Rudy Giuliani is mystified as to why Fox News won’t air him: ‘They just say I’m banned’
September 24, 2021, 9:08 PM ET
For customer support contact
support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to
corrections@rawstory.com.
Stories Chosen For You
Bill Barr, once Donald Trump‘s favorite attorney general and the one who was seen as his “faithful protector and personal henchman” for his “willingness to enable Trump’s darkest impulses,” came out swinging against his former boss Tuesday, refuting his “witch hunt” claims, and saying the ex-president “jerked” DOJ around over hundreds of classified and top secret documents he refused to return.
“I think if based on the facts, as the facts come out, I think over time, people will say that this is not a case of the Department of Justice, you know, conducting a ‘witch hunt,'” Barr told CBS News Tuesday, ahead of what many believe is an impending indictment on what experts say could include charges of obstruction of justice and charges under the Espionage Act.
“In fact,” Barr continued, praising his former agency, “they approached this very delicately, with deference to the President, and this would have gotten nowhere had the President just returned the documents.”
Instead, Barr said, Trump “jerked them around for a year and a half. And the question is, did he deceive them? And if there’s evidence of that, I think people will start to see that this says more about Trump than it does the Department of Justice.”
The ex-president who is once again running to retake the Oval Office, Barr says, is “so egotistical that he has this penchant for conducting risky, reckless acts to show that he can sort of get away with it.”
“It’s part of asserting his ego, and he’s done this repeatedly at the expense of all the people who depend on him to conduct the public’s business in an honorable way. And, you know, we saw that with both impeachments, and there’s no excuse for what he did here.”
Referring to what many believe is an impending indictment over the classified documents he removed from the White House and refused to return, Barr added, “I’ve said for a while that I think this is the most dangerous legal risk facing the former president. And if I had to bet I would bet that it’s near.”
He said DOJ would not try to indict “if there’s not enough evidence, but from what I’ve seen, there’s substantial evidence there.”
But true to form, Barr also defended his former boss.
Whether what Trump’s done is “a crime or not remains to be seen,” he said, while refusing to weigh in on whether or not he thinks Trump “deceived” DOJ.
Later in the interview, Barr went full-force on supporting Trump’s claims that the Russia investigation was a hoax.
“I went into the administration halfway through, and I did it at a time where I felt he was being treated unfairly on the Russia gate thing. I thought that was, you know, turned out to be I think a big lie,” Barr said.
“And I felt that he was the duly elected president and he deserved a chance to conduct his administration. And I went in because I thought I could help stabilize things and also have the administration conducted in an appropriate way. And as I felt the idea that the election was stolen was a big lie.”
And despite it all, despite everything that has come out about Trump’s actions and alleged actions, despite the looming indictment – on top of a current indictment – Barr says if Trump is the Republican party’s nominee for president he will still support him.
“I don’t see myself not supporting the Republican candidate,” Barr said.
Taking a swing at President Joe Biden, Barr said neither the current nor the former president are “fit for the office.”
“But if I’m confronted with that choice, I have to go with policy, who’s closest to me on policy,” regardless of who might be convicted of breaking the law, including on our national secrets.
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Two mothers who lost their children to reckless drivers have launched a hunger strike in an effort to force New York state to let New York City set its own speed limits, Streets Blog reported.
Amy Cohen, who lost her 12-year-old son Sammy, said the discomfort of a hunger strike is nothing compared to what she endured after her son's death.
“People ask, ‘Won’t it be hard to not eat anything for a couple days?’ And I share that every day is already very hard. In the first two years after Sammy died, I hardly ate," she said.
"Truthfully, I thought if we just all starved, I wouldn’t have to live this life anymore,” said Cohen, whose son is the inspiration for the "Sammy's Law" bill. “Sammy experienced so much pain because … the car went right over his torso. If he can endure that pain and struggle for his life for five hours, and not make it, I can make a few days without food.”
If passed, Sammy's Law would allow New York City to set speed limits below 25 miles per hour. It was first brought in 2020 but was put on the shelf after some lawmakers expressed reservations about its provisions.
“You guys rarely see me cry. But I’m just angry, angry that some assembly members reach out to our community when we lost a member to say, ‘I’m sorry, I’m here with you,’” said fellow hunger striker Fabiola Mendieta-Cuapio, whose 5-year-old son Bryan was killed by a driver in 2006.
“But now, when we need your support, when we need you to be transparent, you’re hiding. That’s not OK. We need to pass Sammy’s Law today, no more excuses.”
Read the full report over at Streets Blog.
CONTINUE READING
Show less
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a Florida state law that banned minors from receiving gender-affirming care was discriminatory and he blocked the state from applying it to three children whose parents sued.
The rebuke was a stinging message to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and Florida's Republican-controlled legislature who have made gender identity issues central to their agenda.
Legal analyst Chris Geidner revealed that U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that the ban on gender-affirming care in Florida's S.B 254 was unconstitutional in that it was “targeted at a discrete and insular minority" and existing laws prevent such discrimination.
The ruling blocks the state from applying the ban to three minors whose parents sued the state claiming it would cause "irreparable harm" if the children couldn't continue to access treatment, Politico reported.The ruling only affects those three, but suggests others could successfully challenge it.
“Nothing could have motivated this remarkable intrusion into parental prerogatives other than opposition to transgender status itself," Hinkle wrote.
“The State of Florida’s decision to ban the treatment is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest,” Geidner cited from Hinkle's ruling. He called it a decision "fatal to the bans."
"The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset," the ruling continued. "Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear. The medical defendants, speaking through their attorneys, have admitted it. At least one defense expert also has admitted it. That expert is Dr. Stephen B. Levine, the only defense expert who has actually treated a significant number of transgender patients. He addressed the issues conscientiously, on the merits, rather than as a biased advocate."
Geidner called it one of the more aggressive rulings in challenging states trying to limit gender-affirming care.
“The medical defendants, speaking through their attorneys, have admitted [gender identity is real]. At least one defense expert also has admitted it,” Hinkle continued. Some people, however, believe that “transgender individuals have inappropriately chosen a contrary gender identity, male or female, just as one might choose whether to read Shakespeare or Grisham.”
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences
For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}