mr. cohen and mr. trump and their camp. common sense tells us that's where it had to come from. >> let me go back to the defamation case. what is your proof to prove your client isn't lying about a sexual relationship with the president? >> we have my client's testimony and other documentary evidence we are going to bring to light -- you're going to ask what documents or evidence -- >> you tweeted a picture of a cd. we went round and round about whether there is a sex tape. is there video evidence of their sexual encounter? >> i'm going to go back to my same answer. >> it wasn't no. >> it wasn't yes either. at the appropriate time, just like this amended complaint, okay, this is a chess match. the folks on the other side, they may think we're playing tick-tack-toe and that's great. we're playing three dimensional chess. we're going to be deliberate, we're going to be strategic and we'ring good-bye smart. i understand that everybody wants instant gratification. i get it. i hear it, i read it, i understand it. that's not goin

trump was not mr. cohen's client, then who was mr. cohen working for? the answer cannot be himself because he wasn't a party individually to any of this. so the options are either mr. trump or the trump organization or some other unknown party that we haven't heard about. but it is a very simple question. who was his client? >> yeah, and this is the part that does confuse me. i've reported on parts of your case that are more questionable, the idea that you might get the entire mba thrown out because of a missing signature is an open debate in court. but the idea that their defense has become michael cohen just spends a lot of money to help donald trump without donald trump's knowledge is as you say not only shady, it literally would appear to violate these ethics rules. i noticed in your filing you be a reference to that. are you seeking to make as well a separate ethics complaint against mr. cohen? >> we haven't made that determination yet. this is very straightforward. he needed to have communicated with a client. if he didn't have a client, he had no

trump was not mr. cohen's client, then who was mr. cohen working for? the answer cannot be himself, because he wasn't a party individually to any of this. so the options are, either mr. trump or the trump organization, or some other unknown party that we haven't heard about. but it is a very simple question. who was his client? >> and this is the part that does confuse me. i have reported on parts of your case that are more questionable, the idea that you might get the entire nda thrown out because of a imissing signature. i think you have to see what the court says about that. but their defense has become that michael cohen spends a lot of money to help donald trump without donald trump's knowledge, is as you say, not only shady, it literally would appear to violate these ethics rules. are you seeking to make a separate ethics claim with regard to mr. cohen? >> this is very straight forward, he needed to communicate with a client. if he didn't have a client, he had no business doing any of this, but quite honestly, and i have used every superlative tha

remarkably, a lot of it has been at the hands of attorney cohen, mr. cohen. my client wants an opportunity to tell her story to tell the truth about what happened and what didn't happen. to tell the truth about the events not only relating to her relationship with the president, but also the conduct in which she has witnessed over the last 12 to 18 months as it relates to efforts to silence her. she wants an opportunity to set the record straight. she wants the opportunity for the american people to pass judgment as to who is telling the truth. is it her or is it mr. cohen. is it her or president trump. is it her or ms. sanders. that is what my client wants. >> our chief legal analyst -- are you wear of any other women who signed contracts with president trump? >> we are not aware of any other women, but in my experience, the way this was handled and the document, quite honestly, this was amateur hour. very sloppy, very messy. shocking something of this magnitude was handled in this way. >> i have a lot of respect for mr. cohen, i think he is a good attorney

and remarkably, a lot of it has been at the hands of attorney cohen, mr. cohen. my client wants an opportunity to tell her story, to tell the truth about what happened and what didn't happen, to tell the truth about the events not only relating to her relationship with the president, but also the conduct and what she's witnessed the last 12 to 18 months as it relates to efforts to silence her. she wants an opportunity to set the record straight. ultimately, she wants the opportunity for the american people to pass judgment as to who is telling the truth. is it her, or is it mr. cohen? is it her, or is it president trump? is it her, or is it ms. sanders? that's what my client wants. and that's what we're going to fight for. >> our chief legal analyst jeffrey tubin said the contract reads to him like a form that maybe has been used before. does it seem that way to you? are you aware of any other women who signed similar contracts with president trump? >> we're not aware of any other women. but let me just say this. in my experience, the way that this was handled an

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 to the whole scenario. there's an or there. they left it open for either/or. the bottom line is ec llc entered into the contract. >> but he's saying if donald trump had nothing to do with this -- >> he had everything to do with it. he's a third party beneficiary. he doesn't have to be a party to the contract to benefit from the contact, but he certainly can enforce the contract like a third party beneficiary can, and this is contract. and you are advising your client to blatantly violate a contract. $1 million per violation, and it's not just the disclosure -- >> where do you get the $20 million figure? are you talking urt her appearances on the make america -- >> there are 20 different violations and you can see it because in the contract as it was artfully crafted, it's even the threat of a violation, the threat of a disclosure is under vio

it was all mr. cohen or ec. why would mr. cohen then send an e-mail where he lists the subject as pp versus donald trump, nda? this is what happens when you can't keep your lies straight, anderson. this is the kind of conduct that happens. then we see how he signs the e-mail. he signs it with his signature block as personal counsel to the president of the united states. i thought -- i thought the president wasn't involved in this. i thought he was just doing this on his own in his spare time from his living room. again, this isn't even a good lie, and it's not even a good cover-up. i mean this is the keystone cops. >> so where does this go from here? i mean you now have amended this complaint. what is the end game here? what do you want -- i mean do you want some sort of a settlement? do you want to make -- have a negotiation, make this go away? >> my client is not interested in a settlement. my client is interested in the truth and nothing but the truth, period. she wants all the facts to be laid out to the american people s

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

third, if stormy daniels and her attorney thought mr. cohen was representing mr. trump that's a big problem for mr. cohen because you're not supposed to make false representations to a third party th. then you have the whole campaign situation. a presidential candidate has no limits on what he or she can contribute to his own campaign. if president trump did authorize the payment or did make the payment it's not a campaign violation. if mr. cohen made the payment he is like any other citizen. there's a limit on that contribution so he could be in violation of federal campaign laws. i could go on and on. >> people have said that if you one way this is $130,000 spent to effect the outcome of an election. what's the chance he will refile and ever depose the president of the united states do you think? >> he may refile the motion. i think the chancesover him deposing the president are pretty remote and he tried to put the best spin possible on the decision today, which was a procedure decision. number two, he did not take certain steps to trigger certain deadlines inc

third, if stormy daniels and her attorney thought mr. cohen was representing mr. trump, that's a big problem for mr. cohen because you're not supposed to make false reputations to a third party. then you've got the whole campaign violation situation. a presidential candidate has no limits on what he or she can contribute to his own campaign. within of the ironies here is if president trump did authorize the payment or did make the payment, it not a campaign violation. but if mr. cohen made the payment, he's like any other citizen and there's a limit on that contribution so he could be in violation of federal campaign laws. and i could go on and on. >> people have said if viewed one way, in is $130,000 spent to affect the outcome of an election to your point. what's the chance mr. avenatti will refile and ever depose the president of the united states, do you think? >> well, he may refile the motion. i think the chances of him deposing the president are pretty remote. he tried to put the best spin possible on the decision today, which was a procedural decision, but

third, if stormy daniels and her attorney thought mr. cohen was representing mr. trump that's a big problem for mr. cohen because you're not supposed to make false representations to a third party. then you have the whole campaign situation. a presidential candidate has no limits on what he or she can contribute to his own campaign. if president trump did authorize the payment or did make the payment it's not a campaign violation. if mr. cohen made the payment he is like any other citizen. there's a limit on that contribution so he could be in violation of federal campaign laws. i could go on and on. >> people have said that if you one way this is $130,000 spent to effect the outcome of an election. what's the chance he will refile and ever depose the president of the united states do you think? >> he may refile the motion. i think the chancesover him deposing the president are pretty remote and he tried to put the best spin possible on the decision today, which was a procedure decision. number two, he did not take certain steps to trigger certain deadlines includ

we want the truth from mr. cohen and we want the truth from mr. trump. it doesn't matter if it's next week, next month, or next decade. it's not going away. >> the president, as you know, has been uncharacteristic live silent. he generally punches back when someone comes after him. when there was the "access hollywood" tape that was so embarrassing for him, he decided not to stay silent. let's just remind people what he did in response to that tape. here it is. >> i never said i'm not a perfect person nor pretended to be someone that i'm not. i've said and done things that i regret. and the words released on this more than a decade old video are one of them. anyone who knows me know these words don't reflect who i am. i said it. i was wrong. and i apologize. >> how about something like that? i regret what i did, i apologize to ms. daniels. but i didn't know about the $130,000 payment. is that good enough for you guys? >> i don't think so. i don't think he's prepared to come clean with the american people. it has to be him and mr. cohen. that's what this

