♪♪ welcome to our news special, new york versus donald trump. i'm ari melber and we are bringing our new breakdown of what happened this past week. the first ever for a former president as you certainly know by now. this final week was a short one

but a lot actually happened. michael cohen was back on the stand finishing his four days of testimony, and trump's lawyers began and ended their case, so we basically in one week saw the d.a. and the defense team both rest, and we saw the defense witnesses who at times stumbled. here's how it played out. >> the defense wrapped up with michael cohen after three days of cross examination. >> it was a grueling three days. >> the prosecution has now rested its case. the defense has also just now called its first witness. >> robert costello back on the stand later this morning after yesterday's fireworks. >> he was nearly tossed from the witness box and his entire testimony was nearly stricken from the record. >> an extraordinary moment. >> his whole attitude on the stand could have the defense team rethinking its strategy of calling him at all. >> the defense has rested its case after calling just two witnesses, but donald trump did not testify in his own defense. >> that's how it went down, and it was action-packed.

michael cohen's cross raised some doubts about him as a witness. and we've covered that. we don't know how the jury will take it, but it wasn't all smooth sailing. indeed this man who's on the stand alleging and providing evidence alleging business fraud by his old boss donald trump had to admit under oath that he himself stole from the trump organization. prosecutors also got their turn with cohen on redirect, return to the bottom line where they basically said were you too busy to get trump's approval on this stormy daniels payment, he says he got the confirmation and the prosecutors are going to try to continue to turn this jury both in the last week we saw and in their closing arguments, because he was the person trump picked to be involved in all of this stuff, and he remains the key witness. the jury also heard this very simple statement that you've seen in any trial, fictional, law and order or real. quote, your honor, the people

rest. that is the only time we think any prosecutors anywhere in this country will be able to say that about defendant donald trump. this is, of course, the only trial scheduled to conclude by the election. now, the evidence they supplied means the people, that's the d.a. representing the people of new york, say they have proven every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. but that's their case. trump's lawyers got to stand up and start their counterarguments. they called this one lawyer linked to cohen, who you saw in that highlight reel we showed you, this is someone that giuliani and trump have tried to use to discredit cohen. his name is robert costello, he also faced the grand jury, and he had a tough go of it this week. i told you we're going to tell you exactly what happens, not whether it's what you hoped happened, not whether the side you like is winning or losing, although everyone's free to have strong feelings in this case. we're going to tell you what's really happening. for costello, the trump defense witness, the key longest witness they used, it was a disaster.

he was rebuked by the judge for antics on the stand. he was interrupting, the judge found him arrogant and contemptuous, you don't say jeez, you don't give me side eyes, you don't roll your eyes. i'm going to show you how the judge put it. this is not our commentary here, this judge who i've been in the courtroom has been very fair throughout, even measured, kind of mellow at times, he said this witness above all others was quote, contemptuous. that is a specific legal term. it means that you could be held in contempt, although the judge did not try to jail him that day, probably because it would become too much of a distraction. some legal experts said the trump defense lawyers would have been better off not calling this troubled witness at all. it was after that witness the defense rested their case and said they've completed their mission and they don't need trump to testify, and he has every right not to testify as i've told you. so they had about two days in control, and they finished. they called those two witnesses. that's compared to 20 by the

d.a., a mismatch that is normal, that is routine because the d.a., the prosecutors have the burden, so they have the burden of providing witnesses and evidence, the defense doesn't have to do anything. here they called a couple of people to poke what they thought would be a couple holes. the jury was sent home and the lawyers have been hashing out towards the end of the week the jury instructions. >> testimony now complete, jurors were sent home in the final phase of the trial got underway. >> a crucial hearing started about the nature of the jury instructions. >> what will be the last words to the jury before those 12 men and women decide the fate of donald trump in the hush money cover-up trial. >> the final showdown between the prosecution and the defense set to take place next tuesday, when both sides present their summations before the jury. >> these jury instructions matter a lot. they might matter more than closing arguments, which are a big deal, and of course we'll be covering. that's the last thing the jury hears on the substance. the last thing the jury hears on the rules matters a lot.

it comes from the judge. it has that authority, they're read out, and the lawyers here are clashing about exactly what goes in those instructions, and all of this will go to guide how this jury considers what trump knew and what he intended. i've told you this as fair as i can. part of the allegations here, part of the crimes have effectively been proven, by which i mean when you have the paperwork and it's lying, and you have donald trump's signature on it, you've proven the basic element of the fraud, that is this stuff isn't what they said it was, and they lied about it. and you have cohen and paperwork showing that, but that is not the whole case as you've heard, and you need to have trump's intent on that as well as the secondary issue, the second thing about this campaign crime. trump's lawyers wanted to take all of this, what i just referred to in simple form and tried to make it more complex with a higher kind of burden than the law might require. at times they were asking for special treatment, and i've told you they have the right to make

these requests. the judge has been through this rodeo before and he's in charge, and he can just say, no, that's a ridiculous request. they did make some ground on some issues. when they asked the judge to consider the extraordinarily important nature of the case, basically the, hey, our defendant was president defense, the judge said i'm not going to change the law. i'm not going to do that. in other words, you can't just say, hey, this guy's important in some generalized sense. remember, no one's above the law. now, trump had also been seen dozing off in court throughout the course of this trial, which is a contrast to how he was during these jury instruction arguments. again, sometimes donald trump in politics and in court, he plays a more disengaged or more aloof person than he actually is. he's a reality show star, an actor in many ways. and suddenly we saw that he could perk up and pay a lot of attention. there was no napping during the debate over the jury instructions. which suggests this defendant knows exactly how important they are. now as i mentioned, on tuesday

the jury hears the closing arguments and the judge has told the jurors they may have to stay late with the idea being, in fairness to everybody you set aside enough time here, after the break everyone can go rest up and all that, just like they're human beings. but then the jury sits down and according to the judge, he's hoping to have them all hear these arguments, perhaps finish them on tuesday and turn to deliberations on wednesday. if you thought this thing wasn't transparent without cameras in the courtroom during the trial, jury instructions are secret completely. hour-by-hour we will know nothing about what they're doing, what the vote might be, what they're thinking, what the debates are, unless and until they submit questions that can be read out to the judge in court, ask for evidence or announce their decision. we don't know how long the deliberations will take. we don't even know which part os of this case will matter most to the jury. there are some big things we think will matter, stormy daniels, for example, testifying about something that trump says to his lawyer never happened is a big deal. her lawyer's coming up in this

special, which i think could be interesting to hear from. michael cohen, both what he said, basically eyewitness to the crime and then what he was attacked on. does he tell the truth? those are the kind of things we could infer the jury will care about, but we don't know. i say that not as an exercise, not as an observation, but as the actual humility of our justice system the way it is supposed to work. we can watch, we can observe, we can report, but it is what happens inside among those jury members, a jury of your peers, that's all that matters in this courtroom in the week ahead. and we have two legal experts who know all about that and how important that process is. we're going to get into this when we're back together in 90 seconds. when we're back together in 90 seconds. with pronamel repair. it penetrates deep into the tooth to actively repair acid weakened enamel. i recommend pronamel repair. with new pronamel repair mouthwash you can enhance that repair beyond brushing. they work great together.

shingles. the rash can feel like an intense burning sensation, and last for weeks. shingles could make it hard to be there for your loved ones. over 50? the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside you. don't wait. ask your doctor about shingles. power e*trade's easy-to-use tools, like dynamic charting and risk-reward analysis, help make trading feel effortless. and its customizable scans with social sentiment help you find and unlock opportunities in the market. e*trade from morgan stanley do you want to close out? should i? normally i'd hold. but... taking the gains is smart here, right?

feel more confident with stock ratings from j.p. morgan analysts in the chase app. when you've got a decision to make... the answer is j.p. morgan wealth management. we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law. no amount of money and no amount of power changes that enduring american principle. >> d.a. alvin bragg speaking that one and only time that he addressed this case in public, announcing those charges that now have become the only criminal trial this year of defendant and presidential candidate donald trump. we are now joined by andrew weissmann and kristy greenberg, our legal eagles and msnbc analysts. andrew, i want to ask you to broaden out. we are in this day by day, but this is our special. when we look at the entire case, what do you think has been

proven? what fairly is the most clear and convincing evidence that the d.a. has been able to bring, and what, if any, reasonable doubts do you think could be there? all in all holistic? >> well, i think something that kind of gets lost is one of the things that i think has been established beyond any question at all, and frankly isn't much of a battleground in this trial is something that's pretty shocking, which is david pecker's testimony that he had an agreement with donald trump. in other words, one to one, principal to principal that there was not just a catch and kill scheme but there was also a scheme to intentionally defame opponents. so you had a media outlet, many people may view it as a sort of down market media outlet, but one that was in cahoots with a political candidate. and so just from a political perspective, sort of to me it should still be shocking, and i think to the jurors it will be

one of the reasons why they may care about this case because that's sort of one of the intents that informs why this is a felony. i think the area where there's going to be the most -- >> i'll go back to you on part two, but on part one who you just said, moderator's privilege, i'm not judge merchan, but i get to jump in. you said down market, super market, this tabloid matters a lot, and i really want to echo what you're saying because you're talking about the evidence as a lawyer. it's not for us to say what's better or not, the new yorker or the atlantic or this tabloid. this was an extraordinary secret agreement. it was unfair to the voters, obviously. it was also unfair to all of donald trump's republican primary candidates, some of whom complained there was something going on, but it wasn't exposed then, and so we think about the law as a search for truth. i really appreciate what you're saying because the case has

already exposed more truth, unfair to the voters, unfair to the republican primary candidates and yes, unfair to the democrat and we know all the politics about that. you make a great point. i give you back the ball for the second point you want to make, and kristy, same question to you, please. >> yeah, let me begin really quickly because kristy's a really good trial lawyer also. just really quickly, i think the area where i think there will be sort of pitch battles is about what did donald trump know about the false business records. you know, you obviously have michael cohen, but i think that you'll hear a lot about putting together pecker, hope hicks, jeff mcconney, and just how unlikely it would be that michael cohen and allen weisselberg who by any stretch of the imagination clearly knew about the scheme, why they would keep it from donald trump. so i think you're going to hear that as the main battleground. it will be lots of embroidery, but i think substantively that will be the main issue. >> kristy.

>> i completely agree. i think as to the piece of this about proving that there's an agreement to unlawfully influence the election, there's just so much evidence from so many different sources about that piece hearing not just from michael cohen, but from david pecker about how the whole, you know, meeting in august of 2015 was set up. direct conversations not just between michael cohen and donald trump but between david pecker and donald trump, and also hearing about the fact that even after the election, you know, not just david pecker but hope hicks, both having donald trump say if either of these stories, whether it's karen mcdougal or stormy daniels got out, it really would have been damaging to the campaign, and i don't see any way that you would describe why for stormy daniels they were delaying the payments if it was -- if the purpose of the payments was just to prevent embarrassment to his family or to himself and not to the campaign. the timing doesn't add up. otherwise, he would have just made the payment at any point.

so i think that point is very strong and there are just so many witnesses that corroborate each other in that. i do agree with andrew, the evidence that donald trump caused these false business records to be made, you know, that -- it doesn't have to be direct. it can be indirect, but there really wasn't evidence that donald trump was directing or requesting anybody to make the false business records. so where do you get this evidence? you know, i think ultimately there's going to be an argument, look, he was kind of working in concert with different people. you know, he understood -- jeff mcconney understood from allen weisselberg that there was going to be a reimbursement to michael cohen, and donald trump knew that there would be a reimbursement as well. there is a document, a very important document that donald trump signed saying that michael cohen was going to be reimbursed for expenses in 2016. there's now -- the burden of proof is not on the defense, but the defense presented no theory when it put forth its case as to

what those expenses were, and the expenses were between 100,000 to $250,000. so if it's not these checks that are the reimbursement and these are for future legal expenses in 2017, what were these other payments for? so again, i think the evidence does come together really well that donald trump, in fact, knew that these payments of $35,000 checks each month were not for future legal expenses but were for the reimbursements. >> and kristy, do you ever binge watch like those episodic shows like "ozark" where you have to catch up on the story? yeah? my question for you as a prosecutor is how will the d.a. take that approach that everyone remembers in the first 30 seconds of episode 15. they don't even try to cover everything that happened but they quickly tell you you remember when they hid the gun and they found the gun and then

this person got killed, and now they found the drugs, what will the prosecution in your view do, if they do it well -- you have a lot of experience. we showed just some of these witnesses and it was 20 in total. we don't expect them to summarize everything. so how are they going to catch everyone up and hit the key witnesses to drill home what they want the jury to remember? >> so i think michael cohen being the prosecution's last witness, he really laid out the story, and so i would use his testimony to lay it out again, but then continue to corroborate him throughout. you heard this not just from michael cohen. you also heard, you know, for example, like the delaying of the payment to stormy daniels. why did that happen? you heard from michael cohen why that happened, because donald trump didn't want to make the payment until after the election when it wouldn't matter, but you also heard that from keith davidson. he understood the same thing to be true, and then you saw that, in fact, the emails about all the excuses michael cohen came up with, and you show those emails, kind of weave through

the evidence. you use michael cohen to tell the story, but then you show all of the ways in which he is corroborated along the way as you take the jury through that narrative. >> andrew. >> i think to follow up on what kristy is saying, i do think you sort of use a time line and you can use a powerpoint or a physical charts. if you're old like me, you might do it physically. steinglass is going to do it through a powerpoint. the timing here is so good for the government as kristy said, and i think you sort of create this time line, and you layer it with things that are hard evidence, phone records, emails, things that cannot be disputed, the checks, the signatures. then you layer into that time line, the things that are softer such as david pecker's testimony, hope hicks, but there's certain people like hope hicks, there's no way to challenge her testimony. i mean, that -- the jury is going to accept that.

and so there's all these different pieces. the one thing i might do slightly differently than kristy but i'm not sure, it will be interesting to see what happens is i might present everything and then focus on michael cohen, sort of talk about just how strong the case is before you even get to him, and then he's sort of icing because the defense, i think, is going to want to say he's indispensable to finding a conviction, and i think the state's going to want to say he's not indispensable. he's additional, and yes, he's credible and you know he's credible, but i think you're going to hear so much that the defense saying the prosecution has to have you rely on him, and he is incredible, and obviously kristy's right. they're going to be shoring him up with all sorts of corroboration, you know, which he is, and frankly, the last defense witness was some of the best corroboration for michael cohen. >> ironically, yeah. i think that's a fair point. the other big thing before i lose you both, i've been dying

to ask you, and i like these specials because we have a little more time to kick back is something we haven't heard about yet. first yes or no, and then we can talk about it. yes or no, do you think we will hear the defense, the trump lawyers on tuesday say where's allen weisselberg and why didn't we hear from him. yes or no, andrew. >> yes. they will say -- >> well and then kristy, i want to get both of you. kristy? >> yes, i think they will try that. >> all right, and then both of your explanations, and i will throw in too. again, i don't do predictionpredictions, but i think it is reasonably likely they'll hit that, which will be an interesting piece. this is the phantom, currently incarcerated for the second time trump ceo. if you were thinking about working with the trump organization. if you're a viewer saying you want to do business with them, you should know their cfo has been to jail twice in the last couple of years. for the jury, first andrew and then kristy. >> so it's very tricky because the defense does not have a

burden to do anything, but you are allowed to say the following, which is the defense doesn't have to do anything. they can sit back, but they did choose to put on a case. they do have subpoena power. they do have the ability to put forth witnesses, and if they thought those people would be helpful, they had the right, not an obligation, but they had the right to call them. allen weisselberg and keith schiller, the two sort of big missing witnesses are people very much aligned with them and in their control, so no one was preventing them from calling them, but you have to do that in a very careful way so that you don't suggest that they had an obligation to call them. >> 30 seconds left, kristy, please. >> yeah, i think if the defense makes that argument, you're going to then hear on rebuttal, they could have called them as well, you know, and again, in a careful way. the idea that he was equally available to both sides, and then i think you will probably

hear some arguments from the lawyers not in the presence of the jury about whether or not some jury instructions should be given to the jury about -- about just that fact, that he was equally available to both sides and both sides chose not to call him. we haven't seen the jury instructions yet to know if that's an instruction they're going to be given, but if the defense opens the door on that, a jury instruction to that effect may be warranted. >> super interesting to hear both of you, especially with the acumen and nuance you have about how it would work. if you took out all the court rules, right, you could imagine just the defense saying if this is such a strong case, why didn't they have the guy who drew up this supposed terrible plan. and you can imagine the prosecutor saying because he's a crook and a liar and he's in rikers and we don't trust him. there are a little more rules on how they talk than that. that's a little more for the law and order reboot. andrew comes back a little later. kristy greenberg, appreciate

both of you. what makes it special? it can't be the anchor, sometimes it is the guest. we just had two great ones and tonight we have pulitzer prize winner doris kearns goodwin, the great historian, she's here with us tonight for this special. that's coming up, we think it's pretty special, and here's another special guest, the lawyer for one of the key star witnesses, stormy daniels, with me for the first time coming up. . s a clinically proven arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement.

the former president coming face to face with adult film actress stormy daniels. >> this isn't what i want to be known for. >> riveting, bombshell, sometimes icky. >> concerned for my safety. >> clark brewster of my client -- >> the cross was right up her alley, and she dealt with it

well. >> she was not going to let, you know, her story be mischaracterized. >> stormy daniels is a key witness in this trial. she spent about eight hours on the stand. her testimony is crucial to whatever happens next. we are joined by her aforementioned lawyer, clark brewster. thanks for being here. >> my pleasure,ari. >> what do you think she got across as a witness about the things she knew from her own experience, primary knowledge in this trial? >> well, the thing i think she really brought to the courtroom was the genuineness, the openness, the transparency, the ability to deal with the cross and go through the facts, even if there were contradictions in her previous statement to explain why, and i believe she appeared to be very credible, very genuine, and the jury got to see a person that experienced what happened to her, and i think she related it very well in that courtroom.

>> yeah, and we've seen different approaches to cross examination over the trial. you're now joining us on this special, so we have it all. i think it's fair to say that michael cohen had a rougher cross exam. he certainly had to concede not only falsehoods, but criminal and other acts, which is known because he's a convict, and ms. daniels is not in that same position, and over time it became clear that her cross was not the hottest or worst moment, that she did pretty well. i think it's fair to say. i do want to show that they discussed with her what about the 130,000, what her motivations were. she said i don't care about the amount. it was just get it done. the money didn't matter to me, and they had this back and forth. of course the whole thing is about money, and the trump attorney was also able to say, well, you didn't know what trump's involvement was indeed at the time as we've all since learned, the money came out of a michael cohen loan, and she said not directly, no. does any of that in your view

matter to the core issue, donald trump's guilt? how should people understand what she said there? >> well, i think what really heeded up the need to quiet her was the access hollywood tape, and when that broke, there was kind of a fevered effort on the trump side of things to try to quiet as many women as they could, two that we know about obviously are karen mcdougal and stormy daniels. so that was -- that was the motivation. that's what set it afire, and stormy obviously wouldn't have known what was going on behind the scenes on the trump side, but she certainly knew what was going on from her perspective, and from her perspective, she thought if this was documented and done with in a way if something happens to me i'll feel as if i have some -- at least some protection that it's documented and known about, so that was her plan, and it was either to go public and reveal what happened so it was a matter of record or have it document instead a form of a nondisclosure agreement with a

payment of some money at least to document that and that's what she did. >> in the questioning trump's lawyers seemed to suggest or argue that ms. daniels' work, that her career somehow makes her less than credible or even in their argument somehow a questionable individual. i don't know whether they'll return to that in closing. do you think they crossed a line there? >> i don't know if they crossed a line. i think the jury saw who she really was and what she dealt with in her life and how she's dealt with it. she's had incredible success as a person not not only that industry but the film industry, and what she's chosen to do since being so involved in film, so i think that falls flat, but i do believe that was the narrative that he believed to take advantage of her, that she was in this industry, that she would not tell people or that she could bring more women into his sphere. so i mean, the very thing that they're accusing her of now is what made her a target for him

in my view. >> and clark, it's no secret to you or viewers that being stormy daniels' lawyer is a certain kind of job with exposure, political heat. we have the lawyers up, keith davidson ended up testifying in this trial, one of the early witnesses. michael avenatti famously represented her and was then convicted of crimes both related to that representation and other crimes. as you know and is still in prison, and since you're here, we heard from him, it was his first jailhouse interview in some time, at the dawn of this trial. since you're here, i want to give you the benefit of responding because he did say things about the history with your client. take a listen. >> i think this is the wrong case at the wrong time, ari. i think that the case is in many ways stale at this juncture. you're talking about conduct that occurred some eight years ago. it had been represented to me

that she had not attempted to extort donald trump and the campaign in the waning days of 2016, that they had come to her, and i believed her when she told me that repeatedly. unfortunately in early 2019, i came to learn that that was not true. >> he no longer represents her. you do. your response? >> well, interesting perspective from a guy that's been convicted of extortion, convicted of fraud, convicted of embezzlement. to suggest there's some kind of extortion scheme when, in fact, he actually was engaged in extortion in the nike case is quite interesting. in '19 i began representing stormy in early march of '19, late february, early march and i was involved, and i had the conversations with avenatti that revealed we knew he had forged her name and embezzled the money. he had been completely quiet, was not returning her phone calls. had just ghosted her for weeks. the idea that he'd come into the

knowledge that she was doing something wrongful and his ethics were so strong that he had to withdraw from representing her is nonsense. >> understood, and again, you represent her now, so we wanted to get you on that. final question, sir. you're smiling, go ahead, do you have more? >> no, i find avenatti's ability to attempt to reinvent himself to be quite interesting. >> fair enough, in closing in the final question, do you have any views of what you expect when the jury gets the case, what does this ultimately mean and what have the result may be to your client ms. daniels who i think it's very fair to say has been through a lot. >> she has, and it's hard to predict what jurors think, and no matter what you might think one of them will do, it's a process, different results occur, so it will be really interesting to see their verdict. i think it's going to benefit

the prosecution greatly to be able to go last and to explain the evidence in a way that's powerful, that meets the jury instructions, and i don't believe there's any real doubt that the criminal acts occurred. the question is whether this jury will convict him. that's the issue. >> understood. clark brewster, attorney for witness stormy daniels. thank you for your time on this special night. >> thank you. >> appreciate it, yeah. we've got a response from andrew weissmann and as promised, historian doris kearns goodwin tonight, both coming up. n dorisn tonight, both coming up. - so this is pickleball? - pickle! ah, these guys are intense. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement.

or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? can neuriva support your brain health? mary, janet, hey!! (thinking: eddie, no frasier, frank... frank?) fred! how are you?! fred... fuel up to 7 brain health indicators, including your memory. join the neuriva brain health challenge.

if you spit blood when you brush, it could be the start of a domino effect. new parodontax active gum repair breath freshener. clinically proven to help reverse the four signs of early gum disease. a new toothpaste from parodontax, the gum experts. i love that my daughter still needs me. but sometimes i can't help due to burning and stabbing pain in my hands, so i use nervive. nervive's clinical dose of ala reduces nerve discomfort in as little as seven days. now i can help again feel the difference with nervive. oh, yeah, man. take it from your now inner child.gain what you really need in life is some freakin' torque. what?

the dodge hornet r/t... the totally torqued-out crossover. if you have heart disease and struggle with ldl-c... even with statins and a healthy diet... listen to your heart. talk to your doctor about repatha. repatha plus a statin lowers ldl-c (bad cholesterol) by 63%, and drops the risk of having a heart attack. do not take repatha if you are allergic to it. repatha can cause serious allergic reactions. signs include trouble breathing or swallowing or swelling of the face. most common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu-like symptoms, back pain, high blood sugar, and redness, pain, or bruising at the injection site. talk to your doctor about repatha.

we're back with andrew weissmann. on more than one topic, i just heard from stormy daniels' lawyer there as mentioned, her very first lawyer who did this deal was a witness. her second lawyer very controversially convicted of crimes including related to her and dishonesty as i mentioned, and he's the third. i'm curious of what you thought of everything we heard. >> sure, well, one thing that's really striking with the clip you played from michael avenatti and we heard it with bob costello, last defense witness is i'd always been taught as a lawyer that you have a continuing duty of loyalty to your client. you may no longer represent them, but you can't just get on tv and start besmirching them, at least that's what i thought the ethical rules were.

so there's something that just as a lawyer that i'm just sort of stunned because, you know, when you have a client, you have that obligation to them. so you know, i very much respected your guest, you know, he has -- he is representing her, and he's not allowed to besmirch her, and he was representing her interests and other lawyers should not be doing something different. the other thought i had, i was in court for stormy daniels' testimony, you know, the whole case here is about that donald trump is accused of not wanting her story to come out, and he had a cross examination of her that was hammer and tongs and you know, her testimony wasn't even all that important to the case. this was just whether she was telling the truth or not was really almost irrelevant because the issue is did he want that story to be out there or not, but david pecker and hope hicks who had very damaging information to give to the jury,

they had very light cross examinations. so in many ways, what you saw with respect to stormy daniels was almost a continuation of the reason he didn't want in 2016 this story to come out. he still is adamant in trying to prove that this did not happen and didn't want people to believe it, and you saw it in court, and it's what the actual charge is, and finally, i just think stormy daniels did a really good job, particularly on cross examination in humanizing herself and making people understand who she is, and she was wicked smart as the young kids say. >> yeah, i think all that's fair. for the jury that was getting this narrative as you say, hear from her as a person was important, and i think the d.a. scored points as well by being very clear, there were stories that were false. there was a doorman story, which they said very clearly in opening arguments. you're going to hear about

everything they did that was false. we're not just throwing everything at donald trump for no reason. if he's going to be lying about this and his lawyers are going to be as they are allowed to do, we're going to hear from the witness herself. that was striking, andrew weissmann on more than one topic in our special, thanks for being here. >> glad to be here. take care. >> absolutely. appreciate it. we wanted to get that perspective from andrew on ms. daniels current lawyer and what he told us and up next as promised renowned historian doris kearns goodwin on how the nation is taking in this living history. nation is taking in this living history. shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on.

the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. it's lying dormant, waiting... and could reactivate. shingles strikes as a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks. and it could wake at any time. think you're not at risk for shingles? it's time to wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. so, what are you thinking? i'm thinking... (speaking to self) about our honeymoon. what about africa? safari? hot air balloon ride? swim with elephants? wait, can we afford a safari? great question. like everything, it takes a little planning. or, put the money towards a down-payment...

...on a ranch ...in montana ...with horses let's take a look at those scenarios. j.p. morgan wealth management has advisors in chase branches and tools, like wealth plan to keep you on track. when you're planning for it all... the answer is j.p. morgan wealth management. frustrated by skin tags? dr. scholl's has the breakthrough you've been waiting for. now there's an easier-to-use at home skin tag remover, clinically proven to remove skin tags safely in as little as one treatment.

ego, the number one rated brand in cordless outdoor power brings you the select cut mower. customize the cut with three interchangeable blades. it cuts for over an hour on a single charge. ego - exclusively at lowe's, ace and ego authorized dealers.

- so this is pickleball? - pickle! ah, these guys are intense. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right?

we hear these words so often, unprecedented, historic, consequential. no matter what happens in the weeks ahead, they have now rested the case in the first criminal trial of any former president who's also, of course, running for president. this is history. it's captured the nation's attention, and it's reaching a massive audience in new ways as we live through history, just as fdr had the radio and kennedy had tv, and this trial while not itself televised is very much being discussed and thus shared and thus broadcast in its own way through our own digital tools and social media today. >> we really are nearing the end of this trump trial. >> in just 45 minutes of testimony, this became the worst day in court for donald trump. >> really pleading to trump, like follow my order, please.

i don't want to have to put you in jail. >> i don't think we give trump and his lawyers enough credit for the strategy they developed. >> what a loser. donald trump doesn't testify. >> this is how many millions of americans and people around the world are first learning of things happening. you and i might read the transcripts or follow it on tv or listen to the lawyers, and that's a part of it, but a lot of people are getting it this way. trump and his allies are also trying to not only shape ow people understand happening inside the trial but argue that the whole thing itself is somehow a witch hunt or unfair or not on the level. polling shows most americans still trust juries, in fact, the jury system which of course is about whether we trust each other to follow these rules in court, is more trusted than other aspects of the system like what judges do, and about a third of republican voters still say, and this is interesting, if trump is convicted in the next

week or two, they would no longer be able to vote for him. as promised, and as quite honestly promoted, historian doris kearns goodwin, the pulitzer prize winner is with us in our special tonight, and her new book is an unfinished love story, a personal history of the 1960s. welcome. >> thank you. glad to be here on, as you say, an historic moment. >> yeah, so i'll start with the straightforward, maybe easy question. what do we need to keep in mind when we're living through history like this? and does it matter as mentioned that many people who will ultimately process the outcome of the trial and go on to vote for learning about it in new mediums including the internet with all its pros and cons? >> what's going to be really important in the weeks ahead is how the country regards whatever the jury decides. i mean, i love the idea that

still there's a trust in the jury decisions. that's a sixth amendment, such an important thing. and if the former president were to be convicted, and if people then began to attack the jury system, as we attacked, we saw attacked after the election was lost, the electoral system was devastatingly attacked, then i think the country is going to be in trouble. so what we have got to hope somehow is we can educate the country as to what the jury means, what it means to have 12 citizens if he were to be convicted and why we need to trust that as we have trusted it over an enormous amount of time, started by the pilgrims way long ago, and then there might be an acceptance of the decision as it is. we still haven't accepted, at least large numbers, what happened in the election. if we were to have another distrust of another institution, then the country is really going to be in trouble. it's up to the media to do what it can right now to describe what it means to have those 12 people come to that decision if it were to be a conviction, and i think that's the chapter

that's ahead of us that may be even more important than the decision itself. >> yeah, and as you say, the justice system, that branch of government, while it has its problems and we have covered them, it is supposed to be more independent, less political, less partisan than the other branches. obviously. and that has worked in some ways. we have the numbers i referred to. i want to do the comparison. when you look at congress and the presidency, you know, congress has almost -- people have no confidence in it. the presidency depends on the situation, but that's low. the supreme court, of course, has actually fallen in the last five or ten years and has seen, i would argue, not as a problem with the court but that people think the court itself has become too political and they act like politicians and now they're getting politician-like numbers. let me flip the question to you, though, and ask if trump skates, if he is not convicted through acquittal or hung jury, and so

many people feel they have just seen this public evidence of crime, what is important for people to consider on that side as well? because it has to go both ways, doesn't it? >> you're right. i think then there might be an argument on the part of the people who are disappointed by the decision, well, the rule of law was not applied fairly because somebody had power. and then that will be an equal problem because then now you're not trusting the jury in that sense. we have to put our trust in the jury. that's the only thing on either side we can say. one of the things that old abraham lincoln said which is still to be determined, and your percentage about people who might not vote for the former president if he's convicted suggests that, lincoln said public sentiment was more important even than a court decision was more important than a law that's passed by congress. what he meant by that is if a settled feeling develops in the country, not just public opinion, but a settled feeling that developed that slavery was wrong, there was nothing that was going to stop that from being undone. if a settled feeling described

in the country is felt that this is the wrong thing, that this president did, and he should not be elected that will be one decision i think will be made. it's going to be public sentiment between what happens between now and november that is the history about how the country is responding, how democracy responds, whether the institutions hold up. >> striking when you put it that way. what we need is this backstop, and precisely because things have gotten this intense especially with the republican attacks on the rule of law itself and people flying to new york to doubt the whole jury system that we need it more than ever. doris kearns goodwin, special ingredient to our special tonight. i want to mention your book, an unfinished love story. you can find that wherever you get your books. we love having doris on. it's a treat. i want to tell everyone of this special we have been reporting from inside the courtroom. our whole team, the lawyers and anchors you see on msnbc, i want

to mention next week, we'll be back there. on tuesday i'll be inside the courtroom to see and report on those closes arguments for you in person. you can go online and see what we share from that footage. go to @arimelber or arimelber.com or any of your favorite shows to find our extra coverage. keep it locked right here on msnbc. what? the dodge hornet r/t... the totally torqued-out crossover. 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®. (♪♪) (♪♪) try dietary supplements from voltaren, for healthy joints. (bell ringing) someone needs to customize and save hundreds with liberty mutual! (inaudible sounds) (elevator doors opening) wait, there's an elevator?

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪ you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it.

her uncle's unhappy. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for.

tonight on "the reidout" -- >> i had the honor this term of the only supreme court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders. >> samuel alito, who reveled in and joked about being the one to deliver the death blow to roe v. wade is now making it harder to bring racial gerrymandering cases while flying yet another tr