The President’s Lawyer Had Better Review His Conspiracy Theory

As I laid out last week, I provided information to the FBI on issues related to the Mueller investigation, so I’m going to include disclosure statements on Mueller investigation posts from here on out. I will include the disclosure whether or not the stuff I shared with the FBI pertains to the subject of the post. 

There’s one more part of Rudy Giuliani’s hat trick yesterday that deserves closer attention. On both NBC and ABC and NBC, Rudy addressed the June 9 Trump Tower meeting. On NBC, Chuck Todd emphasized how often the story has changed about the meeting — both Trump’s own story, and the three versions of the story put out exactly a year ago. As such, Todd doesn’t talk about what crime the meeting might pertain to.


–Mr. Mayor, in the public record– and you and I have actually had a discussion about one of these, in the public record, we have the president admitting that he misled the New York Times on the Donald Trump Jr. statement when it came to his role in the infamous Trump Tower meeting of June of 2016. You said there’s nothing — this is a public record of the president contradicting, and I know it is not a crime for the president to lie to us in the media. However, how is that not itself probable cause for Mr. Mueller to want to question the president?


Well, because the fact is that also in the public record is the conclusion of that meeting. And that is that nothing was done about it. That the person came in under the guise of having information about, about Clinton but also to talk about adoptions. All she did was talk about adoptions —


Wait a minute.


— and sanctions.


First of all, we don’t know that. That has not been fully–


Well, we do know that because–


–established. The story changed three times, Mr. Mayor. So if the story changed, how are we–


No, no, no, no.


–so sure? Look, your own legal partner here in the president’s team, Jay Sekulow, misled me. Now, you had said he didn’t intentionally do that. I take your word.


He didn’t.


I take your word at that. But somebody misled him then. Your client may have misled him.


They already have all these facts. They can do with them what they want. They don’t need – I, I can tell them that the president’s testimony will be exactly the same as he said about this.


Which part? What he said in the public record or when he– we don’t know what he said–


What he has said–



In the very last line of the exchange, however, Rudy gives away the game. He says “there was no discussion with [Trump] about this and there were no” and right here, he corrects himself and says, instead of whatever he almost said, “that nothing happened from it.”


He has had an opportunity to think about it, to refresh his recollection. He’s given a statement about it. And it’s clear that there was no discussion with him about this and there were no – that nothing happened from it.

That is, Rudy isn’t talking about what Todd might be — obstruction. Rather, he’s talking about whether anything came of the meeting, at which dirt was promised and sanctions relief was requested.

Rudy reveals even more to Stephanopoulos over on ABC. In addition to claiming that he, Rudy, doesn’t believe Trump knew about the meeting, he twice says the meeting amounts to different recollections (and attributes those recollections to the campaign that four of the participants weren’t contesting).

STEPHANOPOULOS: There was another question that came up in my interview with Michael Cohen and it had to do with the Trump Tower meeting, that famous (inaudible) Trump Tower meeting, Don Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort all met with these Russians who had indicated they had some dirt on Hillary Clinton.

When I asked Michael Cohen did the president know about that meeting ahead of time, again he refused to answer in advice of counsel. What is the answer to that question?

GIULIANI: Don’t believe he did know about it, don’t believe he knew about it afterwards, I think that you could have very, very different recollections on that because it was right — right in the heat of the campaign.

And I — I was probably there that day. I don’t — I don’t remember it. Did somebody say something to me? I don’t know, it goes off in your — you know what a campaign is like, it’s complete helter skelter.

Again, it doesn’t mean anything because it resulted in nothing. That went nowhere, she tried to get back in, she didn’t, they never did anything with it (ph).

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well what it could mean is that — that the president, as Tina (ph) said, he didn’t know about in advance. If it turns out that he did, then at least he hadn’t been telling the truth —


GIULIANI: Well I think — I think — I think you end up there with at most differing recollection. Since nothing happened with it, there’d be no reason to hide it. I mean he could have said yes, they did tell me about it, and what happened? Nothing.

Given the context, it’s pretty clear what recollections Rudy might have in mind: whether Don Jr said his father would revisit sanctions if he won the election. But on that front, among the six people who submitted testimony to SJC on the topic (Jared would have left before this), there’s not actually much disagreement.

Natalia Veselnitskaya said Don Jr said they’d revisit the topic.

Mr. Trump, Jr. politely wound up the meeting with meaningless phrases about somewhat as follows: can do nothing about it, “if’ or “when” we come to power, we may return to this strange and confusing story.

Ike Kaveladze said that Don Jr said they might revisit the issue if his father won.

There was no request, but as I said, it was a suggestion that if Trump campaign ins, they might get back to the Magnitsky Act topic in the future.

Rinat Akhmetshin said that Don Jr said they would revisit Magnitsky when they won.

A. I don’t remember exact words which were said, but I remember at the end, Donald, Jr., said, you know, “Come back see us again when we win.” Not “if we win,” but “when we win.” And I kind of thought to myself like, “Yeah, right.” But it happened, so — but that’s something, see, he’s very kind of positive about, “When we win, come back and see us again.” Something to that effect, I guess.

Anatoli Samochornov, Veselnitskaya’s translator, who is the most independent witness and the only one who didn’t compare his story with others, said that Don Jr said they would revisit the issue if Trump won.

A. Like I described, I remember, not verbatim, the closing that Mr. Donald Trump, Jr., provided, but that’s all that I recall being said from the other side.

MR. PRIVOR: That closing being that Donald Trump, Jr., suggested —

MR. SAMOCHORNOV: If or when yes, and I do not remember if or when, but if or when my father becomes President, we will revisit this issue.

Just two people remember it differently. In an answer that, in some respects, exactly tracks statements that were massaged elsewhere by Trump’s lawyers, Rob Goldstone said Don Jr told Veselnitskaya to raise it with Obama.

And he stopped this in its tracks and said, with respect, I suggest that you address your — what seemed very valid concerns but to the Obama administration because they actually are in power. My father is a private citizen and, as such, it has no validity, of what you’re saying. Thank you very much for coming. I appreciate all your time. You know, we have a very busy schedule, and thank you.

And Don Jr himself remembers he ended the meeting by saying his father, a private citizen, couldn’t do anything about this.

I proceeded to quickly and politely end the meeting by telling Ms. Veselnitskaya that because my father was a private citizen there did not seem to be any point for having this discussion.

Which is to say everyone whose statement wasn’t massaged by Don Jr’s lawyer says he did suggest Trump would revisit the issue after the election, which is surely why half of the people at the meeting worked on setting up such a meeting.

Now, Rudy suggests that’s all good because nothing actually came of it. There are several problems with that. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30121 makes it a crime to solicit or offer support from a foreign national, which is one of the crimes that NSD has already said might be charged in this case. Arguably, that’s what the meeting did. All the more so if the emails that got dumped a 6 days later were tied to Don Jr’s agreement to revisit sanctions.

But Rudy doesn’t consider whether Mueller could charge a conspiracy to do same. There, it doesn’t so much matter whether the conspiracy was successful (and there’s abundant evidence showing both sides continued to try to deliver on this detail). It matters whether two or more people made an agreement to conspire to violate US regulatory functions.

(1) two or more persons formed an agreement to defraud the United States;

(2) [each] defendant knowingly participated in the conspiracy with the intent to defraud the United States; and

(3) at least one overt act was committed in furtherance of the common scheme.

Rudy has already admitted to the substance of a ConFraudUs case.

28 replies
  1. CaliLawyer says:

    I’m still flabbergasted that everyone around El Prezo believes he’s completely incapable of not perjuring himself.

    • CaliLawyer says:

      Maybe I should say I can’t believe this is the core defense argument, which I’ve never seen in my years of practice.

      • Avattoir says:

        It’s a perfectly good ‘defense’, so long as it’s run before a jury made up of no one other than your most dependent relatives, your key bidnitz associates, your largest creditors, and typically credulous Trumpalos.

  2. Rusharuse says:

    All OK! long as they “leave Ivanka alone”.
    “If they do do Ivanka, which I doubt they will, the whole country will turn on [Mueller]. They are going after his daughter?”
    “I think I would get on my charger and go right into—run into their offices with a lance if they go after her,”
    Get back under your rock . . you Fucking Old Fool!!

  3. pseudonymous in nc says:

    “I mean he could have said yes, they did tell me about it, and what happened? Nothing.”

    That’s where we’re headed. Only question is which source will say he was briefed in: Cohen? An Agalarov? Someone else?

  4. CaliLawyer says:

    Unfortunately, much of the media (much like their horse race campaign fixations) is obsessed with tactics rather than the obvious implications of those tactics – namely that only a guilty man would adopt such tactics. The only other possibility – that he is serially dishonest – is also such a presidential disqualfier that it should be equally scandalous.

    • Trip says:

      Excellent point. We are in the suspension of disbelief phase of journalism and newscasts, where everyone pretends they can’t see the actors in their roles, they give it benefit of doubt, elevate it to neutral ‘strategy’, lest otherwise it would kill the plot/story-line, and the easier discussions they ramble on about. Imagine if they simply pointed out the obvious and reported on hard news. The problem is that the cablenews people are ‘talent/news personalities’ paid by giant corporations with skin in the game, which isn’t much different than the facade the politicians play off of. You can’t dig too deep or the surface will crack.

      • Bob Conyers says:

        The depth of the problem was illustrated for me in this interview with Amy Chozick, the NY Times reporter on the 2016 Clinton beat who wrote a book about her experiences.

        Isaac Chotiner interviewed her — he did the great recent interview pushing back at Jeremy Peters about his dumb Trump supporter article.

        Chotiner picked out a major issue — Chozick’s editor, Carolyn Ryan, was obsessed with gossip about the Clintons, and until Chotiner brings this up, Chozick seems oblivious to how this might have been a problem with the Times’s coverage.

        It’s not just the faces we see and the names on the bylines — the rot goes up the org chart to the people who are really setting the agendas for news coverage.

        <begin> Chotiner:The politics editor of the New York Times during the campaign was a woman named Carolyn Ryan, who you thank in your acknowledgements effusively, and about whom you write “had a more natural ability to get the best out of her reporters than any editor I have ever worked for.” And you also write that she “had a more innate sense of what people wanted to read” than other editors, and “Talking to her set every brainstorming session off on rollicking tangents that included gossip collected in the congressional dining room, on the Washington softball field, and while waiting for the Times’ vending machine to spit out some stale Twizzlers. Unsubstantiated tidbits—particularly involving Bill and Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, and anything related to New York politics—would cause Carolyn to leap across her desk with a ‘No way!’ and ‘We gotta get that in the paper.’ ” You add that she could “weed through two thousand words of crap, pulling out a priceless treasure of an anecdote buried in graph fifteen.” I thought this was an interesting way of introducing the politics editor of the most important newspaper on Earth as it covers one of the most important elections of our lifetime, because it fits with a lot of critiques of the Times coverage, especially around the Clintons—that it was too gossipy and not focused enough on policy. But I thought you meant it basically as a compliment. How do you respond to that?

        Chozick: Oh, that’s interesting. I more meant it how enthusiastic Carolyn got about breaking news. Of course, the unsubstantiated tidbits would have to be reported out, effectively reported out, and sourced in order to get them in the paper. It is not that she wanted to put gossip in the paper. I just think she has a real excitement for breaking news, and we covered every one of Hillary Clinton’s policies, and all the characters—I’m sorry, all the candidates’ policies—but I think, yeah, I was there just trying to show she had really an innate sense of what people wanted to read.


        Charlie Pierce back in 2016 had a nice piece on how awful Ryan was, and her connection to the NY Times’s complete failure covering the election:

        For what it’s worth, Ryan has moved on from being an editor, which would be good news, except now she is in charge of recruiting and hiring the next generation of Times reporters.

  5. Rugger9 says:

    Inconsistencies like these can be glossed over by the MAGATs of Cult 45, but not judges. In addition, the prosecution (OSC and/or one of the state AGs) will have the docs to show the dirty deeds done by Kaiser Quisling. However, will the NYT or WSJ or Faux News cover it?

  6. Trip says:

    Trump doesn’t pay (well). So Rudy going on this theater of the absurd defense tour must mean that he is covering his own arse and has exposure himself.

      • Trip says:


        Also, the conversation? So hey Rod, how ’bout that conspiracy thing with your DOJ and FBI? How about yours, Rudy?

  7. cfost says:

    Recent posts have reminded me of two parallel issues unfolding before our eyes:

    Ever-larger money flows (intra- and inter-national) to politicians, post Citizens United. (Corruption.)

    The emergence of journalism-as-entertainment. (E.g., “the Sunday morning  baffle ‘em with bs.”)

    Neither of these developments is serving our country well. It is hard to imagine any good at all coming from them. If Congress is not going to oversee (or even advise), and journalists lose their spine, how will the man in the street make an informed choice in the voting booth? Rabid ideology and ruthless pursuit of money and power are tearing this country apart. So I say to Marcy, thank you for your service to this country, and may your conscience continue to be your guide. I can point to your situation and say to my kids, “this is an example of how a decent person decides between right and wrong in a difficult situation.”  Historians will point to her and say something good; and they’ll point to one of Trump’s talking heads and say something else.

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Chuck Todd needs to rethink his assumptions.

    In his line of work, he should never take Rudy Giuliani or anyone else at their word.  He should certainly not accept without verification the word of a paid advocate.  He should not accept the unverified assertions of a long past his prime shill – who hasn’t got his facts straight after three months of representing his client – for a president under federal investigation for the multiple crimes that he or his closest associates might have and might still be committing.

    • Trip says:

      “Chuck Todd”, ’nuff said. Isn’t he a Republican, or did he just have civil (polite) man-crushes on people like Paul Ryan?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Or Chuck could just watch Katy Tur or Nicole Wallace.  Both out-interview him handily.  Either could replace him and turn MTP into a watchable program.

      • Danno says:

        That is soooooo spot on. When Nicole and Katy do sit in for him they must light up Twitter like a Christmas tree.


        Chuck is hopeless.

        • bmaz says:

          I won’t watch it if Toddler is there. Just cannot, it is too stupid. Tur does a very nice job though.

Comments are closed.