More Questions Swirling Around Cohen's Financial Dealings; The New Yorker: Two Critical Reports On Cohen's Finances Are Missing From Government Database
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And still more on our "POLITICS LEAD." The President's personal attorney Michael Cohen now a focal point learning as we're learning more about a criminal investigation into him and the access he was allegedly pitching to clients. Cohen's name splashed across the headlines from Washington Post, and the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, the Intercept. The stories focused on his financial dealings, state of mind and now missing bank records. My panel is back with me. And Laura Coates, let me start with you. For the first time we're learning the Intercept reporting that Cohen pitched himself to a foreign government official asking for a million dollars from the Qatari government in 2016 in exchange for access and advice about the then incoming Trump administration. Is that legal?</s>LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the idea of paying for play, unfortunately, it's swamp-like but it's not necessarily illegal but it can turn illegal if the motivation was to secure some sort of a bribe where there was a quid pro quo that was being requested without knowing everything in all the details. And of course, the Qatari government official did turn down that particular request. It's important for us to understand the contest here. It could very well be illegal if he was trying to get that million-dollar payment in order to secure a bribe or some influence or direct official act of President Donald Trump. And if it was known by the President of the United States he was doing that even more of a mushroom cloud for the administration let alone Michael Cohen.</s>TAPPER: And this is the same businessman we should point out, Ahmed al-Rumaihi who was then head of the investment division within the Qatari government that we saw at Trump Tower during that meeting supposedly between Michael Flynn and the Persian Gulf States Foreign Minister. What's the most odd to me about this is the fact that Cohen represented Trump at the same time he was doing this. Usually, with the quid pro quos and the selling access and that, the person ends the relationship, the official relationship with the primary, whether it was a senator or a president or whoever, then goes and peddles influence. I've never seen it work, it's at the same time.</s>JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's obviously not --</s>MARGARET HOOVER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Don't you know the right way to be a lobbyist to the President of the United States? Don't you know the right way to trade on play for pray and have like codified cronyism and corruption in this government?</s>TAPPER: I'm just saying this seems unusual to me.</s>HOOVER: I mean, that's sort of what you're dealing here. I mean, the criticism on every level at the Trump regimes is sort of been a bit J.V. in the way they do everything and that corruption scandal.</s>AVLON: Yes, so it's not the same kind of professionalized corruption we've seen in the past, Jake. I mean, look, just to be clear, I mean, there's something inherently shady about during a transition hitting up a you know, Qatari you know, investor connected to the government and saying give may million dollars and make sure you have inroads to the administration. If that is done, it's usually the context of lobbying and it's a registered foreign agent, neither of which appeared to apply to Mr. Cohen. It was refused but this is -- this is nowhere in the universe of best practices.</s>TAPPER: One of the other story in the New Yorker, Ronan Farrow has this incredible scoop. The person who has been leaking some of Michael Cohen's financial records came forward to Ronan Farrow and said he did it because he's alarmed because two very sensitive reports related to Cohen's finances were supposed to be in a Treasury Department database and they're missing. Laura, how unusual is that?</s>COATES: Extremely unusual. Remember, this reports, this suspicious activity reports are generated because banks have an obligation to report to the government anything they suspect might be fraudulent activity, money laundering, tax-related issues, all these things to keep the government abreast because we do not want people to use our credit institutions, financial institutions for money laundering purposes. So you keep these not because they're proof of a crime but because they're enough to raise suspicion and alert the government and actually could be used as evidence later in a court proceeding. To have them just poof go into thin air and only these two reports when a third one that is known alludes to them something is very suspicious for it to evaporate in the thin air. Although I will say there is a possibility you can make some of this data more sensitive and removed from the system but that's not a usual practice at all.</s>HOOVER: And we also -- I mean, there's -- look, the facts are what they are. We don't know who removed them. It could be that they're nefariously removed but it also could be that they were removed by law enforcement officials at the higher levels because they're protecting -- they're covering their tracks or they're protecting their investigation.</s>COATES: Right.</s>HOOVER: But what is clear, too, is that the individual leaked them which is an offense that could cost him up to $250,000 and five years in jail, a serious decision on that Justice Department -- on that individual's behalf because he was afraid that this could be suppressed and would not be known.</s>TAPPER: His fear speaks a lot about what's going on here.</s>AVLON: That's what's significant to me is that he did this wide-eyed knowing the risks because he was concerned not only for himself but for the direction of the our democracy.</s>HOOVER: Could be a she.</s>AVLON: It could be a she. That's a great point. And look, you know --</s>COATS: Don't bring women into this, Margaret.</s>AVLON: Fair and important point. But, you know, I think the reason it's potentially such a serious evolution in the case is this is where two of the old aphorisms around investigations seem to collide. Follow the money and it's not the crime, it's the cover-up.</s>TAPPER: Right. Cohen of course also saying that he's "not just going to roll over," according to Vanity Fair's Emily Jane Fox, he's supposedly told friends he's being attacked and his family is being made to suffer. Laura, the FBI doesn't just raid an office for no reason.</s>COATES: No, they don't. And certainly people have every right to defend themselves and Manafort you see is not rolling over, not working out as quite as well for him in that strategy, however, as the cases continue to go on. But every person who's accused of a crime has every right to defend themselves. Interestingly enough Michael Cohen has yet to be charged with a crime. And so, the fact that he's already planning for his defense in the event of indictment is probably quite telling, but it also as probably him saying that he is not going to roll over and sing like a canary, either. This may be an issue where he's trying to alert somebody that he has no intention of simply becoming a cooperator and that he will fight and that may have really be consequences for him, for Donald Trump who could always pardon somebody even before they're charged with a crime.</s>TAPPER: And that's one thing that's interesting about is this whole case having to do with Michael Cohen was referred to the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney's office by Mueller. It wasn't in the per view but there's something there to investigate.</s>HOOVER: Well, I mean, that's exactly right. That you know, where there's smoke there's fire but this wasn't within the broad -- I mean, everybody criticizes Mueller for having such a broad scope of his investigation but frankly, he is staying within some kind of parameters rather than going for ancillary figures. He himself referred the ancillary figure to the Southern District.</s>TAPPER: Great panel. Thank you so much, everyone. I appreciate it. Coming up, a rear look at the horrifying moments when American soldier was separated from his team and pinned down in that horrific firefight. What really happened in that deadly ambush in Niger? Stay with us.