Giuliani will be disbarred in New York - the first step, suspension, was handed down by the Appellate Court citing Giuliani's "demonstrably false & misleading statements" re the Stolen Election, "directly inflamed" the Jan. 6 mob, and concluded "The seriousness of [Giuliani's] uncontroverted misconduct cannot be overstated. This country is being torn apart by continued attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 election and of our current president, Joseph R. Biden.”
He was a classic example of the Peter Principle - someone who is so good at his job who gets promoted & promoted & promoted until they're in a job for which they're completely incompetent. Granted, Giuliani's promotions were elections, but he was a great federal attorney, winning convictions ins cases that were said to be unwinnable. He was a terrible mayor even though he got a lot of PR after 9/11 and a dangerous advisor to Trump. The NY Appellate Court sees what the GOP Congress can't - the facts are indisputable.
Meanwhile, the 1st person sentenced for breaching the Capitol on Jan. 6 was charged w/a "misdemeanor" & reached a deal of 3 years probation, no prison time, & a $500 fine. She's "ashamed." The judge in her case also saw facts as facts - she called labeling it as the actions of mere tourists "utter nonsense" concluding that they must be "from another planet."
So, Giuliani finally loses what he once prized most - his law license - & an insurrectionist who actually breached the Capitol isn't charged w/treason or even a felony & gets a walk.
Lawyers are typically skilled at using the evidence they want, or reframing the evidence at hand to their advantage. Giuliani just flat out made up stuff, a bizarre turn for a once-respected Federal Prosecutor who helped take down the mob.
I'm not really sure if Giuliani got carried away while riding the MAGA Train, or if he just decided to see how far he could go. Trump wasn't even paying him anymore and his daughter has pretty much disowned him. He was always a bit of a scoundrel, RICO helped make him. Other former prosecutors like Jeanine Pirro and Trey Gowdy are evidence that those seeking justice aren't always the public's champions.
The case against Giuliani was pretty cut and dry and in the biggest spot light. Even though I would have been surprised had no penalty been handed down by the NY Bar, it's still reassuring that, as someone here used to say, "actions have consequences".
Well, to some, at least.
Lots of wrist-slaps and shame-on-yous for a group of people who were at best, trespassing on government property with the intent to destroy property and possibly intentionally harm people. Trump most certainly incited an angry mob whose actions did result in deaths. $500 fine? Seriously? When I was 18 years-old, I was in a car that got pulled over by the cops. Driver (a little less than a year younger than me) had enough pot to lose in an empty box - that he hadn't even told me about. They tagged me for it and let him go. It was 1975, but my fine and treatment by the law was a lot more severe than anything I'm seeing handed to the hooligans that raided the Capitol on Jan. 6. My fine was well over $1,000 (in 1975 dollars) and I got a suspended sentence. They promised me the penitentiary if I ever got caught again. No property was damaged and nobody died. $500? Seriously?
I wouldn't quite compare these two quite yet. It takes time to sit through all of the footage and build a case, I imagine they are checking off the smaller cases up front. They are small potatoes. Giuliani, meanwhile, is an officer of the court and carries greater responsibility.
I don't envy the prosecutors trying to build these cases. Even though the fools filmed themselves in the act, at face value, most of these people broke into public property.
Those who destroyed property or assaulted Capitol police on camera will face tougher charges and greater focus. Those who made plans on message boards might get some conspiracy charges.
The rest? It's difficult to prove intent, especially those impressionable minds who were easily roused into a frenzy by the previous President. Clearly they are responsible for their actions but the court is bound by what they can prove.
I don't think Guiliani's been indicted yet for Jan. 6 or his Ukraine dealings.
IMO ego led Guiliani to seek public office & he really played up his crime-fighting prowess at a time when things were bad in NYC. He was in way over his head & by 9/11, he was really out of it, but the media made him "America's Mayor." He went pretty far from his dilemma as to whether to be a priest or lawyer.
I wouldn't quite compare these two quite yet. It takes time to sit through all of the footage and build a case, I imagine they are checking off the smaller cases up front. They are small potatoes. Giuliani, meanwhile, is an officer of the court and carries greater responsibility.
I don't envy the prosecutors trying to build these cases. Even though the fools filmed themselves in the act, at face value, most of these people broke into public property.
Those who destroyed property or assaulted Capitol police on camera will face tougher charges and greater focus. Those who made plans on message boards might get some conspiracy charges.
The rest? It's difficult to prove intent, especially those impressionable minds who were easily roused into a frenzy by the previous President. Clearly they are responsible for their actions but the court is bound by what they can prove.
You're right. Giuliani's disbarment is a result of his lying re The Big Steal. The case for his role in Jan. 6 may never happen - the Ukraine deal may be easier to prove.
I don't envy the prosecutors, either, but they do need to be united as to what they're actually prosecuting - a coup, attempted assassination of Pence/Pelosi, insurrection, assault, and plain old property crimes on federal property.
The woman who made the sentencing deal was charged w/parading, picketing, or demonstrating in a federal building which carries a max of 6 mos in jail & a $5K fine. She wasn't an ideal 1st case - going in after someone opened the door for her, no violence, & a max time on site of 10 minutes & a token show of remorse. Still, her stupid Facebook postings clearly go to her intent.
I think the ones they really want are the Proud Boys & any other white supremacist, racist, Nazi, anti-democracy leaders.
I wouldn't quite compare these two quite yet. It takes time to sit through all of the footage and build a case, I imagine they are checking off the smaller cases up front. They are small potatoes. Giuliani, meanwhile, is an officer of the court and carries greater responsibility.
I don't envy the prosecutors trying to build these cases. Even though the fools filmed themselves in the act, at face value, most of these people broke into public property.
Those who destroyed property or assaulted Capitol police on camera will face tougher charges and greater focus. Those who made plans on message boards might get some conspiracy charges.
The rest? It's difficult to prove intent, especially those impressionable minds who were easily roused into a frenzy by the previous President. Clearly they are responsible for their actions but the court is bound by what they can prove.
You're right. Giuliani's disbarment is a result of his lying re The Big Steal. The case for his role in Jan. 6 may never happen - the Ukraine deal may be easier to prove.
I don't envy the prosecutors, either, but they do need to be united as to what they're actually prosecuting - a coup, attempted assassination of Pence/Pelosi, insurrection, assault, and plain old property crimes on federal property.
The woman who made the sentencing deal was charged w/parading, picketing, or demonstrating in a federal building which carries a max of 6 mos in jail & a $5K fine. She wasn't an ideal 1st case - going in after someone opened the door for her, no violence, & a max time on site of 10 minutes & a token show of remorse. Still, her stupid Facebook postings clearly go to her intent.
I think the ones they really want are the Proud Boys & any other white supremacist, racist, Nazi, anti-democracy leaders.
Cyclone88...is suspension the same as disbarment?
Did Rudy Giuliani want to continue practicing law? Or is it like banning a retired Patrick Ewing from playing in the NBA?
Did Rudy Giuliani want to continue practicing law? Or is it like banning a retired Patrick Ewing from playing in the NBA?
Ewing retired - a choice.
I don't know Giuliani personally, but he's still practicing. The way to end a legal career is to notify the Court of retirement; he didn't do that.
It's the ultimate embarrassment - especially for someone who was once at the very top of his specialty as a federal prosecutor in NY & a stint early on as the US Asst. Asst. Attorney General.
