The only one who seems to be incoherent is you as it's been explained in detail over the last couple weeks on here exactly what transpired as to how Guiliani got involved and the evidence he's provided as proof of that.

It goes way over your head evidently that if it was "he" as in "Guiliani" was approached by Ukrainians because the FBI wasn't interested in investigating what they wanted to bring to the table as far as corruption and Ukraine's involvement with the 2016 election collusion, that approach can be attributed to the fact that he was representing president Trump against accusations of collusion. Trump wasn't approached therefore he wasn't involved in what Giuliani was undertaking on his behalf, which was gathering any potential evidence to see if it was legit to use in the defense of his client. If he found what was presented as credible, which it was by testimony and sworn affidavit's on behalf of the Ukrainians, that evidence could be presented to his client for consideration of use in his defense if he needed.

What your disappointed about is the plain fact that Trish wasn't able to make Giuliani get twist tied up to word something that may appear to implicate his client's involvement in Giuliani's investigation. The reality of that is if one is always telling the truth the story will always come out the same. Giuliani has repeatedly stated the same facts consistently with the same remarkable accuracy over the last couple weeks.