- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,956
- Reaction score
- 19,694
- Location
- Rocky Mtn. High
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
[h=1]Rudy Giuliani says Trump didn't collude with Russia but can't say if campaign aides did[/h]
"...Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that he never denied President Donald Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign, only that the President himself was not involved in collusion.In an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo on "Cuomo Prime Time," Giuliani, a former New York mayor and Trump's attorney, said 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.
He added, "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." ...'
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/rudy-giuliani-cnntv/index.html
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 know, its that Team Trump now admits there may have been collusion, so the statement "no collusion" is henceforth a lie.
Stay tuned.
When you post a piece of **** from CNN and expect us to all believe it is the truth then that becomes a laughing pathetic matter. Last I heard Jim Acosta was still looking for his nuts he lost on Pennsylvania Avenue over the stunts he pulled last week.
When you post a piece of **** from CNN and expect us to all believe it is the truth then that becomes a laughing pathetic matter. Last I heard Jim Acosta was still looking for his nuts he lost on Pennsylvania Avenue over the stunts he pulled last week.
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.
When you post a piece of **** from CNN and expect us to all believe it is the truth then that becomes a laughing pathetic matter. Last I heard Jim Acosta was still looking for his nuts he lost on Pennsylvania Avenue over the stunts he pulled last week.
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.
1] CNN has it on videoWhen you post a piece of **** from CNN and expect us to all believe it is the truth then that becomes a laughing pathetic matter. Last I heard Jim Acosta was still looking for his nuts he lost on Pennsylvania Avenue over the stunts he pulled last week.
"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign," Giuliani said.
He added, "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."
1] CNN has it on video
2] CNN is one of the most trusted & factual news orgs on the planet
I'm at a loss to understand where this post of yours came from? How you can rationalize it?
Anyway, here's the direct quotes from the video - for your reference:
Vesper, shame on you! You are beginning to sound more like Trump everyday with that locker room talk. :shock:
While you salivate on anything anti-Trump and hardly ever question their motives.....maybe you should find the time to focus more on this...1] CNN has it on video
2] CNN is one of the most trusted & factual news orgs on the planet
I'm at a loss to understand where this post of yours came from? How you can rationalize it?
Anyway, here's the direct quotes from the video - for your reference:
When you post a piece of **** from CNN and expect us to all believe it is the truth then that becomes a laughing pathetic matter. Last I heard Jim Acosta was still looking for his nuts he lost on Pennsylvania Avenue over the stunts he pulled last week.
"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign," Giuliani said. He added, "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."
How far the story has evolved from: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.
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 ****.
Hey Chomsky anything from CNN is easily rationalized because of the irrationalized that produce it. Can you believe your lying eyes?
First, CNN gets good ratings for factual reporting from MediaBiasFactCheck.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
"...However, CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting...."
Second, if you were intellectually honest and/or reasonably intellectual, you would have looked at the cite before commenting. Had you actually looked you would see a video of the actual interview with Chris Cuomo as the CNN describes. Instead, you simply wish to display your intellectual laziness for the rest of us to see. Intellectually laziness breeds ignorance, which is what your post is founded upon.
Thanks for playing.
I will concede that Giulliani showed his own form of intellectual laziness in this interview. I think he admitted more than he really intended. But Rudy has taken on many of Trump's characteristics including with a reckless disregard for facts and undisciplined speech.
The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only and is the opinion of individual reviewers for Media Bias/Fact Check. The opinions expressed on Media Bias/Fact Check are protected under “Fair Comment.” The information is provided by Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News) and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness or accuracy of opinions/information on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
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.
Wouldn't it be kind of expected for such a narrative to change regardless of Trump being guilty or innocent of collusion?
If Trump really didn't know about it wouldn't it be expected for him to deny such? And then when shows him that there was the narrative would narrow down? The same would apply if he did know something about it. If you accept that there was Russian collusion going on then you would also have to naturally accept that the narrative would change regardless if Trump is innocent or guilty. So what exactly is your thread about? Stating the obvious?
........So they're entirely opinion based. No facts to back them up.
....just saying.... :shrug:
From their disclaimer section. So they're entirely opinion based. No facts to back them up....just saying....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?