Monday, June 28, 2021

American Justice: Blinder Than Ever?


Friends, my latest article is based on several of my recent comments about the rank injustice of the suspension of Rudy Giuliani's law license in my home state of New York.  I argue that Rudy Giuliani is among the first of what we can safely assume will be many casualties in the war to defend our liberties against neo-Marxist depredations.  Expect it to appear soon at World Net Daily.

Rudy Giuliani: Martyr for the Cause

Question: what's the difference between one of America's most respected prosecutors (and most successful mayors), and a disgraced attorney chased out of the legal profession for his rabble-rousing mendacity?

Answer: five years of Trump.

Why "five years of Trump"?

Because our nation's jarring experience with Trumpism was enough to convince leftists to throw all notions of fairness and tolerance out the window, and to dedicate themselves to the obliteration of their political enemies by any and all means necessary, including disbarring their rivals for exercising their right of free speech, and obstructing the access of conservatives to legal representation. It's part of the Left's new scorched earth approach to self-empowerment and totalitarian dominion. Worse, it's just beginning. We can expect even more egregious acts of persecution to follow.

The decision of five judges of New York State's Supreme Court to suspend the law license of Rudy Giuliani is an outrage. It is viewpoint discrimination, pure and simple. It presages a political purge of the legal profession that would, if carried to its logical conclusion, be fatal to American democracy. The law and the justice system would become playthings in the hands of neo-Marxists, notable mainly for their searing contempt for all forms of dissent. It would be only a matter of time, in fact, before these fanatics would turn the weapons of disbarment, censorship, intimidation, and worse on each other. American politics would become a circular firing squad. “Cancel culture” would, in due course, erase every one of us.

These five judges allege that Rudy Giuliani made false statements about the election of Joe Biden to the presidency, and these statements "damage the proper functioning of a free society". They further allege that Giuliani's statements “directly inflamed tensions” that contributed to the lawlessness of January 6th.

That is a stretch. As Jonathan Turley – no fan of Giuliani – demonstrates, “America's Mayor” was no more guilty of inciting the Capitol Riot than countless Democratic lawyers and politicians were of fostering the BLM riots of 2020.

Were some of Giuliani's claims about the 2020 election false? Absolutely. Lawyers make false statements routinely. Whether Giuliani made these statements in error, or in bad faith, however, is something that only Giuliani himself can know for sure. And it is something that the Supreme Court of New York State barely bothered to investigate.

Meanwhile, we might ask these questions: How many Democrats made false statements about the 2016 election, with the intention of casting doubt on the legitimacy of Donald Trump's victory? How many Democrats made false statements about Donald Trump's supposed subservience to Vladimir Putin, with an eye to portraying the sitting President of the United States as a traitor? How many Democrats made false statements about the 2018 gubernatorial election in Georgia, and continue to deny that Brian Kemp is that state's rightful Governor? How many Democrats continue to make false statements about the content of the various election integrity bills under consideration in state legislatures? (Biden himself misinformed the American public about Georgia's law.) And, lastly, how many Democratic lawyers/politicians have faced discipline for these infractions, which similarly "damage the proper functioning of a free society"?

Answer: none.

Rudy Giuliani faces persecution for the simple reason that his advocacy of the rights and interests of Donald Trump and Trump supporters offends the Democratic elite. The suspension of his law license is illegitimate and wrong, therefore. Republicans, conservatives, and lovers of liberty in general should see it for what it is: a direct attack on our constitutional rights and freedoms, and an effort to silence us.

We must stand with Rudy, therefore, while we still can.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred, and blogs at: He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.


And here it is at World Net Daily: 


In other news, check out this fascinating McLaughlin poll.  It shows Biden's approval rating still at a relatively strong 55%, but it also shows Donald Trump in great shape to win the GOP nomination in 2024...and in good shape to win the general election, especially if Kamala Harris is the Dems' standard-bearer.  Perhaps most importantly, McLaughlin shows Republicans narrowly ahead on the generic ballot for 2022, and a GOP win in the midterms would be HUGE! 

Here's some insight on Ron DeSantis's biggest dilemma: he probably wants to run for president, but he doesn't want to run against -- or antagonize in any way -- DJT.


Here's a terrific exposé of leftist disinterest in the fate of the thousands of black men murdered in this country each year -- almost exclusively by other black men.  If it ain't "racist", it ain't news.


