â€œWhen we had meetings, he was the lead counsel and the lead spokesman for the company,â€ John Brownlee, the US Attorney in Virginia's western district, tells The New York Times. Rudy apparently got involved early last summer, when Brownlee told Purdue execs about a possible indictment, until October, when the basic terms of the companyâ€™s guilty plea were reached, the paper writes.
A Guiliani spokeswoman says Rudy hasn't done any legal work for Purdue for â€œseveral months.â€ Rudy didn't announce his bid for the presidency until this year. But the Times notes during the same four-month period that he talked to prosecutors about Purdue, he was apparently gearing up by giving policy speeches and appearing at fundraisers for Republican Party candidates.
Beyond the usual client confidentiality issues, it wouldn't have looked good just then to be publicly tied to a company reviled for promoting Hillbilly Heroin. Nonetheless, Rudy did a good job for his clients in so far as no Purdue exec is going to jail. Yet when Rudy was a US Attorney in Manhattan, he didn't hesitate to send insider traders and junk bond peddlers to jail because they preyed on the system.
So we see that Rudy can be effective at whatever job he holds, but what about his judgment? Yes, he was acting as a private citizen while advocating for his client and he was entitled to make a buck, but he could have declined to negotiate the Purdue deal. After all, he keeps saying that he wants to serve society, but maybe only when it suits him?
What do you think? Should Giuliani have passed on representing Purdue?
- Yes (53%, 28 Votes)
- No (47%, 25 Votes)
Total Voters: 53