that reason, that i spent the last week searching boxes in order to find the information that i did so that you don't have to take my word for it. i don't want you to. i want you to look at the documents. >> mr. cohen -- >> and make your own decision. >> i want to make my last -- >> i'm sorry. >> that's okay. let me just say, i don't think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid that you're going to lie. i think they're afraid that you're going to tell the truth. >> thank you, sir. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. gosar. >> the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> i appreciate you for yielding. when have you ever seen a federal agency where this has happened? andrew mccabe, fired. lied three times under oath, under investigation. as we speak, jim baker, fbi counsel, demoted, then left, currently under investigation by the attorney's office in accounts can the.

lea connecticut. lisa page, demoted and left. that's what we're concerned about. today we asked for rod rosenstein. oh, by the way we now know three people have told us rod rosenstein actually was contemplating using the 25th amendment to remove the guy from presidency who the american people put there. and we asked for him to be a witness today and the chairman said no. and instead we get 30 minutes from a guy who is going to prison, going to prison in two months for lying to congress. mr. cohen, i've got two quick questions before i yield back to my colleague. mr. hice asked you who all you talked to. you said you spoke to mr. schiff, obviously you spoke to mr. cummings. you've gone in front of both committees. you're here today, you're going to be in front of mr. schiff's committee tomorrow. have you spoken to chairman nadler or your attorneys? >> i don't know about my attorneys. >> you don't know if your attorneys spoke -- >> i have not spoken to congressman nadler and i am not aware -- sir, i am not aware if my attorneys -- i can ask them. >> you can turn around and ask.

>> the answer, sir, is no. >> okay. and you said at this present time mr. davis is not getting paid. are you anticipating him receiving some kind of compensation in the future? >> when i start to earn a living -- >> he's going to wait three years? >> the answer is yes. >> wow, that's a first, i've never known a lawyer to wait three years to get paid. >> i guess he thinks it's important. >> all right. i yield to the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you. mr. cohen, you know, you're a disgraced lawyer. i mean, you've been disbarred. and so i'm sure you remember, maybe you don't remember, duty of loyalty, duty of confidentiality, attorney/client privilege. i think the gentleman to your right side understands that very well and wouldn't do what you're doing here today. let's go back to credibility. you want us to mind sure we think of you as a real philanthropic icon, that you're about justice, that you're the person that somebody would call a 3:00 in the morning.

no, they wouldn't. not at all. we saw mr. comer dissect you. you're a pathological liar. you don't know truth from -- truth -- from falsehood. >> sir -- >> hey, this is my time. when i ask for a question, i'll ask for an answer. >> sure. >> are you familiar with rule 35 of the federal rules of criminal prosecution -- procedures? >> i am now. >> oh. well, the committee understands you've been in contact with the southern district of new york. is that true? >> i am in constant contact with the southern district of new york regarding ongoing investigations. >> and part of that application is to reduce sentencing time, is it not? >> there is a possibility -- >> the answer is yes. >> no, it's not, sir. >> yeah, it is. >> it's not. >> so testimony here could actually help you out in getting

your sentence lessened, isn't that true? >> i'm not sure how my appearance here today is providing substantial information that the southern district can use for the creation of a case. now, if there is something that this group can do for me, i would gladly welcome it. >> well, i got to tell you, you know, america is watching you. i've been getting texts right and left saying how can anybody listen to this pathological person. he's got a person. he doesn't know fact from fiction. that's what's sad here. is, is that you didn't do this for donald trump, to protect donald trump. you did it for you. this is all about you. this is all about this twitter feed and great -- let me read one of those, another one. women who love and support michael cohen, strong, pitbull, sex symbol, no nonsense, business oriented and -- >> 1,000 followers? >> ready to make a difference against the law. that's pretty sad.

you know, over and over again, you know, we wanted to have trust. it's built on the premise that we're truthful, that we come forward. but there's no truth with you whatsoever. that's why i -- that's important to you, to look up here and look at the old adage that our moms told us, liar, liar, pants on fire. no one should ever listen to you and give you credibility. it's sad. it's sad that we have come -- in fact i want to quote the chairman's very words. this is a real -- hold on. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> sad state. >> several times in your testimony you state the bad things you did for mr. trump. at some point you apparently changed your course of action. there is a recurring refrain in

your testimony that says, and yet i continued to work for him. but at some point you changed. what was the breaking point at which you decided to start telling the truth? >> there are several factors. helsinki. charlottesville. watching the daily destruction of our civility to one another. putting up silly things like this. really unbecoming of congress. it's that sort of behavior that i'm responsible for. i'm responsible for your silliness, because i did the same thing that you're doing now, for ten years. i protected mr. trump for ten years. and the fact that you pull up a news article that has no value to it, and you want to use that as the premise for discrediting me, that i'm not the person that

people called at 3:00 in the morning, would make you inaccurate. in actuality it would make you a liar which puts you in the same position that i am in. i can only warn people, the more people that follow mr. trump as i did blindly, are going to suffer the same consequences that i'm suffering. >> what warning would you give young people who are tempted, as you were? would you encourage them not to wait ten years to see the light? what advice would you give young people, in particular young lawyers, so they do not abuse their bar license as you did? >> what's happened to me. i had a wonderful life. i have a beautiful wife. i have two amazing children. and i achieved financial success by the age of 39. i didn't go to work for mr. trump because i had to. i went to work for him because i wanted to. and i've lost it all. so if i'm not a picture

perfect -- that's the picture that should be up there. if i'm not a picture perfect example of what not to do, that's the example that i'm trying to set for my children. you make mistakes in life. and i've owned them. and i've taken responsibility for them. and i'm paying a huge price, as is my family. so if that in and of itself isn't enough to dissuade somebody from acting in the callous manner that i did, i'm not sure that that person has any chance, very much like i'm in right now. >> a recurring theme in your testimony is concern for your family's safety. what specifically are you most concerned about? >> well, the president, unlike my cohen for trump that has a thousand followers, he has over 60 million people. and when mr. trump turned around early in the campaign and said, i can shoot somebody on fifth avenue and get away with it, i want to be very clear, he's not

joking. he's telling you the truth. you don't know him. i do. i've sat next to that man for ten years. and i watched his back. i'm the one who started the campaign. and i'm the one who continued in 2015 to promote him. so many things i thought that he can do that are great. and he can and he is doing things that are great. but this destruction of our civility to one another is just -- it's out of control. and when he goes on twitter and he starts bringing in my in-laws, my parents, my wife, what does he think is going to happen? he's causing -- he's sending out the same message that he can do whatever he wants. this is his country. he's becoming an autocrat. and hopefully something bad will happen to me or my children or my wife so that i will not be here and testify. that's what his hope was. it was to intimidate me. and again, i thanked everybody who joined and said, this is

just not right. >> have you ever seen mr. trump personally threaten people with physical harm? >> no. he would use others. >> he would hire other people to do that? >> i'm not so sure he had to hire them. they were already working there. everybody's job at the trump organization was to protect mr. trump. every day, most of us knew we were coming in and we were going to lie for him on something. and that became the norm. and that's exactly what's happening right now in this country. it's exactly what's happening here in government, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> mr. armstrong. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, can we take a break?

>> did you ask for a break? >> i did, sir. that's okay, thank you, sir. [ inaudible ]. >> thank you. >> and good day, i'm andrea mitchell in washington where president trump's former attorney and fixer michael cohen, who has been sentenced to three years in jail for lying to congress among other crimes, had been on the stand for several hours in dramatic testimony. they've just taken their first brief break. his testimony revealing explosive and potentially damaging new details about president trump and cohen's decades-long work with his former boss, cohen calling president trump a con man, a race sxhisist and a cheat. the most striking allegation so far, that mr. trump knew of wikileaks' dump of hacked e-mails and that don junior told his father about that infamous

trump tower meeting with russians in 2015. he produced a check which he claimed was reimbursing him for his payment to stormy daniels. that check was delivered to michael cohen after the president took office. providing evidence to congress which he says backs up all of his claims. joining me now to talk about all of this, michael cohen's testimony today, matt miller, nbc news justice and security analyst and former chief spokesman for the justice department. jeremy bash, nbc news national security analyst, former chief of staff at both the cia and the pentagon. msnbc anchor katy tur who was on the campaign trail with the president from the beginning and has firsthand experience with much of this testimony. and mimi rocah, nbc news legal analyst and former assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. first to you, jeremy bash, you were a former counsel to the house intelligence committee, among your other titles.

as a lawyer and as a former counsel on one of these investigative committees, what is your takeaway? >> a lot of sound and heat. but when you cut through it, andrea, here are the crimes for which evidence was presented today. first, bank fraud. documents propounded by the trump organization to deutsche bank to help donald trump buy the buffalo bills, according to michael cohen, contained fraudulent, false information. second, campaign finance violations. the checks to reimburse michael cohen to pay the hush money to the adult film actress. third, false ethics filings. fifth, false charitable activities and fraudulent financial activities of the trump charity. and then two things related to russia. one is that he knew that roger stone had called trump and said we know about the hacked e-mails being dumped in advance. >> he was in the room and heard it on a speakerphone, he says. >> that's right. and second, that he had strong suspicions that donald trump

knew about the trump tower meeting in june 2016, approved it, and that he would not have allowed donald junior to do anything without donald trump sr.'s permission. >> there was a whispered conversation he says he heard between don junior and his father. matt miller, following up on that, the implications for the president, assuming that the justice department procedures and reg s obtain, and that ther isn't going to be legal action against the president, what are the implications of this kind of testimony? >> i think it depends, if the justice department is able to corroborate it. if you look at the allegations he made, this conversation that he says that he overheard the president have with roger stone, there probably would be corroboration of that. at the very least, there would be phone records of roger stone calling the president's office, bob mueller would be able to obtain that. if you go back and look at the indictment of roger stone, mueller alleged in that filing that stone had contacted senior campaign officials, he didn't say who, didn't say if it was donald trump or others, in june

or july and informed them that wikileaks dumps were coming. so the statement that michael cohen made today would track what mueller has already alleged in court, at least with respect to informing senior campaign officials. i think the question with all of these, both with the evidence that he put on the record today about russia and the new evidence he put on the record about campaign finance violations is, what is going to be made available to congress? i think you're right that this question for the justice department, they still don't think they can indict a sitting president, but we now have a witness alleging crimes by the president under oath, on the record in front of congress and the american people. the justice department apparently has evidence to back that up, has some evidence to back that up. they need to make it available to congress. >> now, just to follow up on this, this is a witness whose credibility has been challenged. we can talk about the republican members going after him. he has acknowledged, admitted, pleaded guilty to lying to congress. he's going to jail for three years on may 6th, at least by may 6th, unless there's a delay.

>> i think actually one of the biggest takeaways from today, party from all these new factual revelations, is michael cohen's demeanor and the way he's held up under questioning from republican members of congress. they've been pushing hard. they're attack on him is that he's a liar, ever reconciling the fact that the reason he was lying was he was covering up for donald trump, the president they're trying to protect. one of the moments in the hearing, this exchange with congressman paul gosar where he said, look, i was doing for years what you're doing now, you're continuing to cover up for donald trump. i think that's the question all of them have to ask themselves. there's an odd dynamic in this hearing that michael cohen, an admitted liar, a person we all watched during the campaign do interviews and perform, i will say, perform poorly. he behaved thuggishly during the campaign. he's the person speaking from a position of modern authority here versus these house republicans. if i were them, i would ask myself, how have i put myself in

that position that i'm the one coming off worse in these exchanges than someone who is now a convicted felon? >> katy tur joining us from new york, katy, you know michael cohen, you've covered the entire campaign. you were a witness and in fact the questioner on july 27th who asked the question that got donald trump to say, you know, russia, if you're listening. and now what we're hearing is that before that even happened, there was in conversation with roger stone. >> yeah. >> about the wikileaks dump. i want to ask you about all that. but my other takeaway is, he's not overpromising. he's at various times saying, i don't know that or i can't say that or i had suspicions. does that contribute to his credibility as a witness? >> oh, i think it does. i think if he is overpromising and he's saying that he has proof of collusion, and he doesn't actually offer that proof, then that would cut away at his credibility. but you're right, he does say in his opening statement and he's answered questions that he does not have direct proof that the

trump campaign or donald trump himself colluded or conspired with russia. but he does say that he has his suspicions. there were a couple of interesting moments, and we'll get back to the july 27th presser in a moment, but michael cohen said at one point that donald trump's desire to win would have him work with anybody. he knows donald trump well. and he knew that he had a big desire to win. he also said, because donald trump didn't think he would win, the negotiations for trump tower moscow were business as usual, that he would often stop michael cohen in the halls or by the elevator and ask him how the negotiations for trump tower moscow were going, while donald trump was still campaigning to be president. and then carolyn maloney of new york asked a pretty significant question, and we all noticed it in here. she asked michael cohen, before you had a meeting of consequence with anybody, did you have to tell donald trump about it. and he responded yes, i did.

and she said, did you have to report back to donald trump about a meeting of consequence? and he said yes, i did. that dovetails with how michael cohen describes the trump tower meeting in june of 2016 with don junior, paul manafort, jared kushner, and a russian lawyer offering dirt on hillary clinton. cohen is alleging that don junior would have to go to his dad for that because it was a meet of consequence. don junior has completely denied that. one last thing, july 27th, 2016, that news conference where donald trump asked, russia, if you're listening, find hillary clinton's e-mails, in his opening statement cohen said donald trump knew about that because there was a phone call between him and roger stone where roger stone said i spoke to julian assange before the democratic national convention. that it would mean that donald

trump did have a conversation, if this is true, before that about this e-mail dump. also important to note here, and one caveat, that july 22nd, which is five days before that news conference, the dnc e-mails started to be released. so the hack was already out there. that's part of the reason why this came up during that news conference. still, andrea, and you know this, we all know this, and we keep coming back to it, it was a seminal moment because it seemed to come out of nowhere. why would a presidential candidate ask a foreign entity to hack into the systems, the e-mails of anybody in this country, a private citizen, a political foe, anybody? why would he do it? donald trump was adamant he just wanted to see those e-mails and that everybody should get to see them. >> and to mimi rocah, there's been a lot of conversation back and forth, and there was in one of the questions to him from one of the republican members just now, about what he has to gain

by appearing here and that he was hoping for a lighter sentence. he made the point that that would not get him a lighter sentence, that he could not get any benefit. obviously the other cooperation perhaps with prosecutors, but they already know all this stuff. but you've worked in that southern district. is there anything that he could do here today in this venue that would improve his posture as far as his penalty is concerned? >> so, yes is the short answer. but it's a little complicated, a little more complicated than it would be for a person normally trying to seek a lighter sentence. first of all, he has sort of a carrot and a stick here incentive to tell the truth. the stick is with robert mueller's office, because he is under a cooperation agreement with them. if he says anything here that is untruthful, that the special counsel's office would certainly know, right, i mean, they have more evidence than cohen does and they have more evidence than we do. if they figure out that he is

lying in some way, if they determine that, they can rip up his agreement with them and he is susceptible for being prosecuted for crimes he had immunity for in that agreement. he would be subject to more jail time in addition to possible charges for perjury for lying here. that's the stick. the carrot, as far as the southern district of new york, cohen said something today that i think confirms what has sort of been out there as speculation, that it seems like he's continuing to work directly with the southern district of new york. so i think he's trying to get what's called a rule 35, a post-sentence reduction. in order to do that, he will have to provide actual assistance to the southern district of new york in their investigations. but if he does that and they then write a letter to the judge saying, okay, he's provided assistance to us, now he should get a reduction in his sentence, the fact that he's also testified truthfully in front of congress will also go into that

letter. and it's certainly but tsomethie judge will consider because they look at the person as a whole. so standing alone, this testimony won't get him a reduction. but his incentive to tell the truth here is huge, because it will also allow that to go into a letter if the southern district ends up writing one. and it will be very important in a judge's consideration of whether his sentence should be reduced. >> as we watch michael cohen walking back in from this break, ken dilanian has joined us. one of the quick points, ken, he testified in his statement that mr. trump's lawyers, his personal lawyers have proved his testimony is inaccurate, testimony to congress. >> that could be a very important point. if i were congress, i would want to call all those people to testify and find out what they knew. it's important to remember cohen was a personal lawyer to the president at that time. and he really went a little further in this testimony than his lawyers did in court in saying that the president implicitly asked him to lie about the timing of the trump tower meeting.

look, we've known a lot of these details but this reemphasizes the idea that during the presidential campaign, donald trump had a real estate deal that required vladimir putin's approval from which he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars. we know that. but cohen's testimony is presenting it before the public in a new way today. >> garrett haake outside the room there, there is the political impact of this. and of course we've got a split screen day because a couple of hours from now they'll be back in that one on one expanded and the guts of the summit in vietnam, in hanoi. garrett, we'll probably be gaveling down, but if you just want to comment very briefly. i may have to interrupt you. >> yeah, might have been this is part of the republicans' frustration here, they see this entire procedure as a distraction from the president's trip abroad, and they're hitting michael cohen and their fellow democrats for that. >> and we're going to go back to the hearing. the chairman is about to resume. >> -- omitted information from

his personal financial statements to induce a bank lend based on incomplete information, end quote. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> you lied on financial documents. so you lied to financial institutions in order to secure loans. so we've established that you you lied on your taxes. you lie to banks. you've been convicted of lying to congress. it seems to me there's not much that you won't lie about when you stand to gain from it. in fact the prosecutors from the southern district of new york noted that each of your crimes, quote, bear common sense characteristics which each involving deception and being motivated by your personal agreed and ambition. is your appearance here today motivated by your desire to remain in the spotlight for your personal benefit? >> no, ma'am. >> you have sought out ways to rehabilitate your image from tax evader, bank swindler, and all around liar, to an honorable, truthful man by appearing before cable news. i'm concerned you could be using

your story and this congressional platform for your personal benefit. such as a desire to make money from book deals. so can you commit under oath that you have not and will not pursue a book or movie deal based on your experiences working for the president? >> no. >> you cannot commit to making money off of a book or movie deal based on your work? >> no. what i just -- there's two parts to your question. the first part of your question, you asked me whether or not i had spoken to people regarding a possible book deal. and i have. and i've spoken to people who have sought me out regarding a movie deal. >> i didn't ask you if you had spoken to anybody. i said can you commit under oath that you will not, that you have not and will not pursue a book

deal. >> and i will not do that, no. >> okay. can you commit under oath that you will not pursue opportunities to provide commentary for a major news network based on your experiences working for the president? >> no. >> can you commit under oath that you will not pursue political office in the state of new york? >> no. >> so you don't commit to changing your ways, basically, because you want to continue to use your background as a liar, a cheater, a convicted liar, to make money? that's what you want to do? >> and that's going to get me a book deal and a movie deal and television -- and a spot on television? i don't think so. >> well, it appears that it will. i yield my remainder of my time. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding. in december of last year you

said i want to apologizie to th people of the united states, you deserve to know the truth. approximately a month later buzzfeed news ran a story that was the story of the country for a couple of days, january 17th, 2019. on january 18th your counsel went on tv and wouldn't confirm or deny the story. the next day the special counsel's office did something that's never happened, never happened. they said the description of specific statements to the special counsel's office and the characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office regarding michael cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate. why didn't your lawyer, the day that he's on tv when this story is the biggest thing in the news in the country, why didn't he deny the buzzfeed story? >> because i didn't think it was his responsibility to do that. we are not the fact checkers for buzzfeed. >> he's on tv to talk about the very story. you committed to the court when you were trying to get your sentence reduced, that the american people deserved to know the truth. you had the golden opportunity to give them the truth on a

false story, the buzzfeed story, and your lawyer didn't say a thing. he actually said this, i can't confirm, i can't deny. you had an opportunity to do exactly what you told the judge you were going to do one month after you said it and you didn't do it. why not? >> again, it wasn't our responsibility to be the fact checker for the news agencies. sir, please let me -- the president says so far, approximately 9,000 -- >> i've got eight seconds. i'll let you finish. >> chairman, can i please finish? >> they said that story was false. now you can respond. >> my response, the president has told something over 9,000 lies to date. i asked mr. davis and mr. monaco, do i go on television in order to correct his statements? >> when it's --

>> listen up. the gentleman's time is expired. you may finish answering the question and then we're going to go to mr. connolly. >> all i wanted to say is i just find it interesting, sir, that between yourself and your colleagues, that not one question so far has been asked about president trump. that's actually why i thought i was coming today, not to confess to the mistakes that i've made. i've already done that. and i'll do it again every time you ask me about taxes or mistakes, yes, i made my mistakes, i'll say it now again. and i'm going to pay the ultimate price. but i'm not here today and the american people don't care about my taxes. they want to know what it is that i know about mr. trump. and not one question so far has been asked about mr. trump. >> mr. connolly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. well, mr. cohen, based on your testimony and your ten-year

experience, i think you can recognize the behavior you're being subjected to on the other side of the aisle. discredit, slander. >> yes. >> use any trick in the book to prevent your testimony from sticking. the idea that a witness would come to us who is flawed, and you certainly are flawed, means they can never tell the truth. and there is no validity whatsoever to a single word they say, would discredit every single criminal trial of organized crime in the history of the united states, because all of them depend on someone who has turned. it would make rico null and void, we didn't use it anymore. this congress historically has relied on all kinds of shady figures who turned. one of the most famous, who led to the decapitation of organized

crime families in america, in a congressional hearing, he was a witness and he committed a lot worse crimes than you're convicted of, mr. cohen. so don't be fooled by what my friend on the other side of the aisle are trying to do today. it is, do everything but focus on the principle known as individual number 1 in the southern district of new york, as i recall. is that correct, mr. cohen? >> that is correct. >> now, mr. cohen, i want to ask you about something that's not in your testimony and that so far has not been made public. in our committee staff's search of documents provided by the white house that were otherwise redacted or already in the public, and i guess the white house thought that was funny, they made one mistake, the white house. there was an e-mail from a special assistant to the president to a deputy white house counsel. and the e-mail is dated may 16th, 2017. and it says, and i quote, potus, meaning the president, requested a meeting on thursday with

michael cohen and jay sekulow. any idea what this might be about, end quote. do you recall being asked to come to the white house on or around that time? with mr. sekulow? may of 2017. >> off the top of my head, sir, i don't. i recall being in the white house with jay sekulow. it was in regard to the documents, the document production as well as my appearance before the house select intel. but i'm not sure if that's specifically -- what i will do is i will check all my records and i'm more than happy to provide you with any documentation or a response to this question. >> you sort of touched on the, presumably, the purpose of the discussion, at least among

others. this occurred, this meeting occurred just before your testimony before the select committee on intelligence here in the house; is that correct? >> i believe so, yes. >> was that a topic of conversation with the president himself? >> if this is the specifyiic instance that i was there with mr. sekulow, yes. >> so you had a conversation with the president of the united states about your impending testimony before the house intelligence committee; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> what was the nature of that conversation? >> he wanted me to cooperate. he also wanted just to ensure, i'm making the statement and i said it in my testimony, there is no russia, there is no collusion, there is no -- there is no deal. he goes, it's all a witch hunt. and he goes, this stuff has to end. >> did you take those comments to be suggestive of what might

flavor your testimony? >> sir, he's been saying that to me for many, many months. and at the end of the day, i knew exactly what he wanted me to say. >> and why was mr. sekulow in the meeting? >> because he was going to be representing mr. trump going forward as one of his personal attorneys in this matter. >> so it was sort of a hand-off meeting? >> correct. >> in any way, final question, did the president in any way coach you in terms of how to respond to questions or the content of your testimony before a house committee? >> again, it's difficult to answer, because he doesn't tell you what he wants. what he does is, again, michael, there's no russia, there's no collusion, there's no involvement, there's no interference. i know what he means because i've been around him for so long. so if you're asking me whether

or not that's the message, that's staying on point, that's the party line that he created, that so many others are now touting, yes, that's the message that he wanted to reinforce. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. massie. >> mr. cohen, can you clarify, did you just say you did at times what mr. trump wanted you to do, not specifically what he's told you to do? >> at advertisementimes, yes. >> so you just went on your intuition? >> i don't know if i would call it intuition as much as i would just say, my knowledge of what he wanted. because it happened before, and i knew what he wanted. >> does a lawyer have a duty to provide his client with good legal advice? >> yes. >> were you a good lawyer to mr. trump? >> i believe so. >> when you arranged a payment to ms. clifford, you stay in your testimony, i'm going to quote from your testimony, that you did so, quote, without

bothering to consider whether that was improper, much less whether it was the right thing to do. you said that. unquote. that's your testimony today. you said you didn't even consider whether it would be legal. how could you give your client legal advice when you're not even considering whether it's legal? >> i did what i knew mr. trump wanted. this conversation with mr. trump -- >> i didn't ask whether you were a good fixer. i asked whether you awere a goo lawyer. >> sometimes you have to meld both together. i needed to at that time ensure and protect mr. trump, and if i put my -- which i'm clearly, clearly suffering the penalty of, i clearly erred on the side of wrong. >> so you feel like, without bothering to consider whether it was proper much less whether it was the right thing to do, by ignoring any conscience, if you have one, that you were

protecting mr. trump? >> i'm sorry, sir. i don't understand. >> you feel that was how to proba protect -- as his lawyer, you feel you did a good job, you said you were a good lawyer, right? is that being a good lawyer to not even consider whether it's legal or not? >> i didn't work for the campaign. i was working and i was trying to protect mr. trump. i sat with mr. trump. this goes back all the way to 2011. this wasn't the first scenario with miss daniels. so -- >> let's go back. >> my point is, this was an ongoing situation. it didn't just start in october -- sir, you have to let me finish. it started -- it didn't start in october. it started many years earlier. >> when were you disbarred? >> yesterday, from what i read in the paper. >> yesterday. when should you have been disbarred based on the legal counsel you were giving your

client? >> i don't have an answer for your question. >> how long were you counsel for mr. trump? >> since 2007. >> when is the first time you gave him bad legal advice or failed to inform him of his legal obligations as you testified today, you did in the case of the payment to miss clifford? when was the first time you did that? would that qualify for disbarment? >> i don't know, sir. i'm not the bar association. >> i think you should consult with them maybe occasionally on some of these things. >> what's the point now? i lost my law license. >> has anybody else promised to pay mr. davis for representing you? >> no. >> nobody has? >> no. are you offering? >> question, quickly. you said, and this is also in your testimony, in the days before the democratic convention, you became privy to a conversation that some of hillary clinton's e-mails would

be leaked; is that correct? >> correct. >> okay. was that in, you said, late july, do you know the exact day? >> i believe it was either the 18th or the 19th. and i would guess that it would be on the 19th. >> it was definitely july? >> i believe so, yes. >> do you know that was public knowledge in june? this was mr. assange, i would like to submit this, with unanimous consent to submit this for the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> mr. assange reported to the media on june 12th that those e-mails would be leaked. i'm not saying you have fake news. i'm saying you have old news. and there's really not much to that. i would like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. higgins. >> thank you, sir. mr. cohen, i'm quoting you from earlier, you said, i spent last week looking through boxes to find documents that would support your accusations. where are those boxes? in your garage?

>> they're in storage. >> are these not boxes that should have been turned over to authorities during the many investigations you're subject to? >> these were boxes that were returned to me. >> should they not have been turned over or remanded to investigative authorities? did mr. lanny davis know of these boxes? >> the gentleman's time has expired. you may answer the question. >> i don't understand his question. >> very well. >> mr. krishnamoorthi. >> thank you, mr. cohen, for voluntarily testifying this morning. you were the executive vice president and special counsel for the trump organization, correct? >> i was the executive vice president, special counsel to donald j. trump. >> and special counsel means you were the attorney for him, is that right? >> it just means i was there in order to handle matters that he felt were significant and important to him individually.

>> and those included legal matters? >> yes, sir. >> sir, as a former attorney, you're familiar with legal documents known as nondisclosure agreements or ndas, is that right? >> yes. >> sir, i'm sure you know that ndas, properly written in scope, can be reasonable in certain business contexts but they can also be abused to create a chilling effect to silence people, as we've seen in the "me too" movement and other places; isn't that right, mr. cohen? >> yes. >> and mr. cohen, the trump organization used ndas stech extensively, is that right? >> that is correct. >> i'm reading a "washington post" article where the terms of one of these ndas were described as very broad. for instance, the terms "confidential information" was defined to be anything that, quote, mr. trump insists remain private or confidential including but not limited to any

information with respect to the personal life, political affairs, and/or business affairs of mr. trump or any family member, close quote. do those terms sound familiar to you? >> i've seen that document. >> in fact there's class action lawsuit filed this month by former trump chain worker jessica denson that this nda language is illegal because it is too broad, too vague, and would be used to retaliate against employees who complain of illegality or wrongdoing. would you agree that in the use of these types of ndas with this type of language, and later, when donald trump sought to enforce them, that he intended to prevent people from coming forward with claims of wrongdoing? >> yes. >> would you agree that the effect of the use of these ndas and their enforcement was to have a chilling effect on people or silence them from coming

forward? >> i apologize, if you want to define "chilling." >> oh, just that he would -- in using these ndas or trying to enforce them, would basically try to keep people silent. >> that was the goal. >> and nothing at the trump organization was ever done without it being run through donald trump; is that correct? >> that's 100% certain. >> mr. cohen, do you believe there are people out there today, either from the president's business or personal life, who are not coming forward to tell their stories of wrongdoing because of the president's use of ndas against them? >> i'm sorry, sir, i don't know the answer to that question. >> okay. sir, i have a couple of other questions for you. when was the last communication with president trump or someone acting on his behalf? >> i don't know the specific date, but it was a while ago.

>> okay. do you have a general time frame? >> i would suspect it was within two months post the raid of my home. >> okay. >> hotel. >> so early fall of last year, generally? >> generally. >> and what did he or his agent communicate to you? >> unfortunately, this topic is actually something that's being investigated right now by the southern district of new york. and i've been asked by them not to discuss and not to talk about these issues. >> fair enough. is there any other wrongdoing or illegal act that you are aware of regarding donald trump that we haven't yet discussed today? >> yes. and again, those are part of the investigation that's currently being looked at by the southern district of new york. >> sir, congressman cooper asked you about whether you were aware

of any physical violence committed by president trump. i just have a couple of quick questions. do you have any knowledge of purchas president trump abusing any controlled substances? >> i'm not aware of that, no. >> do you have any knowledge of president trump being delinquent on any alimony or childcare payments? >> i'm not aware of any of that. >> do you have any knowledge of president trump arranging any health care procedures for any women not in his family? >> i'm not aware of that, no. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. cloud. >> thank you, chairman. mr. cohen, can you tell me the significance of may 6th? >> in terms of, sir? >> a couple of months from now. >> that's the day that i need to surrender to federal prison. >> yes, sir. could you for the record state what you've been convicted of? >> i've been convicted on five counts of tax evasion.

there's one count of misrepresentation of documents to a bank. there's two counts, one dealing with campaign finance for karen mcdougal. one count of campaign finance violation for stormy daniels. as well as lying to congress. >> thank you. can you state what your official title with the campaign was? >> i did not have a campaign title. >> and your position in the trump administration? >> i did not have one. >> in today's testimony you said that you were not looking to work in the white house. the southern district of new york in their statement, their sentencing memo, says this. cohen's criminal violations in the federal election laws were also stirred, like other crimes, by his own ambition and agreed. cohen told other friends and colleagues that he expected to be given a prominent role in the new information. when that did not materialize,

cohen found a way to monetize his relationship and access with the president. were they lying or were you lying today? >> i'm not saying it's a lie. i'm just saying it's not accurate. i did not want to go to the white house. i retained -- and i brought an attorney in and i sat with mr. trump with him for well over an hour, explaining the importance of having a personal attorney, that every president has had one, in order to handle matters like the matters i was dealing with, which included summer -- >> i reclaim my time. >> -- stormy daniels -- >> excuse me. i ask unanimous consent to submit this sentencing memo from the southern district of new york. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i'll get it to you in a second. this memo states that you

committed four distinct federal crimes over a period of several years. you were motivated to do so by personal agreed and repeatedly used your power to influence for deceptive ends. it goes on to say that you were -- that they each involved -- they were distinct in their harms but bear a common set of characteristics, involve deception and were motivated by agreed and ambition. there's a lot we don't know in this investigation but here's what we do know, that you were expecting a job at the white house and didn't get it, you made millions lying about your close access to the president, you have a history of lying for personal gain, including that's banks, about your account ant, law enforcement, your family, the congress, the american people. the southern district of new york, you've said you did all of this out of blind loyalty to mr. trump but your sentencing memo states this. this was not an act out of blind loyalty as cohen suggests. cohen was driven by a desire to further ingratiate himself with

potential future president for whom political success cohen himself claimed credit for. now, we're in a search for truth. and i don't know, chairman, how we're supposed to ascertain the truth in this quagmire of a hearing when the best witness we can bring before us is already convicted of lying before us. what's sad is the american people have seen this play out before. ople have seen this playt before you're set to go to jail for a couple of years and come out with a multimillion book deal, that's not bad living. will you commit to donate proceeds to charity? >> no. >> i yield my time. >> will the gentleman yield? >> may i finish? >> would the gentleman yield?

>> yield to mr. meadows. >> mr. chairman, may i finish my response? >> i'll let you respond. >> mr. cohen, everything has been made of your lies in the past. i'm concerned about your lies today. under your testimony, just a few minutes ago, to me, you indicated that you had contracts with foreign entities. and yet we have a truth in testimony disclosure form which requires you to list those foreign contracts for the last two years. and you put "n.a." on there. and it's a criminal offense to not have that accurately. so when were you lying? either on the testimony to me earlier today or when you filled out the form? >> the gentleman's time is expired. mr. cohen, you may answer his question, and then whatever you want to say on that.

>> these questions, i don't have an answer for his question, but -- >> no, no. no, no. mr. chairman. >> as it relates -- >> the gentleman is out of order. he said he does not have an answer. >> mr. chairman, when doesn't have an answer. and you have gone over your tim. >> he's under oath. >> he's under oath to tell the truth. one of them is not accurate, mr. chairman. >> you will have time to answer the question. >> mr. chairman, a question, just a question. >> mr. harass kin. >> mr. cohen, thank you for your come pore you are today. they are not upset because you lied to the president. they are upset because you stopped lying to congress for the president. now, you described the trump campaign as a once in a lifetime money making opportunity, the greatest infomercial of all time, i think you said. and this may be the most

