Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani Defends Claim That 'Truth Isn't Truth'

What even is truth? Rudy Giuliani doesn't seem to have any idea.

|

NBC News/YouTube/Screenshot

Rudy Giuliani, a top attorney for President Donald Trump and former mayor of New York City, is defending remarks he made Sunday suggesting that "truth isn't truth."

On NBC's Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd asked Giuliani about the possibility of Trump testifying before Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election. "I am not going to be rushed into having [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," Giuliani told Todd.

"Truth is truth," Todd replied, though Giuliani apparently disagreed. "No it isn't truth. Truth isn't truth," Giuliani said. Giuliani then pointed to contradicting accounts from Trump and former FBI Director James Comey regarding a discussion about the FBI's investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. "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," Giuliani said.

Giuliani received widespread criticism for his remarks on truth, including from one of the subjects of his comments:

But the former NYC mayor isn't apologizing. In a Monday tweet, he said his "statement was not meant as a pontification on moral theology but one referring to the situation where two people make precisely contradictory statements."

Trump, for his part, has expressed a willingness to meet with Mueller, though such an interview has yet to be scheduled. For months, Trump has referred to the Mueller probe as a "witch hunt" and denied allegations that his campaign colluded with Russia.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

130 responses to “Rudy Giuliani Defends Claim That 'Truth Isn't Truth'

  1. 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.

    Explained.

    1. Jesus Christ.

      Reason has gone off the deep end.

      What in the fuck has happened to this place.

      Reason over here like “Cops always tell the truth, Giuliiani makes no sense.”

      1. Rudy seems to be channeling Jacques Derrida and Pontius Pilate.

        1. “Rudy seems to be channeling Jacques Derrida and Pontius Pilate.”

          Bullshit.
          His comment regards deciding which claim of fact is true. Often, there is not sufficient evidence for a third party to make a firm conclusion.

  2. Can someone explain to me why this matters?

    1. Giuliani is right, and Comey is a lying sociopath who makes Trump look subtle; but subtly sliming Giuliani will ensure Setyon will still have a chance of being hired by a “prestigious” media conglomerate as a pet libertarian in the future. Hence, this article.

    2. Well it obviously doesn’t. In the context of a perjury trap, Giuliani’s comment makes perfect sense. It’s nice to know that Todd, Comey and Reason know what the objective truth is in every circumstance. But the “truth” we’re talking about is the government’s version and there’s nothing objective about it. This is just another silly story that Reason felt compelled to regurgitate.

      1. And the more basic fact is that nobody has “truth” in their head. Memory is notoriously fallible. Everyone at Reason should know this, it is bog standard knowledge for those who delve into areas of false convictions.

        Everyone here should be intimately familiar with all of the demonstrations of eyewitness fallibility. But beyond that, we’ve been talking about the FBI’s practice of only using agent’s notes to record what is said in an interview for years. The debate hasn’t been over whether this is a good idea, but whether this is institutional inertia or an intentional plan to preserve the ability of FBI agents to lie about testimony.

        This is precisely what Penn Jillette meant when he called himself an “unreliable witness”. He was acknowledging that memory is fallible and that others present might have different recollections of what was said.

      2. Hell, we can remember the Scooter Libby persecution, where he “lied” because he and Tim Russert remembered events differently.

        1. IIRC, Libby’s own notes contradicted him.

  3. Yeah, Giuliani is actually right here. Trump goes in to an interview and says “I didn’t ever say X” and all Mueller needs to do is find one of 50 other people to say “Trump said X” and you have a perjury case. He is rebutting the point that the reporter was making, that “As long as Trump tells the truth, he doesn’t have anything to worry about.”

    Even if the other person is wrong, as soon as the possibility of Trump lying opens up, all of a sudden the investigation gets new legs. As a lawyer, Giuliani is right to avoid that, and his answer is accurate.

    1. He is totally right here. And the fact that reason still criticizes him is a product of their own derrangement over Trump.

      1. If this was a prosecution directed at virtually anyone other than a politician they disfavor, then they would be decrying a potential perjury trap.

        1. So much for those principles, they are always going on about.

          1. But 9/11 something something… broken windows… if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear….

            I know none of this matters and Giuliani is correct in telling his client not to talk to the feds. I just wish he had that same level awareness when speaking about larger issues.

            1. Me too. But as Eddy says below, if anyone knows about dirtbag prosecutors, it is him.

      2. Hasn’t Reason posted a thousand articles on the perjury trap and why to never talk to the Feds?

        1. Yes but TRUMP!! or something.

        2. It’s only applicable to the bien-pensants, not deplorables.

      3. Actually Trump could just tell the truth, but everyone knows he won’t.

        1. Tony could make an insightful comment, but everyone knows he won’t.

        2. That’s funny!

          Oh… wait… Tony.

          Yeah, I suppose you didn’t mean that as a joke.

          Yeah.. the entire point is that you can go into an interview with the FBI and never say one word that you don’t absolutely believe to be the truth and still wind up in a perjury trap.

          All they need is someone who recalls a meeting from 3 years ago differently and they’ll charge you with perjury or obstruction, should that be their desire. Just ask Scooter Libby, who was investigated and set up even though they already knew that he was not the leak before even speaking to him.

          This is the kissing cousin of “arrested for resisting arrest”.

    2. ^ Yeah, this. I mean, don’t get me wrong – Giuliani is scum. But having studied a lot of medieval theological controversy, I always hear pretty sinister echoes in “all you have to do is tell the Truth, and you will have nothing to fear.”

      Further, Giuliani isn’t saying anything any properly trained academic critical theorist doesn’t already think (in theory, anyway).

    3. No, you don’t have a case.
      If you find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then you have a case. It takes more than one person to make a case. Trump’s problem is that he doesn’t know what Mueller knows, and so he doesn’t know what he can get away with. He doesn’t know what emails and phone records Mueller has.

      1. Or, is it possible that Mueller has nothing? And so instead may be willing to prosecute over any misstatement?

      2. If you find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then you have a case. It takes more than one person to make a case.

        No it doesn’t. A single person saying you lied is enough to convict you. As long as it is possible for a jury to believe them and not you, the case will get to a jury. Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to investigators on the basis of one person’s testimony.

        Moreover, most people do not want to risk the full punishment that would result from being convicted. So, they plead to lying to investigators to save themselves being bankrupted paying for their defense and to take a light punishment to avoid risking a serious one.

        Since you are dumb as a fucking post but make up for it by being pig ignorant about every subject known to man, I am just going to assume you don’t know any better here and are not lying.

      3. Your last few sentences could be true, but Giulani was still right here, if ineloquent. If Trump contradicts someone else who went on record, under oath, then rightly or wrongly it’s going to be a problem for him. Any good lawyer would advise against unless they can prove all his substantive statements are accurate with more than just his word.

        1. No lawyer in his right mind ever lets his client talk to the police without an immunity agreement. There is just no benefit to it. You are not talking your way out of anything. And any questions the police have can be answered by the lawyer if necessary. That way there is no danger of a perjury trap.

          1. You’re right that no defense attorney would let a criminal suspect give testimony voluntarily to the FBI especially in a case where that suspect has already made numerous contradictory and false public statements on the matter. You just haven’t thought through of your defense of Trump. No one who is suspected of colluding with the Russian mafia or suspected of using political power to help cover up the crimes of these gansters should be anywhere near the presidency.

            1. That is the biggest exercise in question begging I have seen in a long time. You are assuming that Trump is guilty of that otherwise he would have nothing to hide when the entire fucking point is that no one no matter how innocent is immune from a truly determined prosecutor.

              Your argument is just “anyone that can be accused of this must be guilty and not belong as President”. The possibility that Mueller might be completely full of shit and Trump might be guilty of nothing never occurs to you.

              Did your parents have any children that lived? Or at least any with an IQ above room temperature?

              1. People voluntarily give testimony and witness statements to the police all the time. If I saw a red car run your motorcycle off the road I would report that shit to the police without any thought of invoking the 5th Amendment and I damn sure would not spend every waking hour trying to discredit the people investigating the crime. But if I was a passenger in that red car I would think twice about talking to the police. Trump was in the red car. We don’t know if he was driving it but we do know he was there and we know he doesn’t want anyone asking the question to determine as best we can who was driving the car.

                1. Peoe voluntarily give testimony.l on a crime they witness. True! People routinely give testimony when they are suspected in a crime? Less true. Any lawyer will tell you to be very careful when speaking to the police and if possible not speak to them.

                  1. I personally voluntarily gave testimony when I witnessed an accident. As did a half dozen other witnesses.

                    Everyone gave the same story – “the guy in that pickup truck right there ran a red light, got smashed in the passenger door and spun into the stopped cars on the opposite side of the intersection.

                    I personally ran through the story 3 times. I was 3 feet away as another driver ran through the story.

                    The officer went away and wrote up his report, coming back after about 15 or 20 minutes.

                    Every single detail he wrote down was wrong. He wasn’t even close. He had me hitting another car that wasn’t even involved and causing the accident. Luckily, everyone was still there and corrected him immediately.

                    So he went back and re-wrote it. After that exercise he still drew a map that had all of the basic details wrong – but at least he had the correct driver at fault.

                    So no, there is no scenario under which you can simply trust that you are just a witness and have nothing to fear.

            2. And Trump apparently is incapable of clearer up the suspicions without contradicting the sworn testimony of people who are not suspected of working with the Russian govt.

              1. And Trump apparently is incapable of clearer up the suspicions without contradicting the sworn testimony of people who are not suspected of working with the Russian govt.

                That sentence doesn’t even make any sense. Wouldn’t Trump if he were innocent necessarily contradict the testimony of people connected with the Russian government?

                You are dumber than Chandler.

                1. On the bright side, they’re providing a real-time demonstration of why it’s smart to avoid talking to people who are pretty sure you’re guilty and deserve punishment.

              2. Or Trump has allowed the White House lawyer to speak to Mueller for over 30 hours and waved lawyer client confidentiality. Therefore, hisblawyers no feel that there is nothing more to gain from speaking to Mueller and that Mueller is fishing for something to Charge Trump with. BTW, Trump’s White House Counsel did speak with Mueller for over 30 hours (both admit this) and Trump did wave his lawyer-client confidentiality, allowing the White House Counsel to provide Mueller with extensive and unfiltered information. This is hardly the act of a man trying to hide anything.

                1. Or Trump has allowed the White House lawyer to speak to Mueller for over 30 hours . . . Trump did wave his lawyer-client confidentiality

                  How could Trump, in this context, be entitled to attorney-client privilege with respect to communications with a lawyer whose client is the government, especially with respect to matters that occurred before Trump was inaugurated?

                  1. Because first, Trump is part of the government. And as a member of the government he therefore has attorney client privily.
                    Second, McGahn started his position on Jan. 20, 2017. He was appointed by Trump on November 25, 2016, but could not assume it until after the inauguration.
                    Third, he served as Trump’s campaign counsel in 2016.
                    Fourth, if you did a simple Google search you would have known all this and not looked like a fucking idiot.

              3. So, he has people willing to testify in his behalf, but because they are the wrong people… Something something something.

        2. You mean it’s going to be a problem for the people whose testimony contradicts old honest Trump?

          1. No. It is going to be a problem for anyone. How do you know Trump isn’t telling the truth? That is the entire point, it doesn’t matter if he is or not, all they need is one person to lie and say he isn’t.

            1. And it can even be two people mis-remembering the same meeting. All Mueller needs is for two people to disagree about one event, and he can target one person (Trump) for perjury, and use that to open up a whole new round of raids and subpoenas.

              This has nothing to do with whether or not Trump is guilty. If he IS guilty, its a bad idea to talk to Mueller. If is NOT guilty, it’s still a bad idea.

      4. You say ‘Trump’s problem”–but Trump would walk into an interview right now. It’s his lawyers keeping him from doing it because THEY don’t know what Mueller has.

        Trump doesn’t care what Mueller has because he didn’t collude with the Russians. That’s what Trump’s thinking, that he’s innocent and therefore it doesn’t matter what he says because he didn’t do anything wrong.

        He knows that whatever he says will be twisted to suit the narrative and thinks he can deal better with their lies in full flower instead of this incessant suspicion thing.

        He may be right.

    4. I’m not a lawyer but I know you need more evidence than the contrary word of another person to gain a perjury conviction.

  4. >>>who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election

    you should donate the portion of your salary accepted for typing this

    @Comey: fired is fired, holmes. go away.

  5. Giuliani phrased it (on the fly) awkwardly at best, but this is not any more controversial than observing that eyewitness accounts are unreliable, because people’s perceptions and memory are not dependably accurate.

  6. Giuliani should know better than to explain. Those who want to know what he thinks will figure it out, and those who want to yell at him won’t listen anyway.

  7. matters what is, is

  8. Funny Comey says this,

    “”People who lie are held accountable. If we are untethered to truth, our justice system cannot function and a society based on the rule of law dissolves.””

    Hillary lied to the FBI according to Comey’s own account. She was not held accountable.

    1. And how do you suppose he feels about James Clapper?

      1. You mean James “Fibber Flapper” Clapper?

        By the way, I coined the nickname.

        1. Fibber Fapper would have been more amusing

          1. No, it wouldn’t because it is not as accurate and precise and sharp as my nickname.

            1. Clapper Clapper
              Fibber Fapper,
              Banana fanna
              Fibber Flapper
              Fee fi
              Flip Flopper,
              Clapper.

    2. That was different, because he saw into Hilldawg’s heart and he knows she didn’t mean it. No reasonable person would prosecute a helpless old granny under those circumstances.

  9. As Ken White pointed out, Giuliani was both (1) correct and (2) saying it in the way least likely to advance his client’s interests. Trump needs lawyers with better communications skills.

    1. Dopehat is an idiot who would never say anything positive about Trump or his people that wasn’t qualified in some way. Giulliani is about a thousand times more accomplished of a trial lawyer than Dopehat. So, I really don’t put much stock in his assessment other than the fact that even dopehat had to admit Guilliani is right here, ends all doubt that he is.

  10. If we are untethered to truth, our justice system cannot function and a society based on the rule of law dissolves.

    If you need evidence of this, just look at the United States cir. 2018

    1. Sure and Comey is one of the culprits in that.

  11. Take it from another ‘temporarily former’ lawyer – https://youtu.be/-Nc88_ZEfxg?t=18s

  12. The truth is whatever our benevolent oppressors say it is.
    We’ve been over this before.

    1. The truth is whatever a judge or jury decides it is.

  13. Ghouliani is supposed to be on TV (if at all) to make his client look good, which means outmaneuvering the hostility and spin of the left-wing media.

    If the left-wing media host plays him like a harmonica, provoking him into saying truth isn’t truth, then Ghouliani shouldn’t be opening his mouth at all.

    I mean, even I could do better than Ghouliani.

    “Look, the scumbag prosecutor can always procure witnesses to swear to lies, and prosecute my client simply for telling the truth.”

    Whatever you think of my talking point, it’s better than going all Pontius Pilate on TV.

    1. If anyone should know about scumbag prosecutors…

      1. Maybe he could cover his butt by doing a hypothetical:

        “It’s easy to imagine a perfectly truthful witness facing a hostile prosecutor, who has a stable of false witnesses who can go after an innocent person just for telling the truth!”

        “Are you saying that’s what the prosecutor is doing?”

        “Oh, I’m not commenting on pending cases, I’m saying it *could* happen!”

  14. Giuliani is an idiot, but he’s not actually wrong. He’s talking about subjective truth, and you’d think the left would know all about it since plenty of leftists are some strange blend of moral relativists. It’s hand-in-hand with that type of thinking.


    “I am not going to be rushed into having [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,”

    So, yeah, there’s not anything particularly strange about this statement. Especially concerning law enforcement. I’m still not even terribly clear on what Trump would be testifying about in the first place.

  15. Martha Stewart did time for lying to investigators.

    She should have kept her mouth shut.

    1. She did time for “lying” about a crime that she never committed in the first place.

  16. Truth is truth.

    *Finding* the truth, where everyone is saying or guessing different things…there’s the rub…

  17. So I still don’t understand how truth isn’t truth. And “because Trump” isn’t an answer.

    Rudy 9/11 says he’s “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.” If they’re making contradictory statements, at least one of them is lying or mistaken, at least one of them is not telling the truth. So if he’s saying “truth that isn’t the truth isn’t the truth”, well no shit, Sherlock. So what is a truth that isn’t a truth?

    Which isn’t to say that “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” isn’t utter nonsense and everybody knows it or that the idea Trump can talk for 5 minutes without telling an untruth isn’t laughable. There’s a reason his own lawyer has secret tapes of conversations with Trump, he knows just as well as Trump’s other lawyers who have a policy of never speaking to Trump without a witness present that Trump “forgets” or “misremembers” conversations if it’s just his word against yours. Trump is one of those people who can convince himself of anything, but just because he seriously believes he invented the term “priming the pump” as it relates to economics, it’s still not the truth.

    1. Here is what truth is in this context Jerry; whatever a judge or jury decides it is. It does not matter in our legal system what the factual truth is. All that matters is that you were given all of the procedural protections you are entitled to. If that is the case, what the jury decides is the “truth” regardless of whether that is what happened or not.

      That is what Guilliani is getting at here.

    2. If you are given a fair and legal trial and convicted of something you didn’t do, our legal system offers you no remedy except executive clemency.

    3. Four wise blind men are trying to describe an elephant.

      One grabs the tail and declares it to be like rope.

      One grabs a leg and declares it to be like a tree.

      One rubs the belly and declares it to be like a warm water bottle.

      One grabs the trunk and declares it to be like a large, tough vine.

      They then fight to the death over which one spoke The Truth.

      1. That’s like a ‘Babe Ruth called it’ style of home run. Nice.

      2. I wonder about this story – it’s good if you’re trying to be profound and stuff, but is it how blind people actually behave? They’d figure out fairly soon that an elephant had tree-like, rope-like, and vine-like characteristics. If they knew any sighted people, they’d know that they were missing some information, but they wouldn’t assume the parts were separate.

        Also, in the story, isn’t one of the blind men supposed to grab a tusk or two and decide that an elephant is basically a sharp stick?

  18. Remember that Giuliani has also said “Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do”.

    1. That’s not true. Truth isn’t truth! And there….are… FOUR lights!

  19. I’m still “confused” as to why nobody of the former O regime has been called in to be questioned by Mueller.
    Mueller is investigating Russian “interference”, no?
    Isn’t that the entire legal justification for this charade?
    That being the case, not officially questioning Clapper, Brennan, Rogers, Comey, Lynch, Rice, Power, Rhodes, Biden, and Obama xiself- as well as the indicted Russians, Assange, Murphy, Steele, and Isakoff- is about as negligent as possible. Basically, he’s ignoring 80% of the “investigation” and the key principals.
    Nobody ever mentions this.

    1. You don’t know who he’s talking to unless it’s somehow leaked.

      1. Neither do you, yet you are fully convinced Trump did something wrong. Are you any better (or worse since in this country you are innocent until proven guilty)?

        1. I’m not arguing against that principle, but I am saying I’d be willing to put some money on the issue.

          1. If you are willing to put money on it, you are not providing the presumption of innocence, instead you have already made the presumption of guilt. Why is that so hard to understand? Just admit you already consider him guilty and or wish he is guilty and move on. Stop trying to act as if you are impartial, it isn’t fooling anyone. Or possibly you actually are deluded enough to believe you are impartial. In which case I suggest you seek help.

            1. I don’t want to freak you out, but there is no human on earth who’s heard of Donald Trump who is impartial on Donald Trump. Yes, I hope he goes down in flames, and I’d feel that way if it were only a matter of his unfathomable loathsomeness and vulgarity.

              You’re just trying to change the subject to something stupid. And trying to get me to believe that you have always been a model of impartiality for presidents.

              1. I am not changing any subject. I am pointing out the fact you are lying when you imply impartiality (i.e. innocent until proven guilty is meant to be impartial). You are biased and that was my point. However, I am fairly agnostic to Trump. I criticize him when he does something bad and praise him when he does something good. I also started out agnostic on the Russia investigation but quickly, based upon the evidence I have seen, concluded it is another conspiracy theory. This time, however, the government has bought into it and has committed a plethora of injustices that are not congruent with our Constitution. This I find extremely troubling and unhealthy to the Republic. You, and your compatriots, seem to want to further this investigation, until you hound Trump out of office, guilt or innocence be damned. This mindset I find extremely troubling. It is how despots rise to power. The ends do not justify the means. EVER!

                1. First of all, ends often justify means. Sometimes the means are benign. Come on man, think about what you’re saying.

                  I just told you I’m biased. Trump is such a terrible president I don’t care what takes him down.

                  You’ve seen no evidence that the Mueller investigation is a giant conspiracy. You may have heard some fat talking heads say so, but you haven’t actually seen any. Stop lecturing other people on bias, Jesus.

                  1. Tony|8.20.18 @ 10:16PM|#
                    “First of all, ends often justify means. Sometimes the means are benign. Come on man, think about what you’re saying.
                    I just told you I’m biased. Trump is such a terrible president I don’t care what takes him down.
                    You’ve seen no evidence that the Mueller investigation is a giant conspiracy. You may have heard some fat talking heads say so, but you haven’t actually seen any. Stop lecturing other people on bias, Jesus.”

                    Shitbag Tony hoping that his peripheral bullshit will make him a sympathetic character.
                    Go off and die someplace, shitbag. The world will thank you.

                  2. And you have seen no evidence that it is ever going to result in Trump being charged with anything. Notice I used the word concluded, not proven dumb fuck.

                    1. If you don’t care what takes him down, you are a fucking idiot. You obviously have not considered the possible ramifications of that statement. Remember whatever is done to Trump sets precedence and can be used any someone you suppt also.

                    2. As to evidence, since it is front page news every day, I feel safe saying everyone has seen plenty of evidence. So far nothing has demonstrated Truy is guilty of anything.

                    3. We have most certainly seen evidence that there is a conspiracy involved.

                      Barely a month after the inauguration a group of Obama administration officials was bragging to the New York times about it. Both they and the NYT were proud that the outgoing administration had declassified formerly classified information (the wiretaps on the Trump campaign) and spread it around the administration to be leaked after the inauguration.

                      This isn’t some 3rd party speculation. This is the actual conspirators bragging about how successful their conspiracy had been.

  20. “For months, Trump has referred to the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt” and denied allegations that his campaign colluded with Russia.”

    Well, yes, but why dwell on that?

    The truth is that this post treated Giuliani saying something stupid on a Sunday morning talk show as if that were somehow important.

    1. All that witch hunting, and still the witch is hiding in plain sight and has not been questioned once by the ‘team’.

      1. What you did there, saw it I did.

  21. It is terribly unfair to lay into this authoritarian grandstanding asshole for the words that he used instead of interpreting in the most favorable possible light. But what we have here is known as a “media narrative” or two that he fell into without any prompting. One is the reliance on the concept of “alternative facts,” which this echoed. And given how the Trump-humping media lives in a complete fucking alternative universe, it bears paying attention to. The GOP is maintained by constant, relentless propaganda. Its followers actually believe that truth isn’t truth.

    Then there’s the narrative that Mr. Noun-Verb-9/11 is off his fucking rocker and the sad, disturbing truth that Trump can’t find a better lawyer even while being president.

    1. >>> It is terribly unfair to lay into this authoritarian grandstanding asshole for the words that he used instead of interpreting in the most favorable possible light.

      He is absolutely an authoritarian grandstanding asshole, Tony. Now it is up to us to decide whether to be mad at the authoritarian grandstanding asshole, or communicate.

      One of these things will make us feel good. The other is effective with problems.

      Just between you, me, and the rest of the internet, he’s a nasty little weasel. We’re leaving value on the table if we use that to just *react* every time he opens his smarmy weasel mouth, though. We have other things, legit ones, to yell at him about.

      1. I was alive during the Obama presidency. I know what frivolous criticism is. Fuck the Trumpies. Let this be a stupid meme, as long as it hurts them.

        1. If I never have to hear about Obama again, I would be, like, so happy. I dunno if we’re talking The True Meaning of Happiness here, but at least Christmas morning and large portions of my honeymoon.

          Ugh. Fine. FINE. You’re right, and you know it and if its the only way, then fine. Obama had none of the criticism he needed and trainloads of criticism born of pettiness and opportunity.

          We go high? C’mon. Work with me. Sometimes the criticism is going to be fucking *vital*, and no one’s gonna listen because we yell about everything that’ll get us a blurb on the evening talkies.

        2. Tony|8.20.18 @ 8:07PM|#
          “I was alive during the Obama presidency.”

          I’m truly sorry you still are. Please go die someplace and make the world more intelligent as a result.

    2. Yes, Mr. “libertarians are the real authoritarians!”

      Tell us all how truth works.

  22. The truth is that OJ was found ‘not guilty’. A court declared truth.
    Then tried a second time (go read the constitution) and found guilty, and fined a bunch. A court defined truth.
    Which truth is truth?
    What is the definition of ‘is’?
    Who is John Galt?

    And finally, “what difference, at this point, does it make”?

  23. Why does Robby Soave get to put his feet on a box under the table in Kennedy’s show?

    I thought Michael Malice was the shorter one?

  24. Why does Robby Soave get to put his feet on a box under the table in Kennedy’s show?

    I thought Michael Malice was the shorter one?

  25. It’s Atlas Shrugged, 2018, with the politician imitating Dr Robert Stadler, Lilian Rearden and James Taggart.

  26. I’m old enough to remember when libertarians understood the potential for misuse of perjury statutes.

  27. Giuliani’s point is basically correct, but it has been swallowed by the “truth isn’t truth” line. That is what the leftists are going to report on and all that the low-info ADHD populace that listens to them is going to read.

    Jesus, how is someone who’s both a lawyer and a politician so clumsy with words?

    1. 57 states! Corpsemen! Leftists are not going to harp on it 1/1,000,000th as much as rightists do on much dumber bullshit. So as long as it lasts, they can eat it.

      1. Tony|8.20.18 @ 10:23PM|#
        “57 states! Corpsemen! Leftists are not going to harp on it 1/1,000,000th as much as rightists do on much dumber bullshit. So as long as it lasts, they can eat it.”

        Yep, shitbag, you own all of it.

        1. Yes Tony, the President of the United States shouldn’t be required to know how many States that he is President of, and it is totally unreasonable that the Commander in Chief know how to properly pronounce the ranks of the military that he commands.
          That said, Giuliani is a horrible Statist POS who could only get elected in New York. America’s mayor, y’all.
          Fuck you assholes on both coasts; you’d think that with so large a population you could find better politicians. (note: President Trump is not a politician, but is also from one of the coasts.)

        2. Yes Tony, the President of the United States shouldn’t be required to know how many States that he is President of, and it is totally unreasonable that the Commander in Chief know how to properly pronounce the ranks of the military that he commands.
          That said, Giuliani is a horrible Statist POS who could only get elected in New York. America’s mayor, y’all.
          Fuck you assholes on both coasts; you’d think that with so large a population you could find better politicians. (note: President Trump is not a politician, but is also from one of the coasts.)

        3. Yes Tony, the President of the United States shouldn’t be required to know how many States that he is President of, and it is totally unreasonable that the Commander in Chief know how to properly pronounce the ranks of the military that he commands.
          That said, Giuliani is a horrible Statist POS who could only get elected in New York. America’s mayor, y’all.
          Fuck you assholes on both coasts; you’d think that with so large a population you could find better politicians. (note: President Trump is not a politician, but is also from one of the coasts.)

        4. Yes Tony, the President of the United States shouldn’t be required to know how many States that he is President of, and it is totally unreasonable that the Commander in Chief know how to properly pronounce the ranks of the military that he commands.
          That said, Giuliani is a horrible Statist POS who could only get elected in New York. America’s mayor, y’all.
          Fuck you assholes on both coasts; you’d think that with so large a population you could find better politicians. (note: President Trump is not a politician, but is also from one of the coasts.)

        5. Yes Tony, the President of the United States shouldn’t be required to know how many States that he is President of, and it is totally unreasonable that the Commander in Chief know how to properly pronounce the ranks of the military that he commands.
          That said, Giuliani is a horrible Statist POS who could only get elected in New York. America’s mayor, y’all.
          Fuck you assholes on both coasts; you’d think that with so large a population you could find better politicians. (note: President Trump is not a politician, but is also from one of the coasts.)

        6. Yes Tony, the President of the United States shouldn’t be required to know how many States that he is President of, and it is totally unreasonable that the Commander in Chief know how to properly pronounce the ranks of the military that he commands.
          That said, Giuliani is a horrible Statist POS who could only get elected in New York. America’s mayor, y’all.
          Fuck you assholes on both coasts; you’d think that with so large a population you could find better politicians. (note: President Trump is not a politician, but is also from one of the coasts.)

        7. Yes Tony, the President of the United States shouldn’t be required to know how many States that he is President of, and it is totally unreasonable that the Commander in Chief know how to properly pronounce the ranks of the military that he commands.
          That said, Giuliani is a horrible Statist POS who could only get elected in New York. America’s mayor, y’all.
          Fuck you assholes on both coasts; you’d think that with so large a population you could find better politicians. (note: President Trump is not a politician, but is also from one of the coasts.)

        8. Yes Tony, the President of the United States shouldn’t be required to know how many States that he is President of, and it is totally unreasonable that the Commander in Chief know how to properly pronounce the ranks of the military that he commands.
          That said, Giuliani is a horrible Statist POS who could only get elected in New York. America’s mayor, y’all.
          Fuck you assholes on both coasts; you’d think that with so large a population you could find better politicians. (note: President Trump is not a politician, but is also from one of the coasts.)

        9. Yes Tony, the President of the United States shouldn’t be required to know how many States that he is President of, and it is totally unreasonable that the Commander in Chief know how to properly pronounce the ranks of the military that he commands.
          That said, Giuliani is a horrible Statist POS who could only get elected in New York. America’s mayor, y’all.
          Fuck you assholes on both coasts; you’d think that with so large a population you could find better politicians. (note: President Trump is not a politician, but is also from one of the coasts.)

          1. Jesus H. Fucking Christ. I think I just won the Squirlies!

        10. “””57 states”‘

          Some people don’t know the difference between a state, and a territory/possession.

          The first gets a star on the US flag, the latter does not.

          1. K, want to start examining Donald Trump’s statements now?

  28. Sigh, he obviously wasn’t saying truth wasn’t truth.

    This is one of those moments that prove Trump mostly right in his personal feud with the media. They didn’t bother with checking the context. Todd actually agreed with Guiliani’s point.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/…..frank-camp

    People shouldn’t have to air quote “truth” to get the point across in a conversation like this.

    But at least they’re raising the alarms about the important stuff, like the terrorist compound in New Mexico. Oh wait they didn’t.

    1. XM|8.20.18 @ 11:13PM|#
      “Sigh, he obviously wasn’t saying truth wasn’t truth.
      This is one of those moments that prove Trump mostly right in his personal feud with the media.”

      “The media” in this case meaning Reason.
      Is anyone in charge here? Has Welsh gone off on a bender and left the janitor as the final arbiter?
      What fucking stupidity!

  29. Rudy Giuliani Defends Claim That ‘Truth Isn’t Truth”
    […]
    “Truth is truth,” Todd replied, though Giuliani apparently disagreed. “No it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth,” Giuliani said. Giuliani then pointed to contradicting accounts from Trump and former FBI Director James Comey regarding a discussion about the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. “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,” Giuliani said.”

    Really?
    This is what Reason is not publishing on the site?
    Regardless of my favor of lack thereof for Giuliani, he merely pointed out that the truth of the matter is not easy to establish when we have to contradictory claims regarding the discussion.
    *THIS* is what Reason finds worthy of a thread? The publisher of the Chron would be embarrassed. And Welsh should be fired. FIRED, Welsh; pathetic.

    1. Maybe so, but still RG sucks in his role (self-appointed or assigned) as Trump’s PR dude.

      He could say, “look, suppose my client goes and tells the full truth, that prosecutor can just find a false witness to give contradictry testimony. Believe me, I know how scummy prosecutors can be; do you think my client should subject himself to the tender mercies that sort of person?”

      1. Yeah, he could have said that. But he was being even more honest and precise than that.

        He was saying that nobody has the “truth” in their head. So if I go ask everyone who was at your Monday morning meeting back in February what was said and everyone tells the absolute truth as they recall it, I’ll still get many contradictory reports. Because memory is fallible. Very, very fallible.

        1. And what Mueller is “investigating” is “who said what at which meeting and exactly what did they mean?” That’s a stone-cold lock for a perjury trap. Comey has one set of recollections where he claims to see into the mind of Trump. Trump undoubtedly has an entirely different set of recollections based on what he felt he was trying to convey. Mueller has 100% demonstrated that his intention is to “get” someone, not “find out what happened with Russian interference”. We know this because of things like the prosecution of Manafort for things entirely unrelated, the pressure to get insiders to “flip” by prosecuting them, the raid on Trump’s personal attorney’s office for something completely unrelated to Russia…. He has tipped his hand. He’s 100% on board with “getting” someone. None of the search warrants, subpoenas or prosecutions of Americans have been consistent with “following the facts in order to get to the bottom of Russian interference”.

          1. If they were doing that, they’d have a lot of questions for people over at the DNC, Hillary’s campaign and Fusion GPS who all are publicly known to have worked with Russian intelligence agencies to obtain “dirt” on Trump. We have one Russian lobbyist who asked for a meeting with people on the Trump campaign and by all reports it went nowhere… but that has been the focus of all sorts of investigation and potential obstruction charges. Yet nobody even asked why Hillary, the DNC (and Obama’s FBI) all paid Fusion GPS to have a foreign spy deliver information from Russian intelligence officers.

            So they clearly are not investigating “Russian interference”. At least not anywhere near the top of their priority list. They are investigating “get Trump”. Otherwise they would not be ignoring the elephant in the room and running around creating cases where none existed.

            1. And lest we forget, the DNC and Hillary’s campaign were working with select members of the media to push Trump to the front in the Republican primary – in a campaign that exactly aligned with the stated goals of the Russian chaos campaign.

              We know about this bit of interference from the Podesta emails. So if “interference” in the election was a problem, they’d probably have some questions around this as well. But they don’t.

              We also know that helping Bernie Sanders was a stated goal of the Russians, at least if any of the leaks are to be believed. But there doesn’t seem to be any spying on the Sanders campaign. Nor does there seem to be any FBI “informants” infiltrating the campaign. And Mueller doesn’t seem the least bit interested in finding out about every meeting that anyone associated with the Sanders campaign had.

              Yeah, if you were a Republican and Mueller’s team asked to speak with you, you’d be an idiot to talk with them. I wouldn’t even confirm what I had for lunch with those guys if I worked for Trump.

  30. Guliani needs a keeper for his early-onset Alzheimer’s.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.