Rudy Giuliani talks to reporters before the Republican National Convention, on July 16, 2024, in Milwaukee (AP Photo/Paul Sancya).
A federal judge in New York appears to be fed up with Rudy Giuliani’s antics, ordering the onetime personal attorney for President-elect Donald Trump to appear in person for his contempt hearing Friday morning or have all of his previous arguments on the matter withdrawn from the court’s record for the hearing.
The proceeding stems from the Georgia election workers Giuliani falsely claimed rigged the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden as they litigate the collection of the $148 million judgment awarded to them in 2023.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered Giuliani to appear in person for the Jan. 3 hearing on the contempt issue following numerous requests from the plaintiffs regarding his failures in adhering to filing deadlines and court orders involving the turning over of his personal property and providing information to plaintiffs for discovery.
Liman on Thursday reasoned that Giuliani had “not shown good cause” for his request to appear at the hearing via Zoom or telephone. The judge also emphasized that the former New York City mayor decided to wait until Thursday afternoon to make the request — claiming it was necessary for medical reasons — “for the first time” despite the proceeding being on the court’s calendar for weeks.
In Giuliani’s letter motion, filed by defense attorney Joseph Cammarata, the defendant asked if Liman would allow him to appear virtually due to Giuliani “having medical issues with his left knee” as well as “breathing problems due to lung issues” that were the result of him “being at the World Trade Center site on September 11, 2001.” Giuliani also conceded that should the request be granted, he would not provide any testimony and would rely solely on his previous court filings and depositions.
Attorneys for the defamed former election workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shay” Moss, responded to Giuliani’s request by stating that if he were to admit any testimony on his own behalf, they would “insist” on cross-examining him in person.
In his four-page order, Liman reasoned that if Giuliani did not show up to the hearing, the court would not allow him to rely on his already-filed explanations regarding why he’d failed to abide by multiple court rulings, as such “testimony” would require him to be cross-examined by plaintiffs’ attorney in-person.
The Donald Trump-appointed judge, who has repeatedly called Giuliani’s credibility into question, essentially said that the former U.S. attorney could not have his cake and eat it too.
“Defendant has communicated to the Court that he intends to rely on, and asks the Court to consider, his submitted declarations and his deposition transcript,” he wrote. “Those documents would be hearsay if not sworn to by Defendant tomorrow and if Plaintiffs were not given an opportunity to cross-examine. In short, Defendant has asked the Court for the right to testify — at least by declaration. At the same time, however, Defendant has not shown good cause or compelling circumstances for his belated request to testify remotely.”
Likely due to Giuliani’s perceived “disrespect for the law and disregard for his obligations under law” in the proceedings at hand, Liman was not swayed to rule favorably, noting the lack of any supporting evidence for Giuliani’s ailments and seeming apathy at having the truthfulness of his prior statements being a primary issue of the hearing.
“Defendant has appeared in the recent past, on occasions where his testimony has not been required and the Court has not been asked to hold Defendant in contempt,” the judge wrote. “He has presented no evidence why for this hearing, where the Court has been asked to hold him in contempt, where his credibility has been called into question, and where Plaintiffs have asked for an opportunity to cross-examine him in person, he should be permitted to deny Plaintiffs that opportunity and to appear remotely. Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by being denied the opportunity, ordinarily accorded to any other litigants, to cross-examine the witnesses against them live and in open court.”
Last week, Liman indicated that he was likely to find Giuliani in contempt and possibly impose sanctions on him as he continued to defy an order compelling him to provide the plaintiffs with information requested in pretrial discovery.
“The law imposes consequences on parties who disregard their obligations,” Liman wrote in the four-page order. “The record is now closed on the order to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt. The Court will be prepared to announce its decision on the contempt request as early as the hearing on January 3, 2025.”
In that order, Liman also noted that the parties should be prepared to address whether, in addition to being held in contempt, the court should also impose sanctions on Giuliani.