I've been impressed by the courage of Senators Manchin and Sinema, who are standing up to the far-left and refusing to "nuke" the filibuster.  Here's an article with a contrary point of view.  This guy thinks that Manchin will ultimately cave and give progressives what they want.  I'm not so sure.  If he was going to relent, it seems to me that now is the time: probably the only time when it would make any difference (or maybe not, if Sinema stands firm).  Yeah, Manchin voted to begin debate on the Dems' election takeover bill, but that's a meaningless procedural question.  When the chips have been down, Manchin has been a stand up guy -- so far.  He's a politician, though.  You never know.


This report isn't quite as "explosive" as it's billed.  Yes, China has mentioned the possibility that future bioweapons could be designed to target specific ethnic groups.  That isn't the same as creating such weapons, though!  As a matter of fact, any major power would be remiss not to consider the full range of potential bioweapons.  Now, in all likelihood, COVID-19 wasn't designed to kill the maximum number of Caucasians...but imagine if it had been!!!


Arizona, a la Florida, is attempting to make it mandatory for public schools to teach "the evils of communism".  These legislators mean well, but good luck injecting some common sense into our (neo-Marxist) curricula.  Hamstringing woke educators is worth a try, I suppose, but I'm beginning to think that the whole enterprise of public education may be fatally flawed.  Can we be surprised that government-run schools ultimately support the relentless expansion of government power?  I suggest we abolish the public schools and give every parent a voucher to use in a private or religious school of his/her choice.  What better way to forestall "communism", am I right? 

Yup, Western Civilization is circling the drain, BUT the nuclear family, somewhat to my surprise, is making a comeback!  Of course, the other side of this coin is that simply having children has become passé... 


It's a miracle!  YouTube has banned a left-wing organization!  I guess this means that Google is ever-so-slightly concerned about projecting an image of even-handedness.  Personally, though, I'd rather they just stopped censoring us altogether! 

Finally, a professor in Mexifornia has praised Stalin as "one of the great leaders of the 20th century"!  Now, I will come to this egghead's defense, insofar as I agree that Stalin was a "great leader" -- he just wasn't a good leader.  We could say the same about Hitler, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Barack Obama -- you get the idea.  Now, Prof. Foot-in-Mouth also claims that Stalin was a "great listener".  Here he might be on shakier ground.


  1. Nick, your defense of Rudy, while impassioned, leaves out an inconvenient fact -- he made false representations to the court (actually a number of them). You can't lie to the court. If I have a defendant and find out that he or she or them is guilty, I can't state in court that the defendant is not guilty of the crime. It's a violation of the oath you take when you are sworn in at the bar.

    If it was only a matter of all the lies that Giuliani made outside of the court, then the bar would have a tougher case suspending him (though the constant lying out of court could violate the bar's character standard, but that would a heavier lift for the state bar). Plus, if the bar suspended only based on his constant lies outside of court, I would be against it.

    But, as one of the lawyers submitting documents to several courts in the various lawsuits, he signed off on statements that were demonstrable lies, thus violating the rules of the court.

    Basically, Rudy got the same punishment that Bill Clinton did for making false statements to the court.

    Rudy is no martyr. He knew the rules. He broke them. He is now suffering the consequences.

  2. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: Alan Dershowitz was on Glenn Beck or just after and he said that in his 60 year career, including some 30 teaching legal ethics, he had hardly ever seen a more egregious decision. I will not attempt to relate his expressed legal reasoning; I could not do it justice. But I understood him to say the decision reflected either incompetence or gross political bias and purpose. Uhh, I'd think that to be a creditable dismissal from a man with immense experience,painful integrity (I assume him to be a liberal) and much intellectual and professional authority.

  3. Dershowitz jumped the shark long ago by allying himself with the Trump camp, thereby losing all credibility. People I know in the legal profession -- both conservative and liberal -- see him as an opportunistic joke and an attention junkie.

  4. Dr. Waddy from Jack: The NYC corrupted political culture of NY state is very obvious in this decision, of continuing, ad nauseum, far leftist totalitarian determination to destroy all opposition by any means workable. When sanity is restored to the Federal government I would like to see NY state brought, like unto Brittany Spears, into conservatorship,since it is plainly unable to manage its affairs in a reasonable and responsible manner and this dysfunction has a widely destructive effect on its rational neighbors and on the country (uhh, Charles Schumer having power over, say, Texas?) And just as she was required to part ways with those influences which made her life a veritable carnival of dysfunction, may real America upstate be relieved of the baleful and dismissive influence of lala land NYC! Let it be America's Hong Kong. After a suitable period of recovery, let our "state" be readmitted to full and constructive statehood, free of totalitarian threat.

  5. The ruling against Giuliani was as it should be -- you can't go into court and LIE. That's what Giuliani did. He could have been disbarred, given he did it multiple times. A five-year suspension was clearly warranted.

  6. Dr. Waddy et al fromJack: To the immediate critic: Dershowitz: Opportunistic! Whatever for?. He's in his 80's.He'll never be on Scotus. Your evaluation of him appears to express comprehensive dismissal of any who endorse President Trump, including the real America, which yet obviously embraces him and zillions who voted for him. Lets see you attempt to professionally discredit Dershowitz applying professional standards such as very long standing high standing in his demanding profession. He was on the Harvard Law Faculty for over 30 years (perhaps even before Harvard endured the onslaught of incipiently leftist totalitarian "critical legal studies", which blithely dismissed all previous Anglo-American legal persuasion as merely a product of elites protecting privilege, thereby conveniently dismissing the collective wisdom embodied in precedent and clearing the path for dreamy, speculative, yet MANDATED, comprehensive leftist pronunciamento.

  7. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack:Again to the critic:your second comment appeared to me after I replied to your first . I stand by my first but admit I have not the legal knowledge to creditably comment on your second comment. But, do you? I cannot, from a layman's perspective, liken Guiliani's legal mien to that of the utterly amoral Slick Willy.

  8. Alan Dershowitz is one of the most overrated lawyers American jurisprudence -- though one of its best promoters. He has had two significant wins -- Harry Reems of Deep Throat fame, and Claus von Bulow. He has been on high profile legal teams for O.J. Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein. He did nothing for Simpson and Weinstein, and got Epstein a sweetheart deal (which, of course, served to shut up Epstein about Dershowitz). He is an alleged wife abuser, and a known serial adulterer, esp. with female law students. He was hot from the 1970s-1990s, then faded to virtual obscurity until he started defending men with histories of sexual assault (Epstein, Weinstein and Trump among them). An attention junkie, he has moved to be on the Trump side because it gives him his much-desired air time. He is a legend in his own mind.

  9. Rod, if Rudy "lied to the court", and someone can prove that he knew his "lies" WERE lies, at the time he "lied" them, well, disbarment is on the table. My impression is that the NY Supreme Court utterly failed to meet that standard, and it mainly criticized Rudy's PUBLIC remarks, not his statements in court.

    Jack, I'm glad to hear that Dershowitz is on Rudy's side, but Rod is right that he's hardly an objective observer. I wonder whether a case like this could end up at the Supreme Court? I mean: the U.S. Supreme Court. After all, the politicization of the standards by which lawyers are judged (and tossed out of the profession) could have a huge impact on the health of our democracy and the meaningfulness of almost all of our underlying rights (and obligations). The stakes could hardly be higher.

    Note Rod's wording: "Dershowitz jumped the shark long ago by allying himself with the Trump camp, thereby losing all credibility." If one thinks like that, basically no competent/ethical lawyer CAN represent someone like Trump...and what's the future of anyone in America if they can't obtain legal representation? You might as well be a non-person.

    Rod, you keep repeating that Rudy LIED. You lefties toss that word around constantly, and you almost never feel the need to flesh it out with, say, proof of any lying. Virtually all statements that you don't want to hear, in fact, seem to count as "lies". So maybe we need to talk about...the definition of the word "lie"? Eek.

    And personally I couldn't care less about the personal or professional strengths or weaknesses of Alan Dershowitz. Like I said, if Rudy "lied", I await proof of his lies.

  10. Nick,

    OK, Nick, you asked for a lie. Here’s the lie before the court. It does involve disputes over interpretations, etc. It is an uncontroverted lie.

    “Only uncontroverted claims of professional misconduct may serve as a basis for interim suspension on this motion. In connection with its claim that uncontroverted attorney misconduct has occurred, 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,”

    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

    “After opposing counsel pointed out, and respondent’s own co-counsel agreed, that the plaintiff had asserted no claims of fraud the court made the following inquiries and received the following answers from respondent:

    THE COURT: So it's correct to say then that you're not alleging fraud in the amended complaint?"

    RESPONDENT: No, Your Honor, it is not, because we incorporate by reference in 150 all of the allegations that precede it, which include a long explanation of a fraudulent, fraudulent process, a planned fraudulent process.”

    "THE COURT: So you are alleging fraud?”

    RESPONDENT: Yes, Your Honor."

    “Later in the transcript, after the court pointed respondent to the amended complaint, the following further court inquiries and responses occurred:

    THE COURT: . . . So the amended complaint—does the amended complaint plead fraud with particularity?"

    RESPONDENT: No, Your Honor. And it doesn’t plead fraud. It pleads the --it pleads the plan or scheme that we lay out in 132 to 149 without characterizing it.”

    This is why the lie Rudy made matters:

    “Respondent’s original position, that there was a fraud claim, was made despite an amended complaint in which his very own client withdrew any fraud related claim. Respondent's own co-counsel represented, in respondent’s presence, that the plaintiff was not asserting a fraud claim and there was extensive argument by opposing counsel. It is indisputable that respondent had to be aware that there were no fraud claims in the case. Significant time and effort were expended on respondent's false misrepresentations to the court regarding the nature of the proceedings. This resulted in respondent’s arguments in support of fraud appearing to be seemingly unanswered on the record and misleading the listening public, because fraud was not a part of the case. Respondent’s so-called admission of the true status of the case did not occur until he was pressed by the court to concede the point at page 118 of the transcript.”

    Rudy had numerous violations of rules 4.1 and 8.4. I would be uncomfortable suspending his license based on those violations because I believe there is a free speech argument to be made (though the appellate division was within its rights to punish Rudy for violating the rules).

    But, he clearly violated rule 3.3. You can’t lie before the court. Rudy lied.

  11. Dr. Waddy et al from Jack: To the critic : I have not the skill in legal reasoning to construe the empirical evidence you have presented, either to support or oppose it thereof.I incline to credit Dershowitz's construction; he is very probably well informed on the rules you have cited and of the conduct of this case (on Beck he made specific objections to the Appellate Division Court's procedure )and I think his objectivity to have been well supported by his principled agreement at times with Trump, despite his proven liberal inclinations. Is that faction in the legal profession you have cited as holding him ridiculous reacting only to his apostasy?Dr.Waddy: I would disagree with you in this: Ithink Dershowitz (whose professional merits are probably mostly established) to be a courageously proven objective commentator. As an outspoken liberal he had to have anticipated harsh criticism, some of it calumnious, resulting from his support for some aspects of Trump administration.I think he displayed principled courage in facing this. I cannot at all sympathise with the widespread collegial opinion of him as a "joke", alleged by the critic ;it may well be a manifestation of the shameful leftist bias inculcated by so many of our law schools and by even hoary headed '60s veterans ,amounting to approved calumny in the profession of the law.

  12. Dr. Waddy from Jack : Hooray for those states mandating education on the murderous left! We must hope that our country may experience a " deleftistication " analogous to the deNazification accomplished in Germany. No we will not be conquered by a redeeming foreign power, but the American left can be counted on to attempt the full control achieved by the Nazis and if achieved, to exercise it in equally inhuman, yet Stalinist, fashion. It will have to be stopped!

  13. Interesting evidence, Rod. Thanks for taking my request seriously. I, however, don't know the context. It appears that Rudy was confused about whether the case in question involved fraud or not. Isn't confusion a viable explanation for the discrepancy? Election fraud, after all, isn't Rudy's speciality. That's part of the problem. You've proved an erroneous statement, therefore. You haven't proved malice or intention.

    Jack, I certainly agree that Dershowitz shouldn't be dismissed as a "joke". He's a lawyer, and ergo his legal claims should be evaluated on the merits. Ad hominem attacks ought to have no place in deliberations like those of the NY Supreme Court. They have precious little place here, if you want my opinion. Our nation's predicament transcends personalities.

    A "deleftification" of America sounds great, but what we're actually undergoing is the opposite. Every major institution is now dominated by the Left, and they're using that influence shamelessly to manipulate and intimidate the American people.

    1. Nick, the context is that I quoted from the actual decision describing the incident that described the lie. This was not an incident of confusion, Nick. Rudy was asked by the court if he really meant a fraud claim. He confirmed that he was arguing a fraud claim.

      Then Rudy was asked later about whether he was arguing fraud, and then he said he wasn't.

      He was either lying in the first instance or in the second.

      BTW, the lie does not have to arise from malice or intent. All that is required is that Rudy knew it was a lie, and that he continued perpetuating it, which he did.

      You appear to suggest that Rudy wasn't lying, but that he was incompetent. You may not know the rules of the New York Bar, but incompetency can also lead to suspension, particularly if that incompetence materially affects the client. His client was not successful during that legal action.

  14. Dr.Waddy from Jack: I very much like the idea of privatizing all our public schools. Catholic schools have long since proven their superiority.Public schools are getting to be like "public broadcasting", which has as its main purpose the advancement of leftist politics at public expense. That intention is masked by the inclusion of elitist soap operas. Just because they have British accents (which I love in other settings) doesn' t make'em any better than The Young and the Restless, which survives quite nicely on its own, without forced taxpayer succor. The political will for a deleftism would require a close call with totalitarianism (eg. an AOC presidency).

  15. Rod, it makes no sense that, in the same exchange, Rudy would say that he was claiming fraud and say that he wasn't. What purpose would such a "lie" serve? A lie is meant to deceive. A patently inconsitent statement like that deceives no one. It just confuses or infuriates them. Seems to me you're grasping at atraws. You're willing to assume that any incorrect statement by a right-winger is a "lie", ipso facto. Any incorrect statement by a left-winger is a mistake, or maybe a "noble lie". Okay, Rudy said two contradictory things. They can't both be true. One of them is false. By that logic, anyone who has ever contradicted himself should be disbarred. You really want to stick with that standard? Oy.

    Jack, it's hard to imagine that our society would ever have the will necessary to purge itself of leftism. On the other hand, it's not hard at all to imagine that the establishment's current purge of conservatives, once it notches a few early successes, will intensify greatly. The Left better hurry, though. They might suffer a grievous setback in 2022. When you have your foot on someone's throat, my advice is not to let up for an instant. So far their purge hasn't impressed me. It's more hot air than anything.

    1. Nick, Rudy's whole case never made any sense.

      Look, no matter what evidence I provide you, you are going to deny Rudy lied, and that he merely made a mistake. Had he gone in with a fraud claim, and then when the judge questioned him, Rudy said, "Sorry, I made a mistake. I am not pursuing a fraud claim," then that would be a mistake. To continue to say it was a fraud claim means Rudy knew what was going on. I also pointed out earlier what damage that had on the legal process, so Rudy's claims were not a trivial matter.

      So, if you want to hang your argument on Rudy didn't intend to make a false statement, fine. But, intent is not part of the rule. Knowingly making a false statement is.

      Personally, I would rather see Rudy keep his law license. He has had such a long losing streak that forcing him off the Trump legal team will help Trump, not hurt him.

      As for the court case, the law is unconstitutional on its face, so I am not worried about the ban being upheld.

      As for Hannah-Jones, you obviously haven't paid attention to how NC has stacked the BOT with conservatives in the last five years. To reverse themselves like that means the school's chief legal counsel advised them that Hannah-Jones would prevail in court -- and, even if she didn't, discovery would be brutal.

      As more information comes out about how many of these anti-CRT "parents" are GQP operatives, and the more legislators go on TV and demonstrate that they have no idea what CRT is, the more this controversy loses steam. The GQP is trying another educational purge, like they did in the 1940s and 1950s, but they will be even less successful than the last time.

  16. Rod, I'm willing to be persuaded that Rudy lied. I mean, lawyers do it all the time. It's not inconceivable to me that he lied...but I presume him innocent until I see proof to the contrary.

    But I agree: the more lawyers like Rudy the GOP has working for it, the better, from the Dems' perspective! Whatever the merits of our election fraud claims, legally our efforts were a train wreck. The bar is pretty high for judicial intervention in elections, though. We always were fighting an uphill battle.

    I see Hannah-Jones has landed at Howard U. Good for her. She'll feel very comfortable there, I'm sure. No honkies in sight.

    I hate to break it to you, but the CRT controversy isn't losing steam, and you aren't winning the day. Be that as it may, there certainly won't be any "educational purge" of leftists. I mean, if we removed all the leftists from public education, all we'd have left is janitors!