Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts

Thursday, May 3, 2018

Giuliani May Have Exposed Trump to New Legal and Political Perils

[ad_1]

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s new legal team made a chaotic debut as Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was tapped recently to be one of the president’s lawyers, potentially exposed his client to legal and political danger by publicly revealing the existence of secret payments to Michael D. Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer.

After he moved into the White House, the president began paying Mr. Cohen $35,000 a month, Mr. Giuliani said, in part as reimbursement for a $130,000 payment that Mr. Cohen made to a pornographic film actress to keep her from going public about an affair she said she had with Mr. Trump. The president confirmed he made payments to Mr. Cohen in a series of Twitter posts on Thursday morning.

The explosive revelation, which Mr. Giuliani said was intended to prove that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen violated no campaign finance laws, prompted frustration and disbelief among the president’s other legal and political advisers, some of whom said they feared the gambit could backfire.

Legally, the failure to disclose the payments could be a violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which requires that federal officials, including Mr. Trump, report any liabilities of more than $10,000 during the preceding year. Mr. Trump’s last disclosure report, which he signed and filed in June, mentions no debt to Mr. Cohen.

Politically, Mr. Giuliani’s remarks — made in television appearances and interviews — raised questions about the president’s truthfulness and created a firestorm at the White House, where aides were caught off guard and furiously sought to deflect questions they could not answer. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said she had been unaware of the payments before the interviews.

“Everyone is wondering, what in the world is he doing?” said George Arzt, a longtime New York Democratic consultant who has known Mr. Giuliani for decades. “I would not have sent out Rudy to talk about the investigation. But Trump likes chaos and Trump just added to the chaos.”

By the end of the day, the president and his advisers had done little to clarify the confusion that Mr. Giuliani had set in motion a night earlier.

Mr. Giuliani did not consult every member of the president’s legal team, or the network of lawyers around Washington whose clients have been entangled in Mr. Trump’s legal disputes, according to several people close to the team. Emmet T. Flood, a lawyer hired by Mr. Trump on Wednesday, was not involved in Mr. Giuliani’s plans to reveal the payments to Mr. Cohen during an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, one of the people said.

The abrupt disclosure — which even caught Mr. Hannity, a confidant of the president’s, by surprise — set off a flurry of calls between Mr. Trump’s lawyers as they sought to determine whether Mr. Giuliani meant to reveal the president’s reimbursement. Witnesses and lawyers around Washington scoured transcripts, watched television clips and called each other in an effort to grasp the consequences of what Mr. Giuliani had said.

The president’s other lawyers ultimately determined that Mr. Giuliani had consulted with Mr. Trump, people close to them said, but were left speechless about why he decided to make the disclosure in such a high-profile way and without any strategy to handle the fallout.

Mr. Giuliani recognized the situation was problematic, two people close to him said, because Mr. Trump had previously said on Air Force One that he was unaware of the hush payments to Stephanie Clifford, the actress who performs as Stormy Daniels. However, Mr. Trump and his aides see lying to or misleading the news media as far less troublesome than lying to investigators, they said.

Even some of the president’s advisers said they were skeptical of Mr. Giuliani’s statements that Mr. Cohen entered into a settlement, made payments to a pornographic film actress and was reimbursed by the president all without Mr. Trump’s knowing why.

Mr. Giuliani’s disclosure is a sign of how Mr. Trump’s reshuffled legal team — which now includes a highly paid Washington lawyer, a famous former mayor, a constitutional lawyer who specializes in religious cases and former federal prosecutors — will function in the coming weeks as they sort out who takes the lead on representing the president.

Mr. Giuliani has said he is the lead lawyer dealing with the special counsel’s investigation in Washington. But his statements on Wednesday night related to the continuing investigation in New York that is examining the conduct of Mr. Cohen. People close to the president are concerned that Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani may create more problems for themselves if they consult only with each other and leave out the other lawyers who may know more about the nuances of the cases.

Mr. Trump faces a two-front battle with the Justice Department: one investigation in New York into Mr. Cohen and the special counsel investigation in Washington.

Whoever runs the president’s legal defenses will almost certainly adopt a more aggressive strategy than the previous team, which was led by the Washington lawyers John Dowd and Ty Cobb.

Despite the president’s desire to take on the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and the Justice Department, Mr. Dowd and Mr. Cobb persuaded Mr. Trump to buy into their strategy of cooperation. The more helpful the president was, Mr. Dowd and Mr. Cobb told him last year, the more likely the investigation would conclude by year’s end.

Instead, the investigation has intensified, and the president has concluded that approach was a mistake, according to people close to him. Convinced that the investigation is a growing threat to his presidency, he has resorted to his initial inclination to fight.

Mr. Trump appears to hope that Mr. Giuliani, a like-minded political street fighter from New York, will aid his combative approach. Mr. Giuliani’s comments on Wednesday and Thursday were an attempt to do just that.

His aggression carried risks. Besides revealing that the president had reimbursed Mr. Cohen, Mr. Giuliani appeared to admit that the payment to Ms. Clifford just before Election Day in 2016 was made because of concerns about the coming vote. That could be used to argue that it was an illegal campaign contribution.

“Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Giuliani said on the Fox News program “Fox & Friends.” “Cohen didn’t even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”

Violating campaign finance laws can be serious. John Edwards, a former Democratic senator and presidential hopeful, was charged with corruption for his role in trying to hide details of his affair with a videographer during his 2008 bid for the White House. Mr. Edwards’s trial ended in an acquittal on one count with the jury unable to reach a verdict on five others.

Mr. Giuliani’s comments also raised fresh questions about the president’s relationship with Mr. Cohen. As Mr. Giuliani told it, Mr. Cohen entered into a legal agreement with Ms. Clifford and paid her without Mr. Trump’s knowledge. Mr. Giuliani described that as commonplace, saying he performed similar services for his own clients. But legal ethics experts said such an arrangement was highly unusual and would only expose Mr. Cohen to new questions.

Lawyers are required to keep their clients fully informed of their activities and are generally prohibited from advancing money to or on behalf of their clients, said Deborah L. Rhode, a scholar on legal ethics at Stanford Law School. “This is a guy who says he’ll take a bullet for the president,” she said. “And what they’re giving him is the legal ethics equivalent of a bullet.”

“Giuliani thinks he’s serving President Trump’s interest,” she said. “President Trump’s interest is not the same as Michael Cohen’s interest.”

In his tweets on Thursday, Mr. Trump contradicted his earlier statements that he knew of no payment to Ms. Clifford. Mr. Trump said he paid a monthly retainer to Mr. Cohen and suggested that the payment to the actress could not be considered a campaign contribution.

Government watchdog groups warned that willfully violating the financial disclosure laws can be punished by a fine of up to $50,000 and a year in prison. Although federal officials who lie on the forms are also typically charged with other, more serious offenses such as bribery or fraud, more than 20 officials or former officials have been charged in the past 12 years with making false statements to federal officials, a felony offense. An Environmental Protection Agency official who failed to report a source of income on the form, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to probation.

“Mr. Giuliani did his client no favors,” said Norman L. Eisen, the chairman of the good-government group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Mr. Cohen had worked for Mr. Trump for a decade and has said he would “take a bullet” for him. Mr. Trump, however, treated Mr. Cohen poorly over the years, people familiar with their relationship have said.

Ms. Clifford is suing Mr. Cohen to try to be released from the nondisclosure agreement. And Mr. Cohen is under federal investigation into possible bank fraud, raising concerns in the president’s inner circle that Mr. Trump’s longtime personal lawyer will cooperate with the government. Federal agents raided Mr. Cohen’s office and home last month and seized documents that included information about payments to Ms. Clifford.

Mr. Cohen recently invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in Ms. Clifford’s lawsuit.

Michael D. Shear and Matt Apuzzo reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Reporting was contributed by Matt Flegenheimer, Sharon LaFraniere, Jeremy Peters, Michael S. Schmidt and Eileen Sullivan in Washington.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on of the New York edition with the headline: On Attack for Trump, Giuliani May Aggravate Legal and Political Peril. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe


[ad_2]

Source link

The Legal Issues Raised by the Stormy Daniels Payment, Explained

[ad_1]


In the end, a jury acquitted Mr. Edwards of one charge while deadlocking on the other five, and prosecutors opted not to seek a new trial. Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, said that after the Edwards mistrial, federal prosecutors will be reluctant to go forward with similar cases unless they have “documentary proof, a smoking gun, that a payment was in fact election-related.”

What is the argument that the payment was not campaign-related?

In an interview on Thursday on the Fox News program “Fox & Friends,” Mr. Giuliani insisted that the payment was not a campaign contribution. He said Mr. Cohen was trying to help Mr. Trump’s family “to save their marriage — not their marriage so much as their reputation.” But then, muddying that message, Mr. Giuliani said, “Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton.” Separately, in an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that “it could overlap as a campaign problem,” but reiterated that Mr. Trump was not thinking of the payment as a campaign expense.

It could work in Mr. Trump’s favor that he and his lawyers had a long history of using legal avenues to try to fight off damaging claims. That history could form the basis of an argument that Mr. Cohen’s payment to Ms. Clifford — and Mr. Trump’s reimbursement of it — would have happened whether or not he was running for president.

“If this was a first-time candidate without a public reputation, then it would be harder to argue that it wasn’t an expenditure to influence an election,” said Charles Spies, a Republican election lawyer who worked in support of one of Mr. Trump’s rivals, the former Florida governor Jeb Bush, in the 2016 Republican primary. “But Donald Trump has a long record of aggressively defending his reputation from attacks.”



That track record could prove less compelling if the authorities obtain evidence that Mr. Cohen privately discussed the payment in the context of Mr. Trump’s campaign. Last month, federal law enforcement officials in New York raided Mr. Cohen’s office and hotel room, carting away numerous documents and electronic devices that are now the subject of a fight over attorney-client privilege. One of the things they are apparently investigating is the payment to Ms. Clifford.

If the payment was a loan, is Cohen out of trouble?

Not if the loan was intended to influence the election. Campaigns routinely take out large loans from banks when they’re running short of cash ahead of elections. But federal election laws require that those loans come from banks as routine business transactions. Personal loans count as contributions that are still legally capped at the individual contribution limit — even if they are later repaid in full, according to the Federal Election Commission website.

When would this have had to be reported, and by whom?

If the payment were to be deemed campaign-related, the Trump campaign should have disclosed it in its periodic filings with the F.E.C., as soon as Mr. Trump or his campaign learned that Mr. Cohen had made it. If Mr. Trump or his campaign only discovered the payment after the fact, they should have amended their previous filings to reflect the expenditure, and any reimbursements to Mr. Cohen. The Wall Street Journal first reported the $130,000 payment to Ms. Clifford in January, and Mr. Trump has not moved to amend his disclosures.

In an interview with The Times, Mr. Giuliani was vague about key questions concerning what Mr. Trump knew and when he knew it, saying that Mr. Trump “did know that there was a form of reimbursements” to Mr. Cohen over the course of 2017, but maintaining that the president did not know what it was for specifically. Mr. Giuliani also said that some executives at the Trump Organization “knew about the fact that Cohen believes money was owed to him — I don’t know when that came up.”


Might a loan raise non-election-law issues?

Yes. As a government employee, Mr. Trump is also required to report any liabilities in excess of $10,000 on a financial disclosure form filed with the Office of Government Ethics. His 2017 form — which he signed in June, certifying it was “true, complete and correct” — does not list any outstanding loan from Mr. Cohen, campaign-related or otherwise. When he spoke with The Times on Thursday, Mr. Giuliani did not answer why the money was not listed on the president’s financial disclosure form.

What could the penalties be?

When campaign finance violations are punished, they typically result in fines by the Federal Election Commission that are pegged to the size of the unlawful contribution or expenditure. The Justice Department can also prosecute willful violations of election laws, or willful false statements on the federal personal financial disclosure forms, which are felonies and can result in up to five years in prison.

There is little chance that the department would file charges against Mr. Trump, regardless of what the evidence shows, because its Office of Legal Counsel has opined that the Constitution makes sitting presidents immune from prosecution.

But Mr. Cohen, after the raid last month, is under intense legal pressure.


Continue reading the main story


[ad_2]

Source link

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

In first TV appearance as Trump’s new lawyer, Giuliani makes serious legal error – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]


On Wednesday night, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sat for an interview with Sean Hannity in his first major TV appearance as President Trump’s lawyer.


It did not go well.


Giuliani offered a new — and contradictory — explanation for why Trump fired Comey. This is problematic when the goal of Trump’s lawyers is to provide Mueller with a consistent, and legal, explanation for the firing.


Early in the interview, Giuliani said that Trump fired James Comey as FBI director because “Comey would not — among other things — say that he wasn’t a target of the investigation.” Giuliani said Trump was “entitled to that.” 



Giuliani’s statement not only confirms that Comey was fired because he refused to publicly clear Trump in the Russia investigation, but also directly contradicts two other explanations for Comey’s firing offered by Trump.


According to Giuliani, Trump told NBC’s Lester Holt in an interview shortly after Comey’s firing that “I did it because I felt I had to explain to the American people that their president was not the target of the investigation.” 



That is not, however, what Trump told Holt. Trump told Holt that he fired Comey because of his frustration with the existence of the entire Russia investigation, which he believed was an excuse concocted by Democrats who lost the election. (Comey was a Republican appointed as FBI director by George W. Bush.)


And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”


In the interview with Holt, Trump did not mention Comey’s refusal to state publicly that he was not a target of the investigation.


Trump’s answer in the Holt interview, in turn, contradicted the official explanation for Comey’s firing. Officially, Trump fired Comey for the reasons laid out in a memo written by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The memo criticizes Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Specifically, Rosenstein said Comey was too harsh to Clinton and should not have criticized her publicly when he announced that charges would not be filed.


On Hannity, Giuliani made the exact opposite argument.


Hillary, I know you’re very disappointed you didn’t win. But you’re a criminal. Equal justice would mean you should go to jail,” Giuliani said. 


It’s a well-received talking point on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News. But Giuliani’s failure to tell a consistent story, particularly about Comey’s firing, could create much bigger problems for Trump down the road.












[ad_2]

Source link

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

California leads legal challenge to Scott Pruitt’s plan to weaken vehicle emissions standards – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]


California officials have repeatedly vowed not to back down to attempts by the Trump administration to weaken the state’s environmental regulations, especially the progress it has made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


The state kept its word on Tuesday when California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said he is joining more than a dozen other states in filing a lawsuit challenging an EPA determination, published on April 13, that the fuel efficiency requirements for cars and light trucks are too stringent and must be revised. At the direction of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the agency is now in the process of rewriting those standards that aimed to slash carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.


In the lawsuit, California and the others assert that the EPA has violated the Administrative Procedure Act, failed to follow its own clean car regulations, and violated the Clean Air Act, Becerra said Tuesday at a press briefing in Sacramento, California. He was joined by Gov. Jerry Brown and Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board.


“My message is simple to the EPA: do your job,” Becerra said. “The state of California is not looking to pick a fight but we are ready for one, especially when the stakes are so high for our people and our planet.”


At the press briefing, Brown did not hold back — he referred to Pruitt as “outlaw Pruitt,” accusing the EPA chief of “running roughshod” over the health of the American people and the climate by seeking to implement standards that would weaken the rules already on the books.




In the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, California, together with 16 other states and the District of Columbia, argued that the EPA failed to follow its own regulations and violated the Clean Air Act by issuing a notice that it planned to reevaluate emission standards for model year 2022-2025.


The federal standard the states are suing to protect is estimated to reduce carbon pollution equivalent to 134 coal power plants burning for a year and to save drivers $1,650 per vehicle.


Joining California in filing the lawsuit are Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. This coalition represents about 43 percent of the new car sales market nationally and 44 percent of the U.S. population.



In 2012, the Obama administration approved new auto emissions standards, with 2018 model year vehicles required to average 38.3 miles per gallon of gasoline and 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The 2025 target was set as part of a compromise reached between the Obama administration and the auto industry.


According to the Los Angeles Times, Pruitt wants to freeze fuel economy targets at the levels required for vehicles sold in 2020, and leave those in place through 2026. Instead of average vehicle fuel economy ratcheting up to 55 miles per gallon by 2025, it would stall out at 42 miles per gallon, the newspaper reported last week.


In April, the EPA announced plans to roll back tailpipe emissions standards for automakers established by the Obama administration. The decision is expected to increase greenhouse gases and other harmful emissions from the transportation sector — the largest carbon-emitting sector in the nation.


According to Pruitt, proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for cars, pick-up trucks, and sport utility vehicles for model years 2022-2025 are too aggressive. The EPA is working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a new rule setting greenhouse gas emission standards.


At Tuesday’s press briefing, Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said Pruitt wants to roll back the vehicle emissions standards “based on no new information or facts.” He is seeking to halt the progress that regulators and the automotive industry have made toward building more fuel efficient vehicles that emit less harmful pollutants, Nichols said.



The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) accused Pruitt of basing his determination about the emissions standards “almost entirely on auto industry statements, without any independent analysis.”


“Scott Pruitt is recklessly disregarding the vast technical and economic bases for America’s Clean Car Standards, and instead launching an all-out attack that risks Americans’ health and their pocketbooks,” EDF General Counsel Vickie Patton, said Tuesday in a statement. “We fully support the states’ legal challenge to Pruitt’s unsupported and unacceptable action.”


The complaint represents Becerra’s 10th lawsuit against the EPA and 17th environmental lawsuit against the Trump administration. Of the 10 legal cases that have reached a conclusion, Becerra said his office has lost none of them.


“So while people may have to decide against believing Donald Trump or believing the state of California, at the end of the day the track record in court between Donald Trump and the state of California is clear,” he said.


The lawsuit is the latest in a build up of tension between California and the Trump administration. Just one day after Pruitt told lawmakers on Capitol Hill last week that the agency did not have plans “at present” to target California’s special fuel economy waiver, the Trump administration reportedly announced plans to revoke California’s waiver to set its own standards.


Nichols, however, said the state has seen only news reports about the Trump administration’s plan to attack the waiver. At the press briefing, Nichols said California would not “dignify” the reports until it hears directly from the administration about any plans to do away with the waiver that would let the state set its own, stronger standards.


If the EPA attempts to revoke California’s waiver, automakers may face years of uncertainty as the California Air Resources Board and the EPA battle over the waiver in court. Courts have continually upheld California’s waiver multiple times since its inception in 1979.




The Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law has released a new report analyzing EPA’s decision to withdraw the standards that concludes the agency’s basis for withdrawing the standards is not grounded in fact or economic analysis. For example, EPA cites factors such as lower fuel prices and concerns about the growth of electric vehicles as reasons to reverse its earlier decision, but both fuel prices and electric vehicle sales are in fact rising.


“In withdrawing the 2022-2025 greenhouse-gas standards, EPA arbitrarily ignored its own prior analysis as well as the facts,” Bethany Davis Noll, one of the co-authors of the report, said Tuesday in a statement. “The agency is acting without clear justification and creating a lot of legal question marks.”












[ad_2]

Source link