he did with the michael cohen case in the southern district of new york u.s. attorney. but the judge here is saying, you don t really care about this, you re just trying to get trump and for that reason, i m wary of this case. doesn t that concern you that a judge would think that? it does concern me if it influences the judge s review of the facts and the law. that seems to be the judge questioning the motives of the special counsel. here the special counsel, i m sure in discussion and consultation with rod rosenstein, is deciding which of the cases that have arisen from this investigation he should try personally and which should be farmed out to others. that s how the process should work. and while it s within the judge s prerogative to ask these questions, i don t think it really bears on the legal issues. and so i think that bob mueller will prevail in the sense of being able to go forward with this litigation. i don t think there s any legal question about that. but yes, it is
the investigations. but investigators might be disappointed because cohen doesn t have any incriminating information about president trump. i imagine that you think he shouldn t be so sure about that. well, no. i think he should be absolutely unsure about that. i don t think there s any question, i ve been say thing for a while, that michael cohen is going to turn states evidence on the president and i m confident there s going to be a lot of evidence and conduct that will come to light. the story, jake, if we just concentrate on this $130,000 payment, and i don t want to say story, because now it s stories. the stories they re trying to ped toll the american people are forever changing. now rudy giuliani is trying to claim that he really doesn t know the facts, isn t really up to speed as to the most basic facts. these are facts that you would found out as an attorney in the first 30 minutes oh of a meeting with a client. this is not that complicated of a situation. did the presiden
there is a bigger issue below the surface here. this is like a filth iceberg and there is a lot underneath it that she s aware of but doesn t want to get tagged with knowing about because she s the queen of that happy talk thing for him, and the fact that she s putting daylight between herself and the president on this is very interesting to me. it s telling. i m not sure what it says yet, but it is telling. so larry, your assessment? i agree. and also what she said was, well, i m not really involved in that, that is what giuliani is involved with. then giuliani says, i don t know the facts. it s a simple request here. can somebody talk to the president and find out what the facts are? they may then decide they don t want to tell the public, and that s why a lawyer will usually try to find out the facts before they go public. they may decide there s certain things they don t want to make public. but somebody knows what the facts are, it s the president. you would think his lawyer w
rudy giuliani is muddying the waters over president trump s decision on whether or not to testify in the special counsel robert mueller s russia investigation. will he or won t he? that s the question. larry and rick are back to discuss this. rudy giuliani didn t rule out that he might plead the fifth. the question is will he comply, and giuliani says, not the way they re acting. is this in the best interest of the president? there are a couple things we have to really break down here. there are two issues in terms of complying. one is whether he would comply with a subpoena which means show up for testimony. the other he could comply with the subpoena and then still take the fifth amendment. that is his right. he can take the fifth amendment. optically it doesn t look very good, but as a lawyer, he does have the right to take the fifth. what they re doing is setting up the idea he s not going to
more substantial? no, i don t agree with that, jake. i think it s well known that donald trump is incredibly cheap in many aspects of his life, and has been for decades. so the whole idea that they just threw out $130,000 as a nuisance payment to someone that they have concluded was lying, and that he never had an affair with is absurd. these are guys that if they now want to believe that a woman came with her hand out and they just promptly paid $130,000? it s not believable. your client appeared on saturday night live. i understand it was a light hearted appearance, but there s ongoing litigation here. doesn t this potentially hurt your client s case? no, jake, i don t think at all. you know, it s a comedy skit. i thought she did a remarkable job and it was very, very funny. donald trump was on saturday night live when he ran for president. i think it gave the american