any capacity as to why you were here today? no, it does not. let's focus on why you were here today then get into those points. and because they have been here all morning, i think the prosecution has to hit their seeds and go. you usually hear that for cross-examinations but for the direct, i think the prosecution just needs to kind of restate their case and outline how cohen had direct knowledge that this money was very concealment purpose it is. >> christie, what do you think as the redirect begins? >> hit those material issues and don't get caught too much in trying to rehabilitate everything. hit the material issues that have other corroboration because the table was set for cohen testified. get this, get out. >> thank you so much. you all are wonderful. that's going to do it for us this hour. >> thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell, chris jansing,

and katy tur pick up our special coverage, next. our special coverage, next good day, i'm andrea mitchell in new york along with my colleague, katy tur. the prosecution is quickly wrapping up its case in the first criminal trial of a former american president. the state is gets its chance now to repair any damage done by the testimony of its star witness. moments ago, the defense wrapped up with michael cohen after three days of cross-examination. >> it was a grueling three days. the big wild card is donald trump himself. will he live up to his promise to take the stand or put his defense team rest without presenting a single witness? dramatically demonstrating their argument that the state has failed to meet the burden of proof. >> judge merchan has set a new

schedule this week guaranteeing the case will not go to the jury until after the long memorial day holiday weekend. he announced this morning that closing arguments will not take place until next tuesday he says because he does not want a long holiday break between closing arguments, his instructions and injury deliberations. here with me, jeremy, and danny. we start at the courthouse with our friend and colleague, chris jansen who was in the court's overflow room this morning. chris, tell us what you saw. how did the president react as donald cohen, michael cohen rather, completed that tough cross-examination. >> i think this was a critical day. this was the defense's last best chance to really cut into the story of the man everyone calls the star witness here.

the person who is entrusted with bringing all those disparate pieces together. i just came down from the 15th floor and happened to be on the elevator alone with andrew giuliani, rudy giuliani's son. so of course, i asked him to get a little view. he's been here about three weeks almost every day and i wanted to get a sense of the people around donald trump. what they're thinking. not surprisingly, whether it's what they believe or what they're saying. he thinks that todd blanche has done a great job. he thinks michael cohen, although controlled, may have perjured himself on the stand. they're not buying what he's selling. let's talk about the ways in which todd blanche tried to poke those holes into what the jury is seeing. if you look at the big picture of how they want to paint michael cohen as a liar and a thief, many times today as we've heard in the past, he was asked

about whether he lied about something. whether he told the truth about something, and he would have to answer no, sir. i think the other big moment was when he said you stole from the trump organization, right? and he said, yes, sir. and that was one of the few times today when donald trump really seemed to sit up and take notice. this was when weisselberg gave him $50,000 to pay to a tech company and he kept 30,000 of it and wanted to get to that detail. todd blanche did. he said did you have a duffel bag full of cash. he said no, it was a brown paper bag. so that's all part of the liar and thief that they're trying to paint with michael cohen and have been from the beginning. also, to use trump. that he always had his name on the stationery. that he was the personal attorney. but also an opportunist.

that he had six clients over the course of a year and made $4 million. somebody who was always looking to get something out of the donald trump by doing what he thought donald trump wanted. not necessarily what donald trump had told him to do. which of course is at the heart of this. and the other thing they went on for quite a while, was michael cohen distracted at this time they were setting up the hush money payments. tiffany trump had somebody dealing with her for blackmail. there was taxi medallion issues. there were the ongoing situation with the access hollywood tape. and a big endorsement they were getting from the niece of martin luther king jr. so the suggestion being he really had a lot of other things going on and then for that key phone call where michael cohen says he kept donald trump updated. he is actually doing and could have been updating him on any

number of other things. there are so many interesting things that happen when you come here and katy, you're well aware of how different it is. i think you talked about this on friday. on thursday. who is this michael cohen? the man on the stand again today, disciplined, fairly soft spoken. once or twice, i would even say sparred. he kind of went back at todd blanche but overall, the complete opposite of the person that you know, that anyone who's covered him knows, that anyone who's watched his podcast knows, that anyone who's watched an interview with him on television. yes, sir, no, sir, subdued and disciplined. the other thing is when we started court today and we've been following this very, very closely. you hear the official announcement. the people of the state of new york versus donald j. trump. there's something about those few words that really hits you.

it makes you understand, when i got here at 6:30 this morning, there were people i talked to had been lined up the first and second people who were here got in line at 6:00 a.m. on saturday. that's how long they were waiting. the guy who was about 20th in line who i spoke to is a lawyer from montreal. he drove here overnight. got here about 2:00 in the morning. when i asked him why would you do that? he said there is no bigger case as a lawyer. what bigger case am i ever going to have a chance to see? also raised questioned about whether this should be televised. but i think one of the other things that was really interesting is donald trump did have his eyes closed much of the time. in the overflow room, you have that camera that is pointed directly at the defense table. his eyes were shut. was he sleeping? was he contemplating?

was he just bored? i will say there were a number of times when i saw alan dershowitz yawning. the judge trying to adjust himself in the seat as some of the details went on and on. but when his supporters came in, donald trump stood. he stood for a couple of minutes. made sure he saw them. made sure they saw him. looking at him, including the members of congress, including dershowitz, eric and lara trump. and finally, i think maybe the most significant thing that might have happened today happened before anybody came into court. that was the decision by the judge that they're not going to start closing until next tuesday. that is something that has been a big question. would they allow that much time potentially to pass with the holiday weekend between a closing and deliberation or just start deliberation and then go

home for three days. the judge made it clear that's not going to happen. talking to a number of our legal folks who were around there, the general consensus is, i'm sure you've had this conversation, that is a good benefit for the prosecution. they did not want the jury to go home after having these, having heard all of their evidence then having heard the closing then wait to deliberate. so that's going to happen on tuesday. but i will say smallish crowd of protestors here. very long line of people waiting to get in. we have the light at the end of the tunnel next week closing then the deliberation for these 12 jurors. >> one of the things that's now happened since you came out perhaps chris is that susan hoffinger has started to

redirect. she started out by saying was it just a mistake when he asked you about 2019. yes, i thought he was talking about 2017 in terms of whether or not he had lied to congress. we agree that was the biggest problem that had emerged on cross. were you too busy in october of 2016 for the stormy payoff? no, ma'am. hoffinger says too busy to get his approval? no, ma'am. did you send weisselberg the -- no, ma'am. was the $420,000 payment you were owed, did that have to do with the retainer? you sent an invoice instead. yes. blanche asked you about legal work for family and wife.

did you bill? no. did the 420,000 have to do with that? did you do work for 2018? yes. did you ever get a time for that work? no. trying to fix the questions and answers about whether he stole from them. blanche asked you about $50,000 for red finch. i do and lisa rubin provided some color there that hoffinger is now trying to clean up cohen's admissions about doing legal work for the trumps in 2017 and 2018 for which cohen said he did not bill. that he was never paid for that. >> there's also questions about the $30,000 and the money that michael cohen about pocketing. mr. blanche asked you about an extra 30 grand. cohen says for a long time, i had been telling him about the 50k and was angered about the reduction in the bonus so felt like it was almost self-help. cohen also says i protected him,

donald trump, the best i could and laid out money to red finch to have my bonus cut by two-thirds. was very upsetting to say the least. hoffinger then asked defense counsel asked you questions about your attorney, steve ryan. and the questions he sent you regarding the fpc. cohen says i do. they show an exhibit. hoffinger, when he asked you about it, you said it was an omission. cohen, correct. also that it was misleading. cohen, the misleading line is neither the trump org is neither the party or payment to miss clifford. hoffinger, did you spend for it to be misleading in that way? cohen, i did. prosecution is trying to clean up the damage the defense team brought. danny, i want to bring you in. the defense got at michael cohen over the two days of testimony.

the phone call in 2016 about daniels that he was sure was with donald trump. they got him to admit it might have been with keith schiller, his bodyguard regarding a 14-year-old. what does the prosecution need to do here? they don't want to seem they have to do too much clean up. they don't want to show admitted weakness. >> the two events you named are the most significant hits the defense got on michael cohen. second on redirect, it was an option. the prosecution maybe could have stood up and said we have no questions to demonstrate that we weren't hurt by any of this cross-examination. in all likelihood, they had to ask questions to clean up the areas. at minimum, those two hits and other inconsistencies they felt they needed to clean up. so this is very normal. i don't expect redirect will take that long. they don't want to give any material for the defense to try and raise another issue but they are going to clean up some of these issues.

just going back to the end of cross, it's really interested. i'd be interested to hear what jeremy thinks of this. look. i'm trying not to be critical of the defense's cross-examination. it could have been shorter but it's agony wondering if you leave anything out something the jury might have seized on. there's that incentive to make cross-examination often longer than it needs to be. sometimes you can ask too many questions and at the end, blanche asks the question, it's true you lie out of loyalty. i'm going from our google doc and cohen admits it but then asks maybe one too many questions. your testimony remains you have a specific recollection about this phone call with trump and daniels. michael cohen says yeah, absolutely i remember. >> i was wondering if that was the defense team asking that question or the prosecution. it sounded like the prosecution getting to back up his own memory. >> here's why they asked it. i've been there, too.

