Rudy Giuliani Claims Devices Returned to Him by FBI Were ‘Wiped Clean’

Rudy Giuliani, the longtime Donald Trump personal attorney and former New York mayor, solved a mystery Tuesday about what happened to the electronic devices that the FBI seized from him years ago during their investigation into his foreign lobbying work. 

According to Giuliani’s attorney Joseph Sibley, the FBI’s vendor that examined those devices had them “wiped clean.” 

Giuliani made that revelation in the same document that made headlines when he suddenly conceded that his conspiracy theories that Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss rigged the 2020 results in their state against Trump were “false.” The about-face came just less than two weeks after a federal judge threatened Giuliani with “severe sanctions” for allegedly losing evidence crucial to proving that he knew that his election theories were false when he circulated them. 

Minutes before midnight on Tuesday, Sibley argued that such measures were unnecessary because his client does not dispute that his statements “carry meaning that is defamatory per se,” meaning that they falsely accused Freeman and Moss of crimes.

Eclipsed by that development, Sibley revealed what happened to the electronic devices that the FBI seized from Giuliani’s home and office when investigating his foreign lobbying practices in 2021.

Federal prosecutors suggested in a carefully worded court filing last November that they would not indict Giuliani over his actions in Ukraine connected to Trump’s first impeachment, writing that charges against him would not be “forthcoming.” It was previously unclear why the government would still have Giuliani’s devices after that disclosure, but the latest filing points to an answer.

“After the SDNY announced publicly that they were not bringing any charges against Giuliani following the Government’s review of 26 years’ worth of electronic evidence, the FBI returned the devices that they had seized,” Sibley wrote in a six-page legal brief. “A review of those devices found that they had been wiped clean by the vendor for the Government.”

Even if the Southern District of New York’s investigation is indeed closed, Giuliani may not be in the clear yet in terms of criminal exposure. He spoke to Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith for two consecutive, mid-morning sessions late last month for a proffer session related to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, sparking speculation of a possible cooperation agreement that his attorney Robert Costello adamantly denies. 

More directly related to his smears of Freeman and Moss, Giuliani had a widely publicized subpoena fight last year in an investigation by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. The Democratic-elected local official is investigating Trump’s attempts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in Georgia. In August 2022, Giuliani’s attorneys said in open court that Willis would not reveal whether the former mayor is a target of that investigation.

Giuliani’s stipulation that his comments about Moss and Freeman were false does not end their litigation. He may argue that his comments were “constitutionally protected statements or opinions,” according to the brief. 

Michael J. Gottlieb, an attorney for Freeman and Moss, celebrated Giuliani’s reversal. 

"Giuliani’s stipulation concedes what we have always known to be true—Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss honorably performed their civic duties in the 2020 presidential election in full compliance with the law; and the allegations of election fraud he and former-President Trump made against them have been false since day one,” said Gottlieb, partner at Willkie, Farr & Gallagher LLP.

“While certain issues, including damages, remain to be decided by the court, our clients are pleased with this major milestone in their fight for justice, and look forward to presenting what remains of this case at trial," Gottlieb added.

U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell will decide whether Giuliani’s admissions affect her sanctions order. If accepted, they may streamline or end the fact-finding phase of trial but not any determination of damages.