Much like the disinformation yesterday about how Michael Cohen’s plea “aligns” with the Trump timeline, Giuliani puts up some weak-ass stuff as if he could goad Hot-Tub Whitaker to fall on the grenade, because “lawyers may need lawyers”.
Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin explained Wednesday on “The Last Word” with Lawrence O’Donnell.
“The president and his attorneys are communicating with every pathological liar and criminal out there that they possibly can,” O’Donnell noted.
“It’s remarkable, actually,” Rubin noted. “And because there is no defense for someone who has already pled guilty, what they have said — everything they have — said is discoverable.”
“So those lawyers are now themselves potential criminal defendants in a scheme to obstruct justice or to execute a bribery,” she explained.
www.salon.com/...
Curiouser is the undisclosed grand jury witness to which Giuliani is alluding.
Special counsel Robert Mueller appears to be locked in a dispute with a mystery grand jury witness resisting giving up information sought in the ongoing probe into alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
It's unclear exactly what the two sides are fighting over, but the case appears to resemble a separate legal battle involving an associate of Trump ally Roger Stone, Andrew Miller, who is fighting a Mueller subpoena. Miller's lawyers are using the case, slated to be argued at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals early next month, to mount a broad legal assault on Mueller's authority as special counsel.
www.politico.com/...
This apparently involves associate(s) of Roger Stone, but that might be a feint considering that it could be McGahn or Giuliani himself.
The person fighting the subpoena could be *literally* anyone Mueller called as a witness.
Could be a low-level Roger Stone flunkie. Could be a big name. Could be someone we’ve never talked about.
The secrecy and protracted fight is naturally raising eyebrows though.
2/
Since nature hates a vacuum, might as well play along.
Would seem to me the person meets some combo of a few criteria:
- 1) Well funded - court fights like this are expensive for little guys
- 2) Legally fluent or well-represented - this isn’t small-ball played by hacks.
3/
Others have tried and failed to dodge Mueller’s subpoenas, so this person is likely making a different kind of argument.
IOW, they appear to be asserting some basis for fighting the subpoena that complicates things, so...
4/
3) Their testimony about matters under investigation might be protected by some privilege.
(e.g. protection of a journalist’s sources, executive privilege as someone with direct contact with Trump, etc.)
5/
An associate of Roger Stone has been fighting his subpoena, so people naturally assume this may be someone else in that same general circle.
A former prosecutor speculated it could be Trump himself.
6/
Given the above, that doesn’t seem likely.
This person has tried to rush the ultimate decision at times. If it were Trump’s attys, I’d suspect they’d want to slow-roll it.
This person is trying to get out of having to testify to grand jury *ever* and wants that answer fast.
7/
Sooo, rank speculation here but I’m drawn to the possibility that it’s someone whose entire testimony could be subject to privilege.
Someone like former White House Counsel, Don McGahn, or a former member of his office.
8/
McGahn was allegedly cooperating with Mueller on a voluntary basis, so he’s likely out.
I’m gonna guess the person is someone who can testify directly to Trump’s obstruction while ostensibly being questioned about others in the orbit (like Don, Jr.) though.
9/
Someone who was in the room for meetings and conversations.
Someone with direct contact with multiple parties in the Trump circle but who isn’t part of the cabal.
An attorney or advisor who wasn’t Trump’s personal attorney - at the time at least.
10/
I’m guessing they’ll lose their appeal and have to testify.
I’m hoping journalists sleuth out who it is.
In the meantime, here’s a wacky wildcard:
Rudy Giuliani
Given all of the above, the shoe fits.
Now, wouldn’t that be fun...
11/11
Special counsel Robert Mueller revealed Thursday that Michael Cohen said he repeatedly briefed Trump about a potential business deal in Russia during the 2016 campaign. In response, Trump’s legal team has tried to distance the president from a project that literally had his name on it.
[...]
The business deal was one of the written questions asked by Mueller and answered by Trump, according to Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lead attorney for the Russia probe. Giuliani said that Trump answered that, “as far as he knew, there was a proposal, he knew about the proposal, he had discussions with Michael Cohen about it, and a non-binding letter of intent was issued, and the proposal...never got beyond that. It was discontinued, they withdrew from it.”
[...]
Cohen also spoke to Trump about “traveling to Russia in connection with the Moscow Project, and asked a senior campaign official about potential business travel to Russia,” the criminal information states. In May 2016, Cohen discussed the possible Trump trip with Sater, according to the documents, as well as a personal trip he did not take.
Giuliani said he did not dispute that Trump and Cohen discussed a trip to Russia in the first half of 2016, but said that he simply couldn’t confirm it.
www.thedailybeast.com/...