Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Michael Cohen's Atty: This was a Carefully Crafted Contract; Stormy Daniels Atty: Michael is a "Thug"; Legal Experts Weigh in on Stormy Daniels' Allegations; Michael Cohen's Attorney To Stormy Daniels Atty: The Law Is Against You; Women Who Voted for Trump React to Stormy Daniels' Interview; Most Americans Already Thought Trump Was A Cheater Before Stormy Daniels' Interview; Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal Share Some Similar Stories. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 26, 2018 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(CROSSTALK)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: One at a time, one at a time.
DAVID SCHWARTZ, MICHAEL COHEN'S ATTORNEY: There's a reason why God gave you two ears and one mouth. You're supposed to listen.
MICHAEL AVENATTI, STORMY DANIELS' ATTORNEY: What about your lie detector test? What about your phony lie detector test --
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: One at a time.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: You're not saying it was Michael Cohen. Stormy Daniels says she could clearly identify that person. She has never said it was Michael Cohen. But you believe --
AVENATTI: No. We have never said that it is Michael Cohen. But, look --
SCHWARTZ: You've been saying that all along.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Come on, let him finish.
COOPER: Let him finish.
AVENATTI: Look, it's very simple. My client sat down. She answered the questions. 90% of America found her credible. Why hasn't Michael Cohen sat down -- forget two hours. I'll take 20 minutes. How about 10 minutes? And answered the questions. Instead, he sends you. You're not even involved in the case.
SCHWARTZ: Are you ever going to make an appearance in the case?
AVENATTI: I am never making an appearance in that case. I am his attorney.
SCHWARTZ: You're a talking head.
AVENATTI: Of course. That's what we're here for.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Let's let him answer that.
9SCHWARTZ: We're here -- first of all, Michael Cohen just wants you to keep running your mouth and your client running because every time you do that, it's going to cost your client another million dollars. I mean I hope you have a nice malpractice policy because you're advising your client to breach a contract.
COOPER: So David, let me ask you, during the -- the one of the things that certainly Stormy Daniels feels and Michael Avenatti has said, is that the kind of threats that Michael Cohen is making about taking a long vacation on her dime, this $20 million figure, which as you, you know, pointed out the last time you were on, you don't really know where that comes from. No, I can't figure out what the $20 million -- what it's really based on. Is that the normal kind of behavior of an attorney in a lawsuit? I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know.
SCHWARTZ: Its 20 different violations. But the bottom line is, you know, I don't know where you think a threat is from here. I mean I'm from Brooklyn. That's not a threat. I hate to tell you. OK. When an attorney talks to another attorney about a damages clause in a contract, and two attorneys are speaking to each other, that's not a threat. That's just a legal discussion about a damages clause.
2COOPER: Has Michael -- go ahead Jeff.
TOOBIN: One thing I never understood is, you know, there's a signature line on the contract for, you know, DD, which is Donald Trump's pseudonym. Why didn't he sign?
SCHWARTZ: OK. So the bottom line is, you have a contract between E.C., LLC, and Stormy Daniels. So at the time when this was all going on, he could -- you know, there may have been a situation where Michael could have brought it to him to sign. Michael chose to just allow E.C., LLC, to be the party. That's why we have the and/or. And by the way, I know you've made up your own laws in this case.
TOOBIN: But wait --
SCHWARTZ: But wait, let me just get to this. And/or, by the way, has the same meaning in New York as it does in Wyoming, as it does in California.
COOPER: OK.
SCHWARTZ: Because you tried to school me on the California law, I actually researched it, and guess what. The United States supreme court and cases in California all agree that and/or is either/or. That's what it is.
TOOBIN: There's another provision in the contract. I believe its Section 8.6, which says the contract says, not -- if the contract is not valid unless everybody signs. Doesn't that Trump the and/or?
SCHWARTZ: It's not valid unless the parties sign. The parties to the contract are E.C., LLC, and Stormy Daniels. And certainly --
TOOBIN: So why is there a line that says DD for Donald Trump?
SCHWARTZ: Because it gave --
TOOBIN: Just for no reason?
SCHWARTZ: Yes, because it gave the option for Donald Trump to be a party to the contract. Instead, he's not a party. He's a third party beneficiary to this contract.
COOPER: But wait, but could this time, in terms of that third party beneficiary, couldn't there have just been a contract between Stormy Daniels and the Limited Liability Corporation that benefited Mr. Trump?
SCHWARTZ: And that's exactly what this is.
COOPER: So why have a third line there at all?
SCHWARTZ: Because it gave the option --
COOPER: Why do they need that option?
SCHWARTZ: Because Michael wanted to have the option. That's why he purposely did it. This was a carefully drafted contract with a rock solid arbitration clause.
COOPER: But why did he want to have that option, I just don't from a legal standpoint? I don't understand why --
SCHWARTZ: Because when you're in the middle of all of this, you want to have the option. He wanted to give himself the option. He chose not to exercise the option.
TOOBIN: Trump wanted to give himself the option?
SCHWARTZ: Michael Cohen wanted to give himself the option as the agent of E.C., LLC.
COOPER: And what do you make of this letter that Michael Cohen sent saying this was a dispute between President Trump and Stormy Daniels?
SCHWARTZ: Right. It's a February letter. And guess what. This is -- see, he doesn't like to conclude the time lines. It's after --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: It's after, he sued Donald Trump. So now he brought Donald Trump into the action.
AVENATTI: That's not true.
SCHWARTZ: In fact --
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: OK, let him finish.
SCHWARTZ: In fact, that's the whole point behind all this.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: OK.
SCHWARTZ: You have to ask yourself what is the end game here. Not about money, right?
COOPER: OK. Michael.
[21:05:04] AVENATTI: All right, right, first of all, the e-mail is dated February 22nd of this year. You showed it earlier on the screen, OK? We didn't file our case until March. So that, much like many of your statements, is just fabricated. It's patently false. That's why you and Michael Cohen are friends, I guess, because you both are really good at fabricating.
SCHWARTZ: How about you fabricating, I'm --
AVENATTI: I'm not done.
SCHWARTZ: You talked for a long time.
(CROSSTALK)
AVENATTI: I'm not done.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Let him finish.
AVENATTI: All right. I'm not done. Let's talk --
SCHWARTZ: What about --
AVENATTI: Let's talk a moment about Michael Cohen, OK? Megyn Kelly, not exactly a left-wing liberal in journalistic circles, tweeted last night a portion of an article that appeared in "The Daily Beast" not long ago, quoting a reporter about the threats that Michael Cohen had made to this reporter. I can't even -- I can't state it on cable television, they're so bad. OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, you can go.
COOPER: Basically destroying this person's life and livelihood.
(CROSSTALK)
AVENATTI: I'm not done. I'm not done. Let's talk about --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: But he keep sidetracking.
COOPER: Well, he's allowed to speak. Then you'll speak.
AVENATTI: Right, right. Let's talk about Michael Cohen, what kind of man this is. This is the kind of guy who claimed in connection with that story that there's no such thing as spousal rape. This is a legal genius.
SCHWARTZ: Right.
AVENATTI: Right. Completely false. The guy doesn't even know the law. He's a thug.
SCHWARTZ: Right, right.
AVENATTI: Your friend is a thug.
SCHWARTZ: Well, thank you. That's a million dollars, a million dollars, a million dollars.
AVENATTI: Thug. Thug.
SCHWARTZ: You know what? You're a thug.
AVENATTI: Thug, thug.
SCHWARTZ: You see, anyone -- by the way.
AVENATTI: He's a thug. If he was here, I would tell it to his face.
SCHWARTZ: By the way -- by the way you're doctored -- your doctored your lie detector test, OK no galvanic skin response. No I got to say this, no galvanic skin response --
AVENATTI: Thug.
SCHWARTZ: -- no arm band. By the way, the photos doctored.
AVENATTI: Thug.
SCHWARTZ: Why was the lie detector test, Anderson, not part of the "60 Minutes" piece? Because this thug doctored it.
TOOBIN: Can I ask a question? Just let me ask you a question about one of the broader points in this case, which is Michael Cohen's claim that he paid, out of his own money.
SCHWARTZ: Right.
TOOBIN: Out of his home equity line, the money in this case. Have you ever heard of a lawyer paying a judgment or a settlement on behalf of a client out of his own money?
SCHWARTZ: No, but this is not a normal attorney-client relationship. This is much more than an attorney-client relationship. First of all, there's nothing illegal about it.
TOOBIN: I never said there's anything illegal about it.
SCHWARTZ: If you understand the relationship here, you would understand that it would be completely reasonable for Michael Cohen to pay that out of his own pocket.
TOOBIN: But let me ask reasonable. Donald Trump is, according to him, a billionaire. Michael Cohen has to go into a home equity line to pay $130,000? That sounds reasonable to you?
SCHWARTZ: Under the circumstances, under the set of circumstances that they're involved in, it's completely reasonable. But I still haven't gotten an answer to the lie detector test that he made such a big deal out of.
COOPER: And you're saying -- and you're saying it had you're saying it had absolutely nothing to do with the campaign. It was just a coincidence this was in -- but 11 days --
SCHWARTZ: This is when the settlement took place. The law is pretty clear on this, OK? The bottom line is if it's towards -- if it's for a reputation, business, family, to protect those things, then --
COOPER: Thought that could have been done in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. I mean it could have been in all those years -- he just --
SCHWARTZ: This is when -- but its legal blackmail took place.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: It's legal extortion when somebody comes to a CEO or a famous person and they try to extract money from them. This is when it all takes place. So we call it hush money here.
COOPER: So you're saying Stormy Daniels was trying to extort money from Michael Cohen?
SCHWARTZ: Of course that's what you do from a 12-year -- she's claiming she had sex 12 years ago.
COOPER: Who had contact with Michael Cohen from Stormy Daniels camp, but they're trying to extort money --
SCHWARTZ: It happens every day in America.
COOPER: No, I'm asking this for (INAUDIBLE), you're saying Stormy Daniels or her team were trying to extort money from Donald Trump.
SCHWARTZ: I believe it's a legal form of extortion. When you use a lawyer to try to extract that and she talked about it --
COOPER: But who was --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: By the way, she said the contract was solid, rock solid.
COOPER: Yes, but who was -- you're saying Keith Davidson contacted Michael Cohen to extort money?
SCHWARTZ: She -- she admitted it. I mean it's a legal form of extortion.
COOPER: She was saying that people were coming to her with --
SCHWARTZ: Coming to her and then she got the best deal that she could possibly get from Michael Cohen.
COOPER: Right.
SCHWARTZ: But it's a form of extracting as much money as possible.
COOPER: OK.
SCHWARTZ: That's what it is.
COOPER: All right.
AVENATTI: I want to step back for a moment. If you believe him and his close friend, Michael Cohen.
