13th. in a private transaction in 2016, i used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to ms. stephanie clifford. neither the trump organization, nor the trump campaign was a party to the transaction with ms. clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment either directly or indirectly. so the whole notion that the trump organization was not a party to whether it s to that or to this ongoing operation, certainly to the ongoing operation, you can t say the trump organization s not a party. not involved. now, what i assume jill martin would say is, i wasn t really involved in the litigation. she uses the phrase pro hoc, which refers to the act of allowing an out of town lawyer to appear in your state. she will say and that s implied in her statement is that i wasn t really involved in the litigation. i was just helping mr. rosen, the real lawyer, appear here because he s not a california lawyer. but that goes to the question of out of all the lawyers in
attorney make this statement in early february or mid-february, 13th or 14th, saying trump organization nothing to do with it and then, after making that statement and it s not like if was a small statement. that was a big deal statement, got a lot of coverage. why would any licensed attorney then reach out to somebody in the trump organization even if it was for a minimal role? again, to play lawyer here, i think he might say that that statement only applied to who was paying. the trump organization didn t pay. this statement this is not an acknowledgement that the trump organization actually paid any money. i mean i m trying to torture the words but it is example, according to both of you, that the trump organization is involved in this ongoing effort. it certainly is. for all intents and purposes, every piece of actual evidence, separate and apart from what mr. cohen may try to tell the american people, every piece of actual evidence demonstrates that ec, llc, equals t