Just when I thought I didn’t want to know more about Giuliani… at least no one can accuse Gyrate of misleading advertising.
Yeah, whatever is up with him it is, like a lot of things in Trumpland, wrong not in the way normal things are supposed to be wrong.
OR she actually knows someone that needs a presidential pardon.
It originally came from his E. Jean Carroll deposition.
I believe he said it in his deposition. On tape. Under oath.
Correct, but in the town hall he just dug the hole deeper.
Speaking with CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins, Trump also doubled down on comments he made during an Access Hollywood film shoot in 2005 in which he justified groping women by saying, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” During a deposition for the Carroll trial, Trump appeared to defend those comments.
When Collins asked if Trump would take those comments back, he refused. He went on to defend a type of social order where wealthy and famous people get away with doing what they want.
“For a million years, this is the way it’s been. I want to be honest, this is the way it’s been,” Trump said. “If you’re a famous person, if you’re a star, and I’m not referring to myself, I’m saying people that are famous, people that are stars, people that are rich, people that are powerful, they tend to do pretty well in a lot of different ways, ok? And you would like me to take that back? I can’t take it back because it happens to be true.”
That is the way it is, Trump said, “fortunately or unfortunately for her.”
Hes not saying hes famous, or a star??!!
That is irrelevant, he is saying that whatever happened, he is not guilty, because that is the way it is and always was. Not his fault. It may be unfortunate for the victims, but he can’t help it (no, that is not the unfair part). Which is very fortunate for him, but it just goes to prove that he is not and cannot be guilty. Thus every investigation of his behaviour is a witch hunt. So unfair! (Yes, that is the unfair part.)
I know that this sounds like too complex a line of reasoning for Deluded Dopey Dotard Donald tanTrump (DDDDtT), and of course he he could not explain it like that even with a sharpie, but he feels it instinctively, just like he feels racism instinctively and uses it to rile up his base (quite successfully, btw). And has it not worked like a charm so far? Therefore he is right. As always.
There is only one way to stop this: lock him up. I don’t care whether in a penitenciary or in a mental institute.
I was wondering that, and also why she put up with so much abuse for so long, but this makes sense. I’m glad she was finally able to step back, get out and (hopefully) nail the fucker to the wall.
So…has CNN given him a townhall yet?
This is an excellent framing and a very plausible explanation.
That’s the thing with people saying there are “alleged” recordings of some of this.
It’s easy to allege things when you’re just talking out your ass on TV, but it’s a bit harder in an official court filing. At some point the Judge is going to ask for, and expect to be given, every single recording mentioned. How many time do you think the judge will accept, “Ooops, sorry, I don’t actually have that recording” before sanctions start coming down?
I imagine every single thing that is claimed to have been recorded will be submitted. Some percentage may turn out to be slightly different from what was claimed, but I expect the major substance of the claims will be borne out. Otherwise, this whole case would be a very ill-conceived bluff.
Agreed. She’s not running a telethon promising that she has packets showing what Rudy did. This was submitted in court. They don’t fuck around there.
usually, i read the filings as there are interesting bits and bobs. from the litte bits that i’ve seen/heard so far… i’m gonna pass on this one.
Lurid and Prurient, APC.
I may be reading poorly, so my apologies if this question set has been answered clearly.
There’s an implication that she has (or had) access to Giuliani’s emails. If so, there could be some real smoking guns there.
- Is it clear from the suit whether she still has that access–e.g., did she copy those emails while she had them?
- If she has them, is there any realistic chance that they’ll get used in investigations?
- If she has them, is there any realistic chance we’ll get to see them?
- She talks a lot in those quotes about how she has the receipts. In any of the follow-up interviews, has she confirmed that she has the recordings that she speaks about?
This case looks like it has potential to break some stuff open, but I don’t want to get excited prematurely.
Just drink some 10 AM whiskey to relax you.
If they were to be turned over to the USDOJ, for example, they could not just start reading them. Someone would have to go through them to determine what is privileged and what isn’t.
It’s important to remember that it’s the client’s privilege. Giuliani being careless or stupid, causing disclosure of privileged material does not waive the privilege. So, courts would not admit it. But it could become public pretty easily.
In the Georgia defamation case, Rudy has been ordered to turn over all relevant documents and emails, and Rudy says he doesn’t have the $300,000 for a company to go through his stuff. What am I missing? How many emails and documents could an old man produce between now and the time of the defamation? He’s also been ordered to fully disclose his financial records, so that might be fun.
Even the money from selling pardons?