Courthouse of the First Appellate Division. Photo
credit: Beyond
My Ken CC-BY-SA
4.0 license.
In an opinion replete
with Trump Derangement Syndrome, a panel of five justices of the 19-member
Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, First Department, have
ordered the immediate suspension of Rudolph W. Giuliani from the practice of
law, pending a disciplinary hearing where the former mayor of New York City
will face disbarment.
The order was handed down on June 24. It claimed that the former mayor made false statements about various voting irregularities — including phony absentee ballots, and voting by non-citizens and felons, and underage voters and deceased voters, in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona.
The title of this article carries a serious charge, but consider the following
citations from the suspension order in deciding whether the charge — playing
politics, actually — is justified or not.
"This country," the opinion proclaims, "is
being torn apart by continuing attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 elections
and of our current president, Joseph R. Biden." Let's pause
there. Where were the five New York State Supreme Court jurists
(App. Div., 1st Dep't) the four years from January 20, 2017, to January 20,
2021, when the country was torn apart by "The Resistance," including
those Deep State denizens, seeking, without let-up, the overthrow of the legitimately
elected president, Donald R. Trump?
Returning to the partisan screed:
The hallmark of democracy is predicated on free and fair
elections. False statements intended to foment a loss of confidence
in our elections and resulting in loss of confidence in government generally
damage the proper functioning of a free society.
And where were these jurists the years of the "false
statements" on "colluding with Putin, charges of mental
instability, Ukraine-gate, and the like throughout Mr. Trump's years in
office, statements clearly designed to cause loss of confidence in his
leadership — which indeed did so, given his favorable poll numbers only in the
40s?
And what of the false
statements in the anti-Trump press, just disclosed this month, that
President Trump ordered the forcible clearing of Lafayette
Square, June 1, 2020, so that he could have a photo op at vandalized St.
John's Church? Didn't those statements keep "reliable
information" from the American people?
The screed continues:
When those false statements are made by an attorney, it
also erodes the public's confidence in the integrity of attorneys admitted
to our bar and damages the profession's role as a crucial source of reliable
information.
And what of "false statements" made about Mr.
Trump, from Democrats in Congress who are New York attorneys, like Jerrold
Nadler? Who will bring a grievance against him, alleging his efforts
to undermine public confidence in Mr. Trump?
This screed-cum-opinion, then, stripping away all
pretense, tears down the wall separating the First Department from the
political arena, as will be immediately evident from the following paragraph:
One only has to look at the ongoing present public
discord over the 2020 election, which erupted into violence, insurrection and
death on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol, to understand the extent of the
damage that can be done when the public is misled by false information about
the elections. The AGC [Attorney Grievance Committee] contends that
respondent's misconduct directly inflamed tensions that bubbled over into the
events of January 6, 2021 in this nation's Capitol. Respondent's response is
that no causal nexus can be shown between his conduct and those events. We need
not decide any issue of "causal nexus" to understand that the
falsehoods themselves cause harm. This event only emphasizes the larger point
that the broad dissemination of false statements, casting doubt on the
legitimacy of thousands of validly cast votes, is corrosive to the public's
trust in our most important democratic institutions.
Is this a mere obiter dictum (an
incidental expression of a judge's personal opinion) — or a statement joining
forces with The New York Times and the Democrat (and Liz Cheney) demagogues,
hurling out the term "insurrection" as a "false
statement" description of the events at the Capitol the afternoon of
January 6, 2021? It is about as rank and unseemly a statement as
ever emerged from a judge's chambers. And see how this opinion
followed Biden's lead referring, so misleadingly, to "death" at the
Capitol, January 6, 2021. Who died, was killed, at the Capitol,
January 6, 2021, other than the unarmed pro-Trump demonstrator Ashli
Babbitt? What confidence does this invidious partisan declaration
leave in the minds of at least half the voting population, that justice is
blind?
By inserting the insidious words "insurrection"
and "death," this First Department panel raised high the Democrat
banner above its Manhattan courthouse. It should be noted that all
five justices were appointed by Democrat governors: one by Eliot Spitzer, two
by David Paterson, and two by Andrew Cuomo. The presiding judge,
Rolando Acosta, once a Legal Aid Society lawyer, is a member of Columbia
University's Athlete Hall of Fame for pitching prowess with the university's
baseball team. Alas, with the Giuliani suspension, Judge Acosta has
thrown a wild pitch.
And behold — the attorney grievance committee accuses
Rudy Giuliani of "misconduct [that] directly inflamed tensions that
bubbled over into the events of January 6, 20201in this nation's
Capitol." Did the First Department panel respond with the words
such an accusation deserves: "that's ridiculous"? Not at
all. The panel instead acted as if on cue — dismissing "causal
nexus" as irrelevant, effectively holding that the alleged falsehoods
present all the justification necessary to end Giuliani's career as an
attorney.
Once, members of the Judicial Branch were careful to stay
clear of the "political thicket." Let's change that
metaphor to "briar patch." Why? Because,
like Br'er Rabbit, the five members of the First Department panel in "The
Matter of Rudolph W Giuliani, an Attorney," have rushed into their
political "briar patch," where, undoubtedly, they feel sure that they
have taken a significant step in addressing "the toxic effect of
Trumpism," as The New York Times called for, in an August 2016 editorial.
This panel, in the manner of most leftists, is
likely too self-confident to allow that we "deplorables" are on to
them. We know when their comments are projections of their own
mindset. At least half the voting population will recognize that
false judicial screeds, pretending to be opinions, are, quite simply,
"corrosive to the public's trust" — in the Judicial Branch of
government.
