Rudy Giuliani, lawyer and advisor to serial sex abuser Donald Trump (SSAT), has long been behaving erratically and provided plenty of comedic fodder to late night talk show hosts. But his recent behavior in one particular case has caused the judge overseeing it to wonder whether he was in fact losing his marbles.
The case arose from the defamation suit filed by Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, a mother and daughter who were poll workers in Atlanta, GA whom Giuliani had publicly accused of changing votes in favor of Joe Biden, and he also threw in the gratuitous implication that they were drug users, saying that they were “quite obviously surreptitiously passing around USB ports as if they’re vials of heroin or cocaine” and that it was obvious they were “engaged in surreptitious illegal activity.” In an earlier proceeding, Giuliani conceded that the statements were false but that they were protected by the First Amendment.
But yesterday, outside the courtroom after the first day of the trial for damages, Giuliani said that he would prove that his allegations were true, which made the clearly incredulous judge ask his lawyer if Giuliani was all there, since his statements made him liable for a second defamation charge. Giuliani’s lawyer did not seem to be sure how to answer.
His attorney, Joe Sibley, agreed that he could not reconcile Giuliani’s out-of-court comments on Monday evening with the more contrite argument Sibley had made on behalf of the former New York City mayor earlier in the day.
After the first day of his trial, when jurors began to hear evidence to determine just how much Giuliani must pay for defaming the two women, Giuliani approached television cameras outside the courthouse and reiterated his attacks on them.
“Of course I don’t regret it,” he said of his years-long discredited efforts to accuse Freeman and Moss of election fraud. “They were engaging in changing votes.” Giuliani implied that he would delve into the allegations further when he takes the stand this week.
When the trial reconvened on Tuesday morning, an incredulous Howell said the comments “could support another defamation claim.”
Sibley told jurors in his opening statement Monday that Giuliani had wronged the two election workers, who he described as “good people” who did not deserve the torrent of threats they received. But Giuliani contradicted that sentiment by renewing his false allegations about Moss and Freeman to reporters outside the courthouse.
“I’m not sure how it’s reconcilable,” Sibley acknowledged in response to Howell’s questions.
The attorney cited the mayor’s age as a factor.
“This has taken a bit of a toll on him. He’s almost 80 years old,” Sibley said, adding, “There are health concerns for Mr. Giuliani.”
It is quite possible that Giuliani is not nuts but that SSAT’s behavior of repeating falsehoods over and over again has rubbed off on him.
It will be interesting to see how Giuliani fares when he takes the stand later in the week and faces cross-examination.
Doubling down on your lies may be effective on the campaign trail, but not when you’re on trial. Isn’t Rudy a lawyer or something?
Given everything else that has happened, I would not be surprised if it was all an act. What do you do when you’ve been caught crimson fisted? How do you weasel out? It’s apparent that he’s a guy who has no problem lying. Why wouldn’t he put on an act now if he thought it would help his position?
It I were the judge, I’d call for an immediate psych eval by a couple of trained, independent experts. I imagine that you could be coached to the fool them, but I can’t imagine that it would be easy.
Pretty standard stuff, from what I’ve heard, from the Jan. 6 people. Be contrite and apologetic at trial, then when it’s over, crow about how you put one over on that judge and that you meant none of it.
Of course, you’re really supposed to wait until the trial is over and sentencing/damages have been determined before you do that. I guess Rudy doesn’t have it together like the guy in the Viking hat and facepaint.
I think the post title misrepresents the tenor of the cited article due to a misreading.
I reckon that (given other context) the “worry about whether he would be able to follow the court’s instructions” is not about not him understanding them, it’s about whether he will comply with them.
@feralboy12 #3
That is literally the second dumbest thing Guliani could do, the first dumbest being what he’s doing now.
This isn’t a criminal trial about physical actions. It’s a civil trial about defamation. Every act of speech is a new act of defamation. He’s already legally conceded that his previous statements were defamatory. I don’t think that can be taken back without some extreme evidence of of huge miscarriage of justice, so it’s a done deal. Reneging on that and repeating the original lies are now new acts of defamation that can be sued over for more damages in addition to the original one.
Giuliani decided (or his lawyer decided for him) not to take the stand. His lawyer’s main point in his closing argument seemed to be how Giuliani would suffer if the jury awarded heavy damages. If I were on that jury, I’d be saying “Great -- the more that lying scumbag suffers, the better!”
I often check out right wing web sites and, almost universally, they are solidly ignorant of reality. The “news” they get is heavily filtered. It may very well be that Giuliani knows that his (to us) bizarre statement will make perfect sense to people whose only knowledge about the trial will be that sound bite.