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 bafflingself-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”

  1. Battle Over Critical Race Theory Advocates and media circle the wagons and try to conceal the truth about a pernicious ideology. …
    Critical race theory is the latest battleground in the culture war. Since the murder of George Floyd last year, critical race theory’s key concepts, including “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” and “white fragility,” have become ubiquitous in America’s elite institutions. …
    As Americans have sought to understand critical race theory, they have discovered that it has divided Americans into racial categories of “oppressor” and “oppressed” and promotes radical concepts such as “spirit murder” (what public schools supposedly do to black children) and “abolishing whiteness” (a purported precondition for social justice). In the classroom, critical race theory-inspired lessons have often devolved into race-based struggle sessions, with public schools forcing children to rank themselves according to a racial hierarchy, subjecting white teachers to “antiracist therapy,” and encouraging parents to become “white traitors.” …
    Sensing that they are losing control of the narrative on race, left-leaning media outlets have launched a furious counterattack. … a new mythology that presents critical race theory as a benign academic concept, casts its detractors as right-wing extremists driven by racial resentment…
    First, critical race theory isn’t an exercise in promoting racial sensitivity or understanding history. It’s a radical ideology that seeks to use race as a means of moral, social and political revolution. … The solution, according to prominent exponents of critical race theory such as Ibram X. Kendi, is to abolish capitalism…


  2. Joe Biden’s Political Career. By year as he enters senility:

    1973 Biden enters politics..

    1974 …1975 … 1976 …

    1977 *Biden fights to keep schools segregated because in his own words, “allowing blacks to integrate would create a racial jungle” Fact check me.

    1978 … 1982 …

    1983 *BIDEN Taxes Social Security*

    1984 … 1987 …

    1988 *Ran for president but had to end his campaign after getting busted for plagiarism.

    1989 …1992 …

    1993 *BIDEN Taxes Social Security, AGAIN*

    1994 ***Biden writes the “Stop and Frisk” law which is what blacks blame for “systemic racism” today. This law took millions of black men from their homes and transplanted them into prison. Way to go Joe. This was Biden’s biggest accomplishment in 47 years of elected office. Factcheck me, it’s true.

    1995 …

    1996 …

    1997 Hang on, not yet.

    1998 … 2002 …

    2003 Still nothing…

    2004 … 2007 …

    2008 Calls Obama the first “articulate” and “clean” mainstream African-American.

    2009 … 2011 …

    2012 Nope, nothing yet.

    2013 … 2019 …


  3. The concept is simple: Leftist politics always takes priority over justice and the law in our Kangaroo Court System.

    1. The concept is simple: we don’t have a Kangaroo Court System, but people who don’t like a specific court ruling sometimes call it one.

      1. The concept is simple: Leftists love the Kangaroo Court System because it adheres to leftist politics, rather than to the law, but they don’t want to refer to it as a Kangaroo Court System to preserve the lie the Kangaroo Court System is neutral and follows the law.

    1. Prager University is not a university. It’s a media organization that lies in its name by calling itself a university. Only a fool would turn to Prager for truthful discussion.

      Anyone who truly wants to learn about CRT is best served by reading scholarly works about CRT. This link shows many peer-reviewed publications –

      If you want a “basis without reading and in 5 minutes,” here’s a better alternative: an interview with Gloria Ladson-Billings, one of the experts on CRT –

      1. “Only a fool would turn to Prager for truthful discussion.”

        If only a fool would turn to Prager for the truth, what does that make you? You can’t prove anything said was wrong. All you can do is link. Therefore, you show yourself to be more foolish than Prager.

        But Prager is right and the link didn’t prove anything said by Prager to be wrong. In fact, the fear of legislation to prevent the things that supposedly aren’t happening, according to the link, shouldn’t even be worthy of discussion. The only reason it is worthy is those laws would stop what Prager says is happening.

        Anonymous the Stupid you are Stupid and your own link proves you so.

    2. Critical Racists’ Theory presumes diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), including racism, sexism, ageism (e.g. selective-child). That said, where the Nazis brayed Jew privilege, the neo-Nazis bray White privilege.

      1. n.n. excellent. “where the Nazis brayed Jew privilege, the neo-Nazis bray White privilege.” That says it all.

    3. I can’t stop laughing about this visual op ed purporting to educate on the topic of CRT without even mentioning one of the true tenets of CRT. Thanks for the comic entertainment.


      1. Bug, we wait for your wisdom. It’s been quite awhile that you have been here with this alias and still no wisdom. No nothing.

        1. Can’t make you do the minimal amount of research, Allan.

          And I take your insults, taunts and flagrant abuse of the Civility policy here as nothing but complimentary coming from someone such as yourself.


          1. Allan can’t bring himself to read the actual sources of CRT because he’s either afraid of learning something or is just too lazy to make an effort. It’s easier to just parrot whatever someone else tells him it is. Ironically it’s people like Allan that emphasize why CRT exists.

            1. Svelaz, it is amazing that I seem to have been the only one to actually read what the leftist experts have said about CRT among you and your friends. You accuse people of not making an effort, but many things have been provided, and you have responded to none of them.

              CRT seems like a very simple theory involving racism and corrective measures. You are too stupid to recognize that CRT is promoting racism to the worst degree and solving nothing. You are too stupid even to know the people involved and what they believe and promote.

              If you think I am unfair, state the best portions about CRT linking them to what is being done. I am sure you can find something I agree with, but as that idea progresses to the endpoint, we see a portion of neo-Nazism and parts of neo-Marxism.

              Let me start you off again since you and your buddies keep avoiding what words mean.

              Equity is not equality
              The group is not individualistic.

              Both neo-Nazism and neo-Marxism have elements of equity and group—both fight against equality under the law and individualism.

            2. Exactly, Svelaz. He is pathological, and indeed, the exact reason why the historical background of CRT is essential.


              1. Bug, 5 useless comments from the Bug and 2 from ATS. No hint either of them have any significant understanding of CRT. I have provided plenty in the past and will be posting more on the subject as time goes by to educate the two of you and Svelaz.

                You should talk less and try using your brain. CRT isn’t hard to understand. The young kids in school understand what it is and means. That is why the left is pushing back filling your heads with nonsense. The left has been quite successful with you guys, based on how you defend CRT without having much of an idea of what it is and what it is doing.

                Enjoy your racism until you start to feel the pinch. Don’t complain when you, your children or grandchildren do. Some people never learn. Check out the history of the French Revolution and the fascist nations during the era of WW2 and try to learn something your education failed to teach.

  4. “Logic!” said the Professor half to himself. “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?”
    ― C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the

    The person in question was once the Attorney General of the SDNY and he and his team of lawyers secured over 4000 convictions, took down corrupt Wall Street executives, dirty politicians and mobsters.

    Maybe all or some of the things being said about him are true but logic would dictate that one should also consider (among other choices) that he might be telling the truth. That will be determined in the court of law.

    1. He admitted in court that statements he made to the court were false.

      Click on the ruling in Turley’s column to read the court transcript where he does it, excerpted in the ruling.

  5. The left has gone after Giuliani based on political claims. The legal profession is going Stalinist and getting rid of its enemies. What did Giuliani do other than express his rights based on freedom of speech. Add to this

    On his show tonight, Tucker Carlson made the explosive claim that the National Security Agency has been spying on his electronic communications with the intention of trying to drive his show off the air. This information comes from an NSA whistleblower, and Tucker finds confirmation in the fact that the whistleblower himself had information that could only have come from an illicit spying on Tucker’s emails and texts:”

    My guess is that what Tucker says is probably true especially since we have had experience of spying on the prior resident the White House. The left has taken on a number of Stalinist traits and if left to run free will totally destroy the finest Constitutional Republic that ever existed.


    1. Meyer – I hope Carlson’s allegations are thoroughly investigated. If it does turn out that that the NSA, yet again, targeted Conservatives, the implications will be grim. A Congressional hearing would be pointless, as representatives of the NSA have just lied in the past.

      Where are the consequences when the government alphabet soup becomes weaponized to target Republicans?

      1. Karen S, Tucker Carlson can’t be taken seriously. He’s a bona fide snitch according to the Hill.

        “ Citing more than a dozen working journalists, some of them identified and others anonymous, Smith called Carlson’s relationship with members of the media, whom he often criticizes on his nightly program, “one of Washington’s open secrets.”

        “Mr. Carlson, a proud traitor to the elite political class, spends his time when he’s not denouncing the liberal media trading gossip with them,” Smith wrote. “He’s the go-to guy for sometimes-unflattering stories about Donald J. Trump and for coverage of the internal politics of Fox News (not to mention stories about Mr. Carlson himself).”


        Apparently the NSA doesn’t need to spy on him. He’s blabbering gossip to everyone.

        1. Svelaz, are you trying to say that if someone talks to fellow journalists about the work environment at Fox News, then they deserve to have the NSA spy on his emails and cell phone conversations?

          Is that what you’re saying?

          You posted an article that claimed that Tucker Carlson talks to other journalists, while criticizing the mainstream media. So, he shouldn’t talk to journalists? He’s a traitor to the elites if he criticizes them, while himself having earned wealth?

          Democrat and Republican politicians openly criticize each others’ policies. Should they throw thinks in their faces when they meet socially? Never speak?

          What a poor excuse for an article.

          1. Karen S,

            “ Svelaz, are you trying to say that if someone talks to fellow journalists about the work environment at Fox News, then they deserve to have the NSA spy on his emails and cell phone conversations?”

            No, I’m saying Tucker Carlson is a big blabber mouth. What possible reason would the NSA have to get Carlson off the air? If they wanted to do that they would have gone after the Fox News executives instead of Carlson.

            It is much more likely that Tucker Carlson is just making stuff up. He’s just trying to get some ratings.

            1. CNN makes things up all the time and has been wrong over and over again on the most important issues. Tucker has been mostly right on those issues.

              You can say what you wish about Tucker but he has been right on almost all those important issues while you and your friends have been wrong. He also will admit mistakes. For you to believe the MSM so easily and then criticize Tucker who is correct more than the MSM is ludicrous.


      2. Carlson called General Mark Milley, head of the Joint Chiefs a “stupid pig” last night for defending the service academies training students to consider multiple viewpoints, including the white rage that resulted in the Trump Insurrection. The academies are, first and foremost, universities. Insulting someone like Gen. Milley because you disagree with him is not “conservative” thinking at all, and neither you nor Carlson are “conservatives”. Rather, you are Trump disciples, insulting anyone who disagrees with your hero, you or who establishes how absurd Trumpism is. That is not how traditional Republicans behave, either, but the GOP has been co-opted by a failed former reality television performer who cannot accept that the majority of the American people don’t want him around. That someone like Carlson could insult an accomplished military hero like Gen. Milley to defend Trumpism is unfathomable to genuine conservatives and traditional Republicans.

        1. It’s not so much that he’s studied CRT , it’s that he didn’t denounce it as communism.

          1. CRT isn’t communism, so only an ignorant person would denounce it as communism.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are the ignorant person. There is a relationship between CRT and a lot of bad things including Neo-Marxism.

              1. S. Meyer,

                “ There is a relationship between CRT and a lot of bad things including Neo-Marxism.”
                Ha ha ha! No there isn’t. You still haven’t read it.

                1. HA, ha, ha, listen to what is being protested against in the schools and listen to the words of CRT leadership.

                  Take note how you don’t have the slightest idea of what CRT is all about and what it is doing. So far you haven’t said what it is how it is working and what the results are. That is because you are ignorant on the subject matter.

                  Listen to the video and the protests that are building. Explain them.



                2. This is one video interpretation of CRT. One needs to understand history to understand CRT. Additionally CRT isn’t adequately described by any one person because many of the promoters of CRT say different things.

                  Skip around on this video if you can’t listen to it all because it might provide too much information you have difficulty in incorporating. You can first skip to around 3min 30 sec.



                    1. No, it’s an ideology including preposterously false tenets like the existence of “systemic racism” against blacks when, in reality, this society is systemically racist against whites.

                    2. Interesting — yet bats&*t crazy — take on things, William_JD. Probably best for you to review what the actual tenets of CRT are.

                    3. More ignorance from Anonymous the Stupid. I am waiting for one of the fools to discuss all the things I and others have posted or for someone to post something of their own.

                    4. Ohhhhh…., I forget that Willian_JD is a sock puppet for Al. My bad. Lol.


        2. “White rage” is a stupid racist talking point made up in the last month.

            1. Believe it or not, it’s possible for theories and paradigms to exist in the world before Fox news names them. Fox has been hammering the ‘white rage’ theme lately because it’s being accused of fanning its flames. Maybe time to step beyond that rhetoric factory?


              1. You know nothing of the history of CRT and for someone who doesn’t get his news from Fox you seem to be tuned into that channel all the time. Of course you really aren’t. Someone told you something and you thought it sounded intelligent, so you repeated it. Do you know what that confirms? It confirms you are a fool.


                1. As I said before: your taunts, insults, blatantly false statements and extreme disregard for the Civiltiy provision on the blog just register as compliments coming from someone such as yourself, Al. But feel free to rant until you’re blue in the face. It’s entertaining.


            2. Stop linking ATS and tell us what you want to say. You are proving Stupidity by not being able to verbalize what you are talking about.

      3. Carlson also believes that UFO’s are from an alien planet. He is a conspiracy theorist. It is impossible for aliens to visit Earth unless their spaceship can travel at or very near the speed of light which is physically impossible. I don’t want to argue about it. It just is.

        1. Jeff, you are slipping. A post without a reference to Turley being a contributor to Fox?

          1. To be honest Paul, the thought had crossed my mind, but I knew you were watching me like a hawk so I decided to give it a rest. I think you may be having a good influence on me! Keep it up!

        2. I never heard Carlson say that so I think you have changed his words. Then again, I am not wedded to the tube or his shows like you are.

      4. ” If it does turn out that that the NSA, yet again, targeted Conservatives, the implications will be grim.”

        Karen, things are very grim with or without that being true. We have seen the DOJ, FBI, CIA, IRS and much of the rest of the bureaucracy acting against the law and not being punished. We had a lawless election.

        Even if another Trump got back in office, I don’t think things would be turned around sufficiently to say that the prior American Constitutional Republic still exists. We can call it by that name but it isn’t the same. We saw Democrats and Republicans piss our American dream away.

      5. When did the NSA target conservatives? Names please, and make sure that you’re really talking about the NSA and not some other agency.

        Here’s a statement from the NSA denying that they’ve targeted Carlson or his show and noting that the NSA focuses on foreign intelligence gathering –

        As has already been pointed out, Carlson has lied on his show before, and maybe he is lying again.

        If the NSA is lying, then the legal and appropriate thing for a whistleblower to do is to file a legal whistleblower report to the NSA’s Inspector General, not to break the law.

    2. S. Meyer,

      “ What did Giuliani do other than express his rights based on freedom of speech. ”

      He lied in court. Knowingly filed frivolous suits, among a few things.

      From the record,

      “ THE COURT: So it’s correct to say then that you’re not alleging fraud in the amended complaint?
      “RESPONDENT: No, Your Honor, it is not, because we incorporate by reference in 150 all of the allegations that precede it, which include a long explanation of a fraudulent, fraudulent process, a planned fraudulent process.
      “THE COURT: So you are alleging fraud?
      RESPONDENT: Yes, Your Honor.”
      Later in the transcript, after the court pointed respondent to the amended
      complaint, the following further court inquiries and responses occurred: THE COURT: . . . So the amended complaint—does the amended complaint plead fraud with particularity?
      “RESPONDENT: No, Your Honor. And it doesn’t plead fraud. It pleads the — it pleads the plan or scheme that we lay out in 132 to 149 without characterizing it.”
      These proceedings were open by phone line to as many as 8,000 journalists and other members of the public. At the outset of the argument it was reported that at least 3,700 people had already dialed in.
      It is considered a false and misleading statement under the Rules of Professional Conduct to mispresent the status of a pending proceeding, whether in or out of court (Matter of Zweig, 117 AD3d 96 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Napolitano, 78 AD3d 18 [2d Dept 2010]; Matter of Passetti, 53 AD3d 1031 [3d Dept 2008]). Stating that a case presents a fraud claim when it does not, is a false and misleading statement about the status of a pending proceeding.“


      1. “He lied in court. Knowingly filed frivolous suits, among a few things.”

        That is a stupid comment. You base it on your feelings, your political feelings. There is nothing for anyone to say about such low level thinking.

        1. S. Meyer,

          “ That is a stupid comment. You base it on your feelings, your political feelings. There is nothing for anyone to say about such low level thinking.”

          No, it is based on an actual court finding. The same court which suspended his license to practice law. It’s from Turley’s link to the actual document showing Giuliani’s actual lying in court.

          1. What was Giuliani’s lie? What your words come under are statements like, My client is innocent even though the client was already convicted. There has to be tangible evidence that exists and exists for all lawyers not just specific ones. You do not understand the rule of law. Opinion and fact are different. You don’t seem to get the difference.

            Alan Dershowitz wrote some words as to why this scenario is garbage. I don’t remember where. Lawlessness is now existing at all levels because the rule of law is not being followed.


            1. Anonymous SM,

              “ What was Giuliani’s lie? What your words come under are statements like, My client is innocent even though the client was already convicted. There has to be tangible evidence that exists and exists for all lawyers not just specific ones.”

              They are not my words dumba$$. They are the record of his verbatim conversations IN COURT with a judge. The judge is literally asking him why is he claiming fraud and then changing his claim to saying he’s not saying there’s fraud.

              There are 5 pages of direct evidence of Giuliani lying in court. Read the record that Turley linked to. I even provided you with it. You’re ranting about opinion and fact are completely irrelevant when I just posted an excerpt FROM THE ACTUAL CONVERSATION GIULIANI HAD WITH A JUDGE CATCHING HIM ON A LIE. All you have to do is….READ.

              1. So far you haven’t demonstrated the lie, but you are a (your word) dumba$$. You have not yet demonstrated a lie, nor was Giuliani permitted to defend himself. This came from the lowest court in NY and was signed by a clerk.

                We have entered into the realm of political law where the rule of law is suspended and the person that is being charged isn’t even given an opportunity to plead his case. Very Stalin of you, but stupid as well.


                1. S. Meyer,

                  “So far you haven’t demonstrated the lie …”

                  Yes I have dumba$$. Here it is again,

                  “ THE COURT: So it’s correct to say then that you’re not alleging fraud in the amended complaint?
                  “RESPONDENT: No, Your Honor, it is not, because we incorporate by reference in 150 all of the allegations that precede it, which include a long explanation of a fraudulent, fraudulent process, a planned fraudulent process.
                  “THE COURT: So you are alleging fraud?
                  RESPONDENT: Yes, Your Honor.”
                  Later in the transcript, after the court pointed respondent to the amended
                  complaint, the following further court inquiries and responses occurred: THE COURT: . . . So the amended complaint—does the amended complaint plead fraud with particularity?
                  “RESPONDENT: No, Your Honor. And it doesn’t plead fraud. It pleads the — it pleads the plan or scheme that we lay out in 132 to 149 without characterizing it.”

                  “ It is considered a false and misleading statement under the Rules of Professional Conduct to mispresent the status of a pending proceeding, whether in or out of court”

                  Giuliani is on record lying to a judge. The above verbatim conversation with a judge is the proof.

                  1. Where is Giuliani’s response to the cherry picked comments?

                    It doesn’t exist so we cannot make a decision that a lie existed. We don’t have the other pertinent details such as those from the other amended complaints and we don’t have everything put in order. What you are doing is copying the portions that another told you proved a certain point. But, you do not have the ability to understand the points being made so you have to have others refer to a portion of the transcript because you can’t say it in your own words.

                    Perhaps you can’t say it because things are missing and you can’t put the pieces together.


        2. “’He lied in court.'”

          That is the *allegation* — an allegation that Giuliani never had a chance to rebut:

          Giuliani was not given “an opportunity to prove either that what he said was true or that if it wasn’t true that he didn’t know it.” (Dershowitz)

          The Left’s “due process”: “Hang ‘em First, Try ‘em Later.”

          1. Sam, you are on target as always.

            For once Anonymous says something against what he is promoting but this time he is right.

            Anonymous writes: “Still, I’ll concede that there should have been a hearing, first.”

            Of course there should have been, because without the hearing one cannot conclude guilt. That means virtually every response negative towards Giuliani is pure garbage unless, of course, one likes to draw conclusions without having the facts. Anonymous ruined his successful appearance by continuing with his response.

  6. Thing is…. in the time between now and 2022 Rudy’s comments are going to have been proven true…. just as they were for Hunter Biden’s laptop.

  7. KarenS says, “Causing stress is not an act of murder.“

    As regards Officer Sicknick, I have 2 words for you: Talem qualem.

    1. Sicknick was murdered? According to the Medical Examiner’s report he sustained no injuries, internal or external, and there was no evidence of any chemical or irritant either.

    2. Jeff you have Talem qualem of the head. Dying in close proximity, (not even that close time wise) is not what Talem qualem is about. If it were there would be a lot of murderers walking around the streets today without even knowing that they supposedly caused someone’s death.

      One would think lawyers would be taught in law school that ‘correlation is not causation’. I guess Jeff skipped that class along with a lot of others..

    3. Jeff, how would talem qualem apply here? There is no evidence of a reaction to the pepper spray in the ME report. COD was two strokes. There was no evidence of external or internal injuries.

      The thin skull rule would apply if you bashed someone in the head with a baseball bat, they died, and it turned out they had dural tears due to cancer surgery which made them more susceptible to death.

      In order to apply this here, would be similar to charging someone with murder if they got into a passionate argument with their boss, and then 8 hours later he died of two strokes.

      If this argument is made for this case, then it must be applied to every single police officer who suffered any medical complication within 24 hours after dealing with the Leftist rioters that have terrorized Blue cities for about a year.

      Trying to claim murder from the stress of the riot and being pepper sprayed is a stretch that, if successful, could have dire consequences to anyone who riots or even protests. After all, isn’t yelling and screaming in the face of a police officer stressful? If he’s later diagnosed with hypertension, can he charge that protestor with assault?

      Officer Sicknick’s own family has pleaded with the public to please not politicize his death. The man had a blood clot, suffered two strokes, and died. It was a tragic loss of a law enforcement officer. Yet those who would do anything, and use anything, to bash Trump, Trump voters, and Republicans in general are grasping at straws, ignoring the facts, and making an Olympic leap to try to claim homicide.

      You’re doing this because of politics, and for no other reason.

      1. Karen,

        I agree that no one was murdered on 1/6. I was simply pointing out the egg shell rule in case you and others were not aware of it. It is a lie that 5 officers were killed by the rioters no matter who says it. But that is as much agreement I will make with a Trumpist so don’t push your luck.

        1. Jeff, if you agree that no one was murdered on 1/6, then why did you answer talem qualem when I said causing stress is not an act of murder?

          1. Karen,

            I had gotten the impression from reading your post that you were unaware of the legal doctrine that the unknown frailty of a victim is not a defense to the seriousness of the crime. I offer to treat you to a meal at the French Laundry if you are so offended by my impertinence.

            1. I love good food, and have not been to Napa in forever. How about if I pretend to be offended with you, and then you describe your favorite meal at the French Laundry to make it up to me? After the year I’ve had, please include some hor d’oeuvres and a great bottle of white wine. Something local. Oh, and no caviar. I can’t bring myself to try baby fish, especially not after the raw oyster disaster.

              Although bad reviews of restaurants and movies can be fun, make this one a good review of the menu.

              Now let’s see…how dare you disagree using an argument weaker than a wet paper towel! I’m so offended!

              1. Living in Marin, I don’t go to the Laundry often, and it has been a few years since I was there last, but it is worth the price if you can get a reservation! Fortunately, I bring my own Chardonnay and Cabernet to the restaurant and pay the outrageous $75 corkage, but it still beats buying wine off their inflated reserve list. It is better to go at lunchtime to allow all that rich food to be digested before hittin’ the hay. For most, 3-star Michelin’s are a once-in-a-lifetime affair; there are not many world-wide which have garnered 3-stars. I would go in the fall when the exceedingly rare white truffles are in season. Of course, you will pay extra on the prix fixe menu for white truffles, but you will forget $150 supplement as the waiter lovingly shaves generous slices of the just flown-in truffle onto several of your main courses….yum

                They say you only live once, but if you live it right, once is enough!

                1. Well, if Newsom was going to shut down indoor dining for the state, criminalize even small gatherings of people from multiple households because he said they could be deadly, only to flout those rules himself, sounds like he did it in style.

                  What has long been observed, increasing in intensity during the pandemic, was the emergence of an elite ruling class for which the rules do not apply. While informing us that seeing our parents could kill everyone, the governor and several medical officials participated in a gathering of around 20 people from multiple different households. Does that mean that Newsom didn’t really think get togethers were selfish and deadly?

                  Since you live in CA, do you remember the Safer at Home orders?


                  “Violation or failure to comply with this Order is a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.”


                  While this has been one more log on the fire for the Recall Newsom effort, there does not seem to have been any immediate consequence, other than embarrassment, for Newsom. Yet failure to comply with the health code was a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.

                  1. KarenS:

                    “What has long been observed, increasing in intensity during the pandemic, was the emergence of an elite ruling class for which the rules do not apply.”

                    Sounds like White privilege.

      2. “You’re doing this because of politics, and for no other reason.”

        He’s doing this because in real life some call him an ambulance chaser. Things aren’t much different here.

  8. Did y’all catch Tucker’s show tonight?

    Tucker Carlson reveals the Biden administration is spying on him.

    They “confirmed” it.

    Remember when the Obama admin spied on journos?

    Who are the totalitarian fascists again?

      1. If Turley who has every reason to support and defend his Fox colleague, Tucker Carlson, won’t even bring it up, I’m guessing there is nothing to the story. Trust Turley, not Carlson.

        1. Jeff, so unless Turley pens a blog post on it, it can’t be true?

          This is one of those accusations that must be investigated. The truth will come out, eventually. I found it interesting that Psaki didn’t categorically say it wasn’t true. She didn’t deny it, but instead referred questions about whether the NSA under the Biden Administration spied on Carlson to the intelligence community.

          Carlson claimed a whistleblower informed him the NSA was spying on him, and repeated information that he had emailed and texted. The other possibility is that he has a mole in an inner circle who is leaking information. But then why the whistleblower’s specific accusation?

          It’s all conjecture until it’s investigating, and investing the investigators is a tricky business.

          1. If Carlson’s allegations were remotely true, you would expect ALL of Fox News would be pounding this breaking news. Yet I read in the mainstream press- “fake news” to you- that no Fox reporters or hosts have since taken up the story in spite of the fact that this news would serve to validate Fox’s suspicions of the Biden administration. Strange, no?

            To ask “unless Turley pens a blog post on it, it can’t be true?” is very unkind. You know very well that is not how I would think. Of course, something can be true without Turley mentioning it. My point is simply this- if Turley fails to comment upon Carlson’s accusation then it stands to reason there is nothing to it because Turley would be inclined to do so were it supportable.

            I trust Turley, as an attorney and academic, not to make an accusation without there being good and sufficient evidence. Carlson, on the other hand, is an entertainer by his lawyers own admission. He also believes that UFO’s could be alien in the absence of ANY evidence. Scientists who are searching for intelligent life point their radio telescopes to the distant galaxies hoping to intercept a stray radio signal which cannot otherwise be explained by the laws of the known universe. They are not investigating earthbound UFO’s! To date, scientists have yet to discover any signal from space which confirms the existence if intelligent life, but Carlson would have you believe that alien UFO’s could be buzzing all around us! He is a joke.

            1. Jeff, I’m just not going to assume anything either way until there is some sort of an investigation. Another possibility is that he has someone in his inner circle leaking information to a fake whistleblower.

              Who knows? The world is crazy. Reminds me of the movie, The Gods Must Be Crazy.

              My father once told me that they were testing an experimental, top secret aircraft at night. Those on the ground came across a civilian who’d seen it. He was tearing his hear out, literally tearing his hair out, talking about seeing an alien spacecraft. Quantum leaps in innovation can appear amazing to those seeing it for the first time. Imagine showing an iPhone to someone in the 1970s.

              Reports of unidentified aerial phenomenoa (UAP) have been going around for a while, denied or not discussed by the government. The release of an actual declassified report on UAFs made some waves.

              It’s this part of the report that has fired people’s imaginations:

              “Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings.
              The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.”


              The government releases video of several startling videos of these UAP, observed by the military. Their explanation of ice crystals

              If China or Russia have developed any drones or other tech capable of this, it’s concerning.

              As for whether they are alien in nature:

              It’s likely that life has evolved in other planets in the Goldilocks Zone. None of those are within traveling distance with Earth, with the exception of Mars, which might possibly host some extremophile bacteria, like psychrophiles.

              Travel to such planets are impossible with what we currently know of physics. Even traveling at the speed of light would take too long. Too long for us and too long for sentient life on other planets. There is probably life out there somewhere, but we’ll never see it.

              This is probably a good thing, because if we ever traveled to a planet that supported alien life, or intelligent alien life ever traveled here, we’d just wipe each other out with our total lack of immunity to each other’s microbes.

              The UAP report is both fascinating, mysterious, and concerning with the implication that we could be vulnerable and outmaneuvered by foreign tech. I just doubt it’s alien foreign tech. However, the SciFi nerd in me is having a grand time. Ice crystals and thermal irregularities my left foot.

              1. Whatever they are, I’m relieved you understand that it is impossible for them to be alien given the incomprehensible distances between seemingly habitable exo-planets which science has identified so few remote possibilities, none of which contain advance civilizations much less life that we know of. Though I will say that I would sooner believe in the .0000000000000001% possibility of an alien visitation than believe in a god.

                Despite all this scientific knowledge, charlatans like Carlson nonetheless will pander to his gullible Trumpist audience by insinuating that these UFO’s could be alien. Shameless. Which is why I am outraged that a Professor of law and scholarly academic such as Turley will dignify an entertainer like Carlson by appearing on his program. He might as well appear alongside an Alex Jones.

            2. ” if Turley fails to comment upon Carlson’s accusation then it stands to reason there is nothing to it because Turley would be inclined to do so were it supportable.”

              Typical of Jeff. He is a mind reader and determines what is happening in the world based on what Turley writes or doesn’t write. He can’t stand bright people from the left disagreeing with dumb leftist ideas. He is what the hard left requires, ignaorant followers.


    1. Remember when his lawyers defended him in court by saying that you can’t rely on him being honest, because he’s there for entertainment?

      1. To be specific, the Trump appointed Judge Vyskocil wrote: “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.”

        She added, “Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as ‘exaggeration,’ ‘non-literal commentary,’ or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable.”

        Quite an indictment of the newsworthiness of Carlson’s show. You would think that a serious academic such as George Washington Professor of Law, Jonathan Turley, would not appear on a clown show just like he would never appear with Alex Jones whose lawyers defended his show likewise in a court of law.

        1. Judge Sullivan seems to disagree that Rachel Marrow PhD? Is just a gossip not to be taken seriously. All these judges have options!!!

      2. Nope, Tucker said that he “confirmed” the spying after a whistleblower (in a position to know) gave him evidence (ie read back to him one of his personal text messages) that the NSA is spying on his communications (and others at the show).

        1. Tucker also claimed to be stating “facts” when he falsely accused Karen McDougal of you extorting Trump.

          I wouldn’t believe anything he said without evidence.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid , you cannot be trusted. Most of your statements are wrong and even your links frequently prove you to be wrong. When Turcker has been proven wrong he has admitted it on his show. You listen to every anonymous source and believe them only if it suits your purposes.

            Hug your Cuomo Emmy.

            1. I take all of your insults as compliments, Allan. You project your own faults onto others.

              1. Good, because you are a moron, and that is a compliment. I could’ve called you an idiot.

          2. Don’t believe anything said in the media or by politicians without evidence. Then stress test the evidence.

  9. I’m kind of curious when Democrats are going to demand justice, press charges, and move to disbar those who openly called for violence and riots by BLM and Antifa. How about holding Democrats accountable for bailing rioters out of jail, for diverting them to counseling instead of jail time, and for their rhetoric which spread misinformation to fan the flames of violence? Some of these politicians are also attorneys. I wait with baited breath for notice that they will have their license suspended in New York, and perhaps be disbarred.

    Remember all those times when politicians claimed police use of force were examples of racism and white supremacy, when it turned out there was no evidence of that motivation? Whoopsie. Cities burnt and business owners impoverished. Jobs dried up from all the looting, vandalism, rioting, arson, and crimes.

    Why aren’t Democrats ever held responsible for their own rhetoric and their own actions? When will we hold them accountable?

    1. Karen asks, “Why aren’t Democrats ever held responsible for their own rhetoric and their own actions?“

      Democrats are held accountable everyday on Fox News, Newsmax, One America Network, Infowars, and the Rightwing Press! Why do you care if the Mainstream media does not?

      After all, Trumpists don’t take their news from the Mainstream media because they don’t trust it. You have your own news outlets. Rejoice!

      1. Jeff:

        Criticizing Democrats on conservative news is not holding them accountable. What are the consequences for prominent Democrats who incited riots, who untruthfully claimed cops were racially motivated in particular cases without a shred of evidence, or who bailed out rioters who went back on the streets and committed more crimes?

        Democrat politicians have lied about racism in policing, defunded police, and caused murder rates to go up, but by lying about it, they got reelected. BLM claimed to care about black lives, but they left black communities in smoking ruins, with businesses closed forever. But their organizers got rich.

        Where are the consequences?

        Instead, the public education system has incorporated the very BLM ideology that has ruined black neighborhoods for possibly generations into required curriculum.

        Democrat voters either don’t know about the lies, or they turn a blind eye, and reelect them. Those politicians got rich off of blighting the very communities they pretended to fight for. It’s like AOC claiming to be for the little guy, but driving Amazon jobs out of her district.

        The only consolation is that there is a tide of blowback that the MSM is still trying to spin.

        1. Karen: “Criticizing Democrats on conservative news is not holding them accountable.“

          The Rightwing is holding Democrats accountable by blackening their reputations so that none of their viewers will vote for them in the future. I’m sure there are many Independents and some Democrats who watch Rightwing media.

          Do you want to cancel Democrats on account of their speech? You want to take away their First Amendment rights by subjecting them to fines or imprisonment? What more do you want?

          Trump did all that he could to get Bill Barr to do his bidding to prosecute BLM, Antifa, the Bidens, Obama, etc. If he could have done so legally, is there any doubt that Barr would have? Turley has defended Barr’s administration of the DOJ unconditionally. If you have a complaint, it is with them.

          1. For a trained legal professional, this guy is as shallow as they come.

            1. I would not say Turley is shallow, he is a defense attorney. As such, he defends his employer Fox, his friend Barr and the rule of law as best he can.

          2. Jeff:

            “The Rightwing is holding Democrats accountable by blackening their reputations so that none of their viewers will vote for them in the future.” By “blackening their reputation” do you mean factually pointing out negative consequences, such as their push to defund the police leading to increased homicides and the mass retirement and resignation of law enforcement?

            Remember all the calls to charge Trump with inciting a riot because he told people to peacefully let their voices be heard? Yet there is no movement to charge prominent Democrats with inciting a riot.

            Remember AOC et al going on about how Trump’s hotels violated the Emoluments Clause because any foreign national could walk into a hotel and rent a room at the going rate? Where are the calls for Congressional Hearings on Hunter Biden selling access to his father, or why he earned millions as a crack addict without a real resume working in Ukrainian oil and gas? What about how coincidentally his father bragged about a quid pro quo which got the prosecutor fired who was investigating Hunter’s company? How much airtime would that laptop receive if it had belonged to Eric Trump and it referred to President Trump? Think there’d be hearings and an impeachment?

            Why aren’t the BLM organizers charged with inciting riots? Why aren’t Democrat politicians charged with negligence for refusing to allow law enforcement to clear rioters and arsonists? They just let their cities burn, and nothing happened to them.

            Accountability will come from voters, and perhaps from charges.

            The entire Democrat spearheaded defund the police movement has led to massive increases in homicides. It has blighted communities. Stores are closing all over CA because Democrats increased the threshold for felony shoplifting to $950 in the penal code, and Democrat DAs refuse to prosecute a litany of crimes. Business owners have become impoverished. Chain stores like Walgreens have to close. Stores cannot afford to lose $950/shoplifter day in and day out. When I went to the health food store yesterday, I had to go through a metal gate to enter, and another gate to leave, the supplement and vitamin aisle. A lady took the items I wanted to buy and left them on a counter behind the cashier to hold for when I checked out after completing my cart. She said they had no choice because the shoplifting was so rampant in CA that it was threatening to drive them out of business. Democrat policies have made people lose their livelihoods. It’s driven jobs and opportunities right out of communities.

            And you think talking about it on conservative news is some sort of dire consequence for those who have done this? The Democrat politicians just go back to their wineries, their fancy dinner parties at the French Laundry, their armed guards, gated communities, and chauffeured cars.

            To date, there are no tangible consequences for Democrats for their rhetoric, their actions, or their disastrous policies.

            I’m frankly tired of observing Democrats accuse conservatives for what they, themselves are guilty of. The most egregious example is Psaki absurdly claiming the Defund the Police Movement is a Republican ideology. To actually fall for that would require ignoring this phenomenon in Blue Cities across America. Claiming “Ignore your own eyes! We didn’t do it, they did!” has worked in the past, so apparently they’ll keep doing it. Because…no consequences.

            1. Karen,

              I bitterly resent your maligning the French Laundry. It is a Michelin 3-star restaurant, I’ll have you know. I’d be happy to invite you there so that we could chat politics. At least we would agree that the food is to die for!

              1. Jeff, I don’t blame the French Laundry in any way for Newsom’s behavior. They were just serving a patron.

                You know how I love finding common ground. Thank you for finding it.

    2. More of Karen’s “us vs. Democrats”. No, Karen, you Trumpsters are the minority. Democrats do NOT incite or defend riots. That would be your hero. Giuliani was summarily suspended for repeatedly lying to a tribunal and in public statements. BTW: on his show last night, Steven Colbert did a wonderful take on Trump’s pathetic “rally” in which he slurred his words and forgot the name of John Glenn, whom he tried to claim was the first man sent to another “plant”. The moon is not a planet, and Glenn wasn’t the first man to walk there. If anyone is senile, it’s Trump.

  10. My goodness Professor, you make it sound as if sane minds are losing the battle and that institutional madness is on the menu.

  11. False information about the elections? Democrats received years of investigations at taxpayer expense. They have contested every presidential election that they have lost. Remember Al Gore and the hanging chads when they demanded recounts? That is what Republicans wanted, an investigation. Yet ballots have been thrown out. Lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing. Signed affidavits of election fraud were ignored. Republican election officials in Michigan were threatened with violence unless they certified the results. They did so on the promise that their concerns about evidence of fraud were investigated, yet that promise was deemed non binding. (https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/19/two-republican-michigan-officials-attempt-to-rescind-certifications-of-election-results/) In one of the means of threat and coercion, during a Zoom meeting, the schools where their children attend were released to the public. “Think about your children,” they said.

    Most countries ban wide scale mail in voting for the express reason that it enables fraud.

    Democrats question every election they lose. They claim Republicans “stole” every election they win. They view that as righteousness. But when Republicans call election results into question, and bring up examples of fraud and malfeasance, it’s sedition. The truth is, this is partisanship.

    The violence was done to the Capitol protestors. The Capitol police officer died of natural causes, from a stroke. Even NPR admitted he died of natural causes. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/19/988876722/capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-died-of-natural-causes-medical-examiner-ru

    “U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who engaged with pro-Trump rioters during the Jan. 6 insurrection, died of natural causes the day after the attack, Washington, D.C.’s chief medical examiner announced Monday.

    Sicknick died after suffering strokes, the Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Francisco Diaz, said in a report. In an interview, Diaz told The Washington Post, which first reported on the determination, that Sicknick suffered two strokes.

    Sicknick, 42, was sprayed with a chemical substance outside the Capitol at around 2:20 p.m. ET on Jan. 6, the report said.

    He did not suffer an allergic reaction to the chemical irritants dispensed by rioters, Diaz told the Post, nor was there evidence of internal or external injuries.”

    Protestors on Jan 6th trespassed in the Capitol. They are charged with illegally parading, and trespassing. The man who picked up and threw aside a barrier is charged with interfering with a police officer. An unarmed female protestor, Ashli Babbitt, was shot and killed by Capitol police. While the name and station of every officer who shoots an unarmed black person is immediately publicized, we have yet to learn the identity of the officer who shot Babbitt. Of course anyone who broke the law on Jan 6, or any other day, should be charged with any laws they broke.

    Yet, the disparity in the treatment, and indeed reference, to the Jan 6th trespassing incident, compared with the massive, nationwide riots that decimated blue cities is undeniable. The Left rioted, looted, burned, destroyed police cars, burned a police precinct, seized entire city blocks and held them against the government and police, rapes and murders were committed inside CHOP yet they prevented police and first responders from attending. Leftists have killed multiple police officers, and assaulted scores more, during the rage of the Left that’s lasted around a year.

    Democrats either refuse to charge many of them, or if they do, they’re diverted to counseling programs. A judge even made excuses for an arsonists who burned a police precinct. One bad day. Biden’s team even participated in the cause du jour and bailed out looters and rioters.

    Yet the Jan 6th protestors have rotted in solitary confinement for 5 months.

    The law should be applied equally, but obviously it is not.

    Those who claimed that Bush and Trump “stole” the election, and supported protests and lawsuits, now claim that doing so is sedition, without a shred of introspection.

    1. KAREN,

      Yeah, it’s just a wild coincidence that Officer Sicknick died of a stroke after being sprayed in the face with Bear Repellent. We shouldn’t think for a moment that protesters were responsible.

      1. Anonymous, I get it. You have decided the two must be connected. But without proof, it’s an unsubstantiated claim. It’s just your gut feeling.

        The ME said there was no evidence of an allergic reaction, or any other kind of reaction. He had a clot in his artery and suffered thromboembolic strokes. The pepper spray did not give him a clot. COD: acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis.

        It’s possible that the stress and elevated heart rate could have hastened a stroke in an already susceptible person. Chronic stress is one of the risk factors for stroke.

        Can you just imagine the intense and chronic stress that BLM protestors have put cops through for the past few years? Imagine the stress of the Seattle police chief having her precinct burned down.

        I have long opposed the use of chemical irritants. They are unsafe to use on people with respiratory conditions, for example.

        Sicknick collapsed more than 8 hours after being (pepper?) sprayed. It wasn’t the spray itself that killed him.

        A better argument would have been that Sicknick had a clot in his artery. The stress and elevated heart rate of dealing with protestors might have hastened a stroke that was already brewing, just like stress can cause cardiomyopathy. While he did not have an immediate reaction to the pepper spray itself, it certainly would have elevated his heart rate and stress level. If you have a blockage, or a clot ready to break loose, that can be a risk.

        Causing stress is not an act of murder. Otherwise, every protestor for the past few years could be charged with attempted murder on cops, shop owners, and residents, for the extreme stress and anxiety they cause.

        There seems to be a pattern here where ME and health conditions are ignored if it doesn’t fit the narrative.

        The Jan 6 protestors broke the law. They should be charged accordingly. However, much of what has been said about them has been inflated. One of the most common crimes they have been charged with is “illegally parading” and “trespassing.” It’s not like they set up their own CHOP. They did not kill anyone, and one of their own was killed while unarmed.

        I take issue with the disparity of treatment with the Jan 6 protestors turned trespassers, and that of the BLM and Antifa rioters who for the most part skated. If you have any integrity at all, you’d have to admit there is a gross disparity.

      2. No doubt you would make the opposite arguments when confronted with relevance of medical examiners report detailing the amount of fentanyl in george floyds body at the time of death!

    2. Giuliani: “trial by combat”. Trump: “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more.”

  12. Eb says:

    “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”

    I admit that Turley has lied on occasion. I have noted Turley’s “no collusion” conclusion about the Mueller Report is an abject Trumpist lie. Turley conveniently ignores Manafort’s proven collusion with the FSB’s Kiliminick.

    In addition, I recently noted that Turley lied when he suggested that Hannity was “likely jesting” when Hannity, at a Trump campaign rally, called the media “fake news.” Turley knew that Hannity was NOT joking. And even had Hannity been joking, Turley did not condemn him for it since most people in the crowd would be unlikely to suppose he was joking!

    These lies notwithstanding, Turley’s greatest sin is his silence about the Big Lie and his selling out to work for Fox. One of these days, Turley will ask his grandchild, “What did you learn in class today?” And his grandchild will answer, “We learned about McCarthyism and Trumpism. Did you stand up to Trumpism, Grandpa?”

    1. Turley conveniently ignores Manafort’s proven collusion with the FSB’s Kiliminick.

      You’re lying, doubly. There is no evidence of any collusion with Kilimnik, nor is there any evidence that he is affiliated with the FSB.


      1. The way you speak, William, with such implacable assertiveness nearly convinces me that you are correct. In fact, I AM convinced simply on the strength of your say-so; facts be damned!

        1. Good. If there were any evidence to support either prong of your malevolent lie, Mueller would have cited it.

  13. The real crime against democracy mounted by Trump-Eastman-Giuliani was not accepting the election loss as reality after the court challenges were exhausted. This willful act of defiance against the voters serves as a great affront to the Constitution. It was much graver than Watergate, in its reckless invitation to civil war.

    JT, you seem to be ready to exonerate this conspiratorial defiance the Constitutional on the grounds that it was mounted through public speeches, and speech is protected by the 1st Amendment!

    I’m sorry, you cannot plan an overthrow of the Electoral College vote, and incite a march on the Capitol to bolster it, and then fall back on a defense of free speech. Other criminal conspiracies where the planners direct the actions of others to further the crime cannot fall back on a supposed freedom of speech directing criminality.

    Rudy deserves much worse than he will get. And what about John Eastman? He, too conspired with Trump a grievous political crime which put the nation at risk of armed civil conflict. Giuliani, Eastman and Trump are guilty of a coup plot bearing quasi-Constitutional trappings.

    1. You and people of your mindset are the real threat to both democracy and our republic. Seeking to criminalize dissent is the epitome of dictatorship.

      1. I wholey disagree. The problem lies in the truth of the election practices which have not been vetted formally. The mechanisms in place to validate election results assumes integrity is employed throughout the voting process. When ample evidence challenges process integrity, nothing exists in the form of checks and balances. Guilianni in a haphazard way attempted to force validation which was completely rejected in all cases. Unfortunately, I will never trust the election results because of the data that was shown is clearly suspect. This will never get resolved. As a result, a fair percentage of citizens will never again trust the election process going forward. Possibly you’re one of those that don’t care what the people think.

        1. Hopefully, Trumpists who no longer trust election results will not bother voting…

          1. Not so- i plan on voting multiple times since those checks and balanced are not being implemented.

          2. Sadly because Trump took his eye off the ball and carped nonstop about being cheated, voters in Georgia didn’t turn out and Georgia now has the two most unimpressive Senators in the Union.
            That is an achievement considering the low standard currently in effect.

  14. Is Cy Vance “Fake News?”

    The weaponized Manhattan DA just misfired – can you say Mike Nifong?

    Trump lawyer: Manhattan DA won’t charge former president

    Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance has indicated he does not currently plan to charge the Trump Organization with crimes related to allegations of “hush money” payments and real estate value manipulations, according to a personal lawyer for Donald Trump.

    Ronald Fischetti, a New York attorney who represents the former president, said on Monday that in a meeting last week, he asked Vance’s team for details on charges they were considering.

    “We asked, ‘Is there anything else?’” Fischetti told POLITICO. “They said, ‘No.’”

    “It’s crazy that that’s all they had,” he added.

    – Politico

  15. You know your premise is wrong.
    Only lawyers who arent loyal to The Peoples Party need worry about this. The Party apparatchiks have nothing to worry about, as evidenced by your own article.

  16. How could the clearly victimized and defamed Carter Page lose his suit?

    You don’t suppose Director of Secret Police, Beria, was not “brought” the man and “lost” the crime, do you?

    Courthouse News Service

    Carter Page
    June 22, 2021 BRIEF

    CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of former Trump adviser Carter Page’s defamation suit against the Democratic National Committee and law firm Perkins Coie.

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey, CIA Director

  17. Why haven’t the co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America, a Deep Deep State Production, been prosecuted?

    “We will stop him.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page

    “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

    James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,

    Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,

    Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

    Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,

    Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

    Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

    Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, et al.

    1. I’m glad you always include Sally Yates. Her treachery is underappreciated.

  18. “You bring me the man, I’ll find you the crime.”

    – Lavrentiy Beria, Chief, Soviet Secret Police

Comments are closed.