norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... that's like $20 a month per unlimited line... i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more.

doc? about the stormy daniels hush money deal. todd blanche repeating the word lie or lying 35 times so far while questioning cohen. i'm chris jansing, alongside my colleague andrea mitchell. >> constantly trying to pin the blame on someone else and he's being asked to answer for past statements where he celebrated the idea of seeing his former

boss behind bars. >> i want to bring back our panel, vaughn hillyard, danny cevallos, catherine christian, and jeremy soland. okay, jeremy, i just got new statistics in, are you ready? are you sitting down? >> i am sitting. >> the total cohen time on the stand, 12 hours, 52 minutes. total cohen cross, 4 hours and 40 minutes. high point, low point so far that the jurors may take away from this? >> i think the low point, depending how you're defining this is the cross. i don't think the cross has hammered home what the defense wants to hammer home. the high point for the prosecution is he was contrite, yeah, he lied. again, may not want him to be your neighborhood or date your daughter, but he told you what it is, and you know what, we can back it up with hope hicks within reason, phone call logs and documents within reason. it's going well for the prosecution. proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we'll see. it's going well. >> 13 hours is what we're

approaching and we have a little ways to go about what you expected. does it just feel long? >> i had colleagues that would give six hour summations and acquittals, she spoke for six hours. so i think the prosecution and susan hoffinger, it's her witness, is pretty happy now. it's not over yet. i think todd blanche will make a mistake. he said it's going to go to the end of the day today, to bring it to the end of the day today. unless there's something new we don't know about, and i don't think there is, less is more, and there probably won't be much of a redirect. >> and vaughn hillyard, you're there at the courthouse, you have had a parade of house republicans today, the speaker yesterday, which was controversial. and he made some statements, scott long on the hill interviewed him afterwards and he repeated some statements from donald trump about the whole area being warded off and according to your reporting, there have been about 20 people there, you know, pro trump

supporters, but nobody is blocking them from getting anywhere close. in any case, so today you've got sort of a parade of stars. i use that in air quotes, lauren, matt gaetz, far right caucus, right? >> reporter: you had these individuals, matt gaetz, lauren boebert, bob good, eli crane, andy biggs leave the courtroom and address reporters, and essentially critique and attack judge merchan's family. attack stormy daniels, attack michael cohen as a liar. you had them attacking the pitchers and umpires involved in this case, but largely, there was no direct defense of the battered donald trump from the underlying allegations. and when it came time to attempt to ask them questions about those underlying facts and after calling michael cohen a liar, to attempt to question them on statements that donald trump had

made related to this case, they quickly left the scene and there was no opportunity to ask them questions. these are the same group of individuals who said that they came voluntarily to defend donald trump. the republican nominee. we are now less than two months from the republican national convention, and these individuals, you know, i think it's important to note much like we saw with speaker johnson, senators vance and scott come out here, they really filled the void that donald trump under the gag order was not able to do. so i'm going to attack those individuals who are so crucial to this case. >> and, vaughn, there's a whole web of false facts being paraded out there, and you know, on the internet and a lot of misinformation by the supporters, by some of the supporters, a lot of conspiracy theories, one perpetrated by newsmax, which was dan goldman from manhattan said that he had deposed michael cohen, you know, in the past.

he was talking about when he was the staff lawyer for the first trump impeachment committee, and that was on the moscow piece of this, not on all of the rest of this case. this case in particular. but that was picked up by newsmax as somehow democratic congressman dan goldman was helping to depose and prep michael cohen for his cross-examination or for his testimony, so someone you know very well and have covered for years, kari lake, the senate candidate, republican senate candidate in arizona, she seized on that and said, you see, you know, there's this whole conspiracy to try to make michael cohen look good, in other words, that congressman goldman was preparing him for his testimony, which he certainly was not. and that's how these things get woven. >> this is all part of they're saying that they're all part of saying this is a coordinated effort between the democrats and the white house, democrats on capitol hill, daniel goldman wasn't a member of congress at the time in 2019, when he was

working as the lead counsel for the first impeachment inquiry into donald trump back in 2019. but kari lake is somebody who propagates this conspiracy, this is an entanglement. frankly, what we heard from others, matt gaetz and lauren boebert, again, was repeated attacks on judge merchan, and particularly the daughter, donald trump is not getting a fair shake. the question i was going to ask these individuals is whether they thought the jurors in this case could be fair and impartial because it's the jurors who are ultimately going to determine the verdict of whether donald trump is guilty or not. not judge merchan, as has been repeatedly implied by the surrogates that are coming out on donald trump's behalf. >> i want to get back to the case, and i'll start with you, if you want to chime in, you certainly can. when you see what's happening, when there are people who are elected officials here in the

united states, and who trash the system, say it's not fair. who have extraordinarily unkind and untrue things to say about certain individuals who are trying to do their jobs, as someone who works within the system, is it just so much noise? or would you acknowledge that this is not something that ought to be happening right now. >> it shouldn't be happening. it's an attack on a rule of law. i find it shameful on the attacks on kids. nothing to do with this case. you have the speaker of the house of representatives. it's one thing, one no name congressperson but the speaker of the house of representatives. it's upsetting for someone who's part of the criminal justice system to see this outside of new york's largest criminal court. >> i didn't mean to interrupt. to say that is what has really upset a lot of democrats on the hill because he's in line for

the -- second in line for the presidency, in the line of succession, involving, you know, every aspect of foreign policy and intelligence. and a man who, you know, ran on his morality and a couple of years ago was criticizing donald trump for extramarital affairs and for his lack of faith. >> wait until the case is over, whatever the verdict is, and then express your opinion, but in the middle of an ongoing trial, elected officials, to do that is just shameful. >> do you see it as an end around the gag order on donald trump so they can say what he can't? >> i believe it is. you're never going to prove it was done at his behest or direction. my heart rate gets ticked up. if i had a heart rate monitor on, it would go through the roof. i think it's so reprehensible what they do outside the courtroom, it's disgusting and putrid, and i could go through all sorts of words. innocent in the courtroom, absolutely, until if and when it's proven guilty.

what they are doing outside the courtroom is so selfish and disgusting to tear down the system and trust and belief in the system because they're unhappy, because they want that loyalty that donald trump wrote about in his book. the governor of one of the dakotas, it's certainly not like shooting your dog but coming here and shooting up the proverbially, not literally, and i shouldn't use that term, making that reference, you're doing damage to the belief in the system. that's reprehensible, for what. for what? >> i raise one more point on this on all the extraneous noise and this is from a republican, a highly respected republican, former nominee for president who did an extraordinary interview with stephanie ruhle last night. all of you lawyers on this, the first thing that joe biden should have done to make himself be bigger was to pardon to call

the attorney general and say don't prosecute. interfering with bill barr as attorney general, and which joe biden as head of the judiciary committee, and, you know, as being so careful. i mean, he's not gone into the trial at all except to say in his taunts yesterday about the debate, i hear you're free on wednesdays. that was the closest he came. in any case he said that he should have interfered with the attorney general and then he said he should have pardoned him, pulled a jerry ford, richard nixon, i would love to hear what the table has to say about that, danny. >> you took the jerry ford/nixon comment right out of my mouth. that's the first thing i was thinking of, which is look, pardons are almost by definition, controversial, you are undoing the hard work and efforts of the department of justice. i can't think of a pardon that isn't on some level controversial, everyone wants a pardon when they're in the hot

seat. pardons won't apply in this case, this is a stay case. not dealing with federal pardons, the president couldn't pardon if he wanted to. look, go back to nixon and ford, they are always controversial. >> it's contradictory, gerald ford, i got to know him well. he told me why he felt that was the most honorable thing he had done. that is an outlying opinion. i get that. let's bring in msnbc host of "the last word" lawrence o'donnell. he's been until the courtroom. we have been talking about the mitt romney interview with stephanie ruhle last anything.

>> i'm aware of mitt romney being the pardon advocate. history has proved the absurdity of this position. it wasn't terribly shocking when gerald ford issued the pardon to nixon. people felt it was a reasonable thing to do. it was a substantial segment of the population, half that disagreed with the pardon, and what history has shown is that pardon taught donald trump that presidents can get away with anything. that is the long-term damage, and advocating a pardon for the most criminal pardon that anyone has ever seen just put mitt romney into a level of obliviousness of where we are in trump world that was kind of shocking. >> can i ask you another kind of political question, and i'm going to read this directly from "the new york times," and we were discussing earlier before

you came out the parade, it's like ten people from the house, people there supporting donald trump who believe that he's being railroaded. as "the new york times" points out, house republicans had a vote scheduled for this afternoon to rebuke president biden for his decision to pause an armed shipment to israel. the bill is designed to divide democrats and embarrass mr. biden and have no chance of passing the senate or becoming law, but so many republicans demonstrating their fealty to mr. trump, they left open the possibility that the party's own messaging bill could be defeated. i'll let you take that one. >> there's that old phrase that comes from parliament. back venture. someone who's not a relevant player in the parliament or the congress, the back bencher. most of those cases that you just saw in that photograph were to their shock relegated to

literally the back bench of the courtroom because there wasn't enough space in the first two rows where the secret service occupy a couple of seats and the eric trump frequently occupies a seat, and other trump supporters occupy some seats. only a couple of them got into that front row space. matt gaetz is one of them who got into the front row space. a good six or seven of them, i couldn't recognize without their congressional pins on their lapels. and so they didn't, i think, get the treatment inside the courtroom that they were hoping for, but the whole game for them was what they were going to say to the microphones outside the courtroom. >> let me ask you about what happened inside the courtroom. right before the judge called lunch, todd blanche seemed to be building into a kind of crescendo. he was raising his voice, at least according to our document, and he was trying to make the point that he believed michael cohen was lying about this phone

call where he supposedly told donald trump that these hush money payments had been made to stormy daniels. they're saying, no, this was really just a call about a 14-year-old prankster who was making phone calls. tell us your feeling as you were watching it and what you observed and was that a moment where todd blanche seemed to be connecting? >> oh, by far it's the most important and biggest point the defense has scored so far. there's nothing else comes close to comparing to it. so, you know, a couple of hours this morning. most of it was in an irrelevant space, but it was on the credibility issue of michael cohen, which for the defense really is the entire area that they want to concentrate on. what was crucial about this testimony is this testimony was about stormy daniels, and about the stormy daniels payoff, and about michael cohen credibility.

and there's a phone call at 8:02 p.m. that was identified in the log, phone logs the other day by the prosecution, direct examination of michael cohen. michael cohen identified that phone call as a call he made to keith schiller, who is always, as many people know, standing right beside donald trump in those days, and he made the point, which a lot of people can confirm that he used to call keith schiller when he wanted to talk to donald trump so that keith schiller could hand the phone to donald trump. the other day, that went in smoothlessly and -- smoothly and seamlessly, talked only to donald trump, only about stormy daniels saying we got to make the deal now. it's time to make the deal. this is october 2016, and that's how that phone call went in. well, todd blanche really, really went at that phone call and did some real damage to michael cohen's credibility

about that actual phone call. he pointed out there were some text messages that preceded that that michael cohen was involved in that included his problems with a harassing phone caller who he discovered to be 14 years old. he texted keith schiller about that harassing phone caller, and what could be done about it. and he texted keith schiller right before the 8:02 phone call. and keith schiller's reply in the text, which we did not learn until this cross-examination, keith's reply was call me, so the next thing that happens with those phones is that michael cohen calls him within the minute that keith schiller says call me, and keith schiller's call me is about the phone harassment that michael cohen has been suffering from a 14-year-old. and so michael cohen's testimony became that the call was actually about two things.

he quickly said something to keith schiller about the 14-year-old, and then spoke to donald trump about it's time to make the deal with stormy daniels. the trouble is that phone call is 1:36. now, it is possible to conduct both of those pieces of business in that amount of time for sure, especially in the way we have heard how donald trump can speak in situations like this, on the discussion that michael cohen did take with donald trump. this phone call, and what that allowed -- what that allowed todd blanche to do is that dramatic moment that every cross examining lawyer wants in the criminal defense practice, that was a lie. he boomed. that was a lie a couple of times to michael cohen on the witness stand about michael cohen's

previous description of that 8:02 p.m. phone call, and that was a very very powerful and effective moment for the trump defense. >> lawrence, always love your insights, thank you so much for coming out to the camera for us. we'll see you tonight. he has a lot more observations from inside the courtroom on "the last word," 10:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. now i want to bring in msnbc legal correspondent, lisa rubin, and "new york times" investigative reporter, suzanne craig who are also in the courthouse in the overflow room today. about an hour ago, katy tur came out, and we were asking about sort of the mood and tenor. she said it was calm, quiet, almost serene, and i said we're kind of looking for that john grisham moment. she said we have not had that. and she texted me five minutes ago maybe, and she said we just had your grisham moment. i'm eating my hat.

and we heard lawrence describe the crescendo of todd blanche just now as the most important biggest point the defense has scored so far. lisa, is that how you see it? >> it's absolutely how i feel. and some of us have been having a conversation about whether or not this should have come out earlier. there's no question in my mind that todd blanche is five-plus hours in. this should have and could have come out earlier. there was a lot of wasted time. particularly today, todd blanche spent an hour-plus talking about michael cohen's interest in getting a white house job, and trying to force cohen to admit that at all times he wanted to be attorney general or white house chief of staff and he felt slighted and cohen held up well on that, basically it was a weird role reversal that blanche was increasing in his intensity, cohen remained calm. no, sir, that's not the job i

wanted. when my daughter was referring to being special counsel, that wasn't a white house job. that was her conflating titles. what i wanted all along, knowing i wasn't qualified to be white house counsel, was to be counsel to the president. when he finally went to the facts of this case. when he started talking about the harassing phone calls that cohen was getting, a bunch of us looked at each other quizzically, what is this, where is this going? and then it became clear when he brought up the text to keith schiller on october 24th, after getting cohen to establish that was the day he called schiller to reach trump and that remains his testimony, he discussed with trump. the resolution of the stormy daniels matter, and it was time to pay out stormy. once he connected up to the keith schiller text, i thought uh-oh we're in for something here, and we were. michael cohen not only admitted that he is now less than certain about what got discussed that

day, and that it could have been both, but he's not positive given the 1:30 of that phone call, but also that in eight years, he had never seen that keith schiller text and it was not among the things that the district attorney's office had shown him. that makes the district attorney's office look sloppy in addition to making michael cohen seem like a self-assured fab ri , not just about who he did or didn't talk to on october 24th. it casts lots of his testimony in doubt given the passage of time and makes the district attorney's office look terrible all in one breath. this is a moment of real triumph, and there is a weird thing going on where michael cohen who's bombastic beyond

words. we heard a clip of him this morning with the usual bombast that prompted laughter in the overflow room remembering the michael cohen that we have always known. and michael cohen closer to todd blanche than we have seen. living in a surreal universe. none the less, a real point for the defense here. >> if i can, sue, for just a minute, i want to read that part of the testimony if people missed it or haven't seen it. todd blanche said you had a recollection of that phone call, and he says that was a lie. you did not talk to president trump on that night. you talked to keith schiller about what you just went through. cohen says i'm not certain that is accurate. blanche, you are certain it was accurate on tuesday when you were under oath and testifying. cohen, based on the records that i reviewed and in light of everything going on, i believe i spoke to mr. trump about the stormy daniels matter. blanche, we are not asking for

your belief. the jury does not want to hear what you think happened. sue, i'll let you go. i wanted to make sure people knew that was the dramatic moment, right? >> it was. and i say for michael cohen, he should not just believe. he should have been more certain. that's what gave todd blanche a real opening there. i want to go back to the morning session. i'm calibrating this a little bit differently. the jury is not processing this in the same way all of us are. they're not taking noon breaks and getting together and chatting about it and dissecting every piece of it. they're going to come to a conclusion and get together at the end of this. looking back on the morning session what i'm sort of thinking is effective. even though at the time, i don't think todd blanche had a complete through line. there was disparate pieces and getting annoying listening to it. the theme that was effective was the repetition over and over and

over that michael cohen is a liar. with examples, sure, it jumped around. they got hours of that information. some of it was serious lying. it was not just i told a fib. it was lying to congress and judges and that sort of thing. they come into a critical piece of information where michael cohen is getting these calls, these prank calls one night, and the number is blocked, and then it turned out, this is just crazy the stuff we hear. it happens to be a 14-year-old pranking him. he finds this out. we're supposed to believe in a 1:36 call that he not only phoned keith schiller to discuss the prank call so it could be reported to the secret service or something that keith could do something about it, but he also in this call informed the president, the phone was handed to the president or the soon to be, and he was informed about the stormy daniels payment. >> this is why, chris, the order really matters here because if

this had been the first thing blanche did out of the gate, it could have been explicable as a minor error of memory. right? october 24th, 2016. calling keith schiller to get trump. calling trump directly. who can say what happened. it's only after those hours and hours of exposing cohen as a self-interested shifty, constantly morphing liar that that becomes effective. >> the morning questioning it was he's a liar, he's a liar, but we have heard what michael cohen would do for donald trump when he was in his employ and the loyalty he has, and that's why it makes the lies when he is no longer in the inner circle also they sting a lot. you saw both michael cohens. the guy who would lie for the boss and then the guy who would, yeah. >> you heard the other person because you heard him on the podcast. i know you guys got to go. suzanne craig and lisa rubin,

thank you so much. we're following all of your notes and appreciate every bit of it, and talk to you later. jeremy, i want to ask you, you've got a body of documentary evidence that's been presented by this prosecution. i think all of our legal analysts, former defense and prosecutors have agreed. so how does that stack up against the drama of what the jury is seeing here with michael cohen. if they reject michael cohen in whole, because the litany of lies and then this moment where he's clearly testified under oath about a key conversation and now isn't sure it happened in that way. todd blanche cast a lot of doubt on that fact. so if they excuse him completely, do they go back to the paper, do jurors act -- >> i don't think they excuse him completely. a jury has a right to say that if i think he's lying and not credible, i think he's not credible about everything in its

entirety. there have been some who have said that michael cohen shouldn't even have been called to testify, though i would disagree with that. i think ultimately the prosecution will say, despite the drama, despite the fact that he lied, or was wrong from 2,004 years ago. longer than that. way long in the tooth here, that overall, the picture is still the same thing. we heard certain things thatch the aroma of truth. for example, we heard about the bar mitzvah or the membership to the golf club as a way to hide the payment. things that you don't make up. when you look at it collectively, the other pieces of evidence. what they will do is bring it back to, whether you like them or not, whether he's truthful at everything, let's bring it back to the falsifying business records. we don't need him in totality. look at the records themselves. that's what they're going to do, bring it back. >> do they not need him in

totality if jurors have serious questions about michael cohen's credibility. does the prosecution have a case? >> you know, from time and memorial, whenever you had a complex case, one of the better ways for prosecution to bring that case together is to involve somebody who was deep in the crime. so it's not new to have somebody like michael cohen there, and remember, you don't need all of michael cohen's testimony. that won't be necessary here. especially where you've got repeated communications that are written, e-mails, texts, and most importantly, 11 separate transactions that have been documented through the trump organization. that gives michael one of the most, you know, powerful points of just about being there. if we don't rely on any of this testimony, we've still got his e-mails. his interactions with the trump organization, with the members of the trump organization, and frankly, the most obviously

thing, which was he did clearly have conversations with donald trump, and the jury will not exclude any of those instances. they will likely exclude this one, i believe, if todd blanche leaves it right as it is, and if the prosecution can't come back with an effective redirect. >> i look at this in some ways as a double gamble for the prosecution. one is they're using this little known, little used law. some people would say a very complicated and novel way of prosecuting a felony. the second one, maybe even the riskier bet is michael cohen. the star witness, the guy to bring the case together. all things considered and he's not off the stand yet, has that risk paid off? >> i think they would find the risk is paid off very well so far. what really is left to be seen is what todd blanche can do with the rest of his cross-examination. what he did just before the break was he went right to the actual core evidence of the case and took michael cohen's lack of

credibility and bias and applied it to a very key conversation with a defendant. if he can continue to do that, he might have more impact on the effectiveness of the rest of michael cohen's testimony. that's what he needs to do. >> thank you so much for being with us. and joining us now is former frl prosecutor and former sdny criminal division deputy chief, kristy greenberg in the overflow room this morning. i know you work with todd blanche at sdny, by all accounts, doing a lot better today. there was some criticism that he spent too much time. there were a litany of lies, he ran into every detail and tangents, certainly before the lunch break, everyone here seems to feel, and those we have talked to in the courtroom and the overflow room, he landed al punch, a deep blow. >> i thought he landed several

punches today. i thought today was much more effective than on tuesday. and the punches before what i know everybody has talked about of this call and the date and whether or not, you know, there is the real discussion with donald trump about the stormy daniels payment at the date and time he said on direct very confidently, that was certainly a real blow, i thought. it was, i think, in hearing it a little hard to understand. todd blanche not only got angry, but his voice just got -- went to such a high decimal. he was very high pitched and confusing to follow at times. he did land the punch. and one thing that was remarkable was michael cohen who had an even demeanor, and didn't really respond. didn't raise his voice. seemed even keeled in response to that, which i thought was good. it is certainly a blow. the punches that landed for me was when he was talking about the crimes that he pled guilty

to in the southern district of new york that did not involve donald trump, and showing all of the inconsistencies about initially he pled guilty to it, then in the civil fraud trial, he said he didn't commit those crimes and he said he died during his plea, and while he says i don't dispute the facts but i think the prosecutors were railroading me, and threatened to prosecute my wife. it came across in the way it was presented really that michael cohen just really wants to blame everybody. he talked about blaming the bank, blaming the accountant, the prosecutors, the judge. this is a judge i appeared before many types in the southern district of new york who is now deceased. this was not a corrupt judge by any stretch. he lumped in with all of those people that cohen is trying to blame donald trump as well to make that strategic point to the jury that, yeah, donald trump is just another person that he is trying to blame because he's

angry like anyone else. why is he angry? one of the reasons that came out is he didn't get the white house chief of staff job or ag job that he wanted. even though he testified on tuesday and today that, yes, he didn't want that job in the white house. he never wanted that job. we saw a series of text messages with him and various other people where he was very clear, yes, he did want that job, and he was very disappointed when he didn't get it. todd blanche established motive, bias, hatred and animus towards donald trump. we heard a number of messages about how he wants to see him behind bars. he would be giddy at the thought of him behind bars. he landed a number of punches today. >> do you think he undercut all o. testimony and the value of michael cohen as a witness, and what does that do to the prosecution's case? >> reporter: look, i think this

was always going to be the issue. you have michael cohen corroborated in a lot of different ways by other witnesses we heard from, as well as by the documents, and frankly, in addition to that, corroborating evidence, you also have commons of how this would have worked, and, you know, for the defense theory to make sense, you would have to have not only michael cohen going rogue, but allen weisselberg, and that doesn't comport with what we heard about how the organization worked and how donald trump operated. that said, you basically -- it would be very hard for me to see a jury that would not have serious questions about michael cohen's credibility, and so what you're asking the jury to do is say, i believe him about this, but even if i don't believe him about some other things, and that is very difficult. i can say as a prosecutor i never put a witness on the stand who is a cooperating witness where i thought they weren't being 100% truthful. i felt confident about their credibility as a whole. this is a difficult dance that i

think these prosecutors are having to play where there's serious questions raised today about michael cohen's credibility. >> as someone who's in the overflow room and most of our viewers know this by now, you don't get a sense of what it's like in the courtroom. you get a look at the defense table, a look at the witness obviously. what was the energy like, and any observations you might have had of donald trump, of interactions between him and his defense team or even the interaction between todd blanche and michael cohen? >> so i thought a lot of the questions from todd blanche were more open ended. usually on cross-examination, it's very short, to the point. isn't it true that, isn't it correct, and you kind of control the questioning, and that didn't really happen here. he asked a lot of questions that allowed michael cohen to explain himself which i thought michael cohen in a very measured way

did. there were times at which todd blanche was frustrated, but again, it was because he had asked a question that allowed michael cohen to speak. so i thought their exchanges were generally interesting for that. again, at the end, you did see the temperature rise, and you saw everybody in the overflow room stand at attention, including what we could see in the courtroom where for donald trump at times he had been closing his eyes here and there was alert at attention for the bomb shell ending before the lunch break. >> you know, i think one of the problems with this case, and no matter how this evidence comes in for michael cohen, and it may be too inside baseball, i don't know, but catherine was a prosecutor as i was as well. a couple of things that stand out, and one of the most that hits me is if you take yourself out of the politics of it, you are charging as prosecutors 34 felonies that get to a

misdemeanor. basically you're prosecuting felonies to allege a misdemeanor state election law crime, article 17, if that's the theory of the case. and that's problematic, which is kind of the big ugly. i'm not saying it's politics or not, i'm not saying it's a right choice or not. i would think all prosecutions are right, in terms of you believe it sincerely, whether or not it's true and accurate. because you subjectively believe it's the right thing to do. what we have right now in this room, again, taking it outside for a second, forego charges for a guy to get at a misdemeanor, and it just strikes me. it gives me pause and concern. how much will go to a jury, i don't know. but as an outsider, in terms of the evidence in the courtroom, that gives me a little bit of pause. late in the game to have this conversation. more me, i can see how it's

resonated outside the courtroom. and this is a nullification issue but an issue that hangs around and lingers for me. >> thank you, kristy greenberg. and joining us now is msnbc chief legal correspondent and host of "the beat," ari melber. it's quite a day. it was very dramatic before they broke for lunch. we have been debating how effective and important were the punches that todd blanche landed today in shaking is the credibility of the key moment, the key story that michael cohen had sworn to under oath. >> i think the punches are building. they're not done and this is a back and forth process. i was listening to your reporting, following along like everyone. i'm going in the courtroom.

i was speaking to lawrence o'donnell who spoke to msnbc today as well. these are moments the jury will remember, and they are instilling or adding possible doubts about michael cohen's long-term credibility. as i think everyone knows, the question is has he changed his mind and retracted things? both sides agree on that. that's not in doubt. the question is does this guy still lie. if he lies about anything, little, medium or large, can you trust him. the standard is not, okay, do we have to be convinced that he lies about everything. the standard for the jury and why blanche is making progress is by the end of this does the jury have reasonable doubt about cohen telling the truth on elements of the crime. the other stuff won't matter when they deliberate. it accrues. what we saw in the dramatic back and forth, you did lie, why do you sound like this. and a podcast where you sound

unhinged. all of that accrues. and a jury goes back, i doubt whether he's telling the truth about an element of the crime. trump's criminal intent in 2016. >> it's chris now. if you think there's a sub text to this whole question, the key question of beyond a reasonable doubt. everyone on the jury knows donald trump. they have an opinion about donald trump, but whatever they think about him, he was the president of the united states. he's going to be the nominee of the republican party. it feels bigger. the consequences feel better, whether or not if convicted he would go to jail or not. so does that, do you think, play into the minds of jurors at all when they're thinking about does this really rise to beyond a reasonable doubt? >> i think it's a great

question. it won't be in the jury instructions, won't be in the technical written format, but it does hang over this. here's how i can try to put it as fairly as possible. the prosecutors keep saying, hey, we do business fraud cases all the time. we can show you the examples. you can't just lie to the government about money. if poor people and regular people and everyone working a hard job in new york doesn't get away with it, why should someone who has the means and wealth get away with it. that's what they say. the counter argument, this ain't a business fraud case because of the defendant, what we all see here gathered around the courtroom. i do think that hangs over it, and there's also a trial of a prominent democrat going on. robert menendez. if you talk to prosecutors, they will say federal, state, local. they'll do this regardless of party. and being a candidate isn't a legal shield. to the core of the question, i think it's a fair question and a fair point. do these 12 jurors when they

deliberate and have these doubts, are they more careful, more concerned than they might be in another case. this is at the end of the day. we have all of our lawyers. we talk about statutes, standards, but we have it on the screen here. we have the anonymous background of these people. when they go in there, does that, if anything, move the needle a little. does it make them more skeptical than if it was john doe with doe organization instead of trump org. it a higher bar? it might be. and historians will wrestle with that forever. whatever the outcome, this is the first ever trial of a former president and current presidential candidate. >> a key part of the prosecution is, and i was thinking about this as i saw the parade. i think the largest parade we have had of members of congress going into court today, going before the microphones, assailing the system, that this is a system that is fundamental to our democracy, fundamental to

why the united states of america was founded. part of that is the prosecution will make this case. it doesn't matter what you've been elected to or what you're running for now. there's a system of justice. that system of justice should be applied equally, whether you're once the most powerful person in the world or some joe who tried to do a shady business deal, right? >> you mentioned the people coming -- go ahead, i'm sorry. >> go ahead, please. >> oh, well you mentioned the politicians and public officials that have been here. there's nothing wrong with people showing up. we have transparent courts in the country so we can bear witness. we don't get cameras in there. there's a reason, court reporters, stenographer, transcript available day of.

the members of the government coming here is fine. i think the clear problem for the rule of law from a nonpartisan perspective is you have members of the government showing up not saying let's find out what the result is. but already preattacking any result they don't agree with. i don't care whether you're defending menendez's trial or trump's fraud trial, if you're showing up let's follow the rule of law. if you're showing up with a part partisan agenda, that's a problem. i'm not someone who says everything was so great decades ago, but i will observe that didn't used to happen. the leadership did not do that blatantly. we have the speaker of the house echoing what donald trump said. this result can't be accepted if it disagrees with them. that's not the rule of law.

>> chris, i think you asked the most important question, which is with the prosecution having to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. there's a human instinct to also look at this man who's the former president and a potential future president and ask yourself as a juror are the issues here so important and, you know, i know it's an important violation of the law, but when you look at the actual facts of the case, does it seem unlike some of the other indictments, classified documents, january 6th and the others, does it get back to this is such a big deal that we should take away his chance to be president, you know, if one believes, you know, that's his right, of course, and that he's the candidate and the presumptive nominee, and if you convict him, that could change his whole life and change the life of the country. there could be a juror thinking, oh, boy. >> that's all they need, right.

ari melber is one juror. i was having a conversation with people not in our business. this is all people want to talk about. they were talking about the fact that most jurors, a broad feeling, most go in and want to do the right thing. they're going to follow the instruction that the judge gives them. they're human, and you can't separate your life experience. you can't separate the thoughts that are in your head all the time, and frankly, we say it time and time and time again, and i'm going to ask you about this as well, ari, before we let you go. they only need one. donald trump's defense team only needs one to have a doubt. whether it's because, again, their lived experience, their concern that this is a guy who was president of the united states and could be president of the united states or whatever the reason, they only need one,

ari. >> they only need one. and that brings us back to michael cohen. if we hear jurors having reasonable doubts about the key elements of the crime, right, you can always think of an alleged crime as a checklist. you have the act, the mental intent, all the things we have been covering and with our great experts and lawyers and legal analysts and journalists going through, if they have a doubt as to any one element, you don't have a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. after 18 witnesses, my observation, not reporting anything from inside the jury room, the jurors don't talk to us, my observation would be the doubt is probably not from the documents, it's probably not from mr. pecker who came across as a man in a sorted business, made his deal, told the truth and harbored no animus against trump. i don't think it's ms. daniels who i think told her story with clarity and courage and the type of attacks launched on her.

i highly doubt create reasonable doubt in 2024, nor about the core of the crimes legally. but to both of your questions, if there is reasonable doubt, it might have very well been raised tuesday and today with mr. cohen, and the way that the trump defense, again, calling balls and strikes here, the trump defense has been able to raise valid questions about when did you stop lying and why did you say you're not obsessed if you wrote you were obsessed. why did you have a different characterization of a big event in your life which was the rejection, the professional rejection of donald trump before your falling out. he wouldn't bring you to the white house, which you thought as the self-declared fixer would be the payoff. i'm not reporting that would be the case or that he lied. i'm reporting those are the kind of things, if reasonable doubt was raised it may have been tuesday and today. >> quick question, did donald trump open his eyes during this

particular q&a? could you see whether he was paying attention? >> i cannot answer that because i'm on the duty going in next, which is why i'm outside now. lawrence and others were in there on the morning. >> i'm going to thank you, ari melber, and remind people to watch "the beat" at 6:00 p.m. eastern for more expert analysis. he will bring us inside as he will be this afternoon, again, 6:00 p.m. eastern, here on msnbc. we're going to take a very quick break. when we come back, we'll talk about that concept. is there doubt, has there been doubt placed in the minds of jurors. we'll be right back. right back.

>> tech: does your windshield have a crack? trust safelite. this customer had auto glass damage, but he was busy working from home... ...so he scheduled with safelite in just a few clicks. we came to his house... then we got to work. we replaced his windshield... ...and installed new wipers to protect his new glass. >> customer: looks great. thank you. >> tech: my pleasure. >> vo: we come to you for free. schedule now for free mobile service at safelite.com. ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ neutrogena beach defense blocks 97% of burning uv rays for vital sun protection. so you can get more out of all your days in the sun. more protection. more sun. more joy. neutrogena.

norman, bad news... more joy. i never graduated from med school. what? but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... that's like $20 a month per unlimited line... i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc?

out. 14 of the 24 objections were sustained. five were overruled and there was no clear ruling in the documents, most of those were following bench meetings, but seeing how this is moving along, go ahead, tell us about your friend and how you think he's doing, judge juan merchan? >> look, as i said before on this show, a criminal trial, there's always action. i'm laughing that there's actually statistics about how many minutes. i never had that benefit. i would have liked it, perhaps. but, you know, the objections come fast and furious. both sides are entrenched in what they believe this case is or what they believe this case isn't. the defense is beholden to

representing their client and protecting their client. the people are looking to do justice, to be fair and to put their witnesses in the best light. they do have a witness that's a challenge. they know that. and so they're doing the best they can, and at the end of the day, we all know the jury will make a determination as to whether or not the people have proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. >> there was one thing the judge said this morning, and we haven't mentioned it yet in the last two hours, which is all about scheduling, and so this is what judge merchan said after that long bench meeting. we don't know that that's necessarily what it was about or all it was about. jurors, i apologize for keeping you waiting. we had business to take care of. second, as you know, our schedule with holidays and conflicts breaks things up a bit. if possible, it may be necessary for us to work next wednesday. let the sergeant know if it creates a hardship for you.

if it does, we won't be able to work next wednesday, and that's fine. but clearly he would like to work through next wednesday. does that tell you something about where we are in this trial? >> not necessarily. i think what it tells us is one of the lawyers may have been asking to continue and not take a break because they figure -- maybe they're figuring out about how long their summations will be. maybe they don't want too big of a break between summations or summations on the charge or the actual start of deliberations. they were probably having that discussion. >> apparently one of the jurors now has to have wednesday off. i just wondered if it meant they thought they might be in closing. does this seem to be moving that quickly for you? >> it is moving very quickly. very surprising to me that the case did go so quickly and so smoothly in terms of the actual day-to-day. witnesses were there. the lawyers were on time. the jurors were always on time.

doesn't always happen that way. so in that regard, everyone is showing respect for the court which is always welcome. >> judge, i was going to ask you, as we have been following this moment after very long questioning by todd blanche about, you know, this lie and that lie, and catching him in lies and all very quiet, and then there was the crescendo, and in the document that we were reading from the overflow room from our reporters, it's in caps, and it's, you know, bolded. and he says, you know, so that was a lie. it was the critical conversation that he had sworn an oath, he testified under oath the other day on tuesday, i guess. that he called keith schiller and either put the phone on speaker or passed the phone. so he communicated to donald trump to close the deal with stormy daniels. and, in fact, as he was forced to almost acknowledge, but

under, you know, clear, tough questioning, that that was a minute and a half call, and that it was really to call keith schiller for help with a harassing text that he was getting. was that a moment right before the lunch break. >> i think it was a moment. and as ari melber said before, there were bruises yesterday and it got bloody today. this is cross-examination, it is blood sport to a great extent, and it sounds like the defense made some moves today that undermine the credibility of michael cohen. which is not really a heavy lift. the man is a convicted perjurer. the people put on this witness because they needed him to fill in the gaps in terms of what their case was and what the elements are. they have to take these hits. i mean, it seems like michael cohen has reflexively lied about

many things. that's going to be a huge problem for the people. but the judge will instruct this jury that if they believe that a witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact, they can disregard that witness's entire testimony or disregard only that with which they find to have been falsely given and accept that with which they believe has been truthfully accurately given. that will be up to the jury to decide whether they accept some, all or none of michael cohen's testimony. remember something else also, in beating up michael cohen, which i think the defense does have to do, remember, michael cohen was in bed figuratively with donald trump for many years. if beating up and showing what a bad guy he is, maybe it's a double edged sword. >> judge, thank you so much. 15 minutes away from the end of the lunch break, i see katy tur

has returned from the courthouse and is in the house. special live coverage of the donald trump hush money trial will continue right after this. will continue right after this (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. 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.