Below is my column in The Hill on the suspension of Rudy Giuliani by the New York Bar. The widespread hatred for Giuliani may be blinding many to the more troubling aspects of the opinion by the New York Supreme Court.
Here is the column:
This week, New York’s Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of suspending Rudy Giuliani, former federal prosecutor and counsel to former President Trump, from practicing law. As a long-standing critic of Giuliani for his baffling, self-defeating and at times bizarre statements, I found the action was, on some level, reaffirming.
However, the fluid standard applied in Giuliani’s case raises serious concerns over how and when such suspensions will be imposed against lawyers in public controversies. Indeed, the Giuliani standard would seem to implicate a wide array of attorneys who straddle the line of legal and political advocacy.
The 33-page opinion is damning and embarrassing; in all likelihood, it will result in Giuliani’s eventual disbarment. It also is deeply concerning in its heavy reliance on Giuliani’s statements out of court. While lawyers have been disciplined for out-of-court statements in some cases, this suspension seems primarily a judgment on Giuliani’s public advocacy. The court states that when he uses
“his large megaphone, the harm is magnified. … One only has to look at the ongoing present public discord over the 2020 election, which erupted into violence, insurrection and death on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol, to understand the extent of the damage that can be done when the public is misled by false information about the elections. The AGC [Attorney Grievance Committee] contends that respondent’s misconduct directly inflamed tensions that bubbled over into the events of January 6, 2021 in this nation’s Capitol.”
Such rhetoric leaves the impression that the investigators and the court itself were eager to impose judgment on Giuliani for the Capitol riot and other unrest through a bar action. In an actual case for incitement, such a causal connection would be rejected by any court as a violation of free speech. Many lawyers can be accused of fanning unrest or even violence, in cities ranging from Washington, D.C., to Portland, Ore., through their declarations on subjects ranging from police shootings to election fraud.
Likewise, Democratic members of Congress have challenged presidential elections regularly and unsuccessfully, including challenges made at the certification of the votes before Congress. Many refused to recognize the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency. Yet there was no cry to disbar the lawyers or the members behind those challenges.
Take Marc Elias, one of the loudest Democratic voices denouncing Giuliani (and other Republican lawyers) as attacking democracy itself. The Perkins Coie attorney led efforts to challenge past Democratic election losses; in one such case, he argued that Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) effectively stole the election from Democrat Anthony Brindisi, arguing in court that “there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes, and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi.” That should sound familiar.
Elias, who heads a group called Democracy Docket, has been accused by critics of lying about past election controversies. Before the 2020 election, there was the 2016 election scandal based on the infamous Steele dossier’s sensational, unsupported claims of collusion between Trump and the Russians. However, throughout the election, the Clinton campaign and its lawyer, Elias, allegedly denied that it had funded the dossier. After the election, journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign disguised payments for the dossier as “legal fees” paid to Elias’ law firm. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’ ” Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote: “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” When Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was questioned on the matter by Congress, he denied any contractual agreement regarding the dossier. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the false information given to Congress.
So, Elias was accused in these reports of lying to the public, the media and Congress. He has every right to defend himself and prove his innocence on such allegations. Yet, none of the “leading lawyers” cited by the New York court or in the media called for a bar investigation let alone a suspension.
The fact is that many reckless statements are made by lawyers about elections and other controversies. Even President Biden has been confronted over his false statements about Georgia’s election law; rather than correct his claims, he has continued to repeat them – just as the court cited Giuliani for doing outside of court.
Lawyers often make sensational, false claims that inflame public opinion, such as insisting former Attorney General William Barr violently cleared D.C.’s Lafayette Square last year to arrange for Trump’s controversial photo op outside St. John’s Episcopal Church. The claim outraged many Americans, even though there was no evidence to prove it; several lawyers repeated the photo op myth as fact on TV. An inspector general and a federal court both later debunked the myth, but the damage was done: To this day, many people believe it. Nevertheless, I do not believe any lawyers should be suspended for such claims, which should be protected as free speech.
The New York court brushes over the free speech implications of its ruling with a conclusory statement that Giuliani knowingly misrepresented facts, even though it did not afford him a hearing on that or other questions.
