while i am a paid actor, and this is not a real company, there is no way to fake how upwork can help your business. upwork is half the cost of our old recruiter and they have top-tier talent and everything from pr to project management because this is how we work now. good morning. it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera alongside my colleague and friend jose diaz-balart for special coverage of donald trump's hush money

trial. the prosecution star witness, michael cohen, back on the stand. >> today's burning question, will cohen keep his cool when trump's lawyers begin what could be an intense cross examination, which could start any time today. could his trademark temper flare under pressure? >> yasmin vossoughian is outside the courthouse for us. yasmin, take us inside right now. what's happening? >> reporter: yeah, a lot happening so far, right? we're 30 minutes into this thing. we already got a lot. we're getting to the crux of this whole thing. yesterday we heard a lot of incredible testimony from michael cohen. we got to the intent as to why essentially donald trump would have wanted to pay off stormy daniels. we talked about the january 16th and or 17th meeting, michael cohen is unclear about the date in which donald trump, allen weisselberg, michael cohen were in the room in trump tower saying we're going to say legal services rendered, paying you monthly, $35,000 a month per the math done by allen weisselberg on the first republic bank

evidence admitted into testimony yesterday. now, we're getting to the crux, guys. i want to read for you a couple of parts of things that have happened so far this morning, talking about the checks and the invoices and the ledgers specifically. let's talk numbers for a moment, just to remind folks before i get into this, we got 34 counts here, right, under the original indictment, 12 counts when it comes to ledgers, 11 counts with invoices, 11 counts with checks. reminder, this is all about falsifying business records. it is not about paying off stormy daniels. it is not about allegedly having sex with stormy daniels in 2006, it is all about saying legal services rendered and falsifying those business records and repaying michael cohen. some exchanges here, guys, just to bring you up to date, what is happening inside the courtroom this morning, hoffinger saying, where do the discussion take place on february 8th of 2017? and he said, the conversation took place in the white house. they go on, i was sitting with president trump, and he asked me

if i was okay, he asked me if i needed money and i said, all good, he said i can get a check, i said, no, i'm okay. and he said, okay, make sure you deal with allen. was the invoice for any services you had rendered for those two months? no, ma'am. and for services rendered, was that a truthful statement? no, ma'am. what was the true purpose? the reimbursement of hush money and red finch. $50,000 went to red finch. $130,000 went to stormy daniels. $60,000 in bonuses, the rest of the money adding up to $420,000 was grossing up michael cohen to cover his taxes for this payment. was this invoice a false record? yes, ma'am. were any of the invoices you created for services rendered pursuant to a retainer agreement? cohen says, no, ma'am. they were for reimbursement. this is getting to the crux of this whole thing.

falsifying business records. this is where they not only talk about the fallout in 2017, but then also we're going to get into michael cohen, lying under oath, and being a convicted felon. the prosecution is going to have to cover this, understanding that is what the defense is going to go for in cross. >> okay, keep us posted, yasmin vossoughian, thank you for bringing us the latest from the courtroom. i want to bring in our legal panel here for the next couple of hours, msnbc legal analyst and criminal defense attorney danny cevallos, former assistant new york attorney general adam pollock, and former federal prosecutor jessica roth. >> so, danny, what is your reaaction to what is going on so far and why the decision by the prosecution to go in on every single one of these checks? >> they need to go through each one of these checks because these are the documents. these are the documents that presumably were falsified and so they have to introduce all of these documents and they especially have to introduce them with michael cohen, because michael cohen is a witness that is fraught with risk because of

his credibility problems. so, you need to support his testimony with documents. it is why they called him near to the end. not for a moment of high drama, but instead because they needed to introduce all of these other witnesses, documents, and evidence to presupport michael cohen, when he inevitably gets lambasted on cross examination for all of his inconsistencies and his lies and his motivational lies. so they introduce -- after all, this is a documents case. this is about making false entries in business records which are documents and now we're seeing the documents. but the jury is already hearing testimony that they heard before. because it has been woven in with the testimony of other people. the bookkeepers, the other people involved in this case. so, this is the prosecution building their case, brick by brick. and, of course, the defense is going to try and topple it over by attacking cohen's credibility. and the prosecution's vision is that when the smoke clears and michael cohen has been savaged

on cross examination, they can still say in closing to the jury, hey, you may have found michael cohen to be a, well, maybe a shadowy figure at best, but his testimony was consistent with all the other people who are very believable and the documents. the documents don't lie. that's basically going to be their closing. you heard it here first. >> the jury has seen all of these documents before as well. they have already shown them all of the checks, the check stubs, the invoices that were falsely labeled as legal payments, according to the prosecution. but they have cohen here now saying, well, being asked, was this payment for services rendered for the month of march? cohen saying no, ma'am. hoffinger, was that invoice false? cohen, yes. did you receive this check in response to that false invoice? cohen, i did. and all the while the jury is listening but our reporting is they're showing no emotion. >> so, this might not be an emotional or high drama moment for the jury.

but this is actually a really crucial moment for the prosecution's case. in the opening statements, the defense said these were payments made to trump's lawyer for legal services. that is patently false. the evidence has confirmed with witness after witness that these payments were not for legal services, these payments that the jury might not be rapt attention, but the payments for the nda, these payments were for the hush money. this was the first witness as danny said, it all has been woven through, this is the first witness who said trump knew what these payments were for. very crucial testimony in a case against donald trump. >> interesting how the process of building as danny would call it this brick by brick and each and every one of these payments and each and every one of these checks, they're asking cohen, hoffinger, was this a false invoice for records previously

steeded? yes, ma'am. did you receive this check as a result of false invoices? check and stub, yes, over and over, these brick by brick. but it is to protect what is coming next? >> well, this really is the foundation of the case. we think about the wall that they're building. every count in the indictment is based on one of these documents. this is one of the false records maintained in the books of the trump organization that gives the basis for each of these charges. that's why as we're going through this laborious process with cohen to establish that each one of these entries was false. the records came in earlier in the trials through the book keepers through the trump organization who awe thent kant authenticated them as the books of the trump organization. it is critical. as adam was saying, linking trump to this falsification scheme this is what is absolutely critical to come through, through cohen's

testimony. >> as this critical testimony is taking place, there is some interesting developments outside the courtroom. let's go back to yasmin. tell us what you're learning and what we're now hearing from the house speaker who showed up. >> reporter: so i'm not able to hear exactly what speaker johnson is saying right now. i'm looking over in my -- over my left, in the direction in front of me, guys, because speaker johnson is having a press conference, 50 or 60 feet away from where i'm standing. he's here along with a lot of other supporters of the former president. we have doug burgum, vivek ramaswamy, cory mills, representative byron daniels as well. we have seen over the last couple of days, malliotakis was here yesterday, tommy tuberville was here yesterday as well, along with jd vance and holding press conferences in this kind of courtyard area in front of me where protesters usually gather throughout the day. there has been not many protesters, but protesters to say the least. and now speaker johnson is

speaking specifically about what is happening inside court today. obviously coming on a day that is fairly significant for the trial because the fact michael cohen, the quote, unquote star witness of the entire trial is testifying on his second day, likely to go on throughout the week, especially with cross examination, which is going to be a very difficult day for michael cohen on the witness stand. nonetheless, speaker johnson certainly making news today coming up here to new york amidst all that is happening in washington to show his support for the former president of the united states and the republican presumptive nominee for president this go round as well. very anxious to hear exactly what it is, though, he's saying right now. as we get that in, we'll certainly bring it to you guys. >> and, danny, wondering about the image of the speaker of the house of representatives speaking outside the courthouse in the courtroom with donald trump, also his son, we're just hearing about even some of the folks who ran against trump in the primaries. clearly there is a public affairs aspect to this and a

political side to it. but inside the courtroom, do the jury members see this and how do they deal with that? >> they may see some of the hubbub when they leave or come in, in the morning. they see who is in the courtroom, for sure. and then there is the question, do they know who is in the courtroom? yes, people like us are watching for these figures all the time. but it is possible that these jury members may not recognize the speaker of the house right away. it is possible. he's a household name. he may not be an every household name. does that affect them? sure. that's why we always wanted attorneys on both sides whether you're a prosecutor or defense, you want people there to support your client or the government. it happens. and sometimes it is just mom, dad, maybe some relatives, and sometimes it is the speaker of the house supporting the defendant. and, of course, i'm willing to bet that nobody here has any personal experience with a defendant having the speaker of the house come in to support them.

we're in new ground here when it comes to, you know, is it improper influence of the jury? no. people can come show their support. but, it is pretty compelling stuff when you have major figures. it is not the first time famous people have come to a trial in support of a defendant or in support of the prosecution. it happens. it happened before. just maybe not on this political level. >> as far as the legal aspect of all of this, they're going outside the courtroom, tweeting from inside the courtroom sometimes like we saw yesterday with senator jd vance, previously it was rick scott in the courtroom, another senator who had come outside and ultimately attacked the witnesses. last week stormy daniels. this week it is michael cohen. these surrogates of trump essentially have gone after the judge's daughter. these are all off limits to trump through the gag order, right? do you see, jessica, this is his way of getting around that gag order? >> it is really intriguing as a development. i'm pretty sure the orders are that trump cannot only not make these kind of statements himself, but can't cause others

to do so. >> it is in the order. >> if the judge finds that trump is orchestrating these statements by people on his behalf, then i think the judge is going to come down very hard on donald trump. and the question is, is it going to be clear enough that he's coordinating it or is it plausible these people are doing it on their own? and would the judge say something similar to what he said to michael cohen, the judge is asking you, witnesses, or supporters of donald trump, to refrain from making these kinds of statements that could have -- could impair the integrity of the trial. we'll see how this develops. this is the newest twist on trump trying to get his political supporters to do his work on his behalf. >> it seems like that's what's happening. >> jessica was talking about the need by the prosecution to link trump to this scheme. and this building brick by brick, is this getting to that? in other words, is there enough so far to link trump with the scheme? >> so, they made important

progress, which is they now, through michael cohen, directly linked trump to these false payments. the payments were false. the records were false. there is a key part which is missing, which is did trump direct the entry of false records? because certainly there would have been no problem had they just put records down and said we're making hush money payments and recorded the checks, recorded the ledger as hush money payments, nothing illegal about a hush money payment. the key part that is still missing here is whose idea was it to do the cover-up in the records, to falsely record the ledger, to falsely record the checks? >> what does that legally mean? >> yes, so, i've been thinking about this over the last couple of days, i think it is a really significant point that adam brings up. as a defense attorney throughout the trial, i've been sort of thinking on what would the defense explore during closing. i think this might be something you'll see, which is, it may sound hypertechnical, you never know which member might be

interested in this argument, which is when all this evidence is in, what you have is documents with allen weisselberg's handwriting on them, michael cohen's invoices. you have people in the trump organization who are not the defendant, who are actually making these false entries. if you're out there and thinking, oh, come on, it is obvious he was involved, i'm with you. i understand. >> you do have donald trump's signature on some of these documents. right now they're just putting before the jury this check and a stub and the hoffinger, the prosecutor asking did you receive this check and stub as a result of false invoice? cohen, yes. and hoffinger points out, whose signature is on the check? cohen, donald j. trump. hoffinger, was that a false description of the check stub? yes, ma'am. >> when you have checks, you can't deny that's donald trump's signature on there. you're thinking as a defense attorney, you argue, hey, obviously these are checks.

you look at the ledgers, the emails that they have introduced, none of those are between donald trump. he's not a name on there. everyone will say, donald trump intentionally doesn't use email for exactly this purpose. that's a gangster move. never be on the text messmessag never be on the emails, so you're never in trouble. this may be an argument that might carry weight with one or more jurors. the vast majority of them may say, come on, give me a break, he's obviously involved, he's a micromanager, fair point. that may be true. but you never know what a member of the jury will seize on. you never, ever know. by the way, most of the time you're shocked when you find out what they did seize upon. >> there was -- there was testimony, though, from cohen yesterday about this meeting that happened inside trump tower with allen weisselberg and donald trump. and let me just read you this brief chunk from it. hoffinger, what if anything did mr. trump say at the time and cohen says, he approved it. this is where they're talking

about specifically how cohen was going to get reimbursed for payments to stormy daniels. cohen says, mr. trump approved it. and he also said this is going to be one heck of a ride in d.c. hoffinger and did he say monthly payments would be like a retainer for services and cohen said yes. is that enough? >> yes, i think it is. it establishes trump knew how the payments were going to be recorded in the books of the trump organization as payment for legal expenses when there were no legal services rendered to justify the payments. but, again, i think that dan's point is well taken, on cross examination, i think that the defense attorneys are really going to go after this exchange and say, well, you know, wasn't trump doing other things at the time? weren't really spelling out for him how these were going to be entered. he knew the payment was going to be made to michael cohen.

he knew what it was a reimbursement for, but was he paying attention to how it was being recorded? he didn't care that much about exactly how it was going to be recorded. >> how it is recorded is the key issue here. >> that's the crime. that is the crime. the reason for the why it was being falsely recorded, that is what creates the felony as opposed to just the entry of the false records which makes it a misdemeanor. i think the prosecution has done a good job of establishing the reason for the repayment was for a -- to reimburse cohen for what amounted to a campaign contribution. but when it comes to the actual falsification of the records and linking trump to it, i think that is the weakest part of the prosecution's case thus far and it is most dependent on michael cohen's credibility. >> but, adam, could trump argue also that, you know, when i said these were legal services, they were paid to a lawyer, we keep hearing that argument from him, could he argue it is all semantics, you know, these were legal services, a retainer fee

versus reimbursements? >> i think that would be a bad argument. i don't think that would resonate with the jury. i think that they -- it is going to backfire that blanche in his opening statement for trump, said these were payments for legal services. that's were not payments for legal services. this is not semantics. i don't think the jury would buy that argument. but i do think the jury would buy an argument, could buy an argument as danny said, only takes one, to buy an argument that he just wasn't involved in the book keeping, yeah, maybe he signed checks, he was already in the white house, he was busy. that would be a better argument for the jury. >> can i just say, this case has been a cautionary tale for defense attorneys everywhere that i swear for my next opening argument, it is going to be how y'all doing, keep an open mind and i'm going to sit down. why do i say that? i can think of two, adam may be able to think of more, as least two issues that the defense raised in their opening that are now a problem for them. number one, claiming that these were payments for legal services. why say anything?

let the prosecution meet their burden. and the other one was i did not have sex with that woman or some variation of that now famous line. again, now a problem for the defense because they opened -- because arguably if there is a conviction and if -- when this case goes up on appeal, the issue of bringing in the salacious sex details of stormy daniels, the prosecution will have an argument, hey, they opened the door and in my experience, take this with a grain of salt from a jaded defense attorney, courts love when defense attorneys open the door, because they can say not my problem, that was your fault and so can the appeals court too. >> interesting, prosecution is getting to the fact that $420,000 payment over those many checks was really the biggest amount of payment that the trump organization gave cohen that year. and it wasn't even from the trump organization. came right out of donald trump's personal account. >> hoffinger, if you had to characterize or estimate the

number of hours you sent in billing, 2017, doing any sort of work, what would the total number of hours be? less than ten, cohen. hoffinger, did you build for any of those matters? no, ma'am. was any part of the $420,000 the minimal amount of work in 2016? no, ma'am. hoffinger, did you do any legal work for trump in 2018? i did legal work in 2018. cohen, as a result of the stormy daniels matter and her electing to go public, mr. trump wanted an arbitration action filed against her for breach of nda. so i was contacted by eric trump and mr. trump regarding how to go forward on this nondisclosure agreement. did you work on that matter? yes. with other attorneys? yes. more work in 2017 or 2018? more in 2018. did you get paid?

no. >> that shows the contrast, doesn't it, to what they're trying to prove, they say we paid for legal work, he was always doing legal work and this is how we operated. this suggests otherwise. >> this is stark. the $420,000 there is going to be no question was not for legal services. it was repayment for this hush money scheme. >> and an outlier. >> an an outlier. >> an outlier for cohen. >> it goes to trump's knowledge of intent with respect to how the records were -- were portrayed, right? in the sense that we heard repeatedly he was stingy. he didn't like to pay his bills, including his lawyers' bills. the notion he would sign off on this very large payment to michael cohen for what was billed legal fees, it -- there is an inconsistency there and makes it seem much more plausible he knew exactly what the reimbursements were for and he was on board with them being entered as legal expenses, because this picture we're hearing over and over again is somebody who watches the bottom

line very carefully, and really doesn't pay bills willingly. and so it just seems not plausible that he was checked out with respect to not only the payments, we know he signed off on the payments, but how they were booked. >> does the defense need to address this? >> address what? that he was a micromanager? >> no, the fact that, like, there is proof here that they handled this particular payment to michael cohen very differently than they handled other types of payments to michael cohen throughout his time with the trump organization, working as a lawyer for donald trump? >> i would say there is proof this is a payment that was an anomaly. the circumstances of that payment, michael cohen is testifying to, but whether or not michael cohen is credible to the jury is another thing. but i agree with you, that they can stand on the sheer anomaly of the payment. hey, here's 400 plus thousand dollars and it doesn't make a lot of sense. they got that. i've been saying rather glibly over the last few days that the

false entry and business records was arguably calling michael cohen a lawyer because all of his testimony is that he did things that lawyers don't really do. lawyers aren't asked to -- they're not given a bill and say, hey, go call this person up and negotiate this bill down. it is not really what we do in terms of legal services. michael cohen was calling up journalists, trying to get stories taken down. i guess that's lawyer-ish, i don't know. michael cohen doesn't appear to have provided a whole lot of legal services anyway. i wonder how that cuts for the defense. >> let's go back into the documentnow asking about other clients in 2017 and 2018. five, what kind of work? consulting, cohen said. how much total did you earn from though those clients? cohen, approximately $4 million. hoffinger, you were contacted by a managing partner at the firm, interested on having me on the letter head, so they deal with this other type of work he did, he made half a million from that type of work.

she said did you have an office there? he said he had two offices, one in manhattan, one in d.c. but now she's asking more specific to donald trump. did you continue to try to protect him? cohen says, yes, ma'am. hoffinger, did you continue to lie for him? cohen, yes. hoffinger! did you do that? cohen, out of loyalty and in order to protect him. hoffinger, and at the time he was president, is that right? cohen, yes. hoffinger, and had he already announced he was going to be running again in 2020? cohen, he had stated that. adam, what do you think that hoffinger is trying to prove here? >> he's trying to prove -- they're trying to prove he was loyal, that he had a motive, the motive was at the time aligned with trump. later he becomes vengeful. 24 will come out on cross examination. but they're trying to show that he was aligned with trump at the

time and executing and continuing to follow his work, his bidding, and follow out his plan to silence and continue to silence this stormy daniels. >> also, what i keep thinking about here is he's saying, i was taking millions off the other clients in terms of the legal work i was providing as a consultant and here trump is paying him pennies relatively speaking compared to the other clients. he felt this personal connection to trump. >> looking for trump for a long time, and in the sense his whole brand was affiliated with trump and being trump's personal attorney. he was able to sell that access to trump, to other clients as well. there is a sense in which being affiliated with trump and loyal to trump served him beyond just whatever money he was paid directly by trump. >> talk about the need by the prosecution to inoculate, i guess, cohen to what is coming. here is a part right now, in the courtroom, hoffinger is asking cohen about, quote, the spring

and fall of 2017, while you were still personal counsel to president trump, did the house and senate intelligence committee ask you to testify about the russia investigation? cohen, they did. hoffinger, subpoenaed for testimony? yes. it was about the trump tower moscow deal. was there pressure at the time? cohen, a tremendous amount of pressure. hoffinger, did you have an attorney representing you? i did, cohen says. trump organization was paying for it, it was part of a joint defense agreement, which is when the employer and people working together for a common goal. trump organization paid for the attorney, it was very much important trump was paying -- trump organization was paying for that attorney. how did you feel about the power of the president behind you? cohen, i needed it, i thought it was very important. hoffinger, did you lie? cohen, i did. again, this is preparing for what the defense is going to go after. >> they have to own it. this is something that

prosecutors do every single day, because here's the reality, michael cohen has some problems. but he's not even close to the worst when in that giant spectrum of cooperating witnesses that prosecutors use. cooperating witnesses can really run the gamut. they can be awful people. i've had them brought in, in shackles and prison garb to testify. these are people that are drug dealers, sometimes they're killers, sometimes they're people who use guns, and prosecutors use them all the time. you know why? because they work. they work devastatingly well. and for that reason, i think juries are willing to see someone that this is somebody who has flaws, he's owning up to it, but he apparently was an insider with the defendant, so he's to be believed. and, of course, the defense's argument, since time in memorial, has been he's a liar, would you trust him with any of your own personal transactions? then why would you believe him here? i'm doing the classic defense spiel. how am i doing?

sounds pretty familiar? >> sounds like that's what hoffinger is doing already, even though she's for the prosecution. and she continues to ask him about his lies. why did you make those false statements to congress? cohen, because i was staying on trump's message and there was no russia, russia, russia and that was what was preferred. hoffinger, did you continue to lie about mr. trump's involvement in the stormy daniels payoff and pressure karen mcdougal to lie about the payoffs to her? cohen, yes. hoffinger, did you continue to pressure other people, for example, like keith davidson, to lie about the payoffs to karen mcdougal and stormy daniels? cohen, yes. hoffinger, why did you do that? cohen, in order to protect mr. trump. so, as danny was saying, you have to own it. you have to own all the flaws in your witness and we do what you call drawing the sting. you don't want the jury to think you're hiding anything about the witness from them. you elicit all the lies they told in the past, all the crimes they committed, all the bias

they harbor against the person who gets to offer testimony because you want to be up-front with the jury. this person has given very incriminating testimony on direct examination against donald trump and now we're in the section of the direct examination where the prosecutors elicit all the reasons why his credibility may be in question. and if cohen comes through this section, looking like he's not running away from what he's done in the past, if he owns it, then when, again, the defense goes into this cross examination, it doesn't look like cohen or the prosecutor were trying to hide any of it. >> let's go back to yasmin vossoughian and they're revisiting the testimony from another witness that was on the stand last week. madeleine westerhout. what are they saying? >> reporter: let's talk about madeleine westerhout for a moment. she was integral to closing the loop for receiving these checks within the white house. she was sitting outside the oval office, trump's personal secretary in the white house for two years or so until she was

subsequently fired for talking about the former president's children while she was inebriated or former president's family while she was inebriated. she testified to the fact that she received these checks, walked the checks into the oval office in which the former president would sign all of his checks, oftentimes, sometimes reaching out to cfo allen weisselberg to question some of the checks, what the money was for, so on and so forth. what was integral about her testimony was closing the loop. the checks being cut in trump tower, them being fedexed from either roenick graph or someone else to madeleine westerhout, walking the checks to be signed by donald trump. 11 checks, two from the revoke able trust. the rest from donald trump's personal account. so important to keep that in perspective as well as we talk about where this actual money

was coming from. it is really kind closing the loop for michael cohen as well as to how all this money came to fruition. one other thing i wanted to weigh in on, some of what you all were talking about, really, which is the significance of michael cohen's work and not getting paid for it, right, and how significant it is he continued to work for the former president, when he became president and yet did not receive any money for. he admitted in 2017, he didn't do much work. don't put an invoice for it. in 2018, he did do some work and did not get paid. this is to establish as you talked about the fact that $420,000 that the defense claims was a retainer for legal services was really just for this one year period. these 11 checks cut for michael cohen. >> and joining us now, retired judge for new york supreme court diane keisel, great to see you. thank you for being with us. i want to go back to the courtroom and want your thoughts on this.

here is a back and forth that is different and key, i think. hoffinger, did you discuss with president trump the statements that you were going to be releasing publicly in 2018? meaning statements that he did not know or was not involved in the payoffs? yes. what did you tell him about the statements? that i had paid the money on his behalf without his knowledge. how did he respond? cohen, that's good. that's good. 2018, were you in contact with davidson about the article he was going to bring out? yes. they had gotten out and i was concerned. what let you to ask him to do that, statement of denial from daniels? so once again, here we're talking about statements in 2018 where cohen is saying that he told the president directly i did this in your name.

what does that give prosecution? >> well, as, remember, a trial is little building blocks, if you will. and step by step the prosecution is showing and must show that donald trump, a, was aware of this, and, b, not only directed it, but certainly at the very least acquiesced to it, right? and this is what is coming out in this testimony. >> judge, i'm interested in your perspective, given your experience in the role that judge merchan is playing here to get your thoughts on how this particular testimony is going with michael cohen. we have seen very few objections from the defense. this is the prosecutor's star witness. he is spilling the beans on every aspect of this alleged crime. are you surprised? would you be surprised if you were the judge and did not have

more objections from the defense? >> i think, no, not particularly because i think the defense does not want to look like it is jumping up, look a jumping jack, and is fearful of the testimony of michael cohen. i think though know they got a lot of ammunition waiting that they're going to use on cross examination so they're going to just sit back and let this case come out the way people are having it be presented. but i'm sure they will strike later. >> but there was during stormy daniels' testimony, the judge making his own objections because he felt there was some prejudicial material there that could potentially damage this trial's integrity in some way, right? so as far as what michael cohen's testimony has been so far, do you see anything that could be a vulnerability when it comes to this trial standing up whatever ends up being at the end?

>> well, look, judge merchan knows like we all do that this is the key witness in the trial, right? i don't think he wants to step on the toes of the defense. i know when i was sitting on the bench, i would sit there sometimes and say to myself, check. but i didn't jump up and do it because there may be strategic -- there may be strategic reasons why you don't want to jump up and object. i don't think the defense wants to make it look like they're afraid of michael cohen. bring it on, you know? we'll take care of him later. >> i think that's exactly right. i think they're saying we don't -- we don't have any problem, let it come all in, we're going to destroy his credibility on cross examination. it is absolutely strategic. i haven't heard anything that would really warrant an objection thus far. it is very different with respect to stormy daniels. i think they're holding their fire. >> the prosecution has been asking a lot of leading questions. these are, i mean, loosely defined, not precise to call it that, it is a question whether a yes or no answer. it is objectionable, but you

