se commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for. ♪♪ the defense rests without a word from donald trump. good day. i'm katy tur along with chris jansing. we watch another dramatic day and historic day in the trump criminal hush money trial. >> our co-anchor andrea mitchell will join us in a moment. for now, the jury has gone home until one week from today. that's when we will see closing

arguments. before we can get there, the court must decide if the jury should only consider the 34 felony counts against the former president, or if the judge's instructions should also include the option of lesser misdemeanor charges. >> that process will begin when court reconvenes in a little over two hours. right now, our legal team will explain the pros, the cons, what comes next, what it all means. joining us throughout the hour, former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official chuck rosenberg, former manhattan prosecutor duncan levin, and former manhattan d.a. catherine christian. let's begin with andrea mitchell. bring us inside the courtroom. you saw the final arguments of this case, the final witness, i should say. what was it like to have her cross-examine him? what was the jury doing during

this? >> it was extraordinary to be in this courtroom to watch donald trump walk in and his entourage with him. the former attorney general was with him, members of congressman, his white house physician, the healthy president in history or something to that effect, with no medical information provided in the white house briefing room, all of that walking in. then susan just filleted robert costello. you had to ask yourself, why did they put on robert costello as a defense witness? you know it was to say that supposedly michael cohen said to him that donald trump didn't know anything about it. that was when michael was still very much in the corner of the former president of the united states, then president of the united states.

it was very clear from all of these emails that susan presented, one after another from him, all of these emails pressuring michael cohen to stay on the page, constantly pressuring him, we know you can sleep well tonight, you can rest well tonight, you have friends in high places. then when he resisted hiring costello, who was a friend of rudy giuliani, which made michael cohen immediately nervous that he was going to pass all of his information on to rudy giuliani and to donald trump, and he didn't hire him. that's what the testimony of the prosecution was. he claimed he had been retained, even though there was no retainer agreement. then over and over again asking him, emails that said things like, is he nuts, is he nuts that he is going to anger the most important man on the planet?

this was the email from robert costello to his law partner. there were repeated emails that constantly prove they were trying to pressure michael cohen to basically not flip, to stay on the page, telling him over and over again in these emails. there was nothing he could deny in any of the emails. it was extraordinary as she constantly had him basically testifying for the prosecution. she also asked him about the fact he testified on capitol hill at judiciary. that's a very tough republican committee. he testified last week and had vilified michael cohen and asked him, weren't you trying to intimidate him while he was a witness in this case? he said, no, i was not. she said, the prosecution rests.

it was an extraordinary collapse, i would say, of the defense having presented robert costello, who as you know was chastised by the judge yesterday in an unbelievable moment of clearing the courtroom and chewing him off. he was better behaved today but still a little snippy, arrogant you could say. susan just basically took him apart is the only way to describe it. >> don't go anywhere. we want to talk to you more. catherine, this is the question that she just posed, whether or not they should have put costello on the stand in the first place. they knew it was risky. when you hear her describing the emails versus his description of michael cohen and the proof of michael cohen saying he had nothing on trump, is it clear how the jury might view this or

clear from a legal standpoint? was it worth the risk? >> i don't think it was worth the risk. it was self-sabotage. they didn't have to call a single witness. now they have someone, whoever will do the summation for the prosecution, basically to use -- the prosecutor will use his dreadful testimony, not to mention that he disrespected the judge. i think the judge was extra harsh on him because he is a lawyer. this pedigree, former southern district. he was very disrespectful. it was a net loss in my view for the defense. >> also, this is a jury that, according to people who have been inside -- you can weigh in, katy -- who commanded the respect of the jury. if the jury likes him and they feel he is being disrespected, that doesn't help. >> it doesn't help at all. there will be someone else saying that michael is not credible. he didn't come across as

credible. it's a net loss. >> "the new york times" is reporting that a lot of trump allies believe that it's going to be a hung jury, even though hung juries are very uncommon. when you were watching the jury today, did anything stick out to you? >> they have not really -- they aren't showing emotion. they walk past him. they never look him in the eye. they are far to the right of the courtroom from where you are sitting as we were sitting in the back of the courtroom, basically, far back behind the prosecution. it's very hard to see any kind of emotion. we know there are two lawyers on the jury and the lawyers will understand very well what just happened. to read you one of the lines, at

one point, from this email, he is writing -- costello is writing to his law partner, he is totally nuts, quote, what should i say to this a-hole? he is playing with the most powerful man on the planet. you lost control of michael cohen for the president? absolutely not. when he hired another laurin stead of you, you could no longer control him. no. you didn't lose control of him when he pled guilty for the purpose of influencing the election? objection. objection is overruled. were you there to publically vilify him? throughout it -- here is one. i spoke with rudy, very, very positive. i will give you the details. i told him everything i knew. they were not in our corner. sleep well tonight, you have

friends in high places. it's that costello kept appealing to him about list -- his personal relationship with rudy giuliani. he wanted to be hired. he wanted to be hired because he was doing a huge favor for the president of the united states. whatever testimony costello presented on direct that michael cohen had said trump had no involvement was very clear from how hard this lawyer, robert costello, a former prosecutor, worked to get put on the case and his connection to rudy giuliani, that he kept repeating, that he wanted to be on this case to have michael cohen be in a box for them and not flip. it's inexplicable to me. i'm not a lawyer. i don't even play one on television. i defer to our smart lawyers. the defense should have rested

without presenting this witness. there's just -- it would be hard to imagine that this jury had anything but a really negative impression of robert costello. >> i'm curious whether you saw the jury taking notes. i ask that because early on, when they were given that option, i think the vast majority of them did say -- maybe 10 out of 12 -- that they did want notebooks. once, a long time ago, a juror after a case told me when they found themselves getting tired, they would take notes because it forced them to re-engage. i don't think that's necessarily the case. no one would blame the jury if they were tired after all this. did you see anything that suggested they couldn't wait to go home? were they engaged in taking notes? >> i couldn't tell whether they were taking notes. that would be below my viewpoint. they were engaged. i think that at this point, especially knowing that this was wrapping it up and they were going to be off for a week, this

is very unusual. the judge said, this is not the way it's usually done. he explained to them, i had real concerns given the holiday break that there is going to be at least a full day for summations and then more time for my instructions, which are really important, he said, in this case, or in any case. i didn't want that lag to exist before that and the time you would deliberate. he told them, when they come back next tuesday after memorial day, that they will hear the summations, which are so important and are going to take a couple hours each. and then the charge to the jury. it will go to the jury most likely by tuesday. they will deliberate tuesday -- or rather from wednesday on. making it very clear that's when they will have to buckle down. it seemed to me that wednesday, trial day off was not in the cards. they will make a final decision sometime later today. when they come back at 2:15,

both sides will present what they want to be in the judge's charge. that's the legal points. that's less explicable to the rest of us, other than you smart lawyers on the set joining you. that's going to be very, very important in this case. it's a novel case. this is a case where a misdemeanor is bumped up to a felony because of the underlying alleged crime. this might be tricky for them to prove. this is the challenge that the prosecution has. the prosecution has to, as you know, persuade 12 people. we don't know really very much about the people on this jury other than we know their occupations, which we're not reporting. we know a little bit about them from the voir dire but we don't know what they have been taking in. i don't think anyone was bored today. robert costello, that was a gripping cross-examination.

on re-direct, the defense accomplished nothing. he would have been better off letting it sit. the quicker they got costello off the stand, the better off the defense would have been. >> duncan, weigh in on this. >> i understand why they called robert costello. he was a terrible witness. this is a lawyer who is so sketchy that michael cohen would not hire him. that puts it in some perspective. they have to destroy michael cohen, because michael cohen turns a circumstantial case, a strong case, a circumstantial case, where the prosecutor will stand up in front of the jury and say, do you believe this penny pincher, was writing $35,000 checks, didn't know what the basis was? michael cohen on the stand said, he approved it. it turns what's a circumstantial case into a direct case. he had to be destroyed. michael cohen provides that in the form of his testimony saying, donald trump knew nothing about it. it was a judgment call that clearly went very badly for

them. i'm sure there was some internal discussion about whether to call him or not. it went poorly. he was a terrible witness. they are left with that decision. they made a lot of decisions. this was a bad one. i understand why they made the decision they did, because they have got to destroy michael cohen. >> aren't many or most cases circumstantial? don't most cases lack a smoking gun? >> circumstantial evidence is evidence. it's great evidence. there are a lot of cases that are circumstantial and people get convicted on circumstantial evidence every day. there's a smoking gun in this case in terms of some of the documentation. there's the false documentation proven out on the account with weisselberg's writing saying that the reimbursement to michael cohen should be grossed up for taxes. there's a lot of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. michael cohen is direct evidence. they have to try to discredit him to get rid of the direct evidence.

>> let me ask you, chuck, about what's going to happen next. this is the jury instructions. lawyers will be with the judge to hash over what the judge will tell the jury about how to deliberate. bring us into that room. what's that like? >> i used to hate this part of the trial. after days or weeks or months, the defense rests and as a prosecutor, you think, i'm done. you are not. you haven't eaten well, you haven't slept well, you haven't gotten any exercise and you are not done. the instructions are important. you have to get that right. both sides have instructions they prefer. this is when the judge will tell the jury the law that governs their deliberations. you gotta be focused and smart and nuanced and accurate. to take you in the room, the jury is gone. the judge is there. both sides are there, prosecution and defense. it's a discussion. sometimes an argument.

about which jury instructions the judge ought to include in his charge to the jury. because you have a few things here that are common to all trials, those instructions are easy. because you have a few things here that are unique to this trial or mostly unique, those instructions will be harder. both sides -- even though the jury is gone -- are trying to hash this out. >> we need to say good-bye and thank you to andrea mitchell. we want you back here at the top of the hour if we can. thank you for your great reporting from inside the courtroom. good luck with the traffic. >> subway is best. >> good luck with the subway. >> thank you. >> in the nitty-gritty of the details on how they're going to -- how the judge is going to instruct the jury to deliberate, there's the misdemeanors and then there's the underlying felony. walk us through, duncan, how that will be parsed out and the

risks the defense and prosecution have in regards to potentially instructing the jury to deliberate on the misdemeanors. >> there are choices the defense made in this case that seem to be made more for public consumption than the way a defense trial lawyer might try this case otherwise. this idea of the misdemeanor is a good example. if you are sitting there as the defense attorney and you are thinking, there's a good chance my client is going to get convicted of this felony, you might opt in the jury charges to waive the statute of limitations on the misdemeanors and have the judge instruction the jury could come back with a misdemeanor verdict. that's a defense choice they can make. i don't think they will make that choice. they haven't to date. i think they would rather deny everything and see what happens with the jury. that's a choice that they could make. there's another choice, also, in the jury instructions, which is to say, this was a legitimate campaign expense. donald trump paid it out of his

own pocket. there's a famous supreme court which says people can spend unlimited amount on their own campaign. it was a campaign expense and i paid it out of my own pocket. they can get instruction on it. they made strategic choices early in the trial that foreclosed that. they said that the sexual encounter never happened. they said this was not a reimbursement to michael cohen. they basically foreclosed that line of jury instructions at the very beginning of this case. there are a lot of choices they have made. i think the misdemeanor is a choice they decided -- >> i guess i'm -- i think for a layman, it's confusing. it's confusing right now what the prosecution is arguing. i know they argue it's a bumped up felony. can you pretend like i'm a first year law student and explain exactly how this is going to work? >> that's the problem, because lawyer friends and i were speaking today. do we know what that other crime

is the prosecution is saying donald trump intended to commit or conceal? >> are they arguing about that? >> at 2:15, we will know what that other charge is. >> finally. >> it's most likely -- one of the prosecutors two weeks ago told the judge, it's the new york election law crime, conspireing to promote an election by unlawful means. the unlawful means, i assume, will be that illegal, according to the prosecution, campaign contribution. that would be the instruction on the federal election law. they have really had no substantive evidence about tax crime. originally they said it was one of the three. it's probably going to be that -- he didn't have to commit it. he had to intend to commit or conceal a violation of the election law, that he conspired to promote an -- >> what about including a misdemeanor charge?

they can choose not to include the misdemeanor charge. we only want the jury to deliberate on the underlying felony, whatever that ends up being. the judge can overrule that. >> the way -- that's a lesser included. the way the law works in new york, the judge in his discretion can say there's a reasonable view of the evidence that the misdemeanor, falsifying business records. i'm going to instruct the jury on that. the defense can say -- in a regular case with a regular defendant, they would say it's better to be convicted of a misdemeanor than a felony. ask him to instruct on that. the prosecution -- i don't think that's going to happen -- can also -- they wouldn't be happy here for a misdemeanor. >> it would get them something. >> something. it would be considered a loss to go after a former president and end up with 34 misdemeanors.

because this defendant is donald trump, i don't think they will request the lesser included. >> let's bring in lisa rubin and susanne craig. they have been in the overflow room. the power duo. yesterday, as you all reported, what a wild finish with robert costello and the judge really not happy and admonishing him. i don't think he had quite that level of admonishment, but there were some, let's say, seemed like heated moments between him and susan. tell us your take sitting there what that felt like, what that sounded like. >> i have to say compared to yesterday, which was quite a blowup, robert costello on the stand today -- there were tense moments. i kept thinking about yesterday and what happened. i have to say, stepping back

from the whole thing, i'm scratching my head as to why they put him on the stand. i have a feeling it was client driven, that donald trump wanted somebody up there who would come out and attack michael cohen. that's probably why costello ended up on the stand. i just think from the defense's point of view, it seemed like one of the best days if not the best day for the prosecution was yesterday, which is odd since it wasn't their witness. they were coming off michael cohen, which michael cohen did very well. but donald trump's lawyers did land some blows on him. then we come into this witness that just sort of is now the last person lingering in the jury's mind, going into a week-long break, and it didn't end well for them. maybe the political theater is playing out differently. in terms of the court proceedings, i'm puzzled from a legal point of view what costello was doing on the stand. >> lisa, everything i read about

robert costello was this was a risky witness, to say the least. do you believe that it was a client-driven decision? to what extent should a client drive that kind of decision? we have talked about the fact that donald trump taking the stand or not is donald trump's ultimate decision. can be influenced by his legal team, should be, some would argue. do you think this was client-driven? does it surprise you if they didn't think it was a good idea that they would give in to donald trump? >> you have to question, chris, looking back, stepping back from it. is that the best they could do in terms of people for a counter-narrative? he represented rudy giuliani and

steve bannon unsuccessfully. he sued them for unpaid legal fees. maybe more importantly, last week, steve bannon's conviction for contempt of congress was upheld by the d.c. circuit. not only could he be going to prison sooner rather than later, but the crux is that bannon's attempt to invoke the advice of counsel defense was unreasonable. when bob costello told steve bannon, don't worry about the subpoena, you don't have to show up, that was not a reasonable piece of advice for a lawyer to give. i want to say, i think it was client-driven, because i can't tell what else it would have been. should it be? ethically, the rules governing attorney conduct in new york and most other places give the client the ultimate right to

direct their own defense. that doesn't just pertain to their decision to take the stand but to all decisions reflecting their legal defense. most clients are very happy to be guided and led by experienced counsel, particularly counsel of the level of experience that these three have. donald trump is not. you asked also, am i surprised to the extent this was client-driven? i'm not, having seen the totality of das 1 through 20. continuing to fight that there was any reimbursement here at all. todd blanche's characterization of the $35,000 a month payment to michael cohen continues to be, it was never reimbursement, it was always meant as a retainer for legal services that michael cohen rendered as personal attorney to former president trump, even though cohen's own testimony was he never provided more than maybe

ten hours of services in 2017. he says he never billed for those services. he was never given any money for those services in 2018. he was personal attorney to trump in name only so he could grift from it. i don't understand the decision to call costello. on the other hand, given the strength of the prosecution's case, i think they probably have to be cheering right now that bob costello was on to make some of the stench of michael cohen wear off. >> sue, i would love to ask you about the atmosphere today and the entourage donald trump came in with. the former head of the hell's angels who went to prison on drug charges. joe piscapo joined him as well.

don junior made his first appearance in court. eric has been there every day pretty much. this is the first family member, in addition to eric, to show up. what was it like from your vantage point? i know you only get a feed. what can you tell us? >> it's interesting, because where we are in the overflow room, we can see a monitor. there's two monitors. you can see the defense table and behind them are where all the supporters sit. they are lined up in the front row. i think there were seven or eight of them. there was one woman and the rest were men wearing red ties, a few blue. the row behind them is supporters. the first day that this happened, i'm very focused when i've been there on the proceedings. you notice that one or two people had come in. every day the group has gotten

larger and larger. i have to wonder how the jury is processing it. maybe they recognize one or two of the people. it's very noticeable all these men essentially in suits behind donald trump. most are fiddling on their phones, which is also unusual. it's frowned upon in the courtroom. they're doing that. nobody is stopping them. they have become more and more of a distraction. they come outside and they have a big press conference. the jurors don't see that. it's becoming more of a circus every day. >> a circus that maybe next week will be over, at least this chapter of it. thank you. stick around for more. a closer look at the supporters of the former president who have been in court standing beside donald trump in these weeks in lower manhattan. 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. centrum! it's scientifically formulated to help you take charge of your health. centrum gives every body a healthy foundation.

supporting your - oops - energy, immunity and metabolism. and yours too! you did it! plus try centrum silver, now clinically proven to support memory in older adults.

(ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? -but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better!

now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... i know... faster wifi and savings? ...i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc?

at least 14 trump allies joined him in court today. the latest wave of surrogates to come to new york city. >> outside of the courthouse, they went after the judge, they went after the prosecutors and they went after the witnesses because they are not bound by the same rules that a gag order has bound donald trump, which by the way he has violated ten times. vaughn hillyard is outside of the courthouse for us. brendan buck is the former

senior aide to paul ryan, chuck, catherine and duncan with here with us. vaughn, bring us to the scene outside. yesterday, they showed up wearing the same outfit. was it today as well? >> reporter: no. one of the congressmen, he had a tie of donald trump holding and hugging an american flag. there was differentiation in materials of wardrobe. i asked the congressman what led to the decision, but i got no response. i attempted to ask multiple times about the decision for donald trump not to testify. because it was donald trump himself who repeatedly suggested that he would, in fact, take the stand and tell his truth to this jury. ultimately, when the opportunity was presented to him today, the defense rested its case and chose him not to take the stand. you heard from his allies here a few feet from where we are

standing say this is a sham prosecution and that -- constantly going that the facts are not true. i tried to follow up with the question. donald trump had the opportunity to share his version of the story with the jury. he chose not to. don junior finally began to answer part of that in which he said, why would you justify this insanity? look at the clowns that they put on there. you don't subject yourself to that nonsense. you are going into a kangaroo court. there's no justification to do that. essentially making the case, he would not justify the proceedings in their entirety by choosing to go that route. >> brendan, is this where we are? look, i guess we can say that the trump campaign insists it's not coordinating the show of force by republicans, but then you have donald trump who is basically saying that these are his surrogates for when he is on