It is not enough to declare “Don’t be like Giuliani.” What is missing in this opinion is a clear standard for when the failure to establish a case — as Giuliani failed to do with his election fraud claims — is a disbarring offense. In reality, many cases collapse in court over insufficient evidence. Election challenges are made without access to critical records or data held by election boards or officials — indeed, litigants often go to court to gain such access.
Likewise, public interest lawyers often bring cases against the government, which classifies or withholds evidence. When I litigated the Area 51 case, I was suing a base that the government claimed did not exist, and all information about it was classified; we prevailed in establishing environmental violations but only after years of intense litigation and denials.
The concern in this case is that we are seeing a weaponization of bar investigations after a wide (and well-funded) campaign to harass Republican lawyers, their firms and their clients after the 2020 election. And it has worked: Many law firms are unwilling to take on Republican or conservative causes for fear of being targeted.
The Giuliani opinion fuels those concerns. Despite a damning account of exaggerations and falsehoods, it often reads more like a venting — rather than a vetting — of grievances against Giuliani. Instead of issuing a well-deserved reprimand, the court declared Giuliani to be a public menace if allowed to continue practicing law, even for the period of his own adjudication. The premature suspension made little sense. The bar was focused on Giuliani’s public statements, which will continue unabated by any suspension.
Nevertheless, the suspension thrilled many in today’s bloodsport politics. Yet while the court seemed to apply a special “Giuliani rule,” it is unlikely to stay that way if — to paraphrase Carl von Clausewitz — the bar becomes “nothing but a continuation of politics by other means.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“Democratic members of Congress have challenged presidential elections regularly.” Hmm, where do we start to spell out the differences between then & now to Professor Turley? Trump fired Homeland Security’s cyber chief for declaring the 2020 election was the most safe & secure election in history. Trump repeatedly attacked Republican governors & state officials for certifying Biden’s victory. Trump repeatedly attacked federal judges & called the Supreme Court “a disgrace” & “an embarrassment” for dismissing his 86 lawsuits to overturn election results. Trump attacked his own AG for declaring the 2020 election didn’t have massive voter fraud. Trump continues to attack Pence for allowing Biden’s Electoral College victory to be certified on January 6th. Trump’s press secretary insisted it was statistically impossible for Biden to overcome Trump’s early lead on election night. 10 days after election day, Georgia Senators Perdue & Loeffler demanded Raffensperger resign for certifying Biden’s victory. Republicans continue to order audits of ballots 7 months after Biden was sworn into office
Turley neglects to mention Georgia Republicans’ new election laws stripped election powers from their Secretary of State & make it easier to overturn Electoral College results. Their election laws ban provisional ballots, which will effectively invalidate ballots from legal voters who voted in the wrong polling place. Georgia had 11,120 provisional ballots in the 2020 election. Arizona & other Republican led states reacted to Biden’s victory by implementing election laws making it easier to overturn Electoral College results, which of course, is what Trump wanted Pence to do.
JT also doesn’t mention that 2 weeks after the 2016 election, Trump claimed “I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of illegal votes.” All during his presidency, Trump demanded Obama be indicted & locked up for treason. A month before the 2020 election, Trump said if Barr didn’t arrest Obama before election day, his legacy will be forever tarnished.
Other than that, I agree with everything JT says.
Lol. +100
eb
“Arizona & other Republican led states reacted to Biden’s victory by implementing election laws making it easier to overturn Electoral College results, which of course, is what Trump wanted Pence to do.”
*****************************
Well, there’s a hanging chad if there ever was one. Please explain how “Arizona & other Republican led states” made it “easier to overturn Electoral College results” by banning the provisional votes of dumb votes? And why would JT mention something said in 2016 which had nothing to do with the topic?
Trump’s a loose cannon to be sure but he knows who the enemy is.
+100
My +100 compliment was directed at the patriotic American.
Trump fired Homeland Security’s cyber chief for declaring the 2020 election was the most safe & secure election in history.
And it could not have been more obvious that the declaration was a preposterous lie. There is no chance that he knows the details of all 50+ Presidential elections.
SCONY: Who needs a hearing? We’re the sole dispensers of r̶e̶l̶i̶g̶i̶o̶n̶ justice and we don’t need no stinkin’ hearing! Who cares what Guiliani says or does. He’s a heretic … er … clear and present danger! Off to the auto-de-fe’ … er … disbarment proceedings.
I read the opinion. Despite what Alan Dershowitz accurately calls the “mortal wounding” of equal justice for all in this decision, Giuliani may not be the brightest bulb on the lawyer Christmas tree. All he had to do was couch his words as “according to my client,” and he’s scott free here. Like a lot of lawyers, he got emotionally invested (and why shouldn’t he if he felt democracy was in jeopardy) and paid the price. That said, I’m not sure a hearing would have helped him given the reckless, unsupported (and they were) statements he made. Smokin’ Joe Frazier in a Philadelphia voting booth in 2020 may have been the last straw.
So do we really need to make a list of lying lawyers, because Democras will be in the winners circle. For the last 4 years, numerous Democrat lawyers, many of them Congressmen, LIED repeatedly, some on the floor of COngress, … Schiff, Schumer and the cabal lied about Russian collusion, Kavanaugh, ACB, Hunter’s laptop, spying on the Trump campaign, Ofc Sicknick. Joe Biden lied on his first few days in office saying he had inherited no plan for the CV19 vax, the one he got 20 days before and which Trump had ordered 800M of. Now VP Kamala lied about the border and said they inherited the border crisis, which they obviously created by changing the successful Trump policies. I have no particular preference for Guiliani but I despise the political smears and blatantly political biased actions by organizations that are controlled by lyng Democrats.
Someone should file complaints with the Bar about Nadler and Schumer over the 4 years of baseless allegations regarding collusion and the 2016 election
My thoughts exactly — if they have law licenses.
Exactly my thoughts about the ratz in Congress.
Wow! What a disciple. The Mueller Report PROVED Trump’s campaign fed insider polling information to Russian hackers in key districts that could sway the Electoral College vote, and they used this information to spread lies about Hillary Clinton. This explains how she won the popular vote but lost the election. So, Schiff, Shumer and anyone else you are accusing of lying are telling the truth by reporting the findings of the Mueller Report. Biden didn’t lie either: there was NO plan for vaccine distribution. Ordering vials of vaccine does not equate to an organized plan for distribution. The “border crisis” has existed for decades, made worse after Reagan gave amnesty to illegals in 1984, as “one time” relief. That only exacerbated the problem, and as long as Republican-owned hotels, restaurants, landscaping, nanny and housekeeping services continue to hire illegals, they’ll keep coming. “Trump’s ‘successful’ policies” included separating children from their parents as a deterrent to seeking asylum, according to Jeff Sessions. That is not only illegal, it is inhumane.
Are you trying to claim that the N.Y. State disciplinary commission is an organization controlled by “lying Democrats”? Where the hell did you get this, other than from the alt-right media? Read the commissions report. Turley included a link. Read the facts they relied on for summarily suspending Giuliani.
Wow! What a disciple. The Mueller Report PROVED Trump’s campaign fed insider polling information to Russian hackers in key districts that could sway the Electoral College vote . . . .
It didn't prove that. It didn't even ASSERT that.
And the claim is utterly insane. There is nothing hackers could do with such information anyway.
Yes they could, and yes they did. The information from Trump campaign insider polling directed the hackers to the precincts where support for Hillary Clinton was soft enough that lies about her could (and did) sway voters. Then, there are the dozens of prosecutions, guilty pleas and criminal convictions. There are still Trumpsters who believe that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin are cannibals, that they engage in sex-trafficking of children and then drink their blood, and all sorts of other crazy nonsense fed to them by the extreme ultra right wing pro Trump media. Hillary has been accused of multiple murders and all sorts of other vile behavior due to endless hate indoctrination by the alt-right media. Remember the “Benghazi” investigation that went nowhere when the Republicans were in charge? She, Nancy Pelosi and the Obamas are triggers used by Republican strategists to stir up the faithful because of the blinding hatred for them which is the result of indoctrination. I got this from Rick Wilson’s book: “Everything Trump Touches, Dies”. He was a former Republican strategist who drew the line at Trump, but he discusses all of the commercials he helped craft that used unflattering photos of Pelosi, Hillary and the Obamas to sell whatever propaganda a candidate was trying to push (as if these people have anything to do with Congressional or even local state political contests). That’s what you do when you don’t have much of substance to offer. Also, they’ll try to blame Biden for the border crisis that has been around for decades and which has no easy answers, and then there’s pushing the lie that Democrats are requiring school children to be indoctrinated with CRT (another lie). Expect more of the same as 2022 approaches.
The Democrats do all of the above and then some. Only difference is that Dems like Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Biden, Obama, et al, lie with impunity. And they do it with the assistance of their corrupt propaganda media that is in the bag for Democrats.
The border crisis IS Biden’s mess that HE created with his own foolish policies. And of course the media are A.O.K. with the overflowing out of control numbers of kids in cages this time around because: Democrats are in power. Shhhh nothing to scream or shout about here. No biggie that Biden is blocking all media access to facilities. And if the lying corrupt media do have to talk about it: It’s Trump’s fault!! That is their M.O. All lies and deflection.
What is wrong with you? Learn what a “hacker” is. Hackers NEVER “sway” anyone in their role as hackers. You[‘re a complete lunatic. And there is no evidence of Russian NON-hackers trying to persuade voters anywhere in this country of anything, let alone targeting particular areas. Your talking points are all fabricated.
And there are NO guilty pleas or convictions. ZERO.
Is Rudy a Catolick.?
‘The only hope of truly uniting the country would have been prison time for Kevin Clinesmith, prosecutions for the many provable FISA-related crimes, a McCabe perjury prosecution.
The bad guys aren’t worried about unity. They think they are winning. As of now – they are.’
@cernovich
Take Rudy’s photo off the blog. Ugly, ugly, no buggly.
As regards Justice Turley’s opinion, here is the holding:
“The 33-page opinion is damning and embarrassing; in all likelihood, it will result in Giuliani’s eventual disbarment.”
The rest of his cautionary opinion is important reading, but it amounts to dicta.
The Bar Grievance Committee’s judgment is confirmed. Next….
Turley would like to have his readers believe it’s just Rudy G’s public statements that got him in trouble, and not the court filings.
As long as it works, they will keep doing it. The Left has an obsession with tearing down this country by any means possible. Picking at the scabs of history is just one of them.
I think Rudy Giuliani is a dirt bag but he should take this all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Giuliani is actively being persecuted by a United States court for Constitutionally protected free speech. This ruling cannot stand.
Freedom of speech is covered by the commission’s report. Read it. Lying to a tribunal or to the public is not permissible speech by a lawyer.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/560563-giulianis-suspension-from-the-law-is-unconstitutional
I stopped reading at “his baffling, self-defeating and at times bizarre statements”. Is a manipulated election of President Whispering Smith any less “baffling and at times bizarre statements”?
Margot,
The answer is “no,” but 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Turley will continue to disappoint your expectations with his defense of our American jurisprudence.
They aren’t going to stop with HIGH PROFILE lawyers, they are setting precedent. Nip this in the bud NOW. We are careening toward a legitimately totalitarian state, and they won’t spare the Professor either, eventually.
James,
Turley will be spared. He is under no threat. He is not a Trumpist. He does not believe in the Deep State. He will not claim that the prosecution of the Trump organization is a “witch-hunt.” He is on the side of truth and justice. He is safe!
Rule of Law, Free Speech, Due Process, Evidence, what illusionary concepts to the Left.
Why is Elias and his Law firm, the Clinton Campaign, the DNC, Podesta, Steele, and the FBI and DOJ immune from such challenges confronting those representing Conservatives or Republicans?
If the usual Leftist trolls who attend this Blog cannot grasp the reality and extent of their own hypocrisy….why should we expect the New York Supreme Court to grasp its own?
I HAVE NOT SEEN OR READ MUCH ABOUT DEMOCRAT LAWYERS BEING INVESTIGATED OR, MORE SPECIFIC, OUR PRESIDENT’S SON, WHO, IN MY OPINION, WAS AND IS ONE OF THE WORST OFFENDERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION ALONG WITH THE CLINTON FOUNDATION.
‘The only hope of truly uniting the country would have been prison time for Kevin Clinesmith, prosecutions for the many provable FISA-related crimes, a McCabe perjury prosecution.
The bad guys aren’t worried about unity. They think they are winning. As of now – they are.’
@cernovich
The ‘bad guys’ have all been hired as talking heads to spin their own crimes on CNN and MSNBC.
The Bar’s failure to disbar Rudy and Barr should disturb all lawyers and non layers alike. The same can be said for other Trump lawyers who lied with impunity to courts. Bar committees hesitated to avoid just the kind of “it’s all politics” argument being made here. Lying in court documents ands filing claims supported by lies is an offense that should result in disbarment and we, lawyers, all know it. Being timid won’t get lawyers any praise what it’s does do is result in comments like the one made by a NY1 reporter who said he agreed that Rudy lied but the said lawyers lie all the time so what the bid deal! He should have been disbarred!
Righteous suspension of Giuiiani. I get your reticence, Turley. Might be a tough time to be a Republican lawyer who mouthpieced for Trump. Good time to be worried and find a way to slide back into a primarily academic existence.
eb
Drinking so early in the day are you?
If you had a memory you would recall Professor Turley instructed the Democrats on how to successfully Impeach President Trump….but they rejected his sage counsel and got their butts beat TWICE!
Trump was officially impeached twice.
Ralph,
You are correct. Turley is no fan of Trump, and he must be bitterly disappointed that the House Democrats failed to heed his advice to build a case so overwhelming on the facts that the Senate Republicans would have had no choice but to convict him. I’m sure he lies awake at night lamenting how the Democrats allowed this righteous Impeachment to slip through their fingers on account of their haste. And had they just taken his advice, Trump would have been removed from office thanks in no small part to Turley’s legal guidance!
Trump got impeached twice, yes. And to be fair, there were Repub senators that conceded his guilt in both senate trials but based their ‘no’ votes on factors not having to do the with essence of the cases…, the first time it was ‘why remove him when an election is coming up in 9 months. Let the people decide!’ The second time it was ‘why remove him when he already lost an election?’
The real issue isn’t that a better case could’ve been built. Nothing about a McConnell led senate was going to remove trump. I’m sure it was frustrating for Turley to see that impeachment as a tool was proven obsolete in the sense that it’s so politically governed…, only way to impeach and remove is for the senate to be controlled by another party.
eb
Eb,
My comments were largely facetious. I have to agree that nothing short of a “smoking gun” evidence would have compelled the Republicans to convict Trump. Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt was never going to suffice given that politicians by and large don’t have to act reasonable in order to get elected. Nowadays, they don’t even have to act rational.
Thus, I always suspected that Turley was being disingenuous in arguing for more evidence when he must have known that Trumpists would not convict unless the evidence was so unmistakable, undeniable and irrefutable that NO ONE could ignore it. A standard of proof which could only be satisfied by a surreptitious recording of Trump’s admission of a quid pro quo.
Been sober for 38 years btw, Ralph.
eb
Eb,
The tide is slowly turning on Turley. Unlike Turley who has the sense to maintain plausible deniability about his contentious statements, Trump’s lies are utterly implausible; in fact, they are demonstrably false. Trump demands total allegiance notwithstanding the absurdity of his falsehoods. Turley’s allegiance to the rule of law will be his undoing among the Trumpists. No amount of his nay-saying or “whataboutism” will spare him from their wrath as long as he does not accept Trump’s lies “hook, line and sinker.”
I feel like Turley bought his ticket on this hell ride, Jeff. I’ve seen him lie outright enough on this blog to believe he deserves all the static he’s going to catch when he backpeddles in a trump indictment. In particular, Turley has insisted on not just avoiding the Big Lie, but in his repeatedly lying about trump being cleared of ‘collusion’ with the Russians in ’16 by backing Barr’s claim, publicly and often, that all collusion effort had been debunked. First of all, it just takes reading the Mueller report to debunk Barr’s claim. Mueller did not say what Barr says he did. And Mueller complained to Barr about his framing work in the aftermath of Barr’s release of the report.
Truth is, Trump’s campaign manager (Manafort) shared internal polling data with Russian intelligence so that the Russians could focus their disinformation campaign on the area’s of the country most susceptible to the big lies trump was telling about Clinton. Nothing but crickets or outright denials on that from Turley.
Not that I don’t think Turley has a noble side. I just think he sold it off in his efforts to mouthpiece for Trump.
eb
Trump’s lies are utterly implausible; in fact, they are demonstrably false.
Uh, what lies?
Trump saying that he can grab women by their genitals. That was a lie. He has never sexually assaulted women. He was lying to Billy Bush when he admitted that he had.
What Trump said was true. He didn’t say he “had”….he said some women will “let you” do anything when you are famous and powerful. Which is true. Harvey Weinstein raped many many women, and they let him, because they wanted whatever they thought he could do for them. He’s just one example of a powerful Democrat abusing women because he could — because “they let him.” What Trump said is 100% true and goes on all the time in Hollywood and amongst liberal Dems everywhere. Biden has been far more credibly accused of rape than any of the accusations made against Trump. But he’s an untouchable Democrat, so nothing to see there.
As I am not a member of the female sex, far be it for me to authoritatively respond to your atrocious remarks. I invite ANY woman, Republican or Democrat, to explain why your attitude is pernicious.
Jeff Silberman, metro-sexual
Nothing those people do surprises me. Nothing.
Everyday they do something that a few years ago would have been called bat sh*t crazy…and everyday they prove it is true….
It is really very simple.
Democrats lose every time on the field of public debate. Their agenda us unsupported by facts.
The only way to shape the narrative is lie. Dems are lying about Giuliani.
Its good to defend principles no matter the politics. Now do AG Garland, and the entire DoJ. Suing a State for running their own elections is beyond the pale. Any seventh grader that has spent a week studying the Constitution, knows States have the enumerated power to run elections.
They don’t have the power to deny civil rights, however.
Agreed, but you have the players backward. I find it difficult to believe that you would have fought to preserve slavery during the civil war, but the opinions you regularly present indicate those are the folks you would have sided with. Illogical? Indeed.
James, I could never have supported the Democrats of the 1860s and though they have changed considerably. They generally have my support only because of the lack of a viable alternative. On the other hand, the “Party of Lincoln” once had the type of Black support that even today’s Democrats could only aspire to. Republicans lost the Black vote they once richly deserved due to their own actions over time. I credit the beginning of the slippery slope to the Compromise of 1877, others may pick a different point.
I am not a single-issue voter with the exception of one thing; voter suppression. You can begin the wails and moans about there being no such thing and let me say for the record I don’t especially mind Voter ID if they are free and readily accessible. Please don’t tell me that the laws of Georgia and some other states are no worse than New York because New York’s laws are suppressive as well.
I would agree with the SCOTUS decision in 2013 that it was unfair to target certain states and jurisdictions for preclearance because of their past racist practices. I think all fifty states have racist pasts related to voting including the forty-seven trying to change their laws now.
Republicans used to have some policies I could support. Now they don’t even have a platform except to support whatever Trump likes. Just as I couldn’t have supported Democrats in the 1860s, I can’t support Republicans of today (though an occasional candidate had gotten my vote in the last forty years. If you’d like me to outline the decline of the Republican Party in detail I can. You may disagree but you won’t find it illogical, especially since the people that think like the Democrats of the 1860s are mostly Republican now.
And there in a nutshell is why I feel both contempt for and fear of the Left.
They are immoral, ruthless, and vindictive.
Just read some of the screeds by the Lefty posters here (eg Natacha, etc).
Angry, vicious, dishonest, unhinged.
Others like Anonymous sit on their computers, obsessively commenting and sometimes writing more in the comments than Turley wrote in the original post.
These people are irrational – their right, but not their right to destroy our political system.
Lefties need to be deprived of power in 2022.
