professor murray and andrew weissmann are here. professor, this is like all trials of public interest, a crash course in how this works and so it is really been, i think, interesting and positive to see how the jury is selected. it is part of the transparency. i'm curious what stands out to now that for the first time the judge said they have the full panel and from the jokes and people who dissed the former president, who are all removed to those who said, some of the jurors said positive things about it and their still on the jury and said them in a way that still sounds impartial. which stands out to you. >> can professor are you talking to, because you have the faculty here. >> it is friday. i'm feeling loose. i don't think of andrew as a real professor. i think of him as -- >> yeah, that's nice. >> that is why that happened. here is the thing. i practice law and i report on law and andrew weissmann is one of the most celebrated veteran foreman prosecutors in the country eastern district general council fbi, mueller probe. you

attorney serving as lead investigator for the january 6th committee, also andrew weissmann, co-host of the podcast prosecuting donald trump, an msnbc legal analyst. andrew, i just want to put up on the screen as we discuss the six different crimes that include forgery, tampering with a public record. what do you make of what you're reading here? >> a couple things. one, it's very similar to what we have seen in other states where there have been charges in georgia and michigan where there was a top down scheme. what i mean by that is that tim and his colleagues put together a vast amount of proof that was added onto by jack smith which showed this fake elector scheme was happening from the campaign down to the states. this was not bubbling up at a grassroots level. that's why you're seeing fake electors at the arizona level and people at the campaign level and into the white house. that's the second point. i was struck by on page 44 of this indictment eric herschmann who was a white house counsel seems once again to be very much an important witness in the case and he is on a text mess

andrew weissmann, first your reaction. i also want to get tim heaphy's reaction. >> sure.ted by the fact that vaughn is reporting there's redacted names. and i wonder if vaughn could speak to -- it sounds like they were able to serve people who were local who might be arizona people. from that, would it be fair to infer that there maybe people who, you know, because the scheme as alleged elsewhere in various indictments is that people at the trump campaign were orchestrating this. in other words, this didn't come from the bottom up. this was coming from d.c. down. is there -- from that, could you infer that at least some of the redacted names may be people who are in the trump campaign? >> right. andrew, i'm looking at the same screen i have my camera on here, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven names are redacted. so there were the 11 electors, fake electors out of arizona and seven additional names that are redacted here. when we are looking at multiple counts, nine different counts, count one conspiracy, count two fraudulent schemes, count three, fraudulent schemes

andrew weissmann is here to read it. obviously i don't have time to do it as they will be joining us to consider what happened on the supreme court today, as we have a lot to get to. >> so much breaking news. good to see you. >> thank you. >>> when donald trump lived in the white house, he usually wouldn't come down from the residents to the work space in the west wing. i'm told around 11:00 a.m. and when he got to the work space in the west wing, he is now a co-defendant with donald trump in florida. he would have his donald trump's caffeine doses ready for him in the form of diet coke constantly handed to donald trump, often without needing to ask. but as a criminal defendant, donald trump has to get himself dressed and in the car, so he can get to his new job in lower manhattan at the criminal courthouse, where he has to be in the courtroom by 9:30 a.m. as a criminal defendant. that is very tough, and a very tough work day for the laziest president in history. very tough way to start his day. before he entered the cou

andrew weissmann and a veteran of the d.a.'s office when we're back in 90 seconds.ving with hiv, craig learned he can stay undetectable with fewer medicines. that's why he switched to dovato. dovato is a complete hiv treatment for some adults. no other complete hiv pill uses fewer medicines to help keep you undetectable than dovato. detect this: leo learned that most hiv pills contain 3 or 4 medicines. dovato is as effective with just 2. if you have hepatitis b, don't stop dovato without talking to your doctor. don't take dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking dofetilide. this can cause serious or life-threatening side effects. if you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop dovato and get medical help right away. serious or life-threatening lactic acid buildup and liver problems can occur. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, or if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. dovato may harm an unborn baby. most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, tiredness, and anxiety. detect

also back with us, andrew weissmann and chuck rosenberg.date on what's happening in the courtroom now? >> reporter: right, there's currently deliberation over steve bannon's name into this conversation that the defense for donald trump is asserting and objecting to this line of questioning of david pecker. around steve bannon and his relationship with pecker, because pecker is now testified that in october of 2016, that donald trump introduced steve bannon to david pecker. now, of course, in october of 2016 was at the heart -- well, all of the deliberations over the stormy daniels payment were ongoing, but also, the fact that steve bannon was working as the chief campaign strategist, ceo of the campaign by that point. so we're currently listening to a line of questioning where the defense is saying look, steve bannon was never brought forward as a co-conspirator in this, but the questioning where the defense is saying, look, steve bannon was never brought forward as a co-conspirator in this, but the prosecution is making the case that, yes,

also with us, andrew weissmann. thanks for sticking around.u make of what you heard at the supreme court today? >> shocking arguments from the president, obviously, if he is correct, we don't have the democracy we thought we had. even more concerning is the conduct of the court in this case. they didn't need to take the case at all, because the appellate court had a very convincing and sound decision. when mr. smith asked them to decide earlier once they gave an indication, they refused to do it. they have dragged it out. it looks like -- i hope i'm wrong -- that rather than decide the case before them, they are going off on tangents that will lead to further delay. i have to think about my friend and former colleague liz cheney. it can't be in our system that a president who tried to overturn the government to stay in power will not be tried before the next election. this is really outrageous. >> congresswoman, knowing the details of the fruits of your investigation, these weren't hypothetical questions at all, were they? he has promised pard

. >> andrew weissmann, jump in on the the legal significance of keith davidson's testimony today. >> there is -- i sort of have a different take slightly than what vaughn said and some of it may just be wording. which is, i think that the start of this trial is so powerful because it is wrong for us -- i think we have to recalibrate the lens through which we were think being this case. we were thinking, michael cohen is the star witness and how will they corroborate michael cohen. and i really think the way to think about this case is this case is made very much without michael cohen. i mean, this is so corroborated and it is not just that you have david pecker and now keith davidson, they're stories are just hand and glove. i mean, they fit together so perfectly. and they tell a complex story. i mean, something that if you were making it up, it wouldn't be -- it would be kind of intricacy and also it is completely corroborated particularly with respect to mr. davidson by so many texts and email exchanges an the written documents. this is one where with almost every question there is

joining me now andrew weissmann. was an attempt by trump to block evidence like his past social media posts from being used in the trial. talk to me about that. >> sure. what he was trying to do in the new york criminal case, the one that is definitely, i think, going to start a week from monday, as you noted, is he was using presidential immunity there, not to say the whole case should be thrown out. that's what he is saying in the d.c. federal case. what he is saying in the new york case is that this is an argument for why a particularly damning tweet that he sent out while he was the president should not be admissible as evidence. he made that motion only recently, in spite of the fact that he was supposed to have made any and all pretrial motions months ago. the judge rejected it by saying i'm not going to be a short order cook, essentially, where i'm fielding these things at the last minute out of order, way out of time, when you had ample opportunity to raise any and all motions. he is really concerned about do

us, former fbi general counsel and a former member of robert mueller's special counsel team andrew weissmann joyce, neal and andrew are all msnbc legal analysts. neal, i have to start with you because you were inside there. we could hear it, but you could see it. what is your big takeaway from today? >> well, it was obviously a historic moment. i think that's how people treated it inside the courtroom from the very beginning. you know, president trump's lawyer actually wound up, went into the courtroom, he sat on the wrong side initially. he wasn't quite as familiar with the court as his adversary, the special counsel's lawyer. it was really two contrasting styles, and i think that's reflected already in some of the earlier reporting making it seem like, well, the strident trump made a lot of points. that lawyer was very strident in contrast to the special counsel who acted almost like a counselor to the court, not as an advocate. went on for hour after hour explaining his position. at the end of the day, i think if i had to count votes and i've seen over 400 oral arguments at the supreme co

