trevor potter told us he doesn't agree. >> the payment of the money creates an enormous legal mess for, and anyone else who was involved in this in the campaign. >> are you saying that can be seen as a contribution to benefit a campaign. >> i am. $130,000 inkind contribution to the trump campaign which is about 126,500 above what he is allowed to give and if he does this on behalf of his client, the candidate, that is a coordinated illegal in kind contribution by cohn for the purpose of influencing the election. benefitting the candidate by keeping this secret. >> the payment stormy daniels received is the subject of complaints by watchdog groups which trevor potter used to be chairman of. he is now president of the campaign legal center. >> if the president paid michael cohn back is that an in kind contribution the president should have reported. >> it doesn't remove the fact that the initial payment violates. it mitigates it if he is paid back by the candidate. >> what if the president never reimbursed the president. >> he is still out on the line. >> you are saying this is more seri

cohen said the money was not a campaign contribution, but trevor potter, former chairman of the federalion commission appointed by george h. w. bush doesn't agree. >> the payment of the money creates an enormous legal mess for trump, for cohen, and anyone else who was involved in this in the campaign. >> are you saying that can be seen as a contribution to benefit a campaign? >> i am. it's $13,000 in-kind contribution by cohen to the trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he is allowed to give. and if he does this on behalf of his client, the candidate, that is a coordinated illegal in kind contribution by cohen for the purpose of influencing the election, of benefiting the candidate by keeping this secret. >> the payment stormy daniels received is the subject of complaints by watchdog groups to the department of justice, and the federal election commission, which trevor potter used to chairman of. he's now president of the nonpartisan campaign legal center which supporters the enforcement of campaign finance laws. >> if the president paid michael cohen back is that an in ki

but trevor potter, a former chairman of the federal election commission appointed by president george h.w. bush, told us he doesn't agree. >> potter: the payment of the money just creates an enormous legal mess for, i think, trump, for cohen, and anyone else who was involved in this in the campaign. >> cooper: are you saying that can be seen as a contribution to benefit a campaign? >> potter: i am. it's a $130,000 in kind contribution by cohen to the trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he's allowed to give. and if he does this on behalf of his client, the candidate, that is a coordinated, illegal, in kind contribution by cohen for the purpose of influencing the election, of benefiting the candidate by keeping this secret. the payment stormy daniels received is the subject of complaints by watchdog groups to the department of justice and the federal election commission, which trevor potter used to be chairman of. he's now president of the non- partisan campaign legal center, which supports the enforcement of campaign finance laws. >> cooper: if the president paid michael

>> yes. >> because of what trevor potter said and because of your understanding of potential election violations because of the payment? >> we were looking into it before we heard what mr. potter said. >> there is now enough evidence there that you are looking at that as a next legal phase potentially? >> yes. >> keep us posted. >> thank you. >> it is a pleasure to have you. >> appreciate it. >> michael avenatti, we thank you. we're going to sneak in a break. when we come back the panel weighs in on a question. if you can't execute an nda with a porn star how can you be trusted to negotiate peace in the middle east or denuclearization in the korean peninsula? last years' ad campaign was a success for choicehotels.com badda book. badda boom. this year, we're taking it up a notch. so in this commercial we see two travelers at a comfort inn with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. nobody glows. he gets it. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choiceho

this is trevor potter on 60 minutes. >> i think the edwards case is not as strong as the facts we havefar in the trump case. >> why do you think the potential case against cohen or trump is a stronger case than the edwards case? >> the timing of it. it wasn't the year before the election. it was right in the middle of the run-up to election day. when trump's conduct with women was a prime campaign issue. in fact it was what everybody was faek focused on. >> it is right around the time that "access hollywood" came out and i've recorded -- i didn't say that but it was was i married to melania. so there was a political concern and a campaign objective was to keep these sort of things from getting out. >> and i also think it is perfectly possible with the n-- nondisclosure agreement and that may not be video of the interaction, that may be something that speaks to this. that may be an e-mail that said keep your mouth shut or do this and we never have to hear from you again. there is a lot of things they may have on the table. and it is really obvious. this is a ten-year-old affair. for the

trevor potter used to be chairman. now president of the nonpartisan campaign legal center which supports the enforcement of campaign finance laws. >> if the president paid michael cohen back, is that an in kind campaign contribution the president should have reported. >> if he was reimbursed by the president, that doesn't remove the fact that the initial payment violated cohen's contribution limits. it mitigates it if he paid back by the candidate because the the canned dade could have paid for it without limit. >> what if the president never reimbursed michael cohen. >> then he is still out on the line, having made a, illegal in kind contribution to the campaign. >> you are saying this is more serious for michael cohen if the president did not pay him back? >> yes, i think that's correct. >> we juaned to speak with mr. trump's attorney, michael cohen about this. he did not respond to our calls and written request for comment. cohen told the "the new york times" last month he used his own personal funds to facilitate a

trevor potter spoke about this pretty eloquently last night. if this relationship occurred in '06, '07 -- >> they tried to do it with john edwards and lost that case. >> days before the presidential election, michael cohen decides there is an urgency to pay off the porn star, that's not an accident. >> if that's when the matter came up to him. this is the benefit of the reckoning of the facts. tell me if i'm missing something. if somebody calls and says i want comment. or that's when it was made known to him to have to act or not act. that he wants the timing. >> luckily, we have a former federal prosecutor on set. thank goodness. what do you think the legal ramifications are here? >> it's a much stronger case, honestly, in terms of a violation for michael cohen and donald trump than john edwards. there was an attenuated statement before he became the dnc nominee and then the president of the united states. this is 11 days before. what you had in the tease is the attorney for daniels is saying, listen, it was intended to be a campaign contribut

you worked with trevor potter at the fec and you do now. he's your current colleague at the league center, former chairman at the fec. he's really not holding any punches there. do you believe that this $130,000 paid by michael cohen to stormy daniels is an in-kind contribution? >> it certainly looks that way. the timing, as he pointed out, right before the election. and she weren't talking about the contribution before the affair. >> they also said it's worse for cohen if the president has not repaid him. >> right. because if the president repaid him, what you have is cohen made a loan of $130,000. which is a contribution, but once it's repaid it mitigates it somewhat. if he's not paid it, that $130,000 is outstanding right now. >> on the flip side, if the president did pay michael cohen back, it confirms all these things, perhaps, that he says are not true, whether it's how involved he was, whether it's -- if you would be more apt to believe him or not on whether or not this affair happened. >> right. and he doesn't admit to having been p

trevor potter who used to run the election committee, he was all over this piece last night.ks this is a stronger case potentially. >> i do agree. you're talking about 11 days before the general election is when this contract went down, when the payment was made. talking about john edwards who it was before he even sealed the dnc nomination which he never did obviously and it was about a year or more before hand. that distance from it makes it a harder uphill battle. the issue there was that they didn't find it to be a campaign contribution because a lot of people different people were trying to protect hunter and her pregnancy. the person said at the time that it wasn't a campaign contribution, it was don mcgahn we know where he now is in terms of the white house. it's the media of the turn around of the general election. certain things didn't add up for me and the statement that she made in terms of intimidation and fear is a very big concern happened back in 11 in a parking lot by someone she assumed may be come from the trump organization but the proof is in the pudding a

greatest legal dangers for the president may be a campaign finance violation as articulated by trevor potterthe 60 minutes piece watched by i think close to 20 million people, more than 20 million people last week. and my friends sort of outside of the political world who seem to have more interest in this story than anything involving the mueller probe for some reason, keep asking me if that might be sort of an ironic way that donald trump gets forced either into a deposition or into real legal peril, that someone ten days before the election paid a porn star who alleges a sexual relationship with the president $130,000 to keep quiet. >> well, i think it's very likely at this point to get him into a deposition unless there is a quick resolution with stormy daniels, which does not appear to be happening. and you know, nicolle, this isn't the first time this happened. paula jones had a litigation with bill clinton that famously went up to the supreme court. the supreme court held that he was not immune from that suit and he sat for a deposition, which ultimately became very consequential in h

and it looks like as trevor potter said last night, looks like you could have a real problem in terms of campaign finance violation. i certainly know if i had done that when i was in condition, if anybody i had known when i was in congress did that where you had somebody paying $130,000 and wasn't reported on your fec filing you would be going to court in short order. what does it all mean. >> i think there are a couple of things that happened. one is that the stage is set now for a colossal fight in court. she's obviously released many of the details that the n nondisclosure agreement was designed to withhold from the public. she's also made official what was eluded to in the past, that she was in her view threatened by this individual in the parking lot. and so now we have to watch for the most obvious steps. i think michael cohen is likely to push this out of federal court back into arbitration. i think stormy daniels will resist that but in terms of the campaign finance issue that's what we've been talking about for a couple of weeks because i think that is a real danger. i've sai