cing 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. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today! with absorbine pro, pain won't hold you back from your passions. it's the only solution with two max-strength anesthetics to deliver the strongest numbing pain relief available. so, do your thing like a pro, pain-free. absorbine pro. >> that will do it for me. now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. lawrence walked in for me at my

seat at the trump courthouse. i think you got the more dramatic part of the day. >> rachel, i have been mostly in the courtroom. once before i was in the overflow room, which is across the hall. this morning i was in the overflow room for a few reasons. i woke up late. but you were so gracious at lunch to hand me your courtroom pass for the afternoon, which is totally legal. we can do that.'s i was in the courtroom for the moment you really wanted to be. you had to be in the courtroom. it was astonishing. i can describe it here when we get started. but, rachel, i have three exclamation points in my notes beside the clear the courtroom line, which was, you know judge juan merchan he is the most

mild-mannered and fair judge. most judges are fair and obviously. but judge merchan is the model. it's one of the great sacrifices that america cannot see how even-tempered he is. so when he says something with exclamation points, which he did. it changes the room.>> i know you're good to go through this. but can i ask you one objective experiencing. when he said clear the courtroom, was it clear that it meant you? >> listen >> i would get up and run out. >> half of the reporters did not leave. and the transcript shows that it takes a while. i knew right away immediately

what he wanted and i knew it applied to me and that comes from a lifetime experience of being in courtrooms. but in that lifetime of being in courtrooms, which i think began when i was about 10 years old when my father was a criminal defense lawyer, i never heard the words cut clear the courtroom. it's like clear the movie theater. but i know what to do if they say that. it just was remarkable and the most ridiculous misfire the defense possibly could have put on. this is their only witness. they put on a paralegal to enter documents. but this robert costello was supposed to testify and save donald trump? and he is -- well, as long as donald trump is silent, costello is the craziest person in the courtroom.>> i'm going

to leave now because i want to hear you talk about this moment. i'm also desperate to hear the analysis of the decision of the defense to put on a witness who was going to offend everyone in the courtroom with the way he n was talking to the female lawyer who was cross-examining him and offend the man who was never offended in his life. strategy for putting him on an essentially saying this is what we want you think of when you think of our side of the case, i can't wait to hear that analysis.>> we have andrew wiseman ready with his analysis. i have a strong suspicion that like every bad strategy from otherwise good lawyers that

that strategy probably came from donald trump. let's put the crazy witness. >> let's put on a forbes magazine that says i am a rich guy. all right. go to it. i can't wait to see. >> thank you for getting me in the courtroom. >> clear the courtroom. you can spend your life working in courtrooms and never here those words. and if you have spent time in the courtroom it would feel all the more impossible that you are hearing clear the courtroom and you hear them said repeatedly and loudly and most shockingly of all, angrily by

judge juan merchan as we did today. at 4:01. as i was walking out of the courtroom, i asked a retired new york city judge who was in the audience, how many times he had to clear the courtroom when he was a judge. his answer was what i expected. never. in a multi-week trial the courtroom becomes a community. everyone gets to know each other visually, at least. the members of the news media make friends at other news organizations. the jury becomes very familiar with all the lawyers and they know which of us are the regulars and who are the tourists popping in for a day. and the leader of every courtroom community is the judge. he or she sits above us all at a higher altitude as a symbol of the authority that the judge

actually does have. a good trial judge who keeps things moving efficiently doesn't waste time and is solicitous of the trees needs and does everything he or she can to accommodate the jury and treats the jury as the most important people in the room. usually has the respect and the gratitude of that jury, and later after the trial when jurors will be asked about the judge, their shorthand quick answer often is , i love him. or i love her. loved the judge. it's very common. the jury in judge juan merchan's courtroom has every reason to feel any positive thing that a juror has felt about their trial judge. and so i know from experience as well as i know anything

about courtroom life that the jury did not like it one bit today when the only testifying witness that the trump defense is going to call decided to openly disrespect the judge that the jury respects soulfully. robert costello was the second witness called by the defense and our last witness. there are to be anymore witnesses. the first witness was a pure legal who works with the trump defense team to introduce a spreadsheet that he created of a list of phone calls. that witness did not provide any testimony in the case and that witness will not be quoted by anyone. so the entire trump defense comes down to the testimony of attorney robert costello. robert costello, who used to work as a federal prosecutor for rudy giuliani as

his boss. he was one of the lawyers michael cohen considered retaining for his criminal defense after the fbi executed search warrants at his home and hotel, and, in his office which was located exactly 20 floors above where i am sitting right now in this fast office building in rockefeller center. michael cohen decided not to hire robert costello. and today anyone could see why. for once the worst criminal defense lawyer in the room was not one employed by donald trump. i have not seen a worst criminal defense lawyer than robert costello or a stupider one. based on just what we saw him do on the witness stand today in court. trump criminal defense lawyer

did the questioning. almost all of the objections were sustained instantly who makes quick decisions. but because he answered questions quicker than that, his answers were entered in the record as the objection was being raised. is that a term that mr. giuliani used. >> objection. >> move to strike.>> stricken. stricken means that the one word answer, yes, cannot be used as evidence by the jury. robert costello did not like the objections. that's not unusual for workers as witnesses to have their own opinion about the objections. but it's very unusual for them

to in any way voice that opinion about the objections on the witness stand. attorney michael cohen had feelings about the objections when he was on the witness stone but he behaved in a professional way for lawyer testifying under oath in court. that's not a comment on michael cohen's credibility. simply his manner as a witness, which was fully respectful of the process. fully respectful of the judge at all times and fully respectful of donald trump's criminal defense lawyer cross- examining him, to which michael cohen's most frequent answer was yes or repeatedly. and here is what we all saw and heard something we've never seen before. little did we know there was more to come after this.

question, i'd like to take a look at the second paragraph of that email. to see where it says the question of timing is premature? yeah, i see that. what did you mean by that. objection. >> sustained. >> jeez. >> i was in the last row and i could hear robert costello say that all the way back there about the objection. that was his attitude toward the objection. and that was his attitude about the judge sustaining the objection. that was his objection to the judge sustaining the objection. judge merchan was shocked. we've never seen judge merchan shocked before.

and emil bove tried to race past the moment with another question that got another objection and was sustained and judge merchan leaned across the bench and raised his voice looking directly at the witness , right there, and said, i'm sorry? what did you just say. after a silence, judge merchan, in an agitated but not angry way said, i'm sorry? meaning, what did you just say. he knew what he said. he said jeez. and that drew attention. the judge drew that attention in a big way. that line that i just told you from judge merchan saying , i'm sorry? i'm sorry? that does not appear in the court transcript because too much was happening in the

courtroom for the court reporter , who had never seen anything like this. this is something that people who deal with court transcripts for many years now, especially transcripts produced at high speed like the daily transcripts in this trial. they frequently have small and unimportant heirs. words left out. words that are incorrect. for example, in that same transcript earlier, when robert costello was introduced in the transcript as a witness, the transcript incorrectly says robert j costello, a witness called on behalf of the people. that is wrong. robert costello was called on behalf of the defense. and the lawyers on both sides can use and work with this transcript without suffering any harm from those small typos that they recognize and other occasional words left out.

but that something you have to know about these transcripts. this transcript is amazing. i've never seen a transcript make a mistake on any crucial evidentiary word her testimony. but the relevant factoid about this simply that these transcripts can sometimes be slightly wrong. after judge merchan said i'm sorry the second time , by which he meant, pardon me? what did you just say? and he meant it in a threatening manner, robert costello said, strike it. you sometimes secure lawyers during cross-examination ask a question and strike it and they start over again. and it doesn't mean that the question they started gets stricken from the record. it's just a note to themselves that the question didn't come out right and let me start over again. it's like the lawyer saying,

never mind, i'm not can ask this question i'm can ask another question. everyone understands that. so robert costello's lawyer came into say, strike it over something that even he at that point realized he never should have said that wiseguy jeez about the judge. publicly in the room in front of the jury. attacking the judge sustaining an objection. it was a level of madness by a witness, who is a criminal defense lawyer, that you could only wonder whether he should be immediately subjected to a sobriety test. how loss could that happen? that is how out there and crazy and out of control that moment was for a criminal defense lawyer. but it got worse. judge merchan in his typically come boys shifted and said

counsel, let's take a minute. then led the jury out of the room where the judge turned to the witness beside him and used a voice sterner than anything we've heard from judge merchan. >> mr. costello, i want to -- i would like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom. but -- i'm sorry, go ahead. i want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom.>> right. >> okay. so when there is a witness on the stand, if you don't like my ruling, you don't say jeez, okay. and you and then you don't say strike it. because i'm the only one that can strike testimony in the courtroom. do understand that? >> i understand. >> and then, if you don't like my ruling, you don't give me side i and you don't roll your

eyes. do understand that? do understand that? >> i understand that. i understand what you're saying. >> okay. thank you. let's get the jury back. are you staring me down? >> no. i'm just wondering how -- >> clear the courtroom, please. clear the courtroom. >> do you want me to answer your question? >> sir, please. >> step outside, please. step to the side, and we all began to get up to leave the courtroom. those of us who knew that the judge had full authority to clear that courtroom, half of the reporters tried to stay in their seats and some try to argue with the judge. once said that there was a press lawyer in the courtroom and insist they have a right to be in the courtroom. and for 2 pages of court transcripts, there are entries we never seen before the court transcript quoting the court officer saying, step out, repeatedly.

a person in the audience saying why? this is an open courtroom. the court officer saying this is not an open courtroom. we will answer all questions in the hallway. please step out. this is a supreme court courtroom. a person in the audience. this is an open courtroom. you can spend your life reading court transcripts. and you will never see the entry , person in the audience and that person speaking. that does not happen. what we have -- what we have for the minutes that it took to clear that courtroom, what we had been was chaos in the courtroom. all caused by the wiseguy on the witness stand who decided he was going to show the judge that he was smarter than the judge. and worse for him and the trump defense, he was going to show the jury that he thinks he's

smarter than their judge. and it is very unlikely that the jury thinks there's anyone in that courtroom who is as smart as their judge. after five minutes in the hallway that seemed like forever , we were brought back into the courtroom having no idea what was said in our absence but knowing it was about the wiseguy on the witness stand. this evening at 7:27, the final pages arrived in our inbox and we got to see what happened when judge merchan cleared the courtroom. the transcript says, the courtroom is cleared of people in the audience by the court officers at this time. all right. let the record reflect that it's now five after four.

let the record also reflect that the court officers had great difficulty clearing the courtroom, because the courtroom is primarily made up of the press and i can appreciate that the press wants to be present for every part of these proceedings, therefore this record is not sealed. the press will have access to this record. the fact that i had to clear the courtroom and that the court officers, including the captain, had great difficulty clearing the courtroom, and that there was argument back and forth between the press and including counsel for the press, goes to why it had to clear the courtroom in the first place and that is, sir, your conduct is contemptuous right now. i am putting you on notice that your conduct is contemptuous. if you try to steer me down one more time, i will remove you from the stand. i will strike his entire testimony. do you understand me? >> yes, judge. i understand. >> listen to the question and answer the question.

>> can i say something, please?>> no. no. this is not a conversation. >> okay. >> all right. let's -- we can bring the press back in, please. >> ready, your honor? >> yes, please.>> okay. the press is entering the courtroom. that team of able court officers, who are already doing an extraordinary, the other beyond the call of duty, job, beginning for many of them at 6:30 a.m., had to do something today as a team that they never expected they were going to have to do. clear that courtroom. they did it calmly, correctly, using their authority, understanding the confusion that many reporters were suffering. but they got us all out of that courtroom and got us all back in that courtroom five minutes

later. they did it with remarkable professionalism. it is just remarkable how quickly and efficiently they went into action as a team of court officers for something they never expected to have to do in that room. they had to do it because the only witness, the only witness testifying for donald trump was contemptuous from the start. and so is angry a moment as that moment was for judge merchan, the anger was a small fraction of what many other judges would have legitimately shown for the utterly contemptuous witness for the trump defense. michael cohen testified to the jury he did not hire robert costello because he did not trust them. michael cohen said he believed that robert costello would tell rudy giuliani and donald trump everything michael cohen might tell robert costello.

robert costello's obvious contempt for the judge probably convinced most of the jurors that michael cohen was right about the contemptuous robert costello. we will consider all the evidence introduced at the trial today, including on michael cohen's cross- examination with andrew wiessman after this break, and we will show you how the defense, which claims donald trump's payments were not reimbursements, made the mistake of repeatedly, in effect, identifying those payments as reimbursements as part of their theory of the defense. that is next. commend agen. number one, because it's effective. does not require a prescription.

and i've been taking it quite a while myself and i know it works. and i love it when the customers come back in and tell me, "david, that really works so good for me." makes my day. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. ♪ limu emu... ♪ and doug. (bell ringing) limu, someone needs to customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. let's fly! (inaudible sounds) chief! doug. (inaudible sounds) ooooo ah. (elevator doors opening) (inaudible sounds) i thought you were right behind me. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪

when did i call leaffilter? when i saw my gutters overflowing onto my porch. leaffilter is a permanent gutter solution, so, you never have to worry about costly damage from clogged gutters again. it's the easiest call you can make. call 833.leaf.filter today, or visit leaffilter.com. have heart failure with unresolved symptoms? it may be time to see the bigger picture. heart failure and seemingly unrelated symptoms like carpal tunnel syndrome, shortness of breath, and irregular heartbeat could mean something more serious, called attr-cm a rare, underdiagnosed disease that worsens over time. sound like you? call your cardiologist and ask about attr-cm.

(psst! psst!) ahhh! with flonase, allergies don't have to be scary. spraying flonase daily gives you long lasting non-drowsy relief. flonase all good. also, try our allergy headache and nighttime pills. a slow network is no network for business. flonase all good. 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. inside every splenda product is a mission. to help people live happier healthier and longer lives by making it easier to cut out sugar. from our factory to our stevia farm, splenda's team of over 2000 individuals are dedicated to helping people live their best lives. taking pride that everyday millions say “i use splenda.” and now sweeten drinks wherever you are with splenda zero-calorie liquid sweeteners. try all three. available in the baking aisle. i'm joined by the courthouse crowd once again tonight. lisa rubin and andrew weissman.

i want to start with rachel maddow's question. she gave me the question in our handoff. what was strategy of putting robert costello on the stand for the defense? >> it was a really good witness for the prosecution to have the defense call. let's just take everyone back a year when the case was about to be indicted. donald trump said i have a witness i want you put in the grand jury. and at the time i remember thinking, that is an odd choice because what you have as a defense lawyer is the element of surprise. that is one of the few things you have. and i was like, well, if you have them testify in the grand jury, he's talking to prevent

the grand jury from going forward. it's highly unlikely. and you are now laying out the prosecution what this witness will say. and they not only know what he says, but the heavy year to prepare to cross-examine him and i was thinking that they would call him and sure enough they did and we can't make a final conclusion, we don't know how the jury will assess him. having said all of those caveats, your analysis of he making an exhibit of what michael cohen said makes it palpably clear that he is on paper doing with the jury can find to be classic mob work, which is using the lawyer to find out if someone is cooperating and report back to the boss and do everything you can to prevent that. he said that is not what happened, but the jury can find that's not true and credit the

written records at the time. an extremely odd choice. if there's any witness that makes michael cohen look better, in terms of credibility, it is this witness. i do not feel like -- i keep saying susan is a good defense lawyer. >> it's interesting to watch here because she stays as far away from donald trump as she can't. and when there is a bench conference, she leaves them alone and doesn't try to help him get through the boring moments. feel free to reach back to any piece of the evidence today. there's so much to cover. i will ask about certain points. one big fights in the morning was the introduction of a photograph taken from c-span footage at 7:57 shown during

the campaign, showing donald trump and keith schiller. he has on the red tide. he's the bodyguard. that is what got introduced. at first the defense fought this they eventually, because the prosecution said okay, if you continue to fight it, we will fly in a witness from louisiana and make the defense think, oh boy, that will make this photograph a much bigger deal when he gets introduced, and it will get introduced. they were hanging on a technical point of you need a c- span official to introduce this. they agreed to let that go in. and that was a very big fight in the morning because that photograph is taken and we note that at 8:02, he said i called

the guy in the red tie because he has a cell phone in his pocket and handed the cell phone to trump and i got the okay. and that photograph is the supporting evidence that they managed to get in there today.>> it was a big moment for susan hoff injure. the call records and the data was astronomical. on the other hand to not have addressed it at all, also would've been a mistake. in coming back to it they were fortunate to discover that the c-span video existed and to say again to michael cohen, isn't it your testimony, or isn't it possible you addressed both subjects in that ninety six

second phone call, and he said, yes. and it was one of the last questions and he was just as resolute about it. and i love what jen psaki said. that it's to let the jury marinate in however long that silence is so they can imagine how much can fill that. she also compared it to the phone call -- a conversation with trump on september 6 the 2016 and saying the crux of that is about 1:30 and it's not hard to imagine that michael cohen is used to talking in code, can kill two birds with one stone. and the way to get him to recommit to the possibility of two subjects was -- >> i

counted two bench conferences today that were 90 seconds long. and, in fact, let's listen to the tape that michael cohen made with donald trump when they are talking about karen mcdougal. and this is only about 30 seconds, and it shows you how much ground they can cover in discussing their various conspiracies. >> and i've spoken to allen weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with -- so what do we got to pay for this? 150? >> funding. all the stuff because you never know where that's -- correct. so i'm all over that and i spoke to alan about it. when it comes time for the financing -- >> what financing? >> will have to pay him something. >> that is 32 seconds long.

they are talking about a conversation that was three times as long. let's say that michael cohen spent 32 seconds talking about a 14-year-old who is harassing him and the next 64 seconds talking about the stormy situation. there was an argument being made today by todd blanche that in the calculation of what michael cohen was going to be paid, he asked for a reimbursement of $50,000 for a separate expenditure that he made on donald trump's behalf and it turns out that it was only $20,000. michael cohen paid 20,000. so todd blanche said, you got reimbursed for the 50 and not the 20, therefore, you still $30,000. and michael cohen, trying not

to get into a wrestling match, accepted into the idea that he still $30,000. on redirect the prosecutor cleaned that up a little bit, but the key point about that, the whole time i was listening to that was, wait a minute, the only way he stole $30,000 is if you are granting that this whole thing was reimbursement. and your theory of the case is that it's a paycheck. and it's not reimbursement. >> he said exactly that in opening statements. and embedded in his very question that generated all those headlines about michael cohen admitting that he still from his former boss is the word reimbursement. so my question was a simple question. in the middle of the conversation you were figuring out when to, how to cover-up this $130,000 payment and you

lied about how much you owed and needed reimbursement for. >> correct. >> a page later he said you did steal from the trump organization based upon the expected reimbursement from red finch, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and later on just pushing the opposite proposition that it was not a reimbursement and, in fact, $420,000 is what he made the prior year. question, so in 2016 you made $425,000 from the trump organization. what i mean by that is your base salary and you got a $50,000 bonus, correct? >> correct. so that's $425,000. and it goes on in that manner pushing the theory that $425,000 and no reimbursement.

and the jury might be wondering, wait a minute, is it michael cohen admitting to stolen money that the trump organization devastating cooperation of the prosecution's case? they may pick up on that during closing arguments. >> let me read what prosecutors did when they tried to rehabilitate:. she said, why didn't you just put down 20 on the list instead of 50? and michael said for a long time i was telling them about the 50,000, so i could've collected it. i was angered because of the reduction in the bonus, so i just felt it was almost like self-help. you know, i wasn't going to let him have the benefit this way as well. i wasn't going to correct the conversation i was having with alan about it. i had not only protected him to the best they could, but i also laid out many to red finch like

a year and a half earlier. and, again, $130,000, to have my bonus cut by two thirds. it was very upsetting, to say the least.>> be admitted on cross-examine that it was wrongful? >> it was. >> so there are so many things going on here. first of all, how does michael cohen come out when the jury hears that version and does not include the word, stole. and what happens when a criminal defense lawyer weaves into his argument it and a theory that conflicts with the theory that he presented in his opening?>> there are very few times since i left the government where i say, gee, i'd love to be back in the government trying that case. and this is one of them. the summation here is just like catnip to anyone who is been a prosecutor. to answer your question, one

part of the summation after the whole story is laid out and arguments are made and cooperation is pointed out will be what are the defense theories and why didn't they work. so the inconsistencies will be fleshed out. i would expect that exhibits 35 and 36, which are the handwritten notes by -- if i were doing this, i would have them on a screen for the entire summation. nothing that has been said there's no logical explanation. and that's why i think they have a smart jury. you want people who will not be fooled. and, finally, the idea of did michael cohen steal money. i don't think i ever put on a cooperator that didn't do

something underhanded. it just happens. and here's a standard argument that you use, which is a good one for what the defense is doing. this was not new. so the reporters are saying this is a big deal, in terms of what the jury will make of it, what is the evidence of so many things that are bad about michael cohen that he's done in his life. the theft and lying under oath. a litany of things and you say, what is the evidence of that. it's michael cohen. the person they don't want you to believe when he says something bad about himself, that you take to the bank. as soon as he says something negative about donald trump, even if it is cooperated up one side and down the other, no, that you cannot believe. so you use it to show how inconsistent the defenses, in

terms of what they are taking from his testimony. >> the thing that stopped me about all the time they spent on the $50,000 not one word of cross-examination about the $130,000 on that sheet, which is what the case is about. when he said he was done with michael cohen and he never mentioned the $130,000, i couldn't believe my ears. we will talk during the break and we will be right back. righ. u with a because there are people out there who aren't you. a lot of them. and you don't drive like... whoa. i don't want my child being raised by a robot! other drivers are not you. yes, thank you so much to all 50 of my subscribers. nope, definitely not you. save with drivewise and get a rate based on you. you're in good hands with allstate.

type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®.

life, diabetes, there's no slowing down. each day is a unique blend of people to see and things to do. that's why you choose glucerna to help manage blood sugar response. uniquely designed with carbsteady. glucerna. bring on the day.

sara federico: at st. jude, we don't care who cures cancer. we just need to advance the cure. it's a bold initiative to try and bump cure rates all around the world, but we should. it is our commitment. we need to do this. i have active psoriatic arthritis. but with skyrizi to treat my skin and joints, count me in. along with clearer skin, skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. there's nothing like clearer skin and better movement. and that means everything! ask your doctor about skyrizi today. learn how abbvie could help you save.

back with us. lisa, you just reminded me that i'm cross-examination of michael cohen nothing about the discussion with donald trump in the oval office.>> nothing. i mean, that's a huge moment. the reason they do not raise it is because the only person who can counter that is donald trump himself. and of course he's not going to take the stand and emil bove said we don't expect to call another witness. and that could change overnight. we all know that donald trump will never take the stand. they prefaced it by saying that he's going to listen to his lawyers. he wishes that he could, but he's not going to. and that means we will never

hear the narrative in 2017. >> what else is in that transcript that we just got our hands on? >> there was this moment, of course, after the government finishes its case, the defense offers their motion to dismiss. there was this moment -- >> that was an argument held outside the presence of the jury. >> todd blanche, as everyone expected, tried to dismiss the testimony of michael cohen saying that he lies all the time , and therefore, as a matter of law, his entire testimony should not be considered and the case should be thrown out. so the judge was not impressed with that argument and said, so you want me to take it out of the jury's hands and decided before it gets to the jury,

that as a matter of law, this person is so not worthy of belief that it shouldn't be considered by the jury? that's what you're asking? >> that his entire testimony should not be considered by the jury. absolutely. that is what i'm asking the court to do. he continues, but the judge tells him and interrupts him to say you said his lies are irrefutable. that you think that he's going to fool 12 new yorkers into believing this lie? >> well cut judge -- >> it is an irrefutable lie? >> i certainly hope it doesn't -- >> one of his singular points for dismissal of the case was the great question asked last week on the basis of one question. he said that alone was worthy of having the case dismissed, and that is the one where todd blanche raised the possibility that michael cohen in the 92nd phone call may have discussed

more than just stormy daniels.>> this is going to be denied. and -- >> every defense where would make that motion.>> and todd blanche has had his moments and not had his moments. and so -- i think tomorrow will be an interesting day. we have a short day. i am really interested in the rest of the cross-examination of costello. i think susan hoff injure had a spectacular day today and if there's anyone out there who wants to know how to do redirect examination, it was a master class. it was tight. she was making points and responding to what happened and remembering to redirect the

jury to the strong points in the case. and as we were talking before, todd was supporting some of the states theories, which is like cut isn't donald trump not going to overpay for something? that is the state's argument, not the defense argument. it will be interesting to see what happens. i think it will probably be a very good day unless mr. costello has a complete change, in terms of the way he behaves. i think he will continue to be an exhibit of what michael cohen was telling the jury. >> we will take one final break and be back with the rest of the story. visionworks. see the difference.

hey, everybody. w. kamau bell here. they say that america is the land of the free. but right now, people in the u.s. are seeing their freedoms taken away at an alarming rate. freedoms some of us take for granted. the right to vote. equal access to health care. book banning and other forms of censorship that threaten our right to learn. and here's something truly shocking, right now in our country hundreds of thousands of people are incarcerated simply because they couldn't afford bail. that's not free and it's not fair. but there is hope for change. it lives in people like you and in a great organization called the american civil liberties union. so please join me and other concerned americans in defending our civil liberties by joining the aclu as a guardian of liberty today. all it takes is just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. when you're surrounded by oppressive laws you can't just sit back and be oppressed. you get up and fight and all of us at the aclu are fighting for you.

whether it's criminal justice reform or protecting the lgbtq plus rights, abortion rights or voting rights. the aclu is in the courts fighting for your rights, and mine and i, for one, sleep better at night knowing they're working every day in all 50 states to protect our freedoms. but these freedoms are at risk. we have to fight for them tirelessly and with your help, we will continue to do so. so please go to myaclu.org and join the fight for just $19 a month. use your credit card and get this special we the people t-shirt, aclu magazine and more to show you're helping ensure justice for all. as an individual, donating to the aclu is one of the most powerful things you can do to fight for justice. but the aclu can't do it alone. they need your support now to continue defending our democracy and the freedoms we hold dear. so please join us. call or go online to myaclu.org today. thank you.

there's news, and there's good news. like thousands of patients receiving free life changing surgeries, from volunteer doctors and nurses on hospital ships. all made possible by donations. we love good news.

why choose a sleep number smart bed? can it keep me warm when i'm cold? wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add any base shop now at sleepnumber.com

they say we should stop eating so much meat. so we made meat out of plants. because we aren't quitters. impossible. we're solving the meat problem with more meat. time the last word from lisa. what more can we expect from costello on the witness stand? >> one of the things we might hear is why michael cohen was right to trust his spidey sense. it struck him as off and he never really wanted to hire the guy. he was dangling himself as a close associate of rudy giuliani and michael cohen wanted to know what information

he could get him. but costello is a troubling figure. in addition to having been a former u.s. assistant attorney, he is formally counsel to two major trump world figures. steve bannon and rudy giuliani. he and his locker have sued for unpaid legal fees. steve bannon almost 500,000. and with respect to the january 6th investigation, it was robert costello who told steve bannon, you don't need to respond to this subpoena. and steve bannon tried to say, i relied on the vice of counsel and the judge said, you cannot do that. that was objectively unreasonable. and it will come at question tomorrow. >> andrew copp this whole michael cohen, stormy daniels thing, this $130,000 was found by you in the mueller

investigation, and here it is turning into a southern district of new york case. and how to get from there to here. and you have this former southern district prosecutor and tell him right away, you know, basically trying to find out, what you know about trump? >> it was totally fortuitous that the schema. this was not me digging and finding this. i stayed late and for two years we stayed late one night. but it was there and we referred it.

essentially, there is a ton of documents to suggest what is going on. he is trying to find out information. it all could go away in one week. just give information. he gives really bad advice. that is not what happened. it didn't go away. >> thank you very much. we kept talking during the commercial break. we will try to post about online. the 11th hour starts now. tonight, dramatic moments in the criminal trial. why the judge cleared the courtroom during a clash.