The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

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

Tag: rudy giuliani

‘Outraged’ Rudy And Cronies Insist He Was Sober On Election Night 2020

Rudy Giuliani, the former president’s former attorney, says he is “outraged” by the “lie” he claims was told by former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien and longtime Trump spokesperson Jason Miller, that he was drunk on the night of the 2020 presidential election. Giuliani suggested he was drinking “Diet Pepsi,” while his official statement says “diet coke.”

In a tweet filled with several typos that he deleted and did not re-post, the man once nicknamed “America’s Mayor” declared: “I am disgusted and outraged at the out right [sic] lie by Jason Miller and Bill Steppien [sic]. I was upset that they were not prepared for the massive cheating (as well as other lawyers around the President) I REFUSED all alcohol that evening. My favorite drink..Diet Pepsi.”

But Politico’s Nicholas Wu catches that while Giuliani says his ‘favorite drink” is “Diet Pepsi,” his “other official statement says he was ‘drinking diet coke all night.'”

He also tweeted and deleted this: “Is the false testimony from Miller and Steppien [sic] because I yelled at them? Are they being paid to lie?”

Stepien did not state Giuliani was intoxicated or inebriated

On Monday House Select Committee Ranking Member Liz Cheney announced during a live broadcast hearing that Giuliani was “apparently inebriated” that night, a claim supported in sworn, separately videotaped testimony by Stepien and Miller.

The Daily Beast adds that “Giuliani’s allies also rushed to his defense. Former NYPD commissioner [and ex-con] Bernard Kerik ripped into Miller while stating Giuliani ‘was not drinking at all.’ The longtime Trumpworld acolyte added while appearing on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast: ‘I don’t know why he [Miller] made this statement.’ Bannon, a longtime pal of Miller’s, insisted that Giuliani ‘has too much respect for the White House and office of the presidency ever’ [to] be intoxicated like that. Likewise, ex-Trump aide Boris Epshteyn claimed that Giuliani was ‘sober’ that night.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Federal Probe Of Fake Electors Expanding To Multiple States

Months into its expanding campaign to bring the instigators and perpetrators of the January 6, 2021 insurrection to book, the Justice Department is finally setting its sights on the slates of sham pro-Trump electors who sought to overturn then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s victory in multiple states.

A federal grand jury in Washington has in recent weeks issued several subpoenas to individuals in Trump’s inner circle reportedly linked to the sham elector plan, including Rudy Giuliani, former President Trump’s personal lawyer and fixer; Jenna Ellis, an attorney and MAGA Republican who worked with Giuliani on efforts to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence; John Eastman, a former Trump lawyer who concocted a sinister plan to throw out Biden votes and install sham electors to help Trump; and Kenneth Chesebro, an attorney who authored memos supporting the sham electors plan.

The development underscores the degree to which the broad DOJ investigation — which has netted over 800 arrests, 600 charges, 170 guilty pleas, and more defendants than any other criminal prosecution in U.S. history — is moving beyond the actual Capitol attack to look into events that led up to that day.

According to CNN, Federal investigators have spoken to Georgia Republicans about their conversations with members of Trump’s inner circle. CNN said it spoke to a Georgian who was to serve as a fake elector but dropped out. Patrick Gartland, the would-be elector, said FBI agents had visited his home.

"They just asked who talked to me. If anyone from the Trump campaign had been in touch with me. Did Giuliani talk to me? Did Trump talk to me?" Gartland told CNN.

Gartland is one of many connected to the Georgia GOP who were chosen to serve as fake electors but backed out.

Federal investigators have reached out to others connected to the GOP in Georgia, Michigan, and other battleground states seeking to determine the level of involvement, if any, the Trump campaign had with the sham electors’ submission of false election certificates, according to CNN.

Under the Republican-orchestrated alternate electors scheme, election officials in the seven crucial states submitted lists of fake, pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College and a handful of government bodies, including the National Archives and Records Administration. The officials were seeking to overturn the presidential results in some states Biden won, in favor of Trump. The effort was unsuccessful, and Biden won all seven states.

For federal investigators, the question is whether the Trump campaign and GOP in those seven states colluded to fraudulently overthrow Biden’s Electoral College win, or persuaded fake electors with the argument hat Trump’s election fight in the courts would succeed.

Submitting false statements to a federal agency, as the pro-Trump election officials did, is a federal crime. However, no one has been charged yet in the alternate electors probe.

Representatives for Trump ignored requests for comments, as did spokespeople for Giuliani and Ellis.

Let’s Recall The Terrible Things Manafort And Giuliani Did In Ukraine

Though Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is just days old, Russia has been working for years to influence and undermine the independence of its smaller neighbor. As it happens, some Americans have played a role in that effort.

One was former President Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Another was Trump’s then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

It’s all detailed in a wide array of public documents, particularly a bipartisan 2020 Senate report on Trump and Russia. I was one of the journalists who dug into all the connections, as part of the Trump, Inc. podcast with ProPublica and WNYC. (I was in Kyiv, retracing Manafort’s steps, when Trump’s infamous call with Ukraine’s president was revealed in September 2019.)

Given recent events, I thought it’d be helpful to put all the tidbits together, showing what happened step by step.

Americans Making Money Abroad. What’s the Problem?

Paul Manafort was a longtime Republican consultant and lobbyist who’d developed a speciality working with unsavory, undemocratic clients. In 2004, he was hired by oligarchs supporting a pro-Russian party in Ukraine. It was a tough assignment: The Party of Regions needed an image makeover. A recent election had been marred by allegations that fraud had been committed in favor of the party’s candidate, prompting a popular revolt that became known as the Orange Revolution.

In a memo for Ukraine’s reportedly richest man, Rinat Akhmetov, Manafort summed up the polling: Many respondents said they associated the Party of Regions with corruption and considered it the “party of oligarchs.”

Manafort set to work rebranding the party with poll-tested messaging and improved stagecraft. Before long, the Party of Regions was in power in Kyiv. One of his key aides in Ukraine was, allegedly, a Russian spy. The Senate Intelligence Committee report on Trump and Russia said Konstantin Kilimnik was both “a Russian intelligence officer” and “an integral part of Manafort’s operations in Ukraine and Russia.”

Kilimnik has denied he is a Russian spy. He was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for obstruction of justice for allegedly trying to get witnesses to lie in testimony to prosecutors in the Manafort case. Kilimnik, who reportedly lives in Moscow, has not been arrested. In an email to The Washington Post, Kilimnik distanced himself from Manafort’s legal woes and wrote, “I am still confused as to why I was pulled into this mess.”

Manafort did quite well during his time in Ukraine. He was paid tens of millions of dollars by pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and other clients, stashing much of the money in undeclared bank accounts in Cyprus and the Caribbean. He used the hidden income to enjoy some of the finer things in life, such as a $15,000 ostrich jacket. Manafort was convicted in 2018 of wide-ranging financial crimes.

“We Are Going to Have So Much Fun, and Change the World in the Process”

In 2014, Manafort’s plum assignment in Ukraine came to an abrupt end. In February of that year, Yanukovych was deposed in Ukraine’s second uprising in a decade, known as the Maidan Revolution, in which more than a hundred protesters were killed in Kyiv. He fled to Russia, leaving behind a vast, opulent estate (now a museum) with gold-plated bathroom fixtures, a galleon on a lake and a 100-car garage.

With big bills and no more big checks coming in, Manafort soon found himself deep in debt, including to a Russian oligarch. He eventually pitched himself for a new gig in American politics as a convention manager, wrangling delegates for an iconoclastic reality-TV star and real estate developer.

“I am not looking for a paid job,” he wrote to the Trump campaign in early 2016. Manafort was hired that spring, working for free.

According to the Senate report, in mid-May 2016 he emailed top Trump fundraiser Tom Barrack, “We are going to have so much fun, and change the world in the process.” (Barrack was charged last year with failing to register as a foreign agent, involving his work for the United Arab Emirates. He has pleaded not guilty. The case has not yet gone to trial.)

A few months later, the Trump campaign put the kibosh on proposed language in the Republican Party platform that expressed support for arming Ukraine with defensive weapons.

One Trump campaign aide told Mueller that Trump’s view was that “the Europeans should take primary responsibility for any assistance to Ukraine, that there should be improved U.S.-Russia relations, and that he did not want to start World War III over that region.”

