Rudy Giuliani admits it was all a lie.

[Dill]

(07-31-2023, 05:23 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: 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

Thanks for continuing with this and sending the links.  I'm still not seeing a lie confession though. Here's why:

A hypothetical: If I hear someone say that BBG stole Trump votes and replaced them with Biden ballots. 
I might believe that and repeat it in public venues, resulting in massive harassment of BBG.

Then later it turns out BBG was in Bolivia during the election and didn't even vote. I.e., didn't do it and couldn't have.

He sues me for defamation. I agree, for purposes of litigation, that my statements were false.

But since I believed they were true at the time, I'm perfectly correct in refusing to say I lied, which requires intent.
(The Constanza defense.)  Merely agreeing my statements were false after the fact is definitely not, in itself,
confession of a lie. 

Maybe Rudy knew his claims were a lie; maybe he thought them possibly true but not for sure; maybe he was so
foolish as to actually believing the libelous claims. He frequently used the phrase "apparent" fraud. 
None of these options would surprise me, if we could know. No question he was irresponsible, especially for a lawyer,
and should be disbarred. 

As far as the men in your videos--Yes they are lawyers, but that does not change the above argument that agreeing
that a statement one made in the past is false is not prima facie evidence one lied in making it.  

We need to be careful here, as our friends on the right, especially at Fox, make their living by calling every erroneous
statement not made by Trump a lie, regardless of what those making it knew or believed. 

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

Well in other news, a Georgia Superior Court Judge just rejected Trump's motion to dismiss and disqualify Fulton Co prosecutor Fani Willis citing one of the reasons of Rudy's recent admission.  The Judge denied Trump's request, citing that Giuliani "propagated and pushed" a false narrative the election was stolen.

I think some are getting confused by the no contest plea b/c it means you're not admitting guilt but you're admitting to the facts in the complaint levied against you.  A judge will always find you guilty/ liable when a No Contest plea is proffered.  Rudy's not admitting guilt b/c he's hiding behind his 1A right of free speech.  However, free speech isn't protected when you defame or KNOWINGLY say something you know to be false thus causing damage to an individual or company.  Mark my words, Rudy will be a star witness for the prosecuting attorney office.  Here Rudy is saying, I lied and there's no reason to prove I knowingly lied b/c I'm admitting I did lie; however, I'm allowed to lie b/c my words are protected under the 1st Amendment therefore I'm not guilty.

FYI, admitting you made false statements, and a judge ruling you "propagated and pushed a false narrative" is a nice way of saying you're a liar and lack credibility.

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2023, 08:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for continuing with this and sending the links.  I'm still not seeing a lie confession though. Here's why:

A hypothetical: If I hear someone say that BBG stole Trump votes and replaced them with Biden ballots. 
I might believe that and repeat it in public venues, resulting in massive harassment of BBG.

Then later it turns out BBG was in Bolivia during the election and didn't even vote. I.e., didn't do it and couldn't have.

He sues me for defamation. I agree, for purposes of litigation, that my statements were false.

But since I believed they were true at the time, I'm perfectly correct in refusing to say I lied, which requires intent.
(The Constanza defense.)  Merely agreeing my statements were false after the fact is definitely not, in itself,
confession of a lie. 

Maybe Rudy knew his claims were a lie; maybe he thought them possibly true but not for sure; maybe he was so
foolish as to actually believing the libelous claims. He frequently used the phrase "apparent" fraud. 
None of these options would surprise me, if we could know. No question he was irresponsible, especially for a lawyer,
and should be disbarred. 

As far as the men in your videos--Yes they are lawyers, but that does not change the above argument that agreeing
that a statement one made in the past is false is not prima facie evidence one lied in making it.  

We need to be careful here, as our friends on the right, especially at Fox, make their living by calling every erroneous
statement not made by Trump a lie, regardless of what those making it knew or believed. 

Agreed. After reading through the filing there is no admission of knowingly making false statements. Giuliani states that he made statements that are false, but he does not stipulate when he knew them to be false. Could that be something that is drug out of him? Potentially. He could of course take the Fifth in such a case, though if a prosecutor were to offer him immunity for his testimony against Trump then the Fifth would no longer be on the table.

It's all such a good time.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(07-31-2023, 08:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for continuing with this and sending the links.  I'm still not seeing a lie confession though. Here's why:

A hypothetical: If I hear someone say that BBG stole Trump votes and replaced them with Biden ballots. 
I might believe that and repeat it in public venues, resulting in massive harassment of BBG.

Then later it turns out BBG was in Bolivia during the election and didn't even vote. I.e., didn't do it and couldn't have.

He sues me for defamation. I agree, for purposes of litigation, that my statements were false.

But since I believed they were true at the time, I'm perfectly correct in refusing to say I lied, which requires intent.
(The Constanza defense.)  Merely agreeing my statements were false after the fact is definitely not, in itself,
confession of a lie. 

Maybe Rudy knew his claims were a lie; maybe he thought them possibly true but not for sure; maybe he was so
foolish as to actually believing the libelous claims. He frequently used the phrase "apparent" fraud. 
None of these options would surprise me, if we could know. No question he was irresponsible, especially for a lawyer,
and should be disbarred. 

As far as the men in your videos--Yes they are lawyers, but that does not change the above argument that agreeing
that a statement one made in the past is false is not prima facie evidence one lied in making it.  

We need to be careful here, as our friends on the right, especially at Fox, make their living by calling every erroneous
statement not made by Trump a lie, regardless of what those making it knew or believed. 

OK then, would you agree in order to prove defamation that caused you substantial harm and you're seeking relief you'd need to prove a defendant would have  to knowingly claim, put in writing, or publicly make a statement they knew to be false?  

Rudy is doing just that here in his concession to the court, so therefore he's admitting that he knowingly lied and there isn't a reason to prove it.  The case at hand is a civil defamation suit, and with this concession, Rudy's admitting he did in fact defame these two Georgia election workers.

[*Nately120*]

(07-31-2023, 08:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Agreed. After reading through the filing there is no admission of knowingly making false statements. Giuliani states that he made statements that are false, but he does not stipulate when he knew them to be false. Could that be something that is drug out of him? Potentially. He could of course take the Fifth in such a case, though if a prosecutor were to offer him immunity for his testimony against Trump then the Fifth would no longer be on the table.

It's all such a good time.

The idea that I lied but I didn't know I was lying seems like an impossibly child-like and self-serving way to look at legality.  I suppose if I steal a car and the police pull me over I can get out of it by telling them that I'm convinced that I own the car.

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2023, 09:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The idea that I lied but I didn't know I was lying seems like an impossibly child-like and self-serving way to look at legality.  I suppose if I steal a car and the police pull me over I can get out of it by telling them that I'm convinced that I own the car.

He isn't saying he lied, though. His statement is ambiguous to that. He is saying his statements were false but he doesn't state when he knew that to be the case. So, as far as his filing is putting out there he understood his statements to be accurate while he was making them. Which, when it comes to defamation law, is an important distinction. Not so much for car theft.

[Dill]

(07-31-2023, 09:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The idea that I lied but I didn't know I was lying seems like an impossibly child-like and self-serving way to look at legality.  I suppose if I steal a car and the police pull me over I can get out of it by telling them that I'm convinced that I own the car.

Actually, if you convinced the courts you believed your lie, you might get some time in altogether different sort of institution.

[*Nately120*]

(07-31-2023, 09:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He isn't saying he lied, though. His statement is ambiguous to that. He is saying his statements were false but he doesn't state when he knew that to be the case. So, as far as his filing is putting out there he understood his statements to be accurate while he was making them. Which, when it comes to defamation law, is an important distinction. Not so much for car theft.

I'm convinced this is my car, officer.  Not only do I believe it, but I truly NEED to believe it to preserve my freedom!

(07-31-2023, 09:42 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually, if you convinced the courts you believed your lie, you might get some time in altogether different sort of institution.

That's when I tell them I'm convinced I'm a woman and they send me to that jail I saw on Cinemax. 

[Dill]

(07-31-2023, 08:54 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: OK then, would you agree in order to prove defamation that caused you substantial harm and you're seeking relief you'd need to prove a defendant would have  to knowingly claim, put in writing, or publicly make a statement they knew to be false?  

Rudy is doing just that here in his concession to the court, so therefore he's admitting that he knowingly lied and there isn't a reason to prove it.  The case at hand is a civil defamation suit, and with this admission Rudy's admitting he did in fact defame these two Georgia election workers.

In this case, the judgment of the Freemans will not likely require an admission that he knew he was lying.

E.g., especially as a lawyer, there is an expectation that he would work to confirm the veracity of
potentially defaming statements before making them in public, just as we could reasonably expect a doctor
not to operate on someone without sterilizing his instruments.

I believe he can be held culpable if he did not do that due diligence. The free-speech plea shouldn't save
him from that. Just as no lawyer can give a client criminally bad advice, e.g., to break the law,
and then claim "free speech" as a defense. I'm not a lawyer, just parsing through this as I see it.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(07-31-2023, 09:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He isn't saying he lied, though. His statement is ambiguous to that. He is saying his statements were false but he doesn't state when he knew that to be the case. So, as far as his filing is putting out there he understood his statements to be accurate while he was making them. Which, when it comes to defamation law, is an important distinction. Not so much for car theft.

Ok, then let's get to the root/base of Rudy's accusations of election fraud, and is any what he accused the Georgia election officials creditable?  Rudy was saying things like there were Italian satellites that were controlled by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela changing Trump votes to Biden. Hugo Chavez died in March 2013 for crying out loud... 

The video tape he and Texas Lawyer Jacki Pick showed to the Georgia Senate of suitcases being pulled out from under a desk was edited and deemed to be not creditable.  When Rudy was under oath in front of a Federal Judge he was asked, "What evidence do you have of election fraud?"  Rudy answered, "Your Honor, we have none."  The judge accordingly dismissed the case with prejudice. The only election fraud that was happening was that of Trump's team attempting a coup.

So it'd be extremely easy to prove Rudy knowingly made baseless accusations of election fraud that had zero merit. Rudy knows this and that's why he chose the legal strategy of a No Contest Stipulation trying to hide behind the 1st Amendment.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(07-31-2023, 08:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for continuing with this and sending the links.  I'm still not seeing a lie confession though. Here's why:

Maybe Rudy knew his claims were a lie; maybe he thought them possibly true but not for sure; maybe he was so
foolish as to actually believing the libelous claims. He frequently used the phrase "apparent" fraud. 
None of these options would surprise me, if we could know. No question he was irresponsible, especially for a lawyer,
and should be disbarred. 

As far as the men in your videos--Yes they are lawyers, but that does not change the above argument that agreeing
that a statement one made in the past is false is not prima facie evidence one lied in making it.  

Where in Rudy's admission in #3 does he say, "Well at the time I thought it was true and now 2.5-years later, I now realize the statements I made were false?"  You're reading way too much into this.  It's like trying to argue the sky is yellow and the sun is blue and you really believed it was at one time in your life.

In #3 Rudy admits and does not contest, "That statements made as actionable statements of fact were not actionable statements of fact, and where such actionable statements were false."  So Rudy's not contesting that he made or pushed false statements as the original complaint alleges against him.

https://www.jurist.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/12/Moss-v-Giuliani.pdf   Read #4,5,6,7,8,9,10,&11 on pgs 2-5 in the original complaint against him and his co-defendants-- these are the facts to which he's admitting, but he isn't admitting guilt b/c he thinks he has a 1A right to say anything he wants.

[Dill]

(08-01-2023, 12:45 AM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Where in Rudy's admission in #3 does he say, "Well at the time I thought it was true and now 2.5-years later, I now realize the statements I made were false?"  You're reading way too much into this.  It's like trying to argue the sky is yellow and the sun is blue and you really believed it was at one time in your life.

In #3 Rudy admits and does not contest, "That statements made as actionable statements of fact were not actionable statements of fact, and where such actionable statements were false."  So Rudy's not contesting that he made or pushed false statements as the original complaint alleges against him.

https://www.jurist.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/12/Moss-v-Giuliani.pdf   Read #4,5,6,7,8,9,10,&11 on pgs 2-5 in the original complaint against him and his co-defendants-- these are the facts to which he's admitting, but he isn't admitting guilt b/c he thinks he has a 1A right to say anything he wants.

I'm not saying he said he thought the statements true.

The crucial point is that he does not admit he intentionally lied at the time.

He can "agree" his statements were false, for purposes of the litigation, without admitting to lying. 

Again, I want to say that Republicans have constantly accused Obama and Joe of "lying" when they
were doing no such thing. E.g., "You can keep your doctor." "A-stan won't be like Saigon." etc. 

We need to keep our terminology correct and not slip into MAGA definitions.

[Dill]

(07-31-2023, 10:12 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Ok, then let's get to the root/base of Rudy's accusations of election fraud, and is any what he accused the Georgia election officials creditable?  Rudy was saying things like there were Italian satellites that were controlled by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela changing Trump votes to Biden. Hugo Chavez died in March 2013 for crying out loud... 

The video tape he and Texas Lawyer Jacki Pick showed to the Georgia Senate of suitcases being pulled out from under a desk was edited and deemed to be not creditable.  When Rudy was under oath in front of a Federal Judge he was asked, "What evidence do you have of election fraud?"  Rudy answered, "Your Honor, we have none."  The judge accordingly dismissed the case with prejudice. The only election fraud that was happening was that of Trump's team attempting a coup.

So it'd be extremely easy to prove Rudy knowingly made baseless accusations of election fraud that had zero merit. Rudy knows this and that's why he chose the legal strategy of a No Contest Stipulation trying to hide behind the 1st Amendment.

I know what the guy did, and agree one could, in context of court, prove to a jury that R made baseless accusations.
We are not disagreeing about that. No need to prove to me that he is a fraudster.

We were only disagreeing whether he admitted to lying in the stipulation. I don't see that he does. 

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(08-01-2023, 11:18 AM)Dill Wrote: I'm not saying he said he thought the statements true.

The crucial point is that he does not admit he intentionally lied at the time.

He can "agree" his statements were false, for purposes of the litigation, without admitting to lying. 

Again, I want to say that Republicans have constantly accused Obama and Joe of "lying" when they
were doing no such thing. E.g., "You can keep your doctor." "A-stan won't be like Saigon." etc. 

We need to keep our terminology correct and not slip into MAGA definitions.

OK, but that's why I'm asking you to drill down into the original complaint against Rudy-- To get a better understanding of exactly what facts he's admitting were knowingly false.   Here's the original complaint.  The NO CONTEST filing Rudy made with the court makes reference to this being the underlying case to which the complaint was made.  

https://www.jurist.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/12/Moss-v-Giuliani.pdf

#4 of the complaint is where it starts to get really good, but in #7 it accuses Rudy of making this election fraud accusation that he and the OAN network knew were baseless and false. Here's #7, but I really do want ppl to read the full complaint and to see exactly what Rudy is admitting and conceding to doing.  The OAN network has also admitted and conceded to the facts set fourth in the complaint and publicly issued an apology to the Georgia election workers.

(Federal Case No. 1:21-cv-03354) 7) Freeman, et al v. Rudy Giuliani, OAN et al. 
 
7) With knowledge that the claims against Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss were not based
in fact, OAN has spent the past year accusing them of engaging in the illegal act of election fraud,
along with other false allegations. As part of that campaign, OAN repeatedly turned to Giuliani, a
member of former President Trump’s campaign team and one of the central orchestrators of the
conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was rigged.

On December 3, 2020, the Trump campaign published an edited video from a
grainy security camera that showed unidentified persons (including individuals later identified as
Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss) counting ballots. The Trump campaign and Giuliani used that video
to fabricate the lies that Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss were illegally counting ballots. Giuliani
amplified the video by posting about it on social media and directing his followers to watch it
multiple times over the next two days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we have Rudy's NO CONTEST Stipulation (Federal Case No. 1:21-cv-03354) admitting to the accusations contained within said complaint as fact, but not admitting guilt b/c of his believed protections under the 1st Amendment.  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.84.2.pdf

4) Defendant Giuliani DOES NOT CONTEST the INTENTIONAL INFLICTION of harm or other related tort claims.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “knowingly” as “[w]ith knowledge; consciously; intelligently; willfully; intentionally.
So what does the word INTENTIONAL mean to you? 

[Luvnit2]

(07-31-2023, 08:47 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Well in other news, a Georgia Superior Court Judge just rejected Trump's motion to dismiss and disqualify Fulton Co prosecutor Fani Willis citing one of the reasons of Rudy's recent admission.  The Judge denied Trump's request, citing that Giuliani "propagated and pushed" a false narrative the election was stolen.

I think some are getting confused by the no contest plea b/c it means you're not admitting guilt but you're admitting to the facts in the complaint levied against you.  A judge will always find you guilty/ liable when a No Contest plea is proffered.  Rudy's not admitting guilt b/c he's hiding behind his 1A right of free speech.  However, free speech isn't protected when you defame or KNOWINGLY say something you know to be false thus causing damage to an individual or company.  Mark my words, Rudy will be a star witness for the prosecuting attorney office.  Here Rudy is saying, I lied and there's no reason to prove I knowingly lied b/c I'm admitting I did lie; however, I'm allowed to lie b/c my words are protected under the 1st Amendment therefore I'm not guilty.

FYI, admitting you made false statements, and a judge ruling you "propagated and pushed a false narrative" is a nice way of saying you're a liar and lack credibility.

I find it ironic that Joe Biden has lied to reporters and the world for years. Devon Archer busted the Joe Biden never discussed business with his son bubbke.

I am sure to be a fair and unbiased person, you will also admit Joe Biden is a liar and lacks credibility. 

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(08-01-2023, 05:07 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I find it ironic that Joe Biden has lied to reporters and the world for years. Devon Archer busted the Joe Biden never discussed business with his son bubbke.

I am sure to be a fair and unbiased person, you will also admit Joe Biden is a liar and lacks credibility. 

https://media.tenor.com/kkM0yOjkHZUAAAAd/monty-python-holy-grail.gif

[BengalYankee]

(07-29-2023, 03:11 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: 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.   

Not yet calling you Pinocchio yet, but when did the sworn deposition of Hannity, Ingraham, and Carlson occur?
More importantly, do you know what a sworn deposition is? If so, back to question one, when did it occur?

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(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.

Seriously. They better charge Trump with some kind of involuntary manslaughter when this dude pops an aneurism thinking about hating Trump so much.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(08-02-2023, 05:13 AM)BengalYankee Wrote: Not yet calling you Pinocchio yet, but when did the sworn deposition of Hannity, Ingraham, and Carlson occur?
More importantly, do you know what a sworn deposition is? If so, back to question one, when did it occur?

The sworn depositions in regards to the Fox News Anchors and executive did occur in 2022.  Look under the discovery tab.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._Fox_News_Network

in December 2022 that Dominion had acquired communications between Fox News executives and hosts, and between a Fox Corporation employee and the Trump White House, showing they knew that what the network was reporting was untrue. Dominion attorneys said hosts Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, and Fox executives, attested to this in sworn depositions. In November 2020, Sidney Powell appeared on Hannity and asserted Dominion machines had been rigged, but Sean Hannity said in his deposition, "I did not believe it for one second."[20] A February 2023 Dominion court filing showed Fox News primetime hosts messaging each other to insult and mock Trump advisers, indicating the hosts knew the allegations made by Powell and Giuliani were false. Rupert Murdoch messaged that Trump's voter fraud claims were "really crazy stuff", telling Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott that it was "terrible stuff damaging everybody, I fear."[21] As a January 2021 Georgia runoff election approached that would determine party control of the Senate, Murdoch told Scott, "Trump will concede eventually and we should concentrate on Georgia, helping any way we can.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

So now we have most everyone on the right saying it was all a lie, but it's OK b/c even lies are protected under the 1st Amendment, eh? Pretty damn sad is the state of today's Republican party.  I fear forever gone is party of Lincoln & Reagan.

FYI, speech that are lies are not protected when they used to knowingly or intentionally cause harm or in a furtherance to commit a crime or a criminal conspiracy.

But hey let's deflect the attack on our Constitutional Democracy and focus on Hunter Biden.  By using the GOPs logic, Hunter's gun charge should be dismissed b/c it's his right of free speech to lie on the federal gun application that he's not a drug addict.