make a decision, am i going to make all these ticky-tack objections? they may get sustained and i feel victorious for a moment, but does the jury see that i'm afraid, i'm hiding something, i don't want the question to be asked. it seems to me the defense has taken a very, very deliberate tack to not object frequently. they barely object at all. and maybe because you had the judge objected on his own, which really rarely happens. it is very rare. how often does a judge interject to object for the defense? it really doesn't happen very often. so, for justice merchan to even say it, to me, signals that if there is a conviction, that, that has to be the lead appealable issue for the defense. and, by the way, if they didn't object, they may have waved it. it is a risk. you can either object too much and be perceived as somebody who is a pain, or you can object not

at all and maybe poof wave some of your appellate issues. >> i think this is not a surprise witness. this is a witness that everybody has known what is going to be the central witness and they had a year on both sides to prepare for this witness, to really nail it down. the defense probably has been testing with mock juries their cross examination of this witness. so, both sides have had time to prepare and prepare and prepare both the prosecution side, which has been tight, and the defense side which will also be tight, it will be well rehearsed, there is not going to be any surprises in the prosecution's case that are really going to change up the cross examination. >> but, you know, danny mentioned how the prosecution seems to be asking leading questions. is that unusual? >> it is not unusual. as danny said, it is technically improper. the prosecution should be asking more open ended questions, but as danny said, there is not a need for the defense to be jumping up and down and

objecting to every -- >> why would the prosecution not be asking more open ended questions to a witness that they have been preparing for this testimony for at least a year, according to our reporting? >> they're probably concerned that he is a potentially loose cannon and want to keep his story narrow and tight. >> and that was an issue during the stormy daniels prosecution questioning. yasmin vossoughian, inside the courtroom, stormy daniels is back as a subject. >> reporter: she is, and just to be clear here, michael cohen doesn't know what stormy daniels has testified to. michael cohen doesn't know what keith davidson testified to. this moment reinforces what we heard from keith davidson, stormy daniels' attorney and stormy daniels as well, did you know the statement of stormy daniels was false. this was in 2018 after the revelation of "the wall street journal" article and subsequently stormy daniels going on jimmy kimmel. we have seen that now played many times in which she was asked by jimmy kimmel if she had a one-night stand or an affair

with donald trump and she was kind of coy about that response and denied outright in her statement in 2018 of having an affair and/or a one night stand with donald trump. she addressed that in her testimony just the other day. did you know the statement stormy daniels was falls? cohen says yes and goes on to say wanted to get credit staying loyal so we could have this matter taken care of. reinforcing the moment when this all began in january 2018. leading up to michael cohen pleading guilty in august 2018 and that's when, of course, he then subsequently said it was donald trump who made me do it. it was donald trump who made me pay off stormy daniels. this testimony, michael cohen's testimony in this very moment about stormy daniels reinforcing both her testimony along with her attorney's testimony, keith davidson as well. >> okay, yasmin, we'll come back. back into what is happening at this very moment in the questioning. hoffinger asking about trying to

get stormy daniels to continually lie about this sexual encounter, to not say anything about what happened and hoffinger asks, did you try to get stormy daniels to issue another denial? this was in january of 2018, apparently. cohen says, despite thinking the story was dying, there was still persistent reporters looking into this and i thought it would be helpful to put an end to it. hoffinger, some news she might do jimmy kimmel's show. did you pressure karen mcdougal? cohen, i did. hoffinger, keith davidson, kd, hoffinger, did you know at the time the statement was false? cohen, yes. how did you know? because i helped him craft it. so keith davidson was stormy daniels' attorney at this time. and that's who cohen was primarily communicating with. >> joining our conversation, former assistant u.s. attorney sarah chrisoff. this is once again another building block by the prosecution. preparing for what the defense is going to be attacking.

>> that's right. i mean, again, they're just trying to walk cohen through all of these things very carefully to set the stage what they're going to argue at the end of the case, that all of these pieces fit together, that he's committed this crime. and in trying to avoid the inevitable cross examination that is to come in a few moments. >> i'm curious to get your thoughts as well, sarah, on, you know, we don't have a lot of color from the courtroom. but i'm sure as a prosecutor, you're wondering what the jury is doing during this examination. in susan hoffinger's shoes, how much is she paying attention to nonverbal cues, to body language, to facial expression of the jury? >> she's probably not watching the jury at all, frankly. there are other members of her team that are watching the jury. they'll report back. but she needs to be hyperfocused on the witness. listening to the witness, watching the witness, watching the judge, if the judge is interjecting at all, listening for the objections, she would

have very little interaction. when you're on direct, when you're examining a witness on direct examination, you want to sort of nothing to shine other than the witness. you want to be in the background, want this story to be the witness' story that they're telling on the stand. >> you were talking about how both sides have been able to have a lot of time to prepare for this. what do you see as the differences in preparation for michael cohen versus stormy daniels and what were the mistakes, maybe that the prosecution committed because of who their witness was that they're maybe resolving here? >> the prosecution's direct exam of stormy daniels was much broader than i think anybody anticipated. i think in part because it was because in the opening statement, the defense had denied that any kind of

