to pay him back for the things he was doing, if he hadn't agreed to them, that michael cohen wouldn't get paid back. we know that because he was making recordings to ensure that david pecker would be reimbursed. you go through all of this testimony. you get this picture of somebody who is super loyal to trump and handling business for him, telling him what business is being handled and doing it. >> we have less than 30 seconds. quickly, i have talked to a lot of lawyers who said they would love to cross-examine michael cohen. does he seem as easy as a target as people thought before this? >> direct examination is one thing. it's easier. cross-examination is where it really gets real. that's because what the lawyers are going to do, trump's lawyers, they're going to pinpoint everything that came out in cohen's testimony.

they will have the credibility issues, but they are going line by line and attack whatever they have with the particular facts. >> cross-examination could start today. >> any moment. thank you all for being with us here in the studio. thank you at home for joining us the last couple of hours. that's our turn to turn it around to our colleagues. >> thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell, chris jansing and katy tur pick up special coverage next. ♪♪ he approved it. that's the potentially damning testimony of donald trump's former fixer, michael cohen. good day. i'm andrea mitchell reporting from washington. i'm joined by my colleagues katy tur and chris jansing in new york. >> right now, michael cohen is stitching together the details which back up the state's felony

charges that trump falsified business records to cover up the 2016 hush money scheme, or at least that's what prosecutors hope. cohen testified that retainer invoices were faked and legally should have been called reimbursements. cohen also testified that the description on the checks signed by then president trump were also a lie. >> as early as this afternoon, cohen will face intense cross-examination as the defense looks to paint the prosecution's star witness as a liar. here with us in new york, former brooklyn prosecutor charles coleman and criminal defense attorney danny cevalos. >> here with me is paul butler, a markus childress. markus, let me ask you first, how important is this testimony

as they are closing it out? how damaging is some of the admissions that michael cohen is making today? >> i think it's been impressive to see the prosecution draw the sting of what we know will come on cross examination. that's something you are trying to do so that when the defense does the hard cross, it's not the first time the jury is hearing it. it's going deeper during the cross-examination. i'm curious to see how michael cohen responds to more probing questions. but the government was able to draw the issues out in the first instance. it's not like they were trying to hide the ball when the defense asks michael cohen similar instances. >> there was talk they should keep the direct as short as possible, not to open up too many avenues for cross-examination. this is pretty extensive. he was on for more than four hours yesterday and again all morning. >> he is the star witness. before he testified, the prosecution had done a good job of connecting the hush money

agreement to the false business records and the false business records to donald trump's campaign. that's the election interference part. what they hadn't done a great job at is connecting donald trump to the false business records. now we have from michael cohen's own mouth that donald trump directed the payments, that he was intimately involved. there's always been the warring points of donald trump's personality. he likes to keep his hands clean, like the mafia don is what the prosecutes -- >> no emails and texts. >> but he is hands on when it comes to his money. michael cohen has the goods on that. >> the key question is, have they filled the gaps? have the holes in this case by the prosecution been filled? cohen did not say that trump personally falsified the records or even that he explicitly

instructed someone to falsify those records. he did testify that the records, he said, would be used to disguise what was reimbursement for the hush money payments, not as they pretended for services rendered, to which he said they were minimal. without that connection, do they have it? >> chris, we have been talking about this since yesterday when michael cohen took the stand. they have gotten close, but they are not there yet. i think there has to be more testimony elicited from michael cohen to say clearly, he instructed me to do this. i think some of the testimony that we have been hearing about this morning where it says he approved this, that demonstrates the level of knowledge necessary to get them closer to a conviction. as of right now, however, they are not there yet. we to have more testimony that scarily puts donald trump as the person who is giving the instruction and making the approval. we are getting there today. i think the prosecution still has a little more to do. >> let's go back to yasmin.

bring us inside the courtroom. talk to us about the exchange michael cohen is having regarding one of donald trump's other attorneys, robert costello. >> reporter: it's really interesting, because robert costello is a good friend of giuliani. there was back and forth as to retaining costello. michael cohen had not made the decision to retain robert costello but was interviewing him, talking to him about the situation. was asked if they told the truth about stormy daniels to robert costello as he was interviewing as to whether to retain him and he said, no. he said he did not trust him. let me read for you an exchange that robert costello had with michael cohen in an email. change. it seems clear to me that you are under the impression that trump and giuliani are trying to discredit you and throw you under the bus to use your phrase. i think you are wrong because you are believing the narrative promoted by the left wing media. they want you to believe what

they are writing. many of them are already writing that you are cooperating. this strategy has been consistent from the start. this is someone who michael cohen testified he did not trust. one of the reasons why, did you at the end of the day retain robert costello as your attorney, he said, no, one more thing to note here, the defense wanted robert costello to testify during grand jury proceedings to prove trump was not involved in falsifying business records. that never happened. we are hearing cohen's version that costello was not only never his lawyer but he never trusted him. never told him the truth about what actually took place when it came to the payoff and the subsequent, as michael cohen put it, reimbursement of cohen after that $130,000 payoff to stormy daniels. >> explain about costello. did michael cohen believe he was acting as a conduit to donald

trump? was michael cohen at this point in contact with donald trump anymore? >> reporter: no. let's take a step back. the last conversation that donald trump and michael cohen had was in april after his apartment was raided. there was a phone call made by donald trump to michael cohen saying, i'm paraphrasing, i support you, i'm behind you, we remain loyal to you. we have got this. i'm the president of the united states. i will make it all right. that was in april of 2018, the last conversation that donald trump and michael cohen had. the last conversation. robert costello was then recommended to michael cohen to retain him as his attorney when they launched the investigation into michael cohen. robert costello is a good friend of giuliani. giuliani was acting as an attorney for donald trump at the time. hence why there were conversations from robert

costello to michael cohen saying, for instance, i am having a meeting, a conversation -- i'm paraphrasing here -- with my friend. is there anything you would like me to communicate to his client? michael cohen testified to the fact that "my friend" was giuliani. his client was donald trump. he did not trust robert costello as a person and he didn't trust whatever he told him if he were to retain him as his attorney he would not communicate to giuliani who would tell donald trump. >> let me go back into the document. costello was a defense witness during the grand jury proceedings. trump trotted costello out to prove that if he never told costello that trump was involved in the falsification of records, then it never happened. cohen's version, however, is that costello was not only never his lawyer, but that he never trusted him. here is a key thing to remember

as we are looking at today. one thing that sticks out is how desperately michael cohen wanted to be loved by donald trump. as a result of that, how faithful he was to him. when did it change? in the months after the raids in your home, office, hotel, did you have conversations with your family about the matter? yes. tell the jury about those conversations. cohen says, at the time, we didn't know what the southern district was looking at. quote, the conversations with my family was, what to do. we're in this unique situation. never experienced. my family, my wife, my daughter, my son said to me, why are you holding on to this loyalty? what are you doing? we're supposed to be your first loyalty. what decision did you make? that it was about time to listen to them. did you plead guilty in the southern district to a number of federal crimes? i did. i made a decision based on conversations with my family i would not lie for trump any

longer. it continues on. what did that charge relate to? stormy daniels, the $130,000. did you admit you paid the money to influence trump's electoral prospects? there was an objection. it was sustained. why did you pay that money to stormy daniels? cohen, to ensure that the story would not come out, would not affect mr. trump's chances of becoming president of the united states. if not for the election, would you have paid that money to stormy daniels? no. at whose direction did you pay the money? cohen, trump's. >> you could look at this as a possible smoking gun. on the other hand, is -- the jury instructions don't require the defendant came in with a pen and falsified business records.

the language is, make or cause someone to make a false entry. has the prosecution gone nine yards out of ten? it looks like it with testimony like this. build on what charles said earlier, you never know. a juror might seize on the fact, if there's no evidence donald trump actually was involved in the bookkeeping part of it, the falsification, they might seize on that. i'm not saying the prosecution hasn't gone a long way to prove it and that this -- this moment may be one of those moments during a trial that it is all leading up to. this is probably suggesting that michael cohen is close to being off the stand. this is sort of the crescendo. they have gotten from cohen, trump told me to do this. that's what they need. that may be all they will get from cohen. now they are following the script they have been following so far, the prosecution will get him off as soon as they can and as soon as they believe they have all the evidence they need from cohen. it's been their strategy so far. be efficient.

get a witness on, get the witness off. >> if this is it, if this is all michael cohen brings to the table, do they have it? what's the likelihood they have it in the minds of the jury? then, of course, the question we all have, there's one more witness. >> i don't know who the other witness could be. i think this is probably as close as they are going to get in terms of proving their case and establishing the case that need to in order to secure conviction. at least using michael cohen as a witness. the one concern i would have if i was the prosecution, if you take him off the stand now and you don't spend a little time addressing some of the out-of-court statements, then you leave it wide open on cross-examination. he is a sitting duck on that stand. we know he will be extensively grilled about all of the interviews he has done, books he has written, podcasts and everything else, the merchandise. if i'm the prosecutor, i have to weave in some of that. there's a beautiful story that's been told. my family.

it humanized his shift in his attitude toward trump. that was smart to do. you have to follow that up with something that explains the statements and this extreme vitriol. if you don't, on cross-examination, he will get torn apart. >> have they gone far enough to prove not just these documents were falsified, which they have a bunch of evidence on, but then it's a federal election violation, that it violates the fec? what is the evidence they violated the fec? >> i think the testimony that michael cohen is giving now, when he says, would you have paid it before the election? all of those things are critically important. i think they need to do more to that point. especially with michael cohen. we have heard it from other witnesses. there are other witnesses who have testified about the impact of the "access hollywood" tape and you take that testimony and you blend it with the time line so that you understand what motivated the decision. michael cohen is incredibly important to establishing this.

he was the closest one to donald trump and really is the one who would have the insight as to how much this actually concerns him, such that the timing of it was directly connected to influencing the election. they have to get that out from michael cohen more in my opinion. >> merchan instructed, a plea, meaning michael cohen's plea, is not evidence of the defendant's guilty. you may not use it to determine if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charged crimes. >> standard instruction. that's the instruction that justice merchan was going to give. timing is up to him. you need to give that instruction, because you don't want the mere fact that one person pleaded guilty to be considered as evidence that everybody else who is being charged with the crime is actually guilty. building on what charles said, as we approach the end of the prosecution's case, they have to think about the elements. the elements are in the jury instructions. the challenge -- think of this as two prongs.

was there a false entry in business records? there are clearly records that have been introduced that were not for the purpose that they appeared to be intended. michael cohen testified to that. so have other witnesses who are more believable than michael cohen. it's the second prong that we are still in a bit of gray area about what even the theory is to aggravate this to a felony. i think that's going to be a challenge for the prosecution. is it a federal election law crime? is it a new york tax crime? it could be any of those. the prosecution really hasn't articulated with clarity what they're going to use. if they can sell the jury on, is the mere fact that this was done to help the campaign, is that -- does that fit the definition of the crime? then they have a good chance of getting a conviction. because this is a novel legal theory, there are going to be a lot of appealable issues. it's easier to get a conviction, it might be harder to keep it on appeal. >> andrea? >> let's bring in ari melbur.

cohen said, that related to my participation with ami in the karen mcdougal matter. what was your purpose of your working with ami? to pay off karen mcdougal. cohen says, to ensure mr. trump is protect and the story would never be released. for the purpose of ensuring it didn't affect the presidential campaign. did you work with ami to do that in order to influence the 2016 campaign? sustained. why did you work with ami to pay off karen mcdougal? it was a leading question. cohen said, to ensure the possibility of mr. trump succeeding in the election, this would not be a hindrance. at whose behalf did you work with ami to do that? with dylan howard, pecker.

at the direction of donald j. trump. to whose benefit? the benefit of donald j. trump. that's when the jury instruction comes. that's trying to tie together that even though cohen didn't pay the money for ami, that that didn't come from him, that that was all as was what obviously happened with stormy daniels, that was for the benefit of donald trump. have they made that case? do you think they made it strongly enough to overwhelm whatever is going to happen in cross? they get the chance for redirect, as you as a lawyer know. >> yeah. as you have been discussing and it's behind us and we have reporters inside and a bunch of us out here and you giving viewers what we are learning paragraph by paragraph. it's fascinating. what we see today, this is another tough day for the defendant. as you just described in that questioning, what they're doing is laying out a lane.

michael cohen has been down the highway into prison. that's not in doubt. they are trying to lay down this other road next to it and say, all these things connect. these are the same things. the instruction is in fairness to the defendant, this is a new trial. you can't just incorporate the other crime automatically. the judge is instructing the jury, listen to everything and decide that. that second lane, as i'm talking about it is, is them trying to keep it simple. everybody michael cohen did was at the direction and for the benefit of this defendant. he knew it. allegedly, according to this testimony. thus, you can go down that road and find the same thing, a guilty verdict. that's what we are hearing. as you remind us, we will have to cover the cross as closely to see whether doubt is added to this testimony. i would say yesterday and today were two of the worst days for donald trump, both because of the overwhelming corroborated

evidence that michael cohen is sharing, much of what he is saying is in the receipts. then second, they are giving, i think, a reasonable -- i'm not going to say bulletproof, but a reasonable story. then over a course of very stressful events, including what cohen perceived as the disloyalty and disrespect and mistreatment by boss, he then had a falling out. that's a story people can follow. i don't think this is the first time the jurors are hearing about the situations personal or professional, employer or otherwise where something that started one way sours. they have given a clear explanation. on cross, we will see a lot of attacks on that. >> one thing that they might pick up on and how might the jury react to is, one of the things he testified to was he made a misleading -- he claimed it was a misleading to the fec that the trump organization was not party to the deal, didn't

pay the hush money. he said it wasn't a lie. it was misleading. is that the kind of cute sort of fixer language that would not sit well with the jury? >> i don't think it was the best moment. i think it was their way of trying to explain how they got that statement. again, it goes to the narrative of explaining, well, was he in loyal mode or had they had the falling out? they are charting that. i didn't think it was a giant problem. they are trying to show over time how michael cohen's stories did change. that statement was fundmentally fundmentallymisleading. we have checks there was trump money. you raise a good point. for many jurors, they don't want to hear how something was technically accurate but

actually misleading. again, i think what's more important or how i interpreted what the d.a. is doing is they are asking questions to give an explanation to michael cohen's evolution and the key thing is not to say he was always truthful. he wasn't. to try to show the jury, he has landed in a truthful place. under oath, he is telling the truth. >> so one of the things that's happening in the courtroom right now -- chris left off with him saying that he was no longer going to lie for donald trump. that he was going to take the advice of his family. she's now is asking about what happened after he stopped lying for donald trump. this is when he lied in front of congress about the trump tower meeting. she said, you pled guilty on august 21st. cohen says, yes. president trump tweeted on august 22nd, cohen says, yes. that tweet is if anyone is

looking for a good lawyer, i would suggest you don't retain michael cohen. he says, i feel badly for paul manafort and his wonderful family. justice took a 12-year-old tax indicate among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and unlike michael cohen, he refused to break, make up stories to get a deal. such respect for a brave man. who did you understand these tweets were addressed to? cohen said, to me. displeasure that i'm no longer important to the fold. what did you mean regarding your cooperation? did not cooperate. it caused angst and anxiety. what was it like having the president tweet this day, the day after you pled guilty? it caused a lot of angst and anxiety. despite the tweets, did you plead guilty to making false statements to congress related to the russia probe? yes. i stated and submitted as part of the record that i had spoke

to president trump about trump tower moscow. this is -- the color we are seeing in the courtroom, all the questions, according to lisa, this is all the d.a. trying to get out in front of michael cohen's lies, understanding that blanche will say he is a crooked guy. she says, you pled guilty in august and november of 2018. cohen says, i was. i was sentenced to 36 months incarceration followed by 36 months of supervised release. when did you surrender to prison? cohen says, may 6, 2019. three months before that did you testify publically before congress? i did. how did that come about? cohen says, cummings, chair of the oversight committee, reaching out to davis, assisting me in legal strategy, they asked for me to appear.

did you provide information to house and senate intelligence and oversight committees? yes. was your testimony televised? one was, says cohen. widely reported in the news? yes, it was. did you testify about a number of matters related to president trump? cohen says, i did, including about trump having directed me to pay off daniels prior to the election. that's key. that mr. trump directed you to pay off stormy daniels? cohen says, i did. that mr. trump directed me and it was for his benefit. there's an objection. what else, if anything, did you testify about? cohen says, reimbursements. did you apologize? i apologized to congress. i apologized to the country. i apologized to my family. why did you apologize to the american public? for lying to them and suppressing information. the citizenry had a right to

know about the individual seeking the highest office in the land. this is all michael cohen, correct me if i'm wrong, trying to say, what i just asked a moment ago, that this wasn't just a falsifying of documents, it wasn't just a hush money payment to make melania feel better. this was because the election was coming and he did it for donald trump at his request to help him in 2016. >> it is. i think that it's moving in the right direction. i don't necessarily love the apologized to the american public. >> i'm glad you said that. >> especially coming from michael cohen. if you are even vaguely familiar -- >> does it feel false? >> it feels contrived. >> he did this for truth, justice and the american way? he did it for himself, like all cooperating witnesses do. >> don't make yourself captain america. stick to the fact that, i was in bed with a guy who wanted to win the election badly. the better route is to lean into

the notion of donald trump's desperation and obsession with winning the white house and being willing and wanting to do anything necessary, even if it meant paying what he had to pay to cover this up in order to secure his spot at 1600 pennsylvania. that to me is a much more believable route than this sort of noble, almost pious epiphany he has. >> do you think the prosecution coached him on not sounding like this? is it just in cohen's blood? >> cohen wanting to look like a hero. the prosecution, i believe, has adopted a theme of, it's okay if cohen is blundering. it's okay if he is gullible and naive. they are painting almost more of a tragic figure, someone who pledged his undying loyalty to someone and was eventually betrayed. who among us doesn't know a character like that? if i knew more about literature, i could make a reference to greek mythology or shakespeare.

but i don't. i'm sure there's a character that did something similar, that was loyal, maybe unwisely loyal to someone they should have known better, and they got burned. that's what the prosecution is painting michael cohen as. not as a hero who came out for american people. they don't need him to be that. they would rather he have flaws. in closing, they will argue, of course he has flaws. he is someone who did business with trump. trump chose people like cohen to do his bidding. >> ari, there's within the period of half an hour that the jury gets to see and hear about donald trump, about the defendant. as katy read, once michael cohen turned, he was saying bad things about michael cohen. he is tweeting bad things about michael cohen. half an hour ago when he was trying to keep him in the fold, what they heard was trump's tweets saying, they are going out of their way to try to destroy michael cohen and his relationship with me in the hope he will flip.

they said it's a drugged up loser who hates michael, a fine person with a wonderful family. those are the two sides of donald trump that they got to hear in his own words in just the period of literally minutes. >> absolutely. we are at this fascinating point where even though this is still the prosecution's witness, which means they are asking the questions to draw out what they think is the worst about this defendant, donald trump, as our panelists referenced, it's true they are trying to preview some of the other issues, get ahead of them. people understand that dynamic. if you have seen any episode of "law & order." we are starting to bleed into the mixed portrait of both of the men and their strained relationship. that's going to play out today and tomorrow. it's fascinating for people outside the courtroom watching

the ending of the relationship. inside the courtroom, it's whether the jury things that they can take michael cohen's word along with the receipts or whether they have the reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt and that key witness. i don't think that reasonable doubt will come from whether the receipts were a conspiracy theory, whether the checks don't exist, the kind of things that you might throw out there on the internet but don't work in court. it might be reasonable doubt as to whether michael cohen's telling the truth on the key time line issues. i think that's why we are starting to see here before the prosecution is done with him, raising the contrasts and bringing into evidence or reminding people that if you are saying there are lies around here, it's the defendant who is on trial for lies, not michael cohen. it's the defendant who has had multiple people say he lied. it's the defendant who has a

bunch of papers that show that allegedly his company lied in a matter that results in business fraud. that's not very in doubt. the question is whether he had the intent to be involved with it. >> ari, thank you so much. for more on all of ari's observations, tune in to "the beat" tonight at 6:00 eastern on msnbc. here in d.c., i've been talking to paul butler and markus childress. markus, let's talk about what happened to michael cohen. michael cohen is testifying that he was then sent to prison after going through the guilty plea and the testimony to congress. you worked for the january 6th committee. i wanted to ask you about that. he comes back on furlough.

then he thinks he is getting an ankle bracelet for home release. he is told to come downtown. he discovers he is sent back to prison because he refused to sign a document that he wouldn't write a tell all book. this is sort of the two sides of michael cohen's personality. what was going on there? >> i think we are starting to see as ari and others pointed out the complicated nature of co-conspirators. in every conspiracy case i have tried, the main witness that's going to be the last nail in the coffin for the defendant typically has a lot of bad facts. you have to lean on your closing arguments of, use your common sense and ways of the world. this was a criminal co-conspirator. this isn't a perfect human being, like the defendant is not a perfect human being. to your congressional point, what we are seeing with michael cohen highlights the importance of the separation of powers in

our institutions, having a check and engaging in investigations and separate but parallel ways. but for congress stepping in and eliciting that testimony from michael cohen, where would we be in terms of some type of evidence from the past? i think that's something that donald trump has consistently been trying to tear down during his time in power, co-equal checks on his power. we see it playing out in the courtroom today of michael cohen's 2019 testimony. >> you worked for the january 6. you saw that vividly there. arguably, doj didn't get into what became the jack smith investigation, still hasn't come to try. we're waiting for the supreme court on immunity. they really let the january 6th committee let the american people know what was going on and all of that evidence that was developed before they some would say too late. andrew weissmann has been saying that. paul, pick up what markus was saying. earlier in this whole testimony

we saw the michael cohen who was admitting to all of these character flaws. now is reformed. or supposedly. that's what the jury has to decide. now we will approach the cross-examination. so many things that are going to be brought out and focused on with a completely different gloss, understandably coming from the defense. >> absolutely. first of all, the defense will try to get michael cohen riled up. we have seen a cool, calm, collected michael cohen in the news and other events. we have seen him more hyped. that's the picture of michael cohen the defense would like. their theory -- one theory is that michael cohen was a lone wolf. he went off on his own and came up with this -- these false business records to get himself paid. they want to prepare the jury, the prosecution wants to prepare the jury for those attacks, also

attacks on his credibility. not only that michael cohen pled guilty to lying, later a judge found that in the hearing where he pled guilty to lying, he lied again. the other thing, finally, is the motive. we have heard from a bunch of witnesses, some of whom have bag baggage. stormy testified she would rather go to jail than pay him a dime. when they realized what they had done had helped trump win the election, they were like, oh, my god. michael cohen, his motive, he has a book titled "revenge." in closing, the defense will say, we have all these prosecution witnesses, they are all trump haters. ladies and gentlemen, don't believe a word they say. >> let me quickly add one thing with markus. you talked about separation of powers. i was talking about doj. it was really striking today that earlier we heard testimony from michael cohen that donald

trump, he says, testified that jeff sessions, the attorney general of the united states, was someone he could take care of, was in the bag. this is from -- you are talking about a trial where every day we hear from the defense, from the defendant that this is ordered by this attorney general and this president of the united states, this is all trumped up by the d.a., even though it's not a federal case. to hear that about jeff sessions, according to the testimony, coming from the mouth of the defendant, that the attorney general, who he later turned against, of course, donald trump did, was in the bag, basically. >> i think the way that testimony is playing out here with us today is probably different than how it's playing out for the jury. for the jury, i think the way i would argue is just, it shows how donald trump is in control and his fingers and hands are motivating everyone involved, whether the doj, his outside fixer, his communications director. everyone is under donald trump's control. i do think this is one of the

moments where the power or even how surprised we can be at this table is probably different than how the jury is reviewing that evidence in the courtroom. >> it turned out not to be true. session recused himself, which is what brought rosenstein to be in charge of the investigation and ultimately rosenstein appointed mueller. >> that brings you to katy tur and andrew weissmann. >> i was going to say. since we are talking about special counsel mueller, let's bring in andrew weissmann. former fbi general counsel and former senior member of the mueller investigation. cohen is testifies about having interactions with the mueller team. i assume this is because the d.a. is trying to say, you weren't just peddling stuff to try to reduce your sentence. the defense will come after him and try to say, you are peddling

lies to make yourself look better. or to lessen the time you were spending behind bars. >> also what she's trying to do is explain how he ended up here and sort of the way in which he was pleading to something related to the special counsel mueller investigation, how the southern district got involved, and he pled there. to give a history so the jury understands how it happened, how you got caught and how the case was built and how the state got involved. i was in court and i was one -- one reaction i had was, i recount this in a book i wrote, which is, this case, this stormy daniels case, came up because we were investigating russia interference. we came upon this michael cohen account for sort of other reasons. at the bottom of this document -- >> resolution incorporated?

>> consulting. it started as resolution -- you have version 1.0 before it was 2.0, which was an interesting explanation how that happened. at the bottom of this document, unrelated to what we were looking at, was this $130,000 payment. i remember i was there with one of my colleagues. we were like, what is this? we looked it up and did digging. we were like, what's a stormy daniels? i'm happy to say, nothing i knew beforehand. i'm a nerd and a prude. i still remember we went into robert mueller and said, we have a blue dress problem. referring to the bill clinton, monica lewinsky scandal. that's where we separated the michael cohen case. there was a piece which he pled guilty to related to his lying

in front of congress related to the moscow project that donald trump was involved in. but we didn't want anything to do with what this salacious piece was. >> that's interesting. when the investigation was launched, it was about bad dealings from clinton, then veered into the blue dress issue. that ended up backfiring spectacularly on republicans. bill clinton was re-elected. republicans, i believe at the time, lost control of the house. do you look at this case now -- i know we're talking about legal stuff. look at it from a political lens. do you see this because it's about a porn star and a hush money payment, it's so long ago at this point, michael cohen is kind of a mushy character, to put it nicely. is this potentially going to backfire on not saying democrats brought this, but is it going to backfire on the democrats in this election? >> i'm not a political analyst.

i really don't know the answer to that. if i were looking at this within my legal lens, the reason we separated it is, one, we understood we had a specific -- we were not a normal prosecutor who could keep pursuing things. we didn't want to be like ken starr and have this morph into anything not related to what we started with. this was an unrelated piece. we thought it was worthy of looking into. that's why we separated it out. i have to say, one of the things i was struck by in thinking about this case just before michael cohen took the stand was how strong the case is and how much it should really matter, even if you put the criminal part aside. what david pecker testified to about a media organization, even if you consider it a down-market

media organization, aligning itself with a political candidate secretly to do two things. not just catch and kill. that's bad enough. but also as michael cohen testified to and david pecker, that they also promulgated fake stories intentionally about their adversaries of donald trump. you talked about ted cruz, marco rubio, hillary clinton. even if you take the criminal lens aside -- i'm in a political realm or citizen realm. isn't that something we should care about? it seems like a page ripped from autocracy. >> i was thinking about who donald trump was paying attention to when he was elected. he is worrying about allegedly these payments to a porn star. he is writing checks for his business, madeleine westerhout is having conversations with the trump organization people.

he was supposed to have divested -- but given the control of the organization to his sons. he was supposed to be focused on the office of the presidency. here at the least we have testimony showing that he wasn't entirely just focussed on the office of the presidency. i wonder if anyone is paying close attention, did they say, do i want a president who is thinking about the trump organization and himself and his business or do i want a president that's steeped in national security and the economy and the problems of the day? >> whatever happens, will it still matter six months from now? we know how quickly the winds of what captures people's imagination change, except for what you just mentioned, the economy. year after year, election after election, it's often for many people about the economy. >> correct. i think that in terms of the political calculus that a lot of the electorate is experiencing right now, those issues don't matter. they haven't mattered.

for people who are walking in to the ballot box and choosing donald trump, those are not the issues upon which they are basing their decision making. we know that because there are studies time and time again -- "the new york times" along with the sienna came out with a poll that talked about the issues most memorable from donald trump's time in office. covid ranked very low. january 6 was very low. at the top of the list was his behavior. that doesn't necessarily translate. >> it was talking about how voters want change. they want somebody to shake things up. all elections are about change to some degree and how much you want it. when you ask voters, who will be a change maker? a lot are saying donald trump. that's why he is ahead in five out of six swing states. why he is polling better than joe biden, because the voters asked told them they don't think

joe biden is effective. they don't think he is a change maker. they don't see things changing. look at the hard numbers of the economy and how this country is doing. it's doing well. that's not, for some reason or not, resonating with voters. >> it's a combination of donald trump's relentless pushing of a particular narrative that isn't based in fact. we continue to see it. he is showing up to court with a posse of gop hopefuls who are playing the vp sweepstakes trying to get the second spot. also, trying to show allegiance to him as the king maker who is not a king maker, saying things he can't because of the gag order inside court and outside of court. it's a narrative that he will continue to push and parrot until people buy it. they continue to buy it. >> let's just say again, if he believes -- he often does believe that he can convince people of things no matter what,

he has an opportunity to try to do that. the gag order does not prevent him from taking the stand. we are still in the testimony right now of michael cohen. andrea, back to you. >> yeah. joining us now to listen to this as well is michael cohen's former attorney. let me read to you what's going on. now they are talking about the civil case in california. a civil case involving, stormy daniels. mr. cohen, you were cross-examined about statements about it being unfair to be prosecuted for tax evasion. did mr. trump's lawyers ask you that as a result of the public statements you lied in 2018 to the judge? yes. you told the judge in the civil case that was a lie and you agreed to plead guilty. yes. can you explain very briefly what you mean when you said you lied to the judge? cohen said, i was going to take responsibility because the

underlying fact i never disputed, but i was given 48 hours to accept a plea offer, before they would file an 80-page indictment and include my wife. you never said you lied to the judge about the two campaign finance violations. that's correct. did you ever lie in connection with your guilty plea? no, ma'am. are you still a practicing attorney? no, ma'am, i lost my law license as a result of this. how many years did you practice? 30. this gets on into his other businesses. he was trying to walk back the guilty plea saying that he thought it was unfair that he was given so little time to plead guilty to tax evasion when he had a home equity loan, money, and that they were trying to prosecute his wife. that's why he pleaded guilty. is he still trying to walk back that guilty plea? >> he is saying the truth.

i don't know how to say it any more clearly. on a friday night for the first time, he was told, you are going to be indicted on monday. he didn't have a chance to tell his side of the story. then he was told, there's an 80-page indictment we are going to release monday morning, including your wife. he had to make a decision the next morning in his lawyer's order, would he plead guilty? once he made that decision, he was facing a judge who was insisting that he repeat what he had told the prosecutors, that he was guilty of these crimes, including the tax charges. his lawyer, a very experienced prosecutor, used the expression coerced. that's what happened friday to monday. that's what he -- >> he is saying that -- he is trying to say it was unfair to be charged with tax evasion also? he is not trying to walk -- this is potentially a damaging

admission on cross-examination to come. >> it's a damaging admission on cross-examination if michael cohen were on trial for lying to a judge during -- >> isn't he on trial? it's his credibility against donald trump's and against -- >> i respectfully suggest the man who said he would testify, donald trump -- not one of the commentators i have heard has reminded everyone that he said publically, i would testify. >> we have been reporting that. we have been saying it. >> i would like it more. do you still intend to testify, mr. trump? he is outside speaking every day. not one time. the man that is indicted for these crimes, with a lot of evidence from some of his loyalists, is donald trump. the credibility of michael cohen is relevant. that's why these questions are being asked. but he is corroborated in many ways by some trump loyalists.

that's what it is about is attacking michael cohen. to change the subject that it's donald trump who has been indicted and donald trump who is on trial. >> we have seen a very different michael cohen on direct testimony. this is humble. it's yes, ma'am, no, ma'am. short answers. he is not the fierce -- obviously not the fierce loyalist to donald trump because that relationship is long gone. he was an attack dog for donald trump. he was yelling and screaming at reporters all the time during campaign on behalf of donald trump. >> until the end of june 2018, after his family and he made the decision no more. decision, no more. and he came to me. and from that moment on, on november -- excuse me, october 27th, 2019, he was the michael cohen you see today in the courtroom, in front of republicans who had a sign

behind them in the house oversight committee public hearings, under oath, on television, "liar, liar pants on fire." i was sitting behind him the whole time, andrea. he kept his voice down. when jim jordan was shouting at him, he said, mr. jordan, i know what you're doing. i did the same thing for donald trump. apologizing and lying for donald trump. we saw him back then lower tone, in the courtroom, when he was brually cross-examined in the attorney general's trial. he was more belligerent. >> you think he can keep his cool today? >> i'm confident, he will be under vicious attack. he was under vicious attack in the new york a.g.'s trial. he was under vicious attack before the house oversight committee. and i believe, he will disappoint the trump supporters when he gets cross-examined here and he will take the questions.

>> it's good to talk to you, lenny. there's people that are skeptical about the michael cohen we're seeing on the stand right now. this is not the michael cohen that most of the previous witnesses who know him testified about. this is someone, by his own testimony, he says he attacked or threatened as many as 500 people on behalf of donald trump. just went through a long litany today, in all the ways he lied. he was the earlier and most unflagging supporters for donald trump for president. and then, we noted this a little earlier, that when he was asked what he apologizes to the american public for, for lying to them and suppressing info and the citizens had a right to know about the individual seeking the highest office in the land. people can hear that and they think this is not a guy that's doing it for those reasons. this is a guy that wants public

redemption and wants personal revenge against a man who put him into prison, whose relationship put him into prison, he thinks, for 13 months. who do you say to those people? >> well, first of all, this is the third time this question is being asked. and for the third time, he will surprise all of the critics. before elijah cummings on national television, with the sign "liar, liar pants on fire," with jim jordan and everybody else attacking him. he kept his calm and he told the truth. in front of a new york state judge in a financial fraud case, with vicious cross-examination, the judge, in writing found michael cohen credible. we'll have to see tomorrow. the most important message is, the pre-michael cohen before he came to me, it wasn't because of me, it was because of his family he decided, when elijah cummings, the chairman -- the late chairman of the house

oversight committee said to me, i believe this man because i preached in black churches. and in all things we believe in, forgive the sinner and redemption is always to be welcomed. i think the american people and this jury will recognize that michael cohen is not the same michael cohen when i also shared the perception of him as a shouting bully on behalf of -- and liar on behalf of donald trump. he's a different man today in my experience with him. >> let me update everybody. they have finished with michael cohen. going on a lunch break. i'll read to you what they ended with. what the direct ended with. do you regret doing things for donald trump? >> i do. i did things i should not have

done. bullying and lying. i don't regret working for the trump organization. i expressed before, interesting, great times. but to keep the loyalty and to do things that he asked me to do, i violated my moral compass and i suffered the penalty. that's where they left it. >> it was july 2018, when he went public. his family. i was there and saw the pain he could see on his face when his family said to him, enough, dad. enough, michael. you've done this for donald trump. i'm so tired. and the family influence here is probably more important than any that led to his decision, that he needed to do this, as he said, on july 2nd, in the first

press release. i'm doing this for my family and for my country. and it's been all-pain ever since. and he went to prison and suffered and took his punishment. now, he is owning everything that he did. >> lanny, did you talk to him last night? >> i did. >> how did that go? >> last night -- excuse me. i talked to him mother's day night and not last night. i gave him the night off. on mother's day, sunday night, we talked. he sounded calm. i reminded him of my method sitting behind him in the hearings. you may have seen me sitting back then. when i saw him going up in tone, i would touch his back to remind him, keep your voice down and tell the truth. >> as we mentioned, no one touching his back today. let's see if he feels the ghost hand of you, lanny davis, when he gets cross-examined.

todd lanch is going to cross-examine him. we want to squeeze in a quick break. i want to ask our team here what they expect the defense team to start with, when they cross-examine michael cohen. that's going to happen in a few minutes. don't go anywhere. nywhere. (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. (vo) sail through the heart of historic cities and unforgettable scenery with viking.

unpack once and get closer to iconic landmarks, local life and cultural treasures. because when you experience europe on a viking longship, you'll spend less time getting there and more time being there. viking. exploring the world in comfort. my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. this is terry's look of total relaxation. and this is his john deere x350 lawn tractor.

it cuts millions of blades of grass. ♪♪ transports anything that's in-season. ♪♪ and takes care of whatever fall may bring. [whoosh sound] the x350 lawn tractor is built to give you peace of mind all year round. you just have to get in the seat. learn more at johndeere.com/getintheseat