,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Not a denial, actually, from the standpoint of a defense lawyer. If Ken's quote is accurate this is *not* the same as saying "we categorically deny" or "Mr. Trump categorically denies," this is Rudy speaking for Rudy and Trump later can say he had nothing to do with Rudy's words.
2/ People forget, probably because Rudy is himself famous, that Rudy literally matters not at all in this equation and is supposed to be merely a mouthpiece for representations his client wishes to make to the public if any. And what Rudy said was NOT a representation from Trump.
3/ When journalists give the impression they're counting the minutes until Rudy denies a piece of breaking news is accurate, it gives readers the false impression that a denial from Rudy has any news value whatsoever. It does not. Only a denial from Trump would matter or be news.
4/ Rudy, like any defense lawyer, has learned when the journalists covering him, like Ken, are not going to force him to say that he is making a representation on Trump's behalf (that is, upon consultation with his client). This has freed Rudy to say whatever the *hell* he wants.
5/ And as a shrewd reader points out, when Sarah H. Sanders later says, "I'd refer you to the president's counsel" when asked about this, she's getting media to *re-report* what was *never a denial in the first place* by Trump. The result is Trump *never* has to actually respond.
6/ There's actually no reason for Trump not to issue his own (dishonest) statement on Twitter: a) impeachment is wholly political anyway, so he can "play politics" with his legal liability (for now), and b) if he goes down for what he did, any such statement won't matter anyway.
7/ But from a *journalistic* standpoint (not a defense-strategy standpoint), what's vital here is to make decisions as a journalist that *force* Trump to issue a statement and thereby give readers some actual news content they can later use to adjudicate Trump's *political* fate.
