Columns, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society

Politics By Other Means: Why Giuliani’s Suspension Should Worry All Lawyers

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.

334 thoughts on “Politics By Other Means: Why Giuliani’s Suspension Should Worry All Lawyers”

  3. While I am not crying tears for Giuliani, this has the feeling of a political hit. Even though much of what he does nowadays makes me cringe, he seems no worse than much of the rest of the political group out and about on either side of the political line.

    Regardless of where this ends up, this is a shot across the bow for all lawyers. If they take him, they will come for you.

  4. The new progressivism is not the old Democratic Party, or even 1960s’ liberalism. It is a cruel creed, a faith-based ideology that allows no apostasies. Progressivism envisions humanity as a marbleized abstraction, not incarnate humans. If need be, it will alter language, change names, cancel people, erase events, and destroy elements of existing civilization. It stereotypes both adherents and opponents as either useful or disposable. And the carnage it wreaks on the masses is always acceptable damage for these terrifying visions of the anointed.
    https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/27/the-cruel-progressive-creed-undoing-civilization/

  5. “Trump fired Homeland Security’s cyber chief for declaring the 2020 election was the most safe & secure election in history.”

    Some people have a fantastic ability to drop the context.

    Krebs made that irresponsible statement *five days* after the polls closed, *before* some states had even finished counting ballots. That’s not cyber security. That’s a cyber crystal ball.

    He also failed to disclose a massive conflict of interest. His advisors included individuals and companies with an interest in declaring a “clean and safe” election, e.g., Dominion, Smartmatic, various Secretaries of State.

    Krebs deserved to be fired.

    “Republicans continue to order audits of ballots 7 months after Biden was sworn into office.”

    As opposed to what? — Never? In 7 or 70 years?

  6. OMG: today’s piece is priceless. A red meat special, yet another attempt to legitimize Trump, the Big Lie and Giuliani, using Turley’s credentials. Turley is actually trying to make the case that Giuliani is somehow a victim of political retribution for defending Trump, and that Trump’s “Big Lie” is nothing but a “public controversy”, themes pushed by alt-right media, including his employer. Even the title is misleading: “Politics by Other Means”. Turley: are you accusing the N.Y. attorney disciplinary board with playing politics? I’d bet the disciples believe you are.

    Turley refuses to admit that Giuliani is a liar, calling his lies “baffling, self-defeating and bizarre”. No, Turley, they are LIES. And, those lies hurt people, as the attorney disciplinary commission noted. Lawyers are NOT allowed to lie, in court documents, or otherwise use their license for leverage to promote a lie for political or any other improper purpose. It’s not like an attorney for a criminal defendant who says something like: “my client continues to proclaim his innocence” or “my client disputes what the witness claims”. That is permissible advocacy. I know you are aware of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that provides that an attorney who signs or submits a document to the court “certifies to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, FORMED AFTER AN INQUIRY reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose….”. An “improper purpose” would include promoting the Big Lie, based on literally no valid facts. Giuliani HAD NO EVIDENCE to back up his lies, or as a basis for the dozens of lawsuits he filed in an effort to deny the American people their choice of president. Dozens of courts looked at what he presented and so ruled. He did not “form an inquiry….reasonable under the circumstances”. Instead, he tried to use his fame and the positive image earned after 911 to promote the Big Lie. And, he’ll lose his license as a result. And, that IS justice.

    And, it is false equivalency to point out that many refuse to recognize the “legitimacy of Trump’s presidency”. Trump CHEATED to get into office, with the help of Russian hackers, who spread lies about Hillary Clinton via social media. Trump’s “presidency” IS illegitimate. Hillary still won the popular vote, despite the lies, but lost the Electoral College because the hackers used insider polling information obtained from the Trump campaign on which districts in which states could swing the vote. “Winning a victory” in this manner is cheating, pure and simple.

    Turley even tried, once again. to sell the idea that somehow the clearing of Lafayette Park using pepper spray was unconnected with the vanity stroll to pose with a Bible in front of St. John’s Church. Sorry, but it defies logic to believe that somehow protesters were cleared with a respiratory irritant right before Trump paraded from the White House to pose with a bible in order to reverse the image of him as a wimp for hiding in the bunker. Of course, there were 35 Secret Service agents hiding in trees and bushes, but all of this just happened to be a coincidence, and not something that was planned?

    The difference between a “public controversy” and the Big Lie is that the latter is the product of the ego of someone suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, who cannot accept the truth that the majority of the American people never wanted him in the first place, never approved of him in 4 years’ time, and want him gone. There is NO controversy here. Trump lost in the most-secure election in US history, according to his own cybersecurity head, and his AG even stated publicly that there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Giuliani had an obligation to the legal profession not to use his license to promote a lie, either a public or private one, and to conduct a reasonable investigation into facts before filing dozens of lawsuits. A “public controversy”, on the other hand, is not based on “alternative facts” (a Kellyanne special), but on a disputed interpretation of facts. That is the big difference.

    Returning again to the misleading title of this piece, the only lawyers who should be “worried” about the N.Y. state’s action against Giuliani are those who lie by the billable hour by promoting facts that are demonstrably untrue. Those people need to be disbarred.

    2. Natacha, why are you so afraid. You should have said the liars need to be disbarred and thrown into prison. You will say that you didn’t say anything about prison but isn’t it the next most logical step to shut Giuliani up. Grow some intestinal fortitude and say what you really mean. One day Natacha is a Doctor (see her statements on the anatomy of George Floyd). The next day she is an expert on BLM just being an idea. Then following day she tells us that schools are not being indoctrinated into CRT. https://christopherrufo.com/antiracism-comes-to-the-heartland/. Today she is Judge Natacha concerning Giuliani. Her next area of expertise will be Commissar Natacha. We should be truly impressed by all the doctorates she has accumulated. We should be grateful for all of her enlightenment and the exposure of her thinking her laurels reveal.

      1. Instead of an ad hominem attack, why not read the disciplinary commission’s report? Turley included a link. The report details all of the lies Giuliani has promoted and explains WHY they are lies. I dare you to read it. The report lays to rest most of the Big Lie claims about dead people, incarcerated felons and underage teenagers voting, as well as lies about Dominion Voting Systems equipment, more ballots than voters arriving for counting and alleged irregularities in handling ballots.

        I never claimed to be a physician, but I do have a master’s degree in nursing and minor in teacher education, which would qualify me to teach on the college level. I do know anatomy and physiology.

        The link you provided does not prove that critical race theory is being required to be taught to school children. This is just a hook Republican strategists are using to try to win back white voters with educations and who live in suburbs: “they’re going to indoctrinate your white children into believing they are bad”. Critical race theory does not teach white people to be ashamed of their race. The link you sent only pertained to George Floyd.

        Just like your hero and the alt-right news media you rely on, you find it easier to attack someone you disagree with personally rather than engage in a factual dispute. That’s just one other bad thing Trump and his alt-right media enablers have done to this country.

        1. Natacha, in the link that I provided it is plain to see that the middle school teachers are being taught that white people are the oppressor class. If you would have scrolled down in the link you would have seen an actual photo of the material that is being taught. I find it laughable that you would be offended by my supposed personal attack on you when you attack Professor Turley on a personal level every day. I am sorry that I touched your tender little exposed underbelly. The link I provided was not about George Floyd but about the teaching of CRT to elementary school teachers. I post it again her so that you may clear your thinking. https://christopherrufo.com/antiracism-comes-to-the-heartland/. If someone said to you that you are an oppressor would you be ashamed?
          It is clear what is being taught. Your refusal to see what is so does not make it any less true. The clanging of your cymbal continues its increase in volume.

          1. Is this information REQUIRED to be taught by Democrats to school children? THAT’S the lie. Is it wrong to consider how people of other races feel about things?

          2. CRT is seldom taught anywhere and when it is almost always at the university or graduate level. I looked at a list of Florida schools allegedly teaching CRT (all colleges) where Broward College as an example had a list of library materials available and no classroom instruction. I defy you to present one example of an elementary school teaching CRT as defined by anyone in education as opposed to say, Tucker Carlson. Now if your concern is that white people might feel bad about learning actual history, what is your solution other than the current denying of history or changing it (Texas school books)?
            https://medium.com/afrosapiophile/what-would-james-baldwin-say-about-critical-race-theory-ad3dea37e359?sk=1e83b52a591ff68d043f7edbf107d121

              1. mespo, so what exactly do you object to being taught? The outlines I looked at referenced a couple hours of material, one mentioned 48 slides, I encouraged whoever I responded to to show one example of CRT in elementary schools like he mentioned and I’ve heard nothing yet. I can think of dozens of lies tayght about American history from elementary school including Washington’s wooden teeth (actually dentures that included teeth taken from live enslaved people) and all who the Declaration of Independance didn’t apply to and much more that contradicts what is being taught about the Founders, enslavement, and the compromises to slave-holding states that got them to join the Union. History books act like the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery (it didn’t) or the Civil War ending (it didn’t). I submit that CRT is still subject to the whims of Boards of Regents, Boards of Educations, and politicians who would never teach actual American history for fear of white people feeling bad (and losing their jobs). So what do you believe is being taught based on the actual curriculum and not some pundit or politicians warped explanation?

                1. Given their history, why do you align yourself with the Democrat Party? They have never “redeemed” themselves. They just lie more.

                  1. The Republican Party I might have otherwise aligned with started dying in 1877 and has only gotten worse to this day. Go ahead, try to convince me voter suppression isn’t a real thing, or Willie Horton, or the Southern Strategy used by both Bush’s, Nixon, Reagan, and Trump. Tell me that the white supremacist groups and white evangelicals (growing closer to being the same thing) haven’t been welcomed into the Republican Party if not having taken control. It isn’t the Democrats at present talking about state’s rights, it’s Mitch McConnell. Democrats do as little as they must to continue getting Black votes that Republicans once got in even higher percentages. Republicans worked hard to lose the Black vote but they were successful. Make a positive case for Republicans that matches their actions. I’m waiting.

            2. “CRT is seldom taught anywhere . . .”

              Except, of course, for countless K-12 school districts in WI, MI, NY, VA, ID, NC, CA, NV, NJ, etc., etc.

              To hide their true agenda, CRT proponents claim that they are not teaching the *theory* of CRT to grade schoolers. Technically speaking, that is correct. They are merely teaching the *tenets* of CRT.

              Besides, if CRT is so wonderful, why wouldn’t you want it taught everywhere?

              (And, yes, I was a professional educator for some 25 years.)

              1. Sam, some people are now calling any mention of race in history, CRT. Pick any of the “countless” districts you’re so familiar with and describe the curriculum you object to and what your problem is with it.
                I think in theory CRT shout be part of a curriculum. Of course, it depends on which professional educators are teaching it and how influenced they are by their biases. How good a job could you do teaching it while in denial that racism is a thing?

                1. “Pick any of the “countless” districts you’re so familiar with and describe the curriculum you object to and what your problem is with it.”

                  Already did that, in a number of published articles (some in well-known newspapers).

                  There’s lots of good material out there on how CRT’s’ racism is infecting K-12 education. Seek and ye shall find.

              2. Calculus is wonderful, but it isn’t taught at all grades because it isn’t appropriate for all grades. Same with CRT.

                How about you name a tenet of CRT that you think is taught and shouldn’t be?

          3. This man, Rufo, is a think tank guy — and he’s the one who put up the now famous tweet about using CRT as sort of a catch all to attach many things to it that *aren’t* it. He labled it a branding effort to capture all things that piss off the right.

            He’s got some Shapiro tactic in him, this made me think of it: “This is the tell. Many diversity training programs—and the political movement known as Black Lives Matter—operate on the principle of bait and switch.” >> it definitely doesn’t logically follow that many diversity programs are bait and switch. But you’d be hard pressed to tell that from what he says.

            The problem with what Rufo does around CRT is obviously that he attaches much to it that isn’t there. In this article the subtext steps right up next to the idea that looking at race in any context in the educational system immediately foists guilt on whites. Funny, since a) there’s nothing about ‘real’ CRT that maintains that, and b) in an inadvertent way basically proves something that CRT is designed to enlighten. That being the exposure of the inner workings of structural racism so they are out in the open rather than buried and unspoken of. In other words something to primarily address through the emotion of guilt.

            I’d encourage you to look into the main thrusts of CRT…, that Whiteness is Property, the recognition that there are alternate stories told of history depending on the ‘dominant’ race in the U.S., that in order for there to be the closest thing to equality is for the white story to align more closely with black, brown and indigenous stories goinig forward, that some classic ‘liberal’ approaches to treating race issues with the idea of neutrality or non recognition of the differences between the experiences of the races…, these things are all worthy efforts and closer to true history. And none of it is ‘guilt inducing’.

            Rufo has succeeded in his stated goal of tying CRT to real hot button issues of the right…the idea of white guilt in particular. Nothing will set off much of the right quicker than that. Thing is, CRT is not meant to do that. But Rufo (& Fox) have taken this to eleven to up the culture wars. They’ve been wildly successful at it. You can see it on this blog…, some commenters you can almost see spit on the floor at the mere mention of CRT. And they’d not even be able to explain what the true tenets of it are.

            eb

            1. Eb, that’s exactly right. The majority of CRT critics have not read or actually looked into what CRT really is.

      2. Thinkthrough, one recalls ‘no’ comments in which you revealed any knowledge on anything.

        1. Anonymous, I apply links to bolster my thinking and you do not. So which course of action, mine or yours reveals any knowledge. Maybe you could find some sources that might support your lines of thinking. Of course finding information that might help to convince us of your knowledge on a subject would take some effort. I can spell it for you. E-F-F-O-R-T
          What is the opposite of effort. It begins with an L and ends with a Y.

    3. Natacha, a characteristic of a clear thinker is a willingness to consider the other side of an argument. When not being willing to consider the other side one only becomes a clanging cymbal. Here is an example of a clear thinker of which you are surely not familiar. https://quillette.com/2021/06/27/the-bias-narrative-versus-the-development-narrative-thinking-about-persistent-racial-inequality-in-the-united-states/. It would be appreciated if you would provide sources to bolster your positions. The glaring lack of any outside conformation of your exclamations might lead us to assume that your thoughts are only coming from your creative imagination.

      1. Read the disciplinary commission’s report. On CRT, where’s your proof that school children are being forced to be indoctrinated? There isn’t any.

        1. How stupid! If it weren’t being forced on school children, there would be no resistance to the movement to prohibit that.

          1. The “movement to prohibit” CRT is an election strategy that the Republican Party is deploying, with the assistance of alt-right media, to try to scare white suburbanites to vote Republican. CRT is not being taught in grade schools, and it does not teach that white people should be ashamed. Those are lies, but the
            Republican Party, desperate to hold onto power, can only rig the vote by gerrymandering and enacting voter suppression laws so much, so they resort to scare tactics and lies. Read the report on Giuliani. How can Republicans continue to go along with the Big Lie in the face of these facts?

            2. I said nothing about a movement to prohibit CRT, because there is no such movement. There is a movement to prevent governments from violating the 14th Amendment by indoctrinating students with the racist tenets of CRT.

    4. Wow, Natacha–I AM “overwhelmed” by your prolific “use” of quotation marks and BOLD fontlm aost as much as by your use of verifiable, searchable facts to support your OPINION. Where are your “demonstably” true facts?

      1. Read the report on Giuliani. The link is above. It is self-explanatory. Then, read the results of the 2020 election that were certified by each Secretary of State, including Republican ones. Trump lost. His claims of a “stolen election” are false. All of the grounds claimed by Giuliani are false. The report spells this out. Read it.

        1. Natacha, the election is not the point in this discussion about the disbarment of Giuliani. By your reliance on the lies of Giuliani you don’t take into account the lies by liberal lawyers. Let me provide an elementary example. If a defense attorney knowing that his client is guilty enters a plea of not guilty isn’t he lying. If we disbarred every attorney who lied there would be no attorneys on the right or on the left to defend the rights of anyone. Even more dangerous would be the disbarment of only the attorneys of one political persuasion. This is the warning that Professor Turley is trying to convey. Then again, you haven’t shown your support for equal treatment under the law. Equal treatment for you but not for me. We are all equal but some animals are more equal than other animals Natacha exclaims.

          1. You are engaging in whataboutism. No, entering a plea of “not guilty” is just entering a plea. If a criminal defendant without counsel stands mute at their arraignment, the court will enter a plea of “not guilty” on their behalf. Even if the client committed the acts for which s/he is charged, that does not mean they are guilty of committing crime because there could be valid defenses, like immunity, self-defense, justification, mistake and others. It is also the case that the State might not be able to prove that the conduct complained of rises to the level of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt, or that the State’s witnesses are not credible. So, defending yourself in court by pleading “not guilty” is not lying. But, Giuliani, by filing dozens of baseless lawsuits, citing facts he had not investigated so he had no “good ground” to support them, and which no reasonable person would believe to be true, and repeating lies over and over again in public forums and in interviews, as well as on paper and in court, that is conduct for which he can be suspended and/or disbarred. His lies weren’t harmless, either. And, they are not protected speech under the First Amendment, nor are they political speech. He used his law license to abuse the legal system and to lend credibility to falsehoods. Read the report which explains why the things Giuliani kept saying are lies and why it is important to maintain the integrity of the legal system.

            Turley is trading on his credentials to sell the alt-right news talking point that Trump is valid because his lies aren’t lies (in fact he called Giuliani’s lies “baffling, self-defeating and bizarre”, but not lies, which is what they are), and that those who go after him and his defenders are motivated by politics rather than protecting the integrity of the legal system. Turley simply refuses to deal with the fact that the Big Lie is just that, and by criticizing the disciplinary commission for suspending Giuliani, he is feeding into the alt-right narrative that there is truth to the Big Lie.

            1. Natacha says, “Turley simply refuses to deal with the fact that the Big Lie is just that….”

              As I have suggested, he shouldn’t do so as a legal matter. He may be deposed in the defamation lawsuits brought against Fox News. Turley does not want to make a statement which may undermine Fox’s legal defense strategy.

              That is the problem of working for a propaganda network. Turley is compromised. He is not at liberty to speak his mind. We have a right to expect that he is not so conflicted. The fact that Turley acknowledges that he is employed by Fox does not resolve his lack of impartiality. It simply warns us to take his opinions with a pinch of salt.

              1. Excellent points. Down the road when it hits the fan, Turley will claim that he criticized Giuliani, just like he claims he criticized Trump, to try to appear neutral, but the tenor of his writing, criticism of Democrats, defense of Barr and defense of the slanted SCOTUS prove otherwise. He has never addressed the Big Lie head-on, and won’t for the reasons you set forth.

            2. Wgataboutism is the whole ducking point! How crazy are you?

              Giuliani is being persecuted while others who have done worse are left alone.

      1. No, it wasn’t “suspended too”. It was suspended briefly, while the bar intends to suspend G’s permanently.

  8. If this did this to Giuliani, just wait until they go after attorneys for defending other controversial groups or individuals such as “white supremacists” in free speech or other type cases.

    antonio

    1. Exactly. It appears to be an act of revenge but also an act to inspire terror.

      And it is working.

      1. Young: exactly wrong. Read the 33 page report. It lays out all of the lies, how the lies violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the damage done by Giuliani. What is there to get “revenge” for?

        1. Irrelevant. Those “rules” aren’t rules unless they are applied equally to everyone.

    2. Yes. You DID get the drift that Turley’s trying to sell here, which is that Giuliani is just a victim of “politics”, unfairly targeted by the disciplinary board just because he was involved in a “public controversy”, as if somehow the lies Giuliani told were acceptable. Read the 33 page report. Turley included a link to it. There is NO controversy. Read about the lies Giuliani made up and reinforced even after he knew they were lies. Read it. I dare you. The report lays to rest most of the lies about how the 2020 election was allegedly “stolen” by dead people and underage teenagers voting, about more ballots being cast than registered voters, about alleged irregularities in ballots, and about Dominion Voting Systems machines altering votes. Read the report.

