Giuliani says he's working on Trump's impeachment defense, would argue voter fraud claims

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl
Giuliani tells me he's working on Trump's impeachment defense and tells me he'd argue his voter fraud claims in the Senate trial:

"If you can prove that it's true," he says of Trump's speech before the riot, "they are no longer fighting words."

Giuliani says he's working on Trump's impeachment defense, would argue voter fraud claims
President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani tells ABC News he's working as part of the president's defense team in his upcoming second impeachment trial.
abcnews.go.com
7:43 PM · Jan 16, 2021

https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-working-trumps-impeachment-defense-argue-voter-fraud/story?id=75302032





If he's allowed to do that it will be a shitshow. I guess he thinks this is another one of those shan hearings he did.

[C_U_L8R]

1. Sounds like he's digging a deeper hole

for himself, Trump and the GOP.

[iemitsu]

2. Because the (lack of) evidence that lost you 60+ cases

is bound to prevail.

[Srkdqltr]

3. Oh goodie. Maybe now we will finally find out what the fraud is? With proof? Yea, Right.

[Captain Zero]

22. maybe he will find the health care plan too.

nt

[mzmolly]

4. And not getting paid,

apparently.

[Irish_Dem]

9. I think he'll take a pardon as payment. nt

[mzmolly]

11. Interesting to claim they're not actually guilty

of anything, but still need a pardon.

[Irish_Dem]

14. Exactly. Typical sociopaths. nt

[underpants]

5. Conan make funny

[AmyStrange]

24. Ok, that's funny

[struggle4progress]

6. Trump's lawyer tells jury "trial by combat" still allowed under common law

Court to decide if common law also still requires traitors be drawn and quartered

[RockRaven]

7. Isn't arguing about the truthfulness of the voter fraud a little like a murder defendant arguing

that they had a very good reason to be mad at that person when they planted a bomb in the victim's car?

In many cases, such as this one, it doesn't matter why you did this thing, it just matters that you did it. Period. That's the question before the jurors. Did you do it? Okay, then nobody gives a fuck why.

Incitement is not not incitement just because you genuinely believe someone different should be, or is, president.

[Disaffected]

8. Trump incited an insurrection

whether the voter fraud claims were true or not.

Try Rudolf, try. Try, TRY Harder!

[Denzil_DC]

10. Hmm. Perjury in impeachment proceedings is punishable as it is in any court.

Trump's counsels in his various failed cases (including Giuliani) have shied away from allegations of "fraud", presumably for fear of that charge.

Some background from The Atlantic:

Why Republicans Are Refusing to Testify
Dishonesty and disinformation have become regular features of America’s national discourse, but under oath, truth still matters.

The House vote to impeach the president cues up a Senate trial on the charges, and the Republican leadership appears determined to prevent key fact witnesses close to the president from testifying. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has called any witness list that House impeachment managers and the president’s defenders might negotiate “mutually assured destruction.” Resistance to live testimony arises because, while dishonesty and disinformation have become regular features of America’s national discourse, witnesses under oath cannot lie with impunity. Should they commit perjury, they may find that “court is one of those places where facts still matter,” as Judge Amy Berman Jackson put it to Paul Manafort at his recent sentencing for, among other things, lying to investigators.

A dozen administration officials defied House subpoenas for testimony or documents relevant to the impeachment proceedings. Despite Senate Democrats’ request for witnesses at the trial, there now seems only the slimmest chance—perhaps as the result of some procedural vote or a ruling by Chief Justice Roberts while he presides over the trial—that John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, or others will finally take the stand. Some of the potential witnesses have already asserted facts and staked out positions publicly. But there is a crucial difference between cable-news interviews, press conferences, and tweets on the one hand, and statements under oath on the other.

Should these witnesses testify, they can resist certain questions—for example by invoking executive privilege or their own Fifth Amendment rights—and they would surely insert “do not recall”s into the record, but they would face consequences for lying. The president often characterizes his public comments on pending investigations as “freedom of speech” or “fighting back,” but his aides have no First Amendment right to lie under oath, and perjury is never excused by self-defense. As the Supreme Court stated in the Bryson case 50 years ago: “Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government’s right to ask questions—lying is not one of them.”
...
The elements required to prove perjury are stringent and specific. Under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621, prosecutors must demonstrate that the sworn statement is false, that the lie is willful and deliberate, and that the statement could influence the proceeding. Cases can be difficult to prosecute and prove, because perjury requires clear and direct questions and brazenly untrue responses. The law does not prohibit trivial falsehoods or carelessness, statements that are misleading but “literally true,” or statements that are incomplete and “merely evasive.”

The general perjury statute covers false evidence presented to tribunals other than courts that act with the authority of law, including Congress. Should witnesses lie to Congress, they could later—up to five years later, given the statute of limitations—face a criminal indictment in court. Impeachment proceedings have intersected with perjury charges before. Both President Richard Nixon’s chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, and his attorney general, John Mitchell, served time in prison for perjury committed before the Senate Watergate Committee. And one of the articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton arose from his testimony to the grand jury and sworn deposition in Paula Jones’s civil suit.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/perjury-truth-courts/603727/

[demtenjeep]

12. bwahahaha

oh bring this on

[barbtries]

13. wow.

loser!

[captain queeg]

15. Would trump allow it? Would the SC allow it?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. When the Chief Justice presides over an impeachment trial, his function is only

to be sure everybody follows the Senate's rules. If the Senate's rules allow Rudy to do his thing, the CJ won't stop him.

[captain queeg]

19. It would be a hell of a show.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Please proceed...

[BainsBane]

17. what sort of sniveling sycophant

Still defends Trump after he stiffs him for legal bills and tells the WH not to take his calls. How pathetic can he get.

[Captain Zero]

23. one that needs a pardon before Jan. 20

nt

[jmg257]

20. Huh all that BS vs 100s of arrested Q nuts saying they were answering trump's call to arms.

Wonder who will win??

[adamas]

21. Must be working pro boner

NT

[Brother Buzz]

25. Can a defense attorney defend someone if he's on the prosecutors (hostile) witness list?

Asking for a friend.

[Nevilledog]

26. Ethically he shouldn't be within a mile of this case

In a criminal case (my area of experience) an attorney who might be called as a witness would be removed.

[AmyStrange]

27. Operative word here is "IF...

-

you can prove it's true... blah, blah, blah, bullshit on top of bullshit, and further more, my glasses are crooked, and that proves my case."

I'm still waiting on THAT part.
=======