Rudy Giuliani is cautionary tale against following Donald Trump's lies: analyst

Rudy Giuliani is cautionary tale against following Donald Trump's lies: analyst
Rudy Giuliani Mugshot (Fulton County sheriff's office)

Rudy Giuliani, once known as America’s mayor and now facing criminal election interference charges and a potentially bank-breaking defamation lawsuit, is a cautionary tale for America about what happens when you follow Donald Trump, political analysts say.

“I think he’s a cautionary tale for the whole country,” Tim Miller, former political director for Republican Voters Against Trump, told MSNBC’s Chris Jansing Monday.

“Rudy GIuliani is the prime example of people who have seen consequences for going along with Donald Trump’s lies.”

The former New York City mayor and member of Trump’s legal team headed to court Monday to face a $43 million defamation lawsuit from two Georgia poll workers he falsely accused of tampering with the 2020 election.

Giuliani famously accused the pair of passing around like illegal drugs a USB drive that later discovered to be a ginger candy.

As in Trump’s $250 million New York City fraud case, Giuliani was found liable before court proceedings began.

ALSO READ: Dear GOP: America is not going to forget — and many Americans will never forgive

Giuliani faces corruption charges in Georgia alongside Trump for his role in the campaign to challenge the 2020 election results, possible disbarment and financial troubles that saw him list his Upper East Side apartment, Jansing noted.

“All of this because he peddled Donald Trump’s election lies,” the MSNBC host said. “I don’t know that there are many downfalls this epic.”

Miller agreed, but voiced concern about Trump’s increasingly strong standing as the conservative candidate going into the 2024 election.

"The Republican party is lock step behind him right now," Miller said. “I think it’s a cautionary tale, but is anyone getting the caution?”

Watch below or click here.

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

We’ve seen this movie before. Or at least our grandparents did. Dictators can’t take a joke.

On Feb. 4, 1939 — seven months before their invasion of Poland kicked off World War II — the man with oversight responsibility for German media officially forbade five comedians from ever again performing in public. As the headline in the New York Times explained:

“Goebbels Ends Careers of Five 'Aryan' Actors Who Made Witticisms About the Nazi Regime”

Their crime, according to Josef Goebbels, was publicly telling “brazen, impertinent, arrogant and tactless” jokes about the Führer.

Their humor, Goebbels told the press, only appealed to the “society rabble that followed them with thundering applause — parasitic scum, inhabiting our luxury streets, that seems to have only the task of proving with how little brains people can get along and even acquire money and prominence.”

The Times wrote that Goebbels and Adolf Hitler were particularly incensed that the actors caricatured and ridiculed Hitler’s followers and the loyal toadies in his administration:

“What amused the public most, however, and presumably roiled the National Socialist authorities most — although Dr. Goebbels does not mention it — is that they deftly, but unmistakably, caricatured some gestures, poses and physical characteristics of National Socialist leaders — sometimes with bon mots that made the rounds of the country.”

The Nazi leaders were furious, arguing that they themselves had, the Times noted, “a keen sense of humor that could kill opponents with ridicule.”

Instead of ordering the offending comedians executed, the Times added, they were simply rendered incapable of earning a living in their chosen profession.

“But as National Socialism proposes to remain in power 2,000 years it has neither the time nor the patience to apply that method to the ‘miserable literati.’”

FCC (“Federal Censorship Commission”?) Chairman Brendan Carr seems to be following in Goebbels' footsteps, having implicitly threatened Disney/ABC and two groups of TV station affiliates with regulatory intervention to block multi-billion-dollar mergers if they didn’t take Jimmy Kimmel off the air.

CBS’s rolling over when Trump was offended by Stephen Colbert appears to have emboldened the administration to go after other comedians.

Donald Trump himself, meanwhile, was blunt about how “illegal” it is for people on television to criticize him. And he wasn’t just talking about comedians, specifically calling out “newscasts” that will presumably be Carr’s next target:

“I’m a very strong person for free speech. But 97, 94, 95, 96 percent of the people are against me in the sense of the newscasts are against me. The stories are — they said 97 percent bad. So, they gave me 97, they’ll take a great story, and they’ll make it bad. See, I think that’s really illegal, personally.”

Meanwhile, Trump has sent soldiers into the streets of three American cities, purged federal museums of information about slavery and discrimination against minorities and women, and posted what may have been meant to be a private DM demanding that Attorney General Pam Bondi begin prosecuting his political enemies.

Along those same authoritarian lines, three major federal buildings in Washington, D.C. now sport massive new banners with Trump’s face glowering down on people walking or driving by. Paid for with your tax dollars, the banners violate federal law according to a report released by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Georgia Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson was blunt in his critique:

“When I saw the banners hanging from federal office buildings last week, it reminded me of [the] Communist Party in China and banners hanging from federal offices — just totally inappropriate and a step towards authoritarianism. It’s another indication of the march that we’re on towards authoritarianism in this country.”

Will anybody on network television be willing this week to tell “brazen, impertinent, arrogant and tactless" jokes about the Saddam Hussein-like banners?

Stay tuned.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

In the final minutes of FBI Director Kash Patel’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 16, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) acknowledged the obvious: Individuals on the left should not have celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination, but influential voices on the right were inflaming the situation.

The bottom line, Tillis observed, was that escalation of the rhetoric on the right was making the FBI’s job of law enforcement more difficult.

Trump disagrees

Sen. Tillis’s analysis would have come as a shock to President Donald Trump, who blamed the episode on the “radical left.” Speaking from the Oval Office only hours after Kirk’s death on Sept. 10 — before the identity or motives of the assassin were known — he issued a video message:

“My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.”

Listing recent attacks against himself and other conservative figures, he didn’t mention violence against Democrats, including the assassination of a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband; the shooting of another Minnesota legislator and his wife; the arson attack on Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-PA) residence; or the attack on Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) husband.

Those omissions were an important tell: Trump is going after Democrats and what he otherwise considers the left — and them only.

On Sept. 11, he confirmed the identity of his targets: “We have a radical left group of lunatics out there, just absolute lunatics, and we’re going to get that problem solved.”

And then, with an appearance the next day on Fox & Friends, Trump resumed his rant:

“I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They don’t want to see crime. Worried about the border. They’re saying, We don’t want these people coming in. We don’t want you burning our shopping centers. We don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.”

“The radicals on the left are the problem,” Trump continued his series of non sequiturs, “and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy, although they want men and women sports, they want transgender for everyone, they want open borders.”

Meanwhile on the right

Here’s a sample of what Sen. Tillis was talking about:

Steve Bannon on his War Room broadcast: “We have to have steely resolve. Charlie Kirk is a casualty of war. We are at war in this country. We are.”

Fox News host Jesse Watters: “They are at war with us, whether we want to accept it or not. What are we gonna do about it? Everybody’s accountable … the politicians, the media, and all these rats out there. This can never happen again. It ends now. This is a turning point and we know which direction we’re going.”

Podcaster Matt Walsh: “We are up against demonic forces from the pit of Hell. This is existential. A fight for our own existence and the existence of our country.”

Elon Musk: “If they won’t leave us in peace, then our choice is to fight or die.”

Conservative actor James Woods: “Dear leftists: we can have a conversation or a civil war. One more shot from your side, and you will not get this choice again.”

What’s Next?

Seeing the world through Trump’s hyper-political lens leaves no room for doubt, ambiguity, facts, or reasoned discussion. Everyone is either friend or foe, ally or enemy, angel or devil. War requires battling the opposition. And the opposition is anyone who opposes or criticizes Trump.

But a war against evil — which some voices on the right now suggest is under way — means a fight to the death. In a democracy, that’s an ominous approach to political disagreement. Trump fosters it.

The day after Kirk’s assassination, Sen. Tillis told the National Journal: “What I was really disgusted by yesterday is a couple of talking heads that see this as an opportunity to say we’re at war so that they could get some of our conservative followers lathered up over this. It seems like a cheap, disgusting, awful way to pretend like you’re a leader of a conservative movement.”

It’s remarkable how Republicans in Congress acquire wisdom after they have announced that they’re not seeking re-election.

  • Steven J. Harper is an attorney, adjunct professor at Northwestern University Law School, and author of several books, including Crossing Hoffa: A Teamster's Story and The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession in Crisis. He has been a regular columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather's News and Guts, and The American Lawyer. Follow him at thelawyerbubble.com.

Analysts have noted that the memorial service for slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk indicated the MAGA movement is preparing for a world without the aging and term-limited President Donald Trump — but more than that, argued David Rothkopf for The Daily Beast, they're already showing the direction their movement will take with him out of the picture.

Specifically, he said, they will go the way Kirk himself did — toward a far-right Christian nationalist ideology, that holds America and its laws as subservient to religious edicts.

"Quite apart from the looming presence of Kirk himself, the most important voices at the event were his widow, Erika Kirk, and Vice President J.D. Vance," wrote Rothkopf. "Erika Kirk’s speech was the most emotionally resonant. Her public forgiveness of her husband’s murderer was clearly the signature moment." However, Vance's remarks "were the strongest of the senior Trump Administration officials who appeared on stage. That is true both because he seemed to be the person most genuinely close to Kirk, and also because he was the most in tune with Erika."

Both of them, he wrote, spoke "like televangelists" and were there to promote "the politics of a religious revival" — because that's exactly what their goal is.

In theory, this would seem to be an improvement, he noted: "Clearly, such a move would be a big step up, a transition from one of the worst of men, a living catalogue of vices who has been supported his entire life by the wages of sin, to a deity, the epitome of virtue. What is more, it is a natural evolution for the American right, which in recent years has had an increasingly religious bent to its structure and focus."

The problem, he wrote, is that this sort of hardcore Dominionism, which rejects the separation of church and state, both excludes large portions of the public who do not subscribe to those beliefs, and also "the degree to which so many televangelists in America have themselves become corrupted by money and power. Nothing illustrates this fact so well as their embrace of as corrupt a person as Trump as an agent of a Higher Power, a quasi-religious figure himself."

"We seem to be on the verge of replacing one type of hypocritical con with another," Rothkopf concluded. "While the names of the players and some of their rhetoric may change, the essence of the MAGA movement will not. Nor will appropriating the language of Jesus or the Bible will not make those with hate or greed in their heart holy."

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}