Picker Upper. >>> IN 1974 WHEN IMPEACHMENT
ARTICLES WERE DRAFTED, THE HOUSE
ACCUSED NIXON OF I PROVEAPPROVIN
COUNSELING WITNESSES WITH THE
RESPECT OCHOTO GIVING FALSE AND
MISLEADING STATEMENTS.
MISLEADING STATEMENTS. SAY IT AGAIN IN ’98 WHEN IT WAS
DRAWN UP AGAINST BILL CLINTON
AND EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE THE
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AND ILL
PAID THE DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE.
COUNSELING WITNESSES TO LIE.
IT’S AGAINST THE LAW AND ALSO
DOCUMENTED IN THE HISTORY BOOKS
MORE THAN ONCE AS GROUNDS FOR
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST A SITTING
PRESIDENT, WHICH MEANS IF YOU
ARE THE PRESIDENT OR PERHAPS ONE
OF THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS, YOU
MIGHT HAVE HAD SOME ALARM BELLS
GOING OFF GIVEN WHAT MICHAEL
COHEN JUST SAID TO CONGRESS.
>> ON PAGE 5 OF YOUR STATEMENT,
YOU SAY AND I QUOTE, YOU NEED TO
KNOW THAT MR. TRUMP’S PERSONAL
LAWYERS REVIEWED AND EDITED MY
STATEMENT TO CONGRESS ABOUT THE
TIMING OF THE MOSCOW TOWER
NEGOTIATIONS.
NEGOTIATIONS. WHO WERE THOSE ATTORNEYS?
>> JAY -- FROM THE WHITE HOUSE?
>> YES.
>> YES. >> JAY AND ABBY LOW.
>> DO YOU HAVE A STATEMENT?
>> I CAN TRY TO GET THAT FOR
YOU.
YOU. >> HAVING THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT
MEANS YOU CAN COMPARE IT TO WHAT
HE DELIVERED WHICH WILL TELL YOU
WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS
ADVISED HIM TO CHANGE.
GULP.
GULP. JOINING US NOW IS LANNY DAVIS,
MICHAEL COHEN’S LEGAL ADVISOR,
MR. DAVIS, I REALLY APPRECIATE
YOU BEING HERE TONIGHT.
I KNOW YOU’VE BEEN HAVING A BUSY
WEEK.
WEEK. >> FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS THE
SECOND TIME, RACHEL, MY FIRST
OUT OF THE BOX AFTER INTENSE
MICHAEL COHEN EXPERIENCE IS YOUR
SHOW, SO MAYBE WE’LL GO FOR A
THIRD ONE.
THIRD ONE. >> MAYBE WE’LL MAKE THIS A
TRADITION.
TRADITION. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE
INTENSITY OF MR. COHEN’S
EXPERIENCE RIGHT NOW.
WE SAW HE SPOKE WITH THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TODAY
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BUT THEN
THEY ANNOUNCED HE’S COMING BACK
NEXT WEEK.
NEXT WEEK. HAD THAT BEEN THE ORIGINAL PLAN
OR WAS THAT CHANGE MADE TODAY?
>> IT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL PLAN.
IN A WAY, MICHAEL WAS MORE
EFFECTIVE TODAY THAN HE EVEN WAS
YESTERDAY WHEN HE EXCEEDED ALL
OF OUR EXPECTATIONS IN WORKING
WITH HIM BECAUSE TODAY NEW
INFORMATION WAS DEVELOPED THAT
REALLY COULD BE GAME CHANGING
AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF PRAISED HIM
FOR HONESTY AND FORTHRIGHTNESS
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS
INFORMATION IS THE REASON HE’S
COMING BACK NEXT WEDNESDAY.
>> OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN’T TELL US
IN DETAIL ABOUT THE NATURE OF
THE TESTIMONY, THAT’S WHY IT WAS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BUT IN
GENERAL TERMS WHEN YOU SAY NEW
INFORMATION, IS THIS CORE TO THE
RUSSIA INVESTIGATION OR KINDS OF
THINGS HE TALKED ABOUT IN DETAIL
YESTERDAY?
YESTERDAY? >> I WOULD SAY IT’S NOT CORE TO
THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION BUT MR.
TRUMP HAS MISSED THE BIG
PICTURE.
PICTURE. THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE OF A
CONSPIRACY TO COLLUDE WITH
RUSSIA.
RUSSIA. BUT THIS IS ABOUT LYING AND
OBSTRUCTION EVIDENCE AND I THINK
THAT THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE AND
MR. TRUMP HIMSELF DOESN’T SEEM
TO HAVE READ THE DEFINITION OF
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR OF
SURGE
SURGE PERJURY AND THAT’S ABOUT THE
BEST I CAN TELL YOU.
IT’S PRETTY EXPLOSIVE.
>> ON THE ISSUE OF POTENTIALLY
PERJURY, I PLAYED THAT SHORT
SEGMENT BACK WHERE MR. COHEN HAD
THE BACK AND FORTH WITH JACKIE
SPEAR AND SHE ASKED IF HE WOULD
BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE INITIAL
FIRST DRAFT OF THE LETTER HE
WROTE TO THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE IN 2017 THAT WAS THE
BASIS OF HIS GUILTY PLEA HE
PROVIDED FALSE INFORMATION TO
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. HOW SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND THE
IMPORTANCE OF THAT AND WHAT MR.
COHEN WAS OFFERING?
>> THANK YOU FOR ASKING BECAUSE
IF CONGRESSWOMAN SPEAR HADN’T
ASKED THAT QUESTION YESTERDAY I
COULDN’T RESPOND BECAUSE OF THE
GROUND RULES OF AN INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE BRIEFING BUT YES,
THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL
AMOUNT OF INFORMATION COMPARING
THE FIRST DRAFT THAT MICHAEL
WROTE AND THE REITERATIONS
CALLED RED LINES THAT A
COLLECTIVE GROUP OF LAWYERS
CALLED MEMBERS OF A JOINT
DEFENSE AGREEMENT.
DEFENSE AGREEMENT. AND THEN THE FINAL ITERATION
CONTAINED
CONTAINED FALSE STATEMENT NOT ONLY BY
MICHAEL, THAT HE DID KNOW
RUSSIAN MOSCOW TOWER ACTIVITY
AFTER THE IOWA CAUCUSES.
AND LET ME JUST TELL YOU ONE
EXAMPLE.
EXAMPLE. SO DONALD TRUMP WOULD HAVE A
RALLY AFTER THE IOWA CAUCUSES
THE CAMPAIGN BEGINS, AS WE ALL
KNOW.
KNOW. AND HE’D BE AT A RALLY TELLING
EVERYBODY NO RUSSIA, NO
DISCUSSIONS, NO COLLUSION, NO
RUSSIA.
RUSSIA. AND HIS RALLY CROWD WOULD CHEER
AND BELIEVE HIM.
WITHIN A FEW MINUTES HE’D BE
WALKING OUT OF THAT RALLY AND HE
WOULD TURN TO MICHAEL AND SAY SO
WHAT’S GOING ON IN RUSSIA?
WHAT’S GOING ON IN MOSCOW?
IT WAS THAT BLATANT.
AND THAT MUCH IS IN THE PUBLIC
RECORD AND THERE WILL BE MORE
DEVELOPED NEXT WEDNESDAY AT THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. >> MR. DAVIS, CAN YOU STICK WITH
US FOR JUST ONE SECOND?
I HAVE A CLARIFICATION I WANT TO
ASK YOU ON THAT SPECIFIC POINT
AND ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO
ASK YOU.