NEW YORK (AP) — Rudy Giuliani’s latest media blitz, which was filled with a dizzying array of misstatements and hurried clarifications, agitated President Donald Trump and some of his allies, who have raised the possibility that the outspoken presidential lawyer be at least temporarily sidelined from televised interviews.
Trump was frustrated with Giuliani, according to three White House officials and Republicans close to the White House who were not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations. The president told advisers that he felt his lawyer had obscured what he believed was a public relations victory: the special counsel’s rare public statement disputing portions of a BuzzFeed News story that Trump instructed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to lie before Congress.
The president told confidants that Giuliani had “changed the headlines” for the worse and raised the possibility that Giuliani do fewer cable hits, at least for a while, according to the officials and Republicans.
Several of Trump’s influential outside allies also have begun expressing reservations about Giuliani. Some members of this informal network of advisers, whom the president frequently calls from the White House residence, urged Trump in recent days to bench Giuliani — but most stopped short of suggesting he be fired, according to four White House officials and Republicans close to the White House.
Trump has not expressed an inclination to dismiss Giuliani.
Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, trips over PR messages and creates new crises when he gives media interviews
‘Every time he opens his mouth on TV it’s like “Cleanup on aisle Giuliani!”‘ says a White House official
West Wing now has multiple people tasked with ‘handling Rudy’s f*** ups’
Trump allies fear Giuliani is drinking before he goes on television
President doesn’t plan on firing him
WASHINGTON (AP) — A powerful House committee now led by Democrats is opening an investigation into how security clearances have been handled in President Donald Trump’s White House and 2016 presidential transition.
The inquiry by the House Oversight and Reform Committee, announced Wednesday, takes direct aim at some of those closest to the president over the past two years, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and former White House aide Rob Porter.
The review also sets up one of the first potential fights between a Democrat-led House committee and a White House bracing for a number of investigations in the wake of last year’s midterm elections that eroded GOP control in Washington.
Paul Manafort‘s attorneys filed a redacted response to Robert Mueller‘s office on Wednesday evening which essentially accuses the special counsel of playing procedural tricks against the former Trump 2016 campaign chair in order to catch him in a lie. This filing functions as Manafort’s official rejoinder to evidence filed last by the special counsel purporting to document Manafort’s alleged lies to federal investigators.
Last time Manafort’s attorneys filed such a response they fudged the redactions–the text was easily readable by use of the copy-paste function. This time, Manafort’s legal team made another–less important–mistake: referring to the Special Counsel’s Office (SCO) as the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) throughout their filing.
Aside from this unimportant oops on an acronym, the filing mostly makes the dual-pronged argument that: (1) Manafort never intentionally meant to mislead federal investigators over the course of “more than 12 proffer and interview sessions;” and (2) that whatever the special counsel believes Manafort lied about is mostly inconsequential.“A fair reading of the [Mueller’s latest documentation] does not support the conclusion that Mr. Manafort intentionally provided false information,” the filing argues. “Rather, when placed in proper context, much of the evidence presented by the [special counsel] merely demonstrates a lack of consistency in Mr. Manafort’s recollection of certain facts and events.”
The 10-page filing suggests a few different reasons why.
Related Posts:We truly are under attack. We need user support now more than ever! For as little as $10, you can support the IWB directly – and it only takes a minute. Thank you. 1,688 views