But only the first two responses from one user resulted in me being emailed. Hmmm.
It depends open what you believed to be the truth. If you really thought she was there, for whatever reason, then it’s not a lie. Either way, you were being careless with the truth, but it’s only a lie if you knew your statement to be false at the time.
Okay, so Rudy was lying or completely delusional, since there was absolutely no shred of rational basis for believing what he said.
That’s a fair point. But I’m sure you’ll agree that Rudy’s track record over the past few years suggests he and the truth have a strained relationship. His Bar license wasn’t suspended for theft, but for lying.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, a former top federal prosecutor, New York City mayor and lawyer to a president, had his law license suspended after a New York court ruled on Thursday that he made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” while fighting the results of the 2020 election on behalf of Donald J. Trump.
And, to be fair to the posters in this thread, many news organizations have also said he admitted lying:
Or he was simply wrong. Hell, he could even have been correct and realized that he couldn’t substantiate the claim. I don’t know. And neither do you. But given who he is, I guess the worst must be ascribed. 
You can’t seriously dispute that, can you? Given who he is, of course the worst must be ascribed. By us anyway, not in court.
Why would I, or anyone, believe what he said when not a shred of evidence was produced to support it? Why would he believe it?
News organizations saying he lied may somewhat excuse the mistake the OP and other posters have made in claiming he lied, but it does not excuse those who cling to the belief. The OP claimed “Rudy admits he lied…”. Was as he lying when he made that claim? Or was he simply mistaken. For me, an accusation of lying requires proof, so I assume the OP was simply mistaken, probably for the reason you raised.
Are you saying that RG is a serial killer and rapist? I mean there’s no evidence for that, just as there’s no evidence that he was lying and just not mistaken. I mean, given who he is, the worst must be ascribed, right?
Gotta run to dinner reservations. Back later, or tomorrow. Have a nice night, all.
He probably lied. The alternate explanation is that he has no connection to reality and rational thought.
Great to have you back. Enjoy your dinner
No, I’ll stick to the lying part. That’s where he has a well established track record.
Who insisted on that? Do you know what he said about the election workers in Georgia? Do you think he had a reasonable basis to believe they were true?
So if I picked a random stranger and loudly proclaimed that that person was in the habit of murdering children, I wouldn’t be lying?
Incorrect.
We have crap loads of evidence. Rudy Giuliani is a habitual liar. He claimed that he had evidence of vote fraud then admitted that he only had guesses. He claimed in public that there was vote fraud, then admitted while under oath in a court of law that there was no vote fraud, but instead he intended to file lawsuits based on technicalities and minor voter law irregularities.
Your insistence that he honestly believed his claims but was simply incorrect is being made despite the fact that he has lied repeatedly on the subject, and that he was basing his claims off of video that clearly did not show what he said it did.
You are the one really going far out on a limb here and making wild assertions that fly in the face of all evidence. He was 100% without question lying. He has suffered massive legal problems because of his propensity to lie, and he will continue to do so. He will face them in this case as well, because others as aren’t willing to cover their eyes and ignore everything as you seem to be.
It appears that the judge in the defamation case believes that Giuliani indeed lied about the election workers given his admissions to date:
A federal judge on Friday demanded an explanation from Rudy Giuliani as to why he conceded in court that he made false and defamatory statements about two Georgia election workers after the 2020 election but hasn’t forfeited their lawsuit against him.
…
In a court filing last month, Giuliani acknowledged that he had made defamatory statements about the election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, though he stopped short of conceding that his statements caused damages to the pair. Giuliani also said in the July filing that he still wanted to argue that his statements about voter fraud in Georgia were protected by free speech.Giuliani has until Tuesday afternoon to either forfeit the lawsuit, conceding he is liable and opening himself up to pay the ballot-counters’ damages, or give Judge Beryl Howell more explanation and appear before her for a hearing in mid-August.
I would describe what you presented as the howling of a madman. Now if that person were not random, it would depend on the person you were referring to. In which case there wold be three possibilities: A: you are correct. B: you are incorrect. C: you are incorrect and know it, aka, lying.
Look, we’re talking about when a person’s false/incorrect statement can be fairly characterized as a lie. For me, the person making the statement must know the statement to be incorrect when he makes it. If you believe differently, good for you.
Multiple posters are insisting his statement was a lie. Just scroll and read. Which I find both mind boggling and hilarious.
You’re attempting to shift the burden of proof. The OP claimed RG admitted “he lied”. In my very first post in this thread I said I don’t think that’s the case and asked the OP for a cite where he made such an admission. None has been presented. A simple cite showing RG admitting that he lied would have satisfied me. But it appears that such a cite does not exist. As it stands the OP’s headline is either just wrong or a lie. Since I don’t know what is in his mind, I assume it was just a factually incorrect statement. Him asking the mods to correct his headline would strengthen that belief.
Hmm. I’m getting emails for some posts, but not for others.
For the record, the OED and most other dictionaries include both definitions for ‘Lie’, specifically both an intentionally false statement, and used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression. (Both from the OED)
So feel free to feel he has not lied based on the first option (even if given his track record most of us are going to vehemently disagree), but be aware that it’s just a valid to say he is indeed lying by the second.
ETA - for that matter, back in post # 2, I specified that it looked like rather than admitting he was wrong or lying, he was choosing not to contest that point in order to move on to other points of the case. Which, I grant, is a difference between admitting to lying.
But it’s still leaving him in a bad place with the judge in his countersuit.