Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Cohen: Trump Knew It Was Wrong to Make Hush Payments; Feds Investigate Possible Illegal Foreign Donations to Trump Inaugural Fund. Aired 6-6:30ET

Aired December 14, 2018 - 06:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

[05:59:20] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. It is Friday, December 14, 6 a.m. here in New York. And we do begin with breaking news. This is literally hot off the presses.

Michael Cohen has just broken his silence in his first interview since his sentence. Michael Cohen clearly says that President Trump directed him to make those hush-money payments. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER LAWYER FOR DONALD TRUMP: I will not be the villain of his story.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: He's saying very clearly that he never directed you to do anything wrong. Is that true?

COHEN: I don't think there's anybody that believes that. First of all, nothing at the Trump Organization was ever done unless it was run through Mr. Trump. He directed me, as I said, as I said in my allocution, and I said, as well, in the plea; he directed me to make the payments. He directed me to become involved in these matters, including the one with McDougal, which is really between him and David Pecker, and then David Pecker's counsel. I just reviewed the documents in order to protect him. I gave loyalty to someone who, truthfully, does not deserve loyalty.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He was trying to hide what you were doing?

COHEN: Correct.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And he knew it was wrong?

COHEN: Of course.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And he was doing that to help his election?

COHEN: You have to remember at what point in time that this matter came about, two weeks or so before the election, post the Billy Bush comments. So yes, he was very concerned about how this would affect the election.

STEPHANOPOULOS: To help his campaign?

COHEN: To help him and the campaign.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: OK, Michael Cohen in his own words, the first time we have heard from him since his sentence. That interview with George Stephanopoulos a lot to discuss, because it hits on the major legal issues.

Let's bring in former White House press secretary Joe Lockhart. Our commentators are here, Max Boot and legal analysts Ann Milgram and Elie Honig.

Elie, I want to start with you there, because what Michael Cohen just said has a lot of legal importance. No. 1, he says, "The president directed me to make the hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and also deal with 'The Enquirer,' the payments to Karen McDougal. He directed me, and No. 2, and perhaps as importantly, he knew it was wrong.

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So what we're kind of seeing here is a trial playing out publicly and in slow motion. Right? We have the accusations, the suspicion that the president did exactly what Michael Cohen just said. Which right off the bat would be the crime of campaign finance. The president then has made various and varying denials. And now the evidence is starting to come in.

And to me, the thing my mind goes right to is that tape. Remember the tape that Michael Cohen secretly made of the president that got out in the public, and when you have a trial, when you have a he said-she said situation. Those tapes, there's no better tie breaker than those tapes. You can't deny what's on a tape.

And remember, that tape is -- is almost entirely consistent with what we just heard from Michael Cohen. You hear him over the table with Trump, discussing the payment, how they're going to make it, what the timing is going to be, what the amount is going to be, what the form of payment is going to be.

So I don't know how the president -- he can say Michael Cohen is a liar all he wants, but tapes don't lie.

CAMEROTA: We have that. Let's just remind people of their exchange that you say this case rests on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: I have spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with --

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?

COHEN: -- funding. Yes. And it's all the stuff.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CAMEROTA: It's interesting, you know. It was like, why was Michael

Cohen taping him, we used to think? And now, if you believe Michael Cohen, it's because he knew he was doing something wrong, knew it was a crime, and was being directed to do it by this man that he gave undying loyalty to.

ANN MILGRAM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I mean, I think that's really important, and I agree with Elie that the evidence is there. What is astonishing to me this week, though, is the non-prosecution agreement with American Media Inc. Because it's been Donald Trump and Michael Cohen: "This is what happened," "No, this isn't what happened."

Now you have a third party who's cooperated with the government, who's come in and basically said, "We did this, and we did it for the primary purpose of the election." That to me is enormous. It now becomes not just evidence of a crime, but it's really corroboration of what happened. And so significant.

BERMAN: And again, the agreement with the American Media, what that does is bolster. It is evidence to back up. It is corroborating for what Michael Cohen just said.

And there are two versions now that have been presented in public. You say we're seeing this public trail here. Two versions presented in public.

No. 1, the version from Michael Cohen, AMI, and federal prosecutors. And No. 2, the version now being put forth by President Trump. He had time to think about after Cohen was sentenced, after AMI came forward with its legal arrangement, and this is what the president is now saying.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Let me tell you. I never directed him to do anything wrong. Whatever he did, he did on his own. He's a lawyer. A lawyer who represents a client is supposed to do the right thing. That's why you pay them a lot of money, et cetera, et cetera. He is a lawyer. He represents a client. I never directed him to do anything incorrect or wrong, and he understands that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So it's interesting to hear the president give his version, even as Michael Cohen says one thing, Max, federal prosecutors say another thing, Max, and finally, AMI corroborating both the federal prosecutors and Michael Cohen.

MAX BOOT, GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: But I think Trump is in real trouble for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that this is a case coming from the Southern District of New York. And look at what he's done for more than a year now. He has been demonizing Robert Mueller and his, quote unquote, his "gang of angry Democrats," which is a ridiculous smear job on one of the most respected law enforcement officials in America. But it has had an impact with his base. [06:05:04] But he has not been demonizing the Southern District of New

York. There is very little he can say here. He cannot claim that these career line prosecutors are somehow part of this Democratic plot to get him. That's ridiculous. And so he has to wind up attacking his own lawyer, and then his attacks become contradictory, where he's -- one minute he's saying that "I was just taking the advice of my lawyer."

And literally, the next minute, he's saying, "He wasn't really my lawyer. He was just doing low-level public relations work." So it doesn't add up. And this is -- even by Trump standards, this is an incredibly unconvincing defense.

CAMEROTA: Soon Michael Cohen will be a coffee boy. He's been -- he keeps being demoted in terms of his main fixer, his constant companion, his P.R. flack and now he is saying he barely knows him.

But I mean, I think that that gets to President Trump doesn't have a good track record in terms of sticking to a story on this one. OK? So the president has given -- has so many different positions, has so many different denials and nondenials, and admissions that on this one, he is the least credible player in -- among all of these other people who have the same story, and he has a different one.

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, if this is, as we said, a trial playing out publicly, then Trump is cross-examining himself, and he's undercutting his own arguments.

I think the interesting thing here politically is one of the classic defenses is I just told somebody to go fix the problem. I have no idea what they did. And you connect the unidentified third operative being leaked yesterday that it was Trump with Michael Cohen today, and that defense is gone.

What you see now is Trump as the mastermind of this conspiracy, the person directing it. And again, I'll leave it to the lawyers to decide what that means as far as his liability. Politically, that means he can no longer say, "I didn't really know what was going on."

BERMAN: And his story has changed again and again and again on this over the last year. When I say it's changed, he has lied about this.

I mean, clearly, somewhere along the line, there are so many different stories that some, if not many or all of them were lies.

George Conway, who is the husband of Kellyanne Conway, who is, you know, counselor to the president, Kellyanne did an interview with Chris Cuomo last night, where she basically puppeted what the president was saying, you just heard the president say.

George Conway, her husband, after that interview sent this message out, and he's no fan of the president. He says, "Given that Trump has repeatedly lied about the Daniels and McDougal payments and given that he lies about virtually everything else to the point that his own former personal lawyer described him as a f-ing liar, why should we take his word over that of federal prosecutors?" HONIG: That is an argument that resonates in common sense. You can explain to a 10-year-old, well, when someone lies and changes their story, it means they're hiding something. That also is a perfectly good and often very persuasive argument you make in a jury trial. Right? It's completely fair game.

Joe pointed out how the story keeps changing. That's what you try to do. You try to show the jury that this defendant keeps changing his story, or has -- changes the story before we got here.

I mean, he went from "I didn't do it. I didn't know anything about it," to "My attorney said it was fine. Two, it's not a crime anyway," and we could shoot down each of those individually, I think, if we had time.

But the fact that he has just lied and not even in ways that are reconcilable with one another, it's just completely changing stories tells you a lot.

CAMEROTA: Let's do that. Let's go down the "it's not a crime anyway." Let's just figure that one out. That's not just President Trump saying that.