trenchent observation of your testimony. do you think the trump campaign or presidency ever stopped being about making money for the president, his family and his organization? >> yes. >> when did it stop being that? >> when he won the election. >> what did it become about at that point? >> then it had to be about figuring out what to do here in washington. >> can you carefully explain to america how the hush money payments to karen mcdougal and stormy daniels worked? can you carefully explain what catch and kill is? >> sure. i received a phone call regarding both karen mcdougal as well as stormy daniels, obviously different times, stating that there were issues that were going to be damaging to mr. trump. with stormy daniels it started in 2011 when she wanted to have something removed from the website. that was the first time i spoke

with keith davids, her acting attorney. we were successful in having it taken down from the website. it wasn't till years later, by around the time of the campaign, did they come back and they asked, what are you going to do now, because she's back on the trail trying to sell the story, at which point in time david pecker, on behalf of the "national enquirer," reached out to her and her attorney in order to go take a look at, um, lie detector test that would prove that she was telling the truth. they then contacted me and told me that she was telling the truth, at which point, again, all the time -- >> she took a lie detector test? >> she allegedly took a lie detector test and was seen by an employee of the "national enquirer," at which point in time i went into mr. trump's office, i explained this time it's different than another

time. >> when you say another time, were there other women paid hush money by mr. trump and his organization? was this a standard operating procedure? >> no. >> you're not aware of any other cases that it took place? >> i'm not aware of any cases mr. trump paid. this brings us to karen mcdougal. he was supposed to pay $125,000 for the life story of karen mcdougal. for whatever the reason may be, he elected not to pay it. david pecker was very angry because there was also other monies that david had expended on his behalf. unfortunately, david never got paid back for that either. >> so david pecker had done this in other cases of other mistresses or women? >> other circumstances, yes. >> okay. >> not all of them had to do with women. >> are you aware of anything that the president has done at home or abroad that may have subjected him to or may subject him to extortion or blackmail? >> i am not, no. >> okay.

are you aware of any videotapes that may be the subject of extortion or blackmail? >> i've heard about these tapes for a long time. i've had many people contact me over the years. i have no reason to believe that that tape exists. >> in december 2015, donald trump was asked about his relationship with felix saider, a convicted felon and real estate developer. he replied, felix saider, body, have to think about it. i'm not that familiar with him. why did trump endeavor to hide his relationship with felix saider and what was his relationship? >> well, he certainly had a relationship. felix was a partner in a company called bay rock that was involved in the deal of the trump soho hotel as well as i believe the trump fort lauderdale project. why did he want to distance himself? that's what mr. trump does, he distances himself when things go bad for someone. at that point in time it was going bad for mr. saider.

>> you said you lied to congress about trump's negotiations to build his moscow tower because he'd made it clear to you that he wanted you to lie. one of the reasons you knew this is, quote, mr. trump's personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to congress about the timing of the moscow tower negotiations before i gave it. so this is a pretty breath taking claim, and i just want to get to the facts here. which specific lawyers reviewed and edited your statement to congress on the moscow tower negotiations? and did they make any changes to your statement? >> there were changes made, additions. jay sekulow, for one -- >> were there changes about the timing, the question -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. you may answer that question. >> there were several changes that were made, including how we were going to handle that message which was -- >> were you finished? >> yes. the message, of course, being the length of time that the trump tower moscow project

stayed and remained alive. >> that was one of the changes? >> yes. >> first of all, i'd like to clear up something that bothers me. you started off your testimony and you said i think in response to some question that president trump never expected to win. i just want to clarify that i dealt with president trump several times as he was trying to get wisconsin. he was always confident. he was working very hard. and this idea that somehow he was just running to raise his profile for some future venture, at least in my experience, is preposterous. i find it offensive when anti-trump people imply that he did this on a lark and didn't expect to win. but be that as it may, my first question concerns your relationship with the court. do you expect -- i mean, right now i think you're sentenced to three years, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> do you expect any time, using

this testimony, other testimony after you get done doing whatever you're going to do this week, do you ever expect to go back and ask for any sort of reduction in sentence? >> yes. there are ongoing investigations currently being conducted that have nothing to do with this committee or congress that i am assisting in. and it is for the benefit of a rule 35 motion, yes. >> so you expect, and perhaps what you testify here today will affect, going back and reducing this what we think is a relatively light three-year sentence, you expect to go back and ask for a further reduction? >> based off of my appearance here today? >> well, based upon whatever you do between now and your request for -- >> the rule 35 motion is in the complete hands of the southern district of new york. and the way the rule 35 motion works is what you're supposed to do is provide them with

information that leads to ongoing investigations. i am currently working with them right now on several other issues of investigation that concerns them that they are looking at. if those investigations become fruitful, then there is a possibility for a rule 35 motion, and i don't know what the benefit in terms of time would be. but this congressional hearing today is not going to be the basis of a rule 35 motion. i wish it was, but it's not. >> i'd like to yield some time to congressman jordan. >> i yield to the gentleman from north carolina. >> mr. cohen, i'm going to come back to the question i asked before with regard to your false statement that you submitted to congress. on here it was very clear that it asked for contracts with foreign entities over the last two years. have you had any foreign contract with foreign entities, whether