tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN March 20, 2018 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
if you'd have told me three years ago... that we'd be downloading in seconds, what used to take... minutes. that guests would compliment our wifi. that we could video conference... and do it like that. (snaps) if you'd have told me that i could afford... a gig-speed. a gig-speed network. it's like 20 times faster than what most people have. i'd of said... i'd of said you're dreaming. dreaming! definitely dreaming. then again, dreaming is how i got this far. now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. we begin with breaking news on the president. like so much breaking news on this president, it's like nothing you have seen before in any president. new reporting in "the washington post" on president trump's phone call today with vladimir putin in the wake of his re-election as russia's president. in a vote that's widely believed to have been something of a sham. the same vladimir putin who
interfered in our election. as it is before all-important phone calls, especially with the leader of another nuclear superpower, the president is carefully briefed. this time, according to "the washington post," the president's briefing material contained a three-word warning on the election. the words all in capital letters, "do not congratulate," meaning do not congratulate vladimir putin on winning the election. then the president went ahead and did just that. joining us by phone, one of three "post" reporters who got the scoop. josh dossey, tell us more about the briefing materials, what was on them, and what the president ignored. >> thanks for having me. before a call with any foreign leader, the president is extensively briefed both by his national security team in person and in written papers that are given to the president. what we reported tonight was there were two parts of his written briefing that the president ignored in his call with vladimir putin. one of them was a part that said, in caps, "do not congratulate" vladimir putin on
winning re-election, obviously many people believe the election is a sham, fixed. the second part was to condemn vladimir putin for an attack in london of the ex-spy who was killed with a nerve agent. the president did not condemn vladimir putin on that part of the call, part of the briefing encourage that he did. instead he talked about syria and north korea, also topics that were supposed to be discussed on the call, were provided in the briefing. he did mention those two parts to vladimir putin but ignored the other two that the national security team put in the briefings ahead of the call. >> obviously it's up to any president to discuss what they want to discuss. how unusual is it for a president or i don't know if you know this, for a president to ignore two things of advice, particularly one that's in all caps saying do not congratulate this man on a sham election? >> it's really unparalleled territory here with president trump. whether you like or dislike him,
we have seen time and time again the president keeps his own counsel. he does what he wants to do. he says what he wants to say. he has congratulated china's president for extending his term as president for life, and turkey's president erdogan for his election win which also was derided by many in the national security community. this president when he makes these phone calls, he's going to say what he wants to say. to the president's credit, we reported this, when h.r. mcmaster his national security adviser briefed him orally this morning ahead of the call, he did not mention not congratulating vladimir putin, nor did he mention the attack overseas, we were told. so it's possible the president could have been given these briefing materials, simply didn't read it and decided to go his own way, or it's possible he did read it and decide to do it his own way. >> you don't know for a fact whether or not the president looked at the briefing materials? >> we know the president was
given the briefing materials ahead of the call, ahead of every call he's given extensively what we should convey in the call, what we want to convey, and in big font all caps, "do not congratulate" was one of the prominent parts of the briefing that was given to the president. >> the recent reporting the president is feeling more comfortable on the job, relying more on instinct than the advice of those around him, it's possible that also played a role in this. >> i think so. but i would just say the president for the most part over the last 14 months has done essentially what he wanted. i guess on certain occasions his advisers have been able to temper him, for example pulling out of nafta or firing people earlier this year. in many cases -- pulling out of the paris accord, moving the capital to jerusalem, firing james comey, the president has disregarded advice from his team saying he knew best. this is another case where he is
the duly elected president, he won the election and is going to do it his way no matter what the people around him say. >> josh from "the washington post," appreciate it, thanks very much. we will have more on that story a little later in the broadcast. we want to turn to important developments in the stories of three women who have alleged connections to the president in the past. the former playboy playmate, karen mcdougal, squaring off in court against the tabloid media company that bought her story and spiked it joins us exclusively thursday night. the adult film star stormy daniels whose attorney today released the results of a polygraph exam she took. michael avenatti joins us as well. summer zervos is accusing the president of sexual assault. today a judge in new york allowed her defamation lawsuit to go forward. we'll talk with stormy daniels' attorney michael avenatti in a moment along with attorney david schwartz who has represented the
president's attorney michael cohen in another legal matter. first randi kaye has the developments of what broke today. >> he came to me and started kissing me open-mouthed as he was pulling me towards him. >> reporter: that's summer zervos, a former contestant on "the apprentice." >> you know what, summer, you're fired. >> reporter: claiming donald trump groped and sexually assaulted her. she filed a defamation suit against him a year ago, long after they met at the beverly hills hotel back in 2007. there she alleges in court papers that he said, "let's lay down and watch some telly-telly." >> he put me in an embrace and i tried to push him away. i pushed his chest, 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. >> reporter: trump denies the affair, saying i never met her at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately a decade ago." trump's lawyers have been trying to stop the case from going to trial calling it factually meritless.
just today, a new york state judge ruled the case can go forward. zervos' complaint says she has details from phone calls and meetings with trump. despite that, trump's lawyer, michael cohen, who has admitted to paying hush money to porn star stormy daniels about her alleged affair with trump, has called zervos' case baseless. adding to trump's troubles, this former playboy model. back in 2016, karen mcdougal signed a deal with american media incorporated which owns "the national enquirer." mcdougal says she accepted a $150,000 agreement to remain silent about her alleged affair with donald trump in 2006 and 2007. like porn star stormy daniels, mcdougal says she was paid to keep silent during the presidential race. but today, mcdougal filed a lawsuit against american media for the right to go public. this after learning american
media's ceo, david pecker, is a close friend of donald trump's and according to court documents, regularly takes part in so-called catch and kill arrangements, killing the story before it can damage trump publicly. the president denies the affair but mcdougal says she met trump at a party at the playboy mansion. "new yorker" magazine reported the two met later, talked for a couple hours, then got naked and had sex. mcdougal, a former playmate of the year, claims she's been threatened with financial ruin if she doesn't remain quote, loyal. but a spokesperson for american media says they didn't silence her, but instead, bought the rights to her life story. and it doesn't end there. mcdougal alleges in court that her own lawyer was working in cahoots with that same trump lawyer, michael cohen. back in august 2016, soon after she signed the agreement to keep quiet, she claims in court
papers that her lawyer told cohen by phone that the deal was done and ms. mcdougal had been silenced. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> michael cohen has a standing invitation to come on the so far he has yet to accept. joining us, his attorney in another legal matter and friend david schwartz, and michael avenatti who represents stormy daniels and released this picture of his client taking a polygraph test in 2011. according to the report he released from that polygraph test, stormy daniels was and i'm quoting "truthful about having unprotected vaginal intercourse with donald trump in july of 2006," i guess a quote from the polygrapher. want to remind that polygraphs are generally not admissible in court. why release this information about the polygraph because as i said, it's not admissible in court. does it help your legal case? >> i don't know that it helps our legal case, but we want the public to have as many facts as possible at their disposal.
our position has been consistent for weeks now. we want the public to know the facts, to know my client's story. to the extent that mr. cohen or the president have an alternative narrative they wish to provide, they should provide it. i will note that while lie detector tests are not admissible in most courts of law, i believe the attorney general has most recently argued for the use as it relates to leaks from the white house. i know they are used throughout federal law enforcement for various purposes at various times. my client took this polygraph test in may of 2011, may 19th, 2011. she was asked specific questions. she passed with flying colors, as the polygraph report that we produced shows. so we are going to let the american public take this piece of evidence together with your interview with her this sunday on "60 minutes." they are going to determine whether she's telling the truth, whether she's credible, and i'm confident that after they view
that interview and after they view this evidence, they are going to conclude that what they have been told by mr. cohen and denials, if you can call them denials, from the white house, are simply baseless and false. >> david, michael cohen has claimed that he paid this $130,000 in hush money out of his own pocket from a home equity line of credit. he did it, had nothing to do with the trump organization, nothing to do with donald trump personally or the white house. does any attorney ever pay $130,000 out of their own pocket? >> first of all, we keep labeling it as hush money. it's pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement. these nondisclosure agreements are entered into every single day in america. they are entered any by politicians -- >> it's money to remain silent. >> it's money to not disclose the substance of the case. so $130,000 was paid. it was pursuant to a contract. but to answer your question, is
that normal course of business for an attorney to pay it? no. but there's nothing illegal about it. given the context of this relationship, there is certainly nothing unethical about it. remember, michael cohen was representing ec, llc. it was ec, llc that entered into this contract. donald trump was a third party beneficiary. >> does that make sense to you? >> it doesn't. donald trump was not a third party beneficiary. under the law of california, he was a signatory to the agreement. what mr. cohen has said is as follows, that he negotiated this on his own, that he undertook all of this effort, and that at no point in time did his close friend and client, donald trump, know anything about it. he didn't know about the negotiation. he didn't know about the agreement. and he didn't know about the payment. i have a very simple question, anderson. if all of that is believable, then why did mr. cohen draft an agreement with a signature line for donald trump?
>> very simple -- >> if donald trump was never going to be a party to the agreement and if he didn't want to bother donald trump with the agreement, and if donald trump was too busy campaigning for president to know anything about the agreement, and mr. cohen was going to do this on his own and wasn't going to bother mr. trump, then why take the effort to draft the agreement to make donald trump a signatory to the agreement? >> that's painting a fictional picture of the whole scenario. there's an "or" there. it could be ec, llc or -- >> why have any line for donald trump? >> they left it open for either/or. >> what does that mean? >> ec, llc entered into the contract. it's a real contract. >> you're saying donald trump had nothing to do with this. why have a line -- >> he has everything to do with it. he was a third party beneficiary. you're just not acknowledging that fact. he's a third party beneficiary to this contract. he doesn't have to be a party to the contract to benefit from the contract, but he certainly can enforce the contract like a third party beneficiary can, and this is a contract.
you are advising your client to blatantly violate a contract. you know what, she's liable for $20 million and this is an air-tight contract. an air-tight contract. $1 million per violation. it's not just the disclosure -- >> where do you get the $20 million figure? >> if you read -- >> are you talking about her appearances on the make america horny tour? >> no. there are 20 different -- there are 20 different violations. you can see it because in the contract, as it was artfully crafted, it's even the threat of a violation. it's even the threat of disclosure is a violation under the contract. she's going to be liable for $20 million and michael cohen is going to collect every single penny of that money. make no mistake. he's going to collect everything. >> anderson, why isn't your name on the contract? why isn't my name on the contract? why isn't his name on the contract?
if mr. cohen is to be believed, all of our names should be on the contract. the fact of the matter is, the story does not hold up. and section 8.6 of the agreement specifically required all parties to sign the agreement. i didn't interrupt you. >> or. >> i didn't interrupt you during your bombastic comments. please let me finish. 8.6 of the agreement demands that all parties sign the agreement. all parties did not sign the agreement. here's another reason why this argument is full of holes. there are specific provisions in the agreement. consideration that only donald trump could provide. it's not just about the $130,000. >> what do you mean, specific considerations? >> if you look at the agreement, in exchange for what my client was to provide, she was to receive $130,000 plus other things. what do i mean by that? donald trump was to release her of potential claims that he might have against her. donald trump was to agree to
stay away from her and her family. donald trump was to do all sorts of things laid out in that agreement. now, mr. cohen, if he was only representing ec, llc as the claim has been made, how could he release or how could he provide that consideration? those terms that my client bargained for? >> that's an absurd view of contract law. >> how could michael cohen promise donald trump would follow through? >> because the consideration here is the nondisclosure of whatever she's about to disclose in exchange for $130,000. >> he's saying there's more than $130,000. >> there's consideration, there's two parties to the contract. both parties signed the contract and -- >> how can michael cohen promise that donald trump is not going to go near her family or donald trump is going to release her from other things if donald trump is not a signatory to the contract? >> because those portions are irrelevant to the consideration at hand. >> why are they in the contract? >> there's -- i don't even know where he's reading that in the contract.
i didn't see that in the contract. the bottom line is there's consideration, there's a contract, and there is a massive breach of this contract. you know, when this case is all said and done, you know, she's going to be liable for $20 million. >> again, i don't get -- i know it's $1 million per breach. >> whatever, $10 million. who knows how many millions. >> you guys have been saying 20. i was trying to figure out where did that 20 figure come from? >> i have been going by what they have been saying. but the 20 is easy because there are easily 20 different violations when it's the threat, it's the threat of disclosure of the material. and she will have to pay this back one day. >> why not just let her talk? i don't understand. >> because she signed an agreement. >> let me finish. why is it so important, why is it so important to your friend and the president of the united states to keep this woman under wraps, to keep her under the thumb, to shut her up? why is it so important? >> i can tell you why -- >> let me finish.
