Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump files complaint against Harris for taking over Biden’s campaign funds

      by

      Donald Trump’s campaign on Tuesday filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against the vice-president Kamala Harris, accusing her 2024 campaign of violating federal campaign finance laws by replacing Joe Biden’s name with her own to take control of his campaign funds.The complaint, filed by the Trump campaign’s general counsel, David Warrington, argued that the Biden campaign could not rename its committee from “Biden for President” to “Harris for President” once Biden dropped out of the race on Sunday, and roll over $91m.“This is little more than a thinly veiled $91.5m excessive contribution from one presidential candidate to another, that is, from Joe Biden’s old campaign to Kamala Harris’s new campaign. This effort makes a mockery of our campaign finance laws,” the eight-page complaint said.“Federal candidates are prohibited from keeping contributions for elections in which they do not participate,” it added. “Biden for President 2024 has shown no intention to properly refund or re-designate the general election funds it has already received. This makes them all excess contributions.”Whether the complaint generates traction with the FEC remains unclear, but the Trump campaign has been looking for any way to slow down the momentum Harris has been able to generate with voters and donors after she quickly became the presumptive Democratic nominee.The strategy, according to people familiar with the matter, has included opening new legal battles to try to prevent Harris from accessing Biden’s funds, although the complaint on Tuesday stopped short of a lawsuit.Warrington made that explicit request to the FEC in the complaint, asking the agency to enjoin the transfer. And if the FEC were to deem the transfer unlawful, the complaint said, it would ask the FEC to consider issuing a fine or making a criminal referral to the US justice department.The Harris campaign has viewed the FEC complaint as a spurious legal effort to throw sand in their gears, noting that the Biden-Harris committees have always been authorized committees for either Biden or Harris, according to a person familiar with the thinking.And in a statement, the Harris campaign noted that they had raised $100m in donations in the 36 hours since Biden withdrew from the 2024 race, adding: “Baseless legal claims – like the ones they’ve made for years to try to suppress votes and steal elections – will only distract them.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe complaint, earlier reported by the New York Times, also argued that Harris taking over Biden’s remaining campaign funds amounted to an excessive unlawful contribution given that “Biden for President” was not an authorized committee for the Harris campaign.“If Mr Biden will not seek the Democratic party’s nomination, then he will never participate in the general election and all general election contributions received by Biden for President are excessive and must be disposed of,” the complaint said. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      US prosecutors retool January 6 plea deals after supreme court ruling – report

      by

      US prosecutors are “beginning to offer retooled plea deals” and drop charges in cases related to the January 6 attack on Congress, CNN said, citing legal filings in the weeks since the rightwing-dominated US supreme court narrowed how prosecutors can charge rioters with obstructing an official proceeding.The report noted a Monday filing concerning five members of the far-right Proud Boys group, which said each defendant had been offered a plea deal not including the obstruction charge.Should the deal be declined, CNN said, the obstruction charge would be dropped and the men taken to trial on other charges.A rioter famously seen carrying a Confederate battle flag through Congress is also among prisoners or defendants whose cases are being reassessed.On 6 January 2021, Kevin Seefried, from Laurel, Delaware, was part of the mob that stormed the Capitol at the urging of Donald Trump, seeking to stop certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.A famous picture showed Seefried underneath portraits of the senator and vice-president John Calhoun, a champion of secession in the early 19th century, and Senator Charles Sumner, a leading voice for union and the abolition of slavery in the civil war years.In February this year, Seefried wept as he was sentenced to nearly three years in prison for obstruction of an official proceeding, as well as misdemeanour charges.But he was soon released to await a decision in Fischer v United States, a supreme court case concerning the obstruction charge.In late June, the court’s decision narrowed the grounds on which the charge could be used in January 6 cases.According to the chief justice, John Roberts, the obstruction charge should be applied to whether a “defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of [actual] records, documents, objects, or … other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so”.The opinion was sent to an appeals court for further consideration. Prosecutors were left to work out how to link the obstruction charge to threats to actual records, in particular the electoral college certificates used to formalise results, rather than to the general attempt to overturn an election.The supreme court decision prompted outrage among court observers.Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or Crew, said Roberts and the other five justices who ruled in the majority had helped “insurrectionists dodge accountability”, adding: “If attempting to block the certification of the 2020 election isn’t obstructing an official proceeding in the court’s eyes, then what is?”The US attorney general, Merrick Garland, was also disappointed, saying the court had “limit[ed] an important federal statute that the [justice] department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences”.Nonetheless, Garland said, “the vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer.”Though the department would “comply with the court’s ruling”, Garland said, it would “continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy”.Earlier this month, the US justice department released statistics showing how January 6 cases would be affected by the supreme court ruling.More than 1,472 people had been charged in relation to the attack on Congress by the time the court said it would consider Fischer, it said. Of those people, “roughly 259 … were charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so”.Of those 259 defendants, Seefried and 132 others had been sentenced. Of those 133, the department said, 76 were convicted of obstruction and other felonies while “approximately 17” were convicted on the obstruction charge but no other felonies and were then still serving prison time.“Nearly all” the other 126 defendants were on pre-trial release, the justice department said.The department said it would review “individual cases against the standards articulated in Fischer, as well as the anticipated ongoing proceedings related to Fischer in the DC circuit, to determine whether the government will proceed with the charge”.The department also noted the wide range of other charges against January 6 rioters, many concerning violent conduct.“Approximately 531 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees,” it said, “including approximately 157 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.”Fourteen convictions have been secured for seditious conspiracy, the most serious charge arising from the Capitol attack.Running for president again, Trump leads Biden in most polling.He has promised pardons to those imprisoned over January 6. More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      American rule of law is vanishing at the tips of Trump-appointed judges’ pens | Moira Donegan

