>> sandra: top of the new

hour. a live look at new york state supreme court here in manhattan where any moment now we are expected to see the former president donald trump walked back through those doors. the prosecution is set as he enters on the stand. >> most people as we can you explain to me what he did and what they are actually charging them for and the truth is i can't because it is misdemeanor based on something that it's civil not criminal in their apple elevating it to federal because he is running for offic. >> sandra: here we go. we expect to see the former president any moment now. john, great to be with you. >> sandra: i'm john roberts in washington and this is america reports. so for the prosecution is attempting to restore cohen's credibility after the defense painted him as a serial liar during cross invented stomach investigation he admitted to

stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the trump organization. >> sandra: and he conceded that he does have financial interest in the outcome of the trial. how does the jury see all of this? >> john: we have a team of legal and political voices to help walk us through testimony this hour. >> sandra: first we kick things off with jonathan turley. he has been inside the court over floor room all morning. jonathan, great to have you with us. please do tell us your take away so far. >> this is been rather otherworldly to sit and watch this. it's like you've entered a parallel universe. how this case is going forward, i can't explain. you had a disbarred convicted serial perjure on the stand matter-of-factly detailing how he stole tens of thousands of dollars from his clients. and what is really funny is than the prosecutor gets up and says i want you to tell the jury once again you aren't charged with anything, right? i wanted to stand up and say

yeah but you should have. he just admitted he committed grand larceny. he told you that and you instead decided he was more valuable to pursue a dead misdemeanor on a bookkeeping violation. >> john: new york state law statute of limitations on larceny i believe is five years. so he said that knowing that the statutes already run and he probably would not be charged by bragg but should he at the very least look into this? >> that's the question. he has been under investigation for many, many years. it doesn't mean that he couldn't determine this but the interesting thing about michael cohen is how blase this all is. i stole money from my client. i lied repeatedly. i violated all of these oath's. and people are just nodding and you feel like you are the only one in the room saying this is

not normal. this is not how trials are supposed to go. but the prosecutor then got up to try to resuscitate and pound on his chest and get his heart going again. it made it even worse because much of what the prosecutor talked about didn't change the thrust of his arguments. so at the end of the day, this is a shiny object that is being used to distract the jury from the fact that they have a clearing problems. they had witnesses that said it we listed this as a legal expense because we paid it to a lawyer. you have the key role of weisselberg who is sitting 15 minutes from here who was the one who said why do we treat this as a retainer which probably made sense to him because he should have had a retainer that he was a really bad lawyer. like many things, he didn't do that but now prosecutors are using his failure as a basis to

convict his client and he is adding to that and saying i think you should send my client to jail for following my legal advice. >> sandra: based on everything you've just said, are you in the camp of the former president and not testifying or taking the stand himself? >> he can't testify but that door was closed by judge mershon. judge mershon granted such a broad scope for cross-examination. no lawyer would let a client get on a stand with the order of judge mershon. and i have to say i was really struck today by what i considered to be fairly one-sided rulings. he hammered the defense sustaining a lot of objections some of which i don't understand the basis for his order and he was far more solicitous toward the prosecution. but the biggest problem that we saw today is one of the reversible issues. once again, he allowed the prosecutor's and michael cohen

to talk about how there are campaign violations in the case. and there are no campaign violations. so after this happened again, he gave this instruction saying disregard that on the merits. they are going to disregard that on the merit. they are hearing it. you can't have an expert on that issue but michael cohen is here to lay out the federal election law because that's what's going to happen. >> john: with respect i used to go from downtown manhattan to laguardia once a week and i can't ever remember passing rikers within 15 minutes but i appreciate it. >> you are talking to a chicagoan so that's right. >> john: let's talk about the defensive strategy. one person they would like to call as brad smith appeared he's a federal elections official and they wanted to testify about the difference between a campaign contribution or a campaign expense. pointing in some degree to the potential underlying crime here

because we still don't know what it is. get the judge wants to put strict limitations on his testimony. does he just want to tie the prosecution's hands behind their back here and say go for it but you are going to get anywhere? >> with the federal election law expert, a lot of judges would probably reach that same conclusion because it is the domain of the judge to say what the law is. the problem is what this judge has done with the rest of the case. the reason they are asking to call an expert is because merchan has made a mess of the case. i promise you that jury believes there are federal election law violations here. in merchan has allowed that to occur. i believe it won't have much of an impact. they will want to hear the

repeated reference to these violations. the other question is going to be robert castella. i thought it was interesting that the defense spent so much time on castella and he emphasized how cohen request for information to go to giuliani. as a defense attorney, that's what i would do if i was thinking of calling him because that would negate the damaging email that refers to a back channel to giuliani. but he also nailed cohen because cohen said he did not trust costello to tell him much and he only spoke to costello may be a dozen times. he underestimated that sevenfold and you had blanche say you called him over 75 times. you spent nine hours just on those telephone conversations and it blasted away what cohen said previously.

>> sandra: based on what you just said, is there any possibility that the former president is reentering the court room with a fist bump. jonathan, he is back in. based on what you just said, is there any possibility that it could change? that the prosecution could call another witness? >> the prosecution may have to call a witness just in order to get this last document in. which they want to show a picture of the body guard with trump on the day of this call. it's a weird effort. it's another example of a strategy to prove things that are not important to the case. they are saying he was standing next to trump so when cohen called, the bodyguard, he could have turned to trump. the problem is that the call only lasted about a minute and 30 seconds. and the purpose of the call was about a teenager harassing co

cohen. when it was over, there was a text saying that's what the call talked about. the defense went ballistic and said we never said he couldn't speak to the president. we said cohen committed perjury on the content of the call. the judge is going to come back and one of the issues as hearsay. whether they would have to have another witness, and in order to make that document work. >> john: i guess they can always called kay shook telling her if they wanted to. professor turley, great to get your thoughts in court gets back underway in manhattan. interesting to note alan dershowitz is in the courtroom this afternoon. he's been very critical of the prosecution's case here. we will get a real inside look on all of trump's legal troubles here. from a fellow who was deputy

also represented trump in his first impeachment trial. eric herschmann will be joining us. stay tuned for that.

the future is not just going to happen. you have to make it. and if you want a successful business, all it takes is an idea, and now becomes the future where you grew a dream into a reality. the all new godaddy airo. put your business online in minutes with the power of ai.

>> sandra: a live look at lower manhattan. this was moments ago. we will have a live look and i'm in it. this was a former president reentering the courtroom with his legal team. court will be back in session shortly. but he walked in at about two oh eight eastern time so we shall get word that the witnesses back to the stand at any moment now. nate is live outside of the court. we are waiting for our first read out and think should be underway shortly but what can you tell us. >> we are awaiting prosecutors to continue their questioning of michael cohen and after that trump's lawyers will have an

opportunity. earlier, cohen testified about his more extensive than previously reported conversations on bob castella in 2018. he said he understood at the time that those conversations were privileged which contradicts cohen's lame earlier which said he thought castella would funnel information to trump through really giuliani. the big moment ever was talking about this morning or this afternoon from this morning is that cohen testified that he stole $30,000 from the trump organization. he received $50,000 for a payment from a tech company called adventure but cohen only pay $20,000 of the overall bill which led to an exchange with trump attorney todd blanche asking straight out did you steal from the trump organization based on the expected reimbursement to which cohen replied with an affirmative yes, sir. blanche also questioned cohen about work he did for other clients during the time that he

was under investigation. cohen testified that he received hundreds of thousands of dollars from clients including, and this is important, clients that he spoke to as little as six times. that's important because he testified that he received money from the trump organization in 2017 and testified that he did very little work for the trump organization which is part of what he says was the reimbursement plan for the stormy daniels deal but of course trump maintains that all payments were legitimate legal expenses and now that cohen confirms that he did work for trump and 2017, he said he didn't expect to be paid for that work but he has agreements with other clients at the time doesn't sort of reflect doing very little work for a lot of money relatively speaking. the questioning of cohen is set to continue momentarily. baback to you. >> sandra: we are getting worried that the judges back on the bench and they are discussing the prosecution's

request to enter two skills into evidence. nate outside the courthouse for us. nate, thanks. john. >> john: let's bring in eric herschmann. former assistant d.a. in manhattan. for more analysis on this, eric thanks for joining us good we should point out that he is in jerusalem where he has been living but he has been following this case very closely. eric, i wanted to ask first of all how much damage do you think todd blanche did to michael cohen in the cross-examination this morning when he got him to admit that he stole some $60,000 from the trump organization? >> i think todd has done an amazing job. i think this is just another point of reference of who michael cohen really is. he's a liar, he committed tax evasion, and now he had to admit under oath that he stole from the person he admired the most. i thought it was a devastating thing for todd blanche and a benefit for president trump. >> sandra: we are left

wondering how this is going over with the jury. that's what matters. >> i've tried a lot of cases in manhattan and i was senior trial attorney in the manhattan d.a.'s office. i think that any jury would be wondering what is this case about? and i've had enough trouble myself in talking to former colleagues trying to understand it. when i was a prosecutor robert morgan was the well-respected longtime district attorney of new york. i can't conceive of a situation in which he would've ever approved a case like this. and as you know i have not been willing to -- i'm sorry. you go. >> john: i was going to say you know kerri kupec very well appear she was over at the department of justice when you are at the white house peered she said in a case like this which is precedent-setting, the first time a president of the united states has been hauled into court for you want to make sure that the case is rock-solid and very tight. everyone should understand why the trial is happening and the

facts are understandable. the law is clear in the witnesses are credible. it doesn't seem to meet that bar in any way, shape, or form eric. >> it's not even close. i will tell you i hate to bring up a peer of mine who worked with me in the d.a.'s office, but eliot spitzer and i were contemporaries. if this were as a legal theory that people dream was humanly possible, eliot spitzer's conduct in new york state would have been the poster child for bringing this type of case. and they never did. and no one would ever consider bringing a case like this because it is unprecedented. and in my view you don't test the new legal theories from the d.a.'s office when you are dealing with a president of the united states, a presidential election, and what has to be described as one of the worst witnesses anyone has ever seen. >> sandra: based on that statement, eric, where do you believe the prosecution goes next with this as we do await

official word that cohen is back on the witness stand? >> i think they will try to do the best they can to rehabilitate at least some part of him. to say you did get these payments and this is generally what it says in the paperwork. but i don't see a scenario where he can be rehabilitated. it's hard to understand how the judge is not going to grant a direct and verdict because there is no evidence that links president trump to any record-keeping whatsoever. i just don't understand it and i don't think any of my colleagues in any of the people he worked within the d.a.'s office. they've all said to me eric, go out and talk about this. you have the experience to address it and they are all unanimously, whether they like president trump or are never trump's, they've said they are embarrassed by the d.a.'s office bringing this type of case and it has destroyed the integrity of my old office. spoon you can be embarrassed of what the das doing, you can

have your opinions at this is not worth the paper it was printed on but here we are in the courtroom and the cases going forward. you defended the president and his first impeachment trial. if you were on his defense team now, what would you do after the prosecution rests and it is your turn? >> i would consider calling bob costello but it would be very limited. it would be did you advise michael cohen, did he make certain missions to you, what to the site. and that would be the end of it. i don't think i would get into anything else with him and limit the cross-examination from the d.a.'s office onto that subject. but i don't think i would put president trump on the stand. >> sandra: that's still a question at the hour. a little bit of a teaser we have a legal panel coming up next. right when you said possibly bringing castella as a witness we are left wondering if the former president is still considering as he had said a long ago in the past that he was willing to testify.

>> i think he would discuss it but my belief is that the advice of his counsel is do not do that in light of the rulings of the court. it would make the cross-examination a total chaotic circumstance. >> john: in terms of calling bob costello, the testimony that he gave to the subcommittee on the weaponization of government was completely contradictory to what michael cohen was saying on the stand. but completely in line with what cohen was telling everybody including me back in 2018 that the president didn't know about this, he didn't have anything to do with the payment, that he didn't get paid back, nothing like that. but if you put costello on the stand, does that not open him up to all of these inquiries about what was his relationship with giuliani, what was going on, were there back channels, or could todd blanche take that out of the picture with his questioning of cohen this morning? >> what todd did was leave open the door to potentially call

bob. my personal belief is i wouldn't do it but if they are going to do it, it would have to be very, very, very tightly tailored. >> sandra: just getting a readout that is slow to update here but after lunch the judge that he read through the testimony of dr. browning from c-span and he reads through some of it allowed in the courtroom. he agreed that proper evidence is relevant but isn't sure how the prosecution can overcome a hearsay objection. he says dr. browning did not leave general foundation for any and all c-span material and he agrees with the defense's objection. this is what is happening inside the courtroom right now. we will get reaction to the latest out of that courtroom when our legal panel joins us. eric, thank you very much for joining us. mark eiglarsh and mercedes colwin will join us live next. [♪] feeling the breeze instead of feeling congested. [♪] fast relief of allergies with nasal congestion, so you can breathe better.

claritin plus decongestant. live claritin clear®.

♪ my back got injured very bad. i was off work for about a year. i heard about relief factor from my wife... i took it every day, three times a day, for three weeks. ...look at her and i said, "the pain is gone." and she said, "i'm glad it helped." i said, "no, you don't understand. it's gone." you, too, can feel better every day with relief factor, a daily supplement that fights pain naturally. call or go online now and get 35% off your first order.

>> sandra: fox news alert half past the hour after just reentering the courtroom

20 minutes ago the former president and his legal team just walked out of the courtroom. this is the brand-new video. we just turn for you of the former president walking out of the courtroom moments ago. obviously this is a bit of an unexpected development as we just got an update from inside the courtroom that prosecutors were asking to force the defense to start their case and interrupted so they could put the c-span guy in the middle of the case. blanche said there's a likelihood that the defense will rest today. the next update and the last update from the courtroom after that was not the prosecutor said don't blame us for not having the right witness here. we assumed you wouldn't rule against us. the former president and legal team then walked out of the courtroom. mark eiglarsh and mercedes colwin are here in studio with us and we will have them respond to what may be happening. mark. >> never is the answer to whether i would ever tell a

prosecutor what my intentions are before they rest their case. sorry. they haven't been kind to me. i'm not going to help them out. and also, candidly, i would wait until they are done with their redirect trying to add and trying to get chicken salad and they will not and then after they rest, immediately after they rest i jump up very quickly, we rest too sending a message to the jury that we didn't have to call a single witness because they failed to meet their burden. >> john: the reason everyone walked out of court is judge mershon called a recess while they check about the way forward on witnesses. todd blanche said he has one witness on the back and another he may potentially call. we assume, mercedes, the witness he has at the back is brad smith from the sec who the judge says can take the stand but he has put out a severe limiting order as to what smith can testify to. alina habba earlier was talking about this idea that the judge

really is not playing fair ball with the trump defense pair listen to what she said. >> if you cannot bring in your expert who is supposed to speak and has served on the commission for campaign finance, how are you supposed to do your case question work with their hands tied behind your back and a blindfold on effectively. we have a judge in here who should have recused himself, has chosen not to, and those decisions are coming out very clearly in each decision that we see in there. >> john: what do you think mercedes? is the judge playing fair with trump or no? >> here's my take on it. this is a legal issue and judges have strict purview over legal issues. with respect to smith coming in as a witness, what the defense is trying to do is school the judge and the jury on it what the rules are in terms of violating campaign finance laws because there is a whole body of law that underlies this particular law called

irrespective. it's very interesting. if you look at the law itself, it talks about what were the underlying motivations of that particular campaign finance issue that has arisen. is it because of his family. this payment to stormy daniels. is it because of his family, is it because of the campaign, could it be both? >> sandra: there is the former president walking back. >> they will come in and school both and say you can't have it both ways. and under the law, you can if you have an irrespective theory under this particular law. so basically, it's saying judge, it can't be a finance campaign violation because the law itself says it has to be strictly campaign driven in order for there to be a violation. but the defense has done has introduced the family issue that is the whole issue regarding the campaign finance. >> i know you wanted to look at a possibly happen. here's what i'm hoping.

