you can't have intent if the fec says it's not a violation. >> you know, senator, the fec can go afterthing like this and the justice department can. >> but the justice department has to look to the fec. >> no, it doesn't. that's not the case. >> absolutely it is the case. that's one of the reasons they lost. >> edwards was acquitted on one charge and there was a hung jury on the others, but they prosecuted. >> prosecutors can prosecute all they want. >> senator, i just want to -- >> the guidelines are saying to look to the fec as to -- >> take a step back from this. is there any violation, is there any payment that the president could have made here that would bother you, that you would think would put him in legal jeopardy? is there anything you can imagine? i am trying to figure out if this is just a blanket acquiescence to the president's claims here or whether or not there's some standard to which you would hold him accountable? >> i think the payments are unseamly and i think the whole thing is an unseemly thing. this could have been a political move or personal move or business

the fec issued guidance in 2010 on climate risk. many in the investment committee -- community called these disclosures inadequate. really less than half of the largest companies even make these disclosures. in october investors representing $5 trillion in assets, law professor sent a petition to the fec arguing that improved roles would increase market efficiency and the fec has the authority to issue such rules. yesterday group of 15 investors that represent $32 trillion of assets wrote that governments need to act on climate change and -- financial reporting standards. i thought we had a good conversation about this. i thought you expressed a willingness to work on this. i have seen no evidence that you are working on this and what little evidence i've seen goes to the contrary in terms of the shareholder proposals which are putatively not about climate. every example given in raising thresholds for shareholder action is about climate. the what are you going to do to make sure the publicly traded companies disclose climate risk >>

but the fec didn't buy it. they audited the edwards campaign and said these are not campaign-related expenses. if you are a congress and we know congress has a slush fund which pays out sexual harassment, sexual misconduct d settlements they run for reelection every two years. it's within the window of a campaign. millions of dollars is going out. that's taxpayer money. that's not being reported on fec filing. so what's the difference? >> no. if you take to the extreme this weird theory that the u.s. attorney in new york has, yes, all these members of congress are using taxpayer funds to pay for campaign-related expenses which i think is very problematic. jesse: if you just give that argument right there, it's game over. i don't see how people, because everybody on the left is saying you know what? he bled to campaign finance violations. they are saying the president is on the hook and let's impeach. you are saying you don't see evidence in case histories and these acts. you have codes you cite. trump's ex-lawye

i do not respect the fec. i do not respect them. >> wow. k said he's following the terms of his settlement, quote, because i respect the justice system. tesla is up 15% year to date. >> i respect not going to jail. that shows that -- company they are taking the rivalry from the road to wall street. >> yeah so just one day after lyft, Über reportedly filed a paperwork for its ipo on friday. according to "the wall street journal" Über had is calling its ip organization plans project liberty is aiming for the second half of next year. but ceo tara kosher wanted to file with the fec to have option to go public in first half just incase markets worsen. got it. >> the box office champion over the weekend is -- ralph once again back on top. >> back -- >> wow. ♪ look at all of this stuff. >> it is just most beautiful miracle i've ever seen. pnches breaking the charts for a third weekend in a row ralph breaks the internet with 16.1 million dollars holding on to second place doctor seuss the grinch with just over 15 million. rounding out top five cree

the fec, when they looked at the edwards case, did not have any charges brought against edwards. now, the district -- the local attorneys did. they brought it -- federal attorney did, but the fec didn't. so i think you can actually look at that case and say, you know what, i don't have to disclose this because the fec said it's not a problem. >> that's exactly backwards. that is exactly backwards. i mean, people love to try to bring up the edwards case. he was indict and had went to trial and won. this isn't a question of legally not being charged. >> let him respond. >> the fec didn't prosecute the case. you know that. >> shan, go ahead. >> the f.e.c. didn't prosecute the case. the justice department prosecuted the case. we're talking about crimes here. >> the f.e.c. said it wasn't a crime. >> even if you can find an f.e.c. opinion to support that, the justice department -- right. that's different than saying it is not a crime to begin with. >> look, the justice department can indict people, as i said, they can indict a ham sandwich if you want to indict a ham sandwich. the bott

the fec has civil authority, not criminal. that's the justice department power. one of the things i think that really is a takeaway from edwards as it relates to these set of facts we're talking about is one of the things that judge eagles ruled in the edwards case related to this notion of what a contribution is under law. as you have talked about before, it relates to this idea of what was the purpose behind the money itself that's at issue. in the edwards case, the question came up of whether or not the money that was, again, at issue in this case had to be the purpose for influencing the campaign. what the judge ruled in that case was that it didn't have to be the only purpose, the primary purpose. that i think is probably the most significant point that arises out of that case that could have implication here. >> you know what's so interesting is that the president's lawyer rudy giuliani stated the opposite yesterday as the outcome of the case. he said, that case showed you it's gotta be for the purposes of the campaign if it's not about the campaign. that's

. >> president trump: these are the people that ran the fec. the federal elections commissio commission. these people, writing stories that "trump did nothing wrong." i did nothing wrong. >> harris: mr. president, let's get into -- if we can -- michael cohen. he was her attorney. three years, he was sentenced yesterday. it may seem like he got a break because it could have been twice as much but it's still three years in federal prison. $500,000 in restitution. this is someone who surreptitiously recorded you -- >> president trump: terrible. >> harris: he is now known as a criminal liar. yet this is somebody who was in your inner circle. it's >> president trump: it happens. i hire usually good people. but it just happens. >> harris: why did you hire michael cohen? that was his title. a fixer. >> president trump: he was more public relations than he did law, but -- you see them on television, he was okay on television. years ago, many years -- like 12 or 13 years ago -- he did me a favor. he was on a committee and he was so responsive and so good

the fec ruled on the edwards case' before they prosecuted it. >> the fec never ruled what john edwards did was appropriate. that's not true. there was never a ruling. limits see what the facts show. reporter: mr. cone was sentenced to three years in prison. around that time president trump tweeted i never directed michael co-on break the law. he's a lawyer and he's supposed to know the law. it's called advice of counsel. he's a lawyer and is supposed to know the law. the president said cone is a rat, a liar, pathetic and he's trying to embarrass the president. while admits he has not always told the truth in the past. he says in this instance he is telling the truth and there is plenty of information to support his version of events. arthel: a bombshell ruling by a federal judge after he decides obamacare is unconstitutional. lawmakers are speak out as this issue is sure to be front and center in the new congress. the u.s. giving countries in africa a choice. side with beijing or moscow. how would the' alliance be beneficial to u.s. >> we'll target funding towards key countries. all u.

the law? previous fec chairs had said it's not a violation of the law. under that standard, you can't approve a criminal violation. >> all right. >> i would love to disagree with hans, but it's hard to disagree with that reasoning. and i think -- >> any chance these prosecutors try to go after the president on the facts as we know them now? >> i think they'll lose. >> i don't think that they should. i don't think it would be appropriate. i think any time you go after a president, i think you can indict a president, but anytime you go after a president of the united states on a criminal sense, you have to have the goods and then in fact juries in the fact have found guilt in that situation. and here this is kind of like you've never had a situation like this. >> it is very specific. >> i'm not necessarily a real strong friend of president trump here but i think you also have to stand up for what's right and wrong. i think the russian inquiry has validity to it. >> both of you think the left and those who think it's a good prosecution and way to go after t

rulesdo the same fec apply to super pacs as the inaugural funds?st: slightly different rules apply to the inaugural. it is not a campaign. has oversight over the raising and spending of money that goes into elections. the different kinds of groups have different kinds of limits that apply to them. for instance, if you give money to a campaign directly to a candidate, you can only get $2700. if you give money to a super pac, which is not permitted to coordinate with campaigns, you can spend unlimited money. you can get unlimited amounts of money. host: let's go to kevin. good morning. caller: good morning. think very much. two issues i wanted to bring up. the stormy daniels payment, according to the fec, if there is an ordinary business expense, you cannot claim that as a .ampaign contribution expense even if they had filed papers with the fec saying they were making this payment as a contribution to stormy daniels to be quiet, the fec would not allow it. it is like he is being charged for failure to report something he could not report. article, i

not only the hung jury, but the fact the fec violations determined they were violations. >> the fec netherworld that what john edwards did was appropriate. we will see what the facts come as something alien mr. giuliani and mr. trump. >> president trump with responses from the special counsel. the jury has been out for quite a while as to whether the president will ultimately sit down with robert mueller and his team. mr. giuliani told "fox news sunday" the interview would happen over his dead body. leland: the entirety of that interview coming up top of the hour. ellison barber at the white house. thanks. gillian. gillian: here with analysis to break it all down. until last month he was the chief of staff of president trump's national old. great to have you. so you know the role of national security adviser which is what general fund held. you know general flynt himself is going to be sentenced on tuesday. what do you think he deserves here? >> you and i both served in the national security council and general flynt was questioned by f. guy agent and the nsc counsel was involved in flynt didn'

and the fec is very clear on this. the law is clear on this.e expenditure can be reasonably be made irrespective of the campaign, and there's a lot of reasons why you would want these women to keep these stories private. there are many, many reasons outside of politics you would do that, and the fec is clear it's not a campaign contribution. >> it's just an incredible coincidence the money happened to change hands just on the eve of the election? >> no. listen, that's a good point, but that part is not coincidental because the reason there was an impetus for them to come forward was the fact that donald trump was achieving fame even though he was already a famous person. he was achieving fame like he had never seen once he became the republican nominee. so that encouraged them to come out, but that doesn't mean there weren't several reasons why, personal life, business life, politics, you would want this to stay confidential and that doesn't make it a campaign contribution. it's legal and allowed. >> carrie, how do you see this? >> i think, and

he thumbs his nose at the fec and he does it on "60 minutes." he says, he doesn't respect the regulators and he says nobody has censoredded his twitter account. tesla stock tail this morning is up. what a day. varney company is about to begin. >> wow with let's get to brexit prime minister theresa may will speak next hour. you will see it here. ashley webster is in london joins us now ashley is she working on a plan b of some kind? >> well you would like think so wouldn't you stew because plan a is going down in flames. we are led to believe she will indeed try to delay the vote which had she goes before the house of commons behind me in about an hour and a half. bottom line stew now questions whether she has authority to do that if the process towards this vote is already begun, and it may take a vote it allow her to go for the delay how embarrassing how politically could it be that she won't be able to delay her vote coming down to defeat we'll see what happens. but plan b we're assuming theresa may will go back to brussels and say hey guys giv

i should note, however, that the filing with the fec itself may not have gone through just yet. is affected of all things by the government shutdown but she obviously is off and running in terms of her message and the other thing is really laying down a marker in terms of the other big name democrats in the race. i think she wants to make it clear she's not waging a campaign based on what anyone else is doing or anyone else's timeline. she wanted to get out first and start setting the agenda in terms of the race. she said in her e-mail to supporters, it's time for the country to have a real debate about restoring economic fairness for the middle class and who should be the best person to lead that debate. so as she now moves into this testing the water phase, we know she's tweeted she'll make a final decision early in the new year and expect to see her traveling to some of those early states, of course, that are so important in the presidential nominating contest. >> not surprising, we've already heard from a republican. the first republican reaction we've seen to the announceme

the fec doesn't have the authority to indict, but when the doj brings an fec violation, if you look at the senator edwards situation, that's potentially 30 years' jail time. when the department of justice brings an fec violation, you can get very, very long periods of incarceration. >> interesting. as jeff flake pointed out this weekend, and you were talking about this, patrick, for the time being, it's what does congress do because the president wouldn't indicted. so far republicans have stayed very loyal to trump. jeff flake writing this. it's like the party is a frog slowly boiling in water, being conditioned to not be worried, to not think too hard about what's happening around them. patrick, with these new filings are we going to see republicans start jumping out of the pond, so to speak? >> i don't think so. i don't think yet. you're going to need more serious, high-crimes and manipulation, and real evidence of either collusion or obstruction of justice. we were talking for many months about obstruction of justice, possibility for some time. and the mueller report may still shed

tomorrow i have an editorial coming out with a republican former chair of the fec. saying this is a very serious violation, the edwards precedent doesn't apply, and the like. the president has denied this today, he says he's acting at the advice of council. this is the same guy who lied to us in april. i have no idea why we should bring him now. the criminal process will unfold. i think the impeachment process will unfold. time will tell what happened. if i were a lawyer -- >> what they can corroborate. by saying, well, you know, he's lied before. all right. fair enough. but he had his statements in this regard corroborated by the prosecutors as with the mueller probe and what he told them about russia. they said, with respect to this, from the second meeting on, he's told the truth. and the president needs to show the same kind of corroboration to be believed. he can't be just believed as a oneoff. he lies too much. unfortunately that's a reality. >> whoa, whoa. >> go ahead. >> what happened to the presumption of innocence? >> i'm not saying he's guilty of something

. >> chairman clayton, i want to discuss with you the fec gag rule. it was addressed in a wall street journal opinion piece. november 14. this is how it was referred to in 2011. the result is a stew of confusion and hypocrisy unworthy -- the defendant has proclaimed he was never admitting the terrible wrongs but by gosh he had better be careful not to deny them either. the agency of the u.s. is saying in effect although we claim that these defendants have done terrible things, they refuse to admit it and we do not oppose to put -- prove it but we will get the right to deny. the service to the public inherit in such a practice is palpable. can you explain to the committee what public interests the gag order on discussing settlements with the commission serves? >> it has been an effective means to reach a settlement. it is in the interests of the public. let me say that if we can settle matters quickly, we can move on to look at other matters. and the no admit, no deny approach has enabled us to get to settlements and get people their money back, get bad

and i'll tell you, there is campaigns fined all of the time by the fec, whether it's in-kind contributions, et cetera that don't necessarily leave to impeachment for somebody in office or jail time. >> these findings also find additional contacts between people and the president's orbit. at least 16. trump associates. and you can see them up on the screen. had at least some sort of contact with russians. how do you explain that? >> no, i can't explain it. i don't like it. you know, i've always had some kind of creepy feelings about paul manafort. even before the president was sworn in. he was very clearly sympathetic to russian interests. to pro russian ukrainan interests. i was very upset when they changed the republican national pl platform to take away support for ukraine against their fight against russia. and so there is a lot of information i looked at and, you know, two years ago was wondering what paul manafort's role in some of this is. we have to understand how russian spy craft works where they try to in essence climb a ladder to influence, to do things like that. and as a funct

the fec violations, the obstruction, russian interference, conspiracy to defraud, these are very complicatedvery varied matters, and all of them have been put on his desk. i'm not at all surprised he is tying together these days this web of corruption in the trump campaign and administration. >> thank you so much for being with us. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >>> well, today pride is on the line. coy wire is live from a chilly -- it is cold, not chilly, it is downright cold in philadelphia, getting ready for america's game, army navy. >> reporter: good morning. it is chilly here, in the 20s. you can hear it is warming up with the national anthem cadets getting ready for the game. coming up, a special guest, a four star general joins us to talk about his version of what may happen today. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ going to extremes for perfect skin? where does it end? new olay whips. while not equal to cosmetic procedures, our b3 complex hydrates to smooth skin. injections? rejected. beautiful skin? accepted olay. when mit rocked our world.ailed we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do.

i want to be clear, i do not respect the the fec. respect the justice system. >> so in addition to that he also says he can get anything done he wants because he's tesla's biggest shareholder also we want to tell you about a ge board of director member paula a lot of experience former vice chairman oversaw restructuring ceo of duke energy and casualty maria back to you. >> thanks so much. great show today. thank you for joining us hardest working woman in business. >> thank you. thanks so much. right back at you "varney & company" begins right now. stuart is take it away. i have a busy show ahead. >> you can't be lazy todays that's a fact. good morning maria good morning everybody indeed good morning to everyone. when i say political turmoil at home and abroad that is no exaggeration complete political chaos in britain prime minister theresa may will address the nation in 90 minutes she may be abandoning tomorrow's brexit vote because she knows she can't win. no one knows where this will end. real chaos in france more riots throughou

you have the fec commissioners and many campaign finance lawyers say because of the john edwards case and many post-fec rulings that this was not even against the rule. >> if this was any of us normal americans, the justice department would be going after all of this. let's walk through the timeline. the president was first asked about the stormy daniels hush money payment ahead of air force one in april and denied having any knowledge of it whatsoever. >> did you know about the $130,000 payment to stormy daniels? >> no. >> then why did michael cohen make it, if there was no truth to the allegations? >> you have to ask michael cohen? michael is my attorney. and you'll have to ask michael. >> this week, somebody did ask michael cohen. >> he directed me to make the payments. he directed me to become involved in these matters. including the one with mcdougal. >> and he knew it was wrong? >> of course. >> and he was doing that to help his election? >> he -- you have to remember at what point in time that this matter came about. two weeks or so before the election. post the billy bush comm

investigated, it is responding saying they did everything fully in compliance with the loss, they filed with the fec, the irs, have nothing to hide. they say they don't even know about investigation, no one has commented not contacted them. jason, you first. >> there needs to be suspicion here. just because it has the name trump next to it doesn't give them carte blanche to go investigate anything and everything they want. there needs to be some suspicion here and some reason to do that. if that came from something that mr. cohen had, that will be a whole different ball game. they should have accounting, it is the job of the irs and the federal election commission to oversee that, not necessarily with another criminal probe that leads nowhere. >> shannon: harry, a lot of criminal probe is going on, more being promised out of new york, as well. >> that's right. look, i drew the congressman, you need something, but they have it here, it is not just cohen, it is also rick gates, who has cooperated. there is some worry, right camille franklin haney, who gives $1 million, then later asks for favorable tr

that is the statutory language but it has an objective component, and in fact, under fec regulations and under the laws traditionally understood t the obligation has to arise from the campaign in order to be something that you pay with campaign expenditures. for example, if a businessman has lawsuits pending against his businesses, he thinks they're bogus, he tells his company lawyer, settle this because i don't want the distraction and i don't want people thinking i'm a heartless tycoon, it doesn't convert those expenditures. they're personal that are required to be paid personally. i think the question is were these campaign expenditures and i don't think most people think it was. if it were, then we're in a situation where -- for example, we've had about 40 congressmen or so who it's been revealed they've paid sexual harassment settlements out of their office accounts. we're saying that those have to be paid from campaign funds rather than by the congressmen personally. that's not what campaign funds are for. we're inverting the law and allowing campaign funds to be used as sort of

now, ordinarily civil enforcement of the federal election law is exclusively held by the federal election commission. feche exclusive jurisdiction for civil matters and those are violations that are negligent or even reckless. the doj's own manual says that it can and will prosecute willful violations of the law. so the nra should be concerned about maria butina's plea today because of the possibility that the nra was involved with money from a foreign national that may have eventually ended up in one of our american campaigns. >> paul erickson. first of all, they may still be togeth together. his attorney put out a statement that said paul erickson is a d good american. he's never done anything to harm our country and never would. >> he's referred to in the statement of offense that was read in court today as u.s. person number one. he was clearly assisting bird flu tina on this project that the government says was a -- >> assisting or being duped? do we not know yet? >> we're going to have to hear butina's full account. she's cooperating with the feds to make a final judgment so he's not out of the woo

we are talking about a charge from the justice department that the president subverted the fec laws to assure his election as president. there is a huge difference here. there is going to be an increasing amount of cry from americans generally to take the mueller report and the mueller findings seriously as they keep coming down the pike. it's premature to make a decision about the outcome, but i think we have seen from the first few sentencing documents that this is an inquiry bearing real offenses by the president and his cronies. >> then there was this notable moment during former fbi comey's testimony that came out in transcripts. when he was asking about being fired as fbi director and lawyer stepped in and said this. i'm quoting now. mr. chairman, to the extent that questions goes to the special counsel's investigation into obstruction, the witness will not be able to answer. what's going on here. parameters of the questions of that closed door meeting. >> it would be a mistake to read too much into that. it's fair to read into that. there is no question that the special counsel

. >>> plus the head of tesla went on television to say he doesn't respect the fec. we'll take a look at that in business. >>> an act of kindness, the generous gesture one manmade for his mother and her baby who needs an oxygen machine to breathe. that's coming up at 5:25. you're watching today in the bay. >>> time is 5:12. we are taking a live look outside at christmas in the park. let's head over to campbell where temperatures will be at 46 degrees at 9:00. partly to mostly cloudy skies making it up to about 58 today. we are right where we should be this time of year also tracking some needed rain. it won't make it to the south bay. i'll talk about where we'll see showers coming up in less than five minutes. >>> a little mist in the air. cars on the road. this backup is having that ripple there. we'll show you what's in store for your morning kplut. >>> and a very happy monday to you. markets continue to look loudly after a terrible week last week. concerns over trade and growing political unease in washington. your big cause is there. shares are worth watching. mus

. >> musk had words for the fec. ng up at 7:30 right here on nbc bay area. >>> the 49ers took on the broncos. jimmy g., see what he is wearing there? a cal fire hat. it comes two weeks after firefighters fully contained the deadly campfire. it is nice to see he is making an appearance of support. >> yeah. good to see him there. >>> and speaking of that hat -- >> yeah. a hat or umbrella. >> yeah. >> that's not cute. >>> seeing spotty rain moving through the peninsula as well as the east bay as you head out the door. a lot of it winds down throughout the day. most of it throughout the morning. most of the workweek will be dry until about friday. >> okay. >>> drive times, 680 over an hour heading down from 580. it will improve as the crash has cleared. i have the thumbs up there. the rest of the bay shows a smooth drive. we'll have the hand clapping hat. >> i love that. >> yeah. >> that's what's happening on today in the bay. we are back at 7:25 with a live local news update. >> and join us at 11:00. thanks for starting

i have larry noble, former chairman of the fec, and editor at large chris cizzilla. s, we'll get into the interview itself in a second. when you hear trump say "i don't think we made a payment to ami", the but is that we know now that ami admitted to making this $150,000 payment. so, chris, do the math for me. >> not just admitting to making the payment, brooke. if you read the southern district of new york press reese lease, admitted to making it in concert with the trump campaign. they were coordinating a payment with the trump cam pan paign to silence a woman who alleged she and donald trump had an affair and they were doing so because they thought her story coming out would have a negative influence on his chances in the election. larry can speak much more eloquently to this than me, but that is not a civil settlement. that deals directly with cam n campaign finance, in-wind contributions and michael cohen set up a shell company he repeatedly lied about, the funding of the donations, where they came from, who knew about them throughout 2017. >> larry, go ahead. wh

aren't criminal violations under the fec rules -- they twisted his arm to plead guilty and to throw in all this stuff about the direction to influence the election and so forth. this kind of payment would not be under the facts, have you looked into that. >> when you get somebody like cohen, sometimes they compose. they try to make the story a little better. the idea that he told trump what he was doing was wrong or illegal, let's be very clear. the laws are very complicated but one thing is very simple. any candidate can contribute as much as he wants it to his own campaign for any purpose. if bloomberg runs he could contribute a billion dollars to the campaign. a candidate can go to the bank and take out $150,000 in cash bring it to a woman and say i'm giving you this in order to -- so you won't talk and you won't destroy my campaign. that would not be a violation of the law, there are ways in which it could become one if corporate contributions were involved, or failure to report but reporting requirements after the election -- essentially no harm no foul. i think the american publi

compelling piece for fox news about how these types of hush money payoff aren't criminal violations under the fec rules. and that -- they twisted his arm to plead guilty and to throw in all the stuff about the directions -- influence the election, so forth. but in this case he says -- this kind of payment would not be under the facts that have been put out there so far, would not be a crime. allen have you looked into that? >> i agree. i have looked into it. first of all when you get somebody like cohen as judge ellis put it, not only do they sometimes sing, they sometimes compose. they try to make the story a little bit better. and the idea that he may have told trump that what he was doing was wrong or illegal, let's be very clear, the laws are very complicated but one thing that is simple any candidate with contribute as much as he wants to his campaign for any purpose. a candidate can go to the bank and take out $150,000 in cash and bring it to a woman and say i'm giving this to you as hush money so you won't talk or destroy my campaign. that would not be a violation of the law. there are way

these illegal financial transactions aimed at influencing the election without reporting them to the fecat does raise legal jeopardy for the president. we know that the justice department has made the decision repeatedly going back to the watergate era that it will not allow prosecutors to bring in charges against a sitting president, but the statute of limitations will not have run by january 20-21 when the next presidential term starts. so even if he survives this term, he could be facing legal jeopardy reminiscent of president clinton facing legal jeopardy as he was about to hand over the presidency to president bush. he avoided being charged as long as he was still president. >> these court indictments also renew the talk of impeachment, but there are democrats saying we need more information before moving forward. here's what senator chris murphy had to say about it this morning. >> we should wait for mueller's investigation, but i should also counsel the special investigate or investigater to show his cards soon. he needs to show what he has sometime in early 2013 so congress can m

i believe the fec had found there was no intent to try to skew the election. they were just sloppy with these fi filings. it's a bookkeeping mistake far more than an attempt to throw off an election. if there's nothing to see here, why is trump on tape? if the allegations were true, these were illegal campaign violations. if true, unquestionably a high crime. me w he was trying to cheat and win an election by paying off porn stars. yes, it was a fine, something serious. you can't even compare these two at all. a former federal prosecutor told this to "the washington post." i think it's entirely possible mueller ends up competing. but maybe not criminal. so that's in a report. then the crimes are the cover-ups. this is like my high school career. screw-ups followed by elaborate lies and cover-ups which are worse than the original bad acts. >> it would not be the first time the crime was the cover-up. we've seen that over and over. we were well awere of that. in comey's testimony, the fbi lawyer with him basically admitted there's an obstruction of justice inves

that case has elements that have been referred for potential criminal prosecution to both the fec on the issues of coordinating illegally with the president's campaign and also the irs for alleged criminal tax violations involving the president's foundation. so that's one thing that happened today. we also today got a very intriguing development in the mystery case, the mystery case that somehow involves special counsel robert mueller but nobody's been quite sure how it involves him. this is a matter we've talked about a few times on the show. this is a matter that has just been confounding reporters and observers of the special counsel's office for weeks now. all of the filings and all of the hearings conducted in relation to this case have been either filed or conducted under seal, which means the public can't attend and can't read this stuff. now, we've known that this case involved mueller and his team somehow. we knew that the case, or we could surmise that the case involved somebody fighting a subpoena that they had received from the grand jury that mueller and his team work wit

joining me, former general counsel for the fec, larry noble. s putting his interim ag on the hot seat, being critical of him. the inference is you're not protecting me enough. >> president trump hasn't learned anything. still believes the attorney general is there to serve him. he may not have said you have to close this down, when you say how can this go on, may not have crossed the lines in terms of obstruction of justice, it shows he will pressure people in department of justice, let them know he will be unhappy if this continues. that's something we shouldn't allow. he has to understand the attorney general believes he works for the president of the united states. >> what about the potential response from whitaker. >> potential response, whitaker previously said he thought that the investigation was out of control and this was earlier, before he became acting attorney general. he said that he thought real controls had to be put on mueller, made sure that mueller kept to limits. so the concern now is that he is going to start restricting what

to those get filed with the fec? that's just about getting reelected. encing people so they can win reelection. it's the exact same thing. >> juan: in the middle of a campaign? >> jesse: it's always in the middle of a campaign. i just want to say i feel like this and tyler mueller prosecution is being done with malice. look at what they are doing to people. flynn, a highly decorated guy. manafort, grady, but they are treating him like "whitey" bulger. papadopoulos, the guys life is ruined. no one even knows who he is. and then carter page who they initially spied on, he can get another job. if you look at what happened to scooter libby during the bush years, he went to prison and he wasn't even the one who revealed the identity of the cia agent. susan mcdougal in the clinton situation, she went to prison and she didn't even want to cooperate with ken starr. they are ruining people's lives because they are criminalizing conduct that happens all the time in washington, d.c. we look back and think where is the collusion? >> juan: does it hurt you to go that

a lawyer for spano who is also a lawyer told the fec that he believed he was acting in compliance with >> yeah. >>> coming up, axios's jonathan swan has a look at this morning's one big thing. >>> and more on the new documents set to be released today in the special counsel's investigation as president trump's legal team resumes talks with mueller's office. >>> former cia director john brennan will join the conversation and what could be in mueller's next big disclosure. "morning joe" is just moments away. aaaaaahhhhhhhh! ballooned your car. call meeeee! (burke) a fly-by ballooning. seen it, covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ >>> welcome back, everybody. joining us from washington political reporter from axios, the one and only jonathan swan. how are you doing, jonathan? >> hi, guys. >> friday mornings with jonathan. >> not that good.? >> let's talk about the one big thing. what have you got? >> the range of pressures bearing down on the president are more acute than at any point in his presidency. curre

michael cohen lied to the congress, to the irs, to the bank, to the public, to the fec. aid he's telling the truth and if the judge spares him jail, it's on a belief he'll get to more than one in a row. let's get back to it. nice to see you everybody. what do you think of the defense? >> first of all, i don't -- you can't blame a man for trying. okay. that's the first thing. can't blame him for trying. but all i can say is this -- did you see the video of dmx? you may not want to go to a judge and let that be the voice of reason. >> we might be able to bring that back in a minute. you're talking about dmx, rough riders -- >> yes. any sitting judge would look and that, i'm going to increase your sentence. the stairiest black man in entertainment, that's what you use in i should get a lighter sentence. and let's be honest, willy nelson, you should never invoke willy nelson, he's beloved. i could name three willy nelson songs i love him. you are attacheding to the most polarized figure in history. people can't determine if they like donald trump or cholera better. seriously.

