quietly. Or that fool gladly.

Fink:
This affiant says he was a lawyer. He said "perplexed"?

Some diligence was required. There was none.

Haller:
Yammer yammer yammer evidentiary hearing yammer yammer yammer seriously shutup youre not helping yourself haller.

Judge:
Calls out lawyers for plaintiffs for not having documents in front of them.

Campbell:
Making it clear that you said this was a show cause issued today.

[Judge is going to say that there's going to be briefing afterward.]

[That's going to be more than sufficient]

Judge:
Gustafson daffydavit

Allegations about boxes arriving after deadline. 3 pieces of evidentiary support.

Mail bins with open top, no lids/seals, no markings.

Judge:
What do lawyers understand the legal requirements for ballot bins to be?

Haller:
We don't purport to be experts on Michigan process - OH VERY BAD ANSWER YOU'RE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE TO BE JUST THAT WITH THIS FILING YOU FOOL

ohfuckaduck

Judge is very much into the calm waters on the far side of pissed off mode, and Haller is totally blind to that.

Judge:
I know that none of us are experts, but the bottom line is that there should be some general understanding of the process so that when you see a statement you understand it.

Fink:
There's no requirement for sealed containers. They were on inquiry notice when they saw the earlier case. And if they had asked, they would have learned there was no such obligation.

They aren't experts; didn't get experts. Still threw this in front of the court.

Campbell:
Fink didn't take issue with the facts.

Fink:
They're meaningless.

Court:
I think my concern is that these were submitted to show the public that there was something wrong in Michigan.

Judge:
I am simply taking these affidavits to see if they even support the allegation that there was fraud, and they don't.

[YES YES YES - we've all been saying this for literal damn months]

Judge:
All I'm asking is did you take the time to see if this was part of Michigan's process.

The premise of this lawsuit is that Michigan's election was fraudulent.

Klown, you can comment briefly and then I'm moving on.

Klown:
I think we spoke to some of these people.

I think it's just basic knowledge that open containers raise suspicions regardless of whether there's evidence of wrongdoing. Maybe the workers didn't know it was wrong, but who cares? If it's open, there's an issue.

Judge:
That's not on point.

Klown:
We filed on behalf of clients, and what the public did with it is beyond our control.

Judge:
OK. And I think things can be drawn from the amount of effort that you put into the lawsuit. And I'm trying to drill down as to the level of inquiry.

Judge:
Moving on to the Meyers affidavit. She said that there were multiple drivers who dropped off more ballots than voters in the car.

Judge:
Can you drop off someone else's ballot in Michigan?

Campbell:
Yes.

Ciantar affidavit - this is the plastic, clear bags, "express bags" to a USPS vehicle affidavit daffyness.

Mentioned "whistleblower" stuff that was never before the court.

[Yeah, this was a spectacularly sanctionable affidavit.]

Judge is reading from the affidavit still.

Obvious incredulity in her voice.

[For good reason. This affidavit was copulating with Planter's products.]

Judge:
How can any of you as officers of the court present this type of affidavit?

Sidney Powell is doing a *great* statue impression.

She's not crazy. She knows that's her best chance.

Haller:
The witness is testifying to what he knew to be true.

Judge:
You think that he is stating that he believes his conclusions to be true? "This is pure speculation."

Judge:
What evidence did he have to state any of the conclusions in this affidavit?

Haller:
He saw what he saw. He took photos.

Judge:
Doesn't counsel have an allegation to say "what is this going to prove?"

Judge:
What is your duty here? At what point do you have that duty to say there's not enough here?

Haller:
Possible source. We'd hope to call him to testify. Did not jump to conclusions; made that clear.

Powell's hand is up so she clearly wants to disprove my statement that she's not dumb.

Powell:
We filed a massive and detailed document. Didn't have to file any affidavits. Filing of affidavits shows dilligence.

Court is challenging veracity of the affiants.

Judge:
Quantity ain't quality in this court [paraphrase].

And, yes, Powell did just disprove my prior statement about her relative intelligence.

Klown now pointing to that doofus truck driver in Pennsylvania as evidence of malfeasance in the postal service.

Judge:
Is there a reason you didn't submit the evidence on the postal service thing, which is a very inflammatory allegation.

Klown:
It wasn't yet hard enough evidence but evidentiary hearing.

NO KLOWN.

Fink:
We're in Michigan, not Pennsylvania, and this affidavit is paranoid delusions. They shouldn't have it in there.

The affidavit says nothing but it fuels the online fires.

Judge:
Let's talk about the 1st Amendment argument, and the "just too numerous" and "string cite" stuff from Lambert's last filing.

I won't be insulted.

Judge:
Is there a point where a lawyer's conduct isn't protected?

[Answer: OH HELL YES THERE IS]

Answer thus far is nonresponsive.

Lambert:
Does that answer the court's question?

Judge:
"No."

Judge restating question. Is there a point where a lawyer's conduct becomes unprotected by the 1A.

