good to be with you. i'm katy tur alongside my colleague, chris jansing. it is getting testy. michael cohen is about 45 minutes into cross-examination. our reporters say cohen is already making it difficult for the defense. >> andrew, catherine, duncan still with us. let's go back into the document. you know this well, katy. they first met in 2006. there was a board meeting at one of the, for one of the trump properties. todd blanche says that was during a board dispute that was going on in one of president

trump's buildings. michael cohen, yes. and you have resolved that. yes, sir. you were working with president trump's son among other people. yes. blanche, there was construction going on at an apartment you had purchased for $5 million and that apartment was your primary residence for many years and you still live in that building with trump's name on it? cohen, i do. property in trump hotel that you rent out for $15,000 a month. yes. family members in trump's buildings. michael cohen says in laws, parents. in 2000, we bought a block. todd blanche, you first helped president trump and his family resolve the board was trying to remove the trump name from the building. yes, sir. your practice at the time was an international banking, high-end net worth protection. letter of credit transactions. yes, sir. and you were more in litigation or corporate. more corporate.

again, they continue on in this about the early 2000s, he saw himself as a bit of a deal maker. he started working then on other legal matters for president trump. the story goes that president trump, the former president, was impressed and will note this todd blanche is calling him president trump, but again, the color is the cross-examination feels all over the place. >> here's what, let me ask you if this is what they're trying to do. they're talk about how he made millions in medallions. he's renting out this apartment for 15,000. he has another one for 5 million. his in-laws live there. he makes a lot of money, they're arguing. he's very rich. no, but is it, you're arguing that you didn't have that money to pay stormy daniels and you would not have done it. that donald trump needed to pay you back. maybe you were rich enough and maybe this is something you could afford. >> he had money.

that's their argument. cross-examination all over the place, that's often how it works. direct, it has to be detailed and very streamlined and orderly. a cross sometimes is to knock you off your feet. i'm talking about the witness. so all over the place sometimes works. we'll find out with the verdict whether or not it worked in trump's favor. >> back to the court outside the courthouse. yasmin is there. what else can you tell us about this line of questioning, yasmin? >> reporter: yeah, so i'm seeing this kind of as stages of grief. first they went after michael cohen implying he has an ax to grind when it comes to donald trump. he's media hungry with his social media posts, tiktok and podcasts. now they're doubling back to his relationship, where it all began. i think it's important to refresh folks on the relationship and the loyalty

that michael cohen had to donald trump for some time, dating back to 2007, when he first began working for donald trump. if you remember from michael cohen's testimony during direct, it was 2007 he started working for the trump organization and family. he did a couple of jobs for donald trump. at this point, billing him around 100,000. hoffinger asking were you paid that $100,000? no, but instead, he was offered $375,000 which blanche reiterates here, you have money. donald trump has been paying you quite well over the last couple of years or while you were working for him. the bonus of course of $125,000. just to remind folks of that transaction, when he was hired, how long he worked for donald trump until he left the organization subsequently in 2017 by the way. so for quite some time, he worked alongside donald trump

kind of seeing him as a father figure and todd blanche taking us through that cross-examination right now and building it seems kind of this idea not only loyalty, which is what they did during direct, but now more so how donald trump treated it seems michael cohen quite well. leaving him with a heck of a lot of money and a high salary to many people in this country. >> blanche, at the time, you weren't lying? cohen says at the time, i was knee deep into the cult of donald trump. yes. this is about 2015 when he was running for president. you said he's a man who cares deeply about this country. who tells it straight. blanche, as a man who tells it straight and all he wants to do is make this country great again. cohen says i think that sounds right. at the time, you weren't lying. at the time, i was knee deep into the cult of donald trump. yes.

blanche asks let me ask that again. at the time, you were not lying. cohen, i was not lying, no. that's how i felt. blanche, you were telling the truth. cohen says that's how i felt. blanche, you were telling the truth. cohen says that's how i felt. he asked it twice and cohen answered it twice. andrew? >> you know, this is sort of an interesting cross because i don't think you are learning anything to our prior conversation that was not brought out on direct. i thought one of the most poignant moments on direct was when hoffinger asked when michael cohen first started work at the trump organization and he would do something for donald trump and donald trump would respond by saying that's great or that's fantastic and she said how did you feel. and he said, i felt on top of the world. and you got this sense that he needed trump's approval and that

he was, here, they use the term obsessed, but it wasn't really obsessed. that was just so much a part of what he was hoping to have from him. this is just underscoring it. i don't know that it makes him look bad. to me, it brings him, like, they need to say this guy is a horrible criminal who's just done this parade of horrible things but he is you know, this is donald trump's person. and that is to me this is sort of surrounding him with making trump and michael cohen sort of, you know, have this symbiotic relationship. i don't know if that's the most effective thing that they were that close and there was that close bond because michael cohen's already explained who he was then and also the feeling of anger and abuse that came from trump in terms of how he was treated after being so loyal.

>> and before we got to that moment, they asked him about his relationship with the entire family. blanche says the nine and a half years you were there, you represented trump and his family. i have. melania, don jr. i don't think i ever represented eric. you also helped some of the kids with various work. reaching out to the media on behalf of president trump's children. they also say he made $375,000 salary with the exception of a 2016 bonus that was 125,000. his financial success, high profile, tenacity, those are the things he's pointing out that caused him to want to be very close to and serving donald trump. >> i agree with andrew. it's basically establishing that he was an insider. he knew about the family. he worked with them. he was like donald trump's right arm. so i don't know the point of

this. i don't know if it's for the defense to prove he's an insider and a trusted member of the organization. >> you said you would take a bullet for the president. cohen says i did say that, yes. you talked about the time toward the end of the campaign that you were offered a book deal. cohen says yes. you were offered $10 million to write a tell all book. is that right? cohen says, i believe so. first of all, wow. blanche, what you said in the article was with counteroffer, what you said was that you counteroffered, how about 100 million. cohen says correct. according to the article, you were just pushing it to see how high it would go. cohen says that's not true. in 2017, you had no intention of writing a book? cohen, i had no intention of writing a book. no money in the world that would cause you to write a book about his family? sounds correct. no money that would get you to

disclose anything about his family? cohen says okay. you describe them as a surrogate family. cohen says correct. what's he getting at here? the thing that's missing from the defense at the moment that they're trying to put in here is that trump didn't know about the false business records. the d.a.'s office has proven up the falsity of the records. we know that's false. it's a slam dunk case. they couldn't bring it. as a misdemeanor, the statute of limitations had passed. they had done a good job to conceal this conspiracy. what's missing is that trump knew about the false business records and they have a circumstantial case. what they're trying to do is show this is somebody who was loyal to trump. he was telling the truth at the time then when he didn't get a job in the administration, he got so upset and so dispond enter about not going to

washington, d.c. and that does comport with what davidson said that he decided he was going to punish donald trump and basically free him for it. >> sounds like they're trying tooed that now. the first year donald trump was in office you went from seeing him almost daily except when he was campaigning to not seeing him nearly as much when he was at the white house. cohen says correct. you told hope hicks you missed him. yes, i did. i had a great relationship with my colleagues. president trump said the same thing at a fund-raiser in washington, d.c. blanche, there was an ongoing investigation and there was a separation. cohen says yes. there was a separation. blanche, you spoke about how it was frustrating. you were disappointed not to be able to spend as much time with trump and the kids because of the investigation. waiting for michael cohen's

response. but sounds like it's getting at where you were going, duncan. >> we're starting to see what the defense is in their questioning of these witnesses. they are stuck with certain facts that they can't do anything about. weisselberg's handwriting. those text messages. the phone records. so they have two witnesses. one of whom is a liar who's on the stand right now and he's an admitted liar and the other is missing. that's allen weisselberg and michael cohen. the two of them are the defense in this case and cooked the books themselves and that donald trump didn't know about it. he was so upset to not get a job in the administration that he decided to frame the president of the united states for a crime he didn't commit. for this false business records and i think we will see that more in the testimony to come when the defense case comes. and to that point, i don't think donald trump's really matters to that defense. they'll be able to argue to the jury without his defense. we may see a very streamlined

defense. they don't have to call a lot of witnesses to be able -- >> they don't have to prove anything. the prosecution has the burden here. >> pick up where you left off because it's getting a little brutal. depending on your point of view. todd blanche says let me ask this in a different way. you were told to stay away and not communicate with him and his family. cohen, i was told not to speak to president trump but not his family. not that i couldn't see his kids. i just didn't. >> okay. this is totally misleading. when a criminal investigation occurs and i know this, both have done on the defense side and the prosecution side. the, everyone getting lawyered up. so president trump had lawyers. michael cohen had lawyers. all of those lawyers will say to their clients, do not speak. the principal should not speak to each other. it goes through counsel. oh, see, you were suddenly

shunned is really wrong. that is not what goes on in a criminal investigation. no one's shunning each other. in fact, the fact that all of them have counsel and are being told don't speak to each other is in the interest of everyone in the conspiracy. it's standard practice. to make that a motive of oh, see, you were shunned outside of the group. that's not what happened. >> people in donald trump's orbit might have at one point have hated him. they might have at one point loved him and then later on if they hated him, they love him again. or if they loved him, now they hate him. there's a whole lot of flip-flopping in regards to any one person's emotions regarding donald trump depending on how donald trump treats that person. >> reporter: depending on how donald trump treats that person, what he's willing to give them, which it seems what todd blanche

is getting at, right? you love donald trump. you thought he would make america great again. you championed him to become the president of the united states back in 2015 and now the sudden turn of events and how does that actually happen. but it's a conversation we've had with so many individuals that currently support and or don't support, no longer support donald trump and how you kind of make the 180. i just spoke with ramaswami who was inside the courthouse today. i believe he's back now. i asked him after january 6th, you called donald trump abhorrent. you said he was a sore loser then here you are supporting him as a quote unquote surrogate inside the courtroom coming as you tell me on your own volition are you gunning for a vice presidential pick. if offered, will you take it? he said i'm not going to disclose my conversations where the former president, but nonetheless, this is what's wrong with the media. he kind of ducked my question. you're asking me about january

6th on a day when we should be talking about as he puts it, a sham of a trial. it kind of speaks to this flip-flopping that's happening to so many republican surrogates and lawmakers that support donald trump and have for so long. especially after january 6th. we remember the speech made by lindsey graham when it came to what happened after january 6th. to now. and how they feel about donald trump now. so this line of questioning is interesting considering what we talk about in the public sector, the spear n the media when it comes to his own supporters, guys. >> okay. we're getting into something where we have a direct witness and direct expert. andrew, this goes to you. at some point in august of 2018, you decided to meet with the special counsel's office and tell them what you knew, correct? i was asked to cooperate.

and you don't remember when you would cooperate? cohen says correct. blanche, you first met with robert mueller's special counsel on august 2018. cohen, still to protect trump, provide answers. blanche, when you met with them that first time, you had lawyers with you. three lawyers with you. an fbi agent? there was a lot of people there. what's going on here? >> i was not at this meeting but a year before that, we had, and this is public. we had found the lead with respect to the $130,000 payment. we, as i mentioned, had referred that part of the investigation because it doubled stormy daniels. he continued the investigation into michael cohen's testimony with congress with respect to what happened with the moscow project that trump was engaged

in. it developed substantial evidence that what he had said under oath was not true. just to be clear, there was no question that michael cohen was not lying for himself. because he was not the principal in that deal. this was all about michael cohen lying because he was distancing the timeline in terms of what donald trump was doing in russia. and he ultimately pled guilty to that. >> could you see at that point though this is where this would ultimately, potentially end? >> yes. when we saw the payment, there were a lot of things that ran through our mind in terms of election fraud. in terms of potential bank fraud. in terms of making false representations about what essential consulting was. we actually heard in this trial that michael cohen say yes, i lied to the bank in terms of what the purpose was. if i said the true purpose,

there was a risk they weren't going to give me the account and have an llc, partnership. so we're seeing sort of fast forward the end result of the special counsel investigation into michael cohen very much related to donald trump though. and the southern district of new york, federal analog to the d.a. here investigating the stormy daniels payment. >> lisa rubin has a little analysis from the overflow room. she says blanche keeps trying to impeach michael cohen and other people's records of cohen's purported statements. as media articles relying on anonymous source, cohen has distanced himself from most of these statements yet blanche is doing it again. focusing on notes from a meeting with the special counsel's office. >> that is typical and

permissible. if you and i were in a meeting, you're a journalist, you take notes. the source then later asked about it. they don't know what you wrote, if you got it correct. maybe you did, maybe you didn't. you could be asked is that what you said and you can show your notes but i'm entitled to be like, yes, that is what i said. or you know what, i don't know what katy tur was writing down. i wasn't in charge of what she wrote down. and that's not, i don't think that's what i said. so when it's someone else's notes, it's not as good as when it's your own. >> blanche says you said by speaking with them, the special counsel, you wanted your voice to be part of a report that was to be issued. cohen, i wanted my voice to be reflected that the steele dossier was inaccurate. they told you you have to tell the truth?

they did. blanche, and they told you lying to a federal agent was a federal crime. i'm certain they did. blanche, and they asked you all kinds of background information about trump. trump org, the campaign, the inaugural ball. they asked me a lot of information. yes. they also asked you about trump's moscow project and you lied to them, right? yes, the information i gave to them was not accurate. was it a lie? i don't know if i would characterize it as a lie. it was -- >> catherine doesn't like that. blanche goes was it a lie? cohen says it wasn't a lie, it wasn't truthful. if you want to call it a lie, we can call it a lie. i believe the info i gave them is inaccurate. but you're not testifying it's a lie blanche asks? sure, it's a lie. i'm just asking questions, mr. cohen. i'm trying to give you the answer. catherine, i know you have feelings. >> so, this cross will not end today.

the prosecutors cannot speak to him but his attorney will the same way stormy daniels suddenly appeared really together and people said it was because of the prosecutors. she had a personal lawyer. i'm sure his personal lawyer would say stop with the sounds correct, i don't recall. just own it. so again, i'm not there so is he saying it with a smirk on his face? >> michael cohen doesn't like to admit to lying. he doesn't. in personal conversations, the characterization of him as a liar, the name calling of him as a liar gets under his skin. >> so much with the last hour of the prosecution's case was you're a liar, you're a liar, you're a liar. >> he pled guilty to perjury before congress. so that's a lie. >> he doesn't like being -- he might have pleaded guilty, but he doesn't like being called a liar. >> let me tell you a story.

>> but i understand. >> let me tell you a story about white collar defendants. i still remember a white collar cooperator in the enron case saying you know, andrew, i just want to make sure you know i pled guilty and i am guilty of this crime, but i'm not a criminal. and what that, i know everyone's thinking what does that mean? if you pled guilty, you are a criminal. it's because their sense of who they are and their self-worth and how they present is i'm not a criminal. >> i did this bad thing, but it's not who i am. i lied about this, but i'm not a liar. i think that's accurate with michael cohen. >> if he keeps on this, if he keeps making him say this, that might be -- >> well, this is what i was wondering about and just my knowledge of michael cohen, the relationship i've had with him now for nine years.

he, i wonder that if blanche and blanche probably knows this from his conversations from people who know michael cohen well including donald trump. there's a way to get under his skin. to call him names. to call him a liar. you weren't being honest. you weren't as valuable as you thought you were. you weren't acting on the orders. donald trump didn't need you as much you thought he needed you. you weren't valued. you weren't valuable. that's the sort of thing i imagine if i were a defense attorney going after michael cohen that i would use. i don't know if blanche is going to use the same. catherine, you said very interestingly he's going to get another talking to tonight from his personal attorney. >> i believe i read that his wife is in the audience, which is another reason not want to in front of your wife say things that maybe you were not

truthful, you were inaccurate about to her. so now she's sitting her. probably wasn't a good thing to have her there. >> it's difficult to be on stand and to be confronted by somebody whose whole goal is to discredit you. barbara mcquaid is standing by. we've been talk about this for many hours now. you're fresh faced, fresh voiced. give us your insights. >> i thought michael cohen did very well on his direct kpak examination but he's far too defensive on cross-examination. when you're caught in a lie, fess up, you're under oath. yes, i lied, i did it for donald trump. whatever is the case. because i think those are the kinds of things that can make him look less credible in the eyes of the jury. although the prosecution did a very good job of laying the groundwork leading up to his testimony to plant the seeds to use corroboration in the form of

e-mails and text messages, i think they need to believe michael cohen to be able to conclude that donald trump himself was personally involved here. and so you know, typically on cross-examination, the two schools of thought. one is i'm just going to make a couple of key points. get in, get out and sit down. the other is i am going to wear this witness down. i am going to expose him. i'm going to make him lose his cool. and it seems to be that latter strategy that todd blanche is following here. so we're going to see a couple of days of this and i think the jury is going to see the true colors of michael cohen. he's lied consistently throughout his life so now is his opportunity to own up to that and i think all of the hedging does not do him well or the government. >> they're talking to him now about truth versus not truth. and he's saying things like i was trying to be protective. i was trying to be loyal. is that something a juror will

understand? >> i think so. i think there's, it's probably the true story here, which is there was a time i was very loyal to donald trump and willing to lie for him. i'd take a bullet for him, go through a wall for him and that time has ended. i pleaded guilty to crimes, took my conviction and now i'm here to tell you what really happened. but there's something about michael cohen that seems to not be able to help himself. despite the name of his podcast, mea culpa, make up a name. to say maybe i said that it sounds like something i might say. just own it. >> here's the thing. >> i agree. >> i think that's, yeah, just own it has been the narrative. but what they're trying to prove here is that michael cohen did something about the direction of donald trump and the little and big lies, they built up quite a bit of evidence showing michael cohen was talking to donald

trump around the time he was making these deals. there are phone records saying they had conversations. there's the snippet of reported conversation. the allen weisselberg handwritten notes. david pecker corroborating the meeting. gary farro and the documents. as much as blanche is going to go after his credibility, how much do you need to destroy his credibility to wipe away everything we've seen up until this point? >> you need to obliterate him because he today said three words. he said he approved it and that is the proverbial nail in the coffin in the jury credits that, that he approved it, meaning donald trump approved this reimbursement scheme, he's kwigted. it's over. the case doesn't require michael cohen. we don't need michael cohen to prove this case, but here's why

you should believe him even though he's a liar. he's a liar, we admit it but look at how this piece, all the pieces fit together. all of the things you were saying look how they fit together, but even if you took him out, the case is proven but you need to destroy him completely and leave nothing left of him because if you believe him, you credit him and you credit his testimony, this case is done. >> that's what you were arguing in your op-ed in the times a couple of days ago. >> absolutely. but i agree the defense has to be able to say you cannot convict based on his testimony and they will then be saying he's critical to the case. so the defense is going to say he's critical. that's why he was called. he's the only one with direct evidence and would you ever convict anybody based on just his testimony? of course the prosecution will say no one's asking you to kwigt

convict on that. >> the jury instructions. >> i think one aspect will be important. did he do this for melania or the campaign? obviously there's a ton of evidence it's campaign related but there's some evidence about a concern for melania. not a lot, but some. the judge is going to, in this case. and so the judge is i think going to give an instruction saying dual motive is fine. >> it's going to explain the statute. they're arguing this is a falsification of documents and they want to bump it up to a felony, what's the underlying crime here? what is that rule? >> i'm assuming election law conspiracy to promote an election by unlawful means. >> how come we don't know that at this point? >> judge steinglass said that not in front of the jury. like a week ago.

i don't know why it wasn't said in opening statements. typically in an opening statement, you tell them what the charges are and what you intend to prove. you don't say surprise, this is it. i think that's going to be it. >> can i maybe give a slight sort of favorable take to the opening, which is i thought they framed the case based on the facts then the law will be given to them by the judge. but they said this case has two things. first, you're going to hear about election fraud. there's an election fraud conspiracy and that's sort of the david pecker conspiracy that was laid out with the first witness. they said that's this scheme. then you're going to hear about the cover up of that scheme. so they really want to talk about just what are the facts. we're not going to, we'll deal with, if you put a legal grid on it, we'll do that later and that's where they will get from the judge all of what is

required in order for the state to prove its case. >> court is in a short break. here's more context from lisa rubin. blanche is insinuating cohen met with the d.a.'s office only because he was desperate for a way out of federal prison. they ended on testimony about michael cohen meeting with the d.a.'s office. she said that doesn't hold up because she had changed his tune. guys, there's so much testimony and there's so many names and dates and there's so much detail and if you're sitting on the jury, i imagine even if you're taking copious notes, you can start to lose sight of what's really going on. it's just, it does, it becomes a lot. how does a jury keep it all together? when they go back and they deliberate and is this where those two lawyers on the team become crucial? >> well, first --

>> hoffinger when cross is done has to get up and say that's just not how it works. her job on redirect is to tell the jury the truth. all the holes were poked in there to give the context and hopefully michael cohen will answer the questions correctly. >> and also remember, the parties in summation a lot of what we're talking about now i think will be clear to the public when both sides have an opportunity to create the narrative to show how the documents and testimony work together. we saw a little bit of that with michael cohen. that was sort of a mini summation where it was him and documents. you're going to hear a bigger version of that with all of the witnesses and documents in the state's summation. one thing i can't help but comment on is the suggestion that michael cohen had to cooperate with the state because he hadn't with the feds.

our office son record. the special counsel's office. it's an hour because i'm sort of going back to the time. we were on record and said in the federal sentencing proceeding that he had fully cooperated with us. it's just inaccurate and it's documented the idea he had not cooperated with the special counsel's office would be inaccurate. >> so the second time you've suggested an approach blanche is taking may be less than fully rev la torre. >> yeah, again, i'm not criticizing him in a sense a defense lawyer has a job to do, but that's not my job here, which is to report facts. and since this is something i know what the public record is, i want to make sure people know about his sentencing. that is not what was represented by the special counsel's office in terms of what michael cohen was doing. >> all right. >> we need a break, too. we need to eat some peanuts.

have some sandwiches. chris brought a peanut butter and jelly sandwich she's been sharing. which is very nice of her. get up, get some water. join us again in just a couple of minutes. t some water join us again in just a couple of minutes nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. (vo) you've had thyroid eye disease for a long time. and you've lived with the damage it caused.

but even after all these years, restoration is still possible. learn how at tedhelp.com. [♪♪] how you feel can be affected by the bacteria in your gut. try new align probiotic bloating relief plus food digestion. it contains a probiotic to help relieve occasional bloating, plus vitamin b12 to aid digestion. try align probiotic. i was born with wings, but psoriasis swooped in to clip them. it crushed my confidence. but no longer will psoriasis get a piece of me. i can love my skin again. with bimzelx. only bimzelx targets and blocks il-17a plus f to calm inflammation. i can control my plaques, and start getting myself back. bimzelx helps adults with moderate to severe psoriasis control plaques, to deliver clearer skin fast, for results that last. i will give myself back the freedom of shorts. dare to wear black again from head to toe. (♪♪) most people got 100% clear skin.

some after the first dose. serious side effects, including suicidal thoughts and behavior, infections and lowered ability to fight them, liver problems, and inflammatory bowel disease, have occurred. tell your doctor if these happen or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. (♪♪) start to get yourself back, with bimzelx. ask your dermatologist about bimzelx today. feeling claritin clear is like... ♪♪

[cat meow] —is she? letting her imagination run wild even though she has allergies. yeah. dad and i finally had that talk. no, not that talk. about what the future looks like. for me. i may have trouble getting around, but i want to live in my home where i'm comfortable and my friends are nearby. i can do it with the help of a barber, personal shopper and exercise buddy. someone who can help me live right at home. life's good. when you have a plan. ♪ ♪

welcome back. we are still in break. the court is taking a short break. they'll be coming back at 3:45 where michael cohen will

continue to be cross examined by todd blanche. let's bring in attorney and law professor, jessica levinson. we've been having a lot of conversation about what actual law has been broken. how do you see this case going? >> this is absolutely fascinating that we're having this conversation now towards the end of trial. i just had a conversation offline with a reporter who's been in the courtroom and i said am i missing something? is it new york state law which potentially has some issues because we're talking about a federal candidate, is it federal election law which potentially has issues because we're talking about a state prosecutor or is it state or federal tax law? and i think the consensus generally is that it's exactly what the prosecutor said in opening statements. that it's going to be this new york state law that talks in general terms about undermining

the election. again, i'm fascinated by the fact that from the beginning of this case, we really didn't know in the sense of the charging document itself said it could be one of these things. we know it has to be some other crime. i think what the prosecution has been leading to and that's why we've had all this testimony, all these documents leading to the idea of this is about the election. it's about making sure that the voters don't hear this story. that's where i really think we're pointing to that new york state law that's at issue. again, the fact we're using words like i think, i suspect, and i believe, it's not 100% clear. >> it's so interesting. let's tease out what you were talking about. using a state law against a federal candidate. why is that tricky? >> so in the sense of i don't know, and judge merchan did rule

on the applicability of this early on in the case, but i don't know that this new york state law has been used for federal candidates before. so there was always going to be this issue of, i think, either a state prosecutor using a federal law or a state prosecutor using a federal law for a federal candidate. all this is to say something you've been talking about and we've been talking about for close to a year now, which is that this case has hurdles. step number one. step number two. how do we get to a felony? now, i don't believe that, and i don't think anybody said you need a conviction on that other crime. what you need to prove to the jury is that the records were falsified in order to try and commit or conceal a crime.

>> i had no idea that was the case. i'm happy you laid that out. but does that make it an issue on appeal? does that give donald trump an opportunity to overturn this? >> so i think there are a couple of issues on appeal and certainly this would be one of them. now, i don't want anybody to think based on what i'm saying that even if he's convicted, it's going to be overturned on appeal. what i think people should take away is that this is a case where the prosecution has to go up a couple of steps and some are steps that you need to take with you. a law that isn't always taken up that particular step. now, when it comes to an appeal if there's a conviction, i think it would with be on this issue of proving that next crime. of proving the intent to commit or conceal. we think it would be state election law violations. i think we'll see an appeal that

includes the stormy daniel testimony and that reiterates the arguments the defense made for saying there should be a mistrial. that she basically went too far afield. it was more prohibitive. >> so you're a professor at a very fine law school. and you are asking questions or at least putting qualifiers on where this case is going to be won or lost. other people who are very smart people are sitting at this table with katy and i and they are asking the same questions. if we don't know what the steps are that it's not clear, how do you help the jury to make that connection? can you leave it until the last minute? >> well, i think you had a great discussion leading into the break about the fact that you

can't. the fact that the prosecutor hasn't told the jury and us and here is the specific code. although i think they did mention it in opening arguments. and but having like reiterated that throughout the case. that's not a failure of any legal obligation for the prosecutor. that is a tactic and the prosecution decided to take that tactic and alvin bragg did, again when it came to the very beginning of this case with that charging document. i remember i was on stand by and ready to go and the big question for me legally was and what's that other crime going to be. because we all knew it was going to start with misdemeanor falsification of business records. they really didn't spell it out. so there is some trial strategy that they have espoused where they want to wait until the end. and now you asked me about being a professor, being in the classroom. sometimes this happens in a courtroom or a classroom. you go through the detail of the

case. you talked about there are so many meetings and documents and so many phone calls and you kind of take everything apart and then sometimes i hear from my students although i don't love hearing it the last day, oh, it makes sense now. you put it together for us. >> so because it's hard to follow even for all of us as we follow it so closely, i'm not thinking about the jury. i'm thinking about the broader public. can they follow the ins and outs of this case and can they easily determine what donald trump did wrong and how they feel about it. that's an open question. we'll see where it goes. why not make this a federal election violation? >> so the federal government could have moved forward on a case against trump once he was out of office. i believe. and that is let's be clear. i think one of the questions that people have in their mind. because when it comes to federal election law violations, there is somebody who served time for

violations related to the payments that in part make up the basis of this case and that's michael cohen. he did in fact plead guilty. he said i violated federal campaign finance laws. he said i did it, i'm paraphrasing here, but at the direction of individual number one. we know who individual number one was. and the federal prosecutors decided not the move forward. now, let's remember that at the time that trump is president, there's an office of legal counsel memo. it's still in effect. that says you don't indict a sitting president. could the federal government have indicted him after he was president? i think that that, barring a statute of limitations issue that i'm not thinking about, i think that would be possible. they opted not to. we can take that whatever we want to take of it, but it is a state prosecutor who decided the take up this case that was known in the office i think as a zombie case.

>> the jury's back in right now. donald trump is back in the courtroom. they're going to start the cross-examination once again in a couple of minutes. hasn't quite started yet. maybe just a couple of seconds. duncan, did you want to weigh in? >> you can rightfully criticize the district attorney's office for not laying out at the beginning of the case to the public what this felony is that is, what the basis is for making this a felony. i think some of the commentary has been right on that. you can absolutely criticize the district attorney's office for bringing this case, which is a felony and bringing it to trial and not making an offer on it and say that it's politically motivated. you can make those all the commentary. in a way, it's true, but it doesn't mean he didn't break this law. it doesn't mean that he's not guilty. also, it is a matter both of trial strategy, primarily, but also it's the d.a.'s prerogative not to choose at this point in

the trial what it is that they're hanging their hat on. you could say well they owe the public, but as a matter of trial strategy, they haven't seen the defense case yet. >> i understand what you're saying about trial strategy and ultimately, they want to win this case. we are not in the world that we were in several years ago. we were in a world where the justice system is under attack. where one of the most, if not the most famous person on the earth has said repeatedly and loudly about how corrupt the system is. so is there an additional obligation in this case as katy asked the question, to let the public know this is our case. this is why we're bringing it. that's different maybe than it was. >> to be clearer. >> to be clearer. thank you. >> we are going to get that answer. we're going to get it soon. i don't expect a huge, robust defense case.

we are going to get it. they are going to argue it to the jury because it's an element. the jury is going to be giving instructions on what the element of this offense are. one of the elements of this offense is the intent to commit or conceal another crime. the d.a.'s office is going to have to lay it out. they may lay out multiple different crimes. the d.a.'s office has laid out i believe at the beginning, four different crimes then the judge narrowed it down to three different crimes. it could be federal election law, state law, tax law. and the, at the end of the day, the prosecution may argue all three to the jury. >> andrew? >> that's where it's really important to remember the andre? >> i mean, that's where it's really important to remember, the d.a.'s office frequently charges crimes where it becomes a felony. it's a harder, more serious crime because of the intent. burglary versus trespass is one,

to get you in the weeds. this is another where the intent is everything. and the normal practice is they don't tell the defense anything, and it all comes -- it's -- it all happens at trial. this is the unusual case where the public and the defendant were told pretrial that four different theories, litigation over it, the judge allows three theorys to go to the jury. this is one where we may not have all been listening but donald trump was given that notice and, in fact, what we'll see in closing whether the defense and prosecution are entitled to argue all three. the prosecution may say we'll only go with one of those three. better for donald trump if he's saying one versus three. >> we'll find out in closing arguments. in federal system prosecutor goes first, defense second, prosecutors again. that's not here. it's defense and then prosecutor and the judge instructs them on

the law. they have to do a summation to educate the jury. you don't want the jury going back there saying what is the other crime? whoever is giving the summation better do it well and be like intent to conceal for dummies. that's what they have to do in the summation. >> can i give you the final 30 seconds because is it an old wive's tale or should the -- todd blanche know exactly where he wants to end today and wants to leave the jury with? >> he should unless the judge suddenly cuts him off for some reason. he should know and has tomorrow off to work on things. and then it's back again on thursday. >> okay. so no court on friday. merchan says he also adds that one of the jurors has a commitment on thursday, so they're only going to go to 4:00 p.m. on thursday. there will still be court on thursday, just a slightly shorter schedule. michael cohen has the cross-examination of michael

cohen has begun again. we will bring you the updates in just a moment. first, we are going to say bye to katherine christian, thank you very much. andrew weissmann, thank you as well. we will be right back. the rest of the gang is still here. don't go anywhere. (ella) fashion moves fast. 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. if advanced lung cancer has you searching for possibilities, discover a different first treatment. immunotherapies work with your immune system to attack cancer. but opdivo plus yervoy is the first combination of 2 immunotherapies for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread, tests positive for pd-l1, and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene. opdivo plus yervoy is not chemotherapy, it works differently. it helps your immune system fight cancer in 2 different ways. opdivo and yervoy can cause your immune system to harm healthy parts of your body during and after treatment. these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away

if you have a cough; chest pain; shortness of breath; irregular heartbeat; diarrhea; constipation; severe stomach pain; severe nausea or vomiting; dizziness; fainting; eye problems; extreme tiredness; changes in appetite, thirst or urine; rash; itching; confusion; memory problems; muscle pain or weakness; joint pain; flushing; or fever. these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur together and more often when opdivo is used with yervoy. tell your doctor about all medical conditions including immune or nervous system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, or received chest radiation. your search for 2 immunotherapies starts here. ask your doctor about opdivo plus yervoy. a chance to live longer. since my citi custom cash® card automatically adjusts to earn me more cash back in my top eligible category... suddenly life's feeling a little more automatic. like doors opening wherever i go... [sound of airplane overhead] even the ground is moving for me! y'all seeing this? wild! and i don't even have to activate anything.

oooooohhh... automatic sashimi! earn cash back that automatically adjusts to how you spend with the citi custom cash® card. [mind blown explosion noise]

it's a beautiful... ...day to fly. wooooo! all right. court is back in session. michael cohen is being cross examined by todd blanche, and they're getting into a lot of stuff about michael cohen

cooperating with the sdny. again, when we went to break before court went out, lisa rubin was saying that todd blanche is trying to insinuate that cohen was meeting with the d.a., he was meeting with the sdny because he wanted to get his prison sentence reduced and get out. they're trying to paint him as somebody who will say anything, do anything to help himself. >> he's so desperate at this point that he's lost his meal ticket, donald trump not taking him to washington, he's already lied for donald trump, and now he's turning the lying against donald trump, and he has to. there is no other defense to this michael cohen testimony, which really was quite devastating in a way. he was very composed. he blamed it all on donald trump and said i served for -- i served donald trump, i acted at his direction. he basically convicted donald trump in his direct testimony.

if you credit michael cohen's testimony he's convicted. if you don't, i would argue that it's a circumstantial case that -- and the d.a. is going to argue it's still there but makes it more tricky and gives defense more wiggle room. they have to destroy him and basically just saying you acted for donald trump, you lied for him, and now you're lying against him. >> in our last note it seems like so far they have not destroyed michael cohen. in fact, by all accounts from the people in the room it's going pretty straightforwardly. >> it's just the beginning still. we'll see what happens. >> so that was exactly my question, so where does this have to go from here? they're going to have a little time to get ready for it and consider what they've got and don't have so far in terms of the defense? >> yes. well, it does seem that the strategy here has been to discredit michael cohen. i imagine there will be more of the same and keeping him on the stand for a lengthy period of time the goal is to rattle and wear him down and make him show his true colors. i think the thing that

prosecution has done quite well here in this case throughout is to put in enough supporting document station that even if the jury ultimately says we don't like him, we don't believe him, that there's enough between e-mails and text messages, documents and other witness testimony, that i think there's room for a conviction. i also think that this is a point where it might be a good thing for the prosecution to have those lawyers on the case. i think sometimes, at least this is my gut view as a lawyer, that sometimes jurors who are not lawyers, might decide a case based more on emotion than on logic and these lawyers are going to demand the rigor of logic and i think if you line up the logic, even if you despise michael cohen there's sufficient evidence for a conviction here. >> it's going to be interesting. we're going to say goodbye and leave you with this. blanche just asked michael cohen, you refer to president trump as a cheeto dusted cartoon villain. cohen says sounds like something i would say. do you recall