Lawyering, Media, Politics

Giuliani Says Trump Answering Mueller’s Questions Was A Nightmare

An earlier column discussed the unnerving statement by Trump that he answered the questions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller “very easily.”  The column suggested that the claim may have been bravado since nothing is easy in this investigation.  That would seem to be the case since Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani just contradicted the President and said that Trump did not answer the questions either easily or quickly.  He described the process as taking two weeks and that the process was an utter “nightmare.”  He also spoke openly about the President not being as controlled as other clients — a statement occurring after Trump former Secretary of State called Trump “undisciplined.” 

Trump denied that his lawyer even played a role in drafting the answers in a prior interview:


TRUMP: No, my lawyers aren’t working on that. I’m working on that. I write the answers. My lawyers don’t write answers. I write answers.

QUESTION: OK.

TRUMP: I was asked a series of questions. I’ve answered them very easily — very easily. I’m sure they’re tricked up because, you know, they like to catch people — “Gee, you know, was the weather sunny or was it rainy? He said it may have been a good day. It was rainy. Therefore he told a lie. He perjured himself.” OK?

So you have to always be careful when you answer questions with people that probably have bad intentions.

But, no, it’s — the questions were very routinely answered by me — by me. OK?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Have they been submitted…

TRUMP: To the special — yeah.

QUESTION: And you submitted the answers…

TRUMP: I haven’t submitted them yet. We just — I just finished them.

Giuliani again departed from the President account and said “Answering those questions was a nightmare. It took him about three weeks to do what would normally take two days.”  He added “The more controlled a person is, the more intelligent they are, the more they can make the decision. But he’s just like every other client. He’s not more … you know, controlled than any other client. In fact, he’s a little less.” Finally, Giuliani said that he has tried to stop Trump from tweeting but “I don’t think there’s anyone in the world that can stop Donald Trump from tweeting.”  As has become something of a troubling pattern, Giuliani later had to walk back his comments.

This latest contradiction is curious since there was no reason for Giuliani to publicly offer an opposing narrative.  While this may reflect an intention to build a record of the distraction caused by this investigation in later court challenges, it seems almost gratuitous in isolation.  It leaves Trump looking either like a liar or clueless.  

Giuliani also revealed that Trump is preoccupied with the treatment of Paul Manafort, another indication that Trump may be actively considering the pardon option.

Giuliani later reappeared to walk back the nightmare comment by tweeting that “some in the media are distorting my statement that answering the questions was a nightmare.That is because as President he was interrupted so often with critical and more important matters. It illustrates why Mueller should end this now and media should be fair.”

It also illustrates an ongoing need for better message control.

98 thoughts on “Giuliani Says Trump Answering Mueller’s Questions Was A Nightmare”

  1. TRUMP JOINS RUSSIA AND SAUDI ARABIA..

    TO WEAKEN LANGUAGE IN CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT

    The United States joined a controversial proposal by Saudi Arabia and Russia this weekend to weaken a reference to a key report on the severity of global warming, sharpening battle lines at the global climate summit in Poland aimed at gaining consensus over how to combat rising temperatures.

    Arguments erupted Saturday night before a United Nations working group focused on science and technology, where the United States teamed with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to challenge language that would have welcomed the findings of the landmark report, which said that the world has barely 10 years to cut carbon emissions by nearly half to avoid catastrophic warming.

    “There was going to be an agreement to welcome the . . . report,” said Jake Schmidt, the managing director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s international program, who is in Poland. “The U.S. wanted to ‘note’ it, which is saying in essence that we know it’s out there but we have no comment.”

    The U.S. position lines up with the views of the Trump administration, which is plowing ahead with a raft of aggressive policies on coal power and oil exploration that are likely to worsen the effects of climate change — steamrolling over dire environmental warnings issued by the administration’s own team of experts in a major report just two weeks ago.

    “The United States was willing to note the report and express appreciation to the scientists who developed it, but not to welcome it, as that would denote endorsement of the report,” a State Department spokesman said. “As we have made clear in the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other bodies, the United States has not endorsed the findings of the report.”

    Edited from: “Trump Administration Resists Global Climate Efforts At Home And Overseas”

    This evening’s WASHINGTON POST

  2. “The ordinary American voter does not object to mediocrity.”

    — Who stated this 130 years ago?

    1. Mares are better at fighting.

      They gang up on the poor stallion.

      Thirty times bitten, twice shy.

  4. I still can’t believe who stupid these people & their attorneys are.

    They should have been saying all long if the govt has evidence of a crime tell it to the judge.

    Instead they’ve made every attempt at helping Muler come up with fraudulent charges against therm & some of them taking ph’kd up plea deals.

    Giuliani, he must have lost his mind somewhere down the road…..

    Oh well, Lionel the lawyer gets it.

  5. Manafort should be pardoned. After all, Podesta did EXACTLY the same thing Manafort was originally jailed for and Podesta never spend a second behind bars.

  6. Jonathon – Again with the equivocation fallacies!! The headline and presentation of Guiliani’s statements are intended to create a nasty presentation of the President. Let’s start to be more clear with our statements.
    You want to suggest Trump is a nightmare. But wait – Guiliani’s statement can be read with many interpretations…. ie: Were Mueller’s QUESTIONS a nightmare maybe because they were clearly intended to ensnare the President? Was the PROCESS a nightmare maybe because trying to answer questions that are not YES or NO questions is difficult when you know Mueller is trying to entrap you? Was the TIMING a nightmare because any President has a lot to do everyday, especially if they are being persecuted by the Press? The headline of your article is fake/flase/misleading because it has clear intent to suggest one thing that any intelligent person can question. Fake news is an attempt to create a narrative (essentially a “story”) that can easily be interpreted by the reader in a certain way even if it isn’t the full story. Let’s avoid this purposely biased type of headline in the future.

    1. Funny, honest people have no problems answer Interrogatories.

      this is to “ya, he’s likely a traitor, but he says he’ll keep the dusky folks in line” sbg

  7. Dear Mr. Turley, I have enjoyed and learned much from your legal opinions, analyses and commentaries. Unfortunately, I find it quite troubling to see how ignorant and disdainful of our founding principles the great majority of Americans seem to be. Perhaps, even some of our allies in some parts of the globe may be anxious about our future as a cohesive force for good in the world; it is foolhardy to believe that our allies and adversaries are not aware of this egregious attempt to subvert or laws by invalidating the lawful election of our President. What Robert Mueller and his partisan team of lawyers are conducting is a ‘gunless’ coup d’etat we must not permit to continue. This subversive attempt to rewrite the US Constitution, its laws and legal processes has emboldened radical domestic and foreign elements to probe our national will to defend our founding values and ideals. Mueller’s illegalities cannot go unchallenged by erudite legal scholars, such as yourself, if we are to preserve the legal integrity of our Constitution and national sovereignty; the blatant border violations of our territory is already proof of the growing international disrespect for our laws. Yet in the midst of this crisis our Congress seem to have lost its legal and moral compass. One party of miscreants dominates the narrative while the other cannot muster the courage to denounce them and our irresponsible media and its “fake” narrative. I know firsthand what it is to live under political despotism.

    May God bless you, always. Thank you.

    1. Wow! Cohen says yes and then says no. Cohen says no and then says yes. Cohen sold himself to AT&T along with others for millions of dollars and had no influence at all because Cohen is a talker not a doer. Cohen claims he was at the center of certain things but based on his record it sounds like a lot of bluster about things that weren’t wrong or illegal.

      This is to factless Anonymous.

          1. Allan — clucking to himself as he looks in the mirror:

            “What an intellect! Maybe you can now qualify to be lead chicken in the coop.”

            Keep on clucking, Allan.

            1. Anonymous, I don’t mind insults but I note that a lot of times you copy what I have previously said to you. That is a type of flattery, so I thank you.

              “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”

              1. Cluck, cluck, Allan.

                (And, psst: Telling someone that they’re projecting, isn’t “flattery.”

                    3. Darn right anonymous. A brainless one should never have the last word. You can have the last cluck right before you are caught and being readied for dinner.

  9. Guiiani and the President are two separate people with different ways of handling things. Guiliani can’t read the mind of the President and the media isn’t very accurate in reporting the truth. Trump is President trying to do good things for the country while the opposition and Mueller are working to prevent Trump from doing so. That is both distracting to the President and harmful to the nation. I wouldn’t try and second guess any of these responses that are meaningless but sell a lot of copy. All one has to look at is what happened with the last Supreme Court nomination to see how crazy things have become.

    I think the best statement on the subject is Guiliani’s.

    “Some in the media are distorting my statement that answering the questions was a nightmare. That is because as President he was interrupted so often with critical and more important matters. It illustrates why Mueller should end this now and media should be fair.”

  10. One Can Judge A Man By His Attorney

    TRUMP GOES FROM COHEN TO GIULIANI

    Within recent memory, Trump was still referring to Michael Cohen as “My lawyer”. We know now the caliber of lawyer Michael Cohen was.

    Rudy Giuliani has more respectable credential than Cohen. And perhaps ‘because’ of those credentials, Giuliani expected a cabinet position in Trump’s administration. Arguably Trump owed him such a position after Giuliani campaigned on Trump’s behalf. Arguably Trump owed Chris Christie as well. Giuliani and Christie lent respect to Trump’s campaign when Trump was still regarded as a fringe candidate.

    It was said that Giuliani wanted to be either Secretary of State or Attorney General. But those positions went to Rex Tillerson and Jess Sessions; neither of whom was satisfying to Trump. Trump only turned to Giuliani when his young presidency was engulfed by scandal. Therefore Giuliani might have a secret score to settle with Trump. Giuliani’s comments, as reflected here, may reflect that hidden grievance.

  11. Bah, I smell spin. There is nothing in his statement intimating that the President is dumb – just busy. If it were Obama, people would be defending his tee time with their lives. I call bull****.

  12. I support the President’s policies. I voted for him. After two years in office, my observation is that he is like a bull in a china shop. The man is decisive and intent on getting things done which is refreshing but he’s also reckless. He seems accustomed to having others make his decisions work out by any means necessary. The federal government and bureaucracy is not the real estate business. He is a seal swimming among sharks in a feeding frenzy. The Democrats, news media, entertainment industry, and deep state establishment are intent on destroying everyone and everything that gets in the way of their extreme leftist agenda and Maoist-like cultural revolution. He has been in their cross-hairs from day one. Statements and actions need to be far more measured but he is a brash New Yorker that can’t seem to shut up. He insists on the last word even when it is destroys him and the agenda for America. In the process, he is hurting the conservative movement.

  13. Guiliani may ultimately prove to be of as much value to Trump as Michael Cohen is.
    Rudy has made some truly bizarre statements which don’t seem especially helpful to his client.

    1. If you’re trying to stall special counsel’s investigation with assertions of executive privilege for the President-Elect during the transition period, then it is not especially helpful for your client, The POTUS, to brag and boast out loud on Twitter about how easy it is, and how little time it takes, to answer the special counsel’s questions.

      1. If you’re trying to stall cutting and pasting WikiPedia, followed by “excerpted from”… etc., I understand why.
        There’s still time for you to do so, I’m sure.
        I may not be posting during Sunday services, but I’ll try to check back “religiously”.

          1. Excerpted from the entry linked above:

            Origin: Russian, short for komprometirujuščij material ‘compromising material’.

          2. I see why you did not use WikePedia…..but “discrediting” is still in the definition you cherry-picked.
            As in “opposition research”, or using foreign actors ( Russian and British) to gather dirt on a political opponent diring a campaign, then labeling the cost of the project as ” legal fees”.

            1. Blackmailing and manipulation are the key features of kompromat. Your broader usage could easily be extended to the DNC, DCCC and Podesta emails that the Russians hacked and disseminated through Wikileaks to discredit or damage Hillary Clinton.

              Did you forget that the specific does not refute the general, nor the general, the specific–least of all one specific refuting another specific???

              1. If you’re done with those weasel-words, will you now proceed to explain what the meaning of the word “is” is?

                1. It’s how the main verb ‘to be’ in the Engish language is turned into slithering and weaseling.

              2. I did not forget the “Dianese language”, which may have evolved from Newspeak.

  14. Interesting for a billionaire celebrity. Truly frightening for the President of the United States! We are now the National Inquirer nation

    1. That began in 1909 when the Democrat Party became Liberal Socialist Progressive Party and used it’s parent parties rule of saying anything to advance the party as the truth and the second offsprings ‘control by any and all means available and ‘take control of education and say it three times then quote yourself.

      1. Michael, you always sound like the Mad Hatter who’s inhaled too many toxic fumes.

        Back in 1909 the Democrats were still a coalition of corrupt political machines and southern Dixiecrats. Not ‘liberal’ in the least by any modern standard.

        1. Ha ha ha. Franklin Roosevelt was serving a term in the New York State legislature in 1909. His patron Woodrow Wilson was elected Governor of New Jersey the following year. Robert F. Wagner I was also serving a term in the New York state legislature in 1909. Cordell Hull was in Congress in 1909.

          1. DSS, Superficial knowledge is something Peter is still trying to master. Deep knowledge is something Peter will never achieve.

          2. DTs:

            No, you’re “tiresome.”

            IMO, you should leave Darren out of it. Take it up with WordPress, get a new computer and/or find another ISP.

            You’re one of those people who thinks he (or she) always has the best/ right answer. Smart gal or guy like you ought to be able to figure it out. Unless there’s not a problem at all and you just want to change your user name every couple of months.

  15. Turley judges our politicians according to the degree to which they take account of what’s convenient for their attorneys. Why does this not surprise me?

  16. Giuliani said, “That is because as President he was interrupted so often with critical and more important matters. It illustrates why Mueller should end this now and media should be fair.”

    If only it were that easy.[Paraphrase] “Mueller should end this now for the good of the country.” Well . . . Maybe that’s why Trump got rid of Gen. John Kelly, who kept on interrupting Trump with matters requiring executive decision-making for the good of the country. Who knows? Maybe that’s why Trump is thinking of replacing Gen. John Mattis, as well. Too many pesky pesterers interrupting Trump’s golf swing with this or that vital national security interest for the good of the country. The last thing any POTUS needs is some special counsel conducting a security clearance background check on a sitting President who may or may not be vulnerable to blackmail that may or may not have been collected upon Trump by his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who may or may not have fed kompromat on Trump to some shorty little Russian named Konstantin Kilimnik (if that even is Boris Badinov’s real name). For the good of the country, already, somebody make it stop. Waaaaaaaaaaa!

    P.S. There are no security clearance background checks on Presidents of the United States. That’s what elections are for–both the primaries and the general. Besides, being vulnerable to blackmail is not necessarily a crime committed by the blackmail victim. Although, a crime committed by The POTUS could, in theory, be exploited to blackmail The POTUS. Maybe Trump should ‘fess up, now, for the good of the country. What we already know can hurt us . . . anymore than it already has.

    1. People can speculate endlessly on the “kompromat” that the Russian might, or might not have, on Trump. What is not speculation is that the project to gather “kompromat” on Trump was actually put together by Chrisopher Steele for the benefit of the Hillary campaign, which paid for the “kompromat”.
      The Steele/ Russian Dossier is itself the “kompromat”.
      I know how fond one person on this thread is of the word “kompromat”, so “kompromat” it is.

      1. I did not mean to overlook the “kompromat” that Michael Cohen evidently tried to gather on clients by secretly taping them.

      2. Exactly what were Steele, The DNC and Hillary Clinton trying to extort from poor misunderstood Santa Trump? A pardon for Crooked H?

        You do know how blackmail works; don’t you Ptom? If you give the kompromat on Trump to the FBI, you’ll never get your pardon from Santa Trump.

        1. Look up the definition of kompromat….WikiPedia will do fine.
          I don’t know how many times you’ve used that word in these threads….probably a good idea to know what it means.

          1. Kompromat is Russian for compromising information. Most often Russians use kompromat as a tool to recruit informants, moles and double agents. The underlying principle is the same as blackmail. The kompromat extorts favors from the blackmail victim that he or she would not otherwise have granted. Once the kompromat is publicly disclosed, its value as blackmail is absolute zero. Hillary did not extort anything from Trump and the Steele dossier ended up with The FBI. Now, if you’re suggesting that The FBI used the dossier to extort a favor from Trump, then you would have to shoulder the burden of proof for that “suggestion.”

            1. “Kompromat” does not necessarily involve blackmail, as you well know, or should know.
              Paying to dig up “dirt”, or “compromising/ damaging” material on a political opponent, does not necessarily gave to involve blackmail.
              “Discrediting/ damaging/ smearing”, with or without blackmailing, is a form of kompromat.

              1. Fine then. Discrediting and damaging information is also kompromat. Therefore, the entire Russian hack and leak operation against Hillary Clinton qualifies as kompromat. Nevertheless, there’s no indication that Russia tried to extort anything from Hillary Clinton with any of the kompromat they hacked and leaked.

                1. There is known “collusion” on one side, with the involvement of the Hillary campaign in the Steele/ Russia Dossier project.
                  We may at some point get answers from the Soecial Counsel about the ostensible purpose of its investigation….unless Mueller wants to keep any “final report” he might make a secret as well.
                  But I agreed that opposition research is itself a quest for kompromat….the difference in the 2016 campaign is that we know with certainty that one side bought and paid for foreign (British/ Russian)
                  opposition research.

                  1. You also know damned well that that opposition research was given to The FBI.

                    Had any of the members of the Trump campaign or Trump associates who may very well have been told that the Russian had hacked the DNC and were willing and able to disseminate that stolen information to discredit or damage Hillary Clinton only gone to The FBI with that knowledge, then it would not have been necessary constant to disabuse you of this particular one of your many sniveling false equivalencies.

                    P. S. You have yet to address the comment that set you off on your quest to demand a definition of kompromat. Paul Manafort was not working for HIllary Clinton. Paul Manafort was working for Oleg Deripaska, to whom Manafort owed $19 million, and with whom Manafort communicated extensively throughout his stint with the Trump campaign by way of that shorty little Russian agent Konstantin Kilimnik. The easiest way for Manafort to settle his debt with Deripaska may very well have been to collect and to communicate kompromat on Trump to Konstantin Kilimnik who would then have given that kompromat to Deripaska and to Putin, too, who could then use that kompromat to extort favors from Trump by means of blackmail.

                    1. Yes, I “know damned well” that the FBI was, at least for a time, working in tandem with Christopher Steele.
                      And it must be comforting for you to know that the strong anti-Trump statements made by Strzok and Page, the relationship of Bruce and Nellie Ohr to Steele and Fusion GPS, and other factors resulted in a de factor teaming of the FBI and DOJ with the opposition research done for team Hillary.
                      Not everyone shares your view that this was some sort of holy alliance, but if it works for you, what the hey…go for it.
                      We had an extended exchange on the definition of kompromat yesterday.
                      I have no interest in your Gish Galloping “PS/ BS” that you now want to introduce.
                      I know “damned well” who Manafort worked for and worked with.
                      But thanks anyway for the news flash that Manafort was not working for Hillary.
                      I congratulate you for getting that right, anyway.
                      Find someone else who’s willing to waste time trying to keep an exchange with you on track…if you can one who is also willing to put in a c.4 hour shift every morning interpreting Dianese
                      Happy trolling.

                    2. I’m glad that you know that Manafort worked for Trump without pay so that Manafort could settle his $19 million debt to Deripaska by collecting and communicating kompromat about Trump to Konstantin Kilimnik. It’s just as important to know what one is ignoring as it is to ignore whatever it is or might be that one does not yet know–such as, Manafort collecting and communicating kompromat on Trump to Konstantin Kilimnik to settle Manafort’s $19 million debt to Deripaska. for instance.

                      And then there’s the fact that we do not yet know what the kompromat, itself, might be. Which is what makes such kompromat so valuable for blackmailing and manipulating people such as The POTUS, Trump, in the first place.

                      You’d think that Mueller would place a very high priority on publicly disclosing whatever kompromat on Trump that Manafort may have given to Kilimnik. Unless there’s some sort of serious threat to the vital national security interests of the United States that would follow from such public disclosure that would be worse than the threat of blackmail against The POTUS, Trump.

                    3. Tom, you are arguing with the “if” gal. If such and such then… OR “who may very well have been” which could just as easily be “who may not have been’. Virtually everything she says is an uncertainty based on nothing from which she draws conclusions. Her entire statement above is nothing more than a verbose “if” statement that rings totally hollow and isn’t accompanied by any proof.

                    4. All-In said, “Virtually everything she says is an uncertainty based on nothing from which she draws conclusions.”

                      L4D had originally said, “There are no security clearance background checks on Presidents of the United States.”

                      All-In remains a drive-by commenter utterly divorced from every dialogue at which he shoots his little spit wads from his little zip gun.

                    5. “All-In said, “Virtually everything she says is an uncertainty based on nothing from which she draws conclusions.””

                      I comment about Diane’s use of the words “if” “may” etc., all inexact words that are meaningless except in Diane’s dreams. She can write paragraphs of such garbage without including anything factual or anything that actually happened.

                      This is to the if-gal Diane.

                    6. and who knows what trump and flynn have on Meuller and others.

                      as you say that’s what makes it powerful

                      http://kunstler.com/

                      The media branch of “the Resistance” wet its pantsuits last Friday when Robert Mueller released sentencing memos on Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, the human keys to the dungeon they would like to toss Mr. Trump into. Over in the House of Representatives, incoming Judiciary Committee chair Jerrold Nadler spooged himself into a rapture as visions of impeachment lap-danced in his head. Their victory orgasms may prove premature.

                      The memos themselves were not all they were cracked up to be. Despite Mr. Mueller turning the screws of federal prosecution on them for months on end, neither Manafort or Cohen has composed the narrative the Special Counsel wants, so the memos were, in effect, an attempt to run some high voltage through the screws, to goose out a last-minute change-of-heart in the two patsies. Manafort has been stuffed into solitary confinement and Cohen threatened with forty years of jail time, Their stoicism so far suggests this is not the triumphal climax that the spinners of RussiaGate seek.

                      Mr. Trump’s response to all this has seemed, at best, retiring and ineffectual. He’s actually done next to nothing to fight back, besides some juvenile tweets, issued perhaps to alert his antagonists that he’s paying attention. Given the lack of evidence for the basic predicate of RussiaGate — that the Trump election campaign “colluded” with Russia — and the abundant evidence of crimes against Mr. Trump by his adversaries in prosecuting this fraud, and the legal machinery silently in motion backstage of RussiaGate — there’s a lot of room for the story to flip upside down.

                      For instance: the matter of General Flynn, the sacked National Security Advisor, who got his charging memo the week before last. The terms were surprisingly lenient: no jail time. The public, egged-on by the Resistance media, is led to believe that Gen. Flynn handed Mr. Mueller a wooden stake to drive through the Golden Golem’s wicked heart and was aptly rewarded. Gen. Flynn has said almost nothing for more than year and the impression of him in the media is of a completely beaten-down, broken man. I’m sure the ordeal has been grotesque for this once-powerful warrior. But his breakers forget that Gen. Flynn himself was an experienced spook who ran the Defense Intelligence Agency, an outfit possibly more secretive and potent than the CIA and the FBI. We might assume that he still has friends and supporters there, and that Gen. Flynn may be sitting on interesting intel of his own on his inquisitors, ranging from the election misdeeds of the FBI and DOJ in 2016 all the way back to the Chief Inquisitor’s (RM’s) actions in the Uranium One scheme that funneled over $150 million into the Clinton Foundation, and also to manifold irregularities in the Obama White House around these matters.

                      Gen. Flynn may actually have the goods on the fraud behind his own prosecution — namely, proof of exactly how he was set up by Mr. Obama, in particular his own tapes of conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that would show something different than the transcripts Mr. Mueller used to entrap him on Lying-to-Federal-Prosecutors rap. That theory raises the question: why did he not use it in his own defense. The answer may simply be that he didn’t want to rack up $2.5 million in billable hours for defense attorneys and chose instead to tough it out for nearly two years until he could use the information he has. And that means he must wait until final sentencing when his case is complete.

                      That appears in the offing, perhaps even before Mr. Mueller releases his much panted-over final report. Of course, Mr. Mueller may have absolutely no idea what Gen. Flynn has got on him — hence the speculation about why the charging memo was so lenient. But that line of reasoning suggests that Gen. Flynn will just forget about the disgrace Mr. Mueller put him through and let bygones be bygones. That’s not how warriors roll. More likely, Gen. Flynn has something more severe in mind. For all of his horse-faced gravitas in the photos of his fleeting sightings, Mr. Mueller does not look to me like a man in a comfortable situation.

                      Mr. Comey will be making a return visit to the House committee where, last week, he weaseled his way through seven hours of forgetfulness, and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch will make her long-overdue first appearance to do some ‘splainin’ about the fishy confab she held with Bill Clinton on the Tarmac in Phoenix around the time that Mr. Comey was preparing to drop the “matter” involving Mrs. Clinton in July of 2016.

                      Backstage for the moment, there are two other vectors in motion: whatever Mr. Huber is up to in his mission to examine all those FBI / DOJ ? CIA operations against Mr. Trump, and the parallel inquiry of Mr. Horowitz, the DOJ Inspector general. Mr. Huber will be heard from for the first time this week, and Mr. Horowitz’s report is expected soon, too. Finally, there is the Trump card, so to speak: the president’s power to declassify reams of documents that will shed light in all of the dark chambers of this fairy-tale castle. Wait for it….

    2. Who said Meuller was finished. If he stops know after wasting 35 million dollars he looks the craven fool and sell out. But perhaps he prefers that and collecting on the inevitable boring bogus book deal payoffs.

  17. What they are doing to Trump is unfair. Presidents are honest, mostly. Why don’t they pick on Obama or Hillary?

    1. Where’s the “sport” in picking on Obama or Hillary? No True Sportsman lies for the sake of covering up “crimes” (real or imagined). Those daring gentlemen who lie simply for the love of covering up perfectly legal behavior are The True Sportsmen of The Great Swamp.

  18. It was a mistake for Trump, a Yorkie, to hire a Yorkie lawyer. And, to hire a WOP. By that term I mean Wise Old Pussface. Not a person without papers.

    1. I make this comment due tothe fact that Trump was on a twit this morning and referred to “Rudy” as “a friggin WOP.”

  19. So we are to believe Giuliana’s vague criticism of the President (“a nightmare”) but not his exonerating explanation (“preoccupied with state business”)? Okay, does that say more about Giuliani or us?

    1. It looks to me like both Giuliani and Trump were playing the-perception-is-the-reality game. That they each have a different “perception” than one another doesn’t entail that one of those “perceptions” must be “the reality.” The possibility that neither of those “perceptions” is “the reality” has not yet been eliminated. (Nor confirmed.)

      1. What has been proven so far? NOTHING. A few side issues but as to the main requirement we are back at day one when all Meuller has to say was “Collusion is not a crime – case closed.”

        The rest including repeating compromat umpteen times is just window dressing the failure of the usual BS artist wannabes.

    2. Mespo,..
      In observing Guiliani over the past c.year, it looks to me like the guy has gone soft in the head.
      I’d chose the rabbi Elaine confided to on Seinfeld over Rudy for discretion.

  20. The fact of the matter, and it is an established fact, with proof in the thousands of examples, is that Trump lies, talks out of both sides of his mouth, and is not even aware of this. Trump’s lies and BS are based on the concept of, if you never admit wrong then you have done no wrong, if you never admit lying then you have always told the truth. Even when he says, ‘I just make stuff up.’.

    1. Issac:
      Whatever his level of veracity, Trump is on the right course on defense, economics, immigration and foreign policy. That those critical items of Presidential responsibilities never enter your mind brands you the out-of-touch crank many here understand you to be.

      1. Trump’s preoccupation with official duties is a fine reason for taking so long to answer Mueller’s questions. Why Trump would pretend otherwise is a mystery best explained by Trump’s refusal to consult with let alone heed, advice from his lawyers. You see, Giuliani is probably trying to setup an objection to further subpoenas from Mueller once Trump loses his assertion of executive privilege over any decisions Trump made as President-Elect during the transition period. That would be the exact sort of thing that would make Trump a nightmare client.

        1. Trump’s preoccupation with himself is what keeps him from official duties. Trump doesn’t think much before he moves. He golfs more than Obama whom he criticized for golfing too much. Trump’s preoccupation with tweeting uses up almost all of his headspace, and there’s not much going on there.

          1. Mr. Basonkavich, you are, of course, right, as usual.

            Trump took such a long time answering Mueller’s questions because Trump had first to figure out what answers Manafort, Cohen and Flynn had given Mueller. Since there was no way for Trump to figure out what Flynn was telling Mueller, Trump just sidestepped that particular issue with a thoroughly bogus assertion of executive privilege over the transition period when Trump was only President-Elect–not yet sworn-in as POTUS.

      2. You didn’t mention that he’s a monster. Certainly there are many with clear minds and open hearts who recognize Trump’s position on defense, economics, immigration and foreign policy are all terrible…

        2. Who specifically. His main base which provided 40% of the votes cast don’t think so. Neither does his secondary base the Constitution supporters of the Repubican Party don’t think so. But who cares what the real majority thinks when you can quote BS hocus pocus inaccurate cherry picking paid off polls?

          Now we have even more of the BS creatures exposed referring to the Justice Department lawyers who accompanied Crony Comey to his first disastrous for his current set of sessions with Congress.

      3. No more so than Obama. Trump fabricated a state of alarm in the minds of dupes and then put himself forward as the ‘only’ one who could fix, something that was doing fine. The problems of America go way back and won’t be fixed by Trump, only made worse. Unemployment was dropping under Obama. Wages were going up under Obama. Undesirable illegals were being deported in record numbers. Foreign policy is a joke. The US military has been over sized and inefficient for decades. Obama used the military selectively, something that Trump has continued, not originated. Trump laid out the old line, that nothing has been done right, everything is failing, and only he could fix it. One of the things he was going to fix was to take out the special interests and oligarchs from the power equation. Trump is the head oligarch and has put America back decades from getting anywhere near the democratic representation envisioned by the founding fathers. Almost all polls agree with me, except the lone poll Trump reads.

        1. As with many of Isaac’s posts, it’s diffucult to prioritize the order/ size of his exaggeration, inaccuries, and spin.
          Let’s take his statement that “The U.S. Military has been oversized and inefficient for decades”.
          The number of active duty service personnel, currently at c.1.3 million, is probably at it’s lowest level since the 1930s….when the population was about a third of today’s population.
          Some of the most dramatic downsizing occurred in the 1990s, following the end of the Cold War and the conclusion of the first Gulf War.
          This was one factor that helped to stabilize deficits in the 1990s, and the plans/ beginnings for that downsizing were already in the works under Bush 41.
          If a c.50% reduction in force(from the average of the last few generations) is deemed insufficient by an expert like Isaac, it”s not too much too ask the conclusions of his “analysis” re the proper size of today’s military.
          Maybe another 50% reduction in force?
          The other claim by Isaac that is even more laughable is his repetition of his glowing praise for Obama’s foreign policy, and how “wisely” Obama used the military.
          That presumably would include Obama’s farcical “ending of the War in Iraq”, the need to reintroduce U.S. forces there after ISIS walked in and took over a third of Iraq ( again, after Obama “ended” that war).
          The “Mubarek must go”, “Gaddafi must go”, and “Assad must go” farces of the so-called “Arab Spring” should all be consideted in evaluating Obama’s foreign policy.
          If the absolute best case scenario resulted from the current negotiations with North Korea, you could rely on Isaac showing up here and telling us how it was really all due to Obama.😉😊

          1. Tom, if Issac were in command in the early 1940’s we would be speaking German. If he were in command in the 50’s we would be speaking Russian. If he were in command at a later date we would probably have ended up in a nuclear war.

Comments are closed.