It’s a question that’s been burning up social media since the former New York mayor’s Hannity interview Wednesday night: Did Rudy Giuliani make some pretty big errors in giving some of the answers he did regarding Stormy Daniels? I’m thinking he might have.

Now, I am not a lawyer at all, but I do follow Gabriel Malor on Twitter, and he is (you should, too). Here’s his take.

In his past two FNC appearances, Rudy Giuliani has claimed both that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment and that Cohen was retained by Trump to fix campaign problems.

If true, Trump and Cohen are in big trouble.

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 3, 2018

In a previous thread, he explained the problem in a bit more detail.

Giuliani is trying to make this idea work: it could not be a campaign finance violation if Trump had directly paid Daniels for her silence out of his personal funds. 1/

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 3, 2018

Giuliani's problem is that Cohen conducted the exchange to influence an election on Trump Org time/email (a violation), and using either his own money or Trump Org's money (a violation). 2/

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 3, 2018

This puts Trump in legal jeopardy though if Cohen committed the violations *at Trump's direction* (conspiracy to commit a violation), which Giuliani has now suggested.

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 3, 2018

First, "I had a guy who takes care of things for me" is not a get out of jail free card. That's the mob defense.

If Trump had knowledge of Cohen's violation and then paid him anyway, that would be misprision of a felony as soon as he claimed otherwise. https://t.co/3K9Gh7BFqs

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 3, 2018

Guys, a reimbursed unlawful campaign contribution is still an unlawful campaign contribution. As is failing to report a campaign contribution that is later reimbursed. https://t.co/msecGSW2dH

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 3, 2018

The thread continues on Twitter, and I encourage you to read it.

As Streiff explained earlier in his post, this could very well be a larger strategy for the Trump Team. I’m in the same boat, but I also feel like the strategy could misfire for the reasons stated in Malor’s thread.

Of course, the biggest problem here is that there is a difference in the political victory that Streiff refers to and a legal victory that now seems more difficult to obtain. We know that Trump’s supporters won’t be changing their mind, regardless of any legal outcome, and we also know that the vast majority of the American public has already made up their mind about Trump.

What we don’t know is what’s in Robert Mueller’s hand. Everywhere else in the Justice Department, there has been leak after leak after leak. Mueller’s investigation hasn’t let anything slip. Any information that has come out has been purposeful.

So that means we can assume he’s holding back. I’m not saying there’s a there there, but I’m not not saying it. If the President doesn’t take this more seriously, and if the Trump Team can’t get its story straight, it could very well have a bad outcome for him.