Rudolph Giuliani has never forgiven Hillary Clinton for outflanking him on numerous fronts and prompting his withdrawal from a U.S. Senate seat in New York that he believed should be his.
Giuliani's ferocious anger and heavy layer of hubris were comparable to efforts of the Republican right when Bill Clinton's strategy ploys resulted in his wresting the White House from a party that profoundly believed that the presidency was its personal property due to a perceived built-in permanent advantage in the Electoral College. That ferocity reached its intensity with a concerted effort by Republicans in the House and Senate to remove Clinton from the Oval Office for lying about an extramarital sex act with a White House intern on an affidavit in a civil action.
Giuliani during the period just prior to the election became initially carried away with glee and was ultimately compelled to play defense in a series of television interviews in which he sought to boost Donald Trump for the presidency. He felt on comfortable ground in the first interview on the familiar terrain of Fox and Friends. He could not contain his glee in stating that in two days the presidential race in which Hillary Clinton held current momentum would be altered. His expression and tone embodied naughty glee, of a cat that had devoured a canary.
Any veneer of cockiness on Giuliani's part vanished in his ensuing series of interviews. Those occurred on CNN, a network that Trump put on his list of media outlets seeking to rig the election against him. His interviewer was veteran U.S. and international television journalist Wolf Blitzer. Giuliani knew that Blitzer interviews would not be cheerleading sessions in which he could take bows and inflate his ego.
The interviews were disasters for Guiliani. Given his cocky assurances of a presidential race changer in two days, experienced journalist Blitzer sharply probed to learn how Giuliani had become aware of the day when FBI Director James Comey made his announcement that the investigation into the email messages on then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private computer server was being reopened. When Guiliani was asked by Blitzer whether he had been informed about the announcement that would be made two days later, the respondent timidly exclaimed that he did not have such information. His verbal wiggle resulted in something to the effect that his awareness related to rumblings about the Republican campaign's plan to release compelling evidence damaging to the Clinton cause but did not relate to the Comey announcement, which could presumably be attributed to coincidence.
Blitzer turned up the heat in asking Guiliani if information he received concerning Clinton's email travails had been received from current FBI sources. The former U.S. Attorney for the Manhattan District knew what such an admission would portend on a legal ethics scale. He nervously replied that all conversations he had concerning all aspects of the Justice Department investigation were with former rather than current FBI agents.
Blitzer's next question discombobulated Giuliani even more. Blitzer coolly asked the former federal prosecutor about a recent interview with conservative talk show host Lars Nelson. Blitzer explained that Guiliani had told Larson that he had discussed the Clinton email issue with current FBI operatives. A clearly nervous Giuliani was compelled relating to fears that a tape could be produced of the Larson interview to state that if he had made such a comment that he had misspoken on that occasion.
As a trained attack dog of the Republican right the battered former prosecutor sought to turn the tide at the close of the interview by employing the tactic that the best defense was a good offense. In response to a Blitzer question over whether he would be willing to answer questions in an investigation into the subject matter they had discussed, he sought to display a confident smile and asserted that he was not like individuals from the Democratic side who had taken the Fifth Amendment and sought to avoid responding to questions. He assuredly would testify fully on all matters without taking the Fifth Amendment.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
