Connect with us

Opinion

The Stalinistic Approach to Disbarring Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani is an object of Democrats’ relentless, long-term witch hunt of Republicans, a victim of political persecution and selective suspension.

Jeff Davidson

Published

on

Rudy Giuliani

Former New York City Mayor and United States Attorney Rudy Giuliani, as widely publicized, is suspended from practicing law in New York State. A panel from the Appellate Division of the New York State Bar Association suspended Giuliani without a hearing. 

The suspension is based largely on statements Giuliani made on television, not in a courtroom, six months earlier. He was given no chance to dispute the charges at the evidentiary hearing.

Guilty By Innuendo

The suspension was initiated following a grievance presented to the Bar Association. The Appellate Division stated that the Bar, “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.” 

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The Appellate Division further wrote, “We conclude that respondent’s conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law, pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee.”

While Giuliani ultimately is to be accorded a post-suspension hearing, it’s likely that the judges have predetermined their ruling, with the result likely to be “substantial permanent sanctions;” in another words disbarment.

Hmmm… was anyone at the New York State Bar awake during the months of November and early December 2020? 

Terrible Tabulated Totals

The day before Thanksgiving, if you watched the Pennsylvania election fraud hearings conducted by Rudy Giuliani and the Trump legal team, an amazing number of articulate witnesses came forward. They offered voluminous specifics about election fraud and ballot tampering, all in the favor of Biden. 

Ret. Colonel. Phil Waldren, an ex-Army combat officer with expertise in data and electronic warfare, showed that a large batch of Pennsylvania ballots recorded 570,000 votes for Joe Biden, versus 3,204 for Donald Trump. Attendees gasped. The rate at which these ballots could be processed exceeded the capacity of the counting equipment.  

On November 30th, Rudy Giuliani and his team conducted a hearing in Arizona where many eye-witnesses offered detailed testimonies. These witnesses saw large batches of ballots being filled in, doctored, or backdated. Some ballots that favored President Trump were discarded. These Maricopa county witnesses, with no hesitation, were forthright in their testimony, offering intricate details. 

One witness discussed a batch of 11,000+ questionable ballots processed faster than anyone could ascertain their authenticity. Consider such a development in the face of the news that Biden ‘won’ the state by less than 11,000 votes. 

Remarkable Testimony

If you watched the Michigan post-election hearings on Tuesday, December 1st, you couldn’t help but marvel at the array of eyewitnesses. They gave detailed testimony about what they encountered on November 3rd and 4th

One witness saw a batch of military ballots, each one of them marked for Joe Biden, and all of these military ballots had been photocopied. This is an odd voting result, as pre-election surveys showed that U.S. law enforcement and military personnel heavily favored Donald Trump. 

Other witnesses in Detroit spoke in detail about a truck with multi-thousands of completed voter ballots, pulling up at 3:30 a.m. on November 4th. One witness saw that the Dominion voting machines were each wired to the Internet – a clear violation of the law. Other witnesses testified at length how GOP observers in the counting areas were harassed, intimidated, and often removed for the smallest infractions. https://rantingly.com/witness-at-michigan-hearing-says-dominion-voting-machines-were-connected-to-the-internet

A Dishonorable Attorney General

Despite all the first-person, eyewitness, affidavit-backed testimony, added to many more revelations of massive election voter fraud occurring in Wisconsin, Nevada, Virginia, and Georgia, the Attorney General of the U.S., the dishonorable William Barr, made head-scratching comments to the Associated Press. 

Barr said that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been following up on specific information and complaints that they’ve received. “To date,” he said, “we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.” Later, he claimed that the AP misrepresented his meaning. Misrepresented? He was quoted verbatim and knows such a statement would be twisted by Leftist media, and now, we discover, by Democrat-leaning state Bar Associations.

The eyewitness testimony in the three aforementioned states, by people who made sworn statements, collectively identified far more fraudulent votes than the margins by which Joe Biden apparently won.

Witch Hunts Galore

Nine-year olds, viewing the hearings, would be more astute than New York State Bar Association members.

Like Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani is an object of Democrats’ relentless, long-term witch hunt of Republicans in general and Trump administration officials and advisors in particular. He is a victim of political persecution and selective suspension based on the content of his constitutionally protected public speech, and not on the basis of impartial application of the law. 

Opinion

Biden Mandate Busted Again, This Time in Lone Star State

It was a BRUTAL smackdown at that!

Published

on

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures.

And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House.

The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas.

A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect.

There was no beating around the bush, either.

Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees.

“While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.”

And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures. And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House. The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas. A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.” Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect. There was no beating around the bush, either. Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees. “While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.” And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

Continue Reading

News

Fact Checkers Make Exception for Liberal-Leaning News Outfit

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

Published

on

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them.

You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”.

The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts.

NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench.

Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request.

But then:

Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding.

Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear.

“There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing anonymous sources,” said Matt Skibinski, general manager of Newsguard. “It’s hard to say anything definitive about either report without more information.”

But Newsguard cannot hide from this fact:

However, even after all three Justices named in the story – Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Roberts – made public statements debunking it, while NPR refused to issue a correction, Newsguard maintained that the story was still unfolding.

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them. You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”. The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts. NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story. On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench. Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request. But then: Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding. Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear. “There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week