According to the Senate report, Manafort met Kilimnik twice in person while working on the Trump campaign, messaged with him electronically and shared “sensitive campaign polling data” with him.

Senate investigators wrote in their report that they suspected Kilimnik served as “a channel for coordination” on the Russian military intelligence operation to hack into Democratic emails and leak them.

The Senate intel report notes that in about a dozen interviews with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Manafort “lied consistently” about “one issue in particular: his interactions with Kilimnik.”

Manafort’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Manafort didn’t make it to Election Day on the Trump campaign. In August 2016, The New York Times revealed that handwritten ledgers recovered from Yanukovych’s estate showed nearly $13 million in previously undisclosed payments to Manafort from Yanukovych and his pro-Russian party. Manafort was pushed out of his job as Trump’s campaign chairman less than a week later.

After Trump won the election, the Senate report says, Manafort and Kilimnik worked together on a proposed “plan” for Ukraine that would create an Autonomous Republic of Donbas in separatist-run southeast Ukraine, on the Russian border. Manafort went so far as to work with a pollster on a survey on public attitudes to Yanukovych, the deposed president. The plan only would need a “wink” from the new U.S. president, Kilimnik wrote to Manafort in an email.

Manafort continued to work on the “plan” even after he had been indicted on charges of bank fraud and conspiracy, according to the Senate report. It’s not clear what became of the effort, if anything.

“Do Us a Favor”

With Manafort’s conviction in 2018, Rudy Giuliani came to the fore as the most Ukraine-connected person close to President Trump. Giuliani had long jetted around Eastern Europe. He’d hung out in Kyiv, supporting former professional boxer Vitali Klitschko’s run for mayor. One of Giuliani’s clients for his law firm happened to be Russia’s state oil producer, Rosneft.

By 2018, Giuliani had joined Trump’s legal team, leading the public effort to discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation. Giuliani saw that Ukraine could be a key to that effort.

Giuliani ended up working with a pair of émigré business partners, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, to make contacts in Ukraine with corrupt and questionable prosecutors, in an effort to turn up “dirt” on Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who had served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. Giuliani also worked to sow doubt about the ledger that had revealed the secret payments to Manafort, meeting with his buddies in a literally smoke-filled room.

Parnas and Fruman told the president at a donor dinner in 2018 that the U.S. ambassador in Kyiv was a liability to his administration.

Trump recalled Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had been a vocal opponent of corruption in Ukraine, from Kyiv in May 2019.

Two months later, Trump had his infamous call with Ukraine’s new President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Zelenskyy asked Trump for anti-tank Javelin missiles. You know what happened next. Trump said he needed Zelenskyy to first “do us a favor” and initiate investigations that would be damaging to Joe Biden. He also pressed Zelenskyy to meet with Giuliani, according to the official readout of the call:

These events became publicly known in September 2019, when a whistleblower complaint was leaked.

“In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election,” the whistleblower wrote.

In December 2019, as an impeachment inquiry was at full tilt, Giuliani flew to Ukraine and met with a member of Ukraine’s parliament, Andrii Derkach, in an apparent effort to discredit the investigation of Trump’s actions. Derkach, a former member of the Party of Regions, went on to release a trove of dubious audio “recordings” that seemed to be aimed at showing Biden’s actions in Ukraine, when he was vice president, in a negative light.

Within months, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Derkach, describing him as “an active Russian agent for over a decade” who tried to undermine U.S. elections. Derkach has called that idea “nonsense.”

In a statement, Giuliani said, “there is nothing I saw that said he was a Russian agent. There is nothing he gave me that seemed to come from Russia at all.” Giuliani has consistently maintained that his actions in Ukraine were proper and lawful. His lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Where They Are Now...

Many of Trump’s allies have been charged or investigated for their work in and around Ukraine:

Paul Manafort: convicted of financial fraud — then pardoned by Trump

Rick Gates: a Manafort aide who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and lying to the FBI

Sam Patten: another Manafort associate convicted for acting as a straw donor to the Trump inaugural committee on behalf of a Ukrainian oligarch

Rudy Giuliani: reportedly under criminal investigation over his dealings in Ukraine; his lawyer called an FBI search of his home and seizure of electronic devices “legal thuggery”

ACLU Sues Maine for Providing Ineffective Defense Counsel

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman: convicted for funneling foreign money into U.S. elections; Parnas’ attorney said he would appeal

Reprinted with permission from ProPublica

Judge Strikes Trump's Immunity Claim, Allowing January 6 Civil Lawsuits

In an expansive 112-page ruling on Friday, D.C. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Donald Trump is not immune from being sued over his actions related to January 6, and that court cases against Trump—as well as members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers white supremacist militias—may proceed.

Dealing with a series of lawsuits as a group, Judge Mehta wrote, “The court holds that all Plaintiffs have plausibly established Article III standing, President Trump is not absolutely immune from suit …” Mehta also dismissed the idea that a lawsuit against Trump automatically became a “political question” that couldn’t be dealt with in court, as well as claims from Trump’s attorneys that he couldn’t be tried because he had been acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial.

Judge Mehta agreed to halt proceedings against Donald Trump Jr. and Rudy Giuliani related to the speeches they gave at the rally preceding the assault on the Capitol. The judge also offered Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) a prescription by which he can avoid legal repercussions from his militant speech that appeared to encourage violence. In all three cases, ruled Judge Mehta, even though the speakers used phrases that could easily be connected to later violence at the Capitol — such as Giuliani calling for “trial by combat” — everything they said was still protected under the First Amendment because they didn’t call for immediate and specific action.

That wasn’t true for Trump. Not only did Trump call for his followers to “fight,” he did so in direct connection with calling for them to march on the Capitol, and with full knowledge that he was attempting to interfere with finalizing the Electoral College vote.

Mehta made it extremely clear that he understood the consequences of this ruling, the context of the legal questions, and the scrutiny it will face.

“To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step. The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent, and the court believes that its decision is consistent with the purposes behind such immunity...”

The only section of the suits where Mehta ruled in Trump’s favor was related to a portion of the suit brought by Rep. Eric Swalwell. That section dealt with claims against Trump for his failure to take action to halt the insurgents, or to bring in additional law enforcement or National Guard to end the threat. This, ruled Judge Mehta, involved questions about Trump acting in his official capacity. As a result, these actions are immune from scrutiny in a civil suit.

That doesn’t apply to Trump’s speech on January 6. Trump’s attorneys had insisted that public speaking was a part of the role of the presidency. Mehta agreed. However …

“But to say that speaking on matters of public concern is a function of the presidency does not answer the question at hand: Were President Trump’s words in this case uttered in performance of official acts, or were his words expressed in some other, unofficial capacity? The President’s proposed test—that whenever and wherever a President speaks on a matter of public concern he is immune from civil suit—goes too far.”

In this case, Mehta focused on Trump’s insistence that his followers march on the Capitol — an action that was not included under the permit for the January 6 rally. In ordering his followers to march, and telling them to fight, Trump was telling them to violate the terms of the permit and encouraging them to engage in violence. That was particularly true because Trump had called for militia groups, like his co-defendants the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, to come to the event and he knew they were present on that day.

Trump’s attorneys had insisted that Trump’s calls to “fight” were nullified by the single time that he mentioned that this should be a “peaceful” event. Mehta also didn’t agree with this statement.

“The President’s passing reference to “peaceful and patriotic” protest cannot inoculate him against the conclusion that his exhortation, made nearly
an hour later, to “fight like hell” immediately before sending rally-goers to the Capitol, within the context of the larger Speech and circumstances, was not protected expression.”

A ruling that any speech goes beyond First Amendment protection is extremely rare, because to do so a speech must not only encourage violence, but encourage specific and nearly immediate violence. But Mehta’s ruling states that Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 — bolstered by the pressure he had applied to get state leaders to overturn the election results, his efforts to push Mike Pence into refusing his Constitutional role, and his attempts to gather violent white supremacists to his cause — fully met that test.

“He called for thousands ‘to fight like hell’ immediately before directing an unpermitted march to the Capitol, where the targets of their ire were at work, knowing that militia groups and others among the crowd were prone to violence.”

Judge Mehta also noted that Trump’s tweets on that day appeared to “ratify” the violence, indicating that the assault on the Capitol was the outcome he had wanted. That included a message Trump sent while insurgents were inside the Capitol criticizing Pence for “not having the courage to do what should be done to protect our Country,” which encourage those already calling for Pence’s execution.

“It is reasonable to infer that the President would have understood the impact of his tweet, since he had told rally-goers earlier that, in effect, the Vice President was the last line of defense against a stolen election outcome. The President also took advantage of the crisis to call Senator Tuberville; it is reasonable to think he did so to urge delay of the Certification.”

Trump started the insurgents on their way, encouraged them when they were involved in the assault, and tried to use the assault for personal advantage.

Mehta also took note of Trump’s tweet from later that afternoon.

“And then, around 6:00 PM, after law enforcement had cleared the building, the President issued the following tweet: ‘These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!’ A reasonable observer could read that tweet as ratifying the violence and other illegal acts that took place at the Capitol only hours earlier.”

Overall, the ruling from Mehta — which is even more dismissive of the objections raised by attorneys for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers — doesn’t just keep the door open for civil action against Trump, it’s a quick reference for what should be future criminal action.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

#EndorseThis: Colbert Hillairously Takes Down Giuliani With Brutal Eminem Rebuttal (VIDEO)

Rudy Giuliani, the disgraceful former NYC Mayor--and weird masked singer on reality TV -- has joined the crowd of conservative old cranks in feigning outrage at Eminem's decision to kneel during last Sunday's epic Super Bowl halftime show. Apparently aiding in a violent coup in order to thwart the peaceful transfer of power is just "legitimate political discourse," but a performer peacefully exercising his First Amendment right to protest police violence is just way too extreme in Giuliani's distorted worldview.

"Why doesn’t he go to another country? Go take a knee someplace else. You know how many cops were defending him and protecting him at that game yesterday? I mean, crime is way out of control in Los Angeles. He thinks that all happened because everybody loves Eminem," said Giuliani.

However, some seem to think that Eminem wasn't kneeling in solidarity with Colin Kaepernick but rather in support of the late rapper Tupac as his song began to play.

Regardless of the rapper's motives, Stephen Colbert simply couldn't resist the urge to brutally mock Rudy and opened The Late Show with an Eminem parody that brutally assessed the former president's former lawyer.


Michael Hayne is a comedian, writer, voice artist, podcaster, and impressionist. Follow his work on Facebook and TikTok

Danziger Draws

Jeff Danziger lives in New York City. He is represented by CWS Syndicate and the Washington Post Writers Group. He is the recipient of the Herblock Prize and the Thomas Nast (Landau) Prize. He served in the US Army in Vietnam and was awarded the Bronze Star and the Air Medal. He has published eleven books of cartoons, a novel and a memoir. Visit him at DanzigerCartoons.

The Trump Coup Is Ongoing -- And 'Moderate' Republicans Enable It

Some look back on the events following Donald Trump's 2020 election loss and think we dodged a bullet: There was a coup attempt, and thankfully it failed. Others believe that the whole thing has been overblown. Even as evidence piles up that the coup was far more extensive than siccing a mob on the Capitol, those two takes seem unshaken. There is another way to look at it: The coup is ongoing. With every new revelation about how extensive Trump's efforts to overturn the election were — and they are arriving on an almost daily basis — the flaccid response of Republicans makes the next coup that much more thinkable.

Trump, we now know, paged through the federal departments and agencies looking for willing insurrectionists. He explored the possibility of having the Justice Department seize voting machines in swing states (Bill Barr shot down the idea), and then considered installing Jeffrey Clark as attorney general in Barr's place (a threatened mass resignation stayed his hand). He then turned to the military and considered using his emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to permit the Pentagon to seize voting machines and other records.

Things had gone as far as the drafting of a presidential "finding" about nonexistent fraud. Trump also tested the waters at the Department of Homeland Security, asking Rudy Giuliani to see whether the (unlawfully appointed) acting deputy secretary, Ken Cuccinelli, would seize the voting machines under that department's auspices. Cuccinelli begged off.

This comes on the heels of revelations about phony slates of electors. Eighty-four Republicans from seven states signed bogus documents claiming that Trump had won their states and sent these fake Electoral College certificates to the National Archives.

Trump was busier attempting to undo the election than he had ever been as president. He summoned the leaders of the Michigan legislature to the White House after the election to convince them to certify that their state, which voted for Biden, had voted for him. He cajoled and threatened Georgia's secretary of state to "find" 11,780 votes. He phoned local election officials to pressure them to say they found fraud, buzzed the Arizona governor repeatedly even up to the minute he was signing his state's certification, and strong-armed the vice president to, in Trump's own words, "overturn the election."

A little-noticed feature of the stories about Trump's thus-far unsuccessful efforts to stage a coup is that even among the MAGA crowd, some things were considered beyond the pale. Barr was willing to swallow a lot, but he couldn't go along with lying about imaginary vote fraud. The high-ranking lawyers at the Justice Department were Trump appointees, but they would resign en masse rather than see Clark subvert the department for plainly unlawful ends. Brad Raffensperger voted for Trump but refused to lie for him. Cuccinelli was Trump's loyal immigration hawk, but he couldn't see his way to using his Homeland Security post to confiscate voting machines and commit fraud. And though Mike Pence, pressed hard by Trump for the last full measure of devotion, wavered (he phoned former Vice President Dan Quayle for advice), in the end, he did what he knew was right.

A healthy body politic, like a healthy physical body, needs antibodies. It needs certain automatic defenses. The actions of those Republicans were the vestigial antibodies of a healthy democracy. The people who made those crucial decisions were acting out of a sense that anything less would be dishonorable and would be perceived as such by the whole society.

But would they make the same decisions today? Every single time a Republican suggests that what Trump did and attempted to do was anything less than a five-alarm fire, they are weakening our immune system.

Sen. Susan Collins was asked whether she could support Trump in 2024. She declined to rule it out.

Just think about what message that sends to the rank and file about what is beyond the pale and what isn't. If Collins might even support Trump, maybe it's not such a big deal.

On the anniversary of January 6, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sneered at what he called "nauseating" remembrances, adding that "it's an insult to people when you say it's an insurrection." Another blow to the concept that something truly awful happened that must never be repeated.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin has not hesitated to appear on the John Fredericks radio show since his inauguration. Fredericks was the host of a rally in October that featured an American flag that had been carried at the "peaceful" January 6 protest. Fredericks also ladles out big helpings of election falsehood to his listeners.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has announced a new podcast, hosted by Sen. Rick Scott, to help 2022 GOP senate candidates. First scheduled guest: Donald Trump.

It was not just an attempted coup. The steady sapping of republican virtue continues.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the Beg to Differ podcast. Her most recent book is Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at

#Endorse This: Kimmel Rips Fox Executives For Presenting Giuliani As Masked Singer

Never missing an opportunity to completely embarrasses and prostitute himself, disgraced former New York mayor and leaky Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was revealed to be a contestant on this week's season premiere episode of The Masked Singer. The show is garbage and thus right up Giuliani's alley, but the mere fact that he was on caused two of the show’s judges — Ken Jeong and Robin Thicke — to justifiably walk off the set in protest.

Late Night host Jimmy Kimmel, who has been on fire with his takedowns of all the deranged right-wing clowns in Trump Land, was quick to assail Fox for allowing this to take place, saying network executives "should be ashamed of themselves."

“Speaking of garbage, you know the show ‘The Masked Singer?’ Okay, well, the new season doesn’t premiere until next month, but the identity of one of the singers has been revealed. And his name is Rudy Giuliani,” Kimmel said.

“The guy who’s trying to destroy our country? He’s singing on a show.” “The only people who should be unmasking Rudy Giuliani is the gang from Scooby Doo, you know? ‘Now let’s find out who the real traitor is!'”

“How does this even happen?” Kimmel continued. “I mean, a lot of people at Fox had to sign off on this. Not one of them was like, ‘Hey, maybe we shouldn’t have the guy who is under investigation for helping to plot an insurrection signing on our show?'”

“Why would Rudy even agree to do this? Did he think he was going to ‘The Masked Singer Landscaping Company?’ Kimmel joked. “Only Rudy Giuliani would try to overthrow their government, break wind loudly in court, have another one next to a dildo store – and then try to rehabilitate his image by singing ‘Shake Your Groove Thing’ dressed as a pineapple.”

Watch the entire takedown below:

Michael Hayne is a comedian, writer, voice artist, podcaster, and impressionist. Follow his work on Facebook and TikTok