Live on the beat is Trump defense lawyer Joe takopina thank you for being here and taking the questions thanks sorry uh let's start looking at this case you have these payments you don't deny that Trump made this payment no payments were made all right is Stormy Daniels extortion and payments we'll get into it right so the payments are made is Stormy.
Daniels a lawyer it's Stormy Daniels a lawyer yeah lawyer yeah is Stormy Daniels a lawyer I thought you asking she a liar is she a lawyer I I don't think she's a lawyer I don't think a lawyer was a lawyer either but okay so she's not a lawyer and these payments were made and they were according to Federal filings classified.
On the Trump side as Legal Services um that was false wasn't it the payments were made to a lawyer not to Stormy Daniels the payments were made to Donald Trump's lawyer which would be considered legal fees Michael Cohen regardless of what we all know about him now um and hindsight is 2020.
Um is a fraud as a liar convicted perjurer um in the Trump World and outside the Trump World with the medallions and all that stuff um was his lawyer at the time and advised him that this was the proper way to do this to protect himself and his family from embarrassment it's as simple.
As that and that money though just to be clear on this point did go to Stormy Daniels so it wasn't legal with these it was a payment now went to Stormy Daniels first from Cohen this was how Michael Cohen structured this by the way okay it went to show me deals from Michael Cohen he decided he was going to do it this way and ask for the reimbursement of.
What he billed as legal fees um that is not a crime it's not a crime and more importantly I didn't hold on because we're doing this with piece by piece evidence yeah I didn't say or ask if it was a crime I'm just trying to get the pieces in place you seem to be putting forward a defense that's the kind we've heard from Trump before that.
While other people are just doing these things so he's not in on it and the people is his lawyer who's advising him okay his lawyer and so let's take a listen I actually want to jump ahead to something we have this is a trump Cohen recording where you have Trump in the room informed about the nature of some of these.
Payments let's listen to this audio recording I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding my friend David I spoke to Alan about it when it comes time for the financing which will be listening what financing we'll have to pay me so okay no no no no no no.
When Donald Trump's talking to Mr Cohen as you say at the time his lawyer and is engaged and is saying yes and pay with cash that doesn't sound like okay she means instead of financing the payment over months or years right a check okay that doesn't sound like someone who has a lawyer who's gone Rogue it sounds like someone who's losing Rogue this lawyer.
To send the money to Daniels and the problem potentially for your client in New York is whether this was misclassified AKA illegally written down as something it wasn't as a payment for legal service it would be illegal about it well I could show you I know you like to ask questions be legal about it here's what he was called in the federal.
Case individual one those were the Cohen charges and you refer to that to say that that was well that was campaign Finance law violations right right right and here is something that the federal government chose not to bring against Donald Trump well as you know they were not allowed to under doj rules in a federal case while he was President oh.
And then he was not president and they still haven't brought cases against Donald Trump this is true this is true now let's you asked about whether this would become a crime or not and again the authorities will determine that but if you're making the defense I'm trying to understand what the defense actually is because here's how it was put by the.
Feds Cohen with the assistance of Corporation one arrange for the purchase of those stories to suppress them and prevent them from influencing the election uh the new reporting is I want to get the benefit of your response prosecutors could argue that hundred and thirty thousand dollars became a donation to Trump's campaign under the.
Theory that the money was silencing Daniels benefiting his candidacy so two-part question why why lie about this and why misidentify the payment if it was legal and second your response to that theory the case a donation to his campaign by himself okay that's what it would be this is very diff look John Edwards remember that case where a third.
Party paid for John Edwards uh mistress who was pregnant with his baby and all that stuff that was a third party that was a donor okay he was acquitted and the doj dropped all charges on the hung counts on that this is different this is Donald Trump paying with his own money and here's the bright line test and here's where this case Falls miserably.
And by the way yes I'm his lawyer so you would expect that from Yori but what you have here is legal Scholars former members of the of the federal election committee have publicly stated there was no crime here no campaign law violation because here's the here's the deal first of all there's a crucial distinction between.
Um separating campaign funds from personal funds right and on personal fund usage here's the brightline test and it ends this case it ends in any case regarding Stormy Daniels if the spending or the Fulfillment of a commitment or the expenditure would exist irrespective of the campaign it's not a campaign law violation end of.
Story this would exist irrespective of the campaign you're making a potential defense that he would have paid this out regardless it's It's Not only would I say that his his lawyer at the time who pled guilty to all sorts of lies and frauds who is now a co-operator said that on the roof he said that can you point to other payments that Trump made.
Like this outside of a campaign during the time of the campaign outside of that campaign year in his other many years on planet Earth has he ever made a payment I I have no idea Ari I have no idea but Donald Trump is a litigious individual who gets sued by a lot of people okay commences lawsuits and all the time things are settled I've.
Represented hundreds of people in similar situations where they make payments for What's called the nuisance settlement look 125 000 to me it's not meant to you it's nothing but to me it would be important but to Donald Trump it's in What's called the nuisance settlement okay and and when you do that it's to make a problem an embarrassing.
Problem go away it doesn't mean it's real because he vehemently denies an affair so it doesn't mean it's real or not it means you're settling something to not have to deal with the aggravation it sounds like a lot of money to me and uh we've never you know done that much together but if you're at the early bird special with me you'd know I I like to.
Keep things as cost effective as possible but I'll ask you this if all of what you say is true it is then why was Trump hiding it and lying about it at the time and I'll play that for your response he lied about it we all know that take a look take a look foreign.
That is that's what you're going to consider a lie a lie to me is something material under oath in a procedure I didn't say perjury I said alive yeah but that's not a lie that's that's not a lie here's why it's not a lie that's not a lie here's why it's not alive could you did you know about this did you know about this no I don't we.
Don't need that here's what why it's not a lie yeah because it was a confidential settlement so if he acknowledged that he would be violating the confidential settlement so is it the truth of course it's not the truth was he supposed to tell truth he would be in violation of the agreement if he told the truth so by him doing that by him doing that he it.
Was abiding by not only his rights but Stormy Daniels right it seems like we're drawing some blood here because you're having a strong reaction he did lie about it and in a confidential settlement you can easily say no comment or I'm not getting into it he says and the reason why I look at this he says no no I didn't know about it he did know.
About it didn't he you know but here's the thing I don't know the timing of that video I really don't and I'm not trying to play games April 28th yeah but I don't know the time timing of that video in relation to the timing of the other video where he was speaking to microphone what was the date of that other video do you know uh yeah we have.
The Cohen recording this was around the 2016 campaign pre-november so that was 2018 later uh the original conversations were in the uh fall of 2016. yes sir so obviously he knew about it but what he decided to do was not violate the confidentiality clause and provision of that agreement which was the right thing to do so yeah he could have said no.
Comment or he could have said I don't know anything about it which is what he did but that's the right I would advise my client to do the same thing he's speaking to some whether it's a journalist or some young lady December 2016 is the exact date but but whether he's speaking to a a journalist or some young lady on the street just shouting.
Out a question that is not the form for him to go into detailed questions about a confidential settlement agreement so let me tell you what I'm hearing because again people deserve to know all sides of this as we go into what may be an unprecedented indictment of a former president or not we don't know yeah we don't know it sounds tonight like what.
You're saying I appreciate you coming here and taking the questions not everyone does that it sounds like you're saying you have a legal attack on the potential campaign Finance violation and you think you have precedent that helps you for example the federal Edwards case which Jack Smith oversaw and lost correct um to make the point that you.
Don't believe that is a tight open and shut Finance felony that's number one and number two on the misdemeanor case which is there was no more legally minor but is not zero and you and I can point to individuals who've had trouble with misdemeanors it seems that you're saying well it wasn't really Legal Services stormy.
Is not a lawyer what did you say I said his lawyer advised him to pay him his Legal Services the money was went to my standards before that he was reimbursing his lawyer his lawyer sentiment invoice to Legal Services that's the that's the evidence in this case so he didn't lie I don't think you're saying one not a.
Campaign Finance crime and two well the misdemeanor sure maybe but maybe he lied about it but but you don't want to deal with the misdemeanor you're kind of admitting part of the mystery no I am Ari please don't put those words in my mouth I'm not admitting he's not good they weren't Legal Services his lawyer classified them as Legal.
Services his lawyer sent them an invoice for Legal Services his lawyer told them they would be properly classified as Legal Services he relied on his lawyer but here's the thing even if you put in your checkbook or right but I'll use Music if I put in my checkbook I bought a car and I wrote uh I perched the horse that's that's inaccurate that's a lie.
Maybe but there's no crime there because there this filing was not for the purpose of influencing an election there wasn't something being hidden there was no obligation to disclose this to an election campaign committee at all question then becomes did any company owned by Donald Trump or controlled by him or Donald Trump personally tell the.
Government this is legal services the government being the United States government New Hampshire is absolutely not here's the thing so can we substantiate that first of all I don't even substantia anything they need to substantiate a charge right well you know that's true they have the burden here we are well.
He's not charged we're not talking about traffic court he's not charged yet but I don't need to but you sound like someone who's bracing for a charge I I'm listening to this stuff I still have a hope that I can do this because I think this will be an enormous stain on the legacy of that district attorney look for the last three years they have.
Scoured every record of Donald Trump they actually this pomerance in his book wrote Let's Get I'll give you one I'll get to Palm rest he wrote we'll get to that okay if we're going to close this out on the facts as I said and then we'll turn to what I think you've raised which are fair questions that the D.A should face before we turn to that your.
Colleague went in and made a case to the D.A uh can you tell us anything about that a case against first of all the point person on this case has been Susan necklace yep it was one of the top laws in the city I worked with Susan we've known each other for many many years so she's been interacting with them number one number two this has not been a tell.
Us what you think we'll tell you what we think sort of relationship okay we are shocked that this has gotten this far foreign
3 thoughts on “Trump attorney responds to ‘seemingly’ costs on MSNBC”
Gift how he inadvertently admits there could be such a thing as a separate “Trump World.”
Hmm they decrease him off on the cease.. MSNBC does that plenty 🤔
I don’t know why this is such a huge deal, yes if he did that he did contemptible to his spouse it’s none of somebody industry. Gosh appreciate at what biden did and his family appreciate at what Invoice Clinton and hilary done in there live. All’s hilary did is blame these ladies. And no one cares. Right here’s precise unhappy. We received sufficient in our nation and there unnerved about trump. In actuality unhappy.