There are some reports that Giuliani is distributing a video of Hunter Biden smoking crack and having sex. I think this may pose some problems under Delaware's revenge porn statute. /1
The statute makes it a misdemeanor to distribute images of someone engaging in sexual conduct without their consent if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I haven't viewed the video, so I don't know if Biden had that expectation, but this does seem nonconsensual. /2
The statute suggests some aggravating factors that are present here, such as including the identity of the person filmed, distributing to "annoy" that person, and possibly that the images are distributed for "profit."
With those aggravating factors, the crime is potentially a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison.
But Giuliani has at least one excellent defense, baked into the statute, that he disseminated the video for a "legitimate public purpose." But he'd have to establish that to a jury.
He also has an excellent constitutional defense--that this revenge porn law acts as prior restraint for speech that does not fall into any of the categories held unprotected at the time of the Founding. Nude images, even taken without consent, are not obscenity.
For my part, I think the law is unconstitutional and should be struck down. But it is interesting that Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, may have advised a private citizen to break this Delaware law, and may have himself been a party.
I feel like I could make some brave new law on standing if I sued for an injunction requiring judges to wear flannel pajamas and terrycloth robes for zoom proceedings
"But Mr. Fleischman how are you injured by black robes?"
"Your honor the word coziness does not appear in the Constitution but a semantic analysis of the Federalist papers reveals..."
It certainly might SEEM crazy that the governor of a state can arbitrarily limit access to ballot boxes based on vague, poorly articulated security concerns. It might seem like a lot of last-minute election changes geared at suppressing turnout are, in fact, corrupt. But really/1
Notice that @JonahDispatch does not argue that Barrett is crazy or stupid or bad. Instead he acknowledges the truth that she will likely make a big difference on the Court, and she is being appointed, along partisan lines, at the last minute.
Here's a model of the other way you can be an effective advocate: by actually talking about Barrett's record as a judge.
Sidney Powell alleges that Judge Flynn should be recused because he said unflattering things about her client while he was sentencing him for a felony.
She alleges that he said these things because of Rachel Maddow, and not because of the facts before him.