meetings. but i would love if you could, you know, occasionally go do speaking engagements and that sort of thing for us. i think you d be awesome doing that. so it doesn t really matter where you are. if you re comfortable staying in d.c., then, you know, we re more than happy to have you. ann, could the offer of $15,000 a month for a vaguely defined campaign job create the possibility of an election law violation? it could create that possibility. there s a law that requires that all of the campaign money has to be used for bona fide purposes. and when they give money to a particular individual to do a task, it has to be not only a bona fide service to the campaign, but the payment itself has to reflect the fair market
does that change things if no money traded hands? well, i think if no money traded hands, you would have a hard time making out an election law violation. i think, on the other hand, if the national enquirer killed the story because a deal was made with president trump or his campaign representatives, then i think you would have an argument that that s an unreported campaign contribution. one other thing, laura, that i do want to get to. another part of this recording that s not getting as much attention but i think it should is, quote, all this stuff. so the president says, what are we going to do? and michael cohen responds, yes, and it s all the stuff, all the stuff, because, you know, you never know where that company meaning ami, the owner of these publications you never know where he s going to be, meaning david pecker. that s what is assumed, the owner of the company. so all this stuff raises all the the questions, right, laura?
stronger. we need to be careful talking about, you know, the case. i don t know what michael cohen did that s unlawful. that s what s weird about this. yes, there is the possibility of an election law violation. stormy daniels payment. that s not the kind of those cases are very rare. i don t know what the underlining crime is. much less any could it be something with a taxi m ta taxi medallion, for example? we ll be soft on this if you give us your boss. that s correct. i don t know what it could be with taxi medallions either. we need to be fair to michael cohen and also the president because i don t know what evidence cohen has on the president. one step at a time here. yes. although as you point out, to get that warrant itself is a huge statement in and of itself. it is. it is. april, the shift we see, harry referred to it, things that cohen is turning on his boss policy wise.
that michael cohen could use to just indiscriminately pay anybody apparently who will be negative or damaging information on mr. trump prior to the election. so again it, goes to the federal election law violation. he s trying to sort of in an effort to get himself out of issues, he s sort of muddying the waters and making more issues for him. in a weird way, annie, it s so weird. if trump s telling the truth which no one here believes that he pays this fixer to fix all problems and gives them a sum of money, in other words, what happens if you get in more trouble than $130,000? suppose there s four or five women at a time. is this guy supposed to cover that or it comes out of the $35,000 a month. this is part of his argument. the giuliani argument is hey, look, this happens all the time this had has nothing to doing with an election. we re constantly paying people off. there s always a women in
prosecutors have the financial paper trail of these transactions and know who paid what. so to speculate for a second, you can imagine if they know where the money is coming from and it is obviously coming from the president, that lays out this campaign finance problem which ken was talking about. so i think that rudy was trying to clean it up but made a second problem in cleaning it up. it just goes to show you how tangled this web is. are you saying that the intent perhaps was to acknowledge that the payment was made, that donald trump had made the payment, but not to take that extra piece and say it was a week before the election, what were we going to do? exactly. he is trying to cage it and say, okay, yes, the president made this payment, he paid for it but it was not related to the election. i think that was the effort that was going on here. you can see from the first day of coverage that they thought that that was going to cleaver th clear them on the election law violati