[Red Steel]

Why don't you admit it. You don't have a specific link to an available transcript of Tuesday's court hearing. Don't keep posting the same Google search link with thousands of hits to websites that have discussed the court case. Obfuscation from you again.

[Non-Sequitur]

Why don't you admit it. You don't have a specific link to an available transcript of Tuesday's court hearing.

There are several different transcripts from people who were there available on that link. What's the matter? Figuring out how Google works too hard for you? OK,

Here's One, and here's one, and here's one. Take your pick

[steviep96]

Everyone who is trying to decide what is going to happen on Oct 5 based on what the judge said in court would be better offer reading goat entrails or conducting an astrologer. The real key to all this is what Orly is going to say in her response.

(Actually, the real key is if Orly actually knows that she needs to file a response. According to an interview I saw with her, she seems to believe that a telephone campaign to the judge is the proper procedure. At this point, I would give 1:3 that she misses the filing deadline).

The standing issue is always going to be there. But I could see a sympathetic judge letting that one slide.

What I found interesting in the motion to dismiss is the argument that this is a political question that the court does not have jurisdiction over. I tend to lean more in that direction - that Congress or the electors should have addressed this a long time ago.

At the end of the day, I find it really really hard to imagine a district court judge wanting to get too far into this issue.

But, that’s why we have hearings.