"In the ruling, the court said Mr Giuliani's disciplinary charges stem from the "demonstrably false and misleading statements" he made to courts, lawmakers and the public in his capacity as Trump's lawyer.
"These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent's narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client," the court said, referring to Trump."
Because he lied. I just think it's weird anyone thinks this matters. Was he enjoying a lucrative career as a lawyer or something? I don't understand what this changes.
I think it matters because a court found "These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent's narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from [Trump]".
The more people point out that they were lies, the better. The fact that Republicans are silent on the matter is shameful.
It would be shameful if they were actually silent. But instead what they re doing is still repeating those lies. The only reason they won't lie under oath is because there are consequences for doing so. But if Trump wins and appoints loyalists to the DoJ there will no longer be consequences for telling lies that favor Trump under oath. So they will.
Rudy did and said many things that Lawyers are not supposed to do or say. He know better but his TDS got the best of him.
Opinion
5Opinion
I think it’s pretty clear he was the type to walk right on the line of what he can get away with. He pissed off the wrong people, didn’t play his cards right and ended up getting burned from all sides.
he should have read the 48 laws of power 😂
Just imagine... he used to be the guy who dared to take a stand against the all-powerful NYC mafia bosses in the 1980's. He used to be a national symbol of hope and resilience right after 9/11.
Now he's the idiot who has ruined his career and his life for Trump. He's the doofus whose picture was taken, with a psychotic stare, with streams of cheap hair dye running down the sides of his face.
There are two levels of justice in the US. Giuliani gets disbarred and Steve Bannon is in prison. Meanwhile Mirrick Garland is thumbing his nose at congress
No, he's not. There has been no trial, he has done nothing that decades of precedent allows (transcripts are acceptable evidence, you don't need recordings). Finally, SCOTUS just decreed that discussions with the AG are not permitted as evidence in court.
Oh, look, Republican SCOTUS gave something to the wrong POTUS.
No, Merrick Garland does not have to produce them, he's provided an accurate transcript. Please don't tell me you think the Republicans want the recording for evidence and not so they can use parts of them to make Biden look bad.
Take this interview, for example, and tell me they wouldn't pretend Biden fell asleep when he's adjusting his tie.
https://youtu.be/oZFeBHWtgzs
New York does not respect the rights of their political enemies.
@Juxtapose Projecting again. Courts decided they both did what they were accused of, the propaganda is saying the rule of law is worthless.
Nope, this is a political witchhunt plain and simple and would have never happened if Trump was not the prime political rival of Joe Biden.
Nothing about any of these cases against Trump or his allies are in any way valid whatsoever. This is pure Soviet Union nonsense using Stalinist tactics.
I wouldn't expect you to understand justice though, coming from a country that does this:
www.thepublica.com/.../
Its hard to tell @Juxtapose if @goaded simply doesn't care or has no idea how bad New York's politicians in black robes really are. New York is soo bad it is one of the only states that has more people fleeing to California for a better life than fleeing from California.
@monorprise @Juxtapose So you're both saying Trump didn't have boxes of government documents, to cite the most obvious example?
@Juxtapose Hur is a "far leftist" now, is he? Everyone you disagree with is a "far leftist".
@Juxtapose That's because you're in a cult that ignores reality.
@Juxtapose And Hur was going after Biden.
@goaded Only trump can really say if they were still goverment documents and as he was president when he took possession of them.
If he didn't think they were classified that is the end of the story because what is and is not classified reflects the president's view of the matter.
This is the nature of a congressional system of goverment. Presidents are in charge of what is and is not secrete. If the president doesn't believe it is a secrete then the information is public information.
@Juxtapose Hur was appointed because they knew he wouldn't charge Biden. Just as jack smith was appointed because they knew they would charge Trump no matter what as that is Jack's history.
Whether or not Hur is a democrat stooge or not is illrelevent, they knew his nature and his history as well as what Biden actually did. They knew he would not charge a sitting president because that might get in the way of career advancement. Just as they knew Jack would because Jack had a history of abusing his office to go after his political enemies.
Trump explicitly said, on "tape", he hadn't declassified the documents, and the law, not Trump, says the documents belonged to the government. The law was passed after Nixon took a bunch and sold them back to the government for $18 million.
Hur was a Trump appointee, and he said "evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt".
@goaded We already address the fact that Trump regularly lies to reporters who likewise lie to him, As such nothing Trump says to them can be accepted as the truth, Trump has no reason to tell them the truth. And the habit of making up nonsense to egg them on.
As it happens, I found the audio just today. There's a legal term, which I can't remember right now, that has to do with the words of liars. It means that if they say something damaging to themselves, they're probably not lying. Like that time when Trump accidentally said in an interview "after I lost the election". Anyway, here's Trump showing people (with no security clearance) battle plans and saying that he didn't declassify them when he was president.
edition.cnn.com/.../20230626-trump_audio.mp3
@goaded
So if you believe trump didn't declassify it then you believe he was lying officially when he said he did rather than when he said he didn't to people you would expect trump to lie to.
FFS, Oath Keeper boy, I believe Trump when he accidentally tells the truth, which always hurts him, and don't when he lies through his teeth, which is 99% of the time. Of course a criminal is going to say they're innocent.
How's Stewart Rhodes' prison sentence going, by the way? I wonder which he thinks was a worse decision, shooting himself in the face or Jan 6th?
@goaded
Much like the other political prisoners of congress and the Biden administration Rhode's 'conviction' of "Seditious conspiracy" plainly unconstitutional crime stands as a testament to the abuse an corruption of the goverment which ignored the 1st amendment to take him as a political prisoner in this way.
@Juxtapose "You already lost ALL of your cases." Are you totally insane?
Even if SCOTUS had just handed Trump a total get out of jail free card, which they haven't (one of the concurring justices explicitly said organising fake electors would NOT be an official act), nobody is saying he didn't commit the crimes, just that he's (maybe) allowed to get away with them. He's already been convicted in one case, and three cases are still outstanding.
You want to talk about lost cases? Talk about Trump's frivolous election lawsuits. Or his organisation's fraud lawsuits. Or the fact that one of his personal lawyers has gone to prison and another has been disbarred. Or the fact that his CFO is in Riker's for perjury on Trump's behalf.
You know damn well he's a crook, you just want him to get away with his crimes.
@goaded It takes five Judges to have a legally binding opinion not one, and the fact that organization alternative electors is not an official act would only be relevant if it were also an illegal act which it certainly is not. Less we have extremely selective interpretation and application of the law in violation of the Constitution.
As no other presidential candidate has ever been so persecuted by his political enemies for this necessary act in a disputed election. Neither is talking to a goverment official and asking help for finding votes illegal, and I would even agree its not official for a president.
As for the fact that a bunch of dirty democrats declared him guilty doesn't mean he is guilty anymore than the criminals they catch and release red-handed are innocent. Democrat see politics not crime as the measure of innocence.
@goaded
There are still court cases going on this is how crooket the system really is in states Like Pennsylvania.
The Federal court has finally acknowledged 4 years and 2 elections later Pennsylvania failed to follow their own law plainly written election law on ballot dating and signatures one of the main disputes in 2020 and 2022 effecting the outcome of key races:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhZwBq3RNvo
This doesn't of course change the fact that democrats basically served the entire term in a stolen office.
1. There were no ongoing court cases regarding the 2020 election when the fake electors (Trump's advisor's term, not mine) were being fraudulently delivered to Congress.
2. Biden would have easily won, even without PA.
3. There's no evidence that changing the rules to accommodate a once in a century pandemic resulted in anyone being able to vote who wasn't entitled to.
Oh, will you look at that! The ruling that was overturned was in 2023, so absolutely nothing to do with 2020. apnews.com/.../pennsylvania-voting-mail-ballot-date-lawsuit-86928b6ed5495e44fdb004dbc1e4302e
@goaded Your article is referencing an overturned case by anther federal despot in black robes trying to use anther poorly written "Civil rights act of 1964" law to strip election intergerty from the states. That was overturned because as the court later said said provision only apply to registering to vote where said errors can be corrected, not actually voting where they can't be corrected.
It refers to the same case as your video.
"a federal appeals court has just ruled that mail and ballots over in Pennsylvania do indeed have to be signature dated in order to be considered valid. This puts an end to a 2 and a half year long legal battle..."
2.5 years ago is after 2020. Nothing to do with Trump's loss.
@goaded
The original election dispute was a 2020 dispute where the democrat's in black robes and governor unilaterally declared the state didn't have to follow this or countless other rules that the plainly written laws of the state required.
So instead of enforcing such laws as written they spent the next 4 years going back and forth in courts. All because the 'courts' in this country are generally commanded to favor not interfering in election results. Thus in practice voter fraud even out in the open as this blatantly unlawful change in what kind of ballots are accepted pays off.
It took an enormous amount of money fighting this case all for a moot election change, as the office was still never revered even thou we recognize it was won with illegitimate votes.
But nobody "declared the state didn't have to follow this or countless other rules" in 2020, it was a new ruling in November 2023.
There were no "illegitimate votes".
Well, except this guy and maybe a couple of others. (Biden won by over 80,000 votes in PA.)
"A Pennsylvania man has been sentenced to five years of probation after pleading guilty to casting a vote in the name of his deceased mother in an effort to reelect then-President Donald Trump, according to court records and Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer’s office. Bruce Bartman, 70, received the sentence Friday after entering a guilty plea to two counts of perjury and one count of unlawful voting."
@Juxtapose Do you even listen to yourself? He's not a crook because the evidence against him has been made unusable? If he wasn't a crook, there would be no evidence in the first place!
@Juxtapose Again, if Trump wasn't a crook, there would be no evidence in the first place. Like with Biden; he doesn't need to hide his finances from an investigation, he knows he's done nothing wrong.
You've got a judge and half of SCOTUS engaging in obstruction of justice on Trump's behalf, and you think that's a good thing.
@goaded Anyone could have been convicted in the New York case as they never defined the crime.
Instead it was suggested as either a mischaracterization of election expenses (which could be claimed of most politicians parasitically sanders) or a mischaracterization of financial expenses in booking for tax proposes, which IRS audits show just about every American can be declared guilty of.
(The IRS just fines you lots of money when they don't agree with how you categorize tax expenses).
Either way this application of this new york 'law' could have been applied literally to anyone they wanted.
The fact that they never to this day told Trump what the crime was is a violation of the 6th amendment as any good lawyer and honest judge will tell you.
Of course they defined the crime: falsification of business records to conceal a crime. People are indicted for it every 3-4 days in New York alone. Trump wasn't being tried for the underlying crime (Cohen was, and went to prison for it, Trump was an unindicted co-conspiritor), just the falsification of business records.
What was the "crime" trump was trying to "conceal" @goaded That is the 'crime' the state never established and therefore could not establish that said business records were falsified for any reason. Much less an alleged 'crime' for which trump was never formerly accused much-less convicted.
A fact that only reinforces the fact that latterly anyone could be "convicted" of this new York 'law' as reinforced by how frequently you claim New York does indite people with it.
Unless said person actually was convicted of a specific crime and that crime was named in their indictment, the State of New York is violating the right to the presumption of innocence and the 6th amendment right to be presented with the charges and evidence against them.
Both rights exist because it is almost impossible for anyone to defend themselfs in court without them.
@goaded
A dirty politician in a black robe can declare you guilty of anything they and the politic ans in a suit likes. They have discovered 100 years ago there is no need to respect any limits to their power if they work together. This is why critical for them to monopolize the system to have their way.
But that doesn't mean their acts or the 'laws' they pass are legitimate by any stretch of the imagination. To declare someone as having obstructed justices without a crime is indeed a clear example of their lawless abuse to act as mere thugs in service of the imperil ego of the politicians and thug they hire to lord over everyone in every way.
I do not off hand know of such a case where such was declared a ligitiamte obstruction law would specifically describe an act evidence destruction during a case of law. Not unlike what jack smith did in alternating what his thugs stole in a very general warrant (violating 5th amendment) from Trump's home.
No, they can't. A judge can't even get you into a courtroom for trial. That needs a grand jury of citizens. Laws are laws, they're passed by elected representatives and signed into law by an elected president. I know you don't like that, Mr. Oath Keeper, but you're wrong.
Now you're lying about the justified search of Mar-a-Lago? I bet you'll claim the FBI was wanting to shoot Trump, too.
@goaded There is no justification for a raid on a house you been previously invited in to search for peacefully, nor under the presidential records act is the federal goverment free to simply take whatever the want.
In practice a grand jury knowing only what little a dishonest prosecutor says will indict anything, and with ubsrudly broad civil 'laws' a judge has 300 million prosecutors to bring anyone he wants before him to for any reason.
Of course there was justification; they had probable cause to believe there were government documents hidden there, and they were proven right. And they hadn't "been previously invited in to search... peacefully", and the presidential records act says that the documents belong to the government, not the president; that was the whole point of the act after Nixon demanded $18 million to return the ones he took!
The fact that agents were allowed free range to look at the documents and were in talk to establish ownership proves that was Not the case.
I didn't need to make it up, they would not be able to claim they saw "classified documents" if they didn't have free reign
@goaded Trump invited them to bring in who they wanted to go thou it, That is why they were there. They could see what they wanted and even negotiate to recover documents establishing whom owned them in said negotiations.
There was no probable cause or justification for the search warrant! @goaded
it wasn't even a specific search warren as required by the 4th amendment which required.
"particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" The "Warrent" they issued was extremely genera just saying go thou all trumps stuff and see what they could find.
That is one of the main problems with this invasion and thief of Trump's property. The FBI knew they were violating the constitution too which is why they asked trump's people to turn off the security cameras.
Yes, there was. Do you not see the irony in the name "Oath Keepers", when all you do is lie about the constitution?
Here's the warrant, it's quite specific. There would be no point in a search if they knew exactly where they would find the stolen documents, so Trump's offices and all storage spaces are the logical places to look. Should it have mentioned the toilet? Maybe, but it was clearly being used as a storage space at the time.
int.nyt.com/.../full.pdf
@goaded A federal search warrant under the 4th amendment requires them to know what exactly they are looking for and where they think it is. This 'warrant' was no where near that specific which is why we call it a very general warrant.. It lacks particularized description of what they are looking to seized and even search.
They knew exactly what they were looking for: "All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 793 , 2071 , or 1519, including the following..."
And where: "The premises to be searched, 1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480... The locations to be searched include the " 45 Office," all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including a ll structures or buildings on the estate. It does not include areas curren tl y (i. e. , at the time of the search) being occupied, rented, or used by third parties (such as Mar-a-Largo Members) and not otherwise used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff, such as private guest suites."
@goaded The "All" phrase is what makes it a very general war-rent basically looking for dirt. Which is what the original general warrant clause was all about preventing.
A judge has to have specific evidence of a specific crime and search ONLY for that. You can't just ransack anyone's house looking for dirt to charge him with.
@goaded
The propose of the search and seizure power is to investigate upon probable cause a particular crime not be a license to ransack someone's home looking for dirt on any crime.(general warrant)
The 4th amendment was passed to prevent in power politicians from doing precisely that to their enemies. After all everyone is guilty of something under our vague and voluminous legal code.
Thus ransacking anyone's home you are all but guaranteed to find evidence of something you can declare a crime. Or in the case of Jack smith even manufacture some of it.
Which is precisely why general warrants are forbidden in the first place by the 4th amendment.
It is just asking for abuse.
You quoted the warrant @goaded far more broad than that. Regardless It seems the court has finaly gotten around to recognizing the obvious fact that special prosecutors not approved by the Senate who are not in the Constitution despite their vast and largely unaccountable powers are unconstitutional.
Given the long history of abuse by such 'zars' this is long overdue.
@Juxtapose You do like projecting your behaviours onto me, don't you?
Like I've pointed out several times now, you don't think Trump is innocent, you just want him to get away with his crimes.
@Juxtapose Perhaps you shouldn't pretend to be inside my head and know what I'm feeling? Remember "Hahaha stay mad!"?
Innocent people don't need the supreme court to overturn decades of precedent to get them out of going to trial.
Anyway, I won't be around from tomorrow for a while, so have fun!
@Juxtapose 
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
― George Orwell, 1984
@Juxtapose Clearly, he wasn't. Trump "not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the
investigation."
The case will be appealed, and will hopefully end up in front of a judge who doesn't think they're part of the defence team, auditioning for a place on the supreme court.
Future Supreme Court Justice Cannon pic. twitter. com/fdDJk1tASt
— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) July 15, 2024
The case was completely bullshit and so are literally all the other cases against Donald Trump. I used to entertain the opposition to Donald Trump but they are so deranged they cry when a bullet misses him because they wish he died. They want to strip away his secret service protection, throw him in a cell and have him get killed in the dark. They are pure evil.
@goaded
I would be find with Hunter Biden going free, although in Hunter's case the evidence against him was sent to the FBI not stolen in an illegal raid by order of an illegitimately delegated High official.
So technically Hunter can still be prosecuted on the basis of said evidence, just not by that official.
@Juxtapose Are you feeling alright?
@goaded
Notice how @Juxtapose isn't burning down cities or rioting. Nor is anyone else right now. See how real conservatives are in control of themselfs?
Same thing happened to bill Clinton
I doubt that, and it's irrelevant, since violent crime peaked in the US in the 90s, after roughly tripling in the previous decades (there's a reason why films like Escape From New York and Death Wish got made, and extreme laws got passed). Look it up.
www.brennancenter.org/.../myths-and-realities-understanding-recent-trends-violent-crime
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions