Rudy Giuliani Interview Sparks Credibility Crisis At The White House
BOSTON (CBS) - Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani spoke out Friday about his recent comments on President Trump and Stormy Daniels.
"My references to timing were not describing my understanding of the President's knowledge, but instead, my understanding of these matters," said Giuliani via written statement.
Friday President Trump said Giuliani, who is the newest member of his legal team, is still learning.
This comes after an interview that Giuliani did earlier this week in which he said hush money paid to Daniels was "funneled through a law firm and the president repaid it" to Michael Cohen.
The interview has now sparked a credibility crisis at the White House.
Now, two days after the bombshell comments, President Trump has defended Giuliani.
"Rudy knows it's a witch hunt. He started yesterday. He'll get his facts straight. He's a great guy," said the President. "But what he does is he feel it's a very bad thing for our country and he happens to be right."
In a series of tweets Thursday, the President admitted that Cohen was indeed reimbursed, but claims the money came from a "monthly retainer" having "nothing to do with the campaign." President Trump and his team however have denied that for months.
In February, Cohen said he paid Daniels with his own money and was never reimbursed.
In March, White House Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders reiterated that point, "There was no knowledge of any payments from the President and he's denied all of these allegations," said Sanders.
Last month, the President himself made similar comments aboard Air Force One. A reporter asked "did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels," President Trump responded by saying "no."
In Giuliani's statement from Friday, he maintains what he said earlier this week; regardless of the details, the payment broke no laws.
"It's going to turn out to be perfectly legal," said Giuliani. "That money was not campaign money."
If the President knowingly paid the money back, and when, is now secondary to a bigger question; whether or not the payment itself violates campaign finance law.
