Rudy Giuliani Drops to Less Than Zero

Rudy Guiliani has been acting like he has a few screws loose for a few years now. The only art he seems to have mastered is the art of speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Nowhere is this more apparent than his remarks Sunday that there's nothing wrong with campaign officials accepting information from foreign nations. He even had the audacity to ponder aloud that maybe the hacking of DNC emails was a good thing because it alerted the country to Hillary's true nature.

Don't get sucked in. He's mimicking Donald Trump by trying to divert your attention from polls showing that Trump's approval ratings have sunk to their lowest level yet in the wake of the Mueller report.

And 68 percent said they were more likely to believe that the president or one of his cronies broke the law.

Donald Trump's most absurd claims come when he's about to face bad press -- it's his go-to diversion tactic. Rudy is just mimicking him.

There are 12 to 14 other federal and state criminal referrals from Mueller's office to other agencies who are considering whether Donald Trump, his children and others in his circle committed crimes. Some Dems are itching to start impeachment proceedings now. Diversion and distraction through outrageous comments is the new Trump game plan. I'm not playing Rudy's word games.

< Happy Passover and Open Thread | No Joke in the Ukraine >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The only Sunday show I caught (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 10:51:58 AM EST
    Was FOX.

    I was curious how they would deal with it.  Chris Wallace tried to interview him.  He really seemed to try.  But now I wonder if he meant to "seem to try"

    Because what happened is that Rudy just screamed over him for the entire thing.  Which I have noticed is the latest strategy from the MAGATs.  Any time you try to confront them with fact they just scream louder.

    Watching it I was kind of impressed with the questions Wallace seemed to be trying to ask.  Later I realized they would never have allowed a democrat to get away with that.

    It ended with Wallace telling him what a great lawyer he was and moving to Schiff with a banner


    The only (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 11:00:13 AM EST
    thing I can come up with as their reasoning is they think their own supporters are either illiterate or too stupid to understand what is written in the Mueller report.

    They know their (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    Supporters don't give a shi+

    They know their supporters assume everything in the report is true and much more and they don't care.  Many love it.  Most even.   Owning the libs is all that matters.

    Rudy's only job is to give them ideas of what to scream at others when they are presented with facts.


    Yes, (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 11:27:02 AM EST
    and besides....both sides do it.  Just to illustrate, Obama wore a tan suit and even put his feet on the desk.  Hillary was over-prepared and, of course, Republicans did not like the way she emailed---sure she was exonerated, but not as beautiful a one as Trump's.

    I'm starting to think (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 02:16:17 PM EST
    They might have to at least move to "hearings with an eye to impeachment" or something.

    When you have the presidents so called lawyer saying accepting stolen data from a foreign adversary on tv over and over is "ok" it starts looking like something needs to be done.  Simply for national security reasons.

    That said, I'm pretty confident that's exactly why he said it.  I think they think impeachment would help them.

    And I think it would.

    I guess the questions becomes is it possible given 18 months to hurt them more than help them.

    That's above my pay grade.  I trust Nancy.


    After (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 03:06:43 PM EST
    the whole weekend of punditry, personal research and
    much naval gazing, I still remain totally dead center on the fence about this one.

    If I had any trust in the media I would be all in on impeachment but you know how that goes.

    Not matter how much an impeachment proceeding  is based on the Constitution, facts and rule of law matters the narrative will surely turn into a WWE style partisan battle royale, tRumps' turf.

    I like the idea of "hearings with an eye toward impeachment. I read some comment somewhere to the effect "now we've read the book, can't wait to see the movie"

    I think the Democrats should produce that movie, or more specifically a series, which done right will captivate the public and allow them as the show-runners be more able to control the narrative.

    McGhan, Barr, Sessions, Priebus, Bannon and many many more dragged into to spotlight just having to repeat what they told Mueller will be a constant carpet bombing on tRump's positions and hopefully sooner rather than later will have the American people clamoring for impeachment.... then drop the hammer.

    It's all reality TV now.


    Yes, I, too, believe (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 03:43:42 PM EST
    that impeachment hearings are now necessary, and, maybe, such hearings need to be stated as "hearings for purposes of the possible impeachment by the House of Donald J. Trump."  

    And, the hearings need to be, to the extent possible, open and televised. The open hearing by Michael Cohen was devastating, but the effect was fleeting.  Sustained hearings with multiple witnesses may be persuasive, at least to the idea, that the president is not above the law.

     And, the House investigating for impeachment is Constitutional and will better withstand Court challenges (e.g., Trump's lawsuit to prohibit release of tax returns).

    The Mueller Report is (a) redacted and may spell out additional concerns, and (b) absent any counter-intelligence matters that were a part of the initial FBI investigation. Did Trump obstruct not only the investigation into his possible crimes, but also, halt the analysis of his ties to Putin?  Or as a favor to Putin? (cf. Helsinki)

    Charles Blow (NYT op ed, April 22) reminds that impeachment by the people's House is akin to an indictment. A strong rebuke, on the record, even without a conviction in the Senate. Inaction, he fears, will enshrine the idea that presidents are above the law. Senator Elizabeth Warren argues that doing nothing suggests that presidents are free to abuse power.

    It is, surely, a difficult needle to thread for the Speaker-- all recognizing the tragedy of Trump while navigating the several well-intended points of view.  

    From my point of view, impeachment and conviction is the remedy (even if Trump were criminally prosecuted, convicted and sent to jail, he could still be in office without the Constitutional remedy.) However, as Blow states, there is no failed impeachment, and even without the Senate's conviction, the House's impeachment is there for history.


    Have to admit (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 03:59:52 PM EST
    I am tiring of "further divide the country" argument

    I'm not sure it could be more divided and if it could maybe it should be.


    I think (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 07:09:23 PM EST
    that if the Democrats do nothing, it will be golden for Trump's re-election campaign. After all, it can be claimed that if Trump had really done something wrong the Democrats would have impeached him.  See , just a witch hunt.

    Nicole Wallace good idea (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 03:55:56 PM EST
    Hearings for the Rule of Law

    LOL (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 12:07:29 PM EST
    Well, Rudy has made a full embrace of Russia. So I guess they will be "owning the libs" by swearing allegiance to Mother Russia. Swearing allegiance to Putin and Mother Russia will really make liberals mad.

    wikileaks wasn't bad? (none / 0) (#5)
    by thomas rogan on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    The political left wasn't exactly saying that Wikileaks was some sort of evil "foreign agent" in 2010 and Obama's justice department did not indict Assange.  Obama actually commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence.

    personally (none / 0) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 12:38:10 PM EST
    I was never a big fan of Wiki-leaks, much less Assange.

    Now he has lost all credibility as a journalist with sht like this

    Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn't his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia's GRU months after Seth Rich's death. At the same time he was publicly working to shift blame onto the slain staffer "to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing,"  Special Counsel Robert Mueller asserts in his final report on Russia's role in the 2016 presidential election.
    Smearing a dead man to cover his sorry ass, sad.

    Bothsiderism? (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    Means you are out of legitimate excuses.

    Please... (none / 0) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 01:52:35 PM EST
    ...if you remember who was Secretary of State when Wikileaks released all the State Department emails you would know exactly how sideways you are talking out of your A.

    Not exactly sure what the 'political left' means is there a non-political left, and does that mean that everyone you slap with the label has to have the same opinion ?  Because many disagreed with Obama as initially he was very 'toss Manning in a deep dark whole' but eventually came around, maybe because of the pressure from the people.

    But to think that opinion should not have changed after Wikileaks leaks emails that definitely effected a Presidential election, is just plain dumb.  People can, and should, change their opinions based new information.  

    You have been trying to push this line since Trump's been associated with the Russians and Wikileaks.  Going as far as putting it in threads where is doesn't fit.  Give it a rest already, using your logic, WTF happened to the right who I remember at one point wanted to publicly hang Manning over the Wikileaks data, now they want to crown Assange king-ding-aling.

    Me personally, I think the 7 years Assange spent in an embassy is probably enough time for what he did.  But I think the government is going to look at the odds of him repeating the offense and tossing the book at him, or maybe King Trump will pardon him for aiding in his win.


    Commutation of Chelsea Manning's (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 04:27:17 PM EST
    35-year sentence was, in my view, an appropriate act of clemency. Manning served seven years in military prison after going through the military criminal justice system.

     Manning acknowledged wrong doing and entered a guilty plea which was not a part of a plea deal.  The government did not accept her plea and, instead, added charges of abetting the enemy (with possible death penalty, although the government stated it would not seek such).  A military judge acquitted Manning of that charge.

    The 35-year sentence was the longest sentence for revealing classified information (none above secret level), considered by many as being out of proportion to the crime..  The handling of Manning's incarceration was cruel and humiliating.

      After trying to kill herself, the response was to put her in solitary confinement, once again, take away all her clothes, and have her, daily, come out into the cell block naked. Could not even see their way clear to give her a pair of drawers.

      Her emotional breakdown appears to have been, at least in part, due to being a transgender woman in a male military prison.

    The mercy shown to Chelsea Manning in commuting her sentence seems more meritorious that the commutation by George W. Bush of Scooter Libby, Cheney's Chief of Staff.

     Libby was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators in the probe of leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame (part of retribution for her husband, Ambassador Wilson's revelations on yellow cake from Niger).

      Scooter's term was prior to having served any prison time, which was a 30-month sentence. Republicans cheered saying that term was "excessive."  And, they were disappointed that Scooter was not pardoned outright.


    Manning is presently in the same jail in Virginia (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 04:41:35 PM EST
    where Manafort was sent to stew, for contempt of the grand jury that is investigating Assange and Wikileaks. Her contempt citation and imprisonment were upheld today on appeal. Since it is illegal for the government to use the grand jury to prepare for trial on charges contained in an indictment that has already been returned (filed), this necessarily means that additional or amended charges against Assange are in the works.

    Re the previous discussion (none / 0) (#20)
    by ragebot on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 09:26:28 PM EST
    on extradition of Assange and how additional charges would affect that can you offer any more insight.  

    Probably because ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 09:29:07 PM EST
    The political left wasn't exactly saying that Wikileaks was some sort of evil "foreign agent" in 2010 and Obama's justice department did not indict Assange.

    ... to be indicted, you must have probable cause to show the indictee committed a crime.  There was no probable cause to indict Assange during Obama's term.

    Those pesky laws are so inconvenient, aren't they?


    Gotta love that Trump said today (none / 0) (#18)
    by fishcamp on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 07:59:45 PM EST
    "Everybody obeys me". He would be in even deeper doo doo if they did.  

    The (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 22, 2019 at 08:34:13 PM EST
    problem being that most of the naysayers have left, now that he finally has his "Roy Cohn" installed as AG, it's probably us in deep doo-doo.

    Further proving that Rudy will say anything (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 08:39:59 PM EST
    and cannot think before speaking, he now claims that Congress should not get Tr*mp's tax returns because we already know he did nothing wrong on his taxes. (Which by the way is not why Congress wants the returns; it is not necessarily to identify tax fraud by Tr*mp and his family so much as to identify his conflicts of interest and the sources of unlawful emoluments.) How do we know this? Because the IRS reviewed his returns and found nothing wrong, sez Rudy. Oh, wait, you mean they are not under audit, which was the only thing he was waiting for before releasing them voluntarily? Oops ....

    They stink (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 07:54:59 AM EST
    Of desperation

    More all the time


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 07, 2019 at 07:21:55 AM EST