they wanted to put and rhona graff responded in the email and said, okay, but the frames are about $650 with a 10% discount. can you check with them if that's how much he wants to spend? >> this is why donald trump is the president of the united states of america. >> and he was rhona, who knows him better than anyone, essentially was still checking to see if that was too much money for him to spend don a frame and for her to expense it. and i think that is where we're going to see this go tomorrow that they are trying to get to the fact that he was a penny pinch or any paid attention to where every cent went and we paid this guy $35,000 a month and he has a reputation around this town of stiffing law firms like you could, you could, you could make a long list on ellie's notepad there records, the recording that michael cohen secretly taped of his client trump, does seem interested in the details of payments. i mean, he's talking about i didn't catch yeah. can we do we do it in catch shirts? let me ask you this question. is it seems to me that there is a lot of evidence that trump in gen

westerhout says, i believe that's rhona graff's.hat's trump's organization assistant mangled says, can you read what's written in ms grass writing and then westerhout says, dear mr. president, if wing foot, which is a golf club in western new york, will allow me to suspend your membership for for eight years. do you want me to look into it or do you want me to? he continue paying annual dues and the food minimum i believe that's just rg. the initials. do you see the handwriting below that westerhout says yes. who says that? westerhout says that's the president mangold says, do you know what type of pen was used for the president's handwriting? westerhout's says, it looks to be a sharp we for sharpie all over the testimony so far that mangle says, what's written below the note in mr. trump's handwriting, westerhout says hey, man, says, is their handwriting something else written in the president's and then western he says, yes, asap. okay. in other words, yes. pay the $6,000 dues to win foot asap. >> okay so again, this is donald tru

already testified and now you have hope hicks validating essentially authenticating rhona graff'solvement and what she knows. and then the same thing with allen weisselberg, because allen weisselberg is not here, she can testify about his involvement and then later on, the prosecution presumably will blend all that authenticity together with documents and witness testimony, really all in service of shoring up whatever credibility holes you might get through a witness like michael cohen, or, excuse me, keith davidson or even david pecker. that kind of testimony of hope hicks is really just laying foundations. she was there, she had eyes, she had ears, she saw a lot, and she can explain to the jury who all the players were and what their roles were, thereby adding to their own credibility when they take the stand. >> i want to bring back former federal prosecutor robert ray and senior judge phyllis cote. it is interesting because it is almost like the prosecution is utilizing someone who is very close to trump before, during and after the campaign and when he gets to the white house

do you know rhona graff? answer those questions, right outside of donald trump's office on his floor. do you know allen weisselberg, do you know michael cohen, do you know stormy daniels, do you know karen mcdougal. do you know each and every one of the players? do you know david pecker? do you know keith davidson. each and every one of the players we may be hearing from, folks that we've already heard from as well, and then connecting some of the stories, interlocking some of the stories that we've heard, specifically from david pecker, some from rhona graff as well, keith davidson as well, some of the communications we've heard from them as well. a couple of the rapid fire questions i thought were really interesting, right? essentially this case is about did donald trump know what he was doing, right? did he know michael cohen was paying off stormy daniels and karen mcdougal that he subsequently then paid michael cohen back for and establishing that intent, right? and some of those rapid fire questions at h

how close was she to the former president, thinking back to rhona graff's testimony about the fact that she knew stormy daniels had visited trump tower, inserted karen mcdougal's address and phone number into the former president's phone log. also they established a motive with hope hicks, and i bring that up to say it was the rapid fire questions that we heard from the prosecution to hope hicks. was the former president concerned after release of the "access hollywood" tape, concerned about learning a vote from women after the release of the "access hollywood" tape. was he concerned about how republicans were reacting to the "access hollywood" tape. they were painting this picture throughout the day of a man, two, three weeks out. when the "access hollywood" tape was released and he was concerned about being able to win the election in just three week's time. and then we go back, of course, to the attorneys for karen mcdougal and stormy daniels who talks about the e-mails sent to michael cohen on october 26th and 27th. talking about the deal, the subsequent payoffs as well. hope hicks

as vaughn was saying, rhona graff believes she saw her. she does have the bodyguard's information in her own telephone. that was introduced. we saw records that the former president had stormy daniels' information in his contacts that was put there by rhona graff. she's talking about specific people who were there at the time. that's usually not the kind of thing you would say if you thought it could be disproved, that those people would hop on the stand and say that's not true. there's a lot of corroboration around the edges of her story and the fact that they knew each other, including, of course, the very famous picture of the two of them. there will be substantial reason to think -- the jury is entitled to just consider her credibility. you can be sure on cross-examination, that her credibility will be attacks in terms of her motive, trying to make money off the story and various other things about her will be tested. as is the defense right and as they should be doing. >> how tough would you be on her if you were doing the cross? from

you have the person cutting the checks, taking those checks all the way to rhona graff to be signed by donald trump or taken to rebecca, faxing checks to madeleine westerhout, getting the checks over to donald trump, and those to be subsequently shipped back, fedexed back to trump power, completing the kind of circle and why it is. kind of these witnesses that are not as dramatic, right, are so wildly important to the prosecution's case. >> and, peter, let's talk about donald trump whom you've written a book about, you're writing another book about. you know him so well. was rick scott there because this was part of his audition for running mate or whatever, whether that would even ever happen, whether he would fit nit any of the categories being from florida. is that rick scott or donald trump that needs a validator. can't have family members in a case like this, and wanted somebody to speak for him, because he's so upset about the gag order. >> yeah, i mean, you heard him say time and time again the last few weeks that the area around the courthouse is shut down. where are my support

we heard from rhona graff. we heard from deborah tarasoff. you have her cutting these checks in trump tower, walking the checks up to for instance rhona graff when donald trump was not then president to get some of the checks signed by donald trump in his office in trump tower. when donald trump assumed the white house, assumed the presidency, those checks were sent by tracey menzies to the white house and that's where madeleine westerhout picks things up. she was the personal assistant at that point to donald trump, as she's explaining in the document right now in this testimony, right outside the oval office. she would have been the one, jose, to have taken the checks from the fedex envelope. walks them in to donald trump in the oval office. as we well know now from all of the books read, who have read portions of his books, he signs every check. he knows every number coming out of these checks. walks those checks into donald trump and donald trump subsequently signing these checks, eventually to reimburse and/or pay michael cohen. so they

either they went up to rhona graff, or they were fedex'd to the white house, in which madeline would pick them up and have donald trump sign them. only the accounts that were specifically for donald trump, ie, his personal accounts while he was in the white house were the checks that were sent to him to be subsequently signed off on. what is really interesting so far about the testimony is she talks about limit to which they needed donald trump's signature for checks. and what i mean by that is before 2016 and 2017, the limit was $2,500. anything up to $2,500, donald trump needed to sign off on. now she was saying in 2017, that number went up to $10,000. if a check was over $10,000, it needed to be signed off on by donald trump himself and/or his sons, eric trump or don trump jr. if you remember from early testimony, the checks made out to michael cohen in 2017 were $35,000 a month. much more than the $10,000 limit. the questions being answered by the witnesses today and the current testimony happening right now is did donald trump know who the money was going to. and did he understa

we had heard from rhona graff.ad acknowledged that she'd seen stormy daniels in trump tower, entered a contact for her. but what the defense wanted to lean into is all of the contradictory accounts that stormy daniels has given since this happened. and those are out there. she obviously denied the story for a long time, put a toe in the water about selling it in 2011, drew back, then made this nda with trump, or with cohen, on behalf of trump, as she understood it, in 2016, during the campaign. she testified how anxious she was that he would never pay her and she'd have essentially no leverage after the campaign. but the defense just wanted to dwell on all of the contradictory accounts, that she'd, in fact, hated trump, that she owed him money from an unsuccessful defamation suit she tried to bring against him. and this all came up. and it's going to be for the jury to sort out whether all of those contradictory counts overwhelm the other testimony corroborated about what she says happened in 2006 and then how she

aide, personal assistant to donald trump in the white house emailed with madeleine westerhout and rhona graff over the mailing of personal checks that donald trump would have sent to him from new york and the trump organization, and this individual, john mcentee requesting that they be sent to a personal address. this is part of madeleine westerhout here making it clear that in her role, in her capacity in which she was the one who was executing and bringing these actual checks to donald trump to be signed, essentially she is one of these individuals who is helping fill out the chain of custody that the prosecution needs to bring forward to the jury about how donald trump went about sending those reimbursement checks back to michael cohen. of course you said it, though, the marquee witness that we're waiting for, michael cohen expected to testify on monday, which would lead us to believe that several additional witnesses could very well be brought up to come testify before this jury here to round out the prosecution's list of witnesses before the defense following michael cohen's several days

she's the rhona graff of the white house was trained by rhona graff in the white house as well.i don't know that the foreign dignitaries idea is that far off. she connected him with chairs to time is very interesting arrangement aren't paul christian stay with us? we got a lot more to get to briana. >> yeah. and she's testifying now feel to the fact that he liked to use sharpies, which of course we all know if we've seen how he signs things or how he writes. he likes to use sharpies. we've heard other winning this is testify to that as well. let's talk to our panel now about this witness. in particular, she is key, madeline western out. phil mentioned that book that she'd written. i dare say it is fawning. she describes donald trump is a father figure and that she said she didn't hope she didn't want to be too presumptuous, but she thought that maybe he thought of her as another daughter and yett here she is possibly providing an important link. as she says, he did, yes, he posted tweets himself. she notes and she said the dance convener had access to as twitter her account. >>

. >> the jury is shown the list of trump contacts provided by rhona graff. >> why that is relevant to this point, why they're panic-stricken, but also that there was communication between the white house and the rnc that those of us around this table know that the white house is also a political operation. it's not just a government entity. of course, you have people who are running for office. they have to support the president's reelection will part of that involves communication with republican can national committee and donors and so on. these questions of whether the former president and his campaign were concerned about the impact of some of this behavior. and so news of it getting out is entirely relevant and they have to establish that there is some length there and the reason she is relevant because she was the assistant to katie walsh, who is the assistant to reince priebus. the reason that matters is at the time she was running the trump transition at trump tower, was escorting people up. announcer, she had a ringside seat to this, but interestingly, yesterday she was talki

and then he was respectful. >> she said that rhona graff was crucial. to everything, ran on a 26 floor outside of trump's office and kinda described the trump org as a small family business saying that it was a compact group of people who were in on what was happening in the prosecutor is asking finger, are you familiar with someone named allen weisselberg? of course, allen weisselberg right now and hope hicks said, yes, is sitting in a prison in new york because he just pled pleaded guilty took a plea deal for the second time. he is notably not expected to be a witness here which stands out given his crucial role in bookkeeping the money of the trump organization. yeah, the two convictions for lying, though, basically make him useless to eat or side even though he has come up multiple times, we even heard cohen and trump talking about hi allen weisselberg had allegedly advice cohen about setting up that shell company or setting up a company to pay cubic karen mcdougal money. so he would have been helped full witness, perhaps even for the defense, becau

the other witness, rhona graff was crucial. so that was corroboration. they got the evidence. they see how senior a position she held. she is the one corroborating these others. hicks also confirmed with her own eyewitness account that she had seen and heard trump talking to the enquirer chief david pecker. trump congratulating him after they went after ben carson. at the time in the room, she knows more than most people. but she might have still thought that trump was just working the press like usual. call the enquirer one day. fox the next. now, however, the jury is hearing this wider testimony and understanding this as a potential confirmation of how the tabloid was carrying out the edicts. this was not like calling someone and discussing them doing their independent reporting. this was more like him calling someone who was operating, publicly, commercially, for financially as an arm of the campaign. but doing it off the books. that's part of the crime the da is trying to prove and why the hicks testimony compared with what we heard this week was so significant. i'll tell

like rhona graff. those people were basically called to the stand because trump wouldn't stipulate to any of the evidence. normally in regular trials, the prosecutors and the defense agree on this is a cup. this is a table. but trump's people wouldn't even do that and that is a tactical move. but i thought yesterday's testimony from both paralleled well and went well with what pecker was saying. because it was other side of the coin of these dirty deals, these buy and bury stories. and pecker seemed to think that trump was, you know, good for it and should pay for it. and he also said that trump was a hand some, well know bachelor. >> called him the most eligible bachelor and he said he was married three times. he's always married, right. >> and could i also just jump off this point here, donald trump just wrapped up a campaign event in wisconsin that i was listen to before coming on set and he's not refuting any facts of the case. he didn't say i never told michael cohen to make this payment before th

she also confirmed about what we heard the rhona graff. , was crucial.y seen how much of a senior position, another blow in his efforts, she witnessed she seen and heard trump talking to the inquirer chief, david pecker, who was the witness earlier. congratulating him on a phone call after the tabloid went after ben carson. here is what is interesting about that. at the time and in the room she knows more than most people. she might of still thought that trump was just working the press like usual. call inquirer one day, call fox the next. now, hearing the wider testimony and understanding it as a potential confirmation as for how the tabloid is carrying out the campaign. this is not like calling someone and discussing them doing their reporting where you might share ideas and facts and a quote and see what they report. this was, according to the da. that is why the hicks testimony, combined with what we heard this week was so significant. i will tell you, there is more. hope hicks took the jury inside trump world in a very unusual way. in the very priva

they had rhona graff on a little bit earlier. only on for a few minutes. >> all she could say is these two women were in my contacts and i might have seen ms. daniels in the waiting room. the charges, if you're going to go back to it is falsifying business records. it's not illegal in new york to put false entries in your business records, it becomes illegal if there's an intent to commit fraud or conceal another crime. the prosecution has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, and so far we haven't gotten there yet. >> we're going to dive back into the courtroom in a few minutes. catherine and adam, stick around. >>> coming up next, i want to talk about media silo, how people get their information and what that's going to mean for the upcoming election. we're still focused on this courthouse. is anyone else? don't go anywhere. is anyone else don't go anywhere. now with s, i'm all in with clearer skin. ♪ things are getting clearer...♪ ( ♪♪ ) ♪ i feel free... ♪ ♪ to bear my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ (

rhona graff, the trump assistant, was basically crucial. that is corroboration. of trump attorneys get up and say who is this, who is that, well, they have the evidence and see every position she held and she is the one corroborating these others. in another blow to trump's efforts to find some distance from the inquirer, hicks also confirmed that she had seen trump talking to the inquirer chief, david pecker, who was the witness earlier. trump congratulating him on a phone call after he went after ben carson. here is what is interesting about that. he might've thought that trump was working with the press like usual. you call the inquirer one day and fox the next. now however the jury is hearing this testimony and understanding of potential confirmation of how the inquirer was carrying out the campaign edicts. this wasn't like where you might share ideas or facts and see what they might report. this was more like calling someone who was operating publicly, commercially and financially for an arm of the campaign, but doing it off the books. that is part of the cr

there have been brief exchanges, nonverbal ones between trump and his long time aide rhona graff in the courtroom. these witnesses in essence are vouching for the michael cohen testimony that is still to come. obviously michael cohen and donald trump don't have a good relationship, and trump's lawyers will argue that cohen has a grudge match, that he's made much of this up to try to get back at the former president for not taking him to washington with him. by putting on witness after witness who has testified they like donald trump even know, and by eliciting testimony from them that will back up cohen's story. the prosecutors are skillfully building a narrative that the jurors will be able to believe even with all of the problems that michael cohen will take him to the witness stand. >> tristan, i want to ask you about something that happened move we started to hear about all of these documents today, and that was the judge making a decision about the gag order, another fine for donald trump. but this time, it seems a little more forcefully he threatened jail. if he keeps doing it aga

she also confirmed about what we heard from another witness this week, rhona graff was crucial. that was corroboration. who's this, who's that, the jury's got hope hicks, they've got the evidence, they see how senior position they held and she's corroborating these others. another blow to find some sort of distance from enquirer, hicks confirmed with her own eye witness account that she had seen and heard trump talking to the enquirer chief, david pecker, who was the witness earlier. trump congratulating him on a phone call after the tabloid went after then trump rival ben carson. here's what's interesting about that. at the time in the room she knows more than most people but she might have still thought that trump was working the press like usual. know, however, the jury is hearing this wider testimony and understanding this is a potential confirmation of how the tabloid was carrying out the campaign edicts. this wasn't like calling someone and discussing them doing their independent reporting where you might share independent facts and a quote and see what they report. this w

she also confirmed about what we heard from another witness this week, that rhona graff was crucial. that was corroboration. if the trump attorneys get up and say who is this, who is that, the jury has hope hicks. they have the evidence. they see how senior a position she held and she is the one corroborating this evidence. in another blow to trump's efforts to find some sort of distance from the inquirer, hicks also confirmed with her own eyewitness account that she has seen and heard trump talking to the inquirer chief, david pecker , who was a witness earlier. some congratulating him on a phone call after the tabloid went after then trump rival ben carson. here is what is interesting about that. at the time, in the room, she knows more than most people but she might have still thought that trump was just working the press like usual. you call the inquirer one day. you call fox the next. now, however, the jury is hearing this wider testimony and understanding that this is a potential confirmation of how the tablet was carrying out donald trump's campaign -- this is not like calling

unlike rhona graff, trump's personal secretary who testified last week, hope hicks paid for her own lawyers. which might explain why she seemed free to detail at great length the inner workings of the 2016 campaign, who had access to trump, what kind of micromanager trump was, and what was happening in the final months that could possibly motivate the campaign to hide any salacious stories about trump cheating on his third wife while she was pregnant. key there is the "access hollywood" tape. before prosecutors got to the infamous grab them tape, hicks explained what she did for trump and how she and mr. trump spoke every day. she also testified that he was very involved in the media strategy, according to hope, he knew what he wanted to say and how he wanted to say it. we were just following his lead. she went on to say that she would run statements by trump, especially if they were about him. and this is important because the prosecution is having one of trump's closest aides tell the jury that basically nothing happened in the campaign without trump's approval. nothing. and then came thi

at the end of the week the prosecution turned to rhona graff, a trump employee who seems to be on better terms with him. trump is notoriously frugal, but the defendant, his company, are still paying for his lawyers. to take this all together and what you see is a lot more evidence against trump them reasonable doubt on his behalf. that doesn't mean he is losing this case. the burden is on them. for the first week this wasn't a slow ride or a lot of accounting spreadsheets. this was a two by four swung repeatedly at donald trump as a defendant and while some of that came from the prosecutor's tough talk in the opening that i read to you, as we get into this tonight you have to remember a lot of that tough talk and incriminating information came from his body, tabloid chief david pecker, who said by the end of his testimony it is not personal, he still counts donald trump as a friend, he is just telling the truth under oath about their campaign crimes. how bad is it? we have two special guests with me at the table when we are back in 90 seconds. seconds. [] at st. jude, the mission is just

davidson testified that he he sold the story of daniels affair to michael cohen for $130,000 rhona graff, trump's assistant of 34 years with the trump organization, took the stand for the prosecution, but admitted in court she didn't want to be there graphs spoke of how she kept trump's schedule and his list of contacts age showed that there were certain people that were on mr. trump's speed dial or on his contacts, which included mcdougal and stormy daniel's, that pecker was calling all the time and he was talking to pecker. >> hope hicks, trump's former campaign press secretary and white house communications director, cried, went on the stand he recalled the level of panic in the campaign when the access hollywood tape was revealed but analysts say the most important witness is one who may or may not testify, putting donald trump on the stand, right huge upside, huge downside, right. >> lots of risk there the trial, of course, now focuses more towards trump's lead defense attorney todd blanche, and the witnesses who we may or may not call to the stand maybe next week and we'll of cours

a prosecution witness, testified to today's that's the hand they were down and we saw this with rhona graffwe saw it with her. these are these are the witnesses. they have cohen's the only real infidel there otherwise, working within the trump's circle, like the january 6 committee did. and you're exactly right. i think maybe the best five minutes or so for trump in the whole trial, she she was very welcome pliant as a witness and really, really aim to please and to make a man's for having messed up and the main thing i think she wanted to use them for it. you'll see that there's a single question on re-cross where she just says basically he loves maloney right? so that that is the number one yeah, i think they're going to try to use in closing argument and she's the one who gives it to them. >> so prosecution witness but help trump. that's right, judge. i do want to ask you what george bush sean talked about at the end of the day-to-day, which is basically responding to requests for a gag order on michael cohen, didn't officially issue a gag order, but basically pleaded with any you want w

testimony like that put together with testimony from friendly witnesses, people like hope hicks rhona graff david pecker give the jury the common sense to support what the prosecutors say versus what's the defense is going to say. michael cohen. michael cohen. michael i agree. >> or i think one of the points that you were trying to get at is whether or not the jury is going to say come on, this is really a crime? this is really or any of the, any of these 30 todd blanche just said it's as true right now as it was on april 22, he's he's referring to the fact that everybody so paying close attention and that is that donald trump is innocent. president trump is innocent. he did not commit any crimes and the district attorney has not met their burden of proof. >> the evidence is all in. he did not commit any crimes that district attorney has not met their burden of proof, period. >> the evidence is all blanks. mine says i mean and i'm guessing that after that, evidence should leave you wanting more, you should want and expect more than the testimony of michael cohen. >> yeah. >> this is this is

rhona graff saying you ask him. managerial, tight fisted and the fact that he signed nine checks for $35,000, this is a man who knew what he was doing and wanted to do it. >> so stormy daniels, a mixed bag as to what the prosecution got out of it. the next big event will be michael cohen. how soon do you predict he'll go on the stand, and what are the risks and rewards of having him come and testify? >> you want to take this one? >> you're better at predicting for sure. >> at this point, elise, we have seen a lot of the witnesses that we expect. in looking at a count down list, who's left, there aren't that many to hear from. i would expect we'll hear from michael cohen relatively soon perhaps as soon as next week. in terms of what they hope to get from him. michael cohen is the one witness who sees the story from start to finish, the formation of the conspiracy in august of 2017 to the very end of the repayment scheme in december of 2017. so they need michael cohen to thread it together. that having been said, thin

. >> and here they're just establishing trump's attorney is that rhona graff, a long former assistant, had a similar relationship of mutual respect with trump. i really looked up to rhona hicks said, again, holding back tears, i would make a slight counterpoint to la, which is that cross-examining a crying witness, is something that can very quickly turn a jury off of an attorney emil bove has a very delicate needle to thread read here. they want to hit her hard and they want to push the points that she's made. but on a stylistic level, it's something that fraught with peril. >> let's talk, let's talk a little bit about this is someone who's clearly torn. >> yeah. >> and she's testifying here. so let's talk about why she may be crying. >> donald trump. >> i think it's very clear that she doesn't want anything. she says to damage him and she apologized at one point and said, i'm sorry because she knows that some of the things she might be saying about what trump was aware of at what time? it'd be damaging to somebody she's still admirers. >> let's go back to paula reid, paul, i know th

jeffrey mcconney, allen weisselberg was the person in-between him and donald trump through all this rhona graffallen weisselberg, the junior bookkeeper, went through jeffrey mcconney than two allen weisselberg. allen weisselberg. without any question at all, has direct knowledge of what the president, former president knew when he actually knew it. and was directly involved with this entire process. the only other person who seems to be is somebody who's going to be testifying next week. >> and we're seeing just before it changed their emil beauvais was saying, there some procedural problems bringing him on as a witness because he was not on the prosecution's witness list. drug diverse. sean says he didn't think it was a possibility there. look, i'm wondering, does the defense want allen weisselberg on the stand i mean maybe if nobody wants him on the stand at this point because he's such an unpredictable potential witness? yeah. >> probably not really going to help them. right. so get out there and take the fifth. it was more helpful for them. the fact that he wasn't on the government's in thi

we've already seen, throug rhona graff's testimony, where they were discussing, how can i send this back and forth? i'm sending checks for him to sign. madeleine westerhout can be a critical witness to know donald trump had knowledge and participation in this portion of the crime which, as i said, the heart of what the manhattan d.a.'s office has to prove. >> msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. jon meacham, we won't even ask and we stopped asking some time ago for historical parallels. >> there just simply aren't. >> there are no historical parallels in this country. but, my gosh, as you said before, what is at stake is so massive this fall. i'm curious your thoughts when you see this testimony. the "time" magazine article. the continued threats of an authoritarian regime coming directly from donald trump. it is so interesting. people say, oh, they've got trump derangement syndrome if they say -- then they will repeat something that donald trump has said directly himself and project it onto other people. you know, donald trump constantly is saying so

people who were testifying to pre corroborate to suggest whether his hope hicks, are david pecker or rhona graff who is the assistant of the trump and others to suggest they all can't be a part of the murder on the orient express. they can't all be guilty here. again, all be corrupt or i'm in some way bias they always talk about to be sure there were parts of her testimony that were in fact cringeworthy. well, that's an understatement giving that to visualize essential encounter with the former president and her as well. but this is all them trying to suggest and summarize to the jury, watson michael cohen? yes. does he have some sort of a credibility issue? a big one absolutely. does that mean that the documents don't speak for themselves? are that everyone was essentially in on it. that can't be the case. >> that's the argument they're making absolutely. >> it's interesting going back to todd blanche's argument where he said, you can't convict a defendant on the basis of michael cohen's testimony i'd agree with that. i think most people would once you can't convict a defendant on as the basis

an email from him to rhona graff that is of course, trump's longtime assistant at trump tower, who is also already testified in this case robert hirshhorn is also joining us. again, he's an attorney jury consultant in robert, you know, you have argued that that cases are won and lost on the cross-examinati on that we see happen. and what is your sense? obviously you don't know because none of us of his spoken to them. they're not even allowed to speak to each other others about this case. but what is your sense of held-out cross-examination of stormy daniels could have gone over with that jury yeah. >> there's no debt. thanks for having me back, caitlin. there's no doubt that cross-examination we saw today was a big fat nothing burger. >> and the reason why it was a big fat, nothing burger is because these are very good defense since lawyers, they weren't doing what they thought was the right thing. >> they were just trying to accommodate their client. let me step back a little bit on tuesday on direct examination. stormy really embarrassed donald j. trump then the defense did the cro

he says, this the cohen said he'd get trump through others like rhona graff or keith schiller. we have not heard from keith schiller, the body guard, obviously in this trial run a graph has testified. but to your point, caitlin me, he is experienced on the witness stand. he has gone through a lot of this before. >> right. and it is completely fair to raise questions on his credibility, how he'll do under cross examine hey, should we don't know michael cohen certainly has had no shortage of things to say about donald trump over the last several years. he just is experienced in this. i mean, he went up against trump's allies. you hardly any davis saying they were joking, which is going to be worse. the cross-examination by todd blanche or the cross-examination he got from house republicans who were the fiercest advocates for donald trump at that time. >> for instance, of trump, he knows too many people who have gone down as a direct result of having emails that prosecutors can you use in the case, having clarifies with cohen going down, you mean getting in some sort of trouble? y

> we've heard earlier in the testimony in this trial about who picks retaining her own counsel, rhona graff, having her counsel paid for by the trump team as well this is an important part. i think maybe for the prosecution and tried to get out to suggest we're loyalties lie. >> well, exactly envision. remember, i mean, paying for for people's attorneys is something that donald trump does routinely, particularly people who have been impacted, cases that involve them. you still paying for the stew co-defendants in florida to be kind or let's always been the biggest question, right? i mean, obviously we cannot answer what exactly his motivation is to pay those legal bills. there's a lot of speculation out there as to why exactly faculty he would do that, particularly a man who doesn't like spending money at all would shell out millions of dollars for his own associates and their legal fees. but that is what we're seeing here, is this it's kinda trying to keep cohen in the fold, particularly when cohen used the word concern, there was concern i would go to another attorney and i want to make a