Fogbow

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:06 am**

CoffeyTimeNews @CoffeyTimeNews wrote: JUST IN:

Rudy Giuliani, flipper?

Voluntarily speaking to prosecutors with his lawyer, trying to persuade the DOJ to give him immunity or a lighter charges for info..

This suggests he recognizes that Smith is now focused on this final circle of lawyers around Trump.

Juicy.

Source:
Harry Litman @harrylitman wrote: The thing to appreciate about Giuliani is he is selling, not buying. He is in there w/ his lawyer, trying to persuade the DOJ to give him immunity or a light charge in xchh for info.That suggests he recognizes that Smith is now focused on this final circle of lawyers around Trump

Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 wrote: NBC News confirms: Rudy Giuliani has been interviewed by federal investigators as part of the special counsel's investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. @NBCNews

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:39 am**

Considering all those "stolen vote" lies I don't think that prosecutors have any further need of a star whitless. At best is his confirmation on some exotic points they will be charging somebody (or him).

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:41 am**

Yeah I don't think they need him. They should just charge him already.

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:36 pm**

Maybe tfg should have paid old Roodles.

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:24 pm**

NEW: the Rudy meeting was a proffer session. Methinks he set this up to see if he could avoid indictment or lessen potential charges. Remember how Rudy said he had an “insurance policy” if trump turned on him?

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:34 pm**

He has the pee tapes??

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:39 pm**

much ado wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:34 pm He has the pee tapes??

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:30 pm**

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:39 am Considering all those "stolen vote" lies I don't think that prosecutors have any further need of a star whitless. At best is his confirmation on some exotic points they will be charging somebody (or him).

Or to keep Giuliani from later parachuting in with some false purportedly exculpatory testimony.

Prosecutors have tools for making sure that a prosecution is neatly wrapped up and tied with a bow that can't easily be undone, and it looks as though the Special Counsel is using them.

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:46 pm**

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:24 pm

NEW: the Rudy meeting was a proffer session. Methinks he set this up to see if he could avoid indictment or lessen potential charges. Remember how Rudy said he had an “insurance policy” if trump turned on him?

Is she sure? Every other report I've seen has simply been speculating it was a proffer. Her statement seems pretty definitive. Either that, or she's not being as accurate and precise as she should be.

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:48 pm**

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:46 pm Is she sure? Every other report I've seen has simply been speculating it was a proffer. Her statement seems pretty definitive. Either that, or she's not being as accurate and precise as she should be.

She's done this sort of thing before. I doubt she knows for sure.

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:53 pm**

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:48 pm
sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:46 pm Is she sure? Every other report I've seen has simply been speculating it was a proffer. Her statement seems pretty definitive. Either that, or she's not being as accurate and precise as she should be.
She's done this sort of thing before. I doubt she knows for sure.

People who make blanket announcements based on nothing more than scraps of facts and their own ideas make me crazy. We have several people here on the board that do the same and it makes me grit my teeth every time. Please, share your thoughts and opinions and educated guesses, but don't make pronouncements like they're gospel.

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:53 pm**

She's quoting NYT, I believe.

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:58 pm**

p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:53 pm She's quoting NYT, I believe.

Good eye!

NYT wrote:The voluntary interview, which took place under what is known as a proffer agreement, was a significant development in the election interference investigation led by Jack Smith, the special counsel, and the latest indication that Mr. Smith and his team are actively seeking witnesses who might cooperate in the case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/us/p ... ation.html

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:59 pm**

Thanks. Paywalled so all I could see was the blurb.

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 9:00 pm**

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:59 pm Thanks. Paywalled so all I could see was the blurb.

Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/us/p ... =url-share

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2023 9:02 pm**

She is quoting a NYT article that doesn't have any caveats on this point.

The voluntary interview, which took place under what is known as a proffer agreement, was a significant development in the election interference investigation led by Jack Smith, the special counsel, and the latest indication that Mr. Smith and his team are actively seeking witnesses who might cooperate in the case.

A proffer agreement is an understanding between prosecutors and people who are subjects of criminal investigations that can precede a formal cooperation deal. The subjects agree to provide useful information to the government, sometimes to tell their side of events, to stave off potential charges or to avoid testifying under subpoena before a grand jury. In exchange, prosecutors agree not to use those statements against them in future criminal proceedings unless it is determined they were lying.

On the other hand, Maggie "Stenographer to the Rich & Vile" Haberman is a co-author, so one should be a little cautious.

Still, although I agree that Mueller, She Wrote is frequently untrustworthy, I don't think she can be criticized for relying on this particular article.

Posted: **Wed Jul 05, 2023 10:27 pm**

Rudy’s gonna a Jared loan.

Posted: **Wed Jul 05, 2023 10:35 pm**

I see this thread and hope it should be a cross-post from RIP.

Posted: **Thu Jul 06, 2023 12:28 am**

Patagoniagirl wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 10:35 pm I see this thread and hope it should be a cross-post from RIP.

That's definitely a post that would qualify for the new "Burn In Hell Mutha F-----!!!" thread, not RIP.

Posted: **Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:15 am**

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 12:28 am
Patagoniagirl wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 10:35 pm I see this thread and hope it should be a cross-post from RIP.
That's definitely a post that would qualify for the new "Burn In Hell Mutha F-----!!!" thread, not RIP.

I stand corrected!

Posted: **Thu Jul 06, 2023 4:29 pm**

Greatgrey wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 10:27 pm Rudy’s gonna a Jared loan.

Dat's a lotta Scotch.

Posted: **Thu Jul 06, 2023 6:04 pm**

Didn't Rudy complain recently that he couldn't pay his Nexus/Lexus fees and that if his case was to move forward, someone would have to pay them, so he could do research for his defense?

And, didn't he say that he was unable to pay his current attornies?

If he can't pay his own legal expenses, how is he going to pay someone else's?

Posted: **Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:26 pm**

Gregg wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 4:29 pm
wrote:Amount was TBD. Per new filing from plaintiffs, they're asking for $89K: https://
Dat's a lotta Scotch.

Not at the Lincoln Park Binny's

tem #125514
Gordon & Macphail Generations 80 year old from Glenlivet Distillery 1940
700 ML BOTTLE

$110,000.00

Posted: **Fri Jul 07, 2023 5:36 am**

I once owned a Glenlivet 1964 50 year old bottle, bought as part investment part novelty (I was born in 1964). It was worth considerably less than that, though.

Posted: **Fri Jul 07, 2023 1:31 pm**