This is cnn blakicnn break im wolf blitzer in the situation room. We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. Were following Breaking News on the president s former fixer and lawyer, Michael Cohen, and the russia investigation. Two Court Filings just released, one by the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, the other by prosecutors in new york, and theres new information about cohens cooperation. What it could mean for President Trump and for Michael Cohen as the feds in new york argue he should get substantial prison time. Right now, Robert Mueller also is set to file a secret document on Paul Manafort, the former Trump Campaign chairman, and why prosecutors believe manafort lied. Theres lots of news to unfold right now. I want to go first to our
political correspondent sara murray. Sara, muellers document makes it clear that Michael Cohen was cooperating but hes not necessarily suggesting he shouldnt get a substantial prison sentence. No, i think theres
Department that essentially says the president is above the director, therefore the president is not subject to the jurisdiction of the director, therefore it doesnt meet the definition of urgent concern, therefore the Inspector General is done. The Inspector General cant investigate anymore. Thats the Inspector Generals reading of the Department Opinion, that he is no longer allowed to investigate this. Is that your reading as well . Chairman, not necessarily the president , but the allegation has to relate to the funding, administration, operation of an Intelligence Activity within the responsibility and the authority of the director of National Intelligence. Okay. Im just trying to get to whether the president is somehow beyond the reach of the law. No, sir. No person in this country is beyond the reach of the law. Well, thats the way it should be but im trying to figure out whether thats the way it is as a practical fact. The Inspector General believes that based on the opinion tha
According to the separation agreement, the husband was allegedly obligated to provide maintenance of ₹2,000 with an annual increment of 10 percent to his wife and children and allocate one acre of agricultural land.
been held criminally liable, and that s in the face at least with the respect of the legislators of an explicit constitutional privilege. i don t view the united states versus johnson or ex parte of virginia as discretionary distinction and what johnson says is that it does not say, hey, when you were doing these other things that were ministerial, it is legislative acts, it is drawing between legislative and nonlegislative acts and that is the right reading of ex parte virginia and they go on the say judicial acts and the argument of picking a jury and they don t use the words to my recollection ministerial that is because they were criminal acts and picking the jury picked on race is a criminal act, and whatever johnson did, and i believe it is the very same statute fraud against the united states that is before us today. and i would say that distinction in those cases is in the judicial case johnson led
and that s in the face at least with respect to the legislators of an explicit constitutional privilege. i don t view united states against johnson ex parte as resting on the ministerial versus discretionary distinction. what johnson says, it doesn t say hey when you were doing these other things, they were ministerial, what it says is these were not legislative acts. to draw the distinction between legislative and nonlegislative acts, i think that s the right reading of ex parte virginia. they say judicial act. the argument of picking a jury, i don t believe they use the word to my recollection ministerial, they say because they were picking the jury based on race is a criminal act. and whatever johnson did, i think it was the very same statute, fraud against the united states, that is before us today. i would say the distinction in those cases is between in the judicial case johnson sorry legislative the legislative