Transcript for National Enquirer paid to stop Trump rumor: Report

M hereith Ronan farrow ofe new er" broke that story and dbrnd let's start. It's a pretty complicated story. No edence of the underlying story "The national enquirer" was trying tops true. Yet they still T to stop it. Why? Correct. And multiple Ami sources told us that in of if seems suspicious to them. That they went to such extraordin lengths to Barry a story that seemed in the view ofa lot of peo involved in this inigion baseless. You know, this was a person relaying secondhand information there was an affair, possibly a child resng from an affair. No hardde at all yet paid a large sum and know that was part thepattern. The pattern is the issueor the investigators. We know they' looking at the payoffs to stodaniels and Karen Mcdougal. We know they'reking at the "Access Hollywood" tape and know the looking at this. What were the underlying crimes here. Lo I T -- they're looking at Michael Cohen a E know and it's important T distinguish sometimes Michael themtogether. So, look, the most obv is potential campaign finance violatio which is basic if U are pctom by paying Mo giving money and the pur of it, the purpose of I is to aid the can, that's the hard part toprove, if you can show that, the there's a potential can finance violation. Other issues potential bank fraud meaning what was being reported to the banks in tionh this money, et cetera and I Thi that's why they're ING at all of this toge. Who knows once the go into the files what they find. Absolutely. And but I thinkhat you have believe that it's about than just a campaigninance violation. It's hard to believe that they would beoi in with guns in in this way only over campaign finance. Another tn the story right here, David peeker, longtime friend O Donald Trump, it also appears there was you tch my back I'lcratch yours including aeeting in the white E that David had last er. I'll be careful T sti to what we reported. Yes, that meeting happened. Multiple ous happened that. Yes, mple theources close to this invgation thatas Buri involving this do said they believe this was part of a transactional relationship you , I would say most important point ISS another example of system use by men of a certain amount of power and wealth to silence stories Abo them of allds now applying to a guy in the white houst very much the same playbook that we saw in the Weinstein Y including many of the same vied, Dylan Howard, "National er," all pls we exposed being involve a media company. Yave some kind of first amendment defense against this investigation or any charges. They have a firstndment rights, the way any oia entity has firndment rights. Theuestion I were they using them simplyo eliminate stories and not publish stories? If that - For business reasons. Well, if you can demonst that they areic doing thist to not publish stories, T may lose some of thessrotections that they would ordinar have but that'stough to prove. It's going to be tough T prove because their position is, look we paid for theseries bee we wanted them andn we decided later wen't want tolishitthat's our editorial Ju. Disproving that is tricky and so you still have to go into this at firstblush, treat the as any other med organization would be treat And W are you hearing from inside? Well, ts exactly the G. Multiple, multiprces would we directly involved inhis investigation, , maybe the underlying claim wasn't true but the way which was shut Dow was suspicious and wo including by the wading much the fact a million dollar penalty his guy ever breathed a word Abo this. Eantime, clearest statement yet fromhesident he has the arity to fire Robert Mueller. He has the authority to fi Robert Mueller. Wekeout this it's just a question of logistics of exactly H would go about doing it but there is no doubt that presidenump wants to fir he can figure out a to fire him. Hank you very much.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.