Giuliani’s argument that he did not have time fully to investigate his case before filing it is singularly unimpressive,” the panel wrote. The panel’s review on Friday said Giuliani “did not offer any evidence that fraudulent mail-in votes were actually cast or counted,” but instead made his own inferences. “One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote then. District Judge Matthew Brann rejected Giuliani’s arguments days later, noting the Trump campaign had wanted him to throw out millions of votes. He spent much of the hearing baselessly alleging a national conspiracy to steal the election from Trump, something the former president continues to argue today.

attorney in New York, the Pennsylvania argument was his first court appearance as an attorney since 1992, the year before he was elected New York mayor, according to federal records. The Trump campaign complained that Philadelphia and six Democratic-controlled counties in Pennsylvania let voters make corrections to mail-in ballots that were otherwise going to be disqualified for a technicality, such as lacking a secrecy envelope or a signature. 17, 2020, ten days after The Associated Press and other news outlets called the election for Biden. The panel examined a case Giuliani argued on Nov. He met with the special counsel appointed to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020 election and prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia, also conducting an investigation. Giuliani’s post-election work has made him a key figure in several federal and state probes.

New airport kansas city vote