trial. nbc reporting from somebody who has been in that courthouse -- when i was there yesterday, a lot of reporters were talking about this -- the coordination and organization between trump and those supporters has stoked questions about whether the remarks by the republicans amount to a violation of trump's gag order. what do you see is going on here? >> it sure feels coordinated. will leave it to our legal experts on whether it violates the gag order. it's clearly an effort to counter what potential news may come next, if there is a conviction. it's all about the information flow to the voters who live in that bubble, that conservative media bubble. they want to make sure that whatever happens, this is seen as unfair, unjust and it's not going to damage him. the trump campaign strategy is not about winning over the middle. it's all about turning out republicans. it's not a new tactic for donald

trump. his entire political career has been about creating his own reality. now he is sending out people to create their own reality of what's happening. even if he is found guilty, it will have limited impact. i hate to say it, it does feel like a situation where with a large, large majority of this country, certainly his supporters, they are going to shrug if he is found guilty because they will pound the information into people's heads like they are day after day up here. >> is it because they have been inoculated to trump's antics now for nine years that it just doesn't weigh on them the way it might have early on? maybe if the russia investigation turned out differently. the number of people who are paying close attention to this trial hovers around 16%, according to a poll. that's not a big number of people. this is the first criminal trial of a former president ever in

history. if you talked about this in the lead-up a year ago, if you had guessed what this would be like, or five years ago what this would be like, you would have imagined an insanely large scene, insane attention surrounding this, more than the o.j. case. but this is not getting that same amount of attention from the american public. why do you think that is? >> i think it's two things. one, for his supporters, it's been a years' long effort to undermine attacks against him and to say they are all unfair and they are all political, out to get him. the other half is, most people probably just appreciate that he probably did a lot of this stuff. there's this sense that a lot of republican voters in particular don't quite get that donald trump is a bad guy. i think there are a lot of people who support donald trump who will acknowledge that he is not a good guy, and they say, he probably did do this. i'm going to support him for other reasons. of course, a lot of the people

who don't like him certainly think this is the type of activity he would be involved with. we sort of know this about him. we're not learning a lot new. for that reason, it's not as explosive as it might otherwise be. >> i want to read more, because the reporting from nbc news -- i know that this story has been worked on for a number of days -- is this. his supporters have said they join trump in court of their own volition. but they aren't arriving on their own, standing in line and entering through the public entrance. several acknowledge traveling with trump to the courthouse and remaining part of the security bubble. there have been complaints amid this reporting from people who got there days before, slept on park benches waiting in line, that they come in with donald trump. that aside, whether they are unhappy about that, what is really going on here? how much of this do you think,

brendan, is an audition? >> look, for however many there are there today, i promise you, there are dozens more who would like to be there today. i'm sure they are asking the trump campaign if they can come up here. this is not part of your day job. you can't use your office budget finances to fly you up to new york for this. they are using their own campaign dollars to go up there. i'm sure all of these people see themselves as future cabinet secretaries or having some type of official role or at least avoiding a primary, having that donald trump seal of approval. this is -- we're in an area of entertainment politics. they would rather be shouting at cameras than in a committee hearing. that's unfortunately the prevailing view of members here. they could go on like this for months and you would have these people rushing to stand up there every single day.

>> that's interesting. duncan, i will ask you, i would be hard-pressed to think the prosecution will want to argue a violation of the gag order because of what surrogates are saying. >> yeah. they have so much momentum towards the end of the trial. they are almost there. this would basically derail everything by making that argument. they risk stepping into political areas of speech. there's no doubt it's a violation of the gag order, particularly if you see there's evidence that trump was sitting in court the other day editing some of the speeches. if that's true, the prosecutors could try to call witnesses. they could do a sideshow on it. they would be able to prove a violation. but it's the last thing the judge wants to do or even the prosecution at this point wants to do. they are so close to the end. it would just really derail everything. >> i wonder, given everything that's gone on around this trial and the questions about the gag order and, chuck, you are the prosecutor here, have there been

any discussions on their part suggesting should we or shouldn't we? is this so cut and dry, let's just get to the heart of the case? >> i agree with duncan. it's not worth the lift. it's not clear you would win if you tried -- >> merchan has been very careful. >> appropriately so. it's not clear prosecutors would win if they move to apply the gag order. you would have to do some sort of hearing to determine whether or not mr. trump was actually directing this. you could lose. you could win. if you win, so what? you have bigger fish to fry, to use a second cliche. i think the prosecutors are right, chris, to stay away from it. i can conjure up a hypothetical set of facts where he is directing it and might be in violation. at this point, i'm focused on jury instruction and summation, and that's it. >> i wonder about the jury. this was a question i had when i

was there last week. lauren boebert was there and so was matt gaetz. it would be difficult to find someone who doesn't know who they are. >> more recognizable that others. >> there's a lot come in whose representations precede them. big national reputations that aren't exactly good ones. how is the jury seeing these guests? they can see them. if they are looking over, they might not have a perfect view of all of them at all times, but if they are looking over to see who assembled in the courtroom, they can see a fair number of them. >> we don't know their political attitudes, the 12 jurors. it might hurt donald trump if they have a negative view about some of the people coming. it could help if they have a positive. i think if they are doing their job and following the oath, they are ignoring that and focusing in on the evidence. he might think it's helping him. but it might be hurting him.

we will never know because hopefully, the jurors will not be focusing on who the audience members are. >> the other people who probably are known are the sons. they may be recognized by members of the jury. we often talk not just in this case but almost any case the importance of having family there, showing this is a human being who has a family and maybe that engenders different sympathy, if not changing the outcome of the case. do you think it's important for eric and don junior to make an appearance? eric really for many days. >> it would have been more important if ivanka and tiffany were there, the daughters. >> why? >> maybe sechlsexist of me. having your daughters, in an -- the ick factor. >> it humanizes him. >> exactly.

>> the other story in the news, one of the other stories today. this is something that donald trump shared on his truth social account. it references the creation of a unified reich if trump were to win the election. i think everybody knows that reich was used by the nazis to describe their government. this was taken down. it was a series of old time newspapers. they are blaming an aide for this. what's going on? >> not the first time they had a situation like this and they say it's not -- you are reading too much into it or whatever. it seems like he is the only person who ends up in these situations. >> so many references to the nazis over the years. so many allusions to the holocaust, nazis, the wrong side of history. >> one of two things. one, they don't have good

oversight of what they are putting out. you as a candidate, i don't think anybody would want to be associated with. as a campaign -- i'm sorry, you only get one get out of jail free card. once you have this happen time and time again, it reflects -- whether you meant to do it or not. >> a lot of them over the years. i could name quite a few. brendan, vaughn and everybody else, thank you very much. you are not going far. neither are you there at home. stick with us. next, iran begins days of funerals for president raisi as they face his sudden death in a helicopter crash.

today, at america's beverage companies,... ...our bottles might still look the same... ...but they can be remade in a whole new way. thanks to you... we're getting bottles back... and we've developed a way to make new ones from 100% recycled plastic. new bottles - made using no new plastic. you'll be seeing more of these bottles in more places. and when we get more of them back... ...we can use less new plastic. see how our bottles are made to be remade. power e*trade's easy-to-use tools, like dynamic charting and risk-reward 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 ♪ before planning the wedding your bad hip was really acting up. then, you heard about mako robotic-assisted hip replacement. it starts with a ct scan to pinpoint the problem.

that becomes a personalized, 3d plan to guide your doctor during surgery. mako can help lead to better outcomes, like less pain and shorter recovery times. the lifetime of a hip implant is limited, and revision surgery may be required. individual results and recovery times vary. risks of surgery include pain, infection, heart attack, stroke, death, and other serious risks. ask your doctor for important safety information. to find a doctor who uses mako visit makocan.com

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

several days of funeral ceremonies are under way for iran's late president ebrahim raisi after his death in a helicopter crash on sunday. today, iranians lined the streets carrying flags and photos. the supreme leader declared five days of national mourning for raisi, the foreign minister and six others killed when their helicopter went down in a remote section of northwest iran. >> iran's first vice president mohammad mokhber has been named as acting president until a new election is held in the next 50

days. matt bradley joins us now. what is this going to mean for the internal politics inside iran? >> reporter: it is a very good question. a lot of people when talking about this, talking about how this is affecting iranian politics, and the short answer is it probably won't have that much of an effect because let's face it, it is the ayatollah who really runs the country, not the president and the very close stage managed politics inside iran mean that whoever is going to be elected and whoever replaces the president is probably going to be cut from a similar cloth, something maybe a hard-liner. there had been ideological differences between some of the leaders of iran, among them, but this time it looks as though there is going to be a national election and the ayatollah and some supreme clerics in iran are the ones who give approval to anyone who runs for office. we won't see that much of a political or ideological deviation. you mentioned the region, the foreign minister was among those who were killed in this crash

and that's an interesting development here because this foreign minister, around october 7th, last year, when hamas attacked israel, made the rounds throughout the region, shoring up iranian allies as antony blinken was doing the same thing visiting american middle east allies. so we saw that last october and november. two duelling foreign ministers trying to sort of bolster their alliances within the region. so, this foreign minister has been a major player in regional politics, especially in just the last couple of months. dealing with iranian proxy groups throughout the region like hezbollah, the houthis in yemen, hamas, and some iran-backed groups in syria and iraq. so this is something that could affect the way in which iran deals with its proxy groups throughout the region, again, this is probably going to be more continuity and we have seen the iranian government now really pushing to project an image of continuity and stability inside the country, not all is well, there is a

massive economic crisis, continuing protests against the regime, and having this sort of injection of new uncertainty could enflame protests further, but so far, we haven't seen that yet and it looks as thuy the regime is trying their best to make sure that they project this image of continuity. guys? >> matt bradley, thank you. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu is responding to the arrest warrants for the prime minister and other israeli leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. sitting down with our own stephanie ruhle earlier today. >> reporter: what is your response to the icc seeking an arrest warrant for you? >> well, i think my response is no different from president biden who said this is outrageous and many people across the political spectrum in the united states and leaders of democratic countries around the world have called it exactly that. it is a rogue prosecutor who is

out to demonize the one and only jewish state and he's doing that by, first, applying false symmetry, equating israel's democratically elected leaders with the terrorists tyrants of hamas. that's like saying, well, i'm issuing arrest warrants for after 9/11, i'm issuing arrest warrants for george bush, but also for osama bin laden. >> you can watch the full interview with stephanie ruhle with prime minister benjamin netanyahu tonight on the 11th hour at 11:00 p.m. eastern here on msnbc. coming up next, we're going back to our coverage of the trump hush money trial after the break as attorneys on both sides prepare to work out what the jury will be instructed to do when they finally start deliberating next week. do not go anywhere. anywhere in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility.

(marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. 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. if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's disease... put it in check with rinvoq... a once—daily pill. when symptoms tried to take control, i got rapid relief... and reduced fatigue with rinvoq. check. when flares kept trying to slow me down... i got lasting steroid—free remission... with rinvoq. check. and when my doctor saw damage,... rinvoq helped visibly reduce damage of the intestinal lining. check. for both uc and crohn's: rapid symptom relief... lasting steroid—free remission... and visibly reduced damage. check. check. and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin; heart attack, stroke, and gi tears occurred. people 50 and older with a heart disease risk factor have an increased risk of death.

serious allergic reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc and crohn's in check... and keep them there with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq and learn how abbvie can help you save. with so many choices on booking.com there are so many tina feys i could be. so i hired body doubles. 30,000 followers tina in a boutique hotel. or 30,000 steps tina in a mountain cabin. ooh! booking.com booking.yeah

good day. i'm chris jansing along side my colleague katy tur live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. after claiming his innocence, over and over, in the courthouse, out on the campaign trail, on social media, donald trump has chosen not to do it under oath, in front of a jury. the former president raising a fist as he left court today, but refusing to answer questions about why his defense rested in his hush money trial without calling him to the stand.