this is our future, ma. godaddy airo. creates a logo, website, even social posts... in minutes! -how? -a.i. (impressed) ay i like it! who wants to come see the future?! get your business online in minutes with godaddy airo

fixer. >> back with us, yasmin vossoughian, danny cevallos, criminal defense attorney and msnbc legal analyst. joining us this hour, maya wiley, former assistant u.s. attorney who is now president of the leadership conference on civil and human right. and misty merits, a defense attorney. good to see you. welcome to the show. yasmin, start us off. what's happening now inside that courtroom? >> reporter: so this is all about the lead-up to august 2018 in which michael cohen pleads guilty and then in a court of law, essentially points the finger at donald trump, the president at the time, and says he made me do it. hence launching the inquiry by the manhattan d.a.'s office, shifting to alvin bragg when cy vance retired. there was a conversation that happened. there was concern from david pecker, inquiries from the "wall

street journal," specifically, when it came to involvements of ami, david pecker, dylan howard, michael cohen, and donald trump in the stormy daniels payoff. in addition to the inquiries from the fec, as we just heard about. you guys talking about at the end of the last hour with michael cohen, in which michael cohen testified to having a conversation with donald trump who said to michael cohen not to worry about it because jeff sessions, the former attorney general under donald trump's presidency, was going to take care of it. that jeff sessions was in donald trump's pocket. then michael cohen basically communicating this to david pecker who was worried about the fallout from the reporting from the "wall street journal" and this investigation or this inquiries i should say by the fec. the fallout on ami, how it would affect ami and its involvement in the stormy daniels and subsequently karen mcdougal payoff. we're seeing the fallout now

from all of this. some color from inside the courtroom as well. we haven't gotten a lot of what the former president is doing inside the courtroom, but we are getting a picture now of what the former president is doing along with what michael cohen is doing. yesterday, he seemed very resolute. he seemed very straightforward. we had a couple bench meetings now today. two so far today. and each and every bench meeting we see michael cohen shaking his head. what about, we don't necessarily know. that's more of a reaction than we have seen so far inside the courtroom throughout his testimony going into day two of his testimony, by the way. likely to go and move to cross-examination later on today. donald trump, for his part, is sitting mostly with his eyes closed, to the right of him is todd blanche, the lead attorney on the defense team who will in fact cross-examine michael cohen. to the left of him i believe is bove. every time there is a bench meeting, there's only been two, he spokes with bove. i saw this myself as well during

stormy daniels' testimony, so bove can explain to donald trump what it is they're going to talk about or asking about within the bench meeting. twice so far, it's been about providing limiting instructions to the jury as to what they can and cannot include or use or consider as evidence specifically the investigation into michael cohen. and then to the left of bove as well was susan necheles who cross-examined stormy daniels inside that courtroom last week. this is all going towards the lead-up of august of 2018, when just down the street, michael cohen pled guilty and pointed the finger at his former boss and the current president at the time of the united states, donald j. trump, guys. >> okay, yasmin, thanks. stand by as we continue to report out what's happening in there. so they're talking about this nondisclosure agreement. >> this is the time they benched more. >> every time they bring this up, they go to the bench.

right before they had a bench meeting, hoffinger asked do you recall when donald trump agreed through his lawyers not to enforce that nda? at what point did that occur? cohen, i don't recall. was that a civil case? cohen said yes. would mr. trump be required to sit for a deposition. cohen, yes. >> the date, the decision was made he would not sit, the nda was terminated. that's when blanche, donald trump's attorney, called for a bench meeting. what do you think that was about, maya? >> i don't want to put myself in blanche's shoes right here, especially having not been in the courtroom when all this was happening, but at the end of the day, blanche's job is to make sure that he is doing everything he can to control what evidence the jury is hearing and how they are hearing it. so you have to be thinking about what he is concerned about in terms of where and how this testimony is coming out, and what he might want done about

it. >> now, right now, hoffinger and cohen are focusing in on this, which is 2018. here's a question. for much of 2019, you were president trump's personal attorney. did you continue to lie? yes, ma'am. what happened in april of 2018? i was raided by the fbi, says cohen. i was at the regency because my apartment was flooded. and we were there while construction was going on. at 7:00 a.m., there was a knock on the door and i looked through the peep hole and saw lots of people. i opened the door, and they asked me to step in the hallway, and they also raided my apartment and my law office and td bank which had a safety deposit box which i had just opened for my valuables while my apartment was under repair. did the fbi search those investigations for items of yours? what did they seize during the search warrant at the hotel, search warrant gave them, cohen says, the right to take my two cell phones, electronic devices,

records, series of tax books and other documents and they also basically packed up much of the documentation in my law office and took that as well. >> so misty, he is talking about this raid. is that raid a pivotal part of the prosecution's case? >> not necessarily, but we have to lay all this out from the prosecutor's perspective. we know cohen has substantial credibility issues. we heard it throughout the whole course of the direct examination. this is all a part of the story. and the prosecutors need to get it out there on their own terms, and not just wait for the defense to bring up some of these aspects. the other part is, some of the documents that we may be seeing in the course of this trial could have been a part of this raid, so both are intertwined, but the motivation is do this on your own terms from a prosecutor's perspective, get the story out there, deal with your bad facts. >> i see you nodding along. >> inoculate, inoculate. they know the cross-examination is coming.

they're making sure exactly that. >> because it was after this raid essentially where all of their relationship started crumbling. and donald trump went from cohen is a good lawyer to being cohen is just, you know, one of many lawyers. he does some work for me. then ultimately, to where it is today, and that is this massive animosity. >> interesting, and you're so right. one of the issues they're bringing up. hoffinger says you mentioned they took two phones. were those the phones containing the audio recording with trump? yes, ma'am. that was one, and they seized another. correct. the one with the audio recording. did you know the fbi was going to show up and take your phones? no, ma'am. are you prior to them showing up altered the recording? no. how did you feel about that search at the time? how do you describe your life being turned upside down, concerned, despondent, angry. frightened?

yes, ma'am. you were under investigation by the southern district. at issue, the phone recording. the recording was in that phone. >> yes, and remember, one of the issues was, and this was in pretrial motions, that audio recording could have been altered. stopping and starting, had it been changed, had it been edited. is it in its authentic form? so this is what the prosecutors need to say and get on the record through cohen to show that that phone, that audio recording was preserved, was not changed, and what the jury heard in the courtroom was the authentic recording. >> going back to the document. it was after this raid they seized that recording where he says he spoke to donald trump. she asked specifically, you spoke to trump? cohen, i left him a message to call me, to let him know what was taking place. and he said to me, he said to me, don't worry. i am the president of the united states. there's nothing here. everything is going to be okay. stay tough. you're going to be okay. hoffinger, have you spoken

directly with mr. trump since that time? cohen, no, ma'am. hoffinger, was your call important? cohen, very. i wanted some reassurance that mr. trump had my back. especially as this dealt with issues that related to him. and hoffinger, how did that call affect you in terms of how you acted? cohen, when the president of the united states says don't worry, i felt reassured because i had the president of the united states protecting me. it's his justice department, should go nowhere. danny, your reaction. >> i want to make maybe a granular observation. i would be willing the pet the prosecution has now taken the approach of hey, they're not objecting to any of our leading questions. let's just go to town. i want to point something out. we talked about this earlier. you don't always want to object because a question is leading. but look at how critical some of these questions are. one, and again, this is not a

perfect transcript, but prior to the fbi showing up, had you altered any of the recordings on your phone? a leading question is a question where basically, the attorney is testifying and the witness is just rubber stamping it at the end. it allows -- i can't overstate how much control it gives you over a witness. so much control that it's considered an unfair advantage if it's your own witness, which is why the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to lead. and as i said before, if they do it sometimes, no big deal. just take a look at some of these questions. one of the issues the defense made was the possibility that they raised that cohen may have altered the recording. they did that with the tech guy, and tried to raise that specter, but now with just one question, they have gotten into evidence. had you altered these recordings at all before they were seized? i have to imagine they were thinking as soon as hoffinger asked that question, here comes the objection, but no, it didn't come. now a major piece of evidence -- >> what objection would have mattered? >> it's a leading question. basically, hoffinger is testifying for the witness.

but good on them. they made a decision that the defense is not objecting. they're letting us do this. it's a strategic choice. the defense wants to appear like they're not making ticky tack objections, but you do that at your own risk. now they're getting in major evidence and exerting trumending control over a witness i'm sure they were worried would be uncontrollable. i would be willing to bet, maybe we'll find out years from now, the prosecution said they're not objecting. let's lead until they stop us. >> i think that's a great point because, again, when the question is inconsequential, you're saying what's the point of doing it? but this was of great consequence. i'm wondering and i had seen that. sharp eye on the ipad. >> there are a lot of questions about critical issues. did you talk to trump? those are questions that could be leading and objectionable. >> the issue of jeff sessions, the attorney general at the time, speaking, being spoken

about by the president of the united states. that's something that you think maybe the defense could have objected to. >> well, yeah, there's part of this that one level is not relevant to the case. you could imagine them saying something about it, particularly for a high-profile candidate for office for whom this is actually a constant part of the news story, both because of january 6th and some of those pending prosecutions, but also because he's making statements on the campaign trail about what he will do, how he will use the justice department. so it's actually, you know, indirectly kind of calling in the campaign in a sense. i don't mean that is the intent of prosecutors. that's not my point. if you're sitting there as a new york juror, you are probably not immune from the fact that these are conversations that are actively in the news cycle about this election itself, and certainly as we reflect back on

january 6th. so i actually am a little surprised we haven't heard more objection. on the other hand, you know, when you object, you are drawing the jury's attention in a greater way to the thing you're objecting to. so you also have to kind of balance, do i want to put a punctuation mark on this point for the jury. >> let's go back into the document. the question asked was did others reach out to you, what did they say? this is after he had this raid, after he reached out to donald trump. where he got that reassurance, but then never heard or never talked to donald trump after that. and he says, others did reach out to them. yes, he says. you're loved, don't worry. he's got your back. the most powerful guy in the country. if not the world. you're going to be okay. this is what he's hearing from other people. hoffinger, did you initially maintain ties to president trump? cohen, only through other people. believe that was extremely important to do. and some color from the

courtroom, trump's alert, paying attention to this particular testimony now. let's go back outside the courthouse to yasmin. and you have reporting on other color from inside the courtroom, cohen's demeanor and how the jury is maybe acting during this time. >> reporter: not getting color necessarily on the jury. only the folks inside the courtroom can actually see the jury. if you're in the overflow room, you can't necessarily see the jury. but important to note when it comes to the way in which cohen is addressing the jury, and i bring this up because some of the color we're getting from inside the courtroom from laura jarrett, the two separate times in which michael cohen was asked, one, about the raid on his apartment in 2018, and two, about the phone call that he got from donald trump and how it made him feel, he actually turned his body and addressed the jury directly instead of talking specifically to hoffinger. remember, throughout the entire day and a half of his testimony, he has literally remained fairly

straightforward, looking to hoffinger, answering her questions that are asked. but here, it seems as if he's trying to humanize himself in addressing the jury to make them or help them understand how it is he was feeling when that raid took place and how it was he was reacting to donald trump's support. we're also getting color when it comes to the former president as he's sitting at the defense table. i mentioned earlier how his eyes were mostly closed. now he seems more animated, more involved and listening to the testimony, especially the exchanges between himself and michael cohen after the raid. and i'm told he's also passing notes to todd blanche throughout this period as well as michael cohen is testifying, specifically to the text message that donald trump put out that many of us remember with regards to maggie haberman in which he said, and this has already been admitted into evidence, by the way, earlier with another

witness, in which he said and i'm paraphrasing here essentially, michael cohen is a good man. he's a family man. so on and so forth. we will go on and support him and ask michael cohen about his reaction to that. he said, well, i felt that donald trump was being loyal, and it kept me within the fold. i wanted to remain loyalty to donald trump at the moment when he sent out the tweet about maggie haberman, guys. >> we're going to talk about that tweet about maggie haberman a little more in detail because the judge just called a 15-minute morning recess. right before that recess is that showing in an exhibit of the trump tweet about haberman. and i think it's important to read that because it does bring in the issue of cohen. "the new york times" and a third rate reporter named maggie haberman known as crooked h. funky who i don't speak to, are going out of their way to destroy michael cohen and his relationship with me in the hope that he will flip. they use nonexistent sources and

a drugged up loser who hates michael. a fine person with a wonderful family. michael is a businessman for his own account, lawyer who i have always liked and respected. most people will flip. if the government lets them out of trouble. even if it makes making up stories. sorry, i don't see michael doing that, despite the horrible witch hunt and the dishonest media. hoffinger, what if anything did these public statements have on you incohen, it re-enforced my loyalty and intention to stay in the fold. and right before that recess, there was an objection by the defense. >> it was sustained. and hoffinger goes on to ask, did you have any understanding at the time of that public statement of whether you should cooperate with law enforcement? another objection. and at this point is when we're hearing trump's handing notes to his lawyer, todd blanche, as they're reading the text of support from trump to cohen. hoffinger, what understanding

did you have about that statement? again, referring to this tweet that was put out about michael cohen saying most people would flip. i don't think cohen would. cohen said, mr. trump did not want me to cooperate with the government or certainly not provide information or flip. hoffinger, if you had cooperated at that time, what would you have told them? then, objection, morning recess. the objections are flying now, danny. >> yeah, that one was speculative. a hypothetical. what would you have told them? finally, an objection. it makes sense. just a bit of in the courtroom color. i was in the courtroom on friday. maggie haberman has been name checked more than a few times in this case. >> she's been in the court, too. >> that's the end of the story. >> in the courtroom today. >> she was there friday, too. when she's name checked, it's not flattering. it's usually trump attacking her in some form of another. since the courtroom is full of a bunch of journalists who know each other, there's an audible

whooshing sound as the rubber necking heads turn to look at maggie haberman when she gets attacked. it's got to be surreal to be sitting and covering a trial in which you're being name checked and tweets about you are being put up on the screen. i don't know if she's in there today. i assume she is. it's very interesting to be in the courtroom which is mostly full of journalists on the trump beat, many of whom know each other. it's kind of a who's who of people covering trump. when maggie haberman got name checked on friday, everyone turned to look at her. really interesting. >> is that exhibit that they just showed this tweet, misty, a big deal? is this going to be potentially a vital part of the case, or is this just, again, setting the stage for how their relationship fell apart and obviously why, you know, cohen would have had some expectation to lie at some point? >> that's exactly what it is, it's more attuned with cohen's credibility and all of the why are you -- why did you lie at each and every turn?

he didn't cooperate in this particular instance because he sees this tweet. and he takes a signal that it means i can't say xng. i loyal, and i will be taken care of. it's an explanation for his behavior and why he didn't cooperate at this time. >> if you'll stay with us, as the court has taken a very short break, we will do that as well. 21 past the hour. we continue our special coverage on msnbc. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

it's never a good time for migraine, especially when i'm on camera. that's why my go-to is nurtec odt. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. it's the only migraine medication that helps treat & prevent, all in one. 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. people depend on me. without a migraine, i can be there for them. talk to your doctor about nurtec odt today.

frizz. dryness. breakage. new dove 10-in-1 serum hair mask with peptide complex. fortifies hair bonds at a molecular level. helps reverse ten signs of damage in one minute. keep living. we'll keep repairing. neutrogena beach defense blocks 97% of burning uv rays for vital sun protection. so you can get more out of all your days in the sun. more protection. more sun. more joy. neutrogena.

(ella) fashion moves fast. more joy. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. 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. 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!

26 past the hour. we continue with our special coverage on msnbc. >> we're in a break right now inside the courtroom. we expect them to resume testimony with michael cohen, the prosecution continuing with its direct testimony. in about ten minutes or so, in the meantime, let's bring in jeff, a defense attorney who represented three white house officials during the clinton presidency and our other legal analysts are still with us as well. jeff, let me ask you kind of the broad brush stroke question, if you will. what have you heard so far from the prosecution in its testimony with michael cohen that the defense could try to capitalize on? >> well, you know, the defense is in a tough position because the only way to really contradict what cohen has testified to would be testimony from weisselberg or from trump. and that is very unlikely to

happen. so then you have to attack cohen's credibility. you have to call him a liar. you have to say that, you know, he continued to lie as he pled guilty. he served time in jail. he's untrustworthy. and their defense will be the cross-examination. >> so jeff, the fact that the defense has had relatively few objections during the entire process of the cohen testimony, what does it tell you? >> well, you know, the thing is with leaving questions, i know we had a discussion on it, if the defense objects, the witness has heard the question. so he knows where the prosecution is going. it gives him time to formulate an answer. once the objection is either denied or it's sustained, and the question is rephrased, he then knows the answer. so an objection may not be very helpful, although most of the time, defense counsel would object.

>> you said defense will all come in cross-examination. that is going to be the key moment for this defense to make an impression on the jury with michael cohen. we saw how they went about it with stormy daniels. what does todd blanche, the attorney who we're told will do the cross-examination this time need to do differently with michael cohen than what we saw happen with stormy daniels, if anything? >> well, i think he has a lot more to work with with michael cohen, because michael cohen has a history of, for example, lying. that stormy daniels did not have, as much as michael cohen has done it. now, michael cohen has said, well, he's done it to protect the president. you know, the testimony that has come out is that you have really a plethora of people around donald trump who are willing to lie for him. i mean, hope hicks' name came up. others' names have come up. so michael cohen wasn't unusual in that respect, but he was basically in the lead to some

degree. >> misty, right before that break, there was an objection called, and then there was a sidebar, essentially. what do you think this is about? >> this was likely about -- the scope of the questions. it's about the scope of the testimony moving forward. the defense is always going to try to limit what's going to come out there on the record. of course, this particular question, what would you have said had you cooperated with the investigation? has a lot of issues because it's complete speculation. but also, it has a -- it's going to set the tone for what the testimony is going to be moving forward. and the defense wants to talk about that with the judge and the prosecution about what the scope of questioning is going to be. i actually think the prior sidebar related to that as well, because we were hearing about the federal filing, the fec, and we were hearing about jeff sessions. and i think the defense said, we need to figure out where this is going and limit what's actually going to come out before the jury. >> jeff, come back to the expected cross-examination.

we just reported before the break that trump was passing notes to his defense attorney, todd blanche. he'll be doing the cross-examination here. and earlier in the trial -- >> you're breaking up on me. >> we'll make sure you get the audio. i'll talk to one of our other defense attorneys in the meantime. danny or misty, chime in again. with todd blanche getting these notes from donald trump earlier reporting that trump was unhappy, was griping about his defense attorney, todd blanche, not being aggressive enough during the trial, wanting him to do more of the attack style, maybe the attack style we saw with susan necheles going after stormy daniels. how does a defense attorney manage a client like trump, and do what he wants but still in a way that's really in his best interest in the court of law? >> here's what defense attorneys will -- tell you.

is it relevant or helpful? 98% of the time, it's completely useless. and it's frustrating. and this is something i take very personally because it's.

test. test. test. test. test. test. test. >> and he is going to go down in history in some kind of way. and this with the former president pulling his coat tails while he's trying to process these massive issues that are coming up in real time to

danny's point, i think is doing a disservice to donald trump. he's doing his own disservice to himself. >> jury is coming back in. >> i want to ask one last question to jeff, who we now reestablished a connection with. as we prepare for cross-examination, we have all this color about trump and his trying to get his attorney's attention who is preparing for the croakation. if you're doing the cross-examination, how are you going at michael cohen, not just trying to reveal or catch him in a lie, talk about his inconsistencies, but are you going to try to do something to get under his skin, to get some kind of reaction from him knowing he has a tendency to speak very passionately, right? >> well, clearly, you're going to want to try to make him lose his temper. and he has a temper. and everybody knows that. and they're going to try to get under his skin. they know a lot of personal details about michael cohen. they will bring it in. trump probably knows everything

about michael cohen. michael cohen has done time in jail. everybody knows who he is. everybody knows what faults he has. and you can use that on cross-examination. and let me just say this as a side note, i know we lost each other for a little bit. i saw basically the u.s. congress walking into the courtroom to be there for donald trump, not the whole u.s. congress, obviously, but we have the gag order that was just approved by the appellate court, and if trump is feeding any of these congressmen or senators information to talk about, that violates the gag order. and that's something that the judge will want to know and may have a hearing on it, and it could violate other gag orders in other cases that are pending now. and so that's a serious thing, and the court of appeals decision is something that has to be taken seriously. >> you know, jeffer you're talking about the fact that so many representatives of the house of representatives, people that ran against trump in this last primary season, are in

there. yasmin, take us inside there. who are some of those people? >> reporter: so eric trump, laura trump are in the room sitting next to alina habba who represented the former president, as we know, just down the street from us. the surrogates as the former president is calling them, vivek ramaswamy, governor doug burgum, corey mills, byron daniels as well. they have subsequently left the courtroom. speaker mike johnson, as we talked about earlier, was here briefly. he was really only here for about 45 minutes from the beginning of court. he came out, gave a press conference about 50 yards from where i'm standing calling this a sham trial, saying it's politically motivated. kind of the same things we're hearing from the former president as well. then he left the area. so he did not go back into court after he gave that brief press conference. one other thing i want to bring up because we heard some of these quote/unquote surrogates, by the way, as the former president is calling them. speaking out against some of the

witnesses, specifically michael cohen. in this gag order, by the way, they state that donald trump cannot speak out against any of these witnesses and/or potential witnesses. there could be a possibility going forward in which they cite some of what we're hearing from these surrogates. again, as the former president is calling them when speaking out about these witnesses seeing that as a violation of these gag orders. it will be interesting to see how that kind of plays out, considering how we heard so publicly some of these folks speak out. specifically even mike johnson saying michael cohen cannot be believed in the press conference just a couple minutes ago. >> yasmin, thank you. right now, the testimony continues inside the courtroom. right now, the prosecution's asking michael cohen about a few others who he was in contact with, people like robert costello, an attorney who represented cohen or was involved in cohen's affairs for

a while. also was close to rudy giuliani. and cohen says after the raid, he obviously heard about it, so he connected myself, this other man connected him and robert costello together for the possibility of representing me in this matter. and hoffinger asked, did mr. trump tell you anything about costello's background? cohen, he told me he was a criminal defense attorney and was close to rudy giuliani. raufinger says tell the jury about your conversation. cohen, i was distraught, nervous, concerned. he asked me to describe what had happened. it was many hours, many agents came. they took a series of books, documents, and i gave them a receipt of what was taken. with that, they turned around and said there are certain things you need to know. first is you have to obviously try to remember what's in those boxes. there are certain things i need to know, and to try to remember what they might be looking for. and then they asked me, robert costello, for my representation. some of these notes are coming

from our reporters in the courtroom. hoffinger, did he tell you about his ties to giuliani? cohen, as close as you can imagine. and that would be a relationship that would be very beneficial to you going forward with this matter. cohen continues to say, mr. giuliani at the time had a very close relationship and was spending a tremendous amount of time with mr. trump. cohen, he said this would be a great way to have a back channel to the president to make sure you're still good and still secure. we're hearing a lot more from cohen about other people, like in this testimony today, about jeff sessions, robert costello, rudy giuliani. maya, what is the prosecution trying to do, and is there any problem with bringing all of these new players into the conversation before the jury? >> yeah, my guess is what prosecutors are trying to do is really underscore, i think misty said this earlier, this point that michael cohen has changed

from the guy who was protecting donald trump to the guy who is now being honest about what he did with and for donald trump, and at donald trump's direction. and that this is part of the color around why and the power of it all and what kept him loyal in one period and then shifts him in another. if you remember, hope hicks also testified about how michael cohen and how trump describes michael cohen as a guy seeking to protect him, so there's also some corroboration for this point from other witnesses. but i think the thing that the prosecution has to be very concerned with is overwhelming the jury with facts, people, and information that distract them from the primary things they need to be focused on in this case. these are people who have their own lives, who are committing a tremendous amount of time, and from everything we're hearing,

giving a tremendous amount of attention to a lot of detail over a lot of days. and what you really want to make sure the jury remembers are the most important things for the jury to remember. >> interesting because talking about shifts. one of the people being mentioned now that every jury member no doubt knows about and has an opinion and has an opinion on whether there was a massive shift or not is rudy giuliani. >> every new yorker definitely knows rudy giuliani. absolutely. and some of the risk of bringing up some of these people, and reasons for prosecutors to do so might be what they're anticipating the defense attorneys want to bring up on cross-examination, whether it be public statements. with costello, he said cohen told him he would do anything it takes to stay out of jail and the connection with rudy giuliani. there's a lot of reasons why they may by laying the foundation now. you take a risk when you bring all these people in by name, but theiary is not going to hear from them. so the jury might -- >> what's that risk? >> the jury might wonder, okay,

we're talking about all these people being part of this group involved with donald trump, but why aren't we hearing from those individuals if they're so important to this case or if they involve michael cohen? because the jury is going to look at not only what they see but sometimes they'll think about what they didn't see if they keep hearing these names over and over again. >> so i think that's a really important point, misty, that you're making. i would say i would be less concerned, particularly with people like jeff sessions, i think the jury would understand why they're probably not hearing from jeff sessions. i think the critical one for the jury is going to be weisselberg. >> where is he? >> where is weisselberg? remember, we had that out of the hearing of the jury, but that discussion about that with prosecutors and defense attorneys about why they didn't just subpoena weisselberg. why don't they talk to him about coming in? because if you're the jury, you're like, this is a guy who was in the room when it happened. this is a name we're hearing

repeatedly. we're looking at his signature on documents. why isn't he here corroborating? >> is it worth the risk if you're the prosecutor to call him knowing he's lied for donald trump under oath before and is willing to go to prison for lying under oath. >> he's in prison. >> currently. >> and take the fifth to every question, realistically. >> if he took the fifth to every question, is that such a bad thing for the prosecution to have that happen before the jury? >> i think this is the whole debate that the lawyers were having, that prosecutors were having with themselves. my point is the jury doesn't know that. they're not hearing that. and they won't know it. >> so how do you, danny, if you're a defense attorney, keep the jury from knowing that? and then how do you best utilize that? >> i think you make allen weisselberg the central theme of your closing. if you're going to use images i can think of a few so far that might be helpful with this theme. you put up an image of that contract we heard about days ago, the one that was signed by

stormy daniels, keith davidson, michael cohen, and then a signature line that was glaringly empty where donald trump's signature never was put on the piece of paper. so you put that up on the overhead, whatever imaging they use. as an exhibit. then, you move to all of the papers with allen weisselberg's literal handwriting and signature on them. you make this about, there are documents in this case, and there's a lot of handwriting and a lot of signatures but you don't see a lot of donald trump. the problem with that is you have checks with donald trump's signature, but the key documents you might be able to sway some jurors. i'm not saying this is a compelling argument. i'm not saying that this argument even passes the ha-ha test. it may not for many people watching, but all you need is one juror to hang their hat on that. the one recurring theme throughout trial practice is jurors seize on the most random things. you never know what they're going to grab onto.

to me, that's exactly, you show an image of a document with everyone's signature except trump. and you never know who's going to seize on that. you show an image of a document with weisselberg's handwriting on it and make it a point at closing. where is allen weisselberg? he was the guy. you heard that from the prosecution and they didn't call him. >> so a couple days ago, you kind of said there was a possibility that trump would testify here. what do you think vis-a-vis weisselberg. >> i want to make clear, i was only taking that as an underdog, because if i were right, it would have been legendary. and of course, no one will remember that i'm obviously wrong. >> trial is not over yet. >> your credibility is on the line. >> what do you do with weisselberg? >> the prosecution is not calling him. they said so on friday. on friday, it became apparent they never even explored subpoenaing him. my sense is they decided long ago he is not someone they want

to touch. they don't want to bring him in. they want to prove their case with documents and testimonial evidence that obviates the need for allen weisselberg. he's too risky. michael cohen you need, but allen weisselberg you don't necessarily need because you have his documents, his handwriting, people who interacted with him. he's too big a risk. ia don't know what he's going to say, or as misty said, he might take the fifth. so you don't call him if you can make your case without him. i'm sure the prosecution knows what's coming in closing is going to be the empty chair defense. they're going to point to the empty chair and say this is the real bad guy and the reason they didn't call him is they were afraid of him, or why didn't they have this man explain to you what was really going on? what are they hiding? i expect that's going to be a theme. that and the documents that don't have donald trump's signature on them and try to persuade one juror using that argument. am i saying this is a compelling

argument? probably not, but could you maybe convince one juror? >> as we draw closer to the defense, presenting their side or their case, as well as the cross-examination with this particular witness, michael cohen, let's go back to the courthouse and our yasmin vossoughian. what's happening as we speak? >> reporter: by the way, not to go after the defense attorney on the panel, but i like to go after danny cevallos sometimes, and quickly here, it's not like the defense is calling allen weisselberg either. the prosecutor isn't calling him to the stand because they're possibly afraid of his testimony, not even subpoenaing him. the defense isn't calling him either, so i'm sure the jury keeping that in mind as they wonder where allen weisselberg is. let me walk you through some of what they're talking about when it comes to costello. very close to rudy giuliani. did you tell costello the truth about stormy and donald trump? cohen says no, first of all, i wasn't sure i was going to hire

him. there was something really sketchy and wrong about him. he came with a retainer agreement. i said i was still talking to other lawyers. so i certainly wasn't going to expose anything to someone i didn't know and i was having trouble connecting with. hoffinger, you understand if you provided that info about trump, that would go somewhere else. concerned when he mentioned his close relationship with rudy that anything i said would be told to giuliani, and since giuliani was close with trump, i was worried anything i said would get back to him. and him meaning donald trump, the president of the united states at the time. and just as a reminder, as we're going through this, let's remember, the last time that michael cohen and donald trump actually spoke was that phone call after michael cohen's apartment was raided. that was the very last time in which they exchanged a conversation in which donald trump essentially said, again, i'm paraphrasing here because it's way back up on the document, keep your head up, we're supporting you, we're going to figure this out. since then, they had not spoken.

>> yasmin, thank you very much. also joining us, jonathan allen, nbc news senior national politics reporter. jonathan, there was so much politics around this, especially around the courtroom. >> we're seeing speaker mike johnson, vivek ramaswamy, the surrogates for donald trump coming out to support him. what's fascinating to me is that through all of this, they're making all kinds of arguments against this trial, against the judge, against the fact that it's happening at all, saying donald trump's being pulled off the trail. not one has offered any rebuttal against michael cohen. some said he was a liar which i think the defense will do again and again in this trial. what they have not said is anything specific he has said in the trialthis. it's a political theater, political circus around this trial, unlike anything we have seen. the speaker of the house of the united states coming to new york to basically talk about a hush money trial, this conservative guy from louisiana who has risen

on the strength of his belief in morality. there's nothing inside that courtroom that sounds particularly moral. i'm not making -- i'm not casting aspersion on anybody. but given where mike johnson comes from and what his politics are, it's amazing he is standing out there in defense of donald trump. >> there's a lot of hypocrisy to see much of what we are seeing in that regard. i'm interesting to get your take on who is missing from inside that courtroom. that is a lot of trump's family members. we have seen eric trump show up on a number of days, including today. no mmelania. >> i feel like you could understand why she wouldn't want to be in the courtroom for stormy daniels telling the story of an affair she had with donald trump. i can understand why he wouldn't want his wife there. perhaps the most sympathetic donald trump has seemed to that jury at any time during this trial is when stormy daniels is

going through the particulars of that. i think it's uncomfortable when she is talking about he would call her every couple of weeks and check in on her. you are listening to that and there's a humanizing affect to that. there are things she said that are damage to him. i'm shot sure having having melania would have made it more comfortable for anybody. it's not more comfortable for -- >> does the jury notice when people are not there? >> i agree about the discomfort. if you are a defense attorney, you would love to see the wife sitting there, loving up on her husband, concerned about him, projecting that we are and remain a connected unit through all this. the signal it sends to the jury is what they should understand about what donald trump is, what this marriage is.

remember, one of the points that the defense is going to try to be escalating for the jury is, this was all about melania. this was about melania finding out. this wasn't about the election. this was about melania. that's the story they want the jury to read, at least one, to hang it. without her there helping to project that story, that weaken -- >> the defense is trying to paint him as a family man. >> if their point is that donald trump wanted to keep this from melania, then sticking her in the courtroom to listen to this is -- doesn't that undercut that? >> no. the reason is because she's already listening to it. everybody knows it. it's a news story. how is she being protected from it? i'm not saying it's easy or comfortable. any time you see high profile criminal trials where there's an issue that really goes to, is

this defendant someone who is heinous and will do heinous things or is this defendant someone who can be humanized to a jury, relatable? that's what family members do. i totally hear you and i would feel this way if i was melania. guess why i wouldn't want to be this this courtroom? i'm going to slap this man in the back of the head as i'm sitting behind that jury box making faces. >> take the magazine. >> i can't believe you -- right? you don't put someone in that position who can't show up in that way. but i'm just saying, it would be helpful to the defense if that's the picture the jury was seeing of who donald trump the person is, donald trump the husband is. melania could do that and she's not. >> depending how she reacts is very important. let's go back inside the courtroom. yasmin has emails that the court is being shown. the witness, cohen, is talking

about specific emails that include giuliani and more. >> this seems like a very damning email admitted into evidence. let me read it. michael, is from robert costello. this is the friend of giuliani, recommended to represent michael cohen after his apartment was raided. he was under investigation in 2018. this is june 2018. this is costello saying, i didn't get a chance to tell you that my friend has communicated to me that he is meeting with his client this evening and he added if there was anything you wanted to convey and my friend will bring it up for discussion this evening. who was the "my friend"? giuliani. why didn't he use the names giuliani and trump? cohen, to be covert, very "i

spy." never mentioning president trump. just using code words. what did this mean? they are talking about potential pre-pardons. who is my friend's client? trump. this seems like a very damning piece of evidence. this is just kind of sandwiched between the raid in april to when michael cohen did plead guilty and pointed the finger at donald trump, just two months after this email was sent as they were referring to as michael cohen alleges. >> thank you so much. >> the significance of this email? is it damning? >> the email doesn't speak to the heart of the issue at the case. we are talking about 2018. the case relates to falsified documents from 2016. when we look back at the mindset

and intent, this is obviously after the fact. however, this is like in the muck. think about all of the people who are surrounded in this issue. the "i spy" language, the idea this pardon is going to begiven out. it does speak to the why of michael cohen waiting to actually come forward with the truth. that's always the question. if i'm the defense lawyer, my point is going to be, you serve you. when it serves you to say x, you say x. when it serves you to say y, you say y. you will lie to the federal court, to congress, if it's the best thing for you. they are trying to combat that and provide the jury with context and explanation of why it wouldn't have come out at this particular point. >> has the prosecution done enough through cohen's testimony to, i guess, inoculate that? they are showing him being super

deceptive in so many capacities. right? why wouldn't the jury then take from that, he could be lying right now to us? >> what the prosecution is doing is pulling that forward so that they are shaping the story for the jury that they want the jury to hear. it's going to come on cross. they know it's going to come on cross. >> maybe let me rephrase for a second. have they been able to make cohen a credible witness? have they been able to convince the jury that he is a truth teller now? >> yes. one thing to remember, two critical points. one, the way cohen has shown up in his demeanor, his delivery, is a huge part of communicating that. i think we have seen a different michael cohen than the one on his podcast or on television. that communicates the level that

is important. it's also the fact that -- in the way this prosecution set the case up, they put the witnesses on the stand first that were corroborating key points of his testimony so that when he takes the stand, they have already heard from different witnesses some of the very critical points that he, himself, is making. >> taking you back to 2015 and 2016, important to underline the importance of michael cohen to trump. >> here is the guy doing all the secret missions. he is talking about the covert, the spying. this is somebody who is taking care of stuff for him. as cohen testified earlier today, he has taken care of things that donald trump signed off on, that he would not be doing the things he was doing if donald trump hadn't signed off on them. why did he say? because he wanted to be paid back. we know that he knew that if

donald trump wasn't nailed down to pay him back for the things he was doing, if he hadn't agreed to them, that michael cohen wouldn't get paid back. we know that because he was making recordings to ensure that david pecker would be reimbursed. you go through all of this testimony. you get this picture of somebody who is super loyal to trump and handling business for him, telling him what business is being handled and doing it. >> we have less than 30 seconds. quickly, i have talked to a lot of lawyers who said they would love to cross-examine michael cohen. does he seem as easy as a target as people thought before this? >> direct examination is one thing. it's easier. cross-examination is where it really gets real. that's because what the lawyers are going to do, trump's lawyers, they're going to pinpoint everything that came out in cohen's