>> i can tell you -- >> why is that so important? >> let me about consider answer your question -- >> why not let her come forward, why not let her come forward, why gag her? >> -- every person that enters in a nondisclosure agreement, people do this, people do this in order to avoid litigation. avoid the embarrassment to family, to business, to reputation. that's why people enter into -- you know why people enter into these contracts. they are entered into all the time. tv personalities have entered into these contracts. by the way, state legislators enter into these contracts. you know who pays the money? the taxpayers pay the money. >> we are going to take a break and continue the conversation. also ahead, more on the president's phone call with vladimir putin, how the white house tried to defend it. keeping them honest on that aspect ahead. he clarity of non-drowsy claritin 24 hour relief when allergies occur. day after day, after day. because life should have more wishes and less worries. feel the clarity and live claritin clear.
they read more. e have one thing in common. how do they find the time? with audible. audible has the world's largest selection of audiobooks. books like peak performance... and endurance. books that energize and inspire for just $14.95 a month. less than you'd pay for the hardcover. with audible, you get a credit-a-month - good for any audiobook. if you don't like, exchange it at any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. audible members use the free mobile app to listen anytime, anywhere. on the go or in the car. the audible app automatically keeps your place. no bookmarks required. so you'll pick up right where you left off, even if you switch your phone to your echo at home. get more books in your life with audible. join audible now and get $50 off an annual membership and a free echo dot. just text echo deal to 500500 audible. listening is the new reading.
talk to me. it's for the house. i got a job. it's okay. dad took care of us. when it comes to travel, i sweat the details. late checkout... ...down-alternative pillows... ...and of course, price. tripadvisor helps you book a... ...hotel without breaking a sweat. because we now instantly... ...search over 200 booking sites ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. don't sweat your booking. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. tonight the gathering storm for one of the multiple women who accused the president of sexual assault, a ruling that her defamation case can move forward. a former playboy model wants to speak out about her alleged months-long affair with the
president. and a lie detector test for the adult film star who also says she had sex with the president when he was, in her words, a goofy reality tv star. that of course is stormy daniels, the client of michael avenatti who is back with us along with trump lawyer michael cohen's attorney and friend, david schwartz. so michael, you mentioned section 8.6, says the agreement has to be signed by all parties to be enforceable. david points to this clause right before the line on the nda in which the pseudonym for donald trump is used and it says and/or, meaning what i guess from your interpretation meaning not only does stormy daniels have to sign it, her pseudonym, michael cohen, but and/or donald trump. that line is not signed. and/or would seem to indicate either he can sign it or not. >> and/or is a term of art, anderson, under california law, and it's actually in the conjunctive, in the plural. even if it wasn't, if the intent
was to actually allow for the or, then mr. cohen reversed it. the ec should have been second, not first. that's actually the proper interpretation in the english language. i want to go back to this argument. in a nutshell, here's the argument. their argument is, a deal is a deal. that's the argument. a deal is only a deal if there was initially a deal. our position is there was initially no deal. let me give you an analogy. this is like one of your viewers goes out and they buy a four bedroom home. they pay a significant amount of money for that home. they show up to move in and the people that sold them the home say, you're only getting one of the four bedrooms but we have a deal because you're getting one of the four bedrooms. that's this argument. because they paid $130,000 and because my client got $130,000, they say a deal is a deal. she didn't get all the consideration. she didn't get bedroom two, three or four in the deal.
there was no deal. >> tell that to the judge. >> i'm looking forward to it. i'm looking forward to telling it to judge otaro, the federal district court judge in los angeles, and let me tell you why. because i have a little bit of experience before judge otaro. i'm also aware of a 2010-2011 case that he decided where the parties did not sign the agreement. just like this, where you don't have donald trump signing the agreement. i'm highly confident that we are going to prevail as it relates to this. >> if it's going to take that long to explain it to the judge he's in big trouble. you're going down in flames on this case. there's no question about it. >> i love when my opponents tell me that. >> there's a contract here. the parties signed the contract. stormy or whatever her name is signed it on your side and ec, llc signed it on this side. you know what? forget about the and and the or for a second. you cannot assert a right when you obtain a benefit.
you waive that right. you waive all your rights. she obtained the benefit under the contract. she received the bargain she bargained for. >> did michael cohen violate the nondisclosure agreement by publicly discussing it and saying, confirming in fact he had paid $130,000? >> absolutely not. absolutely not. he didn't violate -- because it was already -- she had already violated the -- >> it had been leaked to "the wall street journal" -- >> she had violated the contract already. >> how had she violated the contract? >> because she leaked it. she's the one that was out there leaking the information. >> how do you know she was leaking the information? >> i guess it's going to come out in court, right? >> why would she accept $130,000 in a nondisclosure agreement and then leak the information 15 months later? >> because she's out for more money now. she sees a lot more money. however -- >> but you have no evidence she actually leaked the information.
>> i am assuming she did. >> but you know what they say about people that assume. >> clearly she was out there breaking this nondisclosure agreement and you know what's going to happen? she's going to -- you're advising your client to break a contract. you are advising, so he puts in his papers how unethical michael cohen is which i have never seen in a complaint before. i don't know why you go through this whole -- >> because i meant to. because i meant to. because i meant it. >> you are the one committing malpractice. you are the one that's telling your client to break a contract. you know what? you are the one. so i hope you have a good malpractice policy because when she owes $20 million, she should go after you to collect the money. >> anderson, you know the last time an attorney pointed at me like this and made threats like this, i tagged him for $454 million. this is going to be another instance. let me just ask this. let me ask this. >> please do.
>> you are a very passionate guy on behalf of your friend, michael cohen. >> my client. >> your client, michael cohen. let me ask you this. if michael cohen is such a stand-up guy, where is he? >> i -- >> no, no. where is this guy? why won't he come and sit in this chair -- >> because obviously -- >> wait, let me finish. >> i want to answer that question. >> he's been invited numerous times. he won't come on the show. he's dodging the questions. >> he is not doning the questions. >> he's dodging the questions. where is this guy? where is this guy? >> there are other investigations going on. >> where is this guy? >> i was wondering what was in the brown envelope. >> where is he? >> believe me, he can't wait to come here. >> can't wait? >> and talk about this. >> he can give an interview, but he can't come on this show? >> bottom line is, this is an airtight contract -- >> michael cohen in "vanity fair," he did talk to "vanity fair," doesn't come on this program, but he did talk to "vanity fair," said he would
have done this at any time, that this had nothing to do with the election. this thing was signed, what, ten days, maybe two weeks before the election, the "access hollywood" tape had come out, there was all this agita about it. michael cohen said it had nothing to do with the timing. had nothing to do with the election. if michael cohen had years to make an agreement with stormy dani daniels, i mean, 2011 there was an "intouch" magazine article that got killed. if michael cohen had felt the need to make a nondisclosure agreement with stormy daniels he had 2012, '13, '14, '15, '16. why should anyone honestly believe this had nothing to do with the election? >> because this is when she came out and threatened to disclose this information. the deal was made. it had everything to do with reputation, with family, with business reputation -- >> nothing to do with the election? >> all of those items, why a person would enter in a nondisclosure agreement. >> just a coincidence there was two weeks before the election? >> coincidence isn't the standard of law. there has to be proof.
there has to be proof it was done because of an election. clearly it was being done to save the person's reputation so they don't have to go through litigation and to protect their family. >> did this have anything to do with the election? >> absolutely. it had everything to do with the election. no question about it. you have to look at the timing. it is obvious as -- it is clear as day. we keep hearing about how airtight this agreement is. it's one of the sloppiest crafted ndas. it includes superfluous language. it has language in there about paternity issues. if this is so carefully drafted, we stated there are no paternity issues. if this is so carefully drafted by his client, why include language about paternity issues, if it's so carefully drafted? this agreement is so supposedly airtight, i hope the next time i get on a commercial plane, it's a little more airtight than this. otherwise it's going to fall out of the sky. >> the viewers aren't seeing the agreement. this is an airtight agreement.
