Russian Connection 4: Do Not Congratulate

[AmazonGrace]

Flynn and Flynn Jr had "a productive meeting" in Kislyak's HOME in 2015... (So at least the Russians have it on tape...) http://beta.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ex-trump-official-michael-flynn-met-russian-ambassador-2015-article-1.3959006

[AmazonGrace]

John Dowd who left had a security clearance... Now: 

Because of course they do.

[Howl]

16 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

As far as Dumpy testifying, if it was sold as a pay-per-view event, it would be the bigliest event ever.

Yup, reality TV at its finest and perfect for Trump, who realizes he'll finally be able to tell Mueller, "You're fired!"  Hilarity ensues. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Howl]

Disclaimer: Yes, Gen. Hayden is a commenter on Faux and likely not as transparent as he seems to be.   Yes, I'm second in line for his new book at the library; it was released yesterday. 

Anybody watching Gen. Hayden as he's making the round of morning talk shows flogging his new book The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in the Age of Lies?  He's on Morning Joe right now deconstructing the significance of the Trump Tower vis-à-vis Russian intelligence.  A key point, perhaps THE key point?  Russian intelligence confirmed that their contact with the Trump campaign was not reported to the Feds. BOOM! Kompromat!  

Watching Morning Joe always reminds me of how much better that show would be without Joe. He can't stop himself from interrupting and talking over others, especially Mika, to interject his self-important comments bullshit.  Drives me CRAZY. You can see him do this with Hayden if you watched the clip. 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

Here's the article Seth's referring to:

U.S. Gives Rusal Path to Escape Sanctions

Quote

The Trump administration on Tuesday amended its Russia sanctions program, paving the way for aluminum giant United Co. Rusal to escape from the blacklist and granting the metals market a reprieve from a supply scare that rocked markets over the past month.

Facing delisting from the London Stock Exchange this week, Rusal’s owner, EN+ Group, sought the 11th-hour amnesty from the U.S. Treasury late last week by pledging that its majority shareholder and a primary target of the U.S. sanctions, Russian tycoon Oleg Deripaska, would reduce his holdings and relinquish his board seat.

The Treasury granted EN+ Group and several other companies an extension for compliance with the sanctions, buying Rusal’s owner time to implement the company’s proposed divestment plan.

Shares in aluminum giant Rusal rose sharply on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange Wednesday, although aluminum prices dipped in Asian trading hours.

The Russian aluminum giant surged more than 10% during the day, and was recently up 9.7%. The metal itself was down 0.2% at $2,254.5 a metric ton on the London Metals Exchange, while the benchmark aluminum contract in Shanghai was down 0.3%.

Rusal’s stock has rebounded in recent weeks and is up 75% from the record low it reached last month in the fallout from the U.S.’s initially proposed sanctions.

Aluminum, which experienced a surge in demand amid related anxiety about supply levels, has fallen 9% from its April high. Prices have whipsawed over the past several weeks as the initial sanctions in early April risked cutting off a major supplier from markets. But prices fell as the Treasury began to signal a way for Rusal to avoid sanctions.

En+ executives and their representatives have scrambled in recent days to convince White House, State Department and Treasury officials that the administration risked missing an opportunity to force Mr. Deripaska out of control if they didn’t grant an extension and the company was delisted from the London Stock Exchange, according to a person familiar with the matter. By sidelining Mr. Deripaska, who is widely believed to be a key ally of President Vladimir Putin, the U.S. hopes to weaken the Kremlin’s power structure.

Still, some Russia hawks in Congress have called for Washington to take even tougher sanction steps against Moscow to discourage Russia from a host of foreign policy actions threatening U.S. interests.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

And another one gone: "White House lawyer Ty Cobb is exiting and will be replaced by Clinton impeachment attorney Emmet Flood"

Spoiler

White House lawyer Ty Cobb, who served as the administration’s point person in dealing with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, is stepping down and is expected to be replaced by veteran white-collar defense attorney Emmet Flood, according to senior administration officials.

Flood, currently a partner at Williams & Connolly, was quietly interviewed by President Trump in March. He served as special counsel in the George W. Bush administration and represented President Clinton during House proceedings to impeach him.

The news of Cobb’s departure was first reported by the New York Times.

In a statement, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Cobb was retiring without offering a reason.

“For several weeks Ty Cobb has been discussing his retirement and last week he let Chief of Staff Kelly know he would retire at the end of this month,” she said.

Cobb’s departure is the latest shake-up of Trump’s legal team and comes as his attorneys face increasing pressure to determine whether the president should agree to sit down for an interview with Mueller.

The special counsel is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice and sought to thwart a criminal probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

One person familiar with the legal team said Flood’s selection came in part because the investigation has reached a pivot moment. Cobb had led the White House’s efforts to produce documents in response to requests from Mueller. Now, the White House is anticipating a possible legal showdown over a Trump interview that could force courtroom action.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Mueller raised the possibility of subpoenaing Trump if he declined to sit down for a voluntary interview.

“You had the discovery phase and now you’re entering the litigation phase,” said the person, who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. “Who do you want on your side if Mueller decides to subpoena the president? You want to have your wartime consigliere. Emmet is a quintessential wartime consigliere.”

Flood also strong ties with a number of other lawyers key to the case. He is close to White House Counsel Don McGahn and with McGahn’s lawyer, Bill Burck, who also represents other key current and former White House staff. He also has a good relationship with Abbe Lowell, who represents Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner

Cobb, 68, a seasoned white-collar defense lawyer who joined the White House team last August from his firm at Hogan Lovells, had repeatedly urged Trump to agree to the interview in order to disperse the cloud of questions hanging over his presidency.

In the last month, however, Trump has hardened against the idea after FBI investigators working with federal prosecutors in Manhattan executed a surprise search warrant of his personal attorney Michael D. Cohen’s office and residences. Among the materials they sought were communications between Trump and Cohen in the lead-up to the election.

In early March, Trump met in the Oval Office with Flood to discuss the possibility of joining the president’s legal team. At the time the president denied reports he was considering adding a lawyer to his team.

Trump tweeted that this was a “false story,” adding, “I am VERY happy with my lawyers, John Dowd, Ty Cobb and Jay Sekulow. They are doing a great job.”

 

[AnywhereButHere]

4 hours ago, Howl said:

Disclaimer: Yes, Gen. Hayden is a commenter on Faux and likely not as transparent as he seems to be.   Yes, I'm second in line for his new book at the library; it was released yesterday. 

Anybody watching Gen. Hayden as he's making the round of morning talk shows flogging his new book The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in the Age of Lies?  He's on Morning Joe right now deconstructing the significance of the Trump Tower vis-à-vis Russian intelligence.  A key point, perhaps THE key point?  Russian intelligence confirmed that their contact with the Trump campaign was not reported to the Feds. BOOM! Kompromat!  

Watching Morning Joe always reminds me of how much better that show would be without Joe. He can't stop himself from interrupting and talking over others, especially Mika, to interject his self-important comments bullshit.  Drives me CRAZY. You can see him do this with Hayden if you watched the clip. 

 

It's annoying. The person who really irritates me is Chris Matthews. Friend or foe, no one can talk without Chris screaming over them. He should just skip the guests altogether and just rant on his own for an hour.

So Cobb is escaping the nuthouse and Flood is entering. I can't imagine what possessed him to take the job. The kind of notoriety that comes with any job in Caligula's orbit isn't exactly good press.

[fraurosena]

What a nice fellow. Such a shame he's got such high legal bills because of the Russian investigation.

Ex-Trump aide decries Senate Russia probe over high legal bills: report

Quote

Michael Caputo, a former communications adviser to President Trump's campaign, blasted the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, saying that its Russia probe has him racking up high legal bills.

"Your investigation and others into the allegations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia are costing my family a great deal of money — more than $125,000 — and making a visceral impact on my children," Caputo told the committee in a prepared statement read during a closed-door interview.

A copy of the prepared statement was obtained by CNN [link]. 

Caputo also said that the Russia investigation has cost him so much money he is being forced to move away from his current home in upstate New York to an area where he can make a higher salary. 

"Now I must to move back to Washington, New York City, Miami or elsewhere, just so I can make enough money to pay off these legal bills. And I know I have you to thank for that," Caputo said, according to CNN. 

"What America needs is an investigation of the investigators," Caputo added. "I want to know who is paying for the spies' work and coordinating this attack on President Donald Trump? I want to know who Dan Jones is talking to across the investigations — from the FBI, to the Southern District of New York, to the [office of the special counsel], to the Department of Justice, to Congress."

"I want to know because God damn you to hell."

Caputo is among several associates of Trump who have hired lawyers to help them navigate the potentially perilous legal ground around the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election. 

Caputo has said that he has no information about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump has denied that anyone on his campaign conspired with Moscow to help sway the election. 

Rachel Cohen, a spokeswoman for Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the intelligence committee, told CNN that the senator would not comment on witness interviews, "regardless of how outlandish or attention-seeking they might be."

A spokesperson for committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) did not respond to CNN's request for comment.

[GreyhoundFan]

16 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

What a nice fellow. Such a shame he's got such high legal bills because of the Russian investigation.

Ex-Trump aide decries Senate Russia probe over high legal bills: report

Cry me a river, Caputo. Don't get involved with Dumpy if you don't have deep pockets for legal bills. This has been the case for 30+ years.

[AmazonGrace]

I am not a lawyer but I watched Matlock: 

If you don't know anything you can tell them everything you know and if you do know something you could plead the fifth. You're welcome, the first consultation is free.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-ty-cobb-special-counsel-interview-trump-off/story?id=54878028

Ty Cobb is retiring to spend more time with his elves.

Or he was forced out because he wants to cooperate with Mueller.
 

Quote

 

While saying he didn't want to speculate where the leak came from, Cobb pointed to some people who may want to undermine a potential presidential interview with Mueller.

"I think it's very difficult to see who if anybody benefits from the leak of that other than people who have been trying to sabotage the possibility of an interview," Cobb said.

 

 

[fraurosena]

So now it's official White House policy to call the Mueller investigation a witch hunt. Wow.

 

[Howl]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

U.S. Gives Rusal Path to Escape Sanctions

Reading about stock market fluctuations -- how long until we discover that *gasp, clutches pearls* the Trump family & "friends"  *cough Hannity cough* have found a way to massively profit from stock market fluctuations related to Trump's "erratic" tariff pronouncements by, just speculating here, selling short?

[fraurosena]

 

[onekidanddone]

Let me understand this. Trump is hiring the same lawyer who represented Clinton during his impeachment. Clinton ended up being impeached. In other words new lawyer lost the case for his client. So yea, go on and hire he guy who lost.

[AmazonGrace]

Mueller is fishing y'all. 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

Quote

 

 

Spoiler

 

WASHINGTON — President Trump plunged into an angry dispute on Wednesday between conservative House Republicans and the deputy attorney general, siding with hard-line lawmakers over his own Justice Department as they pressed for access to sensitive documents related to the special counsel’s investigation and other politically charged cases.

In a Twitter post, Mr. Trump called the legal system “rigged” and amplified the lawmakers’ complaints that the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, was not moving fast enough to turn over the documents they want. The president stepped in just as Mr. Rosenstein appeared to mollify three key committee chairmen who were also demanding internal documents.

“They don’t want to turn over Documents to Congress. What are they afraid of? Why so much redacting? Why such unequal ‘justice?’ Mr. Trump wrote. “At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved!” Which presidential powers Mr. Trump was referring to was not immediately clear.

Distrust between Mr. Rosenstein and Congress has been building over months. In recent weeks, he has made significant gestures to release documents demanded by prominent congressmen, only to be threatened with impeachment by lawmakers from the far-right.

Mr. Rosenstein responded on Tuesday to that threat by declaring that the Justice Department would not be “extorted.”

 

Officials at the department believe that the conservatives have now gone too far with document requests related to continuing investigations that the lawmakers clearly do not support, including the inquiry led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into Russia’s election interference. A former federal law enforcement official familiar with the department’s views said that Mr. Rosenstein and top F.B.I. officials have come to suspect that some lawmakers were using their oversight authority to gain intelligence about that investigation so that it could be shared with the White House.

Mr. Trump’s threat on Wednesday to intervene bolstered those voices and could undermine the Justice Department’s ability to protect some of its most closely held secrets. Lawmakers conducting oversight are usually given summaries of the information, but not the intelligence collected directly from wiretaps and sensitive sources.

Similar standoffs between law enforcement officials and Congress have resulted in compromise dating back decades, but in those cases, the Justice Department had the support of the president. Without Mr. Trump’s support, Congress is gaining the advantage.

Republican lawmakers, for their part, argue that Mr. Rosenstein’s department has slow-walked important requests and withheld crucial details from documents they do turn over — material they say is necessary to doing their jobs. And their threats are hardly veiled.

“Despite his repeated promises to cooperate, Mr. Rosenstein’s supervision of the Department of Justice has been sorely inadequate,” said Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina and one of Mr. Rosenstein’s most outspoken antagonists. “Valid investigative requests from Congress have been slow-walked, stonewalled and impeded at each step of the way under his watch.”

He added, “If Mr. Rosenstein’s hesitance to produce documents and information to Congress represented an effort to save the Department of Justice from embarrassment, it is too late.”

Mr. Rosenstein, aware of the threats against him, has taken unusual steps to try to meet the demands, adding employees to review the requested files and sharing unredacted documents normally off limits to Congress — including memos drafted by the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey about his interactions with Mr. Trump. The department has even set up office space at its headquarters for congressional staff members and lawmakers to review hundreds of thousands of documents already studied by the department’s inspector general, according to a department official.

 

Those efforts have placated powerful Republican committee chairmen.

After Representative Devin Nunes of California, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, threatened last month to hold Mr. Rosenstein in contempt of Congress or proceed with impeachment, Mr. Rosenstein gave him access to an almost completely unredacted F.B.I. memo on the opening of the Russia investigation and won his thanks.

He reached an agreement last week with the two Republicans who run the committees that conduct oversight of the Justice Department, Representatives Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia and Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, to satisfy the last of their demands for documents related to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and other decisions related to the Russia case.

But those compromises may have only emboldened Mr. Trump’s fiercest allies, including Mr. Meadows, the chairman of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, and Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, a former chairman of the caucus. In an unusual show of defiance, both men have insisted that the agreement with the chairmen of the House Judiciary and House Oversight committees is not good enough and that they need access to an unredacted version of an August 2017 memo outlining the scope of Mr. Mueller’s investigation.

Democrats fear that the Republican requests — many of which call on the department to ignore longstanding policy about what it shares with Congress — are meant as a trap. Either Mr. Rosenstein can turn over information that could be used to undermine the special counsel’s inquiry, or he could refuse, giving Mr. Trump cover, or even cause, to fire the deputy attorney general.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the latest Republican efforts were “clearly trying to sabotage” Mr. Mueller’s investigation and court a confrontation with Mr. Rosenstein.

“All of this noise is aimed at undermining the special counsel’s work as the investigation closes in on the president,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement. “The president’s attacks on the Department of Justice grow more paranoid by the day. The case for obstruction of justice — and the complicity of these House Republicans — grows day by day as well.”

Mr. Rosenstein, who has already given the Republican lawmakers access to hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, has made clear in recent days that he does not intend to go further.

On Monday, the Justice Department wrote to Mr. Meadows and Mr. Jordan to deny them access to the document about the scope of the Russia inquiry, citing department policy against sharing information on a continuing investigation.

“The department recognizes the keen interest that Congress has in the special counsel’s investigation, but, respectfully, we must adhere to the longstanding position of the department that congressional inquiries pertaining to ongoing criminal investigations threaten the integrity of those investigations,” Stephen E. Boyd, an assistant attorney general, wrote in the letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times.

 

“We hope you can respect our position,” he added.

And on Tuesday, Mr. Rosenstein, reacting to reports that Mr. Meadows had drafted articles of impeachment to use against him if needed, pushed back hard.

“If we were to just open our doors to allow Congress to come and rummage through the files, that would be a serious infringement on the separation of powers,” Mr. Rosenstein said at an event in Washington. “It might resolve a dispute today, but it would have negative repercussions in the long run, and we have a responsibility to defend the institution.”

It is unusual for rank-and-file members of a committee to challenge or maneuver around their own chairmen on sensitive matters. But Mr. Jordan and Mr. Meadows are known as two of the most confrontational Republicans in the chamber. Mr. Meadows has developed a close relationship with Mr. Trump, while conservatives are talking up Mr. Jordan as a candidate to succeed Representative Paul D. Ryan as speaker.

Photo

A portion of a letter the Justice Department sent on Monday to two Republican congressmen rejecting their request for access to an underacted version of an August 2017 memo outlining the scope of the special counsel’s investigation.

Neither lawmaker responded on Wednesday to requests for comment.

In an apparent break with both men, Mr. Gowdy, chairman of the Oversight Committee, said on Wednesday that he was “satisfied” that his committee and the Judiciary Committee now had the access it needed to documents relevant to a continuing joint investigation into decisions made by the department in 2016 and 2017.

“I appreciate Rosenstein’s willingness to work with the committees, and I have confidence in his leadership,” Mr. Gowdy said, adding that Mr. Mueller should be given “the time, the independence and the resources to conduct a thorough investigation.”

Mr. Trump, who has privately fumed about Mr. Rosenstein, has said publicly that the deputy attorney general faced conflicts of interest. The president criticized Mr. Rosenstein for signing a search warrant application to permit federal agents to eavesdrop on one of Mr. Trump’s former campaign aides.

Mr. Rosenstein assumed oversight of the investigation and appointed Mr. Mueller as special counsel after the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself last year. Mr. Trump has repeatedly attacked Mr. Sessions for his recusal.

The president’s warning on Wednesday was a sharp departure from earlier comments, when he has said that although he is frustrated with the investigation into his campaign, he is not supposed to be involved with department matters.

“I am not supposed to be involved with the F.B.I.,” Mr. Trump said in an interview in November. “I’m not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I’m very frustrated by it.”

 

But Mr. Trump is increasingly on the defensive, after an F.B.I. raid of the office and hotel room of his personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, and the disclosure of more than 40 questions that the special counsel would like him to answer. The questions touch on a variety of topics, including coordination with the Russians during the presidential campaign and actions that Mr. Trump has taken as president and whether they were intended to derail the inquiry.

 

 

 

 

[fraurosena]

Just so you know, there is jurisprudence of a sort on a grand jury subpoena for a president:

No wonder the presidunce was all in a flap after Mueller supposedly threatened him with one. And no wonder he put out Rudy Giulliani yesterday with that bombshell of a confession (or two)... he's insanely desperate for a distraction.

Stupid Watergate indeed. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Awww, Rudy feels all protective over the treason princess: "Giuliani: Russia probe should stay away from Ivanka Trump"

Spoiler

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor and recent addition to President Trump’s legal team, has a warning for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III: Steer clear of Ivanka Trump.

In his freewheeling interview Wednesday night with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, Giuliani said the country would “turn” on Mueller if he went after the president’s eldest daughter, who is also a White House adviser, as part of his investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“Ivanka Trump? I think I would get on my charger and go ride into their offices with a lance, if they go after Ivanka,” Giuliani said. “Now if they do do Ivanka, which I don’t think they will, the whole country will turn on them. If they go after her, the whole country will turn on them. They’re going after his daughter?”

Giuliani was responding to a recent Politico story that explored why Mueller has yet to call Ivanka Trump as a witness, given her proximity to some key events he appears to be investigating. Politico described it as a signal of a“don’t-poke-the-bear-until-you-have-to” strategy.

Among other things, Ivanka Trump was in Bedminster, N.J., with Trump during the May 2017 weekend when he decided to fire FBI Director James B. Comey.

She was also a passenger on the plane flying home from the G-20 conference in Germany the next month, when Trump and others crafted a response to the 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer offering damaging information about Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Ivanka Trump’s husband, Jared Kushner, also a White House adviser, has testified before the special counsel’s team.

During Wednesday night’s interview, Giuliani called Kushner a “fine man,” but added that “men are disposable.”

So, Rudy is saying that he's disposable? Good grief.

[Botkinetti]

So Rudy has a massive crush on Ivanka. That is the only explanation I can think of for him saying the country would turn against the investigation if they went after her. Ivanka works for this administration. She is fair game to be investigated. 

I assume Mueller has his reasons for waiting to call on her. I think of the investigation as a chess game and hope they are thinking five moves ahead. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Rudy had a phone interview with the WaPo. Here's the transcript.

Spoiler

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a recent addition to President Trump’s legal team, said Wednesday night that Trump made a series of payments reimbursing his attorney Michael Cohen for a $130,000 settlement with adult-film actress Stormy Daniels — despite Trump’s assertion last month that he was unaware of the payment.

“The president repaid it,’’ Giuliani told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity.

Trump “didn’t know about the specifics of it, as far as I know. But he did know the general arrangement, that Michael would take care of things like this, like I take care of things like this with my clients,” Giuliani said. “I don’t burden them with every single thing that comes along. These are busy people.’’

After that interview, Giuliani spoke by phone with The Washington Post to discuss the immediate fallout, Trump’s knowledge of his comments and the ongoing special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The following is a lightly edited transcript.

The Washington Post’s Robert Costa: When was the president told about these payments?

Rudolph W. Giuliani: He wasn’t since it was somewhere between 10 and five days before the election. And he wasn’t told. But even if he was told, he wouldn’t have remembered it, like I wouldn’t have remembered it. When, when he paid out of his own personal funds — and if you listen to Cohen’s statement, it was very careful, he said, ‘I wasn’t paid from the campaign and I wasn’t paid from the Trump Organization.’ Absolutely true. He was paid by Donald Trump’s personal funds. And he was paid out of personal funds, which covered that, and possibly a few other things that, you know, would be considered incidental. This is not the kind of money that you would absolutely think of as the settlement of some kind of substantial case. It’d be more the kind of money that you’d think of to be used to pay for a harassment case, which is the way they always thought of this. They never thought of it as true. And I don’t think it’s true. And I’m absolutely positive it’s not true.

Costa: When, specifically, were the payments made?

Giuliani: Well, the original payment from Cohen was sometime right before the election. The repayments took place over a period of time, probably in 2017, probably all paid back by the end of 2017. That and probably a few other situations that might have been considered campaign expenses.

Costa: Do you know how those payments were structured in 2017?

Giuliani: Don’t know. Don’t know. Actually, I think probably in 2018. They were paid in the personal funds because they never considered this a campaign payment. This was considered more a harassment case.

Costa: In your talks with the president about this issue, has your aim been to make the case that this all wasn’t a campaign violation?

Giuliani: It wasn’t.

Costa: When did the president first learn Cohen had made the payment to Daniels on his behalf?

Giuliani: I don’t know if he distinguished it from other things Cohen might have done for him during the campaign. I don’t know that; I don’t know that he distinguished it from other expenses that Cohen had for which he had to be reimbursed. He trusted Michael and Michael trusted him. Michael knew when he laid out the $135,000 he’d get it back and the president was always going to make sure he got it back — and enough money to pay the taxes.

Costa: When did the president, though, recognize that these payments to Michael were going to Stormy Daniels?

Giuliani: Don’t know that. Probably now, when I told him.

Costa: But the president said on April 5 that he didn’t know about the payment.

Giuliani: Absolutely true.

Costa: Does that mean he didn’t know about the payment when it was made to Daniels, or that he didn’t know about it on April 5?

Giuliani: Both. I think. I never asked him that. So you probably should be careful. I don’t know the answer to that, except to say that when I talk to him, it seems to me that he was getting the full picture for the first time.

Costa: Just this spring?

Giuliani: Yeah. About two weeks ago.

Costa: How many payments did it take for the president to settle up with Cohen?

Giuliani: Do the arithmetic, right? $35,000 a month, probably starting in January or February. By the time you get to $250,000, it’s all paid off. Remember, he also paid for the taxes. Then there probably were other things of a personal nature that Michael took care of, for which the president would have always trusted him as his lawyer, as my clients do with me. And that was paid back out of the rest of the money. And Michael earned a fee out of it.

Costa: Doesn’t cloaking these payments as retainers create a legal risk? Did the president think through that at all?

Giuliani: No, I don’t think so. A retainer can be used by a lawyer for many purposes. I don’t even know if Michael used some of Trump’s money beforehand to pay. I can’t tell you that when he made the payment [of $130,000], that some of that wasn’t already out of the money that Donald was paying him then.

Costa: Part of the reason you said this tonight is to avoid legal jeopardy over possible campaign finance violations?

Giuliani: I want them to know, “Don’t chase.” We spend so much time chasing windmills here. This is chasing windmills. I also think, personally, neither one of them saw it as a campaign thing; they thought of it as a personal thing. Personal reputation, family, wife, harassment charge. She doesn’t want a lot of money? Pay her. Let her go away. Follow me?

Costa: Did the FBI’s raid of Cohen’s offices and hotel room last month change the president’s thinking on this issue?

Giuliani: Yeah, sure. It made him a lot more reluctant to go in for an interview because he saw them as kind of like scoundrels in doing it. I mean, the president is not a lawyer, thinks of the attorney-client privilege as being sacred. Then all of a sudden, the — his United States Department of Justice is completely ignoring attorney-client privilege. Not just for him, but look at what happened to Sean Hannity. They had that whole thing. Sean Hannity was represented by Cohen, maybe made it sound like Hannity was getting some sort of sexual allegation. Turns out it was real estate advice he was getting.

Costa: Is it appropriate for federal investigators to ask about Cohen or Stormy Daniels and the payments in an interview with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III?

Giuliani: No. That’s not even on the table. But we have got to get this over with all at once. That’s not Mueller’s problem. He punted to the Southern District of New York, but we can’t punt. We’ve got to get it over it. We can’t have the president, you know, sit for an interview and have these other allegations sitting out there unresolved. This could go on for two or three years if we don’t bring it to a head.

Costa: Are you talking about Mueller or Stormy Daniels?

Giuliani: I’m talking about [audio cuts off]. Maybe Stormy. I’m not even worried about her. This may be — people may say the original explanation wasn’t that clear. But from a lawyer’s point of view, the president is now free and clear of that one.

Costa: So the president is not angry with what you said tonight? He was well aware you’d bring it up?

Giuliani: Oh, yeah, yeah. Sure, sure. He was well aware that at some point when I saw the opportunity, I was going to get this over with.

Costa: Is that what you had talked about with him in recent days?

Giuliani: Probably four or five days ago.

Costa: So you don’t think you will be fired for saying this?

Giuliani: No, no, no! I’m not going to get fired (laughs). But if I do, I do. It wouldn’t be the first time it ever happened. But I don’t think so, no. (laughs)

Costa: You said it’s time to end the investigation. Does the president feel it’s time to end the investigation?

Giuliani: He thought it should have been ended five months ago, right?

Costa: How does it end?

Giuliani: Well, if we don’t sit for an interview, Mueller has to do a report based on what he has.

Costa: Have you decided to do an interview?

Giuliani: Haven’t decided that, really haven’t.

Costa: Why keep doing a legal dance about it if you’ve already decided the investigation should end?

Giuliani: Because we’re not sure. Well, it is time for it to end, but we’re not sure we’ve gotten all of our points out yet. We might help ourselves with some explanations and we don’t want to foreclose that.

Costa: Has the president been speaking to Cohen recently?

Giuliani: No. No. No. I don’t think so. I talk to Cohen’s lawyers, Jay [Sekulow] talks to Cohen’s lawyers. But we try to make — both Jay and I know Cohen very well. And we both like him. He trusts us. So, no, he hasn’t been talking to him.

Costa: The Post has been talking to House Republicans who may try to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Would you support that sort of effort?

Giuliani: Jesus, I couldn’t get involved in something like that, like impeachment. Republicans could do it. They have — I think Rod overreacted a little bit today. If I were his lawyer, I would basically say, “You know, just call me in and I’d answer all of this.” In any event, I know Rod’s reputation is at stake, so— I’m representing one person and one person alone. All I care about is getting this investigation over with tomorrow. I cannot see a crime. I guess another reason I brought this [Cohen payments] out is this is another one of those things where they create an illusion of some crime and nobody [audio cuts off]. If somebody made an allegation against one of my clients that wasn’t true, and accepted $135,000 to settle it, I know the public may think the settlement may mean an admission of guilt, but it’s not. People settle things all the time just to get rid of harassment. The amount of money tells me this was a harassment settlement. If you’re talking $5- or $6 million, now you’d have something different.

Costa: What people are interested in here are the contradictions. You appear to contradict the president because he said he wasn’t aware of the payment.

Giuliani: He wasn’t. When it was made, he wasn’t aware of it. Was he aware that Michael incurred expenses to help him? Yes. Did he have an arrangement so that Michael knew he’d be reimbursed for it? Yes. Was the president really wise to take it out of personal funds rather than from campaign funds? Thank God he did, [or else] he’d get a campaign finance violation they’d try to drum up into a felony or something. The president is personally protected [audio cut]. Recollection? He never said this to the FBI. He never said it under oath.

Costa: Why did Cohen say for months that he used his own money?

Giuliani: He did. The original payment was his money.

Costa: But it came from President Trump at some level.

Giuliani: Is Cohen’s money fungible? Yeah, Trump was paying him a retainer. [audio cuts off]

Costa: Did the Cohen raid make the president believe this would all come out because the information on the payments was in the files?

Giuliani: He was more focused on how shocked he was that they broke into his lawyer’s office. I don’t think he even knows what kind of records there are of this payment. He didn’t focus on the records. He focused on the fact that he owed Michael money; he trusted Michael implicitly. There was no reason not to. Michael would just take back the amount of money he was owed.

Costa: Does the president have any regrets with how this all played out with the payments?

Giuliani: No. I think he’s doubtful that it played out there’s some crime or technical crime because no one really thought about it this way, as a campaign finance violation. It was personal.

Costa: Have you spoken with the president since your Hannity interview?

Giuliani: I did. He’s very pleased.

Costa: Very pleased?

Giuliani: He felt that somebody finally stood up and defended him, particularly with how this investigation is going.

Costa: When are you going to next meet with Mueller?

Giuliani: Don’t know. Most of the conversations are between [Sekulow] and [Assistant Special Counsel James Quarles]. I tried to go out of my way to say good things about Bob [Mueller].

Costa: You asked him about former FBI director Jim Comey in your first face-to-face meeting, asking about Comey’s credibility and how Mueller saw it.

Giuliani: Well, Comey I feel I can legitimately punch in the nose because he was my assistant and I’m embarrassed he was. I’d like to take him out of the rolls.

Costa: Back to the interview. It’s clear, it seems, that the president isn’t going to sit for one. He may do written responses. But you or Emmet Flood, who was announced as a new White House lawyer dealing with the Russia probe, are certainly not pushing for it.

Giuliani: We’re not pushing either way. But the whole way the facts have played out here does argue against an interview. That doesn’t mean — I don’t want to foreclose. Look, if we had foreclosed it, I never would have found out that the New York thing amounted to nothing and we would have found out six months from now, when the special master Barbara Jones allows everyone to see the records.

Costa: Did Cohen stop complaining to friends about this when the president started to reimburse back in mid-2017? The Wall Street Journal reported that.

Giuliani: I know nothing about that. I would say, I don’t know when they started reimbursing him. I would think it would be earlier than mid-last year.

Costa: Who was making the payments?

Giuliani: It was from his personal finance organization, from his accountant. Whoever pays out his bills.

Costa: Have you spoken with Flood about any of this today?

Giuliani: No, no. This wouldn’t be Flood’s concern anyway. Flood’s concerned with privilege, immunity. This is totally out of the realm of any kind of presidential thing. This is — look at it two ways. It was a contribution by Cohen that was over the campaign finance limit that would get Cohen in trouble. [Audio unclear] But we know under these circumstance and the way in which they exaggerate things, they’d make it more than that. But then that’s totally negated by the repayment by the president, personally, as a private citizen. So this wouldn’t concern the White House counsel at all. He’s going be concerned about, “Can you subpoena him? Can you require him to testify?” And I’d imagine on that, he’s got some pretty strong views. He did when he represented President Clinton.

Costa: What else am I missing about the payments? About how they happened.

Giuliani: They weren’t all, totally, for the $135,000. There were probably other expenses mixed up in that. But I don’t think the Cohen-Trump relationship was ever about expenses. Cohen would charge him an amount of money that was more than the expenses and he’d make his profit out of that. What I’m used to is, I spend $100,000 worth of time on a client and I bill him for it. What he did was bill $25,000 a month, make $300,000 a year and maybe $100,000 were expenses and $150,000 was profit. I’m just guessing now: That’s just an example. What the public doesn’t understand is that lawyers have the authorization up to a certain amount to spend money to protect their clients from embarrassment or unjust charges, shakedowns. That’s not uncommon.

Lots of tap dancing going on.

[fraurosena]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Giuliani: He was more focused on how shocked he was that they broke into his lawyer’s office. I don’t think he even knows what kind of records there are of this payment. He didn’t focus on the records. He focused on the fact that he owed Michael money; he trusted Michael implicitly. There was no reason not to. Michael would just take back the amount of money he was owed.

This jumped out at me from Giuliani's rambling. So the presidunce owed/owes Cohen money. No wonder he's out of his mind about the raid.

[AmazonGrace]

 

This whole thread is so scary

[Howl]

Rudy is telegraphing that Trump will exercise the nuclear option if Mueller goes after Ivanka.