forth and i misread your tex [laughter] i thought i was gonna have you on the top of the show and the you are you crossed on the top of my show and i was lik sending everyone on a while it was chase. but it s wonderful to see you. no or you thought i was gonna be on with you an hour ago, just pop up roundly o your show uninvited? no, i was having you on but then i realized afterwards tha i d screw that up and heads an a bunch of embarrassing emails telling people to stand down having revere the text you sen me so it s wonderful to see you here on this very importan day. thank you, chris. hey, and thank you for askin me to be here, i m here unde weird circumstances. i did my own makeup which is hilarious. so i look like we ve all bee talking about nicks nixon an actually here to remind us o the ghost of nixon nixon it s 1960. you do everything including your makeup. before you go, let me jus ask you, chris, because you ve been asking a lot of questions this hour and,
Cohen, you have pecker and the banker to get to the end game. Otherwise, you have you are lacking all the pieces of evidence you want to corroborate and get to the proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. Does it build her credibility . You can always put in a fake name, right . You can always give something else. But why would she have it there . It corroborates the story. Its all about corroboration. Its not a home run from every witness. A witness can be a single, and just get her on base and thats what shes doing. Thank you so much. Everybody else, stand by. Jose . If you are joining us now, its 8 00 a. M. Pacific sz, 11 00 a. M. Eastern. Lets talk a little bit about what is the line of questioning by the prosecution at this moment with Stormy Daniels. Shes, indeed, setting the scene and stage to that first meeting with donald trump at the golf trump, at the celebrity Golf Tournament. Then having a picture taken with him. Then she says the bodyguard, and we were just hearing him referred t
do it? well, michael, they re gonna do it through their witnesses. they re going to do it through michael cohen. they re gonna do it through perhaps stormy daniels. they re going to argue donald trump s intent here was to interfere, of course, with the campaign to hide the information, the allegation about stormy daniels affair from the public. but i think donald trump s defense, i do not actually agree that he needs to take the stand. and in order to make that defense, i think he can do it. as you said, through the prosecution witnesses and the closest example we have to this is the john edwards trial back in 2012, he made a similar defense, ultimately successfully where he said his team argued the reason for the payments was to protect against personal humiliation john edwards never took the stand. they managed to do that through the prosecution s own witnesses, by the way, the witnesses, michael cohen doesn t have to say donald trump wanted to protect his family. he won t say that
can i just get your kind o chris opener in terms of how much you think this changes th country, if at all i think it changes th country, and i think there s kind of a no going back in thi to it that i think is correct. i have to say, in this is weird to say, back to you, the monologue you did about that this is happened before, thoug not surfaced specifically th president citing the menende trial, the john edwards trial, has been the north star for me and the thing that i m kind of holding to, almost aspirationally which is othe countries have done this, we have done it in other contexts and if the law is to mea anything, this is part of what that law means, even if, i people think it s a bad case and they don t have the good then he s acquitted. he gets his rightful due process and all of that is important, and i m trying no to get out over the outcomes i do think ultimately,
in a more serious case, you look at the john edwards trial. it went to trial charged as a felony. this is a very serious matter. this was a big cover-up. it happened in a way which clearly was meant to influence the election. so were he not a sitting president, i m quite confident they would pursue this. and there s enough legally here as we heard from other commentators, they could certainly impeach on this. it s really a political question for the house to decide if it s worth shooting that amount of ammunition at this or not. i think they ll probably have to wait and see what else is coming forward. there s so much else cohen has given him. the whole issue with the moscow project sounds like a foreign corrupt practices act to me, sounds like a bribe. that s been referenced before. elie, final question to you. just because you have the southern district stuff, michael cohen, campaign finance, and the other. again, it s mueller so it s more of a black box. what is clear, russians re