The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

 

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s lawyer, may end up being the strongest witness against president we’ve seen thus far. He just may not realize it yet.

In his short stint as Trump’s legal defense attorney, his embarrassing habits have not just been a spectacle — they’ve seemed to raise serious legal problems for the president.

The case where his behavior has seemed most damaging has been in the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal hush money cases, for which Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen has been sentenced to prison. Speaking with “Fox & Friends” on May 3 about the Daniels allegations, Giuliani said, “Imagine if that came out of October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton . . . Cohen didn’t even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”

This implied, clearly, that the payment was a campaign contribution — as Cohen, the parent company of the National Enquirer, and federal prosecutors have all said — which is why it was illegal.

Since Cohen pleaded guilty to the crimes, the president’s team has tried to claim the hush money payments weren’t campaign contributions. But as Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake pointed out Monday, Giuliani’s Sunday ABC News interview actually undermined this argument.

Giuliani tried to claim that, as long as the payments were made for a reason other than the campaign, then they wouldn’t run afoul of election law.

“If there’s another purpose, it’s no longer a campaign contribution — if there’s a personal purpose,” said Giuliani.

But Blake explained why this is wrong:

The law does not say that a campaign finance violation exists only if the “sole purpose” of it is to affect a campaign. In fact, it says a contribution is “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” This definition doesn’t carve out exceptions for things that were also for personal purposes (indeed, if that were the case, basically nothing would qualify). Instead, it says anything with a campaign benefit is a contribution.

So clearly, Giuliani doesn’t understand the law in question. But even worse, his comments appear to be an admission that helping the campaign was a clear purpose of the payment.

When, during his ABC New interview, George Stephanopoulos said that the AMI payment to Karen McDougal would be “clearly illegal” as a campaign contribution, Giuliani said, “No, it would not be.”

He continued: “It’s not a contribution. It’s not a contribution if it’s intended for a purpose in addition to the campaign purpose.”

This would seem to be a clear admission that the AMI payment was made, at least in part, for a campaign purpose. Since Giuliani is wrong that any additional purpose excludes the payment from being a campaign contribution, it seems nearly certain that he just admitted his client broke the law.

Watch the clip below:

Cody Fenwick is a reporter and editor. Follow him on Twitter @codytfenwick.

 

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Donald Trump

Youtube Screenshot

New details about the direct role that Donald Trump played in developing a strategy to overturn the 2020 election were revealed in a federal court filing from election coup attorney John Eastman late Thursday.

Eastman is several months into a battle to keep records of his work for Trump in the run-up to January 6 confidential. but in his latest parry to bar access to emails he says should be protected under attorney-client privilege, he has revealed that Trump sent him at least “two hand-written notes” containing information “he thought might be useful for the anticipated litigation” challenging election results.

Keep reading... Show less

Rep. Matt Gaetz

Youtube Screenshot

Reps. Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene are defending their vote to restrict low-income families' ability to buy formula during the ongoing shortage.

Two Republican lawmakers are upset that Congress overwhelmingly voted to ease restrictions for poor families to purchase infant formula during the current shortage, saying that allowing low-income families to obtain life-sustaining nutrition for their infants comes at the expense of more well-off families.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}