hi there, everyone. it is 4:00 in new york on a huge, huge day of news. quote, conspiracy and a cover-up. prosecutors today reminding the jury of the basic facts of this historic first ever criminal trial of an american ex-president. and we come on the air, closing arguments are under way in the people of state of new york

versus donald j. trump. we're getting live updates from inside of the courtroom. we're going to do our best to watch them together and bring out and interrupt our conversations and bring you any and all significant moments as they're happening. over the last few hours the prosecutor has been going through the claims made by trump's lawyers in their closing argument this morning. steinglass, the prosecutor, pushed back against trump's lawyers claim from this morning that porn star stormy daniels was extorting donald trump. prosecutors saying this, quote, extortion is not a defense to falsifying business records. and if you have any questions about that, you can ask the judge. after putting on the stand, just two witnesses, one of whose credibility completely crumbled during cross-examination, donald trump's defense team today closed by arguing essentially that there was never any criminal conspiracy to conceal the hush money payments. trump's attorney todd blanche

also went after michael cohen aggressively and loudly calling him the mvp of liars, and the gloat, claiming he lied to the jury presenting a smoking gun that shows that to be the case. and just in the last hour, prosecutor joshua steinglass got to work in addressing and doing any clean-up he thought necessary on these questions around cohen's credibility. steinglass telling the jury this, quote, we didn't choose michael cohen. we didn't pick him up at the witness store. mr. trump chose mr. cohen for same qualifies his attorneys now urge you to reject. noticeably missing from the defense's argument this morning, any and all pushback against that wealth documentary and circumstantial evidence corroborated cohen's testimony before he ever took the stand. blanche on that front claimed there he wasn't a shred of evidence regarding the trump tower meeting with the repayment scheme was hatched. that is not true. blanche ignored in his close the

handwritten notes entered into evidence showing how the $420,000 reimbursement was added up. he made a bold claim and said today in front of the jury that that plan for the national enquirer to catch and kill negative stories about donald trump ahead of an election was normal. everybody does it. said it was aboveboard. blanche arguing, every campaign is a conspiracy to promote a candidate. to that joshua steinglass called the agreement at the trump tower where the plan was hatched a subversion of democracy. arguing that the whole point of the scheme was to, quote, pull the wool over voters' eyes. blanche did not finish his closing this morning without doing something that earned perhaps the sharpest rebuke of this five-week trial from the normally very even keeled judge

juan merchan. blanche in his close said this to the jury, you can nat send someone to prison based on michael cohen and they said i think that statement was outrageous, mr. blanche. it is simply not allowed, period. it is hard for me to imagine how that was accidental in any way. so then the jury went out after that happened and later when they came back in, the judge corrected blanche in front of the jury telling the jury, explicitly, that a prison sentence is not required in this case and on blanche's comment, the judge added this, quote, that comment is improper and you must disregard it. the prosecution is still underway and getting the final chance to hammer home the case against donald trump, that is happening at this moment and it is where we start with some of our most favorite reporters and friends. they've made they're way from inside of the courtroom, which

was warm today into our climate controlled studio and andrew weissmann is back, "new york times" report susan craig is back and former executive he hadar with american media inc. and for the hollywood reporter lock lan cartwright is back. and outside of the courthouse, vaughn hillyard. let's start with what is happening right now and work our way back to this merchan rebuke. >> reporter: right, nicolle, the jury just re-entered the courtroom. in a typical day. at 4:30, is when court is ended and everyone is sent home but today the judge made it clear they would try to get through both sides closing arguments by the end of today so the juries could hear it in one major chunk. but now you're looking at a reality that there was a break that was announced and the jury left the room and the prosecution about an hour and a 45 minutes into their closing

arguments, were just asked by judge how much more time do they have. they said they were about one-third of the way done. so if you do the math, that could take us to about 8:00 p.m. eastern if the time moves based on their clock. now the defense, they went for about three hours this morning as part of their closing arguments and when you compare the two sides you could look at the defense, it was a rather a simplistic effort and contention that was made to this jury. it was two fold. number one, michael cohen is a liar. more tan 45 times i counted thatted to blanche called michael cohen a liar or said that he had lied. and then they are also trying to cast doubt, a reasonable doubt in the minds of these jurors that donald trump was intimately aware of these schemes and what he was paying michael cohen for. on the the other side of this, the prosecution is much more methodical and that is why you could be looking at their closing arguments lasting five to six hours because it is on them to make the case to this jury that donald trump was not

only intimately aware, but behind the conspiracy that went from august of 2015 all the way through 2018. >> andrew weissmann, to vaughn's great reporting, they are going to take a break in about an hour at 5:00. judge will ask the jurors how they are doing if they want to take a break or keep going. >> i'm sure that the prosecution could like them to come back tomorrow just so they are fresh. it is -- it is a long day to sit there and take in all of that information. and they -- you want them to be fresh for both sides so they're hearing it. so i'm sure josh steinglass is ready. in other words, he's got everything buttoned down. it is very smooth. but there terms of what i think state would want, i would think that they would want to take a break. but it is pretty clear from when we were there that judge merchan was going to leave it up to the jurors. he left it -- he's so even keeled as you pointed out. he just said, it is whatever you

want. if you want to stay, we'll do that but then he also said, if you want to come back tomorrow, we'll do that too. with no -- not trying to put his thumb on the scale. whatever you want, that is what we're going to do. >> who would you argue would benefit if they come back in the morning? >> i think it benefits the state. it is not that they need the time to prepare -- >> just get a fresher clean page in the notebook. >> if you go to a museum at some point you're like i can't see it any more. >> that is me after 10 minutes. >> after an hour. that is a lot of time to be processing and capping all of that and incoming. >> what is your your notebook, i want to bring our audience into what is happening right now. and the hallmark of state's case has been precision, but also a nimbleness and an ability to adapt to what the defense is putting before the jury and the judge and they seem to have

adapted to what blanche did this morning. >> i think they pivoted. and josh steinglass got up, we were talking about it, we take the subway here every day so we get a good shot session. and so we were talking about josh steinglass's closing. and how he started it, it felt quite abrupt. he right away made a decision to address some of the things that donald trump's lawyers had brought up, the things about michael cohen's credibility. there was a great moment about the call, i thought that was one of the best moments that we saw, where there is that call that is in question where michael cohen calls keith schiller and is it about the harassing phone calls that michael cohen had been getting from a 14-year-old or something to do with stormy daniels? and josh steinglass actually in that -- he made up a -- role played the call and fit it in to 92 seconds. so at the beginning, it did feel

a bit abrupt but he decided to address some of these things right away. but i think the main thing that came out of this morning when you see it you will, there was some issues where donald trump's lawyers went first that the payments were legal. that is one of the first things. but the main thing they did was go after michael cohen over and over. they called him the gloat. the greatest liar of all time and that he's a liar and you can't believe anything he said. that is the underpinning. the other stuff i thought was weak. there was the -- they started out in a vacuum it felt like a smart idea that these were payments for legal services but then they put on the screen the now famous exhibit, it is exhibit 35. >> 35. >> where you got the -- where add automatic weisselberg grosses it up and michael cohen

takes it to him and he signs off on it. and they're saying it is legal services and it is done on the page that is the wire transfer for the stormy daniels payment. like, come on. and i wouldn't have put it up in the first sentence but i wouldn't have let it linger there. if the jury had forgotten it was on the paper that was the wire transfer, they remembered it this morning and it was another reminder and it did defy common sense. like it is not for legal services, it is on that paper. >> i thought it was remarkable that todd blanche did the access hollywood role play himself. catch and kill, everybody does it. >> and everybody doesn't do it and i could tell you that from a advantage point -- a unique advantage point. >> as can i. >> haves worked in -- prior to my tenure at ami and post my tenure, this type of behavior does not go on. and what went on here was a tabloid news organization got

twisted and turned into becoming a criminal enterprise and that is where i left off in terms of this afternoon as we were hearing all of the three payments and if i go into the first one for a moment and how highly unusual the doorman situation is. first you have a $30,000 amount of money which was highly unusual for american media to pay. usually we would pay thousands of dollars for stories. but a story that we weren't running particularly to make a payment was again, unheard of and as well as the sum of money. and the other element of that, which made it extraordinary was to then present the doorman with a million dollar clause in his contract and lock him in. and it was cheeky so that i david pecker was going to run this story, he didn't say that, he said he had intention to run

it post the election. so i thought that the defense was doing a -- prosecution was doing a great job of countering some of the misinformation that the defense was -- but you remember this jury, david pecker was a month ago and even myself, i'm sitting in that room having to sort of recollect what david pecker had said say month ago. so they did a good job and just as i was leaving they were moving on to karen mcdougal and the catch and kill. >> and one of the things, vaughn hillyard, i heard the defense do this morning was to say access hollywood was personally challenging for donald trump. and one of the exhibits was from c-span and it was trump at a podium saying this is going to kill me with the women. the women. my women are going to -- one of the pieces of evidence again. i said this five weeks ago, the jury is going to be asked to not believe what they could see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears and read in front of them. and take me how this is reading

out and if this is a rebuttal to the argument but pushback to the arguments made this morning. >> reporter: as we're speak right now they're going through the access hollywood tape and that time line and in wednesday the defense, i was in the courthouse before coming on to your show was listening to josh steinglass's presentation. and i think if you're comparing also these two individuals and how they explain this moment in time to the jury, they're dia metticly opposed to one another. you have on one hand the defense for donald trump todd blanche suggesting it makes no sense that someone would think a national enquirer story would change the outdock or influence the election or which on its head doesn't make sense why pecker was meeting at donald trump in the trump tower and why he made the commitment to be their eyes and ears and in that

meeting david pecker testified that he would inform michael cohen of any salacious stories involving women and notify him so that he could have them killed. and then you go to josh steinglass here as we speak, currently playing it out for the jury as well, and this is where they are using not only the exhibits but also making the case that donald trump's motive in this case was stormy daniels. because again they're talking about the conspiracy here. and what was the motive to falsify the documents. and the motive was stormy daniels. and that is where the prosecution was questioned as to why they got into the salacious details by josh steinglass already made the case to the jury that the details were important. because it showed where donald trump took the actions that he did and why he used michael cohen, who, we should note in the last hour, the prosecution has made the case served as a

liaison, not only to bill and howard and david pecker, but to a the trump campaign and the trump organization, all by working as a deputy and in a moment of crisis there around the -- the hours after the access hollywood tape, who did donald trump turn to as well in the weeks after that hollywood tape drop, he turned to michael cohen. >> i want to be clear to our viewers. this is not a official transcript. these are notes from our reporters in the courtroom. so they are as close as could be accounted for some gram attical stuff. so prosecutor doing what vaughn is describing. four weeks before the election the campaign was rocked to its core by the release of the access hollywood tape. a video of a presidential candidate discussing how to grab a woman by the genitals. it was another example of them trying to make the case about michael cohen but it isn't that. hope hicks told you that the news was so big it eclipsed the coverage of a category 4 hurricane bearing down on the east coast. steinglass, so i guess it was

like a category five hurricane. endorsements were reconsidering and the republican national committee considered replacing donald trump. preparations for the debate wb halted as they entered into damage mode. it all began with this email from washington post reporter david fahrenthold and asked for the comment and hope hicks testified at that her initial ideas to question the tape and once it was real the category shifted from deny, deny, deny, to spin. to relive all of this, seems like something that the defense in some ways invited. i'm guessing the prosecution would have done this in way, laid out the motive for the cover-up, because the business records are where the original criminality comes in and the motive and the campaign fraud is the crime. but to relive this, this is the

most damaging stuff in donald trump's eyes. this is what he didn't want the voters to know. >> as he was going after that meeting at trump tower in august of 2016, just to reinforce how important it is when michael cohen and meets with david pecker and donald trump and they come up with this scene to catch and kill negative stories. and i think that was very important to bring it back to that, because this morning we just heard how michael cohen is a liar and it was very meandering. but to bring it back to the meeting at trump tower was essential to get the jury's head back to where this conspiracy starts and that is the reason that we're here with the stormy daniels payment. >> i just want to say that hope hicks in discussing the access hollywood tape, did such an incredible job of showing how crucial it was that they then make the stormy daniels payment. she set the -- she said it was category 4 hurricane and then to hear donald trump's lawyers this

morning in court say, it was just sort of another thing going on. there was other things going on. i actually wrote down and i just -- i said the idea that the access hollywood tape was not a big deal is comical. i wrote a note to myself. because it is such a huge deal and they just tried to dismiss it. >> josh tine glass had a great line about saying -- hope hicks barely came up in the defense summation. so one of the things that you listen for as a prosecutor is not just what is said, but what is left out. and it was remarkable. and so to sue's point about exhibits 35 and 36 barely addressed. in the most superficial way. so that is a huge hole. hope hicks, every damaging statement not addressed. it was just like, you have to say something. nope. nothing. hope hicks on this category 4, josh steinglass said let's get

back to you think it was no big deal. hope hicks when he said directly to the jury, no motive to lie, but anything to curry favor with the defendant said well, it eclipsed the news of a category 4 hurricane so that makes it a category 5. at the very least. >> just to remind people. she's running public relations. she's in charge of the image and it was a disaster. there is no -- >> it always boggled my mind that the defense decided to basically hand her tissues and then destroy stormy daniels who didn't have eyes on any of the criminal acts of the fraudulent business records. what was behind that? trump. >> of course. then that came up in the course of the sort of beginning part of steinglass's summation, saying this is -- you saw something very bizarre where they basically tried to destroy her -- stormy daniels, but

nothing was said about -- and this is josh steinglass saying, but david pecker said all of these credibly damaging things and nothing. hope hicks said all of these dang damaging things and it is nothing. and they decide they have to go after stormy daniels and -- >> and michael cohen. >> and the other side that he menged was powerful was that the people closest to donald trump had the most damaging information and i think that was a really great note that he struck. because hope hicks was damaging. her testimony was. and so was david pecker's. and two people who are still -- >> and who they haven't attacked. >> he's still my friend. >> my mentor. >> which makes it so effective that they're going back to where we started with david pecker. >> i want to do two things. i want to pull back the curtain. we have some notes coming into us about what is happening as this happen right now. what we understand to be taking place is probably about 40 more minutes of the prosecution making its closing argument.

at 5:00 the judge has told the jury it is going to hit pause and check in with them and see what they want to do. do they want to keep going or power through or take a break and come back in the morning. so we don't know yet. that decision will be made about 40 minutes from right now. we're also going to sneak in a break and do some more reading and checking on what is happening inside. but there is still so much more to come from inside of the courtroom as the state's closing arguments continue, they're ongoing. we'll bring you everything that is happening live. the jury could be just hours away from beginning to deliberate their final decision in that first ever criminal trial of an american ex-president. and later, filmmaker ken burns joins the table. he's studied just about every event in our nation's history. the good, bad and ugly. he's speaking out. he will join us to talk about the existential cross roads at which we find ourselves in the

country and how important this presidential election is for every single one of us. much much more to come when "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. our biggest challenge? uncertainty. hidden fees, surcharges... who knows what to expect! turn shipping to your advantage. keep it simple...with clear, upfront pricing. with usps ground advantage®. ♪♪ ♪ limu emu... ♪ and doug. (bell ringing) limu, someone needs to customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. let's fly! (inaudible sounds) chief! doug. (inaudible sounds) ooooo ah.

(elevator doors opening) (inaudible sounds) i thought you were right behind me. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪ with so many choices on booking.com there are so many tina feys i could be. so i hired body doubles. 30,000 followers tina in a boutique hotel. or 30,000 steps tina in a mountain cabin. ooh! booking.com booking.yeah it's hard to explain what this feels like. ♪♪ moving piles of earth. towing up to 4,000 lbs. cutting millions of blades of grass. nothing compares to experiencing it for yourself. you just have to get in the seat. a slow network is no network for business. no that's why moreo exp 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!

we're back with andrew, sue, and latchlan and vaughn. what the prosecution is doing is coming back on what felt like, i don't want to call it a theme because the defense doesn't seem to matter, but what seemed like a jab this morning which there was no catch and kill or payouts. and everyone does it. what the prosecution is doing,

we could allege hush money scheme. we showed you a hush money scheme and the remorse of the participants and now they're going back to the foundational pillars and players, the text and the exchanges and the emails and showing how access hollywood drove the price up to cover up those stories after trump described in front of cameras a political crisis. >> why this case is so powerful. it is the documents and not just the paper trail of invoices and checks but also the text messages, between dylan howard and keith davidson and what i keep coming back to is from election night where keith davidson said what have we done. and even before that, as keith davidson is representing stormy daniels and before that representing karen mcdougal and in the case of stormy daniels, we know that her story was around months before the access hollywood tape in that summer and there wasn't much interest at all. and then fast forward several months later and this is a text

between dylan howard and keith davidson so work out and gina rodriguez who is representing stormy daniels, to work out how to lock this story down because of what was going on with the access hollywood tape. and time and time again, they're coming back to this wealth of documents an text messages and emails between the likes of howard and keith davidson and david pecker. >> let me ask you a dumb question. journalist and you've talked about it on the air, none the stories have ever been retracted. >> correct. none of them have been. there have been efforts from my knowledge from the likes of dylan howard and david pecker through very expensive law firms to get retractions from the gentleman that i work with at "the new york times" an the "wall street journal" to put corrections on the stories or to retract them and all of the stories are -- i should know because i was --

>> i guess the only thing is the election crimes were also verified by donald trump's department of justice specifically the southern district of new york who stipulated his individual 1 in a criminal conspiracy. >> josh steinglass used that in a very clever way. so he is not allowed to say that just because cohen pled guilty that that is a permanent proof. >> of trump's guilt. >> of course it is guilt of cohen. of trump's guilt. but the way he said it is, they said cohen is angry and cohen feels betrayed by donald trump. and he has good reason to. because he's the only person held to account for a crime. he pleaded guilty to this. and the other people who participated haven't been. and so, it is making your point, which is, you know, he's the only one held to account. but it is not saying because he

pled, donald trump is guilty. >> how do they describe it, i see the idea of pecker's immunity. how does the prosecution come back to that and make this point. >> so they use it in part to say he also is someone who is not held to account criminally and would understand why cohen is angry about it. but i think they used it more to say that the defense was completely inconsistent with david pecker. >> it is hard to follow it. >> you can't. and i've sat through so many defense closings and i don't mean this in a pejorative way because they have to work with what they have to work with. but i think for smart people in the room, msnbc anchors sitting there with jen and with you and with alex wagner. and they're all, this is not making any sense.

because they're very smart people and they're looking at it logically. and with david pecker there, you can't just take the little pieces that he said and not see his whole history where he's like, there is a catch and kill scheme, agree with that man over there. there was all of this. the reason we didn't do stormy daniels is because it wasn't a catch and kill, because he was no longer willing to be the bank. you know how many times that came up in the defense summation? zero. the big picture i saw big picture is todd didn't address the worst evidence. and that to me is that is not a good summation. i thought there were pieces that he did well. but you have to address dade pecker saying that and in any convincing way exhibit 35 and 36, that sue keeps on pointing out, the handwritten notes saying donald trump may have these really damaging confessions. nothing was said about that.

nothing was said about your last witness costello. there was a reference once to just say he was michael cohen's lawyer, and so michael cohen was wrong. which didn't even -- wasn't even right. but basically their running as far away as possible from their own witness. >> sue, what are we to sort of to deduce in the prosecution, i want to -- i'll peek into what is happening right now. they have all of these domes up on the screen and they have tweets in october of 2016, donald trump posting on twitter, no one has more respect for women than me. i've lost a large number of women voters by welcome proven to be false. they want you to think it wasn't a big deal, just another blip. they're going on and on about how trump in his own words talking about what a huge deal it was. it was the second day, between perk and davidson they entered

the c-span archive of the tapes of trump and talking about hope hicks. she knew it was a crisis and talks about how worried trump was that it could affect the outcome of the election. >> i don't understand why -- why they downplayed it. i'm almost would have left it rather than trying to punctuate it in the opening. it was confusing. >> right now they're going back to -- they seem to be trying to shore up some of cohen's credibility. i think this is the through line of what the prosecution has tried to sort of rapidly respond to. they're talking about the testimony from keith davidson again. and you know, to your point, that some of this was five weeks ago. some of it just happened so long ago. >> and i lived it and i have to go back over my notes. >> right. talk about those two chunks,

pecker and keith. >> well, i think pecker, you know, he was the ultimate -- i know people refer to whose actions were guided here on the set of a universal tour, but i got on your show and you asked me what -- and he can be the tour guide. because, i keep repeatingpy self-but there was an essential meeting with this scheme was formed and that forms the back drop to that. so if we go back to what david pecker recalled from the meeting and swore to secrecy, saying don't tell anyone about this and didn't say everyone aim high we've entered into a conspiracy and we're starting catch and kill stories, i would have entered my resignation and we're going back to all of that stuff and how the doorman payment happened, karen mcdougal was going on as i was leaving to come here and stormy daniels. but keith davidson helped to

glue that together because keith davidson was working with stormy daniels and karen mcdougal coordinating with dylan howard who was coordinated with david perk and michael cohen and these two men, pecker and davidson, tie everything together. >> the other piece, vaughn, that i think we could expect them to be building to, is the checks. and they seem to want to make something of when they were signed. a reimbursement of what it was happens after. so the checks are paid out over 12 months, is the scheme agreed to by trump and weisselberg and cohen. and nothing was put into the record to refute that in terms of evidence that this jury will have with them or available to them when they go back to deliberate. >> reporter: right. and it is interesting that you say that. the point that is relevant here is the defense for donald trump or donald trump himself or his sons that were here today have never presented a different time line of when donald trump did

find out that michael cohen was paid stormy daniels before the 2016 election. his attorney todd blanche makes the case that donald trump had no clue and michael cohen did it independently. so at what point did he become familiar? was that in 2018 when the "wall street journal" story first came out detailing the arrangement and did donald trump call up michael cohen and say what the heck did you do under my name? was it the oval office meeting on february 2017 when the defense is still articulating they did not discuss this. instead, michael cohen, the way that they frame him, was an excited character visiting the oval office for the first time. but then, there is sort of this gap in time in which 11 checks are written and nine of them signed personally from donald trump. and so did he find out after the last check that he wrote in december of 2017, but before the january 2018 "wall street journal" story came out. that is an open gap and i think

that is why as the current prosecution is going in through every text message and mail. october 13th, october 15th, october 17th and two on the morning of october 26th. this story has been difficult to cover. i've been covering it for eight years. but it is tough to put all of the details. if i had to pass a final, i would like to think that i studied enough over the last week. but if you're a jury, you're hearing this all for the first time. that is where the prosecution wants to make clear that this timeline is important and the reimbursement checks and what took place in 2017 is important. it is not just about 2015 and 2016. but 2017 and 2018 are just as crucial to this conspiracy. >> i feel like i would be a good study partner for you, vaughn. and we could do october and then we could do it on a white board. like each day in october of 2016, we get its own page. but to bring our viewers into the courtroom. this is what is happening right

now. the text messages between keith davidson and dylan howard to locklan's point are on the screen. the jury is being reminded of all of the frantic pressure cooker and perhaps we have ptsd between the drop of access hollywood and the payout of stormy daniels. >> and i keep thinking there was a moment this morning where donald trump's lawyers was saying, you know, he didn't even see michael cohen, the invoices that michael cohen was saying in and it doesn't matter, but it matters does donald trump cause that -- >> that is so important. >> it doesn't matter when he found out. this is when he found out, he then caused falsification, and he caused them to be filed and i think it is important that we keep coming back to that. he doesn't have to do itself, he has to cause them. >> so you wouldn't -- you would

be in the andrew's -- so when they came back from lunch and began the closing argument, this is what steinglass said, the prosecutor, the people need to prove three things. one, that there were false business records. that they existed. two, that the false business records were supposed to cover up a conspiracy to influence the election. three, that the defendant was involved. that he caused those false business records to be created in order to influence the election. that is it. >> so i wanted to just cover some things that i thought were wonderfully said by josh steinglass. in your opening, you had a number of them. because his wording was so good. this is trump's witness, we didn't get him from the witness store. it just landed so well. you just -- josh steinglass is so comfortable in court. and there was such a dramatic difference with todd blanche who hasn't done as much. so that was -- there is the --

you said this subversion of democracy. it is not normal. i mean, every reporter -- the overflow room is jam packed with reporters. that is not landing well with reporters. you know that is not normal. it is just not true. and that is playing to this really insidious notion that everyone does it. that is wrong. the line about there is nothing illegal about nondisclosure agreements. that was said in the opening and said again by blanche. nondisclosure agreements happen all of the time and you hear about celebrities doing this all of the time. and josh said of course there is nothing per se illegal about nda's, there is nothing per se illegal about a contract. but if you take out a contract to kill your wife, that is illegal. so if you're doing an nda with the illegal purpose of aiding the election, that is illegal. it was so beautifully done and such a good illustration.

and that just is really just -- josh steinglass has been in court and he knows how to defeat an argument very quickly. >> with a story. >> with a good story to say that is misleading argument, your smarter than that. and as we were talking during the break, there is people who talk up to juries and that are many people who talk down to juries. and josh steinglass is talking up to them. and this is like he's assuming they are smart and he is making rapid, fast arguments, he's not bee laboring it. i know it is a long time. but he's really not. this is quite rapid fire. and his language choice was just so good. >> they're going to go to the anchor story and get a new me if i don't get a break in. everyone stick around. we'll be right back. ne stick ar. we'll be right back. l psycholog. i do a lot of hiking and kayaking. i needed something to help me gain clarity. so i was in the pharmacy and i saw a display of prevagen

and i asked the pharmacist about it. i started taking prevagen and i noticed that i had more cognitive clarity. memory is better. it's been about two years now and it's working for me. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. for moderate to severe crohn's disease skyrizi is the first il-23 inhibitor that can deliver remission and visibly improve damage of the intestinal lining. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. control of crohn's means everything to me. ask your gastroenterologist about skyrizi. ♪ control is everything to me ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. (vo) sail through the heart of historic cities and unforgettable scenery with viking. unpack once, and get closer to iconic landmarks, local life, and cultural treasures.

because when you experience europe on a viking longship, you'll spend less time getting there and more time being there. viking. exploring the world in comfort. power e*trade's award-winning trading app makes trading easier. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley power e*trade's easy to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans can help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley

[ cellphone ringing ] phone call from the boss? sorry. outdoor time is me time. of the market. sticking it to the boss, that sounds fun. we have sort of a flat hierarchy, so -- wait, flo isn't the boss? well, you could say i'm a boss at helping people save when they bundle. nope, thanks. we're not gonna say that. -i'd rather not. -very cringey.

did i read this? did i get eggs? where are my keys? memory and thinking issues keep piling up? it may be due to a buildup of amyloid plaques in the brain. visit morethannormalaging.com we're all back. vaughn, you were all in the courthouse today. so it is been going on so long it's gone from cold to hot in new york city. take me inside. >> it was pretty hot. and i have been -- i'm amused by donald trump's comments about it being an ice box because the temperature is pretty decent. but today, i have to say i took my jacket off. it was noticeably hot in there. and it did not cool down. >> and the jury, i mean, we're talking about long days. it might play into the desire to sort of -- what do you think

we're going to do at 5:00? do you think we stop and come back. >> pray to god. >> it keeps getting harder and harder. they have the air-conditioning turned on in the hallway, but not in the -- >> thanks. >> you were inside today. how is everybody doing? >> reporter: well, to speak to the fact that this keeps going and going here, josh steinglass just acknowledged while speeding through that text messages and emails saying i'm not going to bore you with every single record here. he's acknowledging that the sun is going down here in lower manhattan. but what took me about entering the courtroom not only while todd blanche was making his arguments, was just the way that the two men came up and now i'm somebody who is much closer to being a juror than i am a lawyer presenting in a trial. but coming from that vantage point and i'm not trying to slight todd blanche too much,

but you have two individuals showing up like the first day of theater rehearsal and in todd blanche, it is not that he wasn't prepared, he was dispassionate and going through the lines and presenting what he will ultimately deliver. and then on the other hand and listening to josh steinglass it was wild. like someone who had prepped all weekend and who is animated and excited and over the top with his reading of text messages and because you're in theater, you try to make them sexy. that is the two -- i guess the disparity that i got from inside of the courtroom. as someone who is closer to a juror. would you imagine that that is what they viewed as well. >> i too covered this story as someone who covered it and been picked to be on a jury, has never been part of the strategic of what you present to a jury. i thought there was a lot of yelling this morning and maybe it is a gender's piece.

but i worked in politics, i worked with dick cheney and he never spoke above a whisper and he evoked strong reactions from people. what was the yelling designed to do from todd blanche? >> reporter: the lying was the emphasize point and i'll let the others jump in here too if they have the same reaction. the lie was the emphasize, the 45 times that he called michael cohen a liar. the yelling and the emphasis on that alone made it clear what trod blanche found to be the most important part of his arguments to the defense and why his defendant should be acquitted of the charges in front of him. >> well what is interesting to me, again, as an extra -- my only expertise is that you're trying to impeach one of trump's lawyers by acting in the kind of way that you're impeaching trump's lawyer for acting. bombastic and bullying and

rogue. and if you listen to the prosecution's close, they would suggest that they haven't called blanche a liar but pointing out the inconsistencies of what he said. >> one of josh steinglass's points is that he said, so they're attacking michael cohen and one of ways that they attacked him was to point out that he lied in front of congress. and he goes, that is rich. he goes, he was lying to help trump, who was being investigated for the -- his connections to russia, and he was distancing trump from that. there was nothing in it for michael cohen other than helping trump. zero motive to lie. because you know what we call that. chutzpah. it was just like, he's now get ago -- getting attacked for what he did for the defendant. >> can i come back to the sex and stormy daniels. so this is come up today in

closing. it is no coincidence that the sex happened in '06, but the payoff happened less than two weeks before the 2016 election. this is your whole piece that you wrote and your dramatic -- >> again, what was the urgency in locking stormy daniels down? it was in light of the access hollywood tape. if stormy daniels was a story that they wanted to novel off the mark, they had that opportunity six months before when it came on the radar of ami and of michael cohen. instead, they waited, you know, months later, because they had this whole debacle with the "access hollywood" tape, and we know the campaign was in meltdown. in the words of the people running the campaign, hope hicks, you know, they were in absolute -- they did not need any more bad publicity, particularly amongst female voters. and so hence there is this urgency to get this done. and david pecker said, well, i'm not going to be the bank.

because he's already forked out 30k for the doorman and the karen mcdougal payment. then it comes on michael cohen to get this story off the market. and we know why that would have been so damaging, don't we, nicolle, because of what stormy daniels testified in court. >> and we know that from donald trump. i mean, so much of what the state presented they presented in trump's words. he was a witness that didn't -- that may have sat through the whole time without speaking but he spoke through the videos. he spoke through the text messages. he spoke through the other witness testimony. and i think it's -- was it the only thing they saw in trump's own words was the c-span tape of him talking about just this, the impact among female voters? >> i think it was the only thing. i also think there's another angle to that is that donald trump also spoke through michael cohen. donald trump hired michael cohen. i mean, they didn't go to the witness store to buy him. and the very traits that they are now attacking michael cohen for, all the things, he's a liar, he's a cheat, he lied and cheated on donald trump's behalf

for years. those were the qualities that he apparently was hired for. and that point was made. so i think in a way you also see donald trump through michael cohen in a way. >> you guys were just looking at the screen. what's up? >> it's just -- >> you didn't have to say anything. >> it's just a wonderful tidbit, which is that after the daniels pieces come out and they're trying to figure out what to do josh steinglass is pointing out that michael cohen with hope hicks, who has denigrated michael cohen but at this point is, you know, working with him to figure out what to do, basically says we're going to blame hillary clinton. >> how does that work? >> and says cohen and hicks concoct this denial, blaming the clinton machine. and then they show an e-mail on that. and then steinglass asks the question, and why would he be lying about that? >> had we seen that before? >> i had not focused on this during the trial. and this is one of the things that in summation -- i remember

telling people there are so many documents that have come in that you don't at trial, while the trial's going on, have a chance to highlight. and one of the reasons for a long summation is if you don't call this out to the jury now the jurors are never going to find it. so it is your time to really piece together all of this. that is sort of the really interesting piece. it kind of makes sense that they would do that. but josh steinglass is using correctly to be like a, they're blaming hillary clinton, which is sort of an interesting thing for all of us from not a trial perspective, but he's using it to be like and that is a false story. >> yeah. what's so interesting, vaughn, and david covered this point before cohen testified and before we all kind of had to follow that drama out the window. before he ever takes the stand you've got almost like a january 6th public hearing where you've got witness after witness after witness after witness testifying to the same thing. "access hollywood" tape was a big political crisis. so said hope hicks. so said keith davidson.

so said the text from gina rodriguez representing the -- i mean, you had all this evidence. and it seems that what they're coming back to is the kinds of documents that would make you simply believe what you can see right before you. >> right. almost the fact you have to litigate it at all is kind of a wild concept or the fact the defense believes or even tried to justify and make the case that somehow -- that that was not a driving force of any action. i think it was notable here in just the last few moments that josh steinglass was very specific, when talking about the payments to stormy daniels. quote, it's no coincidence the sex happened in 2006 but the payoff happened less than two weeks before the 2016 election. the defendant's primary concern was not his family but the election. and i think that that timeline and the "access hollywood" tape made that crystal clear. and that's where hope hicks' testimony was so crucial to this here. and also the extent to which she engaged in text messages which they are now recalling here for the jurors. the text messages that she

exchanged on november 4th and november 5th thinking they had cleared the way. because these events, they thought that they were going to be effectively be able to skirt what was going to be a damning story. one, that the principal who they all worked for, donald trump, had sole interest in having it covered up for the purposes of his political future. >> so here's where they are right now, lachlan. steinglass is saying this. i'm going to say quote, but this is again, a paraphrase. these are notes from our reporters in the corporateroom. the transcript may not be identical to this but along these lines. quote, just before 10:00 p.m. keith davidson texts dylan howard, quote, what have we done. and dylan howard seems to recognize the significance as well. they call it galos humor but there was a mutual understanding that their activities had assisted trump. we'll never know if this effort to hoodwink voters worked but that's not something we have to prove. >> and that's something that kind of came up again this afternoon, which was the defense had earlier today sort of made a

joke of oh, it's the "national enquirer," what does it even matter? 350,000 people buy this magazine. and it was addressed this afternoon because it's a really important point to emphasize, this is on every newsstand in america, at every airport, at every walmart, and that cover was being weaponized every week, week in week out it was being weaponized to go after trump's rivals, to run these ridiculous covers -- >> because of how it was amplified. it wasn't just -- i mean, it was in all thoez those places but trump was grabbing it and running with it. >> and the ted cruz one is probably the best example of that where we do that story and think no one's going to believe this, it's not going to matter, i can bury my head in the sand, go down to the pub and marinate myself in beer. and try and forget about this episode. but instead i mean, dylan howard's office watching on cnn as the cruz camp is addressing it. because donald trump then went

on fox and the cruz camp had to -- it actually jumped the shark and went mainstream. >> it almost replaced the events of the day and became the campaign story inside the republican -- >> and that's how powerful it was. >> it really was. it really was. all right. so here's what's happening. did they just take a break, andrew? are you watching this? >> yep. >> they just took a 20-minute break where i believe judge merchan will talk to the jurors did what they want to do, if they want to power through or hit pause for the night. we're going to take a break, not 20 minutes. andrew and sue are sticking around with us. lachlan and vaughn are leaving me for now. we have a lot more to come as we continue to cover what's happening live inside the courtroom. also, today filmmaker and historian ken burns, a national treasure, will join us live at the table. the next hour of "deadline: white house" will start after a very short break. don't go anywhere. very short brk don't go anywhere.

♪♪ imagine a future where plastic is not wasted... but instead remade over and over... into the things that keep our food fresher, our families safer, and our planet cleaner. to help us get there, america's plastic makers are investing billions of dollars to create innovative products and new recycling technologies for sustainable change. because when you push for smarter solutions, big things can happen. (vo) you were diagnosed with thyroid eye disease beca long time ago.sh for smarter solutions, and year after year, you weathered the storm and just lived with the damage that was left behind. but even after all this time your thyroid eye disease could still change. restoration is still possible. learn how you could give your eyes a fresh start at tedhelp.com.

that grimy film on your teeth? dr. g? (♪♪) it's actually the buildup of plaque bacteria which can cause cavities. most toothpastes quit working in minutes. but crest pro-health's antibacterial fluoride protects all day. it stops cavities before they start... crest.

hi again, everyone. it's now 5:00 in new york on a historic day of news. we're so happy you're here with us. it's been a very long day for the jurors in this first ever criminal trial of an american ex-president. the state of new york still delivering its closing argument to the jury. they're actually on a short break right now. we're about to begin hour three of the prosecution's closing argument. the judge has called a 20-minute break to give those jurors a chance to stretch their legs, get a snack, go out to what susanne craig says is an air-conditioned hallway. after that the court will reconvene and judge merchan will check in with the jury to see if they prefer to push through, power through tonight or take a break for today and pick up the prosecution's closing argument tomorrow morning. joshua steinglass is the attorney for the prosecution who is delivering the closing argument this afternoon. he laid out a methodical document-based rebuttal to the earlier summation from trump's lawyer, todd blanche. the defense today relying

heavily on loudly calling michael cohen a liar and a gloat. gloat? i'll let you figure that one out. steinglass, meanwhile, encouraged the jury to instead thinking of michael cohen as a, quote, tour guide through the evidence that was already introduced into the record during the proceedings. steinglass saying that michael cohen, quote, provides context and color to the documents but he's not the trial's main character. in just the last hour we heard the prosecution remind the jury of what the many witnesses described in their testimony including details of how the release of the "access hollywood" tape felt catastrophic for the trump campaign and how michael cohen and donald trump spoke just before michael cohen went to the bank to open his new account and wire the hush money to stormy daniels. now, whether the prosecution's summation ends later tonight or tomorrow, it will then be in the hands of the jury. 12 individuals who heard this message from judge juan merchan first thing this morning. quote, you are the finders of

fact. and it is for you and you alone to determine the facts from the evidence that you find to be truthful and accurate. thus you should remember that whatever the lawyers say and however they say it it is simply arguments submitted for your consideration. the lawyers will undoubtedly differ with each other on the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. it is your own recollection, understanding and evaluation of the evidence, however, that controls regardless of what the lawyers have said or will say about the evidence. again, you and you alone are the judges of the facts in this case. that instruction is where we start the hour with some of our favorite experts and friends. former lead investigator for the january 6th select committee tim heaphy joins us. plus former senator and co-host of msnbc's "how to win 2024" podcast our friend claire mccaskill's back. joining our merry gang here at the table, senior executive editor for bloomberg opinion and

msnbc political analyst tim o'brien is here. msnbc legal analyst andrew weissmann starting his second hour with me as is "new york times" investigative reporter susanne craig. tim o'brien, i start with you on -- we'll get into what's happening. we've got a great live feed. in between the three of us we've managed to keep an eye on what's happening. they're in break right now. but a real contrast in tone today. >> and it still amazes me -- you know, it doesn't surprise me but it amazes me that todd blanche is sort of trump's lead attorney in all of this, his lead spokesman, the storyteller for the trump defense team. because i think he's the least polished and the least capable of the three lawyers sitting at the defense table. and it's yet another example, we've talked about this before, but where trump will default to loyalty rather than strategy where he will lean on people he trusts rather than people who can do the best job.

alina habba possibly cost him half a billion dollars because she wasn't as good at her job as she needed to be in a libel suit. a defamation suit, rather. and in this case he really needs todd blanche to do more than just this rat-a-tat attack on witnesses and their credibility. he needs todd blanche to be able to tell a story and a narrative to the jury and to have a presence in the courtroom and an evenness of tone and an ambassadorial presence for the trump defense team. and i think he lacks all of those things. whereas i think josh steinglass is a veteran and it showed this afternoon in court. both of them had a little bit of a stutter, a little bit of a halting start to both of their summations to the jury. but once steinglass got going, you know, he really just felt i think more authoritative, more comfortable in his own skin. now, whether or not that lands, that ultimately makes a difference to this jury, we

can't get into their heads. but i still think it's a really important factor. >> you know, tim heaphy, there is something -- i mean, i know this from being able to -- you can sort of feel a flop coming, right? and then you throw to a tape or you throw to a document and you feel saved. and the defense had none. they had no documents that contradicted the evidence. and the prosecution, to tim and andrew's points, they have so many it almost feels bookish and schoolish. and then he did this. wait, here's the e-mail. and then he did this. here are all the phone logs and the e-mails. and then as you heard from this witness, this happened. but don't believe the witness if you don't want to, here are the 11 documents that prove that happened. >> right. just exactly right, nicolle. we spent a lot of time on this in other shows debating the relative merits of lawyers. they're only as good as the facts that they have to work with in any trial. you give a really good lawyer two sticks and tell him to make a fire he or she will not be as effective as a lesser lawyer that you give lighter fluid and

matches and newspaper. right? it all comes down to facts. but i understand the focus on todd blanche and joshua steinglass. but it really comes down to facts. i think it does for jurors. i think it does in every criminal trial in america. now, the prosecution also has the burden of proof. right? they'd boater have the facts because they have a very onerous burden to meet, which is proof to a unanimous jury beyond reasonable doubt. but what you're seeing here is a classic example of the defense punching against, trying to point out doubts, punching against that sort of wall of evidence that the prosecutor presented. and the prosecutor methodically building the wall. the prosecutor has the documents, has the facts, and todd blanche just did not. >> tim heaphy, i think you're alluding to what the bigger aspects are to this story and the reason we're covering it so closely. it is always -- there is no separation between the legal and the political.

they have a very strong foundation on which to meet that burden of proof. now, again, it's up to them, right? all todd blanche has to do is convince a juror that you know, michael cohen, i don't really trust him. there's really not much else. so i'm not sure that i have decided guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. they have a very low standard. but again, the prosecutor, if you're talking about tools, you're talking about the

elements of making fire, they have that in possession, and we're seeing it play out in these closing arguments. >> in terms, claire mccast kyl of deducing what their strategy was, on direct this is what they elicited from michael cohen. during the years you worked for trump at the trump organization did you at times lie for him, trump? michael cohen, i did. hoffinger, why did you do that? michael cohen, because it's what was needed in order to accomplish a task. the next day prosecutor goes back at him again on direct. at the time in early 2018 did you tell the truth about mr. trump's role in the payoff? michael cohen on direct, no, ma'am. hoffinger, and did you tell the truth about his involvement in the payoff and the facts -- the fact that he had repaid you for the payments you made to stormy daniels? michael cohen, no. they seemed to do a lot of work in terms of the story they were telling in establishing -- and this is, to andrew's point,

talking up to the jury, making sure you're treating them with the respect and the ability to discern when a person was in the family, in the organization and was still lying for the principal and when he pleaded guilty to the crime, which happens to be the same crime trump's on trial for, and started telling the truth to law enforcement. >> well, first with a caveat that i agree with tim that usually the people who think that closing arguments are the most important thing are the lawyers who deliver them, i think that juries are pretty good at separating what is fact and what is not fact. now, there are a couple things about these closing arguments that stuck out to me. one, as my friend andrew mentioned earlier, the defense ignored the strongest witnesses that took the stand. very dangerous thing to do. the jury will notice that. they ignored pecker. they ignored hope hicks. they ignored costello, their own witness, who was a disaster at

the close of the case. and they basically did a closing argument that, you know, michael cohen is a liar. and then i thought the prosecutor did an elegant thing. he pointed out very well that it takes a lot of chutzpah for donald trump to hire michael cohen because he was the guy that would lie and bully people and cheat and do whatever he needed him to do. that's why he hired him. and then to use those very characteristics to disqualify him as a witness. and that's what they've tried to do here. you can't work for donald trump if you don't lie. it's just like impossible. it's in the job description. so i honestly think that the prosecution bringing out the fact that he lied and all of the mountains of documents that they have to work with in this closing argument are going to be he a lot for any juror who was wondering at the close of the defense argument, i think it's

going to be a lot for them to ignore in terms of their deliberations. >> claire, i know you were a surrogate for hillary clinton. i remember your appearances on television. trump's lawyers actually tried to argue that the release of the "access hollywood" tape wasn't a political event at all, it was like a personal thing trump went through. it was insane. an insane thing to hear come out of the mouth from todd blanche. >> yeah. and frankly it's one of those things i think everybody should remember what a roller coaster 2016 was because there's no question, right? after the "access hollywood" tape that there was -- we knew that it was probably a death knell for the trump campaign. it was so big. it was -- it dominated the news. it was so dramatic. it was incredibly vulgar. no one had ever heard a presidential candidate talk like this. and it was a big, big deal. now, the roller coaster went down again when, you know, comey

did his little press conference and tried to make it look that andrew weiner's e-mails were somehow a problem for hillary clinton right before the election. that wiped out some of that. but if they would have known he was paying off a porn star, that would have made a big, big difference and probably would have checked the impact of the comey press conference that all of us were so furious about at the time. >> and we're reliving this because this has been part of the narrative, part of the story, part of the motive that's being established by the prosecution today in their closing arguments. someone who's been listening to this all day long joining us now from outside the courthouse former u.s. attorney, former deputy assistant attorney general harry litman's here. harry, you can jump in on the conversation we're having. you can take me back to this morning. the floor is yours. >> all right. let me start here with the really marked contrast in tone. it seems to me, nicolle, that if

someone who didn't speak english had just wandered in there and been in there all day they would have had no hesitation in saying that steinglass's presentation is way more effective. it's much more methodical. it's comprehensive. it's paced. it's well rehearsed. it dovetails with all the evidence whereas blanche had as he has at trial a kind of scattershot meandering not clear where he was sort of approach. let me keep going with the steinglass presentation in the afternoon. a few things he did particularly well. one, he gave an account of the righteousness of the case. he very effectively took about five minutes in the middle to explain this isn't about sex with a porn star, this doesn't matter, this actually could have changed the election. we don't know that. and this is why it matters. the american people, whatever you think about this as important, the american people didn't get to know and didn't get to decide, and that matters.

that's one thing he did very well. another thing he did very well, rebut the big phone call of cohen from october 26th and say look, there were all kinds of calls that day, what really matters is the other calls and far from this being a big perjury moment, as blanche had said, it was if anything and it looked like anything to be an honest mistake. that's the second thing he did very well. and then the third thing he did very well was make it clear by the use of not cohen but pecker and hicks and others that of course trump is all over this, of course nothing happens without trump's okay, as i told you a few times that line, cohen couldn't buy lunch without trump's okay, we'll hear it again at closing, indeed we did. and it drove home of a piece with many other things making it clear trump is on top of this. >> harry, take me inside that moment from this morning where -- i just read it on the

transcript. merchan's anger leaps off the page. when todd blanche says you can't use michael cohen to send someone to prison. >> he was livid. and what he said, even worse than this was improper, there's no way you wouldn't know this, mr. blanche, you've been a prosecutor so long. what blanche did was slip in a reference to don't send trump to prison, which has a dual purpose. it could make them think we don't want the former president go to prison. and it could make them afraid for themselves. and after the jury left merchan was absolutely livid and he gave a curative instruction that was stronger than you normally would give here. he actually told the jury that this law doesn't necessarily provide for a jail sentence, something you would normally tell the jury just don't think about sentence. but he was so livid at blanche and blanche had no choice.

and this of course in front of trump at the end of his closing he basically -- they had to take whatever the prosecution wrote, and that's what they wrote. >> harry, one more question. we're still going. how's everybody holding up? >> yeah. so merchan, that was his final comment. he says, i've been watching the jury -- he's a really impressive judge. and they still seem to be in there. and that's my assessment as well. they flagged a little but then they've come back. i do think steinglass maybe wanted to go until tomorrow. there would be a strategic advantage. but basically, merchan has called his bluff, you could say, and we're going till 7:00. the jurors have arranged for child care and the like. and they seem to be hanging in there pretty well. >> and as -- >> one more thing -- >> go ahead. i was just going to say they came back. yeah, they're back. >> they're back.

so maybe we'll be barred now, but i'll try to return so i can give you a report later. but i think they were somewhat more attentive to steinglass and especially in the part of it where he said trump lied, trump knew, et cetera. you felt the jury lean forward a bit. >> harry, let me ask you one more question about the jury. when todd blanche was -- again, there were some things today that were so much more dramatic tonally, because all i have at my disposal are transcripts. the theatrical way that he called michael cohen a liar and the elevated voice and over and over and over, did that -- and i know we don't know what the jury's going to do, but did that evoke reaction? did that seem to land? did he seem to be feeding off the crowd? or was he just kind of doing his todd blanche thing? >> the short answer is it didn't seem to land but nor did it seem to repel them. it goes to what i was saying at

first. he was very sort of monotone and then he said per-jur-y! and that just led with his chin for when steinglass came up and said come on, this is an honest mistake. i think he overplayed that significantly. i didn't see the jury being either rapt or repelled. they just took it in. >> okay. so harry, i've got to let you go. they're yelling at me to let you get back in there. but i'm telling you something that might make everybody laugh. trump has -- what is this thing called? truthed? it's so ironic i can't even say it. he's communicated this. filibuster. he thinks steinglass is going on a long time. harry-u go back inside. we'll talk to you on the other side. what do we do? we're going to sneak in a break. everyone is staying with us. we're going to bring sue and andrew in on this conversation. there's much mor to get to with all of our friends on this dramatic day of closing arguments in the first ever criminal trial of an american ex-president. prosecution, they're back in. let me tell you -- yeah, everyone's back in.

the prosecution has resumed its closing argument. also ahead for us historian ken burns is here in the studio with a powerful defense of american democracy and an alarming warning about the unique danger that donald trump poses to it in november. why he broke his own decades of political neutrality to make an urgent plea at this pivotal moment in our story. ken burns will be our guest in the studio for an exclusive interview. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. e. nexium 24hr prevents heartburn acid

for twice as long as pepcid. get all-day and all-night heartburn acid prevention with just one pill a day. choose acid prevention. choose nexium.

we're all back. tim, claire and all of our friends at the table. andrew weissmann, what do you

expect to be sort of what the prosecution closes with tonight if they finish tonight? >> i think they need to close on argument. i think they will have -- right now we're in the sort of meticulous going through the evidence to make sure they understand the timeline, which is a very strong argument for them. so they want to finish that. but then i still think at the end of the day they need to really focus on this argument because they'll have all of this proof and they'll need to say take michael cohen out of this. i understand why you might want to have doubts about that and you want to corroborate it. what is the argument for michael cohen being involved in the scheme, which you know happened, and allen weisselberg being involved in the scheme, which you know happened, and they did it behind donald trump's back? that was their scheme. why would they do that? >> cohen went to jail. >> and not only is there no

upside for them and only down side with respect to their job, and there's tons of corroboration for that didn't happen, but even put all of that aside. the scheme -- like just imagine we're sitting there thinking oh, you know, we have this scheme, let's do this, and someone goes okay, there's a problem with that because in order for the scheme to work donald trump has to sign the checks. the person you're going to go -- for a whole year you're going to be like you know what? we're going to be able to do this but for a whole year we're going to have to fool him and hope that he never, ever asks the guy who's the micromanager, never says, um, i'm sorry, why am i paying $35,000 -- and by the way, i looked at this invoice and what? i mean, so it just makes -- it defies logic for this happening. and i think they really need to stress that fact and then say and that's because when you look at all of this there is only one

story that is consistent with the evidence. i mean, i think that's sort of the phrasing that you really want the jury to be thinking about. and what is the alternative narrative that is consistent with this evidence? >> there isn't one. a lot of lawyers have talked about the bricks that were laid methodically. when you come back to the bricks laid, maybe seemingly out of sequence but by the ghostwriter, who talked about how involved trump was in the books with his name on them as a micromanager and as a frugal freddie. and you had mcconney's testimony which also maybe at the time seemed out of sequence but mcconney tells this story about getting fired the first day he sends the invoices into his boss's office because he didn't try to negotiate them down. cohen, at an early point in his direct, talks about paying 20% on the dollar to the bills that are owed. i mean, the idea -- to your point, the idea that the jurors are being asked by the defense to not just not believe their eyes, not believe their ears,

not believe donald trump's own words about the political consequences of the "access hollywood" tape but to believe he spent $420,000 without knowing it every month? >> josh steinglass, the government's lawyer, today in his close has used the phrase "use your common sense" multiple times. and i think we're going to continue to hear that as he lays out the different pieces. does it make sense that allen weisselberg and michael cohen concocted this and they just hoped that every month donald trump would sign a check for $35,000 to michael cohen? use your common sense. >> well, you know, there's just -- there's another leap of this beyond the evidence, or another connection that makes this rise from misdemeanors to felonious acts. and it's whether all of this ultimately amounted to election interference and whether they've convinced the jury of that as well. i think all of the evidence and testimony, it is so voluminous that it ends up -- you know, it

can confuse to a certain extent the very obvious i think reality that there was a conspiracy here and they were covering it up. and trump was trying to keep this out of the public realm. and steinglass got to this very early in his summation. he went into pecker buying both accounts on behalf of trump, which amounted to an illegal campaign contribution in his argument, and thereby became election interference. i think that that is -- that last, you know, eighth of a mile in this argument is really crucial in all of this. i do think the evidence is damning. and it's voluminous. but whether or not the prosecution can also get the jury to come to the conclusion that there was election interference is really where this all comes home. and that still feels like a very big unknown to me. >> what happens next? >> in this trial? >> they'll finish at 7:00 and then what? >> so let's assume that they finish everything today.

judge merchan clearly is hoping to do that. the judge then instructs them on the law. that sounds like that will happen tomorrow morning. and that will take about an hour. and the jury then deliberates. and at that point no one can tell you how long it will be. they can send out notes. they can say we'd like to hear certain testimony again. they can ask to see certain exhibits. none of that's automatically sent in. and so we may get notes. and that's when there's a lot of tea leaf reading. i can just tell you, don't ask me -- because when i was prosecutor no matter what the note was i would say we've lost the case. i looked at everything in the worst possible light. but we will get notes. let me just give you one story. sometimes notes come out and you think oh, they're asking for the worst testimony for the prosecution, the best for the defense.

and i still remember a senior prosecutor when i was very junior, saying no, don't worry, they're just testing. they're testing what the defense said. and you responded to that. they're just testing to see that you're right. and that was exactly what was going on. it is tricky to -- we'll be in that phase where notes come out presumably and then at some point we'll have some sort of verdict. >> tim heaphy, is there any science to the speed with which a jury deliberates? >> no. >> that's why i love you all. >> i feel bad, nicolle. you ask me these questions and i say -- >> i don't know the answer. >> i'm giving you lawyerly responses. no, impossible to say if it's going to be two hours or two days. it may be there are a couple of jurors that have sort of a minority perspective or the other jurors strongly disagree. so those jurors in the majority need to sort of make arguments

inside the jury room to convince those jurors that are uncertain to push them toward a unanimous verdict. getting to unanimity you take 12 random people on the subway and you ask them to agree on something, it's difficult. so there's a group dynamic that happens, and it's impossible to predict how long that's going to take. they're going to be assessing core credibility of both sides. and to go back to your earlier point, nicolle, about how the political strategy here influencing the legal strategy, the complete denial of everything, i think on a gut level the trouble for the defense is that they may just not think that those positions are reasonable. i keep going back to what general milley told us in the select committee, that the president looked at him really quizzically when milley issued that letter to the troops apologizing for the st. john's church thing. he told milley, why did you apologize? that's a sign of weakness. there's never occasion on which the former president can admit

any kind of mistake. and that hurts him, right? when there's never any admission and if the jurors sort of come down to core belief in one side or the other's veracity, credibility, good faith, it's really going to be difficult for the president who takes this scorched earth i didn't do anything wrong approach to prevail. so who knows how long but i think that's really the core of it inside that room, is who do we believe more, who do we trust more. >> i just think also for viewers who don't know even after the jury instructions are read and the jurors are going to go into that room, there's going to be reporters packed both still into the courtroom and into the overflow room waiting and donald trump will be there as well, you know, counsel for both sides. as andrew mentioned, notes will come out. and then once there is a verdict, if there is a verdict, you're given maybe -- sometimes 10, 20 minutes, sometimes a bit longer. so everybody can get together and there's some warnings. so that will be also part of it. but nobody's going anywhere. >> claire, i'm reluctant to

reveal what's in my brain -- anyone who watched "curb," larry had to wait until his verdict was read. but obviously, donald trump isn't a larry david and this is all too real. i want to ask you about tim heaphy's point. closing arguments are done. this thing is over. there's no going back. but i've often wondered if it wouldn't be a better legal and political strategy if they were able to say yeah, his massive ego couldn't resist temptation. and yes, he slept with women outside his marriage. yes, these two are two of them. but the cover-up was about -- you know, some way of saying -- some way of admitting to some of it but saying but he didn't commit the crimes. it seems like it could have been a more -- and again, we don't know. maybe what they did worked perfectly. maybe he's acquitted in ten minutes. we have no idea. but if you're just weighing credibility, might you have

lawyered differently if trump was a different human specimen? >> absolutely. a good lawyer with a different client would have presented this case differently. there would have been some acknowledgment, some vulnerability, some acknowledgment of mistakes made, but that those mistakes were not criminal, they don't rise to the level of a felony in the state of new york. but they couldn't do that because they had donald trump for a client. and i think one thing i would point out as tim was talking about we don't know what the jury's going to do. one of the things that everyone will look at, first thing they're going to do is pick a foreman. so they're going to pick someone who will be the leader of the jury during deliberations, who will kind of head up what decisions are made about asking for notes or trying to keep everyone calm and getting along and making sure people are listening to other people. who that foreman is is very important. and we have on this jury

something that's rather unusual. and maybe my fellow lawyers on this panel have had a different experience. but it's unusual to have two lawyers on a criminal jury in my experience. and i've tried a lot of criminal cases. we have two lawyers on this jury. and remember, everybody knows a lot about these jurors. they can go back to jury selection and remind themselves who was which juror, where did they get their news. so once you start seeing who the foreman is, then you think okay, that could be very good news for the prosecution depending on who the foreman is or it could be very bad news for the prosecution depending on who the foreman is. many times how quickly a case goes depends entirely on the ability and skill of that foreman to lead that jury through the process in a way that's fair and thorough, that everyone feels good about it and they can reach a decision. and then the other thing i wanted to point out that nobody's mentioned is i bet you a dime to a dollar that somebody on a coffee break during

deliberations or while they're eating dinner or lunch, that somebody mentions that melania never showed her face. >> yeah. >> if donald trump was telling the truth about not having sex with stormy daniels, even though that's not what this crime is about, don't you think his wife would be there? she and ivanka are noticeable in their absence. and i guarantee you the women of the jury are going to notice that. >> i will give the prosecutor josh steinglass the final word in this fantastic conversation. this is happening right now inside the courthouse. steinglass, these two exhibits are the agreement for falsifying business records. that's the exhibit that andrew talks about all the time. is it 35? >> yes. >> quote, they are the smoking guns. quote, they are the smoking guns. andrew weissmann called it weeks ago. prosecutor steinglass adds this, quote, i'm almost speechless that they're still trying to make these arguments that the

payments from 2017 are for payments services rendered. the handwritten notes -- this is the grossing up document in the trump org and the invoice. steinglass says they're still trying to make arguments the payments are for services rendered and these documents blow that out of the water. they'd have to admit it's false in the first place. in the to keith davidson and associates for $150,000. the handwriting on the left side belongs to andrew weissmann and jeff mcconney. it not only recognizes the handwriting but deciphers it. they want reimbursement for the 1350 and the 50 and it says gross up to 360. ending on what you always said was the star of the trial. >> i'm going to correct you. it's allen weisselberg. it's a different a.w. >> allen weisselberg. >> let's move on away from that. >> you called it. it's been a long day. >> the moment you saw the document. >> absolutely.

but also to sue's point, that it's on the $130,000 wire payment. >> it's written on the sheet. >> and that is exactly what michael cohen had said, which was that he was asked to bring with him proof that the wire had been made. so to believe the defense argument it's like scratch paper he just happened to have. it's ludicrous. >> he was doodling on. >> the nicest thing anyone said about allen weisselberg was to mistake him for andrew weissman. you're the only a.w. in my brain. jim heaphy, claire mccaskill, tim o'brien, andrew weissmann, susan craig, thank you all so much. for going through the last hour and 40 minutes with us. we're so grateful. it's ongoing. don't go anywhere. we're going to continue to follow the developments inside the courtroom. but when we come back a stunning warning from one of america's preeminent historians. why ken burns broke decades of political neutrality to deliver a powerful and dire warning about the dangers we face right now to democracy. the dangers posed by donald

trump. ken burns joins us right here at the table. don't go anywhere. re a the table. don't go anywhere. mike is still living in the red. with a very high risk of another heart attack or stroke. he doesn't know with his risk factors his ldl-c (bad cholesterol) is still too high - the recommended level is below 55. are you living in the red? get in the know. learn how to get a free ldl-c test at attackheartdisease.com. [introspective music] recipes. recipes written by hand and lost to time. are now being analyzed and restored using the power of dell ai. ♪ from the #1 rated brand in cordless outdoor power, the ego zero-turn riding mower with e-steer technology. drives like a car, turns on a dime. and it cuts up to 2.5 acres on a single charge. exclusively lowes, ace, and ego authorized dealers.

power e*trade's easy to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley

hi, i'm kevin, and stay on top of the market. and i've lost 152 pounds on golo. i had just left a checkup with my doctor, and i'd weighed in at 345 pounds. my doctor prescribed a weight loss drug, but as soon as i stopped taking the drug, i gained all the weight back and then some. that's when i decided to give golo a try. taking the release supplement, i noticed a change within the first week, and each month the weight just kept coming off. with golo, you can keep the weight off.

i don't want you to move. 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. the opioid of all opioids. an easy cure for what some believe is the solution to our myriad pains and problems. when in fact with him you end up re-enslaved. with an even bigger problem. a worse affliction and addiction. a bigger delusion, james baldwin

would say, the author and finisher of our national existence. our national suicide, as mr. lincoln prophecies. do ent be seduced by equalization. there is nothing equal about this equation. we are at an existential cross-roads in our political and civic lives. this is a choice that could not be clearer. >> if you haven't sat and watched the whole thing and then rewound it and watched it again, do yourself a favor, treat yourself, and as soon as we get off the air please do so. everything that renowned historian ken burns had to say is a precious gift in this moment. so that was from a commencement address at brandeis university on the 19th, about a week ago. it has exploded online since it was so eloquently and powerfully delivered last weekend. burns explained why he sees right now, this moment, as a moment to suspend his

long-standing commitment and attempt at neutrality. he implored those new graduates to remember that the most important political office is that of a private citizen. vote, he said, urging them to deliver our nation from the other route, which threatens to engulf and destroy us. joining us right now, the aforementioned emmy award-winning filmmaker and documentarian ken burns. i have your copy as you delivered it. i told you yesterday when i e-mailed you, i want to read the whole thing and we'll try to do that. but first, tell me about this internal tussle about breaking your vow of neutrality. >> i've been making films about american history. i have no interest in talking to one particular group or another. i'm interested in talking to all citizens. i have no interest in sort of polishing whatever political apple i might be attracted to at a particular time. i'm interested in telling true, honest, complicated stories, that's unafraid as i said in the

speech of controversy and tragedy but equally drawn to those moments that suggest an abiding faith in the human spirit and particularly what this american experiment has been about in good and bad ways. every once in a while, though, you sort of feel in your gut from having experienced all of this undertow what the stakes are. and the stakes now are as high as they could possibly be. it's an existential moment, as i said. and it is something that we have to pay attention to. and unfortunately, we are so preoccupied with argument or dialectically preoccupied with one thing or the other, and we forget that we have to step back a lot of times. the despots know this. right? they've always known this. they don't respect the judicial system. so they can play both sides of it. we're still bound by codes of honor and say we turn it into a handicap. so in so doing we cede a little bit of power to those despots. remember, when we started our country, we were the only place

on earth that said you would be a citizen, not a subject. it didn't apply to everybody. not you. not black people. not recent immigrants. but it was the beginning. it was the foot in the door of this aspirational experiment that's been going on for 249 years. and we need to actually sort of remember what that's about. you know? thomas payne says this wonderful thing that mankind discovers that the strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resisting it. and that's where i got called. i just finally -- i have to say something. and speak directly. i still don't think i made a choice to be for one thing or the other. i was for us. that's what i was trying to -- >> and i guess this is my question. the other route hasn't worked. and you seemed to indict the binary, right? red state, blue state. and it had an echo to president obama's convention speech. we don't live in red america or

blue america, there's one america. was that on your minds, things that had broken through? >> yeah, that's what it is. to me it's very spiritual, it's ancient, it's old testament, it's ecclesiastes, we forget that when we engage in this argument it's always one thing or another. and what we know from our lives, our relationships, our children, our work is that things are really complicated. there's undertow. there's confusion. there's consternation that we have at opposites. and we have to honor that. and i think we go into this saying oh, it's just an easy thing. i think we failed as media, that we were -- eight years ago we had our cameras parked at the airplane hangar where he was going to arrive because we knew it was going to be a good trainwreck and we knew it was going to be if it bleeds it leads. we knew it was going to be dramatic. and we've set up this kind of equivalency. so we have not invested the time in, say, for example, the accomplishments of the biden administration. that is just giving that equal time. >> totally. >> and we haven't said this may

be the third most accomplished legislative accomplishments in 100 years. obviously, fdr and lbj are a little bit ahead. but this may be that. and so we have to -- yes, and obama is really strong at understanding that it's not just this argument, it's sometimes superseded by a reconciling force which we have to bring at this moment. this is not a question of democrats or republicans. >> no. >> this is the survival of our republic. if you like despots, dictators on day one, there's not a dictator who's ever given up power willingly. >> well, the first page of "on tyranny" is about that idea, right? tim snider writes about the authoritarian waiting for what you give up freely. >> that's right. >> and what felt so stirring and i think the reason people are writing paragraphs on city streets with chalk, it is really, really, really, really hard to give a commencement address right now, one, because

young people are so much smarter and, two, because they're feeling the pain and the strife of everything going on. but you take that on. it's not israel or palestine, it's not red or blue, it's not black or -- i mean, just tell me what your advice is for people that want to get this right. >> so this is it. and i realize people said oh, you're not going to talk about israel and palestine? i said of course i am. how can you possibly ignore this 800-pound gorilla in the room? just as you can't ignore the presumptive four-time indicted republican nominee -- >> gorilla in the room. >> gorilla in the room. they all have a claim to this land and they have turned it shamefully into a perpetual graveyard. god does not distinguish between the dead. you take the onus, i'm from this. okay, nobody likes oppression in any form. i'm from that.

you can realize we have to find a way to set aside the impulses. joe biden isn't handling it. am who has ever? i'm withholding my vote. look, however flawed you may feel this republic is right now, there's no choice if you like america and i would say this to a hogg farmer, a republican hogg farmer in iowa or a montana wheat farmer or a mechanic in alabama. these are people that are invested in american dream. funny despotism is going to stop with just 15 million immigrants that you're going to get rid of, political enemies, it doesn't end anywhere. today there's an article about the stocity files about to be even more stuff released where so many hundreds of thousands of german eastern citizens were ratting on their neighbors. if that's what you want?

>> that's what he's running on. >> your decision to break a pattern of neutrality. trump is to go things different than last time. >> it's worse. just before i came to see you i was thinking of a scene we did m a civil war series. as a nation we began by declaring all men are created equal except knowing grows and soon it will read all men are created equal except for kneeling grows, foreigners and catholics. i will move to russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy. that is abraham lincoln. he's already realizing, it's all -- it's yes, but, and he understands there's a superseding thing. what we do here and what we have done here for ages is bigger

than this biden/trump thing. even this trial is nothing. the more important trials are about documents. the more important trials are in georgia. the more important trials are about january 6th. we're now back into arguments, which lawyers have to make, but we're also into handy capping it. win or lose, what's going to happen. >> hate it. >> as if it has a consequence. the consequence is, watch out. this system which is -- obviously it's sort of cliche to say how fragile it is and requires vigilance. all of that is true. is that we are on the cusp of someplace we have never been before in our history in which there is a huge number of people in this country who have sort of given up on a promise and think that the easy promises of a dictator will solve anything. they will make things worse. >> you acknowledge their pain in calling trump an opioid. explain. >> i just mean when we feel helpless we often turn to

alcohol, we turn to drugs or fentanyl or these things because they offer at least in a moment some sort of relief. there's something really satisfying about somebody who -- the bull in the china shop who just goes in and says, i'm going to wreck it. you go, yes, because that's the way i feel. and you need to extend sympathy to them, not pity. they are active in their world. you just have to make a better conversation about democracy as part of what the stakes are here and that's why there's -- there is literally no choice in november. none. you either have the continuation of the united states of america or you do not. which do you want? >> what are you going to do between now and november to make sure -- you are so beloved. you're a cultural icon. you're everywhere and you have such a different platform. you reach people when they're at home, when they've gathered their families to watch

baseball, to watch -- you have such a different way in to people's guts than we do as the media, red state, blue -- how are you going to -- what are you going to do between now and november? >> i have to shut up doing this sort of thing and i have to go back to my work. i'm working on a history of the american revolution. it's really, really important. it won't get out in time. i have a film on leonardo da vinci which will be out in time. he's wonderful. he's the greatest scientist and artist of his age. he would not say that. each is a different silo. that's what we do. we tend to silo whatever it is, music, politics, art, whatever it is. science and art leonardo da vinci felt were one and the same. he was one of the greatest scientists well before gala lay yes, newton, einstein. arguably the most famous painter. that's important. but where we came from, which has been so covered in opacity.

you know, we just don't -- we are willing to acknowledge the violence of the civil war, world war i, world war ii, korea, vietnam, we are not -- these are just 55 white guys in philadelphia thinking great thoughts. that's the constitutional convention. it's not the revolution. if you want to find out one hell of a good story, it's the story of us. how we came into being. how fraught it is, how complicated it is, how wonderful characters there are, women, native americans, guess who's the most important person in the story? george washington. all of those statements of mine can be true. >> i hope you don't -- i hope you're joking about not doing much more of this because i think it's such -- you get people where they're open. i think the speech is a perfect example of that. >> i should be not with you, i should be on fox news right now. that's what it should be but they're to afraid to have these conversations. >> about the truth.

>> about the truth. i've been so blessed. my day job, what i do, i love so much. it's speaking to everybody. it gets to people who watch fox and it gets to people who watch msnbc and that's what i want to do. i don't want to be a filmmaker of the ds, i want to be a filmmaker of us. u.s. and us. >> lower case u.s. >> i love you. >> i love you too. >> i love the speech so much. we'll keep working with this. i mean, i'm not going to let this go. do i get to keep this copy? >> yes. >> thank you so much. ken burns, our guest. really do take a minute and treat yourself to the whole speech. it's wonderful. you can explore the intersection of history and current events. find it at ken burns -- what's there, unum? >> curating the evergreen themes of our stories, whether it's race, whether it's war, whether it's politics, whether it's invention, whether it's hard

times. whatever it might be. the places where they intersect and then we have conversations with people all the time. >> you have to come back at least one more final and we'll go through that. >> okay. >> it's a date. quick break for us. we'll be right back. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? hi guys! bill, you look great! now that i have inspire, i'm free from struggling with the mask and the hose. inspire? inspire is a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body with a click of this button. where are you going? i'm going to get inspire. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com. i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein! those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ugh. -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein, 30 grams protein, 1 gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals. and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic. (♪♪)

only purple's gel flex grid passes the raw egg test. no other mattress cradles your body and simultaneously supports your spine. and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic. memory foam doesn't come close. get your best sleep guaranteed. save up to $800 during our memorial day sale. visit purple.com or a store near you

here's a plan. i'll be back in two hours along with rachel maddow and the msnbc primetime team. the beat with ari melber starts right now. >> hi, nicole. see you soon. welcome to "the