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: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

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?



I personally didn't hear it on CNN but rather a recap of the interview on NPR, and honestly I can't remember what he was discussing right up to that point. I thought the OP and discussion herein was Rudy's contradiction from a past interview. Is that not the case?




posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Propagandalf

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?



I personally didn't hear it on CNN but rather a recap of the interview on NPR, and honestly I can't remember what he was discussing right up to that point. I thought the OP and discussion herein was Rudy's contradiction from a past interview. Is that not the case?


It is the topic of the OP, and it is another example of CNN peddling irrelevant piffle to its base while the main points go unreported. They just created a controversy out of nothing.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Keep saying collusion to defraud the US Government and influence US elections with the help of a foreign power is not a crime...it is called conspiracy. And it is illegal.

Why argue? Just wait for Mueller's report. And the sounds of the bars going "cla-ching" on the Trumps and their criminal organization.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Propagandalf

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?



I personally didn't hear it on CNN but rather a recap of the interview on NPR, and honestly I can't remember what he was discussing right up to that point. I thought the OP and discussion herein was Rudy's contradiction from a past interview. Is that not the case?


It is the topic of the OP, and it is another example of CNN peddling irrelevant piffle to its base while the main points go unreported. They just created a controversy out of nothing.


Are you saying that Giuliani didn't say these things? I'm not understanding your argument. Even though Rudy actually said this, it's irrelevant because it was CNN who interviewed him?



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Propagandalf

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?



I personally didn't hear it on CNN but rather a recap of the interview on NPR, and honestly I can't remember what he was discussing right up to that point. I thought the OP and discussion herein was Rudy's contradiction from a past interview. Is that not the case?


It is the topic of the OP, and it is another example of CNN peddling irrelevant piffle to its base while the main points go unreported. They just created a controversy out of nothing.


Are you saying that Giuliani didn't say these things? I'm not understanding your argument. Even though Rudy actually said this, it's irrelevant because it was CNN who interviewed him?


No. I'm saying Giuliani's arguments are not being reported and CNN is essentially lying by omission.

Do you know what those arguments were?



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:01 PM
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.


You have to admit it's fun to watch though.

Like watching a homeless drug addict that has found a garbage bag full of cash, grabbed it and running with it, imagining all of the things that can be done with all of that money, and hasn't realized it's all worthless adverts made to look like real money yet.




posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Propagandalf

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?



I personally didn't hear it on CNN but rather a recap of the interview on NPR, and honestly I can't remember what he was discussing right up to that point. I thought the OP and discussion herein was Rudy's contradiction from a past interview. Is that not the case?


It is the topic of the OP, and it is another example of CNN peddling irrelevant piffle to its base while the main points go unreported. They just created a controversy out of nothing.


Here you go this is the transcript of the interview. As you can clearly see this is exactly as it has been reported Giuliani is contradicting his past statements and those of President Trump as well.


CUOMO: 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: Well, you just misstated my position. I never said there was no collusion between the campaign! Or between people in the campaign --

CUOMO: Yes, you have.

GIULIANI: I have no idea -- I have not. 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.

CUOMO: First of all, crime is not the bar of accountability for a President. It's about what you knew -- GIULIANI: Well, he didn't collude with Russia either!

CUOMO: -- what was right, what was wrong, and what did you concede about?

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: We said nobody had any contact, bunch of people have contact, nobody colluded, the guy running his campaign was working on an issue at the same time as the convention.

GIULIANI: He said he didn't. He didn't say nobody. How would you know that nobody in your campaign --

CUOMO: He actually did say that, Rudy. He said, nobody, and then he said, as far as I know.

GIULIANI: Well, as far as he knows, it's true.

CUOMO: But I don't know that it's true. How did Paul Manafort do all of these things and nobody knew?

GIULIANI: He was only there for six months or four months.

CUOMO: He was there for the convention when they change the platform. He gave the polling data, Cambridge Analytica. You don't have the same questions about them as you do the dossier.

GIULIANI: And they ended up -- how about reporting this, and they ended up with a stronger platform on Ukraine than they started with --

[21:10:03] CUOMO: No, they didn't.

GIULIANI: Yes, they did.

CUOMO: They wanted to put in there that we would give help with lethal weaponry and they changed it to soften it.

GIULIANI: GIULIANI: And they took it out and then they put back in that they were going to give substantial help to Ukraine --

CUOMO: Right. But not the same.

GIULIANI: -- which was not --

CUOMO: It was not even soften --

GIULIANI: -- the Democratic platform, by the way.

CUOMO: It was softened. Who did it?

GIULIANI: -- which was not the Democratic platform.

CUOMO: And why they did it? We don't know.

GIULIANI: And the President had no knowledge of that. I happen to know that. I question him about --

CUOMO: He didn't know about his own party's platform?

GIULIANI: Chris, come on, you've been around politics. They don't -- candidates don't know a damned thing about the platform. They don't pay any attention to their platform.

CUOMO: I was raised by a guy who would have corrected the punctuation in the party platform.

GIULIANI: Well, that will maybe was different. But I've been where a lot of presidents and a lot of presidential campaigns. And their platform, they pay no attention to it. They care about their acceptance speech. That's what they spent their time off.

CUOMO: Fine.


link
edit on 17-1-2019 by BlackJackal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

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.


Conspiracy, itself, isn't a crime either, though. You have to prove conspiracy to commit a crime. That;s part of the issue here. Meeting with Russians, talking with Russians, trying to negotiate business deals with Russians, etc aren't crimes. Hell, "influencing an election" isn't a crime considering every campaign cent spent by anyone running for an office or supporting a candidate is an effort to "influence an election." The Dems have yet to produce any actual crimes related to the campaign and their interaction with Russia... all they've managed to do is pick up a couple of cases of tax cheating and a couple cases of lying to investigators...



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   
For the record, I dislike Giuliani. He's always spoken in riddles and, frankly, I think he's stuck his foot in his mouth since day 1 and was a poor choice by Trump to represent him in the media's courtroom. I don't trust the man.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Propagandalf

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?



I personally didn't hear it on CNN but rather a recap of the interview on NPR, and honestly I can't remember what he was discussing right up to that point. I thought the OP and discussion herein was Rudy's contradiction from a past interview. Is that not the case?


It is the topic of the OP, and it is another example of CNN peddling irrelevant piffle to its base while the main points go unreported. They just created a controversy out of nothing.


Here you go this is the transcript of the interview. As you can clearly see this is exactly as it has been reported Giuliani is contradicting his past statements and those of President Trump as well.


CUOMO: 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: Well, you just misstated my position. I never said there was no collusion between the campaign! Or between people in the campaign --

CUOMO: Yes, you have.

GIULIANI: I have no idea -- I have not. 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.

CUOMO: First of all, crime is not the bar of accountability for a President. It's about what you knew -- GIULIANI: Well, he didn't collude with Russia either!

CUOMO: -- what was right, what was wrong, and what did you concede about?

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: We said nobody had any contact, bunch of people have contact, nobody colluded, the guy running his campaign was working on an issue at the same time as the convention.

GIULIANI: He said he didn't. He didn't say nobody. How would you know that nobody in your campaign --

CUOMO: He actually did say that, Rudy. He said, nobody, and then he said, as far as I know.

GIULIANI: Well, as far as he knows, it's true.

CUOMO: But I don't know that it's true. How did Paul Manafort do all of these things and nobody knew?

GIULIANI: He was only there for six months or four months.

CUOMO: He was there for the convention when they change the platform. He gave the polling data, Cambridge Analytica. You don't have the same questions about them as you do the dossier.

GIULIANI: And they ended up -- how about reporting this, and they ended up with a stronger platform on Ukraine than they started with --

[21:10:03] CUOMO: No, they didn't.

GIULIANI: Yes, they did.

CUOMO: They wanted to put in there that we would give help with lethal weaponry and they changed it to soften it.

GIULIANI: GIULIANI: And they took it out and then they put back in that they were going to give substantial help to Ukraine --

CUOMO: Right. But not the same.

GIULIANI: -- which was not --

CUOMO: It was not even soften --

GIULIANI: -- the Democratic platform, by the way.

CUOMO: It was softened. Who did it?

GIULIANI: -- which was not the Democratic platform.

CUOMO: And why they did it? We don't know.

GIULIANI: And the President had no knowledge of that. I happen to know that. I question him about --

CUOMO: He didn't know about his own party's platform?

GIULIANI: Chris, come on, you've been around politics. They don't -- candidates don't know a damned thing about the platform. They don't pay any attention to their platform.

CUOMO: I was raised by a guy who would have corrected the punctuation in the party platform.

GIULIANI: Well, that will maybe was different. But I've been where a lot of presidents and a lot of presidential campaigns. And their platform, they pay no attention to it. They care about their acceptance speech. That's what they spent their time off.

CUOMO: Fine.


What's missing from your "transcript" is the entire thrust of Giuliani's arguments. It's an over 20 minute interview, and your "transcript" covers about a minute of it.

Here's the interview.




posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername

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.


You have to admit it's fun to watch though.

Like watching a homeless drug addict that has found a garbage bag full of cash, grabbed it and running with it, imagining all of the things that can be done with all of that money, and hasn't realized it's all worthless adverts made to look like real money yet.



It's embarrassing.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
For the record, I dislike Giuliani. He's always spoken in riddles and, frankly, I think he's stuck his foot in his mouth since day 1 and was a poor choice by Trump to represent him in the media's courtroom. I don't trust the man.


I agree with this. I can't figure out why Trump hasn't kicked him to the curb after his first 5 gaffs..



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
For the record, I dislike Giuliani. He's always spoken in riddles and, frankly, I think he's stuck his foot in his mouth since day 1 and was a poor choice by Trump to represent him in the media's courtroom. I don't trust the man.


Don't let the speech police sway you. Giuliani destroys the Russian hoax, CNN, Cuomo, and their base in this interview. But no one would know because they find an irrelevant angle in order to hide it. It worked, apparently.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: BlackJackal

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.


Conspiracy, itself, isn't a crime either, though. You have to prove conspiracy to commit a crime. That;s part of the issue here. Meeting with Russians, talking with Russians, trying to negotiate business deals with Russians, etc aren't crimes. Hell, "influencing an election" isn't a crime considering every campaign cent spent by anyone running for an office or supporting a candidate is an effort to "influence an election." The Dems have yet to produce any actual crimes related to the campaign and their interaction with Russia... all they've managed to do is pick up a couple of cases of tax cheating and a couple cases of lying to investigators...


Very well, conspiracy to alter the presidential election with the help of a foreign adversarial government. That is the actual crime that is being investigated by Mueller. Sure, he may be unable to prove that happenened but to act like it’s not a crime is ridiculous. Collusion is used as a stand in term and nothing more.

It’s also not the “Dems” job to produce this evidence, that is the job assigned to Mueller. He has already linked members of the Trump campaign to the Russian government during the campaign. Trumps long time personal lawyer who gave many campaign speeches for Trump while they traveled across the country in 2016, has been convicted of felonies that Trump himself are implicated in. Additionally Cohen has said that he was directed by Trump to travel to Russia during the campaign.

You obviously haven’t been paying attention or you are just getting your news from Hannity because there has been ample information linking the Trump campaign to Russia in recent court filings. But good try!



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:18 PM
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.


So I looked it up. There's a legal definition of collusion (you can see it here)

More importantly, this comes up against an act of the government that dates to the Founding Fathers: The Logan Act

In brief, from Wikipedia: " The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States."

It is a felony at the Federal level.

So it's well documented that all the Founding Fathers would have a real problem with any proven collusion with Russia to win an election.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Propagandalf

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?



I personally didn't hear it on CNN but rather a recap of the interview on NPR, and honestly I can't remember what he was discussing right up to that point. I thought the OP and discussion herein was Rudy's contradiction from a past interview. Is that not the case?


It is the topic of the OP, and it is another example of CNN peddling irrelevant piffle to its base while the main points go unreported. They just created a controversy out of nothing.


Here you go this is the transcript of the interview. As you can clearly see this is exactly as it has been reported Giuliani is contradicting his past statements and those of President Trump as well.


CUOMO: 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: Well, you just misstated my position. I never said there was no collusion between the campaign! Or between people in the campaign --

CUOMO: Yes, you have.

GIULIANI: I have no idea -- I have not. 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.

CUOMO: First of all, crime is not the bar of accountability for a President. It's about what you knew -- GIULIANI: Well, he didn't collude with Russia either!

CUOMO: -- what was right, what was wrong, and what did you concede about?

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: We said nobody had any contact, bunch of people have contact, nobody colluded, the guy running his campaign was working on an issue at the same time as the convention.

GIULIANI: He said he didn't. He didn't say nobody. How would you know that nobody in your campaign --

CUOMO: He actually did say that, Rudy. He said, nobody, and then he said, as far as I know.

GIULIANI: Well, as far as he knows, it's true.

CUOMO: But I don't know that it's true. How did Paul Manafort do all of these things and nobody knew?

GIULIANI: He was only there for six months or four months.

CUOMO: He was there for the convention when they change the platform. He gave the polling data, Cambridge Analytica. You don't have the same questions about them as you do the dossier.

GIULIANI: And they ended up -- how about reporting this, and they ended up with a stronger platform on Ukraine than they started with --

[21:10:03] CUOMO: No, they didn't.

GIULIANI: Yes, they did.

CUOMO: They wanted to put in there that we would give help with lethal weaponry and they changed it to soften it.

GIULIANI: GIULIANI: And they took it out and then they put back in that they were going to give substantial help to Ukraine --

CUOMO: Right. But not the same.

GIULIANI: -- which was not --

CUOMO: It was not even soften --

GIULIANI: -- the Democratic platform, by the way.

CUOMO: It was softened. Who did it?

GIULIANI: -- which was not the Democratic platform.

CUOMO: And why they did it? We don't know.

GIULIANI: And the President had no knowledge of that. I happen to know that. I question him about --

CUOMO: He didn't know about his own party's platform?

GIULIANI: Chris, come on, you've been around politics. They don't -- candidates don't know a damned thing about the platform. They don't pay any attention to their platform.

CUOMO: I was raised by a guy who would have corrected the punctuation in the party platform.

GIULIANI: Well, that will maybe was different. But I've been where a lot of presidents and a lot of presidential campaigns. And their platform, they pay no attention to it. They care about their acceptance speech. That's what they spent their time off.

CUOMO: Fine.


What's missing from your "transcript" is the entire thrust of Giuliani's arguments. It's an over 20 minute interview, and your "transcript" covers about a minute of it.

Here's the interview.



For those of us who don't have time to watch a 20 minute interview (lunch break), what is the thrust of his argument that nullifies his contradictions?

I'm not asking in sarcasm, I'd genuinely like a summary of the thrust of his argument so I can continue with the conversation, but I can't watch videos during work hours.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

What's missing from your "transcript" is the entire thrust of Giuliani's arguments. It's an over 20 minute interview, and your "transcript" covers about a minute of it.



Here's what Giuliani said... "I have not. 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." [url=https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/Politics/collusion-rudy-giuliani-rants-mueller-investigation-cnn-interview/story?id=60440021]source[/ url]

So he's denying that Trump conspired on the hacking. Not other forms of collusion.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
For the record, I dislike Giuliani. He's always spoken in riddles and, frankly, I think he's stuck his foot in his mouth since day 1 and was a poor choice by Trump to represent him in the media's courtroom. I don't trust the man.


Don't let the speech police sway you.


I'm not. I didn't care for Rudy long before he joined the campaign. He's the prototypical east coast liberal Republican.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

The contradiction is completely irrelevant to the entire discussion, and I'm not sure why you'd focus on it unless you wanted to avoid the relevant parts.

If you want to play around with Giulianni's contradiction, be my guest, by I refuse to inform you of the rest.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

I wouldn't believe Cohen if he said water was wet. Look at it this way, Cohen allegedly lied for Trump in exchange for personal gain... so anyone who believes that clearly recognizes he's willing to lie for money or other tangible benefit, why would anyone who believes that to be the case now magically believe him? Is it purely because he's now spouting their desired narrative? If so, welcome to hypocrisy.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join