from mental health services to food pantries. academic tutoring to prom dresses. healthcare to after care. community schools can wrap so much around public schools. ...and through meaningful partnerships with families, they become centers of their communities. real solutions for kids and communities at aft.org

good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in new york along with my colleague and friend, chris jansing, as history is being made in that lower manhattan courtroom. donald trump is the first former president of the united states to stand as a defendant in a criminal trial. at any moment, could be facing the first witness to testify against him. that's expected to be former national enquirer publisher, david pecker. he's likely to be pressed about alleged efforts to bury damaging stories about donald trump during the 2016 election. earlier this morning, prosecutors gave their open statement, accusing mr. trump of a criminal conspiracy to hide embarrassing relationships by

preventing them from getting into the press, thus influencing the outcome of the 2016 election then covering it all up. the defense followed saying that mr. trump did not commit any crimes, describing him as not just the republican nominee, but as the frugal business man, also a husband and a father. defense lawyer todd blanche calling the story a lie and insisting mr. trump is not -- what michael cohen did. donald trump has pleaded not guilty to the 34 charges. >> that's a lot and there's a lot we're going to get to but i should say what we witnessed over the last several hours the just the start of a hugely consequential week for the former president who is simultaneously the republican nominee, presumed nominee. certainly the front-runner for the nomination. we learned this morning what details from donald trump's past judge merchan will allow prosecutors to bring up if mr.

trump takes the stand as he's claimed that he will. in another manhattan courtroom today, the question is whether the insurer that provided donald trump a $170 million bond has the financial strength to issue the guarantee. now if the judge rules against him, mr. trump will have ten days to come up with the cash. also for the first time today in the florida classified documents case, witness statemented that had been redacted have been made public. back in new york tomorrow, judge merchan will hold a hearing about trump's gag order. did he violate it and if so, what could be the consequences? and as if all that isn't enough, on thursday, the supreme court will hear oral arguments on his claims of presidential immunity even as he is back in a new york courtroom. to say this is a consequential week for him is an

understatement. >> absolutely. all those cases. he's facing a lot and this is as you say, an historic moment. the court session that will end earlier today because of the passover holiday but we also learned an alternate juror has a tooth ache and that needs to be attended to so they're ending earlier because she has to get to the dentist. life goes on. we begin our special coverage now with vaughn hillyard outside the court. nbc news legal analyst, former u.s. attorney, and former senior fbi official, chuck rosenberg. and jury consultant and former prosecutor, david henderson and paul charlton. and we have charles cohen and former manhattan district attorney, catherine christiansen. vaughn, court's expected to get back underway at any moment.

donald trump just walked back into the courtroom. what is the latest from inside the courthouse? >> reporter: literally at this minute right now, the people calling david pecker from alvin bragg's office, the first witness in this criminal trial is now taking the stand. david pecker, the former publisher of the national enquirer who is going to be a pivotal witness in this for the prosecution who established the meeting at trump tower in august of 2015. that is where the prosecution alleges the catch and kill scheme was first outlined and thought of. from that point on, in 2016, it led to not only the purchasing by ami of karen mcdougle's story, but also michael cohen being informed by the enquirer that stormy daniels in october of 2016, had her own story to

share and at that point, it was michael cohen who paid her $130,000 to keep her story silent. david pecker in realtime, we are being told from inside of the courtroom, is now taking the stand and he is being sworn in to testify for what could be for a number of days, andrea. >> and chuck, this opening statement, it was supposed to be a statement with just facts, no argument. that's why it's called the opening statement. it's closing arguments. but chuck, at this point, how do you explain all the objections we saw? it sounded to me some of those statements were, the prosecution's case is a lie. >> well, if the defense lawyer is saying that the government's case is a lie, that would be argument and it would be impermissible. it's hard to know why all these objections were made. it's possible that the defense team was beginning to cross a

line that judge merchan had laid down in pretrial rulings. as a prosecutor, i never want to object during a trial. if possible. that doesn't mean i never objected, andrea. it just means i prefer not to because i don't want to ever look in the eyes of a jury as if i'm trying to keep something from them. if you're going to object as a prosecutor, far better that you be sustained, that the judge agree your objection than you be overruled, the judge disagree with it. you have to be careful, to your point, in an opening, only to induce facts. typically a government opening includes phrases like the evidence will show or this particular witness will tell you. an argument of course is always saved for closing. that's why, to your point, andrea, it's called opening statements and closing argument. >> catherine, look, as we're reading this, we didn't get to hear it, but we got to read it.

this is quite the story. even though all of us here know it, we've talked about it, but if you're a juror sitting there, you heard about sex and a cover up and back room deals and payoffs and now david pecker, the guy at the helm of the national enquirer, somebody who had done this on a number of occasions, who was central to the case that the prosecution is making talk about what is likely the importance of what we're hearing right now on the stand in that manhattan courtroom. >> it sets the stage and the prosecutor in the opening statement basically started off with that trump tower meeting. where michael cohen and trump and david pecker had this agreement where david pecker would be the eyes and ears of the campaign and look out for those negative stories. give cohen a heads up and try to suppress it. so it's important he is the lead off witness because it sets the

stage. he's the one, of course he was in charge of at the head of ami, in charge of the national enquirer. it sets the stage and just sort of provides for the jury. it started as soon as donald trump announced he was running for president. >> charles, does it matter that they were long time friends, associates, people who worked together for a long time? does that give him more credibility? >> i think it does. the prosecutors are going to tie that into their narrative around why you should believe him and why he's credible. i think when you're setting the stage, giving a jury a very clear picture around what's happening, you have to give to the jury a reason why you should be believing these witnesses and their testimony. so for the reasons you've just mentioned, i think that pecker is going to be a very important witness for that. not to mention it's very important that the audience understands this is a case that quite frankly is really centered on the documents in terms of the documents and the paper trail and so that's not exciting for a jury. you don't want to lose a jury.

you have to have someone who's going to be able to tell a story and narrate it and then use the documents to supplement what it is that the story's being told around. that's why pecker is an important witness for the prosecution to start out, get the jury locked in, understanding exactly what we're talking about here. >> also because what todd blanche made clear is part of what donald trump's defense is he didn't really know the details of what was going on here, right? and maybe pecker's someone who could disabuse that notion. >> it was interesting looking at the reports around the opening statements. i expected exactly what we got from donald trump's defense attorneys. specifically admit what you can't deny and deny what you can't admit. specifically when you look at for example the commentary around stormy daniels and her testimony not mattering. if you're the defense, her testimony can't matter. and so you have to do everything you can to sort of condition and

season the jury in advance so they're prepared to hear these things and not be fazed by them. in terms of how the attorneys ask and frame questions and how they frame the responses and their follow ups. >> just a follow up on that. he was in the oval office with michael cohen. he is a witness to what cohen will testify to so he is the first witness in this case to actually be, we expect, corroborating with michael cohen's story. you heard in the opening statement that this is something that happened after the fact that michael cohen dreamed up after the fact. years later, that donald trump didn't even know about. this places them in the oval office. wouldn't have been in there without donald trump. wanted to follow up with david about the jury because court is wrapping up even earlier than scheduled today. it was supposed to leave at 2:00 for the passover holiday rather than much later in the afternoon. and now an alternate juror has a tooth ache.

and you also had a juror according to the google doc we're following, a regular juror was complaining about the media coverage and that this was a lot of pressure. we don't know to what extent. the judge did not dismiss here, but that could come up again. so how is this jury being treated to protect them from pressure and also the normal things like a tooth ache that comes after a weekend when the whole case was supposed to start. it's shortening even further so she can go to the dentist. >> in terms of pressure, i think they're trying to alleviate as much pressure on this jury as they can, but there's only so much you can do in a case that has this level of magnitude surrounding it. the cameras around in the courtroom primarily i think to alleviate pressure on the jury. so the judge is doing as much of that as he can. jurists typically experience

stress while sitting for trial. part of what that tells you is jurors are being affected by outside media coverage so the lawyers on both sides have to be thinking about that. family members, friends, are going to be calling them saying have you heard about this? thought about that? that tends to exacerbate other life pressures like medical problems. what we're seeing here is there's only so much you can do to shield them from this process and the public has the right to have free access to courts. that's been an ongoing topic in legal communities especially in recent years. >> there's an old saying, you only get one chance to make a first impression. that's true here. there are any number of lawyers who will argue to you that cases if not are won or lost but certainly go a long way to being won or lost in the opening statements.

i wonder if you're one of those folks and how important is it to establish the credibility that you have, that your team has? how important is not just the story you're telling but the way you're telling it? >> chris, it's critically important. and it is true. i think to say in the trials i've had and i'm quite certain everyone that's on here today would tell you some of these opening statements are some of the most momentous parts of every trial. why? because the jurors for the very first time are hearing the evidence the government's going to produce and hearing what the defense is going to produce in contrary to what the government has put forward. just as importantly, the jurors are not just looking at the defendant and trying to make a determine as to whether they're guilty or not guilty, but they're listening to the lawyers. when they go back into the jury room, they're going to spend a great deal of time talking about the lawyers. what kind of tie they wore. what they were saying. how they acted. so here, mr. trump's lawyer got up from front of this jury for

example and he said mr. trump is very much like me. a father and a husband. why would blanche do that? because he wants to try to take some of that good will he hopes to receive from the jurors and attach it to mr. trump. mr. blanche is hoping when those jurors go back and deliberate they're going to think trump is just like this lawyer that mr. blanche hopes the jurors will like very much. >> david pecker is being questioned now about check the journalism. we should point out that we at nbc and msnbc and the mainstream media do not pay for, they don't pay for interviews. they don't pay people other than we pay an outside author for something they're writing or doing. but you don't pay for journalism. he's explaining the way of the tabloids, which was to pay. the max they would pay that he would have to approve personally

would be $10,000. we're talking here about payments of $130,000 stretched out to kill a story. so they're establishing this was very unusual. >> not only are they establishing it's very unusual, andrea, part of the art, the skill of trial lawyers here including it is the way the prosecutors put out a very complicated case in 45 minutes told a story that captivates the jury. they know that they can continue, begin their opening witness, they can put mr. pecker on the stand and it will likely not allow the defense the opportunity to begin their cross-examination until thursday. so the jurors are going to live with what they heard from mr. pecker today, this afternoon. the court is going to be in recess. tomorrow, there are different hearings. wednesday, the courtroom is dark. they won't begin until thursday. it is smart. it is tactically astute to put mr. pecker on the stand with these remaining minutes of court

today so the jurors will begin to hear the continuing theme that the prosecutors developed in their opening statements. >> catherine, we're not in that room, but we're getting good details from the folks that are. i think it's worth reestablishing and we talked about this throughout the day, paying hush money is not a crime. that's not what's at issue here. it's the underlying what they say are the underlying facts of this and how it was pursued. our folks say when david pecker walked into the room, donald trump craned his neck. it was almost as if, this is their own take on what they saw, he was trying to make eye contact with him. how much of this kind of stuff, and it's going to happen again and again and again. donald trump knows most of the people and in fact, was very close to some of the people who will be on the stand for the prosecution. how much, in your experience, do jurors pay attention to that and can it influence them? >> they pay attention to everything in the courtroom.

so you always, should as a lawyer, be trained the don't do anything that's going to be out of the ordinary because the jurors will look at you. >> what would be out of the ordinary? >> you don't want to be like, you know, i always say as a lawyer, don't ever let them see you sweat. if a witness explodes on the stand, no big deal. you take it that way. you don't want the witness, the jurors to know that something went wrong. especially on cross. remember, now the defense has a long time to prepare their cross-examination. so he testifies today. they're going to spend a lot of time researching what he said tomorrow. i mean, they have off on wednesday. so the defense is going to have an extraordinary amount of time to prepare. >> do you think they will consider the fact that this is the national enquirer that they were paying people off? he's acknowledging that it was in his criminal. here he says it's on our screen,

i have final say on the celebrity side. are they not supposed to but they just might consider that when they're assessing his credibility or what he has to say? >> they will, but they'll also assess that he was a friend of donald trump. and did what donald trump wanted. the defense wants them to think the other way. this is just something who is a sleaze. the national enquirer pays for it. that's what he does. so it's going to be interesting. it's going to be the battle between the defense and the prosecution over credibility. how credible is the prosecution witness. >> and i don't think, andrea, that we have ever seen an interview with david pecker like most of the other people who have come out and given interviews. not david pecker. >> they tied him up very early as a prosecution witness. probably one of the first people they went through when deciding whether or not to pursue the case. a case that explained the previous d.a. had decided not to

prosecute. >> the zombie case. >> which is one of the issues that donald trump has made against them. i wanted to ask chuck also, refresh us about the hush money case, that simply the precurser, is predecessor. this is about falsifying documents to keep embarrassing details away from the public. prosecutors don't necessarily need to prove that donald trump was personally involved in falsifying those documents. they just, sort of last week to a husband being guilty if he tired a hit man to kill his wife, which was a rather aggressive way to describe him. talk about how this become a felony. >> let me take this in two parts if i may, andrea. so, first, it's useful to think about conspiracy law. even though mr. trump has been charged with a conspiracy t prosecutors said in their opening statement that a

conspiracy existed between mr. pecker, cohen, trump, perhaps others and in a conspiracy, not every conspirator has to do each and every act. i think you have four people in the studio with you today counting you. if you all decided to rob a bank, one person could case the bank. another person could drive the get away car. one could buy the ski masks. one would go into the bank with perhaps a gun and take money from the tellers. you've committed a conspiracy to rob a bank but you've all done different things. so whether or not mr. trump actually, you know, made the entries in the ledger is absolutely beside the point from the perspective of conspiracy law. conspiracy also gives the prosecutors another advantage. an ef dench yar advantage because statements made by a conspirator during the

conspiracy in order to further the conspiracy are admissible in the conspiracy. that's essentially what you're looking at. to your first question, andrea, mr. trump is charged with the falsification of books and records. illegal under new york law. that's typically a misdemeanor. what makes it a felony is if he did the falsification, ordered the falsification of those books and records to accomplish something else that was unlawful. here, for instance, to violate state and federal election law. so the government's going to have to prove all of this. me saying it on television is utterly meaningless. the government's going to have to prove this in a court of law by proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury, but that is what they told the jury in their opening statement that they intended today. >> charles, during the opening statement the prosecution was making, donald trump passed multiple notes trying to i guess

respond to what was being said. they were read and put in a pocket. put aside. apparently, just since david pecker has taken the stand, he's doing that again. how usual is that for a client? does it send a particular message to the jury? >> i think it's fairly usual that you'll see that. we don't know the extent to which he's doing it, how dramatic he's being, but it's normal for the defendant to lean over and whisper into the ear of their attorney so they'll have context about what may be being alleged. it also does kind of balance this narrative that donald trump is falling asleep, not paying attention. there's a lot that goes into the theatrics of it and if you're the lawyer, you want to stay away from this as much possible

until it's time and it's not time right now. this is time for the lawyers to narrate, to be in control and not give the jury any indication they are not fully prepared. i wanted to go back to the things you've been talking about with chuck and you you started this segment, chris. the motion of hush money not being illegal is something you should be prepared to hear throughout the defense. this is not necessarily the most, as chuck explained so brilliantly, straightforward legal theory. it was something bragg looked at before and decided he wanted to pros kus. if you're donald trump's defense team, you want to muddy the waters as much you can to confuse the jury and say if this is not illegal and that's not illegal, then why are we here and it will be up to the prosecutors and the judge through his jury instructions to really lay out for the jury what the central questions are. what the defense is not going to make that easy. they don't have strong facts on

their side so because of that, their strategy is going to rely on trying to muddy the waters and make this confusing for the jury to sort out. at least one juror says i don't understand why we're here and i expect you're going to continue to see that sort of work and theme advance by his defense team. >> now we're starting to hear names that may not be familiar to folks. back to vaughan who is outside the courthouse. the name dylan howard came up. tell us about him and why he's important. >> reporter: he's another individual we should expect to be a witness called to the stand in this trial. dylan howard was working as the editor in chief of the national enquirer as all this unfolded in 2015 and 2016. he, per the prosecution, was engaged in prosecutions between david pecker, michael cohen, as well as donald trump. particularly around the stormy daniels payment and arrangement in october of 2016, david

pecker, the prosecution suggested, will testify that he contacted dylan howard, the editor in chief, about the stormy daniels allegations and directed howard to communicate are cohen that stormy daniels had come to the national enquirer with interests of selling their story to them and based off the previous conversations about the catch and kill scheme, he directed howard to engage with cohen about her story and the fact she was looking for $130,000. it was at that point in time where cohen then directly worked with daniels' lawyer to set up a side arrangement that did not involve the national enquirer. so dylan howard is another name folks will become very much familiar with, especially as it pertains to david pecker's testimony as he kind of used him as a right hand through all of this in 2015 and 2016. >> and we believe they've just called it a day. they've just said that court is

over for the today as we explained earlier for anyone just joining us. there was an alternate juror who needed to see the dentist. she's got a tooth ache and no judge is going to keep someone with a tooth ache listening to testimony or opening statements. they adjourned a lot earlier than expected. they were already going to adjourn at 2:00 because of the passover holiday which started at sun down tonight. people have to get home and do all their preparations. but we're joined now by mark short, former chief of staff to former vice president mike pence. talk to us about what you see as the political fallout from the kind of testimony that you're going to hear based on the opening statements. it's rather salacious. it's, at least from the prosecution side, the allegations about past behaviors and also what we heard from the judge today, leaving it up to the judge's discretion.

that was a pretrial motion he decided today. said if mr. trump wants to ef testify, that's up to him. that maybe all six legal proceedings against him have been completed, civil proceedings before this one, could come into play and if he does testify then that's fair game for the prosecution. he will make those decisions one by one when it comes up. the jury potentially could hear all of that. all of the past damage suits he's been paying, sexual behaviors that have been alleged and proven to the satisfaction of a judge. mark. >> right. thanks for having me. i think the reality is that most of america is so polarized to this point there's really little undecided as far as our electorate. i think there's a question though, when the vast majority of the american people don't

like either option, what motivates people to turn out. for many republican core voters, they feel these two new york cases are so frivolous then it's unfair to the political prosecution that it motivates them to turn out. as far as expanding beyond that, the sordid nature doesn't help the former president. the reality of him being seen in this venue is rather diminishing. i think he's used to controlling so much of his own environment even to the extent of camera angles and lighting and the fact he controls none of that in this courtroom i think can be diminishing. so at the end of the day, i don't think it's a net plus for gaining new voters but at the same time, perhaps it energizes some republican voters who perhaps are still on the fence. i think that's a pretty small sliver at this point. >> a lot of these folks who are going to be testifying are people who i think if you have an understanding of the case, each of them fits into the puzzle. they all buttress at least from

the prosecution's point of view, the original statement about why this is actually a case worthy of prosecuting but it can be a double edge sword. many of these people were close to donald trump. maybe a few who still are. people who would not be comfortable saying negative things about him and yet there's a line. your old boss found a line. somebody who had been a very faithful vice president. somebody who defended donald trump but decided after january 6th, there was a line he could not cross on january 6th. a line that he could not cross. what is it for these folks? it's never fun to be a witness in a trial let alone what some people are calling the trial of the century. what's it like to be that person who really supported donald trump, believed in donald trump, but now has to be a witness for the prosecution? >> well, i don't know that it's going to be much fun for anybody who's in that seat. i do think there's a dramatic

distension between believing your upholding your oath to the constitution versus those affairs that are far more sordid. i think it's important to remember the previous district attorney passed on opportunity to bring this case and i think the lead witnesses as you've said are somebody who's in charge of a gossip magazine and somebody else who's been convicted of lying to congress. so i do still think there's going to be for a lot of people, there's a sense of is this really what you're going to prosecute a former president on. i think there's more legal liability on the federal cases and there's obviously a big hearing coming up in front of the supreme court later this week on that front. politically, i'm not sure how much there's that many undecided voters at this point. >> take us behind the scenes though. your former boss made a decision there's certain things he could not put up with. one thing that his life was threatened, his family was put in danger and there was that little thing about trying to

stop the election count. but you have, you know, the former attorney general and other close insiders, cabinet members, who describe donald trump in the worst, you know, terrible terms after january 6th. and now say yeah, i'll vote for him because he's a republican and he's better than joe biden. explain how you can be so disparaging of the morality, the character of a candidate, politician, of a man, then say, yeah, but i'll vote for him. >> well, i mean, i think it's hard for me to put myself in their views. i don't know that i necessarily feel the same way. i do think for the former vice president, there was less of a sense of that personality that perhaps some other cabinet members have expressed concerns. i think the former vice president came down to, i swore an oath to defend the constitution and that's where my allegiance lies.

since that day, i think the split is more profound because the policies that president trump governed on for four years, he's walked away from. whether or not it's on foreign policy or on things like tiktok or things like life. and so i think those are essential principles for most conservatives. i think that's what's driving the wedge between the former vice president. as far as some of the other cabinet officials who expressed such concern about his behavior but still say i'm going to vote for him, i think there's a concern about the trajectory of our country and the reality is that i don't think they're alone in that. i think that about 70% of the american people are unhappen with both options. there's a lot of people who i think unfortunately make the decision of the lesser of two evils as opposed to feeling like this is really who i think should be the leader of the free world. >> just want to ask you to explain to people who would not know this. you were right in the west wing.

madeleine westerhout, the gate keeper, chief of staff of the oval office, knowing everyone who comes in, goes out. she's a potential witness for the prosecution. and tell us what she would know. for instance, she would know if david pecker and michael cohen were in the oval office talking to donald trump if she were on duty that day, correct? she would have to be aware. might she know something about those checks he signed? the very prominent signature. >> i can't attest -- >> proximity. >> right. she would have sat right outside the president's office. the reality was that donald trump was his own chief of staff. so the person who was in that seat did have a lot of say and flow about the office. they certainly, at the end of the administration, one of our challenges was there was not much of a gate keeper there to

control what advice the former president was receiving, but certainly madeleine or molly would have been in position. >> let me clarify before i lose you. her desk would be right outside. she would know who goes in and out. >> the physical location was that she would have been right outside and everyone would have come by her desk. >> thanks so much, marc short. >> something interesting he said, donald trump was his own chief of staff. that's a theme we've talked about a lot here, which is that donald trump has been his own boss for a very, very, very long time. he ran the family business. he was president of the united states and called the shots. he ultimately decided from his gut often how his campaign was going to go. both in 2016 and in 2020. and now we're seeing, we don't know how many when we get someone who's been in the courtroom, how many, but he's been passing notes. obviously, he is somebody termed

to be very, very much involved in his own defense, but how difficult can that be for any lawyer? >> well, it's difficult. it's also going to be difficult if their defense is going to be he was hands off, he didn't really know. michael cohen went off on his own. because he's even showing the jury, like i'm even, you know, directing my attorneys what to say. now, these are very competent attorneys and they know how to do a cross-examination, but him being his own chief of staff can hurt him as a defense in this case because that means he knew everything that was going on. he was in charge. he was the one who directed cohen to do exactly what cohen did and david pecker. so that could be turned on its head against him. >> and to that point, he's been trying to push this narrative of late in the public space. i just paid my attorney for attorney's fees. i didn't get involved in that. but what she just said is critically important because number one, in terms of what

sworn testimony that the jury's going to be able to consider, absent his testimony and absent him getting on the stand himself, they're going to have a hard time putting that in front of the jury. that even that theory. that's something donald trump wants the public to believe, but i don't necessarily know they're ever going to hear about it in the jury box unless he testifies. through his questions of other witnesses that's something that's possible, but here's the key. there are prosecutors who were on bragg's team who worked and prosecuted the case against the trump organization and are extremely familiar with how these things work and so they have the goods to counteract that narrative. >> let me ask you about the other description. we're cutting it a lot of different ways but he was described by his attorney in the opening statement as among other things, a frugal business man. a frugal business man. people don't think of him as a frugal man, the gold plated this

and that and the other, but i guess he didn't spend his own money very often. a cheap guy when it came to spending money, but this is i guess to get to the point he would not have spent $130,000 on this. yet his name is on the checks. so how do they get past that? >> it's going to be interesting. they thought about these things or if they haven't, they are thinking about they will. i think it's one of the reasons why we had the sandoval era and got a number of rulings from the judge about what they can ask donald trump about. should he choose to testify. and a lot of the things are about corruption. a lot of the things are about bad business records. so if you get on the stand and attempt to advance this narrative that i would have never paid $130,000 for someone for hush money, you're jeopardizing your own livelihood or your own freedom because you you've opened the door to these other things about how you've

really been corrupt in other areas and you have no explanation for that. in addition to your question, isn't this your signature right here on this check? >> also ended up costing. i have to look, but $420,000. they said it was things like he had to pay for taxes and other things that michael cohen would have incurred. expenses he would have incurred in addition to coming up with that initial amount of money but i want to go back to the courthouse. even though we said court is done for the day, which means the jury has left, there are still issues that need to be revolved. they're doing some evidence conversations? >> reporter: there were some outstanding issues that need to be resolved. one with regard to dylan howard and his whereabouts. saying it was in fact here say but steinglass, the leading attorney for the people saying it is admissible and could be

foundational and goes to witness availability. so back and forth on that. two other things they're discussing with regards to limiting motion, they're talking specifically also about articles they want to be submitted as evidence when it comes to articles written by, published by ami, national enquirer as well. at one point, steinglass says, i quote, obviously they're not going to be admitted for their truth so it may be appropriate at some point to alert the jury about that. so being admitted as evidence for establishing behavior patterns of the former president trying to suppress information or damning information the former president put out there. so he was referring to that moment saying they're not going to be submitted as truth and wanting to inform the jury of that matter. so these are just some things they're going through despite

the fact that the trial is now in recess until tomorrow morning, guys. >> so part of this is if you're going to present this stuff and they're going to argue that some of this isn't true, shocking. headlines in the national enquirer might not actually be factual or should not be taken as factual. first of all, just a little inside intrigue. apparently, trump and todd blanche are whispering back and forth a lot as the other lawyer is making the arguments. but they're being very specific about the headlines. some about the cover up and unmasking of the stormy daniels. i mean -- that's right. what we don't know is how much of this is about what we think could be damaging and how much is donald trump really doesn't want, and who would, want this stuff put up there over and over again. >> based on what you were pointing out earlier, chris, about the way he was trying to

get eye contact with david pecker when we came in, he seems to be quite unnerved. perhaps it's hard to tell until we talk to people in the courtroom looking at this. we're reading a transcript basically that's being provided by our folks on a google document. but this, the prosecution, right, charles, would put up a first witness. especially on a day when they're recessing early and it's going to stick in peoples' minds. they wanted somebody that would set him off or make him nervous. >> there are a number of things going on and it is in a lot of ways strategy and chess. keep in mind that donald trump is not likely going to be whispering anything into todd blanche's ear that he hasn't heard before or isn't familiar with. >> or couldn't anticipate. >> correct. because he's prepped this case and he's a competent lawyer. however, donald trump is a

defendant none like anything we've ever seen. he is the former president of the united states of america. so when the jury sees him leaning over, all of a sudden, there's a little bit of distraction from what that witness might be saying. >> the jury's not in the room. >> in general. when the jury's, when they have a witness testify and donald trump leans over or does anything, makes a motion. now all of a sudden, their attention is diverted. when you have a witness and you have witnesses who you want the jury to pay attention to, he has that power to shift the energy in the courtroom even if it's for a second. i think that's also like really, really important. yes. to your point around who they put on the stand and when. there is a thought around we want to number one, set an impression and as catherine talked about earlier, set the stage for what this trial is about and get the jury engaged

and understanding the story. but number two, we also understand that there's going to be this break and we're going to have some time for passover so we need to give them something that is going to make -- >> he's coming out. let's see if he says anything. this is after the first day and he may pause. he seems to be approaching. >> so, you heard that yourself. this is a case that nobody wanted to bring including alvin bragg. it was just at the last minute that he decided to go. it's a case that you're looking back, it goes back many, many years. 2015. maybe before that. and it's a case as to bookkeeping, which is a very minor thing in terms of the law. in terms of all the violent crime going on outside as we speak. right outside as we speak. but this is a case where we paid a lawyer, it's a lawyer.

and they call it a legal expense. that's the exact term they used. legal expense. in the books. and another thing that wasn't even said was we never even deducted it as a tax deduction. we never even counted as a tax deduction, but the payment to a lawyer, a legal expense in the books. they didn't call it instruction. they didn't say you're building a building. they call it a payment to lawyer because as you know, cohen is lawyer. represented a lot of people over the years. i'm not the only one. and wasn't very good in a lot of ways in terms of his representation, but he represented a lot of people. but he puts in an invoice or whatever, a bill, and they pay it and call it a legal expense. i got indicted for that. what else would you call it? actually, nobody's been able to

say what you're supposed to call it. if a lawyer puts in a bill or an invoice and you pay the bill and in the book, it's a little line that says, very small little line. sounds like you can tell a life story. they marked it down to a legal expense. this is why i got indicted. i got indicted, i'm the leading candidate. i'm beated biden. beating the republicans now. i have the nomination and this is what they try and take me all the trail for. that checks being paid to a lawyer. he is a lawyer, or was a lawyer. and also the things he got in trouble for were things that had nothing to do with me. he got in trouble and went to jail. this had nothing to do with me. this had to do with the taxi cab company he owned, which is just something he owned. medallions and money and a lot of things but nothing to do with

me. he represented a lot of people over the years but they take this payment and they call it a legal expense and you heard it today for the first time. this is what i got indicted on. this is what took me off and takes me off the campaign trail. because i should be in georgia now. i should be in florida now. a lot of different places campaigning and i'm sitting here. and this will go on for a long time. it's very unfair. the judge is conflicted, as you know. it's very unfair what's going on and i should be allowed to campaign. and whoever heard of this, he got indicted for that? people go to court, say i can't believe it. this is the case? so we did nothing wrong. the other thing is if this were such a great case, why didn't the southern district bring it, who looked at it, turned it down? why didn't numerous other

agencies look at it? it was shown to everybody. and why didn't the federal elections do anything about it? it's not state. they're trying to make it a state case, whatever. and it's not state. never happened before, i believe. never happened before. this has never happened before. when the state tries to insert itself in federal elections. never, nobody's ever seen it. but you know, federal elections took a turn passed on it. they said essentially nothing was done wrong or they would have done something about it. they're tough. they would have done something about it. but they did nothing and said we'll take a pass. actually if you read their letter, they couldn't even believe it. they were incredulous and yet bragg picks it up. now, with bragg, if you look, when he first had it, he didn't want to do it. he didn't want to do it. why don't think look at what

pomeranz did because that's bad stuff. and when are they going to look at all the lies cohen did in the last trial. he got caught lying in the last trial. pure lying. and when are they going to look at that? we'll go to another subject because just a few blocks away, they had a trial on $175 million, letica james. it's all coming out of the white house by the way. that's confirmed judge angoran. he didn't know about collateral, security. >> we'll continue to listen to donald trump after the first day in court but i think you're getting a sense of probably some of the notes that he passed to members of his defense team and also some of the things he might be whispering. but we should do a number of fact checks. first of all, this is not a case about $130,000 payoff. again. it is not illegal to pay hush money. that is not what this case is about. this case is about the

falsification of business records to the end of impacting what was going to be a very close election. so on every count and the fact that nobody thought it was a case that should be brought, it is true that the previous district attorney decided not to pursue it and in the beginning, bragg declined. he took office in 2022 and decided not to bring the financial fraud case, but soon he revisited it and very clearly became the architect of a strategy and said multiple times this is not a hush money case. tried to rebrand it for what it actually is.is, what the legal accusations are here. >> what the allegations are. he said he's clearly trying -- the former president is trying to minimize this. he's saying this is book keeping, this is a payment to a lawyer. everybody pays a lawyer. so you pay a lawyer.

it's a legal expense. that's not what is alleged. he's also minimizing it, that it's never happened before. no former president has ever allegedly done the things that he's done. he's saying that the federal government is doing this, this is political. this has nothing to do with the federal government. in fact, he said why did the southern district, meaning the federal government take this case? the federal government didn't take this case. this is a manhattan district attorney who took this case. he's talking both ways about that. he's saying why didn't the federal election people look into it. everyone knows the fec, federal election commission is tied 50/50, has not come up with a decision countering any kind of issue for decades actually, they have been stalemated. so that's not the people that would have come in after them for election interference. >> we know that donald trump

raises money after something like this happens. today is the first day. he's coming out, saying i had to listen to them say these things, that nobody wanted to bring this case. not true. you were saying, catherine, when we were listening to what he had to say coming out, this is his way of testifying. most defendants don't get this opportunity -- >> can i just add, he also said a conflicted judge, which is not the case. >> he's speaking to his supporters. i've said this over and over again, this is why it's bad this case is not being televised because he comes out and says things that did not happen and we're not being able to see what happens. we thankfully is getting a nice rolling transcript, but it's not the same. if he does testify, he will not be able to do that on the stand. he has to respond to questions. he can't just blow the eight. >> he also said something that gives insight into what's happening here. you have donald trump, the defendant, and you also have

donald trump, the candidate. he's testifying, everyone wants to know is donald trump going to take the stand, that is him taking the stand. but it's also him campaigning because he said i should be out campaigning. >> i should be in georgia. >> he's talking about the specific states where he thinks he could turn it, states that joe biden won narrowly, very narrowly. >> right. he knows i'm going to be in a courtroom for six weeks, and maybe if i can hop on a jet and campaign on the weekends, i'll be okay. but this is his opportunity to speak to the electorate because he can't be out there doing rallies. we all know how much he enjoys these rallies, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people. these stops outside court are his opportunity to update people he believes are listening and interested, to try to continue to campaign even as he's stuck in a courtroom having to fight

for his freedom. >> david henderson, let me get your take to what we've heard from donald trump and how it plays into all of this. >> i find myself thinking, chris, if i was on this jury team -- not the jury team -- the trial team, how would i feel about this, it makes meer in ous vows. jurors are influenced by what happens in the press. what i see that makes me nervous are two things, him talking about how long it took to bring the case and talking about the fact that other agencies didn't bring the case. i'm not persuaded by that. none of us on the panel are persuaded by that. some jurors sometimes will be persuaded by that. here is the catch. he's very good at making these speeches outside of the courtroom. from what i've seen from him so far, he's not very good at testifying on the stand under the constraints of the courtroom and overall between those statements and between what his lawyer said during opening statements today, they have set a really high burden for themselves with respect to

cross-examination. they don't have to prove anything at all. buns you start making guarantees to the jury, even directly by saying this guy is a liar, we're going to show you shouldn't be believe him for this reason. the jury is going to expect you to deliver on cross-examination with these witnesses, especially given that you've got two lawyers on this panel and they know all the lawyer tricks themselves. i'm very curious to see whether or not they'll be able to pull this off. i'm not confident that they can. >> paul, something that david just said made me remember one of the last instructions that the judge gave to the jurors, and it was, you can tell your employer you're a juror, but you may not talk about this case. we all know this, right? you must report back to me if any person makes an attempt to speak to you. do not listen to any accounts of the case on the radio or internet. do not do research at the library. you must not google anything about the case. in your experience, how difficult is that for the average juror? and just by living life and

virtually no one has served on a jury with the profile of this where it is going to be ubiquitous, wherever you go, whatever you do, things may pop up about it. how difficult is that instruction to follow? >> chris, it's very difficult. as you say, no a days as opposed to 20 or 30 years ago when judges were giving the same instruction, it's going to be difficult for these jurors to follow the judge's admonition. what i've found in every case i've tried or supervised is that jurors take their oaths very seriously. they also find themselves looking at the judge as a favorite uncle or aunt, almost paternally or maternally, so when they receive these instructions, they genuinely do their very best to follow these instructions. there are going to be errors and slipups, there will have to be, when you hear certain things the president has said. along those lines, chris, it's also important to remember what the president says, the former

president says is admissible. the prosecution can use some of the statements that former president trump makes outside of that courtroom, and that's why, if i may say, when you watch former president trump make these statements alongside his lawyer, mr. blanche, mr. blanche always looks slightly pained. i suspect it's because he's very concerned about what it is former president trump is going to say and whether or not the prosecution will pick up those excerpts and put it in front of the jury. >> great point. thank you so much. more of msnbc's special coverage of the criminal trial of donald trump coming up. court will be back in session tomorrow morning. they say at 9:30. a complete breakdown of the day's events from reporters that were in the courtroom. all of that is coming up. you're watching msnbc. you're watching msnbc. nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication

that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. i used to leak urine when i coughed, laughed or exercised. i couldn't even enjoy playing with my kids.

i leaked too. i just assumed it was normal. then we learned about bulkamid - an fda-approved, non-drug solution for our condition. it really works, and it lasts for years. it's been the best thing we've done for our families. visit findrealrelief.com to find an expert physician near you. ask if bulkamid is right for you and discuss potential risks. results and experiences may vary. move beyond the leaks. her uncle's unhappy. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for.

business. it's not a nine-to-five proposition. it's all day and into the night. it's all the things that keep this world turning. the go-tos that keep us going. the places we cheer. and check in. they all choose the advanced network solutions and round the clock partnership from comcast business. see why comcast business powers more small businesses than anyone else. get started for $49.99 a month plus ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. don't wait- call today. although court is adjourned until tomorrow, it was really an action-packed first couple of hours. >> it was just incredible, just

those opening statements. first of all, we did have the conclusion which was inconclusive, but we'll talk to our lawyers in a moment about how what they read about what judge merchan said could happen if donald trump carries out his decision to testify. he could always change his mind. maybe he would want to after he saw what happened today. judge merchan said he would reserve judgment on whether or not any one or all of six previous cases against him, completed cases against him could be brought up in cross-examination on his character and pattern of behavior, his approach to the law, whatever. for whatever reason, if it's judged relevant at that time and he's on the witness stand, that could come into this case on cross, things that would otherwise not be relevant to be brought into this trial in front of this jury. here you have in the prosecutor's word, it was an election fraud, pure and simple.

this is not hush money because hush money is not illegal. they're saying it is election fraud. >> that really is the heart of their case. >> the defense taking a completely different tone. >> he did nothing wrong, he didn't even know a lot of the details of what was going on. we got through the openings. we got into our first witness, david pecker who is from the "national enquirer" and whose catch-and-kill practice was critical to this. we have a lot to talk about. let's go right to nbc's vaughn hillyard who is outside the courthouse for us. vaughn, where did things leave off for the day and what's your big headline coming out of the morning? >> reporter: david pecker only got about a half hour today guys. we should expect a lot more of david pecker, not only taking questions from the prosecution but also under cross-examination by donald trump's defense team. david pecker is the crucial first witness out of the game that starts the timeline dating

back to august 2015 where prosecutors will ultimately ask him about a trump tower meeting between him with michael cohen and donald trump. where the allegation is that the catch-and-kill scheme was first concocted. it was a year later when karen mcdougal's story, the former playboy model who alleged a ten-month affair with donald trump, and stanlsz who had an alleged one-night affair with donald trump, ultimately those stories were bought either by ami or through michael cohen before the 2016 election. the opening statements really laid the foundation for both sides about where they intend to take this trial. for the d.a.'s side, they made it clear they are going to call up stormy daniels and michael cohen and paint a construct of a conspiracy, a long-hatched conspiracy to protect donald trump politically from damaging stories, and one that included an acknowledgment by donald trump that he would eventually

reimburse michael cohen as he ended up doing in 2017. for the defense's part, the defense made it clear that they intend to make donald trump much more of a sympathetic figure, larger than life in their words, someone who shouldn't have been charged in the first place because todd blanche said, he did not commit a crime. he is innocent. i want to read you one quote from todd blanche. quote, president trump had nothing to do with the invoice, with the check being generated or with the entry on the ledger. todd blanche saying you're going to hear salacious stories from the likes of stormy daniels, but her story does not matter to the heart of the crimes that donald trump has been charged with. the 12 jurors and the six alternates have a big task ahead of them in the weeks ahead. they're going to be hearing from two sides with two very different takes on what they should be listening to from the evidence and the testimony that is provided to them from both of these sides. >> vaughn hillyard, thank you

very much. >> let's bring in amy, former colleague of d.a. alvin bragg during his time as new york state's chief dep tip general. catherine christian and charles coleman are still with us. amy, let's talk about alvin bragg. talk to me about what you think he brought this case after first deciding not to. that's become an issue, certainly in the opening statement today. what kind of a prosecutor is he? what can you tell us about the man that we don't know who is in charge of the first trial of a former president in american history? >> look, alvin is a lifelong prosecutor who has over and over again brought cases rooted in the very same themes and issues on display here. while this might be a case

against a former president and certainly a high-profile one at that, it's very much aligned with the storts of cases he's brought throughout his career, including when we worked in the attorney general's office together. alvin bragg, matthew colangelo who is part of the defense team, gave an fantastic opening statement, directly oversaw the case we brought against the trump foundation, the ways in which donald trump over and over and over again exploited and broke the law in order to further his own interests, his own political interests, personal interests, business interests. this case is very much rooted in the same themes that we've seen trump held accountable for -- successfully accountable for by alvin bragg, by matthew colangelo and by a number of different prosecutors over the last few years. >> we just saw donald trump getting into his suv. he'll be heading back, we presume, to trump tower.

he is leaving the courtroom now. we don't know how much contact he'll have with his lawyers as the day and the evening goes. i'm wondering, since you know alvin bragg, obviously you have heard all the attacks against him, both verbally and on social media. "the new york times" put his decision to pursue this case -- and we've talked about the fact it was considered a zombie case. it was looked at and died, looked at and died and came back to life. here is what "the new york times" wrote. he, meaning alvin bragg, is betting his career and legacy on a prosecution he inherited, rejected and then transformed. what would his level of confidence have to be for him to bring this case, not any case that involves recordkeeping or trying to divert attention, but trying to divert attention obviously for apt presidential

election. what would the level of confidence have to be? >> knowing d.a. bragg, there's no way he would have brought this case unless the facts were strong and he were following those facts wherever they led which in this case is to a strong prosecution of donald trump. so i know there's a long history here and a long history in the d.a.'s office when it comes fros kugs, investigation and prosecution of trump. alvin is among the most level-headed people i've ever worked with. he brings that level-headedness to everything he does, including every case he prosecuted, whether it was in the southern dr., in the a.g.'s office and now in the d.a.'s office. he's not someone that would ever bring a case unless the facts were there. he's certainly not someone motivated by politics. he's motivated by a rule of law, by a commitment to the facts. >> would he typically be in court on the first day like he was today? >> it's important that he's in court because this is certainly

a crucial case. so i saw some of the tweets and the color from the courtroom of alvin sitting there with his accordion file on his lap. that certainly tracks with the meticulous approach he's taken to every case i've seen him work on, being committed to putting his head down, doing the work, drowning out the noise. certainly there's a huge amount of noise being thrown at him, whether it's from the former president or from a number of others who are using smears and attacks, including, frankly, racist, big getted, anti-semitic attacks. using tropes like george soros to distract from the facts of this case and try to drown out the actual details and accountability that trump is facing. >> catherine, it really has to take a very strong person to withstand all of that and lead this prosecution team. so far from what you've seen from both sides, from the opening statements, from what we are reading at least, you've got some very strong lawyering on

both sides. >> very strong. the prosecution team, i know three of the members very well, susan hoffinger, josh stein glass. susan spent her career in the d.a.'s office, left for 20 years and was a defense attorney. she has more extensive criminal defense experience and cross-examination experience probably than anyone other than susan necheles. donald trump's lawyers are very good. one caveat about the prior prosecutions of donald trump. they were civil, preponderance of the evidence. criminal is prof beyond a reasonable doubt. that's a very heavy burden for prosecutors. it's a very different burden than a civil case. >> but the i'm fact would be that some of them are very character revealing if you

belief these decisions by judges. >> exactly. it shows a pattern of deceit, fraud, dishonesty, which is what you're allowed to cross-examine the witness and the defendant about if he should take the stand. >> and sexual misbehavior. >> he will not be allowed to be crossed on that. the judge thankfully was very fair. they cannot cross him about being found liable for sexual assault or being found liable for false buying business records. that would be considered too prejudicial. this shows what a good and fair judge juan merchan is -- >> that's such an important clarification. you don't want to overload and just say he's a bad person. therefore, he did this. you want to ask him about questions that go to his dishonesty, his lack of credibility. sexual assault, no. violating a court order when you're not supposed to talk about the judge's court attorney, yes. over valuing assets, yes. defaming twice, making false

statements twice against jean carroll, yes. that goes to donald trump's lack of credibility and dishonesty. >> it was to hear todd blanche say donald trump is like us, he's a husband, a father. again, even though these 12 jurors and six alternates have said clearly, i can be fair and impartial, both of sides will tell you they didn't expect to get a juror that doesn't have an opinion of donald trump. >> you're expected to have some level of ideas or attitudes or feelings, if you will, toward an individual person. that's not prohibited. the question is can you be fair and impartial. i did want to talk about the lawyering that we're seeing. what it does, it makes it very apparent and it's a clear indication that everyone understands the stakes here.

respectfully, this is not going to be the circus we were watching with regard to his previous civil trials, some of his other attorneys, alina habba making very outlandish claims. these are attorneys who are experienced, who understand the significance of what is at stake and who are going to participate in trying to maintain the integrity of this trial and not draw the eyre of the judge. donald trump is going to doering he can on his own to put himself in hot water. he doesn't need assistance from his attorneys, making it more difficult for the judge. they know that. you'll see some very experienced pun chs and counterpunches. >> i still focus on the other description in the list that you just gave. the man -- a man just like i am, a husband, a father and a frugal businessman. that's just not the first thing that comes to mind when you

think of donald trump, mar-a-lago, trump tower. >> or how he built his brand. he did not build his brand as a frugal businessman. he has taken a lot of heat for, if you consider frug ality as being don't pay your bills, don't pay your lawyers, that's another issue. a frugal businessman is one that might be difficult -- it's different though, right? if you're going into a trial, a serious felony trial, you do want an opening to build a picture of the defendant, right? you want it to be a favorable view. i don't know that there's anything that todd blanche can say really. he's going to have to pretty much hone in on the facts, right? >> that's the thing. you don't have that ability here because you can't romanticize that donald trump is this frugal, humble, modest businessman. that's nothing to do with the trump brand. what you do is attack the

prosecution's case. catherine talked about the difference between the pre pop drans of the evidence as a civil standard versus beyond a reasonable doubt as a cal standard. you want to hone in on that, because you don't have this hero figure you can make your defendant out to be. quite frankly, he's not a very sympathetic victim. you say, look, the prosecution can't meet its burden here. they have all these holes, bad witnesses. you've got michael cohen, stormy daniels. their testimony doesn't matter because you can't focus on your client, so you've got to focus on dismantling their case. >> charles, how common is it to have two lawyers on a jury like this? >> not common at all. >> so it raised a question for me, because one of the things we've talked about in the days leading up to this is how, once they have the jury, they try to target and refine their opening statement, right? do the two lawyers view this very differently, catherine

christian, likely than the other jurors? >> they don't appear to be trial lawyers, so it's very different. i heard someone write they've heard this instruction lots of times. most lawyers aren't trial lawyers. if they're trial lawyers, yes, they're used to objection and sustained. if they've never set foot in the courtroom, they're lawyers. i have a bias, i would never put a lawyer on a jury unless that's all i'm left with. i'm afraid they're thinking too much because that's what lawyers do, and they're second-guessing. it depends on the lawyer. as i said, if they're trial lawyers, and i don't think either of them are, that's a problem. >> let us bring in someone who actually saw donald trump in the courtroom, rachel maddow. msnbc's rachel maddow, one of the very few people inside the courtroom today. rachel, fill in the gaps. what was it like? >> reporter: first of all, thanks for having me and thanks

to everybody at nbc who made it possible for me to get into the courtroom. i realize it's a hot ticket and it's privilege to cover something this historic. i will say just in terms of the vibe in the room, what you have heard about it being kind of a dingy courtroom is real. it's not necessarily important in terms of the way the wheels of justice grind. it is striking to see the former president, somebody who has tried to embody the luxury brand sitting in a room that essentially feels like a high-sealing dmv office. lots of pris presence. very intense atmosphere, very sober atmosphere. two very different styles of presentation. the prosecution was reserved. prosecute erma thank you colangelo who made the opening statement read from prepared remarks are very cogent presentation.

president trum's defense was more emotional, a lot of ad-libbing. there was -- not chaos, but a lot of kinetic activity when prosecutors started objecting to the opening statement. the judge called multiple times for counsel to approach the bench and discuss those objections. just two very different ways of presenting the case to the jury. we got a real roadmap as to how this case is going to do. >> rachel, one of the things i keep hearing aboutnd reading about is how complex this actually is, when you want to make the dots to go together, for some people it's not going to rise to the level in their mind of a crime. it's up, obviously, to the prosecutor to make that case this isn't just about hush money, but here is why this is a felony offense under the law. did they do that? what was a clear, cogent story

in your hearing, understanding that rachel maddow has more of an understanding of this case than the average juror might, but one of the things that many prosecutors have told me over the years is, my job is to go and tell a story that's going to set the stage for the jury to believe and understand why i brought these charges. that simple. >> reporter: yes, and that is absolutely what you saw today from the prosecution. i don't know what the jury will ultimately decide. we don't know how the evidence will be presented. we don't know which side will be compelling in the minds of these 12 new yorkers. when the prosecution got up today, what they said was, without equivocation, without caveat, without parenthetical phrases, they said this was this kind of a crime. this is how we know he did it. this is what we're going to show you about how he did it. there's going to be absolutely no doubt in your mind. it's going to be beyond a reasonable doubt in all of your

minds that he did this. they presented it as both as a serious case and an open and shut case. i say that, the platonic ideal of every argument. the defense side was much more baroque, a digression from todd blanche about how you'll hear us describe him as president trump. that was a title he earned. he was running the country. he kept going back to things like that. after the judge instructed the jurors that the defense does not have to prove the innocence of donald trump, they just need to make sure the prosecution doesn't prove without a reasonable doubt that he did it, blanche, in fact, advanced a whole counterfactual. those invoices from michael cohen were really about a legal retainer for his legal services, and there was no sexual

encounter between donald trump and stormy daniels and all of these other counternarratives that might explain the evidence that, again, not just connecting the dots, kind of a baroque, detailed, elaborate story with a lot of emotion attached to it that the jury was expected to buy into as much with their heart as their minds. a much more cerebral, simple case from the prosecution. >> rachel, can you describe donald trump's affect, particularly when david pecker came in and when he was testifying or when he was being described by the prosecution? >> reporter: yes, and i should say, in the courtroom president trump's back is to all of us sitting as observers in the courtroom. there are monitors that are mounted in the courtroom where we can see a forward-facing view from him, but it's a little occluded. it may be the people in the

overflow room looking at the monitors might have had a better look. from where i was sitting, he seemed basically inert. he kind of slumped his shoulders and was kind of, i'm a slump shouldered person. he was slumped at times. when mr. pecker testified, i noticed he was leaning heavily on the desk. i didn't see him as particularly animated. again, i may not have been in the best position to observe that closely. i've seen him in person in my life a few times. i would say seeing him go up and down the aisle, seeing him walk past me in the aisle several times including a recess, i would say he seems thinner than i've seen him in the past. he seems considerably older and he seems annoyed, resigned, maybe angry.

he seems like a man who is miserable to be here. i'm no body language expert. this is just my observation. he zoo seemed old and tired and mad. i would probably seem that way, too. >> when he came out, he was notably annoyed, this shouldn't be happening and he repeated a lot of things that are fact-based. we cut out of it and corrected it, saying this was a simple book keeping matter. he seemed really angry, annoyed and angry. >> yeah. i think that's right. you'll obviously see it and hear it when you come back and you're preparing for your special tonight which we'll talk about. i'm very curious about david pecker as well. he was also described by some of the folks in the room as seeming old. there's the facts that a witness gives and there's also the way they presented. did they seem reluctant? are they credible? what are your observations?

i know you're not a body language expert. i'm asking about your observations about david pecker. >> reporter: it's interesting. we didn't get a ton of testimony from mr. pecker. the proceedings ended at 12:30est earn time. there was a long break, there was an interruption because the judge told the jurors they could have writing implements and pads of paper if they wanted. he forgot to ask them if they wanted them. there was another interruption where everyone got school supplies. that ate up a lot of time so we didn't get a lot from mr. pecker. my impressions of him -- you'll see it in the transcript later today. he described himself as 72 years old. he's now self-employed as a consultant including consulting for the company that he used to run, but he doesn't run that company anymore. he did say he was at this proceeding under subpoena and he had a lawyer present in the

courtroom. he's a physically small man, sort of slight. he looks just like he does in his pictures, but he's small, he's soft spoken. i would describe his speaking style, the way he answered questions from the prosecutor as somewhat elliptical. meaning he would be asked a direct question, he would give you the four corners of the room. that meant that the prosecutor had to ask him three or four times were you ultimately in charge of what stories were published in your publications or what stories were not published, the prosecute had to say, were you the one. he didn't use the words the buck stopped with me. the stories that were not published, that was ultimately up to me. took him a while to get there. we'll see how it goes in forthcoming days. it may take a while to get through direct examination with

mr. pecker. >> for whatever professional training you may not have, your keen observations and analytical skills are beyond intact. rachel maddow, we're a little jealous that you were there. thank you so much for coming out and talking to us. i do want people to know they're going to hear a whole lot more. i have literally set my alarm for 7:55 in case i'm having dinner or something. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern rachel will have special coverage of the trump criminal trial. much more on what she saw in the courtroom today. >> every monday night we get excited at 8:00 with jen psaki and 9:00 with rachel. up next, we'll have more from the courthouse. our legal experts are there. their takeaways from today's historic opening statements. when our special coverage continues right here on msnbc. a continues right here on msnbc. you know, i spend a lot of time thinking about dirt. at three in the morning.

any time of the day. what people don't know is that not all dirt is the same. you need dirt with the right kind of nutrients. look at this new organic soil from miracle-gro. everybody should have it. it worked great for us. this is as good as gold in any garden. if people only knew that it really is about the dirt. you're a dirt nerd. huge dirt nerd. i'm proud of it! [ryan laughs] feeling claritin clear is like... ♪♪ [cat meow] —is she? letting her imagination run wild even though she has allergies. yeah.

♪ music ♪ ♪ unnecessary action hero! ♪ ♪ unnecessary. ♪ was that necessary? no. neither is missing your daughter's competition to do payroll. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you don't have to miss your daughter's big day. time to shine. get paycom and make the unnecessary unnecessary. when dry eye symptoms keep... coming... back...

inflammation might be to blame. over-the-counter eye drops can provide temporary relief. xiidra can provide lasting relief. it targets inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. xiidra? no-o-o! xiidra treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. don't use if allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied, and unusual taste sensation. why wait? ask your doctor about a 90-day prescription and pay as little as $0. xiidra. (grunt) nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer.

when others divide. we unite. with real solutions to help our kids. like community schools. neighborhood hubs that provide everything from mental health services to food pantries. academic tutoring to prom dresses. healthcare to after care. community schools can wrap so much around public schools. ...and through meaningful partnerships with families, they become centers of their communities. real solutions for kids and communities at aft.org you're probably not easily persuaded to switch they become centers of their communities. mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that

comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. all on the most reliable 5g mobile network—nationwide. wireless that works for you. for a limited time, ask how to save up to $830 off an eligible 5g phone when you switch to comcast business mobile. don't wait! call, click or visit an xfinity store today. we're back with our special coverage of donald trump's criminal trial. today we did hear opening statements and the start of david pecker's testimony. the prosecution's first witness. i want to bring in msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin and msnbc contributor and "new york times" investigative journalist suzanne craig. both are at the courthouse for us. you guys have been so amazing since the beginning of this.

it's only a week ago. hard to believe. giving us what you thought were the key impressions. what's your big takeaway here today, lisa? >> there's a bunch of them. chris, sue and i were sitting here listening to rachel talk with you about her impressions. it want to underscore a couple things she said. first of all, the prosecution's opening statement was, as she said, tight, scripted, chronological, methodical in its narrative. the defense was sort of anything but, a bunch of themes tied together very loosely, not presented in any particular order. part of that is to be expected. as the defense you're looking to rebut some of what you've heard from the prosecution. it also speaks to the particular experiences of the lawyers involved. todd blanche who represents former president trump sheer a career former prosecutor. he spent nine years in the southern district of new york at the u.s. attorney's office, the federal prosecution here in

manhattan. before then a paralegal in that same office for four years. whether mr. blanche has the same experience, srnt clear. based on this morning's presentation, i'm going to tell you probably not. he didn't seem to have the same facility with opening, at least as a defense lawyer, that matthew colangelo for the prosecution clearly had for his side. i also want to talk to you about david pecker for a little bit. rachel was explaining how pecker's presentation as a witness was somewhat elliptical. i had a simple press but came away from that with a different reason why as a former lawyer. my sense is that david pecker, who also testified in his limited time on the stand this morning that he was there under a trial subpoena, that his lawyer was in the room, didn't give prosecutors much of an opportunity to practice with him. we know he testified before the grand jury in this case at least twice. that comes with automatic immunity at least to the events

he testified to here in new york state. that's a legal function of the law in new york. but did mr. pecker offer them numerous practice sessions as we know michael cohen has because we've seen him with our own eyes and cameras outside 1 hogan place here? my guess is no. that's probably an explanation for why pecker didn't seem to get the gist of the prosecutor josh steinglass. his overall demeanor is sort of like benevolent grandma from boca. he's friendly. he's jovial. what he isn't, as rachel mentioned, is particularly direct. i would predict we're here with mr. pecker for at least another couple days. we should see him throughout tomorrow after the gag order contempt hearing and possibly into thursday as well. as the prosecution told us at the beginning of their opening statement, this whole case is about a conspiracy between three

people, the unholy trinity of donald trump, his fixer michael cohen and one david pecker, who is going to loom much larger in this case than i think many of us expected from the outside. >> susanne, i want to pick up on something lisa said in the beginning, tight, scripted opening by the prosecution. one of the things i've heard a lot about is how this is a story that might favor the prosecution, at least in opening for this reason. it is very hard to keep anybody's attention, anyone who has ever spoken publicly will tell you it's hard to keep people's attention span for 45 minutes, but this is a story that has sex, it has payoffs, it has coverups and has the former president of the united states. was it a story as well as a legal argument as you heard it? >> i think it was, and i think everybody was rot listening to

the opening argument. they raised the curtain on stuff including things we haven't heard about. there were moments where -- they talked about how this is going to be a case and they convened at trump tower, these three men, michael cohen, david pecker and donald trump, and it was the trump tower conspiracy, as they called it. they hatched a scheme where the "national enquirer" would pick stories that were negative about donald trump and kill them. they would put out positive stories about donald trump and, thirdly, they would put out negative stories about donald trump's opponents. for example, they mentioned ben carson who was running against donald trump and how they had a story in the "national enquirer" that he was guilty of malpractice. there was negative stories about ted cruz. and then you get to another scene that was about karen mcdougal who donald trump had a relationship with. and the "national enquirer," one of the editors flew to

california and the government said they're going to be introducing text messages and phone records from that trip. then we go to election night, and there's another email exchange that they -- a text message exchange they alluded to between karen mcdougal and stormy daniels's lawyer and someone from the "national enquirer" saying, what have we done. they took people through that. when the government got up, they didn't have the narrative and i don't think it's on them to do that. they were rebutting things. the first thing they were trying to argue. they said this wasn't a conspiracy, that ndas, these non-disclosure agreements signed by people like stormy daniels, that they are not illegal. they said donald trump in this case was the victim of an extortion. he eerps going to be playing the victim card inside the courtroom. the other thing they said, there's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. in fact, they said that's called

dem knock see. michael cohen was introduced by the government who you'll hear has lied before. there's going to be a lot of evidence in the case, text messages, emails that will back up his story. donald trump's lawyers portrayed him to be a scoundrel and a rat, somebody who has lied multiple times. but not only that, wants to see donald trump in prison and is making a living off donald trump and saying negative things about him. the same thing for stormy daniels, that she was just out for a payday. >> lisa, we heard the decision today, the so-called sandoval argument as to what could be brought in to cross-examination if donald trump decides at the end of the day to testify, as he said he would. what was your takeaway about the way judge merchan parsed that, as to what could be introduced and not introduced?

does it tip the scales either way towards donald trump testifying or not testifying as he has said he wants to? >> andrea, the sandoval hearing could have gone very poorly for donald trump, and yet still i think his lawyers would be begging him not to testify. sandoval is, of course, not the beginning and end of cross-examination. it's about cross-examination of a very particular sort. it's about prior bad acts and misconduct, and specifically oftentimes about your prior criminal or legally adjudicated misconduct. god knows there's a lot else to cross donald trump about, where it comes to the scheme that is alleged by prosecutors here. i thought the sandoval hearing was overall a win for prosecutors. no, they cannot cross-examine donald trump, for example, about the jury finding in the first e. jean carroll case that he sexually abused her. they are permitted, for example, to cross-examine him about the

other two verdicts, that in both 2019 and 2022, two separate incidents, that he defamed her on both occasions. similarly they're about judge engoron's finding, that he engaged in pervasive law, 6312 that led to the civil fraud finding. they can't talk about specific amounts. they can't talk about the $83.3 million verdict in the second e. jean carroll case. they can't talk about the $454 million verdict in the civil fraud case. they can talk about the liability findings. for the most part, donald trump is going to have a hard time explaining those. in many cases, what damned him in each of those cases has to do with his own conduct and own word. the civil fraud was about lying

on the books to prospective lenders. the e. jean carroll case is about telling a falsehood with actual malice. that raises in jurors' minds major questions about donald trump's credibility should he take the stand. is this guy lying to you now when we've already told you and made him admit to the fact that courts have found him to be a liar in the past. by the way, a theme he really wants to pin on michael cohen. the biggest thing they want you to take away from the defense eeps opening is that michael cohen is a liar and he's not just a liar, he's an adds jude kated liar who pled guilty to, among other things, false statements to congress. of course, that ignores the fact that if trump himself gets on the stand, what is he going to be crossed for? essentially lying and misrepresentations to people in his life including his lenders and his insurers and the general public where it came to e. jean carroll. a big win for the prosecution,

although they didn't get all they wanted. >> susanne, no one knows more about donald trump's finances than you do -- nobody who is not in rikers island right now at least. nobody knows more about what he's actually done compared to what he claims he's done. talk to us about the way the defense portrayed him, as just another name, maybe the presumptive nominee, just a husband and a father. >> i thought that was interesting, that right off the start, right at the top it was said he may be larger than life, but he is a father, he's a husband, he's a businessman. they're going to very much try to humanize him during this. i think that's a really good point to bring up. that's going to continue as we go through the trial. that is one of the first things that was said when his lawyer got up to start opening

arguments. >> you were inside. he came out and described this as simply a book keeping, the first time anyone has been charged with this. this is just book keeping, i was just paying my lawyer. nobody should be charged with this. look at what i'm indicted for, book keeping. >> right. they're saying they were paying him for legal fees. that's the end of the story. look away. there was a lot of those look-away moments. one of the things i would be interested to see, it was mentioned just in passing when his lawyers did their opening remarks that michael cohen was on staff at the trump organization. "the new york times" in 2020, we obtained a lot of tax information about donald trump and the trump organization. we can see that michael cohen was a salaried employee at the trump organization. the question has to come up at some point -- sorry about this -- [ sirens

i think there will be questions about why if he was on staff why did you have to pay him for a lawyer? sometimes you can pay somebody who is working for you extra money, but we didn't see at least in the tax information that we had that he was issued what's called a 1099, the sort of form that would normally go out to a lawyer. there's interesting questions in here as we get into the book keeping stuff that i'll be listening for. >> lisa rubin, susan craig, thanks to both of you. we get more reporting from our colleagues inside the courtroom. keep it right here. andrea and i will be back with more on msnbc. ill be back with more on msnbc. (vo) you were diagnosed with thyroid eye disease a long time ago. and year after year, you weathered the storm and just lived with the damage that was left behind. but even after all this time your thyroid eye disease could still change.

restoration is still possible. learn how you could give your eyes a fresh start at tedhelp.com. hello, ghostbusters. it's doug. we help people customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. we got a bit of a situation. [ metal groans] sure, i can hold. ♪ liberty liberty liberty liberty ♪ in theaters now. i was born to live in the limelight. but psoriasis kept me in the shadows. until i got clearer skin with bimzelx. most people got 100% clear skin. some after the first dose. serious side effects, including suicidal thoughts and behavior, infections and lowered ability to fight them, liver problems, and inflammatory bowel disease, have occurred. tell your doctor if these happen or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. (♪♪) start to get yourself back, with bimzelx. ask your dermatologist about bimzelx today. hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. ♪ start to get yourself back, with bimzelx.

i don't ever want to go back to wearing a 4xl shirt or not being able to climb up stairs without taking a break. so i'm committed to golo for life. have you ever considered getting a walk-in tub? well, look no further! safe step's best offer, just got better! now, when you purchase your brand new safe step walk-in tub, you'll receive a free shower package. yes, a free shower package! and if you call today, you'll also receive 15% off your entire order.

now you can enjoy the best of both worlds! the therapeutic benefits of a warm, soothing bath that can help increase mobility, relieve pain, boost energy, and even improve sleep! or, if you prefer, you can take a refreshing shower. all-in-one product! call now to receive a free shower package plus 15% off your brand new safe step walk-in tub.

