<strike>I’m torn on this one, the best link I can find for this story (right now) is from a Fox afilliate and ordinarily I would’t want to feed Fox clicks, but it is what is, the best link is the best link.</strike>
Found a non-Fox source.
The other link is a “click it and watch the video” which I think is more annoying than linking to Fox.
When I find something better, I’ll update.
Okay, now a comment on the article and Guiliani’s statement.
Guiliani entered into a proffer agreement with Jack Smith’s investigation in Florida. Proffers are agreements where a person is interviewed by the investigation, with the benefit of not having any of their statements in that conversation - or additional information which is only reached because of statements in that conversation - used against them in court. Unless it is found that they were lying in the interview, then everything is off the table. Guiliani had such an interview before the Jan 6 charges were issued by Jack Smith in the DC Circuit. Guiliani is an unindicted co-conspirator in that indictment.
Proffers are usually the first step towards greater cooperation with the investigation, normally followed by a plea agreement conditional on cooperation, possibly up to full prosecutorial immunity.
But now this statement from Guiliani, which is clearly just doubling down on lunacy, is in clear opposition to any kind of previous cooperation with investigations. I have to think that if Guiliani was cooperating with Jack Smith’s prosecution, he isn’t now, but I don’t know when or why that change happened.
See? I told you it was a good article. ;)
I find this statement hilarious when he already admitted, in a court filing in a different case, that yes, he defamed election workers by lying about them.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66318528
And he’s in trouble for that too with the judge demanding an explanation:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/05/politics/giuliani-lawsuit-2020-election/index.html
Probably didn’t get the immunity deal he wanted in exchange for flipping.
FWIW, local Fox television network affiliate news is different from “Fox News.” Your link is fine.
Partially. This particular station is an O&O so they take marching orders from the Murdoch crew.
Excellent point. It’s still a far greater number of steps away than Fox News, but less far than I had imagined.
I mean, we could always just ignore what he says. What he says doesn’t matter, it’s always just drivel.
It’s more important to know what he does.
Can we start referring to him as RICO Suave (credit to some random Lemmy poster from whom I stole this)?
All I want is the scene from the Dark Knight:
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/OOS79yMJqtc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
deleted by creator
Nice article, even though his statement is exactly what we all expected him to say.
Also, if you ever don’t want to give a news site clicks (or want to get around the paywall), you can just copy the article contents into the body of the post or a comment. I do that for the WaPo articles I post.
