that multiple times my quotes have been out there a long time at the end of the day, are you saying yeah, almost support whatever he does i'm focused on the i'm focused on the country you're focusing, so yes. you saying that you you'd like to have it up i've said it before, of course. like who would say no? that's the bigger question. oh, who out there if he calls you and says, hey, i want you to be the vip, you say no that's a very that's an incredibly shortlist. so i mean, yes, obviously, that would be the case. but right now focuses the convention is coming up in about a month. we have a campaign strategy to get a lot of voters out in support of president trump. that's the first, second, and third job. the vice presidency, that's a decision he will make and knowing him, he'll make that decision alone. >> congressman byron donalds. thank you so much for your time today erase, continue. oh, yeah. >> heating up to say the least yeah. all right. it is a big day here in new york, closing

arguments set to begin very shortly in the criminal case against donald trump thank you all for being with us. cnn special live coverage. those arguments begins right now here in new york city to historic criminal trial donald j. >> trump entering the final critical phase. this our closing arguments about to begin the former president on his way to the courthouse it was trial has been building for weeks toward this dramatic moment in the prosecution of events. >> lay it all on the line. i'm anderson cooper here in new york, and i've jake tapper in washington. you're watching special seen in live coverage of donald trump's hush money cover-up. proud to closing arguments that plan in the hours ahead will be the last word from lawyers on both sides before jurors decide if mr. trump becomes the first ever former president convicted of a crime prosecutor, joshua

steinglass will today tried to weave together weeks of testimony and evidence, two make the case that mr. trump was involved in a criminal conspiracy and falsified business records, arguing that he sought to cover up his alleged affair with stormy daniel's, and her hush money payment in an illegal attempt to help his 2016 presidential campaign. but first up the defense gets to give its summation in accordance with new york state law. and we're told him mr. trump's lead lawyer, todd blanche will zero in on the prosecution's star witness, michael cohen, taking aim at cohen's credibility as he tries to convince jurors there is sufficient reasonable doubt to acquit donald j. trump simmons teamed with reporters and producers inside the courthouse are going to bring you constant updates on these closing arguments, capturing all the drama as it unfolds. and anderson, this is the opening bell at the start of a very big week. yeah. and this is going to be a very big day in deed. i'm here with cnn's

kaitlan collins and paula reid. >> what have you been hearing kaitlan about what the defense plan is? well, obviously, they really want to drive their argument home to basically undermine everything that the prosecution is going to say it or telling the same story, just different versions of it. and. donald trump's culpability and closeness and proximity to all of it. and so that's really what they're bracing for today. they are a little bit concerned and i believe the prosecution is as well. the jury's just had a week off and they need to be reminded of a lot of what they heard over those six weeks of evidence and witnesses that were coming before them. one thing i will say about how all of this going to go down and what i've heard about the order of this is donald trump, his frustrated and he learned in recent days that the last word that the jury here is will be from the prosecution, not from the defense team, because unlike the opening statements where the prosecution went first laid out its case, and then trump's attorneys made their argument to the jury. instead, the defense will go so first, once they get inside that room today, so happy about that because he essentially wants

his team to be the final word and because the burden of proof is on the prosecution, they will go last. so todd blanche will get up there for a little bit this morning, will make his closing argument to this jury as they are hoping that they can convince them, but i do think there's a little concerned from that. they've forgotten key pieces of this. so they're going to be trying to remind them of the most dramatic moments michael cohen getting caught when he was talking about the 14 year-old prank caller small moments like that, a big moments of the time, but making sure that that is all weaved into the story that they're telling to this jury before they start these deliberations for pull a part of the story that the defendant just wanted to tell the jury is about the witnesses who were not called, people who are like allen weisselberg, who are not here. >> yeah. what i'm hearing, obviously, todd blanche goes first much of the former president's should grant, but he's going to take about two-and-a-half, three hours, and that is because that's about as long as they think jurors want to hear from lawyers in closing. but there's also a strategy here because the prosecutors will then get up and they don't want the prosecutors could do. they're closing this afternoon and then have another crack at the jury tomorrow because

there's no time limit for how long they can actually talk. so they're going to try to finish early enough to make it uncomfortable for joshua steinglass to continue this into tomorrow and to get that second crack at the jury so close to when they begin deliberations. now throughout this course, supposing we expect that they're going to go through a lot of the arguments that they made in court. i'm told that they will once again argue it's documents were falsified. michael cohen was serving as trump's lawyer at this time, $420,000. the amount he was paid. that's approximately what he received in 2016. they're going to reintroduce some of the evidence that they presented throughout this trial. hi and the jury of that and of course, they're going to take aim at michael cohen. that's part of why they're also going to point out people who weren't called like keith schiller, trump's body man, katelyn and i've said this numerous times on air. why wasn't keith schiller called allen weisselberg? why was it he called but he was the only other person besides michael cohen who could testify to these key moments. but i'm also told that the trump team is going to sort of put a different framing on michael cohen's credibility. of course, they're gonna go

through the misstatements, the lies, the fact that he admitted to stealing, but they're also going to try to personalize it for the jury. >> would you want your freedom or the freedom of one of your loved ones depending on the word of this this man. >> so that's gonna be a big theme today. >> the reason allen weisselberg wasn't called the defense is going to raise all sorts of questions about well, why wasn't he called the prosecution essentially does not trust it. allen weisselberg would tell the truth. he is in jail currently for perjury. >> yeah. or that he wouldn't invoke the fifth amendment, but the judge has said, well, perhaps you should have at least tried and this could raise here's some questions for the jury. well, why didn't you try why didn't you bring him in? see what happened? why did you just completely leave that critical piece of the puzzle out there sitting in rikers what the defense could chose not to bring him on as a witness, right. well, no one chose to call the only person who raised the idea of bringing them in from rikers where he is serving time right now, it was judge juan merchan sean himself, and he raised that question, but they moved on and it was basically never brought up in court. again and he is someone who could potentially shed light on it, but they have

no reason to believe that he would be honest or that he would tell the truth. i mean, he is right now. he's just pleaded guilty to perjury. that is why he is in rikers right now. and they've seen where he has gotten on the stand before. he's been questioned by past prosecutors in the da's office when they were investigating michael cohen on this, and he said he couldn't remember trump's involvement or you didn't recall trump's involvement in this at all? obviously, regardless of how the defense or the prosecution painted, it's clear trump was involved to a degree. the question is, how much and if this jury season in that manner. but that's certain certainly been a big point of contention here is that he wasn't called and he wasn't critical voice on this. and that is another question of trump's team going first is how do they address that if at all, because they don't know what the prosecution is going to say about it when they present last cnn's elie honig got the magic wallet. so give us a preview. knla of what we think we're going to hear from the defense team this morning. >> yeah, i understand. well, here we go. this is the biggest moment of the trial. this is when the parties get to stand up and make their closing arguments directly to the jury. now, the defense will close

first. that is the way it works under new york law, like it or not. and so we will here first, the jury will hear from todd blanche, donald trump's lead defense lawyer, blanche's a longtime former federal prosecutor so he's given high-stakes prosecution closings before. but of course nothing quite like this one. look for blanche when he gives his closing today to stress the theme of the burden of proof. like many defendants, he will argue this is not about who has a better story. this is about whether the prosecution has carried its burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. that is the highest standard in our legal system. now, another theme to watch for as caitlin and polo, we're just saying, is michael cohen. the defense is going to want the focus on this guy and not on this guy. they're going to argue you cannot trust him, you cannot find proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on michael cohen specifically, the defense will remind the jury that michael cohen it came out in trial, has a long history of lying. he has lied to congress to the justice department, to the federal election commission, to the irs, to

various banks, to a federal judge and to the media, also look for the defense to argue that michael cohen has lied on the stand in this trial, for example the incident when michael cohen testified about an important phone call, he had 8:02 pm on october 24, 2016 with keith schiller and donald trump. that's what cohen said on his direct testimony on cross-examination, it came out that the texts before and after this call, we're about something different. they were about a 14-year-old who'd been sending harassing texts messages to michael cohen. watch also for the defense to remind the jury, michael cohen is extraordinarily bias the hates donald trump, michael collins, own words, i truly hope this man ends up in prison. the insults cheeto-dusted cartoon villain and similar sentiments from michael cohen. the argument will be, how can you trust someone who's dead set on setting the defendant? to prison and look for the defense to remind the jury, michael cohen has a financial motive here. he's made millions. the testimony showed from his books disloyal and revenge from his

podcast, his tiktok, and from his merchandise now, look for the defense to focus on the specific elements of the crime. there's really two big ones. the first one is false certifying business records and the argument that i think the jury's going to hear is that there is evidenced that michael cohen and allen weisselberg were in on this plan to reimburse michael cohen $420,000 for the stormy daniel's payments, but the defense is going to argue you can't link donald trump to that plan unless you go through michael cohen, there's no dirt direct link between donald trump and business documents and the handwritten notes. and therefore, the defense will argue you can only get there if you trust michael cohen also, of course, the defense will remind the jury, michael cohen stole from donald trump. he admitted on cross-examination he stole $60,000 in the course of that $420,000 payment on director the exam, michael cohen tried to say it was quote, self-help and he was merely rebalancing the books, but he admitted on cross that he did steal the defense will argue that shows donald trump did not know what was going on

in this transaction. he was getting stolen from. and then the second element that the prosecution has to prove after falsifying business records is that donald trump acting with a campaign motive? look for the defense to remind the jury of certain pieces of testimony, like the one we heard from hope hicks that trump was concerned about the story. he was concerned about how be viewed by his wife and he wanted me hope hicks to make sure the newspapers were not delivered to the residents that morning. unfortunately, for the defense, hope hicks also said there was a campaign motive, as did many other witnesses and finally, as anderson and paul and kaitlan were just discussing, look for todd blanche to remind the jury, there are crucial witnesses here. allen weisselberg, the cfo of the trump or keith schiller, who was part of crucial phone calls. karen mcdougal, who received a prior hush money payment. the defense will say, where were those witnesses? the prosecution could have called them, but did not. they carry the burden don't have proof. so look for those key themes, jake, as we get ready to hear this closing, should kick off in about 20 minutes. the stakes really don't get much higher than this base. >> sure don't. my panels here, including karen friedman,

agnifilo, she is the former chief assistant district attorney in the manhattan da's office. current as of council for a firm that represents michael cohen's, but she doesn't have any contact with cohen. she does some work on his case. there are no restrictions and what she can say about this case dana bash, give us the 30,000 foot view here of this trial because we've been covering this now, obviously it's a hugely important moment in history, no matter what the verdict is. and here we are on the cusp of its end and everything that lh is laid out, all the details which are absolutely crucial when we get this verdict. that is going to be that's what everybody's paying attention to. and because of the historic nature of this, but also because of where we are in the campaign and i have talked to democrats. i have talked to republicans who genuinely don't know they can make arguments either way about how a, an acquittal will play politically, how a hung

jury will play politically, how any form of a guilty, well play politically. >> there is such fresh, unknown territory here never mind on the law which guys are we're talking about in this obviously incredibly important but on the politics of this and how voters are going to consume this, because as into the details as we all are, and as important as they all are. >> voters? >> most of them are not. they're living their lives. so i have a question and it's one raised earlier today or last night, i should say. >> by donald j. trump, the defendant himself, the presumptive republican presidential nominee this is not how i would phrase it, but the question is, why is the corrupt government allowed to make the fight? and we'll argument in the case against me. why can't the defense go last big advantage, very unfair witch hunt, djt. now removing corrupt and all the adjectives and such again, with the

understanding that my knowledge of the law is limited to the few trials i've covered and watching everything dick wolf has ever produced what is the reason i thought that the defense goes last? i thought that's how it's always not know in new york, no. but also the prosecution has the burden of proof. essentially, you brought me here. you're the one who's accused me of having committed a crime. you want them all to know something about me. you've had the burden of proof all along. well, you're here. this is your opportunity. >> the defense goes first to try to front the issues in new york and say like, listen, visit the reasons why you should not believe eighth may have to say, but it isn't advantage the prosecution. >> i'll tell you why primacy and recency. the first thing you heard in the last thing you heard is exactly what jurors remember and you want to bury what's not going to be helpful to you in between. so if you're a defendant thinking about why want the last one i want the last chance to chop it down. that's my right. but the burden of proof belongs the prosecution. if this were a rebuttal, they had that chance all throughout trial. remember, they had the direct then there

was the cross, the defense. they had one word by at the apple that's when back-and-forth to the ping pong, not the first time. so i'm confused as to why he's just now hearing about that has never had before. he's been in this trial this whole time where the defense and the prosecution have had valine. he's got a lot going on. he's focused on lots of things in closing arguments, but i thought that our system of jurisprudence bends over backwards to give the defendant every benefit of the legal system. and therefore, the defense gets to go last and. you're saying laura and aly that that's just not how they do it in new york. you're right. we do always try to build in the benefit of the doubt for the defendants, but this is just how it is. this is donald trump shaking his fist at the clouds. i mean, this is the rule in new york state and most other states, new jersey. oh, really? yeah. pennsylvania, massachusetts. it goes defense closing first, then prosecution causing and by the way, what would not like the alternative any better in the federal system. it's even more loaded against the defendant because in the federal system, when you get to closing prosecution closes, defense closes, and then we prosecutors, we get a

rebuttal. so the prosecutors get to actually close the first and last in the federal system and some states as well. so this is not great for defendants. laura's right. it's a fair complaint that all defendants, not just donald trump have i should get to go last. i'm the one with my liberty at stake, but it's just not the way it is in the majority of states. and it could be worse for him. did it used to be different? why am i surprised by this? >> no, this is been in new york civil procedure law. it's because of hollywood, i guess it's stashed probably the hollywood isn't. i mean, is that what it is to hollywood? always present it that the defense gets to go last perhaps i'm not sure, but this is always been the case in new york that i am aware. >> all right, very interesting so jamie, let's talk about the fact that the closing arguments are about to begin what are you looking for? >> i really curious about is enough on the prosecutor sayyed to say use your common sense of what we've laid out here does michael cohen, we didn't have

cameras in the courtroom. may i say over and over again, this is a big problem, but we believe that michael cohen kept his cool and was pretty even throughout. how does the jury read that? i think it's important to look at allen weisselberg and keith schiller from both sides. neither side called him. the defense didn't just rest. they did put a witness on the jury three say to itself, well, if these two guys we're going to contradict michael cohen trump's side could have called them, but at the end of the day, every lawyer and judge, i've spoken to this week says the same thing. we don't have a clue. what the jury is thinking and what they've felt okay. it's stone and that's something for us to remember, casey because the political junkies and news junkies and legal junkies who have been watching our coverage, who have been on this journey with us for the last four weeks? >> yes. >> they are a jury that is not getting the same presentation

that the jury actually inside the courtroom does. we are jumping on i'd bits and murder boarding them and analyzing them and looking at them. and that's not necessarily how the jury is receiving any of this information. we are also tending to drown out all the boring stuff because that's not interesting. >> because we can tell if they don't get they don't get they don't have that benefit in no yeah. look, i think the dynamics of the jury are a fascinating piece of this. there's some reporting out this morning about is the trump team looking at one specific juror or another to feel like perhaps there'll be someone who is sympathetic to them or not. but even the end of that story is a blind quote that basically says, yeah, he couldn't have you making eye contact with us and we think it's great, but also he could screw us over once we get back there in that room and they used much less polite language to describe that. and i'll be honest for the lawyers at the table, one of the thing that things that fascinates me the most about this is the idea of pure

pressure in a jury. and what it takes to actually get to a hung jury, which think especially the trump team, certainly when i talked to his allies, they talk about that as something that could could happen to him that potentially could save him from this. but i was talking to another source who basically said it takes a lot of guts. again, the less polite word used to be the one juror that like in a room with your peers objects to at all. so i'm really curious about that dynamic probably takes awhile to because you have to be able to deliberate for a while to get to the point where you realize you can't do it? >> absolutely. and one thing that might take away some peer pressure you'd like. we've been talking a lot about what is this so-called predicate crime that made it from a misdemeanor to a felony. the other crime that he was trying to either hide or intended to commit, the jury or the judge as recently said, the jurors don't need to agree on what that underlying crime actually was a crime. and so there would be more pressure if say they had to say, is this a tax issue, a campaign finance issue? what are we talking about here? imagine if that were the case?

>> this takes a little bit of that pressure off to say, well, whatever reason you think the crime was, we can agree. >> all right. donald trump's lead defense attorney todd blanche is going to kick off his closing arguments any minute. stay right here for constant updates and analysis much more coming up in split-brain russia is we're trying to hi on us. >> we were spying on them i'm sorry, frank this is a war. but secret was secrets and spies, a nuclear game. premier sunday at ten on cnn my daughter is mla she is 19 months old she is a little ray of sunshine one of the happiest baby should probably ever made children with down syndrome typically have a higher risk for developing acute mound looking at or just looking in general here we are st. jude children's research hospital

works day after day to find coors and save the lives of children with cancer. in other life threatening diseases. >> she was referred to saint jude at 11 months they knew what to do as soon as they got her diagnosis they already had her treatment plan drawing now and they're like this is what we're gonna do. this is how long it's going to take. this is how long in-between despite its like a family to us now, like i can't say enough. how grateful we are to be here medical bills are always a big thing to everybody because everybody knows that anything medical is going to be expensive. we have received nobel since being at st. jude we have paid for nothing thanks to generous donors like you families never receive a bill from st. >> jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food? so they can focus on helping their child live for just $19 a month. you'll help us continue the life-saving research and

treatment that these kids need now and in the future? join with your credit or debit card, right now. and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt that you could proudly wear to show your support anybody and everybody that contributes anything to this place no matter if it's a big business or just the grandmother that donates once they are changing people what's loves. >> and that's a big deal welcome to the place where people go to learn about their medicare options before their on medicare come on in turning 65. so yeah. >> and you're tiring it 67? as to play well, you've come to the right place now's the time to plan ahead. learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare and how a plan like this helps you take charge of your health care with lower

out-of-pocket costs here's why medicare alone doesn't pay for everything your deductibles and co-pays could add up to hundreds, even thousands of dollars a year everyone's a little surprised to learn that one. >> adding a medicare supplement plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't and that could mean fewer surprises and more predictable out-of-pocket costs call unitedhealthcare and ask for your free decision guide or talk with a licensed insurance agent or producer to learn more about planned benefits options, and rates medicare supplement plans, let you choose any doctor, any specialist anywhere in the us who accepts medicare patients you don't have to deal with any networks or referrals this kind of, plan also goes with you anywhere you travel in the country if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire, find out more about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp thumbs up to

that remember the time to prepare is before you go on medicare, don't wait. get started today take charge of your health care. >> call unitedhealthcare for your free decision guy and learn more about lowering your out-of-pocket medicare costs and seeing any doctor who accepts medicare patients oh, happy birthday or retirement in advance mr. the gentleman's just like every turn it can't be migrant play shot of adrenaline right to the heart barricades are being set up outside of manhattan criminal courthouse of this high-stakes moment and don't trump's hush money cover up trial.

>> we are standing by for there are crucial closing arguments that could sway jurors one way or another, the defense will go first. it all begins just minutes from now. welcome back to our continuing coverage. i want to turn to criminal defense attorney ron qv ron, appreciate you joining us this morning. how important in your experience are closing arguments? i mean, do they really make or break in case because they're incredibly important to the lawyers. this is the opportunity that we have to speak to the jury without worrying about any bad answers coming from witness says, we can move ourselves to tears sometimes with the poignancy of our very own, oratory. and we know from popular culture, from to kill a mockingbird to law and order. they're important. >> but for the jury, not so much certainly the prosecution has some tasks that they have to perform in terms of showing how the facts applied at the law as just merchan is going to tell them that defence

certainly needs to make some points that they may or may not make depending on what blanche says. >> but it's the evidence that almost always determines the outcome. i've never had a juror come up to me in any case afterwards and say it was the summation that pushed them one way or the other. >> but again, we like it. that's why we go on for two hours, three hours, even though everybody buddy, who does spoken word knows whether you're a university professor or a priest giving a sermon 40 minutes to an hour is about the maximum attention span i just want to point out manhattan district attorney alvin bragg is in the courtroom sitting in the second row on the prosecution side. if you're the defense attorney, ron how much do you think of the closing argument for them is going to revolve around michael cohen's credibility and also the witnesses who were not called allen weisselberg, keith schiller certainly todd blanche now has a chance to do what

donald trump is. no longer been permitted to du, which is to attack the witnesses during summation, todd blanche, who will be appealing not to an audience of 12 plus alternatives, but to an audience of one can call michael kono wire crook in a grifter and a cheetah boot licking lackey, whatever he wants and so he's going to spend a lot of time doing that because that's really what his client wants. and that can be effective unfortunately, there were very few holes made in the actual storage that michael cohen was telling it was corroborated, it was uncontracted, and it sounds plausible keith schiller and weisselberg the jury can hear from both the defense and prosecution both say the same thing if they were gonna be good for x, x would have called them if if if keith schiller is going to support trump, trump would have called them and the defense. likewise, i don't

think there'll be a factor the jury doesn't know who these people are. they don't know that they're whether they're in jail or they've had a stroke or or anything like that. so i don't think what the defense says about them will be an issue. certainly the jury is going to wonder, i think that given the fact that keith schiller was in the room, donald trump didn't testify. michael cohen gave one version whereas keith schiller, and they may wonder about weisselberg as well. but again, you have his notes and memos and other things that's fine to point out, donald trump has entered the courtroom along with his secret service protection. >> the reform presence scan the rows to his left as he walked down the center aisle, he comes from the back of the courtroom, walking down the center aisle person his lips according to one of our correspondence in the room you have said ron, that the prosecution you believe has proven their case so far, if that's the case and the defense is particularly kurt concern that or may agree

with you that they have done a good job proving their case. how does that change? what todd blanche wants to do in the closing argument? i mean, how do you introduce enough reasonable doubt? >> one of the things that you can do and probably should do under these circumstances is to look for all the various discrepancies and call each one of those a reasonable doubt, ranging from the contents of the michael phone, michael cohen, october we're 24 phone call all the way to smaller discrepancies. it's sort of like the puzzles we had when we were children, we would look for the hidden words or the rabbits in the picture and sort of circle all of those and show the jury that there are so many separate reasonable doubts here. they cannot find donald trump guilty run kirby. i appreciate it. thanks so much.

tiffany trump, eric trump, donald trump, junior are seated in a row behind their father. this is actually interesting number here with caitlin and paula reid. i think there's the first time correct me if i'm wrong, that tiffany trump is going to courtroom and that that all three of them are there, i think at the same time? >> yeah, it is the first time we've seen it, to any trump's husband is also there and i should note, we can see other people who are here at the bottom left. that's too many trump's husband, the others are people that are familiar faces to this courtroom. steve witkoff will scharf, who is trump's attorney, and representative at the supreme court for the unity arguments. and it is notable though because this is the biggest contingency of trump's family that we have seen present with him at court still two people who never made appearances at this trial, ivanka trump, and more importantly melania trump. no one expected the former first lady to show up here. this is a case that personally infuriated her. i'm told during this trial, but it also when it was first becoming reported out about what happened, michael cohen admitted that he lied to melania trump about what happened with the stormy daniel's pay off. >> but it does make an interesting point because even though she's not there, we

know why she's not there. >> it's a question whether the jury is curious about it, because what trump's attorneys had been arguing and what the likely reiterate when these it's closing arguments get underway today. is that what trump did? was it the benefit of his relationship with melania trump and that he was trying to protect her and protect his family not his candidacy, and potential political runs and what he was undertaking at the moment, you should also point out, he continues to deny any relationship took took place yeah that's exactly right. i don't want to take issue with one thing that ron said and that is that it todd blanche's closing is going to be for an audience of one nothing in my reporting indicates that in throughout the course of this trial, todd blanche has not fallen into that trap that we've seen with a lot of trump lawyers, specifically alina habba and others who do a lot of performative things in court to appeal to their client. that doesn't i'm always help him in the long run. in fact, one of the things that are going to argue today that they have to argue is that this was not part of a conspiracy to help trump win the election. now that's one of their tougher arguments, given the evidence, wright,

this is why this is charged as a felony, but they're not going to even touch the argument that they often make. the court of public opinion that these charges were brought to help trump lose basically to help biden in the course of the presidential election, they're not going to make those arguments and that's something that they acknowledged their client would love to hear in a form that's not going to happen today disagree with the idea that this is going to be for an audience of one we haven't seen that so far. nothing in my reporting indicates that just shouldn't. one other thing when we look at who is in the courtroom with trump, we've seen all these republican lawmakers coming, including missing hearings and key moments on capitol hill and haven't been changed a schedule because they're here in support of donald trump at his trial. >> bob good of virginia congressman and freedom caucus chair, who is year two weeks ago and came out and spoken to donald trump his primary opponent wrote in the motorcade with trump. trump just endorsed his primary opponent on truth social, on the way to the courthouse right now for the first time and saying that bob good is bad for america and trashing him even though bob good was sitting in the same seats of the family is sitting

in right now in support of him so i loyalty done trump's defense is about to begin its final pitch to juries. but first, take a quick break back in a moment in one of the most active tornado seasons. you can't control what kinds of interventions can we design go inside the store. >> premiere of ban birth with liev schreiber, sunday at nine on cnn a widely filter. it's well-designed efficient. >> i appreciate that leaf filters technology keeps debris out of your gutters for good, guaranteed what more could you ask for colleague three, three lee filter today, more visibly filtered.com. right now, pet dander skin cells, mold spores pollen, and dirt are being sucked into your air ducts, get cleaner air and system efficiency. now, with stanley

steamer, your air ducts are clean until they're stanley steamer clean it's terms day off. but neutrogena ultras, your 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 ultras, your sunscreen, arthritis pain. >> we say not today. tylenol eight hour arthritis his pain has two layers are really the first is past, the second is long-lasting. we give you your day bag so you can give it everything. tylenol. number one, doctor recommended birthright this pain. >> oh, carney asada. >> it's gotten me. i saw them. that's what i said. god, saada carnot got to me. >> what with more flavored got any current tracing it like this. juicy it's fast. >> and last the full 24 hours, so they can be deliverer, dance

okay. >> dave let's be more than our allergies seize the day with their tech and official message from medicare about fraud. >> tree knee brace for my medicare number. >> medicare fraud can happen through text call or email. >> they try next hello. >> i'm calling about your medicare. >> i don't give out my information to confirm my medicare number. >> nope. >> delete. don't give your medicare number to someone you don't know, regularly check your medicare claims to make sure they're right. learn more at medicare.gov slash fraud paid for by the us department of health and human services. >> it's good to get some fresh air that's there hi guys you look great. >> now that i have inspire, i'm free from struggling with the mask and the hose is fire inspires of sleep apnea the treatment that works inside my body with a click of this button no mask? no. you just sleep where are you go? i'm going to get inspired inspire

sleep apnea, innovation, learn more and view important safety information at inspire sleep.com, i brought in a chore max protein with 30 grams of protein. >> those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. here, i'll take that sure. >> not to protein 30 grams, protein one prim sugar 25 vitamins and minerals, and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic we handcraft every stearns and foster using the finest materials like indulgent memory foam and ultra conforming inner springs for a beautiful mattress and indescribable comfort, save up to i don't want you to move. i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity.

the standard whales stand a shot of adrenaline, right to the heart welcome back. and we are back with cnn special live coverage of donald trump's hush money cover-up. the trial at a climactic moment, closing arguments or about to get

underway any minute. the defense will lead off in accordance with new york state law. the jury is now entering the courtroom and let me just bring you all up to speed as to what's been going on inside the courtroom in the last few minutes. so obviously all the players are there in the aisle from the i always see the president's family, former president's family. tiffany, lara trump, eric trump, and don junior, all seated in that order and the row behind him. so a big representation of his family, they're supporting him in addition, susie the wiles, who helped run his campaign and alina habba has attorney for other cases. >> right now that todd blanche, the attorney, the defense attorney for mr. trump, said he expects to go two-and-a-half hours for his summary for his closing arguments and he goes first joshua steinglass, who is with the prosecutor's office, says he has to make the needs four to four-and-a-half hours. >> that's about seven hours total, assuming they keep to those parameters, judge,

merchan says he's going to ask the jury to stay later to four then four 30 because that's what would this would require to fill it all in. they'd been yearning basically between four and four four, 30 every day. >> but judge merchan says, i'm going to leave it up to them. >> so if the jury decides they're going to plow through and hit 5:00, 30, 6:00, whatever is needed, they'll do that. but if they have for instance, if a juror has a childcare issue, they will adjourn. we'll find out what they're gonna do. judge marsha and advises the attorney steinglass and blanche. please do not go into the law. stay away from the law. do not explain the law that will be my job. i'll take care of that. members of the jury, you will now here the summations of the lawyers, judge merchan tells the jury, under our law, defense counsel must sum up first and then the prosecutor must follow judge. more merchan says, the lawyers may not speak to you after that. so this is a pretty huge moment. >> it is everything. this is show time. these jurors have

not heard much of this evidence for for more than almost a week at this point, you also the judge saying and the conclusions are reasonable, lodge leans with evidence that you may adopt those inferences in conclusion, so inferences very, very important here, because a lot of the case has been circumstantial evidence without having that third man in the room, adam allen weisselberg, with how michael cohen with credibility issues as well. but keep in mind, this has been over for weeks now it maybe in total, these jurists and the time they were actually put into this jury box will now they're going to have to revisit it all the very key important moments. it's up to the defense counsel in the prosecution to highlight for them what those important moments are going to be. and the defense now has to front what they think the prosecution will highlight. we got a chance to rebuttal. they're going to have to choose their bite at the apple very carefully. and make sure the jury is riveted and this will be the time to lean in to have the emphasis, to have some of the theatrical, you also have the jury are being reminded nothing a lawyers say anytime is evidenced, so nothing the lawyers say in summations evidenced, they'll have their notebooks though the jurors to

remind themselves and their memory will control. >> so nlu think and qarrah. and i think you agree that this case for the prosecution is really reliant on these closing arguments more so than the average case the judge just told the jury it is your own recollection, understanding, and evaluation of the evidence. again, you and you alone are the judges of the facts in this case. why do you think closing arguments for the prosecution are so important? >> so every trials are closing trial, right? >> closing is by far the most important moments, but two reasons. firstly, of all, there's charles taken a long time, think back to when david pecker was on the stand when keith davidson when rhona graff, how much do we even remember about what they said? a couple of snippets, right? the second reason is this is a complicated charge here. it's actually a three-step, it's basically falsified business records is step one to break new york state law is step two, which would incorporate breaking federal campaign law or tax fraud or other falsifying business records. it's a little wacky if you asked me, but you have to walk

the jury through those three steps. it's complicated that said four hours is way too long. it is a mistake if the if the da steinglass takes four four-and-a-half hours to give a closing. i mean, i gave a closing any three defendant five murder case. the judge asked how long he needed. i said three hours. he laughed at me. he said, you have 90 minutes. i gave it a 90 minutes. it was the best jury address every game for hours is too long. he's going to lose the jury would win the case. i did. yeah. i don't want them all, but i did want it out he didn't tell us that and i won the case i think it's important in a white-collar case, in particular, the summation for the prosecution because unlike a violent crime, for example, a witness testifies it's very clear what the crime is, and a white-collar case, it's less clear exactly plea which pieces of evidence support the crime. >> and so the prosecution has to tell that story and weave it all together for the jury. and that's why i think it's really

important for both sides summation, i think is really critical. >> and this is, we have to admit, i'm going to turn to my fellow jurors. we for our these for or the jury in the cart? they they i mean, the legal theory of this case is an interesting one, a challenging one. by the way, the defense attorney has started, he tells the jury good morning, ladies and gentlemen. he thanks them for their service on the jury, and we will continue to bring you updates on i apologize ahead of time to you and to them for interrupting by the way, this is a good opportunity for me to say, hey, new york, you should have cameras in the courtroom this is ridiculous a former president of the united states being tried criminally. we add the people have a right to see it. it's crazy that we have to do it this way. todd blanche, every one of you has been on time. we see you paying close attention to the evidence all day every day, and we really appreciate that indeed, we do do jurors so the idea

that this is a misdemeanor, the bit falsifying the business records allegedly is a misdemeanor. but the fact that it is in service to a different crime, this election interference theory is a complicated one and i'm not sure that every american in or even every juror, although they're smarter than us, i'm sure at this point understands exactly how it works. and so the prosecution is going to have to explain it let again, looking at me, 441 for warmer and your mom was a joke? this jury, we do not know whether they will have an outsized influence. we don't even know whether the other jurors know what everybody does for a living. but if they do know their lawyers, some of this interpretation and explanation may come out. i just go to the

end of the day to common sense and for the question of this next step, does donald trump have a motive? obviously, we have the defense on here. we don't know the prosecutor, but this happened in october 2 weeks before the election of 2016 of 2016 donald trump. >> there is testimony that he said women will hate me there is testimony from stormy daniels that he didn't care what his wife would think about something like this. >> there is testimony that he was suggesting, let's wait to pay till after the election because then it won't matter. so my question is does testimony like that put together with testimony from friendly witnesses, people like hope hicks rhona graff david pecker give the jury the common

sense to support what the prosecutors say versus what's the defense is going to say. michael cohen. michael cohen. michael i agree. >> or i think one of the points that you were trying to get at is whether or not the jury is going to say come on, this is really a crime? this is really or any of the, any of these 30 todd blanche just said it's as true right now as it was on april 22, he's he's referring to the fact that everybody so paying close attention and that is that donald trump is innocent. president trump is innocent. he did not commit any crimes and the district attorney has not met their burden of proof. >> the evidence is all in. he did not commit any crimes that district attorney has not met their burden of proof, period. >> the evidence is all blanks. mine says i mean and i'm guessing that after that, evidence should leave you wanting more, you should want

and expect more than the testimony of michael cohen. >> yeah. >> this is this is all going to go along the same leinz, which is not only that they the prosecution, he's arguing didn't meet the burden burden of proof you should demand more than the testimony of keith davidson, an attorney who really was just trying to extort money from trump before the election. so yeah, he's he's introducing this star wars cantina scene of witnesses that the prosecution has brought out, not surrounded donald trump. look, yeah, that's right. i do think brought them well, keith davidson get that documented the case. this case is not about an encounter with stormy daniels 18 years ago before we get to the next one, let me just get the point out that i was trying to make this does make it which is he is going to argue to the jury that this is a prosecution in search of a crime yeah, it's interesting that he says this case is not about an encounter with stormy daniels 18 years ago because one of the other arguments that the defense has been making,

both in court and also in the court of public opinion is nothing happened. >> there there was no encounter and encountered the president trump is unequivocally and repeatedly denied occurred, but you know what's interesting here is todd blanche's he's not saying he's saying donald trump it seems like he's basically introducing like, look, we don't even know right. >> mr. trump says it didn't happen. he's unequivocally and repeatedly denied that this occurred, and it's not even relevant because it's not even a crime. but donald trump, i think over the weekend was saying something along the lines of at one of his rallies just because there was a picture of me with this person at talking about stormy daniels at a golf tournament, doesn't mean anything. i take thousands of pictures with people, so he's still denying the fundamental rendezvous, right? as it were, right and i mean, i think that the question you hear me clearly, this is the argument that todd blanche has to make the question is going to be because i do think based on the way these complicated crimes are laid out, it is actually relevant whether or not the encounter was stormy.

daniel's happened or certainly whether he was trying to cover up something in service of winning the election, even if it never happened trying to prevent claims but she was going to make because as mitt romney has said, like, who pays $130,000 to somebody if they didn't have sex with them, right? like they do. actually, the jury does have to grapple with all of this and it strikes me too, because i keep thinking about this kind of going back and forth between where we are in the case and where we are in the country in terms of whether or not this matters big picture and i mean there are some political elements to the way he's setting up this argument already. i am curious how much of that i realized that the jury has been selected to not think about those things. i just wonder how possible it is to sit in a political vacuum today, even no, absolutely anderson just touch jake. thanks very much. we are continuing to monitor what is coming out of the court. nothing new from our correspondence inside.

>> just todd blanche telling the jury, last we heard that president trump, as an equivalent denied encounter, obviously with stormy daniels glands, such jury must decide if trump had anything to do with how payments to michael cohen were accounted for? paul, you and i were just talking about whether while the jury's deliberating whether the former president actually has to remain in the courthouse. top-line sense of bookings were accurate and there was absolutely no intent to defraud. >> and this is the crux of the argument, right? the documents were not falsified, so yeah, we were talking about little trump in court while they're deliberating. and i was just informed that he's actually required to be here, so he will be here throughout deliberations as a matter, how long delivery exactly is because it reported before he's already not happy that they're not getting the last word. he's gonna be like a cage tiger. there. look, this courthouse is not nice. we've all been inside of it and the bookings, of course they're saying we're accurate and there's absolutely no intent to defraud and then we just we just covered this. this is an important point because this is a paperwork case at its core and they're arguing, look, these were invoices from michael cohen's legal services

he was the then president's personal attorney at the time, there is no crime. we're going to hear that repeatedly, but i think it's notable that he's going to be in there for deliberations. he will not have sli not be happy about that because it could go for days where we are likely also to hear from todd blanche, i mean, him him saying that the bookings we're at were accurate or if no intent to defraud really the person who for the prosecution who has spoken to a knowledge of the defraud is michael cohen. that is what the prosecution blanche says. what cohen's testimony, they realize pure and simple trying to attack michael cohen. the only in a person who can really testify to or did testify to the intent of don't trump. >> well, and that's what is clearly going to be a major part of this is todd blanche just keeping his closing argument much shorter than the prosecution is is attacking the witnesses that the jury did hear from, and also raising questions about the ones that they did not hear from because it won't make the defense look bad necessarily because of the burden of proof is not on them to convince this jury of trump's innocence, they don't have to put up any defense at all. it's on the prosecution, obviously, to meet that burden

of proof. and so right now he is going after michael cohen. that's a surprise to know what that is going to be a key staple of todd blanche's closing it and they really do think that's one of their most effective arguments. and blanche's saying that michael cohen had key interactions with dylan howard, keith schiller, and allen weisselberg you'll notice those are three names that we've heard repeatedly during this trial. they have not shown up at this trial. dylan howard worked at the national enquirer. he has some spine issue and is living in australia. keith schiller, obviously we believe is still in florida, someone who also left and partnered with trump on good terms from the white house also, it wasn't called in this case. and as we know, allen weisselberg is in jail and allen weisselberg also got a quite nice severance agreement, 2 million million dollars condition that he not voluntarily operate with any investigation who would have to be compelled by a subpoena. >> obviously, you can't work. will clause in a goodbye contract is give somebody $2 million and say, oh, and by the way, you cannot voluntarily tell the truth in front of a jury unless you are forced to

test says a lot, and obviously the jury's not going to you're about that agreement that is something that came up earlier on and this and see there's plenty of saying those are important. >> keith schiller, dylan howard, and allen weisselberg. we're not jurors in this trial are not witnesses in this trial. >> blanche goes on to say, in order to convict jurors would have to determine there were false entries in the paperwork. and the trump had intent to defraud him. of course, this is really at the heart of the case. >> it isn't, it's their strongest argument. the idea that trump was then the leader of the free world. he wasn't paying attention to how things were being invoiced remember the testimony from the two accountants, jeff mcconney, deb tarasoff, and they just said they received his invoices from michael cohen. they click the boxes and boom a cheque went out and i blanche is saying the invoices were prepared by cohen vouchers. we're prepared to buy trump organization employees, deb tarasoff, and the checks were auto-generated for that testimony from the accountant's, even though they were called by the prosecutor's. this is our strongest argument and the danger for blanche is not diluting this, not getting away from this because this this is the alleged crime michael cohen's credibility also very

significant, but he also earlier at the beginning, his argument, he reminded everyone that trump denies the encounter with stormy daniels. nothing for a lot of people that strains credulity other also going to argue that this wasn't done to help him win the election that's not the most important thing. the most important thing is to focus on falsifying business records. and that's what he's doing here. the challenges again, not to get too distracted with these other things that don't make or break the case. and the jurors may not believe it's something you are saying. the idea that this man was the leader of the free world. he was present united states is not going to be paying attention to these, these monday and small, tiny details michael cohen, of course, had testified that when michael cohen was finally invited by trump's the white house and being shown around the white house. don trump actually wanted to great detail about the federal express packages. take time to wind the way through the white house system and that there might be a little bit of delay getting the checks to michael cohen also, there has been repeated testimony about how the what a micromanager donald trump was

when it came to money? yes. and then i go back to the testimony of jeff mcconney who said that was true. he was interested in everything down to the paper clips until 2017 then he became president. there were efforts to put a wall between the white house and the trump organization. i don't know if jurors will believe jeff mcconney over michael cohen, but that is a key. i think a key thing to bring back, no, blanche has a graphic that shows an invoice, a voucher, and a check and a check stub. again, not the most exciting evidence that you'll see. this is the heart of the case. each one of these, this is what thanks up at 34 counts of falsifying business records. this this makes or breaks the case depending on what the jurors think of trump's role in creating the invoices, the vouchers, the checks? >> themselves. the other interesting aspect of this is obviously we have no idea what the jury is thinking. >> we have all watched them as we've been in that courtroom. they give almost nothing away. and todd blanche is showing them a slideshow that shows the invoice created by michael cohen that was sent to the trump organization. he acknowledges the dead tariffs. all testimony that she stapled invoices to check that was signed by donald trump, todd blanche, to the most familiar rarity, this duree has with him

this is cross-examination of michael cohen. he didn't really cross-examine many other major witnesses. a few of the ones who testified about the books and what trump's quotes word that he wrote there. this is really get them seeing todd blanche, and a fuller sense that's not cross-examination. it's the first time we've really seen that and also, in there's into your to your point earlier, remember, david pecker though the very first witness to testify? divided this jury heard from talked about how when he also went to the white house trump was not as concerned with running the country. he was also inquiring about the status of karen mcdougal and how she was doing. the idea that trump is not a micromanager or for anyone who's covered him. and for this karim, what they've heard, it does also belie believe i'm todd blanche says the jury general practice is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. jurors were actually shown when david pecker was on the stand, a black and white photo of david pecker and trump walking by the rose garden, i believe down the hall, the white house and david pecker actually testified that the moment that photo was taken in that scene it it looks like a photo we've

seen of many presidents walking making that famous walk when meeting with people talking about world events in prices down trump, according david pecker had turned to david pecker. know wouldn't send something to towards the effect of house are girl karen doing how's karen doing so even as president, he was concerned about karen mcdougal and maintaining her silence according to david pecker and very much aware of these hush money payments that were made. hope hicks testified to this as well. >> he was aware of these were being made. he was aware of how they were being made. michael cohen, obviously, if facilitating the payment to stormy daniels, what was charged here again is the falsifying business records and that's what todd's goal is here. what separation between the defendant and the production and creation of these documents? it's a challenge. now, cohen apparently attached an invoice and as weisselberg to call to discuss the last open foundation matter, suggesting he worked for trump in 2017 while he was paid? now, i'm talking with sources this document, this is a key piece of evidence for the defense. they believe that this email

this particular piece of evidence, this is critical to their case. and also once again, they'll highlight, okay, what these two discussed it. why didn't you call weisselberg the also argue that this underscores that cohen was actually doing legal work. that's what you discussed with weisselberg. can you can't believe that cohen says it was something else? >> i want to bring a trial attorney, jury consultant. we're not us to be able are not as contented to have you with us. welcome, todd, blanche and taking closing arguments as we talked burnout, i just want to warn her audience. i may there's have to jump in and give updates from our folks in the courtroom at what is happening, please don't. i apologize in advance or not? >> what do you make? first of all, what you were hearing so far from todd blanche, i mean, this is just getting started according to paul reads reporting, he may go to the three hours or so. >> what do you expecting from his closing arguments this is everything that everybody has been expecting. i agree with but everybody has been saying yes to go hard after michael cohen i am really surprised at the length of these closing arguments. i know we budgeted a day for this. the court budgeted today, but three hours

and four-and-a-half hours. those are very, very long closing arguments. >> remember, these are e felony. >> this is the lowest level felony. these might be the longest closing arguments we've ever heard. heard in e felonies ever. >> but, you know, they want to march through everything they want to be careful. >> i think the big thing that i'm listening for from todd blanche is what was the legal work? that is what he opened on he said that real legal work was done. donald trump thought that real legal work was doing. he's going to have to explain that now in his summation where the prosecution is going to call him out on it you are renown as a jury. can consultant advising attorneys on the makeup of juries, do you think a longer closing? >> i made a 4.5 hour closing argument that can that turn a jury off? >> you know, i think they've definitely going to lose interests. i mean, i think you know, you want to keep shirt closing through an hour-and-a-half two hours. once you start to go beyond that, you're really going to lose them, especially the

prosecution has a strong case. they might be overdoing it here. that's one of the danger fears of a long break. i think you probably had your closing setup and then now you have seven days and take her with it. maybe the prosecution over tinkered with it in this case we had iran qu bian, well-known defense attorney, who was saying that while closing arguments are very important for the lawyer who's making the closing arguments and they can bring themselves to tears with their impassioned arguments that he doesn't believe for jurors, that they have the same necessarily have the same impact. >> do you think and by the way, todd blanche is arguing that michael cohen did the legal work in 2017 because there was a retainer agreement pointing to the other retainer agreement he had as a consultant in 2017. the whole question of whether or not michael cohen actually had a retainer agreement? it has been an important part of this case. >> do you think do you think do you think i mean, from your experience in talking to jurors after cases does du the closing

arguments matter to them that much? >> i think weak between the close of evidence and closing argument formations. but the summations are basically confirmatory for the jurors. they've already pretty much i think decided the case. you're not going to sway anybody in the closing arguments at this point. you're just confirming what they already think that's really interesting. >> timeline since phonetically knows that might hotel owners paid $100,000 for six meetings with novartis, again, trying to lay the foundation of michael kahn was doing legal work for him and there was a retainer that's really fastening. so you believe that juries have already made up their minds will closing argument help do you think it does? >> it it doesn't change any minds and just sort of helps them bolster the the conclusions they've already

made. anything i think you're probably solidifies the positions of the jurors have no look, we do not know. >> again, we don't know the political makeup of the jury. i think that is the absolute super factor here. so i think jurors are viewed during this evidence through whatever political lens that they walked into jury selection with these closing arguments are going to solidify their positions because if there's going to be a look either the jurors are all going to be aligned and we're going to have a very quick verdict or there's gonna be some dispute. it might be across political leinz. and you're using these summations form your jurors to arm your juris to give them the arguments, to give them the evidence. so that they can fight for you in that jury room if there's a dispute run that us to bl appreciate it. >> top line. repeat the same. michael cohen has lied to you puncture to each the words cohen lied to you, jake, back to you well, anderson, i'm gonna take a little bit more liberty there. i think he's he's did it more probably more like this. cohen lied to, you

we don't know. we don't know how he did it, but i'm trying to just give a little dramatic flair here because that's well what cameras in the courtroom were back here. and we have with us tim parlatore, former trump defense attorney. so tim, let me ask you a question what do you make of the tasks right now the todd blanche has the trump defense attorney that mr. steinglass has the prosecutor who has the more difficult de right now, one they're both giving closing arguments, defense verse, and prosecution who has the bigger challenge ahead of them? >> i think the prosecution, just because they do have the burden of proof in this case. and so by going second they have certain advantages, but also certain disadvantages. they're going to have to react to a lot of the things that the defense says but really the big thing, and i think that they're both making a big mistake. and i know other people said this by going so long hello, would

you go an hour for each absolutely. i go an hour for each because ultimately, a trial is all about storytelling for the jury. and if you can't hold their attention, if you're doing a four-hour closing, whether it's for your client, for your boss or for your own ego. yeah, it disregards the number one principle of trial law, which is that there are only 12 opinions that matter. yours isn't one of them. yeah. so right right now, by the way, just to interrupt, i apologize. todd, blanche's is noting that an email being introduced here. this is one that allen weisselberg, the cfo for the trump organization, sent to michael cohen when when cohen was leaving the trump organization, it stated, please prepare the agreement. we discussed so we can pay you monthly and this is just quote, you didn't see a retainer agreement. there's no evidence that there was one ever put together. a plan says and this is all about basically the argument that there was no reimbursement. this is crazy, this whole theory of the case is based on this one testimony is very flawed witness's

testimony that there was a verbal retainer agreement from mr. cohen and president trump. is consistent with the practices of lawyer keith davidson planned saying, meaning there wasn't retainer agreement not a reimbursement agreement, right? >> what i would be doing if i were todd blanche just try and take this relatively complicated case and make it as simple as possible. i would not only try and simplify it and say, okay, there's a lot of this stuff, none of that is really relevant. set that to the side, but really matters is the retainer agreement or the actual cheques themselves. what dropdown menu they use. >> i would to be laser-focused on that. >> another thing that i like to do with closings is because i'm going before the prosecution, i would challenge them and change their closing i would actually walk over the prosecution table and say if he spends a whole bunch of time hi, i'm talking to you about the meeting with david pecker that's because they don't have the evidence to support the meeting with weisselberg. and when he gets up after i sit down, i don't get to respond

to anything he says, but listen to what he says. if he goes on for four-and-a-half hours talking about all of this other stuff that's an indication of the weakness of the case, but see if he can explain to you what other evidence there is. the donald trump knew about this agreement, other than michael cohen? >> yeah. so right now, what's going on is todd blanche, the defense attorney is saying he meaning mr. cohen, michael cohen was president trump's personal lawyer period. again, they're trying to advance is trying to make the argument. there was no reimbursement for stormy daniels. he was just being paid a retainer as they agreed, blanche sarcastically says cohen was thinking at the time for the first time in president trump's life, he did decided to pay me back triple, making fun of the defense of the prosecution's theory in the case. there's a reason why in life usually the simplest answer is the right one. blanche says, arguing that that's the case here. the outcome, right? occam's razor theory don't be somebody said, if you hear hoof beats outside,

don't think it's zebra, it's probably a horse historian, mr. cohen told you on the witness stand is not true yeah. >> and they're also going into detail about all the different holes they perceive the prosecution's case to tim's point, what did you ask? >> i'm sorry, i'm laura, there is no evidence of president trump knew anything about this voucher system. no evidence, not a single word. this is the idea about this $35,000 monthly payment. that's part of this a reimbursement if the government reads to use quotes from a book, you should be suspicious. that's a red flag. blanche says, look, they're doing exactly heading them off at the pass. if they do the xyz, you should be suspicious. and then of course, mr. steinglass probably is going to do xyz because that's this case, and that's exactly what they need to have the trial to point out the what are the allen weisselberg wasn't there. dylan howard wasn't there. keith schiller talking about all the people who could have come up as the, all the president's men who were not there, other people in the room conversations about credibility. they're going to use this opportunity to talk about not what their burden would be. they have no burden

of proof. they don't have to prove trump is innocent. they know the prosecution has to prove that he in fact his guilty. if they can do so by pointing out all the areas that you've not hear testimony. they're going to try to make their case that way. it's important also talk about they are raising the area of business records that's part of it. that's really the crux of this case. the documents are the most important part of this case. witnesses are important as well. this is 34 counts of falsified business records. they talk about prosecution wants you to think trump knew about the baptism because of a book is if i goes priors decades earlier, so there won't youth focused on a 34 documents in this case. and what could or could not have been proven also blanche test or a point, there is a problem in the proof that is what the defense must do to be successful in this case. the jurors, though, have to now look at their statements and believe that they're actually were these actual holes proof beyond reasonable doubt does not include a passage in the book from decades earlier, ladies and gentlemen, but we're talking about not decades ago.

we're talking about the documents in this case yes, this this is when they introduced all these quotes from trump's books. remember they had actually authors are editors rather from various publishing houses about like how trump says, you do, you deal with things and i guess that was trying to create some sort of theory of like what donald trump's state of mind was. yeah, there was a memorable quote, one of the books were trump wrote something like in his principles of management, you have to know where every paper clip is. what todd blanche is trying to do right now is put the jury in donald trump's shoes because that's what matters. what donald trump knew and understood is really the crux of this case and the argument he's trying to make here is that when you're the ceo of a company and you're longtime attorney invoices you for legal fees and you pay them as legal fees. there's nothing wrong with that. that's not a crime. that's the argument he's making here. and i think where he's going to drive it home is at the point where michael cohen stole from donald trump's $60,000 on this very transaction. he's going to argue, you think trump knew exactly what was going on, really because he was getting

fleeced on this transaction that's coming soon. >> so todd blanche right now is focusing on mcconney's email. mcconney, jeff mcconney was the right-hand man of the cfo. allen weisselberg mcconney's email to tarasoff instructing her to pay from the trust post to business expense and put retainer. this was tarasoff, i believe is the young woman who used to work at grocery store and then was hired by the trump organization and she basically was the person who fedex things to donald trump at the white house for him to sign. this has to do with the reimbursement of checks. each of these sentences should give you without a doubt, reasonable doubt. blanche says, blanche's reminding jurors at the trump organization, always labeled any expenses come coming from a lawyer as legal expenses. and says in the company system, arguing the government has tried to criminalize this practice that's absurd. it's not a crime. bland says he's really, there's really a disdain. the blanche is expressed as a stain, but also remember the jurors heard testimony about there being only a certain limited finite universe, universe of categories to characterize

payments being made one being legal expenses. but again, the government has to prove these are business records. the charge are falsified. business records. they can't be personal records i spent it very to try to suggest that once trump went to the white house, this is essentially akin to him sending maybe flowers are personal documents or personal invoices some of which are and they're trying to make those actually business expenses is the burden of the government to prove this very point, but also one of the flaws and why the fed's it necessarily want to bring this case is because they would have to have shown that he knew that what they were doing in the reimbursement was actually intended to commit a crime. and about that direct dot connected that's gonna be a problem. >> i want to bring in right now, former federal prosecutor, release adamson, who we had on the panel last week, as well. at least thanks so much for joining us. so right now the defense is presenting their closing arguments, were told it will last anywhere from two to two-and-a-half hours than the

prosecution gets. they are turn we're told that will last anywhere from four to four-and-a-half hours. some of the attorneys on the panel here seem to think this is way too long for closing arguments, that this is not strategically wise. what do you think? >> yeah i actually agree with that. jurors are people and they lose the ability to pay attention. and here, this is a very legally complicated case in both sides really need the jury to focus on what they are saying to either prove their case, if you're the prosecution, or to raise enough doubt that it becomes reasonable doubts for either an acquittal or for a hung jury. if i were trying this case, i was listening to tim earlier. i agree. i mean, maybe not an hour. i might need a little bit longer just because of the intricacies, but to hear that the prosecution is going to go for plus hours, i'm not sure that's wise. i mean, i don't think any one of us could pay

attention to every word for four-and-a-half hours. >> so just just to bring everybody up to speed as to what's going on on the on the left side there of the screen with the tidbits of news coming in from inside the courtroom. todd blanche's right now showing the jury an email that jeff mcconney, again, that's the right-hand man of the cfo, allen weisselberg, an email that mcconney sent seeking approval for these payments two from don junior and eric trump. these are the president's son who ran the trump organization while donald trump was in the white house. trump is leaning let me back in his chair. we're told his turn slightly toward the jury and to todd blanche, while blanche is making his presentation plan, says if there was actually an agreement between the three of them to pay cohen as a cover than this email? this email does not exist, meaning if this is a cover up, why are they seeking permission for the check to be written? to donald? i'm sorry, to michael cohen and seeking permission from eric trump and donald trump junior there's no

reason to get approval from don and eric if it's already decided that we're going to pay cohen 35,000 a month, but don't tell anybody what do you make the strength of this argument in the closing? >> i think it is a good argument and it's unnecessary argument because again, the business records themselves are the heart of this case. this is a case about falsified business records. >> i don't think if you zoom out, that necessarily carries a lot of wait because again, we're talking about is these installment payments where donald trump signed the checks personally and we heard testimony that donald trump knows what he's doing. >> he's a very smart businessman. he knows everything that is coming his way. this is about donald trump's intense, his away earnest, what he knows, and what he was intending to do. so the defense is trying to create reasonable doubt. i understand the argument, but jurors do not

check their common sense at the door and they're gonna be reminded by the prosecution that they need to see the bigger picture who had all the motive to do this, who benefited? from all of this? >> yeah, it would have been donald trump. >> it just doesn't make sense. otherwise so one of the things that todd blanche just said is there's no reason to get approval from don and eric if it's already decided that we're going to pay cohen $35,000 a month, but don't tell anyone and any notes that the prosecution has not called donald trump junior or eric trump to testify if they were indeed part of this conspiracy, which the prosecution is alleging both of these checks were approved by eric and don junior and president trump had nothing to do with them. >> there's no evidence he had anything to do with anything involving these jackson. a reminder of least that erik and don don from junior are in court today, sitting right behind their father, which is an interesting an interesting

bit of information for the jury to absorb. they're saying, here are donald trump's sons right here, sitting right behind. i'm i'm there now. he's probably not pointing to them, but they no i mean, they don't live on mars and the prosecution didn't didn't call them to testify. supposedly, they would be part of this conspiracy that seems like an interesting argument and one that the prosecution is probably going to have to address yeah, absolutely. there are several witnesses in this potential witnesses in this matter that didn't testify and the defense is really going to harp on that. don junior being one of them, allen weisselberg being another one. you make a very good point. but now that they're in the courtroom, the jury's probably sitting there like all these people were avail overseeing them right there. why didn't we hear them on the witness stand? and so i think we can expect the government to explain. we have the burden of proof here and listen, you may not have heard from these people, but you don't have to, because this is

the evidence we have in the case. and remember, the jury can be invited to make permissive civil inferences based on circumstantial evidence. and there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence in this case. and so i think the jury can infer that donald trump was still part of this conspiracy, and this is only one email and part of a lot of other evidence that i believe can establish donald trump's intense and is knowledge here are very interesting, elise. thanks so much it right now anderson todd blanche to the defense attorney and his closing arguments as noting that the check stub description on these checks, $35,000 check signed off by don junior and erik, not by donald trump to michael cohen, that the check stub description says retainer blanche says it's automatically generated from the system based on the voucher input by deb tarasoff. that's a young woman who was in charge of mailing checks for donald trump to sign or reimburse or whatever based on the voucher and put by deb tarasoff, not trump's. so here is a payment that there's no evidence, at

least according to todd blanche, donald trump had anything to do with it. and yet this is part of the business record falsification case. anderson that's right. jake back also with paula reid and kaitlan collins, essentially, what this is an important point that todd blanche just trying to make. this is auto-generated, that this is just sort of how the computer software worked at the trump organization. it wasn't part of some larger plot according to todd blanche, to have these illegal payments and then save it was for legal fees and it was done as a retainer that's exactly right. >> this is phase one of the closing argument that the falsified business records were not false. >> they were receiving these invoices from michael cohen they're going to argue if anyone falsified business records, it was michael cohen lying of part part of what he was reversible check stems that save retainer on the that's exactly right. and that one one of the multiple that he received over the course of the year and each one of these these invoices these checks,

these are all rack up to 30 four counts of falsifying business records, as i've blanche is focused on this right now, putting space between his client, the defendant had the actual creation of these documents, but their argument right now is that held the description says retainer and then it's automatically generated from that system. for deb tarasoff was testing about. he's now walking through madeleine westerhout testimony that trump was very busy sometimes you would look at the checks when she brought them. sometimes he would just sign them without looking closely at them but the argument that he was making, there is a juror i think we have no idea what they're thinking. but one question that would be raised as well. yeah. she's picking from a drop-down menu of options here that she has that they've always relied on as he was saying, it was always labeled as legal services. well, there's not going to ever be a drop-down option for hush money payment cover up. so it's not really logical to say well, she didn't classified. is that so it must not be that that's not an option in any system that i've ever seen so i think that's a question of how the jury takes this and who do they find more credible? and the jury truly gives nothing away.

they are basically expressionless. i've seen them in there are multiple times. i think one time i've seen a der smile once smirk. i saw to look at one another and that was during one of the craziest days and said that courtroom robert costello was testifying. other than that, they are very serious than what they are expressions and paying very close attention. >> it's if the jurors i mean, i don't know the answer to this, but if jury it's believed that donald trump lied about the sexual encounter with stormy daniels. if they believed that there was sexual councilor, we then is does that hello or the way the other arguments that he makes that if they believed that that is a fundamental lai, did they then believe weld all these other things are allies as well? >> it's a great question and that's what i was getting to earlier about diluting your argument right by arguing these things that really strained credulity, like denying this encounter with stormy daniels because this is what they're trying to do with michael cohen. they said, well, he lied about this, that and the other thing. so why would you believe him here? you would think that the same logic would apply to trump, but these arguments, if

he denies the affair and no one really believes that, why should they believe these other arguments? there is a danger inherent for todd blanche here in diluting some of his stronger arguments that he has to make you were just directly attacking the credibility of i have a colon and putting distance between his client and the actual creation of these documents. but this is the way they've chosen to proceed here. >> blanche the same two the jury. jury cannot convict because sometimes without being specific at all, trump looked at invoices and somehow had full knowledge of what was happening. that's a stretch and that is reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen. >> and that's why he's attacking michael we'll cohen's credibility and why that is really been their main defense here because michael cohen has testified beyond just the documents. yes, that is powerful evidence. but michael cohen testified about his meeting with allen weisselberg and trump signing off on the reimbursement plan for him, and that was triple what it was supposed to be blanche, the lead that the government wants you to take, that he looked at the check and looked at the invoices and was part of the scheme is really working on sowing doubt, but pushing a lot it putting a lot of distance between trump in this entire effort, what we do know though is we've seen trump also on

camera lying about this because there's that iconic moment on air force one where he was asked if he knew about the payment to stormy daniels. he said no, he did not. this was while he was already cutting checks to michael going after michael cohen had already been inside the oval office to talk about this very play brian and those are moments that have been brought up at this trial. and so that's the question here for the jury. >> todd blanche from a scheme was to book a legal expense as a legal expense, there's nothing sinister about trump's personal checks being sent to trump employees personal addresses, rather than the white house in order to get them to to trump for a signature. and again, that's one of the explanations on trump made to michael cohen about the delay in first payments to michael cohen because he was already in the white house and system, they're slowed it down. it's common sense plan says, once you understand the slow moving mail system at the white house, it's a challenge with having a client like this. this is one of the most famous people in the world and he's known among other things for lying, for not

being honest. and that's something that the jurors know going into here. so how is the government going to ask you to convict president trump based on the words of my but cohen, this is of course i would say their thesis statement in their closing argument. and like i said earlier, it's our understanding they're really going to try to personalize it instead of going just through his rap sheet as they always do, instead, just asking the people in the jury would do you want your sister or your child? what do you want their freedom of potential conviction for them to rely on the words of michael cohen that blanche, but the people have done with the government did for the past five weeks at the end of the day has asked you to believe michael cohen. but as i was saying, you know, their their clients certainly has issues with the truth with honesty, with credibility, and that's something that has been a challenge for them since they walked in the court, which is why they are hoping at best for a mistrial here for a hung jury because they believe they're at a disadvantage when they walk into this courtroom because we their client is, but that's the other question about how the jury has just had over a week off. it is what they've looked up, what they've talked about with this case. obviously,

they're not supposed to, but they're normal people who live in 2024 and have their phones attached to them and are watching tv and our online and michael cohen been such a big part of this because the michael cohen who was presented in court is very different than the michael cohen that we're familiar with. their audiences, familiar with listening to his podcast, seeing his television interviews he was much calmer and collected on the stand, maintained a pretty even tone, even under the cross-examinatio n, would todd blanche, she said, yes, ma'am. no, ma'am. yes sir. no, sir. right now he said, when we get to mr. cohen's testimony about the issue that we're talking about of the retainer agreement. he said it's not corroborated by anything there's not a shred of evidence. i mean, they've argued they're arguing that it was normal that he didn't have a retainer agreement, which he is argued it's because he was doing no legal work and that's proved this was reimbursement, not money for legal fees. >> blanche says, michael cohen is asking you to believe he was just going to work for free do you believe that for a second, todd blanche asked the jury microphone is pretty transparent with that in the

sense of his argument, if the jury believes it, is that he was making money, doing other things by being the personal attorney to donald trump when he was not inside the white house and did not get that job that he made clear he's using his clout connected to trump to get other jobs that trump actually introduced him to some of the executives that he later went to work blanche turns to the meeting trump tower and cohen's testimony, the weisselberg turned to him and said they were going to pay him over 12 months. this is a critical meeting with allen weisselberg, donald trump, and michael cohen at the white house, where according to michael cohen scheme was laid out. that's the evidence that the government gave you about president trump's knowledge, enroll in this scheme top line says they're going to attack the veracity of what michael cohen has testified. the idea that president trump would agree to pay cohen foreign and 20,000, even knowing only owed him $130,000 is absurd. todd blanche, i think the prosecution would say yeah. yeah. >> they love to make this argument. they're like, look, you've heard so many people testified that our client, the defendant, is cheap why would he pay him more than eos? so

this is one of the sub-themes that woven throughout this argument. i don't know if the jury is going to believe it, but that is something that todd blanche has brought up throughout this trial. why would he overpay the reason for that, i'm part of it is to cover him for taxes on $130,000. >> exactly. is that part of this was grossed up to help cover him for taxes to make him hello part of this was for other things, not just the hush money also other payments that he had made. and of course, i when it comes to that one technology company, he admitted on the stand that he lied about how much money he actually gave them and stole $60,000 from the trump organization. so that math that is a complicated math equation. but what they're arguing, there's no way if this was just the reimbursement for the $130,000 others would they have paid for 20 but you see the notes there. it's more than just the hush money that was allegedly agreed to. >> but this is one of the most important parts of this closing argument is this document that the jury saw words michael cohen or it's allen weisselberg's handwriting about how they would pay him tabulate, just saying that is absurd, placing extra emphasis

on those three words about how michael cohen one was paid back. but but in addition to trump repaying michael cohen for what he paid to goose his numbers in an online poll is no trump ally. that i've spoken to during this trial has been able to explain why legal fees would be grossed up. that is not how legal fees are paid. you don't grouse them up for taxes, you pay them the amount and that is what they put on there. welcome and so that is really been a hole here. and of course a reminder, there are two attorneys on this jury who know how this works and know that you don't get gross up legal fees. >> the other thing i wonder about, i mean, i often try to put myself in the mind of a juror and if i'm a juror watching this cavalcade of do you know characters coming in and testifying and all their credibility is being attacked by one side or the other. the common thread through all of them is donald trump, that these are the people that donald trump had in his orbit. >> this is like jake, has heard john, i think it's a bar scene out of star wars. >> i mean, the people incredible scheming lying.

these are the people, not the best people around donald trump. and again, does that influence a jury to think donald trump is the one common force connecting all these people. does that make them question the credibility of don from the bank statement we're weisselberg summed up the $420,000 repayment and i guess that's where it's todd blanche's responsibility to say, look, it's not a crime to have an affair, it's not a crime to be hush money is not a crime to have shady friends. it is a crime falsified business records, but my client was not involved in that here that's his challenge because he's he's up against a lot in terms of what this jury knows about the defendant, what they've heard about the defendant he hasn't uphill climb here. >> it's certainly possible that he could win over at least one juror and sow the seeds of reasonable doubt. >> we'll see he's got a few more hours to go often listening to the portrayal these people around down on trump paid says, if don't, trump is a frail elderly, 85 year-old woman who's can take advantage of by sleazy attorneys that is certainly not the case. >> he was quite aware and well,

in the other interesting aspect of this is trump has been fuming over the weekend on publicly and privately. i've been told about not being able to use the advice of counsel argument to the jurors here in this closing argument, that was something i think that was debated when the jury was out of the room between the judge in the two parties. here are the prosecution and the defense they had agreed even before this trial began that that would not be a line of defense that trump was relying on the legal advice of attorneys when people like michael cohen told him agreements were bulletproof proof and airtight, and trump has been complaining that they could not use that argument here, which is interesting though, because trump obviously is the person who often directs his attorneys what to do as opposed to vice versa. >> blanche says, again, you have to accept if you accept mr. cohen's version of what happened that cohen weisselberg and trump were all in together. >> what he's in reverse asking them to do though, is to believe that every other person was in on it with the exception of donald trump, jake, let's go back to, all right. >> let's bring up the image of the document that todd blanche, the attorney for donald trump,

is it's showing the jury this is the so-called weisselberg malmo this is where weisselberg summed up the $420,000 repayment according to the prosecution's theory of the case. and todd blanche, the defense attorney, is saying the point of this document is it contains lies. again, you have to accept if you accept mr. cohen's version of what happened that they were all in this together. plants just showing the during the copy of cohen's bank statement. now with weisselberg's handwritten notes calculating the payment to cohen saying it's full of lies. blanche argues that both cohen and mcconney testified they didn't know why weisselberg grossed up the money. cohen said he didn't care why the figure was $360,000. he just wanted to get his money while mcconney said, nobody would know the witnesses. this is blanche now the witness the witness is who actually test or in this courtroom one says, i don't know and i didn't care. and the other said that nobody would know bland said so this is when lanny davis was here, ally of michael cohen, who thinks that donald trump is

guilty. >> he said that that document that we just showed you, the weisberg memo he called it a smoking gun. here we have the attorney todd blanche saying just trying to completely undermine this. >> do you think he's doing a good job? >> i think he's effective in that he is pointing out that there are still some questions left unanswered when it comes to the jurors and witnesses, he's saying who actually testified in the courtroom as jake next point talks about the idea of who said what ones that they don't know once that nobody could know and now they're talking about the oval office meeting on february 8th. it's important for this defense are only real leg to stand on its to suggest that there were enough holes punched. you cannot trust who was actually in the courtroom and you have to question why certain people were not in the courtroom. they're talking also about the hyperbole. they have pointed out a number of times here where they talked about donald trump and his books through goes, fires and not and whatnot about what he was saying and why. but they're saying hold on. his general knowledge of invoices, even through testimony is not

specific knowledge of these 34 documents is important here. and blanche says it was a big day by the oval office. he told you that he's not he's going to the oval office for the first time in his life, meeting his boss. but it goes back this idea of what the instructions to the jury were initially, and they can use inferences. todd blanche wants to suggest that inferences are one things leaps beyond the pale, and things that were never inevitable cannot be made. >> so todd blanche just saying it was a big day. he told you that he's going to the oval office for the first time in his life, meeting his boss. this is about the oval office meeting that michael cohen had with donald trump on february 8, 2000176 days later, cohen emails mcconney asking him how much the money payment would be for blanche access. >> so this sets the table for the whole financial transaction what we saw todd blanche doing just before this with the handwritten notes is anticipating what is going to be a key prosecution exhibit. i don't agree with lanny davis that it's a smoking gun, but i agree it's a good piece of evidence for the prosecution. and at what those documents show is that allen weisselberg in jeffrey mcconney the

accountants within the trump org with consulting of michael cohen, sort of came up with how are we going to repay michael cohen for $130,000? he paid stormy daniels. they arrive at this $420,000 figure. the defense response to that is one, trump didn't know anything about this. that's not trumps handwriting on there. there's no evidence trump do anything about this, and to this whole way, they got to 420 was just an artifice, was just a way to train it's for money to michael cohen, who by the way, had his hand in the cookie jar and help themselves. so that's what they're trying to take the edge off now. >> so he's saying that's what he wants you to believe. blanche said that the idea that cohen had a conversation with trump in the oval office about the checks and the money six days later, cohen emails mcconney asking him how much the money payment would be for blanche says so so tim parlatore, i suppose that what todd blanche is trying to do here is say, if he didn't even know how much the money is going to be four, how could this be some sort of grand conspiracy as to the payments that were already laid out in

that memo because he didn't even know blanche facetiously says the government wants the jury to believe there was a confirmatory agreement between cohen and trump about the scheme in the oval office. >> and i think that till any davis is point, is that a smoking gun? well, it does prove that michael cohen stole from the trump organization. so i don't know if he said that before or after. crews client former client admitted to that before so yeah, i guess it is a smoking gun, just not the one to expected the problem here is donald trump is being told by his lawyer, assume that he's at the meeting, which there's no evidence of other the michael cohen's work. but even if he's there, if his lawyer is telling him, sir for this is how we need to do this and if a lawyer is specifically saying, hey, i've researched it, this is the way that we do it is legal. it's ethical we plus it up for purposes of taxes and he says, okay, that's not a crime. yeah. but the other thing that he's trying to he's trying to argue though todd

blanche, is that the government wants the jury to believe that michael cohen went to the white house, talked to donald trump about this chaconne, about this deal. and then quotes it just six de six days later, cohen doesn't even know how much it's supposed to be. that's according to a different exchange plants goes back to the handwritten documents from weisselberg or weisselberg rather and mcconney, can we put up the document? it's wide i 15 of both there are two documents that have this payment and we'll bring them to you in a second one is from a weisselberg and one is from mcconney. again, it's wife if there it is. weisselberg on the left, mcconney, his right-hand man on the right and he's he's looking at these documents and he's questioning why is mcconney why would it keep them with payroll document? if there was some evidence of a crime, he didn't get rid of them, he didn't try to destroy them. blanche says, blanche is bringing up the legal standard that prosecutors need to prove that trump caused records to be falsified with and intent to defraud, quote, how do you know there's no intent to defraud you saw an evidence that the trump organization reported this.

there's a 10909 that's a tax form that reflects the payments from the trust and trump personal account to michael cohen, dana bash. >> yeah. i mean, this is another example of the defense trying very hard to say everything that the prosecution 0.5 point now, everything that the prosecution is saying was a crime was not a crime. and here are examples of why again, these are very specific examples, very specific arguments that the prosecution made over many, many weeks at blanche as he's supposed to do, is trying to boil it down and say, when you're looking back at your notes and your deliberating, just remember this. and in this case it's the document which is one of the most important pieces of evidence and arguments that the prosecution made because of the allegations and the counts against donald trump, it's not what you think it is and then also just and also i think it's kind of interesting argument.

>> if this was criminal, why did they keep these documents? these aren't these aren't idiots exact. so it all comes down to two words. they're trying to raise doubt over and over for and over again. my question is really for the lawyers, there is a point where there's a little too much of a good thing or i think the gentleman depth protests too much. if they're going to be going on tim's nodding over and over. you know, there is a psychology as you've talked about to a closing argument, make your points raised the doubt but don't take forever to do it, or you start to lose your jury i also think there's a certain maybe psychology of confidence if you come in there and you sit, raised the doubts, that's it. no case move on. that that may help you begin on too long. >> i think on this subject, i think you hit the points and you move on. one of the things

we're talking about during the break in law school, you go through all these classes on evidence and procedure and all that stuff and the most valuable class that i took, which was an elective, very few people took it, was acting we had a professor from the lee strasberg goods to do come in row, lola cohen and she taught us acting for lawyers, how to present to a jury he to keep their attention i don't think todd blanche took that class certainly we don't know because there's no cameras in the debris steinglass took it either, but you have to hit your points and move on and you're absolutely right. sometimes it is too much like a good thing, by the way, the question i just because i have to say that if we're lost in the details, imagine how it feels in the jury room, in the actual courtroom, trying to track all this down. i mean, it strikes me trying to punch holes in that document, that piece of paper, right? that seems relevant, interesting. okay. if i can raise it out about that particular thing, the rest of it, i mean, it does actually underscore how long this trial has gone on and why

maybe he's trying to drag the jury back back into this, but it does the point about it being too long. it seems very relevant to me as one of our jury members, i guess, is that what jake? >> yes. >> non attorneys to talk? >> well, then as a juror, casey, let me ask you this, todd blanche just showed the jury that tweet from trump in 2018 when he refers to this as a retainer agreement, quote, if there was an intent to defraud why would he do that? blanche briefly shows the jury the ode forms from 2017 that you note about the payments to cohen from the revocable trust and the argument he's making here the larger argument. and i'm sure the prosecution will have a rebuttal to this but the argument is if this was illegal, why why are there so many records of it? because they're not idiots now, how did not like i'm not saying that. what i mean, it's part of this is the irs, right? i mean, presumably the trump organization who has had a knock-in trouble with the irs. so they got that's the whole point of falsifying as well that i had both ways. >> right. i mean, why why would

i if i it's doing something up on the up why would i go to such great lengths to document it in a way that does not fall in line with what it actually was i think one of the things we did always be cautious of the way we're receiving the information is very different from the jurors who have a much more streamlined story. >> i mean, it's it is by default, it has to be choppy, it has to be in an app these jurors are hearing one continuous story and what they have to hear if you're the defense, they have to hear the prosecution did not prove their case because there was no case the prosecution could not prove their case because those who were intimately involved did not appear in this courtroom. if you're the prosecution, they have to say we did prove our case here's how we didn't have that one through line there. but every moment of the forums and having else, you know, the jurors can oftentimes see things in two different ways. on the one hand, it's, you know, you would like me to see stormy daniel's as somebody who is out for money, who would do anything to get it, who cannot be trusted and is a loose cannon that's the defense wants you to but make

believe well, the prosecution's like actually, yes, indeed, i would like that to be the case that to you have to repay that to the person is that you have to try to silence. and so all this cuts both ways for a jury. now the branches saying, how could president trump intent to the fry winning this closes the irs tweeted and noted on government ethics forms. again, he's trying to have this lens b, they are not trying to be deceitful. >> the prosecution has to go off this immediately and say they're hiding in plain sight. >> this is how they want you to believe it, but they're hiding a crime in plain sight. >> the prosecution responses will be that was the cover story, right? that's why he's putting it out there. there's a little bit of an inside out closing. i don't necessarily mean that as a criticism, but ordinarily, you would start with the big thematics. they have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. they can't do that without michael cohen. you can't trust michael cohen, spend the next half hour going off on michael cohen. >> he started instead with the weeds and the weeds matter. >> i just wonder if there will be that thematic end well, it's just interesting because i mean he's basically saying how could you they accused

donald trump trying to hide this when he disclosed it on his office of government ethics form in 2017, anderson jake, thanks very much, blanche are telling the jury you have to find that this effort was gone by unlawful means want to bring in criminal defense attorney david oscar marcus, who was approached to be part of the legal team in trump's classified documents case. but declined. appreciate you being with us four. we begin i'm just going to have to be reading off. this is from the courts. i apologize in advance. blanche's highlighting pecker's testimony that it was standard operating procedure to work with politicians david, i'm just wondering what you make of todd blanche is closing statements so far i agree with what a lot of folks are saying that he's very much in the weeds and you need to take a step back and be thematic and talk, like ellie said about michael cohen being a liar. >> i will disagree with what tim said about you need to be acting. i disagree. i think jurors sniff out actors. you need to be authentic in your clothes. this is who todd blanche's, this is trump hired somebody who's in the weeds

with the documents and he's doing himself. i would like to see some more thematic stuff. i will say this anderson, remember jurors come into closing. the science shows, having made up their minds, most of them it's like watching a debate. people watching the biden trump debate know who they're good going to vote for this jury has been sitting there for a long time they're going to come into it with a certain set of views into a long de, of closing i just want to point out, todd blanche has been saying to the jury's and essentially what david pecker was doing it on tremblor standard operating procedure. he said this is a campaign, this is an election that's not a crime. said it's something he'd been doing trump's into there since nine bs david, i talked to were not always to beall who echoes what jury an attorney and also a wellman jury consultant. >> he echoed what you said about the jurors. often by the time of closing arguments made, they've made up their mind and maybe we'll just take from closing arguments things that already back. that backup the decision that they have already made you think that is the case

yeah. >> i have tried cases with throw in new york. and so what we tried to do in closing the key part is to arm the jurors with the parts that will help them in the jury room. so you want to make focus on the jurors that are either undecided, probably very few, those are on your side and give them things in the closing in the jury room that they can use to keep their position. you don't want them to capitulate, you don't want them to compromise. you want them to stand strong and remember trump only needs one to hang the jury and that would be a real win for him in terms of the length of closing arguments. >> i mean, we've told paul reads reporting was todd blanche my go to three hours steinglass and talked about the prosecution, talking about four-and-a-half hours is that does that seem too long to you? is there an advantage for the prosecution to go along maybe trying to get it into an extra gate so that there's a little

bit more distance between the closing argument of the defense's made i think the prosecution's going way too long, four hours. i mean, the godfather was shorter than that. i mean, forcing jurors to sit there all day. they're gonna be dying by the end of the day. i don't think they'll like it if the prosecution tries to keep them over for a second day, i think they need to finish today. i think four hours is way way too long. if i was todd blanche, i tried to keep but under two hours, i think that's typically what you'd like to do, but he's going to methodically go through it, but four hours for the prosecution, way too long. anderson there's todd blanche has also tried to focus on and probably will again, who was not not just who was called to testify, but who was not called allen weisselberg, keith schiller others don don junior, eric trump, who are sitting behind their father. >> today along with tiffany trump is that wise? i mean, to raise questions about well, why isn't always hilberg? this is a guy who those were all the bodies were buried in the trump

organization. all maybe that's the wrong phrase, but news all the secrets of the trump organization. and certainly was in on these meetings absolutely really important for the defense. the highlighted because you can say that's reasonable doubt. the fact that the prosecution didn't call them should raise doubt if i was todd blanche, i'd blow up a huge poster board of allen weisselberg, put them in the witness box, put that post to borgan it, and pretend that i'm cross-examining the poster board. you want to be a little theatrical in the closing and get the jurors interested right now, it looks from what people are saying inside the courtroom a little bored, you want to keep them into it. and so i might do that, blow it up, and pretend like i'm cross-examining the missing witness. >> david oscar marc marquez. it is great to have you on your expertise on today. thank you so much, really appreciate it criminal defense attorney todd blanche thing for politicians, it standard operating procedure to do and it's how you try to win. >> this is remarkable right

now. what todd blanche is arguing, he is basically trying to say that this idea that they were covering up these allegations by stormy daniels was standard operating procedure by any political candidate. is that this is what you do. this is how you went elections, use basically trying to paint this as normal and common and standard to the jury interest in one of his quotes that he just used to them that stood out to me because it's certainly something we're going to hear from the prosecution when they get up later on, is todd blanche said, quote, this is a campaign, this is an election. this is not a crime, basically trying to paint. this is it's commonplace because we know what the prosecution said in its opening statement that the likely reiterate when they have their chance to make their closing argument is that this was done to influence it's the election blanche's saying there's no criminal, zero criminal intent in that 2015 meeting. that's the 2050 meter with david pecker, were david pecker. were david pecker testified he was being asked, what can you do for the campaign deed, mr. becker told

you was really good business to work with trump. blanche says, well, am i executives were certainly not as confident because one point they did have to consult with their attorneys about whether they were running a foul of campaign finance laws by helping to suppress stories that could have an impact on the election so he's saying it's good business to work with someone like this. >> this is done all the time, but of course, when it comes to the rules and regulations of campaigns he citing something that they did back in in 1998, a story that they helped suppress for trump. a lot of things have changed. and when you're running for the white house, it's completely different. >> it's bringing he also brought up arnold schwarzenegger now as another candidate that they had allegedly helped indeed, mr. pecker told you was really good for business working with trump? >> well, the arnold schwarzenegger part is interesting he's a, this is just, this is a remarkable take on american politics. he says, again, not a conspiracy, no criminal intent. it's a am i doing what they do and what they've been doing for decades sure. >> and david testified to that we heard that from him, from keith davidson, that there is this slimy world where they

paid for stories that are unfavorable to their friends. they don't want published the difference here because this happened weeks before a us presidential election, and the story was about a major nominee for one of the major political parties who later on became being the president of the united states. and his hope hicks testified iterated to her that he was better for the story to come out after the election, then right before the election trip because he was worried about the damage it would do to him. that is really notable closing argument from todd blanche to say this is just how american politics work. i mean, it's not clear that that's it's going to we don't know how to govern with a jury, but it's quite a shame because it's not an argument about this is to protect melania trump. it's an argument about this is about the election, and this is a politician doing what politicians du, to get, to get elected. >> this is why this was charged as a felony, right? the prosecutors are arguing that these documents were falsified as part of a conspiracy to help trump win the 2016 seen election. now, this is not one of blanche's stronger arguments. it just isn't based on the evidence that we've

heard we've heard again and again that this story and others were suppressed to help him win the white house, particularly in the wake of the access hollywood tape, there were enormous concerns report from multiple witnesses and atlanta saying the idea, sophisticated people like trump and pack are thought positive national enquirer's stories could influence the 2016 election is preposterous. but we're talking specifically here about suppressing a negative story after the bombshell of the access hollywood tape but isn't that exactly what they thought that the national enquirer stories could influence the election. i mean, that's exactly what david pecker testified to. trashed marco rubio and ted cruz it is in ben carson. >> that's why they that's why were they had david pecker in the office to begin with? >> that is exactly what david pecker said that donald trump and michael cohen, david pecker, who is not some sworn enemy of donald trump's. he was a friend of his for a very long time, said that they asked him how he could help them i mean maybe it's up for debate if we think whether or not actually influences the election. but donald trump, michael cohen and david pecker certainly thought it did. he talks about the circulation of that but the

circulation is much bigger than just people who subscribe to it. and it's also people who see it when they're checking out his public, he's pointing out 350,000 because he was just saying millions and millions people actually voted in the election. so if you're into 50, i had senator ted cruz on last week and we talked about this because for the first time, david pecker confirmed what ted cruz and long speculated in 2016, is that it was donald trump and david pecker behind those vicious lies about ted cruz and his family. >> and david pecker testified that ted cruz was gaining popularity 30 i asked ted cruz have he thought those ugly stories published actually hurt his campaign? ted cruz said, yes, this is not a strong argument for them. they have to make it because this is why this is true. purchase a felony, but this is not a strong argument. one put up against the evidence that we've heard and also people keep talking about common sense. it just, it's strains, credulity completely. i mean, this is not a good argument blanche should probably move on from this pretty quickly where, where does he go? >> i mean, he's let's talk about where where he's already been. i mean, he's focused on the routines painter with the

office system that generated this as a as a legal expense, as a retainer essentially saying that somebody who is programmed by somebody else, he's going to go back to michael cohen. this is gonna be the reoccurring theme, but he's not done with michael cohen and i would expect that he will end on michael cohen and again, trying to personalize for the jury are there you would trust someone you care about, right there, freedom. i potential conviction of them, try to personalize this because they've heard again and again that michael cohen's a liar. they'd heard about his past convictions his admitted lies. they'll high city sold on the standard here. instead, they have to figure out a new way to frame that. eventually blanche will find his way back to michael cohen. >> is it typical for them to use? >> powerpoint during the closing argument? yeah. you can multimedia actually expected this trial to be more multimedia than it has been. i thought we're going to see more and hear more blanche said millions voted in 2016 elections to the idea that they really thought the trump tower meeting would influence the election makes no sense it may not make sense to or he may want people believe it, but

certainly to donald trump, they would not have had that meeting if they didn't think it was important, but the idea that the only people who subscribe to the national enquirer or buy it at the store. the only people who see those stories is also ridiculous. >> the story getting out there, they bought these stories. she signed an nda agreement. she could not speak about it publicly. it's not just that the national enquirer or wouldn't publish it. stormy daniels also could not talk about this story after the agreement that she signed with michael cohen, which is separate from the national enquirer because david pecker was also worried he would run a foul of campaign finance laws. >> and blind just telling the jury to remember that the national enquirer we're usually repurpose stories from other outlets and the point is that it's not just the national enquirer that was the karen mcdougal story. >> this is michael cohen, who had this agreement that they forged with keith davidson and stormy daniel's to limit her from speaking publicly about the story or else you would face penalties inches saying that there wasn't discussion of catch and kill at the we have 2015 meeting when this supposed criminal conspiracy was formed, the phrase catch and kill was not used.

apparently at that meeting, but the concept, it seems yeah, absolutely. there's no financial discussion, no discussion about catching caled. think about that. blanche says, jake, let's go back to you. >> thanks, anderson. i have to say i find i'm finding this line of argument from todd, blanche, and i was rather bullish on his arguments a few minutes ago, i find all of this to be rather nonsensical because it's just prima fascia is at the term like on its face. it's false, obviously these national enquirer stories were relevant beyond the 350,000 people that subscribe to the national enquirer. we talked about them on the shelf hello, because they would appear in the national enquirer and then other conservative pro-trump outlets would jump on them or donald trump would go on fox and friends and talk about how come nobody is talking about how ted cruz's dad was involved in the kennedy assassination or donald trump's digital media operation would put together a little video in which they slimed ted cruz and slimed

women who worked for ted cruz unfairly and disgusted disgusting late. so i understand why would he be doing this? why would time i mean, if you're a juror? well, i don't know. i don't know the jurors, so i don't know how much they know that what he's arguing is just not true or not sincere. >> well the evidence that has come in during the trial, including from hope hicks, who was certainly a sympathetically sit to donald trump, who memorably was crying on the stand as well. and others talked about the fallout from things like access hollywood, the fallout from things in the media. they are a knowledgeable enough to know that even if the stories are not true, they have an impact on campaign's impact on one of the things that blanche said was it is mating that somebody has sophisticated as david pecker or donald trump would think that they could influence an election through their statements it is preposterous. that was the phrase that he used. and first of all, there's been a whole more than one day on the stand. we david pecker was not cast as the sophisticated person among

them, the nature of his work not looked at as sophisticated these stories that he was catching and killing and also the stories that he was promoting also in the same vein, it is not preposterous is suggested these would have an influence. why? >> because at least they have knowledge of that there was a reimbursement about a story including one of them. >> and so this line, it may very well be that some of the things that the defendant would like to have put forth is also been included in this overall conversation, also blend is highlighting pecker's involvement. it's very y1 the doormat. >> well, that's that's a stronger argument. because that's them paying for to keep quiet a story that was tryst false, but i mean again, to get back to the quote you just said, todd blanche's the idea even if there was something wrong with it, the idea that sophisticated people like president trump and david pecker believed the positive stories in the national enquirer could influence the 2016 election is preposterous. it's not preposterous. it's true. >> they obviously we felt that way donald trump to this day extols the national enquirer the national enquirer. >> i'm not i'm not here to extol them, but they did break

the story of john edwards in 2000 2007, 2008 and obviously, donald trump feels, i mean, the jury not ever learned this blanche notes of pecker's said the story would have been the biggest story mi if there had estimated would have sold 10 million magazines that doesn't sound very limited here, jake, and that this is a great lins point earlier. the whole purpose of david pecker was to catch and kill the story, not too that it was limited to their own audience. >> it was so that you could not speak in any capacity. it's frankly a benefit of the bargain does suggest i pay you this amount of money and it doesn't go anywhere that the prosecution's burden to suggest hold on. and again, it doesn't actually matter if it was true they had a sexual encounter males at all doesn't map they did or not. it matters that he believed would be public we have information about it or the allegation would be public. and that was actually pay this. so that's the crux of trying to limit the jury, but jury knows it's not

about the national enquirer or the grocery store line. it's about where else it could have gone consistent with what todd blanche said in his opening right? in his opening, he said it's where it live in a democracy. this is what it's about. you influence elections, right? so now he's saying, oh, but now for them to say, oh, to think they could influence an election that makes no sense. it's sort of an inconsistent argument early one, how do you explain this? because it's just seems like again, we're not there, so we don't know how much any of this is landing with the jury, but again, it's he seemed to be making some very, very strong arguments before about how could you say he would they were hiding this when all this stuff is declared here and questions about whether or not this was a retainer versus a reimbursement, et cetera, et cetera. todd blanche saying of david pecker know this is going to be the bigger story for you ever, and i'm gonna figure out if it's true i'm going to publish it. the story was not true. that's why it was never published. plan says, but that's not what the testimony. i don't even understand why he's going into any of this to me, this line of argument is a dud, maybe worse than that, and maybe backfiring tomorrow. the judge is going to instruct the jury and give the elements of

the crime. and there's gonna be all this legal ease, but it really boils down to two things, falsifying business records to influence the campaign. i think maybe blanche thinks, well, i have to address them both, but he really doesn't. i don't think the better argument would be not a crime to pay hush money, not a crime to pay hush money in order to influence the election. the crime is the falsifying documents. and that's what he opened his closing with that i think is a much stronger case. this whole argument that it wasn't about the candidate payne never stood up, doesn't stand up. the common sense does not even stand up to the evidence here. and as a lawyer at a certain point, if you make one really good argument and one shaky argument, you undermine your own credit. >> that's what yeah. i mean, the idea that we are in this period of time, this is a crucible. >> the weeks before an election and this was one of the most remarkable, honestly, periods of time considering the two people in question, donald trump is running against hillary clinton and they are basically doing everything that they can to do nothing but win the election, right? it is just impossible to overstate how

people operating in that environment cannot see beyond and anything else. >> and it's seems to me, perhaps i'm just positing this. let me just before i do, blanche pulls up excerpts of cohen's testimony. so as we wait to see what those excerpts are it seems to me that much like they kept stormy daniel's on the stand for longer than you attorneys would have a you were defending donald trump? this could be one of those examples where the defendant really wants his attorney to get in there on this issue and prove it wrong. again, i'm just theorizing here. i don't have any proof of it, but it just knowing donald trump and the way that he wants people to be out there defending him on television or in this case, in the courtroom, it's a reasonable theory. there's also the reasonable theory that todd blanche's is a much more experienced prosecutor, then he has a defense attorney. right. isn't it? yeah. his record i mean, this is the first big defense case. he's had. his career, right? i was

colleagues, both todd blanche, and alvin bragg for a long time at the southern district of new york and tie that'd became the chief of the violent crimes and gangs units. >> so he's given a lot of jury addresses, but a in simpler cases. i mean, murders are horrible, but there are simpler than this. and robbery cases and you are giving a defense closing is a different art than a prosecution closing. >> but again, i mean it's an addition to the fact that i think the arguments he's making right now are inaccurate. and also inaccurate to the point that like a jury would say, well, that's not true. i mean, obviously, the national enquirer influences elections. and i'm sure the prosecution, if he's worth anything will remind people that they actually unearth one of the biggest scandals in the history of presidential politics that john edward scam. people remember that no, i don't want to cut you off for the prosecution could could introduce that. could but i think but what type blanche is doing is trying to put this all the umbrella. this is just the way things are done and i think that people, you're not making

the argument he's making arguments that are just not true. there's the national enquirer doesn't influence elections. >> you'd the national enquirer, it's only 350,000 people read it. so how could you think that they're actually trying to influence anything it's there obviously, don't have to go we already went into the details as to why that's wrong. it's not true. >> i don't think that the average juror when they think about the a publications that are going to influence the election, national acquired is not top the list. and so i think what he's trying to suggest and play on this is to suggest that, look, this is the way that things operate. this is how rich people handle their money. this is how organizations or mom and poppy handler money. this is how everyone bye. hi in the scenes is doing these elections. everyone's doing caching kills everyone's doing x, y, and z. i think he's trying to capitalize on a level of i don't mean this in a pejorative way ignorance to the most people who are in the voting public who have no idea what led us to have brand as to how the media works. so cohen

what todd blanche brought up terms of excerpts of michael cohen's testimony, and we don't have the excerpts with us where at the second, so i can stand by whether or not these are contradictory, but cohen, according to blanche testified on direct that he told trump about these false allegations by a doorman, that the national enquirer purchased to keep them away and it's about trump having a kid outside his marriage. not true allegations he said cohen testified on direct. he told trump about the doorman's allegations because you want to get credit with trump on cross-examination according to todd blanche cohen said he didn't tell trump all the details. but this is being used. todd blanche is saying, again on direct, he says one thing on cross. he says another. he's not telling the truth he's lying. the slide is showing four instances where cohen admitted he would report his work on things like the doorman story to try to get credit from trump. blanche says this is consistent with hope hicks testimony. cohen often sought credit todd blanche says that cohen used the phrase credit repeatedly and says to the jury that's the same phrase that hope hicks used in describing mr. cohen. she described mr. cohen is being

somebody who always wanted credit. mr. cohen admitted to you that he was following this trial before he testified. just think about that for a minute moving on to the karen mcdougal deal. now that's the playboy playmate of the year 2008 18 no, i'm sorry. 1998 that donald the alleged that she had a long-term affair with donald trump. >> moving on to the karen mcdougal deal. this is not a catch and kill either. playing says miss mcdougal did not want a publish your story. she wanted to jumpstart her career. >> i don't know what planet hizon at this point. as far as i remember david pecker was an excellent witness. and said for the prosecution or for the difference for the prosecution, a. because he was not hostile to donald trump. he said he was his mentor. he said he wanted to help the campaign that he would be their eyes and ears gave prosecutors exactly. he directly connected the catch-and-kill schemes. i'm just going back from my notes from his testimony to trump's

2016 campaign, and also rebutted the defense's notion that trump was concerned about his family not politics. so i assume the prosecutors will come back and remind people about what david pecker said but on the surface, this doesn't even make sense. >> this one or this, i don't get it all blanche has mcdougal not wanting her story published is important because the government is alleging a conspiracy to influence the election. >> because karen mcdougal didn't want her story published. i again, i don't even know why he's he's bringing all this stuff up. todd blanche, the second of the three alleged catch and kill stories, didn't want to influence the election at all. she didn't want her story published. but again, karen correct me if i'm wrong, the issue the reason that the other two stories, the other two catch-and-kill stories were brought up with two establish a pattern that this is what the trump campaign did or trump in the individual, did michael cohen did not that every single one of them was part of a grand

conspiracy. yeah. >> exactly. and the thing that i don't understand is there is a strong defense summation that they could be making they want i thought they were making it a one-point and it just it's just shocking to me that we're talking about things that really make no sense and don't help them in any way. they should be spending all their time saying essentially, look, if there was some kind of crime, trump had nothing to do with it. he didn't know about it. he was busy. he was busy campaigning. campaigns have a lot going on. then he was president. he wasn't focused on those details at this moment in time. he wasn't focused on his business. he was focusing on becoming president and show all the ways that he wasn't involved and bring it down to mike full cohen. it's all about michael cohen. yes, there's corroboration that their own calls and text messages, but the subject of those phone calls, the subject of those meetings, you rely on michael cohen's word and michael cohen's a liar. and i think

elie made a really good point at the magic board this morning when he said, look, it's not just that michael cohen has one conviction for lying michael cohen has lied over and over and over again it to the federal lander mission under oath congress, he lied maybe even to this here he lied to a judge, a federal judge, and he said, and so i would just focus on the fact that all the times he lied, that he lied to his wife when he said he didn't tell his wife that he was doing a home equity line of credit his money from his own house, from his own house, right. light to trump when he saw as any lied to trump when he stole his money, i would spend if i was todd blanche, i would spend an hour on michael cohen's lives. >> but the other thing that's weird about this whole line of argument here when he's going going through all the catch and kill stories, blanche says it was not ms mcdougal's intention to publish your story. the reason why this matters is that there was never any risks that her allegations would influence the election because she didn't want her story published, but that's also not

true. there was a risk that her story would come out. she was definitely reluctant to have it come out, but there was a wooing of her. remember, eight wasn't abc trying to get her to tell her story. i don't know if this is 2016 or or later. i think it's before the election. and was before the light. yeah. and they're trying to get her and there was like they were offering the potential syncing with a standing with the stars appearance. so there was a risk of it she wanted to jumpstart her career and she was reluctant to have this be the way, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't going to happen. so again, he's these are facts not in evidence gender aspect to this, which she were supposed to a column? >> no. at the night, never actually fitness magazine or something. that was part of this deal because your point is yes, karen mcdougal who was trying to jumpstart her career and there seemed to be two avenues. one is where she tells the story about donald trump and she gains notoriety that way, or she does this, she gets paid for it and she has other opportunities in addition to

that. but i just keep going back to why are they reminding the sharon mcdougal exists? >> i guessing on we're focusing collectively on the jury in the courtroom. i think that this is also intended to focus on one thing that prompt cares about a lot, which is in the court of public opinion. >> he does not want the he talked about he will lose women voters. >> remember that's when women will hate me. think about that phrase and about every time he's had different press conferences and briefings around this time, he was really focused and fixated on these stories being out there. now, here's the issue every time todd blanche makes us about sexual encounters, you are going farther away. >> your mind. you're going farther away from what is actually charged here. >> it does not matter if any sex occurred all that matters is that there was a statement that was going to be released that could have influenced and impacted the election in some way, and that it campaign contribution would have been made to try to undermine the

ability to see that as reversible reimbursable income. >> and so he talks about tabloids. it's evidenced as it pertains to president trump's guilt now finally, we're here now on the area you shouldn't be. but every time top-left, we said at least three times now, every time type blanche has to say this, this matters because this is important, because you know, he is signaling, but what he saying is irrelevant to this jury. if i have to remind the jury about what i'm saying is important, i've lost my jury, and this is about 34 counts of falsified business records to karen's point, it has to be much more streamlined. it has to be about specifically what the burden of proof as in what was not met every time there's a conversation about whether there is an actual sexual encounter that's not the trial, that never was to trial. and it remains not the trial. so just to reiterate what todd blanche is saying here todd blanche just saying nothing about the karen mcdougal situation was illegal. none of that was criminal. blanche said, which i think nobody would argue with he's moving on now to the deal at that ami and

david pecker had with the prosecution a non-prosecution agreement in return for his testimony saying that it's evidence of nothing as it pertains to president trump's guilt. if it shows you anything, todd blanche says, it's just more evidence that michael cohen as a liar, he told you time and time again about things that he claimed happened conversations he claimed he had around this agreement that are just not true. blanche says of cohen lied about conversations with top trump related to the mcdougal deal on this, karen and ellie, i'm sure you would agree this is a stronger terrain for him todd blanche, because this is about the credibility of the number one witness, and they're more direct ways to make this argument about michael cohen. two, i've not even exactly following that. karen mcdougal, he said one thing about karen mcdougal. he said another thing. i mean, how about all the things that we just listed off the guy has lied to essentially every governmental body, every human being, every bank. he's ever come in contact with. that's a much more direct way to make the case. if i was given this closing to work you would not have heard out of my mouth

would be mcdougal and doorman. i might not have even mentioned stormy daniels. in fact, come to think of it because the point is just the falsification this scheme here is the whole financial construct that they set up. and there's a real problem, i think tying donald trump to that. >> so just to bring you back into the courtroom for a second, a blanche is now saying blanche to defend it's attorney, for donald trump is saying that michael cohen lied about conversations he had with president trump related to the deal buying the silence of karen mcdougal, blanche highlights david pecker's testimony. that's the ceo of this tabloid empire that trump told him. i don't buy stories but cohen said trump told him and cohen saying trump told them, no problem. i'll take care of it. which one is true? blanche asks, you know, that the trump organization president trump michael cohen, never paid mr. pecker a penny for the mcdougal stories. there's no dispute about it. blanches alleging that cohen made up his testimony about a lunch with pecker in september 2016 when cohen told him, i need to get this money back yet, so i don't again, i don't understand this is a proving a

point. he doesn't need to make and what my understanding is, at least according to the testimony and it's it's almost irrelevant to the case. is that david pecker paid karen mcdougal $150,000 for this deal where she would write a column and somebody else would write it for fitness magazine or something like that. >> she never actually did it. she did get paid $150,000. >> we had testimony that actually hope hicks and sara hooker be safe anders, when they were at the white house, were asked if this deal should continue to pay karen mcdougal. >> again, nothing's illegal about it but the idea that there are now acting as though this is all made up. well, we know that david pecker was upset and just like said, i'm never going to get my money back and that's we handled that the more blanch continues with this line of questioning, the more it seems to me that the theory that i posited earlier is more likely, which

is you all are rightly focused on the 12 people that matter with the jurors, but defendant is focused on them, but also extremely focused on the court of public opinion and voters. >> todd blanche is now suggesting that even if david pecker just forgot about this lunch with cohen, which cohen recalls happening. but apparently todd blanche is saying it never happened. he argues is no other proof this lunch happened, such as a credit card receipt, anderson jake thanks, very much back here with collins and paula reid continuing to monitor this line of closing argument. >> it's surprising. >> it's not good he started off strong as we expected that he would focus on the crimes that have been alleged or to the falsifying business records, right lay them out this is between those records and your client. >> this is something you does have to touch on on right now. >> now, apparently he is turning now to the recording michael cohen made of trump that he said who's that pecker

would be paid back now, when it comes to the length of time he has spent on this argument that this was not done to help trump at the 2016 election could prove and hindsight to be a mistake. he stayed wade too long at the fair here, arguing things that just are not going to be believed by the jury. now, some jurors are intently watching blanche others are glancing down at monitor there's with the testimony and the documents are being displayed. >> now, what he's talking about is a recording that michael cohen secretly made of donald trump, the man he was working for so ethically dodgy, completely sleazy and michael cohen's testimony was that he made that in order to play it for david pecker, show that david pecker would be assured that he was going to get paid back because david pecker was attorney wasn't gonna get paid back. that argument makes very little sense to me. >> yeah, very little sense. it does not speak while after michael cohen's credibility surreptitiously recording a client without their permission, and then he's going

to planning for his clients friend, who theoretically could then just tell donald trump, by the way, do you know your attorney just secretly recorded you? it doesn't make any sense. definitely not playing the long game there mr. cohen, but mr. blanche, again spent it appears too much time trying to argue that this was not part of a conspirator. >> his scarcity to influence the election, he has to touch on that because that's why it's charged as a felony. but this is not something that anyone would believe if there is couple 100 100,000 people who were a couple of hundred thousand people subscribe to national enquirer negative stories about trump's opponents at that time were amplified through twitter. i remember it well russian bots that's helping to boost him at every turn any negative stories about his opponents are positive story about him. absolutely could have had an impact on the bench play a few seconds to the recording in which the graph as mentioned, blanche says that no questions were asked of graph whose an assistant longtime assistant, don't trump related to the recording and rhona graff, obviously testified she was one of the first witnesses is there maybe the second, i believe after after david pecker. and this is why this is important, because what todd blanche is overall doing here is he's not

weaving this tail, tail and telling the jury they're basically counter narrative to what the prosecution has laid out. they are just simply trying to chip away at different facets of the prosecution's argument. he's trying to create some doubt and the jurors mind hi by say, well, why didn't the prosecution asked coronagraph about that recording the preposterous idea that michael cohen was recording it. so you could play it back to david pecker. one thing he did just bring up that i'm sure called the prosecution's here was he said, well, david pecker was never paid back for the karen mcdougal payment that he was never got that money back. david pecker testified a great lengths to try to get that money back and he became so frustrated that in the end, he just dropped it. and that's why he refused to go on and pay for stormy daniels story when that moment serviced? again after the access hollywood story. and so i'm sure that's the benefit of the prosecution going second, that's why trump did not want them to be the final word that the jury heard because they can take moments it's like that and explain why rhona graff was not asked about this or remind them of what david pecker testified, but

he's not trying to say here's what actually happened. he's just saying this is wrong about the prosecution's argument. this is wrong. this is wrong as well. he's focusing on cohen telling trump there was all the stuff on the call. it's not clear which called. that's in reference to. obviously there are many between donald trump and michael cohen at this time it's actually have an excerpt from that recording. let's play that correct. >> so i'm i'm all over that. and i spoke to allen about it when i'm just trying for the financing which will be less what findings well, have to pay yourself getting old woman on. i got no by the way blanche and references the concern about buying the documents that david pecker supposedly had on trump, who was extremely important at the time to buy that box of stuff. >> there's no discussion of karen mcdougal google blanche says it's unclear to me why

he's going down the road. karen mcdougal history? >> yeah, unclear exactly. >> he could have touched on this because he could refute the conspiracy. >> buying stuff. listen the government claims on the transcript, there's a word president trump says 100 and 150. listen to the recording listened to the recording cpu here, 150, or see if you have no idea what you're hearing to all blend says so far in the weeds, it's even hard to follow the argument that he's making, but he does need to move on from this because karen mcdougal, we didn't hear from her during this trial, her hush money payment is not an issue. >> yes, he's trying to refute that there's a larger conspiracy to help trump, but that is arguably one of the things prosecutors have proven beyond a reasonable doubt. move on to your stronger arguments. the credibility of michael cohen and putting distance between your client and the falsified documents. >> so lightly needs to move on. and what he's clearly trying to do here is raised questions out whether that call was it's even about karen mcdougal and the payment back to david pecker that never ultimately happen. he says, listen to the recording, see if you hear 150 or see if you have no idea what you're hearing at all. he is trying to take all of these pieces some evidence that the

prosecution introduce these recordings and sow doubt about that. >> yeah, some little bit of reasonable data when to turn to trial attorney in jury consultant linda moreno. linda, thanks for joining it might have to interrupt you as a new word comes from the courtroom. i'm wondering what if you've been listening to these closing arguments for why we can hear them, whatever what do you make? >> well, first of all i think that the prosecution would love love to have deliberating room full of your voices. the panelists, because it sounds like the prosecution is winning and i think they would be overjoyed by that. it seems to me that the first commandment of closing argument is thou shalt not or the jury we know that 100 years ago, clarence darrow, i did a 12-hour closing argument in the lobe and mode murder trial. now one and 2024 let's cut it down, folks and somatically, i think that the prosecution would benefit especially in front of the new york jury, to talk about. take a page from the alexander

hamilton play, which is who was in the room and what was the motive here for, for donald term? >> it was to be in the oval office, to be in so then we take it back to the august 2015 rude where the conspiracy was hatched, and then back to in the middle of the closing, put the texts in the documents in the personal checks, et cetera. >> and, you know, mr. cohen as the repentance center and then you go back and you ended with the jurors who are in one of the most important rooms i'll ever be in their lives and their verdict matters. unlike many times in life where your vote doesn't matter. so there has to be more of a thematic sense here. i don't see it in the defense argument i just want us what's been going on, a timeline to telling you to the jury about based on raising doubts about this recorded felkel, michael cohen made same present. >> trump clearly has no idea

what he's talking about. blanche says during this recording blanche is saying, raising questions about whether this recording is even about karen mcdougal at all. blanche says mr. cohen, president trump are literally talking past each other about what's going on. so he is hoping blend says trump is in real estate. he is hoping that jurors, once they are back, are going to replay this conversation and starts and think, oh well, was that 150 donald trump said, or was it something else that is this conversation, what it, what it was presented to us as blanche just saying you can buy a building with cash. it doesn't mean that you're going into the closing with a duffel bag filled with greenblatt and says blends, that was mr. cohen line to your painting, a picture that fits his narrative? not the truth, raising the idea that when donald trump in that phone conversation said cash meaning would make those payments to karen mcdougal and cash and michael cohen says, no, no, no. trump did and really mean cash. cash can mean different things in various trends transactions linda, just in terms of the level of detail

going down into this kind of level of detail asking, hoping that george will replay this conversation in your experience. do jurors do that? do they go back to look at a lot of pieces of evidence, replay conversations. blanche is saying there's no scenario testimony in this trial that president trump is going to walk around with it double bag full of honor and 50,000 worth of cash i think it's to be expected after a long trial that the jurors may send out notes to see particular, perhaps some transcripts and reread the transcript, et cetera, but they have their own notes. >> and the truth is at the end of the day, you don't leave your comments sense at the door. for as a juror and the thing that is most compelling certainly about the prosecution, besides all these little details, is from the latin we bono, who benefits, who benefited from all of this alleged conduct, simplification is what's important in both

closing arguments, but indeed, the jurors could ask for some reread or to take a look at another particular piece of evidence linda, we've talked to a number of dre consultants this morning and attorneys who say that they think by the blanche is zeroing in on the end of the according with trump says check before the audio cuts off there was there was there was testimony about why a much testimony during the trial that why the curl cuts off blanche suggests trump was starting a new sentence. >> you have no idea what was said afterward. he said that filling their viewers and but it's not what he told you. blanche said during priority testimony, blanche that the defense had been trying to raise the idea that this call was intentionally cut off, perhaps by michael cohen because something else was said michael cohen has testified that there was an incoming call and that's why the the phone cut off a number of jury consultants. we've talked to this morning and said that they

believed jurors by now have likely made up their minds when they listened to these closing arguments. it's not that necessarily their minds are going to be changed, but maybe they just take out certain data points that bolster the arguments that they have already made themselves. do you think that's true i do. >> and actually social sciences show those studies show that about 70% of jurors already have an idea of what their verdict might be after opening statements. i do agree that closing argument in this case is more important than usual, but i also agree that they've probably already made up their mind and they've selected those pieces of evidence that bolster those opinions. now this cutting off of the tape that might that might appear as a reasonable holdout and it might appeal to the one or two engineers that you have on your jury who would want to see all the logic and all of the evidence, et cetera you know,

we don't know we don't know. it's a guessing game but i think that most of these jurors have already made up their minds yeah linda ryan. >> thank you so much, blanche's said, i appreciate you joining us. blanche's said you don't know about the integrity of this file in this recording. while the fences been presenting its closing arguments, supporters of the biden campaign held a news conference outside the courthouse, including actor robert de niro, and former officers who were attacked and injured while defendant us capitol on january 6. this occurred earlier. take a listen if trump returns to the white house, you can kiss these freedoms. >> goodbye. that we all take for granted. an elections forget about it. that's all that's done. >> if he gets in, i can tell you right now, he will never leave at the end the day this election is about donald trump and his vision for the office of the president of the united states not as public servant

who answers to the elected to the people who elected him. >> but it's an authoritarian who answers to and serves only himself and that occurred short time ago back with paul reading kaitlan collins. >> by the way, blanche is showing the at&t phone records att witness tests some one that phone call into voicemail was not answered, but though i was in the courtroom, you were as well that the morning that this testimony took place, it was not exactly the most scintillating testimony. it was kind of talking about phone records and why the phone is cut off. it seemed overall just sort of inconclusive when you're in the courtroom are or not sure how important it really became. but again he's trying to attack. as you said earlier caitlin specific pieces of evidence raising reasonable doubt. >> yeah, it's chipping away. basically get et each thing that they had brought up and he's saying right now that trump and colin were speaking pass each other during that

call, that we don't know what trump was about to say. they're trying to raise, they get the trump may have sudden something that totally benefited him and made him seem innocent. and this, at the end of that call, obviously that's a tactic that they are trying to use. >> it's not clear if the jury will find that believable given the other evidence that they've seen was talking about the stormy daniels thing, saying he's putting a big emphasis on how long ago this was. he's also putting a big this is michael cohen's memory saying michael cohen could have said, i don't recall who was beeping on that call when he was recording that conversation, but he testified to it specifically saying there's no evidence of it. but can i just say one thing about what we just saw? with biden surrogates those three michael fan-owned harry done who briefly run for office, and robert de niro in this park, right on the other side of this courthouse, which is where we've seen trump's allies go each and every day and where they'll probably be in a few minutes. we have not seen the biden campaign weight into this. >> this is the first time we've seen that they have stayed away from it. >> they have been kind of on the periphery. president biden self has, is hardly talked about it. it's notable that on

the de, the closing arguments, they are using this to bring their own allies here and get this directly involved. we have not seen that happen in this six over six weeks that we've been outside here what's turning it to stormy daniels and storage took place in 2006 18 years ago, didn't seem that they chose today. >> i mean, obviously it's closing arguments. it's a very significant de so they but that they decided not to do it earlier or even make it a daily thing. >> yeah. why they haven't made more of me quite frankly, look, i'm a legal reporter, not a political correspondent, but imagine that most voters were on the fence would be more interested in hearing about how someone's going to lower the price of groceries, makes cost of living at ease, as opposed to talking about donald trump and his legal problems all right. now, president trump and ms daniels have repeatedly denied it took place. again, we're coming back to this argument that this this tryst did not occur this is not what's at the heart of this case. and blanche's closing argument, right now, this is fine. falling into the same trap that a large part of the

defense here has fallen into, which he can be meandering. it takes them a long time to get to the point and he will make a big deal about things that are not not really material to the case. remember, they took so long and across of stormy daniels when she really isn't that material to the case itself. now, blanche is asking how the story could influence the election when it is already published in 2011. of course, we know the answer to this because in the wake of access, hollywood was enormous pressure on the campaign not to have other negative stories mount they could alienate voters specifically. >> so the idea that if he's raising the idea that oh well, stormy daniels story coming out right on the of the election would not have made an impact because in touch magazine wrote something about it in 2011, and that's just argument keith davidson, talk about the efforts they went to to get things pulled down that we're in not well populated blogs. >> i'll just say one other thing about the outcome of this trial as far from assured, we'll i have no idea how the 12 jurors in that room are taking. >> todd blanche is closing arguments as he is getting out is about hitting the two-hour mark. and he said he expected

to go about 2.5 hours or so when they split so to the judge earlier, so he is in the home stretch of his argument. i will say we do expect president biden to weigh in himself, not just his campaign surrogates and allies on this verdict. once jury has reached it, that will be a really notable moment as well, because regardless of the outcome of this, it is going to have some kind of political impact. we just don't know which way. yeah. >> jake, let's get back to you in dc, anderson. thanks so much. right now, there is more breaking legal news involving former president donald trump this time in a different case, the classified documents case in florida, a federal judge has rejected the request from special counsel jack smith. he requested a gag order against donald trump. let's bring in cnn's kaitlan, poland's caitlin, tell us more about this ruling which came just moments ago, and takes so prosecutors from the special counsel's office at the justice department are not going to be able to limit donald trump's speech about law enforcement who were part of that mar-a-lago search in august of 2022 at this time, because they didn't follow the proper

seizure. that's what judge aileen cannon just said moments ago, the prosecutors had gone to her on friday in the evening right before the holiday week asking her to put limitations on what donald trump could say because he was out there talking misleadingly about the fbi policies around the use of deadly force. a policy there was standard and in place for that search of the resort in florida. but trump with trying to say that he was in danger because of it that was not true. so the prosecutors wanted to protect the proceedings, protect their own officers, and have a gag order they felt that it was a very dangerous situation, so they went to the judge. trump's team, though, took issue with this because they said they didn't have enough time to think about this and to respond bond and meaningfully work with the prosecutors to provide some sort of meet and confer that's what they say in court. and so, judge cannon, today agreed with trump's team. she said this

was profession unprofessional and not courteous in the way that the justice department went about this coming to her with the gag order request that anything in the future they need to have more time given to the defense team. and so she's denying they could always try again. but as of now, no gag order for trump in the florida case. >> all right. katelyn polantz. thank you so much. let's discuss this for a second. so i know that there is concern among on people in the special counsel's office in the justice department that donald trump and his allies saying suggesting inaccurately that his life was at risk during this raid. i don't even think he was on the grounds at mar-a-lago, but there had been some sort of standard cut and paste procedure for what kind of deadly force the fbi is allowed to use but because of that, they are turning this into trump and his allies into look, joe biden was trying to kill me, which is not true. is that why he sought this special gag order?

>> yes, that's exactly why so this all springs from donald trump's proposal the stress false, ridiculous bs claim that there was some effort to assassinate him. there's a document, a standard piece of a search warrant that says, hey, federal law enforcement agents, when you're executing this search warrant, there are very, very limited circumstances where you can use lethal force. it's the correct statement of law. it's in every search warrant and donald trump wasn't even there that day. doj now, we just do quickly interject. >> i thought i saw a washington post story that said it was the same exact rules and procedures when they searched preska biden's house, it was that's correct. >> because it's a staff who also was not there at the time. exactly okay. >> jack smith now went to judge cannon in the classified documents case in florida and said, we like a gag order to stop donald trump from saying these kind of crazy incorrect, potentially inflammatory things. and what judge cannon has just said is, you haven't done this, correct? lee procedurally, jack smith because there's a requirement known as meet and confer, meaning you just have to do the prosecutor. you have to call up the defense lawyer and try to

work it out amongst yourselves, some meaningful exchange of ideas judge cannon said, well, you didn't do that, so go back and give them a call. it's quite clear, donald where donald trump's team is at, right? they're not going to agree to anything. so technically jack smith's team just needs to make a couple of calls to donald trump's team. say, do you agree to any gag order trump's team will say no, and then jack smith can go back to judge cannon, say, now we need the gag. well, all right. let's go back to the case. at hand. we're todd blanche right now, is being is summarizing the case. it's closing arguments today. first, the defense goes, then the prosecution will go. todd blanche is the chief attorney for donald trump in his defense, and he is suggesting because the story is was already out there, this has has to do with the stormy daniels story how could the suppression of it have anything to do with election interference blanche turns to stormy daniels. he notes it's a story that took place allegedly in 2006, 18 years ago. trump and daniels have repeatedly denied that it happened. it was already

published in 2011 how could it influence the election if had already been out there? there's no and then he talked about cohen paying this without trump knowing and the the narrative that todd blanche is trying to create, is it michael cohen did a lot of things to try to get credit, to try to curry favor with donald trump blanche says cohen paid this money to stormy daniel's without trump knowing is another way to get credit from him, quote, people were not happy with him on the campaign. so he made this decision. the only person who suggest otherwise until you, president trump knew everything about this as michael cohen himself, that's it. there's no other proof of that there's no way that you can find president trump knew about this payment at the time it was made without believing the words of michael cohen period. and you cannot you cannot believe his words. todd blanche says, the public was aware of them. this is because of the 2011 story that in touch magazine did about stormy daniel's blanche's that because the story is already out there in 2011. it wasn't election interference and did not cause panic and the trump

campaign, the public was aware of them. so again, the idea that when ms daniels surface in 2016 to cause some sort of panic amongst everybody is not true. it's just not true blanche refreshes the jury on text messages. they saw between dylan howard, that's the editor in chief of the national enquirer. and then stormy daniels manager gina rodriguez, about selling the trump story in april 2016. if there really was a catch and kill conspiratorial relationship, blanche asks, then why did everybody ignore the story in april? why did it not go anywhere for months and months and months? blanche says you didn't hear from dylan howard and you did not here from gina rodriguez so really it's speculation. daniels and rodriguez were more aggressively trying to sell her story. bland says, mr. howard is willing to help them. he wants to help ms daniels and ms rodriguez get money. that's not a conspiracy involving mr. pecker, president trump, and michael cohen. and the jury is taking a brief morning break, as is judge merchan so once again, karen, an attempt to undermine a michael cohen's entire testimony and also the

prosecution's entitled entire theory of the case. the problem is todd blanche is literally throwing softballs to the prosecution. >> i mean these making arguments that easily if i'm the prosecutor, i'm writing down saying, okay, you say where is allen weisselberg? where it why didn't he testify where is mr. schiller? why didn't he testified on the prosecution? i'd say these are people who are friendly to donald trump if they had anything to say that was positive, then you would expect that donald trump would call them as a witness. and he did it again just now when he when he made this argument is why weren't they buying the story in april what was happening? >> why did it take so long? well, that just buys it into the whole prosecution theory because it wasn't until right before the election that they cared that makes it criminal, right? because it's about the election. and so i think they just are really missing what they're strong arguments are and making arguments that the

prosecution i think has a much better explanation for, and it really just plays into so the whole prosecution theory and don't forget access hollywood is still this elephant in the room and the timing of all this, what would have been the straw that broke the political camel's back. >> but defense wants the jury to look at all this in a vacuum that's virtually impossible to do because there's evidence it's already command and these people were all living in the real real-world around probably the same time this is happening. >> so you have these issues about the softballs that karen spoke about, but also they're trying to plant the seeds of doubt. it is very reasonable for the defense to say here's who you did not hear from. you didn't hear from allen weisselberg, you didn't hear from mr. schiller, you didn't hear from dylan howard. why not? they want that? at lingering question as to why not to suggest that the prosecution could not have made their case without them and did not. but they went to such great lengths. so at the duration of this trial, to pre corroborate the testimony of michael cohen, the prosecution kept there and say this was not

coming down to just a testimony to michael cohen. it's coming down to all the documents that supported it. in advance. those who are friendly to trump, those who are not friendly to trump, they all had some bite at the apple to try to corroborate michael cohen's testimony. and so when you come back and the prosecutors, it can actually do something about this. they can say it didn't. it never came band michael cohen, it came down to all of the different people who testified in advance of his testimony about what by you should believe him. it can't just be the document. i can just be him. >> it the documents. all right. donald trump's attorney will soon resumed his pitch to jurors, continuing to make the case that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof. he said he was going to talk for about two hours two-and-a-half hours. he's talked for one hour and 54 minutes right now. the court is taking a quick morning break and then the defense attorney will continue presenting its case. we are also going to take a quick break and pick back up with closing arguments on the other side will squeeze in one quick break, stay with us in

one of the most active tornado seasons you can't control a tornado what kinds of interventions can design go inside the store the premier of bonding pairs with liam schreiber sunday at nine on cnn. did you know sling has your favorite news progress for just $40 a month my favorite news for just $40 a month. my favorite part, just $40. i news for $40 a month. sling lets you do that. >> men tell us when they use just for men to eliminate gray, there's a great before and after then. there's the after the after that boost you get when you look and feel your best. and that's why i'm more men choose just for men if you spit blood when you brush, it could be the start of a domino effect new periodontics act of gumbert pair breath freshener clinically proven to help reverse the four signs of early gum disease a new toothpaste from periodontics, the dom experts my name needs braden. i

always five years old when i came to change him hello, trying to shore and down the story. shell and then having these headaches that when i go away my mom, she was crying what, they said, their son has brain cancer it was your worst fear coming to life watching your child grew up is the dream. every parent you can join the battle to save the lives of kids, like braden, by supporting st. jude children's research hospital families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food so they can focus on helping their child live what they've done for me, my son, my family sorry life. >> is a gift, especially for a child battling cancer call or

go online and helps save the lives of children lag braden now. i'm 11 years old. we were actually doing the checkup for my brain and they they saw something in my throat which thyroid cancer it was heartbreaking to find out he has cancer again, but we knew who we had behind us it gives me hope you can make a difference joined with your credit or debit card for only $19 a month. and we'll send you this same you t-shirt without st. jude or its donors we would have been in a bad place. >> these kids. they've done nothing wrong in the world finding a cure for childhood cancer remains everything. >> helps st. jude give kids with cancer a chance now at t

professionally installed google nest products you're all set on this system. >> we should go with the most trusted name and home security as the intelligence of google, you have a home with no worries brought to you by adt. one second, grandma, this guy is going to buy my car. >> okay. do you need carbonic entering plate number no accidents, right? >> an a rating offer, gahr mana can pick it up tomorrow. that's an amazing offer. >> sell your car the easy way with carbonic nexium 24 hour prevents heartburn acid for twice as long as pepsi get all day and all night heartburn as it prevention just one pill a day choose hazard prevention choose next year. >> we've all done this mel check trust me. >> i'm good. >> claire v. targets vaginal odor at the source claire v. >> long-term relief from vaginal odor, itching, and discharge. >> try it.

>> i clear view.com 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 like me, neutrogena ultras, your sunscreen closed captioning brought to you by meso book.com if you or a loved one have mesothelial will send you a free book to answer questions you may have call now and we'll come to you 808 to one 4,000 it is a marathon de closing arguments in donald trump's historic criminal trial are taking a brief break right now, court will resume shortly when they do resume, the former president's lead attorney todd blanche, is going to keep his closing arguments continuing. is been telling jurors and the client did not commit any crimes michael cohen's testimony against mr. trump was all lives. welcome back to our live coverage of the hush money to cover up trial. now, in the final stretch, one and bringing a criminal defense attorney, bill

brennan he represented donald trump payroll corporation in a tax fraud trial, and trump himself in his second impeachment trial. bill. it's good to see you. this morning. i'm wondering what you make of todd blanche's closing arguments so far? >> good morning, anderson. well he's in a tough spot because he's got a lot of ground to cover in a relatively short amount of time. i think he said he's going to try to keep it down to 200 and when you think of the length of this trial and the number of witnesses that's really not a lot of time the lion's share, if you were doing say, an eight slice pizza pie six of those slices should probably be reserved from michael cohen. so he's got a cram in all those other witnesses in into slices, so to speak. >> do you think he spent enough time on michael cohen? because i would karen friedman agnifilo was on earlier who was saying she might have spent a full hour just going through how many different people and in trials and under oath, michael cohen has lied you know, i

heard karen say that earlier this morning and was nodding my head in agreement. you could spend days on michael cohen, but you reach a point of diminishing returns. and at some point you're beating a dead horse. but i think you have to really make it all about him because that that's what the prosecution chose to do. >> there's really no nexus between all of the allegations and the defendant other than cohen and cohen is a polluted source. >> so you can't really quantify in time how much, but i would spend a lion's share of the argument on cohen todd blanche has raised witnesses who were not there, but has not really sort hammered at the fact that to allen weisselberg is a critical, couldn't potentially have been a critical witness depending on what he said for either side.

>> but allen weisselberg was the only other person in some of these meetings, according to the testimony of michael cohen do you expect to todd blanche in the time left to him that he takes to really focus on raising questions. a lie wasn't allen weisselberg put on the stand? >> well, you know, anderson, you raise a very interesting question here because there's no burden shifting in a criminal case the defense has no burden to call any witnesses, although they opted to call a couple in this case, costello and the, statistician, but if they if he, hammer's hard on it and the judge rules against him. and allows the price usually to say, well, they could have called them to. i mean, i think that would be the rolling rolling, but he opens himself up to a landmine but it is important to remember unlike a civil case there's absolutely no obligation for the defense to do anything. so

i think it's smart hammers, oraa, as you can. where's weisselberg? why didn't hear from weisselberg? there's all this talk of this document with these numbers on it, allegedly written by weisselberg. why didn't the prosecution put them up here? and then if you could tie that into cohen's admitted testimony that he stole $60,000 from his client, which is noted on that document. that testimony may not have eviscerated the document, but it certainly tainted so i think they're important points to make any seems to be making them what do you expect from the prosecution? and we've heard that prosecution may take as long as four-and-a-half hours for their closing argument that's a long time. i mean you know rule on these cases as a jury by the number of witnesses. one side puts on versus another, but or or the length of closing arguments, but they've got a bit of an

advantage here in new york because they're listening to the defense's argument and i'm sure i know mr. steinglass. i've worked against them and ms hoffinger, they're good lawyers, so good prosecutors i'm sure there writing notes for their response as we sit here and discuss this now. but i think think that a 4.5 hours or four hours is really pushing the envelope it's a lot to cover, but if you can't do it in two or 2.5 i think that it's probably a point of no return after that, my personal thinking at least well we're just starting. todd blanche has told the judge that he thinks he has about half an hour left in his closing. the judge is saying that they're going to go late tonight. they want to finish up closing arguments, set constants. jury might need a snack run and they seem to like that. so about half an hour left for todd blanche, according to todd blanche to make his final arguments, what do you expect bill finally, in this last half-hour, what does he got to do i think it's

similar anderson to the way he buried the lead and closing he the armchair experts said he was meandering. >> he was a jointed that he came home, strong with that call about the 14 year-old child, the column one is sick, the secret service on then there was the weekend break and he came back in about the theft from his client. i mean, i think he does the same thing in closing. i think he had a lot of ground to cover. not a lot of time to do it. i'm sure he was the ticking all fall, his boxes. and i think the last half-hour will be a barn burner go brennan. >> appreciate your time. thank you very much. jury's daxue and just courtroom after the morning break, we're back with paula reid and kaitlan collins. so half an hour, todd blanche says left. >> well, it seems to suggest that they make finished the closing arguments today. i think that's the question of how long the prosecution goes, because todd blanche is back at

the lectern, he has about half an hour love to go. he's done about two hours of speaking so far. so we'll see what his if it is a barn burner, what his closing stretch looks like and then the judge said that the jury has agreed to stay late. it's unclear how late they've agreed to stay on, whether or not that will be sufficient time for the prosecution to go, but that would be notable because it would mean they would start frehse tamara with our long jury instructions from sean and closing arguments will be finished today. >> todd blanche is picking up back with stormy daniels back in 2016. >> it's clear this judge wants this case is done and out of his courtroom by the end of the week. so trying to move forward as quickly as he can remind people that in the courtroom today is alvin bragg, the district attorney who brought this case. and in his closing arguments shortly mean an enormous amount now for the defendant, for former president trump. but this is also career making or breaking for alvin bragg. >> a lot of folks were surprised when he brought this case. >> has he written a check? he cannot cash by bringing this case? esa, a long-dormant case that he was under a lot of political pressure to move

forward. we haven't seen him very often in this case inside the courtroom he showed up when to a paralegals from his office had to testify. he also showed up for a portion of michael cohen's time on the stand but we also don't hear from him going in and out of the courtroom. he has chosen to keep a very low profile, more traditional prosecutorial approach to this. i'd unlike, for example this thing state attorney general in new york, letitia james, almost every day when trump was important, her civil cases she would hit the mics on the way in, hit the mics on the way out. we haven't heard from alvin bragg, so it's notable that is showing up today. he understands that this is a very significant de, in the course of this trial. >> so much of for alvin bragg and todd blanche hinges on this trial. i mean, it's pretty obviously alvin bragg has an elected official who's the district attorney here? this is one of his first major cases though. he's not there because he's working on other other cases as well. they say he often doesn't show up to win. witnesses testifying. he's there if it's a victim and the courtroom often, according to the district attorney's

office. but todd blanche also has an enormous amount weighing on this the next 30 minutes and the outcome of this trial left his there's partnership. he loved it. he started his own law firm. we saw one of the witnesses that testified there who put together the call logs is actually works at todd blanche's law firm and has been in the courtroom every day. but but he is someone who was once registered as a democrat to vote and worked for this high-powered law firm here in new york and here he is now taking something that we've seen has been perilous for so many other attorneys, which is to represent donald trump key and point michael cohen. though it's a bit of a different story there but it is there's a lot riding on this, not just for todd blanche, but also for the district attorney here in todd blanche remains confident that he can get a mistrial here. a hung jury, they don't believe that they're actually going to get an acquittal. they believe that this whole thing is stacked against them. people know their client, know his history good luck. he has a reputation, physically, a reputation for line. so they expect that those unlikely there'll be an acquittal, but he does think that this was a

winnable case in terms exhibit a, least maybe getting a mistrial or a hung jury, so that's part of why he chose to represent the former president in this case. >> we've all been in the courtroom. we've all looked at those jurors. it is very hard to read what they are thinking. who side they may, what would determination that they may or may not have already made? >> yeah, great poker faces on them. i will say and i'm sure you guys have seen this too in court, incredibly attentive, even the most deadly, boring testimony when you're looking at a pace, pay stub, another pace i've or check stub they are paying attention to every single document they're incredibly attentive throughout this process. it's been seven weeks apart. large portion of their life during that seven weeks. and you gotta commend them for sticking with it. we thought we would see more jurors maybe backing out of this assignment, not willing to i take this on, but these are folks who show up every day. they're attentive, they're listening, but i don't think anyone's certainly none of the sources i've spoken with on either side of this case have any idea how this unknown have dropped out, which a lot of jurors are. justices here are

surprised by, it says a lot. blanche says the government wants you to believe steve statements were coerced. ms daniels has denied it's thought blanche has said repeatedly that talked about stormy daniels has denied that there was any sexual encounter she had done that previously. she had signed documents to that effect. obviously, she now says that is that is no longer that was not true when she said she even talked to you about that when you interviewed her, which is why she said something at one time and why she said something else. i'll set another time. she had signed a note non-disclosure agreement the same nondisclosure agreement that they're not even disputing that she struck with michael cohen and with donald trump that is why she said she did not speak out publicly. she was not allowed to speak out publicly. and we also watched how close between the testimony from keith davidson, the attorney on her behalf of negotiated that agreement and michael cohen about just how closely they were coordinating. michael cohen, who is bookings stormy daniels on trump, one of trump's favorite shows on fox news, sean hannity show. it was ultimately cancel salt and she

did not go. but but they were coordinating how she was speaking, what she was saying publicly. they talked about how they were all kind of in a tizzy when she was going to go on jimmy kimmel's late night show. and it should put out a new denial that de that she and jimmy kimmel spoke about in the interview. but but it was at the close coordination of michael cohen and donald trump. donald trump is furious when all of these stories were becoming public and it was calling michael cohen, michael cohen was then in turn calling keith davidson. and so they have a long history. the jury at least knows why that happened, blamed questions and you'll statements saying she was threatened in 2011, that's why she went public stormy daniels maintains that in 2011, shooting a parking lot, i believe was outside of fitness studio in las vegas. she says a man approached her, making a threat. things changed in 2018 according to blanche, what happens, something that was worth a lot more than $130,000. blanche blanche says, so that's the threat is this when stormy daniel's has said about somebody approaching her when she was in the car with her

with her child's making a threat not clear who would that person was? the person says, once again, unclear why blanche is using up so much oxygen on stormy daniels on her story on things that she said they did the same thing on her cross-examination can they're falling into a trap here. >> they were getting lost in the weeds. this is not material to the actual criminal allegations. he appears to be spending way too much time on this or the riskier is you're going to lose the jury and they're going to forget about some of his more potent arguments about the credibility of michael cohen and the lack of direct evidence linking the defendant to the falsified records. >> and jake todd blanche had told judge merchan before he began again that he'll be going for about 30 more minutes so he is he is close to the end. >> all right. anderson, thanks so much. let's talk more about this because right now todd blanche, the attorney for donald trump it's saying picking back up with stormy daniels, quote, ms daniels says

denied that there was ever any sex with president trump in 2018 and earlier. but the government wants you to believe those statements were coerced. lands questions, danielle, statements saying she was threatened in 2011, and that's why she went public blanche is now playing more of the recordings between davidson and cohen where keith davidson, who was the attorney for stormy daniels, said that sometimes people get settlers remorse. todd blanche says at the end of the day what really happened is it somebody offered more money to ms daniels so casey, what's going on here is he is providing an alternate theory of the case about whether or not stormy daniels and donald trump actually had some sort of rendezvous and that hotel room in nevada in 2006. todd blanche, somebody offered to pay her legal fees that she got out of the nda. she signed with mr. cohen and again this is not unusual. i know the attorneys are going to tell me this, but like when you have a rogues gallery of unreliable narrators, each one of whom

cannot have been it hasn't always told the truth. stormy daniels assigned at least two documents saying she did not have a rendezvous with donald trump it's tough to it's tough to stake a case on it. he saying right now, this started as an extortion todd blanche says there's no doubt about that and it ended very well from ms daniels financially speaking, blanche said, trump is turned his chair and 90 degrees, so he is facing blanche and the jury, which we're told this unusual, their goal was to make as much money as possible off of president trump plan says, i mean, this feels to me like the spaghetti at the wall theory of reasonable doubt, like he's trying to toss out any different way, any individual juror could possibly hang on to a piece of information that would cause him to doubt the overall case. i think the, thing i keep coming back to is that this does feel disconnected to me. all of these different pieces as opposed to one fully coherent argument. now, i mean, jamie, i

don't know your our jury foreman i mean, maybe you see something here that i don't but i mean, he's clearly trying to discredit everything in a blanket way, but he's using all of these specifics that are causing you to kind of go down and say, well this, then this, then this that seems to be the theory. i just don't i don't i will say in todd blanche's defense on this point, i think that there is an argument to be made that this is a case based on stormy daniel's keith davidson, michael cohen, all of whom have either lied before or seen shady jury. are you really going to do this? i may know, even if you believe stormy daniel's she signed two documents saying that there's no truth to it. then she took it back. >> but the question is, why are they focusing on this and not on michael cohen, especially whatever you think about stormy daniels. want to cope mitt romney first there's except

again they have already proven that they spent $30,000 paying off somebody whose story was complete bs the doorman, who had some bogus story about donald trump fathering a kid outside his marriage. i'm not saying what i think about 2006, less money. i am saying is they're not come reasonable doubt that this isn't even the crime, right? i mean, that having a rendezvous with stormy daniels. >> but what he's not being charged for? >> no, but the idea is, how can paying off money to hide something from the public that never happened? be election interference. that's the argument they're making, not just they're saying even if you pay even if they paid the money and michael cohen paid the money, will hold on one second. what we have here, trump's lawyer says again, there's no evidence except for mr. cohen's words that president trump knew about that that seems like the kid that's critical part, because it's about it's not about necessarily whether or not this rendezvous between the two of them actually took place.

>> there is i think a major question in a major opportunity for the defense here to say that, like all you have is michael cohen's word on whether or not donald trump knew anything about this. and if he didn't know anything about this, and there's no crime. >> but if the theory of the case is that it's a misdemeanor, business falsification russian case that becomes a felony because it's in the commission of a different crime, which is election interference according to this theory. >> and the election interference is keeping from the public something that happened i've todd blanche is saying it never even happened. so how can that be election interference? >> it's not if the public will believe anything now, i mean, it's whether it's true or not true think about how information, even if it's out there the number of things that actually we know happen that donald trump's says doesn't happen is the level of misinformation we are dealing with is quite high. it's not to prove that it is election interference does not require proof that what they were worried about actually happened. >> is that true? >> i think that they were

concerned that the public would know what we're coming into. >> laura is in one second, but just to update everybody. so again, the access hollywood tape comes out in october 2016. todd blanche says, and that's when stormy daniels and her manager, gina rodriguez, seized an opportunity again, this is the defense's theory of the case that nothing actually happened between donald trump and stormy daniels in nevada at that golf tournament in 2006. nothing happened. therefore, how can it be election interference by and says they thought now, now's the time to strike. in other words, they made the whole thing up. but let me just say it is it's not the private to cover. well, first of all, how can a juror is going to look at this and say, well, what did have been problematic to have this out there? were you concerned about that allegation? it doesn't matter if it's true or not. >> well, if somebody were to make a claim that somebody was a big it it doesn't matter if it's true or not. it's out

there clinically. and now it makes the person, now vulnerable to losing their race. also, they're standing in the community in general society as well. and so allegations and words do have consequences for todd blanche is showing todd blanche is showing text messages between dylan howard, the editor of the national enquirer, and gina rodriguez, who has stormy daniels manager saying that he believed david pecker who. is the head of this tabloid empire would pay for the stormy daniels story. yeah, well, there it doesn't matter if the election interference is in the service of hiding a story, suppressing the story that is not true. does that matter? no, they know legally, legally they have to, first of all, this is this is why it's so fascinating what they have to prove as falsified business records while we're service of another crime in the service of another crime to elevate it from a misdemeanor to a felony. >> but the idea of the underlying crime we have not seen a theory from, for this, for this jury that it's based on extra marital affairs is based on whether there was a campaign contribution for a

tax-related crime. >> and so neither of which requires them to have been truth of an actual sexual encounter. what they're trying to do here is paint donald trump as a victim, as a victim of extortion. that this poor man as a married man, as a candidate, as a wealthy man. is somebody who routinely has to confront people who are trying to undermine him and he has to pay off these different stories. and so by painting him as an extortion victim, they're trying to suggest that all he was doing was completely not nefarious that it was benign and not illegal the problem is for the defense that during the course of the testimony 20 they have gotten information about the fall from access hollywood, from his own friendly witnesses that he was aware that there'll be some reimbursement that'd be paid. not aware of money being stolen from him, but the fact that he would have been aware of it and the timing of it. and of course, branches branches now apparently raising his voice, pacing and circles, raising is armed as he appears exasperated before the jury well, that in $1, if that's all you got, we'll get you $1. you

have to have actually a defense. and so if he's just doing that's not going to be enough at the end of the day. they should be going at the prosecution about what will be before this jury. 34 counts of falsified business records. they haven't gotten to the having been raised the point yet if michael cohen has even stolen from them. >> so now i want to bring anthony scaramucci. he briefly served as white house communications director during the trump administration, and he has a brand new book out, came out last week, i think called from wall street to the white house and back the scaramucci guide to unbreakable resilience. features that lovely photograph of him on the cover and carolina blue background, anthony, thanks so much for being here. appreciate it as always. what do you make the closing arguments so far well, i want to start with the trump truth social statements first, jake, because i think they are the most telling. >> okay. >> he is super nervous about this. and so those bombs that he launched last night at the

judge and all the suggestions that he was making, all the spurious suggestions our out of trump's playbook. >> so he, he knows that the facts of the case, he knows exactly what happened and he super worried about it. >> and that was a tell from him. so he's showing his cards last night but as it relates with laura is saying i think todd blanche did a good job defending president trump, but it's just not enough. the l the evidence is overwhelming that the law was broken and so what's at issue here are there are 12 jurors that believe that. and the last point i'll make is that the judge has to be and he'll try not to be, but he has to be furious at the fact that he put a gag order on the president. the president keeps breaching the gag order on the night before the closing. arguments he puts another nail in the judge, and so it'll be very interesting to see how he tailors the instruction to the jury. after

listening to that nonsense, are reading it last night. so right now, i'm todd blanche to the defense attorney, is saying about the access hollywood tape and that breaking in october 2016, it's a tape we've all seen it. >> donald trump and billy bush on a bus and donald trump is bragging about how when you're a star you can grab women by their genitals. they let you get away with it, et cetera blanche addresses the tape saying it was quote, an extremely personal event for president trump. nobody wants their family to be subjected to that sort of thing. it doesn't matter whether you're running for office, doesn't matter whether you're running the apprentice doesn't matter whether you're a normal, everyday person. in the city anthony blanche is also noting that westerhout, who was the trump aide, made clear that president trump didn't freak out. you also notes that hope hicks believed it would be a story for the next several days. interesting that todd blanche's is painting donald trump is a victim when it comes to the leak of the access hollywood a tape is that how he

saw were you part of the trump world at that time? and do you recall was that their attitude they thought that trump was a victim here? >> so that interestingly enough actually happened on october 7 and totally different october 7, it was october 7, 2016 when that news broke. the campaign. we met as a group and we went around the horn discussing how to handle it. and if you recall, jake, mr. trump doesn't like apologizing, but that night he did issue an apology to his wife and i and i think even milan, you actually came up with the locker room language for him but you know, you could you could protect i see the point about positioning as a victim. there but i'm not exactly sure how that's going to pull back the beyond a reasonable doubt, facts of the case. if you're if you're

suggesting that you didn't pay the money to stormy daniel's if you're suggesting he didn't misrepresent and create business fraud in order to pay that money. and then if you're further suggesting that there was no election interference because of the access hollywood tape. you're throwing a red herring out there and it's what about asm in the court? >> yeah. i think what's going on here president for that. so just to get you up to speed here, and the rest of our viewers, is that blanche's saying that actually the prosecution's theory of the case is the access hollywood video drops. >> and then there's a panic in the trump world to try to make sure the stormy daniels story doesn't get out now, the defense is saying actually donald trump was not panicking the version that says anything different comes from one witness, michael cohen, blanche says, referencing hope hicks is testimony blanche's trump got ready for the debate, responded to the allegations and continued campaigning it was one of many stressful stories that came up during the 2000

and 16 campaign. it was not a doomsday event. trump never thought it was going to cause them to lose the campaign. and indeed, it didn't is that true the latter part of that is true, and i'll take it one step further, mr. trump came up with the idea a bringing the clinton accusers to st. >> louis and so i think that very next wednesday, we were in st. louis together. he was preparing for the debate. and then an hour prior to the debate started, he hosted a news broadcast with, i think we need a broderick and a few others that were accusing president and clinton of sexual pick a delos 30 years prior. so not only is that true, what you're saying and what michael cohen is alleging, but it's also backed up by further thought process for mr. trump and further notation. >> i didn't explain that second st. >> louis debate. yeah, i didn't explain it well enough then. so what todd blanche is saying is that the access

hollywood video was one of many stressful events, but it wasn't that big a deal. trump never thought it was going to cause them to lose the campaign. but michael cohen, yeah, quote, had a different view and nothing. so that's what they're saying is that cohen was terrified that the access hollywood video was going i was going to say i misunderstood that. i apologize. >> this testimony is coming in and i'm freeing yeah okay. >> yeah. but but listen, i was there jake, so let me let me step back and reach stipulate who's ever saying that he was bothered by it? yes, he was bothered by it. he was concerned for 24 hours. he then late that evening, he went to the studio on the fifth floor of the trump tower and he broadcasts and apology message and then he went right back to work. so what because he bothered by it, yes. but he wasn't overly bothered by it. moreover, he he himself came up with the idea that bring the

clinton accuser.it with the campaign st. louis. >> so what's interesting though, is because that's how i remember it. i feel like so many other people around trump, if not, mr. trump himself at the time in october 2016, thought that this was the end of his presidential hopes. reince priebus, and other people on the campaign. it was only, as i recall, only rudy giuliani was willing to go out and defend him on tv. i think i had them on the show you like three sundays in a row or something. like, i mean, because he was the only trump person willing to defend him, chris christie vanished. i mean, a lot of people thought that was it dead man walking, but but he wasn't. so anyway, blanche says nothing was criminal and entering into the non-disclosure agreement with stormy daniels doesn't mean when trump was out campaigning that he knew about it. the only person at trial who told you president trump knew about it in october, september, august was michael cohen. blanche's posing the question to the jury, why did prosecutors call stormy daniels when there was no dispute that there was an

nda settlement and she knew nothing about trump's internal business practices. why he says, i'll tell you why they did it to try to inflame your emotions they did it to try to embarrass president trump. blanche says josh steinglass, the prosecutor objects. judge merchan overrules the prosecution. that's why blanche says again, and blanche is now playing a recording of cohen's speaking to keith davidson, stormy daniels, attorney in october 2017 cohen says, who else would do that for somebody who else i did because i care about the guy. i wasn't going to play penny wise pound foolish and i'm sitting there and i'm saying to myself, what about me? so i guess the idea here is they are theorizing the defense that michael cohen did all of this by himself when it comes to stormy daniels, he paid her without telling anybody and then he sought repayment, but nobody knew about it listen, it's an interesting theory, jake, but it's a bridge too far because if you really

understand the personalities of people and you really understand the tight fit this did nature of mr. >> trump, the fact that he rarely pays subcontractors or when he does, it's after he negotiates the bill down. there's no way that michael cohen did that without mr. trump's knowledge. it's just not. and so the facts are what they are and i'm happy to call balls and strikes hicks on the situation. yeah even telling you that he may have been on nerve that night, but he wasn't overly unnerved. but if you're saying did he know about the payment, if you know anything about the personalities involved with this thing you'd have to draw the conclusion that he knew about the payment he also knew about the contrived nature of that payment. and the way it was going to go through the system creating that business fraud. and so yes, i get it. i understand the specious argument that the defense is making, but it's not congruent with the facts of the case. and

this is the most interesting so think about donald trump. there's always fragments of truth in the argument. his supporters will hang on that there's other people that will hang on that. >> but when you step back from the fragments of truth and see the entire mosaic of the situation that's where you see the very big lies biblical allusion. they're very tall music. anthony scaramucci, good to see you as always, goes with the picture. >> jake goes with the picture that muhammad ali picture behind you. >> okay anyway, thank you so much. >> we'll talk to you soon, anderson. so what's been going on while i was talking to mr. scaramucci blanche is arguing that the phrase what about me gives insight into michael cohen state of mind. it made perfect sense for mr. cohen in 2016 to make payment without telling the president trump about it. so we could get a fancy job if trump won in a better job internally, if trump lost blanche reminds the jury that cohen said, what about me? >> todd blanche has been telling the jury essentially

that michael cohen did this on his own accord about paula reid and kaitlan collins. again, you know, what we have heard all morning long? from todd blanche, it chipping away at every piece of evidence that he can find, whether it's the recording that michael cohen secretly made todd blanche tracing questions about why why was the phone interrupted when when when it was. and now having this alternate theory that michael cohen when did this all by himself. >> i mean the idea though, and his argument that he was just driving home minute ago, was that the access hollywood tape and when that was released was just another very difficult day of many difficult days on the trump campaign, i was covering that campaign. that's absolutely not the case. i mean, it was seen as devastating. people of hope heads when she went to tell them as they were in the middle of debate prep about it, people's, the reporting at the time was that people's faces kinda turned white. no one really knew how to deal with that and how to grasp well inside trump's campaign, we're

urging him to drop out of the race and blanche's i'll talk about cohen's call with david keith davidson in december. that's when keith davidson said that he was essentially suicidal welcome to use upset about not getting a job. he's saying that cohen had an ax to grind because he did not get a job in the white house after after donald trump was elected, michael cohen testified about that and said, yes, he was upset about it, but said he didn't really actually believe more of the call with davidson in which cohen courts trump is saying, i hate the fact that we did it blanch provides an alternate explanation for it, but i mean, i was doing debate prep. i was one of the moderators of that debate, which took place on a sunday, friday is when it broke it was a bombshell for everybody in i mean, in the tire, it uprooted the debate prep for it for everybody. it was a major, major event. this is october 2017. blanche are saying, but this time there's no doubt present. trump knew that michael cohen had made this plate this payment. >> yeah, it was an earthquake. and even when you read memoirs

from people who are close to me, the kellyanne conway, they talk about what an extraordinary moment that was in the course of the campaign to argue that that was not something that's significantly changed their risk-benefit calculus in terms of these hush money payments. that is absurd. now it appears that blanche's slowly turning the ship packed it's michael cohen and having an ax to grind, but blanche over the past hour or so and he probably couldn't save themselves a lot of time and just gotten to michael cohen and this alleged grievance that he had about nothing going to the white house an hour ago without really hitting on all the points that he has made. they're not central to the case and whether his client will be convicted. he is really just wandering through the week it's here. >> blanche says that phone records show that michael cohen and costello spoke more than 70 times. costello sort of unusual choice of a witness defense that actually called not sure faculty, the impact it would have had on the jury. blanche says because stellar to cohen, the best way of the situation after the fbi raided his home

and office would be to provide information to the fed's. >> yeah, that was a weird moment. you for in-court aver costello's appearance. this is something that not all members of trump's legal team thought was a good idea. costello appeared on the stand and the thing i don't know many how many leinz is isn't enough flies? to reject mr. cohen's testimony. i'm told that the trump team doesn't think costello's testimony really ultimately will impact the outcome of this case. it was not a good day. it was a foreigner first error, but they don't think it's going to change the minds of jurors. >> again, let's play let's just read this learning. he says, i don't know how many lives is enough lives to reject mr. cohen's testimony. blanche says again, that is really the heart of what what he is trying to get into the jurors minds about the repeated leinz of michael cohen. i want to bring in former new york supreme court judge, diane kaizala along with that, adam kaufmann, his former executive assistant district attorney, for them, hadn't da's office judge, let me start off with you. you've heard a lot of closing arguments and wonder what you make of what we've heard of todd blanche well, i agree with most of what i've heard this

morning too long to meandering and not getting to the heart of what he needs to get to which is that michael cohen is a chronic liar that he has a motive to continue to be lying and that all of the corroboration in the world depends on your belief that michael cohen is telling the truth about what happened between himself and mr. trump and allen weisselberg? >> i think that he's made some strong points in that regard, but i do agree read that they should have been made sooner. jurors really start to lose it after about an hour-and-a-half or close to two hours. and i think the prosecution could end up making the same mistake this afternoon. >> adam, what do you think yeah, i think the prosecution was talking about a four-hour

summation that's way too long for this case, it doesn't it doesn't need boy, i'm sorry, todd blanche again saying you're hearing everything from michael cohen. >> blanche says they showed the phone records than they showed him him calls, but we all know how that ended. didn't get to see the other one. but essentially saying to the jurors all this information is coming through mike how cohen and he's repeatedly line i'm sorry. go ahead yeah. >> no, just i think what we haven't heard from the defense's what people have been saying which is sort of a thematic consistent going over the big picture and really focusing on the fact that this case dies with michael cohen's credibility the comments on the witnesses who weren't called weisselberg are and schiller, but was very effective. >> but way too much time, i think on stormy daniels that could have been discarded with whether he slept with her or not, doesn't matter. irrelevant. and ladies and

gentlemen, the only reason she was called was too embarrassed, mr. trump so i just think it's been way too much on what referral issues with that blanche zeroing in on an october 24 phone call to keep schiller's phone i happen to be in the courtroom the morning that this cross-examination went on from blanche to michael cohen, and it was quite devastating quite powerful that essentially todd blanche kinda keyed in on this phone call that michael cohen has portrayed, portrayed as a phone call to donald trump in which he got approval to move ahead with a scheme todd blanche certainly raised questions about the truth that what the true nature of that phone call was, that there are some text messages that preceded it we're prank calls from a 14-year-old that michael cohen's calling schiller about to try to get some sort of way to get back at

the person making these phone calls. blanche says that was his sworn testimony was allied. this isn't a little lie saying that cohen lied to that this jury about the nature of that phone call? blanche asked cohen, said he talked to trump october 24 at 8:02 pm about daniel situation. that was a lie and he got caught red-handed. blanche says of cohen judge him that certainly was on the cross-examination michael cohen appeared to may have appear to have been lying. >> michael cohen, it said that his memory was he was reminded them that it was actually to the nature of that phone call was two things with a phone call to keith schiller about the 14 year-old boy, but also he says he talked to the donald trump and got approval. it was a very short for 92nd phone call. we all know that he called keith schiller, talked about the fact that a 14-year-old been harassing him for several days blanche says of cohen. >> so, judge, he's trying basically replaying and trying to remind jurors of the strongest moment, perhaps the strongest moment that he had with michael cohen on

cross-examination, is that effective? well, i think it is certainly by playing that again, remember this trial has been going on for weeks. this is he's near the end of his summation and he wants jurors when they go into that jury room either later this afternoon or tomorrow, and start talking to have that fresh in their minds in case they've now forgotten it playing snippets of prior testimony showing videos, if they exist in a trial i've always found very effective with jurors and it'll be very interesting if a jury note comes out in a day or two asking to hear that again, and it could well happen adam doesn't matter whether i mean, clearly there's a lot of testimony and a lot of evidence. michael cohen has lied repeatedly by his own admission, he has lied repeatedly under oath in other cases, doesn't matter. you think this jury, whether or not michael cohen may have missed

may have lied actually, in this trial to them about a particular detail, would that do you think that matters, blanche, by the way, since prosecutors trump's attorney raises his voice, that is perjury blanche emphasize each syllable of the word. >> perjury would it matter? >> i think i think highlighting that moment, where you seem to have caught the witness flat-footed and ally i do think that's very effective. >> i agree with the judge that may be something that jury asks you here again the other hand, we said at the beginning of this case, everyone knows that michael cohen has this baggage. he's a liar. that's not going to be a surprise. so you know, we don't know how that's going to play for the jury, but i think emphasizing this point, where you do have a tape is an effective strategy for a closing argument we should point out that in this moment that todd blanche is now really emphasizing in which adam

kaufmann said he was sort of michael cohen perhaps flat-footed on once they on redirect, the prosecution it was able to ask michael cohen questions about this and michael cohen essentially stuck by his story saying, oh well, i both spoke to keith schiller about this 14 year-old and i also spoke to trump is that is they're the same absolute proof of lives for every single thing that man told you. >> no, there's not for that we have what's called an oath. blanche says just reminding viewers that michael cohen has lied under oath repeatedly in obviously it's the same oath that he has taken on the witness stand in this case. judge, in terms of what happens next, it once he wants todd blanche close, finishes his closing statement. does the prosecution is do you think they'll take it'll probably take a lunch break, i assume. and then the prosecution will start after lunch, correct? >> yeah. i would assume that would happen i don't think the

judge is going to expect the prosecution to start and then stop for an hour an hour, and 15 minutes? that's for lunch. i think that would be quite unfair. i suspect they'll take an earlier lunch and i suspect that the prosecution will address all of these issues that have been raised by blanche, which again is why with the burden of proof, the prosecution goes last. they do get the opportunity to try and slapped down these arguments judge, if you were the judge in this case, would you want this done today? >> the he's already judge merchan has already indicated the jury's willing to go late well, there was another time he lied to you. blanche says referring to a text from melania trump to michael cohen i certainly would i'm sorry. i certainly would want the summations to be done today. i wouldn't want them to be carried over until tomorrow. i would have strongly hinted to

both sides that may be four-and-a-half hours and two-and-a-half hours are too long. but this is an a once in a lifetime case. and if they feel they need to speak this for this long of a period of time, i would have let them as judged merchan has and they could be talking themselves either out of an acquittal or out of a conviction, depending on now how the jury goes but i think the best thing to do is let the parties finish up today and then the judge can begin. first thing in the morning when the jurors are fresh with his jury instructions and then they can immediately begin to liberty operations object. >> zion keys adam kaufmann, thank you very much right now. they've approached the judge. trump stayed turned in his chair facing the jury with that arm over the back. they're discussing phone records. todd blanche and said to the jury, blanche's a way to evaluate as his credibility is the oath they take to tell the truth is

something todd blanche has repeatedly said to this jury while michael cohen was on the stand in testimony, that week, blanche says if there's anything that we learned this trial, is that michael cohen does not take that seriously period back here with paula reid and kaitlan collins, he zero again, he's just trying to chip away at michael cohen's credibility raising questions now about michael cohen claiming that there was a phone exchange with melania trump that todd blanche is saying there's nothing michael cohen's phone records indicate there was such a call blanche as he's repeatedly you lied under oath. he's lied to his family's life, to his wife. he is literally like an mvp of liars. todd blanche says, it's their key point. this is the most important thing they need to get across to there's to doubt the version of events that michael cohen conveyed on the stand. why it's taken? todd blanche this long to get to that key line. well, that's something that in hindsight and may turn out to have better mistake to take such a winding path to get to this key point. but this is something we've

heard the trump team say throughout this trial, it is supported by a mountain of evidence that michael cohen is a liar and continue that pattern of lying even during the course of this trial. so getting at least one juror to doubt michael cohen it's a count of events and that's really all they need here. and blanche finally, finally getting there, the question also though is held a jury interprets it and given it was donald trump who hired michael cohen, employed him for all those years at the trump organization and kept him close then invited him to the white house blanche says cohen is also a thief. that was a moment that even the prosecution, i think would acknowledge was not a strong moment for them because it was something that they already covered grounding had already covered that michael cohen exaggerated how much he was. owed by that polling firm that he paid to goose trump's numbers and a pole. he says he literally so on his way out the door is still tens of thousands of dollars through the trump organization. michael cohen did not try to downplay that when, when todd blanche said, so you stole from the trump organization, he said yes, he didn't try to change the

words. he did acknowledge it. we'll see how the jury interprets it. obviously, he was someone that trump kept in his closed circle for all this time. the prosecution obviously will have their chance as michael is, todd blanche is clearly getting to the end of his argument here to try to say it's not just resting on michael cohen's work. you can see the documents for yourselves. you can see the call logs between michael cohen and donald while trump for yourself, and you can hear the testimony of white house aides that yes. michael cohen was at the white house and secured an oval office meeting with donald trump. >> it's in chairman, if the testimony was something i have a suggested that they believed the prosecution's case was strong enough without even having michael cohen testify. i find that hard to believe in my tray believed that when i heard that argument being made, but certainly if they could have avoided putting michael cohen on the sand, i think they would have avoided putting michael cohen on the stand. >> that's exactly know. prosecutor would put michel cohen on the stand if they didn't absolutely have to. so that's going to be there challenged during their closing when she tells the jury any lied to you, make no mistake

about and i think that's a really important point. mean it's one thing for jordy here. oh, he's lied in the past. yeah. but then you they would probably like to think, well, he's telling the truth this time, but he's saying that he didn't one of the drawers looked over bragg while the clip is played and this is the new framing and this is gonna be really the only new thing that we see is trying to frame this in the minds and hearts of the jury, get them to doubt him. >> that's really what they're gonna do here. that's a little bit different than what we've seen so far. >> brent blanche tells the jury that cohen lied in a podcast clip when he says he met with bragg all the time, they've never actually met that again, also came out on the witness. >> i mean, he is basically just trying to envision so right. michael cohen's credibility so that if any juror does go into that deliberation room and sitting there with the others and is thinking, well, michael cohen, here's how he presented himself to us acknowledged his shortcomings, acknowledged his allies, acknowledged that he stole they are trying to erode any credibility that he may have established with the jury's. he was sitting quite close to them looking at them, making eye contact, contact with him as he was answering these questions. todd blanche is trying to eliminate any of

that before he's done at the lecture. >> yeah. i mean, saying he's glad to podcast listeners. he lied to congress. he's lied under oath and other trials he lied to his family. he lied to his wife and he's saying jake that he has lied to this jury who is listening to top blanche, very close to the end of his closing arguments, we believe yeah. >> interesting stuff, anderson and we actually called this when it happens that this was ultimately going to be potentially powerful for todd blanche blanche is right now giving ten reasons why the jury has reasonable doubt you know? >> that he simply lying to benefit and protect michael cohen and nobody else, period. each one of these reasons makes a not guilty verdict, a very easy path, and a very quick path. >> so he's giving him a handy little list, a little listicle of ten reasons why they shouldn't trust michael cohen. >> and one of them as we noted when it happened, was this question about the october 24

phone call where it was proven that he talked to keith schiller about a 14 year-old who was pranking him on his phone. and yet michael cohen had earlier in the trial said that phone call was the trial what's the phone call where he talked to mr. trump and said the deal with stormy daniel's is done. so and so this allows todd blanche to say he's lied to this person in this judge in this congress in and he lied to you. >> he's coming in for a landing. >> yeah. it's been a very long kind of corkscrew. >> corkscrew or holding pattern as he's given a lot of specifics, maybe he'll be proven right. we'll see but the key points that we have been talking about for weeks, especially leading up to today. as you said, it's michael cohen is a liar. you cannot base anything that he is saying anything that you decide on what he is saying and there's no proof. and just to buttress that there's no proof that

donald trump knew about this. therefore, he can't be found guilty. >> if i can, this ten reasons thing that todd blanche is doing now, classic southern district of new york technique. we used to do it all the time. here's five reasons. the defendant is guilty and it can be really effective because, you know what the jury does. we've done a lot of times that's a lot actually. but when you say i have x number five, ten, you know what the jury does. they take it one to the writing them down here he's giving them ammunition to take back into the deliberation room with them and say, how about 0.7, how about 0.3? so he is definitely bring this thing and for letting now he's getting to the stuff that i think you should lead with and made the heart of what he did and tim parlatore, it's 12 36. >> he's been going now for more than two well, more than two hours approaching a three-hour i would thank you. think how much shorter do you think there should have been? >> about an hour? >> do you think did you mean our total oh, yeah. >> maybe an hour-and-a-half max the whole part in the middle where he was talking about mcdougal and pecker and all that kind of stuff i would have compressed that to a single sentence and said, you know,

all of that, it didn't matter. what matters is the checks. and then i'll walk over the prosecution table, bang on the table, say the more time that he spends talking about that the more you know, that there's reasonable that that they can't prove the meeting where they talk about the repayments yeah. and just the more oxygen you give it then the more credibility you give it to the prosecution. were you surprised that they even mentioned that the defense even mentioned karen mcdougal who is not really it started this at all. >> it's totally irrelevant to this case. what happened catch and kill, all that stuff. i mean, look, i look at it and say they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was catch and kill so sorry that we got we're waiting. we're waiting for these ten reasons. so blanche is giving ten reasons why the jury has reasonable doubt. each one of these reasons make a not guilty verdict and easy path and a very quick path. we're waiting for these ten reasons, like the ten commandments they being withheld from no cameras in the courtroom reason number one,

cohen created the invoices. they're accurate and president trump did not have any intent to defraud. there is no evidence of that reason. number two, the vouchers and checks no evidence that trump knew the invoices were sent. we're going to have ten of these and they're trickling out like molasses. but here's number three. there is absolutely no evidence of any intent to defraud intent. different the different there's no smoking gun where donald trump is saying, let's do it this way so that we can hide this from the american people. there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that might suggest that to a juror, but there's no actual smoking gun. the closest thing they have to smoking gun is these memos from weisselberg and his right-hand man suggesting this payment plan go as fast. oh, give you represent number four, there was no attempt to commit or conceal a crime, not one that they've proven in any case, they is what the defense is sine nearly three hours and we're getting to the actual charge number

there was absolutely no agreement to influence the 2016 election. >> this is all part of what the prosecution has to prove. and if you think that the jurors are taking notes on those ten things now you've got the tee-ball game, the prosecutor said, now go down, they're list of ten things that i hear. all the reasons why this is totally bogus one, way fascinating to me and the closing by the offense was it there now saying that trump did not think would cost me election. they're trying to undercut this very notion here. number five, there was no agreement to influence the 2016 election when todd blanche back to say that trump was not freaking out about the access hollywood eight or the dallas case it was all about them trying to suggest that suddenly this was the rest of the world freaking out and he was copacetic about all these different things. but remember, the jurors have to go back and look at 34 counts one strong argument. the defense could have hopped on a lot more is the idea that cohen, because he falsified the invoices by virtue of lying about what was owed he could say what leads to these 11 count 11 invoices. there's no proof that donald

trump knew was actually in then they have to go through each and every one because getting i mentioned to the jurors later on is helpful, but they have the actual count in front of them. it's not just one charge. this were federal court had been one claim for wire fraud, essentially, they've got 34 to go through. so each of these ten reasons has to apply. asia, we had them are six a.m. i. would have run the trump dorman story no matter what i don't why are we talking about that? this is not at all part of the 34 falsified. >> i don't even understand that. i don't even understand that argument. the idea that but they didn't but they didn't run the trump dorman story and exactly this is why we're trying to parse through why he would say that. >> maybe he's suggesting somehow that they would have run this story. i probably should say too, it's probably should say wouldn't have run the doorman stories. >> i'm not going to go through the idea that the dormitory there would be a part of this is odd number seven, mcdougal as a part of a thriving public, doesn't want to remember 34

counts of falsified business records. here are the big questions for the jury. number one, were they business records? number two, where they false and not just legal invoices. number three, have they proven the intent of donald trump number eight, the daniels story was already public in 2011. you know what i mean? this is not as impressive as i thought it was going to be. like i thought he was going to present like ten times at michael cohen lied under oath. and like ten here, ten things that he did and now he's ease again in the weeds on karen mcdougal. i can't believe karen mcdougal as part of his ending sound. it makes more sense only because that's part of the idea of the incentive for why juror to pay it makes sense. number seven, we do we all need editors out there. >> i just a great lesson of closer. can i just suggest we need a closeup camera on till right now because as these have gone by surprise dismay hands up in the air, choking maneuver. >> this is not good i mean, elie said before this is a classic southern district us

attorney's move and they usually do topic well i mean, stretching it out to eight, ten just so that you can have a bigger number. >> i mean i mean, look, look at number seven mcdougal did not want the story published. >> number nine, sorry, reason number nine, the evidence was manipulated and again, the correct me if i'm wrong, but that's facts not in evidence, right. have they introduced any proof than any? of the evidence has been manipulated? he's arguing about the recording that michael cohen made and he's argued that it was cut off at this coincidence. but it hasn't been proven that it was connected. >> to the contrary about this idea that there was that easting was rounded up at one point in time, the michael cohen said that it was cut off because the incoming phone call and they showed a corresponding document to say there was incoming phone call. >> yeah. well, that's what i'm saying. >> i got on yeah. >> there's four good ones. the first four are good to go. >> give a top three list. yeah. okay. what's your top three? here's the top three one. the only evidence that he knew about these false business records is the meeting with

him, cohen and weisselberg to the only evidence you have that is cohen's word, and he lives three weisselberg wasn't called right? that's your top three. what about number for michael cohen is unreliable number for what we got a great one. >> number ten is going to come up. what time the evidence was manipulated. we do that. we already did that we don't have i don't i don't know that that's proof. that's an argument that he's making, but it's not it's not a fact in evidence that it was definitely manipulated. >> well, three reverse order, you know, jay leno at least started with the silly wanted number ten and that lateral that's that's heresy, my friends. well, i remember three reverse this was three hours in and we're after a break, which means that they were able to regroup as a collective legal counsel team that does not include todd blanche. it includes necklace and includes beauvais as well. and collectively, they're preparing for this defense, so we're talking about type blanche as the one to provide it. >> but the idea here that they would come back and begin again with trump or daniels is very telling they have to go and

undermine begun one bite at the apple numbers, number. michael cohen, he's a human embodiment of reasonable doubt or as he called him earlier in the day, literally an mvp of liars. all right. so i mean, you would you would include that one though? as know your number, you would atop three list, but you would an amendment number for no. >> i mean, that's part of if you pair that with the fact that everything rests on this meeting between cohen weisselberg, and trump everything rests on that meeting. >> and the only evidence you have is cohen's word yeah, that's where his focus needs to be, not mcdougal, not even stormy daniel's. >> i mean all of that stuff, not pecker, certainly not the doorman none of that stuff. >> and it's this meet up so i don't yeah, it's confusing. andrew you said maybe maybe your panel up there can make your morning. we're new yorkers were just tumble country folk out here you guys can figure it out because we're confused.

>> well, you can come up to the extent it will show you around some time. but paul, are you hearing and kaitlan collins it is interesting that this obviously that's a powerful thing to jake's point also, the line that todd blanche had used the michael cohen's, the mvp of liars also a member line. >> but a lot of this does seem sort of throwing up a lot of stuff and seeing what sticks. >> yes. meandering it's what we saw. >> todd blanche doing even on his cross-examination and of michael cohen, he would land a punch, but it just took them so long to get there. >> now here he's arguing that michael cohen is biased and motivated to tell you a story that is not true. again, hammering home the idea that michael cohen is a liar that is, well, well-worn territory in this trial. but i think in hindsight, when this case is studied, when this trial hi. all right. >> becomes a permanent part of history. >> a lot of hopes are going to look at this closing and wonder if this was the best approach or if you spent too much time on things that don't matter on

people that don't matter. to the actual criminal charges that his client is facing. >> you've been did he did it says like goat, the greatest of all time, blanche says that michael cohen is the globe the greatest liar of all time. obviously, donald trump, as we've heard from our borders in the room, is watching todd blanche intently as he is delivering this because he is delivering from this to 13 people. yes, these 12 jurors who were sitting there in the room also, donald trump cares greatly about this. there's an immense amount of pressure hit trump's attorneys have spent the last week kind of going over everything i will say that i do believe the reason todd blanche was going through different aspects of what has come up at this trial from karen mcdougal to the dorman in the story david pecker and national enquirer are determined was false as they were worried, the jury would forget a lot of this because not only did they just have a week off, it's also been six weeks since they heard from a lot of these witnesses. and so they felt the need to go through all of it again, blanche, ticking off the cone lied to congress, the justice oriented judges to his family. >> yeah, one, i'll say michael

cohen would say, why lights my family? play because i hid the fact that i took down a home equity line of credit and drew that down to pay off this $130,000 to stormy daniels. he's not the testimony wasn't that he was just lying does family carp launch it was for this specific reason. i also think part of this where he is just hammering michael cohen as these are his final comments to the jury. he will not get a chance to speak to them. again after he has done now is because they know that the prosecution will try to make the case about what michael cohen testified and also that so much of this doesn't just rely on michael cohen's testimony, but also the documents here. >> that's why trump was so upset that they had to go first and then this couldn't be the final in a word that the jury heard before they go home, potentially, if the closing arguments and as soon as today and that trump has tried to tried to indicate that that's some sort of sine of corruption or for a fixed that's the way things work in new york. yeah, exactly. number of other states, yes. and several other states as well. prosecutors have the burden to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. that is why they get to go last

in the state of new york and other states, i think intelligent minds can disagree about whether defendants can go, but there's no nothing special about that here. now, colin lives to family when it matters, when it doesn't, blanche says his words cannot be cannot the trust it and i'm going to end this summation soon. if you focus just on the evidence you heard in this courtroom this is a very quick and easy not guilty verdict. he is done. >> this is interesting. he also said, this isn't a referendum on your views on president trump. this isn't not a referendum on the ballot box. obviously, one thing that we know that is looming over this jury is this celebrity of this trial. i mean, it is a former president. it is this famous? yorker, iconic new yorker who is sitting there at the defense table we've heard from a lot of jury consultants, including ronaldo's tubule and others that sometimes that makes it completely you can't predict what is going to happen with the jury because sometimes the sheen of celebrity has this overpowering effect on the jury when it comes comes to how they ultimately make a decision.

>> so there's just so many unknowns here of what this jury is thinking and how they took todd blanche's closing argument, but it is notable. >> you just finish right on time at about two-and-a-half hours of his summation. >> so there'll be a lunch break prosecutors will begin their final arguments. so this should conclude by the end of the day. >> yeah, they've asked the jury will stay late. they're gonna get some snacks. apparently, they were pretty happy. that's one of the few times that they have betrayed their emotions and what they're feeling, they're excited to get fed. but yet we expect that prosecutors will wrap up and then tomorrow the judge will charge them, give them their instructions. since and then send them off with those historic case. he's completely unclear how long it will take them to decide this there are a lot of legal experts who predict there could be hung on some the accounts that happens, they'll come out. the judge will then likely send them back. it's called an allen charge. i'm told there's some concern about that, right. pressuring additional pressure. now this is part of the process. this is what happens in the state of new york. if you can't make a decision, but this could go on for a few days all right.

>> let's go back to jacob, dc. jake. >> thanks, andrew soon. so the defense summation this defense closing argument was just under three hours. it was two hours, 51 minutes? and of course, the courtroom is in recess for lunch until 2:00 p.m. eastern. blanche ended his arguments by saying, if you focus just on the evidence you heard in this courtroom, this is a very quick and easy not guilty verdict. he also before he left said like goat, which is the greatest of all time, blanche called michael cohen the gloat greatest liar of all time. he is biased and motivated to tell you a story that is not true interestingly, there were a few errors in the defense slide at the end. they're one of our reporters learned devel notes instances of manipulation of evidence. they have the wrong october 2016 date for the alleged call to trump via schiller. they wrote october 20th instead of october 24, they incorrectly called the da's custodial witness, david douse. his name is douglas

douse what do you think? tim impressive. summary and impressive closing. >> it went way too long. yeah, it included a way too much extraneous information and as much as he has probably bored the jury to tears steinglass has the opportunity in four-and-a-half hours to do worse well, i mean what would you tell steinglass to do? wharton it up, shorting it out if if if if i were sitting there and i could grab steinglass in the hallway and say what to do shortness significantly yeah. just take the points. take that top ten list at the end, nail that right off the right off the top and then shorten it up. >> this. is way too long. >> they're gonna right now what's going on? we have steinglass gas asking for a curative ruling for something. >> there was earlier point in time when during the test, during closing, todd blanche suggested why you couldn't send

this person to prison, but you can't send down prompt the progress over these information. there is an objection that was sustained and now they're asking me for an instruction to tell the jury, essentially listen, you cannot consider that, number one, and also this aspect of as well. first of all, it's very interesting that ever get an objection during either the closing or opening you've had that happen more than once. now, in this particular case that's important because you do not want to signal to the jurors that something has actually struck a nerve with you for one second at the bottom of your screen on the right side, you see people from the trump team walking out for lunch break. i imagine if we haven't already that we'll see the former president himself as well doing so that's definitely his posse. go ahead. i'm laura also. we're going to see from the prosecution's if this case had one witness, then perhaps this would have more meat on the bone from the defense. they had many witnesses beforehand to try to pre corroborate michael cohen. they knew full well and the overall landscape, but they would go after michael cohen in there closing and the trial as well. they're going to happen now at this point in time, come back up and rehabilitate not

only that witness, but also confirmed the jury. you didn't just hear from michael cohen. you heard from all sorts of people, none of whom is credibly was ever questioned during this. you'll also the prosecution said that blanche's doubling down. that is perfectly plausible to have no retainer agreement when that is not the law in new york. say this goes back to the heart of the matter that they tried to suggest that cohen said, well, here was why i was being paid, written are not here was the expectations he's trying to go at that drapes. so can i just ask a question? this part that they're that they're arguing about where todd blanche says, you cannot send someone to prison. you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of michael cohen. and now the prosecution is asking, can we fix this? you cannot sit. you're trying to generate sympathy or shine. just said that who said that? todd blanche's comment about sending trump to prison was outrageous and that's the judge ruling. this feels very political question, which is to interrupt winds. >> it's all there you got to actually sentence the jury's job is to find guilt or

innocence. it is the judge who were shauna saying, you know, that making a comment like that is highly inappropriate what what do you have known that of course, if prosecutors are not allowed to say anything about the punishment to a jury. now, defense lawyers, some has simply not allowed, period, judge merchan says it's hard to me to imagine that was accidental. write in any way the judge the judge, i believe when he instructs the jury tomorrow as part of the standard instruction, will say the sentence is of no concern to you, jerry, you're not to take that into consideration what the judges thinking about doing now, okay, there we go. so the judge is going to give a curative instruction as to the prison comment, meaning when the jury comes back after lunch, judge merchan is going to turn to them and say, essentially this. you just heard the defense lawyer say something about you can't send this guy to prison. i'm instructing you as a matter of law. i'm the judge here. that is irrelevant. you are not to take punishment into account in this case. he may even go a bit further and say, not even clear whether there would be a prison sentence. so that's going to sting you do not want to finish up your closing as either lawyer and then have the judge bring the jury back ago. that thing you said at the end in an

appropriate match, it was death penalty case, for example, right? you can't put a magic imagine if that was eight, but it's going to be, we talked about in the witness in the information that comes in prejudicial versus probative value. the idea of going into a deliberation and having a jury. thank gosh. not if it's a matter of proof for you met your burden, but do i want this person to go to jail? i might like this person. i want this person to have descendants. it's inappropriate. >> this is the part that i'm also wondering about because that makes total sense. it's actually very clear that example which is helpful. but in this example, the idea that he's going to prison, it's much more than just a question about one man whose life is going to be effected. it is about the republican nominee for president of the united states, one of the two people most likely to ultimately be president of the united states mean there are layers upon political layers to what up blanche did just there. and it it does. >> i guess my question would be, can it be a simple mistake or is he do i can tell you

firsthand because as prosecutors, we hated this. >> we used to guard against that. we use to try to preempt it. we would jump out of our seat objecting to this hundred percent. todd blanche knows that's inappropriate. hundred percent. he just snuck it. well, you've done this every time well, if i that's wrong when you did it, we got i'm sorry. i wouldn't have done it this way. >> yeah. okay. i have done it, but in an illegal way that i'll tell you about later life cover of job donald trump's hush money cover-up proud continues after this quick break, we'll be right back. hi, i'm brian gary and today we're talking about the biggest misconception there is about replacement windows. i'm here with ted cones, the project manager for renewal by anderson to talk about it. >> yeah. one of the big things we hear from homeowners first is i shouldn't need to replace my windows. they're just not that old. >> here's the thing. >> homebuilders put in high-end kitchens and bathrooms and low in windows, just aren't that

good. so even if your windows are only seven to ten years old, they may still need to be replaced there's so many window companies out there. what's different about your company? >> well, besides being the full service replacement window division of andersen, where the company people tend to call when their particular about their home. they don't want just any old window or any oil and solid. >> so your standards for installers are pretty high, right? >> yeah. brian, you can have the best window or door world than if it's not installed correctly, it's going to fail. so we don't hire these jack of all trades installers that do gutters and siding on the side. our window installation teams du our windows year in, year out, and have done thousands of them anytime a homeowner has to deal with multiple home improvement companies they get stuck in the blame game. >> yeah. with other companies, if there's an issue, the manufacturer blames the installer. the installer blames them manufacturer with us. there's no finger finger-pointing or blaming each other. we're both the installer and the manufacturer said, is it easy for a homeowner to get a price? >> very easy?

>> welcome out to your house, will assess your current patio door windows and then we'll give you an exact price. that's good for an entire year. >> so that's great information. thank you. >> before may 31st, by one window, patio door or entry door, and get the next one 40% off. that's 40% off with a minimum purchase of four plus save an extra $200 on your entire purchase with no money down, no monthly payments, and no interest for one year. this offer ends may 31st for a free appointment with renewal by anderson called one 800, 500, 1805011400 the only godaddy arrow helps you get your business online and minutes with the power of ai, with the perfect name. great logo, and a beautiful website to start with a domain, a few clicks and you're in business. make now the future at godaddy.com slash arrow, iga, the number one rated brand in cordless outdoor power, brings you the select cut mower, customized to cut with three interchangeable

blades. >> it cuts for over an hour on a single charge ego exclusively at lowe's, ace and ego authorized dealers. >> this is the carryon closet, the suitcase with a one-of-a-kind patented clauses system that keeps you organized anywhere. pack all you need for up to ten days and travel without ever unpack the comfort of home on the go. i'm talking seconds at seoul guard dog cow what i look for in a contractor is someone who's reliable and skillful. >> that's where angie comes in with top rated certified pros and over 500 categories. >> sandi, you can connect you with the right pro for any home projects fine. top rated certified by prose in your area at angie.com arthritis pain. >> we say not today. tylenol eight hour or brightest pain has two layers are really the first is fast, the second is long-lasting we give you your day bag, so you can give it everything. tylenol number one, doctor recommended for birthright is paying its terms day off, but neutrogena ultras, your sunscreen is still on the clock. vital sun protection goes six layers, deep, blockin