In Order to Believe that Rudy Giuliani Conspired to Overturn a Valid Presidential Election, You’d Also Have to Believe That …
Rudy Giuliani: Former U.S. Attorney (i.e., federal prosecutor) – therefore a seasoned expert in criminal law – who ably applied that expertise, being widely recognized for his prowess in “bringing down the Mob.”
Rudy Giuliani: Former Mayor of New York City. Widely hailed for massively reducing crime, making that city livable again.
Rudy Giuliani: His leadership during “9/11” forever earned him the moniker “America’s Mayor.”
Rudy Giuliani: In 2008, a candidate for President (with first-hand knowledge of not succeeding in same, and conceding out without questioning the results).
We are now supposed to believe that this man was party to a criminal conspiracy; a gentleman with subject matter expertise about criminal conspiracies, and the consequences for so engaging.
We are now supposed to believe that he knowingly and willingly joined a criminal conspiracy to overturn a valid Presidential election in 2020.
We are now supposed to believe that rather than enjoy (presumably) a comfortable retirement, this former federal prosecutor elected to join a criminal conspiracy to (in effect) overturn a valid election, and so risk spending the rest of his days in jail.
Now, which of the following is the more plausible scenario?
a) This former federal prosecutor, “America’s Mayor” and past Presidential candidate, with highly trained eye, saw credible evidence of a stolen election – and outraged over this egregious harm to our Constitutional Republic, decided to serve his country one more time, upholding his oath of office to protect and serve our Constitution. Or,
b) That the perpetrators of an actual criminal conspiracy (and, I would argue, treasonous conspiracy), one to execute election theft in 2020 (more accurately, a conspiracy to execute a coup d’etat) – now require that the BIG LIE of a “free and fair” election be maintained in order to cover their tracks. Not only that, that the perpetrators see a need to preemptively terminate any possibility of a second Trump term, lest justice catch up to them then. To execute such a follow-on conspiracy, they engage in “lawfare” both to continue the coverup of their 2020 crimes, and to maintain viable election theft battlespace for 2024; that they intend to hobble those with election fraud investigation experience, while simultaneously intimidating anyone that might be inclined to pursue election integrity in the future.
We already showed how the allegations against Rudy Giuliani are wildly inconsistent with his lifetime track record.
But what about the parties in (b) above, in Fulton County, GA and Washington, D.C. (a/k/a the “District of Conspiracy”)?
We know that they executed a conspiracy to falsely taint candidate Trump with “Russian collusion.”
We know that they executed two conspiracies to falsely impeach President Trump.
We know that they conspired to falsely portray Hunter Biden’s laptop as “Russian disinformation.”
Their already-established conspiracy list goes on and on.
So lawfare against President Trump and his allies and associates is not wildly inconsistent with their past, but wholly consistent with it.
Any fair jury, examining the totality of the evidence, would render a verdict finding innocence for “(a),” and “guilty” against “(b).” It would be a unanimous verdict, arrived at after mere moments of deliberation.
Presumably, the real bad guys first anticipated that any questioning of their 2020 election crimes would fade with time, as people would just “move on.” then they calculated that the questioning would fade after their bipartisan misdirection plays: “free and fair election,” of tarring questioners and investigators as peddlers of “no evidence,” and “debunked” and “false” “conspiracy theories” – ultimately packaging them as (crazed) “election deniers.” [Not to mention the fabricated allegations “insurrection” related to January 6, 2021.]
But instead, the questioning grew, and evidence kept growing, e.g., the release of the documentary 2000 Mules.
So now, they’re forced into rear-guard action(s) with lawfare. “The best defense is a good offense” theory underpinning egregious and unprecedented abuse of our law enforcement and justice systems.
In conclusion, this malicious prosecution by the “(b)” parties against Rudy Giuliani (et als.) is analogous to what in legal circles is known as an “admission against interest” – it reeks of desperation, and exposes actual motivations. Its initiation failing to effectuate its plotters’ intentions — derailing Trump 2024 — but instead to (at least indirectly) expose the “(b)” parties’ criminal conspiracies.
In fact, one might argue that this prosecution is itself a criminal conspiracy on the part of the prosecution.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20