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.

right before they took a break, the prosecution in donald trump's hush money case reminded the jury michael cohen is not the one on trial here. despite a cross-examination that got heated, just as he was finishing, and yet an admission by trump's former fixer on the stand did leave the d.a.'s

office with some clean up to do. i'm chris jansing alongside my colleagues, andrea mitchell and katy tur. sorry, michael cohen acknowledged under oath that he stole $60,000 from the trump organization, that he did it out of anger that mr. trump cut his bonus. >> the prosecution is trying to use their second shot at questioning michael cohen to redirect the focus back to the former president. we're going to bring you live updates as we read them when michael cohen returns to the stand in just a few minutes after the lunch break. >> nbc's yasmin vossoughian is live at the courthouse. catherine christian is still with us. also with us, andrew weissmann, former lead prosecutor in robert mueller's special counsel's office. good to have all of you here. so since you just joined us, where would you pick up? >> let's just take the $60,000 that michael cohen said he stole. you know, this is the kind of

thing that catherine and i when we were prosecutors and put on witnesses who had done lots of bad things, the defense wants to, and has an obligation to bring out a lot of the bad acts of what they have done before. but very often those bad acts, evidence of it is the witness, in fact, saying it himself or herself. here, michael cohen is the one who provided the evidence of it, and the amount of evidence is one single witness, michael cohen, and one of the things you will probably hear is what we used to argue to the jury, which is when michael cohen says something bad about himself, that should be believed. take it to the bank. and when he says he stole money, which, by the way, the only way people know about it, the state knows about it, the defense knows about it, is because he admits it. that you should take to the bank. as soon as he says something that's corroborated, that you can't believe. that's the back and forth. i know catherine and i are

thinking about, how is this going to be used in summation. >> you have been talking about how you think the has a really strong case. how did you think the defense did on their cross-examination? >> you know, this is one where i hold them to sort of a lower standard because, you know, a lot of times the defense lawyer will try lots and lots of different things, and a lot of it may not work. but they don't need a lot of it to work. it's okay if just some of it works. and they, i think, scored a valid point respect to the october 24th call to raise. if the only issue in the case was what happened on october 24th, i think they raised doubt about that. the problem is -- and they'll try and say that's what the case is about. in general, all of the things we knew about how sort of difficult michael cohen would be as a witness we knew even before he took the stand and certainly was

confirmed by his direct examination, and further confirmed on his cross-examination, which is, if all you had was michael cohen's testimony, i don't think the state would have brought the case, and this would not be something where you say it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> is what you're saying, this could be a one score, to put it in your words, one score with one juror, that's what they're hoping for. >> absolutely. what they're hoping for is that all 12 actually agree. >> of course. >> yeah, you know, a hung jury is something the defense always is like that second best, and you know, all they need is one juror. remember, it takes 12 to acquit. it takes 12 to convict, and if there's anything less than the 12 to convict, you have a hung jury. >> when we come back from lunch, we'll find out whether and to what degree that cspan clip or still photo will be admitted in. will that be enough to cast

doubt on what the defense was trying to do and corroborate the possibility that michael cohen is telling the truth, that he did call and reach keith schiller coming off the stage with donald trump. there was time for both issues to have been raised, the 14-year-old, as well as letting trump know we have taken care of stormy. >> i think if you're an adult and dispassionate, there's no question that michael cohen, and probably the d.a.'s office made a mistake in thinking that only one thing happened on that october 24th call, and during cross-examination, he was saying, well, i still think that's the call and it must be that two things happened, and frankly, 96 seconds is time to do that. i was talking about if i were the prosecutor, i would count out 96 seconds to the jury to

show how long that is. the tape recording michael cohen made of donald trump is 90 seconds long, there's a lot of ways to argue it. on the other hand, i think the prosecution with this exhibit, which is going to come in in some form. if it doesn't come in right now, they will be allowed to authenticate it. the judge says it's clearly relevant. it's a question of the rules of evidence about authentication. it's not one for one, but it helps, it supports the idea that the two of them were there and the call could have been happened with both of them. >> lawrence mentioned a moment ago that the trump team didn't go anywhere near the weisselberg notes on the trump stationary, exhibits 35 and 36. we talked about them a ton here. why did they not try to poke holes into that stuff? i mean, that seems like pretty strong evidence. wouldn't you want to sow some confusion in the jury's mind there? >> you want to. just to be clear, mary and i spent an entire episode of our podcast on exhibits 35 and 36.

when we saw that, we latched on it, as former trial lawyers, oh, my god, that is devastating. and in so many ways, it's corroborative it's got the 130, it's got the times two. all of the things that todd blanche did today would be fine arguments if you didn't have those notes. the answer to your direct question or to directly answer your question is sometimes there's not a lot you can say and you try and nibble around the edges, but, you know, i don't know what he can do about it. >> it's a guy that wrote down the payments to michael cohen, a guy currently in prison for continue to go lie for donald trump, continuing to hold his water. i mean, i feel like that's strong circumstantial evidence just on who allen weisselberg is. >> the jury doesn't know he's in prison, doesn't know why. that's something we know. >> if they were paying attention to the news before this, they would know. >> that is true, although it's a

low information jurors. here's one of the reasons, if the defense lawyer doesn't have a lot to say, one of the things they want, as few times as possible, do they want exhibit 35 and 36 shown to the jury. >> we have to go back to the courthouse because we have a mini bit of breaking news with yasmin vossoughian. to the question we haven't talked about in the last hour, which is will he or won't he, donald trump, we got some, i don't know, info, opinion, what did we get on it? >> reporter: a little bit more than a mini bit of breaking news, chris, a little bit more than that. alina habba talking to fox news, when asked the question or what is going into the decision on whether trump is going to testify. her answer was well, he's got to listen to his attorneys. it's not as much as what he wants to do. we know he wants to testify.

he is willing, he is able. he has nothing to hide. it would be quick in terms of the questions asked because he had no part in this. 90 seconds of testimony in the e. jean carroll defamation case, four hours of deposition offered up in the trump civil fraud trial. the thinking going into whether or not the former president is going to testify, we have said over and over again, it's ultimately up to donald trump, in fact, to testify, and i do believe that. of course he's going to take the counsel of his attorneys alina habba is telling us here. bradley smith, former fec commissioner to possibly testify. now it seems iffy. it seems as if both the prosecution and the defense are going to confer on the limitations to his testimony and/or offer up guidance to the judge as to what should be included in jury instructions, and if, in fact, they both agree on the jury instructions, they

won't need bradley smith to testify. the line of questioning, quick reminder here, bob costello, an attorney who in 2018, michael cohen thought about retaining, was encouraged by donald trump to retain. bob costello, rudy giuliani as well. a friend of rudy giuliani as well, and just during direct testimony, michael cohen was asked, did you tell the truth to bob costello, he said no, i'm paraphrasing here because he did not question him at the time. >> can i talk about brad smith, the other expert witness regarding the fec. a former commissioner. i have interviewed him for a show that jacob soboroff and i did called "the swamp," talking about campaign finance, and dark money.

he is an emphatic arguer that citizens are people. that dark money does not negatively affect campaigns. he is very good with words. very good at pushing his points. he can talk you in circles in order to get his point out. >> the judge said he's not going to let him testify to the law, that is for the law in his charge to the jury. >> it if he did allow him, he's a convincing person, very good with pushing what he believes to be correct. so i understand high they would want him as a witness. he's very argumentative and can be effective. >> i couldn't understand. we talked about what the defense did not do. why didn't the prosecution try to in direct rebut something catherine was talking about earlier, yes, i stole and the

brown paper bag of cash. why did they let that come out in cross? >> it probably would have been a good idea to pull the teeth on it and do -- i think we have talked about this, like, you know, there are different schools of thought. i'm a big believer in on your direct examination, like basically just letting it all hang out there in detail. so it kind of leaves the defense with not a lot to do in terms of just bad acts. but, you know, it's one of those things. i think it all is really going to come down to how you argue it. one good thing about michael cohen on all of that stuff. he's just admitting it. it's not like they have to drag it out, and he has actually said it. the reason the defense knows is because it's in reports that were written. one comment about just alina habba and donald trump testifying is that i strongly suspect that because it's the defendant's decision, not counsel's decision to testify or

not testify, most judges and i suspect it will be true of judge merchan, he's an extraordinary judge. he is going to in court say mr. trump, is this your decision. so i don't think he'll be able to say, oh, you know what, my counsel made the decision, and hide behind that. he can say i considered the advice of counsel. he will have to say in court -- >> how often does that happen? any good judge, you know what, they don't want an appeal issue where later a defendant says i didn't understand i had the weight. >> they don't want a speech rallying outside the courthouse -- >> not the jury but the judge will ask it outside of the presence of the jury. >> and he could say exactly that. what do we make of this lineup of possible people that they could call to the stand, smith, costello, a paralegal, put in a

phone chart which is expected to be very quick. they're giving some thought to it. what's your best estimation. >> i don't see the point of calling mr. smith if he can't really testify to anything. what he talked about with you, he's not going to be allowed. that would be pointless. costello is a problem for them and a gift to the prosecution. it opens the door to him allegedly trying to prevent michael cohen from flipping, his relationship with julianne. that is a pandora's box. he can't be on direct. he's going to be cross examined by the prosecution. >> why is keith schiller not being called? >> that's on the prosecution. why aren't they calling him? >> do you think the defense -- >> the prosecution would get to cross-examination him. the defense is best not calling any witnesses. they don't have to prove a thing. and the prosecution cannot comment at all in their summation about why didn't they

call this person and that person. >> the judge is back. they're going to have the charging conference where they decide how to instruct the jury tomorrow afternoon. that is still subject to change. he mentions he's not crazy about going down for a week, but that's just the calendar, and unfortunately that's the way the calendar is working for this trial. the discussion regarding admitting the c-span videos, i saw the people's submission. i had the opportunity to read through the testimony to see what kind of foundation can be laid. he points to page 1,664. what is your position at c-span. this is the testimony that the c-span executive director gave them. they say executive director of the c-span archives, did you travel to testify. he says, yes, i did. what is c-span is the question. what do you do with the october

2016 archives. does the camera operator record the event in realtime? yes, producer watches video from the beginning to the end, is video camera tested ahead of the event? yes. signal test? yes. audio test? yes. when video is being transmitted, does c-span record then save the video. the testimony is yes. describes everything telecast on c-span. why is he bringing up this specific testimony? >> to put in evidence you have to lay a foundation and show it's a business record kept in the ordinary course of business, and there already had been a c-span witness. the judge is going over what that person said. for the audience, the big picture is although defendants and their counsel do not have to stipulate to anything, 99.9% of

the time, it is, they stipulate on both sides. you do not have to do this. this is an unusual trial where the defense has not stipulated to anything. >> what does that mean? >> usually you can just say here are phone records and you don't have to call the telephone company and say yes, i work for the telephone company, here are the records of the telephone company kept in the ordinary course of business. the other side says i agree they're telephone records. i can argue about what they mean that courtesy extends both ways. this is the unusual trial where the defense has not stipulated to anything. having worked with susan necheles, as a prosecutor. in any normal case, of course. >> a defense that has continually complained and the

defendant has complained he's off the campaign trail and they have had any number of witnesses to do exactly what this witness would do, which is to prolong the trial for things that under most circumstances would have been just, yes, we agree. there's no question. >> do you think it's because of the client not wanting them to agree -- >> can i correct, andrew, that's federal court. state court, at least in manhattan, we were trained as prosecutor, you better know how to authenticate documents and videos and that. there's just no stipulation, why if you're the defense. really in that courthouse, no. i don't see anything wrong with it. as a prosecutor, of course they're not going to stipulate. you're trained as a prosecutor in manhattan, the d.a.'s office. you can expect the defense is not going to consent.

it's a very different world. >> we're going to get an answer on whether he's going to allow this video to be admitted. he's asking -- he's still reading from the testimony from the c-span. >> while we're waiting for that, can i ask a quick question, and you can certainly weigh in. there was thought this morning as the journalists were waiting in line for hours and having the conversation about what judge merchan would decide in terps of a schedule. they could do closings on thursday, begin deliberation. he would have let them do that. they would be off friday, saturday, sunday, and monday. >> friday is a holiday too. >> so four full days. maybe started a little bit of deliberation, and had to wait four days to come back. was there any way any judge would think -- >> judge merchan thought about it over the weekend, and i believe a juror said he can't come on thursday in the afternoon. >> that's right.

>> it really would not be a good thing. they have a week off. >> merchan says he's not going to allow the videos. he says i can appreciate the case law that the photo is relevant, testimony is foundation, and he's highly qualified in exhibits he was going to produce to suggest that a paralegal cannot testify to authenticate the videos, and i don't think we can say that, so the objection is sustained, and those videos cannot come in. steinglass says we accept your ruling but we would want to bring the c-span witness back so we're making arrangements to do that. that's going to extend this case because he's got to travel. why is he saying no to this? >> catherine, can you translate that. >> now after careful consideration, i think it's too prejudicial to prove that michael cohen was right when he said he had that conversation.

>> why isn't that good evidence? >> because hearsay is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. i quite frankly think this was proper, you know, the foundation was properly made. it's unclear why the judge is saying no. >> it sound like what he's saying, until we see the full transcript, that it's a technical evidentiary issue, he doesn't think the testimony laid a foundation for this exhibit. he wasn't asked about this exhibit. he was asked about other exhibits. to the point of technically, he would have to come back and say, i looked at this exhibit. and everything i said about how exhibits are kept, and how we keep things, this applies. >> there's a dispute from the defense that on that conversation, you didn't talk to donald trump. you talked to keith schiller about the 14-year-old who was

allegedly harassing you. and providing that phone number to schiller. this would show that schiller and trump were together, rather than schiller had to reach out to trump and make the connection. >> this is keith schiller and donald trump walking off a rally stage in 7:50, walking off the stage five minutes before, and then michael cohen calls him, and this is what the prosecution is going to want to argue that they were together, and i guess the inference and argument they will make is do you really believe keith schiller wanted to talk about a 14-year-old boy. that was the highest and most pressing thought on his mind. >> or that they did talk about both. the thing, i think, from the audience's perspective. obviously from the trial, it's really important for the prosecution to get this so they can show they in fact were together. i think from the audience's

point of view, the question i would have as a non-lawyer, and not thinking about the trial, why is donald trump so adamant about trying to keep this away from the jury when we have him in a video with keith schiller at a time they were separate. >> why does the prosecution want to bring the witness back. if they can't put this video into evidence. >> to provide the evidentiary foundation. you need someone to say that's a c-span video. >> this is all about sort of what is the evidentiary basis of essentially this document, the fact that the witness has previously said about other c-span documents, their business records, doesn't mean there's enough for this one. it's a really technical issue. >> it's getting interesting. >> as he should be upset about this. >> todd blanche says we object to the witness coming back, to which judge merchan says, people, why wasn't this taken

care of sooner. stein glass, we learned about this over the weekend and we have been moving on it. i don't want to characterize your honor's ruling but we had good faith belief that this was going to come in. we're trying to get the witness here as quickly as possible, maybe tomorrow morning. and we're waiting for what merchan and blanche have to say. merchan asks, what is the prejudice, and blanche says the prejudice is the people want to get the witness here to testify about something when they're -- you and i have talked about this, people think we can't read. we're waiting for the words to show on our screen. testify about something that was testified about last month. >> so just so people understand, when something comes up on direct examination, the defense

is entitled to say, okay, i first learned of it. i was surprised and thus we need time or we want to do something. it was unanticipated. thousand the shoe is on the other foot. the prosecution is saying, look, they brought this up for the first time on cross-examination, and we want to respond. so this is kind of normal. i would be really surprised if the judge doesn't allow them to actually prove up. in either situation, this sort of foundation for this record. as i said, although it may not be state practice, i mean, normally, and you should know how to do it, and they do know how to do it, these kind of technical rules are not. >> is there an indication that the prosecution held this back? >> none. >> you think this is really the case. research, whatever. they figured it out. >> there was no question they were surprised and i think made a mistake with respect to the cross. >> exactly.

they did have the documents, they made a mistake. if they had seen it and known about it, it would have come out quite differently. this is them responding. >> merchan says, what i could do is adjourn until tomorrow. the people want to get the witness here to testify about something that was testified about already, the people prepped mr. cohen on the phone call, and it's unfair to allow them to rest or not rest. what i could do, judge merchan says, is adjourn until tomorrow. todd blanche, there was a scheduling issue, and the people rested and now they want time to bring in a west. >> people didn't rest though. >> i didn't hear them rest. >> they're on recess. donald trump has walked out of the courtroom. >> saying to the judge, that's not the way a trial is supposed to work, judge. >> he gets a little leeway, he's

heated. we can tell tone here. i'm pretty sure he's not berating the judge. judge merchan, i have said this before, when you're in the courtroom, he has such dignity. i can't imagine that todd is taking that tone with him. let me bring in former new york prosecutor and legal analyst, charles coleman. where is this going? >> i think, chris, that what we're going to see is the judge make a decision here around whether the prosecution should have made this decision or been aware of this earlier. i think to everyone's point, it's important to understand, number one, that this is not something that has coming after the prosecution has rested. and then number two, i don't think based off what we have heard from todd blanche, even though i understand his argument, he hasn't made a compelling argument as to any undo prejudice. ultimately i think the judge is going to allow for the prosecution to be able to get this witness on the stand. the question is going to be one

of scheduling. as far as what we're hearing from the record, the defense has not given the judge a strong enough reason in terms of whatever prejudice will be caused by moving things around. that's where i think things are going here. we want to bring in retired new york state judge jill konviser. can i ask a rookie question. so if they really want to get this witness and the judge thinks it's legit, and they should have the country to get in witness, does a judge have any leeway in getting the witness to get here and fast? >> the judge isn't going to get the witness here. it's the people's responsibility, but it is the judge who will be saying you need to hurry up, we've got a schedule here, and you should have anticipated this, and that you didn't is on you, not on me. you'll suffer the consequences if you don't get here. >> when they say that we only just learned about this, they made a good faith belief this

was going to come in, and they have been working over the weekend to get moving on it, does the judge give them leeway or does he have to keep this moving. you just heard what todd blanche had to say. they thought they were up next? >> well, todd blanche can say that. if there's anything predictable about a criminal trial is it's unpredictable. you can't say we didn't know and it's our turn. there's always going to be wrinkles in a case. the people want the opportunity to respond. they have certain evidence that's relevant, and maybe they should have anticipated it, and maybe we shouldn't be having this conversation, but certainly they should have that opportunity, and i think they're going to get it. >> how much of a problem is this memorial day holiday weekend. this would be a prosecution witness on tuesday morning, and then you would have the defense

going, and it's pushing it. there's no trial on wednesday and there's only half a day on thursday, and this is already delaying the closings until next tuesday. >> at least. >> could they do their charging hearing on wednesday when the jury is out? >> they could. they can certainly do that, even if there's going going to be testimony thursday morning, as you said, i know they can work thursday morning. they can do the charge conference on wednesday, and if anyone wants to edify that, they can do it after the close of both sides, after both sides rest, which might be thursday or some other day. there's nothing that precludes them from having a preliminary conversation, and continuing it at an appropriate time. >> just seeing from the morning transcript, they expect the charging conference to take place tomorrow afternoon so that happens then assuming, right, the rest of this? >> i'm curious, judge, what

about the decision by judge merchan to not allow this c-span video? this is donald trump walking back in with todd blanche and his entourage. what do you think of that decision that is kicking off this debate about whether to bring in the c-span witness again? >> i think the judge is being particularly careful. i have heard the panel talking about stipulations, and catherine talked about what the state rules are, and we were talking about the federal rules as well. generally, there can be stipulations. what the judge is saying is you need to authenticate this photo. you haven't done it. you should have anticipated it. that doesn't mean they don't get a chance to do that now. there's no responsibility on the part of the defendant to stipulate to anything. they can decide to stipulate or not. that's their choice. i don't hold that against them.

i think judge merchan is crossing t's and dotting i's, saying if you want this in authenticate it, and if you want to authenticate it, do it quickly. >> let's bring in yasmin vossoughian. i know you have been following this closely. let's remind folks. i don't know if you had a chance or were standing near him when lawrence o'donnell was on, and he talked about how how powerfully todd blanche was arguing against having this piece of information. which leads us to believe it could be very critical. >> reporter: he doesn't want it in. and the prosecution needs it in. and it's to refute that october 24th phone call, the moment that was brought up on thursday before our lunch break, if anybody can remember. todd blanche raised his voice and essentially called michael cohen a liar about that october 24th phone call, the phone call

he made to keith schiller, in which he handed the phone to donald trump and donald trump gave the go ahead to pay off stormy daniels. let me read that exchange to remind -- >> i think it's important for us to know what just happened in court. merchan, okay, people, what did you find out. to which mangold says, c-span will make him available tomorrow at 9:30. and todd blanche says this will be the fifth or sixth time they have run out of witnesses and we have witnesses ready to go. >> that's just wrong. >> reporter: that's just wrong. so here was the exchange from last thursday right before lunch that todd blanche wants the jury to remember. they don't want the jury to remember the testimony that's going to come from the c-span employee and the eventual video to be admitted as evidence

through the c-span employee. blanche said on may 16th, you said you had a recollection of a phone call on october 24th at 8:02 p.m., and you called schiller, and he gave the phone to president trump, and you gave trump an update, and he said, okay, go. blanche says that was a lie. you did not talk to president trump on that night. you talked to keith schiller about what we went through. he was talking about the fact that he was being harassed by a 14-year-old. he was talking to keith schiller about this harassment, obtained this individual's phone number. cohen says, i'm not certain that is accurate. blanche goes on, you were certain it was accurate on tuesday when you were under oath and testifying. cohen, based upon the records that are reviewed and in light of everything going on, i believe i spoke to mr. trump about the stormy daniels party. blanche, we are not asking for your belief. this jury does not want to hear what you think happened. so this is all an effort by the prosecution, guys, to refute

that very testimony, that very cross-examination from todd blanche that he believes he won. that was a winning moment for the defense. they want to refute that moment by bringing this c-span employee in to testify tomorrow morning. >> so there's news, yasmin, on what's going to happen. steinglass has said that's just wrong about, you know, not having witnesses ready. merchan says, look, if time were of the essence, i would agree with you, mr. blanch, but we are essentially off for a week. there is no prejudice. you can present your case out of order or witnesses take the stand at 9:30. charge conference on thursday and tuesday summation. so there's no prejudice to anyone and nothing has changed. blanche is going to speak to his client. >> they're going to work a full day thursday. that came from the transcript. the alternate juror and the judge says i was going to

proceed without the alternate. anyway. but the alternate jury who had a problem thursday, so thursday will be a full day. >> can i have a reality check. even if they put the witness on, how much time are we talking about, how much will it delay things. >> the witness will take, what, four seconds. >> this is going to take 96 seconds. a new york minute, whatever expression you want. it's basically you testified before, you have said how c-span keeps documents. is that true for this exhibit, yes. we offer it. >> is there an issue to take things out of order and before the defense has started. >> the judge offered that. there's two ways we can proceed, adjourn now and take the witness tomorrow and do that and then the state will rest, and then the defense will go. or we could just do out of order, which happens a lot in trials. the defense start asks there's a

break. witnesses are ill, they're scheduling, flights get canceled and you take a witness out of order. he's saying, let me know which way you wanted to do it, but giving the prosecution the opportunity to authenticate. the principal guiding this is a trial is supposed to be a search for the truth, and here, to say that you're not going to have an opportunity to authenticate something when everyone knows it's authentic. you're going to withhold a witness. that is not what a trial is supposed to be about. give them the evidence that meets all the rules of evidence, and then obviously the jury can assess for what it wants. it is the correct ruling. >> it's so telling there's such a big fight about this, catherine. >> you know, i don't go as overboard as lawrence. i'm so used to defense attorneys fighting over everything.

i guess they roll over in federal court. >> that was a leading question. is this so significant because they're having to fight about it? >> it's more corroboration for michael cohen. if i'm the defense attorney, i don't want to corroborate him, i want to paint him as liar, liar, pants on fire. it's very important to eliminate this photo. it's not unusual. >> do they roll over for you, andrew? >> i would say the professional courtesies on things like this are extended both ways. still, both sides know how to do their job. listening to catherine, it makes me happy i was practicing in federal court. >> different world. >> the other thing that i think is useful for people to understand who don't see trials to underscore something catherine said, which is the fact that one side or the other suddenly raises their voice or

speaks in a manner that shows, you know, conviction. there's a performative aspect of this that certainly judges are immune to. they're like, you know, in some ways, it's a signal that you don't have more. judge merchan is so solid, that's not going to persuade him. it's like what's your argument? >> could it also be as simple as a scheduling situation on their side. judge merchan is standing up on the stand with his arms crossed because the trump team for the first time according to our man in the court. stands up in circle chatting with trump being somewhat demonstrative as they decide how they want to move forward. blanche walks forward and crouches between hoffinger and steinglass. chris conroy joins the conversation, and they are all looking at papers.

steinglass seems to be sketching out a schedule. merchan is standing up. arms crossed. judge, we may be able to short circuit this process a little. steinglass says we will not call in a paralegal. parties have agreed, and we can move on. >> this means no witness? >> catherine, what happened here? >> it's a silly argument, and it seems like instead of the video, there will be a photo, if this is correct. let's move on, get this over with. >> the judge basically said i'm allowing it, at which point, the defense, in order to be able to move ahead with their witnesses, you know, basically being

pressured. you know what, you're going to have a delay. >> this will be introduced. they can start the questioning of michael cohen, and they can use this still image. they can say, look, they were together, and ask him a question about that moment. >> judge merchan says mr. blanche, do you consent. yes. a strategic decision you discussed with your client, yes. judge merchan, let's get the witness. >> that last part goes back to what i was saying is the judges being very careful about making sure for any defendant that the defendant is aware of what's going on. it's not just this case. they want to make sure the defendant later doesn't say my lawyer never told me, so that is going to put a little bit of a crimp in what donald trump wants to say publicly. >> this defendant may say that. >> he's going to say whatever he wants to say. it's all rigged. it's a witch hunt. what is the question to michael

cohen about the photo? >> now they're deleting this. apparently they're not they're stipulating the photo comes in and michael cohen is not take k the stand again. >> no additional testimony from an additional witness. we're going to figure that out. if they were to ask michael cohen, what would the question be? >> i don't know if authentic, he was not there. >> when the jury looks at the evidence, this will be one of the exhibits they have. >> exactly. with something indicating the time stamp is correct. >> this can be used in the summation. >> absolutely. you can be sure this will be displayed by the prosecution. >> and the time stamp. >> exactly. >> remind us what it's like for the jury in the courtroom when they see a piece of evidence and how will that be different when they are actually in the deliberation room. i know you saw what they were looking at in the courtroom.

>> there has been some difference today according to rachel in the courtroom earlier, they seem less focused than on thursday: you guys haven't been in a jury room. >> i have. >> tell us about it. >> my friends say i can spend more time talking about my experience as a juror than any of my prosecution cases. it's a terrible pandora's box. >> tell us what it's like in the jury room. >> as private citizens, it's a memorable experience to be on a case that's disputed, on an emotional one. >> the jurors have a screen in front of them. so as exhibits are entered, if it's displayed. they have it right in front of them. and then in the jury room, they can actually have the actual physical exhibit, and they can look at it and talk about it, and take notes and so they will have the ability to see all of that.

>> will they take their notebooks and be able to go back and reference those particular points? >> yes. the judge has given instructions about their notes because their notes are not evidence and the judge said if you've got any disagreement, there's a transcript. the court reporter is taking everything down, so you can always get that, and that is exactly what happens. don't get into a dispute over what your notes are. many process information differently. >> they're asking about the photo. i'm going to a pat myself on the back. >> listen, counselor. >> i wanted to be a lawyer, i chose this instead, probably to the benefit of all legal clients out there. the picture shown, you recognize keith schiller and trump in the picture. does this fairly and accurately portray schiller and trump from october 2016. cohen says yes, ma'am.

by the way, this is the image they're hooking at or i -- approximates the image they're looking at. still photo from the end of the video that concluded around 7:57 on october 24th. hoffinger, you testified that you spoke to donald trump and keith schiller on that call during this time period in october 2016. did you have a number of conversations with trump about stormy daniels? cohen, i do. yes, ma'am. some in person. some on phone. some longer, some herrer. approximately how many conversations did you have with donald trump regarding stormy daniels. michael cohen says more than 20 so it's not just this call, he's

saying. this call, you might want to focus on it, but i had a lot of them. hoffinger, did you review any materials before you testified. and michael cohen answered yes, it helped. yes. >> they were skillful to counselor tur's point, the way to give it a little bit more color as opposed to putting it in separately. you couldn't have the witness say this is the date and exact time. >> i wonder they wanted to place it around the time. >> they're not just giving him a photograph while deliberating. here is why and where it matters. >> many jurors might be thinking what sort of response. a lot of times in trials, what you want to sort of train the

jurors to know is a lot of issues get raised on cross and you want during the trial the jurors to know let's wait and see what happens on redirect. a lot of things that seem to be issued can be answered. >> do you remember the conversations he told you to work out, pay off with aw, cohen says yes, ma'am. hoffinger, do you have any doubt that you had a conversation with donald trump to work it out. cohen says no doubt. aw is allen weisselberg. do you have any doubt in your mind trump gave you the final signoff. cohen, quote, no doubt. hoffinger, could you pay stormy without the sign off, no, ma'am, because i wanted to ensure i was going to get my funds back. hoffinger, do you have any doubt that mr. trump would pay you? cohen, he said that. hoffinger, would you have made the payment if he did not. cohen, no, ma'am. >> so that is the whole litany

of what they as prosecutors and what we when we're writing a story would be called sign posting. we want to put up the sign flag it. tell the jury this is the sequence we saw happen, and you have visual evidence you can look at while deliberating. >> that's a lie on cross-examination. >> it's a surprising clean up. did you expect it to be this -- i mean, it feels like it's quite a clap back, am i wrong to say that? >> unless he was lying, and i said there's no way he's lying, they would have known that, they'll be able to clean that up. he had to have talked to trump numerous times. >> that's what you said be just before 4:00 on thursday when everybody was abuzz on that. >> charles, if you are putting together the final argument and you're on the defense, do you

bring up this picture, or do you say, the prosecution would like you to believe because there was a picture of keith schiller with donald trump around the time a phone call was made that this means something. we have no idea except the word of a liar, michael cohen, of what was said on that phone call. i'm channelling you very poorly, but what would you do with it or just ignore it? >> i think part of the issue is you have to decide how much emphasis you want to place on that actual phone call. i think there have been a number of different inconsistencies that have surfaced through the cross-examination of michael cohen, and as a defense attorney, you have to then make the decision which of those do you think are going to be most monumental. i understand todd blanche believes that was his big hay maker, he was able to land on the prosecution's case in terms of discrediting michael cohen. and it does matter. if you are going to rely on it, ultimately you have to figure out a way as to minimize the actual picture and make it a

footnote and place the emphasis back on the inconsistency of michael cohen, and the reason they should believe you is because michael cohen is a proven liar. so all of this ultimately comes down to how do you want to play michael cohen's character in front of the jury if you're going to focus on this phone call. you still have to deal with the picture, but you try to make it a footnote so the jury is not overly distracted and it doesn't seem like the prosecution has completely rehabilitated him. >> katy, as an aspiring lawyer, i took from the way you looked at me. i'm looking for affirmation, if this doesn't work out, i may have to go to law school. >> quite a fair share of us, and we looked at the lsats do i want to study for that much. >> we all started in local courthouses.

>> overlap in terms of investigative reporting and how to do interviews, and how to present a story, and thinking about the audience and how to do a beginning, middle and end. >> did you always want to be a lawyer? >> no, but i love being a lawyer. >> it's work certainly for the five of us on this table. i think. >> at least the two of you having written best selling books, now, most recently you. >> great. congratulations to you. >> yours wasn't so bad either. let's get back to charles coleman. they're taking another break, having technical difficulties. i imagine, charles, and you tell me what you think, is this the last moments of michael cohen on the stand? >> i think so. they have achieved and at the end of the day, i think both sides are aware there's a certain level of fatigue you

don't want to lose the jury with. at some point, whoever seems like they're responsible for keeping the witness on the stand far too long, is exposing themselves by being punished by the jury. i think at the end of the day, all of the juice out of the michael cohen orange has been squeezed and everything is already out, and so, yes, we are nearing the end of his testimony, for both the prosecution and the defense. >> the defense is going to come out, and they might have one or two witnesses, maybe none. maybe one will be donald trump. probably not. i'm going to bet not. and i'm curious, catherine, as you think about the way you might present this case, what sort of witness would you want to come on if you were to call one? >> i would not call witnesses. >> if you were to. >> if he said you're not going

to get paid unless you call a witness. if they think robert costello, and he testified in a grand jury, and yes, michael cohen was still indicted, but you can indict literally a ham sandwich. you want someone who can go against the credibility of michael cohen, but if it's not going to be against the credibility as regards to the falsification of the records. >> what would the charge against the ham sandwich be? you can literally charge a ham sandwich. >> the former chief judge at the new york state court said that many years ago. >> if you're challenging the credibility of michael cohen as a witness with a lawyer who works with rudy giuliani. >> that's my point. >> also tried to stop him from flipping. it's not the best decision to call him as a witness. >> what is costello going to

argue for the defense, if he's called. >> i think he's going to talk about statements that michael cohen made to him that are inconsistent with his current testimony. that has been admitted by cohen on the stand saying i lied to him because i didn't trust him, and i completely grow with catherine, not only has the jury seen quite damaging communications by costello from which the jury could infer he was part of an effort to put it plainly, obstruct justice, the state knows exactly what it's going to stay. if you remember, costello sought to go in the grand jury before the case was indicted and he did go into the grand jury, they are, to use the expression, loaded. if you're going to put on a

witness who's going to impeach michael cohen on something, a piece of what he has to say, you want the cleanest witness possible. in and out and raise further reasonable doubt as to michael cohen's story. i don't think that's costello. he may be one of these stalking horse where they trot that out there but they don't intend to call him. >> we have to take a quick break. we're going to stay on the new developments from the courthouse, waiting for michael cohen to get back on the stand, fixing technical difficulties. we'll be right back. culties. we'll be right back. 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. (vo) sail through the heart of historic cities so clearly you. and unforgettable scenery with viking. unpack once and get closer to iconic landmarks, local life and cultural treasures. because when you experience europe on a viking longship, you'll spend less time getting there and more time being there.

viking. exploring the world in comfort. when migraine strikes, you're faced with a choice. accept the trade offs of treating? or push through the pain and symptoms? with ubrelvy, there's another option. one dose quickly stops migraine in its tracks. treat it anytime, anywhere without worrying where you are or if it's too late. do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. allergic reactions to ubrelvy can happen. most common side effects were nausea and sleepiness. migraine pain relief starts with you.

ask about ubrelvy. learn how abbvie could help you save. -unnecessary action hero ... the nemesis. learn how abbvie -it appears that despite my sinister efforts, employees are still managing their own hr and payroll. why would you think mere humans deserve to do their own payroll? because their livelihoods depend on it? because they have bills to pay? hear me now, paycom! return the world of hr and payroll to its rightful place of chaos or face a tsunami of unnecessary the likes of which you have never seen!

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.