the legal authority to bring a criminal case would come from the irs or the fec or possibly the new yorkate department of taxation and finance. we don't know what any one of these three agentcies are doing. they don't comment ongoing investigations. they've been referred by the a.g. of new york that they should look into it. >> david, a name in your story jumped out at me, having covered last week's cohen sentencing -- was that this week? these are dog years. i can't remember. allen weisselberg controls a lot of the pursestrings in trump's orbit. he didn't -- incredible piece of reporting on your part, he didn't know he was on the board. he's listed as being on the board. he also has some limited immunity for his role in cooperating with the southern district of new york in sort of explaining or fleshing out some of their their narrow questions of the hush money operation run by mikechael cohen and donald trump. how does allen weisselberg figure into this case? is. >> in this case he talked to the new york attorney general's investigators. he was deposed. provided evidence. separate and

i have it right here, oh, obama 2028 campaign fined $375,000 by the fec for campaign violations reporting. okay, the one thing out of all of this, because they can't tie donald trump to the taxi issue or the application issue or the fact that some people didn't pay all their taxes and were hiding income from the government, through various i guess banking methods. so the media are saying would you michael cohen paid this money to buy the silence of these women therefore it's a campaign donation or violation. >> right. >> sean: because it was on his behalf, and remember michael said ed it on his own originally, i think he changed his story. but on his own, not telling donald trump what he was doing and then was paid back. is there any law that was broken there? >> no, first of all donald trump used his own money. and under the law you're allowed an unlimited amount of your own money to your campaign. second of all, in addition to that, you know, you're also able to skirt the campaign laws as a crime because you didn't know goly break the law. knowingly break the law. if michael cohen was f

obviously the fec, i'm not going to bore you with it because it is very granular. lot of people that know a lot about campaign finance law do not believe this payment violated any law whatsoever. >> juan: what about the prosecutors? >> jesse: which prosecutors? >> juan: new york southern district. >> jesse: some prosecutors are trying to link the president's other crimes that cohen committed. the harassment thing i think the democrats are playing with fire. remember what happened with kavanaugh. there was so much injustice with kavanaugh and so much unfairness. it was so out-of-bounds but really activated the republican base. if the republicans going into 2020 see partisan prosecutors and maxine and her bandits going after this president and a lot of shadowy people within the government trying to take away a democratically elected president from our republic, people are going to feel robbed. if people feel like their votes are being robbed, they are going to turn out so heavily and there's going to be so much backlash against this president, it's going to be astron

the fec throws out finance violations all the time, and they throughout finds. the question of criminal versus campaign finance probably something we have to get a lot more information's. we want to find is usually what is paid to bring up an interesting point. that, in fact, would be -- i don't know if the word "bias" is right, but may be looking at so many not as equally or fairly when you adjudicate the case. and then he put forth the punishment, if it's not equal to how you would do it with anybody else. last words from you? >> i believe in the legal system in this country, but if we pretend like agents don't have political bias either way, we are doing ourselves a disservice. that is to be monitored so it doesn't exist in our justice system. equal justice under the law, whether you are republican, democrat, or anything else. >> harris: representative kinsinger, thank you. good to see you. happy holidays to you. >> you too, thank you. >> harris: james comey expected back on capitol hill monday. you heard me talk about him a couple of times today. this is jus

after i left the fec, dmifs private practice for sixth years about i also taught law school and teachingd-raisers, having the fun not touched by other people, by having people from the candidate, candidate's campaign committee take the chicks, those details are things you have to teach lawyers so he has a hard time saying he didn't understand that corporate contributions, contributions over the limit, somebody paying hush money for the purpose of influence your campaign was illegal. >> harry, that's the 2000 affidavit that larry is talking to you in which he has referenced. in 1988, trump testifies i've gone through federal campaigns and it test best thing that ever happened to me because you're limited to a $1,000 contribution. i don't know if he's making a choke about being cheap or what but he's saying he knew the rules and he bragged about it on television. here he is with larry king. >> i think nobody knows more about campaign finance than i do because i'm the biggest contributor. >> what about reform? does it need reform? >> it's very complex -- >> you're the reform party. >> it's