New: The Trump campaign filed a three-page letter in the 3rd Circuit this morning requesting oral argument in its big case trying to undo Biden's win in PA: https://t.co/oSOEc27he8

There is a lot to unpack here, too much for one tweet, so bear with me

The 3rd Circuit doesn't let lawyers who aren't members of the court's bar to appear unless they're pro bono. Trump's legal team still asks to let Rudy Giuliani argue, saying he hasn't been able to get the "necessary certifications due to Covid-19 complications"
Trump's lawyers write that given how many people voted for him, the claims "should be heard on the merits" — but recall this case is not up on appeal about the merits. The campaign is asking for emergency review of the judge denying its request to file a 2nd amended complaint
They contend oral argument would be helpful to address issues raised by PA, the DNC, and other parties in briefs filed yesterday, which they then touch on in a set of footnotes
The first footnote argues there was no undue delay in filing the 2nd amended complaint b/c given the shifting makeup of the campaign's legal team, there was "confusion" that led to the filing of the 1st amended complaint, which removed sections and a number of counts
Recall the 1st amended complaint was filed after the 3rd Circuit ruled in another election-related case, Bognet, and that opinion significantly undercut the campaign's theory of standing, which Giuliani acknowledged during arguments before the district court
Footnote #4 argues the case isn't moot now that PA has certified the election results, even though the relief sought in the 1AC is to stop certification from happening (the 2AC that they want to pursue alternatively asks for the state legislature to choose electors)
They write that the certification of election results was "allegedly issued" by PA Gov. Wolf, but the state did, in fact, certify the results. They also contend that results can be "decertified" by the courts, but recall that is not relief that they request in the complaint
Generally speaking, once a case is up on appeal, you cannot start introducing new evidence/claims — the appellate judges are reviewing the record from below. Trump's lawyers note the district court didn't address the question of decertifying election results
So, now we wait to see what the 3rd Circuit does. On Monday when it set the briefing schedule, the court had only said it would "advise if oral argument desired"

More from Zoe Tillman

New, with more to come: DOJ under Biden is keeping up the previous admin's effort to take over Trump's defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll — an effort Biden criticized during the campaign.

First brief under new admin: https://t.co/JihPuNXxHj


Story: DOJ is keeping up an effort to try to take over Donald Trump's defense against a defamation case filed by writer E. Jean Carroll — an effort Biden criticized as a candidate last fall.

Key phrase in tonight's brief? "institutional interests"
https://t.co/LTuq3vv58F


This is the latest case that tests DOJ's traditional role of defending the power and prerogatives of the executive branch — any executive branch, regardless of president. What's unusual is that Biden had weighed in on this case specifically.

DOJ says Trump's comments about Carroll — who accused him of raping her more than 20 years ago — were "crude and disrespectful." Notably, that language does not appear in DOJ's prev. brief filed 1/15. But DOJ says the case isn't about what's "appropriate"

A federal district judge in Manhattan had rebuffed DOJ's effort last fall to substitute the US govt for Trump as the defendant. If the government ultimately wins, it would likely spell the end of Carroll's suit, since the US is immune against libel suits
A detention hearing is about to start in federal court in Arkansas in the case of Richard Barnett, the man photographed sitting in Nancy Pelosi's office (see: https://t.co/GAAENhkxf0). He's been in custody since his arrest

Prosecutors alleged Barnett was carrying a stun gun. He's charged with entering a restricted area w/ a weapon, violent entry/disorderly conduct, and theft. There isn't anything on the docket indicating what the govt/Barnett will be seeking as far as detention v. release


We're still waiting for the Richard Barnett detention hearing to start in Arkansas. Meanwhile, follow @o_ema for updates on initial appearances in DC federal court today for a few of the Capitol insurrection arrestees -->


Richard Barnett's detention hearing is underway in Arkansas — Judge Erin Wiedemann will decide if Barnett should stay behind bars. The first witness is FBI special agent Jonathan Willett, who was involved in the Capitol riot investigation

FBI agent walks the judge through surveillance videos that the agent says show Barnett walking in and out of Nancy Pelosi's office, with a "walking stick Taser" on his hip, as well as the widely disseminated photos of Barnett sitting in Pelosi's chair with his feet up

More from Politics

All the challenges to Leader Pelosi are coming from her right, in an apparent effort to make the party even more conservative and bent toward corporate interests.

Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.


I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.

But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.

Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.

I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?