Anti-Trump media can't handle 'the truth' as it piles on Giuliani comment

Fox News ^ | August 21, 2018 | John R. Lott, Jr.

[rogerantone1]

The anti-Trump media are in an uproar about a comment by President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday that “truth isn’t truth.” News reports have taken Giuliani’s comment completely out of context – showing that many in the media really don’t care about the truth.

[lee martell]

I’m guessing the president can only find a small number of experienced lawyers to work with him, that inspire his trust.
Mr. Trump is under tremendous pressure from The Swamp right now, and is probably grateful to have a friend he can confide in. Someone who has not yet betrayed him.
I can think of no other reason to keep Rudy on the payroll and in front of live microphones.

[TChad]

However, it really doesn’t matter how many time Giuliani explains what he meant. The Trump-haiting media can’t stop lying about what the president and those around him are saying.

Lying is all they know how to do.

[Jeff Chandler]

Maybe you could step in.

[Psalm 144]

I like it when they flip out and gnaw on the carpet, frothing.

[Sa-teef]

"However, it really doesn’t matter how many time Giuliani explains what he meant. The Trump-haiting media can’t stop lying about what the president and those around him are saying. Lying is all they know how to do."

Well said.

The few that are bright enough to catch Rudy's characterization of the Perjury trap are so blindly liberal that they will dismiss it or ignore it without an honest comment anyway.

They have a message of hate for Our President and everyone around him who supports him...including us. They will never quit; they will never respond to reason or logic. You will never change their minds. They need to be treated with the same detachment as a rabid dog who is beyond hope.

[chuckles]

If I told a lawyer to break the law, am I responsible if he decides to do it?

[b4me]

likely yes, but you’d be responsible in a different way than the lawyer making the choice to follow what you told them to do - especially since it’s the lawyer’s profession and responsibility to know the law and work within the law, not break it, so they are at greater fault. Stating “I was told to” changes nothing about the fault of the lawyer. Just as judges, police, etc know and work with the law and when they break it they have no excuse to say they were told to.

[chuckles]

I thought the lawyer was an officer of the court and is hired to represent the client. If I hire him/her, it seems to me I hired them for legal advice. If what I asked them to do was illegal. their response should be "That would be illegal so I can't do that". If they decide to do it, they broke the law and the client could say he didn't understand it was illegal because that's what the lawyer was for.

I just don't see the POTUS liability. It's not his signature on the checks that went to the women. If he reimbursed them later, the lawyer probably sent a bill for expenses.