about wikileaks ahead of the big wikileaks dump and cnn is right that the president told mr. mueller he did no such thing, he never had that conversation, how serious is that? i think that that would be extremely serious. how would mueller go about proving that if he wanted to prove that the president had lied to the special counsel about that matter? so the proof issue is significant. no one s relying on michael cohen s word unless it s corroborated. the first thing you do is try to get roger stone s phone records and see if there is a phone call he makes to whatever number is being used in trump tower. then you ve got cohen s reporting about trump s secretary whose office is just adjacent. she lets him know that the call is there. does the door stay open? does she overhear the phone call? does anybody else walk into the office while it s ongoing? does cohen or does trump have a conversation with somebody later that day or close in time where they talk about it? you just move th
truth now on this, on both sides of this, that he heard the president and stone talking about wikileaks ahead of the big wikileaks dump and cnn is right that the president told mr. mueller he did no such thing, he never had that conversation, how serious is that? i think that that would be extremely serious. how would mueller go about proving that if he wanted to prove that the president had lied to the special counsel about that matter? so the proof issue is significant. no one s relying on michael cohen s word unless it s corroborating. the first thing you do is try to get roger stone s phone records and see if there is a phone call he makes to whatever number is being used in trump tower. then you ve got cohen s reporting about trump s secretary whose office is just adjacent. she lets him know that the call is there. does the door stay open? does she overhear the phone call? does anybody else walk into the office while it s ongoing. does cohen or does trump have a conversation
afterwards. that s so exactly correct. thank you for making that point. there is a big wikileaks dump in june. there is a big wikileaks dump in october within 45 minutes of the release of the access hollywood tape. and mueller s latest indictment makes clear the russians were present in democratic servers through that period between june and october and may have stolen democratic party analytics. we don t know what the russians did with that, but that would be useful information for a campaign that had half as much money to spend as the hillary clinton campaign and as we have seen tonight was not employing competent professionals. thank you for guiding us through the investigation tonight. really appreciate. thank you. when we come back, the most unpopular republican president since richard nixon, will he be challenged for the republican nomination for president and will ohio governor john kasich be that challenge?
that s correct. knowledge is relevant. but it isn t knowledge at that point. that s not the only point at which his knowledge becomes relevant. if he knew about the meeting ahead of him, they went to the meeting, whether or not anything happened afterwards, there can still be a crime. conspiracy is a crime that does not need to have a fully completed act afterwards. it is about an agreement. that is the crime. and second of all, a lot did happen after that meeting. so the whole statement is prepostero preposterous, right? they released e-mails afterwards and trump asked for more e-mails. so it is preposterous to say that nothing happened afterwards. everything happened afterwards. that s so exactly correct. thank you for making that point. there is a big wikileaks dump in june. there is a big wikileaks dump in october within 45 minutes of the release of the access hollywood tape. and mueller s latest indictment makes clear the russians were
and i m wondering, when you hear trump as he should be with his strategy hammering these e-mails, will it work? does the undecided voter hear e-mail and think liar or do they decipher the truth? i think undecided voters at this point some of those folks are low information voters and they probably won t vote and then the others are probably equally disgusted by both sides and they have to decide on election day who they want to vote for. but i don t think he s going for those undecided voters, normally if you have a big wikileaks, you would have the rnc backing that up, you would have officials, republican party officials fanning out and underscoring that message but that isn t donald trump and that isn t