Rudy’s Even Worse Week

Back in May, I wrote a post called, “Rudy’s very bad week.”

It described:

  • He had lost his lawyer for a PA suit against him
  • Judge Beryl Howell was forcing him to cooperate in the Ruby Freeman lawsuit against him
  • Rudy claiming he faced no legal risk from Jack Smith
  • He was being sued by a former associate Noelle Dunphy who claimed to have two years of his email

He had a worse week this week.

That’s true, in significant part, because yesterday the DC Board on Professional Responsibility recommended he be disbarred in DC. the committee basically said he made false claims based on no evidence to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

The documentary evidence that Respondent did produce is fundamentally vague, speculative, or facially incredible. We have reviewed it and have examined with particularity the materials cited by Respondent in his posthearing filings. Respondent’s PFF 36-37. Although the materials identify a handful of isolated election irregularities, they completely fail to demonstrate that the observational boundaries or Notice and Cure procedures facilitated any meaningful fraud or misconduct that could have possibly affected the outcome of the presidential election.


Mr. Giuliani’s argument that he did not have time fully to investigate his case before filing it is singularly unimpressive. He sought to upend the presidential election but never had evidence to support that effort. Surely Rule 3.1 required more.


Mr. Giuliani brought a case that had no factual support. It caused an astonishing waste of the resources of the District Court, the Third Circuit, and multiple defendants in a compressed time frame.


We cannot blind ourselves to the broader context in which Mr. Giuliani’s misconduct took place. It was calculated to undermine the basic premise of our democratic form of government: that elections are determined by the voters. The Pennsylvania claims were carefully calibrated to blend into a nationwide cascade of litigation intended to overturn the presidential election. FF 9. Since John Adams established the precedent in 1800, no president – until 2020 – refused to accept defeat and step away from that office. And no lawyer – until 2020 – used frivolous claims of election fraud to impede the peaceful transition of presidential power and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.


His frivolous claims impacted not only the court and parties involved but threatened irreparable harm to the entire nation.

Even before that, though, Rudy was taking steps to settle a lawsuit for his conduct after he gave up filing frivolous lawsuits based on no evidence — the attacks he made on Ruby Freeman and her daughter.

On Thursday, Rudy’s attorney Joe Silbey reached out to Freeman’s lawyers and, less than a day later, they asked for time to come to some settlement.

On July 6, 2023, counsel for Defendant Giuliani approached counsel for Plaintiffs to discuss a potential negotiated resolution of issues that would resolve large portions of this litigation and otherwise give rise to Plaintiffs’ anticipated request for sanctions. Throughout July 6 and July 7—and into the evening on July 7, counsel for both parties have worked diligently to negotiate a resolution and believe they are close.

Silbey’s approach for a settlement came one day after Freeman’s lawyers asked for $89,172.50 in legal fees for all the stalling that Rudy has already done.

The same day as Freeman asked for sanctions, they also filed a motion to compel Bernie Kerik’s cooperation. They included a revised privilege log that — while they still argue it is noncompliant with legal standards — nevertheless points to a whole slew of interesting communications in Kerik’s possession. For example, there’s a January 4, 2021 briefing for members of the Senate on which Steve Bannon was CCed (note, Katherine Freiss used both protonmail and hushmail to conduct her coup plotting; I’m leaving these emails unredacted to show the stealth with which these people were trying to steal an election).

There’s a FISA proposal from Mark Finchem.

There is what appears to be a request that Mark Meadows clear them into the White House for the December 18 meeting that doesn’t even get Meadows’ first name right.

There’s an email showing MI fraudster Matthew DePerno receiving Peter Navarro’s report even before Trump sent it out, right along with the rest of Rudy’s team (and other emails show that Victoria Toensing was closely involved in the MI shenanigans).

And the emails give a better sense of what Sidney Powell and Mike Flynn were up to.

Almost none of this would be privileged, because Rudy was no longer pursuing litigation after the PA lawsuit.

All this comes amid more reporting on Rudy’s recent 8 hour interview with Jack Smith’s team, which itself follows voluntary interviews with (at least) Mike Roman and Boris Epshteyn.

During Rudy’s last really really bad week, he had the fantastic belief he wasn’t in any legal trouble.

He may finally understand how ridiculous that is.

Update: I hadn’t been tracking the Dunphy suit, but Rudy narrowly missed being assessed attorney fees there, too, this week.


29 replies
  1. rattlemullet says:

    All roads appear to be heading toward seditious conspiracy, including trump and many elected officials in my opinion. I can only hope that these wanna be 1776 incorrect dreamers of history will be forever barred from running office.

      • David Brooks says:

        For a moment there I got excited because I thought you had omitted the comma in “1,512 charges”.

        Joke, bmaz.

        • HikaakiH says:

          I am not a lawyer but have read enough of this site’s coverage to know that the DoJ has applied 1512 to cases where the ‘official proceeding’ that the defendant sought to obstruct by intimidation and/or corruption was the January 6, 2021 counting of Electoral College votes in the Senate presided over by the Vice President.

  2. k1srwbpm75xg says:

    I realize that a private lawsuit isn’t the proper venue to advance the public interest and is about obtaining some restitution for a private party, but I would think that it would interesting for Freeman not to settle but to continue to seek access to the Kerik communications that you describe as interesting and arguably should not be privileged?

    How do you assess Freeman’s motivations to settle or not?

    [Welcome to emptywheel. PLEASE NOTE: You used an email address as a username which isn’t acceptable, especially since this is your first known comment*. The email service has been stripped from your username to allow your comment to clear for publication. Please use the same username each time you comment.

    ADDER: *Your first comment was back in March under a too-short name. Please make sure you not only use the same username each time you comment but the same email address. /~Rayne]

  3. Jed_22JUN2023_1330h says:

    From what I know of the D.C. Court of Appeals, they won’t be very sympathetic to his inevitable appeal.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. “JedD” is your second username and is still far too short. It will be temporarily changed to match both your original username and the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  4. jdmckay8 says:

    Thanks. Really admire your having every word, every sentence count towards whatever you are attempting to clarify with a given writing. No distractions. Elegant. You communicate the essence (ulterior, hidden agendas & intentions) to (I hope) a lot of people reading here who otherwise likely would not put all this stuff together.

    That is a real service.

    Also, at risk of pointing out the obvious, several people (and many more not listed in your article)… Navarro, Toensig, Bannon (etc. etc.) do just the opposite: their communications to the public intend to deceive, to confuse. No doubt they are just as dirty as Rudy, maybe more so.

    Freeman’s lawyers asked for $89,172.50 in legal fees for all the stalling that Rudy has already done.

    Seems to me the Navarro/Bannon/Toensig (s) of the world being held to this same standard would be a good measure of justice. I can think of a slew of appropriate names for a law that codifies what Freeman’s lawyers are asking for there. Something about massive waste of society’s time through media-magnified propagation of lies.

    I was so impressed by Zelinski’s John Hopkin’s graduation address, especially how he told those young people the most valuable asset they have is time. So much more meaningful (IMO) because this guy walks his talk. And, what he said is so appropriate in that (at least to my sensibilities) (again, and risk of stating the obvious) he is dealing with fighting a black & white, clear as day fight against evil.

    We are too.

    MI fraudster Matthew DePerno receiving Peter Navarro’s report even before Trump sent it out

    That one really gave me a good belly laugh. Haaa!!!!

    Almost none of this would be privileged, because Rudy was no longer pursuing litigation after the PA lawsuit.

    Thanks to Smith, a 2nd legality overriding privilege could be Crime/Fraud exception.

    It would be a bit comforting to know DOJ was looking at all this bull shit with the seriousness it deserves. Deal with these things now, in real time before they are forgotten and leave generations of scars on society. Do it because it is the right thing to do.

    Anyway, thanks for another great article.

    • earthworm says:

      “So many felons associating with each other. Rudy may be next.”
      Felons gonna fellate — sorry, couldnt help myself

  5. wetzel-rhymes-with says:

    Rudy is the one with Shakespearean depths at the center of the Netflix series in fifteen years. Prestige television. He will be played by an elderly Matt Damon.

    • John Paul Jones says:

      Oops. DC Bar disciplinary hearing. Misconduct in Penn, but DC rules apply, because Rudy was pro hoc vice (sp?) in Penn. from DC. Stupid error on my part.

  6. N.E. Brigand says:

    Is Katherine F.’s last name “Freiss” or “Friess”? The privilege log gives the former for her name but the latter in the two email addresses listed for her. Based on some earlier posts at this site, I’m guessing it’s “Friess”. (Is she related to Foster Friess, whom you once described as an “anachronistic dumb ass”?)

    • HikaakiH says:

      It will surely be the name as spelled in the email addresses as she herself would have made those addresses.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      You’ve never run across an email address that intentionally misspells the user’s name?

      • HikaakiH says:

        Oh, in this case, I’m right. From generic search engine: https://news .yahoo .com/trump-lawyer-accused-evading-subpoena-223655968.html
        Also, possibly related to the late Foster Friess, a noted Republican donor.

  7. Bay State Lurker 23 says:

    Is it likely that Rudy will actually be disbarred, or will he be offered the chance for retirement like Lin Wood?

  8. Peterr says:

    There is an abundance of firm but polite smackdowns in the BPR report, and some of my favorites include these:

    22. For that reason, the District Court found that plaintiffs had presented only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.” DCX 14 at 0008 (502 F. Supp. 3d at 906).

    23. The Third Circuit agreed, holding that the Second Amended Complaint:

    never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so.

    27. Mr. Giuliani, however, contended that observational boundaries were a per se fraud that he had “personally witnessed” (Tr. 49 (Giuliani)). He claimed they were “a deliberate scheme of intentional and purposeful discrimination” against the Trump campaign (DCX 09 at 0079-0080, ¶ 167), concluding that Democrats “stole an election . . . in this Commonwealth” (DCX 08 at 0027) and that he had “hundreds of affidavits” supporting his assertion (DCX 08 at 0027-28). These claims were simply not true.

    33. Respondent thus commenced litigation without evidence that its core factual claim was true. He admits as much, maintaining that the “fastmoving” case “did not permit him to investigate fully his client’s position as he would normally do in any other case.” Respondent’s Br. at 2. Even without supporting evidence, he claims, it was reasonable for him to “draw an inference and make an argument that the vote count was illegal and contrary to law.” Id. at 3. We reject this argument.6

    [Footnote 6 lays out case citations to drive home this rejection, which includes this quote from Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly: “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ouch.]

    You get the idea.

    Short sentences and action verbs are the way to skewer a lawyer who speaks in generalities, unsupported conclusions, and meandering arguments. This report is filled with short sentences and action verbs.

    See, for example, “These claims were simply not true” and “We reject this argument.”

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      “These claims were simply not true,” describing claims that purported to support changing the result of a presidential election. Disbarment would seem to be a first, if insufficient, response.

      The description pretty much summarizes Rudy’s career for the last fifteen years. His ex-wives would probably say for far longer.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Rudy might still be in litigation with his third wife, but their divorce was final in 2019.

  9. Michael Conforti, J.D., Ph.D. says:

    I may be wrong but I don’t read the ‘settlement overture’ by Rudy’s lawyer as resolving the entire case. From the motion it does not sound as if the ‘negotiated settlement’ involves a money payment. It sounds as if Rudy will admit certain facts re liability to avoid having to pay the sanctions.

  10. Savage Librarian says:

    Rudy’s Turn To Cry

    So, now it’s Rudy’s turn to cry,
    Rudy’s turn to cry,
    Rudy’s turn to cry,
    If Giuliani’s come back
    To plea.

    Aww when Rudy Giuliani
    and the Party (the Party),
    Got sucked up by a downswing,
    They got down & lied their minds’ out,
    Now that was a grueling thing!

    But now it’s Rudy’s turn to cry,
    Rudy’s turn to cry,
    Rudy’s turn to cry,
    If Giuliani’s come back
    To plea.

    Well it hurt us so
    to see them band together,
    It was something quite obscene,
    Rudy pulled out all the stops,
    His hustling style was so mean.

    But now it’s Rudy’s turn to cry,
    Rudy’s turn to cry,
    Rudy’s turn to cry,
    If Giuliani’s come back
    To plea.

    Oh, one night we heard him
    dissing at his Party,
    So we dissed his MAGA guy,
    Giuliani, pumped up to acquit him,
    Back then still plugged the Big Lie.

    But now it’s Rudy’s turn to cry,
    Rudy’s turn to cry,
    Rudy’s turn to cry,
    If Giuliani’s come back
    To plea.

    Lesley Gore – “It’s Judy’s Turn To Cry”

Comments are closed.