norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? -but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... i know... faster wifi and savings? ...i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc?

good morning. it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera alongside my colleague and friend jose diaz-balart, bringing you special coverage as history unfolds this morning in a new york courthouse. closing arguments now under way in the first criminal trial of a former president. the dramatic final phase of donald trump's hush money case after 21 days in court, 22 witnesses and 80 hours of testimony. >> up first in today's closing arguments, trump's defense team. attorney todd blanche trying to convince a jury that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof in this trial. >> nbc's yasmin vossoughian is outside the courthouse. also with us, chuck rosenberg, former senior fbi official, daniel leven, former prosecutor, jeremy solante, and jessica roth, former federal prosecutor and professor at cordosa law

school. the defense closing is already under way. todd blanche saying to the jury, you should want or expect more than the testimony of michael cohen. what else are we hearing from him? >> reporter: big, big, big day today, guys, to say the least. two and a half hours we're expected to hear from todd blanche when it comes to his closing arguments. his summations. and then followed up by the prosecution, joshua steinglass, who will be leading summations for the prosecution for four to four and a half hours this thing could extend into tomorrow if the jury decides they don't want to stay late. but if they decide they can, in fact, stay late, we could be finishing up closing arguments, summations today and then heading into jury instructions tomorrow and then subsequently deliberations. quickly, ana, before i get into what we're hearing from todd blanche, let me give you a lay of the land. we are hearing from more protesters here than ever before, i would say, about 50 yards from where i'm standing right now, former president

trump supporters standing outside in that courtyard area, protesting for in support of donald trump as he faces his destiny really here. his future here in that courtroom behind me. let me walk you through some of what we're hearing from todd blanche and his defense and closing arguments. he began with president trump is innocent, he did not commit any crimes and the d.a. did not achieve the burden of proof, period. he mentioned michael cohen so far, so many times, and we're only about 30 minutes into this thing. as you mentioned, he said, you should want and expect more than the testimony of michael cohen. you should want and expect more than deb tarasoff who told you how she booked invoices and records, something beyond the claims that something happened in 2006. you should demand more than the testimony of keith davidson, remember keith davidson, the attorney for stormy daniels, trying to extort money from president trump in the leadup to the 2016 election.

the consequences is simple, we will spend time talking about evidence you saw over the last five weeks, not just what you saw and heard, but what you did not hear as well. he went on to say, you will hear me talk about michael cohen, and that should not surprise you. you cannot convict president trump on the words of michael cohen, keith schiller, dylan howard, allen weisselberg are not here in this trial. michael cohen was the witness they called and the words michael cohen said on the stand matter, they matter. he took an oath and swore to tell you the truth and he told you a number of things on the stand that were lies. pure and simple. again, he has mentioned, guys, michael cohen's name several times so far. expect to be a huge part, obviously, both his name, along with stormy daniels' testimony, a huge part of these closing arguments today. and i am not surprised, this is something we anticipated as well, that he has brought up and i imagine he'll bring this up again, the absence of some major figures that we did not hear from, allen weisselberg

specifically, keith schiller as well. >> yasmin, fascinating to go back into the courtroom where blanche continues his statement today. let me just take you in there for just a second, because blanche is just now saying there is no dispute, that in 2017, again, establishing, according to blanche, that cohen had -- was the personal attorney to donald trump at the time. he says, there is no dispute that in 2017 there was an attorney/client relationship between cohen and president trump. nobody has told you different. he, meaning mr. cohen, was president trump's personal lawyer, period. no one disputes that mr. cohen was president trump's personal lawyer in 2017. what makes more sense, blanche asks? president trump paying him $35,000 pursuant to an agreement or the version that michael cohen came in here and told you that i was going to go work for free and in the back of my head, i would work for free and make a lot of money as a consultant.

there is a reason why blanche is saying, there is a reason why in life usually the simplest answer is the right one and that's certainly the case here. that story mr. cohen told you on that witness stand is not true. lying or not true, a statement that we're hearing over and over again this morning by blanche. >> and really putting it all on the credibility of michael cohen, it sounds like. chuck, what do you make of the defense closing arguments so far? >> i don't mean this as a criticism, but it is standard. we have two very good defense attorneys right here at this table, jeremy and duncan. i imagine either of them could walk down to the courthouse right now, and give the same closing argument that mr. blanche is giving. you would proclaim that mr. trump is innocent, you would claim that mr. cohen is a creep and can't be trusted and tell the jury that the government hasn't met its burden of proof. this is standard defense fare. not a criticism, just an observation. >> and the problem with what i

think he's saying is that it is just the lie by the evidence. michael cohen, there is no retainer agreement, no invoices. michael cohen made $4 million in that year, 2017, he charged, i think he said he worked ten hours for mr. trump while he was his personal assistant, he was doing this so he can grift on other clients. there is no evidence he was actually billing any hours as mr. trump's personal attorney and this number $35,000 is not just a magic number pulled out of nowhere, there is -- there are two exhibits, exhibit 35 and exhibit 36 in this trial, which have allen weisselberg's handwriting all over it. and that is the calculation of how you get to the $35,000. it is not a magic number. >> it is really the first building block of this process for the defense. but is that first building block pretty much standard? >> it is pretty much standard and i appreciate chuck saying we're good defense attorneys.

duncan, you're a good defense attorney. all joking aside, you know, what i think they did was a little bit dangerous. it started off blanche saying, we want or expect more than michael cohen, he just opened that door for the prosecution to hammer him and what i mean by that is you know what, you deserve more than michael cohen and guess what, you got more than michael cohen because you got mr. pecker, you got hope hicks, you got -- as you said, the exhibits 35 and 36, handwritten notes by weisselberg, what else did you get? the call logs. you have so much. this is not the michael cohen show, despite the fact that absolutely unequivocally that's the endgame for the defense. if you don't like michael cohen, you don't want him to date your sister, don't want him to be your neighbor, but that's not what this is about. i may not like him either, but he's telling you the truth and he got eviscerated and knew he would do that and still came here and there is more than michael cohen. they opened this door, if i'm the prosecution, i'm frothing a little bit, ready to respond. >> here is how he's continuing on with his closing argument.

he says, there is no evidence president trump knew anything about this voucher system, anything, and i don't know how the government will address that. and if they read you quotes from a book a decade earlier, you should be suspicious. that's a red flag, blanche says. blanche goes on to say, something he wrote when a book assisted by ghost writers, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not include passages from a book decades earlier. there is a problem in the proof. what do you make of that and do you think that's a strong argument that trump didn't know anything about these particular documents in question, and you can't rely on what he has said about how he looks at finances from a decade earlier? >> so i think the weakest part of the prosecution's case thus far is connecting trump to the falsification of the records. i think that's the part where they're most dependent on the credibility of michael cohen's testimony, he was in the room with donald trump talking about this falsification scheme. according to michael cohen, allen weisselberg was there too, but the jury hasn't heard from

allen weisselberg. >> which they pointed out in the closing arguments. they said, where was dylan howard, where was keith schiller, where was allen weisselberg. >> and what the prosecution is going to do and it has this opportunity to address the jury is to say, you know what, there are a lot of other witnesses the defense didn't mention to you, like hope hicks, and david pecker who corroborate critical aspects of michael cohen's testimony and there are the documents that corroborate michael cohen's testimony, about the falsification scheme. so at the end of the day, there is a very, very small amount of michael cohen's testimony that is not corroborated by documents and other witnesses. and there is lots of circumstantial evidence to corroborate what michael cohen is saying about this particular part of the story. >> but would the prosecution then be able to now address why allen weisselberg is not there? will they be able to say in theirs because allen weisselberg is in rikers and is a totally unreliable guy who is, you know, lied on the stand multiple times is why you didn't hear from him, but you can still look at his handwriting on the documents. >> it is interesting what

they're permitted to say. we haven't seen what the judge is going to instruct the jury about the absence of allen weisselberg and what they can argue from it. the prosecution is going to be able to point to the corroborating evidence without the presence of that witness, about allen weisselberg's handwriting, for example, on the records. and i think they'll be limited in what they can say about what the jury could or could not infer from the absence of allen weisselberg on the stand. >> in the time we have, it could be hours that the defense is going to be up. what is the principle point distilled down that the defense has to show? >> that the government failed to meet its burden of proof. >> and it is all about burden of proof? >> it is. it is on the government. it is always on the government. it never shifts to the defense. so, all of these arguments are really tailored to that. you can't trust michael cohen. to jessica's point, there is no good, direct evidence tieing mr. trump to the intentionality

required to show that he falsified the records. maybe they would argue that the causation doesn't exist, jose, but it is all really tailored to this notion that the government has failed. the government, of course, i think, my view, has put in a compelling case. that doesn't mean the jury is going to convict. but if you're the prosecutor in this case, you can sit down at the end of the day and say, i called the witnesses i wanted to call, i asked the questions i wanted to ask, i introduced the evidence i wanted to introduce, we have met our burden. and i think you'll hear that sort of pushback in the four and a half hours of closing argument from the defense -- excuse me, from the prosecutor later today. >> and our guidance based on what the both defense lawyers and prosecution told the judge very beginning of trial today is that the defense will take two and a half hours in their closing argument and the prosecution could take four, four and a half hours in their closing arguments. let me read more from what we're hearing inside that courtroom

right now as todd blanche, trump's defense attorney, makes his closing argument. he says, the government said this was an elaborate way to cover up a $130,000 payment that is not what the evidence showed. february 14th, 2017, he moves to washington, d.c., all president trump's assets are moved into a trust to avoid a conflict of interest and that went into effect january 20th. they put up some exhibits here showing the transcript, him agreeing these things were in flux during that time period. blanche goes on to say, this was a confusing time for the trump organization, adjustments were being made and it matters because initially they wanted to pay michael cohen out of a trust. blanche, who are don and eric? who are in the courtroom, by the way, today. you all know who they are. they are president trump's sons. they're running the company. and blanche says this is one of the charge documents as they put up another exhibit here that president trump is charged with a felony and if there is a conspiratorial agreement between the three of them to pay michael cohen as a cover-up, this email

does not exist. don't tell anybody, it is actually just a payback for the $130,000 nda. then why does the email exhibit? and why do don jr. and eric have to approve it? blanche says, guess who else you don't hear from in this trial? don and eric. is there a suggestion they're part of this scheme? >> matter of fact, yasmin, those two people are in the courtroom this morning. >> reporter: they are. yes. don jr. and eric trump are in the courtroom with tiffany trump as well. the first time i believe she's in the courtroom today. don jr. was here last week. twice last week, i believe, it was. eric has been here throughout the trial on and off along with lara trump as well, eric trump's wife in the courtroom. it is interesting, guys. i think they are drawing attention to the fact that eric trump, don jr. did not appear on the stand. the folks that did not in fact

appear on the stand, the whole idea here for the defense is to build doubt in the minds of these jurors and to preempt whatever we're hearing from laura jarrett inside the courtroom right now, to preempt the arguments by the prosecution as they begin their summations after closing arguments wrap with the defense. after the defense is done, they're done. there is no rebuttal from the defense once the prosecution delivers their closing arguments. so everything that is said now is said now. they need to prebut whatever it is they intend to hear from the prosecution here. hence why they're building this timeline and also drawing attention to the fact that to the many individuals that did not, in fact, testify throughout this trial that were key players in this trial. don jr., eric trump, they signed two of the checks before donald trump began signing the checks. 11 checks that were signed.

$35,000 each. all throughout the year, 2017. the two that came from the trust, the two initial checks that came from the trust, were signed by don jr. and eric trump. hence why their names were brought to light today and questioning why it is they did not, in fact, take the stand. >> yeah, yasmin, that is something that blanche is really focusing in on. he is saying here, president trump was supposed to pay this out of his personal account because he, cohen, was personal attorney. didn't make sense for the company to pay, so they switched it. and that is the way it is. and it shouldn't surprise you. now, they're showing some of the checks, signed by eric, some signed by trump, donald trump. and blanche is showing the difference. both the checks, he says, were approved by eric and don jr. and president trump did not have anything to do with them. as you know, he signed the remaining checks, the checks

don't have any language for the invoice michael cohen sent. they just say retainer. once again, showing the court, blanche, here a separation between what donald trump knew he was signing and why he was signing those checks. >> i want to bring in barbara mcquaid, former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst. barb, as you're listening to how the defense is framing their closing argument right now, what is on your mind? >> well, as chuck said this is standard operating procedure. i think what they're going to do is go step by step through all of the things that could suggest reasonable doubt as to donald trump's knowledge and intent. aside from michael cohen, what is left in the evidence here, and then try to poke holes in all of that. look at this document, look at what this says, look at this email, look at this other thing. i think he's going to be very careful about suggesting the involvement of don jr. and eric

because when he says they approved this, does that mean they're part of the conspiracy? part of me said, well, yeah, maybe they were. so, i think he has to be careful there. but i imagine that he will methodically go through each of the 34 documents in this case, tying the proof directly to donald trump. there is standard response from the prosecution will be, you know, something along the lines of, you know, if you cherry pick one piece of evidence here, one piece of evidence there, you might suggest that you're casting some doubt, but, of course, this case isn't about cherry picking one piece of evidence or another, it is about all of the evidence. when you combine all of it, it makes out for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a supervisor i used to work with used to use the analogy of bricks and walls, that the defense wants to show you individual bricks, but the brick is not a wall. when i put the bricks together, i built a wall that is now proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> and, jeremy, what do you make

of the throwing don jr. and eric trump into the mix? >> well, part of what is going on here is as they're trying to show the doubt there is the theory you see of admitting what you can't deny and denying what you can't admit. you have to admit there is -- it is not exactly to answer your question, you have to admit donald trump signed the check. you can't deny that. his name is on the checks. you have to admit that. you can't admit the purpose or the background. you have to deny the basis and the intent and the knowledge of what was going on. it is this admitting what you can't deny and denying what you can't admit and the defense will use that to their advantage and say we're missing evidence, there is reasons why these notes are signed off on, a reason why there is no email, a reason why i'm blaming don and eric. at the same time, the prosecution turns around and takes the opposite perspective and say they're admitting it because they have to admit it, but denying why. and why? because they can deny that, but we still have all this corroborated evidence, all these

documents and all this testimony that still put it -- keep this in mind. admit what you can't deny and deny what you can't admit. >> blanche is focussing on michael cohen's credibility. saying it is worth remembering that we're going to be talking for just a few minutes about how michael cohen, how the government is going to ask you to convict president trump based on the words of michael cohen. even without mr. cohen, what we just went through, the government can't get by the fact that the invoices were not generated by anyone at the trump organization. they were generated by cohen, sent to trump organization, so he could get paid. jessica, there is the whole aspect of what is illegal and what is not illegal about this. and the focus, i presume, the prosecution, to turn it toward, well there is a secondary crime here. >> right, government has to prove a number of things that trump was involved in the scheme

to falify business records. and the government will argue it was to conceal violation of federal election law, primarily, though potentially also as an alternative state tax law. or federal tax law. and in any event, i think that what you see the defense doing here is trying to just create some confusion and if they can do that with at least one juror, because at the end of the day, this is a fairly complicated case, legally. then they may have the seeds of at least a hung jury. and there are 34 counts as well. if they can create doubt with respect to trump's connection to some of the records, including, for example, the invoices submitted by michael cohen, which are the least connected to trump and the trump organization, well, maybe that's enough to create doubt for at least one juror. i think we see blanche operating on multiple tracks. it may not be particularly elegant in the sense of having one theme, but may have something that appeals to at least one juror. >> and another thing i want to point out that blanche says, he mentions, you cannot convict

