Share and Follow
Former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani speaks during a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Washington, Dec. 15, 2023 (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana).
A judge’s ultimatum prompted a quick about-face from Rudy Giuliani as the former New York City mayor prioritized a potential trip to Washington, D.C., later this month over remotely appearing in court for a contempt hearing being held in the nation’s capital later this week.
On Wednesday, Giuliani cited his health and his apparent high value as an assassination target for the Islamic Republic of Iran in a bid to forego an in-person attendance at the proceedings slated for Friday.
In a terse court order released later that same day, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell gave Giuliani a choice. The court conditionally granted the digital appearance request on the defendant attesting, under oath, that he had not traveled out of Florida in the past 30 days and would not travel for the next 30 days — except for mandatory legal reasons.
In other words, the defendant’s remote appearance was conditioned on missing President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.
On Thursday, Giuliani supplied the requested declaration — but dropped his bid to appear remotely for the contempt hearing.
“I had hoped the Court would understand and accommodate my needs,” the defendant wrote. “However, it appears I was mistaken. Because it is difficult to cancel my two evening broadcasting commitments, and last-minute travel arrangements are uncertain, I have decided to withdraw my motion to appear virtually and to be physically present for tomorrow’s hearing.”
In his previous motion, the former federal prosecutor said his knee conditions, a lung ailment, and heart problems made travel a chore.
He also cited “a number of credible death threats against” against his life. Such threats, the motion argued, should be understood within the context of Giuliani’s status as “one of the more outspoken critics of the current Iranian regime, at a time of heightened terrorism concerns following the recent events in New Orleans and Las Vegas and the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran and its various proxies.”
The court did not take issue with any of those claims but the proposed accommodation terms were rejected by the defendant because he had other, tentative travel plans he decided not to abandon.
“It currently appears that I will be required to appear in person for trial in the New York matter identified above starting on January 16, 2025,” Giuliani’s declaration goes on. “If it concludes before January 20th, I may travel to Washington, D.C. on the way home from Florida for the inauguration of President Trump, which will be a once-in-a-lifetime event in which I cannot participate by zoom, and for which there will be heightened security.”
The onetime U.S. Attorney also maintained the claims about his flagging health and international relations-related security concerns.
From the declaration, at length:
I reside in Florida. I am 80 years old and suffer from a number of medical conditions … I receive death threats. In the last few years, there were two plotted attempts on my life that led to prosecutions, one in France and one in Albania. As a result, I consult with a former New York Police commissioner regarding my personal security, and when necessary, travel with security. Since the recent events in New Orleans and Las Vegas, and with the intensifying conflict between Israel and Iran and its proxies, I have been advised to be particularly careful in general and of course when I travel. That is not to say that I cannot travel. I travel for my court appearances, for work, and for certain important personal matters. However, my health and safety concerns make travel burdensome and expensive.
“I did not represent that I do not or cannot travel, but that travel carries medical and security risks,” the declaration goes on.
In the underlying defamation case, plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss allege an ongoing series of defamatory statements in violation of a consent injunction.
The case is different from but closely related to the original $148 million defamation verdict the pair won against Giuliani for spreading lies about them in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
In December 2023, Freeman and Moss asked the court to issue an injunction that would “permanently” bar Giuliani from defaming them — accusing him of continuing to lob such unsubstantiated falsehoods and peddle pro-Trump conspiracy theories about never-proven electoral fraud even after being found liable for the same.
The defendant eventually agreed to abide by an injunction prohibiting him from making any additional claims that Freeman or Moss had “engaged in wrong-doing in connection with the 2020 presidential election.”
But, Freeman and Moss allege, the defamation continued apace — and they filed their motion for contempt and sanctions in November 2024.
The legal process moved along, waxing with a flurry of motions and court orders, and waning with the advent of the holidays.
On Friday, the court will hear the merits of the renewed allegations.
