All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 14, 2023 - Rudy Giuliani
46:25
Stolen Classified Documents About Ukraine Found. Why Now? | January 14 2023 | Ep 305
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, this is Rudy Giuliani and I'm back with another episode of Rudy's Common Sense.
Today we are going to look at the almost unprecedented, if not unprecedented, situation of the current president and the president right before him being charged with essentially the same possible Set of crimes.
Very unusual.
Very strange.
And very much a product of our times.
Which includes the criminalizing of statutes that were not criminal before for the purpose of going after your political enemies.
The trend toward, if not the arrival at fascism within the Biden administration.
The tremendous exaggeration they did over the discussions and debates over a small percentage of Trump's presidential records.
So then when Biden was in a similar, and in some ways much worse situation, because the records turned out to be considerably more insecure than the Trump records.
And held for a much longer time.
The Attorney General, who is a, who probably is the most politicized, dishonest Attorney General in my lifetime.
I don't know how they ever had this reputation of him as a judge.
I do have to remind you, because you need to know this, that his son-in-law runs a company that makes millions and millions of dollars doing programs in schools, having people, instructors come in and question the gender of very young children.
Don't remember exactly the ages it starts at, but ages that would horrify you.
And he's quite successful, and he's become even more successful since his father-in-law has frightened many parents with the thought that they might be described as terrorists if they object to this.
But of course, the crooked arrangement we have now to completely quash the First Amendment And to deprive Americans of the right to know, that means most of you don't know that his son-in-law owns a business where he's profiting from the excessive, I believe, unlawful enforcement activities of this crooked Attorney General.
So this crooked Attorney General has now had to appoint two special prosecutors, one for Trump and one for Biden.
And let's look at how it came about and let's look at what's going to happen and let's look at the implications of it because, like everything that's happening right now, it's happening in a much bigger context with a plan that they have and you have to discover if you want to save our way of life.
We know going back seven, eight, nine months ago, or actually going back to the time that Trump left the White House, he left with a certain number of documents that he has said he declassified, which he has the right to do, that he declassified them for the purpose of taking them so he could study them, go through them.
The president, under the Presidential Records Act, This is very important.
There are different laws governing Trump and Biden, because Trump has far more discretion as the president.
As the president of the United States, until the 70s, records of the president belonged to the president, all belonged to the president.
And the president decided what would be put in the public domain and what wouldn't.
After Watergate, or during Watergate, it was decided that The president should maintain certain rights to these papers, more rights than let's say you or I would have, or a vice president for that matter, but that ultimately the ownership, the control would lie with the United States government in the person of the archivist of the United States.
So that at the end of a term, or at any time, the president is to engage in a discussion with the archivist in which they make decisions about what What's personal and what is public?
And the president has complete access and can have a complete separate file and copy of all the papers, but the public papers have to be with the originals, have to be with the archivist.
So most of them were left behind.
A certain number, I don't know how many boxes would take it.
I've never actually seen them, although I think I know the area of Mar-a-Lago where they were kept.
You're talking about 20, less than 20 boxes?
I don't remember exactly how many boxes we're talking about, but by records standards in governments and corporations or in litigation, a relatively manageable number of boxes.
And in those boxes were records of all kinds, some classified, some highly classified, and some just government property.
They all belong ultimately to the United States, not to Donald Trump, unless they're personal papers.
So if he has a love letter to his wife or instructions to his son in school or the report card of his son, he gets to keep, he gets to take that out and keep it.
And the archivist, you know, just signs off on it.
So this process was going on and they were having debates over it.
They say it was taking a long time.
Well, I don't know how long Obama took.
It may have taken longer.
Obama took all the records and wanted to digitize them.
You know, put them in a computer so you could put down Giuliani and you could see how often my name appeared in his records, let's say.
Now, I know a lot about that because I did that with my records.
I believe I'm the only one who ever did that.
When I was running for president in 07, my political advisor was very angry at me for doing it because he said I was a chump.
It was very easy for the press to find anything controversial because I had it all digitized for them.
As far as I can tell, Obama's been out of office now, gosh, I mean, he left in 16, right?
So he's been out of office almost a decade.
I don't even know if he started digitizing it.
These disputes happen all the time.
But the archivists and those people are really Trump enemies.
You can see by the way they play both differently with Biden and Trump.
The Democrats have politicized that and weaponized it as well.
But the simple fact is that Trump had in his possession a number of documents that belonged to the government, some of which were classified documents, and the government wants to say that he possessed them in violation of, well, now here's the issue.
The Presidential Records Act governs the president's possession and use of these records.
It has no criminal penalties.
So to find the criminal penalties, to find them, you have to go further than that.
And to find the criminal penalties, you have to go into the two statutes in particular that I have in front of me, are 18 United States Code section 2071 and 18 United States Code section 641.
Now, you're going to say, well, this has never been used against a president before.
Well, that's true.
But, you know, Trump is a president against whom many things that were never done to another president were done to him.
Like, trying to frame him for Russian collusion.
Like, completely misstating his conversation with Poroshenko, when in fact, with Zelensky, when in fact it was really Biden's bribery conversation that Shifty Schiff was using.
But in any event, these two statutes, and it simply says...
Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or with intent to do so, takes and carries away any record preceding the da-da-da-da-da shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Now, this 2071 is very, very important because in this subsection B, if you look near the bottom, you'll see There's a provision added to it that says, shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
So let's boil it down.
Let's boil it down.
I find this, you know...
I do something that the phony Democrat commentators and journalists don't.
I read the law.
So let's find out what the law says.
So what would apply here to Trump?
We don't know that he's concealed, mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed anything, or attempted to do so.
There's been no such allegation.
But there is a word here that applies to him, and you see the word removes is underlined, right, in red.
So, yes, he removed the record, okay?
Now, under the right circumstances, that can be a penalty for which, and then you see underlined at the bottom there, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.
Now, whoever having custody of any such record, again we see the word removes in B, right?
Shall be fined, again we have the same criminal penalty for both, but notice this, and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified for any office under the United States.
This is the section they wanted to Prosecute Trump under to stop him from running for president.
There is another statute, 641.
This carries three years in prison.
Another statute called 18 U.S.C.
one, which carries for virtually the same, the same conduct.
It carries under certain circumstances, a 10 year penalty.
And people, you know, who are not really important and don't have protection like the Democrats do, have gone to jail for that period of time.
So those are the two statutes that carry penalties.
The Presidential Records Act, which I have here in front of me, has no criminal penalties.
So question number one is, Did Congress, in passing this Presidential Record Act, when these two statutes already existed, but not providing for a criminal penalty for the President, and not even referring to these statutes, did it basically preclude a criminal penalty for the President?
Undecided question, could be decided either way.
Since Congress has the ability to place the criminal penalties in there, since Congress just had to refer to 641 or 2071 and did not, and criminal statutes are interpreted strictly, meaning if they don't have something, you're not allowed to put them in because it jeopardizes people's liberty.
There's a really good argument that we're arguing over a civil matter here and this whole criminalization of it by crooked Garland is that exactly, a criminalization and an exaggeration.
But in any event, there's a real question with regard to Trump as to whether the criminal penalties apply.
And then if they do apply 641 and 2071, did his period of time to negotiate with them run out,
which he's entitled to do? And And.
Have there been situations that have gone longer than that?
Nobody told him it ran out.
Lots of defenses for Trump.
Let's remember, his documents were held at Mar-a-Lago.
If they were moved, They were moved within Mar-a-Lago, and Mar-a-Lago is a secure private building.
Very secure.
To get in, you need to be identified, you have to give your name, you get checked.
When you do get in, you do not have access by any means to the entire facility.
The place where these were held, the public had no access to it.
There's no indication that the public ever did have access to it and there's no indication that anything is missing or was tampered with or that there was any, any, any, any, any nefarious purpose to the president having these records there.
Well, as you know, during the course of this, President Biden He ratcheted this up even more by sanctimoniously lecturing President Trump about how irresponsible he was in the handling of such papers.
So, he took what could be Really, a civil matter has never been used criminally against any other former president.
And put it in the criminal realm, didn't he?
and serious criminal realm with this statement from Biden, which we will now play for you.
Well, I must say, even before I knew the additional facts, I thought this was quite a sanctimonious statement from a
guy who's been a criminal for 30 years and whose records as a criminal are about 40
yards from me, and which dominate the computer of his son such that you
can't really turn too many pages without finding a felony.
Thank you.
Very few misdemeanors.
He committed big crimes.
And he sold his office over and over again like a completely corrupt, disgusting thief.
An embarrassment to the United States.
To see him lecture Trump was kind of hypocritical.
But we had no idea of the depth of his hypocrisy, did we?
We had no idea the depth of the hypocrisy because at the time he said this he was hiding and concealing the fact that he had done far worse without any of the defenses that a president has.
So what did he do?
But we don't know what he did because he can't remember.
Did you ever think that may be a problem in and of itself that he can't remember?
I mean, just the other day he was telling us that he talked to his uncle and his father six or seven years after they died, when his father came to him at the vice presidential inauguration and asked him to get the purple heart for his uncle.
And then shortly thereafter, he did.
And in the White House, when he was vice president, he gave him the Purple Heart.
Problem is, the uncle and father were both dead long before the vice president was inaugurated.
And then when told about it, he repeated it several days later, which indicates not only... Well, we know he's been a liar since he was a child, and a cheat, and a plagiarist.
But when he's told that it's not true, you just don't repeat it again unless you're moving into the stage of dementia called delusion.
So he's fast approaching pretty much annihilation of his brain.
It wasn't too big to start with.
And I guess I feel sorry for him.
It's very complex because the anger and the disrespect I have for people who sell out my country is unbounded.
It isn't just that this man took money, he took money from Russia.
He took money from the Chinese Communist Party.
And he's clearly incompetent to be president.
But in any event, he made that statement.
Now, one would wonder, when he was making that statement, is he actually hypocritical or delusional?
Did he not remember when he was saying that?
That he had documents stashed in places that are absurd.
And then all of a sudden, three months after the midterm election, out of the blue, his lawyers go to his office and come up with classified documents that were held at the Biden Pen Center.
Now, I want to emphasize that that is in a public office building with no extra degree of security.
It's like any office building.
It's not like Mar-a-Lago.
It's not like the White House.
It would have to be deemed to be in highly insecure situation.
Since negligence and gross negligence applies with regard to 641 and 2071, those are the criminal statutes, which do apply to Biden because he's not the president.
May not apply to President Trump because the Presidential Record Act may preclude it.
But in any event, the level of negligence was much higher on the part of Biden.
I mean, Trump kept them in a secure, albeit not government secure, facility.
He kept them in a public office building with a center that he partially controls, but ultimately is controlled by, I believe, the University of Pennsylvania and major funder is the Chinese Communist Party.
Did you hear me?
A major funder is the Chinese Communist Party.
Did they have access to this?
They were funders.
Would that mean they had access to it?
It's certainly not been asked.
No one's even bothered to really point out very much that the Chinese Communist Party contributed, I believe, about 20% of their money.
Millions.
We know that they gave him and the family probably somewhere in the 50 to 60 millions within five or six years of his taking the office of president.
So we know that they own him.
And then, of course, the White House answered questions about it stupidly.
He doesn't remember how they got there.
But then they let a couple of days go by and all of his sycophants, who are basically really very disturbing human beings, start saying, well, this isn't as bad.
It was just it was less records.
He wasn't arguing with Archivist over them.
Of course, he had them for eight years, seven years, six years.
How could he argue with the archivist?
He stole them.
The archivist didn't know he had them.
In the case of Trump, at all times, the archivist knew that he had them and they were negotiating them.
What a stupid thing to say.
He wasn't arguing with the archivist.
Well, because he took them and didn't tell him, and couldn't possibly have told him because he doesn't remember taking them.
But somehow, doesn't it strike you as funny that his lawyer went directly to where they were?
So who told him where they were?
Who told the lawyer where the documents were when he went there on November 2nd of 2022 and found the group of documents, all government records, so they all fit under 641.
You should understand it's not just classified records.
It's all government records.
And then we are told that some of them are among the most highly secret type of documents.
So we're going to take a short break and when we come back we're going to look at the other statute that applies And then we're going to compare the two and make some predictions as to what will happen as a result of this, which is such an unusual and disturbing situation that fits into an era in our history that may very well be an era in which our government has veered the furthest away from an honest
Republic based on democratic principles to something more akin to a fascist state.
We'll be back very shortly.
You know, one thing I wanted to remind you of before we go any further is Patriot Mobile.
We really in this very difficult time where conservatives are being Prosecuted for things they didn't do.
Putting all this money in for new agents to come after you.
