CNN: Hear what Michael Cohen said after testifying against Trump

Ex-Trump attorney Michael Cohen testified Wednesday in the hush money probe surrounding Donald Trump. The former president’s attorney Joe Tacopina joins CNN’s Erin Burnett to discuss.

Transcript

>>> Tonight, Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen testifying before a grand jury investigating hush money payments made to adult film star stormy Daniels. Here he is on his way out of the courthouse tonight. >> This isn’t a question of vindication. It’s not a question as I stated before about revenge.

This is a — my position is that at the end of the day Donald Trump needs to be held accountable for his dirty deeds if, in fact, that’s the way that the facts play out. >> Daniels also today meeting with the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Trump has been invited to appear

Before the grand jury which is the clearest indication yet that prosecutors are nearing a decision on whether to take the unprecedented step of indicting a former president. Out front now, trump’s attorney Joe tacopina. I appreciate your time. You heard Michael Cohen coming out today moments ago. What’s your response to him?

>> I mean, look, Allen Bragg once said and I hope he remembers these words, he can’t see a world in which he would base a prosecution of Donald Trump on the word of a convicted perjurer and felon like Michael Cohen. He’s still a convicted perjurer and he’s someone who is

Convicted of lying and it’s not about vengeance. It’s all about vengeance for him and putting that aside, Erin. Here’s the question. Does anyone actually believe, anyone, left, right, middle, whatever that if someone else were accused of paying hush money to avoid a public sex scandal in the manner that

Donald Trump is allegeded to have avoided a public sex scandal they would be prosecute, the answer is 100% no. And we cannot as a society, pro-trump, anti-Trump, left, right, want the weaponization of the justice system or a prosecutor’s office to pursue political opponents with — with rule of law.

It’s just not right and that’s exactly what’s happening here. >> I want to ask you about that, but first on the point you said about Michael Cohen, convicted perjurer. Yes, and he served his time, but the fdny is not going to indict based on what Michael Cohen says.

If they would have done that, they would have done that a long time ago. They heard from other witnesses, kellyanne Conway appeared there, hope hicks appeared there. Does any of that give you pause? >> Yeah, well, it gives me confidence it should give Alan Bragg pause. The southern district of new

York is the top echelon, the holy grail, if you will of prosecutor’s offices in this country. They had plenty of time to indict former president trump if they wanted to and they chose not to because they not that campaign election law makes it very clear that there was no violation.

Erin, if there was no campaign law violation here there is no case at all. At all. >> I understand someone who was involved in that the other day told me that time had passed, when that decision was made not to indict and they thought, you know what? They could have had more information.

They could have figured it out and they’re not going to move without having that, right? That they’ve got the goods. >> Well, that they’ve got the goods. They evaluated it and didn’t go forward. The Manhattan d.a.’s office, despite what they said about relying on Michael Cohen in the

Past, for three years they have scoured Donald Trump’s personal and business life. Scoured, and they’ve lookeded for a crime to fit the person, we should all be concerned about this, whether you like or hate Donald Trump, we should all be concerned, they picked the person and are searching for a

Crime if you read Pomerantz’s book by revealing secret grand jury information to a third party, in his book, even he said that he picked trump. He would have paid to prosecute trump which is a scary statement by a pros cure, but he would have paid to prosecute him

Because he didn’t like him 37. >> One, if a crime is there, misdemeanor or felony, if a crime is there a kram is there, right? >> Absolutely. >> I know you said Donald Trump will win the election, if they bring this case I believe it will catapult him to the white

House, that’s what you said last night, but if that’s the case, they surely would know that, too. Why would they be going ahead and doing this for political reasons if it’s only going to help him? >> Listen, Erin. They may not see it the way I see it.

They may think if they indict someone it makes them ineligible to run for president. There are some states that you can be disqualified from running on the ballot if you have an open indictment. >> Look, I think it will embolden his supporters and I think it will enrange his

Supporters and make them feel stronger about the fact that they’re politicizing the justice department system and a prosecutor would say he’s a very democratic prosecutor that’s been supportive by the far left going after the far right guy out there, and I think he’s thinking if I prosecute him I

Tack him out of candacy and that is not what a prosecutor’s office should be doing. >> An indictment does not mean he can’t run. Is he prepared to appear in court to defend himself? >> One thing I will tell you about Donald Trump in MI time knowing him and representing him

And having the honor of representing, is he’s probably the toughest guy I’ve ever met because most people would buckle under this pressure. Is he prepared? He’s prepared. I’m prepared. Susan Nicholas’ is prepared and my co-counsel will lean on this thing. We’re prepared and this case will be eaten up and it fails on

The law and it fails on the facts. He’s prepared. Does he want this to happen? Of course, not. Does anyone want to be charged falsely for a crime of political persecution? Of course not. All we have to look at is the facts of the law and it is very clear.

Campaign finance law is very clear. You have scholars and former chairmen of the federal and state campaign finance committees who have all said, all opined, show me one who says differently that these facts make out a crime. They do not. >> The only thing I’d say is if it would embolden the supporters

Why don’t you want them to go ahead and charge and it sounds like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. >> Don’t say I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth, if they indict him, I think it will embolden him because he will win this case and it will catapult

Him to the white house. That’s what I said. What I am also saying is no one in their right mind wants to be indicted and charged falsely of a crime. I’m not talking about both sides of my mouth. I am stating facts and it will ultimately embolden supporters

Because he’ll be proven to be wrongly accused and who wants to be charged falsely with a crime? Nobody. >> Joe tacopina, thank you for your time. >> The editor in chief of the just security blog. Here we are, a likely indictment is pending here. What’s your takeaway from Joe tacopina?

>> I thought what was most curious or what he didn’t talk about. He’s talking about things that are not crimes or not the central crime. Nobody would be charged for hush money. That’s true, because paying hush money is not a crime. >> Right. >> He wants to talk about the

Campaign finance charges and that is shakier, but the central charge that he will bring is falsifying business records that when they paid Michael Cohen they did not say that the payment was for its true purpose and it was legal services and that he was on retainer and that

Is what the central charge was a misdemeanor and everything builds off of that. >> Just a misdemeanor on that and just to be clear. Charges are charges and there are a lot of other cases out there, but a misdemeanor you’re talking about a fine if convicted.

>> If it all boils down to just that charge of a misdemeanor then this is not about Donald Trump facing jail time and that’s a good chance that happens with this case. Unclear, right? Whether more information came in as Joe and I were talking about. But if this happens, it will be

The first indictment of possibly several because you have the classified documents and Fulton county Georgia, and in that case, we have learned that there’s a new call, a new phone call that we have not heard about that was trump and he made this call to the Georgia house

Speaker and it was to push a special session to overturn the election. We know about this phone call. This is the third audio recording on trump and we did not know about this until now. How valuable is the evidence? >> I think it’s incredibly valuable and that’s not just the

Existence of the phone call and he’s trying to set up a special session with the house speaker GOP leader pushes back, but it’s an audio recording of the phone call. That’s very important. It’s vivid information that has an inherent reliability and credibility for a jury, that can

source