Is Rudy Giuliani working for Putin?

[Childlike Empress]

1. Russia did't TRY to interfere; they did. That is well established.

BS. You really deserve what is coming to you in 2020.

 

[Stacyhs]

Nothing screams "I don't have a serious complaint" like "tried to ban ferrets".

While I agree that the 'ban ferrets' (and marrying a second cousin) is nothing notorious, I also notice that you just ignore the rest of Mumbles' more serious list.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Two falsehoods in one sentence:

1. Russia did't TRY to interfere; they did. That is well established.

2. There is no way to determine if Russian interference affected the votes or not. It's impossible to identify how many voters fell victim to false information spread by the Russian campaign and had it affect their vote.

They interfered. Theres no evidence they succeeded in altering votes. That is well established. It's a serious issue that they even attempted it but again...

More falsehoods. The only person denying it was Trump. Obama was not so blind or stupid.

Obviously he was either negligent or just playing politics during an election season. You can say what you want about Trump denying Russian involvement. I take it at face value. But it's on record that the obama administration, Candidate Clinton and punditry absolutely ridiculed the complaint of a rigged election... that is of course until Trump won. Only AFTER he won did the 'left' claim he stole the election.

This is why i cant take some of this Putin puppetry threads claim seriously. It doesnt make Giuliani's activity moral or comforting at all... but there is only so much people can embellish the facts before it stinks of putrid waste

On the other hand, Trump repeatedly denied there was Russian interference in the election, said he had no reason to disbelieve Putin's denial, and balked at signing sanctions against Russia. From his 'perfect' phone call with Zelensky, it's obvious he's still reluctant to admit Russia was behind the election interference and wants to advance the debunked claim that Ukraine was behind it.


(same link as above)

Trump is full of it to Express those claims at face value. They did interfere. I agree. It doesnt exonerate the fact that people have short and long term memory issues about how and who got the blame for inaction and mockery. And my remarks on the history of this topic are spot on. You want me to start posting their remarks? You seem adamant that none of these remarks were made

 

[a_unique_person]

Denial or Ignorance won't do anything but make you feel better.

Of course. How could I forget. It's Soros!

 

[a_unique_person]

Denial or Ignorance won't do anything but make you feel better.

OAN [emoji3][emoji16]

Russia

Further information:*Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)*and*Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

OAN is known for downplaying threats posed to the United States by Russia. According to a former OAN producer, on his first day at OAN he was told, "Yeah, we like Russia here."[8][10]*One of OAN's reporters, Kristian Brunovich Rouz, simultaneously works for the*Russian propaganda*outlet and news agency*Sputnik, which is*state-owned; when Rouz runs segments on OAN that relate to Russia, OAN does not disclose that he also works for Sputnik.[20]

In September 2019, OAN filed suit in federal court in*San Diego, California*against*MSNBC*host*Rachel Maddow*for $10 million after Maddow described the network as "paid Russian propaganda" on her July 22nd program. Maddow had referenced a*Daily Beast*story identifying Rouz as also working for Sputnik. Also named in the suit were*Comcast, MSNBC and*NBCUniversal Media.[63]

 

[Childlike Empress]

OAN [emoji3][emoji16]

Ad Hominem (against the producer of the documentary Ghouliani thought should be presented to the public more than a month ago) won't help you either against the reality shock that is coming to you.

 

[Mumbles]

Obviously he was either negligent or just playing politics during an election season. You can say what you want about Trump denying Russian involvement. I take it at face value. But it's on record that the obama administration, Candidate Clinton and punditry absolutely ridiculed the complaint of a rigged election... that is of course until Trump won. Only AFTER he won did the 'left' claim he stole the election.

False, on multiple fronts. Toupee Fiasco has repeatedly denied the (verified by all intelligence services) Russian attempts at changing the outcome through social media tampering, as well as their hacking attempts. Instead, in keeping with his white supremacist conspiracy theory-loving campaign, he has baselessly declared that "millions of illegals" were being bussed around casting votes.

Obama and Clinton, naturally, agreed to the former (with Clinton discussing it before the election), and ignored the latter (which was just Dolt 45's usual racist crap)

Trump is full of it to Express those claims at face value. They did interfere. I agree. It doesnt exonerate the fact that people have short and long term memory issues about how and who got the blame for inaction and mockery. And my remarks on the history of this topic are spot on. You want me to start posting their remarks? You seem adamant that none of these remarks were made

The person who deserves the most blame is the man who blocked any public federal announcement - Mitch McConnell, who, when asked to present a bipartisan front against Russian interference, instead promised to make it a strictly partisan issue.

 

[Stacyhs]

They interfered. Theres no evidence they succeeded in altering votes. That is well established. It's a serious issue that they even attempted it but again...

Sigh. Unless you can find voters who 1) say they knew they were exposed to Russian operative sites spreading false info and 2) say it affected their vote, then no, there is no evidence that they succeeded in altering votes. But just how likely do you think that is? On the other hand, there is circumstantial evidence that it did affect how some people voted:

...a University of Tennessee Knoxville study funded by the Defense Department found that Trump’s polling upticks during the 2016 campaign correlated with social media activity by Russian trolls and bots. According to the study, every 25,000 retweets from troll and bot accounts connected with Russia’s Internet Research Agency predicted a 1 percent bump in Trump’s polling.

There is also a strong argument to be made that WikiLeaks, which published the first tranche of emails purloined from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta by Russian hackers just hours after the Washington Post published the Access Hollywood tape of Trump on October 7, swayed voters during the final month of the campaign. In this period, Trump overcame a string of sexual misconduct allegations and a 7-point deficit in the polls to win the election.

It’s worth remembering that Trump’s closing message centered largely around WikiLeaks. He mentioned Julian Assange’s operation about five days a day during the campaign’s final month, but now pretends that never happened. (“Problematic is an understatement,” Mueller said on Wednesday about Trump’s promotion of WikiLeaks.) Is it possible the Clinton campaign email dumps and Trump’s relentless hyping of them on the campaign trail had no impact on the outcome of the election? It seems exceedingly unlikely.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rump-russia-meddling-mueller-gidley-no-impact

It's more than 'exceedingly unlikely' that no votes were affected by the Russian campaign. The only question is not 'if' but 'how many'? Anyone who can't see that is either being intentionally blind or suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Obviously he was either negligent or just playing politics during an election season. You can say what you want about Trump denying Russian involvement. I take it at face value.

Oh, boy. What would you suggest Obama have done? Bomb Russia? He warned Putin to stop, tried to warn the state governors about the interference, but the Republicans in Congress rebuffed it. He sanctioned Russia and threw out 35 of their diplomats. Trump? He sided with Putin and denied any interference because he feared it undermined his legitimacy and didn't want to sign the sanctions approved by Congress.

"You can say what you want about Trump denying Russian involvement. I take it at face value."
What the hell does that mean? Trump repeatedly denied Russian involvement against all of the Intelligence Agencies finding. Pull your head out of the hole.

But it's on record that the obama administration, Candidate Clinton and punditry absolutely ridiculed the complaint of a rigged election... that is of course until Trump won. Only AFTER he won did the 'left' claim he stole the election.

The 'rigged election' complaint they ridiculed had nothing to do with Russia; it was Trump's claim that the election was rigged against him with millions of illegal immigrants and dead Democrats voting, people voting multiple times, and voters shipped in by busses. Please quote Obama or Clinton ever saying Trump 'stole' the election. Try and get your facts straight.

This is why i cant take some of this Putin puppetry threads claim seriously. It doesnt make Giuliani's activity moral or comforting at all... but there is only so much people can embellish the facts before it stinks of putrid waste

I think there is a lot of hyperbolic nonsense by some people on the extent of Putin's control of Trump. No, Trump is not in the Putin's pocket. He's just a useful idiot and easily manipulated by not just Putin, but Kim Jong Un. Hell, it isn't difficult: just play to his narcissism.

Trump is full of it to Express those claims at face value. They did interfere. I agree. It doesnt exonerate the fact that people have short and long term memory issues about how and who got the blame for inaction and mockery. And my remarks on the history of this topic are spot on.

