Wreck-It Rudy
Welcome to the free weekly edition of Popular Information, a newsletter with original research and fresh insight into the political news that matters most — written by me, Judd Legum.
There are no advertisers or wealthy donors supporting this work. It is powered exclusively by readers. Please consider subscribing for $6 per month or $50 per year.
In return, I'll bring you groundbreaking research and deep insight into the political news that matters most, four days per week. I'll draw on my extensive background in politics and media to decode the chaos, and deliver perspective and context you won't find anywhere else.
If something is holding you back from subscribing, I'd love to hear from you. Shoot me an email at judd@popular.info.
Wreck-It Rudy
The President of the United States is in serious legal jeopardy. He faces the possibility of criminal prosecution (before or after leaving office), impeachment, and the dissolution of his company.
Trump's primary lawyer and public spokesman is Rudy Giuliani. But every time Giuliani speaks, he seems to make things worse.
Sunday morning was no different. In a pair of interviews on ABC's This Week and Fox News Sunday, Giuliani misstated the law, ignored the facts, and revealed damaging new information.
Since Trump retained Giuliani last April, the former mayor of New York City has conducted an utterly disastrous public legal defense.
The John Edwards defense
Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, is headed to prison for three years -- in part for pleading guilty to two felony campaign finance violations. Shortly before the 2016 election, Cohen facilitated 6-figure payments to two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, who said they had affairs with Trump. In Cohen's sentencing brief, prosecutors in the Southern District of New York asserted that Cohen made the payments "in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1," better known as Donald Trump.
Appearing on ABC News, Giuliani argued that the payments to Daniels and McDougal were "not a crime." To support his point, Giuliani relied on the case of John Edwards. During the 2008 campaign, a wealthy benefactor paid money to Edwards' mistress. A jury deadlocked on the core campaign finance violations in that case, and the government ultimately decided to drop the charges.
Giuliani said the Edwards case proves that payments have to be for the "sole purpose" of benefiting the campaign to violate the law.
"If there is another purpose, it's no longer a campaign contribution," Giuliani said, "If there is a personal purpose… in addition to the campaign purpose."
The judge in the Edwards' case, however, did not agree with Giuliani's interpretation of the law. Here's an excerpt from the judge's jury instructions:
The government does not have to prove that the sole or only purpose of the money was to influence the election. People rarely act with a single purpose in mind. On the other hand, if the donor would have made the gift or payment notwithstanding the election, it does not become a contribution merely because the gift or payment might have some impact on the election...If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that one of [the] purposes was to influence an election, then that would be sufficient. [Emphasis added]
Ultimately, the jury did not find there was enough evidence to convict Edwards. But the facts in Trump's case are much different.
The corroborating evidence
In the criminal information that served as the basis of his guilty plea, Cohen admitted that the purpose of the payment was to influence the federal election:
MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, caused and made the payments described herein in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. In so doing, he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments.
Taken together with Cohen's claim that Trump directed him to make the payments, it paints a grim scenario for the president.
Giuliani, however, asserts that Cohen is a liar. Therefore, since the government's case against Trump would rely so heavily on Cohen's testimony, he would not be in serious legal jeopardy.
"There would be no way they would know that other than taking Cohen's word for it," Giuliani said on ABC.
Giuliani has his facts wrong again.
Last week, prosecutors revealed a cooperation agreement with AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, which made the payment to Karen McDougal. As part of the agreement, AMI admits it made the payment to influence the presidential campaign.
As part of the agreement, AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate's presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.
Prosecutors also have cooperation agreements with David Pecker, the CEO of AMI, and former Trump Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisenberg, who also may have had a role in the transaction.
In the case of John Edwards, prosecutors were trying to establish a circumstantial case that the payments were made to influence the election, but there was no one involved in the transaction saying that. The transaction was between Edwards and heiress Bunny Mellon, who was 101 at the time of the trial and too frail to testify.
In Trump's case, the payment to Karen McDougal arose out of a meeting between Trump, Cohen, and Pecker. Everyone at the meeting except Trump appears prepared to testify that the payment was made to influence the election.
FLASHBACK: Giuliani said Cohen did his job because he helped Trump get elected
On Sunday, Giuliani said the notion that the payments were made to influence the campaign was a lie, invented by Michael Cohen. He insisted that Trump made the payments to protect his family.
STEPHANOPOULOS: In this case you have contemporaneous witnesses saying it was for the campaign, you have a statement of facts saying the president met -- Donald Trump met with David Pecker a year before -- right after the campaign --
GIULIANI: And I -- and I can produce -- I can produce an enormous number of witnesses that say the president was very concerned about how this was going to affect his children, his marriage, not just this one but similar -- all those women came forward at that point in time, that -- that tape with Billy Bush and all of that. It's all part of the same thing. And I know what he was concerned about and I can produce 20 witnesses to tell you what he was concerned about.
But in May, Giuliani appeared on Fox & Friends and said that Cohen did what he needed to do because he helped Trump get elected.
“Imagine if that came out of October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton…Cohen made it go away. He did his job,” Giuliani said.
What did the president know and when did he know it
Giuliani burst onto the scene last May and immediately announced that Trump did not learn about the payments to McDougal and Daniels until a few days earlier. At the same time, he acknowledged that Trump had reimbursed Cohen for the payments in 2017.
This made no sense, and Trump told reporters that Giuliani was mixed up. "[Giuliani] started yesterday. He will get his facts straight. Virtually everything that’s been said has been said incorrectly,” Trump said.
Eight months later, Giuliani still doesn't have his facts straight.
"The president didn't know about this [the payments] until some time into it. He did find out about it and eventually reimburse him," Giuliani said on ABC on Sunday. In other words, Giuliani claimed Sunday that Cohen made the payments on his own and Trump found out about it sometime later and reimbursed him.
But George Stephanopoulos reminded Giuliani that Cohen released a tape of his conversation with Trump where they are discussing the payment to McDougal in September 2016. Giuliani's response is that Trump forgot about that phone call.
"I wouldn't have been able to remember a lot of things that would have happened in September of 2016," Giuliani said.
Rudy's big reveal on Trump's Moscow project
Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress. He testified that Trump stopped pursuing a lucrative deal to brand a tower in Moscow in January 2016. Cohen later admitted that he actively pursued the project until at least July 2016.
Stephanopoulos asked Giuliani if Trump was aware that Cohen was pursuing the project. Giuliani revealed that in written responses to questions posed by Mueller, Trump said he might have discussed the Moscow project with Cohen through November 2016.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Did the president – did Donald Trump know that Michael Cohen was pursuing the Trump Tower in Moscow into the summer of 2016?
GIULIANI: According to the answer that he gave, it would have covered all the way up to – covered up to November, 2016. Said he had conversations with him but the president didn’t hide this.
The project, which Cohen pursued through connections to Russian government officials, could have been worth hundreds of millions to Trump, according to prosecutors. Trump is now saying he may have been actively pursuing such a deal through his entire presidential campaign.
While these discussions were apparently ongoing, Trump publicly said he had no business dealings in Russia. The New York Times reports that "on at least 23 occasions since the summer of 2016, Mr. Trump has said either that he had 'nothing' to do with Russia, or that he has 'no deals,' no investments and no 'business' in Russia."
There are no advertisers or wealthy donors supporting this work. It is powered exclusively by readers. Please consider subscribing for $6 per month or $50 per year.