Transcripts For MSNBCW Chris 20240703

Times by Donald Trumps lawyer today as she grilled Stormy Daniels during Cross Examination trying to portray her as a liar and an extortionist out to shake down the former president. The trial just breaking for lunch moments ago, but earlier today daniels facing really tough questioning accused of fabricating the salacious story of her sexual encounter with donald trump, something she has repeatedly denied. And under direct, she said telling her story actually put her life in danger referencing trumps notorious social media posts saying, quote, if you go after me, im coming after me. Daniel was asked who she thought trump was talking about. Her response, i wasnt sure but i thought it was me. Daniels is now finished after spending seven hours and 17 minutes on the stand, making way for Rebecca Manochio, a junior bookkeeper who worked as Allen Weisselbergs assistant. He was the chief Financial Officer at trump org. Im Chris Jansing reporting live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. For the next two hours we will update you with what exactly is going on in court. And im andrea mitchell, of course, joining you here. And i want to bring in msnbcs Vaughn Hillyard just outside the courthouse. A former federal prosecutor and Legal Affairs columnist with politico, and back with us former u. S. Attorney and senior fbi official Chuck Rosenberg and two other former manhattan assistant d. A. s Catherine Christian and jeremy are here in the studio. So vaughn, how does Rebecca Manochio fill in the gaps that the prosecution is trying to tell . Weve heard from numerous lawyers this is the heart of the case. Its not the story about this alleged encounter between donald trump and Stormy Daniels. It is, in fact, about the money that was paid. It was an Illegal Campaign contribution . Were the books cooked essentially to misrepresent that money, so get us to the heart of why she is so important. Some might argue more important than some of the more sensational witnesses. Reporter right, for about the last 45 minutes, Rebecca Manochio who was the Executive Assistant to Allen Weisselberg at the Trump Organization is helping filling in some of those gaps, when were talking about the Chain Of Custody, about the execution of the Reimbursement Checks that went from Donald Trumps personal Checking Account to Michael Cohen, and she is testifying that while working for Allen Weisselberg, she would actually prepare the checks that the direction of debra terra soft and she would fedex those checks personally, ten to 20 of them at a time, in which those Reimbursement Checks to Michael Cohen, and she would then mail them to a personal address of Keith Schiller who worked as a bodyguard to donald trump, including in the first part of 2017. A personal address for Keith Schiller in washington, d. C. , instead of the white house. She said she did not know why she sent it to a personal address, but she did. At that point in time when Keith Schiller left the white house in his capacity there, she then began emailing them to john mcentee who worked in a Personnel Capacity for donald trump. And then at that point they would then mail checks back to her, and she said if she did not receive a certain check that she was expecting, she would check in with madeleine westerhout, and at that point in time when she received the checks back in new york to the Trump Organization, she would then turn the checks back over to debra terra soft who would be the one to process the checks. There you go. Its the Chain Of Custody, and she is filling in the gaps here for the jury about how the actual Reimbursement Checks made their way into the deposited account of Michael Cohen. Rena toe, alan wees l berlg berlg is back at rikers. Is this junior bookkeeper the next best thing on the Chain Of Custody of the signatures on these checks as they go back and forth, fedex to the white house . Thats right, and she may actually be better because shes cooperative. Shes not trying to help donald trump in the course of her testimony. Shes not trying to throw any bombs. Shes just telling it like it is, and really, as you just said a moment ago, andrea, this is really about those false statements and business records, and also, i think subtly trying to show that donald trump cared deeply about this matter, even after he became president of the United States. I mean, it is remarkable that the president of the United States was focused on getting checks over as Hush Money Payments to Stormy Daniels during that period, and i think what theyre trying to show is that you should believe Michael Cohen when he tells you that donald trump was actually personally involved both in these payments and in the coverup in the books and records of the Trump Organization. Renato, if i can, tie these two witnesses together if i can, Stormy Daniels and now the bookkeeper. Do jurors have to believe that donald trump had sex with Stormy Daniels as long as they believe that for whatever reason, it doesnt matter the reason that he tried to cook the books to cover it up, that essentially that he wanted to make it look like a legitimate campaign expense, and how far, then, are we from establishing that . Reporter great question, no, the jury doesnt actually have to believe it happened. If donald trump wanted to cover up this story, wanted this story to be kept from the public, its really irrelevant whether or not, you know, there was actually a particular act that took place in a hotel room at a particular time, and thats why really trump has actually hurt his own legal team here. A smart lawyer would have just stipulated to this and said, look, well stipulate that this occurred. We dont need to hear from Stormy Daniels. This is a case about falsification of business records. Instead, theyre getting into this fight with Stormy Daniels trying to attack her, i think its going to get some sympathy from the jury, and i think the real question and what were still going to see here is the evidence that trump was aware of the false statements and business records. I want to make sure that our the folks watching and all of us get that. Stipulate means he would have had to say, yes, what shes going to testify to did indeed happen. Thats right. And donald trump appears to be incapable of doing that. He also appears to be incapable of permitting his lawyers to show some restraint with a witness, a woman who i would say can be very sympathetic to a lot of jurors. So instead they are fighting the underlying truth of this, which really is a side show for the purposes of the charges in this case, and theyre attacking this witness today in very brutal fashion, and i think that ultimately is going to end up hurting Donald Trumps case. Chuck rosenberg, let me ask you that question as to how close the prosecutors are to getting to the heart of the matter and proving the alleged, you know, the book keeping transaction, the fraudulent bookkeeping, the coverup, if you will, that is the central charge of the case, the felony, not just the hush money payment, which is not a crime. Thats right, andrea, and by the way, its always good to go after renato, all i have to do is agree with him. I have the easiest job on television. Renatos completely right. And by the way, the closer you get to the paper, right, with witnesses who handled it who, you know, mailed it, who received it, who deposited it, who processed it, the closer you get to the central allegations of this case. Whether or not mr. Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels in a hotel room is largely irrelevant. Catherine christian put it well earlier today. The case really comes down to im sorry, her role, Stormy Daniels role, it really comes down to one sentence. Was she paid money to remain quiet about an affair that she had with mr. Trump and obviously paid just before the 2016 president ial election. It would be wonderful if mr. Weisselberg were available and truthful and cooperative. Apparently none of those things are true. The government would have to be very careful about immunizing someone like him and probably thinks that they have other ways to prove the documents at issue in this case, the assistant bookkeeper, Rebecca Manochio is one such way. This is what they need to prove. Stormy daniels was important for some context and little else, and again, i agree completely with renato. I thought the Cross Examination of Stormy Daniels was a long walk through dry sand, if anything it only enabled her to tell her story over and over and over and may have made her more sympathetic to the jury. But, chuck, i know its hard to imagine how these jurors are responding. Were not seeing them, and those of us not in the courtroom are not seeing the reactions, but how attentive to bookkeeping and these kinds of very dry, you know, this dry testimony from a witness who was a Junior Bookkeeper Sending Checks through fedex to the white house, how hard is it to establish the importance of that to the jurors who have now been galvanized presumably by the drama of a Stormy Daniels. Is that a big distraction from the heart of the case . Look, jurors, i think, are very good at compartmentalizing and paying attention when they need to. Its not always easy, right . After lunch, you can get a little sleepy if youre in the jury box. But at the end of the day, 12 people are paying attention. 12 people will have all the evidence when they deliberate. 12 people will have the advantage of listening to closing arguments, and so youll have the collective judgment of 12 people. Is every part of a trial riveting . On television, yes. In the movies, of course. In real life, not so much. But jurors still Pay Attention. Theyll have the documents. Theyll have the benefit of the arguments, and theyll make a collective judgment based on the evidence, even that evidence, andrea, that came in in the less exciting moments of the trial. I think we can all probably stipulate to the fact that its much easier to get a juror to Pay Attention to a Stormy Daniels than it is to a bookkeeper. I dont think theyre going to keep this bookkeeper on the stand for 7 hours and 17 minutes, however, so maybe their patience will not run out. But i think we want to show you something that weve not seen before, and that is an actual photograph of Stormy Daniels today. This is her lawyer, clark brewster, who put this on social media and wrote this, Stormy Daniels was on the stand in new york Versus Trump Criminal Trial for a day and a half ending at 12 30 p. M. Today. Couldnt be prouder of my client. How are they doing, do you think, chuck, though, of weaving this story, or do you not have to . Do you know that youre going to go back to it eventually as long as you put the elements in place, even if jurors arent necessarily following every detail of it, you can get them there because youve laid the groundwork. Thats right. And so and you have a bunch of prosecutors with you right now. I think they would all tell you, you tell your story chronologically, you tell it methodically. You tell it linearly. You dont have complete control because sometimes a witness that you hope to call next is unavailable so you have to, you know, sort of resemble the pieces. But at the end of the day, your proof goes in in the way i just described, methodically, linearly and chronologically, and jurors follow along. And to the extent that you may have lost one or two at a dry moment, you get to summarize your case and argument as a prosecutor and, oh, by the way, as a prosecutor, you also get to go at the very end of the trial, you get to do a Rebuttal Argument too. And so if you think youve lost a juror along the way or you think they may have missed an important piece that came in during a less exciting moment, you can refocus their attention. Jurors are extremely good at this. You have the collective judgment of 12 people, and they will get to it. Renato, let me take that to sort of a Bigger Picture losing a juror along the way, but not necessarily because of the details of the evidence. Even if hiding the purpose of 130,000 payoff and eventually 420,000 with interest back to Michael Cohen violated new york law, is a threat that a juror might think so what . Everyone knows about mr. Trump. These are new york jurors. Theyve probably heard stories about him before, many of them acknowledge they knew some things about him before they were chosen for this jury, so maybe they thought he was a womanizer. Maybe they thought he even was a liar. Maybe they thought that some of the things he did politically were not good, but is this really a serious crime . Is that really sort of the convoluted what many people see as a novel and potentially convoluted connection using the law in a very novel way still the biggest impediment for these prosecutors that they have to overcome . Well, you know, chuck just talked a moment ago about how all 12 jurors are going to be focused on the evidence. Theyre going to receive instructions from the judge, and i agree with that. I mean, as usual, chucks given a very lucid analysis. I think that that said, you always when youre trying a case, whether on the Prosecution Side or the defense side, youre always thinking about whether or not jurors are going to be focused on Something Else or other issues. Potentially we call It Jury Nullification when a jury votes in a way thats inconsistent with the evidence. I still remember being in the courtroom when a watching from the gallery when a juror, you know, ultimately decided not to convict Rob Blagojevich on the vast majority of charges. He ultimately had to be tried again to obtain those convictions. So thats always possible, and certainly in a case like this when you have a defendant whos got a large personality and profile. What i will say, though, is that, you know, trump and his team have not done themselves any favor by creating this shiny object in terms of this story and this back and forth with Stormy Daniels that i dont think has been very positive for them when really, a better focus for them would be these technicalities of the law that you were just discussing a moment ago. You called it convoluted. You know, the more technical issues. There are two lawyers on the jury, and if they focus on the boring parts and stipulated away the more salacious parts, i think this would be a more compelling defense. As it is, what the jury is seeing is a defendant whos very combative, whos not being respectful in the courtroom. Theyre seeing ultimately Defense Attorney attacking a woman who i think we all would agree, and the jury would agree is kind of dragged into this. You know, theres going to be a lot of jurors who feel very sorry for Stormy Daniels and all that shes been through. Though i think that that is their own worst enemy there. And a woman who, as we got that first photograph of her that was sent out by her lawyer, made be very, very relieved to have this over. There she is with her lawyer, her 7 hours and 17 minutes of testimony complete. And right now our team from inside the courthouse who have been watching all of this unfold, theyre making their way to our cameras. Well bring you everything they saw and learned so far from todays important testimony. Our special coverage of Donald Trumps Hush Money Trial continues in just moments. Umpsl continues in just moments. look, things may seem fine down there, but you need to watch out for diseases. Ill be okay. Does this look ok . ugh. How do i protect myself . With the new Scotts Healthy Plus lawn food. Its the only product that prevents 27 diseases while feeding your grass to help keep your lawn healthy this season. Want me to show you how to put it on . No, i think i know how to use a spreader. Pick up a bag of the new Scotts Turf Builder healthy plus lawn food today. Feed your lawn. Feed it. bell ringing someone needs to customize and save hundreds with Liberty Mutual Inaudible Sounds Elevator Doors Opening wait, theres an elevator . Only pay for what you need. Liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. Dad and i finally had that talk. No, not that talk. About what the future looks like. For me. I may have trouble getting around, but i want to live in my home where im comfortable and my friends are nearby. I can do it with the help of a barber, personal shopper and exercise buddy. Someone who can help me live right at home. Lifes good. When you have a plan. So this is pickleball . Pickle ah, these guys are intense. With e trade from morgan stanley, were ready for whatever gets served up. Dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. Id rather work on saving for retirement. Or college, since you like to get schooled. Thats a pretty good burn, right . 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 were even smarter and ready for whats next. vo achieve enterprise intelligence. Its your vision, its your verizon. Youve got xfinity wifi at home. Take it on the go with Xfinity Mobile. Customers now get exclusive access to wifi speed up to a gig in millions of locations. Plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free. Thats like getting two unlimited lines for Twenty Dollars a month each for a year. So, ditch the other guys and switch today. Buy one line of unlimited, get one free for a year with Xfinity Mobile plus, save even more and get an eligible 5g phone on us visit xfinitymobile. Com today. And welcome back. Chris jansing and i here as the court is in recess for a lunch break, a lunch break for all, everyone and the witnesses, the defendant, and of course the jurors. We have a statement now from clark brewster, Stormy Daniels attorney telling nbc news that he is proud of her and the way she handled her grueling testimony, a day and a half it was. He says she is shaken by the ordeal but relieved it is over. That is a picture that he sent out on twitter of the two of them afterwards. The first picture weve seen of her, you know, other than the courtroom sketches, and in his statement, clark brewster, Stormy Daniels attorney tells us, i think she was directly responsive and transparent and did an excellent job of responding directly, simply, and thoroughly, and im proud of how she conducted herself on the stand with courtesy and responsiveness. She feels a lot of pressure, especially in a trial of this magnitude in front of a packed courtroom being covered by the media nationally and in a worldwide manner, and shes relieved that its over. Continuing this is from clark brewster, the fact that she went through it and completed the objective, and she has a sense of accomplishment is important to her. She was cross examined over communications over years and having your memory challenged like that and having to respond to questions immediately with recall is not easy, and it was quite an accomplishment. She did a remarkable job of getting her testimony across. She is shaken by the ordeal and the social media and the attacks and venom that she goes through daily, and she certainly is always concerned about her safety. Both sides got a view of how bright she is, and i will tell you i thought she was just outstanding in her ability to relate the facts. That is from clark brewster, Stormy Daniels attorney to nbc news. So lets bring in someone who was in the courtroom, msnbc host of The Last Word Lawrence Odonnell. Lawrence, what was your takeaway from the testimony, the Cross Examination, the redirect, everything that she went through on the stand and how she responded and how importantly the jurors responded to her because the people in the Overflow Room dont see that, and we can only read exactly the verbatim of whats going on. Reporter well, of course the jurors are always the mystery in every courtroom, and thats a good thing. We really dont have any idea of what theyre thinking. I cant say that at the beginning of this Cross Examination of Stormy Daniels, which began on tuesday, then i had a perfect view of all of the jurors at that time. None of them were taking notes at any time. That doesnt tell you anything really one way or the other, but there certainly was not a moment that they thought was worthy of i want to make sure i make a memory of that. And today went very, very slowly, and it was it was a Cross Examination today that was about an hour longer than it needed to be. A full hour went by before Susan Necheles actually went into that hotel room to get Stormy Daniels testimony about what happened in that hotel room, and once you got to that hotel room, it was a matter of playing different quotes against her over different times. There was an interview she gave in 2011 that was constantly being brought up to her in in touch magazine, the basic difference to what she said in that interview, which was the most spare account of this whole thing and the prosecutor on redirect pointed out that the article itself said that it was likely edited, so that this is an edited version of what Stormy Daniels said. But she didnt include every quote line, every single detail that she has included in her later accounts and in her testimony in this courtroom today. But whats also known about her testimony in the courtroom today is she did not allow she did not include details that she has included elsewhere before because the defense didnt want those details included. And so theres a defense team here that did a lot of work to limit what Stormy Daniels could say here and then spent a fair amount of time talking about how she hasnt said it exactly the way she said it before in other places. And, listen, thats a game that witnesses have to face. Normally the statements that are being put in front of them are things theyve said in previous under oath testimony, whether it be a deposition or a grand jury testimony or Something Like that. Here its interviews on 60 minutes and an interview with in touch magazine. And its a thing that all witnesses have to go through, but what was never really addressed by the defense was what happened in that hotel room. Susan necheles in her Cross Examination question suggest that had Nothing Happened in that hotel room, but the problem with that as an evidentiary matter in this case is the only way the defense can introduce evidence of what happened in that courtroom is for the defendant im sorry, in the hotel room is for the defendant donald trump to take the Witness Stand And Swear under oath what happened in that hotel room. We know donald trump is not going to take the Witness Stand in this case because he couldnt answer questions about every aspect of the case, and so basically Stormy Daniels testimony about what actually happened in the hotel room will go uncontested to this jury. And the most important other piece of evidence not related to the hotel room that the jury will have is a transcript of the access Hollywood Video that describes Donald Trumps approach to women, his sexually assaultive approach to women. So theyre going to know that that guy said that, and thats that guys motto about how to approach women in this world, and now hes alone in a hotel room with Stormy Daniels, and the defense simply threw a question that was denied, wants to suggest so that jury that donald trump alone with Stormy Daniels in that hotel room did not have sex with her. I dont see any possible way a juror is going to be able to argue that point in the jury room. Its Chris Jansing here, lawrence. There was one fairly long section where Susan Necheles kept, it seemed like, trying to get her to say what the meaning of the word dinner was when she really didnt eat, and youre wondering why is she going on and on and on. That is one of the things that took place in that room. But there are also then all of these questions about whether she was just saying all of this, making it up obviously is the clear implication here. In fact, she basically said that because she wanted to make money. Im going to read you a couple of quick little back and forths that you actually saw and heard. They were talking about the documentary that was on peacock. You were paid 125,000 for the doc. No, i was not. I have not received all of it. Youre trying to trick me into saying something that isnt entirely true. You misconstrued that. I was quoting some women who came up to me. I was not selling myself to anyone, and then repeatedly show me where i said that. And i wonder how you think the jury well, again, you cant get into the minds of the jury, but how you read that . Did she come across as quick . Did she come across as well prepared, maybe by her lawyer who tweeted that picture . Both . How did you think Stormy Daniels presented today to the jury . Reporter she presented as a normal person with normal reactions on a Witness Stand. Most of her testimony was done in the yes or no style ha that courtrooms are used to and was not contentious, wasnt really struggling with the Defense Attorney. But a certain amount of it is includes Stormy Daniels personal inability to step away from the battle of wits, and an example is Susan Necheles said to her so in your profession, you make up stories about sex, and her answer was, no, the sex is real. Just like in that room. And so thats the danger that you have as a Defense Lawyer cross examining Stormy Daniels. You never know where that little hook is going to come back in where shes saying the sex in that room with donald trump was real. And theres no counter to that at all. None from the defense, Stormy Daniels testimony about the actual sex. And so thats and i think jurors completely understand feeling put upon in the questioning or when they put up tweets of the attacks on Stormy Daniels that she replied to, and she made the point, i never started attacks on twitter, but i replied to attacks on twitter, and her replies were always an attempt at a witty kind of reply to that, but so this jury could see that this woman has a history of being attacked over this very subject, that this Defense Attorneys not the first person whos doing that to her, and so its someone whos in her view, in her presentation of self trying to tell a story and shes trying to tell that story with people out there who hate her or attack her all the time, and now theres a Defense Attorney whos trying to upset her. Thats the point, and i dont think the jury holds it against the Defense Attorney shes trying to upset Stormy Daniels or knock her off balance in her testimony, but i dont think that that was achieved on any relevant point at all. What you always have to do when youre listening to testimony especially on Cross Examination of defense, is how much of this is actually relevant, and its extremely common for a massive amount of it to have nothing to do with the charges in the case. And that certainly was true of the Cross Examination today. And, lawrence, that very exchange is something we talked about here earlier because it stood out as, you know, a real example of her combativeness and her responsiveness, her defending herself, but also giving more information and in a very granular way, i dont know how that impacts on the jury, but the fact that she then went on to say necheles trying to pin her down said you make up stories and you made up stories about mr. Trump, something to that effect, we read it earlier, and she said, no, that happened. If i were making that up, you know, it would be a better story if it were fictional, so shes just in the moment and very smart, and also according to someone who was watching this i think from the Overflow Room noting earlier, she seemed, you know, upset and emotional about the exchanges of people who were harassing her on social media on twitter, that she was being combative with that because she did feel threatened or under attack, that her life has changed, and as she pointed out on redirect, its changed for the worse because of everything that transpired. Yeah, and i would say in the room tonally, i wouldnt say combative. I would say that it was responsive meaning if something aggressive is said to her as was said a few times and by the way, Susan Necheles did not raise her voice, she didnt yell. I think when we no ones raising their voice in there. Stormy daniels never raises her voice in any way. She never sounds angry in her reply. In fact, its a kind of Dinner Table Tone on both ends of that conversation that just includes some pointed questions to which Stormy Daniels reply is i think what it would have been what it would sound like anyway, what it would sound like tonally if you were just at a dinner table with her and you heard this kind of exchange. And ive been in courtrooms where it does get very loud and very angry, and ive heard lawyers yell, and ive heard witnesses get extremely angry and genuinely combative. Thats not really what we saw here. I mean, ive seen talk shows get more combative than this. Ive seen Cable News Interviews get way more combative than this. So have we all. Reporter yeah, exactly. So it was a pretty normal id say balance of Cross Examination where i dont think Susan Necheles was trying to pull any stunts, and i dont think Stormy Daniels was trying to, you know, pull stunts on her side of these exchanges, but what is absolutely true is you cant ever quite be sure where the Stormy Daniels answer will end because she might just throw something on on the tail end of a short sentence or right after a yes that actually is that actually is relevant in some way, like that line about, you know, in her movies, the sex is real, just like in that hotel room. Well, theres Lawrence Odonnell who may have asked some tough questions in his own time here on msnbc. Thank you for your observations. Its always good to see you. For more on all of lawrences observations from, again, inside the courtroom, tune in to The Last Word tonight 10 00 p. M. Eastern on msnbc. Now i want to bring in msnbc Legal Correspondent lisa rubin, msnbc contributor and New York Times Investigative Reporter sue craig. Both have been in the court Overflow Room all morning, and if i can, sue, im going to start where lawrence left off. He referenced a particular back and forth in the testimony where Susan Necheles, trumps Defense Attorney, asked a question, you have a lot of experience making phony stories about sex, to which Stormy Daniels replied, wow, thats not how i would put it. The sex in the film is very much real just like what happened to me in that room. There were a lot of back and forths that i think at least in reading them may not be as uncomfortable as some of them were yesterday because yesterday was very graphic, but i wonder what your impressions were of the back and forth that involved the sex, the sexual encounter that, of course, Susan Necheles was trying to argue didnt happen and Stormy Daniels said did. Trying to argue it didnt happen, theres inconsistencies in her story, but in doing so, i have to tell you i was sitting in the overflow, i felt very uncomfortable. I mean, it bordered on Susan Necheles i think shaming a sex worker. I mean, it felt like that to me. I mean, the questions, there were werent one or two, they went on and on. Just very uncomfortable. It felt like something that might have happened three decades ago, and Stormy Daniels kept coming back and pointing out this was her job whether it was selling merchandise, selling her story, this is how she was making a living or making pornographic films. Just because she is a pornographic star doesnt mean that she can just any guy can just have sex with her, and thats sort of what came across to me in the exchanges. Stormy daniels really held her ground on that, but i just the questioning was uncomfortable to me. I think lawrence was right in that maybe the temperature didnt go up in terms of the voices, but my temperature went up just listening to the whole thing. It was uncomfortable. How did you take it, lisa . Did you have the same . I did. As i remind our viewers all the time, i sat through two. E. Jean carroll trials. This was very much what id call a nuts and sluts defense. There was a portion of the Cross Examination where Susan Necheles was focused on the fact that Stormy Daniels now claims that she is a medium, and that she communicates with dead people and has participated in a tv series about the paranormal where she explores things including the fact that at one point an exboyfriend of her was inhabited by spirits. She was mocking Stormy Daniels. She wants the jury to think she is a liar and she is crazy. And she also wants the jurors to judge her for her occupation. Stormy daniels gave no ground on that, as sue just said. She might be an exotic dancer, an adult film actor, but she was very clear when Susan Necheles used the phrase selling yourself to describe what Stormy Daniels was doing on a tour where she was making appearances at clubs, Stormy Daniels set her straight. I was not selling myself. I was dancing. The implication always was i am not a sex worker and i dont have a sign around my neck that says consent given freely to everyone at any time. Right. She was a woman who seemed pretty selfpossessed, in control of her own body, and wanting to maintain essentially to quote pretty women, i say who, i say when and not, you know, donald trump was that i was for the taking by this man. I increasingly see what trump did to Stormy Daniels and she used the phrase what happened to me more insidiously than i think i ever have. It is a reinforcement of the predator frame that the access Hollywood Tape introduced. It brought into full vision a very new donald trump, not just a donald trump who was womanizing and liked beautiful women and was one of the worlds most eligible bachelors as david pecker described him, but a trump who knew what he was doing and wasnt just hitting on people but making it impossible for them to escape or at least down right uncomfortable, and Stormy Daniels today, i agree with sue, the temperature was down, but the selfpossession was up, and she would not gif ground. My favorite answer that she gave was when Susan Necheles basically said to her you make things up like this all the time. Youve acted in over 200 pornographic movies and those are all made up. And she said if i was going to make this up, i would have made it a much better story, and i dont know how people in the courtroom reacted but in the Overflow Room there was like an ooh, almost like sick burn because Stormy Daniels was in control. The other thing i thought Stormy Daniels did really well today was Susan Necheles in asking her questions was putting words in her mouth and saying, well, did you say . And Stormy Daniels would say i dont think i did. Or she would say no, and she would ask for whatever Susan Necheles was referring to to be read into the record, and when it was, several times Susan Necheles had misrepresented what Stormy Daniels had said. So this created sort of a lot of back and forth between the two of them, but i think the jury had to have picked up on what susan was doing in misrepresenting Stormy Daniels words to her hoping stormmy would say yes, i said that, but she was having none of it. I would tell you both as a lawyer go ahead, im sorry. Id love to hear what both of you think about the exchange when she was asked about being strong, and she said, well, i wasnt strong then. I am now. She was 27 years old. He was 60 years old. He was not only famous and rich, but she was, you know, on a golf tee, you know, saying hello to celebrities, a lot of celebrities. And she talked about the power imbalance. Thats what really struck me. I dont know how it struck you, the two of you. It struck me, andrea, in one critical respect about the passage of time. This episode happened in 2006 when she was 27 years old, and yet shes being asked to recount her story now, and cultural mores have changed. We see people in her occupation differently than we used to. We see women accusing powerful men of Sexual Misconduct differently than we used to, and Stormy Daniels therefore sees herself differently than she used to, and so when Susan Necheles was accusing her of changing her story over time, you know, the way in which weve all changed societally, we cant put that back in the bottle. Its hard for Stormy Daniels to recall her 2006 self or even her 2011 or 16 self and tell the story she would have told then because just as memories fade, memories also change as theyre processed by our continued lived experiences, and so i was thinking about that too when she said i wasnt strong then. Im strong now. Thats not just a function of her lived experience, but its a function of the fact that collectively we have all changed as a result of the Metoo Movement and other developments in this country that make it unacceptable for any lawyer to talk to Stormy Daniels, for example, the way rape victims were talked to as sue mentioned like three decades ago. And i have to say, the one thing that really i when i was thinking about that issue, it took me back to when donald trump at that point it was 2006, 7, The Apprentice was still really very riding very high and the power that he had over her in terms of dangling a spot on Celebrity Apprentice was huge. She was an up and comer. The show, i dont know if they would have put her on. There was a chance, and she saw that as her shot. Just the Power Dynamic between the rich and powerful man who was twice her age and this young star who was up and coming and thought maybe she could get on the show. I really felt that today as she was talking. Lisa rubin, sue craig, thanks to both of you for your insights. Its extraordinary having watched all of that, and joining us now is former Deputy Assistant attorney general and host of Talking Feds Podcast harry litman and msnbc legal analyst kristy greenberg. Harry, i want to start with you because you were inside the courtroom watching all of this, and from your experience, just tell us what you think was a mistake to put her on the stand in the first place . Was the Cross Examination too aggressive . You know, just right . And how she held up . Yes. In brief, not a mistake, and she held up well. So look, today necheles landed a couple jabs, but she need Add Knockout Blow she needs because of her client to persuade the jury that the entire thing is concocted, and she didnt get close to that, and she made some of the same mistakes of tone and over aggression that she made, i thought, on tuesday. She advanced, she took chances on advancing certain views, and Stormy Daniels who was basically in control, its the last thing you want to happen on cross, on cross youre the voice. Youre the one the jurys looking at, and stormy continually said no or pushed back. The jury might have been left with some thought that stormy protests too much on maybe her money motives, but the d. A. Cleaned that up on redirect, basically, and then i think youd lisa, i was just talking about it, the suggestion that because shes a porn star she shouldnt in any way be cowed when a naked billionaire, you know, is all of a sudden hovering over her, i think not only didnt it land, but actually could have alienated the jury. The jury was fairly attentive, less than you might have thought. I think in general, what i thought tuesday which is her main story comes through, and thats all the d. A. Needs. The other side has to completely undermine it and they didnt get within a mile of that. So harrys question, i think, kristy, or his comments about the questions that came from the defense really echo in many ways what we just heard from our other good friends inside the courthouse today, but of course mr. Trumps treatment of women is not whats on trial here, right . And whether or not there was a sexual encounter is not whats on trial. Is the importance here, again, if that lands with the jury the way that you folks seem to think that it will and im going to go back to something i said in our first hour is it that if the defense is going to present him as a family man who wanted at all costs to protect his family from this untrue story coming out that this disabuses the jurors of any notion, how does that perception, that and there are five women on the jury who may view this a very particular way, but how does that play into the jurors ultimate deliberations, do you think, kristy . Well, so one reason why whether or not this encounter happened is in question is because the defense has put it in question. The defense in their opening said this encounter never happened, and Stormy Daniels is lying about it. When she sought to get money about it, that was all because this is just a made up, concocted story. So again, hearing from Stormy Daniels, i think her Credibility Given what the defenses theory of the case is i think was important for her to be able to say that this happened and for the jury, i think, to believe that it happened. One thing i will say is there was a question on cross to Stormy Daniels from trumps attorney about whether or not trump had expressed concern about his family. It was a question to Stormy Daniels. It was a bizarre question because, again, if youre the defense and your whole thing is this didnt happen and he only talked to her once in a fleeting moment at a golf tournament, then why are you asking her whether or not theyve had conversations where he expressed concern about his family . It was the wrong witness to make the point that you just said he does need to make for his defense that these Hush Money Payments really had nothing to do with the election and it was really about concern for his reputation, his brand and his family. It was just the wrong witness to really try to make that point, the person that is accusing him of having a sexual encounter with her is not the person you pose that question to. And she said, no, he never mentioned she said, no, right. Go ahead, harry. Just you learn first day of law school, dont ask a question you dont know the answer to. She did it repeatedly and she paid for it. This is Susan Necheles. I didnt go to law school, but even i know that, harry litman and kristy greenberg, thank you both very much, and we are in a lunch break. The testimony of Stormy Daniels is over after more than seven hours. We are waiting for a return, which is expected to come, oh, i guess in the next half an hour or so after a lunch break. Coming up, a former federal judge who was appointed by former president george w. Bush will join us. What he thinks about what happened in court today and how judge merchan has handled the gag order. Youre watching special coverage of Donald Trumps Hush Money Trial. Andrea and i will be right back. The wayfair vibe at our place is western. My thing, darling . Shine. Gardening. Some of us go for the dramatic. How didnt i know wayfair had vanities in tile . [ gasps ] this. Wow do you have any ottomans without legs. Sure. Youll flip for the poof cart. In the wayborhood, theres a place for all of us. Wayfair. Every style. Every home. vo explore the world the viking way from the quiet comfort of elegant small ships with no children and no casinos. We actually have reinvented ocean voyages, designing allinclusive experiences for the thinking person. Viking voted worlds best by both Travel Leisure and conde nast traveler. Learn more at viking. Com. Tech does your windshield have a crack . Trust safelite. This customer had auto glass damage, but he was busy working from home. So he scheduled with safelite in just a few clicks. We came to his house. Then we got to work. We replaced his windshield. And installed new wipers to protect his new glass. Customer looks great. Thank you. Tech my pleasure. Vo we come to you for free. Schedule now for Free Mobile Service at safelite. Com. Safelite repair, safelite replace. So it has been a very long and interesting day so far in court, as we have been telling you. The completion of seven hours and 17 minutes of testimony by Stormy Daniels, certainly the longest for any witness, certainly so far. Michael cohen yet to come. He could break that record. Having said that, there are interesting people who are not involved in the courtroom except to be observers, one of them judge jeanine pirro. The other is rick scott, a u. S. Senator considered a possible Vice President ial candidate who spoke to reporters before going into the courtroom. Lets take a listen to a little bit of what he had to say. Raises money for democrats. Youve got the lead prosecutors wife is a significant donor to democrats and i think to biden. So this is just a bunch of democrats saying we want to make sure that donald trump cant talk. Joining us now, judge john e. Jones who previously served as chief judge of the u. S. Middle District Court of pennsylvania where he was appointed to the bench by president george w. Bush in 2002. He is also now president of dickinson college. Judge, thank you very much for being with us. Let me start with what we heard from rick scott. We know that donald trump is under a gag order and yet you have someone close to him who would like to be potentially his Vice President ial running mate saying the judges daughter is a political operative raising money for democrats. A lead prosecutors wife a significant for democrats, what do you think about him saying things maybe he cant . I dont think so. Its great to be with you. So much outside noise to judge merchan. You know, when i was on the bench and i had a controversial case, i used to joke that i thought my name was changed to bushappointed judge because you get typecast in a certain way. I dont find that as anything merchan is going to pay particular attention to. And quite honestly, you know, it sort of flies in the face of what we can see or hear in our own eyes in terms of the way the trial is being conducted. In fact, his family is not there. Eric trump was there for one day. He hasnt had validators there for him but doesnt the gag order also say that people close to trump, that its a violation for other people on his behalf to demean family of the court, anyone besides the judge and the prosecutors. The problem, andrea, is that, you know, for merchan, well, first of all, the people would have to act and the person of the district attorney, the prosecutors to try to call him on that. And then the problem becomes creating a nexus between the speaker and donald trump. You know, did he do it did scott volunteer it or was he goaded into doing it by trump . Its probably an area that merchan and the prosecution doesnt want to wade into, and, again, i think merchan has done a great job thus far managing the case, and hes tried to avoid pretty successfully the kind of side shows that can take a trial off track, and thats what this would be. Well, thats one of the key things that a judge has to do, right, is keep the trial on track, and part of that is what he says, what he does, but also another part of that is, i think, you know, does the jury look at judge merchan or any judge, you or anyone else who has served that way, and say this is someone i trust, this is someone i listen to. We have talked about sort of how the jury is reacting to, say, Susan Necheles, the Defense Attorney, how that day reacting to Stormy Daniels, the witness. Should we be paying attention to how the jury is responding to judge merchan . Absolutely, chris. Its an excellent point. Juries feel a closeness to the Presiding Judge. Its logical they would feel that way. The judge greets them in the morning. The judge presides over the case. The judge gives them breaks during the day, including a lunch break, he says fore well to them at night. I go back to the e. Jean carroll case. If you remember trumps attorneys, including attorney habba tried to run rough shot over the Presiding Judge in that case. They were discourteous to the judge and i really think that the jury didnt like that. The jury took that, you know, offensively, and so, you know, you have to be careful when you are, in this case, a Defense Attorney, or the defendant, the former president in this case, if the jury thinks that youre abusing their friend, their protector, a person they bond with and the person of the trial judge, and i saw this happen time again in cases i presided over, then theyre going to react badly, and theyll count that as a strike against the party that does that. And we just have about a minute, let me ask you a question question about how concerned he may beto avoid being overturned on appeal and the introduction of prejudiced information on the direct testimony of Stormy Daniels, he said afterwards out of the ear shot of the jury, he jumped in to object to things because the Defense Attorney hadnt objected. What do you think of that . The Presiding Judge has the obligation to protect the record in the case. If you have to jump in at your own initiative, then you must do that. Youre not a potted plant. You have to just sit there, or you dont have to sit there and listen to it. I thought he did that well under the circumstances. Hes not afraid of being reversed. I think hes in the moment. If you judge defensively youre not going to judge well. You do your job, hunker down, theres a lot coming at you and you manage the best you can. Judge john e. Jones, thank you so much for sharing your expertise. We are expecting Donald Trumps Hush Money Trial to resume. More special coverage. Stay with us. Stay with us 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 were even smarter and ready for whats next. vo achieve enterprise intelligence. Its your vision, its your verizon