Does Giuliani have rabies?
Jennifer Rubin wonders what the deal is with Giuliani.
For months, I have been suggestingthat cable news networks stop giving air time to Rudolph W. Giuliani, who often makes patently false statements, doesn’t appear to be doing any real lawyering for President Trump and intentionally misstates the law (unless he’s forgotten everything he learned as a prosecutor, in which case he is unfit to represent the president). Now, Trump and his real lawyers might agree that Giuliani should go away.
Why? Well because of this funny new ploy of going on tv to say hey collusion isn’t even a crime anyway so chill.
For more than a year, Trump has insisted the Russia investigation is a “witch hunt” because there was “no collusion”; now Giuliani seems to be saying Trump may have colluded, but that collusion is no big deal. (Query whether Giuliani thereby confessed his client has been obstructing a legitimate investigation.) Putting aside the legalities, Giuliani is hinting that Trump is a liar who perhaps betrayed his country and let a foreign country help determine the outcome of a presidential election.
Moreover, whatever you call it — collusion, conspiracy, coordination — it isillegal to seek something of value from a foreign national during a federal campaign; it is illegal to make use of stolen materials (emails) you know were ill-gotten; and it is illegal to cover up that scheme (by, among other things, drafting a phony story to explain a meeting of conspirators). If Trump did any of those things, he is in deep legal trouble.
Then there’s the part about how he said that meeting doesn’t matter because Trump wasn’t there and also besides there was no such meeting. It’s my impression that good lawyers try not to give two contradictory exculpatory explanations of things.
Trump and his team seem convinced that the only risk here is of impeachment, a political act. Therefore, so long as they keep Trump’s state TV hosts and his low-information cultists on his side, the president will be able to avoid removal, and maybe even impeachment, the thinking goes. Hence, Giuliani is there, like a warm-up comedian, keeping the audience engaged, delighted and wanting more.
The problem with that approach is three-fold. First, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and the Justice Department could reverse course and decide that the president is indictable, or file a sealed indictment to be opened when he leaves office. Second, Trump’s children and close relatives are facing their own potential liability for soliciting something of value from the Russians, and possibly lying about their activities. If Trump tries pardoning them, the impeachment train will leave the station. And finally, it just might be that when Mueller finishes his report and Trump has driven the GOP into the ground (with huge losses in the midterms), Republicans do start insisting he go. If Trump lied about collusion and, in fact, approved collaboration with Russia, at the very least, reelection becomes an uphill climb.
Meanwhile, Giuliani is a non-stop warm-up act.
Trump is now apparently echoing the “not a crime” defense… So now we know he did it.
He’s always claimed he was not subject to the laws (only by taking one law he isn’t subject to, which was dangerously short-sighted in the first place, and extending that to all other laws).
Yes, but now he’s claiming that collusion is not illegal. That’s as good as saying “Yes, I did it, but so what?”
This was always going to be the progression:
1. The Russians didn’t interfere in the election. Could have been some 400-pound guy in his basement who hacked the DNC!
2. Ok, maybe the Russians interfered, but it was completely independent of the Trump campaign. We never spoke to any Russians!
3. Ok, sure, we met with some Russian agents. But there was no collusion!
4. Ok, perhaps a teensy bit of collusion. But that isn’t a crime!
5. Yes, we conspired with the Russians to steal information from Democrats, but it was the smart and patriotic thing to do. Why, Hillary’s emails were just sitting there, wearing a short skirt….
I don’t think Guiliani is really doing Trump any favors with his performance, but he’s right that this isn’t about the law. Even Rubin’s argument kind of circles back to politics:
“First, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and the Justice Department could reverse course and decide that the president is indictable, or file a sealed indictment to be opened when he leaves office.”
They could, but Trump can just fire those DOJ officials and appoint new ones who will withdraw the indictment. The only thing stopping him is Congress.
“Second, Trump’s children and close relatives are facing their own potential liability for soliciting something of value from the Russians, and possibly lying about their activities. If Trump tries pardoning them, the impeachment train will leave the station.”
Well, so Rubin claims. But impeachment is explicitly a political process, not a legal one. As long as the base sticks by Trump, then GOP Congresspeople will stick by him, and there will be no convictions in the Senate without GOP votes.
“And finally, it just might be that when Mueller finishes his report and Trump has driven the GOP into the ground (with huge losses in the midterms), Republicans do start insisting he go. If Trump lied about collusion and, in fact, approved collaboration with Russia, at the very least, reelection becomes an uphill climb.”
Maybe. But again, this is a political calculus.
So Trump’s team, ultimately, is correct to view this as a political exercise. They don’t have to beat Mueller in a courtroom, they just have to give their base cover to stay onboard.
The next episode of Ken Whites podcast with Josh Barro should be good.
https://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/lrc-presents-all-the-presidents-lawyers/pay-with-cash?utm_content=74831654&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter