softening of support and black leaders are waiting for them to take this on. >> jonathan lemire, what are you watching for today? >> how the city of new york is coping with the new york knicks falling yesterday in heartbreaking fashion. a team that's going to be thought of very fondly for a long time by the people here. the championship drought does continue. wait until next year new york knicks. >> all eyes are on the courthouse in lower manhattan. donald trump's criminal hush money trial is under way with michael cohen on the stand now. stay tuned to msnbc all day for that. that does it for us this morning. we'll see you next. ana cabrera and jose diaz-balart pick up the coverage right now. good morning. it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera alongside my colleague jose diaz-balart with

special coverage of donald trump's criminal hush money trial. the cross-examination of michael cohen already back under way this morning with the defense expected to wrap by mid morning followed by a likely redirect from the prosecution. >> after that we expect the defense to get its turn. it's still unclear at this point how extensive the defense's case will be, or will it be a defense at all? >> joining us to discuss all that, msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos, a criminal defense attorney and kristin gibb bin fed din, along with former prosecute bernard villalona. we'll head out to the courthouse in just a moment as we establish our contact with yasmin vossoughian on scene. we can take our viewers inside a little bit to what's happening with this cross-examination, a lot of discussion about what cohen was dealing with in his own business dealings during the time of the 2016 election, from his taxi medallion business down

to then dealing with david pecker. >> they're also talking about what was he doing specific days and weeks. blanche right now asking cohen about what was happening the week of october 24th, the 25th, the 26th. and blanche asking him about trump's daughter on october 25th.her, communicating with her, that someone was trying to blackmail her. yes, says cohen. it's once again this pattern of establishing a timeline, a day, a week of cohen's life. i presume it's going to go into details of possible contradictions there. >> there was one other major development this morning so far. even before the jury came in to hear this testimony, this cross-examination. let's go to yasmin vossoughian to give us more information on the timeline of this trial.

yasmin. >> reporter: good morning, guys. good to talk to you this morning. we were expecting close arguments to begin tomorrow as merchan had said on thursday as we went into recess to prepare closing testimony on tuesday. although that is now being shifted to next monday. so preparing for -- actually i would say next tuesday after memorial day weekend. so preparing closing arguments to begin next tuesday after the memorial day weekend. essentially merchan didn't want that much distance between closing arguments and deliberations. if they had begun on tuesday or thursday, we would have gone into deliberations over memorial day weekend. he didn't want that distance. instead, closing arguments beginning on tuesday after memorial day weekend. let's talk about the defense, who they play to bring to the witness stand. there is still this back and forth, as we mentioned early this morning, court beginning at 8:45 this morning, the former

commissioner taking the stand. there was back and forth as to what he could feasibly offer that would not coincide with jury instructions from the judge himself. it seems as if now they've settled on instructions from both the defense and the prosecution to kind of settle in the middle on what it is the judge will offer up when it comes to jury instructions. when it comes to election law, that is what their witness will potentially be testifying on, election law. if they can settle on that, it seems as if their witness would not then subsequently testify. whether or not the former president takes the stand, that's still very much in question as well. quickly what's happening right now inside the courtroom, it's cross-examination still, michael cohen on the stand being cross-examined by todd blanche. it seems as if what todd blanche is trying to do is paint a picture of michael cohen who was overwhelmed by what was going on between his taxi medallion

business, things he was handling with regard to tiffany trump as well and his own personal finances that he could very well have been mixed up when it came to the phone calls and the conversations he was pointing to in his direct examination that he revealed on the stand with testimony when the prosecution was questioning him. especially those phone calls, by the way, which i'm sure will come up on redirect. october 24th, the phone call in which cohen twoent blanche said, are you sure is this is the phone call, go ahead and pay stormy daniels when you were texting keith shuler. michael cohen has testified saying those are the phone calls that the money was, in fact transferred and whether trump said pay stormy daniels, pay keith davidson. those phone calls likely to come up, guys.

>> indeed. that is one of the focuses of the back and forth between blanche and cohen. to add on to that conversation, blanche says let me show you these documents, two phone calls, 8:26 call, three minutes, a second one later. and then he says you said you wanted to make sure president trump approved of what you were doing. you were about to go across the street and do it and want his blessing. that is correct. that's still my testimony. do you remember what was happening in the campaign when president trump was doing on the 26th of october. do you have recollection of what the president was doing, rallies and interviews? he was doing rallies basically every day. then this. do you have a specific recollection of that day? no, sir. >> danny, this is now day three of cross-examination of cohen. you're hearing their line of questioning. if you're the defense, what do you need to do with cohen? >> i see where they're going.

they want to show, hey, you were too busy, so it's not likely you would remember this accurately. i sympathize with what the defense is doing. when you have a witness like michael cohen, a cooperating type witness with a ton of credibility issues, there's a tremendous pull to expose every inconsistency this moderna has ever uttered. in the back of your mind you're thinking you never know what the member of the jury will seize on. on the other hand, you have to balance that against boring the jury, beating the horse to death. not going to start mixing my metaphors, but going too far and making this drag on longer than it needs to. you want to be surgical, but you want to expose everything this person has done. if you're the defense now, you've been living in these facts now for over a year. you know them cold. it breaks your heart to leave anything on the table. that's what we're seeing happening in realtime. they are not going to leave any

fact they they know about michael cohen off the table. they're going to hit him with absolutely everything. they're making a bet that the jury is not yet bored, that they're listening, and this cumulative effect of all the different reasons that michael cohen may not be credible will ultimately lead to a conclusion, not only to disregard the phone call in october that they talked about on friday, but everything. that's one of the instructions they'll get. if you find him to be false in one aspect of his testimony, you can disregard all of it. you better believe we'll hear that in closing arguments. >> laura jarrett has said the jury is looking around add the audience, watching the door to the courtroom as people cycle in and out. they don't seem engaged in this line of testimony. >> i was in the courtroom last monday, tuesday and thursday. in terms of the cross-examination, i felt like the defense took the long way

home. they would hit on some points and jump around and go to a completely different venue. it was hard for anyone to follow. imagine us attorneys it's hard to follow. even though they're trying to take notes. remember judge merchan gave them the opportunity to take notes in this trial. for them it's like they don't know what are the strong points or the weak points. that's why the closing arguments are going to be so imperative in this trial. i think that's what it's going to come down to. >> kristen, how much is too much for a jury member listening into this? if you have a lot of inconsistencies as a defense lawyer, you want to point out each and every one. how long is too long, how many are too many? >> as danny pointed out, right now we're seeing it in realtime. it's way too long. at this point we're on three days. i think the jury really wants to get the case and get it going. they've heard michael cohen. i think one of the things that's

going to be crucial and pivotal in this is the redirect. if i'm the prosecutor on the redirect, i'm only going to focus on the substantial parts, going to only focus on that meeting. yes, the cross has shown there's inability to remember certain things, doesn't recall certain meetings. what does he recall? he recalls the direct testimony where he informed donald trump about the story, the catch and kill. and the prosecution is going to want to highlight all of that, because that's really all they need. >> let's look at what's happening right now in this testimony. they're talking about october 26th and some kind of issue dealing with tiffany trump's situation. blanche asking, was fixing tiffany trump's situation important to you. cohen, it was important i take care of it but not personally important to me. blanche, that was something you spoke to president trump the next morning about. cohen, no, sir. blanche, there was still fallout from the ak sed hollywood tape, you just thought it was about

stormy daniels. my recollection is i was speaking to him about stormy daniels because that is what he tasked me with taking care of. that's what i had been working on. blanche, do you recall speaking with president trump about opening a hotel in d.c. cohen, we had conversations about that. blanche, you just discussed the daniels situation. as i recall, yes. the retainer agreement with mr. weisselberg and you brought the statement from you and a.w.? cohen, yes, sir. so that is, it appears, now the heart of the case. they're finally getting to that point. it does still feel to me reading it, which, again, it's not complete. this transcript is rough notes coming from our reporters. at the same time it's a little like, okay, where is he going with this. >> danny, back to you, thinking about the issue you brought up a second ago, but now talking about folks' inability to recall. how do you, as a defense

attorney, differentiate between someone's inability to recall and someone who may be lying? >> because, simply stating i don't recall, that can be proven at least -- if not false, it can be proven unlikely. a lot of folks think i can come to court and say i don't remember and then i'm off the hook. all good. not always. sometimes through circumstantial evidence you can show that someone's memory loss is just not credible. so to some degree that's happening with cohen. notice on direct, total recall to all the questions the prosecutors asked. i do this with transcripts. i do a search for "i don't know" to see how many times someone says that. i would curious to see how much he said that with regard to the prosecutors. and then, that sounds about right, maybe i did that. juries see on direct someone is perfectly aligned with the

prosecutor. then on cross-examination, they start waffling a little bit. be warned. if you're going to testify and you think claiming amnesia is going to get you off the hook, documents, emails, text messages can show it isn't that likely that you don't remember. like, do you remember using the stapler on wednesday morning? no, it's insignificant. do you remember this hush money payoff, the details of that? do you remember the 14-year-old who was phony phone calling me to me was one of the most remarkable moments, the idea that michael cohen was calling a presidential candidate because he needed help dealing with a phony phone caller which the rest of america ignores the phony phone call. whatever the case may be, michael cohen is someone whose memory is getting spotty, conveniently spotty. when that happens, there are ways to confront a witness like that. you can get yourself into more trouble by claiming memory loss. i guarantee -- kristen knows

this. all lawyers know claiming memory loss is a risky thing to do if you're a sglns right now cohen appears guarded, almost a little fearful. but maintaining his composure according to to lisa rubin. i keep thinking when we talk about how disjointed this cross-examination is, there have always been days in between the cross-examination, started tuesday, wednesday was off, they continued thursday. the jury had a three-day weekend. then we learned this morning that the closing arguments aren't going to happen until next week. what do you make of it? >> it's going to be the benefit of the prosecution and the defense that closing arguments aren't until next week. they'll conclude with testimony today or tomorrow at the latest. that means both sides will have

the opportunity to review the transcript and the detail and pluck out the lines they want to pluck out. let's be clear. as a prosecutor when you're doing a trial, your closing argument, probably 60% of it is done before you start your trial. that's how you parse out which witnesses are you going to call, in what order you're going to call them, what questions are you going to ask, what exhibits are you going to show and what arguments are you going to make. for example, a lot of those quotes from the book of donald trump, those several books, you're going to hear them in closing arguments. while they didn't make sense during direct examination, you'll hear all of that during closing arguments, and it's going to be tied together. i think the reason judge merchan made closing arguments be next week is because he wants control of the jury. meaning, if the jury would be deliberating either thursday or friday and have a break friday, saturday, sunday, monday. if for some reason one of those 12 jurors are not longer able to

serve on tuesday, then that causes the ability of a mistrial unless donald trump in writing agrees to substitute one of those jurors, and then the jury deliberations can continue. so either in writing he agrees to substituting one juror or going through a jury of 11 as opposed to 12. with judge merchan say he'll put it over to next week, something happens over the weekend, judge merchan can replace one of the 1 with an alternate. it's all about control and saving this jury. >> in this world of unusual trial, unusual defendants, unusual prosecution witnesses it's probably going to be one of the few where the defense person has a book written and at least two of the prosecution witnesses have books that they've written. yasmin vossoughian, now we're talking about blanche going into michael cohen's use of brown paper bags with $20,000 being

taken to red finch? >> yes, let's do some math on live television. it's taking a risk. let's do some math. we'll take a step back, go back to that document submitted into evidence, number 35, it was first republic bank document that weisselberg scribbled on. a pretty damning document by the defense. grossing up that $420, $130 for keith davidson, aka stormy daniels because he was her representative, $50,000 to red finch, an internet firm essentially, and then $60,000 in bonuses to michael cohen which he contends, by the way, i'm sure what he was supposed to be bonused. normally bonused about $150,000. the rest would be grossing up for taxes. they're talking specifically

here the pay out to red finch. let me read the exchange. you only gave him $20,000 and you took $30,000. blanche, you stole from the trump organization, right? cohen says yes, sir. blanche goes on later on, you did steal from the trump organization based on the expected reimbursement, correct? and he says yes, sir. that is breaking it out. essentially they walked through what it is that michael cohen actually paid red finches. that goes back to what jose was talking about, the brown paper bag, all cash. the representative from red finch collected the payment, $20,000 which michael cohen paid to the individual. the rest he kept for himself. todd blanche is saying you stole from the trump organization, correct? michael cohen says, yes, correct. i believe what they're trying to get at, even during this time in which michael cohen contends he

was very loyal to the trump organization, protecting the former president, protecting his boss at the time, a man he has worked with for so long, right, since 2007, who was seen more of a father figure, that he would subsequently steal from him because he felt he wasn't getting the appropriate bonus that he was due, that he was expecting. certainly a big exchange there, momentous exchange between michael cohen and todd blanche where michael cohen says i, in fact, stole from the trump organization. >> yasmin, liam read even more. now they're talking about specifically reimbursements. you did steal from the trump organization based on the expected reimbursement. yes, sir. blanche, you're told by allen weisselberg to sernd an invoice and we'll get you paid. cohen, that's correct, yes, sir. you never had a retainer agreement, would not have one going forward.

cohen, correct. you supposedly go talk to trump. did you have other conversations with weisselberg about trump. the conversations were about the retainer agreement and the fact that there would not be one. cohen, yes, sir. if you had a retainer agreement, it would be between you and your client. cohen, correct, it would have been with the trump. weisselberg, his sons, cohen, correct. your private relationship with the trust was going to be with you and president trump. cohen, yes. but the trust controlled his cash flow. i would suspect somewhere down the line maybe that's where it would come from. blanche says, your retainer agreement would have been between you and president trump. correct. >> how effective is this to go into michael cohen's motives and motivations? >> that's important. while michael cohen wants to say he's the key witness, the crucial witness. the prosecution is trying to say

he's not the key witness. regardless, the defense needs to go at his credibility. remember, michael cohen is the only one who provides the direct link of donald trump, because remember, allen weisselberg is the bogeyman that's not in the room. he's the only one that provides the link of how the payments were made, because of the meeting in january of 2017 and february of 2017 inside of the oval office. so going at his credibility is important because, if the jury finds that he lied about a material fact -- and this is in the jury instruction that the jury is going to hear and have to abide by -- they can disregard his entire testimony. if they disregard his entire testimony, you miss that link. >> but they can't throw out the documents, right? they still have all the other corroborating evidence, the other witnesses who have testified. michael cohen is number 20 for the prosecution.

real fast, if you will, kristen, your thoughts about this line of questioning, getting cohen to admit he stole from the trump organization and connecting that to reimbursements and how cohen was typically paid and the conversations he would typically have over his own payments? >> i think it's pretty effective. i think this is the line of questioning that really diminishes that direct link which the prosecution needs to get out of michael cohen which is that trump knew and was completely aware of all of this. so what i think this line of questioning really does, it minimizes that so they can go into their closing argument and say, you know what, cohen didn't really establish what the prosecution claims he was going to establish. i think that's going to be really important. i also think this is an effective way if they're going to end mid morning, to end the testimony with cohen. this is what the jury is going

to take away, all these inconsistencies and how incredible and not clear, as danny was pointing out earlier, michael cohen is as a witness for the prosecution. >> i want to bring in jury consultant alan turk jeimer. it's great to have you. when you listen to what the jury has been listening to this morning, how do you see -- ana was mentioning a little while ago. it seems at moments today the jury was kind of looking away from cohen and actually looking around seeing who was coming in. does that tell you anything? >> i think even before that, he's been on the stand for a long time. i think jurors have already made up their mind, already assessed his credibility. they didn't come away thinking he's the most credible witness. they understand he's been less than truthful, to put it nicely, on many occasions. at this point it's getting where jurors might think his testimony is going to be redundant or

maybe overkill. they've made up their minds. of course, they're keeping an open mind and there's going to be maybe a few more witnesses and more questions with michael cohen. i think most of them have a firm idea of what he's all about and how he connects the former president to the payments and the records, his involvement in that. also, there's some jurors who are doubting his credibility and how he maybe takes things into his own hands. it's very interesting where they stand. wherever they stand, i think they're pretty firmly committed to their assessment of michael cohen at this point. >> if they've made an assessment of michael cohen and he's expected to be the prosecution's final witness, he would move into the next stage of this trial which would be the defense eastern to put on a case. still unclear if they will call any witnesses. does it help or hurt defense typically to not call any witnesses? >> i think it's good to call witnesses. of course, you can make the

argument that the prosecution didn't carry their burden so they don't need to do anything. they don't need to do anything. that can be persuasive. i think it's good. jurors expect into given the rules of litigation and criminal matters. i think jurors usually expect that the defense will at least put somebody on. of course, the defense can argue all they needed to do was cross-examine the witnesses. but jurors do expect defendants to come in there and present some witnesses on their behalf. >> it's interesting, you were talking about the importance of specific key facts and if the jury determines that this witness lied on these key facts. is there a difference in that, you know, the witness can say, look, i lied in the past, but i'm not lying now. how do you determine that? >> that's why i say it's all going to come down to closing arguments because the prosecution is going to have to emphasize how to evaluate

michael cohen and how to evaluate credibility. the jury instruction itself says, if you lied about a material fact, you know, not about what time of day it was, what time the call was, but something material, like when he met with donald trump, when did they devise this plan with weisselberg on how to break down these payments and what the purpose of that payment was for. so in terms of michael cohen's credibility, yes, he's been someone -- he's been convicted of a crime. yes, he was in jail for a year. yes, he wants to go after donald trump. you heard his podcast interview where for the first time the jury got to hear michael cohen. he's not a likable guy. i have had to put people who have robbed people, shot people, stabbed people. what i used to argue is when you cast a play in hell, there are no angels to play the part. you are not going to find a perfect witness. everyone has their flaws.

let's look at the person and when they testified specifically as to the crucial facts, how is it corroborated and how did he come off on the stand. michael cohen from me being in the courtroom, he came off credible, he came off believable. he came off human. does he have a vendetta against donald trump? absolutely. he spent 13 months in jail thinking about each and every day why am i here? for trying to help out donald trump. that's why i'm here. i expect him to be mad. that's why the prosecution needs to embrace that obsession, embrace that anger and sell it to the jury because i think as human beings we can see that and accept that. of course he's going to be mad and wants to go after him. is he lying about how he got there. >> can closing arguments, alan, make a big difference when it comes to jurors, sending them into deliberations? >> absolutely. there's plenty of uncertainty. the one thing we know is jurors

won't be talking about michael cohen as an angel. closings are crucial. as i mentioned earlier, jurors have made up their minds for the most part. closings are not really for persuasion, more to empower the individual members on the jury to take the arguments and use them in deliberations to persuade others. that's going to be really important, to tie everything together, to chrissize the evidence, characterize the testimony and continue on with the story. that's what jurors need, that's what they've been getting. now everything has to be tied together. the law has to be incorporated. so closing arguments are going to be made and they're going to target the leaders -- who they think will be the leaders in the deliberation. you might hear some arguments tailored to certain individual jurors. no matter what happens, closings will be really important to set the stage for the deliberation process. >> can i say something? there may have been a real moment here just in the last few minutes in that michael cohen

was caught cross-examination. they asked him about a transaction with another company where he admitted to stealing cash from the trump organization. throughout the trial the prosecution painted michael cohen as a bumbling, pathetic character whose only misgivings was his undying loyalty to donald trump. did you lie to congress? yes, i did because i was in the sway of the sven galley hold of donald trump. now you see something different. now there's an argument to be made that actually you're just an opportunistic thief, you pocketed money from your employer. as an attorney, the idea of paying in bags of cash -- look, defense attorneys, i do not like to accept cash. frankly, i refuse to accept cash. it's only asking for trouble. dealing in these sandwich bags of cash, brown paper bags of cash to pay people is already problematic. but the idea that he would grab

a wad of cash and stick it in his pocket, i think has moved michael cohen from this figure where he's part tom hagan from the godfather but more like fredo corleone to a guy that is just a thief. i bet that comes up in closing a lot, the fact that he admitted he would willingly steal from his own client. >> i'm asking you, and maybe what i'm saying is this is a cast play in hell. this is not the prosecution's choice on who to utilize. it's who was there and who did or didn't do it. but does that line of questioning that danny was just talking about, necessarily transfer over to this guy who has lied during this trial? you can be a thief, you can be -- talking about some of the people that you deal with, they're not exactly mother teresa all the time. yet, that's who you deal with.

you get what you get and you don't complain. but is this transferring over of someone who steals $10,000 from a paper bag into lying in this case? >> absolutely. this is what i think is an effective line of questioning. i'm hoping the defense, if they want to end strong is going to end after this line of questioning. why do i think that? well, as danny kind of pointed out, it really undercuts the prosecution's narrative that michael cohen was someone who was just doing things because he really just wanted to be loyal, he wanted to be part of trump, he wanted to personally satisfy trump. then you have, okay, well, that's not really consistent with with stealing $30,000 from a transaction where red finch should have gotten $50,000. i think one of the things that's important here is no, it's not necessarily a lie about a

material fact. so it doesn't necessarily undercut all of his testimony, but certainly it undercuts the prosecution's painting of what michael cohen is. no, he's not an angel, but he is a loyal minion of donald trump. this undercuts that narrative tremendously. >> i want to thank alan turk jeimer for joining us this morning. thank you. right now as we're looking at this current document, they're getting into trump's and cohen's relationship after donald trump became president of the united states. blanche asks, what i mean your job changed, didn't it. he said correct. in 2017 you told everybody that was happening. cohen, not everybody, but i certainly was proud of the role and i announced it. you told tmz, blanche says, "the new york times." cohen, yes, sir. you said you were going to remain as a similar role as personal attorney to president trump. cohen, yes, sir. they put forth an exhibit and this is accepted into evidence.

let's go to vaughn hillyard for more on all of this. vaughn, tell us more about this line of questioning, cohen's role when trump became president. >> reporter: the defense is getting at the heart of michael cohen's role really didn't change from the time donald trump took office from the time before, when he was working technically for the trump organization. michael cohen never really had a retainer agreement at all while working in that capacity and he was openly touting, as you noted, on sean hannity having other publications posted, that he was all but continuing on in his role in that personal attorney capacity for donald trump. while his role changed to become president, michael cohen's did not. this is hitting at the heart of the idea that it was not unusual for him to not have a retainer agreement. of course, when they were looking at the reimbursement, there is also a note there with

weisselberg in which the defense team is able to lay down a foundation here that michael cohen was effectively understanding that he did not need a retainer agreement and that this was not out of the ordinary or a direct move to try to avoid the system or the system being found. so this is sort of, you know, for the defense here, they're trying to make the case that michael cohen himself before he flipped on donald trump was well aware that his role was effectively not changing and this sort of a setup was not done for the purpose of concealing and defrauding anybody involved in this matter. >> thank you very much, vaughn. joining us now, state attorney from palm beach county florida, dave aaronberg. dave, talk to us about what you've been seeing here. there is a new line of questioning about a different aspect of michael cohen as a witness that the defense has been successfully bringing out

this morning. >> yes. the prosecution has created this firewall around michael cohen. they have acknowledged that michael cohen is a flawed witness. they have acknowledged he's been a liar. with all the corroboration, they're saying he is telling the truth now. i think they've done a really good job pre budding his testimony. as such, yeah, you can show he lied. as danny pointed out, this lie seems to be different because this is a lie that he stole from the company when he was loyal to donald trump. if you're going to get down in the mud, you're going to also show that the client, donald trump, is in the mud, too. that's why a lot of this stuff, michael cohen could blow back on donald trump himself because he's the one who hired a guy like this. he hired him to be his fixer. who needs a fixer other than people engaged in nefarious activities? that's why i don't think it's fatal we're pointing out all his

flaws, because the prosecution has done a great job with all the other witnesses, the documentation, that despite his flaws he's someone you can believe in now because you have corroboration. >> is it that simple, danny? do you think it is that strong, that the prosecution's case and the fact that the prosecution got out in front of michael cohen's credibility issues early and often, that it has essentially made this line of questioning and questioning his truthfulness a moot point? >> for every lawyer this is all proceeding according to the script, the script that was written hundreds of years ago. it goes like this, you have a cooperating witness. they're usually way worse people than michael cohen. the prosecution gets out in front of it in their opening and say, hey, this is a bad guy, you have a version of that speech. kristen has a version of that speech she gives in closing. it's been done for hundreds of years. this is somebody that we did not

choose, the defendant chose to do business with this guy. then on cross, he gets skewered for all his bad behavior. i do agree with dave that jurors will look past this. the reason we know this empirically is because they've been looking past it for centuries because prosecutors continue to use cooperating witnesses who by deaf nation are flawed human beings and jurors accept them. sometimes they're even entertaining. sometimes they can make the jury laugh because they're skoun drells, yeah, i'm the biggest drug dealer around. jurors say, well, it's not someone i would hang out with, probably wouldn't let him baby-sit my kids, but what he says seems to match up with the documents. >> let's pretend that's what happened. what more does the defense need to do -- i'll ask you bernarda -- in order to make

their case stronger, if the jury has made up its mind on michael cohen? will the defense put on a case? what does that look like? >> i disagree in the sense that the defense is saying they want to call one additional witness to deal with campaign finance. if i were the defense, i would not call any witness. i would completely rest. that's going to be a decision trump is going to have to make. do you want to cater to your campaign and the public or do you want to cater to what's best for this trial. what's best for this trial is not for you to testify and don't call any witnesses, just rely on decision crediting michael cohen during closing arguments, rely on that crucial blow you hit about the october 24th call even though i don't think it was a blow that was fatal. but just rely on that. remember, the defense doesn't have to put on a case. the defense does not have to prove anything. they don't have to disprove anything. in fact, the jury instructions will say the defense doesn't

have to disprove anything. the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. i hope it's linear where people can follow it, the jury can follow it, a nice flow of everything he had said that is a lie and that goes to the very being of his credibility. that's for the defense. >> kristen, for the prosecution and the fact that the defense knowing who they are dealing with has been focused on michael cohen and his lies or lack of memory or whatever. what they haven't touched at all upon are the documents. there are -- there is strong documentary evidence in this case. do you as a prosecution have the responsibility now to say in a way, okay, cohen has said what he had to say. let's turn the page, because there is huge documentary evidence? >> absolutely. remember on the direct examination it was almost beautifully methodically played out the waco en would testify, the prosecuor would show the

corroborating physical, tangible evidence to corroborate michael cohen's testimony. michael cohen would testify again. you see that methodical direct examination, testimony, corroborating tangible evidence, testimony, again, with the corroborating tangible evidence. i think the prosecutor on redirect is going to focus on the material facts and do the same thing. elicit the testimony that they need to, clear up some of the inconsistencies, the failure to recall certain facts and then again just hammering their case, put on the testimony, then the corroborating evidence. put on the testimony, the corroborating evidence and call it a day. >> right now the jury is apparently rubbing their eyes, holding their head in their hands, shifting in seats. yasmin, what are they listening to right now in cohen's testimony? >> reporter: so remember the breakdown. $420 in total payout. i keep repeating this because i think it's important to keep it in context as to what blanche is

getting at. over a period of 11 payments, $35,000 a month. that was seen a, quote, unquote, retainer agreement between donald trump and michael cohen who was serving as his personal attorney to the president of the united states at the time. what they're trying to establish during cross right now, guys, essentially that michael cohen, in fact, was doing work for the former president at the time. i say that because during direct examination, despite the fact he had been ap pointed as the personal attorney to the president at the time, he testified to the fact that he was not actually really doing much work for the former president. in fact, doing no work for the former president. instead during cross-examination they're establishing in january, for instance, michael cohen did some work when it came to defamatory statements by reporter about the former president which michael cohen dealt with. in february he figured out how to deliver subpoenas on the state department. a few months later he dealt with the first lady when it came to legal issues with the first lady as well. they're trying to establish this

pattern of behavior in which michael cohen was, in fact, doing work for the former president of the united states, hence why he would be getting $35,000 a month. but to speak to some color that laura jarrett just gave inside the courtroom as well as what lisa rubin is telling us, the da established the fact that michael cohen didn't do enough work to receive that type of payment or retainer from donald trump. in fact, they're not objecting to the testimony, the line of questioning from the prosecution, i should say, this line of questioning from the defense which might play to the fact that they're also getting this read from the jurors that they're tiring from this line of questioning, and they will likely take this up during redirect. >> the law of diminishing returns, in this case this could be a moment where the prosecution is seeing what's going on and saying, you know what, that's enough. >> the prosecution is reading the room. they obviously think this is overkill. maybe the defense should have

stopped at the gotcha at the redfish, red finch, whatever the name of the internet company is. a lot of this plays on todd blanche's opening statement where i think he made a mistake when he said the $420,000 was not a reimbursement for michael cohen to pay stormy daniels. he backed himself into a corner. now he has to establish why the $420,000 were legal fees. even donald trump through his own words, his tweets, court documents admitted repeatedly he reimburse michael cohen. where did he do it unless it was within the $420,000. that's the crux of this case. if the prosecutors can prove that michael cohen was reimbursed by donald trump, then i think it's ball game and the defense i think backed themselves into a corner by way of their opening arguments. >> can you just take that a step further, dave? why is that the ball game if

they can prove these were, in fact, reimbursements? that doesn't necessarily tie trump directly to the falsification of records, does it? that doesn't necessarily prove that this was all in an effort to cover up another crime, does it? >> it's a fair point, ana. why then would donald trump pay michael cohen $420,000, a guy who is meticulous about not overpaying, about negotiating everything downward. you're paying a guy $420,000 because of what allen weisselberg wrote. that's the evidence on the bank statement. weisselberg came up with that formula that showed this is for grossing up because of taxes and because of bonus. then there's michael cohen's testimony that he had multiple conversations with donald trump about approving the reimbursement scheme including one in the oval office where

donald trump said to michael cohen, hey, do you need money? january and february payments are on the way. i think just the common sense for jurors is like, why is donald trump paying the $35,000 a month unless it's reimbursement? and that's the falsification, because the lawyer says it's not reimbursement. there's the nefarious activity. although it's not totally direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence i think is clear and overwhelming. >> interesting how blanche is going into what cohen did make in other venues. for example, talking about one organization that paid you $50,000 for a year. cohen, correct. consulting and advisory work. blanche says over what period of time. well, throughout the year, approximately 20 communications. were those phone calls, emails and in person? yes, sir. blanche says 20 communications and they paid you $600,000.

nothing wrong with that. i don't think so. columbus nova, a fund that is also a client of cohen signed in february, could be january, they paid you $80,000 a month. once again, it is showing what could be cohen's fees for other work. >> so you may be giving some instances maybe the money having to do with melania trump and this trademark and stuff, but are you giving direct evidence? are you hitting that point strong enough? you're not going to be able to do that through michael cohen because he's already telling you you paid me the $420,000 as reimbursement. the way to get that argument out there if you want to prove it is put a witness up. who are you going to put up? you're not going to put up allen weisselberg because he's at rikers. you don't want to put donald trump up to explain it because he's up to so much cross-examination with his tweets, social media posts,

truth social, what he said in his books, in press conferences, e jean carroll, plus the $5,000 fine, $10,000 fine, new york attorney general case. you're not going to put him up. you planted the seed, now move on. move on. the jury is not grasping this. you need to hit and move on. >> interesting, though, the sources of income during those years were substantial. he talks about at&t. he talks about this other organization that he worked with. >> they talk about novartis and how novartis paid him $100,000 a month. >> blanche says you never told trump about these clients. you told president trump you had six consulting agreements. cohen, i did not specifically tell mr. trump that, no. at some point he found out? cohen, i believe so. blanche, was he frustrated you signed a dealed with at&t and

there was an objection which was sustained. >> your reaction to what we're hearing here, kristen. >> i think what dave was talking about earlier, reading the room by allowing blanche to go on and on and on. now you have an objection sustained, another objection looking at the google doc. sustained. i agree with bernarda, blanche needs to move on. yes, he's establishing something important for his closing argument. it's reasonable for trump to have paid him $30,000 a month just because there was no retainer agreement and it was for lawful, legal fees. again, he needs to move on. at this point the prosecution by objecting is really i think probably hitting a home run with the jury by saying, all right, blanche, enough is enough move on. >> i want to bring in former u.s. attorney barbara mcquade, also an msnbc legal analyst.

barbara, give us your read of what we've been hearing so far. >> i wonder to what extent todd blanche is trying to create the idea in the jury's mind of where is allen weisselberg. by talking about things that involved allen weisselberg. you know who can resolve all this? allen weisselberg. they're not going to know why the prosecution isn't calling him. it creates the idea that if he were to be a witness, it would be harmful to the prosecution's case. that's really the best strategy i can come up with as to why they're still beating this horse. it could also be that donald trump himself is demanding that todd blanche push awe v on all these things. i agree with the comment that the typical strategy in a cross-examination is simply to plant the seed. don't give the witness an opportunity to wiggle out of it. don't ask one question too many.

you might exhaust the jury. you give the witness an opportunity to deny the claim. instead, plant the seed and put it all together in closing arguments. i think blanche is risking sort of losing the jury here. i imagine ultimately on redirect that's going to be the most important part, whether the prosecution can rehabilitate him from certainly not every lie. the facts are what they are, but rehabilitate him as to the key points in this case. >> of course, the prosecution wants to also refocus the jury about what this is all about, the the heart of the case which "the new york times" points out this law that trump's accused of breaking holds a defendant accountable even when he himself does not carry out the crime itself, so long as he intentionally aids it. likening him to a husband who hires a hitman to kill his wife, still being guilty of murder. did prosecutors explain that well enough. do you expect that to be a big

part of their closing? >> i do, and i also think that the judges charged the jury where he instructs them on the law is going to be a helpful part of that so the prosecution doesn't have to do all the lifting here. the judge will explain the law to them about the falsification law, if it's used to conceal another crime and specifically what the other crimes are. there's a state law that makes it a crime to prevent or prohibit the election of a candidate by unlawful means and federal laws that make it a crime to exceed individual limits of $2,000 as cohen allegedly did or corporate donations as ami allegedly did, and to falsely claim some money as income when, in fact, it is paying for something else. i think the judge will do that, and i think the prosecution will also do it showing how the facts support that claim. that is properly part of the closing argument. that is not something you typically elicit through witnesses. that's about the law, and so far the witness testimony has been

all about the facts. >> interesting, now, once again, blanche going over the different sources of income that cohen had, and including, for example, how much money cohen received for doing essentially very little work, including, for example, and this is the line of questioning, blanche, what about novartis, you testified you had six communications. maybe more, but not communication. blanche, that's $2,000 in communication. that's correct, says cohen. when you had an agreement with at&t, they could call you every day or as much as possible. cohen, or as little. it's not conditioned on the quantity of work that's done? an objection that was sustained. is this a case of the defense doing what that old expression is, the moon is round, cheese is round, so therefore the moon is

made out of cheese? >> you know that song, this is the song that never ends. that's what it seems like we're singing. clearly todd blanche doesn't know the term hit it and quit it. you hit your point and move on. when he's emphasizing how much he has made from other people, and how much payments he's gotten from other people, you got to ring them back in. we're not talking about those other people. we're talking about donald trump and michael cohen. were there legal services in 2017? if there were legal services, how much were you charging him, and how much were you paid. does it equal the $420,000? no, it doesn't. using trump's own words, he's a penny pincher. he's not trying to pay one single cent or a dime more than he has to, it just doesn't make sense that he's that type of person and he's paying $420,000, which is what they're going with this argument that michael cohen was probably over billing him and charging a lot. it just doesn't make sense.

>> danny, weigh in. >> first, i think this is an interesting avenue, but it needs to be more surgical. it's interesting to show that michael cohen was pulling in ungodly amounts of money for a lawyer. he's making what an equity partner at a big law firm is making. this is not the normal salary of a lawyer. it helps to know that this $35,000 a month wasn't that big a deal in the scheme of his overall sort of grift that he was engaged in. that's how they're trying to characterize it. going back briefly to something dave aronberg pointed out, so many of the defense's problems can be traced back to the opening argument. if there's a teachable moment, there's something you can learn from every trial, it may be this, this trial stands for the proposition that the defense's opening statement should be along the lines of high, everybody, keep an open mind, stay hydrated, i'll be back to

talk to you by the end of the case. so many issues are because they made promises in their opening argument and i promise you that in closing, the people are going to hammer that home. look at all the promises they made, that he didn't have sex with stormy daniels or that this was a reimbursement, whatever they characterized the transaction as, dave described it, those are promises the defense made in their opening, if they don't keep, they have added an additional burden they never had. >> promises they had no need to include. >> you need promise nothing as a defendant. you can rest and just attack the prosecution based on the lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they have the burden. the burden never shifts and my client is presumed innocent. let's be honest, if you're pounding the podium with only that, it's usually a sign that your case hasn't gone all that well. ideally you have an alternate

theory, theme that you're presenting to the jury. it might be sodi, some other dude did it, i think it's a philadelphia thing i started saying it to other folks. sodi, some other guy did it, you put on a mini case. even though you don't have the burden, you want to give the jury another story that they can believe in. but it's always a sign that things aren't going so great if defense council and i have been there too. you get up to the podium and you just say, well, they have the burden, it never shifts, beyond a reasonable doubt, presumption of innocent, i'm out of here. that's a sign you may be in trouble. >> let's go back again. >> no sodi anywhere in sight. >> not yet, but blanche is still questioning cohen, and here's where they have moved into, talking specifically about the stormy daniels payments. blanche asked, you had a

retainer agreement, president trump paying you $35,000 a month, and in early 2018, the stormy daniels payment leaked, cohen, correct. blanche, long time friend of yours, yes. you went to visit steve in jail around the time the story of you making the payment to stormy was leaked. cohen, correct. blanche, you insisted president trump knew nothing about it. you told cronan that. cohen, i don't recall specifically saying that but it would have been what i said at the time yes, sir. you said you made a deal and trump did not know. cohen, no, sir. you called melania, you told her trump didn't know about it. not that i recall, says cohen. blanche, you don't recall saying that to your friend. you were told you should keep that quiet? not that i recall, no, sir. putting aside whether you were

told that, you didn't keep it quiet. i did not. you spoke to ms. haberman, reporter with the "new york times," and told her president trump did not know about it, and you said that on the recordment cohen, yes, said on the record. and then blanche continues this line of questioning, trying to say, you know, you told all of these people. trump knew nothing about the payment. >> including going to prison and seeing someone and saying it in a prison, you know, setting, and i'm thinking, danny, back to your point about when there is a difference between what this witness says to the prosecution and then when it's the defense, i don't remember. >> right. so real quick, going back to our sodi talk, they have a sodi, and it's allen weisselberg, they're going to point to the empty chair and say you didn't hear when the guy whose handwriting is figuratively and literally all over this case. it's on one of the main exhibits

in this case. that is something that i actually think they do have. that's the closest they have really to an alternate theory is that they didn't prove their case. they didn't call the real guy. why, what are they afraid of, you're going to hear some version of that. and jose, the other question was? >> the issue of how there's a clear difference between how cohen responded during the prosecution's direct, and now when they're asking him, did you say, i don't remember. i don't recall saying this. you said your wife and kids had just found out two weeks earlier, i don't recall saying that. if you said that, would that have been true? yes. >> there is nothing more fishy to a jury or just to people in general. remember, the entire jury system is based on the assumption that we're all hard wired, not just lawyers but every one of us, all of our piers are hard wired with lie detection hardware. it may be true or may not be but that's what the system is based on. people who have convenient memory loss, it looks really bad. you don't have to be on a jury

to know that. think of the relative, the one that nobody in the family believes, they're text messaging about. you're laughing because you have that family member. i do too. i have a few of them, and you text about them, and they tell you a story and we all roll our eyes, how believable is that. people who don't remember when it's convenient for them, it doesn't look good. even if it's true. i wonder if the jury is seeing he had zero problems remembering things when the prosecution asked him, and now he seems to be giving answers, sounds like something, boy, i don't remember. when you're scripting your cross-examination, you can't etch it in granite. you have to be able to move with the answers, and i think a lot of these answers, these lack of memory answers, i think at least from the quasi transcript may be throwing todd blanche off a little bit. he's expecting questions he thinks cohen remembers, todd blanche i