good evening. we begin with the closing arguments in the historic first ever criminal trial of a former u.s. president. arguments that are still under way as we speak. in fact, the 12-member jury in donald trump's hush money election interference trial is hearing its seventh hour of summations right now. nearly three hours for the defense followed by four hours for the prosecution with the clock still running. it appears they will continue tonight until the prosecution finishes. over the last four hours the prosecution has been arguing that the case comes down to three things. that they claim they have proven. one, that there were in fact false business records that the false business records were intended to cover up conspiracy related to the 2016 election. number three, that donald trump was personally involved.

prosecutor joshua stein glass has been taking them through it, starting with the meeting with trump, michael cohen, and the former "national enquirer" publisher david pecker pointing out this scheme cooked up by these men could very well be what got president trump elected. steinglass did not shy away from talking about michael cohen's credibility as a witness, reminding the jurors it was not the prosecution that chose michael cohen as a wince, we didn't pick him up at the witness store. the defendant chose michael cohen. he was his fixer. as expected, the defense focused heavily on cohen's credibility in their closing arguments using the word liar, liesering or lying more than sixty times. at one point, trump's lawyer called him the mvp of liars. blanche's closing argument stuck to the defense's claims there were no falsified business records and that cohen's $35,000 monthly payments had nothing to do with the hush money payment

made to adult film star stormy daniels but were simply cohen's retainer as trump's personal lawyer. blanche said there was no proof donald trump was aware of the payment to daniels before cohen made it and it had nothing to do with trump's presidential campaign, even though daniels came forward in the days following the release of the infamous "access hollywood" video a month before the 2016 election. at one point, blanche argued to the jury, quote, you should want and expect more than the testimony of michael cohen, unquote. and that is one point the prosecution actually agreed with the defense on, arguing in their closing arguments that the case did not just rely on cohen's testimony but that of all of the other corroborating witnesses and documentary evidence presented throughout the trial. at one point, steinglass argued, quote, it is difficult to conceive of a case with more corroboration, unquote. included in that corroborating evidence are exhibits 35 and 36, the handwritten notes by former

trump organization cfo allen weisselberg, and former trump organization controller jeffrey mcconney, that lay out the reimbursement to cohen for the hush money payment in the form of those $35,000 monthly checks. steinglass called these exhibits the smoking guns. and if you haven't noticed, the weisselberg notes are on a copy of an account statement from first republic bank, noting the $130,000 wire transfer from cohen's account to stormy daniels' lawyer, keith davidson. it's also worth noting that trump's defense left that unresolved in their closing arguments. i wonder why. come tomorrow, judge juan merchan will read off the all important instructions to the jury which will be the basis for how the jury will decide whether trump is guilty or not guilty. at that point, the jury will begin deliberations and it's anyone's guess how long they will need to come to a verdict. let's bring in my legal panel,

katie phang, host of the katie phang show on msnbc. melissa murray, nyu law professor and msnbc legal analyst, harry lipman, former u.s. attorney who just left the courthouse, and joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of alabama school of law. harry, i'm going to go to you. you just walked out of the courthouse. what was the prosecution presenting when you left? >> they were really effectively, joy, going just at the points you made with the smoking guns. you know, blanche made an odd decision in the opening, saying that these records were not false. and everyone was expecting that to be really him to have to eat those words during the closings, and now is when he ate them, because it just seems really preposterous to try to suggest that somehow these were legal services by cohen, not to mention that trump as much as conceded it in a lawsuit, in tweets, and the like.

he's really hammering him on just that point now. the other thing he had moved to is trump's vindictiveness and how harsh he was toward both cohen and daniels in his tweets. there was a little bit of an exchange with the judge about whether he could make that point because it could prejudice trump, the judge said yeah, you can do it a little bit, to show stormy daniels' state of mind, but let's move on. this is our last break. it's really pretty late now. steinglass did say to the jury, can you go a little longer? they smiled back. so that was a slightly light moment and a very long day. >> to stay with you for a moment, talk more about the jury. it's a long closing. for whatever reason, todd blanche's was short, maybe because he wasn't refuting anything, which is weird that it doesn't seem like he's revuting any other evidence. but it's a long closing by the prosecution. does the jury seem alert throughout? have they seemed alert throughout?

>> the short answer is yes. merchan, before he decided to let it go longer, said i, the judge, have been looking at the jury. i don't think they are flagging. that is my take as well. you know, it is a long day. there have been times where it's ebbed and flowed a little, but they're still very much there. they want to finish tonight. they have got child care, et cetera. they don't want to come back for this tomorrow. >> katie, let me go to you. you have been in the court as well. the thing that has stood out to me is that it doesn't appear that todd blanche, that his strategy is to actually argue the case. he seems to just being arguing michael cohen's personality. i have not heard a ref utation of the case. >> we got a preview of what the blanche closing was going to be during the four days of cross-examination of michael cohen when blanche just almost refused to go near the smoking gun evidence that a lot of us have seen being raised over and

over again during the course of the prosecution's case, that was the essential consultants statement, as well as jeff mcconney's handwritten notes. >> essential consultants is the company michael cohen created in order to pay karen mcdougal and stormy daniels. >> exactly, that is people's exhibit 35. we have seen it a lot in the prosecution. hot we saw during the course of the closing today was a little bit of blanche getting animated only when he would talk about cohen being a liar. the times he would have inflection in his tone is when he would say it was perjury. as you noted in the beginning of the show, the number of times they wanted to highlight cohen being a liar, that was the crux of their defense. the problem is, though, you cannot rest the entirety of your client's acquittal or even a hung jury on one witness. when the evidence is so damningly bad for you in terms of the documentary evidence. the documents don't need

credibility. and steinglass in his closing said, listen, why didn't you make something up, fake something if you're going to be this bad at basically covering your tracks? and then steinglass also said in his closing because it speaks to the defense's closing, if cohen was going to be a liar, he could have done a better job. why didn't he come in and give a tighter story about the stormy daniels thing? >> i think that's where you're seeing todd blanche is not an experienced defense lawyer. he is a prosecutor. he's been a prosecutor. he knows the prosecution has the uphill battle here to prove the defendant's guilt on all of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. what the prosecution fears is poking holes. that's what he tried to do, poke holes. but katie is right. it's not just going to be enough or shouldn't be enough to poke holes. you have to tell an alternate narrative. >> that makes sense. >> that goes up against what the prosecution has presented, and refutes it. he didn't do that. instead, he's poking holes.

again, this is because this is not an actual defense lawyer. this is a prosecutor. >> let me get you in here, joyce. i want to play for you, this is the recording, and we played this on the show before. i want to refresh everyone's memory. his is michael cohen talking to donald trump, because the key here is you have to prove that donald trump either caused the records to be made false or knew about all of the scheme and was a part of it. here he is actually talking to his lawyer, michael cohen. >> i need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend david, so that -- i'm going to do that right away. i have spoken to allen weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up. with funding. yes, and it's all the stuff. all the stuff, because here, you never know where he's going to

be. so i'm all over that. and i spoke to allen about it, when it comes time for the financing which will be -- >> what financing? >> we'll have to pay. >> cash? >> no, no, no. no, no, no. >> it's kind of hard to get around a recording, joyce. it's a recording of donald trump and michael cohen talking about the thing. it's the karen mcdougal thing, but it establishes he snoods they had to pay women, and then the allegation here is they paid women. i don't see what hole has been poked in that. have you heard anybody poke a hole in that? >> yes, so this is why prosecutors love having the defendant on tape, so they can play it for the jury and let the jurors hear the defendant talk about the crimes that they're committing. and we saw how powerful this evidence was, reflected in todd blanche's argument today. he suggested, well, maybe it's actually not a real tape. it gets cut off, but michael cohen doesn't take a phone call.

maybe the transcript, you can't believe, and he points out, and this is correct to the jury that the transcript is not evident, but then todd suggests you can't really hear donald trump say the word cash, which you can clearly hear him say on the tape. i think the bottom line is this, to the point that katie and melissa are making, there's not a good strategy here. the problem that the defense has is that they want to attack michael cohen's credibility. they are hoping that there is a juror on this jury for whom that will be enough. just the simple fact that they have called michael cohen out as a liar. but it's a skillful presentation by the prosecution that says, you don't just have cohen. you have cohen plus corroboration. you have got this tape. listen to the defendant's own voice. prosecutors have told the jurors to use their common sense. they have said that to them repeatedly. this is one of those common sense moments. >> and harry, you have been in there multiple times. the problem with this cohen is a

liar, cohen is a liar, is cohen is the person donald trump is depending on to do his business. the other problem is he was a good witness. he got up there, he was calm. he made sense. he was respectful to the judge. the only material witness that the defense put on completely fell apart on the stand. people have now -- the jurors have now met michael cohen. i think he probably came across pretty well. >> look, i think so too. every day in the courtroom behind me, people get convicted based on the testimony of people who have committed crimes. and cohen, there's an even better story because they were able to really clearly show why he had changed and left trump's camp. and steinglass made a very good point, look, they're trying to say he's a terrible person for having lied and bullied for trump before. that's trump's doing. that's the very reason trump wanted him in his camp, and then when he ceased to do that, then

trump immediately vilified him. one quick point on the lie, it seems to me that we'll hear what the charges are tomorrow, but the whole complications we have been worrying about for elevating the misdemeanors to the felonies seem to have kind of gone away. everyone is accepting the prosecution's submission that if you falsified, that's the misdemeanor crime, and you did it for a campaign contribution, and remember, that's what cohen pleaded to, you're there. and there's been much less focus on that than i expected unless it's really resuscitated by merchan in the closing. that big hurdle may have already been surmounted. >> melissa, they have resumed. they're going to go until about 8:00. apparently now the new argument is being made about cohen that he's not a rogue actor. the prosecution is making the point. he acted at the behest of the defendant. i have said this before. he's not a bank robber, not out there committing crimes and

robbing brinks trucks. he was committing crimes for trump. saying he's a criminal, yeah, because this guy, the same guy, and there was another piece where they said, well, he's angry. yeah, because he's the only one who's paid for this crime. >> i think all of that is true. and it goes back to a point that we have made repeatedly over the course of this trial. the prosecution was very forthcoming about all of the problems in having michael cohen as a witness. and they were very clear. he's not our star witness. our star witnesses are these documents, which don't lie, which don't have a past. >> and he's corroborating them. >> he's corroborating them. these people who are trump loyalists are corroborating these documents. he's just icing on the cake. the bar was kind of in hell for michael cohen when he got on the stand because he basically had been pillories by everyone. every witness talked about how terrible he was, and then as you say, he came to the stand. he was competent, he was calm. he was respectful. and he told a story that made

sense in light of the hard evidence the jury had already seen. >> he's a lawyer. he knows how to talk in court. surprise. he's also -- >> better than todd blanche. >> anyway, struggling. don't go anywhere. much more on the closing arguments in the trump criminal trial, including the strong rebuke his defense team got from judge merchan. "the reidout" continues after this. after this

♪♪ missing out on the things you love because of asthma? get back to better breathing with fasenra, an add-on treatment for eosinophilic asthma that is taken once every 8 weeks. fasenra is not for sudden breathing problems or other eosinophilic conditions. allergic reactions may occur. don't stop your asthma treatments without talking with your doctor. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. step back out there with fasenra. ask your doctor if it's right for you.

all right, everyone back with me. katie phang, melissa murray, harry lipman, and joyce vance. katie, they are back. mr. steinglass has resumed his close, tell us what we're hearing. >> we're at the point where the prosecution through joshua steinglass is explaining, quote, there's just no way, no way that cohen wouldn't have told mr. trump about daniels. why wouldn't he have? and that really spokes to this idea that cohen was rogue and he went off on his own to save the day for his great hero of donald

trump. but steinglass had made clear throughout the course of the trial, not just stood, that cohen did everything at the direction of and for the benefit of donald trump, which feeds into the motive of why he's frustrated. there was a humanization of michael cohen that's happened throughout the course of this trial, and melissa noted it before we took the break. when you take a person like michael cohen and even steinglass said he's flawed. he's flawed. we have talked about this before, how trump actually picked a lawyer who wasn't good. >> they said they didn't pick him. that's who he picked to handle his business. >> because he knew cohen would be the kind of person to do it. >> he was going to take bullet for trump. he would take a loan, financially put himself in jeopardy, give his money to a third party he didn't sleep with, this is so simple. this is the problem with the case to me. it's so simple and common sense and i have not heard anyone

refute it, the end. i have not heard anyone refute it. let me go to something else. todd blanche, let's go back to him and his closing argument. he said this, you cannot send someone to prison based on the words of michael cohen. merchan said i think that statement was outrageous, mr. blanche. it's simply not allowed. it's hard to imagine how that was accident elin any way. the jury doesn't determine punishment. it's not them that does that. merchan tells the jury to disregard the improper comment. if there's a verdict of guilt, it will be up to me to impose a sentence. a prison sentence is not required in the result of a guilty verdict. this is unusual. todd blanche knows it. >> he knows better. this was not inadvertent, this was not a mistake. he wanted this out there. it's the idea of playing up jury sympathy. you don't want this guy to go to jail for this. the thing of it is that the jury never gets to decide what the actual sentence is. the jury can determine guilt, is

a fact finder, but it doesn't ultimately determine punishment, as the judge said today. that's his job, and it's an open question whether in the event of a conviction juan merchan is going to sentence donald trump to time in prison, but ultimately, it is not a consideration that the jury is supposed to take into account, and todd blanche, a former prosecutor, knows that. >> harry, it is not lost on me that todd blanche took that chance, probably because donald trump wanted him to, with even tiffany trump there, two trump sons are in the courtroom, along with tiffany trump, who i'm not seven sure -- i was shocked when one of the pieces of evidence was he had her number in his phone. the fact there are three trump adult children in the room does seem theatricically performative. >> yeah, and there's a couple more points to be made. first, the curative instruction you just instructed, merchan says there may not be prison for this crime.

you wouldn't normally tell a jury that. you would just say disregard punishment. he had so led with his chin, and merchan was so livid that he did that. and second, to melissa's point, i agree. it's fundamental, and it speaks, i think, a little built of desperation. the idea is to try to gin up a hung jury or some kind of person to have sympathy. if you thought you had a decent shot at hung jury without that, i don't think you would engender the judge's ire in that way. >> joyce, it sounds like something you say when you think your client is going to be convicted. it sounds like you think he's going to lose. >> yeah. don't send him to prison, please. you know. i think that's right. >> joyce. >> it comes across that way in large part. look, the first line of defense for trump's lawyers is to hope someone on the jury will believe the government failed to meet

its burden of proof of get beyond a reasonable doubt. they just want the acquittal. they simply want to live to fight another day at this point in time. but the problem is, when that's your strategy, you do end up exposing a little bit of your soft underbelly to the jury. and this jury seems very engaged. you know, the judge noted that when the arguments went on for this extended period of time they have gone on for. it was smart for the judge to do that. it helps to preserve an error-free record for the appeal. but it also does show that this jury is meticulously following along, that even at this late hour, they're tracking with the evidence. and it's not lost upon them that trump's lawyers have skirted some of the most important issues, the exhibits katie was talking about, the failure to confront the details of michael cohen's testimony, and something that i think is surprising to all of us here and that shows that desperation is you would have expected them to parse through michael cohen's lies.

if there were going to be ten reasons the government failed to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they should have all been michael cohen's lies. at the end of the day, they weren't. that's what the defense is riding on, and they simply seem to have failed to pull it off. >> katie, you're giving an amen there. >> because blanche ended with ten reasons why you should acquit my client. he should have started from the beginning. two and a half hours later, he finally gets to it, but all of it, to joyce's point, if there was one person and the linchpin to the prosecution's success was michael cohen, why not reel off all the times he lied or was dishonest, but the fact you have to attack ten different friends shows the defense is desperate because they have exposure on so many fronts. but blanche doesn't have the effective -- he doesn't have the -- it'sgravitas. there's nothing likable for him, you're not rooting for him. when he speaks, you're like, okay, buddy, let's go.

with steinglass, you're like, we're getting there because he's methodically taking apart anything the defense thought was going to win the day. >> harry, even the day that i was there -- >> yes. >> i have to say, todd blanche was the least effective member of -- when i saw them in person. does it surprise you they have given him the job of doing the closing rather than bove, who seemed more competent? >> that's all trump's call and who knows what's in his head. i want to make a point about steinglass and how methodical he's been. just before we left, there was an objection sustained. you could see that made the next couple questions for steinglass improper. he just said, let's skip the next slide. meaning of a 200-slide deck, he knows every one. he's practiced every one. that's a big contrast with blanche. it's just the rhythm, the pace, and the whole methodicalness is a really good word of his

presentation is really coming through. >> i'm going to give you the last word, melissa. it feels like there's a little incompetence. >> again, todd blanche is trained as a lawyer, but not every lawyer is a defense lawyer. it's two very different skill sets to be a prosecutor versus being a defense lawyer. he may be very skilled as a prosecutor. apparently he was. this is his first outing as a defense lawyer, and the stakes could not be higher. and the defendant/client could not be more erascible and demanding. a bad situation for todd blanche. i don't think this is his best look. >> i don't feel sorry for him. as long as he got his money in advance. katie phang, melissa murray who i will always remind you is the person who quoted making attorneys get attorneys, which i steal all the time, harry lipman, joyce vance. thank you. stay with us for much more on the closing arguments in the trump criminal trial. thanks to you...

we're getting bottles back... and we've developed a way to make new ones from 100% recycled plastic. new bottles - made using no new plastic. you'll be seeing more of these bottles in more places. and when we get more of them back... ...we can use less new plastic. see how our bottles are made to be remade.

millions of children are fighting to survive due to inequality, conflict, poverty and the climate crisis. save the children® is working alongside communities to provide a better life for children. and there's a way you can help. please call or go online to give just $10

a month. only $0.33 a day. we urgently need 1000 new monthly donors in the next 30 days to help the children we support around the world. you can help provide food, medicine, care and protection, plus so much more that a child needs by calling right now and giving just $10 a month. all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants, every dollar you give can have up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support. your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives.

please call or go online to hungerstopsnow.org to help save lives today.

we're continuing to follow closing arguments in trump's criminal trial and we're get bag to that shortly. we turn now to global condemnation at a fever pitch after an israeli air strike hit a camp for displaced civilians in rafah. raf sanchez has the latest on the attack. >> reporter: grief and anger across southern gaza. after an israeli air strike hit a camp for displaced people in rafah, sending flames ripping through tents. and killing at least 45 people. many of them women and children, according to the emergency

services in hamas-run gaza. the idf said it hit a hamas compound and killed two commanders. prime minister netanyahu calling it a tragic incident. and promising an investigation. the white house calling the images heartbreaking, saying israel has the right to pursue hamas, but must protect civilians. >> the biden administration is still assessing whether the israeli strikes are a violation of president biden's red line, but the attack has already drawn condemnation from other world leaders. spain, ireland, and norway have also formally recognized palestinian statehood. joining 195 countries throughout the world who already recognize palestine as a state. joining me now is akbar ahmed, thank you for coming back. what is the status of global reaction versus washington reaction? it seems rather disparate. >> we have seen a huge difference. u.s. allies like france have called this out in the strongest

possible terms. ireland, most of u.s. partners and really importantly, independent aid organizations. we have seen the international rescue committee, we have seen groups that are funded sometimes by the u.s. government, that u.s. officials trust, have said you cannot buy the idf's line on this. clearly what they did had an unacceptable civilian cost, not to mention was in what the israelis themselves called a safe zone. from the white house side, you have seen a bizarro world where the same promises we heard three months ago, five months ago, the administration has had repeatedly, we trust the israelis to follow the law and to investigate themselves. at no point, as the civilian toll has increased, have we seen accountability for those strikes that have killed many civilians. >> we now have really seen images of beheaded babies, these

are awful pictures. the irish foreign minister said he and his european union counterparts had a conversation about the possibility of levying sanctions on israel. that seems unimaginable but that seems to be on the table. >> i think international leaders just are at their wit's end. we know the u.s. is the only power with israel, to do anything, but we'll try whatever we can. you mentioned palestinian statehood, important to remember that sanctions on israel and israeli officials, warrants that may be coming for netanyahu, those could actually center u.s. officials. there's a line of culpability that goes beyond the israelis to the people sitting in washington who are approving continued weapons transfers to them with the knowledge of how they're using the weapons.

the biden administration itself said earlier this month in its own report, the biden administration said it is reasonable to assess israel is breaking international law. so if u.s. officials know that's reasonable, and you're okaying bombs that are going to go break international law, how will you be perceived down the line if international leaders are saying israelis could be sanctioned. >> speaking of americans who seem to reasonably understand where the bombs are coming from, nikki haley, who is no longer officially a candidate for president, but is still on the ballot in many states and winning 16%, 17%, 20% of the primary, she went to israel and signed finish them, on an idf artillery shell during a visit. he criticized the biden administration for temporarily withholding weapons. this is a trip to the northern border, and it seems rather ostentatious of an american former u.n. ambassador and

potential, you know, presidential nominee, to be signing bombs. >> it's really evidence of how trapped between a rock and a hard place, ultimately, the entire republican party says israel can do whatever it wants, however it wants, whenever it wants. former president trump has said i would end the war, but he's also said i would round up college students protesting. so republicans and democrats are in a big way right now. >> great reporting. thank you so much. much appreciated. >> much more coming up on trump's criminal trial as the prosecution's closing arguments continue next. continue nt.ex

deep down, i knew something was wrong. since my fatigue and light-headedness would come and go, i figured it wasn't a big deal. then i saw my doctor and found out i have afib, and that means there's about a 5 times greater risk of stroke. symptoms like irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, or light- headedness can come and go. but if you have afib, the risk of stroke is always there. if you have one or more symptoms, get checked out. holding off on seeing a doctor won't change whether or not you have afib. but if you do, making that appointment can help you get ahead of stroke risk. contact a doctor and learn more at notimetowait.com

chris counahan for leaffilter— the permanent gutter solution that protects your home in so many ways, it takes more than one chris to explain it. but together, i think we've got the job covered. like leaffilter's has your gutters covered. protecting you from getting up on this thing to clean out your gutters ever again. and you know how else leaffilter protects your home? with our lifetime transferable no clogs warranty. we'd be glad to come out for a free no-hassle inspection. to schedule your free inspection, call 833-leaffilter today or visit leaffilter.com let's get started. call 833-leaffilter today bill, where's your mask? i really tried sleeping with it, everybody. now i sleep with inspire. inspire? no mask? no hose? just sleep. learn more, and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com

the prosecution continues to deliver its closing arguments as we speak. next up in trump's criminal trial, judge juan merchan will instruct jurors on the law governing the case. he'll also give them a road map on what they can and cannot take into account as they deliberation. the instructions are so important that the prosecution and defense fought over they wanted him to tell the jury. trump's lawyers wanted him to tell the jurors the hush money payments aren't inherently illegal. he said nope. they also asked judge merchan to consider the extraordinarily important nature of the case when issuing his instructions and to urge jurors to reach very

specific findings. which would require jurors to not only agree unanimously, but they would have to be unanimous in what the unlawful means were. this would be a deviation from standard instructions. merchan told trump's lawyers, quote, when you say it's a very important case, you're asking me to change the law, and i'm not going to do that. this morning, judge merchan confirmed to the court that he had finalized his instructions and both sides have seen what he will say. he went on to address the jury. among many other things he reminded them that you and you alone are the judges of fact in this case. joining me is danny cevallos, criminal defense attorney and msnbc legal analyst, and glenn kirschner, former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst. let me go to you first, danny. we just heard joshua steinglass give the sort of remainder of his summation and he's getting to the end. he says the defense wants you to believe michael cohen went rogue. i'm going to give you three

reasons why he did not. number one, donald trump is a micromanager. number two, michael cohen is a self promoter, and number three, the beneficiary of the scheme was the defendant. pretty solid. >> those are solid, and it's always good to use bullet points. the rule of threes. there's some cosmic rule if you say something three times it's more memorable if you divide it into threes as opposed to todd blanche's ten-point list, which looking at that list, you could have combined a couple or organized them better. >> and who's going to remember ten things? >> you don't need to. if you seize on any one of those ten things you simply cannot convict donald trump. i get it. when you have a complicated case like this, your list as you're a defense attorney or a prosecutor as you're writing down the important points, they turn from three or four to dozens upon dozens to maybe even hundreds. it's hard to edit. >> we were just assessing todd blanche's skill. he is a prosecutor.

and he -- the day i was there, i felt sorry for him. he seemed so discombobulated, nervous, and not organized. bove seemed a lot more organized. assess how he's done so far in this closing. he did a short closing. >> i agree. bove when i was in court, i felt the same way, very smooth, very comfortable at the podium. very comfortable questioning and even arguing to the judge. i was impressed with bove. i thought he might have been a better choice to deliver a closing argument. i think generally the consensus is it might have been a little disorganized. it was shorter than the prosecutor's closing. but 2 1/2 hours for the defense when your only goal, you don't need to build the case. your goal is to create reasonable doubt. so it's difficult, it's a challenge, but i thought it could have been organized. there were points, for example, one that sticks with me is the argument that the legal services was a drop down menu in the accounting software. little moments like that might

be really compelling to one particular juror. >> you just need one. >> glenn, let me go to you as my former prosecutor friend. let me read a little bit of what joshua steinglass has said. the intent we need to prove is the intent to conceal another crime. so what crime do we suggest he intended to conceal inthe answer is new york state election law. he continues, as for the conspiracy to promote or prevent an election, we're basically beating a dead horse here. steinglass continues, you have seen a mountain of evidence that proves the defendant, pecker, cohen, and howard conspired to influence the 2016 election. that was the whole purpose of the trump tower meeting, to conspire to win the election. as to the unlawful means you don't have to agree what they are as long as you agree there was an intent. intent to defraud, included intent to commit election fraud by any means. assess for me the quality of the

argument, the lengthy closing by joshua steinglass, if you would. >> a strong argument, well delivered based on the reporting. you know, there's a simpler, i think, example of a jury not having to unanimously decide everything about the case. they can kind of pick and choose perhaps what crime was the underlying crime that they were trying to commit. think about a burglary. a burglary is nothing more than somebody who crosses the threshold of a home, walks through a door, climbs through a window with the intent to commit a crime there at the moment they cross the threshold. once they get in there, maybe they assault somebody, maybe they steal, maybe they set something on fire or worse. and the jury doesn't have to unanimously conclude exactly which crime they're going to commit when they were in there as long as they were entering the home with the intent to commit a crime. they're in. i think there's an analogy here to what the jury is being asked

to do in this case. and i actually think one of the best witnesses for the prosecution was the defense witness, bob costello, because when joshua steinglass started talking about the relentless pressure campaign that bob costello, a defense witness, was waging against michael cohen, all i could think of is they're trying to catch and kill michael cohen's damaging testimony and evidence and information that could hurt donald trump. which just beautifully re-enforces the whole prosecution theme of the case, what an enormous strategic blunder it was for them to put bob costello on the stand, and you know, joy, that had to be at donald trump's insistence. >> yeah, and we're now hearing part of that closing argument being that pecker essentially made $100,000 campaign contribution to donald trump or more than that, obviously, because they were willing to pay

off stormy daniels in order to make the story go away. it does seem to me, danny, what we have seen here is a defense attorney who is getting points out that his client wants said openly and in public. he wants him to say, no, he did not sleep with stormy daniels. he wants him to say michael cohen is a terrible person. none of that helps him win the case. it's all atmospherics to appeal to trump. >> you brought up a really important example, if you go back to the opening statement, the defense said in their opening statement, essentially, that donald trump didn't have sex with stormy that donald tr did not have sex with stormy daniels. why do that? it had nothing to do on the case and on cross-examination they went after her on whether or not they had sex, when really the cross-examination of stormy daniels should have been six minutes. it should have been are you a bookkeeper at the trump organization or not?

do you have anything to do with records at the trump organization? do you have any knowledge -- >> they kept her on the stand all day to berate her as to whether or not dinner mint dinner. i do not understand the purpose of that, other than that they wanted to humiliate her, but you cannot humiliate her. she works in the adult film industry. she is already on twitter fighting trolls and she did very well. >> let me piggyback on what my friend, danny, just said, because it is so important. once it became pretty clear that they had a sexual encounter, the defense didn't really offer any alternative other than trying to poke holes in stormy daniels' testimony. once the jury suspects that todd blanche lied to them in opening statements and couldn't deliver, everything else the jury is asked to decide by todd blanche, they are going to look

at it through the lens of, wait a minute, you already pulled the wool over our eyes once. that will really hurt an attorney moving through the balance of the case. >> if i am a juror, david pecker saying i love and adore donald trump and i totally did hush money with him in order to help the campaign. case done. danny cevallos and glenn kistner, sticking around with more. we will be right back. back. a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up. or finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides,

or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu. do you want to close out? should i? normally i'd hold. but... taking the gains is smart here, right? feel more confident with stock ratings from j.p. morgan analysts in the chase app. when you've got a decision to make...

the answer is j.p. morgan wealth management.

back with me, danny cevallos and glenn kirschner and a little bit of joshua steinglass's closing. the defendant's intent to defraud cannot be clearer. why not just pay stormy daniels directly? he didn't want anyone to find out his intent to steal the election. joshua steinglass goes on to say that the name of the game was concealment. let me go to you. let me let glenn go first. what do you think? >> jurors will assess the evidence by applying their real-

world experience and common sense. i always told my jurors that the defense attorney is asking you to check your common sense of the courtroom doors. don't do it. bring it into the jury box. everyone i think is satisfied that donald trump is the one who benefited from these crimes and, you know, michael cohen, it was almost comical when he talked about having to sneak around so his wife did not find out he was taking out a $130,000 home-equity line of credit on their house so he could help donald trump gain an unfair advantage in an election and it is not lost on the jurors that michael cohen actually did this to his detriment, at least in the short term, and donald trump was the one running for office and who one office as a result of this information not coming out. none of that will be lost on the jury. >> a little more of what was

said here. i apologize, it has been a long closing. he apologizes for the long closing, joshua steinglass, and he tells the jurors to use your common sense. come back here and say guilty. a pretty strong close. >> a strong closing. he had a lot of time to do it, but i understand spending that amount of time. it is so easy for us to say you should have shortened that up, but you never know what a jury will care about. 4 1/2 hours, it sounds like this is it. we are reaching the crescendo and he is doing a lot of the standard stuff prosecutors do. none of this came as a surprise to me and i doubt it came as a surprise to glenn. even the part about michael cohen, we didn't choose michael cohen, it is almost verbatim from the great glenn kirschner's own closing i have heard him say to me. it is identical. he is obviously copying glenn, but it is pretty standard

stuff. just the same as a defense attorney gets up to call the witness liar, liar, pants on fire. it is all the same. >> imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. he is imitating you, glenn. it appears that he told the story and the defense did not. i feel like people will take a story any time. your thoughts? >> absolutely. the defense can try to poke holes all day long. they can try to knock everyone and everything down, but juries as you just said, they like a story. give them some alternative theory that helps explain some of what they heard. danny is too kind, but i will say that i have used the argument every time i have a cooperating witness and i generally say we don't get to go to the witness store because if we did i would say can you give me three churchgoing grandmas and have them

delivered and we will ask them about the crimes. wait a minute, donald trump did not choose churchgoing grandmas as his partner in crime, his co- conspirator, his criminal associates. he chose michael cohen, that is why we presented michael cohen's testimony to you. >> you know you have a good closing when you can all remember. like if the glove don't fit, you must acquit. if you don't have something strong like this you might not be able to we -- to win this case. don't go anywhere. i'm sticking around for our special coverage of today's closing arguments along with rachel maddow, chris hayes and the whole gang and that starts right, three, two, one, right now. closing arguments in the trial of donald trump. tonight, the defense makes its case for reasonable doubt. >> president trump is innocent. >> the real argument