Washington Department of Justice officials said a search warrant would be an extraordinary step to be taken against a lawyer – who is also a chief aide to a president – in an investigation into the possible violation of foreign lobbying laws.
The question remains open and any decision lies with the Biden government.
The issue caught the attention of officials like Jeffrey Rosen, assistant attorney general, who along with other officials at Manhattan’s Justice and Prosecutor’s Office decided not to make a final decision, these people say, in part because there would soon be a change in administration.
But the issue was sensitive enough for Rosen to issue a December 30 memorandum adding new obstacles for prosecutors to consult the Department of Justice’s criminal division in Washington and the assistant attorney general before seeking a search warrant from the offices of a lawyer.
Biden’s message has been to restore unity, which some observers interpret as not pursuing previous investigations involving politicized issues, such as Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine, which were at the center of Trump’s impeachment trial in 2020. At the same time, the government Biden is facing pressure to apply justice uniformly and restore the Department of Justice’s independence.
The United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, which has a reputation for independence, is leading Giuliani’s investigation, which began more than two years ago, and the decision on a subpoena or search warrant may take into account whether there is a case to be heard. be accused.
Discussions last year focused on a number of possible options, including a voluntary request and a search warrant, to try to get evidence that investigators believe they need in the investigation, according to an informed person.
People familiar with the discussions did not officially speak to CNN about an ongoing investigation.
Representatives of the United States Attorney General’s office in Manhattan and the Justice Department declined to comment on this matter. Rosen did not respond to a request for comment.
Concerns about the evidence
Late last year, after interviewing witnesses and subpoenaing documents, prosecutors approached officials in Washington about trying to expand that access, including the possibility of obtaining a search warrant for Giuliani’s communications and electronic devices.
A search warrant for a then-president’s attorney would require the approval of senior justice officials in Washington because of the invasive nature of the search and attorney-client protections.
Washington officials resisted during the conversation last year and cited issues ranging from the proximity of the election and ongoing electoral disputes to the strength of the case, people said. Authorities discussed whether other methods could be used to obtain evidence, since a search warrant would be broad and inherently raise questions about communications involving Trump, according to an informed person.
A source said there was also some skepticism on the part of lawyers in the national security division.
Some officials at Justice headquarters have raised concerns that the New York investigation would depend on what they believed to be a new interpretation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which requires individuals to disclose lobbying activities on behalf of governments to the Department of Justice. foreign authorities.
Prosecutors are exploring the theory that Giuliani may have been involved in undisclosed foreign lobbying for Ukrainian authorities when he sought the removal of the U.S. ambassador and an investigation into the Bidens for his own benefit, while pursuing his efforts as a lawyer. Trump, people said.
Giuliani’s dual roles add complexity to the case.
It would be an unusual theory for a case of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, people said, especially since Giuliani was publicly publicizing his efforts, including on television, and it is unclear whether he was paid for by a foreign official. Some prosecutors debated whether the evidence clearly establishes a violation of foreign lobbying, as Giuliani could argue that he was acting on behalf of the former president, people informed of the discussions said.
During the discussion, Washington officials said it would be unusual to issue a search warrant against a lawyer in an investigation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, let alone an aide to the then president, according to people familiar with the conversation. They also said the case theory was not tested, people said.
The statute has been in the books for decades, but recently it was used more by the Department of Justice and resulted in two high-profile losses.
In 2019, Greg Craig, who had been a White House lawyer in the Obama administration, was acquitted in the trial of violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and a federal judge rejected the conviction of a former associate of Michael Flynn, concluding that the evidence was “insufficient.” The Justice Department appealed the judge’s decision about associate Flynn.
Giuliani’s lobbying efforts
Giuliani, who was not charged with any wrongdoing, continued his activities in Ukraine as Trump’s private lawyer.
Robert Costello, Giuliani’s lawyer, told CNN that there was no contact with federal prosecutors. He said he does not believe there is an active investigation into Giuliani because his client has done nothing wrong.
Two of Giuliani’s associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were indicted on campaign funding charges stemming from an alleged straw donor scheme. The men met with Giuliani and helped introduce him to the Ukrainian authorities. They pleaded not guilty.
During Trump’s first impeachment trial, government officials testified about a secret campaign led by Giuliani to pressure the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into the Bidens, while falsely accusing the then US ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, of being an anti- Trump.
Prosecutors in New York also summoned several witnesses for documents and statements related to any dealings they had with Giuliani. Last fall, investigators talked to several businessmen about Giuliani’s lobbying efforts, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Initially, prosecutors claimed that Parnas’ effort to remove the US ambassador was conducted, in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian officials. In a lawsuit, prosecutors wrote that the replacement charge “streamlines certain factual claims”. Prosecutors never identified the officer.
Lawyers for Fruman and Parnas said there was no Ukrainian official and called it a “false narrative” released by the Department of Justice, according to a court case. They asked a judge to order prosecutors to explain whether any information initially presented to the grand jury about the US ambassador had been withdrawn. The judge did not rule on the motion.