encounter had taken place. and if that was the denial, then i'm sure the prosecution felt they needed to explain what was the hush money payment for, and to get testimony from stormy daniels that there had been an encounter that night in nevada. the -- it was surprising that they went into such depth and gave her an opportunity to give such broad testimony that was broader than expected and perhaps off of the rails. with michael cohen, they learned that lesson and they really kept to what is evidently the preparation. here is the script, here are the questions we need to ask, and leading questions. they're keeping him there. >> there is some new developments that just came through outside of court, but related to this case. and new york appeals court is now rejected trump's team's appeal of the gag orders imposed on him in this case. of course, he's already been found in violation of that gag order, the partial gag order ten times. we were talking about this earlier, your reaction to just kind of -- is this the finalization of this gag order

being constitutionally -- even though trump is trying to argue otherwise? >> it is not the final say but it is significant that the appellate court upheld the order. i say that because we see the appellate court hasn't upheld all of the decisions of the judges in the cases related to trump. we saw the appellate decision modify the bond amount, the civil fraud case, so it is not like they have been rubber stamping everything related to trump. that's a separate case. but nevertheless, i think this is a vindication for trump merchan's gag order that it was upheld at this stage and i think that's going to really lay the ground work for judge merchan to feel more confident sanctioning trump further for violation of the order. >> in the last couple of times that the former president has spoken during a break or after, he seemed to be more reading from notes and kind of limiting what he's saying about the people that are included in that gag order. >> it sure seems to be. and even on his truth social

network, which i may be the only person who looked at it, in the country, the messages are clear and they're repetitive and they're limited to attacking the trial and attacking judge merchan. he's limited. the gag order seems to be working and the contempt punishment seems to be working. he's really been reined in and seems to be deterred from further attacks on the jury and the witnesses. >> and now we're seeing the surrogates doing it on his behalf. that's the latest twist, his work around. >> right. so, they have now introduced a letter from trump's lawyers. trump's lawyers? >> it is the statement that one of he, cohen was responsible for? >> go ahead. >> as they're going back and forth with a text communication that cohen had with maggie haberman from "the new york times." as a matter of fact, the -- i'm going to read part of that text

from michael cohen to maggie haberman. the big boss just approved me responding to complaint and statement. please start writing and i will call you soon. embargoed until we speak with steve ryan. hoffinger, did you prepare then a written statement? cohen, yes. hoffinger, what is this? this is a statement i was going to release to the press. and then this is the exhibit 202 which is the copy of the statement from michael cohen about the fec complaint. it is a statement, a quote, a private transaction of 2016 i used my own personal funds to facilitate a $130,000 payment to miss stephanie clifford, neither the trump organization nor -- this is coming as we speak -- nor the trump campaign was a party to it.

>> and in fact this appears to be something that they are now -- now repeating over and over again. he's been asked about crafting this statement. and, again, this statement was put out there, shortly after this story was made public, and hoffinger says was that statement false or misleading? cohen says, misleading. the statement was put out there by an attorney for trump. cohen, while crafting the statement we elected to state neither the trump organization nor the trump campaign was a party to the transaction, that's a true statement. but it is misleading, cohen says it was neither the trump organization or the trump campaign, it was donald j. hoffinger, did you intend for it to be misleading? cohen, yes, ma'am. why? in order to instruct mr. trump to stay on message to demonstrate continued loyalty. >> the judge is actually now,

judge merchan is actually now giving jury instructions on what exactly was submitted. what this complaint is. so, merchan, you just saw fec, you may consider that testimony for these purposes only. neither the fact the fec investigation or the responses here too constitute evidence of the defendant's guilt. so he's explaining what this fec investigation was all about. >> so why is the judge, though, giving this instruction? >> because this is a really damaging document. if the fec -- now the jury just heard the fec, i mean, that is a major alphabet-named government agency or entity that is now looking into this. so the judge has to give a limiting instruction that, hey, this is part of the evidence, but consider it for this purpose. don't consider the investigation itself as evidence of the defendant's guilt or otherwise this would be incredibly

prejudicial. otherwise you could introduce just about every investigation of donald trump that may have touched michael cohen, and just leave it out there in the ether and the jury will just sort of assume that it is evidence of donald trump's guilt. this is the -- forever balancing test of evidence. is it probative, but even if it is probative, is it too prejudicial? and judges have to balance that. there is a test in federal court, one in every state court, it is roughly the same, but you have to balance the prejudicial effect against the probative value and this is a classic example of something that could be devastating if the jury isn't instructed and good luck with the instruction because defense attorneys like me see that as, well, if they don't fully understand the instruction, they can't unhear what they just heard. >> so, what do you do to unhear what do to unhear what they just heard, and who is responsible for explaining to this level of detail that the fec did carry out an investigation, and then what happened during that investigation? and what that investigation found. who is responsible for

explaining that to the jury? >> so, the judge is going to tell the jury what the boundaries are here, how they can consider this evidence, what they can consider it for, and he may go back to it. he's given an instruction here. he may return back to this, you know, in an hour or two hours and then at the end of the case before the jury starts deliberating, the judge gives the jury a series of instructions again and he may touch on things about other investigations that sort of aren't really at issue here but are necessary to establish the underlying facts. >> i want to bring in white house reporter for politico, eli stokols. and you covered the trump white house, that 2016 campaign. this is what was happening in 2018, i believe, after the story broke that trump had paid this money for a porn star, had reimbursed cohen who had done the deal. so take us back to that time during trump's white house and

what was happening in trump's orbit, not just this, but so much else, right? >> that's right. i mean, it was a chaotic period, as pretty much the entire four-year period was. at this time, as all of this was swirling, the president's chief of staff, john kelly, announced he was leaving. there were several people he approached about the job who didn't want it at that point. that was somewhat a reflection of how messy everything was inside the west wing at that time. there was also an uproar on capitol hill about the murder of jamal khashoggi, the journalist killed by the saudis. republicans voted to condemn that. that was seen as a sort of slap against trump given that trump hadn't come out and been critical of that at all. the mueller investigation was swirling. this was a president who spent a lot of time in that executive dining room watching the news,

reacting to the news. the news at that time was not good. there was a lot of stress that the president was feeling. he was looking to defend himself. he was looking to other people to defend himself as was often the case, and a sense of isolation at that time. it was one of several lower points of this presidency when it felt like at least in that moment that the walls were closing in just a bit. >> you talk about the isolation and the walls closing in. what was michael cohen's, i guess, access to that inner sanctum and that isolation? was he part of the inside or the outside? >> well, after he made the deal with prosecutors and was being sentenced he was clearly on the outside. for a long time, he was part of that inner circle. someone who was having communications either directly with the president in the first year of the presidency about this and other matters, or someone who was going through

intermediaries, as the proscuse has shown in this case, to get information to the president to facilitate payments and things like that. michael cohen spent several years of his life on the inside of the trump corporation, trump world. and even though he was on the outside of the trump white house, never had a position in washington, initially, he was still doing a lot of important work on the outside for the president, still sort of serving as his fixer until the walls closed in on him and he made the agreement and then flipped and then at that point, obviously, that was the end for his relationship with donald trump, the president at that time was talking about cohen being a rat, as you might expect. so things changed pretty quickly. >> during this time, when they were trying to scramble for some kind of a statement to put out there about trump's knowledge or lack thereof related to these payments, cohen apparently was in communication with trump's then sort of personal lawyer,

jay sekulow. a lot of people may remember his name, and there is a document they just admitted in the trial where it's from jay sekulow to michael cohen saying client, referring to trump, says thanks for what you do. so at that point, obviously, trump was still appreciative of michael cohen and his work on his behalf. there's some color from the courtroom that during this portion of testimony, trump sitting with his eyes closed, his head is tilted to the right and there are surrogates in the front row who are wide awake, following along with the testimony, watching the monitors to see these documents being shown. among those surrogates in the courtroom today that showed up at some point, speaker mike johnson, north dakota governor doug burgum, vivek ramaswamy, his former competitors on the primary campaign. what do you make of who is showing up for donald trump, eli? >> i think as one of your guests pointed out just a few minutes ago, there's a direct line from the gag order tightening around president trump and more surrogates showing up to speak

on his behalf. this is a president who always wanted people defending him. always wants that. and you know, there's always been sort of this requirement of jen ufluxion toward the president. in 2016, 2017, there were a parade of hopefuls coming to bedminster. the president looking on television for people to be supporting him, taking photos with people, bringing people up to the rally stage, wanting to show off how deep and broad his support continued to be. i think that's what you're seeing here today. all of these people, mike john sp, he recognizes as the speaker of a very narrow house majority. the power in today's republican party rests with donald trump. what did he have to do before he brought the ukraine package to the floor? he had to go down to mar-a-lago, kiss the ring, he had to do that to head off a conservative revolt led by marjorie taylor greene. he did so and got the aid package passed. he knows the power of donald trump to keep the republican party in line. he is there, and it seems a

personal capacity, but obviously, there is sort of a repayment and a show of respect for president trump, burgum, jd vance, these are people vying to be potential running mates for trump this fall as he challenges president biden. so you see all of them doing what is required. in an interesting way, their presence, it kind of sheds more light on what michael cohen's job was, what michael cohen's testimony has said, and what this entire case, what the prosecution has been trying to lay out. everyone is performing for that audience of one. they are doing this for donald trump. michael cohen testified yesterday about hoping that if he did his job well, he might get a head pat or some kind of show of thanks from president trump. sometimes that didn't happen. but he talked about sort of that being a motivator. that's the price of the ticket with donald trump and in trump world. always has been. continues to be. i think that's why it helps explain michael cohen's role and

also why this cavalcade of republicans are showing up to the courthouse. >> you think that more will be showing up in the days coming? >> i would bet on it. >> all right. we'll end it there. thank you so much for your time, eli stokols. we always appreciate your reporting and insights. let's go back to the document. around the same time in 2018, did the "wall street journal" reach out to you about ami's pay off of karen mcdougal? cohen, yes, ma'am. >> did they reach out about an fec complaint about the payment? cohen, yes. do you recall what the "wall street journal" was asking you about? cohen, ami's participation in the pay off and david pecker. hoffinger, did they ask you at all about your involvement scomr trump's involvement. cohen, yes. david was very concerned because it was going to affect ami and affect him. i told him i would assist in this matter and told him after conversations with the

president, do not worry. i have this thing under control. we have it taken care of. and then todd blanche, donald trump's attorney, says your honor, may i briefly approach? there is a bench hearing. >> and as that bench hearing progresses, thank danny, actually, you're sticking around a little longer, andrew, jessica, thank you so much for being with us this morning. more special coverage of donald trump's hush money trial and michael cohen's testimony in our next hour. >> you're watching msnbc special coverage. stay right there. here

this is our future, ma. godaddy airo. creates a logo, website, even social posts... in minutes! -how? -a.i. (impressed) ay i like it! who wants to come see the future?! get your business online in minutes with godaddy airo