okay, we are wrapping up our part of our special recap

of today's closing arguments in trump's criminal trial, but do not go anywhere. our coverage continues with the last word and lawrence o'donnell who spent all day today in court and has the back pain to prove it. good evening, my friend. >> i was working on my posture for most of the day. but look, rachel, two full reporters notebooks and a day. i've never filled up to before, certainly not in a courtroom day. it went longer than any of us expected. longer than most of us thought was necessary, but it was one of those no stone unturned closings by the prosecution. the defense, i thought, was effective as they could be given the cards dealt them. they have some internal contradictions in their theory of the case, but really this is the criminal defense team trying to defend donald trump. good luck with that. it is going to look pretty

messy. >> judge merchan said at the outset that it is a practice in his courtroom where he likes the jury to get both summations on one day. i was so worried about whether or not there would be other things trailing in from the trial that ended on the schedule they didn't want last week. i was thinking each summation would be like 90 minutes. when we got three hours and that was the short one and then four hours and 40 minute for the second one, it really was an endurance test for the jury. but the judge, who seems to be bonded with history, does seem to think that it is in their best interest that they did not have a break and that when they come back tomorrow they are looking at him and listening to him and getting to work. >> the judge did say when this was well into overtime, look, he told the lawyers i've been watching the jury.

they still seem to be with us. they seem to be ready to keep going and of course the jury wants to go. they want to get this done and have it over with as soon as is reasonably possible, so the judge already said listen, we might need to go late on tuesday night. they were warned about that a week ago, so they were ready to go late tonight. but when we heard the prosecutor say maybe he had four hours of material, i have to say, it felt like are we going to be here tomorrow morning, finishing the final summation? but the judge really did not want that to happen and, rachel, just to show you, the judge does have limits to his patients. this was one of those things you had to kind of be in the courtroom four. in the last, i don't know, 10 minutes or so of steinglass's summation, which the judge was

really finished with. this should be over. there was a moment when there was an objection, todd blanche, objection. it was sustained and then the prosecutor said, may we approach? now, every single time that either lawyer said may we approach in this trial, every single time, and approached the bench and had a bench conference. this time in the fourth hour of the summation, when he said to the judge, may we approach, there is no word in the transcript, because it is just the judge shaking his head no. >> talk to the hand. >> no, don't approach. don't even think about approaching. you should approach the exit, is what the judge was letting them know. >> i know you need to start your portion of the recap, but can i ask one more question about your experience in the courtroom? you have been in court a bunch of days and not just in the

overflow room, but in the court itself. do you have a vibe for the jury in terms of how you think the jury is behaving and whether there might be a holdout or two who is not paying attention or may not be there in good faith? do you feel like the jury is doing a good jury job? >> i'm glad you asked that, because that is how i was about to begin this discussion. by the way, i haven't had a time to write a single word, rushing from the courthouse to hear, but this is exactly how i wanted to begin and i am glad to begin it with you. i have now heard all of the testimony and hearing every word of the summations is maybe the most important thing you can do. if you could pick one day to be there, that would be the day. so what i can tell the audience and i can tell you is i have been in a lot of courtrooms over the course of my life. i've heard a lot of testimony. i have had strong feelings about possible verdicts at the

end of summation. i have certainly had strong feelings about what the obvious and correct verdict is and only some kind of jury bias can derail this. i am coming out of this with no ability to read this jury at all. this afternoon i had one of the best views of the jury i have had the entire trial. by the way, in that courtroom no one has a good view of every juror. that is impossible in the way the courtroom is laid out. sometimes you have a better view of the back row of the jurors on the right side of the room. other angles have other views. i have seen all of these jurors at different times and studied the mall. i can't find anything for any of them and i offered that as praise, because that is what they should be delivering to me and to everyone else in the courtroom. they should be delivering nothing except the attention, when merited, whether it is the witness stand or the attorneys podium as it was today, and

they're just fully and constantly attentive more so than any jury i've ever seen. you don't see a moment of them drifting off at any point, even at times when some of us in the audience might drift off a bit because it might feel like we are going down a tangent. that jury is so attentive and so on point and they have never given me the slightest hint and i have not heard from anyone else, anyone getting hints of how the jury is feeling. i think the defense did everything they could do today and throughout the trial to introduce reasonable doubt and it is always a question of, is that enough reasonable doubt that the defense has introduced for enough jurors? is it enough for one juror? is it enough for 12? i don't know. did the prosecution presented