You know they're going to come after you the way they did during the Obama administration.
They'll come after you and me and they'll leave everybody else alone.
They're going to have guns to collect taxes.
St.
Matthew didn't have guns.
St.
Matthew was a tax collector.
Did you know that?
Before he turned to the way of the truth and the life.
Patriot Mobile is the place to go for your mobile service.
It really is.
You're going to get a great deal.
They're much more sensitive to inflation and prices.
They're much more sensitive to the middle class because you know that the Democrats and the fascists and the elitists, they just think we're all a bunch of who knows what.
They're on our side and they've been fighting battles for us.
They've been there side by side in the battle for life and the battle for self-defense and the battle for free speech and the battle.
So go to patriotmobile.com slash ruby and look at what they have for you in turn.
Just do a comparison.
See if you can't give the business to a like-minded group of patriotic Americans.
If you're a uniformed officer of any kind or a first responder, you'll get even more of a deal.
And if you use my name, say, you know, patriotmobile.com slash Rudy, you'll get free installation.
And boy, I need that.
I can't figure out how to do it.
One time I tried, I was using five other people's phones.
Not illegally!
Oh boy, I just started another FBI investigation.
Man, you know they investigated me for three and a half years and didn't find a damn thing?
I must be pretty honest now.
I bet that wouldn't happen with the Democrats.
Welcome back to Rudy's Common Sense and we're discussing the We're discussing the whole situation involving classified material in the possession of former President Trump, and then classified material from his Vice President days, which was removed from the White House and kept in highly insecure, unsecure situation.
What appears to be about as clear a violation of 18 United States Code Section 641 as you can have.
Why the difference between Biden and Trump?
Because it's not clear that 641 applies to the President.
There's a Presidential Records Act that guides the President's behavior, and it makes no provision for criminal penalties, and therefore, the question is, can you just say, okay, we'll apply 641?
Or does it have to be some kind of mention there by Congress that they wanted criminal penalties?
They don't appear to have put them there. But in any event, you'd also have a question on the 641
where Trump's conduct was arguably much more reasonable in the way he conducted himself
with regard to the security of these documents because he kept them, what appears to be,
consistently in a very secure facility, Mar-a-Lago.
Mar-a-Lago requires identifying yourself beforehand in order to get there.
If you are not on the list, it's been checked out in advance, it takes quite some time for you to get in and you may not get in.
And when you do get in, you are restricted to the public areas And a secret service agent or private security person will stop you from going to the private areas where these documents were kept.
In the case of Biden, we have already discussed the fact that the first group of documents that were discovered were in a public office, were in a public office building.
Just right in the middle of town, so you see what it looks like.
I mean, that's just a regular good old office building.
No more secure than, or probably less secure than, you know, my office or anybody's office.
Now, the explanation, which is he doesn't remember But then again, we raised the question and we don't have the answer.
How did the lawyer know where to go to find these?
Did he just, was he just searching every place for classified records and he just happened to come upon it?
Or did someone tell him there are classified records at his office with Penn State and that's paid for in large part by the Chinese Communist government?
Talking about insecure.
Involving national security.
Is he compromised?
Everywhere you turn, the Chinese are involved.
They paid good money for him, but I mean, they really do own him.
This is the guy that gives an airbase away 400 miles from China.
Any other president would have been impeached for that.
Maybe tried for something... I can't try for treason, but something...
Something like what they're doing to those January 6th people for much less reason.
I have some concluding comments here that are very, very important because I think this really is what makes the case.
So he says he didn't remember that these classified documents were in the office that is partially supported by Red China.
But then again, his lawyer went right to the documents, and his lawyer hasn't explained to us whether he conducted some kind of a massive omni-search, or he was told by someone, or maybe someone else possesses this information other than Joe.
And then we're going to start getting into more of an insecure situation.
Now they have this information on November 2nd.
The election is coming up, and they're beating and beating and beating on Trump over these records constantly.
And you would think if they had any sense of honesty or honor, they would come forward and describe this, because it certainly does put some context on their attacks on Trump, which play a role, I'm sure, in the Less than predicted performance for the Democrats, even for the President.
But of course, they don't do that.
I mean, who would expect them to do it?
They're complete cheats.
I mean, these are the people that carried out the biggest fraud in American electoral history in 2020.
Oh, you're going to say stealing the votes.
