that is the last word. the 11th hour starts right now. the people of new york called michael cohen. the star witness at the center

of the case takes the stand. tonight, the michael cohen testimony begins. >> the guy we saw was credible and calm if not a little freaked out. >> donald trump's former fixer testifies that the candidate himself let the conspiracy. >> the most repeated line of michael cohen's testimony was, just take care of it. >> just take care of it. >> this is a disaster. women will hate me. >> he was not thinking of melania but all about the candidate. >> rachel maddow recaps the testimony with lawrence o'donnell, lisa rubin, susan craig, and katie phang who were inside the court has. nicolle wallace, chris hayes, ari melber, jen psaki, and catherine christian. special coverage of trump on trial begins.

good evening and thank you for joining us for our msnbc prime time recap of the criminal trial of former president trump. i am here along with my colleagues lawrence o'donnell, katie phang, nicolle wallace, chris hayes. today's proceedings, unexpectedly to me were like that helpful moment in the old agatha christie style british detective story. you've been following along, more or less, and you know who most of the characters are. you can remember most of their names. you know the basic plot of the mystery, but then, there is this great health a moment in the story where the detective sits down under some stupid pretends with some other character. in their conversation, they give you all the answers. it is okay you have not been paying close attention along, they in this conversation will

recap the whole story. not only will they get to the big answer, the big whodunit, think of the solutions to all the other little mysteries and red herrings that popped up over the course of the story. that was michael agatha christie cohen today. for example, why did michael cohen make the hush money payments to stormy daniels from those home-equity line of credit rather than from, i don't know, his bank account? we learned today it was because that account was paperless. no statements related to that home-equity line of credit were going to be mailed to his house. michael cohen's wife was never going to see some inexplicable $130,000 payment on a statement and question him as to what he was up to. now we know. also, why, when the reimbursement was made of michael cohen for him paying for stormy daniels's house payment, why did that include

not just the reimbursement, but a bunch of money for a bunch of other things? we learned today that this was going to be the less money michael cohen ever received from the trump organization. in these payments they included everything he was owed. they were zeroing him out. he was leaving the company. why was he doing that? if michael cohen was still a trump organization employee like he had been, it wouldn't make sense for him to be getting checks as a retainer for legal services. he would be getting a salary like he had been for years before. instead, cohen leaves a trump organization and becomes the personal attorney to the president which makes the legal retainer checks looks like that's how trump's was paying for his services as his personal attorney. in reality, cohen was never paid anything for being personal attorney to the president. that is what they called it and what they called him so it

would not look weird that trump was paying him $35,000 checks every month. now that make sense. also, why do prosecutors go out of their way to point out that ben roethlisberger, the former pittsburgh steelers quarterback, had been at the golf event with donald trump at the time of the trump stormy daniels sex alleged sexual encounter? now we know. contrary to trump's denials that he had sex was stormy daniels, michael cohen testified today that when he asked donald trump if anything had happened between him and stormy daniels, trump dragged to michael cohen that yeah, even though he was there at this golf event with big ben roethlisberger, the women there, like stormy daniels, they wanted him more than they wanted big ben. all the little mysteries that have popped up over the course

of us learning about the scandal, all the little mysteries that have popped up or inexplicable sidebars and detours we didn't necessarily understand as the prosecution has laid out the case thus far. michael cohen today provided the all is reveal seen in this detective story. tying up the loose ends of filling in the gaps. bringing us to the main event, the big whodunit. michael cohen , longtime lawyer, enforcer, bully, quote unquote fixer for former president trump. the man who in the mob analogy was not so much a hitman as the underboss. the man who testified today about telling supplies and contractors and suppliers that they would get 20% of what they invoice trump university four or they would get nothing and they would like it. michael cohen give testimony today that donald trump was in

the room where it happened. in the worst possible way. the one piece of paper that has emerged in the case that has the most important piece of paper of all is this one. this document, people's exhibit 35, is the smoking gun document in this first-ever criminal trial of an american president. it's a bank statement showing the wire transfer of $130,000 to the representative for stormy daniels. it is the bank record showing that the hush money payment was in fact made. on the bottom of the statement, on the right, you see what we know is michael cohen's handwriting showing something else he wants to be reimbursed for since we now understand, he is leaving the trump organization at this point. he wants to make sure in this last payment coming to him, this other money the trump organization owes him will be included. that's on the bottom right side of this piece of paper. on the bottom left side of this

piece of paper, you see different handwriting. it's from the trump organization cfo allen weisselberg. it is him doing the math. this is how much michael cohen is owed since we will lie and say it's income for him instead of the reimbursement that it actually is. that means he will have to pay taxes on it. here is how much we will add to what we are paying to account for the taxes he is going to have to pay. add additional bonus line because he said he was owed money on the annual bonus and he will never get another one because he is leaving. here is the part at the bottom, we will pay it over 12 months. $420,000 over 12 months, that's $35,000 a month. that's allen weisselberg doing the math. people's exhibit 35 what prosecutors have laid out is that is the smoking gun document that shows the crime. it shows what the payment was really for and how it was disguised as something else in

the business records of the trump organization. it was disguised to conceal its true nature because the true nature as it was a campaign expenditure. that is the prosecution's case. that document shows the crime. we have seen this document before in this trial. today, michael cohen testified for the first time that trump was there for it. that he, michael cohen, and allen weisselberg, the trump cfo, talked it over during which time they made those notes on the piece of paper. that is why there's two different sets of handwriting on the paper. after the two of the marked up the piece of paper the way i described, they then took that piece of paper and marched it down to donald trump's office, 26 floor and with that paper in hand, the three of them had a discussion about what they were doing and why they were doing it and he said, do it.

prosecutor. following the meeting with weisel bergen both of you heading the handwriting to people's exhibit 35, what did you do and where did the two of you go? >> we went to mr. trump's office to speak to him about this. >> one was is approximately? >> right before the -- before mr. trump left for the inauguration. >> he was still a trump tower? >> yes. >> what did you understand he was engaged in at that time? >> being president-elect. >> was he at meetings a trump tower? >> yes. >> what happen when you win a trump's office to have this discussion? >> we were talking about this, what we are going to do is pay you over 12 months. i think the indication from the transcript is cohen rebutted that. was probably better if i get it in one lump sum. no, no, why don't you do it over 12 months and it will be

paid out to you monthly. >> did he say anything about how would be paid out as something? >> yeah, it's like a legal service rendered since i was then being given the title is personal attorney to the president. >> so was his conversation you had with mr. weisel bergen mr. trump's office? with mr. trump? >> yes. >> did mr. weisselberg have with him this document, people's exhibit 35? >> he did. >> did he show the document to mr. trump? >> yes. >> did mr. weisselberg say in front of trump how much you would be paid in total? >> was going to be divided by 12, $35,000 a month, and they would mark the payments in february and the january because there was a lot going on with mr. trump moving to d.c. >> so was it stated, did mr. weisselberg state in front of mr. trump that you would

receive $420,000 over the course of 12 months? >> yes. >> and what if anything did trump say at the time? >> he approved it. >> he also said it will be one heck of a ride in d.c. >> did mr. weisselberg say in front of mr. trump that the monthly payments would be, you know, like a retainer for legal services? >> yes. >> you mentions of the before and i want to question you. did you say something to the effect that you had a sense that spoken about this previously? >> yes. >> why do you say that? >> because they played that game of frick and phrack type game. i and around that office enough to realize the conversation had already taken place between the two. when i asked for the 420, mr. trump said no, it's better to do it over 12 months. >> trump defense counsel, objection to that it's and moved to strike. >> the judge, overruled. >> when allen weisselberg laid

out the plan of how much you were going to get paid and over what months and showed mr. trump this document, did mr. trump try to renegotiate? >> no. >> so he approved the? >> yes. >> at some point, did mr. trump confirm he would give you the total personal attorney or personal counsel to the president? >> yes. >> when was that? >> around the same time. spirit was the $420,000 that you were going to receive back from mr. trump going to be payment for future legal services as personal counsel? >> that was what it was designed to be. >> what was it actually? >> reimbursement of my money. >> it was repayment of which monies? >> it was a repayment of the stormy daniels payment. >> you said you believe this occurred a trump tower some

days before mr. trump left for washington? >> correct. >> did mr. weisselberg have with him this document, people's exhibit 35? heated. 80 show it to mr. trump? yes. michael cohen testified for the first time that just before leaving to be inaugurated as president of the united states, donald trump review the smoking gun document that laid out the crime. he then talked in detail about the crime with his cfo and with michael cohen, and he said, quote, do it. he approved it. if there's anything in this case that isn't plainly blackletter proven by the documents and the records, if there's anything as we have been waiting for and testimony from witnesses, this is probably it. it certainly was not all. there's a lot to say what

happened today. let's start there. lawrence o'donnell, you are there. >> yeah. the one other bit that we got that is important is donald trump, at the time in october 2016, the final day of the president's campaign, directing michael cohen to make the payment to stormy daniels. he said he directed me to do it. we remember michael cohen's federal indictment that everything he did was at the direction of, individual one who turns out to be donald trump. you have both pieces here. you have in today's testimony, michael cohen saying he directed me to do this, to pay stormy daniels. then you have the payback which occurs after the election, the agreement to the payback. i have to say, we were sitting there as this testimony was coming out, and we've seen the document already, and michael cohen was able to confirm that's my handwriting on the other side of the page. which technically on the record had not been confirmed. the previous witness identified

allen weisselberg's handwriting saying i been reading allen weisselberg's handwriting for 35 years. that's at the handwriting got in. it also got in today when michael cohen said, i can identify that is allen weisselberg's handwriting because i saw him write it. that's about as good as handwriting i.d. gets. then michael cohen explains that is my writing over there. i explained what i needed and -- what we did not know was the next thing that was going to happen in the testimony is allen weisselberg and michael cohen were going to take that document down the hall. we were going to be in donald trump's office, and michael cohen was then telling us what donald trump said about this and how he approved it. as you put it, it was all there. that is where the final elements of what become the criminal charges all get put

together is in that room. >> you for there. >> it was elegant because the prosecution did such an effective job of getting evidence entered into the record because, remember, if it's not in the record it cannot be used. we saw this exhibit before. it had import through jeff mccarney, the former comptroller of the trump organization, but to have the nuance added for michael cohen's testimonies were good trial lawyers to. you saw a well executed plan from the manhattan das office to allow the introduction of certain cell phone records, text messages, emails. bank statements. it was a corroborating evidence that allowed michael cohen to stand on his own on his own testimony and not have to worry that there was nothing underneath them in terms of a foundation to talk about what happened. 's credibility is going to be an issue. we did not hear -- we heard few objections today.

>> that was interesting. >> no sidebars for incredibly -- defense. what was the import? it was a free-flowing, well paced, clean, sussing direct examination. michael cohen was afforded the opportunity to drive the narrative for the with the das office wanted him to do. the jury was taking notes intensely. there were at least three who were feverishly taking notes and looking. that's the last thing i would say. the visual aid of having the exhibit displayed on the screen in addition to when the audiotape was played of the famous, secretly recorded donald trump thing accompanied by the transcript, it's so effective. jurors sit and sit and then they see something and feel the engagement. when they go into the jury room to deliberate, people's 35 is something they will tangibly have and they will look at the handwriting. they will see, mass matches with the consultant and the 135

and the wire to keith davidson and matches a gross of. everything fits. today they left to recess today and the last thing i heard was donald trump participating in the conspiracy. >> does it matter they do not have mr. weisselberg testify? does it matter that he cannot testify. that was my handwriting. yes, i was in that room as well with trump and michael cohen. when michael cohen was speculating the trip and i talked about this before, here's the truth of that, does it matter? >> no objection to speculation when they asked michael cohen. jeffrey mcconney authenticated the handwriting of allen weisselberg. go ahead, defense, bring a convicted perjury allen weisselberg and donald trump and explain what he meant. if you fail to bring anybody to review the evidence, it stays as the evidence. >> the other part that was as

black-and-white as the motive is clearly established. he was the 16th or 17th witness? not one person has told a different story other than the compressed period between the drop of access hollywood and election day is the pressure cooker that the candidate and the campaign feel to pay the $130,000. we have this longer time line and from david pecker in the catch and kill which included the door manic karen mcdougal. the ark was even longer, 2011, he was talking to the boss and the first thing the boss says is a lot of women will come out of the woodwork. cohen was a fixer, but specifically infidelity and women who came out and claimed infidelity. >> and he was integrated into the campaign and the sword of team trump on that point. he was never a rogue actor -- accusations of infidelity. he was working with others. >> to that point, david pecker

was the first one who told the story of how middle-management cohen was. they enter the conspiracy for catch and kill. they are the founders of catch and kill. cohen is a guy who has to make it happen. he's on the phone with his banker. we heard that. he is haggling back and forth with keith davidson and trying to track down trump on the plane and on the phone with schiller. the conspirators is another undisputed fact that his -- >> there is no counter narrative about the other innocent explanation. >> i thought today as i was listening, reading this testimony of john bolton's line about rudy giuliani and he says i want nothing to do with this drug dealer cooking up over there. it is a system linked articulation of his lawyer senses, that stuff is not aboveboard. what's happening. everything being described here's clearly not aboveboard. there is so much effort being

done to do wrong here. when it comes to cohen putting trump in the room, you have to ask, is it believable testimony? the other thing i thought about again today, trump is paying a crime of penalty because it's recorded as income, grossed up to double what it should be, that he is going to pay this cheap dude is going to pay the crime penalty to hide the income. do you think $130,000 payment which we know he has in his head, he will look at a $420,000 statement michael cohen will say, close enough. someone has to work through those numbers. if someone says, we did the dirt. now here's my reimbursement. it's 420 and not 130. someone has to go through the map on the paper or there is no way you say yes to that. even a non-donald trump is saying that but certainly not

donald trump. >> that actually is the closest thing we have had to a counter narrative from them. the counter narrative is, rich people and celebrities, men. we are always paying hush money. it is no crime. that's been the counter narrative. that would mean paying $130,000 and that would not mean a -- >> and he said he got fired for a day or two because he did not haggle down the bill. here is one that was more than two and he was like. >> did he tried to renegotiate this once you were in the room and you're getting the final agreement that he will pay? did he try to renegotiate. one word answer. no. >> it's because weisselberg had the premeeting. you won't like this number but here's what has to be this number. >> michael cohen as a witness for the prosecution in this criminal case against former president trump. today, what they started is

called their direct examination. prosecutors firing questions at their own witness. we will continue -- it will continue into tomorrow if not beyond. then the cross-examination of michael cohen will begin and that's wintry mix get defense lawyers will question cohen. some legal observers saying that expected cross-examination of michael cohen which is looming, that effectively might be the entirety of termites get defense. it's under no obligation to bring any witnesses to the stand including trump himself. they may not try to mount any witnesses, any defense at all other than what they're going to do to michael cohen in trying to score points off of him. how is it looking? now that we see michael cohen on the stand, we have more on that and much more head on all of this including why divorce lawyers all over the country had their ears turned red today. we will be right back with our recap of today's proceedings.

can build it better, scale it faster and sell more. much more. take your business to the next stage when you switch to shopify.

hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. ♪ changing your habits is the only way that gets you to lose the weight. and golo is the plan that's going to help you do that. just take the first step, go to golo.com.

and they're all coming? those who are still with us, yes. grandpa! what's this? your wings. light 'em up! gentlemen, it's a beautiful... ...day to fly.

