Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani cites John Edwards as a precedent that the $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels was not a violation of campaign finance laws.
"It’s not a crime," he said. "Paying $130,000 to Stormy whatever and paying $130,000 to the other one is not a crime. The Edwards case determined that... The FEC ruled on the Edwards case before they prosecuted it. The FEC ruled it’s no violation of the campaign finance law. The Justice Department went ahead and prosecuted it anyway and they were embarrassed."
"If it’s not a campaign expense, it can’t be a campaign contribution. These are not campaign contributions."
GIULIANI: I’m disgusted with the Southern District. I’m going to tell you another thing. You see what we’re talking about? It’s not a crime. It’s not a crime, George. Paying $130,000 to Stormy whatever and paying $130,000 to the other one is not a crime. The Edwards case determined that. She was paid a million one to be a no-show in his campaign.
STEPHANOPOULOS: As you know, Mayor, the Edward case is actually quite different. The judge in that case said that if --
GIULIANI: George, it’s not the judge, it’s the FEC. The FEC ruled on the Edwards case before they prosecuted it. The FEC ruled it’s no violation of the campaign finance law. The Justice Department went ahead and prosecuted it anyway and they were embarrassed.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And the judge said that if it was in part to help the campaign, that would be illegal. You're right that the jury did not convict John Edwards --
GIULIANI: No. No. No. No. No.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- but the evidence in this case is actually quite different.
GIULIANI: Wrong, wrong, wrong instruction. It has to be for the sole purpose. If there's another purpose, it's no longer a campaign contribution. If there’s a personal purpose. Now think about this. Suppose he tried to use his campaign funds to pay off Stormy Daniels. It would be totally illegal. If it’s not a campaign expense, it can’t be a campaign contribution. These are not campaign contributions.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the corporate -- the corporate contribution from AMI would be clearly illegal.
GIULIANI: No -- no it would not be. It's not a contribution. It's not a contribution. If it’s intended for a purpose in addition to the campaign purpose. In the case of Rio Hunter (ph), right, the payment of $1.1 million was intended to shut her up and was intended to avoid embarrassment with his wife and with his children. Now, which is worse?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, but what --
GIULIANI: The campaign problem or the wife and children.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But what you did -- that’s -- that’s that case. Let’s talk about the president’s case.
GIULIANI: Same thing.
STEPHANOPOULOS: No, it’s not the same thing.
GIULIANI: Yes it is.
STEPHANOPOULOS: In this case you have contemporaneous witnesses saying it was for the campaign, you have a statement of facts saying the president met -- Donald Trump met with David Pecker a year before -- right after the campaign --
GIULIANI: And I can produce an enormous number of witnesses that say the president was very concerned about how this was going to affect his children, his marriage, not just this one but similar -- all those women came forward at that point in time, that -- that tape with Billy Bush and all of that. It's all part of the same thing. And I know what he was concerned about and I can produce 20 witnesses to tell you what he was concerned about.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Two weeks before the campaign?
GIULIANI: Damn right. And he was -- he was concerned about all of it. How do you think that --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Did he ever make any payments like that in the past?
GIULIANI: Nobody else asked for -- in the past, I can't speak to. I wasn’t his lawyer in the past. But at that point, these were the only two that were asking for money. And the amount of money is consistent with harassment, not truth. I have been involved in cases like this. When it’s true and you have the kind of money the president had, it's a $1 million settlement. When it's not true, when it’s a harassment settlement and it’s not true, you give them $130,000, $150,000. They went away for so little money that it indicates their case was very, very weak.
And look, Stormy Daniels now has to pay the president legal fees. I mean, it’s -- this is ridiculous.