internet providers promise business owners a lot. let's see who delivers more. comcast business offers fast gig-speeds across our network. at&t doesn't. we offer more complete reliability with up to 8 hours of 4g wireless network backup. at&t, no way. we offer 35 voice features and solutions that grow with your business. at&t, not so much. we give you 75 mbps for $59.95. that's more speed than at&t's comparable bundle, for less. call today.
back with stormy daniels' attorney michael avenatti and trump lawyer, michael cohen's attorney and friend, david schwartz. as we talked about one of the things michael cohen said, i did this personally, out of loyalty to my friend, i would do anything for him, nothing to do with the trump organization, nothing to do with the campaign, michael has produced a number of documents that, a bank notice sent to michael cohen at his trump organization e-mail address which he then cut and paste on to his private e-mail address, to then send an e-mail to then-attorney for stormy daniels, other documentation, and the hiring of a trump organization attorney to take part and help set up this arbitration in los angeles.
>> well, okay. the trump attorney, that's after the fact. that's not during -- >> that's what's even weirder to me, that two weeks after the fact of michael cohen making the statement saying nothing to do with the trump organization, he hires a trump organization attorney. >> that's after the fact. maybe they could have picked a better attorney. who knows. i think that's irrelevant. getting to the e-mails, i was looking at all my michael cohen e-mails from way back when he was at the trump organization, save those -- >> yeah, okay, save those, mueller may actually want them. >> yeah, maybe. he actually made dinner plans with his wife, my wife and me on that same trump e-mail. he used that for everything. he used it for everything. let mueller speak for himself. if he wants it he's more than welcome to my e-mails. >> save them because i may want them. >> to you, what is the significance of him using his trump e-mail account? because in one of the documents you showed in this broadcast it seemed like he cut and pasted the note from the bank to his trump organization e-mail to then a private e-mail address. >> which there would be no need to do that if in fact it was his common practice to use his trump
organization e-mail. that explanation doesn't make any sense. anderson, there's a common pattern here. the common pattern we see is as follows. when it's convenient for the president and mr. cohen to point to different entities and claim that they are separate, i.e., ec, llc and the trump organization, they do so. however, when it's convenient for them to claim otherwise, they claim just the opposite, that they are one and the same. i will give you an example. i will give you an example. the temporary restraining order that mr. cohen went out and received from the arbitrator -- >> which is valid. >> i disagree. it's neither here nor there. >> it's valid. >> it's neither here nor there. it's in the name ec, llc. we can agree on that, right? >> yeah. >> okay. ec, llc pursuant to the agreement wasn't even permitted to go out and get a temporary restraining order. you know the party that was -- >> but they got it. >> you know the party that was permitted to go get the temporary restraining order? donald trump. yeah, they got it. >> somehow the arbitrator
disagrees with you. >> no, the arbitrator didn't disagree with us because it was a unilateral act. the arbitrator had no contrary, it's like playing a football game and the other team doesn't even show up and then you claim victory. the arbitrator -- >> did the agreement, see, this narrative, this agreement is horrible, the arbitrator is horrible, when the judge rules against him he's going to be horrible. when it doesn't go in your narrative, everybody is horrible. >> was stormy daniels contacted about this arbitration? >> if it's not -- why do you even go through the trouble of bringing this up? >> are you licensed in california? are you licensed in california? >> absolutely not. >> okay. wait a minute. you're not licensed in california? >> why did you go through the trouble of filing this -- >> hold on. hold on. i want to make sure i understood this correctly. this contract is going to be governed by california law. >> i read california law. i'm allowed to talk about -- >> you're not licensed in california? you are here opining and pointing your finger and saying
this bombastic nonsense? you're not even licensed? >> the only thing that's bombastic is this complaint talking about another lawyer's ethics. >> i'm shocked. i thought you were licensed. >> it had nothing to do -- i'm licensed in washington and new york. >> this contract is not being governed by washington or new york. >> i read california law. >> all of it? that's impressive. wow. >> i read everything. >> sure you did. >> in an arbitration, again, i'm not a lawyer here, but -- >> he lost the arbitration. >> we didn't lose, we weren't invited to the party. >> does stormy daniels need to be contacted, does she have a right to have representation at an arbitration? >> absolutely. she's in court right now. let's see what happens in court. you know, if the contract was invalid, why did you even file this in the first place? why not just go out and speak? if it's an invalid contract? why did you file this? >> wait a minute. you just claimed we lost the arbitration. we weren't even invited to the party. >> why did you file, why did you file this complaint?