Lambert:
As long as the information is accurate, it's protected and court is the appropriate place to redress grievances.

Judge:
Quoting from a 6th Circuit case that totally demolishes the free speech argument.

At length.

Great length.

Judge:
I'm done with questions.

Closing remarks, clarifications.

Would ask each of you for basis for a supplemental briefing might be helpful. Think long and hard because we already killed a lot of trees.

Starting with Campbell.

Campbell:
It's defendant's motion but you want me to go first?

Judge:
Yup.

(Missed some stuff there, sorry - brief distraction.)

Campbell is still up.

It's a prepared statement; I'll let you know if there's something important in there.

Basically trying to make the case that Bush v Gore means that this wasn't frivolous.

Now arguing about timing, and offering supplemental briefing on that.

Arguing that laches is an affirmative defense, not an indication that the claim was bad.

This is basically the narrow, technical argument that he started with and lost during the questioning.

I think Campbell realized mid-hearing that he had badly miscalculated where the court would be looking the most.

(NOT dinging Campbell for that; I made the same bad guess I think he made.)

This whole speech goes to the idea that they're facing sanctions for lack of *legal* merit to the claims.

She's MOSTLY interested, it sounded like, in the lack of factual merit and the terrible affidavits. I honestly didn't expect that deep a dive into the facts here.

The whole argument he's making is about the lack of legal merit. He's not engaging - AT ALL - with what happened.

Now arguing that civil claims don't foment insurrection and it's dangerous to not hear them.

Judge:
Supplemental brief?

Campbell:
Yes.

Judge:
What issue?

Campbell:
You've highlighted a lot of affidavits - you held up puzzle pieces and asked us where they fit. I think we should be able to show you the box.

Buchanan:
Anything other than that your client had nothing to do with this?

Judge:
That's about it.

Buchannan:
I just got information.

Judge:
Mr. Fink - are you disputing notice?

Fink:
Hell yes.

Judge:
Brief notice on the motion for sanctions - and anyone else can brief that issue.

Buchannan:
I'm not disputing that Mr. Fink sent it to Powell - I'm not questioning that at all. But my client never got it after that.

Fink:
We'll file with what, factually, we did.

Judge:
Do that.

Fink:
We're happy to only address those who said they didn't get notice. We think that's Wood and Newman.

Wood:
My position may be unique, I might need independent counsel after all.

Wood:
I'd like to address that in supplemental briefing.

Wood wants an evidentiary hearing on his own involvement.

Judge:
Will allow brief. Being very patient. Unhappy.

"I'll give you two weeks."

Judge:
Show of hands: who is contesting receipt of notice.

Klown:
I'm contesting receipt under Rule 5, and I didn't waive it.

Powell:
I'm contesting on the same basis as Klown.

Looks like they're all going in on this one.

Clown. Damn. Shoes.

Fink wants clarification as to objections.

Klown:
I got the email and first class mail, but the thing was otherwise defective.

Judge:
That was briefed.

Klown:
I wanted to be sure I didn't waive that.

Powell:
I can't verify actual notice today. [Clown. Damn. Shoes.]

Judge:
Lambert, you can submit two cases on "unbridled" First Amendment protection.

Lambert wants to submit new evidence. Judge is like OK.

Lin wants 2 weeks from receipt of today's transcript.

Judge:
Nope. I need to see your claims first.

Judge:
Work with what you have, Lin.

Lin:
I would feel like I couldn't represent someone well without the transcript, so I want that available.

Judge:
You get 14 days.

Powell:
We need time to review the transcript to figure out what supplemental briefing is needed.

Judge:
14 days for everyone.

I'm still trying to limit what briefing is on.

Powell:
We need to review this with counsel. With transcript.

Judge:
14 days. "There we have it."

Judge:
Buchanan - anything else?

Buchanan - nope.

Judge:
Lambert? If you have anything, be brief.

Camera was off and didn't hear question. [DOH]

Judge:
I really feel it's in everyone's best interest to not go "over the top" on this. Can we agree on a limit?

Judge:
10 page limit. *FOR EVERYONE*

Campbell:
"I'd request at least LMAO

Campbell just asked for 25 pages.

Judge said: Tell you what. Start with 10. Then ask if you think you really need more.

DNC talking for just the first time - sanction them please, thanks.

Davis's counsel.
Going to the use of the judicial process for partisan advantage. That is the abuse that this filing has caused. It's an abuse of the system.

Good argument from Davis's otherwise quiet lawyer.

Mr Fink:
Will respond to Wood's involvement and other things.

Judge:
Do you need to talk about Wood if you're going to brief it?

Fink:
I'll be short. I'll brief on notice, but what do you want - do we respond to them? I can do that in the response to them.

Fink:
Honoring his late law partner, who wrote most of the briefs in the case but passed suddenly on 24 Jan.

Fink:
I'll limit my response about Wood. But it ties to the [Rolle(?)] affidavit.

