let s read what you wrote there. rosenstein raised the idea of wearing a recording device or wire to secretly tape the president when he visited the white house or other fbi officials interviewing with mr. trump for that fbi job. now, as you know the doj follows very detailed rules on getting warrants for surveillance. is your reporting that rosenstein was considering illegal surveillance or trying to get a warrant to do the wire or that it never got that far? well, i don t think it got to the point of legal review on what to do with this. this was not a wire in the sense of tapping the president s phone or installing a listening device. it would be a recording as if, you know, you sat down and we had coffee and i recorded it. washington, d.c. is a one-party consent so you know, anyone can basically record any type of one-on-one conversation with them. obviously taking such a move with the president would have been extraordinary. this is something the justice department uses in dru
very detailed rules on getting warrants for surveillance. is your reporting that rosenstein was considering illegal surveillance or trying to get a warrant to do the wire or that it never got that far? well, i don t think it got to the point of legal review on what to do with this. this was not a wire in the sense of tapping the president s phone or installing a listening device. it would be a recording as if, you know, you sat down and we had coffee and i recorded it. washington, d.c. is a one-party consent so you know, anyone can basically record any type of one-on-one conversation with them. obviously taking such a move with the president would have been extraordinary. this is something the justice department uses in drug cases or gang cases and to go back to the you mentioned the one-party consent law. michael, as law enforcement they wouldn t go near wiretapping someone in the executive branch without more.
donald trump has met his match. there any basis for her being arrested? reporter: probably not. legal efforts we have consulted say you would have to go through legal acrobatics to turn what she did into a crime. certainly she brought some safety and ethical protocols, but as far as breaking the rules, she didn t break the law. d.c. has a one-party consent law. we have seen the trump campaign try to wipe her out financially, given that she signed an nda, a nondisclosure agreement with the campaign. and they view that as an egregious violation of that agreement. and it was told that trump fired the chief white house usher in part because he shot she mishandled the
there are, i m sure, numerous other cases, that as this goes forward, we re going to see come forward. and donald has been doing this for the hole whole 30 years that i ve covered him. and one of the questions that has come up, and it s come up this morning on this show is, why would michael cohen ever record this conversation? why would he record a hundred more conversations? again, based on what you know of trump world, why would someone record stuff? well, wifirst of all, in new york city, it s not unusual that people tape you. new york state is called a one-person consent law. and when i was at the new york times, i was always assumed that i was being taped when i interviewed somebody on the phone in new york. but some lawyers may tape a client now and then to get make sure they get their directions straight. and the other reason is, this is insurance. if the boss is asking you to commit an illegal act and you
they are concerned about a young woman who is here without any parental guidance or a relative to walk her through this process. it is not a legitimate question? as i said, texas has a pretty strong consent law. this young woman got a judicial bypass. i understand that scott lloyd really does want to put abortion on trial here. but the courts have not sided with him in this case. i think that he needs to stop bullying these young women to make his point. shannon: he certainly does not describe it that way but we appreciate your viewpoint. thank you for joining us tonight. we know this case is far from over. texas attorney general ken paxton, concerned that the federal court ruling could pave the way for his state to become a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants seeking abortions, paid for mostly by taxpayers. good to have you with us, general. thank you. shannon: i want to ask you something. it went through very quickly a number of different levels, the d.c. circuit, just bel