Giuliani: I Am Not Worried Because “I Have Insurance”

I have repeatedly criticized President Donald Trump’s counsel Rudy Giuliani for his record of rampage as counsel. Even before the ruinous work in the Ukraine came to light, Giuliani has assembled a long line of harmful statements. Now, in what may be the worst possible way to respond to a question whether he is concerned that Trump will throw him under the proverbial bus, Giuliani has said that he is not worried because “I have insurance.” It is a statement that raises obvious images of what the Russians call kompromat, or “compromising material.” Whether a joke or serious, it is again a remarkably dim-witted response at the height of an impeachment process.

Giuliani said “you can assume that I talk to him early and often” and that he retains a “very, very good relationship” with Trump. That would seem supported by Trump’s effusive praise of Giuliani recently, though we have seen suddenly reversals in the past. It was what followed that was so jarring: “I’ve seen things written like he’s going to throw me under the bus. When they say that, I say he isn’t, but I have insurance.”

It is bizarre to have Giuliani holding forth on the subject of Ukraine with the Capitol Hill building literally behind him. He has not been subpoenaed to appear in Congress despite his pivotal role. In the interview, he stated “what I did was in order to defend him, not to dig up dirt on [former Vice President Joe] Biden.”

In fairness to Giuliani, there is no legal reason why he could not be advocating for Trump in Ukraine or even looking for dirt. The Clinton campaign did precisely that in the Steele dossier. What is far more disturbing is that Trump would refer to Giuliani in calls like the one with the Ukrainian president. The reason you separate private and public counsel is to avoid these damaging situations. Instead, Trump appeared to tell not just a foreign leader but diplomats to go to Giuliani.

At a time when Giuliani should be silent or parsing his words carefully, he continues to undermine both his and his client’s position with ill-considered and reckless comments.

57 thoughts on “Giuliani: I Am Not Worried Because “I Have Insurance””

  1. Rudy, May have lost his integrity, getting involved with Don the Con but he hasn’t lost his mind…just yet.
    He DOES have the Insurance….and if The Orange Pumpkin, does a “Michael Cohen,” on Rudy… will be fun, seeing it all unravel.!!! “Don the Con” May have met his match….!!.

  2. What If Bloomberg Got The White House..

    And Outsourced To His Lawyers

    The improbable could happen to consternation of both Trumpers and Leftists.

    Mitch McConnell could drag out impeachment hearings to paralyze the campaigns of Sanders, Warren and Harris. But Joe Biden starts to faulter due to Burisma. While Mayor Pete never connects with crucial Black voters.

    Under these circumstances, Michael Bloomberg could drop several hundred million in pocket change and build a coalition of both moderate Democrats and Republicans. The impeachment hearings could play out to Bloomberg’s advantage.

    We could learn those Soviet-born money bundlers linked to Guiliani were bagman for Oligarchs loyal to Putin. This revelation could destroy Donald Trump by spring of next year. Pence then becomes a custodian of a president in a highly fractured party.

    At this point a wave of Republicans sees Bloomberg as the sensible alternative to a now tainted Pence. Republicans cross party lines and make Bloomberg the Democratic nominee much to the chagrin of furious leftists.

    Leftists stay home on Election Day but Bloomberg crushes Pence with strong support from establishment Republicans. Bloomberg takes the White House with the idea of using his fortune to run the government.

    Bloomberg hires armies of lawyers to bypass all channels at the top of government. The State Department, Treasury, Pentagon, Labor Department and Social Services are all bypassed by lawyers Michael Bloomberg employs.

    Bloomberg, one should note, has the money to hire armies of lawyers. With a net worth of $30 billion, Bloomberg could easily drop $3 billion; outsourcing the upper echelons of government to a series of law firms.

    But such a bold experiment would run contrary to everything we stand for as a showcase Democracy. Yet by hiring Guiliani, to formulate policy towards Ukraine, Donald Trump has taken us in the direct of this Bloomberg scenario. And it would be the end of America as we know it.

    1. What If Bloomberg Got The White House

      What if Jesus is the Christ?
      What if Hell is really a place where souls separated from God (the theological definition of sin) go after Death?
      What if you were actually wasting time on these forums positing whataboutisms and got busy going to Church next week as Chistmas/Advent approaches, you made a fearless inventory to confess your sins and hence were reconciled with God?

      Nahhhhh, I didn’t think you’d go for that either

      Bloomberg, one should note, has the money to hire armies of lawyers

      Yeah, but God has armies of Angels to throw your troll-arse into Hell so there is that to consider

      Peter’s response: “Estovir, what are you babbling about? The NYT never denied the existence of Hell and just because Trump wears a tie pin in the shape of a Cross doesn’t mean I wash my clothing on the second Tuesday of each week!!!”


      1. Estovir:
        “Yeah, but God has armies of Angels to throw your troll-arse into Hell so there is that to consider…”

        Tell Him to send a legion or two. These Dim orcs are tiresome. A little smoting is good to cull the herd occasionally. Probably raise the mean IQ, too. I’d like a little reenactment of Sodom and Gomorrah, too, if He’s up to it. We live in a perverse society in the urbanized areas as anyone can tell you who’s watching — all courtesy of our radicalized PC Dims.

        1. Mespo, are comments involving God and angels now acceptable for debate? When did this blog get so loopy?

            1. Mr. Schulte,
              There is the “Big Tent” acceptance here of Estovir’s sermons, Peter Pagan, and Schulte the Agnostic.

              1. Anonymous – as an agnostic, I have sat and been forced to sit through a lot of sermons.

                1. Paul, Anonymous, I have no problem with religion. And I love religious art. But legal blogs are not the place for religious posts.

                  1. And I love religious art.

                    Of course you do considering you delight in afflicting others with torture

                    1. ooh ahh breathy voiced gays just love paintings of St Sebastian, how many times have i heard this sort of commentary before.

                      you’ll notice that the fey commentator says it was just an excuse to depict the body. he’s also just gushing over ancient greece and rome etc,. and the body blah blah blah one gets tired of hearing the same pedantic point repeated a thousand times over.

                      these effetes misunderstand a lot. its not worth trying to correct them.

                  2. But legal blogs are not the place for religious posts.

                    They’re not the place for a woman babbling like a lunatic on a city bus, but you’ve never objected to Natacha or Jill.

      2. Estovir,

        There are all types in different armies over the ages. It’s weird to me sometimes why some of us bast@rds survive a few more years then others & then for some reason something happens & we are individual shown why & we know. Maybe some not?

        One little army that may also be interested in your company is

        Listen to the very end of every Friday wrap up show.

        I wasn’t interested yet to listen to this morning’s show, I already know most of that story, maybe there’s something new?

        Bare in mind as with David & others it takes decades to come to their own peace with Christ.

        1. It’s weird to me sometimes why some of us bast@rds survive a few more years then others & then for some reason something happens & we are individual shown why & we know. Maybe some not?

          Genetics and environment (which includes lifestyle choices) dictate in large part our mortality. Genetics includes those traits which we inherit from our parents. Genetics also includes sporadic mutations to DNA. Less than 20% of cancers are attributable to inheritable genetics. Most cancers originate from sporadic mutations. Sporadic mutations are often due, but not always, due to lifestyle choices (e.g. obesity, smoking, etc). Other sporadic mutations are due to chance. Sh!t happens and it’s a numbers game.

          Why do some of us live longer than others? I posted a few weeks ago a report from the CDC. It indicated that Americans living in the Flyover States / Rural regions have a higher mortality rate than those Americans living in metropolitan regions. Democrats who wish to abolish the Electoral College are guilty of voter suppression. They do not want those Americans having their votes count because the popular vote would squash their voices. So if you look at people living in Kansas, Iowa, Idaho, Missouri, etc, they generally die earlier than those living in NYC, Boston, Los Angeles, etc. The reason is simple: access to medical care. People in Flyover States are poorer, have less access to physicians, have poorer nutrition and have lesser ability to pay for medications that people in metropolitan regions devour daily.

          Many Americans live longer because they have medicine cabinets at home stuffed with an overabundance of drugs to lessen the harm they do with their unhealthy living, which means obesity, sedentary lifestyles, disregard for their bodies, and so forth. For every obese American that screams it is “their choice” to live as they choose, I would counter that I would agree with them, except cut them off of Medicare and Medicaid and private payers. Those of us with private insurance who lead healthy lives are penalized for those members who lead heathen lives. I was in the gym this morning at 5:45 AM for a reason: I want to live as long as possible and with less of a financial burden to my wallet and to my family.

          Recently we had our Catholic Bishop die at the age of 75. When he died it was reported that he succumbed to kidney failure. In reality he died because he was 6’4″, weighed > 350+ lbs, had hypertension, Type II Diabetes and was noncompliant with his treatment. His kidneys were secondary to his being a stubborn, arrogant, sick man. Every time I saw him at the Cathedral celebrating Mass, he looked bigger and bigger, plus he could not kneel during those prescribed moments, and he could not sustain his own weight while standing. He had to lean on the Altar. Such an awful example of a “witness” as a Shepherd to his flock. He made my life that much harder as someone who daily teaches patients to practice self-care.

          Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a tragedy that Americans in Flyover States and those with a half a brain should resent. She has had more cancer interventions than most Americans. Yet she lives. She should have been dead a long time but because she is privileged so she gets the white glove treatment. It is as if the American public has come to expect that should>/strong> keep her alive even at great expense to you and me. Medicare isn’t cheap. It’s not even solvent. Millions of Americans can not access basic health care for the reasons already stated, but here we are as Americans rushing to RBG’s bedside, resuscitating her. It’s a travesty really. Better to divert those resources to those millions of Americans who don’t even have access to Flu Shots.

          RBG’s story is like that of Steve Jobs, Michael Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, etc.

          I hope this answers your question

          חַיִּים (L’Chaim)

      3. Estovir your posts are coming from a place sometimes referred to as ‘The Twilight Zone’.

        You feel increasingly emboldened to mix religion and politics in a manner that casts doubt on your sanity. And I think if this blog was more diverse, in its readership, more people would tell you how odd your comments are.

  3. @RepAdamSchiff indicates he wouldn’t testify if Republicans subpoena him: “There is nothing to testify about … if they go down this road, it shows a fundamental lack of seriousness. A willingness to try to turn this into a circus.”

    Obvious question Jake Tapper won’t ask Schiff: did you or anyone on your staff meet with or assist the whistleblower in advance of the whistleblower’s meeting with the ICIG?

    Why won’t the ‘watchdog press’ ask the obvious questions and force Adam Schiff to answer it?

    Since the press won’t do its job, the Senate Republicans will call Schiff to testify as to whether he or anyone on his staff met with or coordinated with the whistleblower in any way prior to their ICIG meeting?

    1. tRump, Mulvaney, Sondland, etc, have admitted QPQ, i.e., bribery so whistleblower is no longer relevant. It is clear the wb was accurate and your only interest is to attack a law abiding citizens.

      1. YN ON:

        Any faster back-pedaling and you’ll blow right out the back wall. The whistle-blower is a witness, will be called to testify by the defense as is its right and as far as the QPQ there is still no evidence from personal knowledge which is the standard not “heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another you’ve been messing around.”

        1. Don’t know anyone who was familiar with REO speedwagon and for good reason. You must have grown up on the prairie listening to Kansas. Well this ain’t Kansas anymore, you are in the big leagues – try to show some integrity. No back-pedaling necessary, you are the one who refuses to believe your beloved leader’s own words. You are going to get a hernia if you keep twisting yourself in knots with your convoluted logic.

    2. “@RepAdamSchiff indicates he wouldn’t testify if Republicans subpoena him: “There is nothing to testify about … if they go down this road, it shows a fundamental lack of seriousness. A willingness to try to turn this into a circus.”

      Great. We all know what happens when the complaining witness doesn’t show up for the trial!

      Given these poll numbers I still say no articles of impeachment ever issue out of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler isn’t as stupid as Schiff, but not by much.

      1. Schiff is a graduate of Stanford and Harvard. He’s not unintelligent. He may be a fanatic or he may overestimate his ability to pull of egregious scams. Which is to say that he’s stupid, in a way.

        1. TIA:
          I prefer the best definition of “stupid” I’ve ever heard: “Professing themselves wise, they became fools.” Kinda gives the essence of it.

        2. “Which is to say that he’s stupid, in a way.”

          Just like two of the amigos of this blog: TIA and mespo.

              1. Tony – as usual you are not making any sense. Of course people can be chummy and make perfectly good sense, plus have exceptional high standards.

                1. Let’s be clear:

                  TIA and mespo (and you) are “chummy.” You don’t make “perfectly good sense” and neither do you have “exceptional (sic) high standards.”

                  1. Anonymous – I have exceptionally high standards. However, even with abysmally lower standards you would not be on my Xmas card list.

  4. After the Clinton “Trail of Dead Bodies” and the Epstein “Suicide”, can anyone sane even wonder why Giuliani would take pains to PUBLICLY proclaim protection? Geez.

  5. Guiliani has been stating the same thing since he has started appearing on TV, that he was gathering evidence to defend his client and other stuff “fell” into his hands. JT, his insurance is that if he dies, everything gets exposed. However, it is not the President that he is worried about. It is certain members of the Democratic Party and their minions.

  6. Bear in mind that presidents have always had personal envoys going all the way back to George Washington. There is nothing illegal about them and they have the same authority as any diplomat and perhaps more since they report directly to the President, not the Department of State. Democrats hate Giuliani because he has dug up evidence of Joe Biden’s corruption, corruption that goes back to the beginning of his tenure in the Senate.

    1. And Washington had his critics as well. It oftentimes takes years to get an accurate assessment of a President’s actions. If coup participants at the highest levels are prosecuted, the Trump era will be viewed as one of the most significant in American history.

    2. Sem, that’s nonsense. Envoy’s are usually appointed because they have special expertise, connections or credibility. But whatever the reason, Envoys work in tandem with the State Department and everyone knows they’re a Special Envoy.

      But in the case of Guiliani, he was employed by Donald Trump and going outside official channels. The official ambassador and relevant professionals at the State Department had no idea what Rudy was doing.

      1. Envoy’s are usually appointed because they have special expertise,

        In your imagination only.

        1. Tabby, this is one your snippy, catty comments. It’s calculated to look like the cleverest of putdowns. So you clever you needn’t hint at what it really means. Which let’s you off easy. One can look so clever when they needn’t explain.

          1. Blah blah blah.

            Special envoys in recent decades have included George Mitchell, Richard Stone, and Sol Linowitz, none of whom had specialized expertise applicable to the parts of the world to which they were dispatched. Another was Philip Habib, who knew something of the Far East, but was called out of retirement and sent to the Near East.

    3. John Kerry has been freelancing as SOMEONE’S helper on the Iran issue. Subpoena him.

  7. I am watching the news show now with turley on there. The woman on his left as we face the screen is supposedly a lawyer. He statements are bogus.

            1. Never heard of these guys, either. I guess the Ohio River is an impenetrable marketing barrier.

              1. “I guess the Ohio River is an impenetrable marketing barrier.” -TIA


                And some of us would agree that “it’s a reasonable wager” that you simply don’t know everything, but it’s hard for you to wrap your big fat head around that.

  8. It is bizarre to have Giuliani holding forth on the subject of Ukraine with the Capitol Hill building literally behind him.
    In fairness to Giuliani, there is no legal reason why he could not be advocating for Trump in Ukraine or even looking for dirt.

    Why do you feel compelled to argue with the emotions of the Left and then undermine your Lefty feelings with the law? You use words like ruinous, disturbing, bizarre, ill-considered and reckless, to describe President Trump and Giuliani. But if no law has been violated, then all they are doing is violating the entrenched norms. I say good for them. Shake them all up. If feelings are hurt in the process of flushing people out, then hurt away.

  9. How did they get to the height of the impeachment process between Friday PM and Sunday AM when they were at ground zero except for an extremely high boring rating? Any one of those coastal pictures offered were far more important including deciphering which coast by type of vegetation and other clues such as the old ferry boat landing structures … minus the vehicle access ramp. That was my guess given the structure is the same everywhere wood or metal.

    But the bits and pieces offered on the various nonsense media outlets were consistent in providing ‘nothing including the new sole occupant of the main stream Fox.’

    Nothing came close to a chin up much less a pull up or even a sit up in explaining why the unoccupied house of pretense is wasting that much time and tax payers dollars when they can’t even bother to finish up their unexplained involvement in the USCANMX replacement treaty to replace NAFTA. After all is is a treaty and requires their approval but why Pelosi horned in is beyond explanation except it didn’t divert the question WHEN is the impeachment process going to start?

  10. “…been a working lawyer for decades and you haven’t.”

    It makes one wonder why you frequent this blog.

  11. Trump interacts with World Leaders in a way that Obama never could.
    Evangelicals see Trump as a messiah, a king. He is neither but he certainly has used his experience in business and negotiations to the benefit of the US Presidency, something neither Obama nor Hillary possessed: relational skillsets. Turley and the do nothing Dims are OCD in picking apart all of Trump’s movements, something these same critics did not to Obama nor Hillary

    Today is the Catholic solemnity of “Christ the King”. The comparison of King David and Christ as King is explained brilliantly in the following article. The message for us is driven home at the end of the article in the last 3 questions.

    Off to Mass.



    The Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe
    2 Sam 5:1-3, Ps 122, Col 1:12-20, Lk 23:35-43

    “For Jesus, leadership was about self-sacrifice, not earthly authority”
    – Fr. Michael Simone, SJ

    Many in the first century expected a Messiah, but few agreed on the specifics. Their ideas converged, however, on one important point: The Messiah would be a descendant of David. God had promised David an eternal kingdom over which his offspring would always rule. In Jesus’ day, however, this was not the case. Herod and his sons were foreigners who controlled Israel on behalf of another foreign power, the Romans. Many in Israel expected a new king from among David’s descendants who would renew Israel’s independence.

    That Jesus appeared in Galilee as a carpenter was not a significant stumbling block. David had many descendants, who lived all over the Jewish world. A bigger problem was that Jesus never exhibited any royal traits. As this Sunday’s first reading makes clear, David’s primary job was to be a military commander. Not only did Jesus fail to do this; he preached a message that made such a role impossible. Jesus never confronted the foreigners who ruled Israel, unlike David and the other ancient kings who guarded Israel’s independence. Jesus’ ignominious death at the hands of those same foreigners made it impossible to believe that he was the expected descendant of David who would liberate Israel.

    Nevertheless, early Christians called Jesus their king and believed the kingdom he had established was the fulfillment of God’s promise to David. Jesus was their leader because only he knew how to show them the way to the Father. His strategic vision was not a plan of invasion but rather the conquest of death itself. His tactics, shared in his Gospel preaching, were generosity, forgiveness, care for the poor, healing the sick and calling sinners to repentance. His overall doctrine was love. He had an unalloyed experience of the Father’s love, and any who believed in him and lived according to the Gospel would experience the same. This was what led many early Christians to believe Jesus was truly their long-expected king. He led them not to some transient earthly victory but into eternal life.

    Jesus died rather than repudiate his belief in God’s love. Luke especially stresses Jesus’ single-hearted obedience to the Father. Even on the cross, Jesus trusts the Father so completely that he can promise paradise to one of the thieves crucified with him. By contrast, Luke makes sure that his readers get a good look at the “rulers” of Israel. They sneer at Jesus, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah.” What they fail to grasp, and what utterly subverts their authority, is that love demands sacrifice. David risked his life against a lion and a bear when shepherding his father’s flocks; he risked it again against Goliath and repeatedly in battle thereafter. Just so, Jesus laid down his own life for his flock, and thereby reveals himself as David’s offspring and the true king of Israel.

    Love is a foretaste of paradise. Jesus experienced it completely and gave us his Gospel so that we can do the same. This is why he is our king. Only one so completely in tune with divine love is a guide trustworthy enough to lead us through the doors of paradise.

    How has Christ led you?
    How has the Gospel helped you experience divine love?
    How have your own sacrifices led someone else to God?

  12. People are throwing turds at him and he is not throwing them back. He days he has “insurance’ and people contort that to imply that he would throw something at Trump and not the itshay throwers.

  13. Humor seems to elude you.

    Some of us might tend to evaluate your complaints about Giuliani in the light of a certain history: he’s been a working lawyer for decades and you haven’t.

Comments are closed.