Multiplying fronts of legal warfare, both criminal and civil, with everyone from the post powerful prosecutor in the country to everyday american citizens. The team of special Counsel Robert Mueller is negotiating for an interview of donald trump even as the New York Times reports the president is laying a reshuffle of his legal team so he can confront mueller more aggressively. The times reporting mr. Trump has weighed allowed in recent days to Close Associates whether to dismiss his lawyer, ty cobb. The paper adds his lead lawyer, john dowd, has contemplated leaving his post because he has concluded he has no control over the behavior of the president. Huh, wonder what made him think that . The Washington Post meanwhile reports the president s legal team recently reached out to star conservative litigator Theodore Olson only to be turned down. Instead the president added former u. S. Attorney joe digenova, whos peddled conspiracy theories that the fbi and department of justice are somehow plotting to frame the president. And that, that is just whats happening on the mueller front. Because then theres the legal jeopardy that the president faces on the civil side where he is already as going into today, already facing multiple lawsuits from various women before things took a decidedly bad turn for him today. Stormy daniels is suing to have a nondisclosure agreement made invalid. The president is suing a private citizen for 20 million in damages so she doesnt tell her story. Now nbc news reporting today that daniels took and passed a polygraph exam in 2011 about her relationship with donald trump. Youre looking at a still image of a video recording of ms. Daniels taking the test. Despite her passing that lie detector exam with flying colors, the white house continues to deny the affair. But the bigger problem for the white house may be that there are other women who may have been emboldened by the Stormy Daniels lawsuit. Weve been approached by six separate women who tell six stories. We have not vetted those stories. We are in the very preliminary stages of determining the veracity of those stories. We havent determined whether were going to represent them. We are at the very, very early stages. Six women coming forward to michael avenetta who represents Stormy Daniels. Today, new suit from a woman wanting to talk about an alleged affair with donald trump. She was paid 150,000 for her story by the company that owns the National Enquirer and now she says she was misled and her lawyer was working behind her back with the trump camp. As if all of that is not enough, there is big news on yet another legal front that could have longranging implications for donald trump and the president. Summer zervos is suing the president for defamation after he called her a liar for alleging unwanted sexual contact. He came to me and started kissing me openmouthed. As he was pulling me towards him. I walked away and i sat down in a chair. He then grabbed my shoulder and began kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast. He put me in an embrace and i tried to push him away. I pushed him chest to put space between us and i said, come on, man, get real. He repeated my words back to me. Get real. As he began thrusting his genitals. He tried to kiss me again with my hand still on his chest and i said, dude, youre tripping right now. Trumps legal team tried to block the suit saying he had immuity by his office but a judge shot down that argument saying the president has no immunity for purely private acts, adding no one is above the law. For more on the president s growing legal troubles, i want to bring in ian, the executive director of project democracy which filed a brief in support of the Summer Zervos defamation case. Ian, ill begin with you because you wrote that amicus. The argument that you make tracks very closely to the judges conclusion. There is an idea you cant sue the president because if you can sue the president , everyone would sue the president and the president would spend all his time being dragged before courts and couldnt do his job. Why should there be an exception in this case . One of the points that we made in this brief is that hasnt happened. The Court Considered that 20 years ago in the clinton v. Jones case that potentially this could drag the president into litigation all around the country. And in four terms by two president s over the last 20 years, that didnt happen. Now, if it ever were to happen, congress of course could step in and change the jurisdictional rules but they havent done that either. So absent those things happening, the judge said exactly what we argued in our brief she should say, which is the president is not above the law. And the judge says this in strong terms. This was a full bench slap today of the trump legal argument, okay . The judge said that there was no immunity, that hes not above the law. That theres no way to read the supremacy clause to think that his purely private actions that have nothing to do with his Public Office should be immune from a lawsuit. So were going to have some discovery now. Which is a crazy thing to consider. I mean because were going to move to the consensual affairs in a second but this is a place where a woman says that the president sexually assaulted her, thrust his genitals at her and she is he called her a liar. Shes suing for defamation and youre saying now there is going to be discovery. Yes. There are three general ways to defend yourself from a defamation suit. One is to say i didnt defame you, what i said was true. The president cant say that. The other way is to say even though its not true that shes a liar, but i didnt say that with a reckless disregard, thats a term of art, a reckless disregard for the truth. That most likely is an argument the president cant make either. So what i think, and granted im a little bit on an island here, i think that trump has to defend himself under the clear parity standard. So he has to say that hes the onion. That nobody who listens to him could possibly hes telling the truth. So youre saying that you think its to say everyone knows when donald trump calls someone a liar, thats just like thats the wind administrator no reasonable trump listener would believe him is that going to fly . When he says he didnt sexually assault these women. The problem is he cant make any of these arguments, right . So what i think this ultimately means that the American People have been waiting for, this is a president who is lying multiple times a day. You keep hearing people ask isnt there a consequence at some point . The answer is if you lie that often, at some point its going to catch up with you and this could be the time that happens. Unless he settles, right . And this is the other thing, right . In every other aspect of trumps life, when he gets to this point, he pays the woman off and they go away. Like thats his m. O. He would bind her with an nda and she would go away. Is Summer Zervos going to take a settlement in this case . Not only that, youve got a situation where those other ndas are starting to unravel. The mcdougal one said he was hoodwinked by my lawyer who was working with donald trump. You wonder where trump gets the idea for these ndas. Hes used to the situation in the private sector where he used it to sort of silence people who Say Something you dont like. One, you cant do that in government. We may find out even in the private sector when you try to quash dissent like this and youre the president , that may not work. Theres this issue with the ndas that i think is important to bring up because people sometimes get it twisted. Even if you violate an nda, thats not a jailable offense. You dont go to jail, its a civil offense. You might get a fine, but even that fine has to be conscionable. 20 million . Whats interesting about the counterlawsuit, so Stormy Daniels says i want to tell my story, ill getting rid of the nda and they sue, right . They sue for the penalty. Every infraction is a million dollars. They say we want 20 million. Before they sued they thought the president is not going to sue a private citizen. Now the question becomes will a court enforce that. How many times can he get away saying im going to pay 25 million in damages to the students at my university but i didnt do anything wrong. Im going to pay off this person who says that im lying but i didnt do anything wrong. I might even take the fifth. Like at some point thats going to catch up with you with the american voters. No matter what he does, he cant stop her from talking. The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint, okay . You can sue her all you want for damages. You can sue her but cant stop her from talking so i think that 60 minutes interview is going t happen. I thought you were going to say judge schecter was going to say there are rules. There are rules. The president is not immune from suit. Thanks for joining me, that was fantastic. For more on the president s legal stand with robert mueller, jack quinn and Jill Winebanks whos a former Watergate Special prosecutor. Jack, let me start with you. What does it mean having worked in a white house that was embattled legally on several fronts, to be fighting the number of battles that this president is currently fighting in the courts . Well, its a challenge. Its not only a challenge for the lawyers who are involved, both the lawyers inside the white house, but the lawyers who represent the president outside, but its enormously distracting to all of the other people working for the president in the white house who have day jobs, you know, who have lots of important things to do for the American People. You know, theyre constantly besieged by questions about all these other events, some of them salacious, some of them merely awfully interesting. Jill, what was the situation, you were a watergate prosecutor. How did nixon deal with his legal representation as that started to bear down on him, and the legal representation for other people that he wanted to sort of keep in the fold . He had a very large and pretty high quality legal team, which is not the same as were seeing here where the lawyers are not your top tier lawyers. Ted olson has turned down the opportunity to join the team. He would have been a top tier lawyer. So i think that nixon treated his lawyers fairly well. He followed their advice. I dont know whether he was completely honest with them. I dont know if he told them the truth about, for example, the 18minute gap. But he did not fire his lawyers and he didnt try to bring in new ones to disrupt the workings of his current team. You know, theres jack, theres reporting that john dowd is thinking of quitting or has considered quitting because he cant control his client. What kind of challenge is that . When youre dealing with a president of the United States and trying to offer him legal advice. You know, look, in all honesty, im torn here because i think that mr. Dowd has been giving him some pretty terrible advice. Hes the one, i believe, who has put the idea in the president s head that he can refuse to testify in front of special counsel mueller. I dont think thats the case and we can go into that at some length if you like. But i think just having him obsessing about that is a disservice not only to the investigation, its a disservice to the president because instead of preparing himself for the evidence which he is in my mind absolutely bound to give and will give, hes, you know, fooling around with these crazy ideas that he can somehow simply put his foot down and say im not going to show up. And, jill, youve had that same position. Hes compelled here. This is a question about the details. There is absolutely no question that the subpoena power of the special prosecutor will force him to come in to testify. It would be nice if they can work out some sensible accommodation, but if not, thats what has to happen. And i agree with jack, that the advice that the president is getting is not good. Its not just what he mentioned in terms of john dowd, but remember john dowd also sent an email to the media over the weekend saying he was speaking on behalf of the president and then said, oh, no, im not speaking on behalf of him, im speaking on behalf of myself. He tweeted for the president or at least hes now claiming that he tweeted for the president that he had taken action because flynn had lied to pence and to the fbi. That was very damaging to him. So hes not getting good advice from john dowd and hes not going to get good advice from digenova, who is more of a talk show agitator than a serious lawyer. And he will only make it worse because he will encourage donald trump to go for his own worst instincts. Jack, do you want to add something . Well, you know, its really important that the president s lawyer have credibility. And when he says something and then takes it back and then says Something Else and says, well, i didnt mean it, it wasnt really me, it was somebody else. Right. This is not helpful to the president s cause. Now look, all that said, where you started was will it be problematic if he leaves. Ill tell you, i think that as much as i think he could use some additional help, we can all use additional help from time to time, i think that having the president s legal team fall apart would be a very bad thing because its going to protract this investigation. And its not going to get us to the important point. At the end of the day, the important point here is russia, russia, russia. And mr. Mueller has an important task in front of him. He needs to find out whether the conspiracy about which he filed indictments earlier extends to things like the hacking of the Democratic National committee emails. He needs to find out whether there were any americans involved in that conspiracy. He needs to find out whether that conspiracy extended to the point where there were quid pro quos of illicit activities in return for positions on public policy, like russian sanctions, and so on. These are the Critical Issues weve got to get to, not all of this silly jockeying that some of the lawyers are engaged in. Jack quinn and Jill Winebanks, thanks for your time. Still to come, new reporting the president was warned by his own National Security team not, not to congratulate Vladimir Putin on his election win, but did it anyway. Next, new video from the ongoing undercover investigation into the Trump Campaigns data company. Tonight, how they claim they helped trump get into the white house. Thats next. Have you met mr. Trump . Many times. You have . All the data, all the analytics, all the targeting, all the digital campaign, the Television Campaign, and our data informed the strategy. Have you met mr. Trump . Many times. You have . All the data, all the analytics, all the targeting, we ran the Television Campaign and our data informed the strategy. Head of Cambridge Analytica seen there boasting about how integral the company was to Donald Trumps election victory has now been suspended after reports by uks channel 4 news. Alexander nix appears to promote bribes and blackmail in an undercover video in which he thinks hes speaking to a sri lankan client. Another Cambridge Analytica executive named Mark Turnbull spells out a strt gee for the Trump Campaign that sounds strikingly similar to the russian disinformation effort. You just put disinformation onto the flood stream on the internet and watch it go. Give it a little push now and again over time to watch it take shape. And so this stuff infiltrates the Online Community and expands. But with no branding so its unattributable, untrackable. Kiley morse for channel 4 news which conducted that undercover investigation of Cambridge Analytica. Lets start with that. Essentially we can do a no fingerprints Information Campaign on social media. Is it credible . Is that the kind of thing that they did actually do . Well, yes, i think there is evidence that they were able to use proxies. Indeed they were quite detailed in some of their evidence to us or some of their comments to us about that, about how you can go in and use a charity, for example, or use some other kind of unbranded entity and sure that thats the way you get this message out. So as a humble facebook user, you have no idea where that message might be coming from. I mean that is also an issue that has raised some concerns and questions indeed about whether or not there was any overlap between their work on different parts of the campaign. Of course there are Campaign Financing regulations that mean that they should have had firewalls in place to make sure that they werent involved using money to send messaging on behalf of super pacs and at the same time doing work on the core business of the campaign. Now, they say those firewalls were in place, but certainly as they have detailed some of their campaign work, its very difficult to distinguish where that line might have fallen. Hillary clinton was interviewed as part of the channel 4 story. She raises the question of the possibility, the question of the possibility of any coordination with russia. I want to play that and get your reaction. Take a listen. Sure. Youve got Cambridge Analytica, youve got the Republican National committee, which of course had always done Data Collection and analysis, and youve got the russians. The real question is how did the russians know how to target their messages so precisely, to undecided voters in wisconsin or michigan or