back with me is andrew weissmann. andrew, how are you interpreting aileen cannon's move here?the presidential records act is a legitimate one of defense? >> which is exactly what jack smith wanted. he said just make a decision. we say it doesn't apply at had, we want a pretrial ruling. in fact, the rules say they're entitled to a pretrial ruling. just decide one way or the other for good. >> not halfway. >> not halfway, which is deciding pretrial does it apply. jack smith is saying who cares about that, i care about what you're going to say at trial. why? the big sort of thing people need to understand to be in the weeds for a moment, once the jury is sworn, double jeopardy attaches, meaning if the jury acquits or if the judge acquits, it's over. >> it's finito. >> especially if the judge has the power once the jury is sworn to say, you know what, i'm entering a judgment of acquittal. and it can be on a cockamamie idea like the presidential records act. so jack smith is saying that i need a decision that it doesn't apply not just pretrial, because guess what, nobody is decidin

andrew weissmann, i found this section that you started to read from. read a fuller section from the generals. the immunity claims threaten national security and the constitution subjects the arms forces of the u.s. to civilian control of the rule of law and the limits on military are bedrock features of our democracy and deeply rooted in our nation's history. criminal prosecution is an assault on the foundational commitments, the notion of such immunity as a general matter and in the context of the potential negation of election results. threatens to jeopardize our nation's security and international leadership. particularly in times like the present where anti-democratic authoritarian regimes are on the threat and it is intolerable and dangerous. and to build on claire's head of steam, the generals are daring the court to build on the global -- the global sweep of authoritarianism or not. that is where they're putting this decision. >> you know, this is -- this is a clarion call that liz cheney made. her book, the first few chapters, are really about

andrew weissmann, anna bower, it is great to have you. thank you for your wisdom and reporting on all of this. i appreciate you on this friday night. >>> we have a lot more to get to this evening including the moment eight years ago when donald trump argued he could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody without consequences. that argument is back, this time before the supreme court, and donald trump might be right. >>> first i talked to pulitzer prize-winning investigative reporter ronan farrow about what the surprising decision to overturn harvey weinstein's decision in new york might portend for trump's hush money trial in the same city. that is next. le over 50. it's lying dormant, waiting... and could reactivate. shingles strikes as a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks. and it could wake at any time. think you're not at risk for shingles? it's time to wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. ma, ma, ma— ( clears throat

andrew weissmann, still with us here tonight. been a discussion that i feel like we've had around the edges of this case a lot because it's the way trump has tried to shape the environment around this case. it's going to be in the courtroom front and center tomorrow morning at 9:30. what do you expect judge merchan is going to do? what are you going to be watching for? >> so you have donald trump clearly goading the judge. he picks up he's doing something that appears to be all accounts a direct violation of the order, his latest tonight in advance of a 9:30 hearing on violations with respect to witnesses and violation with respect to jurors, both of which are things the judge is going to care tremendously about. you know, i think the -- obviously he's going to hear from the defense, and the betting is that he's going to certainly say that there was a violation, and he could impose the fine that is obviously negligible and he can saber rattle about what's next. this is one where i would say if he were sitting right here, i would

you say in your book that you wrote with former federal prosecutor andrew weissmann, "the trump indictments," that reasonable minds may differ over whether the manhattan charges would've been brought against someone other than trump. where do you come down on this question? - so this is a place i think where andrew a i did a lot of talking. i think we agree that, in the other three indictments, to not bring criminal charges would have, that would have been the selective action. because there are plenty of people in federal penitentiaries right now for keeping classified information in far less quantities than what donald trump has been charged with in the mar-a-lago case. and we have many january 6th protestors who are currently serving federal sentences for the actions undertaken on january 6th, 2021. so i think that's very clear. like, to not go forward with criminal prosecutions of donald trump in those other three cases would be a violation, a dereliction of duty. the new york case, i think this is where andrew and i disagree. new york often prosecutes people for falsification of busine

former top official at the department of justice and msnbc legal analyst andrew weissmann.mer rnc chairman, michael steele is here for the hour. let me ask you -- you were here during jury selection. before any of the juicy testimony had started. i have to say, there's something so extraordinary -- i get notes from our folks who are inside. i then read the transcripts. i'm still, with a pen, the third go through going, my god. i have omg written all over. it's gobsmacking. >> it's captivating. the attorneys on both sides had the opportunity to really start diving into concepts that were going to happen in the case. it's just built on that. then we had opening statements on monday. then with the testimony going into the testimony of david pecker. my fellow reporters -- it's every line is something we have heard, have past reported on. it's fascinating. it's going to continue, certainly, over the next six weeks. >> what is the sense of what you are hearing in term -- i think you and other reporters have said there will be things we have never heard before. certainly, pecker's

tomorrow this process does continue because six, the number that andrew weissmann tells us is a largeix alternates will be selected, and all of the jurors, the ones that were sworn in today as well as the alternates that are likely selected tomorrow will hear all of the facts and all of the evidence in this case, which could start as early as monday. andrew weissmann. >> so just in addition, one of the alternates has been selected so there are five more that will be selected tomorrow, both sides under state law are given two preemptories for each alternate that they have to use for that person. so when we get to alternate two, a proposed juror will come on and each side will have the opportunity to exercise two preempto preemptories, then you're done. the next person gets closen as number two. it's possible overnight you could lose some of the initial 12, in which case like alternate one would move into one of the juror seats, but it does appear that there will almost certainly be a full jury of the 12 jurors and the alternates by the end of the day tomorrow, if not sooner, and that w

plus former top official for the department of justice and msnbc legal analyst andrew weissmann is back. and also at the table, the host of the on brand podcast donnie deutsche and rounding us out former senator and co heft of how to win 2024 podcast, claire mccastile is here for the hour. most days i start with you. and not what is in the notebook from a day of sort of frantic note taking, from what is happening on the witness stand. but as you got home and the week, what did you reflect on having covered this story and this potential act of criminal fraud for as long as you have, what sort of stuck with you? >> well, i have to say, when we sort of finished on friday, the contours of the case were known to us and we've heard them and i think what was powerful at the end of the last week in the first testimony was actually hearing it from david pecker, if i have to pick one thing. how he, himself, detailed it. it is one thing to hear and we knew that the national enquirer pays for stories and kill stories but to hear that he was involved in this conspiracy, the conversations that he had

there is the hope here that a jury ignores the instructions. >> mary mcchord, andrew weissmann, and tim number one, one-time trump critic, says he will support him no matter what. contrast that with an ordinary citizen, urging his party to stand up against a disgraced ex-president and vote for joe biden. stories are ahead. nd vote for j biden. stories are ahead. ♪ (cheery music) - they get it. they know how it works... and more importantly... it works for them. - i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. - i don't have to worry about a mortgage payment every month. - it allowed me to live in my home... and not have to pay payments. - [narrator] if you're 62 or older and own your home, you could access your equity to improve your lifestyle. a reverse mortgage loan eliminates your monthly mortgage payments and puts tax-free cash in your pocket. call the number on your screen. - it was the best thing i've ever done, and- - really? - yes, without a doubt! - just like these folks, aag can show you how a reverse mortgage loan uses your built-up home equity to give you tax-free cash. - it'

earlier i spoke to nyu law professor melissa murray and andrew weissmann, former federal prosecutor informer lead prosecutor in robert mueller s special counsel s 0ffice from 2017 to 2019. they explained that of all the criminal and civil cases facing the former president, this latest development means it is now likely that donald trump will stand trial in at least one case before the presidential election. it now looks like starting a week from monday that jury selection is going to start. it's fairly typical for defendants at the last minute to make a flurry of motions including trying to delay the trial. as you can see, the judge here is very quickly dispatching with all of his efforts. it looks like unless something truly unforeseen happens that we're finally going to see the first case that was the indictment of the former president. it's actually going to be the first want to going to be the first want to go to trial. going to be the first want to go to trial-— going to be the first want to no to trial. ~ ,,. ., ., go to trial. melissa, how long do ou go to trial. melissa, how lo

is our friend andrew weissmann reminded me, the fact we are at this point means our democracy is in a perilous place. >> i know it sounds like hyperbole, but your opening is correct that we are essentially one-vote away from the end of democracy as we know it with checks and balances. >> that's a stark reminder. frenemies democratic congressman adam schiff of california and he is a u.s. senate candidate. the tweets i read was part of a longer thread you posted. you ended with, quote, if the justices send the case back to the lower court as a means of stalling, the flaws not with the constitution or the court itself, but with the character of the justices serving on the core. there's a lot packed in there. talk to me about what you mean. >> the justices know what they are doing. they know the danger of the argument of immunity. essentially, if a president is held a man from committing crimes, and particular crimes in office that are designed to hold onto power after losing, that is the end. they cannot go there. what they can do, if they have political focus on this, is they can delay.

>> i think the one thing that andrew weissmann got correct is four justices believe they need to send it back to the trial court to see what actions alleged in the indictment were personal and what were within the scope of the presidential job of doing the role of president. so i think you are going to see it go back for fact finding before you ever see a result, which could come out as late as early july. >> harris: that's awfully close to a presidential election and is the delay a defeat for democrats who are in this for politics? great to see you. we have been witnessing it as a nation together. it's been two weeks. when it really got cooking. it started before then. anti-israel protestors have now taken over some campuses nationwide and are popping up at every single president biden event or appearance. they showed up at a big ticket one over the weekend and it may be having a huge effect when it comes to the polls. plus piles of criticism for liberal squad member far left ilhan omar. she divided jewish students into two groups. pro-genocide and anti-genocide. what a gem she is. >

and andrew weissmann and vaughn hillyard and what a treat, thank you.efore we go, we have another quick update for you from what has been going on on capitol hill today. senate has voted 51-49 to adjourn the impeachment trial of secretary alejandro mayorkas. meaning the trial is over for good and forever. the house gop effort to impeach mayor cass is dead. up next for us, it could happen here. former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie uyv anovich was the target of a came led by then president donald trump and rudy giuliani and other allies. we'll talk to her what that would look like in a second trump term should he prevail in november. don't go anywhere. slowing my cancer from growing and living longer are two things i want from my metastatic breast cancer treatment. and with kisqali, i can have both. kisqali is a pill that when taken with an aromatase inhibitor helps delay cancer from growing and has been proven to help people live significantly longer across three separate clinical trials. so, i have the confidence to live my life. kisqali can cause lu

. >> two big parts and we have andrew weissmann and get in more detail, but one is the court which we process has a deep interest in getting this right. you are not taking anyone's word for it. you want to get them on record which by the way means that they are telling this to the government a court so they have that liability. and the court has expertise so you will see people all the time and think they are clever and i will try this and try that to get off a jury and sometimes because they want to be on. >> i try to get off and i get on. >> because they probably see you as. >> trying to get off. >> trying to get off or otherwise capable of being honest. it's doing a real vetting and number two, we have to remember we will cover both sides for weeks and it's an adersarial process and both sides get to kick the tires on the answers as you know. >> yeah. >> i didn't answer them right. i have been picked -- i have been called to duty and been picked both times. >> it's stunning seeing the reporting from inside the courtroom that donald trump was following along right with a questionnai

joining us now is an andrew weissmann, also with us catherine christian. you both for being here. was stringer bell right to ask allen weisselberg are you taking notes on a criminal conspiracy? >> so you must have seen my note, because that is starred, that was the page where i had the same reaction. >> okay. >> so one of the things that you listen for when you listen to openings on both sides is you know that there are witnesses who are going to testify, and you think about what they're going to do, whether they have memory issues, credibility issues, but what is -- the things that stood out to me was you had a reference to the tape recording that we've heard about. that's where donald trump is overheard saying, hey, let's just pay the $130,000 in cash. that's a terrible tape for donald trump. second, there was references to telephone records at a critical time that the payments were first made by michael cohen to stormy daniels. the two calls the prosecutor referenced between michael cohen and donald trump. and thin the third was this, definitely a fall o

andrew weissmann is here to read

joining us now is andrew weissmann, former senior prosecutor on the mueller investigation and nyu law professor melissa murray and they are co-authored of "the trump indictments, the historic charging documents with commentary," which is an indispensable guidebook as we go through this. to both of you, congratulations. andrew, this does bring this back to the process that you were both experienced with as lawyers. andrew, with your years as a prosecutor. those of us as citizens who have been through it. it never happened before with a former president and certainly not one as polarizing, let's face it, as donald trump. >> that gets to why melissa and i wrote this book, which is, what is happening is so unique in this country. it's not unique for the rest of the world, which has had trials like this and has managed to hold political leaders to account, which we address in the book. but it's unique for us. as law professors, this is what we do day in and day out, which is try to give tools to our students to understand what's going on. now it's so important for the public to understand

i know you were suggesting yesterday as was andrew weissmann that she could hold hearings that wouldld put all of this evidence out in frochbt front of the public, but that's not the same as a conviction. >> it depends on the form the supreme court takes and what they direct her to do next. if they tell her to decide what of the conduct in the indictment is official and what's private, she may well hold hearings. it could serve to get evidence in front of the american people. >> as far as this trial is progressing, we talked yesterday about how it's moving quickly, so david pecker will probably wrap up maybe even before the lunch break, and then they move on to the next witnesses. we don't know exactly who. could be hope hicks. could continue on this thread as to what was happening, you know, to set up more reliable evidence, if you will, before they have to deal with michael cohen. >> hope hicks is such an interesting witness here. we know she was in and out of this meeting that david pecker has testified to. we don't know if she's just confirm the details that it took place, or if

andrew weissmann, you have fresh eyes on this, fresh ears of what we have been talking about. what should we expect if hope hicks gets on the stand? what should we expect if allen weisselberg who's, i believe in prison right now, gets on the stand or dan scavino, donald trump's social media manager and very close ally within his campaign. would we expect any of them to give testimony that might damage the president? >> two things, one, just because their name is on the list that is read by the judge to the prospective jurors does not mean in any way that they are all going to be witnesses. when you give a list like this to the prospective jurors, what you're trying to find out is do you know any of these people because their name might come up, not necessarily because they'll be a witness. does anyone, a prospective juror, have a personal relationship, know these people, have any preconceived views of these people. you have to remember this is an all encompassing list. now, to your question, it is possible that within that huge group, there will be a subset that would testify.

joining us now, nbc news legal analyst and former federal prosecutor andrew weissmann. does this case appear to be on track to start on the 15th? >> absolutely. all signs are that judge marchan has had it. all the motions supposed to be in all the president to delay this trial have been rejected. as you said, there is now this pending motion about delaying the case because of pretrial publicity, that is going nowhere fast. you know, everyone on both sides agree that pretrial publicity is going to continue and not abate at any time, so that's not a reason to put the trial off. it's a reason to make sure you're careful with jury selection to make sure you can find 12 jurors who are going to be fair and impartial and put aside whatever feelings they have about the case and decide just based on the facts, but we are now 11 days away, and you know, knock on wood, i think there are no more delays that are going to happen. we're going to see jury selection begin a week from monday. >> so given -- let's accept that possibly jury selection does begin on the 15th, a week from mond

judge chutkan would on remand have to have a series of hearings or mini trials, as our league andrew weissmann said, in order to determine that before taking this case to trial, that puts this case on a calendar where it almost certainly cannot be tried before the election. potentially, depending on what happens at the election, not happen at all. >> barbara mcquade, we heard the hypothetical again yesterday of what about if a president decided that the navy s.e.a.l. team six should assassinate one of his political opponents, would it fall under the presidential immunity you're talking about. mr. sour there representing donald trump. it is stunning that we're even suggesting that. what was your read of the way things played out yesterday and what we may hear next? >> well, as mr. sour said to that question, the hypothetical, it would depend on the situation. wow, that's terrifying. you know, my read is that there are several justices, the women justices, who are ready to go. they think the idea -- perhaps there is some presidential immuity for some official acts, but that the acts alleged in t

andrew weissmann and others saw this. it was the first clue leaning towards trump. if you can allege your way, it's not really an official act, you just allege it. anyone can allege anything. what we're doing here is testing the evidence. there's been overwhelming evidence, which is why jack smith got this far, won it at the d.c. circuit unanimously in a bipartisan set of appointees. the evidence has also been established oo some degree. it doesn't mean trump is guilty but it means we're past that opponent. if anyone can allege their way around, this question -- >> and how do you separate it? giving out pardons -- >> it's an article of power. but if he sells the pardon and takes a bribe for the pardon, is it an official act in. >> the bribe part is pardoned but the pardon is not. you have to take a holistic view. >> this isn't splitting the baby, it's splitting the knife. >> joining us now is congresswoman zoe lofgren, served on the january 6th investigation in congress. so good to have you with us tonight. i know it's been a long day. thank you. >> i'm glad to be o

former top official, legal analyst andrew weissmann is back and legal analyst charles coleman is here and back again after being inside of the courthouse today, "new york times" reporter susan craig. and my friend and colleague, nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard who has been at the courthouse all day. i could see the stars from here. this is really important stuff. so just start telling me what happened. >> well, i mean, it was a day. i just sort of feel like this is a play we've been waiting for and the curtain went up and it was in the detail that david pecker just calmly laid out. he was such a credible witness. just to go through the story with the doorman and how they went back and forth with michael cohen on that issue. what i found was really just -- i just couldn't believe it, just the explanation of how if michael cohen wants a story on ben carson, he would phone over to the "national enquirer" and say do a story on this on ben carson and then they would embellish details in her own words. >> in their own words. >> and then em billish and a story would appear or ted cruz

and former official at the dutch just and legal analyst andrew weissmann is here.ak this down. >> it may be confusing because you think she ruled for jack smith on this motion about the presidential records act. so what's the problem? jack smith said i need a ruling on the presidential records act, that it's not a basis to dismiss the indictment. and she ruled in his favor that it's not. here's the problem -- until this ruling today, she skipped over making this ruling and said, oh, i just want you to give me jury instructions, which was already bizarre for a trial that has not started and there isn't even a date for it to start. >> when do you normally give jury instructions? >> at some point during the trial. so you know -- long time from now. but it was worse than that because she didn't just say give me your jury instructions as to what you think the law is that i should charge the jury, she said you only have two choices -- i don't want to hear anything else, i only want to hear presidential record act choice one and presidential record act choice two. in othe

. >>> jeremy peters, andrew weissmann, katie phang are still with me. been you hear testimony that the republican national committee even considered after access hollywood came out but it was too late to replace their own nominee and find another candidate for the election a month before election day. the defendant and his staff are deeply concerned that the tape would irreparably damage his viability as a candidate and reduces standing with female voters in particular. they knew it was damaging not only because trump bragged about sexual assault that they knew it was damaging not only because the language was crude and vulgar that the campaign was also worried about the damage the tape would cause precisely because it was on video. seeing and hearing a candidate in his own words and in his own voice and body language. his own gestures has a much greater impact on voters than words on paper but the campaign went into damage control to blunt the impact of the tape. that, on the timeline is when stormy daniels happens. take us back in time, politically. >