• 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

This is what Rudy is doing:
The Limited Hangout

One nice thing is how much the manipulation industries have exposed themselves during all of this.

Like the 24-48hr delay to craft a new "message" we've all become aware of due to trump's whipsawing the truth around and then doing it again right after shs and company made up an excuse for the original lie.
 
Question is...will you accept it if it doesn't go as you wish?

Me, I don't care either way on how it goes. I'm more interested in the reaction that either decision will generate.

I am prepared to accept the findings fo the Mueller report.
 
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.
That's entirely noe the point.
It's Giulianni's insane and depraved spin, ever-moving-goalposts, and "truth isn't truth" gaslighting that is news.
This is an attorney representing the President of the United States, routinely saying bat-**** crazy things. It's news because POTUS is a serious you know...position in government.
What about this part of the same interview?
What about it?
Mueller is investigating possible ties of Trump's campaign to Russian meddling in the election.
If they find such ties, would you characterize that as :
"No collusion!"
or
"Collusion!"

Be honest.

Answer: Because it’s what you want to hear.
The point wasn't if he was lying or not per se, it was that he keeps walking the goal posts back!

Disclaimer: this is not defending Trump. This is pointing out a real problem with ‘pick and choose’ what you want to believe ****.
Claiming you aren't doing, something you are clearly doing, doesn't absolve you.
 
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:

pretty sure at this point the rationalization is they are posting such stupid comments to troll
 
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.

lie, deny, deflect.



And what a truly retarded bit of lying, denying, and deflecting. Giulani is on ****ing camera saying it.
 
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:

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."
 
I think you're deceiving yourself Kal. Much of the public record is Trump's own words on Twitter, his own words in recorded speeches and press briefings, his staff briefing people directly.
And we also have a lot of court documentation you can read for yourself. Records you could verify beyond thew news, etc.

There is a mountain of evidence, and you appear to just want to defer judgement. I mean, that's your call, I'm just telling you given the situation today, I don't find it responsible based on the above.

Nothing in Trumps tweets admits or implies collusion. Which court cases do you think indicates Trump colluded with Russia? No one on his staff has said that Trump colluded with Russia.

Now, if you're simply referring to judging the man on his arrogance, ego etc etc that's one thing. And I say go for it. But my post was about collusion. Not about Trump personally.
 
I am prepared to accept the findings fo the Mueller report.

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?
 
Nothing in Trumps tweets admits or implies collusion. Which court cases do you think indicates Trump colluded with Russia? No one on his staff has said that Trump colluded with Russia.
Now, if you're simply referring to judging the man on his arrogance, ego etc etc that's one thing. And I say go for it. But my post was about collusion. Not about Trump personally.

No, nothing to do with his stupidity and poor leadership, narcissism. That's all good reason never to have voted for him or to support him, sure, but it's not even the tip of the iceberg.

I mean, Trump is a national security risk, he's comprised where Russia is concerned.

On nearly ever Putin/Russian agenda item, Trump has inexplicable pushed it into the U.S. agenda. It's a long list Kal.
Trump's backing Putin's word over U.S. intelligence on multiple occasions.
Why did he attack Montenegro right as Russia was pushing against them because of NATO concerns?
Why did he try to re-write Afghanistan/Russian history matching what only Russian's were pushing in an effort to re-write history?
The fact that Russia is evidenced to have interfered in the 2016 election in an effort primarily to seat Trump.
Trump Tower Moscow/sanctions.
Pushing every chance he got to not sanction Russia.
Changing his speech to be Russia-friendly.
Hiring Manafort, and Manafort's Russia back and forth.
Roger Stone's wikileaks/Guccifer dealings.
Russia if you're listening.
Lying and obfuscating about all of this.
His team willing to commit felonies in lying about this stuff.

The list is a mile long Kal. Because it's so long, and you already have most of that information, I can only surmise you simply don't care.
What evidence is there that "more" information would change your mind? Or most Trump supporters? None.

There is no need to wait for Mueller's report, any more than there is a reason to also wait for all the other Trump investigations...criminal and civil, to complete. He's already so far off the reservation that most of us are just bewildered at how this came to pass.
 
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?

Well being as the described scenario ONLY has a 0.000001% EVEN in YOUR FANTASIES, then yeah, maybe..... :roll:
 
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.

And with that it would appear that being such a "brave man" is not going to payoff for Manafort. Rudy's suggestion that some people in the campaign may have "colluded" but not the President would seem to clearly indicate a desire to distance themselves from Manafort as recent revelations have probably made him too hot of a potato for them to hold onto. I'm sure that interview was a bummer for him. Better start getting used to you new digs there, Pauly. You're going to be there for a long while.
 
Too bad for y'all that "collusion" isn't illegal.

Wasn't it the media that started the trend to use the word "collusion"-- which even Sunny Hostin admits is not illegal-- to mean the same as "conspiracy?"

That's how I remember it.
 
My point has gone over yours and Kobie's head. Whatever.

No, you were trying to excuse lying. Why it's so important to you to defend lies, I wouldn't know. I guess it's an essential part of the makeup of Trump supporter?
 
How many times have they moved the goalpost?

Don't know any Russians
Okay know some Russians but there was no meeting
Okay there was a meeting but not about the election
Okay there was a meeting about the election but didn't know about it
Okay knew about it but no collusion
Okay there was collusion but didn't know about it

Come on can Trump and Rudy be believed on anything anymore?
 
From the article:

Later in the interview, Giuliani shot down reports that he had said Trump's legal team should get to edit Mueller's report before it goes public. Giuliani told Cuomo that he only meant Trump's legal team should get to see Mueller's final report before it goes public in order to write a response, but stressed that he does not want to alter the report and supports as much of it being published as national security allows.​

Trump should see the report at the same time the American people do. Then he can write his response. And besides, his response should be the same two words regardless of what is or isn't in the report: "I resign."

People with class resign; Trump has no class, so he will obviously fight to the bitter end no matter who it may hurt. But then he might resign if its part of a deal.
 
No, you were trying to excuse lying. Why it's so important to you to defend lies, I wouldn't know. I guess it's an essential part of the makeup of Trump supporter?

If you read where the conversation started, you would see I wasn't doing that. But I guess that's too much to ask....you know, for you to know what you're bitching about in the first place.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
"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."

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 ****.

You’re almost comically missing the point. It’s not that Rudy is to be believed, it’s that his narrative never stops changing.

Ok. A changing narrative does not equal lying.

:lamo



You can strive to say this idiocy using less belligerent-sounding language than other DP Trumpists, but that doesn't help. Not one jot.

As has repeatedly been demonstrated to you, the investigation isn't even into "collusion." Hence the Trump campaign has always insisted "no collusion." Then, it insisted "collusion isn't a crime, but still, no collusion." And now it's "we never said there wasn't collusion, actually, I just said Trump didn't collude". And anyone watching this realizes that Giuilani set himself up a future fake loophole, in which he might claim "I never said Trump didn't know about the collusion, I just said he was not the person who actually did the act constituting it."


But that doesn't equal "lying". Nothing does, unless Trump autographs a tape of himself saying "I lied", right?





PS: Some undeserved and free legal advice.

If a guy is accused of robbing a 7/11 and stabbing the clerk, it absolutely is considered evidence of guilt that his story is:

First, he wasn't there, he was in New York having sex with his girlfriend at the time.

Second, ok, maybe he was there, but that was earlier in the day and he was just buying some Pringles.

Third, ok, maybe it's when you (the cops) say it is, but he only had an argument with the clerk. A strange man in a mask came in after him, but he was hungry so he went home to eat his Pringles.

Fourth....

...fourth DO YOU GET IT YET?!
 
Last edited:
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?

I will abide by the Mueller Report and the results of any Congressional investigations as well as court proceedings such as the Southern District in New York..
 
You might have a point if that post was about defending Trump. But it wasn't so...yeah...there's that. ;)

Let me ask you a question...haven't you ever had someone stab you in the back? IE: Do something behind your back?

How many times do you think politicians in general get stabbed in the back? Never? Once a year? Twice a year? Multiple times a year?

People are not all knowing regardless if they're Joe Schmoe down the street or a world leader. In fact the higher a position you have in life the greater the odds of being stabbed in the back. Same goes for being rich.

Yes, I have

How many times have you been in a job where nearly everyone else was colluding and conspiring with a foreign enemy?
 
Back
Top Bottom