• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rudy Giuliani says Trump didn't collude with Russia but can't say if campaign aides did

haymarket said:
I am prepared to accept the findings fo the Mueller report.
Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:
Even if it goes against your position on Trump? No equivocation what so ever? No "ifs, ands or buts"? And will you retract everything you said about him in regards to Russia if it turns out that the report is not favorable to your position?
Click to expand...

He said he is "prepared to accept the findings of the Mueller report."

Why imply assumptions at him? If what he does is that important, why not simply park that post of his in google drafts or whatever and then, if he contradicts himself on it, attack him with it then? You seem certain he's full of it and only betting on Mueller damning Trump, so why not wait?

Extra points if you're right, and if you're wrong your face isn't splattered with the egg you threw at it.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
He said he is "prepared to accept the findings of the Mueller report."

Why imply assumptions at him? If what he does is that important, why not simply park that post of his in google drafts or whatever and then, if he contradicts himself on it, attack him with it then? You seem certain he's full of it and only betting on Mueller damning Trump, so why not wait?

Extra points if you're right, and if you're wrong your face isn't splattered with the egg you threw at it.
Click to expand...

I'm of the wait and see school as well. Even though I'm pretty sure Trump is hiding something, we cannot say with all certainty exactly what or to what extent. There are so many threads in the Russia case only the finished report can tell us which of those leads to Trump.

And even for those of us sure of Trump's guilt - either collusion or some other compromise - should prepare to be disappointed. It's hard to imagine the perfect smoking gun. We won;t get a photo of Trump and Putin naked in a gold-plated hot tub, getting whizzed on by a pair of prostitutes with an aged Elvis holding up Jimmy Hoffa's body in the background.

So let's wait and see.
 
uptower said:
I'm of the wait and see school as well. Even though I'm pretty sure Trump is hiding something, we cannot say with all certainty exactly what or to what extent. There are so many threads in the Russia case only the finished report can tell us which of those leads to Trump.

And even for those of us sure of Trump's guilt - either collusion or some other compromise - should prepare to be disappointed. It's hard to imagine the perfect smoking gun. We won;t get a photo of Trump and Putin naked in a gold-plated hot tub, getting whizzed on by a pair of prostitutes with an aged Elvis holding up Jimmy Hoffa's body in the background.

So let's wait and see.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And anyone who might wish to check this in regards to me will see that

1. I've always said just that. Wait and see.

2. There is no doubt that there's a damn good reason - several, in fact - to look closely. People don't send themselves to federal prison just to *get* someone else, and he had a whole lot of criminals doing criminal things in relation to Russia. On top, the many fiascos, such as "joking" that Russia should hack the DNC or hack Hillary's emails, such as sending his son to meet with Russians who promised dirt on Hillary but really just intended to play Team Trump, yadda yadda.

But I've also never said I think he's guilty. I can't. I don't have the report. I'll never have the complete report. Judgement must wait.



Of course, I do have to note, there's that "collusion" word again. I'm trying to get people to stop using it. They are not looking for collusion. That's a word Trump picked because he was told "collusion" isn't a crime and decided that it would be a good defense to argue in the alternative that even if he did it, "it" isn't a crime. But the actual investigation is controlled by the appointment letter and the much broader CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) provisions that govern all special counsel.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

Relatedly, there is no requirement whatsoever that a President have committed a crime identifiable in the U.S. code (or any state code, but that's not really relevant). The constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors" after listing a few other offenses worthy of impeachment/conviction on impeachment, but it doesn't define it. And it doesn't provide judicial review. Because it doesn't provide judicial review, well, they could impeach him for having stupid hair. We'd be in a sad state if that happened, but it wouldn't be correct to say it was "illegal" or somesuch. It's a purely political process.





Anyway, this post has gone far beyond a response to what you specifically said so....oops?
 
upsideguy said:
You have to love rolling disclosure. We have gone from Russian interference in the US elections was a "nothing burger" to "No collusion" to "Yes, there may been collusion, but Trump wasn't involved" to ...... [insert next disclosure here]

So the Trump team finally admits there may have been collusion within the campaign. This is a stark contrast to there was "no collusion?..... Of course, rolling disclosure is just that, not the truth, just a step or two ahead or sometimes behind what is generally known about the truth. Rolling disclosure usually means more to follow.

What we can say now is that Team Trump has admitted there may have been collusion, so the statement "no collusion" is henceforth a lie.

Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

So this is way beyond Plan B at this point. Guiliani is on to plan what? E or F? And we are still supposed to take anything he says seriously? LOL.
 
vesper said:
Hey Chomsky anything from CNN is easily rationalized because of the irrationalized that produce it. Can you believe your lying eyes?
Click to expand...

Wow. Surprised to see you returning to the thread and doubling down.

Guess self awareness isn’t your strong point.

Most people would just slink away quietly.
 
ataraxia said:
So this is way beyond Plan B at this point. Guiliani is on to plan what? E or F? And we are still supposed to take anything he says seriously? LOL.
Click to expand...

"Collusion was fine because Russia helped us MAGA!"

Let us hope it doesn't end there.






EDIT: Collusion is not a word you can find in the appointment letter. I am only using it to mock Giuilani, who somehow was an apparently successful attorney for some time. The investigation is so very much broader than "collusion"

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr

And the federal register, where you can sometimes get a little glimpse about how these things get made: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register
 
Last edited:
No Collusion!
Collusion is not a crime!
OK, Collusion with the campaign, not Trump personally!

Theory is that Giuliani being part of the joint defense team, now has information that makes him want to get ahead of this...as we've seen so many times in the past. Raise the temperature a degree or two so that his frogs don't feel they are MELTING FROM THE RAGING INFERNO.
 
Mr Person said:
"Collusion was fine because Russia helped us MAGA!"

Let us hope it doesn't end there.






EDIT: Collusion is not a word you can find in the appointment letter. I am only using it to mock Giuilani, who somehow was an apparently successful attorney for some time. The investigation is so very much broader than "collusion"

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr

And the federal register, where you can sometimes get a little glimpse about how these things get made: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register
Click to expand...

Next up:

af621bfb22a1ff3bb7ab20fe3c99bd79.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
Wow. Surprised to see you returning to the thread and doubling down.

Guess self awareness isn’t your strong point.

Most people would just slink away quietly.
Click to expand...

Apparently Vesper seems to think this was CGI Giuliani
 
Kobie said:
Apparently Vesper seems to think this was CGI Giuliani
Click to expand...

She didn't even check the link. She had no idea it was on video when she blew her chunks. That's really all one needs to know.
 
ataraxia said:
So this is way beyond Plan B at this point. Guiliani is on to plan what? E or F? And we are still supposed to take anything he says seriously? LOL.
Click to expand...

No we're not. They're clearly lying and have been all along. About exactly which aspects we have to wait. It is almost certain now the campaign willingly conspired with Russian agents for example, but we do not know what the report will say about how much Trump knee about it or directed it.
 
Trump is a grifter..he is a user..he will take anything that's comes to him.
 
Plasmaball said:
Trump is a grifter..he is a user..he will take anything that's comes to him.
Click to expand...

...and he is really good at getting people to give to him when they should know better ..... he is a snake oil salesman.

Selling that wall since 1958... that only he can build.

 
Top Cat said:
Bwahahahaha! Good God. That is precisely what it means. The stench of denial is thick here.
Click to expand...

Guess I should have used my sarcasm icon for those that need a little help, or don't follow the whole conversation.
 
vesper said:
I had read the transcript of the interview and had not watched the video. It was contentious, and very heated. Rudi was trying to demean Mueller's team while trying to defend the president. The questions from Cuomo was on rapid fire and Gulliani seemed at times to be responding to three questions back. Anyway Giuliani has since released a statement.

"I represent only President Trump not the Trump campaign," "There was no collusion by President Trump in any way, shape or form. Likewise, I have no knowledge of any collusion by any of the thousands of people who worked on the campaign. The only knowledge I have in this regard is the collusion of the Clinton campaign with Russia which has so far been ignored."
Click to expand...
When you watch the video though, you get the intonation, cadence, and other tells that provide context. I suggest you consider watching it.
 
Mr Person said:
Indeed. And anyone who might wish to check this in regards to me will see that

1. I've always said just that. Wait and see.

2. There is no doubt that there's a damn good reason - several, in fact - to look closely. People don't send themselves to federal prison just to *get* someone else, and he had a whole lot of criminals doing criminal things in relation to Russia. On top, the many fiascos, such as "joking" that Russia should hack the DNC or hack Hillary's emails, such as sending his son to meet with Russians who promised dirt on Hillary but really just intended to play Team Trump, yadda yadda.

But I've also never said I think he's guilty. I can't. I don't have the report. I'll never have the complete report. Judgement must wait.



Of course, I do have to note, there's that "collusion" word again. I'm trying to get people to stop using it. They are not looking for collusion. That's a word Trump picked because he was told "collusion" isn't a crime and decided that it would be a good defense to argue in the alternative that even if he did it, "it" isn't a crime. But the actual investigation is controlled by the appointment letter and the much broader CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) provisions that govern all special counsel.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

Relatedly, there is no requirement whatsoever that a President have committed a crime identifiable in the U.S. code (or any state code, but that's not really relevant). The constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors" after listing a few other offenses worthy of impeachment/conviction on impeachment, but it doesn't define it. And it doesn't provide judicial review. Because it doesn't provide judicial review, well, they could impeach him for having stupid hair. We'd be in a sad state if that happened, but it wouldn't be correct to say it was "illegal" or somesuch. It's a purely political process.





Anyway, this post has gone far beyond a response to what you specifically said so....oops?
Click to expand...

Though Trump was almost certainly not the first person to conflate collusion and conspiracy, I found a 2018 quote in which he does so not to excuse himself but to attack Hillary:

At a rally on Wednesday night, President Trump accused Hillary Clinton of conspiring with Russia to try to swing the 2016 election. “There was collusion between Hillary, the Democrats, and Russia,” Trump said, adding that there was “a lot” of such “collusion.” As always, the crowd chanted: “Lock her up!”
Click to expand...
 
holbritter said:
I find it odd when all of a sudden something that comes out of “the Trump team” it is believed. Why is that? They are called liars all the other times, but now, when someone says something they like/want to hear, it’s Breaking News

Was what Guilani has said previously true as well? Must be, if so much credence is being put into his words now.

What about this part of the same interview?


Be honest. What makes one part of what he said any more factual/believable, then another part?

Answer: Because it’s what you want to hear.

Disclaimer: this is not defending Trump. This is pointing out a real problem with ‘pick and choose’ what you want to believe ****.
Click to expand...

That's...the part we're talking about, though?
 
tres borrachos said:
It was sad, because at one time I really respected Rudy. Since he's become a Trump toadie, he's nothing but a caricature of his former self. This was just.....bad.

I can't believe Trump hasn't gotten rid of him yet.
Click to expand...

When I see Rudi working the Sunday shows I can't get this image out of my mind...

Rudi Ventrioquist.webp

...which may well explain of why Donald keeps him around. Its not what comes out of his mouth that Trump cares about, its the passion and vitriol by which its delivered.
 
Deuce said:
That's...the part we're talking about, though?
Click to expand...

I'll put it another way.

Seems this is believed: he doesn't know if other people in the campaign, including former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, were working with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential race.
"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign," Giuliani said.

So this part is true as well: "I said the President of the United States. There is not a single bit of evidence the President of the United States committed the only crime you can commit here, conspiring with the Russians to hack the DNC."

I am not saying either of those statements are true or not, believable of not. Someone who is slammed as being a liar and a puppet, is now believed because he said something someone wants to hear. It's weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom