Giuliani says in deposition he 'didn't have the time' to verify election claims: CNN

Rudi screwed Trump. He was/is a drunk. People worked their butts off for him, getting data he personally requested and be delivered to him at x amount of time. They were told to bring it to him at restaurant, back room, where he was drunk. They handed him the documents, the evidence and he threw it on the table and said I will look at it later. He did this many many times. This was told by someone who looked at Rudi as a mentor and he had high respect for him.

He was great at one time but when he totally failed in 2021.

There's no context in which that statement sounds better. Rudy was a great prosecutor and a great mayor. I'm sure his heart is in the right place and his intentions are good, but in 2021 he's not doing anyone any good.

There is, a bit. He is accurately describing his obligation of "reasonable inquiry" under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

His problem is that this isn't in the context of a motion for sanctions or bar disciplinary proceedings for frivolous pleadings under Rule 11 (although he is facing those as well), but a suit for libel stemming primarily from his statements to the media (and, I believe, from his republication of his pleadings to the media). Compliance with Rule 11, by itself, won't save him.

However, it does seem pretty clear that Dominion will be considered a "public figure" defendant, and so they will have to prove "actual malice" under New York Times v. Sullivan. That means they have to prove that Giuliani either knew what we was saying was false, or was reckless with regard to whether it was true.

I don't know much about the line of questioning other than the small excerpts played by CNN. But my guess it concerned one of two things: (1) Dominion's lawyers are trying to establish actual malice by getting Giuliani to admit that he had an obligation to investigate these allegations because they were in a court pleading, and that his failure satisfied the "recklessness" prong of the actual malice test; or (2) That his statements in his pleadings, which he sent to the media, should be held to some higher standard due to his obligations under the rules. In those contexts, his testimony regarding lack of investigation may help him avoid liability, although I certainly agree with you that it doesn't do much for his credibility to the public.

Interesting thing to note: It is the law in every state I am aware of that lawyers and other parties are immune from civil liability for defamation for statements made in court, including statements in pleadings. The sole remedies are sanctions under the rules of civil procedure and/or disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers. It is less settled, however, whether that immunity extends to out-of-court statements by lawyers, including sending the court pleadings themselves to the media. The Texas Supreme Court held just this year that it doesn't.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.