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.

us. former new york assistant attorney general adam pollock joins the conversation, and criminal defense attorney and former manhattan prosecutor, duel role, duncan levin is still with us. i want to call you a slashy in the immortal words of zoo lander, model and actor. michael cohen on the stand for about four hours now.

vaughn hillyard, bring us up to speed. >> reporter: currently the line of questioning is around the actual execution of the nondisclosure agreement that michael cohen says that donald trump was party to with stormy daniels and her agent and attorney keith davidson, in the explicit question which gets at the heart of the falsification of business records arguments in charges against donald trump is currently playing before the jury as we speak. the question directed by the prosecution to michael cohen just one minute ago was very explicit. was this nondisclosure agreement for the purposes of paying michael cohen as a legal retainer to which michael cohen said no and said that was, in fact, a lie. the real reason for the nondisclosure agreement was to pay him for the $130,000 stormy daniels hush money payment. this is where the prosecution is laying out, again, transferring this from the back and forth

over the salacious stories but then ultimately how that got connected to the actual charges that are being brought forward in this trial against donald trump. the other headline for the day is that michael cohen has repeatedly said that he was just following directions. he has outlined numerous conversations he claims to have had with donald trump, in which donald trump, including on october 26th, the day before the final execution of the $130,000 wire transfer in which he was keeping donald trump apprised of the stormy daniels story in the efforts to quash it. ultimately, donald trump thought that they could delay executing that $130,000 payment until after the 2016 election. but michael cohen said when he received word from stormy daniels team that they were calling it off, and that they were going to go to a publication, a publisher's story, that he called donald trump to inform him of this, donald trump in turn told him to figure it out with allen

weisselberg, get them the necessary money, and then the day before that execution of $130,000, michael cohen had set up that llc, had effectively begun the wire transfer and called up donald trump in the morning of october 26th, around 8:30 a.m., to inform him that he was executing the story and it would not get out in the final two weeks. these are major allegations from michael cohen, and these allegations are being presented right before the jury is going to decide donald trump's fate. >> let me read the way it went down. do you recognize this, i do. hoffinger said did you wire $130,000 to keith davidson that next day. i did said cohen and was mr. davidson listed as beneficiary, actually his attorney client trust account is. hoffinger was this a retainer,

no. what was this for, in order to pay stormy daniels to execute the nondisclosure agreement and to obtain her story, her life rights. they introduce another exhibit, the e-mail to michael cohen from keith davidson. i confirm that i will work in good faith and no funds shall be -- it's only after you received the fedex will i disburse, fair. e-mail to cohen from keith davidson, i wanted to make sure i received the agreement. did you receive the final nda. cohen, i did. hoffinger, did you let mr. trump know when you received it. the task was finished, accomplished and done. and also taking credit for myself so he knew i had done it. that was important. >> michael cohen was always looking for a pat on the back, pat on the head, if you will, from donald trump. he wanted to make him happy.

he was very much like a puppy dog. look what i have done for you. i've done a good job. see me, thank me for this. for him to say i made this payment, i made this bad thing go away, i think it's plausible, knowing michael cohen that he would go directly to donald trump and tell him, hey, listen, i did a good thing. i helped you here. >> i think this corroborates a key piece of the story that we haven't heard yet, which is donald trump directly knew. until now it's been indirect. this is a key corroboration. donald trump knew what these payments were for. explosive piece of evidence that came in this morning. i think there's still one piece missing, and it's a crucial piece, which is that donald trump knew that they were going to cover up the payments within the records. >> as they go on, he says, did mr. trump sign the agreement anywhere, asks of the prosecutor, cohen says, no, why not, says hoffinger. who signed on his behalf.

i did. initials for d.d., david dennison, the pseudonym. so this is everybody being aware, at least according to michael cohen's testimony, as you point out as a cover up. >> his testimony is that everybody knew they were covering up her story and the other really important piece that came out this morning is everyone knew they were covering up her story because of the election. it wasn't just that they wanted her to go away, it was they wanted to do this right before the election on the heels of the "access hollywood" tape. this was crucial but there's still one piece missing i think. >> where do you need to go to fill in that crucial piece? >> i think they need to get testimony from cohen that the defendant, donald trump, directed him to cover it up in the internal records. stepping back, that's what's being charged here. this is a records case, that their internal records were falsified, that the invoices were falsified. that we need to hear that piece from donald. >> you sort of get the

intensity, right, all of these phone calls and all of these conversations and how are we going to get this done. can we do a deal that doesn't involve cash. you feel the intensity but you don't feel the final point. >> here's the secret agreement on the side letter, who signed it. cohen says stephanie clifford, stormy daniels, keith davidson and myself. stephanie clifford for peggy peterson, and myself for central consultants llc, and i signed for david dennison, the phoney names. huffinger you said you spoke to donald trump about this agreement, 5 minutes and 16 seconds on october 28th at 11:48. the matter is now completely under control and locked down with the nda. >> lisa rubin has some interesting analysis. she's saying that prosecutor hoffinger has taken michael cohen through the banking documents, the execution of the

nda in excruciating detail, as we have been watching for many hours. she says from other witnesses, include gary farro, and keith davidson, also a lot of corroboration of testimony from david pecker, but she argues that seeing this history jukt posed provides gloss on the transactions and the ones that prosecutors needed most. through cohen's retelling, we see trump and weisselberg interspersed in the familiar events, provided cohen's testimony as credible. that's what we were talking about earlier with circumstantial evidence. as all of this is going on, you see the phone records between donald trump and michael cohen, and i guess if you're the prosecution, you're going to argue, how could they not be talking about this thing that was occupying so much of michael cohen and keith davidson and david pecker, so much of their attention during the campaign. how could it have been about anything else. >> you know, there's so much secrecy surrounding this.

the names in the nda are secret. there's a side letter. the shell company, it's secret. the location where the checks were sent to trump's body man, not to the white house. they were sent to a secret location and brought to him. all of this secrecy surrounding this agreement. at the end of the day, when the prosecution goes in front of the jury, do you also think mr. trump tried to keep the secret on the books and records of the trump organization. all of a sudden he decided to be honest about what this was. this was part of a secret thing being used to cover up something that didn't want to come out right before the election. those pieces corroborate the fact that donald trump was the one who directed the false business entities, and that is a circumstantial piece of the case. now we're getting it directly from mr. cohen's mouth that they had conversations about it. he was operating in his

direction. this testimony that not only was he a micro manager but michael cohen want that had attaboy, he felt on top of the world when donald trump gave him a pat on the back. when the stories came from the enquirer, that is great. that is what michael cohen lived and breathed for is the pat on the back from donald trump. all of the secrecy surrounding that extends to him ordering these business records to be falsified. >> it was so brief because that was on october 28th, 2016. you go to november 4th, swrus just days before the election, did you learn around this time that the "wall street journal" was going to release an article about the payoff of karen mcdougal. yes, i don't remember who sent me the text, could have been hope, meaning hope hicks or somebody else. in addition to being largely about karen mcdougal, did you understand there might be a mention of stormy daniels as well? yes, i contacted keith davidson

and hope hicks, and david pecker. all of these players are now coming together on why he contacted them so that we can all coalesce around this issue in an attempt to, again, quell potential effects that would result from an article like this. katy, i know we go back to you in these moments all the time, but at that moment of the campaign, the closeness of the election, the pressure that was felt internally, even if no one knew beyond these players what exactly was happening behind the scenes, the intensity of it, back to your point, it makes sense. >> and what did they say, deny, deny, deny, deny, they knew if they were going to win, it was going to be by the wire. they would need to lock up this unlikely base of support that

included suburban women, donald trump had an affair with a playboy model or porn star, on the heels of the "access hollywood" tape, they worry that would be the end for donald trump's campaign, and when you got to the election results, the night of the election, come 7:00, it looked like he was going to lose. the campaign thought they were going to lose. they were putting blame on the rnc, it wasn't until 10:00 that night when things turned around. it was in part because of the way that suburban women turned out for donald trump so you could argue that their intense interest in suffocating these stories, quashing these stories paid off. >> and let me just say, in a parallel universe because i was in new hampshire on that day or heading to new hampshire with the other candidate, hillary clinton, that friday, november 4th was two days before james comey right on the eve of the

election, i mean, the previous friday had reopened the laptop issue. there's another laptop. more e-mails so they're scrambling, they're going down. the numbers have been going up. >> everybody is scrambling at this point, and that sunday night in new hampshire, he comes out and says in essence, never mind, we were wrong. you know, the new laptop with weiner's e-mails, there was nothing in there. sorry, but of course it had reinjected that whole issue at the last moment when she was finally recovering and from their perspective, it was the second comey absolution that sunday night in new hampshire that really killed the campaign. >> let me go back to the document. this is exhibit 318, a new one from hicks to cohen. they had four options of what was the statement they were going to send to the "wall street journal" after they did this. according to our folks, this is new and interesting. they can't quite read the texts. they have the screens up there.

but hoffinger, did hope hicks send the statement she was going to send to the "wall street journal." michael cohen, e-mail from hope hicks, friday, november 4th. we have nothing to do with this final attempt by the liberal elite, a series of options to send to the media as a response to the article. was she looking for advice, and michael cohen says, yes, after reviewing four options, i sent this e-mail to hope hicks and say these accusations are completely untrue. the clinton machine to your point, andrea, is to distract the public into the investigation into clinton. despicable attempt by the liberal media. whether or not he had a number of calls with keith davidson, did you discuss karen mcdougal, yes, what did you discuss with davidson about karen mcdougal, that she was under control, it was his client, and i suspect he would have this under control.

i wanted to ensure that mr. trump was safe. did you indicate to him somebody might be very upset with him? i did. who did you indicate might be very upset with him? mr. trump. the objection is it's leading and sustained. the things that are going on in the campaign at one time, and they're trying to figure out how to respond to the "wall street journal" in that moment. >> and this is cleaned up. you can imagine the language on that phone call. >> that's part of what the defense is trying to set up in a way. this is somebody who's very busy. he was the incoming president of the united states. he had a lot on his plate, so much going on. madeleine westerhout testifying, sometimes he's on the phone, signing checks and not looking at it. that is what the defense is going to try to argue. allen weisselberg and michael cohen are sitting in new york, trying to save him from this, and shield him from it. he wasn't really responsible. that is what the defense is. you can see, though, the problem

with it is that while he had so much going on, this was a major part of what he was focused on. >> couldn't you argue if you're the defense team that donald trump's obsession with documentation and money and the signing of checks, i mean, you can argue that when he was the head of the trump organization, and even as he was campaigning, that was occupying so much of his time, once he is the president elect, and he started to get national security briefings, and he's got to figure out who's in his cabinet, and he has all of these people ringing his bell, asking for favors, and he's got the world's attention on him, how is he going to be his president, that his attention, his focus isn't quite what it was on the trump organization. it doesn't matter to him the way it used to. maybe he was aware of all of that stuff before. when he was signing that check in the oval office, and sending that money to michael cohen, he didn't really know. >> these are all of course on the days leading up to the election. >> afterwards, once you get the money paid out. >> but it seemed he was still focused intently on this and on

continuing the cover up. >> i think what we're seeing is somebody who's really penny pinching with things that don't matter to him. when it matters to him, when it's something that's going to bite him like the story coming out, he's willing to pay the money. michael cohen testifying, he said, i'll just take care of it, and he didn't actually. yet he's not paying his lawyer bills. he's penny pinching on everything else. i think he gets into office and clearly he's focused on other things, but this is something that's on his desk in the oval office while he's president. he may not care about the dollars and cents of it, but he's certainly careful about the public. >> wondering what the defense is trying to argue that there was reasonable doubt he didn't know what he was trying and try to convince wasn't of the jurors maybe there's enough daylight i don't feel comfortable convicting the guy. >> i think that's going to be the argument, how it was actually papered internally. the evidence is overwhelming

they were paying stormy daniels, the question is how were the payments happening, what was the mechanism of payments, how was it recorded in the books and ledgers of the trump organization. the defense is going to argue, he didn't get involved. he was in the white house. he was signing hundred of things a day. >> that's a solid defense for the average citizen. >> where we are in the documents right now suggests on november 4th that frankly it was something just to be dealt with. michael cohen says i received a text from keith schiller, if i could take a call in 30 minutes from donald trump, and i responded of course. and then there's an exhibit, a call summary between keith schiller and cohen. cohen said he talked to trump via keith schiller's phone. do you believe you spoke to mr. trump using mr. schiller's phone. yes. do you recall the substance in yes. what was it? this was a real serious rob, especially being so close to the election, i told him what i said to them, and said we were going to get to the bottom of this

with dylan howard on board to protect mr. trump. there was a negative story that could impact the campaign as a result of women. this was a really serious problem, especially given that we were so close to the election. i told him exactly who i had spoken with. there are still notations for the document. i want to bring in "new york times" reporter, and msnbc contributor, jeremy peters. as you're listening to the descriptions, i'm sure it brings back a lot to you as it does for all of us. >> never chew before you think we might be coming to you. >> i'm shocked we have not been caught sneaking our lunches. especially these two with the peanut m&ms. back to the document itself, what was the chaos felt externally that now is being described internally? >> right. you have to remember that what was going on, you know, at the end of the trump campaign was such an unusual and, like,

historic bit of chaos. you had the "access hollywood" tape that came out that really upended our understanding of the trump campaign, and how american voters would react to this type of controversy, and it turned out that voters ended up looking the other way at the end of the day, they heard what he said on that tape. you know, the vulgarities that i don't need to describe here, and they elected him president hey. and i think that's what -- if i were in the minds of trump's lawyers, i would be thinking about as i, you know, cross examined michael cohen, like, really, was he that concerned about this stormy daniels issue when he had just been elected

president knowing what we know he said about women at that point? >> there is an interesting part of one of his books that i pulled out, jeremy, from cohen's books where he wrote, would i still be in the donald trump cult if i hadn't paid for my experience with time in prison, and he says, had i not been thrown under the bus, i cannot with any honesty say that i would be out of the cult of trump. this in some ways, i think, is a question that a lot of people who don't like donald trump puzzle about, right. how can people after having heard the tape continue to vote for him. how could women continue, in any numbers at all, to vote for him. how could evangelicals continue to vote for him. in some ways, maybe part of the question is about how serious they thought that was. oh, trump had an affair. we all moe people who have had

affairs. is that a reason not to vote for somebody for president? how the jury might see this. how differently they might view this in terms of the seriousness, the intensity of what the prosecution is showing here. there is a change, i think, in the ways people view a lot of things in the world in a post donald trump era. >> oh, i mean, there's no doubt that he has degraded the sense of our social and political norms. i think as you point out, the white evangelical vote which in 2016 went 81% for donald trump and then got even higher in 2020, is a perfect example of that, and as i was reporting this and i'm sure katy has these stories, too, because she and i were on the campaign trail together at that point, you know, evangelicals almost looked

at trump and said i want to support you not in spite of that stuff but because of it. and what i mean by that is they looked at trump and they saw the messiness in their own families. and they all have stories of infidelities and teenage pregnancies. it's kind of like sarah palin in 2008, when she was nominated for vice president, and it was revealed that she had a pregnant teenage daughter, and a lot of the commentary, you know, from people like us was, oh, well, this is going to do her in because how could, you know, the evangelical vote possibly support a candidate who has, you know, a pregnant teenage daughter. they had that stuff going on in their lives, and they all knew people like that, if not in their own family, somebody who did.

i think sometimes the distance is necessary to kind of see, you know, exactly how people will decide to vote is not as textbook as we might like to think. >> and we understand also that when all of this was going on, schiller was holding the phone because donald trump was at a campaign event in hershey, pennsylvania, which is, you know, a critical part of the state as well, outside of philadelphia, in central pennsylvania, between philadelphia and harrisburg. what is the role of keith schiller, and i'm wondering, is he going to be on somebody's witness list here? >> they thought maybe he would testify. keith schiller was donald trump's body ma'am for years and years and years. >> that's what i mean, he was present for everything. >> when stormy daniels testifies, keith schiller was outside the door, why would you

not have keith schiller. >> it was keith schiller who went on the golf course and said -- >> why would he not be on the witness list, because he's still so loyal? >> he's the one that went up and said mr. trump would like to meet you. >> i think they don't need his testimony. i keep coming back to the documents. this is a documents case. they have corroboration directly from stormy daniels of the one night stand that occurred. trump has consistently denied. that explains why they were paying her. now we have corroboration from michael cohen of why they were paying her. now they need how the documents are falsified, which they got in part in fact previous week from the bookkeepers and accountant. >> by the way, the jury is on a break as we said, they asked how much longer they think they're going to take with michael cohen, the rest of the day, probably into tomorrow, so we're not going to get a cross-examination today. when we get into the defense's argument when they lay out their

case, who do you think they're going to call? >> there's speculation about whether they're going to call their client. widely people would say, no, they're not going to. that's obviously very risky. what they have been trying to do is poke holes. i think they have been largely unsuccessful with that. they have very few options because they started off their opening statements promising certainly things that really weren't met. one is they denied the entire sexual encounter with stormy daniels to begin with, and i think that was a critical mistake. they have basically said from the very beginning that none of this happened. this is all a lie. and so they're left with very few options of who to call. so i think it's a big question mark who they are going to call to prove that their client wasn't there, wasn't part of this. wasn't responsible for falsifying the business records. i think you may see an

abbreviated case. i don't think they have a lot of witnesses to call. they have some character witnesses who might attest to the fact that he was very busy. he wasn't paying attention to this. he wasn't involved in the books and records. people like madeleine westerhout, who, by the way, was a very good witness for the defendant on cross-examination, and a very bad witness for them on direct. they may have other witnesses that they can call who will serve as character witnesses. basically he was busy. he really wasn't as penny pinching as his reputation is. they also have been trying this case, don't forget, not just to win the case in front of the jury. they have been trying this as a political case, and they have been trying to call witnesses, poke holes. they have a broader message to try to get to the public because it's ironically or unironically happening before the next election. >> that's a worthy conversation to have. the jury is on a break. we want to sneak in a quick break. i know i'm supposed to say good-bye to you, jeremy peters,

because i want to ask you about the politics of this. don't go anywhere. everybody get some peanut m&ms, we'll be right back in just a couple of minutes. don't go anywhere. nutes. don't go anywhere. our sulfate free collections smell incredible and leave your hair touchably soft and smooth. new herbal essences. nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using.

most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer.

new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. and they're all coming? whose resumes on indeed mathose who are stillia. with us, yes. grandpa! what's this? your wings. light 'em up! gentlemen, it's a beautiful... ...day to fly.

my friends, michael cohen is still on the stand. let's talk about politics, though, and go back to jeremy peters. thank you for sticking around. i hope you have enjoyed the p.f. changs that you had during the break. here's the former president

going back into the courtroom. they're going to get started in a moment. politics, "new york times," trump leads in five key states as young and non-white voters express discontent with joe biden. in terms of his legal woes, how much attention would you say you're paying to news about the legal cases against donald trump, registered voters, 29% say a lot of attention. 35% say some attention. 24% say only a little attention. 12% say no attention at all. so, i mean, i guess the question is does this case matter? politically. >> right. so if you talk to smart pollsters, which i know you do, they will always say that it's kind of a tricky question to ask. how much would a donald trump conviction impact your support for him in november. and we've seen time and time again that voters say that it would negatively impact their support for him, but you can't

really ask a hypothetical question like that with any degree of certainly in the answers that you're going to get. and i think that part of the problem with this case, if you're donald trump's political opponents is it's not televised, right. like you and i are talking about this, but this isn't oj. there's no, like, a 24/7 stream of video from the witnesses testifying against him that we can all point to that i think would have been much more damaging. and that's going to be the case for the other, except for the georgia case, the other trials, which will be in federal court. also don't allow cameras. so i think, you know, if you are a democrat, if you're in the biden campaign, and you are trying to find a way to defeat donald trump, the most persuasive way to convince

voters to do that is to tell them to show up at the ballot box because you have seen time and time again whether or not it's through two impeachments or a special counsel investigation that the legal process hasn't really damaged him and has not -- has not rid him from his perch at the top of the republican party. so the only way that is guaranteed to make sure if you're a democrat that donald trump is not around anymore is to vote him out, and i think democrats haven't quite internalized that in the way that, perhaps, they should. >> your conviction, even a jail sentence wouldn't keep him out of the white house. i mean, he could still continue to run. he could still be elected president. >> he can't pardon himself, and he can't cancel the whole investigation because this is state court.

is it partly also because the concern among some critics of donald trump and true democrats that this case just seems so minor compared to classified documents and january 6th, and trying to overturn the election, that the other cases that are not going to be tried, most likely before the election, were much more serious and that a jury would say so what's the big deal, jeremy? >> andrea, that's exactly right. i think the problem that you really put a point on there is that we've known about these allegations for a very long time. like the american public has known the name stormy daniels for, what, six years now? something like that? the classified documents case, i think, represents an abuse of power that is so troubling to many people that they would find that to be much more serious. but if we're not going to see that before the election, i

think the democrats and the biden campaign need to find other ways of reminding voters of the chaos of the trump presidency because remember in 2020, like what undid him was the sense of incompetence, the sense that the guy who was in charge of the country at this moment when we needed in the midst of this pandemic and economic crisis, a lincoln or a washington, and, you know, trump was just consumed with his own grievances and couldn't bother to lead, couldn't be bothered to do the duties of the presidency. and i think that the more people are reminded of that closer to the election, it gets much easier for biden to make his case. >> yeah, and i think that there are polls now that suggest that honestly people, their memory of donald trump's presidency is

better now than his polls were -- >> 2020 is going really well. >> great. and they don't remember. when they ask, what are the things you remember most, it's not about covid, it's not about injecting stuff into your bloodstream. none of that is the money. >> get inside of your body. that was my favorite press conference. >> jeremy, thank you so much. we want to bring in former manhattan district attorney judge diane and renato mariotti. when we left off, before they did the afternoon break, they were talking about the "wall street journal" article, and michael cohen was texting with hope hicks on that day. he says he remembers doing that. they're putting up an exhibit, the text messaging between hope

hicks and michael cohen. can you read those texts? so far i only see six stories getting little or no traction. they are trying to see how much attention was being paid to this "wall street journal" story. same. and we actually saw this before when hope hicks was on the stand. from hope hicks to michael cohen, keep praying it's working. what do you mean? cohen says the concern was the story would explode into a massive issue, and we were monitoring to see what type of traction the story was getting from other news sources, and she had only found six stories and i found the same, and we were hoping and praying our denials and reaching out to various media outlets was suppressing the story itself. why are they going back to this at this point, renato? >> a couple of things. michael cohen is the narrator of the prosecution's case. he's the connective tissue that puts everything together. you know, the jury doesn't get a

story. this isn't like watching a documentary at home or a law and order episode. they get to hear all of the testimony of all of the witnesses that are unconnected with each other, and michael cohen can help connect the dots. that's one reason why. there's another reason why. you know, michael cohen is somebody who has some credibility issues to put it mildly. and what the prosecution is trying to do is on the issues where michael cohen's testimony does dove tail with other people that the jury has heard from, or connects up with other written evidence, whether it's text messages, call logs, e-mails, everything that they possibly can, the prosecution is trying to use those other documents to bolster cohen's credibility to use that other testimony from other people to bolster cohen's credibility because there are very key points in which cohen is the only one to testimony,

for example, regarding the words of donald trump and allen weisselberg, and having him bolstered by that other evidence is going to make the jury more likely to believe him when he's off on his own testifying about conversations in which he and trump are the only participant. >> you know, it's interesting because we were talking last hour about this whole idea about michael cohen being a kind of pants on fire kind of guy, and so maybe he was exaggerating things, and i think what's interesting and what's going into evidence now, michael cohen to hope hicks, i have a statement by stormy denying everything and contradicting the other porn star's statement, i wouldn't use it now or even discuss with him presumably him is donald trump, as no one is talking about this or cares. hope hicks to michael cohen, agree. that might indicate some degree of, i think, discernment about what at, especially this point, november 5th, just days before the election, should rise to the

level of concern that it would be brought to the attention of donald trump. >> well, that's right. one burden that the prosecution that has here is they have to demonstrate the intent of donald trump. donald trump's state of mind, and donald trump's probably not going to testify. if he does, of course he's not going to say exactly what the prosecution wants him to say. michael cohen is somebody who can testify directly about the state of mind of donald trump. and one theme that we can see throughout the testimony is that all that the prosecution is trying to do through the conversations with allen weisselberg, and hope hicks and others is to try to demonstrate that trump had his fingers all over this, that trump was very keenly aware of what was going on, that he was very interested in everything that was happening. and they're doing that with good reason because his name is donald trump, and ultimately, to convict him, the prosecution is going to have to show the jury that this was his scheme, that

he was involved, that he was on top of this, not just that michael cohen and allen weisselberg were acting on their own. >> jeremy peters, jump in here for a second. isn't there an arc to all of this? oh, i'm sorry. >> why don't we bring the judge, and andrea, ask that question. >> yeah, do you have to prove, judge, that he was so consumed by this or was there an -- it seems to me from my recollection that there was a -- this story peaked and then after the debate when he got through the debate, and then they were in the closing days, they were seized with it, but he began to feel that maybe he had surmounted this issue? and they make that argument. >> well, i think they are going to have to show that he remained concerned about this and that michael cohen and allen weisselberg weren't so loyal to

him that they were going to simply take it upon their own shoulders to protect him from this potential scandal. >> and seize on the fact that there's no e-mails, there's no texts that have his name, his finger prints on it, and there's no content of the calls, so you know that they were calls to keith schiller and there were go-betweens, but that he was never involved, and he very smartly, perhaps, kept himself out of it? >> well, and that is going to be the hurdle that the prosecution will have to surmount. but remember, a trial is always connect the dots, right? and there are a lot of dots here that michael cohen is connecting. i think that a very interesting issue that kind of remains up in the air for me at least is the rationale that mr. trump may have had for, if indeed he did

participate in this cover up, in this scheme, if you will, what his rationale was. and so far you have a number of people testifying to his state of mind, whether he was doing it to protect melania or wasn't. are they qualified to say that in a way that convinces the jury. does mr. trump himself have to testify in order for us to believe he was doing this to protect his relationship with his wife? i don't know. >> so one of the arguments against michael cohen is that he's angry, he was aggrieved, he felt like he wasn't treated fairly by donald trump. one of the reasons goes back to donald trump winning the election and not including michael cohen in his staff down in washington. so hoffinger asks, i'm trying to get ahead of this, i presume, because i understand the defense might get into it. did mr. trump win the election. cohen says yes.

hoffinger, after donald trump was elected president, was there going to be a continuing role for you at the trump organization? cohen says my service was no longer necessary as i was special counsel to mr. trump, and he was president-elect. actually right up stairs in his building where he had his office, michael cohen did, as special counsel to the president. hoffinger asks after he was president-elect, was there a discussion about a job, assistant general counsel, did you want that? michael cohen says no. hoffinger, did mr. trump ever offer you chief of staff, michael cohen says no. hoffinger, was that disappointing. cohen says i didn't want the role. i didn't believe the role was right for me or that i was competent to be chief of staff, i just wanted my name to have been included. it was more about my ego than anything. i would have liked to have been considered solely for me ego. hoffinger, did you pitch to mr.

trump another role for you. personal attorney to the president. there were outstanding matters that we were dealing with and every president has a personal attorney, and i could deal with other matters, and they could be protected and i could have another role in mine, which could be consultant, which would allow me to stay in new york with my son and daughter and wife. hoffinger, did you have any idea how you would use this role, cohen said as a personal attorney for the president, it would open a tremendous amount of doors to open that the president and i had a history. could be a go-between a conduit to donald trump in the role. cohen, mr. trump was an enigma, a businessman, nobody knew what his feelings were and positions were in a multitude of areas. i started to receive early on, this is a great idea. people want to speak to you because they need to formulate the next four years of your presidency. i find this interesting, guys, this has been coming up, the idea that michael cohen was angry, and for hoffinger to go

right at that. >> i just want to make a point. he had an office upstairs because this is a big office building with a lot of law firms. not at nbc news. i just want to clarify. >> there are investment banks, law enforcement firms. not law enforcement, there are legal firms. also nbc news, which occupies some of the floors, but certainly not all of them. but i think it's interesting to get ahead of this idea that he was aggrieved, he wanted retribution because they felt like he was hurt. do you think they have done a good job in eliciting that answer from him? >> i do. this is core cross, to get ahead of a key examination issue. they knew they would try to show, he had a vendetta, he was aggrieved, angry, and that he didn't get appointed to a position in the white house. they gave him an opportunity to say i wanted to be considered, only for my ego. i wanted to be told i was being

considered, but he testified, i knew that i wasn't qualified to be chief of staff or white house counsel. it wouldn't have been the right job for me. i wanted to stay in new york. >> there may be because that was out there, a lot of us were seeing that. he clearly put that out there. >> there's also good context from lisa rubin because as we were looking at the back and forth about the "wall street journal" article and before that, obviously, the stuff with stormy daniels and karen mcdougal, hope hicks, she points out, was quick to knock cohen, and i mentioned this earlier that she said the reason he was considered the fixer is because he first broke things, but in october and november of 2016, she and other campaign officials, we see in these text messages, sought cohen's input about how to respond to hollywood" tape, how to respond to the "wall street journal" story. it is in some ways both what you were talking about, katy, and this sort of telling a little different story about michael cohen and who he was at that

moment in time. >> i wonder if that really resonates because we heard earlier testimony from keith davidson that michael cohen was so upset and was on the phone with him, so upset about not getting a job, he thought he might kill himself. he was so despondent about not getting a job in the administration. that was a prosecution witness. so i see what the prosecution's trying to do, they're trying to deflate what is obviously coming on cross-examination. europe -- you're upset with mr. trump, and you'd go to incredible lengths. look at your taunting him on social media. you clearly hate him so much. >> revenge. >> you want revenge. but so i think -- >> do you really need that to prove that? all you have to do is read his two books. all you have to do is show a little clip of what's going on -- >> nobody thinks he loves donald trump. >> not anymore. >> he put a second mortgage on his house. he was afraid his wife would

see. she was the chief of staff and -- chief financial officer of the family. >> the ceo of the family. >> he put himself on the line for donald trump. >> it's like when somebody gets -- doesn't get a job they say, i didn't really want the job anyway. there's something about that line of testimony when you look at keith davidson's testimony before it about how despondent he was, clearly he wanted a job in the administration. >> does the prosecution run into -- does it risk anything by going so long with michael cohen? it's been a long -- we've been doing this for four hours, and it does start to -- nitty-gritty detail. it becomes -- >> short than stormy daniels -- >> becomes hard to follow. isn't the risk to go this long with individual witnesses? >> i think the broader of the testimony today, the longer they go with him, the more they open him up to cross-examination. but they knew coming into it that he was a witness with a ton of baggage, that the cross-examination of michael cohen would be tough. so i don't know that there's a particular risk in keeping him in longer, that they wouldn't have had anyway.

>> you haven't lived until you discovered a trial with a technical testimony -- >> yeah. >> we're going to go back into the document. did mr. trump ever offer you chief of staff. as we saw, he says he didn't want the role. that's sort of the opposite of the juror -- the jury might be able to feel sort of sympathetic or understanding of you that you did all this stuff for donald trump, and this is the -- is the -- you know, thanks that you got. now he's kind of saying, eh, didn't matter. did they miss an opportunity with that? >> yeah. i think -- >> to garner sympathy. >> i think every time they have him not being real it undermines the case a little bit. on the other hand, this is a minor point. i'm sure the defense will do everything it can to seize on it. their whole line of questioning is going to be about how much he hates donald trump and how he's out for his own -- for his own

self-interest. but they miss an opportunity when they don't show him being real, and that will absolutely be -- >> there's also this idea that michael cohen's whole world fell apart because of these payments. i mean, he testified in front of congress, he ended up getting charged, he went to prison. when the fbi raided his home, he also got kicked out of the office that he held at a fancy legal firm upstairs. he lost everything in service to donald trump. and that's clearly what the defense is going to argue, that he did have something out for him. they do have a world of evidence. again, they have the books, his own testimony, they have his podcast. and i just -- i come back to this -- when you're a juror and you have somebody's life in your hands, i mean, their freedom in your hands, you can put potentially donald trump behind bars, he's running for president, are they potentially going to look at this case and see michael cohen as fundamentally flawed, see stormy daniels as maybe somebody who was out to get a payout, see them as trying to take advantage

of somebody who is running for office. maybe they put their politics aside, whatever it is, and say you know, i just don't think that all things considered legal stuff aside this was fair? >> this has been a messy case from day one. every one of the prosecution's witnesses except for the custodial witnesses, every one of the witnesses are problematic witnesses from the first days of the trial. i think there is a real risk for the prosecution that the defense successfully impeaches all of the witnesses, and the jury walks away saying this is all a mess. i think in the closing what we're going to see is them putting the documents front and center and saying these documents don't lie. these documents were phonied up. >> here's the law, here's how you apply -- emotions out of i. take the way you feel about donald trump out of it. here's the law and here are these documents. have we proven our case? >> that's what we'll see. >> here you have in december asking did you make a formal

pitch to mr. trump? i did on several occasions, i pitched my interest in being personal attorney to be the president in order to assist me i brought an attorney who was knowledgeable on history. he prepared a memorandum and went through the pitch for several hours. the importance of having a personal attorney for his protection and why i fit exactly that role. in connection with that pitch you made the president-elect at that time did you bus compensation? no, i knew the compensation would come from the companies who were interested in speaking with me because of his connection to trump. the fixer, his nickname is not -- not a misnomer. did you mention to other folks at trump organization that you'd asked for that title of personal attorney to the president? yes, i talked to my family about it. these are texts between myself and my daughter, showing exhibits related to the position, and the fact that i was not being considered for chief of staff. they're putting that into testimony -- into the exhibits. cohen, so my daughter and i are very close.

we're very connected. she was concerned that i was upset. i wasn't being considered for the role. i explained there were so many opportunities, i said when they come closer i'll tell you. she was at upenn, i didn't want to get into the ideas because -- going on -- because they were still in a formulation stage. i explained it was hybrid as personal attorney to the president. i would have access to trump, account monetize my relationship by different companies. did there come a time when trump gave you that title of personal attorney? cohen, january, couple of days before he left for an inauguration. the prosecutor, december of 2016, it was still the trump organization before he gave the title, was it customary for employees to receive an agenda of the year bonus? it was for me, said cohen. how did you generally find out your bonus was in december of each year? he would leave for palm beach, mar-a-lago, rona, would walk around with a christmas card wishing you a merry christmas, happy new year. inside there would be a check. that's how you would find out your bonus. lovinger, how did you find out what your bonus was?

the card, trump was not present. was trump in the office? how did you feel about the bonus? angry, beyond angry, cut my bonus by two-thirds. hoff hoffinger how did you feel about the stormy daniels payout? cohen, i was truly hurt. it didn't make sense. after all that i'd gone through in terms of the campaigning as well as things at the trump organization laying out $130,000 on his behalf to protect him that the gratitude shown back to me was to cut the bonus by two-thirds. i had to do a double take. did you express that anger to weisselberg? cohen, in some uncolorful language expressed how truly pissed off and angry i truly was. this makes no sense at all, i used quite a few expletives. hoffinger, and did the execs get it? what did he say? take it easy, mr. trump loves -- he's going to do right by you. we'll make it right. did he tell you when he would make it right?

after the holiday when everybody returned to the office, did your anger have an impact? i think it did. did you express your upsweat david pecker -- upset with david pecker? i'm sure i did. that is the way this conversation is going. so this is pre-butting the examination that he was ticked off. >> color from inside the courtroom. trump is completely innorring cohen as -- ignoring cohen as he is testifying right now. all right. so it has been quite a day. we have seen a lot of testimony from michael cohen. we are going to see some more testimony from michael cohen before court ends today. he will be back likely on the stand tomorrow, according to the prosecution. then the defense is going to get their whack at him. it's going to be a cross-examination that you will not want to miss. i'm sure they're going to dive in and really try tear michael cohen apart, tear his credibility apart, paint him as somebody out to get donald trump. that will be tomorrow. we will be right back here to bring you all of that tomorrow. in the meantime, on behalf of

everybody, my lovely ladies, adam and the judge, thank you so much for being here. it's been a whirlwind of afternoon special coverage. it does not end here. donald trump's hush-money trial, the special coverage of it continues next with nicolle wallace, the one and only, and "deadline: white house." hi, everyone. welcome to monday. it's 4:00 in new york, and every single level, legal, political, human, an extraordinary showdown today in court still happening. the ex-president coming face to face with the man who used to do his dirty work, who now has turned into the key witness in the first-ever criminal trial of an american ex-president. michael cohen, donald trump's former personal lawyer and fixer, is still on the witness