Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Washington Post: President Trump Ignored Warnings Not to Congratulate Putin; Porn Star, Playmate and Reality Star All in legal Action Over Trump; Report: New Explosion in Austin. Aired on 8-9p ET

Aired March 20, 2018 - 20:00   ET


[20:00:11] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening.

We begin tonight with breaking news on the president. Like so much breaking news on this president, it's like nothing you have seen before in any president.

New reporting tonight in "The Washington Post" on President Trump's phone call today with Vladimir Putin in the wake of his re-election as Russia's president, in a vote that's widely believed to have been something of a sham, the same Vladimir Putin who interfered in our election, as it is before, all-important phone calls, especially with the leader of another nuclear superpower, the president is carefully briefed.

This time, according to "The Washington Post," the president's briefing material contained a three-word warning on the election. The words all in capital letters, "do not congratulate," meaning do not congratulate Vladimir Putin on winning the election.

And then the president went ahead and did just that.

Joining us now by phone, one of three "Post" reporters who got the scoop, Josh Dawsey.

So, Josh, tell us more about the briefing materials, what was on them, and what the president ignored.

JOSH DAWSEY, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST" (voice-over): Thanks for having me, Anderson.

So, before a call with any foreign leader, the president is extensively briefed both by his national security team in person and in written papers that are given to the president. What we reported tonight was there were two parts of his written briefing that the president ignored in his call with Vladimir Putin. One of them was a part that said, in caps, "do not congratulate" Vladimir Putin on winning re-election. Obviously many people believe the election is a sham, fixed, and he's going to win it regardless.

The second part was to condemn Vladimir Putin for an attack in London of the ex-spy who was killed with a nerve agent. The president did not condemn Vladimir Putin on that part of the call, part of the briefing encourage that he did. Instead he talked about Syria and North Korea, also topics which were also topics that were supposed to be discussed on the call, were provided in the briefing. He did mention those two parts to Vladimir Putin but he ignored the other two that the national security team put in the briefings ahead of the call.

COOPER: How unusual -- I mean, obviously, it's up to any president to discuss what they want to discuss. How unusual is it for a president or I don't know if you know this, for a president to ignore, you know, two things of advice, particularly one that's in all caps saying do not congratulate this man on a sham election?

DAWSEY: Well, it's really unparalled territory here with President Trump, Anderson. You know, whether you like or dislike him, we have seen time and time again the president keeps his own counsel. He does what he wants to do. He says what he wants to say.

He has congratulated China's president for extending his term as president for life, and Turkey's President Erdogan for his election win which also was derided by many in the national security community. This president when he makes these phone calls, he's going to say what he wants to say.

And to the president's credit, we reported this, when H.R. McMaster his national security adviser briefed him orally this morning ahead of the call, he did not mention not congratulating Vladimir Putin, nor did he mention the attack overseas, we were told. So, it's possible that the president could have been given these briefing materials, simply didn't read it and decided to go his own way, or it's possible he did read it and decide to do it his own way.

COOPER: So, you don't know for a fact whether or not the president actually looked at the briefing materials?

DAWSEY: We know the president was given the briefing materials ahead of the call, ahead of every call, he's given extensively what we should convey in those call, what we want to convey, and in big font all caps, "do not congratulate" was one of the prominent parts of the briefing that was given to the president.

2COOPER: The recent reporting the president is feeling more comfortable on the job, relying more on instinct rather than on the advice of those around him, it's possible that also played a role in this.

DAWSEY: I think so, Anderson. But I would just say the president for the most part over the last 14 months has done essentially what he wanted. I guess on certain occasions his advisers have been able to temper him, for example pulling out of NAFTA or firing Bob Mueller earlier this year.

But in many cases, pulling out of the Paris accord, moving the capital to Jerusalem, eventually firing James Comey, the president has disregarded advice from his team saying he knew best. This is another case where he is the duly elected president, he won the election and is going to do it his way no matter what the people around him say.

COOPER: All right. Josh Dawsey from "The Washington Post" -- appreciate it, Josh. Thanks very much.

We're going to have more on that story with David Axelrod and David Gergen a little bit later in the broadcast.

But we want to turn to important developments in the stories of three women who have alleged connections to the president in the past. The former Playboy playmate, Karen McDougal, squaring off in court against the tabloid media company that bought her story and spiked it. She joins us exclusively Thursday night.

The adult film star Stormy Daniels whose attorney today released the results of a polygraph exam she took.

[20:05:02] Her attorney Michael Avenatti joins us to talk about this as well.

There's also Summer Zervos, who is on "The Apprentice" and who is accusing the president of sexual assault. Today, a judge in New York allowed her defamation lawsuit to go forward. We'll talk with Stormy Daniels' attorney Michael Avenatti in a moment along with Attorney David Schwartz who has represented the president's attorney Michael Cohen in another legal matter. They're both here with me.

But, first, Randi Kaye has the developments of what broke today regarding Summer Zervos and Karen McDougal.


SUMMER ZERVOS, TRUMP ACCUSER: And he came to me and started kissing me open-mouthed as he was pulling me towards him.

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): That's Summer Zervos, a former contestant on "The Apprentice."

DONALD TRUMP, REALITY STAR: You know what, Summer, you're fired.

KAYE: Claiming Donald Trump groped and sexually assaulted her. She filed a defamation suit against him a year ago, long after they met at the Beverly Hills Hotel back in 2007. There she alleges in court papers that he said, let's lay down and watch some telly-telly.

ZERVOS: He put me in an embrace and I tried to push him away. I pushed his chest, put space between us, and I said, come on, man, get real. He repeated my words back to me, get real, as he began thrusting his genitals.

KAYE: Trump denies the affair, posting about it: I never met her at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately a decade ago.

Trump's lawyers meanwhile have been working to stop the case from going to trial, calling it factually meritless. But just today, a New York state judge ruled the case can go forward.

Zervos' complaint says she has details from phone calls and meetings with Trump. Despite that, Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, who has admitted to paying hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels about her alleged affair with Trump, has called Zervos' case baseless.

Adding to Trump's troubles, this former Playboy model. Back in 2016, Karen McDougal signed a deal with American Media Incorporated which owns "The National Enquirer." McDougal says she accepted a $150,000 agreement to remain silent about her alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2006 and 2007.

Like porn star Stormy Daniels, McDougal says she was paid to keep silent during the presidential race.

But today, McDougal filed a lawsuit against American Media for the right to go public. This after learning American Media's CEO, David Pecker, is a close friend of Donald Trump's and according to court documents, regularly takes part in so-called catch and kill arrangements, killing the story before it can damage Trump publicly.

(on camera): The president denies the affair but McDougal says she met Trump at a party at the Playboy Mansion. "New Yorker" magazine reported the two met later, talked for a couple hours, then got naked and had sex.

McDougal, a former Playmate of the Year, claims she's been threatened with financial ruin if she doesn't remain, quote, loyal.

But a spokesperson for American Media says they didn't silence her, but instead, bought the rights to her life story.

And it doesn't end there. McDougal alleges in court that her own lawyer was working in cahoots with that same Trump lawyer, Michael Cohen. Back in August 2016, soon after she signed the agreement to keep quiet, she claims in court papers that her lawyer told Cohen by phone that the deal was done and Ms. McDougal had been silenced.

Randi Kaye, CNN, New York.


COOPER: Michael Cohen, of course, has a standing invitation to come on the broadcast. So far, he has yet to accept.

Joining us, his attorney in another legal matter and friend, David Schwartz. With us as well is Michael Avenatti who as you know represents Stormy Daniels and who again released this picture of his client taking a polygraph test which is back in 2011.

According to the report he released from that polygraph test, Stormy Daniels was and I'm quoting here, truthful about having unprotected vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump in July of 2006, that's a quote I guess from the polygrapher.

I want to remind that polygraphs are generally not admissible, of course, in court.

Michael, why release this information about the polygraph because as I said, it's not admissible in court. So, does it help your legal case? MICHAEL AVENATTI, STORMY DANIELS' ATTORNEY: Well, I don't know that

it helps our legal case, but we want the public to have as many facts as possible at their disposal. Our position, Anderson, has been consistent for weeks now. We want the public to know the facts, to know my client's story, to the extent that Mr. Cohen or the president have an alternative narrative that they wish to provide, they should provide it.

You know, I will note that while lie detector tests are not admissible in most courts of law, I believe the attorney general has most recently argued for the use as it relates to leaks from the White House. I know they are used throughout law enforcement, federal law enforcement for various purposes at various times.

[20:10:01] My client took this polygraph test in May of 2011, May 19th, 2011. She was asked specific questions. She passed with flying colors, as the polygraph report that we produced shows. So, we are going to let the American public take this piece of evidence together with your interview with her this Sunday on "60 Minutes."

They are going to determine whether she's telling the truth, whether she's credible, and I'm confident that after they view that interview and after they view this evidence, they are going to conclude that what they have been told by Mr. Cohen and denials, if you can call them denials, from the White House, are simply baseless and false.

COOPER: So, David, Michael Cohen has claimed that he paid this $130,000 in hush money out of his own pocket from a home equity line of credit. He did it, had nothing to do with the Trump organization, nothing to do with Donald Trump personally or the White House. I mean, does any attorney ever pay $130,000 out of their own pocket?

DAVID SCHWARTZ, MICHAEL COHEN'S ATTORNEY: First of all, we keep labeling it as hush money. It's pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement. These nondisclosure agreements are entered into every single day in America. They are entered into by politicians --

COOPER: It's money to remain silent.

SCHWARTZ: But it's money to not disclose the substance of the case.


SCHWARTZ: So, $130,000 was paid. It was pursuant to a contract.

But to answer your question, is that normal course of business for an attorney to pay it? No. But there's nothing illegal about it. And given the context of this relationship, there is certainly nothing unethical about it.

And remember, Michael Cohen was representing EC, LLC. It was EC, LLC that entered into this contract. Donald Trump was a third party beneficiary.

COOPER: Does that make sense to you? AVENATTI: It doesn't. Donald Trump was not a third party

beneficiary. Under the law of California, he was a signatory to the agreement.

What Mr. Cohen has said is as follows, that he negotiated this on his own, that he undertook all of this effort, and that at no point in time did his close friend and client, Donald Trump, know anything about it. He didn't know about the negotiation. He didn't know about the agreement. And he didn't know about the payment.

I have a very simple question, Anderson. If all of that is believable, then why did Mr. Cohen draft an agreement with a signature line for Donald Trump?

SCHWARTZ: Very simple --

AVENATTI: If Donald Trump was never going to be a party to the agreement and if he didn't want to bother Donald Trump with the agreement, and if Donald Trump was too busy campaigning for president to know anything about the agreement, and Mr. Cohen was going to do this on his own and wasn't going to bother Mr. Trump, then why take the effort to draft the agreement to make Donald Trump a signatory to the agreement?


SCHWARTZ: That's painting a fictional picture of the whole scenario. There's an "or" there. So, it could be E.C., LLC or --

COOPER: Right. But why have any line for Donald Trump?

SCHWARTZ: Because they left it open. They left it open for either/or. But the bottom line is --

COOPER: What does that mean?

SCHWARTZ: E.C., LLC entered into the contract. It's a real contract.

COOPER: You're saying Donald Trump had nothing to do with this. Why have a line --

SCHWARTZ: He has everything to do with it. He was a third party beneficiary. You're just not acknowledging that fact.

He's a third party beneficiary to this contract. He doesn't have to be a party to the contract to benefit from the contract, but he certainly can enforce the contract like a third party beneficiary can, and this is a contract.

And you are advising your client to blatantly violate a contract. You know what, she's liable for $20 million and this is an air-tight contract. An air-tight contract, $1 million per violation. It's not just the disclosure --

COOPER: Where do you get the $20 million figure?

SCHWARTZ: Because -- well, if you read --

COOPER: Are you talking about her appearances on the make America horny tour?

SCHWARTZ: No. It's -- there are 20 different -- there are 20 different violations. You can see it because in the contract, as it was artfully crafted, it's even the threat of a violation. It's even the threat of disclosure is a violation under the contract.

So, she's going to be liable for $20 million and Michael Cohen is going to collect every single penny of that money. Make no mistake. He's going to collect everything.

AVENATTI: Anderson, why isn't your name on the contract? Why isn't my name on the contract? Why isn't his name on the contract?

If Mr. Cohen is to be believed, all of our names should be on the contract. The fact of the matter is, the story does not hold up. And section 8.6 of the agreement specifically required all parties to sign the agreement.


AVENATTI: I didn't interrupt you.


AVENATTI: I didn't interrupt you during your bombastic comments. Please let me finish -- 8.6 of the agreement provides that all parties sign the agreement. All parties did not sign the agreement.

Here's another reason why this argument is full of holes.

[20:15:01] There are specific provisions in the agreement, consideration that only Donald Trump could provide. It's not just about the $130,000.

COOPER: What do you mean specific considerations?

AVENATTI: If you look at the agreement, in exchange for what my client was to provide, she was to receive $130,000 plus other things. What do I mean by that? Donald Trump was to release her of potential claims that he might have against her. Donald Trump was to agree to stay away from her and her family. Donald Trump was to do all sorts of things laid out in that agreement.

Now, Mr. Cohen, if he was only representing E.C., LLC as the claim has been made, how could he release or how could he provide that consideration? Those terms that my client bargained for?

SCHWARTZ: That's an absurd view of contract law.

COOPER: But how could Michael Cohen promise that Donald Trump would follow through?

SCHWARTZ: Because the consideration here is the nondisclosure of whatever she's about to disclose in exchange for $130,000.

COOPER: But he's saying there's more than $130,000.

SCHWARTZ: There's consideration, there's two parties to the contract. Both parties signed the contract and --

COOPER: But how can Michael Cohen promise that Donald Trump is not going to go near her family or Donald Trump is going to release her from other things if Donald Trump is not a signatory to the contract?

SCHWARTZ: Because those portions are irrelevant to the consideration at hand.

COOPER: Why are they in the contract?

SCHWARTZ: There's -- I don't even know where he's reading that in the contract. But I didn't see that in the contract.

But the bottom line is, there's consideration, there's a contract, and there is a massive breach of this contract. You know, when this case is all said and done, you know, she's going to be liable for $20 million.

COOPER: Again, I don't get -- I know it's $1 million per breach.

SCHWARTZ: Whatever, $10 million. Who knows how many millions?

COOPER: But you guys have been saying 20. I was trying to figure out where did that 20 figure come from?

SCHWARTZ: I have been going by what they have been saying. But the 20 is easy because there are easily 20 different violations when it's the threat, it's the threat of disclosure of the material. And she will have to pay this back one day.

AVENATTI: Why not just let her talk? I don't understand.

SCHWARTZ: Because she signed an agreement.

AVENATTI: Let me finish. Why is it so important, why is it so important to your friend and the president of the United States to keep this woman under wraps, to keep her under the thumb, to shut her up? Why is it so important?

SCHWARTZ: I can tell you why --

AVENATTI: Let me finish.

SCHWATZ: I can tell you --

AVENATTI: Why is that so important?

SCHWARTZ: Let me about consider answer your question --

AVENATTI: Why not let her come forward, why not let her come forward, why gag her? (CROSSTALK)

SCHWARTZ: -- every person that enters in a nondisclosure agreement, people do this, people do this in order to avoid litigation and avoid the embarrassment to family, to business, to reputation. That's why people enter into -- you know why people enter into these contracts. They are entered into all the time. TV personalities have entered into these contracts.

By the way, state legislators enter into these contracts. You know who pays the money? The taxpayers pay the money.

COOPER: We are going to take a break. We're going to continue the conversation.

Also ahead tonight, more on the president's phone call with Vladimir Putin, how the White House tried to defend it. We're keeping them honest on that aspect ahead.


[20:21:26] COOPER: Well, tonight the gathering storm has many fronts. A legal victory for one of the multiple women who've accused the president of sexual assault, a ruling that her defamation case can move forward. A former Playboy model wants to speak out about her alleged months-long affair with the president. And a lie detector test for the adult film star who also says she had sex with the president when he was, in her words, just a goofy reality TV star.

That, of course, is Stormy Daniels, the client of Michael Avenatti who is back with us, along with Trump lawyer, Michael Cohen's attorney and friend, David Schwartz.

So, Michael, you mentioned Section 8.6, says the agreement has to be signed by all parties to be enforceable. David points to this clause right before the line on the NDA in which the pseudonym for Donald Trump is used and it says and/or, meaning what I guess from your interpretation meaning what I guess from your interpretation, meaning not only does Stormy Daniels have to sign it, her pseudonym, Michael Cohen, but and/or Donald Trump. And that line is not signed.

And/or would seem to indicate either he can sign it or not.

AVENATTI: And/or is a term of art, Anderson, under California law, and it's actually in the conjunctive, it's in the plural. Even if it wasn't, if the intent was to actually allow for the "or", then Mr. Cohen reversed it. The EC should have been second, not first. That's actually the proper interpretation in the English language.

But I want to go back to this argument, because in a nutshell, here's the argument. Their argument is, a deal is a deal. That's the argument. A deal is only a deal if there was initially a deal. Our position is there was initially no deal.

Let me give you an analogy. This is like one of your viewers goes out and they buy a four-bedroom home. They pay a significant amount of money for that home. They show up to move in and the people that sold them the home say, you're only getting one of the four bedrooms but we have a deal because you're getting one of the four bedrooms. That's this argument.

Because they paid $130,000 and because my client got $130,000, they say a deal is a deal. She didn't get all the consideration. She didn't get bedroom two, three or four in the deal. There was no deal.

SCHWARTZ: Tell that to the judge.

AVENATTI: I'm looking forward to it.


AVENATTI: I'm looking forward to telling it to Judge Otero (ph), the federal district court judge in Los Angeles, and let me tell you why, because I have a little bit of experience before Judge Otero.

I'm also aware of a 2010-2011 case that he decided where the parties did not sign the agreement. Just like this, where you don't have Donald Trump signing the agreement. I'm highly confident that we are going to prevail as it relates to this.

SCHWARTZ: If it's going to take that long to explain it to the judge he's in big trouble. All right. You're going to go down in flames on this case. There's no question about it.

AVENATTI: I love when my opponents tell me that.

SCHWARTZ: There's a contract here. The parties signed the contract. Stormy or whatever her name is signed it on your side and EC, LLC signed it on this side.

And you know what? Even -- let's forget about the "and' and the "or" for a second. You cannot assert a right when you obtain a benefit. You waive that right. You waive all your rights.

She obtained the benefit under the contract. She received the bargain she bargained for.

COOPER: Did Michael Cohen violate the nondisclosure agreement by publicly discussing it and saying, confirming in fact that he had paid $130,000?

SCHWARTZ: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. He didn't violate -- because it was already -- she had already violated the --

[20:25:03] COOPER: No, it had been leaked to "the Wall Street Journal" --

SCHWARTZ: She had violated the contract already.

COOPER: How had she violated the contract?

SCHWARTZ: Because she leaked it. I mean, she's the one that was out there leaking the information. COOPER: How do you know she was leaking the information?

SCHWARTZ: Well, I guess it's going to come out in court, right?

COOPER: Why would she accept $130,000 in a nondisclosure agreement and then leak the information 15 months later?

SCHWARTZ: Because she's out for more money now. She sees a lot more money. However --

COOPER: But you have no evidence she actually leaked the information.

SCHWARTZ: I am assuming she did. So --

AVENATTI: But you know what they say about people that assume.

SCHWARTZ: Clearly, she was out there breaking this nondisclosure agreement and you know what's going to happen? She's going to -- you're advising your client to break a contract. You are advising -- so he puts in his papers how unethical Michael Cohen, which I have never seen in a complaint before. I don't know why you go through this whole ordeal.

AVENATTI: Because I meant to.

SCHWARTZ: But guess what?

AVENATTI: Because I meant to.

SCHWARTZ: But guess what?

AVENATTI: Because I meant it.

SCHWARTZ: You are the one committing malpractice. You are the one that's telling your client to break a contract. You know what? You are the one.

So, I hope you have a good malpractice policy because when she owes $20 million, she should go after you to collect the money.

AVENATTI: Anderson, you know the last time an attorney pointed at me like this and made threats like this, I tagged him for $454 million. This is going to be another instance. Let me just ask this. Let me ask this.

SCHWARTZ: Please do.

AVENATTI: You are a very passionate guy on behalf of your friend, Michael Cohen.

SCHWARTZ: My client.

AVENATTI: Your client, Michael Cohen. Let me ask you this. If Michael Cohen is such a stand-up guy, where is he?

SCHWARTZ: I -- AVENATTI: No, no. Where is this guy? Why won't he come and sit in

this chair --

SCHWARTZ: Because obviously --

AVENATTI: Wait, let me finish.

SCHWARTZ: I want to answer that question.

AVENATTI: He's been invited numerous times. He won't come on the show. He's dodging the questions.

SCHWARTZ: He is not dodging the questions.

AVENATTI: He's dodging the questions. Where is this guy? Where is this guy?

SCHWARTZ: There are other investigations going on.

AVENATTI: Where is this guy?

SCHWARTZ: I was wondering what was in the brown envelope.

AVENATTI: Where is he?


SCHWARTZ: Believe me, he can't wait to come here.

AVENATTI: Can't wait?

SCHWARTZ: And talk about this.

AVENATTI: He can give an interview, but he can't come on this show?

SCHWARTZ: Bottom line is, this is an airtight contract --

COOPER: Let me ask, Michael Cohen in "Vanity Fair," he did talk to "Vanity Fair," doesn't come on this program, but he did talk to "Vanity Fair," said that he would have done this at any time, that this had nothing to do with the election, because this thing was signed, what, ten days, maybe two weeks before the election, the "Access Hollywood" tape had come out, there was all this agita about it.

Michael Cohen said it had nothing to do with the timing. Had nothing to do with the election. If Michael Cohen had years to make an agreement with Stormy Daniels, I mean, 2011, there was an "In Touch" magazine article that got killed. If Michael Cohen had felt the need to make a nondisclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels he had 2012, '13, '14, '15, '16. Why should anyone honestly believe this had nothing to do with the election?

SCHWARTZ: Because this is when she came out and threatened to disclose this information. The deal was made. It had everything to do with reputation, with family, with business reputation -- COOPER: Nothing to do with the election?

SCHWARTZ: All of those items, why a person would enter in a nondisclosure agreement.

COOPER: Just a coincidence there was two weeks before the election?

SCHWARTZ: But coincidence isn't the standard of law. There has to be proof. There has to be proof that it was done because of an election. Clearly, it was being done to save the person's reputation so they don't have to go through litigation and to protect their family.

COOPER: Michael, did this have anything to do with the election?

AVENATTI: Absolutely. It had everything to do with the election. No question about it. You have to look at the timing.

I mean, it is obvious as -- it is clear as day. We keep hearing about how airtight this agreement is. It's one of the sloppiest crafted NDAs. It includes superfluous language. It has language in there about paternity issues.

If this is so carefully drafted by Mr. Cohen, we stated unequivocally there are no paternity issues. If this is so carefully drafted by his client, why include language about paternity issues, if it's so carefully drafted?

This agreement is so supposedly airtight, I hope the next time I get on a commercial plane, it's a little more airtight than this, because otherwise it's going to fall out of the sky.

SCHWARTZ: I mean, the viewers aren't seeing the agreement. This is an airtight agreement. It's an excellent agreement. Lawyers have reviewed this --

COOPER: Let's take another quick break. We'll have more of this conversation in just a moment.


[20:32:11] COOPER: We acknowledge Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti and Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen attorney and friend, David Schwartz.

So, David, as we talked about one of the things that Michael Cohen has said repeated this again, I did this personally. I have a loyalty with my friend. I would to anything for him, nothing to do with Trump Organization, nothing to do with the campaign.

Michael has produced a number of documents that, you know, bank notice sent to Michael Cohen at his Trump Organization e-mail address, which he then cut and paste onto his private e-mail address to then send an e-mail to then attorney for Stormy Daniels, other documentation and the hiring of a Trump Organization attorney to take part and help setup this arbitration in Los Angeles.

SCHWARTZ: Well, OK, the Trump attorney, that's after the fact. That's not during the --

COOPER: Right, but that's what's even weirder to me is that two weeks after the fact of Michael Cohen making a statement saying, nothing to do with the Trump Organization, he hires a Trump Organization attorney.

SCHWARTZ: Let's get to the fact. All right, so maybe they could have picked a better attorney. I mean, who knows, I think that's irrelevant.

Getting to the e-mails, you know, I was actually looking at all my Michael Cohen e-mails from way back when he was at the Trump Organization.

AVENATTI: Save those.

SCHWARTZ: You know, OK, yes, I save those. You know, he actually --

AVENATTI: Mueller made one of them.

SCHWARTZ: -- yes, maybe -- he actually made dinner plans with his wife, my wife and me on that same Trump e-mail. He used that --

AVENATTI: For everything.

SCHWARTZ: He used it for everything and let Mueller speak for himself. If you wanted, he is more than welcome to my e-mails.

AVENATTI: Well, save them, because I may want them.


COOPER: Michael, to you, what is the significance of him using his Trump e-mail? Because there -- in one of the documents you showed in this broadcast, it seemed like he cut and pasted his note -- the note from the bank to his Trump Organization e-mail to any private e-mail address?

AVENATTI: Which it would be no need to do that if in fact, it was common practice to use his Trump Organization e-mail. That explanation doesn't make any sense.

Anderson, there's a common pattern here. And the common pattern we see is his problems. When it's convenient for the President and Mr. Cohen to point to different entities and claim that they are separate i.e., EC LLC and the Trump Organization, they do so.

However, when it's convenient for them to claim otherwise, they claim just the opposite, that they're one and they're same. And I'll give you an example. I'll give you an example. The temporary restraining order that 2Mr. Cohen went out and received --

SCHWARTZ: Which is valid.

AVENATTI: -- got from the arbitrator, why, I disagree but that's neither here or there. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it's valid.

AVENATTI: That's maybe (INAUDIBLE) that. It's in the name EC LLC we can agree on that right?


AVENATTI: OK. EC LLC pursuing to the agreement wasn't even permitted to go out and get a temporary restraining order. You know, the party that was permitted --

SCHWARTZ: But they got it.

AVENATTI: -- you know the party that was permitted to go get a temporary restraining order? Donald Trump.

SCHWARTZ: Yes, they got it. Somehow, the arbitrator disagrees with you.

AVENATTI: No, the arbitrator didn't disagree with us --

SCHWARTZ: You know --

AVENATTI: -- because it was a unilateral act. The arbitrator had no contrary. It's like playing a football game and the other team doesn't even show up and then it's fine.

[20:35:03] SCHWARTZ: When it fit into his narrative and it's playing victory. But the arbitrator --


SCHWARTZ: This agreement is horrible, the arbitrator is horrible. When the judge ruled against them, he's going to be horrible. When it doesn't go into your narrative everybody's horrible. Let's just let --

COOPER: Was Stormy Daniels contacted about this arbitration?

SCHWARTZ: In fact, if it's not account, why do you even go through the trouble of bringing this action?

AVENATTI: By the way, are you licensed in California? Are you licensed in California?

SCHWARTZ: Absolutely not. OK. Why did you --

AVENATTI: Wait a minute. You're not licensed in California?

SCHWARTZ: Why do you go through the trouble of filing this --

AVENATTI: Wait a minute, hold on, hold on. Let me make sure that I understood this correctly. I want to make sure I understood this correctly.

SCHWARTZ: Yes. AVENATTI: This contract --


AVENATTI: -- is going to be governed by California law.

SCHWARTZ: Yes, I read the California law.

AVENATTI: Right, no, you're not licensed in California?

SCHWARTZ: Yes, right and --

AVENATTI: And your here --

SCHWARTZ: Absolutely.

AVENATTI: -- and pointing your finger --

SCHWARTZ: Absolutely.

AVENATTI: -- and engaging in all this bombastic nonsense and you're --

SCHWARTZ: Bombastic.

AVENATTI: -- not even licensed?

SCHWARTZ: The only thing that's bombastic is this complaint, talking about another lawyer's ethics --

AVENATTI: I'm shocked, I thought you were licensed.

SCHWARTZ: It had nothing to do -- no, I'm licensed in Washington and New York, I got license.

AVENATTI: OK, what about -- this contract is not being governed by Washington or New York.

SCHWARTZ: Yes, I have read California law.

AVENATTI: All of it?


AVENATTI: That's impressing, wow.

SCHWARTZ: Everything. I read everything. Yes.

COOPER: So you -- but in an arbitration, I mean, again, I'm not an attorney here --

SCHWARTZ: He lost the arbitrary.

COOPER: -- but --

AVENATTI: We didn't lose. We weren't invited to the party. COOPER: Does Stormy Daniels need to be contacted that there's this arbitrary and doesn't -- does she have a right to have representation at arbitration permit?

SCHWARTZ: Well, she -- absolutely. She's in court right now. So let's see what happens in court. You know, why, if the contract was invalid, why did he file this in the first place? Why not just break, why not just go out and speak?

AVENATTI: Wait a minute --

COOPER: All right, Michael, I need for that.

SCHWARTZ: If it's an invalid contract. Why did you file this?

AVENATTI: Wait a minute. You just claimed that we lost the arbitration. We weren't even invited to the party.

SCHWARTZ: So, I ask you, why did you even --


AVENATTI: Why did you file this complain?

SCHWARTZ: Because we want a judicial determination that this agreement is trash, which it is.

COOPER: All right, we're going to end it there. Appreciated both representing your clients well.

SCHWARTZ: Thank you.

AVENATTI: Thank you.

COOPER: Thank you very much.

Up next, more breaking news, a new explosion in Austin, Texas, we're talking about just moments ago. This comes just hours after two more explosive devices were found. One of those exploded injuring a FedEx employee. We have the latest from the scene in a moment.


[20:40:58] COOPER: We have more breaking news. Police responding to reports and these are only reports of a new bomb blast in Austin, Texas. I want to underscore that going to break. We neglect to emphasize the fact that the information right now is incomplete. And as you know in many cases the early reports sometimes turn out to be inaccurate in whole or in part. So that is a warning on this.

But we're getting the word this comes a course after an explosion at a FedEx facility, which was early this morning near San Antonio, one employee was injured. And another package with the device was found today at a second FedEx location.

Now with this new explosion reported in Austin just moments ago we could have seven devices possibly connected to this serial bomber.

CNN's Ed Lavandera joins us now from Austin. So Ed, talk about what we know again with the caveat that these are very early reports.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. This is just now developing here in the last few minutes. Austin police say they are responding to a report of a sixth explosion in the southern area of Austin tonight. FBI officials also confirm that they are en route to that scene as well.

Here's that it's on a street called Brodie Lane. Significant because much of the day investigators have spent at a FedEx drop off facility just a few miles up the road on that same road on Brodie Lane where they suspect that several packages were dropped off and delivered to a distribution center. One of them to the one you see here behind me.

So with this latest explosion happening tonight very close to where investigators have spent much of the day. And also on top of that very close geographically here in the city to where the explosion occurred on Sunday night that injured those two young college age males in their 20s as well. So all of that quickly developing here tonight and obviously, a great sense of urgency. It has been a frantic day of developments here in Austin today, Anderson.

COOPER: And, yes, you were at the FedEx drop-off point where the unexploded package was found today. I wonder what officials are saying about this item because I talked to the chief of police in Austin last night on the broadcast who said that as his understanding, and the ATF is obviously looking into the bomb components or the FBI. But there're some of the components in the devices as of that point that troop wire device.

Actually we're getting -- just getting pictures of the site of what may be this new explosion. These are just pictures we are getting in from our affiliate there in Austin KXAN, and you can see first responders are on the scene. They already have the area cordoned off. Ed, you're saying this is on Brodie Lane. You're saying this is not too far from the FedEx facility?

LAVANDERA: Well, let me paint the picture here for you. There's -- There were two packages with the explosive devices found here in Austin and one near a town called Schertz, which is suburb of northern San Antonio. That package in Schertz, San Antonio exploded.

The one that was discovered here at the scene behind me did not detonate. They were able to dismantle it here before detonated. But what we're told by investigators is that they also spent a great deal of time today at a drop-off location.

This was a distribution -- the two facilities where the packages were distribution facilities. There was a drop off location on Brodie Lane, where we know investigators spent a great deal of the day where -- because that's what they believe that the suspects that were -- the packages that were found here at this location in southeast Austin near the airport and the one here in Schertz they believe that's where those packages originated from that's where they were mailed from, which is just a few miles away on the same road where the explosion has taken place here tonight.

And we're also told by EMS officials that there's a 30 -- a male of about 30 years old who has been injured in the explosion tonight. Not expecting to be life threatening is what we're getting at this point, but obviously all of this could change very quickly.

COOPER: And just very briefly, the first three were bombs that detonated on porches is that people picked up. They were packages left on porches. The one on Sunday that injured two people that was a tripwire and obviously these FedEx ones are another sort of device or at least another way of sending these devices.

[20:45:17] LAVANDERA: Right. What's interesting is that in those first three explosions we were told that those boxes, just the movement of opening them is what caused the mechanism to explode. Obviously if these a being dropped off and then transported to distribution facilities, the question is and this is where investigators have not shed a lot of information for investigative reasons we're told, is what exactly is triggering these other packages that are being moved around to some extent, to trigger.

And not exactly clear where this -- the tonight's explosion and the package that was involved there, what exactly that location is? Where it was found? Who found it? And that sort of thing, those are the details that just still haven't emerged yet because this is essentially happening here as we're talking. It's happening in the last 10 to 15 minutes.

COOPER: And Ed if you can stay with us that'd be great.

Joining me now also is CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst Tom Fuentes, formerly with the FBI.

Tom, this is obviously a terrifying situation for people in Austin, incredibly difficult situation for law enforcement. The idea that they have been spending time at a drop-off facility, that at least -- if they actually have packages that they were able to get back, that gives them potential clues as does potentially going to that drop-off facility where somebody may have been identified.

TOM FUENTES, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: No, that's true, Anderson. And the more devices, unfortunately, it's been bad that there are so many devices. But it also gives them that many more clues to try to put this together.

Now the authorities probably know now for sure whether or not the materials are the same, the explosive chemical content of the bombs are the same in each one of these cases. Even though the detonation has been different with a couple of different devices such as the, you know, pressure switches versus tripwire. But --

COOPER: Well, last night that the chief of police in Austin was saying some to me, he was saying that some of the components of these devices are the same.

FUENTES: Right. So, in fact that's just does much speed of the devices and the locality of being in that part of Texas as opposed to, you know, a month goes by and then you have a similar type of device mailed through a distribution center or drop-off center.

But one advantage the authorities should have is there should be a lot of security camera coverage of these facilities that might give them some leads as to who is bringing these devices to the facilities, who's dropping them off or what the description of the person dropping them off. And I think that, you know, as this goes further, hopefully, there'll be more leads or there'll be tips that come in and they've received already thousands of calls. But tips that might be valid of someone thinking it could be somebody they know, a neighbor, a relative, a friend who may have told someone at sometime that they intended to do this or have the capability to do this type of bombing.

COOPER: You know, it's interesting, Tom, and again to our viewers you're looking at scenes, these are live pictures from the scene from our affiliate KXAN that it's believed to be a new explosion in Austin again. These are early reports, has not yet been confirmed and it was in fact a bombing. But obviously we want you bring -- you know, just caution you with these early reports.

The police, though, Tom, have actually made a public appeal for whoever is behind this to actually contact them and begin some sort of a dialogue?

FUENTES: Well, I think, you know, that's a good possibility because the person doing this is probably extremely narcissistic, is enjoying the attention even if their identity hasn't been revealed yet and may enjoy wanting to play a cat and mouse game like that with law enforcement authorities.

And, you know, you've seen that with other type of serial killers, you know, in history where they've sent letters to the police and taunted the police. You have the Unabomber sending his manifesto, which ultimately was his undoing for being caught. So, yes, it is a possibility that someone may want to contact the police now and make some kind of, you know, bragging type statement of look, you can't catch me, that's how great I am.

COOPER: Tom, stick around we're going to take a short break. Our coverage continues with this new report, an explosion in Austin.


[20:52:45] COOPER: If you're just joining us, we have breaking news out of Austin, Texas. And again, these are early reports, haven't been confirmed but believed to be a new explosion in Austin.

As you can see police are on the scene. These pictures are from KXAN, our affiliate there. FBI also said to be on the scene as well as local law enforcement.

If, in fact, this is yet another in a string of devices, explosive devices, this would be the seventh. There were three earlier left on porches in people's homes. One, a trip wire that injured two people on Sunday, and then today in two separate FedEx facilities, one in San Antonio and one in Austin. Two devices, one in the San Antonio FedEx facility actually did explode, the one in -- second device did not explode.

We're joined again by Tom Fuentes, also James Gagliano.

James, the idea that they have found a device that did not explode in this second FedEx facility today, I mean that provides them with even more potential evidence in terms of possible fingerprints or parts or any kind of signature that might correspondent to the signature of the other bombs?

JAMES GAGLIANO, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Two things are important in doing the bombing investigations. And the first part to your point, Anderson, is, is the signature of the bomber.

Now, bombs are made up of components, it's usually made out of a power supply like a battery. They're made up of an initiator like a blasting cap. There's usually some type of explosive obviously, maybe some shrapnel like nails, and nuts and bolts those types of things, and then a switch.

People have been erroneously stating all day, Anderson, I've been correcting them, that this Unabomber 2.0. This is far worse. The Unabomber which was the FBI longest and costliest case, it lasted 17 years. Ted Kaczynski began mailing bombs in 1978. He continued to 1995, he was arrested 1996. Sixteen devices in 17 years.

We now, if this link analysis can be confirmed, we now have seven devices in two weeks. This is a far greater investigation, far more important. I think the police caught a lucky break in finding some of these devices before they exploded to try to figure out and conduct that link analysis. But this is a far more severe case. Why? This bomber is showing you his entire portfolio.

[20:55:04] Three of these devices were left on the east side of Austin. They were left on porches and dropped off. One was on the west side of Austin and comprised of a trip wire which acted as a switch. Then you have some that are mailed to these facilities, these FedEx facilities. He is showing you three different types of delivery systems. Three different types of victim activated bombs. And I could see it on law enforcement faces today, they are worried and concerned about this and trying to get out in front of this.

COOPER: And, Tom Fuentes, it's interesting, I mean back in the 1970s, there were significant numbers of bombings in the United States, a radical groups and the like. It's not something we have really seen much over the last several years, and correct me if I'm wrong.

FUENTES: No, that's true. But many of those bombings, there were -- many of them directed at law enforcement. And I think that, you know, maybe people considered law enforcement a worthy target for some, you know, people's beliefs. But in this case when you put these on, you know, random porches or trip wires that anybody could literally detonate the bomb just going through, it's more of a to whom it may concern or to anybody. And then now with the going to distribution centers, a FedEx or, you know, sending them by the mails, you know, it's going to be a much more difficult situation.

In the Unabomber, one of the unique aspects, they kept thinking that bombs were being mailed from facilities near San Francisco. It turned out the Unabomber would get on a bus and go hundreds of miles, send it from that facility and then go back to Montana to his shack. So, you know, but in this case we had hand delivered items on these porches, so--


FUENTES: -- you know, it would indicate that the bomber is probably physically in the area of Austin, Texas.

COOPER: Yes, Tom Fuentes, James Gagliano, thank you very much. We're going to take a short break. We're going to get a lot more from Austin in just a moment. Again, police are responding to report of a possible new explosion.