  9. New Book, “Landslide”, Describes Guiliani’s Drinking

    The following experts from today’s Guardian
    ……………………………………………………………….

    Trump is also reported to have expressed “puzzlement” about the supporters who broke into the Capitol in a riot which led to five deaths and Trump’s second impeachment, for inciting an insurrection.

    Wolff says Trump was confused by “who these people were with their low-rent ‘trailer camp’ bearing and their ‘get-ups’, once joking that he should have invested in a chain of tattoo parlors and shaking his head about ‘the great unwashed’.”

    Trump and his family watched the attack on television at the White House.

    As reported by Wolff, the exchange between Trump and Meadows sheds light on how the would-be insurrectionists were abandoned.

    The White House, Wolff writes, soon realised Mike Pence had “concluded that he was not able to reject votes unilaterally or, in effect, to do anything else, beyond playing his ceremonial role, that the president might want him to do”.

    Trump aide Jason Miller is portrayed as saying “Oh, sh*t” and alerting the president’s lawyer and chief cheerleader for his lie about electoral fraud, Rudy Giuliani.

    Wolff writes that the former New York mayor was “drinking heavily and in a constant state of excitation, often almost incoherent in his agitation and mania”.

    As the riot escalated – soon after Trump issued a tweet attacking the vice-president – aides reportedly pressed the president to command his followers to stand down.

    Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and adviser, reportedly saw the assault on the Capitol as “an optics issue”. After an hour or so, Wolff writes, Trump “seemed to begin the transition from seeing the mob as people protesting the election – defending him so he would defend them – to seeing them as ‘not our people’”.

    In a further exchange, Trump reportedly asked Meadows: “How bad is this? This looks terrible. This is really bad. Who are these people? These aren’t our people, these idiots with these outfits. They look like Democrats.”

    Trump reportedly added: “We didn’t tell people to do something like this. We told people to be peaceful. I even said ‘peaceful’ and ‘patriotic’ in my speech!”

    Edited from “Landslide” by Michael Wolf
    To be released July 27 by Henry Holt

    1. 5 deaths my arse
      Attack ..🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
      They were let no guns no one died and you truly are brainwashed.. Do you do any research or do you just believe everything your leftist masters tell you.. Come on use your brain get your facts straight.. Open your mind enlighten yourself quit being so gullible..
      You are the problem..

      1. REGARDING ABOVE:

        ‘Truth’ is the same old stooge employed by Turley to keep this forum safe for Trumpers.

    2. Wolff says Trump was confused by “who these people were with their low-rent ‘trailer camp’ bearing and their ‘get-ups’

      We know Wolff is lying because “trailer camp” is not a phrase used by Americans.

  10. What kind of FBI secrets?

    FBI agent gay guy comes onto Salvatore “Sammy The Bull” Gravano at Quantico

  11. Turley’s Good Friend William Barr Referred To Guiliani’s Efforts As A “Clown Show”

    Below is an excerpt from “Betrayal”, Johnathan Karl’s yet-to-be released book about the last days of Trump’s presidency.
    ……………………………………………………………

    Barr thought that the president was trying to control himself, but he seemed angrier than he had ever seen him. His face was red. Barr’s AP interview was dominating every cable news channel except the one Trump was watching. The television in the room was tuned to the right-wing, pro-Trump network One America News, which was broadcasting a committee hearing of the Michigan legislature. The hearing featured disproven allegations of massive election fraud, including the testimony of a woman named Melissa Carone, who had worked at the counting location in Detroit and told the committee, “Everything that happened at the TCF Center was fraud. Every single thing.” The next day, Carone would testify again, next to Rudy Giuliani, during which time she slurred her words and appeared to be drunk. (Carone later denied that she had been drunk.)

    “They saw the boxes going in!” Trump yelled, referring to the stories about boxes of illegal ballots being counted.

    “You know, Mr. President, there are 662 precincts in Wayne County,” Barr said. Trump seemed taken aback that he knew the exact number. “It’s the only county with all the boxes going to a central place, and you actually did better there this time around than you did last time. You keep on saying that the Department of Justice is not looking at this stuff, and we are looking at it in a responsible way. But your people keep on shoveling this shit out.”

    As Trump ranted about other examples of fraud, Meadows continued to sit silently with his arms crossed, his posture suggesting that he, too, was upset by what Barr had done.

    “You know, you only have five weeks, Mr. President, after an election to make legal challenges,” Barr said. “This would have taken a crackerjack team with a really coherent and disciplined strategy. Instead, you have a clown show. No self-respecting lawyer is going anywhere near it. It’s just a joke. That’s why you are where you are.”

    Excerpt courtesy of “The Atlantic”

    Book to be released in November by Dutton

  12. This is the New York Supreme Court. It’s rulings are only legally binding within the state. Although they may think they are the only state, New York is but one of fifty.

    1. Usually disbarment in one state will lead to disbarment in other states where a lawyer is admitted. Although that could change when an action in one state appears to be an abuse of process motivated by a desire for political revenge. Bar associations these days tend to lean left, however. The flow in all institutions appears to be Democrat to socialist to radical to Jacobin. That normally does not work out well, as refugees from Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and China have been trying to warn us.

    2. It’s not “the” New York Supreme Court. It’s “a” New York Supreme Court. It’s a trial court.

  13. It’s stunning to see the speed by which this country is descending into (and accepting) totalitarianism. Elvis Bug said the quiet part out loud: Good time to be worried and find a way to slide back into a primarily academic existence. In other words JT, EB and his ilk are warning you that your rights are no longer secure. And if you don’t toe the line, you too will be subject to the “dissident’s” fate. Cancel Culture is not just some benign phrase. In reality, it’s a totalitarian culture that doesn’t end peacefully:

    Examples of characteristics that might be present in a totalitarian state include:

    – Rule enforced by a single dictator
    – The presence of a single ruling political party
    – Strict censorship, if not total control of the press
    – Constant dissemination of pro-government propaganda
    – Mandatory service in the military for all citizens
    – Mandatory population control practices
    – Prohibition of certain religious or political groups and practices
    – Prohibition of any form of public criticism of the government
    – Laws enforced by secret police forces or the military
    – Typically, the characteristics of a totalitarian state tend to cause people to fear their government. Rather than trying to allay that fear, totalitarian rulers encourage it and use it to ensure the people’s cooperation.
    https://www.thoughtco.com/totalitarianism-authoritarianism-fascism-4147699

    1. And here is Nike’s CEO saying the quiet part out loud:

      We are the largest sport brand there, and we are a brand of China and for China,” he reportedly added. “And the biggest asset we have in China is the consumer equity. Consumers feel a strong, deep connection to the Nike, Jordan, and Converse brands in China. And it’s real.

      In other words, totalitarianism is not Nike’s concern as long as the company is profitable.

    2. This is what you get when neighbor is turned against neighbor. This guy is a registered Democrat that leans Independent.

      Joseph Bolanos says he didn’t riot at the Capitol. He wasn’t even on the streets at the time, having retreated to a hotel room as the incursion had happened. He said he turned over evidence to the FBI that proves this

      But the FBI still raided his and his mother’s apartments. He’s had two strokes since. He’s said he’s been ostracized by his community, where he was a respected member. All because an anonymous caller reportedly told the FBI he was bragging about having entered the Capitol — which he has the evidence to prove he didn’t do.
      https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/fbi-raids-69-year-old-mans-home-attended-dc-trump-rally-neighbors-tipped-authorities-off

    3. Cool. Always an honor to be actually highlighted in citation in someone else’s post, Olly. Thing that smashes your theory into little grains of sand is the fact I play for the team that is for free and fair elections, no matter where they may lead.

      And you don’t.

      eb

      1. Thing that smashes your theory into little grains of sand is the fact I play for the team that is for free and fair elections, no matter where they may lead.

        LOL! As long is you’re telling the big lies, you should include your team’s fidelity to the rule of law and equal justice under the law. The fact is you blatantly warned JT that he has reason to be concerned about the totalitarian nature of your team and if he had any sense, he should shut his mouth and stick to the classroom.

        1. That’s just what’s up in the fever dream between your ears, Olly.

          I was just commiserating with the general thematic of Turley’s post, that being lawyers, and in this case certainly Republican lawyers, should keep an ear tipped up to the fall out coming from siging on to trumper for pay status. There are at least some consequences left to signing on with blatant liars, at least in the legal realm. Ground rules are fairly set in stone –.hence the response to Rudy’s blatant lying.

          Side note: is the irony not totally lost on you, especially when trying to maintain that someone’s point of view is authoratarian, that forcibly trying to rearrange their words isn’t, well, authoratarian in nature? Just curious on that one…

          eb

  14. Shame on Turley.

    He is silent about the fact that Giuliani lied to the court.

      1. Gary- I thought that too but didn’t want to respond to the thoughtless chum regularly thrown out by this Anon.

        But still, you make a good point.

        1. If you consider the opinion to be “thoughtless chum,” that tells us about you, not the court.

      2. Read the opinion. Click on the “33-page opinion” link in JT’s article.

    2. Did Elias, Clinton, Come, Podesta, McCabe, et al lie to the Court, Congress, the DOJ, and the American People….what action was taken against them?

      1. If you think their licences should be suspended, nothing is stopping you from submitting your evidence to the court or the bar.

  15. I’m a member of the New York Bar, and a member of the Ethics Committee of my local bar association. I have not yet read the 33-page opinion. I will reserve judgment until I have read the opinion and had a look at the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. But, yikes! I must say that this development raises numerous concerns.

  16. -Young,
    You are absolutely correct.
    The woke totalitarians will not be satisfied until America is reshaped, even if it calls for violence (re: University of North Carolina Wilmington associate professor) or the over used “reimagining” of everything.

    1. If they are planning to invoke violence, they need to be aware that violence begets violence and those who provoke it often end up lying dead in the streets.

  17. This is a continuation of politics by other means. It is also yet another perversion of the legal system. The legal system is following the same perilous path that has led to a near total collapse of confidence in journalism. What happens then? What happens when those who traditionally supported and had faith in our legal system lose that faith and withdraw that support? Nobody will like the answers to that question.

    Of course any licensed professional is at risk. Pharmacists have been threatened by regulators over HCQ in Nevada. Doctors have been under pressure because of concerns about Covid management and about the experimental vaccines being used on huge populations. Big tech throws in its gorilla muscle.

    These converging totalitarian practices should concern all of us. But they won’t. Not yet..

  19. Lawyer news: What ever happened to attorney Michael Avenatti?

    Michael Avenatti sentencing was postponed in Nike extortion case

    He potentially faces more than 40 years in prison. Amid healthcare concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic, Avenatti was temporarily released from prison in April 2020 under orders to return within 90 days. He is currently under house arrest at a friend’s house in California.

    His sentencing is set for July 9, 2021.

    1. Kevin Clinesmith, the lawyer convicted of changing FISA documents, has not lost his license.
      The targeting and selective enforcement is blatant.
      Only lawyers and people around Trump are targeted, all others get a pass.

      1. Clinesmith was suspended, just like Giuliani. Apparently you consider the same standards to be a pass for one but not the other?

        1. Clinesmith pleaded guilty to a crime….after accepting a very sweet reduction in the crime…..The Mayor on the other hand has not been charged with a crime of any kind.

          Catch the difference Scooter?

          1. It’s your opinion that it was a “sweet reduction.” It certainly wasn’t a “pass.” If anything, you’re suggesting that Giuliani should be charged.

        2. Wrong. He has not been suspended “like Giuliani”. He has been suspended very differently, you frickin’ idiot. Clinesmith is guaranteed to get his license back. Giuliani is not.

    1. There is no “Big Lie”. It’s a fact that the election was stolen. People like Lin Wood made some wild and likely false claims, but the other stuff — illegally changing voting procedures, the massive disinformation from the media, the conspiracy discussed in the Time article — suffices to constitute “stealing” the election.

Comments are closed.