SCHWARTZ: My client. And he is a friend.
AVENATTI: Your client, OK. If the American people want to believe them, they have to conclude as follows, Anderson. Michael Cohen got a call from a woman who was completely unbelievable, had no credibility.
[21:10:11] This woman claimed that she had an affair with Donald Trump a couple weeks before the end of the campaign. They didn't believe her. They thought she was completely full of it. It was all bs and in response to that, in response to that, instead of behaving the way that he behaves tonight here, instead of behaving the way that Michael Cohen has behaved in the past, they just rolled over and paid her $130,000 for no reason, even though they thought the entire thing was bullshit. Wait a minute. I'm not done.
SCHWARTZ: That happens.
AVENATTI: I'm not done.
SCHWARTZ: It's actually a cheap price.
AVENATTI: If that's true, I would encourage every American tomorrow morning to call Mr. Schwartz in his office, Mr. Cohen, claim you had an affair with the President. They will promptly send you a check for $130,000.
SCHWARTZ: I'm not the President's attorney.
AVENATTI: No questions asked. It's absurd. It's absurd.
COOPER: Let him respond. SCHWARTZ: Maybe you're right. I agree with you. It is absurd. But it happens every single day --
AVENATTI: It does not happen.
SCHWARTZ: -- in America. And by the way, if you think 90 percent of the people really care about what your client said yesterday, you have to be completely out of your mind.
COOPER: So let me ask you, because Mr. Trump has never been reticent in going after the veracity of statements by women who have accused him of inappropriate sexual behavior. I mean he did this time and time again for the more than dozen or so women who've come forward, and yet he did not do that at all in terms of Stormy Daniels. In fact, and her story along with the story of Karen McDougal, who has paid out by -- who had a contract with AMI, which is the parent company for the "National Enquirer," their stories do have some commonalities. I mean statements that were allegedly made by Mr. Trump to both of them about them being special, about them being -- reminding him of his daughter, going to -- allegedly going to bungalow -- his bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Does it concern you that there are some commonalities in their stories?
SCHWARTZ: Not at all because I'm here to talk about a contract. I wasn't there. Jeff wasn't there. Michael wasn't there. You weren't there. She says it happens. He says it doesn't happen. I don't think anyone really cares one way or the other what happened 12 years ago. I don't think anyone cares. But, I am here to talk about a contract, and I am here to talk about a fabricated lie detector test that you completely -- that no galvanic skin response. You know, I work with a polygraph expert for three -- he's been an polygraph expert for three decades. No galvanic skin response. No blood pressure. The questions were all wrong.
COOPER: Do you know the person who administered this lie detector test?
SCHWARTZ: I have no idea.
COOPER: So, you don't any idea about the --
SCHWARTZ: He paid $25,000.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: I know --
COOPER: Right.
SCHWARTZ: -- I looked at a picture. Thank -- by the way, thank you for supplying that picture, that fabricated --
AVENATTI: That's not the last one, that's not the last picture. Buckle up.
SCHWARTZ: Oh, oh yes, where is it? AVENATTI: Buckle up.
SCHWARTZ: Where is it --
AVENATTI: Anderson --
SCHWARTZ: -- I should buckle up.
(CROSSTALK)
AVENATTI: You'll need a big one.
SCHWARTZ: Oh, yes. It's more of your illusions.
COOPER: OK, let him respond.
SCHWARTZ: Right.
AVENATTI: To quote the late Howell Heflin, Democratic senator from the great state of Alabama, he said, when the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. When the law is on your side, you argue the law. When you have neither the law or the facts, you pound the table. That's what's going on right here. Every time, we pound the table. Boisterous. It's louder than you talk.
SCHWARTZ: Let's talk the law.
AVENATTI: Well, I'm waiting for you to come into the case. When are you going to get off the sidelines? Get off the sidelines and get in the case.
SCHWARTZ: I don't practice in California.
(CROSSTALK)
AVENATTI: Hey, you know what --
COOPER: OK.
SCHWARTZ: We'll talk about it.
AVENATTI: Get off the sideline.
SCHWARTZ: But the law is against you, and you're a very good lawyer. I'm not taking anything away from you.
AVENATTI: Well, thank you.
SCHWARTZ: You've made lemonade out of a complete lemon, and I give you a lot of credit for that. But it's not going to last.
COOPER: All right, we've got much more to talk about. We're going to expand out the legal discussion, CNN legal analyst Laura Coates is going to join us as well as the panel.
Later, Randi Kaye speaks to women who voted for Donald Trump about what they saw last night and whether it changed their minds or influenced them in any way about the man they elected President. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[2117:57] COOPER: Back now with Michael Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels, David Schwartz, a friend of Michael Cohen from The Trump Organization, also representing him in another legal matter. And CNN's chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, refereeing in between.
Michael, let me ask you, you -- Stormy Daniels signs this nondisclosure agreement 11 days before the President's election. She receives $130,000 for this. She, by all accounts, maintains her silence. But then the "Wall Street Journal" breaks the story, I think it was more than a year or so later, breaks the story based on anonymous sources. You are now alleging in an amended complaint that Michael Cohen violated the NDA by revealing some details to "The Wall Street Journal" and therefore the NDA should be considered invalid. What part of the NDA do you believe Cohen violated?
AVENATTI: Well, by describing -- by confirming some of the facts in "The Wall Street Journal" article when the reporters contacted him, by confirming various facts, et cetera. He should have said nothing. He should have said, no comment. He chose to do otherwise. And as a result, we maintain that's one of many reasons why this agreement is void and is going to be thrown out. But, I want to go back to something I've said because I still don't understand something. Why is it OK for me to sit here and on other shows and face tough questions about this agreement, and my client sits down with you for two hours and faces tough questions, and yet Mr. Cohen is nowhere to be found? And I think I know the answer. I think i know the answer. The answer is because Mr. Cohen is concerned about being criminally indicted by the special prosecutor, Mr. Mueller, and he's been told to not appear on television and make public statements. That's why --
SCHWARTZ: Can I just -- first of all, that's another million dollars.
AVENATTI: Yes, but where is he? Where is he?
SCHWARTZ: So Michael Cohen is going to litigate this case in a court of competent jurisdiction, OK. Anderson, with all due respect, you're not the judge in this case. There's a judge out in California. He's going to litigate the case there. You are litigating the case in the court of public opinion.
TOOBIN: No, both.
[21:20:14] SCHWARTZ: Because that's the forum that you want to be in, and that's -- and you're using this case for ulterior motives.
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: Can I just --
SCHWARTZ: To talk about the Mueller -- to talk about some fantasy criminal indictment, you don't know what you're talking about. It just keeps coming out of your mouth. You have no idea what you're talking about.
TOOBIN: Interrupted.
SCHWARTZ: Look at you laughing.
AVENATTI: I'm laughing.
TOOBIN: Can I --
AVENATTI: I'm laughing.
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: Let me just sort of cut through the testosterone that's like cascading around me here. It seems to me one of the most important issues in this case is sort of a nerdy point but actually a very important one, which is whether this case is going to be resolved in arbitration or in a courtroom, because if it's in arbitration, you don't get discovery, and you're not going to get Donald Trump under oath. You're not going to get Michael Cohen under oath. But if you have a lawsuit in federal court, you do get depositions.
AVENATTI: Actually, I'd like to address that.
TOOBIN: Let's hear where this case will be resolved.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: So the cases in California are pretty clear. Even, Michael, even if what you say is true about the rest of the agreement, if the arbitration clause is solid, which the arbitration clause is solid in this case, the arbitration clause will be viewed even separate from the rest of the agreement. And the case will ultimately be brought back into arbitration as you just pointed out.
(CROSSTALK)
AVENATTI: Let's hear what you have to say about arbitration.
TOOBIN: Right.
AVENATTI: So a couple things. First of all, this agreement that Mr. Cohen drafted, Jeffrey, despite what you just stated, which would be the norm related to limited discovery, well, this excellent airtight -- I think that was the term --
SCHWARTZ: Airtight. Actually your client used that.
(CROSSTALK)
AVENATTI: Airtight agreement that Jeffrey or that Michael Cohen drafted, it actually provides that in the arbitration, discovery is pursuant to California law. So the scope of discovery is going to be just the same as if we were in a court of law.
SCHWARTZ: Thank you very much. (CROSSTALK)
AVENATTI: I'm not done. I'm not done.
COOPER: Let him finish.
AVENATTI: But the legal buffoonery did not stop there. Because most recently by way of removing the case to federal court, they made a strategic error, yet another trap that they've stepped into over the last three weeks. Its remarkable how many there have been. I lost count. Here's the problem. By removing it to federal court, under the federal arbitration act, if you dispute the existence of the actual agreement -- and of course that's what we've done -- we get discovery and a jury trial. A jury trial. Wait a minute. A jury trial in the federal district court on this particular issue, and we get expedited discovery.
9SCHWARTZ: He's making up his own law.
AVENATTI: They step it -- its ninth circuit precedent.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: The judge is going to look at this case -- yes, that's if it gets past the initial stages.
AVENATTI: Yes.
SCHWARTZ: Sure, you're entitled to discovery. This judge is going to throw this case right out. This is a frivolous case. It's absolute for this case, and by the way, your client has already breached the contract, so I'm not even sure why you need the declaratory judgment anymore in federal court. What do you need that for because you've already breached the contract multiple times?
COOPER: Jeff, where do you see this going?
TOOBIN: Well, I think it is now in federal court in California, and I think the first motion that Michael Cohen's lawyer, whoever that person might be, is going to make is to throw this case out and send it to an arbitrator, and I think that's going to be a very important motion. I'm not saying I know how that motion will be resolved, but I think the issue of whether this is resolved in a courtroom or in front of an arbitrator is a very important one, and I think that's going to be the way --
COOPER: Because of the discovery?
TOOBIN: Well, exactly.
COOPER: Or because of --
TOOBIN: Because it's a way of pushing the case into secret. Arbitration procedures are mostly secret. Michael says under certain circumstances you can get discovery. That's news to me, but you may be right. But I just think the initial legal argument in front of the federal court is going to be about arbitration, and I think it's going to be an important one. I don't pretend to know how that will be resolved.
SCHWARTZ: I'm still looking for an answer about the lie detector test. What happened to the lie detector test? You've been running around with this lie detector test. It's a complete.
COOPER: This is not a lie detector test that you administered or --
SCHWARTZ: Yes, but he paid for it, and you held it up here. Now you're admitting it's not good.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: You must have noticed no galvanic skin response, right? Did you see the band around the fingers? Did you see the band around the biceps? You're laughing, but you have no answer, do you?
[21:24:58] COOPER: The sister publication for "In Touch" Magazine, after they interviewed Stormy Daniels, they asked her to take a lie detector test, which was also videotaped. According to the polygrapher, she was asked, I believe, three questions. I believe she was viewed truthful on those questions. It was, did you have sex with Mr. Trump? Was it unprotected? And I forgot even the --
SCHWARTZ: Did he promise you to be on "The Apprentice" and that answer was ambiguous.
AVENATTI: Anderson, let me tell you how ridiculous this is. Just last week we had a call with Mr. Harter, who is representing Mr. Trump, and Mr. Blakely, who is representing Mr. -- actually E.C., LLC, in the federal case, OK? And during this call, I asked point blank, Mr. Harter, was Donald Trump a party to the agreement? And let me tell what he told me. You ready? That's what he told me. And I said, I thought the phone had disconnected. I said, are you still there? And I asked him again. And he didn't have an answer for me. He said, we haven't figured it out yet, to which I responded, why don't you just ask Donald Trump? They still haven't figured out the next fabrication.
(CROSSTALK)
AVENATTI: How difficult is this?
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: I guess they're required to tell Michael, you know, any legal strategy here.
AVENATTI: A legal strategy? It's a fact.
SCHWARTZ: I don't even believe that conversation even existed. So I mean everything -- you make up your own law. You make up a lie detector test. You parade it in like you found gold. Meanwhile, you know, it's a fraudulent lie detector test. You know it. Can you at least address the galvanic skin response and the -- can you answer the question?
AVENATTI: Yes, I'm going to answer the question. I'm going to answer the question. In 2011, "In Touch" Magazine asked my client to sit for a lie detector test with a licensed polygraph examiner in the state of Nevada, who does this every day. She went to the office. She sat down. The polygraph examination was administered, and she passed. So, look, to the extent that you have a problem with the polygraph examiner, file a complaint with the state of Nevada.
SCHWARTZ: I don't care about your polygrapher --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHWARTZ: You're the one who paid $25,000 --
AVENATTI: Where's Michael Cohen?
SCHWARTZ: You're the one who paid $25,000 for a ridiculous polygraph test that makes no sense.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: David Schwartz, Michael Avenatti, Jeff Toobin --
SCHWARTZ: Thank you.
COOPER: -- thank you very much.
Still ahead, what a group of Trump voters, all of them women, saw and heard when they watched "60 Minutes" last night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:30:23] COOPER: New CNN polling out tonight shows almost two- thirds of Americans say they believe the women alleging affairs with Donald Trump before he became president. 21% say they believe the president's denials of those affairs. Last night, CNN's Randi Kaye spent the evening with the group of women all Trump supporters, who watched my interview with Stormy Daniels.
99(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's enjoying this way too much.
RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On Palm Sunday, these conservative Christian women gathered in Dallas to watch Stormy Daniels' interview on "60 Minutes."
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was shopping her story for money, just like all the other people that have tried to make money off the Trump name.
KAYE (on-camera): What was your first impression of Stormy Daniels?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel sorry for her. My heart hurts for her.
SHERRY MASSEY, DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTERS: This is a porn star. Why are we giving it any credibility?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Exactly.
MASSEY: And the fact that she now wants to come out with a story because she's afraid of her children? My goodness, what did you tell the kids about your full-time job?
KAYE (voice-over): These women all voted for Donald Trump, and despite Stormy Daniels' claims, they still don't buy her story.
(on-camera): Why would she come out and give this interview if she wasn't telling the truth?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Money.
(CROSSTALK)
KAYE (on-camera): Do any -- based on this interview, do any of you believe that Stormy Daniels did have sex with Donald Trump?
GINA O'BRIANT, DONALD TRUMP SUPPOTER: I don't believe it --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't believe it.
O'BRIANT: -- because I haven't seen any hard proof. Should we believe the President of the United States or a stripper, porn star? I go with the President of the United States.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
KAYE (voice-over): Most in this group believe God ordained Donald Trump to be president and stand by him despite his imperfections.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know that when I voted for him, I wasn't voting for a choir boy.
CHRISTINE HOUCHEN, DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER: He had to change as a person in order to become a president. And Stormy Daniels, if you -- the lifestyle that she's leading right now, I mean I wish she would turn her life over the way that Trump has. 9 KAYE (voice-over): This group suggests the women coming forward with tales of having had an affair with Trump are being targeted.
JILL NEWSOM, DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER: Someone is looking and shopping for these people to come out of the woodwork because it is demeaning to our president.
KAYE (voice-over): And as some strongly suggested, all part of a media plot to bring down Donald Trump.
HOUCHEN: You can throw all that stuff up in our faces as many times as you want, but that means that we will work harder for Trump. Is that not so, ladies?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's correct. SYLVIA GUZMAN, DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER: This is the media defining the narrative. The people, we, the people, are ready to define the narrative. And it's not about tawdry sexual peccadilloes.
HOUCHEN: In order for somebody to come forward, you could be pushed by somebody else.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Correct.
HOUCHEN: Right? And so I think the thing is you're looking for a way to impeach my president that I worked very hard for.
KAYE (on-camera): I'm asking you about a Stormy Daniels interview on "60 Minutes", period. That's it.
(voice-over): And about that so-called hush money, these women don't see Trump's fingerprints on it, only his lawyer, Michael Cohen.
O'BRIANT: Maybe he thought he was just doing a favor to try to quash some negativity. Even though it didn't even happen, just to get rid of the story that's not even true.
GUZMAN: Which would also follow suit that that nondisclosure was unsigned, because Trump may not have known about it at all.
LINDA CHUCHWELL, DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER: Worst case scenario, if he slept with her, whatever. That's between him, the Lord, and his family. So that is not about the job he's doing in running our country and which he's doing an amazing job.
KAYE (voice-over): Randi Kaye, CNN, Dallas.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: When we continue, we'll take this up with the panel. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:37:38] COOPER: I don't know about you all, if you've been watching, I'm just exhausted. It's been quite a night. Joining us now, is Laura Coates, Kirsten Powers, Republican Strategist Rick Wilson, author of the upcoming book "Everything Trump Touches Dies," Jason Miller, Amanda Carpenter, and Alice Stewart.
It's interesting, you saw Randi Kaye talking in the last block to, you know, Trump supporters, women, who basically categorically didn't buy what Stormy Daniels was saying, didn't think she was credible, and even if they think she did have sex with Donald Trump, it didn't matter. He's a different person. Politically, do you think any of these matters? Any of this -- Kirsten doing any but it has an impact?
KIRSTEN POWERS, COLUMNIST, "USA TODAY": No, I actually don't. I think precisely because of what we just saw. I mean this is -- its not either they're going to decide that they don't think that it happened as we saw what happened with the "Access Hollywood" tape, or they're going to just say they don't care, that it doesn't matter. That, you know, it's between him and his wife.
I think the people who support him are determined to just not say bad things about him. I think what was interesting about listening to those women, is of course we know what they would have said about Bill Clinton, and they're hypocrites and all that. But also they don't seem to be familiar with Donald Trump because they're so disgusted with, you know, oh, I'm so sure a porn star. It's like he just hung out at the Playboy club all the time. I mean this is kind of who Donald Trump is.
And so if there's so disapproving of that kind of behavior, then they're actually disapproving of him. And I think that what I took away from the Stormy Daniels interview, which was very different, I think, from the other interview that you did, is I think that she was kind of a victim. He was a predator with her.
She was a 27-year-old woman. He was telling her, I'm going to give you a job, and she said she didn't even want to have sex with him and of course she didn't -- she was 27 and he was 60 years old, but she felt pressured to do it. I mean this is the person that these women are defending.
COOPER: I do think it's interesting in the interview that she was very quick to say, unprompted, this is not me too. I'm not a victim. I, you know -- yes, she didn't want to have sex with him, but she -- it was entirely consensual. She went along with it.
POWERS: Well just remember Monica Lewinsky said that for a long time and more recently she's starting to say actually in hindsight of the everything maybe --
COOPER: A lot of women actually pointed out --
POWERS: Yes.
COOPER: -- to me, you know, what she said was going through her mind before she says she had sex with Mr. Trump was, I deserve this. I've put myself in a bad situation.
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. I had it coming --
COOPER: Yes. Right. I get it.
COATES: -- which is exactly what --
POWERS: Yes.
COATES: -- me too is trying to -- say if again to somebody does not feel as they don't have the power to consent or not consent. That's a great irony. I mean as the other great irony of this is just like many of those women who are completely indifferent about the sexual, you know, proclivities of the President of the United States as this or not.
[21:40:12] Guess what? The court in this case also won't care about whether or not the affair actually went down. They want to know whether or not a contract was violated. So that same indifference ironically is going to transfer into the court and how they assess it.
They're not going to concern that whether they had actually had sex, whether or not it was consensual. That's not the issue for them. It's whether or not she can talk about it. That's a very different discussion then what is being had putting by or her counsel or anything else. The court could care less, just as women don't.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: What is that is that, Rick.
(CROSSTALK)\
RICK WILSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: You watch those women, and you just want to say, bless their hearts, because they are living in this beautiful bubble where Donald Trump is this wonderful family man who suddenly saw the light and became a different character than he has been in his entire adult life. This is a guy who has never really been strong on, say, marital fidelity.
COOPER: They're saying he's changed to become president.
WILSON: Right. And they think he is strange, but I think what's going to happen as the Stormy Daniels story continues to evolve and the NDAs get a little squishy around the edges, these women are all going to realize that the ones who are the first movers on this are going to get to tell their stories, and the ones who aren't are going to be left in the dust and they're going to afterthoughts and sort of historical moment.
So these people that are watching this for -- their fans of Trump are going to be saying, there's another one and another one and another one, because if you think Stormy Daniels and McDougal are the last ones we're going to hear from, I think everybody is really sadly mistaken on that. And I think the fact that there's a structure set up in Trump's legal organization with Michael Cohen to do NDAs for many, many, many women. It's a whole series of stories. If one of these NDAs cracks, the whole thing is going to come wide open, that is big problem.
JASON MILLER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Anderson, everyone here is talking as if it's a proven fact that an affair even happened. And the fact of the matter is that President Trump is the only person in this entire equation who has had a consistent story. I think, Anderson, you did a very commendable job in your interview of being very fair in calling out some of the credibility both from Ms. Clifford and from her attorney.
I mean, in your interview, she admitted three times --
COOPER: Right.
MILLER: -- to having lied about this, in 2011 and then twice earlier this year. Her story is the one that keeps changing. The President's story has been the same. And one other critical point here too. And I want to go to this whole supposed parking lot incident in Las Vegas. The thought that someone would be approached in a parking lot, especially in Las Vegas where there are cameras everywhere and to have some magical person just appear out of nowhere and make some sort of threat, and you don't go to the police, that is laughable on its fact. I mean, it's just -- it's on its face. It's just absolutely ridiculous that she would get approached in a parking lot.
COOPER: She said she was scared.
AMANDA CARPENTER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, but I mean, I don't think you can judge (INAUDIBLE)
(CROSSTALK)
MILLER: Hold on. This is not about damages. This is about dollars.
COOPER: OK.
MILLER: She wants to get paid.
CARPENTER: Yes, I think the biggest question that Trump supporters have when they question these women is why are they telling the story now. And I think it's important that we look at the time line. Both of these stories in regard to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal were broken by news reports this year, in January in February by "The New Yorker" and "The Wall Street Journal."
So, they kept their end of the agreement, and then it went into the press. And so what do you do as someone who signed this agreement and then you have reporters in your face saying, did this happen? What will you say? You have Michael Cohen going out confirming some parts of the story. And I don't -- I'm not a lawyer, but do nondisclosure agreements require you not to talk about it, but also to lie as well? Both these women have told you, I just didn't want to lie. That is why they were pushed to the brink and going public about this, because they did not want to be made into liars.
So why does this matter now that Donald Trump is President? Go back and read news report. He is pushing White House staff to sign NDA. So will we did this in position, four years, five years from now when people go to former White House staff and say, what happen in this scenario? Will they be expected to lie for the President too?
MILLER: But what is lying in --
(CROSSTALK)
CARPENTER: What do you mean?
MILLER: When you say, so she can lie three times.
CARPENTER: Listen, look, I wasn't there, but she signed a nondisclosure agreement saying she's not going to talk about it. And then it came out to the press. And Michael Cohen went out gave statements to Jimmy Kimmel from allegedly Stormy Daniels saying this didn't happen. And now she is saying, I just want my truth to be out there. ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, just because the President's been consistent in his denials doesn't make it credible. I think these women's stories that are very similar are much more credible than the President's. I'm sorry, but that's the reality of it.
MILLER: Wow.
STEWART: With regard to the political --
CARPENTER: Has Donald Trump lied about his marriages before?
MILLER: His story has been completely --
COOPER: But Jason --
(CROSSTALK)
CARPENTER: His presidency is lying and other people lying to cover up.
WILSON: Listen, I know Trump lives in a comfortable bubble --
(CROSSTALK)
WILSON: -- Trump world lives in this very comfortable bubble, but let me acquaint you with page 6 in the "New York Post. Donald Trump has been a skirt-chasing hound his entire life. This is not a guy who goes home at night and sits with the little woman and watches TV. This is a guy who is a long-term philanderer, adulterer, whatever phrase you want to use. He has never taken any contract or vow, much less his marital vows, seriously. This is a guy who has a notorious reputation for this. It didn't come from nowhere in fact, it is a reputation he cultivated as part of his --
(CROSSTALK)
[21:45:12] MILLER: So you got the sound bite in, but the fact of the matter is she lied three times and now everyone is supposed to believe her.
COATES: Well, plainly her credibility did take a hit. You addressed that point. She admitted to that, that her credibility took a hit by signing it. Her motivation behind it is obviously the question, but that's the beauty of this. Neither the President's philandering as you're talking about it or her credibility is the real question in front of the court. The question for them is, are the words on the paper going to be held up? Is that going to be sufficient? Is that question he liked to be answered? And that's going to be a difficult thing to talk about.
COOPER: We're going to have more with the panel. We're going to take a quick break.
As we've been discussing there were some similarities in what Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal said about their alleged affairs to the President. One example, they both said he compared them to his daughter, Ivanka. We'll talk about more ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: A separate conversations of former Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels, there were some similarities in the way they described their alleged interactions with Donald Trump. We're going to play you some quotes from the interviews and it should be noted that the Stormy Daniels interview was taped before the Karen McDougal interview aired. So the time they were speaking, neither had seen the other being interviewed. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STORMY DANIELS, ADULT FILM ACTRESS: He never asked me not to tell anyone. He called several times when I was in front of many people.
COOPER: Did he ever ask you to hide it?
KAREN MCDOUGAL, FMR PLAYBOY PLAYMATE: No, he didn't. He wasn't afraid to hide it at all.
DANIELS: You remind me of my daughter, you know. He's like, you're smart, beautiful, and a woman to be reckoned with.
MCDOUGAL: He said I was beautiful like her and, you know, you're a smart girl, and.
DANIELS: Don't worry about that. We don't even -- we have separate rooms and stuff.
MCDOUGAL: We passed a room, and he said, this is Melania's room. She likes to have her alone time.
COOPER: Did he use a condom?
DANIELS: No.
COOPER: Did he ever use protection?
[21:50:05] MCDOUGAL: No. No, he didn't.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Back now with the panel.
You know, obviously people are, you know, will form their opinion by whether Stormy Daniels is credible. The fact that she denied the affair, and then ultimately went public with it.
Juanita Broaddrick who alleged President Clinton had raped her in the late 70s, she did sign an affidavit in which she denied being assaulted later changed her story. Candidate Trump and Trump supporters don't seem to hold that against her. So, is it fair, Jason, for people to say well, Stormy Daniels, you know, told the "In Touch" Magazine she had an affair, but then publicly denied it shortly afterward and then signed two statements denying it. MILLER: Right, I think they're very much apples and oranges type of situation. I mean, you go back and look at Juanita Broaddrick story and some of the threats that were made to her and the way that she literally feared for her life. I mean --
COOPER: So, do you believe that she -- threats were made against her and she fear for her life, but you don't believe the threat was made against Stormy Daniels (INAUDIBLE).