they took him outside and they said donald listen paired they will be resting very soon. i know you want to testify. i know you are thinking we should call costello, abbott, whoever else is out there to help your case but that's rookie lawyering. we don't have to do that. and i'm hoping that they are trying to work that over on him to know it is better so you don't shift the burden of proof to the defense. >> sandra: can i update here with what we did get from the court room producer as the president was walking out. they asked to call browning which is dr. browning from c-span back to the stand unsure of when he's available they reached out to him. reading this directly from producer notes. blanche says that people have known about this issue as of last thursday it was conversation before lunch and now on monday they are about to rest and they want to recall. blanche says right now they have a witness in the back yard another witness on deck and that is just as of right now and that is in quotations. the judge as to why this wasn't

taken care of sooner. they said that they believe the foundation to be sufficient and they said that they are doing the best they can to get the witness here asap. hopefully tomorrow morning. blanche said that is patently unfair and people should have known that this was a possibility. the judge then said he could possibly adjourn until tomorrow. they took the recess while people check on the availability of the witness. that's what happened. >> to do this stop and start which is what the prosecutor is saying is really unfair to the defense to do that. start your case, put your witness on and by the way we will interrupt your flow and we are going to stick in our witness. mark and i would be screaming up and down saying that it's completely unfair, should not be done and we would argue against the prosecution and the judge and save this is simply unfair and there is too much at stake here. >> john: mark, i want to go back to something you set a minutes go. you said you hope what happened

there in the recess was trump's defense team said to him we don't want to put on witnesses. we don't have to do it. why do you think they don't have to do it? that might be an indication if i'm reading correctly that the defense thinks that they did enough damage to michael cohen that they can just leave it there? >> you are absolutely correct. you have crime to these jurors in jury selection and you have gotten their promise that if the state rests their case and prosecutors did not prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt that you would not then look to the defense to prove anything. it is a constitutional principle that goes way beyond donald trump for those who might not like donald trump, this isn't just about donald trump. this is every single defendant should never have to put forth a single witness or have to testify if the government, if the state does not prove the charges beyond the reasonable doubt. >> sandra: this is shaping up to be a very eventful afternoon. appreciate both of you joining

us. that is the latest out of the courtroom. >> john: court is back in session. apparently the prosecution is trying to see how quickly it can get there witness dr. browning from c-span on. he has an archivist and he would need to authenticate a couple of photos that the prosecution wants to enter into evidence. he lives in louisiana. they would have to get them to fly up here as quickly as they could. they are saying maybe they could get them as early as tomorrow morning. we will see what happens on that front. we will take a quick break and we will be back on the other side. stay with us.

she runs and plays like a puppy again. his #2s are perfect! he's a brand new dog, all in less than a year. when people switch their dog's food from kibble to the farmer's dog, they often say that it feels like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's simply fresh meat and vegetables, with all the nutrients dogs need— instead of dried pellets. just food made for the health of dogs. delivered in packs portioned for your dog.

it's amazing what real food can do.

i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month.

no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information. spewing corner back in session after a lunch break. let's bring back in mark eiglarsh and mercedes colwin and

introduce charlie hurt. let's start with you. the defense has been trying to destroy michael cohen's credibility. some might say to great effect. but there is the chance that the jury is still because this is such a biased jurisdiction for trump may find him guilty of something. and then as we head toward the first debate on june the 27th, i think biden is banking on the fact that he will be able to would dreamt trump as a convicted felon at that debate. we talk about this being political. what you think the impact would be? >> you are exactly right. that's what they are banking on entirely with all of this. the idea that there will be a moment in time before there are any appeals, probably even filed, where they can say trump is a felon. and hope that will help them. it's kind of funny. the idea of discrediting michael cohen, anyone who has ever dealt with michael cohen

and is familiar with his history and his work for donald trump, it's kind of hard to imagine how you're going to further discredit him but i do think they have successfully done it and you are exactly right. all bets are off with the jury. you have no idea what they are thinking but i do think one thing that is interesting is that while joe biden, president biden would really like to be able to smear trump as a felon and in this debate or whatever, i don't know how effective it really will be because so much of this other stuff has come out publicly and all of it has backfired on democrats at every turn. not just this case, all the other cases. i don't know it might make them feel better but i don't know that it's going to win him anybody knew. >> sandra: at the bottom of your screen you see the banner there with the defense is objecting to breaking early and

what the details are emerging from the courtroom right now, to you on this, the d.a.'s office was able to reach c-span and c-span is working on booking travel for the witness. we know that this is what was happening in the last few minutes or so. blanche is continued to object and objects to breaking early today. stein glass said that's wrong we have broken early before. one time for medical reason. the judge says if scheduling were an issue, if time were of the essence he would agree with the defense but we are essentially dismissing the jury for a week. he said there is no prejudice and nothing has changed since this morning. the witness needs to be here at 9:30 tomorrow. the defense is discussing the options amongst themselves. >> all defend the judge. you don't impose the most onerous sanction which is you cannot call this witness, i'm not going to let you do it. the judge is doing what he would do for both sides as much as i've been critical of this judge at both times. letting them schedule a witness at the right time when that

witness is available is something that judges do. >> john: it looks like what's going on in the courtroom right now is that blanche is trying to pressure the judge to say don't allow this witness in. we want to start our case this afternoon. we have some witnesses lined up and we have one of them here and the other one is waiting in the wings. don't interrupt the defense's presentation and the defenses direct examination of these witnesses are bringing back an archivist who is literally going to authenticate a couple of photos. merchan seems to be leaning in the way of know, you have to wait until the prosecution's case is finished. they want to bring this guy b back. obviously everybody is trying to play their best set of cards here. >> but when you look at that, it really is about the judge having full discretion on how these witnesses come in before the jury and i'm with you mark. i don't think there's any real prejudice to the defense. it would be prejudicial if the defense started and suddenly the

judges like step aside, let's put the prosecution witness there. then certainly that would be very problematic for the defense and it would be very problematic for the jury to do this whiplash back and forth and who's on the stand and who is saying what and what evidence is coming. that's inappropriate. i think the judge made the right ruling in letting this suspend for the afternoon and start again at 9:30 tomorrow. >> did you say that with certainty the defense said they have defense witnesses ready to call? which means they aren't just going to rest their case which is what i am and passionately advising them to do which is what i would do as a trial lawyer with this case? >> john: with all respect to you mark, they decided not to take your advice or at least not at the moment. they say they have one witness who is in the building in the back. in the back is what blanche said. they have a few other witnesses they can call as well. i don't know if that is just a tale that blanche is spinning to the judge to try to keep the prosecution from calling another witness or if they do have them there.

we wouldn't find out until they call them. >> i think that's problematic. people are saying so what it's just another witness. jurors consider who has the burden of proof and they are told look at the state to solely prove the charges. then all of a sudden the defense says we are going to present some witnesses. they will present maybe one or two and then jurors judge the state's presentation was a lot longer, it was more substantial and so they win. obviously you hope the jurors are not like that and they wouldn't do that but they do on some level which is why you only call defense witnesses when you are behind. when you think they have proven the case and you must present those witnesses. i don't agree with this move. >> charlie, can you give us 20 seconds? >> if the prosecution's case comes down to an archivist from c-span, i think they are probably losing on this and it just adds to the whole tenor of

a circus that this has turned into which is probably very good for trump. >> john: all of these motions are being heard. cohen is back in the courtroom and he will be taking the stand. >> sandra: thank you so much to all of you for joining. thank you for sticking around. appreciate it. mercedes and mark, charlie, thank you. we will have the very latest out of the courtroom. cohen returning to the witness dan prude william jay brennan will be joining us next. he represented president trump in his second impeachment. stay tuned. his risk of a second attack hasn't. mike is still living in the red. with a very high risk of another heart attack or stroke. he doesn't know with his risk factors his ldl-c (bad cholesterol) is still too high - the recommended level is below 55. are you living in the red? get in the know. learn how to get a free ldl-c test at attackheartdisease.com. isolated...depressed... and embarrassed.

that's how it felt to live with bladder and bowel incontinence. but that changed when my urologist told me about axonics therapy. a long-lasting solution that has really changed my life. this is not another drug, and it works. visit findrealrelief.com to arrange an appointment with an expert physician to determine if axonics therapy is right for you. results and experiences may vary. stop suffering in silence. here's to getting better with age.

here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. using the finest materials, like indulgent memory foam, and ultra-conforming inner-springs, for a beautiful mattress, and indescribable comfort. save up to $800 on select adjustable mattress sets at stearnsandfoster.com

>> sandra: we are getting some more details out of the courtroom here in manhattan, new york, state supreme court in new york city where a brief break just took place a few moments ago. the former president and his legal team entered the courtroom. william jay brennan is joining us now. former trump payroll a corporation and journey. great to have you on the program give us your thoughts on what is coming out of the courtroom this afternoon. >> good afternoon sandra and thank you for having me. i have to tell you, i'm totally flabbergasted by what came out today. i think until today i just saw it as a bit of an unusual case where you had a polluted source as your star witness but these things happen and then it got

worse each day he was on the stand but if you just put yourself in the prosecutor's chair, the prosecutor, mr. bragg, there's prosecutorial discretion that must be exercised before any charges are pulled against any citizen. picture yourself in that chair and you know that the southern district turn this case down before it came to you. you turned it down once already. i believe in the cy vance administration was and it was turned down. and your chief of fraud comes to you and here's the pitch is you says mr. d.a., we have this case but let me tell you about our star witness. he's a disbarred lawyer, he's a perjurer, a convicted perjurer, a pathological liar, he surreptitiously records his clients and other people without telling them and he stole $60,000 from his clients.

and we have to get through that. i would think that the d.a. would say who are we taking down? el chapo? we are taking down isis? no mr. bragg. we are taking down a guy who allegedly had some recordkeeping issues and if we can build it up may be a felony. this is a disgrace. >> john: a quick break in court action because they are trying to get audio equipment to work to play a tape that the prosecution has entered and they have entered into evidence a picture of trump with keith schiller. susan hoffman shirt asked if he had multiple conversations with trump about the stormy daniels manner and cohen confirmed that he had more than 20 and october of 2016 and cohen confirms that trump said to work on it with weisselberg and he says he is no doubt that trump signed out on the stormy daniels deal and would not have paid it without assurances of repayment. despite everything that he told everybody in 2018.

i have a text message from michael cohen on my phone from february 14th, valentine's day 2018 and which he says he paid the money, trump knew nothing about it, the trump organization was not involved. he did not get any repayment form it and now he's honest and telling a totally different story and stews and often jurors doing her best to try to resurrect a witness who as you pointed out acknowledged this morning stole $60,000 from the client. lying to him and lying to everyone else. >> as i said, i'm gob smacked. i can't imagine that she can get up there with a straight face and try to resuscitate this particular witness and now he testified he wants to run for congress because he has great name recognition. this will come down to it might be professor truly but somebody wrote earlier today i saw that a manhattan jury probably has severe disdain for this

particular defendant but they may have more disdain about being conned and treated like chumps. it really will come down to that because this guy is obviously not worthy of belief and they have pinned their entire case on him for a misdemeanor records keeping case if all of the bubblegum and zip ties hold together, maybe a felony. >> sandra: we are getting another update from the courtroom and they are playing out this call with keith davidson dated october 17th 2017. the clip is played. the clip starts playing and they have technical issues. sorry for this is a referee out from the court repaired people can't get the clip the audio clip to work. so then they ask for a quick break. the jury has been dismissed for a few minutes while they figure this out. i would describe this all but smooth what is happening in the courtroom today. >> it seems like keystone cops at this point but when you take these two issues, this

particular call where on direct, merchan says he called to talk about the daniel resolution and mr. blanche brought out the texts about the 14-year-old child, it's obvious what is happening here. >> sandra: thank you for joining us. we are going to take a quick break. more from inside the courtroom when we return gre. with the mask and the hose. inspire? inspire is a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body with a click of this button. where are you going? i'm going to get inspire. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com.

>> the trump trial in a brief recess as they try to get the audio working. it will be interesting to know, is this the 1:30 phone call about the 14-year-old? and did he get stormy daniels in there? we'll have to wait and see. >> stay tuned. thanks so much, everybody, for joining us. we'll be back here tomorrow. >> "the story" with martin and and the continuation of the trump trial starts right now. >> martha: indeed. thank you both very much. good afternoon, everybody. i'