• 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

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
23,721
Reaction score
19,373
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 now is that Team Trump has admitted there may have been collusion, so the statement "no collusion" is henceforth a lie.

Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:
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.

Vesper, shame on you! You are beginning to sound more like Trump everyday with that locker room talk. :shock:
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.


"Rolling disclosure". I needed that bit of vocabulary. That's the main reason I didn't like George Herbert Walker Bush -- his role in the rolling disclosure of the Iran Contra scandal. There was an approximately three week cycle: first we would get some major piece of news about additional wrongdoing and Bush would say "that's the last there is to reveal", then a week or two later Bush would treat that new revelation as old hat, saying "we told you that all along so there's really nothing to explain" ... and then a week or two later the next round would begin. I got tired of him acting like we were stupid and couldn't remember what happened two weeks earlier.

Useful term. Thanks.
 
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.

is this a serious post? I understand having it come directly from his mouth is a complicated thing to understand...
 
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."
 
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.

LOL Finally after hundreds of contacts with Russians during the campaign he admits some collusion. and then he expects us to believe that Trump is as innocent as the driven snow. Like a single decision in that campaign did not go thru Trump. He's a farce and lives up to the name Trumps's Clown.

180910_r32737.jpg
 
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 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."
 
Rudy Giuliani is the attorney that Donald Trump deserves.

On second thought, so was Michael Cohen.

I have to give it to the guy--he's excellent at choosing attorneys that he deserves.
 
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:

Hey Chomsky anything from CNN is easily rationalized because of the irrationalized that produce it. Can you believe your lying eyes?
 
Vesper, shame on you! You are beginning to sound more like Trump everyday with that locker room talk. :shock:

Shame on me? Hear Hear Risky, you take first prize on locker room talk on this forum.
 
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:
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.

Why call Rudy a piece of **** though ?

:thinking

Lying Rudy would seem a bit more civil....

tumblr_pclphqTE3C1qinrtgo1_500.png


His probably smells like **** but he isn't actually a piece of it...

tumblr_orpnvowTxN1qinrtgo1_500.jpg
 
Last edited:
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 ****.
 
In the end, the story will be that everybody on the campaign but Donald himself was in bed with the Russians drinking vodka, eating borscht and being entertained by Russian lovelies. Trump himself, was off in church lighting votive candles.
 
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.
How far the story has evolved from:
"nobody in my campaign met with Russians"
>>"yes, they met with Russians but only about adoption"
>>>"I wrote the letter myself (about the thing I said I knew nothing about)"
>>>>"they met with Russians about *opposition research* which everybody does"
>>>>>"collusion isn't a crime."

Now, 'well.... maybe the campaign colluded with Russia... but not Trump himself.'
 
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 ****.

A. Why is it more believable? Because it against their nature or interest. When the Pentagon says we don't need that weapons system, you have to believe them.
B. Wny is this coming out now? Because Michael Cohen is about to blow the lid off of this when he testifies before Congress.
 
Hey Chomsky anything from CNN is easily rationalized because of the irrationalized that produce it. Can you believe your lying eyes?

Next you'll tell us Fox News is a legitimate news organization.
 
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.

From their disclaimer section. So they're entirely opinion based. No facts to back them up.

....just saying.... :shrug:
 
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?
 
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?

Everything we know about Donald Trump and the way he runs things is that he is a very controlling, hands on owner who micro manages nearly every aspect of his endeavors especially with having the final word on major decisions. . This has been said by longtime people who work for him including Tony Schwartz who wrote The Art of the Deal with Trump and Michael Cohen who worked for him closely for over decade in many different areas of the Trump empire.

In addition, the Trump campaign was contrastingly small compared to other campaigns and one reason is that Trump did not trust people and wanted his own imprimatur on everything.

The idea that Rudy is floating - that others may have colluded with the Russians but Donald himself did not and was completely out of the loop in such matters - is absurd and defies everything we know about the campaign and how Trump runs his empire.

In the end, after everyone else has been thrown under the bus by Donald and his legal eagles, the excuse will be that YES - Trump did collude with the Russians but he did so for a good reason- stopping the Great Satan Hillary - and did not know it was a crime because he is not a politician and simply was ignorant of such things.

Watch.
 
Last edited:
........So they're entirely opinion based. No facts to back them up.

....just saying.... :shrug:

Sounds like you are describing the White House.



:elephantf:usflag2:

tumblr_p1nla88DZ81skfdzbo1_1280.jpg


;)
 
From their disclaimer section. So they're entirely opinion based. No facts to back them up....just saying....

How fact free and highly biased of you. You probably don't read the research the site does to come to their opinion- bottom line everything is an opinion- and the line you cite so out of context is a standard disclaimer.


Research is by it's very nature a conclusion that is in it's essence an opinion. When you read a review site about a consumer product you are reading opinion. There are facts, you just chose to ignore them to take a cheap shot...

How partisan of you... :peace
 
So, Rudy's defense is that President Trump merely surrounds himself with treasonous people.

Next up, the excuse that starts with, "The President may have conspired with Russia, but..."
 
Back
Top Bottom