Michael Cohen Testifies Before Congress On Trump Campaign | NBC News

>>> A LONG TIME MEMBER OF DONALD TRUMP'S INNER CIRCLE, HIS FORMER PERSONAL LAWYER, SOMEONE WHO DID PUBLIC RELATIONS FOR HIM AND SOMEONE WHO SAID HE WOULD TAKE A BULLET FOR DONALD TRUMP. ALL OF THAT CHANGES AT MICHAEL COHEN WILL COME BEFORE CONGRESS PUBLICALLY FOR THE FIRST TIME AND TELL WHAT HE KNOWS ABOUT THE INNER WORKINGS OF THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. >> IT WAS INTERESTING ABOUT IT, HE PAINTS A VERY -- IF YOU HAVE COVERED AND WORKED WITH DONALD TRUMP OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS HE PAINTS A VERY FAMILIAR PICTURE OF HOW DONALD TRUMP HAS CONDUCTED BUSINESS, HOW MICHAEL COHEN CONDUCTED BUSINESS ON HIS BEHALF, THINGS LIKE WRITING LETTERS TO HIS UNIVERSITY SAYING DO NOT DO THIS. I THINK WE HAVE BEEN ON THE RECEIVING END OF A MICHAEL COHEN THREAT A TIME OR TWO. VERY MUCH IN THAT SENSE, A FAMILIAR RING TO IT. >> FOR THE BETTER PART OF A DECADE MICHAEL COHEN WAS THE GATE KEEPER TO DONALD TRUMP AND PERHAPS KNOWS WHERE ALL THE BODIES ARE BURIED, AS THE SAYING GOES. HE IS SET TO REVEAL WHAT HE ALLEGES AS CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY THE PRESIDENT WHILE IN OFFICE. THAT CONCERNS HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS THAT WERE MADE TO TWO WOMEN ALLEGING AFFAIRS WITH DONALD TRUMP. THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION OF THE TRUMP FOUNDATION, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY ABOUT RUSSIA ALTHOUGH A LOT OF THAT TOOK PLACE YESTERDAY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING. >> WHAT IS INTERESTING IS SUPPOSE TDLY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE HAD SENT WORD TO THE DEMOCRATS RUSSIA IS SORT OF OFF THE TABLE. THAT'S UNDER ROBERT MUELLER. AND YET IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT MICHAEL COHEN IS INVITING QUESTIONS BY ALLEGING THE WIKI LEAKS CONTACT. WHILE HE HAS RECEIPTS, IF YOU WILL, TO PROVE SOME ALLEGATIONS HAVING TO DO WITH THE FOUNDATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF STORMY DANIELS, SOME OF THESE OTHER ALLEGATIONS ARE JUST ALLEGATIONS WITHOUT PROOF. >> NOW LET'S GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT WE WILL WITNESS TODAY. THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO QUESTION MICHAEL COHEN. THIS IS EXPECTED TO GO ON FOR HOURS. THERE IS THE CHAIRMAN ELIJAH CUMMINGS, THE RANKING MEMBER JIM JORDAN. THEY WILL GIVE OPENING STATEMENTS. WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS FROM THE PREVIEW, THE OPENING STATEMENT THAT MICHAEL COHEN IS EXPECTED TO GIVE. TO KNOW WHERE MICHAEL COHEN STANDS AT THIS MOMENT. HE IS A CONVICTED FELON. HE HAS PLEADED GUILTY AND WITH CHARGES BROUGHT BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER. HE HAS BEEN SENTENCED. HE IS DOW TO REPORT TO JAIL IN MAY. WHEN HE COMES IN HE BEARS THE HEAVY BURDEN AS A CONVICTED FELON, SELF-ADMITTED LIAR AND SOMEONE WHO WILL MAKE STRONG ALLEGATIONS. >> KEEP IN MIND, 42 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE ON THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. THERE ARE 435 MEMBERS. SO BASICALLY TEN PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION MICHAEL COHEN TODAY. >> AND THAT BRINGS US TO KASIE HUNT WHO IS ON HER POSITION ON THE HILL THIS MORNING AND HAS AN IDEA OF WHAT TO EXPECT. WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> Reporter: THIS IS GOING TO BE A DAY IN HISTORY HERE ON CAPITOL HILL AMID ALL OF THE NOISE AND THE NEWS CYCLE. THIS IS A CHANCE FOR AMERICANS TO GET TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM -- YOU ARE SEEING THAT INSIDE THE ROOM. THERE ARE QUOTES FROM OTHERS. I THINK THAT IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HOW REPUBLICANS WILL APPROACH THIS DAY. THEY WILL TRY TO UNDERMINE AND POINT OUT THAT MR. COHEN DID LIE TO CONGRESS. THAT IS NEVER SOMETHING THAT GOES OVER WELL WITH MEMBERS UP HERE ON CAPITOL HILL. OF COURSE, DEMOCRATS ARE VERY EAGER TO HEAR FROM THEM ON THE ALLEGATIONS LAID OUT. YOU KNOW MR. COHEN WILL CALL THE PRESIDENT A CONMAN AND A CHEAT. THERE WILL BE VERY TOUGH WORDS. WE WANT TOKEEP AN EYE OUT FOR REPUBLICANS TO TRY TO DELAY THE TESTIMONY A LITTLE BIT, PROCEDURAL MOVES TO TRY TO SHOW THAT THEY THINK THAT THE WAY THAT THIS HAS BEEN APPROACHED IS ILLEGITIMATE. KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR THAT AS WE GET UNDERWAY HERE. AGAIN, THIS IS REALLY ONE OF THE RARE CHANCES TO SEE WHAT WE HAVE ALL BEEN TALKING ABOUT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, WHAT HAS BEEN REPORTED, ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION AT A TIME ALL LAID OUT IN FRONT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >> WE'LL BE BACK WITH YOU OFTEN AS THE DAY WEARS ON. >> LET'S GO TO OUR CHIEF JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT PETE WILLIAMS. ONE THING THAT WE SHOULD REMIND FOLKS TODAY IS ANYTHING HE SAYS TODAY DOESN'T LESSEN A SENTENCE. UNLESS HE LIES TO CONGRESS AND GETS REFERRED TO A CRIMINAL REFERRAL, BUT NOTHING WILL SOMEHOW LIGHTEN HIS SENTENCE. WHAT ELSE SHOULD VIEWERS KNOW ABOUT MICHAEL COHEN'S LEGAL STANDING THESE DAYS? >> THAT'S RIGHT BECAUSE JUST TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT, A PERSON CAN GET A REDUCTION IN SENTENCE WHILE THEY ARE SERVING THEIR SENTENCE IF THEY GIVE SUBSTANTIAL COOPERATION TO THE GOVERNMENT. THAT MEANS TO THE PROSECUTORS LEADING TO THE PROSECUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE. WHAT HE SAYS TO CONGRESS TODAY IN ESSENCE DOESN'T COUNT. REMEMBER, EVERYTHING WE ARE GOING TO HEAR TODAY FROM MICHAEL COHEN, THE PROSECUTORS IN NEW YORK AND THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE HERE IN WASHINGTON ALREADY KNOW. SO WE'RE GOING TO LEARN WHAT THEY KNOW BUT IT'S NOT LIKE HE IS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING NEW THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW AND THAT MIGHT LEAD TO ADDITIONAL CHARGES AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ALLEGED IN THE THING THAT HE PLEADED GUILTY TO IN NEW YORK THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THE PROSECUTORS SAID REFERRED TO FAMOUSLY AS INDIVIDUAL ONE KNEW ABOUT THE PAYMENTS TO THE TWO WOMEN WHO CLAIMED AN AFFAIR WITH MR. TRUMP. THE REASON THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL IS NOT THAT HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS ARE ILLEGAL, BUT THEY VIOLATED CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS ON THE LIMITS THAT YOU CAN GIVE SOMEONE AND THEY DID AMOUNT TO A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AND WERE NOT REPORTED. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT COHEN IS SAYING IS THAT HE GOT REIMBURSED FOR THIS AFTER THE PRESIDENT BECAME PRESIDENT. FINALLY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT BECAUSE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THE PROSECUTORS KNOW ALL THIS, IT'S NOT SO IMPORTANT LEGALLY WHAT HE SAYS TODAY. IT IS MORE IMPORTANT POLITICALLY, NOT THAT THAT IS UNIMPORTANT, BUT IT IS MORE POLITICAL THAN IT IS LEGAL. >> THAT'S A GOOD REMINDER. WHAT'S AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? IT IS WHATEVER CONGRESS SAYS IT IS WHICH MEANS TODAY'S EVENT IS VERY MUCH POLITICAL. >> OF COURSE, THE PRESIDENT REPORTEDLY WILL BE WATCHING THIS MORNING ALTHOUGH HE IS A WORLD AWAY. >> Reporter: THIS IS A STUNNING SPLIT SCREEN BECAUSE OF COURSE PRESIDENT TRUMP CURRENTLY IN VIETNAM MEETING WITH KIM JONG-UN FOR A SECOND TIME, THE SECOND SUMMIT OVER DE-NUCLEARIZATION, BUT OF COURSE WHAT IS HE TWEETING ABOUT THIS MORNING? HE IS TWEETING ABOUT MICHAEL COHEN. LET ME READ YOU A PART OF IT. HE SAID HE WAS JUST DISBARRED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT. HE IS LYING IN ORDER TO REDUCE PRISON TIME. WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP IS 100% FOCUSSED ON THE SUMMIT IN VIETNAM. WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT IS AN AVID CONSUMER OF TELEVISION NEWS. SO WE EXPECT HIM TO WATCH AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF THE HEARING TODAY. WILL WE GET SOME TYPE OF REACTION? I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS WHO SAY THEY WILL PROBABLY HOLD OFF ON ANY TYPE OF RESPONSE UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY TODAY, BUT THEY ARE ALL WATCHING VERY CLOSELY. THIS HAS OF COURSE BEEN A REMARKABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS FORMER ATTORNEY, PERSONAL FIXER. HE WORKED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR OVER A DECADE. AS YOU SAY, HE DOES KNOW WHERE ALL OF THE BODIES ARE BURIED. AFTER MICHAEL COHEN FLIPPED ON PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT A YEAR AGO THE STRATEGY FOR THE PRESIDENT AND CLOSEST ALLIES HAS BEEN TO ATTACK MICHAEL COHEN AND TRY TO STRIP AWAY AT HIS CREDIBILITY. I ANTICIPATE WE WILL SEE A LOT MORE OF THAT TODAY. REMEMBER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFERRED TO COHEN AS A LIAR AND A RAT. WE WILL BE WATCHING CLOSELY TO SEE WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TO SAY TODAY ONCE THIS GETS GOING. >> WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN WHAT THE TESTIMONY WILL BE, THE OPENING STATEMENT OF MICHAEL COHEN IS 20 PAGES. IT COVERS A LOT OF TERRITORY ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT ISSUES. SIGNIFICANTLY, HE DOES PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF THE ALLEGATIONS HE IS MAKING. HE ALLEGES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED A CRIME WHILE IN OFFICE IN TERMS OF A REIMBURSEMENT PAID IN CONNECTION WITH A TRANSACTION TO WOMEN WHO WERE CLAIMING AN AFFAIR WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HAS NOW BEEN OF COURSE CONNECTED TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS. AND SIGNIFICANTLY, MICHAEL COHEN COMES BEFORE CONGRESS TODAY AS SOMEONE WHO HAS PLEADED GUILTY TO LYING TO CONGRESS. AND IN HIS OPENING TESTIMONY TODAY, MICHAEL COHEN WILL SAY THAT HE HAD NOT A DIRECTION FROM THE PRESIDENT TO LIE TO CONGRESS, BUT WHAT HE CONSIDERED AN IMPLICIT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED HIM TO LIE. SO THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE A FOCUS OF DISCUSSION. >> THERE WAS AN INTERESTING LITTLE EXTRA NUGGET THAT HE IS GOING TO ALLEGE. THAT IS TO DO WITH A PORTRAIT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD PURCHASED. LET ME BRING IN NEWS ANALYST REPORTING ON THE TRUMP FOUNDATION IN PARTICULAR. DAVID, WAS THIS THIRD PORTRAIT -- YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE PORTRAIT BEAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE FOUNDATION -- WAS THE THIRD PORTRAIT NEWS TO YOU? >> IT WAS ACTUALLY. THERE WERE TWO MORE CASE WHERES TRUMP USED MONEY FROM THE TRUMP FOUNDATION TO BUY GIANT PORTRAITS OF HIMSELF. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS ONE. THIS IS A NEW ONE. THE OTHERS ONE WERE THREE FEET TALL AND SIX FEET TALL. THIS ONE WAS NINE FEET TALL AND APPARENTLY TRUMP USED $60,000 TO PAY BACK A STRAW BUYER SO THAT TRUMP COULD BUY THIS PORTRAIT OF HIMSELF. >> THE ISSUE COMES UP BECAUSE AMONG MANY ITEMS LISTED AS POTENTIAL FAIR GAME TOPICS TODAY THE TRUMP FOUNDATION AND WHETHER IT WAS OPERATING WITHIN THE REGULARITY THAT IT SHOULD IS ONE OF THE TOPICS. THE PORTRAIT AS YOU REPORTED DURING THE CAMPAIGN, THIS WAS AN ALLEGATION THAT FOUNDATION FUNDS, MONEY RAISED BY TRUMP AND THE TRUMP FOUNDATION FOR CHARITY WAS ACTUALLY USED FOR THINGS LIKE A PORTRAIT OF DONALD TRUMP HIMSELF BID FOR AT AUCTION AND PAID FOR AT AN EXORBITANT PRICE. >> ONE OF THE BED ROCK LAWS OF CHARITY LEGISLATION IS YOU CAN'T TAKE MONEY OUT OF YOUR CHARITY AND USE IT TO BUY THINGS FOR YOURSELF. RULE NUMBER ONE. SO TRUMP IS ALREADY BEING SUED BY THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR A VARIETY OF ALLEGED CRIMES INVOLVING MISUSE OF HIS CHARITY MONEY INCLUDING TWO OTHER PORTRAITS. I ASK ARE YOU GOING TO ADD THIS THIRD ONE TO YOUR LAWSUIT? >> AS I SAID, THERE ARE A LOT OF TOPICS TO COVER TODAY, THE FOUNDATION BEING ONE YOU HAVE BEEN ALL OVER. WE'LL CHECK BACK IN WITH YOU. WE WANT TO GO TO KASIE HUNT. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE TABLE WAS RUSSIA. ELIJAH CUMMINGS WANTED TO SHOW DEFERENCE TO ROBERT MUELLER AND THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION AND HAD SAID MU RUSSIA TOPICS WERE THE TABLE. >> CONGRESSMAN CONNELLY ON OVERSIGHT SAYING IF MICHAEL COHEN'S BRINGING UP WIKI LEAKS, THAT MEANS RUSSIA IS FAIR GAME. ARE MICHAEL COHEN'S ATTORNEYS IN AGREEMENT ON THAT. >> Reporter: IT'S PRETTY UNCLEAR HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN HEARING FROM COHEN'S CAMP PRAISING ELIJAH CUMMINGS FOR HAVING AGREED TO BE VERY CAREFUL AND TO EXPLICITLY INSTRUCT DEMOCRATS NOT TO GET IN THE WAY OF THOSE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF COURSE MICHAEL COHEN HAS BEEN COOPERATING EXTENSIVELY WITH THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. SO ELIJAH CUMMINGS HAD SENT OUT A MEMO OUTLINING WHAT DEMOCRATS WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ASK ABOUT. THAT IS STILL AN INCREDIBLY EXTENSIVE LIST. THERE IS THE FOUNDATION, THE BUSINESSES, THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS THAT WE KNOW COHEN WILL TALK ABOUT. ALL OF THIS KIND OF UNIVERSE AROUND DONALD TRUMP IS ALL GOING TO BE FAIR GAME. THE PRESIDENT HAS CALLED THAT A RED LINE IN MANY WAYS. HE DOESN'T WANT THOSE THINGS INVESTIGATED. HE DID SAY THIS ISN'T GOING TO INTRUDE ON THAT INVESTIGATION. AND NOW IN THIS OPENING STATEMENT, HE HAS TAKEN A STEP RIGHT INTO THAT. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATION THAT MICHAEL COHEN IS MAKING ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT WIKI LEAKS WAS GOING TO DUMP DEMOCRATIC E-MAILS BEFORE IT HAPPENED. THAT HAS BEEN A CENTRAL QUESTION. >> I WANT TO JUMP IN REAL QUICKLY WHILE WE HAVE A MOMENT BEFORE WE GET TO THE TESTIMONY BECAUSE PETE WILLIAMS IS WITH US. I KNOW YOU DON'T READ MINDS BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WILL THINK. >> HE WILL SAY -- NOW, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ALL ALONG ABOUT ROGER STONE HAS BEEN HOW MUCH OF THIS WAS JUST BLUSTER AND HOW MUCH OF IT WAS THINGS THAT HE ACTUALLY KNEW. HE HAS DENIED TALKING TO ASSANGE AND HAS NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH LYING TO THAT. >> WE HAVE JUST SEEN MICHAEL COHEN WALK INTO THE HEARING ROOM. IN A MOMENT HE WILL FACE THE CAMERAS AND THEN THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. WE WANT TO HAVE STATIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY JOIN US SO WE WILL STAND BY JUST A MOMENT. >>> THIS IS WHERE THE EYES OF THE POLITICAL UNIVERSE ARE AT THIS HOUR, A HEARING ROOM ON CAPITOL HILL WHERE MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER PERSONAL LAWYER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOW TAKE THE WITNESS STAND IN AN EXTRAORDINARY HEARING WHERE HE IS PREPARED TO TESTIFY TO HIS YEARS WORKING FOR DONALD TRUMP, WHAT HE KNOWS OF DONALD TRUMP THE MAN, THE BUSINESSMAN AND THE PRESIDENT. HE IS PREPARED TO ALLEGE CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY TRUMP WHILE IN OFFICE. AND HE WILL CLAIM THAT HE IMPLICITLY WAS INSTRUCTED TO LIE TO CONGRESS ON BEHALF OF DONALD TRUMP. THERE ARE EXPLOSIVE CLAIMS IN THE TESTIMONY HE IS ABOUT TO GIVE AND HE HAS SOME SERIOUS CREDIBILITY ISSUES AS WELL. HE IS A CONVICTED FELON AND ADMITTED LIAR. SOMEONE WHO WILL REPORT TO PRISON IN ABOUT 60 DAYS TO SERVE A THREE-YEAR SENTENCE. >> LET'S CALL IT WHAT IT IS. IF THERE IS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TODAY IS DAY ONE. TODAY WILL BE VIEWED AS UNOFFICIAL START. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT IS WHAT WE ARE WATCHING TODAY AND WITNESSING TODAY. WHAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING IS ESSENTIALLY STARTING TO TEST DRIVE AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE AND MICHAEL COHEN IS THE STAR ATTRACTION FOR DAY ONE. >> ABSOLUTELY. IT IS ACTUALLY DAY TWO BECAUSE DAY ONE WAS MICHAEL COHEN YESTERDAY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE. HE WENT BACK AND TESTIFIED THERE IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING. NOW HE IS ABOUT TO GIVE HIS OPENING STATEMENT. THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ELIJAH CUMMINGS WILL GIVE A STATEMENT AS WILL THE -- >> YOU SHOULD GET TO KNOW WHO HE IS. JIM JORDAN, REPUBLICAN FROM OHIO, A FIERCE DEFENDER OF THE PRESIDENT. >> TO DECLARE IN RECESS OF THE COMMITTEE AT ANYTIME, THE FULL COMMITTEE HEARING IS CONVENING TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. RULE F OF THE COMMITTEE RULES SAY THAT ANY TESTIMONY FROM YOUR WITNESS NEEDS TO BE HERE 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. THE COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIRMAN KNOWS WELL THAT AT 10:08 WE RECEIVED THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY AND THEN WE RECEIVED EVIDENCE THIS MORNING AT 7:54. NOW, IF THIS JUST AN OVERSIGHT I COULD LOOK BEYOND IT, BUT IT WAS AN INTENTIONAL EFFORT BY THIS WITNESS AND HIS ADVISERS TO ONCE AGAIN SHOW HIS DISTAIN FOR THIS BODY. AND WITH THAT, I MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE THIS HEARING. >> SECOND. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. >> LET ME SAY THIS, THAT WE GOT THE TESTIMONY LATE LAST NIGHT. WE DID. AND WE GOT IT TO YOU ALL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME TIME THAT WE GOT IT. I WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS HEARING. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULE. IF IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL, I WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM. I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS INTENTIONAL ON YOUR PART. I'M SAYING IT WAS INTENTIONAL ON HIS PART BECAUSE MR. DEAN LAST NIGHT ON A CABLE NETWORK ACTUALLY MADE IT ALL VERY EVIDENT. JOHN DEAN, AND I WILL QUOTE, MR. CHAIRMAN, HE SAID AS A FORMER COMMITTEE COUNCIL IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND A LONG TERM WITNESS SITTING ALONE AT THE TABLE IS IMPORTANT. QUOTE, HOLDING YOUR STATEMENT AS LONG AS YOU CAN SO THE OTHER SIDE CAN'T CHEW IT UP IS IMPORTANT, AS WELL, CLOSED QUOTE. AND SO IT WAS ADVISE THAT OUR WITNESS GOT FOR THIS PARTICULAR BODY. MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN YOU WERE IN THE MINORITY YOU WOULDN'T HAVE STOOD FOR IT AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE SHOULD NOT STAND FOR IT AS A BODY. >> LET ME SAY THIS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> YES. >> I MOVE TO TABLE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> GOOD SECOND. >> I WAS ASKED TO BE RECOGNIZED BEFORE THE MOTION. >> YOU KNOW WHO HAD THIS MATERIAL BEFORE ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? CNN HAD IT BEFORE WE DID. I JUST WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED. >> THE VOTE IS ON TABLING THE MOTION TO POSTPONE. ALL IN FAVOR AYE. >> NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. >> I APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR. I CAN ASSURE YOU IT'S IN THE RULES. I APPEAL THE RULING. >> FIREWORKS HERE AT CAPITOL HILL. EXPLAIN IT. >> THERE IS A COURTESY OF 24 HOURS EACH SIDE GETS TO SEE NEW EVIDENCE THAT A WITNESS IS GOING TO PRESENT. MICHAEL COHEN THE NEW EVIDENCE DIDN'T DO THAT. WE EXPECTED THE REPUBLICANS TO DO THIS. DEMOCRATS HAVE A MAJORITY. THEY CAN DECIDE TO WAIVE THEIR RULE. AND WITH THE MAJORITY COME THOSE WHO GET TO MAKE THE RULES. SO THEY ARE MAKING NEW RULES. IN THIS CASE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ESSENTIALLY WAIVED THEIR 24-HOUR RULE. THE OBJECTION WAS HEARD. YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF MR. MEADOWS AND MR. JORDAN IN PARTICULAR, THOSE GUYS ARE THE PRESIDENT'S FIERCEST DEFENDERS ON ALL THINGS MUELLER AND THE RUSSIA PROBE. >> THIS IS THE FIRST SALVO OF REPUBLICANS TRYING TO POSTPONE THE HEARING ON A PROCEDURAL GROUND. DEMOCRATS SAYING WE WILL CHANGE THE RULES BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO DO SO. THEY HAVE THE VOTE AND THE HEARING WILL CONTINUE. >> MS. NORTON VOTES YES. MR. CLAY VOTES YES. MR. LYNCH VOTES YES. >> THIS COULD BE A VERY LONG DAY. YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF ATTEMPTS OF PROCEDURE. THERE IS A POLITICAL STRATEGY BEHIND IT. THE MORE YOU STRETCH IT OUT INTO PROCESS, THE LESS MAYBE THE LESS IMPACT SOME OF HIS ALLEGATIONS AND WORDS AND TESTIMONY CAN HAVE. WE HAVE SEEN THIS PLAY WHEN THE OTHER PARTIES ARE IN THE MINORITY. THIS IS WHAT A PARTY IN THE MINORITY DOES AND IN THE MAJORITY. >> WE HAVE KASIE HUNT WITH US. I WONDER AS WE GO ALONG HERE, IS THIS ONE OF THOSE SCENARIOS -- WE HAVE 40 PLUS MEMBERS OF THIS PARTICULAR COMMITTEE, SOME REPUBLICANS, SOME DEMOCRATS. DO THESE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TRY TO GET TOGETHER AND STRATEGIZE? THEY ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES A PIECE TO QUESTION. YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT TO DUPLICATE THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. SO DO THEY TRY TO GET TOGETHER AND SAY I WILL COVER THIS AND YOU COVER THAT? OR IS IT JUST GOING TO BE A FREE FOR ALL. >> Reporter: IT'S ONE OF THE MORE DIFFICULT THINGS BECAUSE WHILE YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE ONE HAND ALL DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN THEORY HAVE SIMILAR GOALS OF EACH OTHER, EACH MEMBER OF CONGRESS IS STILL A POLITICIAN WITH AN EGO IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AND THEY ARE TRYING TO SPEAK TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS OR PERHAPS MAKE A MARK AND GET COVERAGE ON CABLE NEWS. I THINK YOU MAY SEE A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. TYPICALLY THE CHAIR MEN WILL HAVE A SPECIFIC STRATEGY TO COMMUNICATE WITH OTHER MEMBERS. I THINK IN THIS CASE YOU CAN ALSO SEE A REAL FREE FOR ALL KIND OF ENVIRONMENT AMONG MANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS. THERE ARE SOME VERY LIBERAL MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT I THINK ARE LOOKING TO MAKE A MARK HERE. TO CHUCK'S POINT, MARK MEADOWS, THE MAN WHO NADE MOTION, HE HAS BEEN SORT OF FOR FRONT OF THIS VERY CONSERVATIVE WING IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND HAS BECOME ONE OF THE MOST LOYAL SUPPORTERS OF DONALD TRUMP. HE IS KIND OF PARTNERS WITH JIM JORDAN WHO WAS THE SECOND REPUBLICAN YOU SAW TALKING THERE WHO IS THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE. AND THOSE TWO HAVE VERY CLEARLY STRATEGIZED TOGETHER ON THIS. AND I DO NOT THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU WILL SEE THIS THROUGH THE DAY. I THINK THE QUESTION HERE IS HOW DO THE OPTICS ADD UP? >> THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO HEAR HIM SO WE ARE GOING TO PROCEED. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN JUDGE HIS CREDIBILITY FOR THEMSELVES. NOW. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DID NOT SAY THAT. WE JUST SAID WE WANTED TO FOLLOW THE RULES. WE DIDN'T SAY STOP THE HEARING. WE SAID POSTPONE IT SO WE CAN GET THE TESTIMONY AND THE EXHIBITS ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE. WE DIDN'T SAY WE DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR FROM THE GUY. >> RECLAIMING MY TIME. I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES TO GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT. TODAY THE COMMITTEE WILL HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL COHEN, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S LONG TIME PERSONAL ATTORNEY AND ONE OF HIS CLOSEST AND MOST TRUSTED ADVISERS OVER THE LAST DECADE. ON AUGUST 21, MR. COHEN APPEARED IN FEDERAL COURT AND ADMITTED TO ARRANGING SECRET PAYOFFS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THE EVE OF THE ELECTION TO SILENCE WOMEN ALLEGING AFFAIRS WITH DONALD TRUMP. MR. COHEN ADMITTED TO VIOLATING CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS AND OTHER LAWS. HE ADMITTED TO COMMITTING THESE FELONIES, QUOTE, IN COORDINATION WITH AND AT THE DIRECTION OF, UNQUOTE, PRESIDENT TRUMP. AND HE ADMITTED TO LYING ABOUT HIS ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT. SOME WILL CERTAINLY ASK IF MR. COHEN WAS LYING THEN, WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE HIM NOW? >> GOOD QUESTION. >> THIS IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. AS A TRIAL LAWYER FOR MANY YEARS, I HAVE FACED THIS SITUATION OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND I ASK THE SAME QUESTION. HERE IS HOW I VIEW OUR ROLE. EVERYONE OF US IN THIS ROOM HAS A DUTY TO SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT SECT ON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH. THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE MANY STATEMENTS OF HIS OWN. AND NOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE. THEY CAN WATCH MR. COHEN'S TESTIMONY AND MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENT. WE RECEIVED A COPY OF MR. COHEN'S WRITTEN STATEMENT LATE LAST NIGHT T. INCLUDES NOT ONLY PERSONAL EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF MEETINGS WITH DONALD TRUMP AS PRESIDENT INSIDE THE OVAL OFFICE, BUT IT ALSO INCLUDES DOCUMENTS AND OTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE FOR SOME OF MR. COHEN'S STATEMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, MR. COHEN HAS PROVIDED A COPY OF A CHECK SENT WHILE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE WITH DONALD TRUMP'S SIGNATURE ON IT TO REIMBURSE MR. COHEN FOR THE HUSH MONEY PAYMENT TO STORMY DANIELS. THIS NEW EVIDENCE RAISES A HOST OF TROUBLING LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND BEFORE. WOULD YOU ALL CLOSE THAT DOOR, PLEASE? THANK YOU. THIS CHECK IS DATED AUGUST 1, 2017. SIX MONTHS LATER IN APRIL OF 2018, THE PRESIDENT DENIED ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IN APRIL OF 2018, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS FLYING ON AIR FORCE ONE WHEN A REPORTER ASKED HIM THE QUESTION, DID YOU KNOW ABOUT $130,000 PAYMENT TO STORMY DANIELS? THE ANSWER WAS, QUOTE, NO. A MONTH AFTER THAT, THE PRESIDENT ADMITTED TO MAKING PAYMENTS TO MR. COHEN BUT CLAIMING THEY WERE PART OF A QUOTE MONTHLY RETAINER, UNQUOTE, FOR LEGAL SERVICES. THIS CLAIM FELL APART IN AUGUST WHEN FEDERAL PROSECUTORS CONCLUDED AND I QUOTE IN TRUTH AND IN FACT THERE WAS NO SUCH RETAINER AGREEMENT, END OF QUOTE. TODAY WE ALSO HEAR MR. COHEN'S ACCOUNT OF A MEETING IN 2016 IN DONALD TRUMP'S OFFICE DURING WHICH ROGER STONE SAID OVER SPEAKER PHONE THAT HE HAD JUST SPOKEN WITH JULIAN ASSANGE WHO SAID THERE WOULD BE A, QUOTE, MASSIVE DUMP OF E-MAILS THAT WOULD DAMAGE HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN, END OF QUOTE. ACCORDING TO COHEN, MR. TRUMP REPLIED, QUOTE, WOULDN'T THAT BE GREAT, END OF QUOTE. THE TESTIMONY THAT MICHAEL COHEN WILL PROVIDE TODAY LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IS DEEPLY DISTURBING AND IT SHOULD BE TROUBLING TO ALL AMERICANS. WE WILL ALL HAVE TO MAKE OUR OWN EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND MR. COHEN'S CREDIBILITY. AS HE ADMITS, HE HAS REPEATEDLY LIED IN THE PAST. I AGREE WITH RANKING MEMBER JORDAN THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR WE NEED TO WEIGH, BUT WE MUST WEIGH IT AND WE MUST HEAR FROM HIM. BUT WHERE I DISAGREE FUNDAMENTALLY WITH THE RANKING MEMBER INVOLVES HIS EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM HEARING FROM MR. COHEN. MR. COHEN'S TESTIMONY RAISES GRAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF DONALD TRUMP'S CONDUCT AND THE TRUTHFULNESS OF STATEMENTS WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT. WE NEED TO ASSESS AND INVESTIGATE THIS NEW EVIDENCE AS WE HOLD OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES. AND WE WILL CONTINUE AFTER TODAY TO GATHER MORE DOCUMENTS OF TESTIMONY IN OUR SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. I HAVE MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TO MR. COHEN THAT IF HE COMES HERE TODAY AND HE DOES NOT TELL US THE TRUTH, I WILL BE THE FIRST ONE TO REFER THOSE UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS TO D.O.J. SO WHEN PEOPLE SAY HE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO LOSE, HE DOES HAVE A LOT TO LOSE IF HE LIES. AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BY THE WAY, VOTED FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IN NOVEMBER. AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO HEAR MR. COHEN IN PUBLIC SO THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENTS. MR. COHEN'S TESTIMONY IS THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS, NOT THE END. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE DAYS OF THIS COMMITTEE PROTECTING THE PRESIDENT AT ALL COSTS ARE OVER. THEY'RE OVER. BEFORE I CLOSE, I WANT TO COMMENT ABOUT THE SCOPE OF TODAY'S HEARING. AT THE REQUEST OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND MY VERY GOOD FRIEND ADAM SCHIFF, CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF THE CHAIRMAN, I ATTEMPT TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF TODAY'S HEARING TO AVOID QUESTIONS ABOUT RUSSIA. HOWEVER, MR. COHEN'S WRITTEN TESTIMONY, HE HAS MADE STATEMENTS RELATING TO RUSSIA. AND THESE ARE TOPICS THAT WE UNDERSTAND DO NOT RAISE CONCERNS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. SO IN FAIRNESS TO THE RANKING MEMBER AND ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WE WILL NOT RESTRICT QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE WITNESS'S TESTIMONY OR RELATED QUESTIONS HE IS WILLING TO ANSWER. FINALLY, I REMIND MEMBERS THAT WE WILL NEED TO REMAIN MINDFUL OF THOSE AREAS WHERE THERE ARE ONGOING DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INVESTIGATIONS. THOSE SCOPING LIMITATIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED. FINALLY, AND TO MR. COHEN, MARTIN LUTHER KING SAID WORDS I LEAVE WITH YOU TODAY BEFORE YOU TESTIFY. HE SAID FAITH IS TAKING THE FIRST STEP EVEN WHEN YOU CAN'T SEE THE WHOLE STAIRCASE. THERE COMES A TIME WHEN SILENCE BECOMES BETRAYAL. OUR LIVES BEGIN TO END THE DAY WE BECOME SILENT ABOUT THINGS THAT TRULY MATTER. IN THE END, HE SAYS, WE WILL REMEMBER NOT THE WORDS OF OUR ENEMIES, BUT THE SILENCE OF OUR FRIENDS. AND WITH THAT, I YIELD TO THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN, THE RANKING MEMBER OF OUR COMMITTEE, MR. JORDAN. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, PART OF PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >> YES. MR. JORDAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, HERE WE GO, YOUR FIRST BIG HEARING, FIRST ANNOUNCED WITNESS, MICHAEL COHEN. I WANT EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM TO THINK ABOUT THIS. THE FIRST ANNOUNCED WITNESS FOR THE 116th CONGRESS IS A GUY GOING TO PRISON IN TWO MONTHS FOR LYING TO CONGRESS. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOUR CHAIRMANSHIP WILL ALWAYS BE IDENTIFIED WITH THIS HEARING. AND WE ALL NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS THE MICHAEL COHEN HEARING PRESENTED BY LANY DAVIS. THE CLINTON'S BEST FRIEND, LOYALIST, OPERATIVE, LANY DAVIS PUT THIS ALL TOGETHER. HE TOLD OUR STAFF. HE TOLD THE COMMITTEE STAFF. HE SAID THE HEARING WAS HIS IDEA. HE SELECTED THIS COMMITTEE. HE HAD TO TALK MICHAEL COHEN INTO COMING AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HE HAD TO PERSUADE THE CHAIRMAN TO ACTUALLY HAVE IT. HE TOLD US IT TOOK TWO MONTHS TO GET THAT JOB DONE. HERE WE ARE. THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME SOMEONE CONVICTED OF LYING TO CONGRESS HAS APPEARED AGAIN SO QUICKLY IN FRONT OF CONGRESS. CERTAINLY, IT'S THE FIRST TIME I CONVICTED PERJURER HAS BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO BE A STAR WITNESS IN A HEARING. AND THERE IS A REASON THIS IS A FIRST, BECAUSE NO OTHER COMMITTEE WOULD DO IT. THINK ABOUT THIS. WITH MR. COHEN HERE, THIS COMMITTEE, WE HAVE LOTS OF LAWYERS ON THIS COMMITTEE. THIS COMMITTEE IS ACTUALLY ENCOURAGING A WITNESS TO VIOLATE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE. MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN WE LEGITIMIZE DISHONESTY, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO PURSUE THE TRUTH. WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO ASK CERTAIN QUESTIONS EVEN WITH THE AMENDMENT WHERE RUSSIA IS NOW ON THE TABLE. YOU INITIALLY TOLD US WE CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OR RUSSIA. ONLY SUBJECTS WE CAN TALK ABOUT ARE ONES YOU THINK ARE GOING TO BE HARMFUL TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO COME FROM A GUY WHO CAN'T BE TRUSTED. HERE IS WHAT THE U.S. ATTORNEY SAID ABOUT MR. COHEN. WHILE MR. COHEN ENJOYED A PRIVILEGE LIFE HIS DESIRE FOR WEALTH AND INFLUENCE, MR. COHEN COMMITTED FOUR DISTINCT FEDERAL CRIMES OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL YEARS. HE WAS MOTIVATE TODAY DO SO BY PERSONAL GREED AND REPEATEDLY, REPEATEDLY USED HIS POWER AND INFLUENCE FOR DECEPTIVE ENDS, BUT THE DEMOCRATS DON'T CARE. THEY DON'T CARE. THEY JUST WANT TO USE YOU, MR. COHEN. YOU ARE THEIR PATSY TODAY. THEY HAVE TO FIND SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE TO SAY SOMETHING SO THEY CAN TRY TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE BECAUSE TOM STIER TOLD THEM TO. HE ORGANIZED A TOWN HALL, GUESS WHERE? MANHATTAN. TWO NIGHTS AGO HE ORGANIZED A TOWN HALL. GUESS WHERE. CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS' DISTRICT IN BALTIMORE. THE BEST THEY CAN FIND TO START THIS PROCESS, MICHAEL COHEN, FRAUDSTER, CHEAT, CONVICTED FELON AND IN TWO MONTHS A FEDERAL INMATE. THEY DIDN'T FIND YOU. LANY DAVIS FOUND YOU. I WILL SAY ONE THING ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS, THEY STICK TO THE PLAY BOOK. REMEMBER HOW ALL THIS STARTED. THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN HIRED PERKINS LAW FIRM WHO HIRED GLEN SIMPSON WHO HIRED CHRISTOPHER STEEL WHO PUT TOGETHER THE FAKE DOSSIER THAT THE FBI USED TO GET A WARRANT TO SPY ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. BUT WHEN THAT WHOLE SCHEME FAILED AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SAID WE ARE GOING TO MAKE DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENT, THEY SAID WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE. SO NOW CLINTON LOYALIST HAS PERSUADED THE CHAIRMAN OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE TO GIVE A CONVICTED FELON A FORUM TO TELL STORIES AND LIE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SO THEY CAN ALL START THEIR IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS. WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS. I YIELD BACK. I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION UNDER RULE 2 K 6 -- >> YOU YIELDED BACK, SIR. YOU YIELDED BACK. >> YOU TOOK SEVEN MINUTES. I TOOK FOUR. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDED BACK. >> THAT'S HOW YOU ARE GOING TO OPERATE? FIRST YOU DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES. >> I HAVE A SIMPLE MOTION. >> TO HAVE THE TESTIMONY 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. >> I WANTED TO NOTE UNDER RULE 11 MEDIA AND PHOTOGRAPHERS MUST BE OFFICIALLY CREDENTIALED TO RECORD THESE PROCEEDINGS AND TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS. I WANTED TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE SPECTATORS IN THE HEARING ROOM TODAY. WE WELCOME YOU AND WE RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO BE HERE. WE ALSO ASK IN TURN FOR YOUR RESPECT AS WE PROCEED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE COMMITTEE TODAY. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT ANY DISRUPTIONS. ANY DISRUPTIONS OF THIS COMMITTEE WILL RESULT IN UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE RESTORING ORDER AND PROTESTERS WILL BE REMOVED. WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR PRESENCE HERE TODAY AND YOUR COOPERATION. NOW I WANT TO WELCOME MR. COHEN AND THANK HIM FOR PARTICIPATING IN TODAY'S HEARING. MR. COHEN, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE AND I WILL BEGIN TO SWEAR YOU IN. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD? LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE WITNESS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU AND YOU MAY BE SEATED. THE MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THEM. WITHOUT OBJECTION, YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD. WITH THAT, MR. COHEN, YOU ARE NOW RECOGNIZED TO GIVE AN ORAL PRESENTATION OF YOUR TESTIMONY. >>> THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME HERE TODAY. I HAVE ASKED THIS COMMITTEE TO ENSURE THAT MY FAMILY BE PROTECTED FROM PRESIDENTIAL THREATS AND THAT THE COMMITTEE BE SENSITIVE TO THE QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP AND FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING. I AM HERE UNDER OATH TO CORRECT THE RECORD, TO ANSWER THE COMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY AND TO OFFER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT I KNOW ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP. I RECOGNIZE THAT SOME OF YOU MAY DOUBT AND ATTACK ME ON MY CREDIBILITY. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT I HAVE INCORPORATED INTO THIS OPENING STATEMENT DOCUMENTS THAT ARE IRREFUTABLE AND DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INFORMATION YOU WILL HEAR IS ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL. NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS DID I IMAGINE WHEN I ACCEPTED A JOB IN 2007 TO WORK FOR DONALD TRUMP THAT HE WOULD ONE DAY RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY, TO LAUNCH A CAMPAIGN ON A PLATFORM OF HATE AND INTOLERANCE AND ACTIVELY WIN. I REGRET THE DAY I SAID YES TO MR. TRUMP. I REGRET ALL THE HELP AND SUPPORT I GAVE HIM ALONG THE WAY. I AM ASHAMED OF MY OWN FAILINGS AND PUBLICALLY ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM BY PLEADING GUILTY IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. I AM ASHAMED OF MY WEAKNESS AND MY MISPLACED LOYALTY, OF THE THINGS I DID FOR MR. TRUMP IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE HIM. I AM ASHAMED THAT I CHOSE TO TAKE PART IN CONCEALING MR. TRUMP'S ILLICIT ACTS RATHER THAN LISTENING TO MY OWN CONSCIENCE. I AM ASHAMED BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT MR. TRUMP IS. HE IS A RACIST. HE IS A CON-MAN AND HE IS A CHEAT. HE WAS A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO KNEW THAT ROGER STONE WAS TALKING WITH JULIAN ASSANGE ABOUT A WIKI LEAKS DROP ON THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE E-MAILS. I WILL EXPLAIN EACH IN A FEW MOMENTS. I AM PROVIDING THE COMMITTEE TODAY WITH SEVERAL DOCUMENTS AND THESE INCLUDE A COPY OF A CHECK MR. TRUMP WROTE FROM HIS PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT AFTER HE BECAME PRESIDENT TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS HE MADE TO COVER UP HIS AFFAIR WITH AN ADULT FILM STAR AND TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO HIS CAMPAIGN, COPIES OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM 2011, 2012 AND 2013 THAT HE GAVE TO SUCH INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS DEUTSCHE BANK. A COPY OF AN ARTICLE WITH MR. TRUMP'S HANDWRITING ON IT THAT REPORTED ON THE AUCTION OF A PORTRAIT OF HIMSELF THAT HE ARRANGED FOR THE BIDDER AHEAD OF TIME AND REIMBURSED THE BIDDER FROM THE ACCOUNT OF HIS NONPROFIT CHARITABLE FOUNDATION WITH THE PICTURE NOW HANGING IN ONE OF HIS COUNTRY CLUBS. AND COPIES OF LETTERS I WROTE AT MR. TRUMP'S DIRECTION THAT THREATENED HIS HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGES AND THE COLLEGE BOARD NOT TO RELEASE HIS GRADES OR S.A.T. SCORES. I HOPE MY APPEARANCE HERE TODAY, MY GUILTY PLEA AND MY WORK WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE STEPS ALONG A PATH OF REDEMPTION THAT WILL RESTORE FAITH IN ME AND HELP THIS COUNTRY UNDERSTAND OUR PRESIDENT BETTER. AND BEFORE GOING FURTHER, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO EACH MEMBER, TO YOU AS CONGRESS AS A WHOLE. THE LAST TIME I APPEARED BEFORE CONGRESS I CAME TO PROTECT MR. TRUMP. TODAY I AM HERE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT MR. TRUMP. I LIED TO CONGRESS WHEN MR. TRUMP STOPPED NEGOTIATING THE MOSCOW TOWER PROJECT IN RUSSIA. I STATED THAT WE STOP NEGOTIATING IN JANUARY OF 2016. THAT WAS FALSE. OUR NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUED FOR MONTHS LATER DURING THE CAMPAIGN. MR. TRUMP DID NOT DIRECTLY TELL ME TO LIE TO CONGRESS. IN CONVERSATIONS WE HAD DURING THE CAMPAIGN AT THE SAME TIME I WAS ACTIVELY NEGOTIATING IN RUSSIA FOR HIM, HE WOULD LOOK ME IN THE EYE AND TELL ME THERE IS NO RUSSIAN BUSINESS AND THEN GO ON TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY SAYING THE SAME THING. IN HIS WAY, HE WAS TELLING ME TO LIE. THERE WERE AT LEAST A DOZEN TIMES WHEN HE WOULD ASK ME, HOW IS IT GOING IN RUSSIA, REFERRING TO THE MOSCOW TOWER PROJECT. 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 BEFORE I GAVE IT. SO TO BE CLEAR, MR. TRUMP KNEW OF AND DIRECTED THE TRUMP MOSCOW NEGOTIATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN AND LIED ABOUT IT. HE LIED ABOUT IT BECAUSE HE NEVER EXPECTED TO WIN. HE ALSO LIED ABOUT IT BECAUSE HE STOOD TO MAKE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE MOSCOW PROJECT. SO I LIED ABOUT IT, TOO, BECAUSE THROUGH TRUMP MADE CLEAR TO ME THROUGH HIS FALSE STATEMENTS THAT HE WANTED ME TO LIE. AND HE MADE IT CLEAR TO ME BECAUSE HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEYS REVIEWED MY STATEMENT BEFORE I GAVE IT TO CONGRESS. OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, I HAVE BEEN SMEARED AS A RAT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE TRUTH IS MUCH DIFFERENT. LET ME TAKE A BRIEF MOMENT TO INTRODUCE MYSELF. MY NAME IS MICHAEL DEAN COHEN. AND I AM A BLESSED HUSBAND OF 24 YEARS AND A FATHER TO AN INCREDIBLE DAUGHTER AND SON. WHEN I MARRIED MY WIFE, I PROMISED HER THAT I WOULD LOVE HER, I WOULD CHERISH HER AND I WOULD PROTECT HER. AS MY FATHER SAID COUNTLESS TIMES THROUGHOUT MY CHILDHOOD, YOU, MY WIFE, AND YOU MY CHILDREN ARE THE AIR THAT I BREATHE. SO TO MY LAURA AND MY SAMMY AND TO MY JAKE, THERE IS NOTHING I WOULDN'T DO TO PROTECT YOU. I HAVE ALWAYS TRIED TO LIVE A LIFE OF LOYALTY, FRIENDSHIP, GENEROSITY AND COMPASSION. IT'S QUALITIES MY PARENTS INGRAINED IN MY SIBLINGS AND ME SINCE CHILDHOOD. MY FATHER SURVIVED THE HOLOCAUST THANKS TO THE COMPASSION AND SELFLESS ACTS OF OTHERS. HE WAS HELPED BY MANY WHO PUT THEMSELVES IN HARM'S WAY TO DO WHAT THEY KNEW WAS RIGHT. AND THAT IS WHY MY FIRST INSTINCT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO HELP THOSE IN NEED. MOM AND DAD, I AM SORRY I LET YOU DOWN. AS THE MANY PEOPLE THAT KNOW ME BEST WOULD SAY, I AM THE PERSON THAT THEY CALL AT 3:00 A.M. IF THEY NEEDED HELP. AND I PROUDLY REMEMBER BEING THE EMERGENCY CONTACT FOR MANY OF MY CHILDREN'S FRIENDS WHEN THEY WERE GROWING UP BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS KNEW THAT I WOULD DROP EVERYTHING AND CARE FOR THEM AS IF THEY WERE MY OWN. YET LAST FALL, I PLED GUILTY IN FEDERAL COURT TO FELONIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF, AT THE DIRECTION OF AND IN COORDINATION WITH INDIVIDUAL NUMBER ONE. AND FOR THE RECORD, INDIVIDUAL NUMBER ONE IS PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP. IT IS PAINFUL TO ADMIT THAT I WAS MOTIVATED BY AMBITION AT TIMES. IT IS EVEN MORE PAINFUL TO ADMIT THAT MANY TIMES I IGNORED MY CONSCIENCE AND ACTED LOYAL TO A MAN WHEN I SHOULD NOT HAVE. SITTING HERE TODAY, IT SEEMS UNBELIEVABLE THAT I WAS SO MESMERIZED BY DONALD TRUMP THAT I WAS WILLING TO DO THINGS FOR HIM THAT I KNEW WERE ABSOLUTELY WRONG. FOR THAT REASON, I HAVE COME HERE TO APOLOGIZE TO MY FAMILY, TO MY GOVERNMENT AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. ACCORDINGLY, LET ME NOW TELL YOU ABOUT MR. TRUMP. I GOT TO KNOW HIM VERY WELL WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH HIM FOR MORE THAN TEN YEARS AS HIS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN AS PERSONAL ATTORNEY WHEN HE BECAME PRESIDENT. WHEN I FIRST MET MR. TRUMP, HE WAS A SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEUR, A REAL ESTATE GIANT AND AN ICON. BEING AROUND MR. TRUMP WAS INTOXICATING. WHEN YOU WERE IN HIS PRESENCE, YOU FELT LIKE YOU WERE INVOLVED IN SOMETHING GREATER THAN YOURSELF, THAT YOU WERE SOMEHOW CHANGING THE WORLD. I WOUND UP TOUTING THE TRUMP NARRATIVE FOR OVER A DECADE. THAT WAS MY JOB, ALWAYS STAY ON MESSAGE. ALWAYS DEFEND. IT MONOPOLIZED MY LIFE. AT FIRST, I WORKED MOSTLY ON REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS AND OTHER BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, MR. TRUMP BROUGHT ME INTO HIS PERSONAL LIFE AND PRIVATE DEALINGS. OVER TIME, I SAW HIS TRUE CHARACTER REVEALED. MR. TRUMP IS AN ENIGMA. HE IS COMPLICATED, AS AM I. HE IS BOTH GOOD AND BAD, AS DO WE ALL. BUT THE BAD FAR OUTWEIGHS THE GOOD. AND SINCE TAKING OFFICE, HE HAS BECOME THE WORST VERSION OF HIMSELF. HE IS CAPABLE OF BEHAVING KINDLY, BUT HE IS NOT KIND. HE IS CAPABLE OF COMMITTING ACTS OF GENEROSITY, BUT HE IS NOT GENEROUS. HE IS CAPABLE OF BEING LOYAL, BUT HE IS FUNDAMENTALLY DISLOYAL. DONALD TRUMP IS A MAN WHO RAN FOR OFFICE TO MAKE HIS BRAND GREAT, NOT TO MAKE OUR COUNTRY GREAT. HE HAD NO DESIRE OR INTENTION TO LEAD THIS NATION, ONLY TO MARKET HIMSELF AND TO BUILD HIS WEALTH AND POWER. MR. TRUMP WOULD OFTEN SAY, THIS CAMPAIGN WAS GOING TO BE THE GREATEST INFOMERCIAL IN POLITICAL HISTORY. HE NEVER EXPECTED TO WIN THE PRIMARY. HE NEVER EXPECTED TO WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION. THE CAMPAIGN FOR HIM WAS ALWAYS A MARKETING OPPORTUNITY. I KNEW EARLY ON IN MY WORK FOR MR. TRUMP THAT HE WOULD DIRECT ME TO LIE TO FURTHER HIS BUSINESS INTERESTS. AND I AM ASHAMED TO SAY THAT WHEN IT WAS FOR A REAL ESTATE MOGUL IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR I CONSIDERED IT TRIVIAL. AS THE PRESIDENT, I CONSIDER IT SIGNIFICANT AND DANGEROUS. BUT IN THE MIX, LYING FOR MR. TRUMP WAS NORMALIZED AND NO ONE AROUND HIM QUESTIONED IT. IN FAIRNESS, NO ONE AROUND HIM TODAY QUESTIONS IT, EITHER. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME ABOUT WHETHER MR. TRUMP KNEW ABOUT THE RELEASE OF THE HACKED DOCUMENTS OF DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE E-MAILS AHEAD OF TIME. AND THE ANSWER IS YES. AS I EARLIER STATED, MR. TRUMP KNEW FROM ROGER STONE IN ADVANCE ABOUT THE WIKI LEAKS DROP OF E-MAILS. IN JULY OF 2016, DAYS BEFORE THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, I WAS IN MR. TRUMP'S OFFICE WHEN HIS SECRETARY ANNOUNCED THAT ROGER STONE WAS ON THE PHONE. MR. TRUMP PUT MR. STONE ON THE SPEAKER PHONE. MR. STONE TOLD MR. TRUMP THAT HE HAD JUST GOTTEN OFF THE PHONE WITH JULIAN ASSANGE AND THAT MR. ASSANGE TOLD MR. STONE THAT WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS THERE WOULD BE A MASSIVE DUMP OF E-MAILS THAT WOULD DAMAGE HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN. MR. TRUMP RESPONDED BY STATING TO THE EFFECT WOULDN'T THAT BE GREAT. MR. TRUMP IS A RACIST. THE COUNTRY HAS SEEN MR. TRUMP COURT WHITE SUPREMISTS. IN PRIVATE HE IS EVEN WORSE. HE ONCE ASKED ME IF I COULD RUN A COUNTRY RUN BY A BLACK PERSON THAT WASN'T A SHITHOLE. THIS IS WHEN BARACK OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. WHEN WE WERE ONCE DRIVING THROUGH A STRUGGLING NEIGHBORHOOD IN CHICAGO, HE COMMENTED THAT ONLY BLACK PEOPLE COULD LIVE THAT WAY. AND HE TOLD ME THAT BLACK PEOPLE WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO STUPID. AND YET I CONTINUED TO WORK FOR HIM. MR. TRUMP IS A CHEAT. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, I AM GIVING TO THE COMMITTEE TODAY THREE YEARS OF MR. TRUMP'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM 2011, 2012 AND 2013 WHICH HE GAVE TO DEUTSCHE BANK TO INQUIRE ABOUT A LOAN TO BUY THE BUFFALO BILLS AND TO FORBES. THESE ARE EXHIBITS 1-A, 1-B AND 1-C TO MY TESTIMONY. IT WAS MY EXPERIENCE THAT MR. TRUMP INFLATED HIS TOTAL ASSETS WHEN IT SERVED HIS PURPOSES, SUCH A SHRINE TO BE LISTED AMONG WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN FORBES AND DEFLATED ASSETS TO REDUCE TAXES. I AM SHARING NEWSPAPER ARTICLES THAT ARE EXAMPLES OF MR. TRUMP INFLATING AND DEFLATING HIS ASSETS AS I SAID TO SOOTHE HIS FINANCIAL INTERESTS. THESE ARE EXHIBIT 2 TO MY TESTIMONY. AS I NOTED, I AM GIVING THE COMMITTEE TODAY AN ARTICLE HE WROTE ON AND SEND TO ME THAT REPORTED ON AN AUCTION OF A PORTRAIT OF MR. TRUMP. THIS IS EXHIBIT 3-A TO MY TESTIMONY. MR. TRUMP DIRECTED ME TO FIND A STRAW BIDDER TO PURCHASE A PORTRAIT OF HIM THAT WAS BEING AUCTIONED OFF AT AN ART HAMPENS EVENT. THE OBJECTIVE WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE PORTRAIT WHICH WAS GOING TO BE AUCTIONED LAST WOULD GO FOR THE HIGHEST PRICE OF ANY PORTRAIT THAT AFTERNOON. THE PORTRAIT WAS PURCHASED BY THE FAKE BIDDER FOR $60,000. MR. TRUMP DIRECTED THE TRUMP FOUNDATION WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION, TO REPAY THE FAKE BIDDER DESPITE KEEPING THE ART FOR HIMSELF. AND PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT 3-B TO MY TESTIMONY. AND THIS SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE, THAT ONE OF MY MORE COMMON RESPONSIBILITIES WAS THAT MR. TRUMP DIRECTED ME TO CALL BUSINESS OWNERS, MANY OF WHOM ARE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WERE OWED MONEY FOR THEIR SERVICES, AND TOLD THEM THAT NO PAYMENT OR A REDUCED PAYMENT WOULD BE COMING. WHEN I ASKED MR. TRUMP OR TOLD MR. TRUMP OF MY SUCCESS, HE ACTUALLY REVELLED IN IT. AND YET I CONTINUED TO WORK FOR HIM. MR. TRUMP IS A CON MAN. HE ASKED ME TO PAY OFF AN ADULT FILM STAR WITH WHOM HE HAD AN AFFAIR AND TO LIE ABOUT IT TO HIS WIFE, WHICH I DID. AND LYING TO THE FIRST LADY IS ONE OF MY BIGGEST REGRETS BECAUSE SHE IS A KIND, GOOD PERSON, AND I RESPECT HER GREATLY. AND SHE DID NOT DESERVE THAT. AND I AM GIVING THE COMMITTEE TODAY A COPY OF THE $130,000 WIRE TRANSFER FROM ME TO MS. CLIFFORD'S ATTORNEY DURING THE CLOSING DAYS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN THAT WAS DEMANDED BY MS. CLIFFORD TO MAINTAIN H SILENCE ABOUT HER AFFAIR WITH MR. TRUMP. AND THIS IS EXHIBIT 4 TO MY TESTIMONY. MR. TRUMP DIRECTED ME TO USE MY OWN PERSONAL FUNDS FROM THE HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT TO AVOID ANY MONEY BEING TRACED BACK TO HIM THAT COULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT HIS CAMPAIGN. AND I DID THAT, TOO, WITHOUT BOTHERING TO CONSIDER WHETHER THAT WAS IMPROPER MUCH LESS WHETHER IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO OR HOW IT WOULD IMPACT ME, MY FAMILY OR THE PUBLIC. AND I AM GOING TO JAIL, IN PART, BECAUSE OF MY DECISION TO HELP MR. TRUMP HIDE THAT PAYMENT FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BEFORE THEY VOTED A FEW DAYS LATER. AS EXHIBIT 5-A TO MY TESTIMONY SHOWS, I AM PROVIDING THE COPY OF A $35,000 CHECK THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY SIGNED FROM HIS PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT ON AUGUST 1 OF 2017 WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PURSUING TO THE COVER UP WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF MY GUILTY PLEA TO REIMBURSE ME, THE WORD USED BY MR. TRUMP'S TV LAWYER, FOR THE ILLEGAL HUSH MONEY I PAID ON HIS BEHALF. THIS $35,000 CHECK WAS ONE OF 11 CHECK INSTALLMENTS THAT WAS PAID THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT. OTHER CHECKS TO REIMBURSE ME FOR THE HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS WERE SIGNED BY DONALD TRUMP JR. AND ALLEN WISALBURG. SEE THAT EXAMPLE 5-B. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THUS WROTE A PERSONAL CHECK FOR THE PAYMENT OF HUSH MONEY AS PART OF A CRIMINAL SCHEME TO VIOLATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS. AND YOU CAN FIND THE DETAILS OF THAT SCHEME DIRECTED BY MR. TRUMP IN THE PLEADINGS IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. SO PICTURE THIS SCENE. IN FEBRUARY OF 2017, ONE MONTH INTO HIS PRESIDENCY, I'M VISITING PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE OVAL OFFICE FOR THE FIRST TIME. AND IT'S TRULY AWE-INSPIRING. HE IS SHOWING ME ALL AROUND AND POINTING TO DIFFERENT PAINTINGS. AND HE SAYS TO ME SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, DON'T WORRY, MICHAEL, YOUR JANUARY AND FEBRUARY REIMBURSEMENT CHECKS ARE COMING. THEY WERE FED EXED FROM NEW YORK AND IT TAKE AS WHILE FOR THAT TO GET THROUGH THE WHITE HOUSE SYSTEM. AS HE PROMISED, I RECEIVED THE FIRST CHECK FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF $70,000 NOT LONG THEREAFTER. WHEN I SAY CONMAN, I'M TALKING ABOUT A MAN WHO DECLARES HIMSELF BRILLIANT, BUT DIRECTED ME TO THREATEN HIS HIGH SCHOOL, HIS COLLEGES AND THE COLLEGE BOARD TO NEVER RELEASE HIS GRADES OR S.A.T. SCORES. AS I MENTIONED, I'M GIVING THE COMMITTEE TODAY COPIES OF A LETTER I SENT AT MR. TRUMP'S DIRECTION THREATENING THESE SCHOOLS WITH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS IF MR. TRUMP'S GRADES OR S.A.T. SCORES WERE EVER DISCLOSED WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION. THESE ARE UNDER EXHIBIT 6. THE IRONY WASN'T LOST ON ME AT THE TIME THAT MR. TRUMP IN 2011 HAD STRONGLY CRITICIZED PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR NOT RELEASING HIS GRADES. AS YOU CAN SEE IN EXHIBIT 7, MR. TRUMP DECLARED, LET HIM SHOW HIS RECORDS AFTER CALLING PRESIDENT OBAMA A TERRIBLE STUDENT. THE SAD FACT IS THAT I NEVER HEARD MR. TRUMP SAY ANYTHING IN PRIVATE THAT LED ME TO BELIEVE HE LOVED OUR NATION OR WANTED TO MAKE IT BETTER. IN FACT, HE DID THE OPPOSITE. WHEN TELLING ME IN 2008 OR 2009 THAT HE WAS CUTTING EMPLOYEE SALARIES IN HALF, INCLUDING MINE, HE SHOWED ME WHAT HE CLAIMS IS A $10 MILLION IRS TAX REFUND AND SAYS HE CANNOT BELIEVE HOW STUPID THE GOVERNMENT WAS FOR GETTING SOMEONE LIKE HIM THAT MUCH MONEY BACK. DURING THE CAMPAIGN, MR. TRUMP SAID THAT HE DID NOT CONSIDER VIETNAM VETERAN AND PRISONER OF WAR SENATOR JOHN McCAIN TO BE A HERO BECAUSE HE LIKES PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T CAPTURED. AT THE SAME TIME, MR. TRUMP TASKED ME TO HANDLE THE NEGATIVE PRESS SURROUNDING HIS MEDICAL DEFERMENT FROM THE VIETNAM DRAFT. MR. TRUMP CLAIMED IT WAS BECAUSE OF A BONE SPUR, BUT WHEN I ASKED FOR MEDICAL RECORDS, HE GAVE ME NONE. AND SAID THAT THERE WAS NO SURGERY. HE TOLD ME TO OFFER SIMPLY THE FACT THAT HE RECEIVED A MEDICAL DEFERMENT. HE FINISHED THE CONVERSATION WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENT, YOU THINK I'M STUPID? I'M NOT GOING TO VIETNAM. I FIND IT IRONIC, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT YOU ARE IN VIETNAM RIGHT NOW, AND YET I CONTINUE TO WORK FOR HIM. THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT WHETHER I KNOW OF DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT MR. TRUMP OR HIS CAMPAIGN COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA. I DO NOT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, BUT I HAVE MY SUSPICIONS. SOMETIME IN THE SUMMER OF 2017, I READ ALL OVER THE MEDIA THAT THERE HAD BEEN A MEETING AT TRUMP TOWER IN JUNE OF 2016 INVOLVING DON JR. AND OTHERS FROM THE CAMPAIGN WITH RUSSIANS INCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND AN E-MAIL SETTING UP THE MEETING WITH THE SUBJECT LINE, DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON. SOMETHING CLICKED IN MY MIND. I REMEMBERED BEING IN THE ROOM WITH MR. TRUMP PROBABLY IN EARLY JUNE OF 2016 WHEN SOMETHING PECULIAR HAPPENED. DON TRUMP JR. CAME INTO THE ROOM AND WALKED BEHIND HIS FATHER'S DESK WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF WAS UNUSUAL. PEOPLE DIDN'T JUST WALK BEHIND MR. TRUMP'S DESK TO TALK TO HIM. AND I RECALL DON JR. LEANING OVER TO HIS FATHER AND SPEAKING IN A LOW VOICE WHICH I COULD CLEARLY HEAR AND SAYING THE MEETING IS ALL SET. AND I REMEMBER MR. TRUMP SAYING, OKAY, GOOD. LET ME KNOW. WHAT STRUCK ME AS I LOOK BACK AND THOUGHT ABOUT THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN DON JR. AND HIS FATHER WAS FIRST THAT MR. TRUMP HAD FREQUENTLY TOLD ME AND OTHERS THAT HIS SON DON JR. HAD THE WORST JUDGMENT OF ANYONE IN THE WORLD. AND ALSO THAT DON JR. WOULD NEVER SET UP ANY MEETING OF SIGNIFICANCE ALONE AND CERTAINLY NOT WITHOUT CHECKING WITH HIS FATHER. I ALSO KNEW THAT NOTHING WENT ON IN TRUMP WORLD ESPECIALLY THE CAMPAIGN WITHOUT MR. TRUMP'S KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL. SO I CONCLUDED THAT DON JR. WAS REFERRING TO THAT JUNE 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING ABOUT DIRT ON HILLARY WITH THE RUSSIAN REPRESENTATIVES WHEN HE WALKED BEHIND HIS DAD'S DESK THAT DAY AND THAT MR. TRUMP KNEW THAT WAS THE MEETING DON JR. WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE SAID THAT'S GOOD. LET ME KNOW. OVER THE PAST YEAR OR SO, I HAVE DONE SOME REAL SOUL SEARCHING. AND I SEE NOW THAT MY AMBITION AND THE INTOXICATION OF TRUMP POWER HAD MUCH TO DO WITH THE BAD DECISIONS IN PART THAT I MADE. AND TO YOU CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS AND RANKING MEMBER JORDAN AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE, I AM SORRY FOR MY LIES AND FOR LYING TO CONGRESS. AND TO OUR NATION, I AM SORRY FOR ACTIVELY WORKING TO HIDE FROM YOU THE TRUTH ABOUT MR. TRUMP WHEN YOU NEEDED IT MOST. FOR THOSE WHO QUESTIONED MY MOTIVES FOR BEING HERE TODAY, I UNDERSTAND. I HAVE LIED, BUT I AM NOT A LIAR. AND I HAVE DONE BAD THINGS, BUT I AM NOT A BAD MAN. I HAVE FIXED THINGS, BUT I AM NO LONGER YOUR FIXER, MR. TRUMP. AND I AM GOING TO PRISON AND HAVE SHATTERED THE SAFETY AND SECURITY THAT I TRIED SO HARD TO PROVIDE FOR MY FAMILY. MY TESTIMONY CERTAINLY DOES NOT DIMINISH THE PAIN THAT I HAVE CAUSED MY FAMILY AND MY FRIENDS. NOTHING CAN DO THAT. AND I HAVE NEVER ASKED FOR NOR WOULD I ACCEPT A PARDON FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP. AND BY COMING TODAY, I HAVE CAUSED MY FAMILY TO BE THE TARGET OF PERSONAL ATTACKS BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LAWYER, TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME FROM PEERING BEFORE THIS PANEL. MR. TRUMP CALLED ME A RAT FOR CHOOSING TO TELL THE TRUTH, MUCH LIKE A MOBSTER WOULD DO WHEN ONE OF HIS MEN DECIDES TO COOPERATE WITH THE GOVERNMENT. AND AS EXHIBIT H SHOWS, I HAVE PROVIDED THE COMMITTEE WITH COPIES OF TWEETS THAT MR. TRUMP POSTED ATTACKING ME AND MY FAMILY. ONLY SOMEONE BURNING THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE. IT'S AN ENCOURAGEMENT FOR SOMEONE TO DO HARM TO ME AND MY FAMILY. I NEVER IMAGINED THAT HE WOULD ENGAGE IN VICIOUS, FALSE ATTACKS ON MY FAMILY AND UNLEASH HIS TV LAWYER TO DO THE SAME. AND I HOPE THIS COMMITTEE AND ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AS A NATION WE SHOULD NOT TOLERATE ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE WITNESSES BEFORE CONGRESS AND ATTACKS ON FAMILY ARE OUT OF BOUNDS AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. I WISH TO ESPECIALLY THANK SPEAKER PELOSI FOR HER STATEMENTS AND IT IS EXHIBIT 9 TO PROTECT THIS INSTITUTION AND ME AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, ADAM SCHIFF AND YOU CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS FOR LIKEWISE DEFENDING THE INSTITUTION AND MY FAMILY AGAINST THE ATTACKS BY MR. TRUMP. AND ALSO THE MANY REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE ADMONISHED THE PRESIDENT, AS WELL. I AM NOT A PERFECT MAN. I HAVE DONE THINGS I AM NOT PROUD OF. AND I WILL LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF MY ACTIONS FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. BUT TODAY, I GET TO DECIDE THE EXAMPLE THAT I SET FOR MY CHILDREN AND HOW I ATTEMPT TO CHANGE HOW HISTORY WILL REMEMBER ME. I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE PAST, BUT I CAN DO RIGHT BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HERE TODAY. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER THE COMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. COHEN. I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF. MR. COHEN, BEFORE I START, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING. YOU HAVE ADMITTED TO LYING TO CONGRESS, TO THIS VERY BODY. AND NOW YOU ARE GOING TO PRISON FOR IT. DO YOU, MR. COHEN, RECOGNIZE THE GRAVITY OF YOUR OFFENSES? YOU ARE A LAWYER? >> AS OF YESTERDAY, I AM NO LONGER A LAWYER. I HAVE LOST MY LAW LICENSE AMONGST OTHER THINGS. >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THIS MOMENT? >> I MOST CERTAINLY DO, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> I WANT YOU TO REALLY HEAR THIS, MR. COHEN. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE LYING TO THIS CONGRESS BY ANYBODY. WE ARE IN THE SEARCH OF THE TRUTH. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? >> I DO. >> NOW, THE PRESIDENT HAS ALSO MADE NUMEROUS STATEMENTS THAT TURNED OUT TO BE INACCURATE. FOR EXAMPLE, HE SAID HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS TO MS. CLIFFORD. AND HIS 2017 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM SAID HE NEVER OWED MONEY TO REIMBURSE YOU FOR THOSE PAYMENTS. YET IN YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. COHEN, YOU SAID THAT YOU MET WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE IN FEBRUARY OF 2017 AND DISCUSSED HIS PLANS TO REIMBURSE YOU FOR MONEY YOU PAID. YOU SAY HE TOLD YOU, AND I QUOTE, DON'T WORRY, MICHAEL. YOUR JANUARY AND FEBRUARY REIMBURSEMENT CHECKS ARE COMING. IS THAT ACCURATE? AND WAS THAT IN THE OVAL OFFICE? >> THE STATEMENT IS ACCURATE, BUT THE DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE REIMBURSEMENT OCCURRED LONG BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT. >> WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT? >> BACK IN 2017 -- I APOLOGIZE, IN 2016 PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, I WAS CONTACTED BY KEITH DAVIDSON WHO IS THE ATTORNEY OR WAS THE ATTORNEY FOR MS. CLIFFORD, FOR STORMY DANIELS. AND AFTER SEVERAL ROUNDS OF CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM ABOUT PURCHASING HER LIFE RIGHTS FOR $130,000, WHAT I DID EACH AND EVERY TIME IS GO STRAIGHT INTO MR. TRUMP'S OFFICE AND DISCUSS THE ISSUE WITH HIM. WHEN IT WAS ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, AND THIS WAS DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, THAT MR. TRUMP WAS GOING TO PAY THE $130,000, IN THE OFFICE WITH ME WAS THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION. HE ACKNOWLEDGED TO ALLEN THAT HE WAS GOING TO PAY THE 130,000 AND THAT WE SHOULD GO BACK TO HIS OFFICE AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT. SO YES, SIR, I STAND BY THE STATEMENT THAT I GAVE, BUT THERE WAS A HISTORY TO IT. >> IN THE TESTIMONY, YOU SAID YOU BROUGHT SOME CHECKS, IS THAT RIGHT? YOU SAID YOU BROUGHT SOME CHECKS? >> YES, SIR. >> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT ONE OF THESE. THIS FROM THE TRUMP TRUST THAT HOLDS THE PRESIDENT BUSINESSES, CAN YOU TELL ME WHO SIGNED THIS CHECK? >> I BELIEVE THAT THE TOP SIGNATURE IS DONALD TRUMP JR. AND THAT THE BOTTOM SIGNATURE I BELIEVE IS ALLEN WEISELBURG'S. >> CAN YOU TELL ME THE DATE OF THAT CHECK? >> MARCH 17 OF 2017. >> WAIT A MINUTE, HOLD UP. THE DATE ON THE CHECK IS AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP HELD HIS BIG PRESS CONFERENCE CLAIMING THAT HE GAVE UP CONTROL OF HIS BUSINESSES. HOW COULD THE PRESIDENT HAVE ARRANGED FOR YOU TO GET THIS CHECK IF HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY PLAYING NO ROLE IN HIS BUSINESS? >> BECAUSE THE PAYMENTS WERE DESIGNED TO BE PAID OVER THE COURSE OF 12 MONTHS AND IT WAS DECLARED TO BE A RETAINER FOR SERVICES THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR THE YEAR OF 2017. >> WAS THERE A RETAINER? >> THERE WAS NO RETAINER AGREEMENT. >> WOULD DON JR. OR MR. WEISELBURG HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT? >> ABOUT THE ENTIRE DISCUSSIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION AND DON JR. WOULD HAVE CURSORY INFORMATION. >> NOW, HERE IS ANOTHER ONE. THIS ONE APPEARS TO BE SIGNED BY DONALD TRUMP HIMSELF. IS THAT HIS SIGNATURE? >> THAT IS DONALD TRUMP'S SIGNATURE. >> SO LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. DONALD TRUMP WROTE YOU A CHECK OUT OF HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT WHILE HE WAS SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO REIMBURSE YOU FOR HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS TO MS. CLIFFORD. IS THAT WHAT YOU TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TODAY? >> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> ONE FINAL QUESTION. THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THESE PAYMENTS. HIS ETHICS FILING SAID HE OWED NOTHING TO YOU. BASED ON YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM, IS THERE ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS PAYING FOR? >> THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND AND I TRULY BELIEVE THERE IS NO DOUBT IN THE MIND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. >> AND THESE NEW DOCUMENTS APPEAR TO CORROBORATE WHAT YOU JUST TOLD US. WITH THAT I WILL YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU AND I MEET ONE DAY WHILE WE ARE IN THE COURTHOUSE AND TAKE YOU FOR EVERY PENNY YOU STILL DON'T HAVE AND COME AFTER YOUR DAILY BEAST AND EVERYBODY ELSE THAT YOU POSSIBLY KNOW. SO I'M WARNING YOU, TREAD VERY EFFING LIGHTLY BECAUSE WHAT I'M GOING TO DO TO YOU IS GOING TO BE EFFING DISGUSTING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME? WHO SAID THAT? >> I DID. >> AND DID YOU SAY THAT, MR. COHEN, IN YOUR TESTIMONY ON PAGE TWO, YOU SAID YOU DID THINGS FOR MR. TRUMP IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT HIM. WAS THAT STATEMENT THAT I JUST READ THAT YOU ADMITTED TO SAYING, DID YOU DO THAT TO PROTECT DONALD TRUMP? >> I DID IT TO PROTECT MR. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP JR., IVANKA TRUMP AND ERIC TRUMP. >> AND IN YOUR SENTENCING STATEMENT BACK IN DECEMBER IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE, YOU SAID THIS, MR. COHEN. MY WEAKNESS CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS A BLIND LOYALTY TO DONALD TRUMP, A BLIND LOYALTY THAT LED ME TO CHOOSE A PATH OF DARKNESS. IS THAT ACCURATE, MR. COHEN? >> I WROTE THAT. >> YOU WROTE THAT AND SAID THAT IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE IS THAT RIGHT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> LET ME READ YOU A FEW OTHER THINGS AND LET ME ASK YOU WHY YOU DID SOME OF THESE THINGS. WHEN YOU FILED A FALSE TAX RETURN IN 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 AND 2016, WAS ALL OF THAT OUT OF BLIND LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT? >> NO IT WAS NOT. >> WHEN YOU FAILED TO REPORT 4 MILLION IN INCOME TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DID YOU DO THAT TO PROTECT DONALD TRUMP? >> NO I DID NOT. >> AND WHEN YOU FAILED TO PAY 1.4 MILLION IN TAXES, I GOT CONSTITUENTS WHO DON'T MAKE THAT IN A LIFETIME, WHEN YOU FAIL TO PAY 1.4 MILLION IN TAXES TO THE U.S. TREASURY WAS THAT OUT OF SOME BLIND LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >> IT WAS NOT. THE NUMBER WAS 1.38 AND CHANGE AND I HAVE PAID THAT MONEY BACK TO THE IRS. >> I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE APPRECIATE THAT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IT WAS OVER THE COURSE OF FIVE YEARS, APPROXIMATELY 260,000 A REAR. >> THAT'S WHAT I SAID. THAT'S FIVE YEARS. >> YES. >> WHEN YOU MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS CONCERNING A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT IN 2013, 2014 AND 2015 AND YOU PLED GUILTY TO MAKING THE FALSE STATEMENTS TO THOSE BANKS, WAS THAT ALL DONE TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT? >> NO IT WAS NOT. >> HOW ABOUT THIS ONE? WHEN YOU CREATED THE FAKE TWITTER ACCOUNT WOMEN FOR COHEN AND PAID A FIRM TO POST TWEETS LIKE THIS ONE. IN A WORLD OF LIES, DECEPTION AND FRAUD, WE APPRECIATE THIS HONEST GUY AT MICHAEL COHEN TGIF, HANDSOME, SEXY. WAS THAT DONE TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT? >> NO. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SET THAT UP. IT WAS DONE BY A YOUNG LADY THAT WORKED FOR RED FINCH. DURING THE COURSE OF THE CAMPAIGN IT IS SOMEWHAT CRAZY AND WILD. WE WERE HAVING FUN. THAT IS WHAT IT WAS, SIR. WE WERE HAVING FUN. >> WAS IT DONE TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT? >> IS IT A FAKE TWITTER KWAEKT? >> IT WAS A REAL TWITTER ACCOUNT. >> DID YOU PAY A FIRM TO CREATE THIS? >> IT WAS DONE BY A YOUNG LADY THAT WORKS FOR THE FIRM. AGAIN, SIR, WE WERE HAVING FUN DURING A STRESS FULL TIME. >> THE POINT IS, DID YOU LIE TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT OR LIE TO HELP YOURSELF? >> I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD HELP ME. >> I'M NOT SURE HOW IT DID, EITHER. >> MORE THAN HALF THE PEOPLE ON THAT SITE ARE MEN. >> THE CHAIRMAN GAVE YOU A 30 MINUTE OPENING STATEMENT AND YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF LYING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. FRANKLY DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, TAKE WHAT THE COURT SAID. TAKE WHAT THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SAID. COHEN DID CRIMES THAT WERE MARKED BY A PATTERN OF DECEPTION AND THAT PERMEATED HIS PROFESSIONAL LIFE. THESE CRIMES WERE DISTINCT IN THEIR HARMS BUT VERY COMMON SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY EACH INVOLVE DECEPTION AND WERE EACH MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL GREED AND AMBITION. A PATTERN OF DECEPTION FOR PERSONAL GREED AND AMBITION. AND YOU JUST GOT 30 MINUTES OF AN OPENING STATEMENT WHERE YOUR TRASHED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. MR. COHEN, HOW LONG DID YOU WORK FOR DONALD TRUMP? >> APPROXIMATELY A DECADE. >> TEN YEARS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU SAID ALL THESE BAD THINGS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT THERE IN THE LAST 30 MINUTES AND YET YOU WORKED FOR HIM FOR TEN YEARS? ALL OF THOSE BAD THINGS. IF IT'S THAT BAD I CAN SEE YOU WORKING FOR HIM FOR TEN DAYS, MAYBE TEN WEEKS, MAYBE EVEN TEN MONTHS. YOU WORKED FOR HIM FOR TEN YEARS. MR. COHEN, HOW LONG DID YOU WORK IN THE WHITE HOUSE? >> I NEVER WORKED IN THE WHITE HOUSE. >> THAT'S THE POINT, ISN'T IT? >> NO, SIR. >> YES IT IS. >> NO IT'S NOT. >> YOU WANTED TO WORK IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND YOU DIDN'T GET BROUGHT TO THE DANCE. >>> I WAS EXTREMELY PROUD TO BE PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I DID NOT WANT TO GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE. I WAS OFFERED JOBS. I CAN TELL YOU A STORY OF MR. TRUMP RENING OUT REINCE PRIEBUS BECAUSE I HAD NOT TAKEN A JOB WHERE MR. TRUMP WANTED ME TO WHICH WAS WORKING WITH DON McGAN AT THE WHITE HOUSE GENERAL COUNCIL'S OFFICE. WHAT I SAID AT THE TIME AND I BROUGHT A LAWYER IN WHO PRODUCED A MEMO AS TO WHY I SHOULD NOT GO IN BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE. AND IN ORDER TO HANDLE SOME OF THE MATTERS THAT I TALKED ABOUT IN MY OPENING THAT WOULD BE BEST SUITED FOR ME NOT TO GO IN AND THAT EVERY PRESIDENT HAD A PERSONAL ATTORNEY. >> HERE IS WHAT I SEE. I SEE A GUY WORK FOR TEN YEARS AND IS HERE TRASHING THE GUY HE WORKED FOR FOR TEN YEARS, DIDN'T GET A JOB IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND NOW YOU'RE BEHAVING JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WHO GOT FIRED AND DIDN'T GET THE JOB THEY WANTED LIKE ANDREW McCABE LIKE JAMES COMEY. >> ALL I GOT IS WHAT I WANTED TO SEE MY SENIOR YEAR OF MY SON IN HIGH SCHOOL AND WAITING FOR MY DAUGHTER GRADUATING FROM COLLEGE TO COME BACK TO NEW YORK. I GOT EXACT LAEP WHAT I WANT. >> PRISON. >> I RECEIVED EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I SERVED AS THE CHAIR OF THE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE AT THE TIME OF THE RUSSIA HACKS. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, MY QUESTIONS ARE NOT ABOUT THE HARM DONE TO ANY INDIVIDUAL BY WIKI LEAKS AND THE RUSSIANS. IT'S ABOUT THE POSSIBLE AND LIKELY HARM TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OUR DEMOCRACY. I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT I HOPE WILL CONNECT MORE OF THESE DOTS. IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT MR. TRUMP HAD ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THE RUSSIA WIKI LEAKS RELEASE OF THE DNC'S E-MAILS? >> I CANNOT ANSWER THAT IN A YES OR NO. HE HAD ADVANCED NOTICE THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A DUMP OF E-MAILS, BUT AT NO TIME DID I HEAR THE SPECIFICITY OF WHAT THE E-MAILS WERE GOING TO BE. >> BUT YOU DO TESTIFY TODAY THAT HE HAD ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR IMMINENT RELEASE? >> THAT IS WHAT I HAD STATED IN MY TESTIMONY. >> AND THAT HE SHARED THAT OUTCOME. >> YES MA'AM. >> DID HE SHARE THE INFORMATION WITH HIS SON? >> I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT. >> WAS IVANKA AND JARED STILL INVOLVE IN THE DEAL. >> THE COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN THE DEAL WHICH MEANT THE FAMILY WAS INVOLVED IN THE DEAL. >> IF MR. TRUMP AND HIS DAUGHTER AND SON ARE INVOLVED IN THE RUSSIAN TRUMP TOWER DEAL, IS IT POSSIBLE THE WHOLE FAMILY IS CONFLICTED OR COMPROMISED WITH A FOREIGN ADVERSY IN THE MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION? >> YES. >> BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE PRESIDENT AND KNOWLEDGE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. STONE, DO YOU HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY AUTHORIZED MR. STONE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH WIKI LEAKS AND TO INDICATE THE CAMPAIGN'S INTEREST IN THE STRATEGIC RELEASE OF THE ILLEGALLY HACKED MATERIALS? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT SGR WAS MR. STONE A FREE AGENT REPORTING BACK TO THE PRESIDENT WHAT HE HAD DONE OR WAS HE AN AGENT OF THE CAMPAIGN ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT AND WITH HIS APPARENTLY AUTHORITY. >> NO. HE WAS A FREE AGENT. >> A FREE AGENT THAT WAS REPORTING BACK TO THE PRESIDENT WHAT HE HAD DONE. >> CORRECT. HE FREQUENTLY REACHED OUT TO MR. TRUMP AND MR. TRUMP WAS VERY HAPPY TO TAKE HIS CALLS. IT WAS FREE SERVICE. >> ROGER STONE SAYS HE NEVER SPOKE WITH MR. TRUMP ABOUT WIKI LEAKS. HOW CAN WE CORROBORATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? >> I DON'T KNOW, BUT I SUSPECT THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU ARE SEEKING. >> MOVING ON TO A LITTLE LATER IN 2016, A MAJOR WIKI LEAK DUMP HAPPENS HOURS AFTER THE ACCESS HOLLYWOOD TAPE IS RELEASED. ARE YOU AWARE OF MR. TRUMP SIGNALING FOR THIS DUMP. >> I AM UNAWARE OF THAT. I WAS NOT IN THE COUNTRY AT THE TIME OF THE BULLY BUSH TAPE. I WAS IN LONDON VISITING MY DAUGHTER. >> KNOWING HOW MR. TRUMP OPERATES WITH HIS WINNING AT ALL COSTS MENTALITY, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD COOPERATE OR COLLUDE WITH A FOREIGN POWER TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY? IS HE CAPABLE OF THAT? >> IT CALLS ON SO MUCH SPECULATION. IT WOULD BE UNFAIR FOR ME. >> YOU HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE. >> MR. TRUMP IS ALL ABOUT WINNING. HE WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY. >> IN YOUR OPINION AND EXPERIENCE, WOULD HE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO COOPERATE OR COLLUDE WITH A FOREIGN POWER TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY AT ALL COSTS? >> YES. >> BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW, WOULD MR. TRUMP OR DID HE LIE ABOUT COLLUDING AND COORDINATING WITH THE RUSSIANS AT ANY POINT DURING THE CAMPAIGN? >> SO AS I STATED IN MY TESTIMONY, I WOULDN'T USE THE WORD COLLUDING. WAS THERE SOMETHING ODD ABOUT THE BACK AND FORTH PRAISE WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN? YES. BUT I'M NOT REALLY SURE THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN TERMS OF COLLUSION. I WAS NOT PART OF THE CAMPAIGN. I DON'T KNOW THE OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT MR. TRUMP HAD WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS. THERE IS JUST SO MANY DOTS THAT ALL SEEM TO LEAD TO THE SAME -- >> BEFORE MY TIME EXPIRES, MR. COHEN, THE CAMPAIGN AND THE ENTIRE TRUMP ORGANIZATION APPEARED TO BE FILTHY WITH RUSSIAN CONTACT. THERE ARE RUSSIAN BUSINESS CONTACTS. THERE ARE CAMPAIGN RUSSIAN CONTACTS. THERE ARE LIES ABOUT ALL OF THOSE CONTACTS. AND THEN WE HAVE ROGER STONE INFORMING THE PRESIDENT JUST BEFORE THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION THAT WIKI LEAKS WAS GOING TO DROP DOCUMENTS IN THE PUBLIC ARENA THAT WE KNEW AT THAT POINT WERE HACKED AND STOLEN BY RUSSIA FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. >> THE GENTLE LADY'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. YOU MAY ANSWER HER INQUIRY. >> GIVEN ALL THOSE CONNECTIONS, IS IT LIKELY THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS FULLY AWARE AND HAD EVERY INTENT OF WORKING WITH RUSSIA TO HELP MAKE SURE THAT HE COULD WIN THE PRESIDENCY AT ALL COSTS? >> SO LET ME SAY THAT THIS IS A MATTER THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING HANDLED BY THE HOUSE SELECT AND SENATE SELECT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES. SO I WOULD RATHER NOT ANSWER THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION OTHER THAN JUST TO TELL YOU THAT MR. TRUMP'S DESIRE TO WIN WOULD HAVE HIM WORK WITH ANYONE. AND ONE OTHER THING THAT I HAD SAID IN MY STATEMENT IS THAT WHEN IT CAME TO THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT, IT WAS WORTH HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. WE NEVER EXPECTED TO WIN THE ELECTION. SO THIS WAS JUST BUSINESS AS USUAL. >> THANK YOU. >> RANKING MEMBER JORDAN, CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE PROMISED MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A FAIR AND OPEN PROCESS YET DEMOCRATS HAVE LIMITED THE SCOPE OF THE HEARING AND ISSUED A GAG ORDER TO TRY TO TELL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT TALK ABOUT. MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE CLAIM THAT THEY WANT THE TRUTH AND TRANSPARENCY AND FAIR OVERSIGHT YET DEMOCRATS WITNESSED TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS TODAY IS NONE OTHER THAN A SCORNED MAN WHO IS GOING TO PRISON FOR LYING TO CONGRESS. LET THAT SINK IN. HE IS GOING TO PRISON FOR LYING TO CONGRESS. HE IS THE STAR WITNESS TO CONGRESS. IF YOU READ THE SENTENCING REPORT ON MR. COHEN, WORDS LIKE DECEPTIVE AND GREEDY ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THAT REPORT. IT PAINTS A PICTURE OF A NARCISSIST, A BULLY WHO CANNOT TELL THE TRUTH WHETHER ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OR ABOUT HIS OWN PERSONAL LIFE, BUT TODAY HE IS THE MAJORITY PARTY'S STAR WITNESS. IF THE DEMOCRATS WERE AFTER THE TRUTH, THEY WOULD HAVE AN HONEST PERSON HERE TESTIFYING. AND IF THEY WERE REALLY AFTER THE TRUTH, THEY WOULD NOT RESTRICT THE QUESTIONING TO JUST A FEW TOPICS. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE RESTRICTED TOPICS. MR. CHAIRMAN, THE FIRST TOPIC IN YOUR LIMITED SCOPE THAT I CAN ASK MR. COHEN IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DEBTS. DIDN'T MR. COHEN PLEAD GUILTY TO LYING TO BANKS ABOUT HIS PERSONAL FINANCES? SO WE'RE ASKING A GUY GOING TO JAIL FOR LYING ABOUT HIS DEBTS TO COMMENT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DEBTS. HE IS THE EXPERT. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOUR NEXT COUPLE OF TOPICS SAY THAT I CAN ASK MR. COHEN ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE WITH FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS. DIDN'T MR. COHEN ON TWO OCCASIONS BREAK CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS WITH HIS OWN DONATIONS. THE STAR WITNESS IS A GUY WHO BROKE COMPLIANCE LAWS HIMSELF. YOU GRACIOUSLY ALLOW US TO ASK QUESTIONS OF MR. COHEN ON THE PRESIDENT'S DEALINGS WITH THE IRS AND TAX LAW. YOUR STAR WITNESS HERE BROKE THE LAW WITH REGARDS TO THE IRS AT LEAST FIVE TIMES. HE PLED GUILTY ON CHEATING ON HIS TAXES, LYING TO THE IRS. HE IS THE BEST WITNESS YOU GOT? NEXT UP, WITH PERMISSION OF THE CHAIRMAN I GET TO ASK MR. COHENBIT HIS PERSPECTIVE ON THE PRESIDENT'S BUSINESS DEALINGS. LET ME GET THAT STRAIGHT. THE WITNESS LIED TO MULTIPLE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO GET LOANS TO PAY OFF OTHER LOANS JUST TO KEEP HIMSELF AFLOAT. AND HE'S GOING TO BE THE EXPERT ON BUSINESS PRACTICES. OBVIOUSLY MR. CHAIRMAN THE WITNESS MAY PRODUCE DOCUMENTS THAT SHE SUGGESTS INCRIMINATES THE PRESIDENT, YET HE LIES TO BANKS, ALL OF THOSE LIES WERE DONE ON FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS, DOCUMENTS THAT HE FORGED. NOTHING HE SAYS OR PRODUCES HAS ANY CREDIBILITY. APPARENTLY HE LIED ABOUT DELIVERING HIS OWN CHILD WHICH IS WHY HE HAS HAD TO CORRECT THE RECORD. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HOW ON EARTH IS THIS WITNESS CREDIBLE? WITH ALL THE LIES AND DECEPTION AND SELF-SERVING FRAUD, IT BEGS THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE MAJORITY PARTY DOING HERE? NO ONE CAN SEE THIS GUY AS CREDIBLE. HE WILL SAY WHATEVER HE WANTS TO ACCOMPLISH HIS OWN PERSONAL GOALS. HE IS A FAKE WITNESS AND HIS PRESENCE HERE IS A TRAVESTY. I HOPE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THROUGH THIS. I KNOW THE PEOPLE BACK IN TENNESSEE WILL. AND WITH THAT STATEMENT, SIR, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESS. WITH YOUR LOSS OF YOUR LAW LICENSE, I THINK YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU HAD BEEN DISBARRED, WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE OF INCOME IN THE FUTURE? >> I DON'T EXPECT I WILL HAVE A SOURCE OF INCOME WHEN I'M IN FEDERAL PENITENTIARY. >> IS THERE A BOOK DEAL COMING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? >> I HAVE NO BOOK DEAL RIGHT NOW IN THE PROCESS. I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY MANY INCLUDING FOR TELEVISION AND MOVIE, IF YOU WANT TO TELL ME WHO YOU WOULD LIKE TO PLAY YOU I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO WRITE THE NAME DOWN. >> I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT THE STATEMENT ON ME. >> LET ME ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION. WHO PAID YOUR EXPENSES TO BE HERE TODAY? >> WHO PAID MY EXPENSES? I PAID MY EXPENSES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD THE REMAINING OF MY TIME TO THE RANKING MEMBER. >> HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE? >> SEVEN. >> DID THEY TALK TO YOU AT ALL IN PREPARATION FOR TODAY'S HEARING BETWEEN THE SEVEN TIMES YOU TALKED TO THEM PRIOR TO YOUR SENTENCING? HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE BETWEEN SENTENCING AND TODAY? >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. >> YOU TALKED TO HIM SEVEN TIMES IN THE SENTENCING MEMORANDUMS THAT WERE IN FRONT OF THE COURT IN DECEMBER. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE SINCE THEN UP TO TODAY'S APPEARANCE HERE IN CONGRESS? >> YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> I'M SORRY. I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT. >> I'LL COME BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. COHEN, IN YOUR TEN YEARS OF WORKING FOR DONALD TRUMP, DID HE CONTROL EVERYTHING THAT WENT ON IN THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION? AND DID YOU HAVE TO GET HIS PERMISSION IN ADVANCE AND REPORT BACK AFTER EVERY MEETING OF ANY IMPORTANCE? >> YES. THERE WAS NOTHING THAT HAPPENED AT THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION FROM WHETHER IT WAS A RESPONSE AS THE DAILY BEAST STORY THAT YOU REFERRED TO RANKING MEMBER, THAT DID NOT GO THROUGH MR. TRUMP WITH HIS APPROVAL AND SIGN OFF AS IN THE CASE OF THE PAYMENTS. >> HOW MANY TIMES DID THE PRESIDENT, MICHAEL, ASK YOU OR DIRECT YOU TO TRY TO REACH SETTLEMENTS WITH WOMEN IN 2015 AND 2016? >> I'M SORRY, MA'AM. I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT. I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND TRY TO RE-COLLECT. IT IS CERTAINLY THE TWO WE KNOW ABOUT. >> WHY DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT DID NOT PROVIDE THE ACCURATE INFORMATION IN HIS 2017 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM? WHAT WAS HE TRYING TO HIDE? HE CORRECTED OTHER FORMS BUT DIDN'T CORRECT THIS ONE. >> THE PAYMENTS ON THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FUNDS I EXTENDED ON HIS BEHALF. >> GOING BACK TO THE STORY AS I STATED WHEN WE LEFT THE OFFICE AND WE WENT TO HIS OFFICE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION ON HOW THE MONEY WAS GOING TO BE WIRED TO THE INTEREST ON A LAWYERS ACCOUNT FOR KEITH DAVIDSON IN CALIFORNIA, I HAD ASKED ALLEN TO USE HIS MONEY, DIDN'T WANT TO USE MINE. HE SAID HE COULDN'T. WE THEN DECIDED HOW ELSE WE CAN DO IT. HE ASKED ME WHETHER I KNOW ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO HAVE A PARTY AT ONE OF HIS CLUBS THAT COULD PAY ME OR SOMEBODY WHO MAY HAVE WANTED TO BECOME A MEMBER OF ONE OF THE GOLF CLUBS. AND I ALSO DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THAT WAS INTERESTED IN THAT. IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE IT WAS DOWN TO THE WIRE. IT WAS EITHER SOMEBODY WIRE THE FUNDS AND PURCHASE THE LIFE RIGHTS TO THE STORY FROM MS. CLIFFORD OR IT WAS GOING TO END UP BEING SOLD TO TELEVISION AND THAT WOULD HAVE EMBARRASSED THE PRESIDENT AND IT WOULD HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE ELECTION. >> BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS NEVER AMENDED HIS 2017 FORM TO THIS DAY. WHILE YOU'RE FACING THE CONSEQUENCES OF GOING TO JAIL, HE IS NOT. >> I BELIEVE THAT THEY AMENDED A FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM AND THERE IS A FOOT NOTE SOMEWHERE BURIED. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT SAYS, BUT THERE IS A FOOT NOTE BURIED SOMEWHERE. >> CAN YOU DESCRIBE, MICHAEL, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CATCH AND KILL? >> CATCH AND KILL IS A METHOD THAT EXISTS WHEN YOU ARE WORKING WITH A NEWS OUTLET. IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE IT WAS A.M.I., NATIONAL INQUIRER AND OTHERS WHERE THEY WOULD CONTACT ME OR MR. TRUMP OR SOMEONE AND STATE THAT THERE IS A STORY THAT IS PERCOLATING OUT THERE THAT YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN. AND THEN WHAT YOU DO IS YOU CONTACT THAT INDIVIDUAL AND YOU PURCHASE THE RIGHTS TO THAT STORY FROM THEM. >> AND YOU PRACTICED THIS FOR THE PRESIDENT? >> I WAS INVOLVED IN SEVERAL OF THESE CATCH AND KILL EPISODES. THESE CATCH AND KILL SCENARIOS EXISTED BETWEEN DAVID PECKER AND MR. TRUMP LONG BEFORE I STARTED FOR MR. TRUMP IN THE SENATE. >> CAN YOU SUGGEST WHO ELSE THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD TALK TO FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THIS OR ANYTHING ELSE? >> YES, I BELIEVE DAVID PECKER, DYLAN HOWARD, HARRY LEVINE OF A.M.I., AS WELL, ALLEN GARDEN OF THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, AS WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS A STORY OF REDEMPTION. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. COHEN, IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU STATED THAT YOU BEGAN WORK FOR THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION AS A LAWYER DEALING WITH REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> PRIOR TO COMING TO CONGRESS, I SERVED AS THE DIRECTOR OF TWO DIFFERENT BANKS SO I HAVE SEEN HUNDREDS OF LOAN APPLICATIONS. TO TRY TO DETERMINE YOUR CREDIBILITY HERE TODAY I WANTED TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION QUESTIONS TO SEE HOW IN FACT YOU OPERATE. ACCORDING TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PROSECUTORS, YOU LIED TO BANKS TO SECURE LOANS BY FALSELY STATING THE AMOUNT OF DEBT YOU WERE CARRYING. MY QUESTION TO YOU, WAS IT DONALD TRUMP'S FAULT THAT YOU KNOWINGLY COMMITTED A CRIME OF THE SECTION TO DEFRAUD A BANK. >> NO IT IS NOT. >> WAS THAT FRAUDULENT LOAN YOU OBTAINED FOR THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION OR FOR YOU PERSONALLY? >> IT WOULD BE FOR ME, THOUGH I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHICH LOAN THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ONE THING. I WOULD LIKE JUST TO RESPOND. WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE YOU ARE REFERRING TO, NO. >> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SUMMER HOME. >> I NEVER PURCHASED A SUMMER HOME. NO INDIVIDUAL AT ANY BANK HAD EVER LOST A DOLLAR WITH ME. I OWE NO MONEY TO ANY BANK. >> THE BANKS USUALLY FIND OUT IF SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO DECEIVE THEM. MR. COHEN, DID YOUR SO-CALLED BLIND LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT CAUSE YOU TO DEFRAUD THE BANK FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL GAIN? >> I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THAT BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A FRAUD. I NEVER DEFRAUDED ANY BANK. >> LET'S DIG DEEPER. ACCORDING TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK YOU FAILED TO DISCLOSE MORE THAN $20 MILLION IN LIABILITIES AS WELL AS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF MONTHLY EXPENSES. THAT IS ACCORDING TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. NOW, MR. COHEN, YOU BEING A LAWYER, SURELY YOU KNEW YOU WERE BREAKING THE LAW. WHY WOULD YOU HAVE DONE THAT? >> I'M NOT A CPA. I PLED GUILTY. I AM GOING TO PRISON AS A RESULT OF IT. >> BECAUSE YOU ARE A CON? >> NO, SIR. BECAUSE I PLED GUILTY AND I AM GOING TO BE DOING THE TIME. I HAVE CAUSED TREMENDOUS, TREMENDOUS PAIN TO MY FAMILY AND I TAKE NO -- >> WHEN THE BANK FOUND OUT ABOUT THE LIABILITIES THAT YOU FAILED TO DISCLOSE, YOU LIED AGAIN TO THE BANK. THIS IS ACCORDING TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. IT SAID IT HAD BEEN EXPUNGEED WHEN YOU SHIFTED THE DEBT TO ANOTHER BANK. SO APPARENTLY, ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED, YOUR INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE BANK WAS FOR THE DESIRE TO PURCHASE THE SUMMER HOME FOR $8.5 MILLION IN. >> NO, SIR. THAT WAS OFF OF AN EQUITY LINE CONSIDERING I HAD LESS THAN A 50% LOAN TO VALUE ON THE ASSETS AND THERE WAS A PRE-EXISTING LINE OF CREDIT THAT EXISTED YEARS BEFORE THE DATE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WHERE THIS IS ALL SURROUNDING NEW YORK CITY TAXI MEDALLIONS. >> YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU FAILED TO DISCLOSE LIABILITIES ESPECIALLY $20 MILLION IN LIABILITIES, THAT IS, IN FACT, FRAUD. >> EXCEPT EVEN WITH THE 20 MILLION IN LIABILITY -- >> HOW MUCH WAS IT? >> THE MEDALLIONS WERE WORTH OVER $45 MILLION. >> YOU CALLED DONALD TRUMP A CHEAT IN YOUR OPENING TESTIMONY. WHAT WOULD YOU CALL YOURSELF? >> A FOOL. >> YOU CALLING -- OKAY. NO COMMENT ON THAT. >> I APPRECIATE IT. >> YOU SAID WE WERE IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH. I DON'T BELIEVE MICHAEL COHEN IS CAPABLE OF TELLING THE TRUTH. I HOPE AS THIS COMMITTEE MOVES FORWARD THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES, WE SUBPOENA WITNESSES THAT ARE NOT RECENTLY DISBARRED, ARE NOT CONVICTED FELONS AND WITNESSES THAT HAVEN'T COMMITTED BANK FRAUD AND TAX FRAUD. THAT IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DETERMINE THE TRUTH. MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO THE RANKING MEMBER. >> I WOULD MAKE ONE POINT. WE JUST HAD A FIVE MINUTE DEBATE WHERE MR. COHEN DISPUTES WHAT THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOUND HE WAS GUILTY OF COMMITTING BANK FRAUD. IF THIS STATEMENT DOESN'T SAY IT ALL, COHEN'S CONSCIOUSNESS OF WRONG DOING, INSTINCT IS TO BLAME OTHERS IS STRONG. THEY ARE LOOKING AT THAT STATEMENT. HIS REMORSE IS NONEXISTENT. HE JUST DEBATED SAYING I REALLY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID AND YOU KNOW THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. I PLED GUILTY AND I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY ACTIONS. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> SHAME ON YOU, MR. JORDAN. THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. NOT WHAT I SAID. WHAT I SAID IS I TOOK RESPONSIBILITY AND I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. WHAT I WAS DOING IS EXPLAINING TO THE GENTLEMAN THAT HIS FACTS ARE INACCURATE. I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY MISTAKES. I AM REMORSEFUL. AND I AM GOING TO PRISON. I WILL BE AWAY FROM MY WIFE AND FAMILY FOR YEARS. SO BEFORE YOU TURN AROUND AND YOU CAST MORE DISPERSION, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, THERE ARE PEOPLE WATCHING YOU TODAY THAT KNOW ME A WHOLE LOT BETTER. I MADE MISTAKES. I OWN THEM AND I DIDN'T FIGHT WITH THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. I DIDN'T PUT THE SYSTEM THROUGH AN ENTIRE SCENARIO. BUT WHAT I DID DO IS I PLED GUILTY AND I AM GOING TO BE GOING TO PRISON. >> AT THE CENTER OF THE REASONS YOU'RE GOING TO PRISON IS CONVICTION FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS. AND THEY CENTER AROUND SOME SALACIOUS REVELATIONS. THE "WASHINGTON POST" REPORTED OR AIRED AN ACCESS HOLLYWOOD VIDEO. IT SET A RECORD FOR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WATCHED, CRASHED THE NEWSPAPER'S SERVER. THIS HAPPENED IN EARLY OCTOBER ON THE CUSP OF THE ELECTION. WHAT WAS MR. TRUMP'S REACTION TO THE VIDEO BECOMING PUBLIC AT THAT TIME? AND WAS HE CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THAT VIDEO ON THE ELECTION? >> THE ANSWER IS YES. AS I STATED BEFORE, I WAS IN LONDON AT THE TIME VISITING DAUGHTER WHO WAS STUDYING. I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL DURING THE DINNER FROM HOPE HICKS STATING THAT SHE HAD JUST SPOKEN TO MR. TRUMP. AND WE NEED YOU TO START MAKING PHONE CALLS TO VARIOUS DIFFERENT NEWS OUTLETS THAT YOU HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH. WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS JUST TO CLAIM THAT THIS WAS MEN LOCKER ROOM TALK. >> WAS THERE CONCERN ABOUT THE ELECTION IN PARTICULAR? >> THE ANSWER IS YES. THEN COUPLE THAT WITH KAREN MCDOUGAL WHICH CAME OUT AROUND THE SAME TIME SKPMPT THEN ON TOP OF THAT THE STORMY DANIELS MATTER. >> AND THESE THINGS HAPPEN IN THE MONTH BEFORE THE ELECTION AND ALMOST ONE AFTER THE OTHER. THE STORMY DANIELS REVELATION WHERE PROSECUTORS AND OFFICIALS LEARNED OF THAT MATTER AND PROSECUTORS STATED THAT THE OFFICIALS AT THE MAGAZINE CONTACTED YOU ABOUT THE STORY. THE MAGAZINE, OF COURSE, IS THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER. IS THAT CORRECT THAT THEY DID COME TO YOU? >> YES MA'AM. >> WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THIS NEWS STORY BECOMING PUBLIC RIGHT AFTER THE ACCESS HOLLYWOOD STUDY IN TERMS OF IMPACT ON THE ELECTION? >> I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, MR. TRUMP WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT. >> THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. WHAT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN ABOUT THESE MATTERS BECOMING PUBLIC IN OCTOBER AS WE WERE ABOUT TO GO INTO AN ELECTION? >> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD DISPUTE THIS BELIEF THAT AFTER THE WILDFIRE THAT ENCOMPASSED THE BILLY BUSH TAPE, THAT A SECOND FOLLOW-UP TO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PLEASANT. AND HE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE EFFECT THAT IT HAD HAD ON THE CAMPAIGN, ON HOW WOMEN WERE SEEING HIM, AND ULTIMATELY WHETHER OR NOT HE WOULD HAVE A SHOT IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. >> SO YOU NEGOTIATED THE $130,000 PAYMENT. >> THE $130,000 NUMBER WAS NOT A NUMBER THAT WAS ACTUALLY NEGOTIATED. IT WAS TOLD TO ME BY KEITH DAVIDSON THAT THIS WAS THE NUMBER THAT MS. CLIFFORD WANTED. >> YOU FINALLY COMPLETED THAT DEAL AS IT WERE ON OCTOBER 25th DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE INTERIM? >> CONTEMPLATED WHETHER OR NOT TO DO IT, WASN'T SURE IF SHE WAS REALLY GOING TO GO PUBLIC. IT WAS AGAIN SOME COMMUNICATIONS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN MYSELF AND KEITH DAVIDSON. AND ULTIMATELY IT CAME TO EITHER DO IT OR DON'T AT WHICH TIME I HAD GONE INTO MR. TRUMP'S OFFICE AS I DID AFTER EACH AND EVERY CONVERSATION. AND HE HAD TOLD ME THAT HE HAD SPOKEN TO A COUPLE OF FRIENDS AND IT IS 130,000, NOT A LOT OF MONEY AND WE SHOULD JUST DO IT SO GO AHEAD AND DO IT. I WAS AT THE TIME WITH ALLEN WHERE HE DIRECTED US TO GO BACK TO THE OFFICE AND FIGURE THIS ALL OUT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> MR. COHEN, DO YOU KNOW LYNN PATTON? I'M RIGHT HERE. DO YOU KNOW LYNN PATTON? >> YES, I DO. >> I ASKED LYNN TO COME TODAY IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY TO ACTUALLY SHED SOME LIGHT. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN MS. PATTON? >> I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR LYNN PATTON JOINING THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION AND THE JOB SHE CURRENTLY HOLDS. >> I CAN GLAD YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BECAUSE YOU MADE SOME VERY DEMEENG COMMENTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT THAT SHE DOESN'T AGREE WITH. IT HAS TO DO WITH YOUR CLAIM OF RACISM. SHE SAYS THAT AS A DAUGHTER OF A MAN BORN IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA THAT THERE IS NO WAY THAT SHE WOULD WORK FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS RACIST. HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THE TWO OF THOSE? >> AS NEITHER SHOULD I AS THE SON OF A HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR. >> BUT, MR. COHEN, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS I HAVE TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT OVER 300 TIMES. I HAVE NOT ONE TIME HEARD A RACIST COMMENT OUT OF HIS MOUTH IN PRIVATE. DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS? DO YOU HAVE TAPE RECORDINGS OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. >> NO, SIR. >> YOU TAPED EVERYBODY ELSE. >> THAT'S NOT TRUE, SIR. >> YOU HAVEN'T TAPED ANYBODY? >> I HAVE TAPED. >> HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TAPED INDIVIDUALS? >> MAYBE 100 TIMES. >> I HEARD IT IS OVER 200 TIMES. >> I THINK IT IS APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 100 FROM WHAT I RECALL. YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION, SIR. >> DO YOU HAVE PROOF, YES OR NO? >> I DO. >> WHERE IS THE PROOF? >> ASK MS. PATTON HOW MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE BLACK ARE EXECUTIVES AT THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION? THE ANSWER IS ZERO. >> I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT HER ENTIRE STATEMENT BE PUT IN THE RECORD? >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> LET ME GO ON A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. DID YOU COLLECT $1.2 MILLION OR SO FROM NAVARTIS. >> I DID. >> FOR ACCESS TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? >> NO, SIR. >> WHY DID YOU COLLECT IT? >> BECAUSE THEY CAME TO ME BASED UPON MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ENIGMA DONALD TRUMP -- LET ME FINISH. >> DID THEY PAY YOU $1.2 MILLION TO GIVE THEM ADVICE? >> YES, THEY DID. A MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR CONGLOMERATE CAME TO ME LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, NOTHING THAT IS UNUSUAL HERE IN D.C., LOOKING FOR INFORMATION AND THEY BELIEVED THAT I HAD A VALUE. THE VALUE WAS THE INSIGHT THAT I WAS CAPABLE OF OFFERING THEM. >> HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU MEET WITH THEM? FOR $1.2 MILLION HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU MEET WITH THEM? >> I PROVIDED THEM WITH BOTH IN PERSON AS WELL AS TELEPHONE ACCESS WHENEVER THEY NEEDED IT? >> HOW MANY TIMES. >> I DON'T RECALL. >> DID YOU EVER TALK TO THEM? >> I SPOKE TO THEM ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, YES. >> HOW MANY? >> SIX TIMES. >> SIX TIMES. $230,000 A CALL. >> I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION -- >> THIS IS MY FIVE MINUTES, NOT YOURS. DID YOU GET MONEY FROM THE BANK AZAKHSTAN? >> I DID. >> FOR WHAT PURPOSE? >> THE PURPOSE WAS BECAUSE THE FORMER CEO OF THAT BANK HAD UBSCONDED WITH BETWEEN 4 TO $6 BILLION AND SOME OF THAT MONEY WAS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND THEY SOUGHT MY ASSISTANCE IN TERMS OF FINDING, LOCATING THAT MONEY AND HELPING THEM TO RE-COLLECT IT. >> ARE YOU SAYING THAT ALL THE REPORTS THAT YOU WERE PAID IN SOME ESTIMATES OVER $4 MILLION TO HAVE ACCESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, YOU'RE SAYING ALL OF THAT WAS JUST PAID TO YOU JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A NICE GUY? >> I AM A NICE GUY BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY -- >> THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT YOU ARE NOT A NICE GUY. >> EACH AND EVERY CONTRACT CONTAINED THE CLAUSE IN MY CONTRACTS THAT SAID I WILL NOT LOBBY AND I DO NOT DO GOVERNMENT RELATIONS WORK. IN FACT, NOVART S SENT ME THEIR CONTRACT WHICH STATED SPECIFICALLY THAT THEY WANTED ME TO LOBBY. THAT THEY WANTED ME TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT. THAT INFORMATION, THAT PARAGRAPH WAS CROSSED OUT BY ME, INITIALLED AND WRITTEN SAYING I WILL NOT LOBBY OR DO GOVERNMENT RELATIONS WORK. >> SO NOVARTIS REPRESENTATIVES SAY IT WAS LIKE THEY WERE HIRING A NONREGISTERED LOBBIEST. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY SAID, SIR. >> HAVE YOU EVER CONTACTED ANYBODY IN THE ADMINISTRATION? >> YES. >> TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF ANY ASPECT OF ANY OF YOUR CONTRACTS? I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT, MR. CHAIRMAN. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT -- >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED. YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, SIR. >> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> THANK YOU. MR. COHEN, I AM PLEASED YOU AGREED TO TESTIFY TODAY VOLUNTARILY. IN MY VIEW, WE ARE ALL HERE FOR JUST ONE REASON AND THAT'S THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF BEING LIED TO. THEY HAVE BEEN LIED TO BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. THEY HAVE BEEN LIED TO BY THE PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN. THEY HAVE BEEN LIED TO BY THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. AND IT PAINS ME TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN EVEN LIED TO BY HIS CONGRESSIONAL ENABLERS WHO ARE STILL DEVOTED TO PERPETUATING AND PROTECTING THIS GIANT CON GAME ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. NOW, MR. COHEN, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ASSETS. SINCE BY LAW THESE MUST BE REPORTED ACCURATELY ON HIS FEDERAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE. AND WHEN HE SUBMITS THEM FOR A BANK LOAN. MR. COHEN, YOU SERVED FOR NEARLY A DECADE AS BEING BUSINESSMAN TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY AND SO-CALLED FIXER. DID YOU ALSO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRESIDENT'S ASSETS AND HOW HE VALUED THOSE ITEMS? >> YES. >> IN NOVEMBER OF 2017, CRANES NEW YORK BUSINESS REPORTED THAT THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION PROVIDED, QUOTE, FLAGRANTLY UNTRUE REVENUE FIGURES GOING BACK TO AT LEAST 2010 TO INFLUENCE RANKING OF THE LARGER PRIVATE COMPANIES IN NEW YORK. ACCORDING TO THE REPORTS, WHILE THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION REPORTED NEARLY 9.5 BILLION IN REVENUES IN 2016, PUBLIC FILINGS SUGGESTED REVENUES WERE ACTUALLY LESS THAN ONE-10th OF THAT. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID THE PRESIDENT OR HIS COMPANY EVER INFLATE ASSETS OR REVENUES? >> YES. >> AND WAS THAT DONE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S KNOWLEDGE OR DIRECTION? >> EVERYTHING WAS DONE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND AT THE DIRECTION OF MR. TRUMP. >> TELL US WHY HE WOULD DO THAT AND WHAT PURPOSE DID IT SERVE? >> IT DEPENDS UPON THE SITUATION. THERE WERE TIMES THAT I WAS ASKED WITH THE CFO TO GO BACK AND TO SPEAK WITH AN INDIVIDUAL FROM FORBES BECAUSE MR. TRUMP WANTED EACH YEAR TO HAVE HIS NET WORTH RISE ON THE FORBES WEALTHIEST INDIVIDUALS LIST. SO WHAT YOU DO IS YOU LOOK AT THE ASSETS AND YOU TRY TO FIND AN ASSET THAT HAS, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, 40 WALL STREET WHICH IS ABOUT 1.2 MILLION SQUARE FEET, FIND AN ASSET THAT IS COMPARABLE, FIND THE HIGHEST PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT THAT IS ACHIEVED IN THE AREA, AND APPLY IT TO THAT BUILDING. OR IF YOU ARE GOING OFF OF YOUR RENT ROLE, YOU CAN GO BY THE GROSS RENT ROLE TIMES THE MULTIPLE AND MAKE UP THE MULTIPLE WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT HE HAD TALKED ABOUT. BASED UPON WHAT HE WANTED TO VALUE THE ASSET AT. >> YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE PROVIDED THIS COMMITTEE WITH COPIES OF THE PRESIDENT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR PARTS OF THEM FROM 2011, 2012 AND '13. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THOSE FOR THE RECORD. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD. >> ORDERED. >> THANK YOU. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAD THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND WHAT YOU USED THEM FOR? >> SO THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE USED BY ME FOR TWO PURPOSES, ONE WAS DISCUSSING WITH MEDIA WHETHER IT WAS FORBES OR OTHER MAGAZINES TO DEMONSTRATE MR. TRUMP'S SIGNIFICANT NET WORTH. THAT WAS ONE FUNCTION. ANOTHER WAS WHEN WE WERE DEALING LATER ON WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES, WE WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH THESE COPIES SO THAT THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE PREMIUM WHICH IS BASED SOMETIMES UPON THE INDIVIDUAL'S CAPABILITIES TO PAY WOULD BE REDUCED. >> AND ALL OF THIS WAS DONE AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION AND WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE? >> YES BECAUSE WHATEVER THE NUMBERS WOULD COME BACK TO BE, WE WOULD IMMEDIATELY REPORT IT BACK. >> AND DID THIS INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US INFLATE THE PRESIDENT'S ASSETS? >> I BELIEVE THESE NUMBERS ARE INFLATED. >> AND, OF COURSE, INFLATING ASSETS TO WIN A NEWSPAPER POLL TO BOOST YOUR EGO IS NOT A CRIME, BUT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DID THE PRESIDENT PROVIDE INFLATED ASSETS TO A BANK IN ORDER TO HELP HIM OBTAIN A LOAN? >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED BUT YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO DEUTSCHE BANK IN ONE OCCASION WHILE I WAS WITH THEM IN OUR ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN MONEY SO THAT WE CAN PUT A BID ON THE BUFFALO BILLS. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER. >> I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH KOREA. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. I WANT TO -- WHICH INDICATES THAT MR. COHEN'S PROMISE TO ACCESS NOT JUST TRUMP BUT ALSO THE CIRCLE AROUND HIM, IT WAS ALMOST AS IF WE WERE HIRING A LOBBIEST. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WE PUT INTO RECORD A CRIMINAL REFERRAL FOR VIOLATING SECTION 22 USC OF THE STATUTE NUMBER 611. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT MY LETTER REFERRING MR. COHEN FOR VIOLATING FOR ILLEGAL LOBBYING ACTIVITY BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR THIS COMMITTEE IS FOR US TO LOOK AT A BIPARTISAN WAY AT CRIMINAL REFERRALS AT THE NEXT BUSINESS MEETING. >> THESE ARE NOT DOCUMENTS. THEY ARE OBJECTIONS. >> SO WE ARE OBJECTING TO A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST? >> YES. >> I WILL YIELD BACK. >> LET ME BE CLEAR. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU YOUR WHOLE FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> MR. MEADOWS, THE CHAIRMAN MADE ME AWARE THAT I HAD GIVEN A LITTLE MORE TIME TO MS. WASSERMANN SCHULTZ. I WANT THE COMMITTEE TO KNOW THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY MEMBERS, I WILL BE STRICT ON THIS FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MR. COHEN, YOU CLAIM THAT YOU LIED BUT YOU ARE NOT A LIAR. IF YOU LIED, YOU ARE A LIAR BY DEFINITION. YOU SAID THE FACTS ARE INACCURATE. IF THEY ARE FACTS THEY ARE ACCURATE AND THAT WOULD MAKE YOU INACCURATE. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO YOU CONSULTED WITH TO PREPARE FOR TODAY'S HEARING. LANNY DAVIS AND WHO ELSE? >> I CONSULTED WITH MY COUNSEL, LANNY DAVIS AS WELL AS MICHAEL MONACO. >> DID YOU OR MICHAEL OR LANNY LANNY DAVIS OR ANYONE ELSE COOPERATE WITH THE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY TO PREPARE. >> I'M SORRY? >> DID ANYONE ELSE ON YOUR TEAM COOPERATE WITH THE DEMOCRAT PARTY? >> WE HAVE SPOKEN TO THE PARTY. >> DID YOU PREPARE WITH CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS OR ANYONE ON YOUR TEAM? >> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY PREPARE? >> PREPARE FOR THIS HEARING. >> I PREPARED WITH MY COUNSEL. >> DID YOU PREPARE WITH DEMOCRAT MAJORITY OR CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS? >> WE SPOKE WITH CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS AND THE PARTY. >> WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF? >> SPOKE WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND HIS PEOPLE, AS WELL. >> WERE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS ACTING AS A LIAISON FOR YOU WITH THE MAJORITY PARTY? >> I'M SORRY, SIR. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? >> DID YOU HAVE A LIAISON OTHER THAN YOU MENTIONED WHO WERE WORKING WITH THE MAJORITY TO PREPARE FOR THIS HEARING? >> WE SPOKE WITH THE VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS THAT YOU JUST RAISED, YES. >> TOM STIER, REGARDING HIM OR ANY OF HIS REPRESENTATIVES, ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH HIM, IS HE OR ANY OF THEM PAYING LANNY DAVIS TO REPRESENT YOU? >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. >> WHO IS PAYING LANNY DAVIS? >> AT THE PRESENT MOMENT NO ONE. >> HE IS DOING THIS WORK FOR NOTHING? >> YES, SIR, AND I HOPE SO. >> I KIND OF DOUBT IT. HOW DID LANNY DAVIS COME TO REPRESENT YOU? DID HE APPROACH YOU OR DID YOU APPROACH HIM? >> I REACHED OUT TO LANNY DAVIS AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF MY FORMER COUNSEL OVER AT McDERMOTT EMERY WHO KNEW MR. DAVIS. >> YOU REACHED OUT TO MR. DAVIS? >> I DID, YES, INITIALLY. >> OKAY. SO DID YOU WANT TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS OR DID HE URGE YOU TO TESTIFY HERE? >> I WAS ASKED TO COME HERE. AND I AM HERE, SIR, VOLUNTARILY BECAUSE -- >> YOU WERE ASKED BY WHO? DID HE ASK YOU TO COME HERE? >> NO, SIR. >> BECAUSE HE SAYS THAT HE DID ASK YOU TO COME HERE AND THAT HE CONVINCED YOU AND ALSO THAT HE DID THE SAME WITH CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS, AS WELL. SO YOUR TESTIMONY HERE IS THAT YOU APPROACHED LANNY DAVIS TO REPRESENT YOU AND TO COME HERE. HE DID NOT PERSUADE YOU TO COME HERE. >> HE DID NOT PERSUADE ME. ACTUALLY CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS WHICH IS PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE ENGAGED IN WITH HIS PEOPLE AS WELL AS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND OTHERS, WE SPOKE IN ORDER TO ASK ME TO COME HERE VOLUNTARILY. >> I FIND THE CONNECTING OF THE DOTS HERE WITH MR. DAVIS AND YOU AND FRANKLY THE CHAIR MEN AND OTHERS TO BE RATHER STUNNING, THAT THERE IS AN AGENDA FOR ALL THIS HAPPENING HERE TODAY. I BELIEVE FRANKLY THAT THAT IS TO BRING THE PRESIDENT DOWN, TO IMPUGN THE PRESIDENT. YOU MADE AN OATH LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE AND THAT OATH MEANT NOTHING TO YOU THEN. WE HAD AN OATH HERE IN THIS VERY ROOM ABOUT A MONTH AGO AND IT WAS, QUOTE, BE CLEAR THAT I WILL SEEK THE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP ME GOD, END QUOTE. IT SOUNDS LIKE AN OATH TO ME. THE CHAIRMAN MADE THAT STATEMENT IN THIS VERY ROOM LAST MONTH. HERE WE ARE TODAY, OUR FIRST BIG HEARING WITH A CONVICTED LIAR, LYING TO CONGRESS, A CRIMINAL. AND I BELIEVE THIS WITNESS IS TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE STATED GOAL OF HAVING TO SEEK THE TRUTH IN THIS HEARING. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF CONGRESS WE HAVE SOMEONE TESTIFYING HERE WHO HAS ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED OF LYING TO CONGRESS. CONGRATULATIONS FOR BEING THE FIRST IN CONGRESS TO DO THAT AND MR. CUMMINGS, AS WELL. I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS COMMITTEE TO ITS KNEES IN TERMS OF LOSING ITS CREDIBILITY. IT'S A SHAMEFUL MOCKERY OF WHAT OUR PURPOSE IS. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. MR. LYNCH. >> LET ME JUST PICK UP ON THOSE LAST COMMENTS. WANT TO TALK ABOUT A LOW POINT? HOW ABOUT MR. PAPADOPOULOS PLED GUILTY, MR. MANAFORT CONVICTED AND PLED GUILTY. MR. GATES PLED GUILTY, MR. FLYNN PLED GUILTY. MR. KILIMNIK INDICTED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE REFUSE TO BRING ANY OF THESE PEOPLE UP BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. TODAY FOR THE FIRST DAY WE HAVE ONE WITNESS WHO VOLUNTARILY IS COMING FORWARD TO TESTIFY. YOUR SIDE RAN AWAY FROM THE TRUTH AND WE ARE TRYING TO BRING IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. SO MR. COHEN, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR VOLUNTARILY COMING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TO TESTIFY. I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR STATEMENTS REGARDING TRUMP TOWER AND MOSCOW. AND I WANT TO DRILL DOWN ON SOME OF THE FACTS AND DETAILS. YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE OF IT, BUT THIS GOES BACK A WAYS. BACK IN 1987, MR. TRUMP WROTE THAT HE HAD HAD ONGOING DISCUSSIONS WITH SOVIET OFFICIALS BACK THEN TO BUILD A LUXURY HOTEL ACROSS FROM THE KREMLIN IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE SOVIET UNION. AT THAT TIME IT WAS THE SOVIET UNION. I WANT TO ASK YOU, IN YOUR FILING WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S OFFICE, THE PROSECUTORS WROTE MR. COHEN DISCUSSED THE STATUS AND PROGRESS OF THE MOSCOW PROJECT WITH INDIVIDUAL ONE ON MORE THAN THE THREE OCCASIONS MR. COHEN CLAIMED TO THE COMMITTEE. AND HE BRIEFED FAMILY MEMBERS OF INDIVIDUAL ONE WITH THE COMPANY ABOUT THE PROJECT. I KNOW THIS IS REDUNDANT, BUT MR. COHEN, WHO ARE YOU REFERRING TO WHEN YOU REFER TO INDIVIDUAL ONE? >> DONALD J. TRUMP. >> AND THE COMPANY? >> THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION THROUGH A SUBSIDRY. >> AND WHO ARE THE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT YOU BRIEFED ON THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT? >> DON TRUMP JR. AND IVANKA TRUMP. >> WERE THESE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS OR DID THE PRESIDENT OR FAMILY REQUEST THE BRIEFINGS. >> IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. >> DO RECALL HOW MANY OF THESE BRIEFINGS THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN? >> APPROXIMATELY TEN IN TOTAL. >> ALL RIGHT. IN YOUR WRITTEN REMARKS YOU ALSO WROTE AND I QUOTE THERE ARE AT LEAST A HALF DOZEN TIMES BETWEEN THE IOWA CAUCUS IN JANUARY OF 2016 AND THE END OF JUNE WHEN MR. TRUMP WOULD ASK ME HOW IS IT GOING IN RUSSIA REFERRING TO THE RUSSIA MOSCOW TOWER PROJECT. HOW DID THE PRESIDENT COMMUNICATE THOSE QUESTIONS TO YOU? WAS IT VERBALLY OR OVER THE PHONE? >> VERBALLY MOST OF THE TIME, VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE TIME. HE WOULD SAY TO ME MICHAEL COHEN, HE WAS HEADING TO A RALLY OR A CAR AND I WOULD WALK HIM TO THE ELEVATOR, HE WOULD ASK ME QUESTIONS QUICKLY REGARDING THE SERIES -- >> COULD IT BE ABOUT WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO IN TERMS OF THE PROJECT IN RUSSIA? >> NO. THIS WOULD BE IT. OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO ASK IT OF ME. >> YOU ALSO WROTE, AND I QUOTE, TO BE CLEAR, MR. TRUMP KNEW OF AND DIRECTED THE TRUMP MOSCOW NEGOTIATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN AND LIED ABOUT IT, CLOSED QUOTE. HOW DID THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY DIRECT THE NEGOTIATIONS? WHAT DETAILS DID HE DIRECT? >> AFTER EACH COMMUNICATION THAT I HAD, I WOULD REPORT BACK TO HIM AND OUR GOAL WAS TO GET THIS PROJECT WE WERE INTERESTED IN BUILDING WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE LARGEST BUILDING IN ALL OF EUROPE. SIR, IF I CAN SAY ONE LAST THING IN REGARD TO THE GENTLEMAN'S STATEMENTS SINCE THIS IS ON TOPIC. THE LIES THAT I TOLD TO CONGRESS, IN FAIRNESS, BENEFITTED MR. TRUMP. IT WAS IN FURTHERANCE OF MY PROTECTION OF MR. TRUMP, WHICH I STATED IN MY TESTIMONY. AND I AM NOT PROTECTING MR. TRUMP ANYMORE. WHILE I TRULY APPRECIATE TAKING SOME OF YOUR TIME ON TO IT, TO ATTACK ME EVERY SINGLE TIME ABOUT TAXES, I HAVE NO CREDIBILITY, IT'S FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON THAT I SPENT THE LAST WEEK SEARCHING BOXES IN ORDER TO FIND THE INFORMATION THAT I DID SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. I DON'T WANT YOU TO. I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS. I WANT YOU TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION. SORRY, SIR. >> LET ME JUST MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE AFRAID THAT YOU'RE GOING TO LIE. I THINK THEY'RE AFRAID THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TELL THE TRUTH. >> I THANK YOU, SIR. >> I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> THE GENTLEMEN FROM OHIO IS RECOGNIZED. >> I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMEN FOR YIELDING. >> I WANT TO RESPOND TO MR. LYNCH. I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS. WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A FEDERAL AGENCY WHERE THIS IS HAPPENED. JAMES COMEY, DIRECTOR, FIRED. ANDY McCABE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FIRED, LIED THREE TIMES UNDER OATH, UNDER INVESTIGATION, RIGHT, AS WE SPEAK. JIM BAKER, FBI COUNSEL, DEMOTED AND THEN LEFT, CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN CONNECTICUT, LISA PAGE, DEMOTED THEN LEFT. PETER STRZOK, DEPUTY HEAD OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, DEMOTED THEN FIRED. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. AND TODAY WE ACTUALLY ASKED FOR ROD ROSENSTEIN, OH, BY THE WAY, WE NOW KNOW THREE PEOPLE HAVE TOLD US ROD ROSENSTEIN ACTUALLY WAS CONTEMPLATING USING THE 25th AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE GUY FROM PRESIDENCY, WHO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PUT THERE. AND WE ASKED FOR HIM TO BE A WITNESS TODAY AND THE CHAIRMAN SAID NO. AND INSTEAD, WE GET 30 MINUTES FROM A GUY WHO'S GOING TO PRISON, GOING TO PRISON, IN TWO MONTHS FOR LYING TO CONGRESS. MR. COHEN, I GOT TWO QUICK QUESTIONS BEFORE I YIELD BACK TO MY COLLEAGUE. MR. HICE ASKED WHO ALL YOU'VE TALKED TO. YOU SAID YOU SPOKE TO MR. SCHIFF, YOU SPOKE TO MR. CUMMINGS, YOU'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF BOTH COMMITTEES. YOU'RE HERE TODAY AND WILL BE IN MR. SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE. HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO CHAIRMAN NADLER OR HAVE YOUR ATTORNEYS SPOKEN TO MR. NADLER. >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT MY ATTORNEYS. I HAVE NOT -- >> YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOUR ATTORNEYS -- >> I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO CONGRESSMAN NADLER, AND I'M NOT AWARE IF MY ATTORNEYS. I CAN ASK THEM. >> THEN TURN AROUND AND ASK. >> THE ANSWER, SIR, IS NO. >> AND YOU SAID AT THIS PRESENT TIME, MR. DAVIS IS NOT GETTING PAID. ARE YOU ANTICIPATING HIM RECEIVING SOME KIND OF COMPENSATION IN THE FUTURE? >> WHEN I START TO EARN A LIVING -- >> HE'S GOING TO WAIT THREE YEARS! WOW! >> THE ANSWER IS YES. >> I'VE NEVER KNOWN A LAWYER TO WAIT THREE YEARS TO GET PAID. >> I GUESS HE THINKS IT'S IMPORTANT. >> WITH THAT I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMEN FROM ARIZONA. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. COHEN, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE A DISGRACED LAWYER. YOU'VE BEEN DISBARRED. AND SO I'M SURE YOU REMEMBER, WELL, MAYBE YOU DON'T REMEMBER DUTY OF LOYALTY, DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY, ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE. I THINK THE GENTLEMEN OVER YOUR RIGHT SIDE ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS THAT VERY, VERY WELL. AND WOULDN'T DO WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE TODAY. SO LET'S GO BACK AT THIS CREDIBILITY. YOU WANT US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE THINK OF YOU AS A REAL PHILANTHROPIC ICON, THAT YOU'RE ABOUT JUSTICE, THAT YOU'RE THE PERSON THAT SOMEBODY WOULD CALL AT 3:00 IN THE MORNING. KNOW, THEY WOULDN'T. NOT AT ALL. YOU SAW MR. COHEN DISSECT YOU, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE, YOU CONFLICTED YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR! YOU'RE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. YOU DON'T KNOW TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD. >> SIR, I'M SORRY, ARE YOU REFERRING TO ME OR THE PRESIDENT? >> HEY, HEY, THIS IS MY TIME! WHEN I ASK YOU A QUESTION, I'LL ASK FOR AN ANSWER. >> SURE. >> NOW, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH RULE 35 OF THE FEDERAL RULES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURES? >> I AM NOW. >> OH! >> HMM. >> SO THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTANDS THAT YOU'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, IS THAT TRUE? >> I AM IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK REGARDING ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS. >> AND PART OF THAT APPLICATION IS TO REDUCE SENTENCING TIME, IS IT NOT? >> THERE IS A POSSIBILITY -- >> YES, THE ANSWER IS YES. >> NO, IT'S NOT, SIR. >> YES, IT IS. >> OKAY, IT'S NOT. >> SO IF TESTIMONY HERE COULD ACTUALLY HELP YOU OUT IN GETTING YOUR SENTENCE LESSENED, ISN'T THAT TRUE? >> I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW MY APPEARANCE HERE TODAY IS PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION THAT THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT CAN USE FOR THE CREATION OF A CASE. NOW, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT THIS GROUP CAN DO FOR ME, I WOULD GLADLY WELCOME IT. >> WELL, I -- I GOT TO TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, AMERICA'S WATCHING YOU, I'VE BEEN GETTING TEXTS RIGHT AND LEFT SAYING, HOW CAN ANYBODY LISTEN TO THIS PATHOLOGICAL PERSON? HE'S GOT A PROBLEM. HE DOESN'T KNOW FACT FROM FICTION. AND THAT'S WHAT'S SAD HERE, IS THAT YOU DIDN'T DO THIS FOR DONALD TRUMP, TO PROTECT DONALD TRUMP, YOU DID IT FOR YOU. THIS IS ALL ABOUT YOU. THIS IS ALL ABOUT THIS TWITTER FEED >> SURE. >> AND -- >> NO LET ME RERUN THOSE. WOMEN WHO LOVE AND SUPPORT MICHAEL COHEN, STRONG, PIT BULL, SEX SYMBOL, NO NONSENSE, BUSINESS ORIENTED AND READY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. >> 1,000 FOLLOWERS. >> READY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AGAINST THE LAW? THAT'S PRETTY SAD. YOU KNOW, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO HAVE TRUST. IT'S BUILT ON THE PREMISE THAT WE'RE TRUTHFUL, THAT WE COME FORWARD. BUT THERE'S NO TRUTH WITH YOU WHATSOEVER. THAT'S WHY I -- THAT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU, TO LOOK UP HERE AND LOOK AT THE OLD ADAGE THAT OUR MOMS TAUGHT US, LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE. NO ONE SHOULD EVER LISTEN TO YOU AND GIVE YOU CREDIBILITY. IT'S SAD. IT'S SAD THAT WE HAVE COME -- IN FACT, I WANT TO QUOTE THE CHAIRMAN'S VERY WORDS. THIS IS A REAL -- HOLD ON. >> THE GENTLEMEN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> -- SAD STATE. >> MR. COOPER? >> MR. COHEN, SEVERAL TIMES IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU STATE THE BAD THINGS THAT YOU DID FOR MR. TRUMP AND AT SOME POINT, YOU APPARENTLY CHANGED YOUR COURSE OF ACTION. THERE'S A RECURRING REFRAIN IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT SAYS, AND YET I CONTINUED TO WORK FOR HIM. BUT AT SOME POINT, YOU CHANGED. WHAT WAS THE BREAKING POINT AT WHICH YOU DECIDED TO START TELLING THE TRUTH? >> THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS. HELSINKI, CHARLOTTESVILLE, WATCHING THE DAILY DESTRUCTION OF OUR CIVILITY TO ONE ANOTHER. PUTTING UP SILLY THINGS LIKE THIS. >> OH, THAT'S SILLY. >> REALLY UNBECOMING OF CONGRESS. IT'S THAT SORT OF BEHAVIOR THAT I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR. I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SILLINESS, BECAUSE I DID THE SAME THING THAT YOU'RE DOING NOW, FOR TEN YEARS. I PROTECTED MR. TRUMP FOR TEN YEARS AND THE FACT THAT YOU PULL UP A NEWS ARTICLE THAT HAS NO VALUE TO IT, AND YOU WANT TO USE THAT AS THE PREMISE FOR DISCREDITING ME, THAT I'M NOT THE PERSON THAT PEOPLE CALLED A 3:00 IN THE MORNING WOULD MAKE YOU INACCURATE. IN ACTUALITY, IT WOULD MAKE YOU A LIAR, WHICH PUTS YOU INTO THE SAME POSITION THAT I AM IN. AND I CAN ONLY WARN PEOPLE, THE MORE PEOPLE THAT FOLLOW MR. TRUMP, AS I DID BLINDLY, ARE GOING TO SUFFER THE SAME CONSEQUENCES THAT I'M SUFFERING. >> WHAT WARNING WOULD YOU GIVE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE TEMPTED, AS YOU WERE, WOULD YOU ENCOURAGE THEM NOT TO WAIT TEN YEARS TO SEE THE LIGHT? WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE YOUNG PEOPLE, IN PARTICULAR, YOUNG LAWYERS, SO THEY DO NOT ABUSE THEIR BAR LICENSE AS YOU DID? >> LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED TO ME. I HAD A WONDERFUL LIFE. I HAVE A BEAUTIFUL WIFE. I HAVE TWO AMAZING CHILDREN. AND I ACHIEVED FINANCIAL SUCCESS BY THE AGE OF 39. I DIDN'T GO TO WORK FOR MR. TRUMP BECAUSE I HAD TO. I WENT TO WORK FOR HIM BECAUSE I WANTED TO. AND I'VE LOST IT ALL. SO IF I'M NOT PICTURE PERFECT, THAT'S THE PICTURE THAT SHOULD BE UP THERE. IF I'M NOT A PICTURE-PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO DO, THAT'S THE EXAMPLE THAT I'M TRYING TO SET FOR MY CHILDREN. YOU MAKE MISTAKES IN LIFE. AND I'VE OWNED THEM. AND I'VE TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM. AND I'M PAYING A HUGE PRICE, AS IS MY FAMILY. SO IF THAT IN AND OF ITSELF ISN'T ENOUGH TO DISSUADE SOMEBODY FROM ACTING IN THE CALLOUS MANNER THAT I DID, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT PERSON HAS ANY CHANCE, VERY MUCH LIKE I'M IN RIGHT NOW. >> A RECURRING THEME IN YOUR TESTIMONY IS CONCERN FOR YOUR FAMILY'S SAFETY. WHAT SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU MOST CONCERNED ABOUT? >> WELL, THE PRESIDENT, UNLIKE MY COHEN FOR TRUMP THAT HAS A THOUSAND FOLLOWERS, HE'S GOT OVER 60 MILLION PEOPLE. AND WHEN MR. TRUMP TURNED AROUND EARLY IN THE CAMPAIGN AND SAID, I CAN SHOOT SOMEBODY ON FIFTH AVENUE AND GET AWAY WITH IT, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, HE'S NOT JOKING. HE'S TELLING YOU THE TRUTH. YOU SEE, YOU DON'T KNOW HIM. I DO. I SAT NEXT TO THIS MAN FOR TEN YEARS AND I WATCHED HIS BACK. I'M THE ONE WHO STARTED THE CAMPAIGN. AND I'M THE ONE WHO CONTINUED IN 2015 TO PROMOTE HIM. SO MANY THINGS I THOUGHT THAT HE CAN DO THAT ARE JUST GREAT, AND HE CAN, AND HE IS DOING THINGS THAT ARE GREAT. BUT THIS DESTRUCTION OF OUR CIVILITY TO ONE ANOTHER IS JUST -- IT'S OUT OF CONTROL. AND WHEN HE GOES ON TWITTER AND HE STARTS BRINGING IN MY IN-LAWS, MY PARENTS, MY WIFE, WHAT DOES HE THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN? HE'S CAUSING -- HE'S SENDING OUT THE SAME MESSAGE THAT HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. THIS IS HIS COUNTRY. IT'S BECOMING AN AUTOCRAT. AND HOPEFULLY, SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN TO ME OR MY CHILDREN OR MY WIFE, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE HERE AND TESTIFY. THAT'S WHAT HIS HOPE WAS. IT WAS TO INTIMIDATE ME. AND AGAIN, I THANKED EVERYBODY WHO JOINED AND SAID THAT THIS IS JUST NOT RIGHT. >> HAVE YOU EVER SEEN MR. TRUMP PERSONALLY THREATEN PEOPLE WITH PHYSICAL HARM? >> NO. HE WOULD USE OTHERS. >> HE WOULD HIRE OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THAT? >> I'M NOT SO SURE THAT HE HAD TO HIRE THEM, THEY WERE ALREADY WORKING THERE. EVERYBODY'S JOB AT THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION IS TO PROTECT MR. TRUMP. EVERY DAY, MOST OF US KNEW WE WERE COMING IN AND WE WERE GOING TO LIE FOR HIM ON SOMETHING. AND THAT BECAME THE NORM. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN THIS COUNTRY. AND IT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IN GOVERNMENT, SIR. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY TIME IS EXPIRED. >> MR. ARMSTRONG? >> THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN WE TAKE A BREAK? >> NOT RIGHT NOW. >> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT! >> DID YOU CALL FOR A BREAK? >> I DID, SIR. >> THAT'S OKAY, THANK YOU, SIR. >> I THOUGHT A MEMBER ASKED FOR A BREAK. >> THANK YOU. >> SO WE'VE BEEN WATCHING FOR ABOUT JUST A COUPLE OF HOURS NOW, THE TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER LAWYER TO THEN BUSINESSMAN OF NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP, A FORMER CONFIDANT, SOMEONE WHO WAS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE MAN WHO IS NOW PRESIDENT. AND IN THESE LAST FEW MINUTES, WE'VE SEEN SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY. WE SEE REPUBLICANS HAMMERING MICHAEL COHEN ON THE FACT THAT HE'S A CONVICTED FELON, THE FACT THAT HE'S AN ADMITTED LIAR, THE FACT THAT HE WAS REPORTING TO PRISON IN JUST A FEW SHORT MONTHS. AND IN THIS LAST COUPLE OF MINUTES, A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN DID WHAT ANY PROSECUTOR WOULD DO WITH A COOPERATING WITNESS, WHICH IS, TRY TO REHABILITATE HIM. AND THE QUESTION WAS, WHY DID YOU HAVE THIS CHANGE HEART. >> WHEN DID YOU HAVE THIS CHANGE OF HEART. >> AND THAT ELICITED THIS RESPONSE FROM MICHAEL COHEN, I USED TO DEFEND DONALD TRUMP JUST LIKE YOU ARE, AND I'M TELLING YOU, IF YOU KEEP DOING IT, YOU'LL BE SITTING WHERE I'M SITTING. SO LET'S UNLEASH THE LAWYERS >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY. WE HAVE ARI MELBER AND MAYA WILEY. MICHAEL COHEN HAS COMPORTED HIMSELF PRETTY WELL. HE SEEMS TO BE WELL PREPARED. HE'S NEVER LOST HIS COOL. AND I SAY THIS AS SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN ON THE RECEIVING END OF HIM LOSING HIM COOL, SO I THINK SOME OF US ARE WATCHING TO SEE HOW IS HE GOING TO HANDLE THIS NONSTOP BASICALLY -- THEY'RE TRYING TO GET HIM TO LOSE HIS COOL. >> THEY'RE TRYING TO GET HIM TO. I THINK HE STARTED A LITTLE DEFENSIVE. HE WAS A LITTLE BIT COMBATIVE. NOT IN A WAY THAT DAMAGED, I THINK, HIS CREDIBILITY GENERALLY TO THOSE WHO ARE OPEN-MINDED, BUT I THINK HE WARMED TO IT IN THE SENSE THAT HE MADE SURE THAT HE WAS BEING VERY CAREFUL IN HIS ANSWERS, TO STAY ACCURATE, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE FORTHCOMING. IT WAS VERY INTERESTING, THOUGH, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT WHAT WE JUST SAW, HIS ABILITY TO ACTUALLY HUMANIZE HIMSELF. THIS IS A BIG PART -- IF YOU'RE GETTING ATTACKED ON CREDIBILITY, AS HE WAS BY THE REPUBLICANS PREETEDLY -- THE QUESTION BECOMES, HOW DO WE BELIEVE YOU GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU'VE HAD A LONG HISTORY OF BAD BEHAVIOR? SO GIVING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, RIGHT, I HAD REALLY BAD BEHAVIOR. I AM NOT SHYING AWAY FROM IT, I AM THE GUY WHO'S GOING TO GO TO PRISON AND I'M THE GUY WHO'S GOING TO LEAVE MY FAMILY. AND I THINK HE DID A GREAT JOB OF BEING WELL PREPARED AT BOTH ACCURACY, AT LEAST IN WHAT WE'VE HEARD, AS WELL AS MAKING SURE HE COULD MAKE THAT POINT. >> HE'S BEEN CAREFUL, WHEN SOMEBODY HAS GONE TOO FAR IN CLAIMING WHAT HE'S SAID, HE'S CORRECTED THEM, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT, I SAID "X," THAT I THOUGHT HAS HELPED ME WITH HIS CREDIBILITY. >> ARI, AS I TURN TO YOU, THIS IS A SITUATION THAT PROSECUTORS FACE IN COURTROOMS EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE WEEK IN THIS COUNTRY. THEY FIND A COOPERATING WITNESS, THEY HAVE SOMEONE WHO SAYS, OKAY, I PLEAD GUILTY, NOW I'M GOING TO TURN STATE'S EVIDENCE. THIS IS -- IT'S IN CONGRESS, NOT IN A COURT OF LAW, BUT A SIMILAR SCENARIO. YOU HAVE SOMEONE COMING IN WITH BAGGAGE, THERE'S CERTAINLY CREDIBILITY ISSUES, AND NOW HE HAS TO REHABILITATE HIMSELF, FIRST BY WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THIS IS A REASON WHY I HAD A CHANGE OF HEART, BUT HE ALSO TRIED TO COME WITH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE ME, BECAUSE HERE'S EVIDENCE. HAS HE ADDED ANYTHING TO THE NARRATIVE OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE SWIRLING AROUND THE PRESIDENT? >> HE ADDED EVIDENCE TODAY AND HE ADDED EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS. AS YOU KNOW, AND AS YOU STATE, SAVANNAH, ANYTIME ANYONE IS TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED IN A CRIME, PROSECUTORS OR CONGRESS, YOU RUN INTO THE PROBLEM OF EITHER YOU HAVE WITNESSES OR YOU'RE RELYING ON CRIMINAL PARTICIPANTS. THAT'S WHY MOB AND RACKETEERING CASES ARE HARD TO BUILD, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO PUT A LOT ON THE CRIMINALS. THEY SAY, I COMMITTED CRIMES, NOW I'M TELLING YOU THE TRUTH. I THINK MICHAEL COHEN'S CORE ARGUMENTS AND AMERICANS WILL DECIDE WHETHER THEY BELIEVE THEM, TO REBUT THOSE CREDIBLE ATTACKS FROM REPUBLICANS WERE ABOUT THE TENTS. HE PUT ALL OF THAT IN THE PAST TENSE. YES, I LIED, IT'S OVER. YES, I COMMITTED CRIMES, LARGELY ON BEHALF OF DONALD TRUMP, SOMETIMES ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, IT'S OVER. HE SAID, I'M PAYING FOR THIS, I'M LEAFING MY FAMILY, I'M GOING TO PRISON FOR YEARS, ONE OF THE HEAVIER SENTENCES OF A COOPERATING WITNESS, SO WITH THAT ON HIS BACK, HE SAID, BUT NOW I'M HERE TO TELL THE TRUTH. AND THE QUESTION IS, DID THE EVIDENCE AND THE TRUTH, DID THAT MOVE PEOPLE? >> I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOU THINK OF, THERE'S CLEARLY A REPUBLICAN STRATEGY TO DEFER TO EITHER MARK MEADOWS THE REPUBLICAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA AND JIM JORDAN, THE RANKING MEMBER FROM OHIO, WHEREVER, I GUESS, SOME FOLKS, THEY HAVE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN THEY DEFER MOST OF THEIR QUESTIONS, I GUESS TO THE TWO PEOPLE WHO THEY THINK ARE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AT THIS. IS THAT AN EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION STRATEGY HERE? >> YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE. I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S ABOUT THE QUESTIONS THEMSELVES AND WHETHER THEY GET THE ANSWERS THAT HELP UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF MICHAEL COHEN. THEY TRIED TO DO IT WHEN IT CAME TO THE ISSUE OF WHAT HE WAS SAYING IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT, HIS RELATIONSHIP TO SOME OF THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, I MEAN, GOING BACK TO ARI'S POINT, HE WAS ABLE TO USE PAST TENSE. >> THEY WERE TRYING TO GET AT THAT HE'S HERE TO GET OFF. THEY KEEP TRYING GET AT THAT. AND CAN WE CLARIFY THIS? >> YES, LET'S CLARIFY THIS. AND I THOUGHT HE DID, ACTUALLY, A VERY GOOD JOB OF SAYING, I HAVE NO COMMITMENTS FROM THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT TO GET ANYTHING OUT OF BEING HERE. AND I DON'T FEEL HELPED GIVEN THAT I'M GOING TO PRISON. HE DOES NOT HAVE A COOPERATING AGREEMENT. HE'S NOT COOPERATING. IF HE -- NOW, COULD HE AFTER THE FACT ENTER INTO ONE, IN ORDER TO TRY TO REDUCE HIS SENTENCE? YES. HE HAS NOT, THOUGH. SO SITTING HERE TODAY -- >> AND HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS, STICKILY SPEAKING, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR IN NEW YORK THINKS HE'S COOPERATED SUFFICIENTLY TO GET A LESSER SENTENCE. >> THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT. IF HE ENTERED INTO A COOPERATION AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD OBLIGATE HIM TO ANSWER ALL OF THEIR QUESTIONS ON ANY SUBJECT, THEN HE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO POTENTIALLY REDUCE HIS SENTENCE. NOT COMING FORWARD AND TELLING CONGRESS WHAT HE HAS ALREADY TOLD THE PROSECUTORS. >> AND I THINK WE CAN EVEN PUT IT MORE SIMPLY, WHICH IS, IF HE PROVIDES INFORMATION THAT IS DEEMED TRUE, IT COULD SOME DAY HELP HIM. BUT THAT MEANS IT'S TRUE. SO THE IDEA THAT HE WOULD BENEFIT FROM ANY OF THIS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, REVOLVES ENTIRELY AROUND INDEPENDENT FACT FINDERS, REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED JUDGES SAY THAT IT'S TRUE. SO IT'S NOT A VERY GOOD ARGUMENT. >> SO THE POINT IS, WHAT IS THE INCENTIVE TO LIE AT THIS POINT WHEN YOU'RE ALREADY STARING DOWN THE BARREL OF A THREE-YEARBINGO. >> LET'S GO TO CHUCK ROSENBERG, I KNOW YOU FOLLOW ALL THE INS AND OUTS. THERE'S A LOT OF TERRITORY THAT WE'VE COVERED TODAY. WHAT DO YOU THINK STANDS OUT IN TERMS OF FACTS THAT HAVE DEVELOPED OR BEEN ELICITED FROM THIS TESTIMONY? CREDIBILITY ONLY MATTERS INSOFAR AS HE'S ADDING TESTIMONY THAT ADDS TO THE FACTUAL PICTURE, SO WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? >> IT'S INTERESTING TO ME, SAVANNAH. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT STAND OUT. FIRST, COHEN, LIKE A LOT OF COOPERATORS I'VE PUT ON THE STAND AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, ISN'T GOING TOO FAR. FOR INSTANCE, HE DIDN'T SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED HIM TO LIE. HE SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT MADE IT CLEAR BY IMPLICATION THAT HE WANTED COHEN TO LIE ON HIS BEHALF. THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER POINT AND YOUR PANELISTS HAVE DISCUSSED THIS, AND I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO YOUR VIEWERS, WHO PICKED MICHAEL COHEN HAS A WITNESS? HE WASN'T CHOSEN BY BOB MUELLER, HE WASN'T CHOSEN BY THE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS IN MANHATTAN. HE WASN'T EVEN CHOSEN BY CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS. LET'S BE CLEAR, DONALD TRUMP CHOSE MICHAEL COHEN HAS A WITNESS WHEN HE HIRED HIM TEN YEARS AGO AND WHEN HE SUBJECTED HIM TO ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT COHEN SAID HE WAS SUBJECTED TO. TO THE LIES, TO THE DECEIT, TO THE FRAUD. ALL OF THAT WAS BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP HIRED MICHAEL COHEN. WE MAKE THIS ARGUMENT ALL THE TIME IN FEDERAL COURT. WE MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CRIMINALS PICK THE WITNESSES, THE GOVERNMENT SIMPLY CALLS THEM. >> CHUCK, I'M CURIOUS, WHERE DO YOU THINK MICHAEL COHEN HAS BEEN WEAKEST? >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD CALL IT WEAK, CHUCK. I MEAN, HE HAS BEEN RESTRAINED. AND SO IF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO MICHAEL COHEN TO SORT OF, YOU KNOW, DOT ALL THE Is AND CROSS ALL THE Ts ON THIS CRIMINAL EXPERIENCE, THEY MIGHT BE DISAPPOINTED. NEVERTHELESS, I THINK IT'S REALLY WORTH LISTENING TO HIM AND WATCHING HIM FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON. HE IS THE QUINTESSENTIAL COOPERATING CRIMINAL. THIS IS WHAT WE SEE IN COURTROOMS THROUGHOUT AMERICA EVERY SINGLE DAY. HE KNOWS WHAT HE KNOWS, HE'S TELLING IT, I BELIEVE, TRUTHFULLY. BUT CITIZEN TO BE CORROBORATED. THE DOCUMENTS HE PRODUCED ARE HELPFUL, THEY'RE NOT DISPOSITIVE, BUT THIS IS WHAT COOPERATING WITNESSES LOOK LIKE, SOUND LIKE, AND FEEL LIKE. AND I THINK THE FOLKS WHO ARE WATCHING HIM TODAY GET A SENSE OF WHAT PROSECUTORS DO IN FEDERAL COURTROOMS AROUND THE COUNTRY. >> ALL RIGHT, CHUCK, STAND BY THERE. WE'VE GOT KASIE HUNT ON THE HILL WHO'S BEEN WATCHING THIS. KASIE, WE'RE STARTING TO SEE THE OUTLINES OF THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY, WHICH IS TO GO AFTER THIS LOW-HANGING FRUIT, WHICH IS THE CREDIBILITY PROBLEMS, AND THEY ARE NUMEROUS, THAT MICHAEL COHEN DOES HAVE. >> Reporter: OF COURSE THEY ARE, SAVANNAH. AND YOU HAVE HEARD SOME DEMOCRATS EVEN MENTION THE FACT THAT HE DID LIE TO CONGRESS. AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS IS ALWAYS A REAL PROBLEM IN THIS FORUM, AT THE RISK OF STATING THE OBVIOUS. BUT YOU KNOW, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT WHILE THEY ARE REPEATEDLY HAMMERING THAT POINT HOME THAT MICHAEL COHEN IS NOT SOMEBODY THAT PEOPLE SHOULD CONSIDER TO BE CREDIBLE, THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY DOING A LOT TO UNDERMINE HIS SET OF FACTS. INSTEAD, THEY ARE SORT OF TYING IN DIFFERENT POLITICAL PIECES, YOU KNOW, REFERENCING THE CLINTONS AND LANNY DAVIS, ASKING HIM, YOU KNOW, WHO PAID FOR HIM TO GET HERE TO CAPITOL HILL TODAY? YOU DON'T HEAR A LOT OF KIND OF CHALLENGING THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND WHAT COHEN IS PRESENTING HERE. SO, YOU KNOW, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY'VE REVEALED ANYTHING THAT THEY DIDN'T PREVIOUSLY KNOW ABOUT COHEN'S STATUS AND HIS RELIABILITY AS A WITNESS. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THEY HAVEN'T, OBVIOUSLY, ENGAGED IN THE THEATRICS OF IT. BUT I'M INTERESTED TO SEE THAT AS THIS HEARING CONTINUES, IF WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD A LITTLE MORE. AND I WILL SAY, I HAVE HAD SOME SOURCES SAY TO ME THAT THEY DON'T THINK DEMOCRATS ARE NECESSARILY BEING AS EFFECTIVE AS THEY COULD BE IN ACTING IN PROSECUTORIAL ROLES AND ACTUALLY TRYING TO DIG UP NEW PIECES OF INFORMATION ABOUT TRUMP'S BUSINESSES, HIS FOUNDATION, OTHER AREAS THAT MIGHT BE RIPER FOR DISCUSSION THAN WE'VE SEEN SO FAR. >> THERE DEFINITELY ARE SOME QUESTIONS OUT THERE THAT -- >> PRAGUE! WILL SOMEBODY ASK ABOUT PRAGUE, FOR GOSH'S SAKE. >> THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT'S OUT THERE IS WHETHER OR NOT MICHAEL COHEN WAS AT A MEETING IN PRAGUE AT THE HEIGHT OF THE CAMPAIGN AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD THAT QUESTION. >> I WOULD ARGUE, THERE'S REALLY ONLY BEEN TWO DEMOCRATS THAT HAVE BEEN, I THOUGHT, BEEN AT LEAST HAD A PLAN MORE THEIR QUESTIONS. AND THAT WAS DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. SHE WAS PREPARED, SHE CLEARLY WANTED TO DO THE DNC E-MAIL. AND FRANKLY, CONGRESSMAN COOPER THERE, WHO WAS ALMOST PLAYING THE ROLE OF COUNTRY LAWYER. OKAY -- >> WELL, HE DID KIND OF THE THING THAT ANY PROSECUTOR WOULD WANT TO DO TO REHABILITATE A WITNESS, WHICH IS KIND OF LET THEM SPEAK OPENLY AND FROM THE HEART ABOUT, WELL, WHAT LED TO THIS CHANGE OF HEART FOR YOU. >> THAT WAS ONE OF THE MOMENTS WHERE WE REALLY SAW COHEN EXPLAIN HIMSELF. I THINK AS WE LOOK IN THE AFTERNOON, THE TWO BIG UNASKED QUESTIONS ARE, ONE, PRAGUE, AS CHUCK IS SAYING, AND TWO, IF YOU WERE DONALD TRUMP'S LAWYER FOR TEN YEARS IN NEW YORK DURING A TIME WHERE YOU SAY HE WAS SKIRTING THE LAW, IF NOT WORSE, DID YOU EVER SEE OR HEAR HIM TRY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IN NEW YORK? DID YOU SEE HIM DEAL WITH THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT, WHICH HE SEEMS SO INTERESTED IN, AS SOON AS HE BECAME PRESIDENT, CALLING THE PROSECUTOR TO TRUMP TOWER TO THE MANHATTAN D.A., WHICH NOW HAS A CASE IN A GRAND JURY POTENTIALLY AGAINST PAUL MANAFORT OR THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> HERE'S ELIJAH CUMMINGS, THE CHAIRMAN, HE LOOKS LIKE HE'S ABOUT TO GAVEL IT BACK IN. >> FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, WE NOTE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S SON HAS BEEN LIVE TWEETING QUITE A BIT, DON JR., AND I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT HAS RETWEETED SOME EARLIER THINGS. >> HE'S UP LATE. IT'S EXACTLY 12 HOURS WHERE HE IS IN HANOI. SO IF IT'S AFTER MIDNIGHT IN HANOI AT THIS POINT. >> PRESIDENT TRUMP RE-TWEETED A TWEET WHERE HE -- >> MAYA, JUMP IN HERE REALLY QUICKLY. >> JUST ONE POINT I WOULD MAKE, AS A FORMER D.C. RESIDENT, A CONGRESSWOMAN FROM D.C., FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, REALLY ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT TRUMP HAD KNOWLEDGE -- LIKE, ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED POTENTIALLY IN A CAMPAIGN FINANCE CRIME, BY SAYING THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WOULD BE A THING OF VALUE TO HIM TO QUASH THIS STORY OF STORMY DANIELS. AND THAT, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, DOES SOLIDIFY A CRIMINAL CHARGE. >> DOES YOUR FRUSTRATION -- I AGREE WITH YOU, SHE DID A GOOD JOB, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY TO FOLLOW THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING. >> THERE ARE SEVERAL INSTANCES LIKE THAT. >> LET'S GO BACK TO THE HEARING. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. COHEN, YOU HAVE ADMITTED TO LYING ON YOUR TAXES. ACCORDING TO FEDERAL PROSECUTORS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, YOU ALSO LIED TO BANKS TO GET LOANS. THE PROSECUTORS WROTE, QUOTE, TO SECURE LOANS, COHEN FALSELY UNDERSTATED THE AMOUNT OF DEBT HE WAS CARRYING AND OMITTED INFORMATION FROM HIS PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO INDUCE A BANK TO LEND BASED ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION, END QUOTE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU LIED ON FINANCIAL DOCUMENT DOCUMENTS. SO YOU LIED TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN ORDER TO SECURE LOANS, SO WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU LIE ON YOUR TAXES, YOU LIE TO BANKS, AND YOU HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF LYING TO CONGRESS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT YOU WON'T LIE ABOUT WHEN YOU STAND TO GAIN FROM IT. IN FACT, THE PROSECUTORS FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NOTED THAT EACH OF YOUR CRIMES, QUOTE, BEAR COMMON SENSE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHICH EACH INVOLVING DECEPTION AND BEING MOTIVATED BY YOUR PERSONAL GREED AND AMBITION. IS YOUR APPEARANCE HERE TODAY MOTIVATED BY YOUR DESIRE TO REMAIN IN THE SPOTLIGHT FOR YOUR PERSONAL BENEFIT? >> NO, MA'AM. >> YOU HAVE SOUGHT OUT WAYS TO REHABILITATE YOUR IMAGE, FROM TAX EVADER, BANK SWINDLER, AND ALL-AROUND LIAR TO AN HONORABLE, TRUTHFUL MAN BY APPEARING BEFORE CABLE NEWS. I'M CONCERNED YOU COULD USING YOUR STORY AND THIS CONGRESSIONAL PLATFORM FOR YOUR PERSONAL BENEFIT, SUCH AS A DESIRE TO MAKE MONEY FROM BOOK DEALS. SO CAN YOU COMMIT, UNDER OATH, THAT YOU HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT PURSUE A BOOK OR MOVIE DEAL BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCES WORKING FOR THE PRESIDENT? >> NO. >> YOU CANNOT COMMIT TO MAKING MONEY OFF OF A BOOK OR A MOVIE DEAL, BASED ON YOUR WORK? >> NO. WHAT I JUST -- THERE'S TWO PARTS TO YOUR QUESTION. THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION, YOU ASKED ME WHETHER OR NOT I HAD SPOKEN TO PEOPLE REGARDING A POSSIBLE BOOK DEAL AND I HAVE. AND I HAVE SPOKEN TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOUGHT ME OUT REGARDING A MOVIE DEAL. >> NO, I DIDN'T ASK YOU IF YOU'VE SPOKEN TO ANYBODY. >> THAT WAS THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION. >> I SAID, CAN YOU COMMIT UNDER OATH THAT YOU WILL NOT, THAT YOU HAVE NOT, AND WILL NOT PURSUE A BOOK DEAL. >> AND I WILL NOT DO THAT, NO. >> OKAY. CAN YOU COMMIT UNDER OATH THAT YOU WILL NOT PURSUE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE COMMENTARY FOR A MAJOR NEWS NETWORK BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCES WORKING FOR THE PRESIDENT? >> NO. >> CAN YOU COMMIT UNDER OATH THAT YOU WILL NOT PURSUE POLITICAL OFFICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK? >> NO. >> SO YOU DON'T COMMIT TO CHANGING YOUR WAYS, BASICALLY, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO USE YOUR BACKGROUND AS A LIAR, A CHEATER, A CONVICTED LIAR TO MAKE MONEY? THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO? >> AND THAT'S GOING TO GET ME A BOOK DEAL AND A MOVIE DEAL AND TELEVISION AND A SPOT ON TELEVISION? I DON'T THINK SO. >> WELL, IT APPEARS THAT IT WILL. I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME. >> THANK THE GENTLE LADY FOR YIELDING. MR. COHEN, IN YOUR SENTENCING STATEMENT TO THE COURT IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, YOU SAID, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH. APPROXIMATELY A MONTH LATER, BUZZFEED NEWS RAN A STORY THAT WAS THE STORY IN THE COUNTRY FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS. BUZZFEED'S STORY RAN JANUARY 17th, 2019. ON JANUARY 18th, YOUR COUNSEL WENT ON TV AND WOULDN'T CONFIRM OR DENY THE STORY. THE NEXT DAY, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE DID SOMETHING THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED. THEY SAID, THE DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC STATEMENTS TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE AND THE CHARACTERIZATION OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY OBTAINED BY THIS OFFICE REGARDING MICHAEL COHEN'S CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY ARE NOT ACCURATE. WHY DIDN'T YOUR LAWYER, THE DAY THAT HE'S ON TV, WHEN THIS STORY IS THE BIGGEST THING IN THE NEWS IN THE COUNTRY, WHY DIDN'T HE DENY THE BUZZFEED STORY? >> BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT. WE ARE NOT THE FACT CHECKERS FOR BUZZFEED. >> HE'S ON TV TO TALK ABOUT THE VERY STORY. YOU COMMITTED TO THE COURT WHEN YOU WERE TRYING TO GET YOUR SENTENCE REDUCED THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH. YOU HAD THE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THEM THE TRUTH ON A FALSE STORY, THE BUZZFEED STORY, AND YOUR LAWYER DIDN'T SAY A THING. ACTUALLY, HE SAID THIS, I CAN'T CONFIRM, I CAN'T DENY. YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU TOLD THE JUDGE YOU WERE GOING TO DO, ONE MONTH AFTER YOU SAID IT, AND YOU DIDN'T DO IT. WHY NOT? >> AGAIN, IT WASN'T OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE THE FACT CHECKER FOR THE NEWS AGENCY -- >> THIS IS THEIR BIGGEST STORY IN THE COUNTRY! >> SIR, PLEASE, LET ME -- THE PRESIDENT, SO FAR -- >> SIR, LET ME JUST SAY ONE THING AND THEN YOU CAN FINISH. >> CHAIRMAN, MAY I PLEASE FINISH? >> THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SAID SOMETHING THEY'VE NEVER DONE. >> SIR. >> THEY SAID, THAT STORY WAS FALSE. NOW YOU CAN RESPOND. >> MY RESPONSE. THE PRESIDENT HAS TOLD SOMETHING OVER 9,000 LIES TO DATE. DO I ASK MR. DAVIS OR MR. MONACO OR DO I GO ON TELEVISION IN ORDER TO CORRECT HIS MISTAKES? SIR, THE ANSWER IS NO. >> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC SUBJECT, THE ANSWER IS NO. >> THE GENTLEMEN'S TIME -- LISTEN UP. THE GENTLEMEN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. YOU MAY FINISH ANSWERING THE QUESTION AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO TO MR. CONNELLY. >> ALL I WANTED TO SAY IS I JUST FIND IT INTERESTING, SIR, THAT BETWEEN YOURSELF AND YOUR COLLEAGUES, THAT NOT ONE QUESTION SO FAR SINCE I'M HERE HAS BEEN ASKED ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT'S ACTUALLY WHY I THOUGHT I WAS COMING TODAY. NOT TO CONFESS THE MISTAKES THAT I'VE MADE. I'VE ALREADY DONE THAT. AND I'LL DO IT AGAIN EVERY TIME YOU ASK ME ABOUT TAXES OR MISTAKES, YES, I MADE MY MISTAKES. I'LL SAY IT NOW AGAIN. AND I'M GOING TO PAY THE ULTIMATE PRICE. BUT I'M NOT HERE TODAY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT MY TAXES. THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT I KNOW ABOUT MR. TRUMP AND NOT ONE QUESTION SO FAR HAS BEEN ASKED ABOUT MR. TRUMP. >> MR. CONNELLY? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WELL, MR. COHEN, BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY AND YOUR TEN-YEAR EXPERIENCE, I THINK YOU CAN RECOGNIZE THE BEHAVIOR YOU'RE BEING SUBJECTED TO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. DISCREDIT, SLANDER, USE ANY TRICK IN THE BOOK TO PREVENT YOUR TESTIMONY FROM STICKING. THE IDEA THAT A WITNESS WOULD COME TO US WHO'S FLAWED, AND YOU CERTAINLY ARE FLAWED, MEANS THEY CAN NEVER TELL THE TRUTH AND THERE IS NO VALIDITY WHATSOEVER TO A SINGLE WORD THEY SAY WOULD DISCREDIT EVERY SINGLE CRIMINAL TRIAL OF ORGANIZED CRIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES! BECAUSE ALL OF THEM DEPEND ON SOMEONE WHO'S TURNED. IT WOULD MAKE RICO NULL AND VOID. WE COULDN'T USE IT ANYMORE. THIS CONGRESS HISTORICALLY HAS RELIED ON ALL KINDS OF SHADY FIGURES WHO TURNED. ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS WHO LED TO THE DECAPITATION OF THE ORGANIZED CRIME FAMILIES IN AMERICA, YOAVLATCHY, CONGRESSIONAL HEARING, HE WAS A WITNESS, AND HE COMMITTED A LOT WORSE CRIMES THAN YOU'RE CONVICTED OF, MR. COHEN. SO DON'T BE FOOLED BY WHAT MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE TRYING TO DO TODAY. IT IS DO EVERYTHING BUT FOCUS ON THE PRINCIPLE, KNOWN AS INDIVIDUAL NUMBER ONE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, AS I RECALL. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. COHEN? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> NOW, MR. COHEN, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN YOUR TESTIMONY AND THAT SO FAR HAS NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC. IN OUR COMMITTEE STAFF SEARCH OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE THAT WERE OTHERWISE REDACTED OR ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC AND I GUESS THE WHITE HOUSE THOUGHT THAT WAS FUNNY THEY MADE ONE MISTAKE, THE WHITE HOUSE. THERE WAS AN E-MAIL FROM A SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT TO A DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE E-MAIL IS DATED MAY 16th, 2017, AND IT SAYS, AND I QUOTE, POTUS, MEANING THE PRESIDENT, REQUESTED A MEETING ON THURSDAY WITH MICHAEL COHEN AND JAY SEKULOW. ANY IDEA WHAT THIS MIGHT BE ABOUT? END QUOTE. DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED TO COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND THAT TIME? WITH MR. SEKULOW? MAY OF 2017. >> OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, SIR, I DON'T. I RECALL BEING IN THE WHITE HOUSE WITH JAY SEKULOW AND IT WAS IN REGARD TO THE -- THE DOCUMENTS -- THE DOCUMENT PRODUCTION, AS WELL AS MY APPEARANCE BEFORE THE HOUSE SELECT INTEL. BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SPECIFICALLY -- BUT WHAT I WILL DO, I WILL CHECK ALL MY RECORDS AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY DOCUMENTATION OR A RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION. >> WELL, THAT'S -- YOU SORT OF TOUCHED ON THE PRESUMABLY THE PURPOSE OF THE DISCUSSION, AT LEAST AMONG OTHERS. THIS OCCURRED, THIS MEETING OCCURRED JUST BEFORE YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE HERE IN THE HOUSE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> WAS THAT A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF? >> IF THIS IS THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE THAT I WAS THERE WITH MR. SEKULOW, YES. >> SO YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ABOUT YOUR IMPENDING TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THAT CONVERSATION? >> HE WANTED ME TO COOPERATE. HE ALSO WANTED JUST TO ENSURE, BY MAKING THE STATEMENT, AND I SAID IT IN MY TESTIMONY, THERE IS NO RUSSIA, THERE IS NO COLLUSION, THERE IS NO -- THERE IS NO DEAL. HE GOES, IT'S ALL A WITCH HUNT. AND HE GOES, THIS STUFF HAS TO END. >> DID YOU TAKE THOSE COMMENTS TO BE SUGGESTIVE OF WHAT MIGHT FLAVOR YOUR TESTIMONY? >> SIR, HE'S BEEN SAYING THAT TO ME FOR MANY, MANY MONTHS AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, I KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HEP WANTED ME TO SAY. >> AND WHY WAS MR. SEKULOW IN THE MEETING? >> BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE REPRESENTING MR. TRUMP, GOING FORWARD, AS ONE OF HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEYS IN THIS MATTER. >> SO IT WAS SORT OF A HANDOFF MEETING? >> CORRECT. >> IN ANY WAY -- FINAL QUESTION, DID THE PRESIDENT IN ANY WAY FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW COACH YOU IN TERMS OF HOW TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS OR THE CONTENT OF YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE A HOUSE COMMITTEE? >> AGAIN, IT'S A DIFFICULT TO ANSWER, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T TELL YOU WHAT HE WANTS. WHAT HE DOES IS, AGAIN, MICHAEL, THERE'S NO RUSSIA, THERE'S NO COLLUSION, THERE'S NO INVOLVEMENT, THERE'S NO INTERFERENCE. I KNOW WHAT HE MEANS, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN AROUND HIM FOR SO LONG. SO IF YOU'RE ASKING ME WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S THE MESSAGE THAT'S STAYING ON POINT, THAT'S THE PARTY LINE THAT HE CREATED THAT SO MANY OTHERS ARE NOW TOUTING, YES, THAT'S THE MESSAGE THAT HE WANTED TO REINFORCE. >> THE GENTLEMEN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. MASSEY. >> MR. COHEN, CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY, DID YOU SAY THAT AT TIMES YOU THOUGHT WHAT MR. TRUMP WANTED YOU TO DO, NOT SPECIFICALLY WHAT HE TOLD YOU TO DO. >> AT TIMES, YES. >> SO YOU JUST WENT ON YOUR INTUITION? >> I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD CALL IT INTUITION, AS MUCH AS I WOULD JUST SAY, MY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HE WANTED, BECAUSE IT HAPPENED BEFORE AND I KNEW WHAT HE HAD WANTED. >> DOES A LAWYER HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE HIS CLIENT WITH GOOD LEGAL ADVICE? >> YES. >> WERE YOU A GOOD LAWYER TO MR. TRUMP? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> WHEN YOU ARRANGED A PAYMENT TO MISS CLIFFORD, YOU SAY IN YOUR TESTIMONY, I'M GOING TO QUOTE FROM YOUR TESTIMONY, THAT YOU DID SO, QUOTE, WITHOUT BOTHERING TO CONSIDER WHETHER THAT WAS IMPROPER, MUCH LESS WHETHER IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. YOU SAID THAT, UNQUOTE. THAT'S YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER WHETHER IT WAS LEGAL. HOW COULD YOU GIVE YOUR CLIENT LEGAL ADVICE WHEN YOU'RE NOT EVEN CONSIDERING WHETHER IT WAS LEGAL? >> I DID WHAT I KNEW WHETHER TRUMP WANTED. THIS CONVERSATION WITH MR. TRUMP -- >> I DIDN'T ASK -- >> -- STARTED -- >> I DIDN'T WANT ASK WHETHER YOU WERE A GOOD FIXER, I ASKED WHETHER YOU WERE A GOOD LAWYER. >> WELL, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO MELT BOTH TOGETHER. I NEEDED TO AT THAT TIME ENSURE AND PROTECT MR. TRUMP AND IF I PUT MY -- WHICH I'M CLEARLY, CLEARLY SUFFERING THE PENALTY OF. I CLEARLY ERRED ON THE SIDE OF WRONG. >> SO YOU FEEL LIKE BY -- WITHOUT BOTHERING TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT WAS PROPER, MUCH LESS WHETHER IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, BY IGNORE ANY CONSCIENCE, IF YOU HAVE ONE, THAT YOU WERE PROTECTING MR. TRUMP. >> I'M SORRY, SIR, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. >> YOU FEEL THAT WAS HOW TO PROTECT -- AS HIS LAWYER, YOU FEEL THAT YOU DID A GOOD JOB. YOU SAID YOU WERE A GOOD LAWYER, RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IS THAT BEING A GOOD LAWYER, TO NOT EVEN CONSIDER WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR NOT? >> I DIDN'T WORK FOR THE CAMPAIGN. I WAS WORKING AND I WAS TRYING TO PROTECT MR. TRUMP. >> I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN. >> I SAT WITH MR. TRUMP, AND THIS GOES BACK ALL THE WAY TO 2011. THIS WASN'T THE FIRST SCENARIO WITH MISS DANIELS. >> LET'S GO BACK THEN. >> SO MY POINT IS, THIS IS -- THIS WAS AN ONGOING SITUATION. IT DIDN'T JUST START -- SIR, PLEASE, YOU HAVE TO LET ME FINISH. >> WELL -- >> IT STARTED -- IT DIDN'T START IN OCTOBER, IT STARTED MANY YEARS EARLIER. >> WHEN WERE YOU DISBARRED? >> YESTERDAY, FROM WHAT I READ IN THE PAPER. >> YESTERDAY. WHEN SHOULD YOU HAVE BEEN DISBARRED, BASED ON THE LEGAL COUNSEL YOU WERE GIVING YOUR CLIENT? >> I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOUR QUESTION, SIR. >> HOW LONG WERE YOU COUNSEL FOR MR. TRUMP? >> SINCE 2007. >> WHEN IS FIRST TIME YOU GAVE HIM BAD LEGAL ADVICE OR FAILED TO INFORM HIM OF HIS LEGAL OBLIGATIONS, AS YOU TESTIFIED TODAY YOU DID IN THE CASE OF THE PAYMENT TO MISS CLIFFORD? WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU DID THAT? WOULD THAT QUALIFY FOR DISBARMENT? >> I DON'T KNOW, SIR. I'M NOT THE BAR ASSOCIATION. >> I THINK YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEM, MAYBE, OCCASIONAL ON SOME OF THESE THINGS. >> WELL, THERE'S NO POINT NOW, I LOST MY LAW LICENSE. >> HAS ANYBODY ELSE PROMISED TO PAY MR. DAVIS FOR REPRESENTING YOU? >> NO. >> NOBODY HAS? >> NO. ARE YOU OFFERING? >> QUESTION, QUICKLY. JULY -- YOU SAID -- AND THIS IS ALSO IN YOUR TESTIMONY, IN THE DAYS BEFORE THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, YOU BECAME PRIVY TO A CONVERSATION THAT SOME OF HILLARY CLINTON'S E-MAILS WOULD BE LEAKED. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. WAS THAT IN -- YOU SAID IN LATE JULY, DO YOU KNOW THE EXACT DAY? I BELIEVE IT WAS EITHER THE 18th OR THE 19th AND I WOULD GUESS THAT IT WOULD BE ON THE 19th. >> BUT IT WAS DEFINITELY JULY. >> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> DO YOU KNOW THAT WAS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IN JUNE? THIS WAS MR. ASSANGE -- AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THIS, UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SUBMIT TO THE RECORD. MR. ASSANGE REPORTED TO THE MEDIA ON JUNE 12th THAT THOSE E-MAILS WOULD BE LEAKED. I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE FAKE NEWS, I'M SAYING YOU HAVE OLD NEWS AND THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH TO THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. HIGGINS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. MR. COHEN, I'M QUOTING YOU CLOSE, YOU EARLIER SAID, I SPENT LAST WEEK LOOKING THROUGH BOXES TO FIND DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT YOUR ACCUSATIONS. WHERE ARE THOSE BOXES, SIR? ARE THEY IN YOUR GARAGE? >> THEY'RE IN STORAGE. >> AND ARE THESE NOT BOXES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER TO INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES DURING THE MANY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS YOU'VE BEEN SUBJECT TO? >> SIR, THESE ARE THE BOXES THAT WERE RETURNED TO ME -- AND IF THEY INCLUDE DATA PERTINENT TO CRIMES THAT YOU COMMITTED, SHOULD THEY NOT HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER OR REMANDED TO INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES? DID MR. LANNY DAVIS KNOW OF THESE BOXES? >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND HIS QUESTION, SIR. >> VERY WELL. >> MR. MORSI. >> MR. COHEN, GOOD MORNING, THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS, FOR CONVENING THIS HEARING AND THANK YOU, MR. COHEN, FOR VOLUNTARILY TESTIFYING THIS MORNING. MR. COHEN, YOU WERE THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, CORRECT? >> I WAS THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SPECIAL COUNSEL TO DONALD J. TRUMP. >> AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MEANS YOU WERE THE ATTORNEY FOR HIM? >> IT MEANS I WAS THERE IN ORDER TO HANDLE MATTERS THAT HE FELT WERE SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT TO HIM INDIVIDUALLY? >> AND THOSE INCLUDED LEGAL MATTERS? >> YES, SIR. >> AS A FORMER ATTORNEY, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH LEGAL DOCUMENTS KNOWN AS NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS OR NDAs, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> SIR, I'M SURE YOU KNOW THAT NDAs PROPERLY WRITTEN IN SCOPE CAN BE APPROPRIATE IN LEGAL BUSINESS CONTEXT, BUT OTHER PLACES. ISN'T THAT RIGHT, MR. COHEN? >> YES. >> AND MR. COHEN, THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION USED NDAs EXTENSIVELY, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> MR. COHEN, I'M READING FROM A RECENT "WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE WHERE THE TERMS WERE DESCRIBED AS VERY PROD. FOR INSTANCE, THE TERMS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WAS DEFINED TO BE ANYTHING THAT, QUOTE, MR. TRUMP INSISTS REMAIN PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONAL LIFE, POLITICAL AFFAIRS, AND/OR BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF MR. TRUMP OR ANY FAMILY MEMBER, CLOSED QUOTE. DID THOSE TERMS SOUND FAMILIAR TO YOU? >> I'VE SEEN THAT DOCUMENT. >> IN FACT, THERE'S A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FILED THIS MONTH BY FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKER JESSICA DENNISON THAT THIS NDA LANGUAGE IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT IS TOO BROAD, TOO VAGUE, AND WOULD BE USED TO RETALIATE AGAINST EMPLOYEES WHO COMPLAIN OF ILLEGALITY OR WRONGDOING. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE IN THE USE OF THESE TYPES OF NDAs, WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AND LATER WHEN DONALD TRUMP SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THEM, THAT HE INTENDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM COMING FORWARD WITH CLAIMS OF WRONGDOING? >> YES. >> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE EFFECT OF THE USE OF THESE NDAs AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT TO HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON PEOPLE AND PREVENT THEM FROM COMING FORWARD? >> IF YOU WANT TO DEFINE "CHILLING," I'M NOT SURE -- >> JUST THAT HE WOULD, IN USING THESE NDAs OR TRY TO ENFORCE THEM, WOULD BASICALLY TRY TO KEEP PEOPLE SILENT? >> THAT WAS GOAL. >> AND NOTHING AT THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION WAS EVER DONE UNLESS IT WAS RUN THROUGH PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, CORRECT? AND THAT'S 100% CERTAIN. >> OKAY. MR. COHEN, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE TODAY, EITHER FROM THE PRESIDENT'S BUSINESS OR PERSONAL LIFE, WHO ARE NOT COMING FORWARD TO TELL THEIR STORIES OF WRONGDOING BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S USE OF NDAs AGAINST THEM? >> I'M SORRY, SIR, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. >> OKAY. SIR, I HAVE A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU. WHEN WAS THE LAST COMMUNICATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP OR SOMEONE ACTING ON HIS BEHALF? >> I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC DATE, BUT IT WAS A WHILE AGO. >> OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A GENERAL TIME FRAME? >> I WOULD SUSPECT IT WAS WITHIN TWO MONTHS POST THE RAID OF MY HOME. >> OKAY. >> AND HOTEL. >> SO EARLY FALL OF LAST YEAR? >> GENERALLY. >> GENERALLY. >> AND WHAT DID HE OR HIS AGENT COMMUNICATE TO YOU? >> UNFORTUNATELY, THIS TOPIC IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT'S BEING INVESTIGATED RIGHT NOW BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND I'VE BEEN ASKED BY THEM NOT TO DISCUSS IT AND NOT TO TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES. >> FAIR ENOUGH. IS THERE ANY OTHER WRONGDOING OR ILLEGAL ACT THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF REGARDING DONALD TRUMP THAT WE HAVEN'T YET DISCUSSED TODAY? >> YES. AND AGAIN, THOSE ARE PART OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING LOOKED AT BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. >> SIR, CONGRESSMAN COOPER ASKED YOU ABOUT WHETHER YOU WERE AWARE OF ANY PHYSICAL VIOLENCE COMMITTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSING ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES? >> I'M NOT A WARE OF THAT, NO. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP BEING DELINQUENT ON ANY ALIMONY OR CHILD CARE PAYMENTS? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THAT. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP ARRANGING ANY HEALTH CARE PROCEDURES FOR ANY WOMEN NOT NO HIS FAMILY? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT, NO. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. CLOUD? >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. >> MR. COHEN, CAN YOU TELL ME THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MAY 6th? >> IT'S AFTER MAY 5th. >> IN TERMS OF, SIR? >> A COUPLE OF MONTHS FROM NOW. >> THAT'S THE DAY THAT I NEED TO SURRENDER TO FEDERAL PRISON. >> YES, IT IS. >> COULD YOU, FOR THE RECORD, STATE WHAT YOU'VE BEEN CONVICTED OF? >> I'VE BEEN CONVICTED ON FIVE COUNTS OF TAX EVASION. THERE'S ONE COUNT OF MISREPRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTS TO A BANK. THERE'S TWO COUNTS, ONE DEALING WITH CAMPAIGN FINANCE MORE KAREN McDOUGAL. ONE COUNT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION FOR STORMY DANIELS, AS WELL AS LYING TO CONGRESS. >> THANK. CAN YOU STATE WHAT YOUR OFFICIAL TITLE WITH THE CAMPAIGN WAS? >> I DID NOT HAVE A CAMPAIGN TITLE. >> AND YOUR POSITION IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? >> I DID NOT HAVE ONE. >> IN TODAY'S TESTIMONY, YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE NOT LOOKING TO WORK IN THE WHITE HOUSE. THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, IN THEIR STATEMENT, THEIR SENTENCING MEMO, SAYS THIS. COHEN'S CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS IN THE FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS WERE ALSO STIRRED, LIKE OTHER CRIMES, BY HIS OWN AMBITION AND GREED. COHEN PRIVATELY TOLD FRIENDS, COLLEAGUES, AND INCLUDING SEIZED TEXT MESSAGES THAT HE EXPECTED TO BE GIVEN A PROMINENT ROLE IN THE NEW ADMINISTRATION. WHEN THAT DID NOT MATERIALIZE, COHEN FOUND A WAY TO MONETIZE HIS RELATIONSHIP AND ACCESS WITH THE PRESIDENT. SO, WERE THEY LYING OR WERE YOU LYING TODAY? >> I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A LIE. I'M JUST SAYING IT'S NOT ACCURATE. I DID NOT WANT TO GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE. I RETAINED -- I BROUGHT AN ATTORNEY IN AND I SAT WITH MR. TRUMP, WITH HIM, FOR WELL OVER AN HOUR, EXPLAINING THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A PERSONAL ATTORNEY, THAT EVERY PRESIDENT HAS HAD ONE, IN ORDER TO HANDLE MATTERS LIKE THE MATTERS I WAS DEALING, WHICH INCLUDED SOME -- >> I RECLAIM MY TIME. >> DEALING WITH STORMY DANIELS. >> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SUBMIT THE SENTENCING MEMO -- EXCUSE ME, THIS IS MY TIME. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SUBMIT THE SENTENCING MEMO FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR THE RECORD. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION, IT'S ORDERED. >> IT'S FINE. >> ALL RIGHT. I'LL GIVE THAT TO YOU IN A SECOND. OKAY, THIS MEMO STATES THAT YOU COMMITTED FOUR DISTINCT FEDERAL CRIMES OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL YEARS. YOU WERE MOTIVATED TO DO SO BY PERSONAL GREED AND REPEATEDLY USED YOUR POWER TO INFLUENCE FOR DECEPTIVE ENDS. IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT YOU WERE -- THAT EACH INVOLVED, THEY WERE DISTINCT IN THEIR HARMS BUT BEAR A COMMON SET OF CHARACTERISTICS THAT THEY INVOLVED DECEPTION AND WERE EACH MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL GREED AND AMBITION. THERE'S A LOT WE DON'T KNOW WITH REGARD TO THIS INVESTIGATION, BUT HERE'S WHAT WE DO KNOW. WE KNOW THAT YOU WERE EXPECTING A JOB AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND DIDN'T GET IT. YOU MADE MILLIONS LYING ABOUT YOUR CLOSE ACCESS TO THE PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF LYINGFOR PERSONAL GAIN, INCLUDING TO BANKS, YOUR ACCOUNTANT, LAW ENFORCEMENT, YOUR FAMILY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, YOU SAID YOU DID ALL OF THIS OUT OF BLIND LOYALTY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, BUT YOUR SENTENCING MEMO SAYS THIS, THIS WAS NOT AN ACT OF BLIND LOYALTY, AS COHEN SUGGESTS. COHEN WAS DRIVEN BY A FACT TO FURTHER INGRATIATE HIMSELF FOR A FUTURE POTENTIAL PRESIDENT WHOSE POLITICAL SUCCESS COHEN CLAIMED CREDIT FOR. WE'RE IN A SEARCH FOR TRUTH, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE TRYING TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH IN THIS QUAGMIRE OF A HEARING WHEN THE BEST WITNESS WE CAN BRING FORWARD HAS ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED OF LYING BEFORE US. AND WHAT'S SAID, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SEEN THIS PLAY OUT BEFORE. WE HAVE PEOPLE IN PROMINENT POSITIONS FAIL AND A COUPLE OF YEARS LATER THEY GET A BOOK DEAL. NOW, YOU'RE SET TO GO TO JAIL FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. YOU COME OUT WITH A MULTI-MILLION BOOK DEAL, THAT'S NOT BAD LIVING. AND SO MY QUESTION IS, IS WILL YOU, TODA -- WILL YOU TODAY COMMIT TO DONATE ANY FURTHER PROCEEDS TO BOOK DEALS, TO FILM REVIEWS TO CHARITY? >> NO. >> THANK YOU, I YIELD MY TIME. >> WILL THE GENTLEMEN YIELD. >> IF YOU -- MAY I FINISH. >> WOULD THE GENTLEMEN YIELD? >> I YIELD TO MR. MEADOWS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I FINISH -- >> MR. COHEN, HE'S YIELDED TO ME AND SO -- >> I DIDN'T FINISH MY RESPONSE. >> LISTEN -- >> I'M ASKING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I FINISH MY RESPONSE? >> I'LL LET YOU RESPOND, BUT ANSWER HIS QUESTION, PLEASE. >> MR. COHEN, EVERYTHING'S BEEN MADE OF YOUR LIES IN THE PAST, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR LIES TODAY. UNDER YOUR TESTIMONY JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, TO ME, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD CONTRACTS WITH FOREIGN ENTITIES AND YET WE HAVE A TRUTH IN TESTIMONY DISCLOSURE FORM WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO LIST THOSE FOREIGN CONTRACTS FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS AND YOU PUT N/A ON THERE. AND IT'S A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO NOT HAVE THAT ACCURATELY. SO WHEN WERE YOU LYING? EITHER IN THE TESTIMONY TO ME EARLIER TODAY OR WHEN YOU FILLED OUT THE FORM? >> THE GENTLEMEN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. MR. COHEN, YOU MAY ANSWER HIS QUESTION AND THEN WHATEVER YOU WANTED TO SAY ON THAT OTHER ONE. >> HIS QUESTION IS, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR HIS QUESTION. >> NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> EXCUSE ME -- >> AS IT RELATES -- >> THE GENTLEMEN IS OUT OF ORDER. I -- HE SAID HE DOES NOT HAVE AN ANSWER. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN WE WERE IN THE MAJORITY, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MR. CHAIRMAN -- HOLD ON -- >> REGULAR ORDER! THE GENTLEMEN HAS JUST SAID HE DOESN'T HAVE ANSWER. AND YOU HAVE GONE OVER HIS TIME. >> HE'S UNDER OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH! ONE OF THEM IS NOT ACCURATE, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YOU WILL HAVE TIME -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST A QUESTION. JUST A QUESTION. >> MR. RASHKIN? >> MR. COHEN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPOSURE TODAY. OUR COLLEAGUES ARE NOT UPSET BECAUSE YOU LIED TO CONGRESS FOR THE PRESIDENT. THEY'RE UPSET BECAUSE YOU STOPPED LYING TO CONGRESS FOR THE PRESIDENT. NOW, YOU'VE DESCRIBED THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AS A ONCE IN A LIFETIME MONEY-MAKING OPPORTUNITY, THE GREATEST INFOMERCIAL OF ALL TIME, I THINK YOU SAID. AND THIS MAY BE THE MOST TRENCHANT OBSERVATION OF YOUR WHOLE TESTIMONY. DO YOU THINK THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR PRESIDENCY EVER STOPPED BEING ABOUT MAKING MONEY FOR THE PRESIDENT, HIS FAMILY, AND HIS ORGANIZATION? >> YES. >> WHEN DID IT STOP BEING THAT? >> WHEN HE WON THE ELECTION. >> AND WHAT DID IT BECOME ABOUT AT THAT POINT? >> THEN IT HAD TO BE ABOUT FIGURING OUT WHAT TO DO HERE IN WASHINGTON. >> CAN YOU CAREFULLY EXPLAIN TO AMERICA HOW THE HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS TO KAREN McDOUGAL AND STORMY DANIELS WORKED? CAN YOU CAREFULLY EXPLAIN WHAT CATCH AND KILL IS? >> SURE. I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL REGARDING BOTH KAREN McDOUGAL AS WELL AS STORMY DANIELS. OBVIOUSLY, DIFFERENT TIMES, STATING THAT THERE WERE ISSUES THAT WERE GOING TO BE DAMAGING TO MR. TRUMP, WITH THE STORMY DANIELS, IT STARTED IN 2011, WHEN SHE WANTED TO HAVE SOMETHING REMOVED FROM A WEBSITE, AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I MET KEITH DAVIDSON -- I SPOKE WITH KEITH DAVIDSON, HER THEN ACTING ATTORNEY, AND WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN HAVING IT TAKEN DOWN FROM THE WEBSITE. WASN'T UNTIL YEARS LATER DID, RIGHT AROUND THE TIME OF THE CAMPAIGN, DID THEY COME BACK AND THEY ASK, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO NOW, BECAUSE SHE'S BACK ON THE TRAIL, TRYING TO SELL THE STORY, AT WHICH POINT IN TIME, DAVID PECKER ON BEHALF OF THE "NATIONAL ENQUIRER," REACHED OUT TO HER AND HER ATTORNEY IN ORDER TO GO TAKE A LOOK AT A LIE DETECTOR TEST THAT WOULD PROVE THAT SHE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH. THEY THEN CONTACTED ME AND TOLD ME THAT SHE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH, AT WHICH POINT, AGAIN -- >> SHE TOOK A LIE DETECTOR TEST? >> SHE ALLEGEDLY TOOK A LIE DETECTOR TEST AND WAS SEEN BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE "NATIONAL ENQUIRER," AT WHICH POINT IN TIME I WENT STRAIGHT INTO MR. TRUMP'S OFFICE AND I EXPLAINED WHY THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT THAN ANOTHER TIME. >> WHEN YOU SAY DIFFERENT THAN ANOTHER TIME, WERE THERE OTHER WOMEN PAID SEXUAL HUSH MONEY BY DONALD TRUMP OR HIS ORGANIZATION? WAS THIS STANDARD OPERATING PRACTICE? >> NO. >> SO YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER CASES WHERE IT HAD TAKEN PLACE? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER CASE WHERE MR. TRUMP PAID, WHICH BRINGS US TO THE KAREN McDOUGAL. HE WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY. HE WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY $125,000 FOR THE LIFE STORY OF KAREN McDUE DPAL. FOR WHATEVER THE REASON MAY BE, HE ELECTED NOT TO PAY IT. DAVID PECKER WAS VERY ANGRY, BECAUSE THERE WAS ALSO OTHER MONEYS THAT DAVID HAD EXPENDED ON HIS BEHALF. UNFORTUNATELY, DAVID NEVER GOT PAID BACK FOR THAT EITHER. >> SO DAVID PECKER HAD DONE THIS IN OTHER CASES OF OTHER MISTRESSES OR WOMEN? >> OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, YES. >> OKAY. >> NOT ALL OF THEM HAD TO DO WITH WOMEN. >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE AT HOME OR ABROAD THAT MAY HAVE SUBJECTED HIM TO OR MAY SUBJECT HIM TO EXTORTION OR BLACKMAIL? >> I AM NOT, NO. >> OKAY. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY VIDEOTAPES THAT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF EXTORTION OR BLACKMAIL? >> I'VE HEARD ABOUT THESE TAPES FOR A LONG TIME, I'VE HAD MANY PEOPLE CONTACT ME OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THAT TAPE EXISTS. >> IN DECEMBER 2015, DONALD TRUMP WAS ASKED ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH FELIX SATER, A CONVICTED FELON AND REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER AND HE REPLIED, FELIX SATER, BOY, I WOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT, I'M NOT EVEN THAT FAMILIAR WITH HIM. WHY DID TRUMP ENDEAVOR TO HIDE HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH FELIX SATER AND WHAT WAS HIS RELATIONSHIP? >> WELL, HE CERTAINLY HAD A RELATIONSHIP. FELIX WAS A PARTNER IN A COMPANY CALLED BAY ROCK THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE DEAL OF THE TRUMP SOHO HOTEL, AS WELL AS, I BELIEVE, THE TRUMP FT. LAUDERDALE PROJECT. WHY DID HE WANT TO DISTANCE HIMSELF? THAT'S WHAT MR. TRUMP DOES. HE DISTANCES HIMSELF WHEN THINGS GO BAD FOR SOMEONE. AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT WAS GOING BAD FOR MR. SATER. >> YOU SAID YOU LIED TO CONGRESS ABOUT TRUMP'S NEGOTIATIONS TO BUILD HIS MOSCOW TOWER, BECAUSE HE'D MADE IT CLEAR TO YOU THAT HE WANTED YOU TO LIE. ONE OF THE REASONS YOU KNEW THIS WAS BECAUSE, QUOTE, MR. TRUMP'S PERSONAL LAWYERS REVIEWED AND EDITED MY STATEMENT TO CONGRESS ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE MOSCOW TOWER NEGOTIATIONS BEFORE I GAVE IT. SO THIS IS A PRETTY BREATHTAKING CLAIM. AND I JUST WANT TO GET TO THE FACTS HERE. WHICH SPECIFIC LAWYERS REVIEWED AND EDITED YOUR STATEMENT TO CONGRESS ON THE MOSCOW TOWER NEGOTIATIONS AND DID THEY MAKE ANY CHANGES TO YOUR STATEMENT? >> THERE WERE CHANGES MADE, ADDITIONS. JAY SEKULOW, FOR ONE -- >> WERE THERE CHANGES ABOUT THE TIMING, THE QUESTION -- >> GENTLEMEN'S TIME HAS EXPIEXP. YOU MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> THERE WERE SEVERAL CHANGES THAT WERE MADE, INCLUDING HOW WE WERE GOING TO HANDLE THAT MESSAGE. WHICH WAS -- >> WILL YOU FINISH? >> YES, THE MESSAGE, OF COURSE, BEING THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT STAYED AND REMAINED ALIVE. >> THAT WAS ONE OF THE CHANGES? >> YES. >> FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR UP SOMETHING. JUST A LITTLE SOMETHING THAT BOTHERS ME. YOU STARTED OFF YOUR TESTIMONY AND YOU SAID, I THINK, IN RESPONSE TO SOME QUESTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER EXPECTED TO WIN. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I DEALT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP SEVERAL TIMES AS HE WAS TRYING TO GET WISCONSIN. HE WAS ALWAYS CONFIDENT. HE WAS WORKING VERY HARD. AND THIS IDEA THAT SOMEHOW HE WAS JUST RUNNING TO RAISE HIS PROFILE FOR SOME FUTURE VENTURE, AT LEAST IN HIS EXPERIENCE, IS PREPOSTEROUS. AND I ALWAYS FIND IT OFFENSIVE WHEN ANTI-TRUMP PEOPLE SUGGEST HE JUST DID THIS ON A LARK AND DIDN'T EXPECT TO WIN. BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, MY FIRST QUESTION CONCERNS YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COURT. DO YOU EXPECT -- I MEAN, RIGHT NOW I THINK YOU'RE SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> DO YOU EXPECT ANYTIME USING THIS TESTIMONY OR OTHER TESTIMONY AFTER YOU GET DONE DOING WHATEVER YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS WEEK, DO YOU EVER EXPECT TO GO BACK AND ASK FOR ANY SORT OF REDUCTION IN SENTENCE? >> YES. THERE ARE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS CURRENTLY BEING CONDUCTED THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS COMMITTEE OR CONGRESS THAT I AM ASSISTING IN AND IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A RULE 35 MOTION, YES. >> SO YOU EXPECT AND PERHAPS WHAT YOU TESTIFY HERE TODAY WILL AFFECT GOING BACK AND REDUCING THIS, WHAT WE THINK IS A RELATIVELY LIGHT THREE-YEAR SENTENCE. YOU EXPECT TO GO BACK AND ASK FOR A FURTHER REDUCTION? >> BASED OFF OF MY APPEARANCE HERE TODAY? >> WELL, BASED UPON WHATEVER YOU DO, BETWEEN NOW AND YOUR REQUEST FOR THE -- >> THE RULE 35 MOTION IS IN THE COMPLETE HANDS OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. AND THE WAY THE RULE 35 MOTION WORKS IS WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IS PROVIDE THEM WITH INFORMATION THAT LEADS TO ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS. I AM CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THEM RIGHT NOW ON SEVERAL OTHER ISSUES OF INVESTIGATION THAT CONCERNS THEM, THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. IF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS BECOME FRUITFUL, THEN THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR A RULE 35 MOTION. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BENEFIT IN TERMS OF TIME WOULD BE BUT THIS CONGRESSIONAL HEARING TODAY IS NOT GOING TO BE THE BASIS OF A RULE 35 MOTION. I WISH IT WAS. BUT IT'S NOT. >> I'D LIKE TO YIELD SOME TIME TO CONGRESSMAN JORDAN. >> I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA. >> MR. COHEN, I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THE QUESTION I ASKED BEFORE WITH REGARDS TO YOUR FALSE STATEMENT THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS. ON HERE IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT IT ASKED FOR CONTRACTS WITH FOREIGN ENTITIES OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS. HAVE YOU HAD ANY FOREIGN CONTRACT WITH FOREIGN ENTITIES WHETHER IT'S NOVARTIS OR THE KOREAN AIRLINE OR KAZZING STAN BTA BANK? YOU SAID YOU HAD CONTRACTS WITH THEM. IN FACT, YOU WENT INTO DETAIL. >> I BELIEVE IT TALKS ABOUT LOBBYING. I DID NO LOBBYING -- >> IN YOUR TESTIMONY -- I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT LOBBYING, MR. COHEN. >> THEY'RE NOT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. THEY'RE PRIVATELY TRADED COMPANIES. >> DO YOU HAVE FOREIGN CONTRACTS. >> I CURRENTLY -- >> DID YOU OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS? >> FOREIGN CONTRACTS? >> CONTRACTS WITH FOREIGN ENTITIES? DID YOU HAVE -- >> YES. >> YES? >> YES. >> WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT THEM ON THE FORM? IT SAYS IT'S A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO NOT PUT THEM ON THE FORM FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. WHY DID YOU NOT DO THAT? >> BECAUSE THOSE FOREIGN COMPANIES YOU ARE REFERRING TO ARE NOT GOVERNMENT COMPANIES. >> IT SAYS NONGOVERNMENTAL. >> ME BEING NONGOVERNMENTAL. >> RIGHT. IT SAYS FOREIGN AGENCY. FOREIGN CONTRACTS. DO YOU WANT US TO READ IT TO YOU? >> I READ IT AN REVIEWED BY MY COUNSEL AND I AM A NONGOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. IT WAS NOT LOBBYING AND THEY'RE NOT FOREIGN CONTRACTS. >> THIS IS SOMETHING TO DO WITH LOBBYING. IT IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO NOT LIST ALL YOUR FOREIGN CONTRACTS. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. >> WELL THEN I'M GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT BEFORE I LEAVE AND HOPEFULLY I WILL AMEND IT PRIOR TO LEAVING. THAT'S NOT THE WAY I READ YOUR DOCUMENT. >> IT IS ONE MORE EXAMPLE, MR. COHEN, OF YOUR SKIRTING THE TRUTH. OKAY. I WANT TO ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION. ONE OTHER QUESTION, MR. COHEN. IT IS MY TIME NOT YOURS. WERE YOU ADVISED OR WAS YOUR COUNSEL ADVISED TO WITHHOLD YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE LATEST POSSIBLE DATE AS JOHN DEAN SAID LAST NIGHT ON CNN? >> WAS IT MY WHAT? >> WERE YOU ADVISED OR WAS YOUR COUNSEL ADVISED TO WITHHOLD YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THIS COMMITTEE TO GET IT TO THIS COMMITTEE AT THE LATEST POSSIBLE DATE AS JOHN DEAN SAID THAT HE ADVISED YOU? >> WE WERE -- >> YES OR NO? >> NO. WE WERE -- >> HE NEVER ADVISED YOU? >> JOHN DEAN? I'VE NEVER SPOKEN TO JOHN DEAN. >> HAS HE SPOKEN TO YOUR ATTORNEY -- >> YOU WERE WORKING LAST NIGHT UNTIL 11:00, 12:00 -- >> YOU HAVE KNOWN THAT YOU HAVE BEEN COMING FOR SOME TIME. >> YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. ANSWER THE QUESTION IF -- >> WE WERE WORKING UNTIL 11:00, 12:00 LAST NIGHT TO FINISH EVERYTHING. >> YOU WERE WRITING IT LAST NIGHT? DON'T GIVE ME THAT BULL. >> WE WERE MAKING EDITS ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE NIGHT. I'M SORRY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. COHEN, IN NOVEMBER 2013, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP TESTIFIED UNDER OATH IN A LAWSUIT RELATED TO THE FAILED REAL ESTATE PROJECT TRUMP INTERNATIONAL HOTEL AND TOWER IN FT. LAUDERDALE. DURING THE DEPOSITION PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED ABOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF FELIX SADDER, A RUSSIAN-BORN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER AND CONVICTED MEMBER OF THE RUSSIAN MAFIA WHO ACCORDING TO PRESS REPORTS PLED GUILTY FOR THE ROLE IN THE $40 MILLION STOCK MANIPULATION SCHEME. IT IS WORTH NOTING AND PUBLICIZED THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE RUSSIAN MAFIA AND THE KREMLIN. OVER THE YEARS PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED HOW MANY TIMES HE INTERACTED WITH CONVICTED RUSSIAN MOBSTER FELIX SADDER. IN 2013, PRESIDENT TRUMP TESTIFIED THAT, QUOTE, NOT MANY. IF HE WERE SITTING IN THE ROOM RIGHT NOW I REALLY WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT HE LOOKED LIKE. UNQUOTE. MR. COHEN, AS YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW CONVICTED RUSSIAN MOBSTER SADDER IN 3013 WHEN HE MADE THAT STATEMENT? >> YES. >> ISN'T IT TRUE THAT BECAUSE OF MR. SADDER'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION THAT HE HAD AN OFFICE IN THE TRUMP TOWER? >> AND ON THE 26th FLOOR, MR. TRUMP -- >> THAT'S IMPORTANT WHY? >> IT IS MR. TRUMP'S FLOOR. >> SO HE HAD AN OFFICE ON THE SAME FLOOR AS PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> IN FACT, HIS OFFICE WHEN HE LEFT BECAME MY OFFICE. >> ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT CONVICTED RUSSIAN MOBSTER SADDER EVEN HAD BUSINESS CARDS INDICATING HE WAS A SENIOR ADVISER TO DONALD TRUMP AS REPORTED BY "THE WASHINGTON POST"? >> YES. >> DID CONVICTED RUSSIAN MOBSTER SADER PAY RENT FOR HIS OFFICE? >> NO, HE DID NOT. >> SO BASED ON THOSE FACTS, ISN'T IT TRUE PRESIDENT TRUMP MISLED AT BEST OR AT WORSE LIED UNDER OATH? >> YES IN DECEMBER 2015, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED AGAIN ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP TO CONVICTED RUSSIAN MOBSTER MR.SADER BY A ROESHT FOR THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. QUOTE, FELIX SADER, BOY, I HAVE TO EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. UNQUOTE. HE ADDED, QUOTE, I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH HIM. UNQUOTE. MR. COHEN, WHERE WOULD WE FIND BUSINESS RECORDS THAT EXPLAIN THE PRESIDENT'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE CONVICTED RUSSIAN MOBSTER FELIX SADER IN THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION'S FILES? >> THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION'S FILES. THERE WOULD BE CCs TO BAYROCK, THE NAME OF MR.SADER'S COMPANY, I SUSPECT HIS E-MAIL ADDRESS, HARD FILES IN POSSESSION OF MR. SADER. >> AND IN THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, WHERE? >> NOW IT WOULD PROBABLY BE IN A BOX OFF SITE. THEY HAVE STORAGE FACILITY THAT THEY PUT OLD FILES. >> OKAY. IN ADDITION TO CONVICTED RUSSIAN MOBSTER SATER, DO YOU KNOW ANY OF ANY TIES TO CONVICTED MOBSTERS PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY HAVE? >> I'M NOT AWARE. >> IS IT TRUE THAT MANY PEOPLE WITH TIES TO RUSSIA ULTIMATELY BOUGHT CONDOS IN TRUMP PROPERTIES, USUALLY FOR CASH AND IF SO HOW MANY ARE WE TALKING, TEN, 20, 50? >> I'M NOT -- HONESTLY, SIR, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY. THE STATEMENT THAT WAS -- YOU'RE REFERRING TO I BELIEVE WAS MADE BY ERIC OR DON AND I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CASH PURCHASES BY RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF TRUMP PROPERTIES? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. I CAN TELL YOU -- WHEN YOU SAY CASH, IF YOU MEAN WALKING IN WITH A SATCHEL OF RUBLES, THE ANSWER IS I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT HAPPEN, NEVER HEARD OF IT. I WILL TELL YOU WHEN WE SOLD THE PROPERTY IN PALM BEACH, THE HOME FOR THERE IS 95 MILLION IT CAME IN BY WIRE AND THAT CAME FROM MR. ROBOLIEV'S BANK ACCOUNT. >> ONE OTHER QUESTION. YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP DOING NEGOTIATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN REGARDING THE TRUMP TOWER IN MOSCOW. WAS HE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THOSE NEGOTIATIONS AND IF SO HOW DO YOU KNOW? >> WELL, THE ANSWER IS, YES. AS IT RELATES TO NEGOTIATIONS, IT WAS MERELY FOLLOW-UPS AS TO WHAT'S CURRENTLY HAPPENING, WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH RUSSIA, MEANING HE WANTED ME TO GIVE HIM A STATUS REPORT. THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT THE PROJECT NEVER ADVANCED BECAUSE THEY WERE UNABLE -- MR. SATER WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE ME WITH PROOF THAT SOMEBODY OWNED OR CONTROLLED THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY BUILD ON. >> GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. COHEN, WHY DID MR. TRUMP CHOOSE TO HIRE YOU, AND WHY DID HE TRUST YOU WITH THE VARIOUS TASKS YOU PERFORMED FOR HIM? >> I DON'T KNOW, SIR. YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK HIM THAT QUESTION. >> WELL, WE'VE HEARD HERE YOU HAVE BAD CHARACTER, YOU HAVE ADMITTED TO THAT OVER THE YEARS. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHY HE CHOSE TO HIRE YOU? >> IN 2006, I WAS ASKED BY DON JR. TO COME MEET WITH HIS FATHER. I DID. HE THEN FOLLOWED UP BY ASKING IF I WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT AN ISSUE THAT WAS OCCURRING AT TRUMP WORLD TOWER WITH THE BOARD. I WENT AHEAD AND I LOOKED INTO IT AND I FOUND THAT THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE -- THE BOARD WAS TAKING WAS INACCURATE AND DON CAME TO ME BECAUSE I HAD AN APARTMENT THERE FOR INVESTMENT. MY PARENTS HAD AN APARTMENT THERE. MY IN-LAWS LIVE THERE. FRIENDS OF MINE. WE ALL BOUGHT AS A BIG BLOCK FROM A BROKERAGE COMPANY. WE GOT A GOOD PRICE ON EACH UNIT. AND WE ULTIMATELY TURNED OVER THE ARD AND I BECAME ACTUALLY THE TREASURER OF THE BOARD BECAUSE THE OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING WAS GOING TO PUT THE BUILDING INTO BANKRUPTCY. I WAS PROUD TO SAY THAT WITHIN A YEAR WE HAD PLUS MILLION DOLLARS VERSUS MINUS 1.3. THE END OF THE DAY MR. TRUMP APPRECIATED THAT AND HE TASKED ME WITH SOMETHING ELSE. IT WAS TO HANDLE A PROBLEM THAT DON JR. HAD CREATED IN TERMS OF A BUSINESS -- A LICENSE DEAL. AND WE RESOLVED THAT AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, THIRD TIME MR. TRUMP HAD ASKED ME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE THIRD TRUMP ENTERTAINMENT RESORT CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION BECAUSE HE HAD A SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT HE WANTED ANSWERED AND I READ THESE TWO STACK BOOKS, GAVE HIM THE ANSWERS THAT HE NEEDED. AND WITH THAT, HE -- THE NEXT TIME I WAS SITTING IN HIS OFFICE AND HE ASKED ME IF I WAS HAPPY AT THE SLEEPY OLD FIRM I WAS WITH. I SAID, YES. HE SAID, WOULD YOU RATHER WORK FOR ME? I -- ARE YOU OFFERING ME A JOB? HE SAID, YEAH. WE APPRECIATED AND I ACTUALLY NEVER WENT BACK TO MY OFFICE. >> ALL RIGHT. YOU SUGGESTED THAT THE PRESIDENT SOMETIMES COMMUNICATES HIS WISHES INDIRECTLY. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SAID, QUOTE, MR. TRUMP DID NOT DIRECTLY TELL ME TO LIE TO CONGRESS. THAT'S NOT HOW HE OPERATES. END QUOTE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW HE DOES THIS? >> SURE. IT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT IF I SAID THAT'S THE NICEST LOOKING TIE I HAVE EVER SEEN. ISN'T IT? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? FIGHT WITH HIM? THE ANSWER IS, NO. YEAH. IT'S THE NICEST LOOKING TIE, I'VE EVER SEEN. THAT'S HOW HE SPEAKS. HE DOESN'T GIVE YOU QUESTIONS OR ORDERS. HE SPEAKS IN A CODE. AND I UNDERSTAND THE CODE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN AROUND HIM FOR A DECADE. >> AND IT'S YOUR IMPRESSION THAT OTHERS WHO WORK FOR HIM UNDERSTAND THE CODE, AS WELL? >> MOST PEOPLE, YES. >> MR. COHEN, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE SHOULD BELIEVE YOU TODAY BUT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THIS ONE LAST QUESTION. WHAT IS THE TRUTH THAT YOU KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP FEARS MOST? >> THAT'S A TOUGH QUESTION, SIR. I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT ONE. WHAT DOES HE FEAR MOST? >> WHAT'S THE TRUTH THAT HE FEARS MOST? FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE. AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE SHOULD BELIEVE YOU HERE TODAY. >> IT IS A TOUGH QUESTION, SIR. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WHAT PRINCIPLES HAVE YOU CHOSEN TO FOLLOW IN YOUR LIFE, AND DO YOU WISH TO FOLLOW DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES NOW? >> I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO BE A GOOD PERSON. I'VE TRIED TO BE A GREAT FRIEND. MANY, I THINK OVER 40 STATEMENTS WRITTEN IN MY SUPPORT TO THE SENTENCING JUDGE. I HAVE FRIENDS WHO I TREAT INCREDIBLY WELL, THAT I KNOW FOR OVER 40 YEARS AND I TREAT PEOPLE AFTER 40 MINUTES THE SAME EXACT WAY. DID I -- AM I PERFECT? NO. DO I MAKE MISTAKES? YES. HAVE I MADE MISTAKES? ABSOLUTELY. I'M GOING TO PAY THE CONSEQUENCES FOR IT BUT ALL I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS BE ABLE TO GET MY LIFE BACK TO PROTECT MY WIFE AND MY CHILDREN, SUPPORT AND GROW OLD. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHERE I'D LIKE TO BE. >> YOU FEEL YOU'RE FOLLOWING A DIFFERENT SET OF PRINCIPLES NOW THAN YOU FOLLOWED THROUGHOUT YOUR LIFE? >> I DO. AN I'M TRYING. I'M TRYING VERY HARD. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTIONS. SOME OF THE OTHER ONES ARE REALLY MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO TRY, YOU KNOW, SHOW SOME REDEMPTION. I AM -- I AM TRYING. I AM TRYING. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> MS. HILL? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO MENTION REALLY QUICK A CLARIFICATION ON THE TRUTH IN TESTIMONY FORM. THE MENTION WAS AROUND WHETHER IT TALKS ABOUT FOREIGN ENTITIES AT ALL. AND THE QUESTION IS, IN FACT, WHETHER WITNESSES HAVE ANY CONTRACTS OR PAYMENTS ORIGINATING WITH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. IT DOES NOT COVER ALL FOREIGN ENTITIES, JUST FOREIGN GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. SO MR. COHEN, WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU TO DO IS REVIEW THIS ISSUE OVER LUNCH WITH YOUR ATTORNEYS AND IF YOU NEED TO AMEND YOUR FORM, WE ASK YOU TO DO THAT BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF TODAY'S HEARING. ALSO, I REPRESENT A PURPLE DISTRICT. I DID NOT COME HERE FOR PARTISAN BICKERING. IN FACT, I ACTIVELY WANTED TO AVOID IT SO WHEN I ASK THESE QUESTIONS TODAY IT IS NOT AS SOMEONE WHO HAS A VENDETTA FROM THE PRESIDENT BUT FROM GENERATIONS OF SERVICE MEMBERS THAT SWORE AN OATH TO OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND WHO ALONG WITH MYSELF AND EVERY OTHER SINGLE PERSON UP HERE SWORE TO DEFEND AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. MY FORE FATHERS SERVED THEIR COUNTRY, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AND THE IDEA THAT AMERICA IS FREE AND JUST AND THAT THE LAW OF THE LAND RULES US ALL, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF OUR GOVERNMENT. SO I ASK THESE QUESTIONS TO HELP DETERMINE WHETHER OUR VERY OWN PRESIDENT COMMITTED FELONY CRIMES WHILE SERVING IN THE OVAL OFFICE, INCLUDING EFFORTS TO CONCEAL PAYMENTS THAT WERE INTENDED TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC AND INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION. I HOPE TO GOD THAT IS NOT THE CASE. SO MR. COHEN, JANUARY 22nd, 2018, JUST DAYS AFTER "WALL STREET JOURNAL" BROKE THE STORY THAT MR. COHEN PAID $130,000 TO STEPHANIE CLIFFORD TO SILENCE HERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMON CAUSE FILED A COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE PAYMENT TO MS. CLIFFORD OF AN ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAMPAIGN. I ASK THAT THE COMPLAINT ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. YOU SENT A STATEMENT TO THE REPORTERS SAYING, QUOTE, I USED MY OWN PERSONAL FUNDS FOR A PAYMENT OF $130,000 TO MS. STEPHANIE CLIFFORD AND NEITHER THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION OR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS PARTY OF THE TRANSACTION AND NEITHER REIMBURSED ME FOR THE PAYMENT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. WAS THE STATEMENT FALSE? >> THE STATEMENT IS NOT FALSE. I PURPOSEFULLY LEFT OUT MR. TRUMP INDIVIDUALLY FROM THAT STATEMENT. >> OKAY. WHY DID YOU SAY IT THAT WAY? >> BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS DISCUSSED TO DO. BETWEEN MYSELF, MR. TRUMP AND ALAN WEISSELBERG. >> IT WAS CAREFULLY WORDED? >> YES, MA'AM. >> A REPORTER FOR "VAN IF I FAIR" REPORTED SHE INTERVIEWED YOU THE NEXT DAY ABOUT THE PAYMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AND WROTE I INTERVIEWED HIM ABOUT THE STATEMENT SAYING TRUMP DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE STORMY PAYMENT OR REIMBURSE HIM FOR IT. DO YOU RECALL THIS MEETING WITH THE REPORTER? >> I DO. >> THE REPORTER ALSO WROTE TRUMP CALLED WHILE I WAS THERE. HE WANTED TO GO OVER THE PUBLIC MESSAGING WOULD BE. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> IT IS. >> DID THE PRESIDENT CALL YOU WHILE YOU WERE HAVING A MEETING WITH THE REPORTER? >> YES. >> DID THE PRESIDENT CALL YOU TO COORDINATE ON THE PUBLIC MESSAGING OF THE PAYMENTS? >> YES. >> WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT ASK OR SUGGEST THAT YOU SAY ABOUT THE PAYMENTS OR REIMBURSEMENTS? >> HE WAS NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THESE REIMBURSEMENTS AND WASN'T KNOWLEDGEABLE OF MY ACTIONS. >> HE ASKED YOU TO SAY THAT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> GREAT. AND IN ADDITION TO THE PERSONAL CHECK FOR $35,000 IN JULY 2017, IS THERE ADDITIONAL CORROBORATING EVIDENCE THAT MR. TRUMP WHILE A SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIRECTLY REIMBURSED YOU HUSH MONEY AS PART OF A CRIMINAL SCHEME TO VIOLATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS? >> THERE ARE 11 CHECKS I RECEIVED FOR THE YEAR. THE REASON WHY 11 BECAUSE AS I STATED BEFORE, 1 HAD 2 CHECKS. >> YOU HAVE COPIES OF ALL OF THOSE? >> I CAN GET COPIES. I WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BANK. >> WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET COPIES OF ALL 11 CHECKS THAT MR. TRUMP PROVIDED TO YOU AS PART OF THIS CRIMINAL SCHEME? >> IT IS EITHER FROM HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT AS WHAT WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE EXHIBIT OR COME FROM THE DONALD J. TRUMP ACCOUNT, THE TRUST ACCOUNT. >> THANK YOU, MR. COHEN. I YIELD BACK THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME. >> MR. GIBBS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU KNOW, I'VE JUST BEEN SITTING HERE. I'M NEW TO THE ECONOMY TEET. NOT AN ATTORNEY. SOMETIMES THE ANSWERS -- YOU ARE A LIAR. MAYBE COULD BE A BETTER ATTORNEY. I DON'T KNOW. I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THIS. YOU COME IN HERE AND YOU RAIL ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, COMMANDER IN CHIEF, OVER ACROSS THE PACIFIC OCEAN TRYING TO NEGOTIATE A DEAL TO MAKE THIS WORLD SAFER AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S JUST HAVING THIS COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME WHEN THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF'S OUT OF THE COUNTRY IS JUST -- I THINK IS A NEW PRESIDENT. YOU CALL HIM A RACIST, A CHEAT, YOU KNOW, ATTACKING HIS CHARACTER AND I HAVE BEEN WITH THE PRESIDENT A LITTLE BIT. I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE PRESIDENT. I SEE PRESIDENT WHO'S VERY SINCERE, TRYING TO MAKE THIS COUNTRY BETTER FOR EVERY AMERICAN AND FOR YOU TO COME IN HERE TO DO THAT, REPENTANT ON YOUR PART IS UNBELIEVABLE. REAL REPENTANCE WOULD BE TO SERVE YOUR TIME AND DON'T COME BACK HERE AND MAKE ALLEGATIONS TOWARDS A MAN THAT YOU CAN'T SUBSTANTIATE. I'M LOOKING HERE FROM THE REMARKS OF THE PROSECUTOR OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. FALSE STATEMENTS TO BANK 3 WHICH COHEN PLEADED GUILTY. WAS FAR FROM ISOLATED EVENT. SELF SERVING LYCO HEN TOLD NUMEROUS FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. I THINK YOU SAID A HOME EQUITY LOAN BUT APPARENTLY THE PROSECUTORS IN NEW YORK THINK THERE'S OTHER FINANCIAL THINGS YOU D. YOU ALSO THEY SAID IMAGINED TO COMMIT A SERIES OF CRIMES WHILE HOLDING HIM OUT AS AN ATTORNEY AND AN UPSTANDING MEMBER OF THE BAR AND THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT PROSECUTOR SAID THAT -- WROTE THAT YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS OF WRONGDOING IS FLEETING, THE REMORSE IS MINIMAL AND YOUR INSTINCT IS TO BLAME OTHERS IS STRZOK. -- STRONG. I'M LEFT HERE. YOU WORKED FOR THE PRESIDENT FOR TEN YEARS BEFORE BEING PRESIDENT. IF YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF INTEGRITY THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO TELL US YOU HAD, WHY DIDN'T YOU LEAVE? YOU WEREN'T STUCK THERE. YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY. YOU HAD WAYS TO LEAVE. SO THAT KIND OF -- PRESIDENT'S WORKING TIRELESSLY AND YOU COULD HAVE LEFT ANY TIME YOU WANT. LOOKS LIKE TO ME YOU'RE TRYING TO SAVE FACE AND THE OTHER QUESTIONS IS LOOKS LIKE TO ME YOU WILL HAVE A LUCRATIVE DEAL SOME POINT IN YOUR LIFE BECAUSE YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE YOU'RE CLOSE TO RETIREMENT. YOU WILL HAVE A LUCRATIVE DEAL AND A QUESTION IS, IT'S COME UP A LITTLE BIT, TALKS WITH YOU AND YOUR ATTORNEY AND THERE'S BEEN TALKS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND STAFF AND YOU SAID THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSIONS. WAS ANY OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU OR YOUR ATTORNEYS HAD WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OR STAFF OR PROSECUTORS TO CONSIDERATIONS TO FAVOR OR OTHER CONSIDERATIONS OF YOUR FAMILY IN THE FUTURE? >> NO. THE CONVERSATIONS WERE ABOUT THE TOPICS. AND BECAUSE THERE WERE THINGS THAT ORIGINALLY WE COULD NOT SPEAK ABOUT AT THE REQUEST OF WHETHER IT WAS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE OR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OR THE OTHER AGENCIES INCLUDING THE HOUSE SELECT INTEL OR THE SENATE SELECT INTEL. SIR, JUST FOR YOUR PERSONAL EDIFICATION HERE, I WAS ASKED TO COME HERE. YOUR CHAIRMAN SENT A LETTER TO MR. DAVIS AND I ACCEPTED SO I'M HERE VOLUNTARILY. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT -- >> IF YOU BELIEVE I'M HERE -- >> I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S A POLITICAL THEATER. >> IT'S NOT POLITICAL THEATER FOR ME. I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN SAYING ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT MR. TRUMP. YOU'VE MET HIM FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. I'VE BEEN WITH HIM FOR OVER A DECADE. I'VE TRAVELED WITH HIM INTERNATIONALLY. I'VE SPENT DINNERS WITH HIM. IT DOESN'T MAKE ME FEEL GOOD ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. AND AS FAR AS SAVING FACE, I'M NOT SURE HOW BEING IN FRONT OF THE WORLD, BEING CALLED A CHEAT -- >> WITH THE LUCRATIVE, I THINK YOU'LL BE GOOD IN FIVE YEARS. I YIELD MY TIME. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMEN. YOU SAID YOU STARTED THE CAMPAIGN? >> THAT'S CORRECT. IN 2011. >> YOU STARTED THE CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR DONALD TRUMP? >> I CERTAINLY DID, SIR. >> NOW, THAT'S NEWS. >> SHOULD TRUMP RUN.COM. >> WOW. >> 2011. IT WAS MY IDEA. I SAW A DOCUMENT IN THE NEWSPAPER THAT SAID WHO WOULD YOU VOTE FOR IN 2012? 6% OF THE PEOPLE SAID -- >> MICHAEL COHEN -- >> MICHAEL COHEN. 6% OF THE PEOPLE SAID THEY'D VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP. SO I BROUGHT IT INTO HIS OFFICE AND I SAID, TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. HE SAID, WOULDN'T THAT BE GREAT? THAT'S WHERE IT ALL STARTED. >> OKAY. ALIKE I'M SURE -- I'M SURE YOU NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT -- >> I DIDN'T SAY THAT. >> I HAVE EIGHT SECONDS. I HAVE EIGHT SECONDS. WHAT DID YOU TALK TO MR. SCHIFF ABOUT? >> I SPOKE TO MR. SCHIFF ABOUT TOPICS THAT WERE GOING TO BE RAISED AT THE UPCOMING HEARING. >> WHOA. NOT JUST WHAT TIME TO SHOW UP. ACTUALLY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT? >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED. >> WOW. >> MR. SARBANES? >> YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. COHEN. I KNOW THE OTHER SIDE IS SUGGESTING THAT YOU ARE AN INCORRIGIBLE LIAR AND THAT YOU ARE LYING HERE TODAY. I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO GAIN AT THIS POINT FROM LYING. I MEAN, THEY TALK ABOUT BOOK DEALS AND OTHER THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO DO BUT I SEE A LOT MORE THAT YOU COULD LOSE BY TELLING THE TRUTH TODAY GIVEN THE THREATS AND OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST YOU. AND YOUR FAMILY. SO THAT'S HOW I'M INTERPRETING IT. OF COURSE, YOU BROUGHT DOCUMENTS WITH YOU, AS WELL, TO BOLSTER THE CREDIBILITY OF YOUR TESTIMONY. I DID WANT TO GO BACK TO AN EARLIER LINE OF QUESTIONING REGARDING THE PREPARATION OF YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE YOU CAME BEFORE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE THE TESTIMONY WAS BEING REVIEWED. I THINK YOU SAID THAT IT WAS AT LEAST ONE WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEY JAY SEKULOW WHO WAS THERE AND YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WERE SOME EDITS THAT WERE MADE TO YOUR TESTIMONY. SO, ON THAT TOPIC, WHO AT THE WHITE HOUSE REVIEWED YOUR TESTIMONY? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. THE DOCUMENT WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED BY MYSELF, ALONG WITH MY ATTORNEY AT THE TIME AND THERE WAS A JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT SO THE DOCUMENT CIRCULATED AROUND. I BELIEVE IT WAS ALSO REVIEWED BY ABBY LOWELL WHO REPRESENTS IVANKA AND JARED KUSHNER. >> WHY DID YOU PROVIDE THE TESTIMONY TO THE WHITE HOUSE? >> IT WAS PURSUANT TO THE JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT THAT WE WERE ALL OPERATING UNDER. >> WHAT WERE THE EDITS THAT CAME BACK SUBSTANTIVELY ON THE TESTIMONY? >> I'M SORRY. I DON'T KNOW, SIR. I'D HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT. >> DID YOU HAVE A -- DO YOU HAVE A REACTION TO WHY THERE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN IN A SENSE A PROTEST TO WHAT WAS GOING TO BE FALSE TESTIMONY THAT WAS GOING TO BE PROVIDED? >> NO, SIR BECAUSE THE GOAL WAS TO STAY ON MESSAGE, LIMIT THE RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER WITH RUSSIA. IT WAS SHORT. THERE'S NO RUSSIAN CONTACTS. THERE'S NO RUBAN COLLUSION. THERE'S NO RUSSIAN DEALS. THAT'S THE MESSAGE. THAT'S THE SAME MESSAGE THAT EXISTED WELL BEFORE MY NEED TO COME AND TESTIFY. >> SO IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THIS IDEA, THIS MENTALITY OF YOU TOE THE LINE, WHATEVER THE STORY LINE OR THE NARRATIVE OF THE DAY OR THE MONTH OR THE YEAR IS GOING TO BE, YOU TOE THAT LINE, WHETHER IT RESULTS IN FALSE TESTIMONY OR NOT? >> I TOED THE PARTY LINE. AND I'M NOW SUFFERING AND I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO SUFFER FOR A WHILE ALONG WITH MY FAMILY AS A RESULT OF IT, SO YES. >> LET ME SWITCH GEARS QUICKLY BEFORE MY TIME EXPIRES. AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF SOME OF THESE THINGS BUT YOU'RE OFFERING US SOME VERY HELPFUL PERSPECTIVE ON HOW THE TRUMP WORLD OPERATES AND, FRANKLY, ANOTHER REASON I FIND YOUR TESTIMONY FAIRLY COMPELLING AND CREDIBLE IS BECAUSE A LOT OF THE THINGS YOU'RE DESCRIBING, A LOT OF THE ACTIVITY IS WHAT WE SEE EVERY SINGLE DAY. SO IT'S NOT A LEAP FOR US TO ARRIVE IN THE SAME PLACE OF PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU PRESENTED. I'M INTERESTED IN SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES AROUND THE INAUGURAL, COMMITTEE, THE INAUGURATION OF THE PRESIDENT. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE THAT APPEARED IN PRO PUBLICA. IT'S A WATCHDOG GROUP. ABOUT SOME NEGOTIATION ON PRICING OF THINGS AT THE TRUMP HOTEL WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE THE RENTAL THAT WAS BEING QUOTED WAS SUBSTANTIALLY, EVEN DOUBLE WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO PAY ACCORDING TO WHAT THE MARKET SHOULD BEAR. AND SO IN A SENSE THE TRUMP HOTEL WAS UPCHARGING TO THE INAUGURAL. >> EVEN I COULDN'T AFFORD TO STAY THERE. >> YEAH. AND SO, I'M JUST CURIOUS, DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHETHER THAT KIND OF A PRACTICE IS SOMETHING THAT IS CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THAT KIND OF UPCHARGING COULD BE DONE INSIDE A TRUMP OPERATION? >> IT DID HAPPEN. >> GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED. >> WHAT I CAN SAY IS I WASN'T PART OF THE INAUGURAL COMMITTEE. I RAISED A LOT OF MONEY FOR THE INAUGURATION. BUT I WAS NOT PART OF IT AND THERE WAS A LOT OF THINGS IN THAT ACTUALLY THAT ISSUES SOMETHING THAT'S ALSO WE READ ABOUT IN THE PAPER BEING INVESTIGATED AT THE CURRENT MOMENT. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. HIGGINS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. COHEN, IT'S HARD TO TELL YOU, SIR, THAT I'M SORRY FOR WHAT YOUR FAMILY IS GOING THROUGH. >> THANK YOU. >> I FEEL FOR YOUR FAMILY. THE WORD TELLS US CLEARLY A MAN'S MOUTH IS HIS DESTRUCTION AND HIS LIPS ARE THE SNARE OF HIS SOUL. AND I SEE YOU, A MAN TRAPPED IN THAT. HOWEVER, I MUST TELL YOU THAT I'VE ARRESTED SEVERAL THOUSAND MEN AND YOU REMIND ME OF MANY OF THEM. THE ONES THAT IMMEDIATELY BECOME HUMBLE AND REMORSEFUL AT THE TIME THEY'RE ACTUALLY BOOKED AND WHILE THEY'RE INCARCERATED THEY'RE QUITE PENTIENT AND BACK TO THEMSELVES BACK ON THE STREET. RESPECTFUL TO YOUR FAMILY AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING ON, THAT'S MY SENSE OF YOU, GOOD SIR. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO WHAT YOU BRUSHED OFF EARLIER REGARDING YOUR OWN STATEMENT DURING THIS TESTIMONY FROM C-SPAN NOTATION 2:50 IN YOU STATED REGARDING YOUR CREDIBILITY THAT YOU'RE BEING ACCUSED OF HAVING NO CREDIBILITY, IT IS EXACTLY FOR THAT REASON I SPENT THE LAST WEEK SEARCHING BOXES TO FIND THE INFORMATION THAT I DID SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS. NOW, THE DOCUMENTS YOU'RE REFERRING TO, MR. COHEN, ARE THE DOCUMENTS YOU SUBMITTED WITH YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> DO YOU BELIEVE THOSE DOCUMENTS TO BE WORTHY OF EVIDENCE FOR THIS OVERSIGHT HEARING TODAY? >> I LEAVE THAT TO YOU TO DECIDE. >> I ASK YOU AGAIN, SIR, AND PLEASE DON'T BE INCREDULOUS, THIS IS A SERIOUS QUESTION, WHERE ARE THOSE BOXES THAT CONTAIN DOCUMENTS WORTHY OF EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED TO CONGRESS AND WHY HAVE THEY NOT BEEN TURNED OVER TO THORTDS LOOKING INTO SOME OF THE MANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES THAT YOU'RE ALLEGEDLY COOP RATING IN? WHERE ARE THESE BOXES? WHO KNOWS IF -- WHERE IS THIS TREASURE OF EVIDENCE? >> THE BOXES THAT I'M REFERRING TO WERE BOXES THAT WERE IN MY LAW OFFICE WHEN THE FBI ENTERED AND SEIZED DOCUMENTS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO MOVE THE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES -- WHAT THE GENTLEMAN STATED AND THE BOXES TO BE SEIZED BASED UPON A WARRANT BY A SITTING JUDGE. YOU NOTED EARLIER TODAY, MR. COHEN, QUITE INCREDULOUSLY REGARDING A TV DEAL. YOU EXPRESSED WONDERMENT MA YOUR PREDICAMENT COULD GET YOU ON TELEVISION. IT CERTAINLY GOT YOU ON TELEVISION TODAY, HAS IT NOT, SIR? >> SIR, I WAS ON TELEVISION REPRESENTING MR. TRUMP BACK 2011. >> I DIDN'T KNOW WHO YOU WERE UNTIL TODAY, REALLY. UNTIL THE FBI RAIDED YOUR HOME. MOST AMERICANS DIDN'T KNOW WHO YOU WERE. HOW MANY ATTORNEYS YOU THINK MR. TRUMP HAD THROUGH THE COURSE OF HIS CAREER? QUITE A FEW, I WOULD IMAGINE. YOU'RE JUST ONE IN THE TRAP RIGHT NOW. I UNDERSTAND YOU TRYING TO GET OUT OF IT. YOU'RE IN A BIND. BUT I ASK YOU, GOOD SIR, HAVE YOU DISCUSSED FILM AND BOOK DEALS WITH YOUR STATED CURRENT ATTORNEY MR. DAVIS, LANNY DAVIS? >> WITH MR. DAVIS? NO. >> YES. >> BUT I HAVE BEEN APPROACHED BY MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING TO DO BOOK DEALS, MOVIE DEALS SO THE ANSWER IS YES. >> YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN BUT IT LEADS ME BACK TO MY INSTINCT THAT COMPARES YOU TO MANY OF THE MEN I HAVE ARRESTED IN THE COURSE OF MY CAREER. MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR -- >> THAT OUR PRIMARY HEARING TO INTRODUCE THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, 106th CONGRESS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS MANIFESTED IN THE WAY THAT IT OBVIOUSLY IS. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO INJURE OUR PRESIDENT, ALLAY SOME SORT OF SOFT CORNERSTONE FOR FUTURE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS THE FULL INTENT OF THE MAJORITY. I YIELD MY REMAINING 30 SECONDS TO THE RANKING MEMBER. >> MR. COHEN, EARLIER YOU SAID THE UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IS NOT ACCURATE IN THAT STATEMENT. >> I'M SORRY. SAY THAT AGAIN. >> EARLIER YOU SAID THAT THE UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STATEMENT IS NOT ACCURATE. NOT A LIE BUT NOT ACCURATE. DO YOU STAND BY THAT? >> YES. I DID NOT WANT A ROLE IN THE NEW ADMINISTRATION. >> THE COURT'S WRONG? >> SIR, CAN I FINISH, PLEASE? >> SURE. >> I GOT EXACTLY THE ROLE THAT I WANTED. THERE IS NO SHAME IN BEING PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO THE PRESIDENT. I GOT EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED. I ASKED MR. TRUMP FOR THAT JOB AND HE GAVE IT TO ME. >> I ALL I'M ASKING. I APPRECIATE, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU'RE SAYING THAT STATEMENT FROM THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ATTORNEYS IS WRONG? >> I DIDN'T WRITE IT AND IT'S NOT ACCURATE. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> MR. WELCH. >> I THANK YOU. ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENTS IN THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, OF COURSE, WAS THE DUMP OF E-MAILS STOLEN FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. DUMPED BY WIKILEAKS. MR. COHEN, DURING YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, WHICH WAS AT THE HEIGHT OF THE ELECTION YOU TESTIFIED YOU WERE ACTUALLY MEETING WITH DONALD TRUMP IN JULY 2016 WHEN ROGER STONE HAPPENED TO CALL AND TELL MR. TRUMP THAT HE HAD JUST SPOKEN TO JULIAN ASSANGE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU SAID THAT MR. ASSANGE TOLD MR. TRUMP ABOUT AN UPCOMING QUOTING YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, QUOTE, MASSIVE DUMP OF E-MAILS THAT WOULD DAMAGE HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN. SO I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT ROGER STONE'S PHONE CALL TO THE PRESIDENT. FIRST OF ALL, WAS THAT ON SPEAKERPHONE? IS THAT WHAT YOU INDICATED? >> YES. HE HAS A BLACK SPEAKERPHONE ON THE DESK. HE USES IT QUITE OFTEN. >> IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, 2019, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" ASKED PRESIDENT TRUMP IF HE EVER SPOKE TO ROGER STONE ABOUT THESE STOLEN E-MAILS AND PRESIDENT TRUMP ANSWERED AND I QUOTE, NO, I DIDN'T. I NEVER DID. WAS THAT STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TRUE? >> NO, IT'S NOT ACCURATE. >> AND CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE FOR US TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, YOU WERE PRESENT, EXACTLY WHAT MR. STONE SAID TO MR. TRUMP? >> IT WAS A SHORT CONVERSATION AND HE SAID, MR. TRUMP, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW I JUST GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH JULIAN ASSANGE AND IN A COUPLE OF DAYS THERE'S GOING TO BE A MASSIVE DUMP OF E-MAIL THIS IS'S GOING TO SEVERELY HURT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. >> AND WAS MR. TRUMP AND MR. STONE AWARE OF WHERE THOSE E-MAILS CAME FROM? >> THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF. >> DID MR. TRUMP EVER SUGGEST THEN OR LATER TO CALL THE FBI TO REPORT THIS BREACH? >> HE NEVER EXPRESSED THAT TO ME. >> DID THE PRESIDENT AT THAT TIME OR EVER SINCE IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE INDICATE AN AWARENESS THAT THIS CONDUCT WAS WRONG? >> NO. >> THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE ON JULY 22nd, WIKILEAKS PUBLISHED AS YOU KNOW THE 20,000 LEAKED INTERNAL DNC E-MAILS. COULD YOUR MEETING WITH MR. TRUMP HAVE BEEN BEFORE THAT DATE? >> YES. >> SO MR. TRUMP WAS AWARE OF THE UPCOMING DUMP BEFORE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. AND IS THERE ANY -- >> THOUGH, SIR, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE KNEW OR NOT AND I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID, WHAT THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE DUMP WAS GOING TO BE, ONLY THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A DUMP OF E-MAILS. >> AND HE WAS AWARE OF THAT BEFORE THE DUMP OCCURRED? >> YES, SIR. >> ARE THERE ANY RECORDS TO CORROBORATE THIS DATE? >> I'M NOT NO POSSESSION BUT PART OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ATHEY PROBABLY BEST SUITED TO CORROBORATE THAT INFORMATION. >> WAS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT IN THE ROOM DURING THE CALL? >> I DON'T RECALL FOR THIS ONE. NO, SIR. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THE COMMITTEE SHOULD TALK TO ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE WIKILEAKS E-MAIL DUMP? >> WELL, AGAIN, WHEN HE CALLED, RONA GRAPH YELLED OUT TO MR. TRUMP, ROGER'S ONLINE ONE. >> THAT'S HIS ASSISTANT? >> YES. >> JULY 27th, 2016, THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP PUBLICLY APPEALED TO RUSSIA TO HACK HILLARY CLINTON'S E-MAILS AND MAKE THEM PUBLIC. HE STATED AND I QUOTE, RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, I HOPE YOU'RE ABLE TO FIND THE 30,000 E-MAILS THAT ARE MISSING. NOW, GOING BACK TO MR. STONE'S PHONE CALL TO THE PRESIDENT, DO YOU RECALL IF MR. TRUMP HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE WIKILEAKS DUMP AT THE TIME OF HIS DIRECT APPEAL TO RUSSIA? >> I AM NOT. >> BUT THE CALL WITH MR. STONE YOU BELIEVE WAS BEFORE -- >> YES. >> THIS 27th? >> YES. I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT GOT DUMPED. SO I WAS IN MR. TRUMP'S OFFICE EITHER JULY 18th OR 19th. AND, YES, HE WENT AHEAD. I DON'T KNOW IF THE 35,000 OR 30,000 E-MAILS WAS WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO. BUT HE CERTAINLY HAD KNOWLEDGE. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JUST ONE LAST QUESTION. MR. RASKIN WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS AND ONE OF THE THINGS IN THE ANSWER IS MR. PECKER EXPENDED OTHER MONEYS TO PROTECT MR. TRUMP. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT SOME OF THOSE OTHER ACTIVITIES WERE? >> SURE. THERE WAS THE STORY ABOUT MR. TRUMP HAVING A LOVE CHILD WITH AN EMPLOYEE, WITH AN EMPLOYEE AND ACTUALLY THE HUSBAND OF THAT EMPLOYEE WORKS FOR THE COMPANY, AS WELL. AND THERE WAS AN ELEVATOR OPERATOR WHO CLAIMS THAT HE OVERHEARD THE CONVERSATION TAKING PLACE BETWEEN ONE OF MR. TRUMP'S OTHER EXECUTIVES AND SOMEBODY AND HE ENDED UP PAYING HIM LIKE $15,000 IN ORDER TO BUY THAT STORY TO FIND OUT WHETHER IT WAS TRUE OR NOT. AND THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THINGS THAT DAVID HAD DONE OVER THE YEARS. IT WAS THE REASON WHY IN THE RECORDING WHEN DAVID WAS LOOKING TO BECOME THE CEO OF "TIME" MAGAZINE WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WE'LL CALL IT THE TREASURE TROVE OF DOCUMENTS THAT HAD BEEN CREATED OVER THE YEARS THAT IF HE LEFT SOMEBODY OPEN UP THE KEY TO A DRAWER AND FIND ALL THIS INFORMATION SO WE WERE GOING TO LOOK TO BUY ALL OF THOSE LIFE RIGHTS AND SO ON. >> GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU FOR TESTIFYING. I JOIN CONGRESSMAN HIGGINS AND FEELING FOR YOUR FAMILY. THEY HAVE NO PART IN THIS. YOU KNOW, I HAVE HEARD ALL THE TESTIMONY AND I'M TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT CLAY'S TRYING TO DECIDE. ARE YOU REALLY SORRY FOR WHAT YOU DID OR JUST GOT CAUGHT? AND THE THING THAT AMAZED ME IS THAT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT WHICH LET ME QUOTE -- LAST FALL I PLED GUILTY IN FEDERAL COURT TO FELONIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF AT THE DIRECTION OF AND IN COORDINATION WITH INDIVIDUAL ONE. WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT? >> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. YOUR CRIMES WERE OF YOUR OWN TO BENEFIT YOURSELF. >> SOME OF THEM, YES. >> NO. GO THROUGH ALL OF THE ONES WITH THE REAL ESTATE WITH THE BANKS. ON YOUR HELOCK LOAN, YOU FAILED TO DISCLOSE MORE THAN $20 MILLION IN DEBT. YOU FAILED TO DISCLOSE $70,000 IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS. ON YOUR 14 MILLION LINE OF CREDIT. YOU FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT YOU HAD DRAWN ON THAT. SO THIS WAS ALL FOR YOURSELF. THIS WASN'T FOR THE BENEFIT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. THIS IS TO BENEFIT MICHAEL COHEN. SO THAT'S MY QUESTION. DID YOU JUST GET CAUGHT AND YOU WORK FOR THIS MAN FOR TEN YEARS, MR. COHEN. YOU CAME IN HERE WITH THESE -- HE'S A CON MAN. HE'S A CHEAT. THIS IS A VERY MAN THAT DIDN'T YOU WIRETAP HIM ILLEGALLY? DID YOU NOT WIRETAP PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE? >> I DID RECORD MR. TRUMP IN A CONVERSATION, YES. >> IS THAT LAWYER/CLIENT PRIVILEGE? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT AN HONEST GUY, LAWYER WOULD DO? >> I ACTUALLY NEVER THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE HAPPENING AND THAT THAT RECORDING EVEN EXISTED. I HAD FORGOTTEN. >> BUT YOU DID IT. >> YES, I DID. >> HAVE YOU EVER -- >> I HAD A REASON FOR DOING IT. >> WHAT WAS YOUR REASON? >> I KNEW HE WASN'T GOING TO PAY THAT MONEY. AND DAVID PECKER HAD ALREADY CHEWED ME OUT ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS REGARDING OTHER MONEYS THAT HE EXPENDED. >> BUT THIS IS A MAN THAT YOU TRUSTED. YOU'D TAKE A BULLET FOR. YOU SECRETLY RECORDED. HAVE YOU LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY REGARDED OTHER CLIENTS? >> I HAVE RECORDINGS OF PEOPLE, YES. >> LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY? >> I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE LEGAL. >> DID YOU TELL THEM? >> IN NEW YORK STATE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS. >> YOU DIDN'T TELL THEM? >> NO, I DID NOT. >> OKAY. >> SOMETIMES I USED THE RECORDINGS FOR CONTEMPORANEOUS NOTETAKING. >> IF THE SHOE WERE REVERSED, WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR TRUSTED LAWYER RECORDING YOU? >> I PROBABLY WOULD NOT, NO. >> IT'S UNTRUSTWORTHY. THE BANK LOANS, DID YOU DEFAULT ON THESE LOANS? >> NO, SIR. >> SO THE BANK DIDN'T TAKE ANY LOSS? >> NO BANK HAS -- I HAVE NOT -- I'M NOT IN DEFAULT. I HAVE NEVER FILED A BANKRUPTCY. THE HELOCK YOU'RE REFERRING TO, I REPLACED THAT FROM A DIFFERENT HELOCK. PAID IT OFF. THERE IS -- I OWE NO BANKS ANY MONEY. >> HOW ABOUT YOUR MEDALLION TAXI CAB? DID YOU HAVE TO SELL THAT? >> ONES IN CHICAGO, YES. I DO HAVE TO SELL. HOWEVER, NEW YORK -- THE ANSWER IS, NO. I DON'T. AND THEY ARE -- THE INDUSTRY IS GOING THROUGH A MAJOR, MAJOR CORRECTION BECAUSE OF RIDE SHARING. IT'S CHANGED A LOT OF THINGS. >> THE VALUE OF IT HAS. >> YES, SIR. >> RIGHT. HAS THE -- SO NO BANK -- WOULD THE BANKS MAKE YOU A LOAN AGAIN? >> ACTUALLY, THEY DID. THEY DID. YES. THE BANK ACTUALLY REDID AND THEY REFINANCED THE ENTIRE PACKAGE. >> CURRENTLY? >> YES. >> OKAY. HAVE THEY NEVER HAD TO DO A LOAN LOSS RESERVE? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DID BUT IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT. I DIDN'T GET THE BENEFIT OF IT. NO, SIR. >> MOST LIKELY THEY DID. I WAS ON AN AUDIT COMMITTEE. >> THAT'S FOR THEIR OWN BANKING. >> BY LAW. IF THEY SUSPECT YOU OF LYING WHICH YOU ADMITTED TO, IF THEY SUSPECT YOU OF MAYBE NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE A LOAN PAYMENT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A LOAN LOSS RESERVE THAT'S 125% OF WHAT YOU -- 20 MILLION, THEY HAVE TO POST IN THEIR ACCOUNT 20 MILLION PLUS. SO THEY GET NO INTEREST ON IT. YOU KNOW WHO PAYS FOR THAT? THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT DEALS WITH THAT BANK. >> YES, BUT SIR I'M NOT IN DEFAULT AND CURRENT ON EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE MEDALLION LOANS AND NEVER OWED MONEY TO FIRST REPUBLIC BANK. IN FACT, I HAD MORE CASH SITTING IN THAT SAME BANK THAN THE HELOCK AND MY MORTGAGE COMBINED. >> HAVE YOU BEEN TO PRAGUE? >>IVE NEVER BEEN TO PRAGUE. >> NEVER HAVE? >> NEVER BEEN TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC. >> I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. COHEN. ON PAGE FIVE 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. WHO WERE THOSE ATTORNEYS? >> JAY SEKULOW -- FROM THE WHITE HOUSE? >> YES. >> JAY SEKULOW. I BELIEVE ABBY LOWELL, AS WELL. >> YOU HAVE A COPY OF YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE TO THE COMMITTEE? >> I CAN TRY TO GET THAT FOR YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WOULD DO THAT. THE LETTER OF INTENT FOR THE MOSCOW TOWER, WAS IT IN THE FALL OF 2015. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WAS THERE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON THAT LETTER OF DATE? >> THERE WAS NO EXPIRATION. >> IT COULD BE IN EFFECT TODAY? >> IT'S BEEN TERMINATED. >> IT HAS? >> YES, MA'AM. >> DID MR. TRUMP TELL YOU TO OFFER VLADIMIR PUTIN A FREE PENTHOUSE? >> NO, MA'AM. THAT WAS FELIX SATER. >> FELIX SATER SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT MR. TRUMP OFFER A PENTHOUSE TO MR. PUTIN? >> YES. BECAUSE IT WOULD CERTAINLY DRIVE UP THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT. NO DIFFERENT THAN IN ANY CONDO THEY LIST THE CELEBRITIES THAT LIVE IN THE PROPERTY. >> IN 2016 DID YOU TRAVEL TO EUROPE? >> YES. DID YOU MEET WITH PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOSCOW TOWER PROJECT? >> NO. >> IT WAS FOR PERSONAL? >> PERSONAL. MY DAUGHTER WAS STUDYING AT QUEEN MARY IN LONDON. >> SO YOU DID NOT MEET WITH ANY RUSSIANS? >> NO. >> THERE IS AN ELEVATOR TAPE THAT HAS BEEN REFERENCED AS A CATCH AND KILL PRODUCT. IT WAS EVIDENTLY OF MR. TRUMP AND A WOMAN? PRESUMABLY MRS. TRUMP? IS THAT CORRECT? >> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IN MOSCOW OR THE TRUMP TOWER ELEVATOR TAPE? >> THERE'S AN ELEVATOR TAPE THAT WENT UP FOR AUCTION? >> YES. >> IN 2016? >> YES. I HAVE HEARD ABOUT THIS. >> WHO IS ON THAT TAPE? >> MR. TRUMP WITH MELANIA. >> WHAT HAPPENED? THAT TAPE? >> THE STORY GOES THAT HE STRUCK MELANIA WHILE IN THAT ELEVATOR BECAUSE THERE'S A CAMERA INSIDE WHICH I'M NOT SO SURE. ACTUALLY, I'M CERTAIN IT'S NOT TRUE. I'VE HEARD ABOUT THAT TAPE FOR YEARS. I HAVE KNOWN FOUR OR FIVE PEOPLE INCLUDING FOLKS FROM AMI WHO HAVE -- >> BUT THERE WAS SOME TAPE THAT WENT UP FOR AUCTION? >> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT AUCTION WAS REAL AND I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY -- I DON'T BELIEVE MR. TRUMP STRUCK MRS. TRUMP EVER. >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE PURCHASING THAT TAPE? >> NO. >> YOU NEVER SAW THE TAPE? >> NO, MA'AM. I KNOW PEOPLE THAT TRIED TO PURCHASE IT FOR CATCH AND KILL PURPOSE. MR. TRUMP WOULD NEVER IN MY OPINION -- THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HE -- >> GOOD TO KNOW S. THERE A LOVE CHILD? >> THERE IS NOT TO THE BEST OF MY INGE. >> YOU WOULD PAY OFF SOMEONE TO NOT -- >> IT WASN'T ME, MA'AM. IT WAS AMI. DAVID PECKER. >> HE PAID OFF SOMEONE ABOUT A LOVE CHILD THAT DOESN'T EXIST? >> CORRECT. ABOUT $15,000. >> OKAY. HOW MANY TIMES DID MR. TRUMP ASK YOU TO THREATEN AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY ON HIS BEHALF? >> QUITE A FEW TIMES. >> 50 TIMES? >> MORE. >> 100 TIMES? >> MORE. >> 200 TIMES? >> MORE. >> 500 TIMES? >> PROBABLY. OVER THE TEN YORES. >> OVER THE TEN YEARS HE ASKED YOU -- >> WHEN YOU SAY THREATEN, I'M TALKING WITH LITIGATION OR AN ARGUMENT WITH -- >> INTIMIDATION? >> A NASTY REPORTER THAT HAS -- IS WRITING AN ARTICLE. >> WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT -- LET'S GO TO YOUR TAPE. YOU SAID THERE'S PROBABLY 100 TAPES? >> VOICE RECORDINGS. >> VOICE RECORDINGS. WILL YOU MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO THE COMMITTEE? >> IF YOU WOULD REALLY LIKE THEM. >> WE WOULD. >> DID MR. TRUMP -- >> DON'T YOU HAVE TO GAVEL THAT, SIR? >> WE WOULD. >> SORRY. >> MR. TRUMP, DID MR. TRUMP TAPE ANY CONVERSATIONS? >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, NO. >> WERE YOU INVOLVED THE $25 MILLION SETTLEMENT TO TRUMP UNIVERSITY? >> I HAD A ROLE IN THAT, YES. >> WHO PAID THE SETTLEMENT? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. TRUMP. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. >> BUT YOU WERE INVOLVED? >> YES. IN A DIFFERENT ASPECT. >> THERE'S A REFERENCE TO A BUSINESSMAN IN KANSAS BEING INVOLVED THAT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >> NO. >> ALL RIGHT. FINALLY, MY 13 SECONDS LEFT, WHAT DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO KNOW? >> THAT I'M SORRY FOR EVERYTHING AND I'M SORRY FOR THE PAIN THAT I'VE CAUSED THEM. AND -- I WISH I CAN GO BACK IN TIME. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> THE TIME EXPIRED. TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE BEFORE WE GO TO MR. MILLER, FOR YOUR -- SO THAT YOU CAN PROPERLY PLAN, THERE'S A VOTE APPARENTLY COMING UP IN ABOUT TEN TO 20 MINUTES. AND WHAT WE WILL DO IS WE'LL RECESS AND WE WILL COME BACK, LISTEN UP. 30 MINUTES AFTER THE LAST VOTE BEGINS. GOT THAT? NOT IT ENDS. 30 MINUTES AFTER IT BEGINS. AND WE'LL DO THAT PROMPTLY. ALL RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. MS. MILLER. >> MR. COHEN -- >> MIKE. >> I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED TO HAVE YOU IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE TODAY. QUITE FRANKLY, THIS ISN'T THE REASON THE PEOPLE OF WEST VIRGINIA SENT ME TO CONGRESS. I FIND THIS HEARING NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THIS IS ANOTHER POLITICAL GAME WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING THE PRESIDENT. IF IT WAS NOT ALREADY OBVIOUS, THERE ARE MEMBERS HERE WITH THE SINGULAR GOAL IN CONGRESS TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP. TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, THEY WILL WASTE NOT ONLY PRECIOUS TAXPAYER DOLLARS, BUT ALSO, TIME IN THIS COMMITTEE AND CONGRESS AS A WHOLE. IN FACT, THEY WILL GO SO FAR AS TO BRING A CONVICTED FELON IN FRONT OF YOUR COMMITTEE. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE WHAT YOU SAY, MR. COHEN, AT THIS TIME ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP AS THE TRUTH. BUT YOU'RE ABOUT TO GO TO PRISON FOR LYING. HOW CAN WE BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU SAY? THE ANSWER IS, WE CAN'T. THIS BEGS THE QUESTION. WHY ARE THOSE IN THE MAJORITY HOLDING THIS HEARING? I AM APPALLED. WE COULD BE FOCUSED ON ACTUAL ISSUES THAT ARE FACING AMERICA LIKE BORDER SECURITY, KNEE OWE-NATAL ABSTINENCE SYNDROME OR IMPROVING THE COUNTRY'S CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE. INSTEAD THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO GRASP AT STRAWS. LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS WITNESS. FROM HIS SENTENCING HEARING IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, JUDGE PAULIE STATED, MR. COHEN PLED GUILTY TO A SMORGASBORD OF FRAUDULENT CONDUCT, TAX EVASION, MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS. EACH OF THE CRIMES INVOLVED DECEPTION AND EACH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL GREED. AND AMBITION. THIS IS WHO WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US TODAY IN OUR COMMITTEE. SOMEONE WHO IS ABOUT TO BE SENT TO PRISON FOR THREE YEARS FOR EVADING HIS TAXES, DECEIVING A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, LYING TO CONGRESS AMONG OTHER COUNTS. ONE OF THE MOST APPALLING FACTS ABOUT THIS HEARING IS THAT MR. COHEN HAS USED HIS EXPERIENCES WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER HE WAS ELECTED FOR HIS OWN GREED AND PROFIT. I'D LIKE SOME YES OR NO ANSWERS. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU TRIED TO SELL A BOOK ABOUT YOUR TIME WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ENTITLED "TRUMP REVOLUTION: FROM THE TOWER TO THE WHITE HOUSE UNDERSTANDING DONALD J. TRUMP"? >> YES THAT HAPPENED EARLY ON WHEN I WAS STILL EVEN PART I BELIEVE OF THE RNC. >> AND THIS BOOK DEAL WHICH YOU HAD WITH HATCHET BOOKS WAS WORTH AROUND $500,000. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> NO. MORE. MA'AM. >> HOW MUCH MORE? >> I THINK IT WAS ABOUT 750. >> WOW. MR. COHEN -- >> I DID TURN IT DOWN. >> GIVEN THAT YOU CONTINUE TO PROFIT FROM PUBLICLY DISCUSSING YOUR TIME WITH MR. TRUMP, I WORRY THAT THIS COMMITTEE HEARING, THE MAJORITY, HAS GIVEN YOU WILL ONLY SERVE AS A PLATFORM FOR YOU TO CONTINUE TO LIE AND SENSATIONALIZE AND EXAGGERATE WHEREVER IT SUITS YOU. DO YOU PLAN TO PURSUE ANOTHER EXPERIENCES? >> YES. >> I WOULD PRESUME THIS BOOK WOULD BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN YOUR LATEST PITCH. BUT YOUR NEW ANGLE MIGHT PLEASE SOME NEW FANS. ANYTHING TO SELL BOOKS. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'VE CANCELED HEARINGS ON CHILD SEPARATION AND ON OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE CLOSE TO MY HEART FOR THIS MEDIA CIRCUS. WHAT A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. FOR A MAN WHO HAS GLADLY EXPLOITED THE NAME OF THE PRESIDENT TO PROMOTE HIS OWN NAME AND FILL HIS OWN POCKETS. IT PAINS ME THAT WE ARE SITTING HERE ADDING ANOTHER CHAPTER TO HIS BOOK. THANK YOU AND I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. JORDAN. >> I THANK THE GENTLE LADY FOR YIELDING. EARLIER, THE GENTLE LADY OF CALIFORNIA TALKED ABOUT A TAPE, AN ELEVATOR TAPE YOU SAID DOESN'T EXIST. >> THAT'S CORRECT. I BELIEVE IT DOESN'T EXIST. >> IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE TRUMP TEAM WAS WILLING TO PAY TO MAKE SURE A STORY ABOUT A NONEXISTENT TAPE NEVER BECAME PUBLIC. >> NO, SIR. THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. >> THEY WERE WILLING TO STOP A FALSE TAPE. >> WE LOOKED. WE LEARNED THAT THIS TAPE WAS POTENTIALLY ON THE MARKET. AND THAT IT EXISTED. AND SO, WHAT WE DID IS EXACTLY WHAT WE DID ALL THE OTHER CATCH AND KILL. WE LOOKED FOR IT. AND IF, IN FACT, THAT IT DID EXIST WE WOULD HAVE TRIED TO STOP IT. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE. >> FALSE TAPE. >> IT'S A FALSE -- I HAVE NEVER HEARD IT AND I CAN ASSURE YOU ONE THING OF MR. TRUMP. HE IS MANY THINGS, HE WOULD NEVER, EVER DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. COHEN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU MORE ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE $130,000 PAYMENT TO STEPHANIE CLIFFORD, THE ADULT FILM ACTRESS KNOWN AS STORMY DANIELS. FIRST, ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTS FILED BY FEDERAL PROSECUTORS IN NEW YORK, YOU CREATED A SHELL COMPANY CALLED ESSENTIAL CONSULTANTS LLC. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE PAYMENT TO MS. CLIFFORD. CORRECT? >> AMONGST OTHER THINGS, CORRECT. >> YOU USED A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT TO FUND THE ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THE ESSENTIAL CONSULTANTS LLC. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> YOU WIRED $130,000 TO THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING MS. CLIFFORD AT THAT TIME AND WROTE IN THE MEMO FIELD FOR THE WIRE THE WORD, QUOTE, RETAINER. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> CAN YOU TELL US WHY YOU DECIDED TO USE THIS COMPLICATED PROCESS TO MAKE THIS PAYMENT? >> WELL, STARTING AN LLC IS NOT A SOPHISTICATED MEANS. LLC, CALL UP A COMPANY. YOU PAY FOR IT AND THEY OPEN IT FOR YOU. AND THE REASON THAT I USED THE HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT AS OPPOSED TO CASH THAT I HAD IN THE SAME EXACT BANK WAS I DIDN'T WANT MY WIFE TO KNOW ABOUT IT BECAUSE SHE HANDLES ALL OF THE BANKING AND I DIDN'T WANT HER COMING TO ME SKL WHAT WAS THE $130,000 FOR. AND THEN I WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE MONEY FROM ONE ACCOUNT TO THE OTHER AND TO PAY IT OFF BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO HER WHAT THAT PAYMENT WAS ABOUT. I SENT IT TO THE INTEREST ON LAWYER'S ACCOUNT, THE ATTORNEY. HE WOULD HOLD IT IN ESCROW UNTIL I RECEIVED THE EXECUTED NDA. NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT. >> DID MR. TRUMP KNOW YOU WERE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO HIDE THE PAYMENT? >> YES. >> WHY NOT JUST USE MR. TRUMP'S PERSONAL OR COMPANY BANK ACCOUNT TO MAKE THE PAYMENT? WHY WAS A DISTRACTION SO IMPORTANT BESIDES YOU NOT WANTING YOUR WIFE TO KNOW? >> HIS CONCERN WAS A CHECK TO HAVE HIS VERY DISTINCT SIGNATURE ON IT AND EVEN AFTER CASHING THE CHECK, MAKE A PHOTO COPY AND IT'S PROOF POSITIVE ON WHAT TOOK PLACE. SO HERE HE -- THE GOAL WAS TO KEEP HIM FAR AWAY FROM IT AS POSSIBLE. >> CAN ANYONE CORROBORATE WHAT YOU HAVE SHARED WITH US? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> AND THAT IS? >> KEITH DAVIDSON. ALAN WEISSELBERG. PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> OKAY. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE REIMBURSEMENT. ACCORDING TO FEDERAL PROSECUTORS AFTER THE ELECTION COHEN SOUGHT REIMBURSEMENT INCLUDING DID $130,000 PAYMENT. PROSECUTORS SAID YOU PRESENTED AN EXECUTIVE OF THE COMPANY WITH A COPY OF A BANK STATEMENT REFLECTING THE $130,000 WIRE TRANSFER. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT BANK STATEMENT? >> YES. IT IS MADE PART OF THE EXHIBIT. >> OKAY. YOU WILL PROVIDE IT TO THE COMMITTEE? >> YES, MA'AM. >> ACCORDING TO FEDERAL PROSECUTORS EXECUTIVES AT THE COMPANY THEN -- AND I QUOTE -- AGREED TO REIMBURSE COHEN WITH 130,000 AND 50,000 GROSSING UP THAT AMOUNT TO $360,000 FOR TAX PURPOSES AND ADDING A $60,000 BONUS SUCH THAT COHEN WOULD BE PAID $420,000 IN TOTAL. EXECUTIVES OF THE COMPANY DECIDED TO PAY THE 420,000 OF MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OVER THE COURSE OF YEAR. >> THAT'S ACCURATE. >> WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF GROSSING UP THE AMOUNTS, DOUBLING WHAT YOU HAD PAID? >> IF YOU PAY $130,000 AND YOU LIVE IN NEW YORK, WHERE YOU HAVE A 50% TAX BRACKET, IN ORDER TO GET THE 130 BACK YOU HAVE TO HAVE 260. OTHERWISE MY -- GIVING ME BACK 130 I WOULD ONLY THEN -- I WOULD BE OUT 65,000. >> WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF SPREADING THE REIMBURSEMENTS TO YOU OVER 12 MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS? >> TO HIDE THE PAYMENT. I WANTED THE MONEY IN ONE SHOT. I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED IT THAT WAY BUT TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT ON TO THE BOOKS ALAN WEISSELBERG MADE THE DECISION THAT IT SHOULD BE PAID OVER THE 12 MONTHS SO THAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A RETAINER. >> DID MR. TRUMP KNOW ABOUT THIS METHOD? >> EVERYTHING, YES. >> WELL, THANK YOU, MR. COHEN. THE PRESIDENT NOT ONLY KNEW ABOUT THE PAYMENTS HE HELPED TO HIDE THE PAYMENTS? >> IT HAD TO BE APPROVED BY MR. TRUMP. >> NOW YOU'RE GOING TO PRISON AND -- >> AND I'M GOING TO PRISON. YES, MA'AM. >> I YIELD BACK. >> IF I -- >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. EARLIER YOU -- >> YES, I YIELD MY TIME. >> EARLIER YOU'D SAID, I'M ASSUMING NEW YORK'S A ONE-PARTY CONSENT STATE? ONE PERSON CAN RECORD THE OTHER WITHOUT IT BEING ILL SFLEEL. >> CORRECT. >> YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK BAR? >> I WAS, YES. >> HOW WOULD YOU RATE RECORDING CLIENTS IN THE ETHICAL REALM OF BEING A LAWYER? >> IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. AND I DID -- >> I'M ASKING IF IT'S ETHICAL. >> I DON'T KNOW. WE'D HAVE TO LEAVE JUDGMENT OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION. >> SO, WELL, I THINK EVERY OTHER LAWYER IN HERE KNOWS WHERE IT IS IN THE ETHICAL STANDARD. WHEN YOU SAID YOU HAD 100 TAPES, WERE THEY OF OTHER CLIENTS? >> YES. AND I THINK THIS IS PRETTY AMAZING. I REALLY DO. DID ANY OF THEM WAIVE PRIVILEGE? >> NO. >> SO FIVE MINUTES AGO IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR HEARING ON OVERSIGHT YOU JUST IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED THAT YOU WOULD HAND OVER TAPES TO THIS COMMITTEE WITHOUT ANY OF YOUR PREVIOUS CLIENTS WAIVING PRIVILEGE? >> THOSE ARE DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE HANDS OF ALL THE AGENCIES -- >> MY CONCERN IS I KNOW LAWYERS THAT WOULD GO TO JAIL BEFORE THEY WOULD VIOLATE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND IN A MATTER OF A SECOND YOU SAID, ABSOLUTELY, I'LL TURN THOSE OVER. >> JUST TRYING TO COOPERATE, SIR. >> AT THE EXPENSE OF CLIENTS THAT NEVER WAIVED PRIVILEGE. >> THEY ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE AGENCIES AND I DIDN'T ASK -- >> WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT DETERMINES TO DO WHAT SOMETHING AND YOU TO DO WITH SOMETHING, CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND ATTORNEY TRUST IS TWO SACRED THINGS OF A CAREER AS A LAWYER. >> BY THE WAY, SIR -- >> IN A MATTER OF A SECOND -- >> THE TAPE OF MR. TRUMP IS OUT THERE IS BECAUSE RUDY GIULIANI WAIVED THE PRIVILEGE. >> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI. I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU. THIS IS -- I DON'T KNOW WHO'S ON THE TAPES. ONLY YOU KNOW. THERE'S 100 OF THEM. >> THE OTHER ONE IS SUBJECT TO ONGOING -- >> WITHIN A MATTER OF A SECOND, ONE SECOND, YOU TOOK NO -- ABSOLUTELY NO CALCULATION OF YOUR ROLE AS THOSE CLIENTS' COUNSELOR, THE ROLE THAT PLAYS IN PRIVACY AND IN THE ROLE THAT PLAYS IN A SOLEMN VOW PASSING THE BAR, SIGNED ON TO THE BAR UNTIL RECENTLY A ME BELIEVE OF THE BAR AND IMMEDIATELY SAID IF IT HELPS ME OUT IN TWO DAYS IN FRONT OF TV, YES, ABSOLUTELY, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU CAN HAVE THEM. AND I THINK -- THAT JUST GOES INTO WHAT WE TALK ABOUT NEXT BRIEFLY. WE TALK ABOUT THESE TAX -- THESE INDICTMENTS ON TAX FRAUD AND BANK FRAUD AS IF THEY'RE ISOLATED INCIDENTS. BUT THEY'RE NOT OF BAD JUDGMENT. THESE WERE INTRICATE, ELABORATE LIES THAT CREATED -- THAT NEEDED TO BE HELD WITH CONSTANT -- I MEAN, JUST CONSTANT DECEPTIONS OF BANKS, BUSINESSES, ASSOCIATES, ACCOUNTANTS, POTENTIALLY YOUR FAMILY. YOU RECEIVED OVER 2.4 MILLION IN PERSONAL LOAN LOANS OF TAXI MEDALLION COMPANY ONE AND THOSE WERE BLOWN PAYMENTS FOR A BUSINESS LOAN. CORRECT? >> NO, SIR. >> YOU WEREN'T RECEIVING -- >> THOSE -- >> OKAY. GO AHEAD. >> THOSE WERE PAYMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY THAT WAS OPERATING THE MEDALLIONS. >> TO YOU? >> TO ME. >> SO -- AND YOU -- THOSE WERE DEPOSITIVE ITTED INTO YOUR PERSONAL ACCOUNT OR IN SOME INSTANCES YOUR WIFE'S ACCOUNTED? >> DEPOSITED INTO THE JOINT CHECKING ACCOUNT OF MY WIFE AND I THAT'S LOCATED AT THE BASE OF THE BUILDING THAT WE RESIDE IN. >> WERE THOSE DISCLOSED ON YOUR TAX RETURNS? >> THEY WERE NOT DISCLOSED ON MY TAX RETURNS. >> IN FACT, WHEN YOUR ACCOUNT AND TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THOSE, THOSE DEPOSITS, YOU TOLD HIM YOU WOULDN'T PAY FOR A MEMO YOU DIDN'T ASK TO BE DONE? >> THAT'S INACCURATE. >> THE SENTENCING COURT IN NEW YORK HAS IT WRONG. >> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. GETZEL WROTE. MY ACCOUNTANT. THERE ARE A SERIES OF ISSUES OF HIS MEMO AND DIRECTED ME EARLIER TO COMMIT FRAUD. BUT PUTTING THAT ASIDE WITH JEFF, THE ANSWER IS I PLED GUILTY. ALL RIGHT? I MADE MY MISTAKE. I'M GOING AS I HAVE SAID 100 TIMES NOW. I'M NOT SO SURE WHY THIS SINGULAR ATTACK ON MY TAXES. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THEM, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO SHOW YOU BUT EVERY SINGLE -- >> I GOT PLENTY OF OTHER THINGS TO TALK ABOUT. >> EVERY SINGLE WORD THAT'S -- >> ALL RIGHT. I'LL RECLAIM MY TIME. >> 100% ACCURATE. THAT'S WHY WHEN IT COMES TO THE CREDIBILITY WHY I ASKED MR. DAVIS AND MR. MONACO TO FIGURE OUT -- >> THAT'S MY POINT WITH THE CREDIBILITY. >> SO YOU UNDERSTAND -- >> THESE ARE NOT ISOLATED INCIDENTS OF ATTACK. THESE WERE CONSTANT DECEPTIONS, WHETHER IT'S ROLLING OVER A $20 MILLION LINE OF CREDIT TO $14 MILLION. YOU CONCEALED THAT FROM ONE BANK AND AT THE SAME TIME REDUCING THE NET INCOME TO ANOTHER BANK AND NOT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 1 OF '18, JANUARY 1 OF '17 BUT CONSTANTLY INVOLVED ON A -- MY QUESTION IS, WAS IT EXHAUSTING KEEPING TRACK OF THE LIES YOU WERE TELLING THESE PEOPLE? >> I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR HIM. I JUST THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING THE NARRATIVE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR ROAD TO REDEMPTION. >> THANK YOU. IT WILL BE A LONG WAY. >> PERDITION AS I REMEMBER. THAT'S PARTICULARLY HARD ON YOUR CHILDREN. SO I WISH YOU WELL AND I WISH YOUR FAMILY WELL. MR. COHEN, AS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED YOUR ROAD TO HERE, MR. COOPER ASKED YOU WHEN THE MOMENT WAS OR MOMENTS WHEN YOU NEEDED A CHANGE. IT STRIKES ME THERE'S A TRANSITION YOU HAVE ILLUMINATED HERE. YOUR PERIOD OF TIME, TEN YEARS, WOGER FOR SOMETHING YOU ADMIRED AS A DEVELOPER AND THEN WHEN CHARLOTTESVILLE HAPPENED AND QUITE FRANKLY WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL CALLED YOU IN, OBVIOUSLY, WAS A KEY PART OF IT OR YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE. IN BETWEEN PART I FIND REALLY INTERESTING AND TROUBLING. AT LEAST IN TERMS OF APPEARANCES AND CONFIDENCE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD HAVE IN THIS INSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY, QUITE FRANKLY. SO, DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT TWO SPECIFIC IF WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME. YOU WERE NEGOTIATING FOR TRUMP TOWER TO BE THE TALLEST BUILDING IN EUROPE. IN YOUR GUILTY PLEA WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IT QUOTES COHEN ASKED INDIVIDUAL ONE -- IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> YES. >> OKAY. ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP TRAVELING TO RUSSIA IN CONNECTION WITH THE MOSCOW PROJECT. AND ASKED A SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL ABOUT POTENTIAL BUSINESS TRAVEL TO RUSSIA. WHEN DID THIS CONVERSATION HAPPEN? DO YOU RECALL? >> EARLY ONLY IN THE CAMPAIGN. >> AND WHO WAS THE CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL? >> COREY LEWANDOWSKI. >> WHAT DID YOU DISCUSS IN THIS MEETING? >> POSSIBILITY OF WHICH DATES THAT MR. TRUMP WOULD HAVE AVAILABILITY IF, IN FACT, THAT WE WERE GOING TO GO OVER TO RUSSIA TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROJECT. I'M SORRY, SIR? >> GO AHEAD. >> UNFORTUNATELY, IT NEVER CAME TO FRUITION BECAUSE WE WERE NEVER SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THE FIRST PRONG OF WHAT I NEEDED WHICH WAS OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OVER A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND UNTIL SUCH TIME THERE WAS NO REASON TO COME UP WITH A DATE BUT WHEN I FIRST RECEIVED THE INFORMATION, REQUEST, TO GO TO RUSSIA, WHAT I DECIDED TO DO IS SPOKE TO MR. TRUMP ABOUT IT. HE TOLD ME TO SPEAK TO COREY AND SEE WHAT DATES MIGHT BE AVAILABLE IF I GOT THE INFORMATION I NEEDED. >> SO IT STOPPED BECAUSE OF THE APPEARANCES OR DID IT STOP BECAUSE THE PARTIES DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE IT? >> I'M SORRY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. >> WHY DID THE PURSUIT OF THE TRUMP TOWER THAT MR. TRUMP SAID, OF COURSE HE PURSUED BECAUSE HE THOUGHT HE MIGHT BE GOING BACK INTO THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS, WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT THE DEAL STOPPED? >> BECAUSE HE WON THE PRESIDENCY. >> OKAY. SO IN THAT INTERIM PERIOD OF TIME YOU MUST ADMIT IT LOOKS TROUBLING NOW WE KNOW WHAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE ATTEMPTING TO DO, WHETHER THERE'S COLLUSION OR NOT, IT APPEARS TROUBLING THAT MR. TRUMP WAS PART OF THE NEGOTIATION AT THE SAME TIME WE KNOW PERHAPS SEPARATELY THAT THE RUSSIANS ENGAGED IN OUR ELECTION. >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEM BEING ENGAGED IN THE ELECTION. I CAN ONLY TALK FOR MYSELF. HERE I WOULD SAY TO MR. TRUMP, IN RESPONSE TO HIS QUESTION WHAT IS GOING ON WITH RUSSIA, I'M WAITING FOR DOCUMENTS AND THAT NIGHT AT A RALLY HE WOULD TURN AROUND AND DO THE BATTLE CRY OF NO RUSSIA, NO COLLUSION, NO INVOLVEMENT, NO WITCH HUNT. >> OKAY. ON JANUARY 17 OF THIS YEAR, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" PUBLISHED A STORY STATING THAT YOU HIRED JOHN GAUGER, THE OWNER OF A CONSULTING COMPANY WORKING FOR LIBTD UNIVERSITY IN VIRGINIA TO RIG AT LEAST TWO ONLINE POLLS RELATED TO DONALD TRUMP. DID YOU HIRE THEM? >> THOSE WERE BACK IN I BELIEVE 2015. >> 2014. >> 2014. >> 2014. YOU DID HIRE HIM? >> YES. I SPOKE WITH HIM ABOUT MANIPULATING THESE ONLINE POLLS. >> AND DID HE USE BOTS TO MA LIP NATE THE POLL? >> ALGORITHM. IS THAT USES BOTS, THEN THAT'S ACCURATE. >> YES. DID THE PRESIDENT HAVE INVOLVEMENT? >> YES. >> DIRECTING YOU TO DO THIS? >> YES. >> WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE POLLS? >> EXACTLY WHERE WE WANTED THEM TO BE. CNBC POLL WE CAME IN AT NUMBER NINE AND THE DRUDGE REPORT HE WAS TOP OF THE DRUDGE REPORT, AS WELL. >> OKAY. >> POLL. >> AND -- >> CNBC POLL WAS CALLED THE CONTENDERS AND IT WAS TOP 250 PEOPLE THAT THEY NAMED AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE TOP TEN MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE. >> LET ME FINISH WITH EARLIER TODAY YOU DIRECTED A COMMENT TO MY COLLEAGUES AND I'M QUOTING SO CORRECT ME IF I GOT THIS WRONG. YOU SAID THE MORE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW MR. TRUMP, THE MORE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE WHERE I AM. IS IT YOUR EXPECTATION THAT PEOPLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION WILL END UP WHERE YOU ARE? >> SADLY, IF THEY FOLLOW BLINDLY LIKE I HAVE, I THINK THE ANSWER IS, YES. >> THANK YOU. >> TIME EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WHEN I RAN FOR CONGRESS I TALKED ABOUT HOW WASHINGTON WAS BROKEN. BUT I CERTAINLY DID NOT EXPECT THE LEVEL OF POLITICAL GAMEMANSHIP, PARTISANSHIP AND POLICIES TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF AMERICANS I'M WITNESSING TODAY. DISAPPOINTING TO ME THAT THIS COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIRMAN CHOSE TO SPEND THE TIME QUESTIONING AN INDIVIDUAL WITH ZERO CREDIBILITY INSTEAD OF SPENDING THE LIMITING TIME FOCUSING ON THE LIVES OF AMERICANS AND THE JOBS. YET HERE WE ARE TAKING TESTIMONY FROM A CONVICTED LIAR AND NOT SOMEONE WHO HAS JUST LIED TO HIS CLIENTS OR FAMILY OR FRIENDS BUT FROM AN INDIVIDUAL WHO CLIB RATTLY AND PREMEDITATED LIED TO THIS BODY. HE LIED TO CONGRESS THROUGH FALSE STATEMENTS AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS. HE LIED TO CONGRESS THROUGH THE TESTIMONY. HE THEN AMPLIFIED HIS FALSE STATEMENTS RELEASING THE LIES TO THE PUBLIC AND THE OTHER WITNESSES. YET NOW, WE ON THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO BELIEVE MR. COHEN'S TESTIMONY. I DON'T KNOW A JUROR IN AMERICA THAT WOULD BELIEVE ANYTHING HE SAYS GIVEN HIS PAST ACTIONS AND LIES. MR. COHEN, YOU STOOD BEFORE MULTIPLE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES BEFORE TODAY AND RAISED YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SWORE AN OATH TO BE HONEST. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU LIED TO NOSE COMMITTEES. IS THAT CORRECT? >> PREVIOUSLY? >> CORRECT. >> YES, SIR. >> YOU STATED THAT TRUMP NEVER DIRECTED YOU TO LIE TO CONGRESS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THEREFORE, YOU LIED TO CONGRESS ON YOUR OWN ACCORD AND THEN ADMITTED TO LYING TO CONGRESS. CORRECT? >> I'VE ALREADY STATED MY PIECE ON THAT. I KNEW WHAT HE WANTED ME TO DO. I WAS STAYING ON PARTY LINE. >> BUT HE NEVER DIRECTED YOU TO LIE TO CONGRESS. >> HE DID NOT USE THOSE WORDS, IN. >> IN THE EVIDENCE YOU PROVIDED THIS COMMITTEE TWO HOURS BEFORE THE HEARING STARTED, PAYMENTS MADE TO YOU BY MR. TRUMP. CORRECT? >> AMONGST OTHER THINGS, YES. >> YET OTHER THAN YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT THOSE SPECIFIC PAYMENTS WERE FOR THOSE SPECIFIC PURPOSES. IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT'S MY TESTIMONY THAT THE CHECK THAT I PRODUCED AS PART OF THIS TESTIMONY, THE 35,000 AND THE SECOND CHECK THAT'S SIGNED BY ALAN WEISSELBERG AND DON TRUMP JR. WERE TWO CHECKS OUT OF THE 11 THAT WERE MEANT FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE HUSH MONEY PAYMENT TO STORMY DANIELS. >> SO IN YOUR TESTIMONY, ON PAGE 13, YOU CLAIM AND I QUOTE, MR. TRUMP DIRECTED ME TO USE MY OWN PERSONAL FUNDS FROM A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT TO KEEP IT FROM BEING TRACKED BACK TO HIM. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF OF THIS DIRECTION? >> JUST THE PAYMENT, SIR. >> SO NO E-MAIL? >> MR. TRUMP DOESN'T HAVE E-MAIL? >> NO RECORDING? >> NO. >> NO TEXT MESSAGE? >> MR. TEXT DOESN'T TEXT MESSAGE. >> NO OTHER DIRECTION THAN YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY? >> AND THE FACT THAT I PAID ON HIS BEHALF AT HIS DIRECTION THE MONEY TO KEITH DAVIDSON'S IOLA ACCOUNT. YOU'RE RIGHT. THERE'S NO OTHER DOCUMENTATION I HAVE. >> SO NOTHING YOU PRODUCED AS PART OF THE EXHIBIT PROVE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED YOU TO MAKE THAT PAYMENT. >> I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT, SIR. >> IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE EVIDENCE OR EXHIBITS THAT SHOW THAT TRUMP DIRECTED YOU TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS. >> OTHER THAN THE NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN SEIZED BY GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND IS WIDELY SHOWN, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYBODY OUT THERE THAT BELIEVES I DECIDED TO PAY $130,000 ON HIS BEHALF. >> WELL, YOU WERE HIS ATTORNEY FOR OVER TEN YEARS. >> THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I PAY $130,000 TO -- >> IT DOESN'T MEAN HE WASN'T PAYING YOU FOR REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL. >> OKAY. >> HOW DID PRESIDENT TRUMP EVEN KNEW YOU HAD A HELOCK? >> I'M SO SORRY, SIR? >> HOW DID PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOW YOU HAD A HELOCK? >> BECAUSE WE DISCUSSED IT. BECAUSE I TOLD HIM THE SAME THING THAT I DIDN'T WANT MY WIFE TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT. AND AS ONE ADDITIONAL, RUDY GIULIANI HIMSELF CAME OUT AND EXPRESSED THAT MR. TRUMP REIMBURSED ME FOR THE MONEY THAT WAS SPENT TO PAY STORMY DANIELS. >> DID YOU TELL CHRIS CUOMO YOU HAD NO ACCESS TO MR. TRUMP OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER OF 2016? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. >> YOUR INTERVIEW WITH CHRIS CUOMO. >> I WOULD NEED TO SEE THE DOCUMENT. >> DID YOU ALSO TELL HIM THAT YOU MADE THE PAYMENTS WITHOUT TELLING MR. TRUMP? >> I WAS PROTECTING MR. TRUMP. >> AND YOU TOLD HIM THAT YOU MADE THESE PAYMENTS WITHOUT TELLING HIM? >> WHEN I SAID THAT, IF I THAT'S WHAT I SAID TO CHRIS CUOMO, YES, THAT WAS MY LINE. >> AND IF THIS UNSUPPORTED CLAIM WAS TRUE IT'S PART OF AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION OF EVIDENCE OF A CRIME AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WOULD NOT LET YOU DISCUSS IT HERE TODAY. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED. DID YOU ANSWER? >> YES. NOT ONLY DID I LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I LIED TO THE FIRST LADY WHEN THE PRESIDENT CALLED ME AND I WAS SITTING IN A CAR WITH A FRIEND OF MINE AND HE HAD ME SPEAK TO HER AND EXPLAIN TO THE FIRST LADY. SO THE ANSWER IS, YOU'RE NOT ACCURATE. I DON'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT ANY OF THIS AND THIS WAS NOT MY INTENTION. SORRY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD AS BEING A BLACK AMERICAN AND HAVING ENDURED THE PUBLIC COMMENTS OF RACISM FROM THE SITTING PRESIDENT AS BEING A BLACK PERSON I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT'S BEING SAID IN PRIVATE. AND TO PROP UP ONE MEMBER OF OUR ENTIRE RACE, OF BLACK PEOPLE, AND SAY THAT THAT NULLIFIES THAT IS TOTALLY INSULTING AND IN THIS ENVIRONMENT OF EXPECTING A PRESIDENT TO BE INCLUSIVE AND TO LOOK AT HIS ADMINISTRATION SPEAKS VOLUMES. SO I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS INTIMIDATION OF WITNESS. MR. COHEN, YOU WERE INITIALLY SCHEDULED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY THE 7th BUT THE LEGAL TEAM DELAYED THE TESTIMONY QUOTING ONGOING THREATS AGAINST YOUR FAMILY FROM THE PRESIDENT AND ATTORNEY GIULIANI. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> AND THEN ON NOVEMBER 29th AFTER YOU ADMITTED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S NEGOTIATIONS OVER REAL ESTATE PROJECT AND RUSSIA CONTINUE WELL THROUGH THE SUMMER BEFORE THE 2016 ELECTION PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED YOU, QUOTE, A WEAK PERSON AND ACCUSED YOU OF LYING. AND THEN ON DECEMBER 16th AFTER -- 2018, AFTER YOU DISCLOSED IT WAS THE PRESIDENT THAT DIRECTED YOU ARRANGE HUSH MONEY PAYMENT TO STORMY DANIELS AND KAREN McDOUGAL TO CONCEAL HIS EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS, HE CALLED YOU, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, A RAT. MR. COHEN, WHY DO YOU FEEL OR BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS REPEATEDLY ATTACKING YOU? YOU ARE STATING THAT YOU FEEL INTIMIDATED ASKING US TO PROTECT YOU, FOLLOWING YOUR COOPERATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. >> WHEN YOU HAVE ACCESS TO 60-PLUS MILLION PEOPLE THAT FOLLOW YOU ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND YOU HAVE THE ABILITY WITHIN WHICH TO SPARK SOME ACTION BY INDIVIDUALS THAT FOLLOW HIM, AND FROM HIS OWN WORDS THAT HE CAN WALK DOWN 5th AVENUE, SHOOT SOMEONE AND GET AWAY WITH IT, IT'S NEVER COMFORTABLE WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES -- >> WHAT DO YOU THINK HE CAN DO TO YOU? >> A LOT. AND IT'S NOT JUST HIM. IT'S THOSE PEOPLE THAT FOLLOW HIM AND HIS RHETORIC. >> WHAT IS A LOT? >> I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T WALK WITH MY WIFE. IF WE GO TO A RESTAURANT OR WE GO SOMEWHERE I DON'T WALK WITH MY CHILDREN. I MAKE THEM GO BEFORE ME BECAUSE I HAVE FEAR. AND IT'S THE SAME FEAR THAT I HAD BEFORE WHEN HE INITIALLY DECIDED TO DROP THAT TWEET IN MY CELL PHONE. I RECEIVE SOME -- I'M SURE YOU'LL UNDERSTAND, I RECEIVE SOME TWEETS, I RECEIVE SOME FACEBOOK MESSENGER, ALL SORTS OF SOCIAL MEDIA ATTACKS UPON ME WHETHER IT'S TO PRIVATE DIRECT MESSAGE I HAVE HAD TO TURN OVER TO SECRET SERVICE BECAUSE THEY'RE THE MOST VILE, DISGUSTING STATEMENTS THAT ANYONE CAN EVER RECEIVE AND WHEN IT STARTS TO AFFECT YOUR CHILDREN, THAT'S WHEN IT REALLY AFFECTS YOU. >> ON JANUARY 20th, 2019, RUDY GIULIANI CALLED YOUR FATHER A CRIMINAL AND SAID THAT HE MAY HAVE TIES TO ORGANIZED CRIME. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT AND MR. GIULIANI PUBLICLY TARGETED YOUR FATHER-IN-LAW AS AN EFFORT TO INTIMIDATE YOU? CAN YOU ELABORATE? WHY IS YOUR FATHER-IN-LAW BEING PULLED INTO THIS? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. CAME TO COUNTRY IN THE 1972, '73 EXPULSION OF JEWS. NEVER DID I THINK THAT HE WOULD DO SOMETHING SO DISGRACEFUL. HE'S ATTACKING HIM BECAUSE HE KNOWS I CARE ABOUT MY FAMILY AND TO HURT ME HE IS TRYING TO HURT THEM. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, MY FATHER-IN-LAW'S BIGGEST INVESTMENTS HAPPENED TO BE IN A TRUMP PROPERTY. SO IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR. ANY EFFORTS TO PREVENT A WITNESS FROM TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS IS AGAINST THE LAW. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. AS A CHAIRMAN HASAID RETALIATING AGAINST WITNESSES AND THREATENING THEIR FAMILIES AND MEMBERS IS A TEXTBOOK MOB TACTIC THAT DOES NOT BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR THIS COUNTRY. I WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD. THIS HEARING IS NOT ABOUT DISCREDITING THE PRESIDENT. IT IS ABOUT THE OATH OF OFFICE WE TAKE TO HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES AND TO MEET THE LAWS AND THE POLICIES OF THIS COUNTRY TO SERVE. THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK. >> MR. RORY. >> MR. COHEN, I, TOO, WANT TO OFFER MY HEARTFELT THOUGHTS FOR YOUR FAMILY, WHAT THEY'RE DOING GOING THROUGH. I KNOW IT'S TOUGH FOR THEM AND FOR YOU TODAY. THE CHAIRMAN SUGGESTED YOU VOLUNTEERED TO COME HERE. IS IT CORRECT YOU WERE ASKED TO COME HERE? YES OR NO? >> YES. >> THE COMBINED TOTAL OF THE CRIMES FOR WHICH YOUR SENTENCE BRINGS A MAXIMUM OF 70 YEARS. YES OR NO? >> YES. >> YET YOU ARE GOING TO PRISON FOR THREE YEARS. >> YES. >> THE PROSECUTORS OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SAID THAT COHEN UNDERSTATED THE AMOUNT OF DEBT AND OMITTED EVIDENCE TO INDUCE A BANK TO LEND ON INCOMPLETE EVIDENCE. YOU SAID YOU DID NOT COMMIT TAX FRAUD. ARE YOU GUILTY OF MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION? >> YES. I PLED GUILTY. >> YOU SAID CLEARLY THAT THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LAWYERS WERE BEING UNTRUTHFUL. DO YOU SAY AGAIN THAT THE LAWYERS ARE UNTRUTHFUL IN MAKING THAT CHARACTERIZATION? >> I'M SAYING THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. >> OKAY. THEY'RE BEING UNTRUTHFUL? >> NOT UNTRUTHFUL. THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. I DID NOT WANT A ROLE OR TITLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION. >> I'M SURE THE LAWYERS -- >> I GOT THE ROLE I WANTED. >> YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN TO PRAGUE AND NEVER BEEN TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC. DO YOU STAND BEHIND THAT STATEMENT? >> YES, I DO. >> I OFFER INTO THE RECORD AN ARTICLE OF MOTHER JONES BY DAVID CORN IN WHICH HE SAYS HE REVIEWED THE NOTES OF A PHONE CALL OF MR. COHEN SAID I HAVEN'T BEEN TO PRAGUE IN 14 YEARS. I WAS IN PRAGUE FOR AN AFTERNOON 14 YEARS AGO. END QUOTE. QUESTION, YOU AS MY FRIEND MR. ARMSTRONG OFFERED TESTIMONY. >> I'M SORRY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. YOU SAID IT SO FAST. >> YOU AND MY FRIEND MR. ARMSTRONG RIGHTLY OFFERED, DO YOU STAND BEHIND THAT OFFER? >> IF THE CHAIRMAN ASKS ME AND IT'S -- I'LL TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT NOW AND NOT A PROBLEM IN TERMS OF ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, YES. >> YOU MISLED THIS COMMITTEE IN A WRITTEN STATEMENT. YOU HAVE SUGGESTED TO REVIEW THAT. ARE YOU GOING TO REVIEW IT IN OUR NEXT BREAK TO CORRECT THE RECORD? >> YES. >> QUESTION, YOU HELPED OUT THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN. OR WERE INVOLVED IN THE CAMPAIGN AS A REPRESENTATIVE AS A SPOKESMAN. IT WAS YOUR IDEA FOR THE CAMPAIGN DATING BACK TO 2011. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> YES. >> 2011 IS A YEAR THAT STICKS IN MY HEAD. FOR IT'S THE YEAR MY DAUGHTER WAS BORN AND I WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER. I WAS NOT PUSHING FOR DONALD TRUMP TO BE PRESIDENT. I WAS FIGHTING CANCER. EVEN IN 2016 I WAS PUBLICLY BACKING A CERTAIN REPUBLICAN FROM TEXAS. BUT YOU, YOU WERE ALL IN. AND YOU EITHER WANTED DONALD TRUMP TO BE YOUR PRESIDENT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY OR YOUR ADVANCEMENT. REAL PERSONALS IN MY DISTRICT AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY WANTED THE PRESIDENT TO BE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY'RE SICK AN TIRED OF THIS HELL HOLE. THEY SUPPORTED THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY'RE SICK AND TIRED OF THE GAMES WE ARE SEEING HERE TODAY. THEY'RE SICK AN TIRED OF POLITICIANS REFUSING TO SECURE THE BORDER, BALANCE OUR BUDGET, RESTORE HEALTH CAREFREE DOM AND GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY TO LEAD THEIR LIFE. THEY'RE MYSTIFIED THAT WE AMASS $100 MILLION DEBT AN HOUR AND BLOWN THROUGH 300, $450 MILLION DURING THIS CHARADE IN AMASSING DEBT. $450 MILLION. THEY'RE SICK AN TIRED OF A DEMOCRAT PARTY THAT IGNORES ASYLUM CRISIS ON THE BORDER THAT ENDANGERS CITIZENS AND THE MIGRANTS THAT SEEK TO COME HERE. JUST YESTERDAY OFFICERS ARRESTED A GANG MEMBER. AUTHORITIES OFFERING A REWARD FOR A MAN TIED TO THE CARTEL FOR ROLE IN MURDERS, KIDNAPPINGS IN SOUTH TEXAS. A RUSH AT THE TEXAS BORDER FORCED BRIEF CLOSURE OF THE LAREDO PART. THIS IS THIS WEEK. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE IGNORING. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHILE WE ENGAGE IN THIS CHARADE. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SENT US HERE TO DO. THAT IS EMBARRASSMENT FOR OUR COUNTRY. I TALKED TO MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE BACK IN TEXAS JUST BEFORE THE HEARING. I SAID, DON'T BOTHER WATCHING. SHE SAID, AS I ROUGHLY EXPECTED, DON'T WORRY, I WON'T. I HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO. AND SHE LIKE THE REST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A HELL OF A LOT MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO THAN TO WATCH THIS. I SAID, AMEN, DARLING. I CAN'T HELP BUT THINK THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THINK WATCHING THIS CIRCUS. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'VE GOT A LOT TO DO, AS WELL. I'VE GOT HOUSES AND SCHOOLS TO HELP REBUILD IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. EXPANSION OF VOTING RIGHTS, EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM. THANK GOD THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME TIME SO WE'RE HERE WITH YOU RIGHT NOW. MR. COHEN, YOU LEARNED WELL IN THE TEN YEARS YOU WORKED WITH DONALD TRUMP. WHAT WAS YOUR POSITION WITH THE GOP IN THE UP TO EIGHT MONTHS AGO? >> I WAS VICE CHAIR OF THE RNC FINANCE COMMITTEE. >> YOU WERE VICE CHAIR OF THE FINANCE OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE. RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> I DO WANT TO SAY I WAS A DEMOCRAT UNTIL STEVE WYNN FOUND OUT AND MADE ME SWITCH PARTIES. >> THAT WOULD BE A SMART THING TO DO. >> HARD TO BE A DEMOCRAT AND THE VICE CHAIR. >> I HAVE ONLY A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. ON BEHALF OF THE MANY MEMBERS HERE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED TO YOUR FAMILY OUR APOLOGIES TO YOUR FAMILY, BUT I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS AND TWEETS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS BODY AND AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND AS FORMER COUNSEL ON HOUSE ETHICS, I THINK THAT VERY LEAST THERE SHOULD BE A REFERRAL TO THE ETHICS COMMIT TEE OF WITNESS INTIMIDATION, TAMPERING UNDER U.S.C. 1512 OF THE COLLEAGUE MATT GATES AND IT MAY BE POSSIBLY HIM BEING REFERRED FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. SO I WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. ON MAY 2nd, 2018, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY RUDY GIULIANI WHO WAS HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY LIKE YOU, APPEARED ON FOX NEWS AND REFERRED TO THE PRESIDENT'S ROW IMBURSMENT FOR THE PAYMENT AS PART OF A RETAINER. ON MAY 3rd, 2018, ONE DAY OF HIS APPEARANCE, THE PRESIDENT TWEETED AND I QUOTE, MR. COHEN AN ATTORNEY RECEIVED A MONTHLY RETAINER NOT FROM THE CAMPAIGN AND NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CAMPAIGN FROM WHICH HE ENTERED INTO THROUGH REIMBURSEMENT, A PRIVATE CONTRACT OF TWO PARTIES KNOWN AS A NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT OR NDA. THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS WITH RESPONSIBLY OVER WHAT THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO REPORT IS PUZZLED BY THIS AND SKEPTICAL THAT A RETAINER WAS ACTUALLY IN PLACE AND ASKED TO SEE THE RETAINER AGREEMENT ON CALL OF MAY 8th WITH THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL COUNSEL SHERRY DYLAN REPLIED SHE WOULD NOT PERMIT OGE STAFF TO READ THE AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT IS PRIVILEGED. SHE WOULD NOT LET OGE STAFF COME TO HER OFFICE TO REVIEW THE RETAINER AGREEMENT. MR. COHEN, IN A COURT FILING IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, FEDERAL PROSECUTORS STATED THAT, QUOTE, IN TRUTH AND IN FACT THERE WAS NO SUCH RETAINER AGREEMENT. MR. COHEN, DID YOU EVER HAVE A RETAINER AGREEMENT IN PLACE WITH THE PRESIDENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MS. CLIFFORD? >> NO. >> SO WAS MR. GIULIANI'S STATEMENT INACCURATE? >> YES. >> WAS MS. DYLAN'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE RETAINER AGREEMENT ABOUT? >> IT IS ABOUT? >> THE RETAINER AGREEMENT. >> HER STATEMENT IS WHAT? >> HER STATEMENT TO THEM, QUOTE, NOT TO PERMIT STAFF TO READ THE AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT IS PRIVILEGED. >> THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT. >> AND IS THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET OR HIS STATEMENT ACCURATE? >> I'M SORRY. ONE MORE TIME. >> A MONTHLY RETAINER NOT FROM THE CAMPAIGN AND HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CAMPAIGN. >> THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. >> YOU HAVE MENTIONED SOME INDIVIDUALS TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM NEW YORK AND ALSO IN YOUR TESTIMONY ABOUT MR. WEISSELBERG AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS. WHO ARE THOSE INDIVIDUALS? HAVE THEY WITH THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION? >> THEY ARE. >> OTHER PEOPLE THAT WE SHOULD BE MEETING WITH? >> CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. >> YOU HAVE TO QUICKLY GIVE US AS MANY NAMES AS YOU CAN TO GET TO THEM. >> YES. RONA GRAPH. >> COULD SHE CORROBORATE THE STATEMENTS? >> THE OFFICE DIRECTLY NEXT TO HIS AND SHE'S INVOLVED IN A LOT THAT WENT ON. >> MR. COHEN, WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WERE HAVING THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS IN 2018, DID THEY REACH OUT TO YOU TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THESE PAYMENTS? >> NO, MA'AM. >> AND WHAT DID YOU -- DID YOU SHARE WITH THEM ANYTHING ELSE IN ANY OTHER CONVERSATION? >> I DO NOT RECALL, NO. >> CAN THE COMMITTEE OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION WITH TESTIMONY, DONLGTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION AND THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> MR. CHAIR, I THINK THAT THOSE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE SHOULD BE SPEAKING WITH. AND I YIELD BACK AT THIS TIME. >> COMMITTEE WILL NOW STAND IN RECESS. AGAIN, WE WILL COME BACK. LISTEN UP. 35 MINUTES. 35 MINUTES AFTER THE LAST VOTE BEGINS. SO FOR MR. COHEN, MR. COHEN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROBABLY AN HOUR OR SO. ALL RIGHT. >> ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE CONGRESS HAS TAKEN A BREAK. THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HEARING FROM MICHAEL COHEN OVER FOUR HOURS OR SO. WE BRING IN A COUPLE OF LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING WITH US. AND LET'S SIZE UP MICHAEL COHEN AS A WITNESS. DANNY, I'LL START WITH YOU. >> ACTUALLY, RATHER IMPRESSED. HE'S PERFORMED BETTER THAN I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED. I THINK OVERALL THE MOST COMPELLING THING THAT CAME OUT OF MICHAEL COHEN WAS THE BEGINNING IN HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT, HIS PRE PREPARED STATEMENT. ON THE WHOLE THE REPUBLICAN FOLKS RETREATED TO YOU'RE A LIAR. YOU'RE A BIG LIAR. YOU'RE A LYING LIAR. YOUR PANTS ARE ON FIRE. >> THEY HAVE BILL BOARDS IN THE ROOM SAYING COHEN IS A LIAR. >> THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. AND WE ALREADY KNOW HE'S A LIAR. EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS THAT HE HAS CREDIBILITY ISSUES. MIMI WILL EXPLAIN HOW COOPERATING WITNESSES, THAT IS THE HALLMARK OF A COOPERATING WITNESS. >> THE RECORD. >> THEY HAVE CREDIBILITY PROBLEMS. BUT ON THE WHOLE, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE REALLY SHOCKING WERE THAT COHEN RECORDED PEOPLER IS SURREPTITIOUSLY OVER TEN YEARS AND NOT ILLEGAL IN NEW YORK BECAUSE IT'S A ONE PARTY STATE. AND EVEN ETHICALLY, NOT THAT IT MATTERS ANYMORE BECAUSE HE WAS DISBARRED YESTERDAY. THERE'S NO EXPRESS PROHIBITION IN NEW YORK LAWYER ETHICS BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT A LAWYER SHOULDN'T MAKE A HABIT OF. I THINK IT'S PLAIN THAT COHEN MADE A HABIT OF RECORDING FOLKS. >> IF HE WERE YOUR COOPERATING WITNESS, WOULD YOU SAY YOU'RE DOING OKAY, OR HERE'S WHAT I WOULD CLEAN UP? >> HE'S DOING FANTASTIC. LOOK. FIRST OF ALL, HE SEEMS TO BE REALLY STATING WHAT HE KNOWS AND NOT TRYING TO GO BEYOND THAT. YOU KNOW, AND IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE LETTER ON BEHALF OF HIM FOR SENTENCING, THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY SAID. MUELLER SAID HE KNOWS WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT PEOPLE AND DOESN'T TRY TO GO BEYOND THAT. THAT'S WHAT I GET FROM HIM. RIGHT? HE -- WHEN HE HAS A DAMNING FACT, HE SAYS IT. BUT WHEN SOMEONE SAID, WELL WHAT WOULD YOU SAY ABOUT THIS ABOUT MR. TRUMP, IF HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH IT, EVEN IF IT COULD QUOTE HURT TRUMP, HE SAYS I CAN'T SAY THAT. >> WHAT QUESTION ISN'T ASKED YOU'RE LIKE -- GETTING ON YOUR SEAT, YOU TWO? WHAT QUESTION YOU RIGHT NOW AND YOU HAVE MICHAEL COHEN NEXT? >> LEFT UNANSWERED, WHO WERE THE LAWYERS THAT EDITED THE STATEMENT TO CONGRESS AND MORE ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY WAS EDITED, WHO DID IT, HOW OFTEN, WHEN IT HAPPENED. NO PRIVILEGE THERE. THEY WEREN'T ACTING ON HIS BEHALF BUT FOR THE PRESIDENT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME AND MAYBE MORE OF THE POTENTIAL SCANDALS. YOU KNOW, THE ELEVATOR VIDEOTAPE. DID IT EXIST? DID IT NOT? ARE THERE ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIPS OUT THERE THAT HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF PAYOFFS. >> WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS CREDIBILITY ISSUE. AND OKAY. SO DANNY AND YOU, THE LAWYERS HERE, YOU THINK, OKAY, HE IS FINE IN TERMS OF CREDIBLE. WELL, THIS ONLY MATTERS TO THE EXTENT HE IS OFFERING SUBSTANCE THAT'S NEW. IS HE OFFERING SOMETHING IN THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT WE DID NOT KNOW BEFORE? HAS HE BROUGHT EVIDENCE TO THE TABLE? >> I THINK SO. WHY DOES HIS CREDIBILITY MATTER? >> I THINK THERE ARE EXPLOSIVE FACTS HERE, NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETELY NEW AREAS BUT HAS SHORED UP THIS CAMPAIGN FINANCE CRIME AND TRUMP'S INVOLVEMENT IN IT. REMEMBER, AGAIN, THIS ISN'T A TRIAL SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE AND THE FACT HE BROUGHT THIS CHECK, THAT TRUMP SIGNED. WE CAN SEE IT WITH OUR OWN EYES. $35,000 WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT CHARGING DOCUMENTS SO THOSE ARE FILED IN THE COURT IN THE KOURN SIS DISTRICT AND SORT OF VOUCHED FOR THE FACTS, AS WELL. YOU KNOW? THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN 12 INCREMENTS OF $35,000. GUESS WHAT, HERE'S ONE OF THE CHECKS SIGNED BY TRUMP. I THINK THAT'S GREAT CORROBORATION. WHILE AGAIN WE SORT OF KNEW BECAUSE HE HAD SAID IT AND, YOU KNOW -- >> THE PRESIDENT NOW ACKNOWLEDGES IT. >> BUT WE ARE HEARING MORE NOW ABOUT HIS DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN IT. AND HIS PAYING BACK IN THIS TOTALLY CONVOLUTED WAY THAT THEY CREATED THIS SYSTEM TO HIDE THE PAYMENTS BECAUSE, ONE, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PAY TAXES ON IT. TWO, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO REPORT IT. THIS GOES TO THE HEART OF WHAT THE CRIME IS. THEY DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO FIND OUT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO HIDE IT FROM THE VOTING PUBLIC. JUST ONE OTHER BIG FACT, I THINK REALLY ON THE -- NOT JUST ON THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW AN HOW MUCH TRUMP WAS INVOLVED IN THAT BUT ON THE LYING ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW AND THE FACT THAT TRUMP WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED AND HIS LAWYERS WERE. >> YOU'RE A FRIEND OF THE CONVICTED RUSSIAN MOBSTER. >> EXACTLY. >> BUT OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS TESTIMONY THAT MICHAEL COHEN PROVIDED TO CONGRESS WHICH HE NOW ACKNOWLEDGES WAS A LIE WHERE HE SAID, OH, CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE MOSCOW TRUMP TOWER? THAT ENDED IN JANUARY 2016. NOW HE SAYS, WELL NO, ACTUALLY, I WAS LYING TO CONGRESS. IT WENT WELL INTO JUNE OF 2016. >> THAT IAN THE FACT THAT TRUMP'S LAWYERS ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, APPARENTLY HELPED CREATE THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE DETAILS ABOUT THAT, ALSO. >> RUDY GIULIANI TOLD US ON THE RECORD IT WENT TO NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER AND NEVER -- >> RIGHT. >> OTHER EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY IF YOU BELIEVE IT THAT TRUMP WAS TOLD AHEAD OF TIME ABOUT THE WIKILEAKS DUMP. THAT'S REALLY SIGNIFICANT. >> LET'S GO TO KASIE HUNT. IT'S INTERESTING. DO REPUBLICANS IN PARTICULAR FEEL AS IF THEY CLEARLY HAVE ONE GOAL, TO MAKE MICHAEL COHEN SEEM AS UNCREDIBLE AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN? THEY HAVE NOT GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DEFEND PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> IT'S A REMARKABLE DECISION, CHUCK. I TALKED TO ONE MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE SOMEONE WHO HAS A HEAD FOR THIS KIND OF STRATEGY AND AS THIS PERSON UNDERSTOOD IT, THE IDEA HERE WAS TO MAKE THIS HEARING ALL ABOUT COHEN. AND NOT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP. THE IDEA BEING THE DEMOCRATS WANTED THIS TO BE ABOUT TAKING DOWN THE PRESIDENT. AND THAT IF THEY SHIFTED THAT FOCUS AWAY IT COULD BE GENERALLY ADVANTAGEOUS. I THINK IT LEFT A BLIND SPOT YOU POINT OUT WHICH IS TO SAY THERE'S NO ONE NECESSARILY DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT. ALL THEY'RE DOING IS TEARING DOWN COHEN AND ONE DEMOCRATIC MEMBER POINTED OUT TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THAT STRATEGY BACKFIRED A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE, IN FACT, COHEN SEEMS TO BE KNOCKING DOWN A VARIETY OF -- I'M NOT SURE I'D CALL THEM REPORTS BUT RUMORS WRITTEN ABOUT THAT PERTAIN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND VARIOUS THINGS HE'S BEEN ACCUSED OF, WHETHER IT'S HAVING MISTRESSES HAVE ABORTIONS OR TAPES IN ELEVATORS. MICHAEL COHEN HAS REALLY ACTUALLY VOUCHED FOR HIS CHARACTER SAYING I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THAT. IN THE CASE OF AN ALLEGED TAPE OF INSINUATING THE PRESIDENT WAS VIOLENT WITH HIS WIFE MELANIA, MICHAEL COHEN SAID I DON'T KNOW HIM TO BE THE TYPE OF PERSON TO DO THAT. IF THEY WERE LOOKING TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT WITH INFORMATION, MICHAEL COHEN'S ACTUALLY GIVEN THEM A LITTLE BIT OF THAT BUT THEY'VE JUST TORE HIM DOWN AND LEAVES THEM IN A DIFFICULT SPOT. >> WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE IF THEY DEFEND THE PRESIDENT IN THIS SCENARIO ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS WHO HAS THESE DAMNING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS THE WAY THEY'RE DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT AND BY IN LARGE MOST REPUBLICANS DID CIRCLE THE WAGONS AROUND THE PRESIDENT. >> ONE OF THE ODDEST MOMENTS THAT A CONGRESSWOMAN WHEN MARK MEADOWS BROUGHT OUT AN APPOINTEE OF THE PRESIDENT TO VOUCHL FOR HIM, WELL, THIS PROVES HE IS NOT A RACIST. IT WAS AN ODD MOMENT A LOT OF FOLKS ARE UNDERSTANDING. >> WELL, YOU KNOW, MICHAEL COHEN MADE A STRATEGIC DECISION TO AMONG THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE IN THIS 20-PAGE OPENING STATEMENT TO CALL THE PRESIDENT A RACIST AND ONE OF THE CONGRESSMEN BROUGHT OUT A WOMAN WHO APPARENTLY WORKED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP IN SOME FORM OR FASHION TO SAY SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO SAY HE IS NOT A RACIST. >> BUT IT GOES TO THERE'S CLEARLY BEEN COORDINATION TO TRY TO PUSH BACK. LET'S GO TO KRISTEN WELKER AT THE WHITE HOUSE. WE HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT DABBLE ON TWITTER, WHETHER IT'S HIM OR SCAVENA WITH A RETWEET HERE AND THERE. HOW DOES THE WHITE HOUSE THINK THINGS ARE GOING? >> Reporter: THE WHITE HOUSE REFERS US BACK TO PRESIDENT'S TWEET AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF BACK TO TWEET BECAUSE AS YOU SAY HE'S RETWEETED IT CALLED MICHAEL COHEN A LIAR, POINTING OUT THE FACT HE'S BEEN DISBARRED. TRYING THE MAKE THE CASE THAT HE'S LYING IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE PRISON TIME BUT THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY HOW IT WORKS AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN BASED ON THE TESTIMONY TODAY. TALK ABOUT A COORDINATED RESPONSE. WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES NOT ONLY REPUBLICANS THERE IN THE HEARING ROOM BUT OUTSIDE REALLY TRYING TO TEAR AWAY AT COHEN'S CREDIBILITY. YOU HAVE DONALD TRUMP JR. MAKING THE POINT THAT THIS IS OCCURRING WHILE THE PRESIDENT IS IN VIETNAM TRYING TO STRIKE A DEAL WITH KIM JONG-UN. DONALD TRUMP JR. TWEETING ONLY DEMOCRATS HATE SOMEONE SO MUCH THEY DISPUTE NUCLEAR PEACE TALKS WITH TESTIMONY OF A CONVICTED FELON. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING PLAY OUT. I WANT TO GO TO THE POINT OF COHEN TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ATTORNEYS WHO ESSENTIALLY AMENDED THAT TESTIMONY HE DELIVERED INITIALLY IN WHICH HE LIED ABOUT THOSE NEGOTIATIONS OVER TRUMP TOWER. SO FAR, NO RESPONSE FROM THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM BUT I DID TALK TO A FORMER LAWYER AT THE TIME, JOHN DOWD, SAYING HE WASN'T IN THE ROOM. DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE MEETING. I SAID, WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE BROADLY WHAT YOU ARE SEEING? HE SAID HE WENT BACK TO THE REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT THAT COHEN IS A LIAR. STICKING TO THE SCRIPT AS THEY MONITOR THIS NOW. WILL PRESIDENT TRUMP WATCH THIS ENTIRE TESTIMONY? OF COURSE, IT IS OVERNIGHT IN VIETNAM. BUT HE IS AN AVID WATCHER OF TV AND ANTICIPATE THAT HE'S BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO AT LEAST SOME OF IT. >> ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO CHUCK ROSENBERG. FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AT THE FBI TO JAMES COMEY. LET'S ZOOM IN ON A PARTICULAR PIECE OF TESTIMONY THAT MICHAEL COHEN GAVE THAT SAYS THAT HE WAS A WITNESS TO A CONVERSATION WHERE ROGER STONE OUTSIDE ADVISER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED IN 2016, JULY OF 2016, THE DAYS BEFORE THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION AND SAID, STONE, ALLEGEDLY SAID, I JUST TALKED TO JULIAN ASSANGE OF WIKILEAKS AND THEY'RE ABOUT TO DUMP A BUNCH OF E-MAILS. THAT'S THE CLOSEST PIECE OF INFORMATION, THE ONE CLOSEST TO THE RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY COLLUSION INVESTIGATION OF MUELLER. WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF IT? >> IT'S A FASCINATING PIECE OF TESTIMONY, SAVANNAH. HERE'S WHY. IT'S FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. MIGHT SEEM CONTRADICTORY BUT I DON'T THINK THEY ARE. ON ONE HAND COHEN SAID THAT TRUMP KNEW ABOUT THE CONVERSATION. COHEN WAS THERE WHEN TRUMP TALKED TO ROGER STONE. ROGER STONE PURPORTEDLY RELAYED THE CONVERSATION WITH ASSANGE SO TRUMP KNEW A DUMP OF E-MAILS WAS COMING FROM WIKILEAKS. ON THE OTHER HAND COHEN SAYS, I THINK IT'S QUITE CREDIBLE, OR I SHOULD -- COHEN DOES NOT SAY THAT TRUMP KNEW THAT THE E-MAILS WERE HACK FD. COHEN DOESN'T SAY THAT TRUMP KNEW WHAT WAS IN THE E-MAILS. YOUR LISTEN CLOSELY FOR COOPERATING WITNESSES GOING TOO FAR, WHO SPECULATE OR WHO JUST TRY TO TELL YOU THINGS THEY THINK YOU WANT TO HEAR SO I KNOW MIMI HAS DONE THIS A THOUSAND TIMES AS HAVE I. WE'RE LISTENING TO WHAT COHEN IS NOT SAYING AND NOT SAYING GOES TO THE CREDIBILITY. YOU'RE RIGHT. THIS CONVERSATION THAT COHEN OVERHEARD BETWEEN STONE AND TRUMP GOES RIGHT TO THE CENTRAL QUESTION OF THE MUELLER INQUIRY WHETHER THERE'S A CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION IF YOU WILL, BETWEEN THE CAMPAIGN AND TRUMP ON ONE HAND AND RUSSIA ON THE OTHER HAND. COHEN CANNOT CLOSE THAT CIRCLE FOR PROSECUTORS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T CLOSE IT THROUGH SOME OTHER MEANS. >> THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CIRCLES PRESENTED TODAY. I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT PIECES OF THE PUZZLE AND ALWAYS LOOMING OVER THESE KINDS OF TESTIMONY -- THESE HEARINGS ON CAPITOL HILL IS WHAT WE DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ROBERT MUELLER HAS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HAS. THIS IS A POLITICAL HEARING THAT WE HAD TODAY. IT IS NOT A LEGAL HEARING AND THE QUESTION IS, HOW WILL IT BE RECEIVED IN THOSE TERMS? >> THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS IS THE FIRST UNOFFICIAL HEARING OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, WHETHER YOU CALL IT THAT OR NOT. I THINK YOU HAVE AT LEAST WE HAVE SEEN HOW THIS IS -- WE HAVE SEEN WHAT THE BATTLE LINES DRAWN FOR 2019 POLITICALLY. WE HAVE SEEN HOW THIS IS NOT DECIDED WHERE DANNY AND MIMI RESIDE IN COURTROOMS. THIS IS DECIDED IN A BALLOT BOX OR ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE BUT I DO THINK THAT THAT -- WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS HOW THEY'RE POLITICALLY GOING TO TRY TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT WHICH IS BASICALLY GOING TO PUT IT ON EVERYBODY ELSE AND HE WAS AN ISOLATION AND FOR NOW THE PRESIDENT HAS ENOUGH -- THEY HAVE ENOUGH LACK OF EVIDENCE IF YOU WILL TO AT LEAST PLAUSIBLY KEEP THE PRESIDENT PROTECTED. >> REPUBLICANS TRYING TO SHAME DEMOCRATS FOR MAKING THIS THEIR BUSINESS, HAVING GOTTEN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE WINNING CONTROL OF THE MAJORITY. THIS IS HOW THEY CHOOSE TO SPEND -- >> I THINK THERE'S DEMOCRATS THAT PROBABLY ARE THINKING THE WORDS BENZ HEARINGS, BENGHAZI HEARINGS AND WE THINK EVERYBODY DOES PROTEST TOO MUCH. >> WE ARE ON A BREAK AND WRAPPING OUR COVERAGE NOW. MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER CONFIDANT AND LAWYER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, THEN BUSINESSMAN TRUMP, TESTIFYING FOR SEVERAL HOURS TODAY. THAT TESTIMONY CONTINUES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US. FOR ALL OF US, HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON. WE'LL RETURN YOU NOW TO REGULAR PROGRAMMING.

Channel: NBC News

Views: 346,523

Rating: 4.548346 out of 5

Keywords: nbc news, breaking news, us news, world news, politics, nightly news, top stories, michael cohen, cohen hearing, michael cohen testimony, trump, donald trump, president trump, cohen hearing live, michael cohen testimony senate, michael cohen testimony live, news, cohen trump, michael cohen testifying, michael cohen and trump, michael cohen live, michael cohen live stream, cohen live, cohen testimony live, live, Donald trump campaign, michael cohen trump campaign

Id: lBBVn4Ju0Zs

Length: 584min 51sec (35091 seconds)

Published: Wed Feb 27 2019