A Short History of President Trump's Changing Story on the Stormy Daniels Payoff

“In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford. Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly. The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.”

As for the other questions, he reiterated that the $130,000 came from his own bank account and that he was not reimbursed by either the Trump campaign or Trump Organization, but would not answer more on the record. “I am not on trial, nor am I sitting for a worldwide deposition,” he said. “I was responding to a complaint within a timely manner.”

Reporter: You were asked about whether the President knew about this payment his longtime lawyer made to — facilitated, rather — to Stormy Daniels. You said then, and again today, not that you’re aware of. Have you asked the President this question?

Sanders: Yeah, I’ve had conversations with the President about this. And, as I outlined earlier, that this case has already been won in arbitration and that there was no knowledge of any payments from the President, and he’s denied all of these allegations.

Reporter: Did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?

Trump: No.

Reporter: Then why did Michael Cohen make this, if there was no truth to the allegations.

Trump: Well, you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney and you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen.

Reporter: Do you know where he got the money to make that payment?

Trump: No, I don’t know.

But, Michael would represent me and represent me on some things. He represents me — like with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal he represented me. And, you know, from what I see he did absolutely nothing wrong. There were no campaign funds going into this … which would have been a problem.

GIULIANI: Having something to do with paying some Stormy Daniels woman $130,000? Which, I mean, is going to turn out to be perfectly legal. That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know. It’s not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.

HANNITY: They funneled it through a law firm.

GIULIANI: They funneled through a law firm, and the President repaid it.

HANNITY: Oh. I didn’t know that. He did.

GIULIANI: Yep.

HANNITY: There’s no campaign finance law.

GIULIANI: Zero. Just like every — Sean, Sean —

HANNITY: So this decision was made by —

GIULIANI: Everybody was nervous about this from the very beginning. I wasn’t. I knew how much money Donald Trump put into that campaign, and I said, “$130,000? He could do a couple of checks for $130,000.”

When I heard of Cohen’s retainer for $130,000, he was doing no work for the President. I said, “Well, that’s how he’s repaying it, with a little profit and a little margin for paying taxes for Michael.

“Some time after the campaign is over, they set up a reimbursement, $35,000 a month, out of his personal family account,” Mr. Giuliani said. He added that over all, Mr. Cohen was paid $460,000 or $470,000 from Mr. Trump through those payments, which also included money for “incidental expenses” that he had incurred on Mr. Trump’s behalf.

I tell you what — Rudy is a great guy, but he just started a day ago. But he really has his heart into it. He’s working hard. He’s learning the subject matter. And he’s going to be issuing a statement too. But he is a great guy. He knows it’s a witch hunt. That’s what he knows. He’s seen a lot of them. And he said he’s never seen anything so horrible.

As an example, 33,000 emails requested by Congress with a subpoena, and they get burned, they get deleted. And nobody says anything. Give me a break.

So Rudy knows it’s a witch hunt. He started yesterday. He’ll get his facts straight. He’s a great guy. But what he does is he feels it’s a very bad thing for our country, and he happens to be right.

This is intended to clarify the views I expressed over the past few days.

These are my views:

First:

There is no campaign violation. The payment was made to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the President’s family. It would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not.

Second:

My references to timing were not describing my understanding of the President’s knowledge, but instead, my understanding of these matters.

Third:

It is undisputed that the President’s dismissal of former Director Comey — an inferior executive officer — was clearly within his Article II power. Recent revelations about former Director Comey further confirm the wisdom of the President’s Decision, which was plainly in the best interests of our nation.