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.

life's good. when you have a plan. ♪ ♪ okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪) -remember when i said we need to screen for colon cancer? -was that after i texted the age to screen was now 45? [both] because i said cologuard®! -hey there! -where did he come from? -yup, with me you can screen at home. just talk to your provider. [both] we'll screen with cologuard and do it my way. cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45+ at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for me, cologuard.

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

just arrived at the central matter of this case. what did donald trump know about the hush money payments to stormy daniels. i'm chris jansing alongside my colleagues andrea mitchell and katy tur, along with her notes and court sketches. >> i won't show you the court sketches which are no good. before the break, trump's defense attorney was most fired

up, the most fired up we have ever seen him, and i had personally seen in person raising his voice while pressing michael cohen about whether he lied about a critical 2016 phone call to donald trump, and by the way, ladies, the jury was reacting. >> i'm sure they were, it was during that call, that important call that michael cohen says he informed his former boss about the payment. but according to the defense, cohen only spoke to mr. trump's body guard about a teenager who kept prank calling him and the call was only about 1:36. >> yep. >> i want to bring back our panel, nbc's vaughn hillyard and also joining us the conversation, former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst, chuck rosenberg. there was two lines at the end of what was probably the most dramatic we have seen so far, this back and forth about this phone call, either ending it and saying the lunch break took the wind out of its sails and left

the jury with the idea that he's making points now. how do you see it, and where is he going from here? >> i think juries look at this, chri holistically. what is the jury left with. my experience having done this for a while as a federal prosecutor, they really do look at it holistically. i think the tell will be how the government treats it when they have an opportunity to redirect. do they see it as a problem, if they saw it as a problem, do they want mr. cohen to address it, fix it, clean it up, if he can. and how both sides handle that issue in summation, in argument. >> can i make one point, and if i'm being too simplistic, they're not going to lunch and chatting about what they just saw. i think it's important to point that out. >> they're not supposed to be. they're not supposed to be. >> the jury is told not to deliberate until the evidence has been submitted and they have

been instructed on the law by the judge. >> what is your experience? you've got two lawyers on this jury, and i don't know whether that has any kind of impact one way or the other. >> i was never allowed to have lunch with the jury, andrea and never allowed to talk to them. >> have you ever served on a jury? >> i would love to. i don't think i would be selected. >> they don't strike us. >> i would love to. >> i was struck twice. >> we were not allowed to talk to the jury even after the verdict and the case has been resolved, finalized. >> can i give you a little bit about what it was like in the room. we had spoken a few minutes earlier before the end of the morning session, and i wasn't expecting to get a john grisham moment. you asked if there would be an ah-ha moment where the defense said you lied, and i have to eat my hat.

we had that moment pretty much after i walked back in. todd blanche was questioning michael cohen and it was about this phone call in 2016 where he told the stormy daniels matter, told him it was taken care of. todd blanche gets up and shows a whole new set of phone calls, logs, and this is between michael cohen and keith schiller, and also some text messages regarding michael cohen and the 14-year-old who was harassing him. he's laying this out. and i looked over at laura jarrett, where is he going with this. and he says you made a phone call to keith schiller in the moments after you were talking about this prank call you were getting from this 14-year-old. did you have a conversation with him or with trump about this 14-year-old and michael cohen starts to waiver. and he says you know what, i

don't remember these things. it's the first time that i have seen these text messages. todd blanche raises his voice and says you lied about this. you didn't know that you had a conversation with donald trump, and michael cohen wavered and it was a moment that the jury really, i mean, they sat up in their chairs. some of them looked like they were laughing. i mean, eyebrows raised. todd blanche was really, like, very emotive. michael cohen was on his heels. and it was hard to tell in that moment whether the jury was reacting to this moment that michael cohen's caught in something or if they were reacting to todd blanche himself who had been so calm, and serene. he was theoretical, you lied, you were wrong about the call. whether they were reacting to him suddenly becoming this theoretical lawyer that you would imagine from a john

grisham novel. >> what does the prosecutor do? >> and thank goodness catherine is here too. it depends. michael cohen could have been lying. could have been forgetting. could have been forgetting about being right, and could have been forgetting about being wrong. the prosecutors ostensibly know which it is, and you would look to redirect if this is something they feel they need to direct again. >> can they say there were so many calls between you and keith schiller is it possible you confused this with that one, and maybe it was this call. >> and again, you know, these things, innocent failures of recollection happen all the time. by the way, so do lies. and a trial is a process to try and separate those two things. >> how does the d.a. take this? when i was walking out, the consensus among the report ers and lawyers were that the prosecution was going to have a long night trying to figure out how to clean this up. >> as chuck said, they know the

