It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Giuliani: 'I never said there was no collusion' with Russia

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was on CNN last night and said that Donald Trump did not collude. He does not know if campaign people did.


Washington (AFP) - US President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, on Wednesday insisted he "never said there was no collusion" between Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign and Russia -- only that Trump himself was not involved...[he] said he did not know if others involved in the campaign had worked with Russia.
"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or between people in the campaign," Giuliani said. "I said the President of the United States," he added.
In the first report, The New York Times said the FBI opened an investigation into whether Trump was acting on Russia's behalf soon after he became president....The Washington Post detailed what it said were the unusual lengths taken by Trump to hide the contents of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Manafort has admitted to sharing polling data with a Russian during the 2016 presidential race, according to a court filing inadvertently made public by his lawyers...on Wednesday, Giuliani suggested that was "not collusion"..."Polling data is given to everybody," he told CNN.
Source
Other Sources

Later in Wednesday’s interview, Giuliani appeared to backtrack, saying that if “the collusion happened, it happened a long time ago. . . . It’s not provable because it never happened. … I’m telling you there’s no chance it happened.” ….Giuliani questioned even whether collusion is criminal. “I don’t even know if that’s a crime, colluding about Russians,” he said.
Sour ce

"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign or between people in the campaign," Giuliani asserted.
Source
MEMO
Finally, I will refresh all of our memories with the “Muller Mandate.” or APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20,2017

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
Source
Commentary
I have noticed that often when Giuliani appears on one of the cable news shows he drops a bombshell that refutes something he has said in the past, or that requires a bit of “tweaking” by the White House . In my opinion, he has not really helped the President that much, and comes off sometimes looking foolish, and acting more like a public relations person than a lawyer.. do you think Trump should get another public relations person to represent him?

A friend on mine, a Trump supporter, joked that “Maybe Trump should pay Rudy Giuliani $130,000 in hush money just to get him to shut up.”

Or is there some method to his (apparent) madness? Is Rudy playing 3d chess?

Some other considerations:

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page?

Also, this is an unusual situation. It seems that a lot of the investigation is geared towards what happened during the campaign. This is a hypothetical ( once again, I said “hypothetical” – for discussion purposes only!!!) : Would Trump still be afforded Presidential immunity and rights IF (I said “if,” again, in the context of a hypothetical) he became President illegally? If he was removed fro office for crimes related to getting elected, who would become President. Technically, it seems like Pence would also be implicated in an election that was won illegally (even if Pence did nothing wrong, and only ran on the ticket). So the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi would become president?

I don't know is this aspect of succession is settled law or not. I am pretty sure it would go to the Supreme Court.

What do you think about Rudy's comments? Is Rudy Giuliani moving the goalposts again? I know that there are many quotes from his media appearances. I could have posted a few more here, but I have noticed that when I post a wall of text and quotes, most folks just skip over the text as too much work.

Anyone want to contribute some quotes to add to this discussion?

Finally, do you think Rudy helps President Trump, more than he harms him? What would you like to see him do differently?

Thanks all – look forward to a beneficial exchange.



edit on 17-1-2019 by FilthyUSMonkey because: put in PH for readablity




posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey
Would Trump still be afforded Presidential immunity and rights IF (I said “if,” again, in the context of a hypothetical) he became President illegally?


And also... would that make all of his executive orders void?
Just like if Obama was born in Kenya.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants




And also... would that make all of his executive orders void?


New territory - I don't think this is settled law.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Biggest non-story of the week. Now what Gulliani said he never said is fodder for the media’s base.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I wonder if Trump sent Guiliani out as a distraction.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I wonder if Trump sent Guiliani out as a distraction.


I get the feeling that there is more to this than Rudy just running his lips.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Massive moving of the goalposts.

So admitting that collusion occurred on national tv. The last bastion of hope is that the campaign colluded, but not Trump.

So much for the “Witch Hunt”, it appears that what Mueller was appointed to do, actually happened. Who would have thunk?

From the letter appointing the special counsel:


any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald J Trump


link



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Biggest non-story of the week. Now what Gulliani said he never said is fodder for the media’s base.


Anytime anything breaks in the news that damages Trump do you realize you say the same things? It’s either a non story, or you find some reason to ignore it. How many times can you possibly reject reality just because you don’t want to admit you voted for and continue to support a criminal?



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Biggest non-story of the week. Now what Gulliani said he never said is fodder for the media’s base.


Anytime anything breaks in the news that damages Trump do you realize you say the same things? It’s either a non story, or you find some reason to ignore it. How many times can you possibly reject reality just because you don’t want to admit you voted for and continue to support a criminal?


