Showing posts with label Washington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington. Show all posts

Thursday, May 3, 2018

The fundamental contradictions in Giuliani’s erratic interview with The Washington Post – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]


On the heels of his disastrous interview with Sean Hannity, Rudy Giuliani did another with The Washington Post. This one got somewhat less attention, but was just as problematic for his client.


The most important thing for Giuliani to establish is that Michael Cohen’s payment to Stormy Daniels was not a campaign contribution. But in the Washington Post interview, Giuliani provided more evidence to the contrary.


Giuliani told a muddled story about the payment to Daniels. While he repeatedly insisted that that money ultimately came from Trump’s “personal funds” and that Cohen and Trump “never considered this a campaign payment,” at another point he admits that he’s doesn’t know if Trump “distinguished it from other things Cohen might have done for him during the campaign… I don’t know that he distinguished it from other expenses that Cohen had for which he had to be reimbursed.”



By acknowledging that Trump lumped the expense with other explicitly campaign-related expenses, Giuliani suggests that, in Trump’s mind, the payment was designed to benefit his campaign. Giuliani also blows up the fundamental argument as to why this was not a campaign expense: it was paid for with Trump’s personal funds. Now, Giuliani is saying that campaign expenses were paid in the exact same way.


During his conversation with The Post, Giuliani also contradicted himself about when President Trump learned of Cohen’s payment to Daniels. At one point, Giuliani suggested that Trump was aware of the $130,000 payment at the time it was made in October 2016, and even chatted with Cohen about it.



“I also think, personally, neither one of them saw it as a campaign thing; they thought of it as a personal thing,” Giuliani said. “Personal reputation, family, wife, harassment charge. She doesn’t want a lot of money? Pay her. Let her go away. Follow me?”


But at another point, Giuliani explicitly says that Trump “wasn’t told” about the payment before the election — and even if he was, he “wouldn’t have remembered it, like I wouldn’t have remembered it,” because he was so busy in the days leading up to November 8, 2016.


Giuliani also offered an implausible interpretation of the comments Trump made aboard Air Force One on April 5, when he pretended to know nothing about the Daniels payment.


Pressed on why his personal attorney would, just before the 2016 election, make a $130,000 hush payment to Daniels, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, “You’ll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney. You’ll have to ask Michael.”



Giuliani’s explanation for Trump’s comment is that Trump didn’t get the “full picture” about the Daniels payment until “about two weeks ago.” But he argues there’s nothing unusual about that, because $130,000 is chump change for Trump.


“This is not the kind of money that you would absolutely think of as the settlement of some kind of substantial case,” Giuliani said. “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.”


According to Giuliani, Trump did not know about the expense even after the details of the agreement with Cohen became public, and despite the fact that Trump was reimbursing Cohen for it throughout last year. It’s a valiant effort by Giuliani — but it strains credulity.



Giuliani wants the American people to buy that Cohen decided to make a hush payment to Daniels despite the fact that Trump never actually had an affair with her, because it wasn’t “a lot of money.”


“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,” Giuliani said. “That’s not uncommon.”












[ad_2]

Source link

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Sprint and T-Mobile C.E.O.s Are in Washington to Sell Their Merger. Here’s What They’ll Confront.

[ad_1]


The reason for two American carriers to need approval? T-Mobile, which is acquiring Sprint, is controlled by Deutsche Telekom of Germany. Sprint is mostly owned by SoftBank of Japan.

Deutsche Telekom and SoftBank had to undergo reviews by Cfius when they bought control of their respective American wireless providers years ago, which suggests that any transfer of assets between the two now would pass muster.

But the Trump administration has recently taken a harder stance on foreign-owned acquisitions. It pre-emptively blocked Broadcom’s hostile bid for the chip maker Qualcomm. While Broadcom is based in Singapore, and had announced that it would relocate to the United States, the logic was that any change at Qualcomm could hamper its ability to help build out the next-generation wireless network, known as 5G, in the United States. The administration has also said it might consider nationalizing the 5G network, underscoring the sensitivity of the technology that underlies a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile.

Complicating matters are the business dealings of Sprint’s owner, SoftBank. It has ties to Huawei and ZTE, two Chinese tech companies whose connections to Beijing have been a matter of controversy.

But Sprint and T-Mobile are likely to point out that each has already passed a Cfius review in the past, and are willing to make concessions to win over the panel now.


Photo






The business dealings of Sprint’s owner, SoftBank, might complicate the merger. SoftBank has ties to Huawei and ZTE, two Chinese tech companies whose connections to Beijing have been a matter of controversy.

Credit
Jeenah Moon for The New York Times



F.C.C.: What’s in the public interest?

The Federal Communications Commission has scrutinized a possible T-Mobile-Sprint merger before.

In 2014, SoftBank’s founder, Masayoshi Son, met with the chairman of the F.C.C. at the time, Tom Wheeler, and the Justice Department’s antitrust chief at the time, Bill Baer. Mr. Son’s goal: to convince the regulators that AT&T and Verizon were an oligopoly that had a stranglehold on the United States wireless market. The best way to combat that, Mr. Son argued, was by letting Sprint combine with T-Mobile.

Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Baer rejected the argument, concluding that effectively reducing the wireless market to three major carriers from four would not be good for consumers. “The merger made no sense before, and it makes no sense today,” the two wrote in an op-ed on CNBC.com last year, as T-Mobile and Sprint resumed merger talks.



Sprint and T-Mobile are now betting that the new F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, feels differently.

A Trump appointee, Mr. Pai has said that he would employ “humility” in determining which mergers should be allowed to go through. Last year, he pushed the F.C.C. to relax rules limiting how many television stations a broadcaster could own. Weeks later, the Sinclair Broadcast Group unveiled a deal to buy Tribune, a transaction that, if completed, would make the company the most powerful television station owner in the country. (The F.C.C.’s internal watchdog has begun an inquiry into that deregulatory push and whether it had been timed to help Sinclair.)


One question is how the F.C.C. will regard Sprint and T-Mobile’s argument that they need to fend off new players in the market. The carriers have pointed out that Comcast has begun bundling wireless service with cable television offerings, essentially by reselling access to Verizon’s network. Charter Communications is expected to unveil a similar service as well.

Craig Moffett, an analyst at the research firm MoffettNathanson, said that the commission has not traditionally considered offerings from cable companies when it comes to analyzing concentration in the wireless market. Whether it will now is unclear.


Photo






Makan Delrahim, the Justice Department’s antitrust chief, sued to block AT&T’s $85.4 billion takeover of Time Warner, arguing that the combination would bring higher prices for consumers.

Credit
Stephen Voss for The New York Times



Justice Department: Will people pay higher prices?

The biggest regulatory wild cards may be the Justice Department and its current antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim. Late last year, the Trump appointee sued to block AT&T’s $85.4 billion takeover of Time Warner, arguing that the combination would lead to higher prices for content from HBO and Turner Broadcasting channels.

The move was notable because AT&T’s deal involved buying a content company, not another telecommunications rival.

T-Mobile and Sprint’s deal would unite two direct competitors, a type of deal that regulators have traditionally been harder on.

Mr. Delrahim has also opened an investigation into whether AT&T, Verizon and potentially other carriers have colluded to hamstring an effort to help consumers switch wireless service providers more easily.

And it was the Justice Department that first moved to block AT&T’s 2011 bid for T-Mobile. In its lawsuit, the department argued that shrinking from four carriers to three “would remove a significant competitive force from the market.” That attitude prevailed again in 2014 when Mr. Baer pushed back against a union of T-Mobile and Sprint.

Many of the department’s antitrust staff members today are holdovers from 2014, suggesting they may take similar stances now as they did then.

Though corporate America assumed that a Trump presidency would be more lenient toward deal-making, it has maintained an aggressiveness in regulating mergers, according to Norman Armstrong Jr., the co-head of the antitrust practice at the law firm King & Spalding.


“Overall I haven’t seen much change from the last administration to this one,” he said.


Continue reading the main story


[ad_2]

Source link