truth. now, did they scrub, like, oh, we don't show that or is the prosecutor sitting there saying, you know you saw that. why are you lying. so they know what happened. now, because he's in the middle of cross-examination, they can't speak to him. they can't clean it up until the cross-examination is done. >> his lawyer can speak to them right? >> his lawyer can speak to him but the lawyer is not going to have the information that the prosecutor is going to have. depending on what the truth is and susan harbinger knows what it is, then you can redirect and say, you saw so many texts so it's easy, so we will find out on redirect. >> we're just five minutes away from the -- presumably the cross-examination continuing, but i want to bring in in the interim, the attorney representing stormy daniels, clark brewster, so good to have you with us. at the center of this is the

question of whether or not this conversation happened about stormy daniels, what michael cohen says happened in this call is that mr. trump, as he puts it, he spoke to him about stormy daniels the way it was wrapped up, he said 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 to which blanche says, we are not asking for your belief. the jury does not want to hear what you think happened. >> there's an objection to that, by the way, which was sustained. >> which was sustained, and we know it's already there. and he rephrases it. based on what i believe, i believe i was telling the truth. is that as big a deal as maybe some folks make it out to be? what do you make of that moment? >> i would say that there's been so many different conversations from the fall of '16 leading to january of '17 that cohen

testified about in communications with the president at the time, president trump, and they're corroborated by so many details. the fact that on this one occasion he might be wrong about whether he spoke with trump or schiller i don't think is really a water shed moment. it might make a point for the cross. looks like he got caught in the cross hairs of indecision or lack of memory or maybe an inconsistency of some type, but i don't really think that makes the day. there's so much corroborative evidence that they were having this communication and that the actions taken to quiet stormy daniels was directly, you know, orchestrated by trump. he was a hands on, you know, decision maker from my perspective from what i have seen. >> i was hearing in my head, being in a store, clean up on aisle 6. is there a clean up that needs to happen here, and how does it

go? >> i'll tell you, these prosecutors are very sharp. i worked with them pretty closely with regard to stormy and her witness appearance. and they're just very diligent, very careful. very thorough. >> are you surprised that they seem to not have been seen by michael cohen before, these exchanges, these text messages? >> i think they probably were, but we're talking about years of messaging back and forth. and his phone was downloaded and given to the prosecution. i would imagine there's a tremendous amount of documentation with regard to not only the phone records, the communications, e-mails, and such that it might have been that day at that moment, he didn't recollect that particular communication. i will tell you this, confidently, the prosecution won't miss tricks here, they will come back and put in the proper context for that cross. >> how is your client doing after her testimony from last

week? >> she has a great deal of fear about the unknown or what someone might do. there's a lot of rhetoric out there. she's concerned about her well being. but i think she's relieved that she's off the stand, and she was, you know, thoroughly examined, and i think there's just a feeling of relief that that's behind her now. that's a good thing. >> in the documentary that was on peacock, we often saw her, at least several times, following the news coverage of the story as it was developing. is she following this trial now that she's no longer on the stand? yeah, she's following it. i don't know if as closely as some. but i stay in close contact with her. if she has a question or two, and she has been following it. she's well informed, and she's been following it. >> i know there's attorney client privilege. are these questions of law that she's asking you about because

she has watched the trial? >> you know, she hasn't really watched the trial. >> i mean, for the comforts of the trial, sorry. >> yeah, no, i'm mixed. as long as i represented stormy more than five years now, there's a relationship of trust and communication. we just don't talk about just the trial. there's a number of things in her life she might want to discuss. there's a mix. >> there's a little bit of instruction going on inside the courtroom right now, and to give you an idea of what's going on. there was a moment earlier in the morning where the defense was implying that there was some sort of misconduct between one of the prosecutors investigating this case and michael cohen in regards to the unsealing of an indictment. the prosecution really wanted the judge to cure it. she wanted the judge to give jury instructions. merchan was not excited to do that. thought maybe it could get

cleaned up by todd blanche and redirect by the prosecution. there's a bit of an argument about it. merchan asked for the jury instructions, steinglass says the only relevance to this line of questioning about rosenberg, the prosecutor, and michael cohen is an improper leak that michael cohen or jeremy rosenberg engaged in misconduct. there's no other reason to ask the questions, and respectfully this is not something that could be cleaned up. it should be cured by court. the court is giving numerous records, and clarify any suggestion that there was impropriety. blanche says there were texts between cohen and the detective where the detective says they told "the new york times" before they told you, nevertheless, it's done. blanche adds the detective assigned to the case it was appropriate it was done. i'm happy to clean it up. it shouldn't been an instruction from the court. merchan says we know you left the jury with a mistaken impression. i'm going to give mr. blanche the opportunity, and if i'm not

satisfied, i will take care of it. >> that sounds like a judge being judicious. he's giving the party an opportunity to fix something that he the judge believes was wrong. that's actually quite generous of the judge. and take him at his word. if it's not fixed to his liking, he'll fix it. from a jury's perspective, the judge's words carry great weight in a courtroom. when the judge says something, they listen. when a litigant says something, a party, listen, not with the same intensity. >> what about if the defense and blanche gets up and says, i want to clarify something that i was asking about before. what if he says, might have been a little bit misleading, and i want to set the record straight. >> and i have done that. i've made mistakes in the courtroom. i'm sure catherine has made mistakes in the courtroom. you tell the judge, and if necessary, you tell the jury.

i said something earlier that was wrong. i apologize. >> and thchs -- was the issue of how "the new york times" got the indictment. >> michael cohen is coming back in. he is passing people like matt gaetz. >> can i just tell you about a moment with matt gaetz and lauren boebert. they walk in, and they turn to each other, and there was a moment where they both looked back, and then the two rows of the defense lawyers, and guests turned back, and they're just looking at george conway. basically saying to each other, it seems, what is he doing here, and then a little bit later on. gaetz wasn't in the courtroom any longer and neither was boebert, they were doing a press conference outside, but alina habba, and she and eric trump both looked back and saw george conway, and said something to each other, and smirked and kind of made gestures to one another.

and then for the lunch break, they walk out, and alina habba just struts over and just gives this glare to george conway, right in his face. >> he has been so aggressively critical. >> but it was so aggressive in the room, at least on her side of things, and george conway was just sitting there, and the rest of the press gallery were stunned to see what was happening. it was just such a surprising moment. the sort of thing you only see in the courtroom. >> was it you who described it as a mean girls moment. >> you just had this crowd behind donald trump who, you know -- i don't know if you're looking over at the lunch table. >> these people have past complex prior relationships. >> they have a long history between each other. george conway, kellyanne conway, wanted to be part of the administration. michael cohen going back decades with the trump team, and allen

garten, they have long and complicated histories. >> and to the extent the jurors can recognize. >> when alina habba was passing george conway, the jurors were out of the room. >> these people who have such intertwined histories, i mean, donald trump's future could be on the line. >> definitely. definitely. it's been really remarkable to see in person, and i will say, the jury was paying close attention. that's all you can ask for in a moment like this. sitting there as the prosecution or defense, are you singling out jurors in your mind? can you read their mind based on their facial expressions? >> no and no. i'm watching the jury because i want to make sure they're listening. if i'm losing the jury, i want to know that. but trying to guess what the jury will do or what an individual juror is thinking, katy, i think that's hazardous.

it's tea leaves. and so i've never tried to do that and i would have gotten it wrong. >> danny cevallos, you are a defense attorney, and the moment from todd blanche before the lunch break where he raised his voice and said that was a lie. it got the attention of the jury. but from my perspective, e couldn't tell if the jury was amused at the circumstances, the catching of michael cohen in a misremembering of facts or if they were chuckling at todd blanche and his performance. >> two may have been related. todd blanche may have planned it in a way so it would be timed with this moment of high drama as he's asking a question that he thinks is important that he wants the jury to listen to. lawyers never, we talk about it a lot, like we can figure out

jurors. the reality is none of us ever know what a juror is truly thinking. if you ever talk to them after the trial, you're shocked at what they focused on or what direction they were heading. i can't tell you how many lawyers thought they had juror number five in the bag, and find out juror number five couldn't stand them. if lawyers could predict what lawyers do with accuracy, you wouldn't have a world where 90 plus percent of criminal cases end in guilty pleas because what we're doing with the guilty plea is taking uncertainty of our lives. 90% of civil cases settle because of uncertainty. if there was a science, if we could figure it out, believe me, we would have by now. so many in the civil and criminal context buy out that risk. by either pleading guilty or settling and putting money on a case. sometimes, by the way, i think

you're looking for a juror who might be an advocate in the jury room. even that is a form of astrology. all the reads you may have on that juror, and sometimes based on all manner of things, nodding or looking like they're on your side by their body language, all of that is just astrology. it's just guess work, and like i said, you find out when and if you interview the jurors afterwards, you find out that all of your presumptions, all of your thoughts were way off. >> and let me take us back inside the courtroom, danny. the jury is back in. michael cohen is on the stand, and now todd blanche is doing what the judge said he needed to do on the side bar, clean up the implication there was improper

conduct between the detective. he's saying at the beginning of the day, i showed you a text message between you and detective rosenberg, you don't have evidence, no, sir, says cohen. around march 30th, the court unsealed the indictment, correct, says cohen. around march 30th it was public and unsealed. correct says cohen. the judge says please approach. there's a bench meeting. he apparently has not cleaned it up adequately to satisfy the judge. todd blanche said i asked you questions about appearing on tv on that day, i think that was joy reid, and blanch says, to be clearly when you did the interviews the the indictment was unsealed. cohen says i read it through the "new york times" article. blanche says you were not supposed to talk about it. by the time you went on cnn, it was public.

yes, says cohen. there's a series of messages between cohen and the 14-year-old with the phone number redacted. the 14-year-old harassing him. the number you are communicating with, these are the texts we spoke about before lunch. cohen says the number has been sent to secret service. so that's keith schiller apparently responding to that -- >> they're basically going back to some evidence they introduced right before they broke for lunch, and this is a series of text messages. that is text from cohen to the 14-year-old saying to him your number is going to be sent to secret service, and, you know, warning him. >> and this was harassment. >> it's a rehash. >> why he was calling keith schiller according to the defense, the cross-examination. >> they're resetting the table from where they left off. the fact that we saw, again, another bench and i don't have

the numbers in front of me either. there have been a lot of bench conferences. let me go back to you, because you were in during the time stormy daniels was giving her testimony. we talked about the importance of the relationship between the judge and jurors and the affection for some judges. how important is it what they might read into how the judge treats one piece of evidence or one attempt by a lawyer or another? >> i found this judge to be very in control of his courtroom, very astute. he was liberal in allowing the lawyers to come to bench conferences, and once we saw the dialogue, and the transcript, and the bench conferences, he's really giving a lot of latitude to the defense even imploring them to make objections at various times that he would sustain. said if you don't make them, he

actually made a couple of his own objections during the examination by susan hoffinger of stormy, where he went sustained. and he employed them as to why they weren't making objections. i think this is a judge that is very cautious about a record that will viewed on appeal as being correct and in accordance with the law, and i believe he's gone out of his way to communicate with both sides and give them at least cues on what he expects. my perception was this is a very good looking it bright young professional looking jury, and from my perspective, they have a lot of respect. this judge was conducting this court. it was very impressive. >> so we're back into the time line, the whole time line beginning in 2011. and in fact, todd blanche says as much. what i would like to do is go

through the time line of what you testified on monday in 2011 you came across a poll that suggested trump should run for president. cohen, that's correct. that poll was actually late 2010. yes, sir. at the time is it fair to say that the press regarded this as a stunt by president trump. yes, sir. for michael cohen, he was one of the most early supporters, convincers, at some point later in '16, i think it was, fundraisers of, and there goes the can of hair spray, fundraisers for donald trump. >> yeah, definitely. i mean, listen, donald trump had been flirting with this idea of running for office for a few decades, 2000 when he's being interviewed about what his platform would be. he was technically sort of running at the time, even though he never got to the official act of it.

so 2011 is "national enquirer" poll where they sort of, you know, juice the respondents to try to get donald trump to wade in. cohen was by his side for decades and cohen looked up to him, and cohen believed that being close to him made him important. and he wanted to push trump as far as he could get. i mean, what was so interesting is michael cohen was a democrat forever, registered democrat. and donald trump is running as a republican, not running as a typical republican, but also not a democrat. how do you feel being part of this operation, and there was never any question for michael cohen. it wasn't about being a democrat any longer. it was about being a supporter of donald trump, and he did what he could during the 2016 campaign to remain close to him, but also to expand donald trump's appeal. the trump team was going from state to state.

they were trying to get voters who were disillusioned. white working class specifically. >> and also when they started the birthers. >> michael cohen was trying to get them the support among black people. he wanted -- he approached a well known passer out of ohio and tried to do diversity events with him. he was always trying to convince donald trump to take part in this diversity counsel that michael cohen had been trying to set up so he wasn't a part of the official campaign team. he was working in conjunction to try to find more voters for him. >> documenting what blanche is taking him through. he says, how do you go about doing that, getting reporters to write or say positive stories about you, so he was doing exactly what you described. he said, you work hard to get

positive stories in the press about president trump and all the things he was doing in this time period, that's correct. >> that's also what everybody on a campaign trail does. >> although a little earlier they brought it specifically back to the "national enquirer." >> they brought it back to the "national enquirer," to the fact that there were stories he was working to get into the "national enquirer." how do you go about saying that, getting writers to write positive stories. that is typical, and cohen is saying i knew journalists in different newspapers had long standing relationships with them. depending on the acquisition, various businesses under umbrella, the trump organization i reached out and asked if they wanted to do a story on the specific topic and would give them the exclusive, and that was one example. and this seems to be drawing cohen into saying too much. >> getting back into the tabloid journalism because blanche said if you learn that a reporter or newspaper magazine was going to write something negative about the trump org, what steps would

you take, it was a little bit different. one of the journalist calls me, instead of me calling the journalist, we have a deadline of 5:00 p.m. we would like you to comment on the topic. i would immediately go to mr. trump's office and discuss that specific topic with him. craft a response and take it back to the journalists, and you did that a lot. what are they doing here? >> he says you always check, blanche says you always check with trump before reaching out to a reporter. it was my plan to check with trump, you know. he says, it was my practice to check with trump because, one, it would cause him to blow up at me, and two, it would probably be the end of my job if you didn't. >> i wonder if he's trying to build. >> look, i think there are three main topics for cross-examination, chris, that mr. cohen has been biassed, is

biassed, that he has been inconsistent, made lots of statements all over the place about different topics at different times, and that he's a liar, he's a convicted liar, a perjurer, a felon. if your questions don't fit into one of those three categories, i'm not sure why you're asking them. with this caveat, it's much easier to do a cross-examination from a tv studio that in the well of a courtroom. but having a witness repeat on cross-examination their direct testimony, that helps the government. that doesn't help the defendant. and so one of the hardest things to do as a prosecutor, and i'm sure as a defense lawyer, but i know this from a prosecutor's perspective, is to say what you have to say, sit down and be quiet. usually you're better off when you do that. if you have points to make, make them. but i would take, i would be very careful to make sure that any question i ask on cross fits

into one of my themes, bias, inconsistency or the fact that he's a convicted perjurer. >> blanche was saying there were plenty of times in 2015 and 2016, that you would comment on stories without speak to go mr. trump. isn't that true. no, sir. i would always get in line with a conversation we had on a specific topic, and if he didn't like the response, it would probably cost me my job. blanche, campaign, did it ever get upset with you because you had gone off message? cohen said i heard about it. so it does feel like they're building to something, where cohen frequents. >> they have some instance where they can say, like before lunch, that. if not, then i agree with chuck, you're not going to make points. >> don't they coach to not say things about always?

>> you can spend lots of time prepping your witnesses. it's like a bird, when it gets to the nest, it does its own thing. and you can't talk to them, by the way, while they're on the stand, and by that i mean from the time they're sworn in until the time they are dismissed as a witness. you can't sort of re-prep them. i'm sure that's the rule here. >> you can't. >> i'm watching this cross as it's going off on google doc. i see open ended questions. the prosecution has asked more leading questions than defense has asked leading questions of michael cohen. they're just so critical because everything about cross-examination is control, and the way you control a conversation with a question and answer session is by leading questions, essentially the attorney is doing the testifying and just asking the witness to

confirm it at the end. that's usually with a yes or no. but even about questions like how did you get journalists or how did you get newspapers to do favorable stories. cohen has a chance to discuss it. i'm pretty sure they're heading in the direction of people in the campaign scolding him for going off message. that will probably fit into the whole he went rogue message. i was surprised, after the break, i thought that with all the emotion that todd blanche put into the cross, i thought they were going to have more of those instances, those kind of got you moments that were related to that line of questioning. but they relatively quickly moved on, and i think, by the way, for me at least, this was the first time i heard about this back and forth with cohen, and a 14-year-old, and he's threatening the 14-year-old with secret service involvement. again, michael cohen gets hit with a lot of morality shrapnel throughout this trial. it doesn't actually hurt the prosecution that much because

it's consistent with what they're going to say in their closing, which is essentially some variation of he's not perfect. what he says matches up with the documents and witnesses. >> if you want to end with michael cohen with all of this. there was so much work done in the beginning to shore up the story independent of michael cohen. they have the documents from weisselberg, where he list in his own handwriting how to pay back michael cohen. david pecker talking about the meeting, the stormy daniels side of things. there's all of this evidence built that separates the case from michael cohen, and buttresses it and all the problems he has. is it a good idea for the prosecution to end with somebody who can be as problematic as cohen? >> i don't know why they made that choice. i wouldn't have started with him or ended with him. say there's no defense case. the last view of the whole case is michael cohen. maybe it will end on a crescendo, which is good for the

prosecution or maybe it won't. but i don't know why they made that choice. i would have ended with a custodian of documents to get their mind off of michael cohen. >> they could still call one more witness after michael cohen. >> they have said that he will be the last witness. until they say the people rest, they can say judge merchan, we actually have one more witness. >> all right. let's keep going. >> katy, you have been named. some of the reporters you have a strong relationship with, chris, katy tur, maggie haberman with the "new york times." you met in the early 2000s, you have a very strong relationship. in talking about the relationship that he had with reporters. they've also set up, you know, katy and chris and all of you, you know, they're playing to his ego, blanche is, and he starts going into great detail about how well he knew reporters and how he handled these stories. you know, he seems to be almost puffing up with pride in what he did. >> hold on, everybody in this campaign had a strong

relationship with a variety of reporters. but this is not unusual. i that you talk to the press a lot. you were always freelancing. this was part and partial with any political campaign. anyone who's a surrogate to a political campaign has relationships with reporters, republican or democrat, that they build up over in some cases decades or at least in the period of the campaign. but i assume what they're trying to say is -- you tell me, what are they trying to say? >> i think catherine was getting at it, he's a freelancer. he went rogue. to the extent that there are false documents. this was a function of cohen and/or weisselberg. and trump didn't have anything to do with it. with all the other stuff going on in this trial, it really devolves to the fact that you have false documents, someone made it and someone made it for a reason, and i think the most

logical defense, and catherine, please correct me if i'm wrong is that it wasn't trump who did it. he was president of the united states. he also runs a corporation, and he has underlings, and they were freelancing, and some of them mike michael cohen had gone rogue. that strikes me as a credible defense. >> this all happened his first year of the presidency. the falsification, the checks are written. that's the built in defense. i was running the country. and you can argue whether he was or not but he was the president of the united states at the time the crimes occurred. >> it takes us back to an earlier cross, a mistake, that of stormy daniels. when they had sex, if they had sex, where they had sex, how they had sex, who cares. i mean, the question i think of stormy daniels on cross is you have no knowledge of how the books and records of the trump organization were made or kept.

you never talked to anyone about that. you've never seen them, you've never done that. right? if you want to make her irrelevant, make her irrelevant with respect to the heart of the case. now, i imagine that they had a different reason for crossing her as they did, it might have been that the client insisted on it, and i think that led them into some difficulty. pick your theme and stick to your theme, and i think that was a glaring issue with the cross of stormy daniels. >> now blanche is getting into the fact, he's asking you recorded a lot of conversations with reporters. lot.uldn't characterize it as a it was probably a handful over ten years. blanche says why do row record conversations with reporters. for note taking so i could go back and listen to it, especially when it involved campaign and use conversations to see best time when i was on television. this is what i thought trump

would want. blanche said did this come a time you stopped recording conversations with the reporters. after the election. do you recall sharing with ms. haberman, the lead reporter on the campaign for the "new york times" to help her write a story. >> i remember sharing her reporting. i don't remember the nature of it. and they're introducing an exhibit. this is presumably recordings without notification to the person on the other side. >> it's a one party consent state. >> that's legal in new york. >> we should explain that. >> some states require if katherine and i were having a telephone conversation, we would have to agree it was being recorded. new york is a one party consent state. either catherine or i could record it without the other's knowledge or permission. lawful under new york state law. unlawful in some other state. >> when they're talking about how he records people, he's on

the record recording donald trump, obviously recording reporters, is this all helping, the defense hopes, paint a picture of michael cohen as somebody who's sneaky? >> i'm getting a little lost in the cross-examination, frankly. katy. yes, possibly. i know if i were the prosecutor in this case, my view would be if this is what they want to spend time asking him about it, have at it. i don't see how it's hurt the government's case. >> if you're a juror, the expectation was that todd blanche was going to go after michael cohen and call him a liar and paint him as negatively as possible. if you're the jury and hearing this, god this guy is arguing with a 14-year-old. he's confused about the phone call and whether he talked to donald trump, he's recording people. how do you take that in? if i may.

mr. cohen is a bad human being. i don't think there's any question about that. he's deeply flawed and he's a convicted felon. but lots of our cases as prosecutors turn on the testimony of deeply flawed human beings. this is how it works because these are the people that are around when crimes are committed. and you know, it may sound weird to your viewers, but i think for prosecutors, this is kind of -- this is our menu, sometimes. they'll make the argument, of course in closing that the prosecutors didn't pick mr. cohen as a witness. mr. trump picked mr. cohen as a witness because he included him in his blot. >> let me go back to clark brewster, and your client was named something maybe that could have been a little more impactful in terms of the cross-examination of stormy daniels, i wonder your thought

about that and if there are parallels to what you're seeing now. >> stormy did great on cross. i thought the cross was effective. start off with documents that they had not really nailed down that she had seen. it was an ambling cross that stormy had control all the way through. i want to address the issue about trump's knowledge, an earlier comment was made. there was an interesting thing that happened in the central district of california case, the litigation involving the nondisclosure agreement. at some point in time, depositions were going to be taken of trump and others. they wanted to bail on that lawsuit, so they filed a suit telling the court they're not going to enforce the nda, and judge otero, then pinned down the trump lawyer, and said, i need to know whether you have the authority, are you speaking on behalf of the president. and he puts him right on the spot. it's in the transcript, and he

said, yes, it is him. is he the one that has this agreement. yes, it's him. judge otero puts that in his order. i think it was really significant that this judge required them to own that document before they would let them file a covenant not to sue. and i really, nobody has really brought that up yet. there was some bleakly referred to during stormy's direct testimony. i think that's a significant issue. one more thing that's kind of interesting for people who have been around new york for a fair number of years is trump always brags about roy cohn and how tough he was and what a bulldog he was. i can only speculate but i believe that probably was ingrained in michael cohen every time there was a tough lawyer conversation, and michael cohen patterned himself after roy cohn and how he went after people, and he's a shadow of roy cohn

that i think he was inspired to do so by virtue of trump's idolation of roy cohn. >> someone we know he admired. a screen shot of a number of articles that was written. day after day, month after month. >> you want the exact number? >> 510 delays. they're we're getting to it. as recently as two weeks ago, does 38 articles sound about right. i participated in them. this is to give you an opportunity to respond. to push info to reporters, and shape an article to make articles come out that is favorable to you. correct. with reporters, you communicate over text, signal, whatsapp

sometimes. phone? yes, sir. you distinguish between those types of communications? it depends on what i was using with the reporters, but if it's private or unusual, i would go to an encrypted app. there were 95 secret recordings. who else were you recording? >> this gentleman you showed me. off the top of my head, i can't tell you, a series of recordings he names here. >> mr. trump, i guess he recorded everybody. >> where's the tape recording of trump talking about stormy daniels, you recorded that about karen mcdougal. where are the recordings about you and weisselberg and this whole deal and that's the only thing i'm thinking why he's going down the whole long string about the recordings.

>> if jurors aren't thinking of that, he's going to put it in their minds. >> yeah, why don't you have that? the recordings that involve the crimes in this case. >> good point, very possible. >> if you're recording all the time, you have that fragment of a recording of donald trump talking about a payment, why would you not have something that would be as important to you as this, especially if you were doing something to cover up a crime on behalf of donald trump. >> although, mr. cohen doesn't appear to be a very good or careful lawyer. there may be no rhyme or reason to what he does and doesn't do. to catherine's point, the absence of evidence, and particularly the absence of, you know, critical phone calls, at least recordings of them, you can't trust mr. cohen, and you have to consider the fact that stuff is missing. maybe recordings are missing. maybe they point to the fact that mr. weisselberg is missing. although i think that's a far more complex and nuanced

question. but the absence of evidence is something that can help the defense. >> and, chuck, blanche has gotten him to confirm that he surreptitiously recorded your client so tucked play a privileged recording between you and your client with a third party, that's what you did, right, that's correct. blanche, you certainly didn't tell president trump you were recording, did you. i did says cohen, you spoke about it in 2015 when president trump comes down the escalator. in june he announced you testified. you had a specific recollection about a meeting at trump tower with yourself, trump and pecker and discusses the "national enquirer" and how that could help president trump. correct, says cohen. the "national enquirer" is its placement in supermarkets but you never said that to the grand jury. blanche. >> you understand it's not ethical to record a conversation

with your client. there's a lot of new york bar opinions on this. are they playing to the two lawyers on the jury? >> i think this to my michael cohen is a deeply flawed human being bucket. it's hard to imagine why an attorney surreptitiously, even if a one party consent state, why they would record their own client. that strikes me as something that mr. cohen did for mr. cohen. his obligation as an attorney is to do things on behalf of his client. >> let's get back to the case here and what exactly the prosecution is trying to prove. i think it's always a good reminder because you can get lost in a lot of this testimony, and to remind us, chuck, what exactly is the prosecution trying to prove? >> two pieces. piece number one. 34 counts of falsifying books and records, ledgers and invoices that were kept by the trump organization.

it is a misdemeanor under new york state law to make false business records. >> that's the reimbursement for the hush money. >> correct. part two. if you make those false records in order to commit some other crime and here it's alleged that the other crime would be a violation of state election law or federal election law or tax law, if those underlying false records, chris, are done for some other purpose and that misdemeanor can become a felony, the government would have to prove all of that, the underlying falsification and the rationale for the falsification, converts misdemeanors, in this case, allegedly for felonies. >> could it actually be the defense case? >> don't believe cohen. you may argue, they don't need

cohen if you believe the other evidence. why cold call him. you do have to rely on cohen because cohen said i met with him in the white house. thumbs up, do you believe that or did allen weisselberg and cohen come up with it themselves. >> can i ask you about how judge merchan is doing right now. chuck rosenberg was telling me in his district, judges will move quickly. you're taking too long, get on to your next point. how do you feel about how judge merchan is overseeing this case? >> i think he's been efficient. he has moved the lawyers along during the bench conferences you can tell, and he's expressed, for example, the stormy direct examination, he had some pretty firm posts with regard to the detail of the sexual event, if you'll call it that, and he really has tried to move the prosecution and defense along from what i can see.

so i think he's conscientious about the jurors', you know, time as well. >> i think clark obviously knows these new york courts and new york judges far better than i. i grew up in the eastern district of virginia, the so called rocket docket. i had entire trials that didn't last two days, katy, let alone a single cross-examination. i think it really is what are you used to. >> how do juries take it when it goes this long? >> again, this is my bias because i was a prosecutor in a place that moved quickly. my sense is juries and jurors appreciate judges that move with some dispatch. >> this is fast for new york, and remember the judge says june 3rd. unless some catastrophe happens, this case will be over next week or right after memorial day, which is before june 3rd. >> you may find this odd, in our

district, you were discouraged from or prohibited from doing redirects. >> that doesn't happen in new york. >> different courts and judges have different models of moving cases along. >> we could see a situation where when michael cohen ends, that's it. we don't know if the defense is going to mount a defense which was really my question about -- >> would they have an expert witness. >> people say they rest, the judge is going to ask blanche or whoever east going to be the lead attorney or the defense putting on a case and they have to say yes. this will probably be done at the bench, yes, your honor, but my witness can't come until monday or no. >> could there be expert witnesses about phone calls, about records to try to back up -- >> i feel the defense shouldn't put on an expert unless the prosecution was also putting on an expert. and it appears the prosecution isn't doing that.

they may not call a witness. i don't believe they're going to call someone else said earlier, costello because he's an attorney. >> an election law effort would end up being dueling experts. >> you cannot call someone who's an expert on the law. in a courtroom, the expert on the law is the judge. the judge instructs the jury on the law. you can't typically have other so called experts come in and explain the law. you can have an expert come in and talk about dna evidence or tire tracks or ballistics or some science that's beyond the knowledge of the average jurors. that's fine. i'd be curious -- >> the judge in the pretrial said it would be limited if they were allowed to call. >> how long would you expect at this point redirect be to clean

up whatever they think has to be cleaned up? >> it depends on what they think has to be cleaned up. if they feel cohen handled himself well, i've always found it powerful as a prosecutor to be able to say no redirect. >> i agree. >> jury, there's nothing that just happened that i am the least bit concerned about, putting aside the fact that i wasn't allowed to do redirect. >> it is theater inside the courtroom, and projected confidence. >> clark brewster, we want to thank you for your time this hour, a lawyer for stormy daniels. the rest of the panel is sticking around. there's much more from court on the other side of a quick break. we'll keep reading and bring you the latest moments from the trial. keep it right here. trial. keep it right here lass 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. ♪ (ella) fashion moves fast. at safelite.com. 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. my frequent heartburn had me

taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. we're still going for that nice catch. we're still going for that perfect pizza. and with higher stroke risk from afib not caused by a heart valve problem,... ...we're going for a better treatment than warfarin. eliquis. eliquis reduces stroke risk. and has less major bleeding. over 97% of eliquis patients did not experience a stroke. don't stop taking eliquis without talking to your doctor as this may increase your risk of stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking, you may bruise more easily... ...or take longer for bleeding to stop. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. it may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor about eliquis. it's hard to explain what this feels like.

♪♪ moving piles of earth. towing up to 4,000 lbs. cutting millions of blades of grass. nothing compares to experiencing it for yourself. you just have to get in the seat.