One-upping Nixon

Nixon famously said if the president does it, it's not a crime, and Trump's cabal is taking that even further to: if the president did it, even as a candidate, it wasn't a crime.  Soon it will be if he did it at any point in his lifetime.

On Monday afternoon, I called Giuliani to try to understand what he was saying about the Moscow negotiations. After telling me that he had only a minute before getting into the shower, he agreed to a conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity.

[...]

I guess the BuzzFeed story—I don’t remember what it said about Cohen—but it said there was corroboration that the President talked to Cohen and told him to lie about, I guess it was, the Moscow proposal. There are no tapes, there are no texts, there is no corroboration that the President told him to lie. That’s why the special counsel said that the story was inaccurate. First time the special counsel has ever done that.

[...]

I can tell you, from the moment I read the [Buzzfeed] story, I knew the story was false.

[...]

Because I have been through all the tapes, I have been through all the texts, I have been through all the e-mails, and I knew none existed. And then, basically, when the special counsel said that, just in case there are any others I might not know about, they probably went through others and found the same thing.

Wait, what tapes have you gone through?

I shouldn’t have said tapes. They alleged there were texts and e-mails that corroborated that Cohen was saying the President told him to lie. There were no texts, there were no e-mails, and the President never told him to lie.

So, there were no tapes you listened to, though?

No tapes. Well, I have listened to tapes, but none of them concern this.

  New Yorker

"I shouldn't have said tapes."

The Times reported that President Trump was involved in discussions about building a skyscraper in Moscow during the campaign, and you acknowledged that, and then, more recently, you said that you didn’t actually know this was the case.

First of all, the Times was absolutely wrong. Probably just as wrong as BuzzFeed was. I never said he had [NARRATOR VOICE:] “conversations about a skyscraper in Moscow.” The only thing that ever happened was that they submitted a letter of intent about a possible project in Moscow that never went beyond that. No money was ever paid, no plans were ever made. There were no drafts. Nothing in the file. Nothing ever happened to it. Much ado about nothing, because the New York Times wants to crucify the President. And the President had no conversations. I shouldn’t say he had no conversations. He had a few conversations about this early-stage proposal that he ended somewhere in early 2016, and doesn’t have a recollection of anything else, and there is nothing to support anything else. This is a story that is completely exaggerated and made up.

[...]

I have said the same thing for two months. And that is that the President had very little involvement in this so-called project in Moscow.

[...]

You said today, “My recent statements about discussions during the 2016 campaign between Michael Cohen and then-candidate Donald Trump about a potential Trump Moscow ‘project’ were hypothetical and not based on conversations I had with the President.”

Correct. I was pointing out how you would deal with it in court if we were going to trial, and how, even if there were such conversations, which there weren’t, they would be completely innocent. Whenever you do that, you always run the risk someone is going to report just the first part of your conversation. But I thought it was necessary to do it. If he had a project in Moscow, there would be nothing wrong with it, but he didn’t.

He had no coversations. I shouldn't say he had no conversations. He had a few conversations. The story is made up. The president had very little involvement. Trump better hope Rudy never has to represent him in a trial.

Not to mention, what Rudy actually did was provide a direct quote from Trump (which he was forced to retract when somebody apparently informed him that he was waiving privilege), saying Trump told him the negotiations for a Moscow tower were "going on from the day I announced to the day I won."

Wait, Mr. Mayor, if he had a project in Moscow that his attorney was discussing and he himself may have been involved in while he was calling for a loosening of sanctions against Russia and a different policy in Ukraine, and the American people didn’t know anything about that, you wouldn’t find that problematic?

First of all, the project was over in November, December, January, right into 2016. So there was no project. So there was no project. There was no project.

The Times reported yesterday, “President Trump was involved in discussions to build a skyscraper in Moscow throughout the entire 2016 presidential campaign . . .”

He’s wrong! They’re wrong!

“. . . His personal lawyer said on Sunday.”

I didn’t say that. Go find out where I said that on Sunday. I never said he was involved in such conversations. I said the same thing I said to you, which is—

The quote in the story from you is that the “ ‘discussions were going on from the day I announced to the day I won,’ Mr. Giuliani quoted Mr. Trump as saying during an interview with The New York Times.”

I did not say that.

The Times just made that quote up?

I don’t know if they made it up. What I was talking about was, if he had those conversations, they would not be criminal.

If he had them, but he didn’t have them?

He didn’t have the conversations. Lawyers argue in the alternative. If we went to court, we would say we don’t have to prove whether it’s true or not true, because, even if it’s true, it’s not criminal.

Again, Trump better hope Rudy doesn't represent him in court. And why are they still calling this idiot "Mr. Mayor"?

I’m a criminal lawyer. I am not an ethicist. And I defend people against unfair criminal charges.

You are also—

No, I am not also anything else. My main obligation is to defend somebody, not to deal with philosophy. The Times deliberately misunderstood what I said. I started the conversation by telling them these conversations didn’t take place. You can’t turn that into “They did take place” when I say, hypothetically, “If they did take place, here are the legal ramifications of it.” It is totally dishonest when you do it. If you want to do it, we can end the conversation.

I want to hear—

I just finished the conversation. You got it. You’ve got my position. Conversations didn’t take place. If you say that I said they took place, you are lying. Now, if you want to discuss a hypothetical, if they took place, what are the legal ramifications of it, I went to law school to learn how to do that. But that isn’t what I said. I don’t know how to make it clearer, and I really don’t have any more time.

[...]

Saying things for Trump, not always being truthful about it—do you ever worry that this will be your legacy? Does that ever worry you in any way?

Absolutely. I am afraid it will be on my gravestone. “Rudy Giuliani: He lied for Trump.” Somehow, I don’t think that will be it. But, if it is, so what do I care? I’ll be dead. I figure I can explain it to St. Peter.

Absolutely, that worries me. What do I care, I'll be dead.

I felt like we were getting somewhere with that St. Peter thing, deep down.

Me?

When you brought up St. Peter. About you being dead and it won’t matter and you can bring it up with St. Peter.

I was joking.

I know you were partially joking, but it felt like we were getting somewhere.

Getting somewhere where?

About you and your legacy and how you see yourself.

I don’t think about my legacy.

[...]

I don’t think, as a lawyer, I ever said anything that’s untruthful. I have a sense of ethics that is as high as anybody you can imagine.

Rudy, we don't have to imagine. You're already beyond Nixon.

I think what he means by the St. Peter thing is he's paying the local archbishop for intercession.  Paying him a lot, so any sins will be absolved.

O.K., time to go.

I would be remiss if I didn’t let you say something for M.L.K. Day.

Oh, my goodness, yes, he was a great hero of mine. I believe he taught me, like he did all of us, how bad segregation was. Those of us in the North wouldn’t have known that without him.

Wow.

UPDATE:









Well, they WERE surprised, and they're not professional interrogators, but it would have been worth it had they just breezed on by that and then later brought it back up casually, with a different angle. "So, are you able to tell us anything at all about what WAS on those tapes you reviewed?"



Bingo.


UPDATE 3/1:  Buzzfeed's story's looking quite accurate now.