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

trump wasn't his client, then why did mr. cohen draft an agreement that had numerous places where mr. trump was to sign and has a number of references to mr. trump within the >> it makes no sense. if i'm out on my own, i don't make all these documents that has reference to my client. >> mr. cohen's initial denial about the funds says he was not reimbursed by the trump campaign or the trump organization. what does that tell you and why was he unable for whatever reason to say he was not reimbursed by mr. trump or mr. trump's representatives? >> mr. cohen is engaged in what we call in the profession, lawyer speak. what he did not say was that mr. trump did not reimburse him. >> no, he didn't. >> what he did not say was another surrogate for mr. trump did not reimburse him. what he did not say was he paid it. he said he facilitated it. very interesting word facilitate. he is engaged in lawyer speak, as opposed to straight speak. i don't care if you're on the left, the right or in the middle. as it relates to this issue right now, you

and mr. cohenhe american people to believe he was running off on his own and entering into this. it is not believable. it doesn't make sense. >> do you view the money mr. daniels received, do you view it as a campaign contribution. >> we didn't view it one way or another. individuals that are more qualified and educated on those laws and regulations are going to opine on that. i don't know where that ends, but if in fact that is the conclusion, i think that president trump and the white house could certainly have significant problems. but again, that's not for us to opine on. >> is kd bar a legal term? >> no, it is a southern term. >> can you explain just in nonlegal ease what ms. clifford want? does she want money, or freedom to tell her story or sell her story to other media outlets? is that what this is about? >> this is about freedom of speech. remarkably, a lot of it has been at the hands of attorney cohen, mr. cohen. my client wants an opportunity to tell her story to tell the truth about wha

and yet mr. cohen expects the american people to believe that he was running off on his own and entering into this without any consultation with the candidate for the president of the united states? mr. trump? it's not believable. it doesn't make sense. >> do you view the money that ms. daniels received as campaign contribution regardless of who the money came from, do you view it as a campaign contribute sngs >> anderson, we don't view it one way or the other. i think individuals that are far more qualified and educated on those laws and regulation s are ultimately going to opine on that. ultimately, if they conclude that in fact it was, katie, bar the door. i don't know where that ends, but if in fact that is the conclusion, i think that president trump and the white house could certainly have significant problems. but again, that's not -- that's not for us to opine on n. >> is katie bar the door a legal term? >> no, it's a southern term. >> can you explain just in nonleg nonlegalees what ms. cliffor

and if that is the case, if mr. cohen is in the business of paying $130,000 to anybody on the planet that just happens to make a bogus claim against his friend, mr. trump, i'd urge every viewer in america to call mr. cohen's office here in new york city, claim they have a relationship with the president, and they'll promptly get a check for $130,000, i guess. it's absurd. >> let me ask you about something else you said in the 60 minutes interview. you called the effort righteous. anderson cooper also pressed you about your own political affiliations. i want to ask you if the sense that this is righteous is because of a belief that you think the truth should be out there about mr. trump and the people he surrounds himself with, or if it is rooted in any sort of political motivation for you? >> two quotes. john adams said facts are stubborn things. and indeed they are stubborn things. and we want all of the stubborn things to be laid out for the american people. two, louis brandeis, former supreme court justice described su

threatened to sue. >> right, mr. cohenned the magazine to shut down the story to protect mr. trump and around that same time, this goon shows up at her car door with her young daughter in the back of her car. we know it is not my client that sent the goon. we know it is not the magazine that sent the goon. there is only one logical place left as to who would have sent the goon. it's common sense. i don't have evidence that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but i think it's common sense that it's going to. >> would you, i mean that sounds like you are laying this at the feet of somebody at the trump organization. >> not quite yet. but we are going to tighten that up. we are going to get to the bottom of who this was and who sent him. when and if, if it leads to mr. cohen or mr. trump, we are going to call him out on it. >> stormy daniels said she could recognize this person even though it was many years ago. it scared her that much. >> what she's stated is it left an image in her mind and it stayed with her for a significa

what mr. cohen has said is as follows, that he negotiated this on his own, that he undertook all of this effort, and that at no point in time did his close friend and client, donald trump, know anything about it. he didn't know about the negotiation. he didn't know about the agreement. and he didn't know about the payment. i have a very simple question, anderson. if all of that is believable, then why did mr. cohen draft an agreement with a signature line for donald trump? >> very simple -- >> if donald trump was never going to be a party to the agreement and if he didn't want to bother donald trump with the agreement, and if donald trump was too busy campaigning for president to know anything about the agreement, and mr. cohen was going to do this on his own and wasn't going to bother mr. trump, then why take the effort to draft the agreement to make donald trump a signatory to the agreement? >> that's painting a fictional picture of the whole scenario. there's an "or" there. it could be ec, llc or

now, mr. cohen if he was only representing ec llc as the claim has been made, how could he release or how could he provide that consideration, those terms that -- >> this is an absurd view of contract -- the consideration here is the nondisclosure of whatever she's about to disclose in exchange for $130,000. >> but he's saying there's more than $130,000. >> there's consideration, two parties to the contract, both parties sign the contract -- >> but how could michael cohen promise that trump is not going to go near her family or donald trump is going to release her from other things if donald trump is not a signator? >> i didn't see that in the contract. but the bottom line is there's consideration, there's a contract, and there is a massive breach of this contract. and, you know, when this case is all said and done, you know, she's going to be liable for $20 million, millions of dollars. >> i know it's a million dollars per breach. you guys have been saying 20. i was trying to figure out where does

if mr. cohenthis money and negotiated this agreement, paid this money without the knowledge or consent of his client he has potentially very serious ethical concerns which i would be happy to mention to you. they tl are prohi bases. first of all, he said he paid out of his own funds. there could be a potential violation there. second, you're not allowed to negotiate something on behalf of your client without keeping him or her informed. third, if stormy daniels and her attorney thought mr. cohen was representing mr. trump that's a big problem for mr. cohen because you're not supposed to make false representations to a third party. then you have the whole campaign situation. a presidential candidate has no limits on what he or she can contribute to his own campaign. if president trump did authorize the payment or did make the payment it's not a campaign violation. if mr. cohen made the payment he is like any other citizen. there's a limit on that contribution so he could be in violation of federal

but if mr. cohenyment, he's like any other citizen and there's a limit on that contribution so he could be in violation of federal campaign laws. and i could go on and on. >> people have said if viewed one way, in is $130,000 spent to affect the outcome of an election to your point. what's the chance mr. avenatti will refile and ever depose the president of the united states, do you think? >> well, he may refile the motion. i think the chances of him deposing the president are pretty remote. he tried to put the best spin possible on the decision today, which was a procedural decision, but one thing the court said is we're not rushing anything for you. this is not the most important case on our docket. number two, mr. of a nnamvenatt according to the court, did not take certain procedural steps to trigger certain deadlines, including a deadline for the cohen camp to respond. so they have at least several weeks it looks like to decide whether or not they're going to respond. and the court said something

that's what mr. cohen and mr. trump want. we want an open setting, open court, owned by the people, period. >> may i ask, why did she agree to this arbitration procedure, which is so lopsided, so much in his favor, because if she were to speak, she has a huge liability. >> i think there's a number of terms within the agreement that are very, very onerous and we believe it's what's called legally unconscionable. the term generally means the courts will not enforce it because it is so one-sided. of course, our position is that he never signed the agreement so the agreement is not even worth the paper it's printed on but as it relates to this arbitration proceeding, there's been a lot of misinformation out there and quite honestly, some of it has been peddled by mr. rosen, mr. cohen's new attorney. the agreement never allowed mr. cohen, this is important, mr. cohen to proceed in arbitration. the agreement only allowed mr. trump to proceed in arbitration. and to the best of our knowledge, mr. trump never initiated an arbitration

we want him and mr. cohenlean about this $130,000 payment, about what he knew, and what he did about it. >> if president trump called and said you have been a thorn in my side. this is annoying to me. i have bigger business that i would like to move on to, how much do you want, i will write you a check. >> i don't think there's a number. >> there is no number that you and stormy daniels would take from michael cohen for the president to make this go away? >> a number that would allow him to continue to hide the truth? is that the question? >> yes. for you to go away. >> no amount. >> no amount of money. >> we're going to get to the bottom of it. i'm committed to it. my client is committed to it. i know people find that hard to believe in society but we want the truth. we're going to get to the bottom of it. >> how about just apologize to your client. stop talking. he's going to issue an apology, and you go away? >> no. it's not acceptable. we want the truth from mr. cohen and we want the truth from mr. trump.

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

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

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

mr. cohen as executive vice president and special counsel to donald j. trump, the trump organization, again-- listing the 5th avenue address. this idea that there's a separation now between mr. cohen, individually, and the trump organization or mr. cohen, individually, and donald trump, it's nonsense. >> cooper: there are people who argue that this is much ado about nothing, that if this was not a story about, an adult film actress and the president of the united states, no one would pay attention. >> avenatti: this is about the cover-up. this is about the extent that mr. cohen and the president have gone to intimidate this woman, to silence her, to threaten her, and to put her under their thumb. it is thuggish behavior from people in power. and it has no place in american democracy. avenatti points to this recent court filing in which the president's lawyers claim daniels is already liable for damages "in excess of twenty million dollars" for unspecified violations of her non-disclosure agreem

this is about the extent that mr. cohen, and the president, have gone to intimidate this woman, to silence her. to threaten her. and to put her under their thumb. it is thuggish behavior. from people in power. it has no place in american democracy. >> he points to this recent court filing in which the president's lawyers claim daniels is already liable for damages, in excess of $20 million for unspecified violations of her nondisclosure agreement. in that article in vanity fair this past week, michael cohen said that when he wins damages from stormy daniels, i might even take an extended vacation on her dime. >> you are saying they're trying to in tim date her? >> no question. you threaten some one with a $20 million lawsuit. a thuggish tactic. it is no different than what happened in the parking lot in las vegas. >> people make threats in law suits all the time. people, you know say you are going to have to pay a lot of money when you lose this case. >> people don't threaten. people with $20 million lawsuits that they're g

mr. cohen's job. and mr. trump didn't sign it. under california law, and that's what this is going to be decided under, under california law we are highly confident the contract -- the nda will be thrown out and more importantly there's an express provision -- you know, i have watched a lot of legal pundits that are opining on this document and the enforceability. unfortunately a lot of people aren't actually reading the document before they appear on -- >> i agree. >> and -- >> i agree. >> that's a real problem. >> okay. >> you know and i know you have to actually read the document. >> all right. so listen, look at my copy. i have read it. it's all tabbed. >> excellent. >> so let's go through it. let's go to the signature page to begin with. this is at the tail, tail end. and folks can there see david dennison's lean, aka presumably it would have been filled in donald trump, not signed. you believe, counselor, it's because he did not sign it that the whole document should be held null and void, true? >> absolutely. >> okay. so no

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

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

and mr. cohen and the president better come clean with the american people and they better do it quickly. >> what kind of evidence do you have? >> again, i'm not going to get into the details of the evidence. we are in early stages of this. suffice it to say, we are only getting start stpwhrd when will you reveal it? >> over the next few weeks and months. >> what are you trying to prove? >> we will prove mr. cohen's statements to the american people are false. that at all times mr. trump knew about this, knew about the $130,000, was fully aware of it, and with the assistance of mr. cohen sought to intimidate and put my client under his thumb. that's what we're going to prove. our position is that the agreement never was in effect to begin with because mr. trump never signed it. >> i understand. but she signed it. she signed it and she got the money. so is from your side, from stormy daniels, she should comply with the agreement. no? >> we don't agree. if you offer to sell me your house and i only s

daniels, through mr. cohen, $130,000 to buy her silence to prevent her from coming forward and talking about the relationship that she had with mr. trump. >> quick question. first one on the intrigue side, the facts side. do you know for a fact that it was trump who was going to pay the money and he was negotiating this deal through his attorney? as you know, that's not what michael cohen says. i know you weren't involved at that time. michael cohen said it was always him and then counsel for stormy daniels. he was doing it on behalf of mr. trump and mr. trump would not be involved. is that your understand something. >> that's my understanding as to what mr. cohen has claimed. chris, it's laughable, absolutely laughable. and we're going to prove that mr. cohen is not telling the truth about this. >> how? >> how are we going to prove that? >> yes. >> we will be able to obtain discovery and documents that show i am highly confident at all times mr. trump knew exactly what was going on. i want to set the stage for

mr. cohen had absolutely nothing to do with any such person or incident and does not even believe any such person exists. >> reporter: was it hush money to stay silent? >> yes. the story was coming out again. i was concerned for my family and their safety. >> reporter: after signing a nondisclosure agreement, daniels said she lied in statements where she denied vague affair with mr. trump. if it was untruthful, why did you sign it? >> because they made it sound like i had no choice. >> reporter: no one was putting a gun to your head? >> not physical violence, no. >> reporter: you thought there would be legal repercussion? >> as a matter of fact, the exact sentence used was they can make your life hell in many different ways. >> reporter: they being? >> i'm not exactly sure who they were. i believe it to be michael cohen. >> reporter: no official comment from the white house this morning, but the president did tweet, saying there's, quote, so much fake news going around. now, the attorney for mr

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

mr. trump and his personal attorney, michael cohen. to determine if the president had a role in the $130,000 payment from mr. cohen to daniels 11 days before the presidential election. >> and you had sex with him? >> yes. >> reporter: among the questions avenatti wants to ask the president, whether mr. trump is david dennison, the name on the nondisclosure. also whether mr. trump knew about the hush agreement and will he authorized mr. cohen's actions. >> wow. >> reporter: any testimony given by the president or cohen could also help determine if any campaign finance laws were broken. >> was it hush money to stay silent? >> yes. the story was coming out again. >> reporter: the motion alleges cohen's payment to silence daniels was made to, quote, help ensure mr. trump won the 2016ene the federal campaign act. rikki klieman is a cbs news legal analyst. >> if you give an in-kind contribution, that has to be reported. none of this has been reported anywhere. everything about this case is in the public interest. so while the deposition woul

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

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

mr. cohen's verse veracity. here is the best thing i can say. highly suspect. >> so michael cohen in your view is not telling the truth about your client needing money. why? >> well, i don't think he is telling the truth about a whole host of things, starting with the fact that he wants the american people to believe that he drafted this agreement on his own, negotiated it on his own. mr. trump never knew anything about it, didn't have anything to do with the payment. and by the way, here is an interesting question, ari. if that's to be believed, then why is mr. trump's signature line in the agreement? why is he listed as a party? >> and why did he jump into it on friday? i want to bring in our panel, and stay with me. >> this is very important question. it's a very simple one. if the whole plan was that mr. trump was never going to be a party to the agreement and was never going to sign it, wasn't even going to know about it because mr. cohen, his very close friend didn't want to bother him in the waning days of the campaign, and he was just goi

president donald trump seek $20 million in damages against my client based on an agreement that he and mr. cohenlaim mr. trump never was a party to and knew nothing about? #notwellthoughtout. #sloppy. #checkmate. back with the panel including paul callan. that's callan, not callahan as i said earlier. paul, i apologize for that. >> no problem. >> paul, first of all, why try to get this moved to a federal court? >> it's a fascinating move, but i think this is the reason for it. federal judges tend to be very friendly to arbitration. remember, that's what this is all about, whether an arbitrator can decide this as opposed to a judge or a jury. the agreement says it's going to be arbitrated. federal courts are friendly to arbitration. the california courts in recent days have had a history of throwing out arbitration. so cohen thinks he's going to get a friendlier hearing in the federal courts. the second reason and a very important reason is that federal judges are very hostile to lawyers who try their cases in the press. and certainly in this case you don't want avenatti, stormy daniels' lawyer,

mr. cohenld trump's personal attorney, and the white house deny there was any affair between donald trump and stormy daniels. we do know that the bank that this money was transferred from, mr. cohen's bank, they have said no comment. the white house said we're going to refer you to mr. cohen for comment on the new details. mr. cohen called it fake news, and as for stormy daniels, none of her representatives responded to request for comment. >> thank you. sara sidner with the latest on that. >>> a self described russian sex coach who claims to have incriminating information on the kremlin's election meddling is speaking out to cnn. what is she willing to offer in exchange for asylum here in the united states. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase. who's the new guy?

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

this does not bode well for the president or mr. cohen, and all indications are that when this motion is heard on the merits, we're going to get the discovery and we're going to get the trial we've asked for. and i think that we've provided some portions of that order that are important for people to comprehend and understand. >> because the ruling from this federal judge says the court denies without prejudice plaintiff stephanie clifford's motion for expedited jury trial pursuant to the federal arbitration act and for limited expedited discovery. that's legal words that obviously hard to understand, but what you're saying is you're going to refile after the president or his attorney michael cohen have a chance to weigh in, is that right? >> yeah, let me explain this to your viewers if i can. basically what the court has said is that we have to wait until the president and mr. cohen file their motion to compel arbitration. as soon as we do that, or as soon as they do that, we can refile this motion. that's exactly what we're going to do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

mr. cohenhe wants $20 million to do on a vacation with it it's not a strategy and not putting president trump's interests ahead of his own. >> sandra: whats so d.o. that say about the legal team he was around him, jonathan. >> you can pick up how i view that mr. cohen is punching above his weight class against michael. i admit he is my former research assistant. i have good to till the only thing those two have in common is their first name. albonetti has done a wonderful job going from the defense to the offense. but, ultimately, mr. cohen agreement is going to have a hard time standing up because mr. cohen's attorney, mr. schwartz said last night the president was never aware of the final details of the agreement or possibly the agreement as a whole. that's going to create serious problems. that would make it sound like is he not a party to this agreement. the arbitration clause seems to rest in his hands. >> sandra: i know you wrote a piece published in your blog tonight. in that piece, jona

trump, mr. cohen signed it for mr. trump. is this a risky move by miss clifford and her lawyer? >> that's the crux. was it entered into between michael cohen, stormy daniels, signed by both, but not donald trump, is that agreement valid? stormy daniel's lawyers are taking the position without trump's signature, it is null and void. they filed an order saying they were no longer bound by it and saying that the arbitration that was triggered by mr. cohen, that also is invalid because of a lack of signature. trump's lawyers are claiming the liquid damages cost in the nondisclosure agreement which obob ligated her to pay 1 million every time she made disclosures. they are claiming she made disclosures 20 times. what i have heard her say is, i can't talk about it. i'm not sure where they, you know, how the math is working out, where they are getting 20 times she allegedly disclosed information in the nda. >> she's been asked about it directly on late night tv, other interviews, an interview here on cnn. she goes mum. i want to ask you, why have mr. trump's lawyers moved to try this in

the answer is because mr. cohenis 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 t

>> the threats continued until a few hours ago when lawrence rosen who now purports to represent mr. cohen and the entity sent e-mail correspondence to me threatening if miss daniels continues to talk, she will be subject 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. 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 the was there hush money paid to her? 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 t