Latest Breaking News On - Keith davids - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
our president. we need to arrest hillary. >> when "all in" starts right now. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. while the presidential families gathered over the weekend to mourn the death of former first lady barbara bush, the current occupant of the white house was golfing, rage tweeting, and attempting it appears to influence the testimony of a potential witness against him. first lady melania trump attended the funeral on saturday, posing for a photo with the obamas, the clintons and two generations of bushes. but her husband stayed behind at his estate in florida where he had plenty of time to catch up on twitter and cable news, two of his favorites, and where he somehow seems to have come across this story published friday on his allegedly abusive treatment of longtime aide michael cohen. since cohen was raided by the fbi a couple of weeks ago, according to "the times," trump's lawyers and advisers now fear cohen could turn on the president. the president responded "the new york times" and a third rate reporter named maggie haberman known as a crooked h flunky who i don't speak to and have something o nothing to do with are going out of their way to destroy michael cohen and his relationship with me in the hopes that he will flip. they use nonexistent sources and a drunk drugged up loser who hates michael, a fine person with a wonderful family. most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble. sorry. i don't see them doing that despite the horrible witch-hunt and the dishonest media. a lot to start there. this would be the report her le is referring, to maggie haberman, a "new york times" reporter who the president claims he does not speak to and has nothing to do with. he talks to her all the time. also, her work just won a pulitzer prize. and the drugged up loser appears to be referring to sam nunberg, remember him? a former aide who fell out with the president and spent all day on cable television saying he was going to defy muellers a grand jury testimony and recently gave grand jury testimony in the probe. along with a handful of other on the record sources including trump confidante roger stone. we have come to expect this kind of outburst and vitriol from the president. but it is really stunning to watch in realtime as the president sends what appears to be a signal to michael cohen calling him, quote, a fine person with a wonderful family, insisting he has always liked and respected cohen, and claiming cohen is not the type of guy to flip. it's a very clear message for the president of the united states to a potential witness against him right out in the open for all of us to see. now, the president's press secretary was asked about those comments not surprisingly this morning in a session with reporters. >> president trump tweeted over the weekend that he doesn't expect michael cohen to flip. has he been offered any assurances from mr. cohen? >> i'm not sure. >> have they spoken? >> i'm only aware of the conversation from a couple of friday ago. >> what is he worried michael cohen could flip over? >> i think he said even if that there isn't there isn't anything for that to happen? >> why not tweet that, then? why open the opportunity for to flip it? >> i don't think the president has anything to hide. he has been quite clear on. that is the president open to a pardon for michael cohen? >> i don't think we're going to talk about hypotheticals that don't exist right now. >> the president does seem to have pardons on the grabrain. over the weekend he is considering a full pardon for boxer jack johnson thanks to a phone call from sylvester stallone, if you have that in your news bingo, you win. the president just pardoned scooter libby, the former bush administration official convicted of lying to investigators in the valerie plame affair. this afternoon the press secretary did not rule out a pardon for michael cohen. >> it was noticed by some that you didn't close the door one way or the other the president pardoning michael cohen. what is your -- what's your read on that right now? >> it's hard to close the door on something that hasn't taken place. i don't like to discuss or comment on hypothetical situations that may or may not ever happen. >> congresswoman maxine waters, a democrat of california joins me here tonight in new york city. it's nice to have you here in studio. >> good to be here. >> what is your read of the message the president is or is not sending to michael cohen? >> well, it's quite obvious that he is sending a message that he will pardon him. i understand that he treated him very badly. he had no respect for him. and despite the fact that cohen has said he would take a bullet, i don't think so. i don't think he'll take prison. and so when people talk about him flipping, i think it just drives the president crazy. and he is sending him a message surely that don't worry, i'm going take care of you. and he has demonstrated that he will pardon. now what he has done? pardoned at least two people, arpaio and scooter libby. so yes, it's quite clear to me and i think to anybody watching that that's what he is trying the do. >> so you think is a part of what i think people like yourself and others argue. it was a sort of ongoing slow motion obstruction effort by the president? >> absolutely. he is obstructing justice right before our very eyes. and he does not stop. he continues to, you know, use the powers of the president to send a message to those who would flip on him or who would cooperate with the investigation that he'll take care of them. and he's done it consistently. >> you know, a lot of people have made the point recently that ultimately, the attorney general jeff sessions recused himself from the russia investigation and rod rosenstein's overseeing that, that he has to be praised for defending the independence of the department of justice and protecting that investigation. there is reporting saying that he told the white house last week that if rosenstein were fired, he may have to go as well. you're someone very critical of the attorney general. what do you think of that piece? >> as you know, he did recuse himself, as you just said. and the president has not been kind to him, despite the fact he was an early supporter of the president, endorsed him when nobody else would. the president said he wanted to fire him at one point. and so now that he's refused to leave and he is taking up for rod rosenstein, i'm surprised. i'm surprised and i certainly didn't expect very much of him. and i don't know why he didn't leave after the president humiliated him so. and so i don't know what's going on. >> do you derive pleasure from his humiliation given how lou your opinion solve him? >> i'm always surprised when individuals take that kind of beating. i'm surprised that they don't stand up for themselves, that they don't feel as if they have been undermined and humiliated to the point where they don't want to serve. i don't know why he wanted to stay. >> you've also have very strong criticism of james comey. >> yes. >> the former fbi director. >> that's right. >> i want to play this clip. >> i know. >> it's a notorious clip. it made an impression. take a listen to thinking okay, all right. >> congresswoman, can you tell us anything about the discussion in the room? >> no, it's classified, and we can't tell you anything. all i can tell you is the fbi director has no creditability. >> yes. >> that was during a transition. it was a briefing that director comey gave to members of congress which was classified which i guess you cannot speak about still. >> that's right. >> but you and donald trump do agree on that. that sentence you said, no credibility. and donald trump destroy. >> i tried to clarify that and to say yes, coming out of that classified briefing i said that, and i certainly meant it. however, i think it is quite different when you take a look at comey and his relationship to the president what he said, what he has done. i believe him. >> you believe him? >> i believe him, yes. so then was then. and now is now. >> the white house keeps saying now, and i want to -- they have a new talking point about the firing of rosenstein or mueller, which seemed very close and then seemed to diffuse a little bit recently. here is what they're saying. i'm going to play you a few short clips of white house spoke people saying that don't have any intention to fire mueller. take a listen. >> yes, yes, yes. >> when is he going to fire rosenstein? when is he going to fire mueller? as far as i know the president has no intention of firing these individuals, as i said many times before, we have no intention of firing the special counsel. we've been beyond cooperative with them. >> the president has no intention of firing robert mueller. it's impossible to say what the future is going to hold because you never know how far off it's going to fear as far as investigation. but there are no plans to dismiss robert mueller. >> do you believe them? >> no, i don't believe them. and let me tell you, he would fire them in the hot second if he didn't think he would get the kind of pushback he has been warned about. you have senators on both sides of the aisle saying you better not. you better not do this. and i think that he is not prepared to cross them at this time because he does not bhoe what will happen. perhaps they'll join me. >> are you of the belief that democrats should make impeachment a centerpiece of the midterm elections? >> well, they have indicate they'd do not want to do that. >> who is the they? >> the leadership. you know, whether we're talking about the dnc or the dccc, they all believe that republicans will just use that and say they're mad because they lost the election, and they don't particularly think that that's good way to go with this. i don't agree with him. >> you don't agree. no. >> you don't agree both tactically and substantively. i guess my point is you substantively feel he has committed impeachable offenses. >> that's right. >> are you not persuaded that it would be a tactical mistake politically? >> no, i'm not persuaded by that idea. you know why? i tell you everywhere i go, people are talking about why can't you all get rid of him. >> right. >> why don't they impeach him. what is wrong with the other members of congress, why don't they stand up with you? this man is dishonorable. he lies all the time. he is a con man. they say all of these things. and i'm not just talking about my district, whether i'm on the airplane, i'm walking down the street in new york, wherever i am, i'm hearing it. and i'm told that 70% of women who have been polled is a they want him up peached. >> all right, congresswoman maxine waters. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. for more on what comes next in the cohen investigation, i'm joined by general center rogers of the united states attorneys office of the southern district of new york and matt miller. matt, starting with you, you just heard the congresswoman say she thought this was an effort at witness manipulation. what did you think? >> i think it's absolutely clear that's what the president is trying to do. he has been trying to tamper with witnesses in this case going back well into last year. he sometimes, kind of implicitly at one point in 2016 kind of threw an intermediary, sent a message to mike flynn that he should stay strong. when that wasn't enough, he had his attorney or at least john dowd reached out maybe on his own, but most likely at the president's direction and dangled a pardon in front of both mike flynn and paul manafort in the days before one of them was indicted and one of them plead guilty. so we know he had flirted with pardoning people involved in this case already. and i think if you look at all the evidence over the last two weeks, the scooter libby patterned, the strange out of nowhere jack johnson pardon float, and these kind of stay strong words again to michael cohen, i think it's absolutely clear that's what the president is trying to do. >> is that your interpretation? >> i think that's right. i think he is saying that. the problem is of course with the president, you never know. i don't think if i were michael cohen, i would be taking a lot of comfort from these overture. >> oh, no. i would not take the tweet to the bank to make my decision about whether i was going to cooperate north. >> but he is definitely sending that message. the scooter libby thing the same day. this was four days after the search. even though they're now in the mid of this investigation. it's a mess. >> as a lawyer, as a former prosecutor, what would be going through your head if you were watching this happening in a case you were prosecuting? if someone as bound up as the president is was reaching out to witnesses that you were -- that you just served warrants on. >> well, in some ways you're kind of salivating. if i ever do get michael cohen in the chair opposite me, one of the first questions is hey, remember that day when the president give you a call? let's hear it. they're creating problems for themselves. >> interesting. >> and as a prosecutor, you've always got an eye out for those. >> let me ask you another question about another figure which is keith davids. keith davids is a lawyer who has been on the other side of michael cohen on a bunch of these settlements. he represented the accuser or the woman who was impregnated by elliott broidy, the rnc chair who had quit his job after a $1.6 million payment was unearthed. karen mcdougal and stormy daniels originally as well. he is now cooperating with federal law enforcement. what do you make of that? >> well, you know, when you say "cooperating," it's not at all clear to me there is any criminal liability here for him. i think he is being cooperative. i think he is talking to them. i just don't see any legal trouble for him. i think there is ethics trouble for him as far as the bar, because it looks like he may have actually conspired with cohen. >> it really does look like that. >> shrink in trouble in that sense, or civil trouble. they certainly could sue him if they got a better deal with the lawyer who was really representing their interests. but i don't think he is a cooperating witness in the criminal sense of the word. >> matt, what does it mean to have cohen just hanging out there? i have the sense just watching the news play out, everything that is happening right now is with this other shoe. and there is a lot of shoes that haven't dropped. they raided the guy's office. they've been reading his e-mail for months. and just got to be strange to just go to work every day at the white house, knowing that that's out there. >> yeah, well, one of the weird things about looking at this from the outside, we don't know that the raid on cohen's office or even cohen's potential testimony actually means any real criminal liability for the president. but if you watch all the president's aides and all the people close to the president, if you watch the president's meltdowns on twitter, they all seem to think that this investigation. >> yes. >> poses real criminal liability for the president. so if you're a staffer, and you look at the way the staffers -- take the firing mueller example, take the firing mueller answers, for example. they don't know how to answer these questions from reporters because they have no idea what the president is going to do on any given day, and they can in no way have any idea what kind of criminal liability has related to michael cohen. a lot of them worked on the campaign. they may not have the full picture of what happened with russia, but they might have some picture from being on the campaign. same with being in the obstruction of justice side of it. they've at least been around the white house so they might have some idea what the president has done. they have no idea what he did in his private business dealings with michael cohen and what michael cohen could say about the president. >> right. >> and that has to be awfully, awfully terrifying to anyone that works in the white house that. >> is a great point. jennifer rodgers and matt miller, thanks for making time. next, amidst the mounting scandals coming out about scott pruitt, almost too many to keep track of, new reporting there is new behind the scenes action to push him out. could scott pruitt's scandals catch up to him? in two minutes. coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells. with little or no downtime. and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary. some rare side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you. and visit coolsculpting.com today for your chance to win a free treatment. happy anniversary dinner, darlin'. can this much love be cleaned by a little bit of dawn ultra? oh yeah one bottle has the grease cleaning power of three bottles of this other liquid. a drop of dawn and grease is gone. delivcrisp leaves of lettuce,s. freshly-made dressing. clean food that looks this good, eaten at your desk. panera. food as it should be. now delivered. tonight a brand-new batch of scandalous scott pruitt headlines draw bloomberg reports, the white house is deterring republicans from defending pruitt in public in a sign the administration support for the embattled epa chief may be waning. among the latest damaging headlines, a group of democratic lawmakers say they have new developments they have obtained that raise serious questions about the epa's security expenditures. this as scott pruitt is now the target of at least -- i think we've counted this correctly -- ten federal investigations focused on his spending habits and possible ethics violations. someone over the last month who has reported exclusively on pruitt scandals and chris liu worked with interfaced members of the cabinet. eric, let me start with you. there is so much that i begin to lose track. so let's start a little bit on a story you broke this weekend about the person, the couple from whom he rented that infamous condo. i want to play you sound of what he said about whether they had any business before the epa whatsoever to ed henry. take a listen. >> why does it matter when the ethics officials look at the lease and the terms lease. >> why does it matter? you're renting it from the wife of a lobbyist. >> who has no business before this agency. >> hold on a second. so is that williams and jenson? major lobbying firm. exxonmobil is a client. >> mr. hart has no -- >> does exxonmobil have business dr.- >> mr. hart has no business or clients before this agency. >> is that true, eric? >> it's not. and his own lobbying firm filed a disclosure report on friday that said that he in fact did have a client that he was representing before the epa, and not only that, that he met with pruitt in july of 2017 with that client. and even though both steve hart and pruitt there said that they did not have any such interactions, pruitt was a tenant in his wife's condo for $50 a night at the same time as steve hart the lobbyist was meeting with pruitt on behalf of his friend of his who wanted to push for more funding for chesapeake bay and improving the environment in the chesapeake bay. >> just to be clear here, i just want to be clear, he said there is no business. >> right. >> so steve hart meets with scott pruitt. scott pruitt is the head of the epa. steve hart is the husband of the woman renting his condo for $50 on a night for a third party to lobby before an issue at the epa? >> that's right. started in may of twblt 2017 to a meeting in july of 2017. the argument that steve hart makes is that this meeting which was set up via e-mails from his own lobbying firm to pruitt's office and chief of staff, he said he did it on behalf of a friend and was not paid for this work. but his own lobbying work filed papers saying he was lobbying on behalf of smithfield foods which is a major client of the lucky firm's. >> chris, what do you any of that? >> this is just the latest issue. it is hard to keep track of all the ethical improprieties. it is everything from the travel spending, the furniture, the security details, the kickback from the lobbyists, the hiring practices, the pay raises. frankly, if there is an ethics impropriety, cot pruitt has probably already committed it. when i was working for president obama, and i worked for him for 11 years, if i had done even one of these things, i would have been out on the streets. so it's remarkable that pruitt still is hanging on at this point. >> eric, the reporting suggesting this is kind of how he rolls and has for a while. walter shaub summarize some of your reporting. the lobbyists sold him a home for $100,000 less than she had paid for. he then voted to let the importer raise his rates. at the epa he hired her and the banker that lent him money. than accurate? >> most of my colleagues that wrote a story about the days of pruitt when he was attorney general. and he bought a house from a essentially at&t lobbyist. and he got it for $100,000 less than she had paid for it. and then he took actions while he was a state legislature, a state legislature that benefitted at&t. so it certainly looks like, again, a relationship that with a lobbyist that benefitted the lobbyist client and is sort of an echo of something that would come much later now that he serves as head of the epa. >> "the washington post" just tweeted this which i thought was interesting, chris. lots and i mean lots of folks in the white house want epa head scott pruitt gone. the one who makes the ultimate decision doesn't seem to agree so pruitt hangs on. what do you think? >> a couple of weeks ago the reporting was john kelly called pruitt and said look, it's got to stop. no more of these disclosures. and seemingly every single day there is another one of these things. what's important to recognize is until last week, there wasn't a number two at epa. that person andrew wheeler has now been confirmed. look, his policies aren't great either in terms of the environment. but he will probably destroy the environment, but he'll do it in an ethical marine. so there is now certainly somebody in charge who can take over if pruitt is moved out. >> eric, are you confident we have learned all there is to learn or are there more threads? >> there is still more to report. well still have various avenues that we're pursuing. i think the most troubling thing right now for pruitt is that trey gowdy, the head of the oversight committee in the house has asked some of his top aides to come and in give what he calls transcribed interviews. that's a formal investigation. here you have the first formal investigation by house republicans of a trump cabinet member. and so that's got to be troubling. >> eric lipton and chris liu, thank you both. >> thank you. coming up, guess which republican just backed off his very deeply principled opposition to trump nominee for secretary of state. the dramatic finish to committee vote for mike pompeo next. people said it just made a mess until exxonmobil scientists put it to the test. they thought someday it could become fuel and power our cars wouldn't that be cool? and that's why exxonmobil scientists think it's not small at all. energy lives here. i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say, ahh. introducing the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize airflow to keep you cool. today is gonna be great. read our reviews, then try the leesa mattress in your own home. order now and get $125 off, plus a free pillow worth $75. and free shipping too. go to buyleesa.com today. no matter how much you clean, does your house still smell stuffy? that's because your home is filled with soft surfaces that trap odors and release them back into the room. so, try febreze fabric refresher. febreze finds odors trapped in fabrics and cleans them away as it dries. use febreze every time you tidy up to keep your whole house smelling fresh air clean. fabric refresher even works for clothes you want to wear another day. make febreze part of your clean routine for whole home freshness. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. play [music plays]his". when everything's connected, it's simple. easy. awesome. i have changed my mind. i've decided to go ahead and vote for director pompeo because he's assured me that he has learned the lesson, that he does and has incorporated the idea that the iraq war was a mistake. >> just hours ago with republican senator rand paul dropping his objections after heavy lobbying for the president, mike pompeo's nomination to be the next secretary of state received a positive recommendation from senate foreign relations committee on a party line vote. pompeo is expected to be confirmed by the full senate later this week with at least three democrats already saying they will vote in favor. now pompeo was the one who met secretly with the president of north korea a few weeks ago to lay the groundwork for a summit with president trump this spring. and the secretary of state if indeed confirmed will have his work cut out for him. meike oh yay, jeffrey lewis, director of east asian nonproliferation for international studies, and msnbc national security analyst ned price is a former special assistant to president obama. this is kind of a crazy time meike right now. you have an acting secretary of state, no ambassador to korea, and the president halfway down the road for the first ever state-to-state summit with the head of north korea. where are we right now? >> i'm not sure that anyone could tell you. and i'm pretty sure the trump administration doesn't have a map to this either. you know, we're missing a lot of the people that you would need to work out the details of a summit like this. this is really high stakes diplomacy. we are talking about a high-wire trapeze act here with no net underneath them. and the risk of this president slipping is really quite high. >> jeffrey, you follow this issue closely for a while. i want to ask you about the veracity of one of the president's tweets. north korea announced they're suspending tests of their weapons the last week. the president tweeting we haven't given up anything they have agreed to denuclearization. so great for world. site closure, no more testing. that true? >> i mean, it's true-ish. the north koreans are willing to say that they are going to talk about denuclearization. but i think the place where that gets a little bit messed up is du nuclearization for north korea does not mean north korea giving up its nuclear weapons. so yes, they're going to take a pause in testing long-range missiles, and they're going to take a pause in testing nuclear weapons. but at the end of the day, north korea is not going to give up the nuclear weapons that it has now. and so that's where i think it's not true. >> well, so what is this all about? if that's -- that seems like you're saying the conclusion is already fixed here, that they're not going to give up their weapons. so what's going on? >> i have no idea what the president thinks he is doing. i mean, that's what is so bizarre about this. the north koreans have made it clear, and they just release another statement the other day that the reason they're stopping testing is the arsenal is finished. they call it their powerful treasured sword, and that they don't have any intention of giving it up. i think the president i think has the idea that he'll go and that there will be a summit, and that magically north korea will give those nuclear weapons up. but really, what the north koreans just want is the summit. they want to reduce pressure. they want to be seen as a legitimate power. and ultimately, they want the u.s. to accept that they have nuclear weapons. and the president is just sort of bumbling into that. >> is that your read on what the north koreans are after, ned? >> well, it certainly is, chris. i think they're after that, and at the same time, if they can divide our alliance. if they can divide our relationship with the japanese and the south koreans, that's an added bonus for them. you will note in the north korean statement over the weekend late last week there was no mention made of shorter range missiles. and those are some of the programs that are of most concern to south korea and to japan. that is what the north koreans have been trying to do for much of this time is to take washington and to move them squarely away from seoul and tokyo. and unfortunately, president trump has actually given them an opening by first being more confrontational and bellicose than probably either the japanese and certainly the south koreans would want. and now seeming to rush almost willing to rush to pyongyang on the first air force one flight over there. that does the north koreans' work for them in some ways. >> but wait a second. it is the government of south korea that has sort of put if first foot forward on this. they did the initiatives, the rigmarole for the olympics and the joint hockey team. moon jae-in ran on this, the administration ran on sort of a conciliatory line towards north korea, towards a possibility of peace. they're the ones that announced the dripmatic break from the white house. what's so bad about giving this a shot i guess is a question? >> absolutely we have to give it a should. look, rushing towards peace is so much better than rushing towards war. >> exactly. >> but we can't do this -- we can't do this in a haphazard way, chris. look, i think jeffrey is right. and president trump sees himself as a deal maker. and president trump wants nothing more than to get to the table and to face kim jong-un mano to mano and say look, i solved what my predecessors could not. but there is a real threat here, there is a real potential that what he waves around is not a negotiated commitment with verifiable permanent and irreversible steps, but really just an empty road map. really just something that will kick the can down the road even further. >> or meike, this to me, again, i'm not a cluk clear expert or a north korea expert, but it does look like what they're after is essentially to be recognized as a nuclear power. >> that's right. and they want people to stop treating them like a pariah state. they want this face-to-face meeting with the president for their stature. the concept of face is very important in asia. but what we're seeing here, and i think there is a real risk of this, the united states and united states and trump could be played by north korea and china. one of the things they want is to reduce the u.s. military presence in the region. the u.s. is the dominant military power. the chinese don't like it. the north koreans don't like. it's not just about the conventional missiles. it's about the true presence that we have here. and trump is a guy who will give away too much without getting anything for it. and we see this over and over again. his deal making is more like concessions and giveaways. >> but i guess my question, jeffrey, there anything gettable? if you reason back from the standpoint which they're not going to give up their nuclear arsenal, they're not going to agree to any actual inspection regime that would hamstring them, if that's your starting place which is what you seem to think and north korea experts i read seem to think, then what is there? >> well, look, this is why this is such a difficult thing coming on and be a pundit about. the fundamental issue here is you've got two problems, right. you've got north korea which is a nasty unpleasant neighbor for south korea and does all kinds of bad things. and then you have north korea's nuclear weapons. and traditionally what we've said is north korea is this terrible, horrible country. but the first thing we have to solve is the nuclear weapons problem, and then we can talk about making the relationship better. >> right. >> what the south koreans have done is flipped that. what they have said a is hey, let's forget the nuclear stuff. let's just say we're for denuclearization and push that off into the distance and try to improve relations. i'm not against that per se, but it's not clear to me that the president understands that's what he is doing. and when he figures it out, what's he going to do? is he going to sign the peace treaty or freak out and turn the keys over to bolton? >> ned, do you have confidence, trust in mike pompeo to navigate this? >> well, look, mike pompeo has been at the tip of the spear with this. but in many ways he has been there because it's been the process of elimination. we have had no secretary of state over that time period. over the easter weekend we had no national security adviser because h.r. mcmaster was on the way out. john bolton was not yet there. we have no ambassador to seoul and we have no envoy for the north korean issue. so mike pompeo, yes, he has the trust of the president. but he was really the only person standing when it came to deal with. but look, mike pompeo has taken on a diplomatic role which is not a role he has taken on in the past with north korea. in the past he has spoken of separating kim jong-un from his nuclear weapons arsenal, including potentially with the use of force. he has joked about potentially assassinating kim jong-un. so he is not someone who really plays the part of a diplomat all that well. the question will become whether he can make that transition. i have profound doubts and profound concerns about him at foggy bottom. but it sounds like we're all going to get a chance to see it for ourselves. >> all right, mieke eoyang, jeffrey lewis, ned price, great conversation. thank you. still ahead, as republicans struggle to find a voice in the elections, reverting to an old favorite about how putting hillary clinton on the ballot. and a bad alibi in tonight's thing 1, thing 2, next. called audible. you can listen to the stories you love while doing the things you love, outside. everyone's doing it she's binging... they're binging... and... so is he. so put on your headphones, turn on audible and binge better. with tough food, your dentures may slip and fall. new fixodent ultra-max hold gives you the strongest hold ever to lock your dentures. so now you can eat tough food without worry. fixodent and forget it. this one's below market price and has bluetooth. same here, but this one has leather seats! use the cars.com app to compare price, features and value. that goes beyond assumingl pet ingredients are safe... to knowing they are. going beyond expectations... because our pets deserve it. beyond. natural pet food. thing 1 tonight. one of the most striking revelations from the comey memos is president trump's apparent fixation on the most salacious part of this steele dossier, you know what i'm talking about, explaining why what he called the golden showers thing could not have happened. couldn't have happened. comey writes in his january 2017 memo trump said he had spoken to people who had been on the miss universe trip with him, and they had reminded him that he didn't stay overnight in russia for that. he said he arrived in the morning, did events, then showered and dressed for pageant at the hotel. he didn't say the hotel name, and left for the pageant. afterwards, he returned only to get his things because he departed for new york by plane that same night. now trump apparently brought it up for the second time just a month later, according to comey, explain as he did at our dinner, he hadn't stayed overnight during the russian trip. so the, quote, golden showers thing couldn't possibly be true. he didn't even stay overnight in moscow. except that's not what the flight records say. and that's thing 2 in 60 seconds. you know, i used to be good at this. then you turn 40 and everything goes. tell me about it. you know, it's made me think, i'm closer to my retirement days than i am my college days. hm. i'm thinking... will i have enough? should i change something? well, you're asking the right questions. i just want to know, am i gonna be okay? i know people who specialize in "am i going to be okay." i like that. you may need glasses though. yeah. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade. the president allegedly told james comey multiple times that the, quote, golden showers thing could not possibly be true, saying the proof was that he didn't even stay overnight in moscow. according to, however, flight records obtained by bloomberg, trump departed from asheville, north carolina, arriving in moscow early friday morning and trump stayed in russia until sunday, november 10th for nearly 46 hours, flying out of moscow in the wee hours to the new york city area. we know trump spent friday night in moscow and also know most of his schedule. trump went to eat friday night with russian tycoons at nobu. and then attended a birthday party for the developer's host, agalarov. what happened after the birthday party is a mystery. the only thing we know about the night trump slept in moscow came from his bodyguard keith schiller when he turned down an offer from a russian to send women to trump's room. schiller testify head stood outside trump's hotel room future a time and then went to bed. the next time trump is seen publicly is next day before the miss universe pageant on saturday, trump sat down for an msnbc interview looking a little bleerly eyed. >> do you have a relationship with putin, or anything you feel you have sway or influence over his government? >> i do have a relationship. and i can tell you that he is very interested in what we're doing here today. (vo) why do subaru forester owners always seem so happy? because they've chosen the industry leader. subaru forester holds its value better than any other vehicle in its class according to alg. better than cr-v. better than rav4. better than rogue. an adventure that starts with a subaru forester will always leave you smiling. get 0% apr financing on the 2018 subaru forester. looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor. there is yet another special congressional election tomorrow, this one in arizona to fill the seat formally occupied by staunch social conservative trent franks who once learned the secular left would bring the downfall of america and who resigned in november after accusations he had offered $5 million to a female employee to be a surrogate mother to his children, and that she and another female employee worried the lawmaker wanted to have sex as a means of impregnating them. it's not the kind of thing you should really ask your employees. arizona's eighth district should be safe for republicans. the gop has a 17.8 registration advantage in the district. it includes a solidly republican golf oriented sun city retirement community, home of many of the staunchest supporters of joe arpaio, the anti-immigrant maricopa county sheriff who trump infamously pardoned last summer. in light of all, this it would be a genuine shock if the race were won by the democrat, doctor and indian immigrant tanini. republicans are spooked. outside groups have spent more money to boost other candidates. even if lesko wins, as is likely at this point, keep an eye on the margin. if the democrats keep close in a district trump took by 21 points, it will be yet another sign of what even some republicans admit may well be coming in november. >> certainly the energy, the enthusiasm, and the anger is on the democratic side in this election. there is no sugarcoating that. so there is a big wave coming. and some members are going to have to get off the beach. >> when we come back, "new york times" reporter who took the lead in covering hillary clinton's 2016 presidential campaign will be here to discuss her new book on the behind-the-scenes drama and why republicans are still targeting clinton in 2018. that's next. moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. but i realized something was missing... me. the thought of my symptoms returning was keeping me from being there for the people and things i love most. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira can help get, and keep,uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts so you could experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible. jimmy's gotten used to his whole yup, he's gone noseblind. odors. he thinks it smells fine, but his mom smells this... luckily for all your hard-to-wash fabrics... ...there's febreze fabric refresher. febreze doesn't just mask, it eliminates odors you've... ...gone noseblind to. and try febreze unstopables for fabric. with up to twice the fresh scent power, you'll want to try it... ...again and again and maybe just one more time. indulge in irresistible freshness. febreze unstopables. breathe happy. ♪ ♪ i want some more of it. ♪ i try so hard, ♪ i can't rise above it ♪ don't know what it is 'bout that little gal's lovin'. ♪ applebee's new bigger bolder grill combos. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. the media also ignores hillary's uranium one deal. we need to arrest hilly. don blankenship stands with president trump. that was a campaign ad in the year of our lord 2018 for a convicted felon don blankenship who spent a year in jail for his role in a --. too. the a.p. reports that republicans are making clinton the start of their midterm election strategy despite the fact that she currently holds no position of power, isn't running for anything, but republicans are betting big the ghost will serve them well in to 1. amy chozick is joining me. you spent a lot of time with hillary clinton. >> a lot. >> what is your reaction to seeing that story in the a.p. about how -- she's not in public life anymore and they're going to try to run against her in the 2018 miss terms. >> it's unbelievable. they're betting on a pavlovian response of even seeing her face. i write when i first met her when i was 16 growing up in texas, everyone i knew hated her. there's been a large psych of the hillary hating. i thought one she stepped back we wouldn't see it, but clearly we still are. >> the book is a really interesting book, very well written. you write about some conclusions you come to about the campaign and the campaign coverage that maybe you didn't see at the time, particularly around the e-mail coverage and the podesta and hacked e-mails. in retrospect, what do you they about the hacked e-mails were covered? >> right. i was on my way to the newsroom. it was december, i was still in the post-election haze, and my colleagues wrote a story how the russians had pulled off the perfect hack. they said part of that was turning the times and every media organization into a de facto instrument of russian intelligen intelligence. and it's not that i think we handled it wrongly at the time or shouldn't have covered it, but i think we need more introspecs about what we do with these hacked documents going forward. there's clear signs the russians are going to try it again in the future. how does the media not become that instrument of russian intelligence while still disseminating what's newsworthy? >> what's the answer? >> i think that's above my pay grade, but i'm happy that people are debating it. do you think there's a -- i feel like sometimes that the people in the press and the campaign press of 2016 have a rae defensiveness when they get criticized for their coverage of 2016. >> completely. yeah. >> what is that about? >> i think -- >> it's really intense -- i have a television show. of course there are things that we screwed up. we made wrong judgment calls. i'm proud of our coverage generally, but yeah, you screw stuff up. >> i get the instinct to focus looking forward. there's a lot of investigative reporting, but for an industry that thriving on investigation, we're not very good at self-reflection at all, and i think we do knee some of that most mortem, especially with they post-election factors. >> this comes through the book well, in a campaign setting, everything is zero sum. if something is hurting one candidati helps the other necessarily. when someone puts a thumb on the scale, like the russians did, it's hard to say we're making this independent news judgment. >> one of my colleagues wrote about a column about the french elections and macron's e-mails were hacked. the french media said they would not cover it that until after the election. they didn't want to put their hand on the scale. so whether that's the answer -- it's not a zeroo-sum game. there's somewhere in the middle we need to figure out. >> what in the decade you spend covering hillary clinton. i agree, the hatred for her is -- will blow -- will singe your eyebrows. >> it's visceral. >> in my personal opinion, completely detached from who he is as a human being, totally out of proportion to her as a person, and also driven by sexism. >> this is what's fascinating about hillary hate. her politics are pretty centrist. they shouldn't be that offensive. >> i think we can all agree, the way people feel about hillary clinton and the hatred is not about the substance. >> it's not like an elizabeth warren, again, another woman, but not her stances being so offensive or extreme she was the first working lady, and how women saw her as an affront to who they were, and she's always been incredibly divisive. >> is it sexism? a lot of it, i think. i would talk to voters all the time, even voters who didn't -- hated trump, but they would say, i would vote for a woman, just not that woman. i always heard it again and again. when you dig into that, why is she that woman, it was like 30 years of sexist attacks have made her that woman. does every woman become that woman when they reach a certain height? i got that again and again, oh, i don't have a problem with a woman present, but that woman. >> that always seem like -- when people are explicitly saying -- >> i think history will sexism was so central, even more i think -- at some people were willing to admit at the time. >> even though we didn't see -- we thought hillary clinton was going to win. the polls showed her ahead. i covered obama in 2008. i remember whether all the conventional signs said we were going to win, and it was like there was that hint of is the country really ready to elect a black man. but with hillary, everyone just assumed she would win and maybe we should have more hesitation, is the country really ready to vote a woman? >> and the broad-based assumption she would win is what happened donald trump the most. >> she complains about the media coverage and the "new york times," but i think her biggest complaint should be the widely held assumption that she was going to win. people didn't vote, they said she's going to win anyway and i don't want to vote for her. >> and that's trump's complaint as well. >> but you didn't think you could win also. >> amy's new book is out tomorrow. thanks for being with us. thanks for having me. it's that time of night when i remind you of the gift that's our podcast. the "all in" podcast. you can listen to this show, these words in your ears as a podcast wherever you are. don't forget to hit subscribe while ire good, good evening, rachel. >> in your ear is. >> my voice in your ears. >> that's a phrase that's almost never used in any context, but i think it's perfectly -- >> slightly gross, but hey, it's the truth. >> not grout at all. thank you, mea dear. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. it's been a remarkable day of news. there's late breaking political news out of the washington that sounds like it's a surprise to the white house. we'll be getting
United-statesArizonaWashingtonNew-yorkIraqSeoulSoul-t-ukpyolsiSouth-koreaFranceChinaSmithfieldPyongyang influence the testimony of a potential witness against him. first lady melania trump attended the funeral on saturday, posing for a photo with the obamas, the clintons and two generations of bushes. but her husband stayed behind at his estate in florida where he had plenty of time to catch up on twitter and cable news, two of his favorites, and where he somehow seems to have come across this story published friday on his allegedly abusive treatment of longtime aide michael cohen. since cohen was raided by the fbi a couple of weeks ago, according to "the times," trump's lawyers and advisers now fear cohen could turn on the president. the president responded "the new york times" and a third rate reporter named maggie haberman known as a crooked h flunky who i don't speak to and have something o nothing to do with are going out of their way to destroy michael cohen and his relationship with me in the hopes that he will flip. they use nonexistent sources and a drunk drugged up loser who hates michael, a fine person with a wonderful family. most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble. sorry. i don't see them doing that despite the horrible witch-hunt and the dishonest media. a lot to start there. this would be the report her le is referring, to maggie haberman, a "new york times" reporter who the president claims he does not speak to and has nothing to do with. he talks to her all the time. also, her work just won a pulitzer prize. and the drugged up loser appears to be referring to sam nunberg, remember him? a former aide who fell out with the president and spent all day on cable television saying he was going to defy muellers a grand jury testimony and recently gave grand jury testimony in the probe. along with a handful of other on the record sources including trump confidante roger stone. we have come to expect this kind of outburst and vitriol from the president. but it is really stunning to watch in realtime as the president sends what appears to be a signal to michael cohen calling him, quote, a fine person with a wonderful family, insisting he has always liked and respected cohen, and claiming cohen is not the type of guy to flip. it's a very clear message for the president of the united states to a potential witness against him right out in the open for all of us to see. now, the president's press secretary was asked about those comments not surprisingly this morning in a session with reporters. >> president trump tweeted over the weekend that he doesn't expect michael cohen to flip. has he been offered any assurances from mr. cohen? >> i'm not sure. >> have they spoken? >> i'm only aware of the conversation from a couple of friday ago. >> what is he worried michael cohen could flip over? >> i think he said even if that there isn't there isn't anything for that to happen? >> why not tweet that, then? why open the opportunity for to flip it? >> i don't think the president has anything to hide. he has been quite clear on. that is the president open to a pardon for michael cohen? >> i don't think we're going to talk about hypotheticals that don't exist right now. >> the president does seem to have pardons on the brain. over the weekend he is considering a full pardon for boxer jack johnson thanks to a phone call from sylvester stallone, if you have that in your news bingo, you win. the president just pardoned scooter libby, the former bush administration official convicted of lying to investigators in the valerie plame affair. this afternoon the press secretary did not rule out a pardon for michael cohen. >> it was noticed by some that you didn't close the door one way or the other the president pardoning michael cohen. what is your -- what's your read on that right now? >> it's hard to close the door on something that hasn't taken place. i don't like to discuss or comment on hypothetical situations that may or may not ever happen. >> congresswoman maxine waters, a democrat of california joins me here tonight in new york city. it's nice to have you here in studio. >> good to be here. >> what is your read of the message the president is or is not sending to michael cohen? >> well, it's quite obvious that he is sending a message that he will pardon him. i understand that he treated him very badly. he had no respect for him. and despite the fact that cohen has said he would take a bullet, i don't think so. i don't think he'll take prison. and so when people talk about him flipping, i think it just drives the president crazy. and he is sending him a message surely that don't worry, i'm going take care of you. and he has demonstrated that he will pardon. now what he has done? pardoned at least two people, arpaio and scooter libby. so yes, it's quite clear to me and i think to anybody watching that that's what he is trying the do. >> so you think is a part of what i think people like yourself and others argue. it was a sort of ongoing slow motion obstruction effort by the president? >> absolutely. he is obstructing justice right before our very eyes. and he does not stop. he continues to, you know, use the powers of the president to send a message to those who would flip on him or who would cooperate with the investigation that he'll take care of them. and he's done it consistently. >> you know, a lot of people have made the point recently that ultimately, the attorney general jeff sessions recused himself from the russia investigation and rod rosenstein's overseeing that, that he has to be praised for defending the independence of the department of justice and protecting that investigation. there is reporting saying that he told the white house last week that if rosenstein were fired, he may have to go as well. you're someone very critical of the attorney general. what do you think of that piece? >> as you know, he did recuse himself, as you just said. and the president has not been kind to him, despite the fact he was an early supporter of the president, endorsed him when nobody else would. the president said he wanted to fire him at one point. and so now that he's refused to leave and he is taking up for rod rosenstein, i'm surprised. i'm surprised and i certainly didn't expect very much of him. and i don't know why he didn't leave after the president humiliated him so. and so i don't know what's going on. >> do you derive pleasure from his humiliation given how lou your opinion solve him? >> i'm always surprised when individuals take that kind of beating. i'm surprised that they don't stand up for themselves, that they don't feel as if they have been undermined and humiliated to the point where they don't want to serve. i don't know why he wanted to stay. >> you've also have very strong criticism of james comey. >> yes. >> the former fbi director. >> that's right. >> i want to play this clip. >> i know. >> it's a notorious clip. it made an impression. take a listen to thinking okay, all right. >> congresswoman, can you tell us anything about the discussion in the room? >> no, it's classified, and we can't tell you anything. all i can tell you is the fbi director has no creditability. >> yes. >> that was during a transition. it was a briefing that director comey gave to members of congress which was classified which i guess you cannot speak about still. >> that's right. >> but you and donald trump do agree on that. that sentence you said, no credibility. and donald trump destroy. >> i tried to clarify that and to say yes, coming out of that classified briefing i said that, and i certainly meant it. however, i think it is quite different when you take a look at comey and his relationship to the president what he said, what he has done. i believe him. >> you believe him? >> i believe him, yes. so then was then. and now is now. >> the white house keeps saying now, and i want to -- they have a new talking point about the firing of rosenstein or mueller, which seemed very close and then seemed to diffuse a little bit recently. here is what they're saying. i'm going to play you a few short clips of white house spoke people saying that don't have any intention to fire mueller. take a listen. >> yes, yes, yes. >> when is he going to fire rosenstein? when is he going to fire mueller? as far as i know the president has no intention of firing these individuals, as i said many times before, we have no intention of firing the special counsel. we've been beyond cooperative with them. >> the president has no intention of firing robert mueller. it's impossible to say what the future is going to hold because you never know how far off it's going to fear as far as investigation. but there are no plans to dismiss robert mueller. >> do you believe them? >> no, i don't believe them. and let me tell you, he would fire them in the hot second if he didn't think he would get the kind of pushback he has been warned about. you have senators on both sides of the aisle saying you better not. you better not do this. and i think that he is not prepared to cross them at this time because he does not know what will happen. perhaps they'll join me. >> are you of the belief that democrats should make impeachment a centerpiece of the midterm elections? >> well, they have indicate they'd do not want to do that. >> who is the they? >> the leadership. you know, whether we're talking about the dnc or the dccc, they all believe that republicans will just use that and say they're mad because they lost the election, and they don't particularly think that that's good way to go with this. i don't agree with him. >> you don't agree. no. >> you don't agree both tactically and substantively. i guess my point is you substantively feel he has committed impeachable offenses. >> that's right. >> are you not persuaded that it would be a tactical mistake politically? >> no, i'm not persuaded by that idea. you know why? i tell you everywhere i go, people are talking about why can't you all get rid of him. >> right. >> why don't they impeach him. what is wrong with the other members of congress, why don't they stand up with you? this man is dishonorable. he lies all the time. he is a con man. they say all of these things. and i'm not just talking about my district, whether i'm on the airplane, i'm walking down the street in new york, wherever i am, i'm hearing it. and i'm told that 70% of women who have been polled is a they want him up peached. >> all right, congresswoman maxine waters. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. for more on what comes next in the cohen investigation, i'm joined by jennifer rodgers of the united states attorneys office of the southern district of new york and matt miller. matt, starting with you, you just heard the congresswoman say she thought this was an effort at witness manipulation. what did you think? >> i think it's absolutely clear that's what the president is trying to do. he has been trying to tamper with witnesses in this case going back well into last year. he sometimes, kind of implicitly at one point in 2016 kind of threw an intermediary, sent a message to mike flynn that he should stay strong. when that wasn't enough, he had his attorney or at least john dowd reached out maybe on his own, but most likely at the president's direction and dangled a pardon in front of both mike flynn and paul manafort in the days before one of them was indicted and one of them plead guilty. so we know he had flirted with pardoning people involved in this case already. and i think if you look at all the evidence over the last two weeks, the scooter libby patterned, the strange out of nowhere jack johnson pardon float, and these kind of stay strong words again to michael cohen, i think it's absolutely clear that's what the president is trying to do. >> is that your interpretation? >> i think that's right. i think he is saying that. the problem is of course with the president, you never know. i don't think if i were michael cohen, i would be taking a lot of comfort from these overture. >> oh, no. i would not take the tweet to the bank to make my decision about whether i was going to cooperate north. >> but he is definitely sending that message. the scooter libby thing the same day. this was four days after the search. even though they're now in the mid of this investigation. it's a mess. >> as a lawyer, as a former prosecutor, what would be going through your head if you were watching this happening in a case you were prosecuting? if someone as bound up as the president is was reaching out to witnesses that you were -- that you just served warrants on. >> well, in some ways you're kind of salivating. if i ever do get michael cohen in the chair opposite me, one of the first questions is hey, remember that day when the president give you a call? let's hear it. they're creating problems for themselves. >> interesting. >> and as a prosecutor, you've always got an eye out for those. >> let me ask you another question about another figure which is keith davids. keith davids is a lawyer who has been on the other side of michael cohen on a bunch of these settlements. he represented the accuser or the woman who was impregnated by elliott broidy, the rnc chair who had quit his job after a $1.6 million payment was unearthed. karen mcdougal and stormy daniels originally as well. he is now cooperating with federal law enforcement. what do you make of that? >> well, you know, when you say "cooperating," it's not at all clear to me there is any criminal liability here for him. i think he is being cooperative. i think he is talking to them. i just don't see any legal trouble for him. i think there is ethics trouble for him as far as the bar, because it looks like he may have actually conspired with cohen. >> it really does look like that. >> shrink in trouble in that sense, or civil trouble. they certainly could sue him if they got a better deal with the lawyer who was really representing their interests. but i don't think he is a cooperating witness in the criminal sense of the word. >> matt, what does it mean to have cohen just hanging out there? i have the sense just watching the news play out, everything that is happening right now is with this other shoe. and there is a lot of shoes that haven't dropped. they raided the guy's office. they've been reading his e-mail for months. and just got to be strange to just go to work every day at the white house, knowing that that's out there. >> yeah, well, one of the weird things about looking at this from the outside, we don't know that the raid on cohen's office or even cohen's potential testimony actually means any real criminal liability for the president. but if you watch all the president's aides and all the people close to the president, if you watch the president's meltdowns on twitter, they all seem to think that this investigation. >> yes. >> poses real criminal liability for the president. so if you're a staffer, and you look at the way the staffers -- take the firing mueller example, take the firing mueller answers, for example. they don't know how to answer these questions from reporters because they have no idea what the president is going to do on any given day, and they can in no way have any idea what kind of criminal liability has related to michael cohen. a lot of them worked on the campaign. they may not have the full picture of what happened with russia, but they might have some picture from being on the campaign. same with being in the obstruction of justice side of it. they've at least been around the white house so they might have some idea what the president has done. they have no idea what he did in his private business dealings with michael cohen and what michael cohen could say about the president. >> right. >> and that has to be awfully, awfully terrifying to anyone that works in the white house that. >> is a great point. jennifer rodgers and matt miller, thanks for making time. next, amidst the mounting scandals coming out about scott pruitt, almost too many to keep track of, new reporting there is new behind the scenes action to push him out. could scott pruitt's scandals catch up to him? in two minutes. tonight a brand-new batch of scandalous scott pruitt headlines draw bloomberg reports, the white house is deterring republicans from defending pruitt in public in a sign the administration support for the embattled epa chief may be waning. among the latest damaging headlines, a group of democratic lawmakers say they have new developments they have obtained that raise serious questions about the epa's security expenditures. this as scott pruitt is now the target of at least -- i think we've counted this correctly -- ten federal investigations focused on his spending habits and possible ethics violations. eric lipton, someone over the last month who has reported exclusively on pruitt scandals and chris liu worked with interfaced members of the cabinet. eric, let me start with you. there is so much that i begin to lose track. so let's start a little bit on a story you broke this weekend about the person, the couple from whom he rented that infamous condo. i want to play you sound of what he said about whether they had any business before the epa whatsoever to ed henry. take a listen. >> why does it matter when the ethics officials look at the lease and the terms lease. >> why does it matter? you're renting it from the wife of a lobbyist. >> who has no business before this agency. >> hold on a second. so is that williams & jensen? major lobbying firm. exxonmobil is a client. >> mr. hart has no -- >> does exxonmobil have business -- >> mr. hart has no business or clients before this agency. >> is that true, eric? >> it's not. and his own lobbying firm filed a disclosure report on friday that said that he in fact did have a client that he was representing before the epa, and not only that, that he met with pruitt in july of 2017 with that client. and even though both steve hart and pruitt there said that they did not have any such interactions, pruitt was a tenant in his wife's condo for $50 a night at the same time as steve hart the lobbyist was meeting with pruitt on behalf of his friend of his who wanted to push for more funding for chesapeake bay and improving the environment in the chesapeake bay. >> just to be clear here, i just want to be clear, he said there is no business. >> right. >> so steve hart meets with scott pruitt. scott pruitt is the head of the epa. steve hart is the husband of the woman renting his condo for $50 on a night for a third party to lobby before an issue at the epa? >> that's right. started in may of 2017 to a meeting in july of 2017. the argument that steve hart makes is that this meeting which was set up via e-mails from his own lobbying firm to pruitt's office and chief of staff, he said he did it on behalf of a friend and was not paid for this work. but his own lobbying work filed papers saying he was lobbying on behalf of smithfield foods which is a major client of the lucky firm's. >> chris, what do you any of that? >> this is just the latest issue. it is hard to keep track of all the ethical improprieties. it is everything from the travel spending, the furniture, the security details, the kickback from the lobbyists, the hiring practices, the pay raises. frankly, if there is an ethics impropriety, scott pruitt has probably already committed it. when i was working for president obama, and i worked for him for 11 years, if i had done even one of these things, i would have been out on the streets. so it's remarkable that pruitt still is hanging on at this point. >> eric, the reporting suggesting this is kind of how he rolls and has for a while. walter shaub summarizes some of your reporting. the lobbyists sold him a home for $100,000 less than she had paid for. he then voted to let the importer raise his rates. at the epa he hired her and the banker that lent him money. than accurate? >> most of my colleagues that wrote a story about the days of pruitt when he was attorney general. and he bought a house from a essentially at&t lobbyist. and he got it for $100,000 less than she had paid for it. and then he took actions while he was a state legislature, a state legislature that benefitted at&t. so it certainly looks like, again, a relationship that with a lobbyist that benefitted the lobbyist client and is sort of an echo of something that would come much later now that he serves as head of the epa. >> "the washington post" just tweeted this which i thought was interesting, chris. lots and i mean lots of folks in the white house want epa head scott pruitt gone. the one who makes the ultimate decision doesn't seem to agree so pruitt hangs on. what do you think? >> a couple of weeks ago the reporting was john kelly called pruitt and said look, it's got to stop. no more of these disclosures. and seemingly every single day there is another one of these things. what's important to recognize is until last week, there wasn't a number two at epa. that person andrew wheeler has now been confirmed. look, his policies aren't great either in terms of the environment. but he will probably destroy the environment, but he'll do it in an ethical marine. so there is now certainly somebody in charge who can take over if pruitt is moved out. >> eric, are you confident we have learned all there is to learn or are there more threads? >> there is still more to report. well still have various avenues that we're pursuing. i think the most troubling thing right now for pruitt is that trey gowdy, the head of the oversight committee in the house has asked some of his top aides to come and in give what he calls transcribed interviews. that's a formal investigation. here you have the first formal investigation by house republicans of a trump cabinet member. and so that's got to be troubling. >> eric lipton and chris liu, thank you both. >> thank you. coming up, guess which republican just backed off his very deeply principled opposition to trump nominee for secretary of state. the dramatic finish to committee vote for mike pompeo next. at the marine mammal center, the environment is everything. we want to do our very best for each and every animal, and we want to operate a sustainable facility. and pg&e has been a partner helping us to achieve that. we've helped the marine mammal center go solar, install electric vehicle charging stations, and become more energy efficient. pg&e has allowed us to be the most sustainable organization we can be. any time you help a customer, it's a really good feeling. it's especially so when it's a customer that's doing such good and important work for the environment. together, we're building a better california. play [music plays]his". when everything's connected, it's simple. easy. awesome. i have changed my mind. i've decided to go ahead and vote for director pompeo because he's assured me that he has learned the lesson, that he does and has incorporated the idea that the iraq war was a mistake. >> just hours ago with republican senator rand paul dropping his objections after heavy lobbying for the president, mike pompeo's nomination to be the next secretary of state received a positive recommendation from senate foreign relations committee on a party line vote. pompeo is expected to be confirmed by the full senate later this week with at least three democrats already saying they will vote in favor. now pompeo was the one who met secretly with the president of north korea a few weeks ago to lay the groundwork for a summit with president trump this spring. and the secretary of state if indeed confirmed will have his work cut out for him. mieke eoyang, jeffrey lewis, director of east asian nonproliferation for international studies, and msnbc national security analyst ned price is a former special assistant to president obama. this is kind of a crazy time mieke right now. you have an acting secretary of state, no ambassador to korea, and the president halfway down the road for the first ever state-to-state summit with the head of north korea. where are we right now? >> i'm not sure that anyone could tell you. and i'm pretty sure the trump administration doesn't have a map to this either. you know, we're missing a lot of the people that you would need to work out the details of a summit like this. this is really high stakes diplomacy. we are talking about a high-wire trapeze act here with no net underneath them. and the risk of this president slipping is really quite high. >> jeffrey, you follow this issue closely for a while. i want to ask you about the veracity of one of the president's tweets. north korea announced they're suspending tests of their weapons the last week. the president tweeting we haven't given up anything they have agreed to denuclearization. so great for world. site closure, no more testing. that true? >> i mean, it's true-ish. the north koreans are willing to say that they are going to talk about denuclearization. but i think the place where that gets a little bit messed up is du nuclearization for north korea does not mean north korea giving up its nuclear weapons. so yes, they're going to take a pause in testing long-range missiles, and they're going to take a pause in testing nuclear weapons. but at the end of the day, north korea is not going to give up the nuclear weapons that it has now. and so that's where i think it's not true. >> well, so what is this all about? if that's -- that seems like you're saying the conclusion is already fixed here, that they're not going to give up their weapons. so what's going on? >> i have no idea what the president thinks he is doing. i mean, that's what is so bizarre about this. the north koreans have made it clear, and they just release another statement the other day that the reason they're stopping testing is the arsenal is finished. they call it their powerful treasured sword, and that they don't have any intention of giving it up. i think the president i think has the idea that he'll go and that there will be a summit, and that magically north korea will give those nuclear weapons up. but really, what the north koreans just want is the summit. they want to reduce pressure. they want to be seen as a legitimate power. and ultimately, they want the u.s. to accept that they have nuclear weapons. and the president is just sort of bumbling into that. >> is that your read on what the north koreans are after, ned? >> well, it certainly is, chris. i think they're after that, and at the same time, if they can divide our alliance. if they can divide our relationship with the japanese and the south koreans, that's an added bonus for them. you will note in the north korean statement over the weekend late last week there was no mention made of shorter range missiles. and those are some of the programs that are of most concern to south korea and to japan. that is what the north koreans have been trying to do for much of this time is to take washington and to move them squarely away from seoul and tokyo. and unfortunately, president trump has actually given them an opening by first being more confrontational and bellicose than probably either the japanese and certainly the south koreans would want. and now seeming to rush almost willing to rush to pyongyang on the first air force one flight over there. that does the north koreans' work for them in some ways. >> but wait a second. it is the government of south korea that has sort of put if first foot forward on this. they did the initiatives, the rigmarole for the olympics and the joint hockey team. moon jae-in ran on this, the administration ran on sort of a conciliatory line towards north korea, towards a possibility of peace. they're the ones that announced the diplomatic break from the white house. what's so bad about giving this a shot i guess is a question? >> absolutely we have to give it a should. look, rushing towards peace is so much better than rushing towards war. >> exactly. >> but we can't do this -- we can't do this in a haphazard way, chris. look, i think jeffrey is right. and president trump sees himself as a deal maker. and president trump wants nothing more than to get to the table and to face kim jong-un mano to mano and say look, i solved what my predecessors could not. but there is a real threat here, there is a real potential that what he waves around is not a negotiated commitment with verifiable permanent and irreversible steps, but really just an empty road map. really just something that will kick the can down the road even further. >> or, mieke, this to me, again, i'm not a nuclear expert or a north korea expert, but it does look like what they're after is essentially to be recognized as a nuclear power. >> that's right. and they want people to stop treating them like a pariah state. they want this face-to-face meeting with the president for their stature. the concept of face is very important in asia. but what we're seeing here, and i think there is a real risk of this, the united states and united states and trump could be played by north korea and china. one of the things they want is to reduce the u.s. military presence in the region. the u.s. is the dominant military power. the chinese don't like it. the north koreans don't like. it's not just about the conventional missiles. it's about the true presence that we have here. and trump is a guy who will give away too much without getting anything for it. and we see this over and over again. his deal making is more like concessions and giveaways. >> but i guess my question, jeffrey, there anything gettable? if you reason back from the standpoint which they're not going to give up their nuclear arsenal, they're not going to agree to any actual inspection regime that would hamstring them, if that's your starting place which is what you seem to think and north korea experts i read seem to think, then what is there? >> well, look, this is why this is such a difficult thing coming on and be a pundit about. the fundamental issue here is you've got two problems, right. you've got north korea which is a nasty unpleasant neighbor for south korea and does all kinds of bad things. and then you have north korea's nuclear weapons. and traditionally what we've said is north korea is this terrible, horrible country. but the first thing we have to solve is the nuclear weapons problem, and then we can talk about making the relationship better. >> right. >> what the south koreans have done is flipped that. what they have said a is hey, let's forget the nuclear stuff. let's just say we're for denuclearization and push that off into the distance and try to improve relations. i'm not against that per se, but it's not clear to me that the president understands that's what he is doing. and when he figures it out, what's he going to do? is he going to sign the peace treaty or freak out and turn the keys over to bolton? >> ned, do you have confidence, trust in mike pompeo to navigate this? >> well, look, mike pompeo has been at the tip of the spear with this. but in many ways he has been there because it's been the process of elimination. we have had no secretary of state over that time period. over the easter weekend we had no national security adviser because h.r. mcmaster was on the way out. john bolton was not yet there. we have no ambassador to seoul and we have no envoy for the north korean issue. so mike pompeo, yes, he has the trust of the president. but he was really the only person standing when it came to deal with. but look, mike pompeo has taken on a diplomatic role which is not a role he has taken on in the past with north korea. in the past he has spoken of separating kim jong-un from his nuclear weapons arsenal, including potentially with the use of force. he has joked about potentially assassinating kim jong-un. so he is not someone who really plays the part of a diplomat all that well. the question will become whether he can make that transition. i have profound doubts and profound concerns about him at foggy bottom. but it sounds like we're all going to get a chance to see it for ourselves. >> all right, mieke eoyang, jeffrey lewis, ned price, great conversation. thank you. still ahead, as republicans struggle to find a voice in the elections, reverting to an old favorite about how putting hillary clinton on the ballot. and a bad alibi in tonight's thing 1, thing 2, next. thing 1 tonight. one of the most striking revelations from the comey memos is president trump's apparent fixation on the most salacious part of this steele dossier, you know what i'm talking about, explaining why what he called the golden showers thing could not have happened. couldn't have happened. comey writes in his january 2017 memo trump said he had spoken to people who had been on the miss universe trip with him, and they had reminded him that he didn't stay overnight in russia for that. he said he arrived in the morning, did events, then showered and dressed for pageant at the hotel. he didn't say the hotel name, and left for the pageant. afterwards, he returned only to get his things because he departed for new york by plane that same night. now trump apparently brought it up for the second time just a month later, according to comey, explain as he did at our dinner, he hadn't stayed overnight during the russian trip. so the, quote, golden showers thing couldn't possibly be true. he didn't even stay overnight in moscow. except that's not what the flight records say. and that's thing 2 in 60 seconds. but i'm not standing still... and with godaddy, i've made my ideas real. ♪ i made my own way, now it's time to make yours. ♪ everything is working, just like it should ♪ the president allegedly told james comey multiple times that the, quote, golden showers thing could not possibly be true, saying the proof was that he didn't even stay overnight in moscow. according to, however, flight records obtained by bloomberg, trump departed from asheville, north carolina, arriving in moscow early friday morning and trump stayed in russia until sunday, november 10th for nearly 46 hours, flying out of moscow in the wee hours to the new york city area. we know trump spent friday night in moscow and also know most of his schedule. trump went to eat friday night with russian tycoons at nobu. and then attended a birthday party for the developer's host, agalarov. what happened after the birthday party is a mystery. the only thing we know about the night trump slept in moscow came from his bodyguard keith schiller when he turned down an offer from a russian to send women to trump's room. schiller testify head stood outside trump's hotel room future a time and then went to bed. the next time trump is seen publicly is next day before the miss universe pageant on saturday, trump sat down for an msnbc interview looking a little bleary-eyed. >> do you have a relationship with putin, or anything you feel you have sway or influence over his government? >> i do have a relationship. and i can tell you that he is very interested in what we're doing here today. there is yet another special congressional election tomorrow, this one in arizona to fill the seat formally occupied by staunch social conservative trent franks who once learned the secular left would bring the downfall of america and who resigned in november after accusations he had offered $5 million to a female employee to be a surrogate mother to his children, and that she and another female employee worried the lawmaker wanted to have sex as a means of impregnating them. it's not the kind of thing you should really ask your employees. arizona's eighth district should be safe for republicans. the gop has a 17.8 registration advantage in the district. it includes a solidly republican golf oriented sun city retirement community, home of many of the staunchest supporters of joe arpaio, the anti-immigrant maricopa county sheriff who trump infamously pardoned last summer. in light of all, this it would be a genuine shock if the race were won by the democrat, doctor and indian immigrant hiral tipirneni. republicans are spooked. outside groups have spent more money to boost debbie lesko. even if lesko wins, as is likely at this point, keep an eye on the margin. if the democrats keep close in a district trump took by 21 points, it will be yet another sign of what even some republicans admit may well be coming in november. >> certainly the energy, the enthusiasm, and the anger is on the democratic side in this election. there is no sugarcoating that. so there is a big wave coming. and some members are going to have to get off the beach. >> when we come back, "new york times" reporter who took the lead in covering hillary clinton's 2016 presidential campaign will be here to discuss her new book on the behind-the-scenes drama and why republicans are still targeting clinton in 2018. that's next. migraine with botox®. what if you had fewer headaches and... migraines a month? botox® prevents headaches and migraines before they even star. botox® is for adults with chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month,... each lasting 4 hours or more. botox® injections take about 15 minutes in your doctor's office and are covered by most insurance. effects of botox® may spread... hours to weeks after injection... causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing,... eye problems, or muscle weakness... can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions,... and medications, including botulinum toxins, as, these may increase the risk of serious side effects. with the botox® savings program, most people with commercial insurance pay nothing out of pocket. talk to your doctor and visit botoxchronicmigraine.com to enroll. the media also ignores hillary's uranium one deal. we need to arrest hilly. don blankenship stands with president trump. that was a campaign ad in the year of our lord 2018 for a convicted felon don blankenship who spent a year in jail for his role in a --. the a.p. reports that republicans are making clinton the start of their midterm election strategy despite the fact that she currently holds no position of power, isn't running for anything, but republicans are betting big the ghost will serve them well in to 1. amy chozick is joining me. you spent a lot of time with hillary clinton. >> a lot. >> what is your reaction to seeing that story in the a.p. about how -- she's not in public life anymore and they're going to try to run against her in the 2018 miss terms. >> it's unbelievable. they're betting on a pavlovian response of even seeing her face. i write when i first met her when i was 16 growing up in texas, everyone i knew hated her. there's been a large psych of the hillary hating. i thought one she stepped back we wouldn't see it, but clearly we still are. >> the book is a really interesting book, very well written. you write about some conclusions you come to about the campaign and the campaign coverage that maybe you didn't see at the time, particularly around the e-mail coverage and the podesta and hacked e-mails. in retrospect, what do you they about the hacked e-mails were covered? >> right. i was on my way to the newsroom. it was december, i was still in the post-election haze, and my colleagues wrote a story how the russians had pulled off the perfect hack. they said part of that was turning the times and every media organization into a de facto instrument of russian intelligence. and it's not that i think we handled it wrongly at the time or shouldn't have covered it, but i think we need more introspecs about what we do with these hacked documents going forward. there's clear signs the russians are going to try it again in the future. how does the media not become that instrument of russian intelligence while still disseminating what's newsworthy? >> what's the answer? >> i think that's above my pay grade, but i'm happy that people are debating it. do you think there's a -- i feel like sometimes that the people in the press and the campaign press of 2016 have a rae defensiveness when they get criticized for their coverage of 2016. >> completely. yeah. >> what is that about? >> i think -- >> it's really intense -- i have a television show. of course there are things that we screwed up. we made wrong judgment calls. i'm proud of our coverage generally, but yeah, you screw stuff up. >> i get the instinct to focus looking forward. there's a lot of investigative reporting, but for an industry that thriving on investigation, we're not very good at self-reflection at all, and i think we do knee some of that most mortem, especially with they post-election factors. >> this comes through the book well, in a campaign setting, everything is zero sum. if something is hurting one candidati helps the other necessarily. when someone puts a thumb on the scale, like the russians did, it's hard to say we're making this independent news judgment. >> one of my colleagues wrote about a column about the french elections and macron's e-mails were hacked. the french media said they would not cover it that until after the election. they didn't want to put their hand on the scale. so whether that's the answer -- it's not a zeroo-sum game. there's somewhere in the middle we need to figure out. >> what in the decade you spend covering hillary clinton. i agree, the hatred for her is -- will blow -- will singe your eyebrows. >> it's visceral. >> in my personal opinion, completely detached from who he is as a human being, totally out of proportion to her as a person, and also driven by sexism. >> this is what's fascinating about hillary hate. her politics are pretty centrist. they shouldn't be that offensive. >> i think we can all agree, the way people feel about hillary clinton and the hatred is not about the substance. >> it's not like an elizabeth warren, again, another woman, but not her stances being so offensive or extreme she was the first working lady, and how women saw her as an affront to who they were, and she's always been incredibly divisive. >> is it sexism? a lot of it, i think. a lot of it, i think. i would talk to voters all the time, even voters who didn't -- hated trump, but they would say, i would vote for a woman, just not that woman. i always heard it again and again. when you dig into that, why is she that woman, it was like 30 years of sexist attacks have made her that woman. does every woman become that woman when they reach a certain height? i got that again and again, oh, i don't have a problem with a woman present, but that woman. >> that always seem like -- when people are explicitly saying -- >> i think history will sexism was so central, even more i think -- at some people were willing to admit at the time. >> even though we didn't see -- we thought hillary clinton was going to win. the polls showed her ahead. i covered obama in 2008. i remember whether all the conventional signs said we were going to win, and it was like there was that hint of is the country really ready to elect a black man. but with hillary, everyone just assumed she would win and maybe we should have more hesitation, is the country really ready to vote a woman? >> and the broad-based assumption she would win is what happened donald trump the most. >> she complains about the media coverage and the "new york times," but i think her biggest complaint should be the widely held assumption that she was going to win. people didn't vote, they said she's going to win anyway and i don't want to vote for her. >> and that's trump's complaint as well. >> but you didn't think you could win also. >> amy's new book is out tomorrow. thanks for being with us. thanks for having me. it's that time of night when i remind you of the gift that's our podcast. the "all in" podcast. you can listen to this show, these words in your ears as a podcast wherever you are. don't forget to hit subscribe while ire good, good evening, rachel. >> in your ear is. >> my voice in your ears. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. tonight a trump white house on edge but claiming the president has no intention of firing robert mueller as the russia investigation plows forward along with the investigation into his attorney, michael cohen. plus high stakes for trump's meeting with the leader of france as trump welcomes emmanuel macron to washington. these two already have history, and more of it was made today. and the troubling word late today that former president george h.w. bush 41 is seriously ill and hospitalized tonight in houston as "the 11th hour" gets under way on a monday night. well, good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. a quick update here at the top
AshevilleNorth-carolinaUnited-statesNorth-koreaMoscowMoskvaRussiaMaricopaArizonaFloridaSouth-koreaCalifornia lea connecticut. lisa page, demoted and left. that's what we're concerned about. today we asked for rod rosenstein. oh, by the way we now know three people have told us rod rosenstein actually was contemplating using the 25th amendment to remove the guy from presidency who the american people put there. and we asked for him to be a witness today and the chairman said no. and instead we get 30 minutes from a guy who is going to prison, going to prison in two months for lying to congress. mr. cohen, i've got two quick questions before i yield back to my colleague. mr. hice asked you who all you talked to. you said you spoke to mr. schiff, obviously you spoke to mr. cummings. you've gone in front of both committees. you're here today, you're going to be in front of mr. schiff's committee tomorrow. have you spoken to chairman nadler or your attorneys? >> i don't know about my attorneys. >> you don't know if your attorneys spoke -- >> i have not spoken to congressman nadler and i am not aware -- sir, i am not aware if my attorneys -- i can ask them. >> you can turn around and ask. >> the answer, sir, is no. >> okay. and you said at this present time mr. davis is not getting paid. are you anticipating him receiving some kind of compensation in the future? >> when i start to earn a living -- >> he's going to wait three years? >> the answer is yes. >> wow, that's a first, i've never known a lawyer to wait three years to get paid. >> i guess he thinks it's important. >> all right. i yield to the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you. mr. cohen, you know, you're a disgraced lawyer. i mean, you've been disbarred. and so i'm sure you remember, maybe you don't remember, duty of loyalty, duty of confidentiality, attorney/client privilege. i think the gentleman to your right side understands that very well and wouldn't do what you're doing here today. let's go back to credibility. you want us to mind sure we think of you as a real philanthropic icon, that you're about justice, that you're the person that somebody would call a 3:00 in the morning. no, they wouldn't. not at all. we saw mr. comer dissect you. you're a pathological liar. you don't know truth from -- truth -- from falsehood. >> sir -- >> hey, this is my time. when i ask for a question, i'll ask for an answer. >> sure. >> are you familiar with rule 35 of the federal rules of criminal prosecution -- procedures? >> i am now. >> oh. well, the committee understands you've been in contact with the southern district of new york. is that true? >> i am in constant contact with the southern district of new york regarding ongoing investigations. >> and part of that application is to reduce sentencing time, is it not? >> there is a possibility -- >> the answer is yes. >> no, it's not, sir. >> yeah, it is. >> it's not. >> so testimony here could actually help you out in getting your sentence lessened, isn't that true? >> i'm not sure how my appearance here today is providing substantial information that the southern district can use for the creation of a case. now, if there is something that this group can do for me, i would gladly welcome it. >> well, i got to tell you, you know, america is watching you. i've been getting texts right and left saying how can anybody listen to this pathological person. he's got a person. he doesn't know fact from fiction. that's what's sad here. is, is that you didn't do this for donald trump, to protect donald trump. you did it for you. this is all about you. this is all about this twitter feed and great -- let me read one of those, another one. women who love and support michael cohen, strong, pitbull, sex symbol, no nonsense, business oriented and -- >> 1,000 followers? >> ready to make a difference against the law. that's pretty sad. you know, over and over again, you know, we wanted to have trust. it's built on the premise that we're truthful, that we come forward. but there's no truth with you whatsoever. that's why i -- that's important to you, to look up here and look at the old adage that our moms told us, liar, liar, pants on fire. no one should ever listen to you and give you credibility. it's sad. it's sad that we have come -- in fact i want to quote the chairman's very words. this is a real -- hold on. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> sad state. >> several times in your testimony you state the bad things you did for mr. trump. at some point you apparently changed your course of action. there is a recurring refrain in your testimony that says, and yet i continued to work for him. but at some point you changed. what was the breaking point at which you decided to start telling the truth? >> there are several factors. helsinki. charlottesville. watching the daily destruction of our civility to one another. putting up silly things like this. really unbecoming of congress. it's that sort of behavior that i'm responsible for. i'm responsible for your silliness, because i did the same thing that you're doing now, for ten years. i protected mr. trump for ten years. and the fact that you pull up a news article that has no value to it, and you want to use that as the premise for discrediting me, that i'm not the person that people called at 3:00 in the morning, would make you inaccurate. in actuality it would make you a liar which puts you in the same position that i am in. i can only warn people, the more people that follow mr. trump as i did blindly, are going to suffer the same consequences that i'm suffering. >> what warning would you give young people who are tempted, as you were? would you encourage them not to wait ten years to see the light? what advice would you give young people, in particular young lawyers, so they do not abuse their bar license as you did? >> what's happened to me. i had a wonderful life. i have a beautiful wife. i have two amazing children. and i achieved financial success by the age of 39. i didn't go to work for mr. trump because i had to. i went to work for him because i wanted to. and i've lost it all. so if i'm not a picture perfect -- that's the picture that should be up there. if i'm not a picture perfect example of what not to do, that's the example that i'm trying to set for my children. you make mistakes in life. and i've owned them. and i've taken responsibility for them. and i'm paying a huge price, as is my family. so if that in and of itself isn't enough to dissuade somebody from acting in the callous manner that i did, i'm not sure that that person has any chance, very much like i'm in right now. >> a recurring theme in your testimony is concern for your family's safety. what specifically are you most concerned about? >> well, the president, unlike my cohen for trump that has a thousand followers, he has over 60 million people. and when mr. trump turned around early in the campaign and said, i can shoot somebody on fifth avenue and get away with it, i want to be very clear, he's not joking. he's telling you the truth. you don't know him. i do. i've sat next to that man for ten years. and i watched his back. i'm the one who started the campaign. and i'm the one who continued in 2015 to promote him. so many things i thought that he can do that are great. and he can and he is doing things that are great. but this destruction of our civility to one another is just -- it's out of control. and when he goes on twitter and he starts bringing in my in-laws, my parents, my wife, what does he think is going to happen? he's causing -- he's sending out the same message that he can do whatever he wants. this is his country. he's becoming an autocrat. and hopefully something bad will happen to me or my children or my wife so that i will not be here and testify. that's what his hope was. it was to intimidate me. and again, i thanked everybody who joined and said, this is just not right. >> have you ever seen mr. trump personally threaten people with physical harm? >> no. he would use others. >> he would hire other people to do that? >> i'm not so sure he had to hire them. they were already working there. everybody's job at the trump organization was to protect mr. trump. every day, most of us knew we were coming in and we were going to lie for him on something. and that became the norm. and that's exactly what's happening right now in this country. it's exactly what's happening here in government, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> mr. armstrong. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, can we take a break? >> did you ask for a break? >> i did, sir. that's okay, thank you, sir. [ inaudible ]. >> thank you. >> and good day, i'm andrea mitchell in washington where president trump's former attorney and fixer michael cohen, who has been sentenced to three years in jail for lying to congress among other crimes, had been on the stand for several hours in dramatic testimony. they've just taken their first brief break. his testimony revealing explosive and potentially damaging new details about president trump and cohen's decades-long work with his former boss, cohen calling president trump a con man, a race sxhisist and a cheat. the most striking allegation so far, that mr. trump knew of wikileaks' dump of hacked e-mails and that don junior told his father about that infamous trump tower meeting with russians in 2015. he produced a check which he claimed was reimbursing him for his payment to stormy daniels. that check was delivered to michael cohen after the president took office. providing evidence to congress which he says backs up all of his claims. joining me now to talk about all of this, michael cohen's testimony today, matt miller, nbc news justice and security analyst and former chief spokesman for the justice department. jeremy bash, nbc news national security analyst, former chief of staff at both the cia and the pentagon. msnbc anchor katy tur who was on the campaign trail with the president from the beginning and has firsthand experience with much of this testimony. and mimi rocah, nbc news legal analyst and former assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. first to you, jeremy bash, you were a former counsel to the house intelligence committee, among your other titles. as a lawyer and as a former counsel on one of these investigative committees, what is your takeaway? >> a lot of sound and heat. but when you cut through it, andrea, here are the crimes for which evidence was presented today. first, bank fraud. documents propounded by the trump organization to deutsche bank to help donald trump buy the buffalo bills, according to michael cohen, contained fraudulent, false information. second, campaign finance violations. the checks to reimburse michael cohen to pay the hush money to the adult film actress. third, false ethics filings. fifth, false charitable activities and fraudulent financial activities of the trump charity. and then two things related to russia. one is that he knew that roger stone had called trump and said we know about the hacked e-mails being dumped in advance. >> he was in the room and heard it on a speakerphone, he says. >> that's right. and second, that he had strong suspicions that donald trump knew about the trump tower meeting in june 2016, approved it, and that he would not have allowed donald junior to do anything without donald trump sr.'s permission. >> there was a whispered conversation he says he heard between don junior and his father. matt miller, following up on that, the implications for the president, assuming that the justice department procedures and reg s obtain, and that ther isn't going to be legal action against the president, what are the implications of this kind of testimony? >> i think it depends, if the justice department is able to corroborate it. if you look at the allegations he made, this conversation that he says that he overheard the president have with roger stone, there probably would be corroboration of that. at the very least, there would be phone records of roger stone calling the president's office, bob mueller would be able to obtain that. if you go back and look at the indictment of roger stone, mueller alleged in that filing that stone had contacted senior campaign officials, he didn't say who, didn't say if it was donald trump or others, in june or july and informed them that wikileaks dumps were coming. so the statement that michael cohen made today would track what mueller has already alleged in court, at least with respect to informing senior campaign officials. i think the question with all of these, both with the evidence that he put on the record today about russia and the new evidence he put on the record about campaign finance violations is, what is going to be made available to congress? i think you're right that this question for the justice department, they still don't think they can indict a sitting president, but we now have a witness alleging crimes by the president under oath, on the record in front of congress and the american people. the justice department apparently has evidence to back that up, has some evidence to back that up. they need to make it available to congress. >> now, just to follow up on this, this is a witness whose credibility has been challenged. we can talk about the republican members going after him. he has acknowledged, admitted, pleaded guilty to lying to congress. he's going to jail for three years on may 6th, at least by may 6th, unless there's a delay. >> i think actually one of the biggest takeaways from today, party from all these new factual revelations, is michael cohen's demeanor and the way he's held up under questioning from republican members of congress. they've been pushing hard. they're attack on him is that he's a liar, ever reconciling the fact that the reason he was lying was he was covering up for donald trump, the president they're trying to protect. one of the moments in the hearing, this exchange with congressman paul gosar where he said, look, i was doing for years what you're doing now, you're continuing to cover up for donald trump. i think that's the question all of them have to ask themselves. there's an odd dynamic in this hearing that michael cohen, an admitted liar, a person we all watched during the campaign do interviews and perform, i will say, perform poorly. he behaved thuggishly during the campaign. he's the person speaking from a position of modern authority here versus these house republicans. if i were them, i would ask myself, how have i put myself in that position that i'm the one coming off worse in these exchanges than someone who is now a convicted felon? >> katy tur joining us from new york, katy, you know michael cohen, you've covered the entire campaign. you were a witness and in fact the questioner on july 27th who asked the question that got donald trump to say, you know, russia, if you're listening. and now what we're hearing is that before that even happened, there was in conversation with roger stone. >> yeah. >> about the wikileaks dump. i want to ask you about all that. but my other takeaway is, he's not overpromising. he's at various times saying, i don't know that or i can't say that or i had suspicions. does that contribute to his credibility as a witness? >> oh, i think it does. i think if he is overpromising and he's saying that he has proof of collusion, and he doesn't actually offer that proof, then that would cut away at his credibility. but you're right, he does say in his opening statement and he's answered questions that he does not have direct proof that the trump campaign or donald trump himself colluded or conspired with russia. but he does say that he has his suspicions. there were a couple of interesting moments, and we'll get back to the july 27th presser in a moment, but michael cohen said at one point that donald trump's desire to win would have him work with anybody. he knows donald trump well. and he knew that he had a big desire to win. he also said, because donald trump didn't think he would win, the negotiations for trump tower moscow were business as usual, that he would often stop michael cohen in the halls or by the elevator and ask him how the negotiations for trump tower moscow were going, while donald trump was still campaigning to be president. and then carolyn maloney of new york asked a pretty significant question, and we all noticed it in here. she asked michael cohen, before you had a meeting of consequence with anybody, did you have to tell donald trump about it. and he responded yes, i did. and she said, did you have to report back to donald trump about a meeting of consequence? and he said yes, i did. that dovetails with how michael cohen describes the trump tower meeting in june of 2016 with don junior, paul manafort, jared kushner, and a russian lawyer offering dirt on hillary clinton. cohen is alleging that don junior would have to go to his dad for that because it was a meet of consequence. don junior has completely denied that. one last thing, july 27th, 2016, that news conference where donald trump asked, russia, if you're listening, find hillary clinton's e-mails, in his opening statement cohen said donald trump knew about that because there was a phone call between him and roger stone where roger stone said i spoke to julian assange before the democratic national convention. that it would mean that donald trump did have a conversation, if this is true, before that about this e-mail dump. also important to note here, and one caveat, that july 22nd, which is five days before that news conference, the dnc e-mails started to be released. so the hack was already out there. that's part of the reason why this came up during that news conference. still, andrea, and you know this, we all know this, and we keep coming back to it, it was a seminal moment because it seemed to come out of nowhere. why would a presidential candidate ask a foreign entity to hack into the systems, the e-mails of anybody in this country, a private citizen, a political foe, anybody? why would he do it? donald trump was adamant he just wanted to see those e-mails and that everybody should get to see them. >> and to mimi rocah, there's been a lot of conversation back and forth, and there was in one of the questions to him from one of the republican members just now, about what he has to gain by appearing here and that he was hoping for a lighter sentence. he made the point that that would not get him a lighter sentence, that he could not get any benefit. obviously the other cooperation perhaps with prosecutors, but they already know all this stuff. but you've worked in that southern district. is there anything that he could do here today in this venue that would improve his posture as far as his penalty is concerned? >> so, yes is the short answer. but it's a little complicated, a little more complicated than it would be for a person normally trying to seek a lighter sentence. first of all, he has sort of a carrot and a stick here incentive to tell the truth. the stick is with robert mueller's office, because he is under a cooperation agreement with them. if he says anything here that is untruthful, that the special counsel's office would certainly know, right, i mean, they have more evidence than cohen does and they have more evidence than we do. if they figure out that he is lying in some way, if they determine that, they can rip up his agreement with them and he is susceptible for being prosecuted for crimes he had immunity for in that agreement. he would be subject to more jail time in addition to possible charges for perjury for lying here. that's the stick. the carrot, as far as the southern district of new york, cohen said something today that i think confirms what has sort of been out there as speculation, that it seems like he's continuing to work directly with the southern district of new york. so i think he's trying to get what's called a rule 35, a post-sentence reduction. in order to do that, he will have to provide actual assistance to the southern district of new york in their investigations. but if he does that and they then write a letter to the judge saying, okay, he's provided assistance to us, now he should get a reduction in his sentence, the fact that he's also testified truthfully in front of congress will also go into that letter. and it's certainly but tsomethie judge will consider because they look at the person as a whole. so standing alone, this testimony won't get him a reduction. but his incentive to tell the truth here is huge, because it will also allow that to go into a letter if the southern district ends up writing one. and it will be very important in a judge's consideration of whether his sentence should be reduced. >> as we watch michael cohen walking back in from this break, ken dilanian has joined us. one of the quick points, ken, he testified in his statement that mr. trump's lawyers, his personal lawyers have proved his testimony is inaccurate, testimony to congress. >> that could be a very important point. if i were congress, i would want to call all those people to testify and find out what they knew. it's important to remember cohen was a personal lawyer to the president at that time. and he really went a little further in this testimony than his lawyers did in court in saying that the president implicitly asked him to lie about the timing of the trump tower meeting. look, we've known a lot of these details but this reemphasizes the idea that during the presidential campaign, donald trump had a real estate deal that required vladimir putin's approval from which he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars. we know that. but cohen's testimony is presenting it before the public in a new way today. >> garrett haake outside the room there, there is the political impact of this. and of course we've got a split screen day because a couple of hours from now they'll be back in that one on one expanded and the guts of the summit in vietnam, in hanoi. garrett, we'll probably be gaveling down, but if you just want to comment very briefly. i may have to interrupt you. >> yeah, might have been this is part of the republicans' frustration here, they see this entire procedure as a distraction from the president's trip abroad, and they're hitting michael cohen and their fellow democrats for that. >> and we're going to go back to the hearing. the chairman is about to resume. >> -- omitted information from his personal financial statements to induce a bank lend based on incomplete information, end quote. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> you lied on financial documents. so you lied to financial institutions in order to secure loans. so we've established that you you lied on your taxes. you lie to banks. you've been convicted of lying to congress. it seems to me there's not much that you won't lie about when you stand to gain from it. in fact the prosecutors from the southern district of new york noted that each of your crimes, quote, bear common sense characteristics which each involving deception and being motivated by your personal agreed and ambition. is your appearance here today motivated by your desire to remain in the spotlight for your personal benefit? >> no, ma'am. >> you have sought out ways to rehabilitate your image from tax evader, bank swindler, and all around liar, to an honorable, truthful man by appearing before cable news. i'm concerned you could be using your story and this congressional platform for your personal benefit. such as a desire to make money from book deals. so can you commit under oath that you have not and will not pursue a book or movie deal based on your experiences working for the president? >> no. >> you cannot commit to making money off of a book or movie deal based on your work? >> no. what i just -- there's two parts to your question. the first part of your question, you asked me whether or not i had spoken to people regarding a possible book deal. and i have. and i've spoken to people who have sought me out regarding a movie deal. >> i didn't ask you if you had spoken to anybody. i said can you commit under oath that you will not, that you have not and will not pursue a book deal. >> and i will not do that, no. >> okay. can you commit under oath that you will not pursue opportunities to provide commentary for a major news network based on your experiences working for the president? >> no. >> can you commit under oath that you will not pursue political office in the state of new york? >> no. >> so you don't commit to changing your ways, basically, because you want to continue to use your background as a liar, a cheater, a convicted liar, to make money? that's what you want to do? >> and that's going to get me a book deal and a movie deal and television -- and a spot on television? i don't think so. >> well, it appears that it will. i yield my remainder of my time. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding. in december of last year you said i want to apologizie to th people of the united states, you deserve to know the truth. approximately a month later buzzfeed news ran a story that was the story of the country for a couple of days, january 17th, 2019. on january 18th your counsel went on tv and wouldn't confirm or deny the story. the next day the special counsel's office did something that's never happened, never happened. they said the description of specific statements to the special counsel's office and the characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office regarding michael cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate. why didn't your lawyer, the day that he's on tv when this story is the biggest thing in the news in the country, why didn't he deny the buzzfeed story? >> because i didn't think it was his responsibility to do that. we are not the fact checkers for buzzfeed. >> he's on tv to talk about the very story. you committed to the court when you were trying to get your sentence reduced, that the american people deserved to know the truth. you had the golden opportunity to give them the truth on a false story, the buzzfeed story, and your lawyer didn't say a thing. he actually said this, i can't confirm, i can't deny. you had an opportunity to do exactly what you told the judge you were going to do one month after you said it and you didn't do it. why not? >> again, it wasn't our responsibility to be the fact checker for the news agencies. sir, please let me -- the president says so far, approximately 9,000 -- >> i've got eight seconds. i'll let you finish. >> chairman, can i please finish? >> they said that story was false. now you can respond. >> my response, the president has told something over 9,000 lies to date. i asked mr. davis and mr. monaco, do i go on television in order to correct his statements? >> when it's -- >> listen up. the gentleman's time is expired. you may finish answering the question and then we're going to go to mr. connolly. >> all i wanted to say is i just find it interesting, sir, that between yourself and your colleagues, that not one question so far has been asked about president trump. that's actually why i thought i was coming today, not to confess to the mistakes that i've made. i've already done that. and i'll do it again every time you ask me about taxes or mistakes, yes, i made my mistakes, i'll say it now again. and i'm going to pay the ultimate price. but i'm not here today and the american people don't care about my taxes. they want to know what it is that i know about mr. trump. and not one question so far has been asked about mr. trump. >> mr. connolly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. well, mr. cohen, based on your testimony and your ten-year experience, i think you can recognize the behavior you're being subjected to on the other side of the aisle. discredit, slander. >> yes. >> use any trick in the book to prevent your testimony from sticking. the idea that a witness would come to us who is flawed, and you certainly are flawed, means they can never tell the truth. and there is no validity whatsoever to a single word they say, would discredit every single criminal trial of organized crime in the history of the united states, because all of them depend on someone who has turned. it would make rico null and void, we didn't use it anymore. this congress historically has relied on all kinds of shady figures who turned. one of the most famous, who led to the decapitation of organized crime families in america, in a congressional hearing, he was a witness and he committed a lot worse crimes than you're convicted of, mr. cohen. so don't be fooled by what my friend on the other side of the aisle are trying to do today. it is, do everything but focus on the principle known as individual number 1 in the southern district of new york, as i recall. is that correct, mr. cohen? >> that is correct. >> now, mr. cohen, i want to ask you about something that's not in your testimony and that so far has not been made public. in our committee staff's search of documents provided by the white house that were otherwise redacted or already in the public, and i guess the white house thought that was funny, they made one mistake, the white house. there was an e-mail from a special assistant to the president to a deputy white house counsel. and the e-mail is dated may 16th, 2017. and it says, and i quote, potus, meaning the president, requested a meeting on thursday with michael cohen and jay sekulow. any idea what this might be about, end quote. do you recall being asked to come to the white house on or around that time? with mr. sekulow? may of 2017. >> off the top of my head, sir, i don't. i recall being in the white house with jay sekulow. it was in regard to the documents, the document production as well as my appearance before the house select intel. but i'm not sure if that's specifically -- what i will do is i will check all my records and i'm more than happy to provide you with any documentation or a response to this question. >> you sort of touched on the, presumably, the purpose of the discussion, at least among others. this occurred, this meeting occurred just before your testimony before the select committee on intelligence here in the house; is that correct? >> i believe so, yes. >> was that a topic of conversation with the president himself? >> if this is the specifyiic instance that i was there with mr. sekulow, yes. >> so you had a conversation with the president of the united states about your impending testimony before the house intelligence committee; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> what was the nature of that conversation? >> he wanted me to cooperate. he also wanted just to ensure, i'm making the statement and i said it in my testimony, there is no russia, there is no collusion, there is no -- there is no deal. he goes, it's all a witch hunt. and he goes, this stuff has to end. >> did you take those comments to be suggestive of what might flavor your testimony? >> sir, he's been saying that to me for many, many months. and at the end of the day, i knew exactly what he wanted me to say. >> and why was mr. sekulow in the meeting? >> because he was going to be representing mr. trump going forward as one of his personal attorneys in this matter. >> so it was sort of a hand-off meeting? >> correct. >> in any way, final question, did the president in any way coach you in terms of how to respond to questions or the content of your testimony before a house committee? >> again, it's difficult to answer, because he doesn't tell you what he wants. what he does is, again, michael, there's no russia, there's no collusion, there's no involvement, there's no interference. i know what he means because i've been around him for so long. so if you're asking me whether or not that's the message, that's staying on point, that's the party line that he created, that so many others are now touting, yes, that's the message that he wanted to reinforce. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. massie. >> mr. cohen, can you clarify, did you just say you did at times what mr. trump wanted you to do, not specifically what he's told you to do? >> at advertisementimes, yes. >> so you just went on your intuition? >> i don't know if i would call it intuition as much as i would just say, my knowledge of what he wanted. because it happened before, and i knew what he wanted. >> does a lawyer have a duty to provide his client with good legal advice? >> yes. >> were you a good lawyer to mr. trump? >> i believe so. >> when you arranged a payment to ms. clifford, you stay in your testimony, i'm going to quote from your testimony, that you did so, quote, without bothering to consider whether that was improper, much less whether it was the right thing to do. you said that. unquote. that's your testimony today. you said you didn't even consider whether it would be legal. how could you give your client legal advice when you're not even considering whether it's legal? >> i did what i knew mr. trump wanted. this conversation with mr. trump -- >> i didn't ask whether you were a good fixer. i asked whether you awere a goo lawyer. >> sometimes you have to meld both together. i needed to at that time ensure and protect mr. trump, and if i put my -- which i'm clearly, clearly suffering the penalty of, i clearly erred on the side of wrong. >> so you feel like, without bothering to consider whether it was proper much less whether it was the right thing to do, by ignoring any conscience, if you have one, that you were protecting mr. trump? >> i'm sorry, sir. i don't understand. >> you feel that was how to proba protect -- as his lawyer, you feel you did a good job, you said you were a good lawyer, right? is that being a good lawyer to not even consider whether it's legal or not? >> i didn't work for the campaign. i was working and i was trying to protect mr. trump. i sat with mr. trump. this goes back all the way to 2011. this wasn't the first scenario with miss daniels. so -- >> let's go back. >> my point is, this was an ongoing situation. it didn't just start in october -- sir, you have to let me finish. it started -- it didn't start in october. it started many years earlier. >> when were you disbarred? >> yesterday, from what i read in the paper. >> yesterday. when should you have been disbarred based on the legal counsel you were giving your client? >> i don't have an answer for your question. >> how long were you counsel for mr. trump? >> since 2007. >> when is the first time you gave him bad legal advice or failed to inform him of his legal obligations as you testified today, you did in the case of the payment to miss clifford? when was the first time you did that? would that qualify for disbarment? >> i don't know, sir. i'm not the bar association. >> i think you should consult with them maybe occasionally on some of these things. >> what's the point now? i lost my law license. >> has anybody else promised to pay mr. davis for representing you? >> no. >> nobody has? >> no. are you offering? >> question, quickly. you said, and this is also in your testimony, in the days before the democratic convention, you became privy to a conversation that some of hillary clinton's e-mails would be leaked; is that correct? >> correct. >> okay. was that in, you said, late july, do you know the exact day? >> i believe it was either the 18th or the 19th. and i would guess that it would be on the 19th. >> it was definitely july? >> i believe so, yes. >> do you know that was public knowledge in june? this was mr. assange, i would like to submit this, with unanimous consent to submit this for the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> mr. assange reported to the media on june 12th that those e-mails would be leaked. i'm not saying you have fake news. i'm saying you have old news. and there's really not much to that. i would like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. higgins. >> thank you, sir. mr. cohen, i'm quoting you from earlier, you said, i spent last week looking through boxes to find documents that would support your accusations. where are those boxes? in your garage? >> they're in storage. >> are these not boxes that should have been turned over to authorities during the many investigations you're subject to? >> these were boxes that were returned to me. >> should they not have been turned over or remanded to investigative authorities? did mr. lanny davis know of these boxes? >> the gentleman's time has expired. you may answer the question. >> i don't understand his question. >> very well. >> mr. krishnamoorthi. >> thank you, mr. cohen, for voluntarily testifying this morning. you were the executive vice president and special counsel for the trump organization, correct? >> i was the executive vice president, special counsel to donald j. trump. >> and special counsel means you were the attorney for him, is that right? >> it just means i was there in order to handle matters that he felt were significant and important to him individually. >> and those included legal matters? >> yes, sir. >> sir, as a former attorney, you're familiar with legal documents known as nondisclosure agreements or ndas, is that right? >> yes. >> sir, i'm sure you know that ndas, properly written in scope, can be reasonable in certain business contexts but they can also be abused to create a chilling effect to silence people, as we've seen in the "me too" movement and other places; isn't that right, mr. cohen? >> yes. >> and mr. cohen, the trump organization used ndas stech extensively, is that right? >> that is correct. >> i'm reading a "washington post" article where the terms of one of these ndas were described as very broad. for instance, the terms "confidential information" was defined to be anything that, quote, mr. trump insists remain private or confidential including but not limited to any information with respect to the personal life, political affairs, and/or business affairs of mr. trump or any family member, close quote. do those terms sound familiar to you? >> i've seen that document. >> in fact there's class action lawsuit filed this month by former trump chain worker jessica denson that this nda language is illegal because it is too broad, too vague, and would be used to retaliate against employees who complain of illegality or wrongdoing. would you agree that in the use of these types of ndas with this type of language, and later, when donald trump sought to enforce them, that he intended to prevent people from coming forward with claims of wrongdoing? >> yes. >> would you agree that the effect of the use of these ndas and their enforcement was to have a chilling effect on people or silence them from coming forward? >> i apologize, if you want to define "chilling." >> oh, just that he would -- in using these ndas or trying to enforce them, would basically try to keep people silent. >> that was the goal. >> and nothing at the trump organization was ever done without it being run through donald trump; is that correct? >> that's 100% certain. >> mr. cohen, do you believe there are people out there today, either from the president's business or personal life, who are not coming forward to tell their stories of wrongdoing because of the president's use of ndas against them? >> i'm sorry, sir, i don't know the answer to that question. >> okay. sir, i have a couple of other questions for you. when was the last communication with president trump or someone acting on his behalf? >> i don't know the specific date, but it was a while ago. >> okay. do you have a general time frame? >> i would suspect it was within two months post the raid of my home. >> okay. >> hotel. >> so early fall of last year, generally? >> generally. >> and what did he or his agent communicate to you? >> unfortunately, this topic is actually something that's being investigated right now by the southern district of new york. and i've been asked by them not to discuss and not to talk about these issues. >> fair enough. is there any other wrongdoing or illegal act that you are aware of regarding donald trump that we haven't yet discussed today? >> yes. and again, those are part of the investigation that's currently being looked at by the southern district of new york. >> sir, congressman cooper asked you about whether you were aware of any physical violence committed by president trump. i just have a couple of quick questions. do you have any knowledge of purchas president trump abusing any controlled substances? >> i'm not aware of that, no. >> do you have any knowledge of president trump being delinquent on any alimony or childcare payments? >> i'm not aware of any of that. >> do you have any knowledge of president trump arranging any health care procedures for any women not in his family? >> i'm not aware of that, no. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. cloud. >> thank you, chairman. mr. cohen, can you tell me the significance of may 6th? >> in terms of, sir? >> a couple of months from now. >> that's the day that i need to surrender to federal prison. >> yes, sir. could you for the record state what you've been convicted of? >> i've been convicted on five counts of tax evasion. there's one count of misrepresentation of documents to a bank. there's two counts, one dealing with campaign finance for karen mcdougal. one count of campaign finance violation for stormy daniels. as well as lying to congress. >> thank you. can you state what your official title with the campaign was? >> i did not have a campaign title. >> and your position in the trump administration? >> i did not have one. >> in today's testimony you said that you were not looking to work in the white house. the southern district of new york in their statement, their sentencing memo, says this. cohen's criminal violations in the federal election laws were also stirred, like other crimes, by his own ambition and agreed. cohen told other friends and colleagues that he expected to be given a prominent role in the new information. when that did not materialize, cohen found a way to monetize his relationship and access with the president. were they lying or were you lying today? >> i'm not saying it's a lie. i'm just saying it's not accurate. i did not want to go to the white house. i retained -- and i brought an attorney in and i sat with mr. trump with him for well over an hour, explaining the importance of having a personal attorney, that every president has had one, in order to handle matters like the matters i was dealing with, which included summer -- >> i reclaim my time. >> -- stormy daniels -- >> excuse me. i ask unanimous consent to submit this sentencing memo from the southern district of new york. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i'll get it to you in a second. this memo states that you committed four distinct federal crimes over a period of several years. you were motivated to do so by personal agreed and repeatedly used your power to influence for deceptive ends. it goes on to say that you were -- that they each involved -- they were distinct in their harms but bear a common set of characteristics, involve deception and were motivated by agreed and ambition. there's a lot we don't know in this investigation but here's what we do know, that you were expecting a job at the white house and didn't get it, you made millions lying about your close access to the president, you have a history of lying for personal gain, including that's banks, about your account ant, law enforcement, your family, the congress, the american people. the southern district of new york, you've said you did all of this out of blind loyalty to mr. trump but your sentencing memo states this. this was not an act out of blind loyalty as cohen suggests. cohen was driven by a desire to further ingratiate himself with potential future president for whom political success cohen himself claimed credit for. now, we're in a search for truth. and i don't know, chairman, how we're supposed to ascertain the truth in this quagmire of a hearing when the best witness we can bring before us is already convicted of lying before us. what's sad is the american people have seen this play out before. ople have seen this playt before you're set to go to jail for a couple of years and come out with a multimillion book deal, that's not bad living. will you commit to donate proceeds to charity? >> no. >> i yield my time. >> will the gentleman yield? >> may i finish? >> would the gentleman yield? >> yield to mr. meadows. >> mr. chairman, may i finish my response? >> i'll let you respond. >> mr. cohen, everything has been made of your lies in the past. i'm concerned about your lies today. under your testimony, just a few minutes ago, to me, you indicated that you had contracts with foreign entities. and yet we have a truth in testimony disclosure form which requires you to list those foreign contracts for the last two years. and you put "n.a." on there. and it's a criminal offense to not have that accurately. so when were you lying? either on the testimony to me earlier today or when you filled out the form? >> the gentleman's time is expired. mr. cohen, you may answer his question, and then whatever you want to say on that. >> these questions, i don't have an answer for his question, but -- >> no, no. no, no. mr. chairman. >> as it relates -- >> the gentleman is out of order. he said he does not have an answer. >> mr. chairman, when doesn't have an answer. and you have gone over your tim. >> he's under oath. >> he's under oath to tell the truth. one of them is not accurate, mr. chairman. >> you will have time to answer the question. >> mr. chairman, a question, just a question. >> mr. harass kin. >> mr. cohen, thank you for your come pore you are today. they are not upset because you lied to the president. they are upset because you stopped lying to congress for the president. now, you described the trump campaign as a once in a lifetime money making opportunity, the greatest infomercial of all time, i think you said. and this may be the most trenchent observation of your testimony. do you think the trump campaign or presidency ever stopped being about making money for the president, his family and his organization? >> yes. >> when did it stop being that? >> when he won the election. >> what did it become about at that point? >> then it had to be about figuring out what to do here in washington. >> can you carefully explain to america how the hush money payments to karen mcdougal and stormy daniels worked? can you carefully explain what catch and kill is? >> sure. i received a phone call regarding both karen mcdougal as well as stormy daniels, obviously different times, stating that there were issues that were going to be damaging to mr. trump. with stormy daniels it started in 2011 when she wanted to have something removed from the website. that was the first time i spoke with keith davids, her acting attorney. we were successful in having it taken down from the website. it wasn't till years later, by around the time of the campaign, did they come back and they asked, what are you going to do now, because she's back on the trail trying to sell the story, at which point in time david pecker, on behalf of the "national enquirer," reached out to her and her attorney in order to go take a look at, um, lie detector test that would prove that she was telling the truth. they then contacted me and told me that she was telling the truth, at which point, again, all the time -- >> she took a lie detector test? >> she allegedly took a lie detector test and was seen by an employee of the "national enquirer," at which point in time i went into mr. trump's office, i explained this time it's different than another time. >> when you say another time, were there other women paid hush money by mr. trump and his organization? was this a standard operating procedure? >> no. >> you're not aware of any other cases that it took place? >> i'm not aware of any cases mr. trump paid. this brings us to karen mcdougal. he was supposed to pay $125,000 for the life story of karen mcdougal. for whatever the reason may be, he elected not to pay it. david pecker was very angry because there was also other monies that david had expended on his behalf. unfortunately, david never got paid back for that either. >> so david pecker had done this in other cases of other mistresses or women? >> other circumstances, yes. >> okay. >> not all of them had to do with women. >> are you aware of anything that the president has done at home or abroad that may have subjected him to or may subject him to extortion or blackmail? >> i am not, no. >> okay. are you aware of any videotapes that may be the subject of extortion or blackmail? >> i've heard about these tapes for a long time. i've had many people contact me over the years. i have no reason to believe that that tape exists. >> in december 2015, donald trump was asked about his relationship with felix saider, a convicted felon and real estate developer. he replied, felix saider, body, have to think about it. i'm not that familiar with him. why did trump endeavor to hide his relationship with felix saider and what was his relationship? >> well, he certainly had a relationship. felix was a partner in a company called bay rock that was involved in the deal of the trump soho hotel as well as i believe the trump fort lauderdale project. why did he want to distance himself? that's what mr. trump does, he distances himself when things go bad for someone. at that point in time it was going bad for mr. saider. >> you said you lied to congress about trump's negotiations to build his moscow tower because he'd made it clear to you that he wanted you to lie. one of the reasons you knew this is, quote, mr. trump's personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to congress about the timing of the moscow tower negotiations before i gave it. so this is a pretty breath taking claim, and i just want to get to the facts here. which specific lawyers reviewed and edited your statement to congress on the moscow tower negotiations? and did they make any changes to your statement? >> there were changes made, additions. jay sekulow, for one -- >> were there changes about the timing, the question -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. you may answer that question. >> there were several changes that were made, including how we were going to handle that message which was -- >> were you finished? >> yes. the message, of course, being the length of time that the trump tower moscow project stayed and remained alive. >> that was one of the changes? >> yes. >> first of all, i'd like to clear up something that bothers me. you started off your testimony and you said i think in response to some question that president trump never expected to win. i just want to clarify that i dealt with president trump several times as he was trying to get wisconsin. he was always confident. he was working very hard. and this idea that somehow he was just running to raise his profile for some future venture, at least in my experience, is preposterous. i find it offensive when anti-trump people imply that he did this on a lark and didn't expect to win. but be that as it may, my first question concerns your relationship with the court. do you expect -- i mean, right now i think you're sentenced to three years, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> do you expect any time, using this testimony, other testimony after you get done doing whatever you're going to do this week, do you ever expect to go back and ask for any sort of reduction in sentence? >> yes. there are ongoing investigations currently being conducted that have nothing to do with this committee or congress that i am assisting in. and it is for the benefit of a rule 35 motion, yes. >> so you expect, and perhaps what you testify here today will affect, going back and reducing this what we think is a relatively light three-year sentence, you expect to go back and ask for a further reduction? >> based off of my appearance here today? >> well, based upon whatever you do between now and your request for -- >> the rule 35 motion is in the complete hands of the southern district of new york. and the way the rule 35 motion works is what you're supposed to do is provide them with information that leads to ongoing investigations. i am currently working with them right now on several other issues of investigation that concerns them that they are looking at. if those investigations become fruitful, then there is a possibility for a rule 35 motion, and i don't know what the benefit in terms of time would be. but this congressional hearing today is not going to be the basis of a rule 35 motion. i wish it was, but it's not. >> i'd like to yield some time to congressman jordan. >> i yield to the gentleman from north carolina. >> mr. cohen, i'm going to come back to the question i asked before with regard to your false statement that you submitted to congress. on here it was very clear that it asked for contracts with foreign entities over the last two years. have you had any foreign contract with foreign entities, whether
New-yorkUnited-statesMoscowMoskvaRussiaWashingtonWhitehouseDistrict-of-columbiaWisconsinOhioJordanMonaco