Rudy Giuliani

New York Appeals Court Catalogs Rudy Giuliani's Election Lies As It Suspends His License to Practice Law

The suspension is based on "demonstrably false and misleading statements" that Giuliani made as Donald Trump's lawyer.


After the 2020 presidential election, Rudy Giuliani's work as Donald Trump's personal lawyer followed a predictable pattern. Giuliani, a former U.S. attorney, New York mayor, and Republican presidential candidate, would make wildly implausible, completely unsubstantiated claims about election fraud, always promising that he was about to reveal heretofore unseen proof of the criminal conspiracy that supposedly denied Trump his rightful victory. But Giuliani never produced that evidence, which helps explain why the scores of post-election lawsuits filed by Trump and his supporters were almost uniformly unsuccessful.

Giuliani nevertheless hoodwinked many Republicans, most of whom say they believe the election was stolen, and he continued to tell his tall tale for months after Joe Biden took office, notwithstanding the defamation lawsuits and disciplinary proceedings it provoked. Even as a New York appeals court was considering whether to bar Giuliani from practicing law in that state, he kept spouting nonsense about dead, underage, and noncitizen voters.

Last Thursday that court deemed Giuliani's persistent prevarication a grave enough ethical breach to justify an immediate suspension of his law license. It added that Giuliani's "uncontroverted misconduct" will "likely result in substantial permanent sanctions at the conclusion of these disciplinary proceedings." The court's order includes a detailed (though incomplete) list of lies that may (but probably won't) interest Trump supporters who still think Giuliani was telling the truth. At the same time, the decision to discipline Giuliani mainly for out-of-court statements raises some serious questions about how far the government should go in regulating lawyers' speech.

"There is uncontroverted evidence that respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020," the court says. "These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent's narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client. We conclude that respondent's conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law, pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee."

The committee accused Giuliani of violating New York's Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys in several ways: by knowingly making "a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal"; by "knowingly mak[ing] a false statement of fact or law to a third person…in the course of representing a client"; and by "engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" or other conduct that "adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer." The appeals court's catalog of Giuliani's offenses, while by no means exhaustive, is a vivid reminder of why no one should have believed him last year and why no one should ever take him seriously again. Here are some of the misrepresentations cited by the court:

Phony Absentee Ballots in Pennsylvania

Giuliani repeatedly claimed that Pennsylvania reported results from more absentee ballots than it had mailed to voters before the election. Specifically, he asserted that just 1,823,148 absentee ballots had been sent out, making the official count of 2.5 million absentee votes patently fraudulent. In reality, more than 3 million Pennsylvania voters received absentee ballots.

"Respondent does not deny that his factual statement, that only 1.8 million mail-in
ballots were requested, was untrue," the appeals court notes. "His defense is that he did not make this misstatement knowingly. Respondent claims that he relied on some unidentified member of his 'team' who 'inadvertently' took the information from the Pennsylvania website, which had the information mistakenly listed. There is simply no proof to support this explanation. For instance, there is no affidavit from this supposed team member, who is not identified by name or otherwise, nor is there any copy of the web page that purportedly listed the allegedly incorrect data."

False Statements in Federal Court

When Giuliani appeared before a federal judge in November to make the case for overturning Pennsylvania's election results, he repeatedly said the Trump campaign's lawsuit alleged voting fraud before ultimately conceding that it did not. "Respondent had to be aware that there were no fraud claims in the case," the appeals court says. "Significant time and effort were expended on respondent's false misrepresentations to the court regarding the nature of the proceedings. This resulted in respondent's arguments in support of fraud appearing to be seemingly unanswered on the record and misleading the listening public, because fraud was not a part of the case."

Dead Voters in Philadelphia

In Philadelphia, Giuliani said, 8,021 ballots were cast under the names of dead people. He also claimed the number was 30,000. His favorite example was former heavyweight boxer Joe Frazier, who supposedly continued to show up as a Philadelphia voter in election records years after his death in 2011. "He is still voting there," Giuliani claimed a few days after the 2020 election.

Giuliani "fails to provide a scintilla of evidence for any of the varying and wildly inconsistent numbers of dead people he factually represented voted in Philadelphia during the 2020 presidential election," the appeals court says. It also notes that "public records show that Pennsylvania formally cancelled Mr. Frazier's eligibility to vote on February 8, 2012, three months after he died."

Giuliani said his claim that Joe Frazier voted in the 2020 election was based on a blog post he read. But as the court notes, that article made no such claim.

Vote Counting in Georgia

In Georgia, Giuliani claimed, vote tabulation machines supplied by Dominion Voting Systems switched Trump votes to Biden votes, creating a false tally that gave Biden a phony victory. But as the appeals court notes, a hand recount of Georgia's paper ballots "confirmed the results of the election," and Giuliani "provides no basis in this record for disputing the hand count audit."

The court notes that Giuliani is a defendant in a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit that Dominion filed in January. "Consequently," it says, "we do not reach the issue of whether respondent's claims about the Dominion voting machines were false, nor do we need to."

Underage Voters in Georgia

Giuliani claimed 65,000 people younger than 18 had voted in Georgia. He also put the number at 66,000 and 165,000. But when Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's office "compared the list of all of the people who voted in Georgia to their full birthdays," the appeals court notes, it found "there were zero underage voters in the 2020 election."

Giuliani "claims that he reasonably relied on 'expert' affidavits, including one by Bryan Geels, in believing the facts he stated were true." But "none of these affidavits were provided to the Court," and even the statement attributed to Geels, a CPA who owns a data security consulting firm, "does not support respondent's claim that the number of underage teenage voters was 165,000."

Georgia Voters With Felony Records

Giuliani claimed more than 2,500 felons voted in Georgia. An investigation by Raffensperger's office put the number at no more than 74.

"Respondent claims to have relied on the unproduced affidavit of Mr. Geels for
this information as well," the appeals court notes. "Respondent states that Mr. Geels opined that 'there could have been' more than 2,500 incarcerated felons who voted This opinion, as phrased and as reported by respondent, is wholly speculative. It is also conclusory, rendering it insufficient for the same reasons as is Mr. Geels' reported opinion regarding underage voters."

Dead Voters in Georgia

Giuliani said he had a list of 800 people who were recorded as voting in Georgia even though they had died before the election. He said the total number could be in the thousands. Later he confidently asserted that it was 6,000.

Raffensperger's office, by contrast, found that "potentially two votes may have been improperly cast in the name of dead voters in the 2020 election." Giuliani "does not claim that either of the identified experts he relied upon for information about the Georgia election made any statement to him whatsoever regarding the number of dead people in whose names votes were allegedly cast in the 2020 election," the appeals court notes, "and he does not provide any other source for the false numerical information he disseminated."

Imaginary Suitcases of Fake Ballots

Giuliani presented misleading snippets of security camera footage as evidence of election fraud in Atlanta. "The gist of his claim was that illegal ballots were being surreptitiously retrieved from suitcases hidden under a table and then tabulated," the appeals court notes. But the full version of the surveillance video, which Giuliani said he had watched, did not show that or anything else nefarious.

"If, as respondent claims, he reviewed the entire video, he could not have reasonably reached a conclusion that illegal votes were being counted," the court says. "We disagree that the video can be viewed as evidence of illegal conduct during the vote tabulation process or that it provided a reasonable basis for respondent's conclusions."

Illegal Immigrants in Arizona

Based on his own estimate that 5 million "illegal aliens" live in Arizona, Giuliani asserted that "a few hundred thousand" of them voted in the 2020 election. On another occasion, he averred that "the bare minimum is 40 or 50,000," and "the reality is probably about 250,000." He subsequently changed his estimate again, saying 32,000 unauthorized residents had voted in Arizona.

"These numerical claims are so wildly divergent and irreconcilable that they all cannot be true," the appeals court says. "Respondent even admitted that he did not have the 'best sources' to justify the numbers he was stating as fact. Nonetheless, respondent has failed to produce any sources, whether 'best' or marginal, to support any of the figures he has presented to the public with authority."

Giuliani said he was relying on what a state legislator in Arizona had told him, but he did not provide any of that information. He also said he was relying on "other witnesses," but he did not identify those witnesses or supply any of their testimony.

'the falsehoods themselves cause harm'

The Attorney Grievance Committee for New York and Bronx counties, which sought the suspension approved by the appeals court, argues that Giuliani's false allegations of election fraud stoked an imaginary grievance that culminated in the Capitol riot on January 6. Giuliani, who spoke at the "Save America" rally that preceded the riot, says the committee can't prove he was responsible for the violence that day.

"We need not decide any issue of 'causal nexus' to understand that the
falsehoods themselves cause harm," the appeals court says. "This event only emphasizes the larger point that the broad dissemination of false statements, casting doubt on the legitimacy of thousands of validly cast votes, is corrosive to the public's trust in our most important democratic institutions."

Only one of the false statements cited by the appeals court was part of a legal proceeding. Giuliani made the rest in out-of-court contexts such as press conferences, TV or radio shows, and meetings with Republican legislators. The appeals court nevertheless counts them as statements made "in the course of representing a client," which presumably is also the way Giuliani will portray them while defending himself against Dominion's defamation suit. But South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman, in a Volokh Conspiracy post titled "Rudy's First Amendment Right to Lie to the Press," argues that such broad regulation of lawyers' speech is constitutionally problematic. Blackman cites a Washington Post op-ed piece in which Fordham law professor Bruce Green and NYU law professor Rebecca Roiphe express similar concerns:

In Giuliani's case, the court gave the First Amendment concerns short shrift, because the case was about his professional improprieties "in connection with his representation of a client." We agree that courts have the right to enforce rules requiring lawyers to be truthful to protect the integrity of a court proceeding or the wellbeing of a client. But it is hard to see how either of those are at issue here….

Lawyers have the right as private citizens to engage in political debate. This includes a right to lie about the government—not because lies are desirable, but because it is too dangerous to give the state the power to determine which statements are true or false when it comes to political speech. Robust political debate would be chilled because people would fear misspeaking. Efforts to expose government wrongdoing would be abandoned out of concern about retribution.

To encourage criticism of the government, the First Amendment gives the public breathing room. Lawyers need it too. They should not have to choose between a law license and the license to engage in the same vigorous political speech as other citizens. It is true that lawyers are officers of the court, but they have also historically played an important part in holding government to account. It would be a shame to strip them of this powerful role.
Assuming that the courts remain unreceptive to that argument, Giuliani's main defense will be that he sincerely believed the ridiculous, unfounded, and demonstrably inaccurate things he said. If so, he did not "knowingly" make false statements, and he did not deliberately engage in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." But there is a thin line between deliberate deceit and reckless disregard for the truth, and the idea that Giuliani was merely a victim of his own gullibility, carelessness, and confirmation bias is hard to swallow when you consider his stubborn refusal to acknowledge countervailing evidence. Still, it will be entertaining to watch Giuliani argue that he should be allowed to practice law in New York because he is an idiot rather than a liar.

NEXT: Chef Andrew Gruel Survived COVID-19 and Gavin Newsom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


    1. Poor commies at unreason and their fluff bots.

      Im sure unreason will cover the audit of ballots in Arizona.

      1. You were right about everything else, and I am sure are right about the Arizona audit as well.

        1. Not sure if you remember but this is guy who said in December he guaranteed that Trump would be president on Jan. 20th.

          1. USA Making money online more than 15000$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular RED office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. Poor lc still wanting to overturn an election.

        Keep gobbling up the crap they’re spoonfeeding you on your “alternative facts” sites.

      3. Your whole soul and being was completed invested in every absurd lie listed above, and to your eternal shame, still is.

      4. Poor commies are so separated from reality that they think americans believe them.

        Trump did win the majority of legal votes in states in 2016 and 2020. So he would have been awarded the EC votes to correspond to that win. Election fraud is diabolical in that the lefties still have to convince average americans there was zero fraud.

        Civil war 2.0 means we dont have a president right now and no lawful federal government. Im sure the commies at unreason will send in bots to argue how everything is find and dandy in America. Its not banana republic or anything.

    2. Been hitting the hootch pretty hard, eh?

    3. What ever happened to poor, poor sarcasmic?

    4. I love how LackOfReason is more than happy to do away with concepts like due process when the target is someone they despise. Makes me think of that faux “principled” libertarian Penn Jillette (who prided himself of the fact that he had never voted) whose PERSONAL hatred of Donald Trump inspired him to cast his first ever ballot for Hillary.

  2. I will believe the NY court on this when they start disbarring people over the anti-Trump hoaxes and lies. (Did Hillary Clinton lose her law license for her obvious lies in the course of the thrown investigation into her illegal email server? Or for orchestrating the perversion of justice that her team committed?)

    1. Of course not, she wasn’t orange.

    2. So of course they’re going to suspend James Comey’s next, right?

    3. Are you saying people shouldn’t be punished for wrongthink?

      1. All think is wrongthink now.

    4. I think she let it expire long before those events. And for what its worth, Bill’s was suspended and then he turned it in to avoid disbarment hearings for Lewinsky/Jones scandals.

    5. Not to mention every lawyer who lost a case; by definition, they were lying in court and to the media.

      The First Amendment is trying to raise its hand, but I doubt a New York court will ever notice.

      1. And every prosecutor…

      2. You “think” she turned it in? That psycho never should have been allowed in a Courthouse except as a perp. As early as 1973 she was identified by her boss on the Watergate Committee as being “possibly the most dishonest person I have ever met in my life”. This statement from a career lawyer carries a bit of weight. Bill and Hillary should have been tried and sent to jail for their actions, if the twisted reasoning of the Schiff Brigade circa 2019 had been in force in 1998 and then from 2012 thru 2016. Hating someone who calls all the liberals and Never Trumpers out for attempting to rig the election in 2020 gets Giuliani’s license revoked. The fact that Reason, and most of the center left “libertarians” on this thread, ARE liberals and Never Trump clowns never stops them from slamming Trump, but the breathtaking larceny that was involved in the Clinton Extortion Syndicate, excuse me, Clinton Global Initiative, never seemed to give our intrepid “enforcers of the law” pause. Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, et al, all belong behind bars for their conflicts of interest, perjury, and graft while involved with the Clinton’s. Didn’t see Reason get too worked up about Mills handing over her laptop with the proviso that the FBI fucking DESTROY IT so as not to implicateher and her employer, nor were they concerned about the FBI agreeing to this astonishing request. But Trump questions whether the election may have been tampered with after numerous senior executives at Facebook, Microsoft, and other Silicon Valley enterprises openly said after the 2016 election that they would never let him be reelected. James O’Keefe exposed that in 2018 to the overwhelming sound of crickets from the powers that be. What it comes down to is NY state wasting money on revenge prosecutions, instead of, oh, I don’t know, maybe looking into why the sitting governor of their fair state is not only a serial sex abuser, but why he had his brother the CNN anchor advising him on how to handle THOSE accusations, and why said governor is involved in a conspiracy to cover up his connection to the deaths of tens of thousands of seniors at nursing homes due to his poorly thought out and incredibly ill-timed orders forcing known COVID victims into close quarters with vulnerable seniors. Seems like that would be a better use of the NY taxpayer’s money than playing motherfucking gotcha games with a man who did more for jurisprudence by bringing the Mafia to its knees than all these pissant leftist Torquemada wannabe’s combined will ever do. Just saying.

  3. “The suspension is based on “demonstrably false and misleading statements” that Giuliani made as Donald Trump’s lawyer.”

    Wasn’t Preet Bahara licensed to practice law in New York?

    1. Thought someone wood chip in with that.

    2. Preetender has a TV show based on his adventures as a prosecutor. What have you done?

      1. I had a tv show what’s your point?

      2. Not having a TV show might be a bigger accomplishment these days.

    3. Kevin Clinesmith was an FBI lawyer who pled guilty to altering a CIA email sent to the FBI in order to support certain secret government investigations into political enemies.

      He has not been disbarred.

    4. Meanwhile, on another comment thread this mowing, Ken says, “I’m neither a fan of Biden nor bothsideism…”

  4. So I’m supposed to believe the folks who spent months shilling for Avenatti? Sorry, no you lying shits lost all credibility years ago.

    1. Reason cheering on banana republic partisan kangaroo court justice
      GFY Sullum

  5. Bloody hell, they’re terrified of Trump.

    1. Trump exposed how many commies are trying to overthrow this constitutional democratic republic.

      Civil war 2.0 is in full swing because americans are fed up with commies. Lefties are trying to stave off the bloodletting by pitchfork.

      1. The number of progs must be reduced if we are to keep,our constitutional republic. I favor compulsory mass expatriation after the ones at the top are properly imlrisoned and lawfully executed.

        1. The number of progs must be reduced if we are to keep,our constitutional republic. I favor compulsory mass expatriation after the ones at the top are properly imlrisoned [sic] and lawfully executed.

          Yes, we have to destroy the liberty and freedom that the Founders wanted for our “constitutional republic” in order to save it! The beatings will continue until morale improves!

          I couldn’t have come up with a better parody of the right-wing authoritarian fever-dreams if I had tried. I don’t know how much more fascist you can get than fantasizing about rounding up and banishing people you disagree with politically and jailing and executing their leaders. Maybe if you explicitly made it about them looking different than you, you could turn it up to 11.

          1. War that democrats started (again) is hell.

            I cant wait until constitutional eminent domain of lefty property is used to pay down their share the national debt that lefties love to raise.

      2. lol…Trump is a commie. He allowed the stopping of the collection of rent by private property owners. He taxed the American people by Executive Order. He violated the 2nd A by banning bump stocks.

        1. Poor commies at unreason. They just have nothing but tyranny on their side.

          Bump stocks were never banned. All gun control is unconstitutional.
          Private property owners collected rent and evicted renters.
          Not sure what other word salad nonsense you have swirling around in that head.

      3. Haha, what?!

        Jan 6 was the attempted overthrow. Get your facts straight there you dipshit.

        1. Jan 6 was the attempted overthrow

          You spelled protest wrong….

        2. Poor commies. They lie so much they think people believe anything they say.

  6. How did I end up at salon?

    1. It was always just Salon writers putting on an act.

      1. They sullumly swear to tell their version of the truth.

  7. Sullum apparently believes only the right people should be allowed by the government to practice law.

    Liberty is forgotten in the haze of Sullum’s Trump Derangement, as we all more-or-less knew would happen.

    1. Please. If it was Giuliani who was still in power and Democrat lawyers being put to trial, you’d revel in it and say they deserve it.

      You don’t care about justice. You just care about YOUR guy winning.

      1. Cool made up story. Why do you guys always make up false stories to justify your own bad behavior?

      2. Do you think Sullum will come out and formally endorse Marxism, or just keep denouncing Marxism’s opponents over and over until Marxists have absolute power?

      3. You’ve described just about every fascist who comments on this board.

        They like to pretend they’re “independent” and have “libertarian leanings” but it’s all just a charade to hide that they want their own king and to exert their authority over others.

        They’ll respect rules and such so long as they get what they want. Once that point no longer stands, nor do any of their so called virtues.

      4. Our guy was a woman Jo Jorgenson.

      5. Please. If it was Giuliani who was still in power and Democrat lawyers being put to trial, you’d revel in it and say they deserve it.
        Ha! Boring defense. Overuled!
        Like if the opposite were to happen it would
        a. Be reported on with the same vim and vigor
        b. Not be swept under the rug, or tied to ‘well remember when Trump,’ or completely ignored for an unrelated story.

    2. I knew this was a Sullum article just form the title. He really is awful, with his meager little sack of talent.

      1. Why don’t you write for Reason then? Oh right, because they’d see right through you and realize you’d do nothing but suck orange Trump cock 😉

        1. Hey Strudel, I mean Jacob.

        2. It’s the nevertrumpers who can’t quit him.

        3. BrokeJake Mountain

      2. Sullum is usually pretty good, it’s just that like so many others Trump broke him a little bit.

        1. All trump did was expose how commie all these hacks at unreason are.

          Theyre lunatic sociopaths who lie for a living and try to justify it. They peddle commie propaganda and try to destroy america.

    3. Sullum apparently believes only the right people should be allowed by the government to practice law.

      Except that Sullum did discuss the problematic nature of going after lawyers for what they say outside of court. The big takeaway I got from this is that Rudy is not even trying to defend what he has said as being true in fighting this discipline to his law license. Truth would have been the best defense, but that he isn’t doing that should be telling you something. But you apparently don’t want to hear it.

      1. He isnt trying to do anything in his defense. because no defense was allowed, idiot.

        1. “Respondent does not deny that his factual statement, that only 1.8 million mail-in
          ballots were requested, was untrue,” the appeals court notes. “His defense is that he did not make this misstatement knowingly. Respondent claims that he relied on some unidentified member of his ‘team’ who ‘inadvertently’ took the information from the Pennsylvania website, which had the information mistakenly listed. There is simply no proof to support this explanation. For instance, there is no affidavit from this supposed team member, who is not identified by name or otherwise, nor is there any copy of the web page that purportedly listed the allegedly incorrect data.”

          Where’s all that “respondent claims” stuff coming from in the ruling then?

  8. “engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”

    So Cuomo will be disbarred for the dishonesty and deceit that resulted in nursing homes being turned into death camps and the subsequent cover up?

    *checks party affiliation*

    Never mind.

  9. Poor commies at unreason.

    Im sure they will catalogue all the documented election fraud, pending charges against voting fraudsters, and changes to election laws that states like Georgia implemented to reverse democrat election fraud attempts in the future.

    Oh wait, unreason staff are all liars and proganadists to boot.

    1. There was no Election fraud. Multiple times they had chances to prove this in court. Nothing was found.

      Trump is LYING to you claiming there was fraud because he is a SORE. LOSER.

      1. Just like 2016 and 200 and 2004 right

      2. No widespread fraud.

      3. Sorry, those ballots you wanted to check for validity are no longer available because they were so pristine in the chain of possession they are no longer needed.
        Move along. Nothing to see here. Fortified and Certified!

      4. Its okay commie.

        Texas AG just arrested another election fraudster. They have 500 pending cases they said that texas would prosecute every one.

        Thats just one state. Georgia has more than that.

        Civil war 2.0 is straightening all this out where our corrupt courts and govt tried to cover it up.

    2. pending charges against voting fraudsters

      Really, like who? Out of 158 million votes cast, how many people have been charged with fraud in the 2020 election so far, involving how many votes? In the last ~30 years, has there been any election conspiracy prosecuted or even credibly alleged that involved thousands of fraudulent votes?

      If Trump loyalists like Rudy couldn’t even get Bill Barr to believe that these accusations of fraud were anything but “bullshit”, why should anyone else believe him?

      1. It takes years for any election fraud case to go through the courts. We just recently got the kind of proof that you are asking for in cases from 2014 and before.

        In the last ~ 30 years, has there been any election held during a pandemic with unprecedented lockdown orders in place, with so many last-minute, rushed, and outright illegal changes to voting procedures? With one party, media and major companies working so hard together to push false narratives with the intent of swinging votes? With one presidential nominee essentially hiding in his basement to avoid exposing his mental decrepitude, with the connivance of the media? Boy! That 30-year window sure does a lot of work!

        1. …with so many last-minute, rushed, and outright illegal changes to voting procedures?

          Which of these changed procedures were “illegal”? In what ways would they have made fraud more likely? You say my 30 year window is doing a lot of work, but it is your talking points that lack any specifics that are doing all of the work, here.

          This is the lesson. Make vague assertions that can’t be falsified, and you can believe what you want. But as soon as Rudy made specific claims about fraud that didn’t hold up to any scrutiny, and they were shown to be false. If you want to believe that there was all kinds of fraud without having to show any specific instances of it, go for it. But don’t expect people that demand evidence to go along with it.

          It takes years for any election fraud case to go through the courts. We just recently got the kind of proof that you are asking for in cases from 2014 and before.

          If it takes years to prove fraud, then it should take years to do anything about it. Instead, you had over a hundred GOP Congressmen ready to toss out the results of an election when they didn’t have any evidence that would hold up in court and a few thousand rioters eating up Trump’s assertions of “massive fraud” to the point of violently trying to overturn the certified results of the election.

          You don’t get to put someone in jail until you’ve proven that they’ve committed a crime to the satisfaction of a neutral jury of their peers, and you don’t get to throw out an election until you’ve proven that the results are fraudulent to the satisfaction of the whole voting population.

          1. Huge expansion of absentee voting, often with changes on the rules and loosened verification requirements. There is one very obvious opportunity for fraud. And at this point it would be very dificult even to find specific cases of fraud related to absentee ballots. I make no claim about whether there was a serious problem there, but seems pretty damn obvious that there could have been.

            1. Huge expansion of absentee voting…

              A few things:

              1) 25% of ballots cast in 2016 were through the mail, so when you talk about a “huge expansion”, keep that in mind.

              2) Again, specifics, please. What procedures were altered? It can’t just be that more people used it, as that doesn’t make it any more susceptible to fraud than it already was.

              3) And at this point it would be very dificult even to find specific cases of fraud related to absentee ballots. – While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it isn’t as if people have never looked for fraud amongst absentee ballots or elsewhere, so you can’t claim that it is likely that there is all this fraud, but, oh, it would be too hard to find it and prove that it was happening. That’s not how evidence-based reasoning works.

              4) The main thing to me, though, is how both parties were expanding absentee voting in places they controlled going back decades. It wasn’t until Trump started in on it that it became a partisan issue to doubt it. Until COVID, all of the Republican efforts to talk about election security and fraud focused on voting in person. (wanting photo IDs, purging voter rolls, etc.) There was no partisan advantage in absentee voting, except for maybe a small edge for Republicans, prior to 2020. And how much of that was due to Trump himself casting doubt on it? In an alternate history, imagine Trump encouraging his supporters to vote by mail if they didn’t feel safe going to the polls. He might have even won in that alternate reality.

              1. I’m not claiming anything is likely. I don’t know. I’m just saying, there is one place where there could be lots of fraud that we are unlikely ever to find out about. I don’t have any strong view on whether the election was “stolen”. But it does seem pretty obvious that it’s possible that there was some funny business.

                1. I’m not claiming anything is likely. I don’t know.

                  Acting upon something like how elections are run should require investigation and evidence, not speculation regarding non-specific and unprovable assertions about how you think that “it’s possible that there was some funny business.”

                  If you don’t know whether there was fraud, don’t know how likely it is, and don’t have evidence one way or the other, then you should want to find out before people start changing election procedures in ways that might affect turnout.

      2. “”Out of 158 million votes cast, how many people have been charged with fraud in the 2020 election so far””

        Here’s one charged with 134 counts.

        1. Great! You found a couple cases of election fraud being prosecuted. (The second one in NC wasn’t about the 2020 election, and the article about the Texas case was about someone trying to register 67 disabled people without proper consent, so it doesn’t say whether any illegal votes were cast, but hey, fraud is fraud!)

          Now, you just need to show that there were at least 10,458 fraudulent votes cast for Biden in Arizona, 11,780 in Georgia, and 20,683 in Wisconsin, then Trump would have won those states, and that would have resulted in a 269-269 Electoral College tie. The House would have been likely to have given the victory to Trump because of the rule of one vote for each state’s delegation. Way to go, you’re almost ready to reinstate Trump in August like the MyPillow guy is saying!

        2. Texas has 500 election fraud cases they said they would prosecute.

          Georgia has more than that.

          Lefties always deny deny deny. Democrats claim election fraud in 2000 and every election including 2020. They would know because 99% of the time its democrats trying to cheat in elections.

          1. Do you have links or any kind of details? Or am I supposed to go on a wild Google chase to try and figure out what you are talking about myself?

  10. Isn’t the NY Bar Association in charge of a lawyer’s ability to legally practice law in NY?

    1. Yes. IANAL, but I believe if he’s on the bar in another state, he can practice there. However, if you’re disbarred in one state, other states might follow suit.

      1. My question is in regard to, “why is a court doing this when it should be the actual licensing agency?”

        1. The Bar Association probably works through the court for reasons of CYA.

        2. I think courts have always been able to remove lawyers ability to represent people in court since they are “officers of the court”.

      2. The legal profession has a great racket going. Most politicians are lawyers, if that tells you anything.

        Spend a day in court and watch state bar qualified lawyers railroad their clients and work with prosecutors and judges to violate the constitution on a daily basis.

        Bail hearings are easy examples where the 8th amendment right to nonexcessive bail is denied constantly. Every defendant is entitled to nonexcessive bail, even those charged with murder.

  11. The suspension is based on “demonstrably false and misleading statements” that Giuliani made as Donald Trump’s lawyer.

    If you’re going to start suspending lawyers for lying then you’re not gonna have any lawyers left.

    1. I hear what you’re saying. But are there any downsides?

    2. They aren’t. It’s just this once. Sullum seems to applaud selectively-applied standards.

      Liberty brought Reason to the dance and Reason dumped liberty like hot garbage at the first hint of disapproval from the middle school mean girls on Twitter.

  12. Hey, it’s a start. Then let’s do politicians.

    1. Supposed to be a reply to Agammamon… damn newfangled interweb wordy posts.

      Unicorn said it better anyway.

      1. I has a gift fir werds.

  13. ‘…But there is a thin line between deliberate deceit and reckless disregard for the truth, and the idea that Sullum was merely a victim of terminal TDS, dishonesty and confirmation bias is hard to swallow when you consider his stubborn refusal to acknowledge countervailing evidence. Still, it will be entertaining to watch Sullum insist that the election was 100% on the level, and that the Biden Administration is unquestionably the best thing that has happened for liberty in the last 5000 years because he is an idiot rather than a liar.’
    Mad, phat-whack skillz, yo! It’s only a matter of time until Sullum is tapped for a top editorial slot at WaPo, or maybe HuffPo. Sad to see how far Reason has fallen!

  14. Not defending Giuliani’s statements, but there is some important context the article is missing. Here are the judges that ruled on this motion:

    Rolando T. Acosta, P.J., appointed by Gov Eliot Spitzer, Democrat
    Dianne T. Renwick appointed by Gov David Paterson, Democrat
    Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, appointed by Gov David Paterson, Democrat
    Judith J. Gische, appointed by Gov Andrew Cuomo, Democrat
    Barbara R. Kapnick, appointed by Gov Andrew Cuomo, Democrat

    In fact, there are 19 judges on this Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department. 18 out of those 19 were appointed by Democrats.

    1. What difference does it make which party appoints the judges since judges are completely non-partisan and neutral and impartial? (Which is exactly why the Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court, to fortify their impartiality. )

      1. Whereas Mitch McConnell held Obama’s appointment open for a year because that important rule he made up out of thin air.

        1. The Senate exercising its advise and consent role is exactly the same as expanding the court so that you can appoint justices to create the outcomes you want. Good point Tony. Thanks for pointing that out.

          1. What’s your objection to expanding the court?

            It’s perfectly permissible under the constitution. What principle are you invoking to cry foul at a hypothetical Democratic congressional majority exercising its constitutional powers?

            1. Neat, and when Trump is re-elected he can expand it even more!

            2. “”What’s your objection to expanding the court?””

              Because it’s promoted by sore losers.

              Do you think the dems would be ok with expanding the court if the republicans wanted to do so because they had less justices?

              We all know why the dems are talking about it now.

              1. They’re talking about it because the courts have been co-opted by undemocratic Republican usurpers. Mitch McConnell changed the rules. Republicans made occupying the courts their core mission, precisely because they were losing democratically.

                I object to fascism and authoritarianism. I still can’t tell what you’re objecting to. The status quo court size is nothing to celebrate on its own merits.

                1. Usurpers. Were they somehow involved or did they benefit from the deadly insurrection? Many people have a rich fantasy life, your in-group is borderline if not entirely delusional in their use of language.

                  1. Trump was involved and he’s the past and current leader of the party.

        2. If Mitch made it up, why was it called ” The Biden Rule”?

          1. Who coined it as “The Biden Rule”? And did what Biden say at that time (June 1992) really match what McConnell did?

        3. He didn’t need a rule. He did what was politically expedient. You don’t think Democrats would do the same in a similar situation?

          1. McConnell didn’t need a “rule”, but he certainly tried to justify the choice to not act on the nomination. Well, actually, Republicans did refer to their justification as the “Biden rule” because of something Biden had said in June 1992, when there was speculation that an opening might occur before the November election. But Biden’s “rule” was about avoiding the contentiousness of a confirmation fight in the last couple of months before the election, not about trying to put any hypothetical opening to the will of the voters. He explicitly said that it wouldn’t be about waiting to see if a Democrat won but about removing the pressure of the election from the “advice and consent” function. And it doesn’t matter anyway, as no opening occurred and his suggestion (as Judiciary Committee Chairman, not Majority Leader) remained purely hypothetical.

            In the end, you are right. McConnell did what he did because he could. And as for whether Democrats would have done the same, we don’t know. But since when is the Golden Rule stated as “Do unto others before they do unto you”?

            1. My only point is that that’s how politics works. What McConnell did is allowed under the rules of the Senate and the Constitution. I have no doubt that Democrats would do the same given the opportunity.

              1. My only point is that that’s how politics works.

                Politicians respond to incentives. If politics “works” a particular way, it is because of what behavior voters do and do not reward or punish. If enough voters weren’t so cynical and accepting of that kind of power move, where they would vote against politicians that always went for the raw partisan advantage, screw principles, then maybe we wouldn’t get politicians that behaved that way.

                I have no doubt that Democrats would do the same given the opportunity.

                Why? Because that is how you think and what you would do in their place? How can you be so confident about that? Maybe Democrats need voters that would punish that kind of behavior, so they would refrain from acting that way.

                This is one of the things that has turned me away from the GOP the most. It isn’t just the Republican politicians and right-wing media personalities, but the fact that so many Republican voters buy into this war rhetoric. They have to fight against the socialists/Marxists/woke leftists/anti-Christians or else the country is doomed. With that kind of mentality, they accept all kinds of bullshit that they should be skeptical about and highly unethical behavior. Then they justify that as assuming that the Democrats would do worse if they had the chance.

                Like I said, “Do unto others before they do unto you” is the thinking there.

      2. Don’t know how you kept a straight face while typing that.

  15. “The suspension is based on “demonstrably false and misleading statements” that Giuliani made as Donald Trump’s lawyer.”

    I suspect they’re trying to poke holes in attorney client privilege. My understanding is that it isn’t just that attorney client privilege prevents Giuliani from testifying against Trump. It also prevents the government from forcing Giuliani to testify against Trump.

    They may be trying to let the State of New York go after Giuliani to make him turn state’s evidence against Trump, and if they can’t do that while he’s acting as Trump’s lawyer, well–he can’t be Trump’s lawyer in New York anymore.

    Now that he can no longer practice law in New York, prosecutors may be able to get a judge to issue a subpoena to make Giuliani testify against Trump regarding any future communications between them–and anything they discuss in the future about Trump’s past activities.

    We’ll know soon enough if they’re trying to railroad him.

    1. “We’ll know soon enough if they’re trying to railroad him.”

      The Giuliani railroad will be in the infrastructure bill.

      1. The feds already raided Giuliani’s apartment, which means some federal judge thought there was probable cause.

        If the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York or the state of New York prosecuted Giuliani, I don’t suppose it could have been an attempt to make Giuliani testify against Trump until now. Now that Giuliani can no longer serve as Trump’s lawyer, I suppose Giuliani could communicate with Trump for prosecutors about whatever and testify against him for what he communicates.

        The big tell would be if and when charges are filed against Giuliani. If and when they are, Trump would do well to block any further communications with Giuliani whatsoever. Regardless, Trump should be suspicious of any communication with Giuliani going forward anyway. Attorney client privilege is presumably no longer in effect.

        1. Judges seem to put about 10 seconds of thought into it before automatically signing off on warrant requests.

          1. He treated it like a FISA warrant

    2. Your understanding should be that it’s a reckless liar getting his law license revoked for his reckless lies.

      Most people are moving on from “Trump won” to “but you can’t prove there wasn’t a single fraudulent vote!”

      You wouldn’t want to be considered unhip in the company of slack-jawed yokels everywhere.

      1. But the Russians still hacked the 2016 election and that video of Trump getting peed on by hookers in Moscow still definitely exists right?

        1. You don’t become right by saying random things about something completely unrelated.

          1. Lmfao do you ever consider how your comments reflect on yourself?

            1. Reality always lets tony down.

            2. Tony doesn’t have any valid points to make so it’s pointless to discuss with him. His tactic is deflect and attempt a witty to him insult.

      2. Most people are moving on from “Trump won”

        Yeah, that’s why the articles about what to do if the audits reveal the truth are allowed to happen.

        It’s why Democrats and the left have started to insist that even if Biden is unseated along with his running mate, that means the it’ll be Pelosi in the White House because there’s no mechanism for letting the actual winner take his place back.

        But you go ahead and believe that this case has to do with punishing, rather than trying to silence Rudy.

  16. The most protracted episode of grown men being pathetic weakling crybabies the world has ever known. People who used to throw around “snowflake.” Of course that applies mostly to the teenagers you people chose as your primary adversaries.

    1. The most protracted episode of grown men being pathetic weakling crybabies the world has ever known.

      You mean persecuting lawyers because of the clients they represented 5 months ago? Or did you mean 4 years of illegal spying and clandestine investigations based on falsified warrants in secret courts?

      1. Donald Trump was permitted to stay president until the end despite being the most flagrantly criminal person ever to occupy that office. And the only reason that happened is because Republican congresspeople are afraid of you with your torches and fact-free view of the universe, supplied to your ear holes by Tucker Carlson.

        1. Sure thing, ”10% for the big guy”.

        2. As usual you have no answer. Pathetic.

  17. Buy Online Spring Mattress also Exchange Your Old Mattress with New Mattress.

  18. So when do we get the prosecutions for the false accusations that the Russians rigged the 2016 election so Trump would win?

  19. You lost me with the alleged “lie” that dead people voted in Philly?

    You actually think no dead people voted in Philly. Ok then lets open up the records and see. Oh wait they won’t allow it.

    Dude you area joke.

  20. I have the firm belief that there was ample opportunities for voter fraud this past election cycle and that there was more opportunities.

    I have a firm belief that there has been voter election fraud my entire lifetime and probably much longer.

    I have zero confidence in the government to investigate voter fraud or members of congress’s willingness to reduce the opportunities for voter fraud other than attempting to ensure that their side of the political divide has an advantage with future elections.

    I do not have confidence with either Trump or Biden or their campaigns or their respective political partied. My assumption is that both were assisted with a substantial number of shady if not downright incidences of voter fraud. Although I do not have proof, there are numerous cases and stories that appear to make both either corrupt or at least that there was some fishy business.

    Personally, I reject both the Democrats and Republicans parties as being illegitimate and operate outside the bounds of law. While I would like to limit the size of government, I expect that all citizens to live and be judged according to the same laws.

    I am opposed to having two different standards where the political class and ruling elitists get a pass, while the common man is oppressed by onerous laws.

  21. Tell a lie often enough, and it helps to ban, censor, erase and deplatform all opposing arguments.

    There were 50 cases of election fraud brought to the courts and every one ruled to dismiss. No evidence was admitted to record.

    The most notable perhaps was Texas against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the case on the basis that how other states run their elections have no impact on Texas.

    In other words, it’s nobody else’s business when swing states cheat in federal elections.

    1. Isn’t it hypocritically humorous how the Supreme Court gets power of the state on elections right but somehow entirely *ignores* it on everything else. Talk about being cheated out of proper representation.

      1. What’s the point / validity of a federal election when all the states can cheat without consequence?

      2. Are you actually suggesting, like the Supreme Court has ruled, that the outcome of the federal election has no impact to individual states?

        1. ^^^THIS
          “the outcome of the federal election has no impact to individual states”

          Is actually how the USA government is suppose to work by The Founding People’s Law (The U.S. Constitution) over their National Union government.

          Hint, Hint; The “United” as in Union of Sovereign States.
          A Union created for very specific enumerated powers/purposes.
          Most notably and consistently centered on national defense (i.e. Strong Military) which is completely forbidden from domestic.

          Sadly this nation no longer has a USA government but instead a Nazi (def; National Socialist) one instead.

          Thus the hypocrisy of the “the Supreme Court has ruled” as it allowing the USA to fall into Nazism while simultaneously cutting proper-representation.

        2. Q: Why do people rob banks?
          A: Because that’s where the money is.

          Q: Why do Democrats rob elections?
          A: Because that’s where all the Gov-Guns are (Gun toting empowerment) used to tyrannically STEAL money/wealth.

          The DNC (and many many RINO’S) has sold the theology that packing Gov-Guns and STEALING from their own U.S. Citizens = Wealth. Sadly Democrats are too short-sighted (stupid) to see that STEALING is not only a crime but doesn’t actually *create* any wealth in and of itself. The end will not be pretty if it’s allowed to continue.

          Very ‘Limited’ Gov-Gun use is extremely important to any successful nation. They should only be used in pursuit of Individual Liberty and Justice against those who use Guns to STEAL. Nazi Government’s use Gov-Guns to do the opposite; to preform the act of stealing. Conquer and Consume is the underlying foundation.

          The U.S. Constitution makes it very clear that U.S. Guns are NOT to be used domestically (on states themselves but only in the pursuit of inalienable rights from those who attempt to make big “plans” otherwise) and should only be enforced by U.S. Marshall’s not a half-hundred UN-Constitutional Nazi Agencies. The “Feds” main focus should be national defense.

          1. The feds are ultimately responsible to ensure the fairness of federal elections.

            T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.

            The outcome of the federal election has impact on individual states.

            1. Yes indeed; Thanks for the straight-forth information. Something I wasn’t actually aware of.

              The U.S. Constitution does grant Congress supremacy on election procedure powers and I’d imagine there may be U.S.C. the Swing State’s flat out violated? and if not perhaps States can pitch a U.S. Bill for election integrity.

              You are correct. Although; I still hold that the root of federal election fraud was completely due to a federal Nazi-style government.

              1. Are you calling the members of the Supreme Court Nazis?

                1. U.S.C. is United States Code there.

      3. forget state’s rights, it’s time for county rights

        counties too often have little no practical representation at the state or federal level

        six wolves and a sheep aren’t going to have much trouble deciding on dinner

        presumably new counties are also a lot easier to establish

  22. Hey; I know!

    If we can’t prove election integrity lets just witch-hunt all the accusers… Eh? Widespread censorship is what’s occurring now.

    Enemy of the State.

  23. By lying about, demonizing, arresting and prosecuting hundreds of Trump supporters (simply because they supported Trump), left wing Democrats have disastrously turned freedom loving America into a totalitarian banana republic.

    So much for the Democrats false pledges (when sworn into office) to defend and uphold the US Constitution.

    1. I only heard them pledging to put team R into re-education camps.

  24. If we punished all politicians and political operatives who lie equally, DC is gonna be a ghost town. I’m all for it.

  25. And to think this man was close to getting the nomination. [shudders]

  26. Sullum comes out against free speech, due process, and for occupational liscensing. What a guy.

  27. NY Bar: We are shocked, shocked to find lying in this political process!
    DNC: Your winnings, sir.

  28. It’s unprecedented that they suspended him without a hearing.

  29. “Legal expert Alan Dershowitz has rebuked politicized justice as a feature of “banana republics” as “show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime” has replaced law enforcement’s role of investigative allegations of crime instead of individuals to find a crime, the site noted.”
    “Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: Giuliani Denied Due Process, Suspension Won’t Stand”

    Nothing has been proven or dis-proven, and any legitimate examination or audit has not been allowed. Mr. Dershowitz a liberal, a Democrat, a personal friend of the Clinton’s and Obama’s , noted Constitutional lawyer, disagrees with Reason. For now I respect his opinion a lot more than the woke, snot nosed kids doing Reason’s reporting.

  30. Lawyer makes materially false statements to a court and gets one year suspension.

    Just don’t claim there is a deep state.

  31. I really like your webpage thanks for sharing!
    Structure and Content. Use the introduction to get the reader’s attention and interest in the topic. Define the problem you are going to discuss and provide a short overview on what you think and why. Summarize the most important arguments that best support your opinion.
    Rhinoceros 7 Crack

Please to post comments