Giuliani Says ‘Truth Isn’t Truth’ in Defense of Trump’s Legal Strategy

[Kondor3]

Giuliani has to be crazy to walk into a word trap set up by a hostile "news" network.

Word trap?

Well, I suppose ordering lunch can be a word trap for tottering Rudy.

From America's Mayor to Mussolini's Mouthpiece in less than two decades... frickking amazing... and tragic.

 

[Kondor3]

...how fking stupid are you all BTW?

Smart enough to keep your Demigod up at 2:00 AM sweating his a$$ off and tweeting rather than governing the country, apparently...

 

[Wuwei]

You implied that I committed copyright infringement, I disagree because I simply forgot to include the link. Since I "usually" include a link when I post threads and this can be verified by a quick perusal of my posting history I would expect that to allow others to draw the "correct" conclusion that I "probably" just forgot to include it "this" time instead of willfully committing copyright infringement.

No, you moron. It's copyright infringement because you reproduced somebody's work without permission from the copyright owner. Whether you also include a link does not cure the fact that you violated federal law. I told you to post a link next time in lieu of reproducing protected works in the future.

It is not copyright infringement since you are allowed to use others writings in the case of "fair use".

More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.​

Furthermore the OP did give credit to the author:

By Melissa Gomez
Aug. 19, 2018​

This isn't fair use and if you knew the first thing on the subject you wouldn't make such an claim. Also, mentioning the author's name is irrelevant outside of a license agreement. Finally, the author is not the copyright holder, the NYT is the copyright owner. Now sit your skanky ass down before you say something else stupid.

My God, Stormy you sure have an abrasive personality. Just because you hurl insults doesn't mean you are correct.

The Copyright Office note I cited goes on to say,

Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. ​

Tell me just how the OP poster is using this for a commercial use.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

You implied that I committed copyright infringement, I disagree because I simply forgot to include the link. Since I "usually" include a link when I post threads and this can be verified by a quick perusal of my posting history I would expect that to allow others to draw the "correct" conclusion that I "probably" just forgot to include it "this" time instead of willfully committing copyright infringement.

No, you moron. It's copyright infringement because you reproduced somebody's work without permission from the copyright owner. Whether you also include a link does not cure the fact that you violated federal law. I told you to post a link next time in lieu of reproducing protected works in the future.

It is not copyright infringement since you are allowed to use others writings in the case of "fair use".

More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.​

Furthermore the OP did give credit to the author:

By Melissa Gomez
Aug. 19, 2018​

This isn't fair use and if you knew the first thing on the subject you wouldn't make such an claim. Also, mentioning the author's name is irrelevant outside of a license agreement. Finally, the author is not the copyright holder, the NYT is the copyright owner. Now sit your skanky ass down before you say something else stupid.

My God, Stormy you sure have an abrasive personality. Just because you hurl insults doesn't mean you are correct.

The Copyright Office note I cited goes on to say,

Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. ​

Tell me just how the OP poster is using this for a commercial use.

This entire board is a commercial entity, dumbass.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Here is some truth for you.

Trump wrote a very revealing tweet on Sunday. It said, in part, ""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, he must be a John Dean type 'RAT.'"

John Dean a rat! John Dean helped bring criminals to justice. In 1973 he played a crucial role in helping both Congress and Watergate prosecutors understand the full scope of the criminal conspiracy involving Nixon and his top aides surrounding the break-in to the Democratic National headquarters and the cover-up that followed. His testimony would have led to Nixon's impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, but Nixon resigned rather than face the impeachment process.

Dean's testimony contributed to the rule of law. Only a criminal would refer to Dean as a "rat." In other words, a criminal would say he ratted out a colleague, a fellow criminal.

Trump called John Dean a rat!

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Giuliani appears on Fox a lot. Why? Fox is watched by Trump's fans. Only they are gullible enough, dumb enough to believe the B.S. Giuliani puts out.

Collusion isn't illegal. True, but conspiracy and collaboration with a hostile foreign government is.

Trump did collude, but it isn't illegal.

Trump didn't collude.

Don McGahn will help Trump. Giuliani has no idea what McGahn told Mueller during those 30 hours. Trump is really pissed that his lawyers at the time talked him out of using executive privilege.

The White House can still use executive privilege, typical have it both ways Trump. Pretend to cooperate, then use the hammer. Giuliani is nuts. Can't be done. Once one waives executive privilege, it's done.

Truth isn't truth.

Before that it was "alternative facts, " and "Don’t believe the crap you see from these people — the fake news." Anyone see a pattern here? Of course the typical Trump fan will say, "Nope."

Then there is the typical Trump fan who will say, "Damn, I can't stop laughing. Mueller has nothing. Mueller is looking for a way out," when he is totally clueless, like everyone else, as to what Mueller has.

Mueller is letting the loudmouth, Giuliani, do all the talking, all the time digging himself a deeper hole.

Truth isn't truth!

 

[Wuwei]

You implied that I committed copyright infringement, I disagree because I simply forgot to include the link. Since I "usually" include a link when I post threads and this can be verified by a quick perusal of my posting history I would expect that to allow others to draw the "correct" conclusion that I "probably" just forgot to include it "this" time instead of willfully committing copyright infringement.

No, you moron. It's copyright infringement because you reproduced somebody's work without permission from the copyright owner. Whether you also include a link does not cure the fact that you violated federal law. I told you to post a link next time in lieu of reproducing protected works in the future.

It is not copyright infringement since you are allowed to use others writings in the case of "fair use".

More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.​

Furthermore the OP did give credit to the author:

By Melissa Gomez
Aug. 19, 2018​

This isn't fair use and if you knew the first thing on the subject you wouldn't make such an claim. Also, mentioning the author's name is irrelevant outside of a license agreement. Finally, the author is not the copyright holder, the NYT is the copyright owner. Now sit your skanky ass down before you say something else stupid.

My God, Stormy you sure have an abrasive personality. Just because you hurl insults doesn't mean you are correct.

The Copyright Office note I cited goes on to say,

Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. ​

Tell me just how the OP poster is using this for a commercial use.

This entire board is a commercial entity, dumbass.

Well, you seem to have a bee up your butt about this, but I seriously don't think a court of law would agree with you.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Guliani was correct. There is more than one truth. There are sets of facts leading to differing conclusions both of which are true.

A man was driving his wife to the hospital to have their fifth child when he was stopped by ICE, arrested and deported to Mexico. The woman had to drive herself to the hospital.

These are all facts which are absolutely true.

ICE received information from Interpol that the Mexican government had an international arrest warrant on this man for murder. ICE agents identified him and effected an arrest.

All facts which are absolutely true. The conclusions of both are different.

 

[ColonelAngus]

By Melissa Gomez
Aug. 19, 2018

First, the facts were alternative, Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to President Trump, suggested last year.

And now, Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, said “Truth isn’t truth,” adding his own phrase to memorable — and sometimes head-scratching — comments made by those close to the president.

During an interview on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the show’s host, Chuck Todd, asked Mr. Giuliani about Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, who The New York Times reported was cooperating extensively in the special counsel investigation.

Mr. Todd asked how Mr. Giuliani had responded to requests by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to interview Mr. Trump and whether Mr. Giuliani had delayed the investigation.

Mr. Giuliani replied he would not be rushed into having Mr. Trump testify “so that he gets trapped into perjury.”

“And 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,” Mr. Giuliani said.

“Truth is truth,” Mr. Todd insisted.

“No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth,” Mr. Giuliani said as Mr. Todd leaned his head onto his hand.

“Truth isn’t truth?” Mr. Todd asked, appearing stunned and at one point looking up. “This is going to become a bad meme.”

“Don’t do this to me,” Mr. Giuliani replied, his hand to his head, mimicking Mr. Todd. “Donald Trump says, ‘I didn’t talk about Flynn with Comey.’ Comey says, ‘You did talk about it.’ So tell me what the truth is.”
​

Translation: Liars gonna lie

Very ineloquently said by America’s Mayor.

He should have said that any lawyer should never let his client talk to Mueller directly because Another person could have a different perspective on the same thing, and then they would call it perjury.

Rudy needs to take a lap and maybe sit out the next few plays....but there I go, thinking for myself again. The left always fall in line on everything. The right can disagree with a statement made and not conclude the person who said it on inherently evil.

Ask Flynn about how easy it is to be busted for perjury.

Trump should not speak to Mueller about the case under any circumstances.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Pop got popped for lying to the FBI.

In London in March 2016, Papadopoulos was traveling in Italy when he met a professor named Joseph Mifsud who said he was “well connected” in Russia.

Papadopoulos told FBI agents about his contacts with Mifsud, but lied about when they took place. He had the dates wrong.

Papa pled guilty to to one court of lying to the FBI.

This is why Trump should not talk to Mueller.

The FBI knew when Pop met with Mifsud, because they had been spying on him, but they asked Pop when, and Pop got it wrong.

This is what Mueller will try to do to Trump.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

No, you moron. It's copyright infringement because you reproduced somebody's work without permission from the copyright owner. Whether you also include a link does not cure the fact that you violated federal law. I told you to post a link next time in lieu of reproducing protected works in the future.

It is not copyright infringement since you are allowed to use others writings in the case of "fair use".

More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.​

Furthermore the OP did give credit to the author:

By Melissa Gomez
Aug. 19, 2018​

This isn't fair use and if you knew the first thing on the subject you wouldn't make such an claim. Also, mentioning the author's name is irrelevant outside of a license agreement. Finally, the author is not the copyright holder, the NYT is the copyright owner. Now sit your skanky ass down before you say something else stupid.

My God, Stormy you sure have an abrasive personality. Just because you hurl insults doesn't mean you are correct.

The Copyright Office note I cited goes on to say,

Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. ​

Tell me just how the OP poster is using this for a commercial use.

This entire board is a commercial entity, dumbass.

Well, you seem to have a bee up your butt about this, but I seriously don't think a court of law would agree with you.

You're a fucking moron. What you personally think a court of law would agree with is completely irrelevant. You don't know what the fuck you are even talking about.

I've spent a long time working in a field that depends on copyright protections. Piracy has really gutted our income potential. I should be making double what I make, but infringement and piracy has caused a huge leak of profit potential.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Giuliani was telling the truth about the truth.
CNN's truth is BS.
It's not very surprising that the left wing twits don't get it again.

 

[OldLady]

They know their hero is going down. Mueller will probably be submitting his report within a few months.

I'm not so sure because then a lot of people would have to admit that they were wrong, they made mistakes, there could be liability or criminal convictions/prison sentences, etc.

I'd love to be proven wrong however. It would be a very pleasant surprise.

No one has to prove it. We know it. That’s the truth!

jc: From Trump's mouth. And you're buying it. WAKE UP!

LESLEY STAHL: It's just me, my boss, and him -- he has a huge office -- and he's attacking the press. There were no cameras, there was nothing going on and I said, 'That is getting tired, why are you doing it? You're doing it over and over and it's boring. It's time to end that, you've won the nomination. And why do you keep hammering at this?'
And he said: 'You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.'

Lesley Stahl: Trump Told Me He Uses Term "Fake News" To Discredit The Media

 

[Wuwei]

It is not copyright infringement since you are allowed to use others writings in the case of "fair use".

More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.​

Furthermore the OP did give credit to the author:

By Melissa Gomez
Aug. 19, 2018​

This isn't fair use and if you knew the first thing on the subject you wouldn't make such an claim. Also, mentioning the author's name is irrelevant outside of a license agreement. Finally, the author is not the copyright holder, the NYT is the copyright owner. Now sit your skanky ass down before you say something else stupid.

My God, Stormy you sure have an abrasive personality. Just because you hurl insults doesn't mean you are correct.

The Copyright Office note I cited goes on to say,

Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. ​

Tell me just how the OP poster is using this for a commercial use.

This entire board is a commercial entity, dumbass.

Well, you seem to have a bee up your butt about this, but I seriously don't think a court of law would agree with you.

You're a fucking moron. What you personally think a court of law would agree with is completely irrelevant. You don't know what the fuck you are even talking about.

I've spent a long time working in a field that depends on copyright protections. Piracy has really gutted our income potential. I should be making double what I make, but infringement and piracy has caused a huge leak of profit potential.

Still obsessing over infringement. Now I see why you are so caustic. But as far as the OP, I don't think the NY Times has lost any money or income potential. You don't need to take your frustration out on me or on NewsVine_Mariyam the OP poster. However, I know where you are coming from. I have been through three depositions on infringement that were thankfully settled out of court. The lawyers on both sides were about as unpleasant as you are.

 

[Wuwei]

Giuliani was telling the truth about the truth.

If Giuliani was telling the truth about the truth, then, since the truth isn't the truth, Giuliani was not telling the truth about the truth.

That's sort of like this:

The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.​

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Giuliani was telling the truth about the truth.

If Giuliani was telling the truth about the truth, then, since the truth isn't the truth, Giuliani was not telling the truth about the truth.

That's sort of like this:

The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.​

CNN lies about their lies.
OK this was a fun game, but Giuliani was just making the point that the truth can be subjective.

 

[OldLady]

Giuliani was telling the truth about the truth.

If Giuliani was telling the truth about the truth, then, since the truth isn't the truth, Giuliani was not telling the truth about the truth.

That's sort of like this:

The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.​

CNN lies about their lies.
OK this was a fun game, but Giuliani was just making the point that the truth can be subjective.

No, two people can see a situation in a different light and give it different interpretations, but what was actually said and done is not up for debate. That seemed to be Giuliani's argument, and that is hogwash. If Trump says what was actually said as best he can recall it, and someone else told Mueller something different, than all we have here is Mueller trying to figure out who is telling the truth. Not "perjury." However, why does Giuliani immediately jump to the conclusion that Mueller will believe everyone BUT Trump? So far, Mueller has only based his findings on actual evidence.

 

[Wuwei]

Giuliani was telling the truth about the truth.

If Giuliani was telling the truth about the truth, then, since the truth isn't the truth, Giuliani was not telling the truth about the truth.

That's sort of like this:

The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.​

CNN lies about their lies.
OK this was a fun game, but Giuliani was just making the point that the truth can be subjective.

That's true, but if an issue really is subjective, then the word "truth" shouldn't be used. "Truth" works best in instances that are objective and have a clearly defined measure. Some statements such as "I am a stable genius" remain subjective, but have procedures that can compare it to some norm that can make it more objective. Until then we just have to subjectively assume whatever our bias is.

 

[Dragonlady]

They know their hero is going down. Mueller will probably be submitting his report within a few months.

I'm not so sure because then a lot of people would have to admit that they were wrong, they made mistakes, there could be liability or criminal convictions/prison sentences, etc.

I'd love to be proven wrong however. It would be a very pleasant surprise.

No one has to prove it. We know it. That’s the truth!

jc: From Trump's mouth. And you're buying it. WAKE UP!

LESLEY STAHL: It's just me, my boss, and him -- he has a huge office -- and he's attacking the press. There were no cameras, there was nothing going on and I said, 'That is getting tired, why are you doing it? You're doing it over and over and it's boring. It's time to end that, you've won the nomination. And why do you keep hammering at this?'
And he said: 'You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.'

Lesley Stahl: Trump Told Me He Uses Term "Fake News" To Discredit The Media

jc456 is a Russian troll whose job it is to support and confirm everything that Trump says or does and contribute to the confusion and gaslighting that Trump and his minions are using to discredit the Mueller Investigation.

He got upset with me once and referred to Russia as “Mother Russia”. Something no American would do. And he said that the Russian people would not have been fooled like Americans were. Just another fine upstanding Trump supporter.

Their hysteria is mirroring Trump’s. All the trolls are redoubling their efforts to promote Trumps lies and distortions as the Mueller probe closes in.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Guliani was correct. There is more than one truth. There are sets of facts leading to differing conclusions both of which are true.

That is not true. You are assuming that conclusions are truth. Conclusions may be truth, then again, conclusions may not be the truth. The two terms are not synonymous.

Different sides may use the same set of facts, but come to completely different conclusions as they arrive at conclusions that best suit their interests.

It does not matter what Trump, his lawyers, and his fans say. Truth is truth.

It goes to the evil of this President that he and his minions are trying to destroy the very fabric of American values. The idea that truth is no longer truth is grotesque. He and his fans have made a pact with the devil.