bove, from the defense will be addressed elsewhere.oes not have to be sole or only motivation for the payment. and colangelo the prosecutor says the preceding sentence in that paragraph, and we don't have those documents in front of us, they're not public yet, discusses third-party payment. what does it mean for third party? this is from an s.e.c. advisory, securities and exchange commission. there has been factual testimony, amendment, protected activity. you think is necessary for the jury to understand that point so we can make arguments about people's mental state. bove says this is an accurate statement of the law. bove says this is the kind of thing we would have done through mr. smith. lawyers can tell me what mr. smith is. mr. horowitz -- >> it's the f.e.c. bradley smith. >> bradley smith. excuse me. the witness that did not appear because -- as an expert witness he could not address the law and the judge didn't want him to address the law, understandably. bove says this is the kind of context we were seeking to provide to the

bove says it's the government's theory. he was concerned what he was saying was going to get back to the president. we gave notice days ago that we will put costello on the stand. there's no mystery here. we want to elicit facts about the way the engagement worked between april 2018. he said i'm seeking to elicit many facts between april and the summer of 2018. mr. cohen said i never agreed. i was concerned it would get back to the president and mr. costello was testing him. you don't think the theory is collateral? merchan says it goes to the credibility of mr. cohen. bove says, judge, for the government to be suggesting that through the tweet in 2017, they juxtapose, they elicited from cohen. and merchan is asking how can costello testify to what cohen felt. and bove is answering, he can't. but he can testify. excuse me, this is going more slowly than we would have thought. >> he can testify to what mr. cohen said and did. >> let me clean one thing up. in the mueller report, he was, at some point on page 146 that on or ab

bove really went at davidson for quite some time. there was a risk, i think, for the jury in seeing that, okay, we know what you're trying to get at. let's get back to the matter at hand, and when bove eventually circled back to what they were dealing with, they talked about, for instance, the retainer that davidson took from karen mcdougal and that the initial agreement between karen mcdougal and bove was for, i believe, a 25% retainer, that retainer that increased to 35% making bove -- making davidson, excuse me, seem as if he were out more for money than anything else. it was a real interesting morning, i would say, and i think the big moment for the prosecution was when davidson had emailed howard on the night of 2016 and said what have we done and howard emails back, my god. and this was the night in which we learn that donald trump had become the next president of the united states in 2016. a real moment, chris, inside that courtroom for the prosecution in understanding what had led up to that moment, just two weeks, by the way

here is trump attorney emil bove. you have represented some clients who you help to get paid by charlie sheen, right? davidson. i have represented several clients who have claims against charlie sheen. emil bove. who you extracted sums of money from charlie sheen on behalf of, correct? davidson smiles. there was no extraction. emil bove. you took steps to cause charlie sheen to pay, correct? davidson. we asserted there was activity committed and settlements that were executed. then a little later, this happened. emil bove, "in 2010, you presented a woman named dawn holland, right?" davidson, "yes." emil bove, and "and dawn holland leaked information about lindsay lohan at a rehab facility." davidson drinks water, pauses, and respond, "that is reported that is what she did." >> emil bove, "you helped ms. holland get paid for what i said, didn't you?" davidson says, "i helped ms. holland get paid. i don't recall. the implication of all of this seems to be that keith davidson, the lawyer, is part of some seedy world of c

bove, you helped ms. holland get paid, didn't you? this is when the prosecutor says objection, the court says overruled. david, i helped ms. holland get paid yes. the implication of all this keith davidson is a seedy lawyer in the world of extortion and trump is actually the victim here like charlie sheen and lindsay lohan. it is a weird strategy. after all nobody is disputing this case is about alleged hush money payments meant to cover up trump's m affairs. and painting davidson as an extortionist doesn't fundamentally change that. now, trump's lawyers did try to cast doubt today on trump's involvement on these payments by highlighting keith davidson only interacted with trump's attorney, michael cohen, and never spoke to trump directly. >> bove, you've never spoken to president trump? >> davidson, never. bove, in fact everything you've ever known came from tv or michael cohen, right? davidson, pausing, right. bove, much of what you testified about mr. trump came from mr. cohen? davidson, i've had no personal interactions with donal

bove, certainly.nk that was a key instruction point. >> that should be the end of it. >> it was but the judge let him continue. we think it is important under the circumstances bove says and it is in your honor's discretion to make clear the record here. the importance of law is not deviating from the law it is to apply the law as consistently as possible as the court would do in every other case. that is, there is no reason to rewrite the law for this case. judge merchan, i agree. i think i understand what you're saying what you mean when you're saying it's an important case. what you are asking me to do is change the law and i am not going to do that. it was this moment that bove shifted his argument. he had some successes today. but where he failed is when he shifted from the law to rhetoric about how important the case is and how this is all unprecedented. that did not fly with the judge. >> we are going to squeeze in a break. >> by important case he meant important defendant >> right. >> taking a

. >> i had the chance to watch emil bove in action.as impressed. when i saw him cross examine, and it wasn't a critical witness so much, it wasn't like a stormy daniels, it was either a paralegal or someone authenticating phones. he definitely cross examined the paralegals now that i'm thinking about it. he came off as comfortable, conducting cross-examination, very smooth, not confrontational, and i can't stress enough to do cross-examination you don't necessarily need to be aggressive, confrontational. sometimes it calls for that. sometimes just before lunch, that may have been a planned voice raising by todd blanche to get some attention to a point that he thought was important. in my opinion, the most effective cross examiners are not those that go after someone aggressively, showing emotion or anger or something like that. far better than to be workman like about it. to be business like about it, not show emotion, because for whatever reason, it's my opinion that emotion generally loses in court. i don't know what part of human na

bove, yes judge, i understand. when he said yes i understand, he and the rest of the legal team also fully understood what a catastrophic mistake it was to put an uncouth buffoon on the witness stand as a defense witness for an uncouth buffoon. at 9:29 a.m. today, robert costello, the red- faced, white-haired 76-year-old criminal lawyer entered the courtroom again to resume cross- examination by assistant district attorney susan hoffinger, who the day before costello had insulted by telling her to speak into the microphone. ordering her to speak into the microphone, when she was already speaking into the microphone and everyone in the courtroom could hear her. that was a moment that no doubt helped expose more of the ugly essence of robert costello to the jury of seven men and five women. when the jury entered the courtroom three minutes after the witness this morning, the community of the courtroom that the jury had come to know so well had changed dramatically. the presence of armed court officers who have been t

. >> all right, emil bove, i want to go into this discussion we're having right now, emil bove who's a former sdny prosecutor but he is now on the trump reel team, saying we're not able to elicit testimony that would repeat some of the hearsay that's been offered. this form of impeachment that he entered a settlement agreement, we don't think it's relevant talking about the settlement agreement with allen weisselberg. then they have more discussions about weisselberg. we're looking to explain from our perspective why he isn't here. there are three payments due to weisselberg in a calendar year. if you look at the agreement, the employee promises not to denigrate the company verbally or in writing or in any of its entities. conroy says he will not communicate with or cooperate with any entity, anyone with adverse claims are to take action to cause any person or entity to file a complaint or a lawsuit of any kind. the bottom line is -- and this goes to what emil bove, again, on trump's team is saying -- this agreement is not why weisselberg is not at this trial. nobody tried to invoke

emil bove is trying to punch into this.s the prosecution doing at first, playing this phone call and having michael cohen say what about me, what about me, what about me, and he keeps saying we did it. >> the prosecution is trying to bring mr. trump into it. so i said before that we so far, no one is saying that trump is directly involved with ms. daniels in the payoff or this lawyer. this is a back way. keith davidson saying michael cohen told him that, and he can't even say that michael cohen told him it was trump. if his belief, he believes it's trump. if i'm a defense attorney, i'll tear through that. your belief, the re-cross will be really? >> what makes you think it's donald trump. you might think it. you don't know it. also i'm struck by the tone of michael cohen here, this scorned lover that the defense wants to use to their advantage. does the prosecution have a problem? because michael cohen has been very vocal about how he feels betrayed by donald trump and the defense wants to say this guy is out for revenge. d

bove the way of doing business and the company had to change, right? mcconney drastically, bove says& there was a period where things were in flux because as you're trying to figure out how to do that, right, mcconney says yes, sir. and for the first time in decades, president trump's main office was in washington, dc, hundreds of miles away, or mcconney says, yes, sir. so he was not new york as must as you had been previously to sign personal cheques, mcconney. i don't remember seeing him in new york at all. and anderson was wondering thing i want to point out that was all over the testimony today, it's a person, it's alan yslow birth play a huge role in this testimony today. this is just one exchange and we have a corresponding document to show you. matthew cool angelo, the prosecutor who was asking the questions any for part of it says mr. marconi, i'm now showing you a document that's been marked people's 35. do you recognize this document, mcconney says, yes, glandular says, what is it? connie says this is the bank statement that allen gave me to

trump's lawyer emil bove asking the judge to tell the jury, "hush money is not illegal." prosecutor matthew colangelo fired back, though, "what the defense is asking is for you to make their argument for them." when the conference wrapped up, judge merchan telling the lawyers he will take it all under consideration and provide them his jury instructions by thursday to help them as they prepare to deliver their closing arguments. the jury is now off for a week after hearing testimony from 22 witnesses and seeing nearly 300 pieces of evidence. in closing arguments next tuesday, the defense will say none of it proves that former president trump committed a crime, while prosecutors will argue that it all adds up to what they've called election fraud, pure and simple. by this time next wednesday, david, the case should be in the

so emil bove asked him, you know, who charlie sheen is, right? keith davidson, i do.ve represented some clients who you helped get paid by charlie sheen, right? i've represented several clients who had claims against charlie sheen and who you extracted sums of money from charlie sheen on behalf of, correct? there was no extraction you took steps to cause mr. xin to pay, correct we asserted that there was tortious activity committed and valid settlements that were executed. so some of this that emil bove is doing here in the courtroom before the jury, it's subtle and it suggestive to the jurors, but it is something that he may try and argue later on that the defense team might try and argue later on whenever they have all of this evidence into the record, there's another really brief exchange, just so you can see how there's wordplay going on here between the defense council and keith davidson about what he was doing and what kind of a person he was bove asked him. i remember i'm asking what you remember. all right. can younswer davidson in answer to what beauvais i'm

it's just been emil bove they doing it. and obviously the prosecution will get michael cohen to say what they want him to say when he testifies. but right after that is going to be the cross-examination and they're essentially preparing for it to be blistering. >> do you think i mean, run given all your point, do you think there's any chance that donald trump did not know what was behind the checks he was signed. >> it really beggars belief, given what we heard about the organizational structure today, i think despite the superficial when of trump's team getting these witnesses to say no, we didn't get direct orders. >> what we learned more deeply and these are jurors are carefully taking notes. >> they're paying attention, is that this byzantine structure in this organization and the particular way they approached these transactions was designed to prevent that direct order from happening. >> or this was not an accident? they had this structure. it was not an accident. and then what we learned about their general practice

let me read this to you because he gets into this a meal, but this isn't the defense is the cross bove ask you just testified about a series of payments that were made to michael cohen and 2017, right. mcconney said, yes, sir. in that timeframe, 2017, michael cohen was a lawyer, right? mcconney says, okay, meal beauvais says. right. and then mccartney's is sure. yes. >> and then bove says, in payments to lawyers by the trump organization are legal expenses, wright mcconney says, yes, sir. >> bove says, and you book those payments on the general ledger as legal expenses, correct. but connie says, yes. now here's the part that gets into the nitty-gritty of the mds system during you're 30 something plus years of the trump organization, you rarely had conversations with president trump, right? mcconney says, very few. and during the instances when you did speak to him, you didn't talk about accounting software, did you mccartney says no, you never gave him a tour of the mds system, wright mcconney says, no bove you did you have any reason to believe that president trump understood the deta

i was impressed with bove.ht he might have been a better choice to deliver a closing argument. i think generally the consensus is it might have been a little disorganized. it was shorter than the prosecutor's closing. but 2 1/2 hours for the defense when your only goal, you don't need to build the case. your goal is to create reasonable doubt. so it's difficult, it's a challenge, but i thought it could have been organized. there were points, for example, one that sticks with me is the argument that the legal services was a drop down menu in the accounting software. little moments like that might be really compelling to one particular juror. >> you just need one. >> glenn, let me go to you as my former prosecutor friend. let me read a little bit of what joshua steinglass has said. the intent we need to prove is the intent to conceal another crime. so what crime do we suggest he intended to conceal inthe answer is new york state election law. he continues, as for the conspiracy to promote or prevent an election,

to the left of him i believe is bove. every time there is a bench meeting, there's only been two, he spokes with bove. i saw this myself as well during stormy daniels' testimony, so bove can explain to donald trump what it is they're going to talk about or asking about within the bench meeting. twice so far, it's been about providing limiting instructions to the jury as to what they can and cannot include or use or consider as evidence specifically the investigation into michael cohen. and then to the left of bove as well was susan necheles who cross-examined stormy daniels inside that courtroom last week. this is all going towards the lead-up of august of 2018, when just down the street, michael cohen pled guilty and pointed the finger at his former boss and the current president at the time of the united states, donald j. trump, guys. >> okay, yasmin, thanks. stand by as we continue to report out what's happening in there. so they're talking about this nondisclosure agreement. >> this is the time they benched more. >> e

and one of the other things that trump attorney emil bove was bringing up in relation to this. i believe it was him. he's right now, mr. beauvais cross-examining this tech person who died, douglas dow, who works for the manhattan de, you probably know him. in fact, he is explaining right now that the data has a heart as a hash value like a digital foot fingerprint. but by asking doubts whether he has first-hand knowledge of why the rickard recording of mr. trump cut off and douglas dao says, he's does not. this is, i suppose, just trying to establish what the prosecution was trying to establish that these recordings are real. emil bove, i'm not sure what he's doing, but in any case karam, let me just ask you these kinda like other sleazy cases and the idea of where is the line between, hey, i have this story that somebody has and you can buy it and it won't see light of air or not versus extortion it does seem to be suggesting that this prosecution witness keith davidson, is kinda sleep easy. that seems to be what the prosecution, the defense is is underlining yeah. >> without

to which bove responded, you don't know how long the conversation is.s, the forensic analyst responds, no. which gets at the heart of the question what did the rest of that conversation look like and did michael cohen intentionally only provide half of the potential conversation, and then, again, with the jury sitting there could leave doubts in their head about whether michael cohen recorded the entire truth. >> they're trying to soften up michael cohen. they know he's going to be a key witness. they're trying to prebut him to say, look, you can't trust this guy. that's been the theme of their case while the prosecution is doing the opposite with the corroboration. carol and i can agree on the fact that normally these witnesses don't get grilled on cross examination. you stipulate, you admit it, and then you argue the evidence when it comes out, but not the person who's a custodian or a data expert who just extracts it. they are going to try to poke holes whenever they can. it has a double benefit for trump in that it helps delay this matter. you know

>> mcconney says, okay, meal bove says, right. and then mccartney's assure. yes. >> and then bobi says, and payments to lawyers by the trump organization or legal expenses, right? >> mcconney yes, sir. bove and you book those payments on the general ledger as legal expenses, correct but connie says, yes. now here's the part that gets into the nitty-gritty of the mds system during your 30 something plus years of the trump organization, you rarely had conversations with president trump, right? mcconney says very few. and during the instances when you did speak to him you didn't talk about accounting software, did you? mccartney says no you never gave him a tour of the mds system, right mcconney says, know bove you didn't have any reason to believe that president trump understood the details of mds mcconney says correct. mds is the pull-down menu system. all right. i believe but let me make one point though. the prosecution it doesn't necessarily have to show donald trump opened up that pull-down menu and clicked on legal expenses. it's enough if donald trump kn

bove says, and you book those payments on the general ledger as legal expenses, correct. but connie says yes. now, here's the part that gets into the nitty-gritty of the mds system during you're 30 something plus years of the trump organization, you rarely had conversations with president trump right? mcconney says very few. and during the instances when you did speak to him, you didn't talk about accounting software, did you? mccartney says no, you never gave him a tour of the mds system, wright mcconney says, no bove as you didn't have any reason to believe that president trump understood the details of mds. a mcconney says, correct. mds is the pull-down menu system. all right. i believe but let me make one point though. >> the prosecution doesn't necessarily have to show donald trump opened up that pull-down menu and clicked on legal expenses. >> it's enough if donald trump knew and i think michael cole will say this, look the plan was, we put this whole elaborate reimbursement play together because he knew and we knew it was stormy. daniel's payment and we were trying

. >> here's what bove is saying. what i would propose is to remove donald trump from the equation.esn't have to establish this line in its entirety. the way the evidence came into being in certain rooms, at certain times, in the same respect to pecker and weiselberg. bove says, it's extraordinarily important for the jury if it gets to the question as to whether it is a felony. judge merchan, the presence of a single crime does not constitute guilt. bove says, i don't think it accomplishes it for the purpose of a conspiracy obstruction charge, criminal conspiracy predicate here is distinct. judge merchan says, what's the harm in including it there? this section deals with conspiracy. why not include it there? and he also adds, it would mislead the jury, your honor, for two reasons. the defense himself -- the defendant himself doesn't even need to have committed the crime. it is sufficient if he sought to conceal the commission of someone else's crime. the second brief, your honor, is in the trial record. it just doesn't support an argument that extensive corroborating evidence -- th

now for context 20,000 people fills less than a quarter of the green bay packers land bove field is why doe biden is in wisconsin today for the fourth time this year, he's unveiling a 3.3 billion. that's why billion-dollar investment by microsoft with a not so subtle shot at donald trump. now, back in 2018, than president trump was in the exact same spot to announce a huge manufacturing facility by foxconn trump said it would be the eighth wonder of the world instead, it was mostly abandoned. cnn's jeff's in milwaukee, geoff well dana, wisconsin is the closest of the blue wall states and you pointed out the numbers there and there is no path to reelection without wisconsin president biden, the white house fully aware of that. >> this is his fourth visit of the year. as you said, an each time he has come here to wisconsin, he's brought something with him. if it's an investment in infrastructure, talking about building an religion superior are replacing lead pipes here in milwaukee. the question is, are voters feeling these economic achievements of the biden administration? it really isn'

mcconney specified bove pressed him further. if trump ever asked him to do any of the things he described, he did not. a mcconney testified also testifying on monday, deborah tarasoff, a trump organization accounts employee who cut the checks to cohen. tarasoff said that trump was the only one who signed the checks for his personal account only mr. trump. she testified adding if he didn't want to sign it, he didn't sign it. >> it's goes well past the stormy daniels hush money payments monday morning before the weaknesses took the stand, the judge found trumped in contempt for again, violating a gag order, preventing him from discussing witnesses or jurors and the case this time criticizing the makeup of the jury in an interview with the outlet real america's voice. >> that's yours. it's so fast. 95% democrats the areas, mostly old democrat. you think of it as just a purely democrat area. it's a very unfair situation that i can tell you judge. >> one, we're sean said the magnitude of this decision is not lost on me, but at the en

and emil bove tried to race past the moment with another question that got another objection and wasustained and judge merchan leaned across the bench and raised his voice looking directly at the witness , right there, and said, i'm sorry? what did you just say. after a silence, judge merchan, in an agitated but not angry way said, i'm sorry? meaning, what did you just say. he knew what he said. he said jeez. and that drew attention. the judge drew that attention in a big way. that line that i just told you from judge merchan saying , i'm sorry? i'm sorry? that does not appear in the court transcript because too much was happening in the courtroom for the court reporter , who had never seen anything like this. this is something that people who deal with court transcripts for many years now, especially transcripts produced at high speed like the daily transcripts in this trial. they frequently have small and unimportant heirs. words left out. words that are incorrect. for example, in that same transcript earlier, when robert costello was introduced in the transcript as a witness, the

he's handing it to his attorney, emil bove bay. that is the one who has been doing the cross-examination and also did the cross-examination of keith davidson, which the trump team believed was pretty effective yesterday is it got incredibly contentious inside that courtroom where he was keith davidson, who just a reminder was the attorney for stormy daniels who negotiated this agreement with michael cohen. all of these questions about his past work and kinda bordering on this allegation that it was extortion, that he was bordering up on in his actions. do you believe that was active cross-examination by the trump team yesterday? today absolutely. >> i think mr. beauvais did a phenomenal job with that. and you've got a witness on the stand who is in the hush money business, who won't say yeah, it was hush money. always consideration and has made a career with whole cogen and tie it to kill it. and charlie sheen and countless others. when lindsay? lohan when they're having a personal problem in their lives going to them and saying, h

emil bove, j. trump's attorneys currently the cross-examining keith davidson, stormy daniels, and karen mcdougal's attorney much more at cnn special live coverage in just minutes. thanks so much for watching. we'll be right back hey, brian, it's kaitlan collins, how loria hi. how are you? >> thank you for having me i'm lovely. >> thanks for joining us onald trump looking as the witness, keith davidson and his attorney, emil bove vey, as emil bove is cross-examining that former attorney for the adult film actress stormy daniels. >> this is seen as a special live coverage of donald trump it's hush money trial. and trump's attorney is now asking keith davidson, is of questions. questions on michael cohen in his state of mind. and the former president's fixers pattern of behavior as he is on the witness stand, the cross-examination now >> current is we're looking at this line of questioning, essentially what a meal beauvais is asking keith davidson is if he was trying to make sure to avoid the appearan

and here's another key thing here is that the trump attorney himself bove actually slipped up as andrew weissmann was one of the first to point out following this word by word during the case that bove characterizes the payment to cohen as a reimbursement. and mcconney agrees with that. that was a huge slip up because that's their whole defense is that it wasn't a reimbursement. it was a legitimate payment for legal fees for services rendered. >> joyce, if you're the prosecutor taking notes, that you're going to use in your closing argument, is that one of the points at which you point the finger? >> you know, it absolutely is. but as y'all pointed out, it's a slip of the tongue, and prosecutors won't focus too heavily on something like that. this case isn't about one witness or one piece of evidence. it's about all of the circumstantial evidence that this was not a payment for legal fees, that it was compensation for the payment that was made to stormy daniels and that trump was in on the scheme. so we'll see the prosecution layer evidence upon evidence when they close to tell the jury

and every time there is a side bar, bove moves into blanche's seat and it seems like bove is explaining what is happening during the side bar and blanche comes back and gives him the directives as to what has been said, directed by judge juan merchan and/or telling him what was talked about. there is a lot of -- he's very engaged right now in this moment, it seems, in comparison to some of the reporting that got in the early stages of the jury selection. >> you need to get some by knocklers. i will, if you don't. >> good ones, please. >> thank you for sticking around. thank you so much, lisa, for that. >>> breaking developments in another trump case, why the classified documents trial, the florida one that was supposed to begin this month, won't be happening anytime soon. >>> plus, the reason behind the biden administration's decision to halt a large shipment of weapons to israel. >>> and right now on capitol hill, another tense hearing focused on antisemitism in schools. we're back in just 90 seconds. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. you're watching "jose diaz-balar

discussed there, and currently what they were going back and forth with, donald trump's defense attorney, bove is asking her about the extent to which michael cohen, who technically didn't play an official role with the campaign, was a part of the senior campaign leadership meetings at trump tower after the "access hollywood" tape came out. she was not present. at one point he was in london, and not there directly involved in the conversations, the campaign level about even when it came to an additional tape, which she ultimately called michael cohen about. and of course that alleged tape was what came to be known as the pee tape, that donald trump had been with hookers and engaged in lewd acts and talking with michael cohen, engaged and determined that that tape did not actually exist there. this is where it kind of goes to her acknowledging michael cohen's outside role, the one who had relationships with the likes of david pecker, and tmz, and would be able to answer those questions there. this was a moment where you're now looking at the defense team for donald trump, also asking her about

didn't love that personally, but there was also a lot of friction as you talked about between emil bove, the trump lawyer, and keith davidson. keith davidson? it's the beauty of cross-examination , right? on direct keith davidson being questioned by the prosecutor is very calm, very very cool, little funny on cross when trump's lawyers are asking him combative argumentative he and the aaa really went at each other a couple of times over this question of extortion obviously, the lawyers arguing i didn't extort but anybody have never extorted anyone trump layer also suggested he had threatened people which he denied. and i think trump's team scored some points today in the sense that they made this whole world look dirty and sleazy, and that trump was in some ways in the trump characterization, a celebrity victim of these shakedowns but i'll be honest, even if the jury believes that i don't know how that ultimately matters for the verdict here because stormy daniel's and keith davidson didn't fill out trump's accounting books? >> no. yeah. yeah, it's not the actual is on the actual paymen

in the cross examination, it was important to note that bove kind of went at this individual testifying to some of those phone records and/or someone could kind of switch a sim card to another phone, for instance, possibly it wasn't being taken from the actual phone itself. maybe the sim card could have been changed: putting questions in the jurors' minds. this is what it's all about, the evidence that will be submitted and shown when michael yasmin u for that update. and they're now looking at allen weisselberg's phone records as the testimony continues again with this new witness from verizon. i want to bring back our legal panel, sarah chris and bernardia vialona. i want to talk about what happens when it goes to the defense. we're talking about michael cohen being a big witness next week. shortly after him we anticipate things will start to wrap up on the prosecution's side, and there have been a lot of discussion around whether trump will take the stand in his own defense. he's been very outspoken about his desire to take the stand, went from absolutely to softening to if it is nec

she stopped and she turned to the side and then just kinda got choked up and then bove they asked, do you want to take a break? let's take a break, judge, has let's take a break. >> so i think the jury and everyone else was wondering what's going on and i believe the reaction was because just like jeremy said, she had just finished testifying. >> she said something that was damaging towards trump's. she said yes, he did say it's better that this happened before the election then after the election, and i think when beauvais got up there, she felt comfortable. she felt at home. this is my family and sometimes that's a very sensitive moment. that's when you break down just as fascinating. i mean, daniel hertz as a former manhattan assistant district attorney you can bend in these rooms, not this particular one in this sense, but, you know what's happening here. so how does a dramatic moment like that effect a jury? >> i mean, i think jurors are human beings and they're moved in ways that we all are. but i think at the end of the de, they're gonna pay attention to whether this witness wa

bove's attempted to tie davidson's involvement with hogan's alleged extortion plot to his hush money deals for daniel's and 40 her playboy model, karen mcdougal, bow vs davidson. if he goes right up to the line without committing extortion, davidson responded, i don't understand the question. after court, trump said he's pleased with how his team is doing. >> a long day in court is always very happy about the way things you know now, trump was mainly sitting still for a lot of the testimony, but when his lawyers were cross-examining keith davidson, he leaned forward, he looked toward in the direction of davidson, it seemed to be pairing paying close attention jurors throughout the day, even when it was more salacious testimony are some of the drier parts, they all seem pretty engaged. >> what? between the monitor in front of them and their heads bobbing between the witness and the lawyers asking a questions that the da's witness right now is a computer forensic analysts. he is expected to be back on the stand tomorrow where they will introduce some more records obtained from michael

>> bove emil bove said yes, judge, i understand. >> and then castello ask the judge, can i say something, please? and the judge goes, no, no. this is not a conversation it was an extraordinary moment. there have been a couple of times in my close to 40 years of going to court when courts have been cleared like that, never with that chaos, never in such a high profile case. and i've seldom seen a witness act out as visibly as wrong costello, he set this off by audibly saying in response to one of the judge's rulings because he was rambling all over the place? objection. sustained. and then he said, jeez, and the jury could hear that. >> they're sitting right there. i was your back and i could hear the jury was kaitlan in an eye. we're looking at each other across the aisle. did jurors were looking at each other, which they seldom do. they were rolling their eyes, they were pursuing their lips, they were shaking their heads whatever value castello had to the defense. and as you reported, there was a hot debate about it within the defense, whatever value we had was eliminated. and the irony

where you would see you and trump are often sitting next to each other or the other attorneys, emil bove and susan nicholas, but trump, what hit you on the arm? tap you on the arm, or judy, their object are clearly was writing your notes and saying, i mean, who ultimately was in charge of the defense strategy here, was it you or was it donald trump it was both of us. >> if there's a lawyer that comes in and says that they're in charge of their defense strategy. >> they're not doing a service that our client, every decision that we made, we made as a team and not just present trump on myself, but the whole team so again, every, every defendant, everybody who has her life on the line in history, will tap their lawyer every once while and say, hey, what about this? what about that? i've never we had we not only did we get along during the trial, but we were on the same page about strategy and about what we should be doing and not doing. and it was the one thing that i left with today is he in impressed, hopefully everybody that's that got to see what happened today. the way that he handled

there's a reason and emil bove eight has been very strong in these cross-examinations. so he, and he's one of the defenses maybe one of the reasons and the lawyers who you can talk to it that the difference between pecker, who is businessman, he's in this just to make money he doesn't care as lawyers, we have these ethical obligation it's worth old ways they supposed to be a moral high ground. you're not supposed to be extorting people. you're not supposed to be accused of extorting people. as a lawyer, you're not supposed to be investigated for extorting people as a lawyer and all of those things happened to him. so i can see it being much more defensive, been pecker saying yeah, did this and i made the company millions though. one thing i think we you've learned today was why david pecker was put first by the prosecution because the argument in the prosecution is look, pecker and trump in-person, not some deputy, but checker and trump made this agreement to protect him before the election all the rest of this is the execution of that. and sure, these people are the de

this is from the cross examination between pecker and donald trump's attorney, neil bove. again, this started around 10:30 remember, so they're about ten minutes into reading the transcript or so, or less than that. we'll continue to keep our eye on what's happening inside that courtroom at this specific testimony. yasmin, you have some color? >> yeah. just fyi, 55 pages they have to read. so it's going to take some time, right? we're almost through that first phone call. they've got 55 pages to read. i imagine they're not going to go into deliberations until around 11:15, 11:30 or so. i want to talk about the phone call that danny chs just talking about and how it seems as if donald trump and as we talked about earlier, deputizing michael cohen. this phone call happened in, i believe, early summer of 2016. around june of 2016 david pecker, donald trump, remember, karen mcdougal alleges she had a relationship, not an affair, an ongoing relationship. we heard extensively from karen mcdougal's mouth. donald trump has denied this relationship and remember, i'm making this dis

and we see that bove is saying trump said numerous times he knew nothing of the payment to stormy daniels. gentlemen, thank you very much. paul, andrew, great to have you both here. a lot of breaking news this afternoon. that's "the story" for this monday. the story moves on with this trial, folks. we are getting down to the wire. >> the trial that won't end. even though it appears that it could soon be ending, and we are live in new york city with every nasty detail. donald trump could emerge from the courthouse any day now. defense now presenting its case after the prosecution rests, calling legal advisor to michael cohen, bob costello, to the stand. it comes as cohen admits under oath that he stole money from the trump administration. so what goes next? let's get right to it with nate foy. what's the latest, nate? >> it's been a busy day for sure, neil. and bob costello is talking about his conversations with michael cohen. he described cohen has manic during those conversations, pacing back and forth. and he just said cohen told him during that time that trump knew nothing about the s

good morning, emil bove, joined by president trump to my loft, joined by todd blanche, susan necheles. the judge, good morning. good morning, mr. trump. so the matter called into the ng record is the people's motion for contempt, meaning the prosecution's motion for e contempt.n' the judge says, quote, before ia hand down my decision, i wantedy to address the defense and mr. trump. mr. trump, as you know, the s prosecution has filed three separate motions asking this court to find you in contempt. in a moment, i'm going to hand down my decision on the third motion. which i -- in which i find you in criminal contempt for the tenth time. quote, it appears that the $1,000 fines are not serving as a deterrent. therefore, going forward, this court will have to consider a jail sanction if recommended. h mr. trump, it is important to understand that the last thing i want to do is put you in jail. you are the former president of the united states and possibly the next president as well. there are many reasons why si incarceration is truly a last resort for me. to take that step would be disru

. >> bill: on that point, mark, bove in the cross examination of one of the witnesses said cohen was lawyer and payments to lawyers are legal expenses, are they not? and that's in a documents case, that's what this case is all about, is it not? >> yes. so i was actually thinking that if trump came to me and said how should i label this, mark? i would think about it and say not as a campaign expense. that would be intellectually dishonest because you cared about melania and your kids from finding out and your brand. there are other reasons why you did that. campaign expense would seem hokey. they might come after you for labeling it a campaign expense. legal fees is broad enough to cover it. i would actually have told him that's probably the way to go. >> dana: andy mccarthy a quick note from you. now that you have heard president trump and we'll squeeze in a quick break. >> i think it goes to what we talked about before. i don't think -- what president trump is saying they can't even proosh i falsified my records. what i'm trying to point out is they have to prove beyond a reasonable

of bovee says it's an incredibly broad concept the judge says better off staying away from any practicalof this case. some of these exchanges are for all of us very difficult to follow without the full context but your reaction to what we have learned so far with the last 20 minutes or so? >> center, jury instruction's are important but i will tell you you win or lose your trial well before the jury instructions conference and the settlement on the law. you know, when i was a brand-new prosecutor my first dozen cases or so i scrutinized the jury instructions as though my life depended on it later i learned better. what you needed was an incredible presentation of evidence. or witnesses needed to be trusted, you also had to be able to deflect what the defense of theory might be, and if he did not accomplish that, you were going to lose no matter what the jury instructions said. >> john: let's come back to the instruction that judge merchan said he is reserving judgment on but would be inclined to included in the jury instructions and if that is the phrase which is what the defense wanted

and we see that bove is saying trump said numerous times he knew nothing of the payment to stormy daniels, andrew, great to have you both here. a lot of breaking news this afternoon. that's "the story" for this monday. the story moves on with this trial, folks. we are getting down to the wire. >> the tri

. >> john: when either todd blanche or susan nicholas or emily bovee take over the cross-examination,ere doing that for donald trump, what would you do with cohen? >> i would, and i suspect i don't know mr. blanche only by reputation which is excellent. i worked very closely with susan pier and she is terrific and she did a really nice job with stormy daniels. but they've been -- it's almost like in the movie secretary where they are holding back on the final stretch but i think they get the web out and i think todd blanche comes out swinging in a measured way. cohen has an allergy to veracity. this guy can't tell the truth. he told "the new york times" none of this occurred. he's going to tell this jury and have told the jury it did occur. he's all over the board here and what's interesting in the place where i primarily practice in pennsylvania, our perjury statute has a subsection that says if it was sworn testimony, if in sworn testimony you say it happened and in sworn testimony beat you say it didn't happen, the commonwealth need not prove which is the light. they know he's lyin

i think bove was tentative with her today because she began crying. i think he would have bloodied her up a little bit more if she had not been so in distress. >> that is the human side as mentioned. i have about 30 seconds, andrew. any thoughts on that on cross? >> i want to take something melissa said, which is it is right to anticipate that the defense is going to be saying this is about melania. as melissa notes there is contrary evidence in the record, but the jury i think is going to be instruct did that you can have a dual motive. the state does not have to prove that the 100% intent in his head was the election. if there was a dual motive, that he was concerned about the election and his wife, he is still guilty. so the state will certainly be wrapping themselves around that jury instruction to say the hope hicks testimony should be believed, including the part about the concern about what melania's reaction will be, but that doesn't mean he wasn't concerned first and foremost or even in part about getting elected. so they can sort of embrace

bove, yes, judge. i understand. this is the judge again.en to the question and answer the question. the witness, this is the witness, can i say something please? the judge, no, no. this is not a conversation. to which the witness said, okay. lisa, that was a dramatic moment. >> it was, and it wasn't one we saw, so i'm really glad you read the transcript. that happened in a sealed courtroom, as you noted. that was something that judge merchan said only with robert costello on the stand and the lawyers in the room, and then the additional people that are there for the d.a. and for the trump folks. but no members of the public and certainly not the press was there to see that. that having been said, costello continued to sort of talk over objections and really resist the questions posed to him from the d.a.'s office. he has not been a good witness even when he was better counselled pie judge merchan. let's see how that ends tomorrow. >> yeah, they made a lot about cohen being coached. this is why you coach a witness. i'm not a lawyer and i kno