i sympathize, i understand. but you ask that last question as if to say you believe that you actually did this? you know, that he actually, with all these things you believed. it's basically blanche testifying for cohen. he's making an argument saying after all these other things, you expect us to believe that you remember this one phone call? but you gave cohen an opportunity to leave cross-examination burning into the jurors' minds, yes. i 100% remember it. >> jeremy. >> i would say you stole my thunder. if you look at my computer, i outlined that as well. i think in fact michael cohen stole the thunder from the defense. because you're 100% correct. you're leaving that open ended question with an answer that's going to hurt you. if you want to make that argument, make it on our summation. you don't allow michael cohen to give you the answer the prosecution wants. you may have called me a liar, but i remember this event. it happened this way and i told you the truth. >> if you're a juror, you might

be thinking that was such an important transaction. all these other things i was doing, business transactions, that was just a lawyer's daily job. this was talking to donald trump about stormy daniels. the one thing he had assigned me to do and i wanted to prove i could deliver to the boss. >> wasn't just some mundane transaction. something critical to court, the election, donald trump who he was. >> chris, can i ask you about the entourage that came in with donald trump this morning because i was struck who came in on thursday. matt gaetz, lauren bobert. the way they came in, the presence of them. today, the entourage was even more interesting. what were they like in court? >> i think you could say let's start with the members of congress who would be lesser known members of congress.

not people if, even if you're a cable news viewer and know who matt gaetz is, you wouldn't necessarily know who these members of congress were. what we're seeing is how important this is to donald trump. that when they come in. in fact, i was sitting next to lisa rubin and she was saying oh, he never stands for that long. people around us were commenting that he was waiting for patiently till each of them had come in and taken their seats. alan dershowitz being there. lara trump and eric trump. who seemed quite engaged through most of the morning as i was watching them. you had a leader of a somewhat infamous part of hells angels motorcycle group who was here who's had a few problems with the law. so that was something that people were talking about but for the most part, i think somebody was saying these are

the folks you could expect to come and give their support. there is also a sense of how well orchestrated this is. that even though you will not hear how there's any sort of coordination between the politics of this, what you have is day after day now after a very slow start as you will remember in the early days of this campaign, early days of this trial, now you have people going there and visibly coming to the microphones as you see. stating their support for donald trump. and making sure that he sees them. and that has been a part of it now for well over a week and something i would expect to see through and something donald trump has acknowledged, katy. >> what's interesting is you look at the uniform all of them are wearing. they're all in their blue suit and red tie. the trump uniform. every single one of them. it seems they've shopped at the

same store. it's striking to see that. there's also just the fact that the people that donald trump is surrounding himself with aren't exactly legal angels. you have chuck zito, jeremy, i know you have some reference. chuck was an outlaw in a motorcycle gang in new york city. the hells angels. he spent years in prison on drug charges. he helped found the hells angels in the early 1990s. new york nomads chamber. boris epstein, indicted in arizona regarding the fake electors scheme. the former commissioner of the new york city police department who was in prison for tax related charges then pardoned by donald trump. dershowitz. he was involved in a series of defamation lawsuits and countersuits over allegations he engaged in sexual misconduct.

matt gaetz is being investigated over sexual misconduct. he's denied i don't think doing. jason miller, donald trump's spokesperson, his group nearly 42 grand in legal expenses after he tried to sue the company for reporting on legal filings that he secretly drugged his pregnant mistress with an abortion pill. if the jury knows anything about them, and maybe they don't know the details of the allegations around each of these individuals, he's not surrounding himself with angels. but rather hells angels. >> true. literally. he's surrounding himself with people who arguably are followers of michael cohen, what they've done. you forget bobert and -- who got

kicked out. i prosecuted the hells angels for a member striking another person, put it mildly, with a bat and going to prison for ten years. that jury was anxious and scared and crying and there was an armed man in the courtroom because every day, you would have all those hells angels. they had all this anxiety. they're concerned about the pressure and eyeballs on them. all the information coming out about them. and now you're parading people into the courtroom who are looking to be loyal to donald trump because that's what we hope in this book. he wants loyalty. they're going to make a stink and talk about this is a fraud and a sham and they're going to be out there banging on the pulpit. none of this plays well for donald trump. i don't see the equation here other than selfishly for the people out there wanting donald trump's endorsement, but for donald trump in that courtroom, there's no advantage. >> the jury doesn't see or --

