Shares of Nvidia have surged this week after the chipmaker posted strong fourth quarter results earlier this week.
Nvidia, a leading manufacturer of the graphics processing units (GPUs) typically used for artificial intelligence (AI) models, saw its shares jump 16 percent on Thursday and had climbed another 3 percent as of midmorning Friday.
The surge followed the company’s release of its fourth quarter results on Wednesday evening, which beat Wall Street’s expectations, according to CNBC
Nvidia posted a record quarterly revenue of $22.1 billion, up 22 percent from the previous quarter and 265 percent from one year earlier, it said in a press release.
“Accelerated computing and generative AI have hit the tipping point,” Jensen Huang, the founder and CEO of NVIDIA, said in a statement. “Demand is surging worldwide across companies, industries and nations.”
The chipmaker’s upward climb brought the stock market along with it. The S&P 500 jumped 2.1 percent on Thursday, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 1.2 percent or about 450 points. Both closed at record highs, according to Reuters
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) argued “anybody would say yes” to being the vice president nominee alongside former President Trump, just days after he confirmed his vice presidential shortlist, which did not include her.
Mace endorsed Trump last month
, the latest in a string of South Carolina lawmakers to not back former Gov. Nikki Haley (R-S.C.). Mace said she doesn’t see “eye to eye perfectly” with any candidate, and while she has “stayed out of it,” the time had come “to unite” behind Trump.
Mace discussed her endorsement of the former president and the prospect of joining him on the ticket during a Politico interview, which aired Friday. At a town hall event in South Carolina Tuesday, Trump confirmed a shortlist of names, which did not include Mace.
“Obviously, you would say yes if he asked you, right?” Politico’s Ryan Lizza asked.
“Anybody would say yes, but you know, when was the last time a House member became Vice President? I mean, it just doesn’t happen,” she responded. “And my focus has always been on South Carolina. I love the job that I’m doing.”
Mace, who was elected in 2018, has become an outspoken member of Congress, particularly during the ousting of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. She was rumored to be on Trump’s shortlist and said the possibility was “interesting” and “intriguing,” weeks after the Speakership debacle in October 2023.
It appears she may no longer be in the running to campaign along Trump. At the Greenville town hall, Trump confirmed
that his shortlist consists of Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), Vivek Ramaswamy, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), Gov. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) and former Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who served in Congress as a Democrat but has since shifted to more conservative views.
Mace continued to pitch herself in the Politico interview, and said she knows that women’s issues are going to be “a topic in ‘24” and sees “an opportunity” for her to be an advocate on the subject because she has been “really vocal on women’s issues.” The South Carolina lawmaker continued, arguing that she “ended up crushing it” in the 2022 election because she took on women’s issues and the abortion debate, which resonated with voters in her purple-leaning district.
She also reiterated a past talking point — that she would like to see a Republican woman on the ticket, as president or vice president. Despite not handing Haley her endorsement, Mace said she respects the job she did for South Carolina as governor.
“But South Carolina loves Donald Trump, and I still think there’s a chance he might pick a woman to be on the ticket,” she said.
Trump and Haley will face off in the South Carolina GOP primary Saturday. The former president leads the former South Carolina governor by 30.7 percent in the state, 63.8 percent to 33.1 percent, according to The Hill/Decision Desk HQ’s Election Center.
By any honest assessment, the Biden administration’s Venezuela policy has failed, and predictably so. Barely three months after unilaterally removing sanctions on the Maduro regime in October, the results are painfully clear.
Rather than entice Caracas toward a democratic opening, Biden’s attempted rapprochement has only emboldened Maduro to crack down on opposition leadership and even inch toward an armed invasion of neighboring Guyana.
It is time to align U.S.-Venezuela policy with reality. The Maduro regime is a criminal dictatorship concerned only with its own survival. Rather than recognize this, however, the Biden administration has desperately sought to salvage its ill-fated Venezuela strategy, and appears poised to accommodate the Maduro regime’s efforts to hold sham elections this year in which the regime hand-selects its opponent.
Washington’s main defense of its move to remove key sanctions on a variety of industries — from state run oil company PDVSA to the gold industry, which relies on illegal mining, widespread environmental destruction, and transnational crime — has been that this will incentivize the Maduro regime to conduct free and fair elections in 2024.
The effect, of course, has been the opposite. Since the removal of sanctions, the Maduro regime has worked to overturn the results of the opposition party’s primary, in which over one million Venezuelans selected Maria Corina Machado as leader of the opposition. Not only has Maduro barred Machado from the ballot, but he has also launched a new wave of political repression against her team and others, ordering the arrest
of more than a dozen of Machado’s closest advisors and also jailing
prominent human rights defender Rocio San Miguel.
Emboldened by Biden, the Maduro regime is even laying the ground
for the annexation of neighboring Guyana’s oil-rich Essequibo territory. While this may be bluster and purposeful distraction, the potential of an invasion should not be dismissed. It reveals again the destructive nature of the Maduro regime.
So far, the Biden administration’s response has been to blur its own stated redlines and demands in order to avoid fully reinstating sanctions.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Almost immediately after taking office — well before the major shifts on sanctions announced in October — Biden had taken his foot off the sanctions pedal, pausing new targeted sanctions in Venezuela and reversing many of the restrictions imposed under the Trump administration.
For example, over a year before the general and unilateral removal of oil and gold sector sanctions, Biden had already been steadily removing restrictions on Venezuela’s oil sector, even giving Chevron permission
to resume oil extraction in late 2022. Then, as now, Washington’s actions emboldened Venezuela’s dictatorship. The Maduro regime responded to the removal of those restrictions by walking away
from mediated negotiations with the opposition in Mexico City.
Unfortunately, Biden didn’t learn anything from this. What we have seen in Venezuela since October is simply the acceleration of Biden administration’s previous failed policy approach. This time, though, the Maduro regime’s actions were so blatant that Biden was forced to set a new redline in Venezuela and warn that sanctions will be reimposed in April without “progress
” on free and fair elections.
Maduro seems ready to call Biden’s bluff. His bet has a firm logical basis. After all, the new April sanctions deadline actually replaces an identical November deadline
the U.S. set and ignored last year. Worse still, the Biden administration and its allies now seem to be working with Maduro to sideline Maria Corina Machado in the 2024 elections. Indeed, the administration’s public statements and engagements with the Maduro regime have notably omitted reference to Machado, despite her overwhelming victory in last year’s opposition primary. The same goes for Biden’s allies in Congress. During a recent Foreign Affairs Committee public roundtable
with Machado, for instance, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) echoed the talking point that negotiations with Maduro and the opposition are “not about one person, but a process.”
But no amount of spin can change the fact that the criminal Maduro regime remains the single greatest threat to stability in the Western Hemisphere. Through its material support for transnational drug trafficking organizations, its weaponization of migration
to the U.S., its bolstering of the presence of Iran
, China, and Russia in the Americas, and its belligerent actions toward its neighbors, the criminal regime in Caracas has proven itself utterly incompatible with regional peace and prosperity.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Biden can change everything if he drops his appeasement policy and recognizes that a socialist narco-dictator like Maduro will never willingly open a path for his own electoral ouster. Biden could change course and apply pressure through reimposed sanctions, targeting Venezuela’s international criminal support structure, and staunchly bolster true pro-democracy leaders.
Moreover, the U.S. and the international community could stand clearly and unequivocally with Maria Corina Machado, supporting her invaluable efforts to pressure Maduro’s dictatorship from within Venezuela by making demands for her guaranteed safety and for her ability to participate in internationally observed elections.
If Biden refuses to change course, Congress must act and hold the administration accountable for its failure, forcing it to honor its commitment to reimpose sanctions.
Andres Martinez-Fernandez is a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security.
Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who has mounted a long-shot primary challenge to President Biden, said
he is open to being on a unity ticket with GOP presidential primary candidate Nikki Haley Thursday.
“I think it’s a conversation that Ambassador Haley and I should have, if that’s what this comes down to,” Phillips said in a Thursday interview on News Talk 830 WCCO, first highlighted by Mediaite.
Phillips said “[i]n the event of a Donald Trump victory this November,” that he thinks “any American who opposes that, should celebrate, encourage and inspire an alternative that can actually win and lead our country in the way that people want, and I think anybody, including myself, should keep open minds and hearts about that.”
“I hope Nikki Haley does, and I think America could be very well served by some type of a bipartisan ticket that restores faith in government and most importantly, demonstrates to the world, to the world, that America can work together and restore its extraordinary brand around the entire world,” Phillips said.
The Minnesota Democrat launched a campaign against Biden that has centered on the president’s age and argued the incumbent is too great a risk to lose in November. Phillips has repeatedly argued that Democrats should nominate someone else to improve their chances.
