For those who think that Giuliani is just a goofball who makes honest mistakes…
When asked by Bartiromo if he will be able to prove these claims before January, Giuliani claimed he has proof that he “can’t disclose yet.”
“We have people that I can’t really disclose that can describe the hardware in great detail,” said Giuliani.
Then a year and a half later he confessed the truth.
He is a liar. He doesn’t just blindly believe things. He makes deliberately false statements. This isn’t speculation, it has been objectively shown right in public.
We need to be clear here and not try to make excuses for the man.
In addition to this, the entire stolen election edifice is founded on only one piece of data - that Donald Trump says so and repeats it. That, and only that, is the genesis of it all and there isn’t a single piece of actual evidence; knowing that, nobody can innocently say something in support of that belief. Supporting it equals lying.
I have the opposite opinion. Did Rudy know he was lying? Probably, but not guaranteed (or necessary). IMO, it is more likely that he simply didn’t care if he was lying or not.
Did Rudy know that the infamous video showing “suitcases full of ballots” was highly edited surveillance footage designed to give the impression of nefarious actions by the election workers? I suspect he knew it was highly edited footage and that it was designed purposely to suggest wrongdoing. Did he really believe that it was showing actual voter fraud being committed? I don’t think he gave much thought one way or the other.
Like BobLibDem, I find fault with Rudy’s spreading it as being true, as well as considerably more bits of disinformation. Not just because he did not perform a minimal amount of verification, but also for not issuing retraction when it was shown to be false.
Just like Trump, I don’t think there is any way to prove what Rudy actually thought two and a half years ago. What his actions were and his intent for those actions are clearly documented, however, and both should be held accountable for those actions, not for their beliefs.
But in the environment of entire stolen-election thing being nothing more than a construct of Trump’s, without any actual, real evidence, how could he not have known?
He said that he had proof. He did not have proof. There is no way that he could have failed to know that he did not have proof. That makes his statement that he had proof, a lie. And if he was making statements that were lies, then he is a liar.
A lot of ground work was done. Mail in ballots were being vilified by Republicans and Trump long before the election. And, of course, the election fraud myth that we thought was just a justification for restricting access to polls was also intended to be in place before the inevitable election loss.
Don’t know if Trump was smart enough but someone was.
[tongue firmly in cheek] I think you’re missing an important point here - if Rudy were to actually check the validity of the claims, he would find they were wrong, and therefore he couldn’t bring them to court. By not checking into the claims, he can “believe” them, and bring them to court and he’s not a liar![/tongue]
no, no no. There’s a memo that came from a staffer that heard from someone that it was possible. That’s at least 3 pieces of data! (or at least three pieces of something…)
I hate to be actually defending something said by this POS, but, consider this (very likely) scenario:
AT THE TIME, Rudy truly thought they had evidence. He was a fool for declaring that they had proof before the proof was vetted, but he was not (necessarily) lying.
OK, let me rephrase that - either he’s an idiot for claiming they had proof before it was vetted, or he’s a liar for saying they had proof when they had none.
NO MATTER WHAT, this was done to seed doubt in the electoral system to further their aim at disenfranchising future voters. The man is evil. Whether he’s also a liar or a fool (or both) is a matter of semantics.
No it isn’t. He’s an evil, foolish liar, and the sooner he’s out of the public consciousness, the better.
(Sorry, I didn’t mean to insult you, I take it back.)
As to this… I would accept this premise except he later admitted they never had proof, they only had theories, and assumed that the proof would appear.
Think of a desperate, degenerate gambler. (Not a stretch I guess.) They owe someone a lot of money. They tell that person, don’t worry, I have the money, I will pay you the day after tomorrow, I promise. I just need to get it to you, but I have the money.
The next day they go in to a casino and bet all they have on the roulette wheel. If they win they will have more than enough money to pay off the debt and have some left over. They lose.
Now, was that gambler lying? They had faith that they’d be able to pay off their debt, they had a gut feeling that their lucky break was coming. They assumed that they’d appear in two days’ time with the money in hand and everything would be square.
But that doesn’t matter. Their belief that everything would work out doesn’t matter. They claimed they had money they knew they didn’t have, and it doesn’t matter that they thought that they’d eventually have it. In the moment they were lying and knew it. And later when it doesn’t work out the way they hope, and they’re stuck, they will beg for forgiveness and apologize and swear they weren’t lying, they were sure they’d make it all right. But they were definitely, unambiguously lying.
That is what Rudy Guiliani is. He might have assumed that the proof would show up to vindicate their claims, but regardless, he knowingly and willfully lied.
Of course it is implicitly understood. That is the default. If you don’t want to appear to know something, then you use a qualifier like “I think” or “I believe” or “I assume”.
When you say “I know that”, you’re only emphasizing how strongly you know something. That’s at least how American English works.
Look at these statements:
The sky is blue.
I know that the sky is blue.
I think that the sky is blue.
I assume that the sky is blue.
I believe that the sky is blue.
I imagine that the sky is blue.
To me and I believe any native English speaker, we’d equate the first two statements. The other 4 have qualifiers to inform the reader/listener that they aren’t making a definitive statement of fact.
In any case, you also have to look at what Rudy was saying in context. When he said they had evidence, he was making the case that what they were saying was true. He very, obviously, unambiguously meant that he knew for a fact that they had evidence. That is the only reason for speaking. He was trying to convince the public. There was no prevarication. No caution. It was clear and definitive.
Anything suggesting otherwise is revisionism that ignores what is well-documented public information.
Yes. They explicitly said “I have the money”. They did not have the money. They had a dream of having money, but they lied about actually having it.
Same with Rudy. He had no proof. He knew he had no proof. he claimed he had the proof. He hoped the proof would arrive soon.
It did not. There was no proof. Rudy Lied.
