with four stars and rising stars, northern california's premier casino resort is the perfect place... ...to do as much -or as little- as you want. make your get away now and cache in at cache creek casino resort. good morning, and thank you for joining us. it is 10:00 eastern, i'm ana cabrera bringing you special coverage this morning alongside my friend and colleague, josé diaz-balart. and right now in a manhattan courtroom, michael cohen is back on the stand for a second day of cross examination as donald trump's hush money trial new year's an end. >> a source with direct knowledge told nbc news today's focus for defense will be what they call cohen's repeated lies

under oath. cohen is the last prosecution witness and the question that remains this morning, what, if anything defense will trump's legal team mount? >> nbc's yasmin vossoughian is outside that courthouse. i also want to bring in our legal panel, former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official chuck rosenberg, new york law school professor and director of the school's criminal defense clinic. ana coe min ski and criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor duncan levins. there was a little bit of uncertainty this morning in court, a long bench meeting before the cross examination got underway. bring us up to speed on all of it. >> reporter: the last day week five of this trial, a 19-minute bench meeting at the start of court before the jury was brought in. we don't know what they talked about. once we get the partial transcript out this morning, we're going to figure that out and let you know. a couple of things that have come out so far even just in the last 30 minutes or so, the possibility that they could be

in court next wednesday when it comes to scheduling. remember, we're not in court every wednesday because the judge, i believe, has family court. they say they may have to work through next wednesday barring any issues with the jury, so we'll keep you updated on that, but there's a possibility we could be in session next wednesday as well. remember, we could also be into closing arguments next week considering the fact this is the last witness for the prosecution and whether or not the defense brings up a witness really is in question, the possibility of this election expert to be brought up for the defense's witness. that is one, and of course testimony from the former president of the united states. that's his decision and his decision at the end of the day only, whether or not he testifies, we don't necessarily know yet. so again, a 19-minute bench meeting, and then they brought michael cohen in for, again, cross examination. jose mentioned what they're going to get into today, going after michael cohen's credibility, no surprise there. focusing more on 2016 and 2017. if you remember on tuesday, they talked more about kind of the lead up to 2016 and 2017. they didn't really get into the

meat, the heart of the eventual payoff, right? the heart of the eventual time line leading up to the payoff of stormy daniels and the documents specifically. now it seems they're going to focus more on 2016, 2017, and what they see as repeated lies from michael cohen. that's going to take up the majority of the day. todd blanche, the lead defense attorney, saying he will likely be done with cross by the end of the day. just quickly here, they're talking about d.a. investigator jeremy rosenberg who has subsequently now retired. he had gotten too chummy, it seems to michael cohen. he is the one who went to michael cohen's apartment to retrieve some of his cell phones from him. he had become too chummy with michael cohen for the d.a.'s comfortability. he was relieved from duty at the time. they're showing michael cohen some text messages between himself and jeremy rosenberg, not for anybody else to see, just michael cohen. again, that means they are not admitting this into evidence as of yet. so a lot going on, guys, just in the first 30 minutes of this day

so far. >> yasmin, thanks, stay with us. and let's go to the document to give our viewers a sense of what kind of testimony is coming from michael cohen regarding jeremy rosenberg's texts. blanche asks those texts were around the time you testified before the grand jury. cohen, yes. blanche, about how you were going to hold trump accountable. objection, sustained. cohen, yes. blanche there was a leak that an indictment had been leaked to the media. objection, that one's overruled. blanche, do you remember that prior to the unsealing of the indictment it was leaked that president trump had been indicted? cohen, yes. blanche, detective rosenberg confirmed to you that the "new york times" article article was accurate and that president trump had been indicted. objection, this one's sustained. blanche, did detective rosenberg confirm that it was done? cohen, i'm sorry, i don't understand your question. and they show, again, these text messages. blanche, your testimony in the text that you just read is detective rosenberg identifying

a newspaper article. that's what it says, yes. blanche, detective rosenberg didn't tell you that they told "the new york times" before they told you? and cohen says i'm sorry, i don't understand your questioning. it's confusing. >> interesting because in some of these very direct succinct questions, cohen's answer is, i'm sorry, i don't understand your question. and that's kind of a pattern. blanche, your testimony is that the text that you just read is detective rosenberg identifying a newspaper article. cohen, that's what it says, yes. blanche, detective rosenberg didn't tell you that they told "the new york times" before they told you? again, cohen, i'm sorry, i don't understand your question. it is confusing. blanche, did detective rosenberg tell you before the indictment was released and unsealed that they told "new york times" about the indictment before they told you? cohen, no.

>> so i'm wondering, chuck, why do you think this text exchange between cohen and the district attorney's office would be important for the defense to bring up here? >> yeah, i'm not sure it is, frankly, ana. look, and it's much easier to do a cross examination in a tv studio than in a courtroom, so with that said, i think there's two or three things that you want to deduce on cross from michael cohen. he's biased, he's inconsistent. he's a convicted perjurer. that seems to me to be about it. and if you try to do too much more, and if you take too long to do it, you run the risk of losing the jury. if you could deduce those three points. he's biased, inconsistent, and a convicted perjurer, you can argue the heck out of that in summation. >> ana, the other question and issue is if there is a pattern of someone in the district attorney's office becoming friendly with cohen and sharing

information that was yet to be shared with the public, that would be a line of questioning that could be, i think, very beneficial to the defense. >> well, i'm not totally sure about that. i have to agree, i'm not really sure where they're going, and i think one of the issues here is trying to balance what the client might want done during this cross examination with what needs to be done during this cross examination. so i agree with my colleague here that, you know, really what they need to do is get in and get out, and one of the things that i'm concerned about is if they take too long with this, if they go into too many different stories, the jury is not going to follow it. they're not going to understand what's going on. on the other hand, they may be doing this because of pressure from their client, which doesn't necessarily mean that it's effective for the overall defense strategy. >> and we have to remember that there was a day in between the cross examination that began on tuesday, and so i guess it's

very likely that trump had conversations. >> and if i may, i'm sorry to cut you off. i think ana's exactly right. think about it this way. if you were crossing stormy daniels, what do you want to deduce from her? i think one thing. that she has no idea how the books and records of the trump organization are maintained. she's never seen it done, and she's never talked to anyone who did it. end of story. to your point, it may be that the client here wanted her cross examined on other stuff, stuff by the way that seems to me wholly irrelevant to the case, where they had sex, how they had sex. who cares. if you're going to cross examine a witness, one way to do is to take him or her out of the case entirely. she knows nothing of rem advance -- relevance to the maintenance of the books. >> when you have a client like

this, you know, you're trying to both please the client and do your job, and those don't always line up together. >> let's see how this testimony is going now. blanche asks cohen, you went on cnn in march last year, and you said this case is like david versus goliath, and you were describing yourself as david and trump as goliath. blanche asked the question, cohen, yes, sir. and blanche, when you said that, you were driving yourself as david and the president as goliath, correct? cohen, correct, and you said you have goliath on his back? cohen, sounds right. blanche, may we approach, your honor? merchan, no. so the judge says no. you can't approach. that's interesting. todd blanche continues. rosenberg, referring to the defr from the d.a.'s office. rosenberg complimented you and said fantastic interview. blanche, do you remember going on tv on march 31st going on with joy reid when detective rosenberg complimented you on your interview with joy reid. cohen, yes, sir.

blanche, that was at the same time that the manhattan d.a.'s office was telling you not to do tv, correct? cohen, correct. blanche, right around that time, going on the mea culpa podcast and talking about the indictment. cohen, yes, sir. >> what do you see in this exchange? >> michael cohen does not work for the d.a.'s office and this seems to be one of many different lines of questioning in the cross examination that have emerged over the past day of cross examination. michael cohen didn't take direction from the d.a. he was out there talking. he was upset that he didn't get a job. he was very wealthy. he was so upset when he didn't get a job, he's out to get trump. there's nothing wrong with quote, unquote leaking, and frankly, the d.a.'s office should be objecting to that term. he didn't leak anything. he's a witness, and he's allowed -- if he has information, he is allowed to talk about it. so there's nothing stopping a witness in a criminal investigation from going on a tv show. now, this does obviously play into the fact that the d.a.'s office has these uncontrollable witnesses, much like the defense

attorneys have an uncontrollable client in donald trump. there are uncontrollable witnesses. stormy daniels has been doing podcasts and writing things and so has michael cohen, but michael cohen's direct examination was really devastating for two reasons. one having to do with the case. because in three words, he said he approved it. he turned what was a circumstantial case against donald trump where the prosecution could stand up at the end of the case in front of the jury and say, do you really think that this penny pinching guy who didn't pay his lawyers was just signing these $35,000 checks and had no idea what it was? michael cohen's testimony, if you credit it as a juror, is devastating to that defense case because it makes what was a circumstantial case into a direct case. but it was also worse than that because whereas in the stormy daniels' testimony, donald trump came off kind of as a predator, an icky -- you know, he's sitting there in his robe like

hugh hefner and there was vivid testimony about stormy daniels shaking while she was putting on her gold heeled shoes. now there's such criminality in michael cohen's testimony because michael cohen is saying after his apartment is raided, michael cohen is saying i got you. i'm president the of the united states. the fbi works for me. he's acting like a thug, and while that may not actually bear on the case itself, his testimony is devastating, and this approach to throwing all of this stuff at michael cohen is pretty ineffective. >> and yasmin, right now in the court we're talking podcasts. >> reporter: we are talking podcasts, jose. if you remember on tuesday as well, they brought the mea culpa podcast many times with regards to the fact that michael cohen tends to use the mea culpa podcast to kind of air his grievances. he's somewhat media hungry, how he's talked about donald trump in every single one of these podcasts. they played some audio for folks to hear in the courtroom when it came to donald trump's specific arraignment in april of 2023,

which we were outside at the courthouse for, in which he says michael cohen is thanking the d.a.'s office for his work, and he says, quote, unquote picturing donald trump being led through the booking process fills me with delight. going on to say, sadness as i say because what an embarrassment it is to the office of the presidency, so the of playing this as evidence for both the jury obviously in the courtroom to hear from michael cohen's mea culpa podcast. important to note here, guys, as well, and i think it could be fodder for discussion around the table, which is the difference that we're hearing in michael cohen's answers today versus on tuesday during the initial moments of cross examination in which he seemed more kind of like sounds like me and i think that's me, and i believe so, and can i see that document that you're referring to. today he is being more direct, more straightforward, more terse with his answers saying, yes, no, correct sir. not correct sir, and so on and so forth. so likely getting a talking to

or a coaching from his own personal attorney on the day off on wednesday. >> so after they listen to this podcast, has now accepted that podcast into evidence, and then they're playing part of it to the jury right now. >> if this is all meant to poke holes in the prosecution's case, how is that doing exactly that? >> well, listen, todd blanche is a very experienced attorney, and what i can tell you is i am sure he has a plan. you don't go into a cross examination like this sort of willy nilly. he's been thinking a lot about this. and one thing that i can tell you is -- and i'm interested to see if he can get there and it's really difficult -- you know, what we're seeing right now is a very different cohen than the cohen that we've seen leading up to this trial, right? everyone's been talking about that, how sort of subdued he is. how he's been respectful. he hasn't lost his temper and certainly isn't reflective of how we've seen him in tiktoks

