Beyond Your Brief: First Lady’s Rep Contradicts Giuliani’s Claim That Melania Believes Her Husband On Daniels Affair

Donald_and_Melania_Inaugural_parade_01-20-17225px-rudy_giulianiRudy Giuliani has often strayed far beyond his brief as a lawyer representing the President in the Russian investigation. These include controversial comments about Korean nuclear negotiations where he was criticized widely in falsely predicting an imminent change. Most recently, while in Israel, Giuliani told the world that Kim Jong-un “got back on his hands and knees and begged” for the United States to revive the Singapore summit. Now, Giuliani is not being contradicted by a foreign leader but the first lady. Giuliani, also during the Israeli trip, declared on the Stormy Daniels scandal that the First Lady “believes her husband, and she knows it’s untrue.” That led to the rare push back from the First Lady’s office from her spokesperson and East Wing communications director Stephanie Grisham that “I don’t believe Mrs. Trump has ever discussed her thoughts on anything with Mr. Giuliani.” In Washington talk, that is a take down. The First Lady rarely issues statements and this statement would never be released absent her consent.
This has been quite a trip of Giuliani in tripping wires and causing controversies. He also attacked Daniels as beyond belief as someone who “sells her body for sexual exploitation.” At least those comments were tangentially related to his brief for the president. The comments on high-level diplomatic matters or the relations between the first couple are well beyond what most lawyers would feel comfortable discussing in public. My concern is that it shows a continued lack of message discipline and focus on the legal team. In this case, that lack of discipline led to a countervailing statement of the First Lady’s spokesperson.  In other words, it made the record worse for his client.

49 thoughts on “Beyond Your Brief: First Lady’s Rep Contradicts Giuliani’s Claim That Melania Believes Her Husband On Daniels Affair

  1. In the interest of innocent until proven guilty, Melania’s staff didn’t actually contradict Giuliani so much as imply that he should mind his own business, and it’s just possible that it was the President that told him Melania believed him not Melania herself. Giuliani didn’t specify who his source was.

  2. And in today’s episode of “How The Donald Turns,” Melania’s personal assistant turns on Yhe Donald’s lawyer and mayhem ensues. Will drinks be thrown?”

  3. “Giuliani told the world that Kim Jong-un “got back on his hands and knees and begged” for the United States to revive the Singapore summit.” That was a foolish blow to diplomacy.

    The only way to deal with a dangerous geopolitical threat is diplomacy, sanctions, war, black ops, espionage, or just ignore it and suffer the consequences. I consider the use of alliances in applying pressure to be part of diplomacy.

    Giuliani just fractured one of those arrows in the quiver. It doesn’t matter that Kim Jong Un is a reprehensible, morally deficient, poor excuse for a rule who abuses his people and lets them starve. We are trying to remove the nuclear threat by all means available, including diplomacy. Right now, we are still using diplomacy. Kim Jong Un may hope that we will deliver a pallet of cash and remove sanctions if he makes an empty promise to be good, all while carrying on with his despotic plans of mass murder as per usual. But we’re not. If we are careful, we might get some positive concessions. I really think the only way to absolutely remove the nuclear threat is a black ops strategy that destroys the program, utilizing coordinated sabotage. I also think they should carpet bomb the country with pamphlets showing how normal people live and have enough to eat, and are worm free. The people of North Korea should be free, and there should be no more toddlers dying in the street of starvation.

    Giuliani should leave the First Lady out of conversation unless he is complimenting her policies or defending her from unfair criticism. What he did was drag the wronged wife into the crosshairs. His statement would result in media hounding her for why she would believe a serial cheater was faithful.

    The moral of the story – stay quiet unless you have something effective, and well thought out to say, and don’t commit adultery.

  4. Who cares, Turley? You are just posting this to help your sleazeball former student Avenatti prolong his 15 minutes of fame. Trump/Guliani setting media and blowhards like you up by pitting Melania against Stormy and forcing you all on the side of Stormy which is losing move for you and winning move for Trump. You all getting played by Trump. Just like Trump forcing lefty media to side with anthem kneelers vs. standing. Wake up.

  5. Trump’s court jester has stuck again. Any reputation he might have had is gone, anything in Trump’s obit is toxic. He is sure to open his mouth and get state bar’s to look into his actions. As with any of Trump’s lawyers.

  6. Ghouliani is an evil opportunistic clown. Just ask NYFD. Understandable that Melania would have that statement released.

    • Ghouliani is an evil opportunistic clown. Just ask NYFD.

      Actually, he’s just about the most accomplished American politicians since Eisenhower retired. Few office-holders can be said to ‘make a difference’ in ways visible to ordinary people, and some who do (e.g Coleman Young) made a difference by being destructive. For all his self-inflicted domestic trouble, Giuliani mattered, and no honest person can take that away from him.

      • You think Giuliani single-handedly turned New York City around..??

        It’s true that New York City was at an all-time low when Giuliani took over. And his attention to eliminating petty grifters like the Squeegee Men and 3 Card Monty guys made the streets and subways more orderly.

        But Giuliani also had favorable headwinds when he took over New York. At that point in time, Manhattan office space was actually a ‘bargain’ compared to Tokyo and London; it’s biggest international rivals. Corporations had been moving ‘out’ of New York for almost 30 years. So there was plenty of prime space available at what would now seem like bargain rates.

        Giuliani also took over at a moment when the U.S. entered one of its most robust expansions ever: 1993-2000. That expansion, and the Bush-Clinton push for free-trade, greatly benefitted New York City. Multi-national corporations started opening New York offices at a clip that corresponded to the robust expansion.

        One might also note that the 1990’s were generally good to U.S. cities in comparison to the post-war era. Chicago, historically the nation’s second biggest city, saw a major building boom from the late 80’s to early 2000’s. And Philadelphia stabilized in the 90’s after a steep, post-war decline.

        So while Giuliani was a better-than-average mayor, he benefitted from a larger, more favorable climate. One could say that Bill Clinton benefitted from those same, favorable conditions.

        In fact, Trump is currently benefitting from an economic climate that began before he took office.

        • Giuliani deserves credit for his tenure as mayor of NYC, he was a good mayor.
          At present he is busy tarnishing that reputation in his dotage.

          That being said, he is exactly the spokesperson/lawyer that Trump deserves.

        • Giuliani also took over at a moment when the U.S. entered one of its most robust expansions ever: 1993-2000. That expansion, and the Bush-Clinton push for free-trade, greatly benefitted New York City. Multi-national corporations started opening New York offices at a clip that corresponded to the robust expansion.

          Absolutely irrelevant. Index crime rates doubled during the 1960s, sustained economic expansion notwithstanding. They declined during the 1930s, persistent unemployment notwithstanding. That aside, Giuliani-Bratton’s success in restoring public order was only partially replicated in Washington and not replicated elsewhere, even in New York’s Upstate cities. In 1980, Baltimore and New York had similar homicide rates. By 2016, Baltimore’s rate exceeded that in New York 12-fold.

          The occupant of the White House has scant effect on business cycles. For the record, mean rates of grown in real product per capita were as follows during the business cycles named:

          1947-49: 0.7%
          1949-54: 3.2%
          1954-58: 0.8%
          1958-61: 2.0%
          1961-70: 3.3%
          1970-75: 1.4%
          1975-80: 2.5%
          1980-83: -0.2%
          1982-91: 2.9%
          1991-2001: 2.2%
          2001-09: 0.7%
          2009- 1.5%

          In terms of rapidity, the 1991-2001 cycle ranked 5th out of the last 12 cycles.

          • We’re not necessarily disagreeing, Nutchacha. Don’t think that because I’m the ‘liberal’ we’re always disagreeing.

            But crime rates in the 1960’s were largely fueled by Baby Boomers and a major surge in the juvenile population. That, and the nationwide decline of big, northern cities during the postwar era, made 1960’s crime rates look very ominous.

            • But crime rates in the 1960’s were largely fueled by Baby Boomers and a major surge in the juvenile population. T

              Rubbish.

              Between 1960 and 1980, homicide rates doubled, the rate of forcible rape increased by about 4-fold, the frequency of robbery quadrupled, the rate of aggravated assault increased 3.5-fold, the rate of burglary increased 3.5 fold, and that of car theft 2.7 fold. The share of the population between their 13th and 25th birthdays increased from 17% to 22%.

              • Where are these statistics coming from? Like you don’t have to say? And why are your statistics going up to 1980? We were talking about the 1960’s. I didn’t say anything about the 70’s.

              • Explain why your crime statistics are somehow divorced from demographic surges in teens and 20-somethings?

                You’re saying that this crime wave was middle aged people in their 40’s and 50’s…..???

              • I guess you’re trying to make some Robert Bork argument that that crime surge began when prayer was taken out of the public schools. Like we were slouching towards Gomorrah. Oh, and the Civil Rights movement encouraged disrespect for police.

                Yet you seem to be saying that younger people born between 1946-1962 were completely absent from crime statistics.

        • It’s true that New York City was at an all-time low when Giuliani took over.

          It wasn’t.

        • Mr. Guliani’s incredible leadership during the aftermath of 9/11 was remarkable. While coping with all manner of problems caused by those crashes, he still led that city in a cleanup that was so successful. We lived in CT and were in NYC often for events (opera, gulf war parade) and experienced homeless laying on the sidewalk, washing your car windows while we stopped at a light, then holding out ther hands for a tip. No tip, broken wipers. After moving to the west coast we returned to NYC for a meeting. The tone of the city was completely different. Rare signs of sleeping on the sidewalk, police in sets of two walked the streets talking with people. You felt safe, which wasn’t NYC we had previously known. He focused on reducing crime and accomplished his goals. And no unwanted window cleaning.

          • No unwanted window cleaning. Yep, that’s a successful mayor all right.

            Ordinary NYers who actually reside there know that Ghouliani was a narcissitic dick and he imperiled the lives of the firefighters by providing them with substandard equipment and then tried to prevent them from recovering their brothers and sisters – he wanted the bodies that remained in the debris put in the dump.

            He is a hideous person sucking up to the rich and powerful most recently Nasty yahoo.

    • @Autumn June 8, 2018 at 9:53 AM
      “Ghouliani is an evil opportunistic clown. Just ask NYFD.”

      This video produced by NYC firefighters barely scratches the surface of Giuliani’s perfidy and incompetence as NYC’s mayor, but it’s a good introduction to the subject:

      • Thanks for sharing this Ken. New Yorkers who experienced the 9/11 horrors know the man is a self-serving fraud.

          • @Insufferable, The World’s Foremost Authority June 8, 2018 at 2:00 PM
            “Don’t thank him. He’ll begin peddling his 9/11 truther rubbish.”

            Well, please feel free to try refuting any “9/11 truther rubbish” you may encounter with whatever 9/11 liar disinformation seems apropos, Professor Corey.

            • Well, please feel free to try refuting any “9/11 truther rubbish”

              It’s all absurd and been dealt with by a rash of professionals who gave of their scarce time to do so. I’m sure they had other things to do than address Morgan Reynolds contention that the World Trade Center was hit by a Cessna.

              • @Professor Irwin Corey,The World’s Foremost Authority June 8, 2018 at 9:42 PM

                “It’s [9/11 truth] all absurd and been dealt with by a rash of professionals who gave of their scarce time to do so.”

                Well, then, if a whole rash of busy professionals has dealt with 9/11 truth and it’s all absurd, then surely we can just ignore the mountain of evidence against the official 9/11 story and resume our pseudo-patriotic slumbers, huh, Professor Corey?

                • There is no mountain of evidence, Ken, just a mess of nonsense which you subscribe to because that’s how you roll.

                  • @Insufferable, The World’s Foremost Authority June 10, 2018 at 5:26 AM
                    “There is no mountain of evidence, Ken, just a mess of nonsense which you subscribe to because that’s how you roll.”

                    You should share your disbelief based on your willful ignorance (if, indeed, that’s all it is, rather than dissimulation) with the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, much of whose 9/11 Commission Report was based on third-hand information purportedly supplied by tortured detainees:

                    Stonewalled by the C.I.A.

                    “By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON, JAN. 2, 2008

                    “MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the ‘facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001’ — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.

                    “The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation. [Emphasis added]

                    You should also share your risible philodoxy with John Farmer, who was Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission:

                    “CINCINNATI, Ohio) – In John Farmer’s book: The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11,, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version… is almost entirely untrue…

                    “The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

                    “Farmer, Dean of Rutgers University’s School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

                    “Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

                    “Farmer states…’at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened… I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin. This is not true.’ ”

                    http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php

        • @Autumn June 8, 2018 at 11:59 AM
          “Thanks for sharing this Ken. New Yorkers who experienced the 9/11 horrors know the man is a self-serving fraud.”

          The word “fraudulent,” although perfectly applicable to Giuliani’s behavior as a post-9/11 political candidate, doesn’t begin to do descriptive justice to his actions immediately after the WTC attacks, when he oversaw the wholesale destruction/removal of evidence at the WTC crime scene:

          https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-rudy-giuliani/

          • Ken, I am well aware of this as well as the questions which remain unanswered. I never bought the burial of bin Laden at sea or raid either. Sadly, I don’t think we will ever find out the truth. Blame it on Iran right? =)

            Today is the 51st year since the Israeli Assault on the Liberty – covered up by all presidents since LBJ – even the US Navy. Some of the survivors are still alive and I feel we owe it to them to get their story out. They have suffered so much and been silenced and humiliated – true heros.

            • @Autumn June 8, 2018 at 5:51 PM
              “Ken, I am well aware of this [Giuliani’s overseeing the destruction of 9/11 evidence] as well as the questions which remain unanswered. I never bought the burial of bin Laden at sea or raid either. Sadly, I don’t think we will ever find out the truth.”

              I’m not sure what you’re alluding to here, but whether we find out the truth about anything depends on the strength and quality of our effort to do so, notwithstanding the obstacles thrown up by those who have a vested interest in suppressing it.

              By those with a vested interest, I’m talking about those who are fearful of having their worldview seriously threatened by knowing the truth about certain events, as well as about those who are criminally culpable in those events.

              With regard to the purported assassination of the CIA’s former Golden Boy in Afghanistan, when he was killing Russians, in the unlikely event that someone with his documented kidney disease could have survived until 2011, Osama bin Laden’s significance as an enemy of America had already become officially greatly reduced as early as 2002, as was freely admitted by people like Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush:

              “In March and April of 2002, U.S. officials downplay the threat of bin Laden, with Rumsfeld even saying the bin Laden threat has been ‘neutralized.’ Even Bush, called out for rarely mentioning bin Laden in 2002, admits: ‘We haven’t heard from him [bin Laden] in a long time… I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.’ ”

              In addition to the above and to the many mainstream media reports of bin Laden’s death in late 2001, quoted at the link above, it’s noteworthy that when the FBI’s Chief of Investigative Publicity, Rex Tomb, was asked in 2006 why there was no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
              http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm

              These greatly attenuated threat assessments would also tend to explain why “bin Laden” was “killed” in 2011, rather than being taken into custody for trial in the US, after he’d have been thoroughly interrogated, of course, regarding his knowledge of al-Qaeda’s role in 9/11 and other, past and future, terrorist plots.

              • In my last comment, I had no idea that posting the one link to a video of George W. Bush making the bin Laden statement I quoted would produce all the sub-links under it.

                I’ve never seen that before, and don’t know why it did that.

                • Ken,the whole 9/11 thing makes my head hurt – I have listened to Sibol Edmonds, watched numerous videos and all I can say is that I disbelieve the “official” narrative. But I don’t think we’ll ever, no matter now hard people dig, find out the truth of who was really behind it. Many people believe it was the ZIonists who orchestrated it to draw us in to going to war w/Iraq and it was a convenient “distraction” as the economy was tanking and Dubya was seen as having been put in office by the Supreme Court due to the FL debacle. I don’t know.

                  • @Autumn June 9, 2018 at 12:35 AM
                    “Ken,the whole 9/11 thing makes my head hurt – I have listened to Sibol [Sibel] Edmonds, watched numerous videos and all I can say is that I disbelieve the ‘official’ narrative. But I don’t think we’ll ever, no matter now hard people dig, find out the truth of who was really behind it.”

                    The mountain of evidence against the official narrative makes it comparatively easy to disbelieve it, and I agree that it is a difficult work in progress to identify particular architects and role-players in the attacks, though by no means impossible. Consider the following:

                    “For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

                    “In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD’s Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft — American Airlines Flight 11 — long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.

                    “Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania. [Emphasis added]

                    “These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies’ reluctance to release the tapes — along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence — led some of the panel’s staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11. [Emphasis added]

                    ” ‘I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described,’ John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. ‘The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true.’ ”

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

                    Why would certain officials lie about their actions on 9/11 and be reluctant to release evidence such as audiotapes unless they were trying to conceal something, and why would the Bush Administration strenuously resist the appointment of a 9/11 commission to begin with, and when forced by 9/11 widows to relent, appoint cover-up artist Henry Kissinger to chair it?

                    Solving any crime involves looking at those who have the motive, the means, and the opportunity to commit the crime, and those who have lied to and/or misled investigators and the public about their roles on 9/11 must be included in the pool of primary suspects as contributors to that day’s attacks.

                    Don’t give up. 9/11 is too important, as it’s been the excuse for endless war abroad and diminishing freedom at home. As one 9/11 researcher has put it, “Solving 9/11 ends the war on terrorism.”

                    I think it’s as true now (if not more true, thanks to the Internet) as when Shakespeare penned it, that “truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man’s son may, but at the length truth will out.”

                  • @Autumn June 9, 2018 at 12:35 AM
                    “Ken, the whole 9/11 thing makes my head hurt – I have listened to Sibol [Sibel] Edmonds, watched numerous videos and all I can say is that I disbelieve the ‘official’ narrative. But I don’t think we’ll ever, no matter now hard people dig, find out the truth of who was really behind it.”

                    Here’s a good place to start regarding “who was really behind it.” Please let me know what you think after you watch it:

                    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=PNAC+and+a+new+pearll+harbor&&view=detail&mid=13C5D79612F2E6EAA4A413C5D79612F2E6EAA4A4&rvsmid=5A97BF6F5761DB4245385A97BF6F5761DB424538&FORM=VDQVAP

  7. “I don’t believe Mrs. Trump has ever discussed her thoughts on anything with Mr. Giuliani.” In Washington talk, that is a take down.

    No, that is an equivocal statement that reads as if it was in response to a specific question. She doesn’t say what she knows, just what she believes. She doesn’t refer to what happened, to what Mrs. Trump believes happened, to what Mrs. Trump said to any random person, to what Mrs. Trump said to Giuliani, or even to what Mrs. Trump said to her the press agent. She merely says what she ‘believes’ Melania has discussed with RG.

    • “The First Lady rarely issues statements and this statement would never be released absent her consent.” I believe Professor Turley is correct, here. Mrs. Tump’s spokesperson could easily have deflected the question, but chose instead to expose Giuliani’s silly misrepresentation.

  8. “In Washington talk, that is a take down. ” The First Lady has quickly learned the ways of Washington.

  9. After making salacious comments about Ms. Daniels, Giuliani went to a club and danced with women who were very scantily dressed. He cheated on his first two wives, and probably his third and he thinks it’s ok to throw nasty words at any woman?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.