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.

Advertisements
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. cheryl says:

    Watched this morning and Chris Wallace tried so hard to interrupt and Rudy was having none of it. He did very well.

    Liked by 23 people

  2. Wallace thinks he’s being “fair and balanced” by asking pointed questions about the Mueller Report, but he is not doing any such thing when he adopts the false narratives being promulgated by the left.

    That’s not journalism, that’s promulgating propaganda.

    Liked by 34 people

    • The Boss says:

      Wallace is an ass on his best day. I foresee him facing a reckoning, most certainly not on his terms.

      Liked by 14 people

    • sDee says:

      “fair and balanced”

      ….means standing a lie up against the truth so well that viewers can discern neither.

      Liked by 12 people

    • boogywstew says:

      In Chrissy’s promulgating propaganda, he is showing a persnickety perfidious preference. Of course, that goes without saying.

      Liked by 2 people

    • glissmeister says:

      Chris Wallace. A pox on the Truth. What a morbid display of an inability to think. Then I laughed out loud…

      “I’m trying to conduct an interview.”

      Did anyone else notice the production trick with the microphone levels? Chris has his volume boosted over the voice of his “guest.” Listen to the guest’s voice coherency collapse as Little Man tramples their speech with electronically diminished ease.

      The dude is one fetid tool.

      Liked by 7 people

      • nimrodman says:

        That’s an audio engineer’s trick using audio compressors at the soundboard, a piece of electronic gear

        It’s called “ducking”

        A compressor usually is set to limit any loud passages, where the level at which is activates can be set, typically on the primary audio stream of interest

        There’s also something called a side-chain feature on compressors, whereby it can be set to not simply activate on a speaker’s voice but can be set to activate and limit (depress) speaker’s audio level from another source, say speaker 1, aka Chrissy Wallace.

        So when Wallace pipes up, the side-chain out of his compressor controls Rudy’s level and suppresses it.

        It’s called audio “ducking” because the side-chain material (Rudy, in this case) ducks under the primary material (Wallace)

        You’ll hear it on FM radio adverts where the jingle music might start loud but drops way down when the announcer begins his commercial voice over “For a limited time only … yada yada”

        Easy as pie for the soundboard guy to set up
        Nice that you caught it

        Liked by 1 person

        • glissmeister says:

          Yep. And that cheating’s a formal production decision. That’s producer/management intent.

          So what if they give the Chris duality an electronic 3rd testicle and bump the screech knob to eleven, Mr. Pissy still sounds like neutered version of…

          “At this point. What difference does it make?”

          Like

    • CharterOakie says:

      Exactly right, ClivusM.

      Wallace makes me sick. Craven, brainless swamp creature.

      Liked by 2 people

    • 1800e says:

      His dad was a shill for pie crust.

      Like

  3. mikebrezzze says:

    New narrative coming, release the video of Hillary’s drunken meltdown election night!

    Liked by 8 people

  4. TexasDude says:

    FYI, when an investigation of a crime or a potential crime leads to no evidence of a crime, the case is closed as unfounded. That inherently means the accused who is automatically assumed innocent is still innocent. In regular speech, that means the accused is exonerated.

    Liked by 26 people

    • Cisco says:

      I see , possibly, you’ve spent some time in criminal courts.
      As a 35 year LEO, that’s exactly the definition.
      Innocent, case , if there ever was one is CLOSED!

      Liked by 12 people

      • Texasdude says:

        15 year beat cop! Need probable cause to charge. Heck, depending on the circumstance, there might not even be a report due to absolutely no evidence at all.

        Liked by 9 people

      • dammit_janet says:

        I’m curious. What would happen if a lead investigator on your team leaked the final report to the media ahead of its release to the public?

        Liked by 1 person

      • All Too Much says:

        Interesting.
        Taking it a bit farther, continuing investigation is akin to double jeopardy.
        Its not double jeopardy legally, under the US constitution, but its similar

        Element one:
        Double Jeopardy: Court or jury verdict finding accused not guilty.
        President Trump: House, Senate, Mueller/Barr finding Trump not guilty.

        Element two:
        Double Jeopardy: Prosecute same person after the court or jury decision of not guilty.
        President Trump: Continuing House investigation.

        Liked by 2 people

        • glissmeister says:

          There’s also questions of malpractice and unconscionable breach of fiduciary duty. The federal government is a legendary contractor. There is no apparent reason to me why the federal government executive branch could not claw back the $35 million this report supposedly cost.

          There are questions about dragging out the report.

          There are questions about fraudulent findings and intentional misrepresentations in the final report.

          There are questions as to the report and investigation being conducted in good faith in an objective and non-partisan manner.

          There are questions about negligent staffing in the selection of attorneys made for Mueller’s team, and potential evidence those negligent, conflicted choices cause, in whole or in part, the defects, abuses and breaches of performance that seem to plague the investigation and the report, particularly that both were continued after apparent fraud in the predicate (FISA) became more widely known. Mueller and his team of lawyers knew or should have known this, yet they continued to sell their services to the government and bill accordingly, driving the cost well over $35 million some sources are now reporting.

          Make them pay it back. I cannot think of another government contracting scenario that would not be subject to claw back. These are professional attorneys. They had a fiduciary duty to not F*ck anybody.

          Was there not reckless disregard of predicate bases, costs and fair dealing?

          If so, make them pay it back. Claw back the $35 million.

          Liked by 1 person

          • glissmeister says:

            Trump paid them $35 million to build a Temple of Truth, and instead they built a Sh*thole Banana Stand run by crooks and liars.

            Like

    • Mary says:

      I think when the investigation finds no crime, the question is raised as to why they were investigating. I think they are suppose to first have a crime and then have probable cause to investigate a specific person. The US Constitution forbids general warrants which is investigating a person to see if there is a crime they could be charged for. The press is just deplorable in their coverage of this. Listen to Barr. The investigation was never obstructed. Trump complied more than he had to and gave the team everything they asked for. If the investigation was never obstructed, how could Trump be guilty of obstruction?

      Liked by 8 people

      • How could PDJT be guilty of obstruction? He tweeted mean things about their coup.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sassy says:

        Apparently part of what they were spending $35 million to investigate is why Sarah Sanders misused an adjective. How dare she?!!!!

        Sanders said “countless” FBI agents had no confidence in Comey, but she hadn’t even tried to count them! Maybe in the underlying data that the Democrats want to see, they will find that Mueller’s minions took a poll of all FBI agents, so they WERE able to count the ones who lost faith in Comey, thus proving that Sanders “lied” (committed perjury?) when she said they were “countless.” Lock her up!

        THIS is what they spent our money on. Apparently Mueller was so incensed that his good friend St. Comey had been openly criticized by Sanders, who relied on a media story that said the FBI was losing confidence in Comey, that Mueller or his minions made sure to grill Sarah about how she dared to impugn his leadership. This, if nothing else, proves the bias and the sheer vindictive pettiness in that slanderous report.

        Liked by 2 people

      • todayistheday99 says:

        The word you were looking for was “despicable” not “deplorable” .

        Like

  5. TexasDude says:

    FYI, when an investigation of a crime or a potential crime leads to no evidence of a crime, the case is closed as unfounded. This means the accused who is automatically assumed innocent is still innocent.

    Liked by 2 people

    • TexasDude says:

      sorry, didn’t mean to post twice

      Like

      • Lovearepublican says:

        I have a problem with the whole report. And maybe somebody here can help me out to understand something. Why did the Attorney General William Barr accept this report? Why did he allow it to be the report? As I understand it Mueller worked for the DOJ which means BARR. Which means that Barr could have told Mueller to come to an obstruction conclusion. In other words he could have told Mueller to go back rewrite it and declare whether Trump obstructed or not instead of making Barr decide that it was obstruction or not …why accept the report? Because if he had the power to make Mueller decide one way or the other and he didn’t and he allowed Mueller to place a poison pill in this report then Barr is as big a problem as everybody else.

        Liked by 8 people

        • strateshooter says:

          excellent comment. Barr is swamp. I just feel it.
          he accepted the Russian hack of DNC at face value ( forensically proven not to be the case).
          He makes no counter argument around Papa entrapment , Halper , Carter Page etc etc.
          The report is a GARBAGE REPORT from a corrupt Special Counsel based on a GARBAGE FALSIFICATION that PJDT was a Russian agent.

          If Barr had real balls he would have said he accepts report findings (Trump innocent) but has serious issues with the report content (some he knows blatantly false) and the process by which it was originated and that this points to massive and unacceptable corruption within the DOJ. He should have said it with RR beside him.
          An immediate follow up investigation is ordered.

          Mueller is a traitor and political hack. Complete swamp creature trying to save the wetlands and his sorry U1 ass. Total scum. Whatever honor he had as a Marine disappeared long time ago.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Of course Barr is swamp. In their euphoria, many people are glossing that point. This is an internecine swamp struggle. Barr will pose no existential threat to the swamp. Some second tier scalps will be offered for bread and circus optics. The Clinton and Bush dynasties are two sides of the same coin. One implicates the other. Barr is longtime Bush consigliere. Anyone who thinks Barr was sent in to do a top-to-bottom housecleaning is getting the algebra wrong.

            I’m not into the Q-Anonish envelope swapping thing at the GHWB funeral. What I AM into is the tight chronology. Dec 5 – GHWB buried. Dec 7 – Barr nominated as AG. A deal was brokered. Isn’t that POTUS’ bread and butter?

            Barr gets the collusion hounds off Trump’s back. What did Trump say about Assange? Not my thing i.e. my part of the deal is I leave all this to Barr.

            Question 1: how far has Barr been tasked to go? Well we know he’s not gonna flip the hack to what it really was, a leak. Too much narrative unwinding for the Deep State to countenance.

            Question 2: In exchange for finally getting to be President, what did Trump deal away? One, he’ll play better empire ball. Hence Venezuela. Two, the payback will have distinct boundaries, which Barr will mediate. I say the Clinton/Bush families are off-limits. Nor will the tier 2 players be permitted to implicate them.

            A theory only.

            Liked by 2 people

            • John says:

              More speculation:
              Question 1: how far has Barr been tasked to go?
              1. Hillary and hopefully Obama.
              2. Due to his “love” of the Department of Justice, he will take out the Obama attorney generals.
              3. Sadly, most of the 500, Department of Justice, SES swamp creatures will remain in place.
              4. Clapper and Brennan are out. Hopefully allowing restructuring of the intelligence agencies and FISA courts. (The Supreme and Federal Courts – in my dreams.)

              Question 2: In exchange for finally getting to be President, what did Trump deal away?
              1. The Vice President position.
              2. Initially his Chief of Staff, many cabinet and other staff positions. He was initially able to secure his poor choice for the State Department, but has yet to gain control of everyone below the Secretary of State.
              Note: Trump’s effectiveness will be directly proportionate to the number of congressional leaders that are dislodged in this process. (Primarily the Senate).

              Liked by 1 person

            • CHenie says:

              That’s pretty close to my theory. NO Tier 1 DS player is going to jail…despite it’s clear these people committed treason and sedition. Now what? Nothing-that’s what. Just like I’ve been saying on CTH for months.

              Like

            • Invisigoth says:

              Absolutely bang on analysis! George P is already running for President. Chelsea’s parents aren’t in jail. The dynasties are viable, and still not one single arrest. McCabe got a criminal referral. It’s all BS. One term Trump. Biden / Obama 2020.

              Like

          • Bromdale says:

            I venture to suggest that Diana West would agree with you.

            https://www.theepochtimes.com/is-the-mueller-report-the-son-of-the-steele-dossier_2887555.html

            She doesn’t seem to be expecting much from Barr.

            Like

        • John says:

          My guess:
          I think that Barr made Mueller wind up the whole “investigation.” Mueller would have continued until 2024 if he was forced to make a conclusion. POTUS/Barr will now begin to release(Declass) real evidence proving that Mueller’s report is half-assed and pure BS.

          Liked by 11 people

          • Henry chance says:

            There is no doubt Barr brought Mueller in and said show me a case, show me evidence that can be presented to a grand jury or wrap it up.

            Liked by 3 people

          • meow4me2 says:

            John, I like the way you think. I could see Mueller saying, “Fine, if you want me to come to a conclusion on on obstruction, either it’s gonna take a lot more time or you get the President to give me a deposition. “

            I could also envision Barr telling Weissmann his legal theories on obstruction are not acceptable in the report. Barr May have requested a change and Weissmann might have refused, leading to Barr either firing him or Weissmann stepping down.

            Speculation, I admit.

            Liked by 1 person

        • ristvan says:

          Lurking Lawyer here.
          The answer to your excellent question is provided in the special counsel (SC) regulations themselves, 28CFR§600.
          §600.8(c): At the conclusion, the SC SHALL provide the Attorney General (AG) with a confidential report explaining prosecution and declination decisions.
          §600.9(a): The AG WILL (3) upon conclusion provide a description to the Chair and ranking member of the Judiciary committees of both Houses of Congress. The short Barr letter.
          §600.9(c): The AG MAY determine that public release of the report would be in the public interest. Barr did so and released the redacted report.

          Barr went precisely by the book. No collusion, no obstruction. All else is Mueller/Weissmann spin for TDS Dems in the House, who are now between a rock and a hard place politically on impeachment—as Rudy ably demonstrates in this segment.

          Liked by 17 people

          • JMC says:

            Thanks for your expert analysis! Dan Bongino on Friday night referred to the Mueller Report as “A $30 Million Op-Ed”.

            Liked by 4 people

          • jbowen82 says:

            Very helpful. And I don’t think it’s the end of the story, either. This still has a long, long way to go, and I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the end, the Mueller Report is tainted by:

            1. The fact that the activity the SC was appointed to investigate was mostly a frame-up, making the entire Mueller investigation effectively fruit of the poisonous tree, and

            2. The exposure, indictment, and even conviction of people intimately involved with the investigation.

            That being said, I hope someone on PDT’s team is working on a point-by-point amplification of the report, clarifying the record with what has been omitted or mischaracterized.

            Liked by 1 person

          • JAS says:

            Thank you! I have a question. In the video @ 14.04 Chrissy quotes from part 2 page 157 and it is up on the screen. It has to do with obstruction and in short says that not having a committing a crime is irrelevant and so forth.

            I read the statute. I cannot find anything in the statutes that matches what is being mentioned. Or put up on the screen I’m referring to 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73.

            Help! 😁

            Like

            • ristvan says:

              Have commented on this before in more detail. It is technically possible to commit obstruction when the investigation still results in no crime. But usually this is done to conceal a separate crime that the investigation might stumble upon. So Weissmann’s biased v2p157 language is ‘true’ but misleadingly irrelevant, except to Mad Maxine and ilk. Barr did a nice job framing this for the public. No criminal intent to obstruct can be inferred when PDJT knows there was no collusion, the SC concludes the same, and the SC also uncovers nothing else concerning PDJT.

              Liked by 5 people

          • simicharmed says:

            I believe this Weissmann “report” needs to be labeled as a Campaign Contribution to the DNC. It immediately was and is being used for the 2020 Presidential Election. Another “dossier” to interfere with another political election..

            Liked by 3 people

        • Mark McQueen says:

          The “poison pill” is the same ruse they have been pushing all along. PDT has chose the correct path here. “You want the report? I’ve got nothing to hide. Here it is. Knock yourself out.” POTUS has the truth on his side.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Robert Smith says:

          It’s what Mueller and team want to attest to. Fine. Now the next step has to happen. Dismantle the entire coup. Otherwise, the Mueller SC didn’t get to complete its job as it saw fit.

          Like

        • In other words he could have told Mueller to go back rewrite it and declare whether Trump obstructed or not instead of making Barr decide that it was obstruction or not …why accept the report?

          Why not call him in to his office and hand him a pen and tell him to write the conclusion (since the report honestly reads more like Weissmann-Mueller could have gone on record here).

          Mueller’s S.C. was not charged with election interference—it was charged with taking out Trump. Roses knew all too well what happened to those who crossed the Clintons and he was not fond of committing suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head from 6 feet—Go Go Gadget arms—for you old timers who remember Inspector Gadget and Vince Foster)

          Like

          • ristvan says:

            LAF, per the above and per the CFR, no, he could not. Barr had to accept whatever garbage Mueller/Weissmann handed him, then provide a summary to the Judiciary committees of congress. NO power to revise or send back to SC for revision.
            IMO Barr has performed admirably under the legal circumstances.

            Liked by 3 people

            • GB Bari says:

              That’s a great reason to never again ask for or accept the appointment of an SC to investigate issues that are apparently politically-based rather than a clear case of criminal misdeeds. Too much power in the SC’s hands to write whatever garbage report he or she desires in order to achieve a desired political outcome.

              Like

  6. Tall Texan says:

    Great job, Rudy!

    Liked by 4 people

  7. CN says:

    If Wallace wanted to do a soliloquy , why bother having a guest?

    Liked by 11 people

  8. Charlotte Willson says:

    I watch this and Chris Wallace was so quick to cut Rudy off but when he had Pencilneck on let him finish every idiotic thought man has! Infuriating!

    Liked by 9 people

  9. bessie2003 says:

    Chris Matthews is insufferable;

    I love that Giuliani kept on bringing it back to what they did to Gen. Flynn.

    There is hope in hearing him keep on bringing it back to what happened to Gen. Flynn that indeed they are going to go back to the source.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. trialbytruth says:

    How did Gulianni avoid and. Chrissy. Power.amd.said.thank you from turning and and saying, and frog you very much as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I doubt Buttigieg will get the nomination, but he does share with 0-Nama that smooth, deliberate delivery which superficial, emotion-based leftists lap up and get all excited over. If you listen to what he is actually saying, though, he’s a garden variety anti-American “progressive” creep who shouldn’t get anywhere near a national office, just like 0-bama.

    Liked by 4 people

    • sucesfuloser says:

      He likes men to treat him like a woman that’s going to get him elected? Give me a break.

      Like

    • benifranlkin says:

      It would mean we would have to get used to Mr. Buttigieg and his husband with their new baby in the WH should he win the Presidency. Wait…wha?

      Like

    • BestBets says:

      Every time Buttigieg tries to explain something, he reverts to a meaningless word salad. I make an effort to follow along, just for yucks, but it becomes impossible to decipher what he is saying. Just like Obama….words strung together that sound good but mean nothing.

      Like

    • 1stgoblyn says:

      I have been hearing people talking about Soetoro having that ‘smooth’ speaking voice ever since 2007 and I just cannot imagine how the heck they EVAH got the idea it was pleasurable listening to him talk. The first time I heard him talk I got a headache. It was like watching a tennis match; his head going back and forth and back and forth and…And dragging out that aaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnndddddddddd b/c he couldn’t think for himself (had to have a teleprompter to even talk to kids FPS.) UGH! There are so many unsmooth irritating things about his speech pattern (like ‘ta’ instead of ‘to’) I could go on all night, but the birdies are wanting to nest for the night on my branch, so GOMSBN.

      Like

  12. Katherine McCoun says:

    Wallace doesn’t sound that much different than Todd did this morning.

    Like

  13. unfolder says:

    Great job by Rudy. Quite telling that Matthace would not even stipulate that there was no underlying crime.

    Liked by 7 people

  14. Zippy says:

    Mueller’s report should have been titled “How the Russians Conducted a Highly Successful Disinformation Campaign Suckering Politically Biased US Three Letter Agencies, Thereby Destroying Public Confidence in Those Agencies While Getting Paid MILLIONS to Do So.”

    Liked by 6 people

    • The Russians don’t have to manipulate Deep State into being biased, corrupt gangsters. The Deep State does those things on their own. They’re just as well practiced at disinformation, political hoaxes, character assassination, soft coups, etc. as the Russians are. I’ve yet to see any compelling reasons to believe the Russians were involved in this coup at all.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Zippy says:

        “The Russians don’t have to manipulate Deep State into being biased, corrupt gangsters.”

        I didn’t say that they did. That’s the true beauty of it from their perspective. They simply played the corrupt system they knew was present knowing that it would gladly take the bait. The Russians even got PAID by the Clinton faction to supply the disinformation. They made obvious how very CORRUPT our system actually is and by doing so sowed extreme political division in the US and mistrust of federal three letter agencies. BRILLIANT, actually.

        Like

    • boogywstew says:

      “How Some Russian Nerd Basement Dwellers Conducted a Junior High Level Disinformation Stunt Suckering Politically Biased US Three Letter Agencies, Thereby Getting Paid A Few Bucks”. These Russians didn’t destroy public confidence in those agencies … the agencies did that themselves with the aid of the Uniparty.

      Liked by 1 person

      • All Too Much says:

        Three letter media fits in there as well.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Zippy says:

        “These Russians didn’t destroy public confidence in those agencies … the agencies did that themselves with the aid of the Uniparty.”

        You all just aren’t getting it. Exactly what I claim here has been claimed by national security professionals. OF COURSE the agencies did that to themselves. THAT is exactly what the Russians were counting on and why it is so clever!

        This was a CLASSIC disinformation campaign and since the Russian sourced BS “intel” involved, exactly as Dan Bongino has pointed out, was passed AROUND and not THROUGH the long chain of intel professionals below their never been a field agent, highly political, high level management MORONS, it was NOT passed through the usual long chain that would have FILTERED the “intel” into its proper -BS- bin. As a result, the scheme worked.

        Like

        • jbowen82 says:

          As noted above by antitechnocracy, there’s no real evidence that Russians were involved in the coup at all. The dossier was likely a work product of Nellie Ohr and others, the FISA warrants were done in-house, setting up Papadapoulos, Flynn, and others involved US, British, and Australian assets, the Fusion GPS actions with Veselnitskaya were an obvious frame job, and trying to set up the President for an obstruction trap was all DC swamp. I just don’t see that the Russians really did anything to further the narrative. Did they have some peripheral things going on? Yes, as they always do. Did it have any relevance? I don’t see it.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Zippy says:

            “there’s no real evidence that Russians were involved”

            WHERE did “Steele’s” dossier material COME FROM?

            “the FISA warrants were done in-house”

            WHAT was the primary UNVERIFIED document used to obtain those warrants?

            Those and EVERYTHING else you point out are exactly what the Russians COUNTED ON knowing how corrupt and politically biased the upper echelons of our system was and is. HOW can everyone miss that?

            As Dan Bongino has pointed out, the BS “intel” was intentionally BYPASSED around the normal filters at lower levels where intel PROFESSIONALS would have rightly thrown it into the BS bin and instead handed around between the never been field agent MORONS at the highest levels.

            A quote from another of my posts below from a new column by John Solomon entitled “And the winner of the Robert Mueller Sweepstakes is — Vladimir Putin.” Please continue your argument with the quoted “CIA’s former Moscow station chief and one of America’s top experts on Russia spying”:

            “To me, the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016 pointed to a discoverable influence operation rather than some effort to establish a clandestine channel for collusion,” says Daniel Hoffman, the CIA’s former Moscow station chief and one of America’s top experts on Russia spying. “Putin deliberately left a trail of breadcrumbs from Trump Tower to the Kremlin. Putin’s objective was simple, to soil the U.S. political process.”

            Then argue with a former Lieutenant Colonel in U.S. Army who was a senior intelligence officer who said in the video below that it was likely a “poison pill” disinformation operation by the Russians.

            Like

            • The Russians escalated their interfering when there was a weak president for 8 years (Vladimir got the message). They didn’t know how to take PDJT.
              What did the Russians give to the Trump campaign in 2016, nothing. What did they give Hillary, Brennan and his Communist ideals. The illegal invasion into out election process was compliments of John Brennan, Obama’s lackey.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Dutchman says:

              Zippy,
              Don’t want to get into a pissing contest with you, takes too much time and energy, both things I am short on.
              However, I haven’t seen any evidence that Russians, meaning the Russian government, were involved in providing Steele with any info.

              So, we are taking Steeles word for it, and hevis hardly a reliable source.

              I think Deripaskis responce when approached, basicslly “Your kidding,…right?” is a pretty close aproximation of what any Russian gov. officials responce would be, if they HAD been asked for dirt on “TRUMP”.

              So, please point us to clear, irrefutable evidence that any Russian officials supplied ANY of the crap in the pee dossier?

              Like

    • Robert Smith says:

      I don’t think the russians tried anything near what they are trying to say they did. Even the Facebook data guy said so, before they shut him up.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Zippy says:

        The RUSSIANS aren’t saying anything. Professional intel people on OUR side are and many I’ve heard are going much farther in suspecting much more than just that described in the new Solomon column below. I’ve restated what those pros have said above.:

        And the winner of the Robert Mueller Sweepstakes is — Vladimir Putin
        BY JOHN SOLOMON – 21 Apr 2019

        https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/439907-and-the-winner-of-the-robert-mueller-sweepstakes-is-vladimir-putin

        Conclusion:

        In fact, some intelligence pros I’ve talked with previously wonder aloud whether the Russian activity with Steele and the Trump Tower meeting were what is known in spy tradecraft as “discoverable influence operations.”

        In layman’s terms, they were setups — with some accurate elements and lots of false information — designed to be discovered by U.S. intelligence, with the goal of sowing doubts or “kompromat” in the American democracy.

        “To me, the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016 pointed to a discoverable influence operation rather than some effort to establish a clandestine channel for collusion,” says Daniel Hoffman, the CIA’s former Moscow station chief and one of America’s top experts on Russia spying. “Putin deliberately left a trail of breadcrumbs from Trump Tower to the Kremlin. Putin’s objective was simple, to soil the U.S. political process.”

        If Hoffman is correct, the real winner of the Steele dossier and the Mueller report is none other than that cagey old KGB spy, Vladimir Putin.

        He found a way, through hacking Clinton’s emails and seeding information for Steele and the Trump Tower meeting, to cast doubt on both candidates in 2016.

        And now, in the prose of the Mueller report, he has a fresh vehicle to continue sowing discord and distrust in America and its duly elected president for months to come.

        I can almost hear the boisterous laughter emanating from the Kremlin.

        Like

      • Zippy says:

        MORE on the same topic. Watch this from 5:02 and note especially the “secondly” comment. It was a Russian “poison pill” operation.

        “Tony Shaffer, acting president of the London Center for Policy Research. He served as a Lieutenant Colonel in U.S. Army, where he was a senior intelligence officer.”

        Liked by 2 people

        • Dutchman says:

          Watched it. Still sounds like an opinion, with nothing he was willing to share, regarding whether or not it was Russians.
          Did notice, while he called for Prosecutions of everyone from Comey and below, he doesn’t mention Rice, although earlier he made it clear thevoperation could not have happened without a,waiver from Rice.

          So, why not prosecute Rice, which leads directly to Obama?

          Like

    • GB Bari says:

      IMO, the Russians had next to nothing to do with this campaign or Mueller Hoax investigation. Whatever “interference” the Russkies caused was “lost in the noise” of the campaign. Their “interference” didn’t even register a blip of impact and certainly did not warrant any actions once it was discovered how insignificant they were. I have no doubt the group down in Langley, Virginia interferes FAR more in other countries’ elections when certain outcomes are desired.

      Continued references to “Russian interference in the election” by anyone in the media or DemoncRATs are disingenuous at best and lies and perjury if claimed to be connected to DJT’s campaign.

      Like

  15. James McMorris says:

    Chris Wallace has really shown his true colors.Would not give Rudy time to respond.
    Kept cutting him off..a real anti Trumper.
    .I hope Rush Limbaugh and the President never will be his guest again or any other Conservative.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Peoria Jones says:

      Just wait until you see Matthews “interview” Rudy. (Don’t bother.) It’s lather, rinse, repeat.

      Like

    • JAS says:

      Last time I’ll watch him. Hate seeing ejecta coming out of people’s mouths.

      Like

    • huecowacko says:

      How Rush Limbaugh and Chris Wallace are such close friends, at least professionally is beyond me; but, Rush did allow Chris Matthews to guest host his show years ago, another puzzler. Rush appears on Wallace’s show annually and they dine together, he has called Wallace “a good friend.”

      Like

      • GB Bari says:

        I listened to that show. Chris Matthews hosted Limbaugh’s radio show right after 9/11 (2001), and was quite an admirer of Rush and his conservative views–at that time.

        But both Chris Matthews and Dave Letterman did a 180 degree reverse in political opinion about Bush43 after the Iraq war went bad. From that point forward they stayed full Progtard.

        Like

        • huecowacko says:

          Matthews was long-time COS for Tip O’Neill(both were Reagan antagonists) plus did work for the Carter WH and other democrats, never known him to be anything other than a saliva spewing/foaming-at-the-mouth, obnoxious liberal hack, so I always wondered why RL would have an opposing hack like him do his show, there’s no explanation other than RL didn’t know who Matthews was other than by name. Never cared for Letterman, never watched him.

          Like

  16. guybee55 says:

    Wallace tried his best to be judge and jury with Rudy. Rudy would not allow him to do it. Great Job Rudy. You are the right man for this job.

    Liked by 8 people

  17. porkyspen says:

    WOW!!!!!

    That POS Wallace is simply too hard to watch. I got through 5 minutes and my BP went through the roof. FOX, “Fair and Balanced” indeed……. *sarcastic eyeroll emoji*

    Liked by 3 people

    • IrishEyesSouth says:

      Actually, FOX News dropped the “Fair & Balanced” insignia a couple of years ago.

      Like

    • Mr. Morris says:

      I watch the gaslighting performance of Chris Wallace. I think many people pull for the perceived underdog, in this case Rudy who was harassed, rather than an obnoxious bully.

      Like

  18. Chris Mattews is unbearable. I wish he would have let Rudy talk. Why are so many “interviewers” unwilling to let their guests finish a sentence?

    Liked by 1 person

    • jrapdx says:

      They interrupt because they don’t want to hear, or let the audience hear, the answers to questions. (That is, if the questions are even “questions” vs. mere launchpads for spewing propaganda.)

      In this instance Rudy did a credible job getting his point of view across despite Wallace’ clear attempts to shut him down. The final comments that Rudy was a heck of a lawyer was Wallace’ admission he’d been bested and he knew it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Right. And you’re also right it was Chris Wallace. Both he and Matthews are lefty propagandists so their names and personalities are almost interchangeable.

        Liked by 1 person

        • jrapdx says:

          Exactly, the propagandists are so transparent in their tactics and completely interchangeable. I suppose it’s a testament to the quality of their “progressive training” that they’re so predictably alike…

          Like

      • Robert Smith says:

        I think Wallace’s final comment about being a heck of a lawyer were to whitewash his unprofessional and rude behavior towards a guest. You have the President lawyer in front of you but you only want to hear yourself speak. lol soon you’ll be battling MSNBC and CNN for guests and they will win every time. Because their likely guests get tainted by even appearing on Fox.

        Liked by 1 person

        • jrapdx says:

          And Rudy replied, and you’re a heck of an interviewer and they both chuckled. Like it’s a game they play, combatants in the propaganda war playing their parts to the hilt.

          Entertaining to observe lawyers going at it hoof and nail in court and later having a beer and comparing performances. All a game to them. Sure they prefer to win, but it’s just a game…..

          Liked by 1 person

          • old45model says:

            As was once explained to me. in a courtroom, by a Barrister (no idea what the US equivalent is) – “This is simply a game between the opposing Barristers and the Judge. Each Barrister is saying to the Judge ‘Look at me, look at me – look how smart I am’. Don’t get offended, but you don’t count. Nor do facts.”
            I expect the conduct in US courtrooms is somewhat similar.
            I expect that much goes on in chambers, where the case is decided even before the courtroom pantomime begins – even down to whose turn it is to ‘win’ and which Lawyer’s turn it is to win his case before that particular Judge.

            Liked by 1 person

            • old45model says:

              Ye gads! Doubled up in the last para. – sorry!

              Like

            • jrapdx says:

              AFAICT you hit the nail on the head. In the US they’re call lawyers, attorneys, and some less kindly terms are used too.

              The lawyerly games get serious though when large sums of money are at stake, I’ve seen ’em sweat it big in $100 million cases. Under those conditions they’re muttering prayers under their breath hoping the parties settle before it goes to the jury. When that happens they’re ecstatic, catch ’em buying 2 rounds for the crowd at the bar.

              Criminal cases are a bit different of course, though it’s still the same kind of contest albeit with a different set of stakes.

              Like

  19. StanH says:

    Interesting how the deep state stenographers are rushing to the ramparts to save the treasonous swamp weasels, who just attempted a coup against a nominee and future president of the USA. They have zero interest in actual criminality, but are pissed that our great President Trump obstructed their well orchestrated lynching shout out to Rush. Rudy’s killing it, but the swamp narrative is revealing itself. They are asking the same questions on each network.

    Oh, it also shows culpability, somebody’s ox is going to get gored and if done correctly will reach into every part of deep state including the press.

    Time to go Roman President Trump!

    Like

  20. I hate Chris Wallace. What a slimy bastard!

    Liked by 1 person

  21. citizen817 says:

    Liked by 5 people

  22. IrishEyesSouth says:

    Matthews, Smith, Neville, Fisher, even Napolitano are either totally against President Trump, or their talking points seem to play devil’s advocate in most cases.

    Like

  23. waltherppk says:

    Beta male corporate news crap weasel and intelligence insulting Swamp Defender Poster Child is the trademark “brand” of slimy, fast talking Never Trumper that is faux journalist Chris Wallace.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Pa Hermit says:

    A I could only last 4 minutes of this slime ball host! No wonder I got rid of TV! Pay good money to see this kind of crap? I find much better entertainment outdoors or reading a good book!

    Like

  25. Summer says:

    So, the UniParty finally got the script they desperately wanted: Mueller accused the President of “corrupt behavior” while saying his behavior is not criminal per se and there is no underlying crime. He insinuated that Trump may have “obstructed” because he is hiding “something” that only the Congress critters, being lawless, shameless hacks they are, can “uncover.”

    Mueller surely wants the opportunity to testify in Congress, to embellish this BS even further and provide some soundbites in addition to the written slander. I think Lindsey’s decision to not invite him to testify in his Senate Committee is the right one.

    Sickening, all of it. This report should not have been published. PTJT not invoking executive privilege was a mistake, in my opinion.

    Liked by 2 people

    • jrapdx says:

      Well, yes, Mueller is a manipulative slimy … individual who would take every opportunity to damage the President’s reputation with misleading or outright false accusations. However the few Republicans on the committee with integrity will be prepared, ask penetrating questions revealing Mueller’s turpitude in insinuating “corruption” by telling only the part of the story that he exploits. If Mueller were smart he’d not want to go there, the risks to his own reputation are hardly minor.

      Liked by 2 people

  26. WVPatriot says:

    sundance…very, very funny man!

    Blessed Easter to you, and all of the Treehouse family.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. I love the comments here when the lib dems get one of ours to go get worked over on the TV dem platform. Like it’s ever going to be different ? Fair ? What a waste of time. Thank you to those who suffered through it to bring us the usual results. OY.

    Like

  28. covfefe999 says:

    People, seriously, we need to use our power. BOYCOTT FOX UNTIL CHRIS WALLACE IS LET GO. It’s really that simple! Our side is the bulk of Fox’s audience!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nigella says:

      And take Shep and Cavuto with him

      Like

      • covfefe999 says:

        We have enough power to force Wallace out and then the rest will improve. We have that much power. We’re just not using it.

        I posted a link to a video in another comment, and the next video that came up showed a panel of voters discussing their choices for the mid-term elections. I’m always complaining about stupid GOP voters who gave away the House majority because they’re so myopic they didn’t realize how much harm could come to Trump if the GOP lost the majority. People have countered that those House elections were stolen. Well here’s some counter-evidence of that claim. At 0:16 in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0-Kym_ANJI) you see a lifelong Republican who voted for Trump in 2016 but in 2018 voted for the Dem House candidate. This is so beyond stupid. Idiot woman says she felt they needed “new blood”. Did she think about what might happen if Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker? I’m sure not. I always say, be picky during the primary but in the general vote straight GOP.

        We have the best President ever. Why aren’t people making every effort to support him? Why are people compromising this great thing we accomplished in 2016? It astounds me. Might as well just take your guns out and shoot yourselves in the feet, you know?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Robert Smith says:

          I understand why they would want to do it but it is completely counter to their interests. Thus, I call them idiots.

          Like

        • wondering999 says:

          That woman is not bright but… still can’t fathom all those elections that “turned” several days after election night with just the “right” number of votes. Sketchy

          Like

  29. leighdiaz3973 says:

    the power behind the throne- if not him then Michelle

    Like

  30. Robert Smith says:

    The new Fox News with the old Chris Wallace right there. That was an infuriating “interview”.

    Chris Wallace, “…You have 30 seconds to answer.” Interrupts immediately to close out the interview.

    What can we gain from this interview? They don’t even want to hear Trump or Giuliani answer because the only way they can have something that appears reasonable is a manufactured “narrative”.

    Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      That’s right. It’s just gone beyond getting info from the guests. It’s become the scripted anti-Trump hate fest just like you see on CNN or MSNBC.

      BOYCOTT FOX NEWS NOW. In fact, just boycott all of Fox. Make their ratings plummet until they dump this POS swamp gatekeeper. I’m so sick of this sh*t I’m not even going to watch any of POS’s videos posted here any more. Waste of my time. If I wanted to watch a POS I’d watch one of the Dem propaganda channels.

      Like

  31. covfefe999 says:

    I highly recommend, in addition to boycotting this POS “interviewer”, that you watch Rudy’s appearance on Meet the Press from this morning. It was also a contentious inverview but much easier to sit through. Chris Wallace is a rude POS and doesn’t deserve to be on TV any more.

    To those of you who watch Fox: at this point if you continue to watch and do not boycott you have no right to complain any more, you are part of the problem and you are ultimately harming Trump. I completely dumped cable, I’m not supporting this mess. I stopped watching awards shows too. I stopped watching SNL. I stopped shopping on Amazon. I never watched football including that travesty known as the Superbowl but if I had been a fan I would have stopped watching that too. I’m walking my talk. Are you?

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Kent says:

    ….Mathews has so much potential if he would just remove his head from its anatomically difficult location and snack on some red pills…the guy really is very sharp and an engaging speaker…

    Wallace isn’t watchable imo…….

    Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      If Matthews were sharp he wouldn’t have been a rabid anti-Trumper who slobbered continuously throughout most of 2016 that Trump couldn’t win the election and throughout the past 2 years that Trump was an agent of Russia. Watch him spit out, a year ago, how Mueller was going to take Trump out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUgRhmmq0hU He’s a stupid man.

      Now Wallace is on an entirely different level. Much lower. Just horrid. I won’t watch him ever again.

      Like

      • Kent says:

        I hear you…smart and wise are not the same thing….one can be very intelligent and still be an idjit…..

        Like

      • Kent says:

        Ohhh….K…I watched the video…some of it….got as far as “out there in the cold distance lies the ice….”

        I stand corrected and hereby rescind any positive inclination or statements I may have ever had or uttered concerning Chris Mathews………………

        Like

  33. andyocoregon says:

    I hope if and when Robert Mueller is called before Congress to be grilled about his report, he refuses to answer most of the questions with this quip, “I stand by my report and refer you to it for answers to all your questions”.
    IMO, that would be far better than pleading the 5th.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Kent says:

    The left is trying to turn fox into Pravda….since the citizenry has indicated no desire to be progandized by the mainstream media the mm is now trying to cram it down our throats…

    Not that fox hasn’t straddled the truth and pushed ‘the agenda’ in the past….

    Like

    • getouttahea says:

      FOX has been garbage fake news for the entirety of its existence. Just because they have been slightly better than the rest is no reason to not cut your cable.

      Like

      • Kent says:

        I began hating television in general back in the late eighties…saturation marketing and commercials every few minutes turned up LOUD! ….”Gallery furniture really will save.you.money!” over and over and over….I haven’t even HAD television or cable for very nearly twenty years…and I am still reminded on occasion why I hate it so much when I visit friends or family although I will admit to being addicted to the internet…

        Like

      • I saw somebody say the other day that the MSM news coverage was 90% against Trump. Fox was 52/48. Not sure if it was 52% positive but maybe so because Fox and Friends is on for several hours a day and they like our President.

        Like

  35. All Too Much says:

    President Trump obstructed the coup.
    He will obstruct anything else posing a threat to the United States.

    “America will never be a socialist country.”

    Liked by 2 people

  36. sarasotosfan says:

    Sunday news programs:

    Originally intended to discover truth through challenging information.

    Rev 1. Guests discover the ability to answer unasked questions and hosts play along.

    Rev 2. Hosts discover the ability to push an agenda and guests answer unasked questions.

    Rev 3. Sponsors stop financing expensive programming when they discover it is negatively effecting their businesses. Programming falls off to the internet.

    Pacific Life underwrites This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

    ABC and NBC both have significant investments in Orland, FL.

    If you are tired of being lied to, stop financing the liars.

    Like

  37. simicharmed says:

    This Chris Wallace character is difficult to listen to. A Democrat Propagandists parading as a “journalists”. Any rational human being listening to this micro-man (Wallace), would easily conclude that he is an awful person…a political propagandists. Quick to talk and unwilling to listen!

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Big Jake says:

    Chris Wallace is insufferable.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. simicharmed says:

    It’s rather disgusting how anybody takes this Mueller/Weissmann “report” at gospel.

    With the mentality of our fake-press, ALL court trials and judges are unnecessary because whatever the prosecutor writes up is “fact”.

    Part 1 of the report found NO COLLUSION – Case Closed!
    Part 2 of the Weissmann report is Non-Litigated-Opinion of the writer and clearly a DNC Political Contribution. Another “dossier”; created for the Democrats running for President in 2020.

    Like

  40. Gary Lacey says:

    One of these Sunday’s a guest will beat this SOB to death, unfortunately, Fox will never show the tape.

    Like

  41. TexasDude says:

    So, the dossier got this going or helped get it going.

    Now, it comes out it was not just Hillary’s campaign and the DNC that paid Fusion GPS, Obama’s campaign org OFA paid Fusion GPS via the same law firm cutout, Perkins Coie.

    https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/

    Like

  42. calisandy says:

    Obstruction of the “grey” areas of justice.

    Obstruction of the “possibility of potentrial future embarrassment”. LOL.

    Any lawyers here? Are those actual laws that can be violated? SMH.

    Like

  43. calisandy says:

    Obstruction of the “grey” areas of justice.

    Obstruction of the “possibility of potentrial future embarrassment”. LOL.

    Any lawyers here? Are those actual laws that can be violated? SMH.

    Like

  44. todayistheday99 says:

    These are not interviews because Wall-ass is not bright enough. This is a scripted interrogation and wallace is just a puppet with an earpiece being told what to say. Notice how dimwit wallace starts the second question before the Rudy is able to complete the first answer. Dumb Wall-ass is only listing to his earpiece.

    Like

  45. Heika says:

    And this folks – is how it needs to be done … Jo DiGeneva “How dare you call the AG a liar”… ….Brilliant, he just cut her down in shreds and reminded her of her ‘responsibility’ to cut the crap. This is how the MSN needs to be taken apart. This is how little Chris Wallace needs to be handled with his smarmy bull crap. He ‘thinks’ he is being ‘challenging and objective’ but in fact he is the ‘token’ opposition puppet, which Fox has placed there to keep their ‘ratings’ showing they are fair and balanced. Who would even spit on him otherwise? He is a complete idiot.

    https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/439627-informal-trump-adviser-says-Barr-is-one-of-the-finest-lawyers-this-country-has-ever-produced

    Liked by 1 person

  46. With great respect—
    Why are we watching this crap at all?
    Did we expect anything different THIS Sunday than all the preceding?
    Did we learn anything worthwhile?

    Liked by 4 people

    • todayistheday99 says:

      But we can’t just turn a blind eye to this atrocious propaganifaction of FOX, can we? This is 100 worse than it has been (but 100 times infinity is still infinity so you do have a point).

      Like

    • StanH says:

      I suppose it confirms the depths of the depravity that is the swamp. There is not anyone who is not on the take or corrupted especially the press,

      Like

    • joeknuckles says:

      Joe Dan,
      You are correct. I’ll take it a step further and say that, even after all is exposed, it will continue unabated. The left and their propagandists will say anything, no matter how ridiculous, that they need to say to defend their position and justify their criminality. They know that their allies in the media will provide cover for them. They firmly believe that if they repeat a lie often enough, it will be accepted as truth.

      They are Gruberists. They believe in, and rely upon, the stupidity of the American people.

      Gruberists gotta Gruber. It’s what they do.

      Like

  47. youme says:

    Did Trump waive his lawyer/client privilege when Don McGahn disclosed his conversations that he had with the President to Mueller?

    Can McGahn disclose private conversations that he had with the President again, before Congress?

    I never heard of a lawyer disclosing private conversations they had with their client

    Liked by 1 person

    • oldumb says:

      He isn’t the presidents private lawyer, he is the lawyer for the office of the president, an executive branch employee. Yes POTUS waived all executive privilege.

      Like

  48. James says:

    IF TRUMP did anything… he obstructed INJUSTICE… which only the DEMONRATS could transform into a criminal action…

    Like

  49. Kristin DeBacco says:

    Ha! Our son and his family were at The Trump Hotel for Easter Brunch. Rudy was there and our son said: ” No collusion, No obstruction!”
    The Mayor said:” you are d*^#n right (or was it darn).
    He graciously posed for a picture with my son and most darling 7 month old ❤️ granddaughter.
    Mr. Scalise was also there.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Kristin DeBacco says:

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

    Like

Leave a Reply to boogywstew Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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