Credit for 500,000. He basically doubles the amount he can borrow against his apartment. He later uses that money, he says, to pay Stormy Daniels in october 2016. And Rudy Giuliani has told us there are several other issues that he settled for trump and that he was reimbursed for. It is possible, though we dont know how he spent the remaining amount in his increased credit line that he may have used that for some of these other issues and thats one of the things thats under investigation. Thats such a Key Line Saying mr. Cohen resolved other problems similarly for mr. Trump. How significant is that . We have Rudy Giuliani giving a variety of figures about how much money was used here, when it was used. Walk us three visavis the size of those payments. Rudy giuliani said he was getting north of 400,000 for a year of Retainer Payments and
that was to reimburse him for things he took care of. It leaves open the possibility of up to another couple hundred thousand dollars that he might have been reimbursed and some of that could have been for fees and his own expenses. But i dont think rudy would have said that if there were no other issues that he settled for the president. And, you know, i think thats something that will come out during the investigation. I could also like to address the Timeline Issue you were just talking about as far as what the president knew and when did he know it. We reported this payment to Stormy Daniels the second week in january. Before we reported that story, i went to the white house and i went to Michael Cohen. The white house told me can you give us a little more time before you post the story because the president is at events and we want to brief the president. And Michael Cohen said i need to talk to my client, who is the president. Both of them subsequently gave us comments. This issue of the president
didnt know about the Stormy Daniels payment before he spoke in april on air force i is kind of nonsensical since i know the president was briefed on january at least and what did he know at the time when the payment was made in 2016 and what did he find out between that time and when we first reported it in january of 2018. Thats astonishing. I was going to ask you how were looking at your article in convert with this piece talking about when the president might have known about this. Taking what i just said there, that it something youre probably looking into, what what kind of specificity do we know when that may have happened . I was told the president was briefed in january. It was also all over Media Reports for several months before he spoke on air force i. What did he mean when he said i dont know about it . Did he mean i dont know about it at the time when it happened, it kind of unclear. But we did previously report that Michael Cohen was late in making the payment to Stormy Daniels before the election and he had said at the time as an execution im trying to reach the president , i cant reach the president right now because hes on the campaign trail. So basically its his intention was at the time to inform the president and also has his fixer, its very important to Michael Cohen for the president to know what did he do for him, right . And he also wanted to get reimbursed. So the notion that he didnt tell President Trump when he entered into the agreement, even though we know he was trying to do that and then he didnt do it afterwards when he was trying to get reimbursed, we dont have proof of when he told him but we do know that he was certainly intending to tell him and speak to the president. Michael, thank you very much. Thanks to your and your colleagues as well. I want to welcome in our guests. React what we just heard there from Michael Rothfeld. There is so much confusion surrounding this still. Were making inroads but there is still a lot of confusion. That was actually a really good point that Michael Rothfeld made about the point that the Washington Post reached out in january to the white house for comment saying this is what we know about the payment to Stormy Daniels. Therefore the president was briefed on this, as the white house said he would have been. And trump of course aboard air force i said he did not know about the payment. Does he mean he didnt know about it at the time or didnt know about it at all . Of course Rudy Giuliani on fox news said the president had just learned the night before he did
the fox news interview what the payment is for. Unless the without is lying, it seems clear that trump did know as early as january what this payment was for. Its almost like a William Faulkner novel where you have every character telling the story from a different perspective. We heard from Michael Cohen, from Rudy Giuliani, we heard from President Trump at the end of the week. How clear is our sense of what happened and who knew what when . I think journalists know that the president knew things before hes saying he knew them. And someone here is lying, likely the president of the United States. The problem is there isnt a clear timeline established. The thing that was most interesting to me was that Rudy Giulianis clarification was not a clarification at all. When i read it i thought im
almost more confused now than when he was on fox friends and all these other programs talking about this. One of the things that stuck out to me about that clarification is the first line says there is no campaign violation. And that to me gets to the heart of why things are so vague now. Someone in President Trumps orbit is worried about whether or not there were rules broken. Rudy giuliani is saying theres no campaign violation. That could be true in the future but Stormy Daniels lawyer is saying in their lawsuit, In Black And White that part of the reason why this is a problem was because that President Trump and the people around him could have been influencing the 2016 lebs with that payment. We dont know that this is true. We move to really strict language at the end of the week. Dare i say a different voice
from the president that we usually see from the president during those tweets. We waited and waited for the statement to come, it finally did, it was three point and very conscientiously written, i think you could say. Whats your sense of how well the white house has its arms around the story at this point . Well, those tweets were certainly very lawyerly. My colleagues and i at The Daily Beast had reported that the white house, and i think a lot of that has born out. The problem with that is what we know m this investigation what the president s lawyers are trying to do is convince. We know that james comey made a number of claims in his memos based on his conversations with the president and we know based on reporting that the Special Counsels office is trying to
having trumps ear and Paul Manaforts ear and having the confidence of both men. Rudy giuliani now brought in. Clearly he was that Sounding Board for the president for so long. Hes leading his legal team but it sound like theres so much disarray around this. I talked to a white house official after he was kind of slapped down saying he needs to get his facts right. Whats really happening is that the president is still very much in favor of him being here. He hired him not because of his legal mind and all of things he could do in the courtroom but because he wants a Moth Pieceut To Go On fox news and talk about this and be aggressive. Rudy giuliani is someone the president wants around him. So youll see more of what we saw last week. Thank you all very much for your time. Robert mueller under fire for that criminal case against Paul Manafort. Why a judge claims the russia probe may have gone too far. n to ugly thin grass now theres new scotts thick r lawn, the revolutionary 3in1 solution for weak lawns. With a Soil Improver to strengthen roots seed to fill in gaps and fertilizer to feed the result, up to a 50 thicker lawn after just one application. Now yard time is our time. This is a scotts yard. Now yard time is our time. With expedia, you can book a flight, hotel, car, and activity. All in one place. Everything you need to go. Expedia the smoother the skin, the more comfortable you are in it. And now theres a new way to smooth. Introducing new venus platinum. A premium metal handle boosts control. To reveal up to 100 smooth skin. Venus sure. Mom,whats up son . Alk . I cant be your it guy anymore. What . You guys have xfinity. You can do this. Whats a good wifi password, mom . You still have to visit us. I will. No. Make that the password you stillohave toovisit us. Thats a good one. [ chuckles ] download the xfinity my account app and set a password you can easily remember. One more way comcast is working to fit into your life,
not the other way around. A federal judge calling out Robert Muellers team. During a court appearance, the former Trump Campaign manager asked to have the bank fraud charge against him dismissed. Judge ellis said you dont
really care about mr. Manaforts bank fraud you really care about what information mr. Manafort can give you about his impeachment or lead to his prosecution or whatever. Ive been saying that for a long time. None of that information has to do with information related to the russian government coordination and the campaign of donald trump. It doesnt have anything to do. Its from years before. An extraordinary moment as President Trump quoted chapter and verse from a Wall Street Journal piece. Paul manaforts trial is scheduled to begin in july. Joining us, my guests, danny, what should we make of what we heard in that transcript from
the judge . Manaforts been indicted, he filed a Motion Saying that the Special Counsel in indicting him exceeded his authority and you the appointment order. This was not related to russia. This did not even arise from the investigation. All the stuff that manaforts indicted for the government already knew about years ago and it cant possibly have to do with russia because it was so many years ago. Its a clever argument. However, the judges questions related to the governments ultimate goal. Hey, this isnt really about bank fraud, this is about you want to try and turn him. Thats not really what the motion is about but when youre a federal judge, youre appointed to life, so if you want to veer off to the side during oral argument, no problem, can you do that. I dont know that that colloquy will find its way into the
