A thread for Rudy {Rudy Giuliani}

Thought I would start a thread specifically about Rudy’s litigation woes.

Sounds like he’s in financial troubles. Un-indicted co-conspirator One in Washington, indicted co-conspirator in Georgia, defendant in four, count’em four, defamation suits; facing disbarment in NY and DC; it all adds up.

Says he has to sell an apartment in NY for $6 million (asking price). Admitted he made the statements alleged to be defamatory in one action, to cut down litigation costs. Having trouble paying a huge monthly bill of $20,000 for e-storage of his files, which he needs to mount his defences.

Oh, and quelle surprise, The Donald has stiffed him on his bills for all that high quality legal work he did for Trump back in 2020.

Details here:

Everything Trump touches dies.

Here’s the article about Trump not paying Rudy:

Everything Trump touches dies.

The article reports some more 3-D chess by the Great Cheeto:

And reactions from some New Yorkers who have personal knowledge of Rudy’s legal work:

John Dean predicts that Rudy will declare bankruptcy and then apply for a public defender.


All true, but if Rudy tries this tack to get court appointed counsel, won’t he have to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he is truly indigent?

Different in our system. Accused has to demonstrate indigence first.

No, I just wanted to start a separate thread on Guiliani, to avoid hijacking any of the many other litigation threads.

They could use the story line from The Simpsons where Homer and Mr Burns are trapped in a cabin.

Awk! Brain bleach! brain bleach!

Probably pay-walled, but here’s the NY Times article. He still thinks he can defend himself

The link is missing, but a Newsweek version is linked in the Rudy Pit thread. I’ll copy it from there,

All credit to @Railer13 for bringing up the link in said thread first (WAY more than you wanted to know about Rudy Giuliani).

A point though, and IANAL, so I have no way to verify if this is a legit tactic or just making the most out of a bad situation.

Ted Goodman, political advisor to the former mayor, told Newsweek Giuliani “did not acknowledge that the statements were false but did not contest it in order to move on to the portion of the case that will permit a motion to dismiss.”

“This is a legal issue, not a factual issue,” he said. “Those out to smear the mayor are ignoring the fact that this stipulation is designed to get to the legal issues of the case.”

So it seems they’re not challenging that so they can argue the rest of the merits of the case. Which IMHO seems they know that they can’t challenge that part, and are going to try to weasel on the definitions of harm and/or reasonable belief to try to get out of or minimize the settlement. A second point from the Newsweek version:

CNN reported earlier in July that Freeman and Moss’ lawyer had disclosed that Giuliani’s team had approached them “to discuss a potential negotiated resolution,” which they described as being close to agreement.

Since the damages claim were unspecified, I bet the continuing case is to convince the election workers to accept a cheaper settlement and move on. Personally, I’d settle sooner than later (even though I’d love to drag Rudy through the courts) as long as I could get cash on the barrel. A looooot of people are lining up for a shot at him.

Now I want to know if Rudy meant “defamatory per se” in the colloquial or the legal sense?

Thanks. Don’t know what happened to the link. Here it is again:
Giuliani Concedes He Made False Statement About Georgia Election Workers.

I could neb wrong, but I don’t think he admitted he “lied”. Do you have a cite?

From the article in post #2:

Yes, he admitted to making false statements, not lying. The two are not the same, correct?

The difference can, of course, be seen when comparing the quality reporting by the NYT and the rubbish that Newsweek has become. (both linked in this thread).

There are different definitions that can be applied. But as it applies here it is difficult to see how Rudy made actionable false statements that he could reasonably say he believed to be truthful. That’s lying in my book.

Only if you can plausibly claim ignorance, which Rudy cannot.

Though I guess you’re asking if Rudy admitted that he knew the truth, and I do have to agree with you that it looks like he hasn’t done that, so it’s correct that he didn’t “admit that he lied”.

He did admit to saying something false, when clearly he knew better, so you can consider it a half-confession I suppose.