donna edwards of maryland, an msnbc political analyst. just talking, donna, as you see this, what is going on in the courtroom, there are so many kind of split screen moments that we have been watching over these last couple of weeks, between what the president of the united states is involved in and what he's doing and what he's saying, and what the former president and current candidate for president of the united states has been dealing with inside that courtroom. does that split screen weigh more every single day? >> i think it is a really complicated environment for the former president. after all, he's spending four days a week in a courtroom. we're getting a lot of the secondhand redux of what's going on in that courtroom. and the president of the united states, joe biden, is out there on the campaign trail, opening up campaign offices, all across the country, and really running as a candidate for re-election, while the former president is, you know, we have to listen to all of the, you know, salacious details of what happened with stormy daniels and the relationship to the -- to the business records. so, i think it is -- it is a tough environment. and for the former president, and he has very little to go on when it comes to getting out on the campaign trail. >> yes, stewart, i mean, donald trump is such an unusual political being, right? just the fact that, you know, what he was able to accomplish in 2016, it is almost as though -- we were speaking with ashley parker about just how the folks that he brought into the oval office to the white house and to the administration were people that had really no experience in the past, with anything to do with, you know, government or governance. is this, you think, something that is going to continue to damage donald trump as a candidate, as the days progress and as we see more and more batches of text messages between people about stormy daniels and michael cohen and all these other issues? >> you know, when i worked for george bush in 2000, the single message that worked by far the best for us was restoring honor and dignity to the white house. and that was after the clinton scandal. and that is nothing compared to this. you know, i think there is something that has a corrosive effect on donald trump and his character, the lack of character, is this someone you really want to look up to in the white house? to the degree that donald trump is defining himself as a victim, it helps with those, i don't think that's helping with anybody who isn't already for donald trump and everybody gets to vote once. and there is sort of the absurdity of donald trump's defense here, that he is the first man in history to pay $130,000 to a porn star, not to have sex. i mean, is that really credible? so, i think this is very good for president biden and bad for donald trump. >> there are so many instances, comments comments that i'm taken back to something i would have probably believed to have seen in a movie with salvador dahli. but to see it in a courtroom in america in 2024 -- it is different. i want to bring you all back to one of the texts that are being discussed now in the courtroom. we are talking about a batch of texts from october 9, 2016. they are talking back and forth again, dylan howard and gina rodriguez about "the daily mail" was interested in stormy daniels' story. howard says, i will buy it, but i ain't got 250k. i can get 100. she says, what about 150k? he says, 110. next batch of texts, 125k. then lol, 120? back, sold. do you have understanding these all are texts october 8 in new york time? that would be east coast time zone. longstreet, yes. go back right into the texts. same october 9. i'm at dinner. i will email contract when i'm back at the hotel or by first thing in the a.m. okay. "daily mail" is offering 200. next batch. i haven't told them anything except what i put in the email yesterday. i have not responded. the next day's batch of texts include, never heard from you. stormy leaves tomorrow to go back home. d.m. wants it, too. okay, i will call you. scott, the back and forth is showing the evolution -- i mean, this stuff is -- this looks like one of those auctions that go on -- >> so transactional, isn't it? there's a price in the free market we can put on how much it's worth to keep the story buried. it really is almost like watching the stock market ticker go. >> an auction for -- i don't know for what. i'm wondering, again, what is it then that the jury is to take away from this? >> i'm sure that the jurors are processing that there is a basis for -- a factual basis for actually not just stormy's testimony as to what was happening -- she clearly was a part of this negotiations from the text messages, had is very -- which is very helpful, she also had firsthand knowledge how this was handled. but to the extent it's a business transaction, it's very much emphasizing this notion that the trump campaign was eager, through ami, to keep this buried. >> donald trump's attorney is picking up with the re-cross. he starts, to take you right into the courtroom, good morning, ms. longstreet. we spoke last friday. i won't re-ask you about the answers you give. you reviewed thousands of tweets. you didn't select the ones to put up. the folks on my right selected them? yes, that is correct. blanche -- this is literally what's being written by our folks inside the courtroom as it is being heard. blanche is asking longstreet, so you did not do mr. cohen's tiktok? longstreet, no. currently, no. you are no aware of what he posted the other night? longstreet, i am not. again, scott, this is the defense saying, okay, so we're going through a lot of tweets and truth social and texts of people that are not -- i mean truth social tweets were directly by the then president. but these other texts are not related directly to the president. but, why didn't you look at tiktok? >> it's fascinating. i don't know if catherine is having the same sense of vertigo in a way as to watching a trial that revolves so much around social media. in some ways, the witnesses are creating records for each side. right? clearly, there's a tiktok posting -- >> or a series. >> or a series, that's going to be used on the cross of cohen when he testifies. not that lawyers' jobs weren't complicated enough, but it adds another extra later. i not only debrief my witness, find out about physical corroboration, i have to look at social media. >> i want to bring in jeffrey swartz, a former judge who is a professor now. i thank you for being with us. your thoughts today on what has been going on in the courtroom from the at&t specialist to talk to you about chips to now longstreet going over some of the different exchanges and text messages and tweets and tiktoks. >> i'm at a loss. i understand that at this point and throughout the trial the defense refused to stipulate to the entrance of records like these. this is where in most cases the kind of evidence that a judge could get both sides to stipulate to. although, i think merchan is not sticking his nose into this. it's very obvious, as we have seen as with other things that have happened in this trial, that mr. trump has had a substantial affect on his lawyers and what they do and what they can and cannot do. i think this is just satisfying mr. trump that you are not giving in to anything, you are not agreeing to anything. this is the way i want it to be. >> scott, we are hearing about merchan and what he has been able to do. there has been a lot of talk about the gag order. i know you have a very important thought on that. >> yeah. i have been very impressed, once removed, with how judge merchan is handling this case and especially the contempt hearings. it's important to keep in mind he has two objectives. i say this having gone back through his orders and statements. one is to make sure that this jury is protected in terms of its safety, foremost. you have the statements being read yesterday that my motto is to get even, right? you don't want them actually being in physical peril. one thing we have to keep in mind -- i was struck, because merchan talks constantly about, i have a job to do, and part of that job is to maintain the legitimacy and integrity of the judicial system. at one point he says, one of trump's violations was a direct attack on the rule of law. we depend, jose, in many ways on public confidence in the criminal justice system and in juries. we have seen the supreme court -- i think its stature has diminished greatly as it has been seen as politicized. we get the constant attacks on the prosecutors and other judges. i really think the jurors are something different and that merchan gets this. they are simply answering a summons. this is the civic duty that at least i was raised to think, this is part of what you do as a u.s. citizen. >> in so many ways, it's almost unique to the united states, the rule of law. i know there are other countries that have juries, but not to this degree and this level. >> it goes back to our founding. heralded the american jury as an example of true democracy. we are grabbing 12 people off the street. can juries get wrong? that's a long conversation. the answer is clearly yes. we can improve the jury system. what really alarms me is the statements that trump and those who amplify him have made, that this is a corrupt jury. these are not jurors who are coming in and in good faith listening to the evidence and will listen to each other. i will tell you, my experience has been that jurors take their oath very seriously. what i really fear is that we have diminished so many other institutions that whatever -- if donald trump is convicted, there's going to be 40% of the population that's going to say, it was a corrupt jury, it was a rigged jury. they didn't really listen to the evidence. i think once we start tearing down juries, we are really going down a slippery slope. >> stewart, donnat, thank you all so much for being with me. that wraps up the hour. i'm jose diaz-balart. thank you for the privilege of your time. anna cabrera picks up with more news right now. ♪♪ >>> hello on this friday.