Dan Warnick

U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, 0R0 said:

The survey was about CV19 induced panic, which Biden supporters believed in, while Trump supporters were doubting the panicdemic. Long term, it means nothing. For the argument of favoring one political party over another it means only that Dems are far more likely to prefer voting by mail since it is far easier to insert fake voters and fake ballots that way than in person. 

In short, you are floating a Bogus argument.

 

Uh huh. While it's true that COVID exacerbated this divide, there are very reasonable structural reasons why you'd want to make voting more "frictionless" especially in dense urban areas.

Coincidentally, these are also areas where there are a lot more Democrats on average.

Consider for example, places where there are long lines:

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/there-were-five-hour-lines-to-vote-in-arizona-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/

Republicans have been, for a long time, making it more and more inconvenient to vote. This is not about "voter integrity". This is about suppression. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Let's see what @surrept33's hero AOC said, shall we? 

Without Covid, what are the odds the least popular democrat presidential candidate in history gets elected President? He couldn't even get 2% of the votes in his prior two runs. But yeah, now he's the most popular democrat presidential candidate in history? Just like that? No one believes you anymore!

 

I do not condone that tweet, but far worse came out of Trump's mouth on a daily basis. 

Trump was the worst candidate since Hillary Clinton in 2016. 

Edited by surrept33
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Michigan Republicans find no voter fraud and say Trump claims ‘ludicrous’

Report finds no evidence of dead voters or Detroit ballot dump that benefited Biden, and denounces baseless allegations

The Michigan report represents a stunning repudiation of the unsubstantiated claims made by the state’s pro-Trump activists and Trump himself.
The Michigan report represents a stunning repudiation of the unsubstantiated claims made by the state’s pro-Trump activists and Trump himself. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
 
Tom Perkinsin Detroit, Michigan
Wed 23 Jun 2021 14.00 EDT

Last modified on Wed 23 Jun 2021 14.29 EDT

An investigation into the Michigan election by state Republican lawmakers has concluded that there is no evidence of widespread fraud and dismissed the need for an Arizona-style forensic audit of the results.

The news comes amid a broad push by many Republicans – from Donald Trump to state parties – to push unfounded lies about Joe Biden’s victory, often promoting baseless conspiracy theories and evidence-free accusations of fraud.

The Michigan Republican report released on Wednesday followed 28 hours of legislative hearings starring local and national pro-Trump conspiracy theorists such as former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. The report labeled many of their claims “ludicrous” and called on the state Democratic attorney general to open investigations into those who may have profited from making false claims.

The report was authored by the Republican-controlled senate oversight committee and it said it found no evidence of dead voters, no precincts with 100% turnout and no evidence of a Detroit ballot dump that benefited Biden, as GOP activists have claimed occurred.

“There is no evidence presented at this time to prove either significant acts of fraud or that an organized, wide-scale effort to commit fraudulent activity was perpetrated in order to subvert the will of Michigan voters,” the report reads.

“Citizens should be confident the results represent the true results of the ballots cast by the people of Michigan.”

The report represents a stunning repudiation of the unsubstantiated claims made by the state’s pro-Trump activists and Trump himself in their bid to overturn the critical battleground state’s results. Biden won Michigan by about 154,000 votes, or three percentage points. The tally was upheld by judges appointed by both parties in state and federal court, the bipartisan boards of state canvassers and reviews by election officials.

Still, Trump supporters have been applying intense pressure on state Republican officials to work to overturn the election results, and have censured or promised primary challenges for those who reject their far-fetched claims.

Trump had not responded to the report as of Wednesday afternoon, but in May issued a characteristic threat to his party when he said that Michigan’s senators “should be run out of office” if they haven’t reviewed “the Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020”.

In the report, state senator Ed McBroom took aim at the pro-Trump activists who “who have pushed demonstrably false theories for their own personal gain”.

“If you are profiting by making false claims, that’s pretty much the definition of fraud,” McBroom said.

The office of Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, said on Wednesday that it’s still reviewing the report.

Despite that the report rebukes the conspiracy theories, the investigation found “glaring issues that must be addressed” in state election law, and the party is still pushing forward with a package of 39 controversial voting restrictions that it plans to ram through using a constitutional loophole that can bypass the veto of the Democrat governor, Gretchen Whitmer.

The Democrat state senator Jeff Irwin, who serves on the oversight committee, was the lone vote against the report. He noted that Michigan has paper ballots that confirm the results and praised Republican committee members for being “willing to stand and say that Michigan has free and fair elections”, but he added that the recommendations for new restrictions are unnecessary.

“They are responding to their GOP constituency more than they are offering good policy ideas,” he said.

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, surrept33 said:

“The votes have been counted multiple times, including a hand recount, and no evidence of fraud has been found,” County Board of Commissioners Chairman Robb Pitts said last month. “The fact remains that Fulton County safely and securely carried out an election in the midst of a public health crisis.”

 

The numbers had been made to add up to an unknown figure not disclosed which the SOS claimed was near the official count.

In order to achieve this magic number, stacks of Trump ballots were put into Biden bins and counted for him. It was hand cheating as opposed to hand counting. 

You can't expect the same people to do differently than they had before. Just perhaps different illegal tricks to achieve the same illegal ends. If you suspect criminal activity  you do not rely on the suspect conducting it to disclose it in a statement, nor to do any different when called on to repeat the activity. 

There were witnesses to the initial count pointing to probable fraud and there were witnesses to the recount pointing to probable fraud. The witnesses are providing sworn affidavits, the election officials are lawyered up and are relying on protection from their friends in law enforcement to avoid investigation and prosecution. 

It is far past the point where any government official or organization is trusted unless on the record actively fighting the other's abuses. There was hope after the Church hearings that things would be cleaned up, Reagan was elected with the hope that would happen. It did, for a short while and then things resumed their descent into outright criminal government. Since it is official policy of the left that the ends justify the means, you should expect nothing but a criminal outcome wherever "progressives" have control or influence. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, notsonice said:

The Michigan Republican report released on Wednesday followed 28 hours of legislative hearings starring local and national pro-Trump conspiracy theorists such as former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. The report labeled many of their claims “ludicrous” and called on the state Democratic attorney general to open investigations into those who may have profited from making false claims.

 

RINOs are in the election fraud game just as the Dems are. No expectation that they will allow investigation into their own questionable means of obtaining office. The possibility of there having been no election fraud in MI is nill. The count record and the forensics done so far do indicate a large scale fraud and an obviously illegitimate election as the machines were far off spec on error rates, and were connected to the internet and thus amenable to external interference which was actually  captured on internet traffic and saved. What the report is saying is that the committee has things to hide. 

This will not age well. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that until backed up by a real forensic audit, the counts in all states for all offices are suspect in all states, and the count for the presidential election in the Swing states + VA and IL is obviously wrong. The "evidence" that the opposition to audits wants in order to admit to the possibility of fraud is only possible to obtain by confession of election officials or forensic audit. In other words, they demand that a "catch 22" situation be called an honest election resolution, but are unwilling to let anyone check on them. That makes their position impossible to accept. The basic expectation of the public should be that all election officials be willing to have their handiwork checked by an actually independent group NOT consisting of the election officials and their usual contractors and vendors. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 0R0 said:

RINOs are in the election fraud game just as the Dems are. No expectation that they will allow investigation into their own questionable means of obtaining office. The possibility of there having been no election fraud in MI is nill. The count record and the forensics done so far do indicate a large scale fraud and an obviously illegitimate election as the machines were far off spec on error rates, and were connected to the internet and thus amenable to external interference which was actually  captured on internet traffic and saved. What the report is saying is that the committee has things to hide. 

This will not age well. 

Your babbling BS about large scale fraud has not aged well. Nothing to support your claims to date. NADA , now move along with the rest of the losers.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, notsonice said:

Your babbling BS about large scale fraud has not aged well. Nothing to support your claims to date. NADA , now move along with the rest of the losers.

There is a coordinated effort by the MSM to avoid covering evidence. The only thing allowed is to claim that there is no evidence. You are living in a deliberate mirage of disinformation created by them. Step out into reality, it will do you good.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is now final Cindy McCain is now a US diplomat, her political depth must be extraordinary, or maybe a just a operative/friend of the resistance. Nice retirement pkg, to say the least. Free from political retribution and traveling the world on the tax payers dime.

Biden nominates Cindy McCain for UN food agency ambassadorship

McCain’s nomination is a bipartisan move on Biden’s part, as she is a prominent Republican businesswoman in Arizona. Biden was friends with her husband, who represented the state, and Cindy McCain endorsed Biden during his run for president in 2020. The McCains’ daughter Meghan McCain is a conservative TV personality.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/cindy-mccain-un-ambassadorship-495752

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

It is now final Cindy McCain is now a US diplomat, her political depth must be extraordinary, or maybe a just a operative/friend of the resistance. Nice retirement pkg, to say the least. Free from political retribution and traveling the world on the tax payers dime.

Biden nominates Cindy McCain for UN food agency ambassadorship

McCain’s nomination is a bipartisan move on Biden’s part, as she is a prominent Republican businesswoman in Arizona. Biden was friends with her husband, who represented the state, and Cindy McCain endorsed Biden during his run for president in 2020. The McCains’ daughter Meghan McCain is a conservative TV personality.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/cindy-mccain-un-ambassadorship-495752

No name is not on the other side of the political lane, he was Deep State CIA practically from birth, just like Biden. Sold out his country in as bad a way as Obama Hilary and Biden. Conservative? I would not want to be a McCain in an actual conservative milieu. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

37 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

It is now final Cindy McCain is now a US diplomat, her political depth must be extraordinary, or maybe a just a operative/friend of the resistance. Nice retirement pkg, to say the least. Free from political retribution and traveling the world on the tax payers dime.

Biden nominates Cindy McCain for UN food agency ambassadorship

McCain’s nomination is a bipartisan move on Biden’s part, as she is a prominent Republican businesswoman in Arizona. Biden was friends with her husband, who represented the state, and Cindy McCain endorsed Biden during his run for president in 2020. The McCains’ daughter Meghan McCain is a conservative TV personality.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/cindy-mccain-un-ambassadorship-495752

That's rich right after Trump, in an effort to "destroy the deep state", gave his mega rich cronies a record number of ambassadorships, including to all of the usual tourist destinations:

https://www.afsa.org/appointments-donald-j-trump

Biden looks like he's reverting the ratio back from the historically corrupt Trump administration.

 

About 44% of US ambassadors nominated by Trump have been political appointees, compared with a historical average of about 30%, according to the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA). That percentage is getting higher. Out of the ambassador nominations so far this year, 57% have gone to political appointees.

The dramatic increase of top posts being given to wealthy entrepreneurs like Lana Marks – a handbag designer made US ambassador to South Africa last year – could violate the law, which requires most ambassadorial posts to go to state department diplomats, and for ambassadors to have relevant experience.

The Foreign Service Act of 1980 requires that most ambassadors should be career foreign service officers, that political appointments should be a rarity, and that all appointees should be fully qualified for their positions.

We are concerned that the percentage of political appointees is higher than at any time in recent history, and also with the number of nominees who do not appear to be qualified for their positions,” Eric Rubin, the AFSA president, said.

He urged the US Senate to scrutinise the qualifications of nominees with the aim of returning to the historic norm of between 25% and 35% of posts being reserved for political appointees.

“The current percentage of about 45% is way above historical norms and has a negative impact on our diplomacy and overseas operations,” Rubin said. The Senate has so far overwhelmingly backed Trump’s ambassadorial nominations.

The Washington Post has described US ambassadorships as “destination tourism for the mega-rich”. Ryan Scoville, an associate law professor at University of Marquette, published a study of political appointee ambassadors last year. Comparing the Trump administration with the Ronald Reagan era, Scoville found the new appointees were “inferior in terms of language abilities, prior experience in the receiving state and region, prior experience in foreign policy and prior experience in organizational leadership”.

On the other hand, Trump appointees paid 15 times more than their Reagan counterparts in campaign contributions.

“There is an element of being in an election year, when political favours go a long way,” Bruen said.

 

Edited by surrept33
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Rudy the Leader of Q?

 

Rudy Giuliani is suspended from law practice over Trump, false election claims

By Jonathan Stempel and Jan Wolfe 

Thu, June 24, 2021, 9:29 AM

 
 

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Rudy Giuliani's law license in New York state was suspended on Thursday, as a state appeals court found he had lied in arguing that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from his client, former U.S. President Donald Trump. 

Giuliani, 77, a former U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and New York City mayor, was sanctioned for making unsubstantiated claims in court, testimony before lawmakers, press conferences and other media appearances about electoral fraud. 

The five-justice Appellate Division in Manhattan found "uncontroverted" evidence that Giuliani made "demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public" in trying to overturn the election, which Democrat Joe Biden won. 

60c8f0d64406c82630078de7_o_U_v2.jpg
 
 
"These false statements were made to improperly bolster (Giuliani's) narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client," the court said. "We conclude that respondent's conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law." Giuliani could not immediately be reached for comment. The court said Giuliani made numerous false statements about the voting in Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania, including that hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots or votes, including from dead people, had been improperly counted. It highlighted a Pennsylvania court hearing on Nov. 17 where Giuliani alleged widespread voter fraud — though his formal written complaint on Trump's behalf made no mention of it. The court also rejected Giuliani's argument that the investigation into his conduct violated his constitutional right to free speech and suggested the suspension may become permanent. "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," the court said. Giuliani's suspension takes effect immediately, pending further proceedings before an attorney grievance committee that had recommended it. The suspension adds to the legal problems for Giuliani, who as New York City mayor won wide praise for his response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have been examining Giuliani's dealings in Ukraine, including whether he violated lobbying laws by acting as an unregistered foreign agent while working as Trump's lawyer. Giuliani got his law license in 1969. He began representing Trump in April 2018 as Special Counsel Robert Mueller was probing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and Jan Wolfe in Washington; Additional reporting by Karen Freifeld; Editing by Lisa Shumaker) 
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

That's rich right after Trump, in an effort to "destroy the deep state", gave his mega rich cronies a record number of ambassadorships, including to all of the usual tourist destinations:

https://www.afsa.org/appointments-donald-j-trump

Biden looks like he's reverting the ratio back from the historically corrupt Trump administration.

 

About 44% of US ambassadors nominated by Trump have been political appointees, compared with a historical average of about 30%, according to the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA). That percentage is getting higher. Out of the ambassador nominations so far this year, 57% have gone to political appointees.

The dramatic increase of top posts being given to wealthy entrepreneurs like Lana Marks – a handbag designer made US ambassador to South Africa last year – could violate the law, which requires most ambassadorial posts to go to state department diplomats, and for ambassadors to have relevant experience.

The Foreign Service Act of 1980 requires that most ambassadors should be career foreign service officers, that political appointments should be a rarity, and that all appointees should be fully qualified for their positions.

We are concerned that the percentage of political appointees is higher than at any time in recent history, and also with the number of nominees who do not appear to be qualified for their positions,” Eric Rubin, the AFSA president, said.

He urged the US Senate to scrutinise the qualifications of nominees with the aim of returning to the historic norm of between 25% and 35% of posts being reserved for political appointees.

“The current percentage of about 45% is way above historical norms and has a negative impact on our diplomacy and overseas operations,” Rubin said. The Senate has so far overwhelmingly backed Trump’s ambassadorial nominations.

The Washington Post has described US ambassadorships as “destination tourism for the mega-rich”. Ryan Scoville, an associate law professor at University of Marquette, published a study of political appointee ambassadors last year. Comparing the Trump administration with the Ronald Reagan era, Scoville found the new appointees were “inferior in terms of language abilities, prior experience in the receiving state and region, prior experience in foreign policy and prior experience in organizational leadership”.

On the other hand, Trump appointees paid 15 times more than their Reagan counterparts in campaign contributions.

“There is an element of being in an election year, when political favours go a long way,” Bruen said.

 

You are quoting WaPo a sister organization of PRAVDA? Indeed that is rich. 

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

You are quoting WaPo a sister organization of PRAVDA? Indeed that is rich. 

WaPo a sister organization of PRAVDA??? another load of babble from the losers who supported Trump. PS Rudy really needs your help

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's it like being a useful idiot? Poor Babylon Bee, they write satire but the idiot class satirize themselves. All eejitss all the time. 

524F5C69-88A9-44B7-A00E-23BE61F36970.jpeg

4E2A6824-AC94-40FA-BA31-FD01AA5D52CE.jpeg

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

Is Rudy the Leader of Q?

 

Rudy Giuliani is suspended from law practice over Trump, false election claims

By Jonathan Stempel and Jan Wolfe 

Thu, June 24, 2021, 9:29 AM

 
 

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Rudy Giuliani's law license in New York state was suspended on Thursday, as a state appeals court found he had lied in arguing that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from his client, former U.S. President Donald Trump. 

Giuliani, 77, a former U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and New York City mayor, was sanctioned for making unsubstantiated claims in court, testimony before lawmakers, press conferences and other media appearances about electoral fraud. 

The five-justice Appellate Division in Manhattan found "uncontroverted" evidence that Giuliani made "demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public" in trying to overturn the election, which Democrat Joe Biden won. 

60c8f0d64406c82630078de7_o_U_v2.jpg
 
 
"These false statements were made to improperly bolster (Giuliani's) narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client," the court said. "We conclude that respondent's conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law." Giuliani could not immediately be reached for comment. The court said Giuliani made numerous false statements about the voting in Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania, including that hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots or votes, including from dead people, had been improperly counted. It highlighted a Pennsylvania court hearing on Nov. 17 where Giuliani alleged widespread voter fraud — though his formal written complaint on Trump's behalf made no mention of it. The court also rejected Giuliani's argument that the investigation into his conduct violated his constitutional right to free speech and suggested the suspension may become permanent. "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," the court said. Giuliani's suspension takes effect immediately, pending further proceedings before an attorney grievance committee that had recommended it. The suspension adds to the legal problems for Giuliani, who as New York City mayor won wide praise for his response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have been examining Giuliani's dealings in Ukraine, including whether he violated lobbying laws by acting as an unregistered foreign agent while working as Trump's lawyer. Giuliani got his law license in 1969. He began representing Trump in April 2018 as Special Counsel Robert Mueller was probing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and Jan Wolfe in Washington; Additional reporting by Karen Freifeld; Editing by Lisa Shumaker) 

Trump:

"Rudy? Rudy who? He's a nice guy, being treated very unfairly. But really, I hardly knew him."

"Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."-Abraham Lincoln

Rudy Giuliani spoke on Trump's behalf in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, and removed all doubt.

Next up, Sidney Powell...

Edited by turbguy
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Trump:

"Rudy? Rudy who? He's a nice guy, being treated very unfairly. But really, I hardly knew him."

Know who else can't practice law? 

Clintons, Obama's, Pelosi, actually this list is going to get too long. The reverse is easier, I'll just name all the current democrat politicians still allowed to practice law…

Hang on…

Just a minute…

I'm sure I can find one…

Nope…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

 

Losing a licence to practice because you have been away from the field for too long is much different that being reprimanded.

Retired versus fired.

 

 

Edited by -trance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

Is Rudy the Leader of Q?

 

Rudy Giuliani is suspended from law practice over Trump, false election claims

By Jonathan Stempel and Jan Wolfe 

Thu, June 24, 2021, 9:29 AM

 
 

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Rudy Giuliani's law license in New York state was suspended on Thursday, as a state appeals court found he had lied in arguing that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from his client, former U.S. President Donald Trump. 

Giuliani, 77, a former U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and New York City mayor, was sanctioned for making unsubstantiated claims in court, testimony before lawmakers, press conferences and other media appearances about electoral fraud. 

The five-justice Appellate Division in Manhattan found "uncontroverted" evidence that Giuliani made "demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public" in trying to overturn the election, which Democrat Joe Biden won. 

The actual judgement:

http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2021/06_Jun/24/PDF/Matter of Giuliani (2021-00506) PC.pdf

It's sad really. Rudy is a fragment of a man he used to be when he was the public face of anti-corruption and good governance. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

Just a sampling of what they found:

(emphasis mine)

On professional misconduct:

Only uncontroverted claims of professional misconduct may serve as a basis for interim suspension on this motion. The AGC relies upon the following provisions of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct: rule 3.3 which provides that: “(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal . . . .” rule 4.1 which provides that: “In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third person,” and rule 8.4 “A lawyer or law firm shall not: . . . (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, . . . or (h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.” Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the prohibition against false statements is broad and includes misleading statements as well as affirmatively false statements.

 

On knowing he was spreading lies and misleading "rumors" as fact:

Respondent also raises lack or absence of knowledge as a general defense, stating that even if his statements were false or misleading, he did not make the statements knowing they were false when he made them. On this motion, whenever the AGC has sustained its burden of proving that respondent made knowing false and misleading factual statements to support his claim that the presidential election was stolen from his client, respondent must then demonstrate that there is some legitimate dispute about whether the statement is false or whether the statement was made by him without knowledge it was false. 

On the first amendment:

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]). Unlike lay persons, an attorney is "a professional trained in the art of persuasion" (Ohralik v Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 US 447, 465 [1978]). As officers of the court, attorneys are "an intimate and trusted and essential part of the machinery of justice" (Gentile v State Bar of Nevada, 501 US at 1072 [internal quotation marks omitted]). In other words, they are perceived by the public to be in a position of knowledge, and therefore, "a crucial source of information and opinion" (Gentile v State Bar of Nevada, 501 US at 1056 [internal quotations marks omitted]).

 

On Pennsylvania:

Respondent repeatedly stated that in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania more absentee ballots came in during the election than were sent out before the election. The factual “proof” he claimed supported his conclusion was that although Pennsylvania sent out only 1,823,148 absentee ballots before the election, 2,589,242 million absentee ballots were then counted in the election. This factual statement regarding the number of ballots mailed out before the election was simply untrue. 

Respondent does not deny that his factual statement, that only 1.8 million mail-in ballots were requested, was untrue. His defense is that he did not make this misstatement knowingly. Respondent claims that he relied on some unidentified member of his “team” who “inadvertently” took the information from the Pennsylvania website, which had the information mistakenly listed (Giuliani affidavit ¶49). There is simply no proof to support this explanation. For instance, there is no affidavit from this supposed team member who is not identified by name or otherwise, nor is there any copy of the web page that purportedly listed the allegedly incorrect data. 

Really, this "rumor" likely came from facebook or 8chan. 

 

On attempts to disenfranchise Philadelphia, a common theme amongst Republicans:

Respondent repeatedly stated that dead people “voted” in Philadelphia in order to discredit the results of the vote in that city. He quantified the amount of dead people who voted at various times as 8,021; while also reporting the number as 30,000. As the anecdotal poster child to prove this point, he repeatedly stated that famous heavyweight boxer Joe Frazier continued to vote years after he was dead and stated on November 7, 2020 “he is still voting here.” The public records submitted on this motion unequivocally show that respondent’s statement is false. Pennsylvania formally cancelled Mr. Frazier’s eligibility to vote on February 8, 2012, three months after he died. As for respondent's argument that his misstatements were unknowing, respondent fails to provide a scintilla of evidence for any of the varying and wildly inconsistent numbers of dead people he factually represented voted in Philadelphia during the 2020 presidential election. Although respondent assured the public that he was investigating this claim, respondent has not provided this tribunal with any report or the results of any investigation which supports his statements about how many dead voters he claims voted in Philadelphia in the 2020 presidential election.

 

On Georgia:

Respondent stated to lawmakers, and the public at large, that more than 2,500 Georgia felons voted illegally. The Georgia Secretary of State also investigated this claim. By comparing lists from the Departments of Corrections and Community Supervision, with the list of people who actually voted in November 2020, the Secretary of State identified a universe of 74 potential felony voters, who were then investigated.. Even if all 74 identified persons actually voted illegally, the number is nowhere near the 2,500 that respondent claimed and the number would, in any event, be statically irrelevant in supporting a claim that the election was stolen. Respondent claims to have relied on the unproduced affidavit of Mr. Geels for this information as well.

On "expert" affidavits:

At various times, respondent claimed that 65,000 or 66,000 or 165,00 underage voters illegally voted in the Georgia 2020 election. The Georgia Office of the Secretary of State undertook an investigation of this claim. It compared the list of all of the people who voted in Georgia to their full birthdays. The audit revealed that there were zero (0) underage voters in the 2020 election. While a small number of voters (four) had requested a ballot prior to turning 18, they all turned 18 by the time the election was held in November 2020. Respondent does not expressly deny the truth of this information. Instead respondent claims that he reasonably relied on “expert” affidavits, including one by Bryan Geels, in believing the facts he stated were true. Other than respondent calling him an “expert,” we do not know Mr. Geels' actual area of expertise or what qualifies him as such. Merely providing names and conclusory assertions that respondent had a basis for what he said, does not raise any disputed issue about whether misconduct has occurred.

Respondent stated that dead people voted in Georgia during the 2020 presidential election. He claimed that he had the names of 800 dead people who voted based upon the number of people who had passed away in 2020. Respondent further stated that this number was really in the thousands. At another point he claimed that 6,000 dead people had voted. This claim was refuted by the Georgia Secretary of State. After reviewing public records, the Secretary of State concluded that potentially two votes may have been improperly cast in the name of dead voters in the 2020 election and those instances were being investigated.

Respondent's argument with respect to the video is that a reasonable observer could conclude that there was an illegal counting of the mail-in ballots. If, as respondent claims, he reviewed the entire video, he could not have reasonably reached a conclusion that illegal votes were being counted. We disagree that the video can be viewed as evidence of illegal conduct during the vote tabulation process or that it provided a reasonable basis for respondent’s conclusions.

 

On Arizona:

Respondent made false and misleading statements that “illegal aliens” had voted in Arizona during the 2020 presidential election. These false facts were made by respondent to perpetuate his overall narrative that the election had been stolen from his client. This time respondent claimed there were 32,000 of such illegal votes. Respondent admitted in the podcast that he did not have the “best sources” to justify this estimate, but stated that he was relying on “newspaper and records” for his claims (id.)

On their face, these numerical claims are so wildly divergent and irreconcilable, that they all cannot be true at the same time. Some of the wild divergences were even stated by respondent in the very same sentence. Moreover, at the November 30, 2020 hearing, when it was brought to respondent’s attention that no study to support the conclusions had been done, respondent persisted in making these false factual statements. In January 2021, respondent even admitted that he did not have the “best sources” to justify the numbers he was stating as fact. Nonetheless, respondent has failed to produce any sources, whether “best” or marginal, to support any of the figures he has presented to the public with authority

Edited by surrept33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

59 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

What's it like being a useful idiot? Poor Babylon Bee, they write satire but the idiot class satirize themselves. All eejitss all the time. 

524F5C69-88A9-44B7-A00E-23BE61F36970.jpeg

4E2A6824-AC94-40FA-BA31-FD01AA5D52CE.jpeg

I like Babylon Bee. 

I disagree with the New York times here because the M-word should not be used lightly:

https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-york-times-admits-babylon-bee-is-satire-not-misinformation-after-legal-threat/

The satire is a lot better quality than most of the right wing "meme wars": https://www.vice.com/en/article/xyvwdk/meme-warfare

 

Edited by surrept33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

The actual judgement:

http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2021/06_Jun/24/PDF/Matter of Giuliani (2021-00506) PC.pdf

It's sad really. Rudy is a fragment of a man he used to be when he was the public face of anti-corruption and good governance. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

Just a sampling of what they found:

(emphasis mine)

On professional misconduct:

Only uncontroverted claims of professional misconduct may serve as a basis for interim suspension on this motion. The AGC relies upon the following provisions of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct: rule 3.3 which provides that: “(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal . . . .” rule 4.1 which provides that: “In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third person,” and rule 8.4 “A lawyer or law firm shall not: . . . (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, . . . or (h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.” Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the prohibition against false statements is broad and includes misleading statements as well as affirmatively false statements.

 

On knowing he was spreading lies and misleading "rumors" as fact:

Respondent also raises lack or absence of knowledge as a general defense, stating that even if his statements were false or misleading, he did not make the statements knowing they were false when he made them. On this motion, whenever the AGC has sustained its burden of proving that respondent made knowing false and misleading factual statements to support his claim that the presidential election was stolen from his client, respondent must then demonstrate that there is some legitimate dispute about whether the statement is false or whether the statement was made by him without knowledge it was false. 

On the first amendment:

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]). Unlike lay persons, an attorney is "a professional trained in the art of persuasion" (Ohralik v Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 US 447, 465 [1978]). As officers of the court, attorneys are "an intimate and trusted and essential part of the machinery of justice" (Gentile v State Bar of Nevada, 501 US at 1072 [internal quotation marks omitted]). In other words, they are perceived by the public to be in a position of knowledge, and therefore, "a crucial source of information and opinion" (Gentile v State Bar of Nevada, 501 US at 1056 [internal quotations marks omitted]).

 

On Pennsylvania:

Respondent repeatedly stated that in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania more absentee ballots came in during the election than were sent out before the election. The factual “proof” he claimed supported his conclusion was that although Pennsylvania sent out only 1,823,148 absentee ballots before the election, 2,589,242 million absentee ballots were then counted in the election. This factual statement regarding the number of ballots mailed out before the election was simply untrue. 

Respondent does not deny that his factual statement, that only 1.8 million mail-in ballots were requested, was untrue. His defense is that he did not make this misstatement knowingly. Respondent claims that he relied on some unidentified member of his “team” who “inadvertently” took the information from the Pennsylvania website, which had the information mistakenly listed (Giuliani affidavit ¶49). There is simply no proof to support this explanation. For instance, there is no affidavit from this supposed team member who is not identified by name or otherwise, nor is there any copy of the web page that purportedly listed the allegedly incorrect data. 

Really, this "rumor" likely came from facebook or 8chan. 

 

On attempts to disenfranchise Philadelphia, a common theme amongst Republicans:

Respondent repeatedly stated that dead people “voted” in Philadelphia in order to discredit the results of the vote in that city. He quantified the amount of dead people who voted at various times as 8,021; while also reporting the number as 30,000. As the anecdotal poster child to prove this point, he repeatedly stated that famous heavyweight boxer Joe Frazier continued to vote years after he was dead and stated on November 7, 2020 “he is still voting here.” The public records submitted on this motion unequivocally show that respondent’s statement is false. Pennsylvania formally cancelled Mr. Frazier’s eligibility to vote on February 8, 2012, three months after he died. As for respondent's argument that his misstatements were unknowing, respondent fails to provide a scintilla of evidence for any of the varying and wildly inconsistent numbers of dead people he factually represented voted in Philadelphia during the 2020 presidential election. Although respondent assured the public that he was investigating this claim, respondent has not provided this tribunal with any report or the results of any investigation which supports his statements about how many dead voters he claims voted in Philadelphia in the 2020 presidential election.

 

On Georgia:

Respondent stated to lawmakers, and the public at large, that more than 2,500 Georgia felons voted illegally. The Georgia Secretary of State also investigated this claim. By comparing lists from the Departments of Corrections and Community Supervision, with the list of people who actually voted in November 2020, the Secretary of State identified a universe of 74 potential felony voters, who were then investigated.. Even if all 74 identified persons actually voted illegally, the number is nowhere near the 2,500 that respondent claimed and the number would, in any event, be statically irrelevant in supporting a claim that the election was stolen. Respondent claims to have relied on the unproduced affidavit of Mr. Geels for this information as well.

On "expert" affidavits:

At various times, respondent claimed that 65,000 or 66,000 or 165,00 underage voters illegally voted in the Georgia 2020 election. The Georgia Office of the Secretary of State undertook an investigation of this claim. It compared the list of all of the people who voted in Georgia to their full birthdays. The audit revealed that there were zero (0) underage voters in the 2020 election. While a small number of voters (four) had requested a ballot prior to turning 18, they all turned 18 by the time the election was held in November 2020. Respondent does not expressly deny the truth of this information. Instead respondent claims that he reasonably relied on “expert” affidavits, including one by Bryan Geels, in believing the facts he stated were true. Other than respondent calling him an “expert,” we do not know Mr. Geels' actual area of expertise or what qualifies him as such. Merely providing names and conclusory assertions that respondent had a basis for what he said, does not raise any disputed issue about whether misconduct has occurred.

Respondent stated that dead people voted in Georgia during the 2020 presidential election. He claimed that he had the names of 800 dead people who voted based upon the number of people who had passed away in 2020. Respondent further stated that this number was really in the thousands. At another point he claimed that 6,000 dead people had voted. This claim was refuted by the Georgia Secretary of State. After reviewing public records, the Secretary of State concluded that potentially two votes may have been improperly cast in the name of dead voters in the 2020 election and those instances were being investigated.

Respondent's argument with respect to the video is that a reasonable observer could conclude that there was an illegal counting of the mail-in ballots. If, as respondent claims, he reviewed the entire video, he could not have reasonably reached a conclusion that illegal votes were being counted. We disagree that the video can be viewed as evidence of illegal conduct during the vote tabulation process or that it provided a reasonable basis for respondent’s conclusions.

 

On Arizona:

Respondent made false and misleading statements that “illegal aliens” had voted in Arizona during the 2020 presidential election. These false facts were made by respondent to perpetuate his overall narrative that the election had been stolen from his client. This time respondent claimed there were 32,000 of such illegal votes. Respondent admitted in the podcast that he did not have the “best sources” to justify this estimate, but stated that he was relying on “newspaper and records” for his claims (id.)

On their face, these numerical claims are so wildly divergent and irreconcilable, that they all cannot be true at the same time. Some of the wild divergences were even stated by respondent in the very same sentence. Moreover, at the November 30, 2020 hearing, when it was brought to respondent’s attention that no study to support the conclusions had been done, respondent persisted in making these false factual statements. In January 2021, respondent even admitted that he did not have the “best sources” to justify the numbers he was stating as fact. Nonetheless, respondent has failed to produce any sources, whether “best” or marginal, to support any of the figures he has presented to the public with authority

Gee if only I could find thousands of lies by democrats in the public square. Like, oh I don't know, RUSSIAN collusion hoax? By attorneys and politicians both, making it up. In point of fact, should Giuliani fight this he will win. They know he won't bother because… he's 77 years old, well past retirement. They're trying to conflate statements he made to the press, with statements made in court. Of course they can't do that because they used every trick in the book to make sure he never got to Court!

Just like they're doing with every other lawyer who fights for democracy, the objective is to silence and threaten. Even the lawyer who represented Trump in the sham peachmint "trial" has been vilified and attacked, and he's a democrat! You guys are 100% a-holes 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

You are quoting WaPo a sister organization of PRAVDA? Indeed that is rich. 

I think that's an exaggeration. It wasn't THAT long ago the WaPo had pretty bipartisan "trust" levels. 

From 2014: 

5446619369bedd2b5b3ecd67.thumb.jpeg.a60cc51b65a44e30f0898b707f8a1409.jpeg

 

So what happened? Well, Trump made an enemy of the free press, egged on by Bannon, who had every incentive, as the leader of the "alt" media, for business reasons, to setup an "alternative" press for his own personal gain. This is fine, but keep in mind authoritarians use this tactic to solidify power when it's combined with lies and deceit.

 

Let's see what his own former press secretaries had to say;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/a-history-of-the-trump-war-on-media--the-obsession-not-even-coronavirus-could-stop/2020/03/28/71bb21d0-f433-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

 

But inside Trump circles, there’s a sense that criticizing the media has served him well with his base, who see it as fair pushback against a journalism establishment they are convinced is unduly harsh on their leader. “There is no question,” said Tim Murtaugh, communications director for Trump’s 2020 campaign, “that the hostility of the mainstream media towards the president is something that gets the president’s supporters fired up.”

“I don’t think it’s good for democracy that we’re branding an entire industry as an enemy,” said Sean Spicer, Trump’s first press secretary. “But is it effective? I think so. I’m not saying it’s right.”

Trump used to love the media. He courted reporters by giving them access and coaxing positive coverage. His path to celebrity was sprinkled with glowing profiles and glitzy magazine spreads that promoted a portrait of a self-made real estate savant, rather than the scion of a successful business built by his father.

 

“He is tall, lean and blond with dazzling white teeth, and he looks ever so much like Robert Redford,” read a 1976 New York Times profile. By the 1980s, Trump had graduated to the cover of Newsweek, appearing with his hands on his hips, a smile that seemed to say he was on top of the world and the headline: “Trump: A billion-dollar empire and an ego to match.”

As president, Trump has sometimes lamented the end of his love affair with the profile writers and headline stylists who used to find him so irresistible.

“I had a 45-year good relationship with the press, and what the hell happened?” Trump asked Anthony Scaramucci, the short-lived White House communications director, who recalled the moment in an interview with The Washington Post.

 

“I told him, ‘You declared war! You had Steve Bannon declare war,’ ” recalled Scaramucci, referring to Trump’s former campaign chief and White House adviser. (Scaramucci left the Trump administration after 11 days in office when a tape surfaced of him berating a reporter.)

 

Some in the White House tried to push back at his broad-brush “fake news” characterizations. Spicer recalled going over stories with the president that had displeased him, assessing them section by section. “We would talk about it,” Spicer told The Post. “He then typically branded it fake.”

One afternoon in February 2017, ensconced at Mar-a-Lago, he deployed his Twitter account to declare with all-caps bombast that the “FAKE NEWS media” is “the enemy of the American people.” He specifically cited the New York Times, CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS.

 

His statement on that day generated shock in the media world and among his critics. But it caught on with conservative fans who have long nurtured a belief that the mainstream media tilts to the left.

Three years later, the smear has taken hold on conservative websites and in the long lines of supporters outside Trump rallies, functioning like an Internet GIF that cycles endlessly on the screens of the national consciousness.

A master of catchphrases, Trump had created a rallying cry in “enemy of the people” that seems to have penetrated a large part of the national psyche. Already, according to a recent poll, one-third of Americans agree with him that the media is the people’s enemy.

It's hardly unusual for a president to clash with the press. Richard Nixon kept journalists on his enemies list, while his vice president, Spiro Agnew, dubbed them "nattering nabobs of negativism." Bill Clinton griped openly about coverage of his White House sex scandal, and candidate George W. Bush was caught on a hot mic calling a New York Times reporter a "major league asshole." Barack Obama's administration brought a record number of prosecutions against journalists' sources for leaking government information, according to the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

But on Feb. 26, Trump found a novel way to bedevil the media when his reelection campaign sued the New York Times. The suit claimed that an opinion piece published 11 months earlier had defamed the campaign by asserting that “the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy . . . had an overarching deal.” It demanded millions of dollars in damages.

The filing attorney was Charles Harder, the hard-charging lawyer who won the $115 million judgment that ran the Gawker website out of business for publishing a sex tape involving the wrestler Hulk Hogan.

Days later, Harder sued The Washington Post in federal court, taking issue with opinion pieces written last June by Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman, who both argued that the Trump campaign had signaled a willingness to accept assistance from foreign governments. The Post’s publisher, Fred Ryan, called the suit “a shameful ploy designed to intimidate news organizations as they work to inform voters on the important issues at stake in this election.”

Four days after the Post suit, Harder filed the suit against CNN, over an opinion column by Larry Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission who also painted the Trump campaign as open to Russian assistance.

Katherine Bolger, a partner at the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine specializing in First Amendment issues, called the lawsuits “bordering on frivolous” and likely to be dismissed. “These articles are critical of the president, not his campaign, so in some ways the wrong plaintiff sued,” she said. And the articles “are largely opinion, based on disclosed facts,” and thus are protected speech.

“We were founded on the ability to criticize our political leaders,” Bolger said. “You are allowed to communicate truthful things that are critical of our government.”

 

In recent months, Trump called Chris Wallace, the widely respected host of Fox News Sunday, "nasty and obnoxious," sniping that he will "never be his father, Mike," a legendary "60 Minutes" correspondent. He also tarred Peter Baker, a star Times reporter, as "an Obama lover." And as his Senate impeachment trial got underway, he took a break from the World Economic Forum in Davos to call The Washington Post's Pulitzer-winning reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig "stone cold losers" on Twitter.

 

The late Roger Ailes built a whole network in Fox News out of the conservative sense of grievance toward mainstream media. But Trump has taken that mind-set to even greater extremes. “He’s now gotten everyone on the right to use the same terminology and that’s the big change,” Spicer noted.

Trump’s quickness to label stories fake has created new peril for media organizations: Any journalistic misstep or factual error, even if it is speedily corrected, can become a talking point in service of the notion that the media is out to get the president.

 

 

Edited by surrept33
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Know who else can't practice law? 

Clintons, Obama's, Pelosi, actually this list is going to get too long. The reverse is easier, I'll just name all the current democrat politicians still allowed to practice law…

Hang on…

Just a minute…

I'm sure I can find one…

Nope…

Know who else can't practice law? 

 

Obama (s)  ? all they have to do is pay the bar fees........

Pelosi is not a lawyer so .......what is your point???

 

now back to the subject at hand

Rudy Giuliani is suspended from law practice over Trump, false election claims

 

Game Over for another one of Trumps Useless Idiots.

 

PS hows Rudy doing in his lawsuits?  can not practice law ?

 

 

 

 

Edited by notsonice
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, notsonice said:

Know who else can't practice law? 

 

Obama (s)  ? all they have to do is pay the bar fees........

Pelosi is not a lawyer so .......what is your point???

 

now back to the subject at hand

Rudy Giuliani is suspended from law practice over Trump, false election claims

 

Game Over for another one of Trumps Useless Idiots.

 

PS hows Rudy doing in his lawsuits?  can not practice law ?

 

 

 

 

Kangaroo court, in New York swamp no less. Meaningless and he'll win on appeal if he chooses, but at his age why bother? THAT was their strategy all along. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Kangaroo court, in New York swamp no less. Meaningless and he'll win on appeal if he chooses, but at his age why bother? THAT was their strategy all along. 

Kangaroo court??? nope law of the land. Meaningless???? nope he no longer can practice law nor can he claim anything he does now until he is reinstated is Lawyer-client privileged ...........Trump will have no Lawyer willing to stand with him PERIOD. Enjoy ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.