>> THANK YOU FOR DOUBLE DUTY.
GREAT TO SEE YOU, SIR.
>> YOU TOO.
>> THE QUESTION ON EVERYONE'S
MIND TONIGHT, IS WHAT COHEN SAYS
ABOUT THE HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS
ACTUALLY A VIOLATION OF CAMPAIGN
FINANCE LAWS?
WELL, WE HAVE TONIGHT'S LEGAL
EAGLE HERE TO WEIGH IN.
FORMER MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL
ELECTIONS COMMISSION, HANS VON
SPAKOVSKY.
SO I WANT TO PLAY A LITTLE BIT
OF WHAT COHEN SAID THIS MORNING
BECAUSE THERE'S THIS QUESTION
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THESE
PAYMENTS WERE MEANT TO INFLUENCE
THE ELECTION.
HERE'S WHAT COHEN SAID ABOUT THE
TIMING.
>> YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER AT WHAT
POINT IN TIME THAT THIS MATTER
CAME ABOUT, TWO WEEKS OR SO
BEFORE THE ELECTION, POST THE
BILLY BUSH COMMENTS.
SO, YES, HE WAS VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD AFFECT THE
ELECTION.
>> OKAY, HANS, HOW DOES THAT
FACTOR IN TO YOUR ANALYSIS OF
IT?
>> IT DOESN'T REALLY FACTOR INTO
IT.
NEITHER THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS
COMMISSION NOR FORMER CHAIRS OF
THE COMMISSION BELIEVE THAT
PAYING HUSH MONEY IS A
CAMPAIGN-RELATED EXPENSE.
IT'S A PERSONAL EXPENSE.
IT'S THE SAME AS A BUSINESS
EXPENSE O OF A BUSINESS OWNER.
IT'S NOT RELATED TO THE
CAMPAIGN.
THAT WAS CERTAINLY THE ATTITUDE
OF THE FEC TOWARDS JOHN EDWARDS
WHEN HIS CONTRIBUTORS ACTUALLY
PAID A MILLION DOLLARS TO HIS
MISTRESS.
SO IT'S NOT A CAMPAIGN-RELATED
EXPENSE, NO MATTER WHAT THE U.S.
ATTORNEY IN NEW YORK HAS
PERSUADED HIM TO PLEAD GUILTY
TO.
>> HERE'S WHAT LINDSEY GRAHAM
HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT POINT.
>> FROM TRUMP'S POINT OF VIEW
HE'S DONE NON-DISCLOSURE
AGREEMENTS BEFORE TO PROTECT HIS
FAMILY AND HIS BRAND.
>> HOW DO WE ASSESS THAT?
IF THIS IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT
SAYING, I DON'T WANT MY WIFE TO
FIND OUT OR I DON'T WANT TO HURT
THE TRUMP BRAND, VERSUS, I WANT
TO BE PRESIDENT, WHO MAKES THAT
CALL?
>> I HATE TO SPOIL YOUR SHOW BY
AGREEING WITH HANS HERE.
>> I'M GOING TO PUT IT ON THE
CALENDAR.
I'M MARKING IT DOWN.
>> I THINK THE STATUTE IS NOT
CLEAR.
I THINK IF IT WERE TO BE HUSH
MONEY, THE STATUTE SHOULD BE
CLEAR THAT'S WHAT A VIOLATION
IS.
THE STATUTE ISN'T CLEAR.
AND FURTHER, THE REGULATIONS
THAT THE FEC HAS ADOPTED ARE
ALSO REALLY NOT CLEAR.
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT,
I AND A LOT OF PROGRESSIVES AND
DEMOCRATS WERE ARGUING THE
PRESIDENT ISN'T ABOVE OR BENEATH
THE LAW AND THAT CLINTON
SHOULDN'T BE PROSECUTED IN THAT
CASE BECAUSE CIVIL PERJURY IN
THAT SITUATION WOULD HAVE NEVER
BEEN PROSECUTED.
SOME OF THAT REASONING STANDS
HERE AS WELL.
