Federal agents raided the apartment and office of former President Donald Trump’s longtime attorney Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday, an extraordinary move in the Justice Department’s ongoing criminal probe.
The shocking development is part of the two-year investigation into Giuliani’s political activities in Ukraine. He hasn’t been charged and denies all wrongdoing. Here’s a breakdown of some of the key questions surrounding the investigation. What is the investigation about? Giuliani is wrapped up in a few ongoing investigations, and they’re all tied to his pro-Trump political activities in Ukraine, where he focused much of his attention in 2019 and 2020. CNN has reported that investigators want to know if Giuliani acted as an illegal lobbyist on behalf of any Ukrainian officials. He urged Trump to take certain actions regarding Ukraine — like firing the respected US ambassador — and prosecutors want to know if this was done on behalf of, or in concert with, foreign officials. That could be a violation of laws regarding foreign agents. His lawyer Robert Costello told CNN that the warrant described an investigation regarding foreign lobbying. Prosecutors are also examining Giuliani’s potential business deals with disgraced Ukrainian officials, according to The New York Times. This reportedly involves some of the former officials Giuliani worked closely with in 2020 to peddle disinformation about then-candidate Joe Biden There are also questions about a $500,000 payment Giuliani received from two Soviet-born associates who have been indicted in a related case. More on that angle in a moment. Why is this happening now? Career prosecutors wanted a search warrant against Giuliani last year, but they were rebuffed by senior Trump appointees at the Justice Department, both before and after the 2020 presidential election, according to reporting from CNN and The New York Times. There were reportedly concerns that the public actions against Giuliani would be too close to the election, and there were also some doubts that there was enough evidence to justify such an aggressive move against an attorney — and the former attorney to the President, nonetheless.
