hey! asthma's got you going through it? grab nucala for fewer asthma attacks. nucala is a once-monthly add-on injection for severe eosinophilic asthma. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask an asthma specialist if nucala is right for you. ♪♪ good morning, it is 10:00

eastern, i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york alongside my colleague and friend chris jansing. for two hours of special coverage on what is expected to be a dramatic and consequential day in donald trump's hush money trial. the prosecution's star witness on the stand right now. >> prosecutors spent a year preparing michael cohen for this moment. he is the witness that prosecutors need to directly tie trump to the payments to adult film star stormy daniels. >> nbc's yasmin vossoughian is outside the courthouse, also with us kristen gibb against, charles coleman and criminal defense attorney and former manhattan prosecutor jeremy salaam. thank you all for joining us. let's go to yasmin first. what is the latest inside that courtroom as michael cohen's testimony begins? >> reporter: we're getting some demeanor notes, guys, as to how michael cohen is interacting with the prosecution when

answering his questions, also kind of some color from inside the courtroom when michael cohen was asked to identify the defendant, donald j. trump, which i've explained this before, they're unable to see -- when you are on the witness stand -- unable to see the defense table. so he had to stand up, peer around the defense, around kind of the two feet of wood lip that stands between him and the defense table to identify donald j. trump. we're hearing from inside the courtroom when it comes to his demeanor he's asking and answering these questions pretty -- pretty quickly, in that he's sticking with the points, he's not veering off of subjects. he is staying with kind of the answers that he is being asked. that is some color from inside the courtroom when it comes to lisa rubin. they talked about the history between michael cohen and donald j. trump, how it was he came to work for the trump organization. he was introduced to the trump organization through don jr. back in 2007 also with

investment properties in trump international tower. he was asked to work on some contracts for donald trump in which the bill would amount up to $100,000. he was asked if, in fact, he was paid $100,000. he said, no, but he was subsequently then offered a job for $375,000 plus bonuses as well. so they're kind of walking through the history here between both michael cohen and donald j. trump. let me just read one interaction as well, if i can, guys. cohen asked the first was so that he knew i was on it, i was doing what he had asked. this was with regards to questions about whether or not he interacted with the media when it came to donald j. trump. the second was building to obtain credit, so he understood i was accomplishing what he wanted. how did that make you feel? he said like i was on top of the world. establishing the loyalty and the long-standing relationship between donald j. trump and michael cohen, guys. >> thanks so much.

charles, wasting absolutely no time saying this was the guy who donald trump went to, they had that kind of relationship. i'm going to read a couple more back and forths between the prosecutor and michael cohen. were you at any time part of the special counsel's office? no, ma'am. why not? it was not part of the discussion when i joined trump org. so just for mr. trump? just mr. trump. and then later, during the time you worked there for mr. trump, how often would you say you met with him or spoke to him? every single day, multiple times a day. this is in the first couple of minutes of testimony. >> this is exactly what i expected to see and i expect that we're going to see more of this. they are going to essentially tell a story that in many respects serves as a character arc almost to get to the point where the relationship being what it is, where michael cohen is completely invested, he is donald trump's right-hand man. you have to paint that picture so that you understand how close

they are. at some point, however, chris, this is going to shift and michael cohen is going to testify about when the relationship soured and he's going to testify about how things went bad. >> before we go there. >> sure. >> not just testify that you had that relationship with mr. trump but it is kind of an explanation for why there may be pieces of this puzzle that only he knows. >> absolutely. michael cohen is the witness that is going to connect all of the prosecution's dots and then make all of the documents that are truly the star witness in this case make sense. in order to do that successfully you have to establish, look, he's the guy who was on the phone with donald trump in the room with donald trump doing the things with donald trump all of the time in such a way that draws donald trump much closer to what's alleged in this indictment than we have seen or heard from any of the other witnesses. all of the other witnesses by design, by donald trump's design, have been a step away from donald trump, and in order to actually convict him you're going to have to bring donald

trump one step closer. michael cohen is that step. >> and michael cohen has already in less than a half hour of testimony talked about how he was involved in all kinds of things related to donald trump, his business, and even his family, whether it was dealing with an accident involving a taxicab because of michael cohen's connection to taxicabs, whether it was calling on an issue about his apartment that had a flood problem and dealing with that, whether it was something to deal with trump university or miss usa pageant. all this while trump is sitting in the courtroom we're reporting with his eyes closed, his mouth slightly open, appears he is trying to kind of shut out the testimony that he's hearing from michael cohen while trump's lawyer, todd blanche, is listening very closely, taking notes, preparing his cross-examination and looking for those openings. let me read you more about the relationship. it says, did you need an appointment to meet in his office, trump's office? cohen says no. cohen, mr. trump had an

open-door policy. cohen, i would caulk right in. when you met with mr. trump at the trump org in his office did you generally record those meetings in your calendar? cohen, no man. did you feel you needed to keep him up to date? cohen, yes, it was actually required. kristen, what do you think they're trying to establish here with michael cohen? >> they're playing that foundation to show that cohen was not just a fixer but he was trump's right-hand man and that is why trump trusted him to conceal those hush money payments and even further, right, which is what the prosecution needs to prove, to conceal it, right? conceal it as reimbursement for legal expenses. why? so that he could have the higher edge with regard to the election. to hide that story, conceal it so that it didn't come out and mess up any reputational benefits that trump had with regards to the election. but it's showing that he is the

fixer and the right-hand man shows that he can be trusted. then like charles said, pointing out all of the corroborative evidence through documentary evidence as well as testimony can show that, yes, he may be a convicted liar, yes, he may have some disparaging parts of his reputation that could undermine his credibility, but he does have a lot of corroborating evidence to support what he's here to do, which is prove that crucial element of the prosecution's case. >> michael cohen is saying now that this was kind of like a family, a big family. we know this was a family business, right? he said it was an amazing experience in many different ways. establishing what we all know, that for a very long time michael cohen absolutely adored donald trump. he was the ultimate sink owe fant. he said i enjoyed the responsibility that was given to me, i enjoyed working with my colleagues at the trump organization, the chimp children, it was a big family. did you at times lie for him? michael cohen, i did.

why did you do that? it's what was needed to accomplish the task. here is a guy who is acknowledging very early on what frankly many witnesses have already set up, right? that this was a guy who was going to do what needed to get done as long as donald trump was happy. >> you know, this is showing that level of intimacy he had because we already heard a line of cross-examination, you know, did michael cohen actually work for the campaign? no, he didn't. he didn't work for the campaign because as we just heard now i worked for donald trump and, again, that intimacy that connection that tightness, i'm doing things for donald trump because that's my job. i'm that fixer. i'm that person who has that tight relationship with him. there is no incentive for me other than to look good for the former president, i keep using that term time and time again, for donald trump who was not the president at the time, but now you understand the pagtd and how they're getting to where we are. go ahead. >> i was going to say but if you are the fixer is part of your job to keep his hands clean?

is what we're going to hear potentially from the defense and could it be in the minds of jurors, well, that's exactly what he was supposed to do, he was supposed to fix, take care of things and give -- if not just plausible deniability but deniability to the boss, as he called him? >> well, certainly he wanted to give deniability to the boss and he wanted to separate his issues from the boss, it was going to be borne upon him and he's paying for t financially he's spending the dollars, arranging with the shell companies, the bankers, speaking to david pecker and howard dillon at the enquirer. >> but to the point that donald trump didn't know the details. >> i think that's a really major sort of jump for i think even a jury to be devoid of common sense to think that this man on his own solely from the goodness of his heart but wanted to be in with donald trump is spending that kind of money and time for what? is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt? at the end of the day that's a different question. but the evidence says he was

doing it for donald trump. >> i think you have to follow the timeline and think about how much sense that's going to make. could it be that michael cohen decided to take it upon himself and all of this up and put these things in motion in order to protect donald trump? yes. do it be that michael cohen decided somehow that he was going to pay over -- in excess of $130,000 of his own money, take out a line of credit in order to do so to pay and cover this up? yes. but at the point that donald trump decides i'm going to now pay you back for those expenses and, most importantly, at the point that i am now going to mischaracterize what that payment is in my books, in my ledgers, now i am now committing a crime and that's what the prosecution will need to focus on. even, chris, to your point, i do think it's something that you should expect the defense to do, to say, look, michael cohen was acting on his own volition, michael cohen was a man enamored with donald trump and would do anything to please him. at the point that you have now

paid him back for these expenses and then mischaracterized them within your own budget codes, now you're guilty. >> and we haven't had that direct tie, right? that trump knew and perhaps was directing the falsification of the records. that is the crime that is alleged here. we've heard about the salacious details related to this alleged affair, the story that would have been wanted to have been covered up, right? well, right now i'm going back into the document. i want to take you into the testimony of michael cohen again, the prosecution asking him some of the background, his relationship with donald trump, his role with donald trump and here is what she asks, you've been called his fixer. accurate title? michael cohen says, it's fair. your telephone number starts asking him about that, whether that was used during this period of 2016, 2017. i did. so now they're going into some of those little details that having to play later when looking at the phone records which had been admitted into evidence previously with other witnesses. so she calls him a fixer, he

agrees, that's what his role and title was. he's been called all sorts of other things by people in the trial. the prosecution got witnesses to say michael cohen is a jerk, highly excitable, challenging. other says he didn't like dealing with him, a pants on fire guy, talking out of two years. so far he seems pretty drama-free in his testimony. >> from being a former prosecutor that is with a lot of preparation. we've heard michael cohen go on and on in interviews and in his book and not really be controlled, not well being able to be predictable, and in this forthright testimony which i think is going to be key for the prosecution to maintain and hopefully he will be able to maintain it on cross-examination, but this is key because if he can just answer the questions without giving any backward commentary, it's really going to help his credibility ultimately so that the jury can kind of put

everything aside and focus on the real issues. like everyone has said, cohen is the key critical witness to give that direct testimony to show that trump knew, he knew and he intended to conceal these payments. >> so i'm curious about this whole idea of beyond a reasonable doubt, since you brought it up. is credible and incredible part of that? is common sense a big part of that? because exactly what you said is even if you can't get down to the minutia with every single juror, tying all of these payments to donald trump directly, if there's not paperwork, for example, for every bit of it, can you, nevertheless, say honestly it doesn't make any sense. is that reasonable doubt? does it make sense? >> well reason. within reason. let's take a step back. we've heard why there might not be an email or phone call or record.

that's not how donald trump operated. if we believe the witnesses who were testifying under subpoena, not necessarily on the face of them to donald trump and saying this is how business is operated with him. you're going to be lacking that evidence. all of us with former prosecutors. you don't leave common sense at the doorstep. you don't just say we're going to devoid of common sense, leave it behind and unless i see concrete i'm only going to go forward, we have circumstantial evidence, we have our life experience, we don't leave that behind. you still need that foundation of evidence it has to exist, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not just, you know, maybe, i kind of think it happened. it's more than that, but i'm concerned overall but they're certainly building the case in the right direction but nothing happens without michael cohen. >> now they're already talking about that time period that is the key time period right before the election in 2016 and susan hoffinger said do you know david pecker who he is. he said i knew david pecker

before i knew mr. trump. we had mutual friends and had met at a function in long island many years ago. i was reacquainted when david pecker was the president and ceo of ami and more people know him for his magazines and newspapers. when you spoke to him did you speak to him by phone? yes, by phone, had his cell and work numbers and contacts. did you also speak to pecker using an encrypted app called signal. cohen, yes, sometimes we thought that encryption and not having the event traceable would be beneficial. did you communicate via email? cohen, yes. did you speak with pecker at trump org about matters prior to june of 2015. cohen, yes, but rarely. he's now saying they even spoke within an encrypted app, charles, so there may not be paperwork for everything. there may not be evidence of some of their communications. >> and believe me that both sides are going to argue that point as much as they can for the defense they're going to say

where is the paperwork? why is it their paperwork -- how can you trust a witness who says that they were already communicating with someone on an encrypted app? clearly they had something to hide. not donald trump. you never heard him say that donald trump was communicating with him on this encrypted app. you heard michael cohen said that michael cohen was communicating if you are the defense that's what you're going to argue. if you are the prosecution you're going to say, yes, there is a reason that there are not -- there is no paperwork, because they didn't want to be found out and ultimately they were. they didn't want these things coming out. that's just the sort of art and the process, if you will, of trying a case. you have the same facts, one side has one perspective, another side has a different perspective and you're going to do your best to argue the point to the place of convincing the jurors. that's what you want to do, regardless of whether you have the paperwork, whether you don't. you have to make the best argument in front of that jury. >> i'm still thinking about what cohen has already testified to before this jury and that is he

had no problem lying for donald trump. >> big deal. >> so he's already said that he didn't have a problem lying. jeremy, isn't that problem for the jury to hear that? >> it's a problem but it's not a problem because, again, you've got to seize that and use that to your advantage. you take that and say i'm a liar, that's part of the reason i was doing this to cover up for the former president. say you get inside information on the mob because you are a part of the mob, he is the guy that has its information. michael cohen is the guy who is a liar, doing the bad needs, committing the crime, who is involved, but his hands are dirty, they are dirty because if you believe his testimony, so are the president's indirectly, circumstantially through direct, but you can't get to the president unless you get the dirty hands and michael cohen is the dirty hands. and that's the way you have to get there and to your point, charles, before and i think your point as well is all the other people and all the other evidence is that foundational piece that bolsters up and gives

credibility to michael cohen. >> if you are the prosecutor in this case you have to understand that, again, you don't want to put all of your eggs in any one basket. you don't want to necessarily rely entirely on the testimony of michael cohen or stormy daniels or david pecker or anyone else for that matter. you want the jury to understand you don't have to trust any of these witnesses. look at these documents. follow the trail there. you want to make sure that they understand the testimony is what it is in terms of the credibility, the believability, but the documents are really going to tell you the story about what it is you need to know in terms of making a decision about the guilt or innocence of the people who were charged here. >> i want to bring in former federal prosecutor and senior writer for "politico." you can see the way this is getting set up, right? you can see the prosecutors laying the groundwork about the relationship between donald trump and michael cohen. about the fact that michael

cohen who has been very straightforward about this, certainly in testimony before congress, that he has lied in the past. it is no secret. it is evidentiary that this is someone who in fact has gone to prison for lying. so how do you see this story that the prosecution is laying out right now in terms of michael cohen and does it make sense to you? >> yeah, this is a logical way for them to begin, to try to embrace these bad facts. you know, it makes sense for them to try to tie, you know, michael cohen's loyalty to trump to however much of the prior misconduct cohen has engaged in that's possible including his prior conviction for lying to congress. the problem for cohen and i assume the prosecutors will proceed to grapple with this as the direct examination continues is that cohen has lied many times for reasons having nothing to do with trump and for reasons

having to do with only himself and self-interest, including lying to the justice department, the irs and to his bank. none of that had anything to do with trump. michael cohen and cohen some of his supporters are fond of saying, well, cohen lied to help trump, but that's like only partially true. it will not work if he tries to get that line off during the trial because he will be eviscerated on cross for lying again. so, you know, this is going to be a long process, you know, the government is just in its first opening minutes, but they have a lot of ground to cover in order to try to embrace a bunch of bad facts and try to make them as least bad as they can in front of the jury, which is sort of the task here. >> it sounds like right now the prosecution is trying to establish that cohen really wanted trump to become president and it goes back to in 2011 hoffinger says when trump was exploring a run for president cohen said 6% of the people who had taken the poll to bring in

front of mr. trump, 6% thought mr. trump should be president of the united states. i took that article and brought it to mr. trump and i said what do you think? cohen said he said it's interesting, we should look into it. cohen, i created a website, should trump run.com and many people came to that website and his name recognition was to strong from the apprentice. did he decide to run in 2011? no, several large projects and another season of the apprentice, did he that work instead. you don't leave hollywood, hollywood leaves you, he says. so, again, even back in 2011 cohen was trying to help set the stage for trump's run for the presidency. that was when things were good between those two men and when cohen said he would take a bullet for donald trump. a man who he said, you know, he was kind of considered himself his, you know, go-to, his pitbull. he wanted that role for donald trump to kind of prop him up in

every day, whether it was fixing his problems or planting these opportunities for donald trump, but then things went totally south in 2018 when cohen was indicted for federal crimes and trump didn't have his back. and now there's this huge clash, right, between the two pretty much ever since then. how do the prosecutors work to make sure the jury doesn't see cohen as an ex-employee with an ax to grind? >> it's an uphill battle. i mean, because on some level it is undeniable that michael cohen is an ex-employee with an ax to grind. what the government is going to have to sort of demonstrate to the jury that that may be true, but that they should still believe him and to the extent it can be corroborated with documents or believe his recounting of any conversations with trump. it's that last point that is going to be the key here. we can talk about corroboration with documents and that sort of thing, but documents are not going to get trump convicted

because they are not going to provide direct evidence of his mental state and his intent, which has to have been at the point of falsifying the records intention, not merely the effect, the intention of aiding and conceal another crime. who is going to put that into trump's head at the point of those times of reimbursements? michael cohen might be able to describe some conversations that we haven't heard before and the jurors are going to have to weigh those conversations very skeptically given michael cohen's interest in history for lying. the other alternative the government has is to establish their case against trump entirely cirque shael, which is fine, it's acceptable, it is a legal matter as a riskier proposition to take a case like that to the jury and up for appeal. we should all be listening for the testimony that michael cohen provides that is only him and trump in the room. only him and trump for which there is no other independent evidence. that is going to be i think where this case rises or falls. >> you have said that a good lawyer on a good day could

demolish cohen. he's a lawyer himself, but you think he's an easy target? >> i mean, he is a lawyer but he is a very bad one. so i think he is exceptionally an easy target and i think i would -- everyone around the table sitting there with you would be champing at the bit if they had the opportunity to cross michael cohen as a professional matter. >> we're seeing lots of people nodding along, yes. >> can i be the dissenting voice here? here is my dissent. he was very well-prepared for his testimony in front of congress, there was a moment according to lanny davis when he was preparing him he got very, very angry and essentially davis said to him, there you go, you just gave the republicans everything they wanted. and from that point forward he was, i don't know if these are not lanny's words, the ideal witness, but from that point forward he understood the stakes. the stakes in front of congress are nothing compared to what's

at stake here. what's at stake here is potentially if you believe the polls, ankush, the presidency of the united states and whether or not someone with a voter will vote for someone who is a convicted felon. the polls indicate that they would not. so is it just the fact that he is a convicted liar that you think is too hard to overcome or are you predicting that he is somehow going to lose it or be inconsistent, not tell the story that he has told over and over and over again? what is it that you think a good lawyer could do to michael cohen that could make the case fall apart? >> yeah, so i want to be very clear. i don't think it's insurmountable, i don't want to be rendering a definitive verdict on the credibility of his testimony. it's under way right now. i want to be very clear about that. but, yeah, it's the concern about his temperament, it's not just his prior demonstrable history of lying but concern about his temperament and

combativeness. the distinction between testifying before congress and testifying in a courtroom here, i respect lanny davis' opinion, but they're totally different. in congress the question nurse are not professional attorneys, they don't have hours and unlimited time to develop lines of cross-examination and themes over time. >> many, many members of congress are attorneys and they have many attorneys who help them prepare the questions, so -- >> i don't want to be rude to the people in congress, they are nowhere near as good as professional criminal litigators at cross-examining people. that's just the reality and i'm guessing the people around the table will share that assessment as well. he's going to be facing something unlike he faced in congress. these people had months, months to pour over every statement he's made on social media and in his podcasts and in his books. and you can bet a lot of that is going to show up on cross-examination. so i don't -- again, i don't want to disparage the folks in congress but we have to be frank about this. this is a qualitative difference between the level and intensity

of a cross-examination in a criminal trial with experienced cross examiners and a lot of time and material at their hands, versus what happens in congress. >> ankush, thank you so much for being with us, it's always great to have your legal expertise and insights and perspective on these matters. i want to go back into the courtroom and catch our viewers up on what's happening right now. they've moved into some discussion about the trump campaign before trump became president and the prosecutor asks, did mr. trump present any concerns about negative stories about his personal life? cohen, yes. what did he say? cohen, you know that when this comes out, meaning the announcement, just be prepared. there's going to be a lot of women coming forward. when referring to his announcement in 2015, did you invite david pecker? cohen, i did. did you and mr. trump meet with david pecker at trump tower to discuss what ami could do for

the campaign? cohen, we met in there trump's office on the 26th floor. we discussed the power of the "national enquirer." if we can place positive stories about mr. trump, that would be beneficial. if we could place negative stories about some of the other candidates that would also be beneficial. cohen said, keep an eye out for negative stories and he can help us from stopping those stories from coming out. let's go to yasmin vossoughian outside the courthouse for more of what's been happening in this direct testimony. yasmin. >> reporter: i've got to say it's pretty astounding that they're already getting into this infamous 2015 meeting. we remember during testimony we knew david pecker was on the ground in trump tower, michael cohen was in the meeting as well as donald trump himself. she had testified that she actually left the meeting quite quickly, was not there for kind of the nuts of the meeting in which they're getting into. and they're getting into this fairly quickly. i think it speaks to what i'm hearing from some of our sources which is they want this testimony from michael cohen to

be very document heavy, right, and we're seeing this from michael cohen giving these yes or no answers versus getting more into the details of things. he talked earlier, guys, while you were talk being whether or not ami had actually ever killed stories on behalf of donald trump and or paid off anyone on behalf of donald trump, prior to 2015, prior to deciding to run for president of the united states in which michael cohen testified to the fact that they, in fact, did not. not up until 2015, but now this infamous meeting, starting kind of the wheels moving leading up to this alleged scheme between donald trump and michael cohen to pay off stormy daniels and karen mcdougal. this is the moment that it really all began, right, talking about planting essentially negative stories when it comes to donald trump's opponents in the 2015 election. they're also establishing this loyalty you mentioned, how important it seems for michael cohen at the time that donald trump was running for president.

talked about how they needed more diversity, establishing a coalition for diversity to help donald trump run for president. so establishing this loyalty that michael cohen had towards the former president, just three years later, though, as we well know the former president -- michael cohen i should say pointing the finger at donald trump and saying, in fact, he made me do it, he's the one who made me pay off stormy daniels. it seems like they're going to be getting into those details fairly quickly. again, they will want to stick with documents here more than anything with michael cohen. especially because of what we have talked about over the last four weeks or so, those credibility issues with michael cohen, guys. >> and when you go back to what "national enquirer" was going at the time and it's worth mentioning it was a whole different media landscape back then and the influence that something like "the national enquirer" had in terms of a source of news, right? so going back to the document, during the campaign did ami run positive stories for trump and negative stories for opponents?

michael cohen, yes. some of the negative ones that i received from david or dylan, the two guys from "the national enquirer," hillary clinton wearing thick glasses, allegations she had a brain injury. ted cruz note co of his father with lee harvey oswald claiming that he was involved in the assassinaion of jfk. articles about marco rubio in the swimming pool with several men. that he was being a drug binge of some sort. ami would send over the cover story, i would show it to mr. trump and he knew david was loyal and on board and doing everything that he said he would do in the august meeting and he was actually doing it. but, again, here we are, i don't know, an hour, less than an hour into testimony. we're already here for the testimony we were told was going to take a couple of days. so here we are already in that 2015 trump tower meeting, we're

setting up everything that's to follow that leads us to the heart of the case. this is not the heart of the case. >> right. >> but this sets this up, right? >> you've got to get there as quickly as possible and one of the reasons why is you know that this is a witness that is going to take some time in terms of where you have to deal with some of the problems with him. so the longer you take to build up and lay the foundation of who you are, how did you get here, how did you work for donald trump, where did you go to school, all of that takes way too long. you need to get to the point as quickly as possible so you can begin to deal with the bad stuff that you're going to have a problem with. at some point we're going to hear testimony from i would imagine -- i would expect the prosecution is going to ask him about the myriad of out of court statements he's made, the different interviews he's given, the different things that he's said. they have to get that out before he gets on cross-examination or he will be eviscerated. in this case, chris, they have to move as quickly as they can to move this thing along because they know not only with respect to his testimony on direct, but

then they're planning at some point to have to do a redirect. they don't know on what but they know they will likely have to redirect this witness in order to rehabilitate him after he gets dealt with on cross. that's going to take some time. you don't want to bore the jury. speed is your friend early on to get to the point with respect to this jury. >> can i read just one more line? do you recall from time to time when you showed trump those stories what his reactions were? that's fantastic. that's unbelievable. >> and that is predictable i will add as we've all covered trump for so many years, especially in the campaign before his presidency, after and all that's followed since then. kristen, coming back to just the cohen testimony, where we are already an hour into his testimony with the expectation he could be on the stand, it seems like they've moving quickly. we know that the prosecution has been preparing cohen for this testimony for about a year. so is this where you expect it to be now and do you see that

preparation reflected in how this is going so far? >> yeah, i seeflected in the fo answers and what we're hearing. in terms of the timeline, i think the other aspect is we are not in that courtroom, we are not seeing the jurors or jury responses, it's 10:30, we know that the jurors will be breaking for lunch and that's really important as a trial litigator. we want to make sure when the jury goes off to the break they are not thinking about lying cohen, not thinking about the disparaging things about his reputation and anything that would undermine his credibility. we want the jurors to kind of go out to lunch on something a little bit stronger. so getting to the point and really attacking some of that stuff at this hour i think is really critical for the jury to kind of take with them some positive things about cohen that could be corroborated. they're talking about the meeting, talking about the positive stories. the negative stories about other candidates, but also importantly stopping any negative stories

about trump. those are all things that -- >> let me interrupt you for a second because we are now in the part of the testimony where they talk about the negative story that was going to come out that would have been bad for donald trump about the doorman. it's important to say this story is not true, however, at the time susan hoffinger, a story was circulated by a former doorman at trump tower. what was it about that there was a love child? cohen, i went to him immediately to advise limb that it was a story because it was a negative story for him and to get his direction and on what he wanted me to do. so, again, there you go, jeremy, where you have him saying i was the guy who brought him sometimes the bad news and he told me what it was that he wanted done. this wasn't somebody who just let me handle everything, he was

in the know. >> there's multiple values to this story. one is that, again, it shows that intimacy we discussed before, but it also goes to donald trump saying i didn't have sex with this woman, i had no intimate relationship with this woman. it doesn't matter whether he did or didn't because the theory is the same, i'm trying to get rid of bad things, bad stories that are going to adversely impact my chances of getting elected. some of the minutia which may get brushed over, we earned michael cohen earned $525,000 i think was the number. that common sense argument and what that relationship was. is the jury to believe that michael cohen spent $130,000 of his post-tax dollars on $525,000 earned income just to be a good guy because he likes the president on his own volition bus he was going rogue. it seems devoid of common sense. this is one of those piece that is build up to where we are, hopefully for the prosecution not the defense that's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> what did trump tell him he wanted him to do about this?

he told me make sure that the story doesn't get out and asked me to speak to them. i let him know it was being taken care of. i worked with david pecker and dylan howard in order to obtain the life rights to obtain the story. along the way did either update you with respect to that story? cohen, yes. as the matter progressed did you update there trump about the matter? cohen, immediately. at some point did you learn ami had entered into an agreement with the doorman? what were the terms? yes, they were going to pay $30,000 executing an agreement with the doorman and obtaining the lifetime rights to not publish the story and, quote, take it off the market. did you tell them that there trump would be grateful? cohen, absolutely. was he grateful? cohen, absolutely. how significant is this, charles? >> it is. i think it's very significant. i think that part of what is happening here is you're getting to ankush's point a little bit

more of how much michael cohen had insight into donald trump's frame of mind pretty much at all points. you want as early as possible to establish that michael cohen is someone who can give an accurate account as to how donald trump was feeling, what he was thinking and where his head was throughout this entire timeline. >> and that's because of the intent portion of the crime? >> yes. and the reason you want to do that is because you're going to have to basically establish beyond the documents that when donald trump did it he did it because he was concerned about the election. so you have to have someone who has proven at least to the jury during their testimony that they understand what this man was feeling and what he was thinking. what i'm curious about, because we're not in the courtroom right now, is how the defense is strategically thinking about their objections and the reason i say that is you can't leave everything for cross-examination. some of this testimony, you know, you may make the argument, look, i'm listening and i'm saying to myself i might have made a hearsay objection to that.

would it have been sustained? probably not. but, again t would have interrupted his flow. from what we're learning about what's going on in the courtroom right now, it seems like michael cohen is on a very focused, very streamlined flow in temples of his testimony. if i'm donald trump's attorneys, i don't like that. i want to interrupt that. i want to agitate michael cohen because he is the type of witness that if i get him off of his game he's going to do everything that i need him to do. so i'm curious as to when the defense is going to start to object. you can't do too much because you don't want to annoy the jury, you don't want to get them irritated but if you start doing enough and you make michael cohen feel like you're trying to make him a liar, you're trying to embarrass him just by his objections you might be able to get an edge that you can use later. >> i don't think that we've seen any objections so far. >> we have not seen a single objection, at least not that's noted in our document and our folks in the courtroom are pretty great about that. i want to bring in leslie snyder. are you surprised at how smoothly, for lack of a better term, this is going and would

you expect the defense to amp up and is this part of also the strategy by the prosecution? they're not going anywhere that they think could actually be reason for an objection by the defense. >> we might be having some problem technically with judge snyder. we will come back to the judge in just a moment and if we can work on the audio connection there. >> i mean, what do you think, jeremy? >> i want to follow up with what charles is saying and i think that michael cohen is really cut from the same cloth as donald trump and to get him off his game is probably something that will easily relatively speaking happen. we know both michael cohen and donald trump are prone to sort of go off on their own at that gents, go off on tirades from their emotions and not follow the proverbial and literal script. when you do it and how often you do it can be extremely beneficial. we're getting ahead of ourselves

why i don't think donald trump would take the stand for that exact reason. if things are going favorable he would be the nail in his own coffin to set things the other way around. >> i love what donny deutsch told the "new york times," a friend of michael cohen, once friendly with mr. trump, quote, about cohen, he's aggressive, tenacious, a bulldozer. so what you're hearing in court a lot of the perceived negatives is what made him a positive for trump. because they are similar in that combative sort of way that they handle life and the way they kind of get -- the way they get what they want, right? >> that's right. >> and not afraid to get down in the mud, i think an objective observer would say, like the limelight. that's what we're seeing from michael cohen right now, even though -- well, he had political ambitions apparently of his own at one point. let me go back into the document, though, for a minute. what they're hitting on now is something that we also heard from stormy daniels and that is that there was going to be a

clause in there and i think this speaks to, kristen, how much they wanted to keep this quiet. true or not true, that if this was broken by the doorman, the price he would have to pay would be a million dollars. i'm guessing even by donald trump standards that's a lot of money for a doorman. for anybody at this table a million dollars is probably a deterrent deterrent. >> absolutely. think about it this way, again, what i think that that story does in addition with regard to the prosecution's case, because, remember, stormy daniels came under a lot of scrutiny on cross-examination. in my opinion a little bit too much to render it somewhat ineffective in regard to undermining her credibility but, again, the crux of the case is clear. it doesn't matter whether the story is true. it doesn't matter whether the story is false. what really matters is whether or not donald trump wanted to conceal it prior to the election and this clause, this testimony,

everything that we've heard up until this point make very clear that donald trump wanted all of these negative stories to be -- >> let me just tell you when you say "all these negative stories" hoffinger, june 2016, did you learn karen mcdougal was looking to sell her story? i received a call from pecker and howard and they said she is a playboy playmate and there is a story looking to be sold to news outlets about her relationship that she had with mr. trump. i told him immediately after i got off the phone with ami, what if anything do you think about the potential impact on the presidential campaign, to which michael cohen responds, significant. he recounts telling donald trump about karen mcdougal. he went into the office, he knocked, he got in, he said i have to talk to you, told him what i just learned, i asked him if he knew who karen mcdougal was. knew anything about this story.

his response to me was, she's really beautiful. cohen, i said, okay, there's a story that's right now being shopped. and so there is an objection just after this moment, what we were just discussing. it's like their ears were burning. >> sustained. >> objection, sustained. and so then what did you do? we had to acquire the story so i reached out to pecker. i want to go back to former supreme court justice leslie snyder. judge snyder, thanks for joining us. >> good morning. >> is this testimony going about how you would expect? >> it is going how i would expect and i think the judge because i look at everything from the judge's perspective, is exactly the easy part of the trial. he's paying careful attention, he's going to have to rule on objections but nothing really dramatic has happened because we haven't gotten to the possible out of control witness yet. from the judge's perspective i'm concerned about control.

i'm concerned about controlling michael cohen, the witness, if he starts getting crazy or not answering the questions, and i'm also concerned about looking at donald trump. is he going to start muttering? is he going to curse? and there's no reason for any of that to have happened yet because we are still in the smooth, easy part of the questioning. but i would suggest that obviously as your able panel has suggested, the defense is going to want to rattle him and is he going to take the bait? if he does, the judge is going to have a much more active role in controlling him. and the same with donald trump because it's very hard to believe that trump given his past behavior in the courtroom is not going to act out at some point. if he does, the judge has a lot more active role, remembering that his obvious goal is to give a fair trial to both sides, which he certainly has done so far in my opinion. the other point i'd like to add

which really isn't directly a point, but if you listen to the comments of trump over the weekend, he has so slandered this judge, he has called him corrupt, he has made slanderous remarks about his family, called his incompetent. all of the things as any human being sitting as a judge has got to be a little disturbed about and yet you can't allow it to affect your behavior as a judge. from a human point of view, i think that marchant is doing a great job but frustrating. >> he didn't respond to the attacks because of the professionalism that he conducts himself. i wonder, judge, did you ever personally experience anything like that with any person in your courtroom? >> well, nobody is quite like trump so you can't say it's been exactly analogous, but i did have a tremendous number of cooperators who were violent, murderers, rapists, long rap

sheets, people who would curse you. and the thing is it's really not difficult in most situations, you warn them, you warn them, they usually shut up because they know you are a tough judge and they respect you, same for mar chant, but if they keep doing it, out of the courtroom. that's what happened a number of times, they're brought back in after they agree to behave. nobody wants to do that with trump. that's the obvious remedy for most wild defendants who are out of control. >> so if not that what? because obviously what we saw during the testimony of stormy daniels and when donald trump was reacting both physically and audibly the judge did call -- juan merchan called his lawyers up and said basically get control of your defendant. beyond that do you think there is much that can be done or is it possible given that things

did settle down after that maybe donald trump got the message? how do you adjust as a judge or do you adjust as a judge based on what's happened before, in this case the reaction to the testimony of stormy daniels? >> well, if you mean how do you react in terms of handling someone like trump. >> yes. >> i think the judge did it perfectly. i wasn't in the courtroom so i don't know if he intervened early enough. as soon as you see a defendant who is cursing and acting out, you've got to stop the testimony, frankly call the lawyers up to the bench which was appropriate. if it happened again i get the jury out of the room and i would audibly on the record warn the defendant, including trump, next time you're going in the cell and you're going to hear the trial from there. when you agree to behave appropriately for the courtroom, then you can come back in and listen to it in front of everyone. now, the jury is not here when you do this, i've had to do that a few times, but you always want to control your courtroom and

merchan is very good about it and he's been very patient in terms of trying to work through the lawyers, but the lawyers also have an uncontrollable client. so far he's controlling himself, but we haven't really gotten to the testy part yet. so let's see what happens. >> okay. and hopefully you will be able to join us again once we get to that part of the testimony. judge leslie snyder, thank you so much for taking some time with us. >> thank you. >> right now back in the testimony, they're going through text messages between michael cohen and keith schiller who was an attorney who, i believe, worked with karen mcdougal as they continue to talk about that deal that was worked with dylan howard from the american media company. some color in the courtroom, and forgive me,forgive me, keith sc is trump's body man, so it's between michael cohen and keith schiller, trump's body man as they're talking about what's happening kind of in the background of this karen mcdougal story and how they're going to handle that. some color from the courtroom

from our lisa rubin. trump's shoulders are slightly slumped in his chair, his eyes remain closed as cohen explains how he told trump of a story involving karen mcdougal. and trump responded by saying she was really beautiful, which you had mentioned as well, chris. so what do you think is the next move? they're going to have to go through karen mcdougal, right, because chronologically it makes sense. it was the door may, it was karen mcdougal before the stormy daniels came along. how important is the karen mcdougal story? >> i think it's are very important. it shows that pattern of wanting to hide these stories and it also shows, and it sounds like from the testimony they're doing a great job of it, showing trump's knowledge of the stories and his awareness of wanting to shut them down as well as guiding michael cohen to shutting them down, but then also congratulating him and saying, hey, i know this story. i don't know this story, but great job for shutting it down. >> can i interrupt you?

because exactly what you're saying, and i'll get your reaction to this, they were going back about hoffen jer is asking michael cohen, why were you trying to reach donald trump, regarding the mcdougal matter that i thought was important? is this an example of you contacting mr. trump to give him updates about what happened to karen mcdougal? yes, ma'am. and therein lies the intent and the knowing elements that the prosecution needs to show. but again, it's got to be around the stormy daniels' story that the prosecution has to show it, right? as of right now these are really direct evidence of concealing those stories, but the business falsification records deal with stormy daniels and the hush money payments with regard to that. in order to rise it to a felony, they have to show there was a concealment effort on that particular story. what it does is it sets the foundation for a pattern when this direct evidence with regard to trump's knowledge and awareness to conceal the stormy daniels story comes out, and the

revelation to conceal the reimbursement payment is the nail in the coffin with regard to the prosecution's case. >> does this part of the story come up in the cross examination at all? do you think that his lawyers just stay away altogether from karen mcdougal and the doorman at all? >> i wouldn't be shocked -- let me take that back. i think they go into everything he's speaking of. anytime you can impact his credibility and get him potentially emotional and get him off track, you see that opportunity. that all being said, i think the prosecution really needs to move this as quickly as possible to get where they need to get and get him off the stand. the longer he's there, the more likely he's going to come bust. this really needs to be effective and direct. if there's something in evidence i want to introduce or have him go back and see a particular document or text message, let's get it in, let's get it out. >> how long would you expect him to be on the stand? >> they're talking days. i would hope that it would be less than that. absolutely less than that because at some point you have diminishing returns. there's diminishing value in what he can do and say.

>> i think for a witness like cohen i'm expecting if i'm a prosecutor, he's on the stand for a full day and maybe some change in terms of my direct case. i think in terms of what i have to get in through him, the foundation that i have to lay, the pace that i want to go through and what i need to cover in terms of showing up his credibility so he doesn't ultimately get impeached on the stand for credibility. i'm calculating a day to a day and a half would be solid, and then, you know, how long -- and i think that one of the things that is a calculation here is you deal with your witness or a witness like michael cohen with full knowledge that the jury is going to have to sit through whatever they do on cross. now, if you think about what they did with the stormy daniels cross, at some point it became a little misdirected. at some point it seemed like it was all over the place, so at the end of the day, you're playing hot potato with the

jury. you just don't want to be the one who has the witness on the stand for too long in the eyes of the jury because then they'll penalize you for it. however long he is, you have to think is it going to be shorter or longer or do i think that the potential for their cross at this point could help me out in terms of how long they keep him on the stand trying to make him look like a liar. you think about all of these things. again, my estimation, my target for a witness like michael cohen is going to be a day and a half or a day and some change. >> let me go back to the courthouse. vaughn hillyard is outside. we built up the testimony of stormy daniels because of the salacious nature of it, right? but, in fact, this was a very fleeting interaction that they had twice maybe they ran into each other, had not been in contact for a very long time. michael cohen is very different in the way that he gets under the skin of donald trump. it will be interesting to continue to hear eye contact, what donald trump is doing, and

my understanding is that there is something coming out on social media. is that right? >> right, eric trump who is the obviously son of donald trump is inside of the courtroom and just tweeted out, quote, i have never seen anything more rehearsed. of course this is not a surprise. not only do the prosecution work with the witnesses often that they call to the stand, including we know that they worked with michael cohen in order to best execute what they were looking for him to provide to the jury. of course the district -- or i should say the defense team for donald trump also attempts to work with witnesses as they did with madeleine westerhout, the former executive assistant in donald trump's white house just last week when they had a zoom meeting with her for more than an hour before her testimony here. so of course what we're watching michael cohen and the prosecution go through is a very quick order. i mean, we've only been inside of that courtroom for less than 90 minutes now, and they are already almost done telling the

karen mcdougal story here, and so to the point of the conversation you guys were just having, this is moving rather quickly. michael cohen is not somebody who publicly is typically short on words, so it's probably a matter of execution here for the prosecution and what they need from michael cohen, rather than giving him just an open floor but one that is moving with pretty quick pace here at this point. >> and at this moment, they have just brought up some phone calls that donald trump and michael cohen had. one was a 2:31 phone call, another an 8:53 phone call back in june of 2016 and then a couple of days later, they also show some texts between michael cohen and dylan howard from the "national enquirer." again, all related, they're saying, to the karen mcdougal story. and hoffinger asks a little later in 2016 in june of 2016, were you present for a conversation that trump had with pecker about the karen mcdougal matter? cohen says, yes. >> hoffinger, what was was in

the office -- or who else was in the office besides yourself and mr. trump? cohen, just the two of us. >> hoffinger, did pecker call in? >> cohen, yes, ma'am. he had the call put through and he had speaker box on desk. he asked how things are going with the matter. david said we have it under control and we will take care of it. hoffinger, what was the conversation about? cohen, david had stated that's going to cost him $150,000 to control the story. the karen mcdougal story, to which mr. trump replied no problem. i'll take care of it. cohen, ami was going to lay out the funds and as mr. trump had stated to david, i'll take care of it. and hoffinger asks, and what did you understand that to mean? cohen, that he was going to pay him back. cohen, i just wanted to make sure i was being updated regarding the entire matter, and now there are some more texts being admitted from july 28 of 2016. so all of this happening over the course of a couple of months so far, communications between

cohen, donald trump, between them and the "national enquirer" people, dylan howard, david pecker, i'm starting to wonder here, charles, if it was just him in the room with donald trump with this communication with david pecker. at some point isn't it going to be cohen's word against trump's? >> yes, but that's why you have the documents. that's why the documents become so important because ultimately even if it is cohen's word against trump, you're not going to hear from donald trump, but that doesn't matter because at the end of the day what you're going to do is say, yes, you have an account of this story that you've heard from michael cohen and you have an account of this story that the defense would like you to believe, but the thing that tips the scale if i'm the prosecutor in this case that i'm going to argue is that you have documents that support everything that michael cohen is saying and the explanation that the defense is offering for the documents i.e., well, this was payment for legal services

rendered or repayment, it does not add up with common sense. and so i think that, yes, it is oftentimes going to be the word of one witness versus the legal theory of another if you don't hear from the defendant, which is what it is in this case, but the documents tip the scale, and that's why they become so important. >> and in fact, they objected to this. it was overruled showing these texts, but basically the back and forth between keith davidson who was the attorney who was representing karen mcdougal and michael cohen were about how much money basically is this going to cost us to keep it quiet, and why? well, i needed to know what day so i could -- what day he would get that information so i could update mr. trump so he would have all of the necessary information, testimony after testimony after testimony, i am keeping donald trump involved in every aspect of this negotiation. >> so valuable and all of this adds up,