There’s No Innocent Explanation for Giuliani Talking Pardon with Cohen

Back when Donald Trump still hoped he could retain (or buy) Michael Cohen’s loyalty, Trump’s attorneys dangled a potential pardon in front of Cohen in an attempt to keep him on Team Trump.

According to the Washington Post, Cohen has told the House Intelligence Committee that he discussed the possibility of obtaining a pardon with Trump’s TV lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.  It is unclear whether he also had such discussions with another Trump lawyer, Jay Sekulow.

If true, it is impossible to put an innocent spin on these discussions. 

It’s not the mere existence of pardon discussions that screams of a corrupt attempt to influence the testimony of a witness. 

It’s the identity of the people who engaged in the discussions.

Rudy Giuliani is the President’s personal attorney.  His job is to defend Trump against allegations of corruption and criminality.  He has absolutely nothing to do with the pardon process.  He is not associated with either the Office of the White House Counsel, or the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which routinely handles and evaluates pardon requests.

In other words, Giuliani’s mere participation in discussions of a possible pardon with one of the key witnesses against Trump, in and of itself, supplies the link between the potential pardon and the President’s defense against allegations of corruption and criminality. 

And it doesn’t take a giant leap to get past the “if true” part of the story.  The non-denial denials issued by Sekulow and Giuliani look more like admissions than denials.

Sekulow stated simply that Cohen’s allegations are “not true.”  But exactly which allegations are untrue, and what is untrue about them?  Sekulow isn’t saying.  According to the Post, Sekulow “declined to elaborate further.” 

Does anybody doubt that if the core of Cohen’s story were untrue, if for instance none of Trump’s lawyers had talked to Cohen or his attorneys about the possibility of a pardon, Sekulow would have said so in no uncertain terms?  His too-clever vagueness sure looks like there’s an admission hiding somewhere in Sekulow’s word salad.

But give the foot-in-mouth prize to Giuliani for yet again blurting out an admission in the form of a denial:

“I can’t tell you exactly what I said to the lawyers because it’s privileged.  I can tell you I said to them the president will not consider a pardon now, nor will the president give a pardon now.”

Let’s unpack this statement.

First, it’s an admission that Giuliani did, in fact, discuss pardons with Cohen’s lawyers.  If he had had no such discussions, he would say so, rather than refusing to discuss “what I said.”

Next, by invoking the joint defense “privilege,” Giuliani is effectively admitting that communications with Cohen about a pardon were linked to and made to further the goals of Trump’s defense.  The so-called joint defense “privilege” doesn’t apply to every discussion between attorneys who have a joint defense agreement.  It applies only to communications made in furtherance of that joint defense.   

But Giuliani doesn’t stop there.  By also saying that Trump will not consider or give a pardon “now,” Giuliani only digs the hole deeper.  He seems to be saying that the President would consider a pardon later, presumably after Cohen demonstrates his continued loyalty.

And it’s not just Giuliani who implored Cohen to stay on Team Trump.  According to ABC News, shortly after the federal raids on Cohen’s home and office last April, Cohen was contacted by two New York attorneys who claimed to be “in close personal contact” with Giuliani.  The two attorneys, “who have no known formal ties to the White House,” approached Cohen with the implicit message that if Cohen hired them, it could “preserve or increase his chances of a pardon down the road.”

Giuliani’s non-denial denial of this story, too, is yet another clumsy admission of both its truth and its corrupt purpose:

“I can’t say anything about it. If I had any conversations with any of his lawyers, it would be privileged because it was all under the joint defense agreement.”

Giuliani could easily have said “there were no such conversations” if he thought he could get away with it.  Instead, he implicitly confirmed the conversations by saying “I can’t say anything about it.” 

If there had been no conversations, there would be no “it” for Giuliani to say nothing about.

And Giuliani’s invocation of a so-called “privilege” under a joint defense agreement is yet another admission that the pardon talks with Cohen were meant to further Trump’s defense. 

By making that link, Giuliani stripped away any pretense of an innocent explanation for talking to Cohen about a potential pardon.

Call it witness tampering.  Call it subornation of perjury.  Call it obstruction of justice.  Call it abuse of power.  Call it bribery. 

Call it anything you want.

Just don’t call it an innocent exercise of presidential power.