The only thing I can do is ignore your speech policing. I wager you don’t even know what the entire discussion was about. You focus on an irrelevant point while remaining ignorant to the pertinent ones.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Biggest non-story of the week. Now what Gulliani said he never said is fodder for the media’s base.


Anytime anything breaks in the news that damages Trump do you realize you say the same things? It’s either a non story, or you find some reason to ignore it. How many times can you possibly reject reality just because you don’t want to admit you voted for and continue to support a criminal?


The only thing I can do is ignore your speech policing. I wager you don’t even know what the entire discussion was about. You focus on an irrelevant point while remaining ignorant to the pertinent ones.


Gotcha, don’t address the subastance of my post because it’s uncomfortable, instead attack the messenger. Traditional tactic of individuals without a leg to stand on for generations.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Massive moving of the goalposts.

So admitting that collusion occurred on national tv. The last bastion of hope is that the campaign colluded, but not Trump.

So much for the “Witch Hunt”, it appears that what Mueller was appointed to do, actually happened. Who would have thunk?

From the letter appointing the special counsel:


any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald J Trump


link


Who the hell cares what he said about something that isn't even a crime? I'm so sick of this collusion BS. Collusion might be against the rules in your fantasy football league, but it isn't a crime.

You're all acting like this means something yuuuge.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Biggest non-story of the week. Now what Gulliani said he never said is fodder for the media’s base.


Anytime anything breaks in the news that damages Trump do you realize you say the same things? It’s either a non story, or you find some reason to ignore it. How many times can you possibly reject reality just because you don’t want to admit you voted for and continue to support a criminal?


The only thing I can do is ignore your speech policing. I wager you don’t even know what the entire discussion was about. You focus on an irrelevant point while remaining ignorant to the pertinent ones.


Gotcha, don’t address the subastance of my post because it’s uncomfortable, instead attack the messenger. Traditional tactic of individuals without a leg to stand on for generations.


Blame me for that which you are guilty of. Hypocrisy.

You still don't know what Giuliani was talking about or his arguments, preferring instead to focus on what CNN hands you on a propaganda platter.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal


The sunken cost fallacy is strong on ATS.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Massive moving of the goalposts.

So admitting that collusion occurred on national tv. The last bastion of hope is that the campaign colluded, but not Trump.

So much for the “Witch Hunt”, it appears that what Mueller was appointed to do, actually happened. Who would have thunk?

From the letter appointing the special counsel:


any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald J Trump


link


Who the hell cares what he said about something that isn't even a crime? I'm so sick of this collusion BS. Collusion might be against the rules in your fantasy football league, but it isn't a crime.

You're all acting like this means something yuuuge.


You’re right collusion isn’t a crime. Totally correct. Neither is killing someone to death with a knife. Neither one of those things is a crime. However, those two things represent actual crimes, namely conspiracy and murder.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: BlackJackal


The sunken cost fallacy is strong on ATS.


Somehow I doubt you know what that means or how it applies to anything we've said.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf


Of course you do.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Propagandalf


Of course you do.


Of course you can't.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: BlackJackal


The sunken cost fallacy is strong on ATS.


Somehow I doubt you know what that means or how it applies to anything we've said.


Really? Its not that hard or even complicated to connect the dots. Trump voters have a sunk cost fallacy in voting for and supporting Trump, and as more comes to light of his malfeasance, the harder they fight to deny, specifically because of the sunk cost fallacy.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Let's try a little bit of context.

Anchor Chris Cuomo stated, “Mr. Mayor, false reporting is saying that nobody in the campaign had any contacts with Russia. False reporting is saying that there has been no suggestion of any kind of collusion between the campaign and any Russians. Because now you have Paul Manafort giving poll data that winds up leading to this coincidence –.”

Giuliani cut in, “Well, you just misstated my position. I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or between people in the campaign. I have no idea…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 could commit here, conspired with the Russians to hack the DNC.”

Giuliani added that the president also hasn’t claimed that no one colluded. He said that Trump has stated that he didn’t collude, and as far as he knows, no one in the campaign did.


The pundit was saying that Guiliani had denied that anyone in the campaign had ever had any contact with any Russian. Guiliani has never made any such claim. In any event, he doesn't represent "The Trump Campaign." He represents Trump.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: BlackJackal


The sunken cost fallacy is strong on ATS.


Somehow I doubt you know what that means or how it applies to anything we've said.


Really? Its not that hard or even complicated to connect the dots. Trump voters have a sunk cost fallacy in voting for and supporting Trump, and as more comes to light of his malfeasance, the harder they fight to deny, specifically because of the sunk cost fallacy.


All said while you guys peddle CNN's irrelevant conclusions. Do you, or anyone here for that matter, know what Giuliani was arguing before your coveted CNN clip started?




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join