Muzzling RUDY GIULIANI – USA Gov Policy

On June 24, 2021, the New York State Appellate Division for the First Department issued a blistering, and ultimately controversial opinion in Matter of Giuliani a disciplinary proceeding brought against the former Mayor and personal counsel to Donald Trump. “(W)e conclude that there is uncontroverted evidence that respondent (Giuliani) communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020. These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent’s narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client. We conclude that respondent’s conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law, pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee.”

The public reaction was immediate. Katie Phang of MSNBC crowed that “Giuliani’s ticket to play in the legal arena has been punched and he’s out of the game. The very loud and very clear message being sent by this interim suspension should be heeded by all attorneys — but especially those current and prospective lawyers for clients like Donald Trump.” CNBC called the decision “a stunning blow to the 77-year-old Giuliani, a former New York mayor who was once a top Justice Department official and U.S. attorney in Manhattan.”

According to CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, an interim suspension “does not happen every day by any stretch. This is a very rare thing and a very extreme thing for the court to do.” But let’s pause a minute here and examine that assertion.

My search of the records of decisions from the New York State Appellate Division revealed 323 interim suspensions issued between June 2010 and June of 2021. Given the hundreds, if not thousands of discipline proceedings brought annually in New York State, 323 is not a large number. But here are some examples of recent instances where the New York State Appellate Division issued an interim suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law:

That is the reason; they have to pay in US. levitra pharmacy http://www.midwayfire.com/contact-us/ If the affected avails one consumption of this prescribed drug then he can regain free viagra pill his stamina and endurance can be witnessed. The drugs viagra cheap usa relax blood vessels and increase confidence in lovemaking. As there is a triad relationship between the condition of the penile purchase cheap viagra muscle tissues.

In Matter of Talcott, decided by the Second Department on June 30, 2021, “this Court…immediately suspended the respondent from the practice of law…based upon his conviction of a serious crime.” In Matter of Fox, decided by the First Department on June 29, 2021, an attorney was “immediately suspended” when the attorney “partially cooperated by producing some of his bookkeeping records and appearing for a deposition…he has not produced the bulk of the records, including his ledger, and other documents as directed by judicial subpoena and repeatedly requested by the Committee since 2019.”

These decisions were issued shortly after Mr. Giuliani’s suspension. Several days before, on June 22, 2021, in Matter of DeGrace-D’Aliasi, the respondent attorney was ordered to “submit to a medical and psychiatric examination by a qualified expert or experts” based upon “respondent’s irrational conduct during and after a medical malpractice trial in which she represented herself…includ(ing) trying to relitigate issues already decided at trial and harassing and profane telephone calls and voice messages to the defendant doctors and their counsel. Respondent also left a disturbing voice mail message for (Attorney Grievance Committee) staff counsel.” The First Department ruled that “based on her failure to submit to the examination directed by our prior order of September 6, 2019,” the respondent’s license was suspended pending further order of the court.

Then, in Matter of Foncillas, in an order dated May 13, 2021, the First Department referenced an order dated June 25, 2020, in which “this Court determined that respondent was convicted of a ‘serious crime,’ (and) immediately suspended him from the practice of law.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Quick Analysis

Putin’s Saber Rattling

Earlier this week, President Biden reversed his 2022 decision, authorizing the provision of antipersonnel land mines to the Ukrainian government. It follows an earlier Administration authorization to allow the use of an advanced American missile system capable of striking as deep as 100 miles inside Russian territory. The US election season may be ending, but both Russia and the West show no indication of stepping down the conflict. Russian propaganda continues to swell as the Kremlin increases its threats to use nuclear weapons against the West. Last week Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the pro-Kremlin think tank Valdai Discussion Club (VDC), published an article on growing nuclear tensions in the region. Official Russian language in the last few years has been threatening. Since the US election, rhetoric like that in the Sushentsov article, has approached the level of nuclear blackmail. The VDC article’s main theme centers on Russia’s intent to directly confront the West militarily if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) becomes involved in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. “On the one hand, these threats are intended to frighten the West, but on the other, Russian propagandists themselves are starting to believe in the inevitability of escalation,” according to Ksenia Kirillova of the Jamestown Foundation. On November 11, Sushentsov wrote that “The conflict will reach a completely new level, with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the entire world.” Kirillova points out that Putin’s distorted image of the world is divorced from reality and is causing the Kremlin to issue demands that are impossible to fulfill. Financial and other Russian resources needed to support Putin’s war are growing scarcer at the same time. This week the Kremlin announced a reduction of payments to its soldiers. Recently North Korea acknowledged it was sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine as Putin is running out of bodies to use as cannon fire. The war is not going well for Russia. One question floating around the Washington intelligence community is whether Putin will act out of desperation before President-elect Trump assumes office. In recent months the Russian propaganda machine is spewing out materials from fairly reputable analytical platforms inside the country. Kirillova says that “Kremlin ‘experts’ do not conceal that such threats are only intended to break the West psychologically, as they themselves are not prepared for full-scale nuclear war.” Despite Russia’s lack of preparation for an all-out war with the West, the expanding nuclear rhetoric carries with it an increase in the threat of a full-scale war in multiple theaters of operation. In June 2023 a founder of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, called for “delivering a pre-emptive strike of retaliation” on Poland to force the West to surrender. In the previous month, Dmitry Suslov, a direct of research programs at the policy center proposed organizing “a demonstration nuclear explosion” aimed at intimidating the West. In September, President Putin announced a reappraisal of Russian nuclear doctrine after speaking earlier in the year at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and jokingly calling Suslov a “scary person.” Pavel Baev, writing in the European Daily Monitor, says “Putin intends his announcement to mark an escalation of nuclear brinkmanship and influence the proceedings of future Ukrainian peace efforts.” Putin is expanding the list of environmental conditions that are acceptable for using a nuclear weapon and incorporating it into Russian military doctrine. Baev adds that “The ups and downs of Russian brinkmanship are disconnected from the kinetic battles of the war, correlating instead with Ukrainian peace offensives, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s first peace summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland.” Despite the increase in vitriolic language, in a You Tube video published a week before the US presidential election, Karaganov openly assured the West the primary goal of the escalation is to break the American spirit and that of the West, not outright nuclear war. By Election Day in the US, with political prognosticators predicting a win for former president Trump, Karaganov changed his tune and called for an increased role in nuclear deterrence. Kirillova points out that Western concessions to Russia are unlikely to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation. The distorted reality inside the Kremlin continues to push that President-elect Trump is an adherent of “world government,” that Ukraine will create a nuclear weapon, and Russia must prepare for a nuclear conflagration to achieve its ambitions for a new world order. President-elect Trump has indicated he will not agree to concessions that destabilize Europe, the Middle East or other regions. Going forward a strong US foreign policy may be the most stabilizing course the West can count on to restrain Putin and his intent to rebuild the Russian empire. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Illustration: Pixabay

Our Latest Television Program

New Era in World Affairs

There will be a dramatic change in Washington in the aftermath of the election. What will this mean for America’s national security and foreign affairs? Our guests, former CIA officer and Vice President at the Center for Security Policy Clair Lopez, along with ret. Col. John Mills, (author of The Nation Will Follow) provide extraordinary insights. If you missed the program on your local station, catch it here: https://rumble.com/v5oonnb-the-american-political-zone-november-12-2024.html