Mic 1972 wrote: » if you are referring to the Borat scene where he's being tricked by a 24 year old actress pretending to be 15, the circumstances of the set-up appear consensual and the actress is old enough to have consensual sex. On a side note: The film, released less than a fortnight before the election, ends with an instruction for viewers to vote.
notobtuse wrote: » I take it there is a process to be followed first in the suspension of his practicing law that needs to be followed first before any additional steps are taken by the wronged. I don't know if an Appellate Court can be sued... Do you? When did I comment of what is said by Trump or Giuliani to minorities? I guess you can give me examples and I can comment on them individually. Contrary to popular thought here I'm not every GOP politician's press secretary.
Deleted User wrote: » Isn't it great, encouraging people to exercise their democratic right. Borat isn't what won it for Joe though.
Leroy42 wrote: » You said it was a brilliant article and tht he wasn't even given due process. And you you say you don't even know what the process is? How can you honestly claim the process was flawed, and not only that but part of a grand conspiracy, without having an idea of what was done wrong. I never said you said they had claimed about minorities, it was a separate point in the post. That people like Trump, but not only Trump, are very quick to tell all and sundry that the system is not out to get them, that things are not systematically racist, sexist or whatever. Yet these are the very same people that are constantly claiming that said systems are actively targeting them. It just the off thinking that gets me. That they can both tell everyone else that they have no basis for their grievences, yet want everyone to see how awful everything is for them
notobtuse wrote: » What I commented on was he wasn't provided due process and the ability to defend himself against the charges. And that double standards seem to be rampant in the charge to get people associated with Trump. Where in the article did it state what the entire process of the suspension takes place and recourse? Did it need to? But what I read sure sounded great, clear, and informative, and concise.
everlast75 wrote: » "It is legal for Rudy to have sex with a 15 year" is about as good a defence as the "I kept my boxers on" Dersh defence. Listen - the only reason that film did not destroy Rudy is because he is already at rock bottom. Who can forget the Parnas and Fruman connection, all his cases getting bounced out of court, losing his law licence, "Four seasons landscaping", hair dye running during a press conference, farting in Court. He, like everyone around trump, ultimately collapses into the very worst version of themselves and becomes an object of utter ridicule.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » how do you know he wasn't afforded due process if you don't know what the process is?
notobtuse wrote: » I said I didn't know what the entire process was in going through the suspension and possible disbarment, not that I didn't know what Due Process is. Why do you find some strange need to twist most everything I say?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » To be fair that does tie in with GOP policy of having as few people vote as possible.
Mic 1972 wrote: » it definitely does tie with the left using lies to manipulate the vote, as seen in the movie ;-)
Cody montana wrote: » How was the vote manipulated?
Deleted User wrote: » Education. If it wasn't for all of those schools and colleges Trump would have been reelected.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Due process just means that your legal rights have been respected. If you don't know what the process is how can you say that Rudys rights have not been respected?
notobtuse wrote: » The part to Due Process not afforded him was the Right to an unbiased tribunal or impartial jury because he was singled out for something thousands of lawyers do every year, and since he was not treated fairly by the court as a decision was made without him being able to defend himself he was denied due process.
Deleted User wrote: » So when should we expect a civil rights case?
Quin_Dub wrote: » So far all that has happened is that Rudi has been essentially "refused bail" by the Review board as they believe there is a high probability of him re-offending. Anyone wondering why they think that should read the actual ruling where they have provided multiple examples and justifications for the steps taken.
A little more than seven months later, a committee of five judges from the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, has unanimously suspended Rudy Giuliani’s legal license pending a disciplinary hearing for false claims he made about election fraud as part of his representation of Trump.
notobtuse wrote: » Don't know. Have to see how the entire process plays out first.
notobtuse wrote: » Does "refused bail" means his legal license has been suspended? From your link
Mic 1972 wrote: » On a side note: The film, released less than a fortnight before the election, ends with an instruction for viewers to vote.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Thousands of Lawyers knowingly & repeatedly lie through their teeth on National Television for months every year in an effort to overthrow the constitutionally elected President?? Somehow I don't think a lawyer going on local news and saying "My Client is innocent" when they know full well that they aren't, is really the same.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d78fd5f5292e11c2974bcd779ad2a2f0.svg)
