Home
Pensacola Discussion Forum
This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy
+2
Telstar
Floridatexan
6 posters
Message [Page 1 of 1]
2 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 5/3/2018, 11:41 am
Telstar
Floridatexan wrote:
The perfect mouthpiece for spanky.
3 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 5/3/2018, 12:38 pm
Floridatexan
Telstar wrote:Floridatexan wrote:
The perfect mouthpiece for spanky.
I'm trying to watch the Hannity episode now...yuck.
4 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 5/3/2018, 12:50 pm
Telstar
Floridatexan wrote:Telstar wrote:Floridatexan wrote:
The perfect mouthpiece for spanky.
I'm trying to watch the Hannity episode now...yuck.
Latest from the Minister of Propaganda at Fox News Pravda, Sean Goebbels.
6 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 5/3/2018, 5:06 pm
zsomething
When you put Rudy 9iu11iani on your team, you're completely out of options.
Rudy's the bottom of the barrel, and they're scraping it.
And, lo and behold, they're already sorry for that.
Rudy's probably the only rat so in need of attention that he'll jump onto a sinking ship. Fine. If anybody deserves to go down with it, it's him.
Rudy's the bottom of the barrel, and they're scraping it.
And, lo and behold, they're already sorry for that.
Rudy's probably the only rat so in need of attention that he'll jump onto a sinking ship. Fine. If anybody deserves to go down with it, it's him.
7 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 5/3/2018, 5:46 pm
Deus X
zsomething wrote:When you put Rudy 9iu11iani on your team, you're completely out of options.
Rudy's the bottom of the barrel, and they're scraping it.
And, lo and behold, they're already sorry for that.
Rudy's probably the only rat so in need of attention that he'll jump onto a sinking ship. Fine. If anybody deserves to go down with it, it's him.
Sure is fun to watch! You GO, Rudy!
8 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 5/6/2018, 8:13 am
Floridatexan
Rudy, Subjectively
Things have been moving rather quickly the last day or so, so I’m not surprised that no one I’ve heard in the media has pointed out the obvious about the new guy on Team Trump:
Rudy Giuliani is now a subject in at least two criminal investigations.
Because all of us Junior Lawyers have already parsed the difference between Subjects and Targets, I needn’t belabor the point that Mr. Giuliani is not, necessarily, culpable in any criminal case.
But I will gladly this night bet one hundred American dollars, cash, that he will be subpoenaed by either Robert Mueller’s office or the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York or both, because he has indicated he has information valuable to both of those offices in ongoing investigations.
Speaking last night and this morning on the FOX News network, Giuliani asserted both a detailed knowledge of Donald Trump’s motivations in firing FBI Director Comey (“He wouldn’t say the president wasn’t under investigation”) and detailed knowledge of the methods by which Stormy Daniels was paid to keep her from revealing a story that might damage Trump in the final weeks of the presidential campaign (“Can you imagine if this had come out in October?”).
Whether his words were born in booze, bravado or a skull too thick to process liability at speed, Giuliani guaranteed himself at seat at the tables of power, though not the ones on the seventh floor of 21st and Virginia Avenues, where he once dreamed of sitting.
Mr. Mayor, I sure hope the years of disaster celebrity and TV hate preaching haven’t dimmed your knowledge of how to act around professional prosecutors, because you’re going to need to work those chops again really soon.
Subjectively speaking.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/3/1761884/-Rudy-Subjectively?detail=emaildkre
9 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 5/6/2018, 7:34 pm
PkrBum
Remember when bill taking advantage of an intern? Ya... that was "just sex". While leftists attacked victims.
Btw: Mr Clinton also paid $850,000 to former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones to settle a sexual harassment claim against him.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-debate.amp.html
She expressed bitterness that liberals and feminists did not believe her or the other accusers at the time. “They’re hypocrites,” she said. “They worship at the altar of all things Clinton. They’re all over Roy Moore, but they had nothing to say about Bill Clinton when he was accused of doing what he was accused of doing.”
Paula Jones, another accuser, said they were not taken seriously until now. “It’s like me and Juanita and Kathleen have been screaming for years for someone to pay attention to us on the liberal side, and it’s like no one would hear us,” she said by telephone. “They made fun of me. They didn’t believe me. They said I was making it up.”
Mr. Clinton’s behavior, proved or otherwise, has long been an uncomfortable subject for Democrats. Many chose to defend him for his White House trysts with Ms. Lewinsky because, despite the power differential between a president and a former intern, she was a willing partner. To this day, Ms. Lewinsky rejects the idea that she was a victim because of the affair; “any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath” when the political system took over, as she wrote in 2014.
Ms. Willey, Ms. Broaddrick and Ms. Jones, however, described unwilling encounters. Ms. Jones asserted that Mr. Clinton, while he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee, summoned her to a hotel room, dropped his pants and requested oral sex. Ms. Willey, a former White House volunteer, accused him of kissing and groping her in the Oval Office. Ms. Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home owner, alleged that Mr. Clinton forced her to have sex during a meeting on the campaign trail in 1978.
Mr. Clinton’s lawyers have disputed all three charges, although he eventually paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Ms. Jones without admitting wrongdoing, citing the political costs of continuing to fight it. None of those cases was part of the impeachment articles against Mr. Clinton, which rested on whether he lied under oath about his interactions with Ms. Lewinsky and coaxed her to lie, too. The House impeached him along party lines in December 1998, but the Senate acquitted him two months later.
Many Democrats condemned Mr. Clinton at the time, but they opposed his removal from office, citing what they considered the partisan nature of the attempt. The fact that some of his accusers willingly collaborated with Mr. Clinton’s conservative opponents troubled some. Others seized on inconsistencies in the women’s accounts. Ms. Broaddrick, for instance, initially denied that anything happened, saying later that she did so because she did not want to be dragged into the political arena. Ms. Willey later said she suspected the Clintons were somehow involved in the death of her husband, which was called a suicide.
Gloria Steinem, who at the time wrote a column generally defending Mr. Clinton, remains unmoved by time. “Most important is to listen to the women themselves,” she said in an email forwarded by her office on Wednesday. “Please watch Monica Lewinsky’s TED talk. It is important, moving and tells you who the abusers are.” She did not respond to questions about Ms. Broaddrick or the others.
Of course, many liberals and Democrats stood by Mr. Clinton despite the allegations because they agreed with his policy stances and did not want to reward those on the other side. Nina Burleigh, a journalist, wrote a column at the time joking that she would give Mr. Clinton oral sex for protecting abortion rights.
In an email on Wednesday, she said she did not mean to imply she supported sexual harassment. “As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky was a willing participant, not a victim,” she said. As for the other accusations against Mr. Clinton, she said, “Was he a Harvey Weinstein? I doubt it, but I have no evidence either way.”
Still, some on the other side in the 1990s have noticed a change. “Some of the same people who dismissed the women who came forward” then, “it seems like they’re evaluating these issues differently now than they did during that time,” said Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, a Republican who was one of the House impeachment managers.
Mr. Clinton has kept publicly quiet amid the flurry of sexual misconduct stories lately, and his office had no comment on Wednesday. But other Democrats were not as willing to come to his defense this week. Of a dozen prominent political activists contacted on Wednesday, none went on the record on Mr. Clinton’s behalf.
Btw: Mr Clinton also paid $850,000 to former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones to settle a sexual harassment claim against him.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-debate.amp.html
She expressed bitterness that liberals and feminists did not believe her or the other accusers at the time. “They’re hypocrites,” she said. “They worship at the altar of all things Clinton. They’re all over Roy Moore, but they had nothing to say about Bill Clinton when he was accused of doing what he was accused of doing.”
Paula Jones, another accuser, said they were not taken seriously until now. “It’s like me and Juanita and Kathleen have been screaming for years for someone to pay attention to us on the liberal side, and it’s like no one would hear us,” she said by telephone. “They made fun of me. They didn’t believe me. They said I was making it up.”
Mr. Clinton’s behavior, proved or otherwise, has long been an uncomfortable subject for Democrats. Many chose to defend him for his White House trysts with Ms. Lewinsky because, despite the power differential between a president and a former intern, she was a willing partner. To this day, Ms. Lewinsky rejects the idea that she was a victim because of the affair; “any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath” when the political system took over, as she wrote in 2014.
Ms. Willey, Ms. Broaddrick and Ms. Jones, however, described unwilling encounters. Ms. Jones asserted that Mr. Clinton, while he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee, summoned her to a hotel room, dropped his pants and requested oral sex. Ms. Willey, a former White House volunteer, accused him of kissing and groping her in the Oval Office. Ms. Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home owner, alleged that Mr. Clinton forced her to have sex during a meeting on the campaign trail in 1978.
Mr. Clinton’s lawyers have disputed all three charges, although he eventually paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Ms. Jones without admitting wrongdoing, citing the political costs of continuing to fight it. None of those cases was part of the impeachment articles against Mr. Clinton, which rested on whether he lied under oath about his interactions with Ms. Lewinsky and coaxed her to lie, too. The House impeached him along party lines in December 1998, but the Senate acquitted him two months later.
Many Democrats condemned Mr. Clinton at the time, but they opposed his removal from office, citing what they considered the partisan nature of the attempt. The fact that some of his accusers willingly collaborated with Mr. Clinton’s conservative opponents troubled some. Others seized on inconsistencies in the women’s accounts. Ms. Broaddrick, for instance, initially denied that anything happened, saying later that she did so because she did not want to be dragged into the political arena. Ms. Willey later said she suspected the Clintons were somehow involved in the death of her husband, which was called a suicide.
Gloria Steinem, who at the time wrote a column generally defending Mr. Clinton, remains unmoved by time. “Most important is to listen to the women themselves,” she said in an email forwarded by her office on Wednesday. “Please watch Monica Lewinsky’s TED talk. It is important, moving and tells you who the abusers are.” She did not respond to questions about Ms. Broaddrick or the others.
Of course, many liberals and Democrats stood by Mr. Clinton despite the allegations because they agreed with his policy stances and did not want to reward those on the other side. Nina Burleigh, a journalist, wrote a column at the time joking that she would give Mr. Clinton oral sex for protecting abortion rights.
In an email on Wednesday, she said she did not mean to imply she supported sexual harassment. “As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky was a willing participant, not a victim,” she said. As for the other accusations against Mr. Clinton, she said, “Was he a Harvey Weinstein? I doubt it, but I have no evidence either way.”
Still, some on the other side in the 1990s have noticed a change. “Some of the same people who dismissed the women who came forward” then, “it seems like they’re evaluating these issues differently now than they did during that time,” said Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, a Republican who was one of the House impeachment managers.
Mr. Clinton has kept publicly quiet amid the flurry of sexual misconduct stories lately, and his office had no comment on Wednesday. But other Democrats were not as willing to come to his defense this week. Of a dozen prominent political activists contacted on Wednesday, none went on the record on Mr. Clinton’s behalf.
13 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 5/7/2018, 5:49 pm
Telstar
What the Hell Happened to Rudy Giuliani?
How the former prosecutor and 9/11 hero ended up like this.
If you look at the political history of the past decade, from his failed presidential run in 2008, to his demagogic Republican convention speeches, to his colorful Fox News appearances, Rudolph Giuliani’s emergence on the scene as Donald Trump’s most visible legal surrogate is not particularly surprising. It’s easy to forget that Giuliani, who is now attacking federal law enforcement with glee and warning of dark conspiracies and storm troopers, was once the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York and sold himself to New York voters during his two terms as mayor as the paramount protector and defender and patron of the criminal justice system in its entirety.
To try to understand the arc of Giuliani’s career, I spoke by phone with Andrew Kirtzman, a former New York journalist and current president of Kirtzman Strategies, a bipartisan political consulting firm, and the author of Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed Giuliani’s transformation, why he’s gone all in for Trump, and how to understand his lack of loyalty to the Department of Justice.
Isaac Chotiner: Have you been surprised by the past several weeks?
Andrew Kirtzman: I’m not totally surprised. Giuliani has always had this knack for knowing how to insert himself right in the center of a story. So when this whole thing began, I was a little skeptical he was going to limit his involvement to taking a meeting with Robert Mueller and wrapping this up in two weeks. Once Giuliani is in, he stays in. The only question in my mind was what kind of role he was going to play with Trump: Was he going to calm him down or wind him up? And I think we have gotten our answer the last few days.
He may have a knack for inserting himself right in the center of a story, but Giuliani is also someone very concerned with his image. And yet he doesn’t seem to mind embarrassing himself for Trump. How do you understand that contradiction?
It’s been a gradual evolution. The turning point was, I think, the 2008 race, and it all fell apart. The luster of his brilliant performance on 9/11—and I don’t use the word performance cattily; I think it was brilliant—it lost its power. He has been casting about for a role ever since. If you look at his trajectory after that race, it’s not really pretty. He took a whole bunch of clients who were foreign dictators, and others who were unsavory, and he geared his efforts towards making money and also playing in a sketchy international realm.
He got very “in” with the Palm Beach crowd and the Hamptons crowd and just lost touch with who he once was. His activities in public have grown increasingly out there, from questioning whether Obama loved the country to questioning Hillary Clinton’s health. It was all part of the losing of his image as nonpartisan healer from Sept. 11, and it has just gotten more and more extreme.
Part of the image you talk about was wrapped up in this idea of him as the paramount man of law enforcement. Is the upshot that this part of his image was less sincere than we might have believed?
I keep thinking about his decision in 1994 to endorse Mario Cuomo over his fellow Republican George Pataki for governor. To me, that always stands out as a signal event in his career. For one thing, it was incredibly brave and independent of him. But in addition, what we learned from that episode is that it is his belief that when you enter the fray, it is all or nothing. You go all the way or not at all. His attacks on Pataki in that campaign were venomous. It was quite a sight to behold the Republican mayor going after the Republican gubernatorial candidate. And that has been a mark of his personality and political strategy his whole career. If you are in for a dime, you are in for a dollar. There is no half-way, polite way to do anything in Giuliani’s world.
During his time as mayor, Giuliani had this crime-fighting image as this guy who was tough and rude, but he was also written about as a technocrat. What do you think happened to that part of his political personality, if it indeed existed?
The short answer is that that part of his personality went out the window a long time ago. You are absolutely right: He ran for mayor in 1989 when he was less than prepared, lost to David Dinkins, and then spent much of the next four years studying up on the issues, and learning about experiments in other cities that were working, and learning about “broken windows” and other things that were really forward-thinking back then. That was one of the best things about watching him as mayor from 1993–1997. He was iconoclastic and fearless in pursuing stuff. But that Giuliani is not really the Giuliani we have seen for a long time. He has made the transition to political partisan since then.
Do you feel you have a sense of his current ideology?
I am not talking about his ideology as much as what he was all about, and also the sense of pragmatism and idealism. At some point in his second term, he saw that it was in his best interest to cast his lot with Republicans, and has thrown all his chits into the right-wing pile, and he seems comfortable with that identity. For people who voted for him in New York in the 1990s, there has been a huge amount of anger and disappointment. In New York, I think the majority of people, aside from Staten Island, really dislike him.
What was Giuliani’s relationship with Trump like when he was mayor?
A lot of us New York reporters have been talking to each other about when this all began. None of us could recall any moment when the two of them were particularly close during his time as mayor. The most high-profile collaboration was the video of Giuliani in drag going shopping with Donald Trump, and it was obvious from that that they were pretty simpatico. But I don’t recall them being close. Giuliani’s friends at the time tended to be the people who were close to him politically. It is a very small crew wherever he has gone, and Trump was not it.
I am not asking you to diagnose him, just to be clear. But when you watch him on television now, versus 15 years ago, how do you think he seems?
The brilliant thing about Giuliani from the time he was prosecutor through Sept. 11 was this very lawyerly, factual way of communicating. Even when he was attacking someone, he was extremely persuasive. And that persuasive quality really disappeared at the Republican convention for Trump. It was just a horrible, horrible spectacle. I can’t get into his head as to what happened, but it is depressing. I was with Giuliani on Sept. 11 and experienced that morning with him. I was overwhelmed by his leadership and his calm and his methodical approach to putting things back together, and the inspiring way that he calmed the city and lifted our spirits. It’s always been kind of fashionable in certain liberal circles to hate Giuliani, but I was never on that bandwagon. At all. I have seen him display greatness, and that is why it is so sad to see what he has transformed into.
Isaac Chotiner: Have you been surprised by the past several weeks?
Andrew Kirtzman: I’m not totally surprised. Giuliani has always had this knack for knowing how to insert himself right in the center of a story. So when this whole thing began, I was a little skeptical he was going to limit his involvement to taking a meeting with Robert Mueller and wrapping this up in two weeks. Once Giuliani is in, he stays in. The only question in my mind was what kind of role he was going to play with Trump: Was he going to calm him down or wind him up? And I think we have gotten our answer the last few days.
He may have a knack for inserting himself right in the center of a story, but Giuliani is also someone very concerned with his image. And yet he doesn’t seem to mind embarrassing himself for Trump. How do you understand that contradiction?
It’s been a gradual evolution. The turning point was, I think, the 2008 race, and it all fell apart. The luster of his brilliant performance on 9/11—and I don’t use the word performance cattily; I think it was brilliant—it lost its power. He has been casting about for a role ever since. If you look at his trajectory after that race, it’s not really pretty. He took a whole bunch of clients who were foreign dictators, and others who were unsavory, and he geared his efforts towards making money and also playing in a sketchy international realm.
He got very “in” with the Palm Beach crowd and the Hamptons crowd and just lost touch with who he once was. His activities in public have grown increasingly out there, from questioning whether Obama loved the country to questioning Hillary Clinton’s health. It was all part of the losing of his image as nonpartisan healer from Sept. 11, and it has just gotten more and more extreme.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/rudy-giuliani-how-the-former-prosecutor-and-9-11-hero-ended-up-like-this.html
How the former prosecutor and 9/11 hero ended up like this.
If you look at the political history of the past decade, from his failed presidential run in 2008, to his demagogic Republican convention speeches, to his colorful Fox News appearances, Rudolph Giuliani’s emergence on the scene as Donald Trump’s most visible legal surrogate is not particularly surprising. It’s easy to forget that Giuliani, who is now attacking federal law enforcement with glee and warning of dark conspiracies and storm troopers, was once the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York and sold himself to New York voters during his two terms as mayor as the paramount protector and defender and patron of the criminal justice system in its entirety.
To try to understand the arc of Giuliani’s career, I spoke by phone with Andrew Kirtzman, a former New York journalist and current president of Kirtzman Strategies, a bipartisan political consulting firm, and the author of Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed Giuliani’s transformation, why he’s gone all in for Trump, and how to understand his lack of loyalty to the Department of Justice.
Isaac Chotiner: Have you been surprised by the past several weeks?
Andrew Kirtzman: I’m not totally surprised. Giuliani has always had this knack for knowing how to insert himself right in the center of a story. So when this whole thing began, I was a little skeptical he was going to limit his involvement to taking a meeting with Robert Mueller and wrapping this up in two weeks. Once Giuliani is in, he stays in. The only question in my mind was what kind of role he was going to play with Trump: Was he going to calm him down or wind him up? And I think we have gotten our answer the last few days.
He may have a knack for inserting himself right in the center of a story, but Giuliani is also someone very concerned with his image. And yet he doesn’t seem to mind embarrassing himself for Trump. How do you understand that contradiction?
It’s been a gradual evolution. The turning point was, I think, the 2008 race, and it all fell apart. The luster of his brilliant performance on 9/11—and I don’t use the word performance cattily; I think it was brilliant—it lost its power. He has been casting about for a role ever since. If you look at his trajectory after that race, it’s not really pretty. He took a whole bunch of clients who were foreign dictators, and others who were unsavory, and he geared his efforts towards making money and also playing in a sketchy international realm.
He got very “in” with the Palm Beach crowd and the Hamptons crowd and just lost touch with who he once was. His activities in public have grown increasingly out there, from questioning whether Obama loved the country to questioning Hillary Clinton’s health. It was all part of the losing of his image as nonpartisan healer from Sept. 11, and it has just gotten more and more extreme.
Part of the image you talk about was wrapped up in this idea of him as the paramount man of law enforcement. Is the upshot that this part of his image was less sincere than we might have believed?
I keep thinking about his decision in 1994 to endorse Mario Cuomo over his fellow Republican George Pataki for governor. To me, that always stands out as a signal event in his career. For one thing, it was incredibly brave and independent of him. But in addition, what we learned from that episode is that it is his belief that when you enter the fray, it is all or nothing. You go all the way or not at all. His attacks on Pataki in that campaign were venomous. It was quite a sight to behold the Republican mayor going after the Republican gubernatorial candidate. And that has been a mark of his personality and political strategy his whole career. If you are in for a dime, you are in for a dollar. There is no half-way, polite way to do anything in Giuliani’s world.
During his time as mayor, Giuliani had this crime-fighting image as this guy who was tough and rude, but he was also written about as a technocrat. What do you think happened to that part of his political personality, if it indeed existed?
The short answer is that that part of his personality went out the window a long time ago. You are absolutely right: He ran for mayor in 1989 when he was less than prepared, lost to David Dinkins, and then spent much of the next four years studying up on the issues, and learning about experiments in other cities that were working, and learning about “broken windows” and other things that were really forward-thinking back then. That was one of the best things about watching him as mayor from 1993–1997. He was iconoclastic and fearless in pursuing stuff. But that Giuliani is not really the Giuliani we have seen for a long time. He has made the transition to political partisan since then.
Do you feel you have a sense of his current ideology?
I am not talking about his ideology as much as what he was all about, and also the sense of pragmatism and idealism. At some point in his second term, he saw that it was in his best interest to cast his lot with Republicans, and has thrown all his chits into the right-wing pile, and he seems comfortable with that identity. For people who voted for him in New York in the 1990s, there has been a huge amount of anger and disappointment. In New York, I think the majority of people, aside from Staten Island, really dislike him.
What was Giuliani’s relationship with Trump like when he was mayor?
A lot of us New York reporters have been talking to each other about when this all began. None of us could recall any moment when the two of them were particularly close during his time as mayor. The most high-profile collaboration was the video of Giuliani in drag going shopping with Donald Trump, and it was obvious from that that they were pretty simpatico. But I don’t recall them being close. Giuliani’s friends at the time tended to be the people who were close to him politically. It is a very small crew wherever he has gone, and Trump was not it.
I am not asking you to diagnose him, just to be clear. But when you watch him on television now, versus 15 years ago, how do you think he seems?
The brilliant thing about Giuliani from the time he was prosecutor through Sept. 11 was this very lawyerly, factual way of communicating. Even when he was attacking someone, he was extremely persuasive. And that persuasive quality really disappeared at the Republican convention for Trump. It was just a horrible, horrible spectacle. I can’t get into his head as to what happened, but it is depressing. I was with Giuliani on Sept. 11 and experienced that morning with him. I was overwhelmed by his leadership and his calm and his methodical approach to putting things back together, and the inspiring way that he calmed the city and lifted our spirits. It’s always been kind of fashionable in certain liberal circles to hate Giuliani, but I was never on that bandwagon. At all. I have seen him display greatness, and that is why it is so sad to see what he has transformed into.
Isaac Chotiner: Have you been surprised by the past several weeks?
Andrew Kirtzman: I’m not totally surprised. Giuliani has always had this knack for knowing how to insert himself right in the center of a story. So when this whole thing began, I was a little skeptical he was going to limit his involvement to taking a meeting with Robert Mueller and wrapping this up in two weeks. Once Giuliani is in, he stays in. The only question in my mind was what kind of role he was going to play with Trump: Was he going to calm him down or wind him up? And I think we have gotten our answer the last few days.
He may have a knack for inserting himself right in the center of a story, but Giuliani is also someone very concerned with his image. And yet he doesn’t seem to mind embarrassing himself for Trump. How do you understand that contradiction?
It’s been a gradual evolution. The turning point was, I think, the 2008 race, and it all fell apart. The luster of his brilliant performance on 9/11—and I don’t use the word performance cattily; I think it was brilliant—it lost its power. He has been casting about for a role ever since. If you look at his trajectory after that race, it’s not really pretty. He took a whole bunch of clients who were foreign dictators, and others who were unsavory, and he geared his efforts towards making money and also playing in a sketchy international realm.
He got very “in” with the Palm Beach crowd and the Hamptons crowd and just lost touch with who he once was. His activities in public have grown increasingly out there, from questioning whether Obama loved the country to questioning Hillary Clinton’s health. It was all part of the losing of his image as nonpartisan healer from Sept. 11, and it has just gotten more and more extreme.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/rudy-giuliani-how-the-former-prosecutor-and-9-11-hero-ended-up-like-this.html
14 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 5/7/2018, 5:55 pm
polecat
Michael Cohen Issues $130,000 Payment to Silence Giuliani - Andy Borowitz
Rudy Giuliani is part of a plot to make Trump seem less senile.- Andy Borowitz
15 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 5/7/2018, 6:00 pm
Telstar
polecat wrote:
Michael Cohen Issues $130,000 Payment to Silence Giuliani - Andy Borowitz
Rudy Giuliani is part of a plot to make Trump seem less senile.- Andy Borowitz
Just pay the $130,000.
16 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 1/18/2019, 9:42 am
Floridatexan
Rudy Giuliani: 'I never said there was no collusion' by Trump campaign
Trump’s lawyer denies president himself conspired with Russia
Cohen reported to have tried to rig polls in Trump’s favour
Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has insisted that he “never said there was no collusion” between Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign and Russia – only that Trump himself was not involved.
The former New York mayor 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 on CNN on Wednesday night.
“I said the president of the United States,” he added.
Later in the interview, Giuliani said: “If the collusion happened, it happened a long time ago.”
But he once again defended the president.
“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,” he said, referring to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and leaking the emails of senior Democrats during the 2016 presidential election campaign.
Thousands of emails taken from the accounts of staff at the DNC and John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, were published by outlets including WikiLeaks.
On Tuesday, Trump had been obliged to state that he “never worked for Russia” following two reports that he may have been used as an asset by Moscow.
“It’s a disgrace that you even ask that question,” he told reporters on the White House lawn. “It’s all a big fat hoax.”
Both men’s comments come as special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into allegations of links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and obstruction of justice, looms large, punctuated by guilty pleas, convictions and indictments of former Trump associates.
These include his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort and Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.
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.
But on Wednesday, Giuliani suggested that was “not collusion”, a change of stance from multiple previous statements such as one given to Axios in November about the Mueller investigation that: “I don’t think they have any evidence of collusion of any kind.”
“Polling data is given to everybody,” he told CNN on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that Michael Cohen tried to rig online opinion polls in Trump’s favor before the 2016 election, when he was still acting as the candidate’s personal attorney and fixer.
In response, Cohen tweeted on Thursday morning: “As for the @WSJ article on poll rigging, what I did was at the direction of and for the sole benefit of @realDonaldTrump @POTUS. I truly regret my blind loyalty to a man who doesn’t deserve it.”
The Journal reported that Cohen is accused of paying a polling company to rig online results to Trump’s advantage, although the attempts were unsuccessful.
Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison in December for crimes including lying to Congress and facilitating illegal payments to silence two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, who alleged affairs with Trump. He has been cooperating with prosecutors and has agreed to testify to Congress in February.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/17/rudy-giuliani-i-never-said-there-was-no-collusion-by-trump-campaign
17 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 1/18/2019, 11:07 am
zsomething
I think even some of Trump's fans are starting to figure out that America stepped in shit electing that idiot... they're just still in denial about how much has been tracked on the rug.
If what Buzzfeed's reporting pans out - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash -- that's obstruction of justice, and that's a bye-bye. And all the "but Obama/Hillary (insert crazy Hannity fantasy here)" in the world ain't gonna peel that off.
If what Buzzfeed's reporting pans out - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash -- that's obstruction of justice, and that's a bye-bye. And all the "but Obama/Hillary (insert crazy Hannity fantasy here)" in the world ain't gonna peel that off.
18 Re: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy 1/21/2019, 12:54 pm
Floridatexan
Would anyone like to take a stab at WTH he's doing?
Giuliani: 'So What' if Trump and Cohen Discussed Testimony
By Associated Press
20 January 19
President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani left open Sunday the possibility that Trump and former personal attorney Michael Cohen might have discussed Cohen’s congressional testimony.
But, he added, “so what” if he did?
Giuliani appeared Sunday on CNN, where he said he did not know if Trump had discussed with Cohen a 2017 congressional interview at which Cohen has admitted lying about a Trump Tower real estate project in Moscow. He also acknowledged in a separate interview with NBC News that conversations about that project stretched throughout 2016, including possibly up until October or November of that year.
The question arose in light of a Buzzfeed News report from last week that said Trump had instructed Cohen to lie to Congress and that Cohen relayed that to special counsel Robert Mueller’s team of investigators. Mueller’s office took the unusual step of issuing a statement disputing the story.
Giuliani said on interviews with CNN and NBC News that Trump never directed Cohen to lie. But on CNN he acknowledged the possibility that Trump and Cohen might have discussed Cohen’s testimony, saying that while he had no knowledge of such a conversation, he wasn’t ruling it out.
“I don’t know if it happened or didn’t happen,” Giuliani said, later adding, “And so what if he talked to him about it?”
Giuliani’s suggestion to NBC that dialogue about the Trump Tower project could have stretched into the fall of 2016 extends the timeline beyond what the president has publicly acknowledged. Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress by saying that he had abandoned the project in January 2016 even though prosecutors say he actually continued pursuing it into that June.
Giuliani said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” that Trump could recall having conversations with Cohen about the project throughout 2016, though there “weren’t a lot of them.”
“The president also remembers -- yeah, probably up -- could be up to as far as October, November,” Giuliani said. “Our answers cover until the election. So anytime during that period they could’ve talked about it. But the president’s recollection of it is that the, the thing had petered out quite a bit.”
Giuliani made a similar comment last month on ABC News when he suggested that the president knew that Cohen was pursuing the project well into 2016.
“According to the answer that he gave, it would have covered all the way up to — covered up to November, 2016. Said he had conversations with him but the president didn’t hide this,” Giuliani said.
Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and chairman of the House intelligence committee, said the panel planned to investigate why Cohen made false statements to Congress and determine what exactly Cohen and Trump might have discussed about his testimony.
“Congress has a has a fundamental interest in two things first in getting to the bottom of why a witness came before us and lied and who else was knowledgeable that this was a lie,” Schiff said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
https://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/54554-giuliani-so-what-if-trump-and-cohen-discussed-testimony
***********
And I don't buy into the 9/11 Rudy persona. He located the emergency command center in WTC 7. He was responsible for defective walkie-talkies that made communications a nightmare for first responders. And then he used that tragedy to promote himself for president. That's not all, but it's enough to make me despise him and all he stands for.
Giuliani: 'So What' if Trump and Cohen Discussed Testimony
By Associated Press
20 January 19
President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani left open Sunday the possibility that Trump and former personal attorney Michael Cohen might have discussed Cohen’s congressional testimony.
But, he added, “so what” if he did?
Giuliani appeared Sunday on CNN, where he said he did not know if Trump had discussed with Cohen a 2017 congressional interview at which Cohen has admitted lying about a Trump Tower real estate project in Moscow. He also acknowledged in a separate interview with NBC News that conversations about that project stretched throughout 2016, including possibly up until October or November of that year.
The question arose in light of a Buzzfeed News report from last week that said Trump had instructed Cohen to lie to Congress and that Cohen relayed that to special counsel Robert Mueller’s team of investigators. Mueller’s office took the unusual step of issuing a statement disputing the story.
Giuliani said on interviews with CNN and NBC News that Trump never directed Cohen to lie. But on CNN he acknowledged the possibility that Trump and Cohen might have discussed Cohen’s testimony, saying that while he had no knowledge of such a conversation, he wasn’t ruling it out.
“I don’t know if it happened or didn’t happen,” Giuliani said, later adding, “And so what if he talked to him about it?”
Giuliani’s suggestion to NBC that dialogue about the Trump Tower project could have stretched into the fall of 2016 extends the timeline beyond what the president has publicly acknowledged. Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress by saying that he had abandoned the project in January 2016 even though prosecutors say he actually continued pursuing it into that June.
Giuliani said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” that Trump could recall having conversations with Cohen about the project throughout 2016, though there “weren’t a lot of them.”
“The president also remembers -- yeah, probably up -- could be up to as far as October, November,” Giuliani said. “Our answers cover until the election. So anytime during that period they could’ve talked about it. But the president’s recollection of it is that the, the thing had petered out quite a bit.”
Giuliani made a similar comment last month on ABC News when he suggested that the president knew that Cohen was pursuing the project well into 2016.
“According to the answer that he gave, it would have covered all the way up to — covered up to November, 2016. Said he had conversations with him but the president didn’t hide this,” Giuliani said.
Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and chairman of the House intelligence committee, said the panel planned to investigate why Cohen made false statements to Congress and determine what exactly Cohen and Trump might have discussed about his testimony.
“Congress has a has a fundamental interest in two things first in getting to the bottom of why a witness came before us and lied and who else was knowledgeable that this was a lie,” Schiff said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
https://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/54554-giuliani-so-what-if-trump-and-cohen-discussed-testimony
***********
And I don't buy into the 9/11 Rudy persona. He located the emergency command center in WTC 7. He was responsible for defective walkie-talkies that made communications a nightmare for first responders. And then he used that tragedy to promote himself for president. That's not all, but it's enough to make me despise him and all he stands for.
Message [Page 1 of 1]
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|
|