Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRudy Giuliani Reportedly Failed To 'Answer Basic Questions' At His Misconduct Hearing
Rudy Giuliani allegedly lost his composure last week while appearing as the first witness in his own attorney-misconduct hearing. As reported by Business Insider, the former New York City mayor, 78, seemed unable to answer simple and straightforward questions from the opposing counsel, and frequently veered off course.
Link to tweet
What Does The Ethics Case Entail?
The ethics case in question was brought by the Washington DC bars Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and focuses on the politicians attempts to overturn the 2020 election results in Pennsylvania. This was when Giuliani was the personal attorney of then-President Donald Trump.
The office alleges that Giuliani filed a frivolous lawsuit and sought out to nullify Pennsylvanias presidential-election results. Giulianis claims of widespread voter fraud, the office alleges, occurred despite no factual or legal basis.
Giuliani ultimately violated the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct by filing this lawsuit, according to the office, and he also engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/rudy-giuliani-reportedly-failed-answer-230033979.html
Was he drunk again?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
9 replies, 1426 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (17)
ReplyReply to this post
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rudy Giuliani Reportedly Failed To 'Answer Basic Questions' At His Misconduct Hearing (Original Post)
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
Dec 2022
OP
He sounds unwell, and whether that is complicated by alcohol or age or a combo of the two...
Hekate
Dec 2022
#3
He's going to plead 'broken brain' from too much red wine. Florida Man won't return his calls.
marble falls
Dec 2022
#9
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,784 posts)1. I watched a decent portion of this hearing
A number of other DUers also watched
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217437076
Rudy was not a happy camper
Pas-de-Calais
(9,911 posts)2. Those surprised form single file line to the far far right
Tanuki
(14,926 posts)7. The only thing that surprised me was reading that he's 78 years old.
I would have guessed he was several years older, for some reason.
Hekate
(90,952 posts)3. He sounds unwell, and whether that is complicated by alcohol or age or a combo of the two...
We cant know, really. But he sure needs to stop practicing Law.
Tickle
(2,585 posts)4. I believe the court
suspended his license so no need to worry about the little old guy stir up any trouble he's got that one foot in the ground look
Groundhawg
(566 posts)5. Rudi is a poor excuse for a human.
Walleye
(31,118 posts)6. Michael Cohen: "The problem with Rudy is that he's drunk all the time"
keithbvadu2
(36,997 posts)8. Telling the truth... nothing but...
https://parade.com/86289/marilynvossavant/telling-the-truth-02/
Telling the Truth
September 2, 2009 - 9:15 AM - 0 Comments
Marilyn vos Savant
By Marilyn vos Savant
Alano Gray (New York, New York) writes:
Marilyn: Ive been working in a legal environment for ten years. Believe it or not, most attorneys cannot explain the difference between the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You once wrote a brilliant definition of what differentiates them, but Ive been unable to locate it in your archives. Can you repeat it?
Marilyn responds:
Heres the original question and answer, abbreviated:
Ed Hausafus of Eagle Creek, Oregon, writes:
Marilyn: When swearing in witnesses, court clerks ask them to promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What is the difference between the three? And if there is none, why dont they just ask witnesses to promise to be truthful?
Marilyn responds:
Theres a difference. And the truths are all stated explicitly because some people try to weasel out of promises while still insisting that theyve kept them. First, witnesses are asked to tell the truth. This means that they must not lie in response to a question.
Second, theyre asked to tell the whole truth. This means something else. For example, if a governor says that in my state, weve moved 17,000 people from welfare to work and omits adding the fact that in his state, 25,000 other people moved from work to welfare at the same time, he has told the truth but he hasnt told the whole truth. That is, the net effect was that 8,000 more people were on welfare, not 17,000 fewer.
Third, witnesses are asked to tell nothing but the truth. This is yet another concept. For example, if a person tells the truth in response to a question and then adds a lie, he or she has told the truth but he hasnt told nothing but the truth. And although none of this will stop truly dishonest people, at least it gives us good ammunition to charge them with perjury.
Telling the Truth
September 2, 2009 - 9:15 AM - 0 Comments
Marilyn vos Savant
By Marilyn vos Savant
Alano Gray (New York, New York) writes:
Marilyn: Ive been working in a legal environment for ten years. Believe it or not, most attorneys cannot explain the difference between the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You once wrote a brilliant definition of what differentiates them, but Ive been unable to locate it in your archives. Can you repeat it?
Marilyn responds:
Heres the original question and answer, abbreviated:
Ed Hausafus of Eagle Creek, Oregon, writes:
Marilyn: When swearing in witnesses, court clerks ask them to promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What is the difference between the three? And if there is none, why dont they just ask witnesses to promise to be truthful?
Marilyn responds:
Theres a difference. And the truths are all stated explicitly because some people try to weasel out of promises while still insisting that theyve kept them. First, witnesses are asked to tell the truth. This means that they must not lie in response to a question.
Second, theyre asked to tell the whole truth. This means something else. For example, if a governor says that in my state, weve moved 17,000 people from welfare to work and omits adding the fact that in his state, 25,000 other people moved from work to welfare at the same time, he has told the truth but he hasnt told the whole truth. That is, the net effect was that 8,000 more people were on welfare, not 17,000 fewer.
Third, witnesses are asked to tell nothing but the truth. This is yet another concept. For example, if a person tells the truth in response to a question and then adds a lie, he or she has told the truth but he hasnt told nothing but the truth. And although none of this will stop truly dishonest people, at least it gives us good ammunition to charge them with perjury.
marble falls
(57,413 posts)9. He's going to plead 'broken brain' from too much red wine. Florida Man won't return his calls.