Got it, but you admit that Trump-Russia research has been important on both sides of the aisle, no? And why would he be so defensive bad nauseum if it were actually a “witch hunt”?
So, which one is lying?
- Thread starter hollywood
- Start date
Got it, but you admit that Trump-Russia research has been important on both sides of the aisle, no? And why would he be so defensive bad nauseum if it were actually a “witch hunt”?
don’t admit a damn thing
this is the level of intelligence that makes smear campaigns against a democratically elected president part of the “insurance” policy these fbitards were texting in reference to
It’s been a magnificent sideshow and waste of time so far. My interest level will pick up if an impeachment results.
Your second question puzzles me. Right now, I’m pretty tired of all the speculation that fills the airwaves. If the national media continued to hammer me every day about my hay crop with unverified rumors, I’d be defensive as well.
He’s such a doofus at times. He just can’t STFU. Still, my point remains. I am weary of the media “oh boy this is great, we got him now” feeding frenzy of speculation. Guess he is, too.
I have no idea how it plays out, but it doesn’t help him to constantly dismiss and attack on a worldwide arena like Twitter.
All that said, I’d rather he finish out his 4, or even 8, instead of President Penis.
I’m not on Twitter, so I don’t know half the stuff he says on there. I don’t mind him dismissing all the bullshit speculation. I appreciate it. I wish he would be more refined about it at times, but I don’t expect him to change anything.
Anyway, good conversation, so thanks.
JD I don’t like any of them lying but have come to the realization that there has to be a genetic mutation that makes anyone want to run for these offices and then some type of mental disorder that makes them want to stay.
No shock that I didn’t like the ex-rodent in chief and I was definitely one of those bitching about it often. The difference between his lies though and Trumps is that his lies resulted in me not keeping my primary care physician Trumps didn’t. His lies resulted in my health care costs going up, not going down the $2,500 he said it would Trumps didn’t. Sure there are more instances as well.
I’m a bit relictant to hold Trump’s feet to the fire all the time though because he is running a country while at the same time and with nowhere near the confederates others have had, he is fending off an unbelievable amounts of spurious attacks from all sides. Many of the attackers are trying to hold him to a standard that they didn’t/don’t hold others to when they had/have the chance. I feel a wee bit bad about being a tad hypocritical, but it’s much easier to justify given the deluge of hits people are putting on the guy.
No shock that I didn’t like the ex-rodent in chief and I was definitely one of those bitching about it often. The difference between his lies though and Trumps is that his lies resulted in me not keeping my primary care physician Trumps didn’t. His lies resulted in my health care costs going up, not going down the $2,500 he said it would Trumps didn’t. Sure there are more instances as well.
I’m a bit relictant to hold Trump’s feet to the fire all the time though because he is running a country while at the same time and with nowhere near the confederates others have had, he is fending off an unbelievable amounts of spurious attacks from all sides. Many of the attackers are trying to hold him to a standard that they didn’t/don’t hold others to when they had/have the chance. I feel a wee bit bad about being a tad hypocritical, but it’s much easier to justify given the deluge of hits people are putting on the guy.
Trump had a bad reputation as a liar and con artist before taking office. He hasn’t done well to remedy that rep while in office. That has nothing to do with Obama’s presidency.
The dirt that has been dug up is a natural process involved in being the most powerful person on the planet. It’s part of the job, regardless of how he or his supporters see it.
Away from the truth. Like lying to reporters about not being aware of a payoff to a porn star. Is that a big deal? Maybe not...if said payoff wasn’t done days before the election for POTUS.
Could still be nothing, or could be a part of what ultimately brings him down.
I'm not sure why any sensible lefty would want Trump impeached. President Pence isn't something anyone should be hoping to hear. That guy would probably try to have gay people deported.
I'd just like to clear up any confusion on this op. As it turns out, it was Rudy. But when Rudy said there were documents that proved Trump paid back Cohen over several months, he didn't lie, he just mis-heard. What he really heard was "I have shapers that prove I repaid Fohen over multiple moths." Totally innocent mistake.
And also:
What is hard to understand here? The lawyer's job is to clean up messes and make blackmailers go away. He's got a certain amount of discretion on how to deal with them and pay them to F off. A guy with as many business holdings, and irons in the fire as a celebrity/billionaire/president can absolutely believably not know in real time when one of his minions is doing his job in this way. That's hard for the rest of us to relate to, but $130k to shut up a blackmailer is pocket change.
Paying blackmailers off is not illegal, nor an admission of wrong doing, it's simply being able to afford to make a problem go away.
at some point down the road, the guy got reimbursed by Trump through a non Trump org or campaign source like personal funds. So?
The big story here is that stormy is looking at a massive breach of contract suit and as soon as she's not useful, nobody will be there to help her.
Rudy was sent out on Hannity to give the press something to talk about - possibly including the conflicting statements - because what other purpose did his interview serve? random, and given an hour of Hannity's prime time to address something few people genuinely care about and presto - next day the news cycle is dominated by it. that is by design. to what purpose, i don't pretend to know, but it's lazy to just assume it was a random cluster*ck.
just my opinion.
Paying blackmailers off is not illegal, nor an admission of wrong doing, it's simply being able to afford to make a problem go away.
at some point down the road, the guy got reimbursed by Trump through a non Trump org or campaign source like personal funds. So?
The big story here is that stormy is looking at a massive breach of contract suit and as soon as she's not useful, nobody will be there to help her.
Rudy was sent out on Hannity to give the press something to talk about - possibly including the conflicting statements - because what other purpose did his interview serve? random, and given an hour of Hannity's prime time to address something few people genuinely care about and presto - next day the news cycle is dominated by it. that is by design. to what purpose, i don't pretend to know, but it's lazy to just assume it was a random cluster*ck.
just my opinion.
Trump strikes you as someone who doesn’t know where every penny he had goes....in detail?
As to your last paragraph....occam’s razor. The simplest solution is that it is just a cluster**** rather than by some design....to an admittedly unknown and even unimaginable purpose.
Also, w
If he wants to know, then 'yes', he knows. If he doesn't want to know, then he remains purposely in the dark.
That is how he strikes me.
If he wants to know, then 'yes', he knows. If he doesn't want to know, then he remains purposely in the dark.
That is how he strikes me.
Given his position, and knowing the constant state of siege he is under - some by his own doing, and some by liars and blackmailers - yes Trump strikes me absolutely as someone who would insulate himself from that. He might know in some abstract sense, but I would be shocked if he didn't have some level of plausible deniability on the insistence of counsel. Is that far fetched? I just assumed that would be SOP for a guy with that kind of business card.
I would agree with your point if this were an isolated incident. however it's not. it's a clear pattern of head scratching tweets and actions - many of which have made substantially more sense in retrospect. An analogy I saw recently basically said that trump takes on the role of the target on his team, drawing fire and attention away from a variety of things that are actually getting strategic focus. That's exactly what this seems like to me.
to me the occam's razor explanation fits my theory far better than the random cluster*ck theory, because...
1. There is a long and clear pattern of trump's use of Sun Tzu's Art of War principles, and chief among them is: “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.” & "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."
Trump's greatest strength in politics is his unpredictability vs the absolute predictability of the establishment political class, corporate media and the brainwashed masses who serve them both.
Another central tenant of Sun Tsu is to never underestimate your opponent. ‘He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them.’ Trump rarely underestimates his opponent, though he does appear to. The inverse is not true. His opponents constantly talk about the danger he poses on one hand, and yet chalk his wins up to luck because he's a moron. He absolutely and instinctively plays that to his advantage.
Just watch, the leftist braintrust of this board will skewer me for even suggesting that Bif is a student of Sun Tsu instead of just a lucky dictator who's ship is sinking.
Anyway, this Rudy interview just reeks of exactly that type of purposeful move.
2. It doesn't make sense for Hannity - Trump's closest friend and ally in the media - to give Rudy an hour and not know what would be said at any point. Hannity and Rudy for God's sake... it's the ultimate softball interview. The occam's razor theory suggests this was set up as an hour long Trump informercial right down to knowing which soundbite would be eaten up like candy.
3. And perhaps the most compelling... at what point does the preponderance of evidence shift from lucky idiot to master strategist? I realize you walk the middle, crediting both at times and thats probably accurate, but at some point does the balance not shift mathematically to brilliant strategist for the most part? Far too many lucky breaks, weathered storms and seemingly unlikely political victories in spite of those things to be anything but purposeful strategy at some point right?
Anyway, that's my argument. Given the weight of the evidence to date I'm frankly surprised people aren't just wondering what Rudy's interview was meant to distract from rather than what it meant.
maybe if I get time. it's not hard to find examples. off the top of my head - CNN destroyed him for suggesting on twitter that he had been wire tapped at trump tower is a pretty good example. That seemed pretty crazy at the time.
"Sure, Obama has been good for Wall Street, but what about Main Street?"
"Sure, Trump has been good for the San Fernando Valley, but what about the Missouri Valley?"
I mean come on, that was obviously to poison the well of the entire investigation as illegal and politically motivated.hang on.... let me write that down.
Any others?
well... since the entire investigation is based on a FISA warrant issued on the strength of an illegal and political dossier, i'm not sure poisoning the well is the analogy you are looking for. do better and i'll entertain the idea of providing other examples.
I guess you have already forgotten our topic of conversation. I don't anticipate the quality of your other examples will justify the time it takes for me to dumb this down for you.
Your theory that occam’s razor fits your theory better....followed with a eight paragraph explanation of a theory for all the chaos as 4D chess....the simplest solution is most of the correct solution. I mean...I could go through each of you points and refute, but the point remains, for your theory to be correct every single one of your points has to be correct. It’s not an occam’s razor supported argument. That’s okay...occam’s razor isn’t physics or natural law guaranteeing the simplest explanation is always without fail the correct one.
Heck, I’ll go ahead and address them directly.
1. IMO, Rudy G’s interview doesn’t reek of Sun Tzu principles as you suggest. I reeks of an attorney worried that statements of the prior attorney provides potential criminal liability on behalf of your new client. A theory of how even if what the prior attorney says is accurate, it’s not a criminal violation, is advanced by Rudy G. To make it fit, he has to concede his client maybe told a little white lie or was a little less than clear about his whole knowledge of the whole thing and whether he paid his lawyer back...”what he meant to say was...”. It’s also odd that on one hand you suggest maybe Trump let’s Cohen run a little wild so he can have a little plausible deniability, but is explicitly directing Rudy to completely counter the denials he has made.
2. Simple. Rudy tells Hannity, “I’m not telling you what I am going to say beforehand”....and Hannity wants the interview. He throws his softballs and Rudy protects his client from criminal prosecution in the manner I suggest above.
3. If it it a conscious political strategy to : 1. Give your first attorney free rein to settle cases without informing you so you can have plausible deniability, 2. Have your lawyer come out and say you authorized the settlement, but didn’t pay him back, 3. Somehow try to exercise the (what I would call) “implausible deny” you knew anything about the whole thing, 4. Authorize and direct your new attorney to say you repaid your lawyer, and then turn around your new attorney will get his fact straight at some point...that IS a clustef$&# of a strategy.
As far as plausible deniability from counsel like you suggest...that absolutely is implausible. An attorney that would settle a claim on behalf of a client without informing the client in detail of the nature of the claim, and getting approval of the terms of the settlement....then also pay the settlement out of his own pocket...is committing several ethical violations. I find it completely implausible that an attorney would deliberately agree to commit ethical violations to provide a client “plausible deniability”. It is also completely implausible that an experienced businessman would tell his attornehsometning along the lines of....settle these things, I don’t want to hear about them, pay whatever you think, and maybe I’ll pay you back,
And bless you as well. I stand by my reasoning, though I appreciate your point of view
