the course of investigation. and so as this mushrooms, you now have more investigators in new york running in a different direction into the trump team. i think it s a very damaging situation for the white house. one other bar czar note i just want to mention from the wall street journal report on elliott broedy. they write the broedy agreement uses the same pseudonyms for mr. broidy and the one he was allegedly involved. david denison, the same name used for mr. trump and ms. clifford. phil rucker, before we go to break here, this seems like the issue that could potentially set the president off beyond all other issues that could potentially lead him to fire rod rosenstein. would you say that chatter around that there was so much speculation he was going to do that friday. that didn t actually happen. yeah, you know, kasie, there have been a lot of moments in three s 15 months when donald trump s been president when he s been angry or upset or raging. we write about his mood
uses the same pseudonyms for mr. broidy and the one he was allegedly involved. david denison, the same name used for mr. trump and ms. clifford. phil rucker, before we go to break here, this seems like the issue that could potentially set the president off beyond all other issues that could potentially lead him to fire rod rosenstein. would you say that chatter around that there was so much speculation he was going to do that friday. that didn t actually happen. yeah, you know, kasie, there have been a lot of moments in three s 15 months when donald trump s been president when he s been angry or upset or raging. we write about his moods a lot. but this week felt different this past week. he was really irate over the raids on cohen, over the unknowns. it wasn t clear what records
to enforce that arbitration agreement. there was simply no meeting of the minds. if he had no idea that michael cohen was entering into this agreement with stormy daniels, the agreement itself explicitly says that david denison, also known as donald trump and peggie whatever her last name was, stormy daniels, agreed to arbitrate. donald trump s just given away the story. he didn t agree. and that goes for folks that a aren t experts in contracts. some of this gets into a metaphysical debate. in the end a hush money agreement is a contract. and it becomes is there a contract? and if there is a meeting of the minds, a consideration and the contract agreement. if there is, you debate about what s in it. if there is no contract, you all go home.
such a big gaff legally. so, if you look at the contract between stormy daniels and trump, who is referred to as d.d. in the contract, there s all sorts of representations what is d.d. again? is it something dirty? if it is, don t tell me. david denison. i m just using that because if you look at the agreement, that s the language that s used. but it says throughout that agreement that d.d. makes all sorts of representations and agreements and concessions. d.d. releases claims. d.d. makes representations. d.d. agrees to a whole number of things. well, you don t need to be a lawyer to know, for the folks at home watching this, that to agree to something you actually have to know about it. to make a concession, to release claims you have to know about them. it s just common sense. it is completely incompetent and unethical for a lawyer to enter into an agreement on his client s behalf without letting the client know about it.
point, but i do not see buy you cannot indict this particular president. it all goes by the facts. clinton argued that it would take away from his duties as president, because he was fully engaged. here s a president, that, one, has already brought himself to federal court in los angeles, suing a porn star that he claims he doesn t know, and he may have to show up there and testify as david denison perhaps wearing a paper bag over his head because he doesn t want anybody to know who he is. and second you got a president that s not fully engaged. i don t understand that your argument is unlike other presidents this one can be indicted because he s lazy and lit t litigious? also because he can t very well argue that it s going to take away from his duties. he spends more time on the golf course than he does in the white