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 the studio.

we are in the final stretch of the first criminal trial of a former president. the defense is presenting its closing arguments in donald trump's hush money trial. the former president's lead attorney, todd blanche, has spent the morning trying to plant seeds of reasonable doubt by saying the prosecution's trove of checks and documents do not link president trump to the crime. they can only believe this if they believe michael cohen. >> they moved on to stormy daniels, suggesting she hasn't told the truth either. once that's done -- we think it's getting close to the end of the defense case -- the prosecution will follow with what's expected to be four hours plus of their closing argument as they tie together their sprawling case after jurors heard from 20 witnesses. they saw about 200 pieces of evidence over a six-week period. the challenge?

to sum up those arguments behind the 34 felony counts against the former president. remember, the prosecution has to connect donald trump not just to the hush money payment but also to the alleged conspiracy, the falsified business records to cover up the crime. >> that is what would make it a felony. all this in the mid many of a presidential campaign with both candidates bringing surrogates to the courthouse. donald trump backed up by all of his adult children except ivanka. joe biden by supporters robert de niro and two former january 6 police officers speaking outside the courthouse. joining us now on the set, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official construction chosen berg, federal prosecutor duncan levin and jeremy sala, a criminal defense attorney.

we begin with katy tur, our friend and colleague and partner at the courthouse today. talk about your -- the key takeaways so far from the closing argument by donald trump's lead attorney. >> it has been so fascinating listening to todd blanche give his final summation. when he got up and first introduced himself to the jury, he thanked them for their service, the time that they have spent on this case, thanked them for paying close attention to the testimony and to all of the evidence. i was struck by his tone and by his manner. he didn't seem fully confident in those moments, didn't seem fully confident in the way he was delivering his thank you. then he hasn't entirely seemed confident throughout his summation. he has gotten some speed here and there. he has gotten into a rhythm at times. for the most part, it does feel like he is winding his way through this, as you listen to

it. there were moments where the arguments felt tighter. there were moments where the arguments felt pretty loose, not going in a clean sequence. he seems to be getting at the nothing to see here defense, by saying that these documents, these allegedly falsified documents weren't falsified at all. they were done legally by the trump organization. he tried to claim and to argue to the jury, which i think is a stretch -- you will see it as a stretch as well -- that the agreement that he had -- that donald trump had with ami in the beginning of the campaign was fine, that it was perfectly normal, that candidates and campaigns always try to influence and work with media outlets to place positive stories and to bury negative stories. that's not the way it works when you are covering a presidential campaign or any campaign for that matter. obviously, the campaign will try to spin you. the candidate will try to spin you. you are never buying a story and

covering it up and burying it on behalf of the candidate. there was one line in particular that drew a gasp at least from the overflow room where i was. that is, every campaign is a conspiracy between two people to promote a candidate. that's an exaggeration of what a campaign is. it's an exaggeration of what donald trump is -- a diplomatic exaggeration of what donald trump is accused generous of doing here in this case. regarding the emails between michael cohen and weisselberg, they said there wouldn't be emails if this was to cover something up, between don junior and eric if this was a scheme to cover something else, there would be no evidence if this was a scheme. he tried to argue two points on donald trump. one, that he was such a micromanager, so involved in the payments out of his organization, that he would

never pay michael cohen more money than michael cohen deserved in talking about the doubling of the stormy daniels rate, saying instead it was just a retainer agreement, that he was paid 35 grand a month and a bonus, because that's what donald trump agreed to hold michael to after donald trump became president and retained michael cohen as his personal lawyer, that that 35 grand a month was a normal fee, that donald trump knew that was going out. at the same time they were arguing he was so busy at white house, he wasn't paying close attention to each and every invoice. he had so much going on. in two ways, trying to say donald trump was a micromanager, he understood everything, but then was so busy, he couldn't possibly have overseen all of the details of what this payment involved and what michael cohen alleges. as we expected, they really went after michael cohen. todd blanche is going after michael cohen as hard as he can saying michael cohen was out for

himself, he is a liar, you can't trust anything he says, trying to lessen the meaningfulness of the testimony from david pecker and others, instead trying to focus this case on the words of michael cohen, who they believe they have the best chance of discrediting. >> katy, now, as todd blanche is talking about stormy daniels, he is painting her as a liar and extortionist. since you covered the trump campaign, i want to ask you about something that just went into the document. todd blanche talking about the "access hollywood" tape. the government wants you to believe, says todd blanche, it was so catastrophic that it provided a motive for president trump to do something criminal. president trump did not react to the tape in any way that the government is suggesting. i want to get your take on that statement by todd blanche as someone who lived it.

>> i'm curious what the prosecution will argue here. as somebody who was covering the campaign in the moment, the "access hollywood" tape, from the outside looking in and from conversations in the campaign and those in the rnc, that was catastrophic. donald trump's campaign thought it was over at that moment. there were a couple people who thought he could power through. steve bannon, maybe donald trump himself and a couple others. for the most part, the campaign went silent. the top aides were not to be found. the campaign team couldn't even reach these top aides. trump tower -- i went to trump tower after this tape came out. it was empty. there was nobody inside, save for steve bannon. there was an abandoning of the ship. paul ryan was telling lawmakers, go with your heart, do whatever you can. senator lee from utah was crying on camera saying he could never

support somebody like donald trump. it seemed like it was the end. that's how the rnc saw it as well, from my conversations with sources at the time. to say it didn't matter, i think it's not accurate. it did matter to the campaign. the prosecution now has the task of trying to prove to the jury that that was a motivation for donald trump to conceal these records, to conceal this payment and to mislead the public about what he was actually paying for, because a hush money payment to an adult film star that he had sex with while he was married could potentially, the prosecution will argue, be the nail in donald trump's campaign, the nail in the coffin for his campaign, especially after the "access hollywood" tape. they were very worried specifically about suburban women. >> we were going into that debate. i was covering the hillary clinton side and how big it was. that was the debate where donald

trump brought out all of these women who had allegations against bill clinton. they clearly thought that this was a decisive moment in the debate. there's no question about it. both campaigns did. we saw what paul ryan and other prominent democrats were saying and were thinking of abandoning donald trump as the candidate. >> it says here, you heard politicians reacting negatively to the tape. he said, it was not a doomsday event. let me move away from the politics of this, which most people who followed it at the time, who hear from people like katy and you and who were there at the time, at the debate at the time, to how believable do you think that argument is? it wasn't a big deal and everything -- >> i think it's a bold overstatement. it's really bold. you want to oversell. i think back to -- >> do you not want to oversell

to the jury in your closing? do you have to? >> you don't want to oversell. you want credibility. you want to sell, but you have to have credibility. if you can't resonate with the jury and tell them a true story, then you don't want to fall apart either. you heard in the beginning -- these are my words -- blanche said you want to expect more than michael cohen. the response is, we have more than that. we have the evidence that exists between hope hicks, phone records, the handwritten weisselberg notes. there's no evidence that this was catastrophic to trump, but that's not true. you heard from hope hicks who explained how she was frightened about what this was going to have in terms of the impact on female voters. you don't want to say something that the prosecution can turn around and say, let me show you exactly what we have, that's not true. >> that's a good way for the prosecution to quickly remind them. >> absolutely. >> if you pierce the credibility

of the defense lawyer that early, if he does that to himself by overselling, your point is, that they might not believe other things he says. >> sell it and be credible. >> one other thing todd blanche says, why did they call her as a witness? there was no dispute that charges had to do with filings in the trump org of 2017, something miss daniels knows nothing about and nobody suggested she knew the inner workings of the payment system of trump org. then he said this. they did it to try to inflame your emotions. they did it to try to embarrass president trump. there was an objection. it was overruled. could that resonate that there was nothing substantial to what stormy daniels added to the legal narrative other than a salacious story that embarrasses the defendant? >> i think it's true that stormy daniels knew nothing, if not

nothing, about the trump organization books and records. by the way, that would have been the appropriate cross-examination of her. i think it was important that the government call her, because she set the context. if you just take a step back, what happened? logically, what happened? mr. trump had sex with an adult film star. the "access hollywood" tape hits. she's threatening to go public with the story. it's right before a presidential election. he doesn't want it to come out. so that sets in motion a payoff. that's the context. is she important to that context? yes. does she know how books and records were kept at the trump organization? no. >> did she potentially go too far? >> you know, i think that some of it was unnecessary. but i think the rebuttal from the prosecution is the defense made that relevant by denying she had any relationship

whatsoever with mr. trump. be denying that relationship, it became relevant to her credibility among other things to explain the relationship. i think could you have done without a bunch of that, frankly, from both sides. but it was appropriate in my view to call her as a witness to provide the narrative to provide the context. >> one thing that occurred to me this morning was, i expected this and he did it and said, you didn't hear from weisselberg. he mentioned people who had not been called. did the prosecution make a mistake in not calling weisselberg, even though he would have supported donald trump because he had done that repeatedly at his own risk, because he is in rikers as a result of that? should they have put him on the stand to show at least the factual basis that he wouldn't do anything without donald trump's approval? >> the simple answer to a hard question is that it's hard to know.

he, mr. weisselberg, was a risk to both sides. if he wasn't a risk to both sides, one of the sides would have called him. i have gone around and around with friends of mine, former prosecutors and defense attorneys. we are a bit puzzled, but we have arrived at the conclusion that it was too unpredictable. if it was predictable, someone would have called him. >> katy tur, we have to let you go back. as we are hearing from inside the courtroom, that the jury shows no reaction, let me ask you about your observations of donald trump. were there times when, as some of our folks who are inside the courtroom seem to suggest, that todd blanche made statements that seemed to be playing to the client? >> i mean, he talked about how donald trump was the former president a lot. he mentioned his time in the

white house, trying to both placate his client but put in the jury's mind that this is not a normal defendant. the weight of the decision on their shoulders to potentially make donald trump the first former president to be convicted of a crime, whether a misdemeanor or felony or multiple felonies, and the history that comes with that. it's a monumental task that is being asked of this jury. at the same time, it's an everyday task that juries are being asked to decide on all the time, except this is the president of the united states. you have to imagine that that's in their head. there were moments where he talked about stormy daniels. he mentioned emphatically that donald trump denies he had an affair with stormy daniels. if he admitted to it, it would have gotten him out of trouble in this case. but that's playing to donald trump, who has repeatedly denied the affair. there was also a moment when they were talking about david pecker and ami and the

relationship that donald trump had with ami and david pecker. they mentioned that david pecker said donald trump was the biggest seller for his magazines. he was the best seller when he was on the cover. it was supposed to tell the jury, if you had a huge story about donald trump or any story, putting that on the front cover would make him a ton of money. also, something that plays to the ego of his client. his client likes to be told he matters. his client likes to be told he is a big deal. he likes to be told that when he is a part of something, it sells more. he talks about tv ratings all the time, when i'm on a debate, look how great the ratings were. at the -- in the polls, look how great the polling is for me, for the voting numbers, look how many people turned out for me, his rallies, look how many people are here. all of that amplified donald trump's ego.

you have to imagine that todd blanche understands his client and is playing to him as well. >> 43 minutes to get back here for the top of the hour. we hope that the mta -- the subway -- >> i got my running shoes on. >> see you soon. thank you. >> the clock is ticking. katy tur, that's great. thank you. check rosen, duncan and jeremy. >> let me go back to the document. this is interesting. >> i was going to ask about the costello thing. >> i was going to jump to something else. jump to costello. >> i'm wondering, blanche is going into robert costello. he was a terrible defense witness. the conclusion of lots of lawyers, many of you included. duncan, why would he bring up costello and try to clean that up? he felt he had to. but he is trying to say that it was michael cohen lying about costello and they really had a relationship.

>> there was no reason to call robert costello. the reason they tried to do this was they wanted to discredit michael cohen, they have to. they thought by portraying michael cohen as a liar -- >> right now, blanche is going into costello and rehashing his testimony. >> that's their defense case, is that michael cohen is a liar. in their position, robert costello proves that michael cohen is lying. he impugns his integrity. the problem is robert costello not only had a terrible disposition during trial, he got destroyed on cross-examination. they showed emails that came out that showed he was acting for trump. there were emails where he was disparaging michael cohen. he was saying he was try -- they were afraid michael cohen was flipping and that's the reason he was brought there. it was a misstep to bring on costello in the first place. it's all they have. they have to play with what they have. >> or is this another case, jeremy, of playing to your

client to try to -- >> he testified. you don't want to leave him out there. you can't have him dangling. it's going to hurt them, because you know the prosecution is going to say something about costello. costello did serve a point. i'm not sure the number, but it was 10 to 12 times he said michael cohen told him the president was unaware, not involved for lack of a better term in terms of the payment to stormy daniels. there's value in that. to duncan's point, he imploded. he became what everyone expected michael cohen would be and assumed donald trump would be if he testified, disrespectful and unhinged. you can't just leave it dangling. you have to address it. you have to use your strength. if that's your strength that there are things there you want to use to impeach michael cohen's testimony and your theory is if you can't believe michael cohen it falls like a

house of cards, you have to run with costello. >> that's what he is saying. he is saying putting -- talking about mr. costello, mr. cohen taking the witness stand and lying to you, that's another example of it. he went on to say, i don't know how many lies are enough lies to just reject mr. cohen's testimony, big or small, meaningful or unmeaningful, but that was a lie. it's interesting that that seems to be what he comes back to in every single instance. he goes off michael cohen for a little while. but he always comes back to, michael cohen is at the heart of this but is a liar. is the risk, the jury says michael cohen isn't on trial here and maybe i do believe the central parts of his testimony? >> his testimony is corroborated. they are focusing in like a laser on certain moments where they contend michael cohen lied

to the jury. for example, there was a moment in his direct examination michael cohen said, i never wanted to be chief of staff. they cross-examined him and scored points on that. there were emails showing he wanted to be chief of staff. he said, i never disputed the underlying facts of my tax crimes. they cross-examined him with it. there was one instance about a phone call on october 24, 2016, that the defense scored points on and said that -- this was a phone call where michael cohen said he spoke with donald trump about the stormy daniels payment. the defense found text messages immediately leading up between mr. cohen and keith schiller, showing that was not about stormy daniels but was about a 14-year-old girl who had been harassing mr. cohen. >> right now, he is -- blanche is bringing that sequence up. >> what he is not bringing up, which the prosecution is going to bring up, is that later that

day there were 20 frantic messages between mr. cohen and mr. pecker talking about the stormy daniels payment. the next day there was a text message from the "national enquirer" to dylan howard, to mr. cohen, saying we better get together on this or we will look bad. the day after that the wire payment to stormy daniels through essential consulting, llc, mr. cohen's shell company that he said up. the day after that, the day the nda was signed. >> duncan, what he is saying -- he is going through the sequence of the 14-year-old. as you point out, he is leaving the other stuff out. he is leaving out the c-span video that shows it could happened as michael cohen suggested. he is saying, we know he called keith schiller about the fact that a 14-year-old had been harassing him. that is perjury, he says. whenever he says, he lied, he is

a liar -- >> trying to drive home the point that michael cohen is convicted of perjury. >> there's no context to it. there's going to be a lot of context to the prosecution. fine, get it on closing on that point, but you can be sure the prosecution is writing notes right now furiously and they have anticipated this and they will deflate that. >> we see alvin bragg, according to the people in the overflow room, bragg was taking notes on an ipad. the d.a. is there. >> it's interesting to me how he is weaving this. i tend to think of great closings as weaving a story, putting all the pieces together. if you are weaving a story and the central argument you are is michael cohen, do you go back to it over and over and over again

to a jury who i don't think there are many people who think michael cohen isn't a liar, hasn't been convicted -- those are given facts. i wonder if you see in this a through line, a good narrative, a strong narrative, or if it's a little hodgepodge? >> i think it's a little hodgepodge. there's a reason for it easily explained. the prosecution weaves a narrative. they tell the story from beginning to end. that's their job. they did it in the opening statement. they did it in the trial. they will do it in the closing argument. the defense has a different purpose. tear that story, that narrative down. by taking different shots at different people at different times, they may be accomplishing their goal, which is to show the government failed to prove its case by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. one side has very much an interest -- i don't mean this is

bad or good, just normative. one side has an interest, chris, in telling the narrative. the other side has an interest in dismantling the narrative. >> finding that one juror who might find something in all of these hours that he has been talking to raise a reasonable doubt. >> can i ask another question? i've been thinking about this over a long memorial day weekend among other things over memorial day. thinking about this trial. is it a mistake for the prosecution to present three options as to what the underlying crime in a novel case, in a novel legal argument, is it a mistake to give them three options that they don't have to be unanimous on? does that create more argument, especially with two lawyers on the jury? and create more opportunities for one juror to be a holdout?

>> i think giving juries options, different paths to conviction is typically beneficial to the prosecution, not detrimental. they don't have to be unanimous as to which one. four agree it was reasonable and four agree it was reasonable -- so it's a complex part of the case. it's possible that some juror or jurors could get bogged down in that complexity. but having different paths to the same end, i think, is more helpful to the prosecution. >> it's a menu of column a, b, c? >> with the caveat, that i may not know what i'm talking about. i think that's right. >> that's not a caveat i accept ever with you. joining us now is robert

swafford. thanks for being with us. to your point of -- you know juries. and check from his years of experience says it's a good idea to give jurors a choice when they have a complicated indication like this. >> well, often times what will happen is you will have jurors who want to split the baby, like solomon. it's not like the jurors don't already have an opinion as to how this case should come out rolling into closing arguments. they are clearly people who have had the memorial day weekend to think about this. the other thing to remember is they have not been able to talk to their fellow jurors about it. they are going to -- the first time they will find out what their fellow jurors think about the case is whenever they walk into the jury room. there could very well be people who are for the defense and

people who are for the prosecution. primarily, what the lawyers are doing in closing argument is arming the people who are on their side or have their view to be able to prevail back in the jury room during deliberations. >> do you read anything into ever observations of the jury? some of the thins i was reading today from people inside the courtroom, the foreperson of the jury has never, according to this person, belied any emotion, shown any interest necessarily in one thing over another, and, in fact, this particular member of the jury has never taken a note to this observer's eye, other jurors have been said to -- been losing interest at one point, when it seemed to be going on for a while. i'm curious about things that you tell folks in terms of addressing a jury in a closing.

what is their attention span? what is their ability to follow lots of different bouncing balls? what's the guidance you give them? >> the first thing that you want to remember, as people have a short attention span now. often, especially in federal court, lawyers will complain about a judge putting time limits on them. usually, the judge is doing them a favor in that situation, to put some limits on things. primarily what i'm looking at in structuring a closing argument that will be effective is to find out who am i talking to on the jury? the way you find out who you are talking to on the jury is to go back to the voir dire questions. go back to the written questionnaire. what's the language that they

used? not relying necessarily on demographics, because they are the least likely predictor. then also, try to identify who your leaders are. your leaders are not necessarily the people who are seeming to be engaged. the whole idea of reading body language is not, i don't think, borne out by the research. if you want to read someone's body language, you need to know what their baseline is first. i wouldn't give a lot of credence to any of that. i would give a lot of credence to go back and say, what did they say in their supplemental written questionnaire as to where do they get their news? going back and looking at the questionnaire, which is what they filled out at the beginning of jury selection as a part of the process, a lot of people get their news from "the new york times." >> i guess that tells you something, if you want to draw

conclusions or maybe conventional wisdom. how does a jury react, i ask the table, to having a convicted perjurer and -- blanche said he lied under oath, to his family, his wife, his kids, his banker, he lied to the fec and every reporter he talked to. he is like the mvp of liars. he lied to congress, prosecutors, business associates, his bosses. in fact, he is a thief. he stole tens of thousands of dollars from the trump organization. he is like the mvp of liars. in addition to his lies, what should matter is the lies when he took an oath two weeks ago and gave testimony to you guys. lie under oath. when you come in here, you take an oath like he did, that matters. it has to matter. he lied to you, make no mistake

about it. that's pretty emphatic. chuck, you have always said, your witnesses are often bad guys. this is the mvp of bad guys, according to todd blanche. >> he is not entirely wrong. mr. cohen is a thief and a liar. he is a convicted thief and liar. who is around when crimes are committed? the answer is, criminals. criminals are around when crimes are committed. who do you call to the witness stand? you call the people who were around, who know, who have information. >> the prosecution will say, he is donald trump's choice. >> sure. you will hear that in the closing. if you are the defense attorney, mr. blanche is doing what i would expect a defense attorney to do. go after reasonable doubt. you go after intentionality, whether or not mr. trump intentionally did the things he is accused of doing.

you go hard at michael cohen, who is, in fact, a thief and a liar. >> we hear now from blanche's own words that he is just about ready to wrap up. he is going to give them a list of ten reasons why you should have reasonable doubt to the jury. smart thing to do in a case like this, robert? just leave them with, here is all the reasons besides the fact as he has laid out that michael cohen is a liar and in fact, he played excerpts of cohen screaming on his podcast, but give them a list, here you go, one through ten, why you should have reasonable doubt, does it work? >> i'm brought to think of the great trial lawyer who maybe some of the other guests know about. race horse haines would say, sometimes the only thing you are

is the cockroach defense. what he meant by that was you get them there and mess up what they have. sometimes you just have to go with what you've got. there's a nobel prize winner. he talked about two different ways of making decisions. level one and level two. level one is making shortcuts. what that defense presentation is relying on is people taking shortcuts, not doing the hard work which is required in level two thinking, which is to think through logically, how do all the pieces fit together? unfortunately for the defense, you have an enormously educated panel, people with law degrees, people with mbas, pretty much any other jurisdiction you would be on any one of those 12 jurors would be categorized as a

leader. typically in jury selection, you are trying to decide, who are the leaders who are against me? i have to get rid of those. really, on this panel, there are not a lot of people on there -- i really don't see anyone who doesn't have a fair degree of education and also to -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt, but it's an important point. can that potentially cause problems in the jury room when you have so many smart people, many of whom may be used to being the leader in whatever group they are in? >> let me add to that, what role do the two lawyers play? >> i picked over 500 jurors in my career. i have picked 60 juries post-vaccination. i have let lawyers be on seven of my juries because they are powerful back in the jury room.

if you -- typically, if you let a jury be on the jury room, you give your case to them. typically, if a lawyer is on a jury, one side or the other made a mistake. i would say this may be a unique panel given the education and the power of the other people. they are security engineers. they are finance people. people with mbas. it may not be as compelling as a typical jury, because the whole jury is so educated and powerful. >> we will go to these reasons why the jury should have reasonable doubt per todd blanche. we will start with the invoices. he said this before. he says, cohen created those invoices, trump had no intent to defraud. this is michael cohen. part of the argument is, michael cohen decided to do this. >> the problem at the end of the day is that there's this magic

number $35,000. it ties to something. michael cohen didn't have a retainer agreement, didn't have invoices. how much am i charging a month? there's nothing underlying it. you will have these $35,000 payments that are secretly sent not to the white house but off site to keith schiller's home office to be brought to the oval office for then president trump to sign. they will have a lot of explaining to do. michael cohen created the invoices or didn't create the invoices. then president trump didn't have anything to do with it, but that's not going to carry any weight. >> you have all this other testimony, the prosecution will bring up, which is that donald trump worried about whether he was spending too much open a picture frame. if he is signing a check.

>> the d.a. introduced excerpts showing he was negotiating down to the price of the -- >> that was so many years ago and by the way it was ghostwritten. >> what wasn't so many years ago was his executive assistant who testified he was paying attention, signing the checks -- her story changed a little on cross-examination and back again for redirect. but the point of her testimony was, this is somebody who was paying attention. he knew what he was signing. >> back on the list. valentine's day communications about vouchers and checks. similar things that he signed the checks as president. there was no evidence of intent to defraud. president trump tweeted what happened. he submitted evidence to the office of government ethics. no falsification of business records. i expect they will talk to you about other documents, he said. but there's no illegal agreement to influence the election.

no evidence, chuck, he had anything to do with whatever agreement was reached to try to influence the election. >> i think jeremy made this point earlier. there's a difference between stating and overstating. to say there's no evidence, i think it's just plain factually inaccurate and gives an opening to the prosecution when they get up and sum up their case. to point out all of the evidence to the contrary. by the way, i don't like gimmicks, top ten lists and things like that. maybe you have nine good reasons and maybe you have 13 good reasons. perhaps mr. blanche has made a calculation that this is how a jury consumes information. if you have to start overstating things in order to come up with ten, i think it's going to be turned on him. >> it seems now -- we're not hearing whole thing. they are just putting in quickly as they can the list.

they said, it was not catch and kill. seven, mcdougal did not want her story published. eight, daniels' story was public. it seems like six, seven and eight are pretty much -- >> some of these are weak. i think, again, there's going to be -- it's going to be combated with evidence. there's no intent to defraud. that's not a statement of fact. that's a conclusion. >> can i stop you there for a second? i think it's important. in the opening, you have -- you are talking about evidence. you can't just randomly make things up. you are doing evidence that you say you are going to prove as a lawyer or disprove as the defense in your case. but in closing, what are the rules and regulations? what can and can't you say? >> it's similar but different. you tell a narrative. when you tell your narrative in

the closing, time one you are more open and you may be more generic because you don't know what evidence will come in and a reminder, a defense attorney doesn't have to have an opening. prosecution has the burden. they have to establish certain elements. but on your summation, you are more argumentative. you are going to be using some of the conclusions i said before. you are going to be more challenging. you are going to be providing -- pointing out specific things that have been said and said, this is why it's not consistent, this is why you can't believe. we expect them to go at michael cohen. we expect them to make this about michael cohen. we state this enough. if the defense can move this away from falsifying business records and make it about a lying, thieving jerk who wants to see nothing more than the former president crushed, that's a win for them. when you throw in there a blackmailing sex worker, that's a double win. they have to be careful. if you do that too much, you are

avoiding the real question is. this jury isn't stupid nor naive. these people know that a lot can happen in 90 seconds. >> this is a documents case. both sides acknowledged that. >> in a way, there's a smoking gun here, which is exhibit 35 and 36, which people have talked about. this is a document that's the letterhead and it's the note of weisselberg grossing up the figures. that proves on its face the business records -- the falsity of the business records. the part they are honing in on is whether donald trump caused those to be actually falsified. that is the weakest part of the prosecution's case. they are right to hone in on that as a matter of their closing arguments. >> he only has to have the intent. >> he has to cause the falsification of the business records. the intent gets to the other part, which is it's a bump-up.

it's just he has to cause the falsification of the business records. >> let's talk about that. they can come back and they can convict on the misdemeanors, which donald trump could then -- can they do that without the underlying felony? is it -- it's the bump-up that i find so challenging, potentially. >> i believe -- jeremy and duncan can correct me if i'm wrong -- that they can't convict on the misdemeanors here. it's all or nothing felony conviction or acquittal. in many cases, you would be exactly right, that there's something in the law called a lesser included offense, a crime that's subsumed in a greater crime. i don't think that's the case here. >> that was a strategic call that both sides made not to ask the judge to give a lesser

included jury charge. there's reason for that. the defense is in large measure playing to the public. you were a normal trial lawyer trying this case as a criminal defense attorney and you are thinking, there's a good chance my client is going to get convicted on the felony charges, you might ask to give a lesser included charge. for donald trump, who is the presumptive republican nominee for president, that would be a huge loss to get convicted on a misdemeanor. the other thing, he would give up certain appellate rights. in order to ask the judge for a lesser included, you need to basically exceed the fact that the legal sufficiency has been met there. >> as a political analyst, i would argue that if he were convicted on a misdemeanor, he could make a great political case that this was not important. it's the felony that makes this so impactful. i think it's giving up the appellate rights that probably

becomes -- >> i think donald trump is thinking about his appellate rights. i'm sure he is thinking about the political calculation. i would add the second point, with regard to what the defense wants, the prosecution doesn't want the misdemeanor. they don't want the jury to say, you know what, maybe the felony, but maybe nothing, but let's have the misdemeanor, because that's a loss in the event it's a misdemeanor conviction. this is a very rare situation. there's a two-year limit on misdemeanors. normally, it wouldn't be viable. >> here todd blanche has done the ten best reasons. >> the ten reasonable doubt. >> now he has come up with michael mi

michael cohen is the best liar of all time. i am going to end the summation the same way i told you that i know you cannot rely on him. all those lies put them to the side for a moment, you cannot rely on him, all those lies under oath, all those lies, that is reason enough to walk away. he came in here, raised his right hand and lied to you personally. you cannot send someone to prison based on the words of michael cohen. a lot of evidence, but it's important to president trump and his family and it is clear to you all, you have been paying close attention. that is very important. this isn't a referendum on your views of president trump. that's important to a manhattan jury. this not a referendum of president trump and the ballot

box. he is appealing to them and their pride and pride of service, public service. this is not a referendum on the ballot box. the verdict has to do with the evidence, he is telling them. of course, that's what the judge will tell them as well. the evidence that you have heard. that's as far as they have gotten so far. this sounds like a big windup for a jury that's been listening for a long time. >> i appreciate what blanche said. he threw in about prison. that's something -- the jury should not be speculating about. number two, it's inappropriate. theoretically, the prosecution could object. but they let it go and have the judge respond to it during instruction before the jury goes out. i agree with what chuck said. this is too cute. this getting cute with these top tens and the g.l.o.a.t., greatest liar of all time. it's rich when you have someone accused of having an affair --

multiple affairs and fraud to be saying that this other person is the greatest liar of all time. it's not lost. >> there's some competition for that title. putting that aside, mr. blanche is wrong as a matter of law. the jury can convict just on testimony of michael cohen if they so choose. there's a standard instruction -- i know in federal criminal law -- that the jury can -- if they find the testimony of a single cooperating witness credible, inpactful, then that alone can be the basis for their conviction. they are told it's an option. if you believe michael cohen, then that could be sufficient. >> todd blanche has sat down. if you focus just on the evidence you heard in the courtroom, this is a very quick and easy not guilty verdict. thank you. joining us now, i want to bring in former u.s. attorney joyce

vance, who has been watching this and reading all of this. joyce, what do you think of the defense's summation? >> like chuck, i'm not a big fan of lists. it seems a little bit cute and pat. it was more structured than much of todd blanche's closing argument, which i took to have three buckets of reasonable doubt. i heard him saying, you can't convict because these documents aren't fraudulent. that's something that the prosecution will, i think, deal with pretty readily. then he seemed to argue for a time that donald trump didn't have the intent to commit crimes, commit crimes, he was too busy running the country to commit crimes. we'll hear the prosecution say a lot about that too. ultimately it came down to this argument about michael cohen, with blanche arguing you can't send someone to prison on the word of a liar, like michael cohen. and, again, the government will have plenty of responses. they'll say they didn't pick michael cohen as a witness, it was donald trump.

and they'll talk about the fact that even people who have lied who have demonstrably lied and convicted of it, like michael cohen, can come back and tell the truth, and this, i think, is the single weakness in the defense summation. they failed to confront the corroborating evidence that the prosecution put together before cohen took the witness stand, leaving an opening for the prosecution now to come back and to tell the jury why they can trust cohen in this case. >> right now, steinglass, steinglass is arguing to the judge the jury is taking a break to 2:00 p.m., a lunch break, and he's arguing for some sort of curative instruction from the judge, arguing that blanche's argument that he says that was a ridiculous comment about trump going to prison, which our friend jeremy here just made, that was blatant and wholly inappropriate. sentencing is not for their jurisdiction. second, they doubled down on the

retainer agreement argument, which is not the law in new york state. so, again, arguing for a curative instruction. blanche is saying the law that was presented to the court has to do with payments, not whether a retainer agreement can be oral and one of the cases cited was a mistake. 100 years plus of legal experience testified and wasn't a single question on cross about retainer agreements. there wasn't a single question pushing that. you do not need a retainer agreement in writing to get paid. mr. cohen himself testified on direct, cross and redirect his job was exactly the same. the judge is saying let me hear you on your comment about prison. which is to the defense. there is already an instruction, the judge is saying i'm going to give a curative. i think that statement was outrageous, mr. blanche. someone who has been a prosecutor as long as you have is simply not allowed, period. it is hard to imagine how that wasn't accidental. how that was accidental. i think that's a typo there.

i think saying that was outrageous. you know, making a comment like that is highly inappropriate, simply is not allowed, period. >> that goes back to my original question, what can and you cannot do in a closing and clearly the judge is saying, that's something you can't do. >> well, chris, you can argue, and you can argue the heck out of your case, but you can't misstate the law and you can't put in front of the jury certain things that all of us as prosecutors and defense lawyers know is prejudicial and proper, and so, jeremy made the point earlier, he was right, i winced when i heard that -- >> even we journalists figured that out. >> that mr. blanche put the prospect of prison in front of the jury. that is not something that juries in new york state do. and judge merchan reacted, i think the way most judges in new york state would react. >> joyce, we have a couple of minutes left, let me ask you, if, indeed, that this isn't something that is likely to have been accidental, is it that old

statement, as a lawyer, sometimes you put something in because the jury can't unhear it. >> you know, i suspect that todd blanche backed into this. he is a career prosecutor. he understands that you can't comment to the jury on punishment. that's not a matter that they are to consider when they're deliberating on guilt. so, i think the judge will give a curative instruction and that will be the end of this matter. it will be regrettable. but i don't view it as something that a lawyer like todd blanche could do deliberately. >> and let me ask you for a big picture in our final minute, how would you rate this as a closing? this was his last chance, best chance, to convince the jury that donald trump is not guilty on any of these 34 charges. did he make progress? did he do it? if so, where was his strongest argument? >> so, blanche is arguing only

to one juror, not to the entire jury. he's trying to find one or two people who are strong enough to carry his water while the jury is deliberating. usually when you're going to see a defense lawyer succeed, you'll find a really compelling piece in their closing argument that those jurors can carry forward. perhaps here that's some of the argument about cohen's credibility. but it is an uphill battle in a case like this one, particularly with the defendant like donald trump who surrounded himself with the michael cohens of the world, i think that argument about cohen is their best shot, but i think the prosecution has plenty of ammunition to shoot back with. >> okay. joyce vance, thank you. and jeremy saland and we'll hear from legal experts inside the court for us as was katy tur as they make their way to the cameras in the next hour right after this very short break. stay with us. you're watching chris jansing and i here with all of our colleagues on msnbc. s jansing and i here with all of our

colleagues on msnbc. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... so i wear a lot of hats. my restaurants, my tattoo shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. smile! you found it. the feeling of finding psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu, a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up. or finding you don't have

to hide your skin just your background. once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu. (vo) if you have graves' disease, your eye symptoms could mean something more. so clearly you. that gritty feeling can't be brushed away. even a little blurry vision can distort things. and something serious may be behind those itchy eyes. up to 50% of people with graves' could develop a different condition

called thyroid eye disease, which should be treated by a different doctor. see an expert. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com i was stuck. unresolved depression symptoms were in my way. i needed more from my antidepressant. vraylar helped give it a lift. adding vraylar to an antidepressant is clinically proven to help relieve overall depression symptoms better than an antidepressant alone. and in vraylar clinical studies, most saw no substantial impact on weight. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, as these may be life-threatening, or uncontrolled muscle movements, which may be permanent. high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, weight gain, and high cholesterol may occur. movement dysfunction and restlessness are common side effects. stomach and sleep issues, dizziness, increased appetite, and fatigue are also common.

side effects may not appear for several weeks. i didn't have to change my treatment. i just gave it a lift. ask about vraylar and learn how abbvie could help you save. i don't want you to move. and learn how abbvie i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity.

of liars.

that