Washington Justice Department officials said a warrant would be an extraordinary move to take a lawyer – who is also a key adviser to a president – into an investigation into possible violations of foreign lobbying laws .
The case remains open and any decision rests with the Biden administration.
The matter has attracted the attention of officials as high as Jeffrey Rosen, deputy attorney general, who, along with other officials at the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, decided not to make a final decision, these people say, partly because there will soon be a change in the administration.
But the issue was sensitive enough that Rosen issued a Dec. 30 memorandum adding new obstacles for prosecutors to consult with the Washington Department of Justice and the Deputy Attorney General before seeking a warrant for the offices of to search a lawyer.
Biden’s message was to restore unity, which some observers interpret as failing to investigate previous politicians, such as Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine, which were at the center of Trump’s accusations in 2020. At the same time, the government van Biden was put under pressure to apply justice fairly and restore the independence of the Department of Justice.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, which has a reputation for independence, is leading the Giuliani investigation that began more than two years ago, and the decision on a summons or a warrant could contribute to whether there is a case to charge.
According to the person informed about it, the discussions last year focused on a number of possible options, including a voluntary request and a warrant, to get evidence that investigators believe they need.
The people familiar with the discussions are not talking to CNN about the ongoing investigation.
Representatives from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and the Department of Justice declined to comment on this story. Rosen did not respond to a request for comment.
Concern about evidence
Late last year, after witnesses were questioned and documents summoned, prosecutors approached officials in Washington about trying to expand access, including the possibility of obtaining a warrant for Giuliani’s communications and electronic devices.
Due to the intrusive nature of the search and protection of the attorney’s client, a warrant from a then president’s attorney will require the approval of senior officials in Justice in Washington.
Officials in Washington pushed back during the conversation last year, citing issues ranging from proximity to the election and ongoing election proceedings to the strength of the case, the people said. According to a person informed about it, officials discussed whether other methods could be used to obtain evidence, as a search warrant would be broad and create questions about communications in which Trump was involved.
One source said there was also skepticism from lawyers with the national security department.
Some Justice Department officials have expressed concern that the New York investigation depends on what they say is a new interpretation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires individuals to disclose lobbying works on behalf of foreign governments or officials.
Prosecutors are investigating the theory that Giuliani may have been engaging in unknown foreign lobbying for Ukrainian officials as he sought the ouster of the U.S. ambassador and an investigation into the Bidens for his own personal benefit while pursuing the efforts as Trump’s attorney. said the people.
Giuliani’s dual roles make a complicated contribution to the case.
This is an unusual theory in the case of a law on the registration of foreign agents, the people said, especially because Giuliani is pursuing his efforts, also on television, in public and it is not clear whether he is paid by foreign officials does not become. Some prosecutors have debated whether the evidence clearly violates a foreign lobbying, as Giuliani can argue that he is acting on behalf of the former president, the people said about the discussions.
During the hearing, officials in Washington said it would be unusual to issue a warrant against a lawyer in an investigation into the registration of foreign agents, let alone an adviser to the then president, according to people who is familiar with the conversation. They also said that the theory of the case was untested, the people said.
The statute has been in the books for decades, but has recently been used more by the Department of Justice and has led to two notable losses.
In 2019, Greg Craig, who was a White House attorney in the Obama administration, was acquitted during the trial of offenses by foreign agents, and a federal judge overturned the conviction of a former associate of Michael Flynn and found that the evidence was “inadequate.” The Department of Justice appealed the judge’s ruling on Flynn’s associate.
Giuliani’s lobbying efforts
Giuliani, who is not accused of any wrongdoing, has maintained his operations in Ukraine in his role as a private lawyer for Trump.
Robert Costello, a lawyer for Giuliani, told CNN there was no outreach from federal prosecutors. He said he did not believe there was an active investigation into Giuliani because his client did nothing wrong.
Two of Giuliani’s associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, have been charged with funding campaigns, stemming from a suspected straw donor scheme. The men met Giuliani and helped introduce him to Ukrainian officials. They pleaded not guilty.
During Trump’s first indictment, administration officials testified about a shadowy campaign led by Giuliani to pressure the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into the Bidens, while falsely accusing then-US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch has that he was an anti-Trump partisan.
Prosecutors in New York also sued several witnesses for documents and testimony regarding any cases they had with Giuliani. Last fall, investigators spoke to a number of businessmen about Giuliani’s lobbying work, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Initially, prosecutors claimed that Parnas’ attempt to remove the US ambassador was partly at the request of one or more Ukrainian officials. In a court report, prosecutors write the following accusation “streamlines certain factual allegations.” Prosecutors never identified the official.
Lawyers for Fruman and Parnas said no Ukrainian official existed and called it a “false narrative” spread by the Justice Department, 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 U.S. ambassador was withdrawn. The judge certainly did not rule on the motion.