But Phillips has won little traction with his bid, and was defeated by Biden handily in the South Carolina primary.
Haley appears to have little chance of overtaking Trump in the GOP primary, but like Phillips has criticized her party’s front-runner and Biden while arguing for a new generation of U.S. leaders.
in her home state of South Carolina ahead of the primary there this week, Haley hit Biden and Trump on their age and mental acuity, saying they were “at risk for dementia” and are “dividers.”
“Trump and Biden are two old men who are only getting older. Nearly 60 percent of Americans say Trump and Biden are both too old to be president. Because they are,” Haley said.
“Joe Biden is doing more damage to himself than any Republican ever could,” she said. “The Democrats are getting weaker by holding a coronation for Biden. Republicans will get stronger through a vigorous competition.”
President Biden’s approval rating has slipped to 38 percent, near his all-time low, in a new Gallup survey.
The poll released on Friday
found that 38 percent of respondents approve of Biden’s performance in the White House, while 59 percent disapprove.
Pollsters also discovered low ratings for Biden’s handling of several key issues facing the country.
For example, 40 percent of respondents support his handing over the war in Ukraine, and 30 percent approve of Biden’s response to the war in Gaza. Only 33 percent approve of the job he is doing on other foreign affairs.
The president also received low ranks for the economy, with 36 percent approving of Biden’s efforts to turn it around following the pandemic. His approval for handling the economy has gone up 4 points since November, Gallup noted, and it continues to perform well.
Immigration remains one of the biggest concerns, with just 28 percent of respondents approving of how Biden is handling a migrant surge at the U.S. border.
According to the survey, Democrats generally support Biden with the economy and his handling of the Russia-Ukraine war and foreign affairs. But opinions about the Israel-Hamas war and the southern border are less favorable among respondents who identify as Democrats. He holds a “bare” majority among them on those issues, securing a 55 percent approval on immigration and 51 percent on the Middle East conflict.
His handling of the economy helped Biden make up some ground with independent respondents but their opinions on the other topics remained lower, Gallup noted.
Very few Republican respondents support Biden on “any of the issues measured,” the survey giant said. Just 3 percent of Republicans approve of Biden’s immigration efforts and 4 percent said the same about the economy.
Gallup noted that Biden’s approval rating has not risen above 44 percent since August 2021. The survey giant said his average approval rating was 39.8 percent during his third year in office, which is the second-worst rating among presidents elected after World War II.
The president’s approval rating reached a high of 57 percent in January and April of 2021, but has declined in the two years since. The lowest rating he received was 37 percent in April 2023.
“Looking ahead to November, history suggests that Biden has significant work to do to improve his approval rating among independents as well as Democrats if he is to win a second term,” Gallup wrote, noting that an incumbent who wins reelection typically has at least a 50 percent approval rating.
The survey was conducted Feb. 1-20 among 1,016 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
President Biden on Friday announced that the U.S. is imposing more than 500 new sanctions targeting Russia, marking two years since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and responding to the death last week of Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny.
“If Putin does not pay the price for his death and destruction, he will keep going,” Biden said in a statement. “And the costs to the United States—along with our NATO Allies and partners in Europe and around the world—will rise.”
The U.S., along with international partners, have sought to use sanctions to financially squeeze Putin’s ability to wage war on Ukraine – pairing them with military, economic and humanitarian support to Ukraine to help the country push back against the Russian invading forces.
The package to be announced on Friday will include sanctions targeting individuals connected to Navalny’s imprisonment, Biden said in his statement, and target Russia’s financial sector, its defense industrial base, procurement networks and sanctions evaders across multiple continents.
The U.S. is also imposing nearly 100 new export restrictions, blocking the shipment of items to Russia in a warning to exporters that they can face American sanctions for facilitating such deliveries to Russia.
Additionally, Biden said sanctions will target Russia’s energy profits, and that the U.S. will “strengthen support for civil society, independent media, and those who fight for democracy around the world.”
The president further called for House lawmakers to pass the $95 billion national security supplemental that includes more than $60 billion in funding related to supporting Ukraine – the majority of those dollars earmarked for U.S. weapons production to backfill supplies already sent to Ukraine.
“Two years into this war, the people of Ukraine continue to fight with tremendous courage. But they are running out of ammunition,” Biden said. “Ukraine needs more supplies from the United States to hold the line against Russia’s relentless attacks, which are enabled by arms and ammunition from Iran and North Korea. That’s why the House of Representatives must pass the bipartisan national security supplemental bill, before it’s too late.”
