Confusing.



Giuliani is/was Trump’s lawyer, and therefore assumed to be acting in Trump’s best interest.



If Rudi’s talk of “disappearing” (as in being kidnapped and/or killed) is more than just “sarcasm; who is he actually “warning” with this claim of an “insurance policy” regarding information supposedly on the Biden family?



If the information being withheld provides actual evidence of corruption, that would be bad for Biden & family, But Very Good for Giuliani’s client, Trump. Especially in light of the current impeachment proceedings.



Such evidence could, in fact, prove exculpatory by detailing the basis for Trump’s interest in the Biden’s dealings in Ukraine.



Release of such damning evidence would surely ruin the Bidens, and thus remove the implied threat they might pose to Giuliani, his life, and his family. Cutting the head off the snake kills the snake, after all.



So why keep such evidence, if it exists, hidden?



Of course, if this is a bluff, Biden and family would know that no real evidence exists, and would in no way feel threatened by Giuliani’s claims. And Giuliani would know that no real threat from the Bidens existed.



So why make the claim?



On the other hand, if the information Giuliani references actually exist, and that information clearly Disproves that the Biden’s were involved in corruption of any sort, things get a bit more disturbing.



Obviously, evidence clearing the Bidens would mean that Giuliani’s warning about an “insurance policy” was not directed at the Bidens, who would, of course welcome the release of such exculpatory evidence.



Unless maybe Rudi is suicidal and thinks he can goad the Bidens into killing him so they can get the evidence showing their innocence out in public? Uh, yeah, that makes no sense.



If what Giuliani claims to have in his safe keeping is evidence that clears the Bidens of wrongdoing, the only person who could be harmed by such evidence is President Trump, who’s impeachment defense strategy would be seriously eroded by the release of such information, especially if the source of that info was Trump’s own attorney’s files.



So was Giuliani’s warning issued to protect himself from Trump, his own client?



How messed up would that be?



Then again, what does it say that Giuliani believed that it was in his best interest to imply that he has evidence secured that could damage his supposed client by clearing his client’s rival (it would make no sense, after all, for him to withhold evidence that would implicate his client’s rival while clearing his client), and that he believed the information was valuable enough to provide as “insurance” against reprisal?