Sunday Talks: Alan Dershowitz -vs- Chris Wallace…

Alan Dershowitz will present a constitutional argument against senate impeachment during arguments next week.  This weekend he appears on Fox News with Chris Wallace to discuss the impeachment trial so far.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

167 Responses to Sunday Talks: Alan Dershowitz -vs- Chris Wallace…

  1. alonzo1956 says:

    I actually thought I might be able to stomach the insufferable Wallace, because I wanted to hear the opinion of Dersch. I couldn’t do it. Wallace is a POS and that is as kind as I can be.

    Liked by 34 people

  2. Skidroe says:

    Wallace is one of those that Trump has exposed.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Yy4u says:

      Trump really exposed no one. They exposed themselves. In their contempt and disdain for us —we the people— whom Trump was speaking for, they went apesh** and tore off their own masks to expose the ugly faces beneath.

      Liked by 7 people

      • LouisianaTeaRose says:

        One of the most amazing things I admire about this man….he is so brutally honest and straightforward they have nowhere to go…SO THEY DON’T. And in that way, as you described perfectly, they reveal themselves. No need to hide after everybody sees you naked.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Pale rider says:

      Seems several have left the sunlight since Trump!

      Like

  3. I too am waiting for someone else to suffer the slings and arrows and relate any good news……

    Liked by 2 people

    • All Too Much says:

      How about this.
      There is no one in the senate, or the House managers side, who can hold up in a debate with Dershowitz, later this week, when the senators ask questions.
      Maybe Cruz, but Cruz will not ask hostile or cross-examining questions.
      Who do the Dem’s have?
      No one.

      Liked by 3 people

      • jimboct says:

        We will see next week what questions lawfare wrote for the Dems in the senate. I hope we get video of them actually asking the question and when a speaker asks a clarifying point, watch the looks on their faces. Comedy gold

        Like

      • 1stgoblyn says:

        CJ John Roberts will be doing the asking as the Senators will be writing the questions on paper. Or actually as you say, Lawfare will be writing them for the Dims. I would like to know how they will determine who will be answering the questions.

        Like

    • romy911 says:

      I watched it – frustrating. I wish someone would just slap Chris Wallace.
      Maria B.’s interviews with John Ratcliffe and then with Mark Meadows & Trey Gowdy will make you feel good. They are both posted in the Prez thread.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Doppler says:

    Rudy, I think, makes the case very clearly in his Friday podcast, “Common Sense.”

    Liked by 6 people

  5. FL_GUY says:

    When a liberal icon like Dersh publicly supports the US Constitution, to the modern lefty, who basically are EVIL totalitarians, it’s like holding up a cross to a vampire. Wallace is a pea-brain stooge. JMHO

    Liked by 23 people

  6. JImmy says:

    It is a mistake to put dersh on turmp side because of his flip flop, he will nto have credibility. he is easy to be smeared.

    Like

  7. L4grasshopper says:

    Wallace is still trying to remove Dersh’s arguments from his ass 🙂

    A more straightforward example of a tool seeking to drive his own narrative despite fact and logic could not be better shown that this attempt by Wallace here. Dersh owned the tool 🙂

    Liked by 6 people

  8. TrumpPatriot says:

    Well, golleee, you guys missed the “gotcha” moment Wallace wanted to make sure he got in!

    Liked by 1 person

    • littleanniefannie says:

      That video of Dersh and Lindsey! What a change!! You could see the liberal popping out all over the Professor.
      Shame Chrissy Poop didn’t show Crying UpChuck. He had a load from back then!

      Like

  9. DaughterofLiberty says:

    Wallace’s voice is always so whiney. With the nasal pomposity added in, its unbearable. He also sounds like the know-it-all snotty kid in high school – the kind who ends up getting his nose bloodied.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. inspectorudy says:

    I enjoyed Dershowitz’s argument about impeachable offenses. But I had to check the bottom of my shoes after watching and hearing Wallace!

    Like

  11. Issy says:

    Wallace has really shown us his true feelings lately. I picked up a little during the campaign, but I guess he controlled it until fox had new management. I don’t watch him at all anymore, so I missed today’s interview. Unfortunately, fox had him on during the trial last week.

    Like

  12. stats_guy says:

    I didn’t make it thru either. I honestly thought Chirssy was going to throw out something about Epstein to impeach Dershowitz.

    Wallace is a man of the left bitter about Dersch going off plantation…leftist don’t like deviationists. You can tell the contempt by his agitation. Really gross…although I will say he must have gotten a good briefing (if not script from the Lawfare people)

    The stupidity that Wallace represents is shown by his thought process. Johnson was not convicted although he violated a law, Clinton was not convicted although he violated a law…and so Trump should be convicted although he did Not violate a law.

    The heart of a leftist is anarchy…tear it down so we can make a new world. That’s how stupid they are. Just emotional children, uniformed about Human nature. Wallace and Greta have a lot in common

    Liked by 7 people

    • littleanniefannie says:

      They look a little similar and have lots of mannerisms in common!!

      Like

    • OlderAndWiser says:

      I think that’s what Dershowitz is trying to explain. The key words are “…OTHER HIGH crimes and misdemeanors.” That is, other stuff that are akin to treason and bribery.

      You are right about Wallace’s illogic. I doubt he understands that p=>q does not imply that q=>p. I seriously doubt he (and most of the lefties) would pass a basic logic exam.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Dutchman says:

    Well, I watched and listened to the video.
    My take; Wallace stupidly thought he was qualified to match wits with Dersh, arguing Constitutional law with an expert, and was shown to be hopelessly outmatched.

    It wasn’t as good as watching Wallace vs. Kelley Ann, but it was close.
    Wallace does his motorboat imitation
    “But putt putt!” and Dersh slaps the shiznit out of him.

    But then I am biased, and I suppose a lib might watch the same video, and cheer Wallaces tepid performance.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Maquis says:

      Wallace only had producer generated talking points whilst Dersh cited chapter and verse from memory, all of which easily destroyed Chrissy’s historical rail-splitting.

      The discordant attempted gotcha at the end presented as a “conversation” between Lev Parnas, who has admitted not speaking with the President, with PDJT, only cemented in any sentient viewer’s mind his vacuously constructed malfeasance and how little credibility the disingenuous fool merits.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dutchman says:

        They HAVE a ‘strategy’ Wallace and all the talking heads.
        Its THEIR house, and so they somewhat control things.

        So, for instance they asked questions that can’t be answered simply, then after letting the guest give only part of an answer, they interupt; “Time constraints, we have to move on”.
        To the undescerning viewer, it looks like the guest didn’t adequately answer the question, was dissembling, etc.

        They have been doing it for years. They put the guest in the green room, alone to wait until called. There is,a cart, with all sorts of snacks and ALL SORTS OF DRINKS, i.e. ‘miniatures’ (liquor).
        The guest might be nervous, and avail themselves of a couple of belts to ‘steady their nerves’.
        They have guests responding from remote locations, using an earpiece.
        Before the technician hands them the earpiece, they wipe it with a cloth, sprayed with silicone spray.
        Ever notice how its always “our” people that have the earpiece constantly falling out?

        They have guests representing both sides, but they give more time to their side than ours.

        These are just some of the many tricks, including dirty tricks, that they use.

        Editing on taped interviews, of coarse. Look what they did with the Zimmerman 911 call.

        We can only see what they choose to let us see.

        Their problem is we are now DISCERNING. Their tricks,aren’t WORKING any more.

        I really don’t know if they realise that, and are simply doubling down, like flicking a light switch, repeatedly when the light comes on, or whether they realise its not working, but simply don’t know any other way?
        There decision to be MORE blatant, in the Trump era, be more honest about their dishonesty, hurts them and helps us.

        POWER is the ability to shape events. Particularly for the media, their power STEMS FROM the ability to shape PERCEPTIONS and OPINIONS.

        And that depends on CREDIBILITY. If you LOSE,your credibility, you lose your POWER, to shape perceptions and therefore events.

        And they have willingly, eagerly thrown their credibility away.
        And hence the power they crave. And they have toi much hubris, ego etc. to even realise or admit to themselves the enormous mistake they have made, to say nothing of figuring out how to try to correct it.

        TRUST is a funny thing. Most people grant it fairly easily. But, once lost it is almost impossible to get back.
        The most valuable commodity in the World, you can’t BUY it, you have to EARN it.

        Liked by 2 people

    • I watched it also and I thought Dersh was able to get his points across, and Wallace sounded like a juvenile. I hadn’t heard the tape yet as I don’t care; but Dersh was able to respond with the President can get rid of an ambassador any time he wants for whatever reason…why is this tape even worth listening to? Oh, I know, the suburban white women will be offended or something.

      Anyway, Wallace is a total jerk and I have no idea who FOX thinks its audience is anymore. A stupid move in my opinion to go leftist; does Wallace really think the left will like him better? Maybe he will be invited to more cocktail parties like Chief Justice Roberts and the two small minds can carry on a small conversation.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. SHV says:

    FWIW, about 20 years ago, I read Dershowitz’s book: “The Genesis of Justice: Ten Stories of Biblical Injustice that Led to the Ten Commandments and Modern Morality and Law”…..It was really a good read….I’ll have to download it and read it again.

    One segment that I remember him discussing is “Eye for an Eye. etc.”….the concept of proportional justice, an idea thousands of years ahead of its time (and an idea that is still unknown to a current world’s major religion)

    Liked by 2 people

    • OlderAndWiser says:

      Thanks for the info. I will have to buy that book!
      As to the eye for an eye issue – actually one major religion totally rejects it (and promotes forgiveness) and another totally expands it – perhaps a face for an eye (as you allude).

      Liked by 1 person

    • the5thranchhand says:

      Thank you SHV for stating ‘the concept of proportional justice’. In the simplest term(s) Biblically, an ‘eye for an eye’, meant ‘limited liability’. If you damaged an eye, the victim could not bring a lawsuit for compensation for a ‘whole face’. Why is that so hard to understand?

      Like

  15. Linda K. says:

    The only reason Wallace interviewed Dersh was so the dems could have an argument ready against him…He did not have him on as an “expert” on the Constitution. Wallace is arguing with a constitutional scholar because he wants Trump out for partisan reasons, not because he has a point.
    By the way, if Yavonovich was walking around saying Trump will be impeached, she is certainly not doing her job as an Ambassador. And Wallace admits she was trying to stop the investigation of Biden and Hunter, who were obviously engaging in corrupt behavior. Why do these libs think it is a crime to expose Biden’s criminal selling of his office to enrich his son?

    Liked by 5 people

  16. trapper says:

    Now that is a novelty. Chris Wallace trying to argue the constitution with Dershowitz. Guess which is which

    Liked by 4 people

  17. Tom22ndState says:

    Crissy tried to gotcha AD and failed, hysterically so. That clip of AD from the 90’s Larry King interview is hilarious in his appearance. He’s aged well. Haha

    Liked by 2 people

    • Victor Laszlo says:

      I did not think it was so bad. AD’s answer was ” well, everyone else changed their mind too,” Not a very strong defense.

      Like

      • OlderAndWiser says:

        AD should have answered thus: “It is consistent with what I’m saying now. It doesn’t have to be a crime – but it has to be conduct that is akin to treason, bribery, HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR. He was trying to work in an example of a law that prohibited an action within the USA but didn’t prohibit it outside the USA – so if a person committed that action outside the USA, it would technically not be a crime. But if the person was the President of the USA, he could be impeached.”
        He blew the response.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. doohmax says:

    So Wallace thinks “mismanagement” should be included as grounds for impeachment? In that case, we cease to be a constitutional republic. The President from this time forward will serve at the pleasure of the House majority party. Period. These people have allowed Trump to drive them into insanity.

    Liked by 4 people

  19. robert van brunt says:

    Tumbledown Criss

    Like

  20. Bill Patterson Jr. says:

    If Wallace referred to himself as a Leftist Dem, he’d still be a liar, but there would be one less lie.

    Like

  21. TwoLaine says:

    SHUT UP Chrissy and quit interrupting!

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Tiffthis says:

    Chris Wallace is a mighty douch

    Like

  23. magacombover says:

    Where did Chrissy Wallace get his Constitutional Law degree? Asking for a friend?

    Liked by 8 people

  24. Julia Adams says:

    Why would and what makes Wallace think that posting a hypothetical is debatable when talking about something as serious as removing a sitting President, especially when his guys, Biden and Obama, did in fact do the very things the Democrats impeached Trump for?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Heika says:

      I am sick to death of Wallace and his hypothetical’s. He is an idiot. He belongs on that Monty Python sketch – Pay $1 for an Argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

      Liked by 2 people

    • littleanniefannie says:

      “ Why would and what makes Wallace think that posting a hypothetical is debatable when talking about something as serious as removing a sitting President, especially when his guys, Biden and Obama, did in fact do the very things the Democrats impeached Trump for?”

      Julia, what the Bro Bro’s did was much more egregious, especially the big eared one. Can you imagine the holler in’ that would go on should President Trump turn the IC loose on Obummer? Of course, he would have to clean house first. Way too many sharks in the tank willing to take a bite out of President Trump for the pleasure of Obummer.

      Like

  25. Heika says:

    So here we are Mr Wallace. You just accept the reality that has been carved into your thick skull. All of this – even him sitting there having a civil discussion about ‘impeachment’ all hinges back to this creep, Obama, who swaggers about in the background, no fingers ever pointed at him (other than Tom Fitton who keeps saying Obama is what they are really protecting re Hillary). The starter of the fires, all of them. The ‘clepto firebug’… who told all his little minions, including Hillary (on camera apparently) that WE/YOU had to keep that fascist (Trump) out of the Whitehouse at all costs. All of it is about Obama. All of this goes back to him. He started this and he is the reason millions of dollars have been spent ‘trying to get Trump out of the Whitehouse’. This is the real truth that must be outed. Yet barely a blade of grass has been scraped off that grave. THAT is who the Trump DOJ, NSA, CIA and FBI are protecting. I am so sick of watching Wallace and his hypothetical attempts at being a journalist. Its nauseating.
    He constantly tries to make a T-bone out of a sausage.
    He fails, every time. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/obama-called-trump-fascist-who-cant-be-allowed-white-house

    Liked by 7 people

    • Heika says:

      “The statement, made while Obama’s DOJ was using spies to surveil the Trump campaign in the Russiagate scandal, is claimed by Kaine in an upcoming documentary about Hillary Clinton, according to CBS News.

      Kaine, Clinton’s running mate on the Democratic ticket, recounts the call during an exchange with Clinton that was caught on camera in 2016. Kaine’s wife, Anne Holton, was also present.

      “President Obama called me last night and said: ‘Tim, remember, this is no time to be a purist. You’ve got to keep a fascist out of the White House,'” Kaine says before adding with a laugh that Obama “knows me and he knows that I could tend to err.”

      Clinton replies, nodding, “I echo that sentiment.”

      She then puts her hands to her chest and says, “But that’s really — the weight of our responsibility is so huge.” -CBS News”

      Liked by 2 people

    • Rock Knutne says:

      Heika ~

      You are exactly correct. This has always been about protecting ovomit at all costs.

      I wish more of us would shout that from the rooftops.

      Liked by 1 person

    • littleanniefannie says:

      Heika, this is why the House managers are fighting so hard. They must protect St. Barack at all costs. They all know if they fail, he could be exposed and his exposure brings the entire House of Cards tumbling down (or the domino effect that that Gutfeld had on last night). That was hilarious last night but putting the whole Demo-cabal on those mattresses and starting those Mattress dominoes falling would be worth peeing my pants laughing (my real hope is that Nadler’s mattress falls on Shiffty’s and Schiffty’s falls on the Sphincter of the House’s! I also want Brennan’s to fall on Obummer’s!!

      Liked by 1 person

  26. trapper says:

    Dersh points out that Madison argued that the constitution should not permit impeachment of a president for “maladministration,” because it would turn our republic into a parliamentary system like England in which the executive serves at the pleasure of the parliament, in our case the House. The framers rejected such a system. And that is exactly what I have been posting here.

    However, Pelosi and the lawfare crew, beginning with Pelosi’s comments in May that the House is superior to the president, the senate, and the supreme court, are after precisely that, transforming our government into a parliamentary system in which the president answers to and serves at the pleasure of the House. That is their intention. It is NOT an unanticipated result.

    Liked by 3 people

    • SHV says:

      ” because it would turn our republic into a parliamentary system like England in which the executive serves at the pleasure of the parliament, in our case the House.”
      *****
      The “founders” were well aware that the current “sh*t” show was likely to happen and therefore made the requirement of 2/3 Senate vote needed for conviction rather than majority vote as was the British standard. PDJT’s impeachment and that of Andrew Johnson are, IMO, quite similar in that both are/were political and didn’t involve statutory “crimes”. Presidential impeachment should be reserved for a person who’s continued occupation of the office is an “existential” threat to the government. That is certainly true for PDJT who is a definite threat to the current lawless, corrupt government.

      Liked by 2 people

    • trialbytruth says:

      You and me both brother

      Like

  27. In 1857, the Dred Scott case came before the Supreme Court. Chief Justice and Democrat Roger Taney wished to wreck the new Republican Party and settle the slavery issue on terms favorable to the South. When the Court’s majority under Taney asserted that the black man had no citizenship rights “that any white man was bound to respect”, that was too much for Associate Justice Benjamin Curtis.

    He eviscerated the majority’s opinion in his dissent. Methodically, Curtis proved that the voting and citizenship rights of black freemen had been recognized by at least five states at our Founding; and that Congress had acted fourteen separate times under seven different presidents, beginning with Washington, to limit the spread of slavery in the territories. As a matter of principle, he and fellow dissenter Justice John McLean then resigned from the court.

    From his dissent:

    “To engraft on any instrument a substantive exception not found in it, must be admitted to be a matter attended with great difficulty. And the difficulty increases with the importance of the instrument, and the magnitude and complexity of the interests involved in its construction. To allow this to be done with the Constitution, upon reasons purely political, renders its judicial interpretation impossible because judicial tribunals, as such, cannot decide upon political considerations. Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford rules of juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times.

    And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean. When such a method of interpretation of the Constitution obtains, in place of a republican Government, with limited and defined powers, we have a Government which is merely an exponent of the will of Congress; or what, in my opinion, would not be preferable, an exponent of the individual political opinions of the members of this court.”

    Liked by 3 people

  28. Chewbarkah says:

    Wallace seemed impervious to the obvious consistency in Dershowitz’s position. Impeachment requires proving commission of a “crime” AND it has to be a “high crime” connected to serious abuse of office. Clinton was guilty of a crime (perjury involving the Paula Jones case); but lying about attempted sexual exploitation of a state employee while governor of Arkansas, was not a “high crime” connected to abuse of his current office, the US Presidency. Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine constitute crimes of any sort, and therefore cannot be a “high crime”. Encouraging investigation of corrupt US persons is not a crime. Protecting US foreign aid funds is not a crime. Discomfiting corrupt individuals who are not even candidates for office is not a crime.

    Perhaps Wallace’s specious arguments will help Dershowitz be ready to defeat similar sophistry. Wallace’s resort to George Mason was curious; does he realize that Mason opposed ratification of the Constitution? The British Parliamentary impeachment of Warren Hastings, the East India Company’s Governor General of Bengal, makes a better counter-example than what Wallace was trying to milk out of it (it was a classic political case for mal-administration and accepting bribes — he was exonerated after SEVEN years). What a tool — Wallace needs to move over to the House Impeachment group or MSNBC.

    Like

    • Chewbarkah says:

      My third sentence lost the intended “do not” after “Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine”. Sort of ruins the meaning.

      Like

  29. JIM COMEY IS A WEASEL_DOUG says:

    Wallass, like Schit Face, is Master of the Snippet.

    Goober Graham made a good point elsewhere. “If your going to use a “piece of video” to make your case, just make sure the “rest of the video” doesn’t destroy it.”

    And that they say, is the rest, of the story….PH

    Liked by 2 people

  30. Patricia Weir says:

    I don’t understand why Rush Limbaugh appears on this jerk’s program at least once a year. Insufferable and/or sanctimonious best describes him. He has destroyed a once decent show when it was hosted by Tony Snow (God rest his soul.)

    Liked by 2 people

    • swissik says:

      For Rush L. it means self preservation. One does what one has to do. This doesn’t take away from his talents in presenting information and opinion to the general public.

      Like

    • Despicable Me says:

      I stopped watching Fox Sunday Morning after Tony Snow left to become Press Secretary for GWB. Still miss Tony and his civility and genuine kindness and even more so after listening to videos like this one,

      Like

  31. Mikgen says:

    I watched the interview (ouch!) including the Lev Parnas tape. However, after that video I watched Justice Janine interview Rudy Giuliani, and that was even worse! Rudy was also asked about the Parnas tape and he mentioned that often when it was shown the fact that the President was told that Yanukovitch went around saying that it was no use listening to PDJT because he would soon be impeached JJ became all upset. That was just not possible given that the tape was made in 2018(!!!!)
    I know about the Mamet Principle but still….. or are the talking heads on television so completely uninformed? Must say I am very disappointed with Justice J. Very disappointed…

    Liked by 1 person

  32. GTOGUY says:

    Every time Trump wins a court battle regarding immigration or really anything, Wallace gets more ridiculous and argumentative. His true colors of leftism come out in force.

    Liked by 3 people

  33. Jakespeed says:

    You know, I thought it was me. I’d watched Wallace and quit as soon as Trump had been elected, but before he was sworn in. He’s not much of a reporter (despite his Dad’s credentials), but he doesn’t mind interrupting anyone he’s interviewing either. I don’t condone rudeness, whether Chris is interviewing a liberal or conservative apologist.

    Like

    • Mike Wallace conducted himself in a similar way to Chrissy boy. Mike W was completely scripted by his producers and relentlessly bore in on one thing to debunk his guest. At 60 minutes he had editors to cut out any effective retorts by his guest. On live TV in the late 50s, early 60s Mike Wallace was known as the “Rocky Marciano of television”, but if a guest of superior wit was interviewed, Mike Wallace backed off. Mike Wallace had a personality, which served him well. Chrissy is completely vacant.

      Like

  34. Kriilin Namek says:

    Like everyone else, I just couldn’t make it all the way through. Wallass trying to play Constitutional expert with a real one was painful to watch.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. trialbytruth says:

    Important thing about this interview we now know what the Lawfare talking points are. I. Typical of Lawfare they will misrepresent Hamilton’s words and bring up english law and definitions that were rejected.

    Who ever thought the musings of a 30 something Dershowitz would be persuasive is laughable he was hardly recognizable

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Gary Lacey says:

    We saw why its called the Chris Wallace show.
    He intended to have AD on his show to prove AD didn’t know what he was talking about, the insufferable fail.

    Like

  37. Shyster says:

    Dershiwitz (sp?) more learned and current opinions on impeachable offenses have resulted in his opinions and interpretation of the framers clear and express rejection of maladministration as the basis for a non crime Impeachment ground. Simply put, all charges of non criminal maladministration will always involve a breach of the public trust and vice versa. For that reason, he rejects it.

    Like

  38. Tl Howard says:

    Nadler released a letter saying he wouldn’t be at the impeachment trial tomorrow as his wife is being treated for recently diagnosed cancer.

    Like

  39. Deborah Fehr says:

    This was ACTUALLY floating around facebook today, thought I better copy it before they took it down as inciting hate…not very often you see positive about PDT on facebook. Enjoy!

    FINALLY!!!!!!
    All hell is breaking loose in DC. The next few weeks will be the most shocking in America’s history. The revelations about to be made public will shake this nation to its core.
    Liberals who only watch CNN and MSNBC probably haven’t a clue what’s about to hit them. Trust me, that light at the end of the tunnel is a train headed straight for the Democrat Party.
    The fix was in, the election was rigged- and Trump won anyway.
    We all know- thanks to former DNC Chair Donna Brazile- that Hillary rigged the Democrat presidential primary against Bernie Sanders. That was a precursor of what was to come. Does it shock anyone that someone brazen enough to rig a presidential primary would also try to rig the general election?
    Don’t look now, but Donald J. Trump is the first person in world history to win an election rigged against him. Hillary- with the backing of Obama and the leadership of the FBI and DOJ- fixed the general election so Trump couldn’t win. And Trump- this relentless bull in a china shop- won anyway!
    No wonder Hillary was so confident in the days leading up to Election Day. No wonder she was so shocked and distraught on Election Night. Keep in mind the point of fixing the election. It wasn’t just about Hillary winning. It was about covering up her crimes. Losing meant Hillary and her accomplices would wind up in prison.
    It’s all coming down upon this cabal of criminals like a ton of boulders. Hillary, Obama, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, John Podesta, Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice, Huma Abedin, and the FBI and DOJ leadership- they’re all looking at possible prison terms, as this massive, brazen scandal and conspiracy unravels.
    First there’s the recent testimony of the Co-Founder of Fusion GPS. He admitted the FBI may very well have paid for the travel expenses of the author of the dossier- a fraudulent work of fiction, used by the same FBI to obtain FISA warrants against Trump and his team. If the FBI leadership was doing the bidding of Hillary, her campaign and the DNC, who together paid millions for the fake dossier, based on lies from Russian officials, it’s not just fraud, and FISA court abuse, it could very well be called Treason.
    Think of their goals. First to use the dossier itself to frame and slander Trump during the campaign. Secondly, use the dossier to get warrants and listen in on Trump. Third, to use what they found through surveillance to feed Hillary all the campaign inside info she needed to guarantee victory. Fourth, if by miracle Trump still won, use what they heard to frame his team and impeach Trump. This is Watergate on STEROIDS.
    Second, there is a four-page memo just made available to the entire House of Representatives. Congressmen who have seen the memo call it “shocking” “explosive” “alarming” “mind-blowing.” They say it shows conspiracy and collusion between the Obama administration, the FBI, the DOJ, and the Clinton campaign, to stop Trump from reaching the White House.
    Rep. Scott Perry said, “Is this happening in America, or is this the KGB? That’s how alarming it is.”
    North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said, “Part of me wishes I didn’t read it, because I don’t want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country…”
    Rep. Matt Gaetz said, “Not only will the release of this memo result in DOJ firing, but people will go to jail.”
    Former Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino said, “Take it to the bank, the FBI/FISA docs are devastating for the Dems…the real Obama, the vengeful narcissist, is going to be exposed for all to see.”
    Rep Steve King said, “I have read the memo. The sickening reality has set in…it is worse than Watergate.”
    This is a political earthquake. Before this is over, the Democrat Party will be in shambles. The legacies of Hillary and Obama will be in ashes. The FBI may never recover. And dare I say it, Hillary herself could wind up in prison- along with many of her closest friends and confidants.
    But the most amazing part of all is, somehow…
    Trump won a rigged election. #THECHOSENONE ~ Ann M. Prueter

    Liked by 4 people

  40. Perot Conservative says:

    Chris Wallinsky-ite.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. SuzyAZ says:

    I loved watching this because I knew Dershowitz would destroy every arrogant, know-it-all statement Wallace made, and he did it in spades. Wallace absolutely thought he could out-argue this exceptional Constitutional scholar and he failed big time. What fun. And just more practice for Dershowitz when they start questioning.

    Like

  42. Chris Wallace’s feeble attempt and the failed “I gotcha” smirk, demonstrating his journalist’s scholarly knowledge of the US Constitution as juxtaposed with a true and published Constitutional scholar…rich! He brought a knife to a gun fight.

    Like

  43. Bulldog84 says:

    Wallace hasn’t read the Constitution. He relies, instead, on reading some crap some editor prepared for him, and that person likewise has not read the Constitution — “other” high crimes and misdemeanors.

    I do not always like Dershowitz and he is damaged goods, but sometimes he is right.
    Dershowitz: 1
    Wallace: 0

    Liked by 2 people

  44. Justin Green says:

    Wallace is a human kitty litter box. Full of feces of the stinkiest crime.

    Hey, Chris, Joe Biden and his son, and his other son, and John Kerry’s stepson enriched themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer illegally. It is the Constitutional duty, as well as the legislative law to absolutely root out and prosecute corruption, which Barr is not doing.

    However, Biden’s own videotaped admission is more evidence of collusion than anything Democrats have on Trump.

    The choice is easy, but the talking heads and lawyers won’t make the damned arguments.

    Liked by 2 people

  45. Justin Green says:

    Chris Wallace is a complete degenerate. May as well be Rachel Madcow. Completely useless for anything human.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Don McAro says:

    Wallace is all in really riding high on the Leftist opening statements to the Senate… A lot of his questions are based from no response or defense from the Republicans yet…

    Wow Remember When Wallace said During a recess in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace said Ford’s testimony was a “disaster for Republicans.”

    “This was extremely emotional, extremely raw, and extremely credible,” he said about Ford’s opening statement and testimony. “And nobody could listen to her deliver those words talk about the assault and the impact it had had on her life and not have your heart go out to her, and she was actually traumatized by an event.”

    “This is a disaster for the Republicans,” Wallace added.

    the man never learns

    Like

  47. Justin Green says:

    I watched and appreciated the President’s defense opening.

    However, why will they NOT SAY that “Running for office is not a defense for Biden.”

    The entire Democrat case hinges on this and the damned weak-kneed idiot Republicans will not argue this point at all. It’s absolutely pathetic and sickening.

    Like

  48. NJF says:

    For any of us still on the fence, fox showed it’s true colors yesterday after POTUS team gave their opening statements.

    Before I turned it off, Cavuto had on Andrew McCarthy to criticize their efforts & then proceeded to host 4 senators, 3 Dems & Lindsey’s brief 30 sec comment.

    Dersh gave a great interview to Maria B earlier.

    Like

  49. Lewis says:

    Wallace is completely full of crap. He’s trying to sneak across a lie in the guise of the truth. He is completely misrepresenting both Mason and Hamilton. Hamilton spoke quite a bit about innocence and guilt, and expressed that it would be very dangerous to have a partisan impeachment of an innocent president. They completely rejected maladministration, and the point of including “other high crimes and misdemeanors” was to cover something like treason, but might not fit the narrow definition of treason because it wasn’t during wartime.

    Also, Wallace is a POS for bringing on a democrat, who is not a Trump supporter, then asking him if he will defend Trump. That’s not his job. Bringing him on and pretending like it is, is the same as lying to the public.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a 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