NOELLE DUNPHY -VS- RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI

[Say it aint so]

Lets play rumor and then after that we can play, if it is true, but even if there is no basis in fact for it lets just insist Trump is guilty because after all we just do not like him and we are looking for reasons, any reason, even if we have to make up the reason.

I don't think it rumor. If anything, and I hope it is, it's just the scotch in Rudy talking. I think I noted that in every post.

 

[Say it aint so]

What specific pardons do you consider to be abuses?

The ones where unlike every other POTUS, that ignored the pardon process that's in place. I don't I think I can recall several people that a president pardoned, who wound up right back in jail....less of course Donald Trump.

 

[Say it aint so]

Do you have the link to this article?

HERE

 

[Say it aint so]

Glenlivet is only 40% ABV, and a heavy drinker like Rudy wouldn't even notice it.

Touche' LOL.

 

[DaisyDay]

HERE

Thanks! Here is a no-paywall link.

The article does say that Kerik intercepted the letter according to Giuliani's biographer, so it is uncertain whether Trump ever knew about it. It is clear that Trump didn't use much of the money he raised for legal expenses to "Stop the Steal" for his lawyers' expenses.

 

[Say it aint so]

Thanks! Here is a no-paywall link.

The article does say that Kerik intercepted the letter according to Giuliani's biographer, so it is uncertain whether Trump ever knew about it. It is clear that Trump didn't use much of the money he raised for legal expenses to "Stop the Steal" for his lawyers' expenses.

Yes, it could just be Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani enacting a scotch fueled grift. "Only the best people"
I still maintain if Rudy were Hunter and Trump were Biden, the GOP House would be all over this.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes, it could just be Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani enacting a scotch fueled grift. I still maintain if Rudy were Hunter and Trump were Biden, the GOP House would be all over this.

Yeah, totally.

 

[disciple Clint]

Do you really think this sort of childish shtick is in any way conducive to a productive conversation? I get that it's really popular among Conservisphere talking heads and callers to right wing talk radio stations, but we're actually trying to have an adult conversation here.

Are we because some things in that conversation are juvenile at best, I just pointed out a few, give it some thought.

 

[disciple Clint]

Probably all of the one's for which Rudy was paid $2 million to split with Donald. If there was none, good. If there were any, that's very bad.

So then none of them, since there is absolutely no proof that Rudy and Trump ever did any such thing, lets work with facts not what some might like the facts to be.

 

[disciple Clint]

My point is, what would we need to discuss? Either Giuliani ends up saying these things or he doesn't. If he does there's nothing to discuss. If he doesn't I withdraw my argument

My point that you missed was that even if he clearly does say those things we'll hear people make up some ridiculous translation not based on reality or what was said.

Perhaps you missed the point that there is no proof that Giuliani ever did any such thing of even if he made any such statement that it resulted in anything criminal. Forget translations try to work with the facts.

 

[disciple Clint]

The ones where unlike every other POTUS, that ignored the pardon process that's in place. I don't I think I can recall several people that a president pardoned, who wound up right back in jail....less of course Donald Trump.

Check out the Obama pardons for example Oscar Lopez Rivera

 

[SimplyMe]

So then none of them, since there is absolutely no proof that Rudy and Trump ever did any such thing, lets work with facts not what some might like the facts to be.

Actually, the lawsuit claims they do have evidence. Some of the evidence they claim to have is in the form of video tapes and texts -- though it is unclear what type of evidence they have about the attempted selling of pardons. It will be interesting as the evidence is revealed, and how strong it is.

I did find it interesting what Barr said about the idea that Rudy may have been selling pardons, and splitting the money with Pres. Trump. Barr things very carefully about it for several seconds, then states, “Uh, I’m skeptical about that. I don’t think Rudy Giuliani would do that. I hope he wouldn’t, but I don’t know.” Barr, who knows both Giuliani and Trump, didn't sound nearly as certain about it as you do. Also interesting that he states he doesn't believe Rudy would do it but doesn't say the same about Trump. I also found it interesting that it took Giuliani almost two full days to issue a denial, and even then he did it by putting out a statement through his publicist.

I believe 1) most AG's would come out strongly and say there is no way the President they worked for would have sold pardons, that it was completely unbelievable, and 2) that most people would have immediately come out with a denial about selling pardons. It will be interesting to see what evidence is uncovered as the trial progresses.

 

[disciple Clint]

Actually, the lawsuit claims they do have evidence. Some of the evidence they claim to have is in the form of video tapes and texts -- though it is unclear what type of evidence they have about the attempted selling of pardons. It will be interesting as the evidence is revealed, and how strong it is.

I did find it interesting what Barr said about the idea that Rudy may have been selling pardons, and splitting the money with Pres. Trump. Barr things very carefully about it for several seconds, then states, “Uh, I’m skeptical about that. I don’t think Rudy Giuliani would do that. I hope he wouldn’t, but I don’t know.” Barr, who knows both Giuliani and Trump, didn't sound nearly as certain about it as you do. Also interesting that he states he doesn't believe Rudy would do it but doesn't say the same about Trump. I also found it interesting that it took Giuliani almost two full days to issue a denial, and even then he did it by putting out a statement through his publicist.

I believe 1) most AG's would come out strongly and say there is no way the President they worked for would have sold pardons, that it was completely unbelievable, and 2) that most people would have immediately come out with a denial about selling pardons. It will be interesting to see what evidence is uncovered as the trial progresses.

let me boil that down, what you just said is that they have no evidence that we know of "though it is unclear what type of evidence they have about the attempted selling of pardons. It will be interesting as the evidence is revealed, and how strong it is."

 

[disciple Clint]

Yeah, totally.

If Biden were Trump he would have been impeached at least twice by now.

 

[USincognito]

If Biden were Trump he would have been impeached at least twice by now.

For what?

 

[rambot]

Perhaps you missed the point that there is no proof that Giuliani ever did any such thing of even if he made any such statement that it resulted in anything criminal. Forget translations try to work with the facts.

Yes. If he just threatened those things then guiliani is still a great person!
See, when the victim has the inner strength to avoid his machinations it actually reflects BETTER on him!


Because that's how manipulating and trying to treating women like sex slaves works with some Republicans.

 

[DaisyDay]

If Biden were Trump he would have been impeached at least twice by now.

If Biden were Trump he would’ve committed multiple crimes by now. Fortunately for us, he is interested in actually governing, not exploiting his position for making millions.

Trump had only been impeached once by this stage of his presidency.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

If Biden were Trump he would’ve committed multiple crimes by now. Fortunately for us, he is interested in actually governing, not exploiting his position for making millions.

Trump had only been impeached once by this stage of his presidency.

Actually, by May 18, 2019, Trump had yet to be impeached at all.

 

[SimplyMe]

let me boil that down, what you just said is that they have no evidence that we know of "though it is unclear what type of evidence they have about the attempted selling of pardons. It will be interesting as the evidence is revealed, and how strong it is."

Actually, no, as pieces of the evidence were in the court filing and have been released (some of the text messages). So we know they have some evidence. The fact they haven't released it publicly (as is common with court cases) does not mean they do not have it.

 

[Say it aint so]

Check out the Obama pardons for example Oscar Lopez Rivera

And went through the process.