Is Rudy Giuliani working for Putin?

Childlike Empress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure does make one wonder why the Republican Senate has voted out Audiatur et altera pars.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
This topic belongs in a CT thread.
Click to expand...
Giuliani has acted in the best interests of Putin... between attempts to push the 'Ukraine hacking' myth which works to obscure Russia's role in election interference, and engaging in actions which are illegal (violating the Logan act) which harms America's standing in the world.

We do not have evidence that Giuliani is an actual paid employee or has received direct compensation from Putin or other Russian sources, but it certainly ACTS like e could be.
 
a_unique_person said:
OAN [emoji3][emoji16]
Click to expand...

They promoted the conspiracy theory that the Syrian White Helmets gassed themselves with chemical weapons like a false flag attack, which might be why you are seeing them cited and defended by a certain poster here. They are staffed with a bunch of loony tunes kooks who have promoted Pizzagate, QAnon, Seth Rich conspiracy, etc. A few decades ago, an outfit like OAN would be left mumbling to themselves on streetcorners broadcasting on short wave radio or mimeographing conspiracy pamphlets to distribute at gun shows. It's kind of insane that they are treated like the real media.
 
Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...
And I was saying you can throw that at me all you want to claim I'm wrong. I've never once denied that Trump said this. In fact I've made it clear that him saying as much was not only bad optics, but not in line with information released by the intelligence community.

Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...
We can go tit for tat any day of the week about lost ballots, double voting, dead people voting, or Russian interference. I think Trump embellished his claims to be more than they were... Be that as it may, the very notion that the election interference would be an issue at all in public disclosures was ridiculed. Do not forget that.

Russia's interference was only publicly and outwardly decried and taken seriously when Trump won. Before that it was assumed that Hillary was going to win. Part of this doesn't surprise since a component of the outrage is a repeat of what happened in the Bush vs Gore election over the electoral college/popular vote issue.

Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...
Trump publicly says some idiotic stuff, I'll give you that; optics especially. Then again, his actions have not always matched with his words, and the same could be said of the previous administrations interactions with Putin or Russian leadership after the Soviet Union went south. We just don't have as many hot mic moments available to compare with past Presidents, most of them tend to favor their private interactions with leaders for that type of gossip. You don't really need hot mic moments with Trump to catch him blurting out this stuff

Otherwise, bolded part is on point and we agree.

Stacyhs said:
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. Exactly what remarks have I denied were ever made? Please quote me doing so.
Click to expand...
I would suggest re-reading some of the posts you've responded to. And then reading my clarifications. I've conceded some the issues that I recognized as being inaccurate and offered better explanations to the ones that you may have been confused about.

Not much else to say if you're not into the OP's level of hyperbole
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Russia's interference was only publicly and outwardly decried and taken seriously when Trump won. Before that it was assumed that Hillary was going to win. Part of this doesn't surprise since a component of the outrage is a repeat of what happened in the Bush vs Gore election over the electoral college/popular vote issue.
Click to expand...


Actually, there's a very good reason that it was only after the fact that it was publicly and outwardly decried, and that good reason is inconsistent with the assumptions you made in the latter part of your quote above:

Obama wanted to publicly release the knowledge that Russia was meddling in the election, but Moscow Mitch promised that if Obama did that, he (Mitch) would spin it as Obama trying to rig the election in Clinton's favor.
 
Cabbage said:
Actually, there's a very good reason that it was only after the fact that it was publicly and outwardly decried, and that good reason is inconsistent with the assumptions you made in the latter part of your quote above:

Obama wanted to publicly release the knowledge that Russia was meddling in the election, but Moscow Mitch promised that if Obama did that, he (Mitch) would spin it as Obama trying to rig the election in Clinton's favor.
Click to expand...

If the point was to avoid spin and the perception of rigging the election as it was, it hasn't done a very good job at it. Looking at things in hindsight with current affairs you have the impeachment prosecutors outright spinning the 2020 elections as immediately questionable if the incumbent wins on one hand. And the spin that the impeachment is a pre-emptive effort to undermine an upcoming election that's less than a year away on the other.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. But there probably would be some appreciation if these matters were actually treated with consistency
 
theprestige said:
Obviously it's not a serious list for Mumbles. Why should it be a serious list for me?
Click to expand...

Assumes facts not in evidence. Mumbles presented nothing to support your assertion that it's not a serious list for him. We may agree that the banning of ferrets and marrying a (second) cousin is irrelevant, but that doesn't mean they are irrelevant to Mumbles.
 
Stacyhs said:
Assumes facts not in evidence. Mumbles presented nothing to support your assertion that it's not a serious list for him. We may agree that the banning of ferrets and marrying a (second) cousin is irrelevant, but that doesn't mean they are irrelevant to Mumbles.
Click to expand...
I concede the point. It's a serious list for Mumbles.
 
Mumbles said:
I'll keep saying this - I see little daylight between the man now, and the man that :

launched his mayoral campaign in a racist cop riot,

tried to shut down a museum because he didn't like an exhibit,
pointlessly (and at great cost) unsealed the juvenile records of a police shooting victim because "he was no altar boy." (the victim had served as an altar boy at the same catholic HS Guiliani had attended);
married his second cousin;

told his wife he was remarrying by announcing it on tv;

tried to ban ferrets;

created and implemented the unconstitutional the Stop and Frisk program based on a complete misreading of a single study;
forced the city to build it's Joint Command center in WTC7 over all objections, despite the World Trade Center had already been attacked before (and by Al Qaida);
and has been involved in various two-bit schemes ever since.

The man did a good job locking up mobsters as AG, but even then he was reportedly a glory hound - and he's off his rocker ever since been making a fool of himself ever since, often at great expense and/or loss of life to those around him.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
I concede the point. It's a serious list for Mumbles.
Click to expand...

Some of his list are serious for others, too. I've highlighted those I think would fall into that category. The Stop and Frisk policy was extremely serious to the African American and POC population.
 
Stacyhs said:
Some of his list are serious for others, too. I've highlighted those I think would fall into that category. The Stop and Frisk policy was extremely serious to the African American and POC population.
Click to expand...

I’ll admit, the ferret ban is a goofy fact - certainly it’s just Giuliani being a nitwit, and nothing as serious as the WTC matter, or Stop and Frisk. The latter was plainly unconstitutional, and the former got many people killed when the towers fell - folks that were actually heroic that day.

Having said that, the ferret ban did happen thanks to Giuliani.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom