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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. 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." -Giuliani

There's video of him saying that exact quote. What do you mean we're lying?

ETA: He's also said there was absolutely no collusion about a dozen times at least, and that's the contradiction. Now he's saying he never said that, but he has, many times.


Where did he say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?


He didn't. I never said he did.

What I said was that he has said many times that there was no collusion whatsoever. Now, he said that he never said that, he only said that Trump himself didn't collude but he doesn't know about people on the campaign.

That's a pretty big backtrack.


No it isn't.


Why isn't it?

No less than 10 times, Giuliani himself has said that there was absolutely no collusion from anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
Now he said that he actually never said that (a lie), and that he only knows about Trump himself. He's dismissing something that he's said over 10 times by lying about it. That seems big to me.


I don't trust your value judgements at all.

The only example of collusion Cuomo was able to muster was Manafort, and Giulianni said straight up "It's not collusion".

Clearly Giulianni is defending his client here with his goalpost moving, but in no way is he ceding anything about collusion between Russia and the president or his campaign.



And Paul Manafort was.......... the......... Trump ........Campaign.......... Manager......... who........colluded.......with..........Russia........

So the Campaign manager colluded with Russia while he was in that position but that doesn’t prove collusion between the campaign and Russia? When that happens and you still say “nope, nothing happened” you are delusional.


CUOMO: There are two coincidences to answer for. The first is, is Manafort is viable at the head campaign when that's going on. Then he's viable at the head of the campaign giving polling data that winds up having the same faces and places targeted by the campaign that are targeted by Russian trolls. How is that not collusion?

GIULIANI: It's not collusion.




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

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. 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." -Giuliani

There's video of him saying that exact quote. What do you mean we're lying?

ETA: He's also said there was absolutely no collusion about a dozen times at least, and that's the contradiction. Now he's saying he never said that, but he has, many times.


Where did he say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?


He didn't. I never said he did.

What I said was that he has said many times that there was no collusion whatsoever. Now, he said that he never said that, he only said that Trump himself didn't collude but he doesn't know about people on the campaign.

That's a pretty big backtrack.


No it isn't.


Why isn't it?

No less than 10 times, Giuliani himself has said that there was absolutely no collusion from anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
Now he said that he actually never said that (a lie), and that he only knows about Trump himself. He's dismissing something that he's said over 10 times by lying about it. That seems big to me.


I don't trust your value judgements at all.

The only example of collusion Cuomo was able to muster was Manafort, and Giulianni said straight up "It's not collusion".

Clearly Giulianni is defending his client here with his goalpost moving, but in no way is he ceding anything about collusion between Russia and the president or his campaign.



My value judgments? The guy is lying. You're defending his decision to do so.


You're lying. Unless you're a mind-reader, you don't know if he's intending to deceive or if he simply forgot what he said before.


Neither do you. For all you know, he could be lying through his teeth.

So now he's just forgetful. Tell you what: if he comes out and says "you know what, I misspoke, I actually have said that before, seeing as how there's recordings of me saying it. But now I'm correcting myself."

Then I will believe he forgot what he said before. Until then, I'll skew towards the side of lying, because I seriously doubt that that he forgot. I mean, it's been the linchpin of his argument for quite a while now, and it's not like he just said it one time, he's repeated it over and over. Why would he just now forget the crux of his collusion argument?



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


Dude you need professional help. It’s right there in black and white. You keep saying we are lying but it’s plain as day in the video and in the transcript.

Here is an interview from July 2018 that has this bit of dialog from Giuliani:


Fox News' Guy Benson: "Regardless of whether collusion would be a crime, is it still the position of you and your client that there was no collusion with the Russians whatsoever on behalf of the Trump campaign?"

Giuliani: "Correct."


link

Yet, now he says he never said that.

What do you see in this interview that makes you think he hasn’t changed his position?


Oh, now you know his position. Uh, no, you don't.


You are attempting to ignore reality. Please excuse the rest of us if we just sit you in the corner and ignore your nonsense.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. 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." -Giuliani

There's video of him saying that exact quote. What do you mean we're lying?

ETA: He's also said there was absolutely no collusion about a dozen times at least, and that's the contradiction. Now he's saying he never said that, but he has, many times.


Where did he say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?


He didn't. I never said he did.

What I said was that he has said many times that there was no collusion whatsoever. Now, he said that he never said that, he only said that Trump himself didn't collude but he doesn't know about people on the campaign.

That's a pretty big backtrack.


No it isn't.


Why isn't it?

No less than 10 times, Giuliani himself has said that there was absolutely no collusion from anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
Now he said that he actually never said that (a lie), and that he only knows about Trump himself. He's dismissing something that he's said over 10 times by lying about it. That seems big to me.


I don't trust your value judgements at all.

The only example of collusion Cuomo was able to muster was Manafort, and Giulianni said straight up "It's not collusion".

Clearly Giulianni is defending his client here with his goalpost moving, but in no way is he ceding anything about collusion between Russia and the president or his campaign.



And Paul Manafort was.......... the......... Trump ........Campaign.......... Manager......... who........colluded.......with..........Russia........

So the Campaign manager colluded with Russia while he was in that position but that doesn’t prove collusion between the campaign and Russia? When that happens and you still say “nope, nothing happened” you are delusional.


CUOMO: There are two coincidences to answer for. The first is, is Manafort is viable at the head campaign when that's going on. Then he's viable at the head of the campaign giving polling data that winds up having the same faces and places targeted by the campaign that are targeted by Russian trolls. How is that not collusion?

GIULIANI: It's not collusion.



Just because Giuliani says it, doesn't make it so.

Why do you believe it isn't collusion just because he says it isn't?

"We have video of you bribing the guy."
"It isn't bribery."
"Oh, ok."
edit on 17-1-2019 by narrator because: ETA



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. 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." -Giuliani

There's video of him saying that exact quote. What do you mean we're lying?

ETA: He's also said there was absolutely no collusion about a dozen times at least, and that's the contradiction. Now he's saying he never said that, but he has, many times.


Where did he say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?


He didn't. I never said he did.

What I said was that he has said many times that there was no collusion whatsoever. Now, he said that he never said that, he only said that Trump himself didn't collude but he doesn't know about people on the campaign.

That's a pretty big backtrack.


No it isn't.


Why isn't it?

No less than 10 times, Giuliani himself has said that there was absolutely no collusion from anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
Now he said that he actually never said that (a lie), and that he only knows about Trump himself. He's dismissing something that he's said over 10 times by lying about it. That seems big to me.


I don't trust your value judgements at all.

The only example of collusion Cuomo was able to muster was Manafort, and Giulianni said straight up "It's not collusion".

Clearly Giulianni is defending his client here with his goalpost moving, but in no way is he ceding anything about collusion between Russia and the president or his campaign.



My value judgments? The guy is lying. You're defending his decision to do so.


You're lying. Unless you're a mind-reader, you don't know if he's intending to deceive or if he simply forgot what he said before.


Neither do you. For all you know, he could be lying through his teeth.

So now he's just forgetful. Tell you what: if he comes out and says "you know what, I misspoke, I actually have said that before, seeing as how there's recordings of me saying it. But now I'm correcting myself."

Then I will believe he forgot what he said before. Until then, I'll skew towards the side of lying, because I seriously doubt that that he forgot. I mean, it's been the linchpin of his argument for quite a while now, and it's not like he just said it one time, he's repeated it over and over. Why would he just now forget the crux of his collusion argument?


Right, side with your own cynicism. But it's the height of hubris to imagine the lowest possible motives in your opponent, and further to believe you got it right.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


Dude you need professional help. It’s right there in black and white. You keep saying we are lying but it’s plain as day in the video and in the transcript.

Here is an interview from July 2018 that has this bit of dialog from Giuliani:


Fox News' Guy Benson: "Regardless of whether collusion would be a crime, is it still the position of you and your client that there was no collusion with the Russians whatsoever on behalf of the Trump campaign?"

Giuliani: "Correct."


link

Yet, now he says he never said that.

What do you see in this interview that makes you think he hasn’t changed his position?


Oh, now you know his position. Uh, no, you don't.


You are attempting to ignore reality. Please excuse the rest of us if we just sit you in the corner and ignore your nonsense.


Like you did the rest of the interview? Fine by me. Have fun with your irrelevant tangents.



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

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. 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." -Giuliani

There's video of him saying that exact quote. What do you mean we're lying?

ETA: He's also said there was absolutely no collusion about a dozen times at least, and that's the contradiction. Now he's saying he never said that, but he has, many times.


Where did he say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?


He didn't. I never said he did.

What I said was that he has said many times that there was no collusion whatsoever. Now, he said that he never said that, he only said that Trump himself didn't collude but he doesn't know about people on the campaign.

That's a pretty big backtrack.


No it isn't.


Why isn't it?

No less than 10 times, Giuliani himself has said that there was absolutely no collusion from anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
Now he said that he actually never said that (a lie), and that he only knows about Trump himself. He's dismissing something that he's said over 10 times by lying about it. That seems big to me.


I don't trust your value judgements at all.

The only example of collusion Cuomo was able to muster was Manafort, and Giulianni said straight up "It's not collusion".

Clearly Giulianni is defending his client here with his goalpost moving, but in no way is he ceding anything about collusion between Russia and the president or his campaign.



And Paul Manafort was.......... the......... Trump ........Campaign.......... Manager......... who........colluded.......with..........Russia........

So the Campaign manager colluded with Russia while he was in that position but that doesn’t prove collusion between the campaign and Russia? When that happens and you still say “nope, nothing happened” you are delusional.


CUOMO: There are two coincidences to answer for. The first is, is Manafort is viable at the head campaign when that's going on. Then he's viable at the head of the campaign giving polling data that winds up having the same faces and places targeted by the campaign that are targeted by Russian trolls. How is that not collusion?

GIULIANI: It's not collusion.



Just because Giuliani says it, doesn't make it so.

Why do you believe it isn't collusion just because he says it isn't?

"We have video of you bribing the guy."
"It isn't bribery."
"Oh, ok."


Just because you say it doesn't make it so either.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. 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." -Giuliani

There's video of him saying that exact quote. What do you mean we're lying?

ETA: He's also said there was absolutely no collusion about a dozen times at least, and that's the contradiction. Now he's saying he never said that, but he has, many times.


Where did he say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?


He didn't. I never said he did.

What I said was that he has said many times that there was no collusion whatsoever. Now, he said that he never said that, he only said that Trump himself didn't collude but he doesn't know about people on the campaign.

That's a pretty big backtrack.


No it isn't.


Why isn't it?

No less than 10 times, Giuliani himself has said that there was absolutely no collusion from anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
Now he said that he actually never said that (a lie), and that he only knows about Trump himself. He's dismissing something that he's said over 10 times by lying about it. That seems big to me.


I don't trust your value judgements at all.

The only example of collusion Cuomo was able to muster was Manafort, and Giulianni said straight up "It's not collusion".

Clearly Giulianni is defending his client here with his goalpost moving, but in no way is he ceding anything about collusion between Russia and the president or his campaign.



And Paul Manafort was.......... the......... Trump ........Campaign.......... Manager......... who........colluded.......with..........Russia........

So the Campaign manager colluded with Russia while he was in that position but that doesn’t prove collusion between the campaign and Russia? When that happens and you still say “nope, nothing happened” you are delusional.


CUOMO: There are two coincidences to answer for. The first is, is Manafort is viable at the head campaign when that's going on. Then he's viable at the head of the campaign giving polling data that winds up having the same faces and places targeted by the campaign that are targeted by Russian trolls. How is that not collusion?

GIULIANI: It's not collusion.



Just because Giuliani says it, doesn't make it so.

Why do you believe it isn't collusion just because he says it isn't?

"We have video of you bribing the guy."
"It isn't bribery."
"Oh, ok."


Just because you say it doesn't make it so either.


So you feel that (if) Manafort gave campaign information to Russia, it isn't collusion?

If you believe that, then we are at an impasse, as we will never reach a conclusion to this discussion.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. 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." -Giuliani

There's video of him saying that exact quote. What do you mean we're lying?

ETA: He's also said there was absolutely no collusion about a dozen times at least, and that's the contradiction. Now he's saying he never said that, but he has, many times.


Where did he say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?


He didn't. I never said he did.

What I said was that he has said many times that there was no collusion whatsoever. Now, he said that he never said that, he only said that Trump himself didn't collude but he doesn't know about people on the campaign.

That's a pretty big backtrack.


No it isn't.


Why isn't it?

No less than 10 times, Giuliani himself has said that there was absolutely no collusion from anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
Now he said that he actually never said that (a lie), and that he only knows about Trump himself. He's dismissing something that he's said over 10 times by lying about it. That seems big to me.


I don't trust your value judgements at all.

The only example of collusion Cuomo was able to muster was Manafort, and Giulianni said straight up "It's not collusion".

Clearly Giulianni is defending his client here with his goalpost moving, but in no way is he ceding anything about collusion between Russia and the president or his campaign.



And Paul Manafort was.......... the......... Trump ........Campaign.......... Manager......... who........colluded.......with..........Russia........

So the Campaign manager colluded with Russia while he was in that position but that doesn’t prove collusion between the campaign and Russia? When that happens and you still say “nope, nothing happened” you are delusional.


CUOMO: There are two coincidences to answer for. The first is, is Manafort is viable at the head campaign when that's going on. Then he's viable at the head of the campaign giving polling data that winds up having the same faces and places targeted by the campaign that are targeted by Russian trolls. How is that not collusion?

GIULIANI: It's not collusion.



Just because Giuliani says it, doesn't make it so.

Why do you believe it isn't collusion just because he says it isn't?

"We have video of you bribing the guy."
"It isn't bribery."
"Oh, ok."


Just because you say it doesn't make it so either.


So you feel that (if) Manafort gave campaign information to Russia, it isn't collusion?

If you believe that, then we are at an impasse, as we will never reach a conclusion to this discussion.


He was giving the information to the Ukrainians. You might know that had the NYT reported on it properly. Here's their correction, made long after the publication.

"A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data. Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin."

www.nytimes.com...

This is your Russian collusion?

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



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. 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." -Giuliani

There's video of him saying that exact quote. What do you mean we're lying?

ETA: He's also said there was absolutely no collusion about a dozen times at least, and that's the contradiction. Now he's saying he never said that, but he has, many times.


Where did he say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?


He didn't. I never said he did.

What I said was that he has said many times that there was no collusion whatsoever. Now, he said that he never said that, he only said that Trump himself didn't collude but he doesn't know about people on the campaign.

That's a pretty big backtrack.


No it isn't.


Why isn't it?

No less than 10 times, Giuliani himself has said that there was absolutely no collusion from anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
Now he said that he actually never said that (a lie), and that he only knows about Trump himself. He's dismissing something that he's said over 10 times by lying about it. That seems big to me.


I don't trust your value judgements at all.

The only example of collusion Cuomo was able to muster was Manafort, and Giulianni said straight up "It's not collusion".

Clearly Giulianni is defending his client here with his goalpost moving, but in no way is he ceding anything about collusion between Russia and the president or his campaign.



And Paul Manafort was.......... the......... Trump ........Campaign.......... Manager......... who........colluded.......with..........Russia........

So the Campaign manager colluded with Russia while he was in that position but that doesn’t prove collusion between the campaign and Russia? When that happens and you still say “nope, nothing happened” you are delusional.


CUOMO: There are two coincidences to answer for. The first is, is Manafort is viable at the head campaign when that's going on. Then he's viable at the head of the campaign giving polling data that winds up having the same faces and places targeted by the campaign that are targeted by Russian trolls. How is that not collusion?

GIULIANI: It's not collusion.



Just because Giuliani says it, doesn't make it so.

Why do you believe it isn't collusion just because he says it isn't?

"We have video of you bribing the guy."
"It isn't bribery."
"Oh, ok."


Just because you say it doesn't make it so either.


So you feel that (if) Manafort gave campaign information to Russia, it isn't collusion?

If you believe that, then we are at an impasse, as we will never reach a conclusion to this discussion.


He was giving the information to the Ukrainians. You might know that had the NYT reported on it properly. Here's their correction, made long after the publication.

"A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data. Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin."

www.nytimes.com...

This is your Russian collusion?


Assuming all of that is true: Ukrainian collusion then. That's still really bad. Which country it is doesn't really matter, does it? Collusion is collusion.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. 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." -Giuliani

There's video of him saying that exact quote. What do you mean we're lying?

ETA: He's also said there was absolutely no collusion about a dozen times at least, and that's the contradiction. Now he's saying he never said that, but he has, many times.


Where did he say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?


He didn't. I never said he did.

What I said was that he has said many times that there was no collusion whatsoever. Now, he said that he never said that, he only said that Trump himself didn't collude but he doesn't know about people on the campaign.

That's a pretty big backtrack.


No it isn't.


Why isn't it?

No less than 10 times, Giuliani himself has said that there was absolutely no collusion from anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
Now he said that he actually never said that (a lie), and that he only knows about Trump himself. He's dismissing something that he's said over 10 times by lying about it. That seems big to me.


I don't trust your value judgements at all.

The only example of collusion Cuomo was able to muster was Manafort, and Giulianni said straight up "It's not collusion".

Clearly Giulianni is defending his client here with his goalpost moving, but in no way is he ceding anything about collusion between Russia and the president or his campaign.



And Paul Manafort was.......... the......... Trump ........Campaign.......... Manager......... who........colluded.......with..........Russia........

So the Campaign manager colluded with Russia while he was in that position but that doesn’t prove collusion between the campaign and Russia? When that happens and you still say “nope, nothing happened” you are delusional.


CUOMO: There are two coincidences to answer for. The first is, is Manafort is viable at the head campaign when that's going on. Then he's viable at the head of the campaign giving polling data that winds up having the same faces and places targeted by the campaign that are targeted by Russian trolls. How is that not collusion?

GIULIANI: It's not collusion.



Just because Giuliani says it, doesn't make it so.

Why do you believe it isn't collusion just because he says it isn't?

"We have video of you bribing the guy."
"It isn't bribery."
"Oh, ok."


Just because you say it doesn't make it so either.


So you feel that (if) Manafort gave campaign information to Russia, it isn't collusion?

If you believe that, then we are at an impasse, as we will never reach a conclusion to this discussion.


He was giving the information to the Ukrainians. You might know that had the NYT reported on it properly. Here's their correction, made long after the publication.

"A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data. Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin."

www.nytimes.com...

This is your Russian collusion?


Assuming all of that is true: Ukrainian collusion then. That's still really bad. Which country it is doesn't really matter, does it? Collusion is collusion.


Collusion to do what? Manafort and his contact were discussing a Ukrainian peace plan. Is that what they were colluding to do?
edit on 17-1-2019 by Propagandalf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   
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.”


That line made me do a spit take....Money well spent. It appears he has a penchent for putting his foot squarly in his mouth.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. 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." -Giuliani

There's video of him saying that exact quote. What do you mean we're lying?

ETA: He's also said there was absolutely no collusion about a dozen times at least, and that's the contradiction. Now he's saying he never said that, but he has, many times.


Where did he say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?


He didn't. I never said he did.

What I said was that he has said many times that there was no collusion whatsoever. Now, he said that he never said that, he only said that Trump himself didn't collude but he doesn't know about people on the campaign.

That's a pretty big backtrack.


No it isn't.


Why isn't it?

No less than 10 times, Giuliani himself has said that there was absolutely no collusion from anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
Now he said that he actually never said that (a lie), and that he only knows about Trump himself. He's dismissing something that he's said over 10 times by lying about it. That seems big to me.


I don't trust your value judgements at all.

The only example of collusion Cuomo was able to muster was Manafort, and Giulianni said straight up "It's not collusion".

Clearly Giulianni is defending his client here with his goalpost moving, but in no way is he ceding anything about collusion between Russia and the president or his campaign.



And Paul Manafort was.......... the......... Trump ........Campaign.......... Manager......... who........colluded.......with..........Russia........

So the Campaign manager colluded with Russia while he was in that position but that doesn’t prove collusion between the campaign and Russia? When that happens and you still say “nope, nothing happened” you are delusional.


CUOMO: There are two coincidences to answer for. The first is, is Manafort is viable at the head campaign when that's going on. Then he's viable at the head of the campaign giving polling data that winds up having the same faces and places targeted by the campaign that are targeted by Russian trolls. How is that not collusion?

GIULIANI: It's not collusion.



Just because Giuliani says it, doesn't make it so.

Why do you believe it isn't collusion just because he says it isn't?

"We have video of you bribing the guy."
"It isn't bribery."
"Oh, ok."


Just because you say it doesn't make it so either.


So you feel that (if) Manafort gave campaign information to Russia, it isn't collusion?

If you believe that, then we are at an impasse, as we will never reach a conclusion to this discussion.


He was giving the information to the Ukrainians. You might know that had the NYT reported on it properly. Here's their correction, made long after the publication.

"A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data. Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin."

www.nytimes.com...

This is your Russian collusion?


Assuming all of that is true: Ukrainian collusion then. That's still really bad. Which country it is doesn't really matter, does it? Collusion is collusion.


Collusion to do what? Manafort and his contact were discussing a Ukrainian peace plan. Is that what they were colluding to do?


He's accused of giving Trump's campaign information to someone with Russian links. A Ukrainian, according to you. For sake of argument, let's say they are just a Ukrainian, no Russian ties. Why would Manafort have given them that information if they were only discussing a peace plan?



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Why don’t you explain yourself instead of continually saying listen to the interview. I have listened to it and read the entire transcript. No where in there does anything Giuliani say change the fact that he changed his point of view and ceded the fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Unless you have a quote from the interview or an interpretation that contradicts that, you are doing nothing but attempting to muddy the waters on an issue you are on the wrong side.

So what is it? What about his argument makes you think he didn’t mean what he said?

You are beating around the bush of your argument without actually saying what it is. It appears that you just want everyone to ignore that the contradiction exists and instead act like it doesnt exist at all. Is that your argument?


He ceded no such thing. You guys are lying.


"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. 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." -Giuliani

There's video of him saying that exact quote. What do you mean we're lying?

ETA: He's also said there was absolutely no collusion about a dozen times at least, and that's the contradiction. Now he's saying he never said that, but he has, many times.


Where did he say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?


He didn't. I never said he did.

What I said was that he has said many times that there was no collusion whatsoever. Now, he said that he never said that, he only said that Trump himself didn't collude but he doesn't know about people on the campaign.

That's a pretty big backtrack.


No it isn't.


Why isn't it?

No less than 10 times, Giuliani himself has said that there was absolutely no collusion from anyone involved with the Trump campaign.
Now he said that he actually never said that (a lie), and that he only knows about Trump himself. He's dismissing something that he's said over 10 times by lying about it. That seems big to me.


I don't trust your value judgements at all.

The only example of collusion Cuomo was able to muster was Manafort, and Giulianni said straight up "It's not collusion".

Clearly Giulianni is defending his client here with his goalpost moving, but in no way is he ceding anything about collusion between Russia and the president or his campaign.



And Paul Manafort was.......... the......... Trump ........Campaign.......... Manager......... who........colluded.......with..........Russia........

So the Campaign manager colluded with Russia while he was in that position but that doesn’t prove collusion between the campaign and Russia? When that happens and you still say “nope, nothing happened” you are delusional.


CUOMO: There are two coincidences to answer for. The first is, is Manafort is viable at the head campaign when that's going on. Then he's viable at the head of the campaign giving polling data that winds up having the same faces and places targeted by the campaign that are targeted by Russian trolls. How is that not collusion?

GIULIANI: It's not collusion.



Just because Giuliani says it, doesn't make it so.

Why do you believe it isn't collusion just because he says it isn't?

"We have video of you bribing the guy."
"It isn't bribery."
"Oh, ok."


Just because you say it doesn't make it so either.


So you feel that (if) Manafort gave campaign information to Russia, it isn't collusion?

If you believe that, then we are at an impasse, as we will never reach a conclusion to this discussion.


He was giving the information to the Ukrainians. You might know that had the NYT reported on it properly. Here's their correction, made long after the publication.

"A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data. Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin."

www.nytimes.com...

This is your Russian collusion?


Assuming all of that is true: Ukrainian collusion then. That's still really bad. Which country it is doesn't really matter, does it? Collusion is collusion.


Collusion to do what? Manafort and his contact were discussing a Ukrainian peace plan. Is that what they were colluding to do?


He's accused of giving Trump's campaign information to someone with Russian links. A Ukrainian, according to you. For sake of argument, let's say they are just a Ukrainian, no Russian ties. Why would Manafort have given them that information if they were only discussing a peace plan?


According to the NYT, actually. And it was polling data, to be precise, much of it public information. It's obvious he gave them polling data to keep him informed of the polls.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

How far has good 'ol Rudy sunk in most people's estime ?

What's the betting that he'll correct himself :
"I meant to say "Wasn't any collusion"

A man of his age and experience shouldn't be so grammatically challenged
Mind you, given who's his boss, he's up against the bestest fabulator ...

Or perhaps they're both just going doolaly through age



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cassi3l
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

How far has good 'ol Rudy sunk in most people's estime ?

What's the betting that he'll correct himself :
"I meant to say "Wasn't any collusion"

A man of his age and experience shouldn't be so grammatically challenged
Mind you, given who's his boss, he's up against the bestest fabulator ...

Or perhaps they're both just going doolaly through age


I have said for a long time that Trump is suffering from age-related dementia. Look at his interviews from 10-20 years ago. He could complete sentences and thoughts. He used multi-syllabic words. He had a thought process you could follow.

Now he is just a pitiful, senile old man yelling "get off my lawn, you brown children."
edit on 17-1-2019 by FilthyUSMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Me too !
errr... oops, not that me too !
've been saying the same
Mentally, he does seem a bit "iffy", as we say

Onsetting dementia, Alzheimers...probably has diabetes too
not to mention his narcistic 'issues', pretty sure he has ADHD

But i guess we shouldn't worry our heads too much
as a nice ATS'er will be here presently to remind us that
a nice young Doctor gave The Donald a yuge thumbs up

Wasn't there something about having greatest genes ever ?

"iffy"

Blimey, in race consisting of 4 million competitors
jeebus, these two came 1st and 2nd !?!




posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I think he was talking about plants....and I don't mean the green kind.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Cassi3l

Well, Donald certainly has two very "gifted" sons. I wish them both the best.

Yes, you must be careful when using the term "Me too !" in the context of Donald Trump.




posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Actually, he has 3, not sure about "gifted" though




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join