In the months since Rudy Giuliani signed on as Donald Trump’s criminal defense lawyer, Rudy has demonstrated that he only has one valuable skill up his sleeve: constantly telling laugh-out-loud lies, and banking on the mainstream media to print at least some of those lies as if they were fact. Sure enough, Giuliani has managed to pull it off again, getting a major newspaper to print arguably the most egregious lie he has up his sleeve.
This evening the New York Times has published a lengthy profile about how Rudy Giuliani ended up becoming Trump’s lawyer. About halfway through, the article includes this quote from Rudy Giuliani: “Mueller was a little ambiguous about it at the meeting. Two weeks later, he said they understood they couldn’t indict. It was about writing a report. Since then, we’ve been focused on will he or won’t he be interviewed and the terms.” To be as clear as possible, NO SUCH CONVERSATION COULD EVER HAVE POSSIBLY HAPPENED.
We don’t know what Robert Mueller’s position is on indicting a sitting president. But we do know that Mueller isn’t a blithering idiot. If Mueller admitted to Trump’s defense team that he knows he can’t indict Trump, it would have been the most naive mistake in the history of negotiations. You never give away all your leverage at the outset by conceding that your most powerful potential weapon doesn’t work. It’s literally impossible for Mueller to have said this to Giuliani.
So why the hell is the New York Times printing this obvious lie from Rudy Giuliani? Even when the mainstream media knows that someone is lying, they’re usually afraid to call it a lie unless they can convince even their least intelligent readers that it’s a lie. Otherwise they get accused of being presumptive or unfair. Even with much of Giuliani’s cognitive function having clearly left the building, he still knows how to get major media outlets to print his lies as if they were plausible.
Bill Palmer is the publisher of the political news outlet Palmer Report