In a interview painfully reminiscent of the “alternative facts” statement of Kelly Anne Conway, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani triggered another firestorm by declaring on NBC’s Meet the Press that “truth isn’t truth.” I actually can see what Conway was trying to say with her “alternative facts” comment, but the Giuliani comment left me mystified why a lawyer would frame such an argument. He was understandably trying to convey that prosecutors can frame the facts in ways to trap a witness. However, it came out in a terribly mangled way. In the meantime, President Trump was on Twitter asserting that White House Counsel Don McGahn is “no RAT” like John Dean in the Nixon Administration. Both statements took the worst possible framing of their respective arguments and predictably led to another wave of criticism.
Trump’s comments followed a New York Times report that McGahn spent more than 30 hours talking to agents during voluntary interviews. It suggested that McGahn feared he was being made into a fall guy and refused to be made into the next John Dean. Trump lashed out by tweeting
Trump, in a series of tweets, denounced a New York Times story that his White House counsel, Don McGahn, has been cooperating extensively with the special counsel team investigating Russian election meddling and potential collusion with Trump’s Republican campaign. Trump tweeted: “The failing @nytimes wrote a Fake piece today implying that because White House Councel Don McGahn was giving hours of testimony to the Special Councel [sic], he must be a John Dean type ‘RAT.’ But I allowed him and all others to testify – I didn’t have to. I have nothing to hide……” He added “Study the late Joseph McCarthy, because we are now in a period with Mueller and his gang that make Joseph McCarthy look like a baby! Rigged Witch Hunt.”
Study the late Joseph McCarthy, because we are now in period with Mueller and his gang that make Joseph McCarthy look like a baby! Rigged Witch Hunt!
The Failing New York Times wrote a story that made it seem like the White House Councel had TURNED on the President, when in fact it is just the opposite – & the two Fake reporters knew this. This is why the Fake News Media has become the Enemy of the People. So bad for America!
The situation got worse with Giuliani’s latest appearance — the latest in a long list of gaffes. The statement came in an exchange with Chuck Todd. Giuliani pushed back on an inquiry as to why Trump fears simply sitting down with investigators. Giuliani insisted: “When you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he’s going to tell the truth and he shouldn’t worry, well that’s so silly because it’s somebody’s version of the truth. Not the truth,” he said.
Chuck Todd, the host, responded: “Truth is truth.”
“No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth.”
I fail to see how such statements help the President or how this fits with any cognizable political or legal strategy. This morning, Giuliani tweeted out a clarification (which should have not been necessary with greater message control):
My statement was not meant as a pontification on moral theology but one referring to the situation where two people make precisely contradictory statements, the classic “he said, she said” puzzle. Sometimes further inquiry can reveal the truth other times it doesn’t. 4:48 AM – 20 Aug 2018
202 thoughts on “Giuliani: “Truth Isn’t Truth””
Giuliani and Trump are complicit in the 9/11 Cover-Up
Explosives residue found in 9/11 dust.
Of course there is a “cognizable” political and legal strategy here on the part of the administration, namely, only believe what Trump and his officials say and nobody else. Duh!
Instead of “Reply”, I’m getting the word “loading” under some comments.
Since I can’t click on “Reply” to place the comnent, I’ll enter it here.
L4D seems to think that calling her on her lies is an indication of ” losing it”.
The fact that I pointed out her lies, and the fact that I despise serial liars, is not an indication of “losing it”, but it’s a another way for L4D to deflect and try to bury the topic at hand.
These stunts by her get very, very old.
No matter how much she pats herself on the back saying to herself “gee, look how clever am”, the shift on her part to outright lying puts her on very thin ice.
As a favor for a whiny cry baby bully-boy from the Congressional testimony of the Russian attendees at the Trump Tower meeting.
Natalia Veselnitskaya said
“Mr. Trump, Jr. politely wound up the meeting with meaningless phrases about somewhat as follows: can do nothing about it, “if’ or “when” we come to power, we may return to this strange and confusing story.”
Ike Kaveladze said
“There was no request, but as I said, it was a suggestion that if Trump campaign wins, they might get back to the Magnitsky Act topic in the future.”
Rinat Akhmetshin said
“I don’t remember exact words which were said, but I remember at the end, Donald, Jr., said, you know, “Come back see us again when we win.” Not “if we win,” but “when we win.” And I kind of thought to myself like, “Yeah, right.” But it happened, so — but that’s something, see, he’s very kind of positive about, “When we win, come back and see us again.” Something to that effect, I guess.”
Anatoli Samochornov [the translator] said
“Like I described, I remember, not verbatim, the closing that Mr. Donald Trump, Jr., provided, but that’s all that I recall being said from the other side.
MR. PRIVOR: That closing being that Donald Trump, Jr., suggested —
MR. SAMOCHORNOV: If or when yes, and I do not remember if or when, but if or when my father becomes President, we will revisit this issue.”
L4D says, Be careful what you ask for Gnash.
I expected a non-answer like that from L4D.
Any incoming, or prospective new administration might reconsider the policies of the previous administration.
And that includes the area of sanctions.
Where is the part about Veselnitskaya, or anyone, promising a Hillary email dump in return for sanctions relief?
That was L4D’s original claim in her June 5 comment..,I ‘ll be happy to keep reposting that comment in case she missed/ ignored it.
You have not reposted L4D’s June 5th comment. You have provided a paraphrase of L4D’s comment based upon you own misinterpretation of L4D’s comment. And you have put that paraphrase of your devise in quotation marks in the exact same manner as the complaint previously lodged against Peter Hill for paraphrasing Karen S [accurately, I might add] while putting his [accurate] paraphrase of Karen S in quotation marks.
Time to go read that article to which L4D posted a link about cheaters and cheating. When the cheater makes up a new rule, it’s especially important for the cheater strictly to observe and obey the new rule that the cheater made up.
L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – you clearly do not understand the concept of cheating. Cheaters do not make new rules, they just do not follow the current rules. So, which is it? Is he not following the rules or is he creating new rules?
– The “rules” on Lies4
Breakfast’s website here are that she can lie freely, and should not be challenged when she lies through her teeth.
Schulteacher blathered, “Cheaters do not make new rules, they just do not follow the current rules.”
If that were true, then how do you explain Giuliani’s claim to Chuck Todd that “truth isn’t truth”? That sounds exactly like a cheater making up a new rule for the express purpose of not following the current rules. Here’s another example: Trump says that he can take over the Russia investigation and run it if he wants to. Does that sound to you like following the current rules?
Did you read the article on cheating to which I linked on the previous page of this thread?
L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – I didn’t read the article and even if I had I do not agree with the proposition. I am guessing it is based on junk science.
Krazy Kat Rambler asked, “Where is the part about Veselnitskaya, or anyone, promising a Hillary email dump in return for sanctions relief?”
OFCOLA. That’s the part that’s in your febrile imagination. Go check and see if L4D actually said what you’re imagining L4D said. If you can, then copy and paste it here. Remember: The issue is what the Russian attendees at the Trump Tower meeting admitted to in their Congressional testimony. And keep biting the handle on that wooden spoon for the protection of your own tongue while you’re at it.
Now I’ve posted Liar4Breakfast’s June 5 comment 4 or 5 times.
I understand if she wants to avoid reading it, because it’s a blatant lie that she can’t weasel out of.
Also, she has been reaching very deep into her bag of tricks and stunts trying to avoid and change the subject, so she must be exhausted.
Maybe she can’t be expected to read “recent comments”.
Listen to what you’re saying Gnash. You posted a copy and paste of L4D’s June 5th comment in the Recent Comments queue near the bottom of the page under the Comments section of the thread.
That’s not how copy and paste works, Ptom. I gave you an example of how it works using one your comments upstream from here.
You know what? If you promise to be extra special nice to anonymous for the remainder of this calendar year, she just might do you the favor of copying and pasting L4D’s June 5th comment. Otherwise, I don’t see how you’re going to pull that off acting on your own initiative.
If you’re reading this, anonymous, you have my blessing even though you don’t need it. Just be sure to make Tommyrot earn it.
As a favor for anonymous only–not for Gnash.
Late4Dinner says: June 5, 2018 at 5:55 AM
Here’s another fun fact that seems to get buried by the righty MAGA cultists: Manafort attended the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, wherein senior members of the Trump campaign openly negotiated sanctions relief for Russia in exchange for Russia hacking and leaking thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton. And that’s just what the attendees actually admitted to doing in their Congressional testimony. There’s an excellent chance that Mueller already knows what really happened at the Trump Tower meeting. And so does The POTUS, Trump.
As much as Liar4Breakfast would like to believe that “the attendees actually admitted to” ( that quid pro quo deal with the Russians) in their Congressional testimony”, they did not admit to that making a deal like that.
If Liar4Breakfast wants to believe it and really concentrates on making it true, then making false claims about this imaginary Congressional testimony is a big step in that direction.
Read the comment again, Gnash. The main verb in L4D’s sentence is “negotiated.” L4D did not assert that the attendees of the Trump Tower meeting admitted to having “made a deal.” L4D asserted that the attendees of the Trump Tower meeting admitted to having conducted a “negotiation.”
Assuming that this comments section is functioning properly, I’m going to re-post what Lies4Brekfast posted in a June 5, 2018 comment.
“Manafort attended the July 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, wherein senior members of the Trump campaign openly negotiated sanction relief for Russia in exchange for Russia hacking and leaking thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton.
And that’s just what the attendees admitted to doing in their Congressional testimony.”
That is a major bombshell revelation that one can find on Lies4 Breakfast morning news, and only on that “news”, since it is absolutely untrue.
Little details like whether a statement or accusation is true do not mean jack**** to that liar if “the greater good” of scoring points is achieved.
Above, she quotes some statements that some of the attendees at the Trump Tower acrually did make.
They do not support her June 5, 2018 lies, so it’s odd that she even bothered to post those statements, with the “chilling warning” of ” Be careful what you ask for, Gnash”.
So when posting quotes from the attendees does not support her wild, invented “facts” she posted on June 5, she posts that irelevant garbage and pretends that it somehow gives credibility to her June 5 claims.
There is not a damn thing in the quotes that she posted about “openly negotiating sanctions relief for Russia in exchange for Russia hacking and leaking” the Hillary emails.
Statements like “come back when we win” or ” they might get back to the Maginsky Act”, or Trump Jr.’s “meaningless phrases” do not come even close to masking the lies she posted on June 5.
L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – that isn’t even the beginning of a bribe offer.
The Russians had reason to believe that the Trump campaign had made an implied promise to revisit sanctions relief when Trump was elected. And Irakly Kaveladze, Rob Goldstone and Rhona Graff tried, but failed, to set-up a another sanctions relief meeting after the election. Kavaeladze complained to Goldstone that the follow-through meeting failed due to a lack of communications with the Trump transition team. Lo and behold. Jared Kushner and Mike Flynn were talking to Sergei Kislyak in Don Jr.’s office at Trump Tower about setting up back-channel communications shortly after Kaveladze complained to Goldstone about a lack of communications with the Trump transition team.
P. S. The First Permissible Tautology clearly states that if a statement is true, then that statement is true. What Giuliani was most likely mumbling and muttering about with his comment to Chuck Todd that “truth isn’t truth” was something more like an open question as to exactly what the truth might mean. Or, if one prefers, what difference might the truth make?
One possible answer might be that the truth of a given statement could make it more difficult to withhold from that given statement one’s provisional consent to the truth of that given statement.
For instance, if Trump keeps on proclaiming that he has nothing to hide whilst steadfastly refusing to answer Mueller’s questions for Trump, then one might have good reason to withhold one’s provisional consent from Trump’s given statement that he has nothing to hide. And that’s just one example of the sort of difference that the truth could make.
L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – one of the things you learn in life is that there can be multiple truths. 5 people see an auto accident, each sees it differently, each has the “truth.” We now know that eyewitness testimony is sketchy at best and re-created at worst. For instance, did you know that the distance between two points is actually both a curve and a straight line? I am not going to tell you both truths, but they are both true. If you figure it out, let me know.
That is an interesting shuffle, even for a troll like Lies4Breakfast.
She makes a comment about what’s in the Congressional Record, then denies making that comment, then posts statements from some who attended the Trump Tower meeting which confirms none of what she is claiming, then claiming that she never made the claim, etc.
It would save a lot of time if there were a troll/ propaganist decoder ring to untangle her flip-fllops and flip-knots, but it might still take 5-10 times as long as it should to work one’s way through the the “thicket-talk” she loves to demonstrate.
If one takes a meeting with a group of people offering information damaging to one’s political opponent, then one is conducting a negotiation with that group of people offering information damaging to one’s political opponent. If one rejects the offer that that group of people made on the grounds that the information offered was useless against one’s political opponent, then one still conducted a negotiation with that group of people, anyway. If one rejects the offer that that group of people made on the grounds that the information offered was not the information that one had expected to be offered, then one still conducted a negotiation with that group of people, anyway. As such, asserting that the offer was rejected and stating the reasons for rejecting that offer in no way whatsoever refutes nor rebuts the established fact that a negotiation had been conducted.
L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – so, you are a lawyer now? So, I walk by a guy on the street selling fake Prada purse and he yells out to me that he can sell me two for the price of one. I tell him I am not interest. According to you I have entered into a negotiation?
I don’t know if there were negotiation with Fusion GPS or Christopher Steele over the amount to be paid for the Russian Dossier.
Regardless, money was exchanged for Russian opposition research, so whether the DNC or the Hillary Campaign Fund dickered over the price, it could be considered a”negotiated” deal.
Tom Nash – I am sure, using Late4Yoga’s definition, negotiations were involved in Perkins Coe hiring Fusion GPS and they hiring Christopher Steele. Negotiations abound on the Left.
Good point Paul. Imagine the number of people that could be rounded up under this twits reasoning. You see an advertisement in your email folder for some product you have previously searched for and when you click on the site you discover they aren’t selling your desired product. Instead, they are selling child porn, or knockoff Prada bags, or any other illegal product or service you have no interest in. Your options are to accept the offer or decline to accept.
Off to the hoosegow you go for entering into negotiations.
What’s interesting is the FBI took an obvious illegal activity and declined to refer for prosecution based on the lack of intent. But in the case of the Trump Tower meeting, they’re pursuing intent although no illegal activity took place.
Is it any wonder why the American people are losing faith in our DOJ?
Is Guiliani a Sicilian? Of descent from Sicily migrants? He seems more like a Roma.
Is the little avatar and bell thing missing from everybody else page here, too??? The thing that tells you that you have replies? Or is it just me?
Squeeky – not sure what you are getting, but I get all my replies in the email. When I am sending this there are two boxes I will check to get new comments and posts via email. Not sure if that is necessary, but I do it none the less.
Before the blog problems the other day, there was little picture of me at the top right of the page, and right next to that a little bell. Whenever somebody replied to me, the little bell would have a red dot on it. If I hit the bell, it would list all the people who replied to me, along with a short blurb of what they said.
This is if I was logged onto one of my own wordpress blogs. Now, the little me, and the bell are kaput! And I don’t know if anybody responds to me or not without checking every single comment I made.
Squeeky – click the notify me of new comments via email box which means you will have to go through all of the comments but you will find yours. 🙂 And in a timely fashion. 🙂 Or write JT and complain.
The comments section is doing some screwy things in the last few days…..I’ve had comments disappear, then re-appear, I have comments above that
So I’m not sure what’s going on.
PS: If it is a system problem, the people who run the blog might need to do this:
Squeeky – you might forward that to JT. 🙂
Comments are closed.