How is this man anyone’s lawyer. How in ANY way does this help the Presidents argument that he didn’t commit obstruction when his own lawyer is saying it’s a matter of interpretation.
Is Rudy just laying the ground for obstruction charges?
Also: I cast a curse upon Italian names and the lack of an edit function.
1 Like
I don’t watch any cable political tv, except the occasional snippets that get posted here and elsewhere. But I saw Guiliani on Fox News Sunday this morning and he is now totally bonkers. What is wrong with him?
Did that idiot really say that about a person he is supposed to be protecting?
He didn’t get a cabinet position largely because of the perception that he’d lost a step in recent years.
Also, he drinks. Maybe not as much as one of the previous Trump lawyers (I forget his name, there’s legitimately been too many), but potentially enough to be a problem.
He’s actually the perfect lawyer for Trump. He just makes ■■■■ up. Constantly contradicts himself. Seems to have no ethical compass. He’s just as evasive and deceptive as Sarah Sanders. Seems Trump is streaming his merry band of liars.
Edit: streamlining
Maybe Rudy has just given up on the legal angle and is only going on the political. It would make sense given his “TV-lawyer” status.
Donald attracts the finest minds.
As for an obstruction charge, we have the act.
As for Trump’s intent, he literally explained it on live television to Lester Holt.
If the investigation was solely about that charge, it would’ve been over months ago, in my opinion.
He is going off a base assumption that firing Comey could be obstruction if Trump had bad thoughts when he did it.
That seems to be a legal concession of what Alan Dershowitz is arguing, namely that since it is part of Trumps job to hire and fire the head of the FBI, it cannot be obstruction.
That is more of a concession than he should be making. He should be “outraged” that anyone could ever think that this was obstruction.
If I ever want to make a confession of something, I will be sure to hire him.
You can fire anyone, just not for any reason.
I’m not sure Giuliani is making this up as he goes along. Maybe he just looked at the evidence and said “Oh ■■■■■ and is going with political damage control (muddy the investigation etc), rather than trying to make a losing legal case.
Otherwise he’s just a moron, or he’s lost it.
It’s hard to get around his own words on the matter.
And that’s assuming there aren’t private discussions that people will attest to as well.
“I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off” was always hard to get over, imo.
At least we still have a free press here to report on things without fear of going to prison, unlike some people in the UK.
Are you talking about the white supremacist guy? Seems to be making the rounds.
Press freedoms aren’t the same here. Can’t slander, and courts can step in and quash things to a certain degree.
From what I’ve heard reporters aren’t even allowed to mention his name. Whatever happened to free speech in Europe?
Don’t know if he really is a " white supremacist " or not, but in any case the media there isn’t even allowed to talk about it.
Yeah , I heard that. What he really means is that mueller may not believe the lues
The argument I really think is applicable (i.e. fits the case)? If you assume that Comey was fired because he would not stop the Russia/collusion investigation BUT Trump actually believed that the investigation was a fake political based investigation to begin with, then it was a legitimate firing. There is nothing corrupt about trying to stop an investigation that is fake.
I think Trump was thinkiing along those lines at the time because I see that as the reason that he was trying to get Comey to say that he, Trump, was not under investigation himself. If you think that the real reason was because Trump wanted to stop the investigation was because he knew that he was guilty himself and might be caught, then than very arguably is a corrupt purpose, as required by the statute.
Tommy Robinson is a white supremacist, yes. He was on probation, and forbidden from reporting the details of the case. At least if we’re talking about the same one.
We often don’t let cameras in the court-room and can keep details secret.
I don’t agree with all of it, not too familiar with the case you’re mentioning though. Robinsons involvement doesn’t exactly engender warm feelings.
I can argue that case with you for sure.
Perhaps his own lawyer shouldn’t be mentioning this out loud though.
Trumped bragged about it in meetings with Russian officials where the American press wasn’t given access. That is…not a great look.
In terms of establishing a state of mind, Trump has given rather a lot of ammunition imo.
