1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,519 --> 00:00:09,959
Speaker 1: The Trump campaign has launched a legal onslaught over vote

3
00:00:09,960 --> 00:00:13,440
Speaker 1: counts in battleground states, filing at least six lawsuits since

4
00:00:13,520 --> 00:00:16,799
Speaker 1: election day to challenge the ballot counts whose suits have

5
00:00:16,920 --> 00:00:19,680
Speaker 1: already been dismissed, and the question is whether any of

6
00:00:19,720 --> 00:00:22,680
Speaker 1: the cases has a real chance to effect the final count.

7
00:00:23,239 --> 00:00:27,159
Speaker 1: On Friday, Republican National Committee Chair Rona McDaniels said the

8
00:00:27,360 --> 00:00:31,960
Speaker 1: RNC has deployed legal teams to Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania,

9
00:00:32,360 --> 00:00:36,320
Speaker 1: citing concerns about so far unproven claims of voter fraud.

10
00:00:37,080 --> 00:00:41,000
Speaker 1: We will fight every regularity to the very last, because

11
00:00:41,040 --> 00:00:44,120
Speaker 1: every voter deserves their vote to be counted, and they

12
00:00:44,159 --> 00:00:48,120
Speaker 1: deserve to know whether or not these irregularities mean fraud,

13
00:00:48,280 --> 00:00:51,360
Speaker 1: and we have to figure this out. But Philadelphia Mayor

14
00:00:51,440 --> 00:00:54,560
Speaker 1: Jim Kenney said the president's team has not produced any

15
00:00:54,640 --> 00:00:58,200
Speaker 1: evidence to back up his claims of fraud. I think

16
00:00:58,240 --> 00:01:00,800
Speaker 1: what the president needs to do is Frankie put his

17
00:01:00,840 --> 00:01:03,440
Speaker 1: big boy pants on. He needs to acknowledge the fact

18
00:01:03,440 --> 00:01:05,720
Speaker 1: that he lost, and he needs to congratulate the winner,

19
00:01:06,080 --> 00:01:08,319
Speaker 1: just as Jimmy Carter did, just as George H. W.

20
00:01:08,440 --> 00:01:11,120
Speaker 1: Bush did, and frankly, just as Al Gore did, and

21
00:01:11,200 --> 00:01:13,440
Speaker 1: stop this and let us move forward as a country.

22
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:17,240
Speaker 1: My guest is election law expert Richard Brofald, professor at

23
00:01:17,280 --> 00:01:20,759
Speaker 1: Columbia Law School. Rich let's look at some of these cases.

24
00:01:21,200 --> 00:01:24,760
Speaker 1: Starting with Michigan, the Trump campaign tried to stop the

25
00:01:24,880 --> 00:01:28,880
Speaker 1: count and it claimed it hadn't been given meaningful access

26
00:01:29,000 --> 00:01:33,119
Speaker 1: to the counting locations to observe the process. A judge

27
00:01:33,280 --> 00:01:37,400
Speaker 1: already rejected that is that claim then dead. I think

28
00:01:37,520 --> 00:01:42,319
Speaker 1: unless the campaign can provide evidence that shows that access

29
00:01:42,440 --> 00:01:45,080
Speaker 1: was not provided, it is always a challenge to overturn

30
00:01:45,200 --> 00:01:47,840
Speaker 1: the decision of the judge who was on the scene.

31
00:01:48,160 --> 00:01:51,559
Speaker 1: And unless they can actually provide evidence that they were

32
00:01:51,640 --> 00:01:54,720
Speaker 1: somehow not given the access of the law entitles them too,

33
00:01:55,080 --> 00:01:57,040
Speaker 1: and that that might have affected the count and that

34
00:01:57,120 --> 00:01:59,640
Speaker 1: the result in the particular places which would have affected

35
00:01:59,640 --> 00:02:02,040
Speaker 1: the overall accounts, I think it's it's a very high

36
00:02:02,160 --> 00:02:06,040
Speaker 1: hurdle for them to overcome. And another lawsuit that was

37
00:02:06,480 --> 00:02:10,760
Speaker 1: dismissed was in Georgia, and there they claim that a

38
00:02:10,960 --> 00:02:16,400
Speaker 1: Republican pole observer in Chatham County witness laid ballots being

39
00:02:16,600 --> 00:02:20,919
Speaker 1: illegally added to a stack of on time absentee ballots.

40
00:02:21,360 --> 00:02:24,200
Speaker 1: The judge just threw that out, saying there's no evidence.

41
00:02:24,680 --> 00:02:30,560
Speaker 1: So that's also over right, and it's extremely unlikely, between

42
00:02:30,639 --> 00:02:33,880
Speaker 1: very unlikely and almost nearly impossible, never say never for

43
00:02:33,919 --> 00:02:37,519
Speaker 1: a higher level court to overturn a child judge or

44
00:02:37,520 --> 00:02:39,280
Speaker 1: a district court. Judges of assessment of the evidence of

45
00:02:39,320 --> 00:02:42,079
Speaker 1: the judge said there's no evidence. That almost surely means

46
00:02:42,080 --> 00:02:46,000
Speaker 1: there's no evidence that any higher court would be interested in.

47
00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:50,680
Speaker 1: In Nevada, the lawsuit alleges that ten thousand votes were

48
00:02:50,840 --> 00:02:54,680
Speaker 1: illegally cast by people who no longer reside in the state.

49
00:02:55,520 --> 00:02:58,120
Speaker 1: If people no longer reside in the state, are they

50
00:02:58,160 --> 00:03:01,679
Speaker 1: still allowed to vote if intend to come back. I

51
00:03:01,720 --> 00:03:03,560
Speaker 1: guess that depends on what you mean by reside. In

52
00:03:03,600 --> 00:03:07,000
Speaker 1: other words, if somebody has temporarily moved because for example,

53
00:03:07,040 --> 00:03:09,480
Speaker 1: they want to go to their vacation home which is

54
00:03:09,520 --> 00:03:12,200
Speaker 1: in a lower COVID area, there's still residents of the state.

55
00:03:12,720 --> 00:03:14,600
Speaker 1: So I mean they have to first show that there

56
00:03:14,600 --> 00:03:17,440
Speaker 1: are people who fall into any category of having movement,

57
00:03:17,480 --> 00:03:19,320
Speaker 1: and I've got to show that the person has actually

58
00:03:19,560 --> 00:03:24,280
Speaker 1: relocated as opposed to staying temporarily somewhere else. People it's

59
00:03:24,360 --> 00:03:26,840
Speaker 1: a big deal to give up residency if they still

60
00:03:26,880 --> 00:03:30,560
Speaker 1: maintain an address, if they're paying their utility bills, and

61
00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:32,680
Speaker 1: then they haven't less the state. I wonder how they

62
00:03:32,760 --> 00:03:35,240
Speaker 1: even came up with that number, Like what kind of

63
00:03:35,320 --> 00:03:38,080
Speaker 1: research or what would have shown that? Right? I mean,

64
00:03:38,080 --> 00:03:40,480
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the question. They've been bringing a lot

65
00:03:40,480 --> 00:03:43,760
Speaker 1: of lawsuits without much evidence, or maybe without any evidence.

66
00:03:43,760 --> 00:03:46,360
Speaker 1: They've been They've been hurling a lot of accusations, but

67
00:03:46,560 --> 00:03:49,240
Speaker 1: so far the courts who have been hearing these cases

68
00:03:49,240 --> 00:03:53,160
Speaker 1: have been pretty unreceptive because they don't see any evidence.

69
00:03:53,680 --> 00:03:55,480
Speaker 1: So I think they actually would have to come up

70
00:03:55,520 --> 00:03:58,960
Speaker 1: with some specific people and show that those people are

71
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:02,480
Speaker 1: no longer there, and I haven't heard that yet. The

72
00:04:02,560 --> 00:04:05,440
Speaker 1: cases that are getting the most attention are those in

73
00:04:05,480 --> 00:04:09,120
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania for a couple of reasons, the importance of Pennsylvania

74
00:04:09,160 --> 00:04:11,280
Speaker 1: as a swing state and the fact that the U. S.

75
00:04:11,280 --> 00:04:14,560
Speaker 1: Supreme Court already decided in a fourd or four decision

76
00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:18,719
Speaker 1: to leave in place the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision allowing

77
00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:23,040
Speaker 1: ballots received three days after election day but postmarked by

78
00:04:23,080 --> 00:04:26,840
Speaker 1: election day to be counted. State officials have told counties

79
00:04:26,880 --> 00:04:30,520
Speaker 1: to separate out those late arriving ballots, but some of

80
00:04:30,560 --> 00:04:34,200
Speaker 1: the conservative justice has left the door open to reconsidering

81
00:04:34,200 --> 00:04:37,800
Speaker 1: the question after the election. The Trump campaign is also

82
00:04:37,880 --> 00:04:41,920
Speaker 1: suing in Pennsylvania with an access argument, again saying their

83
00:04:41,960 --> 00:04:46,000
Speaker 1: representatives were being denied reasonable access to monitor the counting

84
00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:49,720
Speaker 1: of votes. In Philadelphia, the vote counting is live streaming,

85
00:04:49,800 --> 00:04:54,080
Speaker 1: So what kind of transparency are they looking for? Once again,

86
00:04:54,400 --> 00:04:56,320
Speaker 1: you can make a statement, but then you actually have

87
00:04:56,440 --> 00:04:58,640
Speaker 1: to say not only what you're looking for, but what

88
00:04:58,680 --> 00:05:02,680
Speaker 1: you're legally entitled to. But they are entitled. Each state

89
00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:05,360
Speaker 1: has has its own laws that say who is supposed

90
00:05:05,400 --> 00:05:08,280
Speaker 1: to be present when both are accounted. Typically, and I

91
00:05:08,320 --> 00:05:10,040
Speaker 1: think this is the case in Pennsylvania, there should be

92
00:05:10,040 --> 00:05:13,599
Speaker 1: representatives of both parties. My understanding is that that has

93
00:05:13,640 --> 00:05:16,599
Speaker 1: been the case. Trump campaign one am very minor victory

94
00:05:16,640 --> 00:05:18,320
Speaker 1: when they were allowed to get a little bit closer

95
00:05:18,560 --> 00:05:21,160
Speaker 1: to the action while still maintaining six feet of kind

96
00:05:21,160 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 1: of COVID required public health distance. So they didn't win

97
00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:26,840
Speaker 1: a minor victory there in terms of how close they

98
00:05:26,839 --> 00:05:30,040
Speaker 1: can get to watch the both counting. But I don't

99
00:05:30,040 --> 00:05:33,520
Speaker 1: think any court has said that there's been any situation

100
00:05:33,560 --> 00:05:38,039
Speaker 1: in which there wasn't the required bipartisan observation of the

101
00:05:38,040 --> 00:05:40,840
Speaker 1: whole accounting. So again, it's it's one thing to say

102
00:05:40,839 --> 00:05:43,000
Speaker 1: there needs to be more transparency. Is something else to

103
00:05:43,040 --> 00:05:47,160
Speaker 1: say the law requires the following and they haven't given

104
00:05:47,160 --> 00:05:49,000
Speaker 1: it to us, and that I have not heard. I've

105
00:05:49,040 --> 00:05:52,920
Speaker 1: been talking to Columbia Law School professor Richard Revault. Do

106
00:05:52,920 --> 00:05:57,000
Speaker 1: you think the Pennsylvania's Supreme Court went outside the bounds

107
00:05:57,040 --> 00:06:01,120
Speaker 1: of its authority in granting that three days tension? That

108
00:06:01,200 --> 00:06:03,640
Speaker 1: turns a lot on what their authority is, to be honest,

109
00:06:03,680 --> 00:06:06,080
Speaker 1: and that's actually, in some ways the issue that is

110
00:06:06,240 --> 00:06:08,560
Speaker 1: lurking beneath the surface of the Supreme Court. If it's

111
00:06:08,560 --> 00:06:11,279
Speaker 1: an issue the Supreme Court wants to take on. I

112
00:06:11,320 --> 00:06:14,280
Speaker 1: don't think the Pennsylvania Supreme Court went beyond its authority

113
00:06:14,360 --> 00:06:17,520
Speaker 1: as the highest court in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in

114
00:06:17,600 --> 00:06:20,800
Speaker 1: charge of interpreting the statutes of the state in light

115
00:06:20,800 --> 00:06:23,440
Speaker 1: of the state constitution, and the state constitution has a

116
00:06:23,480 --> 00:06:26,040
Speaker 1: strong protection of the right to vote. So I don't

117
00:06:26,040 --> 00:06:28,960
Speaker 1: think there is much doubt that in terms that they

118
00:06:28,960 --> 00:06:32,640
Speaker 1: were within their balance of looking at their statutes in

119
00:06:32,760 --> 00:06:34,800
Speaker 1: light of the state constitution and in the light of

120
00:06:34,839 --> 00:06:38,440
Speaker 1: the situation the COVID created postal Service create the lays

121
00:06:38,480 --> 00:06:41,440
Speaker 1: created situation. The question that's been asked by a number

122
00:06:41,480 --> 00:06:43,760
Speaker 1: of the justices and is being pressed by Republicans in

123
00:06:43,800 --> 00:06:46,560
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign is were they actually allowed to look

124
00:06:46,560 --> 00:06:49,400
Speaker 1: at their state constitution or they were they required to

125
00:06:49,480 --> 00:06:53,320
Speaker 1: look only at the text of the state statute. Texas

126
00:06:53,360 --> 00:06:57,200
Speaker 1: state statute does set a specific deadline by which ballots

127
00:06:57,279 --> 00:07:00,640
Speaker 1: must be received the Pennsylvania Court when other than that,

128
00:07:01,279 --> 00:07:03,599
Speaker 1: the problem is, the argument is being made that they're

129
00:07:03,640 --> 00:07:07,919
Speaker 1: not that. Under the US Constitution, the state legislature is

130
00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:11,520
Speaker 1: the body that sets the rules for the selection of

131
00:07:11,560 --> 00:07:14,680
Speaker 1: presidential electors, and they set a specific deadline for the

132
00:07:14,680 --> 00:07:17,000
Speaker 1: receipt of S and T ballots, and so therefore, as

133
00:07:17,040 --> 00:07:21,840
Speaker 1: a matter of US constitutional law, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

134
00:07:21,960 --> 00:07:26,480
Speaker 1: couldn't use its state constitution to you know, extend that deadline.

135
00:07:26,960 --> 00:07:29,440
Speaker 1: That's the question that would go to the Supreme Court

136
00:07:30,120 --> 00:07:33,560
Speaker 1: if the case goes to the Supreme Court. My understanding

137
00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:38,080
Speaker 1: and is that uh Biden is winning Pennsylvania without actually

138
00:07:38,080 --> 00:07:41,200
Speaker 1: having to look at those later on ballots. Uh as

139
00:07:41,560 --> 00:07:44,440
Speaker 1: you know, you may recall when the Supreme Court declined

140
00:07:44,480 --> 00:07:48,160
Speaker 1: to intervene in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania a trainey general in

141
00:07:48,200 --> 00:07:51,440
Speaker 1: the secretary that comwell right after that said we are

142
00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:54,920
Speaker 1: going to keep any later arriving ballots separate so that

143
00:07:54,960 --> 00:07:58,200
Speaker 1: if the Supreme Court does intervene, that we can we

144
00:07:58,240 --> 00:08:02,720
Speaker 1: can count these these question ballots separately. And if there's

145
00:08:02,840 --> 00:08:04,880
Speaker 1: you know, and so it won't affect the ballot that

146
00:08:04,920 --> 00:08:07,960
Speaker 1: did come in on time. And so, um, it's not

147
00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:10,760
Speaker 1: one reason the Supreme Court might not take the case.

148
00:08:10,800 --> 00:08:13,720
Speaker 1: But we don't know is it might not make a difference.

149
00:08:14,360 --> 00:08:18,240
Speaker 1: The Trump campaign is asking for a recount in Wisconsin

150
00:08:18,760 --> 00:08:23,040
Speaker 1: and possibly in Georgia. In most states are recounts triggered

151
00:08:23,040 --> 00:08:26,720
Speaker 1: automatically when there's a certain margin between the two candidates.

152
00:08:27,240 --> 00:08:30,640
Speaker 1: Most states have an automatic recount rule, and sometimes it's

153
00:08:30,720 --> 00:08:32,720
Speaker 1: one percent and sometimes it's a half of a percent.

154
00:08:33,120 --> 00:08:35,840
Speaker 1: But certainly, right, certainly the numbers in Georgia are so

155
00:08:35,960 --> 00:08:39,840
Speaker 1: close that uh, it would pass any rule for an

156
00:08:39,840 --> 00:08:45,079
Speaker 1: automatic recount. So who pays for the recounts? Well, again,

157
00:08:45,160 --> 00:08:47,480
Speaker 1: there are different states have different rules on this, and

158
00:08:47,520 --> 00:08:50,240
Speaker 1: it actually turns on how close it is. So that

159
00:08:50,360 --> 00:08:52,319
Speaker 1: if it's if it's very close, and I think the

160
00:08:52,440 --> 00:08:55,439
Speaker 1: state pays for it. If it's if it's uh, if

161
00:08:55,440 --> 00:08:57,679
Speaker 1: the results are wider than a certain margin, and I

162
00:08:57,760 --> 00:08:59,800
Speaker 1: think the party asking for the recount pays for it.

163
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:03,160
Speaker 1: As far as my research has taken me, there's never

164
00:09:03,200 --> 00:09:06,559
Speaker 1: been a recount that resulted in more than a couple

165
00:09:06,559 --> 00:09:10,400
Speaker 1: of hundred votes either way. Typically there is the numbers

166
00:09:10,559 --> 00:09:12,880
Speaker 1: changed very narrowly. And as I recalled, there was a

167
00:09:12,880 --> 00:09:16,160
Speaker 1: recount in Wisconsin four years ago when Trump won by

168
00:09:16,160 --> 00:09:19,360
Speaker 1: about twenty votes, and the recount resulted in giving him

169
00:09:19,360 --> 00:09:22,080
Speaker 1: a hundred and thirty votes. More So, right now, the

170
00:09:22,120 --> 00:09:25,200
Speaker 1: margin between Trump and Biden, it was conceivable that the

171
00:09:25,280 --> 00:09:28,960
Speaker 1: numbers will move a little bit. But um, in the

172
00:09:29,040 --> 00:09:33,160
Speaker 1: vast majority of recounts, the results don't change, especially with

173
00:09:33,200 --> 00:09:37,120
Speaker 1: a margin as big as twenty thousands. Even in the

174
00:09:37,120 --> 00:09:41,640
Speaker 1: bushbeg Gol litigation in Florida twenty years ago, I think

175
00:09:41,840 --> 00:09:45,720
Speaker 1: um the margin. I think Bush's margin went from something

176
00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:50,360
Speaker 1: like votes to something like uh votes uh five hundred

177
00:09:50,400 --> 00:09:53,920
Speaker 1: something votes. The numbers changed, but they changed by a

178
00:09:53,960 --> 00:09:57,400
Speaker 1: few hundred um, even when they were six million votes cast.

179
00:09:58,040 --> 00:10:02,920
Speaker 1: So would you character is all the lawsuits as nuisance

180
00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:07,600
Speaker 1: lawsuits or something more than a nuisance lawsuit. I think

181
00:10:07,640 --> 00:10:10,120
Speaker 1: they are legally, I think they're nuisance lawsuits. I think

182
00:10:10,160 --> 00:10:13,640
Speaker 1: their purposes less about the law and more about public

183
00:10:13,640 --> 00:10:19,880
Speaker 1: relations and about kind of maintaining um, the posture that

184
00:10:19,960 --> 00:10:22,720
Speaker 1: there's something wrong here. So far, all of them have

185
00:10:22,880 --> 00:10:25,760
Speaker 1: either been dismissed or the one victory that I'm aware

186
00:10:25,760 --> 00:10:28,160
Speaker 1: of was on a very very minor point that will

187
00:10:28,160 --> 00:10:30,800
Speaker 1: have no effect on the income. But I think it's

188
00:10:30,840 --> 00:10:33,960
Speaker 1: all about on a project of trying to cast doubt

189
00:10:34,360 --> 00:10:36,760
Speaker 1: on the legitimacy of the election by filing as many

190
00:10:37,120 --> 00:10:39,960
Speaker 1: lawsuits as they can as they can and maybe also

191
00:10:40,040 --> 00:10:43,040
Speaker 1: delay I mean the law. If they can delay the account,

192
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:47,920
Speaker 1: they can maintain this UH, the the the illusion that

193
00:10:48,000 --> 00:10:52,360
Speaker 1: there's something wrong here and keep the turmoil going UM

194
00:10:52,400 --> 00:10:55,240
Speaker 1: and maybe in the hope that something happens. But so far, UM,

195
00:10:55,480 --> 00:10:59,439
Speaker 1: there is UH. The lawsuits have been pretty much baseless

196
00:10:59,440 --> 00:11:02,600
Speaker 1: and on inciated UH. And the one time I think

197
00:11:02,640 --> 00:11:05,920
Speaker 1: they went a victory was on a fairly minor point. Now,

198
00:11:06,120 --> 00:11:11,520
Speaker 1: speaking of casting doubt, what's your reaction to President Trump's

199
00:11:11,559 --> 00:11:18,120
Speaker 1: statement on Thursday night that there were illegal ballots and

200
00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:21,240
Speaker 1: the election was being stolen, and can you lend any

201
00:11:21,320 --> 00:11:24,880
Speaker 1: credence to his claims, you know there since he presented

202
00:11:24,920 --> 00:11:27,680
Speaker 1: no evidence, I think the answer is no. I mean,

203
00:11:27,720 --> 00:11:31,400
Speaker 1: there have been um no evidence of a stunt, want

204
00:11:31,400 --> 00:11:33,960
Speaker 1: to say, any illegal votes, but there's only been no

205
00:11:34,080 --> 00:11:37,680
Speaker 1: evidence of any illegal any illegal votes that come even

206
00:11:37,760 --> 00:11:41,080
Speaker 1: remotely close to affecting the outcome in any state. I mean,

207
00:11:41,160 --> 00:11:42,920
Speaker 1: I don't want to say that there was never any

208
00:11:42,960 --> 00:11:46,280
Speaker 1: illegal votes cast on either side, but they have never

209
00:11:46,960 --> 00:11:49,680
Speaker 1: um the camp, the Trump campaign has not come forward

210
00:11:49,720 --> 00:11:53,920
Speaker 1: evidence of any number of illegal votes sufficient to affect

211
00:11:53,960 --> 00:11:57,800
Speaker 1: the outcome in any state. CNN is reporting that Trump

212
00:11:57,880 --> 00:12:00,439
Speaker 1: has told people he has no plans to in seed

213
00:12:00,840 --> 00:12:03,920
Speaker 1: even if his path to victory appears to be blocked.

214
00:12:04,480 --> 00:12:09,800
Speaker 1: Is there any requirement or necessity for a president to concede. No,

215
00:12:10,120 --> 00:12:14,000
Speaker 1: it's just a matter of courtesy and kind of the

216
00:12:14,040 --> 00:12:17,040
Speaker 1: dignity of the system about a loser concedes. But no,

217
00:12:17,679 --> 00:12:21,520
Speaker 1: he doesn't have to concede if he loses. Eventually, the

218
00:12:22,000 --> 00:12:26,480
Speaker 1: each state will certify its results of the election, and

219
00:12:26,640 --> 00:12:29,400
Speaker 1: the certified and the results a result in the the

220
00:12:29,440 --> 00:12:33,119
Speaker 1: selection of a set of electors UH and on December

221
00:12:34,800 --> 00:12:38,679
Speaker 1: those electors will vote UM, and on January six, those

222
00:12:38,679 --> 00:12:41,760
Speaker 1: electors votes to be officially counted in Congress. And there's

223
00:12:41,880 --> 00:12:44,320
Speaker 1: not much he can do. There's nothing he can do

224
00:12:44,360 --> 00:12:47,480
Speaker 1: about that. We've been talking about how you know, it's

225
00:12:47,520 --> 00:12:50,000
Speaker 1: been taking a longer time for the states to count

226
00:12:50,040 --> 00:12:53,160
Speaker 1: with all the mail in voting. But tell us about

227
00:12:53,360 --> 00:12:57,360
Speaker 1: December eight than this safe Harvard deadline, and when we

228
00:12:57,400 --> 00:13:01,800
Speaker 1: can stop being concerned about stay sending in different ballots

229
00:13:01,840 --> 00:13:07,240
Speaker 1: of electors. Right so under UM, Under there's something called

230
00:13:07,280 --> 00:13:10,880
Speaker 1: the Electoral Count Act, which Congress passed in the late

231
00:13:10,960 --> 00:13:15,040
Speaker 1: nineteenth century to deal with disputed elections. UM. Congress has

232
00:13:15,080 --> 00:13:19,920
Speaker 1: promised that if a state completes all of completes its

233
00:13:20,000 --> 00:13:24,520
Speaker 1: count and and declares a result, and does so under

234
00:13:24,760 --> 00:13:28,679
Speaker 1: laws that existed before election day, if the state does

235
00:13:28,760 --> 00:13:32,760
Speaker 1: all that by six days before its electors are scheduled

236
00:13:32,800 --> 00:13:36,400
Speaker 1: to meet, the Congress has promised it will honor that result.

237
00:13:37,080 --> 00:13:39,439
Speaker 1: So UM, all the electors are scheduled to meet on

238
00:13:39,480 --> 00:13:42,440
Speaker 1: December fourteen. That's the day Congress has set for the

239
00:13:42,480 --> 00:13:45,880
Speaker 1: meeting of the Electoral College. So uh, six days before

240
00:13:45,920 --> 00:13:48,840
Speaker 1: that is is December eight, And that's become known as

241
00:13:48,880 --> 00:13:53,760
Speaker 1: the say harbor day. Um, if by December eight a

242
00:13:53,920 --> 00:13:58,360
Speaker 1: state has resolved all the disputes that maybe maybe with

243
00:13:58,440 --> 00:14:01,800
Speaker 1: respect to who on the presidential election of that state,

244
00:14:02,040 --> 00:14:07,439
Speaker 1: and has declared you a certified winner, um, then the

245
00:14:07,480 --> 00:14:11,600
Speaker 1: Congress has promised to honor that result. So finally, just

246
00:14:11,800 --> 00:14:16,679
Speaker 1: give me your thoughts about the election and the allegations

247
00:14:16,720 --> 00:14:19,600
Speaker 1: of fraud. Has the integrity of the system, has the

248
00:14:19,680 --> 00:14:24,200
Speaker 1: confidence in the system been damaged? Those are two different questions.

249
00:14:24,240 --> 00:14:27,080
Speaker 1: I think actually the integrity the system has been maintained

250
00:14:27,360 --> 00:14:32,720
Speaker 1: through the incredible work of state and county elections commissioners

251
00:14:32,800 --> 00:14:35,960
Speaker 1: who have really been under incredible amounts of stress through

252
00:14:35,960 --> 00:14:38,880
Speaker 1: this whole process. That the shift to massive amounts of

253
00:14:39,120 --> 00:14:42,720
Speaker 1: mail in balance is unprecedented, The attacks on the system

254
00:14:42,800 --> 00:14:46,120
Speaker 1: are unprecedented. You know, the challenge to find poll workers

255
00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:50,560
Speaker 1: and to run safe and sanitary polling stations is unprecedented.

256
00:14:51,000 --> 00:14:54,520
Speaker 1: So I think, actually it's a rickety system. We need

257
00:14:54,560 --> 00:14:58,120
Speaker 1: a better system. But in fact I think we are

258
00:14:58,160 --> 00:15:02,720
Speaker 1: seeing that the system works. The elections offices rose incredibly

259
00:15:02,760 --> 00:15:05,600
Speaker 1: to the challenge. But has the legitimacy of the system

260
00:15:05,640 --> 00:15:09,560
Speaker 1: been under my for sure, this relentless trumpeat of criticisms

261
00:15:09,600 --> 00:15:13,200
Speaker 1: by the President and his allies. This consummates insistence that

262
00:15:13,240 --> 00:15:17,800
Speaker 1: there's fraud. Surely many movies Americans have been persuaded that

263
00:15:17,800 --> 00:15:20,640
Speaker 1: there's something wrong here, and that's the terrible thing. Thanks

264
00:15:20,640 --> 00:15:23,760
Speaker 1: for being on the Bloomberg Law Show. Rich that's Richard Brofald,

265
00:15:23,880 --> 00:15:28,600
Speaker 1: a professor, Columbia Law School. The Trump campaign has filed

266
00:15:28,680 --> 00:15:32,880
Speaker 1: lawsuits in the battleground states of Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, and Pennsylvania,

267
00:15:33,160 --> 00:15:36,200
Speaker 1: and said it will seek a recount in Wisconsin. On

268
00:15:36,280 --> 00:15:40,040
Speaker 1: Thursday night, President Trump once again alleged wide scale voter

269
00:15:40,160 --> 00:15:43,680
Speaker 1: fraud and has stolen election without proof, and he promised

270
00:15:43,680 --> 00:15:48,760
Speaker 1: continued legal action. If you count the legal votes, I

271
00:15:48,880 --> 00:15:53,200
Speaker 1: easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can

272
00:15:53,280 --> 00:15:58,680
Speaker 1: try to steal the election from us. Trump's lawsuits have

273
00:15:58,760 --> 00:16:02,080
Speaker 1: had very limited sick says so far, none of alter

274
00:16:02,200 --> 00:16:05,120
Speaker 1: the race is trajectory, and none of the remaining suits

275
00:16:05,160 --> 00:16:08,400
Speaker 1: appear to be game changers. They're mainly focused on some

276
00:16:08,480 --> 00:16:11,720
Speaker 1: aspects of the processing of mail in ballots, but not

277
00:16:11,800 --> 00:16:14,560
Speaker 1: on enough ballots to alter the outcome of the race.

278
00:16:14,920 --> 00:16:18,040
Speaker 1: Joining me as election law expert, Justin Levitt, a professor

279
00:16:18,080 --> 00:16:23,040
Speaker 1: at Loyola Law School. How would you characterize these lawsuits

280
00:16:23,320 --> 00:16:27,000
Speaker 1: by the Trump campaign? I would say some of them

281
00:16:27,320 --> 00:16:30,360
Speaker 1: look like they might have merit. The facts are a

282
00:16:30,360 --> 00:16:32,400
Speaker 1: little bit hard to get your head around. Some of

283
00:16:32,440 --> 00:16:35,040
Speaker 1: them look like they don't really have any merit at all.

284
00:16:35,560 --> 00:16:38,520
Speaker 1: But all of them appeared to be over really minor

285
00:16:38,840 --> 00:16:42,480
Speaker 1: procedural things like standing a bit closer when you can

286
00:16:42,520 --> 00:16:46,200
Speaker 1: observe the count order, having you know, extra access to

287
00:16:46,800 --> 00:16:49,760
Speaker 1: video feed that they didn't have before, or something like that.

288
00:16:49,880 --> 00:16:53,080
Speaker 1: Nothing that seems too far in any way meaningfully infuence

289
00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:56,920
Speaker 1: the integrity of the count or in any way indicates

290
00:16:57,120 --> 00:17:01,160
Speaker 1: any sort of capacity to meaningfully change the results. So then,

291
00:17:01,440 --> 00:17:05,359
Speaker 1: what's the strategy? You can look behind the lawsuits. What's

292
00:17:05,400 --> 00:17:09,199
Speaker 1: the strategy of the Trump campaign here? It's hard to know.

293
00:17:09,720 --> 00:17:12,880
Speaker 1: Part of it may be instinct. If a doctor would

294
00:17:12,880 --> 00:17:15,160
Speaker 1: strike Donald Trump on the knee with a rubber mallet,

295
00:17:15,200 --> 00:17:18,240
Speaker 1: he'd probably file a lawsuit. That's the auto response. Part

296
00:17:18,240 --> 00:17:21,520
Speaker 1: of it may be that the President had tweeted we're

297
00:17:21,520 --> 00:17:23,679
Speaker 1: going to litigate, and a bunch of people are now

298
00:17:23,720 --> 00:17:26,840
Speaker 1: scrambling to make better reality. That wouldn't be the first

299
00:17:26,840 --> 00:17:29,240
Speaker 1: time that a tweet or a promise at a rally

300
00:17:29,320 --> 00:17:32,760
Speaker 1: turned into some fairly chroxotic action. It might be that

301
00:17:32,840 --> 00:17:35,640
Speaker 1: this is a mechanism to keep raising money. That would

302
00:17:35,640 --> 00:17:38,600
Speaker 1: not be the first time that litigation, postal and litigation,

303
00:17:38,640 --> 00:17:41,840
Speaker 1: even if it had no reasonable shot at winning, were

304
00:17:42,280 --> 00:17:44,840
Speaker 1: used as a fundraising device. And it might be just

305
00:17:44,920 --> 00:17:48,520
Speaker 1: a contribution to the messaging of the day, an attempt

306
00:17:49,000 --> 00:17:51,680
Speaker 1: to cast down on the legitim to the elections because

307
00:17:51,680 --> 00:17:54,320
Speaker 1: there are all these lawsuits quote unquote, I want to

308
00:17:54,320 --> 00:17:57,080
Speaker 1: say mostly observers who are looking at this don't think

309
00:17:57,119 --> 00:17:59,680
Speaker 1: the lawsuits amount to much. But for the public he

310
00:17:59,720 --> 00:18:02,960
Speaker 1: can say we filed suit in X number of places,

311
00:18:03,040 --> 00:18:07,320
Speaker 1: and perhaps that further is the argument that he's attempting

312
00:18:07,359 --> 00:18:09,920
Speaker 1: to make to deal with the lane to see election itself.

313
00:18:09,960 --> 00:18:12,480
Speaker 1: I don't think it's working, and I'm not quite sure

314
00:18:12,560 --> 00:18:15,119
Speaker 1: what he pursued the endgame today. I can't think of

315
00:18:15,160 --> 00:18:18,360
Speaker 1: any other reason other than those because the lawsuits, as is,

316
00:18:18,680 --> 00:18:21,200
Speaker 1: not only don't they stand a chance of changing reself,

317
00:18:21,200 --> 00:18:25,119
Speaker 1: they're not designed for that. So is there any problem

318
00:18:25,640 --> 00:18:29,320
Speaker 1: in some of the lawsuits seeming to have a contradictory

319
00:18:29,400 --> 00:18:33,199
Speaker 1: strategy where you're trying to stop the vote count in

320
00:18:33,320 --> 00:18:35,960
Speaker 1: some of them, and you're trying to get a recount

321
00:18:36,440 --> 00:18:40,240
Speaker 1: in other states. Is there a contradictory strategy that makes

322
00:18:40,280 --> 00:18:45,960
Speaker 1: a difference. The court certainly don't like inconsistent claims. Now,

323
00:18:46,119 --> 00:18:49,080
Speaker 1: it might well be that in one state the allegation

324
00:18:49,200 --> 00:18:51,480
Speaker 1: is that the count should stop ps there has to

325
00:18:51,520 --> 00:18:53,840
Speaker 1: be a why behind that. You can't just march an

326
00:18:53,840 --> 00:18:56,479
Speaker 1: important say stop the count. There's gotta be a reason,

327
00:18:56,640 --> 00:18:59,359
Speaker 1: And there has been absolutely no reason to think that

328
00:18:59,520 --> 00:19:03,040
Speaker 1: any of the should stop so far. State law requires

329
00:19:03,119 --> 00:19:07,520
Speaker 1: that the ballots that arrives validly from valid voters be counted.

330
00:19:08,040 --> 00:19:11,960
Speaker 1: So I want to be abundantly clear. Just wandering in

331
00:19:11,960 --> 00:19:14,879
Speaker 1: the court saying stop the count isn't a thing, and

332
00:19:14,920 --> 00:19:17,399
Speaker 1: it's certainly not a thing the courts will listen to

333
00:19:17,560 --> 00:19:20,480
Speaker 1: or have listened to. It might be that the facts,

334
00:19:20,880 --> 00:19:23,160
Speaker 1: the different facts, facts different than what we have now,

335
00:19:23,600 --> 00:19:27,439
Speaker 1: could theoretically lead to different actions in different states. The

336
00:19:27,480 --> 00:19:29,360
Speaker 1: courts don't look at strategies, They look at what they

337
00:19:29,359 --> 00:19:32,800
Speaker 1: had in front of them. That said, it is difficult

338
00:19:32,840 --> 00:19:35,439
Speaker 1: to discern what the strategy might be, and courts do

339
00:19:35,560 --> 00:19:39,520
Speaker 1: care about saying inconsistent things in their own case or

340
00:19:39,560 --> 00:19:44,000
Speaker 1: in similarly situated cases, and I haven't seen anything other

341
00:19:44,040 --> 00:19:49,359
Speaker 1: than opportunism that amount to any sort of rationale about

342
00:19:49,359 --> 00:19:52,800
Speaker 1: why different votes need to be counted in some places

343
00:19:52,880 --> 00:19:56,320
Speaker 1: and not in others. And by the way, I don't

344
00:19:56,359 --> 00:19:59,520
Speaker 1: think the courts are listening to the tweets. Arch of

345
00:19:59,560 --> 00:20:02,800
Speaker 1: the Press two pr that the Trump is trying to generate.

346
00:20:03,400 --> 00:20:07,280
Speaker 1: Courts thus far this year has acted like courts. I

347
00:20:07,320 --> 00:20:09,480
Speaker 1: haven't always agreed with them. Sometimes I think they get

348
00:20:09,480 --> 00:20:11,400
Speaker 1: the law right. Sometimes I think they get a lot wrong.

349
00:20:11,640 --> 00:20:13,719
Speaker 1: Sometimes I have a different impression of the facts than

350
00:20:13,760 --> 00:20:17,160
Speaker 1: they may have. But the courts have been remarkably consistent

351
00:20:17,520 --> 00:20:21,399
Speaker 1: the entire year at waving off claims that are no

352
00:20:21,440 --> 00:20:25,199
Speaker 1: more than wild gesticulation, all caps, exclamation points. Judges have

353
00:20:25,240 --> 00:20:28,359
Speaker 1: been acting like judges. That's what we expect. But I

354
00:20:28,359 --> 00:20:30,560
Speaker 1: think we should also expect that to continue. And so

355
00:20:30,960 --> 00:20:34,840
Speaker 1: until there's a lawsuits that actually shows real facts that

356
00:20:35,040 --> 00:20:38,640
Speaker 1: entitles the Trump campaign is some different outcome. I frankly

357
00:20:38,680 --> 00:20:41,920
Speaker 1: don't think that the lawsuits are going to yield much.

358
00:20:42,880 --> 00:20:45,520
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the some of the lawsuits

359
00:20:45,560 --> 00:20:49,159
Speaker 1: and the allegations because there are several lawsuits in some

360
00:20:49,240 --> 00:20:52,080
Speaker 1: sites that are complaining about as you mentioned, you know,

361
00:20:52,480 --> 00:20:55,760
Speaker 1: the process for ballot observers or the way that ballot

362
00:20:55,800 --> 00:21:00,399
Speaker 1: observers are getting to observe the counting. Do they go

363
00:21:00,760 --> 00:21:03,560
Speaker 1: very far after the count? I mean, can they come

364
00:21:03,600 --> 00:21:05,919
Speaker 1: back and say, after the count is in and the

365
00:21:05,960 --> 00:21:09,240
Speaker 1: state has been declared, well, we didn't get to watch this,

366
00:21:09,320 --> 00:21:13,560
Speaker 1: so these don't count. No. The short version is you

367
00:21:13,640 --> 00:21:16,399
Speaker 1: have to actually have evidence that the law was broken,

368
00:21:16,480 --> 00:21:20,600
Speaker 1: that there was a statutory or constitutionalization that balance were

369
00:21:20,640 --> 00:21:23,200
Speaker 1: not counted that should have been, or that that we're

370
00:21:23,320 --> 00:21:26,200
Speaker 1: counted that should not have been. And simply I didn't

371
00:21:26,200 --> 00:21:30,000
Speaker 1: get to stand close enough. Isn't anything that actually jeopardizes

372
00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:33,120
Speaker 1: the integrity of the any of the balance. And that's

373
00:21:33,119 --> 00:21:35,240
Speaker 1: part of why I say some of these cases on

374
00:21:35,280 --> 00:21:39,160
Speaker 1: their own merits are probably worthwhile. If they've been excluded

375
00:21:39,240 --> 00:21:42,240
Speaker 1: from a particular location that they have a right to

376
00:21:42,320 --> 00:21:45,520
Speaker 1: be in, then a court maywell grant they're right to

377
00:21:45,760 --> 00:21:50,960
Speaker 1: be in that location. But the simple fact that there's

378
00:21:51,000 --> 00:21:54,240
Speaker 1: been a minor procedural slip up and who's allowed to

379
00:21:54,280 --> 00:21:56,520
Speaker 1: observe from where? And I want to be clear, I'm

380
00:21:56,520 --> 00:21:58,560
Speaker 1: not sure in all of the cases that have been filed,

381
00:21:58,600 --> 00:22:00,439
Speaker 1: because there has been slip ups. Some of the youth

382
00:22:00,520 --> 00:22:04,600
Speaker 1: have been actually contested where the campaign has come in

383
00:22:04,640 --> 00:22:06,200
Speaker 1: and said we're not allowed in the next place, and

384
00:22:06,280 --> 00:22:09,000
Speaker 1: the city has said, you've been in next place for

385
00:22:09,040 --> 00:22:11,160
Speaker 1: a couple of days, of course you're allowed there. It's fine.

386
00:22:11,480 --> 00:22:13,560
Speaker 1: So I don't want to I don't want to assume

387
00:22:13,560 --> 00:22:16,080
Speaker 1: the conclusion that just because they're saying it's been included,

388
00:22:16,119 --> 00:22:20,199
Speaker 1: that's actually true. But even if it were true, that

389
00:22:20,280 --> 00:22:23,639
Speaker 1: doesn't actually impute the intevity the ballots themselves, and so

390
00:22:24,800 --> 00:22:27,400
Speaker 1: that is not in fact going to be accepted by court.

391
00:22:27,440 --> 00:22:30,360
Speaker 1: It's a reason to stop the count, change the results,

392
00:22:30,440 --> 00:22:34,560
Speaker 1: or throughout any single ballots. In Georgia, they claim that

393
00:22:34,680 --> 00:22:39,880
Speaker 1: a Republican pole observer in Chatham County witness late ballots

394
00:22:39,920 --> 00:22:44,240
Speaker 1: being illegally added to a stack of on time absentee ballots.

395
00:22:44,680 --> 00:22:49,560
Speaker 1: Would that they said may have and in those wiggle

396
00:22:49,680 --> 00:22:55,399
Speaker 1: roads is a lot of um meaning. So it is

397
00:22:55,440 --> 00:23:00,800
Speaker 1: true that late ballots, ballots that arrived after the period

398
00:23:00,840 --> 00:23:06,080
Speaker 1: designated by state law should not be counted um. It's

399
00:23:06,119 --> 00:23:08,280
Speaker 1: also true that a handful of those who's not going

400
00:23:08,400 --> 00:23:13,800
Speaker 1: to either change or incune the results as a whole um,

401
00:23:13,840 --> 00:23:20,719
Speaker 1: But it is often the case that observers who arrive

402
00:23:21,000 --> 00:23:27,119
Speaker 1: looking for ms conduct misinterpret what they see, and so

403
00:23:28,000 --> 00:23:31,480
Speaker 1: I don't take as a given it might be that

404
00:23:31,880 --> 00:23:34,600
Speaker 1: what they saw was somebody adding a ballot that should

405
00:23:34,640 --> 00:23:38,119
Speaker 1: not have been added. That is possible. But when you

406
00:23:38,240 --> 00:23:43,040
Speaker 1: see in a lawsuit may have or possibly, what that

407
00:23:43,119 --> 00:23:45,800
Speaker 1: often means is I saw something I didn't like and

408
00:23:45,880 --> 00:23:49,639
Speaker 1: now going to make a maybe and that's something I

409
00:23:49,680 --> 00:23:53,560
Speaker 1: didn't like me or may not be an actual factual

410
00:23:53,680 --> 00:23:58,400
Speaker 1: claim of LEO wrong joining. There are several suits in Pennsylvania,

411
00:23:58,600 --> 00:24:02,320
Speaker 1: and the one that seemed to be most concerning for

412
00:24:02,480 --> 00:24:07,520
Speaker 1: Democrats is the Trump campaign asking to intervene at the

413
00:24:07,560 --> 00:24:10,960
Speaker 1: Supreme Court in the case that's already been at the

414
00:24:10,960 --> 00:24:16,879
Speaker 1: Supreme Court involving Pennsylvania, adding some days to the time

415
00:24:17,200 --> 00:24:20,680
Speaker 1: that ballots can get in and still be counted. Um

416
00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:24,919
Speaker 1: and the sure. But so that is true, UM that

417
00:24:25,080 --> 00:24:27,680
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. There is a case in the Supreme Court,

418
00:24:27,720 --> 00:24:31,160
Speaker 1: and that makes that case particularly prominent. But I don't

419
00:24:31,160 --> 00:24:33,399
Speaker 1: know that we know how many ballots are concerned in

420
00:24:33,440 --> 00:24:36,960
Speaker 1: that case. And I have to say this really clearly,

421
00:24:37,680 --> 00:24:41,119
Speaker 1: that case doesn't affect any ballot that was received by

422
00:24:41,160 --> 00:24:45,240
Speaker 1: Tuesday not a one, So I don't know what the

423
00:24:45,280 --> 00:24:47,960
Speaker 1: results are. We still haven't done all the counting again,

424
00:24:48,840 --> 00:24:53,960
Speaker 1: but the most that that case could do is set

425
00:24:53,960 --> 00:25:00,280
Speaker 1: aside ballots that had not arrived by Tuesday. And it

426
00:25:00,359 --> 00:25:03,919
Speaker 1: might well be that the results of the election in

427
00:25:03,920 --> 00:25:09,760
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania doesn't turn on ballots arrived after tuesdays. I also

428
00:25:09,800 --> 00:25:12,560
Speaker 1: want to ask you about this about the post office case,

429
00:25:13,160 --> 00:25:15,760
Speaker 1: Judge Sullivan is said something like, you know, I want

430
00:25:15,800 --> 00:25:18,920
Speaker 1: to get them in to be counted. Can those ballots

431
00:25:18,960 --> 00:25:21,840
Speaker 1: still be counted? I mean, suppose they find the ballots

432
00:25:21,920 --> 00:25:24,000
Speaker 1: and they get them to the election places, and in

433
00:25:24,080 --> 00:25:26,280
Speaker 1: most states it's going to be too late, isn't it

434
00:25:26,320 --> 00:25:29,760
Speaker 1: to get those In many states it will be too late.

435
00:25:29,800 --> 00:25:33,080
Speaker 1: Now in some states it's not if the ballot was

436
00:25:33,200 --> 00:25:36,240
Speaker 1: postmarked um on time. Different states that you know, have

437
00:25:36,320 --> 00:25:39,200
Speaker 1: different rules about when the ballots have to be received.

438
00:25:39,880 --> 00:25:41,919
Speaker 1: We One of the things that I don't know, I

439
00:25:41,920 --> 00:25:44,840
Speaker 1: think the Post Office may but hasn't been cleared from

440
00:25:44,840 --> 00:25:47,879
Speaker 1: the dctification so far, is how many ballots we're talking about.

441
00:25:48,440 --> 00:25:53,000
Speaker 1: We know there were several hundred thousand nationwide that weren't

442
00:25:53,440 --> 00:25:56,760
Speaker 1: processed as of a couple of days before election day.

443
00:25:57,200 --> 00:26:00,960
Speaker 1: But that's very different thinking that there are a couple

444
00:26:01,080 --> 00:26:05,560
Speaker 1: hundred thousand ballots outstanding, much less outstanding in any battleground states,

445
00:26:05,640 --> 00:26:08,600
Speaker 1: much less outstanding in any of the battleground states where

446
00:26:08,720 --> 00:26:13,080
Speaker 1: the deadlines already passed. Um, it may be a very

447
00:26:13,119 --> 00:26:18,400
Speaker 1: small number that actually still remain in postal service custody.

448
00:26:19,280 --> 00:26:23,520
Speaker 1: Ah in any way impacting a state that has a

449
00:26:23,560 --> 00:26:27,399
Speaker 1: deadline authority pass. I just don't know. Um. And so

450
00:26:27,600 --> 00:26:29,920
Speaker 1: the significance of the post office case, I think turns

451
00:26:30,359 --> 00:26:33,160
Speaker 1: quite a bit on how many ballots we're talking about.

452
00:26:33,520 --> 00:26:37,879
Speaker 1: If it's a handful, it's not really gonna matter. Just

453
00:26:37,960 --> 00:26:41,680
Speaker 1: in both sides set up legal war rooms to plan

454
00:26:41,800 --> 00:26:45,080
Speaker 1: for a range of contingencies, and some leading law firms

455
00:26:45,119 --> 00:26:49,200
Speaker 1: have been advising both the Trump and Biden campaigns. So

456
00:26:49,240 --> 00:26:52,919
Speaker 1: what does it say that Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer,

457
00:26:53,359 --> 00:26:56,240
Speaker 1: is the one out front on these lawsuits. I will

458
00:26:56,280 --> 00:26:59,280
Speaker 1: say that of the many lawyers that the President has

459
00:26:59,320 --> 00:27:02,119
Speaker 1: had involved in the White House and his personal capacity

460
00:27:02,160 --> 00:27:05,000
Speaker 1: on his campaign, Rudy has not proven to be the

461
00:27:05,040 --> 00:27:09,000
Speaker 1: most reliable um for the president or for the public.

462
00:27:09,920 --> 00:27:13,480
Speaker 1: And so uh, and that's a shame thankly. It's this

463
00:27:13,720 --> 00:27:17,640
Speaker 1: is quite a different turn from his turn as Mayor

464
00:27:17,640 --> 00:27:19,720
Speaker 1: of New York from his turn as the U S Attorney.

465
00:27:20,080 --> 00:27:24,119
Speaker 1: Um I would say of late uh, it's not his

466
00:27:24,280 --> 00:27:27,680
Speaker 1: legal acumen that most people are noticing when Rudy goes

467
00:27:27,680 --> 00:27:34,840
Speaker 1: on TV or appears important. Um So, I think that

468
00:27:34,840 --> 00:27:39,480
Speaker 1: that doesn't necessarily reflect the quality or skill of other

469
00:27:39,600 --> 00:27:43,040
Speaker 1: lawyers who may be working for the campaign. But I

470
00:27:43,080 --> 00:27:48,320
Speaker 1: will say that the lawsuits the campaign has filed has

471
00:27:48,400 --> 00:27:54,280
Speaker 1: been of markedly mixed quality. I don't know whether that's

472
00:27:54,320 --> 00:27:58,800
Speaker 1: Rudy or somebody else, but again, I haven't seen anything

473
00:27:58,920 --> 00:28:01,399
Speaker 1: from the campaign that would indicates a lawstoot at the

474
00:28:01,400 --> 00:28:04,080
Speaker 1: moment likely to change any of the results in any

475
00:28:04,080 --> 00:28:07,400
Speaker 1: of the states that still have results that are unclear.

476
00:28:07,920 --> 00:28:10,760
Speaker 1: That's Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School. And that's it

477
00:28:10,840 --> 00:28:13,439
Speaker 1: for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. And remember

478
00:28:13,440 --> 00:28:15,320
Speaker 1: you could always get the latest legal news on our

479
00:28:15,359 --> 00:28:19,360
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud,

480
00:28:19,480 --> 00:28:24,440
Speaker 1: or Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grasso.

481
00:28:24,600 --> 00:28:27,200
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining us, and please tune into

482
00:28:27,240 --> 00:28:31,040
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight. Attend PM Eastern right

483
00:28:31,040 --> 00:28:32,399
Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Radio