FIRST AIRED: May 4, 2018

Nice work! Enjoy the show!


You’re busy. We get it.

Stay on top of the news with our Editor’s Picks newsletter.

US Edition
Intl. Edition
Unsubscribe at any time. One click, it’s gone.

Thanks for signing up!

We've got more news

Get our editor’s daily email summary of what’s going on in the world.

US Edition
Intl. Edition
Replay Program
More Info

COMING UP:Share Opener Variant 4



>> President Trump's first public admission on Thursday that he reimbursed his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. The hush money paid to porn star, Stormy Daniels, raising new questions about potential violations of campaign finance law. Trump's acknowledgment of the payment on Twitter, comes after Rudy Giuliani says it broke no laws.
Because it was not drawn from Trump campaign funds, but Reuter's legal correspondent, Yon Wolf, says it's not that simple.>> The statements by Giuliani could arguably make it seem like this payment to Stormy Daniels was not a contribution. But it raises a different question, whether it was a loan.
The federal election laws require campaigns to disclose all their campaign expenditures on disclosure forms, including loans. So the statement that the President reimbursed Cohen, raises that question. Of whether this was an undisclosed loan in violation of federal election law. And potentially, also a statute that prohibits lying to the government.
>> Giuliani told Fox News', Sean Hannity on Wednesday night, that because the payment was not campaign money. And funneled through a law firm, there is no campaign finance violation. But in an interview on Fox and Friends, Thursday morning, Giuliani said of the alleged affair. Quote, imagine if that came out on October 15th, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton.
And Wolf says, that remark strongly suggests the payment could have been campaign related.>> Rudy Giuliani's statement on Fox & Friends that the revelation would have impacted the election. Seems to undermine the President's case, and really bolster exactly what the President's critics are saying. That this payment, just days before the election, was intended to influence its outcome.
>> Trump told reporters in April, he did not know about the payment to Daniels. Made the month before the 2016 election or the source of the money.>> No, I don't know.>> But in a series of tweets on Thursday, Trump said, the funds were part of a private agreement.
That involved money that had nothing to do with the campaign. Giuliani stressed on Thursday, that the payment was a personal, rather than campaign matter to protect the president's family. And that Trump did not know the details of the arrangement until about ten days ago.