go to michael cohen. how would she know that he s the personal attorney? wouldn t she get that information from donald trump? is that a valid perception? or assessment? that is possible. it s hard to know how this agreement happened. there s nothing legally wrong with an agreement to silence someone. but it s completely illegal during a campaign and for purposes of helping the campaign. and every indication was this was going to help donald trump s campaign because she had all of this negative information that could torpedo his campaign. representative lieu, thank you for your time. when we come back, a trial date was set for paul manafort, facing a number of charges and a lot of potential prison time. what are the chances he will make a deal? i want to talk to former white house counsel, next.
committed a federal crime? absolutely. federal election laws say a contribution is anything of value. michael cohen s $130,000 payment to silence stormy daniels, was value to donald trump and his campaign. even without donald trump s knowledge? stormy daniels filing shows there is an agreement with donald trump s name on it, even though it s a pseudonym. and it s hard to believe that donald trump s attorney never talked to donald trump about this issue or about this payment. that s just inherently unbelievable claim. wall street journal says that, cohen was expecting reimburs reimburseme reimbursement. if that s the case, that s a separate prosecution. there s successful contributions all the time. i think michael cohen is in big trouble, either way. the interesting thing that someone brought up last night, how would stormy daniels know to
while you can because lobsterfest won t last. new developments in the saga of the porn star and the president. stormy daniels is suing the president over a nondisclosure agreement that he didn t sign. here s the attorney that represents president trump in both his divorces. he is jay goldberg. good to see you. good to see you, don. are we going to hear stormy daniels story? she s making an attempt to go on the road with a story. but the nondisclosure agreement is a solid agreement because she took the money. and in agreement, even though it has a provision for a signature, that can be waived by the conduct of the other party. and these agreements are upheld all the time. earlier, you were on another
politicians all the time. or people of note. and that doesn t prove her case. the payment of $130,000 and the arbitration, that doesn t mean anything? well, i would have to speak to cohen on that. i haven t done that. all i m here to tell you is her taking of the money condones the lack of a signature. the agreement doesn t say, it doesn t become valid until he signs it. doesn t say that. and these agreements, like they are written in cement. they are upheld all the time in new york. i was mistaken when i said to the contrary. let me ask you something, the whole what s happening about the #metoo agreement, there s a discussion of what s happening with the nondisclosure agreements. it s believed that it takes away the women s right to free speech. what do you say to that?
network and you said, in agreement, you need the signature of both parties. if there s no signature by him, it s not valid. i have to acknowledge that i was incorrect. a study of the jury instructions says even though the signature was not there, if she took the money and acted in a way to waive his signature because she took the money, she can t have it both ways. she can t take the money and claim the agreement was invalid. as i told you, i have a leading case on the subject. i m going to go on. she what if she forfeits the money? still, it is legal and binding? the agreement, the conduct spells out a waiver of the need for him to sign the agreement. it spells out how condoning the