president trump because sometimes without specificity at all, somehow, he had full knowledge of what was happening. that say stretch, that is reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen, blanche saying again this is your reasonable doubt if trump's name isn't on some of the checks, how do you know trump had full knowledge of this, how is it that trump caused the falsification of those records? your thoughts on that? >> so, getting to this point that i think jaurjarmy. jeremy brings up, the falsification, they bump it up to a felony, michael cohen and donald trump to violate the state election law, to promote an election by unlawful means. that is proven. his fingerprints are all over that. there a tape recording that michael cohen made, all sorts of evidence and text messages about this conspiracy. the part that they're focusing in on is this sort of more

mundane part, this boring part, about falsification of business records. they can't deny that donald trump's fingerprints are all over this conspiracy. he doesn't -- he's not charged with it. it is legal. he's not charged with it. it is just the intent to commit that crime that makes it a felony. what they're focusing in on now is he's president of the united states, he was distracted, he wasn't paying attention to these invoicing and billing matters, they were beneath him and this was a scheme that was concocted by a liar, who is lying about everything, and a person who is not here at the trial, and he's missing. and so this was a scheme concocted by them, maybe with donald trump's two sons who are running the place in his absence, they're distancing donald trump, their client, as much as possible from the actual crime here, which is a falsification of business records. so where as it is sort of the more boring part of the case, it is the case -- the part that is also -- >> it is the crux. >> also the weakest for the prosecution. >> and talk about points or

bricks that make a wall, this is the first brick and it is pretty much focused solely on michael cohen. >> reporter: as expected. michael cohen, michael cohen, michael cohen, michael cohen is seemingly on trial here as well. and they're wanting the jury to essentially see this entire case based upon michael cohen. one other man we have not talked a lot about guys that has been a major player in this case, manhattan d.a. alvin bragg. he's in the courtroom today. i'm told he's taking notes now throughout the closings, led by defense attorney todd blanche. the last time he was in the courtroom, and the only time that he has been in the courtroom throughout this entire six week trial is when someone from his office has in fact testified. the two times in fact they had a paralegal essentially testifying to gathering evidence, gathering social media evidence for donald trump. that is when d.a. alvin bragg was in the courtroom. otherwise, he's not been here and yet he's now in the first

row, taking notes throughout this entire closing arguments, put forth by todd blanche. one other thing i think is important to mention as we talk about michael cohen being the focus of the defense's closing arguments is what i'm learning from the prosecution when it comes to their closing argument, some of which you talked about is, their closings, while they will bring up michael cohen to help build the timeline throughout the closing arguments, they will be focusing in mainly and solely on as we thought they would, also during michael cohen's testimony, the documents. they still understand how problematic or the credibility issues that michael cohen has and so they will be focusing in on those documents. the first republic bank document, we bring this up over and over again, but the first republic bank document where allen weisselberg scribbled on, doing the actual math that paid back reimbursed as michael cohen alleges michael cohen.

>> chuck, d.a. bragg, taking notes during this closing argument, he, of course, is not going to be delivering their closing argument as josh steinglass for the prosecution's team, but could they be reworking their closing argument or respond to some of the specifics they're hearing in blanche's closing argument? >> prosecutors inevitably will be reworking it a bit based on what they hear. when i was online, assistant u.s. attorney, it would be nice if the u.s. attorney was in the courtroom when i was doing something. look around, see if she was there, great if she was, great if she wasn't, doesn't matter. what i wanted to mention, ana, and i am -- i do specialize in dumb analogies, but what the prosecution will do is pull the camera back. if you pull this camera back, you would see all of us, right, and you would see the backdrop, whatever you call these things on the ceiling and on the floor,

you would see everything in this room. so what is the big picture? mr. trump had sex with an adult film actress, she was going to tell that story near the time of his election, he wanted to stop her, he engaged in a scheme with the "national enquirer" to purchase her story and to kill it. and then they used all these people and all these mechanisms and all these documents to do exactly that. one thing the jury will be instructed is that they don't leave their common sense at the door when they become jurors. and they apply their common sense to everything they see and hear. and if you look at the big picture, right, again, my dumb camera analogy if you pull the camera back and look at the big picture, it is obvious why mr. trump did all this and used all the people, including mr. cohen. they fit into the story and narrative. >> the big question into the story and into that narrative, jessica, is how much of this was

illegal? >> right. and so that's something i think we're going to be hearing again and again from trump's lawyers and their closing argument, which is to say that so much of this actually was not illegal, paying to stormy daniels if there was a payment to stormy daniels that was trump was anyway associated with, it was not illegal. that's true in the since of paying somebody, pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement, is not in and of itself illegal. the government argues what was illegal is the payment was made in a way that violated federal election laws because it was made in order to promote trump's campaign. and that the falsification of the trump organization records to conceal the nature of that payment was illegal and that, in fact, is the charge in this crime. but, again, if the defense is looking to poke holes at the government's case and raise reasonable doubt in the minds of some of the jurors, right, it is a really good way, arguably to do that, to point to the fact that many of the facts that are

alleged here and that the government has proven in my opinion are actually not amounting to conduct that is in and of itself illegal. >> you have a new piece out this morning, and you write that the law in question here is favorable to the prosecution. so, maybe you see things a little differently than jessica. can you explain how you see it? >> yes. so, the illegal part, number one, that makes this so favorable to donald trump you don't have to show any other crimes were actually committed, just that there was an intent to conceal or commit other crimes. so, that's very important. because it could be that everything is legal. however, i think the prosecution can prove that a number of campaign finance laws were violated. and the jury only needs to find that any one of them were violated, and they need not be unanimous on which one. and so, those include accepting of payment -- a contribution that exceeds the $2700 limit, $130,000 by michael cohen. accepting a corporate donation

when the trump organization reimbursed michael cohen for one of those things, accepting the donation of a straw impeacher, purchase purchaser, and failing to disclose any of these things. all of those, any one of those violates the federal campaign finance laws and so as long as each juror finds one of those was intended to be concealed, that's sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. >> thank you very much. were you just referring to blanche is talking about right now, he's saying, i expect the government will suggest to you that there was some tax scheme here, as well. there is no evidence, not the trump organization, not the personal expenses of mr. trump, nor mr. cohen. he now shows a picture of michael cohen posing in the white house briefing room, blanche, this meeting was early february, he talked about it. it was a big day. he told you he's going into the oval office for the first time

in his life, meeting his long time boss. but they have a conversation about the checks and the money. that's what they want you to believe. just six days later, mr. cohen sends an email back to mcconney asking, how much is the monthly retainer again? what am i supposed to do. >> joining us now is new york law school professor anna kaminski. how often do closing arguments really make or break the case? in other words, sealing the deal, changing minds? >> well, as an attorney, i would like to think they do quite often. you know, i think generally speaking, especially given a case like this, that has gone on for several weeks. we have over 20 witnesses, lots and lots of documents, they are critical. because this is the time for both sides to mark what we call marshal all the evidence, take it all together and say here's

what we want you to do with this, here's how to look at this, here's how this fits into our story. that's what we're seeing here. they are very important to the case itself. >> and two and a half hours, that seems like a long time for the defense to go, isn't it? >> it is not four and a half hours, which the prosecution is expected to go. we heard did diminishing returns. you run the risk of losing the jury. a jock here, make another comparison of sort of donald trump's tie is a little too long, the prosecution summation is a little too long, you really need to hit your points and make it about the false faying business records. you have to answer to what chuck said before, the defense's answer, they're going to have the responses and answers brought up by the defense. you can't undervalue the or overvalue the summation. at that point in time, you go

from a situation where a judge has instructed the jury, you're not to engage the defense attorney or prosecutor, you're not to engage the juries, the court. you do your thing and go around, they're not being rude or mean, just not engage you. i can look you in the eyes and say this is what happened. remember that piece of evidence that they failed to share? that's important because of the following reasons. this is so important. it is not evidence, but i'm going to tell my story and connect with you. >> that's where the empty chair of allen weisselberg could be coming in. >> look, at the beginning of the trial, both sides make opening statements. there is no argument to it. it is a preview, a table of contents for -- >> there is a huge difference between those. >> the closing is different. the closing the lawyers are allowed to make arguments, allowed to say, look, you have these different pieces, here's how they fit together, or you have all these pieces and here's how they don't fit together. to use this jigsaw analogy, you

do have michael cohen, but look at how what he's saying fits in to how it corroborates what he's saying, use your common sense, how he's -- his credibility is bolstered by all of the corroborated pieces of evidence. the defense is standing there and really just trying to pick it apart, you didn't hear from this person, you didn't hear from this person, this piece of evidence is missing, and all they need to do is show enough reasonable doubt so one juror says i'm confused, i don't understand it, i don't want to convict. that's what they're going for. they would like an across the board acquittal on all the charges, it is a victory for them, if they can get one juror to sit there and hang the jury and not make a decision. >> there is always the possibility, chuck, that there is a split decision, right? there are 34 counts. 34 separate charges here. what is the likelihood that they convict on some and not others? and what would that realistically look like? >> there is a lot of combinations actually. you can have a partial verdict,

where the jury agrees either to acquit or convict on some counts. and hangs on other counts. you could have a mixed verdict in which they acquit on some counts and convict on others. all of these things can work in combination. i think it is perilous to try and predict what a jury will do. and while i agree with duncan that mr. trump and his supporters would frame the hung jury as a victory there is a defense between a 2-10 split and 11-1 split on a jury. it is not that unusual to have a lone juror for whatever reason refuse to convict. if they get a numerical breakdown of the jury, if it hang, 11-1, that's an indication that the government put on a strong and compelling case, and may prompt them to retry it, which would be their right to do. if, however, it is a 1-11 jury

split to convict, one to convict andacquit, that's a strong signal to the prosecution they have failed. so to your question, which i think is an excellent one, there is lots of combinations, mixed verdicts and partial verdicts and hung juries and conjviction and acquittals that can work in combination. i cannot predict for you. >> do you see any of the charges as harder to prove or as more shaky than others? >> well, yes and no. i think they're all hard in a way. proving mr. trump's intentionality. but that's always hard in a white collar case. that is always sort of the crux of the prosecution's burden in a white collar case, to prove intentionality. so that difficulty, if you will, ana, runs through all of the counts. on the other hand, again, the government will argue, and i agree with jeremy, i think four and a half hours is way too

long, but the government will argue if you look at all the evidence wholistically, in total, camera pulled back, they have laid out a path to conviction. i know you probably are sick of hearing me say this, in the federal court, which i practiced, i would have begged for 30 minutes to do closing argument and i would have gotten 20. >> there is a difference. here there is no time limit. >> seems that way. and, again, i don't want to be some, you know -- i don't want to tell you that federal courts are better, but i will tell you they're different. and that the time limits and constraints are much different than you would find in most state courts. frankly, might have been nice to try a case where i could have spoken for as long as i wanted. but that was not permitted where i practice. and judge merchan is giving the lawyers on both sides, you know, more leeway. >> you're talking about pulling back the camera or making a wider shot, blanche is trying to

cast everything with reasonable doubt. not proof. he says, this is a case about false business records and the supposed evidence of the false filings were in the records of president trump's accountant in the payroll cabinet in trump tower. does that make sense for all those reasons blanche says, you don't have to go further. president trump is not guilty. the government has to prove to you that president trump caused these entries even if false with an intent to defraud. a conscious objective, a purpose to defraud and, blanche says, there is no evidence of that, ladies and gentlemen. where is the intent to defraud on the part of president trump? he goes on and on to talk about finally you saw documents submitted after president trump was in office to the office of government ethics. he signed them, and they were in compliance. and you can see the language there. how can it be there was an intent to defraud by president

trump when he disclosed it to the irs? he twees about it and tells the government ethics office, i will now, blanche says, talk about what i expect the government will discuss. the conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, the way they were booked on president trump's personal records, there was no crime. >> it is interesting to say that because it is in the payroll office, that it can't be illegal, there was no intent to defraud and it is legitimate. let's think on our hands here. we don't have enough fingers to say how much people we have come across in our professional experience who have embezzled money or perpetrated some fraud and wrote something to make it seem like it was real? that's the whole embusinessment scheme. this is a crime. tax crime, i filed my taxes and i sent in $50,000 when i really made $150,000. it doesn't make sense. you're not going to fool a new yorker. maybe you fool someone from somewhere else, where but you

can -- >> i don't think there is any difference. i don't think -- >> you got to make the argument. i'm interested to see what he says about the 90-second phone call, about what weight he put ozs on that. a lot of things, sitting at a traffic light, let's see what he does with that. blanche opened up with the -- there was no sex with that woman. what is he doing about that? >> statements. >> right. is it going to come back to that? it doesn't make a difference if they did have sex or not. >> it could make a difference in the minds of the jury and who to believe. if they're trying to argue for donald trump, in his defense, there was no sex, and you don't believe there was no sex, you believe stormy daniels' testimony, for example, isn't that problematic for the defense team? >> the prosecution's response is stormy daniels somewhat irrelevant. >> why bring her in as a

witness? >> there is a narrative you have to tell. whether or not you believe her is inconsequential. the question is whether or not he paid it to cover-up and falsified the record because he believed she was going to sell them out and jam up the election. >> violate the nda. >> but the defense made it an issue. they could have just stipulated and not had all of that steamy scandalous type of testimony from stormy daniels because it was the defense who said don't believe there had been this sexual encounter, duncan. >> i think they made a big misstep in the way they cross-examined stormy daniels. and cross examination that seemed like from a different era. maybe pre me too. there was something deeply offensive, wait they crossed stormy daniels, they were attacking her credibility as a

witness. and to that point, it doesn't precisely matter whether she is telling the truth or not from this position of whether a crime was committed. remember, there is another narrative about a doorman who is selling a story about a child out of wedlock that donald trump had, it turned out not to be true. but the catch and kill, it was still the same point, which is that after the ""access hollywood"" tape came out, this fits in with the evidence of michael cohen calling his banker in a -- with a pants on fire trying to start this shell company and i need to fund it immediately, and the fury over this stormy daniels and karen mcdougal, the story coming out, had to do with the election, it is what led to the payments. it doesn't precisely matter whether she was lying or telling the truth, but her story was so compelling, and she really portrayed donald trump to be a predator. her story about donald trump there in his hugh hefner type

robe and shaking her harn hands she was trying to put on her gold-heeled shoes and something very viscerally true about it and they proved it up and she came out looking like a re credible witness. >> the prosecution's insistence on details, whether they were planned or not, where she went into all kinds of issues including what cologne he may or may not have been wearing. there is a certain character description of trump by stormy daniels in there that is not directly related to this case, but, however, was included in evidence. >> sure, yeah. they did a really good job of that. there is another example of it, michael cohen's testimony, which doesn't necessarily directly bear on things, but where as stormy daniels made mr. trump look like a predator, mr. cohen made trump look like a thug. and there is this description of the moment where the fbi is raiding his apartment, and he gets in touch through keith

schiller to mr. trump on the phone and mr. trump says don't worry, i'm the president of the united states, the fbi works for me and i got you taken care of. thuggish nature of that has nothing to do with the charges. there is a lot that came in that portrayed him in a negative way, but these types of tidbits to me really corroborate what these witnesses are saying, the details of them, really portray mr. trump in such a terrible light and that's got to stick with the jurors. >> right now, todd blanche is addressing this catch and kill scheme. he's addressing some of the testimony by hope hicks and david pecker. back to yasmin at the courthouse for us. fill us in. >> reporter: yeah, so, a lot happening in the courtroom right now, getting into the nuts and bolts of this whole thing. i want to remind folks, kind of what we're talking about here, the falsifying of business records for the furtherance of another crime, and that was to influence the 2016 election. i'm paraphrasing here. i want to apologize beforehand

because we do have a lot of protesters here, just a little bit away from where i'm standing. if they yell loudly while i'm speaking, that's what you're hearing in the background. let me read for you what we're hearing when it comes to todd blanche talking about these efforts to influence the 2016 election. i'll talk about what i expect the government will discuss. the conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, the way they were booked on president trump's personal records, there was no crime. and even if there was a conspiracy to influence the election, i expect you will find that president trump is not guilty. he goes on, in 2017, after the election, president trump used his personal records too promote the candidacy of a election he already won and they want you to believe he did it to promote his successful candidacy in 2016. even if you find that is true, that is still not enough. it doesn't matter. as i said to you, in the opening statement, it doesn't matter if there was a conspire ty to win

the election. every campaign is a conspiracy to promote a candidate. i want to read another part for you guys if i can for a moment, we're talking about the august 25th meeting, you remember this meeting in 2015, it was david pecker, head of ami, donald trump, michael cohen as well, hope hicks testified to being in and out of this meeting. this was the meeting where they talked about planting stories essentially against donald trump's opponent. if you remember ted cruz, for instance, at the time. pecker and cohen is there, hope hicks is in and out. david pecker agreed to be the eyes and ears and they public. this is the same thing they have been doing for decades. they have been doing it for president trump since the '90s. flattering stories about trump and attacking president trump's opponents. this is the same thing that they had been doing, this allowed them to have a mutually beneficial relationship with celebrities, it was not unique

to president trump. many politicians work with the media to try to promote their image. there is no crime there. if you remember, though, guys, we heard from david pecker, testifying to the fact that they had not actually done this for president trump before. this was kind of the first instance in which they were planting kind of more of these damning stories against donald trump's opponents at the time in the run-up to the 2016 election. >> yasmin, keep us posted. i want to note that right now outside the courthouse, we got reporters like yasmin, we also have a press conference happening right now with the biden/harris campaign. you see there, this is officer michael fanone, many of you know him from january 6th and the juries he sustained while trying to protect the capitol from the riots. also robert de niro and harry dunn expected to speak, this is happening in new york.

counterprogramming to what is happening right now inside that trump hush money closing arguments. >> what is happening inside this courtroom is going to have wide reaching repercussions outside that courtroom. >> that's right. >> in so many ways. i want to bring in msnbc legal analyst and former federal prosecutor kristen gibbons. first, just what you have been hearing so far from the defense and the insistence on michael cohen is being the main weight on all of this so far. >> you know, jose, this is not anything none of us didn't predict. we knew he would start off guns blazing against cohen. he has to minimize cohen's testimony. cohen's testimony is the evidence that really links trump to the falsification of the business records, but more importantly, to the concealment of it for the purpose of election interference. so, i'm not surprised. and quite frankly, i would expect the prosecution to come off kind of talking about what i always like to say the pillars

of credibility. talking about, you know, motive, what motive at this point, after going to jail, after pleading guilty, what motive at this point does cohen have to lie and keep in mind, the last question from the defense, with regard to cohen's testimony, cohen had to admit, you know, i'm actually going to lose money if trump is found guilty. i think i have more opportunities if trump is found not guilty. but he kind of emphasized that his testimony has no motivation to be fabricated in any way. i think the other thing was his demeanor on the stand. the demeanor i think the prosecution really has to focus on. he didn't go on and on. he answered the questions, very directly. he came off very credibly. and lastly, with regard to cohen's testimony, much of what he says is corroborated by both the documentary evidence as well as other testimonial evidence.

so i think that is extremely important with regard to the cohen is lying defense and countering it by the prosecution. >> right now, inside the courtroom, the government wants you to believe that in august 2015, that president trump and cohen all got together and said, okay, we're going to commit a crime, let's enter into a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. so what did they do? positive stories about president trump. what did mr. pecker tell you? what they discussed? there was no in depth discussion. it was a general discussion of an effort to try and stories ab president trump. it was a general discussion of an effort to try and help president trump. blanche said many of the stories ran were recycled. the idea that the national enquire should make you shake your head. remember that word, catch and

kill. meantime our caller inside the courtroom, jurors are awake and take notes and others are looking at the testimony. she wouldn't describe them as enthralled with the closing argument. in terms of the purpose of closing arguments, can you describe for us the difference, kristen, in the closing arguments compared to the opening statements? >> yeah, so opening statements are basically the jury's preview of what they are going to hear, and what each attorney believes they will be able to prove there at the witness stand. the closing arguments is the attorneys' opportunity to tie together and make the leaps as to what the evidence actually means. for the defense, the goal for the closing argument is to really hammer in how the

prosecution failed to connect all of the dots, failed to connect the dots that really prove each of the elements of the crime and show they did not meet their burden beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal case. i think with regard to that segment you read, i think the prosecution needs to counter that in a specific way. catch and kill is now something that society knows very family. in the past five years, catch and kill has been something that has come to the forefront of society where in different news agencies such as the ami and "national enquirer" buys these stories. it's not a new concept. where it comes into play here, and the prosecution has to simplify that to counter what blanche said that this has been going on for decades, the

prosecution has to be clear on, former president trump in 2015, in 2016, he had certain restrictions with regard to what he could accept and take some money that he could get, and because he was part of that conversation where they had made the decision that they were going to catch and kill negative stories, and they were going to promote positive stories, he was still bound by the campaign finance laws. that's the key that the prosecution has to simplify to the jury to show that president -- former president trump at that time was in different positions than all of the different positions others with ami had catch and killed, and the prosecution has to simplify that. >> the defense is saying specifically what they told you,

remember catch and kill, that that was part of the agreement, but they didn't even discuss catch and kill at the august 15 meeting. mr. pecker told you that, and mr. cohen did not dispute that there were no financials discussed at that meeting, and the three stories were part of the catch and kill scheme, and money was not discussed at the time the conspiracy was born. think about that, he's asking the jury members, there was no catch and kill discussed when his supposed criminal conspiracy was borne. thinking about your analogy, how long will each side become too long, but they have a responsibility to the defense to go into every single one of these issues to try and create, well, what is doubt. >> doubt. absolutely. and there's also a way to do it

in an efficient way where you don't lose your jury. there's a difference, and we will see when we get there, between two hours and four hours. i think they are hitting the points they need to hit and i am still waiting to see the ones that were referenced before and how they will deal with them or ignore them and hopefully the jury doesn't consider it. first of all, you don't have to open, you do as a prosecution, and as a defense attorney you don't have to open, and can you say, i don't want to open. it's rare i have done that, but i did done it once or twice and i didn't want to lock myself into anything, but that's vastly different than now when they can dig down to the points that may have been lost that may be critical to the case and look that juror in the eye and say, my client did nothing wrong,

ana. >> i think about the jurors taking notes, and one of the big goal of closing arguments. >> one of the things that i would expect blanche to have a version of is if there's any argument i have not made, please make it for me when you are back there, because i can't respond to what the state has to say. think about your own arguments. you don't have to just think about my arguments. as a defense attorney i am trying to give you every possible thing and you can pick from that and use that in your discussions and, of course, saying the prosecution is trying to arm the jurors with that discussion because the attorneys are not back there for that discussion. if there are questions that arise during the deliberations

neither side gets to direct them, right? if a question comes out from the jurors, the judge with the attorneys decides how to respond and neither side gets to stand up and respond and say, good question, and let me talk about that for you, and this is it, this is the last chance. >> i am wondering, when you have two lawyers on here as a defense, but as the prosecution, does that make a difference? are you speaking to them specifically in a different way? >> i don't think so. collectively jurors are very smart. you can have engineers and mathematicians and here you have a couple lawyers. great. maybe they will know a little more about the process than the others. they will make a decision collectively. in fact, they have to. i don't think that i -- it's personally, and you could get

different answers around the question, i would talk to the jury collectively and i would not talk to jurors individually, and i think that's typically a mistake. i'm assuming i can read their minds. josé, i can't. maybe they are against me, maybe they are with me, i don't know, so i try to speak to them collectively. >> have any of you served on a jury before? >> i have been kicked off multiple juries. >> that's what we heard when we heard there were two selected, it's very unusual to have lawyers serving as jurors, and i can't help but wonder if the others would look to them. the crime is complicated, and you have to have two crimes and you have to prove one and then

prove intent of both. i wonder if they will be who the jurors who are joining them look to for guidance on the law itself in this case. any thoughts on that? >> the judge will instruct them that every jurors are the same. every juror is exactly the same. to chuck's point, you are talking to the jury collectively. there are times, especially if i get a juror nodding or agreeing with me, i may look at her to get reaction from him or her to show more because maybe that will feed into other jurors, and that makes sense, and collectively, 100% right, but at times i am speaking to an individual. >> it also may be a case that your lawyer practice is admirable to law, and you have a strong-willed zoologist on your jury, so trying to predict what people will do and say and act

based on their job is perilous. i still need 11 jurors if i have one. >> 100%. >> on blanche and cohen, they are saying on direct he says one thing and on cross he says another, and he's not telling the truth. he's lying. could this be just cohen is unreliable, he's a liar, don't believe a single thing he said, could this be the totality of the defense? >> i don't see it being the totality because they have other things to work with, but certainly this is a big, big point for them. there's no hiding the fact that the prosecutor is going to focus on cohen as well. i mean, they can't -- they called him and spent a long time questioning him, so there's no avoiding that. i really think the question is going to