Skip to comments.Rumsfeld Shuts Down The View: ‘Enormous Difference’ Between Collusion and Interference
Posted on 05/25/2017 5:44:43 PM PDT by Kaslin
On Thursday’s The View, guest Donald Rumsfeld wouldn’t take the bait when hosts Joy Behar and Sunny Hostin repeatedly pressured the former Secretary of Defense to sentence Donald Trump to impeachment. “Why would you want to engage in hypotheticals?” Rumsfeld pointedly asked the hosts, after they aggressively tried to get Rumsfeld to make a legal judgement on the sitting president.
Midway through the show, the hosts welcomed the former Secretary of State under presidents Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, and tried to tie his experience going through Watergate to the current Russia-White House investigation. Host Joy Behar listed what she saw as the similarities between the two investigations and prodded Rumsfeld to agree. But he dismissed Behar’s paranoid comparison, calling it “a stretch.”
JOY BEHAR: I see some similarities right now going on. There was a break-in in the Watergate complex. In this case, there was a Russian break-in on the internet. Similar, no? There are other things I have here. There are many similarities. He fired, what’s his name? He fired Archibald Cox, the lead investigator. Trump fired his lead investigator, Comey.
DONALD RUMSFELD: I think drawing those -- suggesting that we're at a point that approximates Watergate I think is a stretch.
BEHAR: Don, I really believe this is worse. The Russian interference---We have a foreign nation interfering with our election. You don't think that's unbelievably sad for this country?
BILA: That’s scary.
At this point, host and lawyer Hostin essentially cross-examined Rumsfeld, repeatedly asking him to confirm that Trump should be impeached, (if there was collusion with Russia.)
The View: Behar, Hostin Pressure Rumsfeld to Sentence Trump to Impeachment
Rumsfeld refused to go into hypotheticals with Hostin, asking: “Why would I want to ‘if’ that? Why would you want to engage in hypotheticals?” He then called out the pair for “jumping to conclusions.”
HOSTIN: There is an investigation going on. If he is found to have coll--
RUMSFELD: And we’ll find out what the investigation proves but we don't know the answer.
HOSTIN: If it's true, should he be impeached?
RUMSFELD: If it’s true? What is ‘it?’
HOSTIN: If his administration colluded with the Russians to win this election should he be impeached?
RUMSFELD: I haven’t seen any evidence that they have colluded--
BEHAR: If if if!!
RUMSFELD: Why would I want to ‘if’ that?
HOSTIN: Hypothetically, Secretary.
RUMSFELD: Why would you want to engage in hypotheticals?
HOSTIN: Because it could become reality.
RUMSFELD: This man was elected President of the United States. There is an investigation on the subject you have cited, which is perfectly appropriate. Every administration has investigations.
HOSTIN: And a special prosecutor.
RUMSFELD: Nothing has been concluded, but I have a sense you may be jumping to conclusions.
HOSTIN: But it's a hypothesis.
BEHAR: But she’s not jumping to conclusions when she is it is a fact that the Russians interfered in the election. We know that for a fact.
Rumsfeld brought up that Russia and other countries have attempted to interfere in our elections many times before, saying this was nothing groundbreaking. Behar snarked, “So it’s okay then?”
RUMSFELD: Do we think other countries haven't had -- messed around in our country before? Lots of countries are interested in making mischief in our country.
BEHAR: So it's okay then?
RUMSFELD: No, it's not okay.
BEHAR: Supposedly, these are enemies of the United States.
Before cutting to commercial, Rumsfeld blasted the leading questions coming from Hostin and Behar, stating they were “taking a leap” for confusing attempted interference and collusion with the White House:
RUMSFELD: But you're taking a leap from another country horsing around in our business and collusion. And there is an enormous difference.
HOSTIN: If there is collusion, isn't that an impeachable offense?
RUMSFELD: Well---if there’s anything-- [raising hands] I mean, ‘if if if?’
He was Secretary of Defense twice. He was never the Secretary of State.
Joy’s brain would be taxed to maximum overload to tell us exactly what the Russians DID to interfere in the elections.
But it’s a FACT, donchaknow.
“Girl Power” fails again...and rightly so!
These lying sacks of s*** Liberals will manufacture lies and false “evidence” every time if given any opening to do so.
I did not know that there was a PROSECUTOR appointed. Who is that and what crime is being prosecuted.
Joy would tax her brain to tell you from which direction the sun rises.
Secretary Rumsfeld, IMHO- should not have lowered himself in stature, by going on this pimple on a tapeworm’s butt of a show. The combined intelligence factor of the hosts, divided by the combined intelligence factor of the live audience- equals a mathematical solution of negative description, that has yet to be identified, let alone solved.
Why Republicans go on this cocamamie show is beyond me. The sea hags are always on the attack and never are they gracious hosts.
Girl Power? These are not girls, these are hens.
Is it illegal for a candidate for US president to seek the endorsement of the Prine Minister of Great Britain?
Hypothetically, if my grandmother had b**** she’d be my grandfather. These “women” are absolutely nuts. But we already knew that.
I have never watched that show and never will
Normally I would agree. Then I notice a cat toying and playing with a mouse, not even interested in eating it, just tormenting it for the cat’s own amusement.
Rumsfeld is so many orders of magnitude above the collective intellect of The View hosts that the contest wouldn’t be fair even if Rumsfeld handicapped himself by drinking heavily and taking sedatives before he went on.
Is it specifically illegal for agents of a foreign government to hack a server in the United States? Is such a law even enforceable? I’m not saying such an action is okay, but would it not be considered either espionage or an act of war rather than a violation of US criminal law?
Is collusion between an American citizen and such foriegn agents, if proved, also actually illegal? I assume it would be, under some espionage act, but I’m not really sure.
Maybe Rumsfeld misses being well known and essential to the nation. He withstood quite a lot of opposition during the Bush Years. Still, I wish he had chosen some other venue to resurface. Even an establishment GOP would know The View is mostly enemy territory. Maybe he likes the challenge of “Taming The Shrew”.
“Hypothetically, if my grandmother had b**** shed be my grandfather.”
Or in these perverted days could be “non-binary” or “gender-fluid” or some other nonsense. LOL.
The View of shrieking banshees and blowhard harpies.
Rumsfeld made easy work of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.