What the media is not telling you about Giuliani defamation case in Washington DC kangaroo court.
A corrupt court in Washington DC awarded the mother-daughter team of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, $148 million in their defamation case against Rudy Giuliani.
Jordan Conradson from The Gateway Pundit interviewed Giuliani after the court awarded the extravagant sum to Ruby and Shaye. Here are segments from Conradson’s excellent interview with America’s Mayor.
Last night, Giuliani told The Gateway Pundit, “My next steps are going to be to appeal it.” He continued, “It is going to take a while because there’s so much to appeal.”
Immediately after the jury came in with their verdict, Giuliani also addressed the leftist media outside of the DC Court and said, “I have no doubt that my comments were made, and they were supportable and are supportable today. I just did not have an opportunity to present the evidence that we offered.”
As The Gateway Pundit and Politico reported, Judge Beryl Howell decided that Rudy Giuliani was legally liable for defaming Ruby and Shaye because he was unable to produce evidence requested by the election workers’ attorneys. This evidence was taken by the FBI, says Rudy. “The FBI took every electronic device in my apartment and my law office,” said Giuliani. “I don’t delete things.” It also appears the FBI may have lost or even destroyed a significant portion of the information that was turned over, as has happened before. When asked about these rumors, Giuliani told The Gateway Pundit he could not comment “right now.”
“This decision should be reversed, as Mayor Giuliani is wrongly accused of not preserving electronic evidence that was seized and held by the FBI,” Giuliani advisor Ted Goodman previously said.
Giuliani was not allowed to present his own evidence in court or to defend himself in the public square. After multiple warnings from the judge about statements he made outside of the courtroom, he was effectively muzzled from speaking about the plaintiffs. Giuliani says this is why he did not testify, telling The Gateway Pundit he worried he would be held in contempt and jailed for speaking his mind.
Throughout the trial, attorneys for Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss referenced the security footage of vote-counting actions at the State Farm Arena and the alleged handoff of what many alleged was a thumb drive.
However, they did not play any footage for the jury, only providing extremely vague screenshots of the incident, and told the jury that the alleged thumb drive in question was actually a ginger mint candy.
“As Freeman took the stand, her attorney entered a ginger mint into evidence — and Freeman passed the judge a ginger mint, too,” ABC reports. The judge, who gave no appearance of impartiality throughout the trial, happily accepted Ruby’s gift.
Anybody in that courtroom could see from Judge Howell’s body language, attitude, actions, and rulings that she held utter contempt for Mayor Giuliani and his counsel but esteem for plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss and their attorneys. During closing arguments, plaintiffs’ attorneys laughed, and Howell smirked along with them as Giuliani’s attorney tried to convince the jury that he is “a good man,” citing his service to New York City and history as a bestselling author.
Giuliani: My next steps are going to be to appeal it. It is going to take a while because there’s so much to appeal.
I don’t think it could even be described as a trial, because the trial allows you to offer evidence in your defense. I was prohibited from doing that. I was even sort of subtly threatened with jail if I did it, of being held in contempt. So, there are many points on appeal: the fact that she found liability based on a failure of discovery when there were thousands of documents discovered, and I did a deposition, full and complete, without taking the Fifth Amendment and answered all their questions. I’ve never heard of you find somebody guilty based on they didn’t turn over a document. And of this magnitude. I guess the simplest way to put it is at no point did I have an opportunity to offer any evidence in my defense. There was no trial on the merits; she decided it peremptorily. And then, when I tried to do it to mitigate the damages, I was told that I would be contradicting what she had found, and I’d be in contempt of the orders.