Announcer this is cnn breaking news. Breaking tonight, President Trump is publicly weighing in on the Stormy Daniels lawsuit, denying he knew anything about his lawyers hush money deal with the porn star. This as were uncovering new efs that mr. Trump hasnt given up on the idea of firing his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, a move that could threaten the special counsels russia investigation. Cnn learning that this week the president floated replacing sessions with his embattled epa chief, even as scott pruitt was embroiled in scandal. Uhl get reaction from democratic congressman adrianna espaillat. And our analysts are all standing by. Lets go to pamela brown. Pamela, we heard from the president on air force one just a little while ago. Reporter thats right, wolf. And there were some Significant Developments aboard air force one. The president breaking his silence on Stormy Daniels, claiming that he didnt know anything about the payment that his own lawyer made to daniels just before the election. This is especially significant, because now the president is on the record denying this, if he ever has to give a deposition. Before arriving back from West Virginia tonight, President Trump for the first time speaking publicly about porn star Stormy Daniels and the 130,000 in hush money his personal attorney paid her just before the 2016 election. Did you know about the 130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels . No. Then why did Michael Cohen make it there is there was no allegations . Youll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michaels my attorney. Do you know where he got the money . No. Reporter the president also voiced support for his embattled epa administrator, scott pruitt. I think scott has done a fantastic job. I think hes a fantastic person. You know, i just i just left coal and energy country. They love scott pruitt. Reporter and tonight cnn haze learned that the president has so much confidence in pruitt, he has even considered him a replacement more attorney general Jeff Sessions, as recently as this week. Such a move would put pruitt in charge of the russia investigation, giving him the authority to oversee and even fire special counsel Robert Mueller. But aboard air force one, trump denied he has any intention of changing pruitts job. Trumps support for pruitt comes in the wake of a barrage of bad publicity. But as one source told cnn, trump was 100 still trying to protect pruitt, because pruitt is his fillin for sessions. A Senior Administration official tells cnn the president was not pleased with pruitts inability to button up several of his controversies in an interview with fox news on wednesday. Opting to blame critics for his missteps. I do believe as we do our work, ed, as were focused on these types of things, they are transformational. And anytime you do transformational things, there are critics and things that come against you in that regard. Pruitt complaining he was completely unaware that two of his top aides received unapproved pay raises. So one of your employees from oklahoma got a pay raise they did not get a pay raise. They did not. I stopped that yesterday. Are you embarrassed that it should not have happened. And the officials that were involved in that process should not have done what they did. Reporter pruitt also struggling to explain his rental of an apartment from the wife of a prominent Energy Lobbyist when he first moved to washington. President trump said he would drain the swamp. I dont is draining the swamp renting an apartment from the wife of a washington lobbyist . I dont think that thats even remotely fair to ask that question. Okay, so, why did you then accept 50 a night to rent a condo from the wife of a washington lobbyist. Well, lets talk about that. That is something that, again, has been reviewed by officials here. Theyve said that its market rate. Youre renting it from the wife of a lobbyist. Who has no business before this agency. So hold on a second, williamson jenson, major lobbying firm. Exxonmobil is a client. Mr. Hart has no clients exxonmobil has no his firm, hes a member of a law firm. To take his relationship youre not asking the question. It was like an air b b situation so you only rent for the nights you were there . Thats right. Thats kind of a sweetheart deal. Ive never heard of an apartment like this. Ive lived in washington for over 25 years. This was going to be my remarks. It would have taken about two minutes, but what the hell. Reporter meanwhile, as President Trump chose to get out of washington today, he was in his element in West Virginia. No, im reading off the first paragraph and i think, this is boring. We have to say tell it like it is. Reporter what was supposed to be a roundtable discussion about tax reform quickly turned into a wideranging campaignlike speech with the president resurrecting one of his debunked conspiracy theories. In many places, like california, the same person votes many times. You probably heard about that. They always like to say, oh, thats a conspiracy theory. Not a conspiracy theory, folks. Millions and millions of people. Reporter trump going back to his First Political speech and his favorite incendiary topic, illegal immigration. Remember my opening remarks when i opened, everyone says, oh, hes so tough. And i used the word rape. And yesterday it came up, this journey coming up, women are raped at levels theyve never seen before. They dont want to mention that. So we have to change our laws . Reporter and today the president said he may send 2,000 to 4,000 National Guard troops to the border, but other details such as when that might happen, whether theyll be armed, remain murky tonight. Wolf . Pamela brown at the white house. Thanks very much. Lets get some more now on the breaking news with Stormy Daniels. The president publicly denying he knew about the hush money he received from his lawyer Michael Cohen. Lets get to our legal analyst, joey jackson. Joey, the president said he didnt know about that 130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Does that actually invalidate the hush agreement . You know, wolf, good evening, it depends who you ask. On the first end of it, you can make the argument that a contract is offer acceptance. And therefore, if i extend an offer to you, wolf, you accept. You and i are the parties to the contract. To the extent that the president has no knowledge of the contract, where is the acceptance . Who was accepting on his behalf . Therefore, invalid. Of course, mr. Avenatti is making a number of other arguments that i think are meritorious in addition to that. However, on the other end of it, you could make the argument that it was a Third Party Beneficiary contract. You and i have spoken about this. I purchase a car for my son. My son has no knowledge hes getting a car at all. Hes not on the contract or otherwise a party. If that car is not delivered to me, however, he has rights to enforce the contract as a Third Party Beneficiary. And so thats the argument i thought they were making, until i heard the president say that Michael Avenatti was acting as my lawyer, i thought the president s team was going in the way of Michael Avenatti excuse me, making the argument that they were saying that these this was a familial relationship. And as a result of a familial relationship, it would, of course, refute mr. Avenattis arguments in that regard saying the contract then would still be valid. Because the president flatly said when he was asked, did Michael Cohen, his longtime attorney, make the payment . The president said, you would have to ask Michael Cohen, Michael Cohen is my attorney, youll have to ask him. And what youre saying, joey, the use of the word attorney is very significant. I think its highly significant. Because then you get into the area of this, first of all, the believability area. Is there anyone out there listening to you and i who really believes that any attorney on the planet would make a commitment like that on behalf of a client for 130,000 out of a Home Equity Loan . I like to think that i represent my clients well. I like to think that i care about them greatly. There will be no time that you will find me taking personal funds and getting those funds on their behalf in order to satisfy is a payment. On the other hand, however, if you would talk about me acting as a family member, as a friend, as a longtime confidant, that would change the equation. And so to the extent that the president was saying, he was acting as my lawyer, that really goes against the whole Third Party Beneficiary argument. So im concerned about the use of that language, yes. Michael cohens spokesman, david schwartz, issued a statement following the president s remarks aboard air force one. Let me read it to you. This is an accurate assessment of the facts. This is exactly what i have been saying all along. Michael cohen made the payment to protect reputation, family, and business. It had nothing to do with the election. Thats the statement from david schwartz. But in his comments, the president again called cohen his attorney. And that is, as you correctly point out, is a significant word. I think its highly significant. And we should also note, i mean, listen, there are two ways, of course, in order to make your case. Obviously, in a court of law, thats the one way. And i think that well really learn, should we get to the deposition parts of this, where people have to actually give sworn testimony, we might get to the truth around what happened, how it happened, where the payment came from, how it was made, why it was made, well get to that thats a court of law. But what you read was a statement. And as attorneys, were also looking to get the high ground in the court of public opinion. But i think from a credibility perspective, if youre going to make the argument that Michael Cohen was simply acting as a lawyer, i just think it defies all common sense and credibility, because lawyers do not act in this way. People who love and care about someone, who are family members with someone, who are longtime confidants and advisers with someone, they could, in fact, make a payment, you dont know anything about it, i got you. But to say you acted in my legal capacity, i think that raises the specter of not passing the smell test. Let me see if you agree with Michael Avenatti in his statement that he released following the president s comments. He said, our case just got that much better. And we very much look forward to testing the truthfulness of mr. Trumps feigned lack of knowledge concerning the 130,000 payment as he stated on air force one. As history teaches us, it is one thing to deceive the press and quite another to do so under oath. Do you agree with him that his case just got much better . Well, let me say this. Its not a lie well, its not a crime to lie to the press, but it certainly is a crime to lie in a deposition or other places. Now, for example, i bring you back 20 years ago when bill clinton, then president , looked at the camera and said, i did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, i did not. Then Monica Lewinsky testifies in a grand jury. Bill clinton testifies in the grand jury and says, yes, the relationship was physical. And therefore, he had to tell the truth. And so the problem is, now the president is on record. And so in a deposition, its fair game, should he depose him, that is mr. Avenatti, the president , he can ask him the question about what he went on record as saying. And if he veers away from that, its very dangerous. Because now youre lying under oath, it gets you into again, i refer to bill clinton impeachment territory because of a lie you tell in the deposition. I think, and i would be one to advise the president to settle this case immediately. Forget about the motion to compel arbitration. You dont need it. You dont need to be right. Just get out from under it. Because if he is deposed, it becomes a significant problem. And so the point being, how will Michael Avenatti use the president s comments in his case . I think in a very significant way. I think two ways. Number one, i think hes taking it to the people. Hes taking it to the public and speaking about, look, lets talk about this. We as trial lawyers all the time, wolf, we go before juries and we talk to them about common sense and good judgment. Are there any one of you, as you sit there, believe a, b, or c. And the jurors have to answer that question. So in the first way, hes using it to gain the high ground in the court of public opinion, saying, this is nonsense. And the second way hell use it in the event he gets to depose the president to say, excuse me, mr. President , you came to the back of air force one. You happened to make some statements in response to some questions, did you not . Lets talk about what you said and lets talk about whether thats true. You know youre under oath, sir, do you not . So answer the following question. And then hell proceed with asking him questions concerning his relationship with Michael Cohen, the payment of Michael Cohen, was it reimbursed, where did it come from, what was his knowledge of it . What did he know . When did he know it . How did he know it . And thats when you get into ground that you just dont want to be in. Youre the president , youve got a lot of things to do. I know you want to be right. I know youre arguing this never happened. Write a check well, we know mr. Avenatti said hes not accepting a check. Do what you need to do to get out from under this before you have to testify, and when you testify, youre on very dangerous ground, because we know, we can be fair about this, that this president plays fast and loose with what we believe to be truthful. And you can do that in the press. You can do it in the back of air force one. You cannot do it in a grand jury. You cant do it in a deposition. You cant do it to federal investigators. You just cant. So i would say, if im advising him, mr. President , lets take a pass. We need to move on. Settle this case. Lets say the president is telling the truth. And im looking at the transcript of what he said. He did not know about the 130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. He didnt know why Michael Cohen made the payment. You would have to ask Michael Cohen. He didnt know where Michael Cohen got the money. No, i dont know. Lets say hes telling the truth in all of that. What ethical or legal questions potentially would that raise for his attorney, Michael Cohen . Well tw, to things, wolf, an ill answer that question. In saying that someone is telling the truth, again, its all about credibility and everything has to be evaluated in context. And i think this is what you hear a lot about. So you mean to tell me, 11 days, a week and a half, whatever the specific time frame before an election when you were under siege by women accusing you of various things and this could have been the straw that broke the camels back, you knew nothing about it . So it gets to the point of credibility, right . We all as people you know, laws a gray area. Its never a Mathematical Science or question. Youre operating in the gray. And youre relying upon people, jurors to get it right based upon argument. So to your question, wolf, is there anyone out there, support the president or not, believes that can be true . Now, accepting your proposition as it is for now, now you have to ask about Michael Cohen, which you have. And that is that there are some serious ethical dilemmas. We as lawyers dont go out and settle cases on a whim, because we feel like it, because were good people, because, ah, i just want to look out for you, its the right thing to do, i love you, man, and therefore we write checks. Not how it works. We have Ethical Practices we have to deal with. One of which is informed condition sent. If theres a settlement agreement, we have to talk about it. My client asks, is it a good thing to do, a bad thing to do . How will it affect me . My family, my job. Were ethically bound to do that. And to the extent you dont, assist problem. So it would appear to me that the president by calling him my lawyer could have very easily said, hes like family to me, i love him, would have changed te equation. He said, my lawyer. And if the president is telling the truth, i believe it could cause problems for mr. Cohen. So do you think Michael Avenatti could depose President Trump . Ive seen the various press hes done on this and other networks concerning this particular case. He appears to me to be driven by the truth. This doesnt appear to be a moneybased type of approach to litigation. I think hes made plenty of that. And so the reality then becomes, if you want to get to the truth, the best way you get to it is by having people, wolf, raise that hand and you have a Court Reporter there and everything is transcribed. And goodness for bid you veer away from whats truthful. And again, we know the president is hes very apt to sort of we can call it puffing, we can call it misrepresentations, we can call it fabrications. But there are some concerns about things that he says that are not true. You