you didn't live this strong, this long to get put on the shelf like a porcelain doll. if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and are at high risk for fracture, you can build new bone with evenity®. ask your doctor if you can do more than just slowing down bone loss with evenity®. want stronger bones? then build new bone; evenity® can help in just 12 months. evenity® is proven to reduce spine fracture risk by 73%. evenity® can increase risk of heart attack, stroke, or death from a cardiovascular problem. do not take evenity®

if you have low blood calcium, or are allergic to it. serious allergic reactions and low blood calcium have occurred. tell your doctor about jaw bone problems, as they have been reported with evenity®. or about pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. don't let a break put you on a shelf. talk to your doctor about building new bone with evenity®! >> john: live look from the new york state supreme court where we expect former president trump to be sitting for the prosecution's closing arguments. he reentered the courthouse in the courtroom just a short time ago. the defense wrapped up its closing arguments and now the prosecution is going to have its turn to speak directly to the jury. with that so begins our too. i'm john roberts in washington. sander, it will be interesting to see how long the prosecution goes. >> sandra: we will start to get readouts from inside the courtroom hopefully shouldn't.

i'm sandra smith in new york. this is "america reports." the defense tried to tear into the credibility of the prosecution's star witness michael cohen. trump's lawyer calling him "the mvp of liars" and the gloat. the greatest liar of all time. spew in the prosecution 11/out of convincing the juries but many legal experts say they aren't sure what the underlying crime in this case is. >> we will look to see if they will finally tell the world what is the crime that they think was committed. >> how can we be in the middle of a summation and not know what the crime is that they are trying to conceal or what crime they violated. what is the felony that resurrected these dead misdemeanors? it is unheard of. >> john: let's bring in the panel from live outside the courthouse. shannon, let's start with you to the judge's point there. the prosecution is about to

begin its closing arguments and that is when we may finally hear that we don't know for sure what the underlying crime in this case is. >> as we've explained and you've explained many time to our viewers, this was a misdemeanor charge. the statute of limitations would have run on. absent that it was pegged to an underlying crime but we have not heard any clarity about what that underlying crime is. in the jury instructions you have to tell people what they are looking for, with the elements arguably about that crime would be. you have to give them direction but we have yet to hear a clear and concise explanation of what that underlying crime is and without that this case goes away. it would be a misdemeanor and which the statute of limitations had already run. we have two and a half hours this morning from the defense and i'll prosecution in this scenario goes last. they say expect 4-4.5 hours. maybe we'll get it in there. >> sandra: to a point that you made. that we have been quoting you many times repeatedly because it

was a great one. i will read it directly. you said if the government is going to try to imprison the former and possibly future president of the united states, it better be a slam-dunk clear cut case with significant crime or crimes committed and credible witnesses. this case you say and trial have been the opposite on all counts. has anything you have seen or heard today change that? >> no. and i think things have gotten worse for the fact that we are on the last day of the trial hearing closing arguments and we are all still trying to piece through what exactly the prosecution was attempting to do all this time is a really bad sign. this is not just anyone. it's a former president of the united states and as i said in that statement you read, it is quite possibly the future president and you combine that with the biden-harris campaign holding a press conference down here this morning and joe biden is going to make an announcement once the verdict is reached. they are using this as a shiny object today and tomorrow to

dangle to the media to run away from all of the bad news about joe biden including the fact that his own people seem to be turning on him. but nonetheless the fact that we are in a court of law and we are still figuring out what this crime is exactly is troubling. >> john: something happened just before the lunch break there. where todd blanche was wrapping up his summation said you cannot put the former president in prison based on the testimony of michael cohen. merchan did not take kindly to the suggestion that the former president could go to prison. thought that blanche was trying to engender sympathy for his client and now the prosecution apparently in there is seeking a remedy to that and one other piece. what is your take on what the jury would think of what blanche said regarding putting the former president in prison because they could do that. even though the judge does not want that articulated in court.

>> and that's exactly why the judge admonished blanche when the jurors had been excused. the judge did sustain the objective. the jury has been instructed that they are not to consider any statements and which there was a statement objection. so the jurors should not consider that inflammatory remark because you are right, that is the very question they have been convened here and hearing testimony about which is whether president trump has in fact guilty of falsifying records. but really, that moment was the prosecution's attempt to push back on what was otherwise a pretty compelling presentation from todd blanche throughout the morning. i thought todd blanche did an excellent job setting off the remarks of the day and making this case actually very simple. reminding the jurors that this is about alleged falsified documents and reminding them of the evidence that actually shows that the documents perhaps were not falsified at all. this will case is about the whether the payments were constructed in such a way in

2017 to conceal the nondisclosure payment that was made to stormy daniels in 2016 and the crux of the issue is whether michael cohen lied about whether or not he was performing legal services in 2017 such that the documentation showing he was getting paid for legal services in 2017 was a lie and we heard from michael cohen's own testimony that he was president trump's personal attorney. if the jury focuses on that as todd blanche suggested, they could have reasonable doubt as to whether or not president trump is guilty of based on the simple issues of the documents case which is what blanche was effectively reminding them through his closing remarks today. >> sandra: we are getting some updates out of the courtroom right now including one from our producer inside the room. they are getting the jury now so we do believe things will be back underway shortly. i will ask you what this means. i know it's probably hard for you to access at some the readouts we are getting but this one says the prosecution has

provided the judge with a proposed curative instruction on blanche's comments. they also asked for an instruction on retainer agreements saying the defense misstated the law. the defense and objected to an instruction on the retainer agreement but not to blanche's comments on punishment. the judge will not give the instruction on retainer agreements from the bench. and that is when we are told they were bringing the jury into the courtroom. your thoughts on that and anything else you are seeing out of the courtroom. >> what happened is they did have that fight going until lunchtime and that was still being cleaned up before the jury comes back to hear the prosecution's four and a half hour summation of its own. and there were things that blanche set in front of the jury that they want struck or they want the judge to instruct otherwise jurors don't take this into account or don't listen to this or this was misstated. and like the judge said from the beginning, there are about the facts of evidence.

they are attorneys when they talk to but i'm about the law and this goes back to the all important jury instructions that he's going to hand to the jury. he is the prism through which they see the case. he tells him what the law is, how to apply it to what they've heard in the courtroom, and he does not want the attorneys doing any of that instructing them on law. prosecution is arguing he got something wrong about the retainer agreement and something on the law to that point. that's what they are trying to clean up before the jury comes back in. there weren't a ton of objections in the defense's presentation but now you're going to get double the time of the prosecutions will be interesting to see what the defense has to say. there are all kinds of things that they object to that have been allowed in conversation about the nonprosecution agreement with david pecker. the guilty pleas for michael cohen and those are knots was to be probative. the jury is not supposed to consider those in light of finding trump guilty of any anything. and we are human being. and somewhere, other people have guilty pleas or something

connected to this was not clean and above board. there will be a lot of instructions to the jury but they will all come through the judges prism. >> john: there's an instruction just read to the jury and that was over blanche's comment that you can't but the former president in prison based on the testimony of michael cohen. jonathan says the jury is seated and the judges reading the instruction to clear the mistake of the closing and asking the jury not to send trump to present. the judge is saying it is his responsibility and not the juries to determine punishment. prison only brings more attention to it just because you are entitled to a curative instruction does not mean you should take it. and he is tied enough of these cases. this morning in these closing arguments, blanche went into great detail about why there was no intent on trump's part to defraud. do you have thoughts on that? >> this is a very important part

of the argument. he started with saying look. the way these expenses were classified in the ledger book, they are not false. legal expenses paid to a personal attorney could be characterized as legal expenses if you don't think that is true and you think they should've been called something else, donald trump would have needed to intended to defraud somebody or something by putting those in the book and he would've had to acknowledge that. first, it's not entirely clear if trump even knew how these expenses were classified in that book. the jury would have to get over that hurdle but secondly the intent of fraud aspect is interesting because we are dealing with another vague law in new york state on the books. similar to the law in the civil fraud trial where the law had never been applied against donald trump in the way it was where there doesn't need to be a victim. the banks were happy but as we remember that was a victimless crime. similar here, there doesn't need to be someone who was deprived of property or money or anything so the question becomes okay, if

they don't think -- if the jury does not think that these expenses should of been classified as legal expenses, who was donald trump trying to defraud because this is part of an internal book. i think with the prosecution is attempting to get across the finish line is that he was essentially defrauding the american people by not allowing them to know about the stormy daniels perfectly legal nda. again, how that would've been an issue in an internal book at trump tower is unclear to me but think about this for a second. the fact that a politician could be found guilty effectively of intending to defraud the american people for not revealing something well what then happens with all of the people who made a big campaign promises like i promised to lower your taxes and what do you know, they don't. would i then have grounds to go to my local prosecutor's office and say you know what, he or she did not fulfill that campaign promise i feel defraud it are you going to bring criminal

charges? that's another thing at play in this whole case that makes this really challenging to follow. >> sandra: i want to get your thoughts on brand-new readouts coming from the courtroom right now. trey gowdy noting there was not much warm-up. or generalities. the prosecution started right into the elements of the offense in the closing. the prosecution then began by telling the jury to tune out the noise. he insisted they have presented powerful evidence of the defendant's guilt. he is starting by showing the sideshows of the defense meaning responding to what we just heard from the defenses closing arguments to which trey gowdy noted that prosecution is taking the bait early to reacting to the defenses closing. andy mccarthy is noting it is not good for the defense that the first thing the jury is told is that blanche's argument about going to prison was improper. also by telling the jury that a sentence of incarceration was

not necessary in this case. the judge may make conviction more likely. psychologically easier for jurors to convict if they believe the defendant won't have to go to prison. >> i'm really taken by what you said right off the top thereby ignore the noise because right away i'm wondering what noise does the prosecution think that the jury has been exposed to? particularly after they were sent home for an entire week before these closing arguments are starting to get underway around friends and around family presumably around the memorial day holiday. having who knows what types of conversations about what they are experiencing and it may or may not have been like as they are serving on this journey. they are anonymous to us but they may no longer be anonymous to one another and one might wonder how anonymous they are to their friends and family when they have been absent from work or home life for five or six weeks during this process

playing out. i wonder if that is and ask for them to ignore what information they may have been exposed to throughout the duration of the trial and a lot of the questions, the intense questioning about what is this case about and the strengthening the merits of the legal claims against the former president. i think that is true. i would agree with andy mccarthy that it seems like this whole issue about sending the former president to president not a good way to start off the closing arguments because they are right. the jury is not intended to decide the penalty for any alleged conviction. they are only here to decide what facts have been established during the duration of this trial and applying that to the law as judge mershon will explain it and we expect the process to happen tomorrow. the prosecution we have been told by prosecuting attorneys, they expect the closing arguments to last 4-4.5 hours.

that is quite a marathon session and it should take as well through the 6:00 p.m. hour, closely approaching 7:00 p.m. if they stay on schedule and that is maybe not accounting for any breaks. can the jurors even stay tuned and pay attention to closing arguments that are that lengthy after a long day of them? that remains to be seen as well and is potentially a challenge for prosecutors here. >> john: great analysis. thank you ladies for joining us. latest from the courtroom. the prosecution now, sandra, is zoning in on phone calls that may or may not have been made by michael cohen going through a long list of phone records and various permutations on how calls could have been made without being logged. andy mccarthy suggesting that prosecution is getting bogged down in detail here instead of making the big closing argument but we will see how they proceed. >> sandra: to lydia's point it's odd to be starting by explaining a phone chart. it's the beginning of the

argument. it's at the beginning of the argument that an advocate has the jury's most complete attention. you need to use that to tell them something important. don't start by telling them you want to address a bunch of things that are important or misdirection spurred by the time you get to the point, you may have lost the jury's attention. this is happening here and we are monitoring the latest out of that courtroom. mark eiglarsh is back and mercedes, both will join us live coming up. lord, you know what's on our hearts. you know where we struggle. you know where we need to be pushed. help us give it all to you. the good, the bad. help us turn to you in everything we do. amen. i invite you to join me in more prayer on hallow, stay prayed up

>> sandra: the prosecution's closing arguments in the new york versus trump criminal trial are back underway. mark eiglarsh is joining us now. criminal defense attorney mercedes: is a trial attorney and we are happy to have you both back. i'm going to redo from jonathan turley's latest note here. there's a lot happening inside

the courtroom. he says it's hard to see how each would buy the argument that daniels is not discredited and should not be demonized. stein glass admits that the prosecution said it some of her testimony was cringeworthy but still rings true. the kind of testimony that you would expect people to remember. clear that despite the regrets of the judge, prosecutors were perfectly happy with the salacious details. mark, your response. >> you raised a lot of issues peered first of all, i don't think stormy daniels is a major player in this case. he had an affair with her or he didn't. did he wear a, where he is he wearing boxers out of bed, who cares. that came up in a fragile and it couldn't have. who's to blame for that? i don't think it's the judge heard everyone wants to blame the judge and in an ideal world the details should i come in but as the judge explained the minute the defense challenged

whether the affair occurred or not, that's when the door got opened it to a lot of the detail because the defense is saying it didn't happen so how do you prove a question mark with detail. i don't blame the judge but i do tell you that should not have come into evidence in this case. >> john: speak to the east because we are getting notes from three very astute contributors for jonathan turley, trey gowdy, and andy mccarthy who are in the overflow room listening to all of this. they point out that the way that the prosecution began its closing arguments is very curious. that they rebutted the defense on todd blanche's assertion that the jury could be sending the president, former president to jail. he then got into a bunch of heavy phone data then try to make the point that stormy daniels was not trying to extort the former president despite trying to get as much money as she possibly could and trey gowdy said making stormy daniels of victim is a heavy lift. questioning why the prosecution would even take that approach. your thoughts?

>> it's interesting because when i do closing arguments, i'm the second to go. i generally do rick but the other side right off the bat. i want to take it right off the table and i don't want that to be marinated in any way. i don't blame the prosecution for taking that approach could with respect to stormy daniels, it's exactly what mark said. once the door was opened, and had to be closed with testimony and yes, it was cringeworthy, didn't eat all of those particulars, but she felt, stormy daniels felt this was her day in court, this was her date to say this happened to me. but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what stormy daniels said. whether or not they had an affair or didn't have an affair, there was an nda, it could've been stipulated to that effect and that's what the defense said during the closing argument. he said the nda, it could've been stipulated. stormy daniels didn't need to testify. the fact that she did testify, that is inconsequential and let's move on and focus on what is really here and let's focus on the key issue which is

michael cohen being trustworthy. is he or is he someone that you should believe. he's the only person that says donald j. trump was guilty of any of these crimes. >> sandra: it seems trey gowdy is really struck by the prosecution spending so much time responding directly to the defense closing arguments. in fact he just sent out a note from inside the courtroom. count the references to the defense closing. did the prosecution have its closing prepared ahead of time he is asking? i don't understand how this closing is structured peered where it began, how it began, what is being discussed first. he writes this. prosecution is now trying to mitigate the damage of cohen. prosecution agrees cohen is biased with five! speak out a positive thing. for him to be the moderate teresa of the courtroom is a foolish thing. they have to concede that he has

issues. i love and i'm on the defense side and i'm raising issues in my closing and the first thing that prosecutor does is spend their time dealing with my issues. that's a good thing if you are on team trump. the prosecutor isn't focusing on their case now. they are so concerned about what i said and then it is they are saying one thing, we are saying another. who bears the burden of proof in this case? they do. if jurors aren't sure on key issues like the credibility of cohen for example, who suffers? not the defense. it isn't maybe trump did it. probably he did it. it is proved beyond an exclusion of every reason of doubt and prosecutors bear that burden. >> john: one more note as we bid you adieu here. this one coming from jonathan turley. insisting that michael cohen is understandably angry because he is "the only person to pay the price for this conspiracy." professor turley notes that this

the defense finally objected but the judge overruled and this was precisely what merchan said that the prosecutors could not do. it looks again like the strike zone is a lot larger for a prosecution here than it is for the defense. mark, mercedes, as always, thank you for joining us. appreciate it. a real treat for you. steve hilton and leo terrel on deck. they are next with their thoughts about what is happening here. each day is a unique blend of people to see and things to do. that's why you choose glucerna to help manage blood sugar response. uniquely designed with carbsteady. glucerna. bring on the day. feeling ughh from a backed up gut? ughh. miralax works naturally with the water in your body to help you go. free your gut and your mood will follow. for 8 grams of fiber, try mirafiber gummies.

only purple's gel flex grid passes the raw egg test. no other mattress cradles your body and simultaneously supports your spine. memory foam doesn't come close. get your best sleep guaranteed. save up to $800 during our memorial day sale. visit purple.com or a store near you

call leaffilter today. and never clean out clogged gutters again. leaffilter's technology keeps debris out of your gutters for good. guaranteed. call 833.leaf.filter today, or visit leaffilter.com. >> john: prosecution now delivering closing arguments to the jury. let's bring in civil rights attorney and fox news contributor leo terrel and steve hilton. gentlemen, i'm not sure what's going on in the courtroom here but trey gowdy has talked about this in the past. that the strike zone for the prosecution is this big and for the defense it is this big. what's going on in court right

now would basically reinforce that notion. according to jonathan turley, stung less for the prosecution is being given an uninhabited rage further comments. he said trump stiffs people and refuses to pay them. the prosecution is being allowed to suggest that michael cohen's crime associated with the nda is done at the behest of trunk and if cohen is guilty, trump has to be built appeared what do you think about that? >> it seems every single day these proceedings go on, the judge and the prosecution go out of their way to prove trump's point. that this is totally rigged and bias and the whole thing is entirely political. i keep reflecting on the fact that we have all these people, robert de niro and all the rest of it going on and on about how trump is a threat to democracy and all these things. they constantly lecture us about but when you think about what's

going on here, this blatantly political prosecution brought by an elected politician, a far left politician for purely political reasons, who else has done that recently? vladimir putin. that's what he did this year to get people off the ballot in his presidential election. now you have joe biden behaving like vladimir putin and alvin bragg behaving like vladimir putin. the democrats have become the prudent party. for all of their lectures of the rule of law and democracy, it's unbelievable to watch. >> sandra: let me give this update from jonathan turley. sank the prosecution just dismissed cohen admitted to grand larceny and is justifying cohen selling merchandise and making money off of trump. you can't blame him because he has only this connection to sell. he is portraying cohen, jonathan turley rights, like he is selling goods on the streets to support his struggling family in

their multimillion dollar trump congo. his struggles amount to earning millions in attacking trump. leo? >> michael cohen is a criminal robin hood. but let me be clear. all our legal experts, we have to address one key issue. there are two lawyers on that jury and they will neutralize this unfairness exhibited by the judge in this far ranged discretion by the prosecution. those two lawyers. they have an ethical obligation to evaluate the facts and an ethical obligation to make sure fairness takes place and i'm telling you unlike any other trial you have two lawyers in there and those two lawyers if they do the right thing, they will see through this judge, they will see through the politics, and they will do the right thing. those two lawyers are the key to an acquittal or a hung jury. >> john: steve is getting another note here from trey

gowdy. the prosecution is making references to alan weisselberg although no one called him as a witness. more references to guilty pleas by ravizza trying to bolster him again. bias is justified because trump was unfair to him and he was punished while others were not. that the trump doj did him dirty. trey gowdy also says that because they are saying that ravizza pled guilty, trump is guilty by proximity and he said i've never seen that allowed into a closing argument before. >> it's amazing isn't it. it's just incredible. they go out of their way to help the prosecution and every single way. the other thing that is so egregious about this. weisselberg, neither side wanted him for various reasons that you've been discussing but the one that is really outrageous is brad smith basically made it clear in his remarks that one of the potential crimes the

election interference, the violation, it doesn't even apply because even if he was considered to be this whole payment, if he was considered to be a donation, it would've had to be reported until after the alleged crime occurred anyway and so they haven't told us what the crime is. one of them they could have if they would have allowed it had someone enter prove that's not on the agenda. it is extraordinary to watch this corruption of our justice system in action. >> john: and the prosecution at this point they are 30 minutes into their closing arguments and they haven't mentioned what the underlying climates. steve hilton leo terrell, always great to catch up with you. thank you gentlemen. >> sandra: right now, stung glass is belittling his past perjury saying he has a problem with taking responsibility. basically saying the prosecutor is dismissing grand larceny. serial perjury. and a lot of other offenses. just remarkable what's coming out of that courtroom. we will have the latest from all

inside that courtroom venus detailed minute per minute. a quick break and will be back with shannon bream, whittier w with shannon bream, whittier w who. [farm animal sounds] ♪ meanwhile, at a vrbo... when other vacation rentals aren't what they're cracked up to be, try one where you know what you'll get.

>> sandra: the prosecution right now is getting its turn at bat. will bring back shannon bream and carrie vann and fox news legal editor and a lady who is with us. we will get to you first on t this. if there is a structure or chronology to this closing, i have not seen evidence of it yet. that is not to say a jury won't buy it, but it is disjointed. your thoughts as this continues.

>> i think that's right. and if we will use the word outrageous to quote a judge right now, how about the fact that the prosecution is saying with a straight face wanting the jury to believe that stormy daniels, her only motivation around the election was to get that story out. we know that is false. we heard testimony in that courtroom about how she shopped it around years prior but nobody wanted it and then as the election was approaching, she saw an opportunity and here's the real key to all of this and how we know it was a just throughout the story because if she wanted to get the story out she could've picked up the phone and called "the washington post" like christine blasey ford did with brett kavanaugh or any of these organizations. but what did she do? she sold her silence for $130,000 because she wanted the money. we know it isn't true that's all she cared about. that's one of a number of things that i've been hearing and reading through these notes and thinking my goodness, how do

they expect us to believe this? >> john: it's interesting. we got a note from trey gowdy and jonathan turley. trey gowdy says the defense is that cohen doesn't lie all the time and jonathan turley reports that if cohen was such a liar, why didn't he go further and say that trump slept with daniel's? it could've said he went over every detail. he's ignoring that he's a serial perjurer who knew every word would be scrutinized. how do you sell to the jury he doesn't lie all the time? >> and the thing is you are pinning your whole case, and they are trying to bring in other things to go beyond cohen which will be difficult but the judge has allowed things that are arguably inadmissible. there are things that will be objected to on appeal but if you are pinning your whole case on this one guy, you have the burden of proof as the prosecution and you will say this guy doesn't lie all the time. at the end of the summation with that offense was saying is

michael cohen does lie all the time for it he lies about little things, he lies about big things where they went to the list of everyone he is admitted to or gotten caught lying to. his wife, his kids, bankers, federal judges, state judges, congress. they went thr through the list multiple times and that was the last chance the defense unless something really unusual happens we'll get to talk to the jury and if you are pinning your entire case on a guy who even as the prosecution with the burden of proof says he lies that sometimes the jury will have to ask what was he lying this time? that's what matters and that is the decision they have to make. >> sandra: this update from jonathan turley just now. stung glass has an enthusiastic audience among the reporters and the overflow room who are laughing along with his digs at trump. >> let's hope that the jurors will take the prosecution's own request that they put aside the noise because i think that is the example of the type of noise

that the jurors should disregard. reaction from the peanut gallery because frankly it doesn't matter how members of the press are reacting in the courtroom as todd blanche reminded the defense attorney for donald trump what matters is the evidence that was presented in this case and how the jurors find the establishment of that evidence and apply it to the law that judge mershon has let yet to instruct them on. i've been thinking about how todd blanche spoke to the jurors and i believe steinglass has commented on this as well. there are a number of witnesses that we have not heard from in this trial and one has to wonder how that is playing out in the minds of the jurors because many of them would fill in critical blanks in the story. for example keith schiller, donald trump's former bodyguard that was with them on a day that he received the call that cohen said he made to reach donald trump and tell them that the deal with stormy daniels was supposedly done but it came out on cross-examination that it was actually about harassing phone calls with a 14-year-old.

why didn't keith schiller testify. what would have said about that phone call. gina rodriguez is another one that is leaving a question in the minds of the jurors. she was the agent for stormy daniels that contacted keith davidson with the instruction that they contact michael cohen to pitch the sale of stormy daniels story. why would you pitch specifically michael cohen with stormy daniels story rights if you wanted the story to be told? what do you think michael cohen will do it stormy daniels story rights and what more, perhaps gina rodriguez would back up at that offense a saying which is stormy daniels was interested in what? money peered not getting the story out in the big one as alan weisselberg. he was a big part of these conversations with donald trump and michael cohen and is a big missing link to all of this. we will have to see what type of instruction the judge offers the jury on how to handle these missing witnesses. >> john: one more question to you. this comes from andy mccarthy who says steinglass makes the

argument that is the reason that andy has described cohen as a double-edged sword for trump. prosecutors didn't choose didn't choose cohen. we didn't go to the witness store and pick him up. it was donald trump who chose him. the witness draws a line in the overflow room though he doesn't know what the reaction in the main courtroom was scared but does that argument carry any weight? donald trump hired him because he was effective for him when tasked to do certain things. but saying that we didn't pick michael cohen, donald trump dead. cohen did a lot of things by himself that trump was not aware of. does that restore its credibility in any way, shape, or form? >> that's right. michael cohen prided himself on being donald trump's fixer. if you are trying to take care of a principal and do it well, you don't let the man have all the details on how you're getting stuff done because you want them to be able to claim plausible deniability later. this is what go to fixers and good advisors do.

the other thought i had as i've been sitting there is that we don't know if at any point donald trump decided that michael cohen was a huge liability. it was evident pretty early on that he was obsessed with him, became pretty clingy, and was very upset when he didn't go to go to the white house with donald trump. all we know donald trump was thinking get away from this guy. there's a lot of things we have to speculate about and the prosecution has beyond a reasonable doubt to prove actual crimes. >> john: i talked to a couple of people who were there at the time who suggested they were trying to find some phantom job for cohen at the white house that wouldn't have any real official title but might keep him in whatever box trump might've wanted to keep him in at the time. we will see how the rest of this goes. they have not articulated any underlying crime here.

but we will see if they do. mark eiglarsh coming up right after the break. stay with us. oh thanks! i splurged a little because liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ voices of people with cidp: cidp disrupts. cidp derails. let's be honest... all: cidp sucks! voices of people with cidp: but living with cidp doesn't have to.

when you sign up at shiningthroughcidp.com, you'll find inspiration in real patient stories, helpful tips, reliable information, and more. cidp can be tough. but finding hope just got a little easier. sign up at shiningthroughcidp.com. all: be heard. be hopeful. be you. from pep in their step to shine in their coats, when people switch their dog's food to the farmer's dog, the effects can seem like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's just smarter, healthier pet food.

it's amazing what real food can do.

>> john: prosecution delivering closing arguments and former president trump's criminal trial. after the arguments which is likely tomorrow the judge will give the jury instructions

before they begin deliberations. let's bring back a.r.c. my clashed criminal defense attorney. the prosecution is now saying that they don't need michael cohen here to prove anything. that there is a mountain of evidence to prove trump's guilt and they are finally starting to just scratch the surface of what the underlying crime is here that they claim. anyways. steinglass says that this was all done to cover up an election law violation. what you say? >> if they didn't need cohen, they wouldn't have called cohen. nobody wants that cancer around and prosecutors called him because they needed to call him. and when things didn't go their way, they are saying you don't need him. we don't need steinglass. the most generic things that prosecutors say. of course they need him. tthe whole defense hinges upon

that cohen was telling the truth about things that he and trump did. we know that cohen did that but he's playing the pronoun game. i turned into week meaning he was my coconspirator. he knew everything i was doing and you really do need cohen to be critical if you prove the case. >> sandra: i want to read through these before i say them out loud because you don't know. this is an update. i will go to this one from jonathan turley. he says the prosecution, steinglass is slamming trump for seeking to rig a polling and plant stories. is that now also the mysterious crime? campaigns including the clinton campaign regularly killed and planted stories says jonathan turley. >> that's prosecution 101. if there are a bad character stuff, you throw it in front of the jury and it is problematic. somebody shouldn't be buying stories and killing them but

that's not what he's on trial for. that really is just bad character evidence and the defense can concede that he did. that doesn't matter that he did that. in terms of whether specifically he, not cohen alone, committed fraud and he did that to interfere as opposed to influence an election. >> john: to that idea of rigging a poll and planting stories, there was the payment that cohen was trying to make the company called red finch which was a company that can manipulate polling data according to reports. that is where cohen took a $20,000 and gave it to red finch but pocketed the other 30,000 and got that grossed up so he pocketed $60,000 in total. but i don't know if they are trying to suggest that hiring red french to try to fix the poll numbers was the underlying election crime. i'm just thinking is the jury at this point saying why are we

really here? i mean, we can't figure it out, how can they figure out? >> they aren't saying it out loud. that would be really cool. but of course they are trying to suggest it had to do with polling. because they don't want you to talk about the fact that it might affect his marriage and/or his brand which are also equally plausible hypothesis of an offense. >> sandra: what we don't know is where the prosecution goes next but we are watching every minute. we will take a quick break. mark, thank you. itwe will be right back.h and year after year, you weathered the storm and just lived with the damage that was left behind. but even after all this time your thyroid eye disease could still change. restoration is still possible. learn how you could give your eyes a fresh start at tedhelp.com.

why modern. >> john: of probation from trey gowdy before -- from the prosecution like dave's impartial humor usually is not a great idea for injury in a criminal case or make that will do it for us. from joanne roberts will see you tomorrow. >> sandra: great to be with you. there was a busy two ours. i'm chandler s