not add up with common sense. and so i think that, yes, it is oftentimes going to be the word of one witness versus the legal theory of another if you don't hear from the defendant, which is what it is in this case, but the documents tip the scale, and that's why they become so important. >> and in fact, they objected to this. it was overruled showing these texts, but basically the back and forth between keith davidson who was the attorney who was representing karen mcdougal and michael cohen were about how much money basically is this going to cost us to keep it quiet, and why? well, i needed to know what day so i could -- what day he would get that information so i could update mr. trump so he would have all of the necessary information, testimony after testimony after testimony, i am keeping donald trump involved in every aspect of this negotiation. >> so valuable and all of this adds up, pointed to donald trump.

you have to your point, to both of your points. you have the physical evidence meaning the documentation, the text messages, the signed checks. you have all of the corroborating witnesses, david pecker, and now you have michael cohen. is this proof beyond a reasonable doubt? we'll figure that out eventually, but it's all pointing in the right direction. >> what more do they need from michael cohen? >> they're going to need that direct evidence that he acted in furtherance of donald trump i think they're going to be able to do that well with sounds like the prosecution is really doing a great job laying out the calculated narrative through michael cohen but then also corroborating it in a meticulous manner with the text messages. there was an objection but it was overruled. this conversation that cohen was testified to is supported by the documentary evidence. when they get to stormy daniels they're going to be able to show the checks, the ledgers, all of that stuff. i think they're doing a really good job to set that up. >> i wonder if in this testimony

we're seeing an abundance of preparation, you heard what eric trump tweeted, which is that this is very well prepared or whatever is that a negative necessarily, charles, if it seems a little too rote, if it seems a little too prepared? i'm talking obviously about the reaction of a jury in general. >> it can be if it seems rehearsed to the point of being inauthentic. that's the one thing that we can't necessarily judge by the google doc is that we don't know whether it's -- there's a difference between rehearsed and sort of gotten yourself together and collected and focused versus forced or disingenuous. i think that's really what it boils down to. i mean, if michael cohen comes across as his regular sort of scattered brained self but is also sticking to the script, if you will, and i don't mean that -- i mean that purely figuratively. that's fine. if he comes across looking like a completely different person than anyone has ever seen him before, that, i think, would

draw some curiosity from jurors who may be vaguely familiar with having seen him before. so it's really about showing up in a way where you're still yourself, but you're prepared, and i think that that's the difference. is it prepared or is it rehearsed? without seeing it we can't know. of course the trump camp would love to argue this is rehearsed. this is orchestrated, this is theatric, but if you're the prosecution, all you just want to do is to show that he's prepared. and it seems like he's extremely prepared in terms of how he's sticking to narrowly answering the questions asked, not going all over the place because that's what the prosecution absolutely needs, not only from keeping the door closed on excess stuff in terms of cross examination, but also we've been talking a lot about the time so that if i'm the prosecutor on this case, i'm thinking to myself, look, we've got a lot of stuff to cover. we cannot have you going all over the place. you need to get these answers as

tight and brief as possible so we can get through as much as we can without losing this jury. >> and they're moving on it looks like. i want to go back to vaughn hillyard to get an update. what's happening right now, vaughn? >> reporter: as part of the acknowledgment for michael cohen, the terms of the agreement with karen mcdougal were being discussed. he was informed that karen mcdougal would be given the opportunity to pen 24 articles for the american media incorporated publications as well as appear on two magazine covers and that michael cohen was notified through david pecker and dylan howard that that was a part of the arrangement, to which he was elated knowing that abc news was not going to be the one to publish this story. that essentially the plan they had hatched a year prior to catch these types of stories had been a success and that at that point he said that he, in fact, did go back to mr. trump to inform him about karen

mcdougal's story, the fact that it would not ever get out there, to which michael cohen testified in front of this jury that his reaction was, quote, fantastic. great job. they are now moving on to the third catch and kill story. of course that is stormy daniels and michael cohen is beginning to describe that process to ultimately pay her $130,000 and ultimately ensure that story didn't get published. i want to welcome defense attorney misty maris. there have been only been a couple of objections. one has been overruled, one of them was sustained. we're in the kind of quiet part of this. anything that the defense can use so far? >> the defense is really going to focus on exactly what we were speaking about, which is where's the paper trail, right? we were there were encrypted messages. we know that some of these conversations were happening one on one, and these are the critical moments that are going

to fill in the gaps that the prosecution has presented. the defense is going to be pinpointing the credibility of michael cohen, which is going to serve as a lot of what the fodder for cross examination. >> and i'm just trying to catch up here on the document as to what's going on right now. it looks like they're continuing with exhibits between keith davidson and michael cohen. they're focusing in on these communications regarding these payments. ultimately soon to involve stormy daniels. there is an email that says, michael, please call me at your convenience, thanks, keith davidson. when you received this email you called keith davidson? cohen, i did, i said great job, the boss is very happy and it is now resolved because of the deal they had reached for karen mcdougal's story to be bought and essentially buried by the

"national enquirer," and hoffinger said what's your understanding of why he reached out to you after this deal was concluded? objection. sustained. hoffinger, after ami finalized the deal and paid the money for life rights did you speak to pecker about mr. trump reimbursing? >> cohen, he wanted the $150,000 back because it was too much money for him to hide from the ceo of the parent company and he also had just laid out the $30,000 for the doorman who we discussed, so he was putting pressure on me to speak to trump and to get the money back. hoffinger, was he upset about it? cohen, very. so where do you think this testimony is taking us here, misty? >> this is also important because this is really going to serve as the basis for what the prosecution needs to prove. remember, these ndas on their face, they are not illegal. so we have to get into what the motivation, the reasoning, the intent was behind catching and killing these stories. that coupled with keeping trump in the loop and that's the piece

you see them homing in on right now. you have these communications with keith davidson, did you speak to trump? what did he say about it. that's why the conversations make michael cohen such a critical witness to close the loop on so many of the other issues that the prosecutors have already set the table with with other witnesses. but cohen, he's really the one that can talk about the structure of these transactions and the why. why were they characterized that way? why were they structured that way? >> we know a lot of notes are being taken by the defense, and maybe that's not a surprise. but in a way, i'm looking at what we have so far, and i'm thinking we know this story. this story has been told by michael cohen himself time and time and time again. he's done countless television interviews. he has a podcast. he wrote two books about it. it's all in black and white. what are they taking note of, first of all, that they didn't

already know? and have you heard anything at all that says, oh, maybe this is going to go in some area that we hadn't expected before. >> i haven't heard anything that would surprise me as far as what's going to come out, and to your point, it's so true. the defense knows what in general what he's going to say. the defense has so much out there in the ether to prepare for their cross examination. the reason they're taking notes -- and i would say my pen would probably be on fire for i were at the defense table myself, the reason is they want to take exactly what he's saying and then attack it with whatever they're going to use on cross examination, specific to the testimony that the jury is hearing. you heard mr. cohen say xyz. you testified to this, what about -- and present whatever evidence, whether it be a credibility issue, a document, other witness testimony, no matter what it is, they want to not just generalize, they want to attack the specifics of what comes out in his direction.

>> that's a really important point. when you are thinking about cross examining a witness, when someone tells a lie, they can generally keep the tenor of the overall lie together, the theme of it. where they get in trouble with the details, and the details are what they're going to focus on when you talk about the small inconsistencies of michael cohen's story. yes, generally speaking i can tell consistent ri a lie about having fixed something for trump and what i did, and i can write a book about it and i can keep that together on the stand, but to misty's point, the jury is hearing very specific testimony. and regardless of what's been said previously this is what counts? >> does an inconsistency have to be an inconsistency, and if he says, yes, i lied, and this is why, i think sometimes there is an inconsistency. a jury can understand he didn't say it exactly the same way, big deal, as opposed to this is a

problem. >> that's dependent on how persuasive the arguments are on either side. if i'm donald trump's attorneys i'm going to argue this a big deal. this is an inconsistency that actually matters and you should pay attention to. not just that but this other inconsistency over hear and this one over here and over there. if i'm the prosecution, i'm going to say does this change anything about what you've really heard? the fact that someone said misty is wearing a purple suit and the colors aber sheen. does that make a difference? >> we're getting to something that's really good. >> cohen is being questioned by susan hoffinger about this issue of trump needing to pay back david pecker because of the $150,000 deal that david pecker is now saying that was too much. i want to be personally reimbursed for that related to karen mcdougal's story, so cohen's talking about this with david pecker and he says david expressed to me that his relationship with trump goes

back many, many years, and there's a file drawer, a locked drawer as he described it where files that relate to mr. trump existed, and at that point in time david was being considered for the position of ceo at time incorporated and one of the concerns that i had that i expressed to mr. trump, cohen says, was that if he goes there's a series of papers there that relate to you. hoffinger, was mr. trump concerned about that? cohen, yes. hoffinger, direct attention to september of 2016, did you record a convo with trump regarding purchasing karen mcdougal life rights. >> this is the only one i taped. >> why did you tape this one? so i could show it to david pecker. that way he could hear the conversation that he was going to be paying him back and i also wanted him to remain loyal to donald trump. >> this is key. this is critical. this shows that paper trail, and it also shows if you think about it, the pattern that cohen

actually experienced when he wasn't getting paid back or he didn't receive the compensation necessary to pay stormy daniels. so i think what the prosecution is kind of doing is laying out this mirror to show this pattern because the pattern also links back to trump as well. is there an issue, though, if cohen's right now saying this was the one conversation i recorded. i think as a juror -- >> was mr. trump aware, no, ma'am. mr. trump wasn't aware. i'm left to question, why was this the only one he recorded? like how does the prosecution explain that, charles, and if you're the defense you've worn both hats, are you going to pounce on that? >> well, don't assume this is the only one he recorded. >> he just said it was. >> yeah, i'm sorry, you're right. >> he just a said -- he said this is the only one i taped. >> and she said why did you tape this one. he says so i could show it to david pecker and that way he would hear the conversation that he was going to be palg him

back. >> trump opens his eyes slightly to look up at the monitor where they're showing the recording and the transcript. >> if you're the prosecution in this case you have to kind of sort of give the jury -- and i used to say this all the time. the defense to the extent that they can would love for you to speculate as much as they can. they want you to sort of think in these other areas that are not on the record. why? because that's the area that reasonable doubt exists. if i'm the prosecution, i used to use this line all the time, let's not focus on what ifs. let's focus on what is. let's focus on what we actually know. let's not necessarily ask questions about why there aren't additional recordings. let's deal with the recording we have and the contents thereof. >> let me ask you about this recording. one inference could be this

sleazy little guy who thought he was being nice to donald trump in fact is going behind his back, and when he walks in -- they describe it here, he walked in and he had the cell phone in his hand. he says he used a voice memo app and hit record. this is who this guy is. as opposed to this is a guy who is trying to keep the "national enquirer" at bay, keep them loyal to donald trump, get this thing fixed by the fixer. is there a reasonable inference either way? >> i think you could absolutely go either way and maybe more context as we continue in the direct examination. >> you only need one juror. >> exactly. i also think for the prosecutors what i might focus on is, well, remember, at some point michael cohen is going to have to testify about why they characterized these documents in this way, and it was to cover up another crime. he's going to have to admit -- he's lawyer -- that he knew that something they were doing was likely to be illegal or they

thought it was at the time, whether it was or wasn't, right? it's all about that intent. on that front, perhaps you use it as a prosecutor and say, yeah, he recorded this one, but as they went on, they didn't want anything on recording. they didn't want any paper trail because they believed they were engaging in illegal conduct or could be engaging in illegal contact, which, again, feeds into 17152, the conspiracy statute that is the operative crime for the document. so i think it's really probably threading the needle here getting us to that point where cohen is going to be able to testify on that front, the why. >> right now the jury is apparently hearing this audio recording that michael cohen just said i taped it, let's go to our yasmin vossoughian outside the courthouse. remind us what's on this tape, yasmin. >> reporter: yeah, so many of us have heard this tape at one point or another over the last year or so. let me read you what i have here when it comes to the back and forth between cohen and trump on

this audio recording so you can understand what the jury is hearing right now inside that courtroom. so michael cohen says i've spoken to allen weisselberg about how to set up the whole thing, and trump says so what do we got to pay for? 150? and cohen says correct. so i'm all over that. and i spoke to allen about it, when it comes time for the financing, which will be -- trump cuts him off. wait a second, what financing? cohen says, well, i'll have to pay him something. trump says something that's unintelligible, trump says pay with cash. cohen says, no, no, no, i got it. that is part of the audio recording which the jury is hearing right now when it comes to this exchange between donald trump and michael cohen, integral obviously to this case, this time of audio recording. let's just remember for a moment why it is so many of the witnesses that are less salacious than, for instance, the witness we're hearing from

now, michael cohen and/or stormy daniels as well, the verizon, the at&t employee as well. the paralegals of themanhattan d.a.'s office, how they came upon these recordings and submitted it for evidence. important for the jury to understand that context as they're listening to this audio recording. >> yasmin, thank you very much for giving us that update. please do keep us posted outside the courthouse. right now our google doc is saying they're still listening to this audio recording. >> how important is that, though? >> that's going to break up too the testimony, right? kind of brings the jury back. >> we may not hear from donald trump, except for the mutterings in court that the judge warned his lawyers about, how important is it for them to hear donald trump's voice on this recording?

>> i think it has more of a stylistic impact than it does substantive. i think that donald trump to your point is someone who's being spoken about, who's being seen: the power of hearing his voice matters. that's more, again, around style than it is substance. the fact that they haven't heard from donald trump and are not likely to hear from donald trump, this is something that actually gives them a feel and makes it real, like, oh, this guy was really involved in this. this is -- this is, you know, and hearing other people's accounts of it cannot compare to actually hearing the voice of the defendant, hearing the voice of the former president, you know very well he's sitting right in front of you, if you're a juror, now it becomes more real and it crystallizes it for the jury in a different way. legally there's no real huge impact. there's not necessarily something that you're going to base your case on if you're the prosecution, but it does have an impact if you're thinking about something in the jurors' minds

that actually connects donald trump to this because up until now, we still haven't had a ton -- michael cohen is the first witness who really is able to put donald trump in the room over and over again, and we haven't had that. all of those things begin to sort of add more and more to that to place donald trump closer to this in the minds of juror, to substitute or rather to support the testimony that you've heard from all the others. >> does it also support cohen's credibility to hear donald trump entrusting himself with cohen to say this is a guy that trump personally trusted all along. he would let him in on the most secret details of things that could be his biggest vulnerabilities. >> yeah, it aligns and absolutely corroborates cohen. it also aligns with the other testimony, the excerpts from his book showing he was a micro manager.

at this point, why are we paying with cash. >> i think that's a little bit of a tidbit to show that donald trump was aware of every single transaction and that's why he also knew about it when they were trying to conceal the payments with regard to stormy daniels. >> and you know that's going to be part of the defense, right? they're going to say you heard a lot of testimony about michael cohen and pecker, but where's donald trump? and so this is serving to fill in some of those gaps. >> i want to bring in david k. johnson, a pulitzer prize winning journalist who has written three books about donald trump, one more than the man on the stand right now, michael cohen, but does all of this follow what you know in your extensive knowledge of donald trump. the case michael cohen is trying to make that time after time, even in the testimony on the document you can feel the urgency that he had to keep the boss, mr. trump informed about everything he was doing? >> yes, throughout donald's

life, he has paid very close attention to outgoing cash el and equally importantly to things he lies and denies like on his tax returns and other documents. donald, in fact, manages the money issues very closely and he's informed, and that's the value of this tape. and while i'm sure the defense will try and make this out to be some sort of foul purpose this recording him, i can see where cohen would want to make that tape, if nothing else just to make sure he has the boss's instructions exactly right. >> let's play a portion of that tape for our viewers. yasmin described it. we know the jurors have now heard it. roll the tape. >> i've spoken to allen weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with -- >> so what do we go to pay for this, 150? >> yes. and it's all the stuff -- yeah,

i was thinking about that. all the stuff because here you never know when where that company -- >> so aisle all over that, and i spoke to allen about it, when it comes time for the financing, which will be -- >> wait a sec, what financing? >> well, i'll have to pay him something. >> pay with cash? >> no, no, no. >> david, do you think the prosecution has done enough yet not only to establish the relationship between cohen and trump, but to establish that trump was directly on the documents that were falsified? >> i mean, i think the prosecution has met the burden of the case. that doesn't mean they've presented a narrative that the jurors will understand and grasp. human beings tend to work not from policy memos or technical issues but from narrative, so michael cohen is very important to make sure that the jury understands that in addition to all these documents, here you

have the man who was trump's fixer who was prosecuted by the justice department when trump was president and went to prison for the same acts, different crime, but the same acts, and that's crucial to getting the jury to appreciate the nature and quality of the evidence, but the paper documents themselves and the establishment of them a trump defense would not stipulate to a lot of things. that is the courtesy of we agree that document's legit, has slowed the trial down a little bit. but all of those documents are now in the record as evidence and cohen basically just gives a human flavor to that as did stormy daniels. >> i'm going to go back into the document, if i can for a second, david, susan hoffinger, you mentioned in your conversation with mr. trump, allen weisselberg, who is he? michael cohen says he was the

cfo of trump org. why did you tell mr. trump you were setting up an llc and discussing it with mr. weisselberg? because mr. trump had previously directed me to speak to mr. weisselberg about getting this matter handled. hoffinger, why were you letting trump know you were in discussions with a.w. about this? cohen, because we are going to need money and open up the llc and resolve this issue. he was the chief financial officer and every penny that came in or out went through alan's office. true to your knowledge of trump world and do you think it could raise questions in the minds of juror where is this weisselberg character and why isn't he testifying? >> first of all, absolutely correct that through allen and his predecessors everything was run through them. it makes perfect sense that michael cohen would be talking about essentially how do we launder this money. the purpose of setting up the payments and labeling them as

legal fees was to wander this payment. now, weisselberg is sitting in rikers island. he's gone to jail for trump twice. if the prosecutors don't call him, and it looks like they're not going to, that's a strategic decision that i think the litigators can explain better than i can, but i don't think they need weisselberg to prove the facts. they got jeff conney and other people on the record in front of the jury, and weisselberg runs the risk that he will once again perjure himself for donald trump. >> david, thank you so much. stand by, we want to note that the court is in a break, a morning recess. it should be relatively short. you can see donald trump just leaving the courtroom with his attorneys. we'll be waiting to see if he has anything to say right before this court break, we talked

about chief financial officer for the trump org allen weisselberg and cohen saying they need to open this llc, that every penny that came in or out went through allen's office. hoffinger asked what did mr. trump mean what do we got to do to pay for this? we're going to have to pay for lifetime rights. he already knew based upon conversations with david, which is why he mentioned the number 150, $150,000 for karen mcdougal's story. all that stuff is referencing that david pecker had accumulated over the years related to mr. trump that was locked in the door including the karen mcdougal story. hoffinger, what did you understand mr. trump to mean by pay with cash? and cohen to pay in green, which would obviously be one way to avoid any type of a paper transaction. but that's not what i thought was the best way to do it, and then morning recess. >> and we know from other conversations that michael cohen wanted nothing to do with this being a cash transaction. >> correct, and i think that

that speaks to misty's earlier point, which is at the end of the day, whether you think that he's a good lawyer or a bad lawyer, he's still a lawyer, and he still understood that in some ways there would be a paper trail that would be beneficial to him in terms of these recordings, and in some ways that it'd be protective of him. >> he needed evidence. >> he needed evidence, and in some cases you don't want evidence, which is why you don't have a paper trail, which is demonstrative of michael cohen's frame of mind in terms of who he is. but the weisselberg piece is something that's interesting to me because if i'm the defense, one of the things that i'm thinking about is i'm trying to use as many people in the trump organization overall, thematically i'm building a case where the trump organization is sword and shield for me. why do i say that? ultimately weisselberg is another example of someone who i'm going to say why didn't we hear from him. where is he? why didn't they call him? knowing full well that allen

weisselberg is someone who actually would probably be friendly to me anyway. even if i did making that argument in front of the jurors, that's not something -- im using him in a manipulative fashion. even though he's on rikers and i know he would still likely be a friendly witness, the fact that now you're hearing his name invoekd as someone who all the money is coming through, and you don't hear from him on the stand is something the jury's going to think about. i'm going to use that if i'm the defense attorney in this case and play that for the jury, and say we didn't hear from the weisselberg guy, why not? >> does the prosecution need to get out in front of that? do they need to address the elephant in the room, the weisselberg absence? >> they're going to have to. and i think to charles' point, the beginning of the day, they tried to get in the separation agreement, which talks about -- >> they're going to get the morning -- >> yeah, before testimony, they wanted the court to permit testimony and specifically

permit the separation agreement between weisselberg and the trump organization to basically say, hey, they agreed as part of weisselberg separating from the trump organization that weisselberg was not going to make disparaging comments and most importantly and critically not cooperate with any law enforcement unless compelled by subpoena. that is particularly important because that at least, if the prosecution was allowed to put that in could explain at least in closing argument why they didn't want to call weisselberg. >> but the judge said no, we can't have that in this trial. >> the judge also said on friday, he suggested that the prosecutors, david, could call allen weisselberg, that he could come and do what he's going to do -- oh, david's gone. he could take the fifth against self-incrimination or he could say whatever he is going to say and i wonder, first of all, do you think that they should do that, and if that would happen, though, what kind of signal does

it send to jurors if somebody comes who is at the heart of these conversations about money and just says i take the fifth. >> from the prosecutor's perspective you have to think about how that impacts it overall and how helpful it's going to be as opposed to your burden. is it going to be better for me to put him on the stand and maybe answer some of these questions or have him sit up there, take the fifth, which i think that's probably what they expect, right? or not be able to answer a lot of the questions because of his limitations and that could potentially do more damage than it could do good. but i do think on the flip side and what they're going to anticipate the defense saying, it's yet another person to point the finger at because donald trump -- >> he's the cfo. i don't know what the heck they write in the ledger. >> and there's his handwriting all over these documents. >> my lawyer was told on audio that he was going to speak to the cfo and they were going to structure it. so that's the defense argument,

so from prosecutors, they're only going to put weisselberg on the stand if he's going to have something to say that would contest that. maybe there isn't based on his limitations of what he would really in reality sit on the stand and actually answer the questions and testify. >> and to your point, if this is going to come down to papers, if this is going to come down to what jurors can actually see, allen weisselberg's writing, at least according to testimony we've seen so far was on some of those critical documents. >> everybody stands by as the court's in break. we're going to squeeze in a quick break as well. a very short one, don't go anywhere. ry short one, don't go anywhere

nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer.

if advanced lung cancer has you searching for possibilities, discover a different first treatment. immunotherapies work with your immune system to attack cancer. but opdivo plus yervoy is the first combination of 2 immunotherapies for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread, tests positive for pd-l1, and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene. opdivo plus yervoy is not chemotherapy, it works differently. it helps your immune system fight cancer in 2 different ways. opdivo and yervoy can cause your immune system to harm healthy parts of your body during and after treatment. these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have a cough; chest pain; shortness of breath; irregular heartbeat; diarrhea; constipation; severe stomach pain; severe nausea or vomiting; dizziness; fainting; eye problems; extreme tiredness; changes in appetite, thirst or urine; rash; itching; confusion; memory problems; muscle pain or weakness; joint pain; flushing; or fever. these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur together and more often

when opdivo is used with yervoy. tell your doctor about all medical conditions including immune or nervous system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, or received chest radiation. your search for 2 immunotherapies starts here. ask your doctor about opdivo plus yervoy. a chance to live longer.

a slow network is no network for business. ask your doctor about opdivo plus yervoy. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today!

and so we're in a brief break, but the star witness has been on the stand, michael cohen at times brash, at times charming, someone who the case against the former president of the united states hinges on. can he connect the dots for jurors? joining us now, ana bower, law fairs legal fellow who has been inside the courthouse. you're our first view into who it's like in that room, the demeanor of michael cohen, who there was a lot of concern most unpredictable of witnesses. how have you read him and his testimony so far? >> right, cohen is a very bombastic character. he has a reputation for having some bravado and the judge even

just last week told prosecutors to basically tell him to knock it off in terms of the public statements that he'd been making about trump, but today we've seen a very different michael cohen. we don't see any of that bombast. he is calm, he is cool and collected. he's been very even keeled on the stand, and at times, to be honest, sometimes even a little bit boring. but i think he's coming across very well, and so i think that the prosecution will see that as a success because one of the questions coming into this is exactly how michael cohen would present on the stand. we'll see what happens when we get to cross examination now. >> and again, no cameras in the courtroom, no audio in the courtroom. we're looking at a sketch of cohen drawn by one of the artists in that courtroom. ana, we know there's no love lost between these two after their falling out in 2018. trump's called cohen a rat, a sleaze bag, a liar. even violated the gag order for

comments and attacks on cohen. have you seen any type of emotion out of trump since cohen took the stand? >> you know, donald trump has been sitting there throughout michael cohen's testimony basically with his eyes closed as far as i could tell. it seemed that he has not looked at michael cohen even once, not even when michael cohen at one point had to identify his former boss. he pointed him out as the man in the blue and white striped tie. even then it seemed that donald trump kept his eyes closed. i have not seen much emotion from him other than an unwillingness to look at cohen. there was one time where he seemed to kind of grimace or make a face, but other than that there's not been much interaction between those two. >> we just saw the president going in and you saw an entourage, a bigger entourage, a

couple of members of the u.s. senate, his son who has been there only a few times before is there as well, and of course his legal team. you know, i'm really curious to ask you, again, as somebody who has been inside the courtroom about who you think there may be in terms of does he come across as credible? by that i went back to one of his books. this is revenge, an aptly named book by michael cohen, acknowledging how he feels now. he wrote, there are reasons why there's never been an intimate portrait of donald trump the man. in part he has a million acquaintances, pals, no real friends. he has no one he trusts to keep his secrets. for ten years he certainly had me, and i was always there for him, and look at what happened to me. did you get the sense in the sometimes even boring testimony of michael cohen a credible story of a man who had

unbelievable access to donald trump? >> absolutely. i think that he is coming across very credible, and it helps that the prosecution has spent the weeks of this case that i've been here building up michael cohen's credibility by introducing evidence that can corroborate his story. so far today we have not yet gotten to the story at the heart of this case, which is the stormy daniels hush money payment and then the scheme to reimburse cohen for that payment, but what the prosecution is doing with cohen so far today is, again building up corroborating details by focusing on two previous hush money payments that went to dino sajudin and karen mcdougal, throughout that testimony, cohen has talked again and again about how trump was very involved in the details of those payments and throughout his testimony prosecutors introduced evidence of text messages, for example, that corroborate conversations

that cohen had with trump. there's a reporting that was just parade that is a very kind of visceral thing for a jury to hear in which they hear trump's own voice talking about this payment to karen mcdougal that ami paid and a reimbursement to ami, that media company that was involved with the "national enquirer." so trump is there himself talking about paying back ami. he mentions the exact figure that ami paid for the hush money payment to karen mcdougal. so there's a lot of corroborating details in which the prosecution is trying to show with these past payments trump was very involved. and so after this morning's break whenever we get back to cohen's testimony and get more into the stormy daniels payment, they're able to really build up his credibility so that it's much more believable for the jury to know that trump was involved in the stormy daniels' payment and reimbursement. >> all right, ana bower, thank

you so much for all of your insights from the courthouse. we know the break is just about to be up, so we'll let you go to continue your reporting, and as the judge has now retaken the stand, cohen has also entered the room. they're talking about some kind of instructions around when audio is played in court. >> this is really interesting because he says -- judge merchan says i normally do some sort of limiting instructions along the lines of a transcript. it's not in evidence, but nobody has requested that. would you like me to do that? to which todd blanche the lead defense attorney says, we would like that instruction. thank you. juan merchan. when? blanche, right now. >> i want to go to yasmin who has some color from observations of the judge up to this point of cohen's testimony. fill us in, yasmin. >> and by the way, just quickly limiting instructions including transcripts that are admitted

cannot be used or seen as evidence from the jury, certainly something that the defense team wants the jury to understand with transcripts coming out, especially as we've talked about repeatedly, that access hollywood transcript that will be admitted once again as evidence under michael cohen's testimony. let's talk color here. you talked about credibility, chris, you were asking about credibility. we have some color on judge juan merchan and the way in which he's listening to, watching michael cohen's testimony. merchan has been watching cohen carefully, sometimes with his hand over his chin as if he has been considering cohen's credibility throughout there morning. let's talk a wake back to judge engoron at trump's civil fraud trial, in which the judgment are that came out, and one of the thing which judge engoron talked about was michael cohen's testimony, he addressed it specifically in that judgment. in which he said i find michael cohen to be credible. so it's interesting to juxtapose that to the color we're getting

from inside the courtroom on judge juan merchan. two more things i want to point out, right? names that we've heard, keith schiller, allen weisselberg. you've been talking a lot about allen weisselberg, trump's former cfo and that separation agreement. on friday there was a back and forth about the separation agreement. the prosecution wanted to admit the separation agreement as evidence to essentially say it shows the jury that allen weisselberg pays defense and loyalty to the trump organization, hence why we would not want to put him on the stand as a witness. the judge says it doesn't necessarily seem like that's what it says. if you want to admit that as evidence, we have to put weisselberg on the stand without a jury in the room. from our sources in the prosecution's office and the d.a.'s office, they're telling us putting allen weisselberg on the stand would be a huge risk because of the possibility, guys, that he could feasibly lie on the stand. let's remember he's serving time right now. that is not a chance they even want to take. we're also hearing about the possibility of keith schiller

testifying. incredibly low. the likelihood of that likely not happening, but two big names the jury's going to be thinking about within all this testimony because we have repeatedly heard the names, keith schiller, allen weisselberg. that separation agreement, judge merchan saying this morning that cannot be admitted as evidence. it's as if the prosecution has backed off on that being admitted as evidence as well. >> thank you so much for, that yasmin. we're back in to testimony, and this whole issue, why don't we just pay him with cash, which was donald trump's approach to this, and michael cohen says we needed to acquire the information about the documents, and i believed that the proper way to do it would be by check to make it appear to be a proper transaction. hoffinger, the tape cuts off and there's a voice. whose voice is that? it was me, i was receiving an incoming phone call. did the recording with mr. trump end? and he says he took the call

because it was important, but mostly he'd gotten what he wanted. what he wanted was enough to show david pecker that he would get his $150,000 back. i don't know, maybe the more important part of that is really about why do we need those documents, because we wanted it to appear like a proper transaction. >> that's critically important, and part of the reason why it's important is because donald trump's defense has always been in part, i was following the add advice of my lawyer. michael cohen is my lawyer. i have been asking him about fixing problems ultimately, michael cohen was the fixer. i'm thinking ahead, if you will, in terms of how this all fits with respect to different arguments. we've established that michael cohen was the person who donald trump went to in order to solve problems and fix things, and so something like this in terms of the difference between, hey, pay them cash, and then michael cohen says, oh, i don't think

you should do that, i don't think it's a good idea. the check coming out and a check coming from the white house explicably, it speaks to what donald trump has tried to advance from the very beginning, which is i didn't conceive this scheme. this wasn't my idea. these were things that my attorney told me to do so why would i know that they were illegal. and so the prosecution is going to have to continue to wade through this and deal with that, but then also refocus the jury on the notion that you were trying to make sure that the impact on the election was not what we knew it would be after access hollywood. >> and misty d they just bolster the fact that this phone call was completely authentic in that they just had cohen address why the tape cut off at one point. that's something earlier we saw the defense try to suggest there had been some kind of manipulation with the technology when the prosecution was admitting these records.

>> yeah, the other piece of it is, if i'm the defense attorney, i'm going to say you tape thd one conversation, but all of these other conversations that you say took place where donald trump said xyz, they're not on place, why? well, they answered that question. michael cohen is saying this was taped for the specific purpose of confirming that a reimbursement would be made, not necessarily that every single conversation would be recorded for other reasons. so i think it serves to help the prosecution to anticipate the argument that the defense -- >> they also have david pecker's testimony, right? he was done putting out six figures for donald trump. he expected -- he got, yes, his front pages. he sold copies of the "national enquirer," but $150,000 was a bridge too far. >> i agree, and to misty's point, like that -- with focusing solely on the recording and saying, oh, it was messed with or oh, it was tampered with. oh, we can't fully trust it,

it's a double-edged sword bau because at the end of the day, there's so much had to corroborate everything that went on in that recording that it doesn't serve the defense to focus in on that being their defense. >> put on your defense hat, is that a desperate move or is it let's throw darts? something's going to stick with one juror. >> your entire strategy from beginning to end in this case, throw as much at the jury as possible. either you confuse them because you have bad facts and you can't rely on that, or ultimately you persuade one with what it is that they latch onto. so as many different theories as you can throw at the jury, some of which may actually even undercut each other, as crazy as that sounds, all you need is one, chris, is one. chris, you said that in the last hour and it couldn't be more important for our viewers to understand. if you're donald trump's defense team, you're not necessarily looking for an acquittal. you know that's highly unlikely.

what you are hoping for is one hold out so that you can get yourself the a hung jury and because of that, you don't know which of the legal theories is going to resonate most so you're going to focus on all of them and throw as many of them out because all you need is one. if you get lucky, maybe you get two because one subscribers to one legal theory that they think makes sense and another one subscribes to another. so now you've got them joining forces when it goes back to deliberations and they're refusing to convict. that's your strategy of the defense. you're trying to go in as many directions as possible. again, because if you get one, great. if you don't, the confusion potentially creates some reasonable doubt that may not have otherwise existed and you still arrive at the same place. >> they're again trying to eliminate any doubt about the authenticity of that recording. there are a few follow up questions. hoffinger says was there any real reason to have further conversation with trump?

cohen says no. hoffinger, did youaler that recording? no. is it the same at september 6th, 2016. cohen says yes. now they're turn to be a conversation with allen weisselberg and what his typical communications would be with weisselberg. one of the things that i'm waiting for them to bring up is michael cohen's criminal history. right? and he has criminal history that's related to this case. he went to prison for campaign finance violations related to those stormy daniels payments. so how do you think the prosecution is going to address that? >> they can do it chronologically. i really hope that they don't do it before the lunch hour because i don't think that it's appropriate for the jury to take that back and kind of be focusing in on his criminal history. but i think if they do it chronologically, which will

require them to get out the stormy daniels and then show the schiff once trump was then put into the white house and cohen was left out of his cabinet. that's when cohen began to get upset. then they can outline that hopefully in the afternoon after they've delved into stormy daniels, then they can put in the criminal record. front some of the bad facts with record to cohen and why he may have a motive to really disparage and make sure trump pays for not putting him in the cabinet. then go off on a high note. >> hoffinger is asking cohen whether it was typical for him to discuss financial matters with weisselberg who was the chief financial officer. he was now at rikers island. and michael cohen says it was typical for everyone to discuss financial matters with weisselberg because he was the

chief financial officer and it's also because mr. trump directed me to speak to mr. weisselberg. did allen weisselberg report directly to donald trump and the answer is yes, but from a defense point of view, is it a leak to say that necessarily or is it common sense to say necessarily that weisselberg and trump were essentially one in the same. the right hand knew what the left hand was doing. >> there's two ways to see that ark. one, you've got to keep trump involved from a prosecutor's perspective. from a defense perspective, yeah, he's going to be speaking to the cfo about financial transactions but he's going to rely upon the advice of the cfo from his defense team. that's where they're going to go with that front, which is why this recording, the reason in my mind why the recording matters so much to the prosecutors is because cohen says we want to

make this transaction appear to be legitimate. that's really key because remember, this is really important. the nondisclosure agreements themselves, seedy. yeah. not illegal. so they have to have an intention while catching and killing and bolstering these stories. they have to believe michael cohen, the conspirators, donald trump, that they intended to break the law. they falsified these documents with the intent to break another law. in order to do so, that statement, this has to appear as legitimate, that's incredibly helpful. i don't think anybody would be surprised the cfo would be involved in financial transactions. >> one key just portion of what he just said that stands out to me is did it because mr. trump directed me to speak with mr.

weisselberg. that language. mr. trump directed me, charles, is key. >> of course it is. that's the picture that michael cohen has to paint in order to tie donald trump in. the more you establish that testimony that number one, donald trump was someone who was a micro manager of his own business. he knew everything that was going on. he took great interest in that. that's why the karen mcdougal story is important. how donald trump handled these things. you have to connect him as much he can to michael cohen's actions because part of the narrative they're going to be fighting against is that michael cohen did these things on his own. it still doesn't establish that donald trump necessarily knew that what he was doing was illegal, number one, or that he told him to classify it as legal reimbursement ultimately in the ledger. you still have to get to that point. we still haven't gotten testimony around impact around

the election and the fact that donald trump may have had this on his mind after the access hollywood tape was released. so there's still a lot the prosecution has to do, but that type of language i expect to hear more and more from michael cohen. i did this at the behest, at the direction of donald trump. >> can you describe the conversation with weisselberg about the karen mcdougal agreement. i expressed we needed funding of $150,000 to consummate this transaction and allen said, quote, if we do it from a trump entity, that kind of defeats the purpose because the point is not to have the trump name affiliated with this at all. that would create a barrier. >> and therein goes the intent and knowledge that there is a crime being committed because then, keep in mind, we have the ledger, invoices, and checks. again, it's more of the pattern that's being established here.

again, as trump points out, we didn't get to the direct story yet, but him going to weisselberg establishes that pattern of behavior. he had a history of going to weisselberg to make sure things were going to be structured appropriately and did it at the direction of donald trump. there's no reason to believe that donald trump wasn't fully aware. >> this is setting up daniels. this is why these things went in such a round about way. if you want to call it that. because we were very specifically trying to cover up the actual intent. >> and he also, we know, set up a shell company in order to make that stormy daniels payment. he's being asked in this situation what he did, right? what we did after that conversation with weisselberg when he said we don't want it connected to the trump organization. so he asked me to come up with ways to come up with $150,000 so i told him i'd come up with an

llc. how many conversations about the karen mcdougal conversation, ten, 12. hoffinger, did there come a time to work with -- cohen, he is an employee. hoffinger, people's exhibit 209. she's now showing the jury this. and cohen describes it as a communication from rothstein to encrypted app signal. and hoffinger says exact copy of the communication, yes. and on this exhibit, it says fs it's from daniel rothstein to michael cohen. please find possible names. hoffinger. was that just one day after you had taped the conversation with mr. trump about setting up an llc? cohen says yes. hoffinger, you mentioned an assignment agreement? what's that. cohen, he was referencing to assign the life rights of karen

mcdougal. the llc, is that important? >> yes. it speaks to the overall plan action of how they're going to record these payments that's going to be integral. we're talking about the $420,000 that's an issue. why it's called what it is in the ledger. the why is really the important part. so now we know from this testimony they want to keep it separate from the trump organization. it defeats the purpose of paying the money if it's attached. that in itself might not be illegal, but the question is the why. why do you want to keep it separate? why are you calling it something different? the threshold issue is are these falsified business records. you have to prove that first. then was this in furtherance of another crime. this is going to be the challenging part for prosecutors because he's going to have to say we thought we might be breaking the law. we intended to falsify these records because we believed it could be violating campaign finance law. >> it's really important just to