NEW: Tonight, concerned that Trump’s escalating rhetoric about the standard instructions attached to the MAL search warrant will result in violence against law enforcement, the Special Counsel’s office is asking not for a gag order, but to modify Trump’s conditions of release. 1/
That matters because when Trump was first indicted, his bond — which he signed — made clear that his continued release was conditioned on his compliance with certain terms. 2/
For example, Trump’s order not only prohibits him from violating any federal, state or local law while on release but also precludes his speaking to any fact witnesses on a list shared with his lawyers about the facts of the case, except through their respective lawyers. 3/
But in asking to modify Trump’s conditions of release to prohibit his making statements that pose a “significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger” to law enforcement involved in the investigation and prosecution of the MAL case, the Special Counsel is upping the ante. 4/
Why? Because where a defendant violates a condition of his release, the consequences can include “the immediate issuance of a warrant for the defendant’s arrest, a revocation of release, and order of detention,” as well as a prosecution for contempt. 5/
But perhaps most importantly, if Judge Cannon denies this motion, it is immediately appealable to the 11th Circuit under federal statute, which provides in relevant part:
The @nytimes story on JD Vance at @YaleLawSch is the most Yale Law tale of all time.
A professor mired in controversy as literary fairy godmother? Check. Another professor simultaneously endorsing & dissing the subject? Check. The self-deprecation involved in any athletic pursuit? The affectionate “island of misfit toys” label, as applied to self and classmates? Check & more check.
But in all seriousness, the article reflects @YaleLawSch at its best and worst. For those who arrive without generational wealth or academic cache, it can be transformative, even propulsive.
NEW: A federal bankruptcy judge has dismissed Rudy Giuliani's bankruptcy, allowing GA election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss to start collecting on their $148 million judgment now.
What does that mean practically? Unless a higher court stays enforcement, Freeman and Moss can use their judgment to take assets from Rudy. But even assuming no higher court intervenes, it's doubtful they'll collect even a tenth of what he owes them. 2/
And given Giuliani’s true obstreperousness during the bankruptcy, as detailed by today's opinion, Freeman and Moss might need the help of private investigators and forensic accountants to determine where Rudy’s assets are hidden. 3/
NEW: That 1 p.m. hearing in Rudy Giuliani's bankruptcy case was canceled; Judge Sean Lane has pledged to issue a written decision by the close of business today. What could happen? 1/
Ruby Freeman & Shaye Moss, the GA election workers with a $148 million verdict against Rudy, have asked that his bankruptcy petition be dismissed. That would allow them to immediately enforce their judgment & would allow him to proceed with his appeal. 2/
Earlier this week, despite choosing to file for bankruptcy and elongating the process through his delay tactics, Rudy reversed course and decided to support their ask. 3/
When the Supreme Court immunity decision came down, some of us said its worse pieces were the prohibitions on using conduct immune from prosecution as evidence and considering motive to suss out what is official versus unofficial conduct. 1/
Trump's brief to overturn the NY criminal verdict because of those pieces illustrates why. It assumes virtually all statements made & actions taken in office were official and that testimony about them is similarly off limits, even if coming from private actors, like Michael Cohen. 2/
And while judges can consider "content, form, and context" of his statements to determine whether or not they are official, they can't look to his motive. So Trump's telling Cohen that then-AG Jeff Sessions would take care of the FEC inquiry? Absolutely immune, says Trump. 3/
The GOP platform is like a Rorschach test on fetal personhood. If you're looking for assurance that Trump's GOP won't press for a national abortion ban, you might point to this language. 1/
"We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights." But who's a person in this sentence? 2/
Susan B. Anthony Pro Life America's public statement on the platform -- which would otherwise seem disappointing to the anti-abortion right -- is a tell. They characterize the GOP platform as "reaffirm[ing] its commitment to protect unborn life today through the 14th Amendment." 3/
Trump was expected to start the GOP convention on 7/15 with a criminal sentence. Now, he’ll go to Milwaukee having told the sentencing judge on 7/10 that the verdict must be set aside because it relied on evidence the prosecutors should never have been allowed to use. 1/
The breadth of the Court’s ruling — especially as it pertains to the admissibility of evidence and the legal irrelevance of a defendant president’s motive or purpose in determining what is and is not off limits — is just starting to reveal itself. 2/
And perhaps what’s worst of all is that underneath all that breadth is a gaping lack of guidance, which means lower court judges striving to do the right thing will almost certainly run afoul of this higher court or that one. 3/