Russia, however, has shown a remarkable ability to resist the sanctions pressure, maintaining an occupation of an estimated 20 percent of Ukrainian territory over the course of two years of war. That territory includes land it seized in 2014 in Luhansk, Donetsk and the Crimean Peninsula.
And while Russian military casualty figures are estimated
to be about 60,000 killed and roughly 300,000 injured, the Kremlin has so far demonstrated an ability to outgun and outman Ukrainian forces.
A key part of Putin’s war strategy is to try and outlast the unity and solidarity of Western and democratic nations supporting Ukraine financially and militarily. Russian forces recently captured the Ukrainian city of Avdiivka, considered a battlefield gain that came at a high cost to both Russian and Ukrainian troops but provided Moscow with a propaganda victory for its domestic audience.
Meanwhile, the death last week of Russian opposition figure Navalny, long a thorn in Putin’s side, is viewed as a further example of the Russian leader tightening the vice around any resistance to his war aims in Ukraine and suppression of freedoms in Russia.
Biden on Thursday met with Navalny’s widow and daughter and said he would impose sanctions against Putin in response to the opposition leader’s death. Navalny’s supporters viewed him as one of the greatest hopes for a change in political regime in Russia, and someone who inspired in his followers a sense of fearlessness and chagrin. He had returned to Russia in 2021 after recuperating for nearly a year from an attempted assassination through poisoning.
Navalny was serving a nearly 20-year prison sentence on charges condemned as politically motivated, but maintained communication with the outside world by writing tongue-in-cheek missives that were posted on social media, taking aim at corruption in Russia and criticizing Putin.
His death in a Russian penal colony above the Arctic circle was announced on Feb. 16. He collapsed into unconsciousness after going for a walk, the Russian prison services said.
Biden last week echoed Navalny’s wife and supporters that put the blame on Putin for the opposition leader’s death.
“Make no mistake, Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death. Putin is responsible,” Biden said.
AT&T said Thursday evening that a nationwide outage earlier in the day was not caused by a cyberattack, based on an initial review.
“Based on our initial review, we believe the outage was caused by the application & execution of an incorrect process used as we were expanding our network, not a cyber attack,” the company said in a post
on X, formerly Twitter
“We are continuing our assessment to ensure we keep delivering the service that our customers deserve.”
The company in an earlier post
Thursday evening said that “[a]ll wireless service has been restored” and apologized for the outage.
On Thursday morning, thousands
of outages affecting the wireless giant’s network were reported, according to DownDetector, mostly concentrated in Houston, Atlanta, Miami and Chicago. The outages seemed to begin early in the morning and rose to over 70,000 at 8 a.m., according to the tracking site.
“Some of our customers are experiencing wireless service interruptions this morning. We are working urgently to restore service to them,” AT&T said in a statement
to The Hill early Thursday. “We encourage the use of Wi-Fi calling until service is restored.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI were investigating
the outages. The Federal Communications Commission also said its Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau was actively investigating the incident.
White House national security adviser John Kirby said authorities were also looking into the outages and working with network providers to “see what we can do from a federal perspective to lend hands to their investigative efforts.”
“We’re going to look at this really hard,” he told reporters Thursday. “We’re going to work with industry to see what we can see … but right now, we’re being told AT&T has no reason to think that this was a cybersecurity incident.”
Coming out of the 1960s civil rights era, most teens registering to vote joined their parents’ political party. I did exactly that, joining the Democratic Party. I didn’t know I had the choice to be an independent voter.
I split from the Democratic Party and declared my independence years ago. Its propensity to put party over people hasn’t created a space for those of us who don’t perfectly align with their agenda. The local party, along with the national brand, has lost the trust of many because of this rigidity. Big tent? I don’t see it.
I had been deeply disturbed by the erosion of the fundamentals of democracy for a while. Through my lens, as a Black woman, the racism and misogyny unleashed during the Trump administration was a personal assault. From the immediate dissolution of the pandemic response team to governmental attacks on historically Black and women’s institutions, to the encouragement of the terrorist attacks in Charlottesville, things quickly became more horrific.
Since 1865, a consistent theme in building our democracy — growing ever more urgent — has been securing the right to vote for every American. As a child, I accompanied my parents to the voting center every Election Day. This tradition was not uncommon among Black working- and middle-class families. Kids like me were thrilled to observe the ritual — watching my parents fulfill their sacred duty to vote was an event!
In places throughout America today, though, the two major political parties have made a concerted effort to block a right every registered voter should have: to participate in primary elections.
In a dozen states and the District of Columbia, registered voters who don’t belong to a political party are denied the right to vote in any primary elections. Most states limit participation in at least some primaries. This is not what civil rights leaders fought and died for in achieving passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Those trailblazers marched, bled and died for my right to vote.
Here, today, in 2024, I want that right. I demand my constitutional right to vote without joining a political party. It’s past time.
In Washington, D.C., one in six
voters are registered as independents. I am one of them. We are prohibited
from voting in our city’s taxpayer-funded primary elections. Our votes are suppressed. In a super-majority, Democratic town, the inability for independents to vote in the primary shuts us out of the election that determines who holds the majority of elected offices. The general election here, for all but two races, simply seals results determined in the primary — without the participation of independents.
Many local elected leaders express support for statehood, pleading that statehood is a voter suppression issue. In a city that has already granted the right for non-citizens to vote in local elections, barring independents like me from voting in the primaries is a slap in the face. Why don’t these same politicians defend my right to vote in our primaries with just as much vigor?
I’ve been told, “you have a choice, register as a Democrat.” That’s not a choice, that’s a directive. And it’s not very democratic; in fact, it feels downright autocratic.
We are long past the days when the party — any party — should be able to rule who can participate at the polls. In the long run, what political party can be successful that refuses to build bridges with the largest group of voters in America? After all, 43 percent
of voters across the country identify as independent. That constitutes a larger proportion of voters than either of the major parties. Let that settle in.
How would Democrats feel if the state told them they must register as Republicans to cast their ballots? My right to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. How can the D.C. Democratic state party override the U.S. Constitution? Primaries are public elections, run by our government and paid for by us, the taxpayers.
The first bold step to move toward a government that chooses people over politics, country over party, is to liberate independent voters and let us vote. Let’s end voter suppression here in D.C. by opening the primaries to independent voters. We deserve the right to exercise the franchise.
It’s 2024. Let us vote.
Lisa D.T. Rice is a native Washingtonian and Ward 7 resident. She is the proposer of Initiative 83, a combination of election reforms to open the primaries to independents and implement ranked choice voting that is gathering signatures to appear on the November ballot in Washington, D.C. She is a national spokesperson for Open Primaries and a member of the board of directors of Unite America.
Rudy Giuliani’s bankruptcy filing, spurred by a multimillion-dollar verdict against him for defaming two Georgia election workers, has provided fresh insight into the former New York City mayor’s finances.
A federal jury in Washington, D.C. in December ordered Giuliani to pay Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss a whopping $148 million for baselessly claiming they engaged in widespread voter fraud after the 2020 election. Days later, he filed for bankruptcy, acknowledging the severe strain the penalty put on his finances.
His bankruptcy judge late Tuesday allowed the longtime ally of former President Trump to appeal the defamation verdict but in the meantime, his bankruptcy proceeding has cracked Giuliani’s finances wide open, shedding light on his debts and overall standing.
That standing includes thousands of dollars in taxes and credit card debt and millions more he could owe to voting technology companies Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic if he’s found to have defamed them, too.
Here’s what we’ve learned about Giuliani’s finances amid his bankruptcy.
A who’s who of creditors
In addition to Freeman and Moss, the creditors with the largest unsecured claims against Giuliani include banks, lawyers, government tax agencies, golf clubs and other entities.
Giuliani owes more than $900,000 in taxes, most of which are federal taxes.
Between two golf clubs in West Palm Beach, Fla. – including the former president’s Trump International Golf Club – Giuliani owes nearly $40,000 in unpaid membership fees, though he disputes a large chunk of that amount.
He could also owe millions of dollars in unresolved lawsuits, court filings show.
A New York man, Daniel Gill, sued Giuliani for $2 million after he was charged with assault for slapping the ex-mayor on the back and asking, “What’s up, scumbag?” The law firm Davidoff, Hutcher & Citron, lodged by Giuliani’s longtime lawyer Robert Costello in September over unpaid legal fees, is claiming $1.36 million. And the law firm Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins, which Giuliani hired
after his apartment was raided by the FBI, is seeking more than $387,000.
On top of all that, several lawsuits seek “unknown” claims, including from Dominion, Smartmatic, Hunter Biden, the president’s son and Noelle Dunphy, who accused Giuliani of sexual assault and harassment.
Giuliani’s bankruptcy case is still in its early stages, however.
The $148 million verdict suddenly precipitated Giuliani’s Chapter 11 petition, meaning his bankruptcy began without any organized creditor group.
Later, Moss, Dominion and Dunphy teamed up to represent the unsecured creditors in the proceedings moving forward.
Giuliani now has a time window to propose a plan of reorganization that will lay out how he plans to compensate his creditors and eventually emerge from bankruptcy. Gary Fischoff, one of Giuliani’s bankruptcy lawyers, told The Hill it’s “still too early to know” when a plan will be filed.
Giuliani: Trump campaign, RNC owe legal bills
At a hearing earlier this month, Giuliani claimed he was shortchanged some $2 million in legal fees for his work on Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign.
The money is owed by both the campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC), not the former president himself, Giuliani told creditors and the Justice Department’s bankruptcy oversight arm during a Feb. 7 hearing, according to Bloomberg Law
“Once I took over, it was my understanding that I would be paid by the campaign for my legal work and my expenses to be paid,” he said,according to the Independent. “When we submitted the invoice for payment, they just paid the expenses. Not all but most. They never paid the legal fees.”
Court filings list the potential claim’s amount as “undetermined” and against “Donald J. Trump.”
The fees are a result of Giuliani “taking over” Trump’s campaign legal staff in November 2020 at the former president’s request, Giuliani told the creditors and the office of the U.S. Trustee. At that time, Trump’s campaign lawyers were launching a legal effort to overturn election results in battleground states to favor Trump.
The Trump campaign and the RNC did not return requests for comment.
Outside groups paying legal fees
As Giuliani appeared to face a cash crunch even before his bankruptcy, questions had swirled as to how the former New York City mayor was paying attorney Joseph Sibley to represent him in the Georgia election workers’ defamation case and another lawsuit.
The bankruptcy provided new details as to the arrangement, showing how two outside entities have financially backed most of Giuliani’s defense.
In a sworn declaration, Sibley on Friday said Giuliani himself had only coughed up $30,000.
The remainder — $548,000 — came from two other entities. Sibley indicated he was paid $260,000 from political action committee Giuliani Defense, which campaign finance records show was organized last year by the former mayor’s son, Andrew Giuliani.
The group appears to have received much of its financial backing through a $100,000-a-plate fundraiser Trump hosted
at his Bedminster, N.J., golf club for Giuliani. The same day, Giuliani Defense took in more than a half-million in high-dollar donations, the records show, including from Elizabeth Ailes, the widow of former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes.
Menges did not identify any donors, but he wrote in court papers that they “number in the hundreds.” Most contributions amount to less than $100, but the fund also received some larger donations, Menges said, including one for $25,000 and another for $10,000.
On Monday, Giuliani told his bankruptcy judge that he hadn’t contributed to the fund, only to amend his filing hours later to indicate he did once assign $10.
‘Have his cake and eat it too’
The details about Giuliani’s legal bills spilled out as part of the former mayor’s fight to immediately seek a new trial and file a notice of appeal in his defamation case.
By filing for bankruptcy, Giuliani had automatically frozen the case and his other various civil lawsuits. His criminal case in Georgia, where he faces racketeering charges alongside Trump, is unaffected, however.
Freeman and Moss raised concerns that, if Giuliani can keep litigating the case even as he remains in bankruptcy, Sibley, the attorney who represented him in that case, could end up becoming a creditor and seek to take money out of the pot that would otherwise go to the mother-daughter duo and others.
“[I]t is the height of irony that the first substantive relief sought by Mr. Giuliani in his chapter 11 case—to be heard on an expedited basis no less—is a motion to lift the automatic stay so that he can pursue an appeal in the Freeman Litigation,” the election workers’ attorneys wrote in their objection.
“Through this motion, Mr. Giuliani is looking to have his cake and eat it too: he wants to appeal the Freeman Litigation, not post a bond, and use the automatic stay to bar Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss from enforcing their judgment.”
Giuliani’s bankruptcy judge approved his motion on Tuesday after both Giuliani and Sibley assured the court that the attorney wouldn’t seek any funds out of the pot. Instead, Sibley said he agreed to be paid a $50,000 flat fee, plus out-of-pocket costs, to handle the appeal, which will be supplied by the two outside groups.