they've got to identify in about 50 days is going to have to be someone in a second tier person who can assure us stability while they again, try to figure out what happens for succession, it is possible the supreme leader son may replace him, although he is unpopular, lacks courage just and lacks the religious and political credentials traditionally seen as important for the job and all of this wrapped up a lot of breaking news this morning norman, thank you. >> having someone on with your credentials to talk through this is very important for us today. thank you so much for your time. >> you're welcome. >> thank you and thank you all so much for sticking with us through breaking news upon breaking news this morning. >> and it will continue today. reaction coming into the trial cardona's coming before the from the international criminal court and more reaction coming into what all of this news out of ron means for that country and stability in the region. this is seen a new central special coverage of the trump trial starts now for the other

it's not am here and then agnez, we are now entering the final phase of the first criminal trial of a former president donald trump is inside that courtroom there on the right side of your screen as the prosecution spinal and maybe most important witness, michael cohen is about to retake the stan moments ago, the judge we are warmer. shawn, just informed the court that he does expect closing arguments will not happen this week, but he does expect them to happen next tuesday because there is no chance of a verdict this week come to see it as a special live cover. on kaitlan collins in new york. >> an object saverin washington in minutes testimony resumes with a third day of cross-examination from michael cohen, the former trump you would all fix her turn witness

for the prosecution. todd blanche trump's attorney will again ask the questions. the trump attorney landed several notable blows on cohen underlining seeming inconsistencies and cohen's memory at one point, blanche accused cohen of inventing, apparently out of thin air, a conversation with donald trump about the payment at the part of the trial, the hush money intended to silence adult film star and director stormy daniels to critical and unanswered questions. >> this hour. >> what will the defense presentation? look like? well, they call any witnesses. one of the only events remaining they could extend the duration of the trial would bend history and break good legal counsel if trump takes the stand his own? defense. we're going to start our coverage in new york with kate yeah. >> jake, in that question that you just raised there, whether they will call any witnesses when it's the defense's turn turn to present their case is still an open question, even for them. and one that they have been internally divided

over is robert costello hello he's a name that was introduced to jurors last week. there were emails shown that he sent to michael cohen after the fbi searched michael cohen's house in his hotel room in his office and robert costello is someone who was never formally retained by michael cohen, but he did serve as kind of this informal legal advisor and he was the person who testified to the grand jury before trump is actually indicted here. he testified on capitol hills. well last week and can essentially trying to dispute michael cohen's testimony, at least parts of it and paint him as a liar, which as we know, has been the defense's strategy here all along. it's still remains to be seen if they are going to call him. i am told by two people that they have not made a decision as of this morning. so we're waiting to see what that it's going to look like and how it affects the timing of all of this sentence. elie honig is also joining us this morning at 11. this was a big announcement from the judge who was trying to avoid big breaks in what the jury is hearing. and when they get these closing arguments and ella, he just said that he basically they've to make a big

break now or take a big break later? the memorial day weekend. so the jury is not going to hear those closing arguments this week, yet, caitlin, i think that makes a lot of sense. the judge, what the judge does not want to happen is to have the deliberation split up. he wants to go directly from closings into jury instructions and then right into the deliberations. now, looking back at last week, as you mentioned, we had a really dramatic moment in court during michael cohen's cross-examination. i want to make sure people understand why this was such an important moment when michael cohen testified on direct examination when he was being questioned by prosecutors, he talked about a specific poly head on october 24, 2016, with donald trump through keith schiller was essentially his assistant, the de as michael cohen why did you need to speak with mr. trump at that point in the evening of october 24, and cohen said to discuss the stormy daniels matter and the resolution of it, and then the question and continued, did you have an understanding about whether during that conversation you resolve that you are moving forward to fund the deal, meaning with stormy daniel's and cohen answered yes. key part of the prosecution in this

case. however fast forward now to the cross-examination that call happened 280 2:00 p.m. michael cohen to schiller and trump turns out there's a bunch of text messages before and after, but they're about something else altogether earlier that night, about an hour earlier, cohen was receiving a series of harassing texts from some unknown 14 year-old kid cohen is exercised about this. he text keith schiller and says i need to talk to you about these harassing texts at 8:02 pm just before the call, shiller says call me. they have the call at 8:02 pm and then right after cohen tech, schiller, the phone number of these 14 year-old kid. so it looks like that call was actually about the 14 year-old kid who was harassing asking michael cohen. and when cohen was confronted with this seeming inconsistency on cross-examination. here's how we answer. part of it was the 14 year-old, but i know that keith was with mr. trump at the time and there was more than potentially just this. so it's unclear if cohen is saying maybe i got it wrong, maybe it happened some other time maybe we discuss both things, but very a from what he testified

on direct exam, very different from what michael cohen told the grand jury. now, as we move into the remaining portions of michael cohen's cross-examination, watch for these three main themes. first of all michael cohen has made several prior false statements. he of course pled guilty. it was convicted to federal campaign finance violations relating to the stormy daniel's payments. he made false statements to congress. he lied about donald trump's efforts to build a tower and moscow, and he pled guilty to both pay tax fraud and bank fraud in his personal capacity, the prosecution is going to note that michael cohen beyond his guilty plea, he lied to judge pauley. he claims that when he pled guilty to tax fraud and bank fraud, he was actually lying about having committed those crimes. prosecution is going to point out that michael cohen lied to robert muller when he first went into meet with that team, lied to the fec about the stormy daniel's payments even live to the media many times over including about stormy daniel's the second main theme that i think we're going to see the trump team pursue with michael cohen today, is that he has a personal bias against

donald trump. he has very strong feelings against donald trump. hope that this man ends up in prison. i want this man to go down and rot inside plus all the normal personal insults that you hear michael cohen throwing it. donald trump. and i think the third theme that trump's team is going to continue to stress with michael cohen is he has a financial motive in the outcome of this case. they will point out certainly that michael cohen has made millions off of his books, that he has a podcast very much centered on attacking donald trump. he's selling tiktok subscriptions apparently now for 5909 a month in his anti-trump screens, these even selling merchandise including this t-shirt showing donald trump behind bars. so jake, the prosecution is going to stress excuse me trump's defense team is going to stress these three themes today as their cross-examination of michael cohen resumes and should conclude within a couple of hours. >> the only person i know who subscribes to the michael cohen tiktok and i don't i don't i wouldn't be surprised if he has lots of followers, et cetera. but the only person i know is david urban, who watches them. so so so i guess you get your

customers where you can get them yeah. >> why don't know that he pays for it, but he says that he watches it, hasn't denied to us that he will and we will ask it's clearly a hate watch. >> so, you know, it's it's people do that. let me start with you, jamie, michael cohen's expected to be back on the stand in about 20 minutes, right and the defense is expected to finish their cross of him overall, how damaging do you think trump's cross-examine trump team's cross-examination of michael cohen has been so first, i think we have to see what the prosecutors du and if there are terms of the cleanup in terms of cleanup, and take that on juries are unpredictable. >> we don't know what is going to affect them. there are also two lawyers on this jury, which i would argue has perhaps undo undo influence. but let's remember, prosecutors tried to inoculate michael cohen from day one by laying a lot of this

out there the one thing we knew by the end of the prosecution case was nobody liked michael cohen very much. >> yeah. i think one of the questions so dana is how well did they inoculate him? like they were they tough enough? we've had some of the lawyers here saying they could have inoculated him more, just to illustrate this on thursday, todd blanche trump's attorney, pointed out a series of things that cohen had said false under oath. blanche. so just as it relates to that issue, you lied under oath, correct? cohen? yeah. blanche. and you lied again when you met with the special counsel on august 7, correct? cohen? correct. blanche and you as we talked about in november, november 29th of that year, 2018, you pled guilty to lying to congress, correct? cohen i did. that's a lot. and those are all that's not just like lying to your bookie. that's lying under oath before like official proceeding or lying to us, line to the media, line to anybody in your life that is a very,

very big deal. you're right. >> and that was just one example. elie just laid out what we're going to see today. so there's going to be more icing on that cake, if you will. so the inoculation that the prosecuted prosecution did in their in their direct they're going to have to do even more so in their redirect. and it's an open question whether or not they can clean it up because the jury has heard so much. thanks to the questioning from trump's defense that really puts what is the most important thing for the defense in the jury's mind, which is reasonable doubt. >> so right now, in court, a meal beauvais, who is trump's attorneys is talking about what mr. smith can say and what mr. smith cannot say. i think this is an election law on campaign finance. expert and they're getting into the nitty-gritty of what is important and what is not beauvais is arguing that the information they want to get into the record through their campaign finance expert

is quote absolutely critical to the jury understanding of the government's allegations in this case. but let's take a step back. i want to ask my attorneys about this delay because we had thought possibly tomorrow, there will be closing arguments. >> and now the judge, juan merchan's just announced that because of conversations over the weekend closing arguments are expected a week from tomorrow. >> what gibbs what you want the jury to have an uninterrupted ability to deliberate. >> remember there, when they closing arguments and then there's a during interactions likely to be some fights over what's going to be in those jury instructions is a very important part. remember, you're talking about a misdemeanor elevated to a felony. you're talking about issues in terms of circumstantial evidence about what credit to give to different people if there's an expert testifying how they should regard that person as well. and so this will take some time to do and he hasn't one want to have a start and stop back in oftentimes be hard on a defendant, frankly, and their right to a fair trial and deliberative process. because if somebody's stopping and

starting, we're thinking, let's get it done before memorial day. i got plans. that's not good for a defendant is not good for the prosecution either, but not for a defendant. so he wants to have a continuous flow of information and deliberate patient. >> yeah. >> judge marsha and head two options here. both of them bad and i think he chose the better or the less bad of the two. option a was have the parties close, say tomorrow. right. but the problem is then the jury would start deliberating thursday. there's no court wednesday, and then they'd have a five de break in the middle of deliberations if they started thursday would carry over till next tuesday do not want that for the reasons laura said, why don't you want legal because it just interrupts the continuity of it. you want a juries deliberated, you want them on a very short leash. things can go bad. someone can see something happening. if that happens during deliberation that is a big problem. so you generally want to keep deliberations altogether and as close to closing as you can. so option b, which judge merchan has chosen is we'll finish up the presentation of evidence today may be slightly into tomorrow. will take a week long break, but then every we'll come back,

we'll go closings. right to jury instructions, right. to deliberations. it's smooth er that way i think he did the right thing. >> have a jury note right. to the judge, and that's the part where you get concerned as a prosecutor or defense counsel because you don't want them trying to fill in the blanks. you want to have some surjection from the judge. do you want to have them not having the delay and thinking themselves, i'll just figure it out or it's not that big of deal on the end. gain. that's not good for either side tim, let me just ask you some of the lawyers that we've talked to have said that they think the prosecution's case has been so weak that as soon as the prosecution's done presenting, they think the defense should i'm not exactly sure what the legal term is, but ask the judge just a kill this thing. oh, there's no question. yeah. once the prosecution breast than the defense has an opportunity turning to make a motion for a judgment of acquittal, and basically go through the elements of the crime to show that they have failed to present evidence on certain issues, and as a matter of law, there's no way that any reasonable jury could find

for a conviction i can imagine that they would do that. for example, all the checks out of his personal account saying those are business records, they haven't shown that it's anything other than his personal account. i can imagine that they'll do it on the on the subject of what is the target crime that they were trying to conceal since right now they're arguing about whether bringing fec experts of how they actually presented evidence of what the supposed campaign finance violation would be as a matter of law. and so with those things, the judge can he can either get rid of the case entirely at that point. he probably won't write how he probably won't. he can cut it down. i've seen judges do that where they'll take long list of indictment it takes some of the counts out at that stage and oftentimes what they'll do is they'll defer judgment on it because they want to allow the jury to render their decision. if they simply dismiss the case at that point, it limits the appellate issues and so if it were the

the ability for the prosecution to appeal it al,hehereas if they h jury had already convicted. and then that gave the prosecution the grounds to appeal that judgment. and it was ultimately reinstated. >> so let me ask you, is it is it is it perceived as annoying when a defense team does that? i mean, like i could see that. yeah. again, i'm not alone here i don't the prosecutor, i mean, the knowing the judge like i mean, it just seems like oh, knee-jerk that if i'm if i'm a defense attorney, i'm just going to make that movement i'm okay. meant motion every time. no. no. you wouldn't do what? >> it's expected that you would do. so this is a really common thing to have gap. it's also equally common for a judge not to grant it. there are reasons you have to preserve things for the appellate process process. most objections might get sustained or overruled, but you have to still preserve your ability to do so. and if you don't do so, you lose it forever and you

want to have every band didn't have it not go to a jury and there are instances when they the prosecution has failed to make a very basic thing into the record. in fact, and the judge can say, you have failed that and it's our obligation to not have to go to a jury. this is not the case. all right. very interesting. kaitlan collins, back to you in manhattan yeah, jake, we are still waiting for michael cohen to get back on the witness stand as we know, he may very well be the prosecution's last witness. >> but then the defense will have the prosecution all the chance to question. and once again, once trump's team is done, i have seen it to paula reid and john berman here outside of the courthouse with me and polo. obviously, one of the things that they're still designing is once they're done with michael cohen, which could go back and forth for a little bit this afternoon, is whether or not the defense is going to call witnesses besides the epc export that they're talking about. now, and you've been tracking the robert costello issue very closely. what's the thinking and why they still i haven't decided yet if they're calling this witness so they

have to see how michael cohen's testimony wraps up to answer whether they really need to bring bob costello back in to further and cohen's credibility. >> there's a belief that blanche has done a pretty good job so far and that they don't need to drag this out any further by calling costello it. but obviously cohen's testimony is not i've done. so it's still an open question, but as we've reported, there's a divide within the trump team about whether calling hit all that would be beneficial. they don't call costello though the only witness that we've really do expect them to call his brad smith right now. he's a top federal election commission, a former top federal election i'm commission official now. >> right now, the trump team is sparring with the judge over how much smith can say if he took the stand. >> now that he's going back and forth with the judge the defensive kind of backed off of their aggressive advocacy for having to allow smith to say more than just basically what the fec does because at this point and if they put brad smith on, they're just doing it. >> i'm told to preserve issues for appeal. he'll be on there

for a couple of minutes. i'll talk about with the fec does and ben, he'll step down and as of now, he's the only witness now that we believe they're going to put on the stand, but the judge has really limited how much you can say. well, i'm john, it's so notable to always watch these interactions between the trump du the judge when he just told trump's attorney bernie to relax what you did so with a smile, are doing in the room says, as uveal beauvais, trump's attorney was arguing for what this witness can or cannot testify to, what the judge is going i'm going to say to the jury. i mean, it just a's ruling against them basically on this saying, i'm going to stick with what i previously decided. >> it's really interesting. look, we're all waiting to see michael cohen back on the stand right now. but i actually think it's going on right here in many of these lawyers minds is more important than what we're going to see on the stand today. they are posturing and positioning for closing arguments. they are posturing and positioning for even more boring the jury instructions from the judge, which really could be decisive in this case right now, the reason they're arguing about having this defense witness on election law is donald trump's team wants to have you there was no election law broken here. this hasn't

come up at all yeah, really, in this trial, they need to figure out how and where they'll argue that if it's only lee and closing arguments is with this epc witness, brad smith, it looks like it's only gonna be in closing arguments based on the rulings were getting right here and asked for the prosecution. >> they're trying to i think line they know how they're going to head into their final argument about saying what you heard from michael cohen. michael cohen's flawed, but you only have to believe some of the things that he said. >> well, and this is someone who was it's fec chair. he was appointed to that position by president bill clinton and he's someone who basically the concern that i heard from the judge when i was in the courtroom last week was that they put him up and then the prosecution feels like de their own witness up and then the jury is left kind of confused because it's this battle of the experts playing out when when we kinda know what it is and the prosecution is getting up to argued trump's leaning into blanche, hitting them on the arm as he is whispering something days attorney, that's notable. i mean, obviously, defendants interact with attorneys all the time, but but trump seems to be

dictating often a lot of the strategy with his movements in port to his attorneys. absolutely. i mean, he's clearly interested in this and this is pretty much their entire defense. and one of the things that defense is arguing here is that the reason this case is charged as a felony is because prosecutors alleged these documents were falsified in an effort to interfere with the election, and they've laid out a few potential different election law violations. but the judge says, look, they are they are not charging that formerly that is that as part of falsifying business records, but he hasn't actually been charged meant election crime. they don't need to prove that beyond a reason. snowballed out. and that is why he is limiting this witness. now, i've been told it if the defense brings smith on, that, the prosecution actually may have a rebuttal witness. anyway, so they may hear from at least two witnesses, but it sounds like it's going to be pretty narrow and they're not likely to get into this dreaded battle of the witnesses. >> what things they wanted to avoid is having this witness come on to testify about jhana edwards, former senator, former vice presidential candidate, who was charged with violating election law and they didn't want to have that come out. the prosecution doesn't want to

have that come out because there was a hung jury there from they didn't want this expert to explain why he thinks there was a hung jury inaccurate. >> and right now he's asking the attorneys to approach the bench on a scheduling issue when that happens, if you're in the courtroom, the jury is not in there, obviously right now, you we cannot even hear what they're talking about. we often find out later on a transcript, but paul it michael cohen is waiting to retake the stand. he's in a small room off the courtroom. he's been there for a few hours because only this house this morning they've had all weekend since thursday to talk about because trump was at his son's graduation on friday to think about what they're going to use these last two hours or so on. michael cohen, how that line of questioning is going to go. they've been feeling pretty good what about how it's gone too far? >> absolutely. three whole de look through everything he has said in the past, what he said on the stand and what they still need to do. and we've seen that the trump team uses their time pretty effective. they had one extra day to go back on stormy daniel's and we saw that that completely changed their approach to her and they came back guns blazing in terms of their cross-examination, i would expect this will probably be

pretty focused on the actual charges, the allegations here, the alleged conspiracy to falsify business records and trying to effectively undercut other things that he has said, look, they they landed some serious punches. it took todd blanche a while to get there. he sort of meandering at first, but he really landed some serious punches, did some damage to michael cohen's credibility and i expect he will be very focused on doing the same over the next few hours. >> it also be key to sail the prosecution is to try to restore his credibility. michael cohen will be back on the witness stand any minute now, the big development that we got from inside the court this morning, first off, is the judge says he doesn't expect closing arguments to happen this week. that means no verdict. this week, you're watching cnn's special live coverage. stay right here with us sirens are going off and firing the 20 here i'm thinking language to die and i thought that was it earth with liev schreiber premieres june 2, id nine on cnn everywhere,

but the seed, the seed is 11. >> now, i get it. you love your bike. we do too. >> that's why we're american. number one motorcycle insurer. the d have to wedge it and everything don't do that surmise me on my black the wolf was about the size of my new motorcycle. have you seen it by the way but i ground really look how brushstrokes bottle the line of a gas tank problem plus one jamie right now, pet dander skin cells in dirt are settling deep into your carpet fibers. stanley steamer removes the dirt uc and the dirt you don't your corporates aren't clean until they're stanley steamer clean these name allergies with allegro. >> they won't stop me. nothing beats allegro it's the fastest non drowsy 24 hour allergy relief live. your greatness

rose sparks engineered for the spontaneous, a dual action formula with the active ingredients and and sialic faster acting and long-lasting, grabbed the moment get started at row.com slash sparks it's payback time all these years you've worked hard. you've fixed it. you looked after it maybe it's time for your home to start taking care of you. leave, invested in our home we've worked on it. >> we had a whole lot of equity. we just sitting there, you pay down the mortgage, invested in your own i guess you could say your home owes you if you're 62 or older lloran own your home, learn how you can access a portion of your home equity to give you cash a reverse mortgage can put more money in your pocket by eliminating your monthly mortgage payments, paying off higher interest credit cards, and covering medical costs. look, aag can show you how a

reverse mortgage loan uses your built-up home equity to give you a tax free cash for almost anything you might need, just eliminate mortgage payment freed up a lot cash, horse i get to go and do what i want when i want. hey, aug customers talked about the counseling they've got along the way. so they know how a reverse mortgage works and how their homes could help pay them back when they need it the most. >> i have no worries anymore. the fact that we're still in this home means so much. it's done everything for us that we hoped it would do for us. >> call now to receive your free no obligation so get the kid shows you how to get you the cash you need using your homes equity with a reverse mortgage fund down how your home can start taking care of you, call 800 britain 9942, 517. >> the worry every single month to make that payment was gone. >> our customers homes are taking care of them maybe your home could do the same for you

call aag, the country's number one reverse mortgage lender in get your free info kit i call 809 942517, 942517 and university of maryland global campus getting a bachelor's degree doesn't have to mean starting from scratch here, you can earn up to 90 undergraduate credits for relevant experience. what will your next success speaks this is the most powerful pen holder eliminator in the world it's safe for people, pets, and the planets powerful enough to eliminate this stake from organic, older. >> yeah, it's safe enough to use our toys. there even. >> so why waste money on any product that isn't totally eliminate the steak? >> there's only one available online and that these stores, if it's not proof mr.

adrenaline flown just like every turn came my shot of adrenaline right to the heart welcome back to cnn special live coverage of donald trump's hush money cover-up trial pardon me. moments ago, the former president just left court. the judge had declared a quick morning break when that break ends, michael cohen is set to go back under oath. murky will face even more probing questions on cross-examination. let's talk about this, casey, during cohen's across defense attorney todd blanche on the trump team rattled off a list of people that cohen has blamed for his wrongdoing, other than assuming responsibility himself, blanche you blame a lot of people over the years for the conduct that you were convicted of, cohen, i blame people. yes. blanche, you blame your accountant, cohen? correct? blanche, at times you blame the bank cohen, correct.

blanche, you blame federal prosecutors, correct? cohen? yes, sir. >> plants you blamed the judge cohen? >> yes, sir. blanche, you blamed president trump cohen? yes, sir. >> not particularly repentant sounding. >> know. >> i'm not sure. >> you i think we're all raised hopefully to not do this with our wrongs, but also, i think my question about this exchange is whether it says anything about whether the jury should believe michael cohen or not, because at the end of the day it's donald trump's actions that are most at question. >> and the question is whether or not donald trump did in fact paid this money to michael cohen and whether or not cohen wants to blame all of his problems on other people. it seems kind of irrelevant to me. maybe the jury will see it differently, whether he paid it it and it's beyond that, obviously, i think it's is what you are saying whether he did it intentionally to skirt election laws, right? whether he did it intentionally to skirt his own company books. and that's what's a the

question for the jury. and when they come back to the prosecution not just redirect, but in their closing it's hard to imagine that that won't be the focus much more than what cohen is saying. >> it would be better for prosecutors if michael cohen was repentant and credible and did not have his tiktok and everything else out there. but the reality is, they brought this case thinking they could make this case, i assume you guys never brought cases thinking you would lose you thought, well, but you've probably on cases that you were pressured to bring and you weren't sure about them, right? i mean i mean, prosecutors certainly are not infallible. we brought case i brought cases that i thought were stronger than they ended up being. i've been unpleasantly surprised like testimony of cooperating witnesses, so sure. alvin bragg, you don't indict a case like this unless you believe you can make it. but i think this case had obvious legal and factual infirmities from the

star, and i think some of those have come into sharper relief now, can also political pressures, right? >> i mean, it seems very obvious and i don't know that the jury is going to be exposed to this, but obviously alvin bragg as polar as an elected political official felt some, i guess, the the most charitable way to put it as he felt pressure to be bold and go after a former president and less charitable interpretation might be, he felt pressure as a democrat in a democratic city to go after a republican president, that a lot of people didn't like. well, some of that pressure is self-imposed when, when campaigns. >> this we have been prosecutors who were leyen prosecutor is not appointed, not elected. >> and so there has been a notion that those who are elected have a stronger desire to try to make good on campaign promises. letitia james is one person they've chris has was very point, but one of the pressures that they've had for alvin bragg has been the decision to go from a misdemeanor to a felony. that's been the point at the

most contention here. and in order to have it be, i mean, if you're talking about a regular misdemeanor case which is less than six months prison time, et cetera. in fact, i have a tablet fades very notion. i mean, it was, it was coming and we so if it were a misdemeanor, right. you have this idea. what we often seen this idea causing these falsified business records and what it looked like. but then you have here and no one's going to my tablet and i'm said i had a tablet to go to my tablet because i have a tablet i'm looking at the gray matter, told have enough controller we got well so you can actually make or cause a false entry in the business records can make it actually into a felony though, you have to have a person guilty at the idea of the intent to defraud the commit. >> another crime that's the part here that's important now they're going to try to use this fact that there was a conspiracy to try to have it campaign finance contribution that was not otherwise lawful or disclosed in some way, but they can also use that to suggest that they caused michael cohen to do this. so

that's the whole linchpin of their case. this idea buying into the conspiracy that david pecker has talked about, the commissioning other crime, the idea that it was not necessary, donald trump, that he caused her to be the different charges 11 checks to cohen, 11 invoices submitted, 12 entries, and trump's ledger, but he's got to make this case by putting in a combination of mcconney's notes on what allen weisselberg has said on weisselberg was not actually there to add this whole thing up. and so it is a very difficult case to have all these for dots connected. it's not a through line. and for that reason, he will look at it and say, well, what was the reason you chose to bring this case in this way as a felony add one quick thing. >> you will hear people say, well, the da's office charges falsification of business records all the time. you heard the da's offices said it's the bread and butter of what they do that is true, but that is drawing the boundaries really, really broadly. the fact is they charge this particular statue in this manner, tacking it onto a federal election campaign with no separate fraud charge never, river twice in

ten years, that's hundreds of thousands of cases. so it's all in how you look at it, like many things with tim, if you were the defense on the defense team, what would you do after the prosecution rest? would you call a witness? would you call bob costello? would you call a campaign finance expert or would you rest? >> it's difficult for me to say sitting outside the courtroom. yeah. i'm seeing all the highlights here. and so the cross is going very well. but at the same time, it's a game. they decision you have to make inside the courtroom based on how the jurors look to you, do you think that everything has landed du want? michael cohen to be the last person they hear from a bug casella has some very good information that can be provided. but at the same time, if you properly debrief bob costello before the cross-examination, you can use all that and get a lot of that same information out through cohen himself and he centrally, especially using the emails and text messages the bob has. so maybe you don't need to call them so whether to put on a defense case is a decision that

i never make until after the prosecution rests. once once the prosecution rests, as a judge can we take a break? and that's when i actually make that decision. so one of the things that we talked about with i talked about it after our coverage on thursday and friday is the fact that how we are all taking in this trial is very different than how the jury is. we are getting tidbits from our reporters there, and we are jumping finland the most interesting ones, the most credible ones, the ones that seem to be the most impactful to us and whether they're good for donald trump are bad for donald trump. but. the jury doesn't have that. the jury has hours and hours and hours it's possible that some of the attorneys we have on our panels are better communicators than some of the attorneys actually presenting the case one way or the other. it's possible that we are hitting issues and litigating them and discussing

them in a way that is more convincing to ourselves. then it would be to a jury which is why we should have cameras in the courtroom that wasn't how it was going to finish my sentence. much better way to finish that sentence, we should have cameras in the courtroom that's why it arguments exists. right? i mean, the closing arguments, i feel like in this case are going to matter so much because there were so many days of compelling testimony that we're going to continue today with people like michael cohen, with stormy day daniel's stage merchan has just called for the witness, by the way. so we're about to get ready to rumble as it were, but they're also been days of very, very dry testimony. that dry testimony might be the most important when it comes to that question of whether or not he should be convicted. >> i sort of have this broader question as we were just about jumping again, i will be doing this annoyingly throughout all the coverage as cohen walked

past a trump's table and the witnesses walk in behind the defendant's table. trump's head turned to look at him, but it did not look like they made eye contact, just trying to bring you inside the room? >> we, as political reporters, right? we have spent the last eight years plus breaking down all of our previously held assumptions about what voters wanted, what was acceptable, and politics and jake, your question about how michael cohen blamed all these other people. and the jamie, what you said about how you would be a better witness if he was contrite, if he was willing to take responsibility. >> i guess my question is has are sort of political culture change the way that might play with a jury. i mean, is the jury people is going to be looking for in their politicians a willingness to fight, willingness to say the other guy is always wrong. no, i'm not sorry for what i did. it mean should we be thinking about this in a different way? >> and these are new yorkers there. they're pretty, they're pretty tough i think there are all kinds of questions that we

simply don't know does a high-profile case, does donald trump simply sitting there subconsciously or consciously raise the bar on what beyond a reasonable doubt means especially when you're talking about a law that someone wrote was cloudy. this misdemeanor versus felony. does the jury get in there and they want to know where's allen weisselberg? where's where's keith schiller i'm going to quote my mother, the judge, i promise this is the last time i used it i asked her, do juries get the verdict right? and she said, yes, most of the time they do but they come to the right verdict frequently for the wrong reason explain meaning that what they find compelling about a case is not necessarily what the three lawyers here think they're presenting. all right. interesting stuff.

kaitlan collins yeah, jake and we now see that todd blanche is back at the lectern to question michael cohen as he is back on the stand. this is the same attorney who questioned him last week for those two days and now is going to finish up. he believes this morning with the first cross-examination of michael cohen, paula reid, i mean, what have we heard from the trump team? they felt good walking out of that courthouse on thursday, but i still think there's open question of whether or not we don't know how the jury saw that moment where michael cohen was talking to keith schiller about prank call or that he'd been so flustered by was aggravating him. we don't know how the jury saw that and how they're viewing michael cohen's credibility right now. so i wonder how the trump team, how confident they feel about their line of questioning really happy with how the how the last day of question michael cohen went, it took them a while, right? the first day was sort of meandering. there were jumping all over the place. i was told that was strategic jake to throw him off his game. >> it didn't succeed. >> but then when they came back

on thursday, they were able to successfully get him to admit that he hasn't been truthful on the stand at least once in the of course of this case. >> now, since that time until right now, how many reporters have asked you to talk about what happens last week? blanche kicking off by referencing cohen's pension for talking to reporters. now cohen says, i didn't speak to reporters about what happened last week. so this appears to be blanche's first line of attack, which is how much cohen welcome to the press. how much press he also takes it, how much he's watching this. >> he said he's spoken to reporters who call it to say hello, to check in, but i did not talk about this case. i mean, this isn't relevant until what's at the heart of this case, but but one thing that they tried to be establishing last week, john, when i was in there watching todd blanche question michael cohen was relationships that he has with reporters, reporters he has recorded surreptitiously and conversations before and just inside world though. i mean, it's clear trump would often dispatch has top officials to call porter's and to talk to them long before or even ran for office.

>> one of the things i'm looking for right now is if todd blanche introduces something new here, that the prosecution will have to deal within redirect because the prosecution is at all weekend to prepare as well, their redirect to clean up what happened last week, danya perry, who is michael cohen's personal lawyer, has had all weekend with him to help him figure out how he wants to navigate through the rest of this unlikely, by the way. then michael cohen, the prosecution's spoke. they're allowed to, but it would be a problem, right. because todd blanche could ask him right now, for instance, have you spoken to the prosecution the last few days? it'd be forced to admit yes. so i do not think that had happened here, but i'm waiting to see if blanche has something extra to knock the prosecution office phi one one thing that he was asking him last week was when did you stop recording reporter michael cohen's and 2016 and toggle entry to comment. we'll revisit that in a moment. it will check both together, but it's not clear that he actually has a moment like that. we'll wait to see how this plays out. >> but michael cohen, you know, one thing they've tried to do is to get under his skin. >> he has not gotten incorrect terribly flustered on the stand. he hasn't raised his

voice. he did speak on as cross-examine the cross-examination was happening, paula, he was speaking in halting terms, choosing his words and bear read carefully as he was answering todd blanche's questions after that moment about the text? >> yeah. you have to give michael cohen credit. >> imagine the stress. of being in the situation, being on that witness stand in front of your former boss, knowing a large part of this case rests on you and also having at least some level of self-awareness about what a flawed witness you are. >> so given the stakes, given the pressure, he has held up really well now right now i'll add blanche push the issue of talking to reporters, asking cohen to confirm the reporters just graded you and asked how you were doing. >> you didn't ask it all about the case? correct. now presumably blanche as someplace that he's going with this, these are certainly be wasted questions. if you didn't know the answer or you didn't have any evidence that perhaps there was some communication. now, blanche is asking cohen, how many times now with prosecutors is here we know from our reporting that he's been preparing for this for well over a year later, said dozens of times, over 100 hours, not

with these prosecutors specifically, but with all prosecutors from the da's office, which makes sense. he is the star witness in a trial like this, and he's a difficult witness, but overall, he has performed well for the prosecution. he has come across com he has come across humble, coherent. the question is, does the jury believe is credible? >> and he spoke to them 20 times. you just clarify. john berman and he did say before he he took the stand last monday, he spoke with prosecutors that weekend, so that is the last known instance we know of a conversation michael cohen, habit prosecutor. yeah. it looks we've all interviewed him over the of course of the last few years, over the last few months, every time he's been with me, i've asked, have you been meeting with prosecutors and it's always yes. the answer is always yes. do your point of him not breaking he even the worst moment of this trial for michael cohen when he was talking about the prank call, he left himself and the prosecution a little bit of an out there. he managed to maneuver it to a space where we may have talked about something else. he managed not to speak in absolutes in a way that would get him in real potential

problem later on and maybe give the process given a way to go back at it and redirect and asked michael cohen, is back on the stand. we also have attorney michael vendor vein here who represented donald trump in his second impeachment trial. and i wonder michael, what you make now the defense is done. cross-examining michael cohen and whether you believe that they've established and accomplished what they needed to do with him well, you know, i think that they've done pretty well. i'd give him somewhere between nda ranges to what a solid eight because they've accomplished what they wanted to with him. there's a lot of material to do that width, but they were able to show that ease pathological liar that he's lied in just about every stage of his life, about just about anything. and they don't necessarily haven't shaken them emotionally where he's broken down and given that perry mason moment of yeah, i

lied. but with the text passengers last week it was a great way for them to end the afternoon i think they have a great rhythm going in now and it's much easier the third time. the third day you're you're questioning somebody. you really have much more control over what you're asking and a lot more we're controlled over the witness, but the point earlier is absolutely right. you never know what a juries thinking about. you never know what facts there actually focusing in on it. for almost every jury trial life. i've had i've always been amazed at some what we thought was not a very important fact to be a fact that they discussed and discussed and thought was a lot more important than everybody else. so we don't know what the jury's thinking. but it looks like the cross-examination is doing everything they wanted to do. >> well, and that's the question here because it also could be the reverse. you know,

maybe the different seasons as a really pivotal moment. but the jury may not. and so that's what we have to leave room for here. right now. todd blanche is asking michael cohen about the prep he's done. he said that he heard several questions first-time from prosecutors last week, he's asking about the prep that he did for his congressional testimony with now congressmen dan goldman, who at the time was was working for congressman adam schiff. but on that moment, i was looking back at michael cohen's testimony and just all the testimony we've heard of the last several weeks this weekend, and maybe that moment with 14 year-old and the prankster. >> obviously, it was a moment that was not a good one for michael cohen or the prosecution. but he also testified about other instances where he had to phone calls with trump 30 minutes before we went opened up that home equity line of credit account that he used to pays me daniels. >> we saw the flurry of calls with david pecker, with keith davidson, whose negotiating this i mean, there is other evidence here that backs up michael cohen's testimony that the jury has also seen i mean, do you have doubt that? >> that could also be pretty

effective for the jury here yeah. i think you're right and the fact is the prosecutor's if they think they've been heard anywhere gonna be able to come back and throw up some softball questions so he can hit them out of the park and really explain it. wow, it might have been this in color that phone call regarding the tax, but they really will lead. they'll go through all the facts that they think they're solid him in an attempt to really rehabilitate them if you were the defense team here, would you call any witnesses once the prosecution rests robert costello, the fec expert, donald trump i'd one i don't know if i'd call costello particularly i think you can get out of what you can get out of castellows. you can get out of the cross of cohen. i think the elections expert is super important for a number of reasons one, to get in as much

information as you can to the jury so that they can be informed as to the defense argument as to why this isn't election interference and fvc expert would be really good for them. but the other issue is, you know, just keeping your appellate issues fresh there they've been asking this, judge for months now to call an epc expertise. this was all done in pretrial and there were motions had their emotions. are you there are orders issued on those motions, so he's really boxed himself and with there's rulings and what they want to do is continue to read he enforced that. hey, we're being prejudice here. there's something if this if the jury goes the wrong way for us on this case, we got solid appellate issues because the judge denied us this this and this you should really be liberal with the defense and their ability to present

information it's the government's burden to prove you're on a reasonable doubt has the dej box them in i mean, i was listening to him and he was saying his earlier rulings were basically that yes, they can call this election expert. >> there are just only certain parameters of questions of what they can ask them because then otherwise the prosecution will feel the need to call an election expert and then it's going to be a battle of the experts that doesn't really serve any purpose, but to confuse the jury on stating what the law and just different interpretations of it well, when i was talking about box and the man box his position for appellate review. but as far as i think his ruling so far on i'm the expert, are that basically he can go through statutory definitions, but he can't really apply the facts of the case. >> almost every case is a battle of experts i mean, that's really never is one side presenting an expert in

criminal trials, you know, you have dna experts, both sides. yeah. fingerprint experts both sides. you got done analysis, ballistics experts, both sides. most every trial today is about all of experts and that's certainly not a reason to preclude an expert from testifying because somebody else may have one. it's almost nonsensical yeah. >> michael van der vain. obviously, it's the election law here that would be told to the jury. we'll see what happens there. thank you so much for joining us right now. cohen is talking about how he was dealing with his taxes see medallion business and investment sale, the national diversity coalition for donald trump, all as he was preparing. once donald trump took office before this relationship deteriorated todd blanche is now asking michael cohen let me about working with david pecker on litigation involving the attorney, marc kasowtiz. cohen says correct paula reid as blanche is going down this line of questioning, he talked about whether or not michael cohen spoke to reporters this weekend. then he asked about his rep. with prosecutors and now he's asking about what was going on at the time of before

we saw the before and after of his complete break with donald trump, i want to note that the screen move too quickly. for you to read it, but he was also working on obtaining an endorsement from martin luther king junior's family at this time. so blanche asks cohen if he remembers that rider on october 26th, cohen was also hoping tiffany trump with a a potential extortion issue over photographs. >> so the point here that blanche is now getting du this is been meandering. i'll definitely admit that, but here, pointing he's getting to is that cohen had a broad portfolio of legal services that he provided to the trump family. so they're going to try to tie this to 2017 and the invoices that cohen testified were falsified he argues that because he didn't have a retainer that these were not truly reflective of the work he was doing well, defense attorneys, you're going to say you never had a retainer and the entire time he worked for trump and you were doing different things related to legal services for various members of the trump family and the trump organization. so that's where this is likely leading to but it's taken blanche a minute to get there. they're also clearly challenging cohen's ability to

remember everything that's going on an october by talking about october 26 16, by talking about everything else he had going on. >> he was busy and had a lot. >> i do think specifically on this matter, you're looking at right now with tiffany trump, they're also going to suggest that michael cohen spoke to david about this, maybe to introduce the idea, look, you were talking to david pecker about a lot of things too. so a lot of his phone records we may see between you and pecker at this time were about that all this is key because on october 26, that's what we were so i was just referencing when he had does two phone calls and we couldn't see the what the content of the cold war, but there were the signal calls between he and david pecker that they showed on the screen to the jury and it was a flurry of calls on and around october 25th and october 26, so it could be arguing. well, maybe you were talking to david pecker about this matter, injecting doubt. i mean, that is what todd blanche is trying to do here. inject some doubt around some of the documentary evidence that exists here in this case. >> i didn't they can establish a pattern, right? they got that one knockout punch about him, perhaps lying on the stand about one conversation, if they

can establish that that is happening but more than once during the cop course of his direct testimony, that would be incredibly damaging and why didn't this come up before? >> because michael cohen even testified at the work he was doing further, the wax figure sure. of melania trump. i mean we heard him, donald trump junior, some stuff for him. we heard about other work that michael cohen is doing these are two aspects that it's certainly so the tiffany trump part that did not come up. >> yeah. a judge lee prosecutors didn't know. and look, defense attorneys had three whole days to go through every single scintilla of evidence i've been told well, for over week that they were always going to go back at the fact that he was doing legal work for trump during 2017, may not have been directly for the then-president, but for other people. >> and that is why he was being paid legal services. they're also going to emphasize how their client is notoriously cheap and he wouldn't just mark up some sort of reimbursement out of the goodness of his heart that he truly believed that this was illegal surfaces. that's going to be their whether the jury buys it. i think that's the big question. yeah. jake, obviously that's a big question of michael cohen's credibility and

what todd blanche can do in these next two hours to try to undermine it with the jury very very, very important point. >> it's not up to us. it's not up to the viewers. it is up to the 12th people in that jury box. yes, you a question. i was talking to somebody who is aligned with the defendant in this case. and this person was just speculating about a specific juror or this person had been in the room and said, i think we have europe, this juror on her side, not based on any anything shady, just based on body language. is that how prosecutors and defense attorneys look at cases? do you are you looking at all 12 or 18 if you have alternatives that might be coming down the line and you're trying to figure out who seems to be receptive, who seems to be following closely, who seems to be somebody if you're a defense attorney that maybe you should be directly appealing to when you address the jury, 1,000%. i mean, that's the whole point of having the jury. why do your process trying to understand their background? what what makes them tick? what might trigger them? >> you it more for the

summation as you're tailoring what parts of the evidence came in to the individual person. >> you're never 1,000% sure by the way, and some instances in some cases, you will have alternate jurors who might be the ones who are more on your side and you got a different issue you'll also people who might be very strong willed and you want to lean to that person and think, well, that the person i need to convince the most because they may be the one waffling. you have to guess. and many times, but at the end, the de, it's not unlike what we do for the supreme court when we think we've got this person didn't get these boats or in congress think he got these vo, we can appeal to john roberts fuel to neil gorsuch, or we could have probably appeal to a member of congress if you were trying to the legislative over the, over the hurdle, jurors obviously are neither party, neither category of people, but you are trying to read the body language you're trying to understand. are they wincing? are they leaning in? are they visibly disgusted? are they weepy? are they looking empathetic? or you write in your assessment at the end of no i don't go exactly right. >> we do it all the time. it's

pulsive. were interpreting juror body language is inherently fraught, right? there. there's so much ambiguity, but i mean, the way it works is you're sitting here, the jury's right there, and all you care about is how are they taking this? and you're so tempted as a prosecutor or defense lawyer to just sort of like cast, but you can't stare at them because you don't want a weird them out. and so you try to take your opportunities just like attending a party i wanted to say one thing with the risk of interpreting i one time had a defense lawyer closing and i noticed one of the jurors was like this, and i thought, oh god, we're in trouble then i got up to get my rebuttal. i really but she was just rocking and or cherish it was nodding for me as well, so it is inherently dangerous to make those kind of guesses. the rocking chair is very important because it lets you know that they're awake right? >> when you're sitting at the table, you don't want to stare at them but one thing that i do as a defense lawyer, prosecutors don't get to do do it as much on direct during cross-examination. i'm not even looking at the witness. i'm making eye contact with the juror. i'm watching the jury

and based on how they're receiving the questions, as i'm making eye contact with each individual juror. that's when i decided. okay. i'm going to do a few more questions on this or this is a stupid line of question. they don't let me move on and so it's all about the jury well, the opinions of matter yours is not one of them. >> and so with their is the defendant has some money and i'm wondering also, they obviously know who these 12 people are that we know. they know which ones like we all know that there are two lawyers on the jury. they know who those lawyers are. they have looked at the social media profiles. they did this during voir dire when they were picking the jury. they're probably still following and looking at the social media profiles and the social media private profiles of people close to the jury, right? i mean, they're looking at everything that they're really trying to get any clue they can about these people. and again, i'm not alleging that any first of all, i'm sure the

prosecution is doing a two second one that alleging anything wrong with it. it's just information that if it's public, you can get it. oh yeah. it's important because you have to do that not only for figuring out how you're presenting the case right now, if there's any juror misconduct, i mean, this is how the death penalty for the boston marathon bomber got overturned, was going through the social media of the jury so it's very important, but tell me more i don't i don't remember that they the circuit overturn the death penalty because they found that one of the jurors had posted about the case and was saying that they prejudging it. >> oh, yeah it's so important to think of. >> and again, one, if your case is hinging on, maybe trying to get somebody to like um, the jury as opposed to your burden of proof being met, you're in a world of hurt and trouble already, but even more importantly, the jurors are looking at the council. they're looking and setting at the defense counsel at the prosecution. they wanted to understand every time there's a sidebar, what is the bile language of those who are fighting in front of the jury? if you have your client whose

leaning over to you, you're on we were talking about this. you're almost performing for the jury, you know, full well, they're staring at you. i always as a person who had a very clean desk, i never had a lot of papers. why? because if you walk into romanum, the prosecutor and you think that i'm disheveled, then maybe our team who investigated was two, maybe the cops, it is sloppy job as well as opposed to didn't matter what you said. i knew my case. if you're the defense team and you lose emotion or witness comes off the stand. you know this very well, tim, they might come down and the council for the defendant is smiling like that was no matter what was wrong, it was because they know that the defendant like that got it. >> right back like so right now in the case, todd blanche, the defendant it's attorney for donald trump and michael cohen are getting into a back-and-forth about a business opportunity cohen was working on in october 2016. remember, this is the key month here that we're talking about in terms of when this all went down in which plants says involves taxi medallions. but cohen says, no, it's actually related to a mortgage in florida. cohen says

he was in frequent contact with gene friedman who ran cohen's taxi medallions in new york and chicago during the period friedman's checks were bouncing cohen said, attorneys are now the sidebar. let's talk for a second about being on a jury. have any of you ever been on i've never. you have? yes. so tell me about that experience because one of the things i keep thinking about is there's no way for the 12 jurors and six alternates to not be aware of the momentous snus of this case, right? i mean, there are even if they're not like incredibly well read newspaper readers or cnn watchers, they know donald trump, they know he was president, they know his controversial by the white black blanche right now in court is walking through all of the other business cohen had going on during the time that this hush money payment occurred in october 2016. and no doubt trying to establish that there was a lot going on. maybe cohen's memory is not 100% in any case. >> i think about the oj verdict, i think about that was not a verdict in my opinion,

this is just my opinion. my interpretation that was completely devoid of all historical record having to do with being an african american living in los angeles. that's just my interpretation. okay. i look at that verdict and i think that was a political verdict yes, i understand the reasons why there were marked thurman mark fuhrman was not credible and all the mistakes this and that, but i do think that there was a i'm looking at history and i'm making a decision within the realm of history is it not possible that the jurors will do that too? i mean, i know that they won't admit to it, but is it not possible that would happen? >> so first of all, public service announcement, everyone should do jury duty. >> i know what's people i know it's actually fascinating. >> i was like this close once i reported security, jury duty couple of weeks goh and they told me they didn't need me. >> we all down using less up being stopped we were all going to get our jury, so i just i

just got some and then led said they didn't want me in fairness, same thing happens to lawyers the chief judge, judith kate, changed all that and lawyers serve judge i think just to go back to what we said earlier, we don't know what's going to influence a jury. we don't know these two lawyers may not have undue influence at the end of the day. there may be some big personality on that jury who takes over and is very compelling. i think there are you know, to go back to oj. i actually think that there were so many things that played in to that case from johnnie cochran being very good and very likable. >> what he did two prosecutors, mapping great, not being so great. yeah, it's always the

question about judge ito and how he handled the whole thing and weather. >> but i do think that there are these unknowable. >> let just when we haven't mentioned yet today, we'll donald trump take the stand. we do not think donald trump is going to i don't know one person, right but the defense keeps live holding it out there as a possibility as they're legally required to do tim was explaining this earlier, if they don't do that. well, at the end, the judge is going to say, did you want to testify or not, and trump will say no, and that will be the end of that. but that was because in the past it had happened that people did not testify and then it came and went but wanted to and it came up it was grounds for an appeal just to give a quick little update, blanche brings up october 26, the day cohen made the payment to stormy daniels lawyer. he's noting todd blanche said that at the time michael cohen was also so exploring, getting a different job at something called ai payments. in any case, you talked multiple times

at de october 26 with folks associated with dr. king's statement, this is about trying to get the an endorsement from the family of martin luther king. and the fact that she was now going to be supporting president trump. blanche asks, this is what one of the one of the in children endorse donald trump most of them endorsed hillary clinton, i believe. but in any case, go ahead. i'm sorry. yeah. just to finish quickly, i'm curious from the lawyers whether if when after the prosecution goes back on michael cohen and it's the defense's turn. if the defense simply apart from asking for a motion to dismiss, says we rest. in other words sending a message to the jury. hey, we don't think they made their case, and we're not even going to bring case. we think is that a tactic? is that a strategy that sends a message should the jury? >> i think it is in this case and they can totally use that. but also we're looking at and just to clarify for people as what we're seeing as to why

they might be going into all these different areas that he was talking about. remember this case is hinging on whether it was a falsified business record. we got calls coming in at 8:34, lasting a minute and 28 seconds. you get other calls coming in, other areas. he is talking to talking about they're trying to make the case as the prosecution, these were falsified business records and that these were these were not legal services and that the the wheelhouse of michael cohen was specific and unique and intentional now what the defense is trying to do is unravel that and suggests not only were there a lot of things you're working on, but a lot had to do with things that weren't not traditionally legal matters as well. and so if it donald trump signed the nine out of the 11 checks that were written and signed by him in a sharpie been maybe it wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibility that he was signing off and paying you for things that are things that you did not want to live. a lawyer would do. and so you're going to see more and more of this come up if i can just make one point about o j, and that is this. i know people call a

lot, talk about what they thought is political but remember that jurors are told not to leave their common sense or experience at the door of the courthouse when they walk in and they make their credibility assessment, it is based in part on their experience interaction with the law. if they don't believe officers, they don't believe that there is somebody who is credible. they don't believe that that michael cohen, it's credible for whatever their own variety it reasons are they are entitled to do just that in line with trying to understand and assess the credibility of a witness. now, when you come to this course, blanche, asking cohen his recollection of what trump was up to on october 26 he hasn't remember. this can go into it as well. you remember other nuance details about things. but when i'm asked me about things that might have to do with the check or otherwise, a little bit of amnesia that goes into credibility. this is exactly what fellow trump's team is trying to do right now. >> they're focused on the last week of october of 2016, so two weeks before the 2016 election, this is when the stormy daniels payment came to fruition and it

looks like the point that todd blanche just trying to make is you had 1 million things going on michael cohen, you were trying to secure this endorsement. you were running around doing handling various matters. donald trump was all over the place. he's in the last two weeks of a presidential election. how can you possibly remember chapter and verse on these conversations? and i'll michael cohen's direct. >> he was walked through very precisely said on that de at that phone call right there on the record hurts me and donald trump had this specific communication about stormy daniels trying to cast doubt just to add that so blanche asks michael cohen, do you remember that morning, october 26, the trump was going to sit down and do an interview with abc right after 9:00 a.m. does it ring a bell? >> blanche asked? no, sir. cohen says that's funny because i remember it because it was a big it was a highly competitive manner because donald trump, the access hollywood tape head, had dropped a few weeks before, and everybody was trying to get an interview with donald trump to talk about it. and i think david mirror for maybe the actually went all the way to

trump tower and set up and then they decided not to do the interview. so i remember that pretty well. yeah. >> it does appliance tries to use a document to support this, but it was sustained and not allowed. but again, feeding into the idea like man, there was a ton going on. how can you possibly have this, this? complete memory of everything that happened. >> so jamie, to your question. yep. that's actually my default. it's what we call the cross and close method where you don't present a defense case, you really emphasize for the jury that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. we've shown that there witnesses can't be relied upon. we have no obligation wishing to put on a case because they have met their burden. so that is kind of the default position. >> the other thing oh, sorry. the other thing i think that they're showing right now, they're trying to show the jury that michael cohen's testimony has been prepared and crafted to an inch of his life? yeah. earlier, just to just to update people on this earlier, cohen i was asked how many

times he had met with prosecutors and he said more than a dozen. blanche kept pushing anything he admitted that goh was probably close to 20 and the reporters inside the rooms that trump's smiled at, that, at that revelation and again, here we go on this. do you remember that morning trump is going to sit down and do an interview with abc right after nine. does it ring a bell? no. >> you sure. cohen glands questions. cohen if he's still maintains he only spoke to trump on the phone october 26, about the stormy daniels issue. cohen says, yes, quote, because it was important to me, keep going. i'm sorry. yes. so on direct examination when the prosecutor was asking cohen questions, it was all very precise. right. remember that the keith schiller call that became this big moment on thursday on direct, it was unambiguous. october 24th, 8:02 pm. here's the line on the phone records. yes. that was when i called keith schiller and donald trump and told trump the stormy daniels matter is resolved. well, when you dig into it too was a lot of things going on that day. he was actually texting keith schiller about a completely different thing, but the 14-year-old, and here i think they're trying to make a similar point. it's all

nice and clean for the jury when it's on direct, but now when we get into all the other stuff that was coming around, a there's questions about whether cohen is telling the truth be there's questions about whether cohen actually is capable of remembering bring with the level of precision that he said. >> and this is a fascinating little subtext that it's emerges. so this morning, blanche asks cohen if tiffany trump's situation and tiffany trump being donald trump's second daughter. his daughter with marla maples. if if her situation apparently some sort of blackmail situation, was important to him and whether or extortion situation i'm not exactly sure they haven't gone into it. tiffany trump situation was important to him and whether he'd update or father about it. cohen says no it wasn't, i guess important to him because you're talking about would michael cohen have talked to donald trump on this phone call about any of these other matters. so many of them according to todd blanche trump's defense attorney, that michael cohen could have possibly mentioned in addition to or instead of the stormy daniels situation, katelyn

yeah, jake and this is an important moment to pay attention to on this october 26 date because obviously they are trying to question michael cohen's credibility to make jurors think that they can't trust what his memory is about what happened then, but also it's important to remember the stories already seen emails and black and white from keith davidson, stormy daniels is attorney to michael cohen and vice versa on october 26 or michael cohen confirmed that the $130,000 was in his bank account and he was going to be wiring it to keith davidson. >> so this is not a moment that only relies on michael cohen's memory. it's unclear. we'll see where todd blanche is taking this, as he is now questioning michael cohen about his retainer agreement. but paula reid, that's kind of been the argument that the prosecution that michael cohen's former attorney and now legal advisor, lady davis, has been making that this isn't all just about michael cohen's memory? yes. he is a key witness for that, but also they've seen emails michael cohen says my recollection is i was speaking to him about the stormy daniels because that's what i've been working on. todd blanche is bring up other

issues that he may have been talking to trump a belt on that day? >> yeah. todd blanche is jumping all over the place here. let's be honest. now, blanche is right now asking cohen whether it's proven because they taught about opening his hotel in dc, talking about all the other things that were going on on this day. but you wouldn't have talked to him about that opening of the hotel on that day. now, blanche is making sort of a hard left turn, talking about the retainer agreement or lack thereof four michael cohen's legal services and law gland you davis, the prosecutors, people in and around the prosecution team, they all insist that this case does not rest on the testimony of michael cohen, but the fact is he is the most significant witness for the prosecution. now right now, blanche is walking cohen through the calculation to reach the $420,000 he was paid in 2017 that cohen has testified that he worked through with allen weisselberg and boom, there. that is why cohen is so important. because the only other person who is party to this alleged conspiracy is allen weisselberg. he's not being called to testify, and he's pointing out that you michael cohen was shorted

$100,000 on his bonus that year. now, this is all going to lead to an argument that trump is notoriously cheap. he wouldn't have paid you out of the goodness of his heart and he was indeed saving money for legal services well, and michael cohen talked about how they got their bonuses and todd blanche is asking you that $50,000 and you got back from red bench, you only paid the red finch on are $20,000, right? yes, sir. cohen says, we already knew john berman debt that michael cohen bumped that up when he went to get his money back. this is a polling firm that he paid to basically please help trump and cohen is testifying he gave the road vigenere $20,000 in cash in a brown paper bag one does, but it's also the bonus is the same kind of situation you said that they would get a christmas card is like very christmas vacation style, and they would open up the card, find out what was there, what was their bonus? >> i'm curious as month clock as we're going through this now whether or not todd blanche has something he's going to land a clean punch like you had last week or which it seems like where he's headed what he thinks he's got this field of mud that he already established

by last week, and he's dragging cohen through it and trying to muddy up everything else that's been established by documents. in this case, goh and saying, i don't recall if it was exactly $20,000. >> i mean, what's the point of getting him to say that he did pay the red finch owner 20 grand in cash and a paper bag to basically say that this stuff wasn't tracked and all of a board, if i recall correct. >> the reason that cohen build the way he did for reimbursement is because he didn't want to get hit on taxes, right? if he's out $20,000 and he received $20,000 for the trump organization. he's also going to be taxed on that. that's part of why he ginned up a lot of this extra money. when he was totally how much he was owed and he also was very frustrated about his bonus, right? and so there's likely going to be an argument that trump was trying all right. to keep him happy. he was ticked off. he wasn't going to the white house. he was a legal advisor and he didn't want him to be an issue to be unhappy. that's likely where they're gonna go because what todd blanche needs to do if he ever gets there is to just

establish that there was not a conspiracy to falsify business records and falsely say that these were payments for legal services when it was just to pay him back to cover up hush money instead, they're going to try to establish that trump was retaining him for legal services, even if there was not a formal agreement. and this was the kind of work he was doing. and they're gonna keep reminding you how frugal slash cheap the defendant is. >> well, and we've already seen the allen weisselberg handwriting. these calculations. this wasn't just michael cohen and his own head doing this. it's allen weisselberg's writing. that's on that document that jeff mcconney, the controller at the trump organization, testified to see you right now. as you can see, they're plus $50,000. that's what he said about right now to red finch for tech services. obviously the only about $20,000 that he paid them. and cohen says that they wanted the full payment of $50,000. did they accept the money they received? cohen says, yes, sir. >> in response to i think what they're trying to do here is add confusion to something that is a actual physical thing. i mean, this is allen weisselberg's handwriting with actual numbers, which adds up

to the crime that trump is being charged with here. and if todd blanche can money this up, although this is interesting, this is so says question to you, stole from the trump organization asking noting cohen was reimbursed $100,000. he's trying to make cohen look shady in the way that he was being paid back, how much he was being paid back, you didn't just deal but $30,000 because it was grossed up, it was $60,000. blanche asked yes, sir. cohen says cohen has testified previously the prosecution knew that this would obviously goh line of questioning about why it was so much higher. in addition, he basically said he was also just trying to make money off of this now, did testify to that. >> yeah. he was mad about his bonus there. we're looking to make him whole and if you look at that, that sort of scribbling on the piece of paper that is one of the most important pieces of evidence here. but that is not the handwriting of the defendant. and there is no direct link between the and this alleged conspiracy that scribble down on that piece of paper here, cohen is as close as we get, and that's why blanche is going to really go at him on

what was written down on that piece of paper. it's really one of the most significant pieces of evidence. again, this is an alleged paperwork crime at the heart of it. arguably the most important testimony that we've heard so far has been from the trump organization accountants were the ones who actually cut the checks who's asking did you ever plead guilty to larceny? blanche asked no, sir. >> cohen said again, trying to dirty amount. but if you go back to the accountants, so actually cut these checks. they received paperwork from michael cohen they cut the checks because he submitted falsified invoices for legal services. so here are the defense has to establish that there there's no direct evidence that their client directed this and that there is any evidence from cohen where he asked testified that he was part of this conspiracy they have to undermine his credibility so that the jury doesn't believe it. i mean, this is the ball game right here. >> well, and they're basically providing another reason of why michael cohen got this money. that's what they're trying to establish for the jury saying that there were other reasons and we knew because michael cohen testified john berman about talking to allen weisselberg about how upset he

was about his bonus which came around christmas that was when they got those checks we should note trump is not paying attention earlier. he is now watching michael cohen is todd blanche is pressing him on this line of questioning. this is what we were talking about last week when they were talking about michael cohen's conversations with reporters and his other password was what are they getting to? what's actually why the jury is sitting in that jurors box right now. and this is that moment. >> well todd blanche flat-out saying you did steal from the trump organization based upon the expected reimbursement from red finch question mark cohen says yes, sir. >> what do you make cohen is he's not fighting it. he's not disputing the words that the top point is doing is using he's saying, yeah, i did know i confused if michael cohen is actually saying he stole from i think what he i'm curious to see what the next update here is. i do think what michael cohen is establishing is yeah, i got more money back than i gave two red bird for sure. all right now. and i think what todd blanche has effectively doing again, is muddling up the numbers that are written down clearly in the page here and

trying to create some doubt their trump's shaking his head at the answer michael cohen had testified paula that basically would part of how he would get paid back was that he would he would add money on him, what he needed to cover up this $130,000 payment, todd blanche, says you lied to weisselberg about how much you needed for red finch, blanche? >> correct. cohen says so i just asked our team inside of the prosecution, has any reaction to this because we saw last week when blanche she has got cohen to admit that he wasn't honest, exactly honest about what happened in that call, that there was some movement the prosecution takes well or that the prosecutor who had done his direct examination was having a pretty spirited interaction with her colleagues. >> so i've asked if there's been any any reaction to this. they're saying that no, they are taking though copious notes, likely preparing for their redirect. but this is significant because they appear to have caught cohen in another lie and this would be a lot hi to the other person who was allegedly part of this conspiracy, allen weisselberg,

who prosecutors have chosen not to call because they believed that he would not testify that he would plead the fifth. the judge has urged him to bring him in any way. they have not done that similarity. once again, now, focusing on the retainer agreement, what this also does is it puts the onus on michael cohen. it was michael cohen who arranged this scheme, the repayment scheme appease the one fudging to allen weisselberg and lying about this and twisting that, it puts more of it on him that either weisselberg are certainly on donald trump. >> and so far there is no direct link prudent beyond a reasonable doubt to the defendant in this alleged conspiracy. there is a lot of evidence that has been presented. there's testimony from michael cohen. there's testimony from others about conversations, but that is the goal of the defense team. and this right here, this line of questioning so far they have established that cohen may have lied in order to get some of this money. >> but with the prosecution is going to get up and talk about this and what michael cohen had testified previously was that trump did not want to pay red finch, the fifth thousand dollars that they were owed because he didn't like where his rigueur was. basically they

were trying to boost it and to juice it and that's why they were paying for trump to have a better ranking in this pool that they did the survey. and michael cohen previously testified, trump was unhappy with where he landed. ed refused to pay them. so it's not like there's zero explanation for this $50,000 that went to them ultimately, it does sound like in trump world, you had to be very creative if you wanted to get the money you thought you were owed for things it sounds like they didn't actually get their 50,000 that he only paid them 20,000, which i don't think we learn prior or if we did, i certainly i certainly miss so that the province he only pay them 20,000 and then build for 50,000. >> and at this point, it doesn't appear that prosecutors did enough to get out in front of this. this appears to be the first time that he's saying that he lied to allen weisselberg about how much he needed for redfin? yeah. well, and just to bring everyone up to speed because this is a confusing line of questioning, but it's important this $50,000 is pay because michael cohen says trump itself wouldn't pan michael cohen previously testified he himself paid the 50 grand.

>> he did not give all of it to red finch, but he was reimbursed for it and told allen weisselberg that he hadn't given them $50,000, which you just testified that he did not actually give to them. and i want to also bring him with former new york supreme court judge die in qizan who is with us and judge key. so just on this line of questioning right now, as you're hearing about todd blanche focusing on this retainer agreement and having michael cohen concede on the witness stand that yes, he did technically still from the trump organization in this reimbursement of what he actually paid and what he told them. he get paid. >> how we don't know how it's sitting with a jury, but what's your reaction? >> just listening to that? >> well, good morning. we don't know how it's sitting with a jury, but, you know, at this point, is there any doubt that michael cohen lies? i mean, we're at a point now where it's like dog bites man, right? we know that michael cohen lives. so the question for the jury i think is going to be i suspect they'll have a big white board up in the jury

room and they will list every time that there is corroboration for one of michael cohen's statements and they will either believe that the corroboration takes you to a verdict of guilty or they won't there's one thing i wanted to talk about. there's been so much talk here about michael cohen prepping with the district attorney, you know, there is a jury charge about that in which the judge will tell the jury you've heard testimony about michael cohen prepping. there's nothing improper about that, as long as he was not instructed to lie. so i think that whole line of questioning doesn't work in terms of impact on a jury that's a great point because they they have tried to hammer that home of how much time he did spend with prosecutors. we've heard that from other witnesses as well when they've

been question of how much time they spent with them, the defense, we should note also has a right to talk to these jurors. are these potential witnesses about what they would like? we testify about in some of these instances, we've been told they did not reach out to ask what they would testify about. but it is important to note they have that ability right now. michael cohen is saying yes, talking about retainer agreement that he had with allen weisselberg and all this goes back to michael cohen's so credibility with the jury and how they view him, but also what can be backed up by by documents and call logs and text messages as well. here exactly. i think that is what the jury is going to focus on. there's not one person that's going to walk into that jury room and doubt that michael cohen lies the question is, can they get over those lies to reach to whatever truth they might actually find and remember with as your lawyers on any of your panels will tell you when prosecutors make

arrangements with certain witnesses who have a lot of baggage they know these people lie. they know these people have criminal records. you make these deals with the devil when you have two and again, i suspect that will come out and summation when the people offer their summation as to why they've relied on michael cohen can i get your take on what we heard from judge merchan? >> first thing this morning, which is basically a guarantee that there will not be a verdict this week because of closing arguments are not expected to start until next tuesday. he had told them last week to be prepared tomorrow to start those closing arguments. >> what if there's that kind of a break in time? >> is there a certain person that could benefit is the prosecution is that the advent is it a wash i think it's kind of a wash. >> one thing judge. merchan i'm sure didn't want to do is have summations be on tuesday

and then have the jury have almost an entire week to do what would that information i think you want those summations for both sides to be fresh in the minds of the jurors. now again, they're going to get an instruction that a summation is not evidenced, but it's certainly plants the seed in each srery's mine of what each side wants them to focus on it's kind of almost a useless exercise if it's going to be a week after they hear that, before they could actually sit down, listen to the judge's instructions and start work how off the house in an advanced as the judge had those jury instructions prepared, it does you already know what he's going to say to them? >> do you believe or is it something that he prepares once all the testimony is done in both sides of rested you do it as the trial is going on. you. first of all, there are standard basic instructions about burden of proof. the defendant testifying or not testifying. and by the way, the

judge doesn't say anything about that unless the defense asks for the judge to say something. in other words, if mr. trump chooses not to testify, the judge will tell the jury they can't hold that against him if he's asked to do so by the defense the the bottom line is you start right in the beginning. and as the trial goes on, you refine them right up until the very end an important moment, obviously critical, seen by both sides where our agreement here, judge qizan great to have you. >> thank you for joining us again this morning jake. obviously we're watching this testimony continue inside the room with michael cohen about conversations he had with allen weisselberg after they discussed what this repayment it's schedule would look like for him? >> yeah. no, it's it's fascinating stuff and i have to say i'm still reeling from the revelation that michael cohen's stole money from the trump organization, and that wasn't at least to my

knowledge that the prosecution didn't get that get that out earlier because it's it's not as though the prosecution is going to be helped by further evidence that michael cohen is a shady character i mean i'll get to the newest stuff in a second, but like, i mean, what what's what's your reaction to that news? >> because that was just kind of stunning. >> i'm shocked that we are hearing it for the first time on day three of crime us examination of michael cohen that the prosecution did not take the sting out, did not front it because it goes to the heart of the actual case. it's not just about establishing him as a liar. they've done that. the prosecution fronted that. we knew that he has convictions, but going to the heart of what you were telling your employer about what money you were owed and the extent of it? let me buy $420,000. we've already seen the patient 15 bucks, not 13 box, and we if you think are the tablet, you can break down what was already know. we've known about what the breakdown of the money as $130,000 to daniels and her

attorney. you've got $50,000. that's redfin just is important here this was mentioned today that he only gave red finch $20,000 and handed them in a brown paper bag, by the way, just the games that is. >> and just one quick note, red finches this political organization that apparently according to michael cohen help them goose these bogus internet polls about which candidate is in the lead, et cetera, et cetera. >> and also according to lanny davis, provided adoring fans for trump's an announcement of his candidacy in june 2015, start really important point to add why the male only got 20,000 of it let's were 50, $50,000. and you have $180,000, which is again the double of these two combinations. and then a bonus for cohen remember all that we have so far to link donald trump to these payments and part is the statement that quote unquote, he approved it. we also know that we have some we have information about where the checks were or how it was signed but remember mcconney,

that was one of the comptroller's of the trump organization, taking notes from allen weisselberg about the money payments. so this is part of what we're talking about, why this is so important here is because the heart of the matter is that donald trump was complicit cause to have this happen and knew about the money that was going and why if they can establish michael cohen is somebody who is not to be trusted about the amount of money as well, then they might be able to suggest that donald trump had no idea what he was true. >> so this is one of the things that's going on right now. is todd blanche is saying you stole from the trump organization based on this expected reimbursement from red finch. in other words, he's telling the trump organization, i need $50,000 to pay off red finch and he actually only gives red finch $20,000. he pockets together $30,000 you to cover up this $130,000 payment you lied to weisselberg about how much you needed for red finch plants. ask, correct. cohen says blanche's focused on the retainer agreement so the

conversation that you had with mr. weisselberg about the retainer agreement and the fact that there would not be what and the fact that there would not be one all took place in the meeting you had along the meeting? and with trump, blanche asked, yes, sir. i said cohen, if you would have had one, would you have had one between you and your client plan to ask? correct. says cohen, who would that have been blanche asked mr. trump, cohen said blanche is now showing emails to cohen from allen weisselberg on january 31, with the subject note and mortgage modification agreement for trump park avenue condom minium. thank you. weisselberg says to him, you never stopped on for stop by for a bro hug. anyway, please. anyway, please prepare the agreement discuss so we can pay you monthly weisselberg rights. blanche pulls up an email from weisselberg to jeff mcconney that is the his right-hand man, weisselberg, right-hand man, that laura was just talking about noting that the checks were signed off by donald trump junior and eric trump asking why they signed and not trump because they were the trustees, cohen said blanche confirmed with cohen that his email signature after trump took office, announced his title and

every message you send, it always said personal attorney to president donald j. trump plans continued his job change, meaning president jobs change, jobs change, yours didn't cohen? when correct. cohen confirms so this is a i suppose elie a fruit of the poison grape i'm boxing the metaphor, but the idea, like you are saying that they are basing this entire thing on these, on these these these memos, these bills that's the documentary evidence that people like laney david has been saying, you don't have to support you don't have to believe michael cohen believe these bills had now we find out others bogus stuff in these bills to that donald trump might not have known about. certainly didn't know about. >> and that's why this is to use another metaphor. this is a bomb, this is really important. this is a bomb dropped in the middle of the prosecution's case. two reasons. one, michael cohen was stealing from donald trump it was lying to people about what he was doing with money. he pocketed at least the $30,000 by line weisselberg twice really, by the way, because remember, they double

void tax rate $60,000, which by the way, this is crushing to the prosecution's credibility because the prosecution did not ask michael cohen about that i'll direct and they haven't made him plead guilty to larceny, which this is which is so let's start with that real quick the other reason it's so important is the money that michael cohen stole from under donald trump's knows by his own admission today, by his own admission, was part of the $420,000 that michael cohen was reimbursed for stormy daniel's. so the heart of the prosecution's cases, that whole setup where they were going to repay michael cohen forager $20,000 to reimburse him for stormy daniel's. that was all done for stuart to pay stormy daniels. trump knew it. trump knew every penny. that's why he's guilty now it turns out trump is getting robbed by his own guy. yeah. i mean, my question here is, why has no one coach michael cohen or why does michael cohen not say when to ask on this on cross? i don't recall. >> i mean, isn't that the universal early he does recall though and the light. >> but tim is this is this i mean, we wouldn't wondering all along all you need is one juror

to say i have reasonable doubt what's your what's your assessment of whether or not any reasonable juror would have reasonable now, based on this information, i think this is significant for reasonable that purpose is you now have two major issues. >> one of the phone calls that wasn't what he originally talked about. and the calculation of the money that wasn't what he originally talked about and it's not only going to his credibility, but it also goes to alvin bragg's office has credibility because how did they not get this out ahead of time no, i didn't. >> you have two different things when it comes to the schiller call. >> they're going to argue that the jury how did they not know that? >> why did we have to bring it out? we got it from texts that we got from discovery from them. and apparently, michael collins said they never asked him better. they didn't figure it out. no, he says cohen. cohen says he has told right. multiple prosecutors with the da's office about it, correct. assuming that's true, i'm we don't, you know, again, we don't know if that's true, but he's saying he told them about it. they didn't bring it up. >> this is this is worse

because this is something that he discussed with prosecutors prosecutors knew that the evidence they were putting on was tainted by this additional crime. and they didn't talk. i have a devil's advocate question. sure. is it possible that the prosecution can come back and redirect and somehow tie what looks like him, just flatly stealing money from the trump organization to him, paying himself back in order to cover up the crime that's alleged in this case, they have to make every effort to rehabilitate michael cohen. they have to do so. they also had to rehabilitate to tim's point as well. they're larger credibility of that. >> they may have a juror could be thinking, well, why didn't i hear this before? >> you're giving me a witness, you've told me about this person you left out that after going through 90 minutes of all the different documents, but i want to refocus everyone first. second on wet, the government has to prove and why this is such a bombshell as we've been talking about, go to the tablet on this because the checklist, they have to actually prove everyone bring out the tablet they have to prove that there was an intent to defraud.

here's the part, here is the biggest part of this. if you are the defendant in this case, this is what they have to prove you made and caused a false entry in the business records if michael cohen was the one to falsify the number of documents there that he did not was not aware of what he was actually a spending or what is actually paying. well, then you've got an issue. remember this is all coming down to 11 checks to cohen 11 invoices submitted by cohen, and then 12 entries in trump's leisure. now, one thing that they can do and the direct on the actual rehabilitation and certainly in jury instructions, is that you have the ability to give an instruction in new york law that talks about intentionally aiding the law in new york defines it as you may have caused somebody to do that. you may be liable if you were the one in some respect or another to actually help somebody to do the crime itself. >> this is important, but you have to make sure that you can still prove that there was the intent to defraud the intent to multiply if michael cohen was the one to falsify, it's an

interesting political decision that trump had to make for his defense counsel on the one hand, they spent a great deal of time in his books, right? >> talking about how he was wanted to sign the checks no detail is too small to consider. here's what every any billionaire knows. you run a business this way, you have to know what's really going on inside of your business. well, he has to admit for sake of his defense that he was hustled by michael cohen. >> the he did not know what was going on with that. >> so he had. a problem i have i just have to say this is prosecutorial malpractice. this is a failure by prosecutors to either know this and not raise it with michael cohen on his direct or to not know it, which will be michael cohen is lying right now. and here's just, we don't know that yet, but they have not the day that they've truly failed to rebuild. i the misconduct is quite a sweeping it's not bring it out. it's not bring if you're a juror and you're sitting there and you're thinking, well, we're about this trial's almost over, and we're finding out that this document that is the

crux of the matter has the term is above fruit of the poisonous tree, which is a doctrine that i'm not referring to because that has to do with like an illegal search. but the idea that this is this is what the case is about. this document and what you're telling me that there's lies in here from michael cohen that you didn't tell me about. now exactly. to be quite said, malpractice, meaning terrible practice, not unethical. that would be misconduct the crux of the prosecution's case is donald trump knew what that $420,000 was for. it was for stormy daniels. michael cohen read him in on all of it. he was fine with it. it turns out michael cohen was stealing from donald trump within that $420,000 and donald trump not only didn't know, he certainly never would have agreed. rob, by michael cohen and tim it definitely does underlying the point that i first of all, it's quite possible that trump knew, right? i mean, i'm just saying like just it's quite possible trump knew that michael cohen was paying off stormy daniels and that's what was going on

here. but it's certainly not possible that he knew that michael cohen was stealing $60,000 from him? >> correct. and the defense is saying he didn't know any of it. >> he was just like signing checks and if you're a juror even if you think well, i think he probably knew what he was paying for michael cohen, there has to be reasonable doubt. now because sir because i mean, michael cohen has given them this huge gift and donald trump even said, before this trial started i received an invoice from my lawyer. i relied upon what my lawyer said you know, michael cohen submits invoices, they paid them and you heard the testimony during the prosecution's case about how they have this drop-down menu of what's this expense category? i think that this is going to be very difficult for them to show that he knowingly participate in the falsification of business records. >> so right now right now, michael cohen is asked whether he spoke with people at the white house, such as hope hicks about finding a lawyer for

trump. cohen asks blanche to re-ask the question. blanche asks cohen whether blanche has asked whether cohen help figure out how to serve subpoenas on government agencies such as the state department. it shows cohen and email, which is what trump leaned into. look at cohen, said he received the email blasts, pushes him. would you have done something about it? yes. cohen says blend city was seeking to confirm that cohen was working on things of this nature for trump? at the time anyway, yeah. >> kaitlin collins, this is certainly true to be a momentous morning yeah. >> i'd you can see what the defense clearly spent their weekend doing, preparing for a moment like this one is that you're trying to completely erode michael cohen's credibility with the jury, and this is such an important moment, paula and john, because this came up actually when michael cohen was on the stand with the prosecution and they were asking him questions because susan hoffinger, who is the prosecutor here, had been asking about this meeting with 11 weisselberg. it's where they sat. they wrote on that document then they went to trump's office on the 26th floor of trump tower and talked

about this. and she said, what did missile wise, mr. weisselberg's tell you about what to put down about the monies that were owed to read french from two years earlier cohen said, including everything i was no longer going to have a position at the trump organization. there was no way for me to get that money back or have this done. then she said specifically on red bench, what did he ask you to do? and michael cohen told her that he told me to add up the $130,000 for stormy daniels would $50,000 for red bench total it to 180 80,000. and they got into this where essentially she was arguing that he didn't give all of that money to read wic, that he did skim some off the top. john, i know you've been looking at trends. yeah. i mean, there was an exchange about this top and you said, did you pay red finch less than $50,000? michael cohen said i did. officer says, okay, why? you then asked for $50,000 back cohen testified a week ago because that's what that's what was owed in. i didn't feel trump deserve the benefit of the difference in an officer says, if you're going to get $50,000, but you paid

out less than 50,000. were you going to keep the rest of it for yourself, cohen, one week ago says that's what i ended up doing. >> so he's acknowledging there he did skim off the top of this, but the key difference here is how it's framed todd blanche has put it and pretty black and white terms of the jury saying you stole from the trump organization? yeah. >> because what prosecutors failed to do is follow up with michael cohen and said, just how much did you keep for yourself? he got 60% of this for itself when you say he kept a little back, you think maybe a few grant he kept $30,000 for himself and then because prosecutors did not again, don't even follow up with that and say, hey, could you see maybe how that could be perceived as stealing? they allowed todd blanche to reveal this to the jury and get their store witness to concede that yes, he stole from the trump organization on the stand. now at blanche is doing to follow up with this is go through all of the different legal services that cohen was providing to trump in the year 2017, including the fact that in his email signature, it says that he is the attorney to president

donald j. trump. so this again, under the argument that even if even a cohen says that his invoices for legal services were falsified, that he was in fact conducting legal services. so the defendant, if he was paying him for the services was not involved in a conspiracy to cover up hush money. so blanche, again, going through the actual criminal charges in this case, but it's all a matter of framing because michael cohen testified previously under direct questioning from the prosecutors. i didn't do a lot of legal work for trump in 2017. i did a little bit more in 2018. that's what they were just talking about with the wax figure for melania trump okay. the legal work that he had to do for that, john berman and they did already previously testified that he didn't pay red ventures, which he said he knew the owner of that group didn't pay them the full amount that he was basically keeping the rest for himself and trump wouldn't know the difference. it wouldn't hurt him was kinda michael cohen's argument, but the question is the jury remembers that moment. i mean, it was a week ago. we did monetary to be fair. we barely remember it and i think what they're doing is going

through piece-by-piece now and re-framing some of the things that were out there, including the payment to red finch, including i think how much legal work he didn't and didn't do for donald trump. and what he was paid for. >> and this is about what he received in 2017. he said he got nine checks, $35,000 a piece. he also is distancing trump from this. a lie. he is emphasizing that donald trump junior and eric trump as trustees, signed the checks here. he is saying, you know, you talked about this weisselberg. he's basically putting as much distance between trump and the falsification of these business records as possible here, exactly. >> that is number one goal here, because his client is charged with falsifying business records earlier, laura would do all the components that they need to establish. and if here they've gotten michael cohen to admit that he wasn't he wasn't honest. he lied about at least one conversation with trump and here he also appear to lie to allen weisselberg, the only other person involved in this alleged conspiracy about how much money he paid for one of the things that he it was

reimbursed for. this is undercutting his credibility about the actual conspiracy to which he testified on direct. so prosecutors right now, they've got to be at that table, maybe having some regret, but they didn't do more to get out in front of this that they gave todd blanche the opportunity to reveal this to the jury. and do damage to their witness. they will have an opportunity, maybe an hour or so here to get up to do redirect and try to rehabilitate their witness, but they've got their work cut out for it. >> i will say already today just in the last 25, 30 minutes they have spent more time on the actual case itself. the foundations of this case, and they did all last week, the trump team here, because we're dealing with the checks were dealing with a memos. we're dealing with the payments now except for the phone call about the 14-year-old last week, it didn't get to the actual details in the case at all. >> yeah. and cohen is saying he made $4 million in 2017 from six other clients. that moment has also come up. it's there, it's basically just your interpretation of what you want to see here because i remember

when that moment came up, trump, did another attorney who is at the defense table with them and mouthed the were for emphasizing that he heard that right when michael column is talking about that i'm. confirms he was paid $50,000 monthly for a year by at&t. that was when they were trying to acquire time warner as we also previously learned, the question is really how all of this translates to the jury. some of this has been out there, michael cohen has testified about other parts of it, but it's how they're received leaving this information and do they remember susan hoffinger asking michael cohen about this or is it the moment where michael cohen says yes and concedes to stealing technically from the trump organization that sticks in their mind, hard to forget that. >> and now blanche is establishing that perhaps $35,000 a month in 2017 when he's billing out $50,000 a month? >> the other clients where his legal services that in some cases, for example, with at&t were pretty minimal 20 communications that this is not really that far afield from his his average rate, given how much knowledge he had about the newly minted the president, he's trying to paint for the

jury that this would not be an unheard of amount of money to pay for legal services. look at the legal services that he did for his client really trying to attack this argument from prosecutors that all of this was just a conspiracy to conceal that. hush money payment that instead, this was a guy who claim to be the presence lawyer doing think some legal services making less than he did on other clients. this could be effective in selling at least that reasonable doubt in the minds of one juror. >> my question though isn't there a lot of testimony that there was an agreement to pay stormy daniels $130,000 there's nobody disagrees that there was an agreement to pay stormy daniels $130,000 and that wasn't a crime? >> and the argument was what alvin bragg's chose to charge here is that donald trump was involved in a conspiracy to conceal that by falsifying business records. and here todd blanche, making an effective argument that perhaps trump did believe that he was paying michael cohen for legal services even if it was grossed up in certain ways because he was performing some legal

services, even it well, the issue is how much of the repayment was for the hundred and 30,000 yeah. and how much of it was for actual legal services and they're going to get to if they haven't already, they're gonna get to this argument about how cheap their client is, right? how many people have testified about how cheapy is. >> but the one question that i've asked both will drop attorneys this and we've had the vod people use drivers that trump. >> did you ever get grossed up legal fees? >> when you were an attorney? it doesn't happen. that's not normal. i mean, that's the really one retort to that is that you don't grows up legal fees and again depending on if you believe michael cohen, was this repayment plan for the hundred and $30,000 are not and that's the question. >> what the jury believes in this case. however, the scheme was oriented to pay it back. >> we've got former federal prosecutor, at least adamson here with us, an elisa. i'm glad to have you in this moment because as we're seeing, the defense continued to cross-examine michael cohen about what he was paid and what he was paid for right now,

they're walking through the clients that cohen had while while donald trump was president of the united states, the money that he made out that if you're a prosecutor sitting at that table listening to michael cohen say yes, i did still technically from the trump organization because i told him i paid someone $50,000, but only paid them $20,000 what are you preparing to do when you're had the chance to question your witness again if this were my case, i would be feverish writing my ideas for rehabilitation on redirect. >> i am quite frankly shocked by what i have just heard. i mean, i can how are having worked at doj for 7.5 years, you go through training when you're first week on the job and like de to it's how to handle witnesses and fronting bad facts. and i was listening when the red back the transcript on how the prosecution handle these payments and it's like they glossed over the fact that

there could be considered stealing. and in my mind, i can't figure out why they did that because they were so meticulous in explaining all of michael cohen's other lies in contextualizing this and this is a line that cuts at the heart of the evidence in the case, and it just i can't really make sense of the strategy. so you better bet that the prosecution is trying to pull together some questions to contextualize this and retake the narrative. they really have to at this point well, looking back on it now and how todd blanche framed it, is stealing and that's the michael cohen didn't dispute it. >> he said, yes, that's correct. this was information that the jury previously heard that he did not give all of this money to read bench, that he did skim off the top for himself, two poles point. >> we didn't know exactly how much. but is that should the prosecution have gotten that specific and their direct

questioning of michael cohen, do you believe i think whether or not they should have gotten that specific, they should have tried to take the narrative and contextualize it and explain how michael cohen have received payments and what he why he didn't pay red finch all the money, maybe there was an explanation or maybe there was something michael collins was thinking other than i want to steal from my boss when they get back up there, if they have a satisfying counter-narrative because also what you learn is you don't want to ask a witness a question. >> if you don't already know the answer to it, i suspect because they spent a long time investigating this case, they have thought about this they're going to need to spin it it wasn't stealing and maybe michael cohen didn't think of it as stealing. maybe he thought of it as is bonus. i mean, there's lots of other reasons that are still not great but add a little bit more context so it doesn't so badly destroyed his credibility because i can imagine what a

juror is thinking. and again, as the prosecution, you have to be the most credible person in the room. that is what they teach you right now, if i was a juror, i would think, well, they touched upon this, but why didn't they go into this? why is the first time i'm hearing this? from the defense? >> so again, should they have been more specific? >> i'm not sure. should they have handled it differently? i think so right now, the defense is asking michael cohen about other clients that are potential clients, eddie spoke with where maybe it didn't actually happen. >> he said yes, sir. to todd blanche, that happen quite often. this is a tactic michael cohen is used saying, yes, sir. no, sir. yes, ma'am. no, ma'am. to the prosecution so when they were questioning him, if you're a juror and from your experience, at least questioning or making your argument front of these what do they holds in higher regard? is it testimony from a woman? this or is it is it evidence? is it documents? is it text messages? is it called records well, testimony of a witness is

evidenced in a case, but documentary evidence, we always would say they don't lie. >> right? i mean, it can be contextualized, but witnesses can be crossed and you can bring out bias so i think what the question is how are they going to view this? well, i think all the documentary evidence is gonna have to be used as corroboration. that is what they're going to have to hang your hat on at the end of the day. you can't just believe michael cohen, but believe what these documents are saying, but that's also why todd blanche is now raising all of this confusion with the documents because if you can't believe the documents and you have a damage witness that kind of adds up to reasonable doubt based on the bruising that we've seen michael cohen take it times during this this cross-examination, if you're the prosecutor, how much time would you spend when you get the chance to question and again, adapt, read, arrived at another time that's a, great question because redirect, there's a lot of strategy there.

>> you don't want it to go on too long. you don't want it to look too defensive, like you have to explain everything away. sometimes you don't even want to address certain topics as if to say that was so ridiculous. we don't even need to address it. >> i think here there has been so much damage that they are going to have to go in. >> i'm thinking about that phone call. their again, there's pleased to contextualize that phone call was schiller and what they were talking about life doesn't isn't always clean. life doesn't always make a linear narrative. he could've been talking about multiple other things. so i think you good expect to see the prosecution go back there and they're also going to have to address this this bombshell that has just been dropped. but i don't think they're gonna go on days and days like you've seen the cross that typically is not an effective strategy at least adamson great to have you and right now, michael cohen is being questioned about other legal work that he did including pylori for a korean aerospace company where he said he had a dozen communications with them. >> they're talking about how

much money he was paid my top like just clearly trying to talk about the other money that michael cohen may from his proximity to trump. we already know you've made what he made off of his two books that he wrote and what he made just from the legal work that he was doing where where's this line of questioning going? >> comparing the fact that $35,000 a month at that time, given what he was billing outside clients really isn't all that much. and you were just talking with a former federal prosecutor about how documents really matter in this case. i go back to the testimony of the two accountants from the trump organization who actually cut these checks, deb tarasoff and jeff mcconney. and we'll all they testified was that they received instructions from weisselberg, but they were just looking at invoices that michael cohen submitted going into the system and sending out these checks for what they believe were legal services. >> he did not provide any direct i can link at all to the defendant. the only person who has been able to provide a direct link to the defendant in this alleged conspiracy. is michael cohen, and that's why the defense attorneys right now really hammering away at his

credibility and what they don't have to show that trump himself falsified the business records personally, but that he caused them to be falsified. john wright, which is something thing that i think will be laid out again in the jury instructions and something that will come up much more clearly in the closing arguments. one of the things i'm curious about now, we're at 10:53 a.m. the defense he said that they were going to be done cross-examining cohen by the morning break. that's almost now usually around 11:00 or so we get the first morning break if that's the case and they stick to that, they really are about to land this plane at least as far as concerns so far what we've seen in this trial, the trump team has not been great about time estimates for their own questioning. that is one thing that i have seen. so even if todd said that in trout court about his his cross-examination, i'm sure how to good faith belief about that, but we've seen consistently, they just aren't good at guessing how long they're going to take. but he said that on thursday, it could have changed over the weekend debating what they were going to follow through with michael cohen on it is it is true. i am

wondering though even so where todd blanche wants to leave it with the jury when he's done with michael we'll call one what's the last thing they want to leave in the sense doesn't want to be in the minutiae of this payment you were paid this much for that or does it want to be a big picture? >> you just can't believe michael cohen? >> yeah, jake, not an overstatement to say this is a critical few hours in this entire trial as this question shooting is going on and prosecutors are preparing for how they're going to handle this. >> yeah, indeed, let's go back and i know john did this already, but just to reiterate the case, so a week ago, monday, may 13, susan hoffinger with the prosecution did get out from michael cohen that he pocketed some of the money, but it was done so in such a way than i think a lot of people completely missed it certainly me and it was done so in a way that was not hammered home to the jury. and i'm not going to read the entire thing. but in

the testimony about michael cohen when paying back, red finch, this organization that did these shady things for the trump campaigns such as bogus bogus spectators at his announcement and bogus online polls that they boost. he said, hoffinger, did you pay him the full 50,000? that was the bill cohen? no, ma'am. hoffinger i'm given that you didn't pay him the whole 50,000, why did you put 50,000 down on their on the bill calling well, for the previous year-and-a-half, i told alan, meaning allen weisselberg, the cfo. look, i laid it out. my hope was to get the money from alan onto it so that i can give it to them, but it never happened but i constantly reminded him because i did want him to receive the funds hoffinger, did you pay red finch less than 50,000? cohen i did. >> hoffinger. okay. and why did you then ask for $50,000 back? she's asking why did you ask for 50 gram back if you paid them less than $50,000, cohen because that's what was owed and i didn't feel mr. if you're trump deserve the benefit of the difference.

hoffinger. >> and if you were going to get 50,000, but you paid out less than 50,000. >> were you going to keep the rest of it yourself, cohen? that's what i ended up doing. but that's it. and i have to say she does not. susan hoffinger in this direct testimony, she does not underlying laura coates, you did this and that's larceny. that's illegal. and so we should know that some of this memo includes an inflated bill, but we should not, use that to discount the rest of it. she didn't connect the dots and she did and like explain to the jury this is a crime that you're confessing to. >> and i am shocked that they did not do so because this has given such ammunition as to possibly fatally undermine the prosecution's case you want to go through at nauseum all the reasons why you're fronting why this is not somebody that

has been a truth his entire life or with the organization. >> they went to such great pain to talk about his criminal convictions and his lies in the past frankly, todd blanche also did on day one and two. now we're in day three of cross-examination but not to find it when it goes to the very core of the matter. this is not the typical live that suggests you have lied to the media, right? you've lied to the press in the past. you have lied about whether or not the payment was made and all these different things. now this goes to a very simple question. at todd blanche could actually say and really wrap his case on and say, so just to be clear, donald trump had no idea that you were giving him fake invoices with inflated payments to actually repay him? >> no. >> well, then you leave it there and the jury can then information habit so get this illustrate. he didn't know about falsified records and invoices. he wasn't aware of this. all you have to support is he approved and he's admitted to you that he didn't even give him accurate invoices? that can leave more

than maybe a seed of reasonable doubt, which is really what he needs. now, the prosecution has got to try to rehabilitate. they have got to try to say something they've got to rehabilitate their own credibility as to why they did not front it and why they seem to be at least seemingly dismissive, but we'd be honest discussion today. the jury may be receiving definitely. it may have landed with the jury pretty they may say to themselves, aren't we've heard this, but we knew that. >> and working such close attention that we knew that that was larceny, even though the prosecution did not even use the term larceny, but tim and then ellie i mean, again, not a lawyer, just a common guy, just a humble cave man. but it seems like it seems like they should have hit this harder a week ago. i absolutely. and the point you just made about yourself, that's what the jury is, except for two drew them are lawyers, jurors don't know this stuff and so they need to have it really presented to them. and so the fact that it

was minimized in that way by the prosecution i think it presents a very good opportunity and closing four, they knew about this. they minimized it the prosecutor misled this jury. that's what i would are you allowed to say that? yes, sir. oh okay. >> the way this was raised and addressed on direct as what julia louis dreyfus would call yada. >> yada. yada. i mean, here's what michael cohen. here's what michael cohen said. despite george costanza, no, no, no. it was elaine. it was yeah, it was laying on yada. yada. yada? >> here's the direct testimony that the way michael cohen explained what happened because actually a girl that stands it was dating, but okay. sorry. michael cohen explain this whole thing, quote, that's what was owed and i didn't feel mr. trump deserve the difference. that's a lot different than i stole $60,000 from my boss on the transaction at the heart of this case. and by the way the fact that he was never charged with larceny is important because stealing $60,000 through fraud, which would be

larceny in new york state, is more serious of a crime then falsifying business. >> it's just one of those instances where i'm really looking for forward to talking to our reporter or reporters who are in their to see. i understand. and i take your point, laura, about are all of you really about planning to the jury, but also being careful about reading too much into the reaction of the jury. i think the answer to your question about whether or not they really did absorb what the prosecution said last week or two weeks ago. yeah we'll be has to be noted by their reaction today in some way, shape or form 20 think i absolutely. >> thanks. so again, the reason you want to and it tells me that the reason that todd blanche has gone to such great lengths to go through this part is because he's trying to draw attention to even that which would have been minimized. he wants the jury to matter how they officially received it to now view it through the lens of the defense, the best this is somebody who has manipulated and lied and has hustled the

defendant in this case. remember, they have to prove that donald trump intended and had some intent or was complicit in some way it's hard nine, right. >> so blanche has turned to 2018 when the stormy daniels payment became public through the wall street journal journalism, excellent journalism by the journal planets moves to early 2018. >> the daniels payment becomes public. yu told multiple people when it first leaked the president trump knew nothing about the payment, correct? cohen confirms. >> blanche asked you even call it welcome the first lady at the time, and told her that president trump didn't know about it. cohen says he doesn't remember doing that. cohen says he acknowledges that he told him the new york times, maggie haberman, on the record, that trump was not aware of the payment at the time blanche is going through a conversation that cohen had with a friend who was in jail in new york and asking whether he insisted a friend that trump knew nothing about the payment to daniels? i don't recall specifically saying that, but it would have been what i would've said at the time, cohen says, again, this is the argument cohen's

makes, which is i was lying in 2018, but you can believe me today cohen agrees that he recorded multiple conversations with reporters telling them that trump knew nothing about the payment blanche asks if cohen recalls telling one reporter your wife and kids had just found out two weeks earlier, cohen says he doesn't remember, but he wouldn't be surprised if he said that at the time before april 9 when the fbi raided his office and residents 2018, quote, you had told anybody who asked that president trump knew nothing about the payment at the time, correct. blanche asks that's what i said. yes. cohen says, trump writes something on a post-it and hands it to beauvais in the courtroom. trump in leinz and says something to beauvais. beauvais writes a note back to trump, blanche asks cohen to confirm he met with bob costello. that's one of the that's the lawyer on april 17 to discuss representing cohen. cohen pushes back and said i received communications from jeffrey citron. that's his attorney asking to set up a meeting with him and bob costello in order to discuss possible representation of me, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. i want to get former trump attorney michael van der been and bring

him and he represented trump in the second impeachment trial. >> and michael it seems to us here, again, we are not the jury, and i do not know how the jury is receiving this information, but also on our panel here, this revelation that michael cohen stole $60,000 from the trump organization in misleading payments that are cited in the weisselberg and mcconney notes about this allegedly bogus payment system do you think that is as devastating as are lawyers on the panel seem to think it is to cohen's credibility and the undermining of this these documents certainly important for putting into context what cohen was doing. guess what? he's a thief. now he's a thief. he's a liar. he's a thief. he's

greedy and he can't be trusted for anything. >> but his credit normally, you know, after the first day was knocked out the difficulty that that the prosecution has is their painting. trump is a victim. >> now. now, trump has been stolen from without knowing it. the only real difficulty for the defense's they still have to answer the question why was the payment aid then? >> when it did this this greedy lion thevenin guy, then turn around and give up his own money. >> the fruits of his own theft to hide the stormy daniels story. before the election came out the real rub that they've got to address and probably du in closing, what would you recommend what if you were on the defense team right now and you cross-examining cohen right now. what more would you want to get out of him before you turn it back to the prosecution?

>> well i want i would want to hit every point that i wanted when the cross-examination started, i think as this morning goes on, there gonna be a few more bombshells where what was presented in the prosecution really was shaded in a way to smooth who that over rather than the call it what it is when the prosecutor was asking cohen days ago about this very subject here, really answered the question when you go through the transcript, he or she has a direct question and he answers it with other facts. so i don't think cohen did on the stand what the prosecutors wanted him to win this first came up, so that they were stuck with it and now blanche is just hit an home guys a thief. he stole from trump and throat. so from the organization and he's completely unreliable yeah. >> and it just seems to me like these documents, the

weisselberg memo and the mcconney memo about what weisselberg was saying, which is the crux of the case, that these checks for $35,000 to cohen every month in 2017 were not actually retainer. they were paying cohen back for this hush money payment and it was hidden that's that's the crime. the alleged crime here. but the weisselberg and mcconney memos that are part of that case now have in them, cohen cohen's larceny, his admitted larceny, which would seemingly be undermining of the documents please. the idea that mr. trump knew what was in these in the bill that's right. >> you know it undermines the document. it raises the temperature for reasonable doubt but to a certain extent, it also raises the temperature for trump to testify you know

they're trying to now draw conclusions from and close the gap on cohen as a thief and a liar. but at the end of the day, he still says that this money was paid and it was done get the knowledge of the president. and it was done for the benefit of the election to influence the election. and as much cross is going on is hitting credibility. it's not really hitting the facts that underlying the prosecution's theory of the case of course, if the jury decides to follow the instruction, false and one false and all cohen's all of his testimony from his direct tennis cross can be wiped out and then the prosecution really does have a whole michael van der been good to see you congrats on the phillies one yesterday, i appreciate it and also, it could bill brandon wherever he has congrats on the phillies, wind as well. so

what's been going on in the courtroom while we're talking to michael. this has to do with michael cohen talking to bob costello this attorney who is out there before congress and on fox and other places undermining michael cohen saying that he's saying things that are not true, and it has to do with as i've stated, and he writes to michael cohen, writes to costello on may 15, 2018, i've as i've stated in the past when the right time comes and now it's just not the right time. will you advance our conversations regarding this issue here? there are too many hands right now with all the various viewpoints i don't really fully understand what's going on with the costello questions right now. do you understand it? >> well, it seems as other china. well, first of all, because salah, remember some bay that we've heard, maybe some iteration here it would be somewhere they want to call the testify. remember who he was. he was the last line of defense at one point for the defense counsel to try to avoid an indictment of donald trump. he

testified in front of the grand jury. and so one was wondering why he was not initially somebody who was called on either side of the issue, but his main job has banned throughout the testimony from todd blanche in besides mentioning him, has been to suggest that michael cohen was lying about the dangling of pardons and he was lying about his credibility and beyond. >> yeah. all right. i share your sense of slight befuddled as to costello and why there's so much emphasis on her from the defense and maybe tim can shed a little light on this this is a guy who represented michael cohen unclear whether they were formally attorney and client or just adviser an advisee during some of these crucial times and appears to have some testimony that would undermine some of the things michael cohen said, for example, was michael cohen seeking a pardon or not? but i'll turn to you to a much of that ground seems to have already been covered. >> i'm not quite sure i see why costello is hanging out there as this potentially powerful defense witness so the reason why why solos important and right now they're going

through how many times he called them, how many times you've met with them because cohen has tried to minimize the involvement of casella and saying, while i never formerly retain them, but he had a lot of communications with right. >> and then they're going into that right now. >> they are talking it out hold on. >> let me just punch up this number because it was it was 75 communications with him. >> yeah, 75 volts in calls with them over a very short period of time. >> and during the direct, he talked about how they were trying to dangle pardons in front of him and he was using this back channel with rudy giuliani when castellows version of that, which is backed up by emails, is that it was colon that was begging for a pardon and rudy giuliani was pushing back on it. >> and that will murder giuliani did finally relent and say, okay, i'll ask he came back saying the president doesn't want to talk about pardons and i don't want to hear about it again. >> and that's really the key, right? right. and that's that ability of that question of whether or not maybe he cohen is doing what he's doing now?

>> yes. because he didn't get a pardon from donald trump, whereas rest ella would say, no, no, that's not what we talked about at all, correct? an earlier as well, cohen seemed to really characterize it as him trying to feel this incoming from costello that he was worried about how his communications with costello were then filtering down to rudy giuliani. so it seems to go to another place where potentially the defense is able to say to the current jury, who really the prosecutors need to believe that michael cohen is telling the truth right now, that maybe michael cohen didn't tell the whole truth to them? just a few days ago, just to her big picture though firm in it. >> and once again, this would help if there were cameras in the courtroom and we could read yours, mine. but isn't there a danger here that at a certain point enough is enough. it's too much i just noticed. our colleague, maggie haberman in the new york times shortly

before 11:00 wrote publicly jurors are pulling at their faces and shifting in their seats we don't know what that means. maybe it's time for lunch but if they're getting bored, if they're thinking, okay, we know this already a possible explanation maybe they've gone to, i look, can i eat why during i look at the jury? because when i see them doing that, that's what i know to either move on or say the judge, hey, can we take a break? >> yeah kaitlan collins up in new york yeah jake remarkable moment there and obviously we've been tracking the bob costello thing very closely and as of this morning, the defense still not decided whether or not they would call him as a witness. certainly, some people in trump's orbit wanted them to. others thought it was a bad idea that only delay things and drag them out. trump is leaning into read emails that they're showing with donald, with

michael cohen and bob costello, right now and trump is looking at those now. they're turning to a youtube video that casella had shared. obviously, he testified last week before congress in feuded key parts of michael cohen's testimony about what he knew and what he said that he knew about donald trump's knowledge of this payment and paul, that was a moment there that todd blanche seem to be driving home todd blanche's this tactic of laying things out there, implying things without actually directly saying them. and what do you seem to be doing there? is it pointing to all the time? michael cohen denied trump's knowledge of this payment and saying that shifted after the fbi showed up at michael cohen's house, hotel room, and office to search them and to carry that out after that is when he started changing what he was saying about what trump knew about the reimbursements. that's exactly right. and the reason that bob costello matters here well, mr. costello and mr. cohen dispute whether it was a formal attorney client relationship, right? he was never formally retained. michael cohen did have to waive attorney-client privilege and costello is subsequently testified before the grand jury

in this case. he testified before congress last week is because costello insists that while he was talking to cohen, cohen repeatedly told him that he had no evidence of criminal misconduct by trump at that time, and that, of course, his story change. so todd blanche is likely building to highlight that and how cohen's story eventually shifted. this is also why they'd want to put castello on the stand. he has testified publicly again, and before the grand jury tried to undercut cohen's credibility, it's unclear though, after what blanche has done here, that they'll really need mr. costello would appears to be workaround by bringing him up in front of mr. cohen as opposed to having to bring him in person. well, and this is an interesting point where they're showing an article that cohen sent an email to because salah that said trump's campaign to discredit michael cohen has already underway because we saw and the jury saw more importantly, john, an email from bob costello to michael cohen saying this is a pressure campaign. i believe his quote was the left in the left-wing media to get you to cooperate

against trump or to flip on trump or to reveal what you know, because they were basically saying this outside pressure about whether or not trump himself was keeping michael cohen in the trunk? folt? yeah, i suspected offense. >> like some of this information that the email exchanges with bob costello provides but the actual reality of putting him on the stand for the defense may open up the door to a rule. they would rather not get into, which is the rudy giuliani world, which is what's going on inside the political sphere of donald trump, because that may not be as advantageous to them and it might allow the prosecution to point out like, hey, what about pardons? hey, what about pressure, pressure campaign is a tough thing. i think for a jury to hear about. >> yeah, absolutely. and castellows a longtime attorney of rudy giuliani, so that again, yeah, absolutely. could open the door there and the other problem is costello and rudy giuliani went to trial last year begging trump to help rudy giuliani with the bills that he owed rob costello. and as of the last time i checked

in with him, he's still hasn't been paid and that was part of the theory of why costello hadn't been called to the stand concerns about potential bad blood, but i'm told the actual concerns turn is about costa castellows credibility and holding up on the stand exactly what john said did castello sue rudy giuliani over those unpaid legal bills? yes, he has. >> after representing him for years and years, costello is still out millions of dollars still has not been paid though trump didn't help rudy giuliani held a couple of fundraisers for some of his other legal obligations and outstanding bills. costello has not got his money from trump for giuliani, not a lot of redeeming legal figures in this orbit. speaking of one of those is reducing criminal defense attorney ron qb is here. ron, that as you've been listening to this testimony this morning and the cross-examine you should have michael cohen as it's gone on. >> what's your what's your assessment of from the moment where michael cohen is saying, yeah, you did steal from the trump organization. >> they're trying to change how he portrayed his relationship with robert costello. what's your assessment of the morning so far?

>> well, i have to say i learned that michael cohen is a bully. he's a thought, he's disbarred, he's a convict. he lied repeatedly to almost everyone about everything what donald trump knew and didn't know. but now that i find out that he's a thief, my whole perception is exactly the same as it was. i'm a look, people who commit crimes and intend to commit crimes tend to commit those crimes with other people who are unsavory themselves. this will not be the first time that an under boss or capo captain, if you will, in a mob trial has skimmed something from the boss. the boss never learned about. i don't think it's the bombshell. >> jury will hold it against him no, i don't i think that if the jury believes michael cones account of what happened,

most, but not all, of which is amply corroborated the fact that michael cohen was lying weasel, lacking for donald trump is not going to hurt him. >> now, i do think the defense scored knocked all hole in the edifice, if you will, of the prosecution in this case, when they cast doubt on the content of that particular phone call, that they did last week. but but that's that's one whole if you imagine a prosecution's case being made of various bricks and mortar in different sides, stones this was a brick or two out of that edifice. i don't think it's enough to collapse it. remember, a trial is actually a search for truth. but we on the defense side want to turn it into to a search for reasonable doubt. but that's not really what it is if you were the defense right now, where would you end this line of questioning from? oh, about an hour ago honestly, i think

that i mean, i usually have a set of first questions. i'm going to ask and last questions i'm going to ask. i think the defense has now gone on too long. i probably would have ended it with you, michael cones, a thief, also and let it rest there. >> can i ask you another question about the michael cohen conceding he did steal from the trump organization aspect of this, the $60,000 if it was grows step before they had kind of tried to, michael cohen had been portrayed to the jury as someone who is just doing trump's bidding kinda following his lead bumbling kind of in this way of the michael cohen is nus of his job does him saying that yes, he did still worked in the defense's argument that michael cohen was an opportunist who used his proximity to donald trump to do what he needed to do to protect him, but also to

enrich himself i don't think that narrative, that story is in doubt i think that that is exactly who michael cohen is. i think the evidence shows that's exactly what he did. the question remains is, as others have said before, and others will say again how do you explain michael cohen shelling out 130 grand out of his own pocket? just cause why he's fan of stormy daniel's yeah. >> it's a question of how the jury is doing all this, ron cuba, you got to laughs. one from john berman, one from paula reid. >> will congratulate you on that. >> jake, obviously a pivotal moment here is you've heard from brian cuba saying he thinks this, this questioning of michael cohen should have ended an hour ago. >> interesting stuff. let's bring any anthony scaramucci who briefly served as white as communications it's director during the trump administration and has a new book out tomorrow

called from wall street to the white house and back the scaramucci guide to unbreakable resilience and look at that, look at that photo on the cover. their anthony, you look at it expensive photo, just lotto airbrushing it's going to say is that your is that your high school graduation packet, liliya, it looks good. you look good? >> yeah. i mean, that photo was taken in 1983 when you still in middle school, jake, take it easy. >> you look good. hey, look, you still got your hair. that's all that matters. so let me ask you, because it seems that todd, blanche and the trump defense team it seems like they've landed some real punches today. they've been grilling michael cohen he basically admitted to stealing from the trump organization, stealing $60,000. they've also underlying the point that he was handling a lot of stuff in october 2016 some sort of blackmail attempted and tiffany trump trying to get an

endorsement for trump's campaign from one of the children of dr. martin luther king junior many, many other deals having to do with his taxi medallion service, et cetera, et cetera what do you make of it so far well, listen, i mean, so he's went to jail for perjury. >> i guess i would ask everybody, is he telling the truth about all this stuff? and so since none of it reflects well on him, jake i think people believe him. i think they think he's telling the truth. and so remember, the judge has to go to the jury and say, here's the evidence, if you believe the evidence and the evidence tips, you over beyond a reasonable doubt that some crime took place than the person that we're prosecuting is guilty. and i think weirdly, all of that stuff helps mr. trump in the media and it gets everybody in the media talking about it. but i actually think all of that stuff is actually hurt them. and so your prior

guests said they would've stopped talking about it an hour ago because you don't want to sell through the clothes, but ultimately michael telling the truth in it, not reflecting well on him speaks to his veracity in terms of his testimony and i think this stuff actually hurts trump in this case, doesn't help him. yes, i know people will say, well, he's a criminal, so therefore, you can't believe them. they believe sami no and john god, he went to jail as a result of that, even though sandi ravana was unknown liar and a known criminal, a mass murderer i think we, we we get at least two or three sammy the bull ghraieb references every day. so for those of you at home playing the drinking game, there you go. i guess one of the issues here, anthony is not so much that michael cohen just admitted to larceny because as you say, that could in a jurors mind underscore that he's telling the truth because why

else would he admits a larceny? >> but that it wasn't brought out well enough, at least according to the attorneys on our panel here by the prosecution, to underscore the idea that the bill or at least the notes taken by weisselberg and his assistant, mcconney had falsehoods within them because the $50,000 to red finch was not an actually paid to red finch because he pocketed by his own admission, cohen pocketed $30,000 times two because of the tax payment. in addition, and so it would seem to undermine the idea that donald trump knew every detail going into his payment of this $420,000, which was then divided by 12 and paid over the course of 2017 because if you didn't know that he was paying 60 grand because michael cohen thought, hey, i deserve this

then how would he know that some of the other money was going to pay cohen back for paying off stormy daniels. now i know you don't believe that, but couldn't a juror see that and think that's reasonable doubt okay. >> so jake, what you just described and did obviously a brilliant job describing it could be analysis that creates paralysis and i hear what you're saying but i think the facts of the case are pretty prime aphasia. money gets spent and money was misallocated. and was there fraud perpetrated to cover this up prior to the election? and so you're saying i get it. and they're trying to thread that and they're trying to weave that in there but the jury also knows mr. trump has been a media personality. four, 50 years and i don't think that that analysis that you

just made unless maybe one of the defense attorneys is going to do that in their closing argument. in the closing summary is the winning argument. the winning argument here is, here are the facts of the case. here are the receipts of the case. do you think? the defendant is guilty or innocent based on the facts? and is mr. cohen lying to you right now and right here and i don't think there's one of those 12 juror jurors is going to say he's lying because remember, he's saying stuff that hurts him now, you may not like my cohen and i don't mean you, jake tapper, i mean the general person you in terms of the generic of the use of the word you but you have to not like or dislike him urine arbitrator at a at a criminal proceeding. if the look at the facts of the case pace. are these facts are true and if they true, is that give you beyond a reasonable doubt? now, you're right. i do

think it does and people said, well, he thinks that because he doesn't like trump. no, i don't think that because i don't like trump because like i said to you last time i was on the show if. it's clipping the klopp and you hear clip you to klopp sis, it's not a zebra, don't overthink the case. these guys were hiding something. they put michael in jail for this. and now they have mr. trump on trial for this they were hiding something is it a criminal act? i think it is and the question is, well, i will 12 jurors think it is. >> i think they've proved the case asks what i think let me ask you because you and michael cohen or friends after hours and hours, in total of cross-examination? much of what mitch much of which was designed to get under his skin are you surprised that according to people watching the trial, michael cohen has generally been able to keep his cool okay. so i'll again, i'll submit to all viewers out there

if i told you, listen you're a guy that i can ignite and i can trip you up and i know there's a dynamite stick somewhere in your personality that's going to explode but. >> you're going to go through the most important testimony in your life as you're trying to reclaim your life and your future, and you gotta not let that dynamite stick blow up under any circumstances. i think he has been well rehearsed than this and i think he has diffused it and not taken the attacks personally. >> and i think that's a big lesson for everybody. >> don't take the attacks personally because once you start doing that it'll affect your judgment and keep your rigo, adam, but it's got another big lesson in my book, i went to work for donald trump for ego related good reasons, jake, i right about that in the book. >> and i got that wrong. i had my pride and ego and my decision making. and i think michael cohen right now is trying to take all of that and put it in a jar and putting it

in a drawer in the kitchen. and just focusing on answering the questions. without getting emotional. >> have you talked to cohen census testimony began i have, yes. how's he doing i think he wants it to be over, but i think he is. i think he's extremely focused but i think it's important message to get out there. >> he didn't cause this case. the facts were such. you can be a michael cohen and get the district attorney to being a case like this, you can be a michael cohen and be a key witness but he didn't cause this case. this case gotten manifested by an overwhelming amount of evidence related to the case. >> if they're going to bid you do. but what's your book again? so people can go out there and get it. i know father's day is coming up father's de is coming up, jake, i'll sign one for you. okay. i'll i'll even put

happy father's day in the book for years. well, that's very nice from wall street to the white house and back and thank you for the compliment on the picture, jake, it's very it's very odd to me. it's right there it is. there it is. we're putting up their available right now at barnes and noble.com amazon.com, go to your local indie, indie bookstore. they need, they need the help anthony scaramucci, you i'll give you my air brushes phone number jake, for your next book. okay. >> i made that i need it. no question about that. a busy morning for michael cohen on the stand and potentially bruising morning for the prosecution's case against the former president goh and admitting under oath that he stole from the trump organization court just wanted to a break much more. cnn special live coverage ahead let's try this again. >> what do you see? >> my first championship in houston, second championship charles not winning championship. >> carry. let's try and stay positive or positive. he didn't win a ring oh my god

not flossing. well, then add the wo of listerine to your routine. new science shows. listerine is five times more effective than plus ev reducing plaque above the gum line for a cleaner, healthier mouth this three, feel the wo if you don't stain your deck, it's like the previous owner is still hanging around so today, let's stay with bear, the number one rated stay and make your deck yours. >> baer exclusively at the home depot brand new group, this assignment in my bag, luck freedom. >> you can take your eyes off the new 2024 jeep wrangler in gladiator jeep, there's only one right now during jeep four by four season, get $2,000 bonus cash allowance. i'm 2024 jeep gladiator and wrangler models. visit your local jeep dealer today?

>> structured settlement it's your money usually when you need it i have active psoriatic arthritis, but was sky rosie to treat my skin and joints. count me in along with clearer skin, sky rizzi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling andrew, d and is just four doses a year after two started doses theory is allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or lower ability to fight the may occur. >> tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms had a vaccine or planting, there's nothing like clear skin and better movement in that means everything. ask your doctor about sky rosie today, were no abeid could help you save so

phi is helping me get my money rights to achieve my ambitions. >> like earning more money on my money's the head chef, ready for service thank with sofi to. >> earn a higher apy and an ethic welcome bonus it's germs day off, but neutrogena, ultra shear sunscreen is still on the clock. >> vital sun protection goes six layers deep, blocking 97% of burning uv rays. it's light, but it's working hard. >> he liked me neutrogena, ultra shear sunscreen this home-style chicken salad rafah, subway this is how you do it. >> savory chicken. chris veggies all wrapped up. >> these routes are amazing people can hear my thoughts that's a problem stay fresh out there. all new reps from subway. >> oh carney isolde. >> it's got an answer them. >> that's what i said. >> god-man, saada got a new gotten me juicy gotten yeah, salah hernias and use all that golden corral there are a giant

so much they are the minute woman building or davies next generation submarines they are giants and what they do because they you work in a place where they can grow, where they can learn the skills to build careers as powerful as the beast they four we build giant because it takes one to build one with schwab investing themes. it's easy to invest in ideas you believe spot a trend in electric vehicles have a passenger online gaming, or want to explore the space economy choose from over 40 themes each with up to 25 stocks identified by our unique algorithm by it as is or customized to align with your goals all at your fingertips. schwab investee 40 customizable themes, up to 25 stocks in just a few clicks greatness hurts

but the care you can keep chasing it the tylenol that's care without limits five good things. listen wherever you get your podcasts welcome back to cnn's a special live coverage of donald trump's ongoing hush money trial cross-examination is going to pick that up in just moments after trump's attorneys elicited some damaging admissions from michael cohen, trump's former attorney and fixer. >> this morning with cohen acknowledging in under oath? yes. that's correct. that he did steal from the trump organization. we will see soon after the defense is done with him how prosecutors are going to try to rehabilitate michael cohen and his reputation with the jurors who were sitting right there to his left, 12 of them when of course they will be the ones who ultimately

decide this case cnn's paula reid and john berman are back here with me outside of 100 centre street where that break is happening right now, eric trump has already responding to michael cohen's concession in court that yes by saying you i paid a certain amount for this one instead, i really only gave this company $20,000. i did steal from the trump organization. eric trump says this just got interesting. michael cohen is now admitting to stealing money from our company. >> what the big unknown here is, how the jury, hears this, how they're taking that michael cohen has not come off as a saint in this case before, even before you go to the witness stand, what's clear, what's unclear is how the jury takes that and what it does to his credibility in their eyes. that is absolutely the question right now, what's interesting is our colleagues inside they're reporting really for the first time in the entire course of this trial that several members of the jury are seemed distracted disinterested. >> we've never heard that from our colleagues when i've been

in there, i've never seen that even on the day it would to accountants testified and they went to individual pay stub and envelopes and it was deadly, boring, but significant every single one of his 18 jurors are 12 jurors and six alternates were paying rapt attention. but the fact that during todd blanche's the end of his cross here before the break that the jury seen disengage that's a big question mark. have they already made up their mind about michael cohen's credibility and they don't need to hear anymore, are they not buying what todd blanche is selling? it's fascinating, but the fourth time throughout this entire trial than we've ever heard that from the inside. >> ron cubed, we just said he thought todd blanche was going on too long. i mean, todd blanche's has had some successful moments in this, but you do risk losing the jury as you're trying to put together these final pieces here. >> so i could go to law school. you'll be happy to know. i didn't go to business school either, but there is a term in economics called the incremental rate of return in the incremental rate of return, each additional bit you get back from what you introduce is getting smaller and smaller and smaller here it seems for donald trump's lawyers, yes.

they are introducing more things that michael cohen may have fudged or lied about, or maybe inconsistent, but it may be that each one is less and less effective with the jury. >> i do want to note that eric trump claiming that he's realizing for the first time that michael cohen stole from his company so of eric is here, i think he was here last monday, right? this good come out in testimony before under direct, they did not use the word steel, but the first time it was brought up in this case that michael cohen pocketed literally kept some of the money he asked for in a reimbursement. >> there was one week ago where the defense i think get huge success today, was reframing it and getting michael cohen to answer yes to the question of did you steal but the actual information about what he did came out a week ago. >> that's a great 0.11. trump's allies are, they fill the front two rows of the courtroom. they're not always paying attention. i often we're not allowed to have our phones. they're often on their phones. they're not always closely watching the testimony. i think

the one person has all watching. the closest was north dakota governor doug burgum. he was the one who was not on his phone the whole time. he was looking straight ahead as the testimony was happening last week. but this is information that already came out to the jury. i'm sure the prosecutors will likely point that out. when they decide how they're going to address this because that's their first mode of opera where they've got to do when they start questioning michael cohen is to rehabilitate him and the jury grace eyes, and they've got some work to do. remember, they also have to go back to that phone call that michael cohen admitted on the stand last week may have been about a prankster and not about the hush money payment they have to clean that up. they have to clean up what has happened today. >> but sometimes when the defense team goes on too long, i was seen this in civil cases related the to trump two is because they're kind of working over their client, right? >> getting endpoints that are important to him. it's part of client maintenance. it's what's preventing trump from having outburst in the courtroom like he so often did during the civil litigation. it's not even an apparent though the trump is really paying attention. we've seen reporting from inside the

courtroom that even he has been sort of in and out of attentiveness during the course of todd blanche's cross-examination here. so unclear what blunt blanche has long game is, how long he's going to take and to your earlier question, where is he going to land this plane? hey, right? >> i mean, i again, i think he probably wants to drive that back to just michael cohen, one of the things i think the world to an extent as forgotten about michael cohen's donna trial right? >> it's thing, judge, is not on trial. >> it's donald trump was on trial. i do think the defense has effectively changed the focus, leasing the world, maybe not inside the courtroom, to michael cohen. and if he can leave that jury with the impression is cohen that's on trial. that's good for them. well, and michael cohen is the prosecution's last witness. >> we already no, that. and so with the announcement from the judge's warning that closing arguments are not happening tomorrow, that they are expected to happen a week from tomorrow, next tuesday, is there a possibility that todd blanche just kind of painting this picture of michael cohen and he'll pull the threads together when they do the

closing argument. and this isn't is closing argument this is just their cross-examination of the last witness for the prosecution side. >> that's exactly right. both sides will use their closings to pull together everything they had put before the jury because todd blanche has been all over the place, one would expect when he finally gets before the jury, who he's not trying to trick or a knockoff course like he is with cohen, that he will present a linear narrative. >> and how does the overarching point from the last hour of questioning has seemed to be michael cohen made a lot of money off his proximity to donald trump. you talked about other clients. iyad. he talked to all my 20s made from his podcast. what he made from his book. and it kinda seemed to to be this instance of he was willing to lie for donald trump and protect him when it was financially lucrative for him. and then when it stopped being so he took a different tactic and is now has his podcast and as his books that he's made money off of. and i should note, todd blanche is back there questioning, michael cohen right now, john, i think a little bit about the motivation, right. suggesting that you need to be doing this now because this is the way you have a career since you've

been indicted in imprisoned as a criminal, you have to be doing this and it may be the motivation for your testimony, for the story the defense says that you're making up about this ties back and really trying to describe it well, and obviously, what does this isn't all just michael cohen. >> michael cohen's not the only person here. he's not the only evidence here. there's also the documents that we've seen when they were trying to trip him up on what exactly he had been discussing on october number 26 saying that there were other matters that michael cohen is working on. we've seen the emails from michael cohen to keith davidson say that was the de used transferring the money. and of course we know subsequently paid it to keith davidson to pay stormy daniels. >> i think it's also now that i've had time to reflect, i think in that moment, todd blanche was also trying to call into question cohen's memory how is it that you so clearly remember conversations you had with trump on that day, but not other conversations related to media appearances? in hindsight, i think that was the point he was trying to make. but again, if it took me an hour to figure that out on glare of the jury figured it out on the spot, and you're the

juror sitting there taking notes moving along with the tail, i'm just curious both sides seem to have left so much for the closing arguments. >> i can remember a case that i've covered where yes, they go through direct and cross and if they get the evidence out there, but literally the main point they're going to make isn't introduced until the closing argument till the very end. >> they both have a lot of work to do. >> and right now they're talking about this show that michael cohen says is being shopped around called the fixer. he says it hasn't been picked up yet, which i think prompted dr. inside the courtroom john so to solve a chance, so that's a good news for you. cohen doing is about to run for congress. is that true? blanche asks, he says, yes, sir that's again, getting to his motivation. is this all part of a political conspiracy against the leading republican candidate for the white house. that's i think where they're trying to put that particular point. it all goes to cohen's motivation his hatred of the defendant has been

well-established, but now here they're trying to stack up motivations for him five one for him to make money too, because he has political motivations so again, todd, all over the place, this is not a linear or chronological cross-examination, but that appears to be one of the things he is trying to say here. cohen confirms he told a reporter, then one of the reasons he should run for congress is because he's got the best name recognition out there. i'm not sure that's true. he's only has a name recognition, but i don't know that anyone i would objectively call it the best and he comes with an enormous amount of baggage, even by american political standards. we one thing i will say he won't be the first character in this drama to consider running for public office. stormy daniels didn't she? yeah, it didn't threw her happen to them running for governor in louisiana. >> and that's a great point. she testified about that that was being pushed and the shubi chicks you've gotten a dispute with someone who's who's putting it out. there wasn't her actually putting the materials out there, but michael cohen is someone who point that he made when todd blanche for started questioning him, was this isn't a new story

that i'm telling that i have been telling the story in effect for six years now. and if you go back, i was so struck when i watched michael cohen's. i rewatched his congressional testimony. >> it is largely the same story of what he has been saying right now. >> he says my name recognition is because the journey i've been on, they're asking because he's affiliated with donald trump. trump is smiling at the remark. obviously one thing trump hates the most follows. we both know is when people we will try to profit off of them or make money off of his name and likeness but michael cohen has told a consistent story overall about what he was asked to do how it was done. since 2018 after he turned right after he turned prior to that, he made public statements contradicting this. he told robert costello something different. and then if you underpin the fact that even on the stand, even on direct examination, there are things the defense has been able to draw out that were either lies right. or inconsistent with previous statements. so yes, i think that you could absolutely, as a juror, find that michael cohen's testimony here has

been consistent. it has been credible, it matches previous stories. you could also look at it a different way, right? he's been contradicted even when the span of a few days, he has lied to multiple entities. he's pleaded guilty to that. there are two completely different ways to see this, and we really won't know how the jury sees it until we get this verdict. >> you have blanche asking cohen a series of questions confirming trump's trust in cohen. each time cohen confirms, i wonder if this has to go down the road of look, you worked for donald trump. he trusted you. he was counting on you. he depended on you to make decisions for him sometimes without him. >> and cohen agrees is worked for trump was in some ways traditional legal work and in other ways not. i think that is certainly the understatement of the year. jake. >> yeah, i didn't i didn't have michael cohen for congress on my bingo card for the trial. but apparently that's what we're going in. todd blanche making clear to michael cohen that quote, your journey has been near daily attacks on president trump at least since 2020 blanche asked cohen a series tough questions confirming trump's trust in

cohen. president trump trusted you. president trump trusted your council. his family trusted you, his wife crusted you every time. michael cohen confirms it, michael cohen agreeing that has worked for trump was in some ways traditional and in other ways not traditional legal work would you keep going with this? i mean, i feel like they've really i don't know what more they think they're going to get out of it. i feel like this orange has been squeezed i think so. >> i mean this cross has gone on for very long time todd blanche, you got to remember he's a foreign, but prosecutors, there's only the second trial as a defense lawyer. and so he's he's not an experienced cross-examinatio n. he's made some phenomenal points for the closing, but i do think that it's probably going on way too long. if he has another point to make, that's going to be major, he should get to that. but especially if the jury's making the kind of faces that they are, you have to read the room and longer is not always

bad. >> yeah i mean, i feel like they've gotten some good gut body blows. >> i think that's right for sure. and tim's right. i mean, one of the knocks the defense lawyers make with justification against us prosecutors is we're not great across exam because the fact that matters, we don't do cross-examination a lot. i do think todd blanche has given himself some really important points that he will drive home, i guess next week now, at closing you when it's over, it's over say no further questions. hand the podium, right now. blanche is revisiting the $420,000 payment, and i presume, although i probably shouldn't, that he's going to go into the $50,000 payment to red finch, which it turns out michael cohen stole $30,000 of that times two within this $420,000 payment, wasn't because this is the heart of the matter in terms of the actual hush money repayment. there are different check $35,000 each after he was

already a non-graded, the president united states. this is way the crux of the issue. i would have had him sit down along time ago, but here's the problem with how we began this entire day with the judge's decision to have the conclusion the closing arguments next week. now, there's all that time for the jury to either a sit with the fact that michael cohen is a liar and that he is now a fee if no obvious things wouldn't have been better for them as the defense able to go right into it, essentially say, you've heard all of these different statements being made, even all this, what haven't you heard what captions had there not been made and now the most reliable and who they choose to end with is this person you have cohen agreeing that 100 and $50,000 is the daniels payment and includes what he paid to red finch. let me just revisit for a second. if everyone to look at this on the tablet, please about the hush money trial payment and what we're talking about here is the breakdown we're talking about $130,000 made to daniels 50,000 hours. you're talking about jake to red finch about the actual polling. remember? they have this times two over here, right? to get the $180,000 plus

$56,000 to the actual bonus of michael cohen. this is the breakdown and what they've used up until this point to show this has been the notes taken by mcconney about what this and how does it break down taken from of course, allen weisselberg. now this is so important every name being mentioned on cross-examination, allen weisselberg, rudy giuliani, bob costello, about even trump's references and beyond. we have not heard from these people, allen over we will, we will not hear from where understanding he's in rikers and also will not be a cooperating person on these things also is as claim here at blanche asks, did you have addition? can you claim that $35,000 a month on your taxes? did you blanche as hoffinger objects now they are sidebar. now. first of all, we haven't heard much objection from the prosecution until now. one reason might be because they don't necessarily want to show that their feathers have been ruffled, that, that they're nervous and some way before the jury and strategic intent we talking about these things. but up till now, you haven't heard much attempt to try to stop or

slow down the traction being gained by the defense counsel here. but in any event, you have to go back if you are the defense team to what the prosecution has or has not been able to prove, and the money in the documents are so important, i'm trying to think right now. >> turning turning to my jurors over here and jamie or the jury foreperson and having undue influence three of us are jurors, but i'm trying to think, putting myself as a juror, what would have been a compelling way to introduce everything now that we know pretty much everything that has been introduced. and i think a narrative where michael cohen is part of a, again, this is just what i think would have worked on a jury criminal enterprise that is the trump organization. and trying to extricate himself from that has been a journey in a path. you're going hey, here all sorts of stuff that he did that was horrible. but what you have to decide is whether he's telling you the truth today, it

to the to the best of his ability as opposed to whatever they did. but i don't know that it's been presented as compelling away as it could have been as the only person who's been a juror instructions on the law. i think focus the mind of the jury that's where they will have had tim is nodding i am. but they've they will have had weeks of testimony. they will decide do these lies make sense? to the jury? >> they will have a feeling about who they like, who they don't like was donald trump motivated to do this? todd blanche do have a financial interest in the outcome of this case going? yes, sir. trump has turned toward the witness stand with his arm perched on the back of his chair, looking intently at cohen and michael cohen admitting that he has a financial interest in this trial because if he is the dragon slayer, he will be worth more again that's a moment of

truth. he's admitting he's admitting that his as a as a night of the resistance this will be good for him if trump is found guilty we'll see how much the jury rewards them for that. but i just think what we're waiting for here are going to be closing arguments and then those instructions from the judge. >> this is a tricky part of law of new york state law. i think it will focus it down who had the motivation and do they look at michael cohen and say whatever he is he is. but this makes sense, right? >> if blanche is saying, because if president trump is convicted, that would benefit you personally and financially, right? blanche asks and just to remind our viewers, michael cohen has testified that he has been paid 3.4 million dollars for two bucks that he's written, surely there would be a third, any publisher would put that out there except for maybe regularly, i suppose. but but but pretty much any publisher because it will make money. no, sir cohen says testifying that he talks about

the situation and at podcast and tiktok and they make money. that's that would benefit you personally no, sir. i talked about on my podcast. i talked about on tiktok and they make money. and that's how is viewing your question whether mr. trump is ultimately determined interested guilty is not going to affect whether i speak about it or not. i'm getting confused about this, but in any case, it is clear that michael cohen will benefit if financially blanche continues to press them on whether it will benefit financially as trump is found guilty. either way, i guess he's saying either either way, i'm going to take months. >> they've already established that. they've already established two days ago that he does make money off of tiktok. tiktok. that he does make money off of. >> it says it's better not found guilty be for me because it gives me more to talk about in the future while he's really thinking outside the box let me bring in former federal prosecutor, elise adams and elise, we all enjoyed your your your wisdom and expertise relate earlier in the program,

i have to say, first of all, what do you think about this revelation that michael cohen committed larceny by his own admission against trump and do you, think that undermines the document documentary evidence in this case, given the fact that part of the $420,000 at stake here is $60,000 that he stole yeah. >> what i think about the revelation, i mean, for most of us, it's not much of a revelation, right? >> we already know that michael cohen was kind of a shady guy. we the the prosecution brought out a lot of that on direct and just generally, that's what's known about him. i think the problem problem was that the prosecution didn't do a good job of having michael cohen explain why he did that. i mean, i think there's a good narrative there about the bonus he felt like he was stiff and he was owed that. there was a good story there that i think the prosecution didn't latch

onto and the way they could. and then the defense capitalized and really struck some impressive blows with that line of cross. now, with respect to the documentary evidence, i don't know if that's really going to carry the day. todd blanche is doing what any good defense attorney would do, and that's kinda chip away at every piece of evidence they want to raise reasonable doubt and the documents are at just the absolute heart of this case. now, whether or not michael cohen fleeced a little off the top is actually irrelevant as to whether or not donald trump approved of the $130,000 repayment. if you believe michael cohen about that piece and the documents bear it out, then i think the prosecution can still prevail, but that's a pretty big f, given the credibility blow. >> yeah. so i'll just so we just update you and update our viewers. todd blanche just ended the cross-examination of

cohen the. last few bits are this blanche confirmed with cohen that he would like to get revenge on trump and has said, quote revenge is a dish best served cold. cohen confirmed he meant it when he said it on his own podcast. and now again, in court, it's true that you will lie out of loyalty, correct? >> blanche asks yes, sir. >> cohen response. and blanche ended in cross-examination with that exchange, so he is established that michael in these last questions that michael cohen wants revenge and that he is willing to lie out of loyalty or for whatever reason, if you're a juror, how do you how do you take that? >> yeah. >> once again, i think that came out on direct as well. i don't think anybody is questioning whether or not michael cohen kind of wants to get back at the former president. he's mad. he did he did jail time. so i think i think it was helpful too. >> the defense and hammering

home their theory. >> there are alternative theory this case. i don't think that carries the day for the during. i don't think that final piece was like the death. now, i do believe todd blanche's earlier point about the stealing and that being a surprise, was far more impactful on the jury. i'm not in the courtroom, obviously but i could imagine there were some probably wrinkled faces at that confusion because this was the first time they were hearing about it. >> so michael cohen was on the stand for almost 16 hours over the course of four days. now it's time for the prosecution to do cleanup on an io 59. there in courtroom 59, what do you expect from the prosecution on redirect? how should they address this testimony that cohen stole $60,000 from his boss? >> i think they need to do it very carefully. first of all, the cross-examination that we just saw from the defense, i think one on a little too long

with these types of things, they say it's kinda like a bank robbery. you gotta get it and get out the same is true for redirect you don't want to go on too long. you don't want to be two fans it and you don't want to bore the jury. so here, the prosecution is going to want to go in and they're going to want to have this explained a little bit better because the impression they've been left with is that michael cohen is a thief and that the da's office for whatever reason, let them get away with larceny so again, i don't want to speculate on how the da's office plans to spin this, you would hope with years of investigation, they have kind of a line or a theory ready to go. >> but we could expect to see them get in, have him tell his story and then stop because the more he talks, the more it opens up to the jury, not believing him. >> right? >> i think it's gonna be i think it's going to be surgical. >> surgical precision is what they should do. but we have to say, all right, elise, thank

you so much. really appreciate it. and, prosecutor susan hoffinger is going to handle the redirect of michael cohen and that is a task she's got some work ahead of her. what what would you do? what's the first thing you would do? were you on the prosecutorial team? >> i would go right to the issue that likely the jurors had been talking about, which is the idea of whether or not and why to lisa's point, what was is there a narrative that would be appropriate to actually have my i don't know. there's a satisfactory answer. he's not going to correct the testimony. he said he lied to congress in 20 canine teeth as he lied in 2017, not 2019. all right. listen, susan hoffinger if what if what the lines straight. >> i missed the goal nitpick on the date that this is not the issue of the date of the lai the lives or the issue. and the idea of whether or not he was stealing in a way that made it such that donald trump would not have knowledge that there was a falsified business record or an invoice they've gone to great lengths to talk about how he was somebody who was very miserly that he with micro

manager, she asked to get to the core thrifty are you are you the person who would have not only paid him four and $20,000 balls would have paid money you didn't know about and as jamie talked about, focusing the mind can i just show you for a second one of the things that will be as part of the jury instruction, you're going to well i'm going, to tablet the idea of we have a choice there's no choice on the tablet launcher right now. it's having it up that people about intentionally aiding something, right? they have to submit this has all been about michael cohen's conduct to date. what is he done wrong they have to focus on this issue to that one one person intentionally aids such a person to engage in the conduct. the intention or requests, or commands the behavior they have to go back to this very important point. >> did donald trump, who is the defendant, not michael cohen, did he intentionally aid was he not only complicit did he get instructor command if they

cannot show that that's the issue. >> now, finally, when you talk about the amount of money we're talking about and how much he's made off these different issues. they've got to rehabilitate them almost singularly on whether or not he has knowledge a donald trump was aware that any sum of money was paid in a way that violated the law, hidden other climb in other words, not just what was padded. so hoffinger, the prosecuting attorney, susan hoffinger, your notes that the defense counsel brought up, how busy michael cohen was an october 2016 asking if he was busy all the time. >> cohen confirms he was casey. yeah. can i just say the dates? i understand your point. there's so many lies, it's hard to keep them straight. i think the reason that the dates matter in terms of line the congress is that one is before michael cohen has supposedly flipped and started telling the truth. and one is after that 2018 in the summer, has fbi office or his his his hotel gets raided by the fbi and the jury is supposed to believe that from that point forward, michael cohen is telling the truth about donald trump, right? so it does seems important. >> were you too busy? so we

hoffinger is asking cohen, were you too busy in october 2016 because it's obviously this picture that's been painted by todd blanche and michael cohen. how busy he wasn't 2016. were you too busy in october 2016 to finalize the stormy daniels payment and with the pay off with mr. trump and cohen says, no, ma'am. were you too busy to get his approval to make that payoff? she asks no, ma'am. cohen is asked if he ever sent i allen weisselberg, the cfo of the trump organization at the time, a retainer agreement no, ma'am. because there was no legal work that i was to be paid for. there was no representation agreement within which descend cohen explains. he says he was owed to a $420,000 as reimbursement hoffinger says was $420,000 owed as reimbursement. does that have anything to do with the retainer agreement half into yourself? as we think i think we know the answer, casey, i'm sorry. >> no. no, i it's sort of made

my what i'm looking for here. i mean, this this seems very clear, right? they're trying to show that this was reimbursement. this was not the legal this was not a legal retainer. and that's very important in terms of proving the crime time at hand. i'm still waiting for them to get to the part that we learned about last week where michael cohen is apparently maybe not telling the whole truth to the jury in this very case. and then i'm also curious if they're going to address this larceny question that we learned about today, which she obviously has not had that much time to prepare for. i think what i would do is what it seems like the de is getting too, which is try to reorient the jury to the key facts that relate to this prosecution. i would start with you paid stormy daniels $130,000? yes. did donald trump know about that for sure. then you worked out this $420,000 reimbursement? yes. was donald trump onboard with that? yes, he was i would just try to bring them right back to the fundamentals, although they do have to be careful because she just asked him that foreigners are $20,000. that was for

reimbursement, not something not the party stole that wasn't for reimbursement but you're right. and i think then casey, you need to drill back down into damage control, including the phone call that we learned about last week that was actually apparently at least about talked about the prank calls. and then about this theft issue. but you start with the big picture, bring them back to the charges, and then you do your damage can so hoffinger is asking cohen if he was ever paid or bill trump for the work he did for him or melania trump? no, ma'am. he says she also asked the $420,000 he was paid in 2017 whether they're covered any of the work he did for trump or for melania trump? no, ma'am. and by the way, did you ever get paid a dime for the work you did in 2018? half. and you're asks no, ma'am. cohen says i'm not sure what she's driving that maybe that he had every right to steal $60,000. it seems to be working she's going with it, but we'll see where this ends up. let's turn to contributing writer for the new yorker ronan farrow author of catch and kill, which brought a lot of these shady dealings to the public's attention. rhona, good to see

you. so the prosecutor, susan hoffinger, is now starting to redirect of cohen. how much work do you think she has to do after this morning's crops? us examination well, she's obviously going to have to try to rehabilitate his credibility in the eyes of the jury. >> this somewhat surprising admission that you were just talking about about the theft of these funds is something that goes to the heart of the effort that the defense has had with respect to michael cohen, which is to suggest a that he has a track record of dishonesty. and b, that he has a track record of self-interest along multiple lines, a profit interest. there was a lot of back-and-forth about that. and also an interest for revenge and i think certainly with respect to the profit motive there were some dense made some points up on the board and the defense's favor. however, i think when all is said and done here, jake, it's going to be easy for jurors to say does this really get at the heart of

the matter yeah. hoffinger is asking what red finch did for trump. that's the organization that the trump organization or the trump campaign or somebody owed $50,000, michael cohen gave them 20 and pocketed the other 30. and that's part of this repayment of 420,000. and so she's bringing up what what exactly were you paying red finch for? trump notes that he was i'm sorry, cohen notes that trump was polling low in an online cnbc poll. online polls are complete nonsense and utterly without any worth whatsoever. and i don't even know why any organization does them. but in any case, cohen testifies it upset him and so he come to my office and provide them any sheet of paper that showed this online poll where he was not doing well. and basically, i know what's coming here, which is that they then hired this from red finch to goose the poles, just like

they according to lanny davis, red finch also provided crowds at trump's announcement. i guess what they're getting at here, the prosecution is like this is just such a such an inherently dishonest world that maybe michael cohen was just part of it. what do you think and i think that that's a fair argument ultimately, the important thing that the prosecution needs to convey to jurors here is yes. >> michael cohen may have a dubious track record with respect to honesty in his public statements. he may be something hustler as the defense was suggesting in many of its lines of questioning today. however, none of that necessarily entails him being untrue and his characterization of trump's business practices and the motives and details of how these transactions to stormy daniel's came about and were allegedly conceal both things can be true. michael cohen can be a self-interested hustler at times. can have

questionable honesty, and he can be making statements in this case that hold up to scrutiny. that's the case the prosecutors are going to have to make and i think to your point, you're absolutely right and suggesting that it helps them make that case to convey, hey, he was in a business that had dubious dishonest practices across the board? >> yeah. >> we end this case contain multitudes, no doubt so cohen said, trump wanted to be number one in this online poll. but after read finches work, which they were built $50,000 for trump ended up at number nine. cohen says, quote, despite cheating, unquote, trump felt he didn't get his money's worth for the poll. so trump didn't pay red finch. and so he didn't feel he had gotten the benefit for the services they provided. so asked why he took $50,000 back pay for weisselberg for red finch, even though he only paid red finch 20 grand, cohen said, quote, for a long time, i had been telling him about the $50,000 so that i could collect it for

the president of red finch. i was angered because of the reduction in the bonus and so i just felt it was almost like self-help. i wasn't going to let him have the benefit this way as well. i wasn't going to correct the conversation and i was having with allen weisselberg about it. i'd nine only protected him to the best that could. but it also laid out money to red finch in a year-and-a-half earlier and again, $130,000 to have my bonus cut by two-thirds was very upsetting to say the least. none of these are sufficient justifications for larceny but i guess if you're in this this world of smoke and mirrors, the prosecution is trying to get at. this is what you get i mean, you think that the jury might by that i think it's relatively thin argument as you're suggesting, if what they're trying to achieve here is to suggest that michael cohen was in a state of genuine need that that doesn't really dismantle the most effective parts of the defense's argument today, which is he had ulterior

motives. >> they talked up to lot about his taxi medallion business, about other things he had going on at the time that could've fed into his decision to engage in unethical and deceptive business practices setting up these shell companies, for instance, saying that he's in a state of need doesn't really do much except reinforce that but again, i would go back to the central point here, i think which is some of this back-and-forth about michael cohen's other interests in the world and his financial duress and so on doesn't really go to the heart of the matter. it's something of a sideshow i think that the idea that michael cohen is at times a person with checkered honesty in the public domain. it's something that jurors are going to know by now and the question that they're confronted with here as to whether they can trust his account of trump's involvement in covering up these transactions. that's that's

something that was a question setup from the outset and remains a question. yeah. >> it's not really moving the needle on it in my view. honestly, all of this back-and-forth that's happened with todd blanche, and that's happening now on redirect. >> so how often you're asked but you admitted on crossing it was wrong. the commission of grand larceny larceny, i should say it was cohen acknowledges hostages. now returning to the letter that cohen's attorney sent to the fec in 2018 on the daniels payment. this is again, a false so that cohen told cohen says, what's omitted is the fact that it was paid for by mr. trump or the trump trust because the letter the ftc said that there was no payment made by the trump organization or the trump campaign. but what cohen is now on the stand admitting is what's omitted is the fact that was paid for by mr. trump or the trump trust did you intend for it to be misleading in that way? he's asked i did. now there's an objection. ronen. it's interesting to me to have you as a guest right now because having read i think virtually all of your work, but especially catch and kill

journalists all the time, deal with a world of flawed narrators with competing agendas and especially when you're writing catch and kill you're dealing with a whole bunch of shady operations disclosing that to the reader is an important part of this. and i wonder if the prosecution could have taken a page from your book and just acknowledging here are the players here's all the shady business, but this is what we think is true. >> you're exactly right journalists all the time have to deal with this exact dynamic around unreliable narrators. people who may at times an a story be lying, but other times could be telling the truth. and it's really important precept of what we do that we have to fact check everything really 30 currently, whether it comes from a person with a great track record of honesty who's very sympathetic, or it comes

from a frankly terrible person with a really checkered track record. the important thing is, how did the fact stand up to scrutiny it? now, that doesn't mean that character evidence isn't relevant when considering trustworthiness, sometimes that's part what about constellation of factors that you need to give to readers to allow them to judge how truthful facts that a source are putting on the table might be now, you're exactly right that here in the courtroom, the defense is trying to impeach him on character grounds, and in terms of the other motives he might have, and journalists might great that duration and say, hey, that's something that the jurors should know up front. in this case. they're doing a more traditional set of courtroom tactics and the prosecution is saying hey, wait a second, not so fast. actually, there are reasons to trust michael cohen. it's less journalistic approach, more of a courtroom tactic i guess we'll see if it's as effective as your book catch and kill was your own and

pharaoh always good to have you on. thank you so much. kaitlan collins, back to you and pleasure yeah jake michael cohen is audibly exhaling as i think many of us are, as there is a sidebar happening right now between the defense the prosecution, and the judge here and paula reid as the prosecutor started questioning michael cohen. >> they very quickly got two one, the most damaging moment last week in michael cohen's testimony about that october 24 phone call, where they were saying it belies belief that you could have a conversation about a print color and stormy daniels in 90 seconds with keith schiller in this phone call for michael cohen's eddie talked to trump. that was right out of the gate. and susan hoffinger moved on very quickly from that. >> yeah. and this is similar to how they tried to rehabilitate stormy daniels. they move through very quickly. they didn't try to match point for punch for punched with the defense. she made her point there and then very quickly moved on to the next issue. and so far this redirect is moving along swiftly, i expect that you'll probably wrapped up

before launch. they believe this is the best way to rehabilitate their witnesses. don't get dragged down into weed's, just go back to the point, tried to rehabilitate and move on, but you can see everyone's getting restless. as you said, colon just let out this audible sayyed, trump is stretching in his chair, holding his arms up towards his head. and as our colleagues have reported, even the jury has been somewhat disengaged during the cross yeah. look, if todd blanche was occasions really meandering, although at times very, very effective. this redirect is it? i mean, this redirect is going point, point, point, point moving very quickly through it. one reason may be the susan hoffinger doesn't want to telegraph what the, world has been saying about the testimony from last week made me the jury doesn't think that moment where michael cohen testified about that phone call, about the 14 year-old prank call. it was as big as others are. she just wants to address it quickly. have michael cohen say, my memory is we talked about the stormy daniels deal. why is that your memory? because it so important to me at the time, michael cohen is a game of chance because you have to say you've to think, does the jury

think that was a huge moment, like like others did? and do they need a lot of reassurance? it's on it or maybe they don't think it was a big moment, so i don't want to spend a lot of time on it. and then specifically on we keep talking about that michael cohen today says are answered the question. >> yes, he did steal from the trump organization that came up in testimony last week, he admitted taking money off the top, basically of that deal with red bench, the company that role. but in the redirect, one of the things that susan hoffinger got in there and it's complete halevi irrelevant to this case is the fact that trump didn't like the fact that this firm that was paid to rig the poll and his favorite didn't do a good enough job bringing it she's reading now about an epc letter that he sent that he said had an omission. she's asking was it a true statement? he says, no, ma'am. in on that red bench, part and what michael cohen and conceded that he did steal from the trump organization his explanation which did not provide when the defense was questioning him, but he did provide to the prosecution, polo was he said,

well, for a year-and-a-half, i've been telling them it was $50,000 that i owed them. and so i just didn't change that at all as we in this line of questioning, it's not clear how the jury will we'll see that defense or michael cohen, but he basically said, i'd already done all this other work for trump had already paid the $130,000 this is from daniels that i didn't feel like i needed to be fully forthright about what he owed me into the precise amount he's justifying what he testified was stealing. so really unclear how that's going to land with the jury, but it doesn't appear that the prosecutors really want my go-to deep on that issue. they i'm sure that they understand that they did not get out in front of it as well as they could. they walked up to the line but didn't go all the way into how much he skimmed off the top. and that even he believes that stealing. now they don't want to get too deep in the weeds. there sort of skimming over it and move it going on to other issues, hoping that's enough to rehabilitate his credibility in the eyes of the jury. >> well, isn't judges saying that they can is instructing the jury they can consider this in evaluating michael cohen's

credibility. these are moments in court we're the judge takes a moment to which you normally is not speaking very much except to say whether an objection sustained or overruled. he takes a moment to look at the jury and say, this moment that just happened right? right here. you can use that when you're evaluating michael cohen's credibility. this is what the letter that he sent to the fec trying to say it wasn't trump who paid back for strong, right? exactly. it. just there. the reason that's so important here in this case, he would say he was logged at that point for donald trump, mr. cohen's plea is not evidence of the defendant's guilt, and you may not consider it when determining trump's innocence or guilt, but i do think one of the thing that prosecution's is doing here is almost everything they're asking you about in rapid-fire form here gets the very center of their case. they're not playing on the margins here. they're playing on payments to stormy daniels the paperwork surrounding it in what you said about these payments to stormy daniel's, there are really trying to focus it on those things that they are going to make or break this case when and it's unclear whether this is going to be enough.

>> todd blanche's cross was certainly meandering at times. we weren't exactly sure when it was going to end. he lost the jury at one point, which is never good, but he did get michael cohen to admit some significantly damaging things on the stand, not only that he may have lied about that critical call, but also that he stole from the trump organization also sort of muddied the waters on exactly what the accounting was for this $420,000, which is the heart of the hey, that's what they're alleging trump was engaged in a conspiracy to conceal hush money. instead, todd blanche laid out leave some legal work that he did cohen did for trump during the year of 2017 that he did for his family, compared it to other fees that he was receiving. it clearly wasn't excessive and noted that in his own email signature he said, i'm the attorney for president donald j. trump. >> so todd blanche did what he needed to do. what is just absolutely unclear is whether this will be enough to protect his client from a conviction. only the jury will know that once they get in the room to deliberate at this point, i think most people well, it's

really tough to call. >> and we have criminal defense attorney ron qb back with us and ron, if this was you and you're sitting in court at the defense table watching this play out. how long do you think the prosecution would take to try to rehabilitate this witness? >> i think they are going to be fast, which we've seen and they're going to be short. they will if it were me anyway, i would certainly break before launch. maybe i would give the defense of few minutes before the lunch break to do a little re-cross because they may have that opportunity due to wreak re-cross after the redirect but i would get through it quickly, hit the main points move on and the image that's created here after listening to cone, now, it seems like forever this is not how honest people do business. honest people do not act this way and that means colon and weisselberg and

trump. and the whole cast of characters. and i think that that is sort of a large high level take away from what it is that we've seen. and i don't think that's gonna be helpful to the defense and so when this isn't hoffinger first started questioning michael cohen when she got back up there. >> that's the prosecutor here who initially question again, it was basically one question on michael cohen and not call that came out last week that it was revealed michael goh and say didn't route group call, but he was very clearly talking to trump's body man about a prank caller who was 14 years old who was harassing him at the time. >> she spent a very brief moment on that in this cross-examine, her redirect, do you think that was the right move? i do. because what else is there to say the ambiguity about that call is in fact in the record and one of the advantages, one of the many advantages the prosecution has is the defense has to sum up first. so if the defense wants to make a big deal out of that,

the prosecution is very much in a position to spawned if the defense sort of glosses over it the prosecution can do the same thing, but the facts that are in the record are there and it doesn't get better bye by reiterating and then repeating them when i get a bad answer and every lawyer who's ever practice has gotten a bad answer from a witness. >> i don't accentuate it. >> i just pretend there's nothing to see here. move right along. and while the commentary, it explodes with the larceny charges as we have all morning i as a lawyer, just all right. yeah. so we already covered that he didn't phrase it quite this starkly in direct examination but he did. michael cohen did it that he took money that wasn't his. >> and so if the defense wants to call it theft, they can call it theft. >> no big deal. moving hello well, and right now, what they are talking about, either going through a litany of statements that michael cohen's at the

time, one is that fec letter that he sent to the ivc saying neither the trump campaign nor the trump organization paid the stormy daniels payment. of course, that was a lie because we do know that trump himself reimbursed trump, but trump was loved out of that as the individual and michael cohen says he made those false statements with donald trump's approved how does that work for what the defense has been trying to do, which is to paint michael cohen as a liar. michael cohen is saying he often was lying to benefit donald trump it's sort of a classic problem that you have with witnesses who begin their lives committing various sins and crimes and awfulness. >> but, but somehow are redeemed by the prosecution when they get on the witness stand. it's a very easy narrative to understand in american public life. yes. i send, yes, i did wrong. i followed the great deceiver and he misled me. i was slavish loyalty him, but now now i have

seen the light and now i am telling you the truth that was the old michael cone. that was the bad michael com this is the born again, if i may use a not terribly after religious metaphor, this is the born again michael cohen ron qv. we will see how the jury sees it and if they are lending at a religious lens. thank for that right now, but prosecution is asking to approach the bench again, but we're asking our next question. paula reid, i mean, this is multiple times that now they've gone up to the bench to have this conversation with the judge about the line it's of questioning that they are going through. here. on donald trump and what michael cohen was doing for him. >> yeah, exactly. it's a look, it's clear that the defense is watching this very closely, not letting the prosecution getting any points that they don't want them to you, but this has been a lot of sidebar, a lot of going up to the judge, having private conversations. now it looks like the objection here from the defense was sustained. so she's asking to go back up

again. i mean, this is this is a lot of back-and-forth. we haven't seen this much halting, starting, stopping and this is a change in approach to the defense largely let the prosecution asked whatever they wanted to on direct, but here they've made their points and they want to hold their ground. so this is taking a little bit longer and also throwing hoffinger is pacing off a little bit. she was moving, as john said, really rapid fire. but this forces her to stop. >> hold on. >> everybody go to the judge and then come back one of the things that the prosecution has done here is they use this 2018 statement from michael cohen, where he lays out a case that he is now saying was completely false, are basically using cohen's own admission that he broke the law several times to muddy up in make donald trump look bad here. >> i think one of the strategies might be here everyone knows michael cohen is a flawed character, but he's so flawed and he was doing it for donald trump. and they're introducing some theories about campaign finance law here in

the process where they're saying, did you do this for a personal thing oversee the campaign and michael cohen said it was the campaign and that's getting out there now in this redirect and just for what's happening inside the room. this is john to your point earlier, it isn't often draws michael cohen. i know it may feel like you're on trial here after your cross-examination bar, you actually on trial hoffinger asks, michael cohen says, no, ma'am. obviously michael cohen is not on trial, but she's just reminding the jury of the point you were just making that this isn't the defendant here, that he is seated over there at the defense table. >> yeah. i mean, it's an obvious point. i think if people outside and inside, but you can forget because we've been here now for a long time, days. >> now, how long has monday and then on the stand, i believe it's approximately six seen hours total, but it's been days and days obviously, all the longest we've seen any witness on the stand in this case, but that was to be expected. we expected is going to be on there for week because this is what he says matter so much to the prosecution's case and also for the defense's case, their defense is the cross-examination of michael cohen.

>> yeah, it's not even clear yet if the prosecution or the defense is going to bring any witnesses, jake, we know michael cohen is the last one for the prosecution. shinier all right. >> very interesting stuff and jamie getting goh let me let me go to you because one of the things that is going to be at issue for the jury to decide has to do with michael cohen's testimony about this call that took place at the end of october that was 93 seconds long in which supposedly he complained to keith schiller, donald trump's bodyguard, about some 14-year-old that was prank calling him and also keith schiller handed the phone to trump and michael cohen told trump that the stormy daniels matter was settled. why is that significant? >> so to me, a minute and 36 seconds, if you are in a television business, that is a long time. if we all stop talking for a minute and 36 seconds, there will be some very unhappy people in the control room. >> i'm not so sure about that

depends which one? yeah. but if can you think about michael cohen's voice and his speed, the way he speaks i can see him getting a lot done in a minute and 36 seconds. he can talk about two things and i'm not sure how much time donald trump would want to spend on the phone with him after he said everything's okay, boss, jeff dali, that's a good point and i'm still struck by the fact that i mean, for all of michael cohen's closest to donald trump, he still couldn't call him directly. >> he still went through a keith schiller, so i think you're right. i mean, a minute, 36 trump could hang up. there are many politicians, harry reid, of course famous among them sort of ends recall very quickly without saying goodbye. so i think that time, it seems short. but actually, as you said, it's not like he was telling him for the first time this it was essentially just closing up loose ends, but there were other moments. >> i totally agree with you. >> there were other moments that they have shown even today where michael cohen didn't talk directly to donald trump

and so that begs the question of whether or not the story about the real reason when michael cohen called, which was to try to get keith schiller, who was yes. donald trump's body guy, but he also did security to get his help on this 14-year-old prankster, who who called him, whether he it turned out that he was with donald trump at the time and he used the opportunity to do some business about stormy daniels. >> so right now, what's going on? core to susan hoffinger, the prosecuting attorney is trying to help michael cohen in terms of his credibility. >> she said, as it caitlin read, i know it may feel like you're on trial here after cross-examination, bart, are you actually on trial? >> michael cohen says no, ma'am is a situation here are different from the situation you were in in 2000 in 18 that refers to the tax charges it michael cohen pleaded guilty to back in 2018? yes. cohen says cohen says my life was on the line. my liberty and here i'm just a non-party subpoenaed

witness. hoffinger asks if cohen had a retainer agreement when he worked for the trump organization, urine employee, it's not necessary. cohen said did $420,000 the payment made. this is the issue at the case. did donald trump falsified business records to pay stormy daniel's or to pay back michael cohen for paying off stormy daniel's for the hush money payment. did $420,000 have anything to do with legal services? in 2017 happens your asks no. cohen says cohen again, confirms he never put together a retainer agreement for trump when he left the trump organization and became trump's personal attorney. this is 2017, quote, because i never expected to get paid that was the point there. this is all our repayment according to cohen. when you submitted each of your 11 invoices to the trump organization stating each was for services rendered pursuant to a retainer. that's $420,000 divided by 12 $35,000 a month. was that true or false? hoffinger asks false. cohen says cohen again says he never retained castello and never paid him any money. so

right now, i'm laura coates, what they're doing here is underlying stop listening to all this other stuff. michael cohen's not on trial. the question is worthies business records falsified? that's all that matters. and within just saying an a challenge this jury is it you're not going to have just one count to unpack the question before the jury is not going to be. >> do you believe them that $120,000 was paid to michael cohen as a reimbursement for trying to give a hush money payment and try to avoid transparency in campaign finance it's 34 separate counts. and the 34 separate counts late to the accumulation of foreign $20,000 that had been divided by 12th. now that's important here because todd blanche tried to make a lot of different inroads that suggests that there was padding, that there was falsified invoices from cohen to trump that represented him good getting hustled, but the jury has to now figure out of those 34 counts of the invoices, out the checks of the

entries in the ledger, or which ones represent the actual payments made to stormy daniels as part of the hush money and which were the padding for michael cohen. they have to focus on the idea of money was paid but now this added element of the hustle of what was stolen adds a different layer for this jury. and can they unpack it in a way through instruction or otherwise? that's going to be a challenge. >> i really have no idea what the jury is going to do. i mean, i want i really want to make it clear because i think i think that the prosecution has done a decent job of saying this payment happened. and here's the evidence. and the defense has done a decent job of saying you can't believe anything that the chief witness sense. yeah a lot of times when we cover these trials, when you hear that a jury has come back with a verdict, you have a pretty good sense what it is when the derek chauvin jury came back with a verdict, we knew what it was. >> i mean, it right. we didn't say it, but it was quite we didn't know from behind the scenes. it was just obvious if and when there were now just about done with the presentation of evidence, if we got a note right away saying we have a verdict, i would have no idea what it is, what the da is doing right now is refocusing

the jury because a lot of stuff comes out on cross, a lot of it, you don't like as a prosecutor and what she's asking michael cohen right now, the crux of this crime as charged is you guys set it up so that this $420,000 reimbursement from donald trump to you, you tried to make it look like a legal fee as part of a retainer, but you all knew it was really to cover stormy daniel's isn't that right? not all of it, but i track of it, but a chunk of it and michael cohen is is saying, yes this was not an attorney fee. i did not do legal work. i did not have a written retainer agreement. this was the fraud. >> that's what she's trying to do. the problem though, and this gets back to the $60,000 that we that we had clearly come through today was still ron could be who i really respect that practice with and against him in new york city said, well, so what the guy we already knew, the guys a liar. so what he's a thief two, but this isn't some tangential theft because the core prosecution argument is donald trump knew with that for 20 was four, he understood what that

money was really intended. but it turns out no, he did not. because you sure as heck did not know that michael cohen was stealing from him in part of that for 20 that's why it's such an important revelation yeah. >> one thing that i look at is why did he do the invoices the way that he did? i mean, there is no requirement to be specific in legal invoice. he could just put expense reimbursement and then they wouldn't have had to worry about the tax. one thing that got buried here is that he didn't report these payments on his tax returns or pay tax on it. so we're not talking about 60,000 that he took were talking about 270,000 that michael cohen pocketed out of this only 150,000 went to reimburse the you know that company and renovations stormy daniels. >> yeah. >> so 270,000 he pocketed and one of the things you had to laura's point about which one of these business records represents that versus the money that went to michael kahn that's one of the kind unique aspects of the new york state criminal system where they cut it out amongst each check being

a separate count in the federal system, it just be a single kind of wire fraud and it'd be the entire thing and the jury can say yes, guilty of wire fraud, not guilty. a four, 20 just guilty of one the fifth. >> but let me just ask you if donald trump if with the benefit of hindsight, if donald trump had just paid michael, let's us just assume what michael cohen is saying is true. okay. for the sake of this argument if donald. trump just written him a check for $150,000, right? $130,000 for stormy daniel's $20,000 for red venture. let's to save and $50,000 because he doesn't know. he doesn't know michael cohen's fleecing from them. so writes a check for $180,000 as a repayment michael cohen wouldn't have had to pay taxes on it. it would have been less money right? correct. there would is expense reimbursement doesn't that make the argument that donald trump knew because why on earth would he spent so much more money doesn't that make it more credible because forget donald trump being thrifty, nobody wants to spend $420,000 if you only need to

spend $180,000, right. so it doesn't that doesn't that buttress the argument that donald trump was in on the scheme because otherwise, why would he spend so much more? oh, it's to hide it. i was saying i'm just making an argument. i'm not saying i believe it, but it's nar as an argument and i would say i would look at it the other way where michael cohen is the one who's advising him as is attorney and saying, hey, sir, you don't have a lot of license. i do. this is how we have to do it and he could very simply just put it in as expense reimbursement donald trump would've paid $150,000. >> he could have saved $270,000. >> the fact that he paid that much more based on this the reus of the increased invoice and based on the reuss that he was going to report on his taxes, that actually shows to me that michael cohen is misleading trump as to what's really going on here. but remember, michael cohen paid this money through an llc in delaware and we still do we

know whether or not he claimed let's see, the toll donald trump. i don't think that's ever been introduced. his testimony. i don't think he informed donald trump here to open the essential consultants, llc in order to make the original payment by stormy? >> i don't think there's any evidence. trump do that. yeah kaitlan collins, back to you in new york yeah. >> jake, obviously, we are watching michael cohen now explaining that embarrassing moment where his attorneys submitted cases that he had sent to him in a briefing and motion and they were actually generated by ai bi by barred. they weren't real cases and real precedent that that he was looking at their that was just part of this entire saga that brought us to where we are today now that michael cohen has spent several hours on the witness stand, we also have retired new york supreme court judge dianne qizan, backwards, us. and judge, what i wonder as you've seen, the prosecution trying to redirect their questions at michael cohen trying to rehabilitate his image with the jury for the damage that was done when the defense was questioning him. what do you make of how they've

done and just the brief maybe 30 minutes or so so far because if they've had them back on the stand well, i think it's very important for the prosecution not to completely revisit the entire defense cross-examination we have already gotten hints that the jury may have had enough today they've got to focus on the crucial elements. and i think susan hoffinger has tried to do that and she appears to have been successful. she focused on what this whole red finch business was about and why michael cohen chose to pad that bill she got him to admit with no hesitation that indeed he did do that. so the question becomes, is that going to be enough for the jury to discount what's in those invoices she's just trying to zero in on where her case might be the most harmed right now, she has

moved on to that phone call at 8:02 pm to keith schiller's phone? >> i believe this is the call from october 24, 2016. that was the call where initially michael cohen testified that he was conveying to trump via this phone call that the stormy daniels matter was being handled by him as he talked about seeking trump's approval and this last final steps before he ultimately sent the $130,000 to her attorney. but this was the moment last week where the defense was able to show text messages from michael cohen to keith schiller and from michael cohen and his alleged prankster who say you've just 14 years old trying to get the secret service to deal with them right now hoffinger was just trying to admit into evidence a photo of trump and keith schiller. but the defense is objective didn't here. they're now at another sidebar how does the prosecution clean up a moment like that one? >> well, look, these are the two most serious moments in

terms of negating michael cohen's credibility, right? the phone call about the teenager and the padding the bill so she's very wise to be trying to go and hit both of these moments i think we live in a world where we multitask, right? there's no reason. again, assuming michael cohen is telling the truth and i don't have any idea whether he is or not, but if he's telling the truth, that indeed he did mention the stormy daniels business in this phone call the phone call may have had dual purposes right? he's talking about the phone call and nonetheless texting that other matters is came up as well what more can you do with this if you think about it? i think it's just very important though for her to get in and get out as quickly as she can hit the points where she thinks she is most harmed by his this testimony and sit down no one

overarching theme from how the defense's handled the witnesses when they have cross-examine them it should try to portray everyone around donald trump is shady. >> i mean, it talked about the motives that stormy daniels had that were financial and reputational. and they talked about michael cohen, the exact same thing, talking about the showed that he was shopping around the idea that he was so potentially considering running for congress. i mean, i wonder how a jury could potentially look at this argument that everyone around the defendant was acting shady, but the defendant himself wasn't aware or wasn't involved in any of that shady behavior, and i should note the judge just told luxury they're about to break early for lunch today. so we do believe that this redirect by the prosecution will continue, but i just wonder what you make of that effort overall by the trump team well, it can work in two directions, right? on the one hand donald trump is innocent victim of a bunch of vipers who are surrounding him who take advantage of his, what

good nature or his niave a te, or one could look get it from the other direction, which is, you know, who do you surround yourself with? if you're shady, other shady people, right? so i definitely think that's one where both sides are going to have to emphasize their version of events in summation because it can go either way it certainly can and we don't know which way the jury is leaning. they are exiting the courtroom for this break, we'll see how the afternoon plays out. judge kissel. thank you for that. it has been quite dramatic morning and sayyed court as the judge is just told the jury they're taking an early lunch break. we're closely watching all of this and following it much more. cnn's special live coverage next russia is we're trying to spy on us we were spying on them saudi friday this is a war. >> but secret war. secrets and

spies, a nuclear game premier sunday, june 2, that ten on cnn time to press rewind with neutrogena no rapid wrinkle repair. it has derm proven met null expertly formulated to target stem cell turnover and fight not wanted but five signs of aging, physical results in just one week neutrogena ga, the advanced form of dry age-related macular degeneration can irreversibly damaged juror fission. >> it can progress faster than you think when ga threatens your eyes. take a stand. >> slow ga with cy ovary. >> saif ovary is an ion injection that was proven to slow damaging lesion growth over two years with increasing effect over time it's the only fda approved treatment to slow ga. and his view is six doses per year don't take saif ovary if you have have an infection or active swelling in or around your eye that may include pain and redness. >> safe over you can cause

serious side effects such as eye infection and retinal detachments, severe inflammation ancient of vessels in the retina, which may result in severe vision loss. wet amd, ai inflammation, and an increase in pressure. most common side effects or i discomfort, wet amd, small specks floating envision, and blood but in the white of the eye. tell your doctor right away, if you have any side effects every moment counts act now to slow ga, with syphillis ask your retina specialist about safe ovary why choose a sleep numbers smart bad? >> can it keep me warm when i'm cold weight know, i'm always hot. sleep number doesn't match can i make my side? >> the softer? i like my side firmer squeeze number. >> does that can help with sleep better and better sleep number does that 94% of smart sleepers report better sleep now say 50% on the speak number

limited the diction smart bad, plus free home delivery when you add any base shuck, now it's the number.com to type two diabetes discovered the ozempic triazole i got the power three. lord, my a1c, cv risk and lost some weight in studies the majority of people reached an a1c under seven and maintained it. >> i'm under seven ozempic lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults, also with known heart disease. >> i'm lowering my wrist. >> adults lost up to 14 pounds i lost some weight. i was epic, isn't for people with type one diabetes, don't share needles or pens or reuse needles don't take ozempic if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer or have multiple endocrine neoplasia drum type two or the allergic do it. to stop ozempic and get medical help right away. if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction serious side effects may include pancreatitis, gallbladder problems may occur tell your provider about vision problems are changes taking ozempic with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney any problems

living with type two diabetes as about the power of three with those empty somebody would ask her something and she would just walk right past we didn't know they were talking to her. >> i just could not here. >> i was hesitant to get the hearing aids because of my short hair, but nobody even sees them are nearly invisible. >> hearing aids or just one one reason we've been the brand leader for over 75 years when i finally did here for the first time, i could hear everything called miracle ear at one 800 2347, 090, and schedule your free hearing evaluation today zyrtec allergy relief works fast it lasts a false 24 hours, so they can be the deliverer. >> dance okay. days. >> let's be more than our allergies seize the day with xhr tech life, diabetes. >> there's no slowing down. >> each day is a unique blend of people to see and things to do that's why you choose concern it to help manage blood sugar response uniquely

designed with carb steady glue sirna, bring on the day want to know a secret more than just my armpit stink. >> that's why i use secret whole body deodorant everywhere. >> four out of five gynecologists would recommend whole body deodorant, which gives you 72 hour odor protection from your to your secret whole body deodorant. >> i'm kayla tausche at the white house, and this is cnn 16 hours. michael cohen's marathon testimony will continue once the defendant, the judge, the jury, and the way in this all returned from a lunch break happening right now inside 100 centre street amendment, and you're watching cnn special live coverage of donald trump's hush money cover-up trial. >> a standard from the stand today, courtesy of a straightforward question from todd blanche, the lead from defense attorney, you stole from the trump organization, right why don't you ask her wednesday? the yes, sir. it is obviously a historical moment and a momentous one but we should not conclude that

couldn't fluid from that. this is necessarily going to result in donald trump being convicted as we've said, from the very beginning of the political fallout, if there is any is completely unknown an acquittal may make this a his base move on at my anger democrats, we just don't know as we've said, for weeks, we should just take a pause. one thing as we talked to voters around the country, they are not paying attention. most of them are not to the ins and outs of all this opponents of the former president are perhaps, and perhaps is basis. but a lot of people are living their lives in the country. so the fallout of this, the verdict obviously will have to measure what impact does it makes june a very important month in this presidential campaign, we know of course the debate is at the end of the month. but what happens in the beginning should there be a verdict likely in june? we will just have to see but we do not know. >> we should be very clear sure that this will have any impact

on the presidential campaign if it does, we don't know what that impact is. eid right now, the attorneys are arguing whether over over some photographs that seem the come from that date in october, where michael cohen said he called keith schiller to ghraieb about some prank calls he was getting and then schiller him did the phone to trump. and according to cohen he told him he told donald trump that the deal was done. its october 24, one of the photos prosecutors want introduce is from a c-span feed from october 24, blanche argues it's inadmissible as evidenced because prosecutors did not follow the rules of evidence by issuing a subpoena to c-span is prosecutors did for other material earlier in the trial, steinglass, who is with the prosecution, says the photo shows that children trump walked off the stage together at 7:57 p.m. ahead of the 8:02 pm? phone call in questions. well, i'm just wondering if this is one of those examples that you were talking about, where you object to something

because you wanted to be on record that you're objecting for an appeal for. >> this is something that they really i mean, obviously, they're objecting. they really want it out but the question of whether or not they're going to be successful now might not be as important as that about a bad an appeal, since it seems as though this conversation, this alleged conversation that cohen had with trump via keith schiller's phone could be the critical one to determining whether or not. >> so josh steinglass, the attorney for the prosecutor fusion, says that they're entitled to establish and i realize it's not wholly responsive to what happened on that phone call. the prosecution is saying they want to just show this photograph so the jury can see that keith schiller was with donald trump five minutes before this phone call supposedly happened and there are phone records showing that it happened happened in a lasted 93 seconds. >> all about opening the door

really door to what? >> so if you are you have an order of things. there's a direct examination of a witness and there's a cross and there's a paid redirect. but when you have a redirect, it's about things that were brought up during the cross-examination and have they open the door in the cross to have you have a second by the apple, or you can't just to have initial want to redirect. so by asking the question, what blanche is saying is, look, i was not arguing that there was no phone call. i was arguing that the nature and substance of the phone call was about a totally different topic about that 14-year-old i think it was harassing, not about the sum of swimming manuals and so the arguing and said steinglass and the prosecutor is saying no, no, that opens a door. de us being able to introduce this photo to suggest and buttress our argument that in fact, actually happened and that's what this fights about. and they really, i mean, it also just as blanche says, is not admissible, he leans on this technicality authenticating the photos folder ofs pulled off stacy's men's website? >> he says c-span is record art custodian did not authenticate information on the website only what was in the archive says a paralegal from the da's office

cannot properly authenticate the photos and testifying that they found photos on the on the website. and this just really also gets into the petty back-and-forth when it comes to i just have to say that the defense and this is perfectly within their bounds, but they're just refusing to stipulate anything at all. yeah, they're being difficult like i'm sure this is not some sort of counterfeit c-span clips. i'm sure it's legitimate. >> if prosecutors are forced to, they will get bring back the cspan guy. >> remember he testified earlier and say, yeah, that's an actual clip of something that actually happened. >> what this goes to the big controversial phone call here happened at 8:02 pm on october 24th on direct. >> michael cohen says that's where i called keith schiller. >> he handed the phone over or put it on speaker so i could speak with trump and i told trump-stormy situation taken care of on cross-examination. >> it turned out that all the texts before and after that had to do with the different topic altogether, this prank call or a prank color, right? and so trump's teams argument is that you didn't really talk to

keith donald trump. you only talked to keith schiller. and what the da is trying to show here as well, but they were together surely we're physically together five minutes before this call happens. but as laura said, it doesn't really go to the crux of the matter. it's just a minor point, prosecutor. it's a little bit more clean up. the prosecution is trying to do because of some of the dam damaging hits that were landed by the defense in cross-examination of michael cohen especially live coverage, is going to continue with more updates from 100 centre street. we're going to squeeze in a quick break. we'll be right back the gentleman just like every turn can't stand to test the toughness of the key is sorrento x ground, and the key is turbo hybrid. >> we recreated some of the wettest spring hottest summer

wendy is false and cold this winter's all on one track to prove these three row suvs was built for the unstoppable qia movement that inspires time depress rewind with neutrogena. >> rapid wrinkle repair. it has derm proven retinol expertly formulated to target stem cell can and over and fight. not one but five signs of aging, physical results in just one week, neutrogena. >> the all new temper p-adic adapt actress was designed to help me aches and pains. a thing of the past, because only temper material eases your pressure points in a way, no other mattress can for a limited time, save up to $500 on select temper p-adic adjustable mattress sets from tried and true to try something new so many ways to save life

ready wallet, happy. >> that's 3605 by whole foods market. >> it's critical going to go in this killer even they can't go back sure chris you this she more stem audio vision works see the difference xhr take allergy relief works fast and lasts a false 24 hours. >> so they can bva deliverer dan okay dave let's be more than our allergies. >> disease, the de with zantac see idp disrupts cid p derails. >> let's be honest socks but living to see idp doesn't have

to. when you sign up at shining through cid p.com, you'll find inspiration and real patients stories helpful tips, reliable information, and more cid p can be tough. but finding hope just got a little easier. >> sign up. is shining through cianni p.com be heard, be hopeful, be you with cargo ruse, filter millions of listings to land the perfect deal only you could do things your way all the time, imagine get it with movers not flossing. >> well, then add the wo of listerine to your routine. new science shows listerine is five times more effective than floss at reducing plaque above the gum line for it cleaner, healthier mouth this three, feel the world greatness hurts but with care you can keep chasing it that's tylenol

her uncle's unhappy. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for.