The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
New York Suspends Rudy Giuliani's Law License
Those who pushed Kraken claims are beginning to face consequences.
A state appellate court has suspended Rudolph Giuliani's license to practice law in the state of New York. From the decision:
we conclude that 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. 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 (sometimes AGC or Committee).
In addition to detailing multiple instances of misconduct by Giuliani, the opinion explains why suspension is warranted, and rejects Giuliani's contrary arguments.
the AGC has made a showing of an immediate threat to the public, justifying respondent's interim suspension. We find that there is evidence of continuing misconduct, the underlying offense is incredibly serious, and the uncontroverted misconduct in itself will likely result in substantial permanent sanctions at the conclusion of these disciplinary proceedings.
Giuliani's attorneys offered this response (from the New York Times):
Mr. Giuliani's lawyers, John Leventhal and Barry Kamins, said in a statement that they were disappointed that the panel took action before holding a hearing on the allegations.
"This is unprecedented as we believe that our client does not pose a present danger to the public interest," they said. "We believe that once the issues are fully explored at a hearing, Mr. Giuliani will be reinstated as a valued member of the legal profession that he has served so well in his many capacities for so many years."
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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Carry on, clingers . . . but, as Mr. Giuliani learned today, only so far and so long as your betters permit.
The time, effort, and skill required to respond to Trump Election Litigation: Elite Strike Force -- under brutal deadlines -- was a shame. I hope the accountability associated with the suspension of Mr. Giuliani's law license -- and that to follow (Powell, for example) -- is heartening to the competent, decent lawyers and other people who was forced to waste time on the belligerent ignorance, bigoted lies, and misconduct of the disgraced lawyers and their reprehensible clients.
You do realize that tables turn and what do you think is going to happen when that does come around?
When the tables turn there will be some policy decisions that make me mad.
Price of living in a republic.
You figure conservatives are ready to become competitive -- let alone reverse the half-century tide -- of America's culture war?
I am more than content to let time sift this. In particular, I am not afraid of half-educated bigots and superstitious fossils. This is America.
This is just lawfare against political adversaries. It will be returned. We will send you scumbags to camps.
Still looking for the equivalent to the N word for lawyer. Scumbag is too generic and does not do justice to the atrocity that this occupation is. It should combine hatefulness, stupidity and evil in its meaning.
So you're pleased that Giuliani has lost his license at least for now?
The NY scumbags are highly selective. Come 2025, they are arrested and sent to camps. They should be visited by patriotic Americans in 1986 Camaros in the meantime. Anyone have a problem with that?
And hopefully, the camps have an ample supply of Zyklon B, sarin, novichok or something else equally nasty.
And we are back to the ‘Zyklon showers’ . . .
How are those ‘civility standards’ (mentioned when this White, male blog censors content disfavored by conservatives) coming along, Conspirators?
Tucker, is that you?
Punishment first, trial later.
Leftists love to punish dissent.
Educated professionals often have standards. Some people are unable to apprehend this point.
Lying about the election is not dissent.
Trying to rename things neither fools nor convinces anyone. But ok. Just delete "dissent":
Leftists love to punish.
I see it more as conservatives love to feel like the victim.
Are you a liberal? You do like to talk about retribution against those libs!
"You do like to talk about retribution against those libs."
This is simply false. Do you even believe what you post?
You *hate* liberals, believe they are all evil will-to-power villains, but aren't for punishing them?
Pull the other one.
Also, Google exists:
That business rightfully belongs to the lawbreakers — in the same way the rest of the country rightfully belongs to the people of Central America.
Law Professor jobs also rightfully belong to anyone from Central America who wants them. But the rank hypocrisy and greed of the people occupying those academic positions keeps Central American migrants out. They don’t even let Central American migrants camp in their classrooms.
===============
Trump should use the same rationale to declare non-enforcement of every other federal law that his base doesn’t like. And beneficial selective enforcement of the rest.
Who is punished in those examples? I don’t see anyone punished.
It would be cool if law professors had to directly face the consequences of the policies they advocate though. Instead they are rich and protected and consequences fall on the poor and vulnerable.
Making things that happen to poor people happen to rich people is not going to happen in capitalism absent punishments.
This post is advocating for punishishing people pushing policies you don't like.
No it isn’t. You imagine stuff and then declare it is true. It seems to be a habit.
Just saying nuh-uh is not addressing my point.
To repeat it:
making things that happen to poor people happen to rich people is not going to happen in capitalism absent punishments.
So your point is that something isn’t going to happen…
That’s pretty mean of me not doing anything to anyone. You caught me not punishing anyone. Congrats. Seems like you were trying to make a point or something though.
Yeah, you want to punish people and it won't happen.
Your rage is impotent, but that doesn't make you any less a hypocrite for yelling about how liberals love to punish, when you have a much clearer direct example of wanting the same, no telepathy needed.
Imaginary hypocrisy about imaginary punishment in an imaginary situation.
I will postulate that the imaginary guy in this scenario is sorry about that. You should forgive him. I will imagine that you do.
Lots of people don’t like dishonesty or bullying, BTW.
Leftists should reduce those behaviors if they don’t like the reaction they get.
The reaction leftists have been getting in America for many decades involves victory and support. I like that reaction.
"Lots of people don’t like dishonesty or bullying, BTW. "
Those aren't the people who were going to hire Rudy.
Based on the support he's getting here, the Rudy fanbase LOVES dishonesty and bullying.
"Trump should use the same rationale to declare non-enforcement of every other federal law that his base doesn’t like. And beneficial selective enforcement of the rest.
"
This sort of thinking is why he got fired.
"Leftists love to punish."
That's why they run so many "law and order" candidates. Like, say, literal Law and Order candidate Fred Thompson
Rudi didn’t lie.
Yeah, he did. There was no election fraud, and he claims there was.
That's a lie. And a damaging one. And we don't need to pretend it's true in order to make you feel seen.
"There was no election fraud".
Who's lying here?
The people claiming there was election fraud. Trump's entire career has been separating fools from their money; this is just a continuation of what's always been his business plan.
Just because you believe bullshit, doesn't mean society needs to pretend your bullshit is the truth, and protect those who got you to believe bullshit.
Clingers believe fairy tales are true. That is plenty of gullibility for declining, desperate Republicans to exploit.
Perhaps you should join Trump Election Litigation: Elite Strike Force and rescue Rudy with your brilliant insights and persuasive prose, Bruce. Or perhaps you should just go back to watching better people win the culture war at your expense -- and whining about it incessantly.
Yeah; that's what he told the disciplinary committee. But when they said "Okay, so prove it," he couldn't.
As Groucho Marx observed, time wounds all heels.
This is not a trial situation. Licenses for many things can be pull after review. It only becomes a trial if Rudy appeals. The appeal however will likely require him explaining his actions and he may not want to go there.
'Can it be true, Mr. Giuliani, that the judge asked you to propose a standard of review and you responded, on the record, "Uh . . . I don't know . . . the regular kind, I guess."? '
'Or, that when the judge attempted to rescue you by mentioning strict scrutiny, you responded by indicating that you might not understand the meaning of "strict scrutiny?" '
I would buy a ticket for that show.
So you agree about the punishment being before the trial, then?
You are going to be shocked to learn about preliminary injunctions, let alone special injunctions (temporary restraining orders).
No. It's not punishment. It's to protect the public. Mr. Giuliani's dishonesty and ethical perfidy are so well documented it's hard to conceive of the court coming to any other conclusion.
Plus, it doesn't matter how thorough a trial there may be, Trumpists will claim it's all fake news anyway.
Using power against people — no matter how evil it turns out to be upon later examination — is always justified by someone saying it is "to protect".
That's not really true.
Declaring war on Japan was not really a protect situation, more of a revenge situation.
In fact, there are plenty of acquisitive wars that weren't about protection at all.
And also proves nothing about this particular case.
Not a single person ever said it was "to protect"?
The point was that saying some action is "to protect" is used to justify anything. Any argument that works exactly the same for evil policies and good policies is a poor argument if you care about the difference between right and wrong.
Ah, by someone, you mean any rando.
Well congrats on your trivial and useless thesis, I guess.
Your general point says nothing about this particular situation. Maybe this is something evil, maybe it's not; you've not supported anything either way.
My point was to explain the problems with the "to protect" argument.
Ideally people would switch to making meaningful arguments instead of paper-thin blanket justifications of literally anything.
You confuse a factual assertion for some generally applicable logical argument.
Not really, no.
You're arguing against the factual assertion that this was done in this case to protect the public with an argument assuming that the assertion was actually a logical one that is amenable to counterexamples.
"To protect the public" is not factual. It assumes a future. The future is not factual.
A motive "to protect the public" may arguably be factual but it is very difficult to prove that was the true motive and proving it has not been attempted.
A prediction is a factual assertion, albeit one whose truth value cannot yet be fully ascertained.
It is not a logical argument that you can apply counterexamples to.
If you want to argue against the prediction, do so. Don't bring in vague gestures to examples of the use of the word protect the public and pretend they're relevant.
"“To protect the public” is not factual. It assumes a future. The future is not factual. "
It's coming whether you believe in it or not.
"No. It’s not punishment. It’s to protect the public."
K_2, of course it is punishment. That does not mean that there had to have been a trial.
It's perceived and genuinely felt as punishment, but the reason can still be to protect the public. We stop drunk drivers and take away their keys to protect the public. We may also later punish them. But stopping them from actually driving while they are actually drunk, that is to protect the public.
Don't feed into the "punished before the trial" nonsense. The judge may be right or wrong about whether Rudy is a danger, but, unless he is lying about his belief, his reason for an interim suspension of the license is protection of the public, not punishment. Stop feeding the trolls.
There is a certain class of people, let's call them "partisans" for now, for whom seeming true and being true are interchangeable concepts.
"Using power against people — no matter how evil it turns out to be upon later examination — is always justified by someone saying it is “to protect”."
And you can't "protect" people any better than by sending them directly to God's kingdom, so that checks out.
Meanwhile, how do you feel about disarming people who express intent to harm other people?
There was a hearing and Giuliani was represented and made several responses.
Respondent raises an overarching argument that the AGC's investigation into his conduct violates his First Amendment right of free speech.2 He does not attack the constitutionality of the particular disciplinary rules; he seemingly claims that they are
unconstitutional as applied to him. We reject respondent’s argument. This disciplinary proceeding concerns the professional restrictions imposed on respondent as an attorney to not knowingly misrepresent facts and make false statements in connection with his representation of a client. It is long recognized that “speech by an attorney is subject to greater regulation than speech by others" (Gentile v State Bar of Nevada, 501 US 1030,
1051 [1991]).
Among other instances.
Apedad,
I'd be more convinced if your quote was from the Attorney Grievance Committee of the NY State Bar
I've heard rumors that sometimes the government even puts people in jail before they're convicted. Scary if true!
Predominantly poor people.
And Black enough to please Republicans who visit White, male blogs that advocate old-timely Conservative positions.
"immediate threat to the public" - does it seems remotely plausible that anybody looking to hire somebody as expensive and prominent as Giuliani wouldn't be aware of the accusations against him and the pending disciplinary matters? Or at least shouldn't be expected to be sophisticated enough to look into that?
So famous people can do whatever they want?
How is that in any way related to the idea that Giuliani is an "immediate threat"?
He wasted courts' time, required responses to his incompetence by other lawyers and parties, and brought discredit upon the judicial system and the legal profession.
Educated professionals have standards that some people might struggle to understand.
So [free people] can do whatever they want?
It’s understandable that guys like you find that distasteful.
He's free as a bird.
He can still do whatever he wants. He just can't claim to be a lawyer while doing it. Presumably, when he became a lawyer he agreed to certain ethical standards. Apparently, he violated them.
… according to the judgement of his apparent enemies.
When anyone who tells the truth becomes your enemy, you have a lot of enemies.
I think being a leftist is unethical. Can we disbar leftists? What about baby killers?
What about baby leftist killers? Or killer leftist babies?
I suspect the threat is his attempts to incite people with false information. He has first amendment right but those are not without limits and not without consequence.
Except, given what we have learned about the virus's Wuhan originals in recent months and the explicit suppression and falsification from all angles on it, please forgive me if I take a skeptical eye on any claims that this was clearly false.
One massive coverup of this size doesn't prove that there was another, but it does make for serious reasonable doubt on any "come on are we supposed to believe that" arguments.
Even if there wasn't hard proof, the fact that Trump and Giuliani KNEW about the COVID coverup lends credulity to their belief in an election fraud coverup.
This is not a serious response.
There was no massive coverup of the lab leak hypothesis. And also, of course, it's not yet been established. But that doesn't stop you from claiming certainty.
And even if there were, you don't get to start questioning everything that makes your partisan heart sad, as you appear to acknowledge.
Fuckup, coverup, some sort of "up".
It wasn't even a fuckup, the underlying science changed, as it does over a year of intense research.
https://jabberwocking.com/where-did-the-sars-cov-2-virus-come-from/
Nope. We have known for better than a year that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory. Probably since March of 2020.
Created in a lab? Nope.
We are still quite sure that's not true.
We are still quite sure that’s not true.
Then you're utterly delusional. Because according to every actual scientific marker, it was.
Look, it's OK to have doubt one way or the other, being "quite sure that's not true" is what makes you delusional.
"Quite sure that's not true" may be a bit of an exaggeration. I don't believe in things for which there's no evidence, and so far I haven't seen any good evidence that it was made in a lab. For a really good article on it by an actual biologist, see here:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2021/06/24/nicholas-wade-is-the-andrew-wakefield-of-molecular-virology/
Bruce,
"We" have known nothing of the sort, and I challenge you to come up with hard genetic evidence to the contrary.
Science doesn't change. What people know changes. And what happened here was that people believed a certain "truth" in 2020 based on what Science had uncovered at that time and took that as incontrovertible ... AND ... actively suppressed any questioning of that.
Science: it's what we think we know.
It is not a proper noun, don't capitalize it.
Using science to be the same as 'facts about the universe' fundamentally misapprehends what science is and does.
So let's roll back. You're claiming that the "fuckup" (as Yglesias refers to it, whereby the media took the known evidence regarding COVID and declared that there was a level of certainty that allowed them to debunk ... for a full year ... any other alternative ideas, and emboldened tech companies to censor ... for a full year ... and any other alternative ideas ... was all hunky dory because you can only present alternative ideas if you have definitive proof in hand and not simply plausibility?
Does that mean that I think it was plausible that the election was stolen? No. But it's up to me to make that determination. Not our information overlords. And the fact that others think it's plausible and that they may act on it in a distasteful manner does not make the idea "dangerous".
Sorry, but I'm just not up to your level of being willing to authoritatively declare "danger" and thus authorize the abolition of ideas from the public sphere.
Emboldened tech companies is rather a causal stretch.
The only mistake the media made was interpreting a scientific consensus that something was very unlikely as it was impossible. See below for a more complete walkthrough. Or click on my link to Kevin Drum.
Alternative ideas that aren't supported or supported only by charlatans are oftentimes looked on with disfavor by private parties. This is not evidence of a coverup.
You can make whatever determination you want - you can determine the moon is made of cheese. You can determine the Holocaust never happened.
And you can be laughed at, shunned, and ignored for it.
There's one major problem with right-wing snowflake victimhood whining over the lab-leak-theory : It ignores the obviousness of the obvious, both then & now. Susan R. Weiss is a virologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied coronaviruses for 40 years. She used this analogy : A person hears approaching hoofbeats. Sure, they might be a herd of zebras - that's certainly within the realm of the possible. But it's a bit more likely you'll find horses galloping through the Pennsylvania countryside, isn't it?
“You know the thing about horses and zebras,” she said. “Zoonosis is the horse, and the lab leak is the zebra.”
There was no evidence for the lab leak then; there remains none now. At first all we had was an assertion by hucksters & conmen, led by most grotesque liar in the history of American politics.
Against that was the natural origin of every viral mutation throughout life on Earth, the record of Covid variations in China, and a wildlife wet market that sold over 47,000 animals from 38 species in the two years before the outbreak. These included raccoon dogs, weasels, badgers, hedgehogs, marmots, minks, bamboo rats and flying squirrels, all of which could be a precursor species for the virus.
Zebras and horses indeed. Here's some final advice to my right-wing perpetual-victim friends : If you want to claim something wildly improbable is true, don't lead with the president who lied about his inauguration crowd size (photos be damned).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/2021/06/20/30b10be2-c3d9-11eb-8c18-fd53a628b992_story.html
Whether media get their proclamation wrong is irrelevant to the question of the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
There is not now, and never has been, compelling genetic evidence of the origin of the virus.
"There is not now, and never has been, compelling genetic evidence of the origin of the virus."
Except that there is starkly compelling evidence to people who desperately want to believe that the virus was manufactured by the Chinese Commies to get the Real Americans. For proof of this thesis, you need look no further than the fact that the initial outbreak occurred in China. What better way to attack the Real Americans than to make people sick in China? Nobody would suspect the real target.
"Does that mean that I think it was plausible that the election was stolen? No. But it’s up to me to make that determination. Not our information overlords."
True, to a solopsist. but in an objective reality, the truth doesn't depend on what you believe to be true.
No. Not true. It's sort of funny to be lectured by you who are one of the least scientific creatures I have ever seen. You wouldn't know science if it kicked you in the crotch.
Science is the composition of observational data into self consistent models of the world around us that we then test with further observation and experiment. The truth of science is prediction and experiment. Things happen for a reason. Models are developed and discarded when they don't line up with observation. The science doesn't change one iota. The models change and they do so when they fail predictions. They do that for specific reasons, not because some "expert" says well it changed.
Activists and scientists are polar opposites. Scientists look at observations that may falsify a model as the most interesting part of the entire processes. They prefer clarity and simplicity to avoid mistakes. Activists look at observations that may falsify their narrative with horror and believe the best place for such observations are in a shallow grave in the backyard where no one will ever see them and if you can't hide them, use language to try to confuse the issue and hope to win the day with rhetoric.
Good science involves a large deal of honesty, clarity and humility. It has little to do you.
Science is the composition of observational data into self consistent models of the world around us that we then test with further observation and experiment.
This is just a long way of saying it's what we think we know.
Saying the models change and the science doesn't goes against the definition you just posted, which includes models.
Your description of activists applies to any human. Scientists try and mitigate this urge, but the state of science is naturally going to contain a decent amount of humanity in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_Life
Bottom line - the science, as in our best guess, said thing A was vastly more likely than thing B. The media reported thing B was impossible. A very common mistake in science reporting, and one that sucks but is not partisan or unusual. Later, our best guess changed as our models refined based on new observations. And thus thing A became less likely, causing thing B's relative likelihood to increase.
This is not a conspiracy, nor is it bad science. It's not good reporting, but in a very ordinary way. Certainly it is not a coverup.
Again no. I know the square root of two is irrational. I know the capital of France is Paris. I know that Mt Whitney is the highest point in the domestic US. I know all of those things and none of that is science.
No. Science is the process, the models are the result of that process and understanding how those models represent reality is the core of the process.
Ahhh, you pull out one of your usual fallacies I see. Yes, a bit of activist exists in all of us, just as a bit of dishonesty exists in all of us. What this doesn't imply is that those who are trying to be honest and clear and exactly the same as those who lie and dissemble. Activist and scientist simply describes the two poles and there is world of difference between a Howard Zinn and a Dick Feynmann. A Dick Feynmann is what a scientist should aspire to, but yes there are far too many Howard Zinns.
Nope, when a hack like you says "the science says", you can be pretty sure that it will be as distorted and dishonest as some dopey journalist. The science referenced the things we know, how we know them and what we think they mean. You are pretty much data and theory free. No science there.
This is certainly bad science. "Conspiracy" coming from you means almost nothing other than it is what you accuse others of for rhetorical purposes. Good science would address the actual argument. What element has been falsified to make the previous predictions fail ? Bad science waves hands and goes full Sarcastro avoiding the question. There is nothing but bad science here.
You now want to argue research outcomes are not science.
1) This is a new thesis. Your old definition ("Science is the composition of observational data into self consistent models of the world...") includes the research outcomes.
2) You're wrong. At lest so far as common speech goes.
3) The methodology you posit not apply to all of science anyhow. Plenty of social science is descriptive. Or what about computer science, which tends to be mathematically provable without needing a model.
4) More Feynman's, fewer Zinn's? That's reductive, and the usual STEMlord nonsense. Feynman was awesome, but not some paragon of rationality; don't make a myth of the man and then argue from it. What would you call Oppenheimer? Or Von Braun?
5) You call me a hack, and then say 'the science referenced the things we know' which is exactly the error the media made.
6) "What element has been falsified to make the previous predictions fail?"
The number of potential reservoirs for the zoonotic hypothesis. Which has not been disproven, because this is real in situ science not whatever you learned in middle school. But it's probability has changed: for various reasons, all the suggested these intermediate hosts were discovered to have problems that made them unlikely candidates.
https://jabberwocking.com/why-is-the-lab-release-theory-of-covid-19-getting-so-much-attention/
Nope, you just want to argue that to win points. Science is the methodology that uses research outcomes.
"Common speech is doing lots of work there. That being said, nifty redefinitions to reach a partizan goal are pretty much your forte"
Most social science has nothing to do with science. See your CRT bit as an example. More an exhortation of faith than a rational examination of facts. For computer science, probably closer to mathematics than science, and that's not saying it isn't valuable it is.
More of your post-modern nonsense here and again the excluded middle fallacy bit you are so fond of. Feynmann may not have been a been a paragon of rationality, but his honesty and approach were and oder of magnitude more honest than Zinn's who embraced the Sarcastrian ideal of distort and lie when necessary to sell the narrative.
You're being silly; science is not just the method, it is also the outcomes.
To wit: Cool science is not about cool protocols.
Most social science has nothing to do with science
The world disagrees with you. More proof your definition of science is idiosyncratic to you.
You claim rationality over all those you disagree with. That's the sign of someone without enough self-reflection. That Feynman never wrote anything that pissed you off is not a sign he was a more rational guy than Zinn; he just had a different job.
I'm not a postmodernist. I believe there is an objective reality we can understand.
Yes there is plenty of data that disagrees with you which is why I buy the lab release scenario in the first place
No; you read bad editorials and mistake them for fact.
"Fuckup, coverup, some sort of 'up'."
As you wish. Shut the fuck up.
"This is not a serious response. "
Doesn't it get tiring to constantly defend the ChiComs?
No enemies to the left indeed.
I'm not a defender of China, asshole.
I don't think lying about them helps.
You are spouting all the Chinese Commie Party talking points. You are an agent of the Chinese Commie Party. You must be purged.
Hey, Bob
Don't waste your time on Sarcastro.
Isn't there a deed to a $38,000 residential property in Outer Hayseed, Ohio that needs your attention this afternoon?
The Caracas apartment has your name on it. Do not miss this opportunity to escape alive.
I expect to continue to dance on conservatives' political graves, and to do so in the United States.
The tapdancing on Rudy Giuliani's law license starts tonight. Choose a good beer -- maybe something old school, from Steve Hindy and Garrett Oliver at Brooklyn Brewery -- for accompaniment!
Rev. -
Are you at all concerned with the panel's decision without a hearing?
How did you view Rudy's cavalier conduct while he was a United States Attorney?
What did you think of Rudy's post mayoral shilling for Perdue?
Did you enjoy Ron Paul getting the intellectual and rhetorical better of it vis-a-vis Rudy during the 2008 GOP primary debates?
There was a hearing.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/24/new-york-suspends-rudy-giulianis-law-license/#comment-8963907
The court's order and opinion indicates that Mr. Giuliani had an opportunity to be heard, describes the arguments he advanced, and identifies two lawyers who appeared on behalf of Mr. Giuliani.
Mr. Giuliani will have additional opportunity to be heard in this regard. His fans should hope he improves his courtroom record, which so far has been dismal.
Are you truly saying that Facebook and Google actively deleting posts and videos, claiming that they were misinformation, isn't a coverup?
Are you trying to say that Fauci committing perjury before Congress, claiming he did not know about gain of function testing in Wuhan was not a coverup?
You now, are stretching credulity my friend. You're not stupid, Sarcastro. Stop ignoring points to try and gain the rhetorical high groudn. It only works on people that already agree with you.
Because they were misinformation - their support for the theory was bullshit, every time. Because the science was not there.
There was no gain of function in Wuhan - the research everyone points to does not meat the NIH definition.
I'm against tin foil. There is some on the left, to be sure. But a lot more on the right. And you should not embrace it.
And there it is. Theory without good evidence = misinformation.
That's just crap. Misinformation is when they say it IS something and it's not. Not when they say it MIGHT BE.
Theory that claims to have good evidence that does not = misinformation.
Do you apply that to the natural origins of Covid or does that shit definition only apply when you want it to. Spoiler: there is less than zero evidence that it is natural.
The zoonotic hypothesis did have good evidence. Evidence based on the behavior of coronaviruses generally, the understanding of their behavior in the region, and I think some qualitative observations of the DNA, but don't quote me on the last part.
That's not zero evidence.
No; a theory by itself isn't misinformation. Asserting something to be true when one has no evidence in favor of it, or (in the case of election fraud) when there's overwhelming evidence against it, is misinformation.
misinformation is spreading "facts" that are not true as if they were. It doesn't matter why, people are wrong for all sorts of reasons. Disinformation, on the other hand, is intentionally crowding out true information and DOES imply a hostility to truth.
Nope.
You are promoting the Chinese Commie Party talking points. You are an agent of the Chinese Commie Party.
Now quit hiding under Behar's bed. It makes him all nervous, and keeps him from performing normally, sexually.
Wrong. From Daszak's 2019 grant that was subcontracted to Shi
“The research by EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. that NIH funded was for a project that aimed to characterize at the molecular level the function of newly discovered bat spike proteins and naturally occurring pathogens. Molecular characterization examines functions of an organism at the molecular level, in this case a virus and a spike protein, without affecting the environment or development or physiological state of the organism. At no time did NIAID fund gain-of-function research to be conducted at WIV.”
Try again.
You seem to have reading comprehension problems. You will note that while Politifact and the other dishonest partizan liars are parroting the party line. The same article states:
... and they were certainly doing what Shi already had papers on. She was no stranger to creating novel viruses by manipulating and replacing the spike protein. Being a hackish partizan, you will believe what is most convenient to your narrative but the data is against you.
So you choose some prof at Rutgers with an axe to grind over the official statement by the granting agency.
How very scientific of you.
Not really. Simply responding the usual hack. You know, the blustering blowhard who cherry picked one quote from an article and then tried to misrepresent it as the article's conclusion ? How totally honest of you. You then put the cherry on top by accusing me of your habitual action and dishonesty.
Yes, Ebright has an axe to grind with gain of function research in general, but I don't see that he is partizan. That's left for folks like you whose battle cry is: "You are just as dishonest as me". The bottom line is that Ebright actually makes actual honest arguments against gain of function research. I know honest arguments are utterly foreign to your way of thinking, but they exist. In short, Shi was modifing viruses in ways that Ebright and some others thought potentially dangerous. That's the problem with you sophists, reality has a tendency to smack you right in the face.
... and if I was the granting agency responsible for research that conceivably was the genesis of Covid, I can imagine that I would be tempted to go into full dishonest Sarcastrian spin as well.
Worthless bureaucrats aren't particularly good at taking responsibility for things. If they were, I suspect they would have found another career path. Look into the mirror for the truth of that one.
I don't think you're being dishonest, I don't think I'm being dishonest. I do think you're wrong, and grasping at straws, and calling me names.
When I said how very scientific of you, I was referring to your confirmation bias, not any intentional deception on your part.
I quoted the funding agency in the article because the agency has some pretty good authority as to their definition of gain of function research. And that's the nut of the argument. Also: they provide an argument in favor of their definition. You came in with someone with an agenda providing simple ipse dixit. If he makes honest arguments, quote them next time.
In short, Shi was modifing viruses in ways that Ebright and some others thought potentially dangerous.
This is a new goalpost. That's not the definition of gain of function, that's just a qualitative opinion by one prof among many.
"Are you trying to say that Fauci committing perjury before Congress, claiming he did not know about gain of function testing in Wuhan was not a coverup?"
IF true, that is not a coverup, it's a crime.
Not so clear. It is the Bill Clinton thing. Sophists are going to argue about the exact definition of "gain of function research". Dr. Shi very likely modified the virus and that modification was arguably potentially dangerous. That someone could split hairs and call that "not gain of function" research is just as certain.
very likely modified the virus and that modification was arguably potentially dangerous
A group of weasel is called a confusion. I'd say a group of weasel words is about the same.
"I suspect the threat is his attempts to incite people with false information." Accepting that as true.... he can do that without a law license.
The "immediate threat to the public" would be Guilani being able to express himself in public without being asked, "But weren't you disbarred over this sort of thing?"
In other words, the action was taken to discredit him, not because he might imminently do something dangerous.
Lies about the election lead to Jan 06. And people even on this pretty intellectual site seem to endorse storming the Capitol as a good thing worthy of a repeat performance, so yeah there's a threat there.
seem to endorse storming the Capitol as a good thing worthy of a repeat performance
That's pretty much bullshit.
However, I suspect there are a high number of people that think 1/6 was distasteful/disgraceful but not a "threat" in any real substantive sense.
You don't think there is anyone on this blog that cheered Jan 06? Or that thinks we need a conservative uprising to take back Amerca from the tyranny of the libs?
I can find examples if you really think that's not true. Yeah, that's nutpicking. But in this case, the nuts are what makes such lies dangerous.
Yes, find examples. Because I suspect it's more an example of your knee jerking as opposed to other peoples' reactions.
Aktenberg saying we need an American Pinochet.
Ed slavering for the collapse of America/a truckers' strike, and subsequent refounding by Real Americans.
DavidBehar and his view of lawfare.
Jimmy telling RAK that one fine day he will get a knock on his door.
Here's Jimmy saying January 06 is just the beginning:
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/07/my-thoughts-on-january-6-2021/#comment-8679955
Or any gun thread where someone brings up how conservatives have all the guns so liberals had best be politer.
This site's conservative comments have called for liberal judges to be gassed;
for liberals to expect knocks at their doors;
for liberals to be sent to Zyklon showers;
for liberals to be placed face-down in landfills;
for liberals to be shot when they answer their doors;
and the like.
(The Volokh Conspiracy does not appear to censor those violent threats. But it removes descriptions of conservatives as "c_p s_ccors," forbids calling any conservative a "sl_ck-j_w," and issues bans for those who make fun of conservatives too deftly for his taste. This blog's management is entitled to engage in that partisan, hypocritical, viewpoint-driven censorship.)
When you gaslight Sarcastro you really do a dirty job of it. I said it was just the beginning because people on the right are no longer going to be silenced by cancel culture and elite media. You know what I meant. Just search the thread for my name. Stop taking everything that anyone says who you don't agree with and painting it with shades that don't exist.
Also the same about my "knock on the door" comment. It was around the same time that leftists were encouraging their activists to go camp out in front of politicians houses, chase them out of restaurants, and harass them in their private life. All I did was point out that AK thinks that is all fun and games until he gets a late night knock on his door. Just because you think lefties are justified in their violence doesn't mean it is objectively so.
Also quit being a dirty gaslighting liar.
I’m happy you learned a new word, and figured out how to spell is, but you have yet to use “gaslighting” correctly.
Add it to the long list of concepts which are unclear to Mr. the Dane.
The funny thing about 1/6 was the number and identity of those identified, and never charged. Somehow the people breaking glass were never charged. Humm...
Oh, and who murdered Ashli Babbitt, the only person to have died from violence that day? Still waiting for his identity, almost six months later. No surprise that the “investigation” that “exonerated” him (whomever he is) was also never released, even to Republican leaders and members in Congress.
Going with Tucker's latest dumbasery, I see. Unindicted coconspirators are pretty common. They're generally people who cooperated with the FBI?
Turning Babbitt from a tragedy into a martyr really shows what you're willing to support.
Ashli Babbitt was not murdered. She punched her own ticket to the Play Stupid Games Win Stupid Prizes Hall of Fame.
Glad the lefties around here stand on principle when an unarmed protester is killed by police....
Picking a fight with armed police is not a wise choice.
Aslhi Babbitt?
Oh, the woman who decided that climbing past a barricaded doorway through a broken window into a hallway with security personnel already having their guns drawn and aimed at said barricades?
Got what she deserved. Strange hill to die on, friend. Just try not to do it while wearing a "Trump 2020" flag.
"Got what she deserved. "
Sorry Jason. Those aren't the rules of engagement notr the standards we should hope for in this society.
You -- or some other downscale clinger -- should file a criminal complaint against the person who shot Ashli Babbitt. Good luck with that one.
Disgruntled, anti-social, disaffected, irrelevant culture war losers have rights, too. (But not the right to be taken seriously or to be respected.)
Considering that no charges were filed against the person who shot her, it seems the rules of engagement were followed.
She crossed the red line and ate the consequences.
I think there are people with law licenses out there who incited the riots last year. How many of them were debarred?
Something tells me these two fine upstanding members still have their licenses in NY.
Felony conviction = automatic disbarment in NY, so it would be something of a waste of resources to actively seek disbarment while their statuses are being sorted out. (Unlike with Rudy, their actions would need to be proven; Rudy's are a matter of public record.)
Have anyone in mind or just throwing fertilizer out there?
You're going to have a lot of trouble proving incited.
Proving lied is easier, but those goal posts don't work for you so you'll try a somewhat longer analogy.
Fairly rich coming from a vocal cheerleader for the summer riots and actual separatist undertakings by the left.
I think we are supposed to forget that lefties spent the summer setting up autonomous zones, chasing out police from various "no go" neighborhoods, burning down governmental and police buildings, and creating general anarchy in some urban centers. But, somehow we are all supposed to buy around 300 unarmed tourists almost overthrew our 250+ year old government by milling around the capitol and taking pictures.
"I think we are supposed to forget that lefties spent the summer setting up autonomous zones, chasing out police from various “no go” neighborhoods, burning down governmental and police buildings, and creating general anarchy in some urban centers."
Yes, you're supposed to forget all the things that happened in your imagination during a fever dream.
"Yeah, that’s nutpicking. But in this case, the nuts are what makes such lies dangerous."
It's just a coincidence that all the nuts seem to pick the same side.
Jan 6 was a pro-democracy protest. The only person killed was patriotic mother who was executed on the spot by that Schiff thug. He should have been arrested, tried for murder, and faced the death penalty. He should be visited now.
"Jan 6 was a pro-democracy protest."
... held by anti-democracy insurgents.
"In other words, the action was taken to discredit him"
Having you defend him also causes this effect.
The decision (link in the OP) explains the threat to the public. Here is a key paragraph:
Except he can do that without a law license. Suspending his license as a preliminary matter, you need to show that him practicing law is extremely likely to cause serious harm, not him doing other things could cause harm.
Once you've shown a willingness to lie, confidence that you're telling the truth is compromised. Once the court has no confidence that you stick to the truth, you have no business practicing law. At least he has his laptop-fixing business to fall back on.
Democrats suspend GOP lawyer. Dog bites man.
Need a tissue, Bob? I wouldn't want to see the deed to a shed get marred by tears.
Once a Commie sympathizer, always a Commie sympathizer.
Better Americans don't want your respect or understanding, I Callahan.
But we will have your compliance with our preferences.
"Democrats suspend GOP lawyer. Dog bites man."
GOP lawyer gets caught lying. Same dog, same man.
This is a poor decision, and one motivated by politics and attempts to squash political dissent.
Rudy hasn't been convicted of anything. He hasn't even been indicted on anything. What's his "crime"? Being wrong on something?
In that case, just about every lawyer who pursued the "Russian collusion" charges should be disbarred by NY State as well.
If NY is going to use disbarment as a political punishment, it should be made abundantly clear....that's really what this is.
This isn't criminal, tho?
The GOP is not the party of sabotaging the Republic, even if you seem to be into it. Lying the screw up the peaceful transfer of power is not political, it's just bad.
No, it's political.
No, it's about lying.
Just because on side in politics is full of dumbasses who believe the lie doesn't make it not a lie.
It's political. Plenty of other NY lawyers have lied
Not to courts, at least not so flagrantly.
" It’s political. Plenty of other NY lawyers have lied. "
Flailing clingers whining about consequences are among my favorite culture war casualties.
S0,
Unless you are privy the the proceedings of the Attorney Grievance Committee of the NY Bar, I would not sound so certain about the reasons for disbarrment
I mean, we are privy!
It's a matter of public record!
But of course he hasn't been disbarred; only suspended.
"disbarrment"
Does this word mean being unable to work in any job that requires personal integrity, as in the case of Bill Barr?
"If NY is going to use disbarment as a political punishment, it should be made abundantly clear….that’s really what this is."
It's as political as when Arkansas pulled Bill Clinton's law license, in that a political figure was involved. But that's approximately it. Being a politician makes it OK to lie to the public. But being admitted to the bar makes it not OK to lie to courts. Rudy had a choice, and he chose poorly. Like the Nazis at the end of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". If you watched closely enough, you could see his face melting, like the Nazis at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
Could someone provide a compelling example of misconduct? What is the standard for such proceedings - "more likely than not"?
"communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts" seems a good place to start. The PA fraud-not-a-fraud lawsuit.
And check out what he said about Dominion. Including on Jan 06
Same Dominion that refused to provide passwords to its systems to either the Maricopa County election officials, or the AZ Senate election Audit team? Whose machines were remotely accessed across the Internet in the early morning right after the election, while they were still counting ballots, and who refused to explain? That Dominion?
The same Dominion that sent a bunch of liars about that kinda stuff running with some defamation lawsuits. But not soon enough for you, it seems.
"Same Dominion that refused to provide passwords to its systems to either the Maricopa County election officials, or the AZ Senate election Audit team?"
Hint: You shouldn't give your password(s) to anyone, any time.
It is pretty fresh that accuse someone of lying when they were not given the chance to prove anything (whether or not that procedural posturing was legally correct). The left here is saying we want this to be a lie, so therefore we are calling it a lie.
I haven't been keeping up with the AZ audit, but the media has been running interference down there even though nothing has been actually reported out. Probably just an "insurance" plan at this point.
The whole thing stinks though. I certainly hope a few big cities were not stuffing the ballot box, but it also wouldn't surprise me. The media treated Trump like he was the Hitler of our time and there was nothing more morally compelling to a liberal then "beat trump" in 2020. I do think they would go to any means to do so.
You can speculate whatever crazy stuff you want under a pseudonym on the Internet. But you don't get to do it without evidence under your own name and authority in public or in court.
Well, you do, but there will be consequences.
Giuliani and Powell submitted thousands of sworn affidavits to various courts around the country. Sworn under penalty of perjury. Under normal circumstances, that would be considered significant evidence.
Haha, no. The affidavits turned out to not prove anything, they were stuff like 'I wasn't close enough' and 'this one guy looked suspicious.'
Remember when they had someone testify on what she saw? That...did not go well.
The Volokh Conspiracy’s fans provide an extended Mellissa Carone performance in these comments sections.
Carry on, clingers.
Except that when it came time to present the evidence they folded. Almost like they did not want anyone to see the evidence. Leading to the conclusion that they had nothing. It is easy to stand in front of a lawn service company and claim fraud, quit another to present evidence in court.
Have you read the opinion and order of suspension? Giuliani claimed that his false statements were not made knowingly, but he declined to provide supporting affidavits or documentation as to his sources of information.
I'm all for holding people accountable. So let's start with Hillary and her illegal email server....
Seems to me certain people in the establishment get the "pass" while others have to pay the price.
Except that Hillary's server was not illegal. Hillary Clinton, unlike Rudy Giuliani, is a smart enough lawyer to know what she can get away with.
Seems to me you pick things that aren't analogous and try to analogize them with pure outrage. And creates a fact-free perceived double standard to fuel more outrage - yay for you, I guess!
Your latest gaslighting attempt.....
I said your analogy was bad. You just replied by calling me a liar and that's it.
Weak sauce, Jimmy. I'm gonna go for a swim.
All I did was point out the two sets of rules you would like to apply to your friends and enemies. You are living in a state of denial. Hope the kool aid by the pool is tasty though.
Speaking of self-deluded losers, Mr. the Dane is back.
“I’m all for holding people accountable, but before we hold guilty people accountable, can we breathe more air this bullshit I pretend to believe?”
I suspect you’re a Brett troll account, used so he can really let his hair down without harming the brand.
" let’s start with Hillary and her illegal email server"
mail servers aren't illegal.
Sheesh, did you even read the decision?
Wait, never mind, we all know the answer.
He was represented and had the opportunity to respond and provide all kinds of material.
"It is pretty fresh that accuse someone of lying when they were not given the chance to prove anything"
How about lying about whether or not someone was given the chance to prove anything when they voluntarily dismiss their own cases?
Here’s one attorney’s Twitter walk through the document...
https://mobile.twitter.com/questauthority/status/1408107910224297986
Here’s another, although they both share similar perspectives. I picked this one spot in his thread because it appears to make an important point but the rest should be accessible.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1408126454550994944
I guess it doesn’t work that way. Anyway, two similar Twitter walks through the decision.
Now he is free to keep on spreading false accusations, except he won't be Trump's lawyer.
He won't be anyone's lawyer. Except maybe in Saudi Arabia, Brazil . . . or I hear he's big in Ukraine!
Only the Russian occupied parts.
I momentarily thought, 'maybe we shouldn't laugh about a guy losing his license,' but then remembered the pointless aggravation my friends and I experienced while litigating against the Elite Strike Force.
Let the chips -- and the law licenses -- fall as they may. And keep the good jokes coming.
" then remembered the pointless aggravation my friends and I experienced while litigating against the Elite Strike Force."
they made it too easy? And that was aggravating?
Sure, except everything he’s spread so far is bullshit and this suspension says so. The only dopes who’ll buy his nonsense now are the people who will believe his nonsense no matter how foolish they look and sound.
those people are called "Republicans", and there are a lot of them. Not, fortunately, enough to be a majority, but plenty.
@Artifex,
Has anyone ever told you you're a rude and unpleasant person?
You'd think on a libertarian blog there'd be a lot more people incensed over stripping a person of their government permission slip to work before there has been a full adjudication of the case, regardless of how they feel about the person at issue.
Maybe libertarians are more likely to notice that this particular person was stripped of his bar privileges after a hearing at which the accused was represented and given an opportunity to present evidence.
More likely to notice than you are, I mean.
"'This is unprecedented as we believe that our client does not pose a present danger to the public interest,' they said. 'We believe that once the issues are fully explored at a hearing, Mr. Giuliani will be reinstated as a valued member of the legal profession that he has served so well in his many capacities for so many years.'"
I suppose that in the alternate reality where Trump won the 2020 election, it's also possible the Rudy was a valued member of the legal profession who served well in his many capacities. In this objective reality where Rudy's a clown who was representing an even bigger clown, it's just all clown.
This is but an interim suspension, but this saga has already reached its "lamentations of their women" stage.
I hope the valiant lawyers who were required to spend holidays and late nights responding to Trump Elite Strike Force's legal incompetence are celebrating Mr. Giuliani's suspension with an exquisite beer.
So how does this punishment compare to the leeway lawyers typically are allowed? Don't strain yourself offering analysis, Prof. Adler.
We have entered the 'lamentations of their women' phase for our vestigial clingers, it appears.
It's a nice day, mad_kalak. Try to forget your well-deserved, long-term stomping in the culture war and try to enjoy a beautiful afternoon.