- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 38,198
- Reaction score
- 15,841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
This is what Rudy is doing:
The Limited Hangout
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.
That's entirely noe the point.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 it?What about this part of the same interview?
The point wasn't if he was lying or not per se, it was that he keeps walking the goal posts back!Answer: Because it’s what you want to hear.
Claiming you aren't doing, something you are clearly doing, doesn't absolve you.Disclaimer: this is not defending Trump. This is pointing out a real problem with ‘pick and choose’ what you want to believe ****.
Collusion is secretly working together.
The word "conspiracy" literally means "to breathe together" as in huddling in the dark whispering to each other. They are synonyms:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3_1uIOw2C4RHM8gvTr7mCG
And conspiracy is absolutely a crime.
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:
Ok. A changing narrative does not equal lying.
While you salivate on anything anti-Trump and hardly ever question their motives.....maybe you should find the time to focus more on this...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/br...ier-author-with-justice-department-colleagues
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.
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 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.
I am prepared to accept the findings fo the Mueller report.
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.
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?
Ok. A changing narrative does not equal lying.
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.
Too bad for y'all that "collusion" isn't illegal.
Yes it does.
You literally don't know how any of this works, do you?
My point has gone over yours and Kobie's head. Whatever.
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."
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?
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?
"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.
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?
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.
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?