Rudy Giuliani Held in Contempt for Persisting with Election Fraud Claims Against Georgia Poll Workers
Former New York City mayor and attorney Rudy Giuliani has been found in contempt of court for continuing to propagate false claims against two former Georgia poll workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea "Shaye" Moss. These claims, which allege election fraud during the 2020 presidential election, previously resulted in a $148 million defamation judgment against Giuliani. Despite a permanent injunction barring him from repeating the falsehoods, Giuliani persisted in making the accusations on his online show, "America’s Mayor Live," leading to the contempt charge.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who issued the contempt ruling, expressed outrage at Giuliani’s conduct, stating it was "shameful" for him to suggest he was being unfairly treated when his comments caused real harm to Freeman and Moss. The judge ordered Giuliani to file a declaration within ten days acknowledging the baselessness of his accusations, which have been debunked by testimony from Freeman, Moss, and Georgia election officials. Failure to comply with this order will result in a $200 daily fine.
In addition to the declaration, Giuliani must work with the plaintiffs to determine how he will contribute to their legal costs incurred during the contempt proceedings. A payment plan, either for the full amount or a mutually agreed upon sum, must be finalized within 45 days. If Giuliani fails to meet these requirements, Judge Howell indicated she would reassess the daily fine and potentially impose a more substantial penalty.
Furthermore, the judge warned Giuliani that continued defiance of the court’s orders and further defamation of Freeman and Moss could lead to incarceration. This stern warning underscores the seriousness of Giuliani’s continued dissemination of false information, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and a prior court ruling holding him accountable.
Giuliani’s spokesman, Ted Goodman, criticized the ruling, arguing that Giuliani had been denied the opportunity to defend himself on the facts and characterizing the decision as an attempt to silence him and suppress his constitutional rights. Giuliani himself echoed these sentiments outside the courthouse, railing against what he perceived as an unfair ruling designed to punish him. He went on to criticize Special Counsel Jack Smith, calling for his imprisonment.
The contempt ruling stems from Giuliani’s repetition of false claims about Freeman and Moss on episodes of his show in November 2023. He falsely accused them of manipulating voting machines and engaging in vote manipulation. Freeman and Moss filed a motion detailing these comments, and subsequently filed another notice regarding further disparaging remarks made by Giuliani. Giuliani’s legal team argued that his comments were merely restatements of his position in a pending appeal, not deliberate violations of the injunction. They also maintained that Giuliani genuinely believed his claims.
This latest development comes just days after a separate contempt ruling against Giuliani in a Manhattan federal court. In that case, Judge Lewis Liman held Giuliani in contempt for failing to comply with discovery requests in a parallel case filed by Freeman and Moss seeking control of Giuliani’s assets to satisfy the $148 million judgment. The plaintiffs accuse Giuliani of attempting to evade payment. Judge Liman scheduled a trial to determine the status of Giuliani’s Palm Beach condo, which Giuliani claims is exempt from the judgment. As a consequence of the contempt ruling, Judge Liman will bar Giuliani from presenting certain evidence related to the condo. These concurrent legal battles further complicate Giuliani’s financial situation and underscore the ongoing repercussions of his false election fraud claims. The escalating legal challenges facing Giuliani highlight the potential consequences of spreading misinformation and defying court orders. The substantial financial penalties and potential for incarceration serve as a stark reminder of the importance of accountability in public discourse, especially when it comes to potentially damaging allegations about election integrity.
