NEW: Tanya Chutkan did not come to play—and even as her case was stayed, she was getting ready. Case in point? Her 16-page decision issued tonight rejecting Trump’s motion to dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution. 1/
From its first substantive paragraph, the opinion stings, asserting Trump’s “alternative narrative” that the government charged him for “publicly disputing the election outcome” is an “improper reframing” of the indictment belied by its express words. 2/
After establishing the legal elements of each claim, Chutkan dismantles Trump’s argument. He’s not similarly situated to others who have not been prosecuted, she concludes, because in prior election disputes, no one faced allegations that they “engaged in criminal conduct to obstruct the electoral process.” 3/
Chutkan then turns to Trump’s purported proof of the government’s discriminatory intent, finding he misinterpreted and/or overread articles in the @nytimes & @WashPost that don’t prove DOJ prosecutors or President Biden were out to get Trump, as he often recites. 4/
@nytimes @WashPost She similarly concludes that a statement Biden made in November 2022 signaled nothing but his intent to “vigorously campaign” against Trump should he declare his candidacy—and that the coexistence of his campaign with the case itself is not itself proof of any improper motive. 5/
@nytimes @WashPost Over the next several pages, Chutkan further explains why Trump cannot establish the even more demanding test for vindictive prosecution, which requires proof that the government actually or likely punished the defendant for asserting his legal rights. 6/
@nytimes @WashPost She determines there’s no evidence the government pursued the case because Trump pleaded not guilty to the “unrelated” Mar-a-Lago classified documents case & notes the timing and sequence of events, on which Trump relies, cannot, without more, prove vindictiveness. 7/
@nytimes @WashPost And finally, she denies his request for an evidentiary hearing to show the government is lying about its investigation. But to get more factfinding, Trump would have had to show her at least “some evidence tending to show” selective prosecution. 8/
@nytimes @WashPost Instead, she concludes, he offered her “no meaningful evidence” nor any persuasive explanation as to how further factfinding would help him establish the necessary elements of a selective prosecution claim. 9/
@nytimes @WashPost So now, the parties move toward their Aug. 9 deadline for a joint status report with both of Trump’s remaining motions to dismiss resolved within a day of the case resuming. FIN.
I want to live in a world where we do not talk about judges as if they owe their allegiance, or their very existence, to a particular president. Based on my experience as both a litigator and a journalist, that describes the vast majority of the federal judiciary. 1/
And yet, Judge Aileen Cannon, for all of her credentials and pre-judicial experience, has consistently staged the hearing of motions in a way that favors Trump and his co-defendants, handpicked a theory of dismissal at the invitation-by-concurrence of Justice Thomas, and even exercised jurisdiction she did not have. 2/
Her actions concerning the Special Counsel’s report, for example, were premised on authority she had stripped herself of by dismissing the case and an eventuality she refused to acknowledge: that the indictment against the two people who would supposedly be prejudiced by the report’s release not only had been dismissed but that DOJ’s pending appeal of her ruling will soon disappear too.
NEW: Per @adamreisstv, Rudy Giuliani is now almost 90 minutes late for a one-day trial on whether his Palm Beach, FL condo can be taken to satisfy his $146 million debt to former GA election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. 1/
Rudy owes the women that money because his failure to participate in their defamation lawsuit was so complete that they won a default judgment on liability. And when they tried the issue of damages to a jury last December, that $146 million was the jury’s award. 2/
Since then, he has been playing games with several courts in an attempt to conceal or even exclude his assets from being seized to pay them. He first filed for bankruptcy, only to have his case kicked out of court for his obfuscation and withholding of information. 3/
🧵: In October 2024, @SenWhitehouse released a report about the FBI's supplemental investigation of Brett Kavanaugh after allegations that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford surfaced. 1/
And that report caused Whitehouse to find that the FBI's supplemental investigation was deeply flawed and manipulated by the Trump White House despite public attestations that the FBI had carte blanche to pursue all investigative leads. 2/
In his conclusion, Whitehouse noted, "Reliable background investigations of judicial nominees are crucial to the Senate’s constitutional duty to provide advice and consent," a statement with which I imagine most senators would concur, at least in a general sense. 3/
If Samantha Hegseth, Pete Hegseth’s second (and now ex-)wife, proactively sought to speak with the FBI about her ex-husband, why was she not interviewed? The Senate’s decades-long failure to develop a responsible background check system to exercise its “advise and consent” powers is baffling.
Instead, however, some senators have decided that anonymity automatically discredits sexual misconduct and assault accusations—even though there are multiple ways the Armed Services Committee, the FBI, or both could have vetted her story without revealing her name publicly.
For example, Lindsey Graham was once a reliable and prominent voice for survivors of sexual assault. But lately, he’s been singing a different tune:
NEW: Rudy Giuliani’s back in his old stomping grounds — Manhattan federal district court — this morning. And today, he’s facing the prospect of a contempt ruling for failing to turn over a host of property to two former GA election workers to whom he owes nearly $150 million. 1/
In a filing earlier this week, the women’s attorneys note that despite a clear Oct. 2024 order, Giuliani has not given them the title or deed for his vintage Mercedes convertible or his NY condo, both of which he was ordered to turn over. 2/
They also accuse Giuliani of playing games with respect to the whereabouts of his framed DiMaggio jersey, which a friend testified he had seen in Rudy’s Palm Beach condo within the last two years; cash held in a known Citibank account; and even watches and costume jewelry. 3/
Based on the comments in my last thread, it seems like a lot of folks are misinformed or simply willing to drink the red Kool Aid about the law that allowed E. Jean Carroll to make a sexual assault claim in her second, 2022 lawsuit against him. 1/
First and foremost, E. Jean needed no change in law to bring her second defamation claim against Trump. What begat that was his October 2022 tweet basically repeating the same statements about her that he had made in 2019. 2/
But more fundamentally, the Adult Survivors Act was no “get Trump” cabal. It was an effort, years in the making, to extend statutes of limitations for those who alleged they were sexually abused as adults, not minors, as this @nytimes story illustrates: nytimes.com/2019/10/25/nyr…