remember, michael cohen was representing ec, llc. it was ec, llc that entered into this contract. donald trump was a third party beneficiary. >> does that make sense to you? >> it doesn't. donald trump was not a third party beneficiary. under the law of california, he was a signatory to the agreement. what mr. cohen has said is as follows, that he negotiated this on his own, that he undertook all of this effort, and that at no point in time did his close friend and client, donald trump, know anything about it. he didn't know about the negotiation. he didn't know about the agreement. and he didn't know about the payment. i have a very simple question, anderson. if all of that is believable, then why did mr. cohen draft an agreement with a signature line for donald trump? >> very simple -- >> if donald trump was never going to be a party to the agreement and if he didn't want to bother donald trump with the agreement, and if donald trump was too busy campaigning for president to know anything about the agreement, and mr. cohen was going to do this on his own and wasn't going to both

cohen that there was no linkage between ec, llc and the trump organization. mr. trump maintained that he formed that llc on his own. >> that he did it out of loyalty. >> he expects the american people to believe that he spent all this time and energy doing all of this work and the president knew anything about it and no one in the organization knew anything about it. the trump organization e-mails. we now have these documents. the statement that was provided by ms. martin is demonstratively false. the first document that you showed your viewers, it designates ms. martin as a legal representative of ec, llc. >> and she is a full time employee as evidence by the state bar. and so there can be no question that the trump organization was representing ec, llc in connection with this arbitration and we need to remember the focus of the arbitration. the focus of this filing in february was to gag my client, put a muzzle on her and prevent her from speaking and that is why they filed the arbitration to obtain what is called a temporary restraining order. so this idea that

it lists ec, llc as the party seeing relief. those initials stand for essential consultants, the company created by michael cohen to funnel cash payment of $130,000 to ms. daniels in return for a promise to keep quiet about the reported affair, which ms. daniels claims began in 2006 and lasted through 2007. as more and more comes out about the story, mr. cohen has continued to deny the affair ever happened, but has acknowledged the payment saying just last month, quote, in a private transaction in 2016, i used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to ms. stephanie clifford. neither the trump organization nor the trump campaign was party to the transaction, and neither reimbursed me for the payment either directly or indirectly. the trump organization may not have been a party to that transaction, but it's pretty clear one of its attorneys is involved in this case, and it's certainly not the first time she's defended donald trump. in fact, here she is in october 2016 just after that access hollywood tape surfa

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 himse

the agreement is between tomorrow my and ec llc. it says and/or. he was representing the llc.y legal for michael cohen to represents that llc. and entering the agreement. it was a valid agreement and donald trump -- >> why have david dennison name in there. >> it could be a third party beneficiary to every single contract. that's what happens here. michael cohen is acting in the best interests of his client and his client is a third party beneficia beneficiary. >> does he have to tell his that third party, his bieneficiary that he's entering into an agreement. >> no, he does not have to because he's in-house council. he was general council to that organization. >> right, you are saying he's general council for the trump organization so he's there for representing donald trump. >> well, he was representing ec llc., that was created to entering into this dpreeagreeme. there was a quick probe and considerations on both sides and now he's going to break that agreement, okay? >> okay, pardon me, i am not a lawyer so i am not as smart as you guys. if he's entering into an agreement

remember, michael cohen was representing ec, llc. it was ec, llc that entered into this contract. donald trump was a third party beneficiary. >> does that make sense to you? >> it doesn't. donald trump was not a third party beneficiary under the law of california. he was a signatory to the agreement. if donald trump was never going to be a party to the agreement and if he didn't want to bother donald trump with the agreement and if donald trump was too busy campaigning for president to know anything about the agreement and mr. cohen was going to do this on his own and wasn't going to bother mr. trump, then why take the effort to draft the agreement to make donald trump a signatory to the agreement? >> that's painting a fictional picture of the whole scenario. there's an or there. it could be ec, llc -- >> why have a line for donald trump? >> they left it open for either/or. >> what about -- >> ec, llc, entered into the contract. >> no. he's saying if donald trump had nothing to do with this, why have a line -- >> he has everything to do with it. he was a third party beneficiary. y

they name jill martin representing ec llc.essential consultant, the company michael cohen set up for the $130,000 payment. assistant general counsel at the trump organization. you might remember she spoke on behalf of candidate trump during the 2016 election. this would make her the second employee at the trump organization who now has a direct involvement in the stormy daniels related legal matters. jill martin put out a statement and i also talked to her on the phone yesterday. she insists she did this in her private capacity and with the exception of herself, the trump organization is not involved in stormy daniels' related matters. it raises questions about michael cohen's previous statements that he acted entirely on his own. two other things to quickly mention, first of all, stormy daniels's lawyer michael avenatti is saying there are other women who might be considering taking legal action against president trump. we'll try to find out what he is talking about. we have a new friend of stormy daniels speaking out. he say

the settlement agreement and mutual release, yada yada, by and between ec, llc and/or david dennison. doesn't the and/or mean that ec was capable in and of itself as resolving and settling this action? why else would there be an and/or clause? >> and/or is a term of art in the legal profession and under california law, it is found to be a plural use of the term. it is in the conjungtive. if you look at paragraph 8.6 of the agreement it specifies if the agreement is not signed by all parties it's invalid. >> okay. >> 8.6. >> back to where -- i come back to where i began which is shouldn't she refuse to have taken the 130 "k" until there was full execution? >> well, i mean, that certainly was an option. that's not what happened and so we look at where we stand now and where we stand now is that we have got an agreement that was never signed by all parties. which is required under california law. and expressly required under paragraph 8.6 in the agreement. we are highly confident that this agreement is going to be tossed out and if it's tossed out she's prepared to return the money. >> i

cohen and the entity ec, llc, sent e-mail correspondence to me, threatening if miss daniels continuestalk, she may be suth subje subjected to significant additional damages. >> darren, do you think stormy daniels, her attorney, do you think they have some sort of evidence that trump or the campaign really forced her into silence? >> i think there is good evidence there and they're doing the right thing by seeking declaratory judgment by a court and that's when one party is unclear about their rights and responsibilities and go into court to get a judge to issue an order about what they can or cannot do. so now once they're into court, the judge basically has two options. he or she can set it for an evidentiary hearing and allow that to go forward or, according to this hush agreement, it calls for a binding arbitration in the event of any dispute. the most critical question in my mind off the bat is who the judge that will be deciding this? that could tell us which way or the other this could lean. and then, of course, what counsel is referring to there in terms of the significant dama

cohen and the entity ec, llc sent e-mail correspondence to me threatening that if ms. daniels continues to talk, she may be subjected to significant additional damages. >> let's bring in legal analyst laura coates who is carefully studying all this. what is the biggest question from stormy daniels' side? >> first of all, if you hear somebody say there's been threats or intimidation to silence a witness, you think about things like witness tampering and acting on duress. one of the questions you have to ask is, has michael cohen specifically threatened her? is it something physical? has he done something verbal? or in the contract are you using that as a means of arbitration to silence you as he did back in 2017. if that's all it is, that's not illegal in a legal context. why did you wait a year to question the validity of a contract? there is either an offer, acceptance and consideration. how that plays out here would be, i'm going to offer you some money to not talk about the alleged sexual encounter with then-private citizen donald trump. okay, i accept your offer. w

cohen and the entity ec, llc sent e-mail correspondence to me threatening if miss daniels continues tosubjected to additional damages. >> the white house doing its best to downplay the story. press secretary sarah sanders saying quote the arbitration was won in the president's favor to which the lawyer said yeah, he also won the popular vote. danie daniels' lawyer may be on to somebody here. a copy of the restraining order clearly states it is an interim order and can be modified. for more here is jeff zeleny at the white house. >> reporter: christine and dave, the white house is dealing with questions about stormy daniels, the adult actress and porn star and her relationship with president trump before the campaign in 2016. was there hush money paid to her? that has been unfolding for the last several days. the white house press briefing on wednesday, i asked sarah sanders, the white house press secretary, if the president knew about the payment. >> did he know about the payment at the time? >> i addressed this as far as i can go. >> did he know about the payment at the time? >> not t

it's a valid contract, as long as ec, llc signed that contract.-disclosure agreements are signed every single day. they're signed by ceos, by legisla legislators, doctors, lawyers, tv personalities. >> i'm not here as stormy daniels' lawyer. what we have here obviously is a disagreement about the terms of a contract which happens all the time. and when you have a situation where there's a disagreement, you go to court. and what stormy tadaniels danies want is to go to court. then they'll take her deposition and his deposition and find out who's right. if that's something they think is a good idea, god mess. -- bless. >> if they don't think it's a valid contract, don't abide by it. this is a valid contract. and i can guarantee you one thing, that michael cohen will not rest, when this is all said and done, michael cohen will not rest until he recovers every penny, a million dollars per breach, plus punitive damages from stormy. >> while we're on the subject, can we talk about the fact that michael cohen says he paid his own money on this contract?

as previously reported, lawrence rosen, a new york attorney, is representing ec, llc.mp organization is not representing anyone, and with the exception of one of its california based attorneys in her individual capacity, facilitating the initial filing, the company has no statement, particularly given all the lawyers in the state of california. the fact that cohen would hire someone that works exclusively for the trump organization at the same time that he is telling the world that there is no relationship between the organization and the payment of the $130,000 to stormy daniels. i don't think the story is believable. >> reporter: daniels lawyer says he doesn't believe martin either and is ignoring an arbitration order signed by retired judge telling daniels not to talk about the hush money agreement. instead, he says is he moving forward with the lawsuit filed in court with stormy daniels. he says is going forward including the possibility of deposing the president. >> we are going to begin a diligent well thought out discovery aimed at getting to the bottom of what

. >> the trump organization was representing ec, llc, in connection with this arbitration and we needemember the focus of the arbitration. the focus of this filing in february was to gag my client, put a muzzle on her. >> daniels has launched a fundraiser online while she fights to reveal her story. >>> happening today, warriors center is going to lead students in a anti-bullying exercise. this afternoon, pachulia will spend an hour with 80 fourth and fifth grade students at star king elementary in san francisco. they'll be taking part in a peaceful warriors summit. it education the kids on the causes, impacts and solutions surrounding violence and bullying. the summit uses visual art and basketball as a tool to have a positive impact on campus. >> wells fargo continues to deal with a series of financial scandals. but the ceo is reaping a large reward. they're voting to give him a raise of $4.5 million. he made $17.6 million last year. all while the san francisco-based company battled skre investigations into its business. >>> netflix is trying to get all up in our business. i mean th

>> i don't know who you spoke to, but the bottom line is, the agreement was between ec, llc, and stormydaniels. the agreement was between an entity and stormy daniels. there was consideration. there was an attorney -- there were attorneys on both sides. okay? she was paid the $130,000. this agreement is rock solid. in the agreement, it says, and/or, so either party on that side could have signed the agreement. it was signed. it's valid. it's going to be found to be valid by the court or what i think is really going to happen is the court will take it down to arbitration. >> so -- >> so his theory is completely off. let me -- even taking -- >> let me if i can, and you made your point on that, and there's a lot to get through here. >> right. >> i appreciate to be with you. the other topic, you you say that the former lawyer for stormy daniels, keith davidson, that, in fact, he was the one who approached cohen. >> 100%. >> how did that happen? was it an e-mail, phone call, text message? >> i'm not going to get into the methodology of communication, but i will say it's well-known that she w

it reads, quote, as previously reported, lawrence rosen, a new york attorney, is representing ec, llcn. the trump organization is not representing anyone, and with the exception of one of its california-based attorneys in her individual capacity facilitating the initial filing pending the pro-hack admission of mr. rosen, the company has had no involvement in the matter. we also should note we've reached out to michael cohen, have not yet heard back. kirsten, does it make any sense to you, michael cohen, who makes this statement in like february 13th or 14th, that the trump organization was not involved in the financial transaction, basically that michael cohen is saying, look, i did this all my own out of loyalty to donald trump. i took the money from my home equity line. then about two weeks later goes and reaches out to the vice general counsel >> i feel like they're trying to slowly drive us insane. i really do. i'm watching this, it's so obvious, they're note telling the truth. and i just i don't even know what to say. even if you look at michael cohen's words where he says he did

so even though there was a line for david denison and/or so it could be and/or the ec llc or david densonf the agreement. >> there is no love loss between you and michael avenatti and this is not an open invitation to start whacking at him. >> right. >> how do you see this actually resolving itself? >> look, it's not my proudest moments when i -- i know people are saying it's great tv. >> it's not great tv. >> he called me a hack the other day, right. called me a hack on your show. he must have been referring to my representation of new york city taxi cabs fighting against uber. >> there you go. david, how do you see this -- but wait a second how do you -- >> i'm not going to stoop to his level and call him names. >> you have called each other names. >> i want to talk about something, you said that president was not aware of the agreement, he was not aware of the money. >> right. when did mr. cohen tell him about this or did he tell him about it? >> the president became aware of it much later on. all right. >> how much later on? >> i don't know. >> you don't know? >> michael cohen never t