A federal judge in New York appears to be fed up with Rudy Giuliani’s antics, ordering the former 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 removed 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 contempt hearing on January 3, following numerous requests from the plaintiffs regarding his failure to comply with filing deadlines and court orders requiring him to turn over his personal property and provide information to the plaintiffs for discovery.
On Thursday, Liman stated that Giuliani had “not shown good cause” for his request to appear at the hearing via Zoom or telephone.
The judge also emphasized that despite the fact that the proceeding had been on the court’s calendar for weeks, the former New York City mayor chose to make the request “for the first time” on Thursday afternoon, claiming it was necessary for medical reasons.
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” caused by his “being at the World Trade Center site on September 11, 2001.”
Giuliani also stated that if the request is granted, he will not provide any testimony and will 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 admits any testimony on his own behalf, they will “insist” on cross-examining him in person.
In his four-page order, Liman reasoned that if Giuliani did not appear at the hearing, the court would not allow him to rely on his previously filed explanations for why he had failed to comply with multiple court rulings, as such “testimony” would necessitate him being cross-examined in-person by plaintiffs’ attorney.
The judge appointed by Donald Trump, who has repeatedly questioned Giuliani’s credibility, basically stated that the former US attorney couldn’t have it both ways.
“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,” his letter states. “Those documents would be hearsay if the defendant did not swear to them tomorrow and the plaintiffs were not given the opportunity to cross-examine.
In short, the defendant has petitioned the Court for the right to testify, at least by declaration. At the same time, the defendant has not demonstrated good cause or compelling circumstances for his belated request to testify remotely.”
Liman was not swayed to rule favorably in the proceedings at hand, likely due to Giuliani’s perceived “disrespect for the law and disregard for his obligations under the law,” noting the lack of any supporting evidence for Giuliani’s ailments and his apparent apathy at having the truthfulness of his prior statements be 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 ruling read.
“He has presented no evidence as to why, at this hearing, where the Court has asked to hold him in contempt, his credibility has been called into question, and Plaintiffs have requested an opportunity to cross-examine him in person, he should be allowed to deny Plaintiffs that opportunity and appear remotely.
Plaintiffs would be prejudiced if they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against them in open court, as any other litigant would have.
Last week, Liman indicated that he was likely to find Giuliani in contempt and impose sanctions if he continued to defy an order requiring him to provide the plaintiffs with information requested during 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 the defendant should not be held in contempt. The Court will be ready to announce its decision on the contempt request as soon as the hearing on January 3, 2025.”
In that order, Liman also stated that the parties should be prepared to discuss whether, in addition to being held in contempt, Giuliani should face sanctions.
