Giuliani Admits That Trump Did Sign The Previously Stated “Unsigned” Moscow Letter But Calls It All “Bulls**t”

I have previously discussed the problematic advocacy of Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, including repeated corrections of his statements on national television.  The latest correction was to Giuliani’s insistence that, while Trump did continue to discuss a Moscow deal far later than previously claims, the thrust of the deal came down to an “unsigned letter.”  That latest representation lasted only a few hours when the signed letter was found.  Now, Giuliani is saying the letter was signed but it is just “bulls**t.”  Again, I fail to see how this meets the standard of effective and professional representation.

 In comments to the New York Daily News to correct his Sunday comments.  He now claims “of course” Trump signed it but that it was “bulls**t” and “That was the end of it. It means nothing but an expression of interest that means very little unless it goes to a contract and it never did.”  Of course, it is the “interest” that is driving questions on whether there was a desire to do business with the Russians that might have influenced Trump’s position or worse yet, was part of a quid pro quo.  

Giuliani recognized that it was better for the letter to be unsigned because it would not show the direct act of Trump in pursuing business in Moscow.  That highlighted the fact of the signature for Trump’s critics.

I still fail to see the evidence of such collusion but these continued missteps only fuel suspicions and undermine the defense.  Trump’s team has been plagued by errors and embarrassing admissions or corrections from the start.  They are continuing despite the increasingly precarious position of the President.

93 thoughts on “Giuliani Admits That Trump Did Sign The Previously Stated “Unsigned” Moscow Letter But Calls It All “Bulls**t””

  1. I’m sure if Trump signed a deal in Tel Aviv he would not be getting flack from the Congress, Mueller or MSM. 89 dual U.S.-Israeli citizens in Congress would be doing the HORAH!

  2. Let’s face it, the Rudy we are seeing now, is NOT the Rudy who was front and centre during 9/11.

    I didn’t know The Orange One then. But his behavior NOW……is indicative of a very sick person.

    Can we just finish with these people and send them back to the care of MINDERS….to live out

    their days, comfortably. Their egos, are destroying them, or it might be Hallucinations.?

  3. Rudy G is guilty of sloppy message, but in essence he is correct that this is BS. Letter of intent is simply an expression of interest to learn more and continue dialogue. No contract, no money changed hands, and it was signed at a time when even Trump would acknowledge that winning presidency was a long shot.

    1. bill

      “Yes, I did tell the narc on the phone that i was interested in the 10 kilos of cocaine, but that was only an expression of interest to learn more and continue dialogue since I was waiting to til my partner was able to come up with his half of the funding. No deal went down at that time.”

      1. Billie Mac, Your anti-Trump default setting has stymied your ability to think logically. You equate a contemplated real estate deal by a developer to a drug deal. The point about letter of intent was timing and lack of contract/dollars exchanged as it related to potential conflict of interest (not crime).

  4. RUSSIANS HAPPY TRUMP IS PULLING OUT OF SYRIA

    BUT MOVE LEAVES KURDISH ALLIES VULNERABLE TO TURKEY

    The departure of US troops would leave Russia and Iran, allies of President Bashar Assad, behind in Syria as major influences. Russia’s position has long been that US forces should not be in Syria.

    One Russian official was cautiously enthusiastic when asked for a reaction Wednesday. “If the Americans really do pull their troops out, I think that would only help stabilize the situation in Syria,” Vladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy chairman of the international affairs committee in the upper house of Russia’s parliament, said, according to the Interfax news service.

    “The withdrawal of American troops from Syria will always be welcomed in Moscow,” Elena Suponina, a Middle East expert in the Russian capital, told Bloomberg News. There was no immediate response from the Kremlin or the Russian Foreign Ministry.

    The decision is bad news for the Kurds.

    The US forces have been supporting Kurdish-led forces in northeastern Syria in battling the Islamic State. But President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has vowed to launch a new offensive against the Kurdish troops, whom he considers part of a Kurdish terrorist group.

    The Washington Post reported that Mattis and other senior national security officials have tried to convince Trump not to withdraw US troops, saying the move would betray the Kurds, and make local fighters in other countries wary of partnering with the United States. (Trump argued back that if Turkey did launch an offensive against the Kurds, US troops could be threatened, the Post reported.)

    The Guardian reported that Kurds had doubts about the US’s future intentions and loyalties. Kobani, the Kurdish commander, told Reuters that if Turkey attacks his troops, the fight against the Islamic State will fail “and all the work between us will go to waste.”

    Edited from: “4 Things To Know About Trump’s Decision To Withdraw From Syria”

    This evening’s BOSTON GLOBE

    1. PH – Turley article is not about Syria. You are acting like Late4Yoga, or maybe you and Late4Yoga are one in the same?

      1. Haha. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Trump/ Titanic administration. Excellent. Keep posting more material Just. Like. This.

        this is to “but I’m desperate here” billie

        1. As usual Marky M you are again just acting like an impulsive troll boy with no message, no original thought, no game.

  5. This story is for the Trump Deranged Anarchists but alas the other Dossier story….total snoozer for them

    “Ultimately, the Clinton-funded dossier was used by the Obama Administration to secure secret surveillance targeting Trump officials.” – JT

    There is no integrity, no honor , not a fiber of character in our nation anymore. Bring back the dinosaurs so that we all become extinct and let God start again

    1. I suspect, you, your ilk, the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make will very soon come to understand that integrity and honor reside in federal grand juries–which are in fact populated by your peers–and who will demonstrate to the country at large exactly what that ticking sound is.

      this is to “I wish I had a ‘hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” jasie

    2. Latest story about Trump letter of intent hyped by dumb left leaning “journalists”. Letter of intent involved no money changing hands and/or deliverable(s) while Clinton payments to foreign national Steele working with Russian operatives did involve money changing hands and a deliverable. Dumb lefty journalists have have all drunk the same group think cool-aid whereby they are collectively duty-bound to save the world from Trump vs. “do your job” (Bill Belichek – sp?).

      1. Perhaps your missive is more effective directed to the federal grand juries now deliberating “evidence” sufficient to support probable cause that the day glo bozo, his henchmen, parasitic grifters, family members, and the bozo himself have committed acts proscribed by federal law–or maybe on second thought, you might not want to.

        this is to “when I gits into the ripple while watchin me some hannity, I gits riled up” billie

  6. “Trump is not very good at paying lawyers, therefore legitimate ones won’t work for him.”

    Making up stories again? Next I expect you to repeat your racist claim based on an incident from 1928 before Trump was born. Lawyers very frequently take retainers. The hard part is getting the unused money back from the lawyer.

  7. Rudy G has made a fool of himself with everyone but “FOX NEWS”.watchers. I’m sure that I Am not the only one that thinks Rudy G had Trump’s back in the 90’s.

    1. Given that only losers and whiners like you watch flunky news stations, why should anyone care what you think?

      Raddow Madcow is sobbing right now on air. Throw a flannel shirt at her

  8. PROFESSOR TURLEY WRITES:

    “I still fail to see the evidence of such collusion but these continued missteps only fuel suspicions and undermine the defense. Trump’s team has been plagued by errors and embarrassing admissions or corrections from the start. They are continuing despite the increasingly precarious position of the President”.
    .

    Professor Turley, honest, savvy politicians are not besieged by plagues of bad luck. These missteps, errors and embarrassing admissions are all reflective of Donald Trump. The man is an immature anti-intellectual who listens only to his gut. And his gut instincts rarely rise above the level of greed.

    1. “savvy politicians are not besieged by plagues of bad luck. ”

      Bull. Obama has been caught up in activies that likely would have sunk Trump because of the media. Obama also relied a lot on lies and polical bribery. Gruber the architect of Obamacare said they lied or the public wouldn’t have permitted Obamacare to be passed.

        1. Obama is intelligent and savvy and that’s why he didn’t have the plagues of bad luck that besiege Trump.

          Yeah, that’s why he had such an impressive career in private practice, not to mention his scholarly writings. And then there’s the string of consequential legislation he composed in the Illinois legislature. And the business he founded. And, of course, his dealings with Tony Rezko. As for his savvy in office, ain’t Obamacare, ISIS, and the Iran deal grand?

          1. President Barack HUSSEIN Obama was the greatest President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces since Harry Truman. Further, prior to his marriage, he unquestionably had “access” to the white women.

            this is to “ya, but he was Kenyan, amIright?” absurdity

            1. The NPC Marky Mark Mark runs the “Obama banged white women” script. Your programmer might add that Obama also banged blacked men according to reports. This would make Obama both our first bi-racial President and bi-sexual President.

        2. Obama had the MSM and social media on his side to such an extent that he could weaponize the IRS against conservatives and not get that much flak. Obama wasn’t prepared for the Presidency and overall IMO he did a lousy job. I can’t be sure how intelligent he really is because conversations with him were limited and he generally came prepared. I’m willing to bet he was reasonably smart, but not a scholar.

          1. Allan, mainstream media was ‘not’ that friendly to Obama. During Obama’s entire first term so-called ‘fiscal hawks’ were given more coverage than they ever deserved.

            1. “mainstream media was ‘not’ that friendly to Obama.”

              That is your opinion or I should say the opinion of the talking points you read. Compare Obamas treatment with Trump’s.

          2. He and Mooch are likely as intelligent as a mid-range professional-managerial class denizen. So was John Kennedy. So was George W. Bush. (Both Kennedy and Bush sat for psychometric tests in the course of their military service and scored around the 88th percentile of the population). In their case, though, it didn’t matter.

            BO and Mooch may be intelligent, but neither one is particularly intellectual in their avocational life. The two properties are correlated, but not identical. Richard Nixon was notable for intelligence and intellectuality. Gerald Ford and George Bush the Elder were intelligent, but had little interest in the life of the mind. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were arguably less intelligent than Ford and Bush the Elder, but more intellectual. Reagan had a genuine interest in ideas and in how things worked (something which irritated Jane Wyman); Bush the Younger was and is a bibliophile who will happily consume multiple history volumes a week.

            At the same time, both BO and Mooch had quite eccentric careers. People were willing to pay her handsome salaries to execute obscure tasks without operational measures of competence and to pay him to put in the basics and coast (in his case). They both passed the Illinois bar exam. Milestones of professional accomplishments reached after that are pretty much nil (other than being hired for the jobs they held).

            One thing about BO in particular is how little individuality he manifests (bar some shticks which indicate he came of age ca. 1980; Peter Shill has shticks which identify him as a particular vintage as well). Everything he says is derivative. The administration was the resultant of all the vectors at work in the Democratic Party and he added little other than putting the Energy Department in the venture capital business. The administration’s bad behavior is merely an indicator of the degree to which the Democratic Party is a criminal organization (though I think some other Democrat would not have certain of Obama’s strange quirks, manifest in keeping his birth certificate and college transcripts under lock and key).

            1. DSS, Personalities have a wide variety of traits and skills. I hope you don’t focus too much on a limited view of such personalities because some of the smartest people I know cannot move the ball forward. I think Reagan was more intelligent than most at least in his understanding of American government, war and piece and other things of that nature. He was also able to be affable and think on his feet. That is far more important than being scholarly or having an additional 10 points on one’s IQ.

              1. The subject was ‘intelligence’ Allan, not any other personal quality.

                I see no indication that Reagan thought on his feet particularly well. He had an advantage four of his five immediate predecessors lacked: experience in an executive position. He had another advantage Jimmy Carter lacked: he knew how to set priorities and how to delegate authority; Carter’s micromanaging was comical and irritating enough in real time that it was essentially public information. Reagan had a third advantage Richard Nixon in particular lacked: he knew how to put a personnel system together which put like-minded people in place who required only light supervision. See Richard Nathan on what Nixon’s White House staff attempted to do in lieu of acting on the observation that personnel is policy. Reagan had another advantage which Nixon, Ford, and Bush lacked. He wasn’t in politics to challenge himself and compete with others, he wasn’t in politics because he found it an agreeable way to earn a living, he wasn’t in politics because he was suffused with pointless ambition. He had discrete policy goals and wasn’t confused by the kultursmog.

