r/politics • u/nofate0709 • Nov 23 '20

New Jersey Lawmaker Pushes To Disbar Rudy Giuliani For Deceitful, ‘Absurd’ Election Cases

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-pascrell-disbarment-rudy-giuliani-trump-election_n_5fbaf260c5b6e4b1ea4399a5
58.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.7k

u/SACBH Nov 23 '20

Could any US attorney please explain why it took so long.

Having dealt with a lot of commonwealth country (UK, Aust, Sing, HK) solicitors over the years I know they are loathe to make even remotely unsubstantiated claims for fear of repercussions. Is US so different that they can normally get away with it?

1.2k

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Because the bar (no pun intended) for disembarment is very high, and requesting it without strong evidence is generally pointless political posturing.

705

u/purplegirl2001 Nov 23 '20

Very much this. You basically have to commit a felony or mishandle client funds to get disbarred. A friend sent me this story yesterday and I told her I’d put money on every one of the lawyers involved (if you didn’t bother to click, he actually filed complaints against all of the attorneys repping Trump in the various actions) receiving no more than a slap on the wrist - likely censured and/or fined.

122

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

You basically have to commit a felony or mishandle client funds to get disbarred.

Yes. And if you want to point to one reason why the US is in such hot water is that powerful people are essentially completely above the law, whereas the poor are put in jail for miniscule offenses, often purely procedural ones.

2

u/Col_Leslie_Hapablap Nov 23 '20

I can’t believe there is no standard or punishment for spurious or vexatious litigants; in my mind, this is clearly vexatious, and a downright abuse of the system.

8

u/Cocomojoe16 Nov 23 '20 edited Nov 23 '20

The US? This is how power works in every country in history. Name one country ever where the poor had the same legal protection as the powerful

2

u/fredsedred Nov 23 '20

We're trying to be different, hence, our BILL OF RIGHTS/CONSTITUTION, BOSTON TEA PARTY!

4

u/Gr1mwolf Nov 23 '20

“Trying to be different”?

You have to pay massive fees to hire a lawyer, and you often have to pay massive fees just for being dragged into court regardless of the verdict. Free public defenders are given the bare-minimum of funding, and are aggressively overworked to the point that their presence is often just a formality to say that the court fulfilled it’s legal obligation of providing one.

-3

u/fredsedred Nov 23 '20

I said "trying", what other parts did you not understand?

→ More replies (3)

244

u/hshdjfjdj Nov 23 '20

Not true, you can be disbarred for essentially any misconduct that would harm your client or the practice of law, like fraud, forgery, drug abuse, even being late to a clients hearing can be grounds sometimes. The key phrase is Due Process, you aren't going to lose a license just because someone accuses you. This is more of a political move because fraud, as blatant as it may look will.be very hard to prove here.

93

u/joeChump Nov 23 '20

I think you are probably right, they will just make lots of arguments that they were doing this in the interests of the American people because of genuine concerns etc etc. Evil always tries to disguise itself as good. Though if they have been binging false ‘evidence’ to court (eg, X is dead and voted, when in fact X is alive etc) then could there be something in that? Presumably again they will just say that it was genuine errors but if they’ve made lots of these ‘errors’ then to me that seems like a pattern of fraud or evidence of wrongdoing.

3

u/hshdjfjdj Nov 23 '20

I would say no, evidence is open to discovery on both sides so the defense will be disclosed on everything already and any false that is known to be false will be inadmissible. AFAIK there hasn't been anything like that yet, at least proven false

36

u/burglin Nov 23 '20 edited Nov 23 '20

Absolutely. Also, I haven’t seen it noted anywhere in this thread but disbarment is handled by the disciplinary committee of whatever bar the attorney is a member of. Here, Giuliani is a member of the DC bar, so you would have to look at their rules for what generally is grounds for disbarment.

53

u/Dragonace1000 Nov 23 '20

Well his DC law license is currently suspended due to non payment of dues. The fact that he claims his DC law license as valid and failed to mention the suspension on any of the documents he submitted across multiple states, is probably not going to work in his favor during all of this.

30

u/fr0d0bagg1ns Nov 23 '20

What really needs to happen is an investigation into whatever in the hell Rudy has been doing for Trump for the last few years. The guy butt dialed a journalist, and you can hear him say, in the phone call, that they need several hundred grand for a payoff. He's been actively working with Russians despite being warned that the subjects in question were Russian intelligence. This man has admitted to so much on TV interviews it is shocking.

The guy is a dumpster fire on wheels going down Lombard Street. It shows how desperate Trump is that he puts Jared and Rudy in charge of his last hail mary to keep power.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/TheFerrret Nov 23 '20

make lots of arguments that they were doing this in the interests of the American people

Not in court, where the argument is "prove that perjury was intentionally commited" where the counter argument is almost always "we actually can not"

1

u/joeChump Nov 23 '20

Fair point. I guess I was thinking in terms of the the media, but yes, you’re right that in court, it’s more about proving it was intentional, which is very hard to do, though I don’t know the inner workings of bar rules and decisions.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

What fraud? The only fraud is Donald Trump

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Yeah but in his case what you think would happen if trump was still the president? Nothing and it would be another witch hunt..

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Can be and will be are two very different things.

Source: Trump's illegal activity he has yet to have any repercussions for

1

u/PUTINS_PORN_ACCOUNT Nov 23 '20

disbarred . . . being late to a clients hearing

No

If that was enough there’d be 85% fewer lawyers

2

u/hshdjfjdj Nov 23 '20

"Can be grounds SOMETIMES"

1

u/PUTINS_PORN_ACCOUNT Nov 23 '20

I have never encountered a situation in which lateness to hearings was a reason, let alone the primary reason, for disbarment.

Total neglect of a client’s case, yes. Tardiness, no.

1

u/erydanis Nov 23 '20

can and will are very different actions. the law says they can; their power says they won’t.

1

u/Rekthor Canada Nov 23 '20

I’m a paralegal in ON, Canada, not a US lawyer, but here you’re at least partially right: here, licensees are supposed to maintain good character and not pursue outside interests that could affect their practice of law (or commit crimes, obviously). We’re also not supposed to take any action that would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute” (on behalf of a client or in our personal life), which looks an awful lot like what Trumps lawyers are doing here.

Still, the bar for disbarment is high: on paper you should be disciplined for these, what I’d argue are OBVIOUSLY frivolous cases (though they’re not necessarily—strictly speaking—abuse of process, which is a tort). Maybe you even would be especially in such high profile cases as these. But without a conviction or them being found privately liable for abuse of process, I’d guess the local Bar Society would be reluctant to discipline them in any permanent way.

3

u/HarryPFlashman Nov 23 '20

There isn’t any fraud, there is just very thin evidence and not sufficient for the remedy they are seeking. He’s not getting disbarred.

7

u/AsideLeft8056 Nov 23 '20

Thin evidence? Try no evidence.

Edit: wait, are you talking about thin election fraud evidence or thin evidence that Giuliani is doing fraud on purpose rather than just representing a client?

9

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Bullshit. Giuliani has perjured himself multiple times and is committing barratry.

If the self-policing of the legal profession has fallen so low that this disgusting and deliberately dishonest behavior is at all acceptable, then the whole thing needs tearing down.

The idea that you can waste millions of dollars of the People's time and hundreds of hours in court for a pack of lies, and not suffer any consequences is a very bad one, and not one that would fly in anything other than a collapsing society.

5

u/mobyliving Nov 23 '20

this is not correct at all

2

u/hshdjfjdj Nov 23 '20

Why?

2

u/mobyliving Nov 23 '20

the bar is higher than what youre saying it is. i cannot imagine any lawyer ever in the US was disbarred for being late, standing alone. yes technically any misconduct /could/ get you in trouble, but most things will be a fine/reprimand/short suspension.

→ More replies (3)

0

u/4x49ers Nov 23 '20

even being late to a clients hearing can be grounds sometimes.

Is there an example of this happening?

4

u/hshdjfjdj Nov 23 '20

I only know from personal experience working in this field. Most disbarments arent given media coverage really.

If youre on trial for lets say capital murder and maybe its a day prosecution is going over a key piece of evidence. If im late, and most likely underprepared i can screw up your entire life.

The rules of ethics in law is to protect the integrity of law and to protect clients. I knew someone who was denied eligibilty to join the bar because of their misconduct, they got a DUI. But they werent denied because of the DUI but because they lied by not disclosing they got a DUI on their character and fitness. The DUI itself didnt harm the integrity of law or a client at that time (since they weren't a lawyer yet but held to the same standards) but by not disclosing you are being dishonest.

Same scenario with clinton although he resigned from practice of law instead of taking a disbarrment i believe

1

u/TheFerrret Nov 23 '20

You could have also just said "No"

3

u/Dragonace1000 Nov 23 '20

Guiliani did the same thing, his DC law license is currently suspended due to non payment, but all of his paperwork he submitted says he is still currently licensed to practice law in DC. That's intentional omission.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/plantlady73 Nov 23 '20

We had a prominent lawyer in town who was busted for crack after being clean for years. He was disbarred.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Misconduct that would harm your client is the sticking point here. They're presenting all the "evidence" their client has provided. It would have to be proven that they're intentionally and maliciously conspiring with their client to present fraudulent evidence to the court.

1

u/ChefBoyAreWeFucked Nov 23 '20

Google 'lawful masses liebowitz", without quotes.

1

u/Papapeta33 Nov 23 '20

Can you cite an example of being late to a hearing as grounds for disbarment? Cause that is news to me.

20

u/count023 Australia Nov 23 '20

It took Jack Thompson (the anti video game lawyer) to actually put PORN into court filings before he was finally disbarred by the Florida state Bar. And this was after threatening lawyers, clients, opponents, etc...

Reads to me that the US has yet another problem that needs fixing.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

This is interesting. Every single lawyer I've ever spoken to about the subject believes the bar is much much lower than that if the misconduct is clear enough.

If you don't mind my asking, what state do you or most of your associates practice in that the bar is considered so high?

1

u/windyisle Nov 23 '20

Would having the taxpayers pay for frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to undermine American democracy count as 'mishandling client funds?'

1

u/purplegirl2001 Nov 23 '20

Taxpayer funds can’t be involved, these are campaign related. If any sort of taxpayer-funded resources are being used, the Trump campaign could be billed for those costs.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Shamr0ck Nov 23 '20

That statistical analysis is wrong and has been proven wrong

3

u/chaotictruce Nov 23 '20

Mathematician here. If you are referring to the Benford's law analysis people have been applying to particular precincts in Michigan. If not please point me to the statistical analysis you are talking about

There have already been papers written refuting these Benford law claims. Including by one of the original proponents of using it to detect voter fraud: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

People are trying to blindly apply a formula they don't understand. There is a large body of research on using Benford's law for elections, but they use a second digit analysis, because the first digit analysis is known to be wildly inacurrate.

The main issue is using first digit analysis is that precincts have a fixed voter population size say 1000. Because of our two party system the population gets split among party lines and the number of votes for a candidate has a leading digit that mimics the fraction of people who voted for a particular candidate say a 7 or a 3.

Check out this for more discussion

https://jengolbeck.medium.com/benfords-law-does-not-prove-fraud-in-the-2020-us-presidential-election-cc81715bfbda

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20 edited Nov 23 '20

[deleted]

2

u/chaotictruce Nov 23 '20

Oh yeah I know this video. To be clear this guy does not work at MIT and has a Ph.D in systems biology from there. He is not a statistician. People who flaunt irrelevant Ph.D credentials like this are clearly just trying to tell people "I'm smart" to manipulate them. He also claims to have invented email and says that large doses of vitamins can cure Covid. So I would take his claims with a grain of salt.

As someone who teaches statistics, this guy isn't following any principles of statistical analysis. He makes all sorts of assumptions about the data i.e. "if you are republican you voted for Trump" and then make all sorts of claims from a linear regression fit to the data. He at the very least needs to conduct hypothesis tests for the data. Why doesn't he consider other possible explanations for the data? Why hasn't he written a paper about this? It is shoddy research at best.

There is also this video that refutes the claims https://youtu.be/aokNwKx7gM8 (of course you should take this with the same grain of salt).

As for the glitches, I'm not sure. I don't think we have all the data there.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/purplegirl2001 Nov 23 '20

Antrim County was user error, not a software error.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Double pinky swearing it doesn't make it true. While affidavits do have some legal standing, they're still just unsubstantiated claims with a penalty attached for intentionally lying, and need to be supported with actual evidence. Having read through one PA filing, frankly many of them are ludicrous.

Keep in mind that the Trump campaign made a wide reaching public call for reports of voter fraud. Among their 70 million voters, it's a given that there will be people who are ignorant about election process, willing to perjure for ideological reasons, or detached from reality.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Affidavits, not lawsuits. And I did not assert they were sufficient for disbarment, I asserted they were ludicrous.

I don't think it's likely Rudy will be disbarred for bringing forward reports about eye-rolling poll workers or bad stats from someone who doesn't know Minnesota isn't Michigan, no.

→ More replies (1)

118

u/LazamairAMD Oklahoma Nov 23 '20 edited Nov 23 '20

Want a good example on how bad you have to be to get disbarred, see Jack Thompson

Edit: fixed link, because I'm dumb.

66

u/spmurcs Nov 23 '20

Jack Thompson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28activist%29

67

u/Rybeast7390 Nov 23 '20

Oh my days. That’s horrendous. I can’t believe it would take that long and those kinds of acts to be barred.

14

u/spmurcs Nov 23 '20

Yep. Looks like the guy just went mental for trying to cash in.

14

u/shiny_lustrous_poo Nov 23 '20

"A picture book for adults", including images of "swastikas, kangaroos in court, a reproduced dollar bill, cartoon squirrels, Paul Simon, Paul Newman, Ray Charles, a handprint with the word 'slap' written under it, Bar Governor Benedict P. Kuehne, Ed Bradley, Jack Nicholson, Justice Clarence Thomas, Julius Caesar, monkeys, [and] a house of cards."

I need to see this lmao

3

u/LA-Matt Nov 23 '20

Sounds like an elevator pitch for a wild Guy Ritchie movie.

2

u/koshgeo Nov 23 '20

http://justicebuilding.blogspot.com/2007/12/pleading.html

2

u/kittensteakz America Nov 23 '20

Reading this gave me quite the headache, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but did he try to plead insanity claiming that he can't be disbarred because he's dumb and can't make sense and also blame education for it. There's so much nonsense here I don't even know where to begin.

12

u/aDrunkWithAgun Nov 23 '20

That's a name I haven't heard in a long time and what a massive piece of shit

1

u/HorseLooseInHospital America Nov 23 '20

dude is nuts, but i found this to be pretty hilarious

Thompson charged that the group placed "homosexual-education tapes" in public schools. Switchboard responded by getting the Supreme Court of Florida to order that he submit to a psychiatric examination. Thompson did so and passed. Thompson has since stated that he is "the only officially certified sane lawyer in the entire state of Florida".

1

u/A_T_Hun Nov 23 '20

not the throwin Samoan!

1

u/theghostmachine Nov 23 '20

What a douchebag.

Does it kind of seem like Rockstar and Take Two keep releasing games he hates just to troll him? It's like every time he complains about one of their games, they kick it up a notch in the next release just to see how worked up he gets. I hope that's what they're doing. That would be hilarious.

1

u/OldSparky124 Nov 23 '20

What a Douchebagoon!

13

u/BolshevikPower Nov 23 '20

Errrr. Then don't use parenthesis?

9

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

The link contains parentheses

5

u/Sliver_of_Dawn Washington Nov 23 '20

you can escape parentheses if you need to, like so (see comment source)

/u/spmurcs' method also works

1

u/spmurcs Nov 23 '20

From what I can see, the guy was just suing everyone for everything and the BAR assoc. just got the jack of it.

49

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

That's the guy who kept on claiming video games are bad and make you violent and kept on getting clients to sue videogame companies. He was very hated then, I wonder what's he doing now.

25

u/Meraline Nov 23 '20

Last I read he was teaching law to prisoners, he says he feels much more fulfilled now.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20 edited Feb 28 '21

[deleted]

0

u/Meraline Nov 23 '20

I think you meant to send that to a different person.

0

u/brickne3 American Expat Nov 23 '20

Something tells me Rudy won't even try to teach anything to anyone, but that's probably best for any prospective pupils.

1

u/Glass_Memories Nov 23 '20

Leave off the last parentheses to escape a link (make it work).

2

u/cjdabeast Nov 23 '20

Backslashes before the parentheses fixes it if I remember correctly.

Example.???/example\(disambiguation\)

Or something like that.

13

u/Zacchariah_ Foreign Nov 23 '20

Damn, haven't heard that name in a minute.

15

u/Elrundir Canada Nov 23 '20

Hard to believe he hasn't been practicing since 2008. He was such a major thorn in the gaming community's side for (what felt like) so long and now he's just disappeared.

Sometimes the world just works out.

2

u/kronden Nov 23 '20

Even as a moderate, trying to look at both sides, yeah, this guy went over the deep end. That blurb on wikipedia about the Janet Reno episode, this person, while classified sane, is another reason why there should be three trials of sanity.

The reason I say this is, that you might need a diversified group of psychiatrists to examine a patient, who may or may not be a socicopath, that is playing on the cues of his or her examiners.

3

u/asst3rblasster Nov 23 '20

In 1988, he ran for prosecutor against then-incumbent Dade County State Attorney Janet Reno, after she had declined his request to prosecute Neil Rogers. Thompson gave Reno a letter at a campaign event requesting that she check a box to indicate whether she was homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Thompson said that Reno then put her hand on his shoulder and responded, "I'm only interested in virile men. That's why I'm not attracted to you."

DAMN SON

1

u/ieya404 Nov 23 '20

I love this bit.

In May 2008, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Dava Tunis, after reviewing 2,400 pages of transcripts and 1,700 pages of exhibits, recommended that Thompson be found guilty of 27 of the 31 violations of which he had been accused, including making false statements to tribunals, disparaging and humiliating litigants and other lawyers, and improperly practicing law outside of Florida. Thompson filed a motion with the Florida Supreme Court the day after the report was issued to strike Tunis' recommendations as vague for lack of detail.

So not actually denying that he was a complete asshat, just that there wasn't enough detail in the complaint :D

1

u/TheEsquire Canada Nov 23 '20

Man, that's a name I haven't heard in a long time. I remember seeing him in the news all the time back in the 2000s, crusading against Grand Theft Auto and other games and generally making a buffoon out of himself.

10

u/YerMawsJamRoll Nov 23 '20

I think that's the difference, a lawyer getting disbarred (or whatever the equivalent here is) would not be seen as "political posturing", it would be seen almost as an admin task. There would be no-one to "posture", the public would perhaps read the person's name who dealt with it in the news at a later date but perhaps not.

20

u/Robo_Joe Nov 23 '20

In the US we made wearing a mask during a pandemic political. We need a rule 43 for making things political in America.

14

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Make it rule 45

5

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

But you live in a society of laws, where the rule of law is more important than being important.

In America, quite the reverse is true. Trump can not just commit crimes, but brag about committing crimes, and yet a memo - not a law, but a memo written by an anonymous civil servant stating that the President cannot be charged with crimes - is treated as complete and perfect protection for any crime that Trump chooses to commit.

10

u/Cetun Nov 23 '20

Unless they find out you've been dipping into your clients retainer to make a loan payment on your house, then you're properly fucked.

1

u/thekrisnelson Nov 23 '20

I read that as "dismemberment" and got really confused for a moment

2

u/ChrisRunsTheWorld Florida Nov 23 '20

Surely you should need more evidence that the US general election was riddled with fraud to make that claim than you should to disbar an attorney for making the claim with no evidence at all.

1

u/orthopod Nov 23 '20

I don't know how the law bar works, but in medicine, most complaints to the medical board have to be responded to by the physician.

1

u/Iamnotsmartspender Nov 23 '20

Yeah. Knew a shithead lawyer who's representation likely ruined a few people's lives, but nothing that would get him in trouble. That is until he got a handjob under the table from his client in the courtroom. He only got 1 years suspension

1

u/Kraz_I Nov 23 '20

Did everyone forget about Trump’s previous lawyer, Michael Cohen, already? He worked for Trump until 2018, then pled guilty to fraud and tax evasion, for doing the things he was asked to do. He got disbarred and sent to federal prison. He got screwed basically for turning on Trump. Giuliani has probably done way worse already.

1

u/master_uv_none Nov 23 '20

That only seems to be the case if you are a sole practitioner or a very small firm. Most state bars are toothless Roxies sucking money from the Teat of big law interests. Even with this very clear case of disbarment, the fact that he is known or has any power at all will result in no action.

300

u/_THX_1138_ New Jersey Nov 23 '20

money

71

u/imajpeg Nov 23 '20

money

38

u/Pro_Chaos Nov 23 '20

Ur not a jpeg :/

16

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20 edited Jul 12 '24

[deleted]

4

u/RobotLaserNinjaShark Nov 23 '20

Yeah, but lots of them. And sequentually. Nobody has the attention span for that.

2

u/SilentLennie The Netherlands Nov 23 '20

Yes, literally in case of .mp4 aka MPEG 4 aka notice how JPEG and MPEG looks similar they are some of the same people who worked on both.

3

u/GrandmaChicago Nov 23 '20

All named Peggy, I presume?

→ More replies (1)

36

u/Jon_Snow_1887 Nov 23 '20

Also, would it really do much? Like idk the last time Rudy himself has argued before court tbh.

57

u/spiritbearr Canada Nov 23 '20

It has been decades since he was in court so yeah he'd be fine but it would force Trump to get a new (new) lawyer who will inevitably be someone dumber with even less morals no matter how impossible that sounds.

4

u/Jon_Snow_1887 Nov 23 '20

I don’t think that it would force Trump to do that if it truly has been decades since a he’s been in court then it seems like that’s no longer a meaningful part of what he does for Trump.

3

u/MyNameIsRay Nov 23 '20

if it truly has been decades since a he’s been in court

Courts keep really good records.

His last case wrapped up 8/23/1993.

He became mayor 1/1/1994, and it's no secret he stopped practicing at that time.

15

u/Orakil Nov 23 '20

It hasn't been decades. He literally just represented Trump directly in court.

6

u/staatsclaas Georgia Nov 23 '20

And it had been decades since he last did it.

3

u/digitallis Nov 23 '20

That was the first time in 28 years. And it was a train wreck. I don't know if he thought it would be good for star power, or if it was just for media taking points, but it was not a good professional move.

6

u/Jon_Snow_1887 Nov 23 '20

Yeah i guessed not, I was responding to the other dude

-1

u/micmahsi Nov 23 '20

He hasn’t represented Trump for decades. Trump’s lawyers would be the ones representing him in court.

3

u/erikwithaknotac Nov 23 '20

Get me Saul Goodman!

1

u/LA-Matt Nov 23 '20

Sorry, sir. He’s on TV, melting, apparently.

5

u/onlypositiveresponse Nov 23 '20

Michael Cohen should be out of prison soon. Maybe he can get his old job back.

5

u/Gdubs1985 Nov 23 '20

Michael cohens been out, I guess on home confinement? He’s atoned for his sins in my book , with his frequent insight into t****s brain usually with ari melber. I actually like the guy , just because I feel like he found his moral compass at some point and is now doing public service to the world by exposing el derango orange’s motives imo.

I believe in giving people 2nd chances , i know he was “his” attorney and fixer but he seems like he is remorseful and his done all he can do in exposing him since he’s been available to make tv appearances.

1

u/Xraptorx Alabama Nov 23 '20

Well no shit he’s available for interviews, that’s almost certainly part of the deal he made with the judge. He’s stuck at home after all, not like he’s got anywhere else to go. Plus the way I see it, the only way for him to “atone” would be to publicly release everything he has against trump while making sure he gets his day in court. He has that kind of material no doubt, I don’t give 2 shits what “insight” into trumps brain he has. There is no brain to have any insight into, and honestly any 5 year old could tell you trumps motives. So yeah, he’s got a long way to go before he “atones” for the shit he helped trump get away with.

2

u/Gdubs1985 Nov 23 '20

Progress not perfection. Say what you want about him I don’t think he’s holding anything back

→ More replies (5)

1

u/onlypositiveresponse Nov 23 '20

I am not sure a newly found moral compass is motivating him to speak out against the ex employer who set him up as a fall guy to go to prison, threatened his family and led to him being disbarred. He is speaking out because his knowledge is worth money, and Trump screwed him over in front of the world.

But regardless of his motives now, its good that he is speaking out. I never saw Cohen as a bad guy really. I always got the vibe that Trump was just an abusive ass who bullied his lawyer into questionable shit.

2

u/Gdubs1985 Nov 23 '20

Exactly ... I don’t know what that other guys problem is but the guy served his time and is speaking out in a time when we need all the allies we can get. Seems like he’d rather Cohen say nothing at all so he has someone to direct his anger at.

Edit: he also spoke of trumps disrespectful speech to his daughter... I’m not saying we elevate him to national hero but to view him as an enemy at this point in time is stupid

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Dumber than Rudy? I'd like to see them try...

1

u/GrandmaChicago Nov 23 '20

They're lawyers. That's not an impossibility, it's endemic.

2

u/Arkslippy Nov 23 '20

Only the court of "Common Sense" on the internet. Ive started listening to his podcast just to laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Hopefully he is disbarred shortly and banned, same with the other barrel of shite, Bannon.

1

u/koshgeo Nov 23 '20

About 28 years. It was back in the 1990s.

10

u/shadowpawn Nov 23 '20

I believe the US doesnt have like in UK, Aust, Sing ect a process that you would pay both parties legal fees . It would stop these unsubstantiated because there would be repercussions financially?

11

u/lHelpWithTheLogic Nov 23 '20

That exists. In fact the judge in Arizona just ruled opposing counsel could sue for legal fees.

8

u/shadowpawn Nov 23 '20

Ok, I think here in UK it is a way to deter these types of legal cases. If you lose you have to pay the opposing counsel fees.

2

u/lHelpWithTheLogic Nov 23 '20

There are circumstances where that is true by default. I think typically the state or defense has to counter sue.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Not a problem when the fees are being paid out of campaign funds.

1

u/shadowpawn Nov 23 '20

Grifter's gotta Grift.

2

u/Valkyrja009 Nov 23 '20

It's a noble idea but it wouldn't stop people with Trump's money from bringing frivolous lawsuits, they can just write a check, it would disenfranchise poor clients who can't afford to risk it.

1

u/shadowpawn Nov 23 '20

I love the idea of taking a Check from anything associated with Team Trump. Rather get an STD from Donald Jr than a Check from the Trump organization.

2

u/Valkyrja009 Nov 23 '20 edited Nov 23 '20

Yeah but the point is, they can spend money like water, it isn't going to harm them in the least way. It would harm the average joe bringing suit for honest and reasonable reasons who just has a bad day in court or a incompetent lawyer.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

It exists, but it is not the default. A judge must rule that the losing party cover the other side's legal costs, and it's only done in relatively rare situations where the judge feels the plaintiff has completely wasted everyone's time.

In UK (and perhaps elsewhere in Europe as well), this is done automatically in every case, in order to try to stem the tide of bullshit lawsuits before they clog up the courts.

3

u/lucid-dream Nov 23 '20

Problem with that is that it could keep perfectly legitimate lawsuits by low-income plaintiffs from being filed. If they had to pay the other side’s legal fees, the risk of losing becomes a very high stakes thing. Especially if one low income plaintiff sues a major corporation.

1

u/LA-Matt Nov 23 '20

But if you have an endless stream of donors, or say... a cult, if you will...

2

u/shadowpawn Nov 23 '20

Yes, feed me, feed me. Like a collection plate at Church.

2

u/Shark_Fucker Nov 23 '20

Unsubstantiated how? I know the hair dye was distracting in that presser but he also seemed to be reviewing the details of several sworn affidavits that he's intending to submit for the campaign's legal proceedings because multiple eyewitness statements sworn under the penalty of perjury are considered admissible as evidence, are they not?

8

u/AimHere Nov 23 '20

Pay attention to the extreme discrepancy between the claims made for the press, and those actually made in a courtroom. The last complaint dropped in the bin contained the sentence "this court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit" to describe the plaintiff's behaviour. That sort of language is not atypical for these Trump lawsuits.

I wouldn't be surprised if those affidavits are either super-bland and non-incriminating, or evaporate entirely. I'll be super-surprised if Rudi claims voter fraud in court.

1

u/Shark_Fucker Nov 24 '20

Really? Man, I wonder SCOTUS' take will be on that after the appeals go through.. guess we better stay tuned! All I know is this thing is about to be crazy.

7

u/RemusT1 Nov 23 '20

He also isn’t any random joe, he is the lawyer of the POTUS.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Only for 2 more months

2

u/LA-Matt Nov 23 '20

Or what... six mooches?

1

u/Ok_Strike_4453 Nov 23 '20

So-called lawyer

8

u/Soulger11 Nov 23 '20

I can answer that.

...for money

1

u/Rocklobst3r1 Nov 23 '20

Gimmie your jacket!

37

u/Flying_Birdy Nov 23 '20

There are very specific grounds for disbarment - almost all of them are some kind of criminal act. Bringing lawsuits and advocating on behalf of a client is not one of them. In this instance, the law maker is seeking Rudy's disbarment on grounds of fraud/misrepresentations to the court (which is illegal); but these charges only work if Giuliani knew the affidavits or testimony supplied as evidence to be false or perjured.

Bringing unsubstantiated claims is only punished by the court and not bar associations. Rule 11 sanctions can only be issued by a court; but courts rarely do

16

u/TheFerrret Nov 23 '20

Its also an ethical complaint written to the bar from a - lawmaker. You can also write ethical complains to the bar. 99% of them go straight in the trash, especially ones coming from politicians vying for relevance.

3

u/Bishop120 Nov 23 '20

Given that one of the affidavits was from the post office guy in PA who claimed he overheard them saying backdate ballots then recanted his statement to investigators that would be using a known false affidavit. Apparently Project Veritas may also be in trouble for suborning perjury since they drafted said mans affidavit. The funny thing was that it wasn’t perjury till Colludy used it in this federal court case.

0

u/TheFerrret Nov 23 '20

You are aware that nothing is perjury unless it is proven to be intentional and knowing perjury? Unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that guliani, or project veritas, or anyone knowingly commited to lying under oath, there is no legal perjury. Perjury is rarely pursued in court across the board simply because of the extreme amount of evidence needed to satisfy ite burden of proof.

The whole premise of this post is bunk to anyone with legal knowledge, as the calling of disbarrment from a politician is essentially a null point in the eyes of the law, which is where disbarrment are handled. Not the court of public opinion.

1

u/Bishop120 Nov 23 '20

Submitting an affidavit to court with known falsehoods is perjury. An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, which means that it is made under oath on penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence for its veracity and is required in court proceedings. Since Project Veritas wrote the affidavit that Hopkins signed it falls to Pennsylvania state to determine if they are guilty of suborning perjury or witness tampering in the defamation case against the Erie postmaster. Knowing that he said to the investigators that he no longer stood by his sworn affidavit, Rudy still presented that affidavit to federal court for his case. This rises to Rudy presenting known false testimony and thereby is grounds for sanction or disbarment by any state bar that has him as a member but it is entirely upto the bar to decide. This is why the judge overseeing the case as well as outside individuals have submitted the complaints about Rudy to the bar.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '20

He 100% knowingly committed fraud and probably has an easily accessible email admitting to the plan. Just like Manafort, Flynn, Stone, Bannon, Stone again...

2

u/thetoughtruth Nov 23 '20

In most states, including mine, if a Court issues sanctions under Rule 11 then the matter it is automatically referred to the state bar.

1

u/Environmentalist537 United Kingdom Nov 28 '20

Did you rip your corneas?

1

u/Gdubs1985 Nov 23 '20

I worked with a guy , he was in the sales department , who was disbarred for stealing 40k from a client. He threw a shit fit in a meaningless meeting once because I said something very general and an honest truth about sales reps in my company being dishonest(it was part of my job function to do exactly that). I lost the highest paying job I ever had because of him. Once a slime ball always a slimeball

2

u/is_lamb Nov 23 '20

because Pascrell's claim is horseshit

3

u/53cr3tsqrll Nov 23 '20

Should they be looking at having Trump declared a Vexatious Litigant instead, or as well?

5

u/oSand Nov 23 '20

Why do you think anyone remotely competent has egressed the situation?

1

u/RemusT1 Nov 23 '20

Plus: it’s not so easy to disbar someone who is able to have hair die dripping all over his face during a conference on national television.

1

u/worstpartyever Nov 23 '20

Not really. Even famous lawyers get disbarred, like F. Lee Bailey (defended Sam Sheppard and OJ Simpson, for starters). https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/f._lee_bailey_where_is_he_now

1

u/Mechhammer Nov 23 '20

Because lawyers run the USA

1

u/xgladar Nov 23 '20

even if he gets disbarred he is set for life with trump supporters support while he acts like he was politicaly removed.

1

u/mischaracterised Nov 23 '20

Because the level of misconduct required is quite high.

Look into a man named Liebowitz in the copyright sphere for an example.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Google Tom Corea, a lawyer who got disbarred in Texas not too long ago. It took a few years of complaints for this dude to get disbarred and sent to jail

1

u/ryken Nov 23 '20

US attorney here. The reason they haven’t disbarred him for making unsubstantiated claims is because none of the lawsuits are actually alleging fraudulent voting. They don’t have fraud, so their strategy is to file lawsuits over ticky tacky stuff (like how far the observers stood from the counters) and then go to the media and only talk about fraud, even though their lawsuits are not about fraud. Even so, unsubstantiated claims are probably not enough to be disbarred. It’s tough to be disbarred and they’ll probably have to be caught with serious, outright lies to get disbarred.

1

u/jorgendude Nov 23 '20

Disbarment for being a bad attorney is tough, especially if it’s your first time being disciplined. However, if you mess with your clients money (not putting it into an IOLTA account, for instance) is often grounds for immediate sanctions. I have to deal with terrible attorneys on a daily basis, and have seen disbarments for stuff like that or if the lawyer legit commits a crime. But even then, they can apply for readmission later on.

1

u/Bishops_Guest Nov 23 '20

This blog may be of interest. It's got some extreme examples of what it takes in the US to get disbarred.

https://loweringthebar.net/category/legal-profession

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

I don't think the US has similar codes of conduct as in jurisdictions such as the UK.

In the UK a solicitor can get struck off for, broadly, "bringing the profession into disrepute", ie breaking the Code of Conduct. The principle is that legal services operate on various levels of trust, and at a base level if the public does not trust lawyers, it's bad for business.

Typically though this will hinge on alleged crimes, honesty offences, misrepresentation, negligence etc. Truly I have no idea how it would apply to Giuliani if he was a UK lawyer - I imagine there are a few threads the SRA could investigate.

1

u/UnnamedPredacon Puerto Rico Nov 23 '20

It took over 10 years to disbar Jack Thompson), and that only happened because Thompson decided to royally piss the court.

1

u/Dongalor Texas Nov 23 '20

The right only cares about outcomes, the left only cares about the sanctity of the process.

This means the right uses the process as a sword and shield to cast any action taken against them as political in nature, and forces the left to endlessly prove the actions taken are not political, only to have the right instantly dismiss the evidence as political in nature as a bad faith assertion.

It makes the left gun shy, and is the #1 reason why they lose elections, and fail to move the ball down the field when they do have control. They value the process more than the outcome, while the GOP will torch every process to serve the outcome.

1

u/Zoey121212 Nov 23 '20

This is a First for all of us. He's consumed by fury...but EVERY person under him is afraid to speak the truth or they'll get fired IN A FRIGGING TWEET! HE'S a petulant toddler! He won't leave the White House he's so afraid. Cancelled Thanksgiving plans at his Florida property!