In that affidavit, he says that the litigation was spearheaded by Powell and Wood. That was submitted to the court. Nobody contested anything in that affidavit.

Oh - the Rohl affidavit. Rohl was local counsel.

So it's his affidavit that tossed Wood under the bus.

Judge stopping Fink -

Wants to be fair, but asking to save that for briefing.

Fink:
Regarding the Rohl affidavit, he does indicate that he was to "hold the fort."

I'll conclude more broadly.

Judge, nearly inaudible:
"Thank you."

Fink:
6 months since the insurrection, which horrified most of us - maybe not all of us on the screen - can be

Wood:
I object to that

Lots of crosstalk, probably good that this isn't in person.

Court reporter is reading the riot act to the lawyers.

Judge is admonishing lawyers to not interrupt.

Judge:
"Mr Fink, you can proceed, and I'm looking at you to wrap it up."

Fink is not wrapping up fast enough.

But he's trying, I think.

Fink:
We filed this on Jan 5th. And we said this was dangerous then, including about these lawyers on social media.

Wood has wandered off which is REALLY DAMN STUPID.

Fink is trying people's patience, including the judge's, but I understand why he wants this in the record.

Judge isn't cutting him off.

He's talking faster and getting passionate.

And he's right.

But he needs to sit down now while he's winning.

Fink is asking for specific relief.

Taxpayers should be off hook. Lawyers should be punished - and calculated to deter.

And these attorneys should not be allowed to appear in this court. Or any other.

Asking for referrals to home states, and for this court to refer to ED Mich chief judge that they be kicked out of the District.

Apologizes for going over.

Judge:
I'll hear from Meingast.

Wood:
I want to respond to him.

Judge:
No.

Wood:
Trying to get a word in edgewise.

This is not a debate.

Big thunderstorm in my area - if I drop off that's why.

Meingast:
Being brief.

For a lawyer.

[I think Wood was about 10 milliseconds from being held in contempt just then.]

Meingast is doing a good, standard lawyer closing - reiterating their request.

And they're done.

Judge very much not giving anyone else time to talk.

Saying there will be a scheduling order soon.

Powell:
I want to say a lot of stuff right now.

Taking full responsibility - good, but probably too little too late given the contents.

Saying again that the page count showed they were serious.

She's digging and digging and digging.

Claiming they were asking in the highest interests OHNO NO NO

Just compared them to Brown v Board of Ed.

Just said she'd file the same case again.

And that this is the kind of case that leaves the public with no confidence in government or the legal system.

[yes, that was *Powell's* argument.]

Adjourned.

And the livestream went off spectacularly fast.

Damn - there were 12k watchers, or near enough.

Impressions:
I have to be brief - still need to try and squeeze in some writing today.

Will do this at length on Twitch tonight at 7:30 Central - the link is in my bio.

But:
1: YIKESYIKESYIKES.

2: Campbell did really well at the start and then oh my dear god he totally lost his cool and the thread somewhere along the way. I don't think he expected this to be about due dilligence. I think he was expecting legal frivolousness to be the topic.

I think he got flustered.

3: I know for an absolute fact that I did not expect this to be as much about factual investigation (or the lack thereof) as it was.

That it went there is VERY bad for the plaintiffs' lawyers.

4: (This is not in any particular order.) I've seen people say that Haller was crying. I think she was passionate about the case (unadvisably so at times) and her voice trembled some. I did not see her cry at any point.

5: I think Judge Parker should buy the court reporter some suitable thank you and sorry you had to do that thing.

Also, and again, the court reporter is a hero and the transcript will be a disaster.

6: Overall:
Many lawyers were in a hole at the start. Some tried to climb up the shoulders of others to get out. They were harmed in these efforts because those people were still digging while the others were climbing.

OK - that's all I got for now.

I know I'm missing something, but I can't remember what and I've absolutely got to get to work now.

For more, tune in at 7:30 Central - the twitch link is in my bio.

I'll add any late thoughts to this thread as they come to me.

Oh - outcome.

I've never since passing the bar thought there was more than a 33% chance of sanctions being issued in a case.

I'm at 90%.

Also:
Sidney Powell saying that she'd file the same complaint again is ABSOLUTELY the one dumbest thing that she possibly could have said during the entire hearing.

That would have been true at the start.

It was many times many times dumber as a closing statement.

Like even after all these months my brain is still struggling to comprehend how her mouth was able to utter those words.

It was so obviously a bad call that you'd almost expect the tongue to overrule the brain.

I've had a couple of people ask about Kofi or similar - I'm good, but if you have a couple of bucks to spare, here's a great cause that could use all the help it can get. https://twitter.com/popelizbet/status/1414593189583937542?s=20

Still pondering the train wreck.

If I had to guess, I'd say the judge started the hearing at "why shouldn't you pay the defense's fees" but by the end of the hearing was at "why are you" with the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Like not even "why are you doing this thing."

Just "why are you."