it's a beautiful... ...day to fly. wooooo! testimony today from michael cohen putting former president trump in the room where cohen said they spelled out the details of the alleged crime. they spelled out this ruse of covering up the hush money payments, faking the business records to make it look like

legal fees for michael cohen to occlude the fact that what they were doing was making a campaign expenditure. michael cohen today describing the document in which it was spelled out saying that was discussed. that document was brought into trump's office and discussed in detail with trump and he approved it, looking at the same document that the jury and all of us have now seen, describing the math behind this alleged crime. it was an incandescent moment in this criminal trial of donald trump. it was hardly the only moment that will stick with folks from michael cohen's first day on the stand. asked if other there was a reason to approve the hush money payment other than to influence a campaign, whether there was a counter narrative that might explain the hush money was paid for some other reason other than to influence a campaign, michael cohen gave brand-new testimony about that today. if nothing else will presumably

warm the cockles of some divorce lawyers heart somewhere. prosecutor. after you learned from dylan howard and from keith davidson about the stormy daniels story and her wanting to publish this story, and the conversations about purchasing the story, did you speak to mr. trump? >> i did. >> was this a serious matter at that time? >> a very serious matter. >> did you tell him what's heard from dylan howard and keith davidson? >> yes. >> what was his reaction? >> he was really angry with me. i thought you had this under control. i thought you took care of this. and he expressed to me, there is a previous denial. meaning we have previously been able to work with stormy daniels to deny any sexual encounter took place in 2011. there is a previous denial. just take care of it. he says there was a lot going on at the campaign at the time. he was like, just take care of

it. >> did he say anything how this might be viewed if it got out? >> yes. >> what did he say ? >> he said to me, it's a disaster. total disaster. women are going to hate me because this is really a disaster. women will hate me. guys may think it's cool, but this is a disaster for the campaign. >> what did you understand him to mean by women will hate this? what was his concern? >> defense lawyer, objection. >> judge, overruled. >> at the time mr. trump was polling very poorly with women in this coupled with the previous access hollywood tape, he stated, this is a disaster. get control over it. did you have any conversation with mr. trump about a particular strategy about how to get control of it and how to deal with it? >> he told me to work with david, meaning david pecker, and get control over this.

purchase the life rights. we need to stop this from getting a. >> was a conversation of pushing it repaired of time? >> yes. >> during the negotiation to purchase and acquire the life rights, we are talking stormy daniels here, what he said is what i want you to do is push it out as long as you can. just get past the election. if i win, it has no relevance. i will be president. if i lose, i don't even care. >> did you bring up at the time the topic of his wife, melania, and one of those conversations? >> i did. >> what did you say? >> i said to him, and how is things going to go with upstairs? >> were you concerned about the? >> i was. >> and what, if anything, did he say to you about the? >> don't worry, he goes. he goes, how long do you think i will be on the market for?

not long. >> what did you understand that to mean? >> he was not thinking about melania. this was all about the campaign. >> a few things. women will hate me and guys may think it's cool. i will leave that where it lies. this, what i want you to do is push it out as long as you can, get past the election. if i win it has no relevance and if i lose i do not care. this explains why they're not paying stormy daniels. them not paying stormy daniels almost results in them losing control of this and stormy daniels telling her story to abc news. they have to scramble michael cohen pays himself. they almost lost it because they were stringing it out. they want to pay it pass -- string it out past the election and then never pay her at all. >> once you worried about your wife and what she but they? michael cohen is describing a

conversation with trump in which he is trying to elicit commissaries and to suppress the story other than the campaign? and trump effectively says i don't care she knows her if she's mad. how long do you think i will be on the market for? not long. >> he is not the first to testify to trump's singular concern with his campaign. the other investigator the prosecutor had access to david pecker unfiltered testimony was as district of new york and they found the same crime had taken place. described his role as directing michael cohen. the facts are not in dispute by the other investigators that looked at this. no one who is come before the story is testify to any motive other than the campaign. the real crisis, the thing that makes the stormy daniels payment different in addition to the crimes that were committed in the fraudulent business records is it happens in the compressed time period. karen mcdougal does,.

the monday before the election and you have those conversations were trump is telling hope hicks what to do. hope hicks says i will deny, deny, deny. they are hyperaware the political damage and none of the witnesses have said anything about trump being scared of melania. i had a source inside that the paper up when access hollywood tape dropped. he told me, he went upstairs with trump, and melania was very distraught. no one knows anything about anyone's merits so i have no idea >> your source was in the room of melania? >> i do not think trump went upstairs alone. a subset of the group went upstairs to the resident to deal with the statement and melania. i think a group came from -- his vote was to donald trump from the ticket and see if they could switch with mr. pence. i think if you went upstairs from to pay trump test prep. melania was reportedly crying. we do not know she was crying.

did she know? was she mad at him? his concerns about her work distant second. his political concerns with he is afraid of being, a loser. >> at the opening statements, trump defense counsel did say, did suggest that the reason trump was paying the hush money for the reason this response to stormy daniels ruled out some other way to despite the parts he denies because he did what anybody would've done. trying to avoid embarrassment, trying to avoid implication -- the embarrassment to his family on this. it seems to be repeatedly rebutted by multiple witnesses. >> it does and one thing that's unclear to me. the jon edwards case were they effectively use that as defense. when he was under federal trial for campaign finance violation for paying off hush money that it was about protecting his wife who you might remember was cancer stricken and had a more

plausible case. i don't understand what the standard is for the jury on this aspect of the crime. meaning, they clearly falsified business records. there clearly was a hush money payment. there's a huge amount of paper transaction. the motive, we have multiple witnesses saying it was about the campaign and not melania. there is stuff in the evidentiary record -- >> no bank. >> no bank statement about the campaign. my question is how much whatever fuzziness a juror might feel whether it's as firmly established as other things affects whether you can find -- >> let me put that to you. we are familiar with these intricacies of new york lawn whites a felony and not a misdemeanor, you can be charged with misdemeanor falsification of business records. charged with a felony when it is used to commit or conceal

the commission of another crime. you do not have to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. if the crime is influencing the election, it's an illegal campaign expenditure. what is the standard? it does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt? >> it's a great question. a lot of people went into today's testimony hoping to that clarity from michael cohen's testimony. the underlying misdemeanor falsification of business records is the layup as chris says. for what purpose? that's what punts it up to the felony. that secondary offense, the subject offense why would you want to falsify those business records, you do not have to prove that beyond into the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. >> you just have to point and say that's what we think it is? >> correct. that's why you are hearing it so heavily here. you are not hearing the tax side but hearing the campaign.

that's the theory they got an opening and said is what the crime is. >> that standard watching this develop, matters a lot. if you ask me -- they established to me beyond a reasonable doubt so far. >> the misdemeanors. >> this was clearly fraudulent and they covered it up. i think they have established it was for the campaign. did they establish it in my mind rock solid, as the other thing, i would probably say no. >> having the testimony from melania saying trump was in the room when they talked about the falsification, it gets you there. >> they can be both. that is the most important part. the jurors can think they he did it for both. if the campaign is one and if it is the dominant one, then the case is made. they do not have to completely

exclude motivation involving his wife. the evidence, this is important, the evidence so far has excluded melania. michael cohen under oath in evidence said, he was not thinking about melania. you cannot get a clearer statement. this will be important and the judge will instruct on this. nothing to trump's lawyer said in the opening as evidence. everything the witnesses said is evidence. the defense attorneys cross- examination questions are not evidence. what's the cross-examination questions will be is you lied about that, didn't you? and cohen will go, no. you lied about it is not evidence. they cannot and will not put donald trump on the witness stand who's the only person alive who can present evidence against what michael cohen has said. that's how you would have to -- evidence. trump saying i never told them

to do it. i absolutely did not reimburse him. i was paying him to be my lawyer. trump would have to give you that in direct testimony from the defense and he is not going to. you are going to go to the jury with nothing but the evidence presented by the prosecution. >> you think it's a 0% chance trump talks? >> zero. >> when we come back what michael cohen had to say about the rest of trump world by name as he made the case he did not act alone. we will surprisingly to my mind, we will talk about the other appearances of the former first lady and today's trial testimony. did that come as a surprise. s.

welcome back tar prime time recap of the criminal trial of former president trump. prosecutor, i would like to direct your attention to october 7 2016. do you remember where you were? >> yes. >> where were you? >> london. >> how do you remember? >> i went to london for my daughter's birth as well as my anniversary. >> did you become aware the release of what's known as the access hollywood tape? >> yes. >> how did you become aware of that tape coming up?

>> i received a phone call. >> who did you receive a phone call from? >> hope hicks. >> who was hope hicks? >> communication director for the trump campaign. >> do you recall receiving an email from steve bannon? >> yes. >> who was steve bannon at the time? >> campaign manager. >> do you recognize this email? >> it's an email between me and steve bannon as well as hope hicks, teresa miller -- >> does it relate to the access hollywood tape? >> yes. >> can you tell the jury what you understand this but am email to be? >> it's to hope hicks with the subject matter of urgent. washington post query. >> in general, what is he communicating to hope hicks and asking her for? >> he is asking her for comment in regard to the leak of the tape from access hollywood. >> is her transcript of the

access hollywood tape attached to the email from david to hope hicks? >> there is. >> does hope hicks forward that email to some other folks? >> she does. >> what does she say in the email she forwards to those folks? >> need to hear the tape to be sure. then followed by deny, deny, deny. >> is that -- the second forwarded, as we scroll down, the second forwarded by steve bannon unto you? >> yes. >> when you were in london, did you have several calls with hope hicks with this matter? >> i did. >> at one point, did mr. trump join a call with yourself and hope hope hicks? >> yes. >> did you have another separate call with mr. trump on october 8 2016? >> yes. >> do you have a separate memory of where you were and what you were doing when you had these phone calls? >> yes. >> what were you doing? >> i was with my family friends

in london? >> where you having dinner? >> i was. >> did you step out? >> i did. >> what discussion do you remember with mr. trump about the access hollywood tape -- >> he wanted me to reach out all my contacts with the media. we needed to put a spin on this. the spin he wanted to put on it was that this is locker room talk. something that melania had recommended . or at least, he told me that that is what melania had thought it was. use that to get control over the story and minimize its impact on him and the campaign. >> and what, if anything, did you do at that point to try to assist campaign with that of her? >> i reached other members of the media. >> he told cohen that the locker room talk defense which became the defense, that span about what the access hollywood

tape is all about, michael cohen said trump told him it was his wife's idea that it was melania phrase, locker room talk. the other thing that's important about this exchange beside that bazaar assertion is it shows that michael cohen was not a rogue employee. he was not a solo operator, especially on issues like things that related to alleged infidelity, michael cohen was part of if not leading the whole team response. that was made clear in this exhibit that was filed for the first time in court today. it's right before the election, november 8 and this was november 4. this email exchange between hope hicks and michael cohen shows hope hicks trying out different types of denials that she wants to issue potentially to the wall street journal about the story they are about to run about these alleged infidelities and the cover-up of them. she's running these proposed

denials by michael cohen. cohen response, instead, say this. these accusations are completely untrue and the latest despicable attempt by the liberal media and the clinton machine to blah blah. prosecutors throughout the trial have not just allowed but have invited testimony from earlier witnesses including hope hicks, invited these witnesses to disparage or say how much they did not like her did not respect michael cohen. today, they showed the receipts of him not operating alone. of him part of team trump responding to allegations about trump, being consulted at the highest levels of what the response should be, specifically he was a key part of the whole team's response when it came to allegations from women. how does a part of his testimony today, and this evidence introduced today, help

the prosecution? >> i am intrigued by the sinister role hope hicks played behind-the-scenes. other than bill barr, no one whose reputation has been more successfully laundered before and during and after the trump years than hicks. she gets a transcript of access hollywood and she's in the room , himself talking in the third person. we will deny, deny, deny. the first thing she writes when the wall street journal calls is tonight. if you read her draft responses, they are more bombastic and more partisan and more nasty -- cohen edits her down. hope hicks is the surprise dachshund it should not be a surprise -- but a sharp elbow paid liar for donald trump. cohen is a moderating front to the campaign which is stunning. the melania thing i heard of the time and she does an interview where she says that. i think she says, can't remember

if it's in his hostage statement that night, i can't remember if he uses it but she does an interview. they get her to do it and she uses that line in an interview she does. i think after the debate so four days after the tape has dropped. that's their line. tragically, because the other story stay silent, in their minds they think it works. >> the melania question is kind of important on this point . because, melania will through the questioning of the defense, they will try to use her as a recent donald trump wanted these things do not come out. what you are seeing is melania trump, and this will be uncontested testimony, donald trump will not take the witness stand and say millenia did not say that. she will not take the witness stand and say she did not say that. it will be uncontested in the

record. this is melania after seeing how donald trump brags about his favorite method of sexual us all. this is worse than what you are learning about stormy daniels. worse than what you learn about susan -- karen mcdougal. this portrays her as a team player in the cover-up, let's get our guy through it which means, why would you ever worry about melania when the stormy daniels story comes along? >> which matters if the defense will count on putting in a mind of a single juror a counter narrative that makes this hush money and falsification of business records scheme something that is innocent because it was not criminal but designed to protect melania. designed to protect the family rather than influence the campaign. if that's what they're going to try to do, it seems hard to do that given the testimony about

melania's contributions to the defense and what trump explained how we did not care if she knew. >> here's how the defense will do that. they put the wife on the witness stand. she would be in tears saying this crushed me and it was devastating. when i learned this news it was a most horrible day of my life. that's the way the defense would get that into a case like this. >> she would be sitting behind him every day of the trial showing her support even if she does not take the stand. her absence screams volumes of lack of belief in donald trump. >> our prime time recap of the only criminal trial in history of an american president continues after the break. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus, 0% interest for 36 months. shop now at sleepnumber.com

a slow network is no network for business. 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. from the company with 99.9% network reliability and advanced cyber security, it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. and it's all from comcast business.

welcome back to our msnbc prime time recap of the criminal trial of former president donald trump. i'm here with my colleagues ari melber and katie phang and chris hayes from msnbc along with susanne craig from "the new york times." today the prosecution called its 20th and likely its final witness. trump's longtime lawyer and, quote, unquote, fixer, michael cohen. michael cohen today told the jury that trump personally approved and directed the hush money payment to an adult film actress and director in 2016,

including the false pretense of structuring the payment as if it was a set of legal fees when it wasn't. cohen testified today that trump did this explicitly to protect his presidential campaign from the damage her story would cause, that it was not paid to protect his family or his wife from any embarrassment. this blockbuster testimony defined the official court action inside the court. the direct examination of cohen will continue tomorrow. the cross-examination will then begin thereafter, and then we expect lots of fireworks at that point. but today outside the court, trump made his own bid for attention with the help from some of his -- friends? do we call them friends? possible running mates? political allies? i don't know. as he always does on his way into court, this morning the former president himself stopped

in front of cameras to spend a few minutes denouncing the trial. but if you look over his right shoulder, are those familiar faces? yes, they are. in front of donald trump's adult son eric -- he's the blond one standing in the back there -- there are two republican united states senators, j.d. vance of ohio, and tommy tuberville of alabama. those two senators came along with a republican congresswoman from staten island and two republican state attorneys general, one from alabama, one from i think iowa, to keep donald trump company. this is becoming kind of a thing in republican politics, to make a pilgrimage to trump's trial. last week it was republican senator rick scott. he's up for re-election this year in trump's adopted home state of florida. nbc news has confirmed that former republican presidential candidate vivek ramaswamy will join trump in court tomorrow. okay. and the craven desperate politics of all this is

embarrassing to everybody who's watching it. many of these folks are obviously hoping for gigs in what they hope will be a second trump administration. j.d. vance, in particular, is desperate to be considered for trump's vice president. but when senator vance and senator tuberville left the courtroom today after a couple of hours and headed for the cameras themselves, they made sure to tell everybody that they were only there to support their dear, dear friend in need. >> i'm here for the simple reason to show support for a friend. luckily the president's supporters should know that he's actually in great spirits despite the circumstances of this. >> i'm here today to represent and to pay my respects to what president trump is going through. it's a tough time for him. that courtroom is depressing. this is new york city, the icon of our country, and we've got a courtroom that's the most depressing thing i've ever been in. mental anguish is trying to be pushed on the republican candidate for the president of the united states this year. that's all this is. republican candidate for

president of the united states is going through mental anguish in a courtroom that's very depressing, very depressing. >> there is a little-known constitutional amendment which requires a playful mobile to be put above criminal defendants in courtrooms that are particularly depressing. it's like a subset of the -- at one point senator vance voiced his concern that donald trump was being made to feel, quote, lonely because he isn't seeing crowds of supporters every day outside the courthouse. that's because they're not there. but the senators and the rest of the gaggle of republican officials who were at the courthouse today, they all echoed one of trump's most common complaints about his trial, which is that it's keeping him off the campaign trail. >> he should be out on the campaign trail, but of course he's here with this trial. >> our president trump is tied up in court when he should be out on the campaign trail. >> this is simply an effort to keep donald trump in new york city so he can't go out and

speak to the people of this country about why he should be re-elected as president. >> i should be out campaigning now instead of sitting in a very cold courthouse all day long. >> it's not that cold. donald trump should be out campaigning. he should be out barnstorming the swing states. that's what, of course, he would be doing if he were not trapped at this trial. that's the line, right? here's the problem. it is true that trump is required to be in court when it is in session. he is, after all, a criminal defendant. but that's only maximum four days a week. sometimes it's only three days a week. and on those other days when court isn't in session, the former president is mostly not campaigning. most of his non-trial days, he's been hanging out at his club in florida or staying home in new york or new jersey, as is his right. but it remains this strange and easily disprovable thing that trump and his allies and, quote, friends are constantly saying,

that he would be out campaigning if he weren't in court. that is easily disproven by the observable fact that when he is not in court, he is mostly not doing that. to be fair, he did have one big rally this weekend in new jersey. that is a state that has not voted for a republican for president since 1988. but, hey, hope springs eternal. it does have the advantage of being a quick hop, skip, and a jump from trump's new york apartment, so maybe that was the reason he did it. the but meanwhile, president biden is running what you may call counterprogramming. president biden is actually doing what trump says he wants to be doing. he is hitting the swing states repeatedly. joe biden even hit trump's backyard in florida last month. while trump has made his trial the centerpiece of his campaign, now to the point where republicans have to come and sit in court with him in order to

show their support, president biden basically never mentions the trial. he barely even mentions who his opponent in the election is. he talks of his administration's accomplishments. he talked up how his accomplishments will help the people of whatever swing state he's in. like much of the biden presidency, it feels like an act of radical normalcy in the face of what's going on on the other side of american politics and now the other side of the presidential contest. whatever else can be said about this presidential election, the two candidates are running wildly different campaigns, and especially on a day like this, it feels like they are running frankly on wildly different planets. let's bring in our colleague jen psaki. she's the host of "inside with jen psaki" on msnbc. she's the veteran of many campaigns. she's former white house press secretary for president biden. jen, thank you so much for being with us tonight. >> thank you. >> i wanted to make sure we were able to talk to you. let me ask you. i feel like there was this pretrial sort of pundit-ocracy common wisdom that trump was not

only going to sell a lot of merch with his mug shot on the merch, but this was going to be a political bonanza for him. i feel like to the extent that we can see anything in the polling, it's showing that the trial isn't changing things much one way or the other in terms of views of either of the two candidates. how are the politics of this trial being made manifest? >> well, we don't know yet. i will say one additional detail you didn't mention but is my favorite from last wednesday, is that trump spent time dining with people who spent about $10,000 on nfts, and they got to get a piece of his suit and a piece of his tie. that's how he spent the day campaigning, so there you go. i think on the polling of it, it hasn't impacted people yet. we know from polling we've seen that if he is convicted, the

polling has showed that it could impact people and how they view him. we will see. but if you look at the contrast here, rachel, i mean joe biden is out there. i think one of the best things he's done recently is that event in wisconsin, where he basically went to a state and went to a place, foxconn, where trump made a promise about jobs that he couldn't deliver on, didn't deliver on. that had a little edge to it. you need a little edge to break through these days. so that was a good thing. but there's got to be more of that too in order for biden to continue to kind of make progress in this campaign. the most -- and you touched on this and went over it. this is the thing that stuck out to me so much about today is this sort of sideshow, but it's not a sideshow of these senators. it's so strange seeing j.d. vance and tommy tuberville in new york. it was like a where's waldo moment? like there they are. oh, there they are in back of him at this press conference. but it tells you so much because as you said, not only did they stand there, they went out afterwards and they put out things on social media because they're looking for approval

from trump. and that adds to what we've seen over the last couple of weeks, which is, one, people who want to be the vice presidential running mate or in the cabinet, confirming they don't think trump lost the election in 2020. two, we've started to see a number of people in the last couple of weeks on a number of shows suggest they might not respect the outcome of the election in 2024. that's replaying the game again. and this is the third piece. we're going to see vivek tomorrow. how crazy will that be? i don't know yet. we will see. that is a piece of this that tells you so much about his own political power, even if we're not clear about where the polls between the two candidates are going to be at the end of this trial yet. >> can i just -- i mean if you, like, imagineer a world in which republican politics is not rotating around the axis of donald trump, what are the politics? what's the political impact of these sitting senators and very ambitious republican politicians making sure that they are seen inside of what they are decrying as a very depressing new york city courtroom? i mean they're putting themselves in state criminal court as a way of trying to get themselves before the american

people so that this is where we imagine them. i mean this is just -- it may be one thing to try to get trump's favor. >> mm-hmm. >> but this exists in its own right in terms of how they are displaying themselves, how they want us to think of their milieu in politics, and how they want us to think of them when it comes to criminal defendants in the criminal process. >> well, they think it's a winner for them politically to some degree, to hug and to align themselves with trump. and perhaps in their states, it is. the you know, j.d. vance, he's not up for re-election this year. tommy tuberville, he does a lot of crazy things, but he's alabama. trump is quite popular there, right? so for them, it might be a win among their constituents. but it also tells you that, that they don't think that standing by and attending the criminal trial of a former president, who by the way is there because of his role in paying hush money to a former adult film star, that that's not going to hurt them politically, that it won't

result in a primary race per their assessment, that it only helps them among the base. that tells you so much about kind of where the republican party and the base of the republican party is. the other thing -- and you've talked about this a lot as well over the course of time on your show -- is it also tells you that these people are saying, i know that you had enablers in 2020. i'm raising my hand. i'm happy to be there and enable you in 2024 should you want to question the outcome of the election, whatever the outcome -- you know, if you lose the election. that's what they're -- that's the message they're sending by being will and by answering questions, as many have over the past couple of weeks, suggesting they won't necessarily commit to respecting the outcome of the election. >> that's right. they're saying, put me in, coach, when it comes time to try to subvert american democracy, potentially do something that is criminal in order to hold on to power, against the constitution, against democratic principles. i want you to call on me, and i'm willing to stand with you in the criminal doctor in order to do it. it's the law and order party obviously. >> mm-hmm.

>> jen psaki, thank you so much for joining us. much appreciated. as i mentioned at the top, joining us now, susanne craig from "the new york times," and ari melber, our esteemed legal correspondent here. suzanne is an, you were there at the courthouse today. i know you've been there every day. michael cohen, to me, following the reporting today, looking at the transcript once it came out, i feel like he really is functioning as a summation witness. it's not just about michael cohen's own role in the plot. it feels like he's telling us everything that happened. he's giving us the whole story. does it feel that way in court? >> it did. it's interesting he's coming at the end, and i saw it a little bit differently because while he did that, they also kept him very much -- i think three parts. they kept him very much to the evidence. he was a corroborating witness for a lot of testimony that has come. >> mm-hmm. >> so what he said today, some

of it was familiar. i think that's a good thing because his credibility is going to be questioned on cross. he also spoke to the documents. you know, we heard that not only did donald trump instruct the payment to stormy daniels get made, but then they went in, and they talked about it in the office. so he had some additional testimony along those lines because the documents -- and he's going to speak to some of them, i think, tomorrow. but they don't get you to intent. but i really do feel they wanted michael to come in and really d i just think come in and back up a lot of what's been heard. i found that the testimony today was incredibly quick. there were so many yes/no questions. >> just fast paced. >> they weren't creating a narrative like they did with david pecker at the beginning. david pecker was an incredible tour guide through all of it. michael cohen, it was very fast, and sometimes we were having even trouble keeping track of the dates. it was yes, no, yes, no. if we got to a meeting, boy, did we want to know something more about that meeting. there was no, can you elaborate more on that? i think they know what's coming

on cross, and they don't want him to say anything outside of the four corners -- >> oh, they're limiting what he says so that it can't be torn apart. >> i really felt they were. he became more comfortable once he got up on the stand, but he was very nervous at first. so i felt they kept him moving. i actually thought they wanted to finish today. it was going that quickly. obviously we're going to head into tomorrow with more direct. but then the cross is going to open. i just don't think they wanted to to open the door for anything because they know the storm that's coming. >> ari, in terms of looking ahead to the cross, you had a guest on today who was very bullish on the defense and said that, you know, michael cohen is going to get destroyed on cross-examination. he also repeatedly called you airy. i was like, is he actually trying to start a fight with ari right here? is this going to be a fisticuffs moment on msnbc? so, airy, it was a weird thing.

looking ahead toward that cross-examination, do you feel like michael cohen has a glass jaw here, that he has shown himself to be vulnerable in a way that is inviting a real beating from the defense? >> not glass, but maybe recently smelt clay. >> okay. >> he has some holes, and i think they will get to that. and the lawyer you mentioned defended donald trump at the second impeachment, which if you're picking, is the worst one. so that's where he was coming from, although i was happy to get his views because it's interesting. i think the issue for michael cohen on cross will be overall credibility, because they will get into the criminal record and the story did change. and then raising doubt that he might have gone rogue. the he went rogue story is farfetched, but they don't need to prove it. they just need to raise the doubt that it could be true. i did think, to echo what we were just discussing, there have been days where defendant trump looked unseemly, certainly did not look relatable, looked

untrustworthy. i thought today, michael cohen and the way they did this testimony, this is the day that donald trump looked most like a criminal. i thought it was a very bad day for him because his own lawyer, who famously went to prison, very clearly provided the timeline of a proactive plan to allegedly commit a crime. >> it sounded familiar, too, because we've had all these other witnesses come in. and i thought that's what was effective today. most of the things he said, the jury's heard it before. they've heard a piece of it here and there. and i thought that's what was effective about today's testimony. it's not him going rogue. >> katie, let me ask you a piece of this. as a lawyer, looking at the way the prosecution is making this case, one of the things we got today over and over again was donald trump doesn't pay his bills. we got that a whole bunch of different ways. we got michael cohen was first hired as a lawyer at the trump organization after he was working for another law firm,

submitted a bill for $100,000 for those legal fees, and trump didn't want to pay them, and said, i'm not going to pay that bill. come work for me instead. michael cohen never goes back to his office. they send trump organization employees to clean out that office, and the bill disappears, and michael cohen becomes his employee. michael cohen's first big coup working as trump's lawyer is stiffing the vendors and suppliers to trump university. michael cohen almost loses the karen mcdougal hush money arrangement because they don't want to pay karen mcdougal. michael cohen almost loses the stormy daniels hush money arrangement because they don't want to pay stormy daniels. michael cohen ultimately gets back some of his money that he paid to a technical services firm in his final payments because that firm was also stiffed by -- >> two years prior. >> -- stiffed two years prior by donald trump. we get the recording that was played for the jury because michael cohen has to cover up for donald trump stiffing ami on the payment for karen mcdougal. so he's making the recording to

assure ami, eventually we'll pay you. all of these are a cascading series of screwing people, for lack of a better term, in terms of their bills. why are they giving us that as a pattern? >> because it speaks to the ebenezer scrooge energy of donald trump. >> but why is that bad for the defense? why is that good for the prosecution? >> it's good for the prosecution because it feeds into the concept that donald trump is a miserly person who will always count his pennies. to chris' point earlier that you cannot present a $420,000 approved invoice for essential consultants llc a la michael cohen when when all he did was front $130,000. but what you just did right now, you proved how effective michael cohen is. think about this. donald trump always said famously, where's my roy cohn?

there's a reason why he wanted roy cohn. roy cohn was indicted four times. roy cohn also represented john gotti. if michael cohen was so bad at his job, trump would never have kept him around. >> right. >> because of the effectiveness of him dealing with the cheapness of donald trump, donald trump kept michael cohen, and that's the reason why donald trump never wanted a good attorney. he tested michael cohen with that bill from michael cohen's original firm. >> to put it in a sentence, they're saying donald trump wouldn't pay $400,000 unless he authorized it. >> right, because the defense is going to be cohen/weisselberg went rogue and this penny pinching thing is going to come up. was he or not because the defense is -- i think their main thing is those two went rogue. >> much more to come in our coverage of the trump criminal trial today in new york,

including what happened when michael cohen asked donald trump directly about what happened with stormy daniels. the answer cohen says he got, which the defense is not going to like and is not going to want to explain, and more when we come back. stay with us. it's hard to run a business on your own. make it easier on yourself. with shopify, you have everything you need to sell online and in person. you can have your inventory, payments, and customers in sync across all the places you sell. it doesn't have to be lonely at the top. join the millions to finding success on their own terms. start your journey with a free trial today.

norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year.

i gotta get this deal... that's like $20 a month per unlimited line... i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc? it's a beautiful... ...day to fly. wooooo! welcome back to our prime-time recap of the criminal trial of former president donald trump. prosecutor -- i will take you

back for a minute now to 2011, when you, mr. cohen, first learned about stormy daniels' account of her encounter with mr. trump. had you learned at that time in 2011 about what ms. daniels did for a living? michael cohen -- i did. prosecutor -- what did you hear at that time in 2011 about what she did for work? cohen -- that she was an adult film star. prosecutor -- and this came up again, i think you mentioned, because it was an article on the dirty.com at the time? cohen -- correct. question -- and you worked with keith davidson to get that article taken down? answer, yes ma'am. question, in 2011 when you were engaged in getting the article taken down, did you have a conversation with mr. trump about stormy daniels? answer, yes. question, can you tell us in general the gist of that conversation? answer, after i received the information from dylan howard, i immediately went to mr. trump's office, knocked on the door, and said, boss, i got to speak to you. and i told him about the

conversation, the sum and substance of the conversation that i just had with dylan howard. and i asked him, meaning i asked trump, if he knew who she was. he told me that he did. and i stated about the story that existed on the dirty.com, that they'd had a relationship that occurred during a golf outing going back to, like, 2006. and i told him that one of the things that, you know, we need to do is we need to obviously take care of it. question, did mr. trump also tell you anything about having met her at the golf tournament back in 2006? answer, yes. question, what did he tell you? answer, he told me that he was playing golf with big ben roethlisberger, the football player. and they had met stormy daniels and others there, but she liked mr. trump, that women prefer trump even over someone like big ben. question, and did you ask him at that time, in 2011, whether he had had a sexual encounter with stormy daniels? answer, i did. question, did he answer you directly? answer, no, ma'am. question, did he mention anything about what she looked

like? answer, he said she was a beautiful woman. quick break for a shower, and we're back. this adds to the litany of testimony at the trial thus far that supports at least circumstantially the contention that stormy daniels was not lying, that a sexual interaction did happen between her and donald trump. why do we have so much testimony to that end in this trial, and what does it do, if anything, for the prosecution's case, chris? >> well, i think first of all, that little detail about roethlisberger really leapt off the page when i read it today because that part of stormy daniels' testimony, that he introduces her to roethlisberger and she has to sort of push him out of her room the next night. we also know that ben roethlisberger settled a civil claim for sexual assault with a woman who says that he sexually assaulted her, which he denies, at that same government

-- golf tournament in a different year. so there's that part of it, which is -- >> it was the same government tournament? >> it was the same golf tournament, different year. the same place. so that lights up, i think, the memory of the jurors in terms of corroborating. like everyone's going to remember if ben roethlisberger is around and trump's going to talk about it, and stormy daniels is going to talk about it. the other thing is that, again, the underlying facts here being corroborated do seem really important in terms of the motive for covering it up. i do think you would be more concerned about a true allegation than a false one probably. and particularly a true allegation that there might be other people around who could have corroborated it, like if you're palling around at a golf tournament. so it seems to me that establishes that. >> katie. >> we always look for pattern and practice when we talk about legal concepts. the common denominator that we're hearing is the doorman allegedly had a story about donald trump fathering a love child.

that's a sex act. karen mcdougal had a year-long affair with donald trump allegedly. that's a sex act. stormy daniels had a one-night stand with donald trump allegedly. that's a sex act. it's all the common denominator of something that donald trump, theoretically according to him, just being locker room talk, you wouldn't be ashamed about that, right? it just completely feeds into the idea that he was doing all of this hush money payments for gino all the way to stormy, to make sure once he made it into the white house, according to him what did he say? which is why he booted michael cohen when he made it to the white house. he didn't need michael cohen anymore because he made it across the finish line. >> can i just note something because it stuck out to me today when i was following it, which is that it's also the case that way before he's even running for office in 2011, when the article ends up on thedirty.com, aptly

named, that he's like we got to get it taken down. there's a certain level of reputational protection. >> yes. >> that's happening in the background. now, they're not paying money for it. i think that, to me, what so stands out. you could want to suppress that stuff for non-campaign reasons and clearly did in 2011. to me what's so distinguishing about the scheme is -- >> timing. >> -- as given by the prosecutors is the timing and amount of money at stake. >> i would put it a little even more simply. he's on trial for lying. >> right. >> that's what fraud is. business fraud is lying and then in service of what, a campaign crime. so we talk about low information voters sometime. there's that term, people who aren't following the news every night like we are. jurors are supposed to be low information citizens. >> right. >> if they're super high information, they're probably not on. the other thing happening here is very simple.

most of these jurors have not followed all of this really closely. maybe they know michael cohen's name. they probably don't know karen mcdougal's name or david pecker's name or many other names we've been following. so for low-information jurors, if you can show this is trump's chosen environment, and these are the stream of lies, and some of the lies were not crimes, and that's okay. you're going to get instructions on that. this has got to be fair to the defendant. and some of the alleged lies are alleged crimes because you can't just go around and take 130k and call it 420 and lie to the government and cheat. you're not allowed to do that. >> susanne, as you're watching this day after day, that's a very good point, ari, about how you're not only picking people who aren't the highest information people, but the jurors are instructed do not watch any news about this. do not watch the msnbc recap of this. do not pay attention to any discussion about this.

only focus on what is being given to you as evidence in this courtroom. seeing it laid out in the courtroom, is it cogent? >> it is. it's a powerful story. i actually still come back to david pecker and what a great tour guide he was at the beginning because he was able to lay it out from beginning to end, and he spoke to trump. so he was talking to trump. he sort of -- michael cohen was sort of the go-between, and i think he effectively set him up at the beginning. then we get to the end now, and we've got michael cohen. i keep thinking when you were talking about the jury today, one thing we haven't talked about is the tape that came in where you've got donald trump talking about the payment. and he's like, pay it in cash. and michael cohen's like, no, no, no. and the reason that he was like, no, no, no, he explained it today, because he wanted to have a record so that it could look like a legitimate business

transaction. >> he thought it would look too dodgy if it was a suitcase full of money. >> then he explains i was taping it because he -- according to him, he wasn't taping it because he didn't trust all the participants, which maybe he shouldn't have. he was taping it so he could tell david pecker that he was going to deliver on this. >> that trump intended to pay him. he keeps telling me he's going to pay you. i'll secretly tape him saying >> we're going to try to turn around that tape in just a moment. that was me talking to the control room. breaking the wall here just for a second. you guys, can we get that tape? more of our recap in just a moment. now we come to the telephone records, another woman whose story threatened to tank the trump campaign. we've still got lots more ahead from michael cohen's testimony today. stay with us.

you ready? -showtime. this is gonna be epic. [ barking ] it's what the poster said. do you want to make out or? nope. i meant yes. he's a bon garçon.

i give amazing sponge-baths. can i get a room? [ chuckling ] ♪ ♪ chef's kiss. welcome back to our recap of the criminal trial of former president donald trump. one of the things that happened today in michael cohen's testimony is that he described the circumstances under which he made a recording of himself speaking to his boss, speaking to donald trump. it was a recording of an in-person meeting. he walked into trump's office with the voice notes app on his phone recording, while he either held his phone or had it in his pocket or near his pocket. the reason he said he made the recording is because david pecker from american media expected to be paid back $150,000 that american media had advanced to a woman named karen

mcdougal who claimed she had had a long affair with donald trump. ami as part of its alleged scheme with donald trump to suppress negative information about him in order to benefit his campaign, had paid mcdougal ostensibly to do some work for their magazine empire, but really so that they would own the life rights to that story about donald trump and make sure that that story never saw the light of day. now, at some point after ami had advanced that money, cohen and trump, according to trump -- excuse me -- according to cohen, decided that they would purchase those rights from ami. they would effectively reimburse ami for having made that outlay of cash, but in so doing, they would buy those life rights themselves and, for a while, they talked about including in that purchase price the treasure chest of information that american media had accumulated over time about the life and loves of donald trump.

a locked drawer reportedly full of information about trump. they thought for their $150,000, they could get the karen mcdougal rights. they could get all the trump stuff. they wanted to get that information because cohen testified today that david pecker, they believed, was going to get a different job at time incorporated. he was going to leave. that would mean david pecker, their friend and protector, the member of this conspiracy with them, was going to leave behind at ami all of that information about trump in that locked drawer. wouldn't that be terrible? somebody else might get it. wouldn't it be better if we owned that ourselves? so here's michael cohen and donald trump in a recording that cohen made without trump knowing in a meeting in trump's office. >> i've spoken to allen weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with --

>> so, what do we got to pay for this? one-fifty? -- funding. yes, and it's all the stuff. >> yeah, i was thinking about that. >> all the stuff. i'm all over that. i spoke to allen about it. when it comes time for the financing -- >> what financing? >> we'll have to pay him something. >> we'll pay with cash. >> no, no, no. i got it. >> no, no, no, not cash. check. why a check? let's bring into the conversation our colleague, lisa rubin. also catherine christian, former district attorney at the manhattan d.a's office. let me ask you if i characterized the context of that recording correctly? >> yeah. >> and when they say pecker might get hit by a truck, what they mean is pecker might no longer be the custodian of what we believe is negative information about trump, so we should own that ourselves? >> correct. >> okay. why does -- or is it clear to

you why it matters that trump is suggesting making this payment in cash even though cohen argues against that? >> well, for starters, trump doesn't want a record of it. the exact same reasons that cohen is saying, let's cut a check because i want to protect trump with a record is the very same reason that donald trump is begging him to use cash, because he wants no one to know about it at all. but i think the larger import of the tape is not about the cash or check. it's about situating donald trump at the center of this scheme and showing that not only did he join the conspiracy, but that he was involved in each and every plan to execute on that conspiracy by repaying for karen mcdougal's settlement on one hand and then, later on, paying stormy daniels himself. >> when you talk about paying for something in a way that is untraceable or communicating about something in a way that is untraceable, is that to a jury or, you know, to a court of law? is that potentially evidence of knowledge of criminality? >> i think it is. again, let's remember that here,

what the actual crime that's being alleged here is falsification of business records. >> mm-hmm. >> so this tape doesn't necessarily move the needle about the falsification in donald trump's own knowledge and involvement in that. on the other hand, it shows its his motive to be involved in that cover-up because he was directly involved in the crime itself. >> right. okay. so this goes to a larger point we've been talking about tonight, all of us, which is there is no viable -- if the prosecution is doing its job, there is no viable counternarrative that michael cohen was acting alone, that trump had no idea any of this was happening. rather, the prosecution is presenting a picture of michael cohen's actions as situated and connected to and integral with trump's own actions, right, katherine? >> and it also goes to intent, and the judge is going to

instruct the jury that the definition of intent, it was the defendant's conscious objective to cause a result. so motive, intent, consciousness of guilt. what gets me about this relationship, it wasn't an attorney-client relationship. it was a master-servant, no offense to mr. cohen. of course these weren't legal expenses because this was not really an attorney. the prosecution will probably not argue that, but this really was not an attorney-client relationship. >> i don't know. again, we keep coming back to this idea that you don't -- you know, the burden of proof, constitutionally, is on the prosecution. i just feel line -- and, again, maybe i'm thinking of this in a way that's not the median juror because i'm exposed in a different way to it. but i do need something to hang on to that's an alternate story for all this stuff. i mean you could raise doubts about it -- >> in order to empathize with the defense? >> in order to think it wasn't exactly what it looks like. i sort of feel like, okay, let's say you gave me some theory that

cohen went rogue. this wassing cooed up by weisselberg and cohen. that in that seems plausible and they wanted to do it for the boss. but then i need something about why trump writes him the check. >> i can give it to you. >> okay. >> but it's not very strong. >> go ahead. >> if you admit the misdemeanor, yeah, business fraud, it's on paper -- >> there's no question. >> cfo, you lied. but you say, when cohen did all this and the defendant's sitting in the white house, he then felt like paying him back, so it's partly the rogue. but it's all after the fact. if you move the decision, which is still bad, later after the fact, you might -- and tell us what you think -- help raise doubt against whether it was contemporaneously consciousness, intent, at the time before election day, which means -- again, i'm not here doing free legal service. they already have their plan. which means you admit the misdemeanor, which is a common defense tactic when you have a bad case. then you postdate the other action, and that allows for the fact that it could be true that

you reimbursed him. >> and will donald trump allow his defense attorneys to say, your honor, we want you to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of falsifying business records in the second degree. >> don't you think that would be -- >> will he allow his lawyers to essentially plead guilty to the misdemeanor? >> well, not plead guilty. you're admitting it basically. then he would be, again, assuming the jury says, you know what? we don't think it's the higher. we don't know where the intent to conceal another crime is, but he did intend to defraud. then there's 34 misdemeanor convictions as opposed to a felony. >> don't you think if you have a defendant who's not consumed by ego, that's a better instruction. >> that's the advice i would give my client. the client could say hooey. >> if this had been me, i would have pled guilty day one, and it would have been over by now. our recap of the action in the trump criminal trial. to be clear, i didn't do. we'll be right back. stay with us. ily hiv pills. good to go unscripted. good to go on a whim. with cabenuva, there's no pausing for daily hiv pills.

for adults who are undetectable, cabenuva is the only complete, long-acting hiv treatment you can get every other month. it's two injections from a healthcare provider. just 6 times a year. don't receive cabenuva if you're allergic to its ingredients, or if you're taking certain medicines, which may interact with cabenuva. serious side effects include allergic reactions, post-injection reactions, liver problems, and depression. if you have a rash and other allergic reaction symptoms, stop cabenuva and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems, mental health concerns and if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. some of the most common side effects include injection-site reactions, fever, and tiredness. with cabenuva, you're good to go. ask your doctor about switching.

it's hard to run a business on your own. make it easier on yourself. with shopify, you can have your inventory, payments, and customers in sync across all the places you sell. start your journey with a free trial today.

prosecutor, what, if anything, did you discuss with mr. davidson on those phone calls about karen mcdougal. michael cohen, that she was also under control, that nobody's going rogue here. prosecutor, in addition to that, did you express any anger at keith davidson for that article? michael cohen, yes. prosecutor, why? this cohen, because she was his client, and i expected he would have this under control. again, it was days before, and i wanted to ensure mr. trump was safe. prosecutor, were you angry with him? cohen, very. prosecutor, did you think

someone on his side had leaked something like this to "the wall street journal"? cohen, yes. prosecutor, did you indicate to him that somebody might be very upset with him? cohen, i did. prosecutor, who did you indicate might be very upset with him? trump defense counsel, objection, leading. the judge, sustained. prosecutor, what, if anything, did you tell him about mr. trump during those calls? cohen, that he was really angry, and i truly hoped that we don't come back to find out that this is something that you guys did where -- where this is a major problem. michael cohen giving us a window into the type of work he did for donald trump. i wanted to get to that part of the transcript, catherine, because you were talking about what michael cohen was doing for donald trump, what type of relationship this was. >> it was -- and, again, i don't want to be offensive -- but it was servant-master. he did whatever trump told him to do. he wanted to please him basically, which explains his hostility and hatred now, after all i did for him and he doesn't take me to the white house. this is what he's done. >> and does this go to disproving the, like, theoretical counter-narrative

that this really was, you know, michael cohen being paid for a legal retainer, that michael cohen's legal services were super valuable to trump? >> they were not legal services in 2016, and there weren't any legal services in 2017, which i think is the stronger proof. michael cohen will say that. but to your point, he was much, even generously viewed -- one of the things i found funny today is hope hicks demeaned michael cohen, basically saying he was

useless. he was mr. fix it in name only. but who did they rely on when they needed to clean up "access hollywood"? >> and to make karen mcdougal go away and dino the doorman go away. michael cohen was involved in all of these things because he was asked to, not because he freelanced it. this was his job. >> can i just ask a question about comportment and credibility? my sense from reading the accounts today was that he came off pretty well. he was pretty -- >> cohen? >> that cohen came off pretty well, that he seemed credible. he admitted to doing shady stuff without doing a lot of circumlocution around it. is that an accurate sense? >> it was the most humble michael cohen i think any of us have ever seen. >> our recap of the trump criminal trial continues just ahead. we'll be right back. we'll be right back.

and they're all coming? those who are still with us, yes. grandpa! your wings. light 'em up! gentlemen, it's a beautiful... ...day to fly.

all right, that's going to do it for us for right now. do not go anywhere, though. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. what's going on inside that courtroom is a threat to american democracy, ladies and gentlemen. we cannot have a country where you get to prosecute your political opponents instead of persuading voters. >> this guy worked for president trump. i mean how