Rudy Giuliani: "There's nothing wrong about taking information from the Russians"

[What if...?]

A green light to Russians to continue and even increase their efforts to interfere in our elections. There are no penalties for doing so and the GOP welcomes it. Why not hack our election to kingdom come in 2020?

I like how they preemprtively said that the Russians would he working for the dems in the midterms.

While continuing to claim the Russians didn't help trump.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

IMO he is correct. :shrug:

Dirt is always being dug up by campaigns, and sources are myriad. That is simply a fact of politics.

If someone comes in volunteering evidence of such dirt, and it is factually established as true, then unless the party receiving it knows it was obtained illegally and it would violate the law to publish it, I believe it is fair game.

You're missing the reason it is considered wrong and the reason you need to inform the FBI. If you take information from a hostile foreign power but do not admit your source, that power has leverage over you because they can always expose that they were your source.

Openly admitting to getting help from Vladimir Putin will not be looked upon favorably by voters. That's why Trump and his campaigned lied about it.

If there was nothing wrong, as you claim, why did Trump and his campaign lie about it?

 

[humbolt]

Time will tell if what Mueller included his report will serve a purpose. One thing is for certain currently, he gave the Dems material to work with should they choose.


As I don’t have any skin in the game, I don’t need luck.

Sounds like all these scraps of hardwood I save. I haven't invested 30 or 40 million in 'em, though.

I could swear you have an interest. It's referred to in your Sig line, as you pointed out, after all.

 

[Athanasius68]

The only folks who'll ascribe to that are folks who don't understand election law and the difference between a donation/contribution and a purchase.

I've discussed the matter elsewhere on DP.

​

The Trump campaign did not buy, and subsequently report in its FEC filings, the information and assistance received from the Russians; thus it was illegal. Had the campaign done both those things, the assistance received would not have been illegal.

The Trump campaign received no assistance from Russia (the Clinton campaign, of course, did).

Election law requires knowledge of the law.

 

[Athanasius68]

You're missing the reason it is considered wrong and the reason you need to inform the FBI. If you take information from a hostile foreign power but do not admit your source, that power has leverage over you because they can always expose that they were your source.

Openly admitting to getting help from Vladimir Putin will not be looked upon favorably by voters. That's why Trump and his campaigned lied about it.

If there was nothing wrong, as you claim, why did Trump and his campaign lie about it?

Yet again-- the sources of the Steele Dossier were anonymous and Russian

 

[Athanasius68]

So a foreign adversary engaging in a disinformation attack on our election process to get the guy THEY want elected is OK?

Sorry Rudy. It is not. And it is illegal.

The “burden of proof” and intent were what kept Mueller from indicting

And the fact there was no collusion or conspiracy by the Trump guys with Russia.

BTW--- isn't the Steele Dossier a disinformation attack?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Sounds like all these scraps of hardwood I save. I haven't invested 30 or 40 million in 'em, though.

No problem. You could recoup, and maybe turn a profit by using forfeited nails and paint that used to belong to a certain current inmate in a Virginia Federal Prison. :mrgreen:

I could swear you have an interest. It's referred to in your Sig line, as you pointed out, after all.

It’s not a personal statement/belief. It is meant to deter false claims made by hyper partisan Kool-Aid drinking Trumpsters. Hasn’t been totally successful though. Some folks are just too far gone. Sad.

 

[Lesh]

And the fact there was no collusion or conspiracy by the Trump guys with Russia.

BTW--- isn't the Steele Dossier a disinformation attack?

You mean other than the ones that colluded right?

Like Manafort, Don Jr, and Stone etc.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Not every Trump voter was fond of Trump...most of them couldnt stomach the thought of Hillary Clinton as president. Hell...that includes a good number of democrats including a whole bunch of ignorant twats that bitch about Trump yet still insist THEY didnt even vote for that ****ing hag.

But I can see why you a republican would be upset over Trump. Booming economy...2 Supreme Court Justice picks keeping the picks out of the hands of a piece of **** leftist...ongoing attempts to battle illegal immigration while every other ****ing idiot in this country is doing their best to bring in 78,000 illegal immigrants a month...but republicans are focused on the 'important' stuff...

FM

You sound really, really angry. Ever had a problem with the police about that?

It's sad that you think only Fearless Leader and President-for-life Trump can fix things and that Pence and the Republicans cannot. I, OTOH, think the adults should be in charge, not petty tyrants.

 

[humbolt]

No problem. You could recoup, and maybe turn a profit by using forfeited nails and paint that used to belong to a certain current inmate in a Virginia Federal Prison. :mrgreen:


It’s not a personal statement/belief. It is meant to deter false claims made by hyper partisan Kool-Aid drinking Trumpsters. Hasn’t been totally successful though. Some folks are just too far gone. Sad.

If you say so, on both counts. Many posters here fervently believe they represent the only rational view possible.

 

[VanceMack]

You sound really, really angry. Ever had a problem with the police about that?

It's sad that you think only Fearless Leader and President-for-life Trump can fix things and that Pence and the Republicans cannot. I, OTOH, think the adults should be in charge, not petty tyrants.

Nope...never had a problem at all with that and usually the only people that think that impotent 'tactic' of claiming someone is 'angry' are impotent leftists that know how stupid they sound with their non stop rage induced Trump hatred.

Its comical you think the 'adults' should be in charge. The fact is both parties abandoned their positions of responsibility many many years ago. Trump, like Obama and Bush before him are essentially reduced to passing EOs if anything is EVER going to get done.

And as for being 'in charge'...YOUR version of the adults are the whiny leftist ****s that have been shrieking about Trump for 3 years...meanwhile...Trump has been doing what he can to sustain economic growth, correct trade imbalances, and fight illegal immigration, while your 'adults' have been ****ting themselves over fabricated lies.

You are painting yourself as rather unpretty.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

If you say so, on both counts. Many posters here fervently believe they represent the only rational view possible.

Yeah, but not all of us can be correct.

 

[humbolt]

Yeah, but not all of us can be correct.

Shhhhh.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Nope...never had a problem at all with that and usually the only people that think that impotent 'tactic' of claiming someone is 'angry' are impotent leftists that know how stupid they sound with their non stop rage induced Trump hatred. ...

It's been my experience that the people with the problems keep claiming anyone who disagrees with them are "impotent leftists". Sounds like a personal problem to me. I suggest you pray for help.

 

[VanceMack]

It's been my experience that the people with the problems keep claiming anyone who disagrees with them are "impotent leftists". Sounds like a personal problem to me. I suggest you pray for help.

IS that your experience?



:lamo

I take it you hear that a lot then.

 

[Craig234]

One basic issue in all this is trying to hide what's wrong, by making the issue what's legal.

In politics, what matters is what's wrong, not merely what's legal. Being 'wrong' and 'legal' is not ok, it's not enough.

To make this point - imagine advocating for a constitutional amendment to make the Holocaust the law. To require exterminating Jewish people and other Nazi victims - or some other group, Muslims in today's politics - constitutionally required policy.

There is nothing "illegal" about that advocacy. Changing the constitution can make any activity - slavery could be brought back - "legal". Yet it is quite "wrong" and deserves political condemnation.

That's the point here - trump and his supporters want to argue that anything he isn't convicted of, with the convenience that 'a sitting president can't be indicted for anything', means there is nothing at all, he's 'exonerated'. He's not.

So no matter how corrupt, how harmful, his intent and actions, no matter how much is shown about his pursuit of illegally obtained information, his supporting of harmful policies to benefit people he wants favors from whether it's a tower in Moscow or Middle Eastern money for Jared, if he's not convicted of a crime for it, then he's 'exonerated'. He's not. We need to not let them make conviction the only question in the political issues.

 

[Craig234]

A green light to Russians to continue and even increase their efforts to interfere in our elections. There are no penalties for doing so and the GOP welcomes it. Why not hack our election to kingdom come in 2020?

This is a basic issue with the rule of law - when foreign interference is only a crime when done for the other side, when bribery is only a crime when done by the other side, when vote-rigging is only a crime when done by the other side, etc. That's what this is - the ignoring of why foreign interference is a problem when it's not only done 'for your side', but changes the election result so you win.

 

[D_NATURED]

The GOP welcomes it?
The Obama Admin had no worries about using information from Russia in court.

The courts are not clandestine meetings and their purpose is to establish justice. Just because information came from a Russian person doesn't make its use wrong. When it's part of a secret collaboration between a candidate and there is the appearance of secrecy, you start to think there's something fishy going on and, in the case of Trump, it's a correct assumption.

 

[Divine_Wind]

IS that your experience?

View attachment 67255576

:lamo

I take it you hear that a lot then.

You're the proof in the pudding.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Vote for any third party candidate and you guarantee a second Trump Presidency

Unless everyone votes for a third party instead of just settling for the lesser of two evils, then America wins!

 

[j brown's body]

Yes it is about Obama and the fact that he and dozens of his supporters in the last administration did take a lot of information from Russia and still are colluding with Russians today. The whole DNC Russian dossier was a joint effort between Russians and the Obama DNC to falsely paint Trump as a wicked monster who needs to be removed from the public because of the danger he supposedly poses to the safety of America (which is no doubt the mindset and narrative which set American assassins to murder JFK.)

You honestly think anyone has to work to portray Trump as a wicked monster? He cultivates that image pretty well on his own.

 

[j brown's body]

The Trump campaign received no assistance from Russia (the Clinton campaign, of course, did).

Election law requires knowledge of the law.

Mueller shows that Russia worked specifically to help the Trump. His campaign gave polling data to the Russians.

 

[Craig234]

Mueller shows that Russia worked specifically to help the Trump. His campaign gave polling data to the Russians.

It's similar to how bribery has become almost unprosecutable now. (Even the Virginia governor's conviction was overturned).

Basically, if a candidate says he supports the Koch brothers being immune to prosecution for any crime, and the Koch brothers fund a PAC to get that guy elected saying he's a nice guy, it's no problem. It's only if there's a wiretap where the candidate says, "I'll support this policy if you give me the money" can it be prosecuted. So the substantive fact of bribery is perfectly ok, unless the most extreme documentation of explicit bargains exists.

So, trump and Russia each recognize the other as an ally. Russia wanted trump elected for their agenda against the US and worked to cause that. trump recognized Russia as an ally both in the election and pursuing his tower in Moscow, and refused to say anything negative about Putin or Russia, supporting their agenda. It had all the attributes of 'collusion' except that 'explicit agreement' documented.

Nevermind that it did have all kinds of connections, of Jared pursuing a secret communication channel in a Russian embassy, of trump's secret private discussions with Putin, etc., there wasn't any 'agreement document' needed nor found by Mueller - and so the trump supporters claim there is no wrongdoing. They're wrong.

 

[Carleen]

AFAIK, it wasn't illegal, just immoral. Consorting with an enemy who has repeatedly acted hostile toward US interests goes up to the line but doesn't seem to cross over into treason. Sad.

yeah, Rudy says morality does not apply. He has lost his title as America’s Mayor for sure.

 

[HumblePi]

I’m fine with everyone involved being charged. Like Hillary and her deliberate mishandling of emails, it’s not what we think but what can be proved in court.

You mean Trump's mishandling of stolen HRC emails?