information so that they can later argue to the jury this guy is a liar. i don't think that it gets to the elements of the offense and that's going to be ultimately the problem for them is that it is -- the fact he's a liar, everybody knows he's a liar and doing it five times or 20 times or 70 times, it is something they have to do because they're doing their job, they're laying down the foundation for their closing argument, that he lied on x number of occasions and they are going to once again run the jury through every single occasion in their closing arguments, you better believe it. the question is at the end of the trial, will the jury say we can't convict the former president of the united states based en what michael cohen is saying. >> if you're the prosecutor here, are you happy with how this cross examination is going or is there something that you're saying, okay, we got to clean this up on redirect? >> probably a little bit of both. first of all, as the prosecutor, you would have spent hours and hours and hours with mr. cohen doing mock cross examinations.

right? you would have a pretty good sense of what he was going to be asked and a pretty good sense of how he was going to answer it. none of this goes perfectly from a prosecutor's perspective. danny will tell you, none of this goes perfectly from the defense attorney's perspective. this is why you have redirect. this is why you have final arguments, this is why as danny said earlier, you keep a list of defenses and some fall out along the way and some get better. as much as you plan, you have to be flexible. is the prosecution happy with the cross? if i were the prosecutor here and they wanted to spent 3 1/2 days saying the same thing, my view would be let him have it. keep doing it. i think at some point, jose, you're losing your jury. i take ana's point, sometimes you lose your jury, but you never try to. my goal is to never lose my jury. and if you're saying the same thing over and over for days on end, i think you're losing your jury. >> there is an agony in a cross-examining of a witness like michael cohen, i've struggled -- for the defense,

i've struggled with this myself. sometimes you get a witness that has so much bad history, normally just criminal history, you don't have a cooperating witness with a podcast and two books, but it is kind of in the same basket, sometimes you have an embarrassment of riches in terms of cross examination material. one thing i struggle with is just organizing it. because when you organize a cross examination, especially in my early lawyer years, i think a lot of lawyers do this, you script out this rigid script of questions you're going to ask and you get about three questions in and everything goes kablooey. you can't have a rigid script. some guys, you know, some folks will get up there and they can wing a cross examination. those people are super humans, i don't know how they do it, but for the most part, you have an outline. you can't stick to the outline. things happen. and keep in mind that every question you craft, the guy on the other side of that question is going to look to zing you. he's not doing improv with you, not doing yes and, not trying to help you, he's trying to hurt you.

so, if you're too rigid in your script and have too many things to get into, it can be chaotic, it can be really, really daunting. a lot of folks have opined with michael cohen, there is so much material to go after him about. that's kind of the problem. i think we're seeing that over the last couple days, they just have so much material and the other thing that the defense attorneys fall victim to, i'm one of them, you get so into your case, you start thinking of every single time this witness has been inconsistent, you start hyperfocusing on it. that's how you get to points like in the stormy daniels cross examination, focusing on things like, you lied about whether you ate dinner, did you eat dinner, how was dinner you didn't have dinner, did you? you hyperfocus on that and you think it is an a-ha moment. but you're so in the case that maybe that point about dinner, which seems so important when you're in your law office at 3:00 in the morning writing it out maybe isn't that important to the jury. >> if i may, i think there is one tell from the prosecutor's side, i'm not seeing them

objecting. i'm not seeing them ask and answer. >> there have been a few. >> a few when the questions are improper, but basically you asked me earlier, ana, how would a prosecutor feel, you can sort of tell how they feel. they're kind of sitting back and letting the defense do their thing, they have nothing to hide, ask them anything you want, if they really thought this was killing them, they might be speaking up more often. >> there is testimony right now about, again, lies to congress or his testimony before congress, blanche asked, you repeatedly said to congressmen and senators you accepted responsibility for the crime? cohen, correct, and i was going to prison as a result. blanche, but do you agree with me that lying under oath is not accepting responsibility? cohen, can you clarify your question? blanche, do you agree with me that when you plead guilty of a crime, you were lying, that's not accepting responsibility, is it? cohen, i accepted responsibility and i am suffering the consequences as a result. blanche, under the guidelines you get time off for accepting

responsibility? cohen, you do. you get a reduction. yasmin, take it away. who else have we missed inside that courtroom? >> reporter: so, i want to talk quickly and bring folks up to date on what they're talking about to remind folks when it came to michael cohen's congressional testimony back in 2019. it was with regards to a new york ag lawsuit against then president trump, in which michael cohen did in fact lie under oath to congress, despite the fact that he had said that he was accepting responsibility, although they later realized he had lied. i actually found this letter that i wanted to read for folks quickly, a letter to ag merrick garland from james comer, referring michael cohen to the doj for lying to congress saying, as indicated in the 2019 letter, cohen, while testifying under oath before the house oversight committee, made willfully and intentionally false statements of material

fact that were contradicted by the record established by the justice department and cohen made statements to the oversight committee that were contradicted by witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the subject matter in particular cohen lied at least six times. so michael cohen lied to congress in his congressional testimony to the house oversight committee at least six times. this is what todd blanche is looking at and trying to get into, not only kind of lying under oath in a court of law, lying to congress as well. one other thing that they talked a lot about, guys, blame shifting. they're trying to kind of paint michael cohen as an individual who does not take responsibility for his own actions, right? you went after judge pauley publicly, you went after other individuals publicly, as well. you went after the fdny, you called them animals online, you do not take responsibility for your actions, instead you are shifting blame. that's what it seems the defense is trying to get at in this

cross examination. you lie and you do not take responsibility for your own actions, hence what you're doing here. that is what, of course, they're trying to get at with this cross examination. >> yasmin, blanche just asked, so you blame a lot of people over the years for the crime you were convicted of. cohen, yes. are correct. your accountant, the judge, you blamed the judge, you blamed president trump. cohen, yes, sir. does the outcome of this trial affect you personally? cohen, yes. joining us now is jeremy soland, former manhattan district attorney. thank you for being with us. this is an interesting line of questioning. is the outcome of this trial affecting you personally? yes. what is that intended to -- >> they're working with what they have. they only have so much. one big point is the credibility of michael cohen, the agenda

being i abhor this man, detest this man, i want to see the worst things happen to him, he made me go to jail, he made me be the fall guy, i can make money off this, which i have and i'm admitting to making money off this and i lied to my wife, i lied to congress, i lied to court under oath. so whatever they can, they got to keep going after him. if you diminish him and make him look like a bad guy, what does it do? it steals away that this is really a falsifying business records case and make it the michael cohen case. if you can't believe michael cohen, you can't believe this whole house of cards. >> it is what comes after that what seemed to be a moment in court with that question, does the outcome of this trial affect you personally, and cohen says, yes. and i'm still trying to figure out why blanche decides to just move on, right after that. this is where he goes, his very next question. do you or your lawyers say anything to judge pauley that you felt pressured by the government to make a guilty plea? cohen, did not. blanche, by the way, your wife had nothing to do with the leasing agreements?

cohen, some of the millions were solely in her name, some of the medallions, corporations were in her name. blanche, when you received monthly payments, the checks were made to you or your wife? cohen, the corporations, the names, 16. i'm wondering what the strategy is here, ana, he didn't let that moment sit with the jury, he moves on. >> well, part of this is balancing letting the moment sit with the moment happened. and he now gets to use that. and i think one thing that is really important for us to remember is the jurors are instructed on credibility and credibility does not just have to do with truthfulness. it doesn't have to do with whether someone lied or not, it is whether they're believable. he's getting into another area which is not just the lying, but the bias and motive. and so when they get that instruction, the jurors, they get that instruction, they're going to be told all about all the different things they can consider with respect to credibility and these are big areas. that bias, that motive, the reasons why he does things just

for himself, those are the things that the jurors are going to be looking at and considering when they consider the credibility, the believability of cohen. this is very smart by the defense. >> and this is one of the pillars you were talking about earlier, the different pillars that the defense has to erect. when they ask him does the outcome of this trial affect you personally and he said yes, and then they go into the medallion taxis, and the millions of dollars he lost as a consequence of being involved in this, that is a different pillar. >> it is a different pillar, but there may be a salutary reason for switching it. mr. blanche got the answer he wanted, it was a bad answer. a witness on the stand, under oath, admitted he had a personal interest in the outcome the case. the witness's interest in the case should be to tell the truth. and that justice be done. cohen said, no, i really care what happens here, i want this guy in jail, i want this guy

convicted, so, blanche took the answer as we were taught to do as prosecutors, put it in his pocket, and moved on. i'm not sure it is a terrible strategy, frankly. because, ana, if you want to dwell on the good answer that you just got, it could get worse, right? maybe cohen recognizes what he did and said and then tries to clean it up, if you ask him another question. you got answer you want, move on. >> on summation, that's a great point, on summation now, you can say, you know why he said that, here are the reasons why, it is not in evidence and you're allowed to tell your story on summation. why we got that answer is not in evidence and that's a great tool for the defense on summation to hit on and hit on and hit on, just like they're going to all these other things about the agenda and the money and as you said credibility in all its forms. >> is there a point in cross examination where the jury is going to feel like this has been tied up in a bow in terms of

what the defense is trying to accomplish in their cross examination? >> there is, no magic wand that i can say, oh, you got it, we're done, thank you very much. i wish it worked that way. so does the prosecution. it doesn't. you have to be able to gauge that. it is not always easy. as a defense attorney and prosecutor, but more so the defense attorney, sometimes you go and hit and you hit and you got to stop. it doesn't help and eventually there is diminishing returns and you got to walk it back. it is not so easy in the moment when you're taking that water fountain and it is turning into an open fire hydrant of information. it is not always easy. >> if i may, as a prosecutor, i felt there was no such thing as too much evidence. you don't know when you hit the point. you have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt to unanimous jury. how many more witnesses are going to do that? did i do it eight witnesses ago? i want to keep going as a prosecutor. mindful of what jeremy is saying, you may have already crossed that threshold. sometimes at least in federal court, where i practice, the judge would stop you.

but i wasn't going to stop me. >> speaking of which, when you talk about the arc of witnesses, michael cohen is supposed to be the prosecution's last witness. that's what they have told judge merchan. and so, ana, what do you make of that choice? >> i don't think it should come as a surprise to anyone that they're ending with him. when i heard they were thinking they may have one other witness after him, i was surprised. because you want to start strong, you want to end strong. and so in their mind, they're ending with their strong witness, they're ending with this witness that ties everything together. >> but a flawed witness as we have pointed out as the defense has pointed out. >> definitely a flawed witness. >> why? >> what they're going to do, which others have sort of said, is they're going to say to the jury he comes to you as a person, just like anyone else, and we, the prosecution, don't get to pick our witnesses. and i can tell you this both from experience of my own in practice and having watched tons of trials, juries convict all

the time based on the testimony of a witness who has multiple convictions, has lied, and has admitted i've lied. but please believe me, jury and the jurors say, okay, we will, and we'll convict. >> and interesting that now blanche is focusing in on cohen's relationship with his wife and all of these payments that came by and the bank accounts that were created. and blanche says, without taking and talking about communications with your wife, do you know if your wife found out about what you did with $130,000? an objection, objection was sustained. blanche, you said the funds were taken from the home equity to an llc? correct. blanche, you testified on monday, just a few minutes ago, that you decided to go this way because it was quick and because you wanted to conceal it from your wife? cohen, correct. you said she had no knowledge of the heloc in 2018? no, she didn't have knowledge of the heloc, she didn't have

knowledge of the transaction. did you have a practice of dealing and deleting communications generally around 2018 using encrypted signal et cetera? on signal it does so automatically. did you have a habit of asking your wife to delete your communications? on objection, that objection sustained. >> i just want to point out, i think it is rich that donald trump's defense is going after michael cohen for lying to his wife. because that in part is what this sort of all stems from. and, again, jurors should be only listening to what is in the four corners of the courtroom, but if you're in new york, you know donald trump, marla maples, his whole history, donald trump isn't testifying, you shouldn't believe donald trump. >> did the fact that trump opened -- his defense opened with a statement that he had not had the relationship with stormy

daniels, in this case, as an opening salvo, did that, do you think that was a mistake or was this something that could help in this part of it? >> i think that likely was in large part done at the behest of the client as opposed to the right strategy and that's when you as a defense attorney have to say to your client, i run the show, this is my house, this is my courtroom, i'm in the trenches, you want to do what you want to do outside of the courtroom, that's on you. in the courtroom, i'm the one who calls the shots. you open that door and that, in part, is why donald trump will not testify because it will open up so many doors if we don't even know exist because that's the man who he is. and he's going to say that and he's going to do it. >> let's go back to the courtroom right now, todd blanche asks michael cohen, you gave a statement under oath you never asked for a pardon from trump. and cohen says, i never asked for it. i spoke to my attorney about it because we had seen on television president trump potentially prepardoning everybody to bring an end to

this. i reached out to my attorney to ask him if this was legitimate. blanche, so you provided testimony, prepared remarks and under oath and said i never asked for nor would i accept a pardon from president trump. cohen, correct. is that -- did he get him in a contradiction there? >> maybe perhaps. it is a little bit unclear from the question, but harkening back, ana, bias, inconsistency and he's a convicted perjurer. if those are your themes for cross, and i think picking more than three themes is hazardous. if those are your themes for cross, this arguably fits into one of them. but the questioning is not all that crisp here and the answers are not all that crisp here. and so it is hard, you know, hearing it as you read it to know whether or not it is

resonating with the jury. >> and we're reading from the transcript, it is not the official transcript coming from the court reporters, which we'll get later. >> it seems to be an inconsistency. question would be, how many do you need? >> diminishing returns again. >> i want to bring in michael rothfeld. he's a co-author of "the fixers." you worked on a team that broke the story, which set the stage for the criminal trial. first ever facing a former president. is there information you're learning in this case or that has surprised you so far? >> it is largely when i was at the "wall street journal" and we reported this story, you know, this whole chain of events that we're seeing unfold right now is actually very similar to what we learned over the year and a half of reporting on this. there are some conversations, internal conversations that we did not know about.

we never heard publicly michael cohen describe, you know, to the extent the jury believes him, his personal discussions with trump about the reimbursement plan, you know. we heard about david pecker, the former "national enquirer" publisher talk about some of his personal conversations with trump. those are things that we knew of, but we never had heard them described publicly before. so, that was pretty interesting. and also a lot of sort of text messages, hope hicks, her internal text messages, trump's former press secretary asking jared kirschner to kill a story about karen mcdougal. we didn't know about that. it is pretty interesting. >> i'm wondering if there are key players jurors haven't heard from that you're aware of that you think would be beneficial to providing more clarity on this story. >> the biggest missing piece here is allen weisselberg who is in prison, trump's former cfo and he was -- is the architect

of this reimbursement plan that trump is charged with creating these phony records to hide the reimbursement to michael cohen for stormy daniels. so, you know, he has been loyal to trump and so, you know, he is not going to be testifying as we understand it. the other -- but he would be the only other firsthand person who could confirm michael cohen's story and dylan howard, the former editor of the "national enquirer" who was also deeply involved in both the stormy daniels and karen mcdougal hush money payments is also not testifying. >> jeremy, so, looking at this from the defense team, what are you seeing the rest of the defense team seeing when as you were just talking about diminishing returns, we're probably an hour and 20 minutes into this. >> the second day for cross examination. >> i think diminishing returns for the prosecution and for the defense.

but this is one of the reasons why i wouldn't want as a prosecution, i would not have thought they would have ended on michael cohen. i would want to book end him if i were the prosecution on someone less controversial, less subject to impeachment and somebody who even if it is mundane and boring, a credible, empathetic, likable person. none of us are in the courtroom, he's doing a good job in coming across as being forthright. he is the big show and there is so much that he's done. why not book end him. there is something we called as prosecutors more toward bail, a bail sandwich, strong point, put the fillings in there, end up with the same point. i just don't want to end on that risk with michael cohen. i think that's a potentially backfiring move. but that's still yet to be seen. bottom line, blanche should get him off the stand, relatively soon, and it is much easier to be a prosecutor, which blanche was for a long time, saying what happened next, what happened next, what happened next. it is much more difficult as a

defense attorney to really dig into it and twist it around and get it out the right way. >> vaughn hillyard, do we know how the jury is reacting at this point? >> reporter: yeah, our colleague laura jarrett is describing the jurors inside of that courtroom right now, saying they appear to be getting more distracted here as the hours wane on this morning through this line of questioning about his truthfulness. saying there are some that appear to have heavy heads, some that are looking out into the crowd, not paying attention directly to the expressions of todd blanche and michael cohen. this is a contrast to how the morning started and how tuesday went during the initial hours of cross examination. this is a contrast. this is where you start to get down into the nitty-gritty here of events of 2017, 2018, 2019, start introducing new lines of questioning about pardons and which is being disputed by michael cohen, he never personally sought a pardon, but he looked to see through his

attorneys that perhaps they would see an opening line of a pardon because it was dangled in front of them. this is where the -- todd blanche himself who apologized out loud to everybody in the room at one point for jumping around on the timeline, where he went from october of 2023 when michael cohen was testifying in the civil fraud trial to jumping back to 2018 when he was talking to congressional investigators, and, again, this is the complicating character that is michael cohen, he's testified a lot and he's spoken to a lot of investigators from federal investigators to state investigators and congressional investigators, fbi agents, and so, you know, for todd blanche here, there is a precision to this year, yet one where you continually hit at and question his lying over the years here, yet at the same time noting for inside of the courtroom that the jurors may not be wholly following where this is heading, as they wane into day three of this testimony for michael

cohen. >> and, just taking off what vaughn just said and jeremy's issue on -- so the jury has been listening to things today, this guy is a liar, that's pretty much two hours of that. they, at times, have been hearing about sim cards in mobile phones and how to switch them. so, you know, if you're looking for book ends, what is it that you think the defense is looking for here in this case, in this witness, to wrap it up? is there a moment that you look for? >> well, this sort of goes back to what we discussed before, you never know what the jury is thinking. we want to say to them, how am i doing? and we can't do that. and so, i think, you know, yes, they got to hammer home the line. they have not yet gone into the documents themselves. and they haven't gone into those conversations that allegedly

happened with trump present. so, they have got a long way to go. and one thing i think listening to your colleague who is down at the courthouse talking about some of the jurors seeming to zone out a little bit, which is always a fear of ours when we're trying a case, one thing that i think is important with respect to this case is that the jurors are allowed to take notes. and so in particular when there is this kind of cross examination, where you're getting into this minutia about a plea here and lie here and sim card here and your wife here, some of the jurors start to stop listing and some jurors are taking copious notes. i've never been a fan of notes. that means when they go back to deliberate, you got that juror who took notes of what they think the witnesses said, what they thinks what important, and when the one juror was, like, yeah was zoning out thinking what i was going to have for lunch, they turn to that juror and say what did you write down

about that? that's one of the reasons why i do not like having notes taken. >> or an incorrect note. >> which happens all the time. >> that's why you want the transcript. >> but they won't get the transcripts, do they, when they go into the jury deliberations. >> you can ask for read back. >> they may have access. >> they will have access. they'll ask the stenographer, the judge, and the stenographer will read it back. >> as you are watching this cross examination drag on, what are you looking for? >> well, i mean, importantly, whether cohen keeps his composure. we know -- we knew that the defense was going to try to portray him as a liar, which he has lied and the prosecution tried to soften that on the direct examination. so, you know, i think the jury heard this recording from cohen's podcast where he sounded a little bit, you know, unstable earlier and i think probably the

defense would love it if they could provoke him to get angry in court. that hasn't happened so far. so, you know, the fact that he's kept his composure, i think it is very important. you know, how much the jury places on his having lied many times in the past, you know, i think there is no way to tell at this point. >> can i just ask you, michael, the prosecution brought up your personal correspondence as a journalist with hope hicks, just days before the 2016 election. what was that like to hear your reporting, your correspondence talked about in the case, in this unprecedented historic case involving a former president? >> obviously that was pretty surreal. and, yeah, at the time, when i wrote the email that was put up in court and apparently mr. trump was reading it, you know,

we were reporting the story, but right before that email, right before the 2016 election, just days before, you know, and chasing a story. we had no idea that it would lead to this, eight years later, and to see that in court, with the first prosecution of a former president, it is nothing that i would have ever imagined. but, again, we were really just chasing a great story and it turned out to be a great story with a lot of impact. >> unprecedented times indeed. great impact it had. thank you so much. i want to say that right now the judge did call for 15 minute break, and, jeremy, just before this, we were talking about diminishing returns and you were kind of pointing out to a point, where blanche essentially kept asking one issue. >> yeah, there is a point here, blanche asked, when you wrote a statement that you would not accept the pardon, but ask your lawyer to pursue one, that's not true?

the response from cohen was i wanted this nightmare to end. i think anybody would want that nightmare to end. what are you getting at? instead of dehumanizing him, you make him more empathetic as a guy who is a regular guy, got caught up in this nonsense, does that make him a liar? diminishing returns, you got to stop and move on. >> they have yet to start on the issue of the documents. >> right. >> will they ever get to that issue? do they need to, do you think? >> the documents are the central part of the case. if you can't -- if the government can't prove that the documents were intentionally false, and intentionally false as you said earlier to conceal an election fraud type crime, then the government loses. i think the government did a

good job, by the way, of putting those documents in to a variety of people and cohen testified on direct earlier, seems like months ago, but earlier, that trump had ordered it done in this way. so, you know, either they take it on, or they decided they can't. i guess we'll find out and maybe the strategy here is not to take it on, but to just dirty up cohen so much on cross that you can argue to the jury later that the entire case hinges on him, because he's the one person who makes that connection and you can't trust him. but at some point, look, you got to stop the cross. 50 years ago, there was a famous trial attorney and he put out his ten commandments for cross examination. i generally subscribe to it. one point about cross was you pick three topics, and if you're really good, you pick two, ideally you have one. and you do it and you sit down,

and you stop. i think it is a bit of an overstatement. there is so much with mr. cohen that it might be a mistake for the defense attorneys to pick just one. i think it is bias and inconsistency and he's a convicted liar. but you can make that point more quickly. >> do they need to get to the heart of the case, the heart of the charges in this cross examination, jeremy? >> i think that's a fair assessment what you just made. two arguments you can go, one is, the more we make it about michael cohen, the less we need to make it about the falsifying business records. if you don't trust or like him, and the whole thing falls apart and let's make it about him. that's not a typical thing to do. i had a trial a few weeks back where there was dna on the trigger and on the grip, but these were cops who had a criminal conviction, that's a whole separate story and wasn't forth right and i made it about them and it was a clear as day case. the issue is, if you can make it about the bad actor, you can distract. that's what they're trying to

do. only so much you can do to poke holes in a document. there is a signature. only so much you can do. a retainer fee, only so much you can do. it is not so much the documents, even though they're central, it is the messenger, the vehicle, and that's michael cohen. >> many times you're trying to peel behind the epidermis of it and see what is underneath and motive, for example, i'm thinking, paraphrasing, winston churchill what was the key to a good speech, he said you tell people what you're going to say, you say it and then you tell people what you said. the question is, when you do that, how long does that process take and when does it become diminishing returns? >> as lawyers, and i will speak for all of us about i saying we like to talk. it is hard for us to decide when we should stop talking. in particular in front of a jury, it feels good, it's fun. when you think you're doing a good cross, you want to keep going because it really is fun. as much as it is serious and there is someone's liberty at

stake and this is one of the most important cases we have ever seen, this is also something we picked as a profession because we like it. that's one thing i'll say. the other thing we haven't talked about yet, i think it is important for us to hit on, is that the defense may be trying to pull this out a little bit, so that they get to go into a three-day weekend, where all the jury is going to think about is their cross. now, i know we're only at 11:30 in the morning, but if they're able to take this cross to the afternoon, that's a long time for those jurors to sit with, he's a liar, he's a liar, he's a liar. >> if they were able to really focus a point at the end of this cross examination -- >> also, i agree with you, it would give the government three days to prepare their redirect. and hit that hard. >> what do they need to redirect? to some extent -- he is who he is, right? >> not much. i think sometimes as lawyers we also overthink, you know, who we

call and what order do we call them and what the last question is and what we start the next day with. the jury in the end is going to look at this wholistically. i don't doubt that perhaps what the defense is trying to do is drag this out so that they have the last word. i'm just not sure it matters all that much in the end. >> as we approach the 34 minutes past the hour, we're going to take a short break and continue our conversation right after this short break. stay with us on msnbc coverage. stay with us on msnbc coverage you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring

if you think about it. [ doorbell rings ] you must be isaac. come on in. [ sighs ] here's my pride and joy. [ romantic music plays ] ♪♪ beautiful stair renovation, sir. and they're covered with your home and auto bundle with progressive, so you get round-the-clock protection. so, is gabby coming down? oh, she said she'll meet you at the prom. 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. my daughter and i finally had that conversation. oh, no, not about that. about what comes next in life. for her. i may not be in perfect health, but i want to stay in my home, where my family visits often and where my memories are. i can do it with help from a prep cook, wardrobe assistant and stylist, someone to help me live right at home. life's good. when you have a plan. ♪ ♪

(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. a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month.

plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today!

we have these images just moments ago, donald trump re-entering the courthouse, the courtroom area. clearly things are about to get under way as we get to about almost 39 minutes past the hour. >> about three or four minutes left in this break for the jurors and for the witness. michael cohen, who remains on the stand during cross examination and joining us now, who stepped out of the courthouse, is anna baur. you were inside the courthouse through this morning's testimony. you've been in the courtroom during some of the cross examination. what stands out to you most today? >> well, so coming in today, the big question was whether todd blanche would have a little bit

more efficient cross examination. when we left on tuesday, he had a kind of disjointed, disorganized cross examination and so the question was whether he would turn it around today. i don't think that he has managed to do that. we heard, again today, a continuation of many of the different chapters of this cross examination, the defense focused on on tuesday, that includes things like michael cohen's public statements about donald trump, statements in which he has expressed his desire for trump to go to jail and to be convicted. but a large part of this cross examination today focused on michael cohen's previous lies under oath. a big, you know, 30-minute extended segment of this cross examination focused particularly on michael cohen's 2018 guilty plea to various crimes, some of those crimes, michael cohen has said, are crimes that he does

not believe he should have been charged for. as a result, he has now said on the stand that he believes when he pleaded guilty to those crimes he was lying under oath, he did admit to that, so potentially there is a few points that the defense scored in that respect. but it took, you know, 40 minutes of going over this again and again and again and i think that it is the kind of thing that could have been done in five to ten minutes. there are other things that michael cohen has lied about under oath, he has pleaded guilty to some of those statements. but instead it was this guilty plea and whether or not he had accepted responsibility for that and the potential dishonesty about that, that blanche really focused in on, and, again, though, it was a cross examination that continues to be disjointed, continues to be a little bit disorganized and jumping around, it is quite hard

to follow, so i'm really not sure that the defense is succeeding and scoring too many points here today. >> and, ana, what about the number of objections that the prosecution carried out, many of them were sustained today, how was that vis-a-vis tuesday? >> yeah, so there were a number of objections that were sustained today. some of those are objections that we will learn more about through the transcripts when those are available later. many of them resulted in a side bar that was out of ear shot, so we don't know a whole lot about the conversations going on with the judge, but there were a number of objections, the defense tried to admit evidence into -- and publish it to the jury, the prosecution over and over again objected, some of those were overruled. but, overall, it really threw todd blanche's flow and rhythm

off. i think it was something that, again, just kind of really weakened the impact of his cross examination and we'll see, again, after this break, if maybe he can pick up the pace and keep it a little bit more efficient as he moves into some different areas of the cross examination. we still have yet to get to any of the cross examination that goes to the specific facts of this case that michael cohen has testified to. thus far, it has only been impeaching the credibility of michael cohen for previous lies, for his motivations, for his ability to recollect the facts of the case. we still have not yet gone into the actual facts that he testified to on direct examination. that may very well be something that the defense wants to stay away from and they really do just want to make this case all about michael cohen's credibility, but we will see what happens after the break. >> ana, thank you so much for stepping out and speaking with us to give us your insights from

the courthouse. joining us now is robert ray, former independent counsel during the whitewater investigation, a member of former president trump's legal team during his first impeachment trial. thanks so much for coming in, robert. as you observe this cross examination into day two, now into almost the second hour of today's specific testimony, do you see any missteps so far by trump's defense team? >> no, ladies and gentlemen, i think the commentary is missing the boat. this is not your usual cross examination with regard to the cooperating witness. you have a situation where todd blanche has gotten the witness to acknowledge voluntarily that he perjured himself during his plea allocution, that virtually never happens. and if it does happen, i was always thought as a prosecutor that essentially renders the witness' testimony valueless.

not only has he acknowledged he perjured himself during a plea allocation -- it is not a detour into his 2018 guilty plea before a federal judge. not only did he acknowledge that the plea was not voluntary, and he pleaded guilty, most importantly, to crimes that he did not -- he believes still he did not commit. one of which is suspiciously like -- or two are suspiciously like the charges that donald trump is charged with in this case and about which this witness is testifying. so i have to tell you, you know, you can try to characterize this testimony as just the usual defense lawyer cross examination with regard to bias and voracity, but this is -- i will say extraordinary. meaning i have done this for a very long time, it is very unusual to have a witness back up, back up on questions of, you know, you pleaded guilty and some question about voluntariness because the government was going to put the

hammer on me. in my experience, and i was a prosecutor for a long time, the only place you ever got close to the line is when you start to threaten family members because you always know that if you do that, and i will tell you that i did it, and in some cases i thought long and hard about it, and in retrospect i thought about it with some regret, the fear that if you apply that kind of pressure, you can get somebody to do the worst thing possible, which is to plead guilty to something they didn't do. >> i hear what you're saying, but let me just interject because -- >> that's a problem for a prosecution. >> but this isn't new. what you're describing, what he admitted to is something that is already been out there, that trump -- that cohen has lied under oath. and he's lied to a plea deal specifically. >> it is not just a lie under oath, which it is. it is also a lie to plead guilty to something he believes that he

didn't commit. and it is not going to be lost on the jury when they're asked to deliberate over essentially what are the same charges against the former president. so i have to tell you, that's a much more catastrophic thing that i think than you're letting on and it is going to be a major point of convention i think in summation. what is going on right now relates to this whole question of the pardon, which sounds like a bit of a side show, but, remember, what we're likely to see is that robert costello is going to take the stand in the defense's case and is -- >> is that what you've been told? that's not what our understanding is. >> i don't know, but it seems like the questions are set up to costello is going to come in and basically say everything he just heard that you heard during the testimony of michael cohen is false. >> so you -- what are you basing them -- what are you basing -- >> i'm basing it on the questions being asked. not on anything i know, on the questions that are being asked, it seems to me to be a setup to

what the defense's case is likely to be. i think there are going to be two areas that they'll focus on, one is expert testimony with regard to the federal election campaign act and what is and isn't a contribution and expenditure and it won't get into questions that are too close to the issue, but whether or not you can prosecute for that, but that won't matter, it will be about expert testimony about how you handle from a financial perspective those issues. i think the second thing is you're likely to hear accounting testimony with regard to how book entries are made in connection with corporate records and the third thing is costello is going to testify and impeach the testimony of michael cohen. that's what i think is going to happen. >> i think to your point, to what was lacking on the prosecution's case was that background in terms of the election law. and the financing. i think that is lacking. which would be a very solid place to move as a defense, but i think it is set up for summation. this is a valuable point. whether costello testifies, that's yet to be seen. i think maybe, maybe not. >> there may be ways to do that

without actually having him testify. i think -- i read the cross examination essentially as a preview of there is something more to come, they wouldn't be asking those questions unless he has evidence in the defense case to go along with it. >> i want to come back to what you said at the beginning, you felt there was a major moment that happened that perhaps we didn't catch because we don't know as much of the law as you do. but i'm wondering if the jurors would have caught that as well. did you see it the same way that robert saw it? >> no. i think it goes to the notion that this is a little bit more art than science. we may all have cross-examined michael cohen and may have all done it in a different way because we have a different goal at the end. i still cue to the notion he's more like most cooperating witnesses that i've seen. i've seen a lot as a prosecutor. and that they're going after a traditional bias, inconsistency,

convicted perjury, you know, sort of approach. maybe i'm wrong. i'm wrong all the time. >> if a prosecutor had their hooks into a witness, which they do because there is a sentence hanging over the witness and that's not the case here, he served his sentence, you know, they don't have that kind of leverage, if that person were a cooperating witness and that person testifies at a trial, that they pleaded guilty to a crime they didn't commit, that person would lose the benefit of their cooperation agreement because that would be perjury during a plea allocution, which is an automatic out for the prosecution to say you have violated the plea agreement. >> i don't disagree with that. >> that's very rare that that happens. >> that would be highly unusual. i think there is also a cognitive dissonance for also e -- mr. cohen pled guilty by answering certain questions at his plea hearing during the colloquy. that's the exchange between

judge and defendant. he had an attorney with him who would not have permitted his client to take a guilty plea unless the attorney also believed that the plea was knowing and intelligent and informed by the facts. after the fact mr. cohen thinks he was innocent or that he shouldn't have pled guilty or he was railroaded in some way, okay, good for him. but i think there's some cognitive dissonance. >> what is it that rarely happens? >> what rarely happens is a cooperating witness said they pleaded guilty to a crime they didn't commit. that's a terrible moment for a prosecutor. traditionally, that has been held to be, by the justice department and other prosecuting authorities, to render that

testimony -- >> would that be something the judge would do? >> no, no, no. this is what's argued in summation. you are right. the jury doesn't have to accept my view of this. i'm telling you based on experience what has happened. i can guarantee you todd blanche will provide context where it's valueless and should be disregarded. the jury is free to disregard his commentary because it's just argument. it's not evidence. i will say that i think that i would be surprised to see too much more cross-examination given what i think is likely to be the argument in summation about any documents. i think they're going to just settle on, this is our theory of the case. his testimony is valueless. you have to have his testimony to connect the dots to prove donald trump's intent. they didn't need go through documents because anything he has to say in which he is giving his testimony is not something you can believe.

from an admitted perjurer several times over who acknowledges he pleaded guilty to something he believes wasn't a crime. that's an earth-shattering approach. >> i want to get out to yasmin on what is happening now that the jury is back from break and the cross-examination continues. >> reporter: they are trying to talk about the cooperation agreement or lack thereof that cohen had. let me walk you through some of the exchanges. is it fair to say that one of the reasons you accepted responsibility and pled guilty in august and november was that you wanted to explore cooperation, correct? did you try to cooperate? did you meet with the special counsel in between the first meeting on august 7 and your sentencing? separate occasions cohen says.

mueller and sdny and manhattan and you were meeting with them and providing information? cohen says, correct. they are trying to drill down on cohen meeting separately not only with sdny along with the mueller probe as well with regards to striking some sort of cooperation agreement. they go on to talk also about how cohen met repeatedly, once he was in otisville, serving his sentence. walking through what he provided to manhattan along with the federal investigators action well. >> thanks. i want to bring in matthew dowd. how do you think this will play out today when what's going on inside the courtroom is, well, a

key point that has been repeated now for two hours -- coming up on two hours? >> don't believe a word cohen says. >> i think it's bizarre. bizarre in the sense, politically. i guess i understand psychologically why they're doing it. they're not doing it to affect voters. they're not doing it to affect the trial. they're doing it to give praise to their great leader so they can demonstrate they are loyal. i think it's weird politically. you normally don't tie yourself -- one, you don't tie yourself to a very unpopular person on the ballot when almost all these people have to run again and try to keep the house as the republicans do or capture the senate as they want to do. one, you don't normally tie yourself that directly to an unpopular person. two, you don't tie yourself to an unpopular person in the midst of a felony trial, which they

don't know the end result of. if you think about this, if he is convicted in the end of this, all of these people are going to have to answer for that as they go home and run and the republicans in congress as a whole will have to answer to that. i think it's bizarre politically. psychologically, i think it's another example of them trying to demonstrate to the great leader that they are part of his fan club. >> speaking of fan club, there are all kinds of trump allies in court today. we have seen more this week than we have seen in past weeks of the trial. right now, they are speaking outside of the courthouse. inside, we have seen everybody from matt gaetz to lauren boebert and andy biggs. standing back and standing by, mr. president. who is all this for? beyond doing this for the former president and trying to get in his good graces.

is it beyond that? is it to try to attract some kind of outside support for trump that's beyond his base? >> no. i think it's totally for donald trump and by extension is for the following of the republican base that he has, which is rather large, which is probably 70% or 80% of the republican party today, wants these people to stand by donald trump no matter how unpopular he is. it's first primarily for donald trump to show that they are going to be the -- the great leader has their support. i guess they understand their base wants them to do this. it's not going to swing a single voter that is independent or is trying to make a decision on whether or not they should vote for biden or trump or a democrat or republican for the senate or house. it won't swing a single one. matter of fact, depending on the result of this trial, it could -- all of this

demonstration of support for the great leader could really be a detriment in the fall. >> thank you so much for being with us. appreciate your perspective. i want to go back to the courtroom. blanche is focusing in on michael cohen believed and what he accepted and did not accept. one of those options, blanche tells cohen, you asked the judge to be released with your cooperation. you believed you were entitled to credits and the calculator was inaccurate and release you because of your cooperation for both of those reasons? yes. you were never offered a cooperation agreement? that's correct. your testimony and you were asked about your cooperation and whether you received a 5k1. yes, sir.

check, going back to the cooperation agreement and what he believed he needed to do. >> right. i think again, mr. blanche is trying to probe inconsistencies, whether or not it's working at this point, jose, i guess we will find out. so your viewers understand a 5k motion -- probably worth explaining. when a defendant cooperates with the government, he or she can get credit for that cooperation if they are truthful and complete and thorough and accurate and all those things. the government in its soul determination will determine, will decide that you deserve it. if you have earned that cooperation credit, then the government will go to the judge and ask her to permit, under section 5k of the sentencing

guidelines, a reduction in your sentence. it's a convoluted way of saying, you get credit for helping. >> thank you. >> is that important for this to come out during cross-examination? >> this goes toward the motive. why is he here? why is he saying what he is saying? i think what blanche is trying to get at is, you were hoping that you would get credit by saying the things you thought the government wanted to hear, that the prosecutors wanted to hear. the problem is that there is no cooperation agreement, which means he can only take the ball so far. >> thank you both so much for being with us the last couple of hours. appreciate you both. that's going to do it for us today. >> thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell and chris jansing pick up with our special trump trial coverage next. ♪♪