re: Giuliani concedes he made false statements about Ruby Freeman and her daughter.

What's strange to me is that if the video conclusively proves that Ruby and her daughter were passing a "ginger mint" instead of a USB Drive, wouldn't one of the hundreds of articles written about Guiliani's false statement include the video (or photos of the frames of the video) that proves it was actually a "ginger mint" instead of a USB Drive?

It was difficult to even find the video in question, but I eventually did find it. It is linked below:

Video of USB or Mint being passed The pass takes place at the 1:45 minute mark of the linked video.

To me it still looks way more like a USB Drive than a "ginger mint". Also, if one is passed a "ginger mint", would it make much sense for that individual to then immediately place said "ginger mint" in their back pocket?

Further, it should be noted that Guiliani's reported admission that he made a false statement does not mean that these ladies automatically win their civil defamation case against him. These ladies still must prove that this reported false statement was made with prior knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false, with the intent to harm the target's reputation.

I think any unbiased individual who looks at the linked video would acknowledge that the item passed looks more like a USB Drive than a "ginger mint", so I see no intent or reckless disregard of whether it was false. However, this lawsuit was filed in DC (i.e., the land of the biased and compromised), so you know how that usually goes for Republicans.