When we have on various surrogates and we have on various Republican lawmakers, they try to go there. Well, criminal -- campaign finance violation, that's not a crime. That's a civil mishap of some kind. Which one is true?

MILGRAM: It is a crime. And there are also civil charges that can be associated with campaign finance violations. Here, we are talking about a crime, though. What Michael Cohen pled guilty to is a federal offense. It's in the criminal code, and it basically says you can't willfully do this.

We can't hide campaign contributions. We want the American public to know who's paying money into a political campaign. Here, why it becomes really important is it becomes a question also of, you know, they bring up the Obama -- the Obama payments in 2008, which they found was not willful. And Obama came forward and said, "Look, we didn't report all these on the time that we're supposed to." It's a little bit later.

CAMEROTA: People describe that as a paperwork blunder --

MILGRAM: Exactly.

CAMEROTA: -- whereas this --

MILGRAM: This is -- this is a willful act to try to conceal something from the American public that relates to campaigns where the American public should know who's funding the political campaign.

BERMAN: Yes, can we play Michael Cohen again? Because again, just to exactly that point, and I want you to listen very carefully, because Michael Cohen, he may not be a great lawyer but he's a lawyer; and he knows the law, and I believe that is why he said two things very clearly here.

No. 1, the president knew this was wrong. And No. 2, the president tried to cover this up. Because both of that gets to the criminality, the not civil violation part of this.

Listen to Michael Cohen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: I will not be the villain of his story.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He's saying very clearly that he never directed you to do anything wrong. Is that true?

[06:10:03] COHEN: I don't think there's anybody that believes that. First or all, nothing at the Trump Organization was ever done unless it was run through Mr. Trump.

He directed me, as I said in my allocution and I said, as well, in the plea; he directed me to make the payments. He directed me to become involved in these matters, including the one with McDougal, which was really between him and David Pecker, and then David Pecker's counsel,

I just reviewed the documents in order to protect him. I gave loyalty to somebody who truthfully does not deserve loyalty.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He was trying to hide what you were doing, correct?

COHEN: Correct.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And he knew it was wrong?

COHEN: Of course.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And he was doing that to help his election?

COHEN: He -- you have to remember at what point in time that this matter came about, two weeks or so before the election, post the Billy Bush comments. So yes, he was very concerned about how this would affect the election.

STEPHANOPOULOS: To help his campaign?

COHEN: To help him and the campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: That is literally a checklist for how a campaign finance violation becomes criminal. No. 1, "He directed me." No. 2, he knew it was wrong. No. 3, he tried to cover it up; and No. 4, it was for his campaign.

CAMEROTA: Except I have an issue with what Michael Cohen just said. Because he says, "I just reviewed the documents." Well, in the tapes that he himself took, you hear him saying, "I've got this figured out. We're going to deal with Allen Weisselberg." And Trump is like, "Uh-huh, uh-huh, listening."

He's like, "And we're going to --"

Trump goes, "With cash?"

"No, no, no, we're not -- no, no, nothing traceable."

Michael Cohen didn't just read the documents. He's leading him through how they're going to do this.

BERMAN: That is correct. But so Michael Cohen has pleading guilty to his role in the crime here. Well, Michael Cohen is testifying, too, to George right there and to federal prosecutors, is what the president's role is.

So both things can be true at the same time. Hang on, hang on, hang on.

CAMEROTA: I don't believe "I just reviewed the documents."

BERMAN: Hang on, hang on. Can I get to the point of the four things there? Because I think that's very important what Michael Cohen just said there.

Because what Ann was talking about is when does this become a criminal violation as opposed to civilly? Those -- you have to knowingly and willingly commit it.

MILGRAM: What's really important also is it really has to be done for the election. And I think if you read the filings that the government has made, this is what they're litigating. Like, this is one of the major issues, which is was it actually for the campaign, versus so that your wife and kids don't know.

And again, one of the most important things is that the president directed it. He was involved in it, and it was done for the political campaign. And that's part of the AMI non-prosecution agreement.

And so if we stay, and that's also what Cohen is saying, which is, like, it's all for one purpose. And again, Michael Cohen's role, he's taken responsibility for, but he's also put other people in it. And AMI has now -- they've got a non-prosecution agreement, but they've agreed to cooperate. So we've got sort of two of the three legs of this. And the president was the candidate, right? He's the one that had the motive to cover it up.

BOOT: Just to toss the hypocrisy flag onto the field here, I mean, some of these very same people who are saying that this is just a technical FEC violation, it's not a big deal, whatever. These are some of the same people who are saying that John Edwards ought to be locked up when he was tried on a fairly similar type of case. This is not like a unique prosecution if -- if they were going to go after the president. They went after John Edwards on a similar type of charge.

CAMEROTA: OH, I can do one better on the hypocrisy flag. I mean, we have Orrin Hatch, of course, this week, who now, you know what? Said, "Who cares?"

LOCKHART: Right.

CAMEROTA: He said, "I don't care" --

LOCKHART: Right.

CAMEROTA: "-- about things like this." And I remember that that they did care when there was philandering from the president in the past.

LOCKHART: I think that's correct. I think, you know, the one thing that we do have to -- you know, we sometimes lose perspective on this. And the largest perspective is a case has been built this week that the president was not legitimately elected.

If you look at the Russia stuff and the campaign finance stuff and the fact that 40,000 votes going the other way over three states, we now don't know. And that's why this is important. It may -- it's not the campaign finance. It's not did they have a meeting in Trump Tower with some Russians. It's was he legitimately elected? And that's where -- that's where we're all going to have to square at the end of this.

BERMAN: Well, yes, although you don't have to get to that point. You don't even have to get to the political point to look at this and say it's a legal mess.

LOCKHART: Sure.

BERMAN: And Elie, I want to get -- I think Alisyn's point is a really good point on Michael Cohen here, who says many different things and has said many different things. He's a terrible witness. He's a guy who has lied about everything and anyone over time. He claims he just signed the documents there, but clearly, he was a key player in all the things here.

So how much weight does that have and how, then, is it important that AMI has entered this scenario?

HONIG: It's very important. I think Alisyn has good prosecutorial instincts.

CAMEROTA: Thank you very much, Counselor.

HONIG: As we were watching, I had -- I had the same thing that you caught when he said "I was just the paperwork doer." I said, "OH, why do you have to do that?"

I've been with a million -- a lot of cooperators. And they sometimes do this. They will be truthful. They will give you what they need, but they minimize for themselves. And some of them -- Michael Cohen seems like this -- can't help it.

[06:15:07] It's like you don't have to minimize. Be truthful. We always tell them, tell us everything you did bad, everything everybody else did bad. Good or bad, whoever it helps. And when he says something like, "All I did was fill in the blanks,"

that's not plausible. It's not consistent with the tape we heard. So it's not good for his credibility.

I think he -- and that's why your question is right on. AMI, Pecker, Weisselberg, these guys -- the documents themselves, these other sources of evidence that are more credible come in to support the cooperator. You never want to build your case entirely on a cooperator. You always want to back them up.

CAMEROTA: Panel, thank you very much to help us sort through all this breaking news.

BERMAN: All right. But wait, there's more. A new legal threat for the president, or at least the people surrounding the president. His inaugural fund, the inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC are now being investigated by federal prosecutors. Did they illegally funnel foreign money? We have the details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: President Trump and some of his closest associates are facing a new legal threat this morning. CNN has learned that the president's inaugural committee is being investigated by federal prosecutors here in New York.

"The New York Times" reports that investigators are focusing on whether foreign money was funneled to President Trump's inaugural committee and also a pro-Trump super PAC. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to either of those entities.

[06:20:04] Back with us, our panel. And Ann, I want to start with you. Let me read you from "The New York Times": "The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds." Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds.

MILGRAM: Right. So the law says very clearly foreign governments cannot contribute to political campaigns or something like the inauguration, you can't do it through a backdoor by giving the money to somebody else could lawfully donate.

Why this matters and, I think, why this is so interesting is that the president raised an incredible amount of money, $106 million, in a really short amount of time --

BERMAN: For the inauguration.

MILGRAM: -- for the inauguration.

BERMAN: Which is double what Obama had.

MILGRAM: Exactly. And you know, I've done political corruption cases, and you always follow the money. And that's a lot of money coming in quickly. And so they're raising questions now, was there -- was it done to influence the government? Were foreign governments trying to influence and buy favors?

And that's, I think, a really important question, particularly because it's very clear that there's not a lot of information about where all that money was spent. That is a lot of money.

And remember that the inauguration itself is paid for. Security is paid for. The event itself is paid for. So that's essentially parties and events that surround that specific day.

CAMEROTA: Max, I think that when people, you know, our viewers and Americans hear about this, it's just overwhelming.

And I remember a close Trump associate telling me that one of Donald Trump's strategies, before he was president and now that he is president, is to flood the zone. He floods the zone so it overwhelms the system.

So you know, he'll spew out either so many insults that somebody can't respond, or there's so much now, there's so much suggestion of corruption and scandal and things not being has handled through the proper protocol, and it's just flooding the zone right now that this is yet another investigation from more federal prosecutors who are having to look at this. Where are you?

BOOT: Well, I think there is some -- to some extent, this is a tactic on Trump's part, certainly the way he hurls charges on Twitter, for example. It gets us running in a million different directions at once.

But I mean, this kind of stuff, this is obviously not a tactic, the fact that there is so much sleaziness in this administration, which is coming to light and providing employment for so many prosecutors. And I think you've just got to step back and look at the 30,000-foot view and just -- this is not normal. I mean, think about the Obama administration. How many special prosecutors were appointed to investigate President Obama and his aides? How many indictments? How many convictions? The answer is zero. OK, eight years, zero indictments. Zero convictions. Zero special prosecutors.

President Trump has been in office less than two years, and already this is the most scandal-plagued administration since Richard Nixon's. We don't know what the details are yet of the possible inaugural committee wrongdoing. But would anybody be surprised to find out there was wrongdoing? Of course not, because this is the kind of president that Donald Trump is.

This is how he operates. And he surrounds himself with low-life operators, people like Michael Cohen. Are you surprised that they're carrying out criminal schemes? Of course not.

It's just the question of breaking through their walls of lies and uncovering the criminality. That's the challenge. But does anybody really -- can even the president's supporters say, "I can't possibly imagine Donald Trump doing anything wrong with the inaugural committee"? I mean, give me a break. BERMAN: I will say in the "New York Times" article and the "Wall

Street Journal" version of this, there's no direct tie to the president himself. It's his committee; it's his super PAC.

But I'm with you. I mean, this is the, "But wait, there's more" administration. You know, there's not just an investigation into the presidency, the transition and campaign now. There's an investigation into the inauguration. But wait, there's more. There's always more.

BOOT: John, I think one thing that Michael Cohen said that does ring true, is he said Mr. Trump knows what's going on in the Trump Organization. I think that's right. I think he does know a lot of this stuff.

CAMEROTA: I do, too. Everything goes through him, Michael Cohen said. That does ring true.

BERMAN: Let me read you another part of this "New York Times" story, because this gets to the super PAC, which is different than the inauguration.

"In an interview with investigators a year ago, Mr. Barrack, who ran the inauguration committee, a very wealthy friend of President Trump, who also was involved with a super PAC, he said that Paul Manafort seemed to view the political committee as an arm of the campaign, despite laws meant to prevent such coordination, according to a person familiar with the interview."

LOCKHART: And again, it goes to the legitimacy of how he was elected. And the really striking thing, just picking up on Max's point is, it seems that everything Donald Trump touches has, at a minimum, sleaziness around it, at -- you know, at its most extent, criminality.

John, you just said the transition, the campaign, the inaugural. Everything. You know, we forget that the first six months of his office, we had story after story about cabinet secretaries abusing the government, abusing private planes, inappropriate expenses.

And the old phrase is right here, that the fish rots from the head. Even things that he didn't know about, created an environment where the people who came to Washington to drain the swamp, have not only been swimming in the swamp. They've been grabbing as much as they can.

And you know, I think, you know, Trump supporters will say that's just how Washington is. Trump is taking advantage of it, but most of the country, I think, is just appalled by it.

CAMEROTA: I mean, this is -- you know, again, to Max's point, would it surprise anybody that Paul Manafort doesn't think there should be a bright line between a super PAC and the campaign? I mean, what other people at least take pains to attempt not to cross, Paul Manafort says, "Who cares? Let's just funnel money back and forth."

HONIG: Yes, I think that's pretty standard operating procedure. One other thing to keep in mind with this inaugural story. Rick Gates -- cooperating witness, right -- Mueller has all his information. He was the deputy chair of the inaugural committee.

So I guarantee you Mueller has sat with Rick Gates, or will now, if he hasn't, and said, "Tell me everything you know about the way this money was handled."

So we don't yet know, but I'm pretty sure Mueller knows.

BERMAN: I don't think this is Mueller exactly, right? I think this is a Manhattan prosecutor's butt. He'll sit with somebody.

HONIG: But -- but right, but remember, the fact that Mueller may have sent it to the Southern District of New York or D.C. with some other cases doesn't mean those cases aren't coming back to the information being shared with Mueller. Right?

There's this assumption. While he peeled off Michael Cohen to the Southern District, but we know that Cohen, as a cooperator, came back with Mueller.

The same thing with the Maria Butina story, right? He peeled that off and sent it to D.C. I would have every expectation he would share her information with Mueller, and if Mueller sees it as useful, he'll take it. That's what happened with Cohen.

BERMAN: So in addition to everything else we see today --

CAMEROTA: But, wait, there's more.

BERMAN: -- but wait, there's more. As if there's not enough intrigue, there is literally a mystery hearing today. I mean, how do we explain this exactly?

CAMEROTA: OK. So cameras are poised right now outside of a federal court -- right, a federal report?

BERMAN: Yes.

CAMEROTA: And waiting to see who will be walking in, because there was a mystery court filing. Someone was subpoenaed. We don't know who. Someone is fighting that subpoena from Robert Mueller. We don't know who. Today, they have to show up to fight that subpoena. Who will it be? I'm just going to leave that out there.

BERMAN: So Ann, I think Alisyn laid it out perfectly there. There's this hearing. We don't know what's going on here. But we know that Mueller is fighting it and someone Mueller wants to talk to is fighting it.

MILGRAM: And we know that people often move to quash subpoenas for a variety of reasons. And so this has gone back and forth already from a trial court. Now it's going to an appeals court. Three judges behind closed door -- closed doors will decide, yes, you have to testify and provide information, or no, you don't.

So there's not a lot we know. It's like, I don't know, that question mark piece on the game puzzle where you want to flip it over and see who it is.

CAMEROTA: But the person doesn't have to show up. I mean --

MILGRAM: Just the lawyers.

CAMEROTA: Just the lawyers. So eagle-eyed journalists have to figure out whose lawyer matches with whom.

BERMAN: And there is a theory, Elie. You know, if Jay Sekulow shows up, lawyer for the president, there are some people who have written in Politico, Josh Gerstein, he's not speculating that it could be the president, but he's saying, "Well, we don't know for sure that it's not."

HONIG: Well, he's speculating a little bit. He's trying to get people whipped up, that it could be the president. I mean, Jay Sekulow said straight up that "That's not us. We don't know."

But yes, the journalist and the reporters there are going to be looking at everybody who comes in. I don't know if there's a backdoor there. I don't know if they'll send some unknown associate.

But it is all guess work. Look, it's clearly high-stakes. I think I'm comfortable saying that much, given how quickly it's moved through -- up and down through the courts and the appeals courts and, given that it's now being given -- it's now being given full consideration by the panel in the D.C. Circuit.

It's important, I think we can tell that much, but whether it's the president, whether it's Don McGahn, whether it's any of any number of different people we could list, to be determined.

CAMEROTA: OK. Well, stay tuned, because we will bring you whenever we put those clues together. Panel, thank you very much. Great to talk to all of you.

Now to this horrible story. A migrant child dies in U.S. custody after attempting to cross the border with her father. We have the details of what happened to this 7-year-old girl, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)