solve wisenberg. good evening to you. good evening, shannon. thank you. shannon: another tweet from the former fbi director says this: the ag should stop sliming his own department. if there are bad facts, show us, or search for them professionally and then tell us what you found. an. a g. must act like the leader of the department of justice based on truth. donald trump has enough spokespeople. sol, what do you make of this? the former fbi director now coming for the current ag? i think he s a congenital liar. the attorney general did not slime his own department. the attorney general said if government officials acted improperly and abused their power and put their thumb on the scale, that s something that everybody should know about. it s going to look into it. and he said, i m not saying that happened. let me tell you about bill
journal reporting that the feds have evidence that president trump was directly involved in paying off stormy daniels, karen mcdougal. do you get the sense that campaign finance laws were violated here? it certainly would appear that way. as i read that wall street journal story, i could just envision the indictment that could come out of all that, a conspiracy to violate the federal campaign laws. whether that will happen or not since michael cohen has pled is a good question. i doubt there will be much further litigation on this in the sense of a prosecution. but david pecker was also mentioned prominently in that story. and he appears that he might have had a an immunity deal as wisenberg from the trump organization clearly got an immunity deal. so i don t know that that case is going to go much further. but it is a certainly evidence of a conspiracy. so this is according to the journal, john barrett, trump
back now john dean, john q. barrett. john dean, i want to ask you about the wall street journal reporting that the feds have evidence that president trump was directly involved in paying off stormy daniels, karen mcdougal. do you get the sense that campaign finance laws were violated here? it would appear that way as i read that wall street journal story, i could envision the indictment that could come out of all that, a conspiracy to violate the federal campaign laws. whether that will happen or not since michael cohen has pled is a good question. i doubt there will be much further litigation on this in the sense of a prosecution. but david pecker was also mentioned prominently in that story. and he appears that he might have had a an immunity deal as wisenberg from the trump organization clearly got an
report report bianci is a former defense attorney and a criminal prosecutor. he never went through with this plan, but what does it signal that the president was willing to pay for all this dirt on him and what could it mean for the president? because a novice could say, i don t know, isn t this what all politicians do? that argument keeps getting made. when i was the head of a prosecutorial agency in charge of all corruption cases, that was a constant refrain. we just didn t know. sometimes you ll take that into consideration. this say little different. they re in a room. we have a tape. the tape is talking about we got to buy these stories. they re talking about polls which is connected to the election. he s saying we re going to get weisselberg, the accountant, involved in this. look who s cooperating, getting the immunity deals. you ve got wisenberg, cohen, who s given statements. you ve got all up the chain of
joining us, dershowitz and wisenberg. we ll also get into the can cantank cantankerous he seems to leave a possibility of a very narrow set of questions on obstruction. alan, i ll go to you first. what might be the wisdom in that? i think giuliani s tactic is to be able to say to the public, look, our president was willing to speak and mueller turned him down. i think he s mueller an offer that mueller can t really accept. he s putting forth a kind of narrow window. if mueller accepts it, then game on and we ll see some narrow questioning.