its case beyond a reasonable doubt? i think that could be a very clear and relatively easy finding for this jury, but i come out able to tell you, rachel, i have no idea which way this verdict will come out. i would not be surprised by any version of this verdict. >> it's fascinating to hear you say that. i'm sorry to take off of your hour by making you do this with me, but we are starting to see the first reporting now that is attributing, you know, confidence or hope or worry about jurors to one side or the other in the case and it feels like wishful thinking and projection by, in this case, the trump side, then it does buy anything that seems actually observable in the courtroom and i feel like that is a good reality check for all of us. it was my experience as well. there is nothing that this jury

has done to tell you how they are going to deliberate or whether any of them is going to act in a bad-faith way and force a hung jury when one is not deserved. it really is in the jurors hands and this judge has treated them with respect and they have treated the process with respect and that is how it is supposed to go. >> that is the case and in most of the trials i've seen, jury guesswork has been a waste of time. i have wasted none of my time on that subject in that courtroom. >> thank you, my friend. much appreciated. >> thanks, rachel. well, it was the does anyone believe that presentation by the prosecution, versus the you cannot believe michael cohen defense by the defense. that is really what it came down to.

it was the loudest moment that the prosecutor had today in his closing summation, does anyone believe that? he said it very excitedly and what he was talking about was the theory of the defense that donald trump had no idea that the business records being kept for michael cohen's payments were not accurate and the prosecutor went through all of the ways in which donald trump had to know and had to have caused the falsifying of those business records, which is what the case is about. it is about the falsification of business records and when it came back to the most important, detailed points about all of that, the prosecutor's argument simply came down to, does anyone believe that? it was a very effective moment. there were several other effective moments for the prosecution and the defense

today. we will take our courtroom panel around the table tonight through everything that happened. leading off our discussion tonight, adam klasfeld, who was in the courtroom today as he has been every day. usually sitting beside me, but we got separated. what happened to your past? at lunch time you did not have your past to get back in and how did you solve that problem? >> it was everyone and particularly my nightmare. it was recovered by the court staff. take you. >> and lisa rubin is here today. you love this. adam is walking in right behind me without his pass. he realizes as we go through the x-ray machine that he doesn't have a pass and he thinks this is going to work. he walks in behind me and asks the court officer to get the elevator and he says, i'm with lawrence. exactly. the officer didn't laugh, because he thought he was

crazy. so he immediately sent him away from the elevator. andrew weissmann, also with us. andrew, on the way out to the studio i foolishly said to you, have you ever done a summation longer than that one? to which the answer was -- >> yes. i had a couple of things, which is it is really important for people to remember, it is not even the elephant in the room, because it is in the trial. this is the former president of the united states who may become the future president of the united states. and why is that relevant? because if you are the prosecutor one of the things you're thinking about is whether the jury will hold you to a higher standard of proof. to the question of if this were a normal case and donald trump was any other defendant, like

the ceo of a company -- of course you never know what a jury is going to do, so there could be an acquittal. but if you would ask, you know, 10 prosecutors, they would be like this is going to be a conviction. as much as any case you could have that prediction. the unknown here and the reason why i could see just on glass -- could see joshua steinglass gave the soup to nuts, kind of i have to do everything is because subconsciously will the jury be saying the case involves direct evidence, but a lot of circumstantial evidence which is just as valid. is the jury going to be saying to convict him i need more than circumstantial evidence that is here? so i think that plays into it and the other quick question or

quick comment about the jury, having been on a jury, yes we can think about is there a holdout right now, but the jury has no idea about what the jury thinks, because they are not deliberating. >> the guy sitting beside me, i don't know what he thinks. >> exactly. the first time they will have an opportunity to really find out what the jury is thinking is tomorrow after jury instructions and they are finally in a room where they are allowed to talk about it. i am confident they have not talked about the case in the jury room. you don't want to spend this time and then get kicked off the case because you start talking about it, because one of the jurors would report it. they don't know how the jury is thinking. they can take a straw vote, which is pretty normal when you start. that will offer the first inclination of where they are.

>> lisa, what was todd blanche's best moment this morning? i say this morning and it feels like, i don't know, last week at this time. >> i think it was not todd blanche's best moment. it was when todd blanche called up to different recordings of michael cohen from his podcast and brought the jury back to michael cohen that was not the guy they saw in the courtroom, whereas josh steinglass reminded them that michael cohen spent more hours on cross- examination then he did actually working for donald trump in 2017, just to give some context. so the michael cohen that the jury came to know is a very calm, lucid, unflappable michael cohen. by playing those excerpts, the demeanor that he exhibits is itself enough to raise reasonable doubt about his motive. not just the content of wanting to see trump behind bars, but the cadence and fury and those

excerpts kind of leads someone to think, wait, that is not the guy i met last week. who is that? is that to that guy really is? if i were a juror i would be going through those recordings in my head. >> michael cohen on the podcast. first time i had ever heard the podcast version of michael cohen. sounds utterly insane. >> manic almost. >> like he is in a straitjacket and screaming. then he bursts into the courtroom and it upsets the sound of the courtroom. >> particularly since we are in a room that, generally speaking, is not full of bombastic personalities. todd blanche has called up a lot of drama for him, but that is not his natural state. he is generally the everyman you want to have a beer within his natural state.

josh steinglass can bring the volume, but he is not a theatrical guy. we all know who judge merchan is. a grandfatherly figure who almost when he gets angry talks more softly for affect. given that we are in this courtroom with a lot of people who don't necessarily have huge personalities, huge voices, to play those recordings of cohen where he is talking at a speed that seems unreasonable and talking at a pitch and with venom in his voice. it was very jarring to hear and if i were a juror that would have real impact on me. >> again, to go back to the morning, which was a long time ago for all of us and todd blanche's defense argument. we will cover a lot of the prosecution and one thing i say is that the evidence the prosecution has is very familiar to our audience, because that has been available to us for a long time. we have been presenting most of

it for a long time, but what we have been waiting for is what is the defense? now that we heard today's most cogent presentation of the trump defense in this case. todd blanche kept coming back to reasonable doubt. he was not going for innocent. he was not going for that. he understood, look, donald trump cannot be defended as an innocent person. donald trump did stuff and did stuff within this story that you are not going to like, but did todd blanche wedge in enough reasonable doubt for a jury to cling to? >> i think the answer to that question helps explain why josh steinglass went so long. i think the strongest part of blanche's presentation was in the morning when he stuck to the law.

there was this part where he was talking about the intent to fraud. there is this line, there is no other way to characterize them to call it a legal expense. the government said that is a crime. what the administrator did, that's absurd. he said later, he talked about the mechanics of how the ledger entries are entered and he pointed out it is a drop-down menu. presumably there is not in the drop-down menu, hush money to porn star. when he resigned himself to the law that was the strongest part and i think where things started to go off and where steinglass is very effective is where blanche started coming along with one-liners, calling cohen the mvp of lines. the greatest liar of all time. the living embodiment of reasonable doubt. he would do that in this

scattershot way. i am a little biased toward this moment of what i felt was effective, because i predicted this moment on the show last week where i said that it seems the defense is pushing this internal inconsistency, logical inconsistency that will be called out by the prosecution and steinglass did. the moment was tarring cohen as a thief and the defense wanted to have it both ways. here is what steinglass said. none of this matters because it is not a defense for the false business records charge that one of the co-conspirators is also guilty of stealing from another and i will tell you something else that was kind of funny and steinglass laughed about. >> you presented this very well. >> and said i don't know if someone got this, but blanche said he stole $60,000, right,

because he was grossed up. that means the defense is trying to have it both ways. they can call him a fief -- a fief or claim this was not a reimbursement, but not both. >> it is the internal conflict i have been watching for, which is that it is not a reimbursement. it is a paycheck here and by doing legal work. as lisa points out, the d.a. said today that michael cohen spent less time doing legal work for that money than he spent in cross-examination in this courtroom. so it is not a reimbursement, it is a paycheck. that is one defense argument and then over here is the other defense argument that in this reimbursement formula michael cohen lied about how much he should be reimbursed, so he was reimbursed too much. we get to call him a thief because it was reimbursement, but wait you just called it a

paycheck and now you say he is a fief because it is reimbursement. >> in todd's defense, i do not think it was a good summation, to be clear. >> i sat there waiting for him to solve that problem. was there a way for him to solve it? >> first it is not uncommon for defense lawyers to have inconsistent arguments and thoughts, because you are only trying to kill something to one juror and you don't know what that one thing will be. so you are presenting a whole range of things and unlike where you pick your best suit to go with that, you really do try to present as much as you can and hope something sticks without saying something ridiculous. there were a few things where he should not have gone there. i am pretty sure it is his

client who insisted on it, but the reason i thought there was a real problem and the gift of todd blanche to this case and to josh steinglass was a little bit of the gift of costello to josh steinglass, which is there is what todd blanche addressed and the huge problems with what he did not address. as you have pointed out, nothing in any way cogent about exhibits 35 and 36, the handwritten notes. >> $130,000, never explained. >> everyone knew. we've been sitting here and talking over and over again. you have to have a theory. if you don't have a theory, your client better plead guilty. you have to have some 30 -- some theory. there was no mention of hope hicks. just to use her for some embroidery, but not to deal with the substance. the second problem, david

pecker. again, not dealing with the damaging information. nothing was said about that. to then say about the access hollywood tape, that it was not a big deal. again, you have to come up with a better argument or not address it. so josh steinglass was given all of these gifts because all of that proved nothing was said. i kept thinking, susan necheles, who i keep praising, had to be sitting there dying. >> as far away as she could be. she wasn't just at the end of the regular council table. she moved over to where the junior lawyers are to get even farther away. >> and she is the most experienced defense lawyer in that room other than susan hoffinger on the prosecution side . you just can't give that

closing argument. you have to come up with something and i am not sure what i would say about exhibit 35 and 36, but you have to bring it up and at least say donald trump is not honest. you don't know what they said or did not say to him. you don't know if michael cohen said don't worry, i've talked to donald trump, so you don't have to. you have to say something about it to help explain it, because you know they are going to jump all over it. to me it is so hard to give them high marks because of what was not addressed. >> the prosecution called those exhibits the smoking guns in the case. we will show you the smoking guns, which you have already seen, by the way, when we come right back after this break.

my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis held me back... now with skyrizi, i'm all in with clearer skin. ♪ things are getting clearer...♪ ( ♪♪ ) ♪ i feel free... ♪ ♪ to bear my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ ( ♪♪) with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. and most people were clearer even at 5 years. skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. 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. ♪ nothing and me go hand-in-hand, ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin, that's my new plan. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ now's the time,... ...ask your doctor about skyrizi,... ...the number one... ...dermatologist-prescribed biologic in psoriasis.

learn how abbvie could help you save. try killing bugs the worry-free way. not the other way. zevo traps use light to attract and trap flying insects with no odor and no mess. they work continuously, so you don't have to. zevo. people-friendly. bug-deadly.

sometimes jonah wrestles with falling asleep... ...so he takes zzzquil. the world's #1 sleep aid brand. and wakes up feeling like himself. get the rest to be your best with non-habit forming zzzquil. ♪ ♪ 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. (♪♪)

we are back with a courtroom gang. adam klasfeld, lisa rubin, andrew weissmann. i want to put the smoking guns on the screen if we have them both. that is the smoking gun. that is the bank statement that shows that michael cohen sent $130,000 to stormy daniels' lawyer to pay stormy daniels and then in yellow is handwritten notes made by the trump ceo. on the right side, the

handwritten notes in michael cohen's hand, not highlighted. that indicates what michael cohen would like to be reimbursed for. you see there is the $130,000 in the yellow highlighted space. that $130,000, michael cohen says, is the $130,000 that appears in that bank statement as having been sent to stormy daniels lawyer that he has to be reimbursed for. there is another document -- there it is. that was his interpretation in order to put this in paycheck form of what we just saw in allison -- in allen weisselberg's handwritten notes on the other document. those were both on a giant screen in court today and referred to by the prosecutor

as the smoking guns in the case. lisa rubin, when a prosecutor says, which they don't often say, by the way, this is the smoking gun, they usually have an accumulation of evidence. they rarely have something they want to give that way, but we have said at this desk staring at that document with allen weisselberg's handwriting on it for a long time, saying how will they explain that and todd blanche never did. >> the answer is, they didn't. they relied on all kinds of other things including, almost like they were prosecuting michael cohen. in particular, todd blanche went back to his most successful moment in the trial, the october 24, 2016 phone call that michael cohen placed to keith schiller to say michael cohen in no uncertain terms lied to you. it was the most dramatic moment of his cross-examination and i thought josh steinglass was masterful in how he dealt with

this. on the one hand he said it doesn't really matter if they had this call or not because michael cohen remembers the substance of many conversations he had and he testified that he had over 20 of them. than what he does is he imagined how the october 24 conversation went. he did it as if it were totally impromptu. it took a total of 49 seconds and if you don't mind i would like to read it if i can. >> i thought it was one of the great moments because i did not see it coming. 90 seconds is a long time. that was not my first reaction to 90 seconds, but i thought about it. he could have easily done everything in 90 seconds and steinglass proved it. >> i want to tell you also that michael cohen's lawyer predict did on air that this would happen in some way, shape or form. i don't think he could've

predicted he would handle it as well as he did. so he says we are together at the exact date and time. let's try a little experiment. hey, keith, how's it going? it seems like this prankster might be a 14-year-old kid. if i text you the number can you call and talk to his family. see if you can let him know how serious this is. it is not a joke. all right. thanks, pal. hey, is the boss near you? can you pass him the phone for a minute. and then he continues. hey boss, i know you are busy but i wanted to let you know that other thing is moving forward with my friend keith and the other party we discussed. it's back on track. i will try one more time to get our friend david to pay it, but if not it will be on us to take care of. all right. good luck in tampa. then steinglass looks up satisfied. 49 seconds. >> and he left more air in

there for responses. >> i'm from los angeles, i'm sorry. >> but it was so clear that you could absolutely have done that little conversation with keith schiller and this other conversation with donald trump in 90 seconds because of what he showed you. just astonishing and again a great courtroom demonstration that i did not see coming from him. it was right in the middle, too, which was made even more effective. adam, as we went on through the day, i was just waiting for how is the prosecution going to shore up michael cohen, because michael cohen was put on trial by the defense and especially in the defense closing. you cannot believe michael cohen. you cannot convict donald trump on the words of michael cohen and the prosecution did a lot

of work trying to corroborate michael cohen beyond his own words. >> right and they did it on a foundation of michael cohen's character are flaws. they did that saying that you can't believe that cohen is a thief without buying the theory of the case that these were reimbursements. they called him and this was a prosecution line, not a defense line. they said cohen is a self promoter. to point out he would have taken credit for this. they pointed out that hope hicks and the very reason she did not believe when trump said that cohen did this on his own out of the goodness of his heart, because that was out of character for cohen. every time joshua steinglass systematically pointed out how the defenses attack lines against michael cohen were

actually the corroborating evidence for their case. >> we will squeeze in a week break right here. we will be right back. vraylar helped give it a lift. adding vraylar to an antidepressant is clinically proven to help relieve overall depression symptoms better than an antidepressant alone. and in vraylar clinical studies, most saw no substantial impact on weight. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, as these may be life-threatening, or uncontrolled muscle movements, which may be permanent. high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, weight gain, and high cholesterol may occur. movement dysfunction and restlessness are common side effects. stomach and sleep issues, dizziness, increased appetite, and fatigue are also common. side effects may not appear for several weeks. i didn't have to change my treatment. i just gave it a lift. ask about vraylar and learn how abbvie

could help you save. are you still struggling with your bra? it's time for you to try knix. makers of the world's comfiest wireless bras. for revolutionary support without underwires, and sizes up to a g-cup, find your new favorite bra today at knix.com (♪♪) (♪♪) try dietary supplements from voltaren, for healthy joints. sara federico: at st. jude, we don't care who cures cancer. we just need to advance the cure. the heart of st. jude is to take care of children with catastrophic diseases and to advance their cure rates. but we need to be able to do that for everyone. it's a bold initiative, to try and bump cure rates all around the world. but we should. it is our commitment. [music playing]

can neuriva support your brain health? mary, janet, hey!! (thinking: eddie, no frasier, frank... frank?) fred! how are you?! fred... fuel up to 7 brain health indicators, including your memory. join the neuriva brain health challenge. why choose a sleep number smart bed? can it keep me warm when i'm cold? including your memory. wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus special financing. shop now at sleepnumber.com

and we are back with courtroom talk. adam klasfeld, lisa rubin, andrew weissmann. there was this kind of dramatic moment for us, where todd blanche in his closing basically said you can't send

donald trump to prison -- there was an objection. you are not supposed to say that. you're not supposed to raise the issue of sentencing with a jury because they have nothing to do with it. so judge merchan said before lunch he was going to issue a curative instruction to the jury before they got back, which he did. his instruction was written by the prosecution and todd blanche did not object to it, because blanche knew how wrong he was. i have to say the last line of it really struck me. the judge said to the jurors, i want to give you an instruction. you heard mr. blanche asking and substance that you not send the defendant to prison. you must disregard it. you may not discuss, consider, or even speculate about matters

relating to sentence or punishment. if there is a verdict of guilty, it will be my responsibility to impose an appropriate sentence. and then this last line of it. a prison sentence is not required for the charges in this case in the event of a guilty verdict. i read that sentence as devastating to the defense, because the judge said to the jury, in effect, you can find this defendant guilty and he might not go to prison at all, which lightens the burden of the jury. >> okay, so, a couple of things. one, judge merchan in terms of what he did outside the presence of the jury, he said i want the government to propose something. so he did not automatically do it. i totally agree with you that todd blanche, knowing how improper it was, was like i am not objecting. he could have objected to the

last line. one, the idea is to cure the problem of what todd blanche said, particularly in a case involving the former president, but he did not object, so this will never be an appeal issue. it does not lighten the burden in terms of beyond a reasonable doubt, because it is only the element. what it does is lighten the burden that was the improper burden that todd blanche was imposing and there is a certain amount also that todd blanche is thinking. anytime you say the word sentencing is good for us. a lot of times the defenses like, keep saying sentencing. tell the jury do not think about sentencing. some defense lawyers are like, keep saying that, because they will think about it. i think it was appropriate because it was basically like i am giving you a piece of information that takes this out of the case, as it should be.

>> lisa, the issue of michael cohen was a big issue for the defense. joshua steinglass in his summation said something that andrew has suggested to us. there would be a version of this said. for months and months he suggested this would happen. the prosecutor said to the jury, keep something else in mind when the defense goes on and on about how michael cohen is a moral or he is a liar or a thief. this is not the type of witness you want. we did not choose michael cohen to be our witness. we did not pick him up at the witness stored. the defendant chose michael cohen to be his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on mr. trump's behalf. mr. trump chose cohen for the same qualities that his attorneys now urge you to reject his testimony because of.

>> i thought that was really well done. although andrew has been telling us for months, i agree, that this was going to happen, the way that josh did that by finding a quote from blanche and tying it to that to illustrate we did not pick this guy, that guy picked this guy and chose him for the very reasons that his attorneys are telling you now he cannot be trusted. that is absolutely true. he went on to say that cohen was more of a fixer than a lawyer. that he never served a legal function. he was always there to do the jobs no one else wanted to do. the jobs that trump wanted to keep quiet, because cohen's number one quality is one that trump himself said he prized. loyalty. >> we have to squeeze in a quick break and we will consider when we come back why donald trump made a point through his lawyer to deny ever having had sex with stormy daniels. donald trump's daughter tiffany was in the room today for that.

but never once denied having a year-long sexual and romantic relationship with karen mcdougal. no denial of that at all. we will be right back. thanks guys. [ surprised scream ] don't panic. giftth etsy. we're trying to save the planet with nuggets. because we need the planet.

and we also need nuggets. impossible. we're solving the meat problem with more meat. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well ♪ ♪ jardiance! ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance ♪ ♪ at each day's start! ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to see ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c! ♪ jardiance works twenty-four seven in your body to flush out some sugar. and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. you may have an increased risk for lower limb loss. call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of infection in your legs or feet.

taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell ♪ ♪ the little pill ♪ ♪ with a big story to tell! ♪ only purple's gel flex grid passes the raw egg test. no other mattress cradles your body and simultaneously supports your spine. ♪ the little pill ♪ 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 (♪♪) i'm getting vaccinated with pfizer's pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine. so am i. because i'm at risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. come on. i already got a pneumonia vaccine, but i'm asking about the added protection of prevnar 20®. if you're 19 or older with certain chronic conditions like asthma, diabetes, copd, or heart disease, or are 65 or older, you are at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. prevnar 20® is approved in adults to help prevent infections from 20 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. in just one dose. don't get prevnar 20® if you've had

a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. adults with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, fatigue, headache, and joint pain. i want to be able to keep my plans. i don't want to risk ending up in the hospital with pneumococcal pneumonia. that's why i chose prevnar 20®. ask your doctor or pharmacist about the pfizer vaccine for pneumococcal pneumonia. try killing bugs the worry-free way. not the other way. zevo traps use light to attract and trap flying insects with no odor and no mess. they work continuously, so you don't have to. zevo. people-friendly. bug-deadly. i love that my daughter still needs me. but sometimes i can't help due to burning and stabbing pain in my hands,

so i use nervive. nervive's clinical dose of ala reduces nerve discomfort in as little as 14 days. now i can help again. feel the difference with nervive. donald trump managed to round up a majority of his children to show up in court today for the first time.

