they don t have to go to the campaign to be a contribution, they can be an in kind contribution if it s made for the purpose of benefiting the campaign and his knowledge would go to that. the other thing he s done is really directly contradict what michael cohen has said publicly, which also now undercuts cohen s credibility which could impact him in both his criminal and civil suits. double whammy there. it s possible, this could come up today when michael cohen and his lawyers appear in court. the prosecutors have repeatedly argue that had cohen doesn t have many clients and that the work he does for his current clients, the three that have been mentioned in court is minimal. they had that line in one of their filings that said, we ve had access to his email, for instance, and we didn t see any communication with trump. they have repeatedly argued that his citing of attorney/client privilege with the documents that they ve seized is overblown and trump has now aided their
and then there s a claim dr. jackson provided such a large supply of perkset to someone from the military stuff it threw his own staff into a panic. those allegations laid out in a document by democrats from 23 former colleagues of dr. jackson. much more on that in just a moment, but i want to bring in now former u.s. attorney michael moore. thank you so much for joining us. i appreciate it. michael, i m going to start with you. we learned tonight that michael cohen is going to assert the fifth amendment in the stormy daniels case. what does that mean to her in the criminal investigation in new york? i think it s not unexpected that he would do this. i mean basically what happens now for the stormy daniels case is there s likely to be some type of stay in the action. the judge may halt discovery for a period of time. and here s the reason. cohen doesn t want to be in a position where he s answering
$130,000 payment? when did he know about it? did he know about the agreement? did he reimburse it? and how did he reimburse it? i don t understand what s so complicated about this. we tried to get clarity from kellyanne conway on that earlier in the program and did not get any clarity on that. rudy giuliani argued this morning that it s clear the president has not violated any campaign finance laws over this hush money payment. he says it would have been made regardless of the presidential campaign, and it wasn t a loan because the president reimbursed it. is that right? no, that s not right. rudy giuliani evidently doesn t he claims to not know the facts, but he most assuredly does not know campaign finance law. that s not campaign finance law. rudy giuliani seems to believe if the payment was not made with campaign dollars, that there s no campaign finance violation. that s not the law. i think it s clear look, if