think 90% of america -- >> 90% -- they're scratching their heads. >> wait. let me finish. >> are you saying it was michael cohen who was in las vegas by the pilates place? are you saying it was him personally? >> of course it wasn't him personally. >> you've been saying it all along. [ overlapping voices ] >> one at a time. >> there's a reason why god gave you two ears and one mouth. you're supposed to listen. >> what about your phony lie detector test? where was the -- >> one at a time. [ overlapping voices ] >> you're not saying it was michael cohen. stormy daniels says she could clearly identify that person. she has never said it was michael cohen. but you believe -- >> no. we have never said that it is michael cohen. but, look -- >> you've been saying that all along. >> come on, let him finish. >> let him finish. >> look, it's very simple. my client sat down. she answered the questions. 90% of america found her

credible. why hasn't michael cohen sat down -- forget two hours. i'll take 20 minutes. how about 10 minutes? and answered the questions. instead, he sends you. you're not even involved in the case. >> are you ever going to make an appearance in the case? >> i am never making an appearance in that case. i am his. >> you're a talking head. >> of course. that's what we're here for. >> let's let him answer now. >> first of all, michael cohen just wants you to keep running your mouth and your client running because every time you do, that it's going to cost your client another million dollars. i mean i hope you have a nice malpractice policy because you're advising your client to breach a contract. >> one of the things that certainly stormy daniels feels and michael avenatti has said is that the kind of threats that michael cohen is making about taking a long vacation on her dime, this $20 million figure, which as you pointed out the last time you were on, you don't

really know where that comes from. i can't figure out what the $20 million -- what it's really based on. is that the normal kind of behavior of an attorney in a lawsuit? i'm not a lawyer, so i don't know. >> it's 20 different violations. but the bottom line is, you know, i don't know where you think a threat is from here. i mean i'm from brooklyn. that's not a threat. i hate to tell you. okay. when an attorney talks to another attorney about a damages clause in a contract, and two attorneys are speaking to each other, that's not a threat. that's just a legal discussion about a damages clause. >> has michael -- go ahead. >> one thing i never understood is there's a signature line on the contract for, you know, dd, which is donald trump's pseudon pseudonym. why didn't he sign? >> okay. so the bottom line is you have a contract between ec, llc, and stormy daniels. so at the time when this was all going on, he could -- you know, there may have been a situation where michael could have brought it to him to sign.

michael chose to just allow ec, llc, to be the party. that's why we have the and/or. by the way, i know you've made up your own laws in this case. >> but wait. >> let me just get to this. and/or, by the way, has the same meaning in new york as it does in wyoming, as it does in california. because you tried to school me on the california law, i actually researched it, and guess what. the united states supreme court and cases in california all agree that and/or is either/or. that's what it is. >> there's another provision in the contract. i believe it's section 8.6, which says the contract is not valid unless everybody signs. doesn't that trump the and/or? >> it's not valid unless the parties sign. the parties to the contract are ec, llc, and stormy daniels. and certainly -- >> so why is there a line that says dd for donald trump? >> because it gave -- >> just for no reason? >> yes, because it gave the option for donald trump to be a party to the contract. instead, he's not a party.

he's a third party beneficiary to this contract. >> in terms of that third party beneficiary, couldn't there have just been a contract between stormy daniels and the limited liability corporation that benefited mr. trump? >> and that's exactly what this is. >> so why have a third line there at all? >> because it gave the option -- >> why do they need that option? >> because michael wanted to have the option. that's why he purposely did it. this was a carefully drafted contract with a rock solid arbitration clause. >> why did he want to have that option from a legal standpoint? >> because when you're in the middle of all of this, you want to have the option. he wanted to give himself the option. he chose not to exercise the option. >> trump wanted to give himself the option? >> michael cohen wanted to give himself the option as the agent of ec, llc. >> what do you make of this letter that michael cohen sent saying this was a dispute between president trump and stormy daniels? >> right. it's a february letter. and guess what. this is -- see, he doesn't like to conclude the time lines.

it's after he sued donald trump. so now he brought donald trump into the action. >> that's not true. >> in fact -- >> let him finish. >> in fact, that's the whole point behind all this. >> okay. >> you have to ask yourself what is the end game here. not about money, right? >> okay. michael. >> first of all, the e-mail is dated february 22nd of this year. you showed it earlier on the screen, okay? we didn't file our case until march. so that, much like many of your statements, is just fabricated. it's patently false. that's why and michael cohen are friends, i goeuess, because you both are really good at fabricating. >> i'm -- >> i'm not done. >> you talked for a long time. >> i'm not done. >> let him finish. >> all right. >> i'm not done. >> what about -- >> let's talk a moment about michael cohen, okay? megyn kelly, not exactly a left-wing liberal in journalistic circles, tweeted last night a portion of an article that appeared in "the

daily beast" not long ago, quoting a reporter about the threats that michael cohen had made to this reporter. i can't even -- i can't state it on cable television, they're so bad. >> basically destroying this person's life and livelihood. >> i'm not done. i'm not done. let's talk about -- [ overlapping voices ] >> he keeps sidetracking. >> he's allowed to speak. then you'll speak. >> let's talk about michael cohen, what kind of man this is. this is the kind of guy who claimed in connection with that story that there's no such thing as spousal rape. this is a legal genius. >> right. >> completely false. the guy doesn't even know the law. he's a thug. >> right, right. >> your friend is a thug. >> well, thank you. that's a million dollars, a million dollars, a million dollars. >> thug. thug. >> you know what? you're a thug. >> thug, thug. >> you see, anyone -- by the way. >> he's a thug. if he was here, i would tell it

to his face. >> i got to say this. no gal vonnic skin response. no arm band. by the way, the photos doctored. >> thug. >> why was the lie detector test, anderson, not part of the "60 minutes" piece? because this thug doctored it. >> can i ask a question? just let me ask you a question about one of the broader points in this case, which is michael cohen's claim that he paid, out of his own money. >> right. >> out of his home equity line, the money in this case. have you ever heard of a lawyer paying a judgment or a settlement on behalf of a client out of his own money? >> no, but this is not a normal attorney client relationship. this is much more than an attorney-client relationship. first of all, there's nothing illegal about it. >> i never said there's anything illegal about it. >> if you understand the relationship here, you would understand that it would be completely reasonable for michael cohen to pay that out of his own pocket. >> donald trump is, according to

him, a billionaire. michael cohen has to go into a home equity line to pay $130,000? that sounds reasonable to you? >> under the circumstances, under the set of circumstances that they're involved in, it's completely reasonable. but i still haven't gotten an answer to the lie detector test that he made such a big deal out of. >> you're saying it had absolutely nothing to do with the campaign. it was just a coincidence this was -- >> this is when the settlement took place. the law is pretty clear on this, okay? the bottom line is if it's towards -- if it's for a reputation, business, family, to protect those things, then -- >> but that could have been done in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. >> this is when t-- it's legal extortion when somebody comes to a ceo or a famous person and they try to extract money from them. this is when it all takes place.

so we call it hush money here. >> so you're saying stormy daniels was trying to extort money from michael cohen? >> that's what you do from a 12-year -- she's claiming she had sex 12 years ago. >> who had contact with michael cohen from -- >> it happens every day in america. >> you're saying stormy daniels or her team were trying to extort money from donald trump. >> i believe it's a legal form of extortion. when you use a lawyer to try to extract that and she talked about it -- >> but who was -- >> by the way, she said the contract was solid, rock solid. >> but who was -- you're saying keith davidson contacted michael cohen to extort money? >> she -- she admitted it. it's a legal form of extortion. >> she was saying that people were coming to her with -- >> coming to her and then she got the best deal that she could possibly get from michael cohen. but it's a form of extracting as much money as possible. that's what it is. >> all right. >> i want to step back for a moment.

if you believe him and his close friend, michael cohen. >> my client. and he is a friend. >> your client, okay. if the american people want to believe them, they have to conclude as follows, anderson. michael cohen got a call from a woman who was completely unbelievable, had no credibility. this woman claimed that she had an affair with donald trump a couple weeks before the end of the campaign. they didn't believe her. they thought she was completely full of it. it was all b.s. and in response to that, in response to that, instead of behaving the way that he behaves tonight here, instead of behaving the way that michael cohen has behaved in the past, they just rolled over and paid her $130,000 for no reason, even though they thought the entire thing was bull shit. wait a minute. i'm not done.

>> that happens. >> i'm not done. >> it's actually a cheap price. >> if that's true, i would encourage every american tomorrow morning to call mr. 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 of them about them being special, about them being -- reminding him of his daughter, going to his bungalow at the beverly hills hotel. does it concern you that there are some commonalities in their stories? >> not at all because i'm here to talk about a contract. i wasn't there. jeff wasn't there. michael wasn't there. you weren't there. she says it happens. he says it doesn't happen. i don't think anyone really cares one way or the other what happened 12 years ago. i don't think anyone cares. but i am here to talk about a contract, and i am here to talk about a fabricated lie detector test that you completely -- that no gal vonnic skin response. you know, i work with a polygraph expert for -- he's

been an expert for three decades. no gal vonnic skin response. no blood pressure. the questions were all wrong. >> do you know the person who administered this test? >> i have no idea. >> you don't any idea about the -- >> he paid $25,000. i looked at a picture. by the way, thank you for supplying that picture, that fabricated -- >> that's not the last picture. buckle up. >> where is it? >> buckle up. >> believe me -- >> you'll need a big one. >> oh, yeah. it's more of your illusions. >> let him respond. >> to quote the late hal heflin from the great state of alabama, he said when the faces are on your side, you argue the facts. when the law is on your side, you argue the law. when you have neither the law or the facts, you pound the table. that's what's going on right here. every time, we pound the table. boisterous. it's louder than you talk. >> let's talk the law. >> i'm waiting for you to come into the case. when are you going to get off the sidelines?

get off the sidelines and get in the case. >> i don't practice in california. >> you know what -- >> we'll talk about it. but the law is against you, and you're a very good lawyer. i'm not taking anything away from you. >> well, thank you. >> you've made lemonade out of a complete lemon, and i give you a lot of credit for that. but it's not going to last. >> we're going to expand the legal discussion. laura coates is going to join us as well as the panel. later, randi kaye speaks to women who voted for donald trump about what they saw last night and whether it changed their minds or influenced them in any way about the man they elected president. we'll be right back. ly, really good without the stripes. - margo and sam had a vision, brought to life in one coat. ♪ whatever your home may hand you, behr through it, in one coat. behr marquee, #1 rated interior paint.

guaranteed in 1,000 plus colors. find it exclusively at the home depot. at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. your new brother-in-law. you like him. he's one of those guys who always smells good. his 5 o'clock shadow is always at 5 o'clock. you like him. your mom says he's done really well for himself. he has stocks and bonds your dad wants to go fishing with him. your dad doesn't even like fishing. you like your brother-in-law. but you'd like him better if you made more money than he does. don't get mad at your brother-in-law. get e*trade

♪ get ready for the wild life with one a day men's. a complete multivitamin with key nutrients, plus b vitamins for heart health. your one a day is showing. ♪ ♪ ♪

if you have moderate to severe or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be.

♪ otezla. show more of you. back now with michael avenatti, attorney for stormy daniels, david schwartz, a friend of michael cohen from the trump organization, also representing him in another legal matter. and cnn's chief legal analyst, jeffrey toobin, refereeing in between. michael, stormy daniels signs this nondisclosure agreement 11 days before the president's election. she receives $130,000 for this. she, by all accounts, maintains her silence. but then "the wall street journal" breaks the story, i think it was more than a year or so later, breaks the story based on anonymous sources. you are now alleging in an amended complaint that michael cohen violated the nda by revealing some details to "the wall street journal" and therefore the nda should be considered invalid. what part of the nda do you believe cohen violated?

>> well, by describing -- by confirming some of the facts in "the wall street journal" article when the reporters contacted him, by confirming various facts, et cetera. he should have said nothing. he should have said, no comment. he chose to do otherwise. and as a result, we maintain that's one of many reasons why this agreement is void and is going to be thrown out. by i want to go back to something i've said because i still don't understand something. why is it okay for me to sit here and on other shows and face tough questions about this agreement, and my client sits down with you for two hours and faces tough questions, and yet mr. cohen is nowhere to be found? and i think i know the answer. i think i know the answer. the answer is because mr. cohen is concerned about being criminally indicted by the special prosecutor, mr. mueller, and he's been told to not appear on television and make public

statements. that's why -- >> can i just -- first of all, that's another million dollars. >> where is he? where is he? >> so michael cohen is going to litigate this case in a court of competent jurisdiction, okay? anderson, with all due respect, you're not the judge in this case. there's a judge out in california. he's going to litigate the case there. you are litigating the case in the court of public opinion. >> no, both. >> because that's the forum that you want to be in, and that's -- and you're using this case for ulterior motives. >> to talk about the mueller -- to talk about some fantasy criminal indictment, you don't know what you're talking about. it just keeps coming out of your mouth. you have no idea what you're talking about. look at you laughing. >> i'm laughing. >> can i -- >> i'm laughing. >> let me just sort of cut through the testosterone that's like cascading around me here.

it seems to me one of the most important issues in this case is sort of a nerdy point but actually a very important one, which is whether this case is going to be resolved in arbitration or in a courtroom, because if it's in arbitration, you don't get discovery, and you're not going to get donald trump under oath. you're not going to get michael cohen under oath. but if you have a lawsuit in federal court, you do get depositions. >> actually, i'd like to address that. >> let's hear where this case will be resolved. >> so the cases in california are pretty clear. even, michael, even if what you say is true about the rest of the agreement, if the arbitration clause is solid, which the arbitration clause is solid in this case, the arbitration clause will be viewed even separate from the rest of the agreement. and the case will ultimately be brought back into arbitration as you just pointed out. >> so you -- >> let's hear what you have to say about arbitration. >> so a couple things. first of all, this agreement that mr. cohen drafted, jeffrey,

despite what you just stated, which would be the norm related to limited discovery, well, this excellent airtight -- i think that was the term -- >> airtight. actually your client used that. >> airtight agreement that jeffrey or michael cohen drafted, it actually provides that in the arbitration, discovery is pursuant to california law. so the scope of discovery is going to be just the same as if we were in a court of law. >> thank you very much. >> and that's -- >> i'm not done. i'm not done. >> but the legal buffoonery did not stop there. but most recently by way of removing the case to federal court, they made a strategic error, yet another trap they've stepped into over the last three weeks. it's remarkable how many there have been. i lost count. here's the problem. by removing it to federal court, under the federal arbitration act, if you dispute the existence of the actual agreement -- and of course that's what we've done -- we get

discovery and a jury trial. a jury trial. wait a minute. a jury trial in the federal district court on this particular issue, and we get expedited discovery. >> he's making up his own law. >> it's ninth circuit precedent. >> the judge is going to look at this case -- >> yeah, that's if it gets past the initial stages. this judge is going to throw this case right out. this is a frivolous case. by the way, your client has already breached the contract, so i'm not even sure why you need the declaratory judgment anymore in federal court. what do you need that for because you've already breached the contract multiple times. >> jeff, where do you see this going? >> well, i think it is now in federal court in california, and i think the first motion that michael cohen's lawyer, whoever that person might be, is going to make is to throw this case out and send it to an arbitrator, and i think that's going to be a very important

motion. i'm not say i know how that motion will be resolved, but i think the issue of whether this is resolved in a courtroom or in front of an arbitrator is a very important one, and i think that's going to be the way -- >> because of the discovery? >> well, exactly. >> or because of -- >> because it's a way of pushing the case into secret. arbitration procedures are mostly secret. michael says under certain circumstances you can get discovery. that's news to me, but you may be right. but i just think the initial legal argument in front of the federal court is going to be about arbitration, and i think it's going to be an important one. i don't pretend to know how that will be resolved. >> i'm still looking for an answer about the lie detector test. what happened to the lie deck t tech tore test? you paid for it, and you held it up here. now you're admitting it's not good. you must have noticed no

galvanic skin response, right? did you see the band around the fingers? did you see the band around the bicep? you're laughing, but you have no answer, do you? >> the sister publication for in touch magazine, after they interviewed stormy daniels, they asked her to take a lie detector test, which was also videotaped. according to the polygrapher, she was asked, i believe, three questions. i believe she was viewed truthful on those questions. it was, did you have sex with mr. trump? was it unprotected? and i forgot even the -- >> did he promise you to be on "the apprentice" and that answer was ambiguous. >> anderson, let me tell you how ridiculous this is. just last week we had a call with mr. harter, who is representing mr. trump, and mr. blakely, who is representing mr. -- actually ec, llc, in the federal case, okay? during this call, i asked point blank, mr. harter, was donald trump a party to the agreement? and let me tell what he told me.

you ready? that's what he told me. and i said, i thought the phone had disconnected. i said, are you still there? and i asked him again. he didn't have an answer for me. he said, we haven't figured it out yet, to which i responded, why do you ask donald trump? they haven't figured out the next fabrication. >> how difficult -- >> i guess they're required to tell michael, you know, any legal strategy here. >> legal strategy? it's a fact. >> i don't even believe that conversation even existed. so i mean everything -- you make up your own law. you make up a lie detector test. you parade it in like you found gold. meanwhile you know it's a fraudulent lie detector test. you know it. can you at least address the galvanic skin response and the -- can you answer the question? >> yes, i'm going to answer the question. in 2011, in touch magazine asked my client to sit for a lie

detector test with a licensed polygraph examiner in the state of nevada, who does this every day. she went to the office. she sat down. the polygraph examination was administered, and she passed. so, look, to the extent that you have a problem with the polygraph examiner, file a complaint with the state of nevada. >> i don't care about -- you're the one who paid $25,000 -- >> where's michael cohen? >> you're the one who paid $25,000 for a ridiculous polygraph test that makes no sense. >> thank you very much. still ahead, what a group of trump voters, all of them women, saw and heard when they watched "60 minutes" last night. constipation and diarrheaating, can start in the colon and may be signs of an imbalance of good bacteria. only phillips' colon health has this unique combination of probiotics. it helps replenish good bacteria. get four-in-one symptom defense.

claritin and relief from of non-drowsy symptoms caused by over 200 allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity and live claritin clear. when you have something you love, ♪ you want to protect it. at legalzoom, our network of attorneys can help you

every step of the way. with an estate plan including wills or a living trust that grows along with you and your family. legalzoom. where life meets legal. 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. new cnn polling out tonight shows almost two-thirds of americans say they believe the women alleging affairs with donald trump before he became president. 21% say they believe the president's denials of those afares. last night randi kaye spent a group of women, all trump supporters, who watched my interview with stormy daniels. >> she's enjoying this way too much. >> reporter: on palm sunday, these conservative christian women gathered in dallas to watch stormy daniels' interview

on "60 minutes." >> she was shopping her story for money, just like all the other people that have tried to make money off the trump name. >> what was your first impression of stormy daniels? >> i feel sorry for her. my heart hurts for her. >> this is a porn star. why are we giving it any credibility in. >> exactly. and the fact that she now wants to come out with a story because she's afraid of her children? my goodness, what did you tell the kiddos about your full-time job? >> reporter: these women all voted for donald trump, and despite stormy daniels' claims, they still don't buy her story. why would she come out and give this interview if she wasn't telling the truth? >> money. >> do any -- based on this interview, do any of you believe that stormy daniels did have sex with donald trump? >> i don't believe it because i haven't seen any hard proof. >> should we believe the president of the united states or a stripper, porn star? i go with the president of the united states. >> reporter: most in this group

believe god ordained donald trump to be president and stand by him despite his imperfections. >> i know that when i voted for him, i wasn't voting for a choir boy. >> he had to change as a person in order to become a president. stormy daniels, if you -- the lifestyle that she's leading right now, i mean i wish she would turn her life over the way that trump has. >> reporter: this group suggests the women coming forward with tales of having had an affair with trump are being targeted. >> someone is looking and shopping for these people to come out of the woodwork because it is demeaning to our president. >> reporter: and as some strongly suggested, all part of a media plot to bring down donald trump. >> you can throw all that stuff up in our faces as many times as you want, but that means that we will work harder for trump. is that not so, ladies? >> that's correct. this is the media defining the narrative. the people -- we, the people, are ready to define the narrative.

and it's not about tawdry sexual peccadillos. >> in order for somebody to come forward, you could be pushed by somebody else. >> correct. >> right? and so i think the thing is you're looking for a way to impeach my president that i worked very hard for. >> i'm asking you about a stormy daniels interview on 60 minutes," period. that's it. >> and about that so-called hush money, these women don't see trump's fingerprints on it. only his lawyer, michael cohen's. >> maybe he thought he was just doing a favor to try to quash some negativity. even though it didn't even happen, just to get rid of the story that's not even true. >> which would also follow suit that that nondisclosure was unsigned, because trump may not have known about it at all. >> worst case scenario, if he slept with her, whatever. that's between him, the lord, and his family. >> exactly. >> that is not about the job

he's doing in running our country, which he's doing an amazing job. >> reporter: randi kaye, cnn, dallas. >> when we continue, we'll take this up with the panel. we'll be right back.

i don't know about you all, if you've been watching, i'm just exhausted. joining us is laura coates, kirsten powers, rick wilson,

jason miller, amanda carpenter, and alice stewart. you saw randi kaye talking in the last block to trump supporters, women, who basically categorically didn't buy what stormy daniels was saying, didn't think she was credible, and even if they think she did have sex with donald trump, it didn't matter. he's a different person. politically, do you think any of this matters? kirsten? >> no, i actually don't. i think precisely of what we just saw. either they're going to decide that they don't think that it happened as we saw what happened with the "access hollywood" tape, or they're going to just say they don't care, that it doesn't matter. that, you know, it's between him and his wife. i think the people who support him are determined to just not say bad things about him. i think what was interesting about listening to those women is of course we know what they would have said about bill clinton, and they're hypocrites and all that. but also they don't seem to be

familiar with donald trump because they're so disgusted with, you know, oh, i'm so sure a porn star. it's like he hung out at the playboy club all the time. this is kind of who donald trump is. so if there's so disapproving of that kind of behavior, then they're actually disapproving of him. and i think what i took away from the stormy daniels interview, which was very different, i think, from the other interview that you did, is i think she was kind of a victim. he was a predator with her. she was a 27-year-old woman. he was telling her, i'm going to give you a job, and she said she didn't even want to have sex with him. of course she didn't -- she was 27 and he was felt 60 years old, but she felt pressured to do it. this is the person these women are defending. >> i do think it's interesting she was very quick to say, unprompted, this is not me too. i'm not a victim. she didn't want to have sex with him, but she -- it was entirely consensual. she went along with it. >> remember monica lewinsky said that for a long time and more recently she's starting to say in hindsight -- >> a lot of women pointed out to

me what she said was going through her mind before she says she had sex with mr. trump was, i deserve this. oo i've put myself in a bad situation. >> i had it coming, which is exactly what me too is trying to -- if somebody is feeling they don't have the power to consent or not consent. the other great irony of this is just like those women who are completely indifferent about the sexual proclivities of the united states, guess what, the court in this case also won't care about whether or not the affair actually went down. they want to know whether or not a contract was violated. so that same indifference ironically is going to transfer into the court and how they assess it. they're not going to concern themselves with whether they had sex, whether it was consensual. it's whether or not she can talk about. that is a very discussion. the court could care less, just as women don't. >> wait a minute. one at a time. rick. >> you watch those women, and you just want to say, bless their hearts because they are

living in this beautiful bubble where donald trump is this wonderful family man who suddenly saw the light and became a different character than he has been in his entire adult life. this is a guy who has never really been strong on, say, marital fidelity. >> they say he's changed to become president. >> i think what's going to happen as the stormy daniels story continues to evolve, these women are going to realize the ones who are the first movers on this are going to get to tell their stories, and the ones who aren't are going to be left in the dust. so these people that are fans of trump are going to be say, there's another one and another one and another one because if you think stormy daniels and mcdougal are the last ones we're going to hear from, i think everybody is really sadly mistaken on that. i think the fact that there's a structure set up in trump's legal organization with michael cohen to do ndas for many, many, many women, it's a whole series of stories. if one of these ndas cracks, the whole thing is going to come wide open. >> anderson, everyone here is talking as if it's a proven fact

that an affair even happened. and the fact of the matter is that president trump is the only person in this entire equation who has had a consistent story. i think, anderson, you did a very commendable job in your interview of being very fair in calling out some of the credibility both from ms. clifford and from her attorney. in your interview, she admitted three times to having lied about this, in 2011 and then twice earlier this year. her story is the one that keeps changing. the president's story has been the same. one other critical point here, too. i don't want to go to this whole supposed parking lot incident in las vegas. the thought that someone would be approached in a parking lot, especially in las vegas where there are cameras everywhere, and to have some magical person just appear out of nowhere and make some sort of threat, and you don't go to the police, that is laughable on its fact -- on its face. it's absolutely ridiculous she would get approached in a parking lot. >> she said she was scared. >> hold on. this is not about damages. this is about dollars.

she wants to get paid. >> i think the biggest question that trump supporters have when they question these women is why are they telling the story now. i think it's important we look at the time line. both of these stories in regard to stormy daniels and karen mcdougal were broken by news reports this year, in january and february by the new yorker and "the wall street journal." so they kept their end of the agreement, and then it went into the press. so what do you do as someone who signed this agreement, then you have reporters in your face saying, did this happen? what will you say? you have michael cohen going out confirming some parts of the story. i'm not a lawyer, but do nondisclosure agreements require you not to talk about it, but also to lie as well? both these women have told you, i just didn't want to lie. that is why they were pushed to the brink and going public about this, because they did not want to be made into liars. why does this matter now that donald trump is president? he's pushing white house staff to sign ndas. will we be in this position, four years, five years from now when people go to former white

house staff? will they be expected to lie for the president too? >> so she can lie three times -- >> listen, i wasn't there, but she signed a nondisclosure agreement saying she's not going to talk about it, and then it came out to the press. michael cohen gave statements to jimmy kimmel. now she's saying i just want my truth to be out there. >> just because the president's been consistent in his denials doesn't make it credible. i think these women's stories that are very similar are much more credible than the president's. i'm sorry, but that's the reality of it. >> wow. >> with regard to the political -- >> has donald trump lied about his marriages before? >> his story has been completely -- >> jason , i know trump lives i a comfortable bubble -- trump world lives in this comfortable bubble, but let me acquaint you with page 6 in "the new york post." donald trump has been a

skirt-chasing hound his entire life. this is not a guy who goes home at night and sits with the little woman and watches tv. this is a guy who is a long-term philanderer, adulterer, whatever phrase you want to use. he has never taken any contract or vow, much less his marital vows, seriously. this is a guy who has a notorious reputation for this. it is a reputation he cultivated as part of his -- >> so you got the sound bite in, but the fact of the matter is she lied three times and now everyone is supposed to believe her. >> plainly her credibility did take a hit. you addressed that interest po. she admitted to that, that her credibility took a hit by signing it. her motivation behind it is obviously the question, but that's the beauty of this. neither the president's philandering as you're talking about it or her credibility is the real question in front of the court. the question for them is are the words on the paper going to be held up? is that going to be sufficient? >> there were some similarities

in what stormy daniels and karen mcdougal said about their affairs. one example, he compared them to his daughter, ivanka. we'll talk about more ahead. and i'm terry ware. and this is our sears hometown store. we always wanted to raise our family in a small tight-knit hometown community. when the opportunity to own a sears hometown store became available we jumped at it. and ever since, we've been a family owned business. our customers keep coming back because they know they can trust us. we're part of their community. we don't work for sears.

we own this place. we work for you. ♪

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. there were some similarities in the way they described their alleged interactions with donald trump. we're going to play you some quotes from the interviews and it should be noted that the stormy daniels interview was taped before the karen mcdougal interview aired. so the time they were speaking, neither had seen the other being interviewed. take a look. >> he never asked me not to tell anyone. he called several times when i was in front of many people. >> did he ever ask you to hide it? >> no, he didn't. he wasn't afraid to hide it at all. >> you remind me of my daughter, you know. he's like you're smart, beautiful, and a woman to be reckoned. >> he said i was beautiful like her and, you know, you're a smart girl. >> don't worry about that.

we have separate rooms and stuff. >> we passed a room, and he said, this is melania's room. she likes to have her alone time. >> did he use a condom? >> no. >> did he ever use protection? >> no. no, he didn't. >> back now with the panel. you the fact that she denied the affair and then ultimately went public with it broaderick later changed her story. candidate trump and trump supporters don't seem to hold that against her. is it fair for people to say sto stormy daniels told them she had an affair and then denied it and

signed two statements denying it. >> i think you go back and look at some of the threats that were made to her and how she feared for her life. >> do you think threats were made against her and she feared for her life? >> her descriptions were very specific. we saw with stormy daniels supposedly this mystery perso l goes away. i think you loog k at the poll numbers. cnn polls showing the 11 month high. om only a couple of points off. i think most have already made a decision if they will believe some of these or if they will brush them off. most made this going into the election. >> and even the people i talked to, they knew this was out

there. they knew these stories were probably going to come out. it is probably a little more graphic than we would want to hear. we'll standby him and support them. even evangelicals are willing to give him another shot and forgive his past sins as long as he continues to support the policies he campaigned on such as life issue and supreme court justices and transgender in the military they will continue to standby him and they are not waivered. they look at it as in the past. the problem is the intimidations, the threats to be silent and possible threat years ago is where he is face -- >> but i can't figure out why they are denying so much. it was sort of the common knowledge. this is a president who has secrets, many secrets that were

not aired out through the election and that he still wants to keep and given the system that was in place to get this done so quickly, so fast by the president's closest allies and the national inquirer you have to believe there are more to come. >> it is very convenient, first off. the greater issue here is most people who get a security clearance in the federal government, if they have a vulnerability that paces them in a compromised position like i don't know a nondisclosure agreement based on -- >> or if they have a bunch of catch and kill people. if there are other people who they made contracts with, that is potential. >> of course.

>> he will do the following political things i want. i'm not a biblical scholar. they are going to hear this consiste consistency. three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. it will keep coming out. because this white house fights these things so hard and because the infrastructure is out there it's such a tempting target. eventually as these things crack it's easy to hear once or twice to hear that the president is a bad boy but when you hear it from 15 other women and that you see that the values of his marriage are absent and he is out there going bare back and this is a whole crazy, you you know, set of sexual encounters that do open him to compromise,

that do open him to problems in keeping these secrets and trying to keep these things under wraps it will have a slow corrosive effect. they are sticking with him. >> they are not going to turn on him. as sure as i'm sitting here i don't care if 15 women come out. they will believe him. the other thing that they say, they see this as ancient his rhode island a -- h history. they believe now he is 70 and he has changed this is what they believe. i say even if he was having an affair now i think they would make excuses for him. >> the one thing that is true is cohen paid $130,000 to keep her quiet 11 days before the election. do you belief he did that completely on his own and do you

think it is a coincident it happened right before the election? >> is it a coincidence it was leaking out just before the election? this whole series of people that were coming forward. people real ieed president trump was going to win this and they start rushing in. >> they came out in the aftermath. >> they only made an mba with her. >> michael cohen said he was doing it and trying to help out his friend, donald trump and that's why -- you know, in retro specific i probably would have said completely ignore it. the reason why people are sticking by trump on this is there is no a police report, not even a sketch. why don't we see a sketch of of who the supposed person in the parking lot was? we' . >> we have to take a break. we'll be right back.

♪ let's fly, let's fly away ♪ ♪ just say the words ♪ and we'll beat the birds down to acapulco bay ♪ ♪ it's perfect for a flying honeymoon they say ♪ ♪ come fly with me ♪ let's fly, let's fly away ♪ ♪ come fly with me ♪ let's fly, let's fly away ♪ 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. you were persecuted, and forced to flee the country of your birth. but you started a new life in a brand new world. when i built my ancestry family tree, i found your story... then, my dna test helped me reclaim the portuguese citizenship you lost. i'm joshua berry, and this is my ancestry story. combine the most detailed dna test with historical records for a deeper family story. get started for free at ancestry.com

>> all right. we'll see you back here tomorrow. i'm don lemon. more than 22 million people heard stormy daniels tell her story in her own words. we have a lot of new developments. daniels is suing michael cohen for defamation. there is this. daniels lawyer telling krscnn te are for leads on the man who threatened her. a threat that