During Thursday’s Anderson Cooper 360, CNN aired their much-hyped interview with Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal who says she had a long-term affair with President Trump in the mid-2000s. But during the panel discussion immediately afterward, their assorted journalists and commentators didn’t know what to make of it and most actually ripped into her for misleading reporters about her initial accusations against America Media Inc. (AMI), who owned the rights to her story.
The first question from host Anderson Cooper was directed to CNN legal commentator Mark Geragos about the legitimacy of her lawsuit against AMI. “I don't understand it. I'm perplexed by it. I don't understand why she's doing this interview-- with apologies to you. I think it could have been handled differently. And it’s just inexplicable to me,” Geragos responded. He was baffled trying to figure out what her end game was since she wanted the rights back and said she didn’t want money.
While most of the panel was confused by McDougal, there were a couple that gushed about her. First was former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) who feigned distress: “This was an astonishing interview. I feel like I'm trying to grasp. I feel like I almost want to take a shower; only because have we ever seen something like this where we're talking about the president of the United States.” Apparently, Granholm was living under a rock during the 90’s.
“I agree with Governor Granholm. First of all, I couldn't take my eyes off of it. It was such a compelling interview. She was so -- this is going to sound maybe weird but very relatable,” fawned CNN Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash. She did note that people wouldn’t sympathize with the Playmate because she was a mistress but argued that she was relatable as human.
It actually took CNN political analyst Kristen Powers to bring back the sanity and reminded the two that a president having an affair wasn’t anything new. “Look, we have had a president that this happened to. It was Bill Clinton. I mean, he had an affair and he said it didn't happen with Jennifer Flowers. He lied about it. I don't think this is something that we haven't seen before,” she recalled.
Powers also couldn’t figure out what McDougal’s end game was:
I don't understand what Ms. McDougal is trying to accomplish. Even with the catch and kill thing, she sat there and said to you she was happy that they didn't run those story. She said she didn't want the story to come out. She says she doesn't want to hurt Melania or the family and yet she sits here and has this hour-long conversation talking about this. I'm just in a total loss to understand what is the end game here. What is she trying to do?
After decrying how broadcasting Trump’s private affairs was “just demeaning for the republic” and “just down in the muck,” former presidential adviser, David Gergen slammed McDougal for misleading everyone. “It wasn't catch and kill in the way we have been led to believe. She wanted to have it killed. And she said, ‘that's part of the deal, I like it.’ Why she has turned around like this, there are many different explanations,” he stated.
For an interview CNN spent considerable time hyping as a major event in the Trump saga, it appeared to not of had the effect they were hoping for, even among their own on-air pundits.
The relevant portions of the transcript are below, click expand to read:
CNN
Anderson Cooper 360
March 22, 2018
9:32:07 PM Eastern(…)
ANDERSON COOPER: Mark, let me ask you just in terms of the lawsuit she has filed, is it clear to you what legitimacy it has?
MARK GERAGOS: I don't understand it. I'm perplexed by it. I don't understand why she's doing interview-- with apologies to you. I think it could have been handled differently. And it’s just inexplicable to me. You know, the idea that suing Keith Davidson as well for not telling her that he was talking to Michael Cohen-- My guess is, and I haven’t talked to Keith about this. My guess is Keith thought he was doing something good. He was talking to Michael Cohen to leveraging a deal with AMI. Because I’m sure if Michael Cohen had not blessed it, I’m sure AMI was never going to pay her the money in the first place.
COOPER: Mark, she says she wants her life rights back from AMI. That's what essentially they own in that contract. Is that something she can actually sue to get back?
GERAGOS: Yes, she can sue to get that back. When you say you want your life right back and you're not in this for the money, that's another thing that's perplexing to me. I don't understand what the end game is here. It's probably above my pay grade. But it doesn't make a lot of sense unless she's out there and wants to increase her fame quotient and figure this is good way to get her out there and reinvigorate the career because they promised her that.
(…)
JENNIFER GRANHOLM: This was an astonishing interview. I feel like I'm trying to grasp. I feel like I almost want to take a shower; only because have we ever seen something like this where we're talking about the president of the United States. I mean, she was totally credible. I am confused a little bit about what her legal strategy is, but I do know what she has described in her suit being double-dealt, I can understand why she wants -- why she's mad about that. That she feels like he was -- it was underhanded.
(…)
DANA BASH: I agree with Governor Granholm. First of all, I couldn't take my eyes off of it. It was such a compelling interview. She was so -- this is going to sound maybe weird but very relatable. She was very relatable just as a human. Not in terms of what she did but a human being. Because she gave some honest answers about feeling guilty and so she came across as somebody who was sympathetic in that way. Certainly, there are a lot of people who are going to say there's no sympathy here. You were a mistress and you were messing around with a married man. Just in terms of the legality, we’ll see what she does.
(…)
KRISTEN POWERS: Look, we have had a president that this happened to. It was Bill Clinton. I mean, he had an affair and he said it didn't happen with Jennifer Flowers. He lied about it. I don't think this is something that we haven't seen before. I'm just going to be consistent. When it was Bill Clinton, I said it didn't have any bearing on anything. It was between him and Hillary. And I think this is between Melania and Donald Trump.
I don't understand what Ms. McDougal is trying to accomplish. Even with the catch and kill thing, she sat there and said to you she was happy that they didn't run those story. She said she didn't want the story to come out. She says she doesn't want to hurt Melania or the family and yet she sits here and has this hour-long conversation talking about this. I'm just in a total loss to understand what is the end game here. What is she trying to do?
(…)
DAVID GERGEN: I don't know where to start. I thought the interview was well done. But I must say, I found it painful to watch. I just seemed to me, to go back to Jennifer’s point. Having the president of the United States have his life, the intimacy of his life. We have had other presidents have affairs. John Kennedy could barely go three days without having a relationship with somebody. He told that to the British prime minister. To have all that out there is just demeaning for the republic. I think it lowers our sense of what politics—we’re just down in the muck.
Having said that, I thought she was very credible on their relationship, the details. And very important, the fact that her lawyer called the President's lawyer. He wouldn't have made that call did he not believe it was absolutely true that this was happened. He believed that was credible.
I think she's much less credible on why she's going on television.
(…)
GERGEN: I think on the question of why she did this interview, given the fact and you were saying she said she signed the agreement with AMI because she wanted to kill the story. It wasn't catch and kill in the way we have been led to believe. She wanted to have it killed. And she said, “that's part of the deal, I like it.” Why she has turned around like this, there are many different explanations. I think though that, listen, there's a certain repugnance to all this and I don’t know how all of this is going to play out in politics. But it ain't going to help.
(…)
