system, $80 million missing, lots of criminal referrals now being made. nobody was minding the store. that s part of the reason why i m running for governor of ohio. are there systematic reasons to be worried about there s banks sort of abusing their customers, but one of the things i think we saw in 2007 is or 2006 and then 2008 is banks sort of getting over can lead to bigger problems. do you worry about that? i do worry about it. we saw all kinds of difficulties and problems and people being taken advantage of, which nobody can think is right. as i said, we put back money in people s pockets, gave them a voice, we solved problems. i know that the powerful interests i fought on wall street and the special interests in washington will now come after me in this governor s race and they will be loaded up with money. and if people want to take on this fight and join us they can go to cordrayforohio.com. do you think that mulvaney mulvaney has two jobs. he s the head of the om
and what they told me is there are international regulations about what has to be disclosed about a financial transaction. by keeping that number under 20%, it allowed them to move money around. so when qatar makes that purchase along with the swiss company, they immediately divide it up, spread it around, and they can create the commissions. it wasn t that they gave 19.5% to trump people like kushner, it s that they were able to under the radar create commissions that those millions of dollars could go undetected. it just turns out that there are other ways of finding out that information that got all the way back. it was done in a way to avoid detection. it looks like it got detected anyway. and so the allegation was that these commissions could be produced. and here is another weird fact. it turns out russia bought back a lot of that 19.5%. right. this was a paper transaction created to generate millions of dollars that would go undetected and could move around that seems to hav
that s what we did. we put $12 billion back in the pockets of 30 million americans that was wrongly taken from them. what do you mean by that? we took enforcement actions against the big banks and big financial companies to make sure people who were wronged got their money back. for example, we went after two of the for-profit college chains that were failing, defruding taxpayers, cheating the students, cheating veterans out of their gi bill money. and we got them shut down and we dot money back for people. $750 million. they actually that s one of the things mick mulvaney has shuttered, as i understand it, that entire division that would investigate student loan abuses and these kinds of things has been shut down. do you think that s a bad idea? some combination of he and betsy devos at department of education have reversed they don t want to be monitoring the for-profit colleges because they like the for-profit colleges. we found that many of them ab e abused taxpayers, a
associates of the president have you heard from the boss. one mr. cohen who saw him over the winter voiced his unhappiness with the state of his relationship with mr. trump saying the president was not calling him and not helping him. what do you think? well, let s just step back a little bit, chris. it s very clear that michael cohen saw an opportunity to make a lot of money for himself, and there is no reason to think that the companies that we ve heard of so far, plus the russian entity are the only companies he was out there pitching. we know, for example, he called mark cuban. but cohen s ability to monetize his relationship to the president depends on the president calling him as frequently as he does sean hannity. and if he doesn t have that relationship and can t demonstrate to people that they are tight, then he s useless to people. he may be useless anyway. but he is certainly useless for the capacity of monetizing his relationship. you know, jill, i ve been wanting to as
break about consultants. i think people forget the 12r structure of watergate had to do with essentially off-book donations ending up in a kind of slush fund that was then used to pay for off-book activities like the break-in. . that is exactly true. there was so much cash in the safes of the committee to re-elect the president, known as creep, and the white house, that they didn t have to make choices about how to spend money for campaign. so if they had had to make a choice, they wouldn t have ever spent money on a break-in at the dnc headquarters. they would have spent it for television advertising. but they had too much money. and it was all undecided, or undisclosed who the money came from. so they could do anything they wanted with it. and it was a really bad situation that was helped by legislation that has been undone by citizens united. right. one of the worst decisions in the history of the supreme court. it s a great point, right?