at bombas, we're obsessed with socks. tees. and underwear. because your basic things should be your best things. one purchased equals one donated. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first order. when my doctor gave me breztri for my copd,

things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing, symptom improvement, and reduced flare—ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ask your doctor about breztri. and right now, the jury is coming back from lunch after having an entire morning of testimony by the start witness and to hear michael cohen tell it, he lied, he made threats, he killed negative stories all in service to donald trump. good afternoon, i'm chris jansing, alongside my colleagues, andrea mitchell and

katy tur. the very last thing the jury heard from michael cohen before they went to lunch is he was, quote, following directions. >> so far mr. trump has been listening to cohen with his eyes shut, but the testimony has shifted to that critical matter of the $130,000 hush money payment to stormy daniels. >> cohen described how donald trump was very angry about her shopping the story saying, quote, this is really a disaster. women will hate me. guys, they think it's cool, but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign. that says it all, doesn't it. we're going to continue to bring you live updates from inside the courtroom over the next two hours. again, michael cohen is back on the stand. >> i want to bring in nbc's yasmin vossoughian outside the courthouse, also with us in studio, two criminal defense attorneys, msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos and duncan levin,

former senior staffer at the manhattan district attorney's office. okay. duncan, what is job one for michael cohen and the prosecution team as they move forward? >> they have got to keep him under control. he is an uncontrollable witness. the defense has an uncontrollable client. the prosecution has been dealing with uncontrollable witnesses. they saw it first a little bit with stormy daniels, she was veering off course with the questioning. >> some would say more than a little, but okay. >> and the judge had to say to the prosecutor, please just have her answer the questions. they're going to have -- michael cohen is so well prepped for this testimony, he is going to be able to stick to the questions, but i think what they are trying to do is deflate the defense's story. they're trying to make sure that the bad stuff that's going to come out on the cross comes out first on the defense and the direct testimony. they want to make sure that the jury has already heard a lot about him. they're going to basically air out the dirty laundry as part of the direct. >> is the worst thing that he has to acknowledge, aside from

what he was doing for donald trump in the cover up, is the worst thing that he lied to a federal judge? >> i think the fact that he's a liar has already come out. it's sort of been part of the trial, and they will overcome that. i think the worst thing that they have to do is show he was not acting just in defense of trump. he was acting in defense of himself, in furtherance of himself. he was doing all of this to further his own career. in fact, there's testimony early in the trial that michael cohen, after mr. trump won and was going to washington was despondent that he wasn't going to washington too. this is all for the election. he has to continue to hammer that home. i think throughout the direct and they're going to have overcome that. >> his motive is really important because he was so upset that he didn't get a job in the administration. >> i think we should be careful about describing this as a fore gone conclusion about what the jury is going to decide. do you see this as a slam dunk case for the prosecution? i know we haven't seen the

defense's argument yet. they haven't introduced their witnesses. do you see, perhaps, some issues the prosecution might face in trying to get all of the jurors on the same page for a conviction. >> i think if we come back to what this case is about, it is a false documents case, and i think they've proven the falsifying of business documents on the face, that the documents were false. and they have proven the intent to defraud the voters, and they have proven the intent to conceal this conspiracy between david pecker, the "national enquirer," michael cohen, mr. trump. they have shown the elements of it. the thing they haven't shown yet and they're trying to show it throughout testimony of michael cohen is that not only did mr. trump know about this conspiracy, but he knew about the falsification of the business records. that one piece of it is probably the biggest hurdle that they have to show that he knew that these documents were being falsified, that he was aware of it, and that he caused the documents to be falsified. it's not a slam dunk case.

it's a very complicated case, and the other piece of it that's missing so far, i assume there are two more witnesses, michael cohen is one of them. the other witness, we don't know who it is yet, the one piece of this that's also missing is this fore gone conclusion that paying this money, this hush money is actually a crime, and that's something that should come in. >> that's what i wonder about. i wonder if there might be one juror who says okay, i see what you're arguing on the documents, i understand it. but honestly, i don't like this case. i don't think it's fair. i feel like donald trump is being targeted here. it doesn't seem like it's worthy of this. it feels like it's old. is that potentially what could happen with one juror. is that what the defense is hoping for? >> they're hoping for. they won't say it. we're talking about the large tent and the gray area of jury nullification. we're not in there deliberating with them, and defense attorneys cannot ask for jury nullification. there's a chance the jury can go back and say, just like you

said, even if the elements are there, this doesn't feel right, and i think this is a distinct possibility. the other thing that could happen is the jury is going to struggle with the definitios of things like fraud. the jury instructions say you have to have an intent to defraud, that includes an intent to conceal or cover up some other crime. that is broadly defined under new york law, but i can see jurors struggling with that if they feel like this is a ticky tack kind of crime, that's where they might hang their hat and say this intent to defraud really there? or is it just that it's unlawful? >> let me stop you if you can. you're talking about intent, and it's in what's happening right now. >> let's go inside. >> what was the first e-mail, and then your response, yes, kd saved to me, we're good. meaning keith davidson, it was to delay execution of documents

and fundings, and i used the holiday on yom kippur to delay until after the election, and after the election it wouldn't matter. according to who? according to mr. trump. >> and then it goes on to say did you have a conversation with donald trump about this using your cell or land lining. he was traveling a lot. campaigning with his own private plane. was he still sometimes in the office when he was campaigning. yes. did he give you a call? depends on the rally. fair to say you spoke to him in person when you were able to see him, if not, you spoke to him by telephone. cohen, if possible. introducing a new exhibit in evidence. this is an e-mail from me to gary farro asking him to call me. who is gary farro. at first republic bank. >> gary farro testified a couple

of weeks ago. one of the first people to discuss the payment. >> and here's the event. >> do jurors remember when they go back, and they're, like, oh, yeah, i remember who farro is. or looking through their notes and trying to connect the dots themselves. i know it's the job of the prosecution in closing but does this stuff tend to stick? >> this is a manageable number of witnesses first of all. these are people the jurors can remember on their own. we have had a couple dozen at most witnesses total. >> and they're going to pass this around. the exhibits are available to them. sometimes they'll ask for transcripts to be read back to them. some of this is available to jurors when they deliberate, if they send out a note. they'll do that. can we look at this again, and they get to look at whatever it is again if they're allowed to. so it's not that they need to memorize everything perfectly, and in closing, the prosecution is going to tie all of this together for them because evidence comes out in bits and

pieces, and so that's the kind of thing that they're going to come up with in a closing argument. but, you know, as we've just heard, they're getting into that intent. it's interesting. i know these aren't official transcripts. i don't know if you noticed, they're asking leading questions, and don't ask what is the next question, what did he say, what did you take away from that conversation. they're lining up that these conversations happened. but curiously not really getting into the meat of it. >> and all the back and forth, was he on the phone, was he on the plane, was he at a rally. they seem to be setting up that perhaps they don't have, i don't know, they don't have an actual record of these conversations. >> this dove tails in with the testimony that we heard from stormy daniels' lawyer, keith davidson who was making the point through his testimony that michael cohen lacked the authority to make these payments on his own. he was saying, i'm trying to get my guy on the phone. michael cohen was not doing this out of the goodness of his

heart, and hope hicks, by the way, hammered that home in her testimony. she said she spoke to trump afterwards and trump said to her, yes, michael cohen paid for this out of the goodness of his heart. she knew that to be a lie and didn't want to call mr. trump a lawyer. >> she said michael cohen is not like that. >> out of character. >> let's go to yasmin vossoughian, standing outside the courtroom. you have been following this every day. all morning and into the afternoon. give us an update. >> reporter: so what's interesting, i think, when you're talking about specifically first off michael cohen, keith davidson, stormy daniels as well. i think it's important to know the testimony from keith davidson in which he talks about this delay tactic for michael cohen, and he said specifically in his testimony that michael cohen was a difficult person, and i'm paraphrasing here to work with through these negotiations. hence the reason why they brought in dillon howard into

the negotiations. we then subsequently learned that one of the reasons why it seemed michael cohen was so quote unquote difficult to work with was because he was trying to delay the actual payout until after the election, which is coming to fruition in this testimony here from michael cohen. one other thing i think is important to bring up, guys, as we're going through this, something i spoke about in the last hour, allen weisselberg, the elephant in the room as to why he's not testifying. it's important to keep in mind wondering how the jury is going to hear this. there was a separation agreement with allen weisselberg from the trump organization when he left. it was a payout of $2 million over a certain period of time. the prosecution wanted to present this separation agreement as evidence. and they brought this up on a friday to show that allen weisselberg had entanglements with the trump organization, hence the reason he would not be appearing as a witness. judge merchan said that's not necessarily what the document

says, the separation document says. in fact, if you want to show the jury and/or the court that allen weisselberg has some entanglements you have to call him to the stand, subpoena him. sources inside the d.a.'s office, they're apprehensive of calling allen weisselberg to the stand because of the possibility he could get on the stand and quite honestly lie. because of the loyalty and the entanglements toward the trump organization. that was rectified when judge merchan said he would not allow the separation agreement to be admitted as evidence. it seems as if the jury is going to have to deduce on their own as to why it is, this one guy who could really corroborate, honestly, every single thing, as you mentioned, right, you talked about in the last hour, exhibit 35, the back and forth, how much they're going to pay out michael cohen, if they're going to gross him up to $435,000, here's the lynch pin, the guy that can corroborate the testimony from michael cohen but he will not be

appearing on the stand. >> so would you put him on the stand, i wonder, danny? because there are questions that are raised about allen weisselberg, and if he would lie, i'm not saying that he would, but if he did lie, the fact that he's already serving time does not indemnify him from perjury in this case, right? or does it? >> i could see another prosecutor taking that chance. if you're playing conservatively as the prosecution, the risks may outweigh the benefits and they have clearly made that decision. i was in court when the judge asked, did anyone make an effort to subpoena him. it was a genuine nope from the prosecution. they haven't looked into it. it was something they didn't even consider apparently. well, they considered it, but they didn't seek to subpoena him. so they have made the decision that they can put their case in without him, and they must realize that there is going to be a very loud silence from a

witness like allen weisselberg, and expect the defense, possibly, to capitalize on that in their closing. >> let me get into the -- i have to get into this. this is really interesting. michael cohen is being asked about resolution consultants, and the purpose of the account when he was giving this to first republic bank, and it's important, lisa rubin is inside the courtroom, we have seen these documents before, but hoffinger, the description of the account was it truthful, cohen says no. did first republic bank know what this was for? cohen, i'm not sure if they would have opened it to say, hey, to pay off a porn star in a nondisclosure agreement. did you ever finalize this? cohen, it dawned on me it's the name of a company of someone i know and didn't think he would appreciate if i used it and

changed it to essential consultants llc. why is it important for michael cohen to testify that he was being misleading to first republic bank. why would first republic bank not be chill with this payment if they knew what it was for. >> banks are regulated. >> more than ever, banks are heavily regulated and they have questions when you want mortgages. generally speaking, you cannot get loans for this purpose. banks are heavily regulated, and in fact, i know from money laundering trials and otherwise, there's a whole beehive of activity that goes in the back office, the anti-money laundering unit where those folks are watching what we do. they will file things like an s.a.r., suspicious activity report without the customer knowing about it. it doesn't mean a crime has been committed. there's a lot of regulation

going on. do they catch everything? reportedly there was an sar, i believe the evidence shows there was an sar filed. but that goes to show, that's actually a classic example. an sar gets filed. nothing appears to have come of it, but they're watching, checking these things out, and michael cohen knew then that you can't get a loan for this purpose. you can't conduct banking transactions for these purposes, so he deceived the bank, and that deception will eventually be passed on to donald trump at least as cohen will tell it. >> duncan, you mentioned the comment about michael cohen and pants on fire. anybody who has dealt with michael cohen, that's not an unusual state of being for michael cohen. but going back into the document, this is an e-mail from keith davidson to michael cohen. michael, i have been charged by my client to send you the message. no payment was received. you said funds would be wired and no funds have been received. my client has informed me she

will cancel contract if no funds are received by 5:00 p.m. today. my intelligent was to continue to delay as per mr. trump's demand. >> is part of this here, and this is stormy daniels going to say she's going to get her story out there. she probably understands her story no longer has value if they delay, delay, delay, and the election is over. >> my favorite part of this was delay until after yom kippur. use that holiday. >> there's an expiration on her story without a doubt. >> the prosecutors are trying to show repeatedly that this was about the election. that's why at the end of his direct earlier, it was so damming when he recounted the story that trump didn't care if melania found out about it because this was about the election. all of this gets back to the same point. >> now this gets serious because just now, this is from keith davidson to michael cohen. please be advised that my client deems her settlement agreement canceled and void.

what did you understand that to mean? we were losing control over the settlement. were you very concerned? very much so. here's a text message, october 17th, 2016, from dylan howard to michael cohen, i'm told they're going with "the daily mail," they, cohen testifies is stormy daniels. >> that incentivizes them to move faster and get the money to her. and he's going to deceive a bank and try to get a mortgage for the money. >> keith davidson knows who they're dealing with in being willing to fay. >> there's one other complicating factor, that keith davidson testified that he was quitting the case. not only was it going to be void but also he was saying i'm not representing her anymore, and so they had to wrangle him back into this and get the deal signed quickly. >> so right now this e-mail --

>> the text message from dylan howard, not taking my calls. michael cohen, you're kidding, who are you trying to reach. the agent, obviously. keith davidson. now they're not only losing control of it, they're losing control of their contact with stormy daniels. >> things were spiraling out of control, and that's why there was this feverish pace, and this all happened on the heels of "access hollywood," and you can see how the prosecutors have set this up very well. because we all know the story already, as he's testifying to it, we have all heard it from a number of different witnesses. we've heard it from the perspective of stormy daniels, her lawyer, mr. pecker, the banker, and all of these pieces fit together, and they have done a good job of waiting to do this. >> what did you understand about ms. daniels' story that would

end up in the daily mail? that's what we were told and that's what i relayed to mr. trump. >> you see now in some ways how fortunate, whatever you want to call it for donald trump, that he did not text, that he did not send e-mails. >> now they have call logs. >> but they only have one tape, right. >> exactly. you have a call log that says calls were made. you don't have the contents of the call. the jury is going to be asked to infer or decide if michael cohen is being truthful about his testimony. look at the dates, what's going on, does it sound credible. >> and the defense will say are you going to believe this man, this liar, they don't have the proof. >> look at the circumstances, when the calls were made. this stuff is brought up all the time in court cases, circumstantial evidence. >> there's this misconception that somehow circumstantial evidence is less powerful than direct evidence. it's usually more powerful.

direct evidence is someone saying they saw something or heard something, that can be unreliable. eyewitness testimony is unreliable. michael cohen is unreliable. but circumstantial evidence, the documents don't lie. the documents come in. they have been authenticated, there's corroborating evidence. the prosecution's vision here has always been that by the time michael cohen testifies, all the other documents will mitigate -- >> and it says cohen testified, i called mr. trump in order to advise him of the situation, cohen, because i didn't forward the funds she's declaring the agreement void and we're not in a position to delay it post the election, which is what he wanted me to do. cohen says and the matter, the story was going to go to "the daily mail." the call was short. eight seconds asks hoffinger, i left a voice mail for mr. trump. did you believe you could delay the transaction, no, said cohen, and so now they're introducing

more evidence. >> they wanted the money, and they wanted it now. >> not a breathtaking amount of evidence about what donald trump directed or instructed. don't get me wrong, i think there's enough evidence that this obviously goes to the jury. i think there's enough evidence from cohen that donald trump told me to do this, that or the other thing, but not a ton. not a ton of detail around conversations, which is a little surprising to me. but like i said, i think it's enough. it gets them there. >> this is a voice mail. donald trump's attorney could say he never got the voice mail. he didn't hear it. >> he's making it up. >> we have used that excuse before, sometimes it's legit, sometimes it isn't. there was a conversation this morning before they came to court about jury instructions and when you talk about reasonable doubt, and people having common sense or maybe looking at plausible versus implausible when you look at the time line of things, you look what was happening concurrently, what is a reasonable explanation for what that phone call is

about, is that what they're reasonably allowed to look at when you're considering reasonable doubt? >> when you think about reasonable doubt, the defense doesn't have to come up with an alternate theory of what the voice was. have they proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this voice mail is what they say it is, or do you have doubt that it could be something else? if you believe that it's reasonable possible it could be some other reason for a voice mail, some other reason for a phone call, michael cohen himself told you he talked to donald trump constantly throughout the day. if you believe it's any of the other infinite reasons he might have called donald trump, then you argue they have not met their burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. this is going to be a lot about reasonable doubt in the closing. that's going to be closing. >> texts between cohen and melania trump, this is october 17th. you mentioned, hoffinger, on october 17th, you left a voice

mail for donald trump. this is a text message from melania to me, michael cohen to melania. good morning, michael, can you please call d.t. on his cell. thanks. michael cohen says, of course, and then hoffinger asks, did you speak to donald trump after on october 18th, and cohen responds, we'll get it at any moment now. we're going to find out. we're going to wait and see how this document uploads. interesting there was a text message between melania trump asking michael cohen to call donald trump. d.t. is what everyone calls him. yes, he did speak to donald trump after the october 18th call. hoffinger asks on the day or evening, did you make an appearance on wolf blitzer's show. cohen said, i did, in order to respond to a series of topics

that affected mr. trump on the campaign. >> so he's juggling a lot of different things at this moment, michael cohen is. i want to bring in jay lee miles, with 40 years of experience as a trial consultant, an expertise in jury selection and witness preparation. she has worked on many high profile cases, including michael jackson, r. kelly and robert blake. while we're waiting to fill in the blanks a little bit. look at two things, how well prepared was michael cohen, and how good of sense does the prosecution and defense have right now about where the jury might be, what they might be looking for? does anybody know what's in the mind of the jury at this point? >> great questions. not easy to answer. so i was surprised to be reading, and i have been following along, that mr. cohen has been calm, answering direct

questions with direct answers, keeping it short. not being emotional. not being too personal. and i think that's also, you know, very important for the prosecution that he does that. i mean, he knows how important a witness he is. if you want, i would be happy to explain what we would do to prepare a witness like that who knows so much is riding on him. i don't want to interfere with your questions. >> well, i do -- we talked a little bit to lanny davis who actually was involved in some of the conversations and the preparation for this. but i wonder how you think the jury might be reacting to that. it seems very calm, very straightforward, which frankly is a very different michael cohen. there was almost a prebuttal with many of the witnesses so far who had derogatory things to say about michael cohen questioning, you know, supposedly he's a lawyer or making other kinds of comments like that that he only was a

fixer because he first broke things, and then he had to fix them. so i wonder where you think the jury, how they might respond to that, and what sense at this point in a trial either side might have on where the jury is. >> given that so many of the jurors get a lot of their news from all the major feeds, i would be surprised that many didn't know a lot about mr. cohen and what his views are, things he said in the past. i imagine they're very interested, obviously so much rides on his testimony. are they looking for more corroboration, especially since mr. weisselberg isn't going to be testifying, i understand. but i think they're anxious for the cross because if you're on the other side, obviously you're looking to get under his skin, and i hope from the defense, excuse me, from the prosecution's perspective, they're going to get ahead of that and handle that before he goes for cross by the defense

because we haven't seen the michael cohen today that we're seeing, you know, on his tweets, et cetera. and i think that he could lose a lot of credibility with the jurors if he doesn't handle cross-examination well, and there's so many questions they could ask him to do damage to him. >> and i think here's some context about why they were reaching out to michael cohen to go on an evening cable show to talk about things that involve the campaign and donald trump because that morning, our friend and colleague, tom llamas was interviewing donald trump on a different network at the time, and asked, have you crossed the line in the past with women ever, and donald trump, the candidate, said on october 18th, 2016, i don't think so. i have great respect for women. i have tremendous respect for women. these people come up for maybe a little fame or other reason.

i think we have to be very vigilant and care for people that are voting. >> michael cohen goes on television to explain donald trump's behavior toward women. >> and we talked earlier about the differences in the way men and women just remember that testimony that according to michael cohen, he said, well, men will think i'm cool, but women will hate it. it's a disaster. >> i remember in the after math of this, or in the lead up to it, they were really worried about women. throughout the campaign. >> and they sent ivanka out to try and shore up support among women. they sent her to a very specific place, you'll know it well, the suburbs of philadelphia, where they thought they needed to lock down suburban women, you know, middle class women. >> that's where they won,

pennsylvania. >> because pennsylvania was a state that was absolutely crucial for them to take. if they didn't take pennsylvania, they weren't going to win. >> and they won with the suburban women and on noon that day, i was talking to the former clinton campaign manager, the former governor, and he said to me, i said, how does it look, and he said we're not doing well. we're losings suburbs around philadelphia, i said if you lose that, you're going to lose the election, and he said you're right. >> melania, who almost never went out by herself, went in the closing weeks, closing days of the campaign. i was there. and she gave a very brief address to what i would call not a huge crowd of women but got tremendous amount of publicity that melania was out there on behalf of her husband. i'm going back into the documents. >> this was october 30th, 2020, so this was after the "access hollywood" tape.

it's after michael cohen is trying to squash. >> 2016. >> 2016. i'm sorry, october 14th, 2016, my bad. trying to squash the stormy daniels story, this was a big deal. i went down there to get reaction to donald trump and "access hollywood" and her father. i went to get reaction to her father's behavior to women. did i get a question, yes, did she answer, no. ivanka was sent on the campaign trail because specifically women was an issue, and it all goes to underscore the moment that they were in when the stormy daniels story was out there or potentially out there, that they didn't want anything else damaging to come up that could hurt their chances in november. >> look at this testimony. they're trying to find a way to spread money around, make the payment, there's no reason to keep this out there, just do it. and meet up with allen weisselberg and figure it out.

that is conversation with mr. trump. >> you know, in a way i think -- >> let me just finish this -- >> i just want to say when you talk about he had spoken to friend, individuals, very smart people, just pay it. that's exactly what they were talking about. what is the plausibility, what makes sense to people, it makes sense that their friends would say just make this thing go away, right? >> yeah, but lisa rubin's comments from inside the overflow room, weisselberg asked cohen if ami would pay it. weisselberg said we need to figure out a way to fund this. one way weisselberg floated is to see if anyone wanted to take it as credit on an invoice on a golf membership or event. if the purpose however was to remove the trump name, that wouldn't work. cohen suggested to weisselberg he could pay it. he was not in a position to do it because he was forwarding four prep schools for grandchildren, and one was for a

wedding or bar mitzvah. it was impossible because each entity had a trump name on it because it was a golf course, and i said to weisselberg, why don't you pay it, and he said he was not in the financial position. how did you resolve it, cohen says because of "the daily mail" i said, okay i'll pay it. >> hoffinger said did you speak to donald trump, and i said i would front the money and he was appreciative. don't worry, you will get the money back. i knew i needed to defend donald trump, which is something i have done for a long time. i would not hang out 130 grand for an nda. october 23rd at 4:52. voice mail from allen weisselberg to me. was there a reason he was calling you. cohen says regarding the funding and regarding how this was going to get done to fund the nda. hoffinger said did you speak

with allen weisselberg the next couple of days. cohen says yes, finalizing the details. talking about another call. this was at 7:23. i'll wait for the document to populate to figure out what exactly was happening. these are the bank statements and handwritten notes, talking about how they're going to pay off michael cohen. 180,000 paid to red finch for tech services he's called it, and the second page, exhibit 36 on trump letter head, michael cohen, 27th, pay through january 2017, a bonus of 50 grand, you see here on the screen. 180 grand for the tech services and the 130 to stormy daniels, times two for tax purposes. to take out the loan, michael cohen is going to have to pay taxes on it. that comes out to 410 grand. if you're going to pay over a

12-month period for quote unquote legal purposes, what's that month to month. weisselberg does the math and puts it at $35,000 a month starting in january 2017. mic to invoice, i don't know what that means right there. these are going to be key documents that i'm assuming are going to come up soon. >> they're trying this almost like a money laundering case. there's no allegation of money laundering because that requires some sort of dirty money to start with. this was all legitimately earned, clean money, so they can't charge anyone with money laundering, but they're trying it in the same way. back to the point about the bankers. this never would have gotten through a bank. banks, number one, wouldn't have agreed to it in the first place on the face of it, but they will turn down what's called a pass through account. they will not open an account for you to put money in for it to go out. they make no money off it, and it's a huge money laundering risk. they filed a suspicious activity

reporting. we know that there were a lot of inditia of a money laundering case. at the end of the day, the invoices are going to come in to prove the falsity, and cohen is being brought in to show the direction of it. >> why isn't it bank fraud if you're getting a mortgage with false statements, you're putting up the money, lying about the purpose, but it's okay as long as you're putting up real money? >> i don't know. it wasn't established really on the direct examination that it was going to be a pass through account. they said it's an llc. it is an llc. on the face of it, there's nothing actually incorrect about what michael cohen was saying to the banker. it was just that it had to be done quickly. we're starting a new llc. it wasn't a lie as much as an omission. remember, we're in state court as opposed to federal court. it's not to say the manhattan d.a.'s office doesn't bring bank

fraud cases. they do all the time. this is a much cleaner case to bring the way they did. they obviously didn't want to get into the extraneous topicings. tax issues, banking issues, and i think they're trying to bring a pretty sprawling case and make it as narrow as possible. >> they are keeping this tight, which makes it really interesting to me, danny, going into the fact, and i saw you chuckle a little bit, but the idea of creating an invoice for a golf membership or an event, but of course if you want to remove the trump name, that doesn't work. why is all of this here? >> the sheer high jinx of all of these transactions is really helpful to the prosecution because it's almost keystone cops like, the way these people did business. it's bizarre, and to me, something that really jumps out at me is how hard michael cohen really tried to push this to after the election, and the implication is clear, they were going to stiff her after they got past the election, let her do whatever.

which, by the way, begs the question, if you weren't worried about it after the election, why not pay her directly, get into a settlement agreement, whatever happens, if it gets traced back to you after the election, so be it. you're not in this position, but they're too clever for themselves with all of these shenanigans. it's remarkable, and i think it helps the prosecution because in many ways it's just so clumsy. you couldn't make up a document like that in a movie where you actually have people handwriting on it, here's double it up for taxes, it literally says times two for taxes. >> it's the persona of michael cohen, he was not exactly a white shoe lawyer. >> this is weisselberg. >> but it's michael cohen and weisselberg. i mean, these are their conversations, we can do this but it's a trump golf course. >> i think if you're talking about hi jinx and shenanigans, i love your use of words, it's

also maybe relatable or gives it more credibility when you hear somebody saying, well, i've got prep school tuitions and i've got summer camp. >> i don't know about the prep school business. >> prep school costs a lot of money. 70 grand a pop in some schools here in the city. let me ask about the defense. why haven't we seen a lot of objections? >> that is a question for the ages. there have been many times i think they could have objected. when it comes to the prosecution asking leading questions on direct. that's a judgment call. you don't want to appear to be hiding anything by objecting too much. there's a strategy there. the more you object, the jury might see you as having something to hide, but that being said, i think i can fairly say even the judge himself has opined that there aren't enough objections from defense counsel because he said as much. it's really tough to criticize their style of not objecting. but when you don't object, you

don't preserve the issue for appeal, and arguably going back to the stormy issue, which to me representing, stormy daniels testimony represents the first major appealable issue. to what degree has this been waived on appeal. not a lot of objections. not sure what the strategy is. these are all able counsel at the defense table. i am surprised they haven't objected more. >> i want to bring in retired new york state supreme court judge jill konviser, there have been a handful of objections, the side bars we were seeing on some days have not been present. what do you think is going on? >> i think defense lawyers have to be careful not to alienate a jury. and one of the ways they alienate a jury is if they keep popping up and jumping on their feet and objecting and getting

sustained objections. i agree with your panelist who said the only issue so far is some of the information that was not objected to earlier by stormy daniels. that created an issue. but objections are strategic. and judges do not like to get involved in a defense posture or a prosecutor's way of trying the case. they want them to try their cases. they know better than the judge in terms of what they need. so the fact that they are not objecting is strategic, i would think. it is rare for an appellate court to say a case gets reversed on an evidentiary issue like failing to object. why they're not, i can't guess. they're going to have free reign on cross-examination whether they object or not. but i suspect they're trying not to alienate the jury. >> we certainly saw the surprise from judge merchan during the stormy daniels testimony, and he raised questions about for example, why you wouldn't object

to the conversation about the use of a condom. how does judge merchan approach what we do expect to be very different on cross-examination than we've seen on direct for michael cohen? >> the judge should stand down on cross-examination. cross-examination is one way to get at the truth. if you're in my courtroom, and you're a defense lawyer, as long as your question is lawful, i will let you ask it. i would expect judge merchan to do the same thing. you heard earlier in the case, the prosecutor arguing it's beyond the scope of the direct examination. that's an objection i would never agree with. defense lawyers can do or say or ask any question they like so long as it's a lawful question. >> even if there's an intense back and forth as a judge, you just let it go. >> you don't have to let it go. it's a matter of personality. if a witness is being torn down

inappropriately, a judge can certainly say cool it, but it is the tone that he or she may decide is inappropriate, but not the question itself unless it's a lawless question. >> jill konviser always good to see you and talk to you. thank you. >> thank you. additional call at 7:23 p.m. between weisselberg and cohen. this is on october 25th, 2016. hoffinger says this is a call, cohen says first, had to do with the stormy daniels matter, significantly urgent. and then keith schiller, tall guy from 2016. cohen says i called mr. schiller to discuss the stormy daniels matter and the resolution of it. by the way, donald trump and keith schiller were always together. >> there was testimony last week

from stormy daniels that schiller was outside the door. >> they were locked hip to hip. every time that i saw donald trump keith was there. what was the plan for how you would fund the essential consultant's account. cohen said i had a heloc on my apartment, and that was paperless, meaning we wouldn't receive documents in the mail, cohen said and i elected to use money that was in the heloc, because my wife, the ceo of the household, would not understand if there was $130,000 missing from our joint bank account. she would ask me and that would be a problem for me. when trump paid me back, i would deposit it, and nobody would be the wiser. cohen says if this matter wasn't resolved it was going to be catastrophic to mr. trump and the campaign. hoffinger asked did you have a call on october 25th with d.h. and pecker. cohen says it was all about the resolution of the nda.

cohen says this will further isolate women from the candidate. hoffinger did you make a request at that time. cohen said if he would be kind enough to make the payment, why not ask. what did he say. not a chance, says cohen. hoffinger said, did he say way, recounting pecker's words, corroborating testimony, i didn't get my money back on the 150 grand even though that did not matter. i can't do it again, it could cost me my job. >> hoffinger, how did you leave things with howard on that call. make sure it's locked down. we're going to take care of it. hoffinger, who's going to take care of it. i was. are these screen shots of the messages between you and mr. pecker. cohen says yes. an exhibit that shows a list of calls between david pecker and michael cohen. do you see a flurry of calls between yourself and david pecker. cohen, i do. on why there were so many calls blames the app's signal.

signal is terrible with keeping phone calls. they drop all the time. also factual. cohen says, yes, about the resolution of the stormy daniels matter. between michael cohen and keith davidson. what was the goal. to ensure that that occurs, i'm assuming the deal, so i can tell mr. trump the matter is under control. cohen, i was hoping ami is going to make the payment. you knew they were not. cohen says, that's correct. why did you have the phone call after business hours? cohen says to discuss the finalization of the funding and the particulars for the funding of the execution of the nondisclosure. hoffinger, did you settle up an account for essential consultants. cohen said i went across the street and told them i need to do a transfer. this is color, trump is conferring with bove, fairly

frequently throughout this line of questioning. he's getting more animated. hoffinger said before you did that, did you speak to mr. trump. cohen says i did. hoffinger, two calls on october 26th, 2016, around 8:30 a.m. cohen says, i did, he wanted to ensure once again he approved what i was doing. hoffinger would you have made that payment to stormy daniels without sign off from mr. trump. cohen says no. hoffinger said why not, because everything required mr. trump sign off. in addition to that, i wanted the money back. that's key, guys, would you have done this without sign off from trump. cohen testifies no. he says i always went to donald trump to make sure these things were cool. and in an admission that any of us can understand, i wanted the money back, michael cohen says. >> we have also had a lot of testimony that donald trump was a micro manager who signed

checks to reimburse cohen for the hush money payments. he knew where every penny was spent. again, does it define credulity to think that cohen and weisselberg are cooking this all up and donald trump isn't told about it, hasn't signed off on it or hasn't figured out what's going on with all the money? >> yeah, in a way what this testimony is doing is taking a very strongly circumstantial case and giving the direct testimony because we know all of this through other testimony that's come out. we know trump is a micro manager, we know that through all of the testimony of people who have worked at the trump organization. there were a few witnesses that talked about how he was on top of everything. they have read excerpts about how he negotiated everything down to the paper clip. so we know he's a micro manager, paying close attention to things. you don't think it's fishy these

checks are being sent to keith schiller, checks being sent to his home instead of white house mail. this is something on top of things, micro managing everything. we don't need michael cohen's testimony to establish any of that. it's extra. it turns this into a much more, much stronger case but the circumstantial evidence around everything michael cohen is saying is already there. >> fun color on october 6, 2016, when michael cohen calls donald trump to get sign off for the # $130,000 payment, this is the day he went to the opening of his d.c. hotel. he has his kids on stage, a big ribbon cutting ceremony, goes on and on for a while. leaves stage, at the end of it, the entire stage collapsed. remember that moment from 2016? >> and now maybe everything is going to collapse here. >> it's also, to your point,

duncan, also until the books brought in by the publisher last week in the testimony, was his advice, don't ever pay more than you need to. watch every penny. >> this is a point that the prosecution is clearly going to hammer on. we have this testimony today out of michael cohen's own mouth that he presented him with a $100,000 bill that he never signed and didn't pay. he's notorious for paying lawyers. >> continuing to pay. >> well, when it's important to him. >> 130, i guess. >> they have laid out this case that you have this number, $35,000. that is a magic number because it shows the falsity and they're going to say, even without michael cohen's testimony, do you really think that this person who's not paying $100,000, who's negotiating everything down to the penny for paper clips, who's clearly a micro manager, and everybody says it, do you really think he's just signing these $35,000 checks and not asking any questions. even without michael cohen's

testimony, they have a pretty strong case that he knows what that number means. with it, it's all explained. and so that's really what they have done is now they're giving the punch line to the joke. >> they have gone beyond sloppy book keeping. >> they have. >> the defense's argument is going to be he's in the white house, he's busy, he's dealing with other things. people put checks in front of him. he signs them like a lot of bosses do. the checks go back. i think that cuts both ways. at the same time, i don't know about anybody else, as an observer, less as a lawyer, it concerned me that the president of the united states was still doing trump business and having checks sent down and signing them in the oval office. it goes to show, it can cut both ways, it either shows that he's such a micro manager, he insists on signing the checks himself, even with this convoluted way of sending them down to the white house or the defense may argue, look, the guy signs hundreds of checks, he's just signing, not

really looking. the defense's options are narrowing by the minute. they have a few left, but it's going to be tight. >> it was testimony from westerhout that he didn't know what he was signing some of the time. >> yes and know, that he was busy. there was something for the prosecution, something for the defense. you got a little of both for westerhout. he signed a lot of checks and there wasn't a lot of testimony about him raising his hand asking where is this going. >> have we gotten to the point where the prosecution has shown that donald trump directed a criminal conspiracy that would buy the silence around stories that could end his campaign? >> you got close to that today with what michael cohen is testifying. >> you couldn't get much clearer than that. i don't think there's any doubt to the transactions. you can't deny the transactions from cohen to daniels, trump to cohen. >> they're going to get to the

white house meeting where allegedly donald trump agrees to all of this. i would just have to say, you cannot believe michael cohen, but when you have allen weisselberg's own handwriting in the exhibits. andrew weissmann talking about how he thinks these are devastating. you would be hard pressed to say that weisselberg would do something outside of donald trump's knowledge. weisselberg is serving a second sentence. >> you could also say he's a criminal. >> certainly you could say he's a criminal, but he's a criminal on behalf of donald trump. these handwritten notes saying here's what we're going to pay michael cohen back. this is a polling company, as you said, right, duncan, and then to say that we're also going to pay him for the taxes he took out. it's a very specific number obviously. i just don't see where the daylight is from these documents.

if there's a smoking gun in this case, is this it? >> this document proves the falsity of the business records on the face of it. the number itself, the grossed up figure shows falsity. it's not a reimbursement. we know that. it's easy. that part of the case is a slam dunk case. remember, the d.a.'s office didn't bring that case because the statute of limitations had run on it. they brought it as a felony because it was tone in the effort to conceal this conspiracy. they've proven the conspiracy, too the missing pieces that donald trump ordered them to do this, and the defense is going to say, allen weisselberg acted on his own. and worked with michael cohen. i just think at the end of the day, the jury is going to reject it, much like they have shown. because they have supplied michael cohen's explanation for it. they don't need to supply weisselberg's explanation for it as well. they don't need both. >> we know donald trump didn't like to have things written down, and this is one of the ways in which writing something down with any level of

specificity can prove to be very problematic. we want to go back out before we hit the top of the hour to yasmin vossoughian who's been following all of this today throughout the trial. put all of this in context. >> always following it, guys. following along as you are as well. a couple of things that are standing out to me. we know there was two phone calls made to donald trump on october 26th. that's an important day, besides being katy tur's birthday. one was a minute and a half long, one was three minutes long. the jury is thinking we have to rely on michael cohen's credibility to deduce what that conversation was about. then you double back. this is one of the reasons why, danny can back me up on this, one of the reasons testimony from michael cohen towards the end of the trial, towards the end of course is incredibly important. it's time to gather all of the testimony we have heard, some of the boring witnesses, the

publishers, reading from donald trump's words himself. you mentioned specifically talking about how frugal donald trump is, down to the paper clip, how he counts every dollar, signs every check. madeleine westerhout testified to that as well in the white house. all of the checks being shipped from trump tower to the white house for the former president to sign even while he was president of the united states, and then there are the relationships. it goes to what all of you were talking about, which is do you really expect allen weisselberg and michael cohen who everybody has testified to up until this point, all the other witnesses have testified to being so close to donald trump, not operating without his approval would make a decision to this magnitude without involving him, guys. >> as we go to break, the question is asked, did you wire $130,000 to keith davidson the next day, and michael cohen says i did. we'll take a quick break. be back with more ongoing

coverage of donald trump's hush money trial after this. hush money trial after this (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring

so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it. >> tech: need to get your windshield fixed? safelite makes it easy. you can schedule in just a few clicks. and we'll come to you with a replacement you can trust. >> vo: schedule free mobile service now at safelite.com. ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ it's good to get some fresh air. fresh air? hi guys! bill, you look great! now that i have inspire, i'm free from struggling with the mask and the hose. inspire? inspire is a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body with a click of this button. no mask! no hose! just sleep. give me this thing.

where are you going? i'm going to get inspire. inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com. a slow network is no network for business. learn more and view important safety information that's why more choose comcast business. and now we're introducing ultimate speed for business, our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds at no additional cost. from the company with 99.9% network reliability and advanced cyber security, it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. and it's all from comcast business.