>> because we want a judicial determination that this agreement is trash, which it is. >> we are going to end it there. appreciate it, both representing your clients well. up next, more breaking news. a new explosion in austin, texas. we're talking about just moments ago. this comes just hours after two more explosive devices were found. one of those exploded injuring a fed ex employee. the latest from the scene in a moment. a complete multivitamin specially formulated with key nutrients plus vitamin d for bone health support. your one a day is showing. he gets the best deal on the perfect hotel by using.
i we worked with pg&eof to save energy because wenie. wanted to help the school. they would put these signs on the door to let the teacher know you didn't cut off the light. the teachers, they would call us the energy patrol. so they would be like, here they come, turn off your lights! those three young ladies were teaching the whole school about energy efficiency. we actually saved $50,000. and that's just one school, two semesters, three girls. together, we're building a better california.
more breaking news. police responding to reports and these are only reports of a new bomb blast in austin, texas. i want to underscore that. going to break, we neglected to emphasize the fact the information right now is incomplete and as you know in many cases, the early reports sometimes turn out to be inaccurate in whole or in part. so that is a warning on this. but we are getting the word, this comes of course after an explosion at a fed ex facility which was early this morning near san antonio, where an
employee was injured and another package with a device was found today at a second fed ex location. with this new explosion reported in austin just moments ago, we could have seven devices possibly connected to the serial bomber. cnn's ed lavandera joins us. from austin. talk about what we know with the caveat these are very early reports. >> reporter: this is just developing in the last few minutes. austin police say they are responding to a report of a sixth explosion in the southern area of austin tonight. fbi officials also confirm they are en route to the scene as well. it's on a street called brody lane, significant because much of the day, investigators have spent at a fed ex dropoff facility just a few miles up the road on that same road, brody lane, where they suspect several packages were dropped off and delivered to a distribution center, one to the one you see behind me. where this latest explosion
happened tonight, very close to where investigators have spent much of the day and also on top of that, very close geographically to where the explosion occurred sunday night that injured the two young college-aged males in their early 20s as well. so all of that quickly developing here tonight. obviously a great sense of urgency. it has been a frantic day of developments in austin today. >> you are at the fed ex drop-off point where the unexploded bomb package was found today. i'm wondering what officials are saying about this item because i talked to the chief of police in austin last night on the broadcast, who said that his understanding and the atf is obviously looking into the bomb components as are the fbi, but some of the components in the devices as of that point, the trip wire device -- actually, we are just getting pictures of the site of what may be this new explosion. these are just pictures we are getting in from our affiliate
there in austin, kxan. you can see first responders are on the scene. they already have the area cordoned off. ed, you are saying this was on brody lane. you are saying this is not too far from the fed ex facility? >> reporter: well, let me paint the picture for you. there were two packages with the explosive devices found here in austin and one near a town called schertz, a suburb of northern san antonio. that package exploded. the one that was discovered here at the scene behind me did not detonate. they were able to dismantle it here before it detonated. but what we are told by investigators is that they also spent a great deal of time today at a drop-off location. this was a distribution -- the two facilities where the packages were found were distribution facilities. there was a drop-off location on brody lane where we know investigators spent a great deal of the day because that's where they believe the suspects -- the packages that were found here at
this location in southeast austin near the airport and the one in schertz, they believe that's where those packages originated from, where they were mailed from, which is just a few miles away on the same road where the explosion has taken place here tonight. we are also told by ems officials that there's a male of about 30 years old who has been injured in the explosion tonight. not expected to be life-threatening is what we are getting at this point but obviously this could change quickly. >> very briefly, the first three were bombs that detonated on porches, that people picked up, packages left on porches. the one on sunday that injured two people, that was a trip wire. obviously these fed ex ones are another sort of device or at least another way of sending these devices. >> reporter: right. what's interesting is that in those first three explosions, we were told that those boxes, the sheer movement of opening them