in the past there was a maximum of two in eric trump and donald trump jr. at the same time, but they were joined today by their younger sister, tiffany trump. so that leaves two trump children who never quite made it there. adam, i want to go to a point that the prosecution made about stormy daniels, starting with a point that the defense made. prosecutors said blanche told you that ms. daniels' testimony does not matter. he goes on to say that the defense knows it does matter because if it were so irrelevant, why did they work so hard to discredit her? what i am saying is her story is messy. it makes people uncomfortable to hear. it probably made some of you uncomfortable to hear, but that is the point. that is the display the defendant did jot -- did not want the american voter to see.

in the simplest terms, stormy daniels is the motive. >> that was a powerful moment and it felt along the lines of josh steinglass attacking internal logical inconsistencies in the defense case. pointing out another thing that was powerful about that moment is that he dove deep into stormy daniels' testimony when they got into the details and there were a flurry of objections and they seem to be aiming to neutralize the effect of that. jurors saw how every time the initiated a new detail, there were a bunch of objections. he pointed out in the passage that you just read to, the power and the import of those details as corroboration for her story and the import of her story as you stated through the words of the prosecutor. stormy daniels is the motive and i think as you said andrew, she

is an exhibit and a powerful exhibit of everything trump sought to suppress. >> andrew, just a human point. i want to draw on your courtroom experience. donald trump walked into the courtroom today, followed eventually with his giant entourage by three of his children. the closest to him, tiffany, was five people away from him and that parade going in there. none of those people between tiffany and her father were security people, none of them. they were lawyers. i have seen criminal defendants, civil defendants and plaintiffs, but not under arrest, enter courtrooms with their families and they walk with their families and they have contact with their families and they speak to them in the front row where they are going to be sitting before they sit at the defense table. someone would have to tell you that donald trump is related to those people who came in the

courtroom, because there is absolutely no contact, no human feeling, nothing exchanged between any of them and their father. >> it was striking that one of the arguments that todd did not make forcefully was, you know, you can really find that this was done for melania. that was something which was kind of thrown by the wayside and the jury is entitled. they are in the courtroom. they are entitled to look around and she is not there. it was a smart move for todd not to overstress that, because it would have been ridiculous. where is the wife? so, this is obviously an unusual defendant. i can't even think of a case i have done where there isn't a family member there, because as

a prosecutor that is one of the hard parts. >> there was no family member there until we pointed out on this show that there were no family members and the next day eric got pulled in. >> most defendants, they are not using their family. >> right, they want to be there. >> exactly, the family wants to be there. that is a real connection and it is usually seen. jurors, like everyone else. jurors don't like that. >> we are way into overtime. we have to leave it there. you can't possibly summarize nine hours of closing in this mere hour. andrew weissmann, lisa rubin, adam klasfeld, i cannot thank you enough for being here on these trial nights. we will be right back. 's not w. it's just real food. it's an idea whose time has come.

looking for a smarter way to mop? try the swiffer powermop. ♪♪ an all-in-one cleaning tool that gives you a mop and bucket clean in half the time ♪♪ our cleaning pad has hundreds of scrubbing strips that absorb and lock dirt away, ♪♪ and it has a 360-degree swivel head that goes places a regular mop just can't. so, you can clean your home, faster than ever. ♪♪ don't mop harder, mop smarter, with the swiffer powermop. i've struggled with generalized myasthenia gravis. but the picture started changing when i started on vyvgart. ♪♪ vyvgart is for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis who are anti-achr antibody positive. ♪♪

in a clinical trial, vyvgart significantly improved most participants' ability to do daily activities when added to their current gmg treatment. most participants taking vyvgart also had less muscle weakness. and your vyvgart treatment schedule is designed just for you. in a clinical study, the most common side effects included urinary and respiratory tract infections, and headache. vyvgart may increase the risk of infection. tell your doctor if you have a history of infections or symptoms of an infection. vyvgart can cause allergic reactions. available as vyvgart for iv infusion and also as vyvgart hytrulo for subcutaneous injection. additional side effects for vyvgart hytrulo may include injection site reactions. talk to your neurologist about vyvgart. ♪♪

that is tonight's last word.