The New Election Interference Strategy

Post Reply
User avatar
Donn Beach
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The New Election Interference Strategy

Post by Donn Beach » Tue Feb 13, 2024 4:58 am

Where wasn't he allowed to present it? He doesn't have it, he admitted he was lying.
Giuliani conceded his claims about Freeman and Moss were “defamatory per se.” And “to the extent the statements were statements of fact and other wise actionable,” he said, “such actionable factual statements were false.”

During the trial, Giuliani reverted to form. Although his own lawyer said he was “not excusing” Giuliani’s “irresponsible” promotion of the baseless allegations against Freeman and Moss, the defendant himself was unrepentant.

When I testify,” Giuliani said outside the courthouse four days before the verdict, “you’ll get the whole story, and it will be definitively clear what I said was true.” He insisted that “everything I said about them is true.” But Giuliani never testified.

After the verdict, Giuliani told reporters he had “no doubt” his defamatory statements about the plaintiffs “were supportable and are supportable today.” Unfortunately, he said, “I just did not have an opportunity to present the evidence.
.At the Washington, D.C., rally that preceded the Capitol riot by Trump supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, Giuliani said he was about to present “conclusive proof” of machine-facilitated election fraud in Georgia.

“I’m willing to stake my reputation,” he said. “If we’re wrong, we will be made fools of.” The very next day, the Trump campaign abandoned the lawsuits that Giuliani had just insisted would vindicate his claims.
All he's ever had to do is make his evidence public. The guys full of shit

User avatar
bpj
Posts: 12830
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:55 am

Re: The New Election Interference Strategy

Post by bpj » Wed Feb 14, 2024 9:36 am

Donn Beach wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2024 4:58 am
Where wasn't he allowed to present it? He doesn't have it, he admitted he was lying.
Giuliani conceded his claims about Freeman and Moss were “defamatory per se.” And “to the extent the statements were statements of fact and other wise actionable,” he said, “such actionable factual statements were false.”

During the trial, Giuliani reverted to form. Although his own lawyer said he was “not excusing” Giuliani’s “irresponsible” promotion of the baseless allegations against Freeman and Moss, the defendant himself was unrepentant.

When I testify,” Giuliani said outside the courthouse four days before the verdict, “you’ll get the whole story, and it will be definitively clear what I said was true.” He insisted that “everything I said about them is true.” But Giuliani never testified.

After the verdict, Giuliani told reporters he had “no doubt” his defamatory statements about the plaintiffs “were supportable and are supportable today.” Unfortunately, he said, “I just did not have an opportunity to present the evidence.
.At the Washington, D.C., rally that preceded the Capitol riot by Trump supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, Giuliani said he was about to present “conclusive proof” of machine-facilitated election fraud in Georgia.

“I’m willing to stake my reputation,” he said. “If we’re wrong, we will be made fools of.” The very next day, the Trump campaign abandoned the lawsuits that Giuliani had just insisted would vindicate his claims.
All he's ever had to do is make his evidence public. The guys full of shit
What are the sources you're quoting here? The Hill?

We'll see in his appeals whether he's full of shit or not. By his own words he sounds very confident.

Acting like you know better because you read it somewhere in a lib-funded article hasn't turned out very well for people the last 10 years or so. We'll see.

User avatar
Donn Beach
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The New Election Interference Strategy

Post by Donn Beach » Thu Feb 15, 2024 9:36 pm

Those are facts, not spin. That's a direct quote where he states we will get the whole story when he testifies and I don't think the writer is lying about Guilinai not testifying. And that's Guilnais own document submitted to the court where he states his statements were false. He has two more libal trials coming up. The two voting machine suits. See if he bothers to submit evidence at those trials.

User avatar
bpj
Posts: 12830
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:55 am

Re: The New Election Interference Strategy

Post by bpj » Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:32 pm

Donn Beach wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2024 9:36 pm
Those are facts, not spin. That's a direct quote where he states we will get the whole story when he testifies and I don't think the writer is lying about Guilinai not testifying. And that's Guilnais own document submitted to the court where he states his statements were false. He has two more libal trials coming up. The two voting machine suits. See if he bothers to submit evidence at those trials.
Those aren't "facts". They're excerpts.

Sounds like a whole lot of explaining and not much providing the sources you quoted.

Wonder why....

User avatar
gil
Posts: 1511
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:50 pm

Re: The New Election Interference Strategy

Post by gil » Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:54 am

bpj wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:32 pm
Donn Beach wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2024 9:36 pm
Those are facts, not spin. That's a direct quote where he states we will get the whole story when he testifies and I don't think the writer is lying about Guilinai not testifying. And that's Guilnais own document submitted to the court where he states his statements were false. He has two more libal trials coming up. The two voting machine suits. See if he bothers to submit evidence at those trials.
Those aren't "facts". They're excerpts.

Sounds like a whole lot of explaining and not much providing the sources you quoted.

Wonder why....
Does the court filing convince you that what Donn said is accurate, i.e., factual?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.84.2.pdf

And Rudy G. didn't testify because ...? I think this document is in effect his testimony. In effect, "I said what they claimed I said" and "It was defamatory."
Attachments
Untitledtemp.jpg

User avatar
bpj
Posts: 12830
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:55 am

Re: The New Election Interference Strategy

Post by bpj » Fri Feb 16, 2024 2:59 am

gil wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:54 am
bpj wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:32 pm
Donn Beach wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2024 9:36 pm
Those are facts, not spin. That's a direct quote where he states we will get the whole story when he testifies and I don't think the writer is lying about Guilinai not testifying. And that's Guilnais own document submitted to the court where he states his statements were false. He has two more libal trials coming up. The two voting machine suits. See if he bothers to submit evidence at those trials.
Those aren't "facts". They're excerpts.

Sounds like a whole lot of explaining and not much providing the sources you quoted.

Wonder why....
Does the court filing convince you that what Donn said is accurate, i.e., factual?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.84.2.pdf

And Rudy G. didn't testify because ...? I think this document is in effect his testimony. In effect, "I said what they claimed I said" and "It was defamatory."
Sounds like he wanted the case to go away while maintaining his ability to appeal and dispute the actual case.
Screenshot_20240215_185629_Drive.jpg
Screenshot_20240215_185629_Drive.jpg (182.8 KiB) Viewed 220 times
The judge in the case told him he would be held in contempt if he said something she didn't like, so he decided to hold off with his testimony until the appeal with a judge that's not a lib loon.

Doesn't seem that difficult to grasp.

User avatar
Donn Beach
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The New Election Interference Strategy

Post by Donn Beach » Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:42 am

He wanted it to go away? It cost him a $150 mil judgment. You can't play to just jump to an appeal. Appeals are tricky, involve a lot of rules for what's allowed to appeal. You don't get to just retry the case. A judge might not agree to hear an appeal. When you're sued you better do everything you can to defend yourself. If you want to believe he is still sitting on evidence that's up to you. But that makes him out as an idiot. Losing a lawsuit of that magnitude and not using significant evidence makes no sense. Far as I'm concerned it's obvious he doesn't have any

User avatar
bpj
Posts: 12830
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:55 am

Re: The New Election Interference Strategy

Post by bpj » Fri Feb 16, 2024 7:15 am

Donn Beach wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:42 am
He wanted it to go away? It cost him a $150 mil judgment. You can't play to just jump to an appeal. Appeals are tricky, involve a lot of rules for what's allowed to appeal. You don't get to just retry the case. A judge might not agree to hear an appeal. When you're sued you better do everything you can to defend yourself. If you want to believe he is still sitting on evidence that's up to you. But that makes him out as an idiot. Losing a lawsuit of that magnitude and not using significant evidence makes no sense. Far as I'm concerned it's obvious he doesn't have any
Yeah, your thoughts have been clear all along.

Guess we'll see how it plays out. No use going back and forth when neither of us know.

I listened to Rudy's version and posted it here. I'm guessing you skipped it because you still don't seem to have a grasp on what happened.

I'll wait to see what happens.

User avatar
Donn Beach
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The New Election Interference Strategy

Post by Donn Beach » Fri Feb 16, 2024 8:30 am

You mean that thing? Yeah, he's not going to waste money defending something that would lose. That's why he conceded that they weren't true. His defense as I understand it was,yeah, the things I said weren't true but I didn't do damage by saying them, there were no damages. But the judge and jury didn't agree, they felt there was $150 mil in damages.

I'm sure he had good reason not to testify, I'm not holding that against him. I wasn't saying it was connected to his evidence statement. But he did make the statement and then didn't do it. He has done it lots of times. He talks about his evidence, but he just never gets around to presenting it. Thing is he doesn't need any special situation to reveal it. He doesn't need a trial, or be on the witness stand. He could do anything, mail it to a news source, hold a presser, stand on a street corner and hand it out. It would be an incredible service to the country and it be easy to reveal but he won't do it. That's why I don't believe he has it.

Yeah, they are excepts and they are facts, the two are not mutually exclusive. A fact is something that can be verified as true. Those excerpts can be verified as true.
Attachments
Screenshot_20240215_185629_Drive.jpg
Screenshot_20240215_185629_Drive.jpg (182.8 KiB) Viewed 214 times

User avatar
bpj
Posts: 12830
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:55 am

Re: The New Election Interference Strategy

Post by bpj » Fri Feb 16, 2024 8:58 am

Donn Beach wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 8:30 am
You mean that thing? Yeah, he's not going to waste money defending something that would lose. That's why he conceded that they weren't true. His defense as I understand it was,yeah, the things I said weren't true but I didn't do damage by saying them, there were no damages. But the judge and jury didn't agree, they felt there was $150 mil in damages.

I'm sure he had good reason not to testify, I'm not holding that against him. I wasn't saying it was connected to his evidence statement. But he did make the statement and then didn't do it. He has done it lots of times. He talks about his evidence, but he just never gets around to presenting it. Thing is he doesn't need any special situation to reveal it. He doesn't need a trial, or be on the witness stand. He could do anything, mail it to a news source, hold a presser, stand on a street corner and hand it out. It would be an incredible service to the country and it be easy to reveal but he won't do it. That's why I don't believe he has it.

Yeah, they are excepts and they are facts, the two are not mutually exclusive. A fact is something that can be verified as true. Those excerpts can be verified as true.
I understand what your understanding is.

It's just skewed by what you're reading. You've gotten one side of the story but didn't bother to listen to what Giuliani actually had to say, so I won't waste any more time on it with you.

We'll see what happens with his appeals.

Post Reply