Unfazed by latest lawsuit, Giuliani re-ups fraud claims that cost him $148 million
“They are suing me in order to lie to them. I’m sorry, I can’t do it,” he said.
Rudy Giuliani doubled down on his election-related allegations Monday, just days after two Georgia election workers won millions in a defamation lawsuit against him and hours after they filed another suit against him.
The former New York mayor must pay $148 million in damages to election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss as a result of their emotional distress following Giuliani’s accusations that the two were manipulating ballots in 2020. The second lawsuit sought to keep him from repeating the debunked claims at the heart of the first case.
In a rambling interview with Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt, Giuliani blasted the verdict, describing the court as a “fascist system run by the Biden regime.”
Giuliani told Schmitt that he still believes the allegations to be true, but that they “want me to lie.”
“If I showed you the evidence right now … people would see that what I said was absolutely true and there’s support for it.”
The time to show exonerating evidence was BEFORE he got ordered to pay $148 million...
Or is he saving it for the criminal trial and just doesn't want to play his hand early?
Is the evidence in the room with us now Rudy?
Show us on the doll where the evidence touched you Rudy.
His girlfriend has the evidence. You wouldn't know her. She goes to another school.
In
RussiaCanada.People who have exonerating evidence show it, and everything goes away without any civil or criminal trials.
People who have only bullshit lose trials and get criminal charges because all they have are lies. Their only play is to keep doubling down on the lies.
I can’t see how waiting would help.
Revealing the evidence in a civil case would show the prosecuters in the criminal case what his strategy is and let them work around it sooner than they would be able to otherwise.
I think Grampy Rudy is playing the long game, knowing that's he's going to dodge paying a penny to anyone, but that the real strategy is "stay out of jail."
But he claims it totally exonerates him, in which case they would not even bring a criminal trial.
Oh, it's coming regardless of the evidence.
Obviously we all know here that Giuliani has no 'evidence', but if he did and they brought a criminal case, so what? It would get tossed out.
They already brought the criminal case and that's not the way criminal cases work. The evidence still has to be presented at trial and would need to be cross examined.
So by releasing that information early, in a civil case, they would be giving the prosecution the advantage of extra time to poke holes in their defense.
You don't just present evidence in a criminal case and get to go home, trials don't work like that.
Giuliani claims it's bulletproof, completely exonerating evidence. So they couldn't poke holes in it. If such evidence was made public, the prosecution would back down rather than run a hopeless case against him. Of course, we know that he has nothing, as noted.
No prosecution backs down like that, again, trials don't work that way.
If they have already initiated the case, Sure. They'd evaluate the evidence in court. If they hadn't, no, they could decide to not bring charges if it seemed like it would be a waste of time and/or they'd be censured for a frivolous case.
We're talking about the Georgia election interference, so yes, the criminal case is already initiated. :)
We're also talking about some purely hypothetical world where Giuliani has 'evidence'.
I mean sure that might buy him some time, but I was under the impression that you can't just show new evidence during a trial that you had before the trial. Isn't all evidence shared between parties before setting foot in the court room?
The much simpler explanation I think is he's talking out his ass and praying for a dictator Trump to save him.
It is, during the discovery process, but there's no reason to let the prosecution in on it before discovery and who knows when that will happen?
Leaking the info in a civil case might have saved him some money, but may end up hurting the criminal case.
I'm just failing to come up with any scenarios where that'd be helpful other than some Q conspiracies being true or something. But IANAL..
Do any of us believe said evidence exists?
In the context of this particular case, I'm not sure this type strategy is actually relevant. How many cases that were filed after that election got dismissed with prejudice for failing to provide any actual evidence? It didn't exist then, it doesn't exist now.
I personally don't because of the pattern of behavior in the Trump orbit...
"We sent the best investigators to Hawaii and you just wait until you see what they uncovered at our big press conference next Tuesday!"
(Next Tuesday) "Crickets."
"Yeah, well, we sent Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine and you just wait until you see what he uncovered at our big press conference next Tuesday!"
(Next Tuesday) "Crickets."
"Yeah, well, we sent the Cyber Ninjas to Arizona and you just wait until you see what they uncovered at our big press conference next Tuesday!"
(Next Tuesday) "Crickets."
That last one actually did come back with a report - that said little to no fraud took place. They spent millions of dollars and used some shady practices with the ballots, but even they couldn't find anything.