THERE HAS NEVER REALLY BEEN A
SUCCESSFUL CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
FOR THE PAYMENT OF HUSH MONEY,
WHICH COULD BE A PERSONAL
EXPENDITURE, MAYBE A CAMPAIGN
EXPENDITURE.
IT'S VERY VAGUE AND NOT DEFINED.
AND CRIMINAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONALLY HAS TO BE VERY,
VERY RATHER SPECIFIC.
THERE'S SOMETHING KNOWN AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS.
I JUST DON'T THINK THIS CASE,
THE COHEN CASE -- THERE'S A LOT
OF REASONS THAT MUELLER SHOULD
DO A FULL INQUIRY INTO THE
RUSSIAN --
RIGHT.
BUT I'M SAYING I THINK THERE'S A
LOT OF PROBLEMS AND QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHY TRUMP LIED SO MUCH
ABOUT THIS.
BUT AS TO THE QUESTION YOU'RE
ASKING, WITH WHETHER IT IS A
VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW, I AM
VERY SKEPTICAL OF WHETHER THAT
WOULD STAND UP.
>> YOU GET THE PLEA FROM COHEN
AND PEOPLE ARGUE HE SHOULDN'T
HAVE PLED GUILTY FOR THIS.
IT'S NEVER GOING TO GO BEFORE A
JURY.
I'M THINKING THIS QUESTION IS
GOING TO REMAIN PROBABLY
UNANSWERED FOR NOW.
BUT THERE'S A TWEET, AN OBVIOUS
QUESTION IS IF HE EVER ARRANGED
PAYMENT TO ANY WOMAN ON TRUMP'S
BEHALF BEFORE 2016, WHICH WOULD
GO TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
SUCH PAYMENTS WERE STANDARD
OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR TRUMP.
WILL THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF
WE FIND EARLIER PAYMENTS OF THIS
NATURE?
>> THAT WOULD EMPHASIZE THE
POINT I'M MAKING.
BUT, LOOK, A CRIMINAL VIOLATION
REQUIRES UNDER THIS PARTICULAR
LAW A KNOWING AND WILLFUL
VIOLATION.
THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT
WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS ILLEGAL.
HOW COULD THE PRESIDENT KNOW
THAT THIS WAS SOMEHOW ILLEGAL
UNDER THIS LAW IF THE FEC
PREVIOUSLY HAD SAID THIS IS NOT
A VIOLATION OF THE LAW?
PREVIOUS FEC CHAIRS HAD SAID
IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
UNDER THAT STANDARD, YOU CAN'T
APPROVE A CRIMINAL VIOLATION.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> I WOULD LOVE TO DISAGREE WITH
HANS, BUT IT'S HARD TO DISAGREE
WITH THAT REASONING.
AND I THINK --
>> ANY CHANCE THESE PROSECUTORS
TRY TO GO AFTER THE PRESIDENT ON
THE FACTS AS WE KNOW THEM NOW?
>> I THINK THEY'LL LOSE.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT THEY
SHOULD.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE.
I THINK ANY TIME YOU GO AFTER A
PRESIDENT, I THINK YOU CAN
INDICT A PRESIDENT, BUT ANYTIME
YOU GO AFTER A PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES ON A CRIMINAL
SENSE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE
GOODS AND THEN IN FACT JURIES IN
THE FACT HAVE FOUND GUILT IN
THAT SITUATION.
AND HERE THIS IS KIND OF LIKE
YOU'VE NEVER HAD A SITUATION
LIKE THIS.
>> IT IS VERY SPECIFIC.
>> I'M NOT NECESSARILY A REAL
STRONG FRIEND OF PRESIDENT TRUMP
HERE BUT I THINK YOU ALSO HAVE
TO STAND UP FOR WHAT'S RIGHT AND
WRONG.
I THINK THE RUSSIAN INQUIRY HAS
VALIDITY TO IT.
>> BOTH OF YOU THINK THE LEFT
AND THOSE WHO THINK IT'S A GOOD
PROSECUTION AND WAY TO GO AFTER
THE PRESIDENT, THEY'RE
CELEBRATING TOO EARLY OR
WRONGFULLY?
I THINK THEY ARE.
>> JULIAN?
>> I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT I THINK