                1. “The subject was ‘intelligence’ Allan, not any other personal quality.”

                  DSS, there are many different types of intelligence. You even brought up more than one. When limiting the discussion to intellgence to a single metric one generally thinks of IQ. Look at what you said and note how you expanded intelligence to all sorts of things.

                  I think you are wrong about Reagan and one of the reasons I believe he was able to think quickly on his feet regarding a multiplicity of issues is because he thought long and hard about these issues long before he became President. Everything you say about him would help lead to this impression.

                  1. No, Reagan was a hedgehog, not a fox. He had a hierarchical menu of principles with which he could readily assess situations. That’s a different quality than thinking on your feet.

                    Thinking on your feet is the specialty of courtroom lawyers, and Reagan was never in that trade. He never had much to do with improvisational work when he was an entertainer, although he did a certain amount of Q & A when working in public relations. All politicians of his vintage had to be practiced at Q & A. It’s only in the last 15 years that the media was content to allow their preferred pols to limit themselves to scripted sessions. IIRC, Reagan’s live performances after 1935 were scripted and his performances prior to that in a radio booth.

                    No clue why you’re promoting Howard Gardner’s ‘multiple intelligences’ in this forum. That’s at best a controversial thesis in psychology and irrelevant to anything I was discussing.

                    1. “No, Reagan was a hedgehog, not a fox. He had a hierarchical menu of principles with which he could readily assess situations. That’s a different quality than thinking on your feet.”

                      DSS being able to readily assess the problem and respond is one of the traits that help humans think quickly on their feet. I don’t know why you are making such a big issue over this.

                      Reagan was not an attorney, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t think on his feet. A lot of attorneys are rather dull. You seem to have own dictionary where in this case thinking quickly on one’s feet is something lawyers do to the partial exclusion of others.

                      I am not promoting Howard Gardner or anyone else. I am merely stating things that are clear to many even if you disagree.

                    2. DSS being able to readily assess the problem and respond is one of the traits that help humans think quickly on their feet. I don’t know why you are making such a big issue over this.

                      This is your third reply to me. Your first was gratuitous, by the way. If you don’t want to discuss something, then shut up. I’m not interested personally in replicating one of your 300 comment marathons with Dhili.

                    3. “This is your third reply to me. Your first was gratuitous”

                      DSS, If you wish to talk about gratuitous comments you should review many of your own which seem to be just that, gratuitous. In fact even your first response on my comment to Peter sounded gratuitous and quite wordy. Though you might disagree, what you said was opinion, not fact and was poorly tied together.

                      My response at the time was to indicate a broader understanding of intelligence and competence.

                      I said “I think Reagan was more intelligent than most at least in his understanding of American government, war and piece and other things of that nature. He was also able to be affable and think on his feet.”

                      You lost it and started an argument over what constitutes intelligence saying:”The subject was ‘intelligence” for the sole purpose of gratuitously placing me on the defensive.

                      You provided a wordy response including the use of multiple personalities when you could have simply disagreed and accepted my opinion as my own. In that wordy response you said “I see no indication that Reagan thought on his feet particularly well.” My response to your post is listed above and included my rational: “I think you are wrong about Reagan and one of the reasons I believe he was able to think quickly on his feet regarding a multiplicity of issues is because he thought long and hard about these issues long before he became President.” You continued to hammer away while expanding the dialogue instead of focusing on the specific iss, for what reason I cannot figure out.

                      Your last response demonstrates a lack of composure along with accusations. You say you don’t want to repeat a long series of postings and that is my feeling as well, but you are the one that in each and every posting expanded the discussion rather than focused on the issue of disagreement. If you can’t focus and have to use wordy responses that include a multiplicity of different items then you are right, the conversation should end.

    2. here we go with the anti intellectual stuff again. oh and his alleged “instincts” of “greed” have worked pretty well for him.

  9. Team Trump keeps lying about contacts and relations with Russia. Why? If there’s nothing to see here, why don’t they just shut up, cooperate with the investigation and get it over with?

    1. because that’s never how it works. only a fool that never had to deal with an investigation thinks that way. or a cop. you a cop?

      you can see where cooperation got Flynn!

      1. No, Mr. Kurtz, you can see where lying and being a crook got Flynn. Flynn is only a victim on Faux News. Everywhere else, he’s a lying crook who, sadly, betrayed the uniform. Did you see the exchange between the Judge and Flynn yesterday? Flynn admitted to his crimes, admitted he knew it was wrong to lie to the FBI, and denied that the FBI wronged him by not advising him he should have counsel.

      2. Mr Kurtz – Cooperation got Flynn a prosecutor willing to trade his assistance for his freedom and that of his son’s. Unfortunately for him, when the judge saw just how much he has sold out America, he got pissed and may lock him up anyway. I bet Flynn wishes he never led the “Lock Her Up” chant?

    2. The government has recordings of many of these incidents and none of them have been demonstrated to involve Trump. Michael Cohen was in Prague making deals with the Russians according to many of you on this list, but he wasn’t. Trump made a deal for Trump Tower, but he didn’t. Trump is soft on Russia but Trump actually killed a bunch of Russians and sent armaments to the Ukraine. Obama did nothing permitting Russia to take over the Crimea and parts of the Ukraine. Obama did nothing about N.Korea. N. Korea stopped its threats and its testing. Obama did nothing. Obama said we would need a magic wand for the economy and Trump provided it with GDP up to 3 along with reduced unemployment, reduced food stamps etc.

      You focus on trivial items that have nothing to do with the well being of Americans.

      1. they dont care about well being of americans or they would not have been pushing third world migration invasion since 1965

        what else is there to talk about? and they wont fund a wall even. it’s time for civil war basically. base camp is over run. a wall is probably singing past the graveyard anyhow.

      2. Allan, ‘North Korea stopped its testing’..??

        To my knowledge, no serious observer thinks North Korea was truly serious about halting its nuclear program. Trump has no hard agreement with them. If North Korea seems ‘less threatening’ it’s only because they adopted a more stealthy approach.

        1. if we were serious about stopping nuclear tests then Bill clinton would have bombed them to oblivion when the time was ripe. He did not. I accept that as his proper choice as CIC. and maybe it was wise. i don’t know but I won’t insult clinton on this point that was his call to make and one that we all must live with now.

          DPRK is a nuclear power now and there is no point in extending endless hostility for a fait accompli.

          Trump’s diplomatic initiatives are wise and laudable but of course the usual suspects have undermined them.

          1. Surprisingly, I agree with this assessment; with the caveat that you failed to include that the day glo bozo’s initiatives were ineffectual. As you implicitely stated, “bombing them back to the stone age” is not a viable option, and while “initiatives” were the best course of action, the incompetence of the day glo bozo and his cabal of grifter-henchmen rendered their pathetic attempts at same to be laughably insufficient.

            this is to kurtzie

        2. Peter, How do you know their approach is more stealthy? You don’t. No one knows what will happen in the future but Trump’s management of N Korea is superior to what former Presidents did before N. Korea became a nuclear power.

          You make so many dumb statements it is hard to correct them all.

      3. You are, of course, allowed your own opinion–no matter how divorced from reality you’ve revealed it to be. However, you are manifestly NOT allowed your own facts. Here in the real world: 1) your North Korea claim is laughably false; 2) whether there was ultimately a deal or not on the Moscow Tower does not affect whether the day glo bozo lied about the pursuit of same; and 3) American patriots can observe for themselves the ball-bagging that the day glo bozo performed on Putin in Helsinki. Pro tip: this website is frequented by lawyers, most of which can readily distinguish “facts” from the claptrap which you apparently post with impunity on reddit, or wherever else person with your skill-set gather to circle-jerk about the buffoonish cretin currently occupying the White House.

        this is to “I borrowed a lil bit from hannity” allen / allan

        1. Mark, you are very stingy with the facts either due to lack of knowledge or a bit of craziness that doesn’t care about the truth as long as you can repeat your ideology. You might be better off going to church or a synagogue etc. where faith is an acceptable trait.

          1)N Korea, no launches and no significant threats. That is a change from N. Korea sending missles off the coast of Japan and threatening Guam.
          2)Moscow Tower: Meaningless. Nothing ever happened. Just because a deal doesn’t go through doesn’t mean interest disappears. I deal in a bit of real estate and even if I didn’t buy certain properties and they were sold to someone else I might continue to have interest. No one knows what opportunity can pop up even if it has to do with a different property. You obviously work for a salary or a fee and have little business interests so you are what we classify as a know nothing.
          3)Helsinki: We are idiots for not talking to the Russians and dealing with them if it is in OUR interest. They are a regional power. Their demographics are terrible, they depend on oil and the fracking and open fields of Trump have done more to harm the Russians than anything else, their lifespan is terrible and the money instead of being used to create more wealth is frequently stolen by the oligarchs. We screwed up when the wall fell. We didn’t pay due notice to Russia that has nuclear weapons. I give Russia maybe 10 years to put their aggression in order because I don’t think they will have that ability in the future.

          China is our enemy or fierce competitor. We are focussing on all the wrong things and that is due to the stupidity of people, perhaps like like Mark M., who can’t carry on an honest discussion.

          Too much politics and not enough focus on American and the American people. I believe that many of our legislators are closing their eyes for polical reasons and due to the funding they get. We should look at each legislator and see how much money they had when they came to Congress and compare that with how much they have now. I think that would be very distressing.

  10. The longer it goes that you keep saying “I don’t see it”, “collusion” that is, the more your legal cache diminishes. This is a case where RICO seems quite apt for a corrupt criminal organization. i believe cases have been made with less evidence.

  11. I believe the various prevarications are a result of Trumps habit of lying that influences or guides his defense. All part of a whole. Trump is a liar and conman. Always has been and always will be. May get caught up with at some point

        1. YNOT, All of the intelligent conservatives on this blog recognize Trump’s inadequacies but we also recognize what he has done something even the MSM stays away from. You are the one who doesn’t accept responsibility. Obama was a liar as well. Clinton raped women and both Clintons have dealt with the Russians and the Chinese for personal gain.

          Stop acting like a rabid dog that bites anything in his way. Start thinking rationally.

          1. Read your stuff sometime before you critique others; sadly, you may be what passes as an intelligent conservative on this site but the bar is pretty low. I think I prefer your alter ego, George, no pretense with him.

            1. YNOT, anytime you wish to take issue with anything I said, quote it and tell me what you believe. That is how intelligent discussion is created. You don’t do that so you sound a bit like an empty container. We don’t have to agree to have a good discussion, so try harder.

        2. accept responsibility for being an anti-american collaborator with foreign invading hordes and obstruction of the lawful POTUS righteous agenda

          1. If I get your ramblings correctly, are you not living abroad? The French are probably thinking the same about you; they have enough crack pots but thanks for lessening our burden.

  12. Again, I fail to see how this meets the standard of effective and professional representation.

    SInce you’re not a working lawyer, how is it that you’re an authority on that subject?

    1. Jonathan Turley has been the lead counsel on many cases in the last 20 years. One 2014-2016 was representing the House of Representatives on some elements of Obamacare which they ultimately won.

      1. He is not a working lawyer. He is an academic. He produces appellate briefs on a small selection of issues. That’s it.

        1. And according to TIA, the Church Committee didn’t look at abuses by the FBI…, only the CIA.

          Prominent cases (refer to Jonathan Turley’s Wikipedia page)

          In addition to maintaining a widely read blog,[53] Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades—representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients in national security, environmental, constitutional, and other types of cases. Among them:

          Lead counsel in United States House of Representatives v. Price, the 2014 constitutional challenge of President Obama’s changes to the Affordable Care Act.

          Lead counsel in Brown v. Buhman, for the Brown family from the TLC reality series Sister Wives, in their challenge of Utah’s criminalization of polygamy.

          Lead counsel for five former United States Attorneys General in litigation during the Clinton Impeachment in federal court.

          Lead counsel to ‘Five Wives Vodka” in successful challenge of ban on sales in Idaho due to a finding that the product was insulting to Mormons.

          Lead counsel representing Dr. Sami Al-Arian in securing this release for civil contempt and later in defense of criminal contempt charges (which were dropped after years of litigation).

          Larry Hanauer, a House Intelligence Committee staff member falsely accused of leaking classified information to The New York Times.[54]

          David Faulk, a whistleblower who revealed abuses at NSA’s Fort Gordon surveillance programs.[55]
          Dr. Eric Foretich,[42] in overturning the Elizabeth Morgan Act in 2003.[56]

          former Judge Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial defense.[41]

          Defendants in terrorism cases, including Ali al-Tamimi (the alleged head of the Virginia Jihad/Paintball conspiracy).[57]

          Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada.[58][59]

          Lead counsel in the litigation over the mass arrests at the World Bank/IMF protests in Washington.[60]
          Turley represented the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado.[61]

          My god you’re a bore, TIA.

        2. Tempest in a teacup bullsh*t. Our bar cards don’t distinguish between what you refer to as “academics” and other members of the bar. If you were an actually member of the bar, you would never have raised such a nonsensical issue; I suspect you heard such criticism on a loner-loser youtube broadcast or obscure website. Laughably, Pravda Faux News may have located an “expert” to assert such dribble so you knuckleheads would have something to console yourselves with as the clock ticks down on the administration of the day glo bozo.

          this is to “but I’m desperately against minorities and women-folk” absurdity

      1. I’d be more impressed with that insult, Diane, if you didn’t produce acres of text pretending to know confidential information in shyster Mueller’s. files.

  13. “an expression of interest”

    Many people have expressions of interest. That and $15 gets your car accross the GW Bridge into Manhattan

    1. “Express an interest” in paying the State Highway Patrol Officer who just pulled you over for speeding, $150 to “forget about writing the speeding citation ticket and see what it “gets you”!

      1. You don’t seem to able to differentiate legal contracts from having an interest in something. You break the law and you pay the fine but Trump didn’t break any laws. I can’t help it if you don’t understand basic law.

        Also as far as the Ticket goes one doesn’t have to pay the fine if the police don’t have adequate proof that the incident occurred,

          1. You don’t seem to understand that people can readily spot someone playing stupid games. You deserve stupid prizes.

          2. “You don’t seem to understand what constitutes the crime of bribery!”

            You don’t seem to have the abilty to read. Where did I say crime of bribery? It wasn’t said. You make things up and you confuse yourself. The words I chose were “polical bribery”.

            1. Read between the lines, foolbot, remember you are an intelligent conservative, REPRESENT. Poor Allan, getting denser as the day goes on. Drool cap by 8 before it is too late.

              1. YNOT, your comment “Read between the lines,” means you don’t have an intelligent response nor can you defend any argument you make. That is why most of your comments are vacuous.

                You can do better. Try.

    1. Actually he probably is. He has probably picked thousands of lawyers to work for him over the decades. And since he’s a billionaire and POTUS they must have done quite a lot right.

      See this is the problem with the peanut gallery. Open mouth, out flies unqualified overly broad and arrogant opinion

            1. Enigma, I think Rudy wanted to be either Secretary of State or Attorney General. And since Trump offered him neither position, Rudy might have a secret ax to grind. Because every 2 weeks, or so, Rudy says something in Trump’s defense that sounds oddly incriminating. And that happens when lawyers honestly don’t like their clients. It also happens in Hollywood when agents don’t like their clients.

              1. Paul – Rudy’s motives indeed seem suspect. I would slightly differ with your opinion he makes Trump sound “oddly incriminating.” I submit he makes Trump sound guilty as hell. Which of course he is.

              2. +1!! I hadn’t considered that. I just thought that Rudi had some sort of brain damage that caused him to so damage his client’s position at every opportunity.

                to PH

            2. Re being a member of the bar Enigma writes” “Paul – Are you sure about Rudy?”

              Enigma doesn’t know and that is good enough to use innuendo against the man instead of checking and not slandering a person because that is Enigma’s nature. This is very much like Enigma’s claim that DJTrump was a racist because of an article written 20 years before DJTrump was born. Enigma’s nature is on full display for anyone that cares to look.

Leave a Reply