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.

to those words and admit he has a financial stake in how donald trump's hush money trial plays out. >> tons of details and memorable moments in his testimony today including an admission cohen stole from the trump organization and that he paid one client with cash stuffed in

a brown paper bag. just before the trial broke for the lunch break, the prosecution started its redirect by focusing on the stormy daniels payments and pushing back on the defense's suggestion they were correctly labeled as legal work cohen did for donald trump. >> the question now, did multiple days of cross-examination destroy cohen's credibility in the eyes of the jury, and could that help donald trump's defense get the former president off the hook, or do they believe him? do they believe hissy kwens? a key thing that was raised out of the earshot of the jury when they went to lunch, chris, this whole issue of the c-span clip that showed keith schiller and donald trump were on a stage in a rally when trump was leaving the stage, keith schiller was with him for enough minutes for michael cohen to have called and spoken to both of them as he has testified. >> i want to bring in nbc's dasha burns outside the courthouse.

also joining us, "washington post" national investigative reporter carolyn leonnig. former manhattan assistant da catherine christian. let's pick up where we left off last hour before i rushed from the courthouse. catherine, how important is this picture? >> the defense would argue we aren't saying keith schiller and donald trump weren't together. we're saying when they had a conversation they were talking about the 14-year-old crank caller. it's important for the jury, if any of them had a doubt whether or not mr. schiller or mr. trump were together, that they have confirmation of that if the judge allows the photo in. >> when you have a situation like this where so much of the key evidence is about numbers, documents, allen wiesel ber eeg picture on a piece of paper.

>> it can help. anything to help michael cohen's credibility in terms of the prosecution is great. the most corroboration you can have for him will help this case, particularly if you have some jurors on the fence about, oh, i don't know if i really believe him. they can deliberate and say, but x, y and z were corroborating. >> i want to go back to the end of 2016. we were able to google the c-span screen grab. i'm sure we have video of this as well because we were recording these rallies. it's donald trump in tampa bay and he's just finished with his speech. keith schiller is behind him. they're walking off stage, 7:57. the phone call apparently happens at 8:03. i'm thinking back to that time when i'm trying to make sense of what the defense is arguing in my mind, that what keith schiller does immediately after walking off stage at a rally while he is maybe still with donald trump is text michael cohen to call him immediately about the 14-year-old is

allegedly -- that michael cohen says is harassing him. i don't know if we have vaughn hillyard with us. i hope we do. i'd love to get vaughn in on this because he was following the campaign at the time. we'll get him back later. i don't know if it's reasonable to say he would call only about the 14-year-old moments after he walked off stage. i think finding evidence of this might be difficult. jeremy, you say this is potentially something that the prosecution can argue the context and the reasonableness around this photo if they find it to be necessary in their closing arguments. >> not making the argument during direct or cross. that's not when you're making the argument. you may become argumentative. the argument itself, it's not plausible that call would have been made to discuss a 14-year-old is an argument to be

made at summation. it's just another piece of evidence to say believe michael cohen because of this, this and this. >> this image we have on our screen is not the right one. keith schiller is this guy right now in the red tie. that's his bodyguard. here they are walking off the stage, i believe with secret service walking off the stage after the speech in tampa bay, florida. this is october 24th, 2016. it is days before the election. it is heated. it is intense. >> maybe not everyone has this experience, but i know when i get off of four hours with you lovely ladies, the first thing i do is check my phone and get a fill on things that are happening in every aspect of my life for the last four hours. we can't really check our phones when we're on television. so it's not unreasonable that donald trump coming off the stage at a rally would get a fill from keith schiller. catherine, does it seem crazy to

you? >> it's not cracrazy. i agree is keith schiller going to care a lot about the 14-year-old crank caller days before election day? that will be the argument that the prosecution will argue in summation. they go after defense. if defense makes a big dial about it in their summation, you can expect to hear anybody doing the summation for the prosecution to rebut that. >> to catherine's point, they're going to make a big stink about this is about a 14-year-old, didn't have an opportunity to speak about what was going on with michael cohen and the extortion that they're alleging, then similarly it's not reasonable -- >> let me ask you about timing. the defense is going to argue their closing first, right? the prosecution goes second? >> that's correct. >> the prosecution could arguably change up their argument in response to what the

defense team is proposing. >> if they don't mention it in the summation, why in the world would you bring it up? you're going to stick to your strongest arguments as a prosecutor. >> what do you think they might have been talking about? i don't know, i was trying to put my head into that moment and trying to think if it seemed reasonable to me at the time, for keith schiller to have that kind of conversation or not be doing something that donald trump would have been asking for in those moments. i don't know. it's an issue to raise. >> what we don't know is whether donald trump would say "what's the latest with stormy." >> let me go to carol leonnig on this. michael cohen was asked whether or not he would update donald trump on his daughter who apparently was the target at the time of an extortion plot, one of a series of things they say were going on at the time. michael cohen said no, updating him on his daughter's situation is not something i would do. let's talk about the believability, the common sense

that the jury may bring to this no matter how much they know about donald trump. >> well, i think your open question there, chris, is basically what did donald trump care about and what did he want his minions to keep him abreast of. there were very critical issues for donald trump in the weeks running up to the election. let's keep in mind donald trump did not expect to win the election, expected to lose it, but felt it was a great branding opportunity nonetheless and did not like the idea of being humiliated, so kept questioning whether or not the results were going to be valid if he didn't win. really it was a promotional kind of walk, if you will, those final weeks. but what did he care about the most? michael cohen would have known that donald trump cared about anything that would have made him look small or challenged his reputation, raised questions

about his electability and anything having to do with money. those are the key issues for donald trump in those weeks coming up to the election, my rep, my money, my stakes here, the consequences for me. i think it's not unreasonable to presume that, if donald trump said to michael cohen this is what's important, that's what michael cohen would have steered himself to and stealed himself for. in 0 seconds, more for our reporters and analysts who have spent all morning in the courthouse including our rachel maddow who just got to our camera. that's next. ust got to our camera that's next. [introspective music] recipes. recipes written by hand and lost to time. are now being analyzed and restored using the power of dell ai. ♪ (♪♪)

(♪♪) try dietary supplements from voltaren, for healthy joints. (vo) you've had thyroid eye disease for a long time. and you've lived with the damage it caused.voltaren, but even after all these years, restoration is still possible. learn how at tedhelp.com. what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the

energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com. i want to bring in msnbc's rachel mad dough host of, of course, the rachel maddow show. rachel, describe the experience and how, if you could see trump or the jury, either, this whole argument with michael cohen on the stand and the cross-examination which seemed pretty tough, and then the redirect which was cleaning a lot up. >> reporter: yeah. andrea, it was a really, really interesting day for a lot of different reasons. from a personal perspective, i felt very lucky i had a great vantage point of the entire jury and also of trump. there's police officers that sometimes get in the way of seeing trump.

i could see them both pretty much entirely for most of the day which was interesting. one of the things i don't think i was able to appreciate before was the palpable interest level of the jury. today we saw the switch from the end of the cross-examination of michael cohen being conducted by todd blanche to the start of the redirect, meaning the prosecutors going back to cohen and giving him open-ended questions and letting him explain himself. while todd blanche was very animated, agitated, yelled at michael cohen a few different times, the jury didn't seem to be following him all that tightly. i noticed several jurors kind of yawning or staring off in the distance, maybe not knowing what he was getting at. he seemed to be trying to compensate for that by putting emotion into it. i don't know that it made it more coherent. when susan hoffinger took over, her redirect had a lot of pace.

it was very punchy. she was basically saying, michael cohen, you were asked about this. explain what you meant. you were asked about this, explain what you meant. essentially trying to obviate any points that the defense might have been able to put on the board with this very aggressive cross-examination of michael cohen. so it's been a really interesting day. trump has definitely seemed to be asleep for parts of it, but awake for others and sending notes back and forth with his lawyer. the jury has been sort of on and off in terms of their attention, but i think mr. blanche, i think the best case for the defense is he's setting himself up for a brilliant summation. but whether or not the cross-examination is telling its own story i think is harder to say. >> rachel, i'm curious, i was in the overflow room. even though i have a dead-on view of donald trump, i don't see the jury. i have a dead-on view of michael

cohen, but don't see the jury. i want to ask you a couple questions. one is, when michael cohen came in, just the way they both moved, it seemed like for a moment donald trump at least looked at him or referred to him, although most of the time, again, looking at that head-on shot, he had his eyes closed a lot to day when he wasn't talking directly to his lawyers or whatever. and also, we've talked a lot here on this program about the jury and how sometimes michael cohen seemed to be speaking directly to them. so i'm curious about the interaction between trump and cohen, but also between cohen and the jury. >> reporter: from where i am sitting, i can't see much interaction between trump and cohen. i can see them both individually. it's possible there's some -- some dynamic happening between them, but it sort of seems like they're each in their own little world. i don't sense a lot of eye

contact or anything going on between the two of them. michael cohen, when he's being closely questioned by blanche and in a very different tone but also closely questioned by the prosecutor on redirect, he's focused intently, i think as you would have to be, on those questions because obviously in the case of todd blanche he's trying to trip him up. you have to make sure that doesn't happen. any time michael cohen has a little breathing room, an answer where he gets time to explain himself, he does direct his energy to the jury and they're watching him very closely. go ahead. >> i was wondering. when i was there last week, when the jury walked in, rachel, they never looked at donald trump. they would walk in, look ahead of themselves. the second they'd pass trump, they'd look down. what did you get when they were filing in and out and their interaction with the former president? >> reporter: it seems like they

are there to do the people's business, and they are taking this seriously and they're focused and not sort of playing reindeer games as far as anybody staring anybody down in the courtroom. honestly, nobody is. i think this jury is being taxed in terms of their ability to sustain interest in what often feels like arcane and plotless -- not badgering, but sort of pecking at the witness in the case of michael cohen. if you don't know why it matters, if it's not obvious to a layman why it would matter whether or not michael cohen had closer to 12 calls or closer to 20 calls with at&t in 2017, then hearing the 11th question on that point, it is taxing in terms of focusing. you can see jurors -- nobody is doing anything performative or theatrical. you can see jurors kind of, doing this, kind of looking out into the room or trying to find

something else to keep their attention while trump's defense counsel is trying to pound away at cohen. they did try to build a little bit of a dramatic crescendo at the end of the cross-examination. i think it was a big missed punch, basically. blanch basically trying to get cohen to admit that he had a financial interest in this case and cohen i think very strongly peried that, i have a financial interest in this case because i talk about it on my podcast. do i have a financial interest on whether or not he gets convicted? no, i don't. probably it's better for me if he doesn't because i can keep talking about it. blanche maybe thought he had embarrassed him. it completely obviated blanche's point and landed really in cohen's favor at the end of

that. they're trying to build drama, but i think cohen essentially outfoxed them. >> i don't know if that backs up the impression we had from reading this narration written by our great colleagues in the overflow room. in reading it, you don't have the affect. it certainly seems with a few exceptions today and most notably on thursday that it's very disbursive cross-examination, it's here, there, no narrative thread. it seems you're not building a story for the jury of what happened. i don't know if that's your impression as well. >> i think that's right. i think that's right. that's what i mean by, i think the best interpretation of what's happening for the defense is they may be building toward a great summation. i don't know if you watch the british baking show -- >> the greatest show on

television. >>. >> reporter: exactly. you have all the ingredients out. you don't know what they're going to make, at the end -- maybe this is going to come together as an amazing recipe in the summation. as has been presented thus far, the cross-examination of michael cohen thus far is the defense's case, and it is thus far a splatter painting of stuff that doesn't connect and tell a narrative. they don't need to tell a narrative, they don't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any connection for the events in issue. they need to poke holes in the prosecution's case. they do need to hold the jury's interest and taking up their time for a reason. there are very few moments where i think todd blanche in his defense is saying a thing that seems to mean a thing to the jury. he may do the world's greatest -- the defense team may do the world's greatest summation that brings it

altogether, but at the moment, it's disper sive, sprawling and uninteresting. >> the jury is the last group to come into the courtroom. everybody is already seated and they rise when the jury comes in. i wonder if you got any sense of whether they looked over to the people that were accompanying donald trump to the courthouse today? any glances over at alan dershowitz and company? >> you're definitely seeing -- you're seeing a lot of -- i notice jurors looking out into the courtroom in general. whether or not they were focusing on trump's entourage is hard to tell. i will say as an observer in the courtroom, the entourage is colorful. the hells angels leader is a very large man wearing a very flamboyant suit with a big dyed

black pompadour and huge gaudy jewelry on very large hands. he's sitting next to boris epshteyn. there's alan dershowitz, there's members of congress and well-known lawyers. there is a sort of performative aspect to the way they're by haifing in court. it's noticeable for those of us there observing as jurnltists. i don't know if they're catching the jury's attention so much. it's a little -- it's not a star wars bar scene, but it's a little bit of a cast of characters. >> rachel maddow, thank you so much. >> the great british baking show reference, i thank you for that. totally changed my mood. appreciate it. >> reporter: no soggy bottoms. >> no soggy bottoms. it will make mary berry very

upset. >> rachel, we'll all be watching your exclusive interview with fulton county da fani willis. watch at 9:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. let's bring in msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin and "new york times" reporter susanne craig who are at the courthouse as they have been every day in the overflow room. you're there every day. bring us what you think today's highlights have so far been. >> katy, it's not a star wars cantina scene reference, but what i want to share with you and our viewers is something known as red finch. up until today most of our viewers would say that's a bird. no, actually it's the name of the company that michael cohen owed money to on behalf of donald trump. the prosecution didn't get to elicit in their case what that payment was for.

they just got to say when allen weisselberg and donald trump were ranging for payments, part of it was for a n $50,000 expenditure for michael cohen made for something they didn't explain. because todd blanche raised it and the payment to red finch, today susan hoffinger got to explain what that's all about. it's a company that did tech services. more explicitly donald trump was an entrant for a contest for the most famous businessman of the century. he didn't like how he was doing in this poll. michael cohen went out and hired the company to develop an algorithm to make trump rise and rise and rise in the polls. he didn't rise in the polls sufficiently to his leaking. when cnbc dropped the contest, donald trump said i don't neil like paying that $50,000. that's how michael cohen ended up paying the owner of red

finch, someone he knew personally and someone he testified he thought he would need in coming years, $20,000 in two increments in bags of cash. what happened to the other $30,000? michael cohen testified that when he was repaid that, through that repayment scheme, he pocketed it. when asked to explain why he pocketed it, he said he was angry. it was a form of self-help. he had seen his bonus slashed by almost two-thirds. he helped himself to the trump organization piggy bank and admitted clearly he stole from the trump organization. how that will play with the jury and whether it's even relevant to them is not clear. i think it illustrates the mixed bag that is michael cohen as a witness. on one hand he's intimately familiar with the misdeeds of donald trump and the defense exposed themselves to michael cohen's explanation of it. on the other hand, it also forced michael cohen to admit that in addition to the various misdeeds of which we've heard him confess over the last few days, he also happened to steal $30,000 from the trump organization.

>> one of the things i got from sitting next to you, lisa, and this is my first time at the courthouse, is what we've talked about. it's very hard to judge even with great explanations what the back and forth is. it's so different when you're in the room, you can hear the intone nation of the voice, that's one of the times that todd blanche did press it by saying you stole from the trump organization, right? michael cohen, yes, sir. not even belying any emotion or thought about it. he just went -- and that was one of the few points where i noticed that trump really took notice, that he was suddenly sitting up a little taller. i wonder what your observations were today, sue. >> it's interesting. just stepping back when you think about michael cohen, he is the biggest asset for the prosecution and also the biggest liability. he is the only person who can

directly link donald trump to the criminal disguise of the documents at play. all of the conversations that he had, there may be supporting evidence for it. he is the only one that can link trump to them. what's really important and i think what the defense is doing here and why some of it may seem like it's jumbled and it's here and it's there is because they're going through piece by piece things where he has no credibility. he stole $30,000 from the company. he did it and pocketed it and is now having to talk about it at a trial. they're taking them through those sort of things. we heard on friday, there was doubt cast about a call he made and what that call was about. that became a very important point for the defense. they're just going through, piece by piece, everything where michael cohen has a credibility issue. they also raised questions today about who might have known or

who could have signed off on the checks in question other than donald trump. some of them came out of the trust where don jr. and eric, donald trump's sons, have signing authority. they're casting doubt and trying to question michael cohen's credibility going into this final week of the trial before we actually have closing arguments next week. >> how does a juror react to that acknowledgment by michael cohen, yes, sir, yes, ma'am, i stole from the organization. he was trying to explain because he felt cheated on his bonus, and he was just laying out the money and he was stalling red finch on what they owed. it all sounds so convoluted and not the way normal people pay their bills. >> i wonder if it's -- we don't know. we'll find out. does the jury listen to that and say, wow, what a crook. that's the first time we've

heard the specifics. the brown bag was the little extra jolt -- >> the brown bag got me. covering spero agnew. >> we've established who this guy is. does that mean what he says or testified to or how he corroborates what's in the documents isn't true? >> i think it's a drip, drip, drip that you're hearing. michael cohen has lied under oath in kovenlth he has lied on the stand in trials. he's cheated on his taxes. he has now admitted to stealing money from his employer, somebody that paid him millions of dollars over the years. he said it was self-help at that point he was so angry. it doesn't make it right. i think that's what the defense is trying to get through, that he's got a lot of problems and now you should not believe him on the main thing which is the criminal disguise of the documents. >> lisa and sue, always great to see the two of you together. it was a pleasure standing in line and sitting next to you in

particular, lisa. i was looking over my shoulder, getting my legal analysis. let me bring in msnbc lawrence o'donnell host of the last word with lawrence o'donnell. you've been there almost every single day. you have the strength of beyond mortal men. what did you see? what did you hear? >> the courtroom is where i began as a writer and a reporter a long time ago. this is a homecoming to me in terms of a workplace. the shocking thing at the end of that cross-examination -- i just can't tell you how stunning it was. it's the thing i was waiting for. i saw everything todd blanche -- i've seen every minute of cross-examination, seen every single question he's asked. he sat down and ended his cross-examination without asking

a single question about the $130,000 that appears on the allen weisselberg notes about how they were structuring the payment to michael cohen. he asked about the $50,000 that's irrelevant to the $130,000, and that's where he very effectively got michael cohen to say, to agree that, yes, he stole $30,000. later when cohen was asked about that on redirect by the prosecution, it didn't really sound like stealing $30,000. it sounded a lot like michael cohen doing the little that he could within that calculation to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserved, and it still came out as less than the bonus he thought he deserved and the bonus he had gotten the year before. to go back to the $130,000, that's what the case is about. that is the money that is considered an illegal campaign

contribution by this prosecution. that's the crime michael cohen pled guilty to in federal court, an illegal campaign contribution, excessive contribution of $130,000. the cross-examination of michael cohen did not touch that $130,000. that is an amazing hole. that is $130,000 hole in that cross-examination that todd blanche made absolutely no attempt to close. he didn't go near it. and understandably, what it tells you is they have no explanation. that was the moment, if the defense was going to explain why allen weisselberg wrote in his own handwriting $130,000 on that document, which is the smoking gun document of the case, the defense had to explain it to you through this witness right now, and they didn't. as much as he had a good ten

minutes on cross last week, getting michael cohen confused about is it possible that in that 1:30 phone call to keith schiller that you talked about more than just stormy daniels, and michael cohen allowed that, okay, i guess it is possible i talked about the phone call harassment and stormy daniels. that was a big achievement for todd blanche on cross-examination. that achievement looked smaller today when on redirect by the prosecution they went over that again. michael cohen said, yes, of course, on the phone calls with donald trump you could talk about more than one thing. but the big, shocking thing left out of this defense is absolutely zero explanation for the $130,000 entry on that piece of paper that calculates how much michael cohen will be paid which the defense is insisting

is not, not a payback. they're trying to insist this was absolutely legal -- michael cohen is being paid as a lawyer for the year of 2017 and this is how we're paying him. there's no reimburse. in those paychecks at all, no reimbursement at all. that just completely falls apart when the defense has nothing to say about the $130,000 that went into that calculation of what that reimbursement the prosecution says those reimbursement checks would be. >> lawrence, what about what the defense and the prosecution were arguing with judge merchan after the jury left for the lunch break, the desire by the prosecution to enter into the record the c-span video of keith schiller and donald trump together on the evening that michael cohen says he spoke to donald trump about the stormy daniels matter just six minutes

or so before michael cohen says he made that phone call. >> that's such a great point. todd blanche is fighting against introducing this video and a still photograph from this video showing keith schiller and donald trump -- katy, you know the close proximity they were in, basically shoulder to shoulder all the time. they're leaving a campaign event at 7:57 p.m. at 8:02 p.m., michael cohen's testimony is he called keith schiller. after speaking to keith schiller, keith schiller handed the phone to donald trump and donald trump okayed the stormy daniels payment. todd blanche is fighting the introduction of this photograph or this video as powerfully as he has fought anything in this case. the judge has declared it to be relevant. he said i think it's relevant.

he'll consider the other possible objections to it after lunch. the judge will decide after lunch whether this video image gets into this case as an exhibit right now. it will go into this case as an exhibit right now, if it does, with michael cohen on the stand, and this will be a visual confirmation of the possibility at least of what michael cohen is saying is true, is that you could make a call to keith schiller in that situation and he would hand the phone to donald trump. when you see the way todd blanche is fighting this photograph in court, fighting the introduction to letting the jury see it, it's like he's fighting for the basic life of his defendant over this particular thing. that's how important it is. >> what really struck me in the conversation they had, the sidebar conversation they had out of the sight of the jury, out of earshot of the jury about this, was that blanche was saying it's hearsay.

the prosecution wants to have the custodian, the witness, the technical witness from c-span say that it is a clip from the live c-span feed, so it's legit. it happened. blanche is saying it's hearsay. merchan is saying, well, the relevance -- and that it's not relevance. he said i'm not concerned about the relevance, he'll look into the hearsay after the lunch break. i'm not sure how it can be hearsay, if it actually happened, it's a clip from c-span. >> it's a very highly technical hearsay claim, and it is technically correct, the question of whether there's enough foundation to overcome that hearsay objection. the hearsay, andrea, is actually to the time stamp on the video. the time stamp is going to say

7:57 p.m. what the defense means by hearsay legitimately in that situation is how do we know that it's 7:57 p.m., who is telling us that? there's not a witness here telling us it was 7:57 p.m. what they have had, they've already had a c-span witness come on and verify how c-span time stamps everything. what the prosecution is arguing is look, the foundational testimony we got from c-span official already explains exactly how that time stamp went on there. we can do all that again, drag the witness in here again, but there's no reason to do that. we have enough foundation to accept the 7:57 p.m. timestamp and that gets them around, they believe, the hearsay objection. >> so the point would be that this conversation could have taken place, as cohen describes it, because there's enough time and they were together, but you can't infer what they actually

said because there's no one there describing it, keith schiller is not a witness and obviously donald trump isn't. is that basically the point? >> yeah. the photograph gives the jury a visual representation of how that phone call could work. so it's a crucial piece of evidence. it's not a tape of the phone call, but it's one of those things, it's several steps away from being a tape of the phone call. but it adds validity to michael cohen's claim about calling keith schiller and keith schiller passes the phone to donald trump. if you watch the way todd blanche is fighting this, this is like it's the last fight of this case, that he has got to win this one. that's the way he believes at this point, keeping this photograph away from the jury. he doesn't want the jury to see this photograph. >> we'll find out most likely at 2:15 when they come back from lunch. lawrence o'donnell, thank you so much. your legal eye in all of these

aspects is great. we'll hear more on his analysis from the trial today. tune in to "the last word" tonight at 10:00 p.m. on msnbc. joining us now is former federal prosecutor and former sdny criminal division deputy chief, christie greenberg. she previously worked with donald trump's defense attorney, todd blanche. she is a good analyst as to how he's handling this cause and has been in the overflow room all morning. talk to us about that and the two october phone calls that are so much in dispute. >> so one thing i would say is this morning felt really slow. there were people in the overflow room audibly complaining about the slow pace of the questioning, whereas on redirect when hoffing jer got up, the questions were much more like what you'd expect to see on cross. they were shorp, crisp, made her

point and moved on to the next topic. in terms of cross, todd blanche tried to get his second gotcha moment. there were multiple calls that cohen testified to on direct. we heard already the disputes about what was discussed in the october 24th call. so now todd blanche tried to turn to october 26th, what happened during the calls, what was discussed between donald trump and michael cohen on those calls? there todd blanche tried to suggest that really what they would have discussed is potential extortion of tiffany trump in regards to photos that michael cohen was assisting her with. the question was posed to michael cohen, well, isn't that what you talked to donald trump about on those calls. michael cohen said no, i didn't update him on that. we talked about the stormy daniels payment. it really kind of -- it felt like he was leading up to some gotcha moment. he had nothing to confront him with to suggest there was anything about tiffany trump and that it really wasn't about

stormy daniels. it really completely fell flat. there weren't those kinds of messages before and after the call like we saw with keith schiller. this really was a moment that was a complete dud i thought for the defense. >> thank you very much, christie greenberg. it's always good to see you outside the courthouse. coming up next -- sorry. go ahead. oh, we're going to stay here. okay. here is my question. when we hear the comments that we heard from rachel maddow and she's talking about how meandering it seemed to be, when you're following all the logs of people and x and twitter of people in the room and they're saying there are numerous times including when they were talking about that $30,000 that he says -- he admitted that he took, maybe the jury paid attention when they talked about the brown bag or he said you

stole from the trump organization. but up until that point they were talking about how the jury seemed kind of distracted. how much does it hurt if it seems like it's slow, if it seems like it's long, if it seems like it's meandering. does it not matter if they bring it all together in the end? >> i agree. beware of people, particularly not on the jury being bored. they're like, let's hurry up, i've got to get out of here. jurors sometimes get bored and look away. that doesn't mean they're not focused. i always avoided people telling me what jurors were thinking. i heard someone say i can tell they're bonding with michael cohen. i heard someone else say, i can tell they don't like michael cohen. ignore those people. they don't know what they're talking about. the defense, it might be a strategy to confusion. as long as they're not confusing in their summation. that might be part of their strategy. also, in terms of that testimony

about the stealing of the money, the problem for the prosecution is it did come out on direct, but it came out a sanitized way. what the prosecution should have done on direct and i hate armchair quarterbacks, but i'm going to be one, when he said it, just say, you stole the money, correct? and have him say that. instead it comes out more clear on cross-examination that he stole the money. you never want jurors sitting there saying, why didn't they tell me that on direct, why didn't we hear about the bag of money in the paper bag -- the money in the paper bag? that's the problem for the prosecution. you always want to lean in when you have a witness like this, the bad stuff, bring it out on direct. when it comes out on cross, they've already heard it. >> i wonder how you feel about the composure of donald trump during this trial. we were used to him in past trials, the engoron trial, being boisterous, interrupting,

getting held in contempt. >> walking out during the closing for e. jean carroll. >> verbally trying to get him to calm down, telling his lawyer to get control of your client. >> cursing under his breath through part of it. >> yeah, but for the most part he's been sitting there very quiet and he's leaned back -- i wouldn't sap he's sleeping. i couldn't tell you if that's the case. he's much calmer, very infrequently arguing even with his lawyers in court or talking to them very much. >> much more l.a.x. with a judge trial than with a jury trial. you can get up and leave if you like -- >> engoron was a bench trial. >> right, right, right. there's something called parkerizing a witness. parkerizing in new york state says you can leave, but this trial will go on in your

absence. the jury can convict you in your absence, you can be sentenced in your absence. if donald trump left, it wouldn't stop the trial. it doesn't behoove him to alienate a jury of laypeople where he's iconic, better or worse, but to be a bad jerk in front of the jury who spending their time, dealing with their own anxiety, to get up and be bombastic, that doesn't help. >> i think he has been able to control himself. the narrative after the engoron case is he can't control himself. >> as if to sit there quietly, eyes closed, whether awake or not, that this is just so unimportant. it's a sham trial. i've been making that point over and over again. >> think about if you're a juror sitting there, you're saying, it's so unimportant that i can close my eyes. i'm taking time out of my life to listen to this testimony, subjecting myself to the eyes of the public and you don't think it's important. whether or not you're innocent,

and the prosecution always has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it's still important. it's a former president of the united states. >> one of the things that struck me today is looking at michael cohen and donald trump, close-up cameras on both of them. i thought who are these guys? they're not the people i've known and interacted with or anybody out there has seen. you don't even have to know them or interview them. >> that's why it's a shame this trial is not televised because the way people behave when they're under oath or they're in a setting that poses them great risk i think is very telling versus the way they behave in their regular life -- >> the testimony you keep coming back to for a very good reason, the brown bag of cash. who deals with cash, first of all, in a brown paper bag? that is the sort of -- >> cartoon pictures. >> and you can't really get the nuance between the lawyer and

the defendant unless you see it happen -- >> i was so struck by todd blanche. i expected him to be more gravelly, more forceful, more like a pit ball in the courtroom. just the photos, the screen shots we have, the still frames of him, he looks very intimidating. when he's in there, he doesn't have an intimidating demeanor. he's conversational. he sounds younger than he is. he doesn't seem like a hard-charging attorney, the way you picture donald trump wants his attorneys. he's not a tv attorney. he's not -- doesn't sound like alina habba or like michael cohen when he was his personal attorney. it's very different and it's very interesting to see what it's like inside that courtroom. you gain a lot of respect for the judicial process because everybody in there, the defense, the prosecution, the witnesses, they all have respect for the process or at least they're all behaving -- >> certainly judge merchan who

has the quiet forcefulness, he's in control of that courtroom. >> all right, guys. jeremy, thank you for being with us. up next, another massive story we're tracking today right now, a major shock around the world following the death of iran's president in a helicopter crash. we'll head over and get the latest including information on who is now in charge of that country after this. who is now in charge of that country after this d analysis, help make trading feel effortless. and its customizable scans with social sentiment help you find and unlock opportunities in the market. e*trade from morgan stanley with powerful, easy-to-use tools, power e*trade makes complex trading easier. react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity. e*trade from morgan stanley

(♪♪) the best way to solve a problem is to keep it from happening.

(♪♪) at evernorth, we combine medical and pharmacy data with behavioral health data to identify members in need of care. predicting and treating behavioral health issues quickly... while lowering costs for plan sponsors and members. that's wonder made possible. evernorth health services

and we have breaking news from overseas early this morning, iran has appointed former vice president mohammed makber as the, succeeding, of course, the president, the video showing the search teams at the crash site today. mountainous area near the border with azerbaijan. nine people were aboard the helicopter, including the foreign minister. no survivors. richard engel joins us now. you and i have covered iran for years, decades, and raisi was the leading that we questioned, i questioned every year when he came to the u.n. mr. holt did that interview on camera, but he was always here, just talked to him in september and got him to talk on the record because there was so much breaking news that day, i said to him, you know, mr. president,

can you give us something, an off the record session, and he said, okay, it's all on the record. we were frantically scrambling. he was a rough, tough totalitarian leader. not the supreme leader, of course. >> reporter: on the rise. >> the government was cracking down for years, on the women and men protesting, so coming at such an uncertain time in the israel-gaza war, and after those, quote, indirect talks between iran and the united states just last week, a lot happening with u.s. officials telling us that iran was trying to keep a lid on it as much as they could. hezbollah not having, iran's proxy, not having a big attack from the north. especially after the damascus attack.

what does this mean? >> reporter: so you summed it up, and we could talk for the next five hours, and i think we're going to be talking over the next months about what happened over the next 24 hours means for iran. it means a lot, as you mentioned. you had a confident, bold, empowered figure who could just snap his fingers and say all of that is on the record, and there would be no repercussions. in iran, that doesn't come easily. you have to have authority to do that kind of thing because there are so many different centers of power there, and so many of the centers of power are hidden. as you know, the president doesn't run the country. it is run by the supreme leader, and raisi was in line to become the next supreme leader. he was 63 years old when he died. had he become the supreme leader and most indications are he would have, perhaps quite soon, the current supreme leader is 85

and not doing well at 85. so this could have been a relatively quick transition. he would have been in power, potentially, for the next 20 years as the supreme leader of the country, but maybe more than 20 years, depending on his lifetime. it's a job for life, and now he's gone, and he went in this accident, no indication that it was foul play, in helicopter crash. and it's created a succession crisis. now, as you said, he now has 50 days to call for a new election and a new president. he'll probably be able to do that. and probably will be able to find a new president. but someone who's in a position to step in to assume the position of supreme leader is very different. andrea, you and i know iran. i'm not sure most people understand, this is a theocracy. it is not thousands of years old. iran, per shah, the kingdom that

had all of the shahs and dynasties. this is the experiment of the islamic revolution that has lasted since 1979. there have been two supreme leaders. ayatollah khomeini founded the republic, and khamenei, his successor, he likely would be the third. this opens up some possible vacuums of power. you could see more empowerment of the revolutionary guard, as the country is increasingly having to rely on them to restore order. this is one of those stones, i think, that is dropped in the river of time that has the potential to change the course of the way it was going, at least for iran, and potentially the region. >> and we just have this in, the state department is making a statement, the white house has offered very bare bones

condolences, but saying, according to the state department, matt miller, death does not change the fundamental u.s. stance towards iran. the u.s. for logistical reasons, they were unable to provide it. this is a very careful response. >> i don't think it's going to change the fundamental position of iran either, you know. >> exactly. >> reporter: that was a terse response. there wasn't a lot of effusive expressions of grief coming from european capitals, israel and the united states. the most we heard today was primarily we didn't do it, and please don't blame this on us. this seems like it was because of the weather and incredible fog. but i know that u.s. military intelligence officials, european intelligence officials, middle eastern intelligence officials are watching this transition of power very carefully. and i have been speaking to some of them and they're wondering

how this plays out. sorry, what did you say? >> and, richard, just very quickly, the u.s. is going to continue, says john kirby, to hold iran accountable for destabilizing behavior. it took them hours to respond. richard engel, thank you very much, and in the next 15 minutes or so, we expect the donald trump hush money trial to resume. stay close, much more of our special coverage right after this. this smile! you found it. the feeling of finding psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu,

a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up. or finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu.