Giuliani payment remarks could add to Trump woes
Admission may point to law violations, but may also be strategic
WASHINGTON — Rudy Giuliani’s media blitz to convince the public that neither Donald Trump nor his lawyer had violated the law by paying a porn star to keep quiet about an alleged affair might have backfired, giving investigators new leads to chase and new evidence of potential crimes, legal analysts said.
Giuliani made statements that speak to Trump and lawyer Michael Cohen’s intent - an important aspect of some crimes - and he made assertions that investigators can now check against what they have already learned from documents and witnesses, legal analysts said. His comments to media outlets underscore a growing tension for the White House: The FBI investigation of Cohen presents a legal problem for the president that his own lawyer might have exacerbated.
“I’m sure his strategy was damage control,” said Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutorchigan, “but I’m not sure he controlled much.”
Starting with a Fox News appearance on Wednesday night, Giuliani, who joined Trump’s legal team just a few weeks ago, seemed to be trying to downplay Cohen’s $130,000 payment in October 2016 to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and President Trump’s reimbursement of his longtime lawyer. He might have been trying to get ahead of investigators in making public facts they already know, though legal analysts said his statements could reinforce any case they might bring.
Giuliani first contradicted Trump’s assertion last month that he was unaware of the payment to Daniels. He then mused on “Fox & Friends,” about the impact on Trump’s campaign had Daniels made her allegation on the eve of the election.
“Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton,” Giuliani said. “Cohen didn’t even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”
That comment is important because it suggests Cohen made the payment with the intention of protecting the Trump campaign. In that case, the payment would constitute a campaign contribution or loan — rather than a personal expense. Such a contribution would have to be reported publicly, and the amount would have far exceeded the legal limit of $2,700.
Matthew Sanderson, who served as a campaign finance lawyer for the 2008 McCain campaign, said the timing of the payment “strongly suggests it was related to the election, and therefore is either a contribution, or at least a reportable expenditure by the campaign.”
Campaign finance violations can be difficult to prove. Federal prosecutors failed to convict former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards of accepting illegal campaign contributions for payments made to a woman with whom he had an extramarital affair.
Giuliani also revealed what legal analysts say might be tantalizing leads for investigators, who already were exploring Cohen’s business practices and whether any crimes may have been committed as part of a pattern or strategy of paying hush money to bury damaging stories about Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Giuliani said that Trump paid Cohen $35,000 a month as a retainer and that “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.” He declined to specify that those things might be.
Precisely when the payments started and stopped is unclear. Giuliani said the Daniels settlement was covered by those payments.
McQuade said investigators are also likely to explore moneylaundering issues, though legal analysts said that, by themselves, Giuliani’s comments did not present clear evidence on that front.