603
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
603 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3979 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
People often say they're just waiting for him to flip on Trump. Giuliani is broke, Trump disdains him, etc...
The prosecutors aren't interested in what he has to say. There are better witnesses, more reliable witnesses who have corroborated all the facts already.
The prosecutors do not need this shell of a man to flip.
Yeah, but it'll still be fun to watch all the worms turn on each other.
If he flips it'll be hilarious watching him mouth vomit all the shit trump has told him.
This. Trump is the main culprit and threat, so he's priority.
But taking down a corrupt former mayor? That's a feather in anyone's cap too.
Plus, Rudy isn't exactly a credible witness. He's told so many lies, so many different versions of events, and he has proven he's willing to say anything to save his own skin. The defense would tear him apart on the stand.
The only way he gets a deal is if he can provide hard evidence the prosecution doesn't already have.
Totally agree.
BUT ... if he has hard evidence like documents, recordings, emails, txts, those might be worth something and will be harder for the defense to tear apart.
Yet still, I want to see Rudy behind bars so there's that too.
I expect the case is entirely airtight. They indicted a former president, and you don't do that if there's a chance you lose.
Oh I agree and am hopeful that's trye. And yet I don't think it's possible to have "too much" evidence against 45. To quote a wise woman, " ...I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
100% this. He'd be a laughable witness against drumpf and all drumpf's lawyers need to do is to cast reasonable bout in his testimony, There are a few obvious ones, like substance abuse, habitual lying, leaked tapes, financial embarrasment, etc. There's also always a chance he'd make the whole process a clown show by sprouting off random ramblings and conspiracy theories on the stand. Drumpf's attorneys could also easily push all the blame to Rudy by invoking the advice of counsel defence.
Glad to see "drumpf" is still out there in the wilds
At this rate they don’t need anyone to “flip”. At the end of the day these morons got busted doing illegal shit and there is more than enough evidence that they don’t need someone else’s testimony. Flip or not then are fucked.
The guy who erased the footage already flipped...
He had a trump lawyer and said it was never erased. Then he switched to a public defender and recanted his statement that it wasn't erased.
Even if he didn't take a deal, that counts as "flipping"
Was the footage actually erased? I thought that Trump’s crew asked him to erase it (but he either wasn’t able or willing to) but the actual issue was he initially lied to the Feds saying they never asked him to erase it. After getting a new attorney he’s recanted and told the feds that they did ask him to.
I never saw mention of the tapes actually being erased but maybe I just missed that detail? I assumed the Feds had the tapes.
I could be wrong. But my understanding is that the guy didn't have the ability to erase the security footage even if he wanted to. That was part of the whole discussion about "the boss" wanting the footage erased. The IT guy lied about even being asked at all when he had a Trump lawyer, then recanted that when he got his own public defender.
Yeah that was my understanding, too but I wasn’t sure if I was remembering correctly. :)
Rudy is the "true believer." I dont think he'll ever turn on Trump.
I don't think so. I think he's just an opportunistic weasel. But I could be wrong
Lmao no, no one of his bootlickers believe in him. Not even Gaetz. When push comes to shove is everyone for themselves. Although, the Four Season Landscaping fiasco (still get a good laugh at that one) make me question his sanity.
Plus I have to imagine that lawyers such as Jack Smith and those on his team have a deep loathing for corrupt attorneys like Giuliani and would love to see him brought to justice.
Knowing how hard even with a ton of evidence it will be to convict Trump He may not even have been offered a deal. He's not a president but still a very high level political operative. He might be the biggest fish to fry.
To quote Giuliani himself, He has insurance, and knows where the bodies are buried. There are likely ~~extemporaneous~~ contemporaneous notes of items of interest