[Brooke Baldwin, Cnn Anchor:] We continue on. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. There have been many estimates of how much President Trump's border wall could cost, in the neighborhood of $33 billion, but, today, the first tangible idea of exactly how to pay for it came about. A Trump administration official tells CNN the president had been thinking about tapping the Pentagon budget for funding, as in, have the military pay. Here is Press Secretary Sarah Sanders fielding a question on that moments ago.
[Question:] Does he mean that he wants the military to pay for the border wall? Could you speak generally to that?
[Sarah Huckabee Sanders, White House Press Secretary:] Again, I'm not going to get into the specifics of that. But I can tell you that the wall is continuing to be built currently, and we are going to keep pushing forward until it's fully completed in the way that the president feels is necessary to defend the country.
[Question:] Isn't it true at this point that Mexico is not going to pay for that wall?
[Huckabee Sanders:] I'm not going to go beyond what the president has already said. I think he still has plans to look at potential ways for that to happen.
[Baldwin:] So, let's start there with our White House reporter, Kaitlan Collins. And apparently that was floated in a meeting that the president had with the House speaker a week ago. Can you tell us more about that conversation and the request?
[Kaitlan Collins, Cnn White House Correspondent:] Yes, Brooke, chanting that the military is going to pay for the wall just doesn't have the same ring to it that Mexico is going to pay for the wall. Obviously, that was a very popular chant at a lot of the president's rallies on the campaign trail before he came into office here. And we know that this is something that the president has been frustrated with, even that was really on display last Friday, as we saw the president threatening to veto that spending bill which he believes didn't include enough funding for his border wall in there, only had a very small amount in response to the $25 billion that the White House had asked for. Obviously, this all comes back to the president being frustrated that Congress didn't give him enough money for the border wall, but all along, the president said Mexico was going to pay for the border wall, though that's seeming less and less likely. And Sarah Sanders was also asked by a separate reporter directly, in what way could Mexico pay for this wall? And she said that they are still looking for options, potential options for that to happen, but not a lot of specifics there, Brooke, and not really a direct answer from the press secretary on whether that's going to happen. But we do we have confirmed that the president has floated the idea of having the military having that come from a military budget in order to pay for that wall, saying that it would be a national security reason. And the White House just didn't seem prepared to answer any questions to follow up on exactly what those specifics would look like. But it's very clearly a strong departure from having Mexico pay for it, which is something that the president certainly ran on, when he ran for office here, Brooke.
[Baldwin:] You are correct. Let's move to a question that she was asked a bunch of different times and ways, including from our own Jeff Zeleny, on Stormy Daniels on how the president is still noticeably silent on commenting on this. And she at one point said, he isn't going to counterpunch on everything. Do we know, Kaitlan, is being told, don't say a word?
[Collins:] He has been advised. He's been asking people, do they think he should publicly respond? He has been told for right now that his friends and his advisers don't think he should wade any further into this in any kind of a public aspect. He certainly has not directly addressed it. But there are three things in that briefing in response to the Stormy Daniels that stood out. One being the counterpuncher thing, because often in the past, when the president has said shocking things, the White House has responded by saying when he gets punched he's going to hit right back. But he hasn't been doing that with Stormy Daniels. And Sarah Sanders said he simply doesn't have time to respond to all of the attacks on him. But this has certainly been one of the biggest. It's really dominated the news headlines in recent weeks. So, it's certainly surprising that the president hasn't said a word about it, when he responds to other very small slights. And then, secondly, Sarah Sanders said that the White House has responded to these accusations extensively and they've gone over them with reporters extensively. And, Brooke, that's just simply not the case. The White House has actually refused to answer a lot of questions relating to these allegations and what the president's thoughts are on these. And the president himself has not addressed it directly either. And then one more thing. When asked about this payout from the president's lawyer, Michael Cohen, to Stormy Daniels, Sarah Sanders repeatedly referred reporters to the president's outside legal team. But, to be clear, that is the White House Press Briefing Room, and the president's outside legal team is not in there briefing reporters. It's the press secretary of the United States who is speaking on behalf of the president. And instead of answering those questions, she referred us to people who don't work in the White House Brooke.
[Baldwin:] Speaking of referring to legal team, Kaitlan Collins, let's talk about this next piece, the president today having issues finding lawyers to join his personal legal team to defend him in the Russia probe. We are learning two more star lawyers have declined to accept the job. That makes at least five law firms to turn him down, this as the president's personal legal team has been reduced to basically one individual. Attorney Jay Sekulow is up against at least 17 lawyers in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. So, let me bring in Solomon Wisenberg. He is the former deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater-Monica Lewinsky investigation. He questioned then President Clinton before of a federal grand jury. Solomon, welcome back.
[Solomon Wisenberg, Former Federal Prosecutor:] Thanks, Brooke.
[Baldwin:] And just on the news that these attorneys, and to name-check them, Tom Buchanan, Dan Webb, the two latest to say no, to pass on an opportunity to work for the president. They're saying it's about a conflict of interest. Do you take them at their word or do you think they simply don't want to work for the president?
[Wisenberg:] Oh, I absolutely take them at their word. First of all, Tom Buchanan, that's Pat's little brother. He is very conservative. He is an outstanding attorney. I know him well. Knew him well back in the day. Dan Webb, another outstanding attorney. They're at a big firm. My God, Winston & Strawn represented tobacco interest for years and didn't think twice about it. I don't think they would have any problem representing the president. I think it must be a conflict of interest. I absolutely take them at their word.
[Baldwin:] OK. You have publicly said part of why, actually, part of why John Dowd, going back to the news from last week, this lead lawyer, quit was over concerns of dealing with a client who won't listen. Can you imagine being asked to help the president when you're dealing with a man who ignores your advice?
[Wisenberg:] Well, I don't believe that I said that's why John Dowd quit.
[Baldwin:] No. I was jumping ahead. Forgive me. That was separate. You didn't say. I'm actually just asking.
[Wisenberg:] OK. Oh, you want me to answer that?
[Baldwin:] Yes, please, sir.
[Wisenberg:] OK. It's not that unusual. The client doesn't have to always follow your advice. You give advice as a lawyer. A client isn't required to follow that. There may be a point in time where you say, you know what? You're just ignoring everything I say and I'm going to quit. But ultimately most many of these decisions are up to the client.
[Baldwin:] OK. And you don't OK. I'm going to leave it there. On the president's personal legal team that exists right now, "The Times" has reported that it's essentially this one-man operation, Jay Sekulow, leading the charge for now. This we're however many months into this Russia investigation. How worrisome does that have to be for the president?
[Wisenberg:] It's worrisome if there isn't really a big team of blue- chip lawyers. And that would include associates helping out. I find it hard to believe there are only two or three lawyers helping out. Ty Cobb came from a big firm, I believe. So I don't know exactly who is in the backroom, but you are unquestionably up against the A-team when you're up against Mueller. And you need to have a commensurate operation to go up against Mueller. I just don't know how much of that is accurate as to how much firepower the White House has.
[Baldwin:] OK. You're questioning how it could just be this one star guy.
[Wisenberg:] I will tell you this. And keep in mind, Sekulow, brilliant constitutional attorney, but not any experience that I'm aware of in federal criminal law. Here is a reason that some Washington firms, my understanding, and I know this to be true in one case, have not responded to inquiries or not accepted offers or inquiries. There are a number of firms in Washington that are ideologically liberal and have made a decision and made a decision early on they don't want to do anything to help this administration. I think that's been discounted. It's not so much, oh, we don't have a client who won't listen to us or we're afraid of what clients won't do. It's people who are saying we don't want to help this president.
[Baldwin:] Sure. Got to believe in your client. If your ideology is not in doesn't jibe, it wouldn't work. Let me ask you, Solomon, about Stormy Daniels' let me play a clip Stormy Daniels' attorney and attorney for Michael Cohen in an unrelated matter sparred right here on CNN about this legal battle of this alleged affair, which, again, the White House is denying the president ever took part in. Watch this.
[Michael Avenatti, Attorney For Stormy Daniels:] Look, it's very simple. My client sat down. She answered the questions; 90 percent of America found her credible. Why hasn't Michael Cohen sat down forget two hours. I will take 20 minutes. How about 10 minutes? And answered the questions. Instead, he sends you. You're not even involved in the case.
[David Schwartz, Michael Cohen's Attorney:] Are you ever going to make an appearance in the case?
[Avenatti:] I am never making an appearance in that case. I am his attorney.
[Schwartz:] You're a talking head.
[Avenatti:] Of course. That's what we're here for.
[Anderson Cooper, Cnn Anchor:] Let's let him answer that.
[Schwartz:] We're here first of all, Michael Cohen just wants you to keep running your mouth and your client running because every time you do that, it's going to cost your client another million dollars. I mean, I hope you have a nice malpractice policy because you're advising your client to breach a contract.
[Baldwin:] Jeffrey Toobin is in the like, what do I even do? What do I even say? Who do you side with here, Solomon?
[Wisenberg:] Well, I don't know who you side with as a matter of contract law. I can tell you that you have to look at everything in these investigations at the substantive level and at the performance level. And I believe that Stormy Daniels' lawyer is doing a very outstanding job at the performance level. And I do think that the camp, whatever elements of the Trump camp are strategizing on this, you need to be very careful about who you send out to appear in public for you and how they sound, and talking about another million dollars here and another million dollars there. I would just think that needs to be kept in mind.
[Baldwin:] OK. That was a very diplomatic response. I was listening to what you didn't say that was everything.
[Wisenberg:] And can I mention one more thing about ideology?
[Baldwin:] Yes. Sure.
[Wisenberg:] Because you mentioned I don't necessarily think it is the case. This is what is so unusual if some firms are declining for ideological grounds. There are many examples of people who are on different sides of the fence politically who still go for representation to that other side. The top example I can think of is Karl Rove. He was defended in the Plame affair by Bob Luskin, who is a great attorney and who is a Democrat. Look at Jared Kushner being defended by Abbe Lowell, who has been involved in almost every liberal Democratic political case in the history of this town. So it doesn't have to be that way. I just say that people aren't thinking about it enough. There are some people who are very opposed. Some law firms here who have just made a political decision. I don't say whether it is right or wrong. I'm just saying that's what's going on, I think.
[Baldwin:] You are so incredibly plugged in. You know all these players. Solomon, thank you so much for coming on, and we will chat again. Thank you very much.
[Wisenberg:] Thank you.
[Baldwin:] Coming up next you got it a retired Supreme Court justice argues for the full repeal of the Second Amendment, sparking a major backlash online. We will debate that. Also, no state charges against the police officers who shot and killed Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, two summers ago. His aunt joins me live to talk about what they plan to do next. And, later, this mysterious train pulls into Beijing. Was the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, on board? Details on his movements ahead of possible talks with the and U.S. South Korea. I'm Brooke Baldwin. This is CNN.