Michael Cohen Accused of Selling Access to White House.
ALISYN CAMEROTA: CNN is learning new details about how President Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen cashed in selling his access to the President to secure lucrative consulting deals from several companies. Is this legal? Joining us now is Victoria Toensing, Informal Legal Advisor to President Trump also Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Victoria great to have you hear.</s>VICTORIA TOENSING, INFORMAL LEGAL ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Good morning.</s>CAMEROTA: So what do we think Viktor Vekselberg's company got for half a million dollars from Michael Cohen?</s>TOENSING: Well Aliyson, I'll answer this question very briefly but I was really invited here to talk about whether the President can be subpoenaed in the legal issues behind that. I'm just going to say that there's such a confusion of facts about this. I don't know who owns who or what Russian oligarch is involved and neither does any of the press who's reporting on it. I do know it's sort of welcome to the swamp because one of his biggest providers of money was Patton Boggs which is an old Democrat firm and Tommy Boggs made bazillions of dollars over his Democratic influence.</s>CAMEROTA: What is -- did they give money to Michael Cohen?</s>TOENSING: Yes. They did, $500,000. See I'm reading this stuff.</s>CAMEROTA: No, so I'm just -- just to be clear. So you're saying that Democrats and a Russian oligarch gave money to Michael Cohen and that's swampy to you.</s>TOENSING: Yes. Except Michael Cohen doesn't live or work in the swamp so he really doesn't know how to get along in it. So like the rest of us who -- who lives here.</s>CAMEROTA: So it's naive. So it's not -- is it swampy or is it not swampy?</s>TOENSING: I don't know. I don't know. I was really invited here by your booker to talk about whether the President can be subpoenaed. So --</s>CAMEROTA: Oh.</s>TOENSING: Because I'd really like to.</s>CAMEROTA: Well that's a problem because I thought we could talk about all of the threads of what's happening with this Administration and the news of the day --</s>TOENSING: I said (inaudible) Michael Cohen or Stormy because I don't know anything about it except what I read in the papers.</s>CAMEROTA: I don't have any questions about Stormy. But I do have a lot of questions about Michael Cohen because it is news of the day. Let me ask you this generally. OK. So generally speaking, if a President's fixer or right hand person were cashing in and publicizing themselves as having access to the President. Would that be legal?</s>TOENSING: It's not illegal. I don't know any -- any law that's illegal about that. It's sort of like, you remember back in the Clinton Administration friends of Bill, FOB's and the press even had an initials for it. So James Carville who wasn't, you know, part of the Administration also made lots of money.</s>CAMEROTA: OK. So you would have been comfortable with Huma Abedin say for President Hillary Clinton if it had gone that way. Say -- billing herself as having the best access and you need to fire everybody else you have, hire me because I have the best access to --</s>TOENSING: I think she did that at the State Department Aliyson. In fact Huma had three jobs that she was being paid for simultaneously and -- and I think that was a matter of illegality.</s>CAMEROTA: Well -- hold on.</s>TOENSING: Why I was invited to be here.</s>CAMEROTA: Well, Victoria I'm asking because you are a lawyer and you're an informal legal advisor to the President. So why are you saying that --</s>TOENSING: Let me tell you what I do. I prepare whenever I come to do a show, I always prepare. That's the lawyer in me. And so I had said I'm not going to talk about Cohen or Stormy and I'll be glad to talk about the subpoena and I would hope that you would like to talk to me about whether the President can be subpoenaed.</s>CAMEROTA: Yes, I do in part. But I just want to know why the double standard.</s>TOENSING: I didn't know there was a double standard.</s>CAMEROTA: Why are you saying Huma Averdin that's illegality but not what Michael Cohen's doing?</s>TOENSING: Because she was on the government payroll and then she was on private company's payroll at the same time. And I who have been in the government know that you can't do that. You can't even take, I mean, the rules are so strict about what you can do and take from a third party when you're in government. I couldn't even take a limo to go make a speech.</s>CAMEROTA: OK. So the idea -- but just again. Hypothetically -- generally speaking, not hypothetically because it's actually happening. So generally speaking from a foreign adversary like Russia --</s>TOENSING: No. No it -- but -- but your facts are wrong. Aliyson, you've got a problem. Your facts are wrong.</s>TOENSING: I understand and here's the equivalent. What I've read this morning. And it -- and I didn't come prepared. I just want the viewers to know because I wasn't told this. But what I read this morning about this story was it's the equivalent of if you're banking and -- and a Russian oligarch is also banking in that same bank. That that's the kind of connection that is there. So I think people ought to get their facts straight before we start getting into a story.</s>CAMEROTA: Here's our graphic of the connection. This is the Russian oligarch, Viktor Vekselberg. He owns this Russian conglomerate. It's called Renova Group. They're U.S. affiliate which they call their investment (inaudible). In order to do investing.</s>TOENSING: Well I think your graphics are wrong.</s>CAMEROTA: This is from their website. This is from their website. It's called Columbus Nova and Columbus Nova paid Michael Cohen $500,000. So they have since scrubbed it from their website. But yesterday on their website, this was there investment (inaudible) of this --</s>TOENSING: Aliyson, why are you continuing to ask me about this issue?</s>CAMEROTA: -- what the facts are in terms of how the money got there.</s>TOENSING: I can tell you what I read this morning in the Washington Post story. That's what I can tell you. I know nothing else about this and I don't want to talk about it.</s>CAMEROTA: OK. So let's talk about what you'd like to talk about. If the President is subpoenaed by Robert Mueller's team will he comply?</s>TOENSING: I would recommend that he not comply and here are the legal reasons. The President cannot be indicted. I think we can all agree on that. By now, everyone knows that. That there's two very strong OLC opinions. One in 1973 and the other in 2000 that not only talk about the -- the separation of powers issue the executive -- the chief executive positioning himself in front of the court. But the -- the -- there are so many policy reasons as the OLC opinion says it boggles the imagination to think of an executive having to deal with a criminal trial. So the only avenue for Mueller is impeachment. Here is the problem. You can't use a grand jury just to get evidence that you want. The grand jury has to be used with the ultimate end to be an indictment. Mueller is illegally using. He's abusing is really the term the grand jury to get testimony from the President.</s>CAMEROTA: But -- but we also which I just say so that we're clear. We also always here that no American, not even the President of the United States is above the law. So there has to be a legal process by which if the President does something wrong. The President is punished.</s>TOENSING: No but you're forgetting the separation of powers and Constitutional issues Aliyson. The -- of course no one is above the law and Donald Trump is not above the -- above the law. But the President has certain -- certain very special authority that cannot be abused by the other branches of government. Mueller is in -- is an executive branch person. It wasn't clear when Ken Starr was independent counsel what kind of legal animal he was. But Mueller is for sure part of the executive --</s>CAMEROTA: And why is that? Why is he different than Ken Starr?</s>TOENSING: Because there was a law written for Ken Starr and it was really a bad law and it wasn't written well. All kinds of branches were involved in it and that's why it was never renewed.</s>CAMEROTA: But if a special prosecutor or a Special Counsel can't investigate the President, than who could?</s>TOENSING: No, I didn't say he couldn't investigate. I said he cannot indict. He can -- it can only have impeachment is the only process.</s>CAMEROTA: But before we get to indictment, I mean in terms of just getting to the bottom of things, getting the information. Didn't -- did you support Bill Clinton having to explain what he knew?</s>TOENSING: I -- he did not -- I didn't care what he did legally. But his lawyers decided to succumb and to agree to be interview so there you go.</s>CAMEROTA: -- idea of getting to the bottom of things.</s>TOENSING: No because I like the Constitution better Aliyson.</s>TOENSING: Let me explain because I'm here to tell the law. He's -- Mueller is part of the executive branch. The executive branch can't use it's awesome powers to take information and then give it to Congress because that's the only thing Bob Mueller can do with this information. He cannot use it to indict the President. He can only use it to provide it to Congress for impeachment. So that is improper. It's a violation of the separation of powers. That's the way the Constitution works.</s>CAMEROTA: OK. I appreciate your --</s>TOENSING: Go back to Thomas Jefferson or all kinds of Presidents who have asserted that.</s>CAMEROTA: I want to ask you about Rudy Giuliani, the President's new lawyer.</s>TOENSING: Sure.</s>CAMEROTA: Have you been pleased with his media blitz?</s>TOENSING: Oh listen. Rudy and my husband Joe diGenova go back a few decades. Because we -- when Rudy was U.S. Attorney for New York. Joe was U.S. Attorney for Washington, DC and I was Deputy Assistant Attorney General. So we all worked together in the Reagan Justice Department. Rudy is showing that the President is now ready to fight and I think that's a very good thing.