rosen, mr. cohen's new attorney. the agreement never allowed mr. cohen, this is important, mr. cohen to proceed in arbitration. the agreement only allowed mr. trump to proceed in arbitration. and to the best of our knowledge, mr. trump never initiated an arbitration against miss clifford which is what makes miss sanders' statement on wednesday so ridiculous. >> could i speak? >> i want to also ask ashley parker about what josh earnest, former white house press secretary, of course, said on lawrence's show last night. he's one of our contributors. he was pointing out that he would, if something were coming up, bubbling up, he would get on the helicopter, say on his way to andrews air force base, and say to the president, to his president, this is what the press is likely to ask you or ask me about, so can i get your answers, how would you like me to answer these questions on these issues. one wonders from your vantage point covering the white house every day and sarah sanders, does she go to the president, can she go to this president and say how can i answer this, because it's

the campaign or mr. cohen -- the campaign or mr. cohen can address anything with respect to their actions. with respect to that interview, i'll say the president strongly clearly and has consistently denied these underlying claims and the only person who has been inconsistent is the one making the claims. >> following the reaction from the white house right now nbc's geoff bennett. and you were in the room for those remarks from raj shah, let as start with the stormy daniels issue. we've heard the president say nothing about this. he's been notably silent on twitter. and complained about fake news on twitter today. but i was struck by what he said about this, calling out stormy daniels and in effect challenging them to put out more evidence. >> reporter: that is right. and look, the white house has previously denied any involvement between president trump and stephanie clifford, aka stormy daniels. and while much of what daniels revealed was sorted and salacious, there are parts that could be, as you well know, politically and legal

the first, ted cohen. he's the father of martha cohen, a city employee. mr. cohen died peacefully in his home on february 18, the day before his 93rd birthday, surrounded by his family. born february 19, 1925, in chicago, mr. cohen was drafted into the army at age 18, where he served his country with distinction until he retired from military service in 1970. mr. cohen attended the university of illinois and northwestern school of journalism. after attending college in 1950, he bravely volunteered to return to active duty. and while on assignment in germany, he met his wife, harriet, who he was married to for 64 years. mr. cohen was a lover of model railroads, world history, good friends, and good food. he was a loving man, survived by his wife, harriet, daughters, son, and daughter-in-law, and grandsons. mr. cohen was dearly loved and took great care of his family. he served his country honorably and will be truly missed the second in memoriam i have is for dennis o'sullivan, who is -- who passed away unexpectedly last week on february 18. a native san franc

mr. cohen has maintained that he formed that llc on his own, unbeknownst to mr. trump, unbeknownst to the trump organization, that he drafted the documents. >> and that he did it just out of loyalty to his friend, donald trump. >> correct. he expects the american people to believe he spent all this time and energy, hours upon hours doing all of this work, and the president never knew anything about it, and no one in the trump organization ever knew anything about it. we've already produced and you've shown some of the documents on the show. the trump organization e-mails. we now have these documents. the statement that was provided by ms. martin is demonstrably false. if you look at the first document that you showed your viewers, in the upper left hand corner it designates ms. martin as a representative, a legal representative of ec, llc. it's right there in the upper left hand corner. >> and she is a full-time employee of the trump organization. >> she is a full-time employee as evidenced by the state bar page, as evidenced by the linkedin page. she has no othe

so that is why i am urging mr. cohen and the president to agree to the offer that we've put forward. let my client tell her story to the extent that they have a contrary version of events that they wish to tell, so be it. let the chips fall where they may. >> so have you spoken or communicated at all with michael cohen? >> not directly, no. >> but through -- >> through his counsel. >> intermediaries. >> through his counsel. >> it's easy to get michael cohen, just call him up. you can ask any journalist in this build, they have michael cohen's cell phone. you can call him up and speak to him or send him a text. you have not done that? is that not appropriate to do when you're an attorney? >> well, maybe what i should do is, it appears to be far easier when you're a journalist as opposed to when you're opposing party or counsel. maybe what i should do is call up and identify myself as a journalist and then maybe i'll be able to get through. because thus far, we haven't been able to get any response whatsoever. and wh

it came from mr. trump's attorney michael cohen. in return for signing this non- disclosure agreement, cohen would pay her $130,000 through a delaware-based limited liability corporation he had established in mid-october 2016 called essential consultants. daniels says the agreement was appealing because it meant she would receive some money but also not have to worry about the affect the revelation of the affair would have on her child who was now old enough to watch the news. she signed the agreement 11 days before the election. was it hush money to stay silent? >> daniels: yes. the story was coming out again. i was concerned for my family and their safety. >> cooper: i think some people watching this are going to doubt that you entered into this negotiation because you feared for your safety. they're going to think that you saw an opportunity. >> daniels: i think the fact that i didn't even negotiate, i just quickly said, "yes" to this very, you know, strict contract. and what most people will agree with me extremely low number. i

the first, ted cohen. he's the father of martha cohen, a city employee. mr. cohen died peacefully in his home on february 18, the day before his 93rd birthday, surrounded by his family. born february 19, 1925, in chicago, mr. cohen was drafted into the army at age 18, where he served his country with distinction until he retired from military service in 1970. mr. cohen attended the university of illinois and northwestern school of journalism. after attending college in 1950, he bravely volunteered to return to active duty. and while on assignment in germany, he met his wife, harriet, who he was married to for 64 years. mr. cohen was a lover of model railroads, world history, good friends, and good food. he was a loving man, survived by his wife, harriet, daughters, son, and daughter-in-law, and grandsons. mr. cohen was dearly loved and took great care of his family. he served his country honorably and will be truly missed the second in memoriam i have is for dennis o'sullivan, who is -- who passed away unexpectedly last week on february 18.

cohen individually and the trump organization, or mr. cohen individually, and donald trump, it is nonsense. >> there are people who argue this is much to do about nothing. if this was not a story about, an adult film actress and the president of the united states, no one would pay attention. >> this its about the cover-up. this is about the extent that mr. cohen, and the president, have gone to intimidate this woman, to silence her. to threaten her. and to put her under their thumb. it is thuggish behavior. from people in power. it has no place in american democracy. >> he points to this recent court filing in which the president's lawyers claim daniels is already liable for damages, in excess of $20 million for unspecified violations of her nondisclosure agreement. in that article in vanity fair this past week, michael cohen said that when he wins damages from stormy daniels, i might even take an extended vacation on her dime. >> you are saying they're trying to in tim date her? >> no question. you threaten some one with a $20 million l

that was mr. cohen's job. and mr. trump didn't sign it. and under california law, and that's what this is going to be decided under, under california law we are highly confident the contract -- the nda will be thrown out and more importantly there's an express provision -- you know, i have watched a lot of legal pundits that are opining on this document and the enforceability. unfortunately a lot of people aren't actually reading the document before they appear on -- >> i agree. >> and -- >> i agree. >> that's a real problem. >> okay. >> you know and i know you have to actually read the document. >> all right. so listen, look at my copy. i have read it. it's all tabbed. >> excellent. >> so let's go through it. let's go to the signature page to begin with. this is at the tail, tail end. and folks can there see david dennison's lean, aka presumably it would have been filled in donald trump, not signed. you believe, counselor, it's because he did not sign it that the whole document should be held null and void, true? >> absolutely. >> okay. s

so that is why i am urging mr. cohen and the president to agree to the offer that we've put forward. let my client tell her story to the extent that they have a contrary version of events that they wish to tell, so be it. let the chips fall where they may. >> so have you spoken or communicated at all with michael cohen? >> not directly, no. >> but through -- >> through his counsel. >> intermediaries. >> through his counsel. >> yes. >> because it's easy to get michael cohen. just call him up. you can ask any journalist in this building, they have michael cohen's cell phone. you can call him up and speak to him or send him a text. you have not done that? is that not appropriate to do when you're an attorney? >> well, maybe what i should do is, it appears to be far easier when you're a journalist as opposed to when you're opposing party or counsel. maybe what i should do is call up and identify myself as a journalist and then maybe i'll be able to get through. because thus far, we haven't been able to get any response

>> we will prove mr. cohen's statements to the american people are false. that at all times mr. trump knew about this, knew about the $130,000, was fully aware of it, and with the assistance of mr. cohen sought to intimidate and put my client under his thumb. that's what we're going to prove. our position is that the agreement never was in effect to begin with because mr. trump never signed it. >> i understand. but she signed it. she signed it and she got the money. so is from your side, from stormy daniels, she should comply with the agreement. no? >> we don't agree. if you offer to sell me your house and i only sign it, that doesn't mean you have to sell your house. >> i understand. but why didn't she take issue at that moment. say, hey, this isn't signed by donald trump. why now? >> i wasn't her counsel at the time. >> so if you had been, you would have said this agreement is null and void? >> what i will saw is this. i've been her counsel, this would have been handled quite a bit different. >> this is what the lawyer for michael cohen is saying to you. this is a statement th

according to mr. cohen, he was doing this all unknown. first of all, he had ethical obligations a as a licensed attorney in new york to keep his client informed. you're talking about the waning days of a u.s. election. he wants people to be he ran off with a signature line for his client, arranged this payment, made it in the 2016 presidential election, and all the time his client was in the dark and mr. trump knew nothing about it. it is laughable. it's absurd and the mere suggestion is an insult to the american people. >> then we get into the law. the even if argument dilemma for you. even if you're right about all of that. it is what many think it will look like on its face. it doesn't make your case about her being coerced into this deal. cohen says, one, he didn't go to her. she came to him through counsel. and that the number was of their reckoning. and she made a deal. offer, acceptance, bargained for consideration. now she feels she left money on the table so she wants to get out on it. that is not the easiest way to get a declara

the campaign or mr. cohen -- yeah, the campaign or mr. cohen can address anything with respect to their actions. with respect to that interview, i will say the president strongly, clearly and has consistently denied these underlying claims. the only person who has been inconsistent is the one making the claims. >> raj? regarding the russia actions that were announced earlier today, the president has not personally said anything about the expulsion of the 60 diplomats. in his call last week with president putin he decided not to confront putin on the attack despite advice he was given from his national security advisors and he congratulated putin on that phone call. how do you square the aggressive actions the administration is taking with a different approach from the president? >> well, i think, you know, that's a statement coming from the press secretary on this. the last sentence outlined our approach to this which is our relationship with russia is frankly up to the russian government and up to vladimir putin and others in senior lead

i mean that was mr. cohen's job. and mr. trump didn't sign it. and under california law and that is what this will be decided under, under california law, we are highly confident the contract will be thrown out and more importantly there is an express provision -- i've watched a lot of legal pundits that are opining on this document and its enforce ability. and unfortunately, a lot of people aren't actually reading the document before they appear on television. >> i agree. >> and that is a real problem. you have to actually read the docume document. so look at my copy. i've read it. it is all tabbed. >> excellent. >> so let's go through it. let's go to the signature page to begin with. this is at the tail end. and folks can see david denison's line aka presumably would have been filled in donald trump not signed. and you believe that it is because he did not sign it that the whole document should be held null and void, true? >> absolutely. >> okay. so now let me take you to the settlement agreement paragraph 1.1 that identifies the parties. becau

we don't have anything tying those to mr. cohen or mr. trump to be clear. but she's certainly scared for her safety and the safety of her family in light of this. >> well, admitted she lied before. why should the american people now believe she's now telling the truth? >> i think the american people were able to observe her under some pretty tough questions by anderson cooper. they were able to observe what she said. her demeanor. et cetera. i think that 80% to 90% of the american people found her to be credible and believable. >> all right. the story to be continued, right? >> thank you. >> to be continued? >> absolutely to be continued. we're just getting started. >> all right, thank you very much for joining us at the table. >>> we should note that we did invite the president's lawyer, michael cohen, who we've been talking about, to give his reaction on "cbs this morning." he's not yet responded to our invitation. >>> we have breaking news from the white house where president trump just ordered the expulsion of 60 russian diplomats from the u.s. it's in

>> look, there's a lot that is very difficult for mr. cohen and his client, mr. trump, to explain about what he did and why he did it. and i think as long as those questions are lingering out there, this is a story and people will continue to ask. >> rick? >> i think that's right. from a legal sense, the president may be in trouble. from a political sense, i'm not so sure. his base is just -- they're not going to believe this. they're going to say this is made up and she's making it up. i agree with josh. i find her to be credible. she seems credible. she tells a story. she comes across convincingly. i think it will go on and on. in terms of affecting elections, i'm not sure it's going to have an impact with everything else going on. >> josh, do you think it has a bigger impact on -- i don't want to say the institution of the presidency. but in many ways the office and our perceptions growing up as kids and how you are supposed to conduct yourself. we were talking about how republicans in congress have tolerated far less in terms of public behavior. is this setti

>> where is mr. cohen? >> where is this guy? >> where is this guy? >> reporter: michael cohen is where he's been since 2007, standing behind donald trump or closer, in his back pocket. >> michael was, i always like to say, the radon van of the office. he took care of what had to be taken care of. i don't know what had to be taken care of. all i know is that michael was taking care of it. he was a guy you could call at 3:00 in the morning when you have a problem. >> do you know stories of donald trump calling him at 3:00 in the morning? >> donald trump has called him at all hours of the night. every dinner i've been at with michael, the boss has called. >> reporter: but cohen did not call the boss, he says, when he decided to pay stormy daniels $130,000 out of his own pocket 11 days before the election. >> i think it's ludicrous. >> you believe 100% donald trump knew? >> 100%. >> there's not a meeting that takes place that he doesn't know about. >> reporter: cohen wouldn't go on the record for this piece, but his friends claim it's all part of his job

another source linked to mr. trump or from cohen. cohen has said he paid daniels out of his own pocket. his attorney called the motion a reckless use of the legal system and politically motivated. we asked the white house for comment, but have not heard back. >> cbs news legal analyst rikki klieman is with us. good morning. >> good morning. >> how likely do you think it is a judge will grant the motion for the expedited discovery? >> i think that expedited discovery is the bigger question than whether or not ultimately the president gets deposed because i think the president may well get deposed at some point. expedited discovery, the question is why do we need it so fast? is there something happening out there that we have to know this within 120 days, which is what you might usually think of. he has been asking, he says he wants 21 days for each deposition. very short notice. 90 days he wants the entire thing to go to a jury trial. that is not happening that fast. by why can't it last six months or one year. >> a judge could say th

trump about it, then why did mr. cohen draft an agreement with mr. trump's name littered throughout the document with a signature line for him to sign? >> i will tell you my legal analysis. i think it's a good question. stay with me. as promised, i want to bring in matt miller, former sparm for attorney general holder, msnbc analyst as well as joyce vance, and joyce, when you hear this and you hear the lawyers fighting and you see the lie detector come out, what is your view of the wider significance? >> lie detector tests are really interesting, ari. you've noted that they're not admissible in court, and that's because their scientific validity hasn't been established yet. not to say it couldn't be done in the future. and perhaps this would be the case. but lie detector tests are widely used in law enforcement. particularly early on in cases when people are trying to decide whether a witness is telling the truth. also, widely used in the justice department as an employment device. so the introduction of this lie detector test not as evidence, but as

cohen for comment on the new details. mr. cohen called it fake news, and as for stormy daniels, none of her representatives responded to request for comment. >> thank you. sara sidner with the latest on that. >>> a self described russian sex coach who claims to have incriminating information on the kremlin's election meddling is speaking out to cnn. what is she willing to offer in exchange for asylum here in the united states. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase. who's the new guy? they call him the whisperer. the whisperer? why do they call him the whisperer? he talks to planes. he talks to planes. watch this. hey watson, what's avionics telling you? maintenance records and performance data suggest replacing capacitor c4. not bad. sorry. we are not on speaking terms. not bad. liberty mutual sav

cohen file their motion to compel arbitration. as soon as we do that, or as soon as they do that, we can refile this motion. that's exactly what we're going to do. we expect that could be filed today, it could be filed in the next couple days. all indications are they're going to file that motion. then we will in turn refile this motion, and then the court is going to make a determination. but wolf, there is language in this order that i am very, very pleased with, because the court appears to agree with our assessment of the law, and it shows that what david schwartz and others have said, that this motion had no merit, that that is baseless. they're in a lot of trouble, wolf. this is not good for the president, it is not good for mr. cohen. >> it's at least a temporary gain for them, although, as you pointed out, you're going to refile and see what happens down the road. as you know, michael cohen's attorney and his friend david schwartz, he was on cnn last night with erin burnett. he said that michael cohen was acting independen

quoting here, the filing today is yet another bullying tactic from the president and mr. cohen. they are now attempting to remove this case to federal court in order to increase their chances that the matter will be decided in private arbitration, thus hiding the truth from the public. he goes on to say, the fact that a sitting president is pursuing over $20 million in bogus damages against a private citizen who is only trying to tell the public what really happened is remarkable, likely unprecedented in our history. we are not going away, and we will not be intimidated. basta basta, by the way, italian for enough. mr. avenatti goes on, quote, how can president donald trump seek $20 million in damages against my client based on an agreement that he and mr. cohen claim mr. trump never was a party to and knew nothing about? #notwellthoughtout. #sloppy. #checkmate. back with the panel including paul callan. that's callan, not callahan as i said earlier. paul, i apologize for that. >> no problem. >> paul, first of all, why try to get this moved to a federal court? >> it's a fascinat

that does not include mr. cohen and mr. trump coming 100% clean with the american people. people that say this is about money haven't been paying attention." and then, #searchforthetruth. if it's not now about the money like he claims, where are they still fighting to tell her story? well, there's nothing more dangerous than a client that you can't pay off in this type of case. this woman wants to be able to tell her story. and i really don't know -- the adultery means nothing to me, i'm more interested in what does that mean for the russia investigation. and because this lawyer, who is very good, has now put cohen in a box and eventually trump in a box, he's going to make a difference. if his client doesn't get paid off, what does she care, she doesn't really want the money, she's very dangerous for trump and cohen. >> do you think there's more to this here? would stormy daniels have a clue as to whether this was some sort of coverup with regard to helping to influence the election? i mean, her story -- i don't think there's a lot more to hear about that. we've heard it.

did he reimburse mr. cohen? did he have a surrogate reimburse mr. cohen? >> do you have evidence he did? >> we have a significant amount of evidence and we're certainly not going to lay it out now in connection with the case. here's what i'll say. we did not include all of the facts and evidence that we have when we filed the complaint. no good lawyer would. >> is stormy determined to tell her story even if this deadline passes and she's not released from the nda? i've known michael cohen for a long time and he's a pit bull. every time she breaches it, it is a million dollar penalty. it will rack up tens of millions in penalty. >> i want to understand this. if the plan by mr. cohen and the administration is they're going to pursue millions of dollars in damages against a private american citizen who wants to -- >> isn't that what the agreement calls for? >> who wants to exercise her first amendment right, bring it. that's our position. bring it because our position, george, is that the agreement was never signed and, therefore, the million-dollar liquidate

so each fact that tends to create a nexus between michael cohen and the trump organization and mr. trump tends to show that mr. trump was aware of this contract and that he may have or at least allegedly was aware of a contract that provided a benefit, an in-kind benefit to his campaign which would have been a violation of any number of campaign finance contribution laws. >> let me ask you quick my from one legal expert to another -- i'm not the legal expert, obviously, but how do you rate how he's handled stormy daniels' case so far with the tactics he's used. >> from a viewer's perspective, i wanted more. i think a lot of us were left wanting more out of this interview. but in rating his skills as an attorney in navigating the media, it's an a plus because he delivered on everything he said he would deliver on. a week or so ago, he said were there physical threats? he said with one word, he yes, and we were left riveted. what in the world were these threats? he delivered. but he also said that i would not reveal everything that we have in this case. it would be stupid to do so. a

cohen is denying mr. cohen's environment in a letter writing mr. cohen had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any such person or incident and does not even believe any such person exists or such an incident even occurred. the white house and president trump's lawyer have denied the affair happened. with me now msnbc legal analyst, and a former director for strategic communications for hillary clinton's 2016 campaign. great to have all of you with us. let's begin with you if i can. three individuals at the center of this, stormy daniels, michael cohen and president trump. who would you say is now at the center of the biggest legal jeopardy? is it stormy because she's breaking the nondisclosure agreement? >> in a sense all of their respective positions remain the same with michael cohen likely at number one and everyone else tied for 13 or 14 or something like that. the reason i say that is this. michael cohen is an attorney and we are subjected not only to criminal standards but ethics standards and the problem is with this alleged contract, a

and mr. cohen and mr. rosen are under obligations to take that offer, that written offer, and present it to their clients and get back to us. >> let me get back to this. we do real talk here on "the beat." i will say for their benefit, your presentation of the law is correct in terms of ethic standards. but it seems like you guys are trolling michael cohen and donald trump because they've put out a fantastical defense. their defense being that maybe michael cohen went rogue, paid all this money and donald trump didn't flow aboknow about t yoi. you seem to be pressing that, saying you have to tell donald trump about this offer. >> if mr. cohen does not want to tell mr. trump about it or if mr. rosen does not want to tell mr. trump about it, so be it. i find it hard to brief that mr. trump doesn't know about it. the bottom line is our settlement offer requires the signatures of all the parties to the dispute. so that's mr. trump, the llc that mr. cohen set up and my client. and people have said, well, there'

so at first it was president trump, then he was relying on mr. cohen. now mr. cohen is relying on his friend, an attorney. and, frankly, anderson, where is michael cohen? i mean, where is this guy? this guy prides himself on being a fixer. he ends tweets with #raydonovan. he actually refers to himself as radoy donovan. where is he? why won't he come on your show or any other show and sit here like i do and answer simple questions? where is this guy? >> i should also just point out for full disclosure for viewers who don't know, i have sat down with stormy daniels for an upcoming "60 minutes" interview. cohen's arguments according to schwartz is the nondisclosure agreement is valid and binding because of the use of the word "and/or" that donald trump, aka, denison, didn't have to sign it, as long as michael cohen signed it for the llc. explain to people who aren't lawyers why you think that's not true. >> well, there's a number of reasons why that's not true, anderson. first of all, there are a number of portions of that contract, if wasn't just about the money,

schwartz in his office, mr. cohen, claim you had an affair with the president. they will promptly send you a check for $130,000. >> i'm not the president's attorney. >> no questions asked. it's absurd. it's absurd. >> let him respond. >> you're right. i agree th happen. >> in america. by the way, if you think 90% of the people really care about what your client said yesterday, you have to be completely out of your mind. >> so let me ask you, because mr. trump has never been reticent in going after the veracity of statements by women who have accused him of inappropriate sexual behavior. i mean he did this time and time again for the more than dozen or so women who have come forward, and yet he did not do that at all in terms of stormy daniels. in fact, and her story along with the story of karen mcdougal, who had a contract with ami, which is the parent company for the "national enquirer," their stories do have some commonalities. i mean statements that were allegedly made by mr. trump to both of them about them being special, about them being -- reminding him o

so at first it was president trump, then he was relying on mr. cohen. now mr. cohen is relying on his friend, an attorney. and, frankly, anderson, where is michael cohen? i mean, where is this guy? this guy prides himself on being a fixer. he ends tweets with #raydonovan. he actually refers to himself as ray donovan. where is he? why won't he come on your show or any other show and sit here like i do and answer simple questions? where is this guy? >> i should also just point out for full disclosure for viewers who don't know, i have sat down with stormy daniels for an upcoming "60 minutes" interview. cohen's arguments according to schwartz is the nondisclosure agreement is valid and binding because of the use of the word "and/or" that donald trump, aka, david dennison, didn't have to sign it, as long as michael cohen signed it for the llc. explain to people who aren't lawyers why you think that's not true. >> well, there's a number of reasons why that's not true, anderson. first of all, there are a number of portions of that contract, if wasn't just about the m

cohen's attorney, mr. schwartz said last night the president was never aware of the final details of the agreement or possibly the agreement as a whole. that's going to create serious problems. that would make it sound like is he not a party to this agreement. the arbitration clause seems to rest in his hands. >> sandra: i know you wrote a piece published in your blog tonight. in that piece, jonathan, you say trump faces john edwards' fate. can you explain the comparison and where you are suggesting this is heading from here? >> well, this is sort of like christmas future. it's not necessarily his future. is he going to have to show a much greater level of discipline over his counsel and his choices in the daniels case. i have never believed that collusion represented a threat to president trump. this can. people should not under estimate it. john edwards was indicted for inkind finance violations when third parties gave money to his mistress. the problem with what was said by mr. schwartz last night when

when mr. cohen proceeded in that arbitration he proceeded under the llc which doesn't have the right to proceed under the agreement. he had to do so is on behalf of mr. trump. he did not do so. and i think it's obvious why he didn't. >> this may be too in the weeds for people. the law matters. but the llc is what brought the action and what he signed as a representative of. that's where he got his money from is obviously another matter. he said it was from a credit line from his house. why could he bring this action? that's who signed it, him on on behalf of the llc? >> because the agreement specifically provided for this course of action it had to be d.d. let me also say this. this hasn't been touched on. >> please. >> paragraph 8.6 of the agreement makes it clear that if all parties, all parties d.d., e.c., and ms. daniels, if all parties do not sign the agreement, there is no deal. all parties did not sign the agreement. there is no deal. >> what do you think happens next? do you think we g

cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to talk about the events of friday night and concern for the continued special council position of robert mueller. on friday night late, the deputy director of the f.b.i., mr. andrew mccabe, was fired. i haven't seen the i.g. report, nobody's seen it. it won't be available until april. ut it's concerning that that late at night people were working at justice to fire a career employee and possibly eprive him of his pension. mr. become -- mr. mccabe believes the reason he was fired was because of mr. comey's conversations with the and his own conversations with the president, and his being a corroborating witness. i don't know what the cause was, but the process was and hi conversations with awful. it was seemed to violate the due process rights of this career federal employee. and then to watch the president f the united states, a multibillionaire, spike the ball on being able to deprive a 20-year federal employee of a pension was cruel rushed. and it, un-american, and mea

schwartz in his office, mr. cohen, claim you had an affair with the president. they will promptly send you a check for $130,000. >> i'm not the president's attorney. >> no questions asked. it's absurd. it's absurd. >> let him respond. >> you're right. i agree with you. it is absurd. but it happens every single day. >> it does not happen. >> in america. by the way, if you think 90% of the people really care about what your client said yesterday, you have to be completely out of your mind. >> so let me ask you, because mr. trump has never been reticent in going after the veracity of statements by women who have accused him of inappropriate sexual behavior. i mean he did this time and time again for the more than dozen or so women who have come forward, and yet he did not do that at all in terms of stormy daniels. in fact, and her story along with the story of karen mcdougal, who had a contract with ami, which is the parent company for the "national enquirer," their stories do have some commonalities. i mean statements that were allegedly made by mr. trump to both