Sunday Talks: Rudy GiulianIi -vs- Chris Wallace on Mueller Report…

President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani appears on Fox News to discuss the insufferable witchhunt with the lead Fox News promoter for the witchhunt.

This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, FBI, media bias, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

286 Responses to Sunday Talks: Rudy GiulianIi -vs- Chris Wallace on Mueller Report…

  1. Kristin DeBacco says:

    I despiiiiiiiiise this guy. ( remembering Bob Grant, R. I. P. )


  2. Invisigoth says:

    Bare nuts: there was no crime. Read the statute. What do you need to appoint a special counsel? Not a need for a crime — an actual crime.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. todayistheday99 says:

    At 8:15 the interview goes totally off the rails and shortly bringing up a video of Rudy from a couple of days ago. Why would anyone ever go on FOX news agan. WTF? The studio has the power to completely decimate anyone they want to. FF (F*** Fox)!

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Grant says:

    I knew that releasing the Mueller Report to the public was a bad idea. Because the liberal media, democRATS and RINOs they sooooooo want to take it out of context (In case half of Americans didn’t read the whole thing). And like always: They just want to fool the people for their lying globalist agenda. Sad.


    • Republicanvet91 says:

      I disagree. If this plays out properly, the swamp rats will have been yammering about this for a few weeks, with no real there there. People will be tired of hearing the same thing spun a different way for the 50th time.

      The narrative will completely change as soon as the first document is declassified and released, which will be a stark contrast to anything in Weissmann’s little screed.

      Liked by 2 people

      • concerned3 says:

        Your right, if the documents are completely declassified in large numbers. This will create a fire storm. But, some people are playing dual rolls. Trying to prosecute and save portions of the government.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Sedition Sleuth says:

    On the question about McGahn, any privilege has been waived. It’s now out there, in writing, what he (McGahn) allegedly spoke with POTUS about.


  6. emeraldcoaster says:

    I think Rudy Giuliani was at his best. C.W.’s constant interruptions and readily apparent bias helped Rudy make his point.

    Liked by 8 people

  7. Fools Gold says:

    Wallace, what a disgrace. If you want to hear shut up and listen, fool! There’s lway 2 sides of every story if you want to hear both sides. There’s your reason faux hired Ryan!

    Liked by 2 people

  8. curator55 says:

    Rudy did a decent job in this irritating, crammed, Gotcha interview baloney but I’m very disappointed that “they” decided not to hold a press conference to release a cogent and detailed counter argument (online pdf.) to Weissmann’s biased and devious Op-Ed. Where is Dershowitz’s supposed Introduction to the Report? No wonder the Trump campaign is always on defense and Trump has to use Twitter to fight back mostly by himself.

    Rudy said, “We planned to do it if we needed it. So far we don’t think we need to… the debate is playing out about as well as it can” in the public. This makes more sense if you’re a Dem with the 99% anti Trump MSM propaganda machine on your side but the Trump side only has 52/48 % FNC (a few million viewers) and an unknown number of disparate sites to disseminate non fake news. But the social media giants are increasingly banning, sabotaging and censoring many of them. Maybe the “Trump team” believes the controversy will just die out on its own. I doubt it with ONLY the prosecutions baloney in print form.

    Rudy claimed “1/2 of the report is not true,” so wouldn’t it be wise to show it in detail on paper than just say it? The Dem’s attack relentlessly. How many opportunities are there for the Trump side to hold a well covered public Press Conference (without Trump) to promote Trump? This is a regrettable lost opportunity to fight back.

    (Note-If it was too much for Jay and Rudy at this time, then they could have hired (or requested the input of) Joe Degenova, Victoria Toensing, Mark Levin, Dershowitz, Bongino, Sidney Powell, Greg Jarrett, Kim Strassel (sundance) and so on to contribute.”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. stats guy says:

    i only made it thru half way….Wallace’s twitching gave his game away. He needs to learn how to do a poker face even around people he loathes

    Liked by 1 person

  10. WES says:

    I see the Russian embassy has released a 120 page report refuting the Mueller report! Probably has more truths in it than the Mueller report!

    Still waiting for Rudy’s report Monday?

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Fight Back says:

    I hate Chris Wallace! Not even half the man his father was. Time to start kicking these fools in the nutsax and tell them if they are going to continue down this false narrative they will have a lawsuit first thing Monday Morning! To hell with Fox!

    Please Mr. President fight back now! Before this ends up on all our doorsteps…

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Visitor says:

    He was on with Chris Wallace on Fox..not Matthews on MSNBC (unless I missed something).


    • lotbusyexec says:

      Sundance I think is making FUN of CW. THE INTERVIEW IS SO BAD AND IS AT THE LEVEL OF A CM INTERVIEW. I thought it was funny when I read the headline. CW is a putz and would be better of having a one-man show with NO guests since he obviously knows all the answers he wants to be discussed. Man is a pure shill and no one should ever agree to be a guest on his show. CW is not open to discussions. All he wants is his talking points and to shut down others opinions. What a great leftist.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Alec Rawls says:

    Giuliani (at 8:15): “[Trump] was an innocent man, being charged with something he didn’t do. You vave to grant that now, when they [Mueller et al.] say no proven underlying crime…”
    Matthews: “No I don’t.”

    What a hack. And I believe Mueller actually went further than Giuilani’s characterization, saying NO EVIDENCE for the underlying crime, in effect an exoneration.

    That was the headline. E.G. USA Today:

    “Mueller report: Investigation found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia, leaves obstruction question open”

    But Matthews won’t even accept “no collusion.”

    Liked by 2 people

  14. The simple answer is that not a single statute cited in the Weissmann report applies to the conduct alleged in the report–even were it all true. That is obvious from page 9 second paragraph where the prosecutors start with “potentially relevant statutes” “in an ordinary case.” The entire thing is concocted.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Impossible says:

    Stunning: that must be the most shockingly self-centered, self-righteous, close-minded interview extant. The Wallace outdoes himself in his blatant, object fear, of hearing anything, anything that counters his twisted narrative. Giuliani can often be a bit scattered in honing in on legal truths; yet, in this interview one could taste the clarity. The Wallace shut him down EVERY TIME. The not-so-subtle admission that Chris still (post 30 million tax payer dollars of coercion) does not believe that the President of These United States was innocent of collusion with the Russian State, is evidence of a mind racked with aberration. What a blowhard of brobdignagian proportions.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. concerned3 says:

    It seems to be a tell for the Socialist smirks and arrogance, (catch Chris Wallace’s) face at different times during the interview.


  17. Petrel says:

    Curator55: You might add Larry Johnson, of Sic Semper Tyrannis, to your go-to list. Yesterday Johnson picked up on several deliberate omissions in the Mueller Report about the Moscow Trump Tower “issue.”

    Between 2015 and 2016 the Trump organization was repeatedly pitched a Moscow Tower deal by one Felix Sater, who ultimately proposed that Donald Trump travel to Russia and meet with Russian financiers and government officials. The Trump organization repeatedly blew the Sater offers off. Following more such overtures, on June 14, 2016, Donald Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, told Felix Sater to go away. The Candidate was vigorously pursuing the Presidency and had no interest.

    Who is Felix Sater? He is an active undercover FBI agent, signed-up — on December 10, 1998 — by one of our esteemed Mueller Team hatchet-men, Andrew Weissmann. Felix Sater had no real contacts in Russia. (His one request for a meeting in the Kremlin was answered by the communications office suggesting that if his client wanted to meet Russian real estate people, about zoning and financing, he should attend an autumn trade fair in St Petersburg.) What was Sater up to? Sure looks like an FBI attempt to beef up the Donald Trump / Russian Collusion narrative.

    Of all people, Andrew Weissmann knows only too well who Felix Sater works for — not the Kremlin, rather the FBI — since he signed Sater up in 1998. Were Weissmann an honest investigator, he would have revealed in the Mueller Report that Sater was an FBI agent-provocateur. But he does not. The omission leaves the suggestion the Kremlin was pursuing Donald Trump through Sater, rather than FBI entrapment through Sater.

    Such is not the only instance of FBI entrapment. In the spring of 2016, Roger Stone was approached by a cabal of Ukrainians and Russians, led by one “Henry Oknyansky” aka “Henry Greenberg.” The cabal offered Stone information about Hilary Clinton’s financial irregularities involving Russia. Roger Stone told the cabal that Donald Trump did not pay for “opposition research” and broke off the meeting.

    So who is Henry Oknyansky / Greenberg and how did he gain legal access to the US? Greenberg has extensive ties to the Russian mob, a most unsavory group. In US Immigration Court, Oknyansky / Greenberg explained that he had worked with the FBI for 17 years, proved it and was granted his request to settle in the land-of-the-free-and-home-of-the-brave. Can we really believe that Greenberg’s interaction with Stone was not triggered by his FBI handlers? Then again, how come the Mueller Report does not identify Greenberg as an FBI asset? With that omission, the Mueller Report creates a suggestion that Donald Trump has some very nasty Russian well-wishers. In fact, it is the FBI that signed-up, retained and deployed on Roger Stone some very nasty, Russian criminal assets, many years ago.

    A suggestion: Perhaps Special Counsel Mueller might be asked about these two omissions?

    Liked by 6 people

    • cjzak says:

      Nice analysis. Mueller was out to not shine any negative light on the FBI unless impossible not to. Convenient he left those facts out you mentioned.

      Liked by 2 people

    • nimrodman says:

      So who is Henry Oknyansky / Greenberg and how did he gain legal access to the US? Greenberg has extensive ties to the Russian mob …

      “Henry Greenberg” is the same guy who took a pass at Michael Caputo, likely on direction of FBI

      Caputo said he only learned the individual was an FBI informant after he sat down with investigators for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

      “When they asked me about him, I told them what I knew. By their faces I knew that it was someone that had been sent to me. It was after my interrogation with the Mueller team that I went out, hired private investigators and found out the guy had used a fake name, Henry Greenberg, and that he had been working with the FBI for 17 years.”

      Caputo also said he tried to give this information to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The New York Times reported Tuesday that Horowitz is looking into the role of Stefan Halper, another FBI informant who contacted members of the Trump campaign during the election.

      I heard Caputo recount this tale yesterday or Friday to Laura Ingraham, I think it was, on Fox. I think he described that the private investigator he (Caputo) hired came across that court testimony Petrel recounts above, thereby discovering the “worked for the FBI 17 years”.

      Caputo’s account is in the news recently

      Russian FBI informant attempted to frame me by offering dirt on Clinton: Michael Caputo

      Michael Caputo: Russian National Who Offered Dirt on Hillary Clinton Was an FBI informant

      But Stone’s account dates to June 2018 and, actually, it also describes Caputo and Stone comparing notes on Mr Greenberg

      Trump associate Roger Stone reveals new contact with Russian national during 2016 campaign

      June 17, 2018

      MIAMI — One day in late May 2016, Roger Stone — the political dark sorcerer and longtime confidant of Donald Trump — slipped into his Jaguar and headed out to meet a man with a “Make America Great Again” hat and a viscous Russian accent.

      The man, who called himself Henry Greenberg, offered damaging information about Hillary Clinton, Trump’s presumptive Democratic opponent in the upcoming presidential election, according to Stone, who spoke about the previously unreported incident in interviews with The Washington Post. Greenberg, who did not reveal the information he claimed to possess, wanted Trump to pay $2 million for the political dirt, Stone said.

      “You don’t understand Donald Trump,” Stone recalled saying before rejecting the offer at a restaurant in the Russian-expat magnet of Sunny Isles, Fla. “He doesn’t pay for anything.”

      [Roger Stone helped Donald Trump get elected president — now he’s helping himself]

      Later, Stone got a text message from Michael Caputo, a Trump campaign communications official who’d arranged the meeting after Greenberg had approached Caputo’s Russian-immigrant business partner.

      “How crazy is the Russian?” Caputo wrote, according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted “big” money, Stone replied, “waste of time.”

      Two years later, the brief sit-down in Florida has resurfaced as part of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s sprawling investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, according to Caputo. Caputo said he was asked about the meeting by prosecutors during a sometimes-heated questioning session last month.

      Stone and Caputo, who did not previously disclose the meeting to congressional investigators, now say they believe they were the targets of a setup by U.S. law enforcement officials hostile to Trump.

      They cite records — independently examined by The Post — showing that the man who approached Stone is actually a Russian national who has claimed to work as an FBI informant.

      Liked by 1 person

      • nimrodman says:

        So we need to add this guy Greenberg to the other operatives (Mifsud, Halper, Downer, etc) that FBI / CIA ran at Trump campaign guys to try to dirty them up

        And call to account Wray, and before him, McCabe, Priestap, Strzok, etc at FBI to answer who at FBI was running these operatives.

        Liked by 1 person

    • nimrodman says:

      Petrel, I bumped a link to this discussion over to a newer thread where it may get more recent eyeballs, just to let you know

      Liked by 1 person

      • Petrel says:

        nimrodman, Thank you for filling out “Greenberg’s” backstory.

        I can’t believe how my naive, blind faith in the FBI of 30-years ago has so evolved. First the FBI dropped the ball, prior to 9/11, about Arizona pilot instructors noticing middle-easterner clients who only wanted lessons in flying, but not in the take-off and landing of jet planes. Since then we have had a slew of FBI bungles, e.g. a Florida youngster gearing up to shoot his classmates, a Florida homophobe gearing up to shoot a nightclub, the messed-up Las Vegas investigation of some (government ?) gun-runner shooting a concert crowd and so on.

        The time may have come to fold the entire organization. This is no longer the 1920s-30s. Our state and local law enforcement is now professionally trained and we don’t need an overpaid, self-congratulatory, national force of inept trouble makers and their sleazy portfolio of criminal assets.

        Liked by 1 person

    • spoogels says:

      THIS photo posted by Sater himself. I seem to remember photo of Bill with Sater and some guys in a pool

      Liked by 1 person

    • curator55 says:

      2 Thumbs up for your comment and nimrodman’s links etc.

      I didn’t think anyone was interested in the issues mentioned in my comment, so I didn’t check back a 2nd time. Sorry I missed it earlier. I’m likely writing to myself but I wish I had seen your post and all those in the thread.

      They were all worth reading and informative. Thanks to all.


  18. frank field says:

    Wallace/Mathews, “but but”.

    They/ he are enemies of truth.

    On Easter. On Easter.



    Liked by 1 person

  19. todayistheday99 says:

    The Chuck Todd interrogation is way better wrt Rudy:

    Liked by 3 people

  20. L-dave says:

    Fox News must have decided that keeping the witch hunt alive is good for ratings.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. nimrodman says:

    Subject: Chris Wallace needs to allow his guests to answer (Giuliani inverview Apr 21)

    Hey, Fox News –

    Geez, with that amount of interruption, you might just as well bring Chrissy on and let him do a monologue

    “Media Matters talking point yada yada … we’re pressed for time yada yada … Media Matters talking point yada yada … we’re pressed for time yada yada … Media Matters talking point yada yada …”

    You know, “pressed for time” doesn’t really pass muster.

    If Chrissy is going to be “pressed for time”, book your guest for a double block or not at all.

    But he’s really got to shut up and let his guest reply fully to a question, all the way to the end of their sentence and PERIOD. Chris is denying the audience their chance to hear the guest’s reply.

    Chris is filibustering with intent and an agenda. That ain’t news and it ain’t even opinion – it’s propaganda.

    Disgraceful, Fox

    What? You all got resumes out to MSNBC or something? Toadying favor there?

    What gives?

    Fox Viewer (but less and less, changing the channel much more often lately)

    Liked by 4 people

  22. swampfox999 says:

    Chrissy, like his dad, is an insufferable and unetical leftist partisan, masquerading as a journalist. And, like his dad, he refuses to do his homework to ascertain facts, because he thinks he knows it all. What a fool and shill for the dhimmilib party and deep state traitors.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Didgusted says:

    Terrible, terrible, terrible and ridiculoud Wallace. Very thrilled Rudy was the one dealing with him. He seems very frustrated amd needs another line of work.


  24. Linus in W.PA. says:

    Chris Wallace needs to consume feces and expire.


  25. Ann says:

    What do you make of it that Rush is good besties with both?


  26. leftnomore says:

    I’m sorry but I can only take two minutes of that idiot interrupting Giuiani and agenda-shoving. Wallace is a shill and fits right in with the rest of the boardroom media stasi. How does anyone watch these shows and not throw an ashtray at the tv?


  27. Steven W says:

    This is a very simple answer to these libs asking about McGann denying Trump’s request to fire Mueller….
    If Trump really wanted him fired, he wouldn’t have let McGann denial stop him. It didn’t happen. So Trump inquired, McGann advised against it, Trump decided not to go forward with it.
    No obstruction.


  28. bartinsky says:

    Chris Wallace is very smarmy, hard to watch, contorts his mealy mouth to look like he is giving a blowjob to a tomcat, just like that Kasick jackass from Ohio.


  29. graficgod says:

    god, i just cannot stomach chris wallace anymore. his ‘questioning’ is obviously biased in a ‘gotcha’ kind of manner and he’s just overly combative towards trump. not objective and certainly biased.
    FauxNews, indeed!

    Liked by 1 person

  30. laurie5106 says:

    Giuliani did great with that interview. Wallace was annoying. He’s supposed to ask questions and let the person answer. If the answer wasn’t to his liking he’d try to cut him off. I’ve seen this type of thing often being done by leftist media hacks. They’re not interested in truth. They are taking the opposite side of a debate.


  31. laurie5106 says:

    Giuliani did great with that interview. Wallace was annoying. He’s supposed to ask questions and let the person answer. If the answer wasn’t to his liking he’d try to cut him off. I’ve seen this type of thing often being done by leftist media hacks. They’re not interested in truth. They are taking the opposite side of a debate.


  32. Mr. Chris (Democrat-Hack) Wallace, why do you feel the need to continually interrupt a Logical Explanation to the “Obstruction of Justice” question? Could it be that your argument is Profoundly Flawed and you have Zero Legal experience concerning the Statute, could it?
    I feel sympathy for Sundance because he has to watch this CACA.


  33. doctorfixit says:

    Wallace is the ultimate scumbag. Unwatchable. Insufferable.


  34. doctorfixit says:

    Chuck Todd is even dumber than he looks.


Leave a Reply to emeraldcoaster Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s