Mid-air Collusion (Mueller Thread v. 19)

[panamaican]

I saw this and while I understand what he's getting at, it was a poor answer to the question he was responding to.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

I saw this and while I understand what he's getting at, it was a poor answer to the question he was responding to.

It was ineloquently phrased version of "can we really trust someone with an incentive to lie?"

 

[Madmick]

See you're adding a ton of context to this from outside of the video.

I'm commenting on the quote being taking completely out of context within the scope video. Quoting "the truth isn't the truth" from this conversation is absurd.

No, genius, there is no context that spares this. The real gap here is the one in your reading comprehension. Chuck is grilling him on why Rudy is deliberately delaying the Presidential response to Mueller's lines of inquiry. The reason is that he wants to coach Trump in order to get the lies all in a row. Rudy is not referring to Comey. He's referring to Trump.

"Look, I'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so that he is trapped into perjury. And when you tell me that he should testify because he is going to tell the truth, well; that's so silly, because it's somebody's version of the truth."

Rudy attempts to spin this into a commentary on Comey, and the "credibility gap", but he wasn't referring to Comey. He was referring to Trump. If Trump tells the truth, and the truth isn't a crime, then there is no reasonable fear of perjury....unless he criminally lied in the past.

 

[Seaside]

Well there is a deep state against Trump. People against him can spin stuff.

 

[panamaican]

It was ineloquently phrased version of "can we really trust someone with an incentive to lie?"

No it wasn't.

It was a lawyer's answer to the reality that when you go into trial, you often have multiple versions of a story that the different parties believe to be true. They cannot both be the "truth". Which is where judges and juries step in. And sometimes, the "truth" that comes out of a trial isn't the objective, undeniably factual, "truth" as used in common parlance.

The "truth" in a trial isn't the "truth", it's the combination of perspectives from multiple parties amalgamated by a decision maker who is picking and choosing which "truths" to believe and which to disregard.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

No, genius, there is no context that spares this. The real gap here is the one in your reading comprehension. Chuck is grilling him on why Rudy is deliberately delaying the Presidential response to Mueller's lines of inquiry. The reason is that he wants to coach Trump in order to get the lies all in a row. Rudy is not referring to Comey. He's referring to Trump.

"Look, I'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so that he is trapped into perjury. And when you tell me that he should testify because he is going to tell the truth, well; that's so silly, because it's somebody's version of the truth."

Rudy attempts to spin this into a commentary on Comey, and the "credibility gap", but he wasn't referring to Comey. He was referring to Trump. If Trump tells the truth, and the truth isn't a crime, then there is no reasonable fear of perjury....unless he criminally lied in the past.

Right to attacking my intelligence? But I'm not too sure what watching a video has to do with my reading comprehension.

But the "truth isn't the truth" quote was clearly when the "credibility gap" discussion began and was not aimed at Trump. Go ahead and type out the transcript.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

No it wasn't.

It was a lawyer's answer to the reality that when you go into trial, you often have multiple versions of a story that the different parties believe to be true. They cannot both be the "truth". Which is where judges and juries step in. And sometimes, the "truth" that comes out of a trial isn't the objective, undeniably factual, "truth" as used in common parlance.

The "truth" in a trial isn't the "truth", it's the combination of perspectives from multiple parties amalgamated by a decision maker who is picking and choosing which "truths" to believe and which to disregard.

No, that's the canned response Rudy is giving initially before being stopped.

The end of that clip and where the "the truth isn't the truth" quote is taken from questions someone's credibility when they have an incentive to lie. Rewatch it.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

Oh, you silly kids....

 

[panamaican]

No, that's the canned response Rudy is giving initially before being stopped.

The end of that clip and where the "the truth isn't the truth" quote is taken from questions someone's credibility when they have an incentive to lie. Rewatch it.

I watched it while it happened. I listened to his explanation. They were discussing credibility and lying but his explanation for "truth isn't the truth" is as I typed it above.

 

[Ruprecht]

It was ineloquently phrased version of "can we really trust someone with an incentive to lie?"

You think? Considering the context, it seemed more like he was saying Trump's testimony was going to be judged in comparison to contradictory testimonies and so they need to "prepare" Trump not to just do his usual sloppy bullshitting while under oath.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Did you watch video you posted? Rudy is just saying people lie all the time.

Yeah, people in this administration.

 

[tehJameson]

Why am I not surprised the cheeto in chief chose someone dumber than him to defend him?

 

[Madmick]

Right to attacking my intelligence? But I'm not too sure what watching a video has to do with my reading comprehension.

You appealed to context which is an invitation to study of text and its interpretation. Shorten this to "comprehension" if you struggle with connotation, and desire to nitpick.

But the "truth isn't the truth" quote was clearly when the "credibility gap" discussion began and was not aimed at Trump. Go ahead and type out the transcript.

Notice I didn't focus on that, but on Rudy's legalese backpedaling. I attacked your defense, "Rudy is just saying people lie all the time."

Within the context of the video that reference refers back to Trump himself under oath.

 

[Factory]

Honestly? Trump has to get rid of him before it's too late...

 

[Diamond Jim]

Nothing new. Just another Trump lackey facing prison.

 

[ToxicShocker]

Giuliani got caught talking too fast and made a poor comparison. There are two people who both claim to be telling the truth, when the two are mutually exclusive, one truth isn't truth.
This flub is great for headlines but it shouldn't be. This is just semantics.

...and now Rudy dropping the "truth isn't truth" bomb, this surely has to be the most Orwellian administration ever.

The real Orwellian scenario, which is far scarier, is the president successfully convincing the public that they can't trust what the see and hear. Rather than dispute the finer points of a claimed story its 'kill the messenger' so no one will trust anything that they say.

 

[Madmick]

Honestly? Trump has to get rid of him before it's too late...

Isn't he in the middle of trying to throw Cohen under the bus? Now there's rumors swirling that he is setting up McGahn for the same.

I know you're being tongue-in-cheek, but how many damn buses does the President need? They're gonna call 1600 Ave. the Greyhouse soon.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Jesus Christ, man, you're the juror candidate that gives Manafort's attorneys wet dreams.

Mr. Downing is an upstanding man and a hell of a man to listen to during a lecture. Just thought I’d add that lol.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

You appealed to context which is an invitation to study of text and its interpretation. Shorten this to "comprehension" if you struggle with connotation, and desire to nitpick.

Notice I didn't focus on that, but on Rudy's legalese backpedaling. I attacked your defense, "Rudy is just saying people lie all the time."

Within the context of the video that reference refers back to Trump himself under oath.

I appealed to the actual context of the argument Rudy was making when he said those words.

And talk about legalese? You're addressing the first half of the video, and completely ignoring the entire point of the thread, in order to be right on the internet. You're also attacking my intelligence for some reason which is foreign to me. I'm certainly not a genius and have never claimed to be.

 

[Madmick]

Mr. Downing is an upstanding man and a hell of a man to listen to during a lecture. Just thought I’d add that lol.

I have no doubt he's exceptional at his job.

I appealed to the actual context of the argument Rudy was making when he said those words.

And talk about legalese? You're addressing the first half of the video, and completely ignoring the entire point of the thread, in order to be right on the internet. You're also attacking my intelligence for some reason which is foreign to me. I'm certainly not a genius and have never claimed to be.

Even a layman shouldn't get lost in his doublespeak. He wasn't referring to a competing testimony.