(11-08-2019, 09:30 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 08:57 PM)jj82284 Wrote: No it's not.  Gathering evidence to defend his client isn't bribing anyone or soliciting a bribe.   Presenting that evidence to the state department IG is 100% appropriate.  If the president asked him to act as an informal back channel then that's completely up to the president.

Defend his client against what? The Mueller investigation was over. The 2016 election was over.

Let's start again.  Rudy Giuliani's involvement investigating Ukrainian efforts against POTUS started towards the end of the Mueller investigation.  Why?  Because Ukrain played an expansive role in the origins of the probe, and members of their parliament leaked information about Trump's campaign manager that eventually lead to him being placed under investigation and later imprisoned.   

As for the probe being "over" the probe did immeasurable harm to the president, his family, close associates, and his overall brand.  Continuing to pursue its origins and clear highs clients name in the eye of the public is an appropriate function of private council.   

Moreover, he and the president have a responsibility to share evidence of and root out corruption in dealings with an allie, especially those that deal with billions of dollars in tax payer money.   We now know from witness testimony that even elements in the Obama administration had to block certain projects dealing with burisma because the oligarch was under suspicion of misappropriating funds.  We lost some seven billion dollars in aid money in Ukraine.   

In short, cultivating evidence of a crime and asking that if be investigated is not an illicit act.

---