As I've shown, your remarks on the history of this topic are definitely not 'spot on'. You've made several false statements which I've identified and presented evidence against.

You want me to start posting their remarks? You seem adamant that none of these remarks were made

Exactly what remarks have I denied were ever made? Please quote me doing so.

 

[Mumbles]

I was not aware of most of that. I was thinking more of the Giuliani of 9/11.

Most people don't. Unless you were either in the area, or knew a lot of people who were, it wasn't discussed. Until 9/11, he was mostly given credit for a crime drop that actually started under Dinkens, and after that he was "America's Mayor".

 

[Stacyhs]

Most people don't. Unless you were either in the area, or knew a lot of people who were, it wasn't discussed.

I live on the West Coast. I'd never heard of Giuliani before 9/11 and knew nothing of his politics.

Until 9/11, he was mostly given credit for a crime drop that actually started under Dinkens, and after that he was "America's Mayor".

[/QUOTE]

Rather like Trump taking credit for the good economy that started under Obama after he pulled us out of the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The DNC hacking alone, released right after the Hollywood Access Tapes, had a huge impact in damaging HRC and reducing the damage to Trump.

Anyone who thinks that Russia didn't decisively interfere in 2016 is motivated to think that way.

 

[DetectedMotion]

BS. You really deserve what is coming to you in 2020.

You are in denial aren't you? And I'm not talking about a river in Egypt.

 

[ahhell]

They interfered. Theres no evidence they succeeded in altering votes. That is well established. It's a serious issue that they even attempted it but again...



Obviously he was either negligent or just playing politics during an election season. You can say what you want about Trump denying Russian involvement. I take it at face value. But it's on record that the obama administration, Candidate Clinton and punditry absolutely ridiculed the complaint of a rigged election... that is of course until Trump won. Only AFTER he won did the 'left' claim he stole the election.

This is why i cant take some of this Putin puppetry threads claim seriously. It doesnt make Giuliani's activity moral or comforting at all... but there is only so much people can embellish the facts before it stinks of putrid waste


Trump is full of it to Express those claims at face value. They did interfere. I agree. It doesnt exonerate the fact that people have short and long term memory issues about how and who got the blame for inaction and mockery. And my remarks on the history of this topic are spot on. You want me to start posting their remarks? You seem adamant that none of these remarks were made

I just want to highlight that bolded bit. Some much of the anti-trump rhetoric is like that these days. All gilding the lily. There's is all sorts of stuff that he does that is bad but the anti-trumpist have to dial it all up to 11. Guiliani was in Ukraine doing shady **** with shady people, he doesn't have to be on Putin's payroll to make that bad. Sure, you could say he was working for Putin because Putin's goal is to stir up discord in the US, but again, doesn't need to be on Putin's payroll for that to be the case. Putin has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams by the way. Not because Trump was elected but because He's convinced half of America that the Trump was elected due to Russian hacking.

 

[Stacyhs]

I just want to highlight that bolded bit. Some much of the anti-trump rhetoric is like that these days. All gilding the lily. There's is all sorts of stuff that he does that is bad but the anti-trumpist have to dial it all up to 11. Guiliani was in Ukraine doing shady **** with shady people, he doesn't have to be on Putin's payroll to make that bad. Sure, you could say he was working for Putin because Putin's goal is to stir up discord in the US, but again, doesn't need to be on Putin's payroll for that to be the case. Putin has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams by the way. Not because Trump was elected but because He's convinced half of America that the Trump was elected due to Russian hacking.

Hyperbole. Half of Americans do not believe Trump won because of the Russian interference. In the last poll I could find (Gallup Poll. Aug. 1-12, 2018), only 39% believe Russian interference affected the election outcome.

https://www.pollingreport.com/russia.htm

 

[acbytesla]

I just want to highlight that bolded bit. Some much of the anti-trump rhetoric is like that these days. All gilding the lily. There's is all sorts of stuff that he does that is bad but the anti-trumpist have to dial it all up to 11. Guiliani was in Ukraine doing shady **** with shady people, he doesn't have to be on Putin's payroll to make that bad. Sure, you could say he was working for Putin because Putin's goal is to stir up discord in the US, but again, doesn't need to be on Putin's payroll for that to be the case. Putin has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams by the way. Not because Trump was elected but because He's convinced half of America that the Trump was elected due to Russian hacking.

I can see why it might seem over the top. But even if Rudy wasn't working directly for Putin, the evidence he was working indirectly is there. And it isn't a stretch. Parnas and his partner who can be seen in videos with Rudy were being paid by a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sigh. Unless you can find voters who 1) say they knew they were exposed to Russian operative sites spreading false info and 2) say it affected their vote, then no, there is no evidence that they succeeded in altering votes. But just how likely do you think that is? On the other hand, there is circumstantial evidence that it did affect how some people voted:

Thank you for clarifying. Yes on this part you are right. And regardless of their succeeding or not it's a serious issue that requires people to be informed. I can only comment on the direct vote count manipulation which was the focus of my comments. As to the degree of impact on the election in 2016 there isn't hard evidence that it impacted the outcome, but I do believe it was effective enough at a minimum to impact partisan divides in the parties and impact the decisions of an uncomfortable number of voters.

Oh, boy. What would you suggest Obama have done? Bomb Russia? He warned Putin to stop, tried to warn the state governors about the interference, but the Republicans in Congress rebuffed it. He sanctioned Russia and threw out 35 of their diplomats. Trump? He sided with Putin and denied any interference because he feared it undermined his legitimacy and didn't want to sign the sanctions approved by Congress.

Warned state governors... in private
Warned Russia to stop... privately
Ousted 35 of their diplomats.... after the election.
I understand some of the logic may have been to avoid an outward appearance of tipping the scales toward Clinton, and I understand it may or may not have changed minds. But it smacks in the face of their public rebukes against election rigging late into the cycle. Furthermore, while I don't think Trump was smart to give Putin any legitimacy by peddling his denials on interference, whether he believed his own words or not, remember that by the logic of the threads hyperbole, we should be having this discussion about Obama telling Putin how much flexibility he would have after he won his second term.

This is foreign policy, and this thread remains a perfect example of how hyper partisans will ignore the actions of the politicians they like while dialing specific issues to the north degree when it concerns the ones they hate. Going by parts of your response to me your position doesn't rise to the level of the OP, so no worries there.

I'll get to the rest of your response later. Short on time.
But since you're being patient, I'll take the time to explain, and correct my remarks where needed.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I can see why it might seem over the top. But even if Rudy wasn't working directly for Putin, the evidence he was working indirectly is there. And it isn't a stretch. Parnas and his partner who can be seen in videos with Rudy were being paid by a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin.

When you add to this that Rudy helped defend Jerome Corsi in the Mueller Investigation and it was Russian Television dirrectly from Moscow that got me to save Corsi in 2008 from his 9/11No Planer Theories then something becomes clear here.
Why Fraud News, and the Republicans wanted to cover up that Corsi was Lying as was Sean Hannity also becomes pretty clear to me.
But I guess that's just a Crazy Conspiracy theory from a Crazy Chainsaw Guy.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

He is certainly being paid by Putin.
It would be a bit unusual if Vlad didn't get something for his money.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

He is certainly being paid by Putin.
It would be a bit unusual if Vlad didn't get something for his money.

I think Putin Helped Barrack Obama get Elected not dirrectly but, though polarization of the African American vote, backlash from Corsi and Fox news. That would Explain why they wanted me to save Corsi in 2008, they knew he would try to Swift Boat Obama. They were Terrified of John McCain. They were using Corsi as a useful idiot.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think Putin Helped Barrack Obama get Elected not dirrectly but, though polarization of the African American vote, backlash from Corsi and Fox news. That would Explain why they wanted me to save Corsi in 2008, they knew he would try to Swift Boat Obama. They were Terrified of John McCain. They were using Corsi as a useful idiot.

I guess you can make that argument for 2008.
It would be harder to make for 2012, especially considering the Putin-HRC relationship.