that is tonight's last word. closing arguments in the trial of donald trump. >> are you worried about a conviction? >> the defense makes its case for reasonable doubt. >> the real argument was, michael cohen cannot be trusted. >> the greatest liar of all time. >> the judgment ski sharp repute to trump's attorney. the prosecution tells the story of a conspiracy to corrupt. a presidential election.

>> the value of this corrupt -- is the meeting cannot be overstated. >> this theme cooked up by these men could very well be what got trump elected. >> tonight, rachel maddow recaps the arguments with lawrence o'donnell, jen psaki, andrew weissmann, lisa rubin, and katie phang who were all inside the courthouse. and nicolle wallace, chris hayes, joy reid, ari melber, and stephanie ruhle is special coverage of trump on trial begins. , now. thank you for joining us tonight. we know you have every option in the world for where to follow the news of this remarkable moment in american history. it makes us all the more glad you are with us. i am rachel maddow and i am

here with the great chris hayes and nicole wallace. the one and only lawrence o'donnell who was in the courtroom today in the closing arguments in the hush money, former president donald trump, lawrence will join us in a moment. he is still down at the courthouse it will join us as soon as he can get to a camera which we think will be in a moment, but who knows. here on set, ari melber is here and katie phang is here. she was in the overflow room at the courthouse as well. we will be joined over the course of these next two hours by joy reid and jen psaki ends stephanie ruhle. legal experts, andrew weissmann. he is standing by here with us at nbc headquarters. we will join lisa rubin and i camera outside the courthouse moments from now. this has all been breaking as we have been discussing about it. there is a lot to get to.

we know we friend you know this is important news and its history in the making, but you have a life and a job in childcare and lots of people have traveled to deal with after the holiday weekend. we know you have stuff to do. as the trial draws to a close, as the days in court get longer and longer, tonight going into 8:00 p.m. until moments ago. we know it's hard to follow it all in real time over the course of the day. that is why you have us. our aim tonight is to catch you up. let's do it. we will talk about the big picture of what happened today. we will talk about where we are in the overall process, when we will learn trump's feet. will talk about the main points made by both sides in closing arguments today. will talk how the points are landing legally and more broadly. we will try to answer the questions that came up today like, for example, why did the judge yell at trump's defense lawyer as soon as he was done with his summation right when the jury went to lunch. why did he say, i think that statement was outrageous, mr.

blanche. will try to answer that question tonight and more. we need to start with what has happened in the last few moments because the summation from the prosecution literally just into within the last five minutes. we do not have a go official transcript and i will read from our reporters updates of what happened the with the prosecution summation concluded. forgive me for this not being word for word perfect but it's the best we've got. joshua steinglass is the prosecutor who is giving the prosecution's summation. he says, quote, listen carefully to the judge's instructions. it's a crime to willfully create inaccurate tax forms. the defendant, trump, had an incentive to keep the conspiracy quiet and postelection effort to conceal pre-election as part of the same conspiracy and to prevent the catch and kill scheme from going public.

he had every reason to continue to conceal the election fraud. as cohen tells you, he had already a announced his intention to run again. any one of the things i mentioned, unlawful means, is enough for you to conclude that the trump tower conspiracy, the conspiracy trump hatched with the company that owns the national enquirer, the trump tower conspiracy violated new york state election law, and the judge will tell you you don't have to agree meaning you the members of jury do not have to agree with one another which unlawful means. the defendant's intent to defraud in the case cannot be any clearer. why didn't he pay stormy daniels directly, one transaction but they devise this elaborate scheme. secret fedex packages and effort to conceal the truth. he didn't want anyone to find out about the conspiracy to steal the election. everything was cloaked in lies. lies in the invoices, bank paperwork and the 1099 a meaning the tax forms filed with the irs lies in the bank

transfers, the shell companies, misleading denials, the name of the game he says was, quote, concealment for the man who benefited most, former president trump. our reporter notes, stein glasses getting fired up at this point. speaking up and going rapidfire through the above free marks. he says to the jury, quote, you have been a remarkable group. i know this has been a really long summation. i apologize for treating brevity for thoroughness, but we only get one shot. the defendant has a constitutional right to a fair trial and has a right to make us prove our burden. there are contracts, emails and texts that cooperate every bit of testimony. in this case, the evidence is, quote, literally overwhelming. now he is gotten the trial. he has had his day in court. remember, as the judge will tell you, and as mr. blanche told you, the law is the law,

there is no special law for this defendant. donald trump cannot shoot someone on fifth avenue during rush hour and get away with it. objection. judge merchan, sustained. prosecutor. you the jury have the ability to hold the defendant accountable. remember you are the ones who have the opportunity to hear every witness and see every document. focus on the evidence and the logical inferences that can be drawn from that evidence. use your common sense and follow the judge's legal instructions. he then says to the jury pointedly, quote, come back in here and say guilty. guilty of 30 for counts of counts to cover a conspiracy to corrupt the 2016 election. then he concludes in the interest of justice and in the name of the people of the state of new york, i ask you to find

the defendant guilty. thank you. he wrapped at 7:57 p.m. eastern time. whereupon judge merchan told the court, told the jurors, we will get started tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. why would they be getting started tomorrow 10:00 a.m. after the closing arguments just concluded? it's because a very very important thing is about to happen. we know what will happen tomorrow, 10:00 a.m., with the jury. it will be the judge instructed the jury about how to deliberate. that sounds like, that must be a boilerplate thing. that sounds like it must be the sort of, do your job. do not be biased generic patriotic instructions. the instructions to the jury is very much a contested matter and hotly fought over by both sides. judge merchan started the proceedings today by saying essentially to the prosecution and defense he had heard them

out in terms of what they wanted from his jury instructions, and he had made his decision. he asked if they had further, to what the instruction should be. neither said they did so he announced at the beginning of today's proceedings, effectively, you know what my jury instructions will be. it is final. that will happen when you are done with the summations. he said that at the start of what ended up being a very very long day in court today starting at the 9:00 a.m. hour and not ending until just now. we have so much to talk about. it was such a big day. let's start by going to the courthouse. let's bring in msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin. he's been there for the entire trial and earning her kibble today. lisa, thank you for sticking it out for the whole day. thank you for joining us from outside. i have to ask, your big picture take overall on how the two side stay with her summation

and what you think is most important for the country to understand about the way the trial concluded today. >> reporter: i think the way the trial concluded today was with a very exhausted group of people upstairs. not only the jury but for example, all the court officers who have been protecting us, protecting the trial. they work as long as the judge says the jury, the trial is going on. i asked, at what point do you change shifts? one said i am here until the trial closes today. you are looking at a group of people from reporters to the jury who are a little tired. my big take away the end of the day as i feel like goldilocks in search of the right bed. that is because it todd blanche's closing was light and detail long on hyperbole, you got the exact opposite from joshua steinglass in four hours

of excruciating detail where he ping-pong between call records and text messages and every contact that could be used to cooperate the witness that they did not want the jury to think this case rests on. michael cohen. they said michael cohen many fewer times than the defense did. if you were to listen to steinglass today, the star witness here, david pecker, hope hicks, and all the records from business records meaning the 30 for business records that are part of the felony counts to call records, text messages, emails. josh did a very thorough exegesis of the time line starting in august of 2015 at the trump tower meeting where the conspiracy was formed. going all the way through the end of 2018 with michael cohen's plea to two counts of election violations. one involving ami's payment to karen mcdougal and the other his own payment to stormy daniels. in between you got everything from middle and west are hot

talking about how trump sign things in the white house to details about jeff mcconney and deborah and the trump organization in terms how they process business records and everything and everything in between. i feel a little whiplash right now having witnessed these closings because it was so remarkably short on details and evidence and all about poking little holes at evidence including some obvious cherry picking of the testimony the prosecution was able to refute. then you have steinglass in four plus hours went through every possible piece of evidence and maybe he didn't make the selective injudicious choices as somebody who is a little more distance would have made in trying to convince a jury who's been sitting here for six weeks that they can convict something less than every bit of the evidence.

to underscore how detailed the closing was, at one point i looked at the slides he was showing, they are demonstratives, that encapsulate evidence. in the bottom right-hand corner they have numbers. i noticed they were taking up with each time, the trial technician or paralegal, pressed a button to further animate further the slides. at the last count, they were on slide 420. that might give a sense of how much detail was packed in there. why it's hard in many respects to see that from the trees because we were in the woods with the today. >> lisa, thank you for that. i want -- i know we will be speaking with lawrence who is in there. i want to put what you said to our lawyers who here on the panel. you were both in the courtroom today. what lisa is describing the two different approached closings, mirrored in some ways but the difference between the openings.

i was ever opening statements, and my feeling about the prosecution's opening statement versus the defense is the defense opening statement was hard to follow. very emotional. sort of emotionally unpredictable. like, why are you yelling now? not very linear. whereas the prosecution's was calm, linear, and not as exciting because it was not is weird. it sounds like there was a little of that in the closing. it may be the style of these two legal teams. but, as a nonlawyer, i don't know how to translate that style into effectiveness for the jury. what lisa was describing makes me worry for the prosecution's sake that maybe they gave him too much to chew on. >> i thought it was a strong day for the prosecution because it was voluminous, so thorough, and she felt that and it help them deal with the cohen issue. if you ask me, it was too long.

it did not need to be that long. it may or may not matter. it was longer than it needed to be. i think that is a fair statement. >> was the defense summation which was first, was it also too long? was a too short? it was three hours roughly. steinglass went for four plus hours. what did you think of the defense? >> it could also have been shorter because it still meandered. it still hammered what it wanted to about cohen and poking holes for reasonable doubt. i thought the prosecution reminded everyone why you do not need cohen. it's a records case and there's all these records. i want to remind everyone, if this were a cooking show, it's not like both contestants have to make a great meal. the prosecution has to have a five course perfect meal with every ingredient. if the defense is able to serve an edible hot dog, that may be

reasonable to. i remind everyone at home, we have talked about this, why are we being so nice to the defense ? the defense has to do less. if they can poke reasonable defer one juror or more, they can get a mass trial. >> reasonable defer something that matters. >> being there today and watching, i think it was clear to the extent anything changed, it's clear the prosecution realized, we may have a bigger cohen problem then we even thought even though we prepared. the sign is that opened their big closing arguments by saying , let's talk about cohen. we told you he can lie. use more than one way to interpret the stakes. these are the other things that support what he said. if you want to throw him out, you can still convict. those are all true legal statements. it showed you that by the end of the defense's summation, they were at least concerned enough to want to punch back on that and then they did their

business. >> lawrence just walked out of the courtroom and i want to go to him. katie i want to hear from you next. lawrence, you had a very very long day in the courtroom today. you've just been able to get out to the camera. i want to get your instant, your take, your overall take on what you saw how things went and what you think was important for people to understand how the summations unfolded. >> longest day i've ever had in a courtroom. thanks to the prosecution closing, which i think everyone will agree was much longer than i had to be. however, however, the assistant district attorney is a very compelling speaker. he is easy to listen to. you could be 2.5 hours into it and not feel as if you're 2.5 hours into with. by the time you were four hours into it, you knew you were four hours into it. if he had some really, really powerful moments, he did his own imagined version of the

92nd phone call that is in dispute in the case where, according to michael cohen, he called keith and he spoke to keith about some harassment he was suffering. he spoke to donald trump for the remainder of the 90 seconds. we saw the da come up with an entire version of that conversation and how that could have gone and 49 seconds. it was one of those moments in a courtroom that was very impressive, very effective. it's -- he is the kind of student who really fills the exam paper. doesn't leave anything out. oddly enough, it didn't feel that repetitive. that's the funny thing about it. the essence of it was basically

, look, this was in fact a reimbursement. in fact, there was a moment where he rattled off all the reasons why it was a reimbursement to michael cohen and not a big paycheck. at the end of the reasons he gave for being a reimbursement, and then going to the trump position it's not a reimbursement, his loudest moment in the courtroom today was saying, does anyone believe that? i think he is right. there is no one on the jury who does not believe that that was indeed a reimbursement arrangement for michael cohen. the question here for the jury is just, is donald trump guilty? in a falsified business records scheme that was entered into in order to corruptly affect the election. that may be for the jury a complicated question.

>> can i ask you, in terms of todd blanche's summation, a lot of reporters today described that is hard to follow. as being, because he wasn't going chronologically the way the exhaustive summation from the prosecution went, that his summation was sometimes hard to know what he was getting at. which point he was trying to make other than going liar, liar, and liar at michael cohen and trying to make the fact that michael cohen has been proven to lie, something that should be fatal to the case. was it in fact hard to follow? >> listen, i have watched a lot of criminal lawyers in my life trying and struggling to defend a guilty client. that is what it looks like. there is no good way. there is no easy way. i don't see how todd blanche could've done any better, actually, in his summation

given the facts he is loaded down with. given the complexities he fails to deal with. the da pointed out, this point i have been making about the defense argument, which is it's in conflict with itself. the defense argument is, michael cohen was paid this big paycheck in 2017 and it had nothing to do with reimbursement of the $130,000 to stormy daniels. but we know, and the defense knows the calculation of how much he would be paid was based on a document and written by allen weisselberg that includes of $130,000 to stormy daniels. that's never been explained by the defense. not at any point. and then, the da made this point when he got up to speak saying, look, you can't accuse michael cohen of stealing in

the reimbursement scheme if you are also saying he was never reimbursed. that is the central problem that the defense has. it has theories crashing into each other, and in one side of their theory, they are fully adopting the prosecution case which is michael cohen was reimbursed. when the defense adopts the idea michael cohen was reimbursed, they say in the formula for the reimbursement, michael cohen lie and managed to still $30,000. as the da said, you cannot accuse him of stealing and then say he was not reimbursed. it cannot have it both ways. that was one of those things is a trial develops, you sit there and wait. something tougher one side, you should sit there and wait to hear that side address the most difficult thing they have. the most difficult thing the

defense has is that number, $130,000, written in allen weisselberg's handwriting on the document. the defense has never explained it. they've never come close to explaining it. the prosecution made that very clear today that they have never explained that. the difficult challenge for the prosecution today, laid out to them by the defense argument was michael cohen is a liar. you cannot convict donald trump on the testimony of michael cohen, and it's only michael cohen's testimony that says donald trump new and approved the payment to stormy daniels before the election. that evidence comes only from michael cohen and the defense insisted you cannot find donald trump guilty based on that testimony from michael cohen. the prosecution did a lot of work on that point. did a lot of work on corroborating michael cohen is much as they possibly could on

that very point. the prosecution was not afraid to go after the most difficult challenge posed by the defense. the defense never came close to the most serious challenges proposed by the prosecution. >> that was clear to me than anything else i have seen in terms of the heart of the case and the fight between the prosecution and defense could. the prosecution can say, here are two documents that are smoking gun documents. yes, they have something to do with michael cohen getting paid but the reason we have these documents as they have been corroborated by other trump organization personnel. that is why they are in evidence and there's no contrary explanation as to what the smoking gun documents may be. that feels to me to be the sort of unassailable core of where we are. for all the time that josh steinglass been talking today, that was my biggest take away. we have smoking guns you can't say anything about and you have

not. >> yeah. and the defense doesn't have any comparable so-called smoking gun. there is nothing comparable to that on the defense side. >> lawrence o'donnell, i know you need to leave it order to sit with us. travel safely and we will see you when you get here. >> on that point, katie. in terms of the overall scope of what each side tried to do, but also the salient points the jury will be able to remember and maybe decisive to them, do you agree with lawrence? >> i want to disagree with everybody's dachshund i want to bring everybody grounded to the realities. the jury never stayed past 4:30 until now and the trial has taken less time than before. this was a long theme but it's real life. this is how real trials go.

when you have closings, they go long. that being said, trump is a style, overstuffed guy. i'm not surprised his lawyers are style over substance. you would think todd blanche having his experience would be able to deliver something more compelling. it would be irrelevant if he took two hours are 10 of its compelling and that's where he loses to the prosecution. the prosecution has the style from joshua steinglass being compelling, clear, and concise but he has the substance. when you have todd blanche get up and say michael cohen is the mvp of lies. the greatest liar of all time. maybe he was the greatest lawyer of all time. when you hear that you are like, maybe you chuckle but that's all you've got? that's what it is. i take umbrage with the idea that this was too long. the prosecutor made it clear commons is only shot. if the jurisdiction in florida,

fear the prosecution, you get the sandwich. prosecution, defense, prosecution rebuttal. you do not get that here. you get to fence to go first and then prosecution. you know steinglass had a prepared but he had to pivot based on what he heard or maybe he didn't hear during the defense closing argument. that's why think you saw it a little longer. you knew it was going to be meaty because he sought in the openings. lawrence, when he noted that 49 second reenactment, there's a power in being able to stand in front of a jury. i have done this in trials i've done before when timing is in dispute and there's no way you could i.d. the defendant, victim, because you only saw the defendant for 15, 20 seconds. you stand there in silence for 15, 20 seconds. when you had joshua steinglass today reenact and not in a rushed manner, the call --

remember blanche spent so much time on this october 26 and call and steinglass and 49 seconds, he dismantled the entirety of that. that is the substance. it will trump any style that may come from the defense. >> it was their choice to stay. judge merchan stopped at 4:00, 5:00, 7:00. he gave them off ramps . he said it will be up to them. the length of the day was not his decision or steinglass's decision. i bring zero expertise to the legal except getting -- as a juror. i had ken burns on today. i am hostage to the story p7. to sdl regarding's analogy, one person like shakespeare and the other like a trump tweet. i don't think they even did

that. with the prosecution had going for a was the ability to take the sex. why do you think they paid for it two weeks before the election day? every element they're trying to prove, and there's only three. the three were, if records were fraudulent, if trump inspired them to be fraudulent, and the election was an additional criminal element, they are asking them to decide three narrow things. >> was at about the election? where the records falls? and did trump -- >> is see the cause of it? the story that was told, that was told through every witness. i have no idea what the jury will do. we have no idea how they experienced every day, every cross. if they have to process a story, i don't know what story they were told about trump's experience. i do not know what they stitched together based on the fact the one witness trump side put out was an home run for the

prosecution. >> the phrase that steinglass closed on where he said, listen to the instructions which expresses a tip of the hat. they have seen the instructions. he is happy with the. listen to the instructions. you sure common sense. following this, to me, not as a lawyer, is what happened exactly what it appears to be? based on the testimony and all of the evidence? or was there a magical other thing that happened? that magical thing is donald trump was out of it and did not get in the weeds of who he is paying money to? i don't know. again, this is maybe overly literal the way i think, but i found myself, if i'm looking for reasonable doubt in good faith, i need an alternate theory that i can hang on a

little bit. just a little bit. >> are not the all-encompassing theory but explanation for the evidence presented. >> and the point that lawrence made, the one piece of evidence, the testimony that links him before the election, the testimony from michael cohen. if you zoom out a little, there is a lot a paper and testimony. i don't know what the jury will do but when he says use your common sense, the copious rehearsal of the testimony and evidence, is this what it looks like? yeah, probably. it's probably exactly what it looks like. >> we will talk about this in terms of the defense's gamble to put its credibility with the jury on the line by saying, trump didn't have sex with stormy daniels. the access hollywood tape was no big deal.

michael cohen was an his team lawyer for donald trump, and that's why he randomly was paid this weird way for that one year and then another otherwise paid. they made a lot of claims -- they didn't have to make any of those. they made those claims none of which are central to disproving the prosecution case of provoking reasonable doubt. they made those claims to the jury. they are very very much in contrast with what you think would be a common sense take on the matter. will talk why they may have done that and we will give that moment from the transcript that katie was telling us about when the prosecutor acted out the phone call that the defense made central to their case. we have so much more to cover. will have that moment from that transcript coming up, next. co

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.

one dramatic moment in today's closing arguments, the summations from the defense and then prosecution, habit fairly early on in the prosecution summation. the prosecutor acted out for the jury, a phone call between michael cohen and donald trump. a phone call as it could have happened. it's an important phone call because the defense hung a big part of its case on the idea that michael cohen was lying about a phone call he said he had with donald trump about stormy daniels. because the phone call was very short. it was only, i believe, 1:36 long. co. one in that time said he spoke to trump's bodyguard, keith schiller, and say what you put trump on? then he spoke with trump about

stormy daniels. the defense claim that it was only one minute and 36 seconds, the wasn't enough time for judge merchan -- cohen to have a conversation about stormy daniels and this alleged hush money plot. they said the length of the call which they had from phone records effectively disproved that that conversation between colin and trump could've gone the way cohen said. this is from the court transcript. this is the prosecutor, joshua steinglass, acting sort of re- creating that call and timing himself doing it so the jury could experience in real time how long it might reasonably have taken for cohen and trump to have the conversation that michael cohen says they had. joshua steinglass, and that brings us to the phone call on october 24 at 8:02 in which cohen testified to speak with trump. at first he was speaking to

keith schiller about getting harassing phone calls. the defense says, that is perjury. the only interpretation of that is he is lying. that's the only interpretation they want you to consider. to them that is the big lie. it's not the only interpretation. he says forgive me but let's try a little experiment. i will be cohen. hey, keith, how's it going? it seems as prankster might be a 14-year-old kid. if i text you, can you talk to his family? see if you can let them know how serious it is. yeah, all right. thanks, pal. is the boss near your? can you pass him the phone for a minute? i will wait a couple of seconds. hey, boss, i know you're busy but i want to let you know this is moving forward with my friend keith davidson and the other party we discussed. it's back on track. i'll try one last time to get our friend david pecker to pay , but if it's not, it will be on us to take care of it.

yeah. all right. good luck in tampa. good-bye. and then just steinglass says, 49 seconds. katie was describing this haven't been there with this type of a moment when the defense has said, a minute and 36 seconds, that's a fast you can't get anything done. then you walk through something that takes significantly less and say it doesn't seem like that was me screaming through it. that seems viable. >> it leans into the common sense that the judge will read as part of a jury instruction to them tomorrow that they can rely on their common sense to make decisions in the course of the deliberations. when you have the prosecutor get up in a relatable way, have this reenactment, i will put it in quotes, it sounded credible the way you read it. it took only 49 seconds. that's the real life

application of what makes it grounded in their sense of common sense. when you have a myriad examples during the course of the closing arguments, lawrence talked about it, how can you say he didn't get reimbursed what you say he stole it because it was legal services rendered so he got legal fees. you can't steal legal fees. things like that, as a jury, you can't do that. >> for me if you you are the jury, the defense is offered a few alternate explanations for the fact pattern that has been presented. one of the most compelling, surprising, memorable moments was when the defense said, that call that michael cohen described where he said he had to get keith schiller to get trump on the phone, let me tell you but also sent michael cohen's phone records. let me tell you about this 14- year-old child that was harassing michael cohen. you didn't know about that. this is a rabbit out of the hat

, a new interpretation. the reason it's important is because not only is it memorable and something that will stick in your mind but it disproves that the call with trump ever could have happened. even if it was a one most compelling thing the defense produced, joshua steinglass essentially said wipe that off the balance sheet in terms of whether or not you think you've got a contrary explanation of the facts that punctures the believability of the prosecution's case. >> i thought the reputation that seemed excessive in the cross that they did. hanging on the phone call partly because the totality of the evidence, -- >> one phone call is not the most important thing. >> you have a lot of other stuff to deal with. to the point that ari was making , it's all about giving people -- is there someone you

are giving enough to just be like, no. what about x, y, x for ammunition for a hung jury. i am not going to see what you said because i thought it was a smart point and you should make it on there. has that for ats? i was tempted to steal led. a strategy for credible versus hung jury, talk about that because it helps me make sense. what i find is there's no alternate theory for what happened. then what? >> that is why this sounds like a lot of silly and meandering arguments. many people observed the trump approach from his lawyers and the closing was meandering. it's only a strategy to get a hung jury which means one or two holdouts is good enough. you do not get a verdict, and they probably don't retry the case so that then trump skates.

with oj, the acquittal strategy is alternative theory. some might call it a conspiracy theory, but it touches all the evidence. there is bad dna evidence because they planted his blood and you have this theory. there's nothing like this here. there's way too many open questions and obvious things they have not even tried, defense lawyers for trump. this strategy of questions, reasonable doubt, hung jury. get 12 people. we were talking earlier, it's bananas, not believable to say the access hollywood tape was not a problem for the campaign. we have checked. it's the only time we could find a public apology ever uttered by donald trump. literally. the only time i said i'm sorry you feel bad. i said these things. i was wrong. i am sorry.

>> the only time the jury heard him speak in the trial. he didn't testify. the only time they saw him in the cspan entry into evidence. trump to camera at a podium saying this will cost me thousands of female votes. it will poison me in the mind of voters after the access hollywood. the only thing the jury has heard trump say is the access hollywood tape would kill him with women voters. >> i would not call it believable. for a hung jury to get one juror to say, i don't remember that well. people say things. i don't think it was for the campaign. i don't think it was that bad for the campaign. i think it was about his family. then if you start projection, jurors are not supposed to project, a person projecting their own life might say i could understand not wanting that to run out.

now what are we talking about? reasonable doubt of someone's theories about family and not a campaign crime. >> we will take a break but when we come back we will talk about this. it was an important moment. especially for those who are not lawyers. you get to a point which is not about the law and a little about history, what happened during the campaign? it is something all the jurors will personally remember. when your defense counsel and telling the jurors what you think you lived through and what you think you remembered didn't happen that way? let me tell you a different way. that is when you are playing with psychology in a way that's unsettling among the nonlawyers among us.

welcome back to our recap of the criminal trial of donald trump on what was a critical and very, very long day in that trial today. closing arguments from both sides. i'm joined now by my colleagues ari melber and joy reid. great to have you here, joy. also also alex wagner and jen

psaki. you guys just finished your show. you guys were all in the courtroom today. we have so much to talk about, but let's take the big picture view so we can situate ourselves in context here. with the closing arguments concluding tonight let's take a look where we are, what's going to happen next. in terms of the overall scope of this criminal proceeding, trump was indicted 14 months ago in march of last year. he was arraigned a few months after that. it then took a year before jury selection started. jury selection started that was six weeks ago, april 15, 2024. opening statements were a week later, april 22nd. and then we were off to the races. the prosecution took 15 1/2 days in court to present their case. the defense took a day and a half to present theirs, and that is how we arrived today at summations, at closing statements, which means we are not at the end, but we are

getting close. the defense gave its closing statement first. that's the rule in criminal state court proceedings. todd blanche said his summation today would take 2, 2 1/2 hours. ended up taking 3 hours. then the prosecution started its closing statement. they said it would be around 4 hour. by the time they took a break around 4:00 they were already 2 1/2 hours into it. the judge kept asking to go into 7:00. prosecution was still not done by 7:00. they ended up staying until 8:00. they both wept on and on for much longer than expected. but both are finished, and judge merchan had said strategicically he likes both sides to get their summation in on the same day and by making the day extraordinarily long he was able to do that today. what happens next is the court will reconvene tomorrow at 10:00 aerm eastern. now that both sides are finally

done with their summations, there is still more to go. when they convene tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. the judge is going to give his instructions to the jury how they're supposed to deliberate. this is technical and sensitive. it can also be sort of unpenetrable to on lookers and people have haven't followed the trial. it'll be a long process. judge merchan said to expect those jury instructions will take about an hour, and that's just the judge speaking to the jury about how they should think about the evidence. judge merchan opened today's proceedings by notifying both sides what the jury instructions are going to be. those instructions are set. we will hear them deliver them to the jury tomorrow. now with the closing arguments summations are overch the judge will give instructions starting tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. to roughly 11:00 a.m., and then the jury gets the case. and they deliberate amongst

themselves. they've been taking in all this information from both sides but not deliberating about it yet. the jury is not allowed to talk amongst themselves until that deliberation officially starts. that deliberation will only start once they get that instruction from the judge. he'll tell them what to consider and what not to consider. as for how long the deliberations will take and we get a verdict, we have no idea on earth. we will bite our nails. that is where we are logistically in this case in terms of the big picture for the overall scope of things. in terms of how summations wept in court today we've been talking about that for an hour tonight. the only real audience that matters obviously is the jury. in the broadest strokes there were big stylistic differences between how the two sides summed

up their case for the jury today. in keeping with todd blanche's style from the start of this case, i think it's fair to say most subscribers described the argument today as some version of hard to follow, not 100% incoherent but not a story really overall. it was not chronological. it did not tell a single tale as ari melber was noting last hour, it did not tell an alternate version of whodunit that explained this conspiracy and facts as if someone other than donald trump participated in this conspiracy while he didn't. in contrast the prosecution summation by prosecutor joshua

steinglass it did tell a story to the jury from the beginning of the case through to the end, but it also made every single local stop along the way in exhaustive treatment of the evidence. it wept on and on and on and on. now, who knows which style the jury will prefer. the transcript reflects i think most observers have said today that the choice that the jury had stylistically between the two sides was sort of random and veering all over the place and somewhat confusing from the defense and methodical and exhaustive and exhausting from the prosecution. i think to be fair it's hard to say which one of those does a better job on 12 jurors. neither one of those sounds like much of a good time if you ask me, but this is what it's coming down. we've been talking about some of the major points made on each

side. the prosecution describing these two documents as the, quote, smoking guns of this alleged crime scene. this trump organization employee's writing down in their own handwriting what michael cohen was to be paid and for what. and it was not that he was being paid a legal retainer. he was being paid back for a hush money payment to stormy daniels on trump's behalf. the prosecution today a focusing on this tweet from donald trump in which trump publicly admitted that the payments to michael cohen were reimbursement and not income, which means according to the prosecution trump knew when these payments were instead booked on his files as if they were income and not reimbursement and trump must have known that was false. we'll also be talking about these exchanges of two people involved in the scheme to hush up negative exchanges about

trump between dill udhoward and keith davidson. one jokes, good, throw in an ambassadorship for me, lol, i'm going to make australia great again. another on the night of the election when it became clear trump would win. again, this is among people involved in the hush money schemes to help trump. quote, what have we done? these two exchanges showing gnat the people involved in the hush money payment schemes knew what they were doing had as its object the election of donald trump. oh, we're going to finalize this payment to karen mcdougal, can i also get my ambassadorship? oh, trump's been elected, oh, dear, we were the hush money team. what have we done? we apparently got this guy elected? they were not talking about how happy they were to be saving melania trump from marital

upset. quote, the idea that sophisticated people like trump and david pecker believed that positive stories in the national enquirer could influence the 2016 election is preposterous. they didn't think it would have any effect what they were doing, that's why they spent so much time doing it. we'll talk about the prosecution's direct assertion about that. it turned out to be one of the most valuable contributions anyone ever made to the trump campaign. when you put all these components together, this scheme cooked up by these men at this time could very well be what got president trump elected. when david pecker pretty bluntly testified in fact he participated in an illegal hush

money scheme with donald trump to influence an election. why would you praise that witness who gave that testimony? we'll try to answer why the prosecution didn't object when trump's lawyer repeatedly claimed trump wasn't the bad guy here, he was the victim here. he was the victim of an extortion scheme. they did not object to that word being used over and over and over in court today. we'll try to answer why the defense claimed that trump did not actually have sex with stormy daniels. is there a legal reason why they feel the need to say that and whatever they're getting from making that repeated assertion, does it balance out whatever it's costing them in terms of their credibility with the jury? we'll try to answer if it matters that the defense claims the payments made to michael cohen were not reimbursements when trump stated publicly they were reimbursements. there's so much that was covered today, which is why we're so glad you're here with us. joy and i are joined here by

three of our colleagues at the table who were in the room today. those stood out to me as outstanding questions but also big points in summations. what stood out to you? >> many things. the first i will tell you having gone to court today for the first time and hearing the voices of the lawyers was actually something. we obviously don't have audio of the trial, but hearing todd blanche who had a scatter shot defense, scatter shot closing arguments, he does not vocally command the room, he doesn't speak with authority. >> he looks like a tough guy but talks like jared kushner. >> he's sitting next to donald trump, next to him, rachel, and trump is looking this way and blanche is looking that way. >> he sits down at the end of summation. >> and trump is looking that way, and blanche is looking that way. that is not the body language of someone necessarily happy with

someone doing their job. and there was a lot of back and forth with judge merchan about todd blanche's plead to the jury not to send donald trump back to jail. that was something stricken from the record and a whole kerfuffle in addition to a series of wild assertions, some of which you pointed out. one of my favorite ones was the excuse there's no other way to categorize an invoice from a lawyer to president other than a legal expense. it was a drop down menu, it was the only choice they had at the trump organization. that's all they could do, which clarly may make a lot of sense. legally i'm not sure. there's been an assertion every campaign is conspiracy here in the united states, rachel, something i did not know. it's a group of people working together to help someone win. all campaigns are conspiracies. tell the biden campaign. the "access hollywood" thing was no big deal, quote, this stuff happens all the time in

campaigns. it's not a doomsday event. sure felt like it to those of us watching from the outside. and then of course catch and kill is not unusual, it's not a crime. this is what happens in the media. and the national enquirer as you pointed out is just a zene. >> i was also struck because this is my first time sitting in overflow room as well by the voices. and judge merchan who's gone to the courtroom has described it as very calm. even when he was telling todd blanche he was outrageous and when he suggested that the jury could not find trump guilty which is of course way out of the bounds of what you're

supposed to do as a lawyer, he was very calm. it was a little escalated but he was quite calm. what struck me -- not a lawyer -- was kind of the story telling we've been talking in the last hour of the contrast. and reminded me a little bit about like trump versus the democrats and how they communicate about things because todd blanche's closing was very trumpy in my view. as you said, alex, it's basically like everything you think is wrong is totally normal. every election is a conspiracy. everybody's working with media to, you know, pay money to people who have bad stories about the candidates. everybody is doing this. he even said retainer is just a word, right? these are -- >> it's a drop down menu. >> to me it sounded -- it reminded me of crooked joe or crooked joe and crooked hillary i mean and corrupt joe. this kind of message of, like,

everybody's bad, everybody's corrupt, we all do this stuff. now, whether or not that's going to work with a jury of 12 men and women, that's a question none of us know the answer to. on the other said you had josh steinglass but it was methodical and there were moments sitting in there you were zoning in. >> it's like are we still there? >> were there moments he was like let's skip this part? >> it felt like an hour. >> he did say earlier in the day it was 4 to 4 1/2 hours. >> it was 4 hours and 40 minutes. >> but he was on the top end of that. >> on a lighter note tell about when he said it's only the third

time. >> that's when i fainted. >> also interesting thing sitting in the room with so many legal experts when he said 4 to 4 1/2 hours there was an audible gasp in the room of the length of that. they can be as long as you want in state courts. then when he said i'm a third of the way through there was another as well. when he'd been going for 2 hours at that time. >> talking about some of the points these guys raised, i'm kind of struck on the drop down menu. so the drop down menu was -- >> i was obsessed with that. >> i looked at the next part of the transcript, and it's sort of hard to tell from the crypt and effectively saying, yes, we may have booked these at the trump organization in a way that was technically false, but we have had no choice but the software

was designed in such a way it made us falsify. >> our hands were tied conveniently. >> i think the line -- so this was all happening -- halfway through my show they were finishing, so we kecht on reading whatever was coming through the google doc we're so blessed to have. we're reading it in realtime and the liep that stood out to my from joshua steinglass, and this is a really strong prosecution team, but he says use your common sense. the challenge and this was the challenge i had with todd blanche he's kind of all over the place and kind of muppety and mupatizing all over the place. >> what does mupatizing mean? >> he's just all over the place.

but the prosecution to me has done a good job overall in all these days of the trial of telling you a very simple story. does it make sense to you i think mr. steinglass was saying that cheap micromanaging donald trump would pay michael cohen who the other side says is a lying lying liar and a horrible person, just give him $35,000 because there's a drop down menu this is the only way you can complain that it's a reimbursement, say it's an nda but not be aware that's happening and knew nothing about it even though he's a micromanager in chief and they never really explained that exhibit, which is a damning exhibit which is inhand written notes. >> there's no defense explanation for those papers.

>> and they've never tried. the thing that's been so shocking to me and i know todd blanche is a defense attorney, but as a prosecutor they never even tried. >> there were all these documents very poorly put together. not that i'm a power point expert, but they had hand written notes and power point slides which they didn't explain. they kind of flashed through so you didn't see what was in each of them, but there were some of them that had a few hand written notes on them as they went through the presentation. i think you were assuming he was explaining each slide. he was not. >> there were exhibits placed for us to see. the jury was not walked through them, which i don't think is a particularly effective defense strategy.

>> i've been on a grand jury and i found even in that kind of a process the more detail the better, and so i think the advantage is prosecution is going to have is when they explain the law. your feelings about michael cohen, even though they've met michael cohen, they feel perfectly reasonable on the stand and they're going to be on the judge's side. so i think the challenge is that when you get all that detail and then the judge explains the law, all that jury is going to do in that room is they're going to compare the details that they've gotten from both the two sides to the law, and i have not -- i still cannot tell you what the defense is against the actual legal claims against donald trump because if the first witness, mr. pecker, which is the day i was there, he admitted it was a scheme to impact the election. michael cohen was on tape and

admitted it was a scheme to impact the election and wept to jail for that scheme. there's been no explanation of how trump could not have known that and how it was not a scheme. so the problem is when they look at the law and they look at the facts, they just need someone to nullify. >> as ari said before this ishu jury approach for the defense rather than acquittal, they need somebody to get stuck on one piece of the evidence. as a legal matter, though, there was a really dramatic moment right before lunch where the judge -- hold on -- oh, i just lost it. where the judge said i think that statement was outrageous, mr. blanche, someone who's been a prosecutor for as long as you have and a defense attorney for as long as you have, it's simply not loud period.

that's next. stay with us. period. that's next. stay with us

hi, i'm chris and i lost 57 pounds on golo. golo isn't complicated. i don't have to follow a restrictive diet, and i don't have to spend a lot of time making meals. using golo was truly transformative. it was easy, and inexpensive.

with absorbine pro, pain won't hold you back from your passions. it's the only solution with two max-strength anesthetics to deliver the strongest numbing pain relief available. so, do your thing like a pro, pain-free. absorbine pro.

so this was the moment right before lunch today right when the defense -- trump's defense lawyer was ending his summation, so basically the climax of trump's final case to the jury. judge merchan seemed to get quite mad at trump's defense council. judge merchan is not a man who's easily ired, but what happened in front of jury was an objection from the prosecutor at the end of trump's closing statement. the prosecutor objected.

judge merchan sustained the objection, but then the jury was sent out of the room, and what happened after the jury was out of the room was a thing. it was a notable confrontation. it was a notable admonition to trump's lead defense council, and it led to the jury being told something sort of unexpected after they were brought back in after lunch. so kind of a big drama involving judge merchan of the day, and here's how it wept. todd blanche trump defense council, i'm going to end the summation the same way i told you a few minutes ago you cannot rely on him, meaning michael cohen, which is that all those lies under oath, lies when it doesn't matter, all those lies, put them aside for just a moment. that's alone enough to walk away, but then he came in here, again meaning michael cohen, he raised his right hand and lied to each of you repeatedly. you cannot send someone to prison, you cannot convict

somebody. steinglass, the prosecutor, objection. judge merchan, sustained. trump's defense council, blanche, you can't convict somebody based upon the words of michael cohen. so i knew it was a long morning, we wept through a lot of evidence, but it's important to president trump. it's important to his family. and i meant what i said in the beginning it's clear you all have been play paying close attention. this isn't a referendum on your views on president trump. this is not a referendum on the ballot box who you voted for in 2016, 2020 or you plan on voting for in 2024. that's not what this was about. the verdict you're going to reach has to do with the evidence you heard here in this courtroom and nothing else. nothing else you knew or thought about president trump or any of the folks who testified but just the evidence you heard from the witnesses, the recordings, and the documents. if you do that, if you focus just on the evidence you heard in this courtroom, this is a very, very, very quick and easy not guilty verdict. thank you.

that is the conclusion of donald trump's case to the jury. and then judge merchan says, thank you, jurors, we're going to take our lunch and recess at this time. i'll see you at 2:00 p.m., enjoy your lunch. court officer, all rises, jury exits. and the judge said -- after jury's gone, the judge says you may be seated, meaning nobody else is going anywhere even though the jury is. and then mr. steinglass, the prosecutor, says we would like a curative instruction for that ridiculous comment mr. blanche made at the end of his summation about sending him to prison. punishment is something explicitly the jurors are told not to consider, and that was a blatant and wholly inappropriate effort to cull sympathy for their client. judge merchan says to defense douns illetd me hear and todd

blanche, pardon, let me hear about your comment about prison, todd blanche, i mean, your honor, there's already an instruction you're going to give as part of the charge on that so we don't think there needs to be a curative instruction. judge merchan, i'm going to give a curative instruction. and judge merchan says this, quote, i think saying that was outrageous, mr. blanche. please have a seat. for someone who's been a prosecutor as long as you have a defense attorney as long as you be you know making a comment like that is wholly inappropriate. it's hard for me to imagine how that was accidental in any way. i will give a curative instruction. i will ask the people and see you at 2:00. prosecutor, mr. steinglass, thank you. and then lunch recess was taken. everyone goes away for lunch and this is what happens after lunch. the defense has finished.

they have stopped their case. this is it. they're done. prosecutors are about to start their closing argument, and this is how it starts. the judge says let's get the jury please. sergeant says all rise, jury entering, jury enters. judge merchan says you may be seated. the clerk says case on trial continued, all jurors were present and properly seated. then the judge immediately says this. jurors, before we hear the people summation, there is an instruction i wanted to give you. during the defense summation, you heard mr. blanche asking in substance that you not send the defendant to prison. that comment was improper, and you must disregard it. in your deliberations, 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. a prison sentence is not required for there charges in this case in the events of a

guilty verdict. mr. steinglass says, thank you, your honor, council, member of the jury, good afternoon. what did todd blanche do so wrong at this crucial moment for judge merchan. andrew, what happened there? >> so this is -- this is totally taboo. you do not -- and everyone knows you do not raise as jen said the issue of punishment. you do not raise the issue of going to jail. and i think one of the best ways to understand what's going on here is the reality of the fact this is the former president of the united states. and what todd blanche was doing here and turn for a moment and

show what josh steinglass did in his summation, this was the way of trying to raise the burden on the state to really say that the jury, are you really sending this person to jail, the former president and maybe the future president of the united states? totally improper argument that is absolutely clear the judge is right to give the curative instruction. one thing to note is that it was so clear that the defense actually agreed -- made no objection to the curative instruction that was given, the one drafted up you just read. they were given the opportunity to object and they didn't because, you know, the bell was rung. the jury heard it, and frankly getting even the curative instruction kind of again reinforces it. so the defense is trying to raise the bar for the state in the way way that i think josh steinglass in a way that was objectionable but not in the same category where he was

saying about donald trump you know what, he can't shoot somebody as he has famously said on fifth avenue and not the ultimate account. what i think he was getting at is the concern that the jury was going to hold the state to an even higher burden beyond a reasonable doubt because he's the former president, and saying you know what, he's just like everyone else, he's got to be s complying with the law, and so i think that's why you saw both lawyers trying to figure out a way to either play that to their advantage or to sort of raise the burden or to lower the burden to what it should be, so i think that's a real reality that's going on in the courtroom. >> andrew, can i just ask you about whether they're taking on a level of risk in doing so. as you say in both of those cases objections were sustained in the first case when the defense did it, the judge explicitly told the jury right then and there the next moment he was talking to them, do not

consider what he just told you, that was wrong, you shouldn't have heard it. but in both cases the bell was rung. the jury did hear it. when lawyers do things like that in the courtroom, are they taking a risk? it sort of seems like if you want the jury to hear those things just being told, though, you shouldn't have said that. having the jury say you shouldn't have heard that, doesn't feel like enough of a fix, enough of a cure. >> so the answer is, yes, they are taking a risk. the best thing i've ever heard a judge do is actually the judge deary, they rang a bell because he was special master in the judge cannon case, which a lawyer did that the first time he brought him over to the sidebar and said you do that again and i'm going to cut your knees out from under you in front of the jury, meaning if they think there's no cost to you in terms of the effect of ringing that bell, there will be a cost, and unfortunately, you

know, lirs will do things like that. they're not supposed to, but sometimes they take they sort of zealous advocacy too far. i do think it's worth noting what josh steinglass did while the objection is sustained, it is a very different category. i don't think it was likely to be, you know, something he was going to say where i think he sort of suspected there would be an objection sustained, but it's not in the same category as talking about punishment where everybody who's a prosecutor and defense lawyer there knows that is absolutely off-limits. >> andrew weissman, very, very helpful to have you on that. thank you very much, my friend. much more ahead in our recap of trump's criminal trial in new york. closing arguments, very, very long day in court today, a lot happened. we've got a lot more ahead. stay with us. e got a lot more ad stay with us

norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? -but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... i know... faster wifi and savings? ...i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc?

if he gets in, i can tell you right now, he will never leave. he will never leave. you know that. he will never leave. >> two time oscar winner robert de niro showed up outside donald trump's manhattan trial today on behalf of the biden campaign. it was interesting. he said we are not here for what is going on in that courtroom. we are here because all of you media are here. he spoke alongside police officers michael fanone and harry dunn who risked their lives protecting the u.s.

capitol on january 6th. the three of them all talked about the way the trumpest movement of trump himself have used and stoked violence to get their way. near the end of his remarks de niro was interrupted by a pro-trump protester, which, of course led to the world's most new york city moment possible.

>> you're not going to intimidate. that is what trump does is try to intimidate. we're going to fight back. we're trying to be gentleman in this world. democrats, you are gang centers. our friend stephanie ruhle joins us. joined again by joy reid, ari melber. you had robert de niro on your show recently. >> i did. i talked to him about an hour ago. he is speaking out because he truly believes our democracy is at risk. robert de niro is a true new yorker who has been saying this guy's a fraud, he's a con-artist. he not only went bankrupt six times, look at this trial, look at the way he ran his sham business. what's interesting about what denier so doing, he realizes he's going to get a huge amount of blow back, but he says i'm nan 80-year-old man and i'm worried about the generations ahead. and you heard him say it there,

if trump wins he believe he's never leaving office. and he said if i impacted anyone, if i'm doing one ounce of small good, it's worth it. our future's at risk. >> can i say it does appear maybe the most influential person in the campaign is the rapper because he's been trying to tell democrats get out there and put someone in front of that courtroom and it looks like they were listening to him. well-done. and i love robert de niro. >> to see de niro and fanone and harry dunn all say we are not here for what is going on in that courtroom, we are not here to basically influence the course of the campaign, we are here because the influence is here, and then they talked about trump's other legal problems. this was essentially a campaign event, a biden press conference.

they're doing carefully to say we're not trying to influence this proceeding. >> and the thinking is this has been the complaint that a lot of people have had about the democratic party is that they don't fight like with like. this is media event, the reason donald trump is sending his clones out there dressed like him is because the media is there, and up to now democrats have not been playing that game with him. they need to get on the field because this is war, and you cannot find a more new yorker new yorker or a better foil for trump than an actual popular celebrity new yorker, which is everything trump ever wanted to be. >> and he wanted to be flanked by fanone and harry dunn. he considers them true patriots. it kills them that the republican party right now has hijacked the word and concept of patriotism, and he wants people to remember what happened on january 6th and who's fighting for our democracy it was harry dunn. >> while trump supporters were yelling at them that they were traitors today. >> and the substance of that is

we just heard the summation about a 2016 campaign crime. the attempted reasonable doubt is trump had other strange desires other than cheating in the election, but there's a lot of evidence of that cheating. the 2020 crimes as alleged have been punted asked the supreme court is likely helping with that, and donald trump's two impeachments going after biden who actually became president. so trump had some feeling about who the biggest risk was, and what de niro referenced the refusal to have a peaceful transfer of power. why would you expect someone who did that once to suddenly change gears? again, he's presumed innocent in every court, but what ties this all together is we're dealing with the trials of an individual who stands accused of election crimes every time he's been on the ballot and even when he lost. >> and in the bigger picture, it should be an asset for the democrats campaign that they're running against somebody who's cloaking himself in criminality not only in court but in terms of the way he's running right

now, for him to be siding with the january 6th defendants while the democrats are saying we side with the cops who are trying to protect the capitol from the january 6th defendants, that's a message the democrats in my opinion ought to be hitting every single day. our recap of this very big day in the trump criminal trial continues. we'll be right back. >> he doesn't belong in my city. i don't know where he belongs but he certainly doesn't belong here. we make room for crowds but not a person like trump who will eventually run the country. that does not work. he'll use violence against anyone who stands in the way of his megalomania and greed. this is the time to stop him by voting him out once and for all. . 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 dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. go to dealdash.com and see how much you can save.

only purple's gel flex grid passes the raw egg test. no other mattress cradles your body and simultaneously supports your spine. 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

dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. go to dealdash.com and see how much you can save. the defense we heard today from trump's lead defense lawyer is that there were no falsified business records, that michael cohen really was paid $35,000 a month in 2017 as a retainer for ongoing legal services, and anybody who says otherwise just isn't looking at the facts. in his closing, however, lead prosecutor joshua steinglass said claiming those 217 payments to michael cohen as retainr for legal services in his words makes no sense. we do not have the official court transcript yet for that

portion of the trial today, but these are our notes from the -- from our reporters in the courtroom. steinglass says in 2018 cohen continued to do legal work for trump. cohen probably did more legal work in the first three months of 2018 han he did in all of the previous year and in 2018 he wasn't paid a nickel. so if he was still doing legal work why wasn't he paid a nickel in 2018? quote, he was being reimbursed in 2017, and when the reimbursements were done, the payments stopped. prosecutor continues, the testimony was that cohen did less than ten hours of legal work in 2017 while he was being paid $35,000 a month. quote, cohen spent more time being cross examined in this trial than he did doing legal work for donald trump in 2017. alex, i wanted to put this moment to you because i feel like this is the defense kind of feebly trying to put forward the

case. >> at the 11th hour, too. it was like no time was spent during this trial even trying to suggest to the jury what michael cohen might have done to try to earn $35,000 a month from a guy who had a problem spending $50 a month on a tiffany picture frame and couple it with the argument michael cohen was taking out this home equity loan, none of it made any sense and that was the hallmark of the closing argument today. they would argue one thing and argue the counter five minutes later. it was wildly inconsist. and i love the largest part of steinglass' closing today was outlining why michael cohen could not have gone wrong. and the defendant, donald trump, was the beneficiary of this entire scheme. that's what he left them with, and it really just took apart all of this mishegoss about

michael cohen. >> and he showed on the screen the tweet from trump like we have a great case. unfortunately our defendant -- 7 hours of closing arguments leaves a lot to recap. we've got more from the trump criminal trial today in just a moment. from the trump criminal trial today in just a moment

craig here pays too much for verizon wireless. so he sublet half his real estate office... [ bird squawks loudly ] to a pet shop. meg's moving company uses t-mobile. so she scaled down her fleet to save money. and don's paying so much for at&t, he's been waiting to update his equipment! there's a smarter way to save. comcast business mobile. you could save up to 70% on your wireless bill. so you don't have to compromise. powering smarter savings. powering possibilities.

. okay, we are wrapping our part of our special recap of today's closing arguments in trump's criminal trial, but do not go anywhere. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. it's a good time to reflect on how americans fought and died so that we may enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to us by a democratic government, a government that as president lincoln said of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the