Trump attorney and professional Hillary Clinton attacker Rudy Giuliani has stated repeatedly that there is “no daylight” between the statements he’s been making in the media and Donald Trump. However, Giuliani discovered what so many other Trump associates have found in the past—it doesn’t matter what assurances Trump provides; If something isn’t playing well in the media, he can turn faster than a merry-go-round in a hurricane.
Having received enough daylight to see the tire tracks across his back, Giuliani had a fresh version of the ever-shifting narrative of Trump and the $130,000 porn star payoff. Take one …
GIULIANI: Having something to do with paying some Stormy Daniels woman $130,000? Which, I mean, is going to turn out to be perfectly legal. That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know. It’s not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.
HANNITY: They funneled it through a law firm.
GIULIANI: They funneled through a law firm, and the president repaid it. …
HANNITY: But you know the president didn’t know about this?
GIULIANI: Ah, he didn’t know about the specifics of it, as far as I know. But he did know about the general arrangement, that Michael would take care of things like this.
Take two ...
“Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton?" Giuliani asked.
"Cohen made it go away," he added. "He did his job."
And now, Take Three …
The payment was made in order to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the president’s family. It would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not.
Which would be a lot more convincing, or at least a little more convincing, if Sarah Sanders hadn’t responded to every question about Stormy Daniels by directing people to look at what Giuliani had been saying. And if Trump hadn’t backed up Giuliani’s statements in a series of tweets.
Giuliani’s full statement:
First: There was no campaign violation. The payment was made in order to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the president’s family. It would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not.
Second: My references to timing were not describing my understanding of the president’s knowledge, but instead, my understanding of these matters.
Third: It is undisputed that the president’s dismissal of former Director Comey—an inferior executive officer—was clearly within his Article II power. Recent revelations about former Director Comey further confirm the wisdom of the President’s decision, which was plainly in the best interests of our nation.