DID RUDY GIULIANI PEDDLE INFLUENCE IN UKRAINE

For better or worse (worse in my opinion, and, I’m betting, yours as well), influence-peddling is business-as-usual in Washington.

But if influence-peddling, whether ultimately successful or not, involves the President’s personal lawyer and the Ukraine, that would take it to a very different level.

With that in mind, please read the following excerpts from Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Matt Zapotosky’s article for the Washington Post, via the Stamford Advocate:

 President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, negotiated this year to represent Ukraine’s top prosecutor for at least $200,000 during the same months that Giuliani was working with the prosecutor to dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden, according to people familiar with the discussions.

he people said that Giuliani began negotiations with Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, about a possible agreement in February. In the agreement, Giuliani’s company would receive payment to represent Lutsenko as the Ukrainian sought to recover assets he believed had been stolen from the government in Kyiv, those familiar with the discussions said.

The agreements were never executed, and there is no indication that Giuliani was ultimately paid by Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials. But the negotiations proceeded far enough that legal agreements were drafted under which Giuliani’s company would have received more than $200,000 to work for the Ukrainians, people familiar with the agreements said.

Is this true?

Based on what you just read, we do not know.

Who are these “people”?  What do they know, if anything?  Have they seen the agreement?  What did it say?  And, since Rudy Giuliani remains President Trump’s lawyer to this day, why wouldn’t they have gone through with it?

The fact that this article presents nothing checkable, and that it is from the current incarnation of the Washington Post – i.e. an unconditionally Trump-hating venue – makes credibility a major issue.

I suggest that, regardless of how you feel about President Trump and Mr. Giuliani, we wait and see if the Post, or any other source, can produce actual evidence.

If such evidence emerges, we deal with it honestly.  If it doesn’t, we chalk this up to the latest in an ongoing, never-ending series of unfounded attacks on Trump and/or the people around him.

Fair enough?

 

 

1 Comment

  • Ann Coulters’ column is coming true

    It’s getting to the point that the only purpose of the establishment media is to alert us that there’s a story about something. You see a headline “Carnage in Las Vegas” or “How Voters Turned Virginia From Deep Red to Solid Blue,” and think to yourself, Oh, I’ll have to look that up from a fairer source.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *