country, ex-tolling him and how great he was. saudi arabia denying connection to that. the press reported the embassy got a copy of this ahead of the grocery stores when they got it as well. there s also reporting in the wall street journal that ami and david pecker looked to saudi arabia to help them in financing or anything like that. so it is not clear what the connections might be, but clearly saudi arabia is a place that ami cares about. and this is something jeff bezos alluded to in his media and blog post where he said it seemed to him his investigators looking into the saudi angle, particularly wrang eld the ceo of ami, david pecker. all of the connections between saudi arabia and donald trump and we should note the white house hasn t been exerting much pressure over the khashoggi killing as the washington post and friends of khashoggi would want them to do, especially for something as egregious as what happened. clearly all of the connections are leading to more questions.
this man is lying. is that a big surprise that michael cohen is lying? the man is a complete pathological liar. whether it happened or didn t happen, it s not illegal. in his defense, michael cohen is not a perfect witness. how do you think this defense would hold up in court? if you re a prosecutor it s not the first time you ll use a flip defendant and give you testimony. i ll admit michael cohen has flaws. he has challenged the definition of what is telling the truth many times. i m confident that robert mueller and the southern district of new york have corroborating evidence in the forms of audio tape, e-mails, text messages. those have been referenced in the sentencing memoranda. i know that mueller has something to basically back up what michael cohen has said. because of that, michael cohen may be one of a parade of witnesses, including david pecker, the ceo of ami, the parent company of national
which was between him and daivi pecker and david pecker s counsel. david pecker is the ceo of ami. here is what ami told the wall street journal about the payments back in 2016 right before the election. quote, ami has not paid people to kill damaging stories about mr. trump. except that s not what they told federal prosecutors when they struck a cooperation deal. quote, ami admitted that it did make the $150,000 payment in concert with the candidate s presidential campaign and in order to ensure that the women did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate. there was another lie solidi solidified. back in 2016 he laughed off the idea of trump campaign having ties to russia. are there any ties between mr. trump, you or your campaign and putin and his regime? there are not.
under criminal investigation. i ll talk about all of that have with senator jack reid of the senate intelligence and armed services committee and our special correspondents and analysts are standing by. let s got to our cnn white house correspondent pamela brown and our legal analyst jeffrey toobin. pamela, we ll get to the new reporting from twurnl in a moment, but let s start with the new information about the hush money payment. what are you learning? reporter: well, wolf, tonight, just as donald trump tries to distance himself from the hush payments to these two women during the campaign, in an interview with fox news, we re learning more about central role that he played in the hush money, a source telling cnn tonight that donald trump was part of the august 20 is a meeting with david pecker, the ceo of ami, who paid off one of the women to suppress her story. trump s attendance was first report by the wall street journal in november, but this has added significance now in lig
federal law and we now have not just michael cohen one, but david packer, the ceo of ami, national choir who is directly implicating the president. bret: other people pointed the john edwards case, what the ftc said about that with the court case said, saying it was not a campaign finance violation. that is right and they couldn t convict him in the end. here s the question, for almost 50 years, the justice department guidance that a sitting president cannot be indicted. when you look at all these filings and documents from the attorney office, from the attorney office in new york, you see them laying the groundwork for a potential indictment of a sitting president. one has to wonder, are they actually going to defy president and do that and indict a sitting president? if they do, they will certainly