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 be are they going to

keep pushing forward with this, and there are a lot of other liars. to me, that's the weakness in the defense coming in. >> to point it out, it's 11:00 eastern, and 8:00 pacific right now. >> they did bring up the catch and kill -- >> yeah, and related it back to cohen. >> that specifically, duncan, the idea that catch and kill is not illegal. we have talked about that before and that's true. they brought out the testimony and he's bringing in during the argument other catch and kill instances, schwarzenegger, and others, and this is different. >> the reason it's different is catch and kill is not illegal and maybe it's a questionable journalistic technique but it's

not illegal. prior to 2016, "the national enquirer" and donald trump never engaged in this together, and why is that? this is borne out by the testimony of david pecker, and then they talked to michael cohen about this, and the timing of it and the fact that it was taking place after the "access hollywood" testimony came out. the testimony from david pecker showed that the "national enquirer" was acting as an arm of the trump campaign, and catch and kill having to do with any other story, it's a questionable journalistic technique at best but it's not about sub verdicting an election and that's what the prosecution showed. >> that's what blanche said, the catch and kill goes way back, years before the election. now blanche is specifically saying, let's talk about the

second catch and kill, ms. mcdougal, what he's saying, she did not want her story published, and she was not interested in selling her story. how is that a catch and kill? it is not, says blanche. her attorney said the same thing. it was not just one side, says blanche. her attorney told you he did not. again, it's not a catch and kill. her friend forced her hand, and to be clear it was not ms. mcdougal's intention to public her story. >> let's go to vaughn hillyard outside the courthouse. >> reporter: i actually stepped outside the courthouse after being in there in the first hour

in todd blanche's closing argument, and he's emphasizing to the jury that michael cohen should not be the trusted source, that they make the determination on the 34 felony counts. it's sort of a shift between the way in which he talked about the falsification of the business records allegation and making the case that there was no intent to defraud on behalf of his client, saying that not only did he tweet in 2018 about this arrangement, but also he noted in a 2018 ethics report, financial disclosure report that there were reimbursements made and also that the trump organization, they denoted the payments were made to michael cohen. so it will be up to the jury to determine beyond a reasonable

doubt donald trump had the intention to defraud by making these business records. then turning towards the election fraud, the underlying crime being alleged by the prosecution, todd blanche was more dismissive when he made that pivot, saying what i am about to articulate to you doesn't even matter because you should acquit donald trump merely on the fact of the falls faction of business records allegations. you heard todd blanche making the case that this sort of arrangement, that august in 2015, it was not an unusual thing for a campaign, and what the prosecution will try and convince the jury of is there were unlawful actions taken to do that, and that's where todd blanche to the jury was trying to make it sound like, this is what happens with every campaign

and with journalism, and "the national enquirer" is a media outlet, and of course mr. trump wanted to work with a news outlet to get positive headlines. he's using his opportunity in the closing arguments to paint donald trump as a sympathetic figure that just signed checks and was trying to win a campaign but had no unlawful intent behind his actions. >> let's bring in the former u.s. attorney and fbi official, and charles coleman, former prosecutor in new york, and a white-collar defense attorney and a former federal prosecutor. charles, as you see, what blanche has been doing for more than an hour, an hour and a half, what is your takeaway? >> i am not surprised. i think that now we are seeing this play out, it makes sense. you have to admit when you can't deny and deny what you can't

deny. you can't deny trump's signature are on the checks and the catch and kill scheme existed, but you have to prove the intent beyond a reasonable doubt. that's where todd blanche is focusing his actual attacks. of course, everything that speaks to the intent, for example, the testimony of michael cohen, you will attack that as well to make the argument the facts are what they are, and you have to deal with that. as far as intent, which is what the jury has to look at to make a decision, that intent is going to be something they are going to hammer home as not something the prosecution is going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. that will be their roadmap, if you will, to get to a hung jury. >> david pecker was the first witness the defense called, blanche said he submitted a

declaration under the penalty of perjury saying the agreement was lawful. he's talking about a prosecution agreement pecker made in this case with the prosecutors. he told you he didn't keep anything from his lawyers when he talked about it, and you know he has a deal with the prosecutors in the case and they provide him with immunity. blanche goe on, the d.a. gave the terms and if mr. pecker gave false testimony the agreement would be breached and you know mr. pecker is not being prosecute for anything, and none of it is criminal because it's true. your thoughts, katharine? >> he's doing what he has to do, as charles said. i have to say when i was a supervisor in the d.a.'s office, i watched trials and watched so many and because i was a

invested in the summation, we don't know what the jury is thinking. i think starting out by saying he's a lawyer, and what happens when you pay a lawyer, those are legal expenses. piece by piece what blanche is doing, i call it the reasonable doubt offense. sort of picking, picking, picking, and you are hoping, again, for that one or two jurors who will say, yes, calling him president elect and reminding him that all 34 counts happened when donald trump was present, and whatever you think about him, he was the president of the united states. is the president of the united states really thinking about these checks? i think todd blanche is doing what he has to do and working with what he has, and when somebody has immunity for testifying, you will hammer that home. he's doing what the prosecution wants him to do. >> in that courtroom and courthouse, there are so many different possible outcomes, but

there's also what is going on outside the courtroom, the courthouse, and the impact it's having. vaughn hillyard, you are with somebody who is on the outside but has something to say about what is going on inside. >> reporter: right. we have seen the biden campaign stay away from the lower manhattan courthouse over the last six weeks of the trial, but this morning was a little different. not only is robert de niro outside the courthouse speaking a few minutes ago, but also former capitol police officers are here, and can you articulate what your message was here by coming to new york on the closing days. >> i didn't even know the trump trial was going on, and i just saw the cameras and said let's get the message out. it's important to echo how much of a threat donald trump is to democracy. we have to -- the only way we stop that is at the ballot box

in november by electing joe biden. >> reporter: you have taken active roles for the biden campaign, and you have had active roles in talking about the january 6th attack. why? >> i am here to use that experience that day, the traumatic brain injury and the heart attack at the hands of donald trump supporters inspired by his lies about the 2020 election, and what so many other police officers went through that day, simply doing their jobs and responding to the capitol and assisting other police officers and, again, experiencing brutal violence at the hands of donald trump supporters. >> reporter: we are looking at a

federal trial over what happened in the january 6th attack in the next few months here, and when you look at the totality of your careers and watching what is unfolding here in lower manhattan, the criminal trial separate from the events of the 2020 election, what are your takeaways and why do you feel like it's important to connect these altogether? >> so yeah, i don't know the specifics of what is going on inside the courtroom right now. i do know institutions fail us. institutions are only as strong as the individuals that occupy those seats, and that's why it's so important right now to choose decency and the best president and the person for the job is joe biden. the people will have to win this. not these institutions for us. we can't count on the court to disqualify trump and it has to be the voters and i think we will in november. >> reporter: i have heard from a lot of allies from donald trump,

his two sons are here, and his daughter, tiffany, is here today. you made a decision to come and speak out, and also with robert de niro here. can you give me the framework of how you are looking at the next five months, the roles you play in the broader biden campaign? >> i am incredibly grateful for robert de niro lending his celebrity and his voice to this cause. that being said, you know, i think that it's disheartening to know that that's what it takes 3 1/2 years after an insurrection at the capitol in which hundreds of police officers were brutalized and our democracy was threatened to get the media's attention. i am not painting everybody with a broad brush here, and some networks have done a great job. there are other networks

mischaracterizing -- >> and public officials. >> there are networks that turned away from the insurrection as if we can just forget about it and move beyond it and the country will come together without accountability for that day. >> this is a choice in this election. what have been your messages to the biden campaign? >> that donald trump is the biggest threat to our democracy. he said it himself, he wants to be a dictator from day one. those are his words. at what point do we not take him serious? >> i don't have a message for the biden campaign. you know, joe biden will run his campaign the way he runs his campaign, and michael fanone will continue to speak out about what happened, and there's a clear voice between an

authoritarian who has a violence fetish and, you know, somebody who seems to have a long track record of democracy, the peaceful transfer of power in our constitution. >> former capitol police officers -- >> dc police. >> yes, thank you for your service. ana, josé, the biden campaign here, the two officers speaking out on behalf of the biden campaign as the closing arguments take place in manhattan. >> thank you very much. i think it's important that when we listen to all of the voices involved, there's always the danger of the people who will criticize or attack the judicial system by saying it's politicized, and that fine balance, right, that has to be carried out by both the biden campaign and the trump campaign, but it's so important that for a democracy and a country to continue to grow and prosper,

there must be the independence of the judicial system. that's one of the pillars of the rule of law. >> it's unlike the law of gravity, and i am holding a mug in my hand and if i drop it it would hit the ground, and that's the law of gravity and replies all the time and i can't control that. the rule of law is a construct, and it works because people make it work, and it's peopled by people and is imperfect, but it has worked extraordinarily well for hundreds of years. in part because of the independence and in part because of the procedures and law, and the judges and justices that preside. i think this is something people ought to keep in mind, whatever this jury does, if they convict

or a mixed verdict or partial verdict or hung jury, it's okay. as citizens of the great country we accept that. if the jury acquits, that's okay. if the jury convicts, that's okay. as a citizen, we have to have faith in that outcome. mr. trump has tried to undermine this process at every turn, and because the rule of law is a construct those criticisms are deeply dangerous. >> the jury had the last week after the final testimony in this trial to really think about it before closing arguments today. this is what they are hearing right now inside that courtroom as donald trump's attorney, todd blanche, continues closing arguments today. he's talking about the recording where we heard -- where the jury has heard trump's voice in a discussion about michael cohen about the karen mcdougal catch and kill story, and the

hush-money payment paid by ami to karen mcdougal. this is what blanche says about this, the phone call and you have a lawyer recording his client on 9/6/16. i say supposedly because there's a lot of dispute about that recording and the government has not shown that evidence as reliable, and mr. cohen said he recorded that to play for mr. pecker to ensure the money was coming, and mr. pecker was angry and cohen said that happened september 16th, labor day, and it was when cohen had lunch with pecker, and mr. cohen says he put his voice notes on and ran a

graph that she was in and out of that meeting. as a reminder, pecker did testify before cohen and the idea that pecker did not mention the lunch in the testimony may not be as damning as blanche hopes it will be. how do you see how blanche is going about trying to poke holes in this reporting? >> one of the things he's doing here in addition to poking holes in the prosecution's story is reminding the jury what they heard. this has been a really long trial. the jury has only heard this testimony once. we have gone over it in these rooms, and we have gone over it and over it and talked about what did this mean and that mean, but the jury has only heard it once. they have not had an opportunity to talk about it with each other or anybody else, so he's reminding them of the key points in the earlier testimony, particularly mr. pecker's which was a number of weeks ago. he's juxtaposing mr. pecker's testimony against mr. cohen's

testimony in showing all the places where those don't really line up in his view. >> just thinking about this, how unusual is it and what impact could it have that those jury members have had days and days to be outside that courtroom and outside that courthouse, and nobody is living in a cave, and i mean, they have been bombarded with who knows what about this. >> sure. >> how unusual is that and what impact do you think that could have? >> it's not unusual. if are a trial attorney, it's something you have to account for if it's a press case. i am referring to cases that have media attention and get media attention. you are not usually as concerned about this because you don't have as much of a chance that there's going to be information that they are going to have access to, or pressure from family, friends, whoever knows that they might be on the jury. that's the variable that you

deal with a trial attorney. you don't necessarily know what's going to happen. you know the instructions given by the judge, which is you are not supposed to have conversations about this or start thinking about this until i give you the instructions on the law. you can't help but understand in a case like this it's going to be something, some element or aspect of the evidence they will think about, and what does that do to impact the negotiations once the deliberations begin? all of these things are not something you will know, so as a trial attorney you try and put it out of your head because you can't control it, and unless you have a good faith basis to believe that one of the jurors disregarded the instructions or started to talk about the case or have done something that gives you the belief they violated their oath as jurors,

you have to focus on what you can do with respect to your arguments. it's not that unusual you are facing this. i think the degree to which we are talking about, and this is a case unlike any other because of the amount of influence and pressure they may be facing from other spaces, that's unusual. >> right now blanche is talking about trump's recording where you hear trump's voice in a conversation with michael cohen, and he said there's no doubt this recording discusses pecker and cohen, and trump has no idea what he's talking about when he says finance it, and president trump is in the real estate business and knows what it means. blanche, the next thing that happens is significant. when cohen was talking about cash and cohen told you he thought something was green, and

it seems more criminal if there's a duffle bag full of green. mr. cohen told you he thought mr. trump was referring to green, and that makes it more sinister, and that was cohen lying to you, painting a picture that fits his narrative and not the truth. what do you think, katharine, again, about the importance of this recording? do you think that he's -- his questioning about what was really said on that recording could plant that seed of doubt in the jury's mind? >> the recording always had an opening for the defense, and it's great for the prosecution because there it is. the defense can always cross examine or argue what was left out of the recording. blanche talks about how the executive existence for the trump organization, apparently, according to him was in and out of the room and was never asked

by the prosecutors about whether or not there was any of that conversation, probably because they knew she didn't hear any of it, and maybe as you check off the list of things on your direct, that's one of the things you ask about. she would say i have no knowledge of that. her purpose was to talk about stormy daniels and karen mcdougal being on the contact list of trump. what you are sort of getting at was the last witness was tuesday and then they had that long break. i never had that long of break to prepare my summation, and i wouldn't want that because i would drive myself crazy. that's unusual. it will be the prosecutor's job, really, to refresh their recollection and remind them of the evidence from beginning to end, because the defense doesn't want -- ignore that other stuff, we want to remind you about this, they want to remind them of the facts they say prove

donald trump's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, and they will talk about that. >> the prosecution gets to go last, and is that typical? >> very. standard operating procedural. new york is different. the government always bears the burden of proof, and mr. trump claimed it was, you know, he was singled out and it was unfair to him. it's nonsense. there's an advantage in going last, of course, but because the government bears the burden of proof, i think the disadvantage of one offsets the advantage of others. in federal court, the government closes and the defense closes and the government gets to rebut. they have the last word. in state court, different, but absolutely standard here in new

york, the defense goes first and then the government finishes. >> then there is no rebut annual and that's it? >> there's no rebuttal. if you watched 1,000 trials in new york state court you would see 1,000 times that procedure. >> what makes this unique is that gap in time. >> yeah. >> when you are having consecutive days, for the defense to stand up and give their summation after you heard the testimony, it doesn't have the impact in terms of framing it for the jury that this could have, because to katharine's point, you have had a lot of time off and now that the jury gets to hear from the defense first for a reframing, it puts more on the weight of the prosecution to try and undo that and frame things and the evidence the way they want the jury to remember it. the advantage is they are going last and the disadvantage is i think in a case like this where

you have had this much time, when they are hearing from the defense first after all this time off, it does more to frame it -- >> it's like they get to make a first impression a second time. >> right. >> and now blanche refocused on that phone call. he's playing more of that phone call in court and blanche is now saying, let's talk about how the call ends. let's listen to the end of the recording. cohen is speaking to somebody at the end and it is not what he told you. hello, are you there? he told you he got a call and he knew who the call was from, somebody that worked at a bank. he said he interrupted the super secret conversation he was recording with president trump to answer a call from a bank manager at capital one. blanche says that story alone is ridiculous. but he says it gets worse for cohen on the rest of the recording. mr. cohen did not actually take that call and there's no dispute about that.

blanche shows the call log. it went right to voicemail. the f is for forwarding. it was forwarded to his voicemail. he lied to you when he said he answered that call. ana, once again, reaffirming over and over again. the question is how much is too much? >> blanche has to deal with this call, right, because jurors love this kind of evidence. this is tangible evidence that they can sink their teeth into, and it's a recording and they don't have to rely on a witness' account of what happened years ago. he's trying to twist it in any way he can to support his position, the former president's position, to poke holes and to use it to show that cohen's testimony and perhaps the testimony of other witnesses were lies. he's using it -- he has to deal with it and he's doing the best

he can with it. >> if i could, your thoughts on that whole -- the time period that is or is not unusual? >> in terms of the break? >> yeah. >> as a former prosecutor now and defense attorney, i have to say you really like that opportunity, i think, to prepare, right? todd is getting up there and has had days to prepare what is i'm sure a stellar power point. i think it's probably an advantage to the defense here to have that break, because really, sometimes if you have a trial that rolls right into summations, the attorneys just don't have that time to prepare. they don't have time to go back to all of the prior testimony and really analyze it bit by bit, which is what he's doing here. >> right now we are working to get that specific recording that they have been talking about and playing for the jury to bring to

our viewers and have you guys weigh in on it in a moment. let us know, guys in the control room, when that is ready. let me bring in julie blackman, trial attorney. what do lawyers typically do, julie, to try and sway the jurors. what works and what doesn't? >> lawyers try to feature their themes. they hope when the jury goes into deliberate it will be their voices that the jurors will repeat, they will carry in key lines and central ideas that will dominate deliberations. it's important in light of all the things you have been discussing, that they have had a week off.

ineug reinvigorating their memories. this defendant is a former president of the united states. i am a social psychologists and consultant to attorneys, so my interest really is not so much what the law requires, that's the lawyer's job, but how the jurors are likely to react to it. i think about that a lot. i wonder the impact of deliberating about a former president and it's a sort of interesting side note that over this week's space, memorial day happened and people probably got together with family and friends on a day where the patriotism and the importance of democracy and people who have given their lives for it have all been brought to the forefront of their thinking as of just yesterday, and that's quite unusual. >> so important. thank you for bringing that up. i want to go back out to yasmin vossoughian who has more from

inside the courthouse. >> reporter: they are getting into stormy daniels, and todd blanche says i want to tell you one last story in talking about stormy daniels. in building the idea it was all about extortion, he brings up this point. if you remember, it was rodriguez, stormy daniels's agent at the time that reached out in april of 2016, reminding of the story of stormy daniels. todd blanche talks about how the story was already out there. it was 2011 in which karen mcdougal and stormy daniels tried to sell their stories for $15,000. it was already out there. why would -- i am paraphrasing here. why would trump worry about a story that had been out there for years, and why does it take five to six months for her to be paid $130,000 for karen mcdougal

to be paid as well. this was not, in fact, a catch and kill scenario because it was in april of 2016 in which gina rodriguez initially reached out. if you remember the whole idea of why it was being drawn out, right, and gina rodriguez reaches out in 2016, and it's not until october of 2016 that stormy daniels was paid. donald trump was directing him to draw it out, so maybe they wouldn't have to pay stormy daniels, for instance, if they won or lost the election. if they won the election they wouldn't have to pay it, or if they lost it they would not have to pay it because they lost and it wouldn't matter anymore. it came to a head, it seems, michael cohen testified, and they had to pay her in the last weeks of the last weeks leading up to the election.

feels like they are coming on their summations, and we have about 30 minutes or so left and they are wrapping it up with stormy daniels's testimony after spending two hours about michael cohen. >> it all comes back to michael cohen. todd blanche has been going on for two hours, and let me take you back into his arguments. he's talking about daniel's claims, and he goes to two months before davidson brings up anything about mcdougal, and he said it's in the middle of the trump campaign. think about that for a moment. if you think about why we are here, if there was really a

catch and kill relationship, why did everybody ignore that story in april and why did it not go anywhere for months and months, and why did nobody do anything about it in april of 2016 when it first surfaced? there's no evidence of outreach to howard, trump or cohen. look at june of 2016. howard writes to rodriguez, and it appears he doesn't like trump at all, he despises him. what do you think they are doing in trying to create this timeline saying there's this all, you know, it was out there much earlier, so what -- how does that impact the case? >> unfortunately for mr. blanche, they can rebut that, and the reason why nobody cared then is because he was not running for president really -- >> in 2011, certainly not. >> and the time the stormy

daniels resurfaced, the hollywood access film came out. it was a catastrophe for the campaign. now we can't have a porn star, too. that's what you will hear the prosecution say why it's important. the prosecution will come back and say the reason why it was so important to hush her up was because of the hollywood access tape. >> your job is to speak to the jury and not individual jurors, and how do you see that difference? >> speaking to the jury is a whole, of course, and it's

important to understand -- it's important to understand that the jurors bring different perspectives, and this is a jury of seven men and five women, and among the men two are attorneys and two have mbas, and i was in court for the first day of michael cohen's direct and got a chance to see the jurors in person. they are very attentive and foe tuesday what is happening, and the lawyers have to anticipate there may well be different coalitions of receptiveness in the jury, which means the lawyers will be good at understanding the law. they have not heard it yet but will get it soon from the judge and the lawyers anticipate that, that they are an educated audience with regard to motions of intent and the nested idea of intent, and it's not just an intent to defraud but the intent to commit another fraud as well, campaign violations or election

interference or something tax law related. the women on the jury may be especially well primed in ways to pay attention to stormy daniels's testimony or hope hicks' testimony, and so i would expect the jurors to think about, especially since they had a week to do it, how to play to the different constituencies. there are different sub groups within the jury that are likely to become coalitions during deliberations that will try and influence each other from the different perspectives, and those different perspectives is what brings reasonable doubt to life. >> thank you so much for joining us and offering your expertise here. we are in a morning break which should be about ten minutes. i am not positive because i am not in the courtroom but based on the notes we have from our court reporters, it doesn't look like the defense arguments are

not over, and sit unusual to have a break during a closing argument? >> that is unusual, and i don't know why they are doing it that way. i certainly would not want to break up my own summation. >> if they are sitting there for two -- sometimes, and i have seen it happen, and a juror will go like this, and that's the judge's summation they have to go to the bathroom. >> the judge may ask, and the judge could have needed a break. if i am the one giving it to -- but i don't want to piss off the jury. if they say they need a break, take the break. >> this is when traditionally we have seen a break in this case. >> yeah, they are used to breaking at 11:30. i think -- i know that when todd blanche finishes, which will probably be before 1:00, there will be the lunch break and then

josh steinglass will be after lunch. >> and then there will probably be a break during that closing as well. it's yet another reason i think, again, my bias, to keep your closings as succinct as possible. >> it's clear that the prosecution has a long statement to give. it's how you kind of carry that out and is there a danger that the jury will say, got it, enough? >> yes. yes. i can recall -- i distinctly remember my first felony trial where my supervising attorney at one point said, after going over my summation, once we had done it, i got the conviction, but

she said you had them about 45 minutes earlier than you stopped. i was, like, oh. she said you have to learn to read the jury as best you can, and it's not easy but imperative. to follow-up on what chuck was saying, i would not be thrilled as most might agree, to be stepping up for summation after lunch. now, he has -- she will have no choice, but it's one of those things where you have to now be mindful of because there's sort of a dip that is going to occur. when you start, that jury will be with you for 15 to 20 minutes, and after that if you have not grabbed them you will struggle for the next 15 to 20, 30 minutes. you have to figure out how you are structuring your argument to deal with the fact that these people just have ate and sat

through the first summation of the day. the summation you may have planned for the previous two days may not be exactly the summation you deliver primarily because you may have to make adjustments based off of when you are going and how the jury is responding and what is the most important thing you need to get out before you sit down. >> speaking of trials, and sorry to interrupt you. we have breaking news in a different donald trump case. let's bring in our intelligence correspondent, ken dulaney. what do we know? >> judge cannon just denied a motion by the special counsel to impose a gag order on trump with regard to his comments alleging the fbi was authorized to use deadly force against him and others while the fbi searched mar-a-lago more than a year ago. that's an utter distortion of what is in the order, and he's

referring to a document where it says the fbi has the right to use deadly force when their life is in danger, and that's the same right citizens have. and he's saying biden authorized the fbi to assassinate him. on friday jack smith filed a motion asking judge cannon to modify the conditions of trump's release and to order him to stop lying about this because as he put it, it's putting law enforcement and agents at risk, and it's representing that the fbi was trying to use deadly force when searching mar-a-lago, which is not true. in response to that yesterday, donald trump's lawyers urged the judge to strike that motion from the record because they said the special counsel did not properly confer with them before the holiday weekend, and the judge is agreeing with them, rejecting

the motion with prejudice, which means they can file it again, and he said they lacked professional courtesy in the way they handled it. it's another ruling by judge cannon that is curiously favor favorable to donald trump, and does not address the concern that the fbi agents are in danger because of the rhetoric of the former president. what jack smith's team said, donald trump's attorneys refused to confer before the holiday weekend. as of now the motion to gag donald trump, it has been refused. on sunday, mr. trump's campaign put out another fundraising appeal essentially saying biden authorized the fbi to assassinate me, which is grossly

false. >> chuck rosenberg, you obviously have experience in both the legal department and as the u.s. attorney, and a former fbi official, and what is your reaction to what unfolded in the classified documents case and the judge saying i am not going to issue a gag order despite the potentially harmful comments made relating to the fbi. >> anytime the fbi executes a search warrant, the agents are briefed prior to the execution of the search warrant, you know what they are doing and who they might encounter and what the goals are. as part of that standard briefing package within the op plan is a reminder to the agents of the fbi's use of force policy. it applies all the time everywhere for fbi agents and

secret service agents and law enforcement officers around the country. in every single case? >> in every case always, a law enforcement officer has the right to use deadly force to protect herself or others under certain prescribed circumstances. what mr. trump said here was so remarkably wrong and reckless that the special counsel felt, i believe, they had to respond to it in some way. in fact, the fbi purposely chose a day they knew mr. trump wouldn't be at mar-a-lago so this particular search warrant would be executed as smoothly and as quickly as possible. putting that aside, mr. trump either doesn't understand this, which is remarkable, or understands it and lied about it, which is remarkable. so the special counsel is simply trying to get him sort of back in the lane. now, there's a rule in the

southern district of florida in federal court that before you file a motion of this nature that you meaningly confer with the other side. that apparently didn't happen. it's a procedural foot fault, so the judge seems, based on ken's reporting to be requiring that that happened first before she makes -- >> which is a requirement? >> which seems to be a requirement. >> so should they refile after doing that? >> i don't know, ana. that's a good question. i am not sure they will prevail on this motion in any event, and you don't want to fight battles you don't have to fight and win, and judge cannon can move quickly when she needs to, and too bad she has not did that with the rest of the case. >> no movement with the rest of the case. >> i am glad they said something, and i am not

surprised she ruled at least preliminarily as she did. >> thank you so much. charles and katharine, stay with us. the former president is back in the courthouse. we're expecting this break to finish in just seconds. it will continue to be underway. we will continue to be here with you every step of the way on msnbc sz. on msnbc sz goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today! welcome back to our special coverage of closing arguments in donald trump's hush money case.

blanche is continuing his statement. i want to bring in a veteran new york trial and appellate lawyer who helped write the rules surrounding new york jury instruction. it's fascinating to hear what you have been seeing here. you have only been doing this 52 years. you are only getting started. the break just conclude and the attorney is back on. >> by the way, good to be with you. you are doing a great job of coverage of a difficult subject sometimes. they have been instructed not to discuss the case until they have been instructed. we would like to be a fly on the wall in the jury room. there's some interesting things that went on here, going to happen, that i don't think have been commented on. in the courtroom, many are taking notes. some are not. this was very, very controversial in new york for many years. >> why is that? >> the thought is that, when they begin to debate -- they have a disagreement about what a

witness said or what the demeanor of the witness was, the notes say, i have it here. there was a feeling that that would unduly tilt the scale. there was a requirement in new york that the judge instruct not once but twice the jurors that you should not assume that anybody who take notes has a better recollection of what occurred or what the demeanor of the witness was. for some people, they do it as part of their profession. i assume the lawyers do. some may not. we want to be on an even keel that everybody's views are respected and there's a fair interchange of ideas. >> think about how we have different learning styles. some people need to see it. some people need to hear it. some people need to say it. let's go back into the courtroom as todd blanche is continuing his closing argument. he told the judge before they brought the jury in he has a half hour, 40 minutes left in his closing arguments. he says, continuing with the ms.

daniels situation, the question for you is, what happened with ms. daniels in 2016 was what happened with her, consistent with the conspiracy the people tell you, cohen, trump and pecker entered into it, it's an arrangement as the government charges, or something else? ms. daniels denies there was sex with president trump in 2018. the government wants to you believe those statements were coerced, that she was forced to sign them or something else. she decided to go public after these statements supposedly because she was trying to protect herself from what she said was a threat someone made of her. he is talking about the inconsistencies in stormy daniels' stories over the years. she told the jury, testified before the jury in this trial that there had been the sexual

encounter. she went into a lot of details about that alleged sexual encounter. they pointed out in their cross that in 2018, when it was made public, this story of stormy daniels and the hush money payments, that she at one point denied there had been any sex. she explained at the time during the testimony that she was lying because of this nda. they are going into stormy daniels' testimony. we had previously discussed that really, it didn't matter, right, whether that story is true or not? that has nothing to do with the falsifying of business records. >> that's a good point. there's a danger in cross-examination that you go for the capillaries rather than the jugular. we could be seeing that. it's difficult to tell without seeing in context the whole closing. you are right. the issue is not whether sex occurred or what happened there.

the issue, as we discussed, is can you tie donald trump to the creation or causing the creation of the false business records with the intent of him doing another crime or concealing another crime? we heard two narratives about the -- one is the election, this was about protecting his family. what's critical are the jury instructions. that's the lens through which the jury is going to be asked to view that. >> we have learned there's really no limit to the time that either of the lawyers have for closing. what are your thoughts on a 2 1/2 hour defense closing and a 4 1/2 hour prosecution closing? >> i'm a big believer in less is more. at some point, jurors begin to grab on to certain points. their minds stop there. if you keep going, you may dilute the impact of what you have told the jurors and what they are observing.

there's a principle in practice and social scientists who study juries have discovered this. people tend to remember what they hear first and what they hear last. the prosecution has an advantage. it was first on the opening statement, and it's last to close. that's because it has a heavy burden, which as you know they have to meet. i think it would be a fool'ser fool'sererrand to decide what they're going to do. >> what's in their head as they are listening to the closing argument or the testimony that has taken place over the last five weeks. this is week six now.

a quick lightning round. what will you be watching for as the closing arguments for the defense come to an end? charles, you first. >> what's the theme they lead with or end with? is it a matter of trying to scatter reasonable doubt in different areas as possible? do you want to concoct one large scheme that these people have an ax to grind? do you incorporate that as one of many? for the prosecution, i am curious to find out, how do they get into the summation? starting after lunch and having a lot of material to cover, i'm curious as to how they will lay that out. >> catherine? >> i know josh. he is skilled enough to know not to bore them. he may have said 4 1/2 hours. if he is getting a sense they're not listening or is going too much, he will stop. he has been doing this for 25 years. >> mark? >> the defense is going to be reminded of what happened in the closing in the o.j. simpson case

of a generation ago. if the shoe doesn't fit, you must acquit. >> the glove. >> you must acquit. i think that it's important for each side in its closing to kind of summarize the theme of what they're trying to get across. they have spent a lot of time on the details. what does that add up to? they didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. the prosecution says the opposite. >> thank you all for joining us this hour. that does it for us today. >> thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell and chris jansing pick up special coverage right now. ♪♪ good day. i'm andrea mitchell in new york city with my colleague chris jansing here in t