sees them, but does not hear their complaints about the judicial system. wow. >> we like to think they follow along. go home at night, catch something on the news. >> chris, you've got to get back here because we miss you. so come on back and share even more what you saw this morning. we'll see you in a little bit. >> i will be on the next taxi that comes by. i'll be with you guys at the top of the next hour. traffic willing. >> great. and chris jansing, jeremy, danny, thanks to all of you. and i think we're going to take a quick break. no, back inside the courtroom. let's talk about what's been going on. hoffinger is asking about the line in the statement, this payment in question does not

constitute a campaign contribution. the jurors are advised by the judge. you just heard cohen say this is not a true statement. it deals with the witness' credibility. another exhibit at the sec matter that cohen released to the press. hoffinger, this statement, was that released to the press? yes. you said you would always protect mr. trump. was it false or misleading? yes, it goes back to the transaction. hoffinger, so what was missing. cohen, who had made the payments. that was trump trust or trump himself. hoffinger, did you intend to leave the statement this way? yes, ma'am. from the exhibit. it says the payment to miss clifford was lawful and not a campaign contribution or expenditure by anyone. this of course gets to the heart of the case.

hoffinger, did mr. trump approve and did you provide a copy to his attorney. yes, ma'am. so now -- clear my throat. he asked you whether an nda is legal. he said it was. the circumstances around this, was that perfectly legal? then there's an objection that's sustained. it was legal. katy? >> hoffinger goes on to ask about those circumstances. did you plead guilty to campaign finance violation in connection with payoff. yes, i did. the defense read what you said at the plea hearing. cohen, yes. then objection in the bench conference. can i ask you guys, i'm so fascinated reading this document. the objections are so interesting and what gets sustained is so interesting. it's not that the question is not fair. it's the way they worded the question is not fair.

and they keep going back and doing these somersaults. >> when you're a prosecutor, very often, it's what happened next. then what. it's much easier not necessarily to build a case, but to lay it out. as a defense attorney, i've learned that many years ago, it's that cross-examination. that's where the advantage of being able to lead is so important and blanche at time has not led enough and you want the correct answer and you want to bring it back. >> they're still getting the information they want out of him. it's like you're watching jeopardy. please ask it in the form of a question. >> what's interesting is that we talked about blanche and maybe not leading as often as he should. you should almost every question you ask on cross-examination should be a leading question because that witness is going to do everything in its power to

answer it in a way that frustrates your purpose. and you could almost try. i'm being glib here, but if you want education on how to ask leading questions, take a look at the prosecution here. what baffles me is that we just had an objection to a leading question. when about 47 of the prior questions by the prosecution on redirect were leading. so the prosecution has been leading throughout. >> why would the defense team not be objecting every few questions? >> these are good lawyers. they're obviously aware the prosecution is leading. they must be making a conscious decision that look, if you object every time they lead, we're going to look petty. so might as well let him ask. we're not afraid. i think leading questions in this context are so devastating. it's why you're not allowed to use them with your own witness. i cannot overstate how devastating leading questions are because the attorney is basically testifying and at the end of that testimony, he's asking the witness to rubber stamp it yes or no.

so because they're so powerful, that's why you can't use them with your own witness and the prosecution has been able to ask leading questions on critical issues. it's fine if it's like hey, was the car red or blue? those questions that don't matter, it's fine. but some of these are really critical issues. >> insight of what is a perfect example of a leading question? >> a question as to which the answer is yes or not, but that's not exactly accurate. a leading question is one in which the answer is suggested within the question. but what it really is is the lawyer makes a statement the way the lawyer wants to make a statement and then gets the witness to say yes or no. be but beware. if you word it in a way that isn't accurate, we saw it where the question was mr. cohen, your journey has been to attack trump daily. oops. you used the word journey.

should have said attack. instead, try to be cute and use the word journey. no, no, my journey is to tell the truth. look what happened with the addition of one word. >> let me bring this back to was this nda legal. no, ma'am. hoffinger, did you plead guilty to a campaign finance violation in connection with that payoff? i did. that's compelling. then says defense read to you that you said at a plea hearing. yes. did he ask you what he said about riley? objection. bench conference. judge made the approach merchan for the record. objection sustained. another bench meeting. hoffinger. remember questions about your plea. are you actually on trial here? no, ma'am, says cohen. are you a witness here? i am. hoffinger. are you charged with any crimes, excuse me. is your wife's liberty at stake?