of all the high-profile potential witnesses who could take the stand in donald trump's criminal trial, no testimony would be more notable or more risky than that of the former president himself, testifying in his own defense. trump has insisted that he plans to do exactly that, as recently as friday as he was leaving court. >> president trump, are you going to testify? >> yes. >> here with us now is robert ray, former federal prosecutor and attorney for donald trump during his first impeachment trial. robert ray, if you were advising donald trump right now, would

you tell him to take the stand? >> i think the answer to that question is just because donald trump says in public outside a courtroom that he's going to testify doesn't mean that he actually will. i think you should sort of take that with a grain of salt. >> but should he? >> there's a defense here with regard to these charges, i think it's predominantly legal which is to say -- it was previewed by todd blanche in the opening statements. that is, it's not a crime. even if it were a crime, you're not going to be able to prove donald trump's intent. the risk of taking the stand is if there are holes factually in the government's case, potentially by taking the stand you can still them. so so most defense lawyers are very cautious in a case like this in which there are legitimate legal defenses that would be preserved even in the event of a conviction on appeal. you may be giving those away by

having your client take the stand because it allows a lot of cross-examination to fill in the blanks with regard to missing elements of intent. >> and that would be true of any defendant, but he's not any defendant. and there are pluses and minuses to that. >> yes. >> he has been known to tell narratives that are not true. i'm being very kind here, to get things wrong, and not because of any kind of necessarily impairment, just saying things that are not true. >> and the sandoval hearing has exposed those areas of potential cross-examination, which are obviously mine fields. i will say, though, generally, that it's an interesting question, particularly in high profile cases for the defendant to take the stand. >> because of the celebrity factor. >> there's that. there's also just i'll clue you in on a little tip here, and that is that prosecutors are great direct examiners of witnesses. they tend not to have a lot of practice doing cross-examination.

and so the rule of thumb among defense lawyers is that prosecutors are pretty horrible cross examiners when it comes to really anybody, but particularly defendants. and so because they don't have a lot of practice, you know, there are cases where a defense lawyer, and i've tried cases like this. i've also tried cases where you pretty clearly want to tell the defendant, hey, this is not a good idea to testify in this case, and sometimes they listen to you, and sometimes they don't. i think, look, all of this was a lead up to will he take the stand or won't he. i wouldn't count on it. >> do you think that that decision is already made in todd blanche's mind or does any good defense attorney wait until the case is presented and then say, okay, mr. trump, president trump, he said he wanted to call him president trump as a sign of respect, okay, president trump, here are the pros and cons, here's my recommendation, and is

donald trump listening? because one of the things we've heard about him behind the scenes is that he does have these moments where he's very clear and can put aside what his gut says and does a more analytical kind of decision. >> to answer your question, i'm sure todd blanche has a preliminary view of whether the client should testify. that's subject to further reflection and review based on how the evidence goes in. ordinarily, if you think as a defense lawyer the case went in well for your side, and remember, you know, unlike the prosecution which can have an opening statement which is very organized and has a, you know, unified theme and the rest, they have to persuade a jury unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's defendant. you're a defense lawyer. you're not playing the game of 12 people as a unit. you're trying to slice and dice to find one that's prepared to say not guilty, so that you can

at least achieve a hung jury and that the jury can't reach a verdict. you're exploring, which is why an opening would be more disjointed. you're exploring a lot of potential avenues of the defense, partly legal, partly counter factual. partly, you know, beat up on the government's witnesses. you can't believe michael cohen because he's a congenital liar, and he's got an agenda. you know, who knows what will be persuasive to one or more jurors that you're trying to persuade in a case at the close of the case, which is the defense's big moment, the closing argument, not the opening statement. >> and do you think it's good or bad for the defense to have two lawyers. apparently they're not trial lawyers, we don't think. they're not as intimidated by the whole process, being in a courtroom, presumably, they have been at some point in their career. >> i listened earlier to your discussion about that. in my time as lawyer, even, you know, there was a period of time when lawyers were never on juries. and the entire country basically made a change.

the judiciary made a change that didn't give an automatic excue -- excuse to lawyers. the typical jury, it's not unusual to have one juror who happens to be a lawyer. >> in this case, it's what some have called a novel prosecution, what donald trump has called unfair prosecution. it's a misdemeanor that rises to a felony because of an underlying, alleged crime. and so might a lawyer be more willing or able than another juror to parse that. >> maybe. >> or persuasive in the jury room one way or the other. >> that's the thing you worry about as a defense lawyer. you know, you want to act as a whole with 12 people where they all contribute. what you don't want to have happen is one juror is because they're a lawyer, basically take the jury and lead it by the hand and essentially dictate the outcome in a case. i don't think that typically

happens. i think most people are strong enough, you know, to stand up for themselves, but people with legal experience tend to weigh in more heavily with regard to legal matters than the ordinary person. the question is, you know, whether or not that will dominate. i found typically that the person who leads the group is the jury foreperson. the jury foreperson doesn't happen to be a lawyer in this case. i'm not sure i would be overly concerned about that. >> robert ray, thank you. appreciate you coming in and being very patient as we heard from some of the folks inside the courthouse. stay with us. we've got a lot more coverage, special coverage of former president donald trump's criminal trial, including some new details from inside the courtroom right after this. e th courtroom right after this ♪ i wanna hold you forever ♪ hey little bear bear. ♪ ♪ ♪ i'm gonna love you forever ♪ ♪ ♪ c'mon, bear. ♪ ♪

♪ you don't...you don't have to worry... ♪ ♪ be by your side... i'll be there... ♪ ♪ with my arms wrapped around... ♪ (man) mm, hey, honey. ♪ be by your side... i'll be there... ♪ looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health.

options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling. ♪ before planning the wedding

your bad hip was really acting up. then, you heard about mako robotic-assisted hip replacement. it starts with a ct scan to pinpoint the problem. that becomes a personalized, 3d plan to guide your doctor during surgery. mako can help lead to better outcomes, like less pain and shorter recovery times. the lifetime of a hip implant is limited, and revision surgery may be required. individual results and recovery times vary. risks of surgery include pain, infection, heart attack, stroke, death, and other serious risks. ask your doctor for important safety information. to find a doctor who uses mako visit makocan.com

when others divide. we unite. with real solutions to help our kids. like community schools. neighborhood hubs that provide everything from mental health services to food pantries. academic tutoring to prom dresses. healthcare to after care. community schools can wrap so much around public schools. ...and through meaningful partnerships with families, they become centers of their communities. real solutions for kids and communities at aft.org good afternoon, i'm chris

jansing live from msnbc headquarters here in new york city. anchoring our special coverage of pretty explosive early moments of donald trump's hush money trial, with my colleague, andrea mitchell. donald trump, of course, as every defendant has a front row seat, and history is unfolding. the prosecution's opening statements painting him as a felon who, quote, cooked the books to try to bury a porn star payoff. what they call election interference, he said, plain and simple. >> in response, of course, the defense simply saying that trump had nothing to do with it. focusing on poking holes, not only in the d.a.'s case, but also in the credibility of potential witnesses to prop up the trial. first person on the stand, former friend of trump's, friend and colleague, former "national enquirer" publisher, david pecker. he barely took the stand before court adjourned for the day. what big questions are coming his way, we don't know.

testimony can resume at 9:30 tomorrow. i want to bring in msnbc's katie phang, msnbc senior national politics reporter, joathan allen, and all live outside the courthouse for us. also here with us is former manhattan assistant d.a., catherine christian, and former brooklyn prosecutor, charles coleman. in our last hour, lisa was mentioning that david pecker didn't give much really time for the prosecutors to, you know, talk to him about his story before the testimony because he gave very long answers. how effective was he as the first witness on the stand? >> well, it's a great question, andrea, because even though he was only on the stand for a brief moment of time before the

court recessed early to accommodate a juror, the difference in the appearance of donald trump's interest is really, i think, what was so compelling. before david pecker took the stand, during opening statements, during even when the jury wasn't in the room, donald trump slumping in his chair, sometimes closing his eyes, not appearing attentive. the second that david pecker walked into the courtroom, up to the witness stand and sat down, donald trump looking attentive, leaning on to the table and paying attention to what's being said. why that is so important is now the jury, because the jury watches everything, andrea, in a courtroom. they look at everything from the shoes of the lawyers to the judge's expressions. but they're looking at donald trump, the defendant in this case, and they're watching him watching david pecker, so that means that they're interested in hearing what david pecker has to say because donald trump is interested in what david pecker has to say, so we're going to be looking forward to tomorrow when pecker takes the stand to continue his examination by prosecution. >> you were inside the

courtroom, we had a chance to talk to rachel maddow. i want to get your impressions of what it felt like in the room and where exactly were you. what could you see in terms of donald trump's reaction and interaction with his lawyers? >> i was sitting in a pew in the back of the courtroom. donald trump, his back to me. when he looked at the jury, and his own lawyers, you could see him in profile, a serious look on his face, his mouth drawn most of the time. you could see his attention move from place to place. he was looking at the jury, whether he was staring them down is a matter of opinion. you could see that trademark stone face in donald trump, and one of the interesting things about david becker, we didn't get a lot of testimony from him. one of the fascinating things about what he was saying is number one, he basically took accountability for killing

stories. so he is the power that the prosecutors are going after. number two, he remembered a bunch of his phone numbers from the past, from about eight or ten years ago. it's a small things. it's one of the basic questions, but basically establishing with the jury how sharp his memory is that he was able to remember the digits of phone numbers from years ago. it will be interesting to see any efforts to sort of undermine his sharpness. >> they are going to use the phone numbers to tie in the phone records, by the way, and that's part of the reason pecker's testimony was important for the last four digits of multiple numbers he had. >> and what's what i was reading from a google doc, what are the last four digits of your phone so they could go through that and establish the chain of custody that he had. what did you make of defense lawyer, todd blanche, trying to say that trump was just a husband, father just like me. >> well, andrea, that part of their defense is not going to work, and it's for this reason. they want the jury to believe

that donald trump is just doing this in order to protect his wife and his family, you know, from this pretty terrible publicity about the affairs that he had. but we're going to hear quite a bit of testimony about how trump shortly before the election told michael cohen don't pay her. stiff her. don't give her the money because we only need to get through the election and then if she goes public with her story, it doesn't matter. and so what that would establish and will establish, i think, is that he wasn't just paying his hush money to protect his family. he was doing it to help win the election. now, i couldn't see from my vantage point. i was about five rows back directly behind trump, because i could only see the back of his head. so i couldn't see his reaction, but i had a very good view of the jury today, and i was really struck by how attentive the jury

is. ten members of the jury asked for notebooks so that they could take notes, which of course they can't take home with them, and will be destroyed at the end of the trial, but this was just one indication of how plugged in they were. there wasn't anybody snoozing on that jury today. i wonder what your observation of that was, katie phang and if there were popular moments that stood out, for me, talking about michael cohen, the argument that he was obsessed with president trump. he was loyal to president trump for many years, but then he wanted a job in the administration, and he didn't get one. and you also pointed out in our google doc that todd blanche attacked the age of this prosecution. memories start to get weak, right? the case is an old one, no one brought it for all of these years. what did you observe that might have really landed?

>> yeah, i think it's the stark juxtaposition, chris, between the crisp, precise, he had moments that were interrupted by objections that were sustained because they were frankly argumentative. what happened is todd seemed to be looking like he was fine, a little bit of an idea here and there. the age of this case is something. he would talk about that. oh, yeah, you know, michael cohen and stormy daniels, they have credibility issues. the problem is, they, as in the prosecution and the defense, at the end of both of their opening statements asked the jury to do exactly the same thing, to tune out the noise, to focus on the evidence, and for donald trump, that's going to be a problem. because even if you don't like michael cohen. even if you don't approve of stormy daniels, the corroborating evidence in the forms of the messages, the checks, the texts, the phone calls, the things that andrea was talking about a minute ago,

you create that chain of custody. those things don't lie. the motives and intent behind trying to hide all of these payments don't lie. i think the one thing, too, that really landed, what really resonated is the fact that donald trump was writing checks from the white house to be able to make the payment for michael cohen. that landed with the jury, and they were interested in hearing those portions of the openings. >> i think the fact of that oval office payment, i remember years and years ago, the fact that they were cash payments to spiro agnew in the white house complex made such a difference in the way that case was -- he, you know, cut a deal because of that. >> just the oval office. >> there is something, i think, just impactful about the imagery that most people have. andrea and i are very fortunate to have covered the white house in different administrations. you go into the oval office.

there is a moment of history that overwhelms you, but -- and i'm sure you've experienced this too, it's one of the questions i get most, what was it like working there. what was it like being in that room. and so i wonder, catherine christian, when you hear that, is that something that a juror, most people don't have that experience of working in the white house or having access to the oval office are like that happened there? >> yes, you think of it as a solemn place. it's where business of the country is happening. foreign policy is happening. and then here is the president of the united states, you know, reimbursing his lawyer to cover up, you know, the affair and to falsify his business records. so that also plays in to what the jurors are going to be thinking, and how they're going to judge donald trump, which is basically their job. >> i noted that todd blanche

talked about stormy daniels' testimony, and this is important. it doesn't matter. her testimony, while salacious does not matter. is there an argument that can be made, they're just trying to draw you in because this is kind of a sexy story, but they don't really have a case here? >> of course, that's what he has to do. that's what he needs to do in order to give his client a fighting chance at not being convicted here. so you have to minimize the importance of the testimony and its significance because it's naturally given the nature of it going to draw the jury in. and you know that. you're talking about the former president of the united states of america with a play mate. and an extra marital affair, and hush money payments. these are all very salacious details that most people are going to be interested to hear. when she gets on the stand, people who have not heard her speak before are going to be riveted by what she has to say. you have to preempt that by

minimizing its value in the minds of the jury so by the time they hear her, they say, well, i mean, it was exciting but maybe it doesn't matter with respect to this conviction, and that's what he began to do today. >> you know, catherine and jonathan allen, when the two of you look at this case, you look at it as a lawyer. jonathan, you were in the courtroom as an experienced reporter. talk to me about the politics of it. what is your take away? you have been a national political reporter for so many years. we've seen new polling from nbc today that 50% of the people think that he's getting a fair shake. >> well, i think number one, just in reference to what chris was saying about covering the white house, you see this incredible bringing down of donald trump from that ornate beautiful white house. this courtroom, i know most folks don't get to look inside it, looks like a 1950s junior

high school, wood panelling up and down the wall. big wooden pews like you're in some sort of movie church, i guess, and here's donald trump walking into the middle of the place. there's almost not enough room for the security that he needs around in terms of the secret service, in terms of six or seven police officers in the courtroom, and just watching minimum be brought down to that level has got to be not only for him something that's difficult but something's truly shocking for the jurors, and i think it's a great benefit to him politically that the cameras are not in the room right now. i know he thinks that he would like to be making a show for the cameras, but i think not a good political look for him sitting there like any other defendant. >> we know from some of the polling that's been done previously that the polls have moved, that more people say it would make a difference to them whether or not he was convicted on whether they would vote for him. we're not at that stage yet.

i want you to pick up on what jonathan just said, which is really about the perception of this man who was at the pinnacle of power, the leader of the free world, now in a courtroom. these details are salacious, and the people that i'm thinking about are not his supporters. they're not the people who are very happy to see donald trump in a court of law. they're that small number of people he addressed today in states like georgia who will ultimately decide this election. do you think that imagery matters in those suburban women? >> totally. yes. it totally matters but just even aside from the facts of the case, the split screen right now is not good for trump. you have joe biden carrying out what he calls kitchen table conversations. that's how his campaign describes it. him talking to ordinary voters and battleground states about issues that are important to the

american people. the table that donald trump is at is the defense table. and his conversations are whispers to lawyers, and he can't get out of there. he's trapped. in some ways, he's already in confinement. he's confined to his dingy courtroom with horrible bathrooms that have graffiti on, you know, the waste baskets and that he defines as disgusting. that's where he has to spend four days a week for the next five, six, seven weeks. it's a bad look for him. it's really bad. he just looks like such an unhappy camper when he walks in and out of court, and, you know, obviously the outcome is what will determine the final, you know, political verdict on this trial will depend on whether there's a hung jury or conviction. almost nobody believes there will be an acquittal, which would take all 12 jurors. almost nobody thinks that's possible, including trump's

lawyers. so, you know, we won't know the full political impact for a little more than a month, but right now, it is not a good look for donald trump. he can't call joe biden sleepy joe anymore. he's falling asleep in the courtroom himself. that line against biden is dead. >> there is no doubt the most extraordinary sub text to this trial is how it will itself and the ultimate verdict impact november. >> it's been described just now as our colleagues as an old junior high school or the dmv in some county office. it sounds pretty grim. this is the man according to several books, insisted on the second floor of the living quarters of the white house being renovated because he was so dismayed when he saw how old the bathrooms were there. >> i think when karen mcdougal, one of the people at the center of the case, one of the people who allegedly took a payoff was asked to describe her impression

of going into donald trump's trump tower apartment, her first word was gold. it's very gold. >> a lot of gold. and real gold, not the color gold. katie phang, jonathan allen, catherine christian, jonathan alter. thank you so much. up next, new fec filings show how much trump's america pact is shelling out for legal fees when our coverage continues right here on msnbc. he real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu, a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up. or finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur.

sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu.

but st. jude has gotten us through it. st. jude is hope for every child diagnosed with cancer because the research is being shared all over the world. at bombas, we're obsessed with comfort. softness. quality. because your basic things should be your best things. one purchased equals one donated. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first order.

of course donald trump's presidential campaign is being impacted by his criminal trial with the candidate confined to the courtroom, he has to be there while his skyrocketing court-related costs drain his campaign coffers. there are s.e.c. filings released over the weekend and show that his save america pact paid out almost as much in legal bills as it took in last month. nbc's vaughn hillyard is outside the courthouse. david french is a "new york times" opinion columnist. and joining us here at the table, susan del percio, a republican strategist and msnbc political analyst. let me let you, vaughn, set the scene for us. and the money coming in and the money going out. >> reporter: right, this is a moment where, number one, reality, we are less than 200 days away from the white house

election in november. but also money is a major part of this. and we're looking at just about $4 million left in the save america pact fund. that was the leadership pact that donald trump had been utilizing to help fund his legal expenses. and of course, there are a lot of questions when the new rnc takeover took place, including his campaign comanager as the extent to which money would be funneled, donations would be funneled to that account. that, in fact, did happen. but what we are now looking at is a reality that donald trump, more than $4 million were spent on legal expenses last month alone, so the question is where does the cash come from. if there's not enough money in that pact, who foots the bill. is it donald trump or does it come from other resources. and all of this is happening, of course with the actual presidential campaign in the background. donald trump is being out fund raised significantly by almost a 2 to 1 margin, in terms of the

money actually in the bank for both the biden campaign and their allies in the trump campaign and their allies. for donald trump, there is a cash crunch. for all of the focus that he has on those jurors, those 18 individuals in that jury box right now, there are others in his orbit also very much focused on the money, where it's coming from and where do they put that money. legal or political. >> and, susan, let's talk about that. trump's legal bills now account for more than a quarter of the spending by his pacs. first of all, how significant is that, and then we have the decision that came from the republican party now led by his family, by his daughter-in-law, that 5% of everything raised by every candidate, up and down the ballot, is supposed to go to donald trump. >> they strongly suggest, and even more would be looked upon favorable if it was a higher percentage than that. >> i think the people who are using donald trump's image and likeness are people on the democratic side, so they'll

never collect that money. >> but this is tied to the rnc for his legal bills. >> and not only that, it shows that the rnc doesn't care what happens with the senate or with the house or doing their job. and doing their job is also getting out to the states, building organizations that in theory are there to help donald trump. but his legal bills, it does two things. it drains resources, and when he's someone who just does these big rallies and resources were put down on saturday because of extreme weather, he doesn't get a refund, but he also, then, is looking at his small donors, and i think when we hear the news coming out of the courthouse, some of them are a little hesitant to give to his legal bills. >> after court ended for the day, i don't know if you had a chance to see this, trump again railed about being forced to be there each day. take a listen. >> this is what takes me off the

campaign trail because i should be in georgia now. i should be in florida now. i should be in a lot of different places right now campaigning, and i'm sitting here. and this will go on for a long time. it's very unfair. >> so he's got a kind of conundrum. he's got wednesdays free. generally that's what judge has said, wednesday will be a down day. he's got weekends, but you also have a pretty grueling schedule. he's 77 years old. you can have situations like he had this past weekend, bad weather. he couldn't hold the rally. where does this leave donald trump both politically, and frankly, mentally and emotionally? >> yeah, that's a great question. you know, when i think about this case, i think that the outcome of the case is going to matter tremendously. not just in the sense of is justice done, is just not done. does the evidence support the verdict, et cetera, but the win or the loss is going to matter to his campaign a great deal. and i think a lot of people are

overlooking the fact that if he is able to win the case, a hung jury, an acquittal, this is going to be a shot in the arm for them that will be a bigger boost than any of the rallies that he's missing. this is a very high stakes moment for him. if he loses, it's not that he's likely to go to jail right away or maybe at all. he would be a first time nonviolent felony offender, but being convicted of a felony has tremendous consequences, essentially in life, and much less politics. it's a very high stakes moment for him, no question, but if he wins this trial, either a mistrial or other means, if he wins this trial, it's going to be a gigantic boost for him, and i think that when we're thinking about it, i think everyone's thinking this trial is if he's definitely going to be convicted. and i don't think that's the case. >> david, as an observer of donald trump and there are folks who are in the courtroom who

said he seemed to be sort of hunched over. he seems both frustrated. some would say angry. he seems tired to many people. they did say he closed his eyes several times again. although, at other times he seemed to be engaged with his lawyers. this is going to be a long haul. it would be a long haul for anyone, but as you point out, the stakes are incredibly high. he is not a young man. what are you going to be watching for over the next four to six or even longer weeks or even longer to see how this impacts donald trump? >> we need to be watching this carefully. this is going to -- it's not just that it's long. it's also extremely stressful. this is extremely stressful to be on trial for a felony. watching how he handles the stress is going to be very important. here's what's going to be also important. you also have to watch how right wing media covers how he handles this because people who are watching msnbc, for example, might be getting a different picture of how donald trump is

reacting than people are looking at fox news. so, for example, i just went on the foxnews.com site, and the trump trial is down the page. this is not something that they are emphasizing nearly as much as say the protests at columbia, and so a lot of what we might see when looking at his demeanor, a lot of people in his movement will never see at all. and so you're going to have to a kind of, once again, a kind of two america situation where people are paying very close attention to this trial. see his demeanor, see how he reacts, see the everyday, and a whole other group who made up their mind one way or the other, and i wonder how much before the verdict that the news about trump will breakthrough. >> or andrea, who have stepped away, and just don't want to do a deep dive right now. it's too much for them. >> exactly. >> susan, also, he's reportedly very annoyed, angry about the

less than flattering court sketches. >> of course he is. >> and court sketches aren't always flattering. that is man who takes such pride in the makeup, hair, lighting. he cares a lot about that in appearances. that's not the way he's portrayed in court sketches. also other print media said he appears to be following asleep. it's hard to know he was closing his eyes. maybe he was medicating. and in any case, that whole narrative of him being less than attentive and wide awake, this is a man who calls joe biden sleepy joe biden. >> he should be thankful that there aren't cameras in the courtroom. then he would be under scrutiny in a way by the whole american public. it's those things, picking on the court sketches or the judge telling him to sit down, what i think may be very influential in the election is how donald trump

handles the case itself, handles being there every day. handles seeing one of the women who accuses him of having an extra marital affair. being this close as we are, almost, to one another. it's his temperament that i think in the end will make a lot of headline news. and i agree with david that if he wins, it's big, but it's only big for his base. i think all the negative things that happen will definitely influence those independent voters. >> susan del percio, vaughn hillyard, david french, thank you. and coming up after the break, we'll break down the lawyers who could have a major impact on this case, and an important ruling about what donald trump can be asked if he does take the stand as he has said he wants to. you're watching special coverage of the donald trump trial on msnbc. msnbc. - so this is pickleball? - pickle! ah, these guys are intense. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk.

i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? students... students of any age, from anywhere. using our technology to power different ways of learning. so when minds grow, opportunities follow. ♪ before planning the big trip you were limping thanks to a bad knee. then, you heard about mako robotic-assisted knee replacement. it starts with a ct scan to pinpoint the problem. that becomes a personalized, 3d plan to guide your doctor during surgery. mako can help lead to better outcomes, like less pain and shorter recovery times.

the lifetime of a knee implant is limited, and revision surgery may be required. individual results and recovery times vary. risks of surgery include pain, infection, heart attack, stroke, death, and other serious risks. ask your doctor for important safety information. [camera shutter] to find a doctor who uses mako visit makocan.com

the lawyers on the trump hush money case will go down in the history books for their work. it's obviously the biggest case of their careers. the case of a lifetime. and as we've talked about, the stakes could not be higher. so simply put, why them? what expertise? what skill set does each one bring to such a monumental moment? charles coleman is back with me. always good to have you. let me start with todd blanche, that's trump's main lawyer. a lot of interaction, apparently, between them today.

why pick him to deliver the opening statement? >> so we have a legal clash of the titans and at the forefront, we have someone who's experienced at the federal level, a former federal prosecutor. and it's important to understand how much donald trump apparently trusts him. he's also his defense attorney on both of his federal cases as well, which is really significant. we're not talking about the b squad here. we're talking about someone he believes can keep him out of jail for all of his cases. he was at a private law firm. he left the private law firm for the sole purpose of coming to defend donald trump. >> he gave up potentially a lot to do that. >> that's correct. he's one of donald trump's ace in the hole across the board, and he's overseeing the entirety of donald trump's legal strategy for all of his cases. >> one of the big questions was would he do the opening or would it be susan necheles. she's an experienced defense attorney. what do you make of her role? >> she's someone who knows the

ins and outs of white collar defense in a way that donald trump needs in a case like this. she's very experienced as someone who's going to play to the jury because he doesn't have any other women on the team. that's a big deal. some of this is about an alleged extramarital affair with a play mate. and so having another woman at the table begins to humanize donald trump as a defendant in a way that's going to be critically important for his survival around these allegations. >> a lot of prosecutors put this case together under the direction of d.a. alvin bragg, but why matthew coangelo, why would he give the opening? >> one of the things alvin bragg has done extremely well is to pit prosecutors not only who are experienced but who have experience and knowledge about donald trump, and michael coangelo is another example of someone who helped put weisselberg behind bars.

this is someone who's an extremely experienced prosecutor and knows his way around a courtroom. >> let's talk about alvin bragg, he was in the courtroom today. we heard the report that he had his accordion folder on his lap. this is a guy who knows this case intimately but hesitated when he took office in 2022, about whether or not to prosecute. talk about alvin bragg. >> if there's anyone at all within that courtroom who has anything more to lose as donald trump, it might be alvin bragg. you're talking about someone who has put his legacy and professional career on the line behind this case. he hesitated at first. he's decided to bring it. no one can afford for anything to go wrong more than alvin bragg. you better believe, he's in court, watching his assistants, he's going to be giving advice about how they're prosecuting the case. as the d.a. who decided to make the decision and be the first person to criminally indict a

former president of the united states of america, alvin bragg has a lot lot on the line. >> someone who is very comfortable in the courtroom is joshua steinglass, 25 years as a prosecutor in manhattan for many of the high level cases that have been brought. >> he's prosecuted a number of violent and complex cases. as a trial attorney, his chops are well vetted. again, here you see alvin bragg taking someone familiar with the trump organization. he prosecuted part of the trump organization tax fraud case. he's someone who has inside knowledge, and is a walking encyclopedia of all things donald trump. that's what you want on this team so you can maneuver and do what you need in terms of understanding the in and outs of how he works, and how those things coalesce to prove your case in this instance. >> a similar story with susan

hoffinger. >> she's one of the most interesting people. you don't see people go from defense back to prosecution. she started as an ada in the manhattan office. then for 20 years, she did white collar defense, the type of defense that donald trump could use right now, and now she's back at the d.a.'s office as a chief investigator, and she's on this case. why does this matter? she knows both sides and understands the tricks both sides can play and as an investigator, she has been able to unearth a lot of dirt. someone invalue to the prosecutor's team. >> this is the super bowl of cases, no doubt about it. charles coleman, thank you for helping us understand the players. >> thanks to chris and charles. a critical decision coming from judge juan merchan, everybody before opening statements today is if donald trump testifies, prosecutors can then ask him about different findings in four previous court cases, including the e. jean

carroll defamation verdicts and his agreement to dissolve the trump foundation. joining us now is jeremy saland. thank you so much. >> my pleasure. >> talk about what judge merchan did. he said the sexual finding in the sex case cannot be introduced. but that he can be asked about the defamation. he separated it between the financial issues, these were civil cases, not criminal cases. it's a different burden of proof. it doesn't have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. >> that's true. there's a prejudice value. how does it impact his credibility. the ruling says the prior immoral, criminal, vicious bad acts. >> they're not criminal. >> these were, but i'm talking

about the -- it allows for certain types of cases and past history to be admitted solely for the purpose of credibility, so an allegation and even a confirmation in the civil proceeding of sex abuse, this is a lower standard. when you have issues being told not to say about court clerk, that would be a finding. if you have issues with cooking the books or tax issues, that would be something that goes to his credibility. so it goes directly to veracity and truthfulness. there's a balance, it can't be too biassed and hurt him. >> we were talking about the fact that his lawyers shouldn't be letting him talk about anything in front of the jury, coming out of the court. anything he says can be used to challenge his truthfulness. >> and not just that, if he says

something inconsistent or something to the evidence, the case in chief, the prosecution's actual case, they could lay that foundation when and if he testifies, cross him on that. it's foolish. it's naive. when we talk about the big picture here, donald trump is playing the politics for the presidency. if he dams himself in the courtroom or outside the courtroom by saying things that could be used against him by the prosecution, he's going to find himself boxed in. >> he came out and said this was book keeping. i'm being indicted for bookkeeping. never before in the history of america has this happened to anyone. >> simply untrue. maybe the former president of the united states. i was a prosecutor. i'm a defense attorney now. it was just book keeping, i would be twice on tuesdays. really it's a ridiculous claim. >> when doing something like that go from being untrue, and i think that is baked in for a lot

of these jurors. they know what accusations have been against donald trump. they know some o. things that he's said. there are election deniers who believe that joe biden is not the legitimate president of the united states. that kind of stuff is baked in. where could he possibly get into trouble with what kinds of statements though? >> there's different kinds of trouble. one might be trouble for violating the gag order. if he goes after michael cohen or another witness beyond the scope that was allowable. going after the judge. the gag order is a limited capacity about what he can and can't say that involves witnesses and the judge and the prosecutor. there's that issue. which is a fine and contempt and theoretically incarceration, though not likely, then on the flip of that there's what we said before, his credibility and what he says on the stand. if he testifies, i wonder if he will. there's two types of dangers for him. always the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt. he's giving them a little bit of a lob when he speaks and runs his mouth. his attorney should be grabbing him by the dollar. >> maybe they can't. i have seen as a prosecutor, defendants doing it. i get it. he maybe can't see the forest for the trees. silence him and protect him outside the courtroom. if he says the wrong things, he's not going to become the president of the united states in the future. >> jeremy, thank you so much for coming in. we really appreciate it. we're going to have more on former president donald trump on trial in just a moment. but first, house speaker mike johnson got to yes on critical defense aid for ukraine, and what it could mean on the front lines. we've got that next. lines. we've t gothat next.

we're still going for that nice catch. we're still going for that perfect pizza. and with higher stroke risk from afib not caused by a heart valve problem,... ...we're going for a better treatment than warfarin. eliquis. eliquis reduces stroke risk. and has less major bleeding. over 97% of eliquis patients did not experience a stroke. don't stop taking eliquis without talking to your doctor as this may increase your risk of stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking, you may bruise more easily... ...or take longer for bleeding to stop. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. it may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor about eliquis. what will you do when the power goes out? power outages can be unpredictable and inconvenient. but with a generac home standby generator, your life goes on uninterrupted. because when your generac detects a power outage it automatically powers up,

giving your family the security and peace of mind they deserve. we don't have to worry about whether we lose power or not. if the utility company does not come through, our generac does. after the hurricane happened, we just want to be prepared for anything. 8 out of 10 home generators are generac with thousands of satisfied customers. the number one thing to prepare for is extended power outages. don't make it so hard on yourself. have a generac home standby generator. and owning a generator is easier than ever. special financing and low monthly payment options are available. and if you call now, you will also receive a free seven-year warranty valued at over $700.00. call or go online now to request your free quote.

welcome back. we're going to take a moment away to break from the trial of donald trump, to bring you other news making headlines. president biden spoke to ukraine's president zelenskyy assuring him that the u.s. will quickly provide, quote, significant new security assistance as soon as it passes the senate. that's expected to be on tuesday. on saturday, the house approved $95 billion in foreign aid, which includes money for ukraine, israel and the indo-pacific region. including taiwan. but is it too late to help

ukraine defeat russia? joining us now, admiral james stavridis, supreme allied commander of nato. i was talking to people over the weekend. republicans and democrats, elected and appointed who said that in all of their careers, decades of service, that this six-month period allowing ukraine to retreat, to retreat, to not have any weapons to a 10-1 disadvantage in artillery against russia in some instances. not running out of ammo, not having air defense, threatening odessa and trimming other, you know, aerial campaigns, threatening kyiv. they didn't have the f-16s yet and that was approved a year

ago. >> it's shocking. it's tragic. it's heartbreaking but let's look to the future. let's say to ourselves, okay, we diterred around for months but now we can still retrieve this situation, and that's the military officer in me. we can still do this. and so you are correct, the spigot can be turned on almost instantaneously when the president signs this, because people like general chris kavoli, my successor as the supreme allied demander of nato have been working tirelessly to preposition this, anticipating this result. so this will be a matter of days, maybe even hours in some cases where the new set of munitions will hit the front lines for the ukrainians. and it can't happen fast enough. and here are the priorities.

number one, air defense, as you alluded to, number two, ammunition for those artillery systems. number three, f-16s. number four, the long range missiles to go behind russian lines. drones, cyber connectivity and space. all of this has been waiting in the wings. it's going to move forward quickly. we can still retrieve this situation. >> you have been writing about this russian surge, the spring/summer offensive, may, june, july. do you think that this equipment, particularly air defenses and the ammunition will get to ukraine in time to be able to push back? >> i do. and most of the military analysts with whom i'm speaking both in europe and here in the united states who have studied this believe we can close the switch.

look, what has the less excelled at since the process started and the answer is ultimately once the munitions are approved we get them in the hands of the ukrainians on the front lines very quickly. old saying in the military, while the amateurs are focused on the strategy, the real professionals are looking at low -- logistics. i'm confident we can get this into the hands of the ukrainians, not a minute to lose, but if we get going this week, the president will sign this bill immediately upon senate passage, and by the way, just to conclude, andrea, when the senate votes for this, i think they'll get 70 votes in favor of it. in the house, well over 300. 75% of both houses of the united states congress have approved this by a 75% margin. this is clearly the will of the american people to get these

weapons in the hands of our partners. >> significantly, we should talk about what happened in the house because russia has been rearmed during these six months and even before by north korea providing missiles, by iran providing drones. so they're getting help from all of our adversaries, and at the same time, you had a new speaker who had never been briefed before, a back bencher really, maybe fifth in line in leadership, maybe overly impressed by donald trump. there was a real flip by donald trump, and arguably lindsey graham in february. now he has seemed to have gotten religion, he's a deeply religious man on foreign policy, and people say it's the intelligence briefing. he is the speaker. he's right in line for the presidency, and he was briefed by bill burns and by the other top officials. and he clearly took that seriously. and perhaps he's looking at the possibility he won't even be speaker, you know, next year, if

the democrats retake the house. so this is going to be his legacy. it's going to be losing or holding off vladimir putin. >> absolutely. and let me add one other, i think, little known fact that i just picked up on a wire report earlier today. a quote from the speaker saying that his son is headed to annapolis, the united states naval academy this fall, and the speaker said, absolutely correctly, the ukrainians are not asking us to send our sons and daughters to this fight. they are asking for the weapons systems, the tools to get the job done, so i think it's a combination of that intelligence, the knowledge that he's about to be a navy dad, and he wants to send the weapons, not the troops to solve this problem. >> admiral, thank you so much. i noted that also, and that is exactly the ethos of the academy. and right after the break, presidential historian, michael

beschloss on the magnitude of today's opening statements on donald trump's hush money trial and what they mean for the state of our democracy. you're watching special coverage on the first day of the trump criminal trial only, right here on msnbc. trial only, right her on msnbc ♪♪ an all-in-one cleaning tool that gives you a mop and bucket clean in half the time ♪♪ our cleaning pad has hundreds of scrubbing strips that absorb and lock dirt away, ♪♪ and it has a 360-degree swivel head that goes places a regular mop just can't. so, you can clean your home, faster than ever. ♪♪ don't mop harder, mop smarter, with the swiffer powermop. when others divide. we unite. with real solutions to help our kids. like community schools. neighborhood hubs that provide everything from mental health services to food pantries. academic tutoring to prom dresses. healthcare to after care. community schools can wrap so much around public schools.

...and through meaningful partnerships with families, they become centers of their communities. real solutions for kids and communities at aft.org today's historic and arguably monumental consequential opening statements in donald trump's hush money trial is testing the entire

political and legal system from the rights of a former president to the constitution of the united states itself. and joining us now is someone who could put it all in context. michael beschloss, nbc news presidential historian, and mara, national political correspondent for national public radio. michael, first to you, did the framers ever envision a former president aspiring new presidential going on trial and what this means? >> they didn't. they thought that they had invented a great system to elect presidents so we would have people maybe not quite of the character of george washington but probably not someone who would be going on criminal trial. so sadly, today's opening of this trial is a suggestion of the founders' failed to prevent that with the way we choose presidents. you know, the other thing, andrea, is we should be celebrating today, and that's not a pro trump of an anti-trump

comment. we have one ruler in this country and our ruler is the rule of law. gerald ford pardoned nixon because he said americans could never stand the sight of an ex-president going on criminal trial. americans are seeing that today. do you see any tanks in the streets or uprisings? this shows that our system is working in that respect as well as the founders hoped it would in 1787. >> you know, mara, history will judge this in retrospect, i was looking at npr's coverage of what happened today, and one of the first lines from one of your colleagues was that the jury was 18 every day new yorkers, and you have to wonder how every day voters will view this, and not just view this but will they be paying close attention to it. i wonder in your reporting what the buzz is. >> those are two very different questions, and i think the vast

majority of every day voters are not paying attention, and of course because the news landscape and environment is so kind of atomized and fractured, if you're watching fox, you're not going to hear much about this. if you're watching msnbc, you're going to hear more. i don't think this is the kind of thing that's gripping the nation. but i do think it really matters. michael is right. donald trump has been a huge stress test on a lot of democratic institutions, and he's going to be a stress test on our judicial system. he's being judged by a jury of his peers. that's a powerful thing about democracy. ordinary people are going to decide his fate. and the stakes are really high. you heard that in the opening arguments today. his lawyers are arguing, nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. >> how important is it to have some kind of outcome, not a

mistrial, some decision in this case? >> i think it's absolutely essentially, and we may not get it. we've got to be grown-up americans and say our system works, and it's not always perfect and doesn't always give us a resolution that everyone agrees with. and the other thing, and this draws totally on what mara just said, a feature of 2024 and the time that we're living in, you know, there was a verdict, for instance, with richard nixon to use that example. he was driven out of office to avoid going to prison, and most americans, even republicans said, yes, i like certain things about nixon, but, you know, he had broken the law and would have gone possibly to jail had he been tried. we don't have that kind of consensus nowadays. so no matter what happens, there's going to be a considerable number of americans saying we think that there was something wrong with this process. that's why it's so important that this go as well as possible. >> you know, it brings it all home. these are jury of your peers. these are every day americans.

i wonder about the poor lady with the tooth ache. did she get to the dentist? was he or she able to fix it? will she be in the jury box tomorrow? >> that's such a great point. they are real people with real lives, setting them aside for they don't know how long, four weeks, six weeks, maybe longer. they saw the concerns that other jurors expressed, and they decided this is important to them and that this system is something that they want to be a part of. >> that says a lot about our system, michael. >> michael beschloss, i wish we had more time. we could talk forever. thank you so much for being with us on this very important day. >> and thanks to you. >> thank you. >> that does it for this hour, chris, and we continue now. you'll be back tomorrow at 1:00. >> we'll be back at our regular hours tomorrow. jose diaz-balart is in for katy tur right