♪♪ moving piles of earth. towing up to 4,000 lbs. cutting millions of blades of grass. nothing compares to experiencing it for yourself. you just have to get in the seat.

good to be with you, i'm katy tur. the hush money trial of former president trump. >> defense attorney todd blanche is going through cohen's direct hm. cohen is talking about his dealing with the press as a quote surrogate of mr. trump's campaign, and the secret recordings he made of the former president. >> blanche is starting to dig

into the stories cohen attempted to bury about trump. this goes back to early days of this trial, alongside "national enquirer's" david pecker. >> joining us now, nbc news national correspondent yasmin vossoughian outside the court, back with us. chuck rosenberg, catherine christian, and danny cevallos. yasmin, what is happening right now? >> reporter: they're talking about the calls beginning in june of 2016. this is when cohen alleges he informed the former president of the united states, his boss at the time there was a meeting between mcdougal. this was the beginning of the payoff by ami. it was october in which the payoff was made to stormy daniels, initial contact between gina rodriguez and ami was october 8th, 2016. that was about six months after this initial conversation in june when cohen informed donald trump as he alleges about the

conversations between dylan howard and karen mcdougal, and their settlement of $150,000. let me read you through quickly this moment if i can. you have a recollection of a call on june 16th of 2016, with president trump, cohen says yes, sir. you called schiller and gave the phone to president trump. you don't have a specific recollection in 2016. no, sir. 1,400 a month, conservatively 14,000 calls a year in 2016 and 2017? yes, sir. you were in prison for 13 months, are we talking about 50,000 calls between 2016 and today. you testified about specific conversations you had with pecker, howard, and president trump. you were not testifying about specific calls were you, cohen says i was. they're trying to couple two separate things. blanche is talking about the time line.

setting up, getting into the important time line when it comes to stormy daniels, and gina rodriguez, talking about the recollection and retelling and the phone calls, considering the amount of phone calls he was having, not only with keith schiller, donald trump's body guard at the time, and also the former president himself, and chipping away, once again, guys, as we have been seeing all day long his credibility. >> and, chuck, what they're talking about is so many phone calls, 50,000 phone calls, and he's trying to point out that he can't possibly under oath be testifying specifically about that critical call of stormy daniels amongst all the other calls. cohen says you have been talking about these phone calls for six years. this is something that cohen has suggested that he remembers. what i did recall was the conversation i had. i had been telling the same story for six years. blanche, you have been talking about these phone calls for six

years. cohen, i was going across to first republic, to say everything was done because it was that significant. he had gotten the mortgage for the money. prosecutor called you, if you had specific recollection. yes, i'm trying to reconcile. do you have specific recollection? cohen says, can you show me. blanche is showing him the exhibit. the call. it was at 6:51 p.m. from michael cohen to donald trump. it lasted 2:31. blanche said, so do i understand you remember, as you sit here today, you remember that call. cohen, based on the documents i was able to look at, it jogs my mom. blanche, do you have a recollection. cohen, i recall the conversation based on the documents. blanche, at that time, at that day in june. cohen, based on the documents i

reviewed, i did. cohen is a lawyer here. >> this is a classic example, i think, of an attorney on cross-examination asking, you know, two too many or three too many questions. you can establish easily that mr. cohen gets a thousand calls a day. you can establish easily that he get os 30,000 calls a month. once he agrees to that, you can argue to the jury when mr. cohen is no longer on the stand that it's simply not credible to believe he remembers one phone call out of 30,000. but if you ask mr. cohen whether he remembers it, and he says he does, you're stuck, and again, i think this is a classic mistake people make in cross-examination. he's not going to admit he's a liar.

you can have him agree he committed perjury. you can't then ask mr. cohen on the stand whether you're a liar because he's going to say no. >> i think this brings me back to something we have talked about before, catherine, and that's jurors and common sense. maybe he gave an opening to some common sense because one of the things he said was that he recalls the phone call. what i don't recall was that it happened at 8:02. given the volume of calls entered into evidence, that is common sense. then he ties it to another major event, which was going to get that home equity loan that was the source of the money to pay stormy daniels, and maybe a juror can relate to the fact, yeah, i don't remember 99.5% of the calls, but the day my dad died and so and so called me about this, i remember that because it was that day.

something significant happened in your life, and i remember. did he just provide an opening for him to maybe have a way around what we saw before the lunch break, which seems to be a kind of ah-ha moment? >> yeah, sometimes you just, you don't ask the ultimate question. you just let him give you enough information, get out, and move on to a different subject. you make a note or co-counsel makes a note, summation comment. and so you don't want the witness ever to explain and give a reason on redirect, have them explain what they really meant. >> eventually they learned, they say, that president trump said he could get hit by a bus, meaning something could happen to mr. pecker and everything would be the same. todd blanche, this wasn't concern with the election. the concern he could get hit by a bus and wouldn't have the box. you said, i'm all over it.

yes, this is the box they're talking about where they had some of the articles or stories that were being buried. going back to the call. so he goes back to the call again, when he, trump said cash, he's not talking about benjamins and green dollar bills, he's talking about paying for something, not financing, right? no, sir, when you work with him often, would he purchase with cash? correct. he would purchase buildings with cash. i don't know what you're referring to, sir. were there times he purchased properties with cash? yes, sir. trump is paying close attention to the testimony. his chair is turned. he's facing michael cohen and the jury. remember, we actually think, and if you have seen a map, well, you can actually talk about it. it can be tough, katy, for cohen to see trump from his vantage point, which may seem weird. >> it's the way the court is

laid out. the way that she's sitting in the box and where specifically donald trump is seated. it was hard for me to see donald trump in the courtroom. there's also so many security guards and court officers that they're blocking him. trump and michael cohen and everybody is up on a few monitors around the courthouse. it's hard to see detail. it is reasonable that michael cohen can't see him. when i was in there, he wasn't looking in that direction. he was looking directly at blanche who was right in front of him. maybe he solo glanced toward his attorney, and occasionally he would look toward the jury box. i didn't see him looking toward the side of the room. >> it is interesting at the moment he's talking about how he conducted his business, he turned to michael cohen and is engaged. >> at the time they were concerned, he draws this out of him, that david pecker would become the ceo of "time"

magazine and that this box with all of their secrets would be left to someone they did not know taking over ami. so that's the business of, well, you know, trump's saying, you know, that he could get hit by a bus. >> what's the point of this, catherine? >> they seem to be getting somewhere with the fact that so much -- >> it can be hard for us to follow reading this document which is very limiting. it was hard to follow when blanche would go on these tangents, wind ups in the courtroom. how risky is it? >> this is all about whether donald trump used cash -- >> risky if he drops it and moves on. the jury is like what was that about. >> trump using cash, is this an argument saying why would trump not pay stormy daniels off with cash? is that what you're getting at, andrea? >> remember the conversation about the cash to karen

mcdougal, cohen at that time said no, no, no. >> when you say he's very rich and pays all cash, you're not saying you go to the bank with all cash. is it financed? he's not talking about green. cohen, he was, he said, you need to do it by check. this was into testimony that what he said was on that phone call, trump said cash, and he said no, no, no, by check. what we know now, at least if you believe michael cohen's testimony was that he wanted to make this look legit. if there were a series of checks cut back to him, then it would look like he was being paid for services rendered, not being paid for reimbursement. >> the problem is you have 11 checks that donald trump wrote to michael cohen, and all common sense is that man did not do legal work for donald trump. he testified to it. it's clear. he wasn't, i mean, you could be

an ethical lawyer and do legal work. how they overcome the 34 counts, and 11 of them were donald trump's sharpies. >> the prosecution is going to come back to exhibit 35 and 36. i mentioned this a few times now, the bank statements with allen weisselberg's own handling on it. you might be poking holes in michael cohen, might be saying he's not trust worthy, how do you impeach those two documents? >> harder because first of all, it's hard to impeach a document. and second, with mr. weisselberg's written directions on the document. >> and the one that says gross. which explains why he's paying more than 130,000. >> how far do these two documents go. >> i don't know that any single document proves the case. you have to look at them in their totality. when you see the invoices, the

checks, the ledger entries. right, and couple that with the testimony of the various people who handle these documents, i think they will tell the story. they don't tell you that mr. trump, in and of himself, they don't tell you mr. trump ordered this or knew of it. that's where you need michael cohen. >> and they complete the puzzle, that's what the prosecution will argue. one piece of the evidence that needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. >> i started as a white collar prosecutor. i'm trying to think of a case in which i had a smoking gun document. i had helpful documents corroborated by testimony. in their totality they moved my case. the notion that you have a single document that sort of does everything for you, those cases tend to plead. >> a thank you note on white house stationary from donald trump. >> here, chris, is the conspiracy agreement, please sign at the bottom. >> you received a phone call from the bank, right, cohen says

capital one bank, and your testimony is that you answered that call. blanche, so just so i understand, you're in a meeting with president trump, talking to them about the financing or cash for the mcdougal story. the phone rings and you answer that call. cohen, i did. what was the bank calling you about. cohen, i don't specifically remember, i just remember it was a big issue. blanche, well, you started out by saying you don't remember, then you gave a long explanation. objection sustained. when you hung up with that phone call with the bank, you were still talking to president trump for a few moments, cohen says. blanch, you didn't restart the recording? >> cohen, no, sir. blanche, in that recording, you can hear you answering the phone. that time did the call come in on the phone you were recording on. >> cohen says yes. you sure about that, cohen says positive. blanche, i want to talk about

your use of encrypted apps you used with david pecker and dylan howard. you testified you would use those apps at times to keep conversations confidential. but a lot of those key conversations were just on text. yes, sir. the post launch period has returned to relative calm with few punches landing. blanche says the ndas were e-mailed back and forth, cohen says correct. they're going on another afternoon break. todd blanche is serene. except for that moment we had right before the lunch break, he's not, like, bombastic. he's not overly confident. the way emil bove has been described, like a pit bull, a trump style litigator, the style he supposedly wants.

i wonder if you're donald trump, how you feel, maybe we'll bring in danny cevallos about this, why todd blanche would be doing this cross and not somebody with a little bit more fireworks behind them like emil bove. >> i had the chance to watch emil bove in action. i was impressed. when i saw him cross examine, and it wasn't a critical witness so much, it wasn't like a stormy daniels, it was either a paralegal or someone authenticating phones. he definitely cross examined the paralegals now that i'm thinking about it. he came off as comfortable, conducting cross-examination, very smooth, not confrontational, and i can't stress enough to do cross-examination you don't necessarily need to be aggressive, confrontational. sometimes it calls for that. sometimes just before lunch, that may have been a planned

voice raising by todd blanche to get some attention to a point that he thought was important. in my opinion, the most effective cross examiners are not those that go after someone aggressively, showing emotion or anger or something like that. far better than to be workman like about it. to be business like about it, not show emotion, because for whatever reason, it's my opinion that emotion generally loses in court. i don't know what part of human nature it is. when cops testify, they describe the most horrific scenes. there's sort of a flat line cop way of talking, no matter how much of a crisis you're in, you've got to have a calm demeanor. and they do that on the stand. it's very effective. police officers are excellent witnesses. better than lawyers because they get so much practice. when it comes to cross-examination, emil bove, i thought, in the limited times i

saw him in action in person, i thought he did a very good job. he was effective not by pounding his fists on the podium. but by being humorous. he asked a paralegal who had compiled the data, and had to organize it, become breaking paperwork, and i believe emil bove said you found this to be a difficult, tedious task, right, and the paralegal says, actually, i kind of liked it. and emil bove said respect, which was a moment of levity in the courtroom. and to me, that's an attorney who's comfortable when he's at the podium. comfortable conducting, you're able to improv, you can get in and out out of a situation with more ease than if your heart is pounding and you're fired up. >> you have to keep the jury awake. >> the jury did stay awake.

they were engaged. taking notes, watching todd blanche. i don't know after the lunch break, they might have gotten tired. there was a funny moment, i don't know if it was recorded but it was todd blanche asking michael cohen about testimony he had in front of congress and he was saying it's fair to say lawmakers go on and on, even longer than i'm going now, and i look at matt gaetz, and matt gaetz started laughing. there was one moment of levity in there. >> an attorney from each side, chuck and catherine, one of the jurors has a 1:30 appointment on thursday. really trying to push this through. >> and no court wednesday and no court friday. >> it's memorial day. >> so they've got a stenographer. >> the judge is trying to convince the juror they're not going to want to break this up. closing and deliberations all together. >> guys, the court is in a

break. i think we should take a break. we have delivery of peanut m&ms. everybody stick around. we'll be right back. we'll beig rht back. ng cancer has you searching for possibilities, discover a different first treatment. immunotherapies work with your immune system to attack cancer. but opdivo plus yervoy is the first combination of 2 immunotherapies for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread, tests positive for pd-l1, and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene. opdivo plus yervoy is not chemotherapy, it works differently. it helps your immune system fight cancer in 2 different ways. opdivo and yervoy can cause your immune system to harm healthy parts of your body during and after treatment. these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have a cough; chest pain; shortness of breath; irregular heartbeat; diarrhea; constipation; severe stomach pain; severe nausea or vomiting; dizziness; fainting; eye problems; extreme tiredness; changes in appetite, thirst or urine; rash; itching; confusion; memory problems;

muscle pain or weakness; joint pain; flushing; or fever. these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur together and more often when opdivo is used with yervoy. tell your doctor about all medical conditions including immune or nervous system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, or received chest radiation. your search for 2 immunotherapies starts here. ask your doctor about opdivo plus yervoy. a chance to live longer. when my doctor gave me breztri for my copd, things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing, symptom improvement, and reduced flare—ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed.

breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ask your doctor about breztri. >> tech: does your windshield have a crack? trust safelite. this customer had auto glass damage, but he was busy working from home... ...so he scheduled with safelite in just a few clicks. we came to his house... then we got to work. we replaced his windshield... ...and installed new wipers to protect his new glass. >> customer: looks great. thank you.

>> tech: my pleasure. >> vo: we come to you for free. schedule now for free mobile service at safelite.com. ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ (ella) fashion moves fast. at safelite.com. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. you ready? -showtime. this is gonna be epic. [ barking ] it's what the poster said. do you want to make out or? nope. i meant yes. he's a bon garçon. i give amazing sponge-baths.

can i get a room? [ chuckling ] ♪ ♪ chef's kiss. welcome back. donald trump that has just walked back into the courtroom. so things will get picked up again any moment now. we have been really rehashing in nitty-gritty detail everything

that's happening inside this courtroom, and again, it can be hard to follow because blanche's winding at this point, trying to lead cohen in a direction so that he impeaches himself on credibility, trying to say that michael cohen was freelancing, that he was in it for himself. earlier in the day, he was trying to paint michael cohen as somebody who never took responsibility for anything when he was caught doing something wrong, he always blamed somebody else. he blames the judge, called the judge corrupt. blames the prosecutors. blames his associates and now he's blaming donald trump for something that he did wrong for this payoff to stormy daniels. this is not what donald trump did, it's what michael cohen did, they're trying to argue. the question is will it be effective. as difficult a witness or as problematic a witness as michael cohen is has the prosecution gone far enough in proving their case without michael cohen's

testimony? >> without michael cohen's testimony, no. i don't think so. i think he's absolutely critical. that doesn't mean that they haven't deduced sufficient circumstantial evidence to meet their burden. but that's not the same, katy, as convincing a jury unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. by that i mean the case would survive without michael cohen and a motion to dismiss. the judge would let it go to the jury. whether or not a jury would convict without michael cohen, i think that would be extremely difficult, and so he's a crucial witness. and therefore the cross-examination of him is crucial. i will say this, it's much easier to do a cross-examination in a television studio than a courtroom. >> is it? >> yeah, it is. in a courtroom, it's hard. and as prosecutors, catherine and i know this, we don't get a lot of experience doing crosses. how many witnesses have been called in this case so far, 20 or so.

the defense has done 20 or so crosses. the government has done 0. that's not unusual. and i've gone for, you know, trial after trial after trial, without doing a single cross, and particularly a single cross of a defendant because they almost never take the stand. so crosses are hard, mr. blanch, like catherine and i was a prosecutor for a very long time, like us he wouldn't have had a lot of experience doing this. not a criticism of him, just an observation, picking your themes, sticking to your themes, not asking that ultimate question, saving some material for argument and some nation. those are all tricks, i think, of a very good cross examiner, and i'm not seeing that here. >> let's get a voice in on this conversation. joining us now is former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst, barbara mcquade. show us the forest.

>> i think that's a really important question. i think you can get bogged down in the minutiae here. the prosecution fully expected this day to come. they knew that michael cohen was an imperfect witness, far, far from perfect that he had a lot of baggage. it may be the reason the feds walked away from this, he is an essential witness. what they did in advance is to prepare for this moment by building scaffolding for him before he ever testified. by bringing in documents, phone records, other witnesses so that when he came in to tell his story, he was really providing more context and linking the dots as opposed to telling the jury something he hadn't already heard. do they need to believe him, yeah, about some of these details. big picture, so much is already in evidence. they have already made a circumstantial case even without

michael cohen. i think he's an essential witness. you don't have to believe he's a good person. you might think he's a despicable person. i imagine in closing argument the government is going to say, you don't have to like him, in fact, we don't like him. he's someone donald trump chose to be his closest confidant, personal lawyer. this is the kind of person donald trump chose to associated himself with. he admitted he lied on a number of occasions. look at all the facts and how they match up with his testimony. look at the documents. look at the other witnesses. and i think you can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the case has been made here. >> michael cohen is testifying again, blanche is asking him about the $130,000 payment that he made to mr. davidson. he asks, you learn from mr. davidson, along the way, another news organization was interested in buying her story. cohen answers, after we failed to transfer $130,000 as per mr.

davidson's cutoff date. blanche, the news organization was abc, correct? cohen says, correct, and i believe it was also the daily beast. cohen adds, it was abc. blanche, in essence, the same amount of money mr. davidson was trying to get from you, $130,000. who was the reporter, blanche asks? and waiting for michael cohen's answer. so it's interesting that, oh, it's john santucci, a reporter for abc news on the trump campaign. i spoke to mr. santucci about it, and he contacted me. when did you speak to him, and he also me whether or not i was responsible or knew whether they were responsible. they're talking about the karen mcdougal payment. they're talking about the $130,000.

it's interesting that so much of this cross has not centered around this $130,000 payment. >> networks don't pay money, not in my 40 decades, whatever. networks don't pay the way tabloids do. they don't pay for a story. this is not a credible story. >> unless it was an adjacent kind of -- >> $130,000, the same amount, he's saying. >> well, we're going to continue to watch this. you talked about that recording he made with mr. davidson, yes, in october. what did you say to santucci. barbara mcquade, so much of this just the idea about the payment, and who they made the payment to, and that another news organization was interested, we all heard this before. is this just a reminder? is this going somewhere that you can see. we have seen throughout the course of this cross, again,

putting something out there, it's almost like a reminder and moving on to something else. that a number of people have found hard to follow. >> yes, as chuck was saying earlier, a lot of this is not to deliver the death blow. it is really just building ammunition that the lawyers can use in their closing arguments. giving admissions and moving on really is the textbook way to do a cross-examination. there may not be the moment while the witness is testifying. it is often considered poor form to ask one question too many, the one that makes it clear to the jury the point that you're making and hits them over the head with it. that gives the witness an opportunity to also see where it's going and to weasel out of it, and giving some words to sort of suggest maybe yes, maybe no. and so sometimes, what a lawyer will do is ask sufficient questions so that they can link those things together in closing argument.

i also think it's important to remember that what we hear on cross-examination here is not the end of the story. the government is going to have an opportunity to do a redirect. and so to the extent the jury has been left with any misunderstandings about the facts here or things that don't seem quite clear, we definitely will have the chance to rehabilitate, having him admit to the things that are lies, but to explain the things that are true. i think one thing in particular i expect to hear more of in the redirect is the issue regarding michael cohen's guilty plea in the tax matter where he said that he doesn't think that he should have been prosecuted for that claim. as i've heard him explain it before, as he explained on direct and i imagine on redirect, he does not dispute underlying facts. yes, all of those things are true. i don't think this is a case that should have been prosecuted and brought against me. that's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

that's an important point we'll hear on redistrict. >> there's no doubt in your mind they'll do a redirect? >> i think so. i think they'll clean up things. it's powerful to stand up and say no further questions, your honor, that sort of suggests, they didn't touch me, i'm good, i'm fine with that. but i think there have been some suggestions of misconduct here or lack of candor or credibility that i think can be cleaned up on redirect by explaining why these things were the way they were. so i would expect that they would. now, what i would advise they do is to be a little more focused than we have seen mr. blanche be. it may be a strategy to meander to wear down michael cohen and get him frustrated, tired, angry, off his game a little bit. but i think that on a redirect, you would want to be a little more focused. cover just the important

matters, get in, get out and sit down. >> michael cohen was rubbing his eyes a bit during the cross-examination earlier today. that was hours ago. >> now, going back into the courtroom, barbara and everyone here at the table, when you met with the da pomeranz, the d.a. who thought this should have been prosecuted and actually quit, wrote about it, do you remember saying you believed ms. daniels was engaging in extort. yes, that they were extorting mr. trump. blanche, in your mind, there are two choices, pay or don't pay. you went a long time without paying, cohen, yes. blanche, you went a long time without paying. you referred to it as a hush money payment, a payoff, cohen, correct. blanche, you recall prosecutors saying it was a payoff. cohen, yes. blanche, make no mistake, it was

a completely binding contract and bringing into evidence the agreement, the confidential settlement, the mutual release. blanche, trump never signed this agreement. cohen, that's correct. an nda happens all the time. cohen, yes they do. those aren't real names. cohen, no. of course those were -- >> the pseudonyms. >> that they testified to earlier. >> blanche, who came up with the names. he knew a peggy peterson. david dennison, i have no idea why. you testified that you lied on the account opening documents, saying it was going to be consultants and if you told the truth, they would say no, they would not do it. you were not interacting with ms. daniels, you were working through her lawyer, cohen, yes, sir. hoffinger asking to approach the bench. >> today we end at 4:00, and

tomorrow is off. we could have mr. cohen coming back on monday to finish cross or start redirect. >> it feels like blanche understands where we are on the time clock. it's 3:37. and i imagine he wants to end the day with a bang the way he ended the lunch break with a bang. >> or drag it over. i don't know why he would. he told the judge he was going to end today. now, if it does end at 4:00, if the cross-examination, and there's going to be redirect, that's not going to happen until monday, and michael cohen has to come back. >> wearing down the witness, again, he was not the michael cohen that i have known for many years. >> i just got an updated number. he has been on the stand for 13 hours 15 minutes total. >> he was looking tired.

deflated, unhappy. i said this earlier, a hang dog look about him. very calm. most of the answers were yes or no. he's getting a little bit more wordy as the afternoon goes on. this is a tactic? >> and it's also this is not his podcast. you're a witness. it's hard testifying in court. so, you know, it's probably a come down for him. it's like his revenge to go against, but he can't give a speech. it's asking questions. and, you know, i'm not saying he's being a phoney. he's clearly trying to keep it in. and that's also very difficult not to lose your cool for two days or how many hours. and it's tiring. it's a whole day now. >> so to the point of whatever they're talking about and whether or not they're going to finish at 4:00 and the strategy of do you win now, is there going to be a redirect, things that can look like house

keeping, right, what we saw right after the lunch break when they came back and said next thursday, let's not promise the jury we can go home by 1:00 p.m. let's see where we're at, this decision about how much time we're going to have today, potentially what days they're going to be on tomorrow, those could turn out to be important decisions by the judge. not just house keeping, right? >> not just house keeping, and there are lots of things that go on outside the hearing of the jury. if the defense wants to call an expert witness, i think both sides would want to help define the parameters of the prosecution, for instance, chris, may ask the judge to preclude it, at some point soon, after the government rests its case, the defense is going to have to decide whether or not they want to call mr. trump. and that might involve the judge speaking to mr. trump directly outside the presence of the jury about the pros and cons of that. they're going to have to address

jury instructions and a whole bunch of other things that come rather quickly at the end of the trial. can i just add one point, barbara mcquade and i had the same instructor, i learned get in, get out, and sit down. i don't know that wearing down a witness is an effective tactic. i think they might be wearing down the television analysts. >> and the coanchors. >> let's talk about what's happening. we have more to hash out. there was a bench meeting. they were talking about the nda and the agreement not to have her tell her story. lisa who's watching this unfold from the overflow room says what i expect the prosecution is arguing right now is that todd blanche, the questions are misleading to the jury, while an nda is lawful in isolation, it is not when executed

specifically to benefit a federal campaign. and indeed she says, post side bar, blanche has moved on to a new topic, and i'll just tell you what it is. he's asking cohen. you reported directly when you did legal work for the organization. michael cohen says not legal work. i assisted on the apprentice. blanche, the work for the apprentice is not for president trump, you did personal work for president trump, and some of the kids, don jr. and ivanka. cohen, for ivanka, i couldn't recall, but it seems possible. blanch, and you never had the retainer agreement, michael cohen, no, sir. you didn't need one because you were employed by the trump jr. because you were getting paid by the trump organization. michael cohen, correct. blanche, you testified multiple times that when you were his personal attorney in 2017, you had no agreement. michael cohen says correct. the whole time you worked for the trump organization, you

never had a retainer agreement. he's building to something here. never had a retainer agreement, michael cohen says. blanche, never, cohen says no, sir. blanche, you were acting as a lawyer the whole time you worked for the trump organization, michael cohen responds, i did local matters and nonlegal matters. blanche, but you did legal matters and ethically there was nothing wrong. and your job was to report directly to president trump? cohen, whatever mr. trump wanted me to do. blanche, and if that direction included doing legal work for melania trump, for example, you did it. cohen says, yes, sir. blanche, you don't need a retainer to do legal work for a client, do you? michael cohen, no. they're showing an exhibit now. this is a february 2018 letter

to the fec complaint, you know, they're deleting as i'm writing. i wonder if what they're building to is part of what the prosecution argued there's no retainer agreement that michael cohen had with donald trump, and that's part of the reason why he was getting these $34,000 payments every month for the 12 months to repay the $130,000. i'm getting my math wrong. and they're trying to establish that not having a retainer agreement was perfectly normal for michael cohen and for him to have a retainer agreement would have been unusual. >> you have to say it's normal for michael cohen but lawyers in new york have to have retainer agreements. i was like huh? so for michael cohen, the way he did whatever you want to call what he did, he didn't have a retainer. >> so what is your sense of what this is building toward? >> why is this important,

catherine? >> i don't understand it. the documents were saying they're legal retainer. >> mr. cohen used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to ms. stephanie clifford, stormy daniels. neither the trump organization nor the trump campaign was a party to the transaction with ms. clifford and neither reimbursed mr. cohen for the payment directly or indirectly. blanche, that's true, right? that's a true statement. michael cohen says correct. blanche, you used your own funds to pay ms. daniels? michael cohen says yes. blanche, president trump reimbursed you his own funds, right? >> either president trump from his own funds or the trust. folks. >> you know, so many times i would be sitting in trial as the

prosecutor, and a defense attorney would start down some path, and i remember thinking, uh-oh, where is this going. what did i miss, how did i screw up, and then it goes absolutely nowhere. >> i didn't miss anything, i didn't screw up. i have no idea why. >> all that's happening right now is that mr. cohen is repeating his testimony from direct. that doesn't make sense to me. >> maybe it doesn't make sense because we're reading it in realtime. >> let's bring in former federal prosecutor paul butler. make sense of this. where are they going? >> the defense is kind of making the prosecution's case with this line of questioning. so michael cohen is key to connecting donald trump to false business records. cohen is the only prosecution witness who directly communicated with trump about

the business records. allen weisselberg did too, but the government isn't calling him as a witness. cohen testified that trump directed the payments. we've got cohen being cross examined and his credibility, his motive, the jurors might be thinking they don't want cohen to be their lawyer or even their friend but on the issue of whether the testimony is on donald trump and the false business records is credible, i don't think the defense has laid a hand on him. >> they're continuing to talk about this and about the complaint and they shared the complaint with a bunch of reporters. it sound to me like what you're saying, professor, if you were teaching this, you would teach this as how not to do a cross. >> that's exactly right. again, you're not looking for that gotcha moment. when you do your closing as

defense or prosecution, that's when you tell the story. using the best that you got from your direct or cross, but i don't see the defense is getting lots of bits. cohen testified that trump instructed him to pay off stormy daniels and that trump approved the plan to disguise those payments as legal fees. trump said just do it. we're going to hear those words in the government's closing. that's corroborated by contemporary handwritten notes by cohen and corroborated with trump's signature on those checks to michael cohen and it's also corroborated by common sense. would cohen have taken out a mortgage on his house if he wasn't absolutely sure that donald trump was going to reimburse him? >> they're now showing another exhibit, and our folks, helpfully put in parentheses, we have seen this exhibit before. he's continuing to go over

things that we have seen before, presumably trying to cast them in a different light. >> i'm confused and wondering how the jury is. we're looking at this in a different way than in the courtroom, but the whole crime is that these reimbursements, the lie was the false entry was there were legal expenses, and retainer agreements. and so i'm confused about this line of questioning. >> and if i may, just because the cross doesn't resonate with me, doesn't mean it doesn't resonate with a juror or two. i don't know what they're thinking, can't read their minds and trying to read body language is fraught with peril. i don't want to suggest that the defense is going to necessarily lose the case. it's always hard for the prosecution to win because of their burden of proof, and in terms of a mistrial, not an acquittal, not a conviction, but a mistrial, hanging the jury only takes one juror.

this may be resonating with someone. it's just not resonating with me. >> how long might the judge instruct the jury to go back and come to a resolution. if they come in and say we can't agree, the judge can send them right back. >> a judge can send a jury back. in the federal system it's called an allen charge. >> same here. >> it's an allen charge under new york state law as well according to catherine. what you want to be careful about as a judge is not coercing a jury into a resolution. acquittal or conviction. and so allen charges are typically worded very carefully, and very sort of equitably. you should consider the views of others. you should reconsider your own views. i'm not asking you to find a particular verdict. i'm asking you to go back and j better suited to this task than you are. but normally, if your trial goes a few week, i would let a jury go a few days. only if you get a note from them as a judge that says, we are

hopelessly deadlocked, what do we do now. these are all problems for down the road. >> right now, we're in another section about the veracity, the truthfulness of michael cohen. they highlighted a statement that says, just because something isn't true doesn't mean can't cause you harm or damage. i will always protect mr. trump. blanche, do you recall sending that to a ton of reporters? cohen, i sure did. blanche, you thought that was completely true. cohen, i was validating it. i wanted them to believe it was true. i i called them and told them this was true. blanche, you recorded yourself staug to reporters telling them your statement was true among other things. you said to one reporter, they have to believe you because you are a really bad liar. i believe so, yes. were you lying? yes, sir. is that you, paul butler, i hear laughing? >> yeah, i think the jury already knows that michael cohen

is a liar, whether he's a good liar or a bad liar, i don't know how relevant that is given all of the other evidence that the government has. it sounds like blanche has got some time. he's grasping at straws. i don't know if he's trying to hang on until 4:00. >> he's done. >> they just wrapped pup 5:31 they ended on that conversation that exchange that chris was just talking about. >> done with cross or for the day? >> this is the last thing the jurors heard before they have three days off. >> they are also now going into a discussion of the potential defense witness for the rest of the afternoon after the jury is fully dismissed. the defense is going to say whether or not they are going to call anybody. >> the last thing they heard was, is it your testimony you were lying to your lawyers? cohen, no, sir. objection, sustained. you're a liar, yes, i was lying,

in this case, the last thing we heard was him say no. in that case, i wasn't lying. it doesn't seem like a particularly place to send the jurors back home as they are thinking about this for three days. >> if that was the goal, then, no, i agree with you. it seems like this was a long walk through dry sand. again, pick your themes, stick to your themes and then to bash's point, get out and sit down. >> we're told that blanche wanted to move on but the judge said no. >> we're done for the day. >> there were a couple people that i wondered if the defense would call. would they call keith shil given he was interacting with thim? and what do you think? >> that means the prosecution will be able to cross him about the man he was so loyal to for all those years, donald trump. that opens a can of works for

worms for the defense. >> tom winter was in contact with him. robert costello said he was available to testify that it's always been a possibility, but so far, he's not been asked to testify. costello says he's prepared with his con em tempt rainhouse notes. this is a lawyer that michael cohen didn't trust. >> another can of worms because of his relationship with trump, his relationship rudy giuliani. you just opened the door for the prosecution. >> is i would be wondering where is keith. he's coming up a few times. stormy daniels talked about him being outside the door. i mean, he could be the one to clear up -- >> they are holding that against the defense or the prosecution. >> that's a good point. same thing with alan weiss the werg. >> michael cohen will be back on the stand on monday according to the judge. he says as they are dismissed, see you monday at 9:30. we only have a minute or so

left. if you're todd blanche, what are you working on over the next three days? what's your strategy? >> i'm working on my cross-examination. i'm going through the transcripts, seeing what points i missed, what points i made, but not well enough. then preparing all the other things that lawyers do. >> do you agree with some of the analysis in how it's landing? >> i could care less what i have to say. what i say is relatively meaningless. if i'm the lawyer in this case, i'm going through the transcripts. i'm talking to my colleagues on my defense team. and i'm prepare all the other stuff. jury instructions, you have to prepare closing arguments and you may also have to prepare a defense case. >> turn off the google alerts with your name. don't go on twitter. don't read the views. focus on what you have to get done. good advice for all of us. all the time. that's going to do it for us for this past four hours. thank you very much for joining us.

we're going to see you again next week to talk about this trial as michael cohen continues to take the stand. we'll obviously have our own shows to do in the intervening period. on behalf of the team, thank you. and everybody else, thank you very much. the hush money trial of donald trump will continue with "deadline: white house," after a very quick break. ea"ddline: whia very quick break have a crack? trust safelite. this customer had auto glass damage, but he was busy working from home... ...so he scheduled with safelite in just a few clicks. we came to his house... then we got to work. we replaced his windshield... ...and installed new wipers to protect his new glass. >> customer: looks great. thank you. >> tech: my pleasure. >> vo: we come to you for free. schedule now for free mobile service at safelite.com. ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ (ella) fashion moves fast. at safelite.com. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand...

in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. if advanced lung cancer has you searching for possibilities, discover a different first treatment. immunotherapies work with your immune system to attack cancer. but opdivo plus yervoy is the first combination of 2 immunotherapies for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread, tests positive for pd-l1, and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene. opdivo plus yervoy is not chemotherapy, it works differently. it helps your immune system fight cancer in 2 different ways. opdivo and yervoy can cause your immune system to harm healthy parts of your body during and after treatment. these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have a cough; chest pain; shortness of breath; irregular heartbeat; diarrhea;

constipation; severe stomach pain; severe nausea or vomiting; dizziness; fainting; eye problems; extreme tiredness; changes in appetite, thirst or urine; rash; itching; confusion; memory problems; muscle pain or weakness; joint pain; flushing; or fever. these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur together and more often when opdivo is used with yervoy. tell your doctor about all medical conditions including immune or nervous system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, or received chest radiation. your search for 2 immunotherapies starts here. ask your doctor about opdivo plus yervoy. a chance to live longer. (vo) if you have graves' disease, your eye symptoms could mean something more.rvoy. that gritty feeling can't be brushed away.

even a little blurry vision can distort things. and something serious may be behind those itchy eyes. up to 50% of people with graves' could develop a different condition called thyroid eye disease, which should be treated by a different doctor. see an expert. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com

it's a beautiful... ...day to fly. wooooo!