here are the federal election commission rules on that kind of thing. an individual is limited to $2,700 that they can contribute to a federal election candidate, according to the federal election commission, so obviously if that was $130,000 to benefit trump s campaign from an individual, that would have obviously exceeded that amount. now, a candidate any candidate who gets a $200 contribution from an individual, if it s over $200, that individual has to be named. the question again is, if, again, this was made as a possible campaign benefit contribution and didn t report who gave it to him or who gave the money to stormy daniels, that could be a violation. also contributions from corporations to a federal candidate are prohibited under federal election commission law. so if it was the trump corporation giving this money to stormy daniels for the purposes of benefiting the trump campaign in 2016, that could have been a violation. but again, michael cohen says all of this is baseles
you re viewers know, has burned every bridge he has. is perfectly willing to say everything. and as you guys know, he saw a lot, heard a lot and knows a lot. and now we know he s willing to say a lot. and bob costa, i m sure you were hearing the same thing i was hearing, even before news started to break in the times and other papers. that jared kushner had ties with certain russian interests that he didn t report. steve bannon was going around bragging that kushner was going to be taken down by russia. so obviously he had inside information that even the media didn t have for some time. so does jared kushner have a reason to be concerned with steve bannon s testimony? there were comments to that effect inside the wolff book. you do have to put aside the drama at the house intelligence committee, about steve bannon. there is this question legally, constitutionally, about what members or former members of the executive branch can tell
but 2/3 republicans said less likely. i think this is a bipartisan movement. how come it didn t work with clinton? all those allegations were all pretty credible. they re credible and ghastly accusations. and all i heard was move on, missouri on.org. that s all i heard during that. there have been two huge cultural shifts in the last years. one was on gay marriage. and the one just this year is believing women. i think we have donald trump to thank for that because he got elected. what about harvey weinstein? i think donald trump changed the landscape and made people much more willing to say we ve
he excuse me, roy moore. what we re seeing is, and that is the question we have to ask ourselves, the me too movement more powerful than partnership? what happened in this past election it is was not. we have to see what s going to happen, whether or not the congressional members of both party. the me too movement helped doug jones, didn t it? it did because you got a flurry of much more people coming out and voting than they do historically in midterm elections. look at the women shift. the women shift down there. absolutely. we did a poll. we asked if you agreed with the candidate but he faced a credible allegation of sexual misconduct, would you be less likely to vote for him? more than eight out of ten democrats said less likely. but 2/3 republicans said less likely. i think this is a bipartisan movement. how come it didn t work with clinton? all those allegations were all pretty credible. they re credible and ghastly accusations. and all i heard was move on,
and it was easy for trump to push back on the collusion thing because how do you prove it? what does it look like? where does it show up? for me it s obstruction of justice. what s he hiding from? well, that s what mueller has his fingertip on right now, which is why you see the nervous nellies around the white house. because when you start having flynn, papadopoulos and others start to go down, manafort who is starting to sing a little bit, talk a little bit, fill out the scenario. let s try something. what s that? jared kushner is one of the people fingered as one of the people giving orders to flynn to go talk to the russians. your son-in-law, you know, let s just speculate here was one of the people giving orders about what to talk to the russians about. that s bringing you in. i think they ve had a two-part defense. one is deny everything. even if you have to later make concessions that you didn t report. for instance, contacts with russia. the other is to muddy up the