MILLER: By her descriptions were very specific and very vivid right to the point where -- as we saw with Stormy Daniels this supposedly this mystery person then goes away. She doesn't follow police report, doesn't do anything. And then now comes forward. I think it's a little tough.
And back to your initial point about people making up their mind or like what people are going to think coming out of this. I think you look at the poll numbers that are right now showing that President 42 percent. CNN polls showing that his 11 month high. Only a couple of points off of where both Reagan and Obama were at this point in their first terms. I think most have already made a decision in 2016, if they're going to go and believe some of this allegations or if they're going to brush them off. I think most people made that going into that election.
STEWART: And even look his base, people I talked to, and you talk to them, I'm sure they knew this was out there. They knew these stories were probably going to come out. It's probably a little more graphic than what we would want to hear. But they're still going to standby him and support him based on the numbers we're seeing today.
Even evangelicals that I talked with quite a bit, they knew this was out there, but they're willing to give him another shot because they're going to forgive his past sins and say, "As long as that's in the past let it stay in past and lets move forward. As long as he continues to support the policies that he campaigned on such as the life issue and conservative Supreme Court Justices, and the transgender in the military, and religious liberals." They will continue to standby him and they are not wavered. They knew this was out there, they look at it as in the past.
But the problem is the more recent, the intimidations, the threats to be silent and as possible threat years ago that is where he is going face legal position.
(CROSSTALK)
CARPENTER: -- I can't figure out why Trump's team are denying it so much, because this was sort of the common knowledge. But I do know judging from this, that this is a President who has secrets, many secrets that were not aired out through the election and that he still wants to keep. And given the system that was in place to get these agreements done so quickly, so fast by the President's closest allies and Michael Cohen and the "National Enquirer" you have to believe there are more secrets to come.
Miller: So, where is the part? I think --
COATES: And by the way -- all against are very convenient, first of all. This concept is the goals terms. It's not the way for the President, I think it should not be with the evangelicals. But the greater issue here is think about this, most people who get a security clearance in the federal government, if they have a vulnerability that places them in a compromised position where they could be blackmailed if the exposure of the secret is there, like I don't know a nondisclosure agreement based on sexual activity or --
COOPER: Or if the "National Enquirer" has a whole bunch of "Catch and Kill" people.
COATES: Exactly.
COOPER: What else that on, you know, if there are other people like Karen McDougal who they made contracts with and fill that stories that is potential leverage
COATES: Of course. Of course.
COOPER: Again, we don't know --
WILSON: The thing that it's evangelicals is that the things they sort of have rationalize in their heads, that they sort of internalizing, well, I know he's a bad person, but he's going to do the following political things I want. I'm not a biblical scholar, I miss with book that comes from and I believe the old and new testament of it's political expediency out ways everything. But they're going to hear this consistent drum beat though, more people are going to come forward. No secret holds anymore in this world. You know, three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. This is going to keep coming out, it's going to keep drip, drip, drip.
And because this White House fights these things so hard and because the infrastructure around Trump with Cohen and all the NDAs is out there it's such a tempting target. And eventually as these things crack, you know, it's easy to hear once or twice and, you know, for this, like this evangelical women to hear that the President is, you know, a bad boy, but when you hear it from 15 other women and that you see that his -- the values of his marriage are absolutely absent. He's out there, you know, going bare back and this is a whole crazy, you know, set of sexual encounters he has had over the years that do open him to compromise, that do open him to problems in keeping these secrets and trying to keep these things under wraps. It is going to have a slow corrosive effect. But as of now, they're sticking with him, because they have whole class of rationalization.
[21:55:01] POWERS: They are not going to turn on him. As sure as I'm sitting here I don't care if 15 women come out. They're not going to turn on, first of all because he's going to always lie and say that didn't happen. And they're going to believe him.
The other thing that they say, and I have talk a lot of the evangelicals about this, is they see this as ancient histories. All the stuff happened a long time ago. It was 10 years ago and they say maybe if this happen last week or this is something he was currently doing and they believe now he is 70 and he's changed, this is what they believe. I say even if he was having an affair now, I still think they would make excuses for him. I just watch them make excuses and everything for the way.
COOPER: The one thing that is true is Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to keep her quiet 11 days before the election. Do you believe that Michael Cohen did that completely on his own without Donald Trump knowing anything about it and did it -- that it was just a coincident that happened right before the election?
MILLER: Well, I mean, was it a coincidence that this story was leaking out just before the election? I mean, inside this whole series of people that were coming forward they are making these allegations that were magically quiet, but then when people realize that President Trump was going to win thing, then they'll start rushing in to (INAUDIBLE).
POWERS: Well, they came out in the aftermath.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: -- they only made an NDA with her and, you know, the "National Enquirer" only --
MILLER: Michael Cohen has said that he was doing it and that was -- he was trying to help out his friend, Donald Trump and that's why -- you know, look, in with respect, I'm not a lawyer, but I probably would have said to do something else and just, you know, completely ignore it, because people aren't going to believe these things.
But the reason why people are sticking by President Trump on this --
COOPER: Right.
MILLER: -- is because there's no evidence. I mean, there's not a police report, there's not even a sketch. Why don't we see a sketch of who those supposed person in the parking lot was?
COOPER: Right.
MILLER: Because they don't have anything.
COOPER: We got to take a break. Thank you everybody. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)\
[22:00:01] COOPER: That's all the time we have. Thanks for watching "360." Time to hand it over to Don Lemon. "CNN Tonight" starts right now. See you tomorrow.
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: This is "CNN TONIGHT." I'm Don Lemon.
