Exploring issues that affect leaders in the U. S. And around the globe. Penalties are even higher, the evidence is even more volume nous, or will he cut his losses, cut a deal and tell what he knows if anything about potential collusion between donald trump and the Russian Election interference effort . Let me bring in the panel now. I want to get to my legal experts, more of my legal experts. By the way, a little more breaking news, the Cohen Hearing is officially over. Sentencing is scheduled for December 12th for his guilty plea at 11 00 a. M. Hes out on 500,000 bail which was cosigned by his wife and a second person. Were going to go there. But Donald Fryman is is on Air Force One on his way to West Virginia to prepare for a rally for the West Virginia senate race. How is he feeling . We think hes emotionally and politically in as much of a corner psychologically as hes been since hes become president of the United States. Hes worked very hard to get at
least some n. Some polls his
And that very day, the next day, he wired 130,000 to stormy Daniels Lawyer in what the prosecution is outlining is that this was at the direction of Donald Trump, an effort by Michael Cohen to conspire to influence the 2016 election. Again, i say all of this is significant because Donald Trump, if you go all The Way back to 2018 and ever since, he has obfuscated on his answer. But he back in 2018 after the initial story broke of the Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, 130,000 arrangement, in April Of 2018 Donald Trump was denying he was aware of it and instead said that would have been a Michael Cohen thing. Now what the prosecution is laying out in a clear Time Line is that they intend to present to the Jury Evidence and testimony that disputes that and that, in fact, Donald Trump was at the core of ordering this and coordinating the effort to silence Stormy Daniels and therefore, the reimbursement
subject to the crime fraud exception. that would be a crime. nick akerman, natasha bertrand and ben wittes, thank you for being here. i m joined by eric swalwell, member of both the house intelligence and judiciary committees, your reaction to the president s campaign chairman pleading guilty and agreeing to cooperate. good evening, chris. the jig is up. you know, this nonsense that there s nothing to see her or this was a witch hunt, well now the trump team is oh for mueller. as mueller continues to zero in on the president s family, businesses, campaign, i think the best thing the president can do, chris, is to just be straight with the american people and certainly be straight with the investigation because he now has a bankrupt credibility. and so that credibility affects not just the russia investigation but his ability to lead in a storm, his ability to address health care issues in
elliott, is that the lame duck session is very dangerous for precisely that reason. right now the electoral effects of major actions are enormous. yes. and i think you re right. he doesn t want to do that. the day after he enters a period in which he is going to have a lame duck majority in both houses, whatever they do, that seems to be a very dangerous period. and to back up what the congresswoman said, you re talking about constitutional questions and constitutional crises. look at how the president has employed the pardon power, going back to sheriff joe, pardoning someone for obstructing the court system. right. he has used it to reward his political allies. and if you re talking about potentially setting up a crisis between the branches of government, this is how frankly, it s one of the tools that the president has unobstruct unobstructed. he can do it. no one can really challenge it. that s the thing that poses the most problems for the government and for the potent
kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth to try to stop her from screaming. she then managed to get herself freed from that and ran away. okay. now, that is obviously a horrifying thing to have happened, if indeed this allegation is true. kavanaugh denies, mark judge denies it. here s my second question. you know who this woman is, i imagine you know her name and identity. do you have enough to know this can t be dismissed out of hand, i guess i would say, that this woman could plausibly have been in the same social circles, that this isn t someone who s just obviously not credible? you know, we do know a good bit about the woman. and i think, you know, there s certainly some of these details do she did attend a school. she was in the right social circles. that s what i mean.