community. now with our cnn national security analyst joining us from boston, juliet kayam. (door bell rings) it s ohey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, all right. are you okay? juliette. even when i was there, let s talk about what we re learn interesting this shooter and this supposed manifesto. i never knew when my symptoms i actually loathe that worth would keep us apart. that this person posted talking so i talked to my doctor about humira. about his motives. what can you bleen from what i learned humira can help get, you re hearing about it? and keep uc under control from what we re hearing about when other medications haven t worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. it and stated from our so you can experience few reporters, what we re reporting, or no symptoms. this was a document loaded onto humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. 4chan. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancer
congress. so the question, how substantive were those changes that were made. now, we have heard from jay sekulow, who last week commented on michael cohen s testimony, and he said that any suggestion that the president s attorneys were part of making changes to lie to congress is categorically false. so the question is now, what are democrats going to do about this, is this something that the committee is going to investigate further. and perhaps even prosecutors in the southern district of new york who have been looking at this, according to michael cohen. all right. thank you very much, evan. obviously significant developments, as all of this information keeps coming in. and i want to go now to david gergen, juliet kayam, and harry s s sandek former assistant attorney for the southern district of new york. harry, there is a question of who is telling the truth and what the documents show and the information. however, is michael cohen is right, briefed ivanka trump ten times and sh
i m not trying to get in an argument. but i m saying she knew those negotiations continued because she was being briefed on them and knew that was something the president was saying publicly was not happening, right? you may well be right. but it s also possible those ten briefings were earlier. we just don t know. now, i think we re going to be really curious to find out what the members of the committee tell us coming out of there, what they have heard. that s going to be that s going to tell us a lot about who actually knew. somebody probably knew beyond cohen. that somebody is going to be in trouble. but i just don t think we know for sure who that somebody is. so, juliet, let me just ask you purely on the legal issue of this. the president, you know, would look me in the eye and say there is no russian business, and he would go on to lie to the american people. in his way, he was telling me to lie. but he s not saying lie. so how does the law deal with that? is there any way
company, were going on well. she knew that date was a lie. her lawyer signed off on it. what could that mean? if the lawyer signed off on it after essentially taking it back to his client, to ivanka trump and said, you know, is this accurate, do you have any corrections, and she said no, it looks good, it could well be obstruction. the concern i would have as a prosecutor is, is this ivanka essentially saying, look, if that s what michael cohen remembers, i don t have any firsthand basis to challenge it. everything i ve learned about this is from cohen, and so therefore not commenting on it. or is it not commenting on it, knowing full well it s false and hoping that the false statement gets accepted as true by others. right. and, of course, we don t know, juliet. we know based on michael cohen. and look, this is based on various people but he s saying he briefed her and her brother ten times. those briefings obviously continued well into the election. so when she saw a date saying
either way. and so telling someone indirectly with a nod and a wink the way and can you prove that? that s the second question, is the reason why many people when they give a legal instruction, they often couch it in a code or try to dress it up in some way that s deniable, because it makes it harder for prosecutors to prove it later on. so here it s certainly not impossible. and it s proved all the time in federal court, in trials, where, you know, drug dealers or mobsters or people engaging in insider trading say i want you to make that trade. bear in mind, i didn t know anything about that earnings announcement that s coming tomorrow. you know? and you say this, and it s, of course, not true. and that s essentially what cohen is saying here. so it makes it a little bit harder to prove. but it s just as illegal as if you tell the person directly. all right. juliet, go ahead. i just wanted to pick up on david s point. there will be a question about, you know, when these meet