Quantcast
Connect with us

Trump team ‘is as incompetent, shambolic, paranoid, and given to conspiracy theories as it appears’: MSNBC panel

Published

on

In a Sunday evening panel discussion, MSNBC commentators explained that the White House appears to be just as chaotic and marred by chaos as the rumors say.

Many in the White House learned that the president’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was working overseas in Ukraine. Giuliani claimed that he’s been producing a film that he couldn’t get Fox News to run, as it will appear on the fringe network OAN.

ADVERTISEMENT

“What Rudy Giuliani is doing is using Kremlin-manufactured propaganda as a defensive shield for the president,” said CNBC’s John Harwood. “Fiona Hill was unambiguous in her testimony to the intelligence committee. What Rudy Giuliani has been doing with these two indicted men who are linked to a Russian oligarch who is tied to Russian organized crime, is trying to manufacture a story that Ukraine, rather than Russia or in addition to Russia or differently from Russia, meddle in the campaign. That is false.”

He specifically named Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Kennedy (R-LA), who both have taken up the Kremlin talking points to help defend accusations against Russia and the U.S. president.

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens said that it further indicates that the administration is just as disorganized as rumors say.

“The overall picture for me is that the administration, internally, is as incompetent, shambolic, paranoid, and given to conspiracy theories as it appears to be from the outside,” he said.”I think that’s really the striking feature.”

While Secretary Mike Pompeo may be the confirmed head of the State Department, it appears Trump has assigned Giuliani to conduct foreign policy in secret.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We have an administration that believes in conspiracy theories that are clearly manufactured or serve the interests of Russia,” Stephens continued. “And a Republican Party that gets behind what it would’ve opposed if a Democratic administration had been behaving in exactly the same way.”

Watch the full discussion below:

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

CNN

Angry Alan Dershowitz goes off on ‘two bullies’ Anderson Cooper and Jeff Toobin when confronted with his hypocrisy

Published

on

On Monday's edition of CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz went on the defensive as Cooper and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin confronted him with his prior statements that impeachment doesn't require a criminal act for President Bill Clinton — which he now says is required for President Donald Trump.

"Back then you said that it certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president, who abuses trust, and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime," said Cooper.

"Well, that's true. You don't need a technical crime. That's my position today," said Dershowitz. "I've said right from the beginning you need criminal-like behavior akin to bribery and treason."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘It’s not persecution when someone disagrees with you’: Panel makes a fool out of Santorum for a second time in one night

Published

on

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) had a second round of being shouted down on Monday night when he randomly went off about religious freedom during a CNN panel discussion about impeachment and losing female support.

A recent CNN poll showed that the president is quickly losing support from women, with few ways to ever get them back. Santorum argued he managed to pass some small stipend of paid family leave.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Mitch McConnell is ‘trying to filibuster the Senate trial’: Law professor blasts ‘the master of the dark arts’

Published

on

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Monday released his proposed resolution for the rules that will govern President Donald Trump's impeachment trial.

Attorney Luppe Luppen, writing under his @nycsouthpaw account on Twitter, offered his analysis of the rules.

"If I’m reading this right, and I like to think I am, they’re going to have 24h of argument from each side, 16h of questioning, THEN a debate about witnesses, and ONLY AFTER THAT are they going to decide what documentary evidence is admissible in the trial," Luppen summarized.

His analysis was noted by Fordham Law Prof. Jed Shugerman, who has both a Juris Doctor and PhD in history from Yale, suggested the move was similar to a filibuster.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image