did we subpoena you to testify? yes, says cohen. hoffinger, is the situation different than in 2018? the other one, my life was on the line says cohen. the other one, my life was on the line, i was a defendant. so he's making a very important distinction here that he's not the one on trial. he's a witness. the reason other things happen why he pleaded guilty. >> every question you just read was a leading question. cohen merely answered yes to all of them and the prosecutor essentially put into the record her own testimony and cohen said yes or no. she led him where she needed to go and nary an objection, maybe one or two. that's the strange thing. why bother objecting once in a while if it's going on all the time. and i think justice merchan is wondering the same thing. that's an objection he seems to

consistently sustain whenever the defense raises it. >> you're trying to direct somebody, sort of what happens next. but controlling your witness is so important and now the prosecution is able to control and put the words in the mouth of cohen. though i think he's smart enough about the journey statement. that he will catch on to these things on his own, but now you're seen in control as opposed to merely arguing it. >> jeremy, was the prosecutor between the cross-examination on thursday and the resungs of today, permitted to get with him and prepare him better or was he on his own in getting ready for today? >> often, the judge will instruct the prosecution on the stand not to continue that preparation. for the most part, i would tend to think that they had prepped him and they may have gone back to a certain degree but they're not reprepping him again and starting over again. what might be happening which

i've done for my witnessing is the proverbial slap upside the head. answer the question. don't just elaborate or go off on your own. come across more honest. they're not going back and redoing the entirety of the case. >> they're also going over the retainer agreement. michael cohen didn't have one. he was an employee, he says. it wasn't necessary. he said he never expected to get paid for the work he did in 2017. this was a rehash of what the defense team questioned michael cohen about and this is the prosecution trying to clarify it for the jury. joining us now, former u.s. attorney and a professor at the university of alabama law school, joyce vance. joyce, as you watch this today, what's striking you? >> well, this is an interesting conversation that you've been having about the technical form of questions and when they're objectionable and there's something else going on on a parallel track here. that's the judge's concerned

certainly. the prosecution should also be concerned about whether any of the questions they're asking might elicit information from cohen that could cause a mistrial. because they're in really dangerous territory here when they're talking about michael cohen's prior federal conviction. cohen is convicted for finance related crimes. the jury will be charged that's one of the options here. so they have to avoid a situation where they say that trump's crimes can be proven by cohen's prior crimes. that's why we saw judge merchan give this careful limiting instruction to the jury a few moments ago telling them you can consider these answers for the truthfulness of this witness but not for the guilty of this defendant. >> and let me ask you a question, judge. judge. >> we've promoted you, joyce. >> you know, my husband is a

judge, so i get it all the time. >> hoffinger just said did you ever sign an agreement with mr. costello. i believe that's robert costello, who might be another witness that comes up for the defense. might be. and was an associate of giuliani. and cohen says no, ma'am. but he doesn't just say no, ma'am. he goes on to say i didn't trust him. i didn't like the way he kept on invoking rudy giuliani. why was he allowed to add that other stuff? >> well, you know, once the witness starts answering, unless the defense objects, he can continue and this is one of the risks i think that you can expose as a defense lawyer. you can expose yourself to is it once you open the door to testimony about somebody like bob costello, you don't know

what's coming next. i think this speculation that costello will testify is very interesting. because in large part, he would be offered to impeach cohen's credibility, to say what cohen is saying on the witness stand today is different than what he told bob costello when he was acting as an intermediary between cohen and trump. >> but joyce, wasn't he conflicted because he was an intermediary and was not under retainer and was actually potentially as michael cohen feared, doing donald trump's bidding? >> and that's exactly the problem. there's no telling what could come out if costello is offered as a witness on cross-examination. it would be appropriate for the prosecutors to go into all of that in an effort to bolster cohen's credibility and some of that could be damaging to donald trump. >> joyce, what do you think of

the, there's going to be a break after michael cohen's done. after the prosecution rests and say the defense doesn't call any witnesses, that could happen today. we won't hear closing arguments until next tuesday at the earliest. because of scheduling and memorial day. how is that potentially going to affect both the prosecution and the defense? >> so the judge is making the best of a bad situation here because what you always want to do is to have closing arguments, instruct the jury on the law, then move them straight into deliberations. something i hated as a prosecutor was if for instance that happened on a friday afternoon and you had a break until monday morning before deliberations. of course here with the four-day weekend, that would have been much worse. look, memories dim. all sorts of problems happen in that situation. but the real risk here i think that the judge was calculating was what would have happened if the jury had the case if they

had been instructed then there was this long break with trump out campaigning. and was there some risk that the jury could be inadvertently or on purpose exposed to commentary. it's tough as a juror in today's media environment to completely isolate yourself like that. especially over the holiday weekend. so i think he's doing the best he can. >> such a smart point. >> that's just a very, you know, when you try a lot of cases, you see that come up where that time period can prejudice a jury. as a prosecutor or defense lawyer, i think danny will back me up here. you're not unhappy to have this chunk of time to prepare your closing statements. and there will also be a charge conference where the lawyers work out the instructions to the jury with the judge. they have some real issues there. many of them centered on what

exactly the government has to prove about this additional crime they're alleging that this entire scheme was designed to aid or conceal. that's the part of this crime that turns this misdemeanor into a felony and there's been some sparring this morning that suggests that charge conference will have a lot going on in it. >> in fact, the judge this morning was very, really abrupt with the defense lawyer. on that very issue, saying i'll decide that. that's the matter of the law. and basically limited one of his potential defense witnesses. on what he could say. the ftc former chairman. >> they don't want the -- >> brad smith. >> correct me if i'm wrong. they don't want that witness leading the jury. the jury's supposed to be the expert of the law or the judge? >> the judge. >> that's the challenge. that's always been the issue with calling an expert on election law because you can't have an expert witness say i am

a very knowledgeable in the field of election law and this is guilty. what the defense would love to do is call an expert and do that but they can't. so what can they do? according to justice merchan, a witness could talk about sec, some basics. but you can't go into the area of the ultimate issue, which is the guilt of innocence. most experts are called to explain a technical matter. something beyond the kin of the advantage juror. blood spatter. ballistics. fingerprints. although they're not a science. but the point is you're explaining something to people that is beyond the average juror's knowledge. the law is something the judge will instruct them on. and that's why you're going to have a charging conference, which by the way, is not an insignificant event. that should really be budgeted in as something that's going to take some serious time. not only because we have complicated issues, but because

it's an important event. >> have we gotten any clearer on what the prosecution is going to rely on to bump it up to a felony? federal elections charge? state elections? tax charge? has there been any clarity today on what that might be? >> if by clarify we mean we've gotten an inkling they're leading toward election law. here's how nebulous this area of the law is. there are so many questions beyond what you just asked. for example, do they need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed all thement wills of the additional crime or as i believe the jury instructions, all they need to prove is that he had to intent to commit that crime. then what crime do they need to set on? what if one juror thinks his object was to violate election law. another says tax law. then his intent included an intent to violate a second law even if the jurors don't agree. would that be allowed? that, too, remains an uncertain

question. arguably i could see the prosecution saying we don't need to indict him on this object crime. instead, as long as we put up evidence he had the intent to commit a crime, we, the people, might ago don't need to prove every juror approves. >> is that in open court or bench or chambers? >> normally, it's open court with an empty courtroom. this is not an empty courtroom. this jury will be gone and this is going to be on the record. depends on the courtroom, but it is on the record. i say that because jury instructions are the number one reason cases get overturned on appeal. so the jury instruction decision making process is arguably one of the most critical of the trial. far more than opening statement or closing arguments. figuring out what the jury instructions are going to be because they're so often challenged on appeal is a

critical stanl of this process. >> there's some interesting stuff happening inside court. they talked about costello. about michael cohen surrendering his phones and recording phone calls. you'll remember this from our coverage. there was a moment where michael cohen's lawyers submitted cases that were not real as part of his plea. his petition for early termination. for supervised release. so hoffinger's asking him about this. can you explain more about what happened. did you intend to deceive. cohen says no. so again, i went on google barred, the ai part of google, and typed in a query and it gave me a plethora of cases that appeared to me to be legitimate. they certainly looked legit and there were facts behind that supported what we were going to put in upcoming motions. so i copy pasted first three of the cases and sent over to my lawyer's office to incorporate

into my documents. i was just trying to be helpful anticipating they would look it over to ensure it was accurate and fair. i sent it to my current lawyer and she noticed these were not legit, they were created by an ai program which wants to please the user. she immediately notified me they were wrong. we should notify the court, which i said to her, absolutely, please do. she sent a letter to the judge advising him these three cases, the citations, were inaccurate and miss perry found these three cases. todd blanche while michael cohen is saying this is incredulous that cohen is explaining this as an inadvertent error and is looking at cohen's attorney who's sitting from the front row and shaking his head. the jury is seeing this. hoffinger, they're going to move on to another subject here. talk about this.

>> object. that's the whole purpose of the objection. object that sentence one or two. or three even because that was a whole narrative that was really compelling and really gives answers as to why cohen did what he did. >> why does this matter? >> the whole idea is that michael cohen is a liar. while it's not before the jury, by a show of hands if you went into the court and asked how many people would say that sammy the bull was someone who was accused of 19 murders but he was a expert, a cooperating witness. the original went to prison for. if you could believe sammy the bull, i'd like to think michael cohen ain't no sammy the bull. >> jeremy, would anyone on this jury by this point be surprised that michael cohen was not only not a good lawyer because he was fixer michael cohen. that was his name. that he would go on google and get these cases wrong?

>> the lack of experience of an older lawyer, at some point, you have to check it. that's not -- >> let's bring in michael rothfield. what a title, michael. so you know these players. you know michael cohen. are you surprised that he would go on google barred and come up with citations and send them to his lawyer and assume he or she would check them? >> no. that doesn't surprise me at all. having dealt with him and followed the story. cohen had lied to me personally when we were breaking the story of the stormy daniels hush money

deal. one of the things that came up today and the other day is how he charged the trump organization $50,000 for a tech company to break calls. we learned a while ago he said he had paid that company 50,000 but what he actually did was give the owner of it like $13,000 in cash in a walmart bag. michael cohen is a character. there's really nothing you know, that would surprise me. >> that was the basis for the cross-examination for him being asked that means you stole from the trump organization. that was the whole basis. >> right. >> i mean, but, nonetheless, it doesn't mean, i mean first, one question is the jury exhausted by all of these, you know, these tons of things that they're learning about michael cohen having done or all the money he's trying to make? or are they going to look at the bigger picture and say we heard

all these witnesses about donald trump and other witnesses as well as like some of the corroborating phone calls for conversations he said he had with trump about the hush money deal. that's really the question. is the jury going to be worn down by all this criticism of michael cohen or are they going to believe that look, these people are all swimming in the same dirty pond so that doesn't mean trump is necessarily innocent. >> there's a break in court. they've broken early for lunch. merchan has kept the lawyers in the room and steinglass, they're talking to the judge from their seats. what the prosecution wants to do here it looks like is do a little bit of clean up on that testimony that michael cohen gave about the phone call. the all important phone call where he says he told michael cohen, told donald trump, that he had taken care of the stormy daniels matter.

here's what steinglass is saying. what we have is 417a in exhibit. photo of the defendant, donald trump, with keith schiller, his bodyguard, on october 24th. this was objected to right before they broke for an early lunch. they're saying the prosecution wants to submit these in response to a defense suggestion, the call between cohen and schiller should not be able to argue that trump was not there. we have to establish that c-span testify that this was pulled from their website and lay a foundation for photo which proves that the defendant and keith schiller were together. the call was at 8:02. this was at 7:57. it's donald trump and keith schiller together on the day that michael cohen says he told donald trump that he had told him that the stormy daniels matter was over. so 7:57 is when the photo was

taken. the call is at 8:02. remember, michael cohen testifying that yeah, he may have brought up the 14-year-old to keith schiller, which they had been texting about before this phone call, but he was pretty sure he spoke to donald trump afterwards and told him about the daniels matter. this would be pretty key, danny. >> it would be interesting. they have to authenticate the photo. they have to get it into evidence properly. but blanche is arguing, and it is a point to be made, that who he talked to was schiller. but this is the kind, i put this in the bucket of evidence that so creative that any misgivings the judge has about it, i think he's going to let it in because it represents some good, hard detective work by the prosecution to come up with this photo three minutes before the supposed phone call. four minutes maybe. and it shows trump and schiller together. i put it in the basket of it will probably come? . >> here's what blanche said. what we are arguing is the call was a completely different

topic. that was not our position and both these heresay problems, both of these are here say problems. there's going to be a witness to testify that the only thing that matters is the date and the time the c-span witness could not and would not potentially authenticate these documents. merchan responds, didn't the witness from c-span already lay that foundation for how these records are maintained? blanche says absolutely. he said they are kept in the archives. and it seems, it is neither here nor there because we all have google. okay. so they're going to say doesn't matter that they were together. that's not what the phone call was about. and you can't, i mean, they're calling it here say. isn't all of this here say? >> it's not necessarily here say. you can lay the business record foundation? the foundation for, would he recognize his picture, fairly accurate for the particular date and time. it's not mutually exclusive.

just like he could have been with the president. great, he was there, but might have been there for that part of the conversation. similarly, michael cohen should talk about being harassed by a teenager but in the phone call, said oh, by the way, we also need to discuss x. i don't think this is a home run either way although i think it's very valuable. just like i don't think the fact there was a conversation about being harassed by a teenager means that michael cohen did not discuss the trump issue. so i think it's really just trying to sew doubt by the in n hillyard who is outside the courthouse for us. vaughn, this has been a contentious day, wrapping up michael cohen's cross-examination and the redirect. how does it feel like from the people you're talking to at the courthouse? >> reporter: if i may, andrea, i was going back and trying to find that exact c-span clip that was being referenced.

it appears it was a tampa bay, florida, rally referenced in which you can see keith schiller on stage with donald trump, upon him exiting the stage. i'm still trying to work on the actual timeline in terms of the exact minutes being articulated by the prosecution that is suggestion that the two men were seen on stage about six, seven minutes from the time of when that phone call was logged. so if, in fact, the prosecution's timeline is accurate, it would correspond with when keith schiller may have been able to take the phone call because you do see him on the campaign stage here. michael cohen testified into the third hour here today under cross-examination. it was presented earlier last week that we should only expect about one final hour of cross-examination. we were questioning whether we would get closing arguments and a summation coming as soon as tomorrow. instead, the entire timeline of this trial is being pushed back to next week here.

so really the question is what more is in store? will they try to bring robert costello, the fec commissioner, and will donald trump come in and testify as soon as this afternoon or tomorrow morning? todd blanche has not ruled that out. it's a matter of looking at what else they may try to present to michael cohen before he leaves the stand. we're not going to have a decision by this jury by memorial day which as soon as this morning we thought could have been possible. >> vaughn, do you think there's a likelihood of donald trump taking the stand? >> reporter: i think danny cevallos has been the other one with me here taking the bet on -- i could see him in a situation deciding to do so. for three reasons specifically. number one, donald trump believes he's the smartest man in any room, he's smarter than any military general that he had while serving in the white house. donald trump also likes to be his own spokesperson, as you

have heard multiple individuals testify over the course of just this trial alone. also, if you go back to the e. jean carroll trials, there's the first trial where he was found to have sexually abused e. jean carroll. he chose not to testify. for the months that followed after that there was regret. you saw the regret come out this january when he wanted to testify in the defamation suit, and judge kaplan made it clear that he would not be able to try to litigate whether he committed the offense, that that had already been determined by the court of law. he could only testify to the actual defamation claims being made against him which was met with great eyre by donald trump. he was only able to testify for e effectively three minutes. he stormed out of the courtroom and said, this is not america. that came out of regret from not testifying in the first suit. then you did see him testify in the judge engoron, the civil fraud trial from the new york attorney general's office.

you saw him testify over the course of hours. judge engoron even warned him if he continued to go off on side tangents, he would have no choice but to make a negative inference from his refusal to answer direct questions. donald trump continued on. ultimately he faced major penalties at the hands of the very judge that warned him to stay focused. for donald trump, i would not put it past him when especially at a point in time where not only a guilty conviction is on the line but potential imprisonment. >> it's going to depend whether his defense team can convince him it's a worse idea. i'm very much on the sense. i can see your point of view, vaughn. i think it's not out of the picture that he'll take the stand. it's pretty likely the defense is going to rest without having to call him. he's such an unpredictable or uncontrollable -- he's predictable. an uncontrollable witness. joining us from outside the courthouse is stephanie ruhle

who was inside the court's overflow room today. hey, steph, what did you see? >> reporter: i would say donald trump is unpredictable, but also a liar. one of the first things we saw him do today was stand outside and give his quasi press conference talking about how his supporters couldn't come because it's blocked off for three blocks. that's categorically false. there are barriers so the media can set up their cameras. it was completely orderly this morning with reporters and people who wanted to come inside that courtroom lined up. there's a park right in front of me directly across from the courthouse, and that's where theoretical protesters or anti-protesters can be. there's just a few people milling about. the former president saying his people want to be here but they can't, that is a lie. my big takeaway from sitting inside that courtroom today, i

was thinking about the jury. when you get an up-close and personal view of this, this isn't "law and order." there's no perry mason moment where they'll make an argument and it will get wrapped up. this is a long and tedious process. ism ooh thinking of the jurors sitting through hours and hours and hours hearing about this business that was foul in every possible way. it's key that judge merchan has decided that closing arguments will not be until after the long weekend. no doubt these jurors are fatigued. they've heard a lot. >> stephanie, we're going to be hearing a lot more coming up. thanks so much. for a lot more about stephanie's observations from inside the courthouse, of course, catch "the 11th hour" at 11:00 eastern here on msnbc. we're approaching the top of the hour. stay with us for fresh analysis of michael cohen ooes redirect, plus we'll hear from more legal experts who have been inside the

courthouse. all that coming up during the next 15, 20 minutes while the court is still in recess for lunch. we're just getting started with our special coverage. you're watching msnbc. you're watching msnbc. (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.

my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2,

or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®.

and they're all coming? those who are still with us, yes. grandpa! what's this? your wings. light 'em up! gentlemen, it's a beautiful... ...day to fly.