Current Events > Giuliani Admits 'Spygate' Is PR in Anticipation of Impeachment

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/giuliani-admits-spygate-is-pr-about-impeachment.html

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani confirmed on Sunday that the president and his allies attempts to discredit the Mueller investigation including the most recent so-called Spygate controversy are part of a public relations campaign aimed at staving off impeachment. It is for public opinion, the former New York mayor admitted during an appearance on CNNs State of the Union. And while trying to shape public opinion is the rarely acknowledged goal of any presidential administration, what Giuliani said next was unique to Trumps: Because eventually the decision here is going to be impeach or not impeach.

Giulianis comment came amid pressure from host Dana Bash to acknowledge that he and Trump were using a very specific, very political strategy to undermine [the Mueller] investigation, highlighting how a recent poll revealed a 15 percent drop in the number of Republicans who wanted Trump to testify in the probe. Bash and Giuliani had already talked about the unfounded Spygate allegation by Trump and his allies that the FBI had installed a spy in the Trump campaign to set up for collusion charges. (The FBI had actually warned Trump that Russia was trying to infiltrate his campaign.)

Asked to confirm that these efforts to discredit the Mueller probe were just a political tactic, Giuliani first demurred, insisting that he and Trump have just been calling attention to the suspicions, not creating them. Then Bash specifically cited the Spygate claims and how no evidence had been offered to support them, and noted to Giuliani that he was both an experienced politician and a lawyer who clearly understood that the Trump team could feel free to attack the Russia investigation, since Mueller and his team would not be able to publicly defend themselves.

There's more the article.

Incredible.
---

Nothing burger

Bio1590 posted...

Incredible

Sad!
---

Why is he doing this?

Is Giuliani a democratic plant cause he is doing a great job at fucking shit up

@darkjedilink
@HypnoCoosh

You both defend this garbage "Spygate" conspiracy. Turns out it was made up by your cult leader

why would you need to prepare for this sort of thing if your party controls congress and you're supposedly innocent?
---

Doom_Art posted...

why would you need to prepare for this sort of thing if your party controls congress and you're supposedly innocent?

They have to prepare for the worst case scenario of not controlling everything after the midterms.
---

Trump is seriously surrounding himself with the dumbest mother fuckers you can possibly get.
---

Giuliani is the worst/best

notice how Giuliani isn't arguing for Trump's innocence anymore. it's all

"collusion isn't a crime"
"the Russians just gave him a gift"
"we're trying the impeachment case in the court of public opinion"
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

notice how Giuliani isn't arguing for Trump's innocence anymore. it's all

"collusion isn't a crime"
"the Russians just gave him a gift"
"we're trying the impeachment case in the court of public opinion"

It's just like how Trump supporters have changed the argument to "Mueller was only supposed to be investigating collusion with Russia."
---

It is unamerican to investigate the president for crimes he committed to get elected
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Phantom_Nook posted...

notice how Giuliani isn't arguing for Trump's innocence anymore. it's all

"collusion isn't a crime"
"the Russians just gave him a gift"
"we're trying the impeachment case in the court of public opinion"

It's just like how Trump supporters have changed the argument to "Mueller was only supposed to be investigating collusion with Russia."

This is a common arguing tactic called "reframe the debate" basically, you fork a tangent of the argument and then make the new argument about the tangent rather than having to defend the original position.

So if I say "Collusion isn't a crime" now the entire argument is about whether or not collusion isn't a crime instead of did Donald Trump actually commit collusion.

The most common form of this argument is "But the other side also (insert bullshit here)"

The reason why that is invalid is because even if the other side also engages in bullshit, that does not absolve you of having to defend why the original group engaged in bullshit in the first place.
---