Well, I might say that too, but I'm not talking about right now.
I'm talking about Concealing the hard drive from virtually every media source in the country, willing to conspire with them to destroy the First Amendment in order to prevent Donald Trump from being president.
I mean, we should determine about the stolen election in terms of the vote and the cheating that went on with regard to the vote, but we don't have to really go much further than the suppression of the hard drive to say the election was stolen.
Every poll taken has 10 to 20 percent of the people, Democrats, would have changed their vote had they known that he was a crook for life, which is what it shows.
So that debate goes on for a little bit, including they all of a sudden they bring it up now, you know, they wait until after the election and they bring it up now.
Why the timing of it?
Some people think it is because the Democrats want to get him out of office.
Because of, particularly because of that performance in Cambodia where he thought he was in Colombia, which has the entire world talking.
And then, you know, thinking his father and uncle are alive.
And just two or three times in the last week, he's referred to the vice president as President Harris.
I mean, they're trying to get you not to watch, but they've got to be frightened out of their minds that he's just going to blow it one day.
That's what happens with the disease.
I mean, you just wake up one morning and you can't talk.
So it may be they've decided to pull the string on him, and they're looking for ways to get him out.
But that's speculation, and I don't know that that's true, but I do think it's something worth talking about and thinking about.
So just as they were coming up with excuses for his removal of classified records in violation of 18 United States Code section 641, which says, by the way, That if he's guilty of it, he forfeits his public office.
I don't know if that's constitutional.
If this would dismiss impeachment.
And I'm not even sure the ban on public office in the future is constitutional.
Particularly the presidency.
But in any event, it has those, and it has jail terms, and it has a history of strict enforcement against little people.
Like they go to jail for five years, ten years, when this happens.
But then all of a sudden, shockingly, we find out they've discovered more documents at his home.
Also classified.
Now tell me his home is secure.
The home is owned by a lifetime crack addict.
Who, if he were properly convicted, would have a record as long as your arm for all kinds of crimes, including conspiracies with some of the most dangerous criminals in the world, including one of the most crooked oligarchs in Ukraine, one of the most crooked women in Russia, the spymaster of China, Whitey Bulge's nephew.
Well, he's the owner of the house.
Now, tell me that that's secure.
And then the Attorney General, when he's giving his little talk, it sounds like he misspeaks, and he seems like he's talking about there were three discoveries of documents.
And we find out, yeah, yeah, yeah, there were discoveries of documents in two places at the House.
One was inside the House, but the other was in the garage.
And the President, in answer, Peter Doocy makes one of the dumbest arguments.
I mean, this is why, you know, he failed out of law school and had to take a paper to come back and plagiarize himself.
Why he was basically last in his class and he's like kind of a dummy.
Just listen to this argument about how secure a garage is by Unfortunately, the person some of you voted for, for
president.
This is a garage that is just a garage to a house.
And...
Any halfway competent intelligence agent of any of our foreign adversaries would be able to open that thing within seconds.
I mean, there's no way that these laws thought that putting classified documents in your garage was the way to handle classified material.
So he didn't just remove it, he put it in ridiculous places.
Trump did not put it in ridiculous places.
We put it in places where they were kept there.
They were allowed to come and inspect, were the archivists, and they did.
They even made recommendations with regard to further security for it, which were implemented.
And here we have this dummy arguing that the garage was secure enough.
Now I want you to take a look at a picture of the garage on the front page of the New York Post.
We see anybody vet this guy, but then it says, does this look secure?
That is, we believe, some of the records that were supposed to be kept secure.
They weren't just in the garage locked up somewhere.
It looks like they were in the garage and anybody in there would just stop off and take a peek at them.
It looks like Joe had them on display.
And look at this jackass in the car.
They're right behind him.
You want to get up closer to a better look?
There you go.
There's a little better look at the classified documents.
Now, that isn't gross negligence.
That isn't a clear violation of 18 United States Code section 641 or 18 United States Code section 2071, calling for three years or 10 years in prison and just qualifying you for public office.
Is that anything similar to what Trump did?
I mean, you have him laying out anywhere And in the case of Trump, they showed you pictures of all the documents.
They haven't shown us pictures of his documents.
We had to post how to go get this.
What we're looking at here is outrageous, you know, it really is.
That was a classified document.
This is a guy who told you how careful he is with classified documents.
Does he lie about everything?
So now what's going to happen?
What's going to happen with this bit of information?
A special prosecutor has been appointed for Biden.
There's already one on the Trump case.
There was this discussion, and I marvel at the ignorance of the intelligent.
There's all this discussion, will Biden be indicted?
Biden can't be indicted, don't you remember?
A sitting president can't be indicted.
The Justice Department has a rule against it.
Any deviation from that rule, I think, would be seen as a due process violation, like picking on a particular president.
I didn't think they could ever prosecute Trump.
They realized that.
Mueller conceded that to me the day I came into the case.
And we conducted the investigation differently as a result of that, or our defense to it.
Same thing is true here with Biden.
No matter how clear the violation of 641 and 2071, which, and it's clear as molasses, I mean, just that picture makes it clear that it was grossly negligent.
He took a picture!
If people, if anybody, you know, a foreign agent Might look at that and say, gee, maybe I'll break in one day and see what those things are, since he's not there a lot.
It's Hunter's house and he's probably inside smoking crack, which is, there were a thousand pictures of him doing that in the hard drive.
And I'm sure, you know, foreign governments have what I have.
So, you can't prosecute him.
What you can do is you can write a report.
You could recommend his impeachment.
You could recommend that he be indicted after he leaves office.
Question, does the statute of limitations toll?
Does it stop or would he go beyond the statute of limitations?
So now suppose he doesn't get prosecuted.
Well, he can't be prosecuted so long as he's in office.
Suppose you went ahead and prosecuted Trump based on the facts that we have now.
I mean, you'd have a national scandal.
I don't think the American people would tolerate that.
I mean, the best you can say is their conduct was about the same, and I think there's a much better argument that Trump was acting much more reasonable than he was.
He was engaged in a dispute.
He was engaged in a discussion about the papers.
He clearly had them under better conditions of confidentiality and protection than Biden did.
And we've had some very, very egregious double standard Prosecutions and demonstrations, but nothing as bad as that.
So I think they are basically checkmated.
The special prosecutors.
Now, the Biden special prosecutor could take advantage of being special prosecutor and indict him for the bribe that he admitted that he engaged in with Poroshenko.
He could do that.
And he could get around the statute of limitations by continuing concealment of it.
And if he wanted to be creative and not even creative, just gather some evidence together, I could give him my chart, which I have.
You can go back to my podcast about it.
I could give him a RICO case that he could put together in about six weeks for the lifetime of millions and millions of dollars.
Let me summarize it very, very simply.
The Biden family are an American success story.
They come from, if not poverty, middle class, to multi, multi, multi-international millionaires.
And they had a very, very special product, Joe Biden's public office, which they sold indiscriminately and for increasingly large amounts of money as they became more powerful.
And then they did things in return for the enemies of the United States to help them, including giving up an airbase that's only 400 miles from China.
So, Let's see what happens.
We now have a special prosecutor for Biden.
And a special prosecutor, when he gets to the point where he finds that he violated the statute, but he can't prosecute him, should ask for an extension of his jurisdiction so he can look at the things that would have to be included in a full report on the criminality of this president who is destroying our country.
So let's see what happens.
This is another chapter.
And something that I guess should be expected when you elect a criminal as President of the United States surrounded by a family of criminals.
If you wouldn't mind, subscribe.
It will help us.
And if you agree with our kind of journalism, which is hopefully the way you're getting information that you don't get elsewhere, who else has emphasized The corruption of Attorney General Garland's son-in-law, no one even mentions it, who has really put an emphasis on the gross negligence of exactly where those papers were, and who constantly reminds you that there's still
Including the New York Post not really emphasizing enough the clear, clear admission by Hunter that Joe was getting 50% of all the money for 30 years and that he paid for all the property.
Why the surprise that he owns the house baffles me if you're paying attention to this case.
He has, and it does tend to now corroborate the statement that he made to his daughter 2018.
For the last 30 years, I paid for all the expenses of this family and still had to give half my income to Pop.
His ownership of that house helps to corroborate that.
So we're getting to a point where we have a ridiculously strong racketeering case and nothing is being done, not even a subpoena.
What can I keep after?
Subscribe to us.
Give us the support we need to continue, okay?
Thank you.
This is Rudy Giuliani.
Say a prayer and thank God that you're an American.
▲
Export Selection