• 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!

Giuliani quips he has 'insurance' if Trump throws him 'under the bus'

Mach said:
What was Strzok referring to? I haven't seen that, sounds like a right wing bubble concern.

We've got half a dozen Trump folks in ****ing jail and Trump tweeting like a moron as POTUS, every day, destroying careers, smearing public servants and veterans, fellating Putin, asking other countries to interfere in the 2020 in exchange for official acts...
.... and you're concerned about some random text with unknown meaning?
Your manufactured angst is not something you should reply to me with.
Click to expand...

It is funny how you guys fall for every negative story and CT when it is about Trump, but are blind as bats when it comes to everything else. This is a perfect example. You are so far out of the loop you dont even know about Strzoks use of the term. Why? Because it isnt part of the hate Trump narrative, and anything done by an anti-Trumper, is all good in your book anyway.
 
Threegoofs said:
Is anyone stupid enough to believe this?

He has this ‘evidence’, yet isn’t using it?

I guess he knows his audience is foolish enough to believe anything.
Click to expand...

yankintx said:
There is a reason Trumps get togethers are called Rube Rallys.
Click to expand...
Only one problem with that dopey theory of yours. Trump supporters were bright enough to see through the collusion hoax and you werent.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Okay, so Giuliani has incriminating or really embarrassing dirt on Trump. Is there any other way to read this?
Click to expand...

Why, based upon past history, should we believe any comments from the White House? For all we know, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani might have been pulling the interviewer's leg.
 
Helix said:
it's like ****ing mobsters are running the executive. this is because that seems to be the case. what a sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...

"I’ve seen things written like he’s going to throw me under the bus. When they say that, I say he isn’t, but I have insurance,"
:lamo

Is that right Rudy? Do tell us what kind of "insurance". I don't recall seeing this type of situation covered in any insurance company clauses....
 
I heard that quip and took it to mean he had health insurance if he got ran over by a bus. But he has said he means he has information about Joe and Hunter that will protect him.
 
Fletch said:
You mean like the 'insurance policy' that Strzok talked about that didnt bother you one bit?
Click to expand...

his post is quite valid...a person cannot have insurance against someone else if they haven't done something wrong....and you can't change those facts.
 
SLC said:
I heard that quip and took it to mean he had health insurance if he got ran over by a bus. But he has said he means he has information about Joe and Hunter that will protect him.
Click to expand...

um, yeah that is quite a stretch....not likely.
 
Fletch said:
Only one problem with that dopey theory of yours. Trump supporters were bright enough to see through the collusion hoax and you werent.
Click to expand...
Mindlessly parroting what FOX and Trump say to parrot is not being "bright enough to see through" anything. It's what a parrot does, that's it's "skill". Trump has made his opinion of his base's intellectual acumen clear:

Donald Trump declares 'I love the poorly educated'


I'm going with Trump on this one. Aren't you?
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
It is funny how you guys fall for every negative story and CT when it is about Trump, but are blind as bats when it comes to everything else. This is a perfect example. You are so far out of the loop you dont even know about Strzoks use of the term. Why? Because it isn't part of the hate Trump narrative, and anything done by an anti-Trumper, is all good in your book anyway.
Click to expand...

And yet given the opportunity to give us the factual evidence of what this "insurance is", you demure. Why so shy to back your CT Fletch? Not as enjoyable as insulting lefties?

All of Trumps people in jail is not CT. Rudy dealing with criminals in help Trump, not CT. Trump solicitation help in the 2020 in exchange for an official act, not CT. White House direct and common coordination with right wing pundits.
You got your priorities all wrong.
 
mrdeltoid said:
It does matter. When a "journalist" cherry picks a millisecond quip, from a 15 minute interview, they are misrepresenting the interview, which was largely about Biden's history of corruption. Rudy recalls the interview:" TRUTH ALERT: The statement I’ve made several times of having an insurance policy, if thrown under bus, is sarcastic & relates to the files in my safe about the Biden Family’s 4 decade monetizing of his office," Giuliani tweeted.
"If I disappear, it will appear immediately along with my RICO chart," he added."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ns-on-him-in&usg=AOvVaw2qeVvicHCHWb_QI5RVN68p
Click to expand...

Well, that's convincing. :roll:
 
Mr Person said:
To be clear, I am a criminal defense attorney who handles appeals, so, I'm not suffering from a "misconception." Either you are or you misunderstood something. This is going to be vague, since being specific can take a long time in law. It is only about attorney-client privilege:



1. A client telling you about a crime he committed is covered by the attorney-client privilege.

General rationale: The defense attorney's job is to zealously defend the charged client. To do this, communications between client and attorney as to what is charged need to be unrestrained. If the client did it, he needs to tell the lawyer exactly what happened so that the lawyer can craft the best defense. That is impossible if, the moment the client admits committing the crime, the admission is suddenly not "covered by the attorney-client privilege." Clients could not communicate anywhere near fully with their attorneys, and their attorneys would almost certainly do a much poorer job as they would be operating on bad information. This is a simplification.


2. There are narrow exceptions.

a. The attorney may not aid the client in committing future crimes. Anything passing between attorney and client in service of commission of future crimes is not privileged. This is a simplification.

b. As I said, the client accuses the attorney of things in certain forums and the attorney must violate privilege in order to defend himself, ie, malpractice lawsuit ("you didn't tell me blah blah blah, so I did this, and I got screwed!"). This is a simplification.

There are others.



But " attorney client privilege does not cover crimes" is broad to the point of complete falsehood. If Trump tells Guiliani about past crimes, that's privileged. IF Guiliani helps Trump commit future crimes via legal advice, that isn't privileged. Same, if Trump throws Giuiliani under the bus as to past crimes in such a way that fit the narrow exception where the client has put the attorney in a position where revealing privileged info is sufficiently necessary to the defense of the attorney.




This all comes down to what Guiliani thinks his "insurance" is and whether Trump puts him in one of the narrow situations where he may ethically reveal that information.
Click to expand...

And just to piggyback on your comments here: An attorney cannot knowingly allow their client to commit perjury.

I believe this may have happened in the Rick Gates case. There was a point at which Gates took the stand and immediately his entire legal team petitioned the court to be heard in chambers. Behind closed doors, the legal team was removed and right after that, Gates reversed and changed his plea to guilty.

As I understand it, there is a cute little thing between lawyers that goes like this: Can you put your client on the stand? Answer: Nope!
 
Stealers Wheel said:
And just to piggyback on your comments here: An attorney cannot knowingly allow their client to commit perjury.

I believe this may have happened in the Rick Gates case. There was a point at which Gates took the stand and immediately his entire legal team petitioned the court to be heard in chambers. Behind closed doors, the legal team was removed and right after that, Gates reversed and changed his plea to guilty.

As I understand it, there is a cute little thing between lawyers that goes like this: Can you put your client on the stand? Answer: Nope!
Click to expand...

There is a workaround depending on the situation: you bring your concerns about perjury before the judge, and the judge allows the client to give a narrative answer. Meaning you put him on the stand and ask something like "is there anything you would like to tell the jury?", and let him go on until he's done. That way you're not actively eliciting the testimony/perjury and the defendant can still testify in his own defense.
 
mrdeltoid said:
It does matter. When a "journalist" cherry picks a millisecond quip, from a 15 minute interview, they are misrepresenting the interview, which was largely about Biden's history of corruption. Rudy recalls the interview:" TRUTH ALERT: The statement I’ve made several times of having an insurance policy, if thrown under bus, is sarcastic & relates to the files in my safe about the Biden Family’s 4 decade monetizing of his office," Giuliani tweeted.
"If I disappear, it will appear immediately along with my RICO chart," he added."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ns-on-him-in&usg=AOvVaw2qeVvicHCHWb_QI5RVN68p
Click to expand...

No, it obviously doesn't matter. If I'm talking to someone for fifteen minutes about ice cream, and then mention offhand that "Oh, by the way, I just murdered my entire family with a chainsaw," suddenly no one in their right mind gives a flying f*ck about me talking about ice cream. What is suddenly of interest is my claim that I murdered my family--and rightly so.

Giuliani talking about the Bidens and corruption is interesting in itself, of course. But the fact that he spent most of this time talking about that subject does nothing to erase the implications of him saying that he's got insurance if Trump throws him under the bus.
 
Mr Person said:
There is a workaround depending on the situation: you bring your concerns about perjury before the judge, and the judge allows the client to give a narrative answer. Meaning you put him on the stand and ask something like "is there anything you would like to tell the jury?", and let him go on until he's done. That way you're not actively eliciting the testimony/perjury and the defendant can still testify in his own defense.
Click to expand...

That sounds kind of slimy. You're saying there's a way to let the client defraud the court without the lawyer, an officer of the court, getting his hands dirty.
 
Fletch said:
You mean like the 'insurance policy' that Strzok talked about that didnt bother you one bit?
Click to expand...

Not the same thing at all. Strzok and Trump weren't working together.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
That sounds kind of slimy. You're saying there's a way to let the client defraud the court without the lawyer, an officer of the court, getting his hands dirty.
Click to expand...

It's a balancing of rights and I believe varies by jurisdiction. The attorney can also seek to withdraw from the case, etc. (Like I said, I do appeals and since I haven't had an appeal where a defendant was allowed to do this, I haven't had cause to look into it deeply).

And if it helps, I'm not aware of instances of it working. Whatever the defendant intends to say in that situation usually contradicts the defense to that point and is obviously fantasy. One time a colleague's client did just that and ended up telling the most ludicrous story.
 
Vern said:
"cherry picked" is particularly pointless. He said it. Who cares whatever lying nonsense he was spewing when he said it. He simply proves once again that trump only picks the "best" people.
Click to expand...

Just because you can dispute his points doesn't mean he's lying. If you intend to do that in those types of situations, why even debate something in the first place? I mean, I'll go back and forth with anybody here, and if I can't dispute or disprove an issue or point, I'll say so, tip my hat and move on. Just saying "he's lying" is lazy and disingenuous.
 
What if...? said:
Fox's entire coverage of the hearings was just that.

And the republican questioners were just looking for soundbites.

And they got a couple. Completely out of context to the testimony of course.

But you obviously ate it up.
Click to expand...

So instead of disputing the post, you attack Fox and the poster.:roll:
 
yankintx said:
Even Trump wishes Rudy would disappear. But the man crawls out of his coffin every sunset looking for a camera. Its unfathomable he was once called Anericas Mayor.
Click to expand...

If he was Clintons lawyer you'd be singing his praises, how he took down the mafia, fought corruption, was brilliant on 911. But......he's the "evil orange man", so...…..
 
ashurbanipal said:
No, it obviously doesn't matter. If I'm talking to someone for fifteen minutes about ice cream, and then mention offhand that "Oh, by the way, I just murdered my entire family with a chainsaw," suddenly no one in their right mind gives a flying f*ck about me talking about ice cream. What is suddenly of interest is my claim that I murdered my family--and rightly so.

Giuliani talking about the Bidens and corruption is interesting in itself, of course. But the fact that he spent most of this time talking about that subject does nothing to erase the implications of him saying that he's got insurance if Trump throws him under the bus.
Click to expand...

The problem with print media, it doesn't provide voice, like meter, inflection, things like that. It can mean something to one person, and something all together different to another.
Like when Peter Ducey asked Biden about Hunter making him a grandfather. If I write " Joe Biden called Peter Ducey a good man, and classy". It sounds like a compliment, until you actually hear the tape. I also gotta say, does it really mean anything anyway? I mean, of course he got plenty on Trump. He's his lawyer. The only problem with that kind of "insurance", if it's to bail himself out of a situation like Trump throwing him under the bus, is he "singing" or "composing"? Anyway, back to our regular programming...……..;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom