350
Unfazed by latest lawsuit, Giuliani re-ups fraud claims that cost him $148 million
(www.politico.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
350 points (99.2% liked)
News
23303 readers
3245 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can’t see how waiting would help.
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."
But he claims it totally exonerates him, in which case they would not even bring a criminal trial.
Oh, it's coming regardless of the evidence.
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.
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.
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.
No prosecution backs down like that, again, trials don't work that way.
If they have already initiated the case, Sure. They'd evaluate the evidence in court. If they hadn't, no, they could decide to not bring charges if it seemed like it would be a waste of time and/or they'd be censured for a frivolous case.
We're talking about the Georgia election interference, so yes, the criminal case is already initiated. :)
We're also talking about some purely hypothetical world where Giuliani has 'evidence'.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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."
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.