      by

      Donald Trump stole thousands of classified documents when he left the White House in 2021, according to prosecutors, and shoved them in unsecured areas around the tacky Florida golf club where he lives. He kept them in basements, bathrooms and ballrooms; they were often unlocked, accessible to anyone who happened to wander by, as dozens or hundreds of people do, every day, at Mar-a-Lago. Trump refused to return the documents when asked; he also lied about what he had.On at least one occasion in 2021, he was recorded showing off one of the classified documents to a visitor, apparently for the sake of his own aggrandizement. “It is like highly confidential. Secret,” Trump said to the man, who was not authorized to see the information. “See, as president, I could have declassified it. Now, I can’t, but this is still a secret.”Aileen Cannon, a US district court judge in Florida whom Donald Trump appointed during his last year in office, has done everything in her power to make sure Trump is never held accountable for the theft of the documents. Since the special counsel Jack Smith’s case – widely considered to be the most legally airtight of the several criminal prosecutions against the former president – was formally assigned to Cannon in June 2023, she has often acted as if she was a member of the defense team; denying routine motions from the prosecutors, antagonizing Smith and his team personally, and dragging on the proceedings in endless rounds of briefings and delays, all surely meant to postpone the case until after Trump retakes the White House.On Monday, she dismissed the case entirely, throwing out all the document-related charges against Trump. Her purported reasoning? That special counsels such as Jack Smith are unconstitutional. Smith signaled that he plans to appeal the decision.Cannon’s ruling flies in the face of decades of precedent, going back to the Watergate era, wherein courts, including the US supreme court, have repeatedly reaffirmed the constitutionality of special counsels and their appointments. But although Cannon wears a robe, she is not interested in the law, which is a mere pretext for her bald effort to advance and protect Trump’s interests. She is not a judge any more than the man who works at the mall every December is Santa Claus. She has the trappings and the power, but none of the expertise, none of the obligations and none of the shame.Cannon’s dismissal of the Trump documents case was predictable: the prosecution, widely considered to be doomed, came at the end of months of strategic moves on her part meant to provide Trump maximum leeway to message publicly about the case, and minimum threat to his electoral process. When Trump lied about the FBI raid on his home, saying that it was a plot on his life orchestrated by the Biden administration, Smith, fearing violence and public misperception, asked for a gag order. Both the sensitivity of the case and the egregious danger posed by Trump’s conduct should have made it an easy call; but Cannon denied it, allowing Trump to continue lying about the raid.At one point during preliminary proceedings, Cannon outright refused to let prosecutors see the documents that had been seized from Mar-a-Lago, a move that prompted a reversal and rare rebuke from the appeals court above her, Atlanta’s 11th circuit. That 11th circuit warning seems to have prompted the first instance in which another federal judge urged Cannon to recuse herself from the case. It would not be the last.Cannon’s single-handed nullification of the classified documents case demonstrates the core problem with what has been, until now, the dominant theory of how to hold Trump accountable for his crimes: with the law. Increasingly, it seems prosecutions in the federal courts are a futile exercise when it comes to the former president. And that’s because the courts are packed with Republican partisans, Trump appointees and personal Trump loyalists, and large numbers of other right-leaning judges who aim to use their seats to roll back the social progress of the past century, further Trump’s authoritarian agenda, and shield him permanently from consequence. To the extent that they are controlled by these actors, the federal courts will never provide a check to Trump’s power. They will only augment it.This reality was underscored on 1 July. The supreme court’s last decision of the term, Trump v United States, created, out of thin air, a vast and near-absolute immunity from criminal prosecution that the court’s conservative justices say applies to presidents – or, at least, applies to their favorite former president.That decision stemmed from another of Smith’s prosecutions, in the January 6 case; in his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing alone, signaled that he thought that perhaps special counsels such as Smith might not be legal after all. It was less like a real, considered legal position than like a set of instructions for Cannon: throw the documents case out on these grounds. Her argument mirrors Thomas’s; she took her marching orders straight from the top.The 11th circuit is likely to reverse Cannon’s dismissal, and it’s possible that Smith will get a chance to re-file his charges – possibly in Washington, closer to the site of the original illegal conduct, which will have the benefit of permanently removing his case from Cannon’s court. But the case will not be heard before the election, and so it may never be heard at all.Even prosecuting Trump might turn out to offer little more than a delay of the inevitable: the complicity of the courts in Trump’s criminality reveals an institutional rot that even locking him up would not solve. If the courts cannot hold the president accountable – or rather, if they choose to exempt one man from their authority, and instead bend themselves to his will – what, exactly, is the check on the presidency? How can a powerful criminal be held to account? Where does the rule of law apply, and where does it vanish?We have at least one answer: the rule of law vanishes at the tip of a Trump judge’s pen.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Bob Menendez set to resign from Senate after bribery conviction – report

      by

      The Democratic US senator Bob Menendez is refuting early reports that he told allies he was considering resigning from Congress after being convicted on corruption charges.“I can tell you that I have not resigned nor have I spoken to any so-called allies … Seems to me that there is an effort to try to force me into a statement,” Menendez told CBS News late Wednesday evening.Menendez has represented New Jersey in Congress for more than 30 years, as a representative in the House from 1993 to 2006 and since then in the Senate.NBC News reported early on Wednesday Menendez was preparing to resign.A jury in New York on Monday found the 70-year-old former chair of the Senate foreign relations committee guilty of 16 federal charges, including accepting bribes of cash, gold and a luxury car from three New Jersey businessmen, and acting as an overseas agent for Egypt.Shortly after the verdicts were read, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader; Cory Booker, Menendez’s fellow New Jersey senator; and Phil Murphy, the state’s Democratic governor, had urged him to stand down.Despite months of defiance from Menendez, NBC reported he is ready to relinquish his seat, citing two unnamed sources familiar with the senator’s intentions.“In light of this guilty verdict, Senator Menendez must now do what is right for his constituents, the Senate, and our country, and resign,” Schumer said in a statement.Murphy, who was among the first Democrats to call for Menendez to resign, will appoint a senator to temporarily complete Menendez’s term, which ends in January 2025.After the guilty verdict, Menendez told reporters: “I have never violated my public oath. I have never been anything but a patriot of my country and for my country.”It was a familiar refrain from Menendez, who has taken a defiant stand ever since he was first indicted in September last year.The senator was on trial with New Jersey businessmen Wael Hana and Fred Daibes, who were also convicted of all the charges they faced. All three pleaded not guilty.Another businessman pleaded guilty before trial and testified against Menendez and the other defendants.Menendez’s wife, Nadine, was also charged, although Stein announced Tuesday that her trial had been postponed indefinitely. Menendez said in May she was being treated for advanced-stage breast cancer.This article was amended on 17 July 2024. An earlier version stated that Menendez was going to resignReuters contributed reporting More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court grabbing ‘ultimate power’, Biden reform adviser says

      by

      Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law scholar who has advised Joe Biden as the president prepares to back dramatic reforms to the US supreme court, has criticized the court’s ultraconservative justices for acting as a “center of self-aggrandizement” threatening the checks and balances on which the US has historically depended.In comments to the Guardian a day after news broke of Biden’s plans to endorse major changes to the country’s most powerful court, the Harvard Law School professor said the justices were out of step with basic constitutional premises. The court had “reached the point of assuming ultimate power over our entire legal and political system”.He accused the supermajority of “essentially destroying the framework of checks and balances” that had maintained an uneasy equilibrium “over the course of our history”.On Monday the Washington Post revealed Biden’s intention to support major plans to restrain the supreme court. The ideas reportedly being considered include term limits for justices, an ethics code armed with real teeth, as well as a possible constitutional amendment to overturn the justices’ highly controversial decision to grant Donald Trump broad presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.The Post reported that in preparation for an announcement, expected within weeks, Biden had turned to Tribe as an authority on constitutional law. They discussed Tribe’s blueprint for supreme court reform set out in a Guardian opinion article earlier this month, the newspaper said.Tribe declined on Tuesday to talk about their conversations. But he shared with the Guardian his personal thoughts about what must be done to correct some of the court’s most flagrant abuses.He gave a withering assessment of the hard-right supermajority that controls the court following Trump’s three appointments. The six conservative justices had discarded the judicial self-constraint that the framers of the constitution had intended for the “least dangerous” branch of government.The court had overturned “decades of precedent for no better reason than that it now has the votes to do so”.Tribe blamed the supreme court for systematically rolling back the past half-century of progress on voting and human rights. He listed advances that had been laid waste in recent years, including: “Reproductive liberty, gender equality, sexual autonomy, racial justice, police abuse and government accountability.”He warned there could be no quick fix for the court’s “outlandish excesses”. But he sketched reforms that, over time, could put the court back on the rails.One of Tribe’s most favored changes appears to fall outside Biden’s plans: enlarging the nine-person court with four extra seats to offset Trump’s “stacking of the court”. Tribe embraced enlarging the court in his role as a member of the commission formed by Biden in 2021 looking into supreme court reform.But he told the Guardian that, speaking only for himself, he would be “loth to urge the president at this point to reverse his deep-rooted opposition to court expansion”.The Harvard professor said that there was growing consensus behind term limits for justices. Presidents should make two appointments to the supreme court in each four-year White House term.New appointments would then serve for 18 years as active justices, followed by lifetime service as a retired judge who could fill in for a recused colleague when required. Such a two-tier system has thrived in lower courts for more than a century.Tribe said the shift to a term-limited system – which would be prospective only, not affecting the current nine justices – could be legislated by Congress.“No other apex court in the world entrusts remotely so much power to so few individuals for so long – essentially for life,” he said.Biden also appears minded to endorse an enforceable ethics code, to replace the voluntary guidelines which the court adopted last November amid mounting criticism of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Tribe said he believed such a reform was now urgently needed, as a way to save the court “from its own worst tendencies”.The law professor called the present system untenable. With no outside mechanism for enforcing ethical rules, such as disclosure of gifts from rich patrons, the court was in effect “expected to police itself”.That remained the case even when justices appeared “prone to get away with as much exploitation of their prestigious positions as they can”.Like term limits, an enforceable ethics code would require congressional legislation. Both would be a tough proposition given the present partisan divide and the need for 60 Senate votes under the filibuster.Such reforms would look easy compared with the other major reform being considered by Biden relating to presidential immunity. This would require a constitutional amendment that would have to negotiate the convoluted rules for changing the US constitution (two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress, or two-thirds of the states in a convention, followed by ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures).What was now needed, Tribe said, was a “No Person Is Above the Law” amendment which would insert language into the constitution making clear that nobody – including the president – could claim immunity from criminal prosecution by virtue of their office.Tribe said that he also wanted to see an amendment constraining a president’s pardon power so that a lawless incumbent of the Oval Office could not pardon themselves or anyone else whom they encouraged to commit crimes on their behalf.Taken together, these changes would return to the supreme court the public respect it had lost, Tribe said. They would correct the court’s partisan majority which now acts as though it were “all-knowing and essentially infallible, paying virtually no heed to the opinions of its predecessors or of the American people”. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      A Trump-Vance administration would be ‘the most dangerous’ for abortion rights, say advocates

      by

      Within minutes of Donald Trump’s announcement that he had tapped Ohio senator JD Vance as his running mate in the 2024 elections, abortion rights groups vociferously condemned the pick.“A Trump-Vance administration will be the most dangerous administration for abortion and reproductive freedom in this country’s history,” Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said in a statement.“By naming Vance to his ticket, Trump made clear that his administration will sign a national abortion ban and put birth control and IVF at risk,” said Jessica Mackler, president of Emily’s List, an organization that supports Democratic women who support abortion rights running for office.Vance, the venture capitalist turned Hillbilly Elegy author turned GOP standard-bearer, has long opposed abortion.In 2021, while running for Ohio senate, Vance told an Ohio news outlet that he did not support rape and incest exceptions in abortion bans. “It’s not whether a woman should be forced to bring a child to term,” he said. “It’s whether a child should be allowed to live, even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient or a problem to the society.”But voters’ outrage over the overturning of Roe v Wade has grown, leading abortion rights supporters to a string of victories at the ballot box, and harnessing that outrage is widely considered Democrats’ best hope for winning the November elections. As Trump and other Republicans have tried to project a moderated stance on the issue – despite the fact that Trump handpicked three of the supreme court justices who overturned Roe – Vance has also tempered his public position.“We have to accept that people do not want blanket abortion bans. They just don’t,” Vance told CNN’s Jake Tapper last year. “I say this as a person who wants to protect as many unborn babies as possible. We have to provide exceptions for the life of the mother and rape and so forth.”In 2022, Vance said he would support a national 15-week abortion ban with exceptions. He also told NBC News that he wants mifepristone, a common abortion pill that was at the heart of a major supreme court case this year, to remain accessible.Even while supporting a national ban, Vance has said he would like abortion to be “primarily a state issue”.“Ohio is going to want to have a different abortion policy from California, from New York, and I think that’s reasonable,” he said. “I want Ohio to be able to make its own decisions, and I want Ohio’s elected legislators to make those decisions.”But, he added: “I think it’s fine to sort of set some minimum national standard.”Much of Vance’s public persona, however, remains defined by his support of what he sees as the traditional nuclear family. He has backed policies that he says will increase birth rates, such as making childbirth free, and said that people who are childfree by choice “do not have any physical commitment to the future of this country”.“I think the rejection of the American family is perhaps the most pernicious and the most evil thing that the left has done in this country,” said Vance, a father of three. He then went on to suggest that several Democratic politicians, like Kamala Harris and New Jersey senator Cory Booker, should not have political power because they do not have children.“Why have we let the Democrat party become controlled by people who don’t have any children? And why is this just a normal fact of American life?” Vance asked. “That the leaders of our country should be people who don’t have a personal and direct stake in it via their own offspring, via their own children?” (The vice-president has two stepchildren.)“Many of the most unhappy and most miserable and most angry people in our media are childless adults,” he continued.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionVance has also called people who fear having kids “cat ladies” who “must be stopped” and said that universal daycare is “class war against normal people”.Two days after the US supreme court overturned Roe, Vance tweeted: “If your worldview tells you that it’s bad for women to become mothers but liberating for them to work 90 hours a week in a cubicle at the New York Times or Goldman Sachs, you’ve been had.”Shortly after Trump announced he had chosen Vance as his running mate, Joe Biden’s campaign started to circulate a clip of comments Vance made in 2021 about violence in marriages.“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that, like: ‘Well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term,’” Vance said in response to a question on fatherlessness.Vance has said that he was not defending men who commit domestic abuse and that he himself is a victim of domestic abuse.Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the powerful anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, praised Vance on Monday.“His ability to compellingly share these stories on a national stage will surely be an asset,” Dannenfelser said in a statement. “With approximately 750,000 babies in states like California and New York still lacking basic protections, we need champions whose boldness will not waver.” More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump lawyers press judge to overturn hush-money conviction after supreme court immunity ruling

      by

      Donald Trump’s lawyers are imploring a New York judge to overturn his hush-money conviction and dismiss the case, arguing his historic trial was “tainted” by evidence that shouldn’t have been allowed because of the US supreme court’s recent presidential immunity ruling.In a court filing dated 10 July but made public on Thursday, defense lawyers said the guilty verdict in the first-ever criminal trial of a US president should be set aside.“The use of official-acts evidence was a structural error under the federal Constitution,” wrote defense lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove. “The jury’s verdicts must be vacated.”The supreme court released its immunity decision on 1 July, giving broad protections to presidents and insulating them from prosecution for official acts. It also said evidence of a president’s official acts cannot be used in a prosecution on private matters. The supreme court did not define what constitutes an official act, leaving that to lower courts.Trump’s defense lawyers said that meant the Manhattan jury’s verdict could not stand. Hours after the supreme court ruling, Trump’s team wrote a letter to the trial judge, Juan Merchan, asking him to set aside the verdict and to delay Trump’s sentencing, due to take place in July. Merchan agreed to delay Trump’s sentencing by two months.A spokesperson for Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office declined to comment on Thursday. Prosecutors have until 24 July to respond. They have previously called Trump’s arguments meritless but agreed to push back the sentencing.Legal experts said Trump faces steep odds of getting the hush-money conviction overturned, since much of the case involves conduct before his presidency and the evidence from his time in the White House has more to do with private conduct.The supreme court’s ruling stemmed from a separate case Trump faces on federal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. It all but ensured Trump would not face trial in that case before the November election.Trump’s lawyers are also seeking a pause in a third criminal case on charges of mishandling classified documents due to the ruling. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.In the hush-money case, Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records to cover up his former lawyer Michael Cohen’s $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to remain quiet about a sexual encounter she says she had with Trump. Prosecutors say the payment was designed to boost his presidential campaign in 2016. Trump denies having had sex with Daniels and has vowed to appeal after his sentencing.Trump lawyers argue that jurors shouldn’t have been allowed to hear about some matters including his conversations with then White House communications director Hope Hicks, testimony from another aide about how Trump got personal mail in the Oval Office, and tweets that he sent while president. Some of the checks and invoices at issue in the case were also from his time as president.Merchan has said he will decide on Trump’s arguments by 6 September. If the conviction is upheld, Trump will be sentenced on 18 September –less than seven weeks before the election. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Giuliani may face defamation and sexual harassment lawsuits if bankruptcy is dismissed

      by

      A US judge on Wednesday said he is likely to discontinue Rudy Giuliani’s bankruptcy process, which would enable lawsuits for defamation, sexual harassment and other claims to proceed in other courts against Donald Trump’s former lawyer.Sean Lane, a US bankruptcy judge, said at a court hearing in White Plains, New York, that he would rule on Friday on competing requests from Giuliani and his creditors about the future of his bankruptcy case.Giuliani, 80, filed for bankruptcy protection last December after a Washington DC court ordered the former New York City mayor to pay $148m to two Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, whom he had falsely accused of rigging votes in the 2020 presidential election, following Joe Biden’s victory over Trump.The women had described how such public lies and hounding by the powerful Republican operative wrecked their lives.The bankruptcy process had prevented the election workers from collecting on that judgment, while freezing other lawsuits stemming from Giuliani’s work for Trump, the former Republican president, as he sought to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.Last week, Giuliani asked to convert his personal bankruptcy case into a straightforward liquidation, which would force him to sell nearly all of his assets. One group of creditors asked Lane to appoint a trustee to take over Giuliani’s finances and businesses, which could lead to a lengthy and contested bankruptcy liquidation, while another group said Giuliani should be kicked out of bankruptcy altogether.All three options pose significant risks for Giuliani.Lane said dismissal was likely the best option, given the difficulties the court has had in getting straight answers from Giuliani about his finances. A dismissal of his bankruptcy would allow Giuliani’s creditors to resume lawsuits against him, but it would also give him more freedom to appeal the $148m defamation judgment that prompted him to seek the legal protection afforded by a bankruptcy filing.“We believe that the debtor’s best chance of getting an appellate determination would be dismissal,” Giuliani attorney Gary Fischoff said during Wednesday’s court hearing.Rachel Strickland, representing Moss and her mother, Freeman, said Giuliani should be kicked out of bankruptcy so her clients can try to collect against him.Giuliani “regards this court as a pause button on his woes while he continues to live his life unbothered by creditors”, Strickland told Lane.A committee representing Giuliani’s other creditors asked Lane to instead appoint a trustee to take over Giuliani’s finances and businesses. Committee attorney Phil Dublin said ending the bankruptcy now would create a “race to the courthouse” among the many people who have sued Giuliani.Giuliani’s other creditors include former employee Noelle Dunphy, who has accused Giuliani of sexual assault and wage theft, and the voting machine companies Dominion and Smartmatic, who have also sued Giuliani for defamation. Giuliani has denied the allegations.In addition to the civil lawsuits, Giuliani denies criminal charges in Georgia and Arizona relating to election interference.Reuters contributed reporting. More