Natacha, Justice Holmes and a few others are just far left partisans that come to this site and DEMAND that Turley write what they want to read. The baby leftists can control the WH and Congress and they will DEMAND that they be allowed to pack the Court as well. They DEMAND that elections be allowed to be corrupt, they DEMAND that Big Tech censor the right, they DEMAND that Fox News be shut down. The leftists are spoiled brats who never, ever stop until they get their way, just as a 13 year old would act. Of course they DEMAND that attorneys that defend Trump or even worked for him be shunned, all as they say that baby killers, child abusers and rapists should (rightfully) have representation. They DEMAND that attorneys be ruined for defending politicians they don’t agree with and yet they want the illegal member of MS-13 to get free legal assistance. This is how you act when you are a fascist AND you hate your country.
As for Anonymous, we all need to just ignore the person that comments 100 times a day on a site he purports to hate??? Folks like Monument and others makes sense, discuss the issue at hand and argue logically…and many of us appreciate it.
hullbobby
Doing something unusual for me, coming back to debate.
Look at MollyG’s ugly posting and then look for a dissent from the Lefty posters.
Deafening silence.
The Left is allowing unhinged representatives to define the Lefty movement.
Consequently the Left is driven by ugly people who are so consumed with anger that they could not function in a normal environment (consider the amount of vitriol that they bring to any conversion on this blog).
Monument,
I have disavowed Molly’s remarks. She does not represent me. I hope that you’ll accord me some credit for speaking up.
It’s true that I criticize Turley, but I also defend him. In fact, you will find me defending him more and more as he gets increasingly attacked by many here for not defending Trump and his associates from prosecution.
Jeff, I usually disagree with you, but glad you commented on that crazy comment. I wish more people would act likewise.
Monument, thanks for replying and again, keep up the good work.
Democrats don’t persuade, they coerce.
A purely political decision by a woke court. How. can you tell? Insurrection, eh? The first by unarmed citizens in history! Giuliani will be fine. His tormentors not so much. They have to live with their self-defeating decision and worse yet, themselves.
“Unarmed citizens”? The denial runs deep in this one.
List the “insurrectionists” incarcerated on gun charges.
You can not.
Because there aren’t any.
There aren’t weapons charges, period. That could be outdone by a single police officer’s shift through virtually any neighborhood. The fence and National Guard ensured that as an Independent I will never vote Democrat again.
This isn’t hard. Took me 30 seconds.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-capitol-riot-firearm-guy-reffitt/
“This isn’t hard. Took me 30 seconds.”
***************************************
Then you ought to spend more time reading it. According to your CBS (snicker) article, three people of the 3000 or so people there were charged (in June) with carrying guns on the grounds that THEY DID NOT USE and none yet have been convicted. So okay you want to rely on a potential “army” of three to prove a point, be my guest. So it’s now the “first insurrection in history where less than .1% of the mob was armed (or .56% of those charged (3/532)).” Quite the “armed mob” there, Mr. Babbage.
The first of any of the convictions just happened the other day. When these people are convicted you’ll rely on the small percentage of people convicted. Some of the people weren’t identified or charged so you won’t count those either. People were encouraged to bring their guns and I suspect many did. Since they were all allowed to depart peacefully and arrests weren’t made until weeks/months later, there wasn’t enough proof to show some wewre armed that day. Of course, some weren’t “armed,” they just used sticks and flagpoles to assault people. How many Capitol Police officers were injured? 140, not a bad days work.
“This is do or die. Bring your guns,”
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/08/1004201155/bring-your-guns-probe-uncovers-more-alarming-intelligence-before-capitol-riot
“The denial runs deep in this one.”
****************************
Sound self-revelatory given no guns were confiscated or used.
Now we’ve changed from “unarmed” to having been confiscated or used? Can we at least agree there were armed people there? Not including the pipe bombs.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-capitol-riot-firearm-guy-reffitt/
No. Supra.
You are a lunatic.
“That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.” Wait, no it wasn’t. If you’re going to respond, especially when I’m undeniably correct. At least put some thought or effort into your rebuttal.
The legal profession has gone to Hell in a handbasket
What do you mean gone.
That’s where it all started.
-Gumby