and podcasts. so one of the things that i'll be interested to see is either can the defense provoke him to sort of have one of these more outbursts that may be more in line with how he is normally, and if not, can they show the jury enough of how he is outside of the courtroom to say to them basically jurors, he's putting on a show for you here. this is not who the real michael cohen is. if you want to know who he is, we're showing you. look at this podcast. look at these tweets. >> and listen to the tape, which he's saying on tape, this is cohen on his podcast, i truly expletive hope that this man ends up in prison for the damage that he did to me and my family. revenge is a dish best served cold. you better believe that i want this man to go down and locked inside for what he did to me and my family. then blanche says that wasn't the time of the indictment. cohen, correct. blanche, you testified on tuesday that you did not enjoy prison, did you? cohen, no, sir. blanche, you said you believe

the work you did with prosecutors and book and podcast played a role in the indictment in this case. and cohen says, i took some credit, yes. >> so that, chuck, is an interesting aspect to bring up because, once again, why the insistence on rosenberg, why the insistence on the relationship they had, different than a purely professional one, they became friends in many ways. what is it this could show? >> again, i think it shows somewhat bias, and again, i think there are three ways to cross examine michael cohen, bias, inconsistency, and he's a convicted perjurer. if you pick your themes and stick to your themes, and everything you say and do is related to your themes, you're fine. but here's -- and you know, and i agree with you, todd blanche, everything i hear -- i don't know the guy, but i know people who know the guy, and they say he was a very good prosecutor. i'll accept that, but prosecutors don't get practice doing cross examination.

defense attorneys do, and in order to be great at something, you need reps, repetitions. >> that's something he's done? >> this is only the second trial in which he's served in that role as a defense attorney. he's got lots of experience as a prosecutor. >> that's not a criticism, but in 40 or 50 trials as a federal prosecutor, ana, i rarely did multiple cross examinations in a given trial, and almost never cross examined a defendant. why? because defendants almost never take the stand, so you could be a very good attorney. you could be a very good prosecutor and still be new at this. and i think it's hard for lawyers, people in general, but lawyers in the courtroom particularly with a client like mr. trump, to do the number one thing i was taught to do as a prosecutor, which is make your point, sit down, and shut up. >> which is hard for a lot of people to do, right? >> but duncan, i mean, i'm hearing that he's, you know, questioning him, what we're reading here appears to be more toward the proving his bias

column that chuck just outlined. does it move the ball forward? i mean, they already have cross examined him for hours on tuesday. is this moving the ball forward? >> well, it's a little difficult to criticize the defense at this point because they haven't had the opportunity to put their case on yet. we don't really know what their defense is, but reading the tea leaves, we can start to see what their defense is emerging from their questioning of stormy daniels and some of the other witnesses and particularly michael cohen. they have to deal with the fact that there's an exhibit that has -- i think shows the falsification of records on its face. it's exhibit 35 and exhibit 36, which is on first republic letterhead, and it is a bank statement for essential consultants llc, and it has allen weisselberg, the former cfo's handwriting all over it showing that these reimbursements for cohen were grossed up for taxes. that on its face shows the falsification. what we're getting from the

questions is that the defense is going to basically argue to the jury allen weisselberg and cohen did this on their own. >> we haven't even heard anything about those documents. this is a case about falsification of documents, about doing it in order to cover up what would be an election-related crime as they've expressed, that's the secondary crime. the defense hasn't poked any holes. they haven't talked about 2016, 2017, and this whole transaction at all. >> what they have to do is be able to argue to the jury you cannot convict this man, the defendant, the former president of the united states based on the say-so of michael cohen, and there's no other evidence there, and the prosecution is going to stand up in front of the jury and say, first off, michael cohen is a liar. that's true. but you have to credit him in this instance because he's not lying in this instance. but look at all the other evidence here. look at all the bread crumbs around the trail, which corroborate what he's saying. the defense is, their point is

going to be allen weisselberg and michael cohen did this on their own and our client had nothing to do with it. to that end, if they try to dirty him up and make him look bad, that is going to be helpful to them. now, is it enough? i don't know. they're doing a good job of making him look shifty, of having him -- his answers look a little different than they did on direct, and to that point, again, it's easy to criticize. the prosecution could have done a better job of deflating all of this by bringing out in their direct examination of all the instances michael cohen shows lying. >> right now that wind is for the defense attempting to come back into the sails as the discussion is now in the courtroom about cohen's prior testimony under oath, and let me just go through it. blanche, you know that what was happening when you made these statements over the last couple

of -- sorry, i'm losing it. do you have it here? here it is. several months and that that certainly didn't stop you. cohen, no, sir. blanche, your prior testimony under oath, many depositions over the years before congress seven times. in a trial last fall. two guilty pleas and both of those court hearings you answered questions under oath. cohen, that's correct. was the oath you took then the same oath you took monday morning? yes, sir. >> so, yasmin, we know this history of cohen has been brought up in the trial already. his lies before congress, his lies to federal investigators and so forth. fill in the blanks for us. >> reporter: also his reactions online. i mean, yes, this is part of kind of chipping away at michael cohen's credibility, right? if you remember during direct

examination, they actually mentioned towards the end, by the way, of his testimony, and a lot of legal experts kind of weighed in wondering why it is they didn't talk necessarily why it is michael cohen when he lied under oath, why they didn't bring that up specifically in the beginning of his testimony to kind of get that out of the way. instead the prosecution chose to leave that to the end of his direct examination. but they did talk about how he lied under oath, and if you remember, michael cohen talked a lot about the fact that he was anxious and he was nervous at the time. that was some of his excuses as to why he lied under oath. he also talked about how he kind of still had, even despite the fact that he was now pointing his finger at donald trump, he had, in fact, pled guilty, that he still had this existing loyalty to donald trump, even during the time in which he was lying under oath that. is what he says explains why it is that he lied under oath. that was his explanation when he talked about it with susan

hoffinger under direct. i want to read an exchange that i think it was important when it came to a post made on social media, on truth social specifically that michael cohen responded to. it was in reference to a truth social post that was actually not even an authentic truth social post. it was a fabricated truth social post by donald trump referencing michael cohen as a jailbird. but michael cohen did, nflt, respond to it on x, and here was the exchange. do you remember prosecutors showing this to you. yes, i'm not on truth social, sir, cohen says. you don't have a recollection of responding on x to that truth? cohen says, yes, sir. >> blanche says you responded in kind calling him a name right back? cohen says that is correct. blanche says you called him an expletive donald, sounds correct, cohen says. we talked a little about your statements on podcast and tiktok. on april 21st of 2024, you said you have mental excitement about the fact that this trial is

starting. cohen says, yes, sir. so again, it is thematic, guys, to what todd blanche is going for, right? you are gunning for donald trump. you have an axe to grind for your former boss because he didn't give you the position in the white house that you actually wanted, so you don't have any loyalty to him anymore, and you're a liar. hence why they're getting into now him lying under oath. and joining us now, justice and legal affairs analyst, anthony coley, former senior adviser to attorney general merrick garland. inside the courtroom, they're going into cohen's sworn promise to say the truth. >> and the fact that he didn't. so let's read the transcript here. blanche, each time you met with a federal agent, you were told a false statement would be a federal crime? cohen, yes, sir. blanche, early on in that meeting, you were told you can't lie to these agents. you have to tell the truth or something like that, correct?

cohen, correct. your testimony in 2017 before the house select committee on intelligence, that is one of the times that you have lied under oath. cohen, that's correct. blanche, just so everyone's clear about how that transpired, you submitted a two-page later in advance of your testimony, correct? and blanche, on that occasion you lied about the moscow project. cohen, yes, sir. a couple of different times, lies. cohen, correct. blanche, the number of times you spoke to president trump, did you tell the committee you never agreed to travel to russia in connection to that project and you never even considered asking president trump to travel to russia. cohen, correct. and those are the three lies from 2017, blanche asks? cohen, yes, sir. anthony, you're a coms guy, what do you make of this back and forth? >> so interesting. i think what we -- what i am looking for we haven't seen michael cohen do right now is that explain that these lies were in service to donald trump. that's what -- >> and he did do that when it

was direct. >> exactly. >> testimony. but not yet. >> this is what i think is going to happen outside the courtroom now. right? we have half a dozen members of congress who are poised to go to the cameras and i suspect that they're going to pick up this line of questioning explaining and trying to muddy up michael cohen in a way that donald trump would do if he was able to do it. so that's what i think we're going to see coming up. >> inside the courtroom now, blanche continues with that line of questioning. let me just go through some of it. you knew at the time you were lying under oath. cohen, yes, sir, and you said the reason was because of your loyalty for president trump. cohen, yes. blanche, when you met with the special counsel on the 7th of august the next year, and lied again about those same three topics including the moscow meetings, the respect of the trump moscow project, yes, sir. you lied under oath, and you lied again where you met with

the special counsel on august the 7th. cohen, correct. you did not plead guilty and never pled guilty to any of those lies. cohen, correct. blanche, to be fair, you were truthful with sentencing about the fact that you lied. cohen, yes. when is this establishing that the guy lied going to continue? in other words, chuck, okay, he's saying, yeah, i lied. i lied to liars. i lied to lies. i've had this, but he's acknowledging this. when do you continue beating this issue? >> and to anthony's point he lied for liars in service to others who lied. i would tell mr. cohen if i were the prosecutor preparing him for direct and cross answer the questions on cross the way you answer the questions on direct, politely, truthfully, and succinctly. if i as the prosecutor think there's a problem with something you said on cross, i the prosecutor will clean that up on

redirect. this is not the time to argue with mr. blanche. this is time to answer his questions. this is pretty routine, by the way, jose. the government unfortunately, right, meets lots of liars in their work. when you're a prosecutor, that's who you deal with, liars and thieves, and criminals and all sorts of rotten people, so putting another rotten person on the stand is par for the course. again, the argument, of course, and it sounds cliched and trite, but it is the argument, is that we the government didn't pick mr. cohen, donald trump did, and you'll hear that in closing. >> ana, i can't he know but just notice the difference in not only how todd blanche is asking questions, but in how cohen is responding to those questions today compared to the other day where it was more combative, where todd blanche seemed to be trying to like poke him in the eye and cohen was trying to evade him, and, you know, wouldn't admit to a lie being a

lie, and cohen would answer questions instead of yes or no, he would say sounds like something i would say. why do you think there's been this change from both of them? >> well, listen, one of the benefits in particular for the defense of how things ended on tuesday was they had an entire day, more than a day, to reflect on what happened. they're getting daily transcripts. we know. we're seeing them, and so they're able to take literally hours and hours and hours to reflect on what they've done, but what they haven't done. how the jury might have, you know, perceived what was happening, how effective it was. so for instance, i can imagine that, you know, the defense attorneys thought, okay, if we go this way, we might be able to provoke cohen. if it didn't work the way they thought, they've had this time to rethink it. on the same -- on the other hand, cohen has had that opportunity as well. he's been able to think about it. he's been able to read the transcript, and look at how his answers may have sounded, may have looked to the jury, and thought about that as well. >> doug, and just -- i'm just

struck by it because i'm not regularly in courtrooms. the insistence like over and over and over again about you're a liar, yes. you lied, yes. how many times can you do that and the jury not say, okay. i get it. i get your point. all right. what's the next question? >> sometimes trials are a little boring and a little bit of overkill. they have to get this stuff into evidence because they have to stand up at the end of the trial and say to the jury he lied on 75 different occasions. that has to be in everyday. we have to establish that on cross examination: we get it, he's a liar, but they need to prove it. they're going after the weakness in the case. there are certain elements of this case that are proven, and the d.a. has put in all of the evidence that it needs even without michael cohen, they've

proven the false business records, they've shown it on the face. they've shown the intent to defraud the voters. they've done an effective job of showing this expertise between the "national enquirer" and david pecker and michael cohen and donald trump that puts donald trump right in the middle of it, even without cohen's testimony to conspire to break the campaign finance laws. the weakness in the case is that donald trump didn't know about the false business records, that this was done in the back office. he wasn't paying attention to it. he dnt know that the books were being reflected this way. this guy is the president of the united states. he's busy. he's not paying attention to how these things are being reflected in the books and records of the trump organization, and the person who can destroy that for him is michael cohen. he's showing you cannot convict somebody based on the say so of a liar. is he lying today? was he lying yesterday? we don't know. they're going after this weakness in the case. i don't know that it's going to be enough because what michael

cohen is saying is so well corroborated, but if you could knock out cohen on his credibility, that is a major step forward to be able to argue to the jury you cannot convict based on what he's saying. >> and knock out cohen on credibility is really the name of the game here. they are trying to provoke this man to get some type of rise out of him. i think what they don't appreciate is that he has been subjected to more hostile questioning when he appeared in front of congress and you've got the jim jordans of the world who is not a shrinking wall flower by any stretch of the imagination. this guy didn't break, so as good as blanche, i think what we are seeing here is michael cohen is reserved and he is holding his own in a way that i don't think they anticipated. >> and maybe by bringing in -- sorry, ana, go ahead. >> no, i was going to say, our vaughn hillyard has some color about how the jury is reacting to this cross examination. vaughn, what are you learning?

>> right, our colleague laura jarrett is saying from inside the courtroom, she's watching the jurors and making very direct eye contact with michael cohen. this is reflective of what i watched with my own eyes on tuesday where they were all -- the entire jury box was looking repeatedly between todd blanche and michael cohen back at todd blanche, back to michael cohen, and an engaged jury here. this is also as laura was stating here, this back and forth in which todd blanche is getting michael cohen to acknowledge that he repeatedly lied over the course of years to fbi agents as well as congressional investigators that this is a dispassionate back and forth, that this is not a loud quick back and forth between these two men, a hostile environment. instead it is one that is being stated very emotionless inside of the courtroom here, which kind of michael cohen has remained through his three days

of testimony very consistent on, and this is the question that was going to be of michael cohen under cross examination more intense focus of his past lies and acknowledgment of those lies. would the jury see the man who the defense attorneys for donald trump is the man seeking revenge and just wants donald trump in jail even if it means not telling the truth in order to do so. >> just wondering for those members of the jury who have been sitting through the testimony, the ups and downs, the excitement versus less excit exciting. when you have someone like cohen who will -- clearly is able to stick to the answers, no off the rails as we've heard in the last couple of days and other maybe possible testimony, that jury is seeing michael cohen say, yes, i

lied, but i don't have reason now to lie and to bring it back to duncan's case, how do you tie that in when cohen is the other one and weisselberg is the only one that's there, and he's not anywhere near this. >> what's interesting is that this conversation is not happening in a silo, right? this is a part of a broad narrative arc that we've been seeing play out over the last three weeks, and if you think about this case, right, it has three phases. the first phase and the end phase where we are now with the summation, it starts with donald trump in the room. it starts in april, august of 2016, just weeks after trump announced that he was running for president. with this meeting in trump tower where he and michael cohen and david pecker decided that they would hatch this catch and kill scheme. trump was in the room, we've got the motivation. the through line from that point up until the middle phase, we

got a real sense here of how the scheme played out. that's where the documents came into play, and we got a real sense about the motivation in even more real ways. and now we're at the final phase. i say all of that because this conversation is not happening in a silo, and it is easy for real people on this jury to understand. i'm talking about people, there are only two of them who are lawyers. no disrespect to lawyers on this panel, but you don't need a law degree to follow the ins and outs of this case. it's easy to understand. >> but has the defense offered an alternative narrative at all? >> you know, i haven't seen it in any real way. i'm not sure what some of the lawyers have to say, but i don't think they have landed any body blows. >> do they have to, though? >> against michael cohen, if they're going to be successful. they really only need one or two people to just pump the brakes and say i just don't think there's enough to convict here.

so perhaps that's the argument. >> they're hanging their hat on a convicted liar and another witness, allen weisselberg who's nowhere to be found. can you really convict this man based on the say-so of a convicted liar and a man who the d.a.'s office didn't even call. that's going to be their argument. so they really have to knock out michael cohen to be able to make that argument. >> well, there's an interesting moment that just happened right now in the courtroom. blanche asks nobody induced you or threatened you to plead guilty, correct? and then according to our reporters, there's a long pause. then cohen answers. as i stated previously, i was provided with 48 hours within which to accept the plea or the southern district of new york was going to file an 80 page indictment that included my wife, and i elected to protect my family. and he goes on to say never denied the underlying facts and i do not believe that i should have been criminally charged after those offenses.

but, chuck, that long pause, does that send a message to jurors? >> i don't think so. look, you know, i've had this come up more than once when i was talking a guilty plea as a federal prosecutor. the judge will ask and the colloquy and the exchange with the defendant, has anyone threatened you or promised you something in return for your plea? and some defendants either don't quite understand that question or balk at it, and i've had a defendant actually say to the judge in that circumstance, well, that guy over there pointing at me said he was going to indict me if i didn't plead guilty, and the judge would say in return, ana, that's not a threat. that's a promise. and so maybe that's what mr. cohen was wrestling with, the southern district of new york plea colloquy, the exchanges between the judges would sound very much like the ones in the eastern district of virginia where i prosecuted. it's not a threat. it's a promise.

it may not have felt that way to cohen. telling someone that if you don't plead guilty i'm going to charge you is perfectly okay. >> yasmin vossoughian, perfectly okay, but yet a shock to everybody's system, no doubt. >> it's a shock to the system no doubt, but it's not a threat. >> yasmin. >> reporter: yeah, so michael cohen has always disputed the way in which he felt as if he was forced to plead guilty, and they actually addressed this, if you remember during the direct, which is why it's so important with these transcripts that the jury can look back at these transcripts to remember, to understand some of these kind of more minute issues. hoffinger tried to address this towards the end of the direct testimony, in which he talked about how during this 48-hour period he felt as if he should have been given more time. he was a practicing attorney. he had no priors. it was only 48 hours. the magnitude to which this would affect his life. he has always disputed kind of to what chuck was just talking about, the way in which the time

line he was given to come up with a plea here, and then he goes on to say, guys, and i think it's important to note this, i've never denied the underlying facts that i do not believe that i should have been criminally charged after those offenses. so it's more about the way in which he was -- the time in which he was given to plea versus what he was actually charged for. one more thing i think is important to talk about that they addressed here is they talked about the lying to judge pauly when it came to the tax evasion. they basically said, listen, you were sworn in just like you were in this court, under oath in judge pauley's court and you continued to lie. kind of alluded to the fact that why wouldn't you be doing the same thing here. i imagine in redirect, hoffinger is going to address that, and she's going to go through all the things michael cohen has lost. $1.3 million you've had to pay, your taxi medallions, your law license as well. the only way michael cohen is

making money is what he's literally being questioned about numerous times during this testimony. it's his podcast. it's his media appearances, and it's his book deals. so i imagine during redirect, hoffinger is going to address, you have lost so much, so what would you have to lose in this court today by lying. and michael cohen will likely say nothing. >> joining our conversation, msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos. this is a very interesting line of questioning about what yasmin was just bringing up. this is a moment when later the prosecution can say this here is when you've got most to lose or less to lose. how do you think that the defense has been able to do so far in this part? >> you're talking about michael cohen agreeing to plead guilty and the whole i was coerced. the great chuck rosenberg stole some of my thunder before i got out here.

he made a great point which i wanted to talk about. for me guilty plea hearings are have harrowing. has anyone promised you or threatened you to accept this plea. in a defendant's mine, heck yeah, i'm being threatened with prosecution. yeah, it feels very coercive, and i can't tell you how often a plea hearing will stop and the judge says you've got to go talk to your guy, and then you come back and work everything out because it's really difficult for defendants to make the distinction between hey, i'm pleads guilty pursuant to a deal but it feels like i've been threatened into doing it. because guess what, being prosecuted is really threatening. that's something that is fair game for exploration on cross examination. in fact, all of this is perfectly fair game. and again, going back to something chuck said earlier if you take a step back and listen to michael cohen, he's not even close to the worst of the worst when it comes to witnesses prosecutors have to deal with. a lot of these people are convicted killers, people who use guns. people who use drugs.

they have horrible credibility issues, and yet, the government will use them because cooperating witnesses work. they've worked for centuries. the jury is willing to say, this is somebody who has flaws. he's not a perfect person, but he's believable. and look, after all, the government makes a very valid point, which is the defendant chose to do business with a guy like michael cohen. donald trump, i expect you're going to hear some version of this in the closing. donald trump needed sycophants. he needed people who are morally compromised, he needed his roy cohn and he found it in michael cohen. that's who he chose. he chose michael cohen because that's who he needed. that's why you should believe michael cohen. even if you don't fully trust him, he is to be believed. they're going to clean that up. >> let me get us back into the courtroom right now and the document here, and cohen says, you know, i never denied the underlying facts. i do not believe i should have

been criminally charged after those offenses, and blanche continues, you felt that if you county make a decision immediately your wife was going to be indicted. cohen, that's what i was told. they spoke with my lawyer. blanche, the only basis you believed your wife was going to be indicted is because that's what they told you? cohen, correct. blanche, i didn't ask you if you accepted responsibility. i asked you if you said under oath to judge pauley that anyone induced you to plead guilties. cohen, correct, and blanche says that was a lie? cohen says that was not true. correct. so again, some of this for our viewers just full disclosure here is a little messy with our transcript because it's not, you know, directly from the court reporter's fingertips, it's from ours, and we're working as fast as we can in the courtroom to get the verbatim. if there's a word missing here or there, that's probably why. what i'm wondering as a defense attorney, where does this go next? what does the defense need to do beyond proving to the jury cohen's a liar? >> they need to prove that not

only is he a liar but that their client had nothing to do with any of this, and so they're going to need to dismantle cohen first, and then they're going to need to show why all of the other pieces of evidence that the d.a.'s office is going to suggest corroborate what cohen is saying actually are wrong also. they were trying to do it with stormy daniels on a different point on this conspiracy point of -- and it back fired. i think the stormy daniels cross examination was really one of a different era, they tried to for lack of a better term kind of slut shame her into -- and i think that back fired on them, and so i think they're taking a different tact with their cross examination of michael cohen. they're trying to dismantle his record of lying so that they can put it out there to the jury and save it for their argument to the jury, but they have a lot to contend with. they have got to deal with the other pieces of evidence that corroborate what he's saying because the fact is that even liars tell the truth sometimes, and that's what the d.a.'s

office is going to argue. he's a liar. he's lied on many occasions, but he's telling the truth now, and you can believe him because what he's saying is corroborated by text messages, by emails, by the testimony of stormy daniels, by the testimony of his banker who said he was calling his pants were on fire as he was trying to set up this bank account, essential consultants to pay stormy daniels. >> the hope hicks testimony, the checks that were signed by donald trump and so forth. >> and michael cohen's voice has come into this trial on so many different occasions before michael cohen ever testified. hope hicks was testifying how unbelievable it was when michael cohen said -- he had a conversation -- she had a conversation with donald trump right after this came out, and donald trump said, yeah, michael cohen just paid this money out of the goodness of his heart. and hope hicks said that doesn't sound like the michael cohen that we all know. everybody was testifying that michael cohen was a difficult guy to work with, that he was a jerk. his banker said that.

stormy daniels' attorney keith davidson said that, and so there's a record of everybody saying that he's a liar, that he's a jerk, he's hard to deal with. it's really not a surprise to the jury at this point that this testimony is coming out. it portrays him exactly as everyone else portrays him. >> which you have to be mindful of the jury's time, i would think. >> interesting because there may be a little bit of a contrast in how that portrayal is and how he is acting in the courtroom the last couple of days. going back into the courtroom now, blanche is going into specifically cohen's book called "revenge", and blanche says when you wrote that book, you called the tax charges bogus, and 100% inaccurate. cohen, i believe that i should not have been charged. yes, sir. you said the doj is 100% inaccurate and sdny prosecutors knew it. yes, sir. blanche, you believe you did it, not engage in tax fraud, but you had to plead guilty to protect your wife and your family?

correct. again, danny, once again reaffirming that concept of why cohen decided to turn when he did. what do you think -- and thinking about this, danny, what is it that the defense and the prosecution has to do to define or explain what weisselberg is not there. in other words, each side has to. >> it's not uncommon. that happens in a case. you're sitting at the defense table, you're like well, we can't use that defense anymore. you have to come up with whatever theories are still available, and the allen weisselberg empty chair defense i expect to be a prominent part of the defense's closing, and going back to your question, it's all about the burden.

the prosecution has the burden, and when allen weisselberg's handwriting is, again, duncan stole my thunder, literally and figuratively, all over the exhibit, then you have an argument, you can put that up on the elmo or whatever the imaging equipment is and say to the jury, you know, look, this is allen weisselberg's handwriting. why isn't he here? why didn't the prosecution call this witness? what were they hiding? the defense has no such burden to call allen weisselberg or put on evidence about allen weisselberg. they can just wait until closing and pot shot everything that the prosecution did. so i think this is going to emerge as a major theme, the absence of allen weisselberg, and going back to the cross examination of michael cohen, i think it's helpful to take a step back and think about what are the goals of cross examination, and i think a lot of people have a misconception about the goals of cross examination, and i blame the movie "a few good men" and movies like that. they create this expectation that there's going to be this moment of high drama where a

witness breaks down and they'll see the error of your ways. >> they won't say you can't handle the truth. >> i grew up thinking there would be tons of that when i went to law school. the reason for that is this. you don't need that in cross. really what you're looking for is concessions. concessions achieved through the use of leading questions, questions, which are for the most part answered yes or no. right. basically the lawyer is testifying and you're asking the witness to rubber stamp it at the end. you get these concessions, you make note of it on your legal pad, and then closing, summation is when you can argue those. if your style is fire and brimstone or if it's more muted, whatever the case may be, once you have those concessions, you make the argument in closing. you don't look to your witness, especially a hostile witness to make those concessions for you because they're never going to do it. >> joining us right going to do it. >> joining us right now is retired judge phyllis cote. i want to get your perspective on how the cross examination is going. what do you make of the

defense's approach? >> it is very interesting to listen to the comments made thus far. i think they really point out that the crux of the issue. you have a jury sitting there listening to repeated questions that appear to make the same point. but that is what the defense needs to do at this point in order to be able to argue in closing why their version or their position as to what is happening is taking place. i think from a theoretical or television standpoint, we do look for these a-ha moments. but as a judge, you're looking to whether these questions being asked go to bias, credibility, you know, it has been established the fact he's a convicted felon and all of these things are relevant and open for questioning and should be asked on defense. >> chuck, what do you think? >> i would like to go back to something danny said. i completely agree with him, i wanted to supplement, by the way, if we use a movie

reference, you do not see "a few good men" moments in any trial, but in "my cousin vinny," the use of lisa esposito was spot on. you can get michael cohen to agree he has animus, that he hates donald trump, he would like him to go to jail, he lied under oath. you can get him to concede all of those things, but the thing that is not going to happen in cross in real life is for michael cohen to say, i'm lying here at trial, i made all this up, it will never happen. so you take the concessions as danny articulated, you put them down on your legal pad and you hit the heck out of them in closing. and so the best cross examinations tend to be short cross examinations. i don't know a federal judge in front of whom i practiced who would let me do this for 2 1/2 days, no way, no how. and you said something very interesting earlier about being respectful of the jury, being

mindful of the jury and their time. i think, and this is my bias, that you can do this cross examination in 45 minutes, sit down against my point earlier, shut up, and hit it in closing. >> what do you think about that, judge? is this going on too long, is this the most effective way -- you sat in a lot of courtrooms, you have seen a lot of cases, is this the way to go? >> you know, i see it all the time, where people kind of till that dead horse or beat that dead horse with cross examinations that go on too long, too far. i think one can argue that it has been established already that he's a liar, that whether we have him admitted five times or 25 times or 250 times does not really carry any more effectiveness. and it is a thought that the defense has to give. one of the things we talk about is keep it short, stupid, when i

teach trial practice. those closings that are most effective are crosses are ones that are short and to the point. because once you established he's a liar, you get to argue that and argue that in closing without having wasted the jury's time with establishing it 25 more times. >> and, judge, what are your thoughts on going forward now what the defense may or may not do and decide to do going forward after the cohen testimony completes? >> well, i think one of the things we have to keep in mind that in a criminal proceeding it is the defendant's absolute right to testify or not testify. they make those decisions in consultation with their attorney, but ultimately that is the greatest consideration that we have going on or going forward from the presentation of the evidence. will they present any testimony in evidence and will the defendant testify? and one of the things that the

judge will have to be careful about, and you see this happening, we saw it with the issues about the gag order is whether that defendant will then say or not understand or suggest that they do not understand the crux of what is being said, of what is being asked. when you say you decided not to testify, that's a full understanding that you have a right to do that, it is your right and you make that decision in consultation with your attorney, so that you don't have the defendant later saying i wanted to testify, but that judge didn't let me. >> and in your experience, judge, how often does a defendant testify in his own defense? >> rarely, if ever. and i say that because certainly the prosecution carries the burden of proof, and to the extent that holes can be filled by a defendant who decides to testify and that prosecutor can

then cross-examine or get information and questions in, that previously could not have been asked or evidence that previously could not have been introduced, i think more defendants tend not to testify than testify in a criminal trial. >> i also wonder if the factors are there in this case, if you see any reason for donald trump to take the stand then? >> i think that the question really is not whether they're reasons to take the stand, but whether they're reasons not to take the stand and i think he -- the danger in what the prosecution will be able to ask, the areas of testimony or inquiry that would then be fair game are too vast and i think certainly stands in a position that he might be hurt by the introduction of that evidence if

he takes the stand because there would be no way to stop it and stop those questions as long as they're legally admissible. >> judge phyllis cote, thank you for being with us, appreciate your time. >> thank you, judge. and so let's go back into the document right now, because they're continuing with this theme of casting cohen as a liar and proving that to the jury right now and blanche asks, you were asked if you would lie more than once in front of judge pauley. cohen, correct. blanche, the reason you lied is because the stakes affected you personally. cohen, yes. blanche, no doubt you know what perjury mean. cohen, i know what perjury means. blanche, he goes on, a ew months after your guilty plea, you testified in congress. cohen, yes. even blanche seems to be acknowledging here, i'm jumping

around and, jury, stay with me, essentially. >> so, the question right now is he trying to have the jury follow what he's doing or is his goal to put cohen off his game? and it seems like right now he might be saying i can score more points if i can throw cohen off, even if the jury can't follow me right now, because, again, going to what some of the points that have been made already, we have to remember that this all gets put together in summation. so, ideally, right, in our perfect cross examinations as defense attorneys, we're able to tell the story through the witness and we're able to have the jury follow along. but, usually they're not following every single thing that we're saying, they're not following every point that we're trying to score, and it is our job to come to them during summation and say, remember when you heard this or remember when i showed you that? this is how i'm going to tie it all together for you. and so, i think part of the issue here is there is just so many topics, so many things that he has to cover, i think generally speaking it is one of the biggest issues for this case

overall. there is a lot here, so many little stories, so many characters how the jury is actually going to harness all this is an issue for both sides during summation. >> i'm not going on the stop watch, we're coming up to one hour essentially of the defense asking essentially one question over and over again, in different ways. >> well, the one thing they're doing that i think is effective in their cross examination that they blew on the stormy daniels cross examination is they're not asking the ultimate question, you're lying here today, they're saving it to tell the jury. what i thought was a critical mistake in the cross examination of stormy daniels, they asked her, it is true you made this all up, right? you're lying. and she came up with a zinger that i think is going to stay with everybody which is, if i were making this up, i would have made up a way better story. this is true. what i'm telling is the truth and this happened. i think they're not asking the ultimate question, they're just

trying to put down all of the information so that they can later argue to the jury this guy is a liar. i don't think that it gets to the elements of the offense and that's going to be ultimately the problem for them is that it is -- the fact he's a liar, everybody knows he's a liar and doing it five times or 20 times or 70 times, it is something they have to do because they're doing their job, they're laying down the foundation for their closing argument, that he lied on x number of occasions and they are going to once again run the jury through every single occasion in their closing arguments, you better believe it. the question is at the end of the trial, will the jury say we can't convict the former president of the united states based en what michael cohen is saying. >> if you're the prosecutor here, are you happy with how this cross examination is going or is there something that you're saying, okay, we got to clean this up on redirect? >> probably a little bit of both. first of all, as the prosecutor, you would have spent hours and hours and hours with mr. cohen doing mock cross