ultimate opinion or order. That kind of questioning if im a Defense Attorney in that courtroom, im thinking this motion, does it actually have a chance because most of these motions to dismiss are the longest of long shots. I want you to weigh in on the cleverness or outlandishness of the request that weve seen Paul Manafort make here. What did you make of what that judge, that Reagan Appointee had to say. Hes been on the bench for a long time. What did you make of the line of his questions yesterday . I thought it was fair. I agreed with the judges comments. Were they appropriate or necessary . Perhaps not. I think his inquiry on the indictment and the Russian Investigation was fair, especially if the issue before him of the question of scope. When Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller, he was given Broad Authority to investigate and coordinate any leaks or any
matter that arose or may arise from his investigation into the russian interference and collusion. If Robert Mueller while investigating interference and collusion uncovers information about criminal activity that involves manafort, hes not going to turn a blind eye. That would be foolish and illogical. There are no legal or ethical limits that should limit Robert Mueller in pursuing any crimes discovered during the investigation. I think hes going todictment b cant have an indictment without probable cause. That hasnt changed. Probable cause exists. That mean there may have been crimes that have been committed. That Doesnt Change because they feel this indictment has nothing to do with the original inquiry. In addition, the governments argument here is if something does arise, the main justice can
essentially authorize this additional investigation. But manaforts argument here is it looks exactly at the language that yodit just cited, the matters that may arise from the investigation. Its logically impossible, says the defense, for a matter to, quote, arise from the Russia Investigation if these incidents happened so long ago and therefore could not logically have any relationship to something flowing from or arising from the Russia Investigation. Again, its a huge long shot. But if youre the defense and you hear the judge veer off into that discussion, youre thinking maybe theres a chance. Yodit, the New York Times quoted a legal scholar, lawyers are required to keep their clients fully informed of their activities and are generally prohibited from advancing money to or on behalf of their
clients. That runs counter to what weve heard from Rudy Giuliani to the role that the fixer is playing here. Rudy giuliani is saying this is a lawyers duty to do this on behalf of his client. Help me understand the ethical obligations of a lawyer when it comes to making payments along the line of those weve been reporting for. Theres so many inconsistencies. Theres been lying, theres been deception, theres been misrepresentation, all of which are actionable by any state bar. You have cohen staying i negotiated the terms of this nda and paid 130,000 to Stormy Daniels without trumps knowledge or consent. He already violated Client Consultation and client goodl e guidelines within the rules of professional conduct. Then we find out he lied and that violates ethical rules because he lied. Any way you want to see this there have been violations of ethical rules, especially when you talk about paying an attorney a retainer. That already triggers rules of professional conduct. I think hes definitely going to be sanctioned in some way, if not disbarred, especially if hes indicted and convicted of a felony. Thats surely going to lead to his disbarment. Need to have a longer conversation about this particular issue. This week Rudy Giuliani also clarifying statements he made about former fbi director james comey after claiming President Trump fired mr. Comey because he wouldnt tell the president he wasnt a target in the Russia Investigation. On friday Rudy Giuliani wrote, quote, if is undisputed that the president s dismissal of former director comey was clearly within the president s power. Joining me is the chief Operating Saw for e. T. S. Risk management and a National Security analyst. The president saying what he said a number of times before here, frank that is correct in his estimation he has done the American People a favor by dismissing mr. Comey. David, this is one of a handful of comments weve thaerd th heard this week that have not on not helped the president but harmed the president. So stating that he fired comey because he wouldnt say that the president wasnt a target leans towards an obstruction charge. If youre firing the head of the fbi because he wont tell the public hes not a target, sound like youre getting rid of
somebody because they wont say things are okay. And whether its saying that cohen is being repaid through installmen installments, whether its saying that the president generally understood that, quote, cohen takes care with such things with regard to paying off women actually harms the president and exposes him to even further federal charges. We heard Rudy Giuliani refer to the new york fbi as Storm Troopers and that prompted a vociferous response from james comey. Lets listen to what he had to say. Thats unacceptable when the nations leaders representatives attack the institutions of justice, the rest of us not only have to pay attention, but we have to speak out. We need those institutions. The notion that the fbi is made up of nazi Storm Troopers is wrong and dangerous. I think all of us have to say
thats