Rudy Giuliani admits it was all a lie.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

Rudy Giuliani admits everything regarding Trump's Big Election lie was just a lie peddled by a sore loser spoiled brat and his clown car show of lawyers in an attempt to overthrow our Democracy with an attack on our Constitution.  Rudy also admits the claims against the Georgia election workers were also lies.  

Facing total disbarment with state and federal criminal charges looming, Rudy is hoping to hide behind the 1st Amendment.  We know how that defense worked out for Fox when they KNOWINGLY spewed their lies and they had to pay almost $1-Trillion as a consequence of the garbage they spew.  I expect Rudy to take a plea deal and turn state's evidence in the prosecution of Benedict Donald the Traitor tRump.  The Orange Don the conman clown is goin' down fittingly like the big POS to which he's akin.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66318528

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rudy-giuliani-georgia-2020-election-workers-false-statements

[StoneTheCrow]

Anytime you wheel out a nickname:



I mean that sincerely.

Edit: why is the “R” capitalized though? I’ve always wondered.

[NATI BENGALS]

Easily the most high profile act of treason in my lifetime by USA politicians with power.

Wonder what the most severe penalty is for treason?

[basballguy]

So if Fred is lurking on another account I’m curious about the lawyerspeak here.

Is he saying he intentionally lied for the purpose changing the election?

Or is this like a WaPo thing where he just assumed he was right and was running his mouth without actually knowing facts?

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(07-28-2023, 06:25 PM)basballguy Wrote: So if Fred is lurking on another account I’m curious about the lawyerspeak here.

Is he saying he intentionally lied for the purpose changing the election?  

Or is this like a WaPo thing where he just assumed he was right and was running his mouth without actually knowing facts?

Here's the link to the official court document to which Rudy admits to the court it was all a lie. 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.84.2.pdf

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(07-28-2023, 06:19 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Anytime you wheel out a nickname:



I mean that sincerely.

Edit: why is the “R” capitalized though? I’ve always wondered.

R= Rump as in jackass, as in buttocks

[basballguy]

(07-28-2023, 06:35 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: R= Rump as in jackass, as in buttocks

I’ve never known rump to be an inflammatory word….though it’s not really in my vocabulary. I did know it was an alternative to butt though

[StoneTheCrow]

(07-28-2023, 06:35 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: R= Rump as in jackass, as in buttocks

Lmao goddamn. It just got even better!

[basballguy]

(07-28-2023, 06:30 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Here's the link to the official court document to which Rudy admits to the court it was all a lie. 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.84.2.pdf

Haha thanks…reading that doesn’t make me feel like I know anymore…they way it reads it’s like “what I said could be false but let’s not take it to trial and find out”

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(07-28-2023, 06:48 PM)basballguy Wrote: Haha thanks…reading that doesn’t make me feel like I know anymore…they way it reads it’s like “what I said could be false but let’s not take it to trial and find out”

#3 in Rudy admits to wit,  "Such claims and statements he claimed as factual and otherwise actionable, where such statements were in fact false."  

The rest is where he's saying he doesn't waive his right to a defense as protected by the 1A of the constitution.   Good luck with that Rudy!  LMAO!

MAGA= Making attorneys get attorneys. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-ethics-complaints-joke-maga-making-attorneys-get-attorneys-2022-9

[Stewy]

(07-28-2023, 07:02 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: #3 in Rudy admits to wit,  "Such claims and statements he claimed as factual and otherwise actionable, where such statements were in fact false."  

The rest is where he's saying he doesn't waive his right to a defense as protected by the 1A of the constitution.   Good luck with that Rudy!  LMAO!

Amazing how honest liars get when their livelihoods get threatened by the lie.  Amazing how honest liars get when they have to give sworn testimony, where lying means Federal Prison and disbarment.  Just like Rupert Murdoch and FOX, when the courts get involved, then the truth comes out.

Hey MAGA!!!  Everything Trump, Guiliani and FAUX NEWS have been telling you since Trump committed Treason and lost the election was a lie.  Just like the rest of the world has been trying to tell you.  Murdoch has admitted it was lies and Giuliani has admitted it was lies.  You're being lied to constantly - time to wake up.

[Dill]

(07-28-2023, 06:25 PM)basballguy Wrote: So if Fred is lurking on another account I’m curious about the lawyerspeak here.

Is he saying he intentionally lied for the purpose changing the election?  

Or is this like a WaPo thing where he just assumed he was right and was running his mouth without actually knowing facts?

As I understand the Nolo Contendre Stipulation, he is not saying that he lied at all.

What he is saying is that SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS LITIGATION, i.e., settling the suit, 

he understands that the statements he gave could now be considered factually false,

and again, for the "purposes" etc., doesn't contest their meaning was defamatory "per se." 

But he does not admit that his statements caused the months of fear and stress and other
damages which followed when they were singled out for persecution.  

Even if they did, it was "free speech." Will we be able to keep ANY rights under the Biden administration, if
Rudy is punished for simply speaking his mind? 

In other news: Poll of Election Officials Shows High Turnover Amid Safety Threats and Political Interference: 45 percent of 
local election officials said they fear for the safety of their colleagues.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/poll-election-officials-shows-high-turnover-amid-safety-threats-and

[basballguy]

(07-28-2023, 08:44 PM)Dill Wrote: As I understand the Nolo Contendre Stipulation, he is not saying that he lied at all.

What he is saying is that SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS LITIGATION, i.e., settling the suit, 

he understands that the statements he gave could now be considered factually false,

and again, for the "purposes" etc., doesn't contest their meaning was defamatory "per se." 

But he does not admit that his statements caused the months of fear and stress and other
damages which followed when they were singled out for persecution.  

Even if they did, it was "free speech." Will we be able to keep ANY rights under the Biden administration, if
Rudy is punished for simply speaking his mind? 

In other news: Poll of Election Officials Shows High Turnover Amid Safety Threats and Political Interference: 45 percent of 
local election officials said they fear for the safety of their colleagues.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/poll-election-officials-shows-high-turnover-amid-safety-threats-and

Thanks Dill.

So it sounds like the author of this article is of course stretching the truth to fit an agenda.  

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(07-28-2023, 09:35 PM)basballguy Wrote: Thanks Dill.

So it sounds like the author of this article is of course stretching the truth to fit an agenda.  

Not so fast buddy.

Here you can read for yourself, but to save you time a Nolo Contendre plea means you are not admitting guilt but you are admitting to the facts and the complaint levied against you.  

1. A defendant’s plea of NOLO CONTENDRE to a complaint does not admit guilt, but subjects him to punishment as though a guilty plea had been entered.
   

https://legaldictionary.net/nolo-contendere/

In the case at hand is civil litigation, thus the threshold or burden of proof is much lower than that of a criminal trial to prove guilt as its a preponderance of the evidence.  Rudy is stipulating (Admitting without any dispute the facts in the complaint) that everything he and Trump's cronies accused the two Georgia election workers of were KNOWINGLY false accusations,  inasmuch a lie.   

Again read #3 of Rudy's stipulation, "Such claims and statements he claimed as factual and otherwise actionable, where such statements were in fact false."  Here again, is Rudy's concession to the complaint the Georgia election workers levied against him.  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.84.2.pdf


So Baseball guy, when someone admits in writing, signs, and files with a court of law they DO NOT CONTEST that the statements they made and claimed to be actionable facts (meaning giving sufficient reason to take legal action) were actually false, can you let us know what exactly Rudy's statement that he filed with a court of law means to you? 

[Dill]

(07-29-2023, 01:07 AM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Not so fast buddy.

Here you can read for yourself, but to save you time a Nolo Contendre plea means you are not admitting guilt but you are admitting to the facts and the complaint levied against you.  

1. A defendant’s plea of NOLO CONTENDRE to a complaint does not admit guilt, but subjects him to punishment as though a guilty plea had been entered.
   

https://legaldictionary.net/nolo-contendere/

In the case at hand is civil litigation, thus the threshold or burden of proof is much lower than that of a criminal trial to prove guilt as its a preponderance of the evidence.  Rudy is stipulating (Admitting without any dispute the facts in the complaint) that everything he and Trump's cronies accused the two Georgia election workers of were KNOWINGLY false accusations,  inasmuch a lie.   

Again read #3 of Rudy's stipulation, "Such claims and statements he claimed as factual and otherwise actionable, where such statements were in fact false."  Here again, is Rudy's concession to the complaint the Georgia election workers levied against him.  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.84.2.pdf

So Baseball guy, when someone admits in writing, signs, and files with a court of law they DO NOT CONTEST that the statements they made and claimed to be actionable facts (meaning giving sufficient reason to take legal action) were actually false, can you let us know what exactly Rudy's statement that he filed with a court of law means to you? 

Maybe BG was referring to the Stipulation. That's not an "article." And the article about it was accurate.

Maybe he was referring to the Brennan Center survey of election officials. 

Perhaps he's is saying that he doubts the report that election officials are having difficulty
finding volunteers because of the threats and other harassment they have faced on the job.

I.e., that's not really happening. Fits an "agenda" etc.  Not sure, but maybe that's the reference.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(07-29-2023, 11:32 AM)Dill Wrote: Maybe BG was referring to the Stipulation. That's not an "article." And the article about it was accurate.

Maybe he was referring to the Brennan Center survey of election officials. 

Perhaps he's is saying that he doubts the report that election officials are having difficulty
finding volunteers because of the threats and other harassment they have faced on the job.

I.e., that's not really happening. Fits an "agenda" etc.  Not sure, but maybe that's the reference.

Thanks for your input, but I do want to hear from Baseball Guy to hear how he's interpreting this admission through stipulation by Rudy in regard to the false claims of election fraud waged by Rudy and Trump, et al.  After all, he did accuse me of trying to fit an agenda, so let's break Rudy's court filing down. 

I'll break it down a bit more in layman's terms of what this means and why Rudy chose this route.

In #3 of Rudy's filing with the Court, he's saying he's stipulation (Agreeing not to dispute) that all election fraud claims by him and Trump were knowingly false; however, he is not admitting to guilt b/c he believes he and Trump had every right to say these things about the Georgia election workers b/c its protected speech as afforded by the 1st Amendment.   So that's why we see the NOLO stipulation-- basically Rudy's saying, "Yeah we did it and we knew it was a lie but we did it anyway b/c we have a constitutional right to say anything we want.   That's why Rudy isn't admitting guilt b/c he's saying he had every right to make these false election claims, but Rudy is admitting or stipulating the fact the election fraud claims were knowingly false accusations.  

We all took note of Fox's flawed defense and the $1-Trillion settlement they had to pay when they proffered said defective defense in their case v. Dominion.  Really, it came down to Fox's executives and anchors KNOWINGLY making false claims with reckless regard to damage a company's reputation and/or someone's personal character, and that is not protected speech by the 1A.   This was easily proven by the sworn depositions of Hannity, Ingraham, Tucker, Rupert Murdoch and his son, et al gave in admitting they knew what they were saying was false but they did it anyway b/c they didn't want to lose viewers and thought it was protected speech.   

Rudy, 

Good luck with this defense, you're going to need it. 

[Dill]

(07-29-2023, 03:11 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: In #3 of Rudy's filing with the Court, he's saying he's stipulation (Agreeing not to dispute) that all election fraud claims by him and Trump were knowingly false; however, he is not admitting to guilt b/c he believes he and Trump had every right to say these things about the Georgia election workers b/c its protected speech as afforded by the 1st Amendment.   So that's why we see the NOLO stipulation-- basically Rudy's saying, "Yeah we did it and we knew it was a lie but we did it anyway b/c we have a constitutional right to say anything we want.   That's why Rudy isn't admitting guilt b/c he's saying he had every right to make these false election claims, but Rudy is admitting or stipulating the fact the election fraud claims were knowingly false accusations.  

We all took note of Fox's flawed defense and the $1-Trillion settlement they had to pay when they proffered said defective defense in their case v. Dominion.  Really, it came down to Fox's executives and anchors KNOWINGLY making false claims with reckless regard to damage a company's reputation and/or someone's personal character, and that is not protected speech by the 1A.   This was easily proven by the sworn depositions of Hannity, Ingraham, Tucker, Rupert Murdoch and his son, et al gave in admitting they knew what they were saying was false but they did it anyway b/c they didn't want to lose viewers and thought it was protected speech.   

I thought BBG was saying the author of the article was stretching the truth. Not you. Perhaps he'll clarify.

Regarding the bolded. I didn't think Rudy was admitting that his statements were "knowingly" false, just that "for the purposes of this litigation," he does not contest that they were false as "statements of fact." Doesn't mean that he intended to make false statements or that his statement could not be seen as "true" in some other sense from some other angle.


He's not admitting guilt because he is NOT agreeing that the pain and damages the plaintiffs suffered were a 
consequence of his defamatory and false statements. (Perhaps the people who harrassed the plaintiffs for election fraud must
have gotten that info from somewhere else.)

[basballguy]

(07-29-2023, 08:47 PM)Dill Wrote: I thought BBG was saying the author of the article was stretching the truth. Not you. Perhaps he'll clarify.

Right...I don't claim to be an expert on this at all.  

The article says "Guliani admits to lying"

based on the document linked and Dill's explanation....that really doesn't seem to be the case.  

What it seems to be is he "could" be lying if he sticks to his position and proceeds with his case.  

It's (to me) a clear case of liberal media desperately trying to sell a narrative that isn't true.  

Now maybe Guliani lied for sure?  who knows?  But that's not what the document says...it's an overzealous simpleton trying to push an agenda because of political rage.

And liberal followers just eat it up because it satisfies their thirst for falsehoods.  

Sorry BigDaddy, you're a sucker.....but i mean that politely and not in a derogatory manner (if that's possible).  

[Dill]

(07-30-2023, 04:33 AM)basballguy Wrote: Right...I don't claim to be an expert on this at all.  

The article says "Guliani admits to lying"

based on the document linked and Dill's explanation....that really doesn't seem to be the case.  

What it seems to be is he "could" be lying if he sticks to his position and proceeds with his case.  

It's (to me) a clear case of liberal media desperately trying to sell a narrative that isn't true.  

Now maybe Guliani lied for sure?  who knows?  But that's not what the document says...it's an overzealous simpleton trying to push an agenda because of political rage.

And liberal followers just eat it up because it satisfies their thirst for falsehoods.  

Sorry BigDaddy, you're a sucker.....but i mean that politely and not in a derogatory manner (if that's possible).  

Well I agree the title is a distortion, a "stretch" in your words.

Rudy definitely does not admit to lying. He merely admits his statements are now "false" for "the purposes of this litigation."
I wouldn't waste time wondering if knew the lies were falsehoods when he peddled them.

I wouldn't hang the entire liberal media and readers on that one article title though. I wasn't "suckered" by the stretch. 

Still nothing on that side remotely like Fox promotion of the big lie, which millions ate up because it satisfied their thirst
for falsehoods, and they continue to act on that lie.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(07-29-2023, 08:47 PM)Dill Wrote: I thought BBG was saying the author of the article was stretching the truth. Not you. Perhaps he'll clarify.

Regarding the bolded. I didn't think Rudy was admitting that his statements were "knowingly" false, just that "for the purposes of this litigation," he does not contest that they were false as "statements of fact." Doesn't mean that he intended to make false statements or that his statement could not be seen as "true" in some other sense from some other angle.


He's not admitting guilt because he is NOT agreeing that the pain and damages the plaintiffs suffered were a 
consequence of his defamatory and false statements. (Perhaps the people who harrassed the plaintiffs for election fraud must
have gotten that info from somewhere else.)

I'm going to defer this to a few of the foremost legal minds that we have in this country for their opinions: Glen Kirschner, Esq. and Harry Litman, Esq.

Also, Rudy is absolutely admitting he knowingly lied! He's hanging on to the NO Contest and not admitting guilt b/c he's saying he had a right to say it.  Rudy's not admitting guilt b/c he's trying to hide behind the 1stAdmendment, but he's admitting to the facts of what he accused the Georgia election official were all lies and he knew it.  SMH!  Also, BTW I'm not the sucker who after 60+ court cases with many Trump appointed judges found there was zero evidence of any widespread election fraud.  Anyone who believes that  was taken by Trump's con.  My friend, You're in denial b/c you were and continue to be "Suckered" by Trump's lies.

Here's Constitutional Attorney, former Federal Prosecutor and US ARMY JAG Officer: Glen Kirschner, Esq. to break this down for you.  Watch and take note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MhuDlC0SwU

Here's another attorney, Harry Litman, Esq., former Federal Prosecutor and Constitutional legal expert concurring with Mr. Kirschner's opinion.  Around 4-Minutes in he explains why Rudy chose the No Contest stipulation where he admits to the fact it was all a lie, but he's hanging on the his defense not admitting guilt under the 1st Amendment as to only his right of free speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aed0zjgK1RM

Glen Kirschner, Esq.

Harry Litman, Esq.