“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.”

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    124
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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?

    • geekworking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.”

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          But he claims it totally exonerates him, in which case they would not even bring a criminal trial.

            • squiblet@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • squiblet@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

        • Mcdolan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • forrgott@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.”

                • TechyDad@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

            • Mcdolan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              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…