Giuliani: Mueller had conflilcts of interest

Giuliani: Mueller had conflilcts of interest


>>Chris: KEVIN CORKE REPORTING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, THANKS FOR THAT. JOURNEYMAN, THE PRESIDENT’S READ THE MIKE LEE LAWYER, WELCOME BACK TO FOX HER SIDE AND HAPPY EASTER. IT’S BIGGER HAPPY EASTER, HAPPY PASSOVER AND GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.>>Chris: YOU WERE PLANNING WE WERE TOLD TO RELEASE A COUNTER REPORT TO THE MUELLER REPORT, ABOUT 45 PAGES. WHY HAVEN’T YOU DONE SO AND ARE YOU STILL PLANNING TO?>>NUMBER ONE WE HAVEN’T DONE SO BECAUSE WE PLAN TO DO IT IF WE NEEDED TO. SO FAR WE DON’T THINK WE NEED TO. THAT MAY BECOME NECESSARY. WHETHER THEY GO AHEAD WITH THE HEARINGS OR NOT. WHETHER OTHER ISSUES ARE RAISED BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE. THERE’S PROBABLY A POINT AT WHICH WE WILL USE IT. RIGHT NOW WE THINK THE PUBLIC DEBATE THIS PLAYING OUT ABOUT AS WELL AS WE CAN. WHY COMPUTED WITH — IT RAISES A LOT OF ISSUES THAT MAYBE WE DIDN’T HAVE TO RESPOND TO.>>Chris: YOU HAVE SAID THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO RELEASE THE COUNTER REPORT IT WAS GOING TO FOCUS ON OBSTRUCTION. HERE’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT WAS RELEASED.>>THEY’RE HAVING A GOOD DAY. I’M HAVING A GOOD DAY TOO. IT WAS CALLED NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION.>>Chris: BUT MAYER, THAT’S NOT TRUE. THE MUELLER REPORT MAKES A CLEAR, ESPECIALLY ON THE ISSUE OF COLLUSION — OBSTRUCTION RATHER THAT HE’S LEAVING IT TO CONGRESS. I DON’T WANT TO PICK UP ON THE REPORT. VOLUME TWO, PAGE EIGHT –>>Rudy: I AGREE WITH THAT.>>Chris: GOD, LET ME PUT THIS OUT HERE FIRST. THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS MAY APPLY THE OBSTRUCTION LAWS TO THE PRESIDENT’S CORRUPT EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF OFFICE ACCORDS WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE PRINCIPLE THAT NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW,” SO MUELLER INVITES CONGRESS TO LOOK INTO THIS AND THE PRESIDENT, IN TERMS OF CONGRESS, HASN’T BEEN EXONERATED AT ALL IN THE ISSUE OF THE OBSTRUCTION GRADE>>Rudy: HE WILL NEVER GET DONNA GRADY. ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT AFFECTS THAT REPORT AND MAKES IT A WARPED REPORT, PAGE TWO, THE STANDARD. YOU DO NOT APPLY A STANDARD OF EXONERATION TO ANYONE. WHETHER IT’S A PRESIDENT IN AN IMPEACHMENT — YOU CAN’T EXONERATE. EXONERATION MEANS PROVING A NEGATIVE. BUT THE LAW HAS RECOGNIZED –>>Chris: MORE THAN THAT. HE IS SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS A CASE AND EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD EXAMINE.>>Rudy: OKAY, BUT LET’S START WITH THIS. THE STANDARD HE USED, HIS CONCLUSION IS I CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION, BUT I CANNOT EXONERATE HIM.>>Chris: I UNDERSTAND RADIO THAT HE DOESN’T HAVE TO PROOF INNOCENT IS NOT GUILTY.>>Rudy: TOTALLY BIASED, WARPED VIEW OF A PROSECUTOR’S ROLE. IF PROSECUTORS IN AMERICA WERE ASKED TO EXONERATE YOU, AND ABOUT 90% OF THE CASES THEY WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO DO IT.>>Chris: RESPECTFULLY, BASICALLY WHAT HE’S SAYING IS I THINK IT SHOULD GO TO CONGRESS, THAT’S WHAT HE’S SAYING.>>Rudy: I KNOW HE DID. HERE’S THE DIFFERENT OPINION. NUMBER ONE, IF THEY’RE GOING TO REVIEW HIS REMOVAL POWER, WHETHER THEY DO IT AS AN ATTEMPT OR A REALITY, COMEY, MUELLER, WHATEVER. REAL QUESTION UNDER ARTICLE TWO WHETHER THEY CAN DO THAT. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES GIVES THE CONGRESS A ROLE IN APPOINTMENT, ADVISE AND CONSENT. DELIVERY DOESN’T GIVE THEM A ROLE IN REMOVAL BECAUSE THEY SAY GO BACK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. THEY SAY THAT WOULD BE TOO MUCH OF AN INTRUSION BECAUSE IF YOU — IT’S A FEAR IN EXCEPTING SOMEBODY, TAKING SOMEBODY, YOU CAN ALWAYS GO FIND SOMEONE ELSE BUT IF YOU INTERFERE IN REMOVAL YOU’RE GOING TO FORCE A PRESIDENT TO KEEP SOMEONE HE DOESN’T TRUST, DOESN’T LIKE.>>Chris: EXCUSE ME WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE HERE. THE ISSUE IS DID THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCT JUSTICE OR NOT? LET ME JUST ASK THIS — I UNDERSTAND YOU’RE CHAMPING AT THE BIT. LET ME JUST ASK THE QUESTION. IN JUNE OF 2017, THE MUELLER REPORT SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT CALLED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON MCGANN TWICE ON THE SAME WEEKEND AND HE TOLD HIM, AND THIS WAS A QUOTE FROM HIM, “CALL ROD.” THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO IS OVERSEEING SPECIAL COUNSEL. CALL ROD, TELL ROD THAT MUELLER HAS CONFLICTS AND CAN’T BE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. MCGANN RECALLED THE PRESIDENT TELLING HIM MUELLER HAS TO GO. THE ONLY REASON THAT THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN IS BECAUSE MCGANN THREATENS TO RESIGN AND REFUSES TO CARRY OUT WHAT HE CONSIDERS TO BE A SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE.>>Rudy: OKAY, NOW DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER? ‘S BILL YES.>>Rudy: AND YOU WILL LET ME GET IT?>>Chris: SURE.>>Rudy: NUMBER ONE, HAD HE DONE IT, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THERE WERE VERY GOOD REASONS TO FIRE MUELLER. IN THE PRESIDENT HAS THE ABSOLUTE –>>Chris: WHAT WAS THE REASON TO FIRE MUELLER? HE’D ONLY BEEN ON THE JOB A MONTH.>>Rudy: MUELLER HIRED A STAFF IN WHICH HE HAD PEOPLE I WOULD FIND VERY QUESTIONABLE AS PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE INVESTIGATING DONALD TRUMP. HE HIRED THE CHIEF COUNSEL TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION. ABSURD. HE HIRED SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN A VERY, VERY STRONG PARTISAN OF HILLARY CLINTON, THAT HER GOING AWAY PARTY, WHATEVER THAT WAS AND HAD A HISTORY OF ETHICAL MISCONDUCT — UNETHICAL. YOU ASKED A COMPLEX ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, I’VE GOT TO GIVE A COMPLEX ANSWER. FOR A LOT OF REASONS.>>Chris: I WOULD ASSUME WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THAT THE INVESTIGATION IS BIASED.>>Rudy: I KNOW YOU DON’T WANT A LONG ANSWER BUT IN FAIRNESS –>>Chris: WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THE INVESTIGATION WAS BIASED.>>Rudy: WHAT I’M SAYING IS YOU COULD PERCEIVE IT THAT WAY, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU A GOOD FAITH REASON TO FIRE HIM. AND ALSO HE DEMONSTRATED IN THE CASE OF COMEY THAT HE COULD FIRE SOMEONE AND NOT INTERFERE IN THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE IMMEDIATELY IT WAS TAKEN UP BY SOMEONE ELSE. HE TOLD OSTERHOLT THAT HE REALIZED –>>Chris: ARE NOT ASKING ABOUT COMEY, MUSCULAR MUELLER.>>Rudy: IMPORTING OUT WITH HIS PRIOR CONDUCT. HE REMOVED COMEY AND SAID THAT WILL LINK THE MOAT INVESTIGATION AND IF HE FIRED MUELLER HE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED SOMEONE ELSE CAME AND TOOK IT OVER. THE GUY HAD CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HE HIRED A HIGHLY PARTISAN BIASES –>>Chris: IT ALSO HAD COME UP. I UNDERSTAND YOU’RE TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE BUT BUT WE DO HAVE LIMITED TIME.>>Rudy: I’M TRYING TO TELL YOU THERE’S AN ALTERNATIVE EXPO NATION.>>Chris: THERE’S ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION WHICH MUELLER MAKES AND HIS ACCLAMATION IS THAT TWO DAYS EARLIER — THE REPORT HAS COME OUT IN THE PAPER THAT NOW MUELLER IS INVESTIGATING HIM FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS INVESTIGATION, FOR THE FIRST TIME THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY IS A TARGET OF THE INVESTIGATION.>>Rudy: CHRIS, WHAT YOU’RE DOING IS YOU’RE TAKING THE MUELLER REPORT, WHICH IS A PROSECUTOR’S VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED. YOU’RE GIVING IT FULL CREDIT, AND YOU’RE NOT GIVING ME A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN THE OUTSIDE. IT’S VERY, VERY STRONG AND WAS LEFT OUT BY THE PROSECUTOR. I THINK THAT’S UNFAIR IN THE CASE OF THIS MAGNITUDE. NOT TO TELL THE OTHER SIDE.>>Chris: I’M ASKING ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE.>>Rudy: YOU’RE NOT GIVING A CHANCE TO ANSWER.>>Chris: WE DON’T NEED TO TALK ABOUT JAMES COMEY.>>Rudy: IT’S TWO OR THREE PAGES OF LIES AND DISTORTION. IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE. FOR EXAMPLE –>>Chris: YOU THINK THAT’S WHAT THE REPORT IS? CALUMNY, LIES AND EXPANSION DORMANT DISTORTION?>>Rudy: HALF OF IT’S NOT TRUE. SPIRIT I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT MICHAEL COHEN. I WAS ASKING ABOUT MCGANN. LISTEN TO THIS.>>Rudy: I THINK THIS IS A PRODUCT OF NOT TELLING THE FULL STORY. THAT’S NOT MCGANN’S FAULT. YOU READ THAT, MCGANN GAVE THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THAT CONVERSATION. THE FIRST VERSION OF THAT CONVERSATION IS THE PRESIDENT USED THE WORD FIRE AND HE TOLD THE PRESIDENT I’M GOING TO RESIGN DIRECTLY. HE THEN RECANTS THAT AND SAYS NO FIRE, NO STATEMENT THAT I WAS GOING TO RESIGN AND THEN HE COMES UP WITH THAT PERSON AND THEN A THIRD VERSION WHICH IS EVEN SOFTER WHICH SAYS SOMETHING LIKE HE SHOULD BE FIRED. OR HE HAS CONFLICTS, HE CAN’T BE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.>>Chris: AND THAT MUELLER HAS TO GO.>>Rudy: IS A VERY COMPLEX SET OF FACTS. ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE PRESIDENT SAYS I DIDN’T SAY TO FIRE HIM. I DIDN’T WANT HIM TO GO, I WANT AT THE CONFLICTS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. BUT THE PRESIDENT’S VERSION. YOU GOT TO PICK ONE VERSION OF THE OTHER.>>Chris: MAY I?>>Rudy: SINCE YOU CAN’T PROVE IT, THERE’S NO OBSTRUCTION. AND FINALLY, IF HE HAD FIRED HIM THERE WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN AN OBSTRUCTION SO LONG AS HE WAS REPLACED BY SOMEBODY, WHICH HE WOULD HAVE BEEN, AND THERE WERE GOOD REASONS, ARGUABLE REASONS.>>Chris: HERE’S THE QUESTION –>>Rudy: IF THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS AN INNOCENT MAN BEING CHARGED WITH SOMETHING HE DIDN’T DO. YOU HAVE TO GRANT THAT NOW WHEN THEY SAY NO PROOF OF UNDERLYING CRIME. YOU’VE GOT TO GRANT THAT AS A LEGAL AND FACTUAL MATTER.>>Chris: NO, I DON’T. I DON’T.>>Rudy: WAIT A SECOND. THESE THINGS ARE BEING DONE BY AN INNOCENT MAN.>>Chris: THIS IS CALLED AN INTERVIEW. IT’S NOT YOUR CLOSING ARGUMENT. YOU GOT TO GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY –>>Rudy: AND HER TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT.>>Chris: I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I’M HERE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS.>>Chris: ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS HAS BEEN THAT THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CAN’T HAVE HAPPENED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING CRIME. THAT’S WHAT YOU SAY. YOU SAY THAT HE WAS BEING FRAMED AND HE WAS FIGHTING BACK. LET’S LOOK AT WHAT YOU SAID, SIR. PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN.>>IT’S KIND OF RIDICULOUS TO GO AFTER A MAN FOR OBSTRUCTION WHEN HE WAS FALSELY ACCUSED, HE WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF. HIS INTENT IN EACH ONE OF THESE SITUATIONS, ALL TEN OF THEM, IS EASILY EXPLAINED AS AN INTENT TO NOT GET FRAMED.>>Chris: THAT’S WHAT YOU JUST SAID.>>Rudy: I SET UP A COUPLE DAYS AGO.>>Chris: OKAY, I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT’S THE POINT YOU’RE MAKING, AGAIN. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL — I’M NOT ARGUING THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS RIGHT OR WRONG, I’M SIMPLY PRESENTING ARGUMENTS TO TRY TO GET YOU TO RESPOND TO IT. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SAYS THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS NOT TRUE. VOLUME TWO, PAGE 157. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CAN BE MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO PROTECT NONCRIMINAL PERSONAL INTERESTS TO PROTECT AGAINST INVESTIGATIONS FOR UNDERLYING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FALLS INTO A GRAY AREA, OR TO AVOID PERSONAL EMBARRASSMENT. MUELLER SAYS THE INJURY TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS JUST AS GREAT. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER THERE WAS AN UNDERLYING CRIME. IT STILL OBSTRUCTION.>>Rudy: ONE DID MUELLER BECOME GOD? HE SAYS THE INJURY TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS STILL AS GREAT — THERE WAS NO INJURY, BY THE WAY. WERE TALKING ABOUT IT IN CODE CRIME. SOMETHING THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN. THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION. NOTHING WAS DENIED. NOBODY CRUSHED CELL PHONES LIKE HILLARY DID. NOBODY DELETED 33,000 EMAILS LIKE HILLARY’S PEOPLE DID, AND NOBODY BLEACHED A SERVER LIKE HILLARY DID. THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION — THEY DON’T POINT TO A SINGLE OBSTRUCTION AND INVESTIGATION. THE ONE FROM DAY ONE TODAY AN END THEY GOT EVERYTHING THEY WANTED.>>Chris: THAT’S NOT TRUE.>>Rudy: THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO TESTIMONY, NO PROSECUTORS.>>Chris: THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID. YOU SAID THEY GOT EVERYTHING THEY WANTED.>>Rudy: THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THAT.>>Chris: THAT’S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.>>Rudy: NOW WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE PERCEPTION OF INNOCENCE, WHERE GOING TO THROW IT OUT –>>Chris: I’M SIMPLY SAYING YOU SAID THEY GOT EVERYTHING THEY WANTED.>>Rudy: THEY WERE GOING TO TRAP HIM INTO PERJURY LIKE THEY DID WITH FLYNN. IF YOU THINK I’M A FULL? I WOULD HAVE BEEN DISBARRED IF I LET HIM TESTIFY. THERE WERE SO MANY INDICATIONS IF THEY WANTED TO TRAP HIM INTO PERJURY BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE A CASE THAT THEY WERE NOT IN GOOD FAITH. HERE’S WHAT THEY DID TO FLYNN. THEY CALLED FLYNN INCOME OF THE GO TO HIS OFFENSE, TELL ME DOES NEED A LAWYER –>>Chris: I GOT A MINUTE LEFT. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TRUMP.>>Rudy: HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTOR.>>Chris: I UNDERSTAND IT.>>Rudy: THEY CREATED AS FLYNN’S CRYING. THEY HAVE THE ANSWER THAT IF THEY ASK HIM.>>Chris: WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT FLYNN.>>Rudy: YOU ARE ASKING WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT NOT GO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM AND LET THEM TRY TO TRAP AND INTO PERJURY? BECAUSE HE HAD GOOD LAWYERS AND HE’S NOT A FOOL. IF THEY WERE FAIR PEOPLE I WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN A MINUTE.>>Chris: OKAY.>>Rudy: WHAT THEY DID TO FLYNN SAID TO ME THEY’RE GOING TO TRY TO DO TO MY CLIENT.>>Chris: HERE’S THE FINAL QUESTION.>>Rudy: YOU’RE TREATING HIS PEOPLE AS IF THEY’RE FAIR. THEY’RE NOT. IT BEGINS WITH HE’S GOT TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. THEN WE ARE THROWING OUT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. HOW MANY MORE MANAGEMENT WOULD WOULD LIKE TO THROW OUT?>>Chris: YOU SAY THAT THEY GAVE — YOU GAVE, THE PRESIDENT GAVE THEM EVERYTHING THEY WANTED. I UNDERSTAND YOU’RE SAYING THEY DIDN’T HAVE A RIGHT TO TESTIMONY. IT WAS LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT’S TESTIMONY.>>Rudy: BY THE WAY –>>Chris: A NO, SIR. AT LEAST 37 TIMES HE SAID IN WRITTEN ANSWERS HE DID NOT RECALL.>>Rudy: OH, MY GOODNESS.>>Chris: YOU SAY OH, MY GOODNESS — ONE HILLARY CLINTON DID THAT DURING HER INVESTIGATION. ABOUT THE REPORT, HERE’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID, TAKE A LOOK.>>WHEN SHE WAS INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI SHE CLAIMS SHE COULDN’T REMEMBER IMPORTANT EVENTS 39 TIMES. SO SHE REALLY DIDN’T REMEMBER, THAT’S A PROBLEM. AND IF SHE DID REMEMBER, THAT’S A PROBLEM.>>Chris: YOU’VE GOT 30 SECONDS. WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM FOR LOW CLINTON BUT IT ISN’T FOR DONALD TRUMP?>>Rudy: BECAUSE HILLARY CLINTON WAS GUILTY OF THE UNDERLYING CRIMES. SHE DID CRUSH THE CELL PHONES –>>Chris: WHO MADE YOU GOD, AS YOU SAID ABOUT MUELLER?>>Rudy: ARE NOT GOT ABOUT MUELLER.>>Chris: WHO MADE MUELLER GOD, NOW YOU’RE DECLARING WHETHER SHE WAS GUILTY OR NOT.>>Rudy: I’M SAYING THERE’S A DIFFERENCE — I’M JUST SAYING THERE’S A DIFFERENCE — I’M NOT SAYING SHE’S GUILTY. THE DIFFERENCES THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT YOU ACTUALLY OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. SHE DENIED THE INVESTIGATORS THE INFORMATION. NOTHING WAS DENIED TO THEM. BY THE WAY, IN THE REPORT THEY SAY THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO QUESTION HIM BECAUSE THEY HAD THE ANSWERS TO ALL THE QUESTIONS. WRITE IN THE REPORT.>>Chris: THEY ALSO SEE THE ANSWERS WERE INADEQUATE AND THEY ALSO SAID THAT TO GO THROUGH A SUBPOENA WAS GOING TO TAKE A PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME.>>Rudy: IF MY CLIENT HAS AN UNCLEAR RECOLLECTION, I’M NOT GOING TO GO STRETCH OUT FOR THE PROSECUTOR SO THE PROSECUTOR CAN MAIL THEM –>>Chris: MAYOR GIULIANI –>>Rudy: LIKE THE ONE AFTER THAT GREAT GENERAL AND RUIN HIS LIFE AND BANKRUPTED HIM. THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEM SELVES.>>Chris: MAYOR JULIE ARTICLE THANK YOU, THANKS FOR SHARING YOUR HOLIDAY WEEKEND WITH US.

Author:

100 thoughts on “Giuliani: Mueller had conflilcts of interest”

  • Leslie McCormick says:

    What is happening to FOX News? We got you to the top rated news station but you have changed your commitment to the people who got you there! But when the anchor of commentator gives so much hatred towards our President! If we wanted that we watch CNN or MSN! It's great to question our government, but it's always one sided! Try looking into Obama and Clintons! Good grief, common sense?

  • Really, Wallace did a good job here. Could have been a great job if he gave necessary time to answer instead of cutting off time and time again.

  • How do you bleach a server? How does smashing a phone guard against surveillance? How does a liar like Ghouliani get on tv?

  • Chris Wallace is a Turd Show and FOX has turned into the SAME. Lets not forget the awful Mygyn Kelly they tried to shove down our throats. Recommend OAN instead.

  • Deep state probably has something on Wallace I used to respect him but when Trump started to run I saw a change in him. It’s embarrassing to watch their contortions to control the narrator. Thankfully we have figured them out

  • Fred Mindach II says:

    Chris Wallace is a hack, MSM chump, who doesn't let Giuliani finish his comments, interruptes Giuliani continuously, tries to ambush Giuliani with liberal talking points which are trash and untruthful. Fox is becoming more Lame Stream everyday.

  • Hilary obstructed justice. She directed evidence that had been asked for by the investigator. This guy is horrific and prejudice. What mueller did was gather evidence and then he said I can’t prove this so I will just make the President be tried on some baphoons news show.

  • Donna E Turner says:

    Wallace is a bought and paid for leftist. He is NOT a lawyer. But he should be charged for his collusion with the democrats.

  • Trump was frustrated – CONSTANTLY being confronted with accusations that he colluded with Russia that he KNEW we're not true!
    Perhaps he tried on a number of occasions to reach out to the officials investigating him to explain (through his aides) that the charges were false. Fortunately, his aides DIDN'T go through with those requests of them WHICH MEANS there was no attempt to obstruct justice – BUT, even IF they had carried out his requests it STILL wouldn't have been obstruction because you CANNOT be guilty of obstruction by obstructing an investigation into a crime that NEVER TOOK PLACE!!
    And THAT is what we're REALLY dealing with, here!!

  • I get that Wallace is trying to make the counter argument but… I mean anyone who has done criminal justice knows as a fundamental point that the prosecutors report is biased to favor whatever conclusion the prosecutor aimed to achieve. This happens even if the prosecutor herself did not share that bias because the reports bias comes from the administration of the persecutors job to prosecute.

    That is why we do not publicize a prosecutors report when they haven't been able to prove guilt, because the reports are always personally damaging to the target of the investigation. What Giuliani was saying was law 101, why was Wallace pretending otherwise; there were smarter questions he could have asked.

  • Wallace was so afraid that he was going to get his narrative destroyed that he wouldn't let rudi finish an answer. Fire that hack fox news!

  • Wallace, STFU and listen, or are you intentionally trying to keep the audience from understanding the truth of the role of investigators and prosecutors.. Mueller used a standard of EXONERATION, meaning that since he couldn't exonerate Trump, then he couldn't make a decision and suggested Congress deal with it. That standard is illusory and scandalously misleading, because its an impossible standard. Mueller knows better, but he also knows that most people listening to the Democrats talking points and Mainstream media (and you) will mislead their audiences by implications and spins that can only lead to mob like ignorance. He didn't bring charges because he knew he wasn't even close to having any evidence of an actual crime, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Also, Trump discussed with his attorneys about firing someone, he did not threaten it publicly or to the investigators.

    This maybe one of the worst interviewing if seen. Chris doesn't want to hear the truth nor does he want his audience to hear the truth. Its blatantly obvious that Chris is a never Trumper.

  • Mr. Wallace I believe in this interview your silence is the better act when your guest answer your trap and hidden agenda.

  • Wallace must be scared!!!  he doesn't want to hear the truth…why don't you let your guest, rudy, speak…Wallace, your not as smart as you think…fox going down.

  • Chris Wallace is a terrible fit for Fox News. I never watch him. He uses liberal tactics by interrupting the interviewee not letting them answer the question. What a jerk!

  • Cathleen Renney says:

    Okay Wallace if you didn't want him to participate in conversation why'd you ask him to be a guest. If you didn't like his answer that's fine I never seen you be so rude to anyone ever and I don't care it was Giuliani or Trump's lawyer you surprised me you were rude I'm not watching you anymore I watch the rest of the Fox News you know what you're the Old Gentleman of the old school they need some new blood in town

  • C ridestraight says:

    Mike Wallace eats at the feet of Zions Satan – he will obey his handlers and LIE as Token. EDIT: upvote for Mayor and screw this evil clown and FAUX NEWZ!

  • Trump had the constitutional right to fire Comey for any reason. He could’ve not liked his face and fired him for that. Firing Comey didn’t stop the investigation. They’re trying to make every little action by Trump something sinister, even actions that were constitutionally legal. I guess the coup d’état is still ongoing and the MSM is part of it.

  • I cannot stand Wallace, massive jag-off and media shill. Interrupts his guests, pretends he knows better, controls narrative, frames the questions, what a douche

  • Chris Wallace is bought n paid for by the corrupt satanic deepstate~ he just got crushed by Rudy G.
    Fox is being exposed right now folks.
    From now on get your news from Qanon

  • Fox is becoming less and less watchable. I guess they don't care if Fox joins the rest. I mean who in their right mind is going to frequent a "news" channel with the likes of Wallace, Shepherd, Cavuto and Brazille? Ratings must go up and down like a roller coaster when one of the more reputable (but controlled) hosts gets on the air.

  • How can you perjure yourself if you're not lying? LOL. Personally, I don't care who the president is. They're all hustlers with big-dollar-sign dreams. Pimping at the highest level. Pardon the mixed metaphors, but all of you Trump-train riders, who hitch on no matter the destination, are truly the other hemisphere of this brain-dead nation lol. Gotta love it.

  • How can you perjure yourself if you're not lying? LOL. Personally, I don't care who the president is. They're all hustlers with big-dollar-sign dreams. Pimping at the highest level. Pardon the mixed metaphors, but all of you Trump-train riders, who hitch on no matter the destination, are truly the other hemisphere of this brain-dead nation lol. Gotta love it.

  • Wildly Optimistic says:

    Chris is pushing his own narrative he wants to control the conversation and gets Rudy to say what he wants.

  • Chris Wallace! You will never be MIKE Wallace! That is because you are a Jiminy Cricket sort. The Mueller Report is full of "quotes"…hearsay…anecdotals… You would need to establish veracity and good intention of anyone who was quoted in the report. To quote YOU👉👉, "SIR, YOU ARE SAYING THAT–"
    And NO, Rudy was not saying what you are insisting he was saying, you RUDE LITTLE TYRANT ! You don't exhibit any higher intelligence. AT ALL. SPIN what I have just said to you. Spin it like the Tilt-O-Wheel at a carnival. Maybe you'd do best as a carnival BARKER. You could then talk over everybody. Serious YUCK. I only watched this ONE of your shows to see Rudy, not to see you—BEING RUDE TO RUDY! Gad! Disturbing to the 3rd chakra solar plexus to endure your spew‼️ In the words of Leonard Pinth Garnell, "really BAD television"!

  • A prosecutor has no authority to exonerate anyone, even a judge as no authority to exonerate any one who has not first been charged with a crime.

  • The fact of impropriety does not have to be proven, if on its face the act has the appearance of impropriety, merely the appearance of impropriety is enough cause to have fired Mueller from special counsel by the president, if members on his staff have un ethical relationships or connections to someone involved in the case or political biases.

  • Trump and everyone knows this was not about a crime but about catching Trump on perjury. Just a corrupt fishing expedition by the left. It was/is evil. They are STILL spreading lies.

  • Steeve Cantave says:

    Wallace tries so hard to be "neutral" that he's even worse than the people at MSNBC and CNN. No one has ever disputed this fact: a prosecutor cannot exonerate someone being investigated. In other words, the prosecutor's only job is to determine whether someone can be charged. Muller, in an effort to push some crumbs from the table onto the floor to democrats, unethically decided to state that he couldn't make a conclusion on whether to charge Trump with obstruction or not. Because of the ambiguous nature of Muller's report, he's given democrats a perfect excuse to continue with this witch hunt.

  • Why wont this democrat allow Mr. Guilliani to put out a thought? Shut up and let the man speak!!!! Shut up, and stop telling the man what he is saying. He understands you are trying to make the case, but i will talk all over you….

  • Obstructing justice from no crime? Mueller wanted to get the President so bad, he turned into the Supreme Court and reinterpreted the law and meaning of obstruction as it pertains to the law.

  • Richard Tarr says:

    Wallace is part of the problem. Rude interview only to get his own talking points out. Let him answer the questions! Viewers do not care of what you think Chris. We see through your constant attacks. We know you voted for Mrs. Clinton, Obama (2x), Kerry, and Mr. Clinton in the past. He is a bias, never-trumper. He belongs on CNN or MSNBC.

  • Evening News says:

    Chris Wallace is great! I honestly don’t agree with what others are saying, he was a little nitpicky, but Giuliani is a little much sometimes.

  • ANYONE WHO STILL WATCHING THIS CHANNEL IS STUPID, THE AMOUNT OF LIBTURDS DEFENDERS IS GROWING BY THE SECOND, WE GAVE THESE MISERABLE BETRAYERS AN ENORM AUDIENCE, LOTS OF PROPAGANDA MONEY, AND THEY ARE USING AGAINST US…THIS INTERVIEW WAS ALMOST A VERBAL LYNCHING OF THE MAYOR…THE MUELLER CRIMINAL IS god FOR THIS VERMIN wallace… IF YOU STAY AND DON'T WANT FIND INFORMATION, CORRECT ONES, SOMEPLACE ELSE YOU DESERVE TO BE FOOLED, THIS PLACE IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OUT THERE…

  • How can't he have obstructed if nothing had been done to interfere and Mueller completed the investigation why can't we have a report done by Trumps attorneys to refute the accusations in Muellers report

  • Giuliani was a good Mayor and did a lot of good things for NYC. But there comes a time when people should retire. He kept speaking in circles getting off point. His loyalty is to Trump first, before country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *