[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And now Lindsey is taking the goalposts and going home, because there is no defense to what Trump did.

Hey, you're the one who started the let's quote Lindsey game.

Start here with Colludy

Rudy Giuliani
@RudyGiuliani
The investigation I conducted concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption, was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my client against false charges, that kept changing as one after another were disproven.

So is this what he is saying: I was directed by the President to conduct foreign policy to further his personal interests, not to serve the American people.

No, that's not what he said.

That’s devastatingly incriminating for Trump, in terms of both impeachment and the criminal law.

Or perhaps you still don't understand even one of the crimes committed.

Maybe it would help you to understand if the facts were applied to a CEO. If we learned that Jamie Dimon's personal lawyer, on Dimon's orders, was sabotaging the company and its profits to defend Jamie personally, that would obviously be a breach of his duties to JPM.

Giuliani was not sabotaging the company, he was defending his client against false charges. Giuliani was searching for evidence which would help him to defend Trump against false charges.

Or if you are in my field, construction: Imagine you’re accepting bids for a job for your employer. You tell one of the bidders that you’ll award him the contract if he tells your employer that one of your rivals for a promotion was taking bribes from bidders on the job. Your employer would fire you.

Giuliani was not accepting bids for a job. There were no rival bidders.

Or—you’re a company salesman and the company gives you a credit card to use on your sales trip. You take the credit card and throw a big party for yourself. If the company catches you, you get fired, and they report you to the cops.

There was no party. There was serious investigation into corruption and evidence that would help to fight against false charges.

Here, Floridaman wasn’t playing with a measly credit card; he was abusing the powers of the presidency for his own personal benefit— including withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally appropriated military aid to an ally against Russian hegemony.

And then you end the nonsensical framing of your argument with a flourish of pontification. Very much like a prosecutor or defense attorney making the usual slanted summation to the jury in hopes that it will obfuscate any truth that might damage his case.