If you want a good laugh (Giuliani deposition)

Michael R2

Active member
According to Rudy, he felt it wasn't his responsibility to investigate the allegations he and his team asserted in their November 19th press conference.
Also, the Trump campaign legal team was against him.
Dominion not only fixed votes, but they may well have written Trump campaign documents, as well as the CISA report that declared there was no fraud.
It goes on and on.
It's a bit of a slog (180 pages), but the best parts are near the end.

 

Michael R2

Active member
I forgot one of my favorites. The reason he had to state in court that he was not alleging fraud was because the Trump campaign lawyer had substituted his complaint for another. (page 143)

"I found out the night before the argument, even though I was going to argue the case, that I was going to argue the second complaint, not the one that I had drafted, so I made a quick motion before the judge for yet another amended complaint to restore our fraud. And the reason why this statement is used against me so often that I said there was no fraud is I didn't say there was no fraud in the case, I said there was no fraud in the complaint that had been substituted for my complaint because they didn't -- they didn't agree that we should go about the lawyer's task of trying to prove fraud in all of the different states."
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I forgot one of my favorites. The reason he had to state in court that he was not alleging fraud was because the Trump campaign lawyer had substituted his complaint for another. (page 143)

"I found out the night before the argument, even though I was going to argue the case, that I was going to argue the second complaint, not the one that I had drafted, so I made a quick motion before the judge for yet another amended complaint to restore our fraud. And the reason why this statement is used against me so often that I said there was no fraud is I didn't say there was no fraud in the case, I said there was no fraud in the complaint that had been substituted for my complaint because they didn't -- they didn't agree that we should go about the lawyer's task of trying to prove fraud in all of the different states."
I'm currently trying to slog through the whole thing, and admittedly, wont finish until I get home late tonight.

However, THIS particular fragment, I'm having a hard time seeing anything more than a legal technicality in. You think he was fibbing (or at least stretching the truth beyond recognition) under oath here?
 

Michael R2

Active member
I'm currently trying to slog through the whole thing, and admittedly, wont finish until I get home late tonight.

However, THIS particular fragment, I'm having a hard time seeing anything more than a legal technicality in. You think he was fibbing (or at least stretching the truth beyond recognition) under oath here?
I do find it a bit hard to believe that he was in charge (as Trump ordered) yet did not know what he was going to argue before the court until the night before he showed up. You would hope, if he was your lawyer, that he would at least glance at what was being submitted to the court.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I do find it a bit hard to believe that he was in charge (as Trump ordered) yet did not know what he was going to argue before the court until the night before he showed up. You would hope, if he was your lawyer, that he would at least glance at what was being submitted to the court.
I guess that's a fair point, yes.

I don't necessarily think you're wrong on it. With that said, I don't have a favorable view of his competence (in anything), nor of his mental faculties. Yes, he's been a lawyer for a long time, but I have yet to see any compelling evidence of a "sharp legal mind". To the contrary...

ps. truth be told, John Oliver's expose on what he was like leading up to 9/11 makes me think he's been a fruit loop for decades...
 
Top