Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Rudy’s most abominable crime

His defamation of Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman

I dearly hope it sends him to the poorhouse. And it may. The judge in the case just brought the hammer down:

A federal judge has ruled former New York mayor and Donald Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani liable for defaming two Georgia election workers whom he falsely accused of tampering with the 2020 election results.

Judge Beryl A. Howell entered a default judgment against him “as a straight-up sanction” for his failure to provide necessary documentation to the plaintiffs.

Giuliani will still go to trial in D.C. federal court on the amount of monetary damages he owes to Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss. But Howell has already ordered Giuliani to pay roughly $132,000 in sanctions between his personal and business assets for his failures to hand over relevant information. And she said those failures, combined with Giuliani’s own admissions, compelled her to rule without a trial that he defamed both women, intentionally inflicted emotional distress on them as part of a civil conspiracy and owes punitive damages.

Last month, as part of the wrangling over the records he had failed to share, Giuliani agreed not to contest that he made false and defamatory claims about the two poll workers. But in the same filings, he said he was not giving up the right to argue that his comments were constitutionally protected speech that did not cause damage, along with other defenses. On Wednesday, Howell said that admission had “more holes than Swiss cheese,” and that Giuliani was trying “to bypass the discovery process and a merits trial — at which his defenses may be fully scrutinized and tested in our judicial system’s time-honored adversarial process — and to delay such a fair reckoning by taking his chances on appeal.”

But, she said, Giuliani cannot “have his proverbial cake and eat it too.”

Giuliani repeatedly claimed in the weeks after the 2020 election that misleading security footage from Georgia showed Freeman and Moss bringing in “suitcases” full of fake votes for Joe Biden. Those claims were quickly debunked by election officials in Georgia, who explained that the so-called suitcases were regular ballot boxes and that nothing untoward had occurred. But Giuliani and others continued to accuse the two of malfeasance; they received death threats and were forced into hiding.

Because Giuliani failed to preserve emails, text messages and social media account information from the time period when he made those accusations, Howell said, Freeman and Moss are “severely hampered” in their ability to prove his statements were intentionally false and part of a broader conspiracy rather than merely negligent.

Among the messages Giuliani failed to preserve and produce, according to the court record, is a Dec. 7, 2020, text he sent in response to a Trump adviser’s request for “best examples of ‘election fraud’ that we’ve alleged that’s super easy to explain. Doesn’t necessarily have to be proven, but does need to be easy to understand.” According to the records, Giuliani replied by highlighting the Georgia video. Trump went on to reference the video in meetings with top Justice Department officials and in a phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state, during which the president asked for the state official to “find 11,780 votes.”

The plaintiffs became aware of large gaps in what Giuliani provided because of records received from others involved, according to the court record. Giuliani claimed that he lost access to much of his electronic information because it was seized by the FBI in an unrelated investigation in April 2021. But Howell found that Giuliani failed to make meaningful efforts to explain what exactly was missing or to retrieve it, instead giving “vague” and “shifting descriptions” of the problem.

The judge also pointed out that Giuliani has “a self-professed 50 years of experience in litigation,” including working as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

“Given Giuliani’s much-vaunted experience as an attorney, he plainly should have known better,” Howell wrote, concluding that his failure to produce the information was “deliberate.” She suggested he was trying to avoid disclosing information that could hurt him in other civil and criminal cases. Earlier this month, Giuliani was charged in Georgia with involvement in a scheme to subvert the election results. The federal indictment brought against Trump in D.C. lists Giuliani as an unnamed co-conspirator and includes the false Georgia claims as part of an alleged criminal conspiracy to keep Biden out of office.

“[J]ust as taking shortcuts to win an election carries risks — even potential criminal liability — bypassing the discovery process carries serious sanctions,” Howell wrote.

While his liability is no longer in dispute, Giuliani still must hand over financial information for the determination of damages, including metrics for a podcast on which he impugned the Georgia workers. He and his businesses must also pay the plaintiffs back for the attorney fees they spent trying to get him to comply with Howell’s rulings. If he continues to withhold his financial records, Howell said, she will instruct the jury deciding damages to “infer that he is intentionally trying to hide relevant discovery about his financial assets for the purpose of artificially deflating his net worth.”

Giuliani political adviser Ted Goodman said in a statement that the ruling was “a prime example of the weaponization of our justice system, where the process is the punishment,” and that it “should be reversed.”

He compared them to drug dealers. He is a disgusting pig and he deserves to be bankrupted in this case.

“I am your retribution”

Apparently, he meant that literally

Here’s Trump telling Glenn Beck that he would get payback. Of course, we knew that. Revenge has been his guiding philosophy his entire life:

Former President Donald Trump joined controversial radio host Glenn Beck for an interview on Tuesday and was asked flat out if he would use the office of the president to jail his political opponents – as he promised to do in 2016.

“You said in 2016, you know, ‘lock her up.’ And then when you became president, you said, ‘We don’t do that in America.’ That’s just not the right thing to do. That’s what they’re doing. Do you regret not locking her up? And if you’re president again, will you lock people up?” Beck asked Trump.

“Well, I’ll give you an example. Uh, the answer is you have no choice because they’re doing it to us,” Trump replied, making clear he would.

Trump did NOT say, “we don’t do that in America” and he led “lock her up” chants at his rallies all four years. He publicly demanded investigations into her:

President Donald Trump issued a forceful call Friday morning for the Justice Department to investigate Hillary Clinton over “all of the dishonesty,” writing on Twitter that “the American public deserves it!”

“Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems. New Donna B book says she paid for and stole the Dem Primary,” Trump said, referencing an excerpt of former interim Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile’s forthcoming book published Thursday by POLITICO Magazine.

“What about the deleted E-mails, Uranium, Podesta, the Server, plus, plus. People are angry,” the president continued. “At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper. The American public deserves it!”

He did it privately as well:

U.S. President Donald Trump wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two political foes, his one-time presidential opponent Hillary Clinton and former FBI director James Comey, in the spring, but his White House counsel rebuffed him, the New York Times reported on Tuesday.

Don McGahn, the White House counsel at the time, wrote a memo to the president outlining consequences for Trump if he did order these prosecutions.

The outcomes ranged from the traditionally independent Justice Department refusing to comply, to congressional probes and voter outcry, the Times reported.

This:

In 2017, Trump sought to have his then-Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, “un-recuse” himself from the Justice Department’s investigation into whether foreign election interference benefited Trump. According to the special counsel investigation headed by Robert Mueller, Trump wanted Sessions to do this to help in prosecuting Clinton for her use of a private email server while secretary of state, even though the Justice Department had closed its case on that matter in 2016.

It wasn’t just about going after Hillary and Comey. He wanted to protect his pals too:

Since taking office President Trump has regularly called upon the Justice Department to investigate individuals he perceives as political opponents, especially his 2016 general election opponent Hillary Clinton, senior officials within the FBI, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Since his acquittal by the Senate in the impeachment trial, the president has exerted further political pressure on the department, including having expressed his displeasure at sentencing recommendations from prosecutors in the case against his associate Roger Stone — complaints that were apparently answered by Justice Department leadership’s intervention in the case, which was in turn praised by the president.

Troublingly, it appears that the Justice Department is allowing itself to be pressured by Trump’s demands. In November 2017, then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions informed members of Congress that he was considering appointing a second special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s alleged role in approving the sale of a uranium company to a Russian state company. In January 2018, after yet another round of tweets from Trump, the Daily Beast reported that Justice Department officials had agreed to take a “fresh look” at Clinton’s use of a private email server. Two years later, in January 2020, the department ended the investigation, conceding nothing of consequence was found.

There also appears to be consequences for officials who do not follow Trump’s bidding. In February 2020, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie Liu resigned from the Treasury Department after Trump withdrew her nomination to serve as undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes. News reports suggest that Liu’s resignation and revoked nomination were related to Trump’s dissatisfaction with her work as U.S. attorney — specifically, Liu’s perceived lack of involvement in politically sensitive investigations, including the cases of Trump ally Roger Stone and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Liu’s resignation occurred following the surprise reversal of Justice Department sentencing recommendations in the Stone case, a reversal that prompted the withdrawal from the case of multiple career prosecutors. In May, another stunning reversal occurred, with the Justice Department said it would be dropping its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. The motion to dismiss the charges was signed by interim U.S. Attorney for the District Timothy Shea, and raised serious questions about political interference at the Justice Department as well as about the involvement of Attorney General Barr.

Biden has not directed the DOJ to do anything despite Trump insisting that he has personally directed the federal indictments of him (even as he’s completely senile and demented.)

Trump was (mostly) thwarted in his efforts to weaponize the Justice Department by people who understood that he had no evidence and was abusing his power. He would not have such roadblocks in place if he becomes president again. In fact, I’m not sure any Republican would. Donald Trump’s criminality has perversely opened the door to future authoritarian types to actually do what they are accusing Biden of doing.

Meanwhile, in Bizarro World

This is what many millions of Republicans watch and believe is true. The internet sources are even worse. Do we need to look any further than this to understand what’s happened to them and why our country is in such desperate trouble?

Over on Truth Social they’re getting it from the horse’s mouth:

The “other side” of slavery

Florida officials searched high and low for it

In case you wondered about the process that led to the preposterous finding that slavery was beneficial for the enslaved in the Florida “AP standards” here it is. It’s as bad as you might have thought:

Florida officials tasked with reviewing a new Advanced Placement course on African American Studies raised multiple concerns the curriculum didn’t offer any “opposing viewpoints” or “other perspectives” of slavery before the state rejected the program earlier this year, the Miami Herald reported Tuesday.

The newspaper obtained copies of internal state documents after the state said in January that it would not allow schools to offer the new Advanced Placement course. The state claimed at the time the pilot program “significantly” lacked educational value and violated Florida law. The decision came amid Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) ongoing effort to target so-called “woke” culture, including the passage of the “Stop WOKE Act” last summer meant to limit teaching about systemic inequality.

The documents, however, appear to show an effort to whitewash the country’s history of slavery. In one lesson, the AP curriculum focuses on how enslaved Africans were removed from the continent and taken to plantations on Portuguese colonies that later became “a model for slave-based economy in the Americas.”

State reviewers said they were concerned the lesson “may not address the internal slave trade/system within Africa” and “may only present one side of this issue.” In a separate lesson that discussed how Europeans benefited from the slave trade, state reviewers claimed the curriculum “may lead to a viewpoint of an ‘oppressor vs. oppressed’ based solely on race or ethnicity.”

In yet another case, a reviewer said a unit about abolitionists that worked to free slaves was not “factually inclusive or balanced.” The curriculum, the reviewer said, would be more accurate if the word “owners” was used rather than enslavers.

The documents noted there were many times reviewers said the course should include perspectives from “the other side,” but didn’t add any detail as to what perspectives they meant.

The Herald notes one of the reviewers was linked to conservative groups including the Civics Alliance, which seeks to bar “woke” standards from teaching curriculum. Many of the comments in the document were not attributed to specific individuals.

Florida is apparently allowing this to happen. I guess the majority doesn’t care. But anti-history, anti-science doesn’t bode well for them.

For the record, there isn’t another side to slavery. But any intelligent person knows that.

Free Dear Leader or we’ll blow this place up!

House Freedom Congress to the rescue?

Donald Trump’s legal problems just got very real. We now have trial dates being set, jockeying among various co-defendants and even his former Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, taking the stand to essentially say he was only following orders. It now appears certain that one way or the other, Trump will be facing a jury before the 2024 election. And for all his blustering about how every indictment makes him more popular, he wants his Republican supporters to do something about it.

Salon’s Amanda Marcotte has a full rundown of the Republican hysteria around the threat to their Dear Leader. The party is in such disarray that it’s difficult to anticipate how successful they might be at their various gambits to interfere in the 2024 elections around the country. But the outlines of what the MAGA caucus in the House plans to do in Washington are clear. They want to impeach Joe Biden, as we all predicted the moment they took the majority in 2022, and flood the zone with investigations. And they want to hold the government hostage by shutting down the government. If all goes well, they might even wreck the economy in the process.

Trump has exhorted them on his social media platform Truth Social for months to put a stop to what the GOP refers to as the “weaponization” of the Department of Justice. And he’s taken it to the campaign trail as well. At a Pennsylvania rally this summer Trump excoriated congressional Republicans whom he believes have not been fighting for him hard enough:

The Republicans are very high class. You’ve got to get a little bit lower class…Any Republican that doesn’t act on Democrat fraud should be immediately primaried and get out — out! They have to play tough and … if they’re not willing to do it, we got a lot of good, tough Republicans around … and they’re going to get my endorsement every single time.

The problem is that there isn’t a whole lot his loyal House majority can do to help him. They are running investigations as fast as they can think of them. Aside from all the bogus Hunter Biden nonsense and the absurd impending impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, they’re now set upon investigating the Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg and Fulton County prosecutor Fanni Willis with the supposed intention of defunding them for their alleged misconduct. They don’t seem to realize that these are local and state offices and are hardly dependent upon whatever small amounts of money the federal government might provide. It does make for a good Truth Social post though.

But they do have one card up their sleeves that it looks like they are going to play quite soon. You’ll recall that the House Freedom caucus was quite bent out of shape last spring when Kevin McCarthy made a deal with the Democrats to raise the debt ceiling. They even staged a little hissy fit soon afterwards blocking a vote on the floor and putting the House into gridlock for week. They now plan to flex their muscles over the appropriations bills with a renewed threat of a government shutdown. And if the putative leader of their majority, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, doesn’t like it, they are pretty much on record saying that they are ready to pull the plug on his speakership. (All it would take is one member to call to vacate the chair and it will only take 4 GOP votes against him to put an end to his reign. )

During this summer’s recess the rebels, led by former Sen. Ted Cruz chief of staff, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, the battle lines have been drawn. (Roy was working for Cruz back in 2013 when he helped the House Tea Party caucus lead that disastrous government shutdown.) The Freedom Caucus released a statement making it clear that they will oppose any short term funding bill that doesn’t meet their demands:

“In the eventuality that Congress must consider a short-term extension of government funding through a Continuing Resolution, we refuse to support any such measure that continues Democrats’ bloated COVID-era spending and simultaneously fails to force the Biden Administration to follow the law and fulfill its most basic responsibilities,”

They are hand-waving about cuts, including Ukraine military funding and “woke” pentagon spending. But the most important ransom demand, which is gaining traction in the whole caucus, is to cut funding for the Department of Justice and the FBI if they don’t succumb to their demands. That’s right, the Republicans are now agitating to defund the police.

Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., has two amendments that would “prohibit the use of federal funding for the prosecution of any major presidential candidate prior to the upcoming presidential election on November 5th, 2024.” Another one, proposed by Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz is to “defund Jack Smith’s office and end the witch hunt.” He has the support of one of the most powerful people in the Republican Party:

The Holman rule would allow amendments to House appropriations legislation to reduce the salary of or fire specific federal employees, or cut a specific program. It has never been used for the purpose Greene proposes and was completely out of use since 1983 until the Trump crazed GOP took over in 2017. (Greene was still an obscure Trump devotee posting about space lasers and QAnon on Facebook groups at the time.)

None of this is going to happen, of course. Even if they could easily pass these ridiculous proposals in the House, which is unlikely, the senate isn’t going to go along with it. And in case they’ve forgotten, they’ll need to get a presidential signature on it too. I’m pretty sure President Biden isn’t going to do that.

And if they do shut down the government just for kicks anyway, one of the functions that will just keep going is the Department of Justice. NBC News reported:

The Justice Department said in a 2021 memo that in a shutdown, “Criminal litigation will continue without interruption as an activity essential to the safety of human life and the protection of property.” The Justice Department’s plans assume that the judicial branch remains fully operational, which it has said in the past can carry on for weeks in the event of a funding lapse.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s office is funded by a “permanent, indefinite appropriation for independent counsels,” the department said in its statement of expenditures. Given its separate funding source, the special counsel would not be affected by a shutdown and could run off of allocations from previous years.”

This is all more of the performance art that passes for politics in the Republican Party these days. A government shutdown over something that will make no difference is a perfect illustration of how preposterous they’ve become. Unfortunately for them, Republicans always take a big hit in popularity when they pull this stunt but they just can’t seem to help themselves. And better leaders than Kevin McCarthy have gone down with the ship when they do it.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, each time this happens people get more cynical about their government. And that way lies (even more) madness.

Who do, who do you think you’re foolin’?

And if I was President….

Via Teagan Goddard: Manchin Pitches $100 Million Project to Boost Centrism

“Sen. Joe Manchin and his daughter Heather Manchin are pitching major political donors on a nascent effort to promote centrist policies and candidates that is projected to cost more than $100 million,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“The project comes as Manchin, a 76-year-old West Virginia Democrat, is weighing whether to mount an uphill effort to win re-election to the Senate in 2024 or pursue a long-shot run for president—or take on a different role in politics altogether. The centrist senator, who represents a solidly Republican state, has been a pivotal deal maker in recent years and has flirted with becoming an independent, citing increasing frustration with both parties.”

Politico: A 6-figure Donald Trump donor is now a No Labels adviser

A major Republican donor and one-time financial backer of former President Donald Trump is now a leader in the Florida chapter of No Labels’ third-party presidential bid.

Allan Keen, a Florida-based real estate developer and investor who gave more than $137,000 to Trump-related election entities last cycle, has joined the centrist political group in a leadership role with its Florida chapter.

The not-a-party party is recently officially recognized as one in North Carolina.

The injection of a third-party candidate, David Graham writes in The Atlantic, “adds up to a race that is simple on the surface but strangely confusing just below it.” Graham has described Manchin as “a middle-of-the-road guy with good electoral instincts, decent intentions, and bad ideas.” Even if he doesn’t run as an independent (unlikely), Manchin is still making himself a stalking horse for No Labels.

“No one alive has seen a race like the 2024 presidential election,” Graham writes. But that’s been true since 2016. We’ve survived two. Pray we survive a third and it’s not our last.

Americans’ high cost of the world’s cheap drugs

That’s some innovation

I tweeted this yesterday but wanted to make it clearer after the Biden administration announced names of the first 10 drugs chosen for price negotiation under last year’s Inflation Reduction Act.

Industry lobby PhRMA argues (and Republicans back them) that high U.S. prices reflect the high cost of drug development. Allowing the government to negotiate lower bulk prices for drugs (as takes place in Europe and eleswhere) will stifle innovation, they argue, is “tantamount to extortion,” and will cut funds for research.

(It might also lower investors’ and executives’ take-homes, but don’t look too closely at that, okay?)

Listen, “Americans pay from two to six times more than the rest of the world” for brand name prescriptions (2015). “American patients have long borne the burden” of “juicy returns” from $630bn in global sales in 2022, “65% of the global haul,” reports The Economist, which estimates the surcharge at two to three times more than consumers pay in other wealthy countries. “America is the piggy-bank of the pharma world,” David Mitchell of Patients for Affordable Drugs tells The Economist.

Seen another way, PhRMA’s “stifle innovation” argument is that U.S. consumers’ higher costs subsidize the rest of the world’s low drug prices. PhRMA wants to keep it that way. Is that their argument? It sounds like that’s their argument.

“Populist” Republicans come out swinging on behalf of Big Pharma

If I didn’t see it, I wouldn’t believe it:

As President Joe Biden touts the first 10 drugs subject to Medicare price talks, Republicans are searching for their own message that would resonate with voters on the downsides of his signature domestic achievement.

Piggybacking on the pharmaceutical industry’s strategy, Republicans are working to persuade Americans that the Biden plan will stifle innovation and lead to price controls, several strategists say.

“The price control is a huge departure from where we have been as a country,” said Joel White, a Republican health care strategist. “It gets politicians and bureaucrats right into your medicine cabinet.”

However, the effort to reframe the drug price debate comes as Democrats prepare to run on the issue up and down the ballot next year against a Republican Party unlikely to cede any ground with campaign attacks and more likely to focus on the border and inflation.

A new poll from nonprofit KFF shows that 58 percent of independent voters trust Democrats to lower drug costs compared with 39 percent of Republicans.

“If they want to run their campaigns based on keeping the profits of the drug companies high, welcome,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told POLITICO. “Why don’t they go for it and see how well President Biden does because people are going to understand that seniors want to see less expensive drugs

I’m sure the cult will fall in line even if they are eating cat food because they can’t afford their prescriptions. But the GOP plant to defend Big Pharma is an utter loser for everyone else. Republicans should just STFU and whine some more about Mr Potatohead. But I actually look forward to them defending high drug prices. As Klobuchar says, “go for it.”

Did Trump rely on drunken advice?

If he listened to Rudy, he surely did.

A problem for Meadows:

He listened to Rudy instead. And he knew Rudy was drunk:

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office has repeatedly grilled witnesses about Rudy Giuliani’s drinking on and after election day, investigating whether Donald Trump was knowingly relying on an inebriated attorney while trying to overturn a presidential election.

In their questioning of multiple witnesses, Smith’s team of federal investigators have asked questions about how seemingly intoxicated Giuliani was during the weeks he was giving Trump advice on how to cling to power, according to a source who’s been in the room with Smith’s team, one witness’s attorney, and a third person familiar with the matter. 

The special counsel’s team has also asked these witnesses if Trump had ever gossiped with them about Giuliani’s drinking habits, and if Trump had ever claimed Giuliani’s drinking impacted his decision making or judgment. Federal investigators have inquired about whether the then-president was warned, including after Election Night 2020, about Giuliani’s allegedly excessive drinking. They have also asked certain witnesses if Trump was told that the former New York mayor was giving him post-election legal and strategic advice while inebriated. 

Furthermore, the special counsel’s office has probed how drunk witnesses and others believed Giuliani to be during specific and consequential moments of the tumultuous Trump-Biden presidential transition. Investigators asked for details that showed precisely how these witnesses knew firsthand the attorney was drinking while counseling Trump on subverting and overturning the 2020 presidential election.

Federal prosecutors often aren’t interested in investigating mere alcohol consumption. But according to lawyers and witnesses who’ve been in the room with special counsel investigators, Smith and his team are interested in this subject because it could help demonstrate that Trump was implementing the counsel of somebody he knew to be under the influence and perhaps not thinking clearly. If that were the case, it could add to federal prosecutors’ argument that Trump behaved with willful recklessness in his attempts nullify the 2020 election — by relying heavily on a lawyer he believed to be working while inebriated, and another who he bashed for spouting “crazy” conspiracy theories that Trump ran with anyway.

And if federal prosecutors were to make this argument in court, it could undermine Trump and his legal team’s “advice of counsel” defense. To avoid legal consequences or even possible prison time, the ex-president is already wielding this legal defense to try to scapegoat lawyers who advised him on overturning the election — even though these attorneys were only acting on Trump’s behalf, or doing what Trump had instructed them to do. 

“In order to rely upon an advice of counsel defense, the defendant has to, number one, have made full disclosure of all material facts to the attorney,” explains Mitchell Epner, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey. “That requires that the attorney understands what’s being told to them. If you know that your attorney is drunk, that does not count as making full disclosure of all material facts.”

Defendants looking to rely on that defense also have to have “reasonably followed the attorney’s recommended course of conduct in good faith,” according to Epner. “Now if, for example, Trump was getting two sets of advice from an attorney: one before 4 p.m. and when the attorney hadn’t been drinking and a second, much more aggressive set of advice after 4 p.m., when he had been drinking and this was a pattern, it would not be reasonable to rely on the drunk advice.”

Some witnesses told Smith’s team that they saw Giuliani consuming significant quantities of alcohol; some told the special counsel’s office that they could clearly smell alcohol on Giuliani’s breath, including on election night, and that they noticed distinct changes in his demeanor from hours prior, the sources tell Rolling Stone.

Some have already told investigators that they were directly aware of moments when Trump had talked to others about Giuliani’s drinking, and that Trump spoke negatively about his then-top lawyer’s alcohol consumption. (Trump is known for being a longtime teetotaler.)

The special counsel’s office declined to comment on this story on Tuesday morning. A Trump spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a statement to Rolling Stone, Giuliani spokesperson Ted Goodman wrote that “One should always question a story that is completely reliant on anonymous sources. This false narrative by nameless sources has been contradicted by on-the-record witnesses.” Last year, the former New York City mayor brought his friend and former business partner Roy Bailey onto his podcast, where he claimed Giuliani had been sober on election night 2020. “I was with you that night and you had nothing to drink. You were all business.”

Giuliani himself has repeatedly and vehemently denied allegations that he was drunk when he encouraged Trump, against the express wishes of some of the then-president’s senior aides, to falsely declare victory on Election Night 2020. The former New York City mayor has also pushed back on claims that his drinking contributed to his shift in public image from post-9/11 “America’s Mayor” to raging Trumpist. “I’m not an alcoholic,” Giuliani told NBC New York in 2021. “I probably function more effectively than 90 percent of the population.”

None of this stopped claims of his public drunkenness from entering the public record, in the form of another high-stakes, wide-ranging investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and Trump’s efforts to cling to power. 

Last year, when the House select committee probing the Jan. 6 attack held public hearings, the panel aired video clips of depositions of Trump brass, which included senior Trump adviser Jason Miller telling congressional investigators: “I think the mayor was definitely intoxicated, but I do not know his level of intoxication when he spoke with the president” on Election Night.

When these clips went viral, Giuliani angrily responded in a tweet that he “REFUSED all alcohol that evening,” and that he was “disgusted and outraged at the out right lie.

The testimony about Rudy being drunk on election night wasn’t actually new. It was reported earlier:

Rudy Giuliani was so drunk on election night that former President Donald Trump’s aides were concerned he’d accidentally smash valuable White House china, presidential biographer Michael Wolff told MSNBC.

Wolff described how on the night of November 3, 2020, the former New York City mayor was struggling to maintain his balance while trying to convince others that Trump had won re-election.

At one point, he was pulled aside into the White House’s china room by several aides of the former president, Raw Story reported. “And at that moment, Rudy was incredibly drunk, weaving this way and that way,” Wolff told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell on Friday afternoon.

“And the china, those place settings from every president are very valuable, and Trump’s aides were obviously, or rightfully, concerned about what Giuliani was saying to the president about the election, and giving him this misinformation,” Wolff continued. “But they were also concerned that he was going to break the china.”

He was literally reeling. Nonetheless he told Trump what he wanted to hear and Trump ignored everyone else and went out and said he’d won even though they had not counted most of the votes and none of the networks had called it. Drunk or not, Rudy was Trump’s most valued adviser through thick and thin.

Here’s something I wrote about Rudy a few years ago. He’s been reeling all over the world for years.

Smith has a point. Trump was listening to a drunk lawyer tell him that he’d won the election. He knew he was drunk but he had it in his head that Rudy still had a great legal reputation and it didn’t matter. It could matter. A lot.

The Dems have their work cut out for them

They shouldn’t but they do. This country is nuts.

Dan Pfeiffer analyzes the current polling and the task ahead in his newsletter today:

Last week, Donald Trump was arrested and arraigned for being part of a criminal organization that tried to illegally overturn the 2020 election. His mug shot was released and quickly went viral. Trump fumbled the COVID pandemic that cost hundreds of thousands of American lives and even more jobs; and he is personally responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade.

On the other side, President Joe Biden conducted his presidency with decency and compassion, exceeding even the most optimistic expectations of what could be achieved with a Republican Party that won’t acknowledge the legitimacy of his electoral victory. Unemployment is under 4%, the economy is growing and inflation has been coming down for months.

Yet somehow — against all common sense — the 2024 election between a competent President and an incompetent criminal — will be incredibly close.

He goes on to lay out the latest polling which shows that Trump and Biden are within a point of each other. It’s appalling. I know that Biden’s old but are people really going to allow a four-times indicted, twice impeached, lunatic to become president again? At this moment in time, that is apparently on the menu.

Pfeiffer spells out what’s going on:

1. Trump’s Holding More of His 2020 Voters than Biden

The primary reason for the statistical tie in the race is that Trump is holding onto more of his 2020 vote than Biden. In the NYT poll, 91% of Trump’s 2020 voters are supporting him again while only 87% percent of Biden’s voters plan to vote for him in 2024. Among Biden’s 2020 voters, 2% plan to vote for Trump, 4% claim they won’t if the race is between Biden and Trump, and 5% intend to vote for a candidate other than Biden or Trump. Trump loses 2% to Biden, 3% to another candidate, and 2% say they won’t vote.

Relying on self-reported voter history can be a little noisy, but Biden’s approval rating demonstrates that he has some work to do with his own coalition. Only 77% percent of Democrats in the poll have a favorable opinion of Biden, compared to 80% of Republicans for Trump.

This may seem counterintuitive, but I find these numbers encouraging. Convincing people who already voted for Biden to vote for him again instead of sitting out the election or throwing their vote away on a third party candidate isn’t easy, but it is doable.

I hope he’s right about that. I just can’t imagine why anyone who voted for Biden last time would think the country would be in better hands with Trump. WTF???

2. Work to Do with Young Voters

There is, of course, some overlap with the above group, but young voters are not yet as on board with Biden 2024 as they were the last time around. According to Pew, Biden won voters 18-29 by 24 points in 2020, but he is only winning them by 10 in the NYT poll. Biden won voters 30-44 by 12 points. For reasons unbeknownst to me, the Times poll breaks out the age as 30-44, not 30-49, but Biden is only up three points with that group.

This change is not a bunch of young and young(ish) people deciding to support Trump. They are checking out of the election. — 9% of 18-29 year olds say they won’t vote if Biden and Trump are the nominees, and 16% of 30-44 year olds are either planning to vote for a third-party candidate or not vote at all.

These numbers are probably not a surprise to folks who pay attention. Young voters are a challenge for Biden. He started off the 2020 general election underperforming with that group and ended up generating high levels of turnout and support. It will take a lot of work, but Biden did it before and I am confident he can do it again.

Young people are busy with their lives and often turn off to politics. And they are idealistic and sometimes think it makes more sense to cast a protest vote to register their discontent with the system. But I suspect they will come around.

The 30-44 year olds are a bit more mystifying to me. They’ve been voting since at least 2016 and a lot of them voted for Obama. I don’t think idealism is driving this. I wonder what is?

Pfeiffer says there is also statistically insignificant move toward Trump from Black, Hispanic, Male and low-income voters and points out that the four points Biden has lost from Independents is likely because that number isn’t static and they’ve just finally admitted they are Republicans.

The big takeaways:

— Biden (and all of us) must work to reconstitute the coalition that defeated Trump in 2020;

— Biden’s (and our) task is more difficult because the anti-MAGA majority is much more diverse generationally, demographically, geographically, and ideologically than the MAGA minority;

— Communicating to younger voters Biden’s accomplishments and the stakes of this election are top priorities;

— The Biden campaign clearly understands the task ahead, which is why their current flight of ads focuses on Biden, not Trump

A viable third-party candidate like Larry Hogan or Cornell West is more damaging to Biden than Trump and could be what puts Trump over the top.

Yet another incredibly close race with the fate of democracy on the line is an unsettling and exhausting notion. It’s no fun to reflect on that prospect in the waning weeks of summer. Still, we must understand why the polling looks the way it does and formulate a strategy for how to invest our time and resources as the campaign heats up this fall.

Here’s an example of the ads that are currently being run by the Biden campaign. I